Lectionary Calendar
Thursday, July 17th, 2025
the Week of Proper 10 / Ordinary 15
the Week of Proper 10 / Ordinary 15
video advertismenet
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Attention!
For 10¢ a day you can enjoy StudyLight.org ads
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!
free while helping to build churches and support pastors in Uganda.
Click here to learn more!
Bible Commentaries
International Critical Commentary NT International Critical
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Driver, S.A., Plummer, A.A., Briggs, C.A. "Commentary on Galatians 4". International Critical Commentary NT. https://studylight.org/commentaries/eng/icc/galatians-4.html. 1896-1924.
Driver, S.A., Plummer, A.A., Briggs, C.A. "Commentary on Galatians 4". International Critical Commentary NT. https://studylight.org/
Whole Bible (49)New Testament (18)Gospels Only (1)Individual Books (13)
Verses 1-99
7. Continuation of the argument for the inferiority of the condition under law, with the use of the illustration of guardianship (4:1-7)
Still pursuing his purpose of persuading the Galatians that they would lose, not gain, by putting themselves under the law, Paul compares the condition under law to that of an heir who is placed under a guardian for a period fixed by the father and in that time has no freedom of action, and describes it as a bondage under the elements of the world. Over against this he sets forth the condition into which they are brought by Christ as that of sons of God, living in filial and joyous fellowship with God.
1Now I say, so long as the heir is a child, he differs in no way from a slave, though he is lord of all, 2but is under guardians and stewards until the time set by the father. 3So also we, when we were children, were enslaved under the elements of the world. 4But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, made subject to law, 5that he might deliver those that were under law, that we might receive the adoption. 6And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7So that thou art no longer a slave but a son, and if son, then heir through God.
1. ÎÎÎ³Ï Î´Î, á¼Ïʼ á½Ïον ÏÏÏνον ὠκληÏονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï Î½Î®ÏιÏÏ á¼ÏÏιν, οá½Î´á½²Î½ διαÏÎÏει δοÏÎ»Î¿Ï ÎºÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï ÏάνÏÏν ὤν, 2.�
ÎήÏιοÏ, properly âone without understanding,â is used by Greek writers and in the Lxx both in this sense and with the meaning âchildâ; in N. T. apparently in the latter sense (1 Corinthians 13:11, Ephesians 4:14) with the added implication of immaturity, intellectual or moral. No instance has been pointed out of its use as a technical term for a minor, a child not possessed of manhoodâs rights, but it is evidently this characteristic of a child that the apostle here has specially in mind. κÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï is used in the sense, rather infrequent in N. T., of âowner,â with the added idea of control. Cf. Matthew 20:8, Matthew 21:40. The participle ὤν is, of course, concessive. See BMT 437.8.
The phrase á¼ÏιÏÏÏÏÎ¿Ï Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ οἰκονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï Ï has given rise to much discussion as to the precise meaning of the words and the law which the apostle has in mind. The difficulty, however, pertains not to á¼ÏίÏÏοÏοÏ. This is a frequent word for the guardian of a minor orphan. See Plato, Legg. VI 766 C: καὶ á¼á½°Î½ á½ÏÏανῶν á¼ÏίÏÏοÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎµÎ»ÎµÏ ÏήÏη ÏιÏ. Dem. 988:2: ÏοÏÏÏν á¼ÏίÏÏαιÏÎ¼Î¿Ï á¼ÏίÏÏοÏÎ¿Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ κηδεμὼν á¼Î³Îνεθʼ á¼ÎºÎºÎ±Î¯Î´ÎµÎºÎ± á¼Ïη. Xen. Mem. 1. 2:40: λÎγεÏαι Î³á½°Ï á¼Î»ÎºÎ¹Î²Î¹Î¬Î´Î·Î½, ÏÏὶν εἴκοÏιν á¼Ïῶν εἶναι, ΠεÏικλεῠá¼ÏιÏÏÏÏῳ μὲν á½Î½Ïι á¼Î±Ï Ïοῦ ÏÏοÏÏάÏῠδὲ Ïá¿Ï ÏÏλεÏÏ Ïοιάδε διαλεκθἤναι ÏεÏá½¶ νÏμÏν. Arius Did. quoted in Mullach, Frag. Phil. Gr. II 87:2-5:�1 Kings 4:6, 1 Kings 4:18:3, 1 Kings 4:1 Esd. 4:47, Luke 12:42, Luke 16:1, Romans 16:23. Paul also uses it in a figurative sense of those to whom the gospel is entrusted, 1 Corinthians 4:1, 1 Corinthians 4:2. There is no clear instance of its use with reference to one who has charge of the person or estate of a minor heir, and in particular no other instance of the use of the two terms á¼ÏίÏÏοÏÎ¿Ï and οἰκονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï together.
Under Roman law indeed (of a period a little later than that of Paulâsee Sief. ad loc., p. 234) the minor was under a tutor till his fourteenth year, and thereafter under a curator until his twenty-fifth year. But against the supposition that it was this usage that Paul had in mind is the fact that he adds á¼ÏÏι Ïá¿Ï ÏÏοθεÏÎ¼Î¯Î±Ï Ïοῦ ÏαÏÏÏÏ, whereas Roman law itself fixed the time during which the child was under the tutor and curator respectively. On ÏÏοθεÏμίαÏ, a frequent legal term, see Dem. 952:19; Plato, Legg. XII 954 D,* etc. Cf. Job 28:3, Daniel 9:20 (Sym.). It is not found in Lxx and occurs here only in N. T.
Ramsay holds that Paul refers to the law followed in Greco-Phrygian cities, and cites the Syrian law book of the fifth century A. D., according to which the practice was the same as under the Roman law except that whereas under Roman law the father appointed only the tutor, and could not appoint the curator, under the Syrian law the father appointed both the á¼ÏίÏÏοÏÎ¿Ï who, like the Roman tutor, had charge of the child till he reached the age of fourteen, and the curator who had the management of the property till the son was twenty-five years old.*
But aside from the fact that it is precarious to assume that the law found in a Syrian law book of the fifth century was in force in Phrygian cities in the first century, Ram. overlooks the fact that this usage is equally at variance with the language of Paul, who says nothing about who appoints the á¼ÏίÏÏοÏÎ¿Ï and οἰκονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï but does indicate that the father fixes the time at which the son passes from under their control.
In Greek, e. g., Athenian, law there was, so far as has been pointed out, no such distinction between tutor and curator or á¼ÏίÏÏοÏÎ¿Ï and οἰκονÏμοÏ.
But the use of á¼ÏίÏÏοÏÎ¿Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ κηδεμÏν in Dem. 988:2 as a double title of one person (see the passage above) suggests that we should not seek to distinguish between the functions of the á¼ÏίÏÏοÏÎ¿Ï and those of the οἰκονÏμοÏ, but regard οἰκονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï as Paulâs synonym for κηδεμÏν and, like that word, a further description of the á¼ÏίÏÏοÏοÏ. Cf., also, Seneca, De Beneficiis, Lib. IV, chap. XXVII, ad fin.: quomodo dementissime testabitur, qui tutorem filio reliquerit pupillorum spoliatorem: âAs he makes a most mad will who leaves as tutor to his son one who has been a spoiler of orphans.â There remains, however, the difficulty that we have no knowledge of a guardianship the period of which is fixed by the father. If, therefore, the apostle is speaking of inheritance of property from a deceased father, dying while the son is still a child, he must apparently be speaking in terms of some usage not otherwise definitely known to us.
In view of this fact, recourse may be had to a guardianship established for special reasons during the lifetime of the father, such as is illustrated in the case of Antiochus Epiphanes and his son, Antiochus Eupator. In 1 Mac. 3:32, 33 it is stated that Antiochus Epiphanes, being about to go on a military expedition into Persia, left Lysias á¼Ïá½¶ Ïῶν ÏÏαγμάÏÏν Ïοῦ βαÏιλÎÏÏ â¦ ÎºÎ±á½¶ ÏÏÎÏειν á¼Î½ÏίοÏον Ïὸν Ï á¼±á½¸Î½ αá½Ïοῦ á¼ÏÏ Ïοῦ á¼ÏιÏÏÏÎÏαι αá½ÏÏν. In 1 Mac. 6:17 it is said that when Lysias knew that the king was dead he set up Antiochus, his son, to reign in his stead, whom he had brought up (á¼ÏÏεÏεν). From these two passages it appears that Antiochus, the father, appointed Lysias to be steward of the affairs of the kingdom and guardian of his son until a specified time, in effect directing that such stewardship and guardianship terminate by the resumption of authority by the father on his return, or by succession of his son on the fatherâs death. While, therefore, the precise terms used by Paul do not occur, equivalents of all three of them (á¼ÏίÏÏοÏοÏ, οἰκονÏμοÏ, ÏÏοθεÏÎ¼Î¯Î±Ï Ïοῦ ÏαÏÏÏÏ) are found in the passage in 1 Mac. This equivalence is, moreover, somewhat confirmed by certain passages in 2 Mac. In 10:11 it is stated that Antiochus Eupator, ÏαÏαλαβὼν Ïὴν βαÏιλείαν,�
3. οá½ÏÏÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ ἡμεá¿Ï, á½ Ïε ἦμεν νήÏιοι, á½Ïὸ Ïá½° ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î± Ïοῦ κÏÏÎ¼Î¿Ï á¼¤Î¼ÎµÎ¸Î± Î´ÎµÎ´Î¿Ï Î»ÏμÎνοι· âSo also we, when we were children, were enslaved under the elements of the world.â ἡμεá¿Ï is best understood as referring to Christians generally, the predicates of the sentence describing their pre-Christian condition. For, though the language of vv. 3-5 is specially appropriate to Jewish Christians and was probably written with them specially in mind, as that in v. 6 was probably written with the Gentile Galatians especially in mind, yet the use of the same or the equivalent expressions with reference to those who are included under the first person, ἡμεá¿Ï, and those who are addressed (in the second person), together with the change in pronoun or the person of the verb when there is no antithesis but, on the contrary, continuity of reference is required by the argument, shows that these grammatical changes do not mark a substantial change of persons denoted. Cf. ἡμοá¿Ï â¦ Î´ÎµÎ´Î¿Ï Î»ÏμÎνοι of v. 3 with οá½ÎºÎÏι εἶ Î´Î¿á¿¦Î»Î¿Ï of v. 6 (notice especially the implication of οá½ÎºÎÏι that the persons addressed âthe Galatiansâhad previously been in bondage), and observe that in v. 5 ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ á½Ïὸ νÏμον (third person) are evidently the same who constitute the subject of á½ÏολάβÏμεν, that in v. 6 ἡμῶν is used of those who are the subject of the verb á¼ÏÏÎ, and that it is scarcely less clear from the nature of the argument that there is no real change of persons referred to (other than the change of emphasis above mentioned) in passing from v. 5 to v. 6. A comparison of á½Ïὸ Ïá½° ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î± Ïοῦ κÏÏÎ¼Î¿Ï á¼¤Î¼ÎµÎ¸Î± Î´ÎµÎ´Î¿Ï Î»ÏμÎνοι of this verse with Ïá¿¶Ï á¼ÏιÏÏÏÎÏεÏε Ïάλιν á¼Ïá½¶ Ïá½° ⦠ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î± Î¿á¼¶Ï Ïάλιν á¼Î½Ïθεν Î´Î¿Ï Î»ÎµÏειν θÎλεÏε of v. 9 points in the same direction, v. 9 clearly implying that the previous condition of the Galatians, as well as that to which they are now in danger of turning, was a bondage to the ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î±, while v. 8 as distinctly marks them as having previously been worshippers of idols, and 3:1-6 shows that they had come to faith in Christ not through judaism as proselytes, but directly from their worship of idols. On the bearing of the phrase á½Ïὸ νÏμον on the inclusiveness of ἡμεá¿Ï, see on v. 4. For a change of person similar to that which takes place in passing from v. 5 to v. 6, cf. 3:26 and notes there. Jews and Gentiles are therefore classed together as being before the coming of Christ in the childhood of the race, and in bondage, and the knowledge of religion which the Jews possessed in the law is classed with that which the Gentiles possessed without it under the common title, âthe elements of the world,â Ïá½° ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î± Ïοῦ κÏÏÎ¼Î¿Ï . On the meaning of this phrase, see detached note, p. 510. For a direct assertion of what is here implied as to the common standing of Jews and Gentiles as concerns possession of truth (but without reference to its inferiority to the Christian revelation), see Romans 2:14, Romans 2:15.
×D*F G 33, 442, 463 read ἤμεθα Î´ÎµÎ´Î¿Ï Î».; ABCDb et cKL. most cursives Clem. Chrys. Euthal. Thdrt. read ἦμεν. Despite the weightier external evidence for ἦμεν the strong improbability that for the common ἦμεν the unusual ἤμεθα would be substituted is decisive for the latter.
4. á½ Ïε δὲ ἦλθεν Ïὸ ÏλήÏÏμα Ïοῦ ÏÏÏÎ½Î¿Ï , á¼Î¾Î±ÏÎÏÏειλεν á½ Î¸Îµá½¸Ï Ïὸν Ï á¼±á½¸Î½ αá½Ïοῦ, γενÏμενον á¼Îº Î³Ï Î½Î±Î¹ÎºÏÏ, γενÏμενον á½Ïὸ νÏμον, âBut when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, made subject to law.â That the time of all important events, and so pre-eminently that of the coming of the Christ, was fixed in the purpose of God, was probably a common thought of early Christianity (Mark 1:14, John 2:4, John 2:7:8, 30, etc. Acts 17:26, Ephesians 1:10; cf. Tob. 14:5). It was evidently shared by the apostle (Romans 3:26, Romans 5:6). Whether he thought of the time as fixed by the necessity that certain things must first be accomplished, or that the world reach a certain condition (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:3ff.), or as appointed to occur after the lapse of a certain definite period (cf. Daniel 9:24ff.) is not here or elsewhere in the epistles clearly indicated. Cf. Bous. Rel. d. Jude 1:2, pp. 278 ff. That it was associated in his mind with the two ages (cf. on 1:4) is probable, yet the fulness of the time did not mark the beginning of the new age, since the former was past, the latter still future. The words á¼Î¾Î±ÏÎÏÏειλεν á½ Î¸Îµá½¸Ï Ïὸν Ï á¼±á½¸Î½ αá½Ïοῦ, though in themselves capable of referring to the sending of Jesus as Godâs Son out among men from the seclusion of his private life (cf. Acts 9:30, Acts 11:22, John 1:6) must yet, in view of the apostleâs belief in the pre-existence of Jesus, as set forth in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:6ff. Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:16, and of the parallelism of v. 6, be interpreted as having reference to the sending of the Son from his pre-existent state (á¼Î½ μοÏÏῠθεοῦ, Philippians 2:6) into the world. This is also confirmed by the two expressions that follow, both of which (see below) are evidently added to indicate the humiliation (cf. Philippians 2:7, Philippians 2:8) to which the Son was in the sending forth subjected, the descent to the level of those whom he came to redeem. For if á¼Î¾Î±ÏÎÏÏειλεν referred simply to a sending forth among men, as a prophet is sent forth under divine commission, these expressions would mark his condition previous to that sending forth, and there would be no suggestion of humiliation, but, rather, the contrary. Yet on the other hand, á¼Î¾Î±ÏÎÏÏειλεν need not, probably should not, be limited to the entrance into the world by and at birth, but should rather be understood as extending to, and including, the appearance of Jesus among men as one sent from God. On the expression Ïὸν Ï á¼±á½¸Î½ αá½Ïοῦ, equivalent to Ïὸν Ï á¼±á½¸Î½ Ïοῦ θεοῦ, see detached note on Titles and Predicates of Jesus, V D, p. 408, for discussion of the evidence that the phrase here refers to the pre-existent Son and that it has special reference to the Son as the object of divine love, in the enjoyment of filial fellowship with God. Cf. also vv. 6, 7. The phrase γενÏμενον á¼Îº Î³Ï Î½Î±Î¹ÎºÏÏ can not be interpreted as excluding human paternity, as some interpreters, both ancient and modern, have maintained (cf. Sief. and Zahn ad loc.). See, e. g., Job 14:1, βÏοÏá½¸Ï Î³ÎµÎ½Î½Î·ÏÎ¿Ï Î³Ï Î½Î±Î¹ÎºÏÏ. Matthew 11:11, á¼Î½ γεννηÏοá¿Ï Î³Ï Î½Î±Î¹Îºá¿¶Î½. It could be reasonably supposed to imply birth from a virgin only in case it were otherwise established that the apostle knew and accepted the dogma or narrative that Jesus was so born, and not even then would it be certain that this phrase was intended to refer to this aspect of Jesusâ birth. But of such knowledge or acceptance the writings of the apostle give no hint. Î³Ï Î½Î±Î¹ÎºÏÏ is probably, like νÏÎ¼Î¿Ï in the following phrase, not indefinite, but qualitative, and the phrase is best translated âborn of woman.â On á½Ïὸ νÏμον, cf. 3:23. There is no occasion to take it here in any other sense than that which it has there, âunder law as a system of legalism.â See note on 3:13. It was from this subjection that Christ came to deliver men. See 5:18 and cf. 5:13, 14, as showing that those who are in Christ still remain under law as an ethical principle. Cf. also 1 Corinthians 9:20, Romans 6:14, Romans 6:15. In applying this phrase to Jesus the passage resembles Philippians 2:8, but differs in that there it is to God and here to law that he is said to be subject. That Paul carried his conception of Jesusâ subjection to law to the point of supposing that he was in his own thinking a legalist is wholly improbable; the subjection to law was, doubtless, rather in the fact of his living under legalistic judaism, obliged to keep its rules and conform to its usages. The motive for the insertion of the phrase is doubtless to emphasise the cost at which the Son effected his redemptive work; cf. 2 Corinthians 8:9.
Τὸ ÏλήÏÏμα is evidently used in the active sense, âthat which fills,â Ïοῦ ÏÏÏÎ½Î¿Ï being an objective genitive; the whole period which must elapse before the event being incomplete till its last increment is added, the last moment, which fills it, is called ÏλήÏÏμα. It is, in the language of the illustration, ἡ ÏÏοθεÏμία Ïοῦ ÏαÏÏÏÏ (v.2).
The words γενÏμενον á½Ïὸ νÏμον should probably be taken in the sense âmade subject to lawâ rather than âborn under law,â for, though γενÏμενον á¼Ï Î³Ï Î½Î±Î¹ÏÏÏ evidently refers to birth, that reference is neither conveyed by, nor imparted to, the participle, but lies wholly in the limiting phrase. This idea is, therefore, not of necessity carried over into the second phrase. Had the apostle desired to express the idea âbornâ in both phrases, he could have done so unambiguously by the use of γεννηθÎνÏα. Concerning the time of the subjection to law, whether at birth or subsequently, γενÏμενον says nothing decisive. Both participles are best understood as attributive participles used substantively (BMT 423) in apposition, therefore, with Ïὸν Ï á¼±á½¸Î½ αá½Ïοῦ, the omission of the article giving to each phrase a qualitative force which may be expressed in English by translating âhis Son, one born of woman, one made subject to law.â The employment of the aorist presents the birth and the subjection to law as in each case a simple fact, and leaves the temporal relation to á¼Î¾Î±ÏÎÏÏειλεν to be inferred solely from the nature of the facts referred to (BMT 142, 143). The thought is not very different if the participles be taken as adverbial participles of attendant circumstances (BMT 449, 450). But the phrases are best accounted for as intended not so much to express the accompaniments of the sending as directly to characterise the Son, describing the relation to humanity and the law in which he performed his mission.
5. ἵνα ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ á½Ïο νÏμον á¼Î¾Î±Î³Î¿ÏάÏá¿, âthat he might deliver those that were under law.â The phrase á½Ïὸ νÏμον is, doubtless, to be taken in the same sense as in v. 4 and 3:23, viz.: âunder lawâ legalistically understood. But while in those cases the context shows that the law actually referred to is the O. T. law, the context here (see above on the inclusiveness of ἡμεá¿Ï in v. 3 and note the second person in v. 6, with its unambiguous inclusion of the Galatian Gentiles) implies that ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ á½Ïὸ νÏμον includes both Jews and Gentiles. That Paul conceived the Gentiles to possess a law, and that of divine origin, appears from Romans 2:14, Romans 2:15 (cf. 1:19, 20); and though the phrase á½Ïὸ νÏμον is usually employed with reference to the legalism that grew up on Jewish soil, yet that Paul was aware that the law whose work is written in the heart might also be externalised and made legalistic is intrinsically probable and is confirmed by 1 Corinthians 9:20, where Ïοá¿Ï á½Ïὸ νÏμον, standing as a middle term between á¼¸Î¿Ï Î´Î±Î¯Î¹Ï and Ïοá¿Ï�
And this in turn conveys an intimation that Paul already had a thought akin to that expressed in Hebrews 5:7-9 with reference to the relation between the limitations of the earthly life of Jesus and his redemptive work. Yet how he conceived that the deliverance was accomplished, whether as in 3:13 through his death, or through his life experience reaching its climax in his death (cf. Philippians 2:7, Philippians 2:8), this verse in no way decides. That the apostle conceived that Jesus himself had passed through an experience like that of Paul, referred to by him in 2:19, in that he also had discovered that one does not come into the enjoyment of a filial relation to God through obedience to statutes, and that this was embodied in the teaching of Jesus, is not in itself improbable, but is not intimated either here or elsewhere in his letters.
ἵνα Ïὴν Ï á¼±Î¿Î¸ÎµÏίαν�Romans 9:4 it denotes the choice of Israel to be sons of God (cf. Exodus 4:22, Deuteronomy 14:1, Deuteronomy 14:2, Hosea 11:1). In Romans 8:14, Romans 8:15 they are said to be Ï á¼±Î¿á½¶ θεοῦ who are led by Godâs Spirit, and it is added: âFor ye have not received a spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have received a spirit of adoption (Ïνεῦμα Ï á¼±Î¿Î¸ÎµÏίαÏ) whereby we cry, Abba, Father.â In Romans 8:23 ἡ Ï á¼±Î¿Î¸ÎµÏία is defined as consisting in the redemption of the body, doubtless because in Paulâs thought only through the resurrection and the clothing of the spirit in the spiritual body does man enter into the fulness of fellowship with God (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:13, 1 Corinthians 15:14, 1 Corinthians 15:44). In Ephesians 1:5 adoption is spoken of as that which men are foreordained of God to obtain through Jesus Christ. ἡ Ï á¼±Î¿Î¸ÎµÏία is, therefore, for Paul, Godâs reception of men into the relation to him of sons, objects of his love and enjoying his fellowship, the ultimate issue of which is the future life wherein they are reclothed with a spiritual body; but the word may be used of different stages and aspects of this one inclusive experience. The article Ïήν is, doubtless, restrictive, pointing to the thought of vv. 1, 2 that at the time appointed of the father the child is released from subjection to tutors and governors, and comes into direct relation to the father as a mature sonâan intimation more fully developed in v. 6.
The meaning âsonshipâ would satisfy most of the passages in which Ï á¼±Î¿Î¸ÎµÏία occurs, but there is no occasion to depart from the etymological sense, âinstallation as a son.â This does not, however, justify reading back into v. 1 the idea of adoption, and from this again carrying it back through ÏληÏονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï into the διαθήÏη of 3:15, for Paul is not careful to maintain the consistency of his illustrations. He employs here his usual term because he is speaking of the establishment of those who have previously not had the privileges of a son in the full enjoyment of them.
Whether ἴνα â¦ï¿½
To take á½ Ïι as meaning âthat,â making á½ Ïι â¦ Ï á¼±Î¿Î¯ the proposition to be established, and then to supply after it âis proved by the factâ (Philippi, following ancient interpreters), or to take á½ Ïι in the sense of quod, âas respects the fact thatâ (Wies.), introduces unwarranted complication into a sentence which is on its face complete and simple. That in Romans 8:14, Romans 8:15 sonship is apparently proved by possession of the Spirit does not forbid our interpreting this passage as making the sonship the ground of the bestowal of the Spirit; for not only is the language of Romans 8:14, Romans 8:15 open to interpretation as an argument from effect to cause, in which case there also adoption precedes possession of the Spirit, but if the reverse is true there, antecedence of sonship to the bestowal of the Spirit, clearly indicated in this passage, is explicable by the fact that Ï á¼±Î¿Î¸ÎµÏία (see on v. 5) is used by the apostle of different stages of the process by which men come to the full possession of the relationship of sons to God, and that the context implies that it is the first and objective stage of which he is here speaking.
Precisely the phrase Ïὸ Ïνεῦμα Ïοῦ Ï á¼±Î¿á¿¦ αá½Ïοῦ does not occur elsewhere in N. T., but in Philippians 1:19 Paul uses Ïὸ Ïνεῦμα ἸηÏοῦ ΧÏιÏÏοῦ and in Rom 8:9c Ïνεῦμα ΧÏιÏÏοῦ (cf. also 2 Corinthians 3:17, Acts 16:7, 1 Peter 1:11, Hebrews 9:14 Revelation 19:10). Particularly instructive is Romans 8:9, Romans 8:10, where (a) Ïνεῦμα θεοῦ á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½, (b) Ïνεῦμα ΧÏιÏÏοῦ á¼Ïειν, and (c) ΧÏιÏÏá½¸Ï á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½ all express the same fact of experience. It is manifestly also the same experience for which Paul employs in Galatians 2:20 the phrase ζá¿Í á¼Î½á¼Î¼Î¿á½¶ ΧÏιÏÏÏÏ and in 5:25 ζῶμεν ÏνεÏμαÏι. Historically speaking, the sending of the Son and the sending of the Spirit are distinguished in early Christian thought, most markedly so in the fourth gospel (John 3:17, John 3:7:39, John 3:16:7; but note also that the coming of the Spirit is practically identified with the return of the Son), but also in Paul (cf. the á¼Î¾Î±ÏÎÏÏειλεν of v. 4 with the same verb in this v.). The two terminologies, that of the Christ and that of the Spirit, have also a different origin, both, indeed, having their roots largely in O. T., but being there and in later Jewish thought quite distinct. But in the experience of the early Christians the Christ who by his resurrection had become a spirit active in their lives, and the Spirit of God similarly active, could not be distinguished. Cf. Burton, Spirit, Soul, and Flesh, p. 189. Precisely to what extent this experiential identification of the heavenly Christ and the Spirit of God has caused a numerical identification of them as personalities is difficult to say. Apparently the apostle Paul, while clearly distinguishing Christ from God the Father (see 1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:6-8, etc.) and less sharply distinguishing the Spirit from God (Romans 5:5, Romans 5:8:7, Romans 5:8, Romans 5:9, Romans 5:14, Romans 5:15), is not careful to distinguish the Spirit and Christ, yet never explicitly identifies them. Cf. Wood, The Spirit of God in Biblical Literature, pp. 229-231. The choice of Ïὸ Ïνεῦμα Ïοῦ á½Ìοῦ αá½Ïοῦ for this passage in preference to any of its equivalents is due, on the one side to the necessity of distinguishing the fact referred to from the historic coming of the Christ (4:4), which excludes Ïὸν Ï á¼±á½¸Î½ αá½Ïοῦ and ΧÏιÏÏÏν, and on the other to the desire to connect this experience closely with the gift of Christ, which excludes Ïὸ Ïνεῦμα or Ïὸ Ïνεῦμα Ïοῦ θεοῦ.
On Îµá¼°Ï Ïá½°Ï ÏαÏÎ´Î¯Î±Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½, added to emphasise the transition from the objective sonship to the subjective experience, see Romans 5:5, Romans 5:1 Cor. 2:22, Ephesians 3:17. It is in the heart, as the seat of intellectual and spiritual life in general (1 Corinthians 2:9, Romans 9:2, Romans 10:1, etc.) and in particular of the moral and spiritual life (2 Corinthians 4:6, Romans 1:12, Romans 1:24), that the Spirit of God operates. The use of the expression here shows that á¼Î¾Î±ÏÎÏÏειλεν refers (not as the same word in v. 4 does) to a single historic fact (the day of Pentecost, e. g.), but to the successive bestowals of the Spirit on individuals (cf. 3:3), the aor. being, therefore, a collective historical aor. (BMT 39). On the translation of an aor. in such a case, see BMT 46, 52. On ἡμῶν, undoubtedly to be preferred to á½Î¼á¿¶Î½, a Western and Syrian reading, see on v. 3.
κÏάζον á¼Î²Î²Î¬ á½ ÏαÏήÏ. âcrying, Abba, Father.â The recognition of God as Father is the distinguishing mark of the filial spirit. The participle κÏάζον agreeing with Ïνεῦμα ascribes the cry to the Spirit of Godâs Son; yet it is undoubtedly the apostleâs thought that it is the expression of the believerâs attitude also. For the Spirit that dwells in us dominates our lives. See chap. 2:20, 5:25, and cf. Romans 8:15: á¼Î»Î¬Î²ÎµÏε Ïνεῦμα Ï á¼±Î¿Î¸ÎµÏίαÏ, á¼Î½ á¾§ κÏάζομεν á¼Î²Î²Î¬ á½ ÏαÏήÏ. The use of κÏάζον, usually employed of a loud or earnest cry (Matthew 9:27, Acts 14:14, Romans 9:27) or of a public announcement (John 7:28, John 7:37), in the Lxx often of prayer addressed to God (Psalms 3:5, Psalms 107:13), emphasises the earnestness and intensity of the utterance of the Spirit within us. Though the word κÏάζον itself conveys no suggestion of joy, it can hardly be doubted that the intensity which the word reflects is in this case to be conceived of as the intensity of joy. Though to be free from law is to obtain adoption, sonship in its full realisation is more than mere freedom from law. The significance of such freedom lies, indeed, precisely in the fact that it makes it possible that a truly filial relation and attitude of man to God shall displace the legal relation that law creates, that instead of our looking upon God as lawgiver in the spirit of bondage and fear (Romans 8:15) he becomes to us Father with whom we live in fellowship as his sons. See detached note on ΠαÏÎ®Ï as applied to God, p. 391.
á½ ÏαÏήÏ, Greek equivalent of the Aramaic á¼Î²Î²Î¬, ×Ö´×Ö¼Ö¸×, is a nominative form with vocative force. Cf. Romans 8:15, Mark 14:36, Matthew 11:26, John 20:28; Bl. D. 147.3. The repetition of the idea in Aramaic and Greek form gives added solemnity to the expression, and doubtless reflects a more or less common usage of the early church (see Mark 14:36, Romans 8:15). On the origin of this usage, see Th. s. v. á¼Î²Î²Î¬, Ltft. ad loc., Sief. ad loc. It is quite likely that the use of the Aramaic word was derived from Jesus, being taken up into the vocabulary of Greek-speaking Christians through the medium of those who, knowing both Aramaic and Greek, in reporting in Greek the words of Jesus used this word with a sort of affectionate fondness for the very term that Jesus himself had used to express an idea of capital importance in his teaching. This is more probable than that it was taken over into the Christian vocabulary from that of the Jewish synagogue in which the idea of God as Father had so much less prominent place than in the thought and teaching of Jesus. See Bous. Rel. d. Jude 1:2 pp. 432-3, 434; Dal. WJ. p. 192. The attachment of the Greek translation á½ ÏαÏÎ®Ï to the Aramaic word would naturally take place on the passage of the term into Greek-speaking circles.
7. á½¥ÏÏε οá½ÎºÎÏι εἶ δοῦλοÏ�
εἰ δὲ Ï á¼±ÏÏ, καὶ κληÏονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï Î´Î¹á½° θεοῦ, âand if son, then heir through God.â That here as throughout the passage Ï á¼±ÏÏ means Ï á¼±á½¸Ï Î¸ÎµÎ¿á¿¦ needs no specific proof; it is sufficiently indicated in the expression Ïοῦ Ï á¼±Î¿á¿¦ αá½Ïοῦ in vv. 4, 6, and the relation of this expression to Ï á¼±ÏÏ. This obviously suggests that κληÏονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï means κληÏονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï Î¸ÎµÎ¿á¿¦. Cf. Romans 8:17: εἰ δὲ ÏÎκνα, καὶ κληÏονÏμοι· κληÏονÏμοι μὲν θεοῦ, ÏÏ Î½ÎºÎ»Î·ÏονÏμοι δὲ ΧÏιÏÏοῦ. To this conception the phrase διὰ θεοῦ adds the thought, âmade so by God,â thus equivalent to καÏá½° θÎλημα θεοῦ; cf. 3:29, κληÏονÏμοι καÏʼ á¼Ïαγγελίαν. The purpose of the addition is perhaps to remind the Galatians that their position as heirs is due to divine grace, not one of right or desert, but more probably to emphasise the certainty of their possession of it. The absence of the article before θεοῦ makes the noun not indefinite but qualitative, emphasising the divineness of the one through whom they were made heir. Cf. on θεÏν, v. 7. The reversion to the thought of the κληÏονομία expressed in 3:18, 29 shows that the apostle has not lost sight of his main purpose throughout this and the preceding chapter, viz., to convince the Galatians that it was not through law but through the retention of their freedom from it that they could obtain the blessings promised to the sons of Abraham, which the judaisers had held before their eyes as a prize greatly to be desired but obtainable only through circumcision. The appeal of the apostle is to retain the status they already possess. Cf. v.6, âye are sons,â and v. 9, âhow turn ye back?â That he should not here employ the term Ï á¼±Î¿á½¶ á¼Î²Ïαάμ, as in 3:7, but κληÏονÏμοι, as in 3:29, is natural, not only because κληÏονÏμοι more distinctly suggests the idea of the blessing to be received, but also because after Ï á¼±Î¿Î¯, meaning sons of God, sons of Abraham would have the effect of an anticlimax. κληÏονÏμοι should, therefore, be taken here in the sense, heirs of God, and as such recipients of the blessing promised to Abrahamâs seed; this blessing has already been defined as justification, acceptance with God, possession of the Spirit. Cf. 3:7-14. It is, moreover, as present possessors of the κληÏονομία that they are κληÏονÏμοι. That other blessings are in store for them is undoubtedly a Pauline thought (Romans 5:11, Romans 8:17-23), and that the conception of the κληÏονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï easily lends itself to the presentation of this phase of the matter, that which has been received being thought of as simply the earnest and first-fruit of the full blessing (see Romans 8:17-23, Ephesians 1:14) is also true. But the Galatians already possess the promised Spirit, and the emphasis in this context is upon that which is already possessed, with no clear indication that the thought goes beyond that.
Against the suppositionâat first sight most naturalâthat the term as here used is intended to carry the thought back specifically to κληÏονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï in v. 1, is the fact that κληÏονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï is there applied to one who not having yet entered into possession of his κληÏονομία is in the position of νήÏÎ¹Î¿Ï and δοῦλοÏ, precisely that position, therefore, which it is the purpose of this v. to deny; and, though the title κληÏονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï carries with it the idea of future release from the status of δοῦλοÏ, the contention of the apostle is here not that the Galatians will be, but already are, sons and no longer slaves. It is more probable, therefore, that by this word he reverts for the moment to the idea of κληÏονÏμοι in 3:29 (cf., also, 3:18), heirs according to the promise made to Abraham, i. e., possessors of the blessing promised to Abraham and to his seed. This is not to take κληÏονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï as meaning heir of Abraham, a predicate which the apostle never applies to Christians. They are indeed called âsons of Abraham,â because it is to the seed of Abraham that the promise applies, but it is God who established the διαθήκη and makes the á¼Ïαγγελία, and they to whom the promise is fulfilled are his κληÏονÏμοι. Cf. on 3:15 and detached note on Îιαθήκη, p. 496. This also makes it evident that the term κληÏονÏÎ¼Î¿Ï is not used in its strict sense of heir, i. e., recipient of the property of another who has died, or prospective recipient of the property of another when he shall have died, but, tropically, possessor of a promised possession.
The fact that κληÏονÏμοι here means heirs of God, and the deduction of heirship from sonship, itself inferred from an act of adoption, Ï á¼±Î¿Î¸ÎµÏία, gives a certain colour of support to Ramsayâs view that the διαθήκη of 3:15ff. is not a covenant but a will, and specifically a will involving the adoption of a son. If the language of 3:15ff. were harmonious with these suggestions of the present passage, the latter would fall in with that passage as part of an illustration consistently carried through the whole passage. But (1) the possibility of interpreting this phrase in the way above suggested is not sufficient ground for setting aside the strong counter-evidence that by διαθήκη he means not a will, but a covenant. Even if the expression here employed could be shown to involve the idea of adoption by will and inheritance as an adopted son, this would only show that the apostle is now illustrating the spiritual relations which are the real subject of his thought by a different group of facts of common life from those which he employed in 3:15ff. But (2) it is improbable that it is specifically an adoptive sonship that the apostle has in mind in εἰ δὲ Ï á¼±ÏÏ. For, though he represents the son-ship of the Galatians in common with other believers as acquired by adoption, yet the fact of adoption is nowhere emphasised, and in the actual spiritual realm that which is illustratively called adoption carries with it, as a consequence, the bestowal of the Spirit of Godâs Son, by which, it is implied, those who are sons come into like relation to God with that which the Son himself sustains. The conception of adoption, accordingly, falls into the background, leaving simply that of sonship.
8. Description of the former condition of the Galatians as one of bondage to gods not really such, and exhortation to them not to return to that state (4:8-11)
Again directly addressing the Galatians as in 3:1, and as in v. 1 characterising their former condition as one of enslavement, the apostle describes them as in bondage to gods that were not in reality such, and appeals to them, now that they have come into fellowship with God, not, as they threaten to do by their adoption of the Jewish cycle of feasts and fasts, to return to those weak and beggarly rudimentary teachings under which they formerly were, and expresses his fear that he has laboured over them to no purpose.
8But at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to the gods that are not such by nature. 9But now having come to know God, or rather having become known by God, how is it that ye are turning back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, to which ye wish to be in bondage again? 10Ye are observing days and months and seasons and years. 11I fear that in vain have I spent my labour on you.
8. á¼Î»Î»á½° ÏÏÏε μὲν οá½Îº εἰδÏÏÎµÏ Î¸Îµá½¸Î½ á¼Î´Î¿Ï λεÏÏαÏε Ïοá¿Ï ÏÏÏει μὴ οá½Ïι θεοá¿Ï· âBut at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to the gods that are not such by nature.â Doubling, so to speak, upon his course, the apostle reverts to the condition of the Galatians before they received his message, and in antithesis �1 Corinthians 8:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6, 1 Corinthians 8:10:19, 20, Colossians 2:15. Cf. also Deuteronomy 4:19 and see literature cited in special note on Τὰ ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î± Ïοῦ κÏÏÎ¼Î¿Ï , p. 510.
ΤÏÏε refers to the past time implied in οá½ÎºÎÏι (v. 7), when the Galatian Christians were still δοῦλοι; note the á¼Î´Î¿Ï λεÏÏαÏε of this sentence.
ÎἰδÏÏÎµÏ is a perfect participle of existing state, μὴ εἰδÏÏÎµÏ meaning ânot possessing knowledge.â How this state of ignorance came about is not here discussed, or whether it was partial or absolute. Cf. Romans 1:18ff.
The omission of the article with θεÏν makes the word not indefinite (as in Acts 12:22, 1 Corinthians 8:4), but, as in v. 7 and very often, qualitative, referring definitely to the one God, but with an emphasis on his attributes as God, which is lacking when he is called ὠθεÏÏ. For a similar use of θεÏÏ, with strong emphasis on the qualities of deity, see John 1:18, θεὸν οá½Î´Îµá½¶Ï á¼ÏÏακεν ÏÏÏοÏε, where the contrast, however, is not between one in reality God, as compared with those not really such, but between God in the absolute sense, incapable of being directly known, and God as revealed in the person of the Son. For other examples of this indubitable, though often overlooked, qualitative use of personal appellations without the article, see Romans 1:21: γνÏνÏÎµÏ Ïὸν θεὸν οá½Ï á½¡Ï Î¸Îµá½¸Î½ á¼Î´Ïδοξαν. Romans 8:33, Galatians 3:26, Galatians 4:14, Galatians 5:21, Philippians 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 1:9: á¼ÏεÏÏÏÎÏαÏε ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïὸν θεὸν�2 Thessalonians 2:4. Other examples more or less clear, but together clearly establishing the usage, are very numerous. See note on chap. 2:6, pp. 88 ff., detached note on ΠαÏÎ®Ï as applied to God, p. 384, and Slaten, Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline Epistles, pp. 64-68.
á¼Î´Î¿Ï λεÏÏαÏε is a simple historical aorist, not inceptive, referring not to a point of time but to a period, BMT 38, 39, 41 Rem.
ΦÏÏιÏ, from ÏÏÏ, is properly that which belongs to a person or thing by virtue of its origin; then its essential character; used thus even of the divine nature, which is without origin, 2 Peter 1:4. ÏÏÏει μὴ οá½Ïι may be an adjective element limiting θεοá¿Ï, or οá½Ïι may be an adjective participle used substantively, with θεοá¿Ï as a predicate after it. In the former case the beings referred to are characterised as gods, but with the qualification that they are not so by nature, i. e., in reality; in the latter case they are not called θεοί at all, but are characterised negatively only, as beings that by nature are not gods. Grammatically and contextually there is no ground of decisive choice between these, but 1 Corinthians 8:5, showing that Paul could apply the term θεοί to the gods of the Gentiles, though denying that it really belonged to them, favours the first interpretation. The comparison of Plato, Legg. X 904 A, οἱ καÏá½° νÏμον á½Î½ÏÎµÏ Î¸ÎµÎ¿Î¯, perhaps suggests what the positive element of the apostleâs thought was. He was speaking of âthe gods of popular opinion,â as Jowett translates Platoâs phrase, Cf. 1 Corinthians 8:5, λεγÏμενοι θεοί.
On οὠwith εἱδÏÏÎµÏ and μή with οá½Ïι, see BMT 485; the choice of negatives, though doubtless unconscious, probably reflects the feeling that οá½Îº εἰδÏÏÎµÏ expressed a fact, Ïοá¿Ï ÏÏÏει μὴ οá½Ïιν θεοá¿Ï a conception, a description of a class, but without implication of its existence or non-existence. The few instances in which Paul uses οὠwith an attributive participle are quotations from the Lxx, his otherwise regular habit being to use μή with such participles and with adverbial participles not involving a direct assertion (Romans 1:28, Romans 2:14, Romans 4:17, Galatians 6:9). οá½, with the possible exception of Colossians 2:19, in effect negatives an assertion (1 Corinthians 4:14, 1 Corinthians 4:9:26, 2 Corinthians 4:8, 2 Corinthians 12:4).
9. νῦν δὲ γνÏνÏÎµÏ Î¸ÎµÏν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνÏÏθÎνÏÎµÏ á½Ïὸ θεοῦ, âBut now having come to know God, or rather to be known by God.â Their coming to know God is manifestly through the apostleâs preaching. Cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:9: Ïá¿¶Ï á¼ÏεÏÏÏÎÏαÏε ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïὸν θεὸν�Psalms 1:6, Nahum 1:7, 1 Corinthians 8:3, Matthew 7:23, and on the thought of God receiving the Gentiles into a favour not previously enjoyed by them, see Romans 9:25f., Romans 11:30. This fact respecting Gentiles in general the apostle conceived to be realised in respect to the Galatians in particular through his preaching the gospel to them in accordance with his commission as apostle to the Gentiles. The purpose of this added phrase, in a sense displacing the previous γνÏνÏεÏ, etc., is doubtless to remind the Galatians that it is not to themselves but to God that they owe their knowledge of him and escape from idolatry (cf. chap. 1:6: μεÏαÏίθεÏθε�Ephesians 2:8), and so to emphasise the folly and wrong of abandoning this advantage through another á¼ÏιÏÏÏÎÏειν.
Though γινÏÏÎºÏ does not always retain its inchoative force (see Th. s. v.) even in the aorist, yet this is often clearly discernible (cf. Luke 24:18, 1 Corinthians 1:21), and the aorist participle in particular always, apparently, retains this meaning, signifying either âhaving learned, having come to know,â or âknowingâ (result of having come to know), not âhaving known.â See Matthew 16:8, Matthew 22:18, Matthew 26:10, Mark 6:38, Mark 15:45, Luke 9:11, John 5:6, Acts 23:6, Romans 1:21, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 2:9. By γνÏνÏÎµÏ there is, therefore, affirmed the acquisition of that knowledge the former possession of which is denied in οá½Îº εἰδÏÏεÏ. Of any other distinction between εἰδÏÏÎµÏ and γνÏνÏεÏ, as, e. g., that the former denotes an external knowledge that God is, the latter an inner recognition of God, there is no basis in usage or warrant in the context. The absence of the article with θεÏν is not without significance (cf. Romans 1:21, γνÏνÏÎµÏ Ïὸν θεÏν. 1 Corinthians 1:21: οá½Îº á¼Î³Î½Ï ὠκÏÏÎ¼Î¿Ï â¦ Ïὸν θεÏν), being doubtless due to the same cause that led to the omission of the article in v. 8 (q. v.), viz., emphasis upon the qualities of deity in antithesis to the ÏÏÏει μὴ á½Î½ÏÎµÏ Î¸ÎµÎ¿Î¯. Cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:9 quoted above, noting Ïὸν θεÏν in the first mention of God, and θεῷ without the article when the word follows the mention of the idols and with emphasis on the qualities of true deity. One might imperfectly reproduce the effect in English by reading with strong emphasis on the word God. But now having come to know [a] God (not those that are no real gods).
Îᾶλλον δÎ, following a negative phrase, introduces and emphasises its positive correlate (Ephesians 4:28, Ephesians 5:11); following a positive expression it introduces an additional and more important fact or aspect of the matter, not thereby retracting what precedes (probably not even in Wisd. 8:20, certainly not in Romans 8:34, 1 Corinthians 14:1, 1 Corinthians 14:5, 1 Corinthians 14:2 Mac. 6:23), but so transferring the emphasis to the added fact or aspect as being of superior significance as in effect to displace the preceding thought. So clearly here, as in Romans 8:34, etc.
Ïá¿¶Ï á¼ÏιÏÏÏÎÏεÏε Ïάλιν á¼Ïá½¶ Ïὰ�Romans 3:6, Romans 6:2, Matthew 7:4, Matthew 7:12:26, Matthew 7:29, et freq. The present tense presents the action as already in progress. (Observe that in the examples cited, when a theoretical possibility is spoken of the tense is a future or a form referring to the future, but in chap. 2:14 it is a present, referring, as in this case, to something in progress.) This corresponds with the representation of the situation in Galatia given in 1:6: Î¸Î±Ï Î¼Î¬Î¶Ïá½ Ïι ⦠μεÏαÏίθεÏθε. Cf. also θÎλεÏε in next clause. The phrase Ïá½° άÏθενῠκαὶ ÏÏÏÏá½° ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î± manifestly refers to what v. 3 calls Ïá½° ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î± Ïοῦ κÏÏÎ¼Î¿Ï ; see on that v., and detached note, p. 510. The present expression emphasises the ineffectualness and poverty of the old religious systems in contrast with the power and richness of the gospel. See chap. 5:6, 16-24, Romans 1:17, Romans 1:8:3, Romans 1:4. It is, of course, that to which they were now turning that is specially in mind, yet the former heathenism, included under the ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î± by implication of the repeated Ïάλιν, is also thereby stigmatised as�Romans 8:3 of the law, ὠνÏμοÏ, is affirmed of it, not because of anything peculiar to it as distinguished from the still more imperfect ethnic systems, but because of that which was common to them both, and his usual term for the displaced system is not ὠνÏμοÏ, but νÏÎ¼Î¿Ï (see, e. g., chap. 3:2, 10, 11.Romans 3:20, Romans 3:21a. etc.). The word θÎλεÏε in the appended relative clause expresses forcibly the inclination of the Galatians to abandon the Pauline gospel. Cf. θÎλονÏεÏ, v. 21.
ÎÎ¿Ï Î»Îµá¿¦Ïαι is attested by ×B only; all other authorities apparently read Î´Î¿Ï Î»ÎÏ ÎµÎ¹Î½. The former is quite certainly a modification of the original text under the influence of Ïάλιν á¼Î½Ïθεν, which naturally calls for an inceptive form. The scribe missing the reference of the present to a second period of enslavement, substitutes the aorist to express the idea of a return to bondage. Ïάλιν á¼Î½Ïθεν Î´Î¿Ï Î»Îµá¿¦Ïαι would have furnished no temptation to change it.
Πάλιν originally meaning âbackâ (return to a previous position; cf. L.&S. and Th. s. v. and reff. there) but more commonly, in later Greek, âagainâ (repetition of a previous action) is often used when the repetition involves return to a previous state or position (Mark 2:1, Mark 3:1); but also (like the English âagainâ) when the action is a return to a previous state through reversal, not, strictly speaking, repetition. So in chap. 1:17, John 10:18, Romans 11:23. So also here, since there had been no previous á¼ÏιÏÏÏÎÏειν á¼Ïá½¶ Ïá½° ⦠ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î±, but only an εἷναι á½Ïὸ Ïá½° ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î±, and the contemplated á¼ÏιÏÏÏÎÏειν was not a repetition of a previous act but a reversal of the á¼ÏιÏÏÏÎÏειν ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïὸν θεÏν (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:9), here described in γνÏνÏÎµÏ Î¸ÎµÏν. Wieselerâs statement, âDas Ïάλιν, welches hier wiederum, nicht rückwärts, heisst, weist auf eine frühere Bekehrung (á¼ÏιÏÏÏοÏή) hin, nämlich auf die ihrem, v. 8 erwähnten Heidenthume gegenüber in dem νῦν δΠu. s. w. angedeutete Bekehrung von den Götzen (á¼ÏιÏÏÏοÏὴ�Mark 2:1, Mark 3:1, etc.), the repetition involves also return to a former position. Cf. 5:1. It is enforced by the nearly synonymous á¼Î½Ïθεν âanew.â It is probably an overrefinement to find in this use of the two words (cf. Wisd. 19:6) anything more than emphasis, such as is often expressed in Greek writers by αá½Î¸Î¹Ï, á¼Î½Ïθεν, etc.
10. ἡμÎÏÎ±Ï ÏαÏαÏηÏεá¿Ïθε καὶ μá¿Î½Î±Ï καὶ καιÏÎ¿á½ºÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ á¼Î½Î¹Î±Ï ÏοÏÏ. âYe are observing days and months and seasons and years.â That the days, etc., referred to are those which the Jewish law required to be observed is made certain by the unquestioned character of the influence to which the Galatians were yielding. See esp. v. 21. Compared with 5:1ff., in which it appears that the question of adopting circumcision was still pending, and 5:3, which indicates that the Galatians had not yet been asked to adopt the whole law, this sentence indicates that the judaisers had pursued the adroit course of presenting to them at first a part only of the requirements of the Jewish law and had begun with those things that would be least repulsive. Having secured the adoption of the festivals, and perhaps the fast-days, of the Jewish cycle, they were now urging circumcision. Whether, however, the feasts and fasts were all that the Galatians had adopted as yet, is not made clear, since the apostle may have mentioned these only as examples of their subjection to the law. But the silence of the letter about any statute of the law except circumcision, which they had not yet adopted, and the fasts and feasts, which they had, there being, for example, no mention in connection with the situation in Galatia of the law of foods, leaves no positive ground for supposing that any points except these had been raised.
On ÏαÏαÏηÏεá¿Ïθε, âye observe, keep religiously,â cf. Jos. Ant. 3. 91 (5:5): ÏαÏαÏηÏεá¿Î½ Ïá½°Ï á¼Î²Î´Î¿Î¼Î¬Î´Î±Ï. 14. 264 (10:25), ÏαÏαÏηÏεá¿Î½ Ïὴν Ïῶν ÏαββάÏÏν ἡμÎÏαν. Contra Ap. 2. 282 (39, Whiston 40): οá½Î´á½² á¼Î½ á¼Î¸Î½Î¿Ï á¼Î½Î¸Î±â¦Ïολλὰ Ïῶν Îµá¼°Ï Î²Ïá¿¶Ïιν ἡμἴν οὠνενομιÏμÎνÏν ÏαÏαÏεÏήÏηÏαι. Nowhere in the Lxx does the word appear with this meaning, and in non-biblical writers instances have been observed only in Dion Cassius, 38. 13, Ïá½° á¼Îº Ïοῦ οá½Ïανοῦ γιγνÏμενα ÏαÏαÏηÏεá¿Î½. It occurs here only in N. T. in this sense, ÏηÏεá¿Î½ being used in Matthew 19:17, John 8:51, Acts 15:5, etc.; ÏÏ Î»Î¬ÏÏειν in Matthew 19:20, Luke 11:28, Acts 7:53, Romans 2:26, Galatians 6:13, etc.
ἩμÎÏÎ±Ï probably refers primarily to the sabbath days, but includes also the feasts, which are observed each on a single day.
Îá¿Î½Î±Ï, strictly âmonths,â may be used by metonymy for monthly recurring events (cf. Isaiah 66:23). If used in the strict sense, the word probably refers to the seventh month (see Num., chap. 29), for, though there were feasts in other months, no other month was so occupied with celebrations that it itself could be said to be observed. But it is more likely that the reference is to the celebration of the appearance of the new moon which marked the beginning of the month, this being in a sense an observance of the month. See Numbers 10:10, Numbers 10:28:11; cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31, Colossians 2:18.
ÎαιÏοÏÏ, in itself indefinite as to either length or frequency of celebration, probably here refers to a class of celebrations not limited to a single day, thus to the great feasts, Passover, Tabernacles, etc. (see 2 Chronicles 8:13, á¼Î½ Ïοá¿Ï ÏαββάÏÎ¿Î¹Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á¼Î½ Ïοá¿Ï μηÏὶν καὶ á¼Î½ Ïαá¿Ï á¼Î¿ÏÏαá¿Ï, ÏÏεá¿Ï καιÏÎ¿á½ºÏ Ïοῦ á¼Î½Î¹Î±Ï Ïοῦ, á¼Î½ Ïá¿ á¼Î¿ÏÏá¿ Ïῶν�Zechariah 8:19.
á¼Î½Î¹Î±Ï ÏοÏÏ, âyears,â may refer to the year of Jubilee or the sabbatical year. So Ell. Ltft. et al., esp. Barton (JBL. XXXIII, 118 ff.), who, referring it to the sabbatical year, founds on this interpretation an argument for the dating of the epistle in the year 54 or 55 A. D., this in turn carrying with it the conclusion that the letter was written to churches in North Galatia, so called. The doubt of Benzinger (Encyc. Bib. II 1514) whether these year-long celebrations were ever actually observed is perhaps scarcely justified in view of 1 Mac. 6:49-53; Jos. Ant. 13. 234 (8:1), 14. 475 (16:2); Bell. 1. 60 (2:4). But in view of the fact which the epistle clearly shows, that the Galatians had not yet undertaken to keep the whole law, not even having at all generally accepted circumcision (cf. on 4:1, 5:3), it must be regarded as very improbable that among the requirements of the law already adopted was a custom economically so burdensome and socially so difficult as the sabbatical year. It is, therefore, much more probable that, as he speaks of the observance of the new moon as an observance of months, so by the observance of years he means the celebration of the beginning of the year, probably on the first of the month Tishri. Against this view Barton urges it as a fatal objection that since the Talmud includes New Yearâs Day among the great festivals and calls these by a word equivalent to καιÏοί, therefore Paulâs á¼Î½Î¹Î±Ï ÏοÏÏ, if it refers to New Yearâs Day, has already been included in καιÏοÏÏ (see Barton, op. cit., p. 120). But it is quite unsafe to argue that because the Talmud includes New Yearâs Day among the great feasts, therefore Paul included it in the καιÏοί. Moreover, non-exclusiveness of his terms is in itself not improbable. Formal exactness in such matters is not characteristic of Paul. It is, indeed, most likely that, as used here, μá¿Î½Î±Ï is included in ἡμÎÏαÏ, and á¼Î½Î¹Î±Ï ÏοÏÏ in καιÏοÏÏ or ἡμÎÏαÏ, the four terms without mutual exclusiveness covering all kinds of celebrations of days and periods observed by the Jews.
11. Ïοβοῦμαι á½Î¼á¾¶Ï μή ÏÏÏ Îµá¼°Îºá¿ ÎºÎµÎºÎ¿Ïίακα Îµá¼°Ï á½Î¼á¾¶Ï. âI fear that in vain have I spent my labour upon you,â i. e., that the labour which I bestowed on you is to result in nothing. A paratactically added expression of the apostleâs feeling in view of the tendency of the Galatians to adopt legalistic practices, which clearly indicates his estimate of the deadly character of legalism. Should they really come under its dominion, his labour would have been for naught. For the expression of the more hopeful feeling, between which and that of fear of the outcome expressed here the letter swings, see 5:10.
ÎÌÎ¼á¾¶Ï is best regarded as proleptically employed, not properly an object of Ïοβοῦμαι, but anticipating the á½Î¼á¾¶Ï in the subordinate clause. Cf. W. LXVI 5, and such N. T. examples as Mark 12:34, Acts 13:32, Galatians 1:11. It is true that as a rule the object accusative anticipates the subject of the subordinate clause. But that this is not uniformly the case, see Krüger, Gr. Sprachl. 61. 6:6, and the example there cited: Ïὴν νá¿Ïον ÏαÏÏην á¼ÏοβοῦνÏο μὴ á¼Î¾ αá½Ïá¿Ï Ïὸν ÏÏλεμον ÏÏίÏι ÏοιῶνÏαι, Thuc. 4. 8:5. μὴ κεκοÏίακα is then an object clause after a verb of fearing. The indicative is employed because the fact spoken of is, as an event, already past, though the result is undecided or not yet known to the writer. See BMT 227, and cf. on chap. 2:2. On εἰκῠcf. 3:4. The meaning here is evidently âwithout effect.â The perfect κεκοÏίακα, referring to a past action and its existing result, is appropriately employed, since it is precisely the result of his action that the apostle has chiefly in mind. Îµá¼°Ï á½Î¼á¾¶Ï is equivalent to a strengthened dative of advantage, âfor you.â
9. An affectionate appeal to the Galatians to enter fully into their freedom from law, referring to their former enthusiastic reception of the apostle and affection for him, and expressing the wish that he were now with them and could speak to them in more persuasive language than he had formerly used (4:12-20)
Dropping argument, the resumption of which in vv. 21-31 is probably an after-thought, the apostle turns to appeal, begging the Galatians to take his attitude towards the law, referring to the circumstances under which he had preached the gospel to them, and the enthusiasm and personal affection with which, despite an illness which made him unattractive to them, they had received him and his message. He compares his own zealous pursuit of them with that of his opponents, justifying his by its motive, but expresses, also, the wish that he could be present with them right now and speak in a different tone from that, by implication harsher one, which he had employed on some previous occasion when he had âtold them the truth.â
12Become as I am (or have become), because I am as ye are, I beseech you, brethren. 13Ye did me no wrong, but ye know that because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel to you on that former occasion; 14and that which was a temptation to you in my flesh, ye did not reject or despise, but ye received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. 15Where, then, is that gratulation of yourselves? For I bear you witness that ye would, if possible, have plucked out your eyes and given them to me. 16So that I have become your enemy by telling you the truth! 17They zealously seek you, not honestly, but wish to shut you out that ye may seek them. 18But it is good to be zealously sought after in a good thing, always, and not only when I am present with you, 19oh, my children, with whom I travail again in birth pangs till Christ be formed in you. 20But I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone; because I am in perplexity in reference to you.
12. ÎίνεÏθε á½¡Ï á¼Î³Ï, á½ Ïι κá¼Î³á½¼ á½¡Ï á½Î¼Îµá¿Ï,�Philippians 3:4ff., esp. v. 8. Cf. also 1 Corinthians 9:21.
It affects the sense but little whether with κá¼Î³Ï we supply εἰμί or γÎγονα (or á¼Î³ÎµÎ½Ïμην); γÎγονα corresponds best with γίνεÏθε and the actual facts, since the apostleâs freedom from law was the result of a becoming, a change of relations. On the other hand, εἰμί corresponds best with εÏÏÎ, which must be supplied with á½Î¼Îµá¿Ï and better fits the parallelism, which is evidently intended to be paradoxical. The interpretation of Chrys. et al., according to which ἤμην is supplied after κá¼Î³Ï, giving the meaning, âbecause I was formerly under law as ye now are,â is open to the two objections: (a) that, the reference to past time being essential to the thought, ἤμην could hardly have been left to be supplied, and (b) that the appeal, to be effective, must be not simply to the apostleâs former state, which he has now abandoned, but to his present state or his abandonment of the former state.
οá½Î´Îν με ἠδικήÏαÏε· 13. οἴδαÏε δὲ á½ Ïι διʼ�
Îιʼ�2 Corinthians 12:7, á¼Î´Ïθη μοι ÏκÏÎ»Î¿Ï Ïá¿ ÏαÏκί, may not improbably be understood to refer to the same fact. But neither of these latter identifications are certain. Of the many explanations proposed, persecution, temptation to sensuality, spiritual trials, such as temptation to despair and doubt, wholly fail to meet the conditions. The language can refer only to some physical ailment hard to bear, and calculated to keep him humble and, in some measure, to repel those to whom he preached. Ltft. Lip. Dib. Gwt. pp. 46 ff., et al., favour epilepsy, Rückert et al. some affection of the eyes; Ramsay, reviving in part an ancient opinion, thinks it was fever with accompanying severe headache (St. Paul, pp. 94 ff., and Com. on Gal., pp. 422 ff.). For fuller list of conjectures, see Ltft. pp. 186 ff., Stanley, Com. on Cor., pp. 547 ff. Ramsayâs view could be sustained only by showing that fever was, in Galatia, regarded as an infliction of the gods, showing the sufferers to be under their special disapprobation. But that this was in any peculiar sense true of fevers is scarcely shown by anything that Ramsay advances. Cf. ut supra. The reference to a disease of the eyes, though favoured by v. 15, is weakened by the lack of any emphasis upon á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ indicated by position or otherwise. Epilepsy fulfils the conditions, but no better, perhaps, than many other diseases. The precise nature of the apostleâs suffering must be left undecided. No decisive inference can be drawn from this illness concerning the location of the Galatian churches. εá½Î·Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¹Ïάμην is used here, as everywhere else in the epistle (1:8, 9, 11, 16, 23) in the specific sense, to preach the gospel, to bring the good news of salvation in Christ.
Î ÏÏÏεÏÎ¿Ï is a comparative adjective in frequent use from Homer down. ÏÏÏÏεÏον is employed as a temporal adverb from Pindar and, with the article, from Herodotus down. In the latter use it is usually the case that an event having happened twice (e. g., a place visited or a battle fought) or two periods of time being brought into comparison, and the latter having been specifically mentioned, Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον designates the earlier one. The two occasions or periods may both be in the past: Hdt. 2:144; Thuc. 1. 59:2, 3. 87:2, 116, 5. 65:5; Xen. Mem. 3. 8:1; Hell. 5. 3:15; Isoc. 59c (4:91), 151 d (7:53); Genesis 13:3, Genesis 28:19, Deuteronomy 9:18, Joshua 10:14, Joshua 10:11:10, 1 Kings 13:6, Daniel 3:22, Daniel 3:1 Mac. 3:46, 4:60, 5:1, 6:7. Or one may be past and the other present: Thuc. 6. 86:1; Plato, Crat. 436 E; Rep. 522 A; Dem. 43:7, 33, 42, 47 48:29; Deuteronomy 2:20, Joshua 14:15, Joshua 15:15, Judges 1:10, Judges 18:29. Or one may be past and the other future: Isaiah 1:26, Jer_37 (30):20, 40 (33):7, 11, 1 Mac. 6:59. Occasionally the two events are not similar but contrasted. See exx. of this usage in Xen. An. 4. 4:14; Nehemiah 13:5, Job 42:5, 1 Timothy 1:13. ÏÏÏÏεÏον without the article signifies in enumerations âfirst,â implying also a second in the series (Hebrews 7:27); or âon a former occasion,â without implying either repetition or contrast, though the context sometimes suggests that what was ÏÏÏÏεÏον, âformerly,â no longer existed at the time denoted by the principal verb. Isaiah 41:22, John 7:50, 2 Corinthians 1:15, Hebrews 4:6. In a few cases Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον seems also to be employed in this way: Isoc. 70 (15:113), 354 c (16:27); Isaiah 52:4; Sus. 52; John 6:62, John 9:5. It is important to notice that when Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον designates the former of two occasions or periods, the later one is always one which is distinctly referred to or implied in the context, never, so far at least as the above examples or any others that have been cited show, one which is itself implied only in that an earlier one is called Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον, the former. In other words, in observed instances it implies no duality except that of an occasion mentioned in the context (which may be past, present, or future), and of the event to which Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον itself applies. Yet it is obvious that the knowledge of the readers might supply what is lacking in the context. While, therefore, Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον in this passage does not imply two previous visits, it does not exclude the possibility of them, despite the fact that we have no extant example of ÏÏÏÏεÏον referring to the former of two occasions neither of which is otherwise referred to in the context. To this should be added the evidence of vv. 16 and 20 (q. v.), slightly confirmed by 1:9, that between his first visit to Galatia and the writing of the present letter Paul had communicated with the Galatians, either in person or by letter. There are, accordingly, three possibilities: (a) Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον implies no comparison of occasions of preaching, but means simply âformerly.â Against this is the apparent needlessness of the phrase, if this is all that it means. It is so self-evident that his preaching in Galatia was formerly, that the inclusion of the word in this sense is seemingly motiveless. (b) The apostle regarded the present letter as a reiteration of the gospel in its distinctive features, and referred to the one and only oral proclamation of the gospel as on the former occasion, as compared with the letter. Against this is the fact that on the hypothesis that this letter is considered a preaching of the gospel, and in view of the evidence of an intervening communication cited above, the present preaching was the third, which renders it improbable that the first would be said to be Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον. Against it is also the fact that Paul and N. T. writers generally use εá½Î±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¯Î¶Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ of oral preaching only. Yet there is nothing in the word itself to exclude a reference to publication in writing, and ἡ γÏαÏá½´ ⦠ÏÏÎ¿ÎµÏ Î·Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¯ÏαÏο of 3:8 is perhaps some evidence that Paul might use the simple verb in the same way. (c) It being known to the Galatians that Paul had preached to them orally twice, Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον self-evidently meant for them on the former of these two occasions. This takes the verb and Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον in their usual sense, and though involving a use of Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον with reference to the former of two events, knowledge of the second of which is supplied by the readers, not by the contextâa usage which is without observed parallelâis, on the whole, the most probable. Parallels would in the nature of the case be difficult to discover, since they could be recognised only by evidence not furnished in the context. It remains, however, that the significance of Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον depends on the question of fact whether Paul had actually preached twice in Galatia before writing this letter; Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον itself does not prove him to have done so. See further in Introd. p. xlv.
That Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον implies two visits to Galatia is the view of Alf. Ltft. Sief. (Zahn, two or more) Bous., and many other modern interpreters from Luther down. Sief. quotes Grot. and Keil for the second of the views stated above. Vernon Bartlet, in Expositor, Series V, vol. 10 (1899), p. 275, explains Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον as meaning âat the beginning,â in the earlier part of his evangelising visit, and as suggesting that it was only the initiation of his work that was occasioned by his illness, the continuance of it being for other reasons. He supports this view by the contention that εá½Î±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¯Î¶Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹ refers to the presentation of the gospel to a people who have not received it, and, therefore, can not be used to cover two visits (a statement sufficiently refuted by Romans 1:15, Romans 15:20). No instances of Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον in this sense are cited, nor does it seem to be justified by usage. The view of McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 228, that Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον refers to the eastward journey from Antioch to Derbe, the later, implied, journey being the return westward, does less violence to the usage of Ïὸ ÏÏÏÏεÏον and εá½Î±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¯Î¶Î¿Î¼Î±Î¹. But inasmuch as the letter is addressed to all the churches of the group, and the most eastern would on this theory have been visited but once, it is improbable that the apostle would have spoken of the journey up and back as involving two evangelisations of them.
14. καὶ Ïὸν ÏειÏαÏμὸν á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ á¼Î½ Ïá¿ ÏαÏκί Î¼Î¿Ï Î¿á½Îº á¼Î¾Î¿Ï θενήÏαÏε, οá½Î´á½² á¼Î¾ÎµÏÏÏÏαÏε, âand that which was a temptation to you in my flesh, ye did not reject or despise.â On á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ as objective genitive after ÏειÏαÏμÏν cf. Luke 22:28. The whole phrase, Ïὸν ÏειÏαÏμὸν á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ á¼Î½ Ïá¿ ÏαÏκί Î¼Î¿Ï , stands, as the following verbs show, by metonymy for some such expression as á¼Î¼á½² ÏειÏάζονÏα á½Î¼á¾¶Ï διὰ Ïὴν�Psalms 22:24 (25). ÏειÏαÏμÏν is probably temptation rather than simply trial; there was something in the apostleâs physical condition which tempted them to reject him and his message. á¼Î¾ÎµÏÏÏÏαÏε, not found in the Lxx and here only in N. T., is found in Greek writers from Homer down.
Sief.âs attempt, following Lach. and Butt., to escape the difficulty that ÏειÏαÏμÏν is not logically the object of sá¼Î¾Î¿Ï θενήÏαÏε and á¼Î¾ÎµÏÏÏÏαÏε by placing a colon after ÏαÏκί Î¼Î¿Ï , thus making ÏειÏαÏμÏν the object of οἴδαÏε, and á¼Î¾Î¿Ï θενήÏαÏε the beginning of a new sentence, is extremely forced, and in view of Psalms 22:24 (25) is quite unnecessary.
Though in all other extant instances á¼ÎºÏÏÏÏ is used of a physical act, âto spit out,â the impossibility of such a sense here and the fact that the similar compounds of ÏÏÏειν (cf.�Revelation 3:16: μÎÎ»Î»Ï Ïε á¼Î¼ÎÏαι á¼Îº Ïοῦ ÏÏÏμαÏÏÏ Î¼Î¿Ï ) are used in the tropical sense, make it unnecessary to question the tropical meaning, âto reject,â here.
á¼Î»Î»á½° á½¡Ï á¼Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¿Î½ θεοῦ á¼Î´ÎξαÏθΠμε, á½¡Ï Î§ÏιÏÏὸν ἸηÏοῦν, âbut ye received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.â á¼Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¿Ï is commonly used by Paul not in its general sense of âmessengerâ (Matthew 11:10, Luke 7:24, Luke 7:27, Luke 7:9:52, Mark 1:2, James 2:25), for which he uses�2 Corinthians 8:23, Philippians 2:25), but an âangel,â a superhuman being. Cf. 1:8, 3:19, 1 Corinthians 4:9, 1 Corinthians 4:13:1; M. and M. Voc. s. v. This is doubtless its sense here. That Paul was Godâs âmessengerâ is implied by the context, not the word. The use of θεοῦ without the article emphasises the qualitative character of the phrase, and brings out more strongly the dignity ascribed to Paul as Godâs representative. Cf. on v. 8. The sentence, however, means not that they supposed him actually to be superhuman, but that they accorded him such credence and honour as they would have given to an angel of God. Note á½¡Ï Î§ÏιÏÏὸν ἸηÏοῦν and cf. Philemon 1:17. á¼Î´ÎξαÏθε suggests the idea of welcome more distinctly than would have been done by á¼Î»Î¬Î²ÎµÏε or ÏαÏελάβεÏε. Cf. chap. 1:9, 12, 3:2; yet see also 2 Corinthians 11:4, where both verbs occur. á½¡Ï Î§ÏιÏÏὸν ἸηÏοῦν is a climactic addition. Cf. Romans 8:38, Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:16. The force of á½¡Ï is the same as with á¼Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¿Î½. As to the relation of the apostle to Christ Jesus which makes such reception possible, see 2 Corinthians 5:20.
The meaning of the sentence would not be materially different if á¼Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¿Î½ were taken in the not impossible sense of âmessenger.â Cf. 2 Corinthians 12:7, where á¼Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¿Ï ΣαÏανᾶ is similarly ambiguous, the phrase referring figuratively to a bodily affliction of some kind. Yet, that in both cases the word itself denotes a superhuman being is rendered probable by Paulâs evident belief in such beings and his usual use of the word. See Everling, Die paulinische Angelologie und Dämonologie, pp. 59 ff. Dib. Gwt. pp. 45 ff.
15. Ïοῦ οá½Î½ ὠμακαÏιÏÎ¼á½¸Ï á½Î¼á¿¶Î½Â· âWhere, then, is that gratulation of yourselves?â The question is rhetorical, implying that the gratulation has ceased, but without good reason. Cf. Luke 8:25: Ïοῦ ἡ ÏίÏÏÎ¹Ï á½Î¼á¿¶Î½; and for instances with different implication, see Romans 3:27, 1 Corinthians 1:20, 1 Corinthians 1:12:17, 1 Corinthians 1:19. οá½Î½ has the force of quae cum ita sint, referring to the facts stated in vv. 13, 14. á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ is probably objective genitive after μακαÏιÏμÏÏ, âdeclaration of blessedness,â as is Ïοῦ�Romans 4:6. Even if á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ be taken as subjective genitive (Sief.), it would be necessary to understand it as referring to a gratulation of themselves, not of others, as is shown clearly by the following sentence introduced by Î³Î¬Ï and referring to the enthusiasm of the Galatians in receiving Paul. On the use of the simple pronoun for the reflexive, see Rob. p. 681, and the examples in the immediately preceding and following sentences, ÏειÏαÏμὸν á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ and á½ÏÎ¸Î±Î»Î¼Î¿á½ºÏ á½Î¼á¿¶Î½.
Ποῦ is the reading of ×ABCFGP 33, 104, 424**, 442, 1912 f g Vg. Syr. (psh. harcl. mg.), Boh. Arm. Euthal. Dam. Hier. Pelag. Of these f Vg. Boh. (?) Arm. Hier. al. add á¼ÏÏίν after οá½Î½. DKL al. pler. d Goth. Syr. (harcl. txt.) Thdr. Mop. Sever. Chr. Thdrt. Thphyl. Oec. Victorin. Aug. Ambrst. al. read ÏÎ¯Ï instead of Ïοῦ. DFGK al. pler. d e Goth. Chr. Thdrt. Aug. Ambrst. add ἦν after οá½Î½. The choice is between Ïοῦ οá½Î½ and ÏÎ¯Ï Î¿á½Î½ ἦν, the other readings being corruptions or conflations of these. Internal evidence is indecisive. Mey. and, following him, Zahn prefer ÏÎ¯Ï Î¿á½Î½ ἦν. But the strong preponderance of external evidence requires the adoption of Ïοῦ οá½Î½. The alternative reading is probably an unintentional clerical corruption, Î Î being converted into ΤÎΣ, and Î¥ omitted to make sense.
μαÏÏÏ Ïá¿¶ Î³á½°Ï á½Î¼á¿Î½ á½Ïι εἰ Î´Ï Î½Î±Ïὸν ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ á½ÏÎ¸Î±Î»Î¼Î¿á½ºÏ á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ á¼Î¾Î¿ÏÏξανÏÎµÏ á¼Î´ÏκαÏΠμοι. âFor I bear you witness that ye would, if possible, have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.â A confirmation immediately of the assertion implied in ὠμακαÏιÏÎ¼á½¸Ï á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ but indirectly of the affirmation of their former favourable attitude, which began with οá½Î´á½²Î½ ἠδικήÏαÏΠμε, v. 13. That he dwells on this matter at such length and states it so strongly shows the apostleâs strong desire to reinstate himself in the affections of the Galatians. The language escapes hyperbole only by the expression εἰ Î´Ï Î½Î±ÏÏν. The inference from the reference to the eyes that Paulâs weakness of the flesh was a disease of the eyes, though slightly favoured by εἰ Î´Ï Î½Î±ÏÏν in preference, e. g., to εἰ�
Υμá¿Î½ is not an indirect object denoting the person who receives the testimony (cf. Acts 15:8), but dative of advantage, denoting the one to whose credit witness is borne (cf. Acts 22:5, Romans 10:2, Colossians 4:13). εἰ Î´Ï Î½Î±Ïὸν ⦠á¼Î´ÏκαÏΠμοι is evidently a hypothesis contrary to fact, á¼Î½ being omitted. Cf. BMT 249 and Matthew 26:24, John 9:32, John 15:22, John 19:11. On the mention of the eyes as the most precious members of the body, cf. Deuteronomy 32:10, Psalms 17:8, Zach. 2:8, and on á¼Î¾Î¿ÏÏÏÏÏ of the plucking out of the eyes, see Hdt. 8:116: á¼Î¾ÏÏÏ Î¾Îµ αá½Ïῶν á½ ÏαÏá½´Ï ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ á½ÏÎ¸Î±Î»Î¼Î¿á½ºÏ Î´Î¹á½° Ïὴν αἰÏίην ÏαÏÏην (viz., for going to war against his command), and other exx. cited by Wetst., ad loc., also Lxx, Judges 16:21 (A; B reads á¼ÎºÎºÏÏÏÏ); 1 Samuel 11:2. Jos. Ant. 6. 69 (5:1) uses á¼ÎºÎºÏÏÏÏ; Matthew 5:30, Matthew 18:9, á¼Î¾Î±Î¹ÏÎÏ. Of mention of the plucking out of oneâs eyes as an act of self-sacrifice no example other than the present has been pointed out.
16. á½¥ÏÏε á¼ÏθÏá½¸Ï á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ γÎγονα�Romans 5:10, Romans 11:28), but in the active sense, âhostile to,â âhater of,â since in N. T. (Matthew 5:43, Romans 12:20, et freq.) and (according to Sief. ad loc., citing Dem. 439:19 1121:12; Xen. An. 3. 2:5; Soph. Aj. 554) in classical writers also, á¼ÏθÏÏÏ with the genitive regularly has this active sense. The passive sense requires a dative expressed or understood. Xen. Cyr. 5. 4:50, etc. It follows that the phrase á¼ÏθÏá½¸Ï á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ expresses not the fact as Paul looked at it, but the view which the Galatians were taking or disposed to take; and the sentence is either a question asking (indignantly) whether [they hold that] he has indeed become hostile to them by telling the truth, or an exclamation expressing in á¼ÏθÏá½¸Ï á½Î¼á¿¶Î½ γÎγονα the view which the apostle sadly recognises the Galatians are taking of him, and in�
The question when the truth-speaking referred to in�
17. ζηλοῦÏιν á½Î¼á¾¶Ï οὠκαλῶÏ,�Hebrews 13:18), i. e., not sincerely and unselfishly, but with selfish motive. That from which these opponents of Paul wish to exclude the Galatians is not stated; the context implies either (a) the privilege of the gospel, i. e., the sense of acceptance with God which those have who believe themselves to have fulfilled the divine requirements, or (b) the circle of those who hold the broader view, Paul and his companions and converts, who maintain that the Gentiles are accepted if they have faith and without fulfilling the requirements of the law. In either case, the effect of such exclusion would be that the Galatians would turn to the Jewish Christians for guidance and association, and the latter would be in the position of being sought after (ζηλοῦÏε). The verb á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Îµá¿Ïαι rather favours the former interpretation, since it is not natural to speak of one group of persons as shutting others out from another group; a verb meaning to alienate, or to cause separation from, would be more probable. On ζηλοῦÏε, see Bl.-D. 93; BMT 198. Whether we have here an irregularity of form (ζηλοῦÏε being thought of as subjunctive) or of syntax (ζηλοῦÏε being an indicative after ἵνα) is not possible to determine with certainty.
18. καλὸν δὲ ζηλοῦÏθαι á¼Î½ καλῷ ÏάνÏοÏε, καὶ μὴ μÏνον á¼Î½ Ïá¿· ÏαÏεá¿Î½Î±Î¯ με ÏÏá½¸Ï á½Î¼á¾¶Ï âBut it is good to be zealously sought after in a good thing, always, and not only when I am present with you.â Most probably a reference to his own persistent seeking after the Galatians, which he by implication characterises as á¼Î½ καλῷ in contrast with that of the judaisers, which was οὠκαλῶÏ, and for the continuance of which, even while absent, he justifies himself by this statement, enforced by v. 19. This interpretation retains as the implied subject of the passive ζηλοῦÏθαι the object of the active ζηλοῦÏε in v. 17b, and best comports with the tone of v. 19 into which he passes from this v. apparently without break in thought.
ÎηλοῦÏθκι must be taken as a passive, no instance of the middle being found elsewhere, and there being no occasion for change from active to middle form. á¼Î½ καλῷ defines the sphere in which alone καλὸν ζηλοῦÏθαι is true. ÏάνÏοÏε is in evident antithesis to the following phrase, καὶ μὴ ⦠ÏÏá½¸Ï á½Î¼á¾¶Ï. The addition of this phrase, with its definite personal pronoun shows that καλὸν ⦠καλῷ, though in form simply a general maxim, had in the apostleâs mind specific reference to the existing situation, the relations of the Galatians to Paul and his opponents. The words might therefore mean, âI do not object to others as well as myself seeking to gain your friendship, so only they do it in a good thing, in the realm of that which is for your good.â It is an objection to this interpretation that μὴ μÏνον ⦠á½Î¼á¾¶Ï awkwardly expresses the idea âby others as well as myself,â and that such a disclaimer of desire on the apostleâs part to monopolise the interest and affection of the Galatians does not lead naturally to v. 19. The words may also be explained by taking Paul as the implied subject of ζηλοῦÏθαι. âIt is a fine thingâI myself could desireâto be sought after, in a good thingâalways, when I am away from you as well as when I am present.â In this case the sentence is a thinly veiled reproach of the Galatians for their fickleness in changing their attitude towards him, now that he is no longer with them. The change in implied subject of ζηλοῦÏθαι without indication that the reference is now to the apostle himself is an objection to this interpretation, though not a decisive one; the apostle may have preferred to leave the reference somewhat veiled. But it is difficult on this interpretation to account for á¼Î½ καλῷ, no such qualification being called for if the apostle is thinking of the Galatians seeking after him. Probably, therefore, the interpretation first proposed is the true one. δΠis in that case adversative, marking an antithesis between the ζηλοῦν of the judaisers, which he disapproves, and his own, which he justifies.
19. ÏÎκνα Î¼Î¿Ï , οá½Ï Ïάλιν á½ Î´Î¯Î½Ï Î¼ÎÏÏÎ¹Ï Î¿á½ Î¼Î¿ÏÏÏθῠΧÏιÏÏá½¸Ï á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½. âoh, my children with whom I travail again in birth pangs till Christ be formed in you.â Language of deep affection and emotion, called forth by the previous words defending his right to continue his zealous efforts to hold the affection of his readers, and probably to be attached to the preceding v. The figure is after the fashion of the apostle, and extremely bold; ÏÎκνα addresses them in affectionate tone as his children, i. e., as those whom he has already begotten or borne; οá½Ï Ïάλιν á½ Î´Î¯Î½Ï represents them as again in the womb, needing a second (spiritual) birth, and himself as a mother suffering again the birth pangs, which must continue till Christ be formed in them, i. e., until it be true of them as of him that Christ lives in them (2:20).
Were it not for the δΠat the beginning of v. 20, v. 19 would naturally be taken as the beginning of a sentence and v. 20 as its completion. The occurrence of δÎ, however, necessitates either connecting v. 19 with v. 18, as in WH., or assuming an anacoluthon at the beginning of v. 20, as in RV. The recurrence in v. 20 of the expression ÏαÏεá¿Î½Î±Î¹ ÏÏá½¸Ï á½Î¼á¾¶Ï, used also in v. 18, implies a close connection between these vv. and makes it improbable that v. 19 begins a new line of thought, which is broken off at v. 20. The punctuation of WH. is therefore more probably correct than that of RV.
The figure of speech involved in ὠδίνÏ, though startling to modern ears, is unambiguously clear. The precise form of the thought expressed in μοÏÏÏθῠis less certain. There are three possibilities: (a) In themselves the words not unnaturally suggest a reversal of the preceding figure, those who were just spoken of as babes in the womb, now being pictured as pregnant mothers, awaiting the full development of the Christ begotten in them. Such abrupt change of figure is not uncharacteristic of the apostle. In Romans 7:4, illustrating the relation of the believer to the law and to Christ by remarriage, following death, he makes the deceased one remarry, sacrificing illustration to the thing illustrated. In 1 Thessalonians 2:7, if, as is probable, the true text is νήÏιοι, the apostle in the same sentence calls himself a child, and a mother, and a nurse, each term expressing a part of his thought, and in v. 11 compares himself to a father. Nor is it a serious objection to this view of the present passage that the apostle has not elsewhere employed the figure of Christ being begotten in the believers. It would be easy to give examples of figures of speech employed by him but once, as, e. g., in this very verse the comparison of himself to a mother in birth pangs. Nor does he shrink from the employment of equally bold figures taken from the same general sphere. See Romans 7:4, where he speaks of the believer as married to Christ and as bringing forth fruit (children) to God, and 1 Corinthians 4:15 and Philemon 1:10, where he speaks of himself as the begetting father of his converts. The word μοÏÏÏθῠ(occurring nowhere else in Lxx or N. T.) is more consonant with this view than with any other. Cf. the use of the synonyms ÏλάÏÏÏ in Jeremiah 1:5, ÏÏὸ Ïοῦ με ÏλάÏαι Ïε á¼Î½ κοιλίᾳ, Romans 9:20, 1 Timothy 2:13. The only weighty objection to this understanding of the figure is that it is not in itself strikingly appropriate for the spiritual fact to which the apostle evidently refers, and that when elsewhere Paul speaks of Christ in the believer (chap. 2:20, Colossians 1:27 et freq.) the language conveys no suggestion of pregnancy, but in less materialistic fashion denotes the indwelling presence of Christ. Yet over against this objection is to be set the fact that this passage contains, what all the others lack, the word μοÏÏÏθá¿, suggesting if not requiring the view that here the thought of the apostle takes on a different form from that which it has elsewhere. (b) It is perhaps not impossible that without reversal of figure the apostle thinks of his birth pangs as continuing till the child in the womb takes on the form of the begetting father, who is now thought of as being not Paul but Christ. The choice of μοÏÏÏθῠΧÏιÏÏá½¸Ï á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½ rather than, e. g., á½Î¼Îµá¿Ï á¼Î½ á½Î¼Î¿Î¹ÏμαÏι ΧÏιÏÏοῦ μοÏÏÏθá¿Ïε might in this case be due to the influence of the apostleâs favourite form of thought expressed in the formula ΧÏιÏÏá½¸Ï á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½ or the like. (c) The figure suggested by á½ Î´Î¯Î½Ï may be dropped altogether, μÎÏÏÎ¹Ï Î¿á½ Î¼Î¿ÏÏÏθῠreferring figuratively, of course, but without specific thought of the birth process, to that spiritual process, the full achievement of which is elsewhere expressed by ΧÏιÏÏá½¸Ï á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½ and like phrases. Of these three conceptions of the apostleâs figure of speech the first seems somewhat the most probable; yet there is no perfectly decisive evidence for either as against the others. The spiritual fact for which the figure stands is substantially the same in any case. The reactionary step which the Galatians are in danger of taking, forces upon the apostle the painful repetition of that process by which he first brought them into the world of faith in Christ, and his pain, he declares, must continue till they have really entered into vital fellowship with Christ.
Against the strong external evidence for ÏÎκνα, ×*BD*FG Eus., there is no clearly pre-Syrian witness for Ïεκνία except Clem. Alex.; For ×cACDb et cKLP al. pler. are predominantly Syrian. But combined with Clem. they probably mark the reading as of Alexandrian origin. The adoption of Ïεκνία by WH. txt. (mg. ÏÎκνα) is a departure from their usual practice (cf. WH. II p. 342), for which there seems no sufficient warrant in the evidence.
20. ἤθελον δὲ ÏαÏεá¿Î½Î±Î¹ ÏÏá½¸Ï á½Î¼á¾¶Ï á¼ÏÏι, καὶ�2 Corinthians 7:8, and for the letter to which he there refers, 2 Cor., chaps. 11-13.
On ἤθελον, cf. BMT 33; Rob. 885 f. The wish is evidently regarded as impracticable, though not distinctly characterised as such by the language. á¼ÏÏι with more sharply defined reference to the present moment than νῦν means âat this very moment.â The clause á½ Ïι ⦠á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½ suggests for�Luke 24:4, John 13:22, Acts 25:20, 2 Corinthians 4:8). á¼Î½ á½Î¼á¿Î½ means âin respect to you,â as in 2 Corinthians 7:16.
10. A supplementary argument based on an allegorical use of the story of the two sons of Abraham, and intended to induce the Galatians to see that they are joining the wrong branch of the family (4:21-31)
Before leaving the subject of the seed of Abraham it occurs to the apostle, apparently as an after-thought, that he might make his thought clearer and more persuasive by an allegorical interpretation of the story of Abraham and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, the one born in course of nature only, the other in fulfilment of divine promise. The two mothers he interprets as representing the two covenants, that of law and that of promise, and the two communities, that of the lineal descendants of Abraham, and that of those who walked in the footsteps of his faith. In the antagonism between the two sons, or their descendants, he finds a parallel to the persecution to which the Gentile Christians have been subjected at the hands of the Jewish Christians, and cites scripture to show that the former are rejected of God. The argument is in effect this: Would you be, as the judaisers have been exhorting you to be, sons of Abraham? Be so, but observe that of the Abrahamic family there are two branches, the slave and the free. We, brethren, whose relation to Abraham is spiritual, not physical, we are the sons not of the slave, but of the free.
21Tell me, ye that wish to be under law, do ye not hear the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the maid servant, and one by the freewoman. 23But the son of the maid servant was born according to the flesh; the son of the freewoman through promise. 24Which things are allegorical utterances. For these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai, bringing forth children unto bondage, which is Hagar 25(now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia) and corresponds to the Jerusalem that now is. For she is in bondage with her children. 26But the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother. 27For it is written, Rejoice thou barren woman that bearest not, break forth and shout, thou that travailest not. For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. 28And ye, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29But as then he that was born according to the flesh persecuted him that was born according to the Spirit, so also now. 30But what saith the scripture? Cast out the maid servant and her son. For the son of the maid servant shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman. 31Therefore, brethren, we are children, not of a maid servant, but of the free-woman.
21. ÎÎγεÏΠμοι, οἱ á½Ïὸ νÏμον θÎλονÏÎµÏ Îµá¼¶Î½Î±Î¹, Ïὸν νÏμον οá½Îºï¿½Romans 6:14, Romans 6:15; the word νÏÎ¼Î¿Ï thus bearing the same sense which it has constantly in this and the preceding chapter, divine law viewed by itself as a legalistic system. See note on 3:13 and detached note on ÎÏμοÏ, V 2. c. On the other hand, Ïὸν νÏμον in itself probably refers, as is indicated by 4:22, etc., to the O. T. scriptures (detached note, V 3), which, they had been taught, contained that legalistic system which they were urged to accept.
22. γÎγÏαÏÏαι Î³á½°Ï á½ Ïι á¼Î²Ïαὰμ δÏο Ï á¼±Î¿á½ºÏ á¼ÏÏεν, á¼Î½Î± á¼Îº Ïá¿Ï ÏαιδίÏÎºÎ·Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ á¼Î½Î± á¼Îº Ïá¿Ï á¼Î»ÎµÏ θÎÏαÏ· âFor it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the maid servant, and one by the freewoman.â See Gen., chaps. 16, 17. ÏαιδίÏκη, properly referring to a young woman, and denoting age, not status, became among the Greeks a term for a female slave (see L.&S.) and is frequently so used in the Lxx.
23.�Romans 1:3, Romans 9:5 and detached note on Πνεῦμα and ΣάÏξ, p. 492, 3 (a) under ÏάÏξ), and διʼ á¼ÏαγγελίαÏ, âthrough promise,â are antithetical, not by mutual exclusion, but in the fact that, though Isaac was begotten and born καÏá½° ÏάÏκα, his birth was also διʼ á¼ÏαγγελίαÏ, and was significant because of this, while the birth of Ishmael was simply καÏá½° ÏάÏκα. On the á¼Ïαγγελία here referred to, see Genesis 15:4, Genesis 17:19, and cf. chap. 3:18. The perfect γεγÎννηÏαι is used in preference to the aorist á¼Î³ÎµÎ½Î®Î¸Î·, because the writer is thinking not simply of the historical fact but of the existing result of that fact, in the race of Ishmaelâs descendants and especially (for γεγÎννηÏαι belongs in thought to both members of the sentence) in Isaacâs descendants.
WH. bracket μÎν, omitted by B f Vg. Tert. Hil. Hier. Yet the concurrent omission of such a word by one Grk. ms. and a small group of Latin authorities seems to raise no serious question of its belonging to the text. Between διʼ á¼ÏÎ±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¯Î±Ï (×AC 33, 442 al.) and διὰ Ïá¿Ï á¼ÏÎ±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¯Î±Ï (BDFGKLP al. pler. Or.) it is impossible to choose with confidence. Both readings are supported by good pre-Syrian groups. But the probability that Paul would have opposed to καÏá½° ÏάÏκα a qualitative διʼ á¼ÏÎ±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¯Î±Ï rather than used the article in referring to a promise not previously mentioned seems to turn the scale in favour of διʼ á¼Ï.
24. á¼ Ïινά á¼ÏÏιν�
The second of these meanings of the verb is excluded for the present passage by the fact that á¼ Ïινα evidently refers either to the persons and events just named or to the statements concerning them, not to their spiritual significates, which have not yet been named; whereas this meaning occurs only in reference to the spiritual significates. If, then, we take into consideration the two remaining and for this passage only possible significations and the possible usages of the present participle in predicate, there result the following possible interpretations of á¼ÏÏιν�Jeremiah 1:10. Such cases as Acts 15:27, Acts 15:21:3, 2 Peter 3:11 are only apparently vouchers for such a use of the participle, since, though they may be translated into English by âto be,â etc., they really denote not propriety, but impending futurity. To the same effect is the interpretation of Mey. Sief., âwhich things have an allegorical senseâ; which is sustained neither by any recognised force of the participle nor by specific instances of such a meaning of the passive of this verb. (2) á¼ÏÏιν�Romans 4:3: Ïί Î³á½°Ï á¼¡ γÏαÏá½´ λÎγει; Romans 10:6; v. 26 below, el freq., and in the passive, Hebrews 7:13, á¼Ïʼ δν Î³á½°Ï Î»ÎγεÏαι ÏαῦÏα. But for this idea a periphrastic present would scarcely be used, the expression being, indeed, approximately âaoristic,â neither progression nor customariness being distinctly suggested. (3) The participle may be a present participle for the imperfect, referring to an action, strictly speaking, antecedent in time to that of the principal verb (BMT 127; Matthew 2:20, etc.). But the pres. part. is apparently never used in this way when the fact referred to belongs definitely to time distinctly past in reference to the principal verb, as must be the case here it the utterance is thought of as past at all. (4) It may be a general present participle equivalent to a noun, and meaning âallegorical utterancesâ (BMT 123, 432 (a); MGNTG p. 127); cf. John 12:6. Ïá½° βαλλÏμενα âthe depositsâ; Romans 10:21, 1 Corinthians 15:29, 1 Thessalonians 2:12, 1 Thessalonians 2:5:24, 2 Thessalonians 1:6, Galatians 5:3, ÏεÏιÏεμνÏμενοÏ, âone who receives circumcisionâ; 6:6, 13, Ephesians 4:28, Romans 11:26, 1 Thessalonians 1:10, á½ á¿¥Ï ÏμενοÏ, âthe delivererâ; Philo, Leg. alleg. III 239 (85), ἵνα Ïὸ λεγÏμενον ⦠γÎνÏαι. It is true that N. T. furnishes no example of a present participle applied in just this way to utterances of scripture, such utterances, when designated by a participle used substantively, being always elsewhere expressed by a perfect participle (Ïὸ εἰÏημÎνον: Luke 2:24, Acts 2:16, Acts 13:40, Romans 4:18; Ïὸ γεγÏαμμÎνον: Acts 13:29, Acts 13:24:14, 2 Corinthians 4:13, Galatians 3:10, Revelation 1:3) or by an aorist participle (Ïὸ ῥηθÎν: Matthew 1:22 and ten other passages in Mt.). Yet in view of the frequent occurrence of the present participle of other verbs with substantive force (see exx. above) and of such expressions as ἡ γÏαÏá½´ λÎγει (Romans 4:3, etc.), λÎγεÏαι ÏαῦÏα (Hebrews 7:13; sc. á¼Î½ γÏαÏá¿), and ἡ γÏαÏá½´ ἡ λÎÎ³Î¿Ï Ïα (James 2:23), and the apparent use of�1 Corinthians 9:8, 1 Corinthians 9:10, 1 Corinthians 9:10:4, favours the former.
It is doubtful whether any stress can be laid on the fact that Paul uses the compound relative á¼ Ïινα rather than the simple á¼ . The generic force of á¼ Ïινα, âwhich as other like thingsâ (cf. Th. s. v. 2; MGNTG. p. 91 ff.; Ell. ad loc.) is appropriate enough in this place, conveying the thought that the predicate�Romans 1:25, Romans 1:32, Romans 1:2:15, Romans 1:6:2, Romans 1:9:4, Romans 1:11:4, Romans 1:16:4, Romans 1:7, 1 Corinthians 3:17, 2 Corinthians 8:10, Galatians 2:4, Galatians 5:4, Ephesians 4:19, Colossians 4:11, 2 Timothy 2:2, 2 Timothy 2:18, Titus 1:11, while οἵ occurs in Romans 16:7 only; αἵÏÎ¹Î½ÎµÏ occurs in Philippians 4:3, 1 Timothy 1:4, 1 Timothy 6:9, with no instance of αἵ; á¼ Ïινα occurs, besides the present passage, in Galatians 5:19, Philippians 3:7, Colossians 2:23; the only certain instance of á¼ in nom. is Colossians 2:22; in 1 Corinthians 4:6 and Titus 2:1 it was probably felt to be accus.; in Colossians 2:17 the reading is uncertain; in Ephesians 5:4 it is possibly an accus., but more probably a nom. If, then, the three cases of á¼ in the nom. (probably or certainly such), viz. Colossians 2:17, Colossians 2:22, Titus 2:1, be compared with the instances of á¼ Ïινα, it will be impossible to discover any difference in the relation of the relative clause to the antecedent that will account for the use of á¼ Ïινα in one group and á¼ in the other. This is especially clear in Colossians 2:22, Colossians 2:23, where of successive clauses in entirely similar relation to what precedes the former uses á¼ and the latter á¼ Ïινα. There is even less reason for ascribing to á¼¥ÏÎ¹Ï in vv. 25, 26 any force different from that of the simple relative than in the case of á¼ Ïινα here; for not only is it difficult to discover any of the logical relations sometimes intimated by the use of the compound relative, but Paulâs uniform employment of á¼¥ÏÎ¹Ï for the fem. sing. nom. forbids any argument based on his use of it here in preference to á¼¥.
αá½Ïαι Î³Î¬Ï Îµá¼°Ïιν δÏο διαθá¿ÎºÎ±Î¹, μία μὲν�Matthew 13:38, Mark 14:24; Philo, Cherub. 23 (7): γίνεÏαι οá½Î½ Ïὸ μὲν á¼ÏεÏον Ïῶν ÏεÏÎ¿Ï Î²á½¶Î¼ ἡ á¼Î¾ÏÏάÏÏ (ÏÏαίÏα). On διαθá¿ÎºÎ±Î¹, here meaning âcovenants,â not âtestaments,â see detached note on Îιαθήκη, p. 496. Of the two covenants here referred to, the first only is named, the phrase μία ⦠Σινά identifying it as the covenant involved in the giving of the law, a familiar idea, as is shown by Hebrews 8:9 (quoting Jeremiah 31:32) 9:4, 2 Corinthians 3:6, 2 Corinthians 3:14, Sir. 24:23, Ps. Sol. 10:5. The á¼ÏÎÏα διαθήκη implied in δÏο διαθá¿ÎºÎ±Î¹ and μία is left unnamed, but is evidently that of which faith is the basal principle and which is referred to in 3:15-17 as a covenant in contrast with the law, which is not there designated as a covenant.
Îµá¼°Ï Î´Î¿Ï Î»ÎµÎ¯Î±Î½ γεννῶÏα, âbringing forth children unto bondage,â i. e., bearing children destined to be slaves. The participle is adjective in force and timeless (BMT 123, 420). Applied to Hagar the phrase designates her as one who, being a slave woman, bears children who share her status of slavery. As applied to the Sinai covenant it refers to the fact that they who came under this covenant were in the position of slaves as being in bondage to the law. Cf. 4:1. The form of the expression, γεννῶÏα, etc., is, of course, determined by the fact literally taken; there is nothing in the spiritual experience exactly corresponding to the child-bearing.
It is assumed in O. T. that in general the offspring of a manâs slaves were also his slaves. See Genesis 14:14, Genesis 17:12, Genesis 17:13. The status of the children which a slave concubine bore to her master is not definitely defined. The Genesis story of Hagar and Ishmael indicates that the slave mother remained a slave at least in cases in which she had been a slave before becoming her masterâs concubine, and that her son was not ipso facto the heir of his father (Genesis 21:10), but suggests that the status of the son was at the option of the father.
á¼¥ÏÎ¹Ï á¼ÏÏὶν á¼Î³Î±Ï, âwhich is Hagar.â The clause is best taken as identifying. On the force of á¼¥ÏιÏ, see above on á¼ Ïινα and on that of á¼ÏÏίν, see εἰÏίν, above. This clause simply states that of the two women named above, Hagar represents in the allegory the covenant that proceeded from Sinai.
25. Ïὸ δὲ á¼Î³Î±Ï Σινὰ á½ÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏÏὶν á¼Î½ Ïá¿ á¼Ïαβίᾳ, âNow Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia.â It is not the woman Hagar (ἡ á¼Î³Î±Ï) of whom the statement is made, either as a historical person or as a character in the narrative to which he is giving an allegorical interpretation, but either the word, in which case á¼ÏÏίν affirms the equivalence of the two expressions á¼Î³Î±Ï and Σινὰ á½ÏÎ¿Ï (note the neuter article; cf. W. XVIII 3; Rob. 766), or, by association of á½ÏÎ¿Ï after Σινά with both á¼Î³Î±Ï and Σινά, the mountain (cf. WH. vol. II, ad loc., citing as parallel cases Romans 2:28ff. Romans 2:3:29). The clause accordingly implies that Mount Sinai was sometimes, directly or by implication, called Hagar or something sufficiently similar in sound to be so represented in Greek. Whether the statement is from the apostle or, as is on the whole more probable, a gloss from the hand of a scribe (see below, in discussion of the text), its intent is to confirm the previously affirmed identification of Hagar with the covenant proceeding from Sinai. Such a double name of the mountain has from the historical point of view no real value, of course, as proving a relation between Hagar and the Mount Sinai covenant; still less as proving that the favour of God rests on the spiritual followers of Abrahamâs faith rather than on his physical descendants. But the statement is consonant with the allegorical method of interpretation which the whole paragraph illustrates. If it is a gloss, it is by that fact a parenthesis, and is probably so in any case. The use of δΠ(rather than γάÏ) is probably due to the fact that as a parenthesis it is felt to be additional and incidental rather than a part of the main argument. Cf. Th. s. v. 6, and, as illustrating the approximation of δΠand Î³Î¬Ï in meaning which led to their interchange, see 1:11.
The following are the readings of the first clause attested by ancient evidence:
(a) Ïὸ Î³á½°Ï Î£Î¹Î½á½° á½ÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏÏίν: ×CFG 33 (but 33* app. Ïὸ δÎ) f g Vg. Arm. Aeth. Orig. (both Lat. tr. and Gr. as testified by Athan.; see Zahn, p. 296, citing Goltz.). Sah. reads: quae vero mons Sina est. Goth. omits γάÏ. It is important to note, however, that × adds á½Î½ reading: Ïὸ Î³á½°Ï Î£Î¹Î½á½° á½ÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏÏὶν á½Î½ á¼Î½ Ïá¿ á¼Ïαβίᾳ âFor Sinai is a mountain, being in Arabia.â But since without á¼Î³Î±Ï there would be no occasion to insert á½Î½, the probability is that á¼Î³Î±Ï has fallen out, and that the testimony of × is really in favour of the presence of á¼Î³Î±Ï in the text. (b) Ïὸ Î³á½°Ï á¼Î³Î±Ï Σινὰ á½ÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏÏίν: KL P 33** al. pler. Syr. (psh. et harcl. txt.) Arm. Chrys. Theod. Mops. Thdrt. Thphyl. (c) Ïὸ Î³á½°Ï á¼Î³Î±Ï á½ÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏÏίν: d. (d) Ïὸ δὲ á¼Î³Î±Ï Σινὰ á½ÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏÏίν: ABD 31, 442, 436, 40 lect. Syr. (harcl. mg.). Boh.: á¼Î³Î±Ï δὲ Σινά etc., some mss. omitting δÎ.
Of these readings both the character of the witnesses to (b) and its apparently conflate character indicate that it is derivative; (c) is too slightly attested to be considered. Modern editors are divided between (a) and (d), Westcott, Ltft., Zahn adopting (a), Hort, Ws. Sief. (d). The latter seems, on the whole, best supported. If the presence of á½Î½ in × in effect makes that ms. a witness not against but for a text containing á¼Î³Î±Ï (cf. Sief. ad loc.), the external evidence is distinctly more favourable to (d) than to (a); and transcriptional probability is likewise in favour of (d), since whether through the accidental omission of ÎEA, or through a feeling of the difficulty of this reading, (d) is easily susceptible of modification into (a) while there is nothing in the form or meaning of (a) to make its conversion into (d) likely.
The difficulty of interpretation, especially the absence of definite evidence of any usage that would account for the identification of Hagar and Sinai, either as names or places suggests the possibility of an interpolation at this point. Bentley (Letter to Mill, p. 45; according to Ellis, Bentleii Crit. Sac., he afterwards changed his mind and adopted reading (a)) suggested that the words Σινὰ á½ÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏÏὶν á¼Î½ Ïá¿ á¼Ïαβίᾳ were a marginal gloss afterwards introduced into the text; and Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus, I. 1, p. 171, et al., conjecture that the whole sentence Ïὸ δὲ ⦠á¼Ïαβίᾳ is an interpolation. Cf. Clemen, Einheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Briefe, pp. 118 f.
Either of these conjectural emendations would remove the obscurity of the passage as representing the thought of Paul, and transfer the words to another writer who would perhaps feel no necessity for a better basis for this additional piece of allegorising than his own imagination, or who may have heard Mount Sinai called á¼Î³Î±Ï or the like. Of the two suggestions that of Holsten is the simpler and more probable, and, in view of the process by which the Pauline epistles were collected and transmitted, not in itself improbable. See notes on 3:16b and 3:20.
Precisely what the fact was of which the apostle thus avails himself (if he wrote the sentence) we do not with certainty know. It may have been that he was aware that the Arabians or certain tribes of them were called sons of Hagar (×Ö·×ְרִ××, á¼Î³Î³Î±Ïηνοί, Psalms 83:7; ×Ö´×ְרִ××Ö´××, á¼Î³Î±Ïηνοί, 1Ch 5:19, cf. Ltft. ad loc.). Or he may have had in mind that there is an Arabic word, ḥagar, which may be reproduced in Hebrew as ××ר and signifies âcliff, rockâ; it is possible that the word may have been applied by the Arabs to that particular mountain which in Paulâs day was regarded as the scene of the giving of the law. To this it is no serious objection that the name of the mountain was on this theory ××ר, while that of the woman was ××ר, for scientific exactness in such a matter is not to be expected of an ancient writer. In the absence of definite evidence, however, that the word á¼Î³Î±Ï, or anything closely resembling it, was applied to a mountain also known as Σινά, all such suggestions must remain conjectures only. See Ltft., detached note, pp. 197ff. This fact has
influenced Ltft. Wies. Zahn, et al., to adopt the otherwise inferiorly attested reading Ïὸ Î³á½°Ï Î£Î¹Î½á½° á½ÏÎ¿Ï á¼ÏÏὶν á¼Î½ Ïá¿ á¼Ïαβίᾳ, interpreting it, however, variously. Ltft. translates: âFor Sinai is a mountain in Arabia,â i. e., in the land of bondsmen themselves descended from Hagar, and finds in this statement a confirmation not of á¼¥ÏÎ¹Ï á¼ÏÏὶν á¼Î³Î±Ï, but of Îµá¼°Ï Î´Î¿Ï Î»ÎµÎ¯Î±Î½ γεννῶÏα. Zahn interprets âFor Mount Sinai is in Arabia,â i. e., not in the promised land, the possession of which is the central element of the divine promise; from which it follows that the Sinai covenant does not involve the fulfilment of the promise, but, on the contrary, the enslavement of those to whom it is given. Both interpretations perhaps involve Paulâs assuming a knowledge on the part of the Galatians hardly likely to be possessed by them; but the decisive reasons are against the text rather than against the interpretation. See textual note. Ell. and Sief. reading Ïὸ δὲ á¼Î³Î±Ï understand the words á¼Î½ Ïá¿ á¼Ïαβίᾳ as defining not the location of Mount Sinai, but the region in which the name Hagar is applied to Sinai. This would be entirely possible if, instead of á¼ÏÏίν, Paul had written καλεá¿Ïαι (with the necessary change in the order of the words preceding á½ÏοÏ), but of such a geographical expression used in this sense in such a sentence as this no example is cited.
ÏÏ Î½ÏÏοιÏεῠδὲ Ïῠνῦν ἸεÏÎ¿Ï Ïαλήμ, âand corresponds to the Jerusalem that now is.â Best understood as continuing á¼¥ÏÎ¹Ï á¼ÏÏὶν á¼Î³Î±Ï after the parenthetical Ïὸ δὲ á¼Î³Î±Ï ⦠á¼Ïαβίᾳ. Yet the logical subject of ÏÏ Î½ÏÏοιÏεῠis rather á¼Î³Î±Ï than á¼¥ÏÎ¹Ï ( = μία διαθήκη), as Î´Î¿Ï Î»ÎµÏει Î³Î¬Ï indicates. The words continue the allegorical explanation of the O. T. passage, point by point. âThe Jerusalem that now isâ is manifestly used by metonymy for that Judaism of which Jerusalem was the centre.
The military use of ÏÏ Î½ÏÏοιÏεá¿Î½, âto stand in the same fileâ (Polyb. 10. 23 (21) 7) suggests that the two terms referred to are in the same column, on the same side of the parallelism. Thus Ltft., who represents the thought thus:
Hagar, the bond woman. Sarah, the freewoman.
Ishmael, the child after the flesh. Isaac, the child of promise.
The old covenant. The new covenant.
The earthly Jerusalem. The heavenly Jerusalem.
But the language of the apostle (note the use of the singular number and the term-by-term parallelism) indicates that he is not simply putting things into two columns, one containing all that falls on the side of the bond and the other all that belongs to the free, but is pointing out the equivalents of the several elements of the narrative allegorically treated. If, then, it is necessary to take the word in the precise sense suggested by Polybius, the following would seem to be the diagram that would represent the thought, the items 1, 2, 3, 4, at the head of the several columns representing the four elements of the narrative on which the apostle puts an allegorical interpretation, and the items below each of these representing the things for which they stand.
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Hagar, the bond woman, bearing children unto bondage. Ishmael, born after the flesh, born unto bondage. Sarah, the freewoman (bearing free children). Isaac, born according to promise.
(a) (a)
The covenant from Sinai. The new covenant.
(b) (b)
The Jerusalem that now is. The children of Jerusalem in bondage to legalism. Jerusalem that is above. The children of Jerusalem above, according to promise, free.
Yet it is doubtful whether our interpretation should be so strictly governed by the Polybius passage (which is itself not perfectly clear, and to which no parallel has been cited). The use of the verb in Musonius (cf. L.&S.) in a less technical sense, and the use of ÏÏ ÏÏοιÏία in Aristotle (Metaph. 1. 5, 6 (986a23), et al., ) to denote the relation of the members of a correlative pair, such as âodd and even,â âright and left,â suggests that Paul here meant simply âis correlative to,â âin the parallelism between narrative and its allegorical significance is the corresponding term.â The statement of Sief. that this sense would require�
26. ἡ δὲ á¼Î½Ï ἸεÏÎ¿Ï Ïαλὴμ á¼Î»ÎµÏ θÎÏα á¼ÏÏίν, âBut the Jerusalem above is free.â Instead of a formally perfect antithesis, either the Jerusalem that now is, and the Jerusalem that is to be, or the Jerusalem on earth and the Jerusalem above, the apostle mingles the two forms. The same point of view from which the seed of Abraham are, not the Jews, but believers in Christ, makes the new Jerusalem not the Jewish capital, but the community of believers in Jesus the Christ, and the conception of that community as destined soon to take up its abode in heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:15ff.) and as already living the heavenly life (cf. Philippians 3:20ff. Colossians 3:1-3) converts the Jerusalem that is to be, which would be the strict antithesis to the Jerusalem that now is, into the Jerusalem above (already existent). Hebrews 12:18ff. (see esp. v. 22) presents a similar contrast between Mount Sinai as the place and symbol of the giving of the law, and the heavenly Jerusalem as representing the community of believers (cf. v. 23), probably independently developed from the same root, not, of course, the source of Paulâs expression here. The freedom referred to in á¼Î»ÎµÏ θÎÏα is manifestly the same that is spoken of in 2:4, 5:1, and implied in antithesis to the Î´Î¿Ï Î»ÎµÎ¯Î± spoken of in 4:1-11.
The conception of a restored and beautiful Jerusalem appears even in the O. T., Ezek., chaps.40 ff. Zech., chap. 2 Haggai 2:6-9, and in other pre-Christian Jewish writings: Sir. 36:13ff. Tob. 13:9-18, 14:5, Ps. Sol. 17:33. In I Enoch 90:23, 29 the displacement of the old house by a new one is predicted (cf. Haggai 2:9). See Bous., Rel. d. Jude 1:2, p. 273; Charles, The Book of Enoch, note on 90:23. This conception of a new Jerusalem (though the precise phrase is apparently found first in Revelation 3:12; Revelation 21:2Revelation 21:2; Revelation 21:0Revelation 21:0:4EEzr 7:26, Ezra 7:13:36; Apoc. Bar. 32:2, which, like the Apocalypse of John, were written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D.) doubtless furnished the apostle with the basis of his conception here expressed.
á¼¥ÏÎ¹Ï á¼ÏÏὶν μήÏÎ·Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½Â· âwhich is our mother.â The form of expression is derived from the allegory of Hagar and Sarah; ἡμῶν refers to believers in Christ in general; the idea literally expressed would be, of which (community) we are members. The addition of ÏάνÏÏν by TR. may perhaps be traced to Polyc. Phil., chap. 3, or to the influence of Romans 4:16. On the force of á¼¥ÏιÏ, see note on á¼ Ïινα (v. 24).
27. γÎγÏαÏÏαι Î³á½°Ï âÎá½ÏÏάνθηÏι, ÏÏεá¿Ïα ἡ οὠÏίκÏÎ¿Ï Ïα· á¿¥á¿Î¾Î¿Î½ καὶ βÏηÏον, ἡ οá½Îº á½ Î´Î¯Î½Î¿Ï Ïα· á½ Ïι Ïολλὰ Ïá½° ÏÎκνα Ïá¿Ï á¼ÏÎ®Î¼Î¿Ï Î¼á¾¶Î»Î»á¼ á¼¢ Ïá¿Ï á¼ÏοÏÏÎ·Ï Ïὸν á¼Î½Î´Ïα.â âFor it is written, Rejoice thou barren woman that bearest not, break forth and shout, thou that travailest not. For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband.â The quotation is from Isaiah 54:1, and follows exactly the text of the Lxx (B×A Q), which neglects to translate the ×¨Ö´× Ö¼Ö¸×, ârejoicing,â âsinging,â of the Hebrew. In the prophet the words are probably to be joined with 52:12; they are conceived of as addressed to the ideal Zion, bidding her rejoice in the return of the exiles, Yahweh leading (cf. 52:7-12). The barren woman is Jerusalem in the absence of the exiles, the woman that hath a husband is Jerusalem before the exile; and the comparison signifies that her prosperity after the return from exile was to exceed that which she had enjoyed before the captivity. There may possibly underlie the words of the prophet a reference to Sarah and Hagar as suggesting the symbolism of the passage (cf. 51:2), but there is no clear indication of this. The apostle, also, in quoting them may have thought of the barren woman as corresponding to Sarah, who till late in life had no child, and the woman that hath a husband to Hagar. But his chief thought is of the O. T. passage as justifying or illustrating his conception of a new redeemed Jerusalem whose glory is to surpass that of the old, the language being all the more appropriate for his purpose because it involved the same figure of Jerusalem as a mother, which he had himself just employed, unless, indeed, v. 26 is itself suggested by the passage which was about to be quoted. There is a possible further basis for the apostleâs use of the passage in the fact that its context expresses the thought that God is the redeemer not of Israel after the flesh, but of those in whose heart is his law (cf. 51:1-8, esp. v. 7). But whether the apostle had this context in mind is not indicated. The Î³Î¬Ï is doubtless confirmatory, and connects the whole statement with á¼¥ÏÎ¹Ï á¼ÏÏὶν μήÏÎ·Ï á¼¡Î¼á¿¶Î½.
28. á½Î¼Îµá¿Ï δÎ,�
ÎαÏά in the sense âlike,â âafter the manner of,â occurs not infrequently in classic writers (L.&S. s. v. B. III 3) and in N. T. Cf. Ephesians 4:24, 1 Peter 1:15, 1 Peter 4:6, Hebrews 8:9. The position of á¼ÏÎ±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¯Î±Ï (gen. of characteristic) is emphatic. The term is qualitative, but the reference is undoubtedly to the promise already repeatedly referred to in the epistle (3:16, 18, 21, 22). Whose children they are, whether sons of God or sons of Abraham is not emphasised; but the context as a whole implies the latter. To take ÏÎκνα as meaning children of the Jerusalem above (Sief.) is to insist upon a closeness of connection with v. 27 which is not only not justified by anything in this v. but is practically excluded by the phrase καÏá½° ἸÏαάκ and vv. 29ff.
29.�1 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Thessalonians 2:16) are also in mind is possible but not probable. The persecution of Isaac probably refers to Genesis 21:9, and the traditions that had gathered about it, but the apostle may also have had in mind the mutual hostility of the nations supposed to have descended from the two brothers.
The adversative�Genesis 21:9 reads ÏαίζονÏα μεÏá½° ἸÏαὰκ Ïοῦ Ï á¼±Î¿á¿¦ á¼Î±Ï Ïá¿Ï. On the possibility that this represents an original Hebrew different from our present Hebrew, and on the rabbinic expansion of the incident, see Ltft. ad loc. The Talmud (Beresch. Rabb. 53:15) says: âDixit Ismael Isaaco: Eamus et videamus portionem noscram in agro; et tulit Ismael arcum et sagittas, et jaculatus est Isaacum et prae se tulit, ac si luderet.â (Quoted by Wies. ad loc.) For καÏá½° Ïνεῦμα we should naturally expect καÏʼ á¼Ïαγγελίαν (3:29) or διʼ á¼ÏÎ±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»Î¯Î±Ï (v. 23). The introduction of Ïνεῦμα might naturally be explained as a substitution of the giver of the promise for the promise. But while Paul speaks of the Spirit as the content of the promise (3:14), he is not wont to speak of the promises or prophecies as given by the Spirit (cf. Mark 12:36), and in the absence of such usage it seems necessary to suppose that the phrase stands in the clause by a species of trajection from the clause which expresses the second element of the comparison, οá½ÏÏÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ νῦν. The full sentence would have read á½¥ÏÏÎµÏ Î³á½°Ï â¦ á¼Î´Î¯Ïκε Ïὸν καÏá½° á¼Ïαγγελίαν, οá½ÏÏÏ ÎºÎ±á½¶ νῦν ὠκαÏá½° ÏάÏκα Ïὸν καÏá½° Ïνεῦμα. Cf. Romans 8:5. That Ïνεῦμα is in the apostleâs vocabulary the usual antithesis to ÏάÏξ (cf. 3:8, 5:16, 17, 6:8, Romans 8:4ff.) may also have had some influence. If the phrase be thought of strictly with reference to Isaac it must be explained by the fact that the promise pertaining to Isaac involved also the ultimate bestowal of the Spirit. Cf. 3:14. But see also Philo, Leg. alleg. III 219 (77): ἸÏαὰκ á¼Î³ÎννηÏεν ὠκÏÏιοÏ.
30.�Genesis 21:10, and follows the Lxx except that it omits ÏαÏÏην after ÏαιδίÏκην and substitutes Ïá¿Ï á¼Î»ÎµÏ θÎÏÎ±Ï for Î¼Î¿Ï á¼¸Ïαάκ at the end. The language is that of Sarah to Abraham, but probably neither this fact nor the statement of v. 12 that God said to Abraham, âIn all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice,â has anything to do with Paulâs use of this passage here. From the point of view of the allegorical interpretation every scripture is significant; cf. under v. 24. Allegorically interpreted the expulsion of Ishmael points to a rejection of the children of Abraham according to the flesh in favour of the sons of Abraham by faith.
31. διÏ,�
This verse is so evidently by its very termsânote ÏαιδίÏκηÏ, á¼Î»ÎµÏ θÎÏαÏ, etc., occurring in the preceding verses but not after this pointâthe conclusion of the allegorical argument introduced in v. 21, that it is surprising that it should ever have been thought of otherwise. So, e. g., Meyer. It is a matter of less consequence whether v. 31 is an inference from v. 30 or the summary of 21-30. But since from v. 30, even if the premise, âwe as Christians correspond to Isaacâ (cf. Sief.), be supplied, the natural conclusion is not âwe are children of the free,â but, âwe as children of the freewoman are heirs of the promiseâ; it is more probable that we should take this sentence as the summation of the whole allegorical argument (cf. the use of Î´Î¹Ï in 2 Corinthians 12:10, 1 Thessalonians 5:11) and as expressing the thought which the apostle wished by this whole paragraph to impress upon the minds of the Galatians.
Cf. Confer, compare.
Lxx The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. Quotations are from the edition of H. B. Swete. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1887-94.
B Burton, Ernest De Witt, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. Third edition. Chicago, 1898.
Did. ÎιδαÏá½´ Ïῶν δÏδεκα á¼ÏοÏÏÏλÏν. Various editions.
Sief. Sieffert, F. Galatien und seine ersten Christengemeinden, in Zeitschrift für nistorische Theologie., vol. XLI, 1871.
* Dem. 952:19: λάβε δή μοι καὶ Ïὸν Ïá¿Ï ÏÏοθεÏÎ¼Î¯Î±Ï Î½Ïμον. Plato, Legg. XII 954 D: á¼á½°Î½ δὲ καÏʼ Î¿á¼°ÎºÎ¯Î±Ï á¼Î½ á¼ÏÏει ÏÎ ÏÎ¹Ï ÏÏá¿Ïαι, ÏÏιεÏá¿ Ïὴν ÏÏοθεÏμίαν εἷναι, á¼Î±Î½ δὲ καÏ·�
C C. Codex EphrÅmi Rescriptus. Fifth century. In National Library, Paris. As its name implies, it is a palimpsest, the text of the Syrian Father Ephrem being written over the original biblical text. New Testament portion edited by Tischendorf, 1843. Contains Galatians 1:21, á¼ÏειÏα to the end, except that certain leaves are damaged on the edge, causing the loss of a few words. So e. g. ξá¿Î»Î¿Ï or ξá¿Î»Î¿Î¹, Galatians 5:20.
Chrys. Joannes Chrysostomus. â 407. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paulâs Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 228.
Euthal. Euthalius. 459. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paulâs Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 230, and Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.
Thdrt. Theodoretus. â ca. 458. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paulâs Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 230; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.
Bous. Bousset, Wilhelm, in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen, 1907. 2te Aufl., 1908.
Wies. Wieseler, Karl, Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Galater. Göttingen, 1859.
Th. Thayer, Joseph Henry, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament. New York, 1886. Rev. edition, 1889.
Ltft. Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paulâs Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions.
Kühner-Gerth Kühner, Raphael, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Dritte Auflage in neuer Bearbeitung, besorgt von Bernhard Gerth. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1898, 1904.
L.&S. Liddell, H. G., and Scott, R., Greek English Lexicon. Seventh edition revised. New York, 1882.
Ell. Ellicott, Charles John, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paulâs Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1854. Various subsequent editions.
JBL The Journal of Biblical Literature.
Encyc. Bib. Encyclopedia Biblica. Edited by T. K. Cheyne and J. S. Black. 4 vols. London, 1899-1903.
W. Winer, G. B., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms. Various editions and translations.
Introd. Introduction.
Grot. Grotius, Hugo (Huig van Groot), Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. Paris, 1644. See Sanday, Wm., and Headlam, A. C.. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh and New York, 1895. , p. civ.
Butt. Buttmann, A., A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. E. T. by J. H. Thayer. Andover, 1873.
M. and M. Moulton, J. H., and Milligan, G., Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. 1914-.
Rob. Robertson, Archibald T., Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York, 1914.
33 33 (Tischendorf, Constantin, Novum Testamentum GrÅce. 17). Ninth or tenth century. In National Library, Paris. Called by Eichhorn âthe queen of the cursives.â Cited by Tischendorf in Galatians more frequently than any other cursive. Contains the Prophets as well as Gospels, Acts, Cath. Epp. and Paul.
424 424 (Tischendorf, Constantin, Novum Testamentum GrÅce. Paul 67). Eleventh century. In Vienna. It is in the corrections of the second hand (424:2) that the pre-Syrian element especially appears. See Westcott and Hort, [Westcott, B. F., and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the original Greek. London, 1881. Vol. I, Text; vol. II, Introduction and Appendix.] Introd. § 212, p. 155.
442 442 (Tischendorf, Constantin, Novum Testamentum GrÅce. 73). Thirteenth century. In Upsala.
Vg. Vulgate, text of the Latin Bible.
Dam. Joannes Damascenus. â ca. 756. See Sanday, Wm., and Headlam, A. C.. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh and New York, 1895. , p. c.; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.
Hier. Eusebius Hieronymus (Jerome). â 420. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paulâs Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 232, and Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.
Thphyl. Theophylactus. Ca. 1077.
Victorin. C. Marius Victorinus. Ca. 360 a.d. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paulâs Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 231; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.;
Aug. Aurelius Augustinus. Ca. 394. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paulâs Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 232; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.
Ambrst. Ambrosiaster. Ca. 305 a.d. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paulâs Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 232; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.
K K. Codex Mosquensis. Ninth century. In Moscow.
Mey. Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm, Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch über den Brief an die Galater. Göttingen, 1841, in Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 1832-59. E. T., with bibliography, by Venables and Dickson. Edinburgh, 1873-85. Various later editions. See also under Sieffert, F. Galatien und seine ersten Christengemeinden, in Zeitschrift für nistorische Theologie., vol. XLI, 1871.
Wetst. Wetstein (or Wettstein), J. J., Novum Testamentum Græcum. Amsterdam, 1751, 1752.
WH. Westcott, B. F., and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the original Greek. London, 1881. Vol. I, Text; vol. II, Introduction and Appendix.
RV. The Holy Bible, Revised Oxford, N.T., 1881, O.T.1884.
Tert. Tertullian. â ca. 223. See Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.
P P. Codex Porphyrianus. Ninth century. In Imperial Library, Petrograd. Published by Tischendorf in Mon. Sac. Ined. Bd. V, 1865.
M Moulton, J. H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. I. Prolegomena. Edinburgh, 1906.
* Against the strong evidence that Paul ascribed historicity to the O. T. narratives, including those here referred to, the word�
C C. Codex EphrÅmi Rescriptus. Fifth century. In National Library, Paris. As its name implies, it is a palimpsest, the text of the Syrian Father Ephrem being written over the original biblical text. New Testament portion edited by Tischendorf, 1843. Contains Galatians 1:21, á¼ÏειÏα to the end, except that certain leaves are damaged on the edge, causing the loss of a few words. So e. g. ξá¿Î»Î¿Ï or ξá¿Î»Î¿Î¹, Galatians 5:20.
Cyr. Cyril of Alexandria. â 444. See Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.
Cf. Confer, compare.