4 Jti^iU *- "^^4-;^ 'I^Lve tAt/e Booki 'i^-fcir tie fou/nding of a. CoUege iiu this Colony'- Bought with the income of the New York Alumni Association Fund ^ ST PAUL AND JUSTIFICATION MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited LONDON BOMBAY • CALCUTTA MELBOURNE THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO DALLAS • SAN FRANCISCO THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd. TORONTO ST PAUL AND JUSTIFICATION BEING AN EXPOSITION OF THE TEACHING IN THE EPISTLES TO ROME AND GALATIA BY FREDERICK BROOKE WESTCOTT of Trinity College, Cambridge MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED ST MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON 1913 COPYRIGHT Kjz.757 31 3a) PATRI DOCTISSIMO DILECTISSIMO FILIUS NATU MAXIMUS PREFATORY NOTE 'T^HIS little work is put forth with very great hesitation and serious searching of heart. Circum stances required it should be printed; and since it has been printed, it may as well venture forth and see if it can find here and there an indulgent reader. None knows better than the writer how infinitely imperfect is his equipment for the task. On the other hand years of teaching, full of interest for himself, have shown him that even the young are not without a desire to have St Paul expounded, however ijnperfectly. O^ily the task mttst be approached without any prejudice. The Apostle must speak for himself and must not be made a mere channel for views already fixed in the mind of the commentator. Absolute honesty of interpretation must be reckoned the prime requisite. viii Prefatory Note Of erudition in these pages very little will be found. The reading of endless commentaries {not to mention tracts innumerable) has for him that wf'ites these words exiguous attrac tion. His great debt to three names will be all too obvious. Bishop Lightfoot among the departed, a?nong the living Drs Sanday and Headlatn have been ever present guides. The former is cited by name. The latter are denominated 'S.,' for convenience of brevity. Their con'imentary is indeed a model of two great virtues, lucidity and courage. For the rest, wherever departure is made from either of these two great editions, it is made with an adequate sense of the temerity involved. May the little book be found of use by some one! F. B. W. PART I THE TEACHING OF GALATIANS § I. A Word about Words The purpose of this short Essay is to expound certain passages in the writings of St Paul, dealing with a religious question, which occupied him largely during one - period of his career. The method I pro pose to myself will bring me face to face with the difficulties that beset any person who endeavours to set forth in one language ideas and thoughts originally stated in quite another. Differences of idiom, pro blems of grammar, and perhaps more especially the all but impossibility of rendering aright the niceties of vocabulary, form the chief of these difficulties. In the case of St Paul the grammar does not present (I should say) an insur mountable barrier. He had had the great ' W. I 2 Words naturally fluid advantage of birth in a Greek-speaking city, and probably spoke that language from the earliest days of his life. It was not with him, for instance, as it was with the Fourth Evangelist, in whose writings one comes across, every now and then, a sentence which will only translate by the employ ment of sheer violence. Vocabulary, on the other hand, is always, and must be, a trouble to the conscientious translator. For words are unfortunately ' fluid,' and not only has one to know what a Greek word used by St Paul meant first by origin, and then as used by him ; but also what the English ' equivalent ' (that is, would-be equivalent : for absolute ' equivalence ' is a very rare phenomenon), employed by our own translators, conveyed when tkey first used it. This opening section then will wholly deal with words — the words that are ' master-words ' in connexion with the paragraphs to be rendered later on. They belong to three several languages ; for students of the English New Testament 'Right' 'fustus' and Si/caios 3 are concerned, of necessity, with English and Latin and Greek. Hebrew (fortunately for me) is vastly less important, for as everybody knows the ' Old Testament ' of the 'New Testament' writers is the Greek and not the Hebrew. The words I mean to discuss are 81/07 and its derivatives ; 'fustus ' and its derivatives ; and the various verbal and nominal forms which derive from the English 'right! The Greek must take precedence. In the late Dr Verrall's delightful com mentary on Euripides, Medea (published alas ! how many years ago) he observes in one of his notes that the original meaning of AiKi7 is the custom or order of nature. The well-known words of the second line of the chorus, that starts at 410, KoX SCko, Kal TrdvTa Trdkiv cTTpec^erai, he renders 'Nature and the universe are turned upside down.' However I am not convinced that Stfca, in that place, means other than 'right.' 4 'Right' and 'right' -ness Originally, however, lUr) obviously meant 'way.' The notion of ' right '-ness is secondary, an accretion. This appears from the adverbial use of the accusative in Attic (kwos SiKijv ' dog's way,' or ' dog- fashion '). But there are also indications of the same sense in the Homeric poems. In fact, it is not disputed. The Sikij of 'kings' means the 'way' they comport themselves (Od. iv. 691) — in this case the very opposite of anything that could be called ' right, ' mere capricious favouring of one and disliking of another. It is easy to imagine how ' way ' or ' usage ' might develope into ' right.' Anyhow it certainly did. So we start with the assumption that 81/07 means (roughly) ' right.' The adverb 8i/cai(Ds, in the Odyssey, means simply 'rightly.' The adjective 8i/cato9 is more often used of persons than it is of things. A man is called 8tKatos when he behaves reasonably, as a civilised person should. The Si'/caios is not a person on a lofty ethical platform ; he is merely one who satisfies the dictates in Greek 5 of common usage. The adjective, in those days, was manifestly only starting upon its upward path. We are a long way yet from the St/catos (say) of Plato, or again from the abstract noun that belongs to that 8t/catos, the same Master's spacious Si/caioo-wT7. Of course, the Greek Old Testament inherited both these terms, when they were in the full possession of the higher, more ethical, meaning that came with the centuries. More important however than either the noun or the adjective (at least, originally), for Pauline purposes, is the verb that is cognate with them. Ai/caiouv in classical Greek is found with varying senses. Sometimes it means to 'set right,' as in a fragment of Pindar (151), wherein Noju,os, sovran No/u,os, is described as hiKaiSiv TO /ScaioTarov vvepTaTa X^i'pi- The instance given, of this ' right ' (which is 'might'), is the conduct of Herakles in 'lifting' Geryon's cattle. It is also em ployed (as 'justify' is in Scots) of that summary ' setting right ' of an evil doer 6 Ai/caios tn LXX. which is achieved by his abolition. More often, however, it means ' to deem right,' or else to 'demand.' But the usages of the LXX are what concern us chiefly. Here are two or three capital instances of the verb in the Old Testament, culled thanks to the kindly aid of Dr Hatch's monumental work. In Genesis xliv. i6 Judah says to his brother Joseph (after the discovery of the governor's cup in the sack), " wherein shall we clear ourselves ?" (ti 8(,/caicD^c3/u,ei' ;). In Exodus xxiii. 7 the LXX (here differing from the Hebrew, but giving an excellent sense) reads " Thou shalt not put right the impious for gifts " (ov St/catwo-ets rov da-e^y} eVe/cev hatpoiv). In 2 Sam. xv. 4 poor foolish Absalom says, in his disloyal way, "O that I were made judge in the land ; that every man might come unto me... and I would set him right !" (/cat SiKaLcocrco a-vrov). There are also two passages in the Psalms which are well worth citing ; the familiar "for in Thy sight shall no man The verb tiKaiovv 7 living be justified" (on ov SuKaLoOTJa-eTai, ivcoTTLov aov was C<^v) > ^^'^ Ixxiii. 13, " Surely in vain have I set right my heart " (/Aaratos iBiKaCcDcra Trjv Kaphtav [mov). These instances, I think, will help td bear out my contention that SuKaiovv (in O.T.) does not mean to 'make righteous' in the sense of 'right doing,' or even (as is argued) to 'account as right-doing,' but simply to 'set right ' — which is quite another matter. The fact is, 8i/fatos (in St Paul) has two different senses, one technical and one normal. Employed technically it means ' in the right,' or simply ' right,' corresponding to %iKaiovv 'to set right.' Otherwise (and the context in all cases decides the sense) it means 'righteous,' in the ordinary way. The same remark applies to the abstract noun. We must expect to find that too employed in two per fectly distinct senses. Sometimes it means the condition of one who is 'righteous' (in the sense ' right doing ') ; sometimes (and this is the technical usage) the condition of one who is ' right,' that is, right with God. 8 The problem that faced The original Latin translators, when confronted with these words, were set a difficult problem. How should they render 8i/ is a different matter. The dative, apparently the same, is (on further lar iat ions in one verse OO consideration) obviously other. St Paul entered a new life, not merely relati\ely to God, but altogether. No'/i&j diredavov and ©e&J £,7JaQ} are not in perfect balance. But that is a common phenomenon in Pauline sentences. The reader may recall a closely similar variation of datives in one sentence, that occurs in Romans vi. lo, "In that He died. He died to sin once for all : in that He liveth, He liveth for God." The relations there expressed by the datives are similarly different. St Paul, in fact, uses ^rjv TivL, not infrequently, in the sense ' to live in the interest of This is not, so far as I know, a classical usage. The phrase Xpiarai aweaTavp(i}p.ai is full of interest. Owing to the non-existence in English of an adequate equivalent for the perfect tense in Greek (for our perfect is widely different) it can only be rendered by some cumbrous periphrasis. One can either say, I am ' crucified with Christ,' or else (as above) 'Christ's crucifixion is mine too.' The perfect represents the fact as permanent and ever fruitful. The same 36 The old 'Paul' and the new idea is found in Romans (vi. 6) stated in the other possible tense, the aorist. That represents the thing as an event in historic time, a thing that once befell. Here the ' death,' implied in crucifixion, is set forth as perennially lasting. There must be a death before the new life can begin. So, spiritually also, ' death ' is the 'gate to life.' It follows that, as a consequence, Paul (in a way) is no longer alive. The old 'Paul' is gone for ever. There is a new 'Paul' now : only this new ' Paul ' is not really ' Paul' at all ; it is Christ alive in Paul. Accordingly he continues tfi Se ovKi-vi iyat, which I rendered above, ' There lives no longer I.' Greek idiom requires that the verb should be in the first person. It is like the " dapaeuTe, iyco elp,L " of the Gospel story. This however (the i,y iv e/Aot XjOtoTTos) represents only the mystical truth. There is a natural life coincident with it : there is a palpable ' Paul,' who behaves as other men in outward things, who eats and sleeps, and so forth. Yet even his life is different from the life of other Life's wholly new atmosphere 37 men, not merely in a mystical sense, but in intelligible ways. It is lived in a different atmosphere. That atmosphere is ' faith ' — " faith in the Son of God, that loved me and gave Himself for me." This personal appropriation of the love of Christ by St Paul may be said to have its rationale in the fact that Christ is Divine. At first one is tempted to say Christ could only die for the world. And indeed that might have been so were He other than He is. Believers in every age have sided with the Apostle in his strong ' personal ' con viction : and (seemingly) they have been right. What self-surrender is this of which the Apostle speaks tov . . .napaSovro'; eav- Tov ? Surely it must cover the death. How far it would be justifiable to see in the vwep ip,ov the idea of ' vicarious suffering,' it is not easy to say. Speaking in strict grammar, one could not insist on its presence. But life (ordinary human life) is very full of it : in fact, love would be at a loss, if this channel were closed to it. The xa/)it' oi V. 21 would appear to be 38 No legal fiction involved ' concrete.' It is the ' loving favour ' shown in an especial way, in the giving of the Son. To translate liKaioavvt] by ' righteous ness ' (in z/. 2 1 ) appears to me absurd. The word is meant to express the condition of the technically Si/caios — of the man ' who is right with God.' It is by no means easy to 'English.' One can 'right' a man, or ' set him right ' ; but ' rightness ' would mean nothing. The Latin says 'justitia.' It would have been somewhat happier, had it said 'justificatio.' One often hears people make mention of ' legal fiction ' in connexion with the idea of 'justification.' This appears to me to proceed entirely from a failure to re cognise the purely technical sense of 8t/povpovpe6a. The Law may have had a tight grip, and held its prisoners fast, but its purpose was a loving one. The mention of the 7ratSayc()yo9 (seeing what the functions were of such a confidential slave) makes et9 XpcaTov rather tempting. Yet et9 Xpcarov is right. With the latter we must assume a temporal sense. God's ' Sons ' (a term of privilege) are beyond all slavish restraint. In z'Z'. 26 and 27 two questions suggest themselves with regard to the prepositions. Is it "sons of God. ..in Christ Jesus"? or is the genesis of that ' sonship ' described in its twofold aspect, as brought about by faith, but resting on union with Christ ? I incline to the latter belief Again, in v. 27, does it mean " all ye that were baptised in Christ," or "baptised into Christ" (which indeed is no true English, but a clumsy way of representing what is called a ' pregnant ' sense) ? I believe ' to baptise in Christ '/means to 'baptise in the name of Christ ' — in which case et9 is used. Anyhow, the ' sonship of God ' is due to ' All one man in Christ fesus' 67 union with Christ, here described by the bold figure "have put on Christ." iii. 28, 29. " There is there no Jew nor Gentile ; no bond nor free ; no ' male and female.' Ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise." Lightfoot's comments on z/. 28 are highly illuminating. The evi, he observes, ' nega tives not the fact but the possibility'; and again, 'all distinctions are swept away, even the primal one of sex ' (male and female created He them). For the mascu line singular et9, see Ephesians ii. 15. In V. 29 we see that it is the ' vital union,' obtaining between Christ and believers, that constitutes them the ' seed ' of the patriarch Abraham. Strictly speak ing, Christ is the seed, as in v. 16 above. But they that are Xpiarov (which may mean ' members of Christ ') are necessarily ' seed ' too, and as such inherit the promise. 68 The Law implied 'bondage' § 5. The third paragraph from Galatians (Chapter iv. i — 11.) In chap. iii. we were told that the Law — in that case plainly the Law of Moses — was a 7ratSaya)yo9, a temporary 7ratSayc()yo9, till ' faith ' should come, that is definite Christian faith, and release from such discipline. This state of tutelage has now been merged in 'sonship.' It is past and gone for ever. But we have not exhausted the topic. It reappears in chap. iv. For the Apostle is anxious exceedingly to make it clear to his readers, that this bygone state of tutelage was tantamount to ' bondage.' The freedom of the Christian is ever a prominent feature of his teaching. In the next section we are puzzled by two difficult questions. The first is, to what extent the terms the Apostle employs are strictly technical — a comparatively small matter : the other, what class of converts A parallel from 'Acts' 69 he has in view, whether Jews primarily, or Gentiles. From the record in Acts we should gather that the Churches of Galatia were predominantly Gentile. In the earlier part of Acts xiii., it is true, we have record of a discourse made to Jews and Jewish sympathisers, in the course of which (by the way), in z^z^. 38 and 39, we have a doctrinal statement, which is closely parallel to the teaching of this letter : " Be it known unto you therefore. Sirs and brethren, that through Him remission of sins is proclaimed to you, and that in Him everyone that believes is cleared " (St/catoCrat appar ently means ' is acquitted ') " from all those things, wherefrom ye could not be cleared by Moses' Law." The form of this last statement is worthy of remark, ' ovk rjSvvtjdrjTe SiKaLotdrjvai! It dwells upon the inefficacy of Law in regard to setting man right with God, as a condition of things now over, a condition that has given place to a something new and 70 Proportions of few and Gentile better. Possibly the sense of Si/catovcr^at is not so plainly 'technical,' as it is in Galatians, but the general drift of the teaching is obviously identical. Passing on to v. 49 we should gather that in Antioch Gentile Christians far out numbered the Israelitish converts. In Iconium, on the other hand, the proportion of the two classes was much more equal (Acts xiv. 2). Yet the general effect, pro duced upon the reader by xiii. and xiv. together, is of a Church far more largely Gentile. Let us assume that it is so. In Gal. iv. it is hard to determine, at any given point, whether the Apostle is speaking to Jews, or speaking to Gentiles. He seems to pass almost imperceptibly from the one sort to the other. This will appear as we deal with the text. iv. I. "Now mark! as long as the heir is not grown up, he differs no whit from a slave, although he be absolute owner; but is controlled by tutors and guardians, till the time his father has appointed." The figure in iv. i 71 The language here, I should hold, must not be regarded as drawn, with any sort of accuracy, from strictly legal sources. It is neither Roman law, nor is it Greek. NT77rto9 (after the Pauline manner) is broadly opposed to dvr\p (as ' minor ' to one of full age). Upodeapia is a good Greek term for a fixed or settled day, a day appointed for payment, or the like. But there is no reason to suppose that, in a general way, whether in Galatia or elsewhere, coming of age depended on a father's will. But it does (as all will admit) in the case of the Heavenly Father. The ' appointed day ' accordingly must be regarded as a necessary modification of detail imported into the image by the writer. The two words used for ' guardian ' cannot be accurately distinguished : the whole phrase is merely equivalent to ' guar dians of one sort or another.' The more definite ' guardian ' in this chapter takes the place of the ' paedagogue ' (for whom we have a female analogue in a ' nursery governess ') set before us in chap. iii. 72 Who are addressed in iv. 3 iv. 3 — 5. "So we toOi in our childish days, were under the ' worldly rudiments ' in a state of slavery. But when the full time was come, God sent forth His own Son, born ofa woman, born under Law, that He might redeem them that were under Law, that we might receive the intended adoption." Is the wording of these verses inten tionally vague ? Is' we' Jews, or Gentiles, or both ? Is the phrase the 'worldly rudi ments ' so designed as to cover effectually both the Jewish discipline of Law (the Mosaic Law), as well as such Gentile 'propaideia' as is set forth in Rom. i. 19, 20 ? Or, does the thought of the Gentiles not enter in, till the person of the verb is altered in v. 8 (for the second time) ? These are all questions far more easy to ask than to get answered. There seems to be little doubt that cTToixeia (as in Heb. v. 12) means ' AB C,' or ' rudiments.' And plainly the phrase is disparaging, as we gather from the two Col. 11. 8, pia^(,gg where it occurs in the Colossian The meaning of ' worldly rudiments ' "/^ Epistle. It marks, as Lightfoot says, an intellectual stage, and an intellectual stagis that is obviously ' unspiritual.' St Paul (as a matter of fact) does not definitely identify this rudimentary (and ' worldly ') discipline with the Law. But it is difficult not to believe that was uppermost in his mind. In Colossians the phrase would seem to have decisively wider reference. Yet even in that passage ' sabbaths ' and ' new moons ' are mentioned, so that it is hard to disentangle an asceticism, which might be heathen, from distinctly Jewish ordinances. AeSovXopevot, comes in at the end of the clause, with independent weight, as who should say, 'bondsmen, bound hand and foot.' About " the fulness of time " (where the 'the' of R.V. — I should say — ¦ is nothing but a mistake : you can't say, in Greek anyhow, to nXjjpcDpa xP^vov) a good deal might be said, but it is not necessary. In regard to i^aveaTeiXev, I don't think we need be concerned to find a special force for each of the prepositions in the double compound. " Born of a woman," one would 74 -^^ iv. 3 — 5 fews are meant say, must mark the humiliation involved in the Incarnation. This particular phase of the verb (yevopevos or iyevero) is specially associated with that prodigious event. The anarthrous vopov that follows is puzzling enough. Is it anarthrous because ' woman ' before it has no article ? This is wholly conceivable. Or, because (as Lightfoot thinks) ' law ' is meant to cover more than merely the Law of Moses ? I should say that I Cor. ix. 20 — though there again Lightfoot detects the same extension — tells somewhat against this alternative. In view of what has gone before, it is hard to attach any other force to Iva tov? VTTO vopov i^ayopday than simply this ; that it is meant to set before us the ' redemption ' of believing Israel from the bondage of the Law of Moses — in fact, just such a redemption as St Paul had himself ex perienced. On the whole it seems wisest to say that till V. 5 is ended, St Paul has fews in view. In v. 6 the eo-re' covers Jews and Gentiles. TiodeaCa reminds us that the The believer's 'sonship' 75 'sonship,' wherewith we are 'sons,' is not as the Sonship of Christ. The word is itself late Greek. The preposition in aTToXd^copev doubtless points to an age-long purpose in the mind of the All Father. Or, to put it otherwise, the aTro' regards the promise made centuries before. Any how, it is just and right to lay stress on the normal sense of this particular compound. iv. 6, 7. "And because ye are sons, God hath sent the spirit of His own Son into our hearts crying, Abba, Father. So that thou art no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, also an heir through God." In these two verses we have an un usually striking example of the tendency of St Paul to pass from person to person. We start with " Ye are " ; there follows one line after "into our hearts," and the very next verse begins "and so thou art no longer." 'Hpiov and vpiov, of course, are frequently confused. Yet the editors are of opinion that rjpiov is right. 'E$- atriaTeiXev must be translated not 'sent,' 76 ' The spirit of His own Son ' but 'has sent.' The aorist is an indefinite past tense, not a definite. The verb here merely states what has happened, whether it be long ago or lately. The ' sending ' of this ' spirit ' is just an event in the past. We note the double compound once again (as in V. 4). ' Has sent from afar ' may be right (compare Acts xxii. 21). " The spirit of His own Son" must not, I think, be regarded as a definite reference to the gift of Pentecost. It describes rather that essential attitude of ' son ' to ' father,' which has its supreme manifestation in the relation of the Eternal Son towards the Eternal Father. This relation towards the Father is precisely what we note in the Gospel story as specially inculcated by Our Lord. No doubt, the actual mission of the Spirit it was, that implanted it in man. But it is not the same thing. It is just a vivid consciousness that God is Father — Our Father. And yet one can hardly say ' con sciousness ' ; for that indeed goes too far. From Romans viii. 26 we should rather gather that there is in the true believer 'Abba, Father' jj a Something which pleads earnestly (and intelligibly to God), yet unbeknown to him. And if a critic should say. Nay, but that is the Holy Spirit, as commonly understood : one must answer. In 'Romans' possibly; but the words 'His own' would seem to exclude identification here. Kpdlpv recalls to our minds Romans viii. 15, where we are told that ' in ' (or, through) ' the spirit of adoption ' (that is, ' the spirit of adopted sons ') we ' cry ' (as here). Moreover we cannot forget the Kpavyr] laxvpd of Hebrews v. 7. The formula 'A;8/3d 6 liarrjp (attributed in St Mark to Our Lord Himself) reminds us that Christ was ' bi lingual ' ; and so was the early Church of Jerusalem. In view of the sacred memory attaching to the phrase, it is curious that it should ever have dropped from use ; for once apparently it was in use. In z'. 7 th6 change to the singular illustrates a Pauline tendency, exhibited elsewhere, to lay stress on the ' individual ' aspect of the new life in Christ. He is speaking to all conscious believers, 'You. ..and you.. .and you.' The 78 Does God (in iv. 7) mean Christ ? Church, as a whole, has the life, but only because its members are truly ' alive.' The reading at the end of the verse is curiously wavering. Editors read what I have trans lated. The lection "heir of God, through Christ " is too simple to be taken, as against the strange " heir through God." The Apostle himself claims, at the opening of the letter, to have received his commission " through Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised Him from the dead." That however is hardly the same. Atd, in Pauline usage, essentially belongs to the Incarnate Son. Yet one could hardly without misgiving assume it is the Son, that is meant in the words " through God." Up till this point St Paul has been speaking to Jew-Christians, or all Christians ; but now he turns his thoughts to that Gentile element, which was probably pre dominant in the Churches of Galatia. The dXXd, with which the new section starts, is not very luminous. " Howbeit" says our English : but it would puzzle one Gentiles warned against reversion 79 to find where any sense of logical opposi tion enters in. Vdp or ovv would appear to be far more natural particles to introduce the new sentence. In translation it were better to take no account of the dXXct. iv, 8 — II. "In old days, not knowing God, you were slaves to what are really " (this seems to be the meaning of ^vaeC) " no gods at all. Now, having come to the knowledge of God, or rather to His knowledge of you — why do ye turn once more to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereto ye want to be slaves all over again ? Ye are closely observing days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid of you, that all my pains over you are gone for nothing." Plainly Gentiles are here addressed. Yet the old phrase, slightly varied, appears once more, the phrase about the "rudi ments." It would seem St Paul regarded all close attention to minute details as having in it something ofthe 'heathenish,' or 'worldly'; what he styles the 'rudi mentary.' Religion is, for him (as in the 8o All forms, as such, rudimentary famous teaching of St John iv. 23), a matter of 'spirit' and 'truth.' All that is not ' spiritual,' all that is not ' true,' partakes of the nature of slavery. Into such a slavery he feared they were drifting back. But is it not, for us, an astonishing thing that he should (to all appearance) place in one category the nullities of heathenism and the unprofitable ' rudimentary ' ordinances that formed, for the ordinary Jew, the heart of his religion ? Strictly speaking, these Gentile Christian Galatians were not re turning to ' heathenism,' in any sense ; they were only substituting for vital Christianity a system of forms and rules and trivial ordinances. Yet he speaks, we must ob serve, as if this conduct of theirs were virtually a ' reversion ' (and nothing else) even for them. For the " really no gods " of v. 8, one compares the Xeyd/ievoi ^eot of i Cor. viii. 5. The amended statement ("but rather known of God ") recalls i Cor. viii. 2 and xiii. 12. It is characteristic of St Paul to keep before men's minds the weighty truth, that religion starts with God and not with us. ' Weak and beggarly elements ' 8 1 The adjectives ' weak ' and ' beggarly ' describe the essential unprofitableness of all religion that stands in ' forms,' under two vigorous figures. It is 'weak' because it has no effect ; it is ' poor' (or 'beggarly') because there is 'nothing in it.' No one is one penny the better for it. Remember how the Apostle loves to speak of ' spiritual ' things under metaphors derived from wealth or riches. ' Beggarly ' (in our English) is not altogether happy. It sounds as if it were mere abuse and vituperation. Of course, it is not. In v. lo we should not say ' observe,' but ' narrowly observe.' That is the verb's proper meaning. For the catalogue of things the ' Galatians ' were wrongly ' observing ' (that is, ' ob serving' as if they were matters of first- rate importance ; for clearly the Apostle himself did not wholly disregard forms, as witness what he says about the need of orderly worship) one must compare that other list in Colossians ii. i6. There we have, in addition to ' meat ' and ' drink,' ' feast days,' ' new moons ' and ' sabbaths.' w. 6 82 Curious fudaisttc details ' Months ' in this place (one is tempted to think) should rather be ' moons.' The ' seasons ' is somewhat odd, because one would have thought that ' days ' would cover it. But the ' years ' is odder still. Of course, there were ' Sabbatic ' and ' Jubilee ' years in the Code ; but one would have hardly thought that any would have wished to impose such institutions upon the Gentile converts in far Galatia. The " pains " (/ce/coTrta/ca) oi v. 1 1 remind us that the Apostle regularly speaks of his mission labours as very heavy and onerous. Nor is any likely to question the justice, of his claim, who follows with care his story. § 6. The Fourth Paragraph from Galatians (Chapter iv. 21 — 31.) The next nine verses I propose to omit. Verse 12 is indeed obscure, but need not detain us now. He begs them to be, as he is ; and passing on (though disclaiming Suggested alteration in iv. 13 83 any ground for distinct complaint) men tions with sorrow and regret the change that has come over them. In z'. 1 3 the sense would be plainer if a small change might be admitted, and we were allowed to read Si' do-^eveia9 (circumstantial, "in ill health") in place of Si' daOiveiav. The latter can be explained, though not without difficulty. The former would demand no sort of explanation. Further, we gather from these verses that he had paid them hitherto two visits. It was on the former occasion his health was somehow amiss. Then they were all sympathy. They welcomed him as a messenger of God, nay even (as he declares, using a bold figure) as if he had been the Master Himself Then they spoke of themselves as the happiest of men, to have the Apostle among them. Nothing would have been too good for him. They would have torn out their very eyes and given them him. Now all is sadly altered. His influence has been undermined. He suggests he has been too sincere, while others have 6—2 84 A change in ' Galatian ' attitude been employing the arts of the flatterer. This seeming friendliness will not end in good for them. In the upshot it will only lead to their exclusion from Christ (for such would seem to be the meaning of V. 17). Verse 18, once again, is far from transparent. A good deal must be supplied. But the gist of it seems to be that friend liness is all very well and honourable attention. In fact St Paul himself prized their kindly attentions to him. But he does not want ' fair weather ' friends — people who are kindly to his face but not behind his back. The section ends with a pathetic cry : iv. 19, 20. " O my little children ! over whom I once more endure the pangs of birth, till Christ shall be formed in you ! I wish I could be with you now, and change my tone : for I am sore puzzled about you." Why the wish of v. 20 is put as a thing impracticable, it is a little hard to see, more especially if it was so, that he actually did visit them very shortly after he wrote. Abraham! s 'two sons' 85 But now we have reached the point where we must return to the text : iv. 21 — 27. "Tell me, ye that would be under Law, do ye not heed the Law ? It is written, you know, that Abraham had two sons, one by the serving maid and one by the freewoman. The child of the serving maid is " (that is, in the page of Holy Writ) " a child of nature : the child of the freewoman comes by promise. There is in it all a hidden meaning. The two mothers are the two covenants ; the one of them from Mount Sinai, engendering to bond age — which is Agar" (here the 17719 might be equal to quippe quae, but I should conceive it is not, but is used as a definite relative, like driva just above): "and Agar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia, and ranks with the present Jerusalem; for she is in bond age and so are her children : whereas the Jerusalem above is free — which is our Mother. For it is written. 86 The two Covenants Isaiah liv. Rejoice, thou barren, that bearesl not I break forth into speech and cry, thou that travailest not I for more are the children of the lone woman than of her that has a mate!' Here the Galatians are regarded as filled with a desire to return to the old regime, the bondage of ordinances. The Pentateuch (had they ' ears to hear ') should have taught them better. They should have seen the meaning of the tale of Ishmael and Isaac. This the Apostle pro ceeds to unfold. The one of them was ' slave born,' the other ' free born ' ; the one born in the ordinary way, the other con trary to nature, to all intent, miraculously. How avrat (in v. 24) should be interpreted I don't feel certain ; but the demonstrative is attracted to the gender of SiadrJKai. It might be safer to say, " Here we have the two Covenants." In any case the one Covenant had its birth at Sinai. Its children are ' slave children.' That Cove nant is Agar. The reading of z;. 25 is curiously varied. Some copies omit Agar, Hagar and Arabia 87 some omit Sinai, while others again read both, with yd/3 or Se'. On the whole the reading of W.H. (and the Revisers) seems to have the preference. ' Hagar ' or 'Chagar' stands for 'rock,' and Chrysostom speaks of the mountain as bpcavvpov t^ SouXij. In that case the iariv is as the rp> of I Cor. X. 4 ("that rock was Christ"). This reading has the advantage of re ducing the phrase iv rrj 'ApaySta to a mere statement of geography. It is difficult to see in what sense Arabia could be regarded as a land essentially of ' bondage.' The idea of bondage, I should say, is associated with the Law, not with Arabia at all. The meaning of the avaroixei is clearly given by Lightfoot. There are two categories, the ' earthly ' and the ' heavenly,' or the ' temporal ' and the ' eternal ' : to the one belong Hagar, Ishmael, the earthly Jeru salem, the Law, the Old Covenant ; to the other, Sarah, Isaac, the heavenly Jerusalem, the Gospel, the New Covenant. In each ' rank ' part is type and part is antitype. If we assign a ' Mountain ' to each : Sinai is the Mount of the one ; Sion (as in 88 The two ' ranks ' or avaroixyai Hebrews xii.) the Mount of the other. The subject of SouXeuei (in v. 25) is primarily Agar-Sinai, only secondarily the earthly Jerusalem. In v. 26 (as so often in St Paul) the sentence takes a fresh start and all symmetry is sacrificed. We should have expected it to go on, " But the other from Mount Sion, engendering to freedom, is Sarah. She is free and ranks with the heavenly Jerusalem " But the mention of the earthly city at once suggests the heavenly, and the Apostle is in haste to get to the thought of freedom. Accordingly he does not stay to develope his figure fully. The MSS. are divided between " our Mother" and " your Mother." The former seems the likelier. The quotation from Isaiah, which occupies v. 27, is adapted by the writer to his purpose. This will at once appear from a study of the passage quoted. There Israel is the bride, Jehovah Himself the husband. But we have not yet exhausted the lessons to be learned from the story of Isaac and Ishmael. ' Promise-children ' 89 iv. 28 — 31. " We, brethren " (says (Cf. Rom. 1 A 1 \ ^ T ix.6,7,8,9.) the Apostle), ' as Isaac was, are promise-children. But as then the naturally born persecuted the spiritual ly born, so is it now. Howbeit what says the Scripture ? Cast out the bondmaid and her son! For the son of the bondmaid shall never inherit with the son of the free." " Accordingly, my brethren, we are not the children of a bondmaid ; we are the children of the free." Upon these words let me make a handful of comments. ' Promise-children ' is, in effect, a compound noun. As for the ' persecution ' mentioned, that can hardly be found in Genesis (see Gen. xxi. 9). Yet the LXX goes further than our Hebrew text : for whereas that says merely 'mocking! the Greek version reads rtaitjavra perd 'Icrad/c rov viov avrr\Tre 7709 o Kpivbiv (ii. i), his thought is in transition from Gentile to Jewish sinfulness. The Gentile's normal attitude towards human frailty is complacent toleration (avvev- So/ceiv); it is the Jew who 'judges.' In i. 20 it was laid down that the Gentile world, in general, is inexcusable. Now we are told that all who 'judge' are also inexcusable. For 'judge' and 'judged' are alike — all partakers in the same ill-doing. In v. 2 it is laid down that God's judgment is in all cases ' in accordance with the facts ' — Kar 140 There may be a righteous remnant dXijdeiav certainly means " corresponding to reality." The same teaching is re peated lower down, in v. 6, where it says that " God shall render to each man in accordance with his doings." In the verses that come between it is assumed that all are wrongdoers ; that all presume alike upon God's patience and forbearance. Or, maybe, we should not say ' all.' For in the verses that follow, rather to the reader's surprise, it is suggested that there are, who will win "eternal life," because they set themselves to the splendid quest after "glory and honour and immortality" (dcjidapaiav), Kaff vvopovyv epyov dyadov, " by resolute persistence in good doing." Now this statement would be less surpris ing, did it apply to Gentiles only. But it is plainly stated, it does not : it covers both Jew and Gentile (vv. 7 — 10). In this regard all stand upon one footing, " for with God there is no respect for outward circum stance" (v. II). But it would appear that for the Jew vTTopovy epyov dyadov, though conceivable The children of Law and of no Law 141 in thought, is incapable of realisation in actual practice. So declare the verses that follow, especially v. 13. ii. 12 — 16. "For all that have sinned without Law, without Law shall also perish. And all that have sinned within Law, by Law shall have their judgment. For not the hearers of Law are ' right ' in the eyes of God. No ! it is the doers of Law that shall be set right with Him." " For whenever Gentile folks, that have not Law, do naturally what Law bids ; these, though they have no Law, are a Law for themselves. They display the effect of Law engraved upon their hearts. Their conscience bears them witness. Their thoughts, in inner conclave, accuse them or (maybe) defend them...(ybr so surely it shall be) in the day when God shall judge the world, as I state it in my preaching, by the agency of Christ Jesus." In perusing this striking passage, the 142 'f udgment' a necessary dogma reader cannot but feel that the hope of attaining God's favour, by 'resolute well doing,' is a very shadowy one. For Jews it fades away, all but entirely ; for Gentiles it becomes exceedingly faint. ' Self-con demnation' (y. 15) is plainly the normal lot, even of the virtuous Gentile. His own ' self-knowledge ' judges him ; for ' con science,' it is well known, in Pauline writings is a narrower faculty than in ordinary modern speech. It judges a man while he lives ; and further, when he is passed to his great account, it will judge him — his ' thoughts ' will judge him (for the Xoyiapoi are elements in the avv- etSi7crt9) — when he stands before Christ's Tribunal. This teaching of impending 'judgment' (compare, once again, the speech at Athens), St Paul says, is a regular feature in the 'good tidings' as he tells them. In V. 12 dv6poi<; is curiously used. It must stand for ' outside Law,' a phrase meant to cover all Gentiles. The anti thesis makes this inevitable. 'Ev v6p(o (in 'A Law to themselves' 143 spite of the absence of any definite article — and that need not at all surprise us, for it is wholly in keeping with well-attested classical usage) equally certainly covers Jews. The statement in z^. 13 ("but it is the doers of the Law that shall be righted") is, for all intents and purposes, a citation of Holy writ. It is plainly equivalent to that saying of Leviticus (xviii. 5), which is referred to in x. 5, as also in Galatians. What is said in vv. 14 and 15 has often proved a stumbling block to Christian theo logians. S. says that in the Talmud is ' no such liberal teaching.' 'Eaii7ot9 etcri vopos is curiously hard to render, so as to convey the proper meaning. Perhaps we might venture upon, "these, having not a Law, are their own Law " ; that is, they do with out one. The figure in Z7. 15 is, as Pauline figures often are, confused and baffling. The conception ofa Law 'in the heart,' or ' written on the heart,' is, of course, familiar ' O. T.' But here it is not the 'Law' which is graven upon the heart. It is the epyov oi the Law, a very different matter. Now 144 Two statements in one the ' epyov of the Law ' would possibly mean, that which the Law bids be done ; though it is not beyond the power of grammatical pedantry to vow that should rather be epya. I have ventured to say 'effect,' taking epyov in the sense of ' product.' My own idea would be that the Apostolic writer is saying two things at once. It might be said of these people that ' they display the Law written on their hearts ' ; or, again, it might be said of them, that ' they display the effect of Law in their daily conduct.' What St Paul does actually say is, I believe, a combination of these two, or of two similar statements. In any case the ' figuration ' (one has to coin the word) changes in z^. 15 with wonderful rapidity. We have barely grasped the idea of the Law which is 'on the heart,' before we find ourselves transported to the Court in permanent session within the virtuous man. And even here the figure is not very easy to grasp. For it too shifts and varies with kaleidoscopic swift ness. First the man sits in judgment A kaleidoscopic picture 145 himself, with ' self-knowledge ' for friendly witness. Anon the picture is more defined. Conscience becomes the judge ; some ' thoughts ' appear as accusers, and some as defenders. And then, before we can visualise the picture set before us, the whole judgment is transferred to the great Hereafter. Christ it is who sits supreme ; the man is standing before Him ; and his own ' conscience ' is pleading for him — or alas ! more often condemning him. And thereby a light is thrown on processes of judgment, which is full of instructive signifi cance for any one who reads. This trans ference of the moral audit, from the man's own heart to heaven, is so exceedingly abrupt that the translator is almost forced to fill in the details of the sentence. I have done this (with the words in italics) in the course of my paraphrase. And now the Jew is confronted de cisively and definitely. He is "shown up' to himself Yet even here 'circumcision,' which the normal Jewish teacher regarded as an absolute sine qua non, is kept well w. 10 146 The few definitely confronted in the background. And, of course, it was on this that the hard-fought controversy, which embittered the Apostle's life, pre eminently turned. However the voice of this strife had not been heard in Rome. Accordingly the writer happily found him self in a position to develope what he had to say in the order which best pleased him. ii. 17 — 20. "And if you, sir, call yourself ' Jew,' and rest upon the Law, and glory in God, and can read the (heavenly) will, and pursue the loftiest, thanks to Law's most plain instruc tions ; and are confident about your self, that you are a leader of the blind, a light of people in darkness, an in structor of the foolish, a teacher of the childish, because in the Law you have a power of shaping knowledge and (attaining to) God's Truth...." Here we have the Jewish position — as the Jew thought of himself, contrasted with the unenlightened Gentile — very clearly set before us. Two facts, above all, stand A potentiality of godliness 147 out. God, the supreme Creator of Heaven and Earth, is in a peculiar sense the God of Israel. He is 'our God and the God of our fathers.' Moreover the Israelite has a priceless heritage in the possession of the Law of Moses. This gives him an unique standing. All other men, by con trast, are 'blind,' are 'in the dark,' are ' fools ' (a Stoical term, from the School of Tarsus), are ' infants.' By the study of the Law (and in it he has been very soundly drilled) he can attain to real ' knowledge ' ; he can realise God's ' Truth.' And here, by the way, we should notice the exact force of " pdpcfxoaiv!' It is not the pop(j)7j of knowledge the Law provides. It is not a solid fact, but a potentiality. Those very unhappy backsliders, of whom we read in 2 Timothy, possessed a pop- (2 Tim. coaL<; of Godliness, but of Godliness they "'' had none. They failed to actualise it. Here the Israelite apostrophised claims that he has the ' key of knowledge,' and does not let it rust unused. But the stern Apostle affirms that his 148 'Dost thou comm,it sacrilege?' practice is not as his preaching. He teaches other people, but he fails to teach himself. It is as it always has been. The Name of Israel's God is dishonoured among (Isai. lii. 5 the uatious, through the fault of His own LXX.) , ^ people. One phrase in this indictment is per plexing to the redder. It is the latter part of V. 22, "You, who abominate idols, are you a despoiler of temples '^." In what sense, the reader asks himself, could a Jew be a ' robber of temples ' ? Anything that had even remotely to do with an idol temple was considered ' abomination.' To have anything to do with such (and we know, from early Christian experience, what difficulties were involved, in the avoidance of idol-contact) might be classed as 'lepoavXeiv. At least, so we may suppose. One finds it hard to believe that a normal, respectable Jew would pilfer from heathen shrines. But then, it might be urged, neither would he steal. And now, for the first time, comes mention of circumcision. 'Circumcision becomes 'uncircumcision 149 ii. 25 — 27. " Circumcision is of service, provided you keep the Law. But if you transgress the Law your circumcision becomes ipso facto un circumcision. If then an uncircumised person shall zealously observe the requirements of Law, will not his uncircumcision be reckoned as circum cision ? and accordingly Uncircum cision, born so, because it achieves the Law, judge you, who transgress the Law with the letter and circum cision ? " In these verses there is no difficulty, though there are interesting points of grammar. For instance, one asks oneself, is ^there any significance in the variation of phrasing, as between vopov rtpdaayci and vapa^drr)? vopov y