[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

three passages where the expression
6 marip] The nominative with the
article is here used for an emphatic
vocative, as e.g. Luke viii. 54 m trais,
#yeups. See Winer, Ś xxix. p. 227.
This is a Hebraism; comp. Gesen.
Heb. Gramm. § 107.
7. Jare] ‘therefore,' in reference
to all that has gone before; “Seeing
(1) that this naturally follows when
your minority has come to an end;
and (2) that you have direct proof of
it in the gift of the Spirit, the token
of sonship.’
oùxériel] thou art no longer, now
that Christ has come. The appeal is
driven home by the successive changes
in the mode of address; first, ‘we, all
Christians, far and wide, Jews and
Gentiles alike” (ämto\á8wpev, ver. 5);
meat, ‘you, my Galatian converts’
(éoré, ver. 6); lastly, “each individual
man who hears my words” (el, ver. 7).
el be viás, kal k\mpováuos] Comp.
Rom. viii. 17 el & réxva, kai k\mpovöuot.
It has been made a question whether
St Paul is here drawing his illustrations
from Jewish or from Roman law. In
answer to this it is perhaps sufficient
to say, that so far as he has in view
any special form of law, he would
naturally refer to the Roman, as most
familiar to his readers. And indeed
the Roman law of inheritance supplied
a much truer illustration of the privi-
leges of the Christian, than the Jewish.
By Roman law all the children, whe-
ther sons or daughters, inherited alike
(comp. iii. 28 oux #vi äporev kal 65Av);
by Jewish, the sons inherited un-
equally, and except in default of male
heirs the daughters were excluded;
Michaelis Laws of Moses III. 3, § 1.
See a paper of C. F. A. Fritzsche in
Fritzsch. Opusc. I, p. 143.
8ta esow) “heir not by virtue of

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Paul see the excellent remarks of Origen, c. Cels. viii. 21—23. traparmpeio 64] ‘ye minutely, scrupulously observe,” literally ‘ye go along with and observe': comp. Ps. cxxix. 3 éâv dvoritas traparmpions, Joseph. Ant. iii. 5. 5 traparmpetv rás éSöopidèas, Clem. Hom. xix. 22 dueMjoravres Tov trapartipnow. In this last passage, which enjoins the observance of days (érirmpija uplot juépat), there is apparently an attack on St Paul; see above, p. 61. There seems to be no authority for assigning to maparmpetv the sense ‘wrongly observe, nor is the analogy of such words as mapakočew sufficiently close to bear it out. Here the middle voice still further enforces the idea of interested, assiduous observance; comp. Luke xiv. I. II. Kekoriaka] the indicative mood, because the speaker suspects that what he fears has actually happened. Herm. on Soph. Aj. 272 says, “pus éort verentis quiden est sed indicantis simul putare se ita esse ut veretur.’ See Winer § lvi. p. 631 sq. In the above passage St Paul expressively describes the Mosaic law, as a rudimentary teaching, the alphabet, as it were, of moral and spiritual instruction. The child must be taught by definite rules, learnt by rote. The chosen race, like the individual man, has had its period of childhood. During this period, the mode of instruction was tempered to its undeveloped capacities. It was subject to a discipline of absolute precepts, of external ordinances. It is clear however from the context, that the Apostle is not speaking of the Jewish race alone, but of the heathen world also before Christ—not of the Mosaic law only, but of all forms of law which might be subservient to the same purpose. This appears from his including his Galatian hearers

under the same tutelage. Nor is this fact to be explained by supposing them to have passed through a stage of Jewish proselytism on their way to Christianity. St Paul distinctly refers to their previous idolatrous worship (ver. 8), and no less distinctly and emphatically does he describe their adoption of Jewish ritualism, as a return to the weak and beggarly discipline of childhood, from which they had been emancipated when they abandoned that worship. But how, we may ask, could St Paul class in the same category that divinely ordained law which heelsewhere describes as ‘holy and just and good’ (Rom. vii. 12), and those degraded heathen systems which he elsewhere reprobates as ‘fellowship with devils' (I Cor. x. 20)? The answer seems to be that the Apostle here regards the higher element in heathen religion as corresponding, however imperfectly, to the lower element in the Mosaic law. For we may consider both the one and the other as made up of two component parts, the spiritual and the ritualistic. Now viewed in their spiritual aspect there is no comparison between the one and the other. In this respect the heathen religions, so far as they added anything of their own to that sense of dependence on God which is innate in man and which they could not entirely crush (Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 23, 27, 28, Rom. i. 19, 20), were wholly bad; they were profligate and souldestroying, were the prompting of devils. On the contrary in the Mosaic law the spiritual element was most truly divine. But this does not enter into our reckoning here. For Christianity has appropriated all that was spiritual in its predecessor. The Mosaic dispensation was a foreshadowing, a germ of the Gospel: and thus, when Christ came, its spiritual element was of necessity extinguished or rather absorbed by its successor. Deprived of this, it was a mere mass of lifeless ordinances, differing only in degree, not in kind, from any other ritualistic system. Thus the ritualistic element alone remains to be considered, and here is the meeting point of Judaism and Heathenism. In Judaism this was as much lower than its spiritual element, as in Heathenism it was higher. Hence the two systems approach within such a distance of each other that they can under certain linitations be classed together. They have at least so much in common that a lapse into Judaism can be regarded as a relapse to the position of unconverted Heathenism. Judaism was a system of bondage like Heathenism. Heathenism had been a disciplinary training like Judaism. It is a fair inference, I think, from St Paul's language here, that he does place Heathenism in the same category with Judaism in this last respect. Both alike are orotxela, ‘elementary systems of training.' They had at least this in common, that as ritual systems they were made up of precepts and ordinances, and thus were representatives of ‘law” as opposed to “grace,’ ‘promise,’ that is, as opposed to the Gospel. Doubtless in this respect even the highest form of heathen religion was much lower and less efficient than the Mosaic ritual. But still in an imperfect way they might do the same work: they might act as a restraint, which multiplying transgressions and thus begetting and cherishing a conviction of sin prepared the way for the liberty of manhood in Christ. Thus comparing the two together from the point of view in which St Paul seems to consider them, we get as the component parts of each : Ju

[ocr errors]

DAISM; (1) The spiritual—absolutely good, absorbed in the Gospel; (2) The ritualistic—relatively good, orrotXesa: HEATHENISM; (1) The ritualistic—relatively good, orrotxeia; (2) The spiritual—absolutely bad, antagonistic to the Gospel. If this explanation of St Paul's meaning be correct, it will appear on the one hand that his teaching has nothing in common with Goethe's classification, when he placed Judaism at the head of Ethnic religions. On the other hand it will explain the intense hatred with which the Judaizers, wholly unable to rise above the level of their sectarian prejudices and take a comprehensive view of God's providence, regarded the name and teaching of St Paul. 12–16. ‘By our common sympathies, as brethren I appeal to you. I laid aside the privileges, the prejudices of my race: I became a Gentile, even as ye were Gentiles. And now I ask you to make me some return. I ask you to throw off this Judaic bondage, and to be free, as I am free. Do not mistake me; I have no personal complaint; ye did me no wrong. Nay, ye remember, when detained by sickness I preached the Gospel to you, what a hearty welcome ye gave me. My infirmity might well have tempted you to reject my message. It was far otherwise. Ye did not spurn me, did not loathe me; but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself. And what has now become of your felicitations ! Are they scattered to the winds ! Yet ye did felicitate yourselves then. Yea, I bear you witness, such was your gratitude, ye would have plucked out your very eyes and have given them to me. What then? Have I made you my enemies by telling the truth?’ 12. Tiverde is yd K.T.A..] Of the meaning of the first clause there can be but little doubt; “Free yourself from the bondage of ordinances, as I am free.” Of the second two interpretations deserve to be considered; (1) “For I was once in bondage as ye are now, i.e. kāya opin v 'Iověaios as Juess vov 'Iow8at{ere. So Eusebius (of Emesa!), Chrysostom, Jerome, and apparently Pseudo-Justin Orat. ad Graec. § 5; see p. 6o note 1: (2) “For I abandoned my legal ground of righteousness, I became a Gentile like you,' i.e. kāya dye vöum v "EXAmv is ope's #re "EAAmves; comp. ii. 17, I Cor. ix. 21. This latter sense is simpler grammatically, as it understands the same verb which occurs in the former clause, yevöumv, not jumv. It is also more in character with the intense personal feeling which pervades the passage. The words so taken involve an appeal to the affection and gratitude of the Galatians; ‘I gave up all those timehonoured customs, all those dear associations of race, to become like you. I have lived as a Gentile that I might preach to you Gentiles. Will you then abandon me when I have abandoned all for you?' This sense is well adapted both to the tender appeal “brethren, I beseech you,' and to the eager explanation which follows ‘ye did me no wrong.” For the expression comp. Ter. Eun. i. 2. 1 16 ‘meus fac sis postremo animus, quando ego sum tuus.’

[ocr errors]

où8év ue jöukija are] To these words two different meanings have been assigned; (1) “Ye never disobeyed me before; do not disobey me now’: (2) “I have no personal ground of complaint.’ The latter seems better adapted to the context. Possibly however the real explanation is hidden under some unknown circumstances to which St Paul alludes; see below on 8.” do 64 weav.

13. otòare 84) ‘on the contrary ye know.'

ôt do 64 vetav ris oapkós] ‘on account of an infirmity in my flesh.’ St Paul seems to have been detained in Galatia by illness, so that his infirmity was the cause of his preaching there; see pp. 23, 24. The fact that his preaching almong them was thus in a manner compulsory made the enthusiastic welcome of the Galatians the more commendable. If this interpretation seems somewhat forced, it is only because we are ignorant of the circumstances to which St Paul refers: nor is it more harsh than any possible explanation which can be given of the preceding ow8év ue jöuksjorare. For the expression compare Thucyd. vi. Ioz aúrów be rôv kūk\ov saipeiv) Niklas 8tekøAvorev' fruxe yap v atro 81' doréévetav troXexeopolévos. Alluding to this afterwards in an impassioned appeal, Nicias might well have said, 8, do 64veuav forwara röv kūk\ov. At all events this is the only rendering of the words which the grammar admits. No instance has been produced, until a much later date, which would at all justify our explaining 8t' doréévetav, as if it were 8' doréevelas or év do 6eveig, as is frequently done. The ambiguity of the Latin ‘per infirmitatem’ gave the Latin fathers a license of interpretation which the original does not allow: Jerome however recognises the proper meaning of the preposition, though wrongly explaining it “propter infirmitatem carnis restrae.” Of the Greek fathers, Chrysost., Theodoret, and Theod. Mops. slur over the preposition, interpreting the passage however in a way more consonant with the sense év doréeveig. Photius (? ap. Oecum.) is the first, so far as I have noticed, who boldly gives the ungrammatical rendering ouera doréevetas.

Tpórepov] on the former Qf my

« 前へ次へ »