Imatges de pÓgina

the force of yáp, as justisying what is said in the previous verse, becomes evident. “ The wrong step (katé voa-TapaBátnu fuavtòv ouviotnut) is taken, I say, when we reassert the obligation of the law (oikodouw); for (yáp) we then act at variance with the proper office and effect of the law itself, which should be our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ."

Verse 20. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. I have been crucified with Christ; yet I live no longer, but Christ liveth in me.' The perfect (ouveo taópwuai) is employed here, because the apostle would evidently derive his present state as being crucified from his union with Christ, as having been himself crucified when Christ suffered on the cross, "the just for the unjust.” Again, ouveo taópwuai is simply the negative side of Seo show in v. 19; for dying with Christ, in the Christian psychology, is dying unto sin, and consequently is inseparable from rising again to a new spiritual life (Rom. vi. 4). So that sé after fô is meant to oppose the apostle's living unto God (of which the intervening ouveotaúpwuai states merely the privative ground) to the idea that Paul himself, in his natural character (εγώ = ο παλαιός αυτού άνθρωπος in Rom. vi. 6), was or could be, in any sense, the author or sustainer of this new life, for which he was indebted to his participation in Christ's death. Hence one other change is required here. The English version would lead us to put a comma after dé in the text, as well as after érycó. The objections to this are, that there is no á rá before oủkéti, as that view assumes, and that it weakens the opposition between érycó and Xplotós, if Paul must be understood to say, as it were even hastily, that he had life, and then must correct himself, and deny or modify that assertion. Point, therefore, ζω σε ουκέτι εγώ, ζη δε εν εμοί Χριστός. Wiclif follows the right punctuation; but Tyndale breaks up the clause, as in the current version. Nearly all scholars agree in the necessity of this correction. So Lachmann, Winer, Schott, Hahn, Rückert, Usteri, Matthies, Tischendorf, B. Crusius, De Wette, Meyer, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Conybeare, Ellicott, Alford.

Verse 21. I do not frustrate the grace of God; for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. 'I do not set aside the grace of God; for if there be righteousness through the law, then Christ died without cause.' The sense of a Jerô is set aside, render superfluous (compare Mark vii. 9), rather than frustrate. The argument is not that Peter's theory (i. e. the one upheld by his conduct) defeated the end of Christ's death, but that it made his death unnecessary. On the contrary, Paul's system recognized the gospel as the only method of man's salvation, and thus honored the wisdom and grace of which it is the evidence and fruit. We must change, also, “is dead' (urré Javev), to died, i. e. when Christ yielded up his life on the cross. The question between Peter and Paul was not in any sense whether Christ was dead or still living, but whether the condition of men demanded the sacrifice of his death. Hence follows so pertinently owpeáv, without cause, as in John xv. 25 (èuiono úv je dwpeuv); lit. giftwise, i.e. gratuitously, for nothing. See Tittmann, de Synon. in N. T., p. 161. Chrysostom says : TEPITTÒS Ó toû Xplotoù Jávatos. If 'in rain,' therefore, be understood to mean without effect, it misleads the reader.


Verse 1. The words τη αληθεία μη πείθεσθαι after εβάσKave, are wanting in all the later critical editions, or are marked as spurious. They express an appropriate meaning,

but have been transferred undoubtedly to this place from ch.v. ter. 7. See Green's Developed Criticism, p. 146, and the

digest of readings in Tischendorf, Meyer, Wieseler, and others. Hence the corresponding words in our version, that ye should not obey the truth, must be dropped from an amended translation. We pass over here the several questions relating to the sense of nepoeypuøn. It appears to us that our version is correct, as opposed to those who would connect èv yuiv with the verb: was evidently set forth among you (which would be so unnecessary after ois kat' o Saluous), instead of joining it with the emphasized εσταυρωμένος, ,


having been crucified among you.

The apostle would bring home to them yet more closely the scene of the tragic oc

It was among the Galatians, in the midst of themselves, that the cross with its dying victim had been reared, as it were, anew. Some critics would reject εν υμίν, , but against the probability that the apparently superfluous expression would be omitted rather than inserted. Tischendorf, Meyer, Ellicott, Wordsworth, decide that we should retain it. See the Table in Wieseler's Appendix.

Verse 8. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith. And the scripture, foreseeing that God justifies the heathen (or Gentiles) through faith. The Greek verb here (dukaloi) is present, because it sets forth the divine plan of justification as an abiding fact or principle. See Winer, Gram. $ 40, 2. Besides, as Meyer remarks, the foreseen or predicted time (T poidoùoa) was the present Christian time.

Verse 15. Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto. “If a covenant has been confirmed, though it be a man's, no one sets it aside, or adds thereto.' The Greek sentence is involved, and may be recast in the translation for the sake of greater perspicuity. It is arbitrary to limit the act of videtei (see the use in ii. 21) to a part of the object (diańknv), instead of the whole, i.e. sets aside something from the compact. The idea, on the contrary, partakes of the nature of the argument a minore ad majus : the parties are bound by the compact after ratification, so as not only to have no right to break it up altogether (afetel), but not even to add new conditions (étridiaTáo gerai), which would interfere in any way with the original purpose.

Verse 17. And this I say, That the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, etc. But this I say, that a covenant which has been confirmed before of God unto Christ,' etc. Instead of the covenant' (the article is wanting in the Greek), we should say a covenant, i. e, one which as the apostle proceeds to mention, has a certain characteristic. If we retain eis Xplotóv, we must translate unto



Christ, i. e. in his character as the head and representative of the true seed (TẬ otrépuatı ős toti Xplotós in v.16), to whom, in that sense, were guaranteed ( TT pokeKupwuévnv) the blessings of the mode of justification (dla Júkn), of which Abraham was the example. See Rom. iv. 16. But the genuineness of the expression is uncertain. The oldest witnesses (see Table in Wieseler's Appendic) testify against it. Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf discard it. Some others, as Ewald, Wieseler, Wordsworth, argue for it, but with doubtful suc

Our translators, in this same verse, have cannot disannul' for oủk åkupoł, does not disannul.

The unnecessary interpolation was taken from the Geneva version.

Verse 19. Ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. • Having been ordained (diarayels) through angels (di' áry yewv) by the hand of a mediator.' That is, ordained on the part of God as the legislator, and through angels as the medium of the promulgation; compare ο δι αγγέλων λαλεθείς λόγος in Ηeb. ii. 2, and εις διαταγάς αγγέλων in Acts vii. 53. ’Ev Xezpi (= dià Xelpós) in the hand, stands simply for 73 (see Lev. viii. 36 ; xxvi. 46; Numb. iv. 38, etc. in LXX. and Hebrew), and describes the agency or ministry of Moses (the mediator intended here) in his character as internuncius or messenger between Jehovah and the people at the giving of the law (ο γενόμενος εν τη εκκλησία μετά του αγγέλου εν τω õpeEtâ kaì Twv Tatépwv huñv in Acts vii. 38). The common rendering · in the hand,' would more naturally signify that the law was under the supervision and control of the mediator. Unfounded remarks have often been made on the passage, with that view of the meaning.

Verse 20. Now, a mediator is nol a mediator of one ; but God is one.

Now, the mediator is not of one; but God is one. The common version borroirs the italicised mediator (see the English Bible) from the Geneva version. We render the passage as it stands in Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and others, except the obvious correction of the article. Whether o peritus means the mediator, according to the idea of the office or the one in a given instance (these are the only opinions), we must make the expression definite.

In a

sentence of such extreme obscurity, it is desirable to adhere as closely as possible to the original. As long ago as 1829, Winer reckoned up here two hundred and fifty interpretations. Wieseler, the latest German commentator, says that the number is now three hundred. He devotes sixteen ample pages to a renewed discussion of the meaning. He inserts an extensive list of the monographs and articles which have been written on the passage. Yet none of these diverse explanations rest upon any uncertainty of the text, or (unless we confound paraphrase and translation) admit of a different representation in English.

Verse 22. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But the scripture shut up all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to thein that believe.' We copy Meyer's note here, which will justify the translation. " What God has done (see Rom. iii. 9–19), since it is testified or recorded in scripture, is represented as an act of scripture which the latter has performed by a declaration of its testimony. Scripture, i. e. (as viewed apart from its personification) God, according to the testimony of scripture, has brought all into custody under sin, i.e. has put all, without exception, into the relation of bondage, in which sin as a power that tyrannizes over them (compare Rom. iii. 9), bolds them, as it were, locked up under bolts and bars. The συνέκλεισεν placed first has the emphasis, shut up, so that the idea of freedom, i.e. the attainment of the duralogúvn is out of the question. But ovvékeldev does not denote shut up together, with one another, as Bengel, Usteri, and some others think (also not in Rom. xi. 32), against which it is conclusive that the term is very often used where one only, not one with others, is shut up (see Ps. xxxi. 9; Polyb. 11. 2, 10, etc.); but oúv corresponds to the idea of a complete imprisonment, in which the captive is held utterly and altogether by the restraints imposed on him.” It


be added that some would connect εκ πίστεως Ιησού Χριστού with δοθή rather than ή επαγγελία; and in that case it would be clearer in

« AnteriorContinua »