Bible Commentaries

Chapter 1

The apostle's standing had been challenged by a faction in the Galatian churches, in order that his distinctive teaching might be disparaged or set aside. To undermine his doctrine, they denied or explained away his apostleship. It seems to have been alleged against him, that as he had not been a personal disciple of Jesus, he could not claim the inspiration enjoyed by those on whom He breathed, as He said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost;” that his gospel had been communicated to him through a human medium, and therefore was not primary and authoritative truth; and that his position in the church was only of secondary or intermediate appointment, and on that account quite subordinate in rank and prerogative. Or there may have been an impression that the first number could not be augmented; and as it bore a relation to the twelve tribes of Israel, no one could be regarded as equal in office and honour to the δώδεκα, οὓς καὶ ἀποστόλους ὠνόμασεν (Luke 6:13). The number was hallowed as a sacred one (Revelation 21:14). Justin also speaks significantly of the twelve: ἄνδρες δεκαδύο τὸν ἀριθμόν (Apol. 1.39, Opera, vol. i. p. 216, ed. Otto). If the Clementines be taken as embodying to some extent the traditionary opinions and prejudices of the Jewish Christians, then Paul's official standing would be disallowed, as being unattested by credentials from the twelve; his doctrine denied, as unsanctioned by James, called “the Lord's brother,” and the head of the church in Jerusalem; and his apostleship ignored, because he had not “companied” with Jesus and the twelve in the days of His flesh (Homiliae, 11.35, 17.19, pp. 253, 351, ed. Dresse 50.1853). In the Recognitiones it is more distinctly stated: neque propheta neque apostolus in hoc tempore speratus a vobis aliquis alius proeter nos. . . . Ipse enim est annus Dei acceptus nos apostolos habens duodecim menses (4:35). Besides, Paul's official affinity with the Gentiles, and his characteristic assertion of their freedom-their nonobligation to submit to the Mosaic law, excited suspicion and hostility against him on the part of all- ζηλωταὶ τοῦ νόμου-who held that it was to be rigidly enforced on heathen converts, who were to be permitted only through the gate of virtual proselytism to enter into full communion with the church. Perhaps this depreciation arose also from some false view of his connection with Barnabas, and of their relation to the prophets of the church at Antioch, by the laying on of whose hands both had been separated and designated to missionary work. The apostle therefore enters at once on self-vindication-non superbe sed necessarie (Jerome)-not because of the mere slander, διαβολήν (Theodoret), or because they held him cheap, ἐξηυτέλιζον (OEcumenius); but because the slight cast upon him was not only a denial of Christ's authority to rule in His own church, and to choose and endow any one to serve in it, but was also a preliminary step to the promulgation and advocacy of a mass of errors, which detracted from the fulness of His atoning work by suspending Gentile salvation on the observance of Gentile Jewish ritual. True, indeed, he was not one of the original twelve, but he claims a parity of rank, as his call was as real as theirs though posterior to it: ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη κᾀμοί (1 Corinthians 15:8). The same Jesus who summoned the twelve by the Lake of Galilee, did, after being taken up into heaven, appear in glory “above the brightness of the sun,” and make him “a minister and a witness,” and send him to the Gentiles. He saw “that Just One, and heard the voice of His mouth,” and therefore had a commission as divine, distinct, and independent as any one of those whom he calls οἱ πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀπόστολοι. So that he opens by a sharp and resolute assertion of his full apostolic prerogative; and the first verse contains, not exactly what Jowett calls “the text of the whole epistle,” but an assertion of official dignity, which underlies the grand question discussed in it.

Galatians 1:1. παῦλος, ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπ᾿ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δἰ ἀνθρώπου—“Paul, an apostle, not from men nor by man.”

There needs no participle to be inserted after ἀπόστολος, as Borger, Bloomfield, and others suppose, its relations being sufficiently marked and guarded by the following prepositions. In most of the other epistles the same assertion is made, though in quieter and more general terms. For its different forms, see on Philippians 1:1; and for the meaning of “apostle,” see on Ephesians 4:11, and this epistle, Galatians 1:19, in the essay at the end of this chapter. But now, the reality of his apostleship being impugned, and that for a selfish purpose, he at once asserts its divinity with bold and unmistakeable emphasis. Sometimes, when the opposition to him was not so fierce, he uses other arguments: “the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord;” “truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you;” “I am not a whit behind the chiefest of the apostles;” but the antagonism to him in Galatia demanded a more incisive vindication. The statement is made by a change of prepositions and a change of number. The use of two prepositions in successive clauses is indeed quite characteristic of the apostle's style; and ἀπό and διά are not to be confounded, as if the whole meaning were, that in no sense did Paul receive his apostleship from a human source. On purpose he puts the fact very distinctly: he was an apostle, not from men, ἀπό, referring to remote or primary source; nor by man, διά referring to medium or nearer instrumental cause. Winer, § 47; Bernhardy, p. 222. Some expositors, as Koppe, Borger, Usteri, and Gwynne, neglecting the change of preposition, lay the stress on the change of number. Gwynne denies the distinction between ἀπό and διά, but without foundation in any of the instances alleged by him. Nor does he see, in the case of ἀπό, how the literal so naturally and necessarily passes into the ethical meaning of a particle, or how “remotion from” comes to signify origination. The οὐδὲ implies a difference of relation in the second clause from the first. διά may not always denote instrument in the strict sense, for means may be blended in conception with source, especially when God is spoken of, as in Romans 11:36 : “for of Him ( ἐξ αὐτοῦ) and by Him ( δἰ αὐτοῦ) are all things,” being His alike in origin and agency, Himself the worker of His own will or purpose-one or both aspects of relationship being equally applicable to Him (compare Hebrews 2:10; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 8:6). It is true that διά is used with both nouns in the following clause; but here, as in contrast with ἀπό, it has its distinctive meaning, and is the first step in the argument. Bengel's distinction, therefore, is baseless, that his call (vocatio) is referred to in ἀπό, and instruction (institutio immediata) in διά. But it is wrong in Hofmann to say that any distinction of meaning between the two prepositions serves no purpose. Borger errs far in supposing that ἀπό and διά are both used for ὑπό which points to an active and more immediate cause. In the decaying stage of a language, the precise distinction of similar particles, with the more delicate shades of relation indicated by them, ceases to be felt; and thus, as Winer remarks, ἀπό is frequently used for ὑπό after passive verbs in Byzantine Greek, and the two prepositions are often exchanged both in classical and New Testament codices (§ 47, b). On the difference of meaning, see also Poppo, Thucydides, vol. i. p. iii. p. 158; Stallbaum, Plato, vol. iii. p. 137. The apostle's office flowed from no body of men, nor was it given him through an individual man, either by himself or as representing any body of men and acting in their name. He was no delegate of the original twelve, and was in no way dependent on them; nor even did he stand in any official subordination to James, Cephas, or John- οἱ δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἶναι. Or if ἀνθ/ ρώπου be taken as the abstract, the clause may mean that his was no dependent charge delegated to him from any party of men, nor was it an independent charge conveyed to him through mere humanity. It may, however, be doubted whether it be the abstract, or whether any direct personal allusion is intended; for the change to the singular forms a designed antithesis to the following clause, while it denies the intervention of human agency in any form and to any extent. It does not seem likely that, in this vindication of his independent standing, the apostle alludes to the false teachers as having no divine commission (Jerome, De Wette, and Lightfoot); for to have brought himself into any comparison with them would have been a lowering of his plea. Rather, as we have said, these Judaizers, the more thoroughly to controvert his doctrine and undermine his influence, denied his true apostleship. He might, in their opinion, be a δοῦλος, διάκονος, εὐαγγελιστής, but not an apostle; for they seem to have maintained that there was the taint of a human element in his commission, and they assigned him a far lower platform than the original twelve. But Christ had called him immediately, οὐρανόθεν ἐκάλεσεν οὐκ ἀνθρώπῳ χρησάμενος ὑπουργῷ (Theophylact); and he was not therefore like Silas or Timothy in his relation to Christ and the ruling powers in the churches. What the apostle asserts of his office, he afterwards as distinctly asserts of his doctrine (Galatians 1:11-12, etc.). Negatively, his apostleship was not from men as its causa principalis, nor by man as its causa medians; but positively,

᾿αλλὰ διὰ ᾿ιησοῦ χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν—“but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised Him from the dead.” Had the apostle consulted mere rhetorical fulness, he might have repeated ἀπό before θεοῦ πατρός. But both nouns are governed by the same preposition διά, and are included under the same relation. For, to his mind, so much were Christ and God one in purpose and act, that the διά not only implies the ἀπό, but absorbs it, primary source in God being identified with mediate agency in the appearance and call of the Lord Jesus. The phrase is therefore placed first, as being nearest his thought at the moment, and as it was the relation expressed by διά which formed the question in dispute. The apostleship might be admitted as being from God, and yet not by Him as its immediate agent; ἀπό does not of itself prove διά, but διά certainly implies ἀπό. διά is not used therefore for the sake of shortness, as Olshausen says, and as Ellicott partly allows; but it points to the direct agency of God, manifested in raising His Son from the dead. By Jesus Christ was the apostle selected and directly called, and by God the Father acting in and through Him whom He had raised from the dead; for it was the risen and glorified Saviour who bestowed the apostolate on him. See above on the prepositions, and Fritzsche on Romans 1:5. In Galatians 1:3, again, the usage is reversed, and ἀπό is employed with both names. Both nouns here want the article, and θεὸς πατήρ has all the force of a proper name (Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 6:23; Philippians 2:11; 1 Peter 1:2). The genitive νεκρῶν wants the article, too, as usually when preceded by ἐκ (Winer, § 19), the quotation in Ephesians 5:14 being an exception, and there being in Colossians 2:12 various readings with authorities almost balanced. God is called πατήρ, not generally as Father of all (De Wette, Alford), nor specially as our Father (Usteri and Wieseler), nor directly as Christ's Father, as is the opinion of Meyer, Ellicott, and the rendering of the Syriac; but the name is probably inclusive of all those relations. Because He sustains such a relation to Christ and Christ's, because of His foremost place in the gracious economy, and His fatherly manifestations in it and through it, may He not receive the characteristic and almost absolute name of Father? The relation of Christ and believers to the Father is often indicated by a following genitive (Galatians 1:4; Ephesians 1:2-3; Colossians 1:2-3; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:11, etc.).

The predicate is, τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. Why this addition, for it must have some connection with the apostle's self-vindication? The addition is not a vague one, as if the act asserted had become an attribute of God (Jowett); nor is it the mere token of almighty power (Olshausen), nor an affirmation of His resurrection against Jews (Chrysostom), nor chiefly a refutation of the objection that he had not seen Christ (Semler, Morus), nor a passing historical notice that he had been called by the risen Saviour, nor a recognition of the Father as the Urheber, originator of Christ's redeeming work (De Wette, Usteri), nor only the historical confirmation of the καὶ θεοῦ πατρός (Meyer); nor is it principally to exhibit the resurrection as awaking faith in the Risen One and in God as our reconciled Father in Him (Wieseler); but it is the proof that Jesus who died could call him, though He had not called him at the period when the twelve were commissioned in the days of His flesh, and that the apostleship was one of the gifts which specially belonged to Him as the ascended Lord. Ephesians 4:11. It may be said generally, the Father raised Him from the dead, so that all His apostles could proclaim the truth of which His resurrection was the primal evidence and a distinctive tenet (Romans 1:4; Romans 4:24; Ephesians 1:20; Philippians 2:9); and specially, God the Father entrusted Paul with the apostleship, and did it through Jesus, whom He had raised from the dead: so that the risen Saviour invested with supreme authority, added, by a direct and personal act, one to the number of the twelve, with every element of qualification and prerogative which had been conferred upon them. There is no need to say, with Luther, that the clause condemns justitiam operum. It would be at the same time laying too great stress on the words, to suppose, with Augustine, Erasmus, Beza, and Calvin, that the apostle is claiming a superiority over the other apostles, inasmuch as he alone had been called by the risen Saviour, but they by Him adhuc mortali. But the clause plainly implies that he possessed all the qualifications of an apostle; that he had been commissioned immediately by Jesus Himself, having not only heard Him but seen Him, and could be a witness of His resurrection equally with any of the twelve; and that he possessed the gift of the Holy Ghost in such fulness and adaptation as fitted him for all spheres of his work (1 Corinthians 9:1-2). It is a strange lection which is ascribed by Jerome to Marcion, which omitted the words θεοῦ πατρός, and seems to have read I. X. τοῦ ἐγείραντος ἑαυτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, for it is opposed to the uniform teaching of the Pauline theology. The Greek fathers lay no little stress on the fact that I. X. and θεὸς πατήρ have a common bond of connection in διά. Chrysostom speaks of it as “fitted to stop the mouths of the heretics who deny Christ's divinity, and to teach us not to prescribe laws to the ineffable nature, nor to define the degrees of Godhead which belong to the Father and the Son.” Theodoret presses the inference to prove οὐδεμίαν φύσεως διαφοράν between Father and Son. But such a theological pressure upon the passing phrase cannot be sustained in all its weight, though the words do imply economic unity of will and operation, and show that to the mind of the apostle Christ and the Father were one in authority and prerogative. Nay more, I. X. is placed in direct opposition to ἀνθρώπου, as if, in Augustine's phrase, He were totus jam Deus.The reason why Crellius and Le Clerc and others insist on inserting ἀπό before θεοῦ is, that they may impugn the equality which the common vinculum of διά implies. Brown inclines very needlessly to their exegesis, though certainly not for their doctrinal grounds. In a word, this self-assertion of the apostle is in no way opposed to what he says elsewhere in self-depreciation, as when he calls himself “the least of the apostles,” “not meet to be called an apostle,” 1 Corinthians 15:8-9, for these are the utterances of conscious personal unworthiness. Nor is the statement before us in conflict with the record in Acts 13:1-3. Paul was an apostle, as himself felt and believed, prior to this scene in the church of Antioch. Acts 20:24; Acts 22:14-15; Acts 26:16-20. Was not the formal apostolic commission given in the hour of his conversion- ἐθνῶν, εἰς οὓς ἐγώ δε ἀποστέλλω? See also Galatians 1:12; Galatians 1:15-16; Galatians 1:22-23; 1 Timothy 1:12-13. The fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands were not, as Hammond, Wake, Wordsworth, and the Catholic commentators Bisping and Windischmann, argue, a consecration to the apostleship, but a solemn designation of Saul and Barnabas to a special missionary work, which on their return is said to have been “fulfilled.” Even Calvin speaks of the call of the apostle as being followed by the sollennis ritus ordinationis; see under Ephesians 1:1. But if ecclesiastical ordination was essential to full apostleship, what becomes of the οὐδὲ δἰ ἀνθρώπου?

After this decided assertion of his apostleship-an assertion necessary in the circumstances, at once for his own vindication, and the confirmation of the gospel which he preached, as also to give their due weight to the censure, counsels, warnings, and teachings which were to form the contents of the epistle-he passes on to say-

Galatians 1:3. χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿ιησοῦ χριστοῦ—“Grace be to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The pronoun ἡμῶν is placed after κυρίου on good authority, though A and א, with some of the Latin fathers, insert it after πατρός, as in other salutations. Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:2, etc. As διά in the first verse, so ἀπό in this verse governs both the genitives, as both are sources of divine blessing, according to the aspect in which each is viewed, primarily indeed from God and proximately from Jesus Christ. This contiguous use of two prepositions, each of them in application both to the Father and to Christ, shows that to the apostle God and Christ were so much one in will and operation (“God in Christ”), that no sharp dogmatic distinction of origin and medium needed to be drawn between them in such a prayer offered for the churches. See under Galatians 1:1.

For the meaning of the benediction, see under Ephesians 1:2, and also the note of Wieseler. As the West embodied its wishes in χάρις, and the East in שָׁלוֹם, H8934- εἰρήνη,-so the apostle, in catholic fulness, uses both terms in their profoundest Christian significance: no ordinary greeting, or “as the world giveth,” but a prayer for all combined and fitting spiritual blessings.

In connection with Christ, and as an unusual addition to his salutations, he now describes His distinctive work in its blessed purpose and in its harmony with the divine plan; for the passing statement presents a truth in direct conflict with the errors prevailing in the Galatian churches. Thus the first and fourth verses contain in brief the two themes of the epistle,-a vindication of his apostleship and of the free and full salvation by faith without works of law, which he rejoiced to proclaim.

Galatians 1:4. τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν—“who gave Himself for our sins.”

The ὑπέρ of the received text is found in B and א³, and some of the Greek fathers, but περί has the authority of A, D, F, K, א, several minuscules, and is apparently the preferable reading. The correction to ὑπέρ might appear to be more in the apostle's manner (Meyer). The two prepositions, so similar in meaning, are often exchanged in New Testament MSS. Meyer holds that they are not different in meaning.

The act here ascribed to Christ Himself is often ascribed to God, as in Romans 8:32; sometimes it assumes the form of a simple statement, as in Romans 4:25; Romans 5:8; but here, as also in other places, especially in the pastoral epistles, it is regarded as the spontaneous act of the Self-offerer, as in John 10:18, 1 Timothy 2:6, Titus 2:14, Ephesians 5:2 where a compound verb is used. (Romans 5:6; Romans 5:8, etc.; 1 Maccabees 6:44.) Wetstein quotes in illustration from Xiphilinus, the abbreviator of Dio Cassius (in Othone, p. 193), the following clause: ὅστις οὐκ ὑμᾶς ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ᾿ ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν δέδωκε. Meyer says, and so far correctly, that the idea of satisfaction lies not in the meaning of the preposition, but in the whole Sachverhältniss; quoting also Iliad, 1.444:

φοίβῳ θ᾿ ἱερὴν ἑκατόμβην

ῥέξαι ὑπὲρ δαναῶν ὄφῤ ἱλασόμεσθα ἄνακτα.

Wesselius cites the versiculus notissimus of Cato:

“Ipse nocens cum sis, moritur cur victima pro te?”

περί, as might be expected from the meaning of the words in such a connection, is often used with the thing, and ὑπέρ with the persons: περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν, ὑπὲρ ἀδίκων (1 Peter 3:18; Sirach 29:15). But the usage is not uniform, as Hebrews 5:3, περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ, . . . περὶ ἑαυτοῦ, . . . ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν; and in the first verse also of the same chapter, ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν. In 1 Corinthians 15:3, ὑπέρ is used with ἁμαρτιῶν, but ἡμῶν is a personal qualification. In Matthew 26:28 we have περὶ πολλῶν, but the personal design is introduced, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν; and in the parallel passages, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:19, ὑπέρ occurs, and the personal explanatory clause is wanting. In 1 Thessalonians 5:10 the various reading is περί- ὑπέρ, and a personal purpose follows. The preposition ὑπέρ denotes a closer relation—“over,” or “for the benefit of,” “on behalf of,” personal interest in, that interest being often an element of conscious recognition (Galatians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 5:20; Romans 14:15), and has a meaning verging very close on that of ἀντί, “in room of,” as the context occasionally indicates (chap. Galatians 3:13; Ephesians 5:2; Philemon 1:13). See Fritzsche on Romans 5:7-8; Poppo on the phrase ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ, which he renders suo loco, ὑπὲρ pro ἀντί, Thucydides, part iii. vol. i. p. 704; Euripides, Alcestis, 690; Polybius, 1.67, 7; Matthiae, § 582; Rost und Palm, sub voce. περί is more general in meaning, and may denote “on account of,” “in connection with,” bringing out the object or motive of the act: Jesus Christ gave Himself for our sins-on account of them, or in such a connection with them-that He might deliver us. See under Ephesians 6:19. The distinction between the two prepositions is often very faint, though frequently περί expresses only mentis circumspectionem, ὑπέρ simul animi propensionem (Weber, Demosth. p. 130). See also Schaefer's full note on the phrase of Demosthenes, οὐ περὶ δόξης οὐδ᾿ ὑπὲρ μέρους, Annot. vol. i. p. 189; and the remarks of Bremi, Demosthenes, Orat. p. 188. The two prepositions may, as commonly employed, characterize the atonement or self-oblation of Christ; the first in its object generally, the second specially in its recipients, and the benefits conferred upon them. Christ gave Himself for us, on account of our sins, that expiation might be made, or on behalf of sinners, that by such expiation they might obtain forgiveness and life. See more fully under Ephesians 5:2; Ephesians 5:25. ᾿αντί is more precise, and, signifying “in room of,” points out the substitutionary nature of Christ's death. Matthew 5:38; Luke 11:11; 1 Corinthians 11:15; James 4:15; Matthew 17:27, etc.

The meaning is, that He gave Himself to death (not volenti diabolo, Ambrosiast.), or, as in other places, gave His life. Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45. Sometimes a predicate is added, as ἀντίλυτρον, 1 Timothy 2:6; προσφορὰν, Ephesians 5:2. Such a predicate is here implied in the clause defined by περί, and in the purpose indicated by ὅπως. The freeness of the self-gift is prominent, as well as its infinite value-HIMSELF. We pause not over theological distinctions as to the two natures of the Mediatorial person in this act: He gave Himself-a gift impossible without incarnation-a gift valueless without a mysterious union with divinity, as is at least indicated by the common vinculum of διά in the first verse, and of ἀπό in the second verse. The ἡμῶν refers primarily to the apostle, the brethren with him and the persons addressed by him in Galatia, but does not by its use define in any way the extent of the atonement, either as limiting it to “us” believers, as some have argued, or extending it to “us” “mankind sinners,” as others contend. The doctrine taught is, that Jesus Christ did spontaneously offer Himself as the one propitiation, so that He is the source of grace and peace; and the inference is, because He gave Himself, the oblation is perfect as also the deliverance secured by it, so that obedience to the Mosaic law as a means of salvation is quite incompatible with faith in Him.

The self-oblation of Jesus is surely no mere Jewish image, as Jowett represents it, something now in relation to us like a husk out of which the kernel had fallen. True, as he says, “the image must have had a vividness in the days when sacrifices were offered that it may not have now;” but the truth imaged has not therefore faded out. Take away all that is Jewish in the presentation of that truth, yet you alter not its essence and purpose; for through the death of Christ, and its relation to or influence on the divine government, God is just while He is justifying the ungodly. The teaching of Scripture is something more than that “Christ took upon Him human flesh, that He was put to death by sinful men, and raised men out of the state of sin-in this sense taking their sins upon Him:” that is, in no true sense bearing our guilt. For not only expiation or propitiation, but reconciliation, justification, acceptance, redemption from the curse, are ascribed to His death. Men are raised out of a state of sin when their guilt is forgiven, and the power of sin is destroyed within them; and both blessings are traced to the Self-sacrifice of the Son of God. The sinfulness of the men that put Him to death is not incompatible with the voluntariness and atoning merit of His death; for it was more than a tragedy or a martyrdom, though it is not without these aspects. The figures, as Jowett says, are varied; but such variation does not prove them to be “figures only,” and the truth underlying them has varying and connected phases of relation and result. “The believer is identified with the various stages of the life of Christ;” true, but his life springs from Christ's death, and is a life in union with the risen Lord. Galatians 2:20. The definite doctrine of Scripture is, that in dying, Christ bore a representative or a substitutionary relation to sin and sinners, as is expressed by ἀντί, and implied in περί and ὑπέρ. This teaching of Scripture in the age of the apostles is the truth still to us, even though its imagery may be dimmed. Moulded for one age, and given primarily to it, it is adapted to all time as a permanent and universal gospel. The palpable terms fashioned in Jewry ray light through the world. The apostolic theology, though bodied forth by Hebrew genius, and glowing with illustrations from Hebrew history and ritual, is all the more on that account adapted to us, for it speaks in no dull monotone, and it is no exhibition of such abstract and colourless formulas as would satisfy the scanty creed of modern spiritualism. The purpose of the self-sacrifice is

῞οπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ—“that He might deliver us out of the present world-an evil one:” nequam, Vulg.; malo, Clarom.; maligno, Aug. Perhaps this is the better reading, and it is supported by A, B, א¹. The received text places ἐνεστῶτος before αἰῶνος, omitting the article, and is also well supported by a large number of MSS., some versions and fathers. The verb, from its position, is emphatic, and πονηροῦ is virtually a tertiary predicate. ῞ινα is the apostle's favourite term, and the relative particle ὅπως—“in such manner that”-is rarely used by him. In the New Testament it is construed with the subjunctive, sometimes with ἄν, but it is found with other moods in classical writers (Krüger, § 54, 8, etc.; Klotz-Devarius, vol. ii. pp. 629, etc., 681, etc., in which sections ἵνα and ὅπως are distinguished in meaning and use). The verb ἐξαιρεῖσθαι (eriperet, Vulgate) occurs only here in Paul's epistles. In other passages of the New Testament it has the sense of rescue from peril by an act of power, as of Joseph (Acts 7:10); of the Hebrews out of slavery (Acts 7:34); of Peter from the hand of Herod (Acts 12:11); of Paul from the mob in Jerusalem (Acts 23:27); and it is the word used by the Divine Master to the apostle in reference to his frequent deliverances from danger (Acts 26:17). Compare Genesis 32:11, Isaiah 42:22, Psalms 140:1. The noun αἰών connected with ἀεί, Latin aevum, and the Saxon aye (“God shall endure for aye”), means “duration;” its adjunct determining whether that duration reach indefinitely backwards or forwards, as in ἀπ᾿ or ἐκ αἰῶνος in the one case, and εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα in the other. The latter is a common meaning both in the classics and in the New Testament: Ast, Lexicon Platon. sub voce. With a more restricted duration, it often means in the New Testament, the age or present course of time, with the underlying idea of corruption and sinfulness, though, as having a temporal sense in more or less prominence, it is not to be identified with κόσμος. Luke 16:8; Romans 12:2; Ephesians 1:21; Ephesians 2:2. In rabbinical usage, there was the עוֹלָםהַזֶּה, the present or pre-Messianic age, and עוֹלָםהַבָּא, the coming age, or period after Messiah's advent. Allusions to such use would almost seem to be in Matthew 24:3, Hebrews 6:5; Hebrews 9:26. The αἰῶν μέλλων, however, of the New Testament is not so restricted as the corresponding rabbinical phrase, Matthew 12:32, Mark 10:30, Luke 18:30, Ephesians 1:21. The noun, in Christian use, and in both references, acquires a deeper significance. The ὁ νῦν αἰῶν of the pastoral epistles, 1 Timothy 6:17, 2 Timothy 4:10, Titus 2:12 - ὁ αἰῶν οὗτος, Romans 12:2 -has a pervading element of evil in it, in contrast to the ὁ αἰῶν μέλλων, ὁ αἰῶν ὁ ἐρχόμενος, which is characterized by purity and happiness (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30). The αἰῶν is this passing age-this world as it now is-fallen, guilty, and corrupt, in bondage to a “god” (2 Corinthians 4:4), and to ἄρχοντες who are opposed to God (1 Corinthians 2:6; Ephesians 6:12). We often use the word “world” very similarly, as signifying a power opposed to Christ in its maxims, fashions, modes of thought, and objects of pursuit, and as continually tempting and often subduing His people; the scene of trial and sorrow, where sense ever struggling for the mastery over faith, embarrasses and overpowers the children of God. See Cremer, Biblisch-theolog. Wörterb. sub voce, Gotha 1866.

The participle ἐνεστώς has two meanings, either time present actually, or present immediately-time now, or time impending. The first meaning is apparent in Romans 8:38, οὔτε ἐνεστῶτα οὔτε μέλλοντα, “nor things present, nor things to come”-present and future in contrast. Similarly 1 Corinthians 3:22; 1 Corinthians 7:26; Hebrews 9:9. Instances abound in the classics and Septuagint, Ezra 5:47; Ezra 9:6, τὸν ἐνεστῶτα χειμῶνα; 3 Maccabees 1:16; frequently in Polybius, 1.60, 75, 18.38; Xen. Hellen. 2, 1, 6; Joseph. Antiq. 16.6, 2; Philo, de Plantat. Noe, Opera, vol. iii. p. 136, Erlangae 1820. Phavorinus defines it by πάροντα, and Hesychius gives it as ὁ τῆς ζωῆς χρόνος. The Syriac renders it “this age,” and the Vulgate praesenti saeculo. Sextus Empir. divides times into τὸν παρῳχημένον καὶ τὸν ἐνεστῶτα καὶ τὸν μέλλοντα, Advers. Phys. 2.192, p. 516, ed. Bekker. It is also the term used by grammarians for “the present tense;” thus ἐνεστῶσα μετοχή-the present participle. Theodore of Mopsuestia, in loc., defines the term by παρών, and explains it as the period stretching on to the second advent, ed. Fritzsche, p. 121. Compare Clement. Hom. 2.40, Ignat. ad Eph. xi., Corpus Ignatianum, ed. Cureton, p. 29. While there may be a few passages in which it will bear the sense of impending (Polybius, 1.71-4), or ideally present, as good as come or seen as certainly coming, it is questioned whether it has such a meaning in the New Testament, even in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, compared with 2 Timothy 3:1. See Schoettgen's Horae on this place. But this view is taken by Meyer, Bisping, and Trana, the phrase denoting, according to them, impending time,-the evil time predicted as coming and preceding the second advent. 2 Peter 3:3; 1 John 2:18; Judges 1:18; 2 Timothy 3:1. Matthias, a recent annotator (Cassel 1865), holds the same view, and would punctuate αἰῶνος, πονηροῦ κατά-that is, the evil is allowed by God to culminate just before the second advent, that it may be effectually and for ever put down. The first interpretation is preferable. It accords with the simple meaning of the passage, which states, without any occult or prophetic allusion, the immediate purpose of Christ's death; and such is, in general, the theme of the epistle. Nor does there seem to be anything in the context to suggest to the apostle's mind the idea of the last apostasy, or to deliverance from it as the design of the atonement. His thoughts, so soon to find utterance, concern present blessing through Christ, and Him alone; the reception of such blessing being prevented by looking away from Him, and putting partial or complete trust in legal observances.

The phrase “this present evil world” cannot therefore mean merely the Mosaical constitution (Locke, Krause), or the entire system of things defective and unsatisfactory connected with it (Carpzov, Gwynne),-an exegesis too technical and narrow, and which comes far short of the meaning of the apostle's pregnant words. The meaning of the verse is, that the purpose of Christ's self-sacrifice was to rescue believers out of ( ἐκ) a condition fraught with infinite peril to them-the kingdom of darkness-and bring them into a condition safe and blessed—“the kingdom of His dear Son.” This change is not, in the first instance, one of character, as so many assert, but one of state or relation having reference rather to justification than to sanctification, though change of relation most certainly implies or entails change of character (De Wette, Meyer, Hofmann). Believers are rescued out of “this present age,” with all its evils of curse, corruption, sense, and selfishness, not by being removed from earth, but being translated into another “age”-accepted, blessed, adopted, regenerated. John 17:15-16. Not that redemption is confined in any sense to the present age, for its recipients are at length received up into that glory which lasts εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰῶνων. Chrysostom and Jerome are anxious to guard against the Manichaean heresy, that the age or world is essentially and in itself evil, for it is only made so by evil προαιρέσεις; the latter dwelling on the deliramenta of the Valentinians, and the mystical meanings which they attached to the Hebrew עוֹלָם, H6409, as written with or without the ו, and as meaning eternity in the first case, and the space reaching to the year of jubilee in the other.

κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν—“according to the will of God and our Father.” Theophylact distinguishes θέλημα from ἐπιταγή, and identifies it with εὐδοκία. (See under Ephesians 1:11.) Is ἡμῶν connected only with πατρός, or is the proper rendering “our God and Father?” It is rather difficult to answer. The article is omitted before πατρός, according to usage. Middleton, p. 57; Winer, § 19, 4. The καί seems to have its ordinary connecting force. The phrase θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ occurs with a genitive following in several places, Romans 15:6, 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, Colossians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3; and in these places the dependent genitive is τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν I. X. See under Ephesians 1:3. A simple ἡμῶν follows the phrase, Philippians 4:20, 1 Thessalonians 3:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:16; and it stands alone in 1 Corinthians 15:24, Ephesians 5:20, James 1:27. That ἡμῶν is connected only with πατρός is probable, because not only, as Ellicott says, is the idea in θεός absolute, and that in πατήρ relative-the relation being indicated by the pronoun-but also because πατήρ has often, in the apostle's usage, a genitive after it when it follows θεός: Romans 1:7, 1 Corinthians 1:3, 2 Corinthians 1:2 —“God our Father.” The places last quoted, however, have not the conjunction. Nor will the article before θεοῦ indicate that both clauses are connected with ἡμῶν, for it is usually inserted in such a connection of two predicates. Winer, § 19, 3, footnote 2. The rendering, then, is, “According to the will of God who is also our Father”-He who is God is also our Father-the article not repeated before the second noun, as both are predicates of the same person. In fine, this statement underlies the whole verse, and is not in mere connection with τοῦ δόντος (Chrysostom, Wieseler), nor with the clause before it- ὅπως (Meyer, Schott); nor is θέλημα the elective will of God in the rescue of certain individuals (Usteri). But Christ's Self-sacrifice, with its gracious and effective purpose, was no human plan, and is in no sense dependent on man's legal obedience. Its one source is the supreme and sovereign will of God, and that God is in relation to us a father who wins back his lost child. Luke 15:11. The process of salvation stands out in divine and fatherly pre-eminence, and is not to be overlaid by man's devices which would either complicate or enfeeble it. In harmony with the eternal purpose, the Son of God incarnate gave Himself for us, and for our rescue. This redemptive work was no incident suddenly devised, nor was it an experiment made on the law and government of God. Alike in provision and result, it was in harmony with the highest will, and therefore perfect and permanent in nature-an argument against the Judaists.

Galatians 1:5. ῟ω ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων· ἀμήν—“To whom be the glory for ever. Amen.”

Most probably the verb εἴη is understood (1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:2; Judges 1:2), not ἐστί, which some editions and versions present (the Vulgate having cui est gloria), and which is preferred by Lightfoot and Hofmann; nor ἔστω, though it be found in 2 Chronicles 9:8. It is more natural to regard the verse as a wish than as an affirmation, it being the devout aspiration suggested by the blessed and wonderful assertion of the previous verse, and quite in the apostle's style. Romans 9:5; Romans 11:36; 2 Corinthians 9:15; Ephesians 3:20. In such doxologies δόξα usually has the article, when, as here, it stands alone. Romans 11:36; Romans 16:27, Ephesians 3:21, Philippians 4:20, 2 Timothy 4:18; but Luke 2:14; Luke 19:38, are exceptions. Occasionally it wants the article when other substantives are added to it (Romans 2:10, which, however, is not a doxology; 1 Timothy 1:17; Judges 1:25); but it has the article in 1 Peter 4:11, Revelation 1:6; Revelation 7:12. δόξα, translated “praise” in the older English versions, does not here take the article, not as being an abstract noun (Matthies; Middleton,Galatians 5:1); but the meaning is, the glory which is His, or which characterizes Him and is especially His due. The doxology is based on the previous statement: To Him, for His gracious will that wrought out our deliverance through His Son's self-sacrifice, be the glory “to the ages of the ages.” This last expression is not a pure Hebraism. Winer, § 36, 2. See under Ephesians 3:21. These ages of ages-still beginning, never ending-are as if in contrast to “this present age, an evil one,” out of which believers are rescued. And this blessed change is not of law or of works in any sense, but solely from His will as its source, and by the self-oblation of Christ as its intermediate and effective means-means which have this rescue for their direct object-voluntas Filii Patris voluntatem implet (Jerome).

The Hebrew אָמֵן, H589, “truly,” is sometimes transferred in the Septuagint- ἀμήν, sometimes rendered by γένοιτο in praise and response, while Aquila translated it by πεπιστωμένως. “So ought it to be, so let it be, so shall it be” (Brown).

Galatians 1:6. θαυμάζω, ὅτι οὕτω ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι χριστοῦ—“I marvel that you are so soon turning away (are removing yourselves) from Him who called you in the grace of Christ.”

The apostle now rushes, as one may say, on the main subject of the epistle, disclosing in a moment the feeling of disappointment which he could not repress or modify. By a sharp and sudden θαυμάζω he shows his surprise, not unmingled with anger and sorrow. The result had not been as he had fondly anticipated; nay, it was so contrary to previous manifestations on which he seems to have trusted, that his censure and chagrin are expressed by his amazement. Rebuke lurks under his surprise. The verb often from the context gathers into itself the ethical notion of what is culpable-surprise excited by what is object of censure. Mark 6:6. Sometimes it is followed by εἰ, when what is thought of is matter of doubt, and by ὅτι, as here, when it is matter of fact. 1 John 3:13. Sturz, Lex. Xen. sub voce.

΄ετατίθεσθε, the present middle-not the aorist-will not bear the rendering, “ye are removed,” nor, as Dr. Brown gives it, “ye have removed yourselves;” but, “ye are removing yourselves.” Galatians 4:9; Galatians 4:11; Galatians 5:10. The falling off was in process, not completed, as Chrysostom says: οὐκ εἶπε μετεθέσθε, ἀλλὰ, μετατίθεσθε … οὐδέπω πιστεύω οὐδὲ ἡγοῦμαι ἀπηρτισμένην εἶναι τὴν ἀπάτην. The verb cannot be aoristic in sense, for it is not a historical present (Matthies). Bernhardy, p. 372. Nor is it passive, as Beza, Erasmus, and others take it-ut culpam in pseudapostolos derivet. The Vulgate gives also transferimini. The verb signifies to transfer or put in another place locally, as Hebrews 11:5, Sept. Genesis 5:24; and then tropically, to put to another use, or to change place ideally. Judges 1:4. In the middle voice it signifies to change what belongs to one- τὰ εἰρημένα, Xen. Mem. 4.2, 18, or τὴν γνώμην, Joseph. Vita, § 33, Herodotus, 7:18; then to fall away from one party- ἐκ or ἀπό, 2 Maccabees 7:24 -to another, εἰς or πρός, Polybius, 3.118, 8, and often in the Sept. 1 Kings 21:25. Dionysius of Heraclea, who became an Epicurean from being a Stoic, rejoiced to be called ΄εταθέμενος-transpositus sive translatus (Jerome). Athenaeus, vii. p. 25, vol. iii. ed. Schweighaüser; Rost und Palm, sub voce.

There was special surprise that this changing of sides was going on οὕτω ταχέως, “so quickly.” These words have been taken either in a positive or a relative sense. In the first sense, or as referring to manner, they have been supposed to signify οὕτω εὐκόλως (Koppe), parum considerate (Schott, Chrysostom), “gewiss zu rasch” (Rückert), or “so readily,” “so rashly” (Lightfoot, Gwynne, and Hofmann). But relatively they have been taken as signifying “so soon” after-

1. The last visit of the apostle to them, as Bengel, Hilgenfeld, and Wieseler. No chronological inference can indeed be based on this exegesis, for it is untenable. The idea of his own visit is not in his mind, so far as his language implies, for καλέσαντος does not refer to him;-

2. Or “so soon” after their conversion, as Usteri, Olshausen, Meyer, Alford, Trana, Bisping, Jatho. This is no doubt true; but such a terminus does not seem directly in the apostle's eye. The points before his mind are: the one from which they are changing away—“Him who called them;” and that into which they were sinking—“another gospel.” His mind turns at once to the false teachers, and their seductive influence; and therefore the meaning may be,

3. “So soon” after the intrusion of the false teachers among them. Chrysostom describes it as ἐκ πρώτης προσβολῆς (De Wette, and Ellicott). The apostle refers at once to these men, and to their disturbing and dangerous power. The Galatians had not the courage or constancy to resist the fascination of these unscrupulous Judaizers. But if the false teachers came among them after the apostle's recent visit (Acts 18:23), these two last opinions may so far coalesce. Their conversion, however, was a point further back, and connected with an earlier visit. But though, if one adopt the relative sense, the last opinion be preferable, yet probably the apostle had no precise point of time in his reference. The unexpectedness of the apostasy-involving, it is true, some latent temporal reference-appears to be his prominent element of rebuke. Taking in the whole crisis, so sudden and speedy,-so contrary to earlier auspicious tokens,-he might well say, without any distinct allusion to a precise date, οὕτω ταχέως. While the remark of Jerome, Galatia translationem in nostra lingua sonat, is without basis, this fickleness was quite in keeping with the Gallic character. See Introduction.

᾿απὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι χριστοῦ—“from Him that called you in the grace of Christ.” The words are not to be construed thus, ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος- χριστοῦ (“from Him that called you-Christ”), as the Syriac, Jerome, Calvin, Bengel, a-Lapide, and Brown. As Meyer remarks, however, against Schott and Matthies, the absence of the article would be no objection to this exegesis. Romans 9:5; 1 Peter 1:15. The calling of believers is uniformly represented as the work of the Father in the Pauline theology, Romans 8:30; Romans 9:24, 1 Corinthians 1:9, Galatians 1:15, 1 Thessalonians 5:24; and therefore τοῦ καλ. cannot be understood of the apostle, as Piscator, Balduin, Paulus, Bagge, Olearius, Gwynne, and even Doddridge. Their defection was all the more sinful, as the calling was from God. He alone effectually summons the soul to forgiveness and life, for He has access to it, and as His love yearns over it, His power is able to work the blessed change. God called them, and there is emphasis in the omission of θεοῦ; as they needed not to be told who the Caller was, their defection was no sin of ignorance. It would be very strange if the apostle should in this place arrogate to himself what everywhere else he ascribes to God. Reuss, Theol. Chret. 2.144. His own special work is thus characterized by him- εὐηγγελισάμεθα.

᾿εν χάριτι χ.—“in the grace of Christ.” χριστοῦ is wanting in F, G, and in some of the Latin fathers, and is wrongly rejected by Griesbach. The phrase ἐν χάριτι is neither to be identified with διὰ χάριτος, nor εἰς χάριτα; Vulgate, in gratiam, that is, “to a participation of that grace,” as Borger and Rückert explain it. The preposition ἐν denotes the element-that element here viewed as possessing instrumental power. Ephesians 2:13; Ephesians 6:14. It may thus be the instrumental adjunct (Wunder, Sophocles, Philoct. 60; Donaldson, § 47, 6), but the instrumentality is here regarded as immanent. Jelf, § 622. In some other passages with καλέω the preposition has its usual force. 1 Corinthians 7:18; 1 Thessalonians 4:7. It is only or chiefly after verbs of motion that ἐν as result combines the sense of εἰς (Winer, 50, § 5), though originally they were the same word, related to each other; as μείς, μέν- δείς, δέν. Donaldson, New Cratylus, p. 318. They were called “in the grace of Christ;” for the call of God works only in that grace, never apart from it. Romans 5:15. That call, sphering itself in Christ, and thus evincing its power, is on this account opposed to the νόμος, to the entire substance and spirit of the Judaizing doctrine. This grace of Christ, so rich and free, crowned in His atoning death and seen in all the blessings springing out of it, seems to be suggested by, or connected in the apostle's mind with, the phrase just used—“gave Himself for our sins.” But they are falling off-

εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον—“to a different gospel”-the ruling element of which was not the grace of Christ, nor was its leading doctrine that “He gave Himself for our sins.” No moral feature is expressed by the adjective, though it may be implied-not corruptum et adulterinum, as Calvin has it. The adjective ἕτερον marks distinction, ἄλλος indicates addition. 2 Corinthians 11:4. This signification of difference is seen in such compounds as ἑτερόγλωσσος, Psalms 113:1; ἑτερογενής, Deuteronomy 22:11; ἑτερόζυγος, Leviticus 19:19. It represents the Hebrew חָדָשׁ, H2543, “new,” in Exodus 1:8, and זָר, H2424, alienus, in Exodus 30:9, “strange incense.” It is found with an ethical sense also, Exodus 21:2, Numbers 14:24; often as applied to false divinities, Daniel 7:5-6; Daniel 7:8. The adjective thus generally denotes distinction of kind. Even in Matthew 11:3, adduced by Ellicott to show that ἕτερος does not always keep its distinctive meaning, it may signify not simply another individual, but one different in position and function. But ἄλλος is used in the parallel passage, Luke 7:20. Tittmann, De Synon. p. 155. The Judaizing gospel, for it might be named gospel by its preachers and receivers too, was of a totally different genus from that proclaimed by the apostle, differing from it as widely as νόμος and χάρις, ἔργα and πίστις, bondage and liberty, flesh and spirit. But the apostle at once checks himself, lest the phrase ἕτερον εὐαγγ. should be misinterpreted, on the plea that by its use he had admitted the possibility of another and different gospel. Therefore he abruptly adds,

Galatians 1:7. ῝ο οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή—“which is not another, save that:” it is no new or additional gospel— οὐκ, the negative being emphatic,—there is only one gospel. The εὐαγγέλιον expressed after ἕτερον stands vaguely and imperfectly, as the Judaizers might so name their system, but the εὐαγγ. implied after ἄλλο is used in its strict and proper sense. The connection with the following clause is variously understood.

1. Schott, preceded by a-Lapide, connects εἰ μή with θαυμάζω, making the previous clause a parenthesis: “Miror vos tam cito deficere ad aliam doctrinam salutarem (quanquam haec alia salutaris nulla est) nisi nonnulli sint.” But such an utterance requires ἐθαύμαζον ἄν: “I should have wondered” that you fell away so soon, unless there had been some troubling you. The sentence also becomes disjointed, and would make the apostle give only a hypothetical statement of the cause of his surprise.

2. Some make the whole previous sentence the antecedent to ὅ, such as Calvin, Grotius, Winer, Rückert, Olshausen: Your defection to another gospel is nothing else but this, or has no other source but this, that some are troubling you. But why should the apostle, after the censure implied in the last verse, really lift it by throwing the entire blame on the Judaizers? It would be to blame them in one breath, and make an apology for them in the next; and to refer καλέσαντος to Paul himself, as Gwynne does, does not remove the difficulty.

3. Others, again-and this has been the prevailing opinion-take εὐαγγέλιον as the antecedent: “which is no other gospel, because indeed there can be no other.” So the Greek fathers, with Luther, Beza, Koppe, Borger, Usteri, De Wette, Hilgenfeld; the Peschito, אָידוֹא דלוֹאאִיתֶיה, “which does not exist;” and the Genevan, “seeing there is no other.” But it seems plain that ἕτερος and ἄλλος, occurring together, must be used with some distinctiveness, for the one sentence suddenly guards against a false interpretation of the other.

4. The antecedent is, as Meyer, Hofmann, Wieseler, and others suppose, ἕτερον εὐαγ.: which different kind of gospel is no additional or co-ordinate gospel. The apostle does not say, it is not gospel; but it is not a second or other gospel, which may take a parallel or even subordinate rank with his. And he adds,

εἰ μή—“save that.” By this phrase, not equivalent to ἀλλά, as Dr. Brown argues in support of his exegesis, an exception is indicated to a negative declaration preceding, and it signifies nisi, “unless,” “except,” even in Matthew 12:4, 1 Corinthians 7:17. Klotz-Devar. ii. p. 524; Herodotus, 4:94, ἄλλον θεὸν, εἰ μὴ; Xen. Cyrop. 2.2, 11, τί δ᾿ ἄλλο, εἰ μὴ; Aristoph. Eq. 615, τί δ᾿ ἄλλο … εἰ μὴ; Poppo, Thucyd. vol. iii. P. 1, 216; Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 97. The Vulgate has, quod non est aliud nisi. The meaning is, this gospel is another, only in so far as

τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς—“there are some who are troubling you.” In this participial phrase, as Winer says, the substantivized participle is a definite predicate to an indefinite subject. A. Buttmann, p. 254. The apostle says of the τινές, that it was their function or their characteristic to be disturbing the Galatian converts. Luke 18:9; Colossians 2:8. Bernhardy, p. 318. τινές neither marks insignificance, ἀνώνυμοι (Semler), nor infelices (Bengel), nor yet paucity, pauci duntaxat sunt (Winer). Though not named, they were well known, but the apostle would not further characterize them. An extraordinary interpretation of τινές is given by Wordsworth, who takes it as the predicate: “unless they who are troubling you are somebody,” persons of some importance. The exegesis is not sustained by any of the examples which he has adduced, for τινές in them is marked by its position as a predicate, and the use of τι is not to the point. Nor would the clause so misunderstood bring out any self-consistent meaning. The verb ταράσσω, used physically (John 5:7), signifies to put in fear or alarm (Matthew 2:3), then to disquiet (John 12:27), to perplex (Acts 15:24). The apostle adds of those disturbers, what their desire or purpose was:

καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ χριστοῦ—“and desiring to subvert the gospel of Christ.” The verb μεταστρέφω is to change, to change into the opposite (Acts 2:20; James 4:9), or to change to the worse. Aristot. Rhet. 1.15, p. 60, ed. Bekker; Sept. 1 Samuel 10:8; Sirach 11:31. The genitive τοῦ χριστοῦ may either mean the gospel which is Christ's as proclaimed by Him, or that which has Him for its object. One might say that the former is preferable, as then the different gospel preached by the Judaizers would stand in contrast to that proclaimed by Christ Himself. Still there would in the latter exegesis be this contrast, that as the gospel preached by them was conformity to the Mosaic ritual, it was in antagonism to that gospel which has Christ for its theme, for by its perversion it would render “Christ of none effect.” Whatever would derogate from the sufficiency of Christ's gospel, or hamper its freeness, is a subversion of it, no matter what guise it may assume, or how insignificant the addition or subtraction may seem. Bengel's oft-quoted remark, Re ipsa non poterant, volebant tamen obnixe, is true in result. Yet they in their preaching revolutionized the gospel, and such is the apostle's charge against them.

Galatians 1:8. ᾿αλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται ὑμῖν παῤ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω—“But if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any other gospel different from what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.”

There is some difference of reading. K, Theodoret, OEcumenius, have εὐαγγελίζεται; while A, א, and others, have εὐαγγελίσηται. There are also variations with regard to ὑμῖν: F and אomit it; B, H, place it before the verb; the majority of MSS. place it after the verb; while D has ὑμᾶς. “But” be the τινές who they may who seek to subvert the gospel, they incur an awful peril. The καί belongs to ἐάν, “even if.” The case put so strongly is one which may never have occurred; but its possibility is assumed, though it may be very improbable. Hermann, Opuscula, iv. p. 95; Hermann, Vigerus, vol. 2.664, London 1824; Jelf, § 861. On the difference of εἰ καί and καὶ εἰ, see under Philippians 2:17; Kühner, § 824; Hartung, vol. i. pp. 139, etc. The ἡμεῖς-not himself alone, the pronoun being expressed and emphatic-may take in, though not necessarily, ἀδελφοὶ σὺν ἐμοὶ of Galatians 1:2, or perhaps Silvanus and Timothy, fellow-preachers (Hofmann). He was speaking by divine commission when he preached, and he had no right to alter the message. If it should ever by any possibility happen that he did so, on him should fall the anathema. “We or an angel from heaven”-no fallen spirit who might rejoice in falsehood, but one ἐξ οὐρανοῦ; the phrase being joined to ἄγγελος, and not to the verb (2 Corinthians 11:14), which agrees with ἄγγελος. An angel from heaven is highest created authority, but it cannot exalt itself against a divine commission. An angel preaching a Judaizing gospel would be opposing that God who had “called them in the grace of Christ.” Chrysostom supposes allusion to other apostles. The verb εὐαγγελίζηται is here followed by the dative of person: Galatians 4:13; Luke 4:18; Romans 1:15; 1 Corinthians 15:1; 1 Peter 4:6. The variety of construction which it has in the New Testament-it being found sometimes absolutely, sometimes with accusative or dative, often with accusative of thing and dative of person-may have originated the variations connected with ὑμῖν, though Lightfoot, from these variations, regards the word as doubtful. The spurious preaching is characterized as

παῤ ὃ εὐαγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν—“contrary to that which we preached to you” (Ellicott), or “beyond” it (Alford). The παρά can bear either meaning. Bernhardy, p. 259. The Vulgate has praeterquam, and some of the Greek fathers give the same sense, so Beza also; while “against,” contra, is the interpretation of Theodoret, Winer, Rückert, Matthies, De Wette, Jatho, Turner, Estius, Windischmann. Thus Romans 1:26, παρὰ φύσιν; Acts 18:13, παρὰ νόμον; Xen. Mem. 1.1, 18. Examples may be found in Donaldson, § 485. What is specifically different from it, must in effect be contrary to it. Romans 11:24; Romans 16:17. Usually Catholic interpreters take the sense of “contrary to” (Estius, Bisping); and Lutherans adopt that of “beyond,” or “in addition to,” as if in condemnation (aus blinder Polemik, Bisping) of the traditions on which the Romish Church lays such stress. But the apostle refers to oral teaching only, and the preposition παρά glancing back to ἕτερος, naturally signifies “beside,” that is, in addition to, or different from, the gospel,-or what is really another gospel. But the gospel is one, and can have no rival.

᾿ανάθεμα ἔστω—“let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:10). ᾿ανάθεμα: the earlier classical form was ἀνάθημα, ᾿αττικῶς (Moeris). Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 249. Thus ἐπίθεμα, ἐπίθημα; εὕρεμα, εὕρημα. The general sense is, “laid up,” set apart to God: τῷ θεῷ ἀνατιθέμενον (Suidas). The meaning of the word in the New Testament is derived through the Septuagint, where it represents the Hebrew ֵחרֶם, H3051, something so set apart to God as to be destroyed or consecrated to divine vengeance. The other form, ἀνάθημα, retained its original meaning, comprehending all gifts to the gods. Xen. Anab. 5.3, 5. Such gifts were often ornamental, and Hesychius defines it by κόσμημα; but the other form, ἀνάθεμα, he identifies with ἐπικατάρατος. The distinction begins to appear in the Septuagint, though differences of reading prevent it being fully traced and recognised. In Leviticus 27:28-29, the living thing devoted to God is to be surely put to death: πᾶν ἀνάθεμα ἅγιον ἁγίων ἔσται τῷ κυριῷ . . . θανάτῳ θανατωθήσεται: the city of Jericho, and all in it, was declared ἀνάθεμα κυρίῳ σαβαώθ. Joshua 6:16-17. This consecration of Jericho to utter ruin was in obedience to the command, Deuteronomy 13:14-16, ἀναθέματι ἀναθεματιεῖτε αὐτήν, and was a reproduction of an older scene (Numbers 21:1-3), where a city was devoted, and then truly named חָרַ† ָמה׃, ἀνάθεμα. Comp. Joshua 7:11. In the case of Jericho, portion of the spoil was set apart for the sacred treasury, and part was to be utterly destroyed-two modes of consecration to God, for divine blessing and for divine curse-God glorified in it, or glorified on it. Trench, Syn. p. 17, 1st ser. In Ezekiel 44:29, the offering of a dedicated thing given to the priests (the same Hebrew term) is rendered ἀφόρισμα in the Septuagint, but ἀνάθημα by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Orig. Hex. tom. ii. p. 321, ed. Montfaucon. In the Apocrypha the distinction appears to be preserved: 2 Maccabees 9:16, καλλίστοις ἀναθήμασι κοσμήσειν; 3 Maccabees 3:14; Judith 16:19; also in Joseph. Antiq. 15.11, 3, Bell. Jud 2:17; Judges 1:2:3. So in the New Testament, Luke 21:5, the temple adorned with goodly stones, καὶ ἀναθήμασι, “and gifts.” But the other form, ἀνάθεμα, occurs six times, and in all of them it has the meaning of accursed. Acts 23:14; Romans 9:3; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Corinthians 16:22; and Galatians 1:8-9. Theodoret, on Romans 9:3, recognises this διπλῆν διάνοιαν, which he gives to ἀνάθημα; also on Isaiah 13, and on Zephaniah 1. See also Suidas, sub voce; Chrysostom on Romans 9:3; and Suicer, sub voce. Among the ecclesiastical writers, ἀνάθεμα came to signify excommunication, the cursing and separation of one put out of communion. Bingham, Antiquities, Works, vol. v. p. 471, London 1844. Such a use of the word was natural. Council of Laodicea, Canon xxix. But to justify this use by any appeal to the New Testament is vain. Nowhere has it this meaning, but a darker and a more awful one. Nor does ֵחרֶם, H3051 in the Old Testament ever signify ecclesiastical separation; it is synonymous with ἀπωλεία, Isaiah 54:5; ἐζολόθρευμα, 1 Samuel 15:21; ἀφάνισμα, Deuteronomy 7:2. On the various forms of the Jewish curse, see Selden, De Syned. viii.; Opera, vol. i. p. 883, etc. The idea of excommunication cannot be adopted here (Grotius, Semler, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hammond, and Waterland); for it is contrary to the usage of the New Testament, and could not be applicable to an “angel from heaven.” Excommunication is described in very different terms, as in John 9:22; John 12:42; John 16:2, or Luke 6:22, 1 Corinthians 5:2; 1 Corinthians 5:13. Winer, sub voce. How tame Grotius, cum eo nihil vobis sit commercii; or Rosenmüller, excludatur e caetu vestro. The preacher of another gospel exposes himself to the divine indignation, and the awful penalty incurred by him is not inflicted by man: he falls “into the hands of the living God.” See Wieseler's long note.

Galatians 1:9. ῾ως προειρήκαμεν—“as we have said before.” The reference implied in προ. is doubtful. By a great number-including Chrysostom, Bengel, Winer, Neander-the reference is supposed to be simply to the previous verse: “As we have just said, so I repeat it.” 2 Corinthians 7:3; 2 Maccabees 3:7; and Winer, § 40. Others, as the Peschito, Borger, Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Meyer, Wieseler, suppose the allusion to be to a previous visit of the apostle. The use of the perfect, though not decisive, and the antithesis of ἄρτι in the following clause, favour this view. The language would have been different had the apostle wished to say nothing more. See Galatians 5:21; 2 Corinthians 13:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:6. This opinion is confirmed by the sameness of tense of the two verbs, as if they referred to the same event. The re-asseveration in Galatians 5:2-3 is no case in point to be adduced as an objection; for it has no verb compounded with προ, and the statement in Galatians 1:3 is far from being a repetition of the second verse. εὐαγγελισάμεθα, προειρήκαμεν- καὶ ἄρτι mark a more distinct lapse of time than a recurrence to what had just been written, and the change from εὐαγγελίσαμεθα to παρελάβετε points to the same conclusion: As he had said when among them by way of affirmation and warning.

καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω—“and now again I say.” The change from the plural προειρήκαμεν to the present λέγω is significant. The previous warning was uttered by the apostle and his fellow-labourers, but the following sentence is based on his sole apostolical authority. This is not, as Rückert makes it, part of the protasis or preceding sentence: “As I said before, I now say again.” The meaning is: As we said before, so now I say again,- πάλιν referring to repetition of the same sentiment, and ἄρτι in contrast with προ. in composition with the verb. The first of these opinions preserves, as Ellicott says, the classical meaning of ἄρτι, for it refers to a time just passed away. Matthew 9:18. Tempus quodque proximum, ἄρτι et ἀρτίως significant,” Lobeck, Phryn. pp. 18-20. But later writers use it as it is employed in this clause, “now,” or in this next sentence. Matthew 3:15; John 9:19; John 9:25; John 13:7; 1 Corinthians 13:12. The statement is:

εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παῤ ὃ παρελάβετε—“If any man is preaching to you a gospel different from what ye received, let him be accursed.” The Rheims version tries to preserve the original in both verses: “evangelize to you beside that which we have evangelized to you.” The statement is now made merely conditional, or the fact is assumed by εἰ with the indicative. The case is put as one that may be found real. Donaldson, § 502. See also Tischendorf, Praef. p. 57:7 ed.; Klotz-Devarius, vol. 2.455; Luke 13:9; Acts 5:38-39. The verb εὐαγγ. is here followed by the accusative of person, ὑμᾶς, emphatic from its position. No other example occurs in the writings of the apostle. But we have the same construction in Luke 3:18, Acts 8:25; Acts 8:40; Acts 13:32; Acts 14:15; Acts 14:21; Acts 16:10, 1 Peter 1:12. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, 266, etc.; Winer, § 32. For παῤ ὅ, see on previous verse. The verb παραλαμβάνω, followed either by ἀπό or by παρά, pointing to the source, is to receive, to take into the mind, what is given by instruction, and corresponds to the ὑμῖν of the preceding verse. In this verse the evangel, which is the theme of the verb, goes out on them as its direct objects- ὑμᾶς; in the other it is given to them, or for their benefit- ὑμῖν-and they received it. The change may have been intentionally suggestive. For ἀνάθεμα ἔστω, see previous verse.

Galatians 1:10. ῎αρτι γὰρ ἀνθρώπους πείθω, ἢ τὸν θεόν;—“For do I now conciliate men or God?” or, “Now, is it men I am conciliating, or God?” The emphatic ἄρτι of this verse must have the same sense as that of the preceding verse—“now,” at the present moment, or as I am writing. It cannot contrast vaguely the apostle's present with his previous unconverted Jewish state, as is held by Winer, Rückert, Matthies, Bisping, Olshausen, Neander, and Turner. For, grammatically, we cannot well sever the second ἄρτι in meaning and reference from the first; and historically, the favour of men was not a ruling motive with the apostle in his pharisaic state. Philippians 3. The connection is somewhat more difficult, as expressed by γάρ. It might mean, “Well, now, am I pleasing men?” Klotz-Devarius, 2.245. But it rather states an argument. It is no apology, as Dr. Brown takes it, for the preceding language; nor, as Alford similarly asserts, “softening the seeming harshness of the saying.” It states the reason idiomatically why he pronounces anathema on the Judaizers,-that he did it from divine sanction, or in accordance with the divine will. His fidelity was so stern, that it might be unpalatable to his enemies; but he was securing through it the friendship of God. There is some probability that he is rebutting a calumny of his opponents (Usteri, Lightfoot), based on a misconstruction of some previous portion of his career, such as the circumcision of Timothy. The verb πείθω, to persuade, signifies, by a natural transition, to conciliate by persuasion or to make friends of. Acts 12:20; Acts 14:19. Josephus, πεῖσαι τὸν θεὸν, Ant. 4.6, 5; ζηνὸς ἦτορ ἔπεισε, Pindar, Ol. 2.80, ed. Dissen; δῶρα θεοὺς πείθει, a portion of a line ascribed by Suidas to Hesiod; Plato, De Repub. 3.344, 390 E, do. Opera, vol. iii. pp. 146, 231, ed. Stallbaum; similarly Euripides, Medea, 960. There is no occasion to attach to the verb the idea of conatus as distinct from effectus: “For am I, at the moment of uttering such an anathema against perverters of the gospel, making friends of men or of God?” What but faithfulness to my divine commission can prompt me to it? It was no human passion, no personal animosity, no envious or jealous emotion at being superseded in the affections of the Galatian churches: it was simply duty done in compliance with the ruling motive of his soul, and to enjoy and secure the divine complacency. The noun ἀνθρώπους, wanting the article, is “men generally,” while θεόν has it, as if to specialize it by the contrast. The connection of πείθω with τὸν θεόν is no formal zeugma, though the sense is necessarily changed with such a change of object. What fully applies to men can only in a vaguer reference apply to God; but it has suggested several improbable forms of exegesis. Calvin goes the length of interposing a κατά before the two nouns, owing to what he calls the ambiguity of the Greek construction; and nothing, he adds, is more common with the Greeks than to leave κατά understood: “Do I persuade according to men or God?” Webster and Wilkinson apparently follow Estius, non apud homines judices, sed apud tribunal Dei causam hanc ago, but without any warrant or adduced example. Piscator renders, “Do I persuade you to believe men or God?” Utrum vobis suadeo ut hominibus credatis an ut Deo? Luther, Erasmus, Vatablus, and others give, Num res humanas suadeo an divinas? But πείθω governing a person is distinct in meaning from πείθω governing a thing or object; πείθειν τινα being, as Meyer remarks, quite distinct from πείθειν τι. The meaning is more fully explained in the following clause, where the apostle adds more broadly:

] η ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν;—“or am I seeking to please men?” the stress being on ἀνθρώποις. To please men was not his endeavour or pervading aim: it was no motive of his; for he adds:

εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον, χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην—“If still men I were pleasing, Christ's servant I should not be.” The leading nouns, ἀνθρώποις and χριστοῦ, are in emphatic contrast. The received text reads εἰ γὰρ ἔτι, after the slender authority, D & sup2, 3;, E, K, L, the Syriac and Greek fathers; whereas A, B, D¹, F, G, א, the Vulgate, and many Latin fathers want it. The asyndeton, however, is the more powerful. Tischendorf, indeed, says, a correctore alienissimum est; but the γάρ seems really to be a natural emendation, as if giving point to the argument by it as a connecting particle. There is no conatus in the imperfect, as Usteri, Schott, Bagge, and others hold. He says, not, “if I were studying to please;” but, “if,” the study being successful, “I were pleasing men.” The result implies the previous effort. The particle ἔτι, “still,” gives intensity to the declaration, and looks back to ἄρτι. Bäumlein, Griech. Part. p. 118. If, after all that has happened me, my devoted service to Christ, and the deadly hostility I have encountered, I were yet pleasing men,-if yet such a motive ruled me, Christ's servant I should not be. The form of the imperfect ἤμην is peculiar, being used ῾ελληνικῶς, according to Moeris. It occurs in the later writers, and is used by Xenophon, Cyro. 6.1, 9, and Lysias, Areopag. p. 304, ed. Dobson. Its use is not confined to its occurrence with ἄν. Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 152. It is quite common in the New Testament: Matthew 25:35, John 11:15, Acts 10:30; Acts 11:5; Acts 11:17, 1 Corinthians 13:11,-all without ἄν. After εἰ with a past indicative in the protasis, ἄν in the apodosis points out an impossible condition. Donaldson, § 502. The apostle calls himself δοῦλος in various places. Compare John 13:16; John 15:15; John 15:20; Romans 1:1; Titus 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 4:12; 2 Timothy 2:24. Here he may refer to the inner nature of all Christian service, which admits of no compromise between the Master and the world, and especially to such service embodied and wrought out in the varied spheres and amidst the numerous temptations of his apostleship. See under Philippians 1:1. The Greek fathers, followed by Koppe, Paulus, Rückert, take the words in a historical sense: If my object had been to please men, I should not have become a servant of Christ. But, as has been remarked, οὐκ ἂν ἐγενόμην would have been more fitting words to express such an idea. Besides, such a contrast does not seem to be before the apostle's mind, nor could such a reference be in harmony with the supernatural and resistless mode in which he had become a servant of Christ. It is better to take the words in an ethical sense: “I should not be Christ's servant:” man-pleasing and His service are in direct conflict. No one can serve Him who makes it his study to be popular with men. For to His servant His will is the one law, His work the one service, His example the one pattern, His approval the continuous aim, and His final acceptance the one great hope. 1 Corinthians 4:2-4; 2 Corinthians 11:23. This declaration of the apostle as to his ruling motive is not opposed to what he says of himself in 1 Corinthians 9:20; 1 Corinthians 10:33 : “To the Jews I became as a Jew;” “all things to all men;” “to please all men in all things.” There he is referring to his versatility of accommodation to national and individual humours and failings in cases where no principle was involved. Though he claimed entire liberty, he would not, by acting it out, wound unnecessarily the feelings of a “weak brother.” To please himself, he would not stir up prejudices in fellow-believers. To conciliate them he “made himself the servant of all,” by continuous self-denial in things indifferent. He might, but he did not; he could, but he would not. He had a claim of support from the churches, but he preferred at Corinth to labour with his own hands for his maintenance. He believed that an idol was “nothing in the world,” and that one could without sin sit down to a repast in a Gentile's house; but if his liberty were challenged by a scrupulous conscience, he should at once abstain. Without a grudge he yielded his freedom, though he felt the objection to be frivolous, for he sought “the profit of the many.” But while there was such wise and tender forbearance in minor matters which were naturally left open questions among believers, many of whom could not rise to the realization of “the perfect law of liberty,” his adherence to principle was uniform and unyielding towards all classes, and on all occasions. These two modes of action are quite coalescent in a mind so upright, and yet so considerate,-so stern, and yet so unselfish,-so elevated, and yet so very practical, as was that of the apostle of the Gentiles.

The apostle in the first verse had asserted the reality and divine origin of his apostleship,-that it came from the one highest source, Jesus Christ; and then, in Galatians 1:8-9, he had maintained, in distinct and unmistakeable phrase, that the gospel preached by him was the one true gospel. He now takes up the apologetic part of the epistle, and proceeds to explain and defend his second position, for both were livingly connected. The gospel preached by him was in no sense human, as his apostleship rested in no sense on a human basis. He had not been one of the original twelve, and he had not companied with Christ; and this posteriority had been apparently laid hold of to his disadvantage, as if his gospel were but secondary, and he had been indebted for it and his office to human teaching and authority. But the truth proclaimed by him and the office held by him, not only sprang from a primary relationship to Christ, but had even no human medium of conveyance. The apostle therefore argues this point, that his gospel had Christ for its immediate source, and revelation for its medium of disclosure to him; that he was not indebted to the other apostles for it; that he had held no consultation with them as his tutors or advisers, for his apostleship rested on a basis of its own but identical with theirs; and that, in fine, they recognised it not as a derived and dependent office, or as in any way holding of them, but as a distinct, collateral, and original commission. Therefore he says:

Galatians 1:11. γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοὶ—“Now I declare unto you, brethren.” Instead of δέ, which is found in A, D & sup2, 3;, K, L, א, Chrysostom and Theodoret, and in the Coptic and Syriac versions, γάρ is read in B, D¹, F, א¹, and by Jerome, the Vulgate, and Augustine. Tischendorf has γάρ in his second edition, but δέ in his seventh; and the reading is adopted by Scholz, Griesbach, Lachmann, and the Textus Receptus. Authorities are thus nearly balanced. Possibly the apologetic nature of the section might suggest to a copyist to begin it with γάρ, argumentative; whereas δέ is only transitional to another topic, or to some additional illustration of it. It may, however, be replied, that the insertion of δέ by copyists was influenced by its occurrence with this verb in 1 Corinthians 15:1, 2 Corinthians 8:1. The topic has been twice referred to, in 1 and 9; so that this verse does not spring by direct logical connection out of the last verses, but rather gathers up the pervading thought of the previous paragraph. γνωρίζω is a term of emphatic solemnity with the apostle (1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Corinthians 15:1; 2 Corinthians 8:1), as if he were obliging himself to repeat, formally and fully, what had before been so explicitly made known. They are called ἀδελφοί-still dear to him, in spite of their begun aberration, as in Galatians 3:15, Galatians 4:12, Galatians 5:13, Galatians 6:1. What the apostle certified them of was:

τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ᾿ ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι κατὰ ἄνθρωπον—“As to the gospel preached by me, that is not after man.” This clause may characterize his gospel wherever preached, ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι (Galatians 2:2); but the pointed language of Galatians 1:6-9 specializes it as the gospel preached by him in Galatia. The attraction here is a common one, especially after verbs of knowing and declaring, the principal clause attracting from the dependent one, as if by anticipation. 1 Corinthians 3:20, 2 Corinthians 12:3; Winer, § 66, 5; Krüger, § 61, 1. The noun and participle give a fulness and impressiveness to the statement, as if referring back to Galatians 1:8-9 (compare Galatians 1:16, Galatians 2:2). The gospel preached by me is not κατὰ ἄνθρωπον—“after man.” The phrase does not express origin, as Augustine, a-Lapide, and Estius assert, though it implies it. The Syriac renders מֶן, “from,” as it does ἀπό in Galatians 1:1, and παρά in Galatians 1:12. It means “after man's style.” Winer, § 49. Xen. Mem. 4.4, κατ᾿ ἄνθρωπον νομοθέτον; Sophocles, Ajax, 747, μὴ κατ᾿ ἄνθρωπον φρονεῖ; OEdip. Col. 598, ἢ κατ᾿ ἄνθρωπον νοσεῖς. For in form, quality, and contents, it was not human or manlike; it was Godlike in its truths, and in their connection and symmetry. It was God's style of purpose and thought-in no sense man's, and all about it, in disclosure and result, in adaptation and destiny, proves it to be “after” Him whose “ways are not our ways.” Turner presses too much upon the phrase, when he gives as its meaning, “in character with human weakness and infirmity.”

Galatians 1:12. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτὸ—“For neither did I receive it from man.” γάρ assigns the ground: The gospel I preach is not according to man, for man did not teach it to me. Through no human medium did I get it, not even from James, John, or Cephas, who are reckoned “pillars.” I got it from the same source as they-from the one Divine Teacher. I was no more man-taught than they were, for I had apocalyptic intercourse with the Lord as really as they had personal communications; and I received what they received. This side-glance at the other apostles is plainly implied in the emphatic position or relation of the first three words, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγώ. οὐδὲ γάρ is different from the absolute οὐ γάρ, and also from οὐδὲ ἐγὼ γάρ, which might give a different turn to the thought. The pronoun expresses emphatic individuality, and γάρ occupies its usual place. It is not οὐδέ for οὐ (Schirlitz, § 59); nor is the meaning nam ne ego quidem (Winer), “not even I, who might have been expected to be man-taught.” οὐδέ, as Hartung remarks, is in negative sentences parallel to καὶ γάρ in positive sentences (vol. i. p. 211); Herodot. 1.3; AEschylus, Agam. 1501. This implied reference in οὐδέ is common: ut aliquid extrinsecus adsumendum sit, cui id, quod per οὐδέ particulam infertur, opponatur. Klotz-Devar. 2.707; Kühner, Xen. Mem. p. 94; and Borneman, Xen. Conv. p. 200, says truly that οὐδὲ γάρ and οὐ γάρ differ as neque enim and non enim. Lightfoot objects that this interpretation is not reflected in the context; but surely the following paragraph plainly implies anxiety on the apostle's part to free himself from a charge of human tuition, and thus place himself in this matter on an equality with the twelve. Matthew 21:27; Luke 20:8; John 5:22; John 8:11; John 8:42; Romans 8:7. The reference cannot be, as Rückert and Schott make it, to those taught by himself, quibus ipse tradiderit evangelium; for that is in no sense the question involved.

The source denied is, παρὰ ἀνθρώπου, “from man,” with the notion of conveyance, παρά denoting a nearer source than ἀπό. It might have been ἀπὸ χ., and yet παρὰ ἀνθρώπου-ultimately from Jesus, yet mediately to him from a human source. But man was not the nearer source of it, as some had apparently insinuated; it was to him no παράδοσις. The distinctive meanings of παρά and ἀπό-for this verb may be used with either-seem in some cases almost to blend. The apostle in a matter of revelation which excludes all human medium, may drop the less distinction of near or remote. He adds:

οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην—“nor was I taught it.” The reading οὐδὲ is found in A, D¹, F, א, and is but ill supported, being probably an unconscious assimilation to the previous particle commencing the verse. The adverb οὔτε often occurs similarly, and, as Winer says, divides the negation (§ 55-6). The οὐδέ belongs only to the previous clause, and its connection with the foregoing verse. The οὔτε is not co-ordinate with οὐδέ, but subordinate. Hartung, vol. 1.201; A. Buttman, 315; Klotz-Devarius, 2.709. The difference between the verbs in this denial is, that the first may refer to truth presented in an objective or historical form (1 Corinthians 11:23), while the other may refer to his subjective mastery of it in a doctrinal or systematic connection, the first verb being, as Bengel says, to learn sine labore, and the second to learn cum labore. The verbs do not differ, as Brown following Beza maintains, as if the first denoted reception of authority to preach, apostolatus onus Paulo impositum, and the other referred to instruction; for αὐτό goes back distinctly to εὐαγγέλιον. See Mark 7:4; 1 Corinthians 15:1-3; Philippians 4:9.

᾿αλλὰ δἰ ἀποκαλύψεως ᾿ιησοῦ χριστοῦ—“but through revelation of Jesus Christ.” ᾿αλλά is strongly adversative. The one medium was revelation, and that revelation came from Christ; the genitive being that of author as in formal contrast to παρὰ ἀνθρώπου, denoting origin. But one may say, that a revelation from Jesus Christ is also a revelation of Jesus Christ, Himself being theme as well as source; and thus the phrase, though not grammatically, yet really and exegetically, includes a contrast also with κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, and virtually asserts of his teaching what he had declared of his apostleship, that it was οὐκ ἀπ᾿ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δἰ ἀνθρώπου (Galatians 1:1). See under Galatians 1:16.

The apostle now proceeds to give an autobiographical proof of his position: that his gospel came from direct communication with Christ; that it was as original and trustworthy as those of the others who were apostles before him; that for a long period after his conversion he had no communication with any of them; that three years elapsed before he saw one of the twelve, and then he saw Peter only for a fortnight; and that fourteen years additional passed away ere he had any interview with the pillars of the church. His gospel was therefore in no sense dependent on them, nor had his first spheres of labour been either assigned or superintended by them. He had felt no dependence on them, and was conscious of no responsibility to them. Separate and supreme apostolical authority, therefore, belonged to him; and it sealed and sanctioned the message which it was the work of his life to publish.

Galatians 1:13. ᾿ηκούσατε γὰρ τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν τῷ ᾿ιουδαϊσμῷ—“For ye heard of my manner of life in Judaism.” γάρ formally commences the historical proof, and the verb ἠκούσατε beginning the sentence has the stress upon it: Ye heard, not have heard, referring to an indefinite past time. It was matter of rumour and public notoriety. His mode of life or his conduct he calls ἀναστροφή,-literally and in Latin, conversatio, “conversation” in old English. He uses in Acts 26:4, in reference to the same period of his life, τὴν βίωσίν μου. Comp. Ephesians 4:22, 1 Timothy 4:12, Hebrews 13:7, James 3:13, 2 Maccabees 2:21; 2 Maccabees 8:1. The word in its ethical sense belongs to the later Greek. Polybius, 4.82, 1. The position of ποτέ is peculiar, no article as τήν is attached to it, and it occurs after the noun. It is used with the verb in Ephesians 2:3, and in Ephesians 4:22 the phrase occurs, κατὰ τὴν προτέραν ἀναστροφήν. In the same way, words are sometimes separated which usually come in between the article and the substantive (Winer, § 20). The apostle places ποτέ as he would if he had used the verb. Such is one explanation. Similarly Plato, De Leg. 685 D, ἡ τῆς τροίας ἅλωσις τὸ δεύτερον, where Stallbaum says that τὸ δεύτερον is placed per synesin ob nomen verbale ἅλωσις. Opera, vol. x. p. 290; Ellendt, Lex. Sophoc. sub voce. The entire phrase contains one complete idea, as the absence of the article seems to imply. Winer, § 20, 2 b. As the verb is followed by ἐν, denotive of element, in 2 Corinthians 1:12, Ephesians 2:3, so the noun is here closely connected with a similar ἐν; and, according to Donaldson, the position of ποτε is caused by the verb included in the noun. The element of his mode of life was-

᾿εν τῷ ᾿ιουδαϊσμῷ—“in Judaism,” not Mosaism, not exactly the old and primitive Hebrew faith and worship, nor the modern or current theology, but rather ritualism and the mass of beliefs and traditions held by Pharisaism. The abstract noun is specialized by the article, and it occurs in 2 Maccabees 2:21; 2 Maccabees 14:38, 4 Maccabees 4:26, and the correspondent verb meets us in Galatians 2:14. Similarly he says, Acts 26:5, τῆς ἡμετέρας θρησκείας, this last noun being more special and referring to worship or ceremonial. Judaism is here the religious life of the Jews or Pharisees, in its varied spheres of nutriment and service. See under Philippians 3. The apostle now honestly adduces one characteristic of his previous life in Judaism-

῞οτι καθ᾿ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν—“how that beyond measure I was persecuting the church of God, and was destroying it.” The conjunctive ὅτι, frequently used after ἀκούω without any intervening sentence (Madvig, § 159), introduces the first special point in the apostle's previous life in Judaism which he wishes to specify. The imperfects ἐδίωκον and ἐπόρθουν are to be taken in the strict sense (Schmalfeld, § 55). The second verb has been often rendered, “was endeavouring to destroy.” So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, give it this sense- σβέσαι ἐπεχείρει. The imperfects represent an action carried on during his state of Judaism, but left unfinished owing to his sudden conversion. He was in the very act of it when Jesus called him on the road to Damascus, and that mission to lay waste was not carried out. Nor is the meaning of the verb to be diluted, as is done by Beza, Winer, Schott, and Usteri, the last of whom says that Winer is right in denying that it means evertere, but only vastare. But Passow, Wahl, and Bretschneider give it the meaning which these expositors would soften. Examples are numerous. It occurs often in the strongest sense (Homer, Il. 4.308), is applied to men as well as cities (Lobeck, Soph. Ajax, p. 378, 3d ed.), and is sometimes associated with καίειν (Xen. Hellen. 5.5, 27). Compare Wetstein, in loc. What the apostle says of himself is abundantly confirmed. Saul,—“he made havoc of the church,” etc., Acts 8:3; “yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord,” Acts 9:1; his mission to Damascus was, “that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem,” Acts 9:2; “is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem?” Acts 9:21; “I persecuted this way unto the death,” Acts 22:4; “I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on Thee,” Acts 22:19; “when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them, being exceeding mad against them,” Acts 26:10-11. No wonder, then, that he uses those two verbs, and prefixes to the first καθ᾿ ὑπερβολήν, one of his favourite phrases. Romans 7:13; 1 Corinthians 12:31; 2 Corinthians 1:8; 2 Corinthians 4:17. It was no partial or spasmodic effort, either feeble in itself, or limited and intermittent in operation. It was the outgrowth of a zeal which never slept, and of an energy which could do nothing by halves, which was as eager as it was resolute, and was noted for its perseverance no less than for its ardour. And he distinctly sets before his readers the heinousness of his procedure, for he declares the object of his persecution and fierce devastation to have been

τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ—“the church of God.” 1 Corinthians 15:9. The possessive genitive τοῦ θεοῦ points out strongly the sinfulness and audacity of his career. It may be added that the Vulgate reads expugnabam; and F has ἐπολέμουν. This Greek was probably fashioned from the Latin. The Vulgate has, Acts 9:21, expugnabat for ὁ πορθήσας, without any various reading in Greek codices. The object of this statement is to show that the apostle, during his furious persecution of the church, could not be in the way of learning its theology from any human source; its bloody and malignant enemy could not be consorting with the apostles as a pupil or colleague.

Galatians 1:14. καὶ προέκοπτον ἐν τῷ ᾿ιουδαϊσμῷ ὑπὲρ πολλοὺς συνηλικιώτας ἐν τῷ γένει μου—“and was making progress in Judaism beyond many my equals in my own nation.” The tropical sense of the verb is, “to push forward,” and intransitively “to make advancement,” followed by ἐν, and sometimes with a different reference by ἐπί or a simple dative, as in Luke 2:52. His progress in Judaism was

῾υπὲρ πολλοὺς συνηλικιώτας—“beyond many contemporaries.” Such compound terms as συνηλικ., which the apostle uses only here, belong to the later age; the simple noun sufficing at an earlier and fresher stage. Diodor. Sic. 1.53, in which place, however, several codices have the simple term. So, too, Dionysius Halicar. 10:49. The persons referred to are those of similar age and standing,-fellow-pupils, it may be, at the feet of Gamaliel. And they were his countrymen-

᾿εν τῷ γένει μου. Compare Acts 18:2, 2 Corinthians 11:26, Philippians 3:5. Numerous contemporaries of pure Jewish blood, and not simply Jews from Tarsus, were excelled by him. His zeal pervaded every sphere of his life and labour. He could not be lukewarm, either in persecution or in study. His whole soul was ever given to the matter in hand; for he thus assigns the reason of his forwardness and success in the following clause:

περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων—“being more exceedingly a zealot for the traditions of my fathers.” This participial clause may be modal, as Meyer and Ellicott take it ( ὑπάρχων, “as being”), but it may be causal: He excelled his contemporaries, inasmuch as he was more exceedingly zealous than they were. In περισσοτέρως the comparison is not surely, as Usteri explains, mehr als gewohnlich, but more than those contemporaries to whom he has just referred. Strange and unfounded is the notion of Gwynne, that the comparison in περισσοτέρως is not between Paul and his contemporaries, but between “the precepts and ordinances of the law of Moses of which his appreciation was not so high, nor his zeal for them so fervid as for his ancestral traditions.” Such a comparison comes not into view at all. The noun ζηλωτής signifies one filled with zeal for what is contained in the following genitive- τοῦ θεοῦ, Acts 22:3; τοῦ νόμου, Acts 21:20; πνεύματων, 1 Corinthians 14:12; καλῶν ἔργων, Titus 2:14 : the genitive of person being sometimes preceded by ὑπέρ; 2 Corinthians 7:7, Colossians 4:13. The noun is not here used in the fanatical sense attaching to the modern term zealot, though it came also to denote a fanatical party in the last days of the Jewish commonwealth. The object of his intense attachment was-

τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων—“for the traditions of my fathers,” the genitive being that of object, as in the places already quoted. The noun παράδοσις, traditio, “giving over,” is literally employed as with πόλεως (Thucydides, 3:53; Josephus, De Bello Jud 1:8; Jud 1:6; Sept. Jeremiah 32:4; Ezra 7:26); then it signifies handing over or down an inheritance (Thucydides, 1.9), and by a natural trope it is used of narration. Josephus, contra Apion. 1.6. So it came to denote instructions delivered orally, as Hesychius defines it by ἀγράφους διδασκαλίας. It is used of apostolical mandate, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; and especially of the Jewish tradition, Matthew 15:2-3; Matthew 15:6, τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν, in opposition to the written divine law. Mark 7:3; Mark 7:9; Mark 7:13; Colossians 2:8. So in Josephus, Antiq. 13.10, 6, and 16, 2. Thus the term seems to denote not the Mosaic law itself, but the accretions which in course of ages had grown around it, and of which the Mishna is an example. Luther and Calvin think that the term denotes the Mosaic law-ipsam Dei legem, as the latter says; and many suppose that the law is included, as Estius, Winer, Usteri, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Olshausen, and Brown. The law may be included, in the sense that a commentary includes the text, or that a legal exposition implies a statute. But the terms, from their nature, cannot primarily refer to it or formally comprehend it, for the law written with such care, and the sacred parchment kept with such scrupulosity, could not well be called traditions. In Acts 22:3 the phrase is τοῦ πατρῴου νόμου—“the law of my fathers”-and refers to traditionary pharisaic interpretation; but the traditions are here called πατρικαί μου. The adjectives πάτριος, πατρικός, πατρῷος, generically the same in meaning, are supposed to have been used with specific difference, though what the precise difference was has been disputed. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. sub voce; Kühner, Xen. Anab. 3.2, 17; also Schoemann, Isaeus, p. 201; and Hermann, Opuscula, vol. 3.195. The apostle, however, uses in these two places the two adjectives πατρικός and πατρῷος with much the same reference. We cannot agree with Meyer, followed by Alford, Ellicott, and others, in saying that the adjective and pronoun limit these traditions to the sect of the Pharisees, Paul being φαρισαῖος, υἱὸς φαρισαίου, “a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.” We rather think, with Wieseler, that the reference must be as wide as in the phrase ἐν τῷ γένει; that the traditions described as handed down from his fathers are viewed as national and not as sectarian; and that though in effect they were pharisaic, still, as the Pharisees were the mass of the nation, they are regarded as having characterized the people to whom Paul belonged. It cannot therefore be supposed that the apostle would be learning Christianity during the period when his progress in Judaism was so marked, when his zeal for patristic traditions so far outran that of his contemporaries,-a zeal in utter and burning antagonism to the new religion. He had kept from all contact with it, save the contact of ferocity with the victim which it immolates. Luther touchingly applies this verse to his own previous history.

Galatians 1:15. ῞οτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεὸς, ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου—“But when God was pleased, who set me apart from my mother's womb.” The ὁ θεός of the received text has for it, D, K, L, א; but B, F, G, omit it. The Greek fathers are doubtful, but the Vulgate and Jerome have it not. The words are left out by Tischendorf and Alford; but if they are a gloss, they are an old one. Ellicott refers to θ. preceded and followed by ῾ο, as the probable source of omission. One may say, on the other hand, that the supposed demands of syntax might seem to warrant the insertion of the words; yet the phraseology of the following clauses is so precise, God's destination and call of the apostle, the revelation of His Son in him with his commission to preach to the Gentiles, that though in the hurry and glow of thought the nominative was omitted, nobody could doubt what it was. “I persecuted the church of God, yet HE was pleased to select me,”-all the more solemn from the omission of the name. Comp. Galatians 1:6, Galatians 2:8; Romans 8:11; Philippians 1:6. He, provoked as He might have been, εὐδόκησεν—“was pleased” of His own sovereign grace. The verb is, as usual with Paul, followed by an infinitive, though it is found in other constructions with a simple accusative. Hebrews 10:6. It occurs with an accusative and εἰς in 2 Peter 1:17; and with ἐν and a dative in Matthew 3:17, and probably in 2 Thessalonians 2:12.

The verb ἀφορίσας is not used here in a mere physical sense (Aquinas, Cajetan, Paulus), as if ἐκ were local, but is ethically “to set apart,” and is followed by εἰς, pointing to the end, as in Acts 13:2, Romans 1:1. Instead, however, of being followed here by εἰς, the construction leads on to an infinitive of purpose, but connected with the previous verb. The ἐκ points out the time from which his destination is to be reckoned (Winer), and the phrase is an imitation of open Hebrew speech. Judges 16:17; Psalms 22:11; Psalms 70:6;, Isaiah 44:2; Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 49:5; Matthew 19:12; Acts 3:2; Acts 14:8. It is equivalent in sense to ἐκ γενετῆς, John 9:1, and does not glance in any way at pharisaic separatism (Wessel). The apostle means to say that God destined him from his birth to his vocation, no matter how wayward and unlikely had been the career of his youth. The words do not mean from eternity (Beza), though, indeed, every act of God is but the realization of an eternal purpose; nor do they mean, before he was born. To support this sense, advocated by Jerome, Grotius, Semler, Rückert, Wieseler, and Hofmann, reference is made to Jeremiah 1:5; but there the language is different, πρὸ τοῦ με πλάσαι σε ἐν κοιλίᾳ. It is therefore only an inference, but not the sense, to say, If he was chosen from the womb, he was chosen in it. His being set apart from his birth was of God's sovereign good pleasure. The phrase may imply also, in an undertone, that his education had been, under God, adapted to his high function. Not only from his birth was he a designated apostle; but he adds:

καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὑτοῦ—“and called me by His grace.” Designation was not enough: he brings out another essential link-that of vocation-as a second step in his progress. The participles are closely connected, no article being before the second one-the designation showed itself in the κλῆσις. The διά is instrumental-by means of His grace (1 Corinthians 15:10); and the call came to him near Damascus. This is the plain historical sense and allusion. The apostle refers to the period of his conversion, and to its medium, as not of merit but of grace. Now he proceeds to show how his call to the apostolate was connected with qualification for it.

Galatians 1:16. ᾿αποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὑτοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ—“to reveal His Son in me.” The infinitive is not connected with one or both of the participles, but with εὐδόκησεν, and its aorist form denotes the past and completed act. The phrase ἐν ἐμοί is “in me,”-in my soul, in my inner self. It cannot mean “to me;” nor is it to be taken for the simple dative (Calvin, Rosenmüller, Koppe, and Flatt), for what then should be the force of the preposition? In Matthew 11:27, 1 Corinthians 2:10, Ephesians 3:5, Philippians 3:16, the simple dative following the verb has a different meaning. Winer, § 31, 8, § 48 a; Bernhardy, p. 213. As little can the phrase mean “through me,” as Jerome, Pelagius, Grotius, Estius, Lightfoot, and Bagge. Nor can it mean coram me (Peile), or “on me” (P. Lombard, Seb. Schmidt), as if it were a manifest token of divine power. OEcumenius says, ἐν ἐμοὶ δὲ εἶπε δεῖξαι θέλων οὐ λόγῳ μόνον μαθόντα αὐτὸν ἀλλὰ καὶ νῷ καὶ καρδίᾳ. Lightfoot's objection to the natural meaning is only a hasty anticipation of the following clause, which tells the purpose of the revelation.

The object of this divine revelation was “His Son;” not the truth about Him, or His work, or His death, or His glory, but Himself-Himself including all. His person is the sum of the gospel. See, for some remarks on “Son,” under Ephesians 1:3; Ephesians 1:17. This revelation may have been in some sense subsequent to the direct call, or it may refer also to the appearance of the Redeemer near Damascus qualifying him for the apostleship. 1 Corinthians 9:1. It gave him full and glowing views of the Redeemer's person, including His various relations to God and to man,-such views as fixed the apostle's faith upon Him, centred his love in Him, and enabled him to hold Him out in his preaching as the one living and glorified Saviour. It was by no process of reasoning that he came to such conclusions, by no elaborate and sustained series of demonstrations that he wrought out his Christology. God revealed His Son in him, divine light was flashed in upon him, so that he saw what he had not seen before, fully, suddenly, and by a higher than intuitive suggestion. He had not been taught, and he did not need to be taught, by any of the apostles. The purpose of this revelation is then stated:

῞ινα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν—“in order that I should preach Him among the Gentiles.” The Son of God was the living theme of his preaching, and the good news about Him was what is stated in the fourth verse-that “He gave Himself for our sins”-the theme which the apostle elsewhere characterizes thus, “We preach Christ crucified.” The enlightenment of the apostle was not for his own individual luxury; it was to fit him to make known what had been so conveyed to him. Acts 22:15; Acts 22:21; Acts 26:17-19. The ἵνα points out the purpose, and the present tense of the verb describes the work of evangelization as no passing or isolated act, but an enduring function. And the sphere of his labours is distinctly avowed—“among the heathen.” Romans 1:5; Romans 1:13; Romans 11:13; Romans 15:16; Ephesians 3:8; 1 Timothy 2:7. The verb εὐαγγελίζω has already been used with the simple dative, Galatians 1:8, and with the accusative, Galatians 1:9; here it is followed by ἐν-among the heathen peoples or all other races beyond the chosen seed. He forgot not his own people-they were ever dear to him; but his characteristic work-to which he had been set apart, called, qualified-was to be the apostle of the Gentiles; and this, so specially his own office, he magnified.

Revelation is opposed to knowledge gained by prolonged and patient thought. It is unlike the common process by which an intellectual conclusion is reached, the inference of one syllogism forming but the premiss of another, till by a series of connected links, primary or abstract truth is reached. For it is sudden and perfect illumination, lifting the receptive power into intensest susceptibility, and so lighting up the whole theme disclosed, that it is immediately and fully apprehended in its evidence and reality. We know not, indeed, what the process is, what the waking up of the higher intuition is, or what the ecstasy which throws into momentary abeyance all the lower faculties. It may resemble that new sphere of vision in which genius enjoys gleams of unutterable beauty, or that “demonstration of the Spirit” which gives the truth new aspects of richness and grandeur to the sanctified soul in some mood of rapt meditation. But still it is different and higher far both in matter and purpose. It was God's revelation of His Son,-not glimpses of the truth about Him, but Himself; not merely summoning his attention to His paramount claims, so as to elicit an acknowledgment of them,-not simply presenting Him to his intellectual perception to be studied and comprehended,-nor even shrining an image of Him in his heart to be loved and cherished,-but His Son unveiled in living reality; and in him-in his inner self, not in any distinct and separate realm of his being,-with the conscious possession of all this infallible and communicable knowledge which was given perhaps first in clear and vivid outline- παρέλαβον-and then filled in surely and gradually- ἐδιδάχθην.

εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι—“immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood;” “I communed not of the matter with flesh and blood” (Tyndale). It would almost seem that the apostle meant to write εὐθέως . . . ἀπῆλθον εἰς ᾿αραβίαν-I went at once into Arabia; but other explanations of a negative kind struggle first for utterance (Jowett). Still εὐθέως, standing emphatically, may qualify the whole paragraph, as Chrysostom hints. What he describes happened immediately after his conversion,-non-conference, non-visitation of Jerusalem, departure for Arabia,-all told in the same breath. The construction is close; for the intermediate negative statement, “neither did I go off to Jerusalem,” is connected by οὐδέ as a denied alternative with the first clause, and then by the directly adversative ἀλλά with the last clause, εὐθέως underlying all of them but specially pointing to, “I went off to Arabia.” Rückert, after Jerome, against all MSS., would join εὐθέως to the previous clause, and so Credner, Einleit. p. 303. The adverb might stand at the end of the clause. See some examples not wholly analogous in Stallbaum's note, Phaedrus, p. 256 E, or vol. iv. p. 134. The phrase σάρξ καὶ αἷμα, בָּסָרוַדָם, here denotes human nature, or man generally, not specially in contrast with higher powers, as in Ephesians 6:12; nor in his more earthly nature, as in 1 Corinthians 15:50; but man as in contrast with divine agency, the contrast suggesting, however, the idea of inferiority, Matthew 16:17. The verb προσανεθέμην is classically “to add a burden to,” or “on one's own self;” and then, as here, “to make address to,” or “hold communion with.” The non acquievi of the Vulgate is not the correct rendering, though it may be so far according to the sense. In the double compound, the first preposition indicates “direction towards” (Meyer), and not addition, praeterea (Beza, Bengel). “I did not address myself to,” or “did not take counsel with,”-two successive phases of the one idea, “I did not consult.” Diodorus Sic. 17.116; ῏ω ζεῦ . . . ἐμοὶ προσανάθου, Lucian, Jup. Tragoed. i. Opera, vol. vi. p. 223, ed. Bipont.; Suidas, sub voce. The phrase “flesh and blood” does not refer to the other apostles (Chrysostom), nor is it a contemptuous allusion to them, as Porphyry insinuated; nor does the apostle mean himself (Koppe, Gwynne), for the verb would not be in harmony; nor does it include the apostle and the others, with whom conference is denied (Schott, Winer, Matthies). The reference, as is held by the majority of expositors, is simply to others, as the spirit of the context also shows, his object being to prove that he was in no sense ἀνθρωποδίδακτος. The apostle is not alluding to any self-denial or any victory over his own desires and preferences, but is only stating the fact that, after his conversion, he had studiously shunned all human conference. The non acquievi has been unduly pressed. Tertullian speaks of some who held that flesh and blood meant Judaism, and that the apostle is to be thus understood: “Statim non retulerit ad carnem et sanguinem, id est, ad circumcisionem, id est ad Judaismum, sicut ad Galatas scribit.” De Resurr. Carnis, cap. i. p. 534; Opera, vol. ii. ed. Oehler. Primasius writes, “Continuo non acquievi, continuo non fui incredulus coelesti visioni quia non carnis et sanguinis voces audivi.”

Galatians 1:17. οὐδὲ ἀπῆλθον εἰς ῾ιεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους—“Neither did I go away to Jerusalem to them who were apostles before me.” The ἀνῆλθον of the received text is very well supported, having in its favour A, K, L, א, Chrysostom, and the Latin, both Vulg. and Clarom.; while ἀπῆλθον is found in B, D, F, the Syriac, and in Basil. The form ἀνῆλθον is the one usually employed,-going up to Jerusalem, not only as the capital city, but as one built on high land,-and may be fairly supposed to be a correction of the more general ἀπῆλθον. It may be indeed replied, as by Tischendorf, that it is improbable that Paul should have written ἀπῆλθον twice consecutively; but we find ἐλάβετε . . . ἐλάβετε in Romans 8:15; Hebrews 2:16. There was no temptation to change ἀν. into ἀπ., but to change ἀπ. into ἀν., so as to harmonize it with general usage. Acts 2:15; Acts 21:15; Acts 25:1. In the οὐδέ there is reference to the previous negation, while another more definite is added, so that there is something more than the fortuitus concursus given by Klotz-Devar. 2.707, and acquiesced in by Ellicott. Generally he held conference with nobody, with no members of the church in Damascus; and specially, as the contrary might have been expected or insinuated, he did not go off to Jerusalem, and consult the elder apostles. Romans 16:7. He did not rehearse his experience to them, or receive either authority or instruction from them. In fact, he carefully kept aloof from them; and so far from journeying to Jerusalem, and to the leaders in the mother church, he went away in quite a different direction-

᾿αλλ᾿ ἀπῆλθον εἰς ᾿αραβίαν—“but I went away into Arabia.” The ἀλλά is found in its full form in A, B, D, F, L, and א; and as introducing an affirmative after a negative statement, it has its strong adversative force. Arabia may mean Arabia Deserta, a portion of which comes so near Damascus. Not to speak of wider geographical descriptions of the name, as in Herod. 2.12, Xen. Anab. 1.5, Plin. Hist. Nat. 6.32, Justin Martyr says, δαμασκὸς τῆς ᾿αραβικῆς γῆς ἦν καὶ ἔστιν. Dial. c. Tryph. Op. vol. ii. p. 268, ed. Otto, 1843; and Tertullian repeats the account, Adv. Marcion. 3.13, Adv. Judges 1:9. Or if Arabia be used more strictly, as in Galatians 4:25, then, as some have fancied, he may have visited, like Elijah, the grand scene of the old legislation. But probably, had he done so, there would be some allusion to such a pilgrimage of honour in a letter in which he unfolds the relations of a law which he was accused of rashly undervaluing and setting aside. The point cannot be determined; and in the brief narrative of the Acts the journey is omitted. Nor can the definite motive of the apostle be ascertained. It does not seem to have been to preach the gospel (Meyer, Wieseler, Ewald), though he would not decline such work if opportunity offered, but rather to prepare himself for his coming labour. Jerome thus allegorizes the matter: “The Itus ac reditus mean nothing in themselves; but Arabia, the country of the bond slave, is the Old Testament, and there he found Christ; reperto illo, he returned to Damascus, ad sanguinem et passionem Christi,”-a play upon the Hebrew meaning of the first syllable; and “so strengthened, he went up to Jerusalem, locum visionis et pacis,”-an allusion again to the signification of the name. At all events, the journey to Arabia is here adduced, not as an illustration of his early preaching of Christ among the heathen, but as a proof that he had held no consultation with flesh and blood; so that probably he retired to enjoy solitary thought and preparation, sounding the depth of his convictions, forecasting possibilities, receiving revelations and lessons,-truth presented inviting him to earnest study,-divine communications viewed on all sides and in all lights, till they were mastered in sum and detail, and became a portion of himself; a lifetime in awfulness and intensity of thought and feeling crowded into a few months. He in this way followed the Master, who, after enjoying the divine manifestation at His baptism, was led of the Spirit into the wilderness. It is not likely that Paul's object was to find safety from Jewish persecution under king Aretas in some part of Arabia (Thiersch).

καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς δαμασκόν—“and again returned to Damascus.” The phrase implies through πάλιν that he had been in Damascus before he went into Arabia. His work on his return to Damascus, was “proving that this is very Christ;” and he “confounded” the Jews by his arguments, anticipating every objection, removing every scruple; remembering how himself had felt and reasoned, and diffusing that new light which had been poured into his soul. A conspiracy was formed against him, but he escaped by night and by a peculiar stratagem, as himself tells, 2 Corinthians 11:33. Thus early did he begin to realize what was said to Ananias, “I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.”

Galatians 1:18. ῎επειτα μετὰ ἔτη τρία ἀνῆλθον εἰς ῾ιεροσόλυμα—“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem.” What must have been his emotions as he passed the scene of his conversion, or if he entered the holy city by the gate through which he had left it? The adverb ἔπειτα, “then”-after his return to Damascus-is a connecting link in his narrative. The point from which the three years are to be computed is fixed by some at the return from Arabia (Borger, Rückert, Jatho). The majority, however, date them from his conversion. That event had just been referred to by him, in its origin, nature, and design. God had set him apart, called him and qualified him, and this event of events to him stood out so prominently in its solitary grace and grandeur, that he reckons from it without any formal reference. The ὁ θεὸς εὐδόκησεν dominates the whole paragraph. How much of this time was spent in Arabia, and how much in the two sojourns at Damascus, is a question for the solution of which we have no proper data. The first stay seems to be indicated by the words ἡμέραι τινές, and the second by ὡς δὲ ἐπληροῦντο ἡμέραι ἱκαναί, in Acts 9:19; Acts 9:23. This last phrase is indefinite, but coupled with the verb seems to denote a considerable space. Eichhorn, Howson, Anger, suppose the three years to have been wholly spent in Arabia. The μετὰ ἔτη τρία are in contrast with the εὐθέως of Galatians 1:16, and ἀνῆλθον refers back to the previous ἀπῆλθον. The object of the visit to Jerusalem was

῾ιστορῆσαι κηφᾶν—“to make the acquaintance of Cephas.” The reading πέτρον of the received text is well sustained, having in its favour D, F, K, L, א³, the Vulgate, and many of the fathers; while κηφᾶν has A, B, א¹, three MSS., Syriac, Coptic, and AEthiopic. The rarer name is to be preferred. The verb ἱστορῆσαι, occurring only here, has sometimes in earlier Greek the sense of knowing through inquiry, or of asking; Hesychius defines it by ἐρωτᾶν. In later Greek it denotes “to visit” as applied to places or things, and to persons in the sense of making the acquaintance of-coram cognoscere. It differs from ἰδεῖν in that it implies that what is to be seen is worthy of a visit of inspection. See Kypke, in loc., and so Chrysostom illustrates it. Thus ἱστορῆσαι ᾿ελεάσαρον, Josephus, Antiq. 8.25; similarly, Bell. Jud 6:1; Jud 6:8, he says of Julian the Bithynian centurion, ὃν ἐγὼ ἱστόρησα; and often in the Clementines, as adduced by Hilgenfeld: Homiliae, 1.14, 9.22, 9.6, etc. But these instances, as usual, refer to things, not persons.

Paul did not go to consult Cephas, or get any information essential to the validity of his office and work, but to visit him as a noted apostle,-one whom it would be gratifying to know through private and confidential intercourse.

But even this first visit to Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, was a very brief one:

καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε—“and I abode with him fifteen days.” πρός so used does not differ in meaning from παρά with a dative. Matthew 26:55; John 1:1; 1 Corinthians 16:6-10. A similar construction is often quoted from AEschyl. Prom. 351; Eurip. Ion, 916. Fritzsche on Mark 6:3 warns, however, that there are many cases in which, though somewhat similar, πρός cannot have this meaning-quae aliquam motus significationem habeant,-cases which even Wahl has not distinguished satis feliciter. Luke 16:20; Luke 22:56; Acts 5:10; Acts 13:31.

It is needless to lay special stress on the ἐπί in ἐπέμεινα, for it seems to be neither distinctly local nor intensive. It may denote rest (Ellicott), and thus give a fuller meaning to the compound verb than the simple one would have borne. The verb is followed in the New Testament by ἐπί, Acts 28:14; by ἐν, Philippians 1:24; by πρός, 1 Corinthians 16:7; and by a simple dative, Romans 6:1; Romans 11:22-23, Colossians 1:23, 1 Timothy 4:16. In the latter case there is a difference of meaning, qui in aliqua re manet et perseverat. Winer, De verborum cum praep. compos. 2.11. The form δεκαπέντε is for the more classical and the fuller πεντεκαίδεκα. Kühner, § 353. The later form occurs often at an earlier period, as in the Tabulae Heracleenses (Lightfoot). Jerome, finding a hidden meaning in the number fifteen, supposes it to mean here plena scientia. Why the visit was so brief is told in Acts 9:29. The Hellenists with whom he had been disputing “went about to slay him,” and the brethren, on becoming aware of the conspiracy, “brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.” A simultaneous reason is assigned by himself. He was praying in the temple, and fell into a trance,-identified on slight grounds by Schrader and Wieseler as the rapture described in 2 Corinthians 12:2,-and the Master appeared and said to him, “Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.” He pleads now for Jerusalem as a field of labour, because his history was so well known to the Hellenists whose prejudices he understood from experience. The excuse is not listened to: not Hellenism but heathenism was again formally assigned to him as his field of labour. “Begone,” was the reply, “I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” Acts 22:17-21.

Galatians 1:19. ῞ετερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ ᾿ιάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου—“And another of the apostles I did not see, except James the Lord's brother;” or, “None other of the apostles did I see, save James the Lord's brother.”

The adjective ἕτερον is simply numerical, not qualitative. Two different meanings have been assigned to the verse. Victorinus, Grotius, Fritzsche (on Matthew 13:55), Bleek, and Winer supply simply εἶδον after εἰ μὴ—“none other of the apostles did I see, except that, or but, I saw James the Lord's brother;”-the inference being, that this James was not an apostle. In this case εἰ μὴ still retains its exceptive force, which is, however, confined to the verb. Thus in Matthew 12:4 it is rendered “but only;” Luke 4:26-27, “save,” “saving;” Revelation 21:27, “but.” Others more naturally supply τὸν ἀπόστολον—“none other of the apostles did I see, except the Apostle James, the Lord's brother;” or, “none other of the apostles saw I, save James the Lord's brother;”-the inference plainly being, that the Lord's brother was an apostle. Thus 1 Corinthians 1:14, οὐδένα ὑμῶν ἐβάπτισα, εἰ μὴ κρίσπον καὶ γάϊον—“none of you I baptized, save Crispus and Gaius:” I baptized them, and they were ὑμῶν—“of you.” The εἰ μὴ being suggested by ἕτερον, thus refers to the whole clause. See under Galatians 1:7, Galatians 2:16.

Note on Chap. Galatians 1:19.

᾿ιάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου—“James the Lord's brother.”

What, then, is meant by the phrase, “the Lord's brother?” If, as here implied, he was one of the apostles, was he one of the twelve-James, son of Alphaeus? or if he did not belong to the twelve, why is he ranked among the apostles?

First of all, who are these ἀδελφοί, brothers of our Lord, to whom this James belonged? One may surely discuss this theme without incurring the censure of Calvin: Certe nemo unquam hac de re questionem movebit nisi curiosus, nemo vero pertinaciter insistet nisi contentiosus rixator.-On Matthew 1:25. For, after all, it is simply an attempted answer to the question, Are there two only or are there three Jameses mentioned in the New Testament? What, then, from the simple narrative may be gleaned about the ἀδελφοί? They are referred to nine times in the four Gospels, once in the Acts, and once in the first Epistle to the Corinthians. From these incidental notices we learn the following:

1. The “brothers” are a party distinct from the apostles. Thus, John 2:12 : “After this He went down to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples;” Matthew 12:46-47 : “While He yet talked to the people, behold, His mother and His brothers stood without, desiring to speak with Him. Then one said, Behold, thy mother and thy brothers stand without, desiring to speak with thee.” Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19. Again, the men of “His own country” cried, “Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us?” Matthew 13:55. “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses, and of Judas and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?” Mark 6:3. “His brothers said to Him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For neither did His brothers believe on Him. But when His brothers were gone up, then went He also up unto the feast.” John 7:3; John 7:5; John 7:10. Four times do this party, so nearly related to Him, pass before us in the gospel history: immediately after His first miracle; as wishing an interview with Him; as sneeringly referred to by His fellow-townsmen; and as not yet believing on Him. The same distinction is still marked after the ascension: “These all (the apostles) continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.” Acts 1:14. The plea of the Apostle Paul is: “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” 1 Corinthians 9:5

2. The brothers appear always in connection with Mary, save in John 7 -the scene and expression of their unbelief, and she could not be entangled in that unbelief; and she is always found in company with them, save in Luke 2:42, Joseph being then alive, and in John 19:25, where she was commended to John and not to one of them. Four times is she-a widow probably by this time-connected with them as their parental head. 3. As a family they are once named as consisting of four brothers—“James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon”-and of at least two sisters, as the word “all” ( πᾶσαι ἀδελφαί) would seem to imply. 4. We have in the verse before us “James the Lord's brother,” not to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, as Hug supposes, for then his patronymic Alphaei would have been quite sufficient. He was therefore one of these ἀδελφοί.

Now, had there been no theological intervention,-no peculiar views as to the perpetual virginity of Mary, or at least no impression that the womb chosen for the divine infant was so sacred-so set apart in solitary honour and dedication, that it could have no other or subsequent tenant,-the natural or usual domestic meaning would have been the only one given to the previous quotations, and Jesus, His brothers, and His sisters would have been regarded as forming one household having the common relationship of children to Mary their mother. The employment of the anomalous double plural “brethren,” instead of “brothers,” in all these places of the Authorized Version, lessens or diverts the impression on the English reader; for “brethren” now never denotes sons of the same parents, but is official, national, functional, or congregational in its use. But the simple and natural meaning of ἀδελφοί has not been usually adopted, and two rival explanatory theories have had a wide and lasting prominence.

The theory so commonly held among ourselves is, that the brothers of our Lord were His cousins-either children of the Virgin's sister, wife of Clopas, or children of Clopas, Joseph's brother. The first hypothesis is real cousinhood; the second is only legal and unreal in reference to Him who was not Joseph's son.

Jerome, who is identified with the theory of cousinhood, as being the first who gave it an elaborated form, refers (under Galatians 1:19) to his Adversus Helvidium de perpetua Virginitate Beatae Mariae, written about 382,-an essay which he wrote, as he says, dum Romae essem, impulsu fratrum. Now, to hold, according to the title of this tract, the perpetual virginity of Mary, forecloses the discussion as to the question of full and natural brotherhood; and Jerome's avowed and primary object was to show that no theory about the ἀδελφοί was permissible which brought the perpetual virginity under suspicion or denial. But the dogma has no scriptural support, so that it cannot demand acceptance as an article of faith. For,

I. What does πρωτότοκος imply? We read, Matthew 1:25, καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον—“and knew her not till she brought forth her first-born son.” Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles exclude πρωτότοκον, but only on the authority of B, Z, and א, and on the suspicion that the phrase was taken from Luke 2:7. It may be replied, however, that this intense belief in the perpetual virginity formed a strong temptation to leave out the epithet; for from it, as Jerome bitterly asserts, some men perversissime suspected that Mary had other and subsequent children. The epithet, however, occurs in Luke 2:7, where there is no difference of reading. Now, in ordinary language, “first-born” implies that others are born afterward; and Jesus could have been as easily called her only as her first-born son. The force of this argument is somewhat neutralized by the opinion, that the word “first-born” may have had a technical sense, since in the Mosaic law it might be applied to the first child, though none were born after it,—“the firstling of man and beast being devoted to God.” Exodus 13:2; Luke 2:23. Thus Lightfoot says: “The word is to be understood here according to the propriety and phrase of the law,” and he instances 1 Chronicles 2:50, where “Hur is called the first-born of Ephrath, and yet no mention made of any child that she had after.” But “first-born” occurs generally in these genealogical lists in its relative sense; and as sons are usually registered only, might not Ephrath have had daughters? The Hebrew law, as originally ordained, was a present enactment with a prospective reference as regards the first child or son, whether an only child or not, and the statute was easily interpreted. The same principle is applicable to the term “first-born” as belonging to the Egyptian families that suffered under the divine judgment, and to Jerome's objection that the law of redemption applying to the first-born would, if the word be taken in its relative sense, be held in suspense till the birth of a second child. But Jerome's definition is true only in a legal sense: Primogenitus est non tantum post quem alii, sed ante quem nullus.For the diction of law and history are different. The law ordained the dedication of that child by the birth of which a woman became a mother, and called it the firstling or first-born irrespective of any subsequent children, and at its birth the redemption must be made. But in writing the history of an individual many years after his time, it would be strange to call him a first-born son, or to say of his mother that she brought forth her first-born son, if there were in that family no subsequent births. A biographer would in that case most naturally call him an only son. Epiphanius must have been greatly at a loss for an argument to prove “first-born” to be the same as “only,” when he bases it on the position of αὐτῆς in Matthew 1:25 : τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς . . . καὶ οὐκ εἶπε τὸν πρωτότοκον αὐτῆς . . . ἀλλὰ πρωτότοκον μόνον, as if αὐτῆς did not belong to both words.

Besides, the epithet “first-born” is used by an evangelist who in subsequent chapters speaks of brothers and sisters of Jesus; and what could he suppose would be the natural inference of his readers when they brought πρωτότοκος υἱός and ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ together, there being no hint or explanation that the relations indicated are other than the ordinary and natural one of blood? The epithet, too, does not seem to have an absolute sense as used in the New Testament: πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, Romans 8:29. Compare Colossians 1:15; Colossians 1:18; Hebrews 11:28; Revelation 1:5. The inference of Eunomius is a natural one: εἰ πρωτότοκος οὐκέτι μονογενής. Helvidius, who, as is well known, holds the natural kinship, and against whom Jerome fulminated in the tract already referred to, argues, as might be supposed, in the same way; and Lucian says: εἰ μὲν πρῶτος, οὐ μόνος, εἰ δὲ μόνος οὐ πρῶτος.

II. No definite argument can be based on the particle ἕως in the same verse, for it does not always mean that what is asserted or denied up to a certain point of time is reversed after it. In 2 Samuel 6:23, where it is said “she (Michal) had no child till the day of her death,” the meaning cannot be mistaken. But the sense must be determined by the context, whether what is asserted as far as ἕως ceased or continued after it. See Fritzsche on Matthew 28:20; Meyer on Matthew 1:25.

This verse undoubtedly affirms the virginity of Mary up to the birth of Jesus, and this prior virginity is the principal fact; but it as plainly implies, that after that event Mary lived with Joseph as his wife. Even prior to the birth she is called “Mary thy wife,” and her virginity is stated as if it had been a parenthesis in her wifehood. Basil himself, while asserting that her virginity before the birth was necessary, and that the lovers of Christ cannot bear to hear that she, ἡ θεοτόκος, ever ceased to be a virgin, admits that the phrase ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν creates a suspicion, ὑπόνοιαν, that afterwards this prenuptial condition ceased: τὰ νενομισμένα τοῦ γάμου ἔργα μὴ ἀπαρνησαμένης τῆς ΄αρίας. The theory of Jerome, on the other hand, was intended, in fact, to conserve the perpetual virginity both of Joseph and Mary. It is beside the point, and a mere assumption, to say, with Olshausen on Matthew 1:25, Joseph might justly think that his marriage with Mary had another purpose than that of begetting children. “It seems,” he adds, “in the order of nature, that the last female descendant of David, in the family of which the Messiah was born, closed her family with this last and eternal scion.” This is only sentiment without any proof, though I confess that one naturally clings to such a belief. The perpetual virginity cannot, however, be conclusively proved out of Scripture; but an inference decidedly against it may be maintained from both the terms πρωτότοκος and ἕως in Matthew 1:25.

If the ἀδελφοί were only cousins, the perpetual virginity becomes at least possible. Jerome's first argument on behalf of cousinhood is, that in Galatians 1:19, James is recognised as an apostle, and must therefore be James son of Alphaeus, one of the twelve. If not, he reasons that there must have been three Jameses,-the son of Zebedee, the son of Alphaeus or James the Less, and this third one; but the epithet τοῦ μικροῦ given to the one James implies that there were only two; so that the imagined third James is identical with the son of Alphaeus. Mark 15:40. But in reply, first, James the Lord's brother was not, in our view, one of the twelve, so that such an argument forms no objection; and, secondly, the comparative minor, “the Less,” is not the proper rendering of the positive ὁ μικρός; and though it were the true rendering, it might still be given to James the Lord's brother, to distinguish him from James the son of Alphaeus. Probably the epithet is absolute, and alludes to stature and not to age; at all events, the other James is never called James the Great. Gregory of Nyssa, indeed, gives him that title because he was among the apostles; the Lord's brother, on the other hand, being called “Little” as not being among them,-a conjecture on a par with that of Lange, that James was named “the Less” from his later entrance into the apostolic college in comparison with the other James. It is highly probable, too, that “the Little” was not the epithet he bore at the period of the resurrection, but was his individualizing epithet when the Gospel was written.

2. The other steps of Jerome's argument are: Alphaeus father of James, was married to Mary sister of the Virgin; so that James was the Lord's cousin, and might be called His brother according to Jewish usage. That is, Mary the mother of James the Little is asserted to be wife of Alphaeus his father,-it being assumed, first, that James the Little is the same with the son of Alphaeus; secondly, that this Mary is the wife of Clopas and the Virgin's sister; and thirdly, that Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person. Yet Jerome says in his very tract against Helvidius that he does not contend earnestly for the identity of Mary of Clopas with Mary mother of James and Joses, though one should say that it was the key to his whole argument. Nay, in his epistle to Hedibia he writes: Quatuor autem fuisse Marias, in Evangeliis legimus, unam matrem Domini Salvatoris, alteram materteram ejus quae appellata est Maria Cleophae, tertiam Mariam matrem Jacobi et Jose, quartam Mariam Magdalenam. Licet alii matrem Jacobi et Jose materteram ejus fuisse contendunt.

But Clopas and Alphaeus cannot be identified with certainty. The names are not so like as some contend. In Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13, we have James the son of Alphaeus, and in Mark 2:14 we have Levi the son of Alphaeus; but whether these two Alphaeuses are the same or different, it is impossible to decide. Then we have κλῶπας (Clopas) in John 19:23, and κλέοπας (Cleopas) in Luke 24:18, the proper spelling of the two names in the Greek text. The original Syro-Chaldaic form, as given in the Syriac version, is חָלפָי, Chalphai, and is found in the five places where ᾿αλφαῖος occurs, but it gives קלֶיוֹפָא for the two names Clopas and Cleopas in John and Luke. The names are thus evidently regarded as quite different by the author or authors of this oldest version. Clopas therefore is not, as is often affirmed, the Aramaic form of Alphaeus; and to assert that Alphaeus and Clopas are varying names is opposed to philological analogy. The Syriac Cheth may pass into the Greek ᾿α with the spiritus lenis, as in ᾿αλφαῖος, for the Hebrew חis so treated by the Seventy, חַוָּה, H2558 becoming εὔα, though often it is represented by the Greek χ or κ. But would ᾿α have any alliance with the consonantal Kuph in Clopas or Klopas? At least the Hebrew Koph seems never to be represented by a vowel in the Septuagint, but by κ, χ, or γ. Frankel, Vorstudien, etc., p. 112. In fine, it cannot be safely held that by James the Little must be meant the son of Alphaeus, for, as Hegesippus says, “there were many Jameses.”

Nor can any solid assistance for this theory of cousinhood be got from John 19:25, for it cannot be proved that the words “His mother's sister” are in apposition with “Mary the wife of Clopas.” The punctuation of the verse is, probably, not τοῦ ᾿ιησοῦ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἡ ἀδελφὴ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ ΄αρία ἡ τοῦ κλωπᾶ—“Mary His mother, and His mother's sister Mary wife of Clopas;” but there should be a comma after μητρὸς αὐτοῦ, so that Mary of Clopas becomes a third and different person, the “sister's” name not being given: “His mother and His mother's sister, Mary wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene.” The Peschito inserts “and” before ΄αρία ומָריָם; and in the Greek the four clauses are arranged in couplets, as in Matthew 10:2-4. This punctuation is preferable, for it is not very likely that two sisters in one family should have the same name, and there is no parallel case in Scripture; for the name of Herod, an example adduced by Mill, comes not, as being a royal name repeated in the family, into comparison. But again, there is no certainty that ἡ τοῦ κλωπᾶ is “wife of Clopas;” for it may be either wife, mother, or daughter of Clopas, as the context may determine. Thus a Mary is called mother of James and Joses in Matthew 27:56, ΄αρία ἡ τοῦ ᾿ιακώβου καὶ ᾿ιωσῆ μήτηρ; but in Mark (Mark 15:47) she is named simply ΄αρία ᾿ιωσῆ, and in Luke (Luke 24:10), ΄αρία ᾿ιακώβου. Why may not these two last places guide us to interpret ΄αρία ἡ τοῦ κλῶπα as “Mary mother of Clopas?” It cannot, then, be demonstrated, either that Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, or that Mary of Clopas is necessarily his wife, and to be identified with Mary mother of James and Joses. But it has been triumphantly asked, If a Mary, not the Virgin, is called for distinction's sake “mother of James,” what James can be meant but the most famous of the name-James of Alphaeus called the Lord's brother, and in the early church James the Little, and therefore the cousin of our Lord? But be James the Little who he may, his position does not seem of sufficient prominence to distinguish his mother, for the name of another son, Joses, is added, as if for such a purpose, in Mark 15:40. The combination of both names was apparently required to point out the mother, so that it is natural to infer that this James, like his brother Joses, was of small note in the church, and could not therefore be the son of Alphaeus. And to show what confusion reigns on this point, it may be added that not a few identify Mary mother of James with Mary mother of our Lord. This is virtually done in the apocryphal gospel Historia Josephi, cap. iv., by Gregory of Nyssa, by Chrysostom, by Theophylact, by Helvidius, by Fritzsche, and by Cave who makes Alphaeus another name of Joseph. The James and Joses who had this Mary as their mother could not, therefore, be the brethren of our Lord, as the four would most likely have been mentioned together; and it is not possible either that “mother” should have a vague significance, or that her maternal relation should be ignored, and two other sons or step-sons placed in the room of her First-born.

Again, if the brothers were merely cousins, sons of Alphaeus, how could they be called again and again ἀδελφοί? Jerome replies, Quatuor modis fratres dici, natura, gente, cognatione affectu; natura, Esau, Jacob; gente qua omnes Judaei inter se fratres vocant; . . . cognatione qui sunt de una familia, id est patria, Abraham, Lot,-Laban, Jacob; affectu . . . Christiani fratres, etc. Then he asks, Were these cousins fratres juxta naturam? non; juxta gentem? absurdum; juxta affectum? verum si sic, qui magis fratres quam apostoli? . . . Restat igitur fratres eos intelligas appellatos cognatione.But in these examples referred to, the context prevents any confusion of sense. Lot is called a brother of Abraham, and Jacob of Laban, they being only nephews, and specially beloved for the original fraternal relation. These indefinite terms of relation are found in the oldest book of Scripture; but there is no instance of this laxity in the New Testament found with ἀδελφός in reference to kinship, nor with ἀδελφή unless it is used tropically, Romans 16:1. The New Testament has special terms, as συγγενεῖς, ἀνεψιός: Mark 6:4; Luke 1:36; Luke 2:44; Colossians 4:10. Even in the old books of the Old Testament, when relation is to be marked, there is perfect definiteness in the use of אָח, H278, as in Genesis 37:10; Genesis 50:8, Leviticus 21:2, Numbers 6:7, Joshua 2:13. When it is employed along with father, mother, or sister, it evidently bears its own proper meaning. In the same way, in those clauses of the New Testament already referred to, ἀδελφός is used along with μήτηρ αὐτοῦ; and it would be strange if in such a connection, where the maternal relation is indicated, the fraternal should not correspond,-if along with “mother” in its true meaning, “brother” should be found in a vague and unusual sense. Do not the phrases, “His mother and His brothers,” “thy mother and thy brothers,” suggest that Mary stood in a common maternal relation to Him and to them? And if these brothers were only first cousins, sons of Mary's sister and Alphaeus, why are they always in the evangelical history associated with the mother of Jesus, but never with their own mother, while they are uniformly called His brothers?

It is also held by many, though not by Jerome, that along with James Alphaei there were among the twelve two other brothers, a ᾿ιούδας ᾿ιακώβου, “Jude brother of James,” and a Simon called the Zealot; the proof being that in the lists of Luke and Acts, James is placed between these two, as if he had belonged to the same family. See Matthew 13:55, Luke 6:16, and Judges 1:1. That is, His “brothers” are James, Joses, Simon, and Judas; and these being cousins, three of them are found among the primary apostles. But if in the same list ᾿ιάκωβος ᾿αλφαίου be James son of Alphaeus, why should ᾿ιούδας ᾿ιακώβου not mean Jude son and not brother of James, especially as brotherhood is marked by ἀδελφός in a previous part of the catalogue in Luke 6:16? Son is the more natural supplement, as in the Peschito, and the opinion is adopted by Luther, Herder, Jessien, Dahl, and Wieseler. As Lightfoot has remarked, “Had brotherhood been intended, the clause would have run as in other cases, such as that of the sons of Zebedee,-‘James the son of Alphaeus, and Jude his brother,’ or ‘James and Jude, sons of Alphaeus.’” Simon Zelotes is never called brother of James; and Jude is termed Lebbaeus whose surname was Thaddaeus in Matthew 10:3, in Mark 3:18 simply Thaddaeus, and Judas not Iscariot in John 14:22. It is likewise passing strange, that if three out of the four brothers were apostles, not one of them should be ever designated by that honourable appellation. Nor is there any probability at all that Jude and Simon are two of the four; nor is the case different with James and Joses, for if Joses be not one of the so-called brethren, neither was his brother James. One of the Lord's brothers is called by the Nazarenes, in Matthew 13:55, ᾿ιωσήφ (Joseph), according to the best reading; but the son of a Mary is called ᾿ιωσῆς (Joses), making a genitive ᾿ιωσῆτος, in Matthew 27:56, according to the highest authorities. These Greek words may represent different Syro-Chaldaic forms, and the Syriac has for Joses יָוסִ5, the other form being יָוסֶ5. But no great stress can be laid on such variations, unless we had faith in the minute exactness of copyists. Schneckenburger's identification of Joses with Joseph Barsabas surnamed Justus in Acts 1:23, is for many reasons quite a gratuitous conjecture. Levi (Matthew) is called “of Alphaeus,” Mark 2:14 : was he another son of Alphaeus, or is the father of Matthew a different person of the same name?

But further, after this disposal of the names individually, we may ask, If three out of the four of Christ's “brothers” were among His called and consecrated, how could they come with His mother desiring to speak with Him; how could they as a party be always named as distinct from the apostles; and especially, how could it be said of them at a period so far advanced in our Lord's ministry, that they did not believe on Him? For it is declared of them: οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπίστευον εἰς αὐτόν,—“for neither were His brothers believing on Him.” John 7:5. They certainly could not be His apostles and yet be unbelievers in Himself or in His divine mission. Jerome indeed holds that James was a believer, and his theory allowed him to single out James; but the brethren are plainly spoken of as a body. Nor would this alleged faith of James serve Jerome's purpose, or warrant James' enrolment among the twelve; for the brethren, even after they did believe, are described as a party quite distinct from the apostles, Acts 1:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5. It is remarkable, too, that our Lord's reply to His brothers is the same as that to His mother, John 2:4, “My time is not yet come,”-as if He had detected in them a similar spirit to hers at the marriage, when, the wine being done, she ventured to suggest His immediate interposition. The force of this argument from the unbelief of the brothers has been sometimes set aside, as by Ellicott after Grotius, Lardner, and Hug, who assert that the verb ἐπίστευον may be used in an emphatic sense, as if it meant, did not fully believe on Him. The context is against such a view; for whatever their impressions and anticipations about Him and His miracles, they wanted faith in Him, and spoke either in selfish or satirical rebuke: “Depart hence, and go to Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.” Ellicott refers, in vindication of his statement, to John 6:64, “There are some of you- μαθηταί-that believe not;” but there the assertion is an absolute one,-and in proof we are told in the 66th verse, that “many of them went back, and walked no more with Him.” The 67th verse, by the question, “Will ye also go away?” does not, as Ellicott alleges, imply any doubt, for it was only a testing challenge proposed to draw out the noble response of Peter for himself and his colleagues. See Meyer, Lücke, in loc. Further, to say, in opposition to what has been advanced, that two at least of the ἀδελφοί were among the apostles, assumes the correctness of the theory that they were cousins, but the phrase οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ seems to include the domestic party as a whole; and there was no need, as Pott and Monod imagine, for inserting πάντες in order to get this sense. The exegesis of Lange on this passage is quite untenable, and is no better, as Alford calls it, than “finessing.” He says that the unbelief of the Lord's brother is parallel to (auf eine linie mit) the unbelief of Peter, Matthew 16:23, and of Thomas, John 20:25. “The evangelist does not,” he adds, “speak of unbelief in the ordinary sense, which rejected the Messiahship of Jesus; but of that want of trust, compliance, and obedience, which made it difficult for His disciples, apostles, and even also His mother, to find themselves reconciled to His life of suffering and to His concealment of Himself.” Now the phrase introducing the statement is οὐδὲ γάρ, “for neither did His brethren believe on Him,”-the relative οὐδέ bringing a previous party into view, that is, the Jews, who sought to slay Him,-the worst form of unbelief; or if οὐδέ be taken absolutely, “not even,” it still brings out a very strong assertion of unbelief. The unbelief ascribed to Peter and Thomas, on the occasions to which Lange refers, was a momentary stagger,-the first at the idea of the Master enduring the sufferings which Himself had predicted, and the other was a refusal to admit without proof the identity of the apparition which the ten had seen with Him who had been crucified. The phrase πιστεύειν εἰς αὐτόν has but one meaning in the narrative portion of John, as in John 2:11; John 2:23, John 4:39, John 7:31; John 7:39, John 9:36, John 10:42, etc.; and that simple and natural meaning does not bear out the ingenious exegesis by which Ellicott and Lange would exculpate the Lord's brethren. Nay more, the evangelist records the saying in John 6:69, “We believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God,”-and this is said of the apostles as a body; but when he says a few verses farther on, John 7:5, “Neither did His brothers believe on Him,” the contrast is surely one of full significance. In fine, the ἀδελφοί distinctly, and one would almost say tauntingly, exclude themselves from the wider party when they name them οἱ μαθηταί σου. They went up to the feast separately from Jesus and the apostles. Other shifts have been resorted to in order to take its natural significance of fraternal unbelief from the passage. While Chrysostom (on John 7:5) distinctly places James among the brethren-the James of Galatians, Galatians 1:19; Grotius and Paulus imagine that the same persons are not always represented by the ἀδελφοί, some of whom believed, and some did not. Pott and Gabler conjecture more wildly that the ἀδελφοί were brothers of James who was only a cousin, and not comprehended therefore in this position of unbelief. But why should James the “Lord's brother” be put into a different category from the Lord's brothers, one of whom is called James? It may be added in a word, that the unbelief of the Lord's brothers so incidentally stated, becomes a proof of the veracity of the evangelists. They hesitate not to say that His nearest kindred opposed Him, and they did not deem the unlikely fact to be derogatory to His character. Their unbelief proves, at the same time, that there was no inner compact, no domestic league, to help forward His claims. He did not first win over His family, so as to enjoy their interested assistance as agitators and heralds. The result then is, that the theory which holds that these brothers of our Lord were His first cousins seems very untenable, as is shown by this array of objections viewed singly and in their reciprocal connection.

The tractate of Jerome, who first argued out at length the hypothesis of cousinhood, and of the identity of James the Lord's brother with James son of Alphaeus, was an earnest vindication against Helvidius of the ἀει- παρθενία of the blessed Virgin as a dogma not to be questioned without presumption or impugned without “blasphemy.” So much is his soul stirred by the daring outrage, that he begins with invoking the assistance of the Holy Spirit; and of the Son that His mother may be defended ab omni concubitus suspicione; and of the Father, too, that the mother of His Son may be shown to be virgo post partum quae fuit mater antequam nupta. What he defended was to him a momentous article, the virginity of Mary after the Lord's birth being as surely held and revered as her virginity prior to it. He professes to be guided solely by Scripture: Non campum rhetorici desideramus eloquii, non dialecticorum tendiculas, nec Aristotelis spineta conquirimus. He shows no little ingenuity in his interpretation of various phrases; is especially exultant on the meaning of donec or usque in the clause donec peperit filium, and of primogenitus in connection with the Hebrew priesthood and the destruction of the first-born in Egypt; cries out on Helvidius, who thought that Mary the mother of Jesus is she who is called mother of James and Joses among the women at the cross; then develops his theory of cousins-brothers, and thinks that he has obtained a decided victory by a cornuta interrogatio, when he winds up a paragraph by affirming that in the same way as Joseph was called His father, they were called His brothers. He next passes into a eulogy on virginity, not forgetting, however, that the saints in the Old Testament had wives, nay, that some had a plurality of them; but proceeds to a very spirited picture of the woes of married life,-the wife painting before the mirror, and busied in dusting, knitting, and dressing, infants screaming, children kissed, cooks here and dressmakers there, accounts to be made up, correction of servants, scenes of revelry,-Responde quaeso inter ista ubi sit Dei cogitatio? Any house otherwise ordered, must, he adds in his celibate wit, be rara avis. At length he ventures to go so deeply into the privacies of the matter that we forbear to follow him. His tone towards his opponent is one of utter contempt and savage humour: he brands him as hominem rusticanum and vix primis quoque imbutum literis,-cries on one occasion, doleamne an rideam, nescio; upbraids his style,-vitia sermonis, quibus omnis liber tuus scatet; salutes him as imperitissime hominum; accuses him of a love of notoriety madder and incomparably more flagitious in result than his who set fire to Diana's temple at Ephesus, for he had done a similar outrage to the temple of the Lord, and had desecrated the sanctuary of the Spirit; compares his eloquence to a camel's dance,-risimus in te proverbium, camelum vidimus saltitantem; and ends by assuring him that his censure would be his (Jerome's) highest glory, since he would in that case suffer the same canina facundia as did the mother of the Lord. This sternness of rebuke and outpouring of scorn and indignation on the subject, are an index to that general state of feeling which Helvidius was so luckless and daring as to offend, solus in universo mundo; and yet he was all the while so obscure an individual that his respondent, living in the same city with him, knows nothing of him, and cannot tell whether he be fair or dark of visage,-albus aterve sis, nescio-quis te, oro, ante hanc blasphemiam noverat, quis dupondii supputabat? It is at the same time to be borne in mind, that Jerome, in the midst of this fury, claims no support from the ecclesiastical writers before him, quotes no one in his favour, appeals to no father of an earlier century, even while he admits that Tertullian held his opponent's views, and curtly dismisses him as not belonging to the church.

The general purpose of his treatise was to prove the perpetual virginity, and to root up and scatter to the winds the argument against it, that Mary had other sons besides her “First-born.” Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and “many other apostolic and eloquent men,” are appealed to by him as holding the general opinion, haec eadem sentientes; but he does not aver that they held his special hypothesis that the brothers were cousins, though certainly he does not intimate that he and they differed on the point. Jerome refers to this treatise ten years afterwards in an epistle to Pammachius, and vindicates the doctrine of virgo perpetua mater et virgo, by bringing such strange analogies in proof as-Christ's sepulchre “wherein was never man yet laid;” His entrance into the chamber, “the doors being shut;” and the prophetic utterance about the gate, “No man shall enter in by it, because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut.” Ezekiel 44:2.

Now, Jerome's object being to prove Mary virgin post as well as ante partum, it was quite enough for his purpose to show that the brethren of Joseph were not her true and proper sons. Ambrose, ten years afterwards, contents himself with this simpler declaration: Potuerunt autem fratres esse ex Joseph non ex Maria. Quod quidem si quis diligentius prosequatur inveniet. Nos ea persequenda non putavimus, quoniam fraternum nomen liquet pluribus esse commune.Jerome, however, in his zeal, and from the impulses of an ardent and impetuous temperament, deliberately preferred a theory in conflict with the well-known tradition on the subject, which he scouted as being taken from the deliramenta Apocryphorum. He was thus well aware of the alternative; for in his note on Matthew 12:49, he says: quidam fratres Domini de alia uxore Joseph filios suspicantur;-again, in De Viris Illustribus: Jacobus qui appellatur frater Domini, ut nonulli existimant, Joseph ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, Mariae sororis matris Domini cujus Joannes in libro suo meminit, filius.So Pelagius and Isidore Hispalensis, who says, Jacobus Alphaei sororis matris Domini filius.-Tom. v. p. 153, ed. Migne. The view of Jerome, which was a comparative novelty among the Western churches, was not at first adopted by his great contemporary Augustine. In his note on Galatians 1:19, he says: Jacobus Domini frater vel ex filiis Joseph de alia uxore vel ex cognatione Mariae matris ejus debet intelligi. These words indicate no fixed opinion; but otherwise he appears to maintain a view not unlike that of Jerome. Thus, in a spiritualistic interpretation of the second verse of Psalms 127, he describes the brethren as cognati consanguinitate.Again, Non mirum est dictos esse fratres Domini ex materno genere quoscumque cognatos, cum etiam ex cognatione Joseph dici potuerint fratres ejus ab illis qui illum patrem Domini esse arbitrantur.Further: Unde fratres Domini? Num enim Maria iterum peperit? Absit. Inde coepit dignitas virginum. Cognati Mariae fratres Domini, de quolibet gradu cognati.He does not in these places call them cousins, though he repeats in some of them the stock argument about the brotherhood of Abraham and Lot, Laban and Jacob. He is content with the more general terms, consanguinei et cognati,-their cognatio, however, being derived through Mary, not through Joseph. The same opinion had, however, some few advocates in the Eastern church. Chrysostom, on Galatians 1:19, calls James son of Clopas ὅπερ καὶ ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς ἔλεγεν, thus identifying Clopas with Alphaeus and regarding James as an apostle. But Chrysostom is far from being consistent with himself; since, as he identifies ΄αρία ᾿ιακώβου (on Matthew 27:25) with the Lord's mother, he must have held either that James was full brother, or at least step-brother. In other places he does not place James among the twelve at all, as on 1 Corinthians 15:7, but calls him an unbeliever with the rest of the Lord's brethren, and says that they bore this name as Joseph was the reputed husband of Mary (on Matthew 1:25). Theodoret says explicitly that James was brother,-not, however, οὔτε μὴν ὥς τινες ὑπειλήφασι τοῦ ᾿ιωσὴφ υἱὸς ἐτύγχανεν, ὤν ἐκ προτέρων γάμων γενόμενος, ἀλλὰ τοῦ κλωπᾶ μὲν ἦν υἱὸς, τοῦ δὲ κυρίου ἀνεψιός (on Galatians 1:19). But this view did not obtain wide currency in the East.

The theory of mere cousinhood thus won its way into the Western churches, and became the common one among ourselves. Professor Lightfoot has said that Jerome “did not hold his theory staunchly and consistently,” and that in his comment on this verse he speaks like “one who has committed himself to a theory of which he has misgivings.” Certainly Jerome did not hold his view at a future period so tenaciously, or with so keen and impatient an opposition to others, as he did at its first promulgation. Thus in the Epistle to Hedibia he says: “There are four Maries: the mother of our Lord; another her aunt, Mary of Clopas; a third, the mother of James and Joses; and a fourth, Mary Magdalene; though others contend that Mary mother of James and Joses was the Virgin's aunt.” (See Latin on p. 64.) Again, on this verse, he refers to his treatise written when he was a young man, and then, curtly dismissing it, advances a new argument, that James was called the Lord's brother propter egregios mores et incomparabilem fidem sapientiamque non mediam, and that for the same reason the other apostles also were called fratres Domini. But where do they get this distinctive appellation? The first of these quotations is virtually an abandonment of his whole theory, at least of its principal proof, and the second is the occupation of entirely new ground; but there is no preference indicated for the other hypothesis, that of step-brothers, as Professor Lightfoot would infer. Lastly, in his commentary on Isaiah 17:6, Jerome formally admits fourteen apostles: duodecim qui electi sunt et tertium decimum Jacobum qui appellatur frater Domini et Paulum. . . .

This theory of Jerome, whose adherence to it did not grow with his years, does not however appear to be the absolute novelty which some would assert it to be. The opinion of Clement is somewhat doubtful, and we can only guess at it from extracts, some of which may not be genuine. Cassiodorus quotes from his Hypotyposeis thus: “Jude, who wrote the catholic epistle, being one of the sons of Joseph and the Lord's brother, a man of deep piety, though he knew his relationship to the Lord, yet did not say he was His brother; for this is true, he was His brother, being Joseph's son.” It is hard to say whether the last explanatory words are those of Clement, or are inserted by the Ostrogothic statesman Cassiodorus, his Latin translator, who may not have held the theory of Jerome.

But Eusebius, speaking of the Lord's brother, gives other extracts from Clement of quite a different character: “Peter, James, and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, were not ambitious of honour; . . . but chose James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem.” James the Just was therefore a different person from the three apostolical electors; and if the first James is the son of Zebedee, the last is James son of Alphaeus. For the historian adds another illustrative quotation: “The Lord after the resurrection imparted the gnosis to James the Just, and John, and Peter. These delivered it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. Now there were two Jameses-one the Just, who was thrown from a battlement of the temple, and the other who was beheaded.” These extracts from Clement favour the theory of Jerome; for James the Just, as seen in this statement, which admits two persons only of the name of James, cannot be a son of Joseph, but must be the son of Alphaeus, and not a half-brother, though he may be a cousin. There is no room to doubt the genuineness of the epithet τῷ δικαίῳ in the beginning of the second excerpt, in order to make the triad the same in the first and second quotations; for it is in connection with James the Just that the second quotation is made, and it is introduced by the words ἔτι καὶ ταῦτα περὶ αὐτοῦ φησίν.

Nor, on the other hand, was the opinion of Helvidius so great a novelty as Jerome represents it. Victorinus of Petavium is said to have taken the word “brethren” in its natural sense, but Jerome denies it. Tertullian, who was claimed by Helvidius, is rudely thrown out of court by Jerome because he did not belong to the catholic church. In discussing the reality of the incarnation, Tertullian seems to employ mater et fratres in their ordinary sense, evidently regarding that sense as essential to his argument: Et Christum quidam virgo enixa est, semel nuptura post partum, ut uterque titulus sanctitatis in Christi censu dispungeretur, per matrem et virginem et univiram.Again, in his treatise against Marcion, and on the assertion, inquiunt, ipse (Christus) contestatur se non esse natum, dicendo quae mihi mater et qui mihi fratres? among other elements of reply, he asks: Dic mihi, omnibus natis mater adivit? omnibus natis adgenerantur et fratres? non licet patres magis et sorores habere vel et neminem? . . . et vere mater et fratres ejus foris stabant,-si ergo matrem et fratres eos fecit qui non erant, quomodo negavit eos qui erant?Tertullian thus took mater and fratres in their natural sense, and the opinion is strengthened by Jerome's treatment of him. Helvidius had quoted Tertullian as being in his favour, and Jerome does not deny it, but tartly says: nihil amplius dico quam ecclesiae hominem non fuisse. Now Tertullian does not regard his view as an uncommon one, and the likelihood is that it was widely held; for if so pronounced an ascetic as he was did espouse it, it must have been by the compulsion of undeniable evidence. Still we do not find any express testimonies on the subject in other quarters; nor do we know any sufficient grounds for Neander's assertion, that many teachers of the church had in the preceding period maintained, that by the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament were to be understood the later-born sons of Mary-später geborne Söhne der Maria. Vol. iii. p. 458, Engl. Trans.

The other theory which Jerome scouted, maintains equally with his that the ἀδελφοί were not relations in near blood or uterine brothers, but were children of Joseph by a former marriage. This hypothesis seems to have been, if not originated, yet perpetuated by the grammatical necessity of giving ἀδελφός its natural meaning on the one hand, and the theological necessity, on the other hand, of maintaining the postnuptial virginity of Mary. Cousinhood would suffice for the dogma, but not for the philology. “Brothers,” in the position which they repeatedly occupy in the Gospels, could not well be relatives so distant as cousins; but they might be earlier children of Joseph, yet related in no degree of blood to Jesus as the son of Mary. Indeed, had they been the children of Mary herself, they were only through her related to Jesus, who in fatherhood was separated by an infinite distance from them. This view is presented by Theophylact in a peculiar form-to wit, that they were the children of Joseph by a levirate marriage with the widow of his brother Clopas who had died childless. But was Joseph husband of the widow of Clopas and of Mary mother of Jesus at one and the same time? and if this widow were the Mary wife of Clopas supposed by so many to be the sister of the Virgin, what then would be the nature of such a marital connection? Or was Mary widow of Clopas dead before he espoused the Virgin Mary? Or are the two women, unrelated in blood, called sisters because married to two brothers? There is no proof that such a connection would warrant a designation of sisterhood.

Now, first for the theory of step-brotherhood, there is no explicit evidence in Scripture - no hint or allusion as to Joseph's age or previous history. Nor are the ἀδελφοί ever called the sons of Joseph, as if to identify them more particularly with him; nor are they ever associated with him, save remotely in the exclamation of the Nazarenes. Nor, indeed, are they called the children of Mary,-through her they are always associated with Jesus. Dr. Mill, however, says that the theory “imparts a meaning to the Nazarenes' wondering enumeration of those (now elder) brethren, which on the other supposition is senseless.” This is mere hypothesis. No question of comparative age has anything to do with the sceptical amazement at Nazareth. The ground of wonder was, how one member of a family still among themselves, and with whom they were or had been so familiar, could start into such sudden pre-eminence,-displaying such wisdom and putting forth such unearthly power. As for the “tone of authority” ascribed by Dr. Mill to the ἀδελφοί, we find it not; the phrases, “desiring to speak with Him,” and in a spirit of unbelief urging Him to go up to the feast, are certainly no proof either of it or of superior age on which they might presume. For any appeal on this point to Mark 3:21 cannot be sustained: καὶ ἀκούσαντες οἱ παῤ αὐτοῦ ἐξῆλθον κρατῆσαι αὐτόν· ἔλεγον γὰρ, v οτι ἐξέστη. Now the persons called here οἱ παῤ αὐτοῦ, οἱ οἰκεῖοι (different, certainly, from οἱ περὶ αὐτόν (Mark 4:10)), who wished to seize Him under the impression that He was “beside Himself,” could not be exclusively the ἀδελφοί who are formally mentioned in a subsequent part of the same chapter, Mark 3:31. Meyer, indeed, and many others identify them. Nor can the phrase mean, “those sent by Him,” or the apostles; nor can it denote the Pharisees;-a most absurd conjecture. Nor does it characterize a wider circle of disciples (Lichtenstein, Lebens-geschich. d. Herrn. p. 216). Least of all were they guest-friends who were with Him in some house of entertainment (Strauss). Nor is it necessary, with Lange, to include among them the apostles. The persons called οἱ παῤ αὐτοῦ were relations of Jesus, either of near or remote kinship. Bernhardy, p. 256; Susann. 5.33; Fritzsche, in loc. The phrase οἱ παῤ αὐτοῦ is plainly the nominative to ἔλεγον, and ὄχλος cannot be the nominative to ἐξέστη, as if they had told Him that the multitude was mad against Him. The argument of Hilary and Epiphanius, that if the brothers had been sons of Mary herself, her dying son would have commended her to one of them rather than to John, is just as strong against the supposition that the brothers, though not her own children, were Joseph's. Lange's theory, that Joseph had undertaken the charge of his brother Clopas' children after their father's death, so that the “brothers” were only fosterbrethren, is no less a hypothesis unsupported in Scripture than the opposite one of Schneckenburger, that Joseph dying at an early period, Mary became domiciled in the house of her sister, wife of Clopas or Alphaeus, so that his children, brought up under the same roof with Jesus, might be called His brothers. Quite as baseless is the statement of Greswell, that while the brothers were full brothers, the sisters of our Lord were probably only His cousins, because they are said to be living in Nazareth, while the brothers are supposed to have their abode in Capernaum. But the notices in the Gospels are too indistinct to warrant the opinion of such a separation of abode; and as the brothers were married (1 Corinthians 9:5), why might not the sisters be married and settled in Nazareth?

If, then, the ordinary meaning of the term ἀδελφοί is not to be retained, or rather, if it is allowed to μήτηρ but inconsistently refused to ἀδελφοί in the same connection-an inconsistency which would be tolerated in the biography of no other person; if mere cousinhood cannot be satisfactorily vindicated,-if it is opposed to the natural sense, and rests on a series of unproven and contradictory hypotheses; and if the other theory of mere affinity, unsupported by any statements or allusions in the evangelical narrative, was yet the current opinion among the fathers,-we may now inquire as well into their statement and defence of it, as into the source whence they got it. If they had it from tradition, was that tradition at all trustworthy? If Scripture is silent on some historical points, these points may be found in some old tradition which details minuter or more private circumstances of which inspiration has taken no cognisance. But if the general character of that tradition be utterly fabulous and fantastic; if its staple be absurd exaggeration and puerile legend; if its documents are forgeries composed in furtherance of error, pious frauds or fictions ascribed in authorship to apostles or evangelists; and if some fragments are coarse and prurient as well as mendacious,-then, as we cannot separate the true from the false, the reality from the caricature, we must reject the entire mass of it as unworthy of credit, unless when any portion may be confirmed by collateral evidence. No one can deny, indeed, that there must have been a real tradition as to many of those points in the first century and in Palestine. The first two chapters of Luke, with the exception of the exordium, are so Hebraistic in tone and style, so minute in domestic matters and so full and so characteristic in individual utterances, that they must have been furnished from traditions or from documents sacredly preserved in the holy family. The relationship of the ἀδελφοί must also have been known to the churches in Galilee and Judaea; and had it been handed down to us on assured authority, we should have accepted it without hesitation. But we have no such reliable record, nay, none earlier than the second century. One class of documents very minute and circumstantial in detail as to the family of Nazareth is utterly unworthy of credit, and many of them were composed in defence of serious error. The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions-dating somewhere in the second century-support a peculiar form of Ebionitism; the “Gospel according to Peter” was Doketic in its doctrines and aims,-so much so, that Serapion was obliged to denounce it; the Protevangelium of James is a semi-Gnostic travesty of many parts of the sacred narrative, and might be almost pressed into the service of the immaculate conception of Mary; the “Gospel of St. Thomas” was Doketic also in its tendencies,-filled with silly prodigies done by the boy Jesus from His very cradle; the “Gospel according to the Hebrews,” or “the Twelve Apostles,” was translated into Greek and Latin by Jerome: some fragments, however, which have been preserved show that it has little connection with our canonical Matthew, but was the work of early Jewish converts, manufactured from some older narrative-perhaps from one of the products of the many, πολλοί, who, according to Luke, had “taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of the things most surely believed.” If the tradition be uniform on any point, it deserves attention, though one must still inquire whether any impressions or opinions might help to create and sustain such a belief, and what is its real value and authority; for its authors, instead of being independent witnesses, may be all of them only repeating and copying without investigation what a predecessor had originated and diffused. Besides, if we find the “brothers” called simply sons of Joseph, it is open for us to question who their mother was. Might not the phrase, sons of Joseph, mean children by her who is so familiarly known as his wife in the sacred narrative? We should maintain this inference in any other case, if no other mother be distinctly stated; and the canonical Gospels are silent as to any earlier conjugal relation of Joseph.

We may observe in passing, that it is remarkable that in the genuine Gospels Joseph is not mentioned by name as father of Jesus, though it must have been the current belief on the part of all who were ignorant of the supernatural conception, or did not credit it. Mary indeed says, “Thy father and I” but how else could she have alluded to the relation? The contemptuous exclamation was, “Is not this the carpenter's son?” or, “Is not this the carpenter?” and then His mother Mary is named in the same connection. Probably Joseph was dead by that time, though his age cannot be certainly inferred from any period assigned to his death. The sinister purpose of Strauss is apparent in his explanation: “Joseph had either died early, or had nothing to do with the subsequent ministry of his son. But it is not improbable that, on dogmatic grounds, the person who was not to be supposed to be the real father of Jesus was removed from the traditions about him.” Yet we cannot but be struck with the fact, that while the inspired Gospels have so little about Joseph, many of the apocryphal Gospels are full of him, and give him a primary place, in the same way as they abound with romance about the unrecorded infancy and early years of Jesus. Such legends must be discarded; and though they are so closely interwoven, it is hard to discover in them any thread or basis of genuine tradition. To proceed:

Origen is quite explicit in his belief that the brethren were children of Joseph by a former wife. In his note on Matthew 13:55, he states this opinion, says it was held by some though not by all, and adopts it as his own. “And I think it reasonable, that as Jesus was the first-fruit of purity and chastity among men, so Mary was among women; for it is not seemly to ascribe the first-fruit of virginity to any other woman than her.” Again, on John 2:12, “They were,” he says, “Joseph's children ἐκ προτεθνηκυίας γυναικός, by a predeceased wife.” In the first quotation he ascribes this opinion to some only, φασί τινες,-a minority perhaps is naturally designated by the term. But what opinion was in that case held by the majority? Was it not very probably that of uterine brotherhood rather than that of cousinhood? for the last upheld the perpetual virginity equally with the view which Origen espoused. If he took the same side, chiefly or solely, as he says the persons referred to did, “to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity throughout,” and because of his own belief in the same dogma, is it rash to infer that the other opinion, because it denied it or set it aside, was rejected by him? Origen traces the opinion held by the “some,” and advocated by himself, only to the “Gospel of Peter, as it is called,” or “the book of James,” and does not claim for it a clear uninterrupted tradition. He could have no great respect for those uncanonical books, and he does not allude to any remoter relationship. Nor does he hold his opinion consistently or firmly, for in one place he assigns a wholly different reason, and in another place he affirms that James was called the Lord's brother not so much “ διὰ τὸ πρὸς αἵματος συγγενές,” as “ διὰ τὸ ἦθος καὶ τὸν λόγον”—“not so much on account of blood-relationship as on account of his character and discourse.” Contra Celsum, 1.35, ed. Spencer. Origen had plainly made no investigation into the matter, perhaps shrunk from it on account of his belief in the perpetual virginity, and was ready to adopt any opinion of the origin of the name that did not come into conflict with this belief.

Epiphanius wrote a treatise on the subject against the Antidikomarianites, who, as their name implies, refused certain honours to the blessed Virgin,-a sect, he says, “who from hatred to the Virgin or desire to obscure her glory, or from being blinded with envy or ignorance, and wishing to defile the minds of others, dared to say that the holy Virgin, after the birth of Christ, cohabited with her husband Joseph.” At one point of the treatise he incorporates an address which he had formerly written against the sect, and dedicated ὁμοπίστοις ὀρθοδόξοις. The pastoral abounds in wailings, censures, and expressions of astonishment at the audacity, profanity, and ignorance of these heretics. “Who ever,” he exclaims, “used the name of the holy Mary, and, when asked, did not immediately add, the virgin?” But we still use the same epithet, though with reference specially to the miraculous conception. James, he adds, is called the Lord's brother, οὐχὶ κατὰ φύσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ χάριν,-and Mary only appeared as the wife of Joseph, μὴ ἔχουσα πρὸς αὐτὸν σωμάτων συνάφειαν. Joseph, he goes on to say, was fourscore or upwards when the Virgin was espoused to him, his son James being then about fifty; and his other sons were Simon, Joses, and Jude, and his daughters, Mary and Salome,-these two names, he strangely avers, being warranted by Scripture- ἡ γραφή. In the Historia Josephi they are called Asia and Lydia. His conclusion is: οὐ γὰρ συνήφθη ἔτι παρθένος, μὴ γένοιτο. He then resorts to another style of argument taken from φυσιολογιῶν σχέσεις; one of them being, that as the queenly lioness, after a gestation of six-and-twenty months, produces a perfect animal which by its birth makes physically impossible that of any second cub, so the mother of the Lion of Judah could be a mother only once. Joseph was old- πρεσβύτου καὶ ὑπερβάντος τοῦ χρόνου-at the birth of Jesus with all its prodigies; and though he had been younger, he would not have dared to approach his wife afterwards- ἐνυβρίζειν σῶμα ἅγιον ἐν ᾧ κατῳκίσθη θεός. His argument in a word is virtually this, that the cohabitation of Joseph with Mary was on his part a physical and ethical impossibility. Besides, he maintains that as Jesus was πρωτότοκος of the Father in the highest sense, ἄνω πρὸ πάσης κτίσεως, and really alone in this relation- μονογενής; so it was and must have been also on earth between Him and His mother. And not to dwell upon it, the good father thought that he was holding an even balance when he proceeds in his next section to oppose the Collyridians,-a sect which offered to the Virgin divine honours and such kind of meat-offering as was often presented to Ceres. The theory of Epiphanius is quite clear in its premises, but he finds difficulty in defending it out of the simple evangelical narrative, and is obliged to guard it by proofs taken from apocryphal legend and ascetic theology. Nay, he has doubts of the Virgin's death; such is his extravagant opinion of her glorification.

Hilary of Poitiers holds a similar view; and so does Hilary the deacon or Ambrosiaster, on Galatians 1:19, one of his arguments being, that if these were His true brothers, Joseph was His true father-si enim hi viri fratres ejus, et Joseph erit verus pater; while those who hold the opposite view, that is, of their being veri fratres, are branded with insanity and impiety. Gregory of Nyssa, brother of Basil the Great, also maintained that Mary is called the mother of James and Joses as being only their step-mother.

Now, as all these fathers held the perpetual virginity, they were therefore shut up to deny the obvious sense of ἀδελφοί. The theory of Joseph's previous marriage suited their views, and they adopted it. It was already in existence, and they cannot be accused of originating it to serve their purpose. The theory of cousinhood was equally valid to their argument, but they make no reference to it. Either they did not know it, or they rejected it as not fitting in to the sacred narrative, or as not coming up to what they felt must be the sense of the term ἀδελφός.

The apocryphal sources of these beliefs are well known. The Protevangelium of James enters fully into the matter: recounts the prodigies attending the Virgin's birth, she being the predicted daughter of Joachim and Anna; describes the wonders of her infancy, she being brought up in the temple and fed by an angel; tells how, when she was twelve years of age, all the widowers among the people were called together by the advice of an angel, each to bring a rod in his hand,-that Joseph, throwing his hatchet down as soon as he heard the proclamation, snatched up his rod,-that the rods were received by the high priest, who, having gone into the temple and prayed over them, returned them to their owners,-that on the reception of his rod by Joseph a dove flew out of it and alighted on his head, and that by this gracious omen he was pointed out as the husband of Mary. But Joseph refused, “saying, I am an old man with children;” and he was also ashamed from so great disparity of years to have Mary registered as his wife. The other incidents need not be recounted. The pseudo-Matthew's Gospel is very similar, mentioning in chap. xxiii. Joseph's four sons and his two daughters. In Codex B, Tischendorf's edition, p. 104, Anna, mother of the Virgin, is said on Joseph's death to have married Cleophas, by whom she had a second daughter, named also Mary, who became the wife of Alphaeus, and was mother of James and Philip, and who on the decease of Cleophas married a third time, her husband being Salome, by whom she had a third daughter, named also Mary, who was espoused to Zebedee, and became mother of James and John. It is needless to refer to the other legends, unequalled in absurdity and puerility.

The Apostolical Constitutions do not give a decided testimony; but they uniformly assert that the brother of our Lord was not James the apostle, and reckon, with the addition of Paul, fourteen apostles. James is severed alike from apostles, deacons, and the seventy disciples. They speak in one place of the mother of our Lord and His sisters (3:6);-James more than once calls himself κἀγὼ ᾿ιάκωβος ἀδελφὸς μὲν κατὰ σάρκα τοῦ χριστοῦ. 8:35, etc. Constitut. Apostolicae, pp. 65, 79, 228, ed. Ueltzen. As the perpetual virginity is not insisted on in these writings, perhaps these extracts favour the idea that sisters and brothers are taken in their natural and obvious meaning. The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions give James the chief place among the apostles, as ὁ λεχθεὶς ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου (Hom. 11.35); which may either mean, one who ordinarily went by that appellation, or one so called without any natural right to the name,-called a brother as he was one, or called a brother though not really one. As James, however, was universally known by the title, the clause may be thought to express real brotherhood. Recognit. 1.66, etc.

The testimony of Hegesippus has been variously understood. One excerpt preserved by Eusebius runs thus: “There were yet living of the family of our Lord the grandchildren of Jude called the brother of the Lord according to the flesh.” Eusebius calls this same Jude “the brother of our Saviour according to the flesh, as being of the family of David.” The participle λεγόμενος is doubtful in meaning; it may refer to a reputed brotherhood, or it may mean simply that such was the common and real designation. Whatever be the meaning of ἀδελφός-real or reputed brother-it cannot mean cousin. Hegesippus supplies no hint that he did not believe the brotherhood to be a full and not simply a step-brotherhood. Again, Eusebius (Hist. Ecc 2:23) inserts a long extract from Hegesippus which gives a graphic account of James' death, and in which he says “the church was committed, along with the apostles, to James the brother of the Lord, who, as there were many of the name, was surnamed the Just by all from the Lord's time to our own.” In a subsequent excerpt from Josephus, the same appellation is given to James, “the brother of him who is called Christ.” The meaning of another extract from Hegesippus has been keenly disputed. He says: “After James the Just had been martyred, as also the Lord was on the same charge (or for the same doctrine), his uncle's son, Symeon son of Clopas, is next appointed bishop, whom all put forward as second, being a cousin of the Lord.” The meaning is, not that Symeon was another son of his uncle, or another cousin in addition to James, as Mill and others contend, but that the second bishop was Symeon, son of Christ's or James' paternal uncle Clopas; that is, James is brother, but Symeon is only cousin of the Lord. Hegesippus in another place calls him ὁ ἐκ θείου τοῦ κυρίου ὁ προειρημένος συμεὼν υἱὸς κλωπᾶ. Euseb. Hist. Ecc 3:32. Hug, Schneckenburger, and Lange suppose him to be the Apostle Simon the Canaanite, who in the two lists of Luke is mentioned immediately after James Alphaei. See Bleek, Einleit. p. 544. Hegesippus thus calls Symeon second bishop and cousin of the Lord, and he carefully distinguishes between the relationship of Symeon and James; for though Symeon was a cousin, he never calls him the Lord's brother. Eusebius himself does not speak distinctly on the subject when he says, “James called the Lord's brother, because also He ( οὗτος) was called the son of Joseph, Joseph being thus regarded as the father of Christ.” He does not seem to mean that James was called the son of Joseph, but that Jesus was so called. There is, however, another reading, and the words do not clearly assert what James' natural connection with Christ was. If he was Christ's brother as Joseph was His father, then there was no relationship in blood, and he might only be a cousin; or if οὗτος refer to James, then James was a real as Jesus was a reputed son of Joseph; and if a real son of Joseph, why not by Mary? Eusebius (Comment. on Isaiah 17:6), in a mystical interpretation of the “gleaning of grapes” and “shaking of the olive-tree,” “two, three berries left on the top of the uppermost bough, four, five on the outmost branches,” makes out from the addition of those numbers that James was a supplementary apostle as Paul was, counting fourteen apostles in all. But the apocryphal theory of step-brotherhood was current in that age, and Eusebius may be supposed to have held it, as he does not formally disavow it. Cyril of Jerusalem distinguishes James from the apostles, calls him τῷ ἑαυτοῦ ἀδελφῷ, and the first bishop τῆς παροικίας ταύτης—“of this diocese.” Catechesis, 14.11, p. 199; Opera, ed. Milles, Oxon. 1703. Hippolytus may be passed over; and the Papias who is sometimes referred to, is, as Prof. Lightfoot has shown, not the bishop of Hierapolis. The extract sometimes taken from this Papias of the eleventh century may be found in Routh's Reliq. Sac. vol. i. p. 16.

If, then, the theory of step-brethren or cousins be surrounded with difficulties, and rest on many unproved hypotheses; if the one theory can be made the means of impugning the other; if the first has its origin in apocryphal books filled with silly legend and fable, and the second has no true basis in the evangelical narrative; if both have been held from the earliest times avowedly to conserve the ecclesiastical dogma of the perpetual virginity; and if there be nothing in Scripture or sound theology to upset the belief that gives our Lord's “brothers” the natural relationship which the epithet implies,-what should hinder us from taking ἀδελφοί in the same sense as μήτηρ?

There are indeed objections, but none of them are of any serious moment. One objection that weighs with many is thus stated by Jeremy Taylor: “Jesus came into the world without doing violence to the virginal and pure body of His mother; He did also leave her virginity entire, to be as a seal that none might open the gate of that sanctuary.” Life of Christ, § 3. Bishop Bull also asserts, “It cannot with decency be imagined that the most holy vessel which was thus once consecrated to be a receptacle of the Deity, should afterwards be desecrated and profaned by human use.” Bishop Pearson adds, “Though whatever should have followed after could have no reflective tendency upon the first-fruit of her womb, yet the peculiar eminency and unparalleled privilege of that mother . . . have persuaded the church of God to believe that she still continued in the same virginity.” Spanheim holds it as admodum probabile sanctum hoc organum ad tam eximium conceptum et partum a Deo selectum non fuisse temeratum ab homine. Dubia Evang. i. p. 225. Mill himself admits, “They hold themselves free to include this doctrine as a matter of pious persuasion, but by no means of the same gravity or indispensable necessity as the belief of the immaculate conception.” Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, p. 269. So also some Lutheran confessions, Artic. Smalcald. p. i. art. 4, and in the Formula Concordiae. Numerous persons of opposite views on many other points, as Zwingli and Olshausen, Lardner and Addison Alexander of Princeton, agree on this theme. Both Taylor and Pearson quote Ezekiel 44:2, the first as an argument, and the second as an illustration of the dogma under review. The words of the prophet are: “Then said the Lord unto me, This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.” But these utterances have no connection with the subject in any way. Still I suppose that every one feels somewhat the force of the sentiments contained in the previous extracts. They may be superstitions, but they are natural even to those who by force of evidence are not able to make the perpetual virginity an article of faith. It is not, however, a belief basing itself on Scripture even by one remote inference. That Jesus should be born of a virgin, fulfilled prophecy; still, whether virginity was essential to immaculate conception is open to question, for the mere suspension of male instrumentality would not remove the sinfulness of the mother. But divine agency wrought out its purpose in its own way, and the child of the Virgin was a “holy thing.” The supernatural origin of the babe did not depend for its reality on her virginity, but very much for its visible proof and manifestation. A second-born child might, for anything we know, be born by immediate divine power, but the absence of human intervention would not so palpably present itself. Jesus, virgin-born, was thus set apart in unique and awful solemnity from all mankind,-as born pure, not purified,-divine, not deified,—“the second Adam, the Lord from heaven.”

That the Virgin had no other children is the impression of many who do not believe in the perpetual virginity. Thus Lange says: “We must not forget that Mary was the wife of Joseph. She was according to a ratified engagement dependent upon her husband's will. . . . As a wife, Mary was subject to wifely obligations; but as a mother, she had fulfilled her destiny with the birth of Christ. . . . And even for the very sake of nature's refinement, we cannot but imagine that this organism which had born the Prince of the new AEon would be too proudly or too sacredly disposed to lend itself, after bringing forth the life of Christ, to the production of mere common births for the sphere of the old AEon.” Life of Christ, vol. 1.425, English Trans. But the theory of natural brotherhood throws no shadow over the glories of Mary, ever blessed and pre-eminent in honour. It does not in any way lessen the dignity of her who was so “highly favoured of the Lord” and “blessed among women.” For though one may shrink from calling her θεοτόκος-Deipara,-an unwarranted epithet that draws after it veneration and worship,-yet her glories, which are without parallel and beyond imagination, and which are hers and hers alone, are never to be veiled. For she was the elected mother of a child whose Father was God,-her son “the onlybegotten of the Father;” through her parthenic maternity the mystery of mysteries realized—“God manifest in flesh;” her offspring the normal man, and the Redeemer of a fallen race by His atoning blood,-the Man of Sorrows and the Lord of all worlds,-crowned with thorns, and now wearing on His brow the diadem of universal dominion,-the object of praise to saints, to angels, and to the universe; for of that universe He is the Head, in that very nature of which, through and in Mary the mother-maid, He became a partaker.

It is therefore unfair on the part of Mill to allege against the natural and obvious interpretation of the term ἀδελφοί, that it “aims at no less than the error of the grosser section of the Ebionites, who held that Jesus was in the same manner her son as all the rest are supposed to have been.” The two beliefs have no natural alliance. Equally futile is it in the same author to tell us that Helvidius was the disciple of an Arian Auxentius, and that Bonosus is said to have impugned the Divine Sonship. Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, pp. 221, 274. For whatever errors may have been held along with the theory of natural relationship, and whatever the character of such as may have espoused it, it stands out from all such adventitious elements of connection. One may hold it and hold at the same time the supreme divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ with most perfect consistency. It does not concern the cardinal doctrine of His divinity, nor the equally precious doctrine of His true and sinless humanity. It impugns not His immaculate conception, or His supernatural birth, He being in a sense peculiar to Himself the seed of the woman, the child of a virgin-Immanuel, “God with us.” It refers only to possibilities after the incarnation which do not in any way affect its divineness and reality. It leaves her first-born in the solitary glory of the God-man. Jesus indeed passed among the Jews as the ordinary son of Joseph and Mary, yet this belief was very erroneous; but the ground of the error does not apply to this theory. The first chapter of Matthew tells the mystery of the incarnation, and the event is at once taken out of the category of all ordinary births; but if Mary had other children, no such wonder surrounded them, and no mistake could be made about them. The Jewish misconception as to the parentage of Jesus could not be made regarding subsequent members of His family, whose birth neither enhances nor lessens the honour and the mystery of His primogeniture. It was a human nature which He assumed; they were persons born into the world. Neither, then, in theology nor in piety, in creed nor in worship, can this obvious theory of natural relationship be charged with pernicious consequences. It is vain to ask, Why, if there were births subsequent to that of Jesus, are they not recorded? The inspired narrative keeps steadily to its one primary object and theme-the life of the blessed Saviour, first-born son of Mary and the Son of God.

Another objection against the natural interpretation of ἀδελφός is the repetition of names in the family of Mary and in the company of the apostles;-James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, brothers,-and two Jameses, two Simons, two Judes, among the apostles. Or, identifying Clopas and Alphaeus, there would be James and Joses as cousins; and if the ᾿ιούδας ᾿ιακώβου, Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13, be rendered “Jude brother of James,” there would be two sets of four brothers having the same names. It is not necessary, however, to render the Greek phrase by “brother of James,” and the sons of Alphaeus are only James and Joses. But surely the same names are found among cousins every day, and would be more frequent in a country where a few favourite names are continually repeated. There are in the New Testament nine Simons, four Judes, four or five Josephs; and in “Josephus there are twenty-one Simons, seventeen named Joses, and sixteen Judes.” Smith's Dict. Bible Antiq., art. “Brother.”

A crowning objection against the view we favour is, that Jesus upon the cross commended His mother to the care of the beloved disciple. This objection, says Lightfoot, “has been hurled at the Helvidian view with great force, and, as it seems to me, with fatal effect;” and Mill has also put it in a very strong form. Hilary adopts the same argument, as also Ambrose, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Jerome. That is to say, if Mary had children or sons of her own, her first-born would not have handed her over to a stranger. The objection has never appeared to us to be of very great force; for we know nothing of the circumstances of the brothers, and there may have been personal and domestic reasons why they could not receive the beloved charge. They might not, for a variety of reasons, be able to give Mary such a home as John could provide for her. As we cannot tell, it is useless to argue. We are wholly ignorant also of their peculiar temperament, and their want or their possession of those elements of character which would fit them to tend their aged and widowed parent. Especially do we know, however, that up to a recent period they were unbelievers in her divine first-born; and though He who did not forget His mother in His dying moments foreknew all that was to happen, still their unbelief might disqualify them for giving her the comfort and spiritual nursing which she required, to heal the wounds inflicted by that “sword” which was piercing her heart as she contemplated the shame and agony of the adored Sufferer on the cross. Every attention was needed for His mother at that very moment, and He seized that very moment to commend her to John, who had been to Him more than a brother, and would on that account be to her more than a son. John was “standing by,” and so was His mother; so that perhaps his ministrations to her had already commenced. The close vicinity of the two persons whom He most loved on earth suggested the words, “Woman, behold thy son,” who will supply, as far as possible, my place; “Son, behold thy mother:” be what I have been to her. “And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.” The brothers might not be there, or might be unfitted, as poor and unbelieving Galileans, for doing what John did,-for immediate obedience to such a command. Nay, if the commendation of His mother to John in the words, “Behold thy mother,” be a proof that Jesus had no brothers, might it not prove, on the other hand, that John had no mother? Besides, if James were either a cousin or half-brother, and therefore a blood-relation, why in that case pass over him? So that the objection would tell against the theory of cousinhood, though not so strongly as against that of brotherhood. Wieseler, indeed, contends that Salome was a sister of Mary, so that the sons of Zebedee were cousins of our Lord, and that as Salome was present at the crucifixion, John might designate her as the “sister of Mary,” just as he calls himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” No conclusive argument can thus be drawn from this last scene of Christ's life as to the relation of the ἀδελφοί to Himself. Far from us, at the same time, be the thought of Strauss, that the esoteric tendency of the fourth Gospel sets aside the real brothers of Jesus as unbelieving, “in order to enable the writer to transfer under the very cross the place of the true son of Mary, the spiritual brother of Jesus, to the favourite disciple.”

Nor has Renan's opinion anything in its favour. He imagines that the Virgin's sister, named Mary also, was wife of Alphaeus; that her children, cousins-german of Jesus, espoused His cause, while His own brothers opposed Him; and that the evangelist, hearing the four sons of Clopas called brethren of the Lord, has placed their names by mistake in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, instead of the names of the real brothers who have always remained obscure. Vie de Jésus, p. 25, 11th ed. The statement is only a piece of gratuitous wildness, devoid even of critical ingenuity. It has no basis,-is but a malignant dream.

But apart from these theories as to relationship, it seems plain, for many reasons, that James the Lord's brother was not one of the twelve, though he is virtually called an apostle according to our exegesis of the verse. The name apostle was given by Jesus specially to the twelve, Luke 6:13; but it is not confined to them. In 2 Corinthians 8:23 certain persons are called ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιῶν, and in Philippians 2:25 Epaphroditus is called ὑμῶν ἀπόστολον. In these instances the word is used in its original or common signification, and is not implicated in the present discussion. But the title (see under Galatians 1:1) is given to Barnabas, though Acts 13:2-3 is not an account of his consecration to the office, but of his solemn designation to certain missionary work. In Acts 14:4; Acts 14:14, he is called an apostle, in the first instance more generally: σῦν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, that is, Paul and Barnabas; and in the second, the words are οἱ ἀπόστολοι βαρνάβας καὶ παῦλος. Compare 1 Corinthians 4:9; 1 Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 2:9. Besides, why should it be said in 1 Corinthians 15:5; 1 Corinthians 15:7 that Jesus appeared “to the twelve,” and then “to all the apostles,” if the two are quite identical in number? Paul also vindicates himself and his fellowlabourers, “though we might have been burdensome to you ὡς χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι,” 1 Thessalonians 2:6 -Silas being in all probability the person so referred to by the honourable appellation (Acts 17:4). In none of these cases, however, is any person like Barnabas or Silas called an apostle directly and by himself, but only in connection with one or other of the avowed apostles. Again, in Romans 16:7 Andronicus and Junia are thus characterized: οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις,-rendered in our version, “who are of note among the apostles.” The meaning may either be, “highly esteemed in the apostolic circle” (Reiche, Meyer, Fritzsche, De Wette), or, “highly esteemed among the apostles,” reckoned in some way as belonging to them. Such is the more natural view, and it is taken by the Greek fathers, by Calvin, Tholuck, Olshausen, Alford. On the stricter meaning of the term ἀπόστολος, see under Ephesians 4:11. We cannot, however, agree with Chrysostom, that the phrase “all the apostles,” in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7, included such persons as the seventy disciples; nor with Calvin, that it comprehends discipulos etiam quibus evangelii praedicandi munus injunxerat; since some distinction is apparently preserved between ordinary preachers and those who in a secondary sense only are named apostles. For, as it is pointed out by Professor Lightfoot, Timothy and Apollos are excluded from the rank of apostles, and the others not of the twelve so named may have seen the risen Saviour. Eusebius speaks of very many apostles- πλείστων. The Lord's brother, then, was not of the primary twelve. He is placed, 1 Corinthians 15:7, by himself as having seen Christ; or rather, Cephas is mentioned, and then “the twelve,” of which Cephas was one; James is mentioned, and then “all the apostles,” of which James was one. One cannot omit the beautiful legend founded apparently on this appearance: “The Lord after His resurrection went to James and appeared to him, for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he had seen Him risen from the dead. Then He said, Bring hither a table and bread. Then He took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him, My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man has risen from the dead.” This scene is taken by Jerome from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which he translated into Greek and Latin. De Viris Illustr. ii. Some for biberat calicem Domini read Dominus, and render “before the Lord drank the cup,” or suffered. The Greek has πεπώκει τὸ ποτήριον ὁ κύριος, which is also the more difficult reading. The other reading, Domini, would imply that the Lord's brother had been present at the Lord's Supper. The writer of the legend did not, however, regard him as one of the twelve.

James appears as the head of the church in Jerusalem, and is called simply James in Acts 12:17 and in Acts 15:13. Such was his influence, that his opinion was adopted and embodied in the circular sent to “the churches in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia.” Acts 15:13. Paul, on going up to the capital to visit Peter, saw James also, as we are told in Galatians 1:19; and on his arrival at Jerusalem many years afterwards, he at once “went in with us unto James”- πρὸς ᾿ιάκωβον,-a formal interview. Acts 21:18. In Galatians 2:9, too, we read, “James, and Cephas, and John, who were reputed to be pillars,”-most naturally the same James, the Lord's brother, referred to in the first chapter; and again in the same chapter reference is thus made—“certain came from James.” James was thus an apostle, though not one of the twelve.

The original apostles were, according to their commission, under the necessity of itinerating; but the continuous residence of James in the metropolis must have helped to advance him to his high position. Lange, indeed, objects, that “on such a supposition the real apostles vanish from the field,” and quite correctly so far as the book of Acts is concerned. For the assertion is true of the majority, or of eight of them; and a new apostle like James-he of Tarsus-fills the scene. Another of Lange's objections is, “the utter untenableness of an apocryphal apostolate by the side of that instituted by Christ.” But his further inference, that the elevation of James to a quasi-apostolate lifts Jude and Simon, too, to a similar position, is without foundation as to the last. The apostleship of Paul, however, is so far of the same class; only he became through his formal call equal to the twelve in rank,-his grand argument in that paragraph of the epistle out of one statement of which the previous pages have sprung. Jude and James were not regarded as primary apostles, and could not claim such a standing, though they received the general name. True, the book of Acts is silent about James Alphaei, and introduces without any explanation another James. But if this James had been the son of Alphaeus, he would probably have been so designated, as, indeed, he is everywhere else. One may reply, indeed, that the paternal epithet is omitted because by this time James son of Zebedee had been slain, and there remained but one of the name. Still, it would be strange that he is not formally called an apostle, when there is nothing said to identify him. A James unidentified is naturally taken to be a different person from one who is always marked by a patronymic. And to how few of the apostles is there any reference made at all in the Acts! Luke's habit is not to identify formally or distinguish persons in the course of his narrative. It is therefore worse than useless on the part of De Wette to insinuate that Luke has exchanged the two Jameses in the course of his history, or forgotten to distinguish them. The apostles at the period of Paul's visit were probably absent from Jerusalem on missionary work. Peter and John happened to be there; but James was the recognised or stationary head. The difficulty, too, is lessened, if, with Stier, Wieseler, and Davidson, we take the James whose opinion prevailed in the council, and who is mentioned in Galatians 2:9, to be the apostle, son of Alphaeus; but the view does not harmonize with the uniform patristic tradition.

The relation which James bore to Christ must also have invested him with peculiar honour in the eyes of the Jewish church. Nor was his character less awful and impressive; he was surnamed “the Just.” According to Hegesippus, he was holy from his mother's womb, and lived the life of a Nazarite,-neither shaved, nor bathed, nor anointed himself; wore linen garments; was permitted once a year to enter the holy of holies; and was so given to prayer, that his knees had become callous like a camel's. Euseb. Hist. Ecclesiastes 2:23. Much of this, of course, is mere legend. Yet, though he was a believer, he was zealous of the law,-a representative of Jewish piety, and of that peculiar type of it which naturally prevailed in the mother church in Jerusalem, still the scene of the temple service, and the centre of all sacred Jewish associations. In his epistle the same elements of character are exhibited. The new dispensation is to him νόμος, but νόμος τῆς ἐλευθερίας. He was a stranger to all the practical difficulties which had met Paul and Peter who had to go and form churches among the uncircumcised; for his circle was either of Jews or circumcised proselytes. He was the natural head of the “many thousands of Jews who believed, and who were all zealous of the law” (Acts 21:20); and he was able to guide the extreme party, for they had confidence in his own fervent observance of “the customs.”

Such was his great influence even in distant places, that when “certain came” from him to Antioch, Peter dissembled, and even Barnabas succumbed. His shadow overawed them into a momentary relapse and inconsistency. His martyrdom, recorded by Hegesippus, and by Josephus in a paragraph the genuineness of which has been questioned, was supposed by many to have brought on the siege of Vespasian as a judgment on the city. St. James is glorified in the Clementines as “lord, and bishop of bishops.” In the Chronicon Paschale he is called apostle and patriarch of Jerusalem, and is said to have been enthroned by Peter on his departure for Rome (vol. 1.460, ed. Dindorf). So strangely do opinions grow into extremes, that Victorinus the Rhetorician, a man mentioned cautiously by Jerome, but extolled by Augustine, denies James to be an apostle, affirms him to be in haeresi, and reckons him the author of those Judaistic errors which had crept into the Galatian churches. His interpretation is: “I saw James the Lord's brother (habitus secundum carnem); as if Paul meant thereby to affirm, ‘You cannot now say, “Thou deniest James, and therefore rejectest the doctrine we follow, because thou hast not seen him.” But I did see him, the first promulgator of your opinions-ita nihil apud me valuit.’” “The Symmachians make James,” he adds, “a supernumerary apostle, quasi duodecimum, and all who add the observance of Judaism to the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ follow him as master.”

On a question so difficult, critics, as may be supposed, are much divided. Against the theory put forward in the previous pages are Baronius, Semler, Pott, Schneckenburger, Guericke, Steiger, Olshausen, Lange, Hug, Friedlieb, Lichtenstein, and Arnaud; on the other side are De Wette, Rothe, Herder, Neander, Stier, Niedner, Winer, Meyer, Ewald, Gresswell, Wieseler in a paper Ueber die Brüder des Herrn, Stud. und Kritik. 1 Heft, 1842; Blom, Disputatio de τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς καὶ ταῖς ἀδελφαῖς τοῦ κυρίου, Lugduni Bata 5.1839; Schaff, das Verhältniss des Jacobus Bruders des Herrns zu Jacobus Alphaei auf Neue exegetisch und historisch untersucht, Berlin 1843. In a later work (Church History, § 95, 1854), Dr. Schaff has modified his view of some of the proofs adduced by him, saying that he had made rather too little of the dogmatic argument against the supposition that Mary had other children, and of the old theory that the brothers were sons of Joseph by a former marriage (vol. ii. p. 35, English transl.). See also an essay of Laurent, Die Brüder Jesu, in his Neutestamentliche Studien, Gotha 1866.

Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (Eadie), Pradis CD-ROM:Commentary/Chapter Galatians 2:1-10 through Commentary/Chapter 3, Book Version: 5.1.50

Galatians 1:20. ῝α δὲ γράφω ὑμῖν—“but as to the things which I am writing to you,”-the reference being to the assertions just made-his visit to Jerusalem, and his brief residence with Peter, and that during that fortnight he saw only him and the Lord's brother. Some, as Calvin, Winer, Matthies, refer the declaration to the whole paragraph from Galatians 1:12, or from Galatians 1:15 (Estius and Hofmann), some of the elements of which were not, however, matter of dispute. The apostle becomes fervent in his affirmation, and calls God to witness:

᾿ιδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι—“behold before God that I lie not.” The construction is broken. Schott denies it, γράφω being supplied-quae vobis scribo, ecce coram Deo scribo, siquidem non mentior. So generally Jerome and Ambrose. The ellipse is striking, and ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τ. θ. is a virtual oath. ᾿ιδού, as Lightfoot remarks, is never used as a verb, so that here it cannot govern ὅτι. The word to be supplied to resolve the ellipse has been variously taken: γράφω by Meyer; λέγω by De Wette, Olshausen, and Bisping; ὄμνυμι by Usteri; μαρτυρῶ by Hilgenfeld; and ἐστί by Rückert and Bengel-i.e. it is before God that I lie not. In 2 Corinthians 11:31 we have ὁ θεὸς . . . οἶδεν . . . ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι. In 1 Timothy 5:21, διαμαρτύρομαι occurs with ἐνώπιον τ. θ. … διαμαρτυρόμενος with ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου in 2 Timothy 2:14; similarly 2 Timothy 4:2. This verb might therefore be the most natural supplement, if any supplement be really necessary. But the ellipse, abrupt, terse, and idiomatic, needs not to be so diluted, and probably no supplementary term was in the apostle's mind at all as it suddenly threw out this solemn adjuration. Besides, a similar construction occurs in the Sept.: ἴδε ὅτι τὰς ἐντολάς σου ἠγάπησα, Psalms 119:159; ἴδε κύριε ὅτι θλίβομαι, Lamentations 1:20. “Behold before God” is equivalent to saying, I call God to witness that, ὅτι (Lightfoot). There might be no human proof, but there was divine attestation. Augustine, in loc., enters into the question of the lawfulness of swearing. One can scarcely suppose that the apostle would have used this solemn adjuration, unless the statement had been liable to be questioned, or a different account of his early Christian history had been in circulation. It would seem that a totally different account of his visits to Jerusalem after his conversion, and of the relation he sustained to the elder apostles, had been in use among the Judaists, to undermine his independent authority and neutralize his teaching. And because what he now tells would contradict received opinion as to his earlier actings and journeys, he confirms what he says by a virtual oath, though the phrase as in Hebrew, לִפְנֵיאּיַהוָה, is not formally always used of oaths.

Galatians 1:21. ῎επειτα ἦλθον εἰς τὰ κλίματα τῆς συρίας καὶ τῆς κιλικίας—“afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.” The noun κλίματα, found also in Romans 15:23, 2 Corinthians 11:10, originally means inclination or declivity, such as that of a hill; then a space of the sky, so named from the inclination of the heaven to the poles- κλῖμα μεσημβρινόν, Dion. H. Ant. 1.9; βόρειον, Aristot. De Mund. Opera, vol. iii. p. 133, ed. Bekker, Oxford 1837; γῆς μέρος ἢ κλῖμα οὐρανοῦ, Herodian, Galatians 2:11; Galatians 2:8;-then a tract of earth, so called in reference to its inclination towards the pole- τοῖς πρὸς μεσημβρίαν κλίμασι, Polyb. 5.44; τοῦτο τὸ κλῖμα . . . τὴς ᾿ιταλίας, ib. 10.1;-and then, as in Joseph. De Bell. Jud 3:7; Jud 3:12, approaching the modern sense of climate. Thus Athenaeus, εὐδαιμονίαν τοῦ σύμπαντος τούτου κλίματος, referring to Siris in the south of Italy, lib. xii. p. 445, vol. iv. p. 444, ed. Schweighaüser. Lobeck (Paralip. 418) shows that the true accentuation is κλῖμα, a properispomenon like κρῖμα which is long in AEschylus, Supp. 397; Lipsius, Gramm. Untersuch. über die Bibl. Graecität, pp. 40, 41, Leipzig 1863. Codices A, L, have κλήματα. Syria is naturally Syria proper, which he reached from Caesarea,-not Caesarea Philippi (Eichhorn, Olshausen), and not the country formerly called Phoenicia (Usteri, Schott): the supposition of such a near vicinity is not in harmony with the apostle's argument. Cilicia was his native province; and Barnabas soon after found him in Tarsus, and brought him to Antioch. According to the narrative in Acts, he seems to have sailed from Caesarea to Tarsus. Cilicia was more allied to Syria than Asia Minor, and both countries are collocated vaguely by the τὰ κλίματα. The apostle is not stating his tour with geographical precision, but is merely showing how far he travelled away from all Judaean influence and recognition.

Galatians 1:22. ῎ημην δὲ ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς ᾿ιουδαίας ταῖς ἐν χριστῷ—“and I was unknown by face to the churches of Judaea which are in Christ.” The first words are a strong form of the imperfect, equivalent to “I remained unknown.” Jelf, § 375, 4. The τῷ προσώπῳ is the dative of reference, carrying in it that of limitation or the defining or qualifying element which characterizes this case. Winer, § 31, 6; Bernhardy, p. 82; Donaldson, § 459. The apostle was known to these churches in many aspects, but he was unknown in this one thing-in person or face. The churches in Judaea did not know him personally, and they are thus distinguished from the churches in Jerusalem, many of whom had a knowledge of his person, and could recognise him if they saw him, for he had been “going in and out” among them, “speaking boldly and disputing,” having sojourned fifteen days with Peter. Acts 9:28. The object of Hilgenfeld, following Baur and others of the same school, in maintaining that the church in Jerusalem is here included, is to bring the statement into conflict with the Acts, so as to ruin the credibility of the narrative. But compare John 2:23 with John 3:22, Acts 1:8; Acts 10:39; Acts 26:20; and for an analogous foreign example, Acts 15:23. The churches in Judaea are characterized as ταῖς ἐν χριστῷ, “that are in Christ,”-in Him as united to Him, the Source of life and power, and having fellowship with Him,-so included in Him as the members are organically united to the head. It is not certain that this definition is added because unconverted Jewish communities might be called churches of God (Lightfoot). Is there any example in the New Testament? The apostle was hurried away to Caesarea, where he took shipping for Tarsus, and thus had no opportunity of becoming acquainted with the Judaean churches; nor had they, for the same reason, any opportunity of gaining a personal knowledge of him. He is not showing that he could not learn the gospel from Judaean Christians, as OEcumenius and Olshausen suppose, nor, as Chrysostom thinks, that he had not taught circumcision in Judaea. For these are not topics in dispute. The apostle means to affirm, that so little intercourse had he with the apostles, that the church in Judaea, having constant correspondence with those apostles, did not know him, so wholly was he away from their home sphere of labour. The notion of Michaelis is out of the question, that the church of Jerusalem is included among those that did not know him personally, because, though known to a few individuals of them, he was not known to them as a body, since his labours were principally among his unconverted brethren.

Galatians 1:23. ΄όνον δὲ ἀκούοντες ἦσαν-not audierant (Estius), nor “they had heard” (Luther, Brown),—“only they were hearing,” they continued hearing: fresh and pregnant reports were brought from time to time. The δέ contrasts this clause with the previous ἦμην ἀγνοούμενος. ᾿ακούοντες, not the ἐκκλησίαι formally, but the members of them. Such constructions κατὰ σύνεσις are not uncommon. Winer, § 21, § 58, § 67; A. Buttmann, p. 113. The “resolved imperfect” conveys the idea of duration more fully than the simple tense. The usage is found in classic writers (Kühner, § 416, 4; Winer, § 45, 5), but with a closer connection with the subject than in the freer style of the New Testament, which may in this case be influenced by Aramaic usage. In the Sept. it is chiefly employed in clauses which in Hebrew have a special significance, ubi etiam in Hebraico non sine vi sua adhibita erat, as Genesis 4:17, Exodus 3:1, where the Hebrew has the same construction of substantive verb and participle, or where there is only a participle, Genesis 18:22. The periphrasis occurs often with the future. Thiersch, de Pent. Vers. p. 163. What they were hearing was startling to them:

῞οτι ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτέ—“that he who once persecuted us,” that is, our former persecutor,-the participle with the article losing its temporal significance and becoming a substantive. Schmalfeld, § 222; Winer, § 45, 7; Schirlitz, § 47. The participle διώκων is not for διώξας (Grotius, Rückert), nor is ὅτι superfluous (Koppe). The ποτέ is out of its usual place. According to Schott, Matthies, Hilgenfeld, and Trana, the ὅτι is recitative; and it might be so if the following clause be regarded as a quotation. They might say one to another, “that our former persecutor is now become a preacher.” This use of ὅτι is limited in Paul to quotations from the Old Testament: Galatians 3:8, Romans 4:17; Romans 8:36; Romans 9:17; somewhat differently, 2 Thessalonians 3:10. The address here passes in ἡμᾶς from the oblique introduced by ὅτι, to the direct form in the pronoun, as in Acts 14:22; Acts 23:22, 1 Corinthians 14:23; 1 Corinthians 14:25. Krüger, § 65, 11, Anm. 8, gives examples from classical writers, so that the diction here is neither so lax nor inaccurate as Gwynne supposes it. It seems a mere refinement on the part of Meyer to deny the passing of the indirect to the direct form, by alleging that Paul might now as a Christian include himself among the ἡμᾶς, and call himself “our former persecutor.” He-

νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἣν ποτὲ ἐπόρθει—“is now preaching the faith which he once was destroying.” Some MSS., the It., and Vulg., with many of the Latin fathers, have ἐπολέμει. The present and the imperfect are to be taken in their full and proper meaning.

πίστις has an objective reference, but not in the later ecclesiastical sense. It was the distinctive pervading element of the new evangel, and soon gave its name to it. Its facts and truths claim faith; its blessings are suspended on faith; its graces are wrought by faith; its Lord and Saviour is the object of faith; and its disciples are called faith-ful-believers. In the New Testament, the word seems always to carry in it reference to the inner principle, the governing power in the soul, for “we walk by faith.” On ἐπόρθει, see Galatians 1:13.

The result of their knowledge of this momentous and notorious change was-

Galatians 1:24. καὶ ἐδόξαζον ἐν ἐμοὶ τὸν θεόν—“And they glorified God in me.” The ἐν ἐμοί is not δἰ ἐμέ (Photius), “on account of me” (Brown), as if it were ביfor עלי(Beza), or de me, vel propter me (Estius). The preposition marks the sphere in which the action takes place. Winer, § 48, 2, α; Bernhardy, 210; Exodus 14:4, ἐνδοξασθήσομαι ἐν φαραῷ; Isaiah 49:3, καὶ ἐν σοὶ δοξασθήσομαι. To glorify God is a favourite Pauline phrase: Acts 11:18; Acts 21:20; Romans 1:21; Romans 15:9; 1 Corinthians 6:20; 2 Corinthians 9:13. “In him”-and the change wrought within him, with its marvellous and enduring effects-they glorified God. Not only did his conversion give them occasion to glorify God, but they glorified God working in him, and in him changing their malignant and resolute persecutor into a bold enthusiastic preacher. They were thankful not simply because persecution had ceased, but they rejoiced that he who did the havoc was openly building up the cause which he had laboured to overthrow. On hearing of a change in so prominent and terrible an adversary-a change not leading merely to a momentary check or a longer neutral pause, but passing into unwearied activity, self-denial, and apostolical pre-eminence-they glorified God in him, for in him God's gracious power had wrought with unexpected and unexampled might and result. They did not exalt the man, though they could not but have a special interest in him; but they knew that by the grace of God he was what he was. If the churches even in Judea were so grateful to God for His work in Paul, were they not a rebuke to the Judaizers, who now questioned his apostleship and impugned his teaching? Ephesians 3:7-8; 1 Timothy 1:16. Chrysostom adds, he does not say ὅτι ἐθαύμαζόν με, ἐπῄνουν με, ἐξεπλήττοντο, ἀλλὰ τὸ πᾶν τῆς χάριτος ἔδειξεν ὄν. . . .