¿ dóŝa] ‘the glory, which is pre-eminently such, the glory which belongs to him': comp. Joh. xvii. 5. The article is almost universally found with dóga in these doxologies. Contrast with this the absence of the article in Rom. ii. 10, 1 Cor. xi. 15. It is probable therefore that we should supply orìv in such cases rather than ἔστω. It is an afirmation rather than a wish. Glory is the essential attribute of God. See 1 Pet. iv. II ἐστὶν ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος, and the doxology added to the Lord's prayer, Matt. vi. 13.

εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων] for endless ages,' opposed to the present finite and transitory age (ver. 4). Compare Ephes. ii. 2, 7, where this opposition is brought out more strongly.

6-9. An indignant expression of surprise takes the place of the usual thanksgiving for the faith of his converts. This is the sole instance where St Paul omits to express his thankfulness in addressing any church. See the introduction, p. 64.

'I marvel that ye are so ready to revolt from God who called you, so reckless in abandoning the dispensation of grace for a different gospel. A different gospel, did I say? Nay, it is not another. There cannot be two gospels. Only certain men are shaking your allegiance, attempting to pervert the Gospel of Christ. A vain attempt, for the Gospel perverted is no Gospel at all. Yea, though we ourselves or an angel from heaven (were it possible) should preach to you any other gospel than that which we have preached hitherto, let him be accursed. I have said this before, and I repeat it now. If any man preaches to you any other gospel than that which ye were taught by us, let him be accursed.'

6. OUTWS TаXéws] 'so quickly.' If by

'so quickly' we understand 'so soon,' it must mean 'so soon after your conversion,' as the words following show. For the bearing of this expression on the date of the epistle see p. 41. It is possible however that raxéws here may signify 'readily,' 'rashly,'i.e. quickly after the opportunity is offered, a sense which the present tense (μerariberde) would facilitate. See 1 Tim. ν. 22 χεῖρας ταχέως μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει, 2 Thess. ii. 2 εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευθῆναι. In this case there will be no reference to any independent point of time.

μeTaTibeσde] are turning renegades'; the middle voice, as may be seen from the passages quoted below. Meraríðeσdai is used (1) of desertion or revolt, i.e. of military or political defection, as in Polyb. xxvi. 2. 6 raχέως καὶ τοὺς πολιτευομένους μεταθέσθαι πρὸς τὴν Ῥωμαίων αἵρεσιν, and frequently (2) of a change in religion, philosophy, or morals, 1 Kings xxi. 25 ὡς μετέθηκεν αὐτὸν Ιεζάβελ ἡ γυνὴ avrov, Iambl. Protrept. c. 17 μEтaθέσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπλήστως καὶ ἀκολάστως ἔχοντος βίου ἐπὶ τὸν κοσμίως. Dionysius of Heraclea, who from being a Stoic became an Epicurean, was called μeтadéμevos, 'turncoat' (ävтikρus åñoδὺς τὸν τῆς ἀρετῆς χιτῶνα ἀνθινὰ μετημ piáoaro Athen. vii. p. 281 D). The word is frequently used however of 'conversion' in a good sense, as in Justin Apol. II. pp. 83 B, 91 D, etc.

τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι] 'Him who called you in grace.' St Paul here states the distinctive features of the true Gospel which the Galatians had set aside: first, as regards its source, that conversion comes of God ('Him that called you') and not of themselves; and secondly, as regards the instrument, that it is a covenant of grace, not of works. For the omission of ecoù, see the note on i. 15.

Χριστοῦ] is generally omitted in the Latin authorities, while some others read Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, and even ecoù. All these may possibly have been glosses to explain Toû καλέσαντος. Certainly the passage seems to gain in force by the omission. The implied antithesis between the true gospel of grace and the false gospel of works thus stands out in bolder relief: comp. Ephes. ii. 8 Tŷ xápití ¿ore σεσωσμένοι. It is found however in the best Mss, and is supported by such passages as Acts xv. 11, dià Tηs xáp τος τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ πιστεύομεν σω Onval. If retained, it must be taken after χάριτι, and not with του καλέσαν τος as in the Peshito, for ὁ καλέσας in St Paul's language is always the Father.

6, 7. εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγ., κ.τ.λ.] ‘to α second, a different gospel, which is not another.' This is not an admission in favour of the false teachers, as though they taught the one Gospel, however perverted (comp. Phil. i. 15, 18). Such a concession would be quite alien to the spirit of this passage. 'It is not another gospel,' the Apostle says, 'for there cannot be two gospels, and as it is not the same, it is no gospel at all.' The relative & cannot without harshness be referred to anything else but ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον.

Tepov] implies a difference of kind, which is not involved in aλλo. The primary distinction between the words appears to be, that aλλos is another as 'one besides,' repos another as 'one of two.' The fundamental sense of repos is most clearly marked in its compounds, as érepópeaλpos, 'oneeyed.' Thus aλλos adds, while ëτepos distinguishes. Now when our attention is confined to two objects, we naturally compare and contrast them; hence repos gets to signify 'unlike, opposite,' as Xen. Cyrop. viii. 3. 8

ἤν μου κατηγορήσῃς......εἰσαύθις ὅταν διακονῶ, ἑτέρῳ μοι χρήσῃ διακόνῳ, i.. changed, where ἄλλῳ could not stand. In Exod. i. 8 ἀνέστη δὲ βασιλεὺς ἕτερος ἐπ ̓ Αἴγυπτον, it is a translation of

'novus'; and the idea of difference is frequently prominent in the word as used in the LXX. Thus while

Xos is generally confined to a negation of identity, repos sometimes implies the negation of resemblance. See 2 Cor. xi. 4, where the two words are used appropriately, as they are here. In many cases however they will be interchangeable: comp. Matt. xi. 3 with Luke vii. 20. Hesychius explains ἕτερον ἄλλον ἢ ἀλλοῖον ἢ ἐν τοῖν δυοῖν· ἢ ἀριστερόν, νέον, δεύτερον.

7. εἰ μή τινές, κ.τ.λ.] 'Only in this sense is it another gospel, in that it is an attempt to pervert the one true Gospel.' Ei un seems always to retain, at least in this stage of the language, its proper exceptive sense, and is not simply oppositive, though it frequently approaches nearly to ảλλά; see the note on i. 19. Here the following ✪éλovres, which is slightly emphatic ('attempting to, though without success'), justifies the exception taken by ei μý.

τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες] a somewhat unusual construction for of raράσσουσιν. It occurs however even in classical writers, e.g. Soph. Ed. Col. 1023 ἄλλοι γὰρ οἱ σπεύδοντες, Lysias pro Arist. bon. § 57 eloì dé Tives oi προαναλίσκοντες (the latter passage is quoted with others by Winer, § xviii. p. 136), and more commonly in the New Testament, e.g. Col. ii. 8 ßλéπετε μή τις ἔσται ὁ συλαγωγῶν, Luke xviii. 9. See the note on iii. 21. For Tivès applied by St Paul to his adversaries, see ii. 12, 1 Cor. iv. 18, 2 Cor. iii. 1, X. 2. Other interpretations of this clause have been proposed, all of which seem to do violence either to the sense or the grammar.

Tapáσσovτes] not 'troubling your minds,' but 'raising seditions among you, shaking your allegiance,' a continuation of the metaphor of μeтaríθεσθε. The phrase ταράττειν τὴν πόλιν is commonly used of factions, e.g. Aristoph. Eq. 863. See the note on v. 10.

μетаσтρévaι] properly, 'to reverse, to change to the opposite,' and so stronger than διαστρέψαι, which is simply 'to distort,' 'wrench': comp. Arist. Rhet. i. 15 καὶ τὸ τοῦ Ξενοφάνους μεταστρέψαντα φατέον κ.τ.λ. What was the idea prominent in the Apostle's mind when he called this heresy a 'reversal' of the Gospel may be gathered from iii. 3.

τοῦ Χριστοῦ] On the genitive see the notes on 1 Thess. ii. 2.

8, 9. The difference of moods in these two verses is to be noticed. In the former, a pure hypothesis is put forward, in itself highly improbable (evayyeλignrai): in the latter, a fact which had actually occurred, and was occurring (εὐαγγελίζεται).

καὶ ἐάν] preserves its proper sense of 'etiamsi,' as distinguished from ¿àv καὶ ‘etsi. See Hermann Viger p. 832, Jelf Gramm. § 861. In other words, it introduces a highly improbable supposition. With this passage contrast the meaning of ev kaì as it occurs in vi. I, ἐὰν καὶ προλημφθῇ.

peis]we.' St Paul seems never to use the plural when speaking of himself alone. Here it would include those who had been his colleagues in preaching to the Galatians, such as Silas and Timothy. The latter especially would be referred to, as he seems to have been with the Apostle on both visits to Galatia, and was probably in his company when this letter was written. See the note on i. 2.

piv] is doubtful, being found both before and after evayyeλígŋrai in different texts, and in some omitted entirely.

Tap'] On the interpretation of these words a controversy on 'tradition' has been made to hinge, Protestant writers advocating the sense of 'besides' for rapá, Roman Catholics that of 'contrary to.' The context is the best guide to the meaning of the preposition. St Paul is here asserting the oneness, the integrity of his Gospel. It will not brook any rival. It will not suffer any foreign admixture. The idea of 'contrariety' therefore is alien to the general bearing of the passage, though independently of the context the preposition might well have this meaning.

ává@eua] is the common (Hellenistic), dvá@nua the classical (Attic) form. See Lobeck Phryn. pp. 249, 445, Paralip. p. 417. But though originally the same, the two forms gradually diverged in meaning; áváOnpa getting to signify 'devoted' in a good, and ȧvá@eua in a bad sense. See Trench. N. T. Synon. § v. p. 14; Fritzsche on Rom. ix. 3. This is a common phenomenon in all languages, e.g. in English 'cant,' 'chant,' 'human,' 'humane,' with other examples given in Trench Study of Words, p. 156; see also Max Müller's Science of Language, 2nd ser. p. 262 sq. Such divergences of meaning are generally to be traced to the different sources from which the varying forms are derived. In the present instance the distinction seems to have arisen from the fact that the sense 'an accursed thing' would be derived chiefly through the Hellenist writers of the LXX, the sense 'an offering' mostly

through classical authors. The distinction of meaning however is only general, not universal. Pseudo-Justin, Quaest. et resp. 121 (p. 190, Otto), assigns both meanings to ȧváleμa, as Theodoret (on Rom. ix. 3) does to ἀνάθημα. Ανάθημα occurs only once in the New Testament, Luke xxi. 5, and there in the sense of an offering,' in accordance with the distinction given above.

It is doubted whether áváßeua here means 'excommunicated' or 'accursed'; i.e. whether it refers to ecclesiastical censure or spiritual condition. The latter alone seems tenable; for (1) it is the LXX. translation of the Hebrew D, e.g. Josh. vii. 1, 12. This word is used in the Old Testament of a person or thing set apart and devoted to destruction, because hateful to God. Hence in a spiritual application it denotes the state of one who is alienated from God by sin. But on the other hand it seems never to signify 'excommunicated,' a sense which is not found till much later than the Christian era. (2) In no passage is the sense of ecclesiastical censure very appropriate to ȧváθεμα, ἀναθεματίζειν, where they occur in the New Testament, and in some, as Rom. ix. 3, 1 Cor. xiii. 3, it is obviously excluded. Here, for instance, it is inconsistent with the ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. In course of time ἀνάθεμα, like the corresponding D, underwent a change of meaning, getting to signify 'excommunicated,' and this is the common patristic sense of the word. It was not unnatural therefore, that the fathers should attempt to force upon St Paul the ecclesiastical sense with which they were most familiar, as Theodoret does for instance, on 1 Cor. xvi. 22, explaining ἀνάθεμα ἔστω by ἀλλότριος ἔστω τοῦ κοινοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας.

9. ὡς προειρήκαμεν] as we have told you before,' probably on the occasion of his second visit, when he already discerned unhealthy symptoms in the Galatian Church. See p. 25. The distinction between the singular (Aéyw) where St Paul is writing in his own person, and the plural (προειρήκαμεν) where he is speaking of the joint labours of himself and his colleagues, is to be observed. See the note on nueis ver. 8.

καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν] 'so now again apri here denotes strictly present, as opposed to past time-a late use of the word. See Lobeck Phryn. p. 18 sq.

Táλ]' again' is not to be referred, as it is taken by some, to the preceding verse, in the sense 'I repeat what I have just said.' Against this interpretation two objections lie: (1) St. Paul in that case would have used the singular προείρηκα (which indeed is found in some texts), as throughout the epistle he writes in his own person alone; and (2) The words kaì äpti mark some greater distinction of time than this interpretation would allow.

ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται] In classical writers this verb takes only a dative of the person, in later Greek it has indifferently a dative or an accusative. See Lobeck Phryn. p. 266 sq. and Ellicott on 1 Thess. iii. 6.

10. Let him be accursed, I say. What, does my boldness startle you? Is this, I ask, the language of a timeserver? Will any say now that, careless of winning the favour of God, I seek to conciliate men, to ingratiate myself with men? If I had been content thus to compromise, I should have been spared all the sufferings, as I should have been denied all the privileges, of a servant of Christ.'

ἄρτι γάρ] What is the opposition implied in this now? It can scarcely be referred, as some refer it, to the

time before his conversion. 'Conciliation' is no fit term to apply to the fierce bigotry of Saul, the persecutor of the Church of Christ. The errors of his early career are the offspring of blind zeal, and not of worldly policy (1 Tim. i. 13). The explanation is doubtless to be found in the charges of inconsistency brought against him by the Judaizers. They had misrepresented certain acts of his past life, and branded him as a temporiser. There shall be no doubt about his language now. He had formerly, they said, preached the Mosaic law, because forsooth he had become as a Jew to the Jews. Let them judge now whether he would make concessions to conciliate those who had a leaning towards Judaism. This apr has therefore no connexion with the apr of ver. 9. The suppressed allusion to the Judaizers also explains the particle yáp: 'I speak thus strongly, for my language shall not be misconstrued, shall wear no semblance of compromise.'

ἀνθρώπους πείθω ἢ τὸν Θεόν] 'do I conciliate, make friends of men or of God?' Though the idea of persuasion is not strictly applicable in the case of God (comp. 2 Cor. v. 11, ávěрwπоνs πείθομεν, Θεῷ δὲ πεφανερώμεθα), yet Teiew is fitly extended to the second clause in reference to the language of his enemies. You charge me with a policy of conciliation. Yes; I conciliate God.' 'De humano usu sumptum est,' says Jerome. On the article Bengel pointedly remarks: 'av@páTOVs, homines; hoc sine articulo: at mox Tov Ocov, Deum cum articulo. Dei solius habenda est ratio.' See also the note on iv. 31.

ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν] So I Thess. ii. 4 :

comp. ȧveрwπáрeσкol, Ephes. vi. 6, Col. iii. 22 (with the note).

T] still. After what? After all that has befallen me: after all the experiences I have had.' Compare the ἔτι οἱ ν. 11. Both passages find an explanation in vi. 17; 'Henceforth let no man trouble me.' See the introduction, p. 51. The er does not imply that St Paul ever had been a time-server. It is equivalent to, 'at this stage,' 'at this late date.' The insertion of yàp after ei in the received text is one of the many attempts of transcribers to smooth down the ruggedness of St Paul's style.

Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην] Ι should not have been a servant of Christ,' perhaps with an indirect reference to the marks of persecution which he bore on his body (rà oriyματα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, vi. 17); I should not have been branded as His slave, I should not have suffered for Him.' Comp. v. 11, 'If I yet preach circumcision, why am I yet persecuted?'

II, 12. 'I assure you, brethren, the Gospel you were taught by me is not of human devising. I did not myself receive it from man, but from Jesus Christ. I did not learn it, as one learns a lesson, by painful study. It flashed upon me, as a revelation from Jesus Christ.'

11. Γνωρίζω ὑμῖν] ‘I declare to you' introduces some statement on which the Apostle lays special emphasis, I Cor. xii. 3, xv. 1, 2 Cor. viii. 1. (Compare the similar phrase, 'I would not have you ignorant."') Both this phrase and the following, karà ἄνθρωπον, are confined to the epistles of this chronological group.

The best authorities are nearly equally divided between dè and yáp.