is quoted by Justin, Dial. p. 323 0, exactly as by St Paul; see p. 60, and the note on ver. 10. Our Lord had died the death of the worst malefactors: He had undergone that punishment, which under the law betokened the curse of God. So far He had become kaтápa. But He was in no literal sense κατάρατος ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, and St Paul instinctively omits those words which do not strictly apply, and which, if added, would have required some qualification.

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

As regards the construction, either (1) The two clauses introduced by iva are coordinate, as in 2 Cor. ix. 3, expressing the coincidence in time of the extension of the blessing to the Gentiles and the introduction of the dispensation of the Spirit; or (2) The second clause with iva is attached to the first, expressing the moral dependence of the one on the other. The passage from the Ephesians already referred to favours the latter.

τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν κ.τ.λ.] ‘we, ie. all the faithful, whether Jews or Gentiles, may receive the promise.' The divine promise in the New Testament is always ἐπαγγελία not ὑπόσχεσις, ‘pollicitum' not 'promissum,' a gift graciously bestowed and not a pledge obtained by negotiation. Indeed the substantive émayyeλía is scarcely ever used (Acts xxiii. 21 is an exception) of anything else but the divine

promise. The phrase λaμßável TηV ἐπαγγελίαν is employed not of those to whom the promise is given, but of those to whom it is fulfilled; as Acts ii. 33, Heb. ix. 15. So also émiruyxávew tŷs éπayyeλías Heb. vi. 15, περιμένειν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν, Acts i. 4. With this use of ἐπαγγελία, compare that of Amis, wiσris, etc., for the object of faith, of hope, etc.

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

15. 'Adeλpoí] 'Brethren.' There is a touch of tenderness in the appeal here, as if to make amends for the severity of the foregoing rebuke, iii. I sq. comp. iv. 31, vi. 1.

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

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον περιπατείτε, Gal. i. 11, 1 Cor. xv. 32 εἰ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἐθηριομάχησα κ.τ.λ., 'If from nothing more than worldly motives I fought with beasts etc.,' where the false interpretation of karà aveрwπov, 'metaphorically,' has been supported by the mistaken analogy of the passage in our text. For the usage of κarà aveрorov in profane authors see the quotations in Wetstein on Rom. iii. 5.

ὅμως ἀνθρώπου] The force is well given in the A. V., 'though it be but a man's covenant,' i.e. κaíñep ȧveрanov ovσav, õμws K.T.λ.; comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 7 ὅμως τὰ ἄψυχα φωνὴν δίδοντα, Pausan. i. 28. 1 Κύλωνα...ἀνέθεσαν τυραννίδα όμως βουλεύσαντα. In classical writers this displacement of ouws, so as to connect it with the word or clause to which it applies, appears to occur chiefly, if not solely, with participles, and not as here and I Cor. xiv. 7.

The argument is here an a fortiori argument, as those of our Lord drawn from the affection of a human father (Luke xi. 11 sq) and from the compliance of a human judge (Luke xviii. I sq). See esp. Heb. vi. 16. The a fortiori character of the reasoning however is dismissed in the single word ouws, except so far as it is picked up again in τοῦ Θεοῦ (ver. 17), and does not reappear, as some have thought, in ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός.

dia@nny] 'a covenant.' This word (frequently in the plural dia@kaɩ) in classical writers almost always sigui fies 'a will, a testament.' There are some few exceptions, however, e.g. Arist. 40. 439 ἢν μὴ διάθωνταί γ ̓ οἶδε διαθήκην ἐμοί. On the other hand in the LXX it is as universally used of a covenant (most frequently as a trans

lation of ), whether as a stipulation between two parties (συνθήκη, 'a covenant' in the strict sense) or as an engagement on the part of one. Nor in the New Testament is it ever found in any other sense, with one exception. Even in this exceptional case, Heb. ix. 15-17, the sacred writer starts from the sense of a 'covenant,' and glides into that of a 'testament,' to which he is led by two points of analogy, (1) the inheritance conferred by the covenant, and (2) the death of the person making it. "The disposition in this case,' he says in effect, 'was a testamentary disposition, a will.' In the passage before us, on the other hand, the mere mention of the inheritance (ver. 18) is not sufficient to establish the sense 'a testament,' which is ill suited to the context: comp. Justin, Dial. c. Tryph. § 11, p. 228 B. Owing partly to the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews and partly to the influence of the Latin version, which ordinarily rendered the word by 'testamentum' (as here), the idea of a testament connected itself inseparably with dialńkŋ. As a name for the sacred books, 'testamentum' had not firmly established itself at the close of the second century, and Tertullian frequently uses 'instrumentum' instead; see esp. adv. Marc. iv. I, and comp. Kaye's Tertullian p. 299. The LXX translators and the New Testament writers probably preferred διαθήκη to συνθήκη when speaking of the divine dispensation, because the former term, like rayyeXía, better expresses the free grace of God. The later Greek translators frequently substituted συνθήκη, where the LXx has diabnκn, sometimes perhaps not without a polemical aim.

áberei] Comp. Philo Fragm. II. p. 675 Μ ἀλλὰ ὅτι ἡ διαθήκη ἀθετείται.

émidiaтáoσerai] 'adds fresh clauses.' Virtually the doctrine of the Judaizers was the annulling of the promise (áðéTηois); apparently it was but the imposing new conditions (émidiátaģis). On either shewing it was a violation of the covenant. The meaning of ἐπιδιατάσσεσθαι is partially illustrated by midia@nkn, which signifies 'a second will,' Joseph. B. J. ii. 2. 3 div Tηs ἐπιδιαθήκης τὴν διαθήκην εἶναι κυριωτέ pav, and § 6, Ant. xvii. 9. 4.

16. ἐρρέθησαν] For the form see Lobeck Phryn. p. 447, Buttmann Ausf. Sprachl. 11. p. 165.

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

où λéye] seems to be used impersonally, like the Attic pŋoì in quoting legal documents, the nominative being lost sight of. If so, we need not enquire whether ὁ Θεὸς or ἡ γραφὴ is to be understood. Comp. Aéyei, Rom. xv. 10, Ephes. iv. 8, v. 14; and oŋoiv, I Cor. vi. 16, 2 Cor. x. 10 (v. l.).

καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν κ.τ.λ.] This com

ment of St Paul has given rise to much discussion. It has been urged that the stress of the argument rests on a grammatical error; that as the plural of y (the word here rendered σñépμa) is only used to signify 'grain' or 'crops,' e.g. 1 Sam. viii. 15, the sacred writer could not under any circumstances have said 'seeds as of many.' Nor is it a complete answer to this objection that the same word in Chaldee is several times used in the plural in the sense which it has here; Gen. x. 18, Josh. vii. 14, Jer. xxxiii. 34. But the very expression in St Paul, which starts the objection, supplies the answer also. It is quite as unnatural to use the Greek σrépμara with this meaning, as to use the Hebrew Dyt. No doubt by a forced and exceptional usage σnéρμara might be so employed, as in Plato Legg. ix. 853 0 äveрwπоí тe καὶ ἀνθρώπων σπέρμασι νομοθετοῦμεν, 4 Macc. § 17 ὦ τῶν ̓Αβραμιαίων σπερμάτων ἀπόγονοι παῖδες Ισραηλῖται, but so might the corresponding word in almost any language. This fact points to St Paul's meaning. He is not laying stress on the particular word used, but on the fact that a singular noun of some kind, a collective term, is employed, where τὰ τέκνα or οἱ ἀπόyovo for instance might have been substituted. Avoiding the technical terms of grammar, he could not express his meaning more simply than by the opposition, 'not to thy seeds, but to thy seed. A plural substantive would be inconsistent with the interpretation given; the singular collective noun, if it admits of plurality (as it is interpreted by St Paul himself, Rom. iv. 18, ix. 7), at the same time involves the idea of unity.

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

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

These two interpretations are not opposed to each other; they are not independent of each other. Without Christ the Christian people have no existence. He is the source of their spiritual life. They are one in Him. By this link St Paul at the close of

the chapter (vv. 28, 29) connects together the two senses of the 'seed of Abraham,' dwelling once more on the unity of the seed: 'Ye are all one man in Christ; and if ye are part of Christ, then ye are Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise.'

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

éπì Todλv] See Winer § xlvii. p. 393. ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός] For the attraction see Winer § xxiv. p. 206 sq.

17. τοῦτο δὲ λέγω] Now what I mean, what I wish to say, is this.' The inference has been hitherto only hinted at indirectly; it is now stated plainly. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 12 λéyw dè τοῦτο, ὅτι ἕκαστος κ.τ.λ. In both passages the A.V. gives a wrong turn to the expression, translating it, 'this I say. See also[Clem. Rom.] ii. §§ 2,8, 12.

προκεκυρωμένην] The confirmation spoken of is not an act separate in time and subsequent to the covenant itself. The idea present to St Paul's mind is explained by Heb. vi. 17, 18.

εἰς Χριστὸν found in the received text after roû coû must be struck out as a gloss. The balance of authority is decidedly against it.

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

οίκησις τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ἣν κατῴκησαν ἐν γῇ Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ ἐν γῇ Χαναὰν ἔτη τετρακόσια τριάκοντα πέντε (the last word however being erased). The Alex. Ms reads παροίκησις, παρῴκησαν, adds after Χαναάν the words αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν, so as to bring out the revised chronology more clearly, and omits TéνTE. The Samar. Pent. takes the same view, agreeing in its reading with the Alex. Ms. This seems in fact to have been the received chronology. It is adopted not only by St Paul here, but by Josephus Ant. ii. 15. 2, by the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, and substantially by the Book of Jubilees (Ewald Jahrb. III. p. 77). On the other hand in St Stephen's speech (Acts vii. 6), and in Philo (Quis rer. div. her. § 54, p. 511 M), Gen. xv. 13 is referred to, which extends the sojourn in Egypt over 400 years; and this is the chronology adopted in other passages of Josephus (Ant. ii. 9. 1, B. J. v. 9. 4), who is thus inconsistent with himself. The LXX translators may have inserted the explanatory clause on grounds of internal criticism, or in deference to chronological records to which they had access in Egypt. The difficulties which attend both systems of chronology need not be considered here, as they do not affect St Paul's argument and cannot have entered into his thoughts.

18. εἰ γὰρ κ.τ.λ.] Το abrogate and annul the promise I say, for this is the effect of making the inheritance dependent on law.' The yap justifies the expressions ‘abrogate,' ' annul,' of the previous verses. Νόμος and ἐπαγ yeλía are used without the article, as describing two opposing principles.

OVKET] is here logical, 'this being once granted, it is not etc.,' as Rom. vii. 17, xi. 6. "ET is so used frequently.

n

KexápiσTai] 'hath bestowed it (the inheritance) as a free gift.' The perfect tense marks the permanence of the effects.

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

19. τί οὖν ὁ νόμος;] ' what then is the law?', as I Cor. iii. 5 rí ovv éσtìv ̓Απολλώς; τί δέ ἐστιν Παῦλος ; the correct reading. Comp. also Rom. iii. 1.

τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν ] How is this to be interpreted? Is it (1) 'To check transgressions'? comp. Clem. Hom. xi. 16 παραπτωμάτων χάριν ἡ τιμωρία ἔπεTai; or is it rather (2) 'To create transgressions' for 'where there is no law there is no transgression' (Rom. iv. 15). Thus law reveals (Rom. iii. 20), provokes (Rom. vii. 7, 13), multiplies (Rom. v. 20) sin or transgression. The use of xápu (comp. 1 Joh. iii. 12) is sutti