IV. HORTATORY PORTION OF THE LETTER (5:1-6:10)

1. Exhortations directly connected with the doctrine of the letter (5:1-6:5)

(a) Appeal to the Galatians to stand fast in their freedom in Christ (5:1-12)

Having in 1:11-2:21 defended his own independent right to preach the gospel to the Gentiles uncontrolled by any others, even those who were apostles before him, and in chaps. 3, 4 having answered the arguments of his opponents in favour of the imposition of legalism upon Gentile Christians, the apostle now passes to fervent exhortation of his readers not to surrender the freedom which they have in Christ Jesus.

1With this freedom Christ set us free: stand, therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage. 2Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if ye shall be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3And I protest again to every man that receiveth circumcision that he is bound to do the whole law. 4Ye have severed your relation to Christ, ye who are seeking to be justified in law. Ye have fallen away from grace. 5For we, by the Spirit, by faith, wait for a hoped-for righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love. 7Ye were running well; who hindered you from obeying truth? 8This persuasion is not from him that calleth you. 9A little leaven is leavening the whole lump. 10I have confidence, in the Lord, respecting you that ye will take no other view than this; but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whoever he may be. 11And I, brethren, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? Then is the stumbling-block of the cross done away with. 12I would that they who are disturbing you would even have themselves mutilated.

1. τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν· στήκετε οὖν καὶ μὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε. “With this freedom Christ set us free: stand, therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage.” With this reading of the text (see textual note below) these words are not to be attached to 4:31 (so Zahn, e. g., reading ᾗ ἐλευθερίᾳ), but constitute an independent sentence in which, the allegory of 4:21-31 being left behind, the apostle expresses himself in language akin to that of 4:4-11. The sentence, without connective particle οὖν or γάρ to mark its relation to what precedes, constitutes a transition paragraph of itself, on the one side a summary of 4:21-31 (but without its allegorical terminology) if not also of chaps. 3, 4 as a whole, and on the other an introduction to the exhortations of chap. 5. The article before ἐλευθερίᾳ is restrictive, referring to that freedom from the law with which the whole epistle from 2:1 on has dealt; see esp. 3:23-25, 4:9, 31. On Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν cf. for substance of thought 3:13, 4:4. The sentence is, in fact, an epitome of the contention of the whole letter.

The variations of the textual evidence are so complex as to make clear exposition of them difficult. The chief variations may be set forth as follows:

I. Respecting the words immediately accompanying ἐλευθερίᾳ:

1. τῇ ἐλευθερίᾇ (without ᾗ following): אABCD*HP 31, 33, 442, al. Sah. Arm. Syr. (harcl.) Euthal. Thrdt. Dam.; τῇ γὰρ ἐλ.: Boh.; ἐν τῇ: Chr.

2. τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ᾗ: Db et cKL, the great body of cursives, Syr. (psh. et harcl.) Marc. Chr. Cyr. Thdrt. Thphyl. Oec. al.

3. ᾗ ἐλευθερίᾳ: FG d f g Vg. Goth. Tert. Or. Victorin. Hier. Ambrst. Aug.

II. Respecting the position of ἡμᾶς:

1. ἐλευθερ. ἡμᾶς Χρ.: א*ABDFGP 31, 33, 327, 2125, some mss. of the Vulg. Goth. Cyr. Dam.

2. ἐλευθερ. Χρ. ἡμᾶς.: אcCKL, most of the cursives, Chr. Thrdt. Tert. Victorin. Hier.

3. Χρ. ἠλευθέρωσεν ἡμᾶς: Thphyl. (so Ltft.).

III. Respecting οὖν:

1. After ἐλευθερίᾳ: CcKL and many cursives, Marc. Dam. Thphyl. Oec.

2. After στήκετε: אABCFGP 33, 104, 336, 424**, 442, 1912, f g Goth. Boh. Sah. Eth. Arm. Bas. Cyr. Orint. Victorin. Aug.

3. Omit in both places: D d 263, 1908, Vg. Syr. (harcl.) Thdrt. Chr. Dam.

The weight of external evidence thus strongly favours τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν· στήκετε οὖν, and the originality of this reading is confirmed by the fact that it accounts for all the rest. It is adopted by Ln. Tdf. Alf. WH. Sief. Those who have preferred another reading (Ell. Ltft.: τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ᾗ; Zahn: ᾗ ἐλευθερίᾳ) have done so on the ground of the syntactical difficulty of τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ as a limitation of ἠλευθέρωσεν. But this construction, though unusual, does not seem to be impossible (see exegetical notes). On the other hand, Hort’s suggestion that τῇ is a primitive error for ἐπʼ (cf. v. 13, ἐπʼ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε) has much to commend it. The only choice is between τῆ ἐλ. ὴμ., etc., which is undoubtedly the parent of all the other existing readings, and ἐπʼ ἐλ. ἡμ. as the unattested original of the former.

The dative τῆ ἐλευθερίᾳ is to be explained as a dative of instrument (not intensive as in Luke 22:15, ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα, and Jam 5:17, προσευχῆ προσεύξατο, in which case the noun, being qualitative, would be without the article), but descriptive, “by (bestowing) the freedom (spoken of above) Christ made us free”; cf. John 12:33, ποίῳ θανάτῳ ἤμελλεν ἀποθνήσκειν. To this view the article is no objection: cf. 1 Thessalonians 3:9, πάσῃ τῇ χαρᾷ ᾗ χαίρομεν, where the relative ᾗ limiting χαίρομεν has all the definiteness of τᾔ χαρᾷ. Or it may be a dative of destination (cf. Acts 22:25: προέτειναν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἱμᾶσιν: “They stretched him out for the thongs” with which he was to be scourged). The meaning would then be: “For the freedom (above spoken of) Christ set us free.” The latter interpretation is favoured somewhat by v. 13, and perhaps by the absence of any exact parallel to such a use of verb and cognate noun with the article as the former view supposes; while against it is the unusualness of such a dative as it supposes (even Acts 22:25 is not quite certain) and the probability that Paul would have expressed this idea by εἰς ἐλευθερίαν (cf. Romans 5:2). On the whole the former construction is the more probable, if τῇ be the correct reading. It is, perhaps, still more likely that Paul wrote ἐπʼ (see textual note above), in which case the meaning would be substantially that of the dative denoting destination.

Στήκω, a post-classical word, derived from ἒστηκα, has with Paul the meaning not simply “to stand” (as in the gospels), but with intensive force, “to stand firm.” Cf. 1 Corinthians 16:13, Php 1:27, Php 4:1, etc. πάλιν recalls the fact that as Gentiles they had been in slavery, and classes the burden of Jewish legalism with that of heathenism. Cf. 4:9 and notes there. The omission of the article with ζυγῷ δουλείας gives to the phrase a qualitative force, and though the reference is clearly to the yoke of legalism, is appropriate after πάλιν because the new yoke which he would have them avoid is not identical with that previously borne.

Ἐνέχεσθε—a frequent classical word, “to be held in,” “to be ensnared,” is in the present tense, denoting action in progress, not probably because Paul thinks of them as already entangled (so that the expression would mean “cease to be entangled”), but because he is thinking about and warning them against not only the putting of their necks into the yoke, but the continuous state of subjection which would result therefrom.

2. Ἴδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει. “Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if ye shall be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you.” The acceptance of circumcision is, under the circumstances then existing in the Galatian churches, the acceptance of the principle of legalism, the committal of the Galatians to a relation to God wholly determined by conformity to statutes and leaving no place for Christ or the development of spiritual life through faith in him and spiritual fellowship with him. This is the position which the apostle has taken throughout the letter (cf. 2:18ff. 3:12). The possibility of any compromise between the two conceptions of religion he does not consider, but points out the logical outcome of the adoption of the principle of legalism, which he conceives to be involved in the acceptance of circumcision. Though circumcision is mentioned here for the first time in direct relation to the Galatians, the manner in which it is spoken of in this paragraph and in 6:11-13 (confirmed by the implications of chap. 3) makes it certain that it was this rite especially that the opponents of Paul were urging the Galatians to adopt, or at least that on this the contest was at this moment concentrated. Though the sentence is introduced without γάρ, the purpose of it is evidently to enforce the exhortation of v. 1. Its separation from that v. in a distinct paragraph is justified only by the double relation which it sustains on the one hand to 4:21, 31, and on the other to this and the following sentences.

The first three words of this sentence, none of them strictly necessary to the thought, serve to give emphasis to the whole statement that follows. As an exclamation Paul elsewhere employs not ἴδε, but ἰδού; see 1 Corinthians 15:51, Galatians 1:20, et al.; ἴδε in Romans 11:22 and ἴδετε in Galatians 6:11 are proper imperatives with limiting object. For other instances of ἐγώ, emphatic, see 1:12, 2:19, 20, 4:12, 5:10, 11, 6:17 et freq. For ἐγὼ Παῦλος, see 1 Thessalonians 2:18, 2 Corinthians 10:1, Ephesians 3:1, Colossians 1:23; see also Colossians 4:18, 2 Thessalonians 3:17. The intent of the words here is doubtless, as in most of the above instances, to give to what he is about to say all the weight of his personal influence.

The form of the conditional clause ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε, referring to a future possibility, reflects the fact that the question whether they will be circumcised is still pending. Cf. 1:6. The use of the present tense, at first thought surprising, indicates that the apostle is not thinking of circumcision as a simple (possible future) fact, or result accomplished, but of the attempt or decision to be circumcised, the verb being substantially conative in force; see note on ἤρεσκον in 1:10. What the apostle says is not that to be or to have been, as a matter of fact, circumcised would render Christ of no avail to them (see the contrary stated in v. 6), but that their seeking or receiving circumcision under the circumstances under which it is being urged upon them would do so. Observe the use of the present tense, also, in v. 3, 6:12, 13, 1 Corinthians 7:18. The aorist in 2:3, on the other hand, was necessary because of the resultative force of the whole phrase. The view of Alford, that the present tense “implies the continuance of a habit, ‘if you will go on being circumcised,’ ” though grammatically unobjectionable, is excluded by the fact that circumcision could be thought of as a habit, not in respect to individuals, but only as concerns the community; in which case it would follow that Paul’s thought was that if the community continued the already existing practice of circumcision, the community would have no benefit from Christ; whereas, on the contrary, v 33, confirmed by the apostle’s constant teaching concerning justification, shows that relation to Christ pertains to the individual, not to the community. Alford’s explanation, moreover, fails to account for the present tense in περιτεμνομένῳ, and is, therefore, probably not applicable to περιτέμνησθε. The language, therefore, furnishes no basis for the conclusion that the Galatians had already begun the practice of circumcision.

On οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει, cf. John 6:63, Romans 2:25, 1 Corinthians 13:3. There is no ground for assuming an exclusive reference to any specific point of future time, as to the parousia or the judgment. The absence of any specific reference to these events, such as is expressed in Romans 2:13, Romans 2:16, or implied in Romans 14:10-12, makes it natural to assume that the future dates from the time indicated in the subordinate clause; and this is confirmed by the use of the aorists κατηργήθητε and ἐξεπέσατε in v. 4, which see.

3. μαρτύρομαι δὲ πάλιν παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ περιτεμνομένῳ ὅτι ὀφειλέτης ἐστὶν ὅλον τὸν νόμον ποιῆσαι. “And I protest again to every man that receiveth circumcision that he is bound to do the whole law.” Joined to v. 2 by δέ, this sentence supplements that one by a further reason why the Galatians should not receive circumcision. Not only do they thereby lose any advantage which the relation to Christ would confer, but they assume a heavy burden. The acceptance of circumcision is in principle the acceptance of the whole legalistic scheme. The reasons that can be urged in favour of circumcision apply equally to every statute of the law. That Paul points out this logical consequence of circumcision implies that the judaisers had not done so. They were now urging the Galatians to accept circumcision as the rite by which they could become sons of Abraham and participators in the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. chap. 3 passim); they had already persuaded them to adopt the cycle of Jewish festivals (4:10), perhaps as serving to mark them off from their heathen compatriots, perhaps because of the appeal which these observances would make to the Galatians. On the question whether the judaisers had imposed or endeavoured to impose upon their consciences any other requirements of the law, see on 4:10. It is certain only that the Galatians had adopted the festival cycle, that they were undecided concerning circumcision, and that the judaisers had not proposed to them to undertake to keep the whole law.

Μαρτύρομαι without obj. acc. signifies, not “to call to witness” (so with obj. acc. in Soph. Eur. et al.), but “to affirm,” “to protest” (Plato, Php_47C.; Jos. Bell. 3. 354 (8:3); Acts 20:26, Acts 26:22, Ephesians 4:17), differing from μαρτυρέω in that it denotes a strong asseveration, not simple testimony.

Πάλιν, “again,” can not be understood as referring either to the content of v. 2, of which this is regarded as a repetition (Ltft.), for the two verses, though related, are not identical in thought; or to any previous passage in this epistle, since there is none in which this statement is made; nor can it be taken as marking this verse as a second μαρτυρία, of different content from the former one, for in that case it would have preceded the verb, as in Matthew 4:7, Matthew 5:33, Romans 15:10, Romans 15:12. It must, therefore, refer to a statement previously made to the Galatians, and in that case probably to a statement made on the occasion referred to in 4:16 (ἀληθεύων) and 1:9. Cf. notes on these passages and 5:21. The present passage thus furnishes some confirmatory evidence that Paul had either visited the Galatians or written to them since the visit spoken of in 4:13; since definitely anti-legalistic instruction at that time before the legalistic influence had been exerted among them is improbable, though not, indeed, impossible.

The words παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ περιτεμνομένῳ mean not, “to every one who has been circumcised” (which would call for the perfect περιτετμνημένῳ or aorist περιτμηθέντι), but “to every man that receives circumcision.” Cf. BMT 124. The warning is addressed not to the man who has already been circumcised but (like ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε, v. 2) to the one who is contemplating circumcision.

Ὀφειλέτης is one who is under obligation, one who is bound, ὀφείλει, to do a certain thing; here in effect one who binds himself; for the obligation is, as the context shows, one which he ought not to assume. Cf. contra Romans 1:14.

Ὅλον τὸν νόμον refers to the whole body of O. T. statutes, legalistically interpreted. See detached note on Νόμος, V 2. (c), p. 457. For a Gentile to receive circumcision is to commit himself logically to the whole legalistic system. The clear implication of the sentence is that the believer in Christ is under no such obligation. The freedom of the believer in Christ is not simply from the law’s condemnation of him who does not obey its statutes, or from the law as a means of justification, but from the obligation to render obedience to these statutes. The Galatians are not simply not to seek justification by circumcision; they are not to be circumcised; they are not to do the whole law.

4. κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε, “Ye have severed your relation to Christ, ye who are seeking to be justified in law.” κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ repeats in effect the Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει of v. 2, and like that verse expresses forcibly the apostle’s thought that the adoption of legalism is the repudiation of Christ. The two methods of obtaining righteousness are incompatible. He who turns to one foregoes the other. Notice the direct address to the Galatians, much more impressive than a statement of a general principle.

Some Syrian authorities and Boh. read τοῦ Χριστοῦ, but Χριστοῦ is sustained by practically all pre-Syrian evidence, אBCD al. On Paul’s usage of Χριστός and ὁ Χριστός, cf. detached note on The Titles and Predicates of Jesus, p. 395.

Ἐν νόμῳ evidently has the same meaning as in 3:11 (q. v.), “in the sphere of” (more specifically, “on the basis of”) “legal obedience to statutes,” thus equivalent to ἐξ ἔργων νόμου in 2:16, etc. δικαιοῦσθε is conative. The present can not mean “are (i. e., have been) justified”; and a progressive present proper, “are in the process of being justified” is excluded by the fact that Paul thinks of justification not as a process but an act, and more decisively by his repeated assertion that no man is actually justified in law (chap. 3:11, Romans 3:20).

There is no reason to regard the assertion of this sentence as hypothetical; it must rather be understood as referring to persons among the Galatians who, having accepted the legalistic principle, were seeking justification in law (cf. 4:10). Only, in view of 1:6, 5:1, 10, etc., it can not be supposed to designate the Galatians as a whole, or in view of v. 2, be understood as necessarily implying that they have carried their legalism to the extent of being circumcised. Wherever in the epistle the apostle speaks of circumcision, it is as of a future possibility to be prevented. This excludes not the possibility of some having already been circumcised, but the general adoption of circumcision; but there is no positive indication that any have accepted it.

Καταργέω, properly meaning “to make ineffective,” is used in Romans 7:2, Romans 7:6, and here in the passive with ἀπό, meaning “to be without effect from,” “to be unaffected by,” “to be without effective relation to.” The explanation of the idiom as a brachylogical expression for κατηργήθητε καὶ ἐχωρίσθητε (Ltft., Sief., et al.), and the comparison of Romans 9:3 and 2 Corinthians 11:3 as analogous examples, are scarcely defensible; for while in these latter instances the expressed predicate applies to the subject independently of the phrase introduced by ἀπό, and the verb denoting separation is simply left to be supplied in thought, this is not the case with καταργεῖσθαι ἀπό. The idiom is rather to be explained as a case of rhetorical inversion, such as occurs in Romans 7:4, ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ, where consistency with both preceding and following context would require ὁ νόμος ἐθανατώθη ὑμῖν. Cf. the English expression, “He was presented with a gift,” for “A gift was presented to him.” The use of the aorist tense, denoting a past event viewed as a simple fact, has, in contrast with the present δικαιοῦσθε a certain rhetorical force; as if the apostle would say: “Your justification in law, which is but an attempt, has already resulted in separation from Christ as a fact.” The English perfect best expresses the force of an aorist in such cases as this, when the event belongs to the immediate past (cf. BMT 46, 52).

τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε. “Ye have fallen away from grace.” The article with χάριτος marks the word as referring specifically to that grace of God or of Christ which was the distinctive element of the gospel which Paul had preached to the Galatians. Cf. 1:6, and special note on Χάρις. Grace, by virtue of which God accepts as righteous those who have faith, itself excludes, and is excluded by, the principle of legalism, according to which the deeds of righteousness which one has performed are accredited to him as something which he has earned. Cf. 3:12, Romans 4:5, Romans 11:6. They, therefore, who are seeking justification by the way of legalism have fallen away from, abandoned, the divine grace. Logically viewed, the one conception excludes the other; experientially the one experience destroys the other. One can not with intellectual consistency conceive of God as the bookkeeping God of legalism and at the same time the gracious God of the Pauline gospel, who accepts men because of their faith. One can not live the life of devotion to the keeping of statutes, which legalism calls for, and at the same time a life of faith in Jesus Christ and filial trust in the God of grace. This strong conviction of the incompatibility of the two conceptions, experientially as well as logically, is doubtless grounded in the apostle’s own experience. Cf. 2:19.

The verb ἐκπίπτω in classical writers from Homer down, signifying “to fall out of,” with various derived significations, is probably used here, as usually when limited by a genitive without a preposition, with the meaning, “to fail of,” “to lose one’s hold upon” (τῆς χάριτος being a genitive of separation), not, however, here in the sense that the divine grace has been taken from them (as in Jos. Antiq. 7. 203 (9:2), ὡς ἂν βασιλείας ἐκπεσών), but that they have abandoned it. Cf. 2 Peter 3:17: φυλάσσεσθε ἵνα μὴ … ἐκπέσητε τοῦ ἰδίου στηριγμοῦ. For to affirm that their seeking justification in law involved as an immediate consequence the penal withdrawal of the divine grace (note the force of the aorist in relation to the present δικαιοῦσθε; cf. above on κατηργήθητε) involves a wholly improbable harshness of conception. On the form ἐξεπέσατε cf. Win.-Schm. XIII 12.

5. ἡμεῖς γὰρ πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα. “For we by the Spirit, by faith, wait for a hoped-for righteousness.” ἡμεῖς is emphatic, we in contrast with all who hold to legalism. πνεύματι is used without the article, hence qualitatively, but undoubtedly with reference to the Spirit of God. Cf. the similar usage in 3:3, 5:16, 18, 25, and see special note on Πνεῦμα and Σάρξ, p. 491. The contrast with the flesh which in 5:16, 18, 25 is expressed is probably here latent. He who seeks divine acceptance by law is in reality relying upon the flesh. See Rom_7:18-9. We, on the other hand, depend not on flesh but on the Spirit. The word δικαιοσύνη is best understood in its inclusive sense, having reference both to ethical character and to forensic standing. It is this which is the object of the Christian’s hope and expectation (Php 3:9, Php 3:10). Cf. detached note on Δίκαιος, etc., VI B. 2, p. 471, and the discussion there of this passage. Observe also the expression διʼ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη in v. 6 as indicating that the apostle is here including the ethical aspect of righteousness. The whole sentence introduced by γάρ is an argument e contrario, confirming the assertion of v. 4 by pointing out that we, i. e., we who hold the gospel of grace, look for the realisation of our hope of righteousness, not in law, ἐν νόμῳ, but on the one side by the Spirit of God and on the other through faith.

Πνεύματι is probably a dative of means, limiting ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, or, to speak more exactly, the verb of attaining implied in ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, the thought being, “By the Spirit we expect to attain,” etc. ἐκ πίστεως also denotes means, the phrase being complementary to πνεύματι, and expressing the subjective condition of attaining ἐλπ. δικ., as πνεύματι denotes the objective power by which it is achieved.

Ἀπεκδέχομαι, used only in N. T. (Paul, Heb. and 1 Pet.) and in considerably later writers (cf. Nägeli, Wortschatz, p. 43; M. and M. Voc., s. v.) signifies “to await with eagerness,” ἀπό apparently intensifying the force given to the simple verb by ἐκ, “to be receiving from a distance,” hence “to be intently awaiting.”

The interpretation, “by a Spirit which is received by faith,” the phrase πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως thus qualitatively designating the Spirit of God, is neither grammatically impossible (cf. Romans 8:15, πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας. Ephesians 1:17, πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως. Romans 3:25, ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως, none of which are, however, quite parallel cases), nor un-Pauline in thought (cf. 3:14: ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως). Yet the nature of the relation which this interpretation assumes between πνεύματι and ἐκ πίστεως is such as would probably call for πνεύματι τῷ ἐκ πίστεως (cf. 2:20, πίστει … τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ), while, on the other hand, the succession of co-ordinate limitations is not uncharacteristic of the apostle; cf. Romans 3:25.

Ἐλπίδα, as is required by ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, is used by metonymy for that which is hoped for. Cf. Colossians 1:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 6:18. The genitive δικαιοσύνης may be considered as an objective genitive, if the whole phrase be supposed to be taken by metonymy—“a hope of righteousness,” standing for “a hoped-for righteousness,” or a genitive of description (appositional genitive) if the metonymy be thought of as affecting the word ἐλπίδα alone. In either case it is the righteousness which is the object both of hope and expectation. On the combination ἐλπ. ἀπεκδεχ. cf. Titus 2:13, προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα. Eur. Alcest. 130: νῦν δὲ βίου τίνʼ ἔτʼ ἐλπίδα προσδέχωμαι. Polyb. 8. 21:7, ταῖς προσδεχωμέναις ἐλπίσιν (cited by Alf. ad loc.).

6. ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία, ἀλλὰ πίστις δι· ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη. “For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love.” For the disclosure of the apostle’s fundamental idea of the nature of religion, there is no more important sentence in the whole epistle, if, indeed, in any of Paul’s epistles. Each term and construction of the sentence is significant. ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (the bracketing of Ἰησοῦ by WH., because of its omission by B. Clem., seems scarcely justified) limits ἰσχύει. It is not precisely equivalent to τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, but means, rather, “on that basis which is created by Christ Jesus”; nearly equal, therefore, in modern phrase, to “in Christianity,” “on the Christian basis.” With ἰσχύει (from Æschylus down, “to have strength,” “to be able,” “to avail”) is to be supplied, not δικαιοῦν (“is able to justify”; cf. Acts 6:10), which would be to limit the thought more narrowly than the context would warrant, but εἰς δικαιοσύνην, as suggested by the preceding sentence, and in the inclusive sense of the term as there used. By the omission of the article with περιτομή and all the following nominatives, these nouns are given a qualitative force, with emphasis upon the quality and character of the acts. This might be expressed, though also exaggerated, by some such expression as, “by their very nature circumcision,” etc. The phrase διʼ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη furnishes a most significant addition to the word πίστις, which has filled so large a place in the epistle thus far. For not only has he not previously in this epistle used the word ἀγάπη, but, though often using each alone in other epistles (for πίστις, see Romans 1:17, Romans 3:22, etc.; and for ἀγάπη, see esp. 1 Cor., chap. 13) he has nowhere else in any of his letters brought the two words into immediate connection. The relation between the two terms, which is here expressed but not perfectly defined by ἐνεργουμένη διά, “operative, effective through,” “coming to effective expression in,” is made clearer by a consideration of the nature of the two respectively, as Paul has indicated that nature elsewhere. Faith is for Paul, in its distinctively Christian expression, a committal of one’s self to Christ, issuing in a vital fellowship with him, by which Christ becomes the controlling force in the moral life of the believer. See esp. 2:20 and cf. detached note on Πίστις and Πιστεύω, V B. 2. (e), p. 482. But the principle of Christ’s life is love (see 2:20, τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντος, etc.; Romans 5:5-8, Romans 8:35-39). Faith in Christ, therefore, generates love, and through it becomes effective in conduct. See also v. 22, where first among the elements which life by the Spirit (which, as v. 5 indicates, is the life of faith) produces is love; and on the moral effect and expression of love, see especially 1 Cor., chap. 13. On the meaning of ἀγάπη, see on v. 14. That the apostle added the words διʼ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη instead of writing πίστις or ἡ πίστις alone is probably due to his having in mind, even here, that phase of the matter which he discusses more fully in vv. 13 ff.; cf. Romans 3:1-4, and 3:30 for similar brief anticipations of matters to be more fully discussed later. Anticipating the objection that freedom from law leaves the life without moral dynamic, he answers in a brief phrase that faith begets love and through it becomes operative in conduct.

The whole sentence affirming the valuelessness alike of circumcision and of uncircumcision for the Christian life, and ascribing value to faith and love, shows how fully Paul had ethicised and spiritualised his conception of religion. That he says not simply περιτομὴ οὐδὲν ἰσχύει, but οὔτε περιτομὴ … οὔτε ἀκροβυστία naturally implies not only that he is opposed to the imposition of circumcision upon the Gentiles, but that he repudiates every conception of religion which makes physical conditions of any kind essential to it. The sentence, therefore, in no way contradicts vv. 2, 3, since the latter declare to the Galatians that if they accept a physical rite as religiously essential, they thereby repudiate the principle of the religion of Christ. He could have said the same thing about uncircumcision had he been addressing men who were in danger of adopting this as essential to religion. Indeed, this he does say in 1 Corinthians 7:18, 1 Corinthians 7:19: περιτετμημένος τις ἐκλήθη; μὴ ἐπισπάσθω. The doctrine of that passage as a whole is identical with the teaching in this letter. For though in v. 19 τήρησις ἐντολῶν θεοῦ, “a keeping of divine commandments,” fills the place occupied here by πίστις διʼ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη, v. 14 here shows that these two expressions are at bottom not antithetical but in effect equivalent.

Ἰσχύω, from Æschylus down, in the sense “to have strength,” “to be able,” “to avail” is rare in Paul, but not infrequent in other N. T. writers. It is used as here in the third of the above-named senses in Hebrews 9:17, and with similar meaning in Matthew 5:13. Note the construction there.

Ἐνεργουμένη is to be taken, in accordance with the regular usage of ἐνεργεῖσθαι in Paul, as middle, not passive, and as meaning “operative,” “effective”: Romans 7:5, 2 Corinthians 1:6, 2 Corinthians 4:12, Ephesians 3:20, Colossians 1:29, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:7, Jam 5:16; see also Polyb. 1. 13:5; Jos. Ant. 15. 145 (5:3). The active, on the other hand, is used of persons: 1 Corinthians 12:6, 1 Corinthians 12:11, Galatians 2:8, Galatians 3:5, Ephesians 1:11, Ephesians 1:20, Ephesians 1:2:2. That the preposition διά denotes not antecedent cause but mediate agency, the object of the preposition being that through which the πίστις becomes effective, is made practically certain not on grammatical grounds, but because of the nature of the two attitudes expressed by πίστις and ἀγάπη as conceived of by the apostle. See above in the larger print. See note on διά under 1:1 and cf. 2 Corinthians 1:6, where a similar relation is expressed by ἐν. Since πίστις is without the article, the participle, though anarthrous, may be attributive, “which works”; but 2:20 suggests that to express this thought Paul would have written πίστις ἡ ἐνεργουμένη, and makes it likely that ἐνεργουμένη is adverbial, expressing means or cause.

7. Ἐτρέχετε καλῶς· τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; “Ye were running well; who hindered you from obeying truth?” As in 4:12, the apostle breaks off argument to make an appeal to the feelings of his readers by reminiscence of the former conduct of the Galatians before they fell under the influence of the judaisers. It is to this time obviously that the imperfect ἐτρέχετε refers. τίς ὑμᾶς, etc., is not a question for information but of appeal.

On the use of running as a figure for effort looking to the achievement of a result, see 2:2, Romans 9:16, 1 Corinthians 9:24-26, Php 2:16, Php 2:3:14, 2 Thessalonians 3:1. It is probable that in all cases the apostle has in mind the figure of running a race, as expressly in 1 Corinthians 9:24-26. ἐνκόπτω is used by Hippocrates in the sense “to make an incision,” but with the meaning “to hinder” first in Polybius. Here, if the figure is that of a race, the word suggests a breaking into the course, getting in the way, or possibly a breaking up of the road. That Paul uses the aorist (resultative) rather than the present (conative) indicates that he is thinking of what his opponents have already accomplished in their obstructive work. The present infinitive, πείθεσθαι, on the other hand, is progressive, so that the meaning of the whole expression is, “who has succeeded in preventing you from continuing to obey truth?” and the implication is that, though they have not fully adopted the views of Paul’s opponents, they have ceased to hold firmly to that which Paul taught them. πείθεσθαι is difficult to render exactly into English. “Believe” expresses rather less, “obey” rather more, than its meaning. It denotes not merely intellectual assent, but acceptance which carries with it control of action; cf. Acts 5:36, Acts 5:37, Acts 5:40; Romans 2:8. On the construction of πείθεσθαι (inf. with μή after verbs of hindering), see BMT 402, 483; Bl.-D. 429. The omission of the article with ἀληθείᾳ gives to it a qualitative force, and shows that, though what the apostle has in mind is doubtless the same that in 2:5 and 2:14 he calls ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, he desires to emphasise the quality of his message as truth, thus conveying the implication that they are turning from something that is true to something that is false. Cf. for similar anarthrous use of ἀλήθεια Romans 9:1, 2 Corinthians 6:7, Ephesians 4:21. Some authorities insert the article here (omitted by א*AB). Evidently some scribe, recognising that the reference was to the truth of the gospel, stumbled at the qualitativeness of the expression.

8. ἡ πεισμονὴ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς. “This persuasion is not from him that calleth you.” The restrictive article with πεις μονή makes it refer definitely to that persuasion just spoken of, viz., the persuasion no longer to hold (his message which is) truth. By τοῦ καλοῦντος Paul means God. On the meaning of the term and its reference to God, see on 1:6; and on the omission of θεοῦ, see on 2:8, 3:5. The negative statement carries with it the positive intimation that the influence which is affecting them is one that is hostile to God, an intimation which is definitely expressed in v. 9.

Πεισμονή may be either active (Chrys. on 1 Thessalonians 1:3; Just. Mart. Apol. 53:1) or passive (Ign. Romans 3:3 Iren. Haer. 4, 33:7), and it is impossible to tell in which sense Paul thought of it here. The passive sense involves the thought of a persuasion actually accomplished, the active an effort. It was, of course, the latter, but ἐνέκοψεν shows that in Paul’s thought it was in a sense the former, also. On the tense and modal force of καλοῦντος (general present; adjective participle used substantively), see BMT 123, 124, 423, and cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:24.

9. μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ. “A little leaven is leavening the whole lump.” The occurrence of exactly the same words in 1 Corinthians 5:6 and the way in which they are there used indicate that they were a proverbial saying, referring to the tendency of an influence seemingly small to spread until it dominates the whole situation. In 1 Cor. ζυμή refers to the immoral conduct and influence of the incestuous man, and φύραμα represents the Corinthian church, whose whole moral life was in danger of being corrupted. Here, over against the negative statement of v. 8, this verse states the true explanation of the situation, viz., that the doctrine of the necessity of circumcision, insidiously presented by a few, is permeating and threatening to pervert the whole religious life of the Galatian churches. ζυμοῖ is probably not to be taken as a general present (as in 1 Cor.) but as a present of action in progress. It agrees with all the other evidence of the epistle in indicating that the anti-Pauline movement had as yet made but little, though alarming, progress.

On τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ, cf. Exodus 12:34, and on leaven as a symbol of an evil influence (of good, however, in Matthew 13:33, Luke 13:20, Luke 13:21), see Ltft.

10. ἐγὼ πέποιθα εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄλλο φρονήσετε· “I have confidence, in the Lord, respecting you that ye will take no other view than this.” With the abruptness which characterises the whole passage, the apostle turns suddenly from the discouraging aspects of the situation to an expression of hopeful confidence. The use of ἐγώ emphasises the personal, subjective character of the confidence. “I, at least, whatever others think.” εἰς ὑμᾶς designates the persons in reference to whom (Th. εἰς B. II 2 a) the confidence is felt; ἐν κυρίῳ defines the Lord, i. e., Christ, not precisely as the object of trust but as the one who constitutes the basis or ground of confidence (Th. ἐν, I 6 c.; cf. 2:4 and 2:17 and notes on these passages). The whole passage is marked by such abruptness of expression and sudden changes of thought that the words οὐδὲν ἄλλο may mean in general no other view of the true nature of religion or the true interpretation of the gospel than that which Paul had taught them. Most probably they refer directly to the opinion just expressed by Paul in v. 9. In that case the sentence is an expression of confidence that the Galatians will share his conviction that the influence exerted by the judaisers is, in fact, a leaven (of evil) coming not from God but from men, and threatening the religious life of the whole community of Galatian Christians.

The constructions employed by Paul after πέποιθα are various: (a) ἐπί, with a personal object (2 Corinthians 1:9, 2 Corinthians 1:2:3, 2 Thessalonians 3:4), and ἐν with an impersonal object (Php 3:3, Php 3:4), designating the object of confidence, that which one trusts; (b) ἐν with a personal object (Php 2:24, 2 Thessalonians 3:4 and the present passage) designating the ground on which confidence rests; (c) εἰς with the accusative occurring in the present passage, without parallel elsewhere; in accordance with the not infrequent use of εἰς in other connections, the preposition is to be explained, as above, as meaning “in respect to.” To take εἰς ὑμᾶς as denoting the object of faith (Butt. p. 175) is without the support of other examples with this verb, or of the preposition as used with other verbs; for while the accusative after πιστεύω εἰς denotes the object of faith, this construction is practically restricted to use in respect to Christ (cf. detached note on Πιστεύω, p. 480), and furnishes no ground for thinking that πέποιθα εἰς would be used with similar force in respect to other persons. 2 Corinthians 8:22, πεποιθήσει πολλῇ τῇ εἰς ὑμᾶς, is indecisive both because it contains not the verb but the noun, and because it shares the ambiguity of the present passage.

The expression ἐν κυρίῳ occurs in the Pauline epistles approximately forty times. That it means “in Christ,” not “in God,” is rendered practically certain by these considerations: (a) of ἐν Χριστῷ or ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, or ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ there are about eighty instances, and in many of these the connection of thought is closely similar to those in which ἐν κυρίῳ is employed. (b) In seven cases (Romans 6:22, Romans 6:14:14, 1 Corinthians 15:31, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:4:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 3:12) κυρίῳ after ἐν is defined by a preceding or following Ἰησοῦ, Χριστῷ, or both together, as referring to Christ, and in these instances, also, the connection of thought is similar to that in which ἐν κυρίῳ alone occurs. (c) ἐν θεῷ and ἐν τῷ θεῷ occur but rarely in Paul (Romans 2:17, Romans 5:11, Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 3:3, 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 1 Thessalonians 1:2:2, 2 Thessalonians 1:1), and in two of these instances (1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2 Thessalonians 1:1), with θεῷ is joined κυρίῳ in such ways as to show that ἐν κυρίῳ refers to Christ. Against these strong considerations there is only the fact that in general κύριος without the article refers to God, ὁ κύριος to Christ. But the force of this general rule is diminished by the further fact that in set phrases, especially prepositional phrases, the article is frequently omitted without modification of meaning. Cf. detached note on Πατήρ as applied to God, p. 387. On οὐδεὶς ἄλλος cf. John 15:24, Acts 4:12.

ὁ δὲ ταράσσων ὑμᾶς βαστάσει τὸ κρίμα, ὅστις ἐὰν ᾖ. “but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whoever he may be.” In itself ὁ ταράσσων might refer to a particular individual identified or unidentified, and the troubling might be present, past, or future. But the indefinite relative clause, ὅστις ἐὰν ᾖ, referring to the future (BMT 303, 304; a present general supposition is excluded by the future βαστάσει, and a present particular by the subjunctive ᾖ) requires us to take ὁ ταράσσων as designating not a particular individual mentally identified, but as referring to any one who hereafter may disturb them. The article is distributive generic, as in 3:12, 14, John 3:18. Doubtless this is but another way of referring to those who are spoken of in 1:6, τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς, καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ χριστοῦ, and in v. 12 as οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς. Only their conduct is, for rhetorical effect, referred to not as a fact but as a future possibility, as in 1:8, and an indefinite singular takes the place of a definite plural. τὸ κρίμα undoubtedly refers to the judgment of God, which carries with it by implication the consequent punishment. Cf. Romans 2:2, Romans 2:3, Romans 2:3:8, and esp. Romans 13:2. How or when the punishment will be experienced the sentence does not indicate; there is nothing to show that the apostle has especially or exclusively in mind the messianic judgment (Romans 2:16).

Βαστάζω, used by classical writers from Homer down, occurs also in the Lxx, Apocr., and Pat. Ap. It is found in N. T. twenty-seven times. In all periods, apparently, it is employed both in a literal sense of bearing a burden (Mark 14:13, John 19:17) and other similar senses, and metaphorically of mental processes. In N. T. it occurs several times in the sense “to endure”: John 16:12, Acts 15:10, Romans 15:1. Cf. also Galatians 6:2, Galatians 6:5, Galatians 6:17. Of bearing punishment it occurs here only in N. T., but also in 2 Kings 18:14.

11. Ἐγὼ δέ, ἀδελφοί, εἰ περιτομὴν ἔτι κηρύσσω, τί ἔτι διώκομαι; “And I, brethren, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?” Still another abrupt sentence, probably occasioned by the fact that they who were troubling the Galatians were using as one of their weapons a charge that the apostle was still, when it suited his purpose, preaching circumcision. As evidence of the falsity of the charge, Paul appeals to the fact that he is being persecuted, implying that it was for anti-legalism. The use of ἔτι with κηρύσσω implies that there was a time when he preached circumcision. The reference is doubtless to his pre-Christian life, since we have no information that he ever advocated circumcision after he became a Christian. On the reasons for holding that 1:10 furnishes no evidence of a period of conformity to the views of the judaisers in the matter, see notes on that passage. What basis there was for the charge that he was still advising circumcision, and whether the charges referred to the circumcision of Gentiles or of Jews—doubtless there was something to give colour to it—may perhaps be inferred from 1 Corinthians 7:18, if we may assume that even before writing Galatians he had said or written things similar to that passage. On Acts 16:3, see below.

The conditional clause εἰ … κηρύσσω, though having the form of a simple present supposition, evidently expresses an unfulfilled condition (BMT 245; cf. 2:21, 3:18, Romans 4:2 John 18:23), while the apodosis takes the form of a rhetorical question, meaning, “I should not be persecuted.” On the possible uses of ἔτι, cf. on 1:10. Despite the seeming parallelism, the two words ἔτι can hardly both be temporal. To make both mean “still as in my pre-Christian days,” is forbidden by the fact that he was not in those days persecuted for preaching circumcision. To make both mean “still as in my early Christian days,” is forbidden by the improbability that he was then preaching circumcision and the certainty (implied in the sentence itself) that if he had been he would not have been persecuted. If both are temporal, the meaning can only be, If I am still as in my pre-Christian days, preaching circumcision, why do they, having learned this, continue that persecution which they began supposing that I was opposed to circumcision? Simpler and more probable than this is the interpretation of the first ἔτι as temporal, and the second as denoting logical opposition; cf., e. g., Romans 3:7. The sentence then means: “If I am still preaching circumcision, why am I despite this fact persecuted?”

The bearing of this passage on the historicity of the statement of Acts 16:3 with reference to the circumcision of Timothy belongs, rather, to the interpretation of Acts than here. If the event occurred as there narrated and became the occasion for the charge to which Paul here refers, why he made no further reply than to deny the charge, and that only by implication, can only be conjectured. Perhaps knowing that the Galatians and his critics both knew that he had never objected to the circumcision of Jews, and that the only question really at issue was the circumcision of Gentiles who accepted the gospel, he judged it unnecessary to make any reply other than an appeal to the fact that they were persecuting him.

ἄρα κατήργηται τὸ σκάνδαλον τοῦ σταυροῦ. “Then is the stumbling-block of the cross done away with.” i. e., if circumcision may be maintained, the cross of Christ has ceased to be a stumbling-block. τὸ σκάνδαλον τοῦ σταυροῦ is that element or accompaniment of the death of Christ on the cross that makes it offensive (1 Corinthians 1:23), viz., to the Jews, deterring them from accepting Jesus as the Christ. This offensiveness, the apostle implies, lay in the doctrine of the freedom of believers in Christ from the law. Whatever else there may have been in the fact of Jesus’ death on the cross to make the doctrine of his messiahship offensive to the Jews, that which above all else made it such was the doctrine that men may obtain divine acceptance and a share in the messianic blessings through faith in Jesus, without circumcision or obedience to the statutes of Moses.*

It is natural and reasonable to suppose that this sentence reflects Paul’s own pre-Christian attitude, when his own zeal for the law made him a persecutor of Christians (1:13, 14, Php 3:6). Had it been something else than its anti-legalism that chiefly made the Christian movement offensive to him, he could not have made this statement, since in that case the removal of this element would have left the doctrine of the cross offensive to those who still occupied the position which he maintained in his pre-Christian days. And this fact in turn confirms the evidence of the Acts that even in its early days the Christian movement had an anti-legalistic element. The implication of the sentence is that, in his judgment, had Christianity been content to remain Jewish-legalistic, it might have won the Jews, or at least have maintained a respected standing among Jewish sects. The conflict between the Christianity of Paul and that of the ultra-legalists, was radical. The former sought to reach the nations at the risk of becoming offensive to the Jews; the latter would win the Jews at the sacrifice of all other nations. With this view of Paul the testimony of the book of Acts is in harmony, both in its indication of the large number of Jews who attached themselves to the legalistic Christianity of James and the Jerusalem church, and in the bitter offensiveness to them of the anti-legalism of Paul. See esp. Acts, chaps. 15 and 21:15-22.

Ltft. understands the sentence as ironical (cf. 4:16), meaning: “Then I have adopted their mode of preaching, and I am silent about the cross.” But this ascribes to κατήργηται an improbable meaning, and to the whole sentence a more personal reference than the language warrants.

On the use of ἄρα with the indicative without ἄν in an apodosis shown by the context to be contrary to fact, cf. 2:21, 1 Corinthians 15:14, where the protasis is expressed and the condition is in form that of a simple supposition, and 1 Corinthians 15:18, where as here the protasis is implied in the preceding sentence.

12. Ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς. “I would that they who are disturbing you would even have themselves mutilated.” οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες are evidently the same who are directly referred to in 1:6 as οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς, and hypothetically in ὁ ταράσσων of v. 10. ἀποκόψονται is clearly shown by usage (see exx. below) and the context to refer not, except quite indirectly (see below), to a withdrawal from the Christian community, or any other like act, but to bodily mutilation. In the bitterness of his feeling, the apostle expresses the wish that his opponents would not stop with circumcision, but would go on to emasculation. There is possibly a tacit reference to the emasculation of the priests of Cybele, with which the Galatians would doubtless be familiar and, quite possibly, in the apostle’s mind, at least, though he could hardly have expected his Galatian readers to think of it, to the language of Deuteronomy 23:1 (see below). The whole expression is most significant as showing that to Paul circumcision had become not only a purely physical act without religious significance, but a positive mutilation, like that which carried with it exclusion from the congregation of the Lord. It is not improbable that he has this consequence in mind: “I wish that they who advocate this physical act would follow it out to the logical conclusion and by a further act of mutilation exclude themselves from the congregation of the Lord.” Cf. Php 3:2, where he applies to circumcision as a physical act the derogatory term κατατομή, “mutilation.” To get the full significance of such language in the mouth of a Jew, or as heard by Jewish Christians, we must imagine a modern Christian speaking of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as if they were merely physical acts without spiritual significance; yet even this would lack the element of deep disgust which the language of Paul suggests.

On ἀναστατόω, meaning “to disturb,” see M. and M. Voc. s. v. ὄφελον, a shortened aorist indicative for ὤφελον, “I ought,” has in N. T. the force of an interjection, “would that.” Used by classical writers generally with the infinitive, it occurs in Callimachus (260 B. C.) with a past tense of the indicative; so also in the Lxx (Exodus 16:3, Numbers 14:3, etc.) and elsewhere in N. T. (1 Corinthians 4:8, 2 Corinthians 11:1, Revelation 3:15) of a wish probably conceived of as unattainable. It occurs with the future here only, probably with the intent of presenting the wish rhetorically as attainable, though it can hardly have been actually thought of as such. BMT 27. Rem. 1:2.

Ἀποκόπτεσθαι with an accusative of specification, τὰ γεννητικά, expressed, or unexpressed but to be supplied mentally, refers to a form of emasculation said to be still common in the East. See Deuteronomy 23:2 (1): οὐκ εἰσελεύσονται θλαδίας οὐδὲ ἀποκεκομμένος εἰς ἐκκλησίαν Κυρίου. Epict. Diss. 2. 20:19: οἱ ἀποκεκομμένοι τάς γε προθυμίας τὰς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀποκόψασθαι οὐ δύνανται. Philo, Sacrif. 325 (13); Leg. alleg. III 8 (3); Dion. Cass. 79:11. Cf. Keil and Delitzsch on Deuteronomy 23:2: “בּצוּעַ־דַבָּה [Lxx θλαδίας] literally ‘wounded by crushing,’ denotes one who is mutilated in this way; Vulg. eunuchus attritis vel amputatis testiculis. כְּרוּת שָׁפְבָה [Lxx ἀποκεκομμένος] is one whose sexual member was cut off; Vulg. abscisso veretro. According to Mishnah Jebam. VI 2, ‘contusus דַּכָּה est omnis, cuius testiculi vulnerati sunt, vel certe unus eorum; exsectus (כְּרוּת), cujus membrum virile praecisum. est.’ In the modern East emasculation is generally performed in this way. (See Tournefort, Reise, ii, p. 259 [The Levant, 1718, 2:7] and Burckhardt, Nubien, pp. 450, 451.)”

(b) Exhortation not to convert their liberty in Christ into an occasion for yielding to the impulse of the flesh (5:13-26)

In this paragraph the apostle deals with a new phase of the subject, connected, indeed, with the main theme of the letter, but not previously touched upon. Aware that on the one side it will probably be urged against his doctrine of freedom from law that it removes the restraints that keep men from immorality, and certainly on the other that those who accept it are in danger of misinterpreting it as if this were the case, he fervently exhorts the Galatians not to fall into this error, but, instead, through love to serve one another. This exhortation he enforces by the assurance that thus they will fulfil the full requirement of the law, that they will not fulfil the desire of the flesh, nor be under law, and by impressive lists, on the one hand of the works of the flesh, and on the other of the products of the Spirit in the soul.

13For ye were called for freedom, brethren. Only convert not your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants one of another. 14For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15But if ye are biting and devouring one another, take heed lest ye be consumed by one another. 16But I say, Walk by the Spirit and ye will not fulfil the desire of the flesh. 17For the desire of the flesh is against that of the Spirit, and the desire of the Spirit against that of the flesh; for these are opposed to one another, that whatsoever ye will ye may not do. 18But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, wantonness; 20idolatry, witchcraft; enmities, strife, jealousy, angers, self-seekings, parties, divisions, 21envyings; drunkenness, carousings, and the things like these; respecting which I tell you beforehand, as I have (already) told you in advance, that they who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24And they that belong to the Christ, Jesus, have crucified the flesh with its disposition and its desires. 25If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit also let us walk. 26Let us not become vain-minded, provoking one another, envying one another.

13. Ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἐπʼ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε, ἀδελφοί· “For ye were called for freedom, brethren.” Like v. 1 this sentence is transitional. It belongs with what precedes in that it gives a reason (γάρ is causal) for v. 12, but even more significantly in that it is an epitome of the whole preceding argument of the epistle in behalf of the freedom of the Gentile. But it belongs with what follows in that it serves to introduce a wholly new aspect of the matter, the exposition of which begins with μόνον. ὑμεῖς, immediately following ὑμᾶς of v. 12, is emphatic. “Ye, whom they are disturbing, for freedom were called.”

On ἐπί, expressing destination, see Th. B. 2 a ζ; 1 Thessalonians 4:7, Php 4:10. ἐλευθερίᾳ manifestly refers to the same freedom that is spoken of in v. 1, but being without the article is qualitative. On ἐκλήθητε, cf. on τοῦ καλοῦντος v. 8 and more fully on 1:6. On ἀδελφοί, see on 1:11.

μόνον μὴ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν εἰς ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκί, “Only convert not your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh.” μόνον, used also in 1:23, 2:10, Php 1:27, to call attention not to an exception to a preceding statement, but to an important addition to it, here introduces a most significant element of the apostle’s teaching concerning freedom, which has not been previously mentioned, and which occupies his thought throughout the remainder of this chapter. On this word, as on a hinge, the thought of the epistle turns from freedom to a sharply contrasted aspect of the matter, the danger of abusing freedom. So far he has strenuously defended the view that the Gentile is not under obligation to keep the statutes of the law, and though he has not referred specifically to any statute except those that pertain to circumcision, food, and the observance of days and seasons, he has constantly spoken simply of law, or the law, without indicating that his thought was limited to any portion or aspect of it. To men who have been accustomed to think of law as the only obstacle to free self-indulgence, or to those who, on the other hand, have not been accustomed to high ethical standards, such language is (despite the contrary teaching of vv. 5, 6) easily taken to mean that for the Christian there is nothing to stand in the way of the unrestrained indulgence of his own impulses. Of this danger Paul is well aware (cf. Romans 6:1ff. Php 3:17ff. Colossians 3:1ff.), and beginning with this v. addresses himself vigorously to meeting and averting it. The word σάρξ, previously in this epistle a purely physical term, is used here and throughout this chapter (see vv. 16, 17, 20, 24) in a definitely ethical sense, “that element of man’s nature which is opposed to goodness, and makes for evil,” in which it appears also in Rom., chap. 8; see detached note on Πνεῦμα and Σάρξ II 7, p. 493, and the discussion following 7. For fuller treatment, see Burton, Spirit, Soul, and Flesh, chap. VI, pp. 186, 191 ff. Of any physical association with this ethical sense of the term there is no trace in this passage.

The article before ἐλευθερίαν is demonstrative, referring to ἐλευθερία of the preceding clause, and through it to that of 5:1 and the implication of the whole context. On the omission of the verb with μή, cf. μὴ ʼμοίγε μύθους, Aristoph. Vesp. 1179; μὴ τριβὰς ἔτι, Soph. Antig. 575; μή μοι μυρίους, Dem. 45:13 (cited by Alf.); Hartung, Partikeln II 153; Devarius, De Particulis, Ed. Klotz, II 669; W. LXIV 6; Mark 14:2. Note also the omission of the verb after μόνον, in 2:10. What verb is to be supplied, whether ἔχετε, ποιεῖτε, τρέπετε (cf. Sief. Ell. et al.), στρέφετε or μεταστρέφετε (Revelation 11:6, Acts 2:19, Acts 2:20), or some other, is not wholly clear. The thought is probably not “use not this freedom for, in the interest of,” but “convert not this freedom into.” On the use of είς, cf. John 16:20: ἡ λυπὴ ὑμῶν εἰς χαρὰν γενήσεται, and Acts 2:19, Acts 2:20. ἀφορμή, properly the place from which an attack is made (Thucydides, Polybius), is used also figuratively by Xenophon, et al., with the meaning, “incentive,” “opportunity,” “occasion.” In N. T. it occurs in the Pauline letters only (Romans 7:8, 2 Corinthians 5:12, 2 Corinthians 5:11:12, 1 Timothy 5:14) always in this latter meaning, and in the same phrases as in Isocrates and Demosthenes: ἀφορμὴν λαβεῖν, Isoc. 53 A; Romans 7:8, Romans 7:11; ἀφορμὴν διδόναι, Dem. 546:19; 2 Corinthians 5:12 (cf. L. and S.). It is best taken here in the sense of “opportunity.” τῆ σαρκί is a dative of advantage limiting ἀφορμήν. The article is probably generic, as clearly in v. 17, and the term is at least semi-personified.

ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις· “but through love be servants one of another.” This is the apostle’s antidote alike to the harmful restrictions of legalism and the dangers of freedom from law: love, expressed in mutual service. On what he means by ἀγάπη, see on v. 6 and detached note on Ἀγάπη, p. 519. The phase of love here emphasised is clearly that of benevolence, desire for the well-being of others, leading to efforts on their behalf. δουλεύω, generally meaning “to yield obedience to,” “to be in subjection to” (see 4:8, 9), is evidently here employed in a sense corresponding to that which δοῦλος sometimes has (cf. on 1:10), and meaning “to render service to,” “to do that which is for the advantage of.” Having urgently dissuaded the Galatians who were formerly enslaved to gods that are not really gods from becoming enslaved to law (4:9, 5:1), he now, perhaps with intentional paradox, bids them serve one another, yet clearly not in the sense of subjection to the will, but of voluntary devotion to the welfare, of one another. Cf. Romans 12:14-21, Romans 12:14:15, 1 Corinthians 11:25-33. See also Mark 9:35, Mark 10:43, where, however, διάκονος, not δοῦλος, is used. The present tense of δουλεύετε reflects the fact that what Paul enjoins is not a single act of service, nor an entrance into service, but a continuous attitude and activity.

Ἀλλά as often (cf. Romans 1:21, Romans 2:13, etc.) introduces the positive correlative of a preceding negative statement or command (German, sondern). The article before ἀγάπης is demonstrative, either referring to v. 6, or, perhaps, in view of the distance of this v., to that love which is characteristic of the Christian life. Cf. 1 Corinthians 13:3, 1 Corinthians 14:1, Romans 12:9. διά, as in διὰ χάριτος, 1:15, marks its object as the conditioning cause, that the possession of which makes possible the action of the verb, rather than as instrument in the strict sense. Cf. note on διά in 1:1.

14. ὁ γὰρ πᾶς νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήρωται, ἐν τῷ “Ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν.” “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” A striking paradox. Having devoted practically all his effort up to this point, directly or indirectly, to dissuading the Galatians from coming into bondage to the law by undertaking to obey its statutes, he now gives as the reason for their serving one another that thus they will fulfil the whole law. But the paradox is itself most instructive; for it shows that there was a sense of the word “law” according to which it was essential that its requirements be fully met by the Christian. Cf. Romans 8:4. The explanation of the paradox lies partly in the diverse senses of the word “law,” and the fact that the apostle employs it here not, as heretofore in the epistle, of its legalistic element, or of law legalistically interpreted, but of divine law conceived of as consisting in an ethical principle (see detached note on Νόμος, V 2. (d), p. 458); partly, but to a less extent, in the difference between keeping statutes in slavish obedience and fulfilling law as the result of life by the Spirit. Cf. vv. 6, 16. The apostle’s statements become intelligible and consistent only when it is recognised that he held that from the whole law as statutes, from the obligation to obey any of its statutes as such, men are released through the new revelation in Christ; and that, on the other hand, all that the law as an expression of the will of God really requires, when seen with eyes made discerning by experience, is love, and he who loves therefore fulfils the whole law. Statutes he will incidentally obey in so far as love itself requires it, but only so far, and in no case as statutes of the law. Cf. the apostle’s bold application of this principle even to chastity in 1 Corinthians 6:12, showing that in Paul’s view even when things prohibited by the law were also excluded by love, it was on the latter ground, not the former, that they were to be avoided by the Christian.

The precise meaning of this sentence turns in no small part on the meaning of πεπλήρωται, on which diverse interpretations have been put. It has been interpreted above as meaning “is fully obeyed.” This interpretation demands substantiation. πληρόω, a classical word, from Æschylus and Herodotus down, means properly “to fill,” “to make full”; its object is, therefore, a space empty or but partly filled. In this sense it occurs rarely in N. T.: Matthew 13:48, Luke 3:5, John 12:3. Employed tropically it signifies: 1. “to fill,” “to fulfil,” the object being thought of under the figure of a receptable or empty vessel. It is used (a) with a personal object and means, “to fill,” “to supply abundantly”: Acts 13:52, Romans 1:29; (b) with an impersonal object, originally at least pictured to the mind as a receptacle to be filled, an empty form to be filled with reality; thus of a promise, prophecy, or statement of fact, “to satisfy the purport of,” “to fit the terms of”: Matthew 1:22 et freq. in Mt. Acts 1:16, Acts 3:18, etc.; of commands and laws, “to satisfy the requirements of,” “to obey fully”: Romans 8:4, Romans 13:8, probably also Matthew 5:17; of needs, “to satisfy”: Php 4:19. When the object is a task or course of action it means “to complete,” “fully to perform”: Matthew 3:15, Luke 7:1, Acts 12:25, Acts 14:26, Colossians 4:17. Colossians 4:2. When the object is thought of as something incomplete, and requiring to be filled out to its normal or intended measure, its meaning is “to complete,” “to make perfect”: Mark 1:15, John 7:8, John 15:11, John 16:24. In Romans 8:4, Romans 13:8 Paul uses the word as here with νόμος, and quite unambiguously in the sense, “fully to obey”; this fact creates a strong presumption in favour of that meaning here. The use of the perfect tense, also, which might seem to favour the meaning “to make perfect” (the sentence in that case meaning, “the whole law stands complete, made perfect, in the one word,” etc.) is sufficiently explained by πεπλήρωκεν in Romans 13:8: ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον νόμον πεπλήρωκεν, “he that loveth his neighbour stands in the position of having fulfilled law, is a fulfiller of law,” the tense in both sentences being a gnomic perfect (BMT 79). The present sentence then means, “The whole law stands fully obeyed in (obedience to) one word,” etc. So Luther’s translation (though freely expressed): “Alle Gesetze werden in einem Worte erfüllet”; Stage’s German version: “Das ganze Gesetz findet seine Erfüllung in dem einen Worte”; so also Ell. Ltft. Sief., et al. The meaning (2) “is completed,” though entirely possible in connection with such a word as νόμος, is practically excluded here (a) by πᾶς in ὁ πᾶς νόμος, indicating that the apostle is speaking, not of the law as incomplete, but as already complete, and (b) by the evidence of Romans 8:4, Romans 13:8 in favour of “fulfil.” The meaning “is summed up” (so Weizs., “geht in ein Wort zusammen,” and Stapfer, “se résume d’un seul mot”) is also appropriate to the context and harmonious with πᾶς, and repeats the thought of Paul in Romans 13:9. But it is opposed by the evidence of Romans 13:8, Romans 13:9, where Paul using both πληρόω and ἀνακεφαλαιόω clearly distinguishes them in meaning, using the latter in the sense “to sum up” and the former to mean “fulfil,” “obey fully,” and by the fact that πληρόω is never used in the sense which this interpretation requires either in N. T., the Lxx, or in any Greek writer so far as observed. Sief. cites thirteen of the older commentators and translators who take πεπλήρωται in the sense of ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται. An examination of nine of the ablest of these authorities shows no lexicographical basis for the position taken. The strongest, though entirely untenable, reason given is a comparison of πεπλήρωται here with ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται in Romans 13:9, whereas the proper comparison is with πεπλήρωκεν in Romans 13:8.

The position of πᾶς between the article and the noun νόμος is unusual; if a distinction is to be drawn between the more usual πᾶς ὁ νόμος and the form here employed, the latter expresses more clearly the idea of totality, without reference to parts. See Butt., p. 120; Bl.-D. 275. 7; Acts 19:7, Acts 19:20:18, Acts 19:27:37; 1 Timothy 1:16. The context makes it clear that the reference is to the law of God; but clearly also to the law of God as revealed in O. T., since it is this that has been the subject of discussion throughout the epistle. See detached note on Νόμος, V 2. (d), p. 459.

Λόγος, meaning “utterance,” “saying,” “reason,” etc., always has reference not to the outward form or sound, but to the inward content; here it evidently refers to the sentence following. Cf. Matthew 26:44, Luke 7:17, etc.

The sentence ἀγαπήσεις … σεαυτόν is quoted from Leviticus 19:18, following the Lxx. ἀγαπήσεις clearly refers specially to the love of benevolence (see detached note on Ἀγαπάω and Ἀγάπη). In the original passage, וְאָהֲבְָ֥תּ לְרֵֽעֲךָ כָּמ֑וֹךָ, רֵעַ, though in itself capable of being used colourlessly to denote another person without indication of the precise relationship, doubtless derives from the context (“Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”) a specific reference to fellow Israelites. This limitation of the command, as, of course, also those passages which enjoin or express a hostile attitude to non-Israelites or to personal enemies (Deuteronomy 23:3-6, Deuteronomy 25:17-19, Psalm 41:10, Psalm 69:22-28, Psalm 109:6-15), the apostle disregards, as he does the specific statutes of the law, such, e. g., as those requiring circumcision and the observance of days, which he conceived to be no longer valuable and valid. His affirmation is to be taken not as a verdict of mere exegesis, summing up with mathematical exactness the whole teaching of O. T., and giving its precise weight to each phase of it, but as a judgment of insight and broad valuation, which, discriminating what is central, pervasive, controlling, from what is exceptional, affirms the former, not introducing the latter even as a qualification but simply ignoring it. It is improbable that he drew a sharp distinction between portions of the law, and regarded those which were contrary to the spirit of love or not demanded by it as alien elements intruded into what was otherwise good; at least he never intimates such a discrimination between good and bad parts of the law. Rather, it would seem, he looked at the law as a whole, as one might view a building many parts of which taken alone are without form or comeliness, yet which as a whole is wholly beautiful. Its total meaning was to him love; and this was the law of God; the parts as such had for him no authority.

15. εἰ δὲ ἀλλήλους δάκνετε καὶ κατεσθίετε, βλέπετε μὴ ὑπʼ ἀλλήλων ἀναλωθῆτε. “But if ye are biting and devouring one another, take heed lest ye be consumed by one another.” The form of the conditional clause and the tense of the verbs imply that the apostle has in mind a condition which he knows to be, or thinks may be, even now existing. It would but slightly exaggerate this suggestion to translate, “If ye continue your biting and devouring of one another.” What the condition was to which he referred neither the passage nor the context discloses; most probably it was strife over the matters on which the judaisers were disturbing them.

The verbs δάκνω, κατεσθίω, ἀναλίσκω (all of common use in classical writers, the first two from Homer down, the third from Pindar down) suggest wild animals engaged in deadly struggle. The order is climactic, the first and second by virtue of their respective meanings, the third in relation to the other two by virtue of their tenses, δάκνετε and κατεσθίετε being conative presents and ἀναλωθῆτε a resultative aorist.

16. Λέγω δέ, πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκὸς οὐ μὴ τελέσητε. “But I say, Walk by the Spirit and ye will not fulfil the desire of the flesh.” The use of the phrase λέγω δέ, not strictly necessary to the expression of the thought, throws emphasis upon the statement thus introduced. Cf. 3:17, 4:1, 5:2, Romans 10:18, Romans 10:19, Romans 10:11:1, Romans 10:11, Romans 10:15:8, 1 Corinthians 10:29, 2 Corinthians 11:16. By πνεύματι Paul undoubtedly refers to the Spirit of God as in v. 5. So also σάρξ manifestly has the same ethical meaning as in v. 13. (See detached note on Πνεῦμα, III B. 1. (c), p. 491, and Σάρξ 7, p. 493.) περιπατεῖτε is a true imperative in force, while also serving as a protasis to the apodosis οὐ μὴ τελέσητε. BMT 269. The tense of the imperative denoting action in progress is appropriately used of that which the Galatians were already doing; cf. 3:3, 5:5. Over against the danger spoken of in v. 15 and the possible suggestion of the judaisers to the Galatians, or the fear of the Galatians themselves, that without the pressure of the law constraining them to do right they would fall into sinful living, Paul enjoins them to continue to govern their conduct by the inward impulse of the Spirit, and emphatically assures them that so doing they will not yield to the power within them that makes for evil. The type of life which he thus commends to them is evidently the same which in vv. 5, 6 he has described in the words, “For we by the Spirit, by faith, wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love”; in 2:20 in the words, “It is no longer I that live but Christ that liveth in me, and the life that I now live in the flesh, I live by faith, faith upon the Son of God”; and which is described below in v. 18 in the words, “If ye are led by the Spirit,” and in v. 25, “If we live by the Spirit.” On the identity experientially of life by the Spirit, and the life of Christ within, see p. 222.

The word περιπατέω, which Paul uses in this epistle here only, is of frequent occurrence in his other writings. Occurring in the synoptic gospels exclusively, and in the Gospel of John, Revelation, and Acts almost exclusively, in the literal sense, it appears in Paul and the epistles of John exclusively in the figurative sense, with the meaning “to live,” “to conduct one’s self.” See, e. g., Romans 6:4, Romans 6:8:4, 2 Corinthians 10:3. This idea is very frequently expressed in Hebrew by הָלַךְ and is occasionally reproduced in the Lxx by περιπατέω (2 Kings 20:3, Proverbs 8:20, Ecclesiastes 11:9), but far more commonly by πορεύω (Psalm 1:1, 26:1, Psalm 1:11et freq.). As compared with the parallel expressions in v. 18 (ἄγεσθε) and in v. 25a (ζῶμεν), περιπατεῖτε emphasises the outward life, conduct, as against surrender of will to the divine guidance (v. 18), and participation in moral life through mystical union (v. 25).

The absence of the article with πνεύματι and with both ἐπιθυμίαν and σαρκός emphasises the contrast in character between the Spirit-controlled type of life and that which is governed by impulse of the flesh. Cf. 3:3, though the meaning of the word σάρξ is different there. On the different senses in which the words πνεῦμα and σάρξ are set in antithesis to one another, see detached note on Πνεῦμα and Σάρξ, p. 494.

Τελέω, a word common in Greek writers, from Homer down, signifies, as its relation to τέλος suggests, “to bring to an end,” “to complete,” “to perfect”; hence of a task, promise, and the like, “to fulfil.” In N. T. it means: 1. “to finish”; 2. “to perform,” “execute,” “fulfil”; 3. “to pay.” It is manifestly used here in the second sense, ἐπιθυμία σαρκός being conceived of as a demand, which, the apostle affirms, they will not fulfil. οὐ μὴ τελέσητε is equivalent to an emphatic promissory future (BMT 172) expressing, not a command, but a strong assurance that if they walk by the Spirit they will not, in fact, fulfil the flesh-lust, but will be able to resist and conquer it. For though οὐ μή with a subj. is occasionally used to express prohibition in classical writers, Lxx, and N. T. (GMT 297, BMT 167), yet both the general situation, which requires that the Galatians shall not so much be commanded as assured of the safety of the course enjoined in περιπατεῖτε, and the immediate context (vv. 17, 18) favour an assertive and predictive sense rather than the rarely occurring imperative force.

Ἐπιθυμία and ἐπιθυμέω, both occurring in classical writers from Herodotus down, properly express desire of any kind (ἐπί—θυμός, “heart for,” “impulse towards”). In classical writers ἐπιθυμία means “desire,” “yearning,” “longing”: Hdt. 1:32; Thuc. 6. 13:1; with object. gen.: Thuc. 2. 52:7; Antipho, 115:29. See also Aristot. Rhet. 1.10:8 (1369 a5): ὥστε πάντα ὅσα πράττουσιν ἀνάγκη πράττειν διʼ αἰτίας ἐπτά, διὰ τύχην, διὰ φύσιν, διὰ βίαν, διʼ ἔθος, διὰ λογισμόν, διὰ θυμόν, διʼ ἐπιθυμίαν … (1369 b), διʼ ἐπιθυμίαν δὲ πράττεται ὅσα φαίνεται ἡδέα. The desires that are related to the senses (in this general sense, sensual) Plato calls αἱ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ἐπιθυμίαι (Phaed. 82 C). Cf. Diog. Laert. VII 1:63 (110). In the Lxx and Apocr. ἐπιθυμία occurs frequently, being used of desire shown by the context to be good (Psalm 37:10), or evil (Proverbs 12:12), or without implication of moral quality (Deuteronomy 12:15, Deuteronomy 12:20, Deuteronomy 12:21). When it is employed of evil desire this is either indicated by some term of moral quality, as in Proverbs 12:12, or as in Sir. 5:2, 18:30, 31, by such a limitation as σου or καρδίας σου, the evil lying in the element of selfishness or wilfulness; when sexual desire is referred to, this idea is not at all in the word but in the limitations of it (Sir. 20:4). In 4 Mac. ἐπιθυμίαι is a general term for the desires, which the author says can not be eradicated, but to which reason ought not to be subjected; in 2:1 it is used of sexual desire defined as such by the limiting words; only in 1:3 does it stand alone, apparently meaning evil desire, perhaps sexual, being classed with γαστριμαργία, gluttony, as one of the feelings (πάθη; cf. on πάθημα, v. 24) that are opposed to sobriety (σωφροσύνη). ἐπιθυμέω in classical writers is likewise a term without moral implication, signifying “to desire.” In the Lxx and Apocr., also, it is a neutral term, being used of desire for that which is good (Psalm 119:20, Psalm 119:40, Isaiah 58:2, Wisd. 6:11), of desire which it is wrong to cherish (Exodus 20:17, Proverbs 21:26), and without moral implication (Genesis 31:30, 2 Samuel 23:15). The same is true of the verb in N. T.; it is used of good (Matthew 13:17, 1 Timothy 3:1) or evil desire (Romans 7:7, Romans 13:9) according to the requirements of the context. It is clearly without moral colour in the present passage. The noun also, as used in N. T., carries in itself no moral implication (Luke 22:15, 1 Thessalonians 2:17, Php 1:23). When it is used of evil desire this quality is usually indicated by a limitation of the word, or by such limitation combined with the larger context (John 8:44, Romans 1:24, Colossians 3:5, etc.). And though there appears in N. T. a tendency (of which there are perhaps the beginnings in Sir. and 4 Mac. also) to use ἐπιθυμία for evil desire without qualifying word (see Romans 7:7, Romans 7:8, Jam 1:15), it remains for the most part a word of neutral significance without distinctly moral colour. The idea of sensuality conveyed by the word “lust” as used in modern English belongs neither to the verb ἐπιθυμέω nor to the noun ἐπιθυμία in themselves, and is, indeed, rather rarely associated with them even by the context. In the case of the noun the implication of evil (not necessarily sensuality) is beginning in N. T. times to attach itself to its use.

17. ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα κατὰ τῆς σαρκός, ταῦτα γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται, ἵνα μὴ ἅ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε. “For the desire of the flesh is against that of the Spirit, and the desire of the Spirit against that of the flesh; for these are opposed to one another, that whatsoever ye will ye may not do.” γάρ is confirmatory and the whole sentence a proof of the statement of v. 16, that walking by the Spirit will not issue in subjection to the flesh. σάρξ and σαρκός evidently have the same meaning as σαρκός in v. 16, but for the qualitative use of that verse the apostle substitutes a generic use of σάρξ with the article, by which the force for evil is objectified. So also πνεῦμα and πνεύματος retain the meaning of πνεύματι in v. 16, save that by the use of the article they become definite, pointing directly to the Spirit of God, rather than referring to it qualitatively as in v. 16. ταῦτα γὰρ … ἀντίκειται is probably not simply a repetition in general terms of ἡ γὰρ … τῆς σαρκός, in which case it adds nothing to the thought. More probably the first part of the v. having, consistently with the point of view of v. 16, spoken of Spirit and flesh as mutually antagonistic forces, there is at ταῦτα γάρ a change in point of view, these and the following words referring to the conflict which takes place between these two in the soul of which neither is in full possession, as proof of their mutual antagonism. To the thought of the whole v. there is an approximate parallel in the antithesis between Satan and the Spirit in Mark 3:23-27. The use of ἐπιθυμεῖ with σάρξ and its antithesis to πνεῦμα in a personal sense involves a rhetorical personification of σάρξ, but not a conception of it as actually personal.

On the question precisely what ταῦτα … ἀντίκειται means, and whether ἵνα … ποιῆτε depends on this or the preceding clause, in which is also involved the question whether γάρ after ταῦτα is explanatory or confirmatory, and whether the clause introduced by it is parenthetical, the following data are to be considered:

1. There is no sufficient warrant in the usage of the period for taking ἵνα in a purely ecbatic sense, and ἵνα … ποιῆτε as a clause of actual result. Nor can this clause be regarded as a clause of conceived result (BMT 218), since the principal clause refers not to a conceived situation (denied to be actual, as in 1 Thessalonians 5:4, or asked about as in John 9:2, or affirmed as necessary as in Hebrews 10:36), but to one directly and positively affirmed. Nor are any of the other sub-telic usages of ἵνα clauses possible here; apparently it must be taken as purely telic. This fact forbids taking ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε as referring to the things which one naturally, by the flesh, desires, and understanding the clause as an expression of the beneficent result of walking by the Spirit. Cf. also Romans 7:15, where similar language is used of a state regarded as wholly undesirable.

2. This clause also excludes understanding the whole verse as referring to a conflict between the flesh and the Spirit as forces in themselves, without reference to any experience of the reader.

3. On the other hand, to interpret the first clause, ἡ γὰρ … σαρκός in an experiential sense makes ταῦτα … ἀντίκειται a meaningless and obstructive repetition of the preceding statement.

It seems best, therefore, to understand the sentence from ἡ γὰρ to σαρκός as referring to the essential contrariety of the two forces as such. This contrariety the apostle adduces as proof (γάρ) of the statement of v. 16 (they will not come under the power of the flesh by coming under the Spirit, for the two forces are of precisely opposite tendency), and in turn substantiates it by appeal to their own experience, the reference to their experience being intimated by the use of the second person in the telic clause. The change in point of view from essential contrariety to that of experience is, then, at ταῦτα γάρ, γάρ being not explanatory but confirmatory.

What condition that is in which the internal conflict described in v. 17b ensues is suggested (a) by ὑπὸ νόμον of v. 18 (see notes below), itself apparently suggested by the thought of v. 17 b; (b) by reference to Romans 6:14, where, after urging his readers not to continue in sin, the apostle abruptly introduces the expression ὑπὸ νόμον in such a way as to show that, though he has not previously in this chapter spoken of the law, he has all the time had in mind that it is under law that one is unable to get the victory over sin; (c) by comparison of Rom_7:13-2, in which the apostle sets forth the conflict which ensues when one strives after righteousness under law, and from which escape is possible only through the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, freeing one from that other law which, though it can command the good, can not achieve it.

Ἵνα … ποιῆτε as a pure final clause is to be understood not as expressing the purpose of God, this conflict being represented as a thing desired by him (for neither is the subject of the sentence a word referring to God, nor is the thought thus yielded a Pauline thought), nor of the flesh alone, nor of the Spirit alone, but as the purpose of both flesh and Spirit, in the sense that the flesh opposes the Spirit that men may not do what they will in accordance with the mind of the Spirit, and the Spirit opposes the flesh that they may not do what they will after the flesh. Does the man choose evil, the Spirit opposes him; does he choose good, the flesh hinders him.

18. εἰ δὲ πνεύματι ἄγεσθε, οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον. “But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under law.” In this sentence the apostle harks back for a moment to the point of view of the first part of the chapter, vv. 1-6, complementing the statement of v. 16, that to walk by the Spirit does not involve subjection to the flesh, by the assertion that to be led by the Spirit is not to be under law. Clearly, therefore, life by the Spirit constitutes for the apostle a third way of life distinct both on the one hand from legalism and on the other from that which is characterised by a yielding to the impulses of the flesh. It is by no means a middle course between them, but a highway above them both, a life of freedom from statutes, of faith and love. The introduction of the statement at this point may be due to a desire, even in the midst of the warning against the danger of converting freedom into an occasion to the flesh, to guard his readers against supposing that he is now really retracting what he has said before, and turning them back to legalism disguised as a life under the leading of the Spirit. This was an entirely possible danger for those to whose thought there were only the two possibilities, restraint by law or no restraint. Or perceiving that what he had said in v. 17 about the contrariety of the Spirit and the flesh and the struggle in which those find themselves in whom both Spirit and flesh are still working, might seem to justify a doubt whether to walk by the Spirit after all assures one the victory over the flesh, and having in mind that it is in the case of those who are under law that the conflict is thus indecisive, he answers the doubt by saying, “But this does not apply to you who walk by the Spirit; for if ye are led by the Spirit ye are not under law.” There seems no decisive ground of choice between these two explanations of the occasion of the sentence; its meaning remains the same in either case. πνεύματι is here, as in v. 16, the Holy Spirit, qualitatively spoken of. That the term is nevertheless distinctly individual is shown by the connection with the verb ἄγεσθε, which, though practically synonymous with the περιπατεῖτε of v. 16, emphasises the voluntary subjection of the will to the Spirit, as περιπατεῖτε on the other hand makes prominent the conformity of conduct to the guidance of the Spirit, and ζῶμεν in v. 25 the intimate and vital nature of the relation of the Christian to the Spirit. Cf. Romans 8:14: ὅσοι γὰρ πνεύματι θεοῦ ἄγονται, οὗτοι υἱοῖ θεοῦ εἰσίν. The conditional clause expressing a present particular supposition conveys a suggestion, as in περιπατεῖτε, of continuance of action in progress, “If ye are continuing to be led by the Spirit.” ὑπὸ νόμον is undoubtedly to be taken, as elsewhere in the epistle (cf. 3:23, 4:4, 5, 21), as referring to that legalistic system from which it is the apostle’s aim to keep his readers free. To understand the word in the ethical sense in which it is used in v. 14 would immediately bring the statement into conflict with the plain implication of vv. 13, 14. Any other sense than one of these two is wholly foreign to the context.

19. φανερὰ δέ ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest.” Having in v. 17 affirmed the mutual antipathy of Spirit and flesh, the apostle now reverts to that statement (δέ is resumptive), and explicates it by enumerating the respective manifestations of the two, doubtless having in mind, as he writes this sentence, the content not only of vv. 20, 21, but also of vv. 22, 23. The purpose of both enumerations is, of course, the same as that of the whole paragraph from vv. 14-26, viz., to enforce the exhortation of v. 13b, not to convert their liberty into an occasion to the flesh, but to rule their lives by love, which is itself to be achieved by living by the Spirit. This the repellent catalogue of vices is well calculated to do.

Φανερός (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:13, 1 Corinthians 14:25, etc.) signifies “open, evident,” so that any one may see, hence, “well-known.” The appeal is to common knowledge. ἔργα is probably to be taken in the active sense, deeds, rather than in the passive, products; for though the latter sense is occasionally found, 1 Corinthians 3:14, 1 Corinthians 3:15 (sing.), Acts 7:41 (plur.), yet Paul always uses ἔργα (plur.) in the active sense. The term as here used may be associated in his mind with the ἔργα νόμου so often spoken of in the epistle. For that he regarded life under law as tending to produce sinful deeds is clear from Romans 6:14, Romans 7:7-25. Yet τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός is not here equivalent to ἔργα νόμου; for by the latter phrase he designates not such evil deeds of sensuality, violence, etc., as are here enumerated, but the deeds of obedience to statutes which fall short of righteousness because they lack the inner spirit of faith and love. πορνεία, etc., could not be called ἔργα νόμου in Paul’s sense of this term.

ἅτινά ἐστιν πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, 20. εἰδωλολατρία, φαρμακία, ἔχθραι, ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθίαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις, 21. φθόνοι, μέθαι, κῶμοι, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις, which are fornication, uncleanness, wantonness; idolatry, witchcraft; enmities, strife, jealousy, angers, self-seekings, parties, divisions, envyings; drunkenness, carousings, and the things like these.” The words in this list of vices fall into four groups, indicated by the punctuation of the translation. The first group includes three sins in which sensuality in the narrower sense is prominent; the second includes two that are associated with heathen religions, the third group contains eight in which the element of conflict with others is present; the fourth consists of drunkenness and its natural accompaniments.

After ἔχθραι, some authorities (CKL. al pler.) maintain the plural to the end of the list, reading ἔρεις and ζῆλοι, and after φθόνοι add φόνοι. This text Sd. adopts. The text above is that of אB, supported by other pre-Syrian authorities (varying somewhat in the case of each word), and is clearly the original.

On ἅτινα, see note on 4:24, p. 257. ἅτινά ἐστιν may mean “of which class are” (so Ell. and substantially Ltft.), but the evidence is by no means decisive for this meaning in general, and in this passage it is the less probable because the idea “with others of the same class” supposed to be conveyed by the compound form is expressed in the words καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις in v. 21.

Πορνεία, rarely used in the classics (the lexicons give exx. from Dem. only) but frequent in the Lxx and in N. T., probably signified originally “prostitution” (cf. πόρνη, “a prostitute,” probably related to πέρνημι, “to sell [slaves],” prostitutes being commonly bought slaves), but in biblical writings, (1) “unlawful sexual intercourse” (πόρνος in the classics usually meant one guilty of unnatural vice) whether involving violation of marriage or not: Genesis 38:24, Hosea 1:2, Matthew 5:33, Acts 15:20, Acts 15:29, etc., and (2) tropically, “the worshipping of other gods than Jehovah”: Hosea 5:4, Isaiah 57:9, Ezekiel 16:15, John 8:41 (?) Revelation 2:21, Revelation 9:21, etc. Here evidently, in the literal sense, “fornication.” On the prevalence of this vice among Gentiles, and the tendency even in the Christian church to regard it as innocent, see 1 Corinthians 5:9, 1 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 5:6:12ff., and commentaries on the latter passage, esp. Mey.; 1 Thessalonians 4:3ff.

Ἀκαθαρσία, employed in Hippocrates and Plato of the uncleanness of a sore or wound, and in Demosthenes of moral depravity, is used in the Lxx either of ceremonial impurity, Leviticus 5:3 et freq. (so in 2 Chronicles 29:5, 2 Chronicles 29:16, or perhaps in the more literal sense, “dirt”), as in Pap. Oxyr. VIII 1128:25, or of “moral impurity,” “wickedness,” with no special emphasis on sexual vice: Proverbs 6:16 (Lxx); 1 Esdr. 1:42, Ezekiel 9:9, etc. In N. T. once only of physical filth, or of that which is ceremonially defiling, Matthew 23:27 (yet even here as a figure for wickedness); elsewhere of moral impurity. The latter instances are all in Paul (Romans 1:24, Romans 6:19, etc.) and seven out of the nine stand in association with πορνεία or other word denoting sexual vice. It is probable, therefore, that in the present instance also the apostle has in mind especially sins of the flesh in the narrower sense, ἀκαθαρσία being a somewhat broader term even than πορνεία. Cf. Ephesians 5:3, πορνεία δὲ καὶ ἀκαθαρσία πᾶσα.

Ἀσέλγεια, of doubtful etymology, is used by Greek authors with the meaning “wantonness,” “violence”; so in Plato, Isæus, Demosthenes, Aristotle. In Polyb. 37. 2:4 the addition of the words περὶ τὰς σωματικὰς ἐπιθυμίας makes it refer especially to lewdness, yet ἀσέλγεια itself means simply “wantonness.” It is not found in the Lxx (canonical books), and in the Apocr. only in Wisd. 14:26 and 3 Mac. 2:26, in the former passage with probable reference to sensuality, lewdness; in the latter without indication of such limitation. In N. T. it occurs in Mark 7:22 without restriction to sensual sin, in 1 Peter 4:3, 2 Peter 2:2, 2 Peter 2:7, 2 Peter 2:18, without decisive indication of this limitation. Cf. Trench, Synom. § XVI, who gives further evidence that ἀσέλγεια is not exclusively “lasciviousness,” but “wantonness,” “unrestrained wilfulness.” Yet in view of Paul’s association of it elsewhere with words denoting sensuality (Romans 13:12, 2 Corinthians 12:21, Ephesians 4:19) and its grouping here with πορνεία and ἀκαθαρσία, it is probable that it refers here especially to wantonness in sexual relations. Like ἀκαθαρσία, less specific than πορνεία, and referring to any indecent conduct, whether involving violation of the person or not, ἀσέλγεια differs from ἀκαθαρσία in that the latter emphasises the grossness, the impurity of the conduct, the former its wantonness, its unrestrainedness. Lightfoot’s distinction: “A man may be ἀκάθαρτος and hide his sin; he does not become ἀσελγής until he shocks public decency” seems scarcely sustained by the usage of the words. ἀσέλγεια is, indeed, unrestrained, but not necessarily public, and ἀκαθαρσία carries no more suggestion of secrecy than ἀσέλγεια. Cf. Ephesians 4:19.

Εἰδωλολατρία, not found in classic writers or in the Lxx, occurs in N. T. (1 Corinthians 10:14, Colossians 3:5, 1 Peter 4:3) and thereafter in ecclesiastical writers. Greek writers did not use εἴδωλον with specific reference to the gods of the Gentiles or their images, and the term εἰδωλολατρία apparently arose on Jewish soil. εἴδωλον, signifying in the Lxx and N. T. either the image of the god (Acts 7:41, Revelation 9:20) or the god represented by the image (1 Corinthians 8:4, 1 Corinthians 8:7, 1 Corinthians 8:10:19), εἰδωλολατρία doubtless shared its ambiguity, denoting worship of the image or of the god represented by it.

Φαρμακία [or -εία], a classical word occurring from Plato down, is derived from φάρμακον, which from Homer down denotes a drug, whether harmful or wholesome. φαρμακία signifies in general the use of drugs, whether helpfully by a physician, or harmfully, hence poisoning. In Demosthenes, Aristotle, Polybius, and the Lxx it is used of witchcraft (because witches employed drugs). In Isaiah 47:9 it is a synonym of ἐπαοιδή, enchantment (cf. also Philo, Migr. Abr. 83, 85 (15); 1 Enoch, chap. VIII, Syn.). In the Lxx the word is uniformly employed in a bad sense, of witchcrafts or enchantments: of the Egyptians (Exodus 7:11, Exodus 7:22), of the Canaanites (Wisd. 12:4), of Babylon (Isaiah 47:9, Isaiah 47:12). So also in N. T. passages, Revelation 9:21 (WH. text φαρμακῶν, mg. φαρμακιῶν, as also Tdf.); 18:23 (the latter referring, like Isaiah 47:9, Isaiah 47:12, to Babylon), and in the present passage, the reference is to witchcraft, sorcery, magic art of any kind, without special reference to the use of drugs. The meaning “poisoning” (Demosthenes, Polybius) is excluded here by the combined evidence of contemporary usage and the association with είδωλολατρία. On the prevalence of witchcraft and its various forms, see Acts 8:9ff. Acts 8:13:8ff. Acts 8:19:13ff. 2 Timothy 3:13; Ltft. ad loc.; Bible Dictionaries, under “Magic,” and literature cited there and in Ltft.

Ἔχθραι, a classical word, from Pindar down, occurs frequently in the Lxx and N. T. Standing at the beginning of the third group it gives the key-note of that group. It is the opposite of ἀγάπη, denoting “enmity,” “hostility,” in whatever form manifested.

Ἔρις, a classical word, of frequent occurrence from Homer down; in Homer of “contention,” “rivalry,” “strife for prizes,” also “fighting,” “strife”; after Homer “strife,” “discord,” “quarrel,” “wrangling,” “contention.” It occurs in Psalm 139:20 (B); Sir. 28:11, 40:5, 9, in the latter two passages in an enumeration of the common ills of life. The nine N. T. instances are all found in the epistles ascribed to Paul.

Ζῆλος occurs in classical writers from Hesiod down; by Plato and Aristotle it is classed as a noble passion, “emulation,” as opposed to φθόνος, “envy”; but in Hesiod is already used as equivalent to φθόνος. In the Lxx used for קִנְאָה, but with considerable variety of meaning. The common element in all the uses of the word is its expression of an intense feeling, usually eager desire of some kind. In the Lxx and N. T. three meanings may be recognised: (1) “intense devotion to, zeal for, persons or things” (Psalm 69:10, quoted in John 2:17, John 2:1 Mac. 2:58, Romans 10:2, 2 Corinthians 7:7, Php 3:6); (2) “anger,” perhaps always with the thought that it arises out of devotion to another person or thing (Numbers 25:11b, Ezekiel 23:25, Acts 5:17, Acts 13:45, Hebrews 10:27, the last a quotation from the Lxx); (3) “jealousy,” the unfriendly feeling excited by another’s possession of good, or “envy,” the eager desire for possession created by the spectacle of another’s possession (Song of Solomon 8:6, Ecclesiastes 4:4, Ecclesiastes 9:6, Romans 13:13, 1 Corinthians 3:3, Jam 3:14, Jam 3:16). In the present passage it is clearly used in the last-named sense.

Θυμός, a classical word in frequent use from Homer down, signifying “breath,” “soul,” “spirit,” “heart” (as the seat of emotion, both the gentler and the more turbulent, and as the seat of thought), “temper,” “courage,” “anger.” It occurs very frequently in the Lxx, translating various Hebrew words, and in the Apocr. (over three hundred times in all). Its meanings are (1) “disposition” (Wisd. 7:20); (2) “courage” (2 Mac. 7:21); but in the great majority of cases both in Lxx and Apocr. (3) “anger,” occasionally in the expressions ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θυμοῦ and ὁ θυμὸς τῆς ὀργῆς; it is ascribed both to God and to men.* In N. T. the Apocalypse uses it (a) in the meaning “wrath”; with reference to the wrath of God in 14:10, 19, 15:1, 7, 16:1, 19:15 (in 16:19 and 19:15 in the phrase ὁ θυμὸς τῆς ὀργῆς); of the rage of Satan in 12:12, and (b) with the meaning, “ardour,” “passion,” in the expression ὁ θυμὸς τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς in 14:8, 18:3. Elsewhere in N. T. it means “anger”: of men in Luke 4:28, Acts 19:28, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Galatians 5:20, Ephesians 4:31, Colossians 3:8, Hebrews 11:27; of God in Romans 2:8 only. As compared with ὀργή, θυμός denotes an outburst of passion, ὀργή a more settled indignation; in accordance with which distinction θυμός tends to be used of the reprehensible anger of men, ὀργή of the righteous wrath of God. Yet the distinction is not steadfastly maintained, as appears from the facts above stated, and especially from the occurrence of the expressions θυμὸς ὀργῆς and ὀργὴ θυμοῦ. The meaning of the word in the present passage is its most common one in biblical writers, “anger,” “passionate outburst of hostile feeling.”

Ἐριθία (of uncertain etymology, but having no relation to ἔρις and doubtful relation to ἔριον, wool) is cognate with ἔριθος, “a day-labourer,” “a wage-earner” (from Homer down), specifically ἡ ἔριθος, “a woman weaver,” Dem. 1313:6; in this sense in the only Lxx instance, Isaiah 38:12. ἐριθία first appears in Aristotle, when it means “canvassing for office” (Pol. 5. 2:9 [1303 b14]) but by Hesychius and Suidas is defined as “working for hire.” In Polyb. 10. 25:9 the verb ἐριθεύομαι, used also by Aristotle in the passage just quoted, means “to seek the political co-operation of,” “to inveigle into one’s party,” but in Tob. 2:11 still means “to labour for wages,” or more probably “to spin.” In Philo, II 555 (Mangey) ἀνερίθευτος is used in connection with ἀφιλόνεικος (ἡγεμονία δʼ ἀφιλόνεικος καὶ ἀνερίθευτος ὀρθὴ μόνη), apparently meaning “without self-seeking.” It is thus evident that though the extant examples of the noun are relatively few (more in N. T. than in all previous literature so far as noted), yet the word had a long history and probably bore side by side both its original meaning, “working for wages,” and its derived sense, referring to office-seeking. The paucity of other examples gives to the N. T. instances a special value for lexicography. When these are examined it appears that in none of them is either the literal sense or precisely the Aristotelian sense of office-seeking possible. It remains, therefore, to seek a meaning cognate with the meanings elsewhere vouched for and consonant with the context of the N. T. passages. Examination of the passages from this point of view suggests two meanings: (1) “self-seeking,” “selfishness.” (2) “factiousness,” “party spirit.” The former of these is easily derivable from the original sense, “working for wages,” and is appropriate to the context of all the examples (Romans 2:8, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Php 1:17, Php 2:3, Jam 3:14, Jam 3:16 et h.l.). The second is cognate with the Aristotelian sense, “office-seeking,” and is appropriate to some of the passages (2 Corinthians 12:20, Php 1:17, Php 2:3 et h.l.), less so to the other passages, and distinctly inappropriate to Romans 2:8. Respecting this last-named passage it should be observed (a) that there is nothing in the context to suggest the meaning “party spirit”; (b) that the term denotes what is for the apostle the very root-vice of all sin; it is certainly more probable that he found this in selfishness, the antithesis of the all-inclusive virtue, love, than in so specialised a form of selfishness as party spirit; (c) that the expression τοῖς δὲ ἐξ ἐριθίας ἀπειθοῦσι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ in effect repeats the idea of τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων (Romans 1:18), and that this phrase neither in itself, nor by its further explication in the context, refers specifically to party spirit, but does by its contextual definition refer to the self-willed, self-seeking spirit. We seem, therefore, justified in deciding that ἐριθία in N. T. means “self-seeking,” “selfish devotion to one’s own interest”; that this is a possible meaning for all the instances; but that “party spirit” is in some passages a possible alternative. In the present passage the use of the plural might seem to favour the second meaning, or, rather, the corresponding concrete sense, factions. But there is no evidence to show that the word had such a concrete sense, and both the meaning of the word ἔργα (v. 19) and the use of other abstract terms in this passage in the plural (to designate various instances or manifestations of the kind of conduct expressed by the noun) deprive this argument of any force. The position of ἐριθίαι between θυμοί and διχοστασίαι is consistent with either meaning; if ἐριθίαι means self-seekings, this is naturally followed by terms denoting those things to which such self-seekings lead, διχοστασίαι and αἱρέσεις; if it means efforts to advance one’s party, actions inspired by party-spirit, it stands as the first in a group of three nearly synonymous terms. On the whole the preponderance is slightly, though only slightly, in favour of that meaning which is for the N. T. as a whole best established, “self-seeking,” “selfishness.”

Διχοστασία, a classical word, used by Herodotus and Solon in the sense of “dissension,” by Theognis, meaning “sedition,” is not found in the Lxx; occurs in Apocr. in 1 Mac. 3:29 only, with the meaning “dissension”; is found in N. T. here and Romans 16:17 only, in both cases in the plural and without doubt meaning “dissensions.”

Αἵρεσις, in classical writers, has two general meanings, one associated with the active meaning of the cognate verb, αἱρέω, hence “a taking,” “capture” (Hdt.), the other with the meaning of the middle, αἱρέομαι, hence “choice,” “plan,” “purpose,” “preference” (Pind. Æsch. Hdt. etc.). So in the Lxx, meaning “free will,” “choice.” In late Greek, after Plato and Aristotle, there arises the meaning “philosophic tendency,” “school,” “party.” So in Dion. Hal., Sext. Emp., but also in Jos. Bell. 2:137 (8:7), τοῖς δὲ ζηλοῦσιν τὴν αἵρεσιν αὐτῶν (the Essenes). In Arrian’s report of the teachings of Epictetus αἵρεσις and προαίρεσις are used of the soul, doubtless as that in which the power of choice lies. Cf. M. and M. Voc. s. v. In N. T. it is always associated in meaning with the middle of the verb, and usually signifies a body of people holding a chosen set of opinions; thus without reproach, of the Sadducees, Acts 5:17; of the Pharisees, Acts 15:5, Acts 15:26:5; of the Christians, spoken of as Nazarenes, Acts 24:5. As a term of reproach, denoting a group or sect reprehensibly departing from the general body, it occurs in Acts 24:14. In 1 Corinthians 11:19 and 2 Peter 2:1 it seems to signify, rather, “difference of opinion,” “division of sentiment,” than concretely “party,” “sect.” The abstract meaning is also (cf. above on ἐριθίαι) more appropriate to the present passage. The meaning “heresy,” a doctrine at variance with that of the general body, is not found in N. T. or in Patr. Ap. (see Ign. Trall. 6:1; Ephesians 6:2; cf. Zahn on the former passage) unless possibly in Herm. Sim. 9. 23:5 and probably not here. Cf. also Kühl on 2 Peter 2:1 in Meyer-Weiss.6 In Just. Mart. Apol. 26:8; Dial. 35:3; Iren. Haer. 1. 11:1, it is probably still used in the sense of “sect,” or “division,” as a term of reproach. It clearly means “heresy” in Mart. Pol. Epil. 1 (Ltft. 2), which is, however, of considerably later date.

Φθόνος, a classical word from Pindar and Herodotus down, means “ill-will,” “malice,” “envy” (cf. under ζῆλος above); not in Lxx; in Apocr., Wisd. 2:24, 6:23, 1 Mac. 8:16, 3 Mac. 6:7; always in a bad sense, “envy.” So also in N. T. (Matthew 27:18, Mark 15:10, Romans 1:29, etc.) except in Jam 4:5, where it is used tropically, meaning “eager desire for (exclusive) possession of,” and is ascribed to the Spirit of God. In the present passage it can not be sharply distinguished from ζῆλος. If the words are to be discriminated, ζῆλος would signify “jealousy,” φθόνοι “envyings.” The plural denotes different acts, or specific forms of envious desire.

Μέθαι and κῶμοι fall in a class by themselves. μέθη occurs in classic writers from Herodotus and Antipho down, meaning, (1) “strong drink,” (2) “drunkenness,” and with the same meanings in the Lxx (in Haggai 1:6 apparently meaning “satiety” rather than “drunkenness”). In the Apocr. and N. T. it occurs in the second sense only. κῶμος (of doubtful etymology) occurs in classic writers from Homer down, meaning “revelling,” “carousing,” such as accompanies drinking and festal processions in honour of the gods, especially Bacchus; it is not found in the Lxx; occurs in the Apocr. in Wisd. 14:23 2 Mac. 6:4, and in N. T. in the same sense as in classical writers; in Romans 13:13 it is associated as here with μέθη, in 1 Peter 4:3, with οἰνοφλυγία, “drunkenness.”

For a similar catalogue of vices, see Corpus Hermeticum XIII (XIV) 7, in Reitzenstein, Poimandres, p. 342; Mead, Thrice Greatest Hermes, Vol. II, p. 224. For a discussion of Gentile morals, see L. Friedländer, Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms, 8th ed., 4 vols., Leipzig, 1910; E. T. from 7th ed., New York, 1909, 1910; de Pressensé, The Ancient World and Christianity, Bk. V, Chap. II, § II, pp. 424-432; Döllinger, The Gentile and the Jew, London, 1862. For the same kind of material in the form of a connected story, see Becker, Gallus; Walter Pater, Marius the Epicurean; Böttiger, Sabina. References to Gentile authors are to be found in de Pressensé and Becker, and with especial copiousness in Friedländer’s great work.

ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν καθὼς προεῖπον ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν. “respecting which I tell you beforehand, as I have (already) told you in advance, that they who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” To the list of the works of the flesh, calculated by their very quality to deter the Galatians from following its impulses, Paul adds the weighty statement which he had already made to them on some previous occasion that such things exclude one from participation in the kingdom of God. By βασιλείαν θεοῦ the apostle doubtless means the reign of God which is to be inaugurated on the return of Christ from the heavens and the resurrection of the dead. Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:50, 1 Corinthians 15:52 with 1 Thessalonians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 1:4:16, 17. The phrase used without the article with either noun is qualitative and emphasises the ethical quality of the order of things for which the phrase stands and the incongruity between it and οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες; thus suggesting the reason for their exclusion. Cf. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:10, 1 Corinthians 6:15:50, in all of which the phrase is as here anarthrous. This qualitative force can be imperfectly reproduced in English by the translation, “shall not inherit a kingdom of God,” but at the cost of obscuring the definite reference of the expression.

καθώς (without καί) is the reading of א*BFG f Vulg. (am. fu. demid al.) Syr. (psh.) Eth. Goth. Tert. Cyp. Aug. al. καί is added by אcACDKLP al. omn. vid. d e g tol. Syr. (harcl.) Boh. Arm. Mcion. Clem. Chr. Euthal. Thdrt. Dam. Irint. Hier. Ambrst. Both readings are pre-Syrian but καί on the whole seems to be a Western corruption adopted by the Syrian text, occasioned by the natural impulse to emphasise the comparison between προλέγω and προεῖπον. Cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:6.

Ἅ is doubtless accusative as ὅν clearly is in John 8:54, ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὃτι θεὸς ὑμῶν ἐστίν, but in precisely what relation Paul meant to set it, when he wrote it, it is impossible to say, for the reason that after καθὼς προεῖπον he has reproduced the thought of ἅ in τὰ τοιαῦτα and given it a new construction. Cf. Ell. ad loc.

Προλέγω might consistently with the usual force of προ in composition and the classical usage of this word mean either “foretell” or “forth tell,” “tell publicly.” But the fact that in all the instances in which Paul uses it (2 Corinthians 13:2, 1 Thessalonians 3:4 and here, the only N. T. instances) the object of the verb is, in fact, a prediction, and the inappropriateness of the meaning “tell publicly” (for the meaning “tell plainly” there seems no evidence) make it quite certain that its meaning here is “to predict.”

Οἱ πράσσοντες is a general present participle with the article, meaning “those that are wont to practise.”

Τὰ τοιαῦτα means either “the things previously mentioned being of such quality as they are,” or “the class of things to which those named belong.” Cf. 1 Corinthians 5:5, Romans 1:32, Romans 1:2:2, Romans 1:3, Ephesians 5:27, and for τοιαῦτα without the article, meaning “things like those spoken of,” Mark 7:13, John 9:16, Hebrews 8:1. See Kühner-Gerth 465. 5; Butt. 124. 5; Bl.-D. 274.

The considerations that necessitate taking the phrase βασιλεἰαν θεοῦ here in its eschatological sense are the following: (1) The apostle undoubtedly looked for a personal visible return of Christ from the heavens and expected the resurrection of the righteous dead in connection therewith. 1 Thessalonians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. (2) In 1 Corinthians 15:50 he speaks of inheriting the kingdom of God in connection with the resurrection of men, and in such way as to show clearly that the inheritance of the kingdom, as thought of in that passage at least, is achieved through the resurrection. It is natural to suppose that the expression has the same meaning in the other passages in the same epistle (6:9, 10), there being nothing in the context to oppose this meaning. In 1 Thessalonians 2:12 the eschatological significance is most probably though not quite certainly present. There are, indeed, a number of passages in Paul in which the kingdom of God is spoken of with so distinct emphasis on its ethical quality and with such absence of eschatological suggestion that it must be questioned whether he uniformly gave to the phrase eschatological significance. See Romans 14:17, 1 Corinthians 4:20. It is probable, therefore, that the apostle thought of the kingdom of God both as present and as future, in the latter case to be inaugurated at the return of Christ. But the considerations named above are sufficient to show clearly that it is the future kingdom that is here in mind, while it is also clear that he intended to emphasise the ethical quality of the kingdom, which is, of course, essentially the same whether present or future.

22. ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἀγάπη, χαρά, εἰρήνη, μακροθυμία, χρηστότης, ἀγαθωσύνη, πίστις, 23. πραΰτης, ἐγκράτεια· “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” This sentence continues the argument for the mutual contrariety of flesh and Spirit begun in v. 19. By the attractiveness of the members of the series beginning with ἀγάπη, Paul appeals to the Galatians to follow the leading of the Spirit, as by the repulsiveness of the vices named in vv. 19-21 he had sought to deter them from yielding to the impulses of the flesh. δέ is slightly adversative, introducing the fruit of the Spirit in antithesis to the works of the flesh. καρπός, used in 1 Corinthians 9:7 in its literal sense (as also 2 Timothy 2:6), is elsewhere in the letters of Paul employed in a figurative sense only (Romans 1:13, Php 1:11, Php 4:17, etc.). The choice of the word here in preference to ἔργα (v. 19) is perhaps partly due to the association of the word ἔργα with the phrase ἔργα νόμου (see ἔργα alone used in this sense, Romans 3:27, Romans 4:2, Romans 9:11, Romans 11:6), partly to his preference for a term which suggests that love, joy, peace, etc., are the natural product of a vital relation between the Christian and the Spirit. Observe the word ζῶμεν in v. 25 and cf. 2:20. The use of the singular serves to present all the experiences and elements of character in the ensuing list as a unity, together constituting the result of living by the Spirit. Yet too much stress can not be laid on the singular, since Paul always used it when employing the word in its figurative sense.

On the importance of the distinction in the apostle’s mind between ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος, and τὰ χαρίσματα (τοῦ πνεύματος) or ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος, see detached note on Πνεῦμα and Σάρξ, p. 489, and Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, pp. 62-97, esp. 77 ff. The two lists, the present one and that of 1 Corinthians 12:8-11, contain but one common term, πίστις, and this is undoubtedly used in a different sense in the two passages. Under the terms χαρίσματα πνευματικά and φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος the apostle includes those extraordinary experiences and powers which were not necessarily evidential of moral character in those in whom they appeared, but because of their extraordinary character and of their association with the acceptance of the gospel message, the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13), were regarded as effects and evidences of the presence and activity of the Spirit of God. These are all external and easily recognisable; note the term φανέρωσις in 1 Corinthians 12:7. Under the term ὁ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος, on the other hand, are included those ethical qualities and spiritual experiences which were not popularly thought of as evidences of the Spirit’s presence, but which, to the mind of Paul, were of far greater value than the so-called χαρίσματα. See 1 Cor., chaps. 12-14, esp. 12:31, chap. 13, and 14:1. Thus while retaining the evidently current view, which found in the gift of tongues and prophecy and power to heal disease evidence of the Spirit’s presence (see also Galatians 3:5), he transferred the emphasis of his thought, and sought to transfer that of his disciples, from these things to the internal and ethical qualities which issue in and control conduct.

Whether the terms listed in vv. 22, 23 fell in the apostle’s mind into definite classes is not altogether clear. ἀγάπη, evidently meaning love towards other men (cf. vv. 13, 14), stands in a sense in a class by itself, and is probably thought of as the source from which all the rest flow. Cf. v. 14 and 1 Cor., chap. 13, and note the parallelism of 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 with the list here, especially μακροθυμία with μακροθυμεῖ (v. 4), χρηστότης with χρηστεύεται (v. 4), πίστις with πάντα πιστεύει, πάντα ἐλπίζει, πάντα ὑπομένει (v. 7); πραΰτης with οὐ φυσιοῦται, οὐκ ἀσχημονεῖ (v. 5). Of the two terms χαρά and εἰρήνη, the first certainly, and the second probably, refers to experiences enjoyed rather than to transitive attitudes towards others; the remaining terms, except the last, have special reference to the relations of those who walk by the Spirit to others, in a measure antithetical to ἔχθραι … θυμοί in the list of works of the flesh; ἐγκράτεια, though belonging also in this list, seems to stand in special antithesis to the last two terms of the preceding list, μέθαι, κῶμοι.

Ἀγάπη, though in itself capable of denoting the adoration of and devotion to God, is probably to be taken here in accordance with the suggestion of v. 14, and Paul’s general usage (2 Thessalonians 3:5 is the only clear instance of ἀγάπη in the Pauline letters used of the love of men towards God), as referring to that love of man for man, which resting upon appreciation of value is chiefly characterised by desire to benefit. See detached note on Ἀγαπάω and Ἀγάπη, p. 519.

Χαρά, in use by classical writers from Homer down, and about fifty times in the Lxx and Apocr., is employed in the Lxx, Apocr. and N. T. rarely of a fierce and cruel joy (3 Mac. 4:16, Malachi 4:5:21, Malachi 4:6:34; cf. also Jam 4:9), but most frequently of joy that has a religious basis, grounded in conscious relationship to God (Psalm 30:11, Proverbs 29:6, Sir. 1:12, Romans 14:17, Romans 15:13, Php 1:4, Php 1:25, etc.).

On εἰρήνη, see detached note, p. 424. Its meaning here is probably the same as in Romans 5:1, “tranquillity of mind” (based on the consciousness of right relation to God). For though the idea of harmony with God is possible here, it is an unusual meaning in Paul, and there is nothing specially to suggest it here; the idea of spiritual well-being is not in itself inappropriate, yet it is unlikely that the apostle would use the word in so general a sense, standing as it does here between the more specific terms, χαρά and μακροθυμία; the meaning, “peace with men,” is appropriate in connection with either χαρά (cf. Romans 14:17, Romans 14:19) or with μακροθυμία, but is open to the objection that, εἰρήνη in that case expressing a relation to men, as do also ἀγάπη and μακροθυμία, χαρά stands quite alone, the only non-transitive word in the group. On εἰρήνη denoting tranquillity of mind, and associated with χαρά, cf. Romans 15:13: ὁ δὲ θεὸς τῆς ἐλπίδος πληρῶσαι ὑμᾶς πάσης χαρᾶς καὶ εἰρήνης ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν. On peace as produced by the Spirit, cf. Romans 1:6, τὸ γὰρ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος ζωὴ καὶ εἰρήνη, though εἰρήνη perhaps has here the more general sense of “spiritual well-being”; and Romans 5:1-5, where hope of the glory of God, the sequel and accompaniment of peace in the sense of tranquil assurance, is the result of the love of God shed abroad in the heart by the Spirit of God.

Μακροθυμία, found first in Menander, fourth century b. c., occurs rarely in non-biblical writers, and but five times in the Lxx and Apocr. It has always the same general meaning, that which its etymology suggests, viz., “steadfastness of soul under provocation to change,” the specific meaning differing according as that which is endured is thought of impersonally, and the word signifies simply “endurance,” “steadfastness,” or personally, so that μακροθυμία includes forbearance, endurance of wrong or exasperating conduct without anger or taking vengeance. Hence (a) “patience,” “persistence,” “steadfastness.” So in Plut. Lucull. 32:4 33:1; Isaiah 57:15, Isaiah 57:1 Mac. 8:4, Colossians 1:11, 2 Timothy 3:10, Hebrews 6:12, Jam 5:10; (b) “forbearance,” endurance of wrong without anger or avenging one’s self, “long-suffering” (i) of God and of Christ towards men: Romans 2:4, Romans 2:9:22, 1 Timothy 1:16, 1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 3:15; (ii) of men towards one another: Proverbs 25:15, Sir. 5:11, 2 Corinthians 6:6, Ephesians 4:2, Colossians 3:12, 2 Timothy 3:10, 2 Timothy 4:2. In the present passage the word is probably, in accordance with Paul’s usual usage and the context, to be taken in the last-named sense, viz., forbearance towards men whose conduct is calculated to provoke to anger.

Χρηστότης, from Euripides down, signifies in classical writers, of things, “excellence,” of persons, “goodness,” “honesty,” “kindness.” In later Greek writers, especially in Plutarch, who uses it often, it occurs sometimes in the general sense, “goodness,” “excellence” of character (Plut. Phil. et Tit_3); but more frequently in the specific sense, “kindness” (Cat. Maj. 5:3: τὴν χρηστότητα τῆς δικαιοσύνης πλατύτερον τόπον ὁρῶμεν ἐπιλαμβάνουσαν. It is joined with φιλοστοργία in Agis 17:2, with φιλανθρωπία in Demetr. 50:1; Dem. et Song of Solomon 3:2). In the Lxx it translates טוֹב or other forms from this root, and is used meaning “goodness,” Psalm 14:1, Psalm 14:3; “prosperity,” Psalm 106:5; but most frequently “kindness,” as in Psalm 21:3, Psalm 68:10. In the Ps. Sol. (5:15, 16, 17, 21; 8:34; 9:15; 18:2) it uniformly means “kindness”; so also in Patr. Ap. (Clem. Romans 9:1; Rom_2 Clem. 15:5, etc.). This is also the constant meaning in N. T. (Romans 2:4, Romans 11:22, etc.), except in Romans 3:12, a quotation from Psalm 14:3.

Ἀγαθωσύνη appears first in the Lxx (usually translating טוֹבָה) and like χρηστότης signifying “goodness,” “righteousness” (Psalm 38:20, Psalm 52:3) “prosperity” (Ecclesiastes 5:10, Ecclesiastes 5:17, etc.) and “kindness” (Jdg 8:35, Jdg 9:16, Nehemiah 9:25, Nehemiah 9:35). It is not found in Ps. Sol., which use δικαιοσύνη for “righteousness,” “good character,” and χρηστότης, ἔλεος and ἐλεημοσύνη, for “kindness,” “mercy.” In N. T. it occurs in Paul’s epistles only (Romans 15:14, Ephesians 5:9, 2 Thessalonians 1:11), always apparently in the general sense, “goodness.” Ltft.’s distinction between χρηστότης and ἀγαθωσύνη, that the latter is more active, differing from the former somewhat as beneficentia from benevolentia, would naturally explain the occurrence of the word in this series and at this point, but is unsustained by any other evidence. It seems necessary to choose between taking it in the wholly general sense of “goodness,” and making it entirely synonymous with χρηστότης, “kindness.” The few other instances of the word in N. T. and the improbability that the apostle would exactly repeat in ἀγ. the idea already expressed in χρηστ., are in favour of the meaning “goodness,” even though by this interpretation the word refers less distinctly to conduct towards others than either the preceding or following term.

Πίστις is evidently not employed here as in chap. 3 to denote that attitude towards truth which is the fundamental element of religion, whether of the O. T. or N. T. type, nor as in v. 6 of this chapter, to signify the acceptance of the gospel message concerning Jesus and the committal of one’s self to him for salvation. For faith as there used is the basal principle of the life of one who lives by the Spirit (cf. 2:20, 5:6, and the discussion under 4:6 of the relation between Christ and the Spirit as factors in Christian experience), while the faith that is here spoken of is a product of the Spirit of God in the soul. It is, therefore, either (a) “faithfulness,” “fidelity,” as in Matthew 23:23, Romans 3:3, Titus 2:10; or (b) “faith” in the specific form of belief in the power and willingness of God to work through men, as in Romans 12:3, Romans 12:6, 1 Corinthians 12:9, 1 Corinthians 13:2. But since the other words in this group refer to matters of distinctly ethical and religious character, and there is nothing in this context to suggest a reference to that specific form of faith that enables one to work miracles (which, indeed, Paul classifies rather with the χαρίσματα than with those distinctly ethical qualities here spoken of), it is practically certain that πίστις here means “faithfulness,” “fidelity,” and especially in relation to one’s fellow men. So Bengel (constantia, fidelitas), Ltft. Sief. Weizs. (Treue), Segond (fidélité). The suggestion of Alf. “faith towards God and man,” and that of Ell., “trustfulness, faith in God’s promises and mercies and loving trust towards men,” find no support in the usage of the word. On the usage of πίστις in general, see detached note on Πίστις and Πιστεύω, p. 475.

Πραότης, of which πραΰτης is a later form of identical meaning, is used by Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle, Polybius and Plutarch. It signifies in Greek writers, “mildness,” “gentleness in dealing with others”: Plato, Rep. 558A; Symp. 197D.; Aristot. Rhet. 2. 3:1 (1380 a6); Plut. Frat. am. 18; see more fully in Cremer, on πραΰς. Unlike ταπεινός, which was frequently if not usually a term of reproach, “mean,” “abject,” πρᾶος and πραότης were in Greek writers terms of commendation. In the Lxx πραΰς is usually a translation of עָני (only rarely of עָני), which signifies “one who is humble in disposition and character, one who is submissive under the divine will” rather than as the English translation “meek” might suggest, submitting without resistance to the wrongs of men. See BDB., s. v.; Driver, article “Poor” in HDB, Paterson, article “Poor” in Encyc. Bib., and Gray, Com. on Numbers, at 12:3. In a few passages the Lxx translate עָנִי by πραΰς and in one of these, Zechariah 9:9, evidently use it in the meaning “gentle,” “considerate.” The use of πραΰτης in the Lxx (Psalm 45:4, Psalm 132:1) adds little light, but in the Apocr. it is used both of a “submissive, teachable spirit towards God” (Sir. 1:27, 45:4) and of “modesty,” “consideration,” “gentleness towards men” (Esther 3:12, Sir. 3:17, 4:8, 36:28), and in Sir. 10:28 perhaps to denote an attitude which may manifest itself towards both God and man (cf. Psalm 45:4). In Patr. Ap. also the word regularly signifies gentleness towards men (Clem. Rom. 21:7, 30:3, 61:2; Ign. Trall. 3:2, 4:2, etc.—the ascription of πραΰτης to God in his relation to men in Ep. ad Diogn. 7:4 is quite exceptional). In N. T. πραΰς occurs in Matthew 11:29, Matthew 21:5 (the latter from Zechariah 9:9), meaning “gentle,” “considerate”; in Matthew 5:5 (from Psalm 37:11) probably with the same meaning as in O. T., “submissive to God’s will”; in 1 Peter 3:4, meaning “gentle,” “modest.” πραΰτης in Jam 1:21 is used of an attitude towards God, “teachableness,” “submissiveness to his will”; elsewhere of a relation to men (1 Corinthians 4:21, 2 Corinthians 10:1, Galatians 6:1, Ephesians 4:2, Colossians 3:12, 2 Timothy 2:25, Titus 3:2, Jam 3:13, 1 Peter 3:15), and signifies “considerateness,” “gentleness.” Among N. T. writers, therefore, only James and to a limited extent Mt. show the influence of the Hebrew עָנָו, all the other instances showing simply the common Greek meaning of the word. If the two ideas were blended into one in the usage of the writers of the N. T. period, that thought must have been, negatively, the opposite of the arrogant, self-assertive spirit; positively, recognition and consideration of others: towards God, submissiveness, towards men considerateness and gentleness. But it is doubtful whether the word did not rather stand for two similar but distinct ideas, and in Paul’s mind for the idea of gentleness (towards men) only. On πίστις in association with πραΰτης cf. Sir. 1:27, 45:4; Herm. Mand. 12. 3:1.

Ἐγκράτεια appears in Greek literature first, so far as observed, in Plato, who uses it in the phrases ἐγκράτεια ἑαυτοῦ, Rep. 390B, and ἡδονῶν τινων καὶ ἐπιθυμιῶν ἐγκράτεια, Rep. 430E. The adjective ἐγκρατής, used in Soph., meaning “possessing power,” “strong,” appears in Plato and Xenophon (under influence of Socrates?) as a moral term: Plato, Phaed. 256B; Xen. Mem. 1. 2:1, etc. Neither ἐγκρατής nor ἐγκράτεια appear in the Lxx, but both are found in the Apocr.; the adjective in the sense “having mastery, possession of” (Tob. 6:3, Wisd. 8:21, Sir. 6:27, 15:1, 27:30), once absol. meaning “continent” (Sir. 26:15); the noun apparently with the meaning “continence,” “self-control” (Sir. 18:15, 18:30, where it stands as a title prefixed to a series of exhortations not to follow one’s lusts, ἐπιθυμίαι, or appetites, ὀρέξεις and 4 Mac. 5:34). The adjective occurs in N. T. in Titus 1:8 only, in reference to the qualifications of a bishop. The verb ἐγκρατεύομαι is used in 1 Corinthians 7:9 of control of sexual desire, and in 9:25, limited by πάντα, with reference to the athlete’s control of bodily appetites. In Patr. Ap. ἐγκράτεια occurs frequently, always in a moral sense, but without special reference to any class of desires or impulses. See esp. Herm. Vis. 3. 8:4: ὃς ἀν οὖν ἀκολουθήσῃ αὐτῇ (ἐγκρατείᾳ), μακάριος γίνεται ἐν τῇ ζωῇ αὐτοῦ, ὅτι πάντων τῶν πονηρῶν ἔργων ἀφέξεται, πιστεύων ὅτι ἐὰν ἀφέξηται πάσης ἐπιθυμίας πονηρᾶς κληρονομήσει ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Usage thus indicates that ἐγκράτεια, signifying prop. “control,” “mastery,” acquired the meaning “self-control,” “mastery of one`s own desires and impulses,” but without specific reference to any particular class of such desires. The position of the word here corresponding to that of μέθη, κῶμοι in the list of the works of the flesh, suggests a special reference in this case to control of the appetite for drink and of the

consequent tendency to unrestrained and immodest hilarity. But this parallelism does not warrant the conclusion that the apostle had exclusive reference to this form of self-control.

κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος. “Against such things there is no law.” Without doubt an understatement of the apostle’s thought for rhetorical effect. The mild assertion that there is no law against such things has the effect of an emphatic assertion that these things fully meet the requirements of the law (cf. v. 14). The statement as it stands is true of law in every sense of the word, and νόμος is therefore to be taken in a very general sense; yet probably Paul is thinking only of divine, not of divine and human law. See special note on Νόμος, V 2 (b), p. 456, but cf. V 4, p. 459. The absence of the article probably marks the noun as indefinite (not, as usually in Paul, qualitative); consistently with the rhetorical figure he thinks of a conceivable plurality of divine laws and denies that there is any law against such things. This would have been expressed with emphasis by the words ἔστιν οὐδεὶς νόμος (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:5, Romans 8:1), but it is a part of the rhetoric of the sentence not to use an emphatic form. Cf. Romans 2:11, Romans 3:22. On κατά, “against,” see on v. 17. τῶν τοιούτων is probably generic, denoting the class of which ἀγάπη … ἐγκράτεια are examples as against the class denoted by τὰ τοιαῦτα in v. 21. Cf. on that v.

24. οἱ δὲ τοῦ χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις. “and they that belong to the Christ, Jesus, have crucified the flesh with its dispositions and its desires.” τοῦ χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is a possessive genitive (cf. 3:29, 1 Corinthians 3:23, 1 Corinthians 15:23), and οἱ … Ἰησοῦ are those who are in Christ Jesus (v. 6), who walk by the Spirit (v. 16) and are led by the Spirit (v. 18; cf. Romans 8:9, Romans 8:10). τὴν σάρκα has the same meaning as the σάρξ of vv. 16, 17, 19, the force in men that makes for evil, and ἐσταύρωσαν refers to the act by which they put an end to the dominion of that force over their conduct (cf. Romans 6:1). The addition of σὺν τοῖς … ἐπιθυμίαις emphasises the completeness of the extermination of this evil force, in that not only its outward fruits are destroyed, but its very dispositions and desires put to death. Combined with v. 23 to which it is joined by δέ continuative, the sentence conveys the assurance that they who are of Christ Jesus, who live by the Spirit, will not fail morally or come under condemnation, since the fruits of the Spirit fulfil the requirements of law, and the deeds of the flesh, which shut one out of the kingdom of God, they will not do, the flesh and its desires being put to death.

The unusual combination τοῦ χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (found elsewhere only in Ephesians 3:1) is not to be regarded as the compound Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ with the article prefixed, there being no previous instance nearer than v. 6 of Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς alone, to which the demonstrative article might refer; it is, rather, the titular τοῦ χριστοῦ, the Christ, with Ἰησοῦ in apposition. It is probably otherwise in Ephesians 3:1, the reference there being to the closely preceding 2:20. See detached Note on Titles and Predicates of Jesus, III 3. On the omission of Ἰησοῦ by some Western authorities, see textual note on 2:16.

The aorist ἐσταύρωσαν, since it affirms crucifixion of the flesh as a past fact in the experience of all who are of the Christ, but assigns the act to no specific point of time, is best translated by the English perfect. On the use of the word, see note on σταυρός and σταυρόω, 3:1. The verb is used figuratively in N. T. here and in 6:14 only; but cf. 2:20: Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι. Romans 6:6: ὁ πάλαιος ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη. Colossians 3:5: νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ μέλη τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, πορνείαν, etc. The choice of σταυρόω in preference to other verbs signifying “to put to death” suggests that it is the death of Jesus on the cross which has impelled us to slay the power within us that makes for unrighteousness. Cf. Romans 6:6-11 and the notes on 2:20, where, however, a somewhat different use is made of the figure of crucifixion.

On the meaning of παθήμασιν, see below, and on ἐπιθυμίαις, see v. 16. The article with both words is restrictive, and serves to mark the πάθημα and ἐπιθυμία as those of the σάρξ just spoken of above; for these words are in themselves of neutral significance morally, and it could not be said of the dispositions and desires generally that they that are Christ’s have put them to death. On this use of the article, where the English would require a possessive, which is rather rare in N. T., see Kühner-Gerth, 461. 2; G. 949; Butt. 127. 26; Matthew 17:24, Galatians 6:4 (τὸ καύχημα and τὸν ἕτερον), and the exx. of τὸν πλησίον there cited.

Πάθημα (πάσχω) occurs in classical writers from Soph. down, usually in the plural. Its meanings are: (a) “an experience in which one is passive, rather than active,” distinguished therefore from ποίημα and ἔργον: Plato, Soph. 248C; or “experience” in general without emphasis on the element of passivity: Hdt. 1:207: τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα ἐόντα ἀχάριτα μαθήματα γέγονε: “It is through my unpleasant experiences that I have learned”; so, probably, also, in Plato, Rep. 511D. (b) “a painful experience, a misfortune, disaster”: Soph. O. C. 361; Thuc.4.48:3; so in particular of a sickness, Plato, Rep. 439D. (c) “a disposition, tendency, or characteristic, in which the person himself is passive,” so in contrast with μάθημα: Xen. Cyr 3. 1:17: πάθημα ἄρα τῆς ψυχῆς σὺ λέγεις εἶναι σωφροσύνην, ὥσπερ λύπην, οὐ μάθημα: “You maintain then that sobriety (discretion) is a passive quality of the soul, like grief, not a thing that one learns.” Then, also, without special emphasis on the element of passivity; hence “disposition,” “propensity,” “impulse.” The earliest clear instances of this usage are apparently in Aristot. Poet. 6:2 (1449 b28); Rhet. 2. 22:16 (1396 b33); Metaph. 4. 14:6 (1020 b19). (d) of material bodies, “magnitude,” etc., “incident,” “property,” “accident”: Aristot. Metaph. 1. 2:8 (982 b16). Respecting the relation of πάθος and πάθημα, Bonitz maintains that in Aristotle’s use there is no certain difference of meaning (Index Arist. 554 a56 sqq.; they are apparently synonymous in Eth. Eud. 2:3 [1221]); while Bernays, Aristoteles über Wirkung der Tragödie, pp. 149, 194-6, holds that πάθος is the condition of one who is πάσκων, and denotes an emotion unexpectedly breaking forth and passing away; πάθημα, on the other hand, is the condition of one who is παθητιχός, and denotes an inherent quality which is liable at any time to manifest itself; in short, that πάθος is an emotion (passion), πάθημα a disposition.

Down to Aristotle, at least, πάθημα seems clearly a neutral term, morally. Cf. his list of forty-two πάθη (= παθήματα in Eth. Eud. 2:3 [1220 f.]). Aristotle includes ἔλεος and φόβος under both πάθος (Eth. Nic. 2:5 (4) [1105 b. passim]) and πάθημα (Poet. 6:2 [1449 b28]), and without implying (contra Cremer) that these are evil.

Πάθημα is not found in the Lxx. πάθος occurs in Job 30:31, Proverbs 25:20 in the sense of “pain,” “discomfort.” It is frequent in 4 Mac., where it signifies “feeling,” “emotion,” of which the writer (under Stoic influence?) says the two most comprehensive classes are pleasure and pain (1:20), and under which he includes desire and joy, fear and sorrow, excitement (θυμός), haughtiness, love of money, love of glory, contentiousness, gluttony (1:24ff.), sexual desire (2:3), yet also the love of life and fear of pain (6:31; cf. preceding context, 7:10), as well as the admirable love of brothers one for another (14:1) and of a mother for her children (15:4, 13). All these, the writer maintains, it is the function of reason and piety not to uproot, but to control (3:2-5, et freq.). It is clear, therefore, that πάθος is for this writer neither distinctly sensual nor utterly evil.

The three N. T. instances of πάθος (Romans 1:26, Colossians 3:5, 1 Thessalonians 4:5) seem to indicate that for Paul πάθος signified passion in a bad sense, and especially perhaps sensual passion, for, though always shown by the context to refer to gross sensual passion, in only one case is it felt necessary to add a defining word to indicate this limitation of meaning.

In N. T. πάθημα is used fourteen times (Romans 8:18, 2 Corinthians 1:5, etc.) with the meaning “suffering”; it refers to that of Christ and of others; and this is also the meaning in the only two passages in which it occurs in Patr. Ap.: Clem. Romans 2:1; Ign. Smyrn. 5:1. In Romans 7:5, τὰ παθήματα τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν τὰ διὰ τοῦ νόμου, and the present passage, the meaning is evidently akin to the meaning (c) in classical usage. Nor is there any clear evidence that warrants us in going beyond the Aristotelian meaning. Apparently πάθημα means for Paul “disposition,” or “propensity,” rather than an outbreak of feeling, and is in itself morally neutral; the moral quality being in Romans 7:5 expressed by τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν and here by the article, which has the effect of an added τῆς σαρκός. The words πάθημα and πάθος are therefore further apart in N. T. than in earlier Greek, possibly under the influence of the honourable use of πάθημα in reference to the sufferings of Christ and his fellow men.

25. εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν. “If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk.” The conditional clause (a present particular supposition) like that of v. 18 refers to a present possibility, presumably a reality. The apostle assumes that they live or intend to live by the Spirit, and exhorts them to make this manifest in conduct. The phrase ζῆν πνεύματι, which he has not previously used, he nevertheless assumes will be understood by his readers and taken as substantially synonymous with those already employed (vv. 16, 18; cf. v. 6 and 2:20). The thought expressed by ζῶμεν πνεὐματι is substantially the same as that of ζῇ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός, πνεῦμα and Χριστός being for the apostle synonymous from the point of view of experience. See on 4:6. Of the three expressions, πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε of v. 16, πνεύματι ἄγεσθε of v. 18, and ζῶμεν πνεύματι here, the first emphasises conduct, the second conformity of will to the Spirit’s leading, and the third vital spiritual fellowship, mystical union. Assuming that they are in such fellowship, he bases on it an exhortation to the first-named, conduct, expressing this, however, by the word στοιχῶμεν (see below) instead of using περιπατεῖν as in v. 16. That he should exhort men who live by the Spirit to do the things which it is the very nature of life by the Spirit to produce (cf. vv. 22ff.) is not uncharacteristic of the apostle, who constantly combines the conception of morality as the product of a divine force working in men with the thought of the human will as a necessary force in producing it. Cf. Php 1:12, Php 1:13, Romans 6:1-7 and 6:12ff.

On πνεύματι cf. on v. 16; the dative is a dative of means. The noun being anarthrous is qualitative. There is much difference of opinion on the question whether στοιχῶμεν, conveying the figure of walking (cf. περιπατεῖτε in v. 16) in a row, refers chiefly to external conduct in contrast with inner life, ζῶμεν (so Philippi, Ell. Ltft. Sief.), or having as its basal meaning “to stand in a row,” refers to conformity, agreement (so Dalmer and Cremer, following Buddeus). The lexicographical evidence is hardly decisive, but the N. T. exx. favour the view that στοιχεῖν sometimes, at least, suggested the figure of walking (Romans 4:12) or of walking in a straight line, and meant “to act according to a standard,” “to behave properly” (Acts 21:24). But in chap. 6:16, Php 3:16 either this meaning, or the meaning “to conform to,” would be suitable. For the present passage this meaning, “to walk (in a straight line),” “to conduct one’s self (rightly),” is distinctly more appropriate; the apostle in that case exhorting his readers who claim to live by the Spirit to give evidence of the fact by conduct controlled by the Spirit. The thought is similar to that of 1 Corinthians 10:12 and Php 3:15.

26. μὴ γινώμεθα κενόδοξοι, ἀλλήλους προκαλούμενοι, ἀλληλοις φθονοῦντες. “Let us not become vain-minded, provoking one another, envying one another.” This sentence, following the preceding without connective, expresses negatively one element or consequence of that which is positively expressed in πνεύματι στοιχῶμεν. Walking by the Spirit, let us not put false estimates on things, and thus, on the one side, provoke or challenge our fellows to do things they hesitate to do, or, on the other, envy our fellows who dare to do what we do not venture to do. The two parts of the exhortation doubtless have reference to two classes in the churches of the Galatians. Those who fancied that they had attained unto freedom and were in danger of converting their freedom into an occasion to the flesh (v. 13), whose κενοδοξία took the form of pride in their fancied possession of liberty to act without restraint, would be tempted to challenge (προκαλεῖσθαι) their more timid or more scrupulous brethren, saying, e. g., “We dare do these things that the law forbids; are you afraid to do them?” On the other hand, the more scrupulous would, while not quite daring to follow in the footsteps of these, yet be tempted to regard this spurious liberty of their fellow-Christians as a thing to be desired, and to look at them with envy, wishing that they felt the same freedom. Cf. the similar, though not quite identical, situation more fully reflected in 1 Cor., chap. 8, where the apostle addresses especially those who with conceit of knowledge act regardless of the well-being of their more timid or more scrupulous brethren; and that set forth in Rom., chap. 14, where, however, the relation of the two parties is not as here, that one challenges and the other envies, but that one despises and the other judges. As in those cases the apostle prescribes Christian love as the corrective of the divisive evils, so here he prescribes walking by the Spirit, the fruit of which is love, joy, peace, etc.

The relation of this verse to what precedes and to what follows is similar to that of v. 1 to its context; it is the conclusion of what precedes and the introduction to what follows. Yet it is the former connection that is closest, and the greater paragraph division should be made, not as in WH., Stage, Zahn, between vv. 24 and 25, or as in Mey. Weizs. Stapfer. between vv. 25 and 26, but at the end of the chapter, as in AV. Tdf. Ell. Ltft. Segond, Sief. ERV ARV make a paragraph both here and at the beginning of v. 24.

The dative ἀλλήλοις before φθονοῦντες is attested by אACDFG2KL al. pler. Clem. Euthal. Thdrt. Dam. On the other hand, BG*P al. 25 Clem. Chr. Thdrt. cod. Oec. read ἀλλήλους. The latter, despite its strong support, is so contrary to known usage that it must be supposed to be a corruption under the influence of the preceding ἀλλήλους.

Κενόδοξος (like its cognates κενοδοξία and κενοδοξέω) is a word of later Greek, appearing first in Polyb. 3. 1:1; 27. 6:12, where it is associated with ἀλαζών, then in this passage, the only N. T. instance, and in Did. 3:5, where to be φιλάργυρος or κενόδοξος is said to lead to theft: τέκνον μου, μὴ γίνου ψεύστης, ἐπειδὴ ὁδηγεῖ τὸ ψεῦσμα εἰς τὴν κλοπήν, μηδὲ φιλάργυρος μηδὲ κενόδοξος· ἐκ γὰρ τούτων ἁπάντων κλοπαὶ γεννῶνται. κενοδοξία is more frequent, occurring in Polyb. 3. 81:9; Wisd. 14:14; 4 Malachi 2:15, Malachi 2:8:19, 24; Philo, Mut. nom. 96 (15); Leg. ad Gaium, 114 (16); Php 2:3; Clem. Rom. 35:5; Ign. Philad. 1:1; Magn. 11:1; Herm. Mand. 8:5; Sim. 8. 9:3; Galen, Tuend. valetud. 6 (quoted by Zahn, following Wetstein), φιλοτιμίας ἣν ὀνομάζουσιν οἱ νῦν Ἕλληνες κενοδοξίαν.

In several of these passages κενοδοξία is associated with ἀλαζονἰα, “boastfulness.” Suidas defines it as μάταιά τις περὶ ἑαυτοῦ οἴησις. But usage shows that this definition is not quite comprehensive enough. The noun and the adjective are evidently closely related in meaning, and κενόδοξος means “glorying in vain things,” “setting value on things not really valuable,” whether possessed, or supposed to be possessed, or desired. It is the almost exact antithesis of σώφρων and σωφροῶν, which mean “seeing things as they are, estimating them at their true value” (cf. Romans 12:3). The English word “vain” expresses the meaning of κενόδοξος approximately, but as commonly used refers more especially to pride in petty possessions and less distinctly suggests the desire for vain things not yet possessed. “Vain-minded,” if we might coin an English word, would translate κενόδοξος exactly.*

Προκαλέω, though not found in the Lxx, Ps. Sol. or Patr. Ap., in the Apocr. only in a variant reading in 2 Mac. 8:11, and here only in N. T., occurs in classical writers from Homer down. It is evidently used here in the meaning common in Greek writers, “to call forth,” “to challenge.”

Φθονέω, likewise not found in the Lxx, and in the Apocr. in Tob. 4:7, 16 only, not in Ps. Sol., in Patr. Rev_2 Clem. 15:5 only, here only in N. T., is like προκαλ. a common classical word from Homer down. Cf. on φθόνος, v. 21.

אԠא. Codex Sinaiticus. Fourth century. In Imperial Library, Petrograd. Edited by Tischendorf, 1862; photographic reproduction by H. and K. Lake, Oxford, 1911.

A A. Codex Alexandrinus. Fifth century. In British Museum, London. Edited by Woide, 1786; N. T. portion by Cowper, 1860; Hansell, 1864; in photographic facsimile, by E. Maunde Thompson, 1879; and again in photographic simile by F. G. Kenyon in 1909.

B B. Codex Vaticanus. Fourth century. In Vatican Library, Rome. Photographic facsimile by Cozza-Luzi, 1889; and a second issued by the Hoepli publishing house, 1904.

C C. Codex Ephrœmi Rescriptus. Fifth century. In National Library, Paris. As its name implies, it is a palimpsest, the text of the Syrian Father Ephrem being written over the original biblical text. New Testament portion edited by Tischendorf, 1843. Contains Galatians 1:21, ἔπειτα to the end, except that certain leaves are damaged on the edge, causing the loss of a few words. So e. g. ξῆλος or ξῆλοι, Galatians 5:20.

D D. Codex Claromontanus. Sixth century. In National Library, Paris. Greek-Latin. Edited by Tischendorf, 1852.

H H. Sixth century. The fragments of this ms. are scattered in six European libraries. The portion at Athos contains Galatians 1:1-4 2:Galatians 1:14-17; that in the Imperial Library at Petrograd Galatians 1:4-10 2:Galatians 1:9-14; that in the National Library in Paris Gal_4:30-5. The portions known at that time were published by Tischendorf in Mon. Sac. Ined. Bd. VIII; Duchesne published the Athos and Paris fragments in Archives des Missons sc. et lit. Ser. III, vol. 3, pp. 420-429, Paris, 1876; and H. Omont published the entire ms. as then known (forty-one leaves) in Notice sur un très ancien manuscrit grec en onciales des èpîtres de Saint Paul, conservé à la Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, 1889; which is republished in Notices et Extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, vol. 33, pp. 145-192, Paris, 1890. From the offset on opposite leaves J. A. Robinson published sixteen pages of the ms., including Galatians 4:27-30 5:Galatians 4:6-10, in Texts and Studies, vol. III, No. 3, Cambridge, 1895. Kirsopp Lake reproduced the Athos fragments in facsimile and a transcribed text in Facsimiles of the Athos Fragment of Codex H of the Pauline Epistles, Oxford, 1905. The citations of the text in this commentary are made from the publications of Omont, Robinson, and Lake.

P P. Codex Porphyrianus. Ninth century. In Imperial Library, Petrograd. Published by Tischendorf in Mon. Sac. Ined. Bd. V, 1865.

31 31 (Tischendorf, Constantin, Novum Testamentum Grœce. 37) the so-called Leicester Codex. Fifteenth century. At Leicester, England. Described by J. Rendel Harris in The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament, London, 1887.

33 33 (Tischendorf, Constantin, Novum Testamentum Grœce. 17). Ninth or tenth century. In National Library, Paris. Called by Eichhorn “the queen of the cursives.” Cited by Tischendorf in Galatians more frequently than any other cursive. Contains the Prophets as well as Gospels, Acts, Cath. Epp. and Paul.

442 442 (Tischendorf, Constantin, Novum Testamentum Grœce. 73). Thirteenth century. In Upsala.

Euthal. Euthalius. 459. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 230, and Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

Dam. Joannes Damascenus. † ca. 756. See Sanday, Wm., and Headlam, A. C.. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Edinburgh and New York, 1895. , p. c.; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

K K. Codex Mosquensis. Ninth century. In Moscow.

L G. Codex Bærnerianus. Ninth century. In Royal Library, Dresden. Greek-Latin. Edited by Matthæi, 1791; photographic reproduction issued by the Hiersemann publishing house, Leipzig, 1909.

Cyr. Cyril of Alexandria. † 444. See Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

Thdrt. Theodoretus. † ca. 458. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 230; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

Thphyl. Theophylactus. Ca. 1077.

F F. Codex Augiensis. Ninth century. In Trinity College, Cambridge. Greek-Latin. Edited by Scrivener, 1859. Closely related to Codex Bærnerianus. See Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testaments, vol. II, Leipzig, 1902, pp. 113 f.

Vg. Vulgate, text of the Latin Bible.

Tert. Tertullian. † ca. 223. See Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87.

Victorin. C. Marius Victorinus. Ca. 360 a.d. See Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions., p. 231; Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. Edited by Wm. Smith and Henry Wace. 4 vols. London 1877-87