ΝΣ ΜΗΝῚ Agnes ᾿ pa ὶ we M ΓΗ ἢ ΜΉ. τω, ny ΡΝ ‘ii Cr A ik " ἀφ 4 ἀν να ὮΝ δὴ ΩΝ \ Δ ΔΝ ἡ COM AMT By VA it ni ἐπ WR ant i) POPPE Rn TR OPE Rana ἡ ἐμερὺ SUM eh as τῇ ΜΗ; ὙΠ POU eae yt Wet tle ἊΝ ᾽ν Δ ΝΣ δι ΠΝ Wit OU ΗΝ see ΝΥ ΝῊΝ cP ha) f Ν ΠΝ aa ᾿ ΝΥΝ ἮΝ ΤῊΣ ὟΝ λυ" tia Mn Ninh bie yt that ANE ἜΗΝ Ἁ Way wave nary ay iit ea ᾿ i ea) ἯΠ ὙΠΟ fy \ thy My ee any νι oF ae Ss 1p ial eit bh seh PURE TT * ν ΡΝ, i He ἀπ" δ δὲ Ὁ ced tien ὦ ‘ ἣ ti) " ΠΝ] Ὁ Vale in ΗΝ Υ ἡ ὙΠ eshenabal tty ieee a ait ἢ pay nia thy al A aD Τὴ eMart " mp ihe Pe rt ᾿ seat μι ἣν ἢ » vO aNTTEY | yy pug τὰ i ak ae a \ ta Neos sed ΠΝ ‘iW musyt t Wok ὦ ‘ t " ‘viele I ΓΝ ΠῚ vated La une wit ige ΠΟΥ ) iti τ i | sh bie but coma "| en Ae sah" Wert pam “i ° ᾿ Ὁ if ; ΗΝ ah nin nine pty ua va lieh ee 18 Ν vit Picasa it ἢ ns espe ΨΥ ἡ ba ΝῊ Dat ΠΗ͂Σ ! i iden ui ‘tere if dee hee ΔΝ ἢ Ι Was ἍΝ ae a nes dea δὲ 4 Hee Pe ire Niet NIN ἡ wt Vie Whee ἢ ἢ} : ἢ sat tise Mii ts ute wa i t} ; mbsf bite be serait hy th ΠΡ ἢ rev ὧν ttt ae Hite erat i Ἢ Waals hee τ pt: ἀλεν υνλεἐμαεμ! , tees A Re tus) eeuen haarny tak HP ΔΗ ted itr " a Melee) wep oo) πο μάν ΠΑΝ ΠΝ εν ro A Ag) py Phe pave μὴν $ ἢ Sait). eer Torani || aye pt ys 4 ΓΝ ae aye Den ὅλ γ᾽ «ἈΠ 4 }}4}} ha oN ν μήν, ΜΗ th ΜΗ" Libya's og ft νὴ 1 ΤῊ ἣν ayn Lean gay var ΡΝ ΝῊ “17 Elaine iN} γ}} an ᾿ ἀπ bale ᾿ ἐπὰν at ieee eka Τν a | ite εἶθ A δι ἡ, An ui fhe Ny 4 ἡ ἥν " ἐν mi if 4th 7 ᾿ ty 4 in ‘i fia ἡ ΝΜ ΗΝ Δ δ μ ες τ bain!) ey. ST Uo 4 τώ δὴ αὶ ΠΥ ania Weng yer ey Ι ἜΝ ἀλη) Ἷ tay)! γι ἣν i} Heat 1) Peete eNO E pte μὴ ἊΜ Teen ΝΙΝ AY ao ἐν AL ἐμ }t ibs i Pye en ἡμέ να γε τὶ Heya WA ΠΝ ΠΥ ἃ ΠΥ Ge ἀνε Nate aiusjer π af ΝΗ 4) πο ἢ ‘phate qs / α' ᾿ Sain! iq a ae Hatta ἢ ἢ aut th A i. ἈΝ Vie Mee PAG if τ a we ΜΠ ἴῃ ΗΝ Ἧ As Oe ΙΝ Δα Ean ΗΝ ΠΝ ride eowar ter ᾧ 4, oes im ἵ Ἢ it ate ΜΟΥ We 7) ΓΝ ary AY Baie: it hw We are) Ha Na ΤΉΝ ἤδη ΠΝ yay ‘yen ih Canaan) Ra ia ¥ ΜῊΝ εν , ity vgn ip Μὴ i ve Mette ἦν ie a a ἊΡ ee ae ἣν i A COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK TEXT OF THE EPISTLE OF PAUL ~ TO THE GALATIANS. Οὐδὲ γὰρ δεῖ τὰ ῥήματα γυμνὰ ἐξετάζειν, ἐπεὶ πολλὰ ἕψεται τὰ ἁμαρτήματα; οὐδὲ τὴν λέξιν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν βαστάζειν ἀλλὰ τῇ διανοίᾳ προσέχειν τοῦ γράφοντος. Curysost. ad Galat. i. 17. Officit mei est obscura disserere, manifesta perstringere, in dubiis immorari. — HIERONYM. Prxfat. lib. iii. cap. i. Commentar. in Epist. ad Galatas. Non hic audeo prxcipitare sententiam, intelligat qui potest, judicet qui potest, utrum majus sit justos creare quam impios justificare.—AvGUSTIN. Tract. τ, τι. in Joannis Evangelium. I myself can hardly believe that I was so plentiful in words, when I did publicly expound this Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, as this book showeth me to have been. Notwithstanding, I perceive all the cogitations which I find in this treatise, by so great diligence of the brethren gathered together, to be mine; so that I must needs confess, either all or perhaps more to have been uttered by me, for in my heart this one article reigneth, even the faith of Christ, from whom, by whom, and unto whom all my divine studies daily have recourse, to and fro, continu- ally. And yet I perceive that I could not reach anything near unto the height, breadth, and depth of such high and inestimable wisdom; only certain poor and bare beginnings, and as it were fragments, do appear. Wherefore I am ashamed that my so barren and simple commen- taries should be set forth upon so worthy an apostle and elect vessel of God.—LuTHeER, Preface to Commentary on Galatians, English translation, London 1575. A COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK TEXT OF THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO Teles & Ath Ale ANS: BY FOHN BADIE. DD ΡῈ ΝΘ ἢ PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE AND EXEGESIS TO THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. EDINBURGH: & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. LTON & CO. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON & CO. MDCCCLXIX. . 1 4 - »» ίν ¥ ΑΗ. é ᾿ ὶ ¥ ¥ ἢ ἢ q ᾿ j δ i ͵ ; ‘ . ᾿ 3 ‘ . wre ἊΝ i ς, ν ᾿ ᾿ ' é ͵ ‘ "» ͵ te) ᾿ MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFF PREFACE. --- ---- HE 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 ive at its sense, and without the smallest desire to find a ine for it that may not jar with my theology. For ” as Luther said, “is nothing else than a grammar lied to the words of the Holy Spirit.” I am olastic 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 | VC Ye PREFACE. vil sudden and perfect intuitions which he terms Revelation. The contents and circumstances of the epistle endeared it to Luther, for it fitted 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 aope 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- ished by close and uniform adherence to grammatical canon, much: expansion into exegesis; Alford, from the fact osition extends to the whole New Testament, is of Vill 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 x, 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. ΗΝ EADIE. 6 THORNVILLE TERRACE, HILLHEAD, GLasGow, 1st January 1869. CONTENTS. Ἐξ τ 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, . : : : : 238-240 Accursed, : : ‘ ὃ : 26 Adoption, : , i : 2 ; : 298 All things to all men, . : : : : : 32-33 Allegory, : : : : : 2 : 359-363 Antagonism, inner, . : ‘ 409-412 Brothers of our Lord, neither sic taiinee nor mena aert and modern theories reviewed (a Dissertation), . - 57-100 Christ’s self-oblation aoe a mere Jewish image, as Jowett affirms, 12 Clementines, . : : 199-200 Cut off which trouble y you—meaning of the ἜΣ . : 397-400 Druidism, : ‘ ᾿ . XXXIV-Xxxix Dying to the ecg to God, . : ; ; 181-186 Elements, : : ἐ : : ; ; 295 Faith, life by, . : : : . : 244-240 Fault, overtaken in, . P : Ἥ 4 : 491-458 Flesh, works of, - : i : i : 415-420 Four hundred years, . . . δ : : 259-261 Galatia province—its history, . : i : : xiii Population of, Keltic in blood, . 5 ; , XxX Introduction of the gospel into, . ; ; : XXviii Epistle to—contents of, . ‘ ὶ : : ΧΧΧΙΧ Pr genuineness of, ‘ ; : 4 xlvii Ἢ commentators on, . . : j Ixii Hagar—Mount Sinai: allegory, ς ; , ξ 364-368 ony of Paul with the other apostles, ‘ : F 123-1385 God, . : 2 : 5 : : 470 er ; relationship discussed, ; : : 57-100 m, at Antioch, 397 . 12, 192-194 131 x CONTENTS. PAGE Justification by faith, . 5 : : ‘ 166, 229-235 Law, meaning of, : 163-164 Law as instrument of death to itself, 182 Law 430 years after the promise, 259 Law, uses of, etc., : 262-269 Law, not under—meaning of, . 412-415 Law a pedagogue, 279-284 Love the fulfilment of the a 402-406 Letters, large, used by the apostle, 454-459 Mediator not of one—God is one, ; 267-275 Names of the Saviour—meaning and varying use, 169-170 Paganism, religious truth underlying, . 312 Paul and Peter at Antioch—long correspondence en Jerome and Augustine on the a (a Dissertation), 198-213 Putting on Christ, 5 : 286-287 Revelation, its nature, . 45 Righteousness, . 227-236 Sarah, Jerusalem above, 368-369 Seasons, sacred—condemnation of ἘΠῊΝ tiem no ΠΈΣ. against Christian Sabbath-keeping, _ 313-317 Seed—harvest, . ; ; 444-448 Seeds—Seed, : 256-258 Sinners, found to fue πδρνοίβα of the ἘΡΑ͂Ν 176-177 Son, minor, servant—Roman law, 290-296 Spirit, fruit of, 421-426 Thorn in the flesh, the puatle 8 infirmity i in Galena (a Dissirtal tion), : ; 329-345 Visits of the apostle to Galata, ; ; . XXVili-xxxi Visits of the apostle to Jerusalem (a Dissrtalton), 133-145 GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES. ᾿Αββᾶ ὁ πατήρ; ᾿Αδελφὸς τοῦ Κυρίου, Αἰών, ξ *AKon, : “Αμαρτιῶν With ἀντὶ, περὶ, ὑπέρ. ᾿Ανάθεμα;, ᾿Απόστολος; ᾿Ασέλγεια, Βασκαίνω. Aud, . Διαθήκη. Δικαιοσύνη. δικαιόω, Δωρεάν, Ἐγκράτεια, Eis, ἑνός, Ἐνδύομαι, "Epya νόμου, ’EpwOeia, Ἕτερος; Zndos, Ζῆν, ζωή; Θυμός. Κλίμα, Λογίζομαι eis, « MeraridecOa, . Μυκτηρίζω, Νόμος, Oikeios, 102, 320-325 2.1 v458 229-235 196 424 269-274 286 : : 445 163-164, 262-269 F 455 244-246 ΧΗ GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES. PAGE Πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν. ΄. ; : : 120 IIpwréroxos, . : ;: 00 Σκόλοψ, ree : ς ; ; 335 Σπέρμα, : : : 255-258 Sriypa, 5 : 3 : Ε 472 Στοιχεῖα, : : ‘ ‘ ; 295 Sridos, fig. . , ; ; ; 126 Σύν, ἐν; : : : ; 238-240 Xpnorérns, . ν : : : 428 ERRATA. Page 15, line 6 from foot, for κατὰ read κατά. Page 44, lowest line, for ἡμάς read ἡμᾶς. Page 56, line 2 from top, for bearing read losing. Page 120, line 15 from top, for λαμβάνει read λαμβάνειν. Page 184, line 4 from foot, for πεφορηκῶς read πεφορηκώς. Page 364, line 6 from foot, for Pro read De. Page 418, line 19 from top, for 4 read 7; for ἔριθεια read ἐριθεία. Page 459, line 6 from foot, for Pro read De. INTRODUCTION. | I.—THE PROVINCE OF GALATIA. HE Galatia or Gallogrecia of the “ Acts,” the region to | 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.’ 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 reion 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 sub hoc provincia facta est, cum antea regnum fuisset ue cam M. Lollius pro prxtore administravit. Eutropius, vii. 8.—Tod τελευτήσαντος οὐ τοῖς παισὶν αὐτοῦ τὴν ὠρχὴν ἐπέτρεψεν, AAA ἐς ἐσήγαγε; καὶ οὕτω καὶ ἡ Ταλατία were τῆς Λυκφονίας Payaioy ion Cassius, liii. 3, vol. ii. p. 48, ed. Bekker. See also liny puts the Lystreni in the catalogue of the tribes rovince: 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—riv Φρυγίαν καὶ τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν, “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 Phrygia, nay, it had originally been Phrygian territory before it was conquered and possessed by the Gauls." 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 Ia\doyparxia—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, Galata, are varying forms of the same name. The first of these terms, Κελτοί, KéArau, is probably the earliest, being found in Hecatzeus” and Herodotus ;* while the other form, Γαλάτια, is more recent (dé), as is affirmed by Pausanias,* 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 Kuro- pean Gauls, there needed occasionally some geographical nota- tion to be added, such as that found in ®lian’—Ianddras Εὔδοξος τοὺς τῆς “Eoas λέγει δρᾶν τοιαῦτα ; and it has been found on an inscription dug out from Hadrian’s Wall in the north of England. Diefenbach® shows that this name had an 1 Strabo writes: ἐν δὲ τῇ μεσογαίᾳ τὴν τε Dovylav, ἧς ἐστὶ μέρος ἥ τε τῶν Ταλλογραικῶν λεγομένη Ταλατία : Geog. ii. 5, 31. 2 Fragment. 19, 20, 21, ed. Miiller. 3 Hist. ii. 88, iv. 49. Polybius, ii. 13; Diodorus Sic. v. 3 Suidas, sub voce Tears, and the Etymologicum Magnum, sub v 4 Descript. Gree. i. 3, 5, vol. i. p. 18, ed. Schubart. 5 De Nat. Anim. xvii. 19, vol. i. p. 382, ed. Jacobs. ὁ Celtica, ii. p. 6, ete., Stuttgart 1839-40. KELTS, GAULS, GALATIANS. XV extensive range of application. Ammianus Marcellinus’ says, Galatas—ita enim Gallos Sermo Greecus adpellat ; and Appian” explains, ἐς τὴν Κελτικὴν τὴν νῦν λεγομένην Γαλατίαν. Galli - Γάλλοι, 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 Cesar’s’ words are, tertiam qui ipso- rum lingua, Celtee, nostra Galli appellantur. Livy,* in narrating the eastern wars in Galatia, calls the people Galli. Γαλλία is also employed by late Greek writers, and at a more recent period it almost superseded that of Galatia.” Theodore of Mop- suestia has tas νῦν καλουμένης Γαλλίας---αα 2 Tim. iv. 10, Fragm. p. 156, ed. Fritzsche. Diefenbach® quotes from Galen, De Antidot. i. 2, a clause identifying the three names : καλοῦσι yap αὐτοὺς ἔνιοι μὲν Γαλάτας, ἔνιοι δὲ Γάλλους, συνηθέστερον δὲ τῶν Κέλτων ὄνομα. Strabo’ reports some difference of lan- guage among the western Galatee—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,* speaking of the Pyrenees, says, “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, Κελτοὶ ἔθνος ἕτερον Γαλατῶν ; in Diogenes Laertius,’ Κελτοῖς καὶ Γαλάταις: and in fine, we have also the name Κελτο- yanatia. 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- τ ν Os 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, anderungen der Kelten, Ὁ. 3, Leipzig 1861; Gliick, die bet C. J. sorkommende Keltischen Namen, Munchen 1857. ’s Celt, Roman, and Saxon, p. 325. 8 Celtica, ii. 7. ibs 8 Hisp. i. p. 48, vol. i. ed. Bekker. . Huebner. xvi INTRODUCTION. ployed by the people themselves; and that the Greeks, on gettin the name or some peculiar variation of it, represented it Galate ; while the Romans, by another initial change far from being uncommon, pronounced it Galli—the ¢ or at in Kelt 4 or Galat being a species of Keltic suffix. Not only is the ἢ initial letter of Kelti and Galli interchangeable, but there is a — form Καλατία, Κάλατον, allied, according to some, to Cael- τὸ 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, armati This derivation is abundantly verified in their history, for they were, as Strabo says, “warlike, passionate, and ever prepared to fight.”® The essential syllable in the earlier name is found in Celtiber, Κελτίβηρ; 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 frail the East, and occupied western Europe; they were as far west, niodondinng to Herodotus, as to be “ beyond the Pillars of Hercules” —“ they are near the Kynetz, which are the most western population of Europe.”® They were also found in northern Italy, France, and the British Isles. Many Latin 1 T—derivans in nominibus Gallicis vel Britannicis vetustis. Singule accedens ad radicem—as Critognatus from gnd. Zeuss, Grammatica vol. ii. pp. 757, 758, Lipsiz 1853. 2 Do. vol, i. p. 993. ® Geog Ω Agricole Vita, xxx. p. 287, Op. vol. iv. ed. Ruperti. μα ὅ ii, 33, iv. 49. Plutarch, Vita, Marius, p. 284, vol i. 8 KELTIC EXPEDITIONS. Xvii rms connected with war are of Keltic origin. But the ean prevented any farther westward progress, and in their stlessness the Kelts retraced their steps, and commenced a ies of movements towards the East. After some minor editions, and in the year 390 B.c., a portion of them, under ennus or Bran, crossed the Apennines, captured Rome, spread themselves over the south of Italy. According to y and Diodorus, these invaders came from the vicinity of s, and were therefore Kelts according to Cesar’s account ‘the races of Gaul. Others suppose them to have belonged to the Kymric branch of the Gauls: KipSpor—Kuppepios? 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—oyiyovor Τιτῆνες, late-born Titans— swarmed thick as snow-flakes—vidadecow ἐοικότες, as the poet describes them.? On pushing their way to Thermopyle 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 ZAtolia, 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,* 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 and intense wintry cold, they bravely re- d the barbarians. Their general, wounded and carried off richard’s Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, p. 124, Latham’s ed. pian, Celtic. vol. i: pp. 34, 42, ed. Bekker; Diodor. Sic. v. 32; History of Rome, vol. i. p. 524, etc., 3d ed. achus, ad Delum. 175, p. 33, a Blomfield. aad 4 Justin, xxiv. 6. Contzen, Wanderungen der Kelten, p. 193, ete.; Wernsdorf, De Repub. Galat. vii. ; Pausanias, Descript. Grec. x. 19. hy: b XVill INTRODUCTION. the field, was unable to bear his 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 Thermopyle. According to Greek legend, Apollo’s help’ 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—Toulonse ; 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 1., 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, Nicomedes 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, Biblioth. Hist. vol. iii. p. 52, Excerpta Vaticana. SETTLEMENT IN ASIA MINOR. xix dized 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.’ 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.” Yet we find Attalus 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. 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 PBelisarius 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, Philip. xxv. 2. 2 Livy, lib. xxxviii. 16. 3 Polybius, v. 11. ΧΧ 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 propreetor, 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’ 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 Τολιστόβογιοι, to the west of the province, with Pessinus for their capital; the Textoodyes in the centre, with Ancyra for their chief city which was also the metropolis of the country ; and the Τρόκμοι, to the east of the territory, their principal town being Tavium.’ Lach tribe was divided into four tetrarchies, having each its tetrarch, with a judge anda 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 derw, oak (Derwydd, Druid), and nemed in the same tongue mean- ing a temple.’ That, says Strabo, was the old constitution— πάλαι μὲν οὖν ἣν τοιαύτη τις ἡ διάταξις." 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. * Memnon in Photii Bibliotheca, pp. 227-8, ed. Bekker. The spelling of the names varies, and under the Emperor Augustus the epithet Σεβαστηνοί 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 appellatio (Hist. Nat. iii. 4), and - a professed geographer says, Cantabrorum aliquot populi amnesque sunt, sed quorum nomina nostro ore concipi nequeant. P. Mela, De Situ Orbis, iii. 1, ® Diefenbach, Celtica, i. 160. 4 χιν GALATIANS, WHETHER KELTS OR GERMANS ? xxl 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 Κελτοί 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.”* He places the Kelts on both banks of the Rhine, or rather with this odd distinction, ἐν ἀριστερᾷ μὲν τὴν τε Γαλατίαν ... ἐν δεξιᾷ δὲ τοὺς Κελτοὺς. He also identifies Kelts and Germans, calling the latter Κελτοί, and the Belgians Κελτικοί; nay, vaguely regarding Κελτική 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.” 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,’ that Germany as 1 lili, 12, xxxix. 49. | 2 xxxix. 46, 49. See Brandes, das Ethnographische Verhaltniss der Kelten und Germanen, p. 203, Leipzig 1857. 3 Celtische Forschungen, Freiburg 1857. XXil INTRODUCTION. well as Gaul was peopled with Celts, and that of Holtzmann,’ 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 Hofmann, in his Disputatio de Galat. Antiq. 1726, cries: En igitur coloniam Germanorum in Graecia—en virtutem majorum nostrorum que sua arma ad remotissima loca protulit. Selneccer (Wernsdorf, De Repub. Galat.) is jubilant on this account: cum ad (ralatas seripsisse Paulum legimus, ad nostros majores Grermanos eum scripsisse sciamus. Germant ergo epistolam hane sibi vindicent, ut heredes et postert.” 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 @orqueil national, que les Gaulois ont pénétré jusqua centre de PAsie mineure, s'y sont établis, et ont laissé dans ce pays des souvenirs impérissables.’ 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 ;* and the second portion of the word is Keltic also, the Boii being a well-known Gallic 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. Wernsdorf, De Repub. Galat. 94. 8 Revue des Deux Mondes, 1841, p. 575. * Diefenbach, Celtica, ii. p. 339. PROOFS OF KELTIC ORIGIN. XXlil 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.! The Tectosages bear also a Keltic designation. A Gallic tribe of the name is mentioned by Cesar as being also a migratory one, like so many of its sisters : Germanic loca circum Hercyniam siluam Volee Tectosages occu- paverunt atque ἰδὲ consederunt ;* 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 Caesar Volcze Tectosages; but Volez has no connection with the Teutonic Folk or Volk, for they were a Keltic race who had conquered a settlement in Germany and adopted German manners (Cesar 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 ;* others connect it with Opnixes—Thraces; while others identify them with the Taurisci—mountain-dwellers.'— Secondly, the persons engaged in the expedition into Greece, and the chiefs noted among them afterwards, have Keltic names like the Gallic ones in Cesar; ending in riz (chief), like Dum- norix; Albiorix, Ateporix occur after the lapse of two cen- turies; or in marus (mar, great), as Virdumarus, and in farus or torus, as Deiotarus, tar being equivalent to the Latin trans. The leader Brennus (king) was called Prausus — terrible (Gaelic, bras; Cornish, braw). Brennus had a colleague or Συνάρχων ; Pausanias calls him Ax/xwpsos,’ and Diodorus Siculus Κυχώριος. In the Kymric tongue the name would be Kikhouiaour, or Akikhouiaour, which without the augment a would be Cyewiawr.’—Thirdly, names of places often end in the Keltic briga (hill) and iacwm.’—Fourthly, Pausanias refers to a plant which the Greeks called κόκκος, the kermes berry, but which the Galatians φωνῇ τῇ ἐπιχωρίῳ call ds, or according to a better reading ὕσγη, the dye being called ὑσγινόν. 5 Now, the Kymrie 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, 11. 256. ARE. 6 Thierry, Hist. des Gaulois, i. 129. 7 Zeuss, Celt. Gram. 772. 8 χ 36. Suidas, sub voce. XXIV INTRODUCTION. Pausanias’ tells also that one mode of military arrangement among the invading Gauls was called τριμαρκισία, from their native name for a horse, μάρκας : tri or tri being Celtic for three, and march or mare the name of asteed. In Irish and Gaelic and Welsh, trimarchwys signifies “men driving three horses.” —Fifthly, the long lance, the distinctive weapon of the infantry, was the γαῖσον ; hence the epithet γαισάται Γαλάται." It is in Irish gad, a lance, gaide, gaisthe, 8 solitaria often falling out.’ 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. Tatoos 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. Ina letter to Ruffinus he refers to a pilgrimage— totum Galati et Cappadocie iter. In the preface to the second book of his Commentary he says, Scit mecum qui videt Ancyram metropolim Galati civitatem.? 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 Rhent semibarbaras ripas eodem cibo, pari frueremur hospitio. 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;° and more precisely still, he informs Florentius of a literary work, librum Sancti Hilarti quem apud Treviros manu mea ipse descripseram.’ Now, Jerome’s distinct words are : 4x. 19. 2 Polybius, ii. 23. Gaesum occurs Bell. Gall. iii. 4. Atheneeus, lib. vi. p. 548, Op. vol. ii. ed. Schweighiiuser. 8 Zeuss, Celt. Gramm. p. 64. 4 Op. vol. i. p. 10. ὅ Op. vii. p. 430. 6 Vol. ii. p. 335. The tribes called Scots in those days were Irish; and Trish wanderers came gradually over to Argyleshire, and founded the old kingdom of Dalriada. St. Columba is called utriusque Scotie 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. Venetiis 1766. PROOFS CONTINUED. XXV “Tt is true that Gaul produces orators, but Aquitania boasts a Greek origin” —et Galate non de illa parte terrarum, sed de ferocioribus Gallis sint profecti.... Unum est quod inferimus, Galatas excepto sermone Graco quo omnis Oriens loquitur, pro- priam linguam eandem pene habere quam Treviros.. 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,” 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—Iepyavodls οἱ viv Φράγγοι καλοῦνται." 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 haud dubie.* Strabo indeed seems to admit that the Nervii were a German race.’ But the Treviri are called Belgz and Gauls again and again, as by Tacitus in his Annal.i. 42, 43, 11, 44. In his Hist. iv. 71, 72, 73, Cerealis addresses them, Terram vestram ceterorumque Gallorum.... Cesar says, Tre- viros quorum civitas propter Germanie vicinitatem .. .; hee cwvitas longe plurimum totius Gallie equitatu valet...; Gallus inter Gallos,’—in which places they are distinguished from Germans; and Pom. Mela writes, Clarissimi Belgarum Treveri.' Their leaders’ names are Keltic, such as Cingetorix. Some doubt is thrown on this by the way in which Pliny speaks of them,° 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. 8. 4 De Germania 28. 5 Geog. iv. 24. 6 Bell. Gall. viii. 25, v. 8, v. 45, vi. 2, vii. 8. T iii, 2, 8 Hist. Nat. iv. 31. ΧΧΥῚΪ INTRODUCTION. tribes mixed up with them, as was the case among the Keltic Belgians. Cesar’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 Cesar named Lucterius,” and Leonorius is the name of a Cymric saint.® 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 wa, the word assumes the form of budid, 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. 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; and Diodorus® describes the white skins and yellow hair of the “EXAnvoyararat. If any faith can be placed in national resemblance of form and feature in 1 Fist. des Gaulois, i. p. 225. 2 Bell. Gail. vii. 7. 3 Diefenbach, Celtica, ii. 254. * Zeuss, Gram. Celt. vol. i. p. 27. 5 Wernsdorf, De Republica Galat. p. 219. 6 G. C. vol. ii. p. 875. Some deny that the Belgee were Kelts. Czesar distinguished them from the Celta 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 Cesar gave the generalized name of Belgee—the name being allied to Belg, Fir-bolg in Irish. 7 xy. 12. 8 -y, 28, 82. ORIGINAL PHRYGIAN ELEMENT, XXVil two periods so remote, Texier may be listened to: Sans chercher ἃ se faire illusion, on reconnait quelquefois, surtout parmi les pasteurs, des types qui se rapportent merveilleusement ἃ certaines races de nos provinces de France. On voit plus de cheveux blonds en Galatie qu en aucun autre royaume de l Asie mineure, les tétes carrées et les yeux bleux rappellent le caractére des populations de l’ouest de la France. Cette race de pasteurs est répandue dans les villages et les yaéla (camps nomades) des environs de la métropole.* 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 Γαλατία Ελλήνων." 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 miati, et Gallogreect 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 init. The Γαλατικά 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 propositum est, incircumeisos homines non introducere in Templum Dei. 1 Revue des Deux Mondes, 1841, p. 598. 2 Geog. i. 4. 8 Livy, xxxviii. 17. X¥xvili 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.”* 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.” 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. 6, 7. 2 Wieseler, Chronol. p. 32. SUPPOSED EARLIER VISIT. XXIX arrangements, he preached the gospel at his first visit to Galatia. The phrase δι’ ἀσθένειαν admits grammatically of no other mean- ing, and πρότερον 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 infirmity 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 ἡ περίχωρος, 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 i 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 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. He 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 y. 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 iy. 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 ΧΧΧΙΪ INTRODUCTION. permitted, would labour in the great centres of population— in Ancyra, Pessinus, Tavium, and Gordium.' 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.” 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 ψήφισμα formally granted by them be preserved (ἀνατεθῆναι), along with his decree, in the temple dedicated by the community of Asia in Ancyra.* 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,” 11. 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: ΠΠεσσινοῦς 0 ἐστὶν ἐμυπορεῖον τῶν ταύτῃ μέγιστον, Geoy. xii. 5, 3; and Gordium is described by Livy—id haud magnum quidem oppidum est, sed plus quam Mediterraneum, celebre et frequens emporium, tria maria pari ferme distantia intervallo habet : xxxyiii. 18. 2 Antig. xii. 3, 4. 3 Ibid. xvi. 6, 2. CHURCH MADE UP OF JEWS AND GENTILES. XXXill cumcision upon them are stigmatized as cowardly time-servers, vi. 12, 18. 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—7adwv—they desired to be in bondage, may characterize heathenism in several of its aspects as well as Judaism. See commentary oniy. 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 διασπορά 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 ¢ the ΧΧΧΙν , 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.’ 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 cultus 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. Rhea or Cybele (and Rhea might be only another form of épa, 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 effigy. At Pessinus her image 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.’ 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 aliter deorum immortalium numen placari arbitrantur, publiceque ejusdem generis habent instituta sacrificia.—Bell. Gall. vi. 16. Strabo adds that some of their human victims were crucified, Geog. iv. 4, 5. ? Το, 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 Cxsar 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. The statement of Cesar, based on mere unsifted rumour, was amplified by succeeding writers; and Pliny,” Strabo,? Ammianus Marcellinus,* and Pomponius Mela’ have only altered and recast it, while Lucan® and Tacitus’ 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 sawa 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. Czsar 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 (Druide cane- bant) from that occurrence the fall of the empire.’ The same author records, indeed, how at the invasion of Mona (Anglesea) they were 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.” 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. fxy., Ὡς 5 De Situ Orbis, iv. 2. ὁ Pharsalia, p. 14, Glasguee 1785. 7 Annal. xiv. 8. 8 Hist. iv. 54. 9 Annal. xiv. 30. XXXVI INTRODUCTION. his view a special honour, like that from any of the mythical deities: stirpe Druidarum satus, si fama non fallit fidem ; stirpe satus Druidum.'' Lucan also vaguely alludes to them in the first book of his Pharsalia, and they help to fill up his elaborate picture.” 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 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 Druides and Druide 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. /Hlius Lampridius puts among the omens pre- ceding the assassination of the Emperor Alexander Severus, that a Druidess accosted him with warning—mulier Dryas eunti exclamavit Gallico sermone.® Vopiscus* tells of Aurelian con- sulting Gallic Druidesses—Gallicanas Dryadas—on the ques- tion whether the empire should continue in his posterity; and he further relates that Diocletian, when among the Tungrians 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 Aiduan, 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. 86, 92, ed. Bipont. 2-P. 14, Glasguee 1785. ® Scriptores Historix Augustz, vol. i. p. 271, ed. Peter, Lipsiee 1865. 4 Scriptores Historiz Augustx, vol. ii. pp. 167, 223, do. do. ® De Divinatione, i. 40. ν ᾿ KELTIC HEATHENISM IN SCOTLAND. XXXVil by Claudius.". 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 mihi 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.’ 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 (reintlighecht 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.’ 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 capitaly Indeed the two events are told in the same breath. : 2 Early Scottish Church, p. 35,. Edin. 1865. 8 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. ΧΧΧΥ͂ΙΠ INTRODUCTION. Pantheon was not very scrupulous as to the gods admitted into it; andif the Druids were extirpated, it must have been for other reasons than their religion. What kind of theology they taught, it is impossible to say; the careless way in which Cesar 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 Czesar with the equites. According to Strabo” and Cesar,’ 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—q@uAdcodor καὶ θεολόγοι," that all attempts to form a system rest on a very precarious foundation —“y chercher davantage cest tomber dans Uhypothese 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: Angues innumeri xstate convoluti salivis faucium corporumque spumis artifict complexu glomerantur .. . vidi equidem id ovum mali orbiculati modici magnitudine. 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 Hige ins, London 1829. * Geog. iv. Ἴ 4. 8. Bell. Gall. vi. 14. 4 Memorab. Ἢ 6, 9. 5 Diodorus Sie. v. 31. ὁ Pressense, Histoire des trois Premiers Sitcles de l’Eglise Chrétienne, deuxieme série, 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 Encyclopédie nouvelle. PHRYGIAN RELIGION. ΧΧΧΙΣ 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- ealled 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 ἃ 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, Reuss, 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 ;' and an extreme faction holding such opinions were the inveterate enemies of the apostle of the Gentiles. It was so far innocent in Judea 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 with 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 xh 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 not 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 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.! 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. xiii trast to their early and hearty reception of the gospel and him- self. He 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.’ 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 men-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 pedagogue, while during pedagogy, 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- _ eumcised, 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 that he who troubled the Galatians, whoever he might be, shall bear his judgment, exclaiming in a moment of angry contempt, (1 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. LExhortations 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. Czesar pictures this feature of their western ancestors: Partim qui mobilitate et levitate animi novis imperiis studebant.”* 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 plerumque rebus student ;+ and he adds some touches about their anxiety for news, and their sudden counsels on getting them.? In another place, where he repeats the sentiment, he asserts, Ad bella suscipienda Gallorum alacer ac promptus est animus, sie mollis ac minime resistens ad calamitates perferendas mens eorum est.’ Livy observed the same feature: Primaque eorum prelia plus quam virorum, postrema minus quam femin- arum 6586. Tacitus speaks of one tribe as levissimus quisque Gallorum et inopia audazx.’ Polybius says, διὰ τὸ μὴ τὸ πλεῖον, ἀλλὰ συλλήβδην ἅπαν TO γυγνόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν Γαλατῶν, θυμῷ μᾶλλον ἢ λογισμῷ βραβεύεσθαι." Their modern historian also thus characterizes them: Les traits saillans de la famille Gauloise, ceut qui la distinguent le plus, ἃ mon avis, des autres familles humaines peuvent se résumer ainsi, une bravoure per- sonnelle que rien n’égale chez les peuples anciens, un esprit franc, impétueux, ouvert ἃ toutes les impressions, éminemment intelli- gent ; mais a cété de cela une mobilité extréme, point de constance, une répugnance marquée aux idées de discipline et d’ordre si puissantes chez les races Germaniques, beaucoup d’ostentation, enfin une désunion perpétuelle, fruit de Vexcessive vanité. The passion of their ancestors for a sensuous religion has been also marked: Natio est omnium G'allorum 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.” 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. 8 bid. iii. 19. See Commentary under iii. 1. + 26 ὅ De German. xxix. p. 136, Op. vol. iv. ed. Ruperti. ὁ ii. 353; Opera, vol. i. p. 204, ed. Schweighiiuser. 7 Thierry, Histoire des Gaulois, Introd. xii. 8 Cesar, Bell. Gall. vi. 16. 9 vi 27. 10 De Divinatione, i. 15, ii. 36, 37. xl vi INTRODUCTION. or in good humour.”' Diodorus affirms their love of strife and single combats among themselves after their feasts ; their disregard of life arising from their belief in the Pythagorean doctrine of transmigration: Κάτοινοι δὲ ὄντες καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν .. » μεθυσθέντες εἰς ὕπνον ἢ μανιώδεις. “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.”® 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.* 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. boxy, 12 δ γι 26, 30% Ὁ. xv. 12. Compare Suidas, sub voce " Ady». 1 Vol. vii. 417. 5. See Milman’s History of Christianity, vol. ii. 162, London 1867. PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. xlyii 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” '—not unlike Gal. i. 4; “ His sufferings were before your eyes”*—a faint reminiscence of Gal. iii. 1. Ignatius says: “ He obtained the ministry not of himself, nor by men,’”® like Gal. i. 1; “If we still live accord- ing to Jewish law, we confess that we yhave not received grace,”* 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,’® Gal. iv. 26; “The Father, who raised Him from the dead,’’ Gal. i. 1. The allusions taken from Bar- nabas xix. and Hermas, Simil. ix. 13, may scarcely be quoted as proof. In the Oratio ad Grecos, ascribed to Justin Martyr, occurs the quotation from Gal. iv. 12, γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγὼ ὅτι κἀγὼ ἤμην ὡς ὑμεῖς ; and the sins named in Gal. v. 20 are quoted with the apostle’s addition: καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις. In his Dial. ς. Tryph. cap. 90, 96, he adduces two quotations from the Old Testament like those in Gal. ii. 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, ὑπὸ κατάραν. In his Apology, i. 53, Justin quotes Isa. liv. 1, and works upon it, as does the apostle an, Gal.;iv. 27. Τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν ἐν θελήρωτι Ocov.—Ad Corinth. i. Τὼ παθήματω αὐτοῦ ἣν πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν ὑροῶν.----1)ο. ii. Οὐκ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲ δι᾽ ὠνθρώπων.--- Αἰ Philadelph. i. Ei κατὸ νόμον ᾿Ιουδωϊκὸν Camev, ὁμολογοῦμεν χάριν μὴ εἰληφέναι.--- Ad Magnes. 8. See Cohortatio ad Grecos, 40. 5 Eideres οὖν ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς οὐ μυκτηρίζεται.---(α Philip. v. ὁ Πίστιν, ἥτις ἐστὶ ρροήτηρ πάντων quav.—Do. 3. 7 Qui resuscitavit eum a mortuis.—Do. 12. ye ὦ tS " xl viii INTRODUCTION. Ireneus quotes the epistle by name: Sed in ea que est ad Galatas sic ait, quod ergo lex factorum, posita est usque quo veniat semen cui promissum est. Allusions are also found in iii. 6, 5, to Gal. iv. 8, 9,—in iii. 16, ὃ, to Gal. iv. 4, 5, which is avowedly quoted from the apostle’s letter to the Galatians—in epistola que 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 Παῦλος Γαλάταις ἐπιστέλλων." Tertullian is as explicit in referring to Gal. v. 20: Paulus scribens ad Galatas. The Epistle to Diognetus contains the expression : παρατήρησιν τῶν μηνῶν Kal τῶν ἡμερῶν ποιεῖσθαι." Melito repeats in spirit Gal. iv. ὃ, 9... Athenagoras cites the phrase, “the weak and beggarly elements.’ ‘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— principalem adversus Judaismum.’ According to Hippolytus, the Ophites made considerable use of it, and their writings con- tain many quotations :’ ἡ ἄνω “]ερουσαλήμ, Gal. iv. 26, in Heres. v. 7; and in do. v. 8, Gal. iv. 27 is quoted. The Valentinians were also well acquainted with the epistle, as Trenzeus testifies in 1. ὃ, 5. | Celsus asserts that the Christians, whatever their wranglings and shameful contests, agreed in saying continually, “The world is crucified to me, and I to the world;” Origen quietly adding, τοῦτο yap μόνον ἀπὸ τοῦ Παύλου ἔοικε μεμνημονευκέναι ὁ Κέλσος." 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 Romans and 1st and 2d Corinthians, and condemns the compilation as stupid, aimless, and contradictory. ΤῸ review his assertions would be vain; they are so weak that the merit of perverse Heres. vii. 7, 2. 2 Strom. iii. Just. Mart. Opera, vol. ii. 474, ed. Otto. Orat. ad Anton. Cxs. Cureton’s Spicileg. Syr. pp. 41-49. Πρεσβεία, 16. 6 Tertullian, Adv. Mare. vy. 2. Pp. 106-114, ed. Miller. Origen, c. Celsum, p. 273, ed. Spencer. Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe, Erste Albtheil, Berlin 1850. ocoen on ke Οὐ μὸ OBJECTIONS OF BRUNO BAUER. “ΠΣ 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 beso 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 Briefe ist nicht nur nie auch nur der geringste Verdacht der Undchtheit erhoben werden, sondern sie tragen auch den Character paulin- ascher Originalitat so unwidersprechlich an sich, dass sich gar nicht denken lisst, welches Recht je der kritische Zweifel gegen sie gelten machen kénnte.* 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 ] 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 spiritual birth. ‘The error which involved such peril, and carried with it such fascination, was one natural in the cireum- 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 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, Boéttger, 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. li contends. ‘Tertullian’s words are, principalem adversus Judais- mum epistolam nos quoque confitemnur que 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. Kpiphanius says of Marcion’s canon, αἱ ἐπιστολαὶ ai map’ αὐτῷ λεγόμεναί εἰσι πρώτη μὲν πρὸς Γαλάτας, δευτέρα δὲ πρὸς Κορινθίους. Again: Αὕτη γὰρ παρ᾽ αὐτῷ πρώτη κεῖται. Ἡμεῖς δὲ τὴν ἀναλογὴν τότε ἐποιησάμεθα οὐχ ὡς παρ᾽ αὐτῷ, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἔχει τὸ ἀποσ- τολικὸν ῥητὸν, τὴν πρὸς “Ρωμαίους τάξαντες πρώτην." But the chronology is wrong which dates the apostle’s first visit to Galatia before Acts xvi. 6, and the relative οὕτως ταχέως ini. 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 ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Ῥώμης is found in several Mss., as Β΄", K, L, the two Syriac and Coptic versions. The same con- jecture is found, among the fathers, in Kusebius of Emesa, Jerome, Theodoret, Euthalius, and Cicumenius; 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 nune preesens esse st 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 Cicumenius in his brief prefatory note to this epistle. On iv. 20, the commentator named Eusebius in the Catena says, ἐπειδὴ ἐτύγχανε δεδεμένος καὶ κατεχόμενος.“ 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. tom. iii.; Heres. xlii. ps. 566, vol. i. ed. Gubler, ? Panar. lib. i. tom. iii. 68, p. 638, vol. i. ed. Gihler. 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 Rome has therefore no authority—no warrant from any expression in the letter itself, is plainly contradicted by the chronology of the Acts, and the οὕτω ταχέως would certainly be inapplicable to a period so very late. Other opinions may be noticed in passing. Deza 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 Α.Ὁ. 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 would at once despatch a remonstrant epistle. The οὕτως ταχέως 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 οὕτω ταχέως 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 origin. The case is different with the second 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 liv 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 στίγματα 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. lv 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 disinteresteduess 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 todo. 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,” is quite different, save in general doctrinal import, from “ He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin.”” The image, “ What- _soever a man soweth, that shall he also reap,”’ is not “reproduced in almost the same words,” “ He that soweth sparingly, shall reap also sparingly ;”* 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. 11, 18. 2 2 Cor. v. 21. 8 Gal. vi. 7. * 2 Cor. ix. 6. lvi 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. νυ. 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 κατεσθίειν occurs Gal. v. 15 and ; 2 Cor. xi. 20, ἀποροῦμαι, Gal. iv. 20, 2 Cor. iv. 8; φο- βοῦμαι μήπως, Gal. iv. 11, 2 Cor. xi. 3, xii. 20, and nowhere else ; τοὐναντίον, Gal. ii. 7, 2 Cor. ii. 7, and nowhere else in Paul’s epistles ; κυρόω in Gal. iii. 15, 2 Cor. ii. 8, and nowhere else in the New Testament; and κανών 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 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 severity. 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 Epistole Pauli ad Galatas et que ad Romanos seripta est, sed hoc differre inter utramque, quod in illa, altiori sensu et profundioribus usus est argumentis. Similar themes are sur- SIMILARITY TO ROMANS. lvii 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 οὕτως ταχέως. The points of similarity between Galatians and Romans are, generally, as follows in this table :— Rom. iii. 20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Gal. ii. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in 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 am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. Gal. ii. 20. I am crucified with Christ : nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. Rom. vii. 4. Wherefore, my breth- ren, ye also are become dead to the 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. Rom. vi. 6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be de- stroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. lviii Gal. iii. 5, 6. He 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. ii. 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. 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 in 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 INTRODUCTION. 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., 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 INSTANCES OF RESEMBLANCE, 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, which 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. . lix hisseed, 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 ery, 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 iz 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. We 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 length worked themselves out under the 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 minutia, 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. ]xi 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 κῶμοι, μακαρισμός, μέθη, δουλεία, βαστάζειν, ἐλευθερόω, ide, κατάρα, καταρᾶσθαι, ὀφειλέτης, παραβάτης ; and phrases also, as τί ἔτι; παρ᾽ ὅ, οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες, τί λέγει ἡ γράφη; 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,’ 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, Gicumenius, and Theophylact, with some extracts from Eusebius Emesenus, Severianus, and Theodore of Mop- 1 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 418, Berlin 1862. Storr has a good essay with this heading, Prolusio de consensu Epistolarum Pauli ad Hebrxos et Galatas (Comment. Theol. ed. Velthusen, Kuincel, et Ruperti, vol, ii. p. 394), Lipsize 1795. ]xii INTRODUCTION. suestia in Cramer’s Catena. Extracts from Gennadius and Photius are found in Gicumenius. Among the Latin fathers may be named Marius Victorinus (Abbe Migne’s Pat. Lat. viii.), the pseudo-Ambrose or Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, Pelagius, Primasius, and others of less note. Medieval 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 Critict Sacri and Fratres Poloni are well known, and so are the collectors of annotations, as Elsner, Kypke, Krebs, Knatchbull, Loesner, Alberti, Kiittner, Palairet, Heinsius, Bos, Keuchenius, Doughtzus, 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, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Jaspis, Hyperius, Cameron, and Reiche 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; Riickert, 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; Ewald, 1857; Bisping, 1857; Winer, 4th ed., 1859; Wieseler, 1859; Wordsworth’s New Test. P. 111.,) 1859; Webster and Wilkinson, do. vol. 11, 1861; Meyer, 1862; Schmoller, Lange's Bibelwerk, viii., 1862; MKamphausen, Bunsen’s Bibelwerk, viii. Halb-band, 1863; Hofmann, 1863; Gwynne, 1863; Ellicott, 3d ed. 1863; Alford, New Test. vol. 111.) 4th ed., 1865; Matthias, 1865; Lightfoot, 1865; Voémel, 1865; Carey, 1867; Larsen (Kjobenhayn), 1867. Reference may be made also to Bonitz, Hxzam. Gal. ii. 20, 1800; Hauk, Eweget. Versuch iiber Gal. ili. 15, 22, Stud. u. Kritik. 1862 ; Hermann, de P. Epist. ad Galat. tribus primis capitibus, 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. ]xiii de nonnullis ad Galat. Epistole locis, Opuscula, Ὁ. 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 Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus, Rostock 1868; and of an opposite character in Cirtel’s Paulus in der Apostel-geschichte, Halle 1868. When Buttmann, Matthie, Kiihner, Winer, Scheuerlein, Bernhardy, Madvig, Schmalfeld, Kriiger, Schirlitz, Green, A. Buttmann, and Jelf are simply named, the reference is to their respective Grammars ; and when Suidas, Hesychius, Rost und 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 Lehre von den Partikeln der griechischen Sprache, Erlangen 1832. - ᾿ λ ΠΥ Ῥν" meri vet COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS. CHAPTER I. HE 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. Τὸ 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 δώδεκα, ods καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν (Luke vi. 13). The number was hallowed as a sacred one (Rey. xxi. 14). Justin also speaks significantly of the twelve: ἄνδρες δεκαδύο τὸν ἀριθμόν (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 (Homilia, 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 propheta neque apostolus in hoc tempore speratus a vobis aliquis alius preter nos. . . . Ipse enim 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 4}]---ζηλωταὶ τοῦ νόμου--- 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 (J erome)—not because of the mere slander, διαβολήν (Theodoret), or because they held him cheap, ἐξηυτέλιζον (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 : ὡσπερεὶ TO ἐκτρώματι ὥφθη κἀμοί (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 οἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀπόσ- toro. 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, whichunderlies the grand ques- tion discussed in it. Ver. 1. Παῦλος, ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώ- που----ἰς Paul, an apostle, not from men nor by man.” There CHAP. I. 1. 3 needs no participle to be inserted after ἀπόστολος, 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 fora 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 ἀπό and διά 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, ἀπό, referring to remote or primary source; nor by man, διά referring to medium or nearer instrumental cause. Winer, § 47; Bernhardy, p. 222. Some expositors, as Koppe, Borger, Usteri, and Gwynne, neglecting the change of preposition, lay the stress on the change of number. Gwynne denies the distinction between ἀπό and διά, but without foundation in any of the instances alleged by him. Nor does he see, in the case of ἀπό, how the literal so naturally and necessarily passes into the ethical meaning of a particle, or how “ remotion from” comes to signify origination. ‘The οὐδὲ implies a difference of relation in the second clause from the first. Mud 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 Rom. xi. 836: “for of Him (ἐξ αὐτοῦ) and by Him (δύ avrod) 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 διά is used with both nouns in the following clause ; but here, as in contrast x “ 4 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. with ἀπό, 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 ἀπό, and instruction (institutio immediata) in διά. 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 ἀπό and διά are both used for ὑπό 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, ἀπό is frequently used for ὑπό after passive verbs in Byzantine Greek, and the two prepositions are often exchanged both in classical and New Testament codices (ὃ 47, 8). On the difference of meaning, see also Poppo, Thucydides, vol. i. p. ili. 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—oi δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἶναι. Or if ἀνθρώπου 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 δοῦλος, διάκονος, εὐαγγελιστής, 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 original twelve. CHAP. I. 1. 5 But Christ had called him immediately, οὐρανόθεν ἐκάλεσεν οὐκ ἀνθρώπῳ χρησάμενος ὑπουργῷ (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, ᾿Αλλὰ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ vexpav—“ 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 ἀπό before Θεοῦ πατρός. But both nouns are governed by the same preposition διά, and are included under the same relation. For, to his mind, so much were Christ and God one in purpose and act, that the διά not only implies the ἀπό, 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 διά which formed the question in dispute. The apostleship might be admitted as being from God, and yet not by Him as its immediate agent ; ἀπό does not of itself prove διά, but διά certainly implies ἀπό. 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 Rom. i. 5. In ver. 3, again, the usage is reversed, and ἀπό is employed with both names. Both nouns here want the article, and Θεὸς πατήρ has all the force of a proper name (Gal. i. 3; Eph. vi. 23; Phil. ui. 11; 1 Pet. i. 2). The genitive νεκρῶν wants the article, too, as usually when preceded by é« (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 πατήρ, not generally as Father of all (De Wette, Alford), nor specially as our Father (Usteri and Wieseler), nor directly as 0 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. is 2,351 Thess. i..3, aii. dl yete:). The predicate is, τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. 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 καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός (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. 1. 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 be at the same time laying too great stress on the words, to suppose, with Augustine, Erasmus, Beza, and Calvin, that CHAP. I. 1. Ὁ 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 adhue 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 Θεοῦ πατρός, and seems to-have read I. X. τοῦ ἐγείραντος ἑαυτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, for it is opposed to the uniform teaching of the Pauline theology. The Greek fathers lay no little stress on the fact that I. X. and Θεὸς πατήρ have a common bond of connection in διά. 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 οὐδεμίαν φύσεως διαφοράν 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 ἀνθρώπου, as if, in Augustine’s phrase, He were totus jam Deus.’ The reason why Crellius and Le Clerc and others insist on inserting ἀπό before Θεοῦ is, that they may impugn the equality which the common vinculum of διά 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 peysonal 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 Retractationes, Opera, vol. i. p. 74, ed. Paris, 1836. 8 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. of Antioch. Acts xx. 24, xxii. 14, 15, xxvi. 16-20. Was not the formal apostolic commission given in the hour of his conversion—€Ovdv, εἰς ods ἐγώ σε ἀποστέλλω 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,’ 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 sollennis ritus ordinationis; see under Eph. i. 1. But if ecclesiastical ordination was essential to full apostleship, what becomes of the οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου ἵ 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. Kat οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες aderXpoi— 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 ; πάντες 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 πάντες is answered in various ways, according to the opinion adopted about the place where the epistle was written—i 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. 8. 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 ἀδελφοί. 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 Ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας---“ to the churches of Galatia” —the letter being therefore a circular. Acts xvi. 6, xvill. 23 5 1 Cor. xvi. 1; 1 Pet.i.1. It has been often remarked, that ἐκκλησίαις 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 ἐν Θεῷ πατρὶ are added. “In both epistles to Corinth, τοῦ Θεοῦ is annexed to ἐκκλησία, 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—é7rel δὲ καὶ διεστασίαζον. For the places where those churches were probably situated, see Introduction. Ver. ὃ. Χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ---““ Grace be to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.” The pronoun ἡμῶν is placed after Κυρίου on good authority, though A and s, with some of the Latin fathers, insert it after πατρός, as in other salutations. Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor. i. 2; Eph. i. 2, etc. As διά in the first verse, so ἀπό 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 χάρις, and the East in pirvi—e/ptvn,—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 and 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. Tod δόντος ἑαυτὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν Hudv—“ who gave Himself for our sins.” The ὑπέρ of the received text is found in B and x’, and some of the Greek fathers, but περί has the authority of A, D, F, K, 8, several minuscules, and is apparently the preferable reading. The correction to ὑπέρ 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: ὅστις οὐκ ὑμᾶς ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν δέδωκε. 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: Φοίβῳ θ᾽ ἱερὴν ExarduBnv ῥέξαι ὑπὲρ Δαναῶν ὄφρ᾽ ἱλασόμεσθα ἄνακτα. Wesselius cites the versiculus notissimus of Cato: ‘‘ Tpse nocens cum sis, moritur cur victima pro te?” Περί, 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 ὑπέρ with the persons: περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν, ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων (1 Pet. iii. 18; Sirach xxix. 15). But the usage is not uniform, as Heb. v. ὃ, περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ, ... περὶ ἑαυτοῦ, . . . ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν ; and in the first verse also of the same chapter, ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν. In 1 Cor. xv. 3, ὑπέρ is used with ἁμαρτιῶν, but ἡμῶν is a personal quali- fication. In Matt. xxvi. 28 we have περὶ πολλῶν, but the personal design is introduced, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν ; and in the parallel passages, Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 19, ὑπέρ occurs, and the personal explanatory clause is wanting. In 1 Thess. v. 10 the various reading is 7repi—v7rép, and a personal purpose follows. The preposition ὑπέρ 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; Rom. xiv. 15), and has a meaning verging very close on that of ἀντί, “in room of,” as the con- text occasionally indicates (chap. iii. 13; Eph. v. 2; Philem. 18). See Fritzsche on Rom. v. 7, 8; Poppo on the phrase ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ, which he renders suo loco, ὑπὲρ pro ἀντί, Thucydides, part iii. vol. i. p. 704; Euripides, Alcestis, 690; Polybius, i. 67, 7; Matthiae, ὃ 582; Rost und Palm, sub voce. Περί 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 περί ex- presses only mentis circumspectionem, ὑπέρ simul animi propen- sionem (Weber, Demosth. p. 130). See also Schaefer’s full note on the phrase of Demosthenes, οὐ περὶ δόξης οὐδ᾽ ὑπὲρ μέρους, Annot. vol. i. p. 189; and the remarks οἵ 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. ᾿Αντί is more precise, and, signifying “in room of,” points out the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death. Matt. 12 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. v. 88; 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 ἀντίλυτρον, 1 Tim. ii. 6; προσφορὰν, Eph.v. 2. Such a predi- cate is here implied in the clause defined by περί, and in the purpose indicated by ὅπως. The freeness of the self-gift is prominent, as well as its infinite value—Himsetr. 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 διά in the first verse, and of ἀπό in the second verse. The ἡμῶν refers primarily to the apostle, the bretliren 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 guilt 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 without 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 substitutionary relation to sin and sinners, as is expressed by ἀντί, and implied in περί and ὑπέρ. 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 Ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ —‘“that He might deliver us out of the present world—an eyil one:” nequam, Vulg.; malo, Clarom.; maligno, Aug. Perhaps this is the better reading, and it is supported by A, B, 8’. The received text places éveotdrosbefore αἰῶνος, omittin g 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 πονηροῦ is virtually a tertiary predicate. “Iva is the apostle’s favourite term, and the relative particle é@s—‘“in such manner that”—is rarely used by him. In the New Testament it is con- strued with the subjunctive, sometimes with ἄν, but it is found with other moods in classical writers (Kviiger, ὃ 54, 8, etc.; Klotz-Devarius, vol. ii. pp. 629, etc., 681, etc., in which sections 14 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. iva and ὅπως are distinguished in meaning and use). The verb ἐξαιρεῖσθαι (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. xxxil. 11, Isa. xlii. 22, Ps. οχ]. 1. The noun αἰών connected with ἀεί, Latin @vum, and the Saxon aye (“God shall endure for aye”), means “ duration;” its adjunct determining whether that duration reach indefinitely backwards or forwards, as in am or ἐκ αἰῶνος in the one case, and εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα 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 κόσμος. Luke xvi. 8; Rom. xii. 2; Eph. i. 21, ii. 2. In rabbinical usage, there was the ΠῚΠ peiy, the present or pre-Messianic age, and S20 pay, 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 aidv μέλλων, 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 ὁ viv αἰῶν of the pastoral epistles, 1 Tim. vi. 17, 2 Tim. iv. 10, Tit. ii. 12—o αἰῶν οὗτος, Rom. xii. 2—has a pervading element of evil in it, in contrast to the ὁ αἰῶν μέλλων, ὁ αἰῶν ὁ ἐρχόμενος, which is characterized by purity and happiness (Mark x. 30; Luke xviii. 30). The αἰῶν 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 ἄρχοντες who are opposed to God (1 Cor. ii. 65 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, Biblisch-theolog. Worterb. sub voce, Gotha 1866. The participle ἐνεστώς 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, οὔτε ἐνεστῶτα οὔτε μέλλοντα, “nor things present, nor things to come”—present and future in contrast. Similarly 1 Cor. il. 22, vii. 26; Heb. ix. 9. Instances abound in the classics and Septuagint, Esdras v. 47, ix. 6, τὸν ἐνεστῶτα χειμῶνα ; 3 Mace. i. 16; frequently in Polybius, i. 60, 75, xviii. 38; Xen. Hellen. 2, 1, 6; Joseph. Antig. xvi. 6, 2; Philo, de Plantat. Noe, Opera, vol. iii. p. 186, Erlange 1820. Phavo- rinus defines it by πάροντα, and Hesychius gives it as ὁ τῆς ζωῆς χρόνος. The Syriac renders it “this age,” and the Vulgate presenti seculo. Sextus Empir. divides times into τὸν παρῳχημένον Kal τὸν ἐνεστῶτα Kal τὸν μέλλοντα, Advers. Phys. ti. 192, p. 516, ed. Bekker. It is also the term used by grammarians for “the present tense ;” thus ἐνεστῶσα μετοχή--- the present participle. Theodore of Mopsuestia, in loc., defines the term by παρών, and explains it as the period stretching on to the second advent, ed. Fritzsche, p. 121. Compare Clement. Hom. ii. 40, Ignat. ad Eph. 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. ii. 1. See Schoettgen’s Hore 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. ii. ὃ; 1 John ii. 18; Jude 18; 2 Tim. iii. 1. Matthias, a recent annotator (Cassel 1865), holds the same view, and would punctuate αἰῶνος, πονηροῦ xata—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 (ἐκ) 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 certainly 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 εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰῶνων. Chrysostom and Jerome are anxious to guard against the Manichzan heresy, that the age or world is essentially and in itself evil, for it is only made so by evil προαιρέσεις : the latter dw reine on the deliramenta of the Valentinians, and the mystical meanings which they attached to the Hebrew phy, as written with or w vithout the ἡ; and as meaning eternity in the first case, and the space ἈΚΟΤΕ to the year of jubilee in the other. Κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πτατρὸς ἡμῶν----“Ξ according to the will of God and our Father.” Theophylact distinguishes θέλημα from ἐπιτωγή, and identifies it with εὐδοκία. (See under Eph.i.11.) Is ἡμῶν connected only with πατρός, or is the proper rendering “our God and Father?” It is rather difficult to CHAP. I. 4. 17 answer. ‘The article is omitted before πατρός, according to usage. Middleton, p. 57; Winer, ὃ 19,4. The καί seems to have its ordinary connecting force. The phrase Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ 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 τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν I. X. See under Eph. i. 3. A simple ἡμῶν follows the phrase, Phil. iv. 20, 1 Thess, 11. 11, 2 Thess. ii. 16; and it stands alone in 1 Cor. xv. 24, Eph. v. 20, Jas. i. 27. That ἡμῶν is con- nected only with πατρός is probable, because not only, as Ellicott says, is the idea in Θεός absolute, and that in πατήρ relative—the relation being indicated by the pronoun—but also because πατήρ has often, in the apostle’s usage, a genitive after it when it follows Θεός: 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 Θεοῦ indicate that both clauses are connected with ἡμῶν, 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 τοῦ δόντος (Chrysostom, Wieseler), nor with the clause before it—é7rws (Meyer, Schott); nor is θέλημα 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 isin 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 18 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. Ver. ὅ. Ὧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων" ἀμήν--- To whom be the glory for ever. Amen.” Most probably the verb εἴη is understood (1) Pet. i. 2; 2 Pet. 1. 2; Jude 2), not ἐστί, which some editions and versions present (the Vulgate having cut est gloria), and which is preferred by Lightfoot and Hof- mann; nor ἔστω, 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. 86; 2 Cor. ix. 15; Eph. iii. 20. In such doxologies δόξα usually has the article, when, as here, it stands alone. Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, Eph. 111. 21, Phil. iv. 20, 2 Tim. iv. 18; but Luke 11. 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. 4όξα, translated “praise” in the older English versions, does not here take the article, not as being an 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, ὃ 36,2. See under Eph. ii. 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 Filii Patris voluntatem implet (Jerome). The Hebrew }28, “ truly,” is sometimes transferred in the Septuagint—dpjv, sometimes rendered by γένοιτο in praise and response, while Aquila translated it by πεπιστωμένως. “So ought it to be, so let it be, so shall it be” (Brown). Ver. 6. Θαυμάζω, ὅτι οὕτω ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ----““ 1 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, as 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 θαυμάζω 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 εἰ, when what is thought of is matter of doubt, and by ὅτι, as here, when it is matter of fact. 1 John iii. 13. Sturz, Lex. Xen. sub voce. Μετατίθεσθε, 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: οὐκ εἶπε μετεθέσθε, ἀλλὰ, μετατίθεσθε ; οὐδέπω πιστεύω οὐδὲ ἡγοῦμαι ἀπηρτισμένην εἶναι τὴν ἀπάτην. 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 culpam in pseudapostolos derivet. The Vulgate gives also transferimini. 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—ra εἰρημένα, Xen. Mem. iv. 2, 18, or τὴν γνώμην, Joseph. Vita, § 33, Herodotus, vii. 18; then to fall away from one party— ἐκ or ἀπό, 2 Mace. vii. 24—to another, εἰς or πρός, Polybius, il. 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 Meta@éuevos—transpositus sive translatus (Jerome). Athenzeus, vii. p. 25, vol. iii. ed. Schweighaiiser ; Rost und Palm, sub voce. There was special surprise that this changing of sides was going on οὕτω ταχέως, “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 οὕτω εὐκόλως (Koppe), parum considerate (Schott, Chrysostom), 20 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. “ gewiss zu rasch” (Riickert), or “so readily,” “so rashly” (Lightfoot, Gwynne, 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 own visit is not in his mind, so far as his language implies, for καλέσαντος 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 gospel.” His 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 among them. Chrysostom describes it as ἐκ πρώτης προσβολῆς (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, οὕτω ταχέως. 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. ᾿Απὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ---“ from Him that called you in the grace οἵ Christ.” The words are not to be construed thus, ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος--- Χριστοῦ (“ from Him that called you—Christ”), as the Syriac, Jerome, Calvin, CHAP. I. 6. 91 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. 1. 1. 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 rod xan. 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 Θεοῦ ; 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—etdnyyeducdpeba. Ἔν χάριτι X.—“ in the grace of Christ.” Χριστοῦ is want- ing in F, G, and in some of the Latin fathers, and is wrongly rejected by Griesbach. The phrase ἐν χάριτι is neither to be identified with Sua χάριτος, nor εἰς χάριτα; Vulgate, in gratiam, that is, “to a participation of that grace,” as Borger and Riickert explain it. The preposition ἐν denotes the element—that ele- ment here viewed as possessing instrumental power. Eph. 1]. 13, vi. 14. It may thus be the instrumental adjunct (Wunder, Sophocles, Philoct. 60; Donaldson, § 47, 6), but the instru- mentality is here regarded as immanent. Jelf, ὃ 622. In some other passages with καλέω the preposition has its usual force. _ 1 Cor. vii. 18; 1 Thess. iv. 7. It is only or chiefly after verbs of motion that ἐν as result combines the sense of εἰς (Winer, 50, § 5), though originally they were the same word, related to each other; as pels, μέν---δείς, δέν. 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. 10. That call, sphering itself in Christ, and thus evincing its power, is on this account opposed to the νόμος, 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 bo bo EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. connected in the apostle’s mind with, the phrase just used— “ oave Himself for our sins.” But they are falling off— ᾿ Eis ἕτερον evayyédvov—* to a different gospel”—the ruling element of which was not the grace of Christ, nor was 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 ἕτερον marks distinction, ἄλλος indicates addition. 2 Cor. xi. 4. This signification of difference is seen in such compounds as ἑτερόγλωσσος, Ps. exili. 1; ἑτερογενής, Deut. xxii. 11; érepofuyos, Lev. xix. 19. It represents the Hebrew v1, “new,” in Ex. i. 8, and 4, alienus, 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, Dan. vii. 5, 6, 8. The adjective thus generally denotes distinction of kind. Even in Matt. xi. 3, adduced by Ellicott to show that érepos does not always keep its distinctive meaning, it may signify not simply another individual, but one different in position and function. But ἄλλος is used in the parallel passage, Luke vii. 20. Titt- mann, De Synon. p.155. The Judaizing 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 νόμος and χάρις, ἔργα and πίστις, bondage and liberty, flesh and spirit. But the apostle at once checks himself, lest the phrase ἕτερον εὐαγγ. 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. Ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ wn—“ which is not another, save that:” it is no new or additional gospel—ovx, the negative being emphatic,—there is only one gospel. The εὐαγγέλιον expressed after ἕτερον stands vaguely and imperfectly, as the Judaizers might so name their system, but the evayy. implied after ἄλλο 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 εἰ μή with θαυ- μάξζω, making the previous clause a parenthesis: “ Miror vos tam cito deficere ad aliam doctrinam salutarem (quanquam hee alia salutaris nulla est) nisi nonnulli sint.” But such an utterance requires ἐθαύμαζον dv: “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 6, 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 καλέσαντος to Paul himself, as Gwynne does, does not remove the difficulty. 3. Others, again—and this has been the prevailing opinion —take εὐαγγέλιον 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, ouAL| Us ἫΝ: “which does not exist ;” HR x= wD and the Genevan, “seeing there is no other”! But it seems plain that ἕτερος and ἄλλος, 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, érepov evary.: 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, | Εἰ pn— save that.” By this phrase, not equivalent to ἀλλά, as Dr. Brown argues in support of his exegesis, an exception is indicated to a negative declaration preceding, and it signifies mst, “unless,” “except,” even in Matt. xii. 4, 1 Cor. vii. 17. Klotz-Devar. ii. p. 524; Herodotus, iv. 94, ἄλλον Θεὸν, εἰ μὴ ; Xen. Cyrop. ii. 2,11, τί δ᾽ ἄλλο, εἰ μὴ ; Aristoph. Lg. 615, τί δ᾽ ἄλλο; εἰ μὴ; Poppo, Thucyd. vol. iii. P. 1, 216; Gayler, Partie. Neg. p. 97. The Vulgate has, quod non est aliud nist. The meaning is, this gospel is another, only in so far as 21 1 The Gothic of Ulfilas reads, ‘‘ which is not another.” Vomel trans- lates, Welches anderartige Evangelium in nichts anderem besteht als, Frankfurt 1865. 24 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. Τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες tpwas—* there are 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 τινές, 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. Τινές neither marks insignificance, ἀνώνυμοι (Semler), 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 τινές 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 τινές in them is marked by its position as a predicate, and the use of τὸ is not to the point. Nor would the clause so misunderstood bring out any self-consistent mean- ing. The verb ταράσσω, used physically (John v. 7), signifies to put in fear or alarm (Matt. 11. 3), then to disquiet (John xii. 27), to perplex (Acts xv. 24). The apostle adds of those disturbers, what their desire or purpose was : Kai θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐωγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ--- “and desiring to subvert the gospel of Christ.” The verb μεταστρέφω is to change, to change into the opposite (Acts ii. 20; Jas. iv. 9), or to change to the worse. Aristot. het. 1.15, p. 60, ed. Bekker; Sept. 1 Sam. x. 8; Sirach xi. 31. The genitive tod Χριστοῦ 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 obnive, 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. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγε- λίζηται ὑμῖν παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω---““ 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, Gicumenius, have εὐαγγελίζεται; while A, 8, and others, have εὐωγγελίσηται. There are also variations with regard to ὑμῖν: F and & omit it; B, H, place it before the verb; the ma- jority of mss. place it after the verb; while D* has ὑμᾶς. “But” be the τινές who they may who seek to subvert the gospel, they incur an awful peril. The καί belongs to ἐάν, “ 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, ὃ 861. On the difference of εἰ καί and καὶ ei, see under Phil. ii. 17; Kiihner, ὃ 824; Har- tung, vol. i. pp. 139, etc. The ἡμεῖς---ποῦ himself alone, the pronoun being expressed and emphatic—may take in, though not necessarily, ἀδελφοὶ σὺν ἐμοὶ of ver. 2, or perhaps Silvanus and Timothy, fellow-preachers (Hofmann).' 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 ἐξ ovpavod; the phrase.being joined to ἄγγελος, and not to the verb (2 Cor. xi. 14), which agrees with ἄγγελος. 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 εὐαγγελίζηται 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 1866. 20 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. originated the variations connected with ὑμῖν, though Light- foot, from these variations, regards the word as doubtful. The spurious preaching is characterized as IIap’ ὃ εὐωαγγελισάμεθα vuiv—* contrary to that which we preached to you” (Ellicott), or “beyond” it (Alford). The παρά can bear either meaning. Bernhardy, p. 259. The Vulgate has preterquam, 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, παρὰ φύσιν; Acts xviii. 13, παρὰ νόμον; 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” (Kstius, 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 παρά glancing back to ἕτερος, 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. ᾿Ανάθεμα érrw— let him be accursed” (vy. 10). ’AvdOeua: the earlier classical form was ἀνάθημα, ᾿Αττικῶς (Moeris). Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 249. Thus ἐπίθεμα, ἐπίθημα ; εὕρεμα, εὕρημα. The general sense is, “laid up,” set apart to God: τῷ Θεῷ ἀνατιθέμενον (Suidas). The meaning of the word in the New Testament is derived through the Septuagint, where it represents the Hebrew 07, something so set apart to God as to be destroyed or consecrated to divine vengeance. The other form, ἀνάθημα, retained its original meaning, compre- hending all gifts to the gods. Xen. Anab. v. 3, 5. Such gifts were often ornamental, and Hesychius defines it by κόσμημα ; but the other form, ἀνάθεμα, he identifies with ἐπικατάρατος. 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: Πᾶν ἀνάθεμα ἅγιον ἁγίων ἔσται 1 Πάντες πεζολόγοι ἐπίθημα καὶ ὠνάθημα λέγουσιν. Cramer, Anecd. Greca, vol. i. 165, Oxon. 1835. ’ - CHAP. I. 8. 27 τῷ Kupid . . . θανάτῳ θανατωθήσεται : the city of Jericho, and all in it, was declared ἀνάθεμα Κυρίῳ Σαβαώθ. Josh. vi. 16, 17. This consecration of Jericho to utter ruin was in obedience to the command, Deut. xiii. 14-16, ἀναθέματι ava- θεματιεῖτε αὐτήν, and was a reproduction of an older scene (Num. xxi. 1-3), where a city was devoted, and then truly named 197n, ἀνάθεμα. 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 ἀφόρισμα in the Septuagint, but ἀνάθημα by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theo- dotion. Orig. Hex. tom. ii. p. 321, ed. Montfaucon. In the Apocrypha the distinction appears to be preserved: 2 Mace. ix. 16, καλλίστοις ἀναθήμασι κοσμήσειν; 3 Mace. iii. 14; Judith xvi. 19; also in Joseph. Antig. xv. 11, ὃ, Bell. Jud. ii. 17, 3. So in the New Testament, Luke xxi. 5, the temple adorned with goodly stones, cal ἀναθήμασι, “and gifts.” But the other form, ἀνάθεμα, 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 διττλῆν διάνοιαν, which he gives to ἀνάθημα ; also on Isa. xiii, and on Zeph. i. See also Suidas, sub voce; Chrysos- tom on Rom. ix: ὃ; and Suicer, sub voce. Among the ecclesi- astical writers, ἀνάθεμα 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 ὉΠ in the Old Testament ever signify ecclesiastical separation ; it is synonymous with ἀπωλεία, Isa. liv. 5; ἐζολόθρευμα, 1 Sam. xv. 21; ἀφάνισμα, 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. 2,18. Winer, sub voce. How tame Grotius, cum eo nihil vobis sit commercit; or Rosenmiiller, excludatur e catu 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. ‘OAs mpoepjxayev— as we have said before.” The. reference implied in προ. 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. 111. 7; and Winer, ὃ 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 ἄρτι 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 προ, and the statement in ver. 3 is far from being a repetition of the second verse. Evaryye- λισάμεθα, προειρήκαμεν---καὶ ἄρτι mark a more distinct lapse of time than a recurrence to what had just been written, and the change from εὐαγγελίσαμεθα to παρελάβετε points to the same conclusion: As he had said when among them by way of affirmation and warning. Kai ἄρτι πάλιν rAéyo—“ and now again I say.” The change from the plural προειρήκαμεν to the present λέγω 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 Riickert 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,—adw referring to repetition of the same sentiment, and ἄρτι in contrast with προ. in composition with the verb. The first of these opinions preserves, as Ellicott says, the classical meaning of ἄρτι, for it refers to a time just passed CHAP. I. 10. 29 away. Matt. ix. 18. Tempus quodque proximum, ἄρτι et ἀρτίως significant,’ Lobeck, Phryn. 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. xill. 12. The statement is: Εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐωγγελίζεται trap ὃ παρελάβετε---“ 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 εἰ with the indicative. The case is put as one that may be found real. Donaldson, ὃ 502. See also Tischendorf, Pref. p. vii. 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, ὑμᾶς, 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 παρ᾽ 6, see on previous verse. The verb παραλαμβάνω, followed either by ἀπό or by παρά, pointing to the source, is to receive, to take into the mind, what is given by instruction, and corresponds to the ὑμῖν of the preceding verse. In this verse the evangel, which is the theme of the verb, goes out on them as its direct objects—tpas; in the other it is given to them, or for their benefit—ipiv—and they received it. The change may have been intentionally suggestive. For ἀνάθεμα ἔστω, see previous verse. Ver. 10. "Apts yap ἀνθρώπους πείθω, ἢ τὸν Θεόν ;—“ For do I now conciliate men or God?” or, “ Now, is it men 1 am conciliating, or God?” The emphatic ἄρτι 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 ἄρτι 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. ii. The connection is somewhat more difficult, as expressed by γάρ. 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 πείθω, to persuade, signifies, by a natural transition, to conciliate by persuasion or to make friends of. Acts xii. 20, xiv. 19. Josephus, πεῖσαι τὸν Θεὸν, Ant. iv. 6,5; Ζηνὸς ἦτορ ἔπεισε, Pindar, Ol. ii. 80, ed. Dissen ; δῶρα Θεοὺς πείθει, a portion of a line ascribed by Suidas to Hesiod ; Plato, De Repub. iii. 344, 390 E, do. Opera, vol. iil. pp. 146, 231, ed. Stallbaum; similarly Euripides, Medea, 960. There is no occasion to attach to the verb the idea of conatus 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 ἀνθρώπους, wanting the article, is “men generally,” while Θεόν has it, as if to specialize it by the contrast. The connection of πείθω with τὸν Θεόν 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 κατά 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 κατά understood: “ Do I persuade according to men or God?” Webster and Wilkinson apparently follow Estius, non apud homines judices, sed apud tribunal Dei causam hane ago, but without any warrant or adduced example. Pis- CHAP. I. 10. 21 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 humanas suadeo an divinas? But πείθω governing a person is distinct in mean- ing from πείθω governing a thing or object; πείθειν τινα being, as Meyer remarks, quite distinct from πείθειν τι. The mean- ing is more fully explained in the following clause, where the apostle adds more broadly : Ἢ ξητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν ;—* or am I seeking to please men ?” the stress being on ἀνθρώποις. To please men was not his endeavour or pervading aim: it was no motive of his; for he adds : Εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον, Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ av ἤμην--- “Tf still men I were pleasing, Christ’s servant I should not be.” The leading nouns, ἀνθρώποις and Χριστοῦ, are in emphatic contrast. The received text reads εἰ yap ἔτι, after the slender authority, D®*, E, K, L, the Syriac and Greek fathers; whereas A, B, D’, F, G, δὰ, 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 γάρ 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 ἔτι, “still,” gives intensity to the declara- tion, and looks back to ἄρτι. Biaumlein, Griech. 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 ἤμην is peculiar, being used “Ἑλληνικῶς, according to Moeris. It occurs in the later writers, and is used by Xenophon, Cyro. vi. 1, 9, and Lysias, Areopag. p- 304, ed. Dobson. Its use is not confined to its occurrence with ἄν. Lobeck, Phrynichus, 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 εἰ witha past indicative in the protasis, dv in the apodosis points out impossible condition. Donaldson, § 502. The apostle calls himself δοῦλος in various places. Compare John xiii. 16, xv. Ba EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 15, 20; Rom.-i. 1; Tit.i.1 ; Phil. i.1; Col. iy. 125 2 Tims li. 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, οὐκ ἂν ἐγενόμην 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: “1 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 asa 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 world,” 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. 99 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 not 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. Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, aderpoi— Now I declare unto you, brethren.” Instead of δέ, which is found in A, D*’, K, L, x, Chrysostom and Theodoret, and in the Coptic and Syriac versions, γάρ is read in B, D', F, 8’, and by Jerome, the Vulgate, and Augustine. Tischendorf has γάρ in his second edition, but δέ in his seventh; and the reading is adopted by ἡ σ 84 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 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 γάρ, argumentative; whereas δέ is only transitional to another topic, or to some additional illustration of it. It may, however, be replied, that the insertion of δέ by copyists was in- fluenced by its occurrence with this verb in 1 Cor. xy. 1, 2 Cor. vill. 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. Γνωρίζω 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 aéeAgoi—still dear to him, in spite of their begun aber- ration, as in 11. 15, iv. 12, v. 13, vi. 1. What the apostle certified them of was : Τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐωγγελισθὲν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι κατὰ ἄνθρωπον---“Α5. to the gospel preached by me, that is not after man.” This clause may characterize his gospel wherever preached, ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι (ii. 2) ; but the pointed lan- guage of vers. 6-9 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, ὃ 66, 5; Kviiger, ὃ 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, i, 2). The gospel preached by me is not κατὰ ἄνθρωπον--- “after man.” ‘The phrase does not express origin, as Augus- tine, a-Lapide, and Estius assert, though it implies it. The nn Syriac renders 0, “from,” as it does ἀπό in ver. 1, and παρά in ver. 12. It means “after man’s style.’ Winer, ὃ 49. Xen. Mem. iv. 4, κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον νομοθέτον ; Sophocles, Ajaa, 747, μὴ κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον φρονεῖ; Cidip. Col. 598, ἢ κατ᾽ avOpw- mov νοσεῖς. 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. 35 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. Οὐδὲ yap ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον aito— “For neither did I receive it from man.” Τάρ assigns the | ground: The gospel I preach is not according to man, for | man did not teach it tome. 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, οὐδὲ yap ἐγώ. Οὐδὲ γάρ is different from the absolute od γάρ, and also from οὐδὲ ἐγὼ yap, which might give a different turn to the thought. The pronoun expresses emphatic individuality, and yap occupies its usual place. It is not οὐδέ for οὐ (Schirlitz, ὃ 59); nor is the meaning nam ne ego quidem (Winer), “not even I, who might have been expected to be man-taught.” Οὐδέ, as Hartung remarks, is in negative sentences parallel to καὶ γάρ in positive sentences (vol. i. p. 211); Herodot. i. 3; Auschylus, Agam. 1501. This implied reference in οὐδέ is common: ut aliquid extrinsecus adsumendum sit, cui id, quod per οὐδέ particulam infertur, opponatur. WKlotz-Devar. ii. 707; Kiihner, Xen. Mem. p- 94; and Borneman, Xen. Conv. p. 200, says truly that οὐδὲ γάρ and οὐ γάρ differ as neque enim and non enim. Lightfoot ob- jects that this interpretation is not 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, quibus ipse tradi- derit evangelium; for that is in no sense the question in- volved. The source denied is, παρὰ ἀνθρώπου, “ from man,” with the notion of conveyance, παρά denoting a nearer source than ἀπό. ,. 36 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. It might have been ἀπὸ X., and yet παρὰ avOpé7rov—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 παράδοσις. The distinctive mean- ings of παρά and ἀπό---ἴον 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: Οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην ---- nor was I taught it’’ The reading οὐδὲ is found in A, D’, F, 8, and is but ill supported, being probably an unconscious assimilation to the previous particle commencing the verse. The adverb οὔτε often occurs simi- larly, and, as Winer says, divides the negation (§ 55-6). The ovdé belongs only to the previous clause, and its connection with the foregoing verse. The οὔτε is not co-ordinate with οὐδέ, 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 denoted reception of authority to preach, apostolatus onus Paulo _ impositum, and the other referred to instruction; for αὐτό goes back distinctly to εὐαγγέλιον. See Mark vii. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 1-3; Pinkwiv.;9; ᾿Αλλὰ δ ἀποκαλύψεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ ---““ but through revelation of Jesus Christ.” Αλλά 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 παρὰ ἀνθρώπου, 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 κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, and virtually asserts of his teaching what he had declared of his apostleship, that it was οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δ ἀνθρώ- που (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. ᾿Ηκούσατε yap τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν TO ᾿Ιουδαϊσμῷ---““ For ye heard of my manner of life in Judaism.” Γάρ formally commences the historical proof, and the verb ἠκούσατε 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 avacrpody,—literally and in Latin, conversatio, “conversation” in old English. He uses in Acts xxvi. 4, in reference to the same period of his life, τὴν βίωσίν μου. 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 ποτέ is peculiar, no article as τήν is attached to it, and it occurs after the noun. It is used with the verb in Eph. 11. 3, and in Eph. iv. 22 the phrase occurs, κατὰ τὴν προτέραν ἀνα- στροφήν. In the same way, words are sometimes separated which usually come in between the article and the substantive (Winer, ὃ 20). The apostle places ποτέ as he would if he had used the verb. Such is one explanation. Similarly Plato, De Leg. 685 Ὁ, ἡ τῆς Τροίας ἅλωσις τὸ δεύτερον, where Stallbaum says that τὸ δεύτερον is placed per synesin ob nomen verbale ἅλωσις. Opera, vol. x. p. 290; Ellendt, Lex. Sophoc. 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 ἐν, denotive of element, in 2 Cor. i. 12, Eph. 11, ὃ, 38 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. so the noun is here closely connected with a similar ἐν; and, according to Donaldson, the position of ποτε is caused by the " verb included in the noun. The element of his mode of life, was— Ἔν τῷ ᾿Ιουδαϊσμῷ --- 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 Macc. ii. 21, xiv. 38, 4 Macc. iv. 26, and the correspondent verb meets us in Gal. ii. 14. Similarly he says, Acts xxvi. 5, τῆς ἡμετέρας θρησκείας, 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. 11. The apostle now honestly adduces one charac- teristic of his previous life in Judaism— "Ore καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐπόρθουν avtyv—“ how that beyond measure I was perse- cuting the church of God, and was destroying it.” The con- junctive ὅτι, frequently used after ἀκούω 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 ἐδίωκον and ἐπόρθουν are to be taken in the strict sense (Schmalfeld, § 55). The second verb has been often rendered, “ was endeavouring to destroy.” So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, give it this sense—oBéoar ἐπεχείρει. 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 whom 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, J/. iv. 308), is applied to men as well as cities (Lobeck, Soph. Ajaz, p. 378, 3d ed.), and is some- times associated with καίειν (Xen. [ellen. v. 5, 27). Com- pare Wetstein, in loc. What the apostle says of himself is CHAP. I. 14. 39 abundantly confirmed. Saul,—“ he made havoc of the church,” ete., 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; “1 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 καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν, one of his favourite phrases. Rom. vii. 18; 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 Τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Oeov—“ the church of God.” 1 Cor. xv. 9. The possessive genitive tod Θεοῦ points out strongly the sinfulness and audacity of his career. It may be added that the Vulgate reads expugnabam; and F has ἐπολέμουν. This Greek was probably fashioned from the Latin. The Vul- gate has, Acts ix. 21, erpugnabat for ὁ πορθήσας, 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. Καὶ προέκοπτον ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιουδαϊσμῷ ὑπὲρ πολλοὺς συνηλικιώτας ἐν τῷ γένει μου---““ 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 év, and sometimes with a different reference by ἐπί or a simple dative, as in Luke ii. 52. His progress in Judaism was 40 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. Ὑπὲρ πολλοὺς ouvyndrLtKutas—“ beyond many contempo- raries.” Such compound terms as ouvndux., 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. ὅθ, 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— Ἔν τῷ γένει wou. Compare Acts xviii. 2, 2 Cor. xi. 26, Phil. ii. 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- ing clause : Περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου Tapa- docewv—“ being more exceedingly a zealot for the traditions of my fathers.” ‘This participial clause may be modal, as Meyer and Ellicott take it (ὑπάρχων, “as being’), but it may be causal: He excelled his contemporaries, inasmuch as he was more exceedingly zealous than they were. In περισσοτέρως the comparison is not surely, as Usteri explains, mehr als gewohnlich, but more than those contemporaries to whom he has just referred. Strange and unfounded is the notion of Gwynne, that the comparison in περισσοτέρως 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 ζηλωτής signifies one filled with zeal for what is contained in the following genitive—rod Θεοῦ, Acts xxii. 3; Tod νόμου, Acts xxi. 20; πνεύματων, 1 Cor. xiv. 12; καλῶν ἔργων, Tit. ii. 14: the genitive of person being sometimes preceded by ὑπέρ; 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— Τῶν πατρικῶν μου mapadocewv— for the traditions of my ~ CHAP. I. 14. 41 fathers,’ the genitive being that of cbject, as in the places , already quoted. The noun παράδοσις, traditio, “ giving over,” is literally employed as with πόλεως (Thucydides, iii. 53; Josephus, De Bello Jud. i. 8, 6; Sept. Jer. xxxii. 4; Esdras vil. 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 ἀγράφους διδασκαλίας. It is used of apostolical mandate, 1 Cor. xi. 2, 2 Thess. ii. 15, 11. 6; and especially of the Jewish tradition, Matt. xv. 2, ὃ, 6, τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, τὴν παρά- δοσιν ὑμῶν, in opposition to the written divine law. Mark vii. ὃ, 9,13; Col. ii. 8. Soin Josephus, Antig. 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 τοῦ πατρῴου vowov—