IV. ' Λέγω δέ, ἐφ' ὅσον χρόνον ὁ κληρονόμος νήπιος IV. 1-7. In the former paragraph St Paul starting from the figure of the pædagogus had been led to speak of the sonship of the faithful in Christ. The opening verses of this chapter are an expansion of the same image. The heir in his nonage represents the state of the world before the Gospel. In drawing out the comparison, St Paul seems to include Gentiles as well as Jews under this 'tutelage,' all having more or less been subject to a system of positive ordinances, and so far gone through a disciplinary training. In the image itself however there are two points to be cleared up. First. Is the father of the heir represented as dead or living? On the one hand individual expressions point to the decease of the father; a very unnatural meaning must otherwise be forced upon the words, 'heir,' 'guardian,' 'lord of all.' On the other hand the metaphor in its application refers to a living Father. The latter consideration must yield to the former. The point of the comparison lies not in the circumstances of the father, but of the son. All metaphors must cease to apply at some point, and the death of the father is the limit here imposed by the nature of the case. Our Father never dies; the inheritance never passes away from Him: yet nevertheless we succeed to the full possession of it. Secondly. It has been questioned whether St Paul borrows the imagery here from Roman or from Jewish law, or even, as some maintain, from a special code in force in Galatia. In the absence of very ample information, we may say that, so far as he alludes to any definite form of the law of guardianship, he would naturally refer to the Roman; but, as the terms are not technically exact (e.g. νήπιος, προbeouía), he seems to put forward rather the general conception of the office of a guardian, than any definite statute regulating it. His language indeed agrees much better with our simpler modern practice, than with Roman law, which in this respect was artificial and elaborate. 'I described the law as our tutor. I spoke of our release from its restraints. Let me explain my meaning more fully. An heir during his minority is treated as a servant. Notwithstanding his expectations as the future lord of the property, he is subject to the control of guardians and stewards, until the time of release named in his father's will arrives. In like manner mankind itself was a minor before Christ's coming. It was subject, like a child, to the discipline of external ordinances. At length when the time was fully arrived, God sent His own Son into the world, born of a woman as we are, subject to law as we are, that He might redeem and liberate those who are so subject, and that we all might receive our destined adoption as sons. Of this sonship God has given us a token. He sent forth into our hearts the Spirit of His Son, which witnesses in us and cries to Him as to a Father. Plainly then, thou art no more a servant, but a son; and, as a son, thou art also an heir, through the goodness of God.' 1. Aéyw dé] 'But what I would say is this,' introducing an expansion or explanation of what has gone before: see v. 16, Rom. xv. 8, and for the more definite roûto dè déyw, Gal. iii. 17 (with the note), I Cor. i. 12. výπios] 'an infant. As this does not appear to have been a technical term in Greek, or at least in Attic law (where the distinction is between Taîs and ȧvýp), it probably represents the Latin 'infans.' If so, its use here, though sufficiently exact for the purposes of the comparison, is not technically precise. The 'infantia' of a ἐστιν, οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου κύριος πάντων ὤν, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστὶν καὶ οἰκονόμους ἄχρι τῆς προθεσ Roman child ended with his seventh year, after which he was competent to perform certain legal acts, but he was not entirely emancipated from a state of tutelage till he entered on his twenty-fifth year, having passed through several intermediate stages. See Savigny Röm. Recht. III. p. 25 sq. Nýios seems to be here 'a minor' in any stage of his minority. The word is opposed to ȧvýp, 1 Cor. xiii. 11, Ephes. iv. 13, 14: comp. Dion. Hal. iv. 9, Gruter Inscr. p. 682. 9. See Philo Leg. ad Cai. 4, II. p. 549 νήπιον ἔτι ὄντα κομιδῇ καὶ χρήζοντα ἐπιτρόπων καὶ διδασκάλων καὶ παιδαγωγών. οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου] The minor was legally in much the same position as the slave. He could not perform any act, except through his legal representative. This responsible person, the guardian in the case of the minor, the master in the case of the slave, who represented him to the state, and whose sanction was necessary for the validity of any contract undertaken on his behalf, was termed in Attic law kúptos, Meier Att. Proc. p. 450. Prospectively however, though not actually, the minor was kúpios ñávTOV, which the slave was not. 2. ἐπιτρόπους καὶ οἰκονόμους] ' controllers of his person and property? The language is intended, as the plurals show, to be as comprehensive as possible. It is therefore vain to search for the exact technical term in Roman law corresponding to each word. The Latin fathers translate them variously; 'curatores et actores' Vict., Hil., Interp. Orig.; 'tutores et actores' Pelag., Hier.; 'procuratores et actores' Aug.; 'tutores et dispensatores' Interp. Theod. Mops. The distinction given in the above translation seems the most probable. The émirpожоι are the boy's legal representatives, his guardians (whether 'curatores' or 'tutores' in Roman law); the oikovóμo, stewards or bailiffs appointed to manage his household or property. The word niτроπоs elsewhere in the New Testament, Matt. xx. 8, Luke viii. 3, is 'a steward.' Adopted into (אפיטרופוס) the Rabbinical language it has a comprehensive meaning, signifying sometimes a guardian, sometimes a steward: see Schöttgen here and on Luke viii. 3. τῆς προθεσμίας] sc. ἡμέρας, ' the day appointed beforehand,' generally as a limit to the performance or non-performance of an action; in this case as the time at which the office of guardian ceases. A difficulty however presents itself in Tarρós. In Roman law the term was fixed by statute, so that the father did not generally exercise any control over it. It has been supposed indeed, that St Paul refers to some exceptional legislation by which greater power was given to the Galatians in this respect: but this view seems to rest on a mistaken interpretation of a passage in Gaius (i. § 55). It would appear however, that by Roman law some discretion was left to the father, at all events in certain cases; see Gaius § 186 Si cui testamento tutor sub condicione aut ex die certo datus sit': comp. Justinian's Instit. I. xiv. 3; and probably more exact information would show that the law was not so rigorous as is often assumed. Considering then (1) That though the term of guardianship was not generally settled by the will of the testator, the choice of persons was, and (2) That in appointments made for special purposes this power was given to the testator; the expression in question will perhaps not appear out of place, even if St Paul's illustration be supposed to be drawn directly from Roman law. 3. nueîs] 'we,' Jews and Gentiles μίας τοῦ πατρός. 3οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἦμεν δεδουλωμένοι· “ὅτε alike, as appears from the whole context. See the note on ver. II. Ta σTOIXEîa]' the elements,' originally 'the letters of the alphabet,' as being set in rows. From this primary sense the word gets two divergent meanings among others, both of which have been assigned to it in this passage; (1) ‘The physical elements' (2 Pet. iii. 10, 12, Wisd. vii. 17), as earth, fire, etc. (Hermas Vis. iii. 13), and especially the heavenly bodies: comp. Clem. Hom. x. 9, 25, Justin Apol. ii. p. 44 ▲ rà ovpávia σroixeia, Dial. p. 285 0. They were probably so called chronologically, as the elements of time (Theoph. ad Aut. i. 4 ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη καὶ ἀστέρες στοιχεῖα αὐτοῦ εἰσίν, εἰς σημεῖα καὶ εἰς και poùs kaì els ημépas kaì eis évavroùs yeyovóra): (2) The alphabet of learning, rudimentary instruction'; as Heb. v.12. The former sense is commonly adopted by the fathers, who for the most part explain it of the observance of days and seasons, regulated by the heavenly bodies. So Hilar., Pelag., Chrysost., Theod. Mops., Theodoret ; comp. Ep. ad Diog. § 4. Victorinus strangely interprets it of the influence of the stars on the heathen not yet emancipated by Christ; and Augustine supposes that St Paul is referring to the Gentile worship of the physical elements. The two latter interpretations are at all events excluded by nueis, which must include Jews. The agreement in favour of this sense of σTOIXEîa may, I think, be attributed to the influence of a passage in the Praedicatio Petri, quoted in Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. (p. 760, Potter), Orig. in Ioann. iv. 22 (IV. p. 226, Delarue), in which the worship of the Jews is classed with that of the heathen; inasmuch as, professing to know God, they were in fact by this observance of days and seasons λατρεύοντες ἀγγέ λοις καὶ ἀρχαγγέλοις, μηνὶ καὶ σελήνῃ. ence. At all events I can scarcely doubt that this interpretation of σroxeîa became current through Origen's influIt seems to be much more in accordance with the prevailing tone of Alexandrian theology, than with the language and teaching of St Paul. Comp. Philo de Migr. Abr. p. 464 M. On the other hand a few of the fathers (Jerome, Gennadius, Primasius) adopt the other sense, 'elementary teaching.' This is probably the correct interpretation, both as simpler in itself and as suiting the context better. St Paul seems to be dwelling still on the rudimentary character of the law, as fitted for an earlier stage in the world's history. The expression occurs again in reference to formal ordinances, Col. ii. 8 κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀν θρώπων κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, and ii. 20 εἰ ἀπεθάνετε σὺν Χριστῷ ἀπὸ τῶν στοιχείων τοῦ κόσμου, τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κόσμῳ δογματίζεσθε; In these passages the words of the context which are emphasized seem to show that a mode of instruction is signified by τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου. TOU κóσμоν] 'of the world,' i. e. having reference to material and not to spiritual things, formal and sensuous. The force of τοῦ κόσμου is best explained by the parallel passages already cited, Col. ii. 8, 20. See below, vi. 14. 4 τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου] The ideas involved in this expression may be gathered from the context. It was 'the fulness of time.' First; In reference to the Giver. The moment had arrived which God had ordained from the beginning and foretold by His prophets for Messiah's coming. This is implied in the comparison ἡ προθεσμία TоÛ Tатрós. Secondly; In reference to the recipient. The Gospel was withheld until the world had arrived at mature age: law had worked out its educational purpose and now was su δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον, ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράση, ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεiva viode perseded. This educational work had been twofold: (1) Negative: It was the purpose of all law, but especially of the Mosaic law, to deepen the conviction of sin and thus to show the inability of all existing systems to bring men near to God. This idea, which is so prominent in the Epistle to the Romans, appears in the context here, vv. 19, 21. (2) Positive. The comparison of the child implies more than a negative effect. A moral and spiritual expansion, which rendered the world more capable of apprehending the Gospel than it would have been at an earlier age, must be assumed, corresponding to the growth of the individual; since otherwise the metaphor would be robbed of more than half its meaning. The primary reference in all this is plainly to the Mosaic law: but the whole context shows that the Gentile converts of Galatia are also included, and that they too are regarded as having undergone an elementary discipline, up to a certain point analogous to that of the Jews. See the remarks on ver. II. Tλńρwμa]' the complement. On this word see Colossians, p. 257 8q. ἐξαπέστειλεν] * He sent forth from Himself, as His representative': 'ex caelo a sese,' says Bengel. This word assumes the pre-existence of the Son, but must not be pressed to imply also the unity with the Father, for it is commonly used in later Greek in speaking of any mission. γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός] i.e. taking upon Himself our human nature; comp. Job xiv. 1, Matt. xi. II. These pas sages show that the expression must not be taken as referring to the miraculous incarnation. See Basil de Spir. Sanct. v. 12. γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον] not τὸν νόμον ; for though Christ was born under the Mosaic law, the application of the principle is much wider. See the note on the next verse. 5. The two clauses correspond to those of the foregoing verse in an inverted order by the grammatical figure called chiasm; 'The Son of God was born a man, that in Him all men might become sons of God; He was born subject to law, that those subject to law might be rescued from bondage.' At the same time the figure is not arbitrarily employed here, but the inversion arises out of the necessary sequence. The abolition of the law, the rescue from bondage, was a prior condition of the universal sonship of the faithful. See the note on iii. 14. τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον] again not τὸν νόμον. St Paul refers primarily to the Mosaic law, as at once the highest and most rigorous form of law, but extends the application to all those subject to any system of positive ordinances. We seem to have the same extension, starting from the law of Moses, in 1 Cor. ix. 20, ἐγενόμην τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὡς Ἰουδαῖος... τοῖς ὑπὸ νόμον ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον. gayopáσn] See the note on iii. 13. iva, iva] For the repetition of iva, and for the general connexion of thought, see the note iii. 14. In this passage it is perhaps best to take the two as independent of each other, inasmuch as the two clauses to which they respectively refer are likewise independent. Comp. Ephes. v. 26, 27. Tηy violeσíav] not 'the sonship,' but 'the adoption as sons.' Yioderia seems never to have the former sense; see Fritzsche on Rom. viii. 15. Potentially indeed men were sons before Christ's coming (ver. 1), but actually they were only slaves (ver. 3). His coming conferred upon them the privileges of Adoptionem propterea dicit,' sons: σίαν ἀπολάβωμεν. “ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, κράζον ̓Αββᾶ ὁ πατήρ. says Augustine with true appreciation, 'ut distincte intelligamus unicum Dei filium.' We are sons by grace; He is so by nature. ároλáßwμer] The exact sense of the preposition will depend on the meaning assigned to υἱοθεσίαν. If υἱοθεσία be taken as adoption, ἀπολάβωμεν must signify 'receive as destined for, as promised to us,' or, as Augustine says, 'nec dixit accipiamus, sed recipiamus, ut significaret hoc nos amisisse in Adam, ex quo mortales sumus.' At all events it cannot be equivalent to λáßwuev. The change to the first person plural marks the universality of the sonship: 'we, those under law and those free from law, alike.' 1 ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος, ἀλλὰ 6. ὅτι ἐστὲ υἱοί] ‘because ye are sons.' The presence of the Spirit is thus a witness of their sonship. The force of this clause is best explained by the parallel passage, Rom. viii. 15, 16. St Paul seems here to be dwelling on the same idea as in iii. 2. Their reconciliation with God was complete without works of law, the gift of the Spirit being a proof of this. See also Acts x. 44, xi. 15—18, xv. 8. κράζον] The word denotes earnest and importunate prayer, as in Is. xix. 20: comp. James v. 4. ̓Αββᾶ ὁ πατήρ] Abba is the Aramaic equivalent to the Greek warp. The combination of the two words seems to have been a liturgical formula. It occurs in Mark xiv. 36 in the mouth of our Lord, and also in Rom. viii. 15, in a passage closely resembling this. The origin of this formula may be explained in two ways. First, It originated with the Hellenistic Jews who would naturally adhere with fondness to the original word consecrated in their prayers by long usage, and add to it the equivalent in the Greek lan guage which they ordinarily spoke. In this case, in the passage of St Mark the words o Tarp may perhaps be an addition of the Evangelist himself, explaining the Aramaic word after his wont. Secondly, It may have taken its rise among the Jews of Palestine after they had become acquainted with the Greek language. In this case it is simply an expression of importunate entreaty, illustrating the natural mode of emphasizing by repetition of the same idea in different forms. This latter explanation seems simpler, and best explains the expression as coming from our Lord's lips. It is moreover supported by similar instances given in Schöttgen, II. p. 252: e.g. a woman entreating a judge addresses him " , the second word being Kúpie, the Greek equivalent to the Aramaic 'my Lord.' For other examples see Rev. ix. 1 1 ('Απολλύων, ̓Αβαδδών), xii. 9, ΧΧ. 2 (Σατανᾶς, Διάβολος). Whichever explanation be adopted, this phrase is a speaking testimony to that fusion of Jew and Greek which prepared the way for the preaching of the Gospel. to the heathen. Accordingly St Paul in both passages seems to dwell on it with peculiar emphasis, as a type of the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ: comp. iii. 28. 'ABẞa] In Chaldee NEN, in Syriac 1. In the latter dialect it is said to have been pronounced with a double b when applied to a spiritual father, with a single b when used in its first sense: see Bernstein's Lex. s. v. and comp. Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr. I. I, § 17. With the double letter at all events it has passed into the European languages, as an ecclesiastical term, 'abbas,' 'abbot.' The Peshito in rendering ̓Αββᾶ ὁ πατὴρ can only repeat the word, 'Father our Father,' in all |