« 前へ次へ »
cendo per dilectionem perfici'), and
passive; “the act of persuading,' re-
am exposed to continual persecution from them, do I preach circumcision?’ £rt knpūooro] For an explanation of this ori, see the note i. Io. Perhaps however it should be explained rather by the form which the slander of his enemies would take; ‘You still preach circumcision, though you have become a Christian: why should not we continue to do the same?’ rt ori) The second ori is probably argumentative, ‘this being the case,' as in Rom. iii. 7, ix. 19. apa] ‘so it appears!' àpa introduces a false statement or inference also in I Cor. v. Io, xv. 14, 15, 18, 2 Cor. i. 17. It is here ironical; ‘So I have adopted their mode of justification; I am silent about the Cross of Christ! no one takes offence at my preaching now; all goes on pleasantly enough!' The oravpès here stands for the atoning death of Christ. The crucifixion of the Messiah was in itself a stumblingblock to the Jews, but preached as the means of atonement, it became doubly so: comp. I Cor. i. 23. orkáv8a)\ov] almost confined, it would appear, to biblical and ecclesiastical Greek. orkavčáAnópov however is a classical word, e.g. Arist. Ach. 687. 12. After this abrupt digression $t Paul returns again to the false brethren: ‘Why do they stop at circumcision?” he asks indignantly, ‘why do they not mutilate themselves, like your priests of Cybele?” The severity of the irony may be compared with 2 Cor. xi. 19, ‘Ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise.” Circumcision under the law and to the Jews was the token of a covenant. To the Galatians under the Gospel dispensation it had no such significance. It was merely a bodily mutilation, as such differing rather in degree than in kind from the terrible practices
of the heathen priests. Compare Phil. iii. 2, 38Aérere rov kararop;|v justs yáp é o nev jirepitouff, where the same idea appears, clothed in similar language. &qeMovl Comp. I Cor. iv. 8, 2 Cor. xi. I, in both of which passages the irony is plain. In this construction with the indicative, which appears only in later writers, the original meaning of 34 eXov is lost sight of, and it is treated as a mere particle; see Winer $xli. p. 377, A. Buttmann $139, Io, p. 185. dirokóvovrat) will not admit the rendering of the A. W., ‘I would they were even cut off.' On the other hand the meaning given above is assigned to droxóyovrai by all the Greek commentators, I believe, without exception (the Latin fathers, who read ‘abscindantur’ in their text, had more latitude), and seems alone tenable. See for instance drokekoupiévos, Deut. xxiii. 1, and indeed droków reoréal was the common term for this mutilation. If it seems strange that St Paul should have alluded to such a practice at all, it must be remembered that as this was a recognised form of heathen selfdevotion, it could not possibly be shunned in conversation, and must at times have been mentioned by a Christian preacher. For the juxtaposition of repurépuveuw and dirokówrew see Dion Cassius lxxix. II (quoted by Bentley Crit. Sacr. p. 48), and compare Diod. Sic. iii. 31. The remonstrance is doubly significant as addressed to Galatians, for Pessinus one of their chief towns was the home of the worship of Cybele in honour of whom these mutilations were practised: comp. Justin Apol. i. p. 7o E dirokówrovrai rives kal els unrápa 6edov rá uvorràpiadvaq'épovoru. See also [Bardesanes] de Fato $ 20, in Cureton's Spic. Syr. p. 32. Thus by “glorying in the flesh' the Galatians were returning in a very marked way
to the bondage of their former hea-
hints that Marcion perverted the meaning of the tense to suit his purpose, “si sic vult intelligi adimpleta est, quasi jam non adimplenda.’ The present mompossrai in the received text enfeebles the sense. The meaning of m\mpoov here is not to ‘sum up, comprehend,' but “to perform, complete,’ as appears from the parallel passage, Rom. xiii. 8 & dyaróv rôv repov, vópov memoripokev ; so that iv. ivi Aéyo’, ‘in one maxim or precept, means “in the observance of one maxim or precept.' du rô) probably neuter, in apposition to the sentence; comp. Rom. xiii. 9, 10. See above on iv. 25. row monariov) In the original text (Lev. xix. 18) the word “neighbour' is apparently restricted to the Jewish people: ‘Thou shalt not bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself? From the question of the lawyer (Luke x. 29) it may be inferred that the meaning of this term was a common theme for discussion. Our Lord extends and spiritualises its meaning; and in this comprehensive sense, as applying to the universal brotherhood of men, St Paul here uses it. See Tholuck Bergpredigt, v. 43. areavrów) The received text has favrów, which some would retain against the authority of the best Mss on the ground that it was altered by scribes ignorant of this usage of tavrot for the first and second persons. The case however with respect to the New Testament seems to stand thus; that whereas (1) in the plural we always find &avröv etc., never juáv atröv, Juáv auröv etc., as mere reflexives, yet (2) in the singular there is not one decisive instance of £avros in the first
or second person; the authority of the best Mss being mostly against it. See A. Buttmann p. 99; and for the testimony of the Mss in this text (Lev. xix. 18) as quoted in the N.T., Tischendorf on Rom. xiii. 9. 15. 8Aérere k.r.A.] A sort of parenthetic warning; “The contest will not end in a victory to either party, such as you crave. It will lead to the common extinction of both.’ St Paul returns to his main subject again inver. 16. See the introduction, p. 33, note 3. 16–18. “This is my command. Walk by the rule of the Spirit. If you do so, you will not, you cannot, gratify the lusts of the flesh. Between the Spirit and the flesh there is not only no alliance; there is an interminable, deadly feud. (You feel these antagonistic forces working in you: you would fain follow the guidance of your conscience, and you are dragged back by an opposing power.) And if you adopt the rule of the Spirit, youthereby renounce your allegiance to the law.” In this passage the Spirit is doubly contrasted, first, with the flesh, and secondly, with the law. The flesh and the law are closely allied: they both move in the same element, in the sphere of outward and material things. The law is not only no safeguard against the flesh, but rather provokes it; and he who would renounce the flesh, must renounce the law also. We have here germs of the ideas more fully developed in the Epistle to the Romans. 16. rve ouart] the dative of the rule or direction: see the notes v. 25, vi. 16. où uh rexéamre] ‘ye shall in no wise Julfil.” A strong form of the future especially frequent in later Greek; see Lobeck Phryn. p. 724.