Galatians 4

Galatians 4:1

IV. Ἄέγω δέ, ἐφ’ ὅσον χρόνον ὁ κληρονόμος νήπιος

IV. 1—7. In the former paragraph St Paul starting from the figure of the pedagogus had been led to speak of the sonship of the faithful in Christ. The opening verses of this chapter are an expansion of the same image. The heir in his nonage represents the state of the world before the Gospel. In drawing out the comparison, St Paul seems to include Gentiles as well as Jews under this ’tutelage,’ all having more or less been subject to a system of positive ordinances, and so far gone through a disciplinary training. In the image itself however there are two points to be cleared up.

First. Is the father of the heir represented as dead or living? On the one hand individual expressions point to the decease of the father; a very unnatural meaning must otherwise be forced upon the words, ‘heir,’ ‘guardian,’ ’lord of all.’ On the other hand the metaphor in its application refers to a living Father. The latter consideration must yield to the former. The point of the comparison lies not in the circumstances of the father, but of the son. All metaphors must cease to apply at some point, and the death of the father is the limit here imposed by the nature of the case. Our Father never dies; the inheritance never passes away from Him: yet nevertheless we succeed to the full possession of it.

Secondly. It has been questioned whether St Paul borrows the imagery here from Roman or from Jewish law, or even, as some maintain, from a special code in force in Galatia. In the absence of very ample information, we may say that, so far as he alludes to any definite form of the law of guardianship, he would naturally refer to the Roman; but, as the terms are not technically exact (e.g. νήπιος, προθεσμία), he seems to put forward rather the general conception of the office of a guardian, than any definite statute regulating it. His language indeed agrees much better with our simpler modern practice, than with Roman law, which in this respect was artificial and elaborate.

‘I described the law as our tutor. I spoke of our release from its restraints. Let me explain my meaning more fully. An heir during his minority is treated as a servant. Notwithstanding his expectations as the future lord of the property, he is subject to the control of guardians and stewards, until the time of release named in his father’s will arrives. In like manner mankind itself was a minor before Christ’s coming. It was subject, like a child, to the discipline of external ordinances. At length when the time was fully arrived, God sent His own Son into the world, born of a woman as we are, subject to law as we are, that He might redeem and liberate those who are so subject, and that we all might receive our destined adoption as sons. Of this sonship God has given us a token. He sent forth into our hearts the Spirit of His Son, which witnesses in us and cries to Him as to a Father. Plainly then, thou art no more a servant, but a son; and, as a son, thou art also an heir, through the goodness of God.’

1. Λέγω δέ. ‘But what I would say is this,’ introducing an expansion or explanation of what has gone before: see v. 16, Rom. xv. 8, and for the more definite τοῦτο δὲ λέγω, Gal. iii 17 (with the note), 1 Cor. i. 12.

νήπιος] ‘an infant.’ As this does not appear to have been a technical term in Greek, or at least in Attic law (where the distinction is between παῖς and ἀνὴρ), it probably represents the Latin ‘infans.’ If so, its use here, though sufficiently exact for the purposes of the comparison, is not technically precise. The ‘infantia’ of a

Galatians 4:2

ἐστιν, οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου κύριος πάντων ὤν, ἄλλα ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστὶν καὶ οἰκονόμους ἄχρι τῆς προθεσRoman child ended with his seventh year, after which he was competent to perform certain legal acts, but he was not entirely emancipated from a state of tutelage till he entered on his twenty-fifth year, having passed through several intermediate stages. See Savigny Rom. Recht. III. p. 25 sq. Νήπιοι seems to be here ‘a minor’ in any stage of his minority. The word is opposed to ἀνὴρ, 1 Cor. xiii. 11, Ephes iv. 13, 14: comp. Dion. Hal. iv. 9, Gruter Inscr. p. 68: 9. See Philo Leg. ad Cai. 4, II. p. 549 νήπιοι ἕνε ὅντα κομίον καὶ χοήξοντα ἐπιτρόπων καὶ διδασκάλων καὶ πυλαγωγῶν.

οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου] The minor

was legally in much the same position as the slave. He could not perform any act, except through his legal representative. This responsible person, the guardian in the case of the minor, the master in the case of the slave, who represented him to the state, and whose sanction was necessary for the validity of any contract undetaken on his behalf, was termed in Attic law κύριος, Meier Att. Proc. p. 450. Prospectively however, though not actually, the minor was κύριος πάντων, which the slave was not.

2. ἐπιτρόπους καὶ οἰκονόμους] ‘controllers of his person and property.’ The language is intended, as the plurals show, to be as comprehensive as possible. It is therefore vain to search for the exact technical term in Roman law corresponding to each word. The Latin fathers translate them variously; ‘curatores et actores’ Vict., Hd., Interp. Orig.; ’tutores et actores’ Pelay, Hier.; ‘procuratores et actores’ Aug.; ’tutores et dispensatores’ Interp. Theod. Mops. The distinction given in the above translation seems the most probable. The ἐπίτροποι are the boy’s legal representatives, his guardians (whether ‘curatores’ or

’tutores’ in Roman law); the οἰκονόμοι, stewards or bailiffs appointed to manage his household or property.

The word ἐπίτροπος elsewhere in the New Testament, Matt. xx. 8, Luke viii. 3, is ‘a steward.’ Adopted into the Rabbinical language (CIVITATORY) it has a comprehensive meaning, signifying sometimes a guardian, sometimes a steward: see Schöttgen here and on Luke viii. 3.

τῆς προθεσμιαίς] sc. ἡμέρος, ’the day appointed beforehand,’ generally as a limit to the performance or non-performance of an action; in this case as the time at which the office of guardian ceases. A difficulty however presents itself in πατραι. In Roman law the term was fixed by statute, so that the father did not generally exercise any control over it. It has been supposed indeed, that St Paul refers to some exceptional legislation by which greater power was given to the Galatians in this respect: but this view seems to rest on a mistaken interpretation of a passage in Gaius (i. § 55). It would appear however, that by Roman law some discretion was left to the father, at all events in certain cases: see Gaius § 186 ‘Si cui testamento tutor sub condicione aut ex die certo datus sit’: comp. Justinian’s Instit. 1. xiv. 3; and probably more exact information would show that the law was not so rigorous as is often assumed. Considering then (1) That though the term of guardianship was not generally settled by the will of the testator, the choice of persons was, and (2) That in appointments made for special purposes this power was given to the testator; the expression in question will perhaps not appear out of place, even if St Paul’s illustration be supposed to be drawn directly from Roman law.

3. ἡμεῖς] ‘sec.’ Jews and Gentiles

Galatians 4:3-4

μίας τοῦ πατρός. ὄντως καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἦμεν δεδουλωμένοι· Ὅτε

alike, as appears from the whole context. See the note on ver. 11.

τα στοιχεία] ’the elements,’ originally ’the letters of the alphabet,’ as being set in rows. From this primary sense the word gets two different meanings among others, both of which have been assigned to it in this passage: (1) ‘The physical elements’ (2 Pet. iii. 10, 12, Wisd. vii. 17; as earth, fire, etc. Hermas Vis. iii. 15; and especially the heavenly bodies, comp. Clem. Hom. x. 9, 25, Justin Apol. ii. p. 44 & τὰ οὐράνια στοιχεία, Dnd. p. 285 c. They were probably so called chronologically, as the elements of time (Theoph. ad Aut. L 4 ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη καὶ ἀστέριε στοιχεῖα οὗτος εἰσίν, εἰς σημεῖα καὶ εἰς καιροὺς καὶ εἰς ἡμέρας καὶ εἰς ἑνιωτικὴς γεγονότα). (2) ‘The alphabet of learning, rudimentary instruction’; as Heb. v. 12.

The former sense is commonly adopted by the fathers, who for the most part explain it of the observance of days and seasons, regulated by the heavenly bodies. So Hilar, Pelag., Chrysost, Theod. Mops., Theodoret; comp. Ep. ad Diog. § 4. Victorinus strangely interprets it of the influence of the stars on the heathen not yet emancipated by Christ; and Augustine supposes that St Paul is referring to the Gentile worship of the physical elements. The two latter interpretations are at all events excluded by ἡμεῖς, which must include Jews. The agreement in favour of this sense of στοιχεία may, I think, be attributed to the influence of a passage in the Praedicatio Petri, quoted in Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. (p. 760, Potter), Orig. in Ioann. iv. 22 (iv. p. 226, Delarue), in which the worship of the Jews is classed with that of the heathen; inasmuch as, professing to know God, they were in fact by this observance of days and seasons λατρεύοντες ἀγγέλους καὶ ἀρχογγέλους, μὴν καὶ σελήνη.

At all events I can scarcely doubt that this interpretation of στοιχεία became current through Origen’s influence. It seems to be much more in accordance with the prevailing tone of Alexandrian theology, than with the language and teaching of St Paul. Comp. Philo de Mgr. Abr. p. 464 &c.

On the other hand a few of the fathers, Jerome, Gennadius, Primasius) adopt the other sense, ’elementary teaching.’ This is probably the correct interpretation, both as simpler in itself and as suiting the context better. St Paul seems to be dwelling still on the rudimentary character of the law, as fitted for an earlier stage in the world’s history. The expression occurs again in reference to formal ordinances, Col. ii. 8 κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, and ii. 20 εἰ ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου, τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ δογματίζεσθε; In these passages the words of the context which are emphasized seem to show that a mode of instruction is signified by τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου.

τοῦ κόσμου] ‘of the world,’ i. e. having reference to material and not to spiritual things, formal and sensuous. The force of τοῦ κόσμου is best explained by the parallel passages already cited, Col. ii. 8, 20. See below, vi. 14.

4 τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου] The ideas involved in this expression may be gathered from the context. It was ’the fulness of time.’ First; In reference to the Giver. The moment had arrived which God had ordained from the beginning and foretold by His prophets for Messiah’s coming. This is implied in the comparison ἡ προθεσμία τοῦ πατρός. Secondly; In reference to the recipient. The Gospel was withheld until the world had arrived at mature age: law had worked out its educational purpose and now was su-

Galatians 4:5

δέ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον, ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ, ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεpersed. This educational work had

been twofold: (1) Negative: It was the purpose of all law, but especially of the Mosaic law, to deepen the conviction of sin and thus to show the inability of all existing systems to bring men near to God. This idea, which is so prominent in the Epistle to the Romans, appears in the context here, vv. 19, 21. (2) Positive. The comparison of the child implies more than a negative effect. A moral and spiritual expansion, which rendered the world more capable of apprehending the Gospel than it would have been at an earlier age, must be assumed, corresponding to the growth of the individual; since otherwise the metaphor would be robbed of more than half its meaning.

The primary reference in all this is plainly to the Mosaic law, but the whole context shows that the Gentile converts of Galatia are also included, and that they too are regarded as having undergone an elementary discipline, up to a certain point analogous to that of the Jews. See the remarks on ver. 11.

πλήρωμα, ’the complement.’ On this word see Colossians, p. 257 sq.

ἐξαπέστειλεν, ‘He sent forth from

Himself, as His representative’: ’ex caelo a sese,’ says Bengel. This word assumes the pre-existence of the Son, but must not be pressed to imply also the unity with the Father, for it is commonly used in later Greek in speaking of any mission.

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, i.e. taking up on Himself our human nature; comp. Job xiv. 1, Matt. xi. 11. These passages show that the expression must not be taken as referring to the miraculous incarnation. See Basil de Spir. Sanct. v. 12 γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον] not τὸν νόμον; for though Christ was born under the Mosaic law, the application of the principle is much wider. See the note on the next verse.

5. The two clauses correspond to those of the foregoing verse in an inverted order by the grammatical figure called chiasm: ‘The Son of God was born a man, that in Him all men might become sons of God; He was born subject to law, that those subject to law might be rescued from bondage.’ At the same time the figure is not arbitrarily employed here, but the inversion arises out of the necessary sequence. The abolition of the law, the rescue from bondage, was a prior coudition of the universal sonship of the faithful. See the note on iii. 14. τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον] again not τὸν νόμον. St. Paul refers primarily to the Mosaic law, as at once the highest and most rigorous form of law, but extends the application to all those subject to any system of positive ordinances. We seem to have the same extension, starting from the law of Moses, in 1 Cor. ix. 20, ἐγενόμην τοὺς Ἰουδαίοις ὡς Ἰουδαῖος… τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον.

ἐξαγοράσῃ. See the note on iii. 13. ἵνα, ἵνα] For the repetition of ἵνα, and for the general connexion of thought, see the note iii. 14. In this passage it is perhaps best to take the two as independent of each other, inasmuch as the two clauses to which they respectively refer are likewise independent. Comp. Ephes. v. 26, 27. τὴν υἱοθεσίαν’ not ’the sonship,’ but ’the adoption as sons.’ Υἱοθεσία seems never to have the former sense; see Fritzsche on Rom. viii. 15. Potentially indeed men were sons before Christ’s coming (ver. 1), but actually they were only slaves (ver. 3). His coming conferred upon them the privileges of sons: ‘Adoptionem propterea dicit,’

Galatians 4:6-7

σίαν ἀπολάβωμεν. Ὅτι δὲ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, κράζον Ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ. ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος, ἀλλὰ

says Augustine with true appreciation, ‘ut distincte intelligamus unicum Dei filium.’ We are sons by grace; He is so by nature.

ἀπολάβωμεν] The exact sense of the preposition will depend on the meaning assigned to υἱοθεσίαν. If υἱοθεσία be taken as adoption, ἀπολάβωμεν must signify ‘receive as destined for, as promised to us,’ or, as Augustine says, ’nec dixit accipiamus, sed recipiamus, ut significaret hoc nos amississe in Adam, ex quo mortales sumus.’ At all events it cannot be equivalent to λάβωμεν. The change to the first person plural marks the universality of the sonship: ‘see, those under law and those free from law, alike.’

6. ὅτι ἐστι υἱοί] ‘because ye are sons.’ The presence of the Spirit is thus a witness of their sonship. The force of this clause is best explained by the parallel passage, Rom. viii. 15, 16. St Paul seems here to be dwelling on the same idea as in lii. 2. Their reconciliation with God was complete without works of law, the gift of the Spirit being a proof of this. See also Acts x. 44, xi. 15-18, xv. 8.

κράζον] The word denotes earnest and importunate prayer, as in Is. xix. 20: comp. James v. 4.

Ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ] Abba is the Aramaic equivalent to the Greek πατήρ. The combination of the two words seems to have been a liturgical formula. It occurs in Mark xiv. 36 in the mouth of our Lord, and also in Rom. viii. 15, in a passage closely resembling this. The origin of this formula may be explained in two ways. First, It originated with the Hellenistic Jews who would naturally adhere with fondness to the original word consecrated in their prayers by long usage, and add to it the equivalent in the Greek language which they ordinarily spoke. In this case, in the passage of St Mark the words ὁ πατήρ may perhaps be an addition of the Evangelist himself, explaining the Aramaic word after his word. Secondly, It may have taken its rise among the Jews of Palestine after they had become acquainted with the Greek language. In this case it is simply an expression of importunate entreaty, illustrating the natural mode of emphasizing by repetition of the same idea in different forms. This latter explanation seems simpler, and best explains the expression as coming from our Lord’s lips. It is moreover supported by similar instances given in Schöttgen, II. p. 252: e.g. a woman entreating a judge addresses him ὡς, the second word being κέρις, the Greek equivalent to the Aramaic ὡς ‘my Lord.’ For other examples see Rev. ix. 11 (Ἀπολλύων, Ἀβοῦν), xii. 9, xx. 2 (Σατανᾶς, Διδολόγος). Whichever explanation be adopted, this phrase is a speaking testimony to that fusion of Jew and Greek which prepared the way for the preaching of the Gospel to the heathen. Accordingly St Paul in both passages seems to dwell on it with peculiar emphasis, as a type of the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ: comp. iii. 28.

Ἀββᾶ] In Chaldee 838, in Syriac

101. In the latter dialect it is said to have been pronounced with a double b when applied to a spiritual father, with a single b when used in its first sense: see Bernstein’s Lex. s. v. and comp. Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr. 1. 1, § 17. With the double letter at all events it has passed into the European languages, as an ecclesiastical term, ‘abbas,’ ‘abbot.’ The Peshito in rendering Ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ can only repeat the word, ‘Father our Father,’ in all

Galatians 4:8-9

νίος· εἰ δὲ νίος, καὶ κληρονόμος διὰ Θεοῦ. Ἄλλὰ τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες Θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς· Ὑὖν δὲ γνύντες Θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες

three passages where the expression occurs.

ὁ πατήρ] The nominative with the article is here used for an emphatic vocative, as e.g. Luke viii. 54 ἡ παῖς, ἔγειρε. See Winer, § xxix. p. 227. This is a Hebraism; comp. Gesen. Heb. Gramm. § 107.

7. ὥστε] ’therefore,’ in reference to all that has gone before; ‘Seeing (1) that this naturally follows when your minority has come to an end; and (2) that you have direct proof of it in the gift of the Spirit, the token of sonship.’ οὐκίτι εἴ] ’thou art no longer,’ now that Christ has come. The appeal is driven home by the successive changes in the mode of address; first, ‘we, all Christians, far and wide, Jews and Gentiles alike’ (ἀπολάβωμεν, ver. 5); next, ‘you, my Galatian converts’ (ἰστέ, ver. 6); lastly, ’each individual man who hears my words’ (εἶ, ver. 7).

εἶ δὲ νίος, καὶ κληρονόμος. Comp. Rom. viii 17 εἰ δὲ τέκνα, καὶ κληρονόμος. It has been made a question whether St Paul is here drawing his illustrations from Jewish or from Roman law. In answer to this it is perhaps sufficient to say, that so far as he has in view any special form of law, he would naturally refer to the Roman, as most familiar to his readers. And indeed the Roman law of inheritance supplied a much truer illustration of the privileges of the Christian, than the Jewish. By Roman law all the children, whether sons or daughters, inherited alike (comp. iii. 28 οὐκ ἔνι ὄρσεν καὶ θῆλι); by Jewish, the sons inherited unequally, and except in default of male heirs the daughters were excluded; Michaelis Laws of Moses III. 3, § 1. See a paper of C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzsch. Opus. 1. p. 143.

διὰ Θεοῦ] ‘heir not by virtue of birth, or through merits of your own, but through God who adopted you.’ For διὰ see the note on i. 1. This is doubtless the right reading, having the preponderance of authority in its favour. All other variations, including that of the received text, κληρονόμος Θεοῦ διὰ Χριστοῦ, are apparently substitutions of a common expression for one which is unusual and startling.

8—11. ‘Nevertheless, in an unfilial spirit, ye have subjected yourselves again to bondage, ye would fain submit anew to a weak and beggarly discipline of restraint. And how much less pardonable is this now! For then ye were idolaters from ignorance of God, but now ye have known God, or rather have been known of Him. Ye are scrupulous in your observance of months and seasons and years. Ye terrify me, lest all the toil which I have expended on you should be found vain.’ ἀλλὰ] ‘yet still, in spite of your sonship,’ referring not to ἐδουλεύσατε with which it stands in close proximity, but to the more remote ἐπιστρίψετε (ver. 9); comp. Rom. vi. 17 χάρις δὲ τῷ Θεῷ, ὅτι ἦτε δοῦλοι, ὑπηκοῦσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίαις κ.τ.λ. The intervening words (ver. 8) are inserted to prepare the way for πάλιν.

τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες! ‘Then it was through ignorance of God that ye were subject etc.’; a partial excuse for their former bondage. For the expression εἰδέναι Θεὸν see 1 Thess. iv. 5, 2 Thess. i. 8.

τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς] ’to those who by nature were not gods,’ i.e. μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς ἀλλὰ δαιμονίοις; comp. 1 Cor. x. 20 ὁ θύουσιν [τὰ ἔθνη], δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ Θεῷ θύουσιν. This is the correct order. On the other hand in the reading of the received text, τοῖς μὴ φύσει οὖσιν θεοῖς, the negative affects φύσει; i.e. μὴ φύσει ἀλλὰ λόγῳ, ’not by na-

Galatians 4:10

ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενή καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα, οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε; ¹⁰ἡμέρας παρατηρείσθε καὶ μῆνας καὶ καιρούς ture, but by repute’; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 5 εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοί.

9. γνῶντες] ‘having discerned, recognised,’ to be distinguished from the preceding εἰδότες. See 1 Joh. ii. 29 ἴαν εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκαιος ἐστιν, γινώσκετε ὅτι καὶ πᾶς κ.τ.λ., John xxi. 17 Ephes. v. 5. 1 Cor. ii. 11: comp. Gal. ii. 7, 9. While οἶτα ‘I know’ refers to the knowledge of facts absolutely, γινώσκω ‘I recognise,’ being relative, gives prominence either to the attainment or the manifestation of the knowledge. Thus γινώσκειν will be used in preference to εἰδῖται; (1) where there is reference to some earlier state of ignorance, or to some prior facts on which the knowledge is based; (2) where the ideas of

’thoroughness, familiarity,’ or of ‘approbation,’ are involved: these ideas arising out of the stress which γινώσκειν lays on the process of reception. Both words occur very frequently in the First Epistle of St John, and a comparison of the passages where they are used brings out this distinction of meaning clearly.

γνωσθέντες ἐπὸ Θεοῦ] added to ob-

viate any false inference, as though the reconciliation with God were attributable to a man’s own effort. See 1 Cor. viii. 2 εἰ τις δοκεῖ ἐγνωκίαι τι, οἶπω ἔγνω καθὼς δεῖ γνῶναι· εἰ δὲ τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Θεόν, οἶτος ἔγνωσται ὑπ’ αὐτοί: comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 12. God knows man, but man knows not God or

knows Him but imperfectly. See also 1 Joh. iv. 10 οὐχ οἱ ἡμεῖς ἠγαπήκαμεν τὸν Θεόν, ἀλλ’ ὅτι αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμῶν. πας ἐπιστρέφετε] The Apostle’s engerness to remonstrate leads him to interrupt by an interrogation the natural flow of the sentence as marked out by the foregoing words. A present tease is used, for the change was still going on; comp. i. 6 μετρεῖθεσθε.

ἀσθενή καὶ πτωχά] ‘recall,’ for they have no power to rescue man from condemnation; ‘beggarly,’ for they bring no rich endowment of spiritual treasures. For ἀσθενή see Rom. vii 3 τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου (comp. Gal. iii. 21), Heb. vii. 18 τὸ ἀσθενίς καὶ ἀνωφελίς. πάλιν ἄνωθεν] a strong expression to describe the completeness of their relapse.

10. ἡμέρας κ.τ.λ.] Comp. Col. ii. 16 ἐν μέρει ἑορτὴς ἢ νεομηνίας ἢ σαββάτων, which passage explains the expressions here, stopping short however of ἐνιουτοί. The ἡμέρας are the days recurring weekly, the sabbaths: μῆνες, the monthly celebrations, the new moons: καιροί, the annual festivals, as the passover, pentecost, etc.; ἐνιουτοί, the sacred years, as the sabbatical year and the year of jubilee. Comp. Judith viii. 6 χωρὶς προσεββάτων καὶ σαββάτων καὶ προνομηνῶν καὶ νομη-

νῶν καὶ ἑορτῶν καὶ χαρμοσυνῶν οἶκου Ἰσραήλ, Philo de Sept. p. 286 π. ἵνα τὴν ἐβδομάδα τιμῆσῃ κατὰ πάντας χρόνους ἡμερῶν καὶ μηνῶν καὶ ἐναντῶν κ.τ.λ. For μῆνες in the sense it has here comp. Is. lxvi. 23 καὶ ἔσται μὴν ἐκ μηνὸς καὶ σαββάτων ἐκ σαββάτων. On this use of καιρός for an annually recurring season see Mæris p. 214 (Becker),

Ἄρα ἔτους, Ἀττικοί· καιρός ἔτους, Ἐλληνες; and Hesychius, Ἄρα ἔτους· καιρός ἔτους· τὸ ἴορ καὶ τὸ θέρος.

ἐνιουτούς] It has been calculated

(Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 204 sq and here) that the year from autumn 54 to autumn 55 was a sabbatical year; and an inference has been drawn from this as to the date of the epistle. The enumeration however seems to be intended as general and exhaustive, and no special reference can be assumed.

On the Christian observance of days in reference to this prohibition of St

Galatians 4:11

καὶ ἐπιαντούς; “φοβοῦμαι ὑμᾶς, μὴ πῶς εἰκῇ κεκοπίακα εἰς ὑμᾶς.

Paul see the excellent remarks of Origen, c. Cels viii. 21-23.

παρατηρίσθε] ‘ye minutely, scrupulously observe,’ literally ‘ye go along with and observe’: comp. Ps. cxxix. 3

ἐὰν ἀνομίας παρατηρήσῃς. Joseph. Ant. iii. 5. 5 παρατηρὶν τὰς ἰβδομάδας, Clem. Hom. xix. 22 ἀμελήσαντες τὴν παρατήρησιν. In this last passage, which enjoins the observance of days ἐπιτηρήσιμαι ἡμέραι, there is apparently an attack on St Paul; see above, p. 61. There seems to be no authority for assigning to παρατηρὶν the sense ‘wrongly observe,’ nor is the analogy of such words as παρακοίειν sufficiently close to bear it out. Here the middle voice still further enforces the idea of interested, assiduous observance; comp. Luke xiv. 1.

11. κεκοπίακα] the indicative mood, because the speaker suspects that what he fears has actually happened. Horm. on Soph. Af. 272 says, ‘μὴ ἐστὶ veren’ is quidem est sed indicantis simul putare se ita esse ut veretur.’ See Winer § lvi. p. 631 sq.

In the above passage St Paul expressively describes the Mosaic law, as a rudimentary teaching, the alphabet, as it were, of moral and spiritual instruction. The child must be taught by definite rules, learnt by rote. The chosen race, like the individual man, has had its period of childhood. During this period, the mode of instruction was tempered to its undeveloped capacities. It was subject to a discipline of absolute precepts, of external ordinances.

It is clear however from the context, that the Apostle is not speaking of the Jewish race alone, but of the heathen world also before Christ, not of the Mosaic law only, but of all forms of law which might be subservient to the same purpose. This appears from his including his Galatian hearers under the same tutelage. Nor is this fact to be explained by supposing them to have passed through a stage of Jewish proselytism on their way to Christianity. St Paul distinctly refers to their previous idolatrous worship (ver. 8), and no less distinctly and emphatically does he describe their adoption of Jewish ritualism, as a return to the weak and beggarly discipline of childhood, from which they had been emancipated when they abandoned that worship.

But how, we may ask, could St Paul class in the same category that divinely ordained law which he elsewhere describes as ‘holy and just and good’ (Rom. vii. 12), and those degraded heathen systems which he elsewhere is probates as ‘fellowship with devils’ (1 Cor. x. 20)?

The answer seems to be that the Apostle here regards the higher element in heathen religion as corresponding, however imperfectly, to the lower element in the Mosaic law. For we may consider both the one and the other as made up of two component parts, the spiritual and the ritualistic.

Now viewed in their spiritual aspect there is no comparison between the one and the other. In this respect the heathen religions, so far as they added anything of their own to that sense of dependence on God which is innate in man and which they could not entirely crush (Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 23, 27, 28, Rom. i. 19, 20), were wholly bad; they were profligate and soul-destroying, were the prompting of devils. On the contrary in the Mosaic law the spiritual element was most truly divine. But this does not enter into our reckoning here. For Christianity has appropriated all that was spiritual in its predecessor. The Mosaic dispensation was a foreshadowing, a germ of the Gospel, and thus, when

Galatians 4:12-13

“Γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ, ὅτι κἀγὼ ὡς ὑμεῖς, ἀδελφοί, δέομαι ὑμῶν· οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε·” οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι δι’

Christ came, its spiritual element was of necessity extinguished or rather absorbed by its successor. Deprived of this, it was a mere mass of lifeless ordinances, differing only in degree, not in kind, from any other ritualistic system.

Thus the ritualistic element alone remains to be considered, and here is the meeting point of Judaism and Heathenism. In Judaism this was as much lower than its spiritual element, as in Heathenism it was higher. Hence the two systems approach within such a distance of each other that they can under certain limitations be classed together. They have at least so much in common that a lapse into Judaism can be regarded as a relapse to the position of unconverted Heathenism. Judaism was a system of bondage like Heathenism. Heathenism had been a disciplinary training like Judaism.

It is a fair inference, I think, from St Paul’s language here, that he does place Heathenism in the same category with Judaism in this last respect. Both alike are στοιχεία, ‘elementary systems of training.’ They had at least this in common, that as ritual systems they were made up of precepts and ordinances, and thus were representatives of ‘law’ as opposed to ‘grace,’ ‘promise,’ that is, as opposed to the Gospel. Doubtless in this respect even the highest form of heathen religion was much lower and less efficient than the Mosaic ritual. But still in an imperfect way they might do the same work: they might act as a restraint, which multiplying transgressions and thus begetting and cherishing a conviction of sin prepared the way for the liberty of manhood in Christ.

Thus comparing the two together from the point of view in which St Paul seems to consider them, we get as the component parts of each: JU-

DAISM; (1) The spiritual—absolutely good, absorbed in the Gospel; (2) The ritualistic—relatively good, στοιχεία: HEATHENISM; (1) The ritualistic—relatively good, στοιχεία; (2) The spiritual—absolutely bad, antagonistic to the Gospel.

If this explanation of St Paul’s meaning be correct, it will appear on the one hand that his teaching has nothing in common with Goethe’s classification, when he placed Judaism at the head of Ethnich religions. On the other hand it will explain the intense hatred with which the Judaizers, wholly unable to rise above the level of their sectarian prejudices and take a comprehensive view of God’s providence, regarded the name and teaching of St Paul.

12—16. ‘By our common sympathies, as brethren I appeal to you. I laid aside the privileges, the prejudices of my race: I became a Gentile, even as ye were Gentiles. And now I ask you to make me so me return. I ask you to throw off this Judaic bondage, and to be free, as I am free. Do not mistake me; I have no personal complaint; ye did me no wrong. Nay, ye remember, when detained by sickness I preached the Gospel to you, what a hearty welcome ye gave me. My infirmity might well have tempted you to reject my message. It was far otherwise. Ye did not spurn me, did not loathe me; but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself. And what has now become of your felicitations? Are they scattered to the winds? Yet ye did felicitate yourselves then. Yea, I bear you witness, such was your gratitude, ye would have plucked out your very eyes and have given them to me. What then? Have I made you my enemies by telling the truth?’

12. Γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ κ.λ.] Of the

Galatians 4:14

ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον· Ἰκαὶ τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου οὐκ ἐξουmeaning of the first clause there can be but little doubt; ‘Free yourself from the bondage of ordinances, as I am free.’ Of the second two interpretations deserve to be considered; (1) ‘For I was once in bondage as ye are now,’ i.e. κἀγὼ ἦμην Ἰουδαῖος ὡς ὑμεῖς τὸν Ἰουδαίζετε. So Eusebius (of Emes I), Chrysostom, Jerome, and apparently Pseudo-Justin Orat. ad

Grace, § 5: s. o p 60 note 1: (2) ‘For I abandoned my legal ground of rightconsess, I became a Gentile like you,’ i.e. κἀγὼ ἐγενόμην Ἕλλην ὡς ὑμεῖς ἦτε Ἕλληνες; comp. ii. 17, 1 Cor. ix. 21. This latter sense is simpler grammatically, as it understands the same verb which occurs in the former clause, ἐγενόμην, not ἦμην. It is also more in character with the intense personal feeling which pervades the passage. The words so taken involve an appeal to the affection and gratitude of the Galatians; ‘I gave up all those timehonoured customs, all those dear associations of race, to become like you. I have lived as a Gentile that I might preach to you Gentiles. Will you then abandon me when I have abandoned all for you?’ This sense is well adapted both to the tender appeal ‘brethren, I beseech you,’ and to the eager explanation which follows ‘ye did me no wrong.’ For the expression comp. Ter. Eun. i. 2, 116 ‘meus fac sis postremo animus, quando ego sum taus.’ οὐδέν με ἡδικήσατε] To these words two different meanings have been assigned; (1) ‘Ye never disobeyed me before; do not disobey me now’: (2) ‘I have no personal ground of complaint.’ The latter seems better adapted to the context. Possibly however the real explanation is hidden under some unknown circumstances to which St Paul alludes; see below on δ’

ἀσθένειαν.

13. οἶδατε δέ] ‘on the contrary ye know.’ δὲ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς] ‘on account of an infirmity in my flesh.’ St Paul seems to have been detained in Galatha by illness, so that his infirmity was the cause of his preaching there; see pp. 23, 24. The fact that his preaching among them was thus in a manner compulsory made the enthusiastic welcome of the Galatians the more commendable. If this interpretation seems somewhat forced, it is only because we are ignorant of the circumstances to which St Paul refers; nor is it more harsh than any possible explanation which can be given of the preceding οὐδὲν με ἡδικήσατε. For the expression compare Thucyd. vi. 102 αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν κέλλον [αἰρεῖν] Νικίαι διεκώλυσιν· ἔτυχε γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ δ’ ἀσθένειαν ὑπολελειμμένος. Alluding to this afterwards in an impassioned appeal, Nicias might well have said, δὲ ἀσθένειαν ἔσωσα τὸν κέλλον. At all events this is the only rendering of the words which the grammar admits. No instance has been produced, until a much later date, which would at all justify our explaining δὲ ἀσθένειαν, as if it were δὲ ἀσθενείας or ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, as is frequently done. The ambiguity of the Latin ‘per infirmitatem’ gave the Latin fathers a license of interpretation which the original does not allow: Jerome however recognises the proper meaning of the preposition, though wrongly explaining it ‘propter infirmitatem carnis restrae.’ Of the Greek fathers, Chrysost., Theodoret, and Theod. Mops. slur over the preposition, interpreting the passage however in a way more consonant with the sense ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ. Photius (1 ap. Occum.) is the first, so far as I have noticed, who boldly gives the ungrammatical rendering μετὰ ἀσθενείας.

τὸ πρότερον] ‘on the former of my

Galatians 4:15

θενήσατε οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε, ἀλλὰ ὡς ἄγγελον Θεοῦ ἐδέξασθέ με, ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν. Ἦποῦ οὖν ὁ μακαρισ-

15. τί οὖν ὁ μακαρισμός.

two visits.¹ Τὸ πρότερον, which derives a certain emphasis from the article, cannot be simply equivalent to πάλαι, ‘some time ago.’ It may mean either (1) ‘formerly,’ with a direct and emphatic reference to some later point of time; comp. Joh. vi. 62, ix. 8, 1 Tim. i. 13, or (2) ‘on the former of two occasions.’ In the present passage it is difficult to explain the emphasis, if we assign the first of these two meanings to it, so that we have to fall back upon the second as the probable interpretation. The expression therefore seems to justify the assumption of two visits to Galatia before this letter was written; see pp. 25, 41.

14. τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν κ.τ.λ.] ‘your temptation which was in my flesh,’ i.e. St Paul’s bodily ailment, which was a trial to the Galatians and which might have led them to reject his preaching. Πειρασμός, like the corresponding English word ’temptation,’ is employed here by a laxity of usage common in all languages for ’the thing which tempts or tries.’ On this concrete sense of substantives in φόρ, see Buttm. Ausf. Sprachl. § 119. 23. ann. 11. The apparent harshness of the expression here, ‘your temptation ye did not despise nor loathe,’ is explained and in some degree relieved by the position of τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν at the beginning of the sentence. These words are used without a distinct anticipation of what is to follow, the particular sense of the verb to be employed being yet undecided and only suggested afterwards, as the sentence runs on, by the concrete sense which the intervening words ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου have given to πειρασμόν.

For ὑμῶν some texts have μου τὸν, the received reading, others simply τὸν. Considering however that the weight of authority is strongly in favour of ὑμῶν (see below, p. 186, note 1) and that the transcribers were under every temptation to soften a harsh and at first sight unintelligible phrase by altering or omitting the pronoun, this reading ought certainly to be retained. On the other hand, supposing μου to be the original reading, some have accounted for the variation ὑμῶν (Reiche, Comm. Crit. II. p. 54) by supposing that it was substituted by some scribe who was jealous for the honour of St Paul but an emendation, which introduced so much confusion in the sense, was not likely to be made. As for τὸν, it seems to be merely the insertion of a classicist.

οὐκ ἐξουθενήσατε οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε, ‘ye did not treat with contemptuous indifference or with active loathing.’ As ἀποκτήειν is more usual than ἐκπτήειν in this metaphorical sense, the latter seems to be preferred here for the sake of the alliteration.

15. ποῦ οὖν ὁ μακαρισμὸς ὑμῶν;] The reading of the received text differs from this in two points: (1) It inserts ἦν after οὖν. This is certainly to be omitted, as very deficient in authority and perhaps also as giving a wrong sense to the passage. (2) It reads τίς for ποῦ. On this point there is more difficulty. The weight of direct evidence is certainly in favour of ποῦ; but on the other hand it is more probable that ποῦ should have been substituted for τίς than conversely, especially as several Greek commentators (Theod. Maps. Theodoret. Severianus) who read τίς explain it by ποῦ.

If the reading τίς be adopted, the choice seems to lie between two out of many interpretations which have been proposed: (1) ‘How hollow, how meaningless was your rejoicing’ (understanding ἦν); (2) ‘What has bo-

Galatians 4:16-17

μὸς ὑμῶν; μαρτυρῶ γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι, εἰ δυνατόν, τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν ἐξορύξαντες ἐδωκατέ μοι. ¹⁶ὥστε ἐχθρὸς ὑμῶν γέγονα ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν: ¹⁷Ζηλοῦσιν ὑμᾶς οὐ

come of your rejoicing! where has it vanished? (understanding ἰστίν). In the latter sense it would coincide in meaning with ποῦ οὖν ὁ μακαρισμός, which can only be taken in one way. This interpretation seems more natural than the former.

ὁ μακαρισμὸς ὑμῶν! ‘your felicitation of your selves,’ your happiness in my teaching, as the sense seems to require. ὑμῶν is probably the subjective genitive, though the Galatians were at the same time also the object of the μακαρισμός. Others understand by these words either their felicitation of St Paul, or his felicitation of them, but neither of these meanings is so appropriate to the context; not the former, because the word μακαρισμός would ill express their secle mong of him; not the latter, for St Paul is dwelling on the change of feeling which they themselves had undergone. For μακαρισμός, ‘beatitudo,’ see Rom. iv. 6, 9, and Clem. Rom. § 50 μαρτυρῶ ‘I bear witness,’ see the note on 1 Thess. ii. 12.

εἰ δυνατόν κτλ? ‘if it had been possible, if you could have benefited me thereby, you would have plucked out your very eyes, would have given me that which is most precious to you.’ For καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς compare the Old Testament phrase to ‘keep as the apple of one’s eye’ (e.g. Ps. xvii. 8), and the references in Wetstein. See below, p. 191, note.

ἐδωκατέ! ‘ye had given.’ The suppression of the condition expresses more vividly their readiness; see Winer § xlii. p. 321. The insertion of ἄν in the received text encodes the sense.

16. ὥστε! ’therefore’ ought naturally to be followed by a direct assertion; but shunning this conclusion and hoping against hope, the Apostle substitutes an interrogative; ‘Can it be that I have become your enemy?’ ἐχθρὸς ὑμῶν! ‘your enemy.’ It was a term by which the Judaisers of a later age, and perhaps even at this time, designated St Paul; Clem. Hom. Ep. Petr. § 2 καὶ ἐχθροῦ ἀνθρώπου ἄνοιόν τινα καὶ ἁλυσρώδη προσπάμεναι διδασκαλίαν, Clem. Recogn. i. 70: see p. 61. This quotation suggests that ἄνοιόν was another of these hostile names which he is parrying in 1 Cor. ix. 21 μὴ ὧν ἄνοιόν Θεοῦ.

ἀληθεύων! probably referring to some warnings given during his second visit. See the introduction p. 25. Compare the proverb, Ter. Andr. i. 1. 41, ‘obsequium amicus, civitas odium parit.’

17. From speaking of the former interchange of affection between himself and his Galatian converts, he goes on to contrast their relations with the false teachers: ‘I once held the first place in your hearts. Now you look upon me as an enemy. Others have supplanted me. Only enquire into their aims. True, they pay court to you; but how hollow, how insincere is their interest in you! Their desire is to shut you out from Christ. Thus you will be driven to pay court to them.’

Ζηλοῦσιν! ‘They pay court to.’ As ζηλοῦν would seem to have one and the same sense throughout this passage, its more ordinary meanings with the accusative, as ’to admire, emulate, envy,’ must be discarded. It signifies rather ’to busy oneself about, take interest in,’ a sense which lies close to the original meaning of ζηλός, if correctly derived from ζῶ. See 2 Cor. xi. 2, ζηλῶ γὰρ ὑμᾶς Θεοῦ ζῆλῃ: so also Plut. Mor. p. 448 κ. ἰπὸ χρείας τὸ πρῶτον ἴπονται καὶ ζηλοῦσιν, ὕστερον δὲ

Galatians 4:18-19

καλῶς, ἀλλὰ ἐκκλείσαι ὑμᾶς θέλουσι, ἵνα αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε. ¹⁵καλὸν δὲ ζηλοῦσθαι ἐν καλῷ πάντοτε, καὶ μὴ μόνον ἐν τῷ παρεῖναί με πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ¹⁹τεκνία μου, οὐκ

19. τέκνα μου.

καὶ φιλοῦσιν: 1 Cor. xii. 31, xiv. 1, 39, Ezek. xxxix. 25.

ἀλλὰ] is connected not with ζηλοῦσιν, but with οὐ καλῶς: comp. Esch. Eum. 458 ἱφθιθ’ οἶτος οὐ καλῶς, μολῶν ἐς οἶκον, ἀλλὰ νῦν κελαινόφρων ἐμὴ μήτηρ κατέκτα.

ἐκκλείσαι ὑμᾶς] ’to exclude, to debar you.’ If it is asked ‘from what?’, the reply is to be sought in the tendency of the false teaching. By insisting on ceremonial observances, they were in fact shutting out the Galatians from Christ. The idea is the same as in v. 4 κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπίσαστε. The reading ἡμᾶς, though it gives a good sense, is a most destitute of authority.

ἵνα αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε] ’that, having no refuge elsewhere, you may pay court to them.’ For the present indicative after ἵνα comp. 1 Cor. iv. 6 ἵνα μὴ φιλοῦσθε: a usage quite unclassical, but often found in later writers; see Winor § xii p. 362. The future indicative with ἵνα is comparatively common, as e.g. ii. 4. The attempt to give ἵνα with the indicative a local sense (quo in statu), as opposed to a final (e.g. Fritzsche on Matth. p. 836 sq), may mislead, as seeming to assume that there is an essential difference between the local and the final ἵνα. The final sense is derived from the local, the relation of cause and effect in all languages being expressed by words originally denoting relations in space. Thus the difference of meaning between ἵνα παίρτε and ἵνα παίρτε is not in the adverb, which is of constant value, but in the moods.

ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ κρείστω χαρίσματα is interpolated here in many copies from 1 Cor. xii. 31; comp. iii. 1, note.

18. καλὸν δὲ ζηλοῦσθαι κ.τ.λ.] The number of possible explanations is limited by two considerations: (1) That ζηλοῦν must have the same sense as in the preceding verse, a paronomasia, though frequent in St Paul, being out of place here: (2) That ζηλοῦσθαι must be passive and not middle; a transitive sense of ζηλοῦσθαι, even if it were supported by usage elsewhere, being inexplicable here in the immediate neighbourhood of the active ζηλοῦν.

With these limitations only two interpretations present themselves, which deserve to be considered. First: ‘I do not grudge the court which is paid to you. I do not desire a monopoly of serving you. It is well that in my absence your interests should be looked after by others. Only let them do it in an honourable cause.’ Secondly: ‘I do not complain that they desire your attentions, or you theirs. These things are good in themselves. I myself am not insensible to such attachments. I remember how warm were your feelings towards me, when I was with you. I would they had not grown cold in my absence.’ The difference between the two consists mainly in the turn given to μὴ μόνον ἐν τῷ παρεῖναί με. The objection to the latter sense is, that it supplies too much. But this abrupt and fragmentary mode of expression is characteristic of St Paul when he is deeply moved: and this interpretation suits the general context so much better -especially the tender appeal which immediately follows, ‘my little children’ -that it is to be preferred to the other.

The reading ζηλοῦσθε, found in the two best was, is in itself but another

GAL.

Galatians 4:20

πάλιν ὠδίνω μέχρις οὗ μορφωθῇ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν. ²⁰ ἦθελον δὲ παρεῖναι πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἄρτι καὶ ἀλλάξαι τὴν φωνὴν μου, ὅτι ἀποροῦμαι ἐν ὑμῖν.

way of writing the infinitive ζηλούσθαι, the sounds e and ai being the same. It was however liable to be mistaken for an imperative, and is so translated in the Vulgate.

19. This verse should be taken with the preceding and the punctuation regulated accordingly. It is difficult to explain &c. ver. 20, if τεκνία μου be made the beginning of a new sentence. The connexion of thought seems to be as follows: ‘I have a right to ask for constancy in your affections. I have a greater claim on you than these new teachers. They speak but as strangers to strangers; I as a mother to her children with whom she has travailed.’ Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 14, ‘Though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers.’ τεκνία μου ‘my little children,’ a mode of address common in St. John, but not found elsewhere in St. Paul. This however is no argument for the reading τέκνα in preference to τεκνία, for St. Paul does not elsewhere use the vocatives τέκνα, τέκνον, except in Ephes. vi. 1, Col. iii. 20, where he could not possibly have had τεκνία, and in 1 Tim. i. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 1, where τεκνίον would have been inappropriate. Here the diminutive, expressing both the tenderness of the Apostle and the feebleness of his converts, is more forcible. It is a term at once of affection and rebuke. The reading τέκνα however is very highly supported and may perhaps be correct.

πάλιν ὠδίνω] ‘I travailed with you once in bringing you to Christ. By your relapse you have renewed a mother’s pangs in me.’ There is no allusion here, as some have thought, to the new birth in the Spirit (πυλιγγενεσία) as opposed to the old birth in the flesh.

μορφωθῇ ἐν ὑμῖν] i.e. ‘until you have taken the form of Christ,’ as the embryo develops into the child. Compare the similar expression of ‘growing up into the full stature of Christ,’ Ephes. iv. 13. The words μορφωθῇ ἐν ὑμῖν have been otherwise explained as a different application of the former metaphor, the Apostle’s converts being put no longer in the place of the child, but of the mother. Such inversions of a metaphor are characteristic of St. Paul (see the notes 1 Thess. ii. 7, v. 4), but here the explanation is improbable. St. Paul would have shrunk instinctively from describing the relation of Christ to the believer by that of the unborn child to its mother, thereby suggesting, however indirectly, the idea of subordination.

For an elaborate application of the metaphor in the text see the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, Euseb. v. 1 §§ 40, 41, especially the words εἰ πλείους ἀνεμητροῦντο καὶ

ἀνεκύσκοντο κ.τ.λ.

20. ἦθελον δὲ κ.τ.λ.] ‘but, speaking of my presence, I would I had been present with you now.’ The δὲ catches up the passing thought of παρεῖναι (v. 18), before it escapes; comp. 1 Cor. i. 16 ἰβαστισα δὲ καὶ τὸν Στεφανᾶ οἶκον. The connexion of this clause with the previous παρεῖναι requires that the sentence should be continuous, and that there should be no full stop after πρὸς ὑμᾶς (ver. 18); see the note on ver. 19. All other explanations seem harsh. Δε has been connected for instance with the vocative, but there is here no abrupt transition from one person to another, which alone would justify such an expression as τεκνία μου, ἦθελον δὲ.

ἦθελον as πύχομην Rom. ix. 3, ἰβουλόμην Acts xxv. 22. The thing is

Galatians 4:21-22

²¹ Λέγετέ μοι, οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι, τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε; ²² γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι Ἀβραίμ δύο υἱοὺς ἔσχεν, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευ-

spoken of in itself, prior to and independently of any conditions which might affect its possibility; see Winer § xli. p. 352, and the note Philem. 13.

ἀρτί] See the note i. 9.

ἀλλάξαι τὴν φωνὴν μου] not ’to modify my language from time to time as occasion demands,’ for this is more than the phrase will bear, but ’to change my present tone.’ The change meant is surely from severity to gentleness, and not from less to greater severity, as it has often been taken. His anxiety to mitigate the effects of his written rebuke has an exact parallel in his dealings with the Corinthian offender; see esp. 2 Cor. ii. 5 sq.

ἀποροῦμαι ἐν ὑμῖν] ‘I am perplexed about you, I am at a loss how to deal with you’: comp. 2 Cor. vii. 16 ἄρραι ἐν ὑμῖν. The idea of inward questioning is expressed more strongly by ἀπορεῖσθαι than by ἀπορεῖν. It is probably a middle rather than a passive; though ἀπορεῖν is found as a transitive verb in Clem. Hom. i. 11 ἀπορεῖν αὐτὸν πειρώμενοι ὡς βάρβαρὸν τινα δαιμονόντα, if the text be not corrupt.

21—27. ‘Ye who vaunt your submission to law, listen while I read you a lesson out of the law. The Scripture says that Abraham had two sons, the one the child of the bondwoman, the other the child of the free. The child of the bondwoman, we are there told, came into the world in the common course of nature: the child of the free was born in fulfilment of a promise. These things may be treated as an allegory. The two mothers represent two covenants. The one, Hagar, is the covenant given from Mount Sinai, whose children are born into slavery (for Sinai is in Arabia, the land of Hagar and the Hagarones), and this covenant corresponds to the earthly Jerusalem, which is in bondage with her children. The other answers to the heavenly Jerusalem, which is free—I mean the Church of Christ, our common mother. In her progeny is fulfilled the prophetic saying, which bids the barren and forsaken wife rejoice, because her offspring shall be far more numerous than her rival’s, who claims the husband for herself.’

21. οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον κ.τ.λ.] ‘ye, who would be subject to law, who must needs submit to bondage in some way or other.’ Observe here again the distinction between νόμος and ὁ νόμος, and see the notes on ii. 19, iv. 4, 5.

τὸν νόμον] ’the law,’ when referring to the written word, either comprises the whole of the Old Testament writings (e.g. Rom. iii. 19), or is restricted to the Pentateuch (e.g. Rom. iii. 21, Luke xxiv. 44).

οὐκ ἀκούετε] ‘will ye not listen to it’ Matt. x. 14, xiii. 13, Luke xvi. 29. The other interpretation, ‘Is not the law constantly read to you?’ (comp. Acts xv. 21, 2 Cor. iii. 14), is less probable, because less simple. The various reading ἀναγνώσκειτε, which has respectable authority, is evidently a gloss on this latter sense assigned to the word.

22. γέγραπται] ‘it is stated in the scriptures,’ introducing a general reference, and not a direct quotation; as in 1 Cor. xv. 45. See Genesis xvi. xxi.

τῆς παιδίσκης] ’the bondmaid’; comp. Gen. xvi. 1 ἦν δὲ αὐτῇ παιδίσκῃ Αἰγυπτία, ἢ ὄνομα Ἄγορ. The word seems to have exclusively the sense of a servant in the New Testament and later Greek; not so in classical writers. See Lobeck Phryn. p. 259 παιδίσκη τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς θεραπευτικῆς οἱ γῆν τιθίασιν, οἱ δ’ ἀρχαῖοι ἐπὶ τῆς νεάνιδος.

12—2

Galatians 4:23-24

θέρας. 23ἀλλ’ ὁ [μὲν] ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας διὰ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας. 24ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα. αὗται γὰρ εἰσιν δύο

23. ἀλλ’ ‘but,’ i.e. although sons of the same father. The opposition implied in ἀλλὰ is illustrated by Rom. ix. 7 οὐδ’ ὅτι εἰσὶν σπέρμα Ἀβρούμ, πάντες τέκνα, and ix. 10 ἐξ ἑνὸς κοίτην ἔχουσα κατὰ σάρκα] i.e. ‘in the common course of nature.’ In some sense Ishmael was also a child of promise (Gen. xvi. 10), but in his case the course of nature was not suspended, as the promise was made after his conception. It must be remembered however that in his choice of words here St Paul regards not only the original history, but the typical application, the Jews being the children of Abraham after the flesh, the Christians his children by the promise.

γεγέννηται] the perfect, ‘is recorded as born,’ ‘is born, as we read’. comp. I Tim. ii. 14 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθείσα ἐν παραβόσει γέγονεν.

24. ἅτινά] ’now all these things’; not simply a ‘which particular things,’ but ἅτινά ‘which class of things’: comp. Col. ii. 23 ἅτινά ἐστιν λόγον μὲν ἔχουσα σοφίας, i.e. precepts of this sort (with the note).

ἀλληγορούμενα The word has two senses: (1) ‘To speak in an allegory,’ e.g. Joseph. Ant. prom. 4 τὰ μὲν αἰνιτομένων τοῦ νομοθέτου δεξιῶς τὰ δὲ ἀλληγοροῦντος κ.τ.λ.; (2) ‘To treat or interpret as an allegory,’ e.g. Philo de Vit. Cont. § 3, II. p. 475 μ’ ἐντυγχάνοντες γὰρ τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράμμασι φιλοσοφούσι τὴν πάτριον φιλοσοφίαν ἀλληγοροῦντες, ἐπειδὴ σύμβολα τὰ τῆς ῥητῆς ἱρμηνείας νομίζουσι φύσεως ἀποκεκρυμμένης ἐν ἱπανόϊαις δηλουμένης, Clem. Hom. vi. 18, 20, and frequently: comp. Plut. Op. Mor. p. 363 D ὥσπερ Ἕλληνες Κράνον ἀλληγοροῦσι τὸν Χρόνον κ.τ.λ. It is possible that St Paul uses the word in this latter sense, referring to some recognised mode of interpretation. Comp. the note on συνστοιχοί ver. 25, and see the remarks p. 198.

St Paul uses ἀλληγορία here much in the same sense as he uses τίποτε 1 Cor. x. 11 ταῦτα δὲ τυπικῶς συνήθαινεν, not denying the historical truth of the narrative, but superposing a secondary meaning. By a stricter definition ἀλληγορία and τίποτε were distinguished as denoting the former a fictitious, the latter a true narrative. See the definition of ἀλληγορία, Herac. Alleg. Hom. 5 ὁ ἄλλα μὲν ἀγορευῶν τρόπος ἕτερα δὲ ὡν λέγει σημαίνων. Hence the jealousy of the Antiochene fathers (Chrysostom, Severianus, Theod. Mops.) in explaining that St Paul uses the word καταχρηστικῶς here and does not deny the historical truth of the narrative.

The author of the Clem. Hom. (ii. 22) indirectly attacks this allegory: see the introduction, p. 61.

αὗται γὰρ κ.τ.λ.] ‘for these women are (represent) two covenants.’ Εἶσιν ‘are’ not actually, but mystically or typically; Matt xiii. 39, xxvi. 26—28, 1 Cor. x. 4. The article before δύο must be omitted.

μία μὲν] ‘one of them, which was given from Mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage.’ The true antithesis would have been ἕτερα δὲ, but it melts away in the general fusion of the sentence, vv. 25, 26. For γεννῶσα used of a mother, see Luke i. 13; it occurs so in Xen. de Rep. Lac i. 3, and occasionally elsewhere, especially in later writers.

ἦτις] ‘inasmuch as she.’ ἡ would simply declare the fact, ἦτις places it in dependence on the context.

25. τὸ γὰρ Ἰωὰ κ.τ.λ.] ‘for Sinai is a mountain in Arabia,’ i.e. in the land of bondsmen, themselves de-

Galatians 4:25

διαθήκαι, μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ, εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἄγαρ· ²⁵ τὸ γὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ· συνατοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ νῦν Ἱερουσαλὴμ, δουλεύει γὰρ scended from Hagar. The stress lies on ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ, not on ὄρος, which is unemphatic; or perhaps we should render the words, ‘Mount Sinai is in Arabia’ (comp. Athan. de Decr. 7,

1. p. 168, for τὸ Σινᾶ ὄρος), as this gives a better sense. The Arabians are called ‘sons of Hagar.’ Baruch iii. 23: see Ewald Gesch. des V. Isr. 1. p. 418. St Paul’s language here is further illustrated by the prominence given to Hagar in the national legends of the Arabs, where she is represented as the lawful wife of Abraham: see d’Herbelot Bibl. Or. s. v. Hagiar. The word is preserved also in the name of several Arab tribes, e.g.

the Hagarenes or Hagarites of the

Old Testament: Ps. lxxxiii. 6, 𐬀𐬭𐬭𐬀, Ἀγαρναίαι; and 1 Chron. v. 19, 𐬀𐬭𐬭𐬀, Ἀγρααίαι, comp. ver. 10, and the

Ἀγραίαι of heathen writers Eratosth. in Strabo xvi. p. 767), if these be not the same. A place on the Persian gulf is still so called. It is to the Sinaitic peninsula apparently that Hagar flees (Gen. xvi. 7, 14, and possibly some portion of it may have borne her name in St Paul’s time;

see below, p. 197.

The clause τὸ γὰρ Σινᾶ κ.τ.λ. is parenthetical, and the nominative to συνατοιχεῖ is μία διαθήκη.

For the various readings in this passage and for different interpretations of the word ‘Hagar,’ see the detached notes p. 192 sq.

συνατοιχεῖ] ‘answers to’; literally, ‘belongs to the same row or column with.’ In military language συνατοιχία denotes a file, as συζυγία does a rank of soldiers; comp. Polyb. x. 21. 7. The use of this word here is best illustrated by the Pythagorean συνατοιχία of opposing principles (Arist. Eth. N. i. 6, Metaph. i. 5), which stood thus; | Good, | Bad, |

| — | — |

| Finite, | Infinite, |

| One, | Many, |

| Permanent, | Changing, |

| etc. | etc. |

Similar also were the συνατοιχία of graumarians, who so arranged the letters of the alphabet according to the organs of speech (comp. Athen. xi. p. 501 B), or the words derived from the same root according to the ending

(Arist. Rhet. i. 7, Top. ii. 9). The allegory in the text then may be represented by συνατοιχία thus;

| Hagar, the bond- | Sarah, the free- | | — | — |

| woman. | woman. |

| Ishmael, the child | Issac, the child of | | after the flesh. | promise. |

| The old covenant. | The new covenant. | | The earthly Jeru- | The heavenly Je- | | salem. | rusalem. |

| etc. | etc. |

The old covenant is thus συνατοιχία with the earthly Jerusalem, but ἀντίστοιχος to the heavenly. It is not improbable that St Paul is alluding to some mode of representation common with Jewish teachers to exhibit this and similar allegories. Strangely enough the fathers with but few exceptions translate συνατοιχεῖ ‘borders upon,’ ‘is contiguous to,’ which is scarcely true even in the most forced sense of contiguity.

τῇ νῦν Ἱερουσαλὴμ] The metropolis

of the Jews is taken to represent the whole race.

δουλεύει γὰρ κ.τ.λ.] ‘is in spiritual bondage with her children,’ just as Hagar was in social bondage with her child Ishmael. For τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς see Matt. xxiii. 37

26. ἡ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴμ St Paul here

uses an expression familiar to rabbinical teachers, but detaches it from

Galatians 4:26-27

μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς· ²⁶ ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν. ²⁷ γέγραπται γάρ, εὖφρανθῆντι στεῖρα ἡ οὐ τίκτογσα, ῥῆσον καὶ βόησον

those sensuous and material conceptions with which they invested it. See the treatise de Hieros. Coelest. in Schöttgen’s Hor. Hebr. 1. p. 1205. With them it is an actual city, the exact counterpart of the earthly Jerusalem in its topography and its furniture: with him it is a symbol or image, representing that spiritual city of which the Christian is even now a denizen (Phil. iii. 20). See Heb. xii. 22 Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπουμίνιος, Rev. iii. 12 καινὴ Ἱερουσαλὴμ, xxi. 2 ἁγία Ἱερουσαλὴμ: comp. Test. xii. Patr. Daniel 5, Clem. Rec. i. 51. The contrast between the two scenes, as they appeared to the eye, would enhance, if it did not suggest, the imagery of St Paul here. On the one hand, Mount Sion, of old the joy of the whole earth, now more beautiful than ever in the fresh glories of the Herodian renaissance, glittering in gold and marble (Joseph. B. J. v. 5. 6); on the other, Sinai with its rugged peaks and barren sides, bleak and desolate, the oppressive power of which the Apostle himself had felt during his sojourn there (see p. 89)—these scenes fitly represented the contrast between the glorious hopes of the new covenant and the blank despair of the old. Comp. Heb. xii. 18—22.

The Apostle instinctively prefers the Hebrew form Ἱερουσαλὴμ here for the typical city, as elsewhere in this epistle (i. 17, 18, ii. 1) he employs the Graecised form Ἱεροσόλυμα for the actual city. Ἱερουσαλὴμ est appellatio Hebraica, originaria et sanctior: Ἱεροσόλυμα, deinceps obvia, Graeca, magis politica, says Bengel on Rev. xxi. 2, accounting for the usage of St John (‘in evangelio Ἱεροσόλυμα, in apocalypsi Ἱερουσαλὴμ’), and referring to this passage in illustration. In his other epistles St Paul has always

Ἱερουσαλὴμ; Rom. xv. 19, 25, 26, 31, 1 Cor. xvi. 3.

μήτηρ ἡμῶν] ’the mother of us Christians.’ St Paul’s expression was borrowed and adapted by Polycarp § 3 τὴν δοθμίαν ὑμῖν πίστιν ἥτις ἐστὶ μήτηρ πάντων ἡμῶν. From a confusion of this loose quotation with the original text, the word πάντων was early interpolated in St Paul; e.g. in Iren. (interp.) v. 35. 2. This at all events is not an improbable account of the origin of the received reading πάντων ἡμῶν; or perhaps πάντων crept in from Rom. iv. 16 ὃς ἐστὶν πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν.

27. St Paul here illustrates the allegory by reference to a passage in Isaiah liv. 1. This passage in its context is a song of triumph anticipating the deliverance of God’s afflicted people Israel from a foreign yoke. Sion has been deserted by her Lord (xlix. 14), and is mourning in her widowhood: she will be restored to favour and become the mother of a large and prosperous people. The image of conjugal union, as representing the relation of Jehovah to His people, is drawn out at some length in the context, see esp. liv. 5, 6. In order moreover fully to understand St Paul’s application here, it must be remembered that in another part of the same prophecy (li. 2) God’s dealings with Abraham and Sarah are pointed to as a type of His dealings with their descendants. Accordingly Jewish writers connected li. 2 with liv. 1; ‘Sterilitas Abrahiae et Sarae figura fuit sterilitatis Sion,’ Ir Gibborim fol. 49. 2, quoted in Schöttgen. Here then Sarah—the chosen people—the Church of Christ.

γέγραπται γάρ] from the LXX where some few texts add καὶ τέρπου after βοησαν with the Hebrew. It is quoted as St Paul quotes it in Pseudo-Clem.

Galatians 4:28-29

ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνογκα, ὅτι πολλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐρήμῳ;

μάλλον ἢ τῆς ἐχογῆς τὸν ἄναρα. $^(28)$ὑμεῖς δὲ, ἀδελφοί, κατὰ Ἰσαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα ἐστέ. $^(29)$ἀλλ’

28. ἡμεῖς δί—τέκνα ἑσμί.

Epist. ii. § 2, and Justin, Apol. i. c. 53, p. 88 c, and similarly applied. On the coincidence of Justin’s quotations with St Paul’s see p. 60, and the notes iii. 10, 13; comp. Semisch Just. Mart. 1. p. 258 sq (Eng. Tr.). The Hebrew differs somewhat, as do the other Greek versions (see Jerome and Procopius in Is. l. c.). Ῥᾶρ links the quotation with μήτηρ ἡμ. 2.

στεῖρα] The barren one is not Gentile Christendom as opposed to Jewish, but the new dispensation as opposed to the old. At the same time the image of barrenness derives its force from the introduction of the Gentile element into the Christian Church. Compare the metaphor of the ἀγριέλαιος, Rom. xi. 17.

πολλὰ τὰ τέκνα μάλλον ἢ] for the usual Greek πλείουα ἢ, the Hebrew idiom (רבים טו), which has no comparative, being followed.

τῆς ἐχοῦσης τὸν ἄνδρα] in St Paul’s application, Hagar, who for a time possessed the affection of Abraham and conceived by him. She thus represents the Jewish people at one time enjoying the special favour of Jehovah.

28—V. 1. ‘So, brethren, you as Christians are children of a promise, like Isaac. Nor does the allegory end here. Just as Ishmael the child born after the flesh insulted Isaac the child born after the Spirit, so is it now. But the end shall be the same now, as then. In the language of the Scripture, the bondwoman and her offspring shall be cast out of the father’s house. The child of the slave cannot share the inheritance with the child of the free. Remember therefore, brethren, that you are not children of any slave, but of the free and wedded wife. I speak of that freefrom, whereunto we all are emancipated in Christ. Remember this, and act upon it. Firmly resist all pressure, and do not again bow your necks under the yoke of slavery.’

28. (μεῖς δί] resuming the main subject, ver. 27 being in a manner parenthetical.

κατὰ Ἰσαὰκ] See Rom. ix. 7—9 The Gentiles were sprung from one ‘as good as dead’: they had no claims of race or descent. Thus they were sons not κατὰ σάρκα, but, like Isaac, ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας.

The reading ἡμεῖς…ἑσμί, for ὑμεῖς…ἑστί, is very highly supported, but perhaps was a transcriber’s correction to conform to ver. 26, 31. The direct appeal of ὑμεῖς is more forcible, and the change of persons is characteristic of St Paul; see the note ver. 7.

29. ἐδίωκεν τὸν κ.τ.λ.] The Hebrew text, Gen. xxi. 9, has simply ’laughing’ (בְּצַח). This single word the LXX expands into παίζοντα μετὰ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτῆς. From this it may be conjectured that the verse originally ended (בְּצַח בְּצַח) (comp. Gen. xxxix. 14, 17), the words in brackets having dropped out owing to the homestead. At all events the word seems to mean ‘mocking, jeering’. ‘Lusio illa illusio orat,’ says Augustine pertinently (Serm. 3). The anger of Sarah, taken in connexion with the occasion, a festival in honour of the weaning of Isaac, seems to require it. Such also would appear to be the force of the rendering in the older Targum, מָחוֹר. On the other hand the Book of Judices paraphrases the passage, ‘When Sarah saw that Ishmael was merry and danced and that Abraham also rejoiced greatly thereat, she was jealous etc.’ (Ewald’s

Galatians 4:30

ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκεν τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, οὕτως καὶ νῦν. ³⁰ ἀλλὰ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή; ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην καὶ τὸν γίον ἀγτῶς· οὐ γὰρ μὴ κληρονομήσει ὁ γίος τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῖς

Jahrb. III. p. 13). But beyond the text itself two circumstances must be taken into account as affecting St Paul’s application of it. (1) This incident which is so lightly sketched in the original narrative had been drawn out in detail in later traditions, and thus a prominence was given to it, which would add force to the Apostle’s allusion, without his endorsing these traditions himself. For the rabbinical accounts of Ishmael’s insolence to his brother see Beer Leben Abrahamis, pp. 49, 170. (2) The relations between the two brothers were reproduced in their descendants. The aggressions of the Arab tribes (of the Hagarenes especially, see Ps. lxxxiii. 6. 1 Chron. v. 10, 19) on the Israelites were the antitype to Ishmael’s mockery of Isaac. Thus in Ishmael the Apostle may have indirectly contemplated Ishmael’s progeny; and he would therefore be appealing to the national history of the Jews in saying ‘he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit.’ For the conflicts with the Arabs in the time of Herod see esp. Joseph Ant. xv. 5. 1.

οὕτως καὶ νῦν; ‘So now the Church of God is persecuted by the children after the flesh.’ St Paul’s persecutors were at first Jews, afterwards Judaizers; but both alike were ‘born after the flesh,’ for both alike claimed to inherit the covenant by the performance of certain material carnal ordinances.

30. ἡ γραφή Gen. xxi. 10, taken from the LXX which again is a close translation of the Hebrew. At the end of the quotation however St Paul has substituted τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας for the LXX τῆς παιδίσκης ταύτης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ μου Ἰσαάς, in order to adapt it to his own context and to save explanation. For instances of adapted quotations, which are frequent, see iii. 10 and Acts vii. 43.

The words are spoken by Sarah to Abraham, but her demand is confirmed by the express command of God, Gen. xxi. 12, ‘Hearken unto her voice,’ to which the later Targum adds, ‘for she is a prophetess.’ οἱ μὴ κληρονομήσει; ‘shall in no wise inherit’; comp. Joh. viii. 35 ὁ δοῦλος οἱ μῖναι ἐν τῇ οἰείᾳ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κτλ. The Law and the Gospel cannot co-exist; the Law must disappear before the Gospel. It is scarcely possible to estimate the strength of conviction and depth of prophetic insight which this declaration implies. The Apostle thus confidently sounds the death knell of Judaism at a time when one-half of Christendom clung to the Mosaic law with a jealous affection little short of frenzy, and while the Judaic party seemed to be growing in influence and was strong enough, even in the Gentile churches of his own founding, to undermine his influence and endanger his life. The truth which to us appears a truism must then have been regarded as a paradox.

κληρονομήσει should probably be read, not κληρονομήση, as being better supported here and in the LXX; comp. Winer § lvi. p. 635, and A. Buttmann p. 183.

31. διό; ’therefore,’ as the inference from this allegorical lesson. The particle is chosen rather with a view to the obligation involved in the statement, than to the statement itself; ’therefore let us remember that we are not sons of a bondwoman, let us not act as bondslaves.’ There are many variations of reading, but διό is probably correct. Some copies have