10

Church is regarded as the house or temple of God; as Rev. iii. 12 Tоinow αὐτὸν στύλον ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ μου: comp. 1 Tim. iii. 15. The accent of OTÚλos is doubtful. On the one hand the v is universally long in poetry even of a late date (see Rost u. Palm, Griech. Wörterb. s. v., and comp. Orac. Sib. iii. 250, 251). On the other, the authority of the oldest accents in the Mss, and the quantity of the Latin 'stylus,' are in favour of στύλος. The latter not improbably represents the common pronunciation of the Apostolic age. See Lipsius Gramm. Unters. p. 43.

δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν] 'gave pledges The outward gesture is lost sight of in this expression, as appears from the fact that the plural δεξιὰς δοῦναι, δεξιάς Xaμßável, is often used of a single person; 1 Macc. xi. 50, 62, xiii. 50. As a symbol of contract or friendship this does not appear prominently in the Old Testament (Ezr. x. 19, and perhaps 2 Kings x. 15; see below on Kowvwvías), nor is it especially Jewish. In the patriarchal times the outward gesture which confirmed an oath was different, Gen. xxiv. 2. The giving the right hand however was a recognised pledge of fidelity with other Eastern nations, with the Persians especially (Corn. Nep. Dat. c. 10 'fidemque de ea re more l'ersarum dextra dedisset,' Diod. xvi. 43 ἔστι δὲ ἡ πίστις αὕτη βεβαιοτάτη παρὰ τοῖς Πέρσαις, comp. Justin xi. 15. 13); and from Persian influence the symbol and the phrase may have become more common among the Jews. Even Josephus (Ant. xviii. 9. 3) speaks of this not as a Jewish practice, but as μέγιστον παρὰ πᾶσι τοῖς ἐκείνῃ βαρβάροις παράδειγμα τοῦ θαρσεῖν τοῖς ὁμιλοῦσιν, in reference to Artabanus the Parthian king. Where

personal communication was inconvenient, it was customary to send images of right hands clasped, as a token of friendship: Xen. Anab. ii. 4. I deξιὰς παρὰ βασιλέως φέροντες, Ages. 3. 4; comp. Tacit. Hist. i. 54, ii. 8.

KoLvovias] of fellowship,' not a superfluous addition, for 'to give the hand' (n) in the language of the Old Testament, like the Latin 'do manus,' generally signifies 'to surrender,' e.g. Lament. v. 6, 2 Chron. xxx. 8: see Gesen. Thes. p. 566.

ἵνα ἡμεῖς] The ellipsis of the verb occurs in St Paul under various conditions. A foregoing va is one of these; see I Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. viii. 13, Rom. iv. 16: comp. 2 Cor. viii. 11.

10. 'Henceforth our spheres of labour were to be separate. One reservation however was made. They asked me to continue, as I had done hitherto, to provide for the wants of the poor brethren of Judæa. Independently of their request, it was my own earnest desire.'

μóvor] 'only they asked us': comp. Ignat. Rom. 5 μόνον ἵνα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐπιτύχω. For similar instances of an ellipsis after μóvov, see vi. 12, 2 Thess. ii. 7 μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται. The latter passage presents an exact parallel also in the derangement of the order for the sake of emphasis.

Two occasions are recorded, on which St Paul was the bearer of alms from the Gentile converts to the poor of Jerusalem; (1) on his second journey to Jerusalem, Acts xi. 29, 30, some years before the interview of which he is speaking; and (2) on his fifth and last journey, Rom. xv. 26, 27, I Cor. xvi. 3, Cor. ix. I sq, Acts xxiv. 17, shortly after this letter was written. These facts throw light on the incident

in the text. His past care for their poor prompted this request of the elder Apostles. His subsequent zeal in the same cause was the answer to their appeal.

ὁ καὶ ἐσπούδασα κ.τ.λ.] ‘this was my own heartfelt desire.' 'I needed no prompting to do this.' The Galatians had personal experience of this zeal, for their own alms had been solicited by St Paul for this very purpose shortly before, I Cor. xvi. 1-3. See the introduction, pp. 25, 55.

The transition from the plural (μmμονεύωμεν) to the singular (ἐσπούδασα) is significant. Before St Paul had any opportunity of fulfilling this request, he had parted from Barnabas; Acts XV. 39.

avrò TOUTO] is best taken in apposition with o, see Winer § xxiii. p. 184 sq; a construction not without example in classical Greek, but more frequent in the LXX and New Testament, inasmuch as it reproduces the common Hebrew idiom: comp. Mark vii. 25, Acts xv. 17, 1 Pet. ii. 24.

11-14. 'At Jerusalem, I owed nothing to the Apostles of the Circumcision. I maintained my independence and my equality. At Antioch I was more than an equal. I openly rebuked the leading Apostle of the Circumcision, for his conduct condemned itself. He had been accustomed to mix freely with the Gentiles, eating at the same table with them. But certain persons arrived from James, and he timidly withdrew himself. He had not courage to face the displeasure of the Jewish converts. The rest were carried away by his example. Even Barnabas, my colleague, and fellowapostle of the Gentiles, went astray.'

11. "Ore dé] This occurred probably during the sojourn of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, immediately after the Apostolic congress (Acts xv. 30-40).

12

The inconsistency which St Peter thus appears to have shown so soon after his championship of Gentile liberty at the congress, is rather in favour of than against this view; for the point of St Paul's rebuke is his inconsistency. But in fact there is scarcely an alternative. An earlier residence at Antioch (Acts xiii. 1-3) is out of the question, for St Paul is plainly narrating events in chronological order. Neither again is it probable that a later occasion (Acts xviii. 23) can be intended; for after the separation of Paul and Barnabas, there is no notice of their meeting again.

To this passage is probably to be attributed the ecclesiastical tradition that St Peter founded the Church of Antioch (Euseb. Chron. A.D. 44). Jerome (ad loc.) states still more definitely that he was bishop of this see first, whence he was translated to Rome. See also Euseb. H. E. iii. 22, 36, Chrysost. Op. ш. p. 7o, ed. Ben.

Kатеуvσμévоs] not 'reprehensible,' but 'condemned.' His conduct carried its own condemnation with it, as St Paul shows vv. 15 sq: comp. Rom. xiv. 23 ὁ διακρινόμενος, ἐὰν φάγῃ, και τακέκριται, Joh. iii. 18 ὁ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, Barnab. 10 κεκριμένοι nôn tập Bavara, Joseph. B. J. ii. 8. 6 ἤδη γὰρ κατεγνώσθαί φασι κ.τ.λ. The condemnation is not the verdict of the bystanders, but the verdict of the act itself.

This passage was made the ground of an attack on St Paul in an Ebionite fiction of the second century, where St Peter says to Simon Magus (whose name is used as a mask for St Paul), "Thou hast withstood me to the face ...If thou callest me condemned, thou accusest God who revealed Christ to me.' See the whole passage Clem. Hom. xvii. 19: comp. p. 61, and the notes on ii. 13, iv. 16, 24.

12. ἐλθεῖν τινὰς ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου] certain came from James. Of these nothing more can safely be inferred than that they belonged to the Church of Jerusalem. It is not improbable however, that they came invested with some powers from James which they abused. Compare the expression in the Apostolic letter (which seems to have been drawn up by him) Acts xv. 24, τινὲς ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξελθόντες ἐτάραξαν ὑμᾶς...οἷς οὐ διεστειλάμεθα, and xv. 1 τινὲς κατελθόντες ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰουδαίας. The terms on which St James stood with believers of this stamp may be gathered from the language in Acts xxi. 20 8q.

συνήσθιεν] The Judaizers who troubled the Church at this time are described, Acts xv. 5, as converts belonging to the sect of the Pharisees. The prohibition against eating meat with the impure was one of the leading principles of this sect, Luke xv. 2. As the agape was the recognised bond of brotherhood in the infant Church, this separation struck at the very root of Christian life. St Peter's vision (see especially Acts x. 27, xi. 3) had taught him the worthlessness of these narrow traditions. He had no scruples about living ἐθνικῶς. And when in this instance he separated himself from the Gentiles, he practically dissembled his convictions.

ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον] ‘but when they came The reading ἦλθεν yields no good sense, whether we refer it to St James with Origen (c. Cels. ii. 1 èλθόντος Ἰακώβου) or to St Peter with other writers. I have given it a place nevertheless, as an alternative reading, on account of the weight of au

thority in its favour: for though it can scarcely have been the word intended by St Paul, it may possibly be due to an error of the original amanuensis. For a similar instance of a manifestly false reading highly supported and perhaps to be explained in this way, see Phil. ii. 1 εἴ τις σπλάγ χνα καὶ οἰκτιρμοί. Such readings are a valuable testimony to the scrupulous exactness of the older transcribers, who thus reproduced the text as they found it, even when clearly incorrect. In this passage the occurrence of the same words ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν, ver. II, is the probable cause of the mistake.

ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν] gradually withdrew and separated himself.' Both verbs govern ἑαυτόν: compare Polyb. vii. 17. 1 ὑπέστειλαν ἑαυτοὺς ὑπό τινα προπεπτωκυῖαν ὀφρύν. The words describe forcibly the cautious withdrawal of a timid person who shrinks from observation, ὑπέστελλεν denoting the partial, ἀφώριζεν the complete and final separation. The word ὑποστέλλειν is frequently used, as in the passage quoted, in describing strategical operations; and so far as it is metaphorical here, the metaphor seems to be derived from military rather than from nautical matters. Comp. στέλλεσθαι, 2 Thess. iii. 6.

τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς] not ‘Jews but 'converts from Judaism,' for this seems to be the force of the preposition: Acts x. 45, xi. 2, Col. iv. 11, Tit. i. 10.

13. οἱ λοιποὶ Ἰουδαῖοι] i.e. the rest of the Jewish converts resident at Antioch, who, like St Peter, had mixed freely with the Gentiles until

the arrival of their brethren from Jerusalem. The observance of Pharisaic practices with the latter was a genuine expression of bigotry, but with the Jews of Antioch and with St Peter it was vñóκρiσis, the assumption of a part which masked their genuine feelings and made them appear otherwise than they were.

The idea at the root of vπóκρious is not a false motive entertained, but a false impression produced. The writer of the epistle prefixed to the Clementines, doubtless alluding to this passage, speaks of some who misrepresented Peter, as though he believed that the law was abolished, 'but did not preach it openly'; Ep. Petr. § 2. See on ver. II.

καὶ Βαρνάβας] ‘eren Barnabas my own friend and colleague, who so lately had gone up to protect the interests of the Gentiles against the pressure of the Pharisaic brethren.' It is not impossible that this incident, by producing a temporary feeling of distrust, may have prepared the way for the dissension between Paul and Barnabas which shortly afterwards led to their separation: Acts XV. 39.

From this time forward they never again appear associated together. But on the other hand, whenever St Paul mentions Barnabas, his words imply sympathy and respect. This feeling underlies the language of his complaint here, 'even Barnabas.' In I Cor. ix. 6 also he connects Barnabas with himself, as one who had laboured in the same disinterested spirit and had the same claims upon the Gentile converts. Lastly in Col. iv. 10 he commends Mark to the Colossian Church, as being the cousin of Barnabas.

συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει] was

carried away with their dissimulation,' as the A. V. rightly. Their dissimulation was as a flood which swept every thing away with it. Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 17 ἵνα μὴ τῇ τῶν ἀθέσμων πλάνῃ συναπαχθέντες ἐκπέσητε κ.τ.λ., Zosimus Hist. v. 6 καὶ αὐτὴ δὲ ἡ Σπάρτη συναπήγετο τῇ κοινῇ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἁλώσει. In all these passages the dative seems to be governed by the preposition, and cannot without harshness be taken as the instrumental

case.

14, 15. 'Seeing that they had left the straight path and abandoned the true principles of the Gospel, I remonstrated with Cephas publicly. Thou thyself, though born and bred a Jew, dost nevertheless lay aside Jewish customs and livest as the Gentiles. On what plea then dost thou constrain the Gentiles to adopt the institutions of the Jews?'

14. οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς κ.τ.λ.] i.e. they diverge from the straight path of the Gospel truth.' The word ὀρθοποδεῖν appears not to occur elsewhere, except in later ecclesiastical writers, where its use may be traced to this passage of St Paul. Its classical equivalent is εὐθυπορεῖν. The preposition pòs here denotes not the goal to be attained, but the line of direction to be observed: see Winer § xlix. p. 505. For ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου see the note on ii. 5.

εἶπον] Were all the concluding verses of the chapter actually spoken by St Paul at the time, or is he adding a comment while narrating the incident afterwards to the Galatians; and if so, where does the text cease and the comment begin? To this question it seems impossible to give a definite answer. St Paul's narrative in fact loses itself in the reflexions suggested by it. Text and comment are so

blended together that they cannot be separated without violence. The use of the word ἁμαρτωλοί, vv. 15, 17, marks the language of one speaking as a Jew to Jews, and therefore may be regarded as part of the original remonstrance; and yet, though there is no break in the continuity from that point onward, we find at the end of the chapter that St Paul's thoughts and language have drifted away from Peter at Antioch to the Judaizers in Galatia. For similar instances where the direct language of the speaker is intermingled with the after comment of the narrator, see John i. 15—18, where the testimony of the Baptist loses itself in the thoughts of the Evangelist, and Acts i. 16-21, where St Peter's allusion to the death of Judas is interwoven with the after explanations of St Luke.

Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων] almost equivalent to φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι below; see i. 14. In such cases iñáрxwv implies a contrast between the original and the after state, e.g. in Phil. ii. 6. Here it is very emphatic; 'If you, born and bred a Jew, discard Jewish customs, how unreasonable to impose them on Gentiles.'

¿Ovikŵs Cŷs] i.e. mix freely with the Gentiles and thus of necessity disregard the Jewish law of meats. The present tense describes St Peter's general principles, as acted upon long before at Cæsarea (Acts x. 28), and just lately at Antioch (ver. 12), though at the exact moment when St Paul was speaking, he was living 'Iovdaïkŵs and not ἐθνικῶς.

οὐχ Ἰουδαϊκῶς] The best Mss agree in reading the aspirated form οὐχ. For other examples of anomalous aspirates in the Greek Testament see

16

Winer S v. p. 48, and comp. the note on Phil. ii. 23 àpidw. In this particular instance the aspirate may perhaps be accounted for by the yh with which the Hebrew word (D'IN') represented by 'Iovdaîoi commences.

ȧvayκáčeɩs] i.e. practically oblige them, though such was not his intention. The force of his example, concealing his true principles, became a species of compulsion.

'Iovdaitew] to adopt Jewish customs,' opposed to oviks s which in connexion with Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων is equivalent to λλnvíčew; comp. Esth. viii. 17 καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν περιετέμον το καὶ Ἰουδάϊζον διὰ τὸν φόβον τῶν ̓Ιουδαίων, Plut. Vit. Cic. 7 ἔνοχος τῷ Ἰουδαί ζειν. See the note on 'Ιουδαϊσμός, i. 13.

15, 16. ‘Only consider our own case. We were born to all the privileges of the Israelite race: we were not sinners, as we proudly call the Gentiles. What then? We saw that the observance of law would not justify any man, that faith in Jesus Christ was the only means of justification. Therefore we turned to a belief in Christ. Thus our Christian profession is itself an acknowledgment that such observances are worthless and void, because, as the Scripture declares, no flesh can be justified by works of law.'

Of many constructions proposed, the simplest and best is to understand the substantive verb in ver. 15, 'We (are) Jews by birth etc.' The de of ver. 16, which is omitted in the received text, is certainly genuine.

15. φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι] Jews by birth, not only not Gentiles, but not even proselytes. We inherited the Jewish religion. Everything was done for us, which race could do.' See especially Phil. iii. 4, 5.