Galatians 3

Galatians 3:1

III. Ὡ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν, οἷς κατ’ ὀφθαλμούς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταιρῳ-

III. 1. In the last paragraph of the foregoing chapter St Paul began by speaking of the incident at Antioch, but his thoughts have been working round gradually to the false teachers in Galatia, and have moulded his language accordingly. He is thus led to dwell on the direct antagonism to the Gospel involved in the conduct of the Judaizers, which tacitly assumes that a man may be justified by his own works. It is a practical denial of the efficacy of Christ’s death. This thought is intolerable to him, and he bursts out into the indignant remonstrance with which this chapter opens.

‘Christ’s death in vain! O ye senseless Gauls, what bewitchment is this? I placarded Christ crucified before your eyes. You suffered them to wander from this gracious proclamation of your King. They rested on the withering eye of the sorcerer. They yielded to the fascination and were riveted there. And the life of your souls has been drained out of you by that envious gaze.’

Ἰβάσκανεν ‘fascinated you.’ St Paul’s metaphor is derived from the popular belief in the power of the evil eye. Comp. Ignat. Rom. § 3 οὐδίποτε Ἰβάσκανεῖ οὐδίνα (or οὐδενί), Wisd. iv. 12 Ἰωσκανία γὰρ φωλότητος ἀμονοῦ τὰ καλά, and see especially the discussion in Plutarch, Symp. v. 7, p. 680 c περὶ τῶν καταβασκών λεγομένων καὶ βάσκανων ἔχειν ὀφθαλμὸν ἐμπεσόντος λόγου κτλ. If the derivation of Ἰωσκανία now generally adopted (see Benfey Wurzel, II. p. 104), from βίζω, βάσκω (φάσκω), be correct, the word originally referred to witchery by spells or incantations (‘mala fascinare lingua’); but as it occurs in actual use, it denotes the blighting influence of the evil eye, of which meaning indeed the popular but now exploded derivation (ἐἰ φαίων, καίουσαν Tzetz.) is an evidence. See Bacon’s Essays ix. This belief is not confined to the East or to ancient times, but is common in some countries of Europe even now. In parts of Italy the power of the ‘occhio cattivo’ or ‘jettatura’ is said to be a deeply rooted popular superstition. On its wide prevalence see the references in Winer’s Realwörterb. a. v. Zauberei, and in an article by O. Jahn, über den Aberglauben des bosen Blicks etc. in the Verhandl. der Sächs. Gesellsch. 1855, p. 31. The word Ἰωσκανία then in this passage involves two ideas; (1) The baleful influence on the recipient, and (2) The envious spirit of the agent. This latter idea is very prominent in the Hebrew יַעֲשֶׂה (’envious’ or ‘covetous’, e.g. Prov. xxiii. 6, Tobit iv. 16, Ecclus. xiv. 10, and compare the ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρὸς of the Gospels); and in the Latin invideo it has swallowed up every other meaning. The false teachers envy the Galatians this liberty in Christ, have an interest in subjecting them again to bondage: see iv. 17, vi. 12, and 2 Cor. xi. 20. This idea however is subordinate to the other, for where Ἰωσκανία signifies directly ’to envy,’ it generally takes a dative like the Latin ‘invideo’: see Lobeck Phryn. p. 463. Jerome besides sees in the metaphor here an allusion to the spiritual ‘infancy’ of the Galatians. It is true indeed that children were regarded as most susceptible of Ἰωσκανία (διότι πολλὴν ἔχουσιν ἐπάθειαν καὶ τροπον τῆς φύσεως, Alex. Aphrod. Probl. Phys. ii. 53: see also the passages in Jahn, p. 39), and such an allusion would be very significant here; but the metaphor must not be overcharged.

Ἰβάσκανεν (for which some copies read Ἰβάσκανεν) is probably the first aorist with ᾶ; see Ignat. l. c. On

Galatians 3:2

μένος; ἄτοῦτο μόνον θέλω μαθεῖν ἀφ’ ὑμῶν, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου τὸ πνεῦμα ἐλάβετε ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως; forms in η and α, see Buttmann Ausf. Sprachl. § 101. 4, A. Buttmann p. 35, and Lobeck Plwyn. p. 25, Parul.

p. 22.

The words τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθισθαι

of the received text have no place here, but are added from v. 7.

οἷς κατ’ ὀφθαλμοῖς] ‘before whose

eyes’: comp. Arist. Ran. 626 ἵνα σοὶ κατ’ ὀφθαλμοὺς λέγῃ. This expression is slightly stronger than πρὸ ὀφθαλμῶν, as bringing out the idea of a confronting.

As the blighting influence passed from the eye of the bewitcher, so also was the eye of the recipient the most direct channel of communication: see exp. Alexand. Aphrod. Probl. Phys. ii. 53 ὥσπερ ἰώδη τινὰ καὶ φθοροποιὸν ἀκτίνε ἐξιόσιν ἀπὸ τῆς κόρης αὐτῶν καὶ αὕτη εἰσιούσα διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τοῦ φθονογιάνου τρίψει τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τὴν φύσιν κ.τ.λ., Heliod. Eth. iii. 7 διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τὰ πόθη ταῖς ψυχαῖς

eἰστοξεύονται (these references I owe to Jahn. p. 33); and comp. Eccles. xviii. 18 δέναι βασκάνου ἐκτήκει ὀφθαλμοῖς, xiv. 8, Test. xii Patr. Is. 4. To let the eye rest on the sorcerer therefore was to yield to the fascination. This the Galatians had done: ‘So deeply had they drunken in That look, those shrunken serpent eyes, That all their features were resigned To this sole image in their mind.’ προεγράφη] ‘was posted up, placarded.’ The verb προγράφει is capable of two meanings; (1) ‘To write beforehand,’ as Rom. xv. 4 ὅσα γὰρ προεγράφη εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν διδασκαλίων ἐγράφη. This sense however is excluded here, as the words κατ’ ὀφθαλμοῖς forbid the supposition that the Apostle is here speaking of the predicti us of the Old Testament, even if such a sense were otherwise likely. (2) ‘To write up in public, to placard.’ It is the common word to describe

all public notices or proclamations, e.g. Arist. An. 450 ὁ τι ὂν προγράφωμεν ἐν τοῖς πινακίοις: comp. Justin Apod. ii. p. 52 ἢ ἐὰν δὲ ὑμεῖς τοῦτο προγράψῃτε, ἡμεῖς τοῖς πᾶσι φανερὸν παιγούμεν. These would sometimes be notices of a trial or condemnation; comp. Jude 4 οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι eἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα, with Demasth. p. 1151 τοὺς πρυτάνεις προγράψειν αὐτῷ τὴν κρίσιν ἐπὶ δύο ἡμέραις, Plut. Camill. 9 τῆς δίκης προγεγραμμένης: and this meaning is assigned to the word here by several ancient commentators.

The context however seems to require rather the sense ‘placarded, publicly announced as a magisterial edict or proclamation.’ This placard ought to have kept their eyes from warranted, and so to have acted as a charm (βασκάνου or προβασκάνου,

Epist. J. v. 69) against all Judaic serceries. The compound verb προγράφει seems never to be used of painting, as some take it here.

ἐν ὑμῖν is omitted after προεγράφη in deference to the best authorities. It is difficult however to account for its insertion in some early copies, unless it crept in from ver. 5. If retained, it ought probably to be regarded as a redundant expression enforcing the idea of οἷς κατ’ ὀφθαλμοῖς, and to be taken with προεγράφη.

2, 3, 4. ‘I have only one question to ask you. The gifts of the Spirit which ye have received, to what do ye owe them? To works performed in bondage to law, or to the willing hearing that comes of faith? What moustrous folly is this then! Will you so violate the divine order of progress? After taking your earliest lessons in the Spirit, do you look to attaining perfection through the flesh? To what purpose then did ye suffer persecution from these carnal teachers of the law? Will ye now

Galatians 3:3-4

³οὕτως ἀνόητοί ἐστε; ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε; ⁴τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῇ; εἴ γε

stultify your past sufferings? I cannot believe that ye will.’

2. ἀκοῇς in itself may mean either ‘a hearing’ or ‘a report.’ For the latter sense see Rom. x. 16, quoted from the LXX of Is. liii. 1. The former meaning however is more probable here, as presenting a better contrast to ἔργων, which requires some word expressing the part taken by the Galatians themselves: comp. 1 Thess. ii. 13.

πιστεως] ‘which comes of faith,’ the subjective genitive. The parallelism of Rom. x. 17, ὅρα ἡ πίστει ἐξ ἀκοῇς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥηματος, is only apparent. A true parallel is the phrase ὑπακοὴ πίστεως, Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26. At all events πίστεως cannot be considered equivalent to τῆς πίστεως (see on i. 23), taken as an objective genitive, with the sense ’listening to the doctrines of the faith.’

3. οὕτως] refers to what follows: ‘How senseless to reverse the natural order of things!’ ἐναρξάμενοι ἐπιτελεῖσθε] These words occur together 2 Cor. viii. 6, Phil. i. 6. Both of them, the former especially, are employed of religious ceremonials, and it is possible that the idea of a sacrifice may underlie their use here. For ἐνόρχεσθαι of the initiatory rites see Pollux viii. 83, and comp. e.g. Eur. Iph. Aul. 1471; for ἐπιτελεῖν Herod. ii. 63 (θυσίας, εὐχωλίας), iv. 186 (νηστείας καὶ ἑρτὰς).

ἐπιτελεῖσθε is perhaps the middle voice rather than the passive, as in Clem. Rom. § 55 πολλαὶ γυναῖκες ἐνδυναμωθεῖσαι… ἐπιτελεῖσον πολλὰ ἀνδρεῖα, and frequently in classical writers, e.g. Plat. Phil. 27 c κάλλιον ἂν καὶ τὴν κρίσιν ἐπιτελεσώμεθα. A comparison of the parallel passages 2 Cor. viii. 6, Phil. i. 6, seems to point to a transitive verb. On the other hand the middle voice is not found elsewhere in the LXX or New Testament.

4. τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῇ] ‘did ye suffer so much in vain?’, referring to the persecutions endured by them. For similar appeals to sufferings undergone see Gal. v. 11, 1 Cor. xv. 32, and comp. 1 Thess. ii. 14. The history indeed says nothing of persecutions in Galatia, but then it is equally silent on all that relates to the condition of the Galatian Churches: and while the converts to the faith in Pisidia and Lycaonia on the one side (Acts xiv. 2, 5, 19, 22), and in proconsular Asia on the other (2 Cor. i. 8, Acts xix. 23 sq.), were exposed to suffering, it is improbable that the Galatians alone should have escaped. If we suppose, as is most likely, that the Jews were the chief instigators in these persecutions, St Paul’s appeal becomes doubly significant.

On the other hand, ἐπάθετε has been interpreted in a good sense, as if referring to the spiritual blessings of the Galatians: but πάσχειν seems never to be so used in the New Testament; and indeed such a rendering would be harsh anywhere, unless the sense were clearly defined by the context, as it is for instance in Jos. Ant. iii. 15. 1 τὸν θεῖν ὑπομνήσαι μὲν ὅσα παθόντες ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ πηλίκων εὐεργεσιῶν μεταλαβόντες κ.τ.λ.

εἰκῇ] ‘in vain.’ ‘You despise that liberty in Christ for which you then suffered; you listen to those teachers, whom you then resisted even to persecution.’ εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῇ] ‘if it be really in vain.’ It is hard to believe this; the Apostle hopes better things of his converts. Εἴ γε leaves a loophole for doubt, and καὶ widens this, implying an unwillingness to believe on the part of the speaker. Hermann’s distinction (ad Viger, p. 834) that εἶγε assumes the truth of a proposition while εἶπερ leaves it doubtful, requires modifying

Galatians 3:5-7

καὶ εἰκῇ. ⁵ ὁ οὖν ἐπιχορηγῶν ὑμῖν τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως; ⁶ καθὼς Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστεγεν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίευν ἀγτῷ εἰς Δικαιοσύνην. ⁷ γινώσκετε ἄρα

before it is applied to the New Testament, where εἴπερ is, if anything, more directly affirmative than εἶγε. The alternative rendering, ‘If it is only in vain and not worse than in vain,’ seems harsh and improbable.

5. The question asked in ver. 2 involved the contrast of faith and works. This contrast suggests two other thoughts: (1) The violation of the law of progress committed by the Galatians (ver. 3); (2) Their folly in stultifying their former sufferings (ver. 4). The question has meanwhile been lost sight of. It is now resumed and the particle οὖν marks its resumption; ‘Well then, as I said, etc.’ ὁ ἐπιχορηγῶν] ‘He that supplieth bountifully’; comp. Phil. i. 19 ἐπιχορηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Even the simple word implies more or less of liberality, and the compound ἐπιχορηγείν expresses this idea more strongly. See 2 Pet. i. 5 ἐπιχορηγήσατε ἐν τῇ πίστει ὑμῶν τὴν ἀρετὴν, and compare the use of the substantive ἐπιχορήγημα in Athen. iv. p. 140 c ἐπόλελα μὲν λέγεται ταῦτα, ὄντα οἷον ἐπιχορηγήματα τοῦ συντεταγμένου τοῖς φειδίοις ἀκέλου, i.e. the luxuries, the superfluities of the med.

ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν] Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 10 ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων (with vv. 28, 29). Matt. xiv. 2 αἱ δυνάμεις ἐνεργοῦσιν ἐν αὐτῷ (comp. Mark vi. 14). These passages favour the sense ‘worketh miraculous power in you,’ rather than ‘worketh miracles among you’; and this meaning also accords better with the context: comp. 1 Cor. xii. 6 καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς Θεὸς ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν. What was the exact nature of these ‘powers,’ whether they were exerted over the physical or the moral world, it is impossible to determine. The limitations implied in 1 Cor. xii. 10. and the general use of δυνάμεις, point rather to the former. It is important to notice how here, as in the Epistle to the Corinthians, St Paul assumes the possession of these extraordinary powers by his converts as an acknowledged fact.

The verb which disappears in the ellipsis is to be supplied from the foregoing participles: ‘does He do so from works etc,’ as in 2 Cor. iii. 11, Rom. xii. 7 sq.

6. The following passage vv. 6—9 was omitted in Marcion’s recension of the epistle, as repugnant to his leading principle of the antagonism between the Old and New Testaments: see Tertall. ade. Marc. v. 3 ‘ostenditar quid supra haeretica industria eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahac,’ and Hieron. ad loc.

καθὼς] The answer to the question asked in the former verse is assumed, ‘Surely of faith: and so it was with Abraham.’ Καθὼς, though not a good Attic word, is common in later Greek; see Lobeck. Phy. p. 425.

Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστεγεν κ.τ.λ.] from the LXX of Gen. xv. 6. The Hebrew has in the second clause חֲשִׁבָּה לוֹ צָרְקָה ‘and He, imputed it to him (for) righteousness.’ It is quoted as in the LXX also in Rom. iv. 3, James ii. 23, Clem. Rom. § 10, Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. § 119. The passage is cited also in Barnab. § 13, but too loosely and with too obvious an infusion of St Paul’s language to allow of any inference as to the text used by the writer.

On the use made of this passage by Jewish writers and on the faith of Abraham see p. 158 sq.

Galatians 3:8-10

ὅτι οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοὶ εἰσιν Ἀβραάμ. ⁶προϊδοῦσα δὲ ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοὶ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ Θεός, προευηγγελίσατο τῷ Ἀβραάμ ὅτι ἐπεγλοζηθῆσονται ἐκ καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. ⁷ὥστε οἱ ἐκ πίστεως εὐλογοῦνται σὺν τῷ πιστῷ Ἀβραάμ. ¹⁰ὅσοι 7. οἶτοί εἰσιν υἱοὶ Ἀβραάμ

7. The promise to Abraham, which in the passage of Genesis introduces the words just quoted, is the link of connexion with what follows.

7, 8, 9. ‘An offspring, countless as the stars, was promised to Abraham. Abraham believed, and his faith was accepted as righteousness. Who then are these promised sons of Abraham? Those surely who inherit Abraham’s faith. Hence the declaration of the scripture that all the Gentiles should be blessed in him. These are the words of foresight discerning that God justifies the Gentiles by faith; for so only could they be blessed in Abraham. We conclude therefore that the faithful and the faithful alone share the blessing with him.’ γνωσκεῖν [το perceive] the indicative rather than the imperative. The former mood is perhaps more suited to the argumentative character of the sentence generally, as well as to the special argumentative particle ἄρα, and possibly also to the meaning of the verb γνωσκεῖν (’to perceive’ rather than ’to know’; see the note iv. 8, 9); comp. 1 John ii. 29 ἐὰν εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκοιεῖ ἐστιν, γινώσκετε ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐξ αὐτοῖ γεγίνονται. On the other hand, for the imperative see Heb. xiii. 23.

οἱ ἐκ πίστεως [they whose startingpoint, whose fundamental principle is faith.] Comp. Rom. ii. 8 οἱ ἐξ ἐριθείας, Rom. iv. 14 οἱ ἐκ νόμου.

8. ἡ γραφὴ [the scripture] personified. This instance stands by itself in the New Testament, the personification elsewhere not going beyond λέγει or εἶπεν, or such expressions as συνέλευσεν, ver. 22. The attributing ‘sight’ to the sacred writings is however found in a not uncommon Jewish formula of reference 𐎠𐎠𐎠, ‘Quid vidit?’ see Schöttgen here. On the meaning of γραφή, ‘a passage of Scripture,’ see the note iii. 22.

δικαιοί. The tense denotes the certainty of God’s dealings, the sure accomplishment of His purpose, as if it were actually present: see on 1 Thess. v. 2, and Winer § xi. 2, p. 280.

προευηγγελίσατο. The promise to

Abraham was an anticipation of the Gospel, not only as announcing the Messiah, but also as involving the doctrine of righteousness by faith. ἐνευλογηθήσονται κτλ.] A fusion

of the two passages, Gen. xii. 3 καὶ [ἐν]ευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοί πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς, and Gen. xviii. 18 καὶ ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν αὐτῷ (Ἀβραάμ)

πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς, in both of which the LXX agrees with the Hebrew.

Comp. Clem. Rom. § 10.

ἐν σοί [in thee] as their spiritual progenitor.

10, 11, 12. Having shown by positive proof that justification is of faith, he strengthens his position by the negative argument derived from the impossibility of maintaining its opposite, justification by law. This negative argument is twofold: First, It is impossible to fulfil the requiroments of the law, and the non-fulfilment lays us under a curse (ver 10): Secondly, Supposing the fulfilment possible, still the spirit of the law is autagonistic to faith, which is else-

Galatians 3:11

γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν, ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν. γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς, ὃς οὐκ ἐμΜΕΝΕΙ Πᾶς ΙΝ ΤΟΙΣ ΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΙΣ ΕΝ ΤΩ 313ΛΙΩ ΤΟΥ ΝΟΜΟΥ, ΤΟΥ ΠΟΙΗΣΑΙ ΑΥΤΑ. “ὅτι δὲ ἐν νόμῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ δῆλον, ὅτι ὁ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣ where spoken of as the source of life (vv. 11, 12).

10, 11. ‘On the other hand all who depend on works of law are under a curse. This the Scripture itself declares. It utters an anathema against all who fail to fulfil every single ordinance contained in the book of the law. Again the same truth, that the law does not justify in the sight of God, appears from another Scripture which declares that the just shall live by faith.’

10 ὥσοι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν] ’those who are of works of law,’ whose character is founded on works of law.

ἐπικατάρατος κ.τ.λ.] A quotation from Dent. xxvii. 26. The passage is the closing sentence of the curses pronounced on Mount Ebal, and as it were the summary of the whole. The words run in the LXX, ἐπικατάρατος

πᾶς ἄνθρωπος δὲ οὐκ ἐμείνει ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόμου τούτου τοῦ ποιησαι αὐτοῦς. For τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ νόμου τούτου a slight modification is introduced by St Paul, that the sentence may explain itself. The words πᾶς, πᾶσιν, are absent in the Hebrew, though the former is found in the Pessito, and the latter in the Samar. Pentat. Jerome in this passage, referring to the Samaritan reading, attributes the opinion to a wilful corruption of the text on the part of the Jews, ’ne viderentur esse sub maledicto.’ The charge is of course unfounded, but it is an interesting notice of the state of the text in his day. Justin, Dial. § 95, p. 322 c, quotes the passage exactly in the words of St Paul, though differing from Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Samaritan texts, and applies it in the same way: see above, p. 60, and the note on ver. 13.

11. The same proposition proved in another way; &c, ‘Then again.’ ὁ ἔικαιος κ.τ.λ.] From Habak. ii.

4, quoted also Rom. i. 17, Heb. x. 38. In the Hebrew the words run, ‘Behold, his soul is uplifted (proud, stubborn), it is not right (calm, even); but the just man shall live by his steadfastness (fidelity), צירק באמנות והיה.’ What is the correct rendering of the first clause, whether it refers to the Chaldean invader or to the heedless Jew, may be questioned; but the second clause without doubt describes the attitude of the faithful Israelite in the season of danger. The LXX have

ἐὰν ἐποστείληται, οὐκ ἐδωκεί ἡ ψυχὴ μου ἐν αὐτῷ, ὑπὸ δικαίᾳ μου ἐκ πίστεως (ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως μου) (ἔσται: see below, p. 156. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who gives both clauses of the verse, though reversing the order, quotes from the LXX (see Bleek, H.b. l. c.).

It will thus be seen that in the first clause of the verse, the LXX, though it makes excellent sense, differs widely from the Hebrew. In the second clause again the Hebrew word אמנות is not directly ‘faith,’ meaning ’trust,’ belief,’ but ‘steadfastness, faithfulness.’ The context however justifies πίστεως, even in the sense ’trust,’ as a paraphrastic rendering, and it was so translated by Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodosius, and in the other Greek versions. See p. 156, note 4. Targum Jon has πωστίμη, ’their truth.’ In its original context the passage has reference to the temporal calamities intlicted by the Chaldean invasion. Here

Galatians 3:12-13

ἐκ πίστεως ζῆσται ¹²ὁ δὲ νόμος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ πίστεως, ἀλλ’ ὁ ποίησας ἀγὰ ζῆσται ἐν ἀγτοῖς ¹³Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου, γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα, ὅτι γέγραπται ἐπι-

a spiritual meaning and general application are given to words referring primarily to special external incidents. Another portion of this same prophecy of Habakkuk (i. 5, comp. ii. 5) relating to the Chaldeans is similarly applied in a speech of St Paul, Acts xiii. 41, in which context (ver. 39, ἐν τούτῳ πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων δικαιοίται) there is perhaps a tacit allusion to the words ὁ δίκαιος κ.τ.λ. quoted here.

12. ‘Faith is not the starting-point of the law. The law does not take faith as its fundamental principle. On the other hand, it rigidly enforces the performance of all its enactments’ ὁ ποιήσας κ.τ.λ.] Quoted from Lev. xviii. 5, substantially the same as in Heb., Syr., Samar. Tent., and Lxx. The Targums define the meaning of ’living’ by ’life eternal.’ The αὐτά is explained by the words which in the original text precede the passage quoted, πάντα τὰ προστάγματά μου καὶ πάντα τὰ κρίματά μου, and with which St Paul assumes a familiarity in his readers.

13. ‘Christ ransomed us from this curse pronounced by the law. Himself taking our place and becoming a curse for our sakes: for so says the Scripture, Cursed is every one that hangeth on the gibbet.’ ἡμᾶς] The Apostle is here thinking of the deliverance of himself and the Jewish race: see τὸ ἴθιη, ver. 14.

ἐξηγόρασεν] This verb has two meanings. (1) ‘To redeem, ransom,’ especially from slavery: this is its general signification: see the references in Dindorf’s Steph. Ther. (2) ‘To buy up,’ as Polyb. iii. 42. 2, a somewhat exceptional sense. The former meaning is required here and iv. 5: the latter seems best suited to Ephes.

v. 16, Col. iv. 5, τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγορτῶ-ζόμενοι.

κατάρα] ss 2 Cor. v. 21 τὸν μὴ γνῆντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίας ἐποίησεν: comp. Protec. Jac. § 3, where Anna, complaining of her barrenness says, κατάρα ἐγενήθην ἐγὼ ἐνώπιον τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ. The expression is to be explained partly by the Hebrew ilikim, the paucity of adjectives frequently occasioning the use of a substantive instead, but still more by the religious conception which it involves. The victim is regarded as bearing the sins of those for whom atonement is made. The curse is transferred from them to it. It becomes in a certain sense the impersonation of the sin and of the curse. This idea is very prominent in the scape-goat, Lev. xvi. 5 sq: see especially the language of the Epistle of Barnabas, § 7, where the writer explains the scape-goat as a type of Christ. Compare also Lev. iv. 25 ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴματος τοῦ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, and iv. 29 ἐπιθήσει τὴν χείρα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ ἁμαρτήματος αὐτοῖ. In Hebrew INICIT is both a ‘sin’ and a ‘sin-offering.’ Counterparts to these types of the Great Sacrifice are found also among heathen nations, e.g. the Athenians. Arist. Ran. 733, Lysias Andoc. p. 108 φάρμακον ἀποπέμπειν καὶ ἀλιτηρίου ἀπαλλάττεσθαι, and especially the Egyptians, Herod. ii. 39 κεφαλὴ δὲ κείνη (i.e. of the victim) πολλὰ καταρησόμενοι φέρουσι…καταρίονται δὲ τὶς λέγοντες τῇς κεφαλῆσι, εἰ τι μέλλοι ἢ σφίσι τοῖς θύϊσοι ἢ λιγύπτῳ τῇ συναπάσῃ κακὸν γενεσθαι, εἰς κεφαλὴν τούτην τροπίσθαι.

γέγραπται] in Deut. xxi. 23, where the LXX IUNS κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ Θεοῦ πᾶς κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου. The passage

Galatians 3:14

κατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμώμενος ἐπὶ ἔγλογ, ¹⁴ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γένηται ἐν Χριστῷ 14. ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ.

is quoted by Justin, Dial. p. 323 c, exactly as by St Paul; see p. 60, and the note on ver. 10. Our Lord had died the death of the worst malefactors: He had undergone that punishment, which under the law becokened the curse of God. So far He had become κατάρα. But He was in no literal sense κατάρατος ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, and St Paul instinctively omits those words which do not strictly apply, and which, if added, would have required some qualification.

14. ‘Thus the law, the great barrier which excluded the Gentiles, is done away in Christ. By its removal the Gentiles are put on a level with us Jews; and, so united, we and they alike receive the promise in the gift of the Spirit through our faith.’ The sequence of thought here is exactly the same as in Ephes. ii. 14-18: see also Gal. iv. 5.

As regards the construction, either 1) The two clauses introduced by

Ira are coordinate, as in 2 Cor. ix. 3, expressing the coincidence in time of the extension of the blessing to the Gentiles and the introduction of the dispensation of the Spirit; or (2) The second clause with Ira is attached to the first, expressing the moral dependence of the one on the other. The passage from the Ephesians already referred to favours the latter.

τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν κ.τ.λ.¹ ’etc, i.e. all the faithful, whether Jews or Gentiles, may receive the promise.’ The divine promise in the New Testament is always ἐπαγγελία not ὑπόσχισις, ‘pollicitum’ not ‘promissum,’ a gift graciously bestowed and not a pledge obtained by negotiation. Indeed the substantive ἐπαγγελία is scarcely ever used (Acts xxiii. 21 is an exception) of anything else but the divine promise. The phrase λαμβάνειν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν is employed not of those to whom the promise is given, but of those to whom it is fulfilled; as Acts ii. 33, Heb. ix. 15. So also ἐπιτυγχάνειν της ἐπαγγελίας Heb. vi. 15, περικείνιν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, Acts i. 4. With this use of ἐπαγγελία, compare that of ἐλπίς, πίστις, etc., for the object of faith, of hope, etc.

15-18. ‘Brethren, let me draw an illustration from the common dealings of men. Even a human covenant duly confirmed is held sacred and inviolable. It cannot be set aside, it cannot be clogged with new conditions. Much more than a divine covenant. Now the promise of God was not given to Abraham alone, but to his seed. What is meant by ‘his seed’? The form of expression denotes unity. It must have its fulfilment in some one person. This person is Christ. Thus it was unfulfilled when the law came. Between the giving of the promise then and the fulfilment of it the law intervened. And coming many hundred years after, it was plainly distinct from the promise, it did not interpret the terms of the promise. Thus the law cannot set aside the promise. Yet this would be done in effect, if the inheritance could only be obtained by obedience to the law; since the promise itself imposed no such condition.’

15. ‘Ἀδελφοί] ‘Brethren.’ There is a touch of tenderness in the appeal here, as if to make amends for the severity of the foregoing rebuke, iii. 1 s; : comp. iv. 31, vi. 1.

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω] ‘I speak after the manner of men, I argue from the practice of men’; see Rom. iii. 5, 1 Cor. ix. 8, and Rom. vi. 19 ἄνθρωπον λέγω. Comp. also 1 Cor. iii. 3

Galatians 3:15

Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος λάβωνι διά τῆς πίστεως.

¹⁰ Ἀδελφοί, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω. ὅμως ἀνθρώποι κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται. κατὰ ἄνθρωπον περιπατεῖτε, Gal. i. 11, 1 Cor. xv. 32 εἰ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἐθηριομάχησα κ.τ.λ., ‘If from nothing more than worldly motives I fought with beasts etc,’ where the false interpretation of κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, ‘metaphorically,’ has been supported by the mistaken analogy of the passage in our text. For the usage of κατὰ ἄνθρωπον in profane authors see the quotations in Wetstein on Rom.

iii. 5.

ὅμως ἀνθρώπου. The force is well

given in the A. V., ’though it be but a man’s covenant,’ i.e. καίπερ ἀνθρώπου οἶσαν, ὅμως κ.τ.λ.; comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 7 ὅμως τὰ ὕψυχα φωνὴν δίδοντα, Pausan. i. 28. 1 Κιλωνα…ἀνέξασαν τυραντίδα ὅμως βουλεύσαντα. In classical writers this displacement of ὅμως, so as to connect it with the word or clause to which it applies, appears to occur cheefly, if not solely, with participles, and not as here and 1 Cor. xiv. 7. The argument is here an a fortiori argument, as those of our Lord drawn from the affection of a human father (Luke xi. 11 sq) and from the compliance of a human judge (Luke xviii. 1 sq). See esp. Heb. vi. 16. The a fortiori character of the reasoning however is dismissed in the single word ὅμως, except so far as it is picked up again in τοῦ Θεοῦ (ver. 17), and does not reappear, as some have thought, in δὲ ἐστιν Χριστός.

διαθήκην] ‘a covenant. This word

(frequently in the plural διαθήκαι, in classical writers almost always signifies ‘a will, a testament.’ There are some few exceptions, however, e.g. Arist. Ar. 439 ἐν μὴ διάθωνταί γ’ οἶδε διαθήκην ἐμοί. On the other hand in the LXX it is as universally used of a covenant (most frequently as a translation of ברית, whether as a stipulation between two parties (συνθήκη, ‘a covenant’ in the strict sense) or as an engagement on the part of one Nor in the New Testament is it ever found in any other sense, with one exception. Even in this exceptional case, Heb. ix. 15-17, the sacred writer starts from the sense of a ‘covenant,’ and glides into that of a ’testament,’ to which he is led by two points of analogy, (1) the inheritance conferred by the covenant, and (2) the death of the person making it. ‘The disposition in this case,’ he says in effect, ‘was a testamentary disposition, a will.’ In the passage before us, on the other hand, the mere mention of the inheritance (ver. 18) is not sufficient to establish the sense ‘a testament,’ which is ill suited to the context. comp. Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. § 11, p. 228 B. Owing partly to the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews and partly to the influence of the Latin version, which ordinarily rendered the word by ’testamentum’ (as here, the idea of a testament connected itself inseparably with διαθήκη. As a name for the sacred books, ’testamentum’ had not firmly established itself at the close of the second century, and Tertullian frequently uses ‘instrumentum’ instead; see esp. adv. Marc.

iv. 1, and comp. Kaye’s Tertullian p. 299. The LXX translators and the New Testament writers probably preferred διαθήκη to συνθήκη; when speaking of the divine dispensation, because the former term, like ἐπαγγελία, better expresses the free grace of God. The later Greek translators frequently substituted συνθήκη, where the LXX has διαθήκη, sometimes perhaps not without a polemical aim.

Galatians 3:16

¹⁰ τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, καὶ τῷ επέμπατι αὐτοῦ. οὐ λέγει καὶ τοῖς επέμπατι μὴ ἀθετεῖ] Comp. Philo Fragm. II. p.

675. Ἐλλὰ ὅτι ἡ διαθήκη ἀθετεῖται

ἐπιδατάσσεται] ‘aids fresh clauses.’ Virtually the doctrine of the Judahers was the annulling of the promise (ἀθέτησις); apparently it was but the imposing new conditions (ἐπιδιάταξις). On either shewing it was a violation of the covenant. The meaning of ἐπιδατάσσεσθαι is partially illustrated by ἐπιδιάθηκη, which signifies ‘a second will,’ Joseph. B. J. ii. 2. 3 ἀξιών τῆς ἐπιδιάθηκης τὴν διαθήκην εἶναι κυριαστέρον, and § 6. Ant xvii. 9. 4.

16. ἐρρέθησαν] For the form see

Lobek Phryn. p. 447. Buttmann

Ausf. Sprachl. II. p. 165.

ἐπαγγελίαι] The plural, for the promise was several times repeated to Abraham. comp. Rom. ix. 4, and esp. Clem. Rom. § 10. A question has been raised as to the particular passage to which St Paul refers. In answering this question it should be observed, (1) That the words must be spoken to Abraham himself, and not to one of the later patriarchs. (2) That καὶ must be part of the quotation. These considerations restrict the reference to Gen. xiii. 15, xvii. 8, either of which passages satisfies these conditions. It is true that in both alike the inheritance spoken of refers primarily to the possession of the land of Canaan, but the spiritual application here is only in accordance with the general analogy of New Testament interpretation. See above on ver. 11.

οὐ λέγει] seems to be used impersonally, like the Attic φησί in quoting legal documents, the nominative being lost sight of. If so, we need not enquire whether ὁ Θεὸς or ἡ γραφὴ is to be understood. Comp. λέγει, Rom. xv. 10, Ephes. iv. 8, v. 14; and φησίν, 1 Cor. vi. 16, 2 Cor. x. 10 iv. 1. καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν κ.τ.λ.] This comment of St Paul has given rise to much discussion. It has been urged that the stress of the argument rests on a grammatical error; that as the plural of γῆ (the word here rendered σπέρμα) is only used to signify ‘grain’ or ‘crops,’ e.g. 1 Sam. viii. 15, the sacred writer could not under any circumstances have said ‘seeds as of many.’ Nor is it a complete answer to this objection that the same word in Chaldee is several times used in the plural in the sense which it has here; Gen. x. 18, Josh. vii. 14, Jer. xxxiii. 34. But the very expression in St Paul, which starts the objection, supplies the answer also. It is quite as immaterial to use the Greek σπέρματα with this meaning, as to use the Hebrew חֲרָצִים. No doubt by a forced and exceptional usage σπέρματα might be so employed, as

in Plato Legg. ix. 853 ο ἀνθρώποι τε καὶ ἀνθρώπων σπέρμασιν νομοθετοῦμεν. 4 Macc. § 17 ὦ τῶν Ἀβραμιαίων σπερμάτων ἀπόγονοι τοῖς Ἰσραηλίαι, but so might the corresponding word in almost any language. This fact points to St Paul’s meaning. He is not laying stress on the particular word used, but on the fact that a singular noun of some kind, a collective term, is employed, where τὰ τέκνα or οἱ ἀπόγονοι for instance might have been substituted. Avoiding the technical terms of grammar, he could not express his meaning more simply than by the opposition, ’not to thy seeds, but to thy seed.’ A plural substantive would be inconsistent with the interpretation given; the singular collective noun, if it admits of plurality (as it is interpreted by St Paul himself, Rom. iv. 18, ix. 7), at the same time involves the idea of unity.

The question therefore is no longer one of grammatical accuracy, but of theological interpretation. Is this a

Galatians 3:17

ἐπὶ πολλῶν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνὸς καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σογ, ὃς ἐστιν Χριστός. Ἦτοῦτο δὲ λέγω· διαθήκην προκεκυρωμένην ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ μετὰ τετρακόσια καὶ legitimate sense to assign to the seed of Abraham? Doubtless by the seed

of Abraham was meant in the first instance the Jewish people, as by the inheritance was meant the land of

Canaan; but in accordance with the analogy of Old Testament types and symbols, the term involves two secondary meanings. First: With a true spiritual instinct, though the conception embodied itself at times in strangely grotesque and artificial forms, even the rabbinical writers saw that ’the Christ’ was the true seed of Abraham. In Him the race was summed up, as it were. In Him it fulfilled its purpose and became a blessing to the whole earth. Without Him its separate existence as a peculiar people had no meaning. Thus He was not only the representative, but the embodiment of the race. In this way the people of Israel is the type of Christ; and in the New Testament parallels are sought in the career of the one to the life of the other. (See especially the application of Hosea xi. 1 to our Lord in Matt. ii. 15.) In this sense St Paul used the ‘seed of Abraham’ here. But Secondly: According to the analogy of interpretation of the Old Testament in the New, the spiritual takes the place of the natural; the Israel after the flesh becomes the Israel after the spirit; the Jewish nation denotes the Christian Church. So St Paul interprets the seed of Abraham, Rom. iv. 18, ix. 7, and above, ver. 7.

These two interpretations are not opposed to each other; they are not independent of each other. Without Christ the Christian people have no existence. He is the source of their spiritual life. They are one in Him. By this link St Paul at the close of the chapter (vv. 28, 29) connects together the two senses of the ‘seed of Abraham’ dwelling once more on the unity of the seed. ‘Ye are all one man in Christ; and if ye are part of Christ, then ye are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise.’

See especially the remarks of Tholuck, Das Alte Test. im Neuen Test. p. 44 sq.

ἐπὶ πολλῶν] See Winer § xlvii. p. 393. ὃς ἐστιν Χριστός] For the attraction see Winer § xxiv. p. 206 sq

17. τοῖτο δὲ λέγω] ‘Now what I

saw, what I wish to say, is this.’ The inference has been hitherto only biwled at indirectly; it is now stated plainly. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 12 λέγω δὲ τοῖτο, ὅτι ἑκαπνός κ.τ.λ. In both passages the A.V. gives a wrong turn to the expression, translating it, ’this I say.’ See also [Clem. Rom.] ii. 88 2, 8, 12. προκεκυρωμένην: The confirmation spoken of is not an act separate in time and subsequent to the covenant itself. The idea present to St Paul’s mind is explained by Heb. vi. 17, 18. εἰς Χριστὸν found in the received text after τοῦ Θεοῦ must be struck out as a gloss. The balance of authority is decidedly against it.

τετρακόσια κ.τ.λ.] In the prophetic passage, Gen. xv. 13, the length of the sojourn in Egypt is given in round numbers as 400 years. In the historical statement, Exod. xii. 40 sq., it is defined more exactly as 430 years. The Hebrew text in both passages implies that the residence in Egypt occupied the whole time. In the latter however the LXX inserts words so as to include the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canaan before the migration, thus reducing the actual term of residence in Egypt to about half this period. In the Vat. 88 the passage runs, ἡ δὲ κατ-

Galatians 3:18

τριάκοντα ἔτη γεγονῶς νόμος οὐκ ἀκυροῖ εἰς τὸ καταργῆσαι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. ¹⁸ εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας· τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ οἴκησις τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ἦν κατώησαν ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν γῇ Χαναὰν ἔτη τετρακίσια τριάκοντα πέντε (the last word however being erased). The

Alex. 118 reads παραίκησις, παρφόησαν, adds after Χαναὰν the words αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν, so as to bring out the revised chronology more clearly, and omits πέντε. The Samar. Pent takes the same view, agreeing in its reading with the Alex. 118. This seems in fact to have been the received chronology. It is adopted not only by St Paul here, but by Josephus Ant. ii. 15. 2. by the Targum of Pseudo Jonathan, and substantially by the Book of Jubilees (Ewald Jahrb. III. p. 77). On the other hand in St Stephen’s speech (Acts vii. 6), and in Philo Quis ver. div. her. § 54, p. 511 M. Gen. xv. 13 is referred to, which extends the sojourn in Egypt over 400 years; and this is the chronology adopted in other passages of Josephus (Ant. ii. 9. 1, B. J. v. 9. 4. who is thus inconsistent with himself. The LXX translators may have inserted the explanatory clause on grounds of internair criticism, or in deference to chronological records to which they had access in Egypt. The difficulties which attend both systems of chronology need not be considered here, as they do not affect St Paul’s argument and cannot have entered into his thoughts. 18. εἰ γὰρ κ.τ.λ.⁷ To abrogate and annul the promise I say, f. r. this is the effect of making the inheritance dependent on law.⁸ The γὰρ justifies the expressions ‘abrogate,’ ‘annul,’ of the previous verses. Νόμος and ἐπαγγεία are used without the article, as describing two opposing principles. οὐκέτι is here logical, ’this being once granted, it is not etc,’ as Rom. vii. 17, xi. 6. ‘Eri is so used frequently.

κεχάρισται,’ ‘hath bestowed it (the inheritance) as a free gift.’ The perfect tense marks the permanence of the effects.

19. 20. ‘Had the law then no purpose? Yes: but its very purpose, its whole character and history, betray its inferiority to the dispensation of grace. In four points this inferiority is seen. First: Instead of justifying it condemns, instead of giving life it kills it was added to reveal and multiply transgressions. Secondly: It was but temporary; when the seed came to whom the promise was given, it was annulled. Thirdly: It did not come direct from God to man. There was a double interposition, a twofold mediation, between the giver and the recipient. There were the angels, who administered it as God’s instruments; there was Moses (or the high-priest) who delivered it to man. Fourthly: As follows from the idea of mediation, it was of the nature of a contract, depending for its fulfilment on the observance of its conditions by the two contracting parties. Not so the promise, which, proceeding from the sole fiat of God, is unconditional and unchangeable.’

20. τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; ‘what then is the law?’, as I Cor. iii. 5 τί οὖν ἐστίν Ἀπολλῶς; τί δὲ ἐστίν Παῦλος; the correct reading. Comp. also Rom. iii. 1. τῶν παραβιάσεων χάριν. How is this to be interpreted? Is it (1) ‘To check transgressions’? comp. Clem. Hom. xi. 16 παραπτωμάτων χάριν ἡ τιμωρία ἐπεται; or is it rather (2) ‘To create transgressions’? for ‘where there is no law there is no transgression’ (Rom. iv. 15). Thus law reveals Rom. iii. 20; provokes (Rom. vii. 7, 13) multiplies (Rom. v. 20) sin or transgression. The use of χάριν (comp. 1 Joh. iii. 12) is suffi

Galatians 3:19

δ’ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ Θεός. ¹⁹τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη, ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ τὸ σπέρμα ᾧ ἐπήγγελται, διαταγείς δι’ ἀγγέλων ἐν ciently wide to admit either meaning. But the latter is to be preferred here; for (1) The language of the Epistle to the Romans shows this to be St Paul’s leading conception of the purposes and functions of the law; and (2) This sense seems to be required by the expressions in the context, ‘able to give life’ (ver. 21), ‘included all under sin’ (ver. 22). Comp. ii. 19.

προσετέθη] This reading, which is much better supported than ἰτίθη, expresses more strongly the adcentitious character of the law; comp. ἐπιδιατάσσεται ver. 15, and Rom. v. 20 νόμος δι’ παρεισῆλθεν ἵνα πλεισάσῃ τὸ παράπτωμα.

ἔλθῃ] For the omission of ὃν see

A. Buttmann § 33, p. 198; for the conjunctive, the note on τρίχω ii. 2. τὸ σπέρμα κ.τ.λ.] ’the seed to whom the promise has been given,’ i.e. Christ. ἐπήγγελται is probably a passive, as 2 Macc. iv. 27.

διαταγείς δι’ ἀγγέλων] ‘ordered, or administered by the medium of angels.’ The first mention of angels in connexion with the giving of the law is in the benediction of Moses, Deut. xxxiii. 2. וְאָהָה טְרַבֶּכֶת כַּרְשִׁי, literally, ‘and He came from (amidst) myriads of holiness,’ i.e. countless angels who attend Him. Some modern commentators (see Knobel in loc.)

obliterate the mention of angels by translating, ‘He came from the heights of Kadesh,’ pointing the word קָרָשׁ with the LXX; but though the parallelism gains by this, the sense thus assigned to רַבָּבָה is unsupported: and Ewald, Gesch. des V. Isr. II. 257, still further changes רַבָּבוֹת into טְרַבֶּכֶת. The LXX render the words σὺν μυριάσι Κάδης, but introduce the angels in the following clause ἐκ δεξιῶν αὐτοῦ ἀγγέλοι μῖν’ αὐτοῦ, where they must have had a different reading from our present Hebrew text (see Gesen. Thes. p. 358). Aquila, Symmachus, the Targums, and Jewish expositors generally, agree in the common rendering of רַבָּבָה קָרָשׁ. Other allusions in the New Testament to the angels as administering the law are Acts vii. 53 ἐλάβετε τὸν νόμον εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων (comp. vv. 35, 33). Heb. ii. 2. See also Joseph. Ant. xv. 5. 3 ἡμῶν δι’ τὰ κάλυκτα τῶν δογμάτων καὶ τὰ ὁσιώ-

τατα τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις δι’ ἀγγέλων παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ μυθέντων, Philo de

Sonn. p. 612 ff. and the Book of Jubilees c. 1 (Ewald’s Jahrb. II. p. 233, III. p. 74). The angels who assisted in the giving of the law hold a very important place in the later rabbinical speculations. See the interpretation of Deut. xxxiii. 2 in the Jerusalem Targum, and the passages cited by

Gfrörer Jahrb. des Heils I. p. 226, p. 357 sq. and by Wetstein here.

The theology of the schools having thus enlarged upon the casual notices in the Old Testament, a prominence was given to the mediation of angels, which would render St Paul’s allusion the more significant.

In St Stephen’s speech (Acta vii. 53), as in the passage of Josephus, the angels are mentioned to glorify the law, being opposed to mere human ministers. Here the motive is different. The interposition of created beings is contrasted with the direct agency of God himself. So also in Heb. ii. 2, where an a fortiori argument is drawn from the superiority of the salvation spoken by the Lord over the word spoken by angels δι’ ἀγγέλων. St

Paul’s contrast here between the directness of the one ministration and the indirectness of the other has a parallel in 2 Cor. iii. 12 sq.

GAL.

Galatians 3:20-21

χειρὶ μεσίτου· ²⁰ ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἐνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, ὁ δὲ Θεὸς εἰς ἐστίν. ²¹ ὁ οὖν νόμος κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγεἐν χειρὶ] A Hebraism or Arama-

ism, nearly equivalent to διὰ: comp. Acts vii. 35. It is a frequent LXX translation of 7:2, occurring especially in the expression ἐν χειρὶ Μωϋσῆ, e.g. Num. iv. 37, 41, 45, etc. In Syriac we meet with such phrases as 𐎠𐎠𐎠𐎠

(i.e. ἐν χειρὶ πνεύματος, Acts iv. 25, Pesh.), 𐎠𐎠𐎠𐎠𐎠𐎠 (i.e. ἐν χειρὶ

πίστους, Hab. ii. 4. Hexap.)

μεσίτου] The mediator is Moses.

This is his common title in Jewish writers. In the apocryphal ἀνάβησις or ἀνάληψις Moses says to Joshua προεθεάσατό με ὁ Θεὸς πρὸ κατοβολῆς κόσμου εἶσι με τῆς διαβήτης αὐτοῦ μεσίτην, Fabric. Cod. Pseud. V. T. 1. p. 845. See the rabbinical passages in Wetstein, and Philo Vit. Mons. iii. 19, p. 160 μ οἷα μεσίτης καὶ διελλοκτής. There would appear to be an allusion to this recognised title of Moses also in Heb. viii. 6 (comp. ix. 15, xii. 24), where our Lord is styled ‘a mediator of a better covenant.’ Though the word itself does not occur in the Mosaic narrative, the mediatorial functions of Moses appear clearly, e.g. Exod. xx. 19, and Deut. v. 2, 5, Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῶν διέθετο πρὸς ὑμὸς διαβήτης… κἀγὼ εἰστήκειν ἀνὰ μέσον Κυρίου καὶ ὑμῶν κ.τ.λ. The reference in St Paul seems to be to the first giving of the law: if extended to its after administration, the μεσίτης would then be the high priest; see Philo Mon. ii. 12, p. 230 μ μεθόριον ἀμφοὶν ἵνα διὰ μέσον τινὸς ἄνθρωποι ἱλάσκονται Θεόν: but this extension does not seem to be contemplated here.

On the other hand Origen (iv. p. 692, ed. Delarue), misled by 1 Tim. ii. 5, understood the mediator of Christ, and, as usual, carried a vast number of later commentators with him. Thus it is taken by Victorious, Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom. So also Concil. Antioch. (Roath Rel. Sacr. III. p. 295), Euseb. Eccl. Th. i. 20. 11, Athan. c. Apoll. i. 12. Much earlier than Origen. Marcion would seem to have entertained this view, Hippol. Haer. vii. 31, p. 254. Basil however clearly showed that Moses was meant, referring to Exod. xx. 19, de Spir. Sanct. xiv. 33 (III. p. 27. Garnier), and it was perhaps owing to his influence that the correct interpretation was reinstated. So Theodore Mops., Theodoret, Gemmedius; and comp. Didym. in Ps. pp. 1571, 1665 (Migne). Pelagius gives the alternative.

It will be seen that St Paul’s argument here rests in effect on our Lord’s divinity as its foundation. Otherwise He would have been a mediator in the same sense in which Moses was a mediator. In another and a higher sense St Paul himself so speaks of our Lord (1 Tim. ii. 5).

20. The number of interpretations of this passage is said to mount up to 250 or 300. Many of these arise out of an error as to the mediator, many more disregard the context, and not a few are quite arbitrary. Without attempting to discuss others which are not open to any of these objections, I shall give that which appears to me the most probable.

The meaning of the first clause seems tolerably clear, and the range of possibility with regard to the second is not very great.

ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἐνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν] ’no mediator can be a mediator of one.’

The very idea of mediation supposes two persons at least, between whom the mediation is carried on. The law then is of the nature of a contract between two parties, God on the one hand, and the Jewish people on the other. It is only valid so long as both parties fulfil the terms of the contract. It is therefore contingent

Galatians 3:22

λιῶν [τοῦ Θεοῦ]; μὴ γένοιτο. εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζωοποιῆσαι, ὄντως ἐκ νόμου [ἂν] ἦν ἡ δικαιοσύνη· ²² ἀλλὰ συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ τὰ πάντα and not absolute. The definite article with μεσίτης expresses the idea, the specific type, as 2 Cor. xii. 12 τὰ σημεία τοῦ ἀποστόλου, Joh. x. 11 ὁ ποιηρὶ ὁ καλός: see Winer § xviii. p. 132. ὁ δὲ Θεὸς εἰς ἐστίν] ‘but God (the giver of the promise) is one.’ Unlike the law, the promise is absolute and unconditional. It depends on the sole decree of God. There are not two contracting parties. There is nothing of the nature of a stipulation. The giver is everything, the recipient nothing. Thus the primary sense of

‘one’ here is numerical. The further idea of unchangeableness may perhaps be suggested; but if so, it is rather accidental than inherent. On the other hand this proposition is quite unconnected with the fundamental statement of the Mosaic law, ‘The Lord thy God is one God,’ though resembling it in form.

21. ‘Thus the law differs widely from the promise. But does this difference imply antagonism? Did the law interfere with the promise? Far otherwise. Indeed we might imagine such a law, that it would take the place of the promise, would justify and give life. This was not the effect of the law of Moses.’ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν. The plural. See the note on ver. 16.

νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος] ‘a law, such as could.’ For the position of the article see note i. 7, and comp. Acts iv. 12. ζωοποιῆσαι] including alike the spiritual life in the present and the glorified life in the future, for in the Apostle’s conception the two are blended together and inseparable.

The ‘inheritance’ applies to both. Compare the scriptural use of ‘salvation,’ ’the kingdom of heaven,’ etc. 22, 23. In this metaphor, which describes the position of the Jewbefore Christ, two ideas are involved. First, that of constraint or oppression. They were brought under the dominion of sin, were locked up in its prison-house, and so were made to feel its power. Secondly, that of watchful care. They were fenced about as a peculiar people, that in due time they might become the depository of the Gospel and the centre of its diffusion. The first idea is prominent in ver. 22, the second appears in ver. 23.

22. ‘On the contrary, as the passage of Scripture testifies, the law condemned all alike, yet not finally and irrevocably, but only as leading the way for the dispensation of faith, the fulfilment of the promise.’ συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ] The Scripture is here represented as doing that which it declares to be done.

The passage which St Paul has in mind is probably either Ps. exliii. 2, quoted above ii. 16, or Deut. xxvii. 26, quoted iii. 10. In Rom. iii. 10— 18 indeed the Apostle gathers togother several passages to this same purport, and it might therefore be supposed that he is alluding here rather to the general tenor of Scripture than to any special text. But the following facts seem to show that the singular γραφὴ in the N.T. always means a particular passage of Scripture; (1) where the reference is clearly to the sacred writings as a whole, as in the expressions, ‘searching the scriptures,’ ’learned in the scriptures,’ etc., the plural γραφῶ is universally found, e.g. Acts xvii. 11, xviii. 24, 28. (2) We meet with such expressions as ‘another scripture’ Joh. xix. 37), ’this scripture’ Luke iv. 21), ’every scripture’ (2 Tim. iii. 16). (3) ‘It 10—2

Galatians 3:23-24

ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν, ἵνα ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοθῇ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. ²³πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν, ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρουρούμεθα συνελειόμενοι εἰς τὴν μέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφῇ ἥναι. ²⁴ὥστε ὁ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν, ἵνα ἐκ

γραφῇ is most frequently used in introducing a particular quotation, and in the very few instances where the quotation is not actually given, it is for the most part easy to fix the passage referred to. These instances are Joh. ii. 22 (Ps. xvi. 10; see Acts ii. 27), Joh. xvii. 12 (Ps. xli. 10; see Joh. xvi. 18), Joh. xix. 28 (Ps. lxix. 22), Joh. xx. 9 (Ps. xvi. 10). The biblical usage is followed also by the earliest fathers. The transition from the ‘Scriptures’ to the ‘Scripture’ is analogous to the transition from τὰ βιβλία to the ‘Bible.’

συνέκλεισεν ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν¹ i.e. subjected to the dominion of sin without means of escape, a pregnant expression: comp. Rom. xi. 32 συνέκλεισεν γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ. The word συγκλείει seems never to mean simply ’to include.’ The A.V. has the more correct but somewhat ambiguous rendering ‘conclude’ here. Συγκλείειν εἰς is a common construction; see Fritzsche Rom. ii. p. 545.

τὰ πάντα] The neuter is naturally used where the most comprehensive term is wanted: comp. I Cor. i. 27, Col. i. 20, Ephes. i. 10.

ἵνα] The consciousness of sin is a necessary step towards justification. See note ii. 19, and comp. Rom. i.e.

ἐκ πίστεως κτλ.] Not a mere tautology after τοὺς πιστεύουσιν. St Paul’s opponents agreed with him that only a believer could obtain the promise. They differed in holding that he obtained it not by his faith but by his works.

23—25. ‘Before the dispensation of faith came, we were carefully guarded, that we might be ready for it, when at length it was revealed. Thus we see that the law was our tutor, who watched over us as children till we should attain our manhood in Christ and be justified by faith. But, when this new dispensation came, we were liberated from the restraints of the law.’

23. ἐφρουρούμεθα συνελειόμενοι] ‘were shut up and kept in guard’: comp. Wisd. xvii. 15 ἐφρουρεῖτο εἰς τὴν ἀσίδηρον εἰρετὴν κατακλεισθεὶς, Plut. de D.f. Oræ. p. 426 B οὐδὲ φρουρεῖν συγκλείσαντας τῇ ἴλῃ.

The use of πίστις in these verses (vv. 22, 23, 25) links together its extreme senses, passing from the one to the other, (1) Faith, the subjective state of the Christian, (2) The faith, the Gospel, the objective teaching, the system of which ‘faith’ is the leading feature. See the note i. 23, and p. 157.

24. παιδαγωγὸς] Comp. I Cor. iv. 15. The pedagogus or tutor, frequently a superior slave, was entrusted with the moral supervision of the child. Thus his office was quite distinct from that of the διδάσκαλος, so that the English rendering, ‘schoolmaster,’ conveys a wrong idea. The following passage of Plato (Lysis p. 208 c) is a very complete illustration of the use which St Paul makes of the metaphor; Σὲ αὐτὸν ἰῶσιν ἄρχειν σεαυτοῦ, ἡ οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἐπιτρέπουσιν σοι; Ἰως γὰρ, ἔφη, ἐπιτρέπουσιν; Ἀλλ’ ἄρχει τίς σου; Ὅδε παιδαγωγὸς, ἔφη. Μῶν δοῦλος ὡν; Ἀλλὰ τί μὴν; ἡμίτερός γε, ἔφη. Ἡ δεινόν, ἦν δ’ ἐγώ, ἐλεύθερον ὄντα ὑπὸ δοῦλου ἄρχεσθαι· τί δὲ παῖον αὖ οὗτος ὁ παιδαγωγὸς σου ἄρχει; Ἄγων δήπου, ἔφη, εἰς διδασκάλου. Μῶν μὴ καὶ οὗτοι σου ἄρχουσιν,

Galatians 3:25-27

πίστεως δικαιωθῶμεν· ²⁵ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς πίστεως οὐκέτι ὑπὸ παιδαγωγὸν ἐσμεν. ²⁶πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ἐστὲ διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ· ²⁷ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε. οἱ διδάσκαλοι; Πάντως δήπου. Παμπόλλους ἄρα σοι διεστάτας καὶ ἄρχοντας ἐκὼν ὁ πατὴρ ἐφίστησιν. On the ‘pedagogus’ see Becker and Marquardt Rom. Alt. v. 1, p. 114, and Smith’s Dict. of Antiq. s. v. As well in his inferior rank, as in his recognised duty of enforcing discipline, this person was a fit emblem of the Mosaic law. Thornbbinical writers naturalised the word παιδαγωγός, 2016 (see Schöttgen here), and in the Jerusalem Targum it is used to translate 2016 (A.V. ‘a nursing father’) Numb. xi. 12.

The tempting explanation of παιδαγωγός εἰς Χριστὸς, ‘one to conduct us to the school of Christ,’ ought probably to be abandoned. Even if this sense did not require πρὸς Χριστὸν or eἰς Χριστοῦ, the context is unfavourable to it. There is no reference here to our Lord as a teacher. ‘Christ’ represents the freedom of mature age, for which the constraints of childhood are a preparation; compare Ephes. iv. 13 εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον (‘full grown’), εἰς μίτρου ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ

Χριστοῦ. The metaphor of the pedagogus seems to have grown out of ἐφρουροίμεθα and thus the main idea is that of strict supervision. The παιδαγωγός had the whole moral direction of the child, so that παιδαγωγία became equivalent to ‘moral training,’ and the idea conveyed by the term need not be restricted to any one function. Compare Plut. Num. 15 ἐκ δὲ τοιαύτης παιδαγωγίας πρὸς τὸ θεῖον οὕτως ἡ πόλις ἐγγγόνει χειροήθης κ.τ.λ., and Liban. IV. 437 ed. Reiske (quoted in Wetstein) πρῶτον μὲν νέμῳ παιδαγωγήσομεν αὐτῶν τὴν προσίρεσιν, ὡς ἂν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ζημίαν ἀναδυόμεναι σωφρονεῖν ἀναγκάζωνται.

25, 26. ἐσμὲν, ἐστὲ] See a similar instance of the interchange of the first and second persons in 1 Thess. v. 5 πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς υἱοὶ φωτὸς ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ἡμέρας· οὐκ ἐσμὲν νυκτὸς οὐδὲ σκότους.

26. πάντες γὰρ κ.τ.λ.] ‘for ye all are sons of God by your faith, sons of God in Christ Jesus.’ The stress of the sentence lies on πάντες and υἱοί; ‘all’ Jews and Gentiles alike, those under the law and those without the law; ‘sons’ (υἱοί), claiming therefore the privileges, the liberty of sons, so that the rigorous supervision of the tutor (παιδαγωγός) ceases when you cease to be children (παῖδες).

υἱοὶ Θεοῦ] In St Paul the expressions, ‘sons of God,’ ‘children of God,’ mostly convey the idea of liberty, as iv. 6, 7, Rom. viii. 14 sq (see however Phil. ii. 15), in St John of guilelessness and love, e.g. 1 Joh. iii. 1, 2, 10. In accordance with this distinction St Paul uses υἱοὶ as well as τέκνα, St John τέκνα only.

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] The context shows that these words must be separated from διὰ τῆς πίστεως. They are thrown to the end of the sentence so as to form in a manner a distinct proposition, on which the Apostle enlarges in the following verses: ‘You are sons by your union with, your existence in Christ Jesus.’

27. ‘In Christ Jesus, I say, for all ye, who were baptized into Christ, did put in Christ’: γὰρ introduces the explanation of the foregoing ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησον ἐνεδύσασθε] The metaphor has been supposed to be taken from the white garments in which the newly baptized were clothed; see Bingham Christ.

Antiq. xi. 11, § 1. It is scarcely probable however that the ceremonial of

Galatians 3:28-29

28 οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἰς ἐστὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 29 εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ,

28. ἄπαντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς.

baptism had become so definitely fixed at this early date, that such an allusion would speak for itself. The metaphor in fact is very common in the LXX, e.g. Job VIII. 22 (οἰσχύνην), XXIX. 14 (δικαιοσύνην), XXXIX. 19 (φίλθον), Ps. XXXIV. 26 (οἰσχύνην καὶ ἐντροπήν), XCII. 1 (εὐπρίπτεως, δύναμις), cIII. 1, etc.; comp. ἐγκομ. βοῦσθαι 1 Pet. v. 5. See also Schüttgen on Rom. xiii. 14. On the other hand in the context of the passage of Justin quoted below (ver. 28) there is apparently an allusion to the baptismal robes.

28, 29. ‘In Christ ye are all sons, all free. Every barrier is swept away. No special claims, no special disabilities exist in Him, none can exist. The conventional distinctions of religious caste or of social rank, even the natural distinction of sex, are banished hence. One heart beats in all: one mind guides all: one life is lived by all. Ye are all one man, for ye are members of Christ. And as members of Christ ye are Abraham’s seed, ye claim the inheritance by virtue of a promise, which no law can set aside.’ οὐκ ἔνι! ’there is no room for, no place for,’ negating not the fact only, but the possibility, as James I. 17 παρ’ ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγή. The right account of ἔνι seems to be given by Winer § xiv. p. 96. It is not a contraction of ἔνιση, but the preposition ἐν, ἐνί, strengthened by a more vigorous accent, like ἔπω, πάρα, and used with an ellipsis of the substantive verb.

Ἕλλην! See the note ii. 3.

ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ! The connecting particle is perhaps changed in the third clause, because the distinction now mentioned is different in kind, no longer social but physical. There may be an allusion to Gen. I. 27 ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτοῖς, and if so, this clause will form a climax: ’even the primeval distinction of sex has ceased.’ Comp. Col. iii. 11.

Either on this passage, or on some unrecorded saying of our Lord similar in import (comp. Luke xx. 35), may have been founded the mystical language attributed to our Lord in the apocryphal Gospel of the Egyptians (Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. p. 553, ed. Potter). Being asked by Salome when His kingdom should come, He is reported to have answered, ‘When the two shall be one, and the male with the female, neither male nor female.’ These obscure words were much discussed in early times and diversely interpreted, e.g. by the Ophites (Hippol. Haer. v. 7), by the Pseudo-Clement of Rome (Epist. 2, § 12), by Cassianus (Clem. Alex. Ic.), and by Theodotus (Clem. Alex. p. 985). Comp. also the remarks of Clement of Alexandria himself, pp. 532, 539 sq, besides the passage first cited. See the note on Clem. Rom. Ic. For another coincidence of St Paul’s language with a saying attributed to our Lord, but not found in the Gospels, see 1 Thess. v. 21.

εἰς ἐστὲ! ‘cre one man.’ Comp. Ephes. ii. 15 τοὺς δύο κτίμη ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, and Justin Dial. § 116, p. 344 B οὕτως ἡμεῖς οἱ διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ὀνόματος ὡς εἰς ἄνθρωπος πιστεύσαντες… τὰ ῥιπαρὰ ἱμάτια ἀπημφιεσμένοι κ.τ.λ., which seems to be a reminiscence of this passage of St Paul. The neuter ἐν, found in some texts, destroys the point of the expression, the oneness as a conscious agent.

29. Χριστοῦ! ‘are part of Christ, are members of Christ,’ not merely

Galatians 3:29

ἄρα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ, κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι.

‘are the property of Christ, are servants of Christ.’ The argument turns on the entire identity of the Christian brotherhood with Christ. ἄρα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ’then being one with Christ, ye are Abraham’s seed’;

for He is that seed of Abraham, to whom the promise was given. See the note on ver. 16 κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν emphatic: ‘heirs indeed, but heirs by promise, not by law.’ See ver. 13.