Bearing on Inspi ration. (1) Position of οὖν. Apostle and the philosophic Jew move in parallel lines, as it were, keeping side by side and yet never once crossing each other's path. And there is still another point in which the contrast between the two is great. With Philo the allegory is the whole substance of his teaching; with St Paul it is but an accessory. He uses it rather as an illustration than an argument, as a means of representing in a lively form the lessons before enforced on other grounds. It is, to use Luther's comparison, the painting which decorates the house already built. At the same time we need not fear to allow that St Paul's mode of teaching here is coloured by his early education in the rabbinical schools. It were as unreasonable to stake the Apostle's inspiration on the turn of a metaphor or the character of an illustration or the form of an argument, as on purity of diction. No one now thinks of maintaining that the language of the inspired writers reaches the classical standard of correctness and elegance, though at one time it was held almost a heresy to deny this. ‘A treasure contained in earthen vessels,'' strength made perfect in weakness,' 'rudeness in speech, yet not in knowledge,' such is the far nobler conception of inspired teaching, which we may gather from the Apostle's own language. And this language we should do well to bear in mind. But on the other hand it were mere dogmatism to set up the intellectual standard of our own age or country as an infallible rule. The power of allegory has been differently felt in different ages, as it is differently felt at any one time by diverse nations. Analogy, allegory, metaphor-by what boundaries are these separated the one from the other? What is true or false, correct or incorrect, as an analogy or an allegory? What argumentative force most be assigned to either? We should at least be prepared with an answer to these questions, before we venture to sit in judgment on any individual case. The various readings in v. I. The variations of reading in this verse are the more perplexing, in that they seriously affect the punctuation, and thereby the whole texture of the passage. The main variations are threefold. I. The position of ovv. (i) It stands after σTηKere in NABCFGP and a few of the better cursive Mss; in f, g, the Vulgate, Gothic, Memphitic, Thebaic1, Ethiopic, Armenian, and perhaps the Peshito Syriac2 versions; in Origen 3, Basil, and Cyril'; in Victorinus, Augustine, and others. The Memphitic version also inserts γὰρ with τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ. 1 I have ascertained this from the мs belonging to Lord Crawford and Balcarres. 2 This is doubtful, the order of the words being altered in this version. 3 in Exod. H. 3 (11. p. 139), in Jud. H. 9 (11. p. 477), both extant only in Latin. In 4 Mor. 14 (II. p. 247, Garnier), according to some of the best мss. the printed editions however it stands after ev0epia. In the de Bapt. (11. p. 641, Garnier), a treatise ascribed to Basil but of doubtful authorship, its place is after στήκετε. Glaphyr. I. p. 75. (ii) Its position is after èλevoepía in C (by a third hand) KL and very many cursive Mss, in Marcus Monachus1, Damascene, Theophylact, and Ecumenius. (iii) It is omitted in DE (both Greek and Latin); in the Vulgate and later Syriac; in Ephraem Syrus, in Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret, in Jerome, Pelagius, the Ambrosian Hilary, and others. It is wanting also in Chrysostom, who however supplies a connecting particle, reading τῇ γὰρ ἐλευθερία κ.τ.λ. In Asterius2 ovv is absent after λevlepia, but, as the context is wanting, it is impossible to say whether it occurred after σTýkete or not. Thus it will be seen that the balance of authority is decidedly in favour of placing our after σTýkeTe; and this is probably the correct reading. The displacement (ii) and the omission (iii) were, it would seem, different expedients to relieve the awkwardness in the position of the connecting particle, on the supposition that the sentence began with rô ¿λevđepía. 2. The position of ŋμâs. It is found, (2) Posi(i) Before Xploròs in NABDEFGP and some cursive Mss, in Origen tion of (Latin translation), Theodore of Mopsuestia (Latin translation), and huâs. Cyrils. (ii) After Xploròs in CKL and many cursive мss, and in Chrysostom, Theodoret, Asterius, Marcus Monachus, and Damascene. (iii) After eveépwoev in Theophylact. The versions and the Latin fathers vary, the majority placing it after Xplorós; but this is plainly a case where no great stress can be laid on such evidence. The transposition would be made unintentionally in the course of translation (Xploròs nuâs being perhaps the more natural order), so that one authority in favour of nuâs Xploròs is of more weight than a number against it. The order μâs Xpiσròs may therefore be retained with confidence. 3. Besides these, there still remains a third and more important variation. (3) The (ii) Tŷ éλevoepía alone is found in NABCDP and a few cursive мss, in 1 Gallandi VIII. P. 47. 2 In Ps. v. Hom. 5, Cotel. Mon. Eccl. II. p. 46. 3 The Latin of D has ' qua libertate nostra.' It has been suggested to me that tra was originally a direction to transpose 'nos.' 4 ·D**et D*** * praeposuerunt ŋ, prae tereaque D** addidit signa quibus nx 5 adv. Marc. v. 4. 6 in Gen. H. 7 (II. p. 78), in Cant. i. 6 (III. p. 52). Thus our choice seems to lie between (i) and (ii), and on the whole the first seems more probable than the second. For, though the balance of direct evidence is against it, the following considerations may be urged in its favour. First. The reading τŷ èλevbepíạ without is so difficult as to be almost unintelligible. At a certain point Bengel's rule, 'proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua,' attains its maximum value; beyond this point it ceases to apply. And in the present instance it is difficult to give an interpretation to the words which is not either meaningless or ungrammatical. Secondly. Supposing revbepian to have been the original reading, the omission of in some texts admits of a very simple explanation. Standing immediately before nuas (which in its proper position, as we have seen, precedes Xplorós) it would easily drop out through the carelessness of transcribers. In this case too the transposition Xploròs nuas for nuâs Xploròs was probably made for the sake of euphony to avoid the juxtaposition of uâs which came together in the original text. At the same time the testimony in favour of Tŷ éλevbepía alone is so strong, that I have hesitated to set it aside altogether and have therefore retained it at the foot as an alternative reading. The third reading, 7 λevßepía, found chiefly in the Latin copies, is not very easily accounted for, but was perhaps substituted for rŷ λevdepíạ ǹ as a more elegant expression or as a retranslation from the loose Latin rendering 'qua libertate.' The words being thus determined, the punctuation is best decided by the position of the connecting particle, and the sentence will run, ris ελευθέρας τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ᾗ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν. Στήκετε οὖν κ.τ.λ. 1Ἴδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι, ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε, Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει· 3 μαρτύρομαι δὲ πάλιν παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ περιτεμνομένῳ, ὅτι ὀφειλέτης ἐστὶν 2-6. 'Let there be no misunderstanding. I Paul myself declare to that if you submit to circumcision, you you forfeit all advantage from Christ. I have said it once, and I repeat it again with a solemn protest. Every man, who is circumcised, by that very act places himself under the law; he binds himself to fulfil every single requirement of the law. You have no part in Christ, you are outcasts from the covenant of grace, you who seek justification in obedience to law. There is a great gulf between you and us. We, the true disciples of Christ, hope to be justified of faith, not of works, in the Spirit, not in the flesh.' 2. At this point St Paul assumes a severer tone in condemning the observance of the law. It is not only a useless imposition, a slavish burden; it is pernicious and fatal in itself. "Ide] so to be accented rather than idé. According to the ancient grammarians, the pronunciation of common dialect was de, λáße, of the Attic idé, Xaßé. See Winer § vi. p. 55 sq. ἐγὼ Παῦλος] What is the exact force of this? Is it (1) An assertion of authority? 'I Paul, who received a direct commission from Christ, who have done and suffered so much for the Gospel and for you, who have so strong a claim on your hearing'? Or is it rather (2) An indirect refutation of calumnies? 'I Paul, who have myself preached circumcision forsooth, who say smooth things to please men, who season my doctrine to the tastes of my hearers'? For the latter sense, see 2 Cor. x. 1, where the words avròs dè ἐγὼ Παῦλος are used in combating the contemptuous criticism of his enemies; and compare his tone in i. 10 of this epistle; 'do I now persuade men?' See also the notes on ii. 3, v. II, and the introduction, p. 28. For the former sense compare perhaps Ephes. iii. 1. The two ideas are not incompatible: they are equally prominent elsewhere in this epistle, and may both have been present to St Paul's mind, when he thus asserts himself so strongly. περιτέμνησθε] ‘sufer yourselves to be circumcised'; see the note on Teρɩτεμνομένῳ ver. 3. 3. The argument is this; 'Circumcision is the seal of the law. He who willingly and deliberately undergoes circumcision, enters upon a compact to fulfil the law. To fulfil it therefore he is bound, and he cannot plead the grace of Christ; for he has entered on another mode of justification.' μαρτύρομαι δὲ πάλιν] Christ beneft you? nay, I protest again. The adversative sense of dè is to be explained by the idea of ὠφελήσει. Πάλιν refers to the preceding λέγω; 'I have said it, and I repeat it with protestation.' μaprúpoμai] 'I protest,' i.e. I assert as in the presence of witnesses. The word signifies properly 'to call to witness'; and is never, except perhaps in very late Greek, equivalent to μapTupa, 'I bear witness.' See the notes on I Thess. ii. 12. For the dative áveрon compare Acts xx. 26. This use of the dative is a remnant of the fuller construction μαρτύρεσθαί τινί τι (Judith vii. 28 μαρτυρόμεθα ὑμῖν τὸν oupavòv kaì tηv yŷv), the accusative being suppressed and the verb used absolutely without reference to the person of the witness. περιτεμνομένῳ] who undergoes cir cumcision,' as πeρiтéμvode ver. 2, and of Teρireμvóμevo vi. 13 (the better reading). In all these cases the present tense is more appropriate than ὅλον τὸν νόμον ποιῆσαι. “κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε. 5ἡμεῖς γὰρ πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα· “ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ [Ἰησοῦ] οὔτε περιτομή the past. It is not the fact of their having been circumcised which St Paul condemns (for this is indifferent in itself), but the fact of their allowing themselves to be circumcised, being free agents. 4. κατηργήθητε, ἐξεπέσατε] The aorists represent the consequences as instantaneous; 'Ye are then and there shut out from Christ.' For similar instances see Joh. xv. 6 ἐὰν μή τις μείνῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα, Rev. x. 7: comp. Winer § xl. p. 345. κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ] a pregnant expression for κατηργήθητε καὶ ἐχωρίσε θητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, Ye are nothing as regards Christ, ye are entirely separate from Him'; as Rom. vii. 2, 6; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 3 φθαρῇ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος, Col. ii. 20. οἵτινες δικαιοῦσθε] 'all ye who seek your justification! See on περιτεμνομένῳ, ver. 3. ἐξεπέσατε] Fare driven forth, are banished with Hagar your mother': see iv. 30 ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην. The words ἐκπίπτειν and ἐκβάλλειν are correlatives in this sense; e.g. Thucyd. vi. 4 ὑπὸ Σαμίων καὶ ἄλλων Ιώνων ἐκπίπτουσιν. τοὺς δὲ Σαμίους ̓Αναξίλας Ρηγίνων τύραννος οὐ πολλῷ ὕστερον ἐκβαλὼν κ.τ.λ. For the form έξει πέσατε see Lobeck Phryn. p. 724, Winer 8 xiii. p. 86. 5. ἡμεῖς γάρ] 'for we, who are in union with Christ, we who cling to the covenant of grace.' yàp introduces an argument from the opposite, as in iii. 10. πνεύματι] spiritually, or by the Spirit.' It is almost always difficult and sometimes, as here, impossible to say when πνεῦμα refers directly to the Holy Spirit and when not. From the nature of the case the one sense will run into the other, the spiritual in man, when rightly directed, being a manifestation, an indwelling of the Divine Spirit. ἐλπίδα] here used in a concrete sense, the thing hoped for'; comp. Col. i. 5 τὴν ἐλπίδα τὴν ἀποκειμένην ὑμῖν, Tit. ii. 13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα, Heb. vi. 18; and see the note on ἐπαγγελία, iii. 14. ἀπεκδεχόμεθα] 'wait eagerly, or perhaps 'patiently'; used especially in speaking of the future redemption; comp. Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25, 1 Cor. i. 7, Phil. iii. 20. Compare the drò in άлоκαραδοκία, and see a paper by C. F. Α. Fritzsche in Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 156. 6. γάρ] explaining the emplutic πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως which has gone before: ‘By the Spirit, for the dispositions of the flesh, such as circumcision or uncircumcision, are indifferent: from faith, for faith working by love is all powerful in Christ Jesus.' St Paul had before pronounced a direct and positive condemnation of circumcision. He here indirectly qualifies this condemnation. Circumcision is neither better nor worse than uncircumcision in itself (see especially 1 Cor. vii. 18—20, Gal. vi. 15). The false sentiment which attends it, the glorying in the flesh, makes the difference, and calls down the rebuke. πίστις κ.τ.λ.] ‘In his stat totus Christianismus,' says Bengel. ἐνεργουμένη] * working'; the middle voice according to the general usage of St Paul. The Spirit of God or the Spirit of Evil ἐνεργεῖ; the human agent or the human mind ἐνεργεῖται: see the note on I Thess. ii. 13. On the other hand ἐνεργεῖσθαι is never passive in St Paul (as it seems to be taken here by Tertullian adv. Marc. v. 4, 'di |