as Δ w ~ * - nr = Nar un . Pr er ot re . a = μάνα rs, ep ee Teta 7 Aen sce te Bote Greiner arg pn ED ee en ee ee ei - Oe a NB ὡς ταν wr, il te oe ᾽ὕ OCT 81 1963 ΕΣ, δ T. and T. Clark's Publications. In Twenty-four Handsome Svo Volumes, Subscription Price £6, 6s. od., Ante-Nicene Christian Wibraryp. A COLLECTION OF ALL THE WORKS OF THE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF NIC@A. EDITED BY THE REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D. Pe ESSRS. CLARK are now happy to announce the completion of this Series. It has been received with marked approval by all sections of the Christian Church in this country and in the United States, as supplying what has long been felt to be a want, and also on account of the impartiality, learn- ing, and care with which Editors and Translators have executed a very difficult task. The Publishers do not bind themselves to continue to supply the Series at the Subscription price. The Works are arranged as follow :— FIRST YEAR. APOSTOLIC FATHERS, comprising Clement’s Epistles to the Corinthians ; Polycarp to the Ephesians; Martyr- dom of Polycarp; Epistle of Barnabas ; Epistles of Ignatius (longer and shorter, and also the Syriac version); Martyr- dom of Ignatius; Epistle to Diognetus ; Pastor of Hermas; Papias; Spurious Epistles of Ienatius. In One Volume. JUSTIN MARTYR; ATHENAGORAS. In One Volume. TATIAN; THEOPHILUS; THE CLE- mentine Recognitions. In One Volume. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume First, comprising Exhortation to Hea- then; The Instructor; anda portion of the Miscellanies. SECOND YEAR. HIPPOLYTUS, Volume First; Refutatign of all Heresies and Fragments from his Commentaries. IRENZÄUS, Volume First. TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION. CYPRIAN, Volume First; the Epistles, and some of the Treatises. THIRD YEAR. IRENAUS (completion); HIPPOLYTUS (completion); Fragments of Third ᾿ Century. In One Volume. ORIGEN: De Principiis; Letters; and portion of Treatise against Celsus. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume Second; Completion of Miscellanies. TERTULLIAN, Volume First: To the Martyrs; Apology; To the Nations, etc. FOURTH YEAR. CYPRIAN, Volume Second (completion) ; Novatian; Minucius Felix; Fragments. METHODIUS; ALEXANDER OF LY- copolis; Peter of Alexandria; Anato- linus; Clement on Virginity; and Fragments. TERTULLIAN, Volume Second. APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS; ACTS AND Revelations, comprising all the very curious Apocryphal Writings of the first Three Centuries. ΕἸΈΤΗ ZVYEAR, TERTULLIAN, Volume Third (comple- tion). CLEMENTINE HOMILIES; APOSTO- lical Constitutions. In One Volume. ARNOBIUS. DIONYSIUS; GREGORY THAUMA- turgus; Syrian Fragments. In One Volume. SIXTH YEAR. LACTANTIUS; Two Volumes. ORIGEN, Volume Second (completion). 12s. to Non-Subscribers. EARLY LITURGIES AND REMAIN- ing Fragments. 9s. to Non-Subscri- bers. Single Years cannot be had separately, unless to complete sets; but any Volume may be had separately, price 10s. 6d.,—with the exception of ΟΕΙΘΕΝ, Vol. 11.) 12s. ; and the Harty Liruraiss, 9s. T. and T. Clark's Publications. Che Corks of St. Augustine. EDITED BY THE REV. MARCUS DODS, M.A. Lams 5 BS ΘΕΈ Ρ TiVo ΝΥ: Four Volumes for a Guinea, payable in advance (245. when not paid in advance). Vv re nnnnnnnn First YEAR— THE ‘CITY OF GOD.’ Two Volumes. WRITINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE DONATIST CONTROVERSY. One Volume. THE ANTI-PELAGIAN WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTINE. Vol. i. SECOND YEAR— ‘ LETTERS.’ Vole i: TREATISES AGAINST FAUSTUS THE MANICHZEAN. One Volume. To be Published in May. THE HARMONY OF THE EVANGELISTS, AND THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. One Volume. ON THE TRINITY. One Volume. Messrs. CLARK believe this will prove not the least valuable of their various Series, and no pains will be spared to make it so. The Editor has secured a most competent staff of Translators, and every care is being taken to secure not only accuracy, but elegance. The Works of Sr. AUGUSTINE to be included in the Series are (in addi- tion to the above)— All the TREATISES in the PELAGIAN, and the four leading TREATISES in the Donatist CONTROVERSY. The TREATISES againste Fausrus the Manichean; on CHRISTIAN Doctrine; the Trinity; the Harmony OF THE EVANGELISTS; the SERMON ON THE Mount. Also, the LECTURES on the GOSPEL OF ST. Jonn, the CONFESSIONS, a SELECTION from the LETTERS, the RETRACTATIONS, the SOLILOQUIES, and SELECTIONS from the PRACTICAL TREATISES. All these works are of first-rate importance, and only a small proportion of them have yet appeared in an English dress. The Sermons and the COMMENTARIES ON THE PSALMS having been already given by the Oxford Translators, it is not intended, at least in the first instance, to publish them. The Series will include a Lire or Sr. AuUGUSTINE, by RoBERT Rainy, D.D., Professor of Church History, New College, Edinburgh. The Series will probably extend to Sixteen or Eighteen Volumes. The Publishers will be glad to receive the Names of Subscribers as early as possible. It is understood that Subscribers are bound to take at least the books of the first two years. Each Volume will be sold separately at (on an average) 10s. 6d. each Volume. NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS. ESSRS. CLARK have much pleasure in publishing the first issue of Dr. MEYER’S COMMENTARY, VIZ. :— GALATIANS, One Volume. ROMANS, Volume I. Both of these are translated from editions quite recently pub- lished, of which early sheets were, by special arrangement, supplied by the German Publishers. The extreme care which has been given to the editing of these volumes will appear, the Publishers trust, in their great accuracy, and this will be a feature of the whole series. It is evident that the value of the Commentary very much depends on minute accuracy. It is impossible that the same regularity can be maintained in the publication of Meyer as in the other series of Messrs. CLARK. The care demanded prevents speed either in editing or printing, but no pains will be spared to proceed as rapidly as possible, and z zs hoped other two volumes may be ready about Spring next year. The Publishers are anxious to secure the Author’s latest correc- tions, and this also may involve delay. The volumes will not average more than from 350 to 400 pages each, on account of the great expense involved in the undertaking from first to last. The Subscription is One Guinea for Four Volumes, payable in advance (24s. when not so paid). EDINBURGH, 38 GEORGE STREET, July 1873. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICHE COMMENTARY ‘THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, IND) OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANOVER. From the German. THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED, WITH THE SANCTION OF THE AUTHOR, BY WIELLTAM-P. DICKSON, DD, PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. art NINE THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. EDINBURGH: ND 'T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET MDCCCLXXIII. dt, LONDON, DUBLIN, . NEW YORK, PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB, FOR & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. - « . JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. SCRIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL HANDBOOK TO THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. BY v HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, TxD. OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANOVER. TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY Ga, ΕΝ Aci Insist EDINBURG ΕΣ: fon D T CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXXIII. PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR. FAME account of the circumstances in which this | translation has been undertaken, of the plan Z| adopted in preparing it, and of the abbreviations mee throughout, will be found prefixed to the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, which also contains a Preface specially written by Dr. Meyer for the English edition of his work, It is unnecessary here to repeat the explanations there given except in so far as they concern the course which I have fol- lowed in presenting to the English reader Dr. Meyer’s work without subtraction or addition. In reproducing so great a masterpiece of exegesis, I have not thought it proper to omit any part of its discussions or of its references—however little some of these may appear likely to be of interest or use to English scholars—because an author such as Dr. Meyer is entitled to expect that his work shall not be tampered with, and I have not felt myself at liberty to assume that the judg- ment of others as to the expediency of any omission would coincide with my own. Nor have I deemed it necessary to append any notes of dissent from, or of warning against, the views of Dr. Meyer, even where these are decidedly at vari- ance with opinions which I hold. Strong representations were made to me that it was desirable to annex to certain passages notes designed to counteract their effect; but it is obvious that, if I had adopted this course in some instances, I should vi PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR. have been held to accept or approve the author’s views in other cases, where I had not inserted any such caveat. The book is intended for, and can in fact only be used with advantage by, the professional scholar. Its general exegetical excellence far outweighs its occasional doctrinal defects; and in issuing it without note or comment, I take for granted that the reader will use it, as he ought, with discrimination. The English commentaries of Bishop Ellicott, Dr. Lightfoot, and Dr. Eadie serve admirably from different points of view—-philological, historical, doctrinal—to supplement and, when necessary, to correct it; as does also the American edition of the Commen- tary in Lange’s Bibelwerk, translated and largely augmented under the superintendence of Dr. Schaff. The translation of the present volume has been executed with care by Mr. Venables, and remains in substance his work ; but, as I have revised it throughout and carried it through the press, it is only due to him that I should share the responsibility of the form in which it appears. In trans- lating a work of this nature, the value of which mainly consists in the precision and subtlety of its exegesis, it is essential that there should be a close and careful reproduction of the form of the original; but, in looking over the sheets, I find not a few instances in which ‚the desire to secure this fidelity has led to an undue retention of German idiom. This, I trust, may be less apparent in the volumes that follow. In such a work it is difficult, even with great care, to avoid the occurrence of misprints, several of which have been ob- served by Mr. Venables and myself in glaneing over the sheets. Minor errors, such as the occasional misplacing of accents, it has not been thought necessary formally to correct. We have taken the opportunity of correcting in the translation various misprints found in the original. The commentator referred to in the text as “Ambrose” (from his work on the Pauline Epistles being frequently printed with the works of that Father) ought to have been designated, as in the critical EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. Vil notes, “ Ambrosiaster,” and is usually identified with Hilary the Deacon. I subjoin a note of the exegetical literature of the Epistle, which may be found useful. We PSD: GLASGOW COLLEGE, May 1873. EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. [For commentaries embracing the whole New Testament, see Pre- face to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew ; for those which deal with the Pauline, or Apostolic, Epistles generally, see Preface to the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The fol- lowing list includes only those which concern the Epistle to the Galatians in particular, or in which that Epistle holds the first place on the title page. Works mainly of a popular or practical character have not in general been included, since, however valuable they may be on their own account, they have but little affinity with the strietly exegetical character of the present work. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally noticed by Meyer in loc. The reader will find a very valuable notice of the Patristic commentaries given by Dr. Lightfoot, p. 223 ff. ] AxersLoot (Theodorus), Reformed minister in Holland: de Sendbrief van Paullus an de Galaten, 4to, Leyd. 1695; translated into German by Brussken. 40, Bremen, 1699. Auriviruıus (Olaus): Animadversiones exegeticae et dogmatico-prac- ticae in Epistolam 8. Pauli ad Galatas. 40, Halae, 1702. Baace (Henry T. J.): St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, the text re- vised and illustrated by a commentary. 80, Lond. 1857. Bartus (Bartholomäus), Professor of Theology at Greifswald: Com- mentarii in Epistolam ad Galatas. 40, Gryphisw. 1613. BAUMGARTEN (Sigmund Jakob), Professor of Theology at Halle: Auslegung der Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Philipp., Coloss., Philem., und Thessal. (Mit Beyträgen von J. ὃ. Semler). 40, Halle, 1767. Berurzıus (Matthäus) : Epistola Pauli ad Galatas, paraphrasi et con- troversiarum explicatione illustrata. 80, Halae Sax. 1617. Borger (Elias Annes), Professor of Greek and History at Leyden: Interpretatio Epistolae Pauli ad Galatas. 80, Leyd. 1807. Boston (Thomas), minister of Ettrick : A Paraphrase upon the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians [ Works, vol. vi... 120, Lond. 1853. vill EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. BreitHaurt (Joachim Justus), Professor of Theology at Halle: Obser- vationum ex Commentario Lutheri in Epistolam ad Galatas exercitationes 10; in his “‘ Miscellanea.” Brentz (Johann), Provost at Stuttgard: Explicatio Epistolae ad Galatas. 1558. Brown (John), D.D., Professor of Exegetical Theology to the United Presbyterian Church, Edinburgh: An Exposition of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. 80, Edin. 1858. BUGENHAGEN (Johann), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg: Adno- tationes in Epistolas ad Gal., Eph., Philipp., Coloss., Thess., Timoth., Tit., Philem., et Hebraeos. 80, Basil. [1525] 1527. Carey (Sir Stafford), M.A.: The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians, with a paraphrase and introduction. 120, Lond. 1867. Carpzov (Johann Benedict), Professor of Theology and Greek at Helmstädt: Brief an die Galater übersetzt. 80, Helmstädt, 1794. CYANDLER (Samuel), minister in London: A Paraphrase and notes on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, . . . together with a critical and practical commentary on the two Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians. 40, Lond. 1777. Cuemnitz (Christian), Professor of Theology at Jena: Collegium theologicum super Epistolam ad Galatas. 4o, Jenae, 1656. CuytraeEus [or KocHHArE] (David), Professor of Theology at Rostock.: Enarratio in Epistolam ad Galatas. 80, Francof. 1569. Craupıus Taurinensis, Bishop of Turin, called also Altissiodorensis or Autissiodorensis: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas [in Magn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. ix. ]. Coccrsus [or Kocu] (Johann), Professor of Theology at Leyden: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas. 40, Lugd. Bat. 1665. CRELL (Johann), Socinian teacher at Cracow: Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas ex praelectionibus J. Crellii con- scriptus a Jon. Schlichting. 80, Racov. 1628. Eavie (John), D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis to United Presbyterian Church, Glasgow: A Commentary on the Greek text of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. 80, Edin. 1869. Ericorr (Charles John), D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians; with a critical and gram- matical commentary, and a revised translation. 8vo, Lond. 1854. 4th edition corrected, 1867. Esmarca (Heinrich Peter Christian): Brief an die Galater übersetzt. 80, Flensb. 1784. EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 1x Ferauson (James), minister of Kilwinning, Ayrshire: A brief Ex- position of the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. 80, Lond. 1659. Fuatr (Johann Friedrich von), Professor of Theology at Tübingen: Vorlesungen über den Brief an die Galater und Epheser, herausgegeben von Ch. F. Kling. So, Tübing. 1828. Frıtzsche (Karl Friedrich August), Professor of Theology at Rostock : Commentarius de nonnullis Epistolae ad Galatas locis. 3 partes. 4o, Rostoch. 1833-4 [and in Fritzschiorum Opuscula ]. GrrnagEvus (Johann Jakob), Professor of Theology at Heidelberg: Analysis Epistolae ad Galatas. 4o, Basil. 1585. Gwynne (6. J.): Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. 80, Dubl. 1869. Ha.pane (James Alexander), Edinburgh: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians. 120, Lond. 1848. HENsLER (Christian Gotthilf), Professor of Theology at Kiel: Der Brief an die Galater übersetzt mit Anmerkungen. 80, Leip. 1805. Hermann (Johann Gottfried Jakob), Professor of Poetry at Leipzig: De Pauli Epistolae ad Galatas tribus primis capitibus. 80, Lips. 1832. HILGENFELD (Adolf), Professor of Theology at Jena: Der Galaterbrief iibersetzt, in seinen geschichtlichen Beziehungen untersucht und erkliirt.... 80, Leip. 1852. Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Professor of Theology at Erlangen: Die Heilige Schrift neuen Testaments zusammen- hängend untersucht. II. 1. Der Brief Pauli an die Galater. 80, Nördlingen, 1863; 2te veränderte Auflage, 1872: Hotsten (Carl), Teacher in Gymnasium at Rostock: Inhalt und Gedankengang des Briefes an die Galater, 4to, Rostock 1859 ; also, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus. 80, Rostock, 1868. JatHo (Georg Friedrich), Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim: Pauli Brief an die Galater nach seinem inneren Gedanken- gange erläutert. 80, Hildesheim 1856. Krause (Friedrich August Wilhelm), Private Tutor at Vienna: Der Brief an die Galater übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen begleitet. 80, Frankf. 1788. Kromayer (Hieronymus), Professor of Theology at Leipzig : Commen- tarius in Epistolam ad Galatas 4o, Lips. 1670. Kunap (Andreas), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg: Disputa- tiones in Epistolam ad Galatas, 40, Witteb. 1658. x EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. Licutroot (Joseph Barber), D.D., Professor of Divinity at Cambridge: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. A revised text, with in- troduction, notes, and dissertations. 80, Lond. 1865. 3d edition, 1869. Locke (John), the philosopher: A Paraphrase and notes on the Epistles to Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and Ephesians. 40, Lond. 1733. Lusuineton (Thomas), M.A., Rector of Burnham-Westgate, Norfolk: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [said to be chiefly translated from Crell ]. fol., Lond. 1650. Lutuer (Martin): In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas Commentarius (brevior), 4to, Lips. 1519; ab auctore recognitus, 1523. In Epist. P. ad Gal. Commentarius (major) ex praelectionibus D. M. Lutheri collectus . . . a Luthero recognitus et casti- gatus, 8vo, Viteb. 1535; jam denuo diligenter recognitus, 8vo, Viteb. 1538. Often reprinted; translated into English in 1575, and often re-issued. Lyser [or Leyser] (Polycarp), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg: Analysis Epistolae ad Galatas. 40, Witteb. 1586. Martruias (G. W.), Co-rector of Gymnasium at Cassel: Der Galater- brief griechisch und deutsch, nebst einer Erkliirung seiner schwierigen Stellen. 80, Cassel, 1865. Marruies (Konrad Stephan), Professor of Theology at Greifswald: Erklärung des Briefes Pauli an die Galater. 80, Greifswald, 1833. Mayer (Ferdinand Gregorius), Professor of Greek at Vienna: Der Brief Pauli an die Galater und der 2 Brief an die Thessalo- nicher iibersetzt mit Anmerkungen. 80, Wien, 1788. MicHAELIS (Johann David), Professor of Philosophy at Göttingen: Paraphrase und Anmerkungen über die Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Phil., Col., Thessal., Tim., Tit., Philem. 4o, Bremen und Götting. 1750; 2te vermehrte Auflage, 1769. MOLDENHAWER (Johann Heinrich Daniel), pastor at Hamburg: Brief an die Galater übersetzt. 80, Hamb. 1773. Morus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), Professor of Theology at Leipzig: Acroases in Epistolas Paulinas ad Galatas et Ephesios. 80, Leip. 1795. Muscuuus [or Meussuin] (Wolfgang), Professor of Theology at Berne: In Epistolas Apostoli Pauli ad Galatas et Ephesios commen- tarii. fol., Basil. 1561) 1569. Pareus [or WarnGLer] (David), Professor of Theology at Heidel- berg: In divinam ὃ. Pauli ad Galatas Epistolam commen- tarius. 40, Heidelb. 1613, EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. xl Paurus (Heinrich Eberhard Georg), Professor of Theology at Heidel- berg: Des Apostel Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater und Römerchristen, wortgetreu übersetzt mit erläuternden Zwisch- ensätzen, einem Überblick des Lehrinhalts und Bemerkungen über schwere Stellen. 80, Heidelb. 1831. - Perkins (William), minister at Cambridge: A commentarie or exposi- tion upon the five first chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians . . . Continued with a supplement upon the sixt chapter by Rodolfe Cudworth, B.D. [ Works, vol. ii.]. 20, Lond. 1609. Prime (John), Fellow of New College, Oxford: Exposition and ob- servations upon St. Paul to the Galatians. 80, Oxf. 1587. Reıtumayr (Franz Xaver), R.C. Professor of Theology at Munich: Commentar zum Briefe an die Galater. 80, Miinchen, 1865. Rıccarroun (Robert), minister at Hobkirk: Notes and Observations on the Epistle to the Galatians [ Works, iii. ]. 80, Edin. 1771. Rorzock (Robert), Principal of University of Edinburgh: Analysis logica in Epistolam ad Galatas. 80, Lond. 1602. Rückerr (Leopold Immanuel), Professor of Theology at Jena: Com- mentar über den Brief Pauli an die Galater. 80, Leip. 1833. Sarpınoux (Pierre-Auguste): Commentaire sur l’epitre aux Galates, précédé dune introduction critique. 80, Valence, 1837. Scuarr (Philip), D.D., Professor of Theology at New York: An Intro- duction and comment on chapters i. ii. of the Epistle to the Galatians [in the Mercersburg Review, Jan. 1861 ]. Scuiruıng (Johann Georg): Versuch einer Uebersetzung des Briefes an die Galater, mit erkliirenden Bemerkungen, nach Koppe. 80, Leip. 1792. ScHLICHTING (Jonas), Socinian minister at Cracow. See Crell (Johann). Scumip (Sebastian), Professor of Theology at Strassburg: Commen- tarius in Epistolam ad Galatas. 40, Kiloni, 1690. SCHMOLLER (Otto) of Urach, Wiirtemberg: Der Brief Pauli an die Galater theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet [in Lange’s Bibel- werk], 8vo, Bielefeld 1862; 2te Auflage 1865. [Translated by C. C. Starbuck, A.M.; edited, with additions, by M. B. Riddle, D.D. 80, New York and Edin. 1870. ] Scuort (Heinrich August), Professor of Theology at Jena: Epistolae Pauli ad Thessalonicenses et Galatas. Textum Graecum re- cognovit et commentario perpetuo illustravit H. A. Schott. 80, Leips. 1834. Schürze (Theodor Johann Abraham): Scholia in Epistolam ad Galatas. 4o, Gerae, 1784. ΧΙ EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. SEMLER (Johann Salomon), Professor of Theology at Halle: Paraphrasis Epistolae Pauli ad Galatas. 80, Halae, 1779. SERIPANDO (Girolamo), Cardinal: Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas; ad nonnullas quaestiones ex textu Epistolae catholicae responsiones. 80, Antv. 1565. STOLBERG (Balthasar), Professor of Greek at Wittenberg: Lectiones publicae in Epistolam ad Galatas. 40, Wittemb. 1667. STRUENSEE (Adam), pastor at Altona: Erklärung des Briefes an die Galater. 40, Flensburg, 1764. Trana (August Leopold): Pauli ad Galatas Epistola. Exposuit, ete. 80, Gothob. 1857. Turner (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., Professor of Biblical Interpretation | at New York: The Epistle to the Galatians in Greek and English, with an analysis and exegetical commentary. 80, New York, 1856. Ustert (Leonhard), Professor of Theology at Berne: Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Galater, nebst einer Beilage . . . und einigen Excursen. 80, Zürich, 1833. Vıcrorinus (C. Marius), teacher of rhetoric at Rome about A.D. 360: In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas commentariorum libri duo [in Mai’s Scrip. Vet. Nov. Coll. iii. 2]. Weser (Michael), Professor of Theology at Halle: Der Brief an die Galater uebersetzt, mit Anmerkungen. 80, Leip. 1718: Welse (Friedrich), Professor of Theology at Helmstädt: Commen- tarius in Epistolam ad Galatas. 40, Helmst. 1705. Wesseuius (Johannes), Professor of Theology at Leyden: Commen- tarius analytico-exegeticus tam litteralis quam realis in Epis- tolam Pauli ad Galatas. 40, Lugd. Bat. 1750. WieseLer (Karl), Professor of Theology at Göttingen: Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Galater, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Lehre und Geschichte des Apostels. 80, Götting. 1859. WINDISCHMANN (Friedrich), R.C. Professor of Theology at Munich: Erkliirung des Briefes an die Galater. 80, Mainz, 1848. Winer (Georg Benedict), Professor of Theology at Leipzig: Pauli ad Galatas Epistola. Latine vertit et perpetua annotatione illus- travit Dr. G. B. Winer. 80, Lips. 1821. Editio quarta aucta et emendata, 1859. ZACHARIAE (Gotthilf Traugott), Professor of Theology at Kiel: Para- phrastische Erklärung der Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Phil., Col., und Thess. 80, Götting. [1771] 1787, PREFACE. bestowed more especial and repeated labour on VAN the exposition of this than of any other book of the New Testament, the Epistle to the Galatians has always been held in high esteem as the Gospel’s banner of freedom. To it, and to the kindred Epistle to the Romans, we owe most directly the springing up and development of the ideas and energies of the Reformation, which have overcome the work- righteousness of Romanism with all the superstition and unbe- lief accompanying it, and which will in the future, by virtue of their divine life once set free, overcome all fresh resistance till they achieve complete victory. This may be affirmed even of our present position towards Rome. For, if Paul by this Epistle introduces us into the very arena of his victory; if he makes us witnesses of his not yielding, even for an hour, to the false brethren; if he bids us hear how he confronts even his gravely erring fellow-apostle with the unbending standard of divinely -revealed truth; if he breaks all the spell of hypocrisy and error by which the foolish Galatians were bound, and in the clear power of the Holy Spirit bril- liantly vindicates what no angel from heaven could with impunity have assailed ; how should that doctrine, which at this moment the sorely beset old man in the chair of the fallible Peter proposes to invest with the halo of divine sanction, —how should the ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον from Rome, which it is now sought to push to the extremity of the most flagrant contradictio in adjecto—possibly issue in any other final result X1V PREFACE. than an accelerated process of self-dissolution ? It is, in fact, the profoundly sad destiny which a blinded and obdurate hierarchy must, doubtless amidst unspeakable moral harm, fulfil, that it should be always digging further and further at its own grave, till it at length—and now the goal seems approaching, when these dead are to bury their dead—with the last stroke of the spade shall sink into that grave, to rise no more. The Epistle to the Galatians carries us back to that first Council of the Church, which at its parting could present to the world the simple and true self-witness : ἔδοξε τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύ- ματι καὶ ἡμῖν. How deep a shadow of contrast this throws not merely on the Vatican Fathers, but also—we cannot conceal it —on our own Synods, when their proceedings are pervaded by a zeal which, carried away by carnal aims, forfeits the simplicity, clearness, and wisdom of the Holy Spirit! Under such cireum- stances the Spirit is silent, and no longer bears His witness to the conscience ; and instead of the blessing of synodal church- life——so much hoped for, and so much subjected to question, — we meet with decrees, which are mere compromises of human minds very much opposed to each other,—agreements, over which such a giving the right hand of holy fellowship as we read of in this letter (ii. 9) would be a thing impossible. In issuing for the fifth time (the fourth edition having appeared in 1862) my exposition of this Epistle, so tran- scendently important alike in its doctrinal and historical bear- ings, I need: hardly say that I have diligently endeavoured to do my duty regarding it. I have sought to improve it throughout, and to render it more complete, in accordance with its design; and, while doing so, I have striven after a clearness and definiteness of expression, which should have nothing in common with the miserable twilight-haze and in- tentional concealment of meaning that characterize the selection of theological language in the present day. If I have been pretty often under the necessity of opposing the more recent PREFACE, XV expositors of the Epistle or of its individual sections, I need hardly give an assurance that I, on my part, am open to, and grateful for, any contradiction, provided only some true light is elicited thereby. Even if that opposition should come from the energies of youth, which cannot yet have attained their full exegetical maturity, I gladly adopt the language of the tragedian (Aeschyl. Agam. 583 f.): ’ Νικώμενος λόγοισιν οὐκ ἀναίνομεαι" "Asi yap ἡβᾷ τοῖς γέρουσιν εὖ μαθεῖν. Dr. MEYER. HANNOVER, 18th June 1870. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. —— INTRODUCTION. SEC. I—THE GALATIANS. may HE region of Galatia, or Gallograecia (see generally 4 Strabo, xu. 5), bounded by Paphlagonia, Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, and having as its chief cities Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium, derived its name from the Gauls (Γαλάται, which is only a later form of the original Κελτοί or Κέλται, Pausan. 1. 3,5). For the Gallic tribes of the Τροκμοί and Τολιστοβόγοι (Strabo, 1.6. p. 566), —in conjunction with the Germanic’ tribe of the Tectosages, which, according to Strabo, was akin to them in language (Caes. B. Gall. vi. 24; Memnon in Phot. cod. 224, p. 374),— after invading and devastating Macedonia and Greece (Justin. xxiv. 4) about-280 B.c., and establishing in Thrace the kingdom of Tyle (Polyb. iv. 45 f.), migrated thence under the leadership of Leonorius and Lotharius to Asia, where they received a territory from the Bithynian king Nicomedes for their services in war. This territory they soon enlarged by predatory expe- 1 This serves to explain Jerome’s statement, based on personal experience (Prol. in libr. secund. comment. in ep. ad Gal.), that the popular language, which in his time was still spoken by the Galatians along with Greek, was almost the same (eandem paene) with that of the Treviri. Now the Treviri were Germans (Strabo, iv. p. 194), and ‘‘ circa affectationem Germanicae originis ultro ambitiosi” (Tacit. Germ. 28). Comp. Jablonski, de lingua Lycaon. p. 23. See, generally, Diefenbach, Celtica, Stuttg. 1839 f. ; Rettberg, Kirchengesch. Deutschl. 1. p. 19 ff. The two last, without adequate grounds, call in question the Ger- manic nationality of the Galatians. See, on the other side, Wieseler, p. 524 ff., and in Herzog’s Encykl. XIX. p. 524. The conversion of the Galatians is the beginning of German Church-history. A 2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. ditions (Liv. xxxviii. 16; Flor. ii. 11; Justin. xxv. 2; Strabo, iv. p. 187, xii. p. 566); although by Attalus, king of Pergamus, who conquered them, it was restricted to the fertile region of the Halys (Strabo, xii. p. 567; Liv. xxxviii. 16). „ This powerful, dreaded (Polyb. v. 53; 2 Mace. vii. 20), and freedom-loving (Flor. 1. 11) people, were brought into subjection to the Romans by the consul Cn. Manlius Vulso, 189 Βα. (Liv. xxxvii. 12 ff); but they still for a long time retained both their Celtic cantonal constitution and their own tetrarchs (Strabo, xii. pp. 541, 567), who subsequently bore the title of king (Cie. p. rege Deiotaro ; Vellei. ii. 84; Appian, v. p. 1135; Plut. Ani. 61). The last of these kings, Amyntas (put to death 26 8.0.), owed it to the favour of Antonius and Augustus that Pisidia and parts of Lycaonia? and of Pamphylia were added to his territory (Dio Cass. xlix. 32, lili. 26; Strabo, xu. p. 569). In the year 26 Galatia, as enlarged under Amyntas, became a Roman province (Dio Cass. lili. 26; Strabo, xii. p. 569). See generally, in addition to the Commentaries and Introductions, Wernsdorf, de republ. Galatar., Norimb. 1743 ; Hoffmann, Introd. theol. crit. in lect. ep. P.ad Gal. et Col., Lips. 1750; Schulze, de Galatis, Francof. 1756; Mynster, Einl. in d. Brief an d. Gal., in his kl. theol. Schr., Kopenh. 1825, p. 49 ff; Hermes, rerum Galaticar. specimen, Vratisl. 1822; Baumstark, in Pauly’s Realeneykl. III. p. 604 ff.; Riietschi, in Herzog’s Zneykl. IV. p. 637 f.; Contzen, Wanderungen der Celten, Leip. 1861. On account of the additional territories thus annexed to Galatia proper under Amyntas, it has been maintained that the readers of this epistle are not to be looked upon as the Galatians proper, but as the new Galatians, that is, Lycaonians (especially the Christians of Derbe and Lystra) and Pisidians (Joh. Joach. Schmidt (in Michaelis); Mynster, 1.0. p. 58 ff ; Niemeyer, de temp. quo ep. ad Gal. ete., Gott, 1827; Paulus, in the Heidelb. Jahrb. 1827, p. 636 ff, and Zehrbriefe an d. Gal. u. Rom. p. 25 ff; Ulrich, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, i; 3öttger, Beitr. 1 and 3; Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 124). But this view is decisively opposed both by the 1 Not the whole of Lycaonia, particularly not the south-eastern portion and Iconium. See Rückert, Magaz. I. p. 98 fl. INTRODUCTION, 3 language of Acts (xiv. 6, comp. with xvi. 6, xvill. 23), in which the universally current popular mode of designation, not based on the new provincial arrangements, is employed; and also by the circumstance that Paul could not have expressed himself (Gal. i. 2) in a more singular and indefinite way than by ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας, if he had not meant Galatia proper, the old Galatia. Nor are any passages found in Greek authors, in which districts of Lycaonia or Pisidia are designated, in accordance with that extension of the limits of the province, by the name of Galatia. See Riickert, Magaz. I. p. 105f.; Anger, de ratione temp. p. 132 ff.; Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 281 f., and on Gal. p. 530 ff. The founder of the Galatian churches was Paul himself (Gal. i. 6-8, iv. 13 ff) on his second missionary journey, Acts xvi. 6 (not so early as xiv. 6). Bodily weakness (iv. 13) had compelled him to make a halt in Galatia, and during his stay he planted Christianity there. Looking at the in- voluntary character of this occasion and the unknown nature of the locality to which his first work in the country was thus, as it were, accidentally directed, it might appear doubtful whether in this case he followed his usual rule, as attested in Acts, of commencing his work of conversion with the Jews ; but we must assume that he did so,' for the simple reason that he would be sure to seek the shelter and nursing, which in sick- ness he needed, in the house of one of his own nation: comp. on iv. 14. Nor was there any want of Jewish residents, possibly in considerable numbers, in Galatia (as we may with reason infer from Joseph. Antt. xii. 3. 4, xvi. 6. 2, as well as from the diffusion of the Jews over Asia generally ; not, however, from 1 Pet. i. 1); althoush from the epistle itself it is evident (see sec. 2) that the larger part, indeed the great majority, of its readers (not the whole, as Hilgenfeld thinks; comp. Hofmann) consisted of Gentile Christians. The arguments from the Old Testament (together with a partially rabbinical mode of interpretation), which Paul nevertheless employs, were partly based on the necessary course of the apostolic 1 As also Neander, de Wette, Wieseler, and most others assume, in opposi- tion, however, to Schneckenburger (Zweck d. Apostelgesch. p. 104), Baur, and Hilgenfeld. 4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, preaching which had to announce Christ as the fulfilment of - Old Testament promises, as well as on the acquaintance with the Old Testament which was to be presupposed in. all Christian churches (comp. on iv. 21); partly suggested to the apostle by the special subject itself which was in question (see sec. 2); partly justified, and indeed rendered necessary, by the fact that the apostle—who must, at any rate, have taken notice of the antagonistic teachers and the means of warding off their attack—had to do with churches which had already for a time been worked upon by Judaists and had thus been sufficiently introduced to a knowledge of the Old Testament. The supposition of Storr, Mynster (/.c. p. 76), and Credner, that great part of the Galatian Christians had been previously proselytes of the gate, appears thus to be unnecessary, and is destitute of proof from the epistle itself, and indeed opposed to its expressions; see on iv. 9. SEC. I.—-OCCASION, OBJECT, AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. Judaizing Christian teachers with Pharisaic leanings (comp. Acts xvi. 1)—emissaries from Palestine (not unbelieving Jews ; Michaelis, Zinl..—had made their appearance among the Galatian churches after Paul, and with their attacks upon his apostolic dignity (i. 1, 11, ii. 14), and their assertion of the necessity of circumcision for Christians (v. 2, 11, 12, vi. 12 £.), which involved as a necessary consequence the obligation of the whole law (v. 3), ‘had found but too ready a howe so that the Judaizing tendency was on the point of getting the upper hand (i. 6, iii. 1, 3, iv. 9ff, 21, v. 2 ff., 7). Now the question is, whether these anti-Pauline teachers—who, how- ever, are not, on account of v. 12, vi. 13, to be considered either wholly or in part as proselytes (Neander, Schott, de Wette; see, on the other hand, Hilgenfeld, p. 46 f.)—made their appearance before (Credner, Rückert, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, Wieseler, and others), or not till after (Neander, de Wette, Hofmann, and others), the second visit of the apostle (Acts xviii. 23; see sec. 3). From i. 6, 111. 1, it is evident that Paul now for the first time has to do with the church as’ actually perverted ; he is surprised and warmly indignant at INTRODUCTION. 5 what had taken place. Nevertheless it is evident, from i. 9, v. 3, iv. 16, that he had already spoken personally in Galatia against Judaizing perversion, and that with great earnestness. We must therefore assume that, when Paul was among the Galatians for the second time, the danger was only threatening, but there already existed an inclination to yield to it, and his language against it was consequently of a warning and precautionary nature. It was only after the apostle’s departure that the false teachers set to work with their perversions ; and although they did not get so far as cir- cumcision (see on iv. 10), still they met with so much success,’ and caused so much disturbance of peace (v. 15), that the accounts came upon him with all the surprise which he indi- cates ini. 6, iii. 1. Comp. also Ewald, p. 54; Lechler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 383. In accordance with this state of things which gave occasion to the letter, it was the object of Paul to defend in it his apostolic authority, and to bring his readers to a triumphant conviction of the freedom of the Christian from circumcision and the Mosaic law through the justification arising from God’s grace in Christ. But we are not entitled to assume that “jin the liveliness of his zeal he represented the matter as too dangerous” (de Wette) ; the more especially as it involved the most vital question of Pauline Christianity, and along with it also the whole personal function and position of the apostle, who was divinely conscious of the truth of his gospel, and therefore must not be judged, in relation to his opponents, according to the usual standard of “ party against party.” ” As regards contents, (1) the apologetico-dogmatie portion of the epistle divides itself into two branches: (a) the defence of the apostolic standing and dignity of Paul, ch. i. and ii., in connec- tion with which the foundation of Christian freedom is also set forth in ii. 15-21; (Ὁ) the proof that the Christian, through God’s grace in Christ, is independent of circumcision and Mosaism, ch. iii. and iv. Next, (2) in the hortatory portion, the readers are encouraged to hold fast to their Christian 1 To the extent, at any rate, of an observance of the Jewish feast-days and seasons (iv. 10). 2 Baur, Paulus, 1. p. 282, ed. 2. 6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. freedom, but also not to misuse it, ch. v. Then follow other general exhortations, ch. vi. 1-10; and finally an energetic autograph warning against the seducers (vi. 11-16), and the conclusion. The idea that the epistle is the reply to a letter of information and inquiry from the church (Hofmann), is neither based on any direct evidence in the epistle itself (how wholly different is the case with 1 Cor. !), nor indirectly sug- gested by particular passages (not even by iv. 12); and such an assumption is by no means necessary for understanding the course and arguments of the epistle. SEC. UIIL.—-TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION—-GENUINENESS. The date of composition may be gathered from iv. 13, com- pared with Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23. From εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον, iv. 13, it is most distinctly evident that, when Paul wrote, he had already twice visited Galatia and had preached the gospel there. The constant use of εὐαγγελίζεσθαι to denote oral preaching precludes us from taking (with Grotius, and Keil, Anal. IV. 2, p. 70) τὸ πρότερον as said with relation to his present written instruction. Those, therefore, are certainly in error, who assume that the epistle was com- posed after the jist visit of the apostle, whether this first visit be placed correctly at Acts xvi. 6 (Michaelis) or erroneously at Acts xiv. 6 (Keil). As regards the latter, Keil has indeed asserted that in ch. 1. and ii. Paul continues his history only down to his second journey to Jerusalem, Acts xi. 30 ; that he does not mention the apostolic conference and decree, Acts xv. (comp. also Ulrich, l.c.); and that in this epistle his judgment of Mosaism is more severe than after that conference. But the journey, ii. 1, is identical with that of Acts xv. (see the commentary); his omission to mention the apostolic confer- ence and decree’ is necessarily connected with the self-sub- sistent position—wholly independent of the authority of all the other apostles, and indeed recognised by the “ pillars” 1 Against the opinion that the unhistorical character of the narrative of the apostolic council and decree may be inferred from our epistle (Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld), see on Acts xv. 15f. The Tiibingen school believe that in this epistle they have found “the Archimedean point of their task” (Hilgen- feld, in the Zeitschrift f. histor. Theol. 1855, p. 484). INTRODUCTION. 7 themselves (ii. 9 £)— which Paul claimed for himself on prin- ciple in opposition to Judaizing efforts. Therefore neither in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (vii. 1 ff, x. 23 ff), nor in that to the Romans (ch. xiv.), nor anywhere else, does he take any notice of the Jerusalem decree. Assured of his own apostolic independence as a minister of Christ directly called and furnished with the revelation of the gospel for the Gentile world in particular, he has never, in any point of doctrine, cited in his favour the authority of other apostles or decrees of the church; and he was least likely to do so when, as in the present case, the matter at stake was a question not merely affecting some point of church-order, but concerning the deepest principles of the plan of salvation.” Moreover, the first three injunctions of that decree in particular (Acts xv. 29) agree so little with the principle of full Christian liberty, consistently upheld in the letters of the apostle, that we must suppose the decree to have speedily—with his further official experience acquired after the council—lost altogether for him its provi- sional obligation. It is, further, a mistake to apply ἡ περί- χώρος, Acts xiv. 6, to Galatia, as, besides Keil, also Koppe, Borger, Niemeyer, Mynster, Paulus, Bottger, and others, have done; for this περίχωρος can only be the country round Lystra and Derbe, and it is quite inadmissible to transfer the name to the Lycaonian region (see sec. 1). Lastly, in order to prove a very early composition of the letter, soon after the conversion of the readers, appeal has been made to οὕτω ταχέως, 1. 6, but without due exegetical grounds (see the commen- tary); and indeed the mention of Barnabas in ii. 13 ought not to have been adduced (Koppe), for a personal acquaint- ance of the readers with him (which they must certainly have made before Acts xv. 59) is not at all expressed in it. If, in accordance with all these considerations, the epistle was not written after the first visit to Galatia,—a date also inconsistent 1 This uniform silence as to the decree in all the epistles shows that that silence in our epistle must not be explained either by the presumed acquaint- ance of the Galatians with it (Schaff, p. 182), or by the idea that the apostle was unwilling to supply his opponents with any weapon against him (Ebrard). 2 «“ His word as Christ’s apostle for the Gentiles must be decree enough for them” (Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 130. See also Wieseler, in Herzog’s Encykl. XIX. p. 528). ὃ THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. with the fact that its contents presuppose a church-life already developed, and an influence of the false teachers which had already been some time at work—and if the first visit of the apostle is to be placed, not at Acts xiv. 6, but at Acts xvi. 6,1 followed by the second visit confirming the churches, Acts xvii. 23, then most modern expositors, following the earlier, are right in their conclusion that the epistle was not composed until after Acts xviil. 23. So Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Hug, de Wette, Winer, Hemsen, Neander, Usteri, Schott, Riickert, Anger, Credner, Guericke, Olshausen, Wieseler, Reuss, Hilgen- feld, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann, and others. We must reject the views, which place the date of composition between Acts xvi. 6 and Acts xviii. 23, as maintained by Grotius (on 1. 2), Baumgarten, Semler (on Bawmg. p. 895, not in the Paraphr.), Michaelis, Koppe, Storr, Borger, Schmidt, Mynster, or which carry the epistle back to a date even before the apostolic con- ference, as held by Beza, Calvin, Keil, Niemeyer, Paulus, Böttger,’ Ulrich. As we cannot gather from the relative expression οὕτω ταχέως (i. 6) how soon after Acts xviii. 23 the epistle was composed, the year of its composition cannot be stated more precisely than (see Introd. to Acts) as about 56 or 57.4 Ephesus 1 It has been objected, indeed, that on this journey Paul only confirmed the churches, which presupposes an earlier conversion (Acts xv. 36 ff., xvi. 5). But Acts xvi. 6 begins a new stage in the historical narrative, and Phrygia and Galatia are separated from those places to which the confirming ministry re- ferred. Nor is it to be said that in Acts xvi. 6 Paul was withheld by the Spirit from preaching in Galatia. For the hindrance by the Spirit affected not Galatia, but the regions along the coast of Asia Minor. See on Acts xvi. 6. - ne to Paulus, the apostle wrote to the New-Galatians (see sec. 1), whom he converted at Acts xiv. 6 and visited for the second time (Gal. iv. 13) at Acts xiv. 21. 3 According to Böttger (Beitr. 3, § 1-11), the epistle is addressed to the New- Galatians (Lycaonians and Pisidians), and was written in the year 51, after the first missionary journey of the apostle. Béttger has repeated Keil’s arguments, and has added fresh ones, which are untenable. See their copious refutation by Riickert, Magaz. I. p. 112 ff. 4 From the remarkable difference in the positions which have been assigned to our letter in the history of the apostle,—Marcion (in Tertull. c. Marc. 5, and in Epiph. Her. xlii. 9), and subsequently Michaelis, Baumgarten, Koppe, Schmidt, Keil, Mynster, Niemeyer, Paulus, Ulrich, making it the very first, and Schrader and Köhler the very last, of the Pauline epistles,—it was natural that the year of composition should be fixed at the most various dates, even apart INTRODUCTION. 9 appears to be the place from which it was written; for Paul proceeded thither after his second labours in Galatia (Acts xix. 1). So Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and most modern expositors. Riickert, however, following Hug, main- tains that Paul wrote his epistle very soon after his departure from Galatia, probably even on the journey to Ephesus; but, on the other hand, the passage iv. 18 indicates that after the apostle’s departure the Judaists had perverted the churches which he had warned and confirmed, and some measure of time must have been required for this, although the perver- sion appears still so recent that there is no adequate reason for postponing the composition of the epistle to the sojourn of the apostle at Corinth, Acts xx. 3 (Bleek conjecturally). The usual subscription, which is given by the old codd. B**, K, L, says ἐγράφη ἀπὸ “Pepys; and Jerome, Theodoret, Euthalius, and the Syrian church, as afterwards Baronius, Flacius, Salmasius, Estius, Calovius, and others, held this opinion, which arose simply from a misunderstanding of iv. 20, vi. 11, and especially vi. 17, and was quite unwarrantably supported by 1. 10 (comp. with Rom. xv. 28). Nevertheless, recently Schrader (i. p. 216 ff) and Köhler (Abfassungzeit der epistol. Schriften, p. 125 ff.), the latter of whom exceeds the former in caprice, again date the epistle from Rome. For the re- futation of which their arguments are not worthy, see Schott, Erörterung, pp. 63 ff., 41 ff, 116 ff; Usteri, p. 222 ff. . The genwineness is established by external testimony (Iren. oer ii. 6. 5, 1 ἢ 2; 1. 16, 3, v. 21. 1; Tatian, in Jerome: Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. p. 468, ed. Sylb.; Tertull. de praescr. 6, et al.; Canon Murat., Valentinus in Irenaeus, Marcion)—although the apostolic Fathers contain no trace in any measure certain, and Justin’s writings only a probable trace, of the letter '—as from the differences of reckoning as to the Pauline chronology. In consequence of this divergence of opinion as to its historical position, the statements as to the place of composition have necessarily been very various (Troas, Corinth, Antioch, Ephesus, Rome). 1 Even in Polycarp, Phil. 5, comp. Gal. vi. 7, there may be a quite accidental similarity of expression. Lardner appealed to Clem. ad Cor. i. 49; Ignat. ad Philad. 1, ad Magnes. 8; Just. Mart. ad Graec. p. 40, ed. Colon, and dis- covered in these passages allusions to Gal. i. 4, i. 1, v. 4, iv. 12. There appears to be an actual allusion to this last passage in Justin, where it runs: γίνεσθε ὡς 10 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. well as by the completely and vividly Pauline cast of the writer's spirit and language. It is thus so firmly established, that, except by Bruno Bauer’s wanton “ Kritik” (1850), it has never been, and never can be, doubted. The numerous inter- polations which, according to Weisse (Beiträge zur Krit. d. Paulin. Briefe, edited by Sulze, 1867, p. 19 ff.), the apostolic text has undergone, depend entirely on a subjective criticism of the style, conducted with an utter disregard of external critical testimony. ἐγώ: ὅτι κἀγὼ ἤμην ws ὑμεῖς. The probability of this is increased by the fact that Justin soon afterwards uses the words, ἔχθραι, ἕρεις, ζῆλος, ἐριθεῖαι, ἔυμοί, καὶ τὰ cmos τούτοις, Which look like an echo of Gal. v. 20f. CHAP, 1. 11 Παύλου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Γαλάτας. A Β Καὶ δὶ, and many min., also Copt., give simply πρὸς Γαλά- ras, which—doubtless the earliest superscription—is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. CHAPTER TI Ver. 3. ἡμῶν] is wanting only in min., Damasc. Aug. (once) ; whilst A, min., Copt. Arm. Vulg. ms. Chrys. Ambrosiast. Pel. Ambr. (once), Fulg. place it after πατρός. But as in the other epistolary salutations there is no ἡμῶν after κυρίου, it was some- times omitted, sometimes moved to the position, which it holds in the other epistles, after πατρός (Rom. 1. 7; 1 Cor. 1. 3; 2 Cor. 1. 2, et al.). — Ver. 4. περί] Elz. has ὑπέρ, in opposition to A D EFGK LNs, and many min, also Or. Theophyl. Oec. This external evidence is decisive, although Paul has written ὑπὲρ τ. @wupr. only in 1 Cor. xv. 3. — Ver. 6. Χριστοῦ] is wanting in F G, Boern. Tert. (twice), Cypr. (twice), Lucif. Victorin. But with the erroneous (although very ancient) connection of Χριστοῦ with χαλέσαντος, Χριστοῦ, since the καλεῖν is God’s, could not but give offence; and hence in 7, 43, 52, et al., Theodoret, Or., it is changed for Θεοῦ. --- Ver. 10. εἰ ἔτι] Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have εἰ yep ἔτι. But γάρ is wanting in A Β D* F Gx, min, Copt. Arm. Vulg. It. Cyr. Damasc. and Latin Fathers, and has been inserted for the sake of connection. — Ver. 11. Instead of δέ, B D* FG s**, 17, 213, It. Vulg. and Fathers have γάρ. The latter has mechanically crept in from the use of the same word before and after (vv. 10, 12). s*** has restored 62. — Ver. 12. Instead of οὔτε, A D* FG, min., and Greek Fathers have οὐδέ. So Lachm. A mechanical error of copying after the previous οὐδέ. — Ver. 15. ὁ Θεός] after εὐδοκ. is wanting in BF G, 20, and many vss. and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. and Schott; deleted by Tisch. ; rejected justly also by Ewald and Wieseler. An ex- planatory addition. — Ver. 17. ἀνῆλθον] B Ὁ E Τὸ G, 46, 74, Syr. Syr. p. (in the margin), Bas., have ἀπῆλθον. So Lachm. and Schott. Certainly ἀνῆλθον has the appearance of interpolation, suggested as well by the direction of the journey (comp. ἀναβαίνειν sig 12 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. ‘Ieposoa.) as by ver. 18. — Ver. 18. Πέτρον] A B s, min., Syr. Erp. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Syr. p. (inthe margin) have Κηφᾶν. ‘Approved of by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Schott, Tisch. Justly ; the Hebrew name, both here and also in ii. 9, 11, 14, was supplanted by the Greek as a gloss; hence in ii, 7, 8, where Paul himself wrote the Greek name, the variation Κηφᾶς does not occur. We must not assume that the reading Κηφᾶν arose through several Fathers, like Clem. Al. in Eus. 1. 12, being unwilling to refer the unfavourable account in ii. 11 ff. to the Apostle Peter (Winer), because otherwise the Hebrew name would only have been used from ii. 11 onwards. Contrents.—After the apostolic address and salutation (vv. 1-5), Paul immediately expresses his astonishment that his readers had so soon fallen away to a false gospel; against the preachers of-which he utters his anathema, for he seeks to please God, and not men (vv. 6-10). Next, he assures them that his gospel is not of men, for he had not received it from any man, but Christ had revealed it to him (vv. 11, 12). In order to confirm this historically, he appeals to his pre-Chris- tian activity in persecution and to his Jewish zeal at that time (vv. 18, 14), and gives an exact account of his journeys and abodes from his conversion down to his formal acknowledgment on the part of the original apostles ; from which it must be evi- ‘ dent that he could be no disciple of the apostles (vv. 15-24). Ver. 1. ’AmooroXos οὐκ am ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλά κιτ.λ.] Thus does Paul, with deliberate incisiveness and careful definition, bring into prominence at the very head of his epistle his (in the strictest sense) apostolic dignity, because doubt had been thrown on it by his opponents in Galatia. For by οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων he denies that his apostleship proceeded from men (causa remotior), and by οὐδὲ δι’ avOp. that it came by means of a man (causa medians). It was neither of human origin, nor was a man the medium of conveying it. Comp. Bernhardy, pp. 222, 236; Winer, p. 390 [Εἰ T. 521]. On ἀπό, comp. also Rom. xiii. 1. To disregard the diversity of meaning in the two prepositions (Semler, Morus, Koppe, and others), although even Usteri is inclined to this view (“ Paul meant to say that im no respect did his office depend on human authority”), is all the more arbitrary, seeing that, while the two CHAP. I. 1. 13 negatives very definitely separate the two relations, these two relations cannot be expressed by the mere change of number (Koppe, “non hominum, ne cujusquam quidem hominis;” comp. Bengel, Semler, Morus, Rosenmüller). This in itself would be but a feeble amplification of the thought, and in order to be intelligible, would need to be more distinctly indicated (perhaps by the addition of πολλῶν and ἑνός), for otherwise the readers would not have their attention drawn off from the difference of the prepositions. Paul has on the second occasion written not ἀνθρώπων again, but ἀνθρώπου, because the contrast to δι’ ἀνθρώπου is διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. It was not a man, but the exalted Christ, through whom the divine call to the apostleship came to Paul at Damascus; αὐτὸς ὁ δεσπότης οὐρανόθεν ἐκάλεσεν οὐκ ἀνθρώπῳ χρησάμενος ὑπουργῷ, Theo- doret. And this contrast is quite just: for Christ, the incarnate Son of God, was indeed as such, in the state of His self-re- nunciation and humiliation, ἄνθρωπος (Rom. v.15; 1 Cor. xv. 21), and in His human manifestation not specifically different from other men (Phil. ii. 7; Gal. iv. 4; Rom. vii. 3); but in His state of exaltation, since He is as respects His whole divine-human nature in heaven (Eph. 1. 20 ff.; Phil. 11. 9, ii. 20, 21), He is, although subordinate to the Father (1 Cor. iii. 23, xi. 3, xv. 28, et al.), partaker of the divine majesty which He had before the incarnation, and possesses in His whole person at the right hand of God divine honour and divine dominion. Comp. generally, Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 327; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 306. — καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός] Following out the contrast, we should expect καὶ ἀπὸ Θεοῦ rarp. But availing himself of the variety of form in which his idea could be set forth, Paul comprehends the properly twofold relation under one preposition, since, in point of fact, with respect to the modification in the import of the διά no reader could doubt that here the causa principalis is conceived also as medians. As to this usage of διά in popular language, see on 1 Cor. i. 9. Christ is the mediate agent of Paul’s apostleship, inasmuch as Christ was the instrument through which God called him; but God also, who nevertheless was the causa principalis, may be conceived of under the relation of dua (comp. iv. 7; Lach- mann), inasmuch as Christ made him His apostle οὐκ ἄνευ 14 TIIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. Θεοῦ πατρός, but, on the contrary, through the working of God, that is, through the interposition of the divine will, which exerted its determining influence in the act of calling (comp. 1 Cor. i. 1;°2 Cor. 1 1; Eph. 1 1; Coli 1; Tas Tim. i. 1). Comp. Plat. Symp. p. 186 E, διὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τουτοῦ κυβερνᾶται; and Rom. xi. 36, δ αὐτοῦ τὰ πάντα; Winer, p. 354f. [E. T. 474]. — The words Θεοῦ πατρός (which together have the nature of a proper name: comp. Phil. ii. 11; Eph. vi. 23; 1 Pet. i. 2), according to the context, present God as the Father of Jesus Christ, not as Father generally (de Wette; comp. Hilgenfeld), nor as our Father (Paulus, Usteri, Wieseler). The Father is named after the Son by way of climax (comp. Eph. v. 5): in describing the superhuman origin of his apostle- ship Paul proceeds from the Higher to the Highest, without whom (see what follows) Christ could not have called him. Of course the calling by Christ is the element deeisive of the true ἀποστολή (Wieseler) ; but it would remain so, even if Paul, advancing to the more definite agent, had named Christ after God. The supposition of a dogmatic precaution (Theodoret, iva μή τις ὑπολάβῃ ὑπουργὸν εἶναι τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱόν, εὑρὼν προσκείμενον τὸ διά, ἐπήγαγε καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός ; comp. Chry- sostom, Calovius, and others) would be as irrelevant and inap- propriate, as Riickert’s opinion is arbitrary, that Paul at first intended merely to write διὰ I. X., and then added as an after- thought, but inexactly (therefore without ἀπό), καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός. — τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν] For Paul was called to be an apostle by the Christ who had been raised wp bodily from the dead by the Father (1 Cor. xv. 8, ix. 1; Acts ix. 22, 26); so that these words involve a historical confirmation of that καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός in its special relation as thoroughly assuring the full apostolic commission of Paul:* they are not a mere designation of God as originator of the work of redemption (de Wette), which does not correspond to the definite connection with ἀπόστολος. According to Wieseler, the addition is in- tended to awaken faith both in Jesus as the Son and in God as our reconciled Father. But apart from the fact that the Father is here the Father of Christ, the idea of reconciliation does not suggest itself at this stage ; and the whole self-descrip- 1 Comp. Beyschlag in Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 225. CHAP. I. 2. 15 tion, which is appended to Παῦλος, is introduced solely by his consciousness of full apostolic authority: it describes by contrast and historically what in other epistles is expressed by the simple κλητὸς ἀπόστολος. The opinion that Paul is pointing at the reproach made against him of not having scen Christ (Calvin, Morus, Semler, Koppe, Borger; comp. Ellicott), and that he here claims the pre-eminence of having been the only one called by the exalted Jesus (Augustine, Erasmus, Beza, Menochius, Estius, and others), is inappropriate, for the simple reason that the resurrection of Christ is mentioned in the form of a predicate of God (not of Christ). This reason also holds good against Matthies (comp. Winer), who thinks that the divine elevation of Christ is the point intended to be conveyed. Chrysostom and Oecumenius found even a refer- ence directed against the validity of the Mosaical law, and Luther (comp. Calovius) against the trust in one’s own righteousness. Ver. 2. Καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί] aderdoi denotes nothing more than fellow-Christians ; but the words σὺν ἐμοί place the persons here intended in special connection with the person of the apostle (comp. ii. 3; Phil. iv. 21): the fellow- Christians who are in my company. This is rightly under- stood as referring to his travelling companions, who were re- spectively his official assistants, at the time (comp. Pareus, Hammond, Semler, Michaelis, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Winer, Paulus, Rückert, Usteri, Wieseler, Reithmayr), just as Paul, in many other epistles, has conjoined the name of official associates with his own (1 Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor. 1. 1; eet Colhi 1; 1 Thess. 1 1.5.2 1 6655: 1. 1): Instead of mentioning their names,’ which were perhaps known to the Galatians at least in part—possibly from his last visit to them (Acts xviii. 23) or in some other way—he uses the emphatic πάντες (which, however, by no means implies any very large number, as Erasmus and others, including Olshausen, have supposed), indicating that these brethren collectively desired to address the very same instructions, warnings, ex- hortations, etc., to the Galatians, whereby the impressive 1 Which indeed he might have done, even if the epistle had been, as an exception, written by his own hand (but see on vi. 11) ; so that Hofmann s view is erroneous. 16 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIIE GALATIANS, effect of the epistle, especially as regards the apostle’s op- ponents, could not but be strengthened, and therefore was certainly intended to be so strengthened (comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, and others). At the same time, there is no need to assume that his opponents had spread abroad the suggestion that some one in the personal circle of the apostle did not agree with him in his teaching (Wieseler) ; actual indications of this must have been found in the epistle. Others have thought of all the Christians in the place where he was then sojourning (Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Calovius, and others; also Schott). This is quite opposed to the analogy of all the other epistles of the N. T., not one of which is composed in the name of a church along with that of the writer. It would, in that case, have been more suitable that Paul should have either omitted σὺν ἐμοί (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 20), or expressed himself in such a way as to intimate, not that the church was σὺν αὐτῷ, but that he was σὺν αὐτοῖς. To refer it (with Beza) to the office-bearers of the church, is quite arbitrary; for the readers could not recognise this in σὺν ἐμοί without further explanation. — ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ταλατ.] consequently a circular epistle to the several indepen- dent churches. The relations of the churches were different in Achaia: see on 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Cor. ii 1. The fact that Paul adds mo epithet of honour (as «Anrois ἁγίοις, or the like) is considered by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and by Winer, Credner, Olshausen (comp. Riickert), Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, a sign of indignation. Comp. Grotius, “ quia coeperant ab evangelio declinare” And justly so; because it is in keeping with the displeasure and chagrin which induce him afterwards to refrain from all such favourable testimony as he elsewhere usually bears to the Christian behaviour of his readers, and, on the contrary, to begin at once with blame (ver. 6). In no other epistle, not even in the two earliest, 1 and 2 Thess., has he put the address so barely, and so unac- companied by any complimentary recognition, as in this; it is not sufficient, therefore, to appeal to the earlier and later “usage of the apostle” (Hofmann). Ver. 3. Θεοῦ πατρός] refers here, according to the context, to the Christians, who through Christ have received the υἱοθεσία. CHAP. I. 4, 1% See iv. 26 ff.; Rom. viii.,15.—See, further, on Rom. Bui, Ver. 4. This addition prepares the readers thus early for the recognition of their error; for their adhesion to Judaism was indeed entirely opposed to the aim of the atoning death of Jesus. Comp. ii. 20, ii. 13ff “See how he directs every word against self-righteousness,” Luther’s gloss. — τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτόν] that is, who did not withhold (ἐφείσατο, Rom. viii. 32), but surrendered Himself, namely, to be put to death. This special application of the words was obvious of itself to the Christian consciousness, and is placed-beyond doubt by the addition περὶ τ. auapr. nu. Comp. Matt. xx. 28; Eph. v. 25; Tit. u. 14; 1 Tim. 11. 6; 1 Mace. vi. 44; and Wetstein in loc. — περὶ τῶν dpapT. hu.] in respect of our sins (Rom. viii. 3), on account of them, namely, in order to atone for them. See Rom. iii. 23 ff; Gal. ii. 12 ff. In essential sense περί is not different from ὑπέρ (1 Pet. iii. 18; Matt. xxvi. 28; Heb. x. 26, xiii 11; Xen. Mem. i. 1. 17; Eur. Ale. 176, comp. 701; Hom. .71. xii. 243, comp. i. 444; see Buttmann, Ind. ad Mid. p. 188; Schaefer, App. Dem. I. p. 190; Bremi, ad Dem. Ol. p. 188, Goth.), and the idea of satisfaction is im- plied, not in the signification of the preposition, but in the whole nature of the case. Hom. ZI. i. 444: Φοίβῳ. .. ἑκατόμβην ῥέξαι ὑπὲρ Δαναῶν (for the benefit of the Danai), ὄφρ᾽ ἱκλασόμεσθα ἄνακτα. As to περί and ὑπέρ in respect to the death of Jesus, the latter of which (never περί) is always used by Paul when the reference to persons is expressed, see « further on 1 Cor. i. 13, xv. 3. — ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς κ-τ.λ. End, which that self-surrender was to attain. The ἐνεστὼς αἰών is usually understood as equivalent to ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος, ὁ νῦν αἰών. Certainly in practical meaning ἐνεστώς may denote present (hence in the grammarians, ὁ ἐνεστὼς χρόνος, tempus praesens), but always only with the definite reference suggested by the literal signification, setting in, that is, in the course of entrance, that which has already begun. So not merely in passages such as Dem. 255. 9, 1466. 21; Herodian, ii. 2. 3; Polyb. i 75. 2; 3 Esd. v. 47, ix. 6; 3 Macc. i. 16, but also ! Comp. Clem. Cor. I. 49, τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. For instances from Greek authors of ἔδωκεν ἑαυτόν, see Dissen; ad Dem. de Cor. p. 348. B 18 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. in Xen. Hell. 11.1. 5; Plat. Legg. ix. p. 878; Dinarch. i. 93; Polyb. i. 83. 2,1. 60. 9, vi. 5. 4; 2 Mace. ii. 17, v1 Ὁ} comp: Schweighäuser, Lex. Polyb. p. 219; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p: 350. So also universally in the N. T., Rom. vii. 38; 1 Cor. iii. 22, vii, 26; 2-Thess. 11. 2 (comp. 2 Tim. m. 1 5 lebaase 9). Now, as this definite reference of its meaning would be quite unsuitable to designate the αἰὼν οὗτος, because the latter is not an aeon just begun, but one running its course from the beginning and lasting until the παρουσία; and as else- where Paul always describes this present αἰών as the αἰὼν οὗτος (Rom. xii. 2; 1 Cor. 1. 20; and-frequently: comp. ὁ γὺν aıwv, 1 ‚Tim. vi. 175.2) Tim. av, 105) Ik. a2) ee must explain it as the period of time which is already in the act of setting in, the evil time which has already begun, that is, the time immediately preceding the παρουσία, so that the αἰὼν ἐνεστώς is the last part of the αἰὼν οὗτος. This αἰὼν ἐνεστώς is not only very full of sorrow through the dolores Messiae (see on 1 Cor. vii. 26), to which, however, the ethical πονηρός in our passage does not refer; but it is also in the highest degree immoral, inasmuch as many fall away from the faith, and the antichristian principle developes great power and audacity (2 Thess. ii. 3 ff.; 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff; 2 Tim. ii. 1 ff.; 2 Pet. iii. 3; Jude 18; 1 John ii. 18; Matt. xxiv. 10-12). Comp. Usteri, lc. p. 348 ff.; Lücke and Huther on 1 John ii. 18. On that account this period of time is pre-eminently ὁ αἰὼν πονηρός. With his idea of the nearness of the παρουσία, Paul conceived this period as having then already besun (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 7), although its full development was still in reserve (2 Thess. ii. 8). Accordingly, the same period is here designated ὁ αἰὼν ἐνεστώς which in other places is called καιρὸς ἔσχατος (1 Pet. i. 5), ἔσχαται ἡμέραι (Acts ii. 17; 2 Tim. iii, 1), ἐσχάτη ὥρα (1 John 11. 18), and in Rabbinic FR or MD or ODT NINN (Isa. 11. 2; Jer. xxii. 20; Mic. iv. 1). See Schoettgen, Hor. ad 2 Tim. 111. 1. ( Christ, says Paul, desired by means of His atoning death to deliver us out of this wicked period, that is, to place us out of fellow- ship with it, inasmuch as through His death the guilt of believers was blotted out, and through faith, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, the new moral life—the life in the Spirit—was CHAP. I. 5. 19 brought about in them (Rom. vi. 8). Christians have become objects of God’s love and holy, and as such are now taken out of that αἰὼν πονηρός, so that, although living in this αἰών, they yet have nothing in common with its πονηρία. / Comp. Barnabas, Zp. 10, where the righteous man, walking in this world, τὸν ἅγιον αἰῶνα ἐκδέχεται. The ἐξέληται, moreover, has the emphasis and is accordingly prefixed. For how antago- nistic to this separation, designed by Christ, was the fellowship with the αἰὼν πονηρός into which the readers had relapsed through their devotion to the false teachers !—Observe, more- over, that the αἰὼν πονηρός forms one idea, and therefore it was not necessary to repeat the article before πονηροῦ (as Matthias contends) ; see Krüger, $ 57. 2. 3. — κατὰ τὸ θέλημα κ.τ.λ.] strengthens the weight of the ὅπως ἐξέληται «.7.r., to which it belongs. Comp. Eph. 1. 4 f.; Οὐ]. 1. 191. The salvation was willed by God, to whom Christ was obedient (Phil. 11. 8); the reference of κατὰ τ. eX. x.7.r. to the whole sentence from τοῦ δόντος onwards (Bengel, Wieseler, probably also Hofmann) is less simple, and unnecessary. The connection with πονηροῦ (Matthias) would only be possible, if the latter were predica- tive, and would yield an idea entirely paradoxical. — τ. Θεοῦ K. Tatp. ἡμ.] of God, who (through Christ) is our Father. Comp. Phil. iv. 20; 1 Thess. i. 3, iii. 11, 13. As to the Καὶ comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph.i 3: from the latter passage it must not be concluded that ἡμῶν belongs also to Θεοῦ (Hofmann). The more definite designation x. marp. ἡμῶν conveys the motive of the θέλημα, love. k Ver. 5. To the mention of this counsel of deliverance the piety of the apostle annexes a doxology. Comp. 1 Tim. 1. 17; Kom. x1. 36, 1x. 5, xvi. 27; Eph. ii. 2T. —n öo£a] that is, the honour due to Him for this θέλημα. We have to supply ein, and not ἐστί (Vulgate, Hofmann, Matthias), which is inserted (Rom. i. 25; 1 Pet. iv. 11) where there is no doxology. So in the frequent doxologies in the apostolic 1 It is therefore self-evident how unjust is the objection taken by Hilgenfeld to our interpretation, that it limits the Redeemer’s death to this short period of transition. This the apostle in no way does, but he portrays redemption con- cretely, displaying the whole importance and greatness of its salvation by the force of strongest contrast. This remark also applies to Wieseler’s objection. 20 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. Fathers, eg. Clement, Cor. I. 20, 38, 43, 45, 50, 58. Comp. the customary εὐλογητός, sc. εἴη, at Rom. ix. 5; Eph. i. 3. See, further, on Eph. 111. 21. Ver. 6. Without prefixing, as in other epistles, even in those to the Corinthians, a conciliatory preamble setting forth what was commendable in his readers, Paul at once plunges in mediam rem. He probably wrote without delay, immediately on receiving the accounts which arrived as to the falling away of his readers, while his mind was still in that state of agitated feeling which prevented him from using his customary preface of thanksgiving and conciliationn—a painful irritation (πυροῦ- pat, 2 Cor. xi. 29), which was the more just, that in the case of the Galatians, the very foundation and substance of his gospel threatened to fall to pieces. — θαυμάζω] often used by Greek orators in the sense of surprise at something blameworthy. Dem. 349. 3; Sturz, Lew. Xen. II. p. 511; Abresch, Dilue. Thuc. Ὁ. 309. In the N. T., comp. Mark vi. 6; John vii. 21; 1 John ii. 13. — οὕτω ταχέως] so very quickly, so recently, may denote either the rapid development of the apostasy (comp. 2 Thess. 11. 2; 1 Tim. v. 22; Wisd. xiv. 28), as Chrysostom (οὐδὲ χρόνου δέονται οἱ ἀπατῶντες ὑμᾶς x.7.d.), Theophylact, Koppe, Schott, de Wette, Windischmann, Ellicott, Hofmann, Reithmayr understand it; or its early occurrence (1 Cor. iv. 19; Phil. ii. 19, ei al.), whether reckoned from the last visit of the apostle (Bengel, Flatt, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler) or from the conversion of the readers (Usteri, Olshausen). The latter is preferable, because it corresponds with ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος K.T.X., Whereby the time of the calling is indicated as the Zer- minus a quo. Comp. iii. 1-3. This view is not inconsistent with the fact that the epistle was written a considerable time after the conversion of the readers; for, at all events, they had been Christians for but a few years, which the οὕτω ταχέως as a relative idea still suits well enough. By their μετατίθεσθαι they showed themselves to be πρόσκαιροι (Matt. xiii. 21), and this surprises the apostle. As to οὕτω, comp. on 11]. 3. — μετα- τίθεσθε] μετατίθημι, to transpose, in the middle, to alter one’s opinion, to become of another mind, and generally to fall away (with eis, App. Hisp. 17; Ecclus. vi. 8; with πρός, Polyb. xxvi. 2. 6). See Wetstein in loc.; Kypke, II. p. 273; CHAP. I. 6. 2h Ast. ad Plat. de Leg. p. 497 ; from the LXX., Schleusner, s.v. ; and from Philo, Loesner, p. 325. It might also be understood in a passive sense (Theodorus of Mopsuestia, μετατίθ., not μετάγεσθε, is used: ὡς ἐπὶ ἀψύχων; Beza, “ verbum passivum usurpavit, ut culpam in pseudo-apostolos derivet”). But the use of the middle in this sense is the common one; so that the passive sense, and the nicety which, according to Beza, is in- volved in it, must have been more definitely indicated to the reader in order to be recognised. The present tense denotes that the readers were still in the very act of the falling away, which began so soon after their conversion. According to Jerome, the word itself is intended to convey an allusion to the name Galatia: “Galatia enim translationem in nostra lingua sonat” (7 ; hence 1243, me3, carrying away). Although approved by Bertholdt, this idea is nevertheless an empty figment, because the thing suggested the expression, and these Hebrew words denote the μετατίθεσθαι in the sense of exile (see Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 285). But from an historical point of view, the appeals of Grotius and Wetstein to the fickleness of the Gallic character (Caes. B. Gall. iii. 19, iv. 5, ü. 1, iii. 10) are not without interest as regards the Galatians. — ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαν- Tos ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι X.] On ἀπό, away from, comp. 2 Mace. vii. 24; and see generally, Kühner, § 622 c. The τοῦ καλέσαντος is not to be taken with Χριστοῦ, as Syr., Jerome, Erasmus (in the version, not in the paraphrase and annotations), Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and others, also Morus and Flatt, understand it; against which may be urged, not (with Matthies and Schott) the want of the article before Χριστοῦ (see on Rom. ix. 5; comp. also 1 Pet. 1. 15), but the fact that the calling into the kingdom of the Messiah is presented by Paul (and the apostles generally) so constantly as the work of God, that we must not deviate from this analogy in explaining the words (see on Rom. i. 6; and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 387). Thence, also, τοῦ καλέσ. is not to be taken as neuter, and referred to the gospel (Ewald); but ὁ καλέσας is God, and Χριστοῦ belongs to ἐν χάριτι, from Him who has called you through the grace of Christ. ᾿Εν χάριτι Χριστοῦ is instrumental ; for the grace of Christ (Acts xv. 11; Rom. v. 15; 2 Cor: vil. 9 Tit, ui) 6: comp. also Rom. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xii. 9, xiii. 13; Philem. 25), 22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, that is, the favour of Christ unmerited by sinful men, according to which He gave up His life to atone for them (comp. ver. 4), is that by which, that is, by the preaching of which, the divine calling reaches the subjects of it; comp. Acts xiv. 3, xx. 24. So καλεῖν with ἐν, 1 Cor. vii. 15; Eph. iv. 4; 1 Thess. iv. 7; to which passages the interpretation “on the ground of grace” (Wieseler) is not suitable. Others take ἐν for εἰς (Vulgate, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Beza and others, also Borger and Riickert); so that by brevity of language ἐν, indicating the result of the direction, includes within it this also; see Winer, p. 388 [E. T. 514]. This is unnecessarily forced, for such a constructio praegnans in Greek and in the N. T. is undisputed only in the case of verbs of motion (as ἔρχεσθαι, εἰσιέναι, ἐμπίπτειν, K.T.r.). Comp. also Hartung, über d. Kas. p. 68f. In point of sense, moreover, this view is liable to the objection that the κλῆσις always refers to the Messianic kingdom (1 Thess: 11..125-1. Tim. vi. 12); 2 Thess? αἱ. 14; 1 Bere 10; Rev. xix. 9, οὐ al.; also 1 Cor. 1, 9, and passages such as Col. iii. 15; 1 Thess. iv. 7), and the grace of Christ is that which procures the Messianic σωτηρία (Rom. v. 15, et. al.), and not the σωτηρία itself. On the absence of the article before. χάριτι, see Winer, p. 118 £. [E. T. 147 £.]—Observe, moreover. how the whole mode of setting forth the apostasy makes the readers sensible of its antagonism to God and salvation! Comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret. — εἰς ἕτερον evayy.] to a gospel of a different quality, from that, namely, which was preached to you when God called you. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 4. The contrast is based on the previous designation of their calling as having taken place ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ (not somehow by the law),—a statement clearly enough indicating the specific nature of the Pauline gospel, from which the nature of the Judaistie teach- ing, although the Galatians had likewise received the latter as the gospel for which it had been passed off, was withal so different (ἕτερον). Comp. ver. 8. | Ver. 7. The expression just used, eis ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, was a paradoxical one, for in the true sense there is only one gospel: it seems to presuppose the existence of several evay- γέλια, but only serves to bring into clearer light the mislead- ing efforts of the Judaists, and in this sense the apostle now CHAP. 1. 7. 23 explains it. — 6 οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ py K.T.A.] which ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, to which ye have fallen away, is not another, not a second gospel, alongside of that by means of which ye were called (ἄλλο, not ἕτερον again), except there are certain persons who perplex you, etc. That is, this ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον is not another by the side of the former, only there are certain persons who perplex you ; so that in this respect only can we speak of ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον as if it were an ἄλλο. So in‘ substance Wieseler and Hofmann; comp. Matthias. It must be ob- served that the emphasis is laid first on οὐκ and then on ἄλλο; so that, although Paul has previously said εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, he yet guards the oneness of the gospel, and represents that to which he applied the words ἕτερον evayy. as only the corruption and perversion of the one (of the evayy. τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ). Thus ei μή retains its general meaning nisi, without any need to assume (with Matthies) an abbreviation for εἰ μὴ ἄλλο ἐστὲ διὰ τοῦτο, ὅτι τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες κιτιλ The two emphatic words ἕτερον and ἄλλο preserve, however, their difference in sense: ἄλλο meaning absolutely another, that is, a second likewise existing (besides the one gospel); and ἕτερον one of another kind, different (ἕτερον καὶ ἀνόμοιον, Plat. Conv. p. 186 B). Wem 911, 73 Soph, Phil. 501, 0; Οἱ 1446 Xen® Anab vi. 4. 8 (and Krüger ὧν loc.); Wisd. vii. 5; Judith viii. 20. In the N. T., comp. especially 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, xv. 40; enCor, xa, 4% Acts iv. 12); also 1 Cor, xiv. 21; Rom. vuL:23: Mark xvi. 12 ; Luke ix. 29. Comp. also the expression ἕτερον mapa τι; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 71 A., Rep. p. 337 E. The interpretation most generally received (Peschito, Chrysos- tom, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Wolf, Bengel, and many others; also Morus, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Usteri, de Wette, Hilgenfeld) connects 6 οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο 1 Fritzsche, ad Mare. vi. 5, takes εἰ μή ironically, and τινές in the well-known sense, people of importance (see on Acts v. 36, and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 731): “nisi forte magni est facienda eorum auctoritas, qui,” etc. But the article which follows renders this interpretation not at all necessary (see below). Besides, in this sense Paul uses only the neuter (see ii. 6, vi. 3; 1 Cor. iii. 7). Lastly, he is fond of designating false teachers, adversaries, ete., as σινές, that is, quidam, quos nominare nolo (Hermann, ad Viger. l.c.). See 1 Cor. iv. 18; 2 Connie ὍΔ. 11. 12... 1 Cor ν. 12.) 1 ΊΤΩ, Ἵ, 9: 24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. merely with εὐαγγέλιον, and for the most part understands εἰ μή adversatively, “ Neque tamen est ulla alia doctrina de Jesu Christo vera; sunt vero homines,” etc., Koppe. Against this interpretation may be urged, first, the fact that ἕτερον pre- viously had the chief emphasis laid on it, and is therefore quite unwarrantably excluded «from the reference of the re- lative which follows; secondly, that Paul must have logically used some such expression as μὴ ὄντος ἀλλοῦ ; and lastly, that εἰ μή never means.anything else than nisi, not even in passages such as ii. 16; Matt. xii. 4 (see on this passage); Luke iv. 26; 1 .Cor. vil. 17; and Rev, ix, 4, xxi. 2/7... Comp. am: Od. xii. 325 f., οὐδέ τις ἄλλος ylyver’ ἔπειτ᾽ ἀνέμων, εἰ μὴ Edpos τε Νότος τε, and the passages in Poppo, ad Thue. IIL 1, p. 216. Others, as Calvin, Grotius (not Calovius), Homberg, Winer, Riickert, Olshausen, refer 6 to the whole contents of ὅτε οὕτω Taxéws .. . εὐαγγέλιον, “ quod quidem (sc. vos deficere a Christo) non est aliud, nisi, ete., the case is not otherwise than” (Winer). But by this interpretation the whole point of the relation, so Pauline in its character, which 6 οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο bears to ἕτερον, is lost; and why should the more special explanation of the deficere a Christo be annexed in so emphatic a form, and not by a simple ydp or the like? Lastly, Schott (so also Cor- nelius a Lapide) looks upon 6 οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο as a parenthesis, and makes εἰ μή τινες x.7.r. depend on θαυμάζω x.7.d.; so that that, which is expressed in the words θαυμάζω «.7.r., by εἰ μή τινες Kr. “limitibus eircumseribatur proferenda defectionis causa, qua perpendenda illud θαυμάζειν vel minuatur vel tolla- tur.’ This is incorrect, for logically Paul must have written ἐθαύμαζον av... . εἰ μή τινες ἦσαν; and with what arbitrary artifice 6 οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο is thus set aside and, as it were, abandoned, and yet the reference of the 6 to the emphatic ἕτερον is assumed! — οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς] The participle with the article designates the τινές as those whose character- istic was the ταράσσειν of the Galatians, as persons who dealt in this, who were occupied with it. Comp. the very usual εἰσὶν οἱ λέγοντες ; also Luke xviii. 9 ; Col. ii. 8. See generally Winer, p. 104 [E. T. 136]; Krüger, ὃ 50. 4. 3; Fritzsche, Quaest. ' So already the Marcionites, who proved from our passage that there was no other gospel than theirs! See Chrysostom in loc. CHAP. I. 8. 25 Luk. p. 18; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 238. On ταράσσειν, in the sense of perplexing the faith and principles, comp. here and v. 10, especially Acts xv. 24; Ecclus. xxviü. 9. — καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι) “re ipsa non poterant, volebant tamen obnixe,” Bengel; “volunt . . . sed non valent,” Jerome. On the other hand, the ταράσσειν of the Galatians actually took place. — The article before rap. refers to θέλοντες as well. See Seidler, ad Hur. Hl. 429; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 52; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 19. — μεταστρέψαι, to pervert, that is, to alter so that it acquires an entirely opposite nature. Comp. LXX. 1 Sam. x. 9; Ecclus. xi. 31; Hom. 77]. xv. 203; Dem. 1032. 1. — τὸ εὐαγγ. τοῦ X.] see generally on Mark i. 1. The genitive is here not auctoris, but, as expressing the specific characteristic of the one only gospel in contradistinction to those who were perplexing the Galatians, objecti (concerning. Christ). This is evident from ver. 6, where ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ indicates the contents of the gospel. Ver. 8. "Adda, not but, as an antithesis to οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο (Hofmann), which has already been fully disposed of by εἰ μὴ k.T.A, It is rather the however confronting most emphatically the τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες κιτιλ. “ There are some, etc. ; whoso, however, it may be who so behaves, let him be accursed !” This curse pronounced by the apostle on his opponents is indirect, but, because it is brought about by a conclusion a majort ad minus, all the more emphatic. — καὶ ἐάν] to be taken together, even in the case that. See Herm. ad Viger. Ῥ.. 832; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 140 f — ἡμεῖς] applies primarily and chiefly to the apostle himself, but the σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί (ver. 2) are also included. To embrace in the reference the associates of the apostle in founding the Galatian churches (Hofmann) is premature, for these are only presented to the reader in the εὐηγγελισάμεθα which follows. — ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ] to be taken together: an angel οὐρανόθεν καταβάς (Hom. ZI. xi. 184). Comp. ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανῷ, Matt. xxii. 30. If Paul rejects both his own and angelic authority—conse- quently even the supposed superhuman intervention (comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 1)—with reference to the case assumed, as accursed, 1 Comp. Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 6, where it is said even of the angels, ἰὰν μὴ σιστεύσωσιν εἰς τὸ αἷμα Χριστοῦ, κἀκείνοις κρίσις ἐστίν. 26 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. every one without exception (comp. ὅστις ἄν ἢ, v. 10) is in the same case subject to the same curse. The certainty, that no other gospel but that preached by the apostle to his readers was the true one, cannot be more decisively confirmed. — παρ᾽ 6 εὐηγγελισ. ὑμῖν] This 6, which is not to be explained by εὐαγγέλιον (Schott, Flatt, Hofmann), is simply that which, namely, as the context shows, as contents of the gospel; “beyond that which we,” etc. (Bernhardy, p. 259.) This may mean either practerquam (Vulgate, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Calovius, Rambach, and others) or contra (so Theodoret and the older Catholics, Grotius, and many others; also Winer, Riickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, Hofmann). For the two meanings, see Matthiae, p. 1381; Winer,, p. 377 [E. T. 503]. In earlier times a dogmatic interest was involved in this point: the Lutherans, in order to combat tradition, laying the stress on praeterquam ; and the Catholics, to protect the same, on contra. See Calovius and Estius. The contra, or more exactly, the sense of specific difference, is most suitable to the context (see ver. 6, ἕτερον evayyér.). Comp. Rom. xvi. 17. — εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν] that is, “I and my companions at the time of your conversion” (comp. παρελάβετε, ver. 9). The emphasis, however, lies on map’. — ἀνάθεμα ἔστω] Let him be subject to the divine wrath and everlasting perdition (DOM), the same as κατάρα and ἐπικατάρατος, 111. 13; see on Rom. ix. ὃ. The opposite, vi. 16. To apply it (Rosenmiiller, Baumgarten-Crusius, comp. also Grotius and Semler) to the idea of excommunication subsequently expressed in the church (Suicer, Zhes. I. p. 270) by the word ἀνάθεμα, is contrary to the usage of the N. T. (Rom. ix. 3; 1 Cor. xii 3, xvi. 22); and is besides in this passage erroneous, because even a false-teaching angel is supposed in the protasis. Comp., on the contrary, v. 10, βαστάσει τὸ κρῖμα; 2 Thess. i. 9. See generally the thoroughly excellent discussion of Wieseler, p. 39 ff. Mark, moreover, in the use of the preceptive rather than the mere optative form, the expression of the apostolic ἐξουσία, Let him be! Ver. 9. Again the same curse (“ deliberate loquitur,” Bengel) ; but now the addition of an allusion to an earlier CHAP. I. 9. 7 utterance of it increases still more its solemn earnestness. — ὡς προειρήκαμεν] is referred by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Luther, Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, and most of the earlier expositors, also Flatt, Winer, Matthies, Neander, to ver. 8. But in this case Paul would have written merely ὡς εἰρήκαμεν, πάλιν λέγω, or simply πάλιν ἐρῶ, as in Phil. iv. 4. The compound verb προειρή- kawev (v. 21; 2 Cor. vil. 3, xiii, 2; 1 Thess. iv. 6) and καὶ ἄρτι point necessarily to an earlier time, im contrast to the present. Hence the Peschito, Jerome (comp. Augustine, who leaves a choice between the two views), Semler, Koppe, Borger, Riickert, Usteri, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others, rightly take it as indicating the presence of the apostle among the Galatians at the time when he uttered this curse; comp. v. 3. We must, however, look upon this pre- sence as the second and not the first visit (Hofmann) ; for the expression in the form of curse betrays an advanced stage of the danger, and not a merely prophylactic measure. — Kat ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω] apodosis, “so say I also now (at the present moment) again;” so that πάλιν thus glances back to the time to which the πρὸ applied. Rückert regards ὡς... λέγω together as the protasis (comp. Ewald), in which case the proper apodosis, so it is in fact, before εἴ τίς would be wanting. Or rather, if ὡς. . . λέγω were the protasis, εἴ Tus ὑμᾶς... ἀνάθεμα ἔστω would be the real apodosis. But why introduce at all such a forced departure from the separation, which presents itself so naturally, and is so full of emphasis, of ὡς... λέγω into protasis and apodosis? The reference of προειρήκ. to an earlier time is certain enough; and ἄρτι, now, in the sense of the point of time then present, is very usual in Greek authors (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 18 ff.) and in the N. T. — εἴ τις ὑμᾶς κιτ.λ.] Paul does’ not here, as in ver. 8, again use ἐάν with the subjunctive, but on account of the actual occurrence puts the positive e,—thus giving to his utterance a climactic character, as in Acts v. 38 f. (see on the passage); Luke xiii 9; Winer, p. 277 [E. T. 369]; Butt- mann, neut. Gr. p. 190; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 93 B. Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21, μήπως --- μήπως --- μή. — As to 28 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. εὐωγγελίζεσθαι with the accusative, which does not occur else- where in Paul’s writings, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 268. — mapeXaßere] often used of that which one gets through instruec- tion. See Kypke, 11. p. 222. It may, however, denote either to take (actively), as in 1 Cor. xv. 1; 1 Jehni. 11; Phil iv. 9; or to receive (passively), as in ver. 12; 1 Thess. ü. 13; 1 Cor. xv. 3, et al. The latter is preferable here, as a parallel to εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν in ver. 8. Ver. 10. Paul feels that the curse which he had just re- peated twice might strike his readers as being repulsive and stern; and in reference thereto he now gives an explanatory justification (yap) of the harsh language. He would not have uttered that ἀνάθεμα ἔστω, if he had been concerned at present to influence men in his favour, and not God, ete. — ἄρτι] has the chief emphasis, corresponds to the ἄρτι in ver. 9, and is therefore to be understood, not, as it usually is (and by Wieseler also), in the wider sense of the period of the apostles Christian life generally, but (so Bengel, de Wette, Ellicott) in reference to the present moment; as in ver. 9, just as ἄρτι always in the N. T., corresponding to the Greek usage of the word, expresses the narrower idea modo, nune ipsum, but does not represent the wider sense of νῦν (ii. 20; 2 Cor. v.16; Matt. xxvi. 53, et al.), which is not even the case in the passages in Lobeck, p. 20. Hence, often as νῦν in Paul’s writings covers the whole period from his conversion, ἄρτι is never used in this sense, not even in 1 Cor. xiii. 12. The latter rather singles out from the more general compass of the νῦν the present moment specially, as in the classical combination viv ἄρτι (Plat. Polit. p. 291 B, Men. p. 85 C). Now, Paul would say, just now, when he is induced to write this letter by the Judaizing reaction against the very essence. of the true and sole gospel which he upheld,—now, at this critical point of time—it could not possibly be his business to conciliate men, but God only. Comp. Hofmann. — ἀνθρώ- mous] is quite general, and is not to be restricted either to 1 The studied design which Bengel discovers in the alternation between ὑμῖν (ver. 8) and ὑμᾶς (ver. 9), ‘‘evangelio aliquem instruere convenit insultationi ' falsorum doctorum,” is groundless. For they might say just as boastingly, * evangelium pracdicavimus vobis !” The change in the words is accidental. CHAP. I. 10, 29 his opponents (Hofmann) or otherwise. The category, which is poiated at, is negatived, and thus the generic ἀνθρώπ. needed no article (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 619. 13; Sauppe, ad Xen. Mem. i. 4, 14). — πείθω] persuadeo, whether by words or otherwise. The word never has any other signification ; but the more precise definition of its meaning results from the context. Here, where that which was repulsive in the preceding curse is to receive explanation, and the parallel is ζητῶ ἀρέσκειν, and where also the words ἢ τὸν Θεόν must fit in with the idea of πείθω, it denotes, as often in classical authors (Nägelsbach zur Ilias. 1. 100), to win over, to conciliate and render friendly to oneself (Acts xu. 20, and Kypke thereon). Comp. especially on πείθειν θεόν, Pind. Ol. ii. 144; Plat. Pol. iii. p. 390 E, ü. p. 364 C; Eur. Med. 964; also the passages from Josephus in Krebs. Lastly, the present tense expresses, Z am occupied with wt, I make ἐξ my business. See Bernhardy, p. 370. Our explanation of πείθω substan- tially agrees with that of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Flacius, Hammond,-Grotius, Elsner, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Wolf, Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, and others ; also Borger, Flatt, Winer, ‘ Rückert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten- Crusius, de Wette, Ewald (who, however, restricts the reference of ἢ τὸν Θεόν, which there is nothing to limit, to the day of jude- ment), Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others. The inter- pretations which differ from this, such as “humana suadeo or doceo, an divina” (Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Vatablus, Gomarus, Cramer, Michaelis); or “suadeone secundum homines an secundum Deum,” thus expressing the intention and not the contents (Calvin) ; or “ suadeone vobis, ut hominibus eredatis an ut Deo” (Piscator, Pareus, Calixtus; so also in substance, Holsten, 2. Evang. d. Paul. w. Petr. p. 332 ff, and Hilgenfeld), are con- trary to the meaning of the word: for πείθειν τινά always means persuadere alicwi, and is not to be identified with πείθειν τι (Acts xix. 8, xxvill. 23), placing the personal accu- sative under the point of view of the thing. — ἢ ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν] or do I strive to be an object of human goodwill ? —not tautological, but more general than the preceding. The stress which lies on ἀνθρώποις makes any saving clause on the part of expositors (as, for example, Schott, “ de ejusmodi cogitari 30 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. studio hominibus placendi, quod Deo displiceat”) appear un- suitable. Even by his winning accommodation (1 Cor. ix. 19 ff, x. 15) Paul sought not at all to please men, but rather God. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 4. — εἰ Erı ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον κ.τ.λ.] contains the negative answer to the last question. The emphasis is placed first on ἀνθρώποις, and next on Χριστοῦ: “If I still pleased men, if I were not already beyond the pos- session of human favour, but were still well-pleasing to men, I should not be Christ’s servant.” According to de Wette, Erı is intended to affirm nothing more than that, if the one existed, the other could no longer exist. But in this case "ἔτε must logically have been placed after οὐκ. The truth of the pro- position, εἰ ἔτι «.7.X., in which ἀνθρώπ. is not any more than before to be limited to Paul’s opponents (according to Holsten, even including the apostles at Jerusalem), rests upon the principle that no one ‘can serve two masters (Matt. vi. 24), and corresponds to the οὐαί of the Lord Himself (Luke vi. 26), and to His own precedent (John vi. 41). But how decidedly, even at that period of the development of his apostolic con- sciousness, Paul had the full and clear conviction that he was an object, not of human goodwill, but of human hatred and calumny, is specially evident from the Epistles to the Corinthians composed soon afterwards ; comp., however, even 1 Thess. 1. 4 ff In this he recognised a mark of the servant of God and Christ (2 Cor. vi 4 ff, x. 23 ff; 1 Cor. iv. 9). The ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν is the result of ζητεῖν ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν, and consequently means to please men, not to seek to please or to live to please them, as most expositors, even Riickert, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten- Crusius,' quite arbitrarily assume, although apart from the con- text the words might have this meaning; see on 1 Cor. x. 33; and comp. ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, Eph. vi. 6. — Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην] is understood by most expositors, following Chrysostom, including Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Paulus, 1 To live to please, to render oneself pleasing, is also Wieseler’s interpretation (comp. also Rom. xv. 1), who consistently understands the previous ἀρέσκειν in the same way. Comp. Winer and Hofmann, But there would thus be no motive for the change from ζητῶ ἀρέσκειν to ἤρεσκον only, which according to our view involves a very significant progress. Paul seeks not to please, and pleases not. CHAP, Τὸ 11; 12. 91 Schott, Riickert, “so should I now be no apostle, but I should have remained a Jew, Pharisee, and persecutor of Christians ;” taking, therefore, Χριστοῦ δοῦλος in an historical sense. But how feeble this idea would be, and how lacking the usual depth of the apostle’s thought! No; Χριστοῦ δοῦλος is to be taken in its ethical character (Erasmus, Grotius, Bengel, Semler, Zachariae, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Wieseler, and others): “ Were I still well-pleasing to men, this would exclude the character of a servant of Christ, and I should not be such an one; whom men misunderstand, hate, persecute, revile.” As to the relation, however, of our passage to 1 Cor. x. 92, see Calovius, who justly remarks that in the latter passage the πάντα πᾶσιν ἀρέσκω is meant secundum Deum et ad hominum aedificationem, and not secundum auram et volun- tatem nudam homimum. Vv. 11, 12. Theme of the apologetic portion of the epistle. See Introd. sec. 2. — δέ] carrying on the discourse. The way having been prepared for this theme in vy. 8-10, it is now formally announced for further discussion.” And after the impassioned outburst in vv. 6-10, the language becomes composed and calm. Now therefore, for the first time, we find the address ἀδελφοί. --- γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν] but (now to enter more particularly on the subject of my letter) Z make known to you. This announcement has a certain solemnity (comp, 1: Cor: xv. 1; 2 Cor. vii. 1; 1..Cor. xii. 3), which is only enhanced by the fact that the matter must have been already known to the reader. There is no need to modify the sense of γνωρίζω, which neither here nor in 1 Cor. xv. 1 means monere vos volo or the like (Morus, Rosenmüller, and: others). — τὸ εὐαγγέλιον... ὅτι] attraction, Winer, p. 581f. [E. T. 781 £.] — τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ] which has been announced by me, among you and among others (comp. 6 κηρύσσω, ii. 2); not to be limited to the conversion of the 1 See Hofmann’s interpretation of i. 11-ii. 14 in his heil. Schr. N. T. 1. p- 60ff., ed. 2. On the other hand, see Hilgenfeld, Kanon u. Kritik d. N. T. p. 190 ff. 2 If γάρ were the correct reading (Hofmann), it would correspond to the immedi>