Galatians 1

Galatians 1:2-3

τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, ²καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί, ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας. ³χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ

It was essentially this revelation of our Lord which set him apart for his high office, though the outward investiture may have taken place through human agency at a later date: see Acts ix. 15—17, xiii. 2, 3. The intervention of the prophets and Church of Antioch may perhaps have given a colouring to the false representation that he was an ‘Apostle of men.’ See p. 98.

καὶ Θεοῦ πατρὸς] It might be expected that the first preposition (ἀπὸ) would have been resumed here, as more appropriate. It is incorrect however to say that διὰ is loosely used; for if there be any laxity of expression, it is rather in the connexion of the sentences than in the use of the prepositions. At the same time the Apostle’s language, as it stands, is more forcible. By including both clauses under the same preposition, he expresses with greater emphasis the directness of his divine commission. The channel of his authority (διὰ) coincides with its source (ἀπὸ). The point of the sentence would have been blunted by inserting ἀπὸ. Nor indeed is the extension of διὰ to the second clause a violation of its strict meaning, which is observed perhaps with greater precision in the New Testament than elsewhere, owing to its recognised function, as describing the mediatorial office of the Son. Ἀπὸ, though by far the most common, is not the only preposition which may be used in speaking of the Father. He is the beginning, middle, and end of all His works (ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν, Rom. xi. 36), and may therefore be regarded as the instrument, no less than the source, in the fulfilment of His own purposes. This mode of expression will be adopted especially, where the writer is speaking of God’s manifestation of Himself in some special act, as here in the raising of Jesus from the dead. Comp. iv. 7, 1 Cor. i. 9, and see Winer, Gramm. S. xlvii. p. 473 sq. Marcion (Hieron. ad l.) cut the knot by omitting καὶ Θεοῦ πατρὸς, and apparently reading ἰαντὸν for αὐτὸν.

Here the Apostles words are ‘By Jesus Christ and God the Father’: immediately after he writes ‘From God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’ The one expression supplements the other: ‘Thou, Father, in Me, and I in Thee’ (John xvii. 21).

τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν] ‘who raised Him from the dead.’ This expression occurs elsewhere with a more general reference to Christian faith or Christian life: Rom. iv. 24, viii. 11; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 15. Here it has a special bearing on St Paul’s apostleship, as the context shows. ‘I was commissioned by the risen and glorified Lord: I am in all respects an Apostle, a qualified witness of His resurrection, and a signal instance of His power.’

2. οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί] ‘all the brethren who are with me.’ Probably the small band of his fellow-travellers is meant. See Phil. iv. 21, where he distinguishes ’the brethren who are with him’ from ‘all the saints, i.e. from the resident members of the Church of Rome from which he is writing. For the bearing of this phrase on the date of the apostle, see p. 55. This company perhaps included Timothy (2 Cor. i. 1) and Erastus (Acts xix. 22). He may also at this time have been rejoined by Titus with the two brethren from Corinth (2 Cor. viii. 16—24), and may have had with him besides some of those who accompanied him afterwards on his return to Asia, as Tychicus and Trophimus

L. 4]

Χριστοῦ, ⁴τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονη4. ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν.

for instance (Acts xx. 4, 5), if indeed they are not to be identified with the two brethren already mentioned.

The patristic writers, followed by several modern commentators, see in this expression a desire on the part of the Apostle to fortify his teaching by the sanction of others: ‘Faciens cis pudorem, quod contra omnes sentiuut,’ says Victorinus. Such a motive seems alien to the whole spirit of this epistle, in which all human authority is set aside. The Apostle in fact dismisses the mention of his companions as rupidly as possible in one general expression. He then returns to the singular, ‘I marvel,’ which he retains throughout the epistle. Paul’s authority has been challenged, and Paul alone answers the challenge.

τοῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλιτίας] ’to the Churches of Galatia.’ On this mode of address, as marking the earlier epistles, see 1 Thess. i. 1. The abruptness of the language here is remarkable. Elsewhere the Apostle adds some words of commendation. The

Church of the Thessalonians, for instance, is ‘in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. i. 1), that of the Corinthians is composed of those ‘sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints’ (1 Cor. i. 2, comp. 2 Cor. i. 1). The omission of any expression of praise in addressing the Galatians shows the extent of their apostasy; see p. 64.

3. χάριε ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη, κ.τ.λ.] On this form of salutation see the notes 1 Thess. i. 1.

4. τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν, κ.τ.λ.] ‘who gave Himself for our sins.’ A declaration of the true ground of acceptance with God. The Galatians had practically ignored the atoning death of Christ. comp. ii. 21, v. 4.

περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν] The MSS here, as in several other passages, are divided between περὶ and ὑπὲρ, though here the balance of authority is perhaps in favour of περὶ. Generally it may be said that περὶ is used of things, ὑπὲρ of persons, as 1 Pet. iii. 18 οὐ καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπίθανεν δίκαιος ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων, but exceptions are very numerous, and in Heb. v. 3 we have περὶ ἑαυτοῦ προσφέρειν περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν (not ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, as some read), though just before (ver. 1) the expression used is προσφέρει ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν. Where περὶ is used of persons, it is frequently explained by some clause added, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 28 τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκ, νυνόμενον εἰς ὕφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. With this compare the parallel passages Luke xxii. 19, 20 ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, Matt. xiv. 24 ὑπὲρ πολλῶν, the correct reading), where there is no explanatory clause. All this follows from the meaning of the prepositions, ὑπὲρ having a sense of ‘interest in,’ which is wanting to περὶ. The distinction is marked in Athenæ. Resum. 1, λόγων διττῶν τῶν μὲν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας τῶν δὲ περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας κ.τ.λ. (comp. § 11). Neither conveys the idea of a vicarious act (ἀντί), though such will frequently appear in the context. On ὑπὲρ and περὶ see Winer § xlii. p. 479, and especially Wieseler’s note here.

ἐξέληται] ‘deliver’ strikes the keynote of the epistle. The Gospel is a rescue, an emancipation from a state of bondage. See esp. iv. 9, 31, v. 1, 13. τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ] the correct reading, in which the detached position of πονηροῦ is emphatic: ‘with all its evils.’ Comp. Arist. Eth. Nic. i. 13 καὶ γὰρ τάγαθον ἀνθρώπινον

ἐζητοῦμεν καὶ τὴν εὐδομιονίαν ἀνθρωπίνην. Polit. ii. 9 τῶν γ’ ἀλημμάτων ἐκουσίων τὰ πλεῖστα συμβαίνει κ.τ.λ. The reading of the received text, τοῦ

Galatians 1:5

ροῦ κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων· ἀμήν.

ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος πονηροῦ, is grammatically simpler, but less forcible.

The author of the Clementines, who was certainly acquainted with this epistle (see p. 61), seems to have St Paul’s expression in mind. Epist. Clem. I, ἐπὶ τοι ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ τὸν ἐσόμενον ἠγαθὸν ὕλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ μηνύσαι βασιλία, where αἰῶνος found in some texts after πονηροῦ is evidently an interpolation). If so, he appears to have interpreted the words ‘from the æon, the dominion, of the present evil one’: comp. 1 John v. 19 ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κείτας, Barrab. § 2. At all events a possible interpretation is thus suggested. Comp. Polyb. xviii. 38. 5 τὸν ἐνεστῶτα βασιλία.

τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος] The present transitory world, elsewhere ὁ νῦν αἰών, c.g. 1 Tim. vi. 17, ὁ αἰών τοῦ κόσμου τούτου Ephes. ii. 2, and most frequently ὁ αἰών οὗτος, c.g. Rom. xii. 2, as opposed to the other world, the world of eternity, ὁ αἰών ἐκείνος Luke xx. 35, ὁ αἰών ὁ ἐρχόμενος Luke viii. 20, αἰών μέλλων Hebr. vi. 5, and often in the plural, οἱ αἰώνες οἱ ἐπερχόμενοι Ephes. ii. 7, οἱ αἰώντες τῶν αἰώνων, and οἱ αἰώνες simply. This age, this world, is under a ‘god’ (2 Cor. iv. 4; or ‘rulers’ (1 Cor. ii. 6) of its own, who are opposed to the Eternal God, the King of the ages, ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων, 1 Tim. i. 17. See especially Ephes. ii. 2-7, and comp. [Clem. Rom.] ii. § 6 ἔστιν δὲ οὗτος ὁ αἰών καὶ ὁ μέλλων δύο ἐχθροί. The Apostles speak of themselves and their generation as living on the frontier of two æons, the Gospel transferring them as it were across the border. The distinction of time between the two, which is the primary distinction, becomes lost in the moral and spiritual conception.

It has been proposed to take ἐνεστῶς here in the sense of ‘impending,’ as referring to the final apostasy. In other passages however ἐνεστῶτα is plainly ‘present’ as opposed to μέλλοντα ‘future,’ Rom. viii. 38, 1 Cor. iii. 22 (comp. Heb. ix. 9), in accordance with the sense it bears in the language of grammar, where ὁ χρόνος ὁ ἐνεστῶς is ’the present tense.’ Comp. Philo de Plant. Noc. ii. § 27, p. 346 M τριμεροὺς χρόνων, ὃς εἰς τὸν παρεληλυθῶτα καὶ ἐνεστῶτα καὶ μέλλοντα τίμησθαι πέφικεν. Even in passages where it seems at first sight to have the sense ‘impending, even to come,’ as in 1 Cor. vii. 26 διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνίγκην, 2 Thess. ii. 2 ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα, its proper meaning is more appropriate.

κατὰ τὸ θέλημα] ‘by the will of God’ and not by our own merits. St Paul is still insisting on the dispensation of grace impugned by the false teachers. Compare τοῦ καλέσαντος, ver. 6.

τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν] Comp. Phil. iv. 20. Does ἡμῶν refer to Θεοῦ as well as πατρὸς, ‘Our God and Father’? On the whole this seems probable; for the article, not being necessary before Θεοῦ, seems to be added to bind the two clauses together and connect both with ἡμῶν. The same construction is justified in the case of the similar expression, ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Cor. i. 3, Ephes. i. 3), by John xx. 17, ‘I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.’ See Fritzsche on Rom. iii. p. 233. In ver. 1 the word ‘Father’ refers especially though not solely to Christ, in ver. 4 to mankind, while in ver. 3 it seems to be used absolutely.

5. Speaking of the mercy of God, as shown in man’s redemption through the death of Christ, the Apostle bursts out in an ascription of praise. ‘Infinitis beneficis infinita gloria debetur,’ says Pelagius. For similar outbursts of thanksgiving see Rom. vii. 25, ix. 5, xi. 36, 2 Cor. ix. 15, Ephes. iii. 20.

Galatians 1:6

Ὅαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλ-

ἡ δόξα] ’the glory, which is pre-eminently such, the glory which belongs to him’: comp. Joh. xvii. 5. The article is almost universally found with δόξα in these doxologies. Contrast with this the absence of the article in Rom. ii. 10, 1 Cor. xi. 15. It is probable therefore that we should supply ἐστὶν in such cases rather than ἴστω. It is an affirmation rather than a wish. Glory is the essential attribute of God. See 1 Pet. iv. 11 φ ἐστὶν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὰ κράτος, and the doxology added to the Lord’s prayer, Matt. vi. 13.

εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων] ‘for endless ages,’ opposed to the present finite and transitory age (ver. 2). Compare Ephes. ii. 2, 7, where this opposition is brought out more strongly.

6 9. An indignant expression of surprise takes the place of the usual thanksgiving for the faith of his converts. This is the sole instance where St Paul omits to express his thankfulness in addressing any church. See the introduction, p. 64.

‘I marvel that ye are so ready to revolt from God who called you, so reckless in abandoning the dispensation of grace for a different gospel. A different gospel, did I say? Nay, it is not another. There cannot be two gospels. Only certain men are shaking your allegiance, attempting to pervert the Gospel of Christ. A vain attempt, for the Gospel perverted is no Gospel at all. Yea, though we ourselves or an angel from heaven (were it possible) should preach to you any other gospel than that which we have preached hitherto, let him be accursed. I have said this before, and I repeat it now. If any man preaches to you any other gospel than that which ye were taught by us, let him be accursed.’

6. οὕτως ταχέως] ‘so quickly.’ If by

‘so quickly’ we understand ‘so soon,’ it must mean ‘so soon after your conversion,’ as the words following show. For the bearing of this expression on the date of the epistle see p. 41. It is possible however that ταχέως here may signify ‘readily,’ ’easily,’ i.e. quickly after the opportunity is offered, a sense which the present tense (μετατίθεσθε) would facilitate. See 1 Tim. v. 22 χεῖρας ταχέως μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει, 2 Thess. ii. 2 εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευθήναι. In this case there will be no reference to any independent point of time.

μετατίθεσθε] ‘are turning renegades’; the middle voice, as may be seen from the passages quoted below. Μετατίθεσθαι is used (1) of desertion or revolt, i.e. of military or political defection, as in Polyb. xxvi. 2. 6 ταχέως καὶ τοὺς πολιτευομένους μετατίθεσθαι πρὸς τὴν Ῥωμαίων αὔπαν, and frequently (2) of a change in religion, philosophy, or morals, 1 Kings xxi. 25 ὡς μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν Ἰεζάβελ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ, Iambl. Protrept. c. 17 μετατίθεσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπλέσθαι καὶ ἀκολόπτως ἔχοντας βίον ἐπὶ τὸν κοσμίως. Dionys us of Heraclea, who from being a Stoic became an Epicurean, was called μεταθέμενος, ’turncoat’ (ἄντικρις ἀποδὺς τὸν τῆς ὀρετῆς χιτώνα ἀνθινὰ μετημφιάσατο Athen. vii. p. 281 n). The word is frequently used however of ‘conversion’ in a good sense, as in Justin Apol. II. pp. 83 n, 91 n, etc.

τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι] ‘Him who called you in grace.’ St Paul here states the distinctive features of the true Gospel which the Galatians had set aside: first, as regards its source, that conversion comes of God (‘Him that called you’) and not of themselves; and secondly, as regards the instrument, that it is a covenant of grace, not of works. For the omission of Θεοῦ, see the note on i. 15.

Galatians 1:7

γέλιον, ‘ὁ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μὴ τινὲς εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον

Χριστοῦ] is generally omitted in the Latin authorities, while some others read Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, and even Θεοῦ. All these may possibly have been glosses to explain τοῦ καλέσαντος. Certainly the passage seems to gain in force by the omission. The implied antithesis between the true gospel of grace and the false gospel of works thus stands out in bolder relief: comp. Ephes. ii. 8 τῇ χάριτᾷ ἐστὶ σεισσαμένοι. It is found however in the best 1853, and is supported by such passages as Acts xv. 11, διὰ τῆς χάρι-

τος τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ πιστεύομεν σω-

θήναι. If retained, it must be taken after χάριτι, and not with τοῦ καλέσαντος as in the Peshito, for ὁ καλέσας in St Paul’s language is always the Father.

6, 7. εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, κ.τ.λ.] ’to a second, a different gospel, which is not another.’ This is not an admission in favour of the false teachers, as though they taught the one Gospel, however perverted (comp. Phil. i. 15, 18). Such a concession would be quite alien to the spirit of this passage. ‘It is not another gospel,’ the Apostle says, ‘for there cannot be two gospels, and as it is not the same, it is no gospel at all.’ The relative ὁ cannot wit out harshness be referred to anything else but ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον.

ἕτερον] implies a difference of kind, which is not involved in ἄλλο. The primary distinction between the words appears to be, that ἄλλος is another as ‘one besides,’ ἕτερος another as ‘one of two.’ The fundamental sense of ἕτερος is most clearly marked in its compounds, as ἐτερόφθαλμος, ‘one-eyed.’ Thus ἄλλος adds, while ἕτερος distinguishes. Now when our attention is confined to two objects, we naturally compare and contrast them; hence ἕτερος gets to signify ‘unlike, opposite,’ as Xen. Cynop. viii. 3. 8

ἦν μου κατηγορήσῃς … εἰσαύθις ὅταν διακονῶ, ἕτερο μοι χρῆσῃ διακόνῳ, i.e. ‘changed,’ where ἄλλω could not stand. In Exod. i. 8 ἀνέστη δὲ βατιλεὸς ἕτερος ἐπ’ Αἴγυπτον, it is a translation of πη ’novus’; and the idea of difference is frequently prominent in the word as used in the Lxx. Thus while ἄλλος is generally confined to a negation of identity, ἕτερος sometimes implies the negation of resemblance. See 2 Cor. xi. 4, where the two words are used appropriately, as they are here. In many cases however they will be interchangeable: comp. Matt. xi. 3 with Luke vii. 20. Hesychus explains ἕτερον ἄλλον’ ἡ ἀλλιόον’ ἡ ἐν τοῖν δυοῖν’ ἡ ἀριστερόν, νέον, δεύτερον.

7. εἰ μὴ τινὲς, κ.τ.λ.] ‘Only in this sense is it another gospel, in that it is an attempt to pervert the one true Gospel.’ Εἰ μὴ seems always to retain, at least in this stage of the language, its proper exceptive sense, and is not simply opposite, though it frequently approaches nearly to ἀλλὰ; see the note on i. 19. Here the following θέλοντες, which is slightly emphatic (‘attempting to, though without success’), justifies the exception taken by εἰ μὴ τινὲς εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες] a somewhat unusual construction for οἱ ταράσσουσιν. It occurs however even in classical writers, e.g. Soph. (Ed. Col. 1023 ἄλλοι γὰρ οἱ σπεύδοντες, Lysias pro Arist. bon. § 57 εἰσὶ δὲ τινὲς οἱ προαναλίσκοντες (the latter passage is quoted with others by Winer, § xviii. p. 156), and more commonly in the New Testament, e.g. Col. ii. 8 βλέπετε μὴ τις ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν, Luke xviii. 9. See the note on iii. 21. For τινὲς applied by St Paul to his adversaries, see ii. 12. 1 Cor. iv. 18, 2 Cor. iii. 1, x. 2. Other interpretations of this clause have been proposed, all of which seem to do violence either to the sense or the grammar.

Galatians 1:8-9

τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ἄλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐ-ρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται [ὑμῖν] παρ’ ὁ εὐηγγελισάμενα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. ὡς προειρήκαμεν καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν

ταράσσαντες] not ’troubling your minds,’ but ‘raising seditions among you, shaking your allegiance,’ a continuation of the metaphor of μετατίθεισθε. The phrase ταράττειν τὴν πόλιν is commonly used of factions, e.g. Aristophi. Eg. 863. See the note on v. 10.

μεταστρίψαι] properly, ’to reverse, to change to the opposite,’ and so stronger than διαστρίψαι, which is simply ’to distort,’ ‘wrench’ comp Arist. Rhet. i. 15 καὶ τὸ τοῦ Ξενοφάνους μεταστρίψαντα φατὸν κ.τ.λ. What was the idea prominent in the Apostle’s mind when he called this heresy a ‘reversal’ of the Gospel may be gathered from iii. 3.

τοῦ Χριστοῦ] On the genitive see the notes on 1 Thess. ii. 2.

8, 9. The difference of moods in these two verses is to be noticed. In the former, a pure hypothesis is put forward, in itself highly improbable (εὐαγγελίζηται): in the latter, a fact which had actually occurred, and was occurring (εὐαγγελίζεται).

καὶ ἐὰν] preserves its proper sense of ’etiamsi,’ as distinguished from ἐὰν καὶ ‘otsi.’ See Hermann Viger p. 832, Jelf Gramm. § 861. In other words, it introduces a highly improbable supposition. With this passage contrast the meaning of ἐὰν καὶ as it occurs in vi. 1, ἐὰν καὶ προλημφθῇ.

ἡμεῖς] ‘κτ.’ St Paul seems never to use the plural when speaking of himself alone. Here it would include those who had been his colleagues in preaching to the Galatians, such as Silas and Timothy. The latter especially would be referred to, as he seems to have been with the Apostle on both visits to Galatia, and was probably in his company when this letter was written. See the note on i. 2.

ὑμῖν] is doubtful, being found both before and after εὐαγγελίζεται in different texts, and in some omitted entirely.

παρ’ δ] On the interpretation of these words a controversy on ’tradition’ has been made to hinge, Protestant writers advocating the sense of ‘besides’ for παρά, Roman Catholics that of ‘contrary to.’ The context is the best guide to the meaning of the preposition. St Paul is here asserting the oueness, the integrity of his Gospel. It will not brook any rival. It will not suffer any foreign admixture. The idea of ‘contrariety’ therefore is alien to the general bearing of the passage, though independently of the context the preposition might well have this meaning.

ἀνάθεμα] is the common (Hellenistic), ἀνάθημα the classical (Attic) form. See Lubeck Phryn. pp. 249, 445. Paralip. p. 417. But though originally the same, the two forms gradually diverged in meaning; ἀνάθημα getting to signify ‘devoted’ in a good, and ἀνάθεμα in a bad sense. See Trench, N. T. Synon. § v. p. 145 Fritzsche on Rom. ix. 3. This is a common phenomenon in all languages, e.g. in English ‘cant,’ ‘chant,’ ‘human,’ ‘humane,’ with other examples given in Trench Study of Words, p. 156; see also Max Muller’s Science of Language, 2nd ser. p. 262 sq. Such divergences of meaning are generally to be traced to the different sources from which the varying forms are derived. In the present instance the distinction seems to have arisen from the fact that the sense ‘an accursed thing’ would be derived chiefly through the Hellenist writers of the LXX, the sense ‘an offering’ mostly

Galatians 1:10

λέγω, εἰ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ’ ὁ παρελάβετε, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. ¹⁰ ἄρτι γὰρ ἀνθρώπους πείθω ἢ τὸν

through classical authors. The distinction of meaning however is only general, not universal. Pseudo-Justin, Quæst. et resp. 121 (p. 190, Otto), assigns both meanings to ἀνάθεμα, as Theodoret (on Rom. ix. 3) does to ἀνάθεμα. Ἀνάθεμα occurs only once in the New Testament, Luke xxi. 5, and there in the sense of ‘an offering,’ in accordance with the distinction given above.

It is doubted whether ἀνάθεμα here means ’excommunicated’ or ‘occursed’; i.e. whether it refers to ecclesiastical censure or spiritual condition. The latter alone seems tenable; for (1) it is the LXX. translation of the Hebrew ירד, e.g. Josh. vii. 1, 12. This word is used in the Old Testament of a person or thing set apart and devoted to destruction, because hateful to God. Hence in a spiritual application it denotes the state of one who is alienated from God by sin. But on the other hand it seems never to signify ’excommunicated,’ a sense which is not found till much later than the Christian era. (2) In no passage is the sense of ecclesiastical censure very appropriate to ἀνάθεμα, ἀνάθεματιζεῖν, where they occur in the New Testament, and in some, as Rom. ix. 3, 1 Cor. xiii. 3, it is obviously excluded. Here, for instance, it is inconsistent with the ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοί. In course of time ἀνάθεμα, like the corresponding ירד, underwent a change of meaning, getting to signify ’excommunicated,’ and this is the common patristic sense of the word. It was not unnatural therefore, that the fathers should attempt to force upon St Paul the ecclesiastical sense with which they were most familiar, as Theodoret does for instance, on 1 Cor. xvi. 22, explaining ἀνάθεμα ἔστω by ἀλλότριος ἔστω τοῦ κοινοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας.

9. ὡς προειρήκαμεν] ‘as we have told you before,’ probably on the occasion of his second visit, when he already discerned unhealthy symptoms in the Galatian Church. See p. 25. The distinction between the singular (λέγω) where St Paul is writing in his own person, and the plural (προειρήκαμεν) where he is speaking of the joint labours of himself and his colleagues, is to be observed. See the note on ἡμεῖς ver. 8.

καὶ ἄρτι πόλιν] ‘το ποιο again,’ ἄρτι here denotes strictly present, as opposed to past time—a late use of the word. See Lobeck Phryn. p. 18 sq.

πόλιν] ‘again’ is not to be referred, as it is taken by some, to the preceding verse, in the sense ‘I repeat what I have just said.’ Against this interpretation two objections lie: (1) St Paul in that case would have used the singular προείρηκα (which indeed is found in some texts), as throughout the epistle he writes in his own person alone; and (2) The words καὶ ἄρτι mark some greater distinction of time than this interpretation would allow.

ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται] In classical writers this verb takes only a dative of the person, in later Greek it has indifferently a dative or an accusative. See Lobeck Phryn. p. 266 sq. and Ellicott on 1 Thess. iii. 6.

10. ‘Let him be accursed, I say. What, does my boldness startle you? Is this, I ask, the language of a time-server? Will any say now that, careless of winning the favour of God, I seek to conciliate men, to ingratiate myself with men? If I had been content thus to compromise, I should have been spared all the sufferings, as I should have been denied all the privileges, of a servant of Christ.’ ἄρτι γὰρ] What is the opposition implied in this note? It can scarcely be referred, as some refer it, to the

Galatians 1:11

Θεόν; ἢ ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν; εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον, Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην. “Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐ11. γνωρίζω γάρ.

time before his conversion. ‘Conciliation’ is no fit term to apply to the fierce bigotry of Saul, the persecutor of the Church of Christ. The errors of his early career are the offspring of blind zeal, and not of worldly policy (1 Tim. i. 13). The explanation is doubtless to be found in the charges of inconsistency brought against him by the Judaizers. They had misrepresented certain acts of his past life, and branded him as a temporiser. There shall be no doubt about his language now. He had formerly, they said, preached the Mosaic law, because forsooth he had become as a Jew to the Jews. Let them judge now whether he would make concessions to conciliate those who had a leaning towards Judaism. This ἄρτι has therefore no connexion with the ἄρτι of ver. 9. The suppressed allusion to the Judaizers also explains the particle γάρ: ‘I speak thus strongly, for my language shall not be misconstrued, shall wear no semblance of compromise.’ ἀνθρώπονς πείθω ἢ τὸν Θεόν] ‘do I conciliate, make friends of men or of God?’ Though the idea of persuasion is not strictly applicable in the case of God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 11, ἀνθρώπονς πείθομεν, Θεῷ δὲ πεφανερώμεθα), yet πείθω is fitly extended to the second clause in reference to the language of his enemies. ‘You charge me with a policy of conciliation. Yes; I conciliate God.’ ‘De humano usu sumptum est,’ says Jerome. On the article Bengel pointedly remarks: ‘ἀνθρώπονς, homines; hoc sine articulo: at mox τὸν Θεόν, Deum cum articulo.

Dei solius habenda est ratio.’ See also the note on iv. 31.

ἀνθρώπονς ἀρέσκειν] So 1 Thess. ii. 4: comp. ἀνθρωπόρεσκοι, Ephes. vi. 6. Col. iii. 22 (with the note).

ἐτι] ‘still.’ After what? ‘After all that has befallen me: after all the experiences I have had.’ Compare the ἐτι of v. 11. Both passages find an explanation in vi 17; ‘Henceforth let no man trouble me.’ See the introduction, p. 51. The ἐτι does not imply that St Paul ever had been a time-server. It is equivalent to, ‘at this stage,’ ‘at this late date.’ The insertion of γάρ after it in the received text is one of the many attempts of transcribers to smooth down the ruggedness of St Paul’s style.

Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην] ‘I

should not have been a servant of Christ,’ perhaps with an indirect reference to the marks of persecution which he bore on his body (τὰ στίγματα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, vi. 17); ‘I should not have been branded as His slave. I should not have suffered for Him.’ Comp. v. 11, ‘If I yet preach circumcision, why am I yet persecuted?’ 11, 12. ‘I assure you, brethren, the Gospel you were taught by me is not of human devising. I did not myself receive it from man, but from Jesus Christ. I did not learn it, as one learns a lesson, by painful study. It flashed upon me, as a revelation from Jesus Christ.’

11. Γνωρίζω ἐμῖν] ‘I declare to

you’ introduces some statement on which the Apostle lays special emphasis, 1 Cor. xii. 3, xv. 1, 2 Cor. viii. 1. (Compare the similar phrase, ‘I would not have you ignorant.’ Both this phrase and the following, κατὰ ἀνθρώπον, are confined to the epistles of this chronological group.

The best authorities are nearly equally divided between δὲ and γάρ.

[I 12, 13]

αγγελισθὲν ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον.

¹⁰οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην, ἀλλὰ δ’ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

¹¹ἠκούσατε γὰρ τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφὴν ποτε ἐν τῷ Ἰου-

12. οὐδὲ ἐδιδάχθην.

The former, resuming the subject which has been interrupted by his defence of himself, is more after the Apostle’s manner, while the latter would seem the obvious connecting particle to transcribers. On the other hand δ’ may possibly have been substituted for γὰρ here, because it is found with γνωρίζω (ἰδομῶ) in 1 Cor. xv. 1, 2 Cor. viii. 1.

ἔστιν] is here only the copula. The present tense is used instead of the imperfect to show the permanence and unchangeableness of his Gospel. See ii. 2.

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον] ‘after any human fashion or standard.’ See on iii. 15.

12. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγώ] ‘For to go a step farther back, neither did I myself receive it from man.’ The force of the particle οὐδὲ is best sought for in the context. Οὐδὲ ἐγὼ παρέλαβον answers to τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν, as παρὰ ἀνθρώπου answers to κατὰ ἄνθρωπον. Others explain it ‘I as little as the Twelve,’ ‘I in whom perhaps it might have been expected’, but such interpretations are not reflected in the context.

παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον] The idea in the preposition is sufficiently wide to include both the ἀπὸ and διὰ of ver. 1. I do not think the distinction given by Winer § xviii. p. 463, and others, between λαμβάνειν παρὰ Κυρίου and λαμβάνειν ἀπὸ Κυρίου (1 Cor. xi. 23), as denoting respectively direct and indirect communication, can be insisted upon. It is true, that while ἀπὸ contemplates only the giver, παρὰ in a manner connects the giver with the receiver, denoting the passage from the one to the other, but the links of the chain between the two may be numerous, and in all cases where the idea of transmission is prominent παρὰ will be used in preference to ἀπὸ, be the communication direct or indirect; so Phil. iv. 18 δεξόμενος παρὰ Ἐπαφροδίτου τὰ παρ’ ὑμῶν; comp. Plat. Symp. 202 E. The verb παραλαμβάνειν may be used either of the ultimate receiver or of any intermediate agent, provided that the idea of transmission be retained; i.e. it may be either (1) to receive as transmitted to oneself, 2 Thess. iii. 6, or (2) to receive so as to transmit to others. In this latter sense it is used of the Apostles, who receiving the Gospel directly from the Lord passed it to others. See 1 Cor. xi. 23, xv. 1, 3, and compare παραγγελία.

οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην] The authorities being nearly equally divided between οὔτε and οὐδὲ, I have with some hesitation retained the former in the text, as being the less regular collocation (οὐδὲ…οὔτε), and therefore more likely to be altered. In this case another οὔτε is to be understood before παρέλαβον, the δ’ of οὐδὲ having reference to the former sentence. See Winer § iv. 6, p. 617, and esp. A. Buttmann p. 315.

ἐδιδάχθην is added to explain and enforce παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον, and thus to bring out the contrast with δ’ ἀποκαλύψεως: ‘I received it not by instruction from man but by revelation from Christ.’ For a somewhat similar contrast see Cic. pro Mil. c. 4, ‘Est enim haec, judices, non scripta sed nata lex; quam non didicimus, accepimus, legimus, verum ex natura ipsa arripalimus, haominus, expressimus.’

13, 14. ‘My early education is a

Galatians 1:14

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

δαῖσμῷ, ὅτι καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτὴν, ¹⁴καὶ προέκρητον ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ ὑπὲρ πολλοὺς συνηλικαίτας ἐν τῷ γένει μου, περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου

proof that I did not receive the Gospel from man. I was brought up in a rigid school of ritualism, directly opposed to the liberty of the Gospel. I was from age and temper a staunch adherent of the principles of that school. Acting upon them, I relentlessly persecuted the Christian brotherhood. No human agency therefore could have brought about the change. It required a direct interposition from God.

13. ἠκούσατε] ‘ye heard,’ ‘I told you, when I was with you.’ The history of his past career as a persecutor formed part of his preaching: see Acts xxii. 2—21, xxvi. 4—23, 1 Cor. xv. 8—10: comp. Phil. iii. 6, 1 Tim. i. 13. The A.V., ‘ye hace heard,’ gives a wrong meaning.

ἀνατροφὴν ποτε] for the more usual ποτε ἀνατροφὴν, as ver. 23 ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε. Similar displacements of words, which would ordinarily come between the article and substantive, are frequent in the New Testament. See on 1 Thess. i. 1; and Winer § xx. p. 169 sq.

‘Ἰουδαϊσμῷ] ‘observance of Jewish rites.’ The word does not in itself imply any disparagement. Comp. 2 Macc. ii. 21 τοῖς ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ φιλοτίμως ἀνδραγαθῆσαι, xiv. 38 σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ παροβεβλημένος, and Ἰουδαϊζεῖν Gal. ii. 14. Though perhaps originally coined by the heathen and, as used by them, conveying some shadow of contempt, it would, when neutralised among the Jews themselves, lose this idea and even become a title of honour. The case of Χριστιανός, likewise a term of reproach in the first instance, is a parallel.

ἐπόρθουν κ.τ.λ.] ‘I devastated the Church,’ as Acts ix. 21 οὐχ οἶπες ἐστὶν ὁ πορεῖσας ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ τοῖς ἐπικαλούμενους κ.τ.λ. Compare ἐλυμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Acts viii. 3.

14. συνηλικαίτας] ‘if my own age,’ who embraced the religion of their fathers with all the ardour of youthful patriotism. The Attics use the simple form ἡλικιώτης, while the compound belongs to the later dialect. Compare the similar instances of πολίτης συμπολίτης, Ephes. ii. 19, φυλίτης (συμφυλίτης, 1 Thess. ii. 14), etc. In this class of words the later language aims at greater definiteness. The rule however is not absolute, but only expresses a general tendency. See Lobeck Phy. pp. 172, 471.

ἐν τῷ γένει μου’ ‘in my race,’ i.e. among the Jews, an incidental proof that St Paul is addressing Gentile converts. See p. 26, note 3. In the same way, Rom. xvi. 7, 21, he mentions certain Jews as his ‘kinsmen’ συγγενείς. Comp. also Rom. ix. 3 ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα.

περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων] The adverb περισσοτέρως, which is frequent in St Paul, seems always to retain its comparative force. Here it is explained by ὑπὲρ πολλοὺς. For ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων comp. Acts xxi. 20 πάντες ζηλωτοὶ τοῦ νομου ὑπάρχουσιν. St Paul seems to have belonged to the extreme party of the Pharisees (Acts xxii. 3, xxiii. 7, xxvi. 5, Phil. iii. 5, 6), whose pride it was to call themselves ‘zealots of the law, zealots of God.’ To this party also had belonged Simon, one of the Twelve, thence surnamed the zealot, ζηλωτὴς or κανακαίος, i.e. 1832. A portion of

GAL.

Galatians 1:15-16

παραδόσεων. ¹⁵ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς μου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ¹⁶ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἵνα εὐαγγελίthese extreme partizans, forming into a separate sect under Judas of Gallee, took the name of ‘zealots’ par excellence, and distinguished themselves by their furious opposition to the Romans: Joseph. Antiq. xviii.

1. 1, 6. See Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Ier. v. p. 25 sq. p. 322, vi. p. 340. τὸν πατρίων μου παραδόσεων] ‘of the traditions handed down from my fathers.’ It is doubtful whether the law of Moses is included in this expression. In Josephus τὰ ἐκ παραδόσεως τῶν πατέρων (Antiq. xiii. 10. 6), ἡ πατρίῳ παρόδοσις (ib. 16. 2), are the Pharisaic traditions, as distinguished from the written law. See also Matth. xv. 2, 3, 6, Mark vii. 3, 5, 8, 9, 13. These passages seem to show that the word παρίδοσις, which might in itself include equally well the written law, signified in the mouth of a Jew the traditional interpretations and additions afterwards embodied in the

Mishna, as distinguished from the text on which they were founded and which they professed to supplement. 15—17. ‘Then came my conversion.

It was the work of God’s grace. It was forcerdained, before I had any separate existence. It was not therefore due to any merits of my own, it did not spring from any principles of my own. The revelation of His Son in me, the call to preach to the Gentles, were acts of His good pleasure. Thus converted, I took no counsel of human advisers. I did not retake myself to the elder Apostles, as I might naturally have done. I secluded myself in Arabia, and, when I emerged from my retirement, instead of going to Jerusalem, I returned to Damascus.’

15. ὁ ἀφορίσας] ‘who set me apart, devoted me to a special purposn’: Rom. i. 1 ἀφορισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλων Θεοῦ. See also Acts xiii. 2 ἀφορίσατε δὴ μοι κ.τ.λ. The words ὁ Θεὸς of the received text are to be struck out as a gloss, though a correct one. Similar omissions are frequent in St Paul; see i. 6, ii. 8, iii. 5, v. 8, Rom. viii. 11, Phil. i. 6, 1 Thess. v. 24. Observe how words are accomplated to tell upon the one point on which he is insisting—the sole agency of God as distinct from his own efforts: εὐδέκησεν, ἀφορίσας, ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς μου, καλέσας, χάριτος αὐτοῦ.

ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς μου [from before my birth, before I had any impulses, any principles of my own.] For the expression see Judges xvi. 17 ἅγιος Θεοῦ ἐγὼ εἶμι ἀπὸ κοιλίας μητρὸς μου, Is. xliv. 2, 24, xlix. 1, 5 ὁ πλάσας με ἐκ κοιλίας δούλων ἑαυτῷ, Psalm lxx. 0 ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς μου σὺ μου εἶ σκεπαστῆς, and frequently in the lxx. The preposition seems to be merely temporal. The A. V., ‘who separated me from my mother’s womb,’ obscures, if it does not misinterpret, the sense.

καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ] See the note on i. 6.

16. Three separate stages in the history of the Apostle’s consecration to his ministry seem to be mentioned here. First, the prede-timation to his high office, which dated from before his birth (ὁ ἀφορίσας με κ.τ.λ.); Secondly, the conversion and call to the Apostle-hip, which took place on the way to Damascus, Acts ix. 3 sq (καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ); and Thirdly, the entering upon his ministry in fulfilment of this call, Acts ix. 20 sq. xiii. 2, 3 (ἀποκαλύψαι ἐν ἐμοὶ ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι).

The distinction of these three stages seems well marked; and if so, this de-

Galatians 1:17-18

ζωμαι αὐτόν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, εὐθίως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι, Ἰούδὲ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν, καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν· Ἐπ17. οὐδὲ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἱερ.

termines the meaning of ἐν ἐμοί. It does not speak of a revelation made inwardly to himself, but of a revelation made through him to others.

The proposition ἐν is used in preference to διὰ, because St Paul was not only the instrument in preaching the Gospel, but also in his own person bore the strongest testimony to its power. He constantly places his conversion in this light; see ver. 24 ἐδόξαζον ἐν ἐμοὶ τὸν Θεόν, 1 Tim. i. 16 διὰ τοῦτο ἠλεήθην ἵνα ἐν ἐμοὶ πρῶτα ἐνδείξηται Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς τὴν ἄκασαν μακροθυμίαν πρὸς ὑποτίπωσιν τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν κ.τ.λ., 2 Cor. xiii. 3 τοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ λαλοῦνται Χριστοῦ, Phil. i. 30. The rendering of ἐν ἐμοὶ

‘within me,’ i.e. ‘in my heart,’ seems neither to suit the context so well, nor to be so natural in itself.

εὐθίως οὐ προσανεθέμην κ.τ.λ.] ‘forthwith, instead of conferring with flesh and blood, etc., I departed to Arabia.’ On ἀναιτίθεται see the note ii. 2. In the double compound προσανατίθεται the idea of communication or consultation is stronger. The use of the word in heathen writers indirectly illustrates its sense here. It is employed especially of consulting soothsayers, and the like, as in Chrysippus (in Suidas, s.v. νιοττός) προσανατίθεται ἀνειροκρίτη, Diod. Sic. xvii. 116 τοῖς μάντισι προσανατίθειν περὶ τοῦ σημείου. Comp. Lucian Jnp. Trag. § 1 (ii. p. 642) ἐμοὶ προσανατίθου, λάβε με σύμβουλον πόνων. See the note ii. 6. For σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι compare our

Lord’s words to St Peter, Matt. xvi. 17 ‘Flesh and blood did not reveal it unto thee.’

17. ἀπῆλθον] ‘I came up.’ This verb and ἀναβαίνειν are used especially of visiting Jerusalem, situated in the high lands of Palestine, as κατέρχεσθαι, καταβαίνειν, are of leaving it. See Luke x. 30, Acts xi. 27, xii. 19, xv. 1, 2, xxi. 15, xxv. 1, 6, 7, and especially Acts xviii. 22, xxiv. 1. In the two last passages ἀναβαίνειν and καταβαίνειν are used absolutely without any mention of Jerusalem, this being implied in the expressions ‘going up,’ ‘going down.’ Here the various reading ἀπῆλθον has great claims to a place in the text. Both words occur in the context and it is difficult to say in favour of which reading the possible confusion of transcribers may more justly be urged. Perhaps however it is improbable that St Paul should have written ἀπῆλθον twice consecutively, as the repetition makes the sentence run awkwardly; though in Rom. viii. 15, 1 Cor. ii. 13, Heb. xii. 18, 22, something of the kind occurs. τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους. ’those who were Apostles before me,’ possibly including others besides the Twelve, especially James. See below, p. 95, note 4. For the expression compare Rom. xvi. 7, οἵτινες εἶναι ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις οἱ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γίγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ, where however the construction is doubtful. εἰς Δαμασκόν! A danger which threatened St Paul’s life on this occasion seems to have left a deep impression on his mind, and is mentioned by him in another epistle, nearly contemporaneous with this, 2 Cor. xi. 32. 18—24. ‘Not till three years were past did I go up to Jerusalem. My object in doing so was to confer with Cephas. But I did not remain with

6—2

Galatians 1:19

εἰτα μετὰ ἔτη τρία ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν, καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε· Ἄντερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ 18. μετὰ τρία ἔτη.

him more than a fortnight; and of all the other Apostles I saw only James the Lord’s brother. As in the sight of God, I declare to you that every word I write is true. Then I went to the distant regions of Syria and Cilicia. Thus I was personally unknown to the Christian brotherhood in Judaea. They had only heard that their former persecutor was now preaching the very faith which before he had attempted to destroy; and they glorified God for my conversion.’

18. ἔπειτα μετὰ ἔτη τρία] From

what point of time are these three years reckoned? Probably from the great epoch of his life, from his conversion. The ‘straightway’ of ver. 16 leads to this conclusion: ‘At first I conferred not with flesh and blood, it was only after the lapse of three years that I went to Jerusalem.’

Ἱεροσόλυμα] is generally a neuter plural. In Matt. ii. 3 however we have πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα. See A. Buttmann Gramm. p. 16. On the forms

Ἱεροσόλυμα and Ἱερουσαλήμ see the

note iv. 26.

ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν] ’to visit Cephas,’ ἱστορῆσαι is somewhat emphatic: ‘A word used,’ says Chrysostom, ‘by those who go to see great and famous cities.’ It is generally said of things and places; less commonly, as here, of persons: comp. Joseph. Bell. Jud. vi. 1. 8 ἀνὴρ ὡν ἐγὼ κατ’ ἐκείνον ἱστόρησα τὸν πόλεμον, and Clem. Hom. viii. 1, etc. St Peter is mentioned by St Paul only in this epistle and 1 Corinthians. Κηφᾶν is the right reading here, though there is respectable authority for Πέτρον. If the existing authorities are to be trusted, St Paul seems to have used the Aramaic and Greek names indifferently. Allowance ought to be made however for the tendency to substitute the more usual Πέτρος for the less common Κηφᾶν, e.g. here and ii. 9, 11, 14. In the Peshito Version

Cephas, as the Aramaic name, is not unnaturally adopted throughout this epistle.

δεκαπέντε] A later form for the more classical πεντεκαίδεκα. This and the analogous forms of numerals occur frequently in the use of Greek authors of the post-classical age, but in many cases are doubtless due to the transcribers writing out the words at length, where they had only the numoral letters before them. The frequent occurrence of these forms however in the Tabulae Heracleenses is a decisive testimony to their use, at least in some dialects, much before the Christian era. They are found often in the

LXX.

St Paul’s visit on this occasion was abruptly terminated. He left on account of a plot against his life (Acts ix. 29) and in pursuance of a vision (Acts xxii. 17—21).

19. εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον] Is James here styled an Apostle or not? Are we to translate, ‘I saw no other Apostle save James,’ or ‘I saw no other Apostle but only James’? It will be seen that the question is not whether εἰ μὴ retains its exceptive force or not, for this it seems always to do (see note on i. 7), but whether the exception refers to the whole clause or to the verb alone. That the latter is quite a possible construction will appear from Matth. xii. 4, Luke iv. 26, 27, Gal. ii. 16, Rev. xxi. 27; see Fritzsche on Rom. III. p. 195. But on the other hand the sense of ἕτερον naturally links it with

Galatians 1:20-22

Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου. ²⁰ ἃ δὲ γράφω ὑμῖν, ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι. ²¹ ἔπειτα ἦλθον εἰς τὰ κλίματα τῆς Συρίας καὶ τῆς Κιλικίας. ²² ἦμην δὲ

ἐ μή, from which it cannot be separated without harshness, and ἑτέρον carries τῶν ἀποστάλων with it. It seems then that St James is here called an Apostle, though it does not therefore follow that he was one of the Twelve (see the detached note, p. 95). The plural in the corresponding account Acts ix. 27, ‘He brought (Paul) to the Apostles,’ is also in favour of this sense, but this argument must not be pressed.

20. ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ] A form of asseveration equivalent to ‘I call you to witness,’ and so followed by ὅτι. See 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1 διαμαρτύρισθαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ. For ἰδοὺ elsewhere in the New Testament is an interjection or adverb, never a verb, so that there is an objection to making it govern ὅτι here. Perhaps however the occurrence of ἰδοὺ ὅτι in the LXX, Ps. exix. 159, Lam. i. 20, may justify such a construction here. The strength of St Paul’s language is to be explained by the unscrupulous calumnies cast upon him by his enemies. See the note 1 Thess. v. 27.

21. In the corresponding narrative of St Luke it is related that the brethren at Jerusalem, discovering the plot against St Paul’s life, ’took him down to Caesarea and despatched him to Tarsus’ (Acts ix. 30); and later on, that Barnabas went to Tarsus and sought out Saul, and having found him brought him to Antioch, where they taught for a whole year before returning to Jerusalem (xi. 25 30). The Caesarea mentioned there is doubtless Stratonis, and not Philippi, as some maintain. Not only was this the more probable route for him to take, but St Luke’s language requires it; for (1) The words κατήγαγον, ἰξαἰστεῖλον, imply a seaport and an embarkation; and (2) Caesarea, without any addition to distinguish it, is always the principal city of the name. It appears therefore that St Luke represents St Paul as sailing from Caesarea on his way to Tarsus; and comparing this account with the notice here, we must suppose either (1) That St Paul did not go direct to Tarsus but visited Syria on the way; or (2) That he visited Syria from Tarsus, and after preaching there returned again to Tarsus where he was found by Barnabas; St Luke having, on either of these hypotheses, omitted to record this visit to Syria; or (3) That St Paul’s words here ‘Syria and Cilicia’ are not intended to describe the order in which he visited the two countries. This last is the most probable supposition. Cilicia has geographically a greater affinity with Syria than with Asia Minor. See Conybeare and Howson, i. p. 130. The less important country is here named after the more important ‘Cilicia,’ says Ewaid, ‘was constantly little better than an appendage of Syria.’ Gesch. des V. Isr. vi. p. 406. At this time however it was under a separate administration. The words τὰ κλίματα seem to show that ‘Syria and Cilicia’ are here mentioned under one general expression, and not as two distinct districts.

τὰ κλίματα] Rom. xv. 25. 2 Cor. xi. 10. A comparatively late word, see Lobeck Parol. p. 218. It is found in Pseudo-Aristot de Mundo c. x, and several times in Polybius.

22. ἦμην ἀγνοούμενος κ.τ.λ.] ‘I remained personally unknown.’ A strong form of the imperfect, as ἀκούοντες ἔσον ’they kept hearing’ (ver. 23): see Winer, § xlv. 5, p. 437 sq.

Galatians 1:23-24

ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ἰουδαίας tαῖς ἐν Χριστῷ, ²³μόνον δὲ ἀκούοντες ἦσαν ὅτι Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτὲ νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἣν ποτε ἐπόρθει, ²⁴καὶ ἐδόξαζον ἐν ἐμοὶ τὸν Θεόν. ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις κ.τ.λ.] ‘unknown to the Churches of Judaea’ generally, as distinguished from that of Jerusalem; comp. John iii. 22. To the latter he could not have failed to be known, as might be inferred from the account here, even without the narrative of his energetic preaching in the Acts. From Jerusalem he was hurried off to Cassirea, and there embacking he left the shores of Palestine. The other churches of Judaea therefore had no opportunity of knowing him. Judaea is here distinguished from Jerusalem, as Italy is frequently distinguished from Rome, e.g. probably Hebr. xiii. 24. The addition tαῖς ἐν Χριστῷ was necessary when speaking of the Christian brotherhoods of Judaea; for the unconverted Jewish communities might still be called ’the Churches of Judaea.’ See the note on 1 Thess. ii. 14, τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν εὐσῶν ἐν τῇ

Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

23. ὅτι introduces an abrupt change from the oblique to the direct mode of speaking, e.g. Acts xiv. 22, xxiii. 22. So it is used frequently in introducing a quotation, e.g. Gal. iii. 10.

Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτὲ] ‘Our per-

secutor of former times’; ὁ διώκων being used as a substantive, i.e. without reference to time, as Matt. xx-ii. 40 ὁ καταλύων τὸν ναῦν: see Winer, § xlv. 7, p. 4;4. On the position of ποτὲ, see the note on ver. 13.

τὴν πίστιν] It is a striking proof of the large space occupied by ‘faith’ in the mind of the infant Church, that it should so soon have passed into a synonym for the Gospel. See Acts vi. 7. Here its meaning seems to hover between the Gospel and the Church.

For the various senses of πίστις, see the notes on iii. 23, vi. 10, and the detached note on the term ‘faith.’ 24. ἐν ἐμοί] See the note ver. 16, and comp. Is. xlix. 3 δοῦλός μου εἶ σί Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἐν σοὶ ἐνδοξασθήσομαι. ‘He does not say,’ adds Chrysostom, ’they marvelled at me, they praised me, they were struck with admiration of me, but he attributes all to grace. They glorified God, he says, in me.’