Homilies On Ephesians
CONTENTS.
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
PAGE CHAPTER I, — Verse 1-3.
Paul, an Apostle, (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead; ) and all the brethren which are with me, unto the Churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ...........
CHAPTER II.— Verse 1, 2.
Then after the space of fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with BarnaPS MTe IO OLS RISO) WIC Ieee
ATIC Ik Werle 1D) OY LEVELAUIOU cece Fouls sess eis Sir o,s\sic Sane oa sae Be wats CHAPTER III.—Verse 1.
O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly
BERGE eC EMCI 0 tat cttae Ye ieee © > Ge ais es Chol coke wise le Uaslgcy divin Sivia § ¥qcie S/aieie yin be <b 4.0/6 6.9 She ee ONS a wes oe
CHAPTER IV.— Verse 1-3.
But I say, that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth ATsinny from a bondservant, though he is lord of all; but is under guardians and stewards, until the term appointed of the father.
So we also when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world......
CHAPTER V.—Verse 1.
With freedom did Christ set us free; stand fast therefore...............00cce eee CHAPTER VI.— Verse 1.
Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass..........s cece ceecneeerees
HOMILIES ON EPHESIANS.
SE CR AEA PCat en PAT d es ctlone ERNE OM Dates. a hieteetln s MM HMR PS RN as. See. Mae Homity I.—Eph.i. 1, 2.
Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, to the saints which are
at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus.
Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord LaS A The SNS fe A ch te ar ce Aa et ipa ai iar korea ie aah sie Se rar cee a Se Westen Mar ola big woes a nw Ore alls ee hi
Homity II.— Eph. i. 11-14.
In whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will.......... ce eeee cece e eee eeee Homi.y III.— Eph. i. 15-20.
For this cause I also, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus, which is among you, and which ye show toward all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him: having the eyes of your heart enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of His calling, what the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, according to that working of the strength of His might, which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead................
Homity IV.— Eph. ii. 1-3.
And you did He quicken, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein aforetime ye walked, according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power
of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; among whom we also all once lived, in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh, and of the mind; and were by nature chilMere ree mM EO LTP EN ASR LOOT CHL meter 1a)
= 16 toilets Pato a esis minty yiciaaiC oly Sis) sine ds igi h Soap wn aiel> ole oc> wad Slay wie bv Hae
HomiLy V.— Eph. ii. 11, 12, Wherefore remember, that aforetime ye the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called
Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that ye were at that time
separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the PrGrise eA eto NODC AGU WILNOUL CsOUn TELNET WOL
ML aeteie sain Jn se ata Tus tes so es als sing Ges sem eles fein o's HomiLy VI.— Eph. ii. 17-22.
And He came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them 7O that were nigh, for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father.
So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief cornerstone.
In whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord.
In whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit...
02... 0... cece cece cee eens HomiLy VII.— Eph. iii. 8-11.
Unto me, whom am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the dispensa-
tion of the mystery, which from all ages hath been hid in God, who created all things: to the intent that
CONTENTS.
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS
— Continued. hee now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the Church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose, which He purposed in Christ
Jésus: our Lord.
6.06 eet. Ui. ae aleiietete oss nue ict oie ml 6 O:e 6 Sie gratia yt) gis etsy eg eon het ee goa ice
Homity VIII.— Eph. iv. 1, 2.
I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling. wherewith ye were called, with all lowliness and meekness.jic. sme eete cents wees ee eis ne
HomiLy IX.— Eph. iv. 1-3.
I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you, to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.................-.--2--
elk ie) inva Onl wh St. CuHrysostom's Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians is continuous, according to chapter and verse, instead of being arranged in Homilies, with a moral or practical application at their close, as in his exposition of other Epistles.
It was written at Antioch, as Montfaucon infers from a reference which the Author, makes upon Chap. 1, ver. 16 (p. 20) to other of his writings, which certainly were written about the same time in that city.
Vid. Hom. de Mutal.
Nom., Tom. III., p. 98, Ed. Ben.
The year is uncertain, but seems not to have been earlier than ADesos, The Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians have been by some critics assigned to the Episcopate at Constantinople, in consequence of certain imperfections in their composition, which seemed to argue absence of the cumparative leisure which he enjoyed at Antioch.
There is a passage too in Homily XI., pp. 231, 232, which certainly is very apposite to the Author's circumstance in the court of Eudoxia.
Yet there are strong reasons for deciding that they too were delivered at Antioch.
St. Babylas and St. Julian, both saints at Antioch, are mentioned familiarly, the former in Homily IX., p. 205, the latter in Homily XXI., pp. 342, 343.
Monastic establishments in mountains in the neighborhood are spoken of in Homily VI., p. 165, and XIII., p. 248 ;1 and those near Antioch are famous in St. Chrysostom's history.
A schism too is alluded to in Homily XI., p. 230, as existing in the community he was addressing, and that not about a question of doctrine ; circumstances which are accurately fulfilled in the contemporary history of Antioch, and which are more or less noticed in the Homilies on 1 Corinthians, which were certainly delivered at Antioch.'
Moreover, he makes mention of the prevalence of superstitions, Gentile and Jewish, among the people whom he was addressing, in Homily VL., fin., p. 166, Homily XII., fin., p. 240, which is a frequent ground of complaint in his other writings against the Christians of Antioch: zd. in Gal. p. 15 ; in 1 Cor., Homily XII., §§ 13, 14; in Col., Homily VIIL., fin.; Contr. Jud. I., pp. 386-388.
Since Evagrius, the last Bishop of the Latin succession in the schism, died in A.D. 392, these
Homilies must have been composed before that date.
As to the Translations, the Editors have been favored with the former by a friend who conceals his name ; and with the latter, by the Rev. William John Copeland, M.A., Fellow of Trinity
College, Oxford.
J. H. NEWMAN.
1 Vid. also XXI., p. 338.
2 Vid. also Preface to Translation of Homilies on 1 Cor., p. xiii.
a . a { ' xz a) {
m a D f i Aaa: é "i : ed i - ® i , "e aah Me LF f { :
- " we Py TA '
{ .
, ~ if ma a; or © a Cn aH <4 ita y
; 7K ee '
Ait
ul + j ti ¢ of he Tiretel is aie
Cis " r ene Ea £ é./ '
Py + ta <2 NM ah) a ay : rh.
Pi it; bey J Loney
| ~ pie ey ee ae ; ree el ae eS
ar f ro y we $$ eso ae
Cre ft 7 ' Ee ne Ae neat a i is patel otk , ® h i mow i ue a R Ago 5% Sa Asn Reus St & i Pe. nif fee te pte) i '
_ b : i"
Cet. alg ig et Ns ae pe yoo vep ice eee ee Wieiet!
BRP Le Sat te Boe gi dee, ER fs Ne si , ius ; , cj I a rd '
| La '
Be oe ae : are ce ge >
ae iu white th Dey '
, . iat a i Dex ey vs Ke as" ies ae a i ogy yay pay sie POSS ts ey ae .
: i a ; ; * ge ? a ; -) : oe te M P elt yy ie ee ack "& TS ak + EP RE py Fel FR A age ont ante! 1 le , +.
rs J te 4) J : nr
ic , wp en :
¢t) 9} or Ri, ey :
; ieee it) a gt! uM IR lags i? al foegiey a wad Pye ae ae a Pig it m eagit , yin ayes eee ; > sa / er So ty pe 3 Oe i £ v gees Poy '
F ; Py The nf i | { Ly) caeketriey Ve ee at
ei viaiwe i y 'i a '
, ' vee Pht t U LU ae y > a, | '
' yo ) oy ie pete
ay Poh sith IT Tas HF ey ith ity vai Wein ; og rl 1a ie
] 'V6 Gideatl clo) Jt 0 SNe ane * >, . nae Pyare?
ST Aiea =k
F i 4 q** cco ah a0 ie ; ' t .
; : a er i ; i ee .
Me aad ns i ae i
eer) eee On mL CY eee, US tia sl we a wis / '
/ t « ¥ ys Dye h s o ens)
RCE ve vat wae rt eet jutiye fe RTT ee, We cash ye: RO sal vt '* ray :
a '
; 1"
> hs ; ; '
Aas ful 3 n a 'Rey ¥ gt ta é Ni :
; i = iN c id ~ iw '¥ it hi ai, tev Pearse Sects ' i¥f Bes ee exh BES ' ad HK ig + *'
' x } «
¥ '
¢ + J i; ia'
\ V a
COMMENTARY* OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM,
ARCHBISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE,
ON THE
EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE
TO THE
GALATIANS.
CHGAP TEER»
VERSE 1-3.
on another occasion, ''Are ye also even yet without understanding ?'' (Matt. xv: 16.) And what awe He inspired them with appears from John's saying, that, when they beheld Him conversing, with the Samaritan woman, though they reminded Him to take food, no one ventured to say, '' What seekest Thou, or why speakest thou with her?'' (John iv: 27.) Thus taught, and walking in the steps of his Master, Paul hath varied his discourse according to the need of his disciples, at one time using knife and cautery, at another, applying mild remedies.
To the Corinthians he says, '' What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in a spirit of meekness?'' (I Cor. vi: 21.) but to the Galatians, ''O foolish Galatians.''
(Gal. iii: 1.) And not once only, but a second time, also he has employed this reproof, and towards the conclusion he says with a reproachful allusion to them, '' Let no man trouble me; '' (Gal. vi: 17). but he socthes them again with the words, '' My little children, of whom ''I am again in travail:'' (Gal. iv: 19.) and so in many other instances.
"Paul, an Apostle, (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead;) and all the brethren which are with me, unto the Churches of Galatia:
Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ."
THE exordium? is full of a vehement and lofty spirit, and not the exordium only, but also, so to speak, the whole Epistle.
For always to address one's disciples with mildness, even when they need severity is not the part of a teacher but it would be the part of a corrupter and enemy.
Wherefore our Lord too, though He generally spoke gently to His disciples, here and there uses sterner language, and at one time pronounces a blessing, at another a rebuke.
Thus, having said to Peter, '' Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona,"' (Matt. xvi: 17.) and having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession, shortly afterwards He says,
"<Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art a stumbling block unto Me.'' (Matt. xvi: 23.) Again,
1 (Properly so-called.
His other works on the Scriptures are in the form of homilies, or expository sermons, with the exception of his continuous commentary on the first six chapters of Isaiah.
But as Schaff says "his homilies are expository and his commentaries are homiletical.'"'—G, A.]
Now that this Epistle breathes an indignant spirit, is obvious to every one even on the first perusal; but I must explain the cause of his anger against the disciples.
Slight and unimportant it could not be, or he would not have used such vehemence.
For to be exasperated by common 'matters is the part of the little2««The two threads which run through this Epistle—the defence of the Apostle's own authority, and the maintenance of the doctrine of grace—are knotted together in the opening salutation.
By expanding his official title into a statement of his direct commission from God, he meets the personal attack of his enemies ; and by dwelling on the work of redemption in connection with the name of Christ (v. 4) he resists their doctrinal errors.''—Lightfoot.—G. A.]
[CHAPTER I.
CHRY SOS LOM:
WORKS OF ST.
that this man was the last of all the Apostles and was taught by them, for Peter, James, and John, were both first called, and held a primacy among the disciples, and had also received their doctrines from Christ Himself ; and that it was therefore fitting to obey them rather than this man; and that they forbad not circumcision nor the observance of the Law.
By this and similar language and by depreciating Paul, and exalting the honor of the other Apostles, though not spoken for the sake of praising them, but of deceiving the Galatians, they induced them to adhere unseasonably to the Law.
Hence the propriety of his commencement.
As they disparaged his doctrine, saying it came from men, while that of Peter came from Christ, he immediately addresses himself to this point, declaring himself an apostle ''not from men, neither through man.''
It was Ananias who baptized him, but it was not he who delivered him from the way of error and initiated him into the faith; but Christ Himself sent from on high that wondrous voice, whereby He inclosed him in his net.
For Peter and his brother, and John and his brother, He called when walking by the seaside, (Matt. iv: 18.) but Paul after His ascension into heaven.
(Acts. ix: 3, 4.) And just as these did not require a second call, but straightway left their nets and all that they had, and followed Him, so this man at his first vocation pressed vigorously forward, waging, as soon as he was baptized, an implacable war with the Jews.
In this respect he chiefly excelled the other Apostles, as he says, ''I labored more abundantly than they all;''(1Cor. xv: 10.) at present, however, he makes no such claim, but is content to be placed on a level with them.
Indeed his great object was, not to establish any superiority for himself, but, to overthrow the foundation of theirerror.
The not being ''from men'' has reference to all alike for the Gospel's root and origin is divine, but the not being 'through man'' is peculiar to the Apostles; for He called them not by men's agency, but by His own." minded, morose, and peevish ; just as it is that of the more indolent and sluggish to lose heart in weighty ohes.
Such a one was not Paul.
What then was the offence which roused him ? it was grave and momentous, one which was estranging them all from Christ, as he himself says further on, '' Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing;''
(Gal. v: 2.) and again, '' Ye who would be justified by the Law, ye are fallen away from Grace."
(Gal. v: 4.) What then is this?
For it must be explained more clearly.
Some of the Jews who believed, being held down by the preposessions of Judaism, and at the same time intoxicated by vain-glory, and desirous of obtaining for themselves the dignity of teachers, came to the Galatians, and taught them that the observance of circumcision, sabbaths, and new-moons, was necessary, and that Paulin abolishing these things was not to be borne.
For, said they, Peter and James and John, the chiefs of the Apostles and the companions of Christ, forbade them not.
Now in fact they did not forbid these things, but this was not by way of delivering positive doctrine, but in condescension to the weakness of the Jewish believers, which condescension
Paul had no need of when preaching to the Gentiles; but when he was in Judea, he employed it himself! also.
But these deceivers, by withholding the causes both of Paul's condescension and that of his brethren, misled the simpler ones, saying that he was not to be tolerated, for he appeared but yesterday, while
Peter and his colleagues were from the first, — that he was a disciple of the Apostles, but they of Christ,—that he was single, but they were many, and pillars of the Church.
They accused him too of acting a part; saying, that this very man who forbids circumcision observes the rite elsewhere, and preaches one way to you and another way to others.
Since Paul then saw the whole Galatian people in a state of excitement, a flame kindled against their Church, and the edifice shaken and tottering to its fall, filled with the mixed feelings of just anger and despondency, (which he has expressed in the words, ''I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my voice,''—Gal. iv: 20. )he writesthe,Epistle as an answer to these charges.
This is his aim from the very commencement, for the underminers of his reputation had said, The others were disciples of Christ but this man of the ''Apostles.'?
Wherefore he begins thus, '*Paul, an Apostle not from men, neither through man."
For | these deceivers, as I was saying before, had said | But why does he not speak of his vocation rather than his apostolate, and say, '' Paul" called 'not by man?''
Because here lay the whole question; for they said that the office of a teacher had been committed to him by men, namely by the Apostles, whom therefore it behooved him to obey.
But that it was not entrusted to him by men, Luke declares in the 2 «Not from men as an ultimate, nor through man asa mediate authority.''—Ellicott.
"Tn the first clause, 'from men,' he distinguishes himself from the false apostles who did not derive their authority from God at all; in the second, 'through man,' he ranks himself with the twelve who were commissioned directly from God.
The singular is used in second clause, 'through man,'because offices which emanate from a pany of menare conferred by their single representative.""—Light- *( As is narrated, for example, in Acts xxi: 20-26, which was, Baur and his Tiibingen critics to the contrary notwithstanding, in accordance with Paul's principle and practice, as announced in x Cor. ix: 20.—G, A.] oot, {'' Paul has in second clause used the singular because the contrast is 'through Jesus Christ.'''—Meyer.—G. A.] t |
CHAPTER I.]
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
words, '' As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul.'' (Acts xiii: 2.) the Son was greater than the Father because
Christ was first named, so we dare not hold that the Son is inferior to the Father, because He is placed after Him in the Baptismal formula.
From this passage it is manifest! that the power of the Son and Spirit is one, for being commissioned by the Spirit, he says that he was commissioned by Christ.
This appears in another place, from his ascription of the things of God to the Spirit, in the words which he addresses to the elders at Miletus:
'' Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, inthe which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops.'' (Acts xx:
'¢ Who raised Him from the dead."'
Wherefore is it, O Paul, that, wishing to bring these Judaizers to the faith, you introduce none of those great and illustrious topics which occur in your Epistle to the Philippians, as, '¢ Who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God,"'
(Phil. ii:
6.) or which you _ afterwards declared in that to the Hebrews, 'the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of His substance ;'' (Heb. i: 3.) or again, what in the opening of his Gospel the son of thunder sounded forth, '' In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ;''
(John i: 1.) or what Jesus Himself oftentimes declared to the Jews, '' that His power and authority was equal to the Father's?'"' (John v:
28.) Yetin another Epistle he says, '' And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers."' (1 Cor. xii:
28.) Thus he ascribes indifferently the things of the Spirit to God, and the things of God to the Spirit.
Here too he stops the mouths of heretics, by the words '' through Jesus Christ and God the Father;'' for, inasmuch as they said this term ''through'' was applied to the Son as importing inferiority, see what he does.
He ascribes it to the Father, thus teaching us not to prescribe laws to the ineffable Nature, nor define the degrees of Godhead which belong to the Fatherand Son.
For to the words '"'through Jesus Christ'? he has added, '' and God the Father; '' for if at the mention of the Father alone he had introduced the phrase
19, 27, &c.) Do you omit all these, and make mention of the economy of His Incarnation only, bringing forward His cross and dying P
'<Ves,'? would Paul answer.
For had this discourse been addressed to those who had unworthy conceptions of Christ, it would have been well to mention those things ; but, inasmuch as the disturbance comes from persons who fear to incur punishment should they abandon the Law, he therefore mentions that whereby all need of the Law is excluded,
I mean the benefit conferred on all through the Cross and the Resurrection.
To have said that 'in the beginning was the Word," and that '"'through whom,'' they might have argued sophistically that it was peculiarly applicable to the Father, in that the acts of the Son were to be referred to Him.
But he leaves no opening for this cavil, by mentioning at once both the Son and the Father, and making his language apply to both.
This he does, not as referring the acts of the Son to the Father, but to show that the expression implies no distinction of Essence. 2. Further, what can now be said by those, who have gathered a notion of inferiority from the Baptismal formula,—from our being baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ?* For if the Son be inferior because He is named after the Father, what will they say seeing that, in the passage before us, the Apostle beginning from Christ proceeds to mention the Father ?—but let us not even utter such a blasphemy, let us not swerve from the truth in our contention with them; rather let us preserve, even if they rave ten thousand times, the due measures of reverence.
Since then it would be the height of madness and impiety to argue that '<< He was in the form of God, and made Himself equal with God,'' and the like, would have declared the divinity of the Word, but would have contributed nothing to the matter in hand.
Whereas it was highly pertinent thereto to add, '¢Who raised Him from the dead,'' for our chiefest benefit was thus brought to remembrance, and men in general are less interested by discourses concerning the majesty of God, than by those which set forth the benefits which come to mankind.
Wherefore, omitting the former topic, he discourses of the benefits which had been conferred on us.
But here the heretics insultingly exclaim, '¢Lo, the Father raises the Son !''
For when once infected, they are wilfully deaf to all sublimer doctrines; and taking by itself and insisting on what is of a less exalted nature, and expressed in less exalted terms, either on account of the Son's humanity, or in honor of the Father, or for some other temporary purpose, they outrage, I will not say the Scripture, but themselves.
I would fain ask such persons, why they say this? do they hope to prove the Son weak and powerless to raise onze body?
1 This digression, and others which follow, were occasioned by the controversies of the day; the Arians and Macedonians denying the co-equality and consubstantiality of FATHER, Son, and Hoty Guost. oi To urge this use of 84 in connection with Son and the-Father as direct evidence for the duoovara of the Father and the Son (as Chrysostom and Theod. )may perhaps be rightly deemed precarious.
Yet there is something very noticeable in this use of a common preposition with both the first and second persons of the Trinity by a writer so cumulative and yet for the most part so exact in his use of prepositions as St. Paul.''—Ellicott.—G. A.]
3 [That is, from the order of the three names.—G. A.] = — TTT SS eer eee'.
OO OO
WORKS OF ST.
[CHAPTER I.
CHRYSOSTOM.
This he always mentions as indispensible, and in this Epistle to the Galatians especially ; for since they were in danger of falling from grace he prays that they may recover it again, and since they had come to be at war with God, he beseeches God to restore them to the same peace.
Nay, verily, faith in Him enabled the very shadows of those who believed in Him, to effect the resurrection of the dead.
(Acts. v: 15.) Then believers in Him, though mortal, yet by the very shadows of their earthly bodies, and by the garments which had touched these bodies, could raise the dead, but He could not raise Himself?
Is not this manifest madness, a great stretch of folly?
Hast thou not heard Hissaying, '' Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise itup?'' (John ii: 1g.) and again,
'¢ God the Father."'
Here again is a plain confutation of the heretics, who say that John in the opening of his
Gospel, where he says ''the Word was God,"' used the word @ed¢ without the article, to imply an inferiority in the Son's Godhead; and that Paul, where he says that the Son was ''in the form of God,'' did not mean the Father, because the word @eds is without the article.
For what can they say here, where Paul says, azo Gcod Ilatpos, and not ad tod Beod?
And it is in no indulgent mood towards them that he calls God, ''Father,'' but by way of severe rebuke, and suggestion of the source whence they became sons, for the honor was vouchsafed to them not through the Law, but through the washing of regeneration.
Thus everywhere, even in his exordium, he scatters traces of the goodness of God, and we may conceive him speaking thus: ''O ye who were lately slaves, enemies and aliens, what right have ye suddenly acquired to call God your Father? it was not the Law which conferred upon you this relationship; why do ye therefore desert Him who brought you so near to God, and return to your tutor ??
'¢T have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again?' (John x: 18.) Wherefore then is the Father said to have raised Him up, as also to have done other things which the Son Himself did?
It is in honor of the Father, and in compassion to the weakness of the hearers.
'¢ And all the brethren which are with me."'
Why is it that he has on no other occasion in sending an epistle added this phrase?
For either he puts his own name only or that of two or three others, but here has mentioned the whole number and so has mentioned no one by name.
On what account then does he this?
They made the slanderous charge that he was singular in his preaching, and desired to introduce novelty in Christian teaching.
Wishing therefore to remove their suspicion, and to show he had many to support him in his doctrine, he has associated with himself '' the brethren,'' to show that what he wrote he wrote with their accord. !
But the Name of .the Son, as well as that of the Father, had been sufficient to declare to them these blessings.
'This will appear, if we consider the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ with attention; for it is said, '' thou shalt call
'¢Unto the Churches of Galatia.''
Thus it appears, that the flame of error had spread over not one or two cities merely, but the whole Galatian people.
Consider too the grave indignation contained in the phrase, ''unto the Churches of Galatia: '? he does not say, 'to the beloved "' or "'to the sanctified,'' and this omission of all names of affection or respect, and this speaking of them as a society merely, without the addition <'' Churches of God,'' for it is simply ''Churches of Galatia,'' is strongly expressive of deep concern and sorrow.
Here at the outset, as well as elsewhere, he attacks their irregularities, and therefore gives them the name of ' Churches,'' in order to shame them, and reduce them tounity.
For persons split into many parties cannot properly claim this appellation, forthe name of '' Church "' is a name of harmony and concord.
His Name Jesus; for it is Hethatshall save His people from theirsins;'' (Matt. i: 21.) andthe appellation of '' Christ'' calls to mind the unction of the Spirit.
Ver 4. '' Who gave himself for our sins.'' 3
Thus it appears, that the ministry which He undertook was free and uncompelled ; that He was delivered up by Himself, not by another.
Let not therefore the words of John, '' that the Father gave His only-begotton Son'"' (Jo. ili: 16.) for us,lead you to derogate from the dignity of the Only-begotten, or to infer therefrom that He is only human.
For the Father is said to have given Him, not as implying that the Son's ministry was a servile one, but to teach us that it seemed good to the Father, as Paul too has shown in the immediate context: ''according to the willof our God, and Father.'' He says not ''Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.''
1 (Meyeragrees with Lightfoot and Ellicott in the view that mavtTes means not all the Christians of the place where he was
(probably Ephesus), but only his traveling companions ; but he differs from them in holding that "the impressive effect of the epistle could not but be strengthened by indicating that these brethren collectively desired to address the very same instructions, warnings and exhortations to the Galatians.''—G. A.]
°( The word is racdaywyéds, the same that is used in Gal. 3: 24, 25, and translated' school-mast¢r' in the A. V., but 'tutor' in the Rev,
Ver.—G. A.] *[{' The Galatians had practically ignored the atoning death of Christ ; compare ii : 21 and v; 4."'—Lightfoot.—G. A.]
CHAPTER I.]
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
'«by the command,"' but '' according to the will,"' for inasmuch as there is an unity of will in the Father and the Son, that which the Son wills, the Father wills also. depraved moral principle.
Again, Christ came not to put us to death and delivcr us from the present life in that sense, but to leave us in the world, and prepare us for a worthy participation of our heavenly abode.
Wherefore He saith to the Father, ''And these are in the world, and I come to Thee; I pray not that Thou shouldest take them from the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil,"'
(Glos * Vil:
ORx} 45.) 12.6), from' sin.
"Further, those who will not allow this, but insist that the present life is evil, should not blame those who destroy themselves; for as he who withdraws himself from evil is not blamed, but deemed worthy of a crown, so he who by a violent death. by hanging or otherwise, puts an end to his life, ought not to be condemned.
Whereas God punishes such men more. than murderers, and we all regard them with horror, and justly ; for if it is base to destroy others, much more is it to destroy one'sself.
Moreover, if this life be evil, murderers would deserve a crown, as rescuing us from evil.
Besides this, they are caught by their own words, for in that they place the sun in the first, and the moon in the second rank of their deities, and worship them as the givers of many goods, their statements are contradictory.
For the use of these and the other heavenly bodies, is none other than to contribute to our present life, which they say is evil, by nourishing and giving light to the bodies of men and animals and_ bringing plants to maturity.
How is it then that the constitution of this '' evil life is so ministered to by those, who according to you are gods?
Gods indeed they are not, far from it, but works of God created for our use ; nor is this world evil.
And if you tell me of murderers, of adulterers, of tomb-robbers, these things have nothing to do with the present life, for these offences proceed not from that life which we live in the flesh, but from a depraved will.
For, if they were necessarily connected with this life, as embraced in one lot with it, no man would be free or pure from them, for no man can escape the characteristic accidents of humanity, such as, to eat and drink, to sleep and grow, to hunger and thirst, to be born and die, and the like; no man can ever become superior to these, neither sinner nor just man, king nor peasant,
We all are subject to the nec.:ssity of nature.
And so if vice were an essential element of this life, no one could avoid it, any more than the things just mentioned.
And let me not be told that good men are rare, for natural necessity is insuperable by all, so that as long as one virtuous man shall be found, my argument will in no wise be invalidated.
Miserable, wretched man! what is it thou sayest ? Is this life evil, wherein we have learnt to know God, and meditate on 'For our sins,''! says the Apostle; we had pierced ourselves with ten thousand evils, and had deserved the gravest punishment; and the Law not only did not deliver us, but it even condemned us, making sin more manifest, without the power to release us from it, or to stay the anger of God.
But the Son of God made this impossibility possible for he remitted our sins, He restored us from enmity to the condition of friends, He freely bestowed on us numberless other blessings.
Ver.
'*That He might deliver us out of this present evil world."
Another class of heretics? seize upon these words of Paul, and pervert his testimony to an accusation of the present life.
Lo, say they, he has called this present world evil, and pray tell me what does '' world'"' [age] a/wy mean but time measured by days and seasons?
Is then the distinction of days and the course of the sun evil? no one would assert this even if he be carried away to the extreme of unreasonableness.
'But'? they say, ''it is not the 'time,' but the present ' life,' which he hath called evil.' "'
Now the words themselves do not in fact say this ; but the heretics do not rest in the words, and frame their charge from them, but propose to themselves a new mode of interpretation.
At least therefore they must allow us to produce our interpretation, and the rather in that it is both pious and rational.
We assert then that evil cannot be the cause of good, yet that the present life is productive of a thousand prizes and rewards.
And so the blessed Paul himself extols it abundantly in the words, '' But if to live in the flesh, if this is the fruit of my work, then what I shall choose I wot not; "'
(Phil. i: 22.) and then placing before himself the alternative of living upon earth, and departing and being with Christ, he decides for the former.
But were this life evil, he would not have thus spoken of it, nor could any one, however strenuous his endeavor, draw it aside into the service of virtue.
For no one would ever use evil for good, fornication for chastity, envy for benevolence.
And so, when he says, that ''the mind of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be, (Rom. viii:
7.) he means that vice, as such, cannot become virtue ; and the expression, '' evil world,'' must be understood to mean evil actions, and a ("The idea of satisfaction is implied not in the preposition vmép, but the whole nature of the case.""—Meyer.—G.A.]
2 That is, the Manichees, who considered matter intrinsicall evil, and paid divine honors to the sun, moon, and stars.
Vid.
Epiph. Her. Ixvi.
[On Mani and the Manichean heresy see Schaff, Church History, Vol. 11. pp. 498-508 where a full account of the literature js given also.—G, A.]
[CHAPTER I.
CHRYSOSTOM.
WORKS. OR ST:
'¢To whom be the glory for ever and ever, Amen,'' he commences with a more severe reproof. things to come, and have become angels instead of men, and take part in the choirs of the heavenly powers?
What other proof do we need of an evil and depraved mind ?
Ver. 6. ''I marvel that ye are so quickly! removing? from Him that called you in the grace of Christ, unto a different Gospel."
'¢ Why then,"' they say, '' does Paul call the present life evil?''
In calling the present world [age] evil, he has accommodated himself to our usage, who are wont to say, '' I have had a bad day,'' thereby complaining not of the time itself, but of actions or circumstances.
And so Paul in complaining of evil principles of action has used these customary forms of speech ; and he shows that Christ hath both delivered us from our offences, and secured us for the future.
The first he has declared in the words, ''Who gave Himself for: our sins;'' and by adding, ''that He might deliver us out of this present evil world,'' he has pronounced our future safety.
For neither of these did' the Law avail, but grace was sufficient for both.
Like the Jews who persecuted Christ, they imagined their observance of the Law was acceptable to the Father, and he therefore shows that in doing this they displeased not only Christ, but the Father also, for that they fell away thereby not from Christ only, but from the Father also.
As the old covenant was given not by the Father only, but also by the Son, so the covenant of grace proceeded from the Father as well as the Son, and Their every act is common:
'' All things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine.'' (John xv: 16.) By saying that they had fallen off from the Father, he brings a twofold charge against them, of an apostasy, and of an immediate apostasy.
The opposite extreme a late apostasy, is also blameworthy, but he who falls away at the first onset, and in the very skirmishing, displays an example of the most extreme cowardice, of which very thing he accuses them also saying:
'' How is this that your seducers need not even time for their designs, but the first approaches suffice for your overthrow and capture?
And what excuse can ye have?
If this is a crime among friends, and he who deserts old and useful associates is to be condemned, consider what punishment he is obnoxious to who revolts from God that called him.''
Hesays, '' I marvel,'' not only by way of reproof, that after such bounty, such a remission of their sins, such overflowing kindness, they had deserted to the yoke of servitude, but also in order to show, that the opinion he had had of them was a favorable and exalted one.
For, had he ranked them among ordinary and easily deceived persons, he would not have felt surprise.
'* But since you,'' he says, '' are of the noble sort and have suffered, much, Ido marvel."'
Surely this was enough to recover and lead them back to their first expressions.
He alludes to it also in the middle of the Epistle, «' Did yesuffer so many things in vain ? if it be indeed in vain."'
(Gal. ili: 4.) '* Ye are removing ;'' hesays not, Ver. 4. '' According to the will of our God and. Father.'' } Since they were terrified by their notion that by deserting that old Law and adhering to the new, they should disobey God, who gave the Law, he corrects their error, and says, that this seemed good to the Father also: and not simply
'¢the Father,' but ''our Father,'' which he does in order to affect them by showing that Christ has made His Father our Father.
Ver. 5. ''To whom be the glory for ever andsevers Amen a This too is new and unusual, for we never find the word, ''Amen'' placed at the beginning of an Epistle, but a good way on; here, however, he has it in his beginning,. to show that what he had already said contained a sufficient charge against the Galatians, and that his argument was complete, for a manifest offence does not require an elaborate crimination.
Having spoken of the Cross, and Resurrection, of redemption from sin and security for the future, of the purpose of the Father, and the will of the Son, of grace and peace and His whole gift, he concludes with an ascription of praise.
Another reason for it is the exceeding astonishment into which he was thrown by the magnitude of the gift, the superabundance of the grace, the consideration who we were, and what
God had wrought, and that at once and ina single moment of time.
Unable to express this in words, he breaks out into a doxology, sending up for the whole world an eulogium, not indeed worthy of the subject, but such as was possible to him.
Hence too he proceeds to use more vehement language; as if greatly kindled by a sense of the Divine benefits, for having said,
'¢ ye are removed,'' that is, '' I will not believe or suppose that your seduction is complete ;'' this is the language of one about to recover them, which further on he expresses yet more clearly in the words, ''I have confidence to you-ward in the Lord that ye will be none otherwise minded."«"(Galovizeton) ''From Him that called you in the grace of Christ."'
*{ "And not by our own merits. cf. tod caAégcavTos,v. 6."'— Lightfoot .
°{This note of time helps to fix the date of the Epistle as being about 56 or 57 during Paul's two years' stay at Ephesus (Ac. 19:10),
So most modern expositors, though Lightfoot and some others put it later.—G, A.] '«The salvation was willed by God to whom Christ was obedient
(Phil. ii: 9)."'—Meyer.—G, A.]
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
CHAPTER I.]
by the harmony of the contents, and not impaired by the difference of persons.
And Paul is not now speaking of the number but of the discrepancy of the things spoken.
With justice might they lay hold of this expression, The calling is from the Father, but the cause of it is the Son.
He it is who hath brought about reconciliation and bestowed it as a gift, for we were not saved by works in righteousness : or I should rather say that these blessings proceed from Both ; as He says, '' Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine.'' (John xvii: 10.) He says if the Gospels of Matthew and Luke differed in the signification of their contents, and in their doctrinal accuracy ; but as they are one and the same, let them cease being senseless and pretending to be ignorant of these things which are plain to the very children. not ''ye are removing from the Gospel'' but '¢from God who called you,''a more frightful expression, and more likely to affect them.
Their seducers did not act abruptly but gradually, and while they removed them from the Ver. 7. ''Only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ." faith in fact, left names unchanged.
It is the policy of Satan not toset his snares in open view ; had they urged them to fall away from Christ, they would have been shunned as deceivers and corrupters, but suffering them so far to continue in the faith, and putting upon their error the name of the Gospel, without fear they underminea the building employing the terms which they used as a sort of curtain to conceal the destroyers themselves.
As therefore they gave the name of Gospel to this their imposture, he contends against the very name, and boldly says,
That is to say, ye will not recognize another Gospel, so long as your mind is sane, so long as your vision remains healthy, and free from distorted and imaginary phantoms.
For as the disordered eye mistakes the object presented to it, so does the mind when made turbid by the confusion of evil thoughts.
'Thus the madman confounds objects; but this insanity is more dangerous than a physical malady, for it works injury not in the regions of sense, but of the mind ; it creates confusion not in the organ of bodily vision, but in the eye of the understanding.
"unto a different Gospel,''— Ver. 7. '' Which is not another Gospel."'
And justly, for there is not another.! Nevertheless the Marcionites? are misled by this phrase, as diseased persons are injured even by healthy food, for they have seized upon it, and exclaim, ''So Paul himself has declared there is no other Gospel.''
For they do not allow all the Evangelists, but one only, and him mutilated and confused according to their pleasure.
Their explanation of the words, '¢according to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ," (Rom. xvi: 25.) is sufficiently ridiculous ; nevertheless, for the sake of those who are easily seduced, it is necessary to refute it.
We assert, therefore, that, although a thousand Gospels were written, if the contents of all were the same, they would still be one, and their unity no wise infringed by the number of writers.
So, on the other hand, if there were one writer only, but he were to contradict himself, the unity of the things written would be destroyed.
For the oneness of a work depends not on the number of its authors, but on the agreement or contradictoriness of its contents.
Whence it is clear that the four Gospels are one Gospel ; for, as the four say the same thing, its oneness is preserved
<< And would' pervert the Gospel of Christ."'
They had, in fact, only introduced one or two commandments, circumcision and the observance of days, but he says that the Gospel was subverted, in order to show that a slight adulteration vitiates the whole.
For as he who but partially pares away the image on a royal coin renders the whole spurious, so he who swerves ever so little from the pure faith, soon proceeds from this to graver errors, and becomes entirely corrupted.
Where then are those who charge us with being contentious in separating from heretics, and say that there is no real difference between us except what arises from our ambition?
Let them hear Paul's assertion, that those who had but slightly innovated, subverted the Gospel.
Not to say that the Son of God is a created Being, is a small matter.
Know you not that even under the elder covenant, a man who gathered sticks on the sabbath, and transgressed a single commandment, and that not a great one, was punished with death?
(Num. xv:
32, 36.) and that Uzzah, who supported the Ark when on the point of being overturned, was struck suddenly dead, because he had intruded upon an office which did not pertain to him? (2Sam. vi: 6, 7.)
Wherefore if to transgress the sabbath, and to touch the falling Ark, drew down the wrath of God so signally as to deprive the offender of even a momentary respite, shall he who corrupts unutterably awful doctrines find excuse and par1[The Revised version brings out the difference of the words for ''another.'' The first is érepov, ''a different kind of' gospel, the second is ado, "another,'' simply. ' To a different sort of gospel,—nay, it is not another gospel.
There cannot be two gospels.
Only certain men are troubling you and trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
But a perverted gospel is no gospel at all."""—G, A.) ? Marcion flourished about A. D. 120—130.
His doctrine was a compound of various preceding theologies, chiefly the Gnostic.
He received only a part of St. Luke's Gospel.
Tertull. 7x AZarc. iv. 2—4.
Heit was who on asking Polycarp to ' acknowledge" am received for answer, ''] acknowledge thee as the first-born of Satan.''
3 (@€AovTeEs : On this word Jerome aptly says, Volunt sed non valent, The troubling of the Galatians, however, did actually take place.—G, A.]
[CHAPTER I.
CHRYSOSTOM.
WORKS OF ST.
of the Jewish doctors, that as they sat in Moses' seat, their disciples were bound to obey them, though their works were so evil, that the Lord forbad His disciples to imitate them.
What excuse therefore is there for those who insult and trample on men, rulers of the Church, and living, by the grace of God, holy lives? If it be unlawful for us to judge each other, much more is it to judge our teachers. don?
Assuredly not.
A want of zeal in small matters is the cause of all our calamities; and because slight errors escape fitting correction, greater ones creep in.
As in the body, a neglect of wounds generates fever, mortification, and death ; so in the soul, slight evils overlooked open the door to graver ones.
It is accounted a trivial fault that one man should neglect fasting; that another, who is established in the pure faith, dissembling on account of circumstances, should surrender his bold profession of it, neither is this anything great or dreadful ; that a third should be irritated, and threaten to depart from the true faith, is excused on the plea of passion and resentment.
Thus a thousand similar errors are daily introduced into the Church, and we are become a laughing-stock to Jews and Greeks, seeing that the Church is divided into a thousand parties. But if a proper rebuke had at first been given to those who attempted slight perversions, and a deflection from the divine oracles, such a pestilence would not have been generated, nor such a storm have seized upon the Churches. You will now understand why Paul calls circumcision a subversion of the Gospel. There are many among us now, who fast on the same day as the Jews, and keep the sabbaths in the same manner; and we endure it nobly or rather ignobly and basely.
And why do I speak of Jews seeing that many Gentile customs are observed by some among us; omens, auguries, presages, distinctions of days, a curious attention to the circumstances of their children's birth, and, as soon as they are | born, tablets with impious inscriptions are placed upon their unhappy heads, thereby teaching them from the first to lay aside virtuous endeavors, and drawing part of them at least under the false domination of fate.!
But if Christ in no way profits those that are circumcised, what shall faith hereafter avail to the salvation of those who have introduced such corruptions ?
Although circumcision was given by God, yet Paul used every effort to abolish it, because its unseasonable observance was injurious to the Gospel.
If then he was so earnest against the undue maintenance of Jewish customs, what excuse can we have for not abrogating Gentile ones?
Hence our affairs are now in confusion and trouble, hence have our learners being filled with pride, reversed the order of things throwing every thing into confusion, and their discipline having been neglected by us their governors, they spurn our reproof however gentle.
And yet if their superiors were even more worthless and full of numberless evils, it would not Ver. 8, 9. '' Butthough we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.''
See the Apostle's wisdom; to obviate the objection that he was prompted by vainglory to applaud his own doctrine, he includes himself also in his anathema; and as they betook themselves to authority, that of James and John, he mentions angels also saying, '' Tell me not of James and John; if one of the most exalted angels of heaven corrupt the Gospel, let him be anathema.''
The phrase ''of heaven'' is purposly added, because priests are also calied angels.
''For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger [angel] of the Lord of hosts.''
(Mal. ii: 7.) Lest therefore it should be thought that priests are here meant: by the term ''angels,'' he points out the celestial intelligences by the addition, ''from heaven."'
And he says not, if they preach a contrary Gospel, or subvert the whole of the true one, let them be anathema; but, if they even slightly vary, or incidentally disturb, my doctrine.
"As we have said before, so say I now again."'
That his words might not seem to be spoken in anger, or with exaggeration, or with recklessness he now repeats them.* Sentiments may perhaps change, when an expression has been called forth by anger, but to repeat it a second time proves that it is spoken advisedly, and was previously approved by the judgmant.
When Abraham was requested tosend Lazarus, he replied, '* They have Moses and the Prophets ; let them hear them: if they hear them not, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead." ( Luke xvi: 31.) And Christ introduces Abraham thus speaking, to show that He would have the Scriptures accounted more worthy of credence, even than one raised from the dead: Paul too, (and when I say Paul, I mean Christ, who directed his mind,) prefers them before an angel come down from heaven.
And justly, for the angels, though mighty, are but servants and ministers, but the Scriptures were all written and sent, not by servants, but be right for the disciple to disobey.
It is said *[ Though this view of Chrysostom, that the mpoetpyjxapev refers to what immediately precedes is held by many others, itis not tenable for two reasons ; 1. St. Paul would have used the singular mpoeipyka, as he does inAéyw, immediately following.
2. The mpd in composition, and the xa apt, both, mark some greater distinc1 [There is an eloquent passage on this same subject of foolish and sinful superstitions among Christians in Homily xii. on Ephesians, near the end.—G, A, ]}
| tion of time than this would allow.—G, A. }
CHAPTER I.]
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
by God the Lord of all.
He says, if ''any|men, is led to act tortuously and insincerely, man'"' preach another Gospsl to you than that| and to employ deceit and falsehood, in order to which we have preached,—not ''if this or that | engage the assent of his hearers.
But he who man:'' and herein appears his prudence, and | addresses himself to God, and desires to please care of giving offence, for what needed there| Him, needs simplicity and purity of mind, for still any mention of names, when he had used | God cannot be deceived.
Whence it is plain such extensive terms as to embrace all, both in| that I have thus written to you not from the heaven and earth?
In that he anathemized|love of rule, or to gain disciples, or to receive evangelists and angels, he included every dig-| honor at your hands.
My endeavor has been nity, and his mention of himself included every] to please God, not man.
Were it otherwise, I intimacy and affinity.
'' Tell me not,'' he! should still consort with the Jews,' still persecute exclaims, ''that my fellow-apostles and col-|the Church.
I who have cast off my country leagues have so spoken; I spare not myself if | altogether, my companions, my friends, my
I preach such doctrine.''
And he says this not; kindred, and all my reputation, and taken in as condemning the Apostles for swerving from| exchange for these, persecution, enmity, strife, the message they were commissioned to deliver ; | and daily-impending death, have given a signal far from it, (for he says, whether we or they| proof that I speak not from love of human thus preach;) but to show, that in the discuss-| applause.
This he says, being about to narrate ion of truth the dignity of persons is not to be| his former life, and sudden conversion, and to considered. demonstrate clearly that it was sincere.
And Ver. 10.
'' For! am I now persuading men| that they might not be elevated by a notion that or God?'' or am I seeking to please men? if I} he did this by way of self-vindication to them, were still pleasing men, I should not be a ser-| he premises,
'' For do I now persuade men? '"' vant of Christ."'
He well knew how, on a fitting occasion, to Granting, says he, that I might deceive you| correct his disciples, in a grave and lofty tone: by these doctrines, could I deceive God, whojassuredly he had other sources whence to knows my yet unuttered thoughts, and to please| demonstrate the truth of his preaching,—by whom is my unceasing endeavor? See here the | signs and miracles, by dangers, by prisons, by Apostolical spirit, the Evangelical loftiness!
So! daily deaths, by hunger and thirst, by nakedtoo he writes to the Corinthians, '' For we are| ness, and the like.
Now however that he is not again commending ourselves unto you, but/speaking not of false apostles, but of the true, speak as giving you occasion of glorying;'"' (2| who had shared these very perils, he employs
Cor. v: 12.) and again, '' But with me it is a;another method.
For when his discourse was very small thing that I should be judged of you, | pointed towards false apostles, he institutes a or of man's judgment.'"' (1 Cor. iv: 3.)
For) comparison by bringing forward his endurance since he is compelled to justify himself to his|of danger, saying,
''Are they ministers of disciples, being their teacher, he submits to it ; | Christ ? (I speak as one beside himself ) I more ; but he is grieved at it, not on account of chagrin,
|in labors more abundantly, in prisons more far from it, but on account of the instability of | abundantly, in stripes above measure, in deaths the minds of those led away and on account of | oft."? (2 Cor. xi: 23.)
But now he speaks of not being fully trusted by them.
Wherefore | his former manner of life and says, Paul now speaks, as it were, thus:—Is my] Ver. 11, 12.
'' For? I make known to you, account to be rendered to you? Shall I be'brethren, as touching the Gospel which was judged by men? My account is to God, and all | preached by me that it is not after man.
For my acts are with a view to that inquisition, nor| neither did I receive it from man, nor was I am I so miserably abandoned as to pervert my | taught it, but it came to me through revelation doctrine, seeing that I am to justify what I) of Jesus Christ.'' preach before the Lord of all.
You observe how sedulously he affirms that He thus expressed himself, as much with a] he was taught of Christ, who Himself, without view of withstanding their opinions, as in self- | human intervention, condescended to reveal to defence ; for it becomes disciples to obey, not to; him all knowledge.
And if he were asked for judge, their master.
But now, says he, that the| his proof that God Himself thus immediately order is reversed, and ye sit as judges, know | revealed to him these ineffable mysteries, he that I am _ but little concerned to defend | would instance his former manner of life, argumyself before you; all, I do for God's sake, | ing that his conversion would not have been so and in order that I may answer:to Him concern- ; ao ing my doctrine.
He who wishes to ae ital ee movictad lacving tn depneheiousht ee Re ee ee SS No, it is to be taken in its ethical character.''—Meyer.—G., A.]
3 [The reading yap (Rev. Ver. W. H.) gives a reason for what is implied in the sentence preceding, while 5é, an inferior reading, means ' but,' (now to enter more particularly on the subject of my
T speak thus strongly, for my language shall not be misconstrued. Will any one now say that careless of winning the favor of God, I seek toingratiate myself with men?" Lightfoot.—G. A.] letter) "I make known to you.'"'"—So Meyer.—G,
A.]
WORKS OF ST.
[ CHAPTER I.
CHRYSOSTOM.
my conversion is sincere, and that the zeal which possesses me 1s from above.
What other inducement could I have to make sucha change, and to barter honor for contempt, repose for peril, security for distress? none surely but the love of truth. sudden, had it not been by Divine revelation.
For when men have been vehement and eager on the contrary side, their conviction, if it is effected by human means, requires much time and ingenuity.
It is clear thereforé that he, whose conversion is sudden, and who has been sobered in the very height of his madness, must have been vouchsafed a Divine revelation and teaching, and so have at once arrived at complete sanity.
On this account he is obliged to relate his former life, and to call the Galatians as witnesses of past events.
That the Only-Begotten Son of God had Himself from heaven vouchsafed to call me, says he, you who were not present, could not know, but that 1 was a persecutor you do know.
For my violence even reached your ears, and the distance between Palestine and Galatia is so great, that the report would not have extended thither, had not my acts exceeded all bounds and endurance.
Wherefore he says, Ver. 15, 16.
'But when it was the good pleasure of God, Who separated me, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood."'
Here his object is to show, that it was by some secret providence that he was left for a time to himself.
For if he was set apart from his mother's womb to be an Apostle and to be called to that ministry, yet was not actually called till that juncture, which summons he _ instantly obeyed, it is evident that God had some hidden reason for this delay.
What this purpose was, you are perhaps eager to learn from me, and primarily, why he was not called with the twelve.
But in order not to protract this discourse by digressing from that which is more pressing, I must entreat your love not to require all things from me, but to search for it by yourselves, and to beg of God to reveal it to you.
Moreover I partly discussed this subject when I discoursed before you on the change of his name from Saul to Paul; which, if you have forgotten, you will fully gather from a perusal of that volume.? At present let us pursue the thread of our discourse, and consider the proof he now adduces that no natural event had befallen him,—that God Himself had providentially ordered the occurrence.
Ver. 13.
'' For! ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and made havoc of it.'
Observe how he shrinks not from aggravating each point; not saying simply that he << persecuted' but '' beyond measure,'' and not only
"« persecuted '' but '' made havoc of it,'' which signifies an attempt to extinguish, to pull down, to destroy, to annihilate, the Church.
Ver. 14.
'And I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.''
'¢ And called me through His grace."'
God indeed says that He called him on account of his excellent capacity, as He said to Ananias, '' for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings,"
To obviate the notion that his persecution arose from passion, vain-glory, or enmity, he shows that he was actuated by zeal, not indeed
''according to knowledge,'' (Rom. x: 2.) still by a zealous admiration of the traditions of his fathers.
This is his argument ;2—if my efforts against the Church sprung not from human motives, but from religious though mistaken zeal, why should I be actuated by vain-glory, now that Iam contending for the Church, and have embraced the truth?
If it was not this motive, but a godly zeal, which possessed me when I was in error, much more now that I have come to know the truth, ought I to be free from such a suspicion.
As soon as I passed over to the doctrines of the Church I shook off my Jewish prejudices, manifesting on that side a zeal still more ardent ; and this is a proof that (Acts ix: 15.) that is to say, capable of service, and the accomplishment of great deeds.
God gives this as the reason for his call. But he himself everywhere ascribes it to grace, and to God's inexpressible mercy, as in the words, '' Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy,'' not that I was sufficient or even serviceable, but '' that inmeas chief might
Jesus Christ show forth all His long-suffering, for an ensample of them which should hereafter believe on Him unto eternal life."' (1 Tim. i: 16.)
Behold his overflowing humility; I obtained mercy, Says he, that no one might despair, when the worst of men had shared His bounty.
For this is the force of the words, '' that He might show forth all His long-suffering for an ensample of them which should hereafter believe on Him."'
1 [He begins here the historical proof that he was indebted for his gospel to the revelat7on he had mentioned,''—Meyer.
"* My early education was such that no human agency couldhave brought the change (from Judaism to Christianity).
It required a direct interposition from God."—Lightfoot.—G. A.] 3 Rone yoostoats interpretation of this passage is hardly sustained by the context.
It is not a proof of his sincerity that he is adducing ; he is continuing and completing the statement that his former manner of life was proof that he could not have received the Gospel from man.—G, A,] '¢'To reveal His Son4 in me."' a be tn Hom. de Mut. Nom. t. iii. p. 98. Ed. Ben.—G. A.]
'{' In his pre-Christian blindness Paul had known Christ «ara gapxa, 2 Cor. v: 16.'"-—Meyer.—G. A.]
CHAPTER I. }
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
II Christ says in another place, '' No one knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him.'' (Luke x:
This then let us do; for it is not the right course to weigh the mere words, nor examine the language by itself, as many errors will be the consequence, but to attend to the intention of the writer.
Andunless we pursue this method in our own discourses, and examine into the mind of the speaker, we shall make many enemies, and every thing will be thrown into dis22.) You observe that the Father reveals the Son, and the Son the Father; so itis asto Their glory, the Son glorifies the Father, and the Father the Son; '' glorify Thy Son, that the Son may glorify Thee," and, ''as I have glorified Thee.'' (John xvii: 1, 4.) But why does he say, '¢to reveal His Son in me,"' and not ''to me?'' it is to signify, that he had not only been instructed in the faith by words, but that he was richly endowed with the Spirit; —that the revelation had enlightened his whole soul, and that he had Christ speaking within him.? order.
Nor is this confined to words, but the same result will follow, if this rule is not observed in actions.
For surgeons often cut and break certain of the bones; so do robbers; yet it would be miserable indeed not to be able to distinguish one from the other.
Again, homicides and martyrs, when tortured, suffer the same pangs, yet is the difference between them great.
Unless we attend to this rule, we shall not be able to disgriminate in these matters ; but shall call Elijah and Samuel and Phineas homicides, and Abraham a son-slayer; that is, if we go about to scrutinize the bare facts, without taking into account the intention of the agents.
Let us then inquire into the intention of Paul in thus writing, let us consider his scope, and general deportment towards the Apostles, that we may arrive at his present meaning.
Neither formerly, nor in this case, did he speak with a view of disparaging the Apostles or of extolling himself, (how so? when he included himself under his anathema?) but always in order to guard the integrity of the Gospel.
Since the troublers of the Church said that they ought to obey the Apostles who suffered these observances, and not Paul who forbade them, and hence the Judaizing heresy had gradually crept in, it was necessary for him manfully to resist them, from a desire of repressing the arrogance of those who improperly exalted themselves, and not of speaking ill of the Apostles.
And therefore he says, '<T conferred not with flesh and blood ;'' for it would have been extremely absurd for one who had been taught by God, afterwards to refer himself to men.
For it is right that he who learns from men should in turn take men as his counsellors.
But he to whom that divine and blessed voice had been vouchsafed, and who had been fully instructed by Him that possesses all the treasures of wisdom, wherefore should he afterwards confer with men?
It were meet that he should teach, not be taught by them.
Therefore he thus spoke, not arrogantly, but to exhibit the dignity of his own commission.
'¢ That I might preach Him among the Gentiles."'
For not only his faith, but his election to the Apostolic office proceeded from God.
The object, says he, of His thus specially revealing Himself to me, was not only that I might myself behold Him, but that I might also manifest Him to others.
And he says not merely, '' others,'' but, 'that I might preach Him among the Gentiles,'' thus touching beforehand on that great ground of his defence which lay in the respective characters of the disciples ; for it was necessary to preach differently tothe Jews and to the heathen.
'¢Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood."'
Here he alludes to the Apostles, naming them after their physical nature; however, that he may have meant to include all mankind, I shall not deny.'
Ver. 17. ''Neither went Iup to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me."'
These words weighed by themselves seem to breath an arrogant spirit, and to be foreign to the Apostolic temper.
For to giveone's suffrage for one's self, and to admit no man to share one's counsel, is a sign of folly.
It is said, ««Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him;"'
(Prov. xxvi: 12.) and, '' Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!'' (Isa. v: 21.) and Paul himself in another place, '' Be not wise in your own conceits.'? (Rom. xii: 16.) Surely one who had been thus taught, and had thus admonished others, would not fall into such an error, even were he an ordinary man; much less then Paul himself.
Nevertheless, as I said, this expression nakedly considered may easily prove asnare and offence to many hearers.
, But if the cause of it is sub- | joined, all will applaud and admire the speaker.
'' Neither went I up,'' says he, ''to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me.'' Because they were continually repeating that the Apostles were before him, and were called before him, he says, '' I went not up to them."'
Had it been needful for him to communicate with them, He, who revealed to him his commission, would have given him this injunction.
1[* Ey éuoc means 'in my mind,' 'in my consciousness.'
2 Cor. iv: 6,'' in opposition to Lightfoot who says, '' 'In me' means, as the context shows, not a revelation made inwardly to himself, but through him to others.'"'—G. A.] 2('* Flesh and blood" is twice used elsewhere (Mat. 16: 17 and Eph. 6: 12,) todenote '' weak human nature," " feeble man."'—G. A.] |
WORKS OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM.
[CHAPTER I.
not of his successes, nor of whom or of how many he instructed.
Yet such was his zeal immediately on his baptism, that he confounded the Jews, and so exasperated them, that they and the Greeks lay in wait for him with a view to kill him.
This would not have been the case, had he not greatly added to the numbers of the faithful; since they were vanquished in doctrine, they had recourse to murder, which was a manifest sign of Paul's superiority.
But Christ suffered him not to be put to death, preserving him for his mission.
Of these successes, however, he says nothing, and so in all his discourses, his motive is not ambition, nor to be honored more highly than the Apostles, nor because he is mortified at being lightly esteemed, but it is a fear lest any detriment should accrue to his mission.
For he calls himself, '' one born out of due time,'' and, '' the first of sinners,"' and ''the last of the Apostles,' and, '' not meet to be called an Apostle.''
And this he said, who had labored more than all of them; which is real humility; for he who, conscious of no excellence, speaks humbly of himself, is candid but not humble; but to say so after such trophies, is to be practised in self-control.
Is it true, however, that he did not go up thither ?! nay, he went up, and not merely so, but in order to learn somewhat of them. When a question arose on our present subject in the city of Antioch, in the Church which had from the beginning shown so much zeal, and it was discussed whether the Gentile believers ought to be circumcised, or were under no necessity to undergo the rite, this very Paul himself and Silas? went up.
How is it then that he says, I went not up, nor conferred?
First, because he went not up of his own accord, but was sent by others; next, because he came not to learn, but to bring others over.
For he was from the first of that opinion, which the Apostles subsequently ratified,that circumcision was unnecessary. But when these persons deemed him unworthy of credit and applied to those at Jerusalem he went up not to be farther instructed, but toconvince the gainsayers that those at Jerusalem agreed with him.
Thus he perceived from the first the fitting line of conduct, and needed no teacher, but, primarily and before any discussion, maintained without wavering what the Apostles, after much discussion, (Acts xv: 2,7.) subsequently ratified.
This Luke shows by his own account, that Paul argued much at length with them onthis subject before he went to Jerusalem. But since the brethren chose to be informed on this subject, by those at Jerusalem, he went up on their own account, not on his own.
And his expression, '' I went not up,'' signifies that he neither went at the outset of his teaching, nor for the purpose of being instructed.
Both are implied by the phrase, '' Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.'' He says not, '' I conferred,'' merely, but, 'immediately ;'' and his subsequent journey was not to gain any additional instruction.
Ver. 17. '' And again Ireturned unto Damascus."'
But what great things did he not probably achieve in this city? for he telis us that the governor under Aretas the king set guards about the whole of it, hoping to entrap this blessed man.
Which is a proof of the strongest kind that he was violently persecuted by the Jews.
Here, however, he says nothing of this, but mentioning his arrival and departure is silent concerning the events which there occurred, nor would he have mentioned them in the place
I have referred to, (2 Cor. xi: 32.) had not circumstances required their narration.
Ver.
17.
'* But I went away into Arabia."'
Behold a fervent soul! he longed to occupy regions not yet tilled, but lying in a wild state.
Had he remained with the Apostles, as he had Ver. 18.
'* Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem 4 to visit Cephas."'
What can be more lowly than such a soul?
After such successes, wanting nothing of Peter, not even his assent, but being of equal dignity with him, (for at present I will say no more, ) he comes to him as his elder and superior.
And the only object of this journey was to visit Peter; thus he pays due respect to the Apostles, and esteems himself not only not their better but not their equal.
Which is plain from this journey, for Paul was induced to visit Peter by the same feeling from which many of our brethren sojourn with holy men: or rather by a humbler feeling for they do so for their own benefit, but this blessed man, not for his own instruction or correction, but merely for the sake of nothing to learn, his preaching would have been straitened, for it behooved them to spread the word every where.
'Thus this blessed man, fervent in spirit, straightway undertook to teach wild barbarians,® choosing a life full of battle and labor. Having said, '' I went into Arabia,"' he adds, ''and again I returned unto Damascus.''
Here observe his humility; he speaks 1[Paul here simply means he did not goto Jerusalem before he began preaching.—G. A.
2 Of those who were sent with St. Paul from Antioch to Jerusalem, Barnabas is the only one named in Acts xv:
2, and it would rather seem from Ver. 22, that Silas was then at Jerusalem, and did not accompany St. Paul till his return from thence.
° ['* This journey is to be looked upon not as having for its object a quiet preparation,but as a first experiment of extraneous ministry."
—Meyer. Farrar, Life and Work'of Paul. Ch. xi. takes the opposite view and says. '' No one, I think,who reads this passage attentively can deny that it gives the impression of an intentional retirement from human intercourse.''
So also Schaff, who says it was a sort of substitute for the three years intercourse with Jesus enjoyed by the other Apostles.
AZ. Ch. 236.—G. A.] '(First visit to Jerusalem, Acts ix:26.
For a reconciliation of the two accounts of this visit see Handy Com. on Gad. Excursus
A (by Sanday).—G.A.]
CHAPTER I. ]
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
| appellation, and called him the son of Cleophas, as the Evangelist does. 3
But as he considered that he had a share in the august titles of the Apostles, he exalts himself by honoring
James; and this he does by calling him '' the Lord's brother,'' although he was not by birth
His brother, but only so reputed.
Yet this did not deter him from giving the title; and in many other instances he displays towards all the Apostles that noble disposition, which beseemed him. beholding and honoring Peter by his presence.
He says, ''to visit Peter;'' he does not say to see, ((detv,) but to visit and survey, (/orop7cat, ) a word which those, who seek to become acquainted with great and splendid cities, apply to themselves.
Worthy of such trouble did he consider the very sight of Peter; and this appears from the Acts of the Apostles also.
(Acts xxi: 17,18 etc.) For on his arrival at Jerusalem, on another occasion, after having converted many Gentiles, and, with labors far surpassing the rest, reformed and brought to Christ Pamphylia, Lycaonia, Cilicia, and all nations in that quarter of the world, he first addresses himself with great humility to James, as to his elder and superior.
Next he submits to his counsel, and that counsel contrary to this Ver. 20.
'* Now touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not."'
Observe throughout the transparent humility of this holy soul; his earnestness in his own vindication is as great as if he had to render an account of his deeds, and was pleading for his life in a court of justice.
Epistle.
'' Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them which have believed ; therefore shave thy head, and purify thyself.'' (Acts xxi: 20 f.) Accordingly he shaved his head, and observed all the Jewish ceremonies; for where the Gospel was
Ver. 21.
'' Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.''4
After his interview with Peter, he resumes his preaching and the task which lay before him, avoiding Judzea, both because of his mission being to the Gentiles, and of his unwillingness to '*build upon another man's foundation."'
Wherefore there was not even a chance meeting, as appears from what follows. not affected, he was the humblest of all men.
But where by such humility he saw any injured, he gave up that undue exercise of it, for that was no longer to be humble but to outrage and destroy the disciples.
Ver. 22, 23.
'' And I was still unknown by face unto the Churches of Judza; but they only heard say, he that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc."
Ver. 18. ** And tarried with him fifteen days.''
To take a journey on account of him was a mark of respect; but to remain so many days, of friendship and the most earnest affection.!
What modesty in thus again mentioning the facts of his persecuting and laying waste the Church, and in thus making infamous his former life, while he passes over the illustrious deeds he was about to achieve! He might have told, had he wished it, all his successes, but he mentions none of these and stepping with one word over a vast expanse, he says merely, ''I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; "' and, ''they had heard, that he, which once persecuted us, now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc.''
The purpose of the words, <<] was unknown to the Churches of Judza,"' is to show, that so far from preaching to them the necessity of circumcision, he was not known to them even by sight.
Ver.
19.
'* But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James," the Lord's brother."'
See what great friends he was with Peter especially ; on his account he left his home, and with him he tarried.
This I frequently repeat, and desire you to remember, that no one, when he hears what this Apostle seems to have spoken against Peter, may conceive a suspicion of him.
He premises this, that when he says, ''I resisted Peter,'' no one may suppose that these words imply enmity and contention; for he honored and loved his person more than all and took this journey for his sake only, not for any of the others.
<< But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James.''
'J saw him merely, I did not learn from him,'' he Ver. 24.
'' And they glorified God in me."'
See here again how accurately he observes the rule of his humility; he says not, they admired me, they applauded or were astonished at me, but ascribes all to Divine grace by the words, ''they glorified God in me.'' means.
But observe how honorably he mentions him, he says not ''James'' merely, but adds this illustrious title, so free ishe from all envy.
Had he only wished to point out whom he meant, he might have shown this by another
[And yet it was not long enough to have allowed his receiving his doctrine and Gospel from Peter.
Besides he had already been preaching three years.—G. A.
3(Compare John xix: 25 with Matt. xxvii: 56. But see Lightfoot's learned and exhaustive essay on '' The Brethren of the Lord, Com. on Gad. pp. 88—127, and Schaff, Church History,\, Ager h aoe ad
2«Thus this James is distinguished from the circle of the twelve q1 Cor. xv. 8.) to which Peter belonged but included in the 4(Compare Acts ix: 30, where Luke says the brethren took Pau to Caesarea, and thence despatched him to Tarsus (in Cilicia.-G. A. ] number of Apostles in the wider sense, which explains the merely supplementary mention of this Apostle.'""—Meyer. i
CH:
AtP TE: Re <P VERSE I-2. to still harbor this suspicion, when it was the grace of the Spirit which drew him? On this account he added the words '' by revelation," lest, before the question was solved, he should be condemned of folly; well knowing that it was no human occurrence, but a deep Divine
Providence concerning the present and future.
What then is the reason of this journey of his?
As when he went up before from Antioch to Jerusalem, it was not for hisown sake, (for he saw clearly that his duty was simply to obey the doctrines of Christ,) but from a desire to reconcile the contentious; so now his object was the complete satisfaction of his accusers, not any wish of his own to learn that he had not run in vain.
'They conceived that Peter and John, of whom they thought more highly than of Paul, differed from him in that he ommitted circumcision in his preaching, while the former allowed it, and they believed that in this he acted unlawfully, and was running in vain.
I went up, says he, and communicated unto them my Gospel, not that I might learn aught myself,
"Then after the space of fourteen years,! I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me.
And I went up by revelation."
His first journey was owing to his desire to visit Peter, his second, he says, arose from a revelation of the Spirit.
Ver. 2. '¢And I laid before them the Gospel which I «preach among the Gentiles, but privately before them who were of repute, lest by any means I should be running or had run, in vain.''
What is this, O Paul! thou who neither at the beginning nor after three years wouldest confer with the Apostles, dost thou now confer with them, after fourteen years are past, lest thou shouldest be running in vain ? Better would it have been to have done so at first, than after so many years ; and why didst thou run at all, if not satisfied that thou wert not running in vain? Who would be so senseless as to preach for so many years, without being sure that his preaching was true?
And what enhances the difficulty is, that he says he went up by revelation; this difficulty, however, will afford a solution of the former one. Had he gone up of hisown accord, it would have been most unreasonable, nor is it possible that this blessed soul should have fallen into such folly ; for it is himself who says, ''I therefore so run, as not uncertainly ; so fight I, as not beating the air.' (1 Cor. ix: 26.)
If therefore he runs, ''not uncertainly,'' how can he say, ''lest I should be running, or had run, in vain?"' It is evident from this, that if he had gone up without a revelation, he would have committed an act of folly.
But the actual case involved no such absurdity ; who shall dare (as appears more clearly further on,) but that I might convince these suspicious persons that I do not run in vain.
The Spirit forseeing this contention had provided that he should go up and make this communication.
Wherefore he says that he went up by revelation, 7 and, taking Barnabas and Titus as witnesses of his preaching, communicated to them the Gospel which he preached to the Gentiles, that is, with the omission of circumcision.
'' But privately before them who were of repute."'
What means ' privately ?'' Rather, he who wishes to reform doctrines held in common, proposes them, not privately, but before all in common ; but Paul did this privately, for his object was, not to learn or reform any thing, but to cut off the grounds of those who would fain deceive.
All at Jerusalem were offended, if the law was transgressed, or the use of circumcision forbidden ; as James says, '' Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them which have believed ; and they
1(«*The Acts mention five such journeys after his conversion:
(1.)-ix : 23 (Comp. Gal. i: 18.) (2. ex 230; xii: 25. (3.)-xv:
2, the journey to the Apostolic Council, A, D, 50 or 51. (4).-x viii :22, the journey in 54. (5.)— xxi: 15 (Comp. Ro. 15: 25 ff.) the last journey when he was made a pardonerand sent to Caesarea in 58.
The first of these journeys cannot be meant on account of Gal, i: 18, The second is excluded by the chronoligical date of Gal. ii: 1, for as it took place during the famine of Palestine in the year of Herod's death, A. D 44, it would put the commission of Paul back to the year 30, which is much too early.
There is no good reason, why Paul should have mentioned this second journey.
The fifth journey cannot be meant for it took place after the composition of Epistle to Galatians and after dispersion of Apostles.
Nor can we think of the fourth journey which was transient, norwas Barnabas with him on that journey, Acts xv: 39.
So the journey here mentioned is the same as that of Acts xv: 2, Thistook place soor 51, i. e., fourteen years after his conversion, 37.—Schaff in Pop. Com, —G. A.] 2('In St. Luke's narrative (Acts xv: 2.) he is said to have been sent by the Church at Antioch.
The revelation either prompted or confirmed the decision of the Church,''—Lightfoot.—G. A.] wl
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
CHAPTER II. ]
authoritatively given butan indulgence to their incontinence ; as he says, '' for your incontinency."'
Would you know Paul's sentence in this matter? hear his words, ''I would that all men were even as I myself,''(1 Cor. vii:7.) incontinence.
And so here, the Apostles made this concession, not as vindicating the law, but as condescending to the infirmities of Judaism.
Had they been vindicating the law, they would not have preached to the Jews in one way, and to the Gentiles in another.
Had the observance been necessary for unbelievers, then indeed it would plainly have likewise been necessary for all the faithful.
But by their decision not to harass the Gentiles on this point, they showed that they permitted it by way of condescension to the Jews.
Whereas the purpose of the false brethren was to cast them out of grace, and reduce them under the yoke of slavery again.
'This is the first difference, and a very wide one.
'The second is, that the Apostles so acted in Judzea, where the Law was in force, but the false brethren, every where, for all the Galatians were influenced by them.
Whence it appears that their intention was, not to build up, but entirely to pull down the Gospel, and that the thing was permitted by the Apostles on one ground and zealously practiced by the false brethren on another.
Ver. 4.
''Who came in privily to spy out our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage.'' are informed of thee, that thou teachest to forsake the law.'' (Acts xxi: 20, et seq.)
Since then they were offended he did not condescend to come forward publicly and declare what his preaching was, but he conferred privately with those who were of reputation before Barnabas and Titus, that they might credibly testify to his accusers, ! that the Apostles found no discrepancy in his preaching, but confirmed it.
The expression, ''those that were of repute,''
(toig doxodcty) does not impugn the reality of their greatness ; for he says of himself, '' And I also seem (dox@) to have the Spirit of God,'' thereby not denying the fact, but stating it modestly.
And here the phrase implies his own assent to the common opinion.
Ver. 3. '* But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, ? was compelled to be circumcised."'
What means, ''being a Greek?"'
Of Greek extraction, and not circumcised ; for not only did I so preach but Titus so acted, nor did the Apostles compel him to be circumcised.
A plain proof this that the Apostles did not condemn Paul's doctrine or his practice.
Nay more, even the urgent representations of the adverse party, who were aware of these facts, did not oblige the Apostles to enjoin circumcision, as appears by his own words, —
Werrmasrt that' because of 'the: false brethren, privily brought in."'
He points out their hostility by calling them spies ; for the sole object of a spy is to obtain for himself facilities of devastation and destruction, by becoming acquainted with his adversary's position.
And this is what those did, who wished to bring the disciples back to their old servitude.
Hence too appears how very contrary their purpose was to that of the Apostles; the latter made concessions that they might gradually' extricate them from their servitude, but the former plotted to subject them to one more severe.
Therefore they looked round and observed accurately and made themselves busybodies to find out who were uncircumcised ; as Paul says, ''they came in privily to spy out our liberty,'' thus pointing out their machinations not only by the term ''spies,'' but by this expression of a furtive entrance and creeping in Here arises a very important question, Who were these false brethren? * If the Apostles permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, why are those who enjoined it, in acccordance with the Apostolic sentence, to be called false brethren ?
First; because there is a difference between commanding an act to be done, and allowing it after itis done.
He who enjoins an act, does it with zeal as necessary, and of primary importance; but he who, without himself commanding it, alloweth another to do it who wisnes yields not from a sense of its being necessary but in order to subserve some purpose.
We have a similar instance, in Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, in his command = to husbands and wives to come togetheragain.
To which, that he might not be thought to be legislating for them, he subjoins, '' But this I say by way of permission, not of commandment."'
(x Cor. vil: 5.) For this was not a judgment Ver. 5.
'*To whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour.''4
Observe the force and emphasis of the phrase ; he says not, '' by argument," but, ''by subjection,''for their object was not to teach good doctrine, but to subjugate and enslave them.
(That is, that Barnabas and Titus as witnesses of the proceedings might testify to the Judaizing teachers everywhere, &c.-G.A. ]
2 [Being ''a Greek ;"'
Lightfoot says this is a ''causal'"' participial clause giving the ''reason'? why Titus was not circumcised ; because he was a Greek and nota Jew or part Jewas Timothy was,
Schaff makes it a ''concessive"' clause; although he was aGreek, that is, a heathen. Farrar in Life and Work of Paul(233-6)claims that Titus zvas circumcised but not compelled to be.
This however cannot be held in view of the context and the position of the words in the sentence.—G. A.
4 ('* Had we consented to the suggestion to circumcise Titus, we should thereby have yielded to the false brethren standing in the background, who declared the circumcision of Gentile Christians to be necessary (Acts xv: 5.) ; but this did not at all take place."—
Me yer.—G. A.] 3 ('These were formerly Pharisees ( Acts xv: 5.) and werestill so in spirit although they professed Christianity and were baptized."
Schaff in Pop. Com.—G. A.]
WORKS OF ST.
[ CHAPTER II.
GHRYSOSL OM: to be somewhat,? (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man's person.
)''
Here he not only does not defend the Apostles, but even presses hard upon those holy men, for the benefit of the weak.
His meaning is this: although they permit circumcision, they shall render an account to God, for God will not accept their persons, because they are great and in station. But he does not speak so plainly, but with caution.
He says not, if they vitiate their doctrine, and swerve from the 'appointed rule of their preaching, they shall be judged with the utmost rigor, and suffer punishment ; but he alludes to them more reverently, in the words, '' of those who were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were.''
He says not, Wherefore, says he, we yielded to the Apostles, but not to these.
Ver. 5. '' That the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.''!
That we may confirm, says he, by our deeds what we have already declared by words,— namely, that the '' old things are passed away, behold they are become new;'' and that ''if any man isin Christ he is a new creature ;'' (2
Cor. v: 17.) and that ''if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.' (Gal. v:
2.) In maintaining this truth we gave place not even for an hour.
'Then, as he was directly met by the conduct of the Apostles, and the reason of their enjoining the rite would probably be asked, he proceeds to solve this objection.
This he does with great skill, for he does not give the actual reason, which was, that the Apostles acted by way of condescension and in the use of a scheme, (¢éexovopta) as it were; for otherwise his hearers would have been injured. For those, who are to derive benefit from a scheme should be unacquainted with the design of it; all will be undone, if this appears.
Wherefore, he who is to take part in it should know the drift of it; those who are to benefit by it should not.
To make my meaning more evident, I will take an example from our present subject.
The blessed Paul himself, who meant to abrogate circumcision, when he was about to send Timothy to teach the Jews, first circumcised him and so sent him.
This he did, that his hearers might the more readily receive him ; he began by circumcising, that in the end he might abolish it.
But this reason he imparted to Timothy only, and told it not to the disciples.
Had they known that the very purpose of his circumcision was the abolition of the rite, they would never | have listened to his preaching, and the whole benefit would have been lost.
But now their ignorance was of the greatest use to them, for their idea that his conduct proceeded from a regard to the Law, led them to receive both him | and his doctrine with kindness and courtesy, and having gradually received him, and become instructed, they abandoned their old customs.
Now this would not have happened had they known his reasons from the first ; for they would have turned away from him, and being turned away would not have given him a hearing, and not hearing, would have continued in their former error.
'Toprevent this, he did not disclose his reasons; here too he does not explain the occasion of the scheme, (o?xovoyéa) but shapes his discourse differently ; thus:
'¢ whatsoever they 'are,''' but '' were,'' showing that they too had thenceforth? ceased so to preach, the doctrine having extended itself universally. The phrase, '' whatsoever they were,"' implies, that if they so preached they should render account, for they had to justify themselves before God, not beforemen.
This he said, not as doubtful or ignorant of the rectitude of their procedure, but (as I said before) from a sense of the expediency of so forming his discourse.
Then, that he may not seem to take the opposite side and to accuse them, and so create a suspicion of their disagreement, he straightway subjoins this correction:
'' for those who were reputed to be somewhat, in conference imparted nothing to me.''
This is his meaning ; What you may say, I know not; this I know well, that the Apostles did not oppose me, but our sentiments conspired and accorded.
'This appears from his expression, '' they gave me the right hand of fellowship ;'' but he does not say this at present, but only that they neither informed or corrected him on any point, nor added to his knowledge.
Ver. 6.
'' For those who were reputed to be somewhat, imparted nothing to me: "'
That is to say, when told of my proceedings, they added nothing, they corrected nothing, and though aware that the object of my journey was to communicate with them, that I had come by revelation of the Spirit, and that I had
Titus with me who was uncircumcised, they neither circumcised him, nor imparted to me any additional knowledge.
Ver. 7. '* But contrariwise."'
2 (Lightfoot says, '' The expression is depreciatory here, not indeed of the twelve themselves but of the extravagant and exclusive claims set up for them by the Judaizers.'?
So also Dr. Schaff.
"The addition of ru efvac and dmovoe betrays a certain irritation in reference to the opponents who would not concede Paul an estimation given to the original Apostles.'"-—Meyer.—G. A.
Ver. 6.
'* But from those who were reputed 3 (It is entirely in opposition to the context that Chrysostom
Theophylact and Jerome refer this to the earlier teaching of the Apostles, making Paul say that whether at an earlier date they had been Judaizers or not was to him a matter of indifference.''—
1 [In order that by our conduct the principle of Christian freedom should not be shaken and ye should not be induced to deviate from thetruth of the Gospel by mixing it up with Mosaism.'"'—
Meyer.—G., A.] Meyer.—G. A.]
CHAPTER II.]
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
Some hold his meaning to be, not only that the Apostles did not instruct him, but that they were instructed by him.
But I would not say this, for what could they, each of whom was each was the same.
After he had established the proof of their unanimity, he takes courage, and proceeds confidently in his argument, not stopping at the Apostles, but advances to Christ
Himself, and to the grace which He had conferred upon him, and calls-the Apostles as his witnesses, saying, himself perfectly instructed, have learnt from him?
He does not therefore intend this by the expression, '' contrariwise,'' but that so far were they from blaming, that they praised him: for praise is the contrary of blame.
Some would probably herereply : Why did not the Apostles, if they praised your procedure, as the proper consequence abolish circumcision?! Now to assert that they did abolish it Paul considered much too bold, and inconsistent with his own admission.
On the other hand, to admit that they had sanctioned circumcision, would necessarily expose him to another objection.
For it would be said, if the Apostles praised your preaching, yet sanctioned circumcision, they were inconsistent with themselves.
What then is the solution ? is he to say that they acted thus out of condescension to Judaism?
'To say this would have shaken the very foundation of the economy. Whereforehe leaves the subject in susVer. g. '' And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.''3
He says not when they '' heard,'' but when they ''perceived,'' that is, were assured by the facts themselves, ''they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.''
Observe how he gradually proves that his doctrine was ratified both by Christ and by the Apostles. For grace would neither have been implanted, nor been operative in him, had not his preaching been approved by Christ.
Where it was for the purpose of comparison with himself, he mentioned Peter alone; here, when be calls them as witnesses, he names the three together, pense and uncertainty, by the words, '' but of those who were reputed to be somewhat; it
'« Cephas, James, John,'' and with an encomium, '' who were reputed to be pillars.''
Here again the expression '' who were reputed'' does not impugn the reality of the fact, but adopts the estimate of others, and implies that these great and distinguished men, whose fame was universal, bare witness that his preaching was ratified by Christ, that they were practically informed and convinced by experience concerning it.
'* Therefore they gave the right hands of fellowship'' to me, and not to me only, but also to Barnabas, '' that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the Circumcision.''
Here indeed is éxceeding prudence as well as an incontrovertible proof of their concord.
For it shows that his and their doctrine was intermaketh no matter to me.'"'
Which is in effect to say, I accuse not, nor traduce those holy men; they know what it is they have done; to God must they render their account.
What I am desirous to prove is, that they neither reversed nor corrected my procedure, nor added to it as in their opinion defective, but gave it their approbation and assent ; and to this Titus and Barnabas bear witness.
'Then he adds, Ver. 7. 'When they saw that I had been entrusted with the Gospel of the Uncircumcision even as Peter with the Gospel of the Circcumcision?, '?—
The Circumcision and Uncircumcision ; meaning, not the things themselves, but the nations known by these distinctions ; wherefore he adds, changeable, and that both approved the same thing, that they should so preach to the Jews, and he to the Gentiles.
Wherefore he adds, Ver. 9. '' That we should go unto the Gentiles and they unto the Circumcision.''4
Ver. 8. '' For He that wrought for Peter unto the Apostleship of the Circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles.''
Observe that here also he means by '' the Circumcision,'"' not the rite, but the Jews; whenever he speaks of the rite, and wishes to contrast it, he adds the word '' uncircumcision;"' as when he says, ''For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law; but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision."' (Ro. ii: 25.)
And again, '' Neither circumcision availeth any He calls the Gentiles the Uncircurncision and the Jews the Circumcision, and declares his own rank to be equal to that of the Apostles ; and, by comparing himself with their Leader not with the others, he shows that the dignity of 1 [They did virtually abolish circumcision by the decree of 'the council at Jerusalem as is shown in the account in (Acts xv.)
And the failure of the effort to have Titus circumcised shows that the account in Gal. ii has nothing inconsistent with that decree.
'This as to Gentiles.
The question did not concern ocr who were already circumcised in infancy except in cases like that of Timothy where circumcision had been neglected.
His case Paul himself decided without any consultation with others.—G. A.
3{"'If there had been a real conflict in doctrine, the Apostles would not have given Paul their hand, and Paul would have refused them his.""—G.A.
2 ('This passage cannot be worse misunderstood than it has been by Baur according to whom there wasa special Gospel of the uncircumcision and a special gospel of the circumcision, one maintaining the necessity of circumcision, the other allowing it to drop."—
'("* There was no difference of doctrine or gospel, but only a division of territory, and how little Paul considered his apostolic call to the 'Gentiles' as excluding the conversion of the Jews from his operations may be seen from such passages as x Cor. ix:
20; Ro. i: 16; ix: 1; xi: 14.'""—Meyer.—G. A.] Meyer.—G. A.] —_——————————_ a
WORKSIOF SP.
[CHAPTER II.
CHRYSOSTOM.
from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcisions, thing, nor uncircumcision.''?
But when it is to the Jews and not to the deed that he gives this name, and wishes to signify the nation, he opposes to it not uncircumcision in its literal sense, but the Gentiles.
For the Jews are the contradistinction to the Gentiles, the Circumcision to the Uncircumcision.
Thus when he says above, ''For He that wrought for Peter into the Apostleship of the Circumcision, wrought for me also unto the Gentiles ;'' and again, ''We unto the Gentiles and they unto the Circumcision,'' he means not the rite itself, but the Jewish nation, thus distinguishing them from the Gentiles.
Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy.
But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it;? we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers.
But first a word must be said about Peter's freedom in speech, and how it was ever his way to outstrip the other disciples.
Indeed it was upon one such occasion that he gained his name from the unbending and impregnable charactér of his faith.
For when all were interrogated in common, he stepped before the others and answered,
Ver. 10. '¢Only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do."'
'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.'' (Mat. xvi: 16.) This was when the.keys of heaven were committed to him.
So too, he appears to have been the only speaker on the Mount; (Mat. xvii: 4.) and when Christ spoke of His crucifixion, and the others kept silence, he said, '' Be it far from Thee.'' (Mat. xvi: 22.)
These words evince, if not a cautious temper, at least a fervent love; and in all instances we find him more vehement than the others, and rushing forward into danger.
So when Christ was seen on the beach, and the others were This is his meaning:
In our preaching we divided the world between us, I took the Gentiles and they the Jews, according to the Divine decree ; but to the sustenance of the poor among the Jews I also contributed my share, which, had there been any dissension between us, they would not have accepted.
Next, who were these poor persons?
Many of the believing Jews in Palestine had been deprived of all their goods, and scattered over the world, as he mentions in the Epistle to the Hebrews!,"' '' For ye took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions ;'' and in writing to the Thessalonians, (1 Thes. ii:
| pushing the boat in, he was too impatient to wait for its coming to land. (John xxi: 7.) And after the Resurrection, when the Jews were murderous and maddened, and sought to tear the Apostles in pieces, he first dared to come forward, and to declare, that the Crucified was taken up into heaven. (Acts ii: 14, 36.) It isa greater thing to open a closed door, and to commence an action, than to be free-spoken afterwards.
How could he ever dissemble who had exposed his life to such a populace?
He who when scourged and bound would not bate a jot of his courage, and this at the beginning of his mission, and in the heart of the chief city where there was so much danger,—how could he, long afterwards in Antioch, where no danger was at hand, and his character had received lustre from the testimony of his actions, feel any apprehension of the believing Jews?
How could he, I say, who at the very first and in their chief city feared not the Jews while
Jews, after a long time and in a foreign city, fear those of them who had been converted ?
Paul therefore does not speak this against Peter, but with the same meaning in which he said,
14.) he extols their fortitude, '' Ye became imitators of the Churches of God which are in Judzea, .
. for ye also suffered the same thing of your own countrymen, even as they did of the Jews.''
And he shows throughout that those Greeks who believed were not under persecution from the rest, such as the believing
Jews were suffering from their own kindred, for there is no nation of a temper so cruel. Wherefore he exercises much zeal, as appears in the Epistles to the Romans (Ro. xv: 25—27.) and Corinthians (1 Cor. xvi: 13.) that these persons should meet with much attention; and Paul not only collects money for them, but himself conveys it, as he says, '' But now I go unto Jerusalem ministering unto the saints,'' (Ro. xv: 25.) for they were without the necessaries
' of life. And he here shows that in this instance having resolved to assist them, he had undertaken and would not abandon it.
Having by these means declared the unanimity and harmony between the Apostles and himself, he is obliged to proceed to mention his debate with Peter at Antioch.
'¢for they who were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me.''?
But to remove any doubt on this point, we must unfold the reason of these expressions.
Ver.
11, 12.
''But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came
The Apostles, as I said before, permitted cir- *(Hebrews x: 34 [This is interesting as showing that Chrysostom attributed the Epistle to the Hebrews to St. Paul, though most modern critics do not agree with him in that view.—G. A.)
® , .
~ ~ ~ .
- ~ 9 [aAX' odK Eore TadTa, OvK éoTLW dmaye.—G. A.]
CHAPTER II. ]
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
the discerning, that he uses them in pursuance of the plan, (¢éexovoptas) and not from anger. cumcision at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being practicable; but when they come to Antioch, they no longer continued this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles which thing Peter also was at that time doing.
But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him.!
For had he, having allowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusalem, changed his course at Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those Jews to proceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of pliancy.
And this would have created no small offence; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted.
Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter sunmits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over.
Without this occurrence Paul's exhortation would have had little effect, but the occasion hereby afforded of delivering a severe reproof, impressed Peter's disciples with a more lively fear. Had Peter disputed Paul's sentence, he might justly have been blamed as upsetting the plan, but now that the one reproves and the other keeps silence, the Jewish party are filled with serious alarm; and this is why he used
Peter so severely.
Observe too Paul's careful choice of expressions, whereby he points out to His words are, '' When Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned; '' that is, not by me but by others; had he himself condemned him, he would not have shrunk from saying so.
And the words, <'T resisted him to the face,'' imply a scheme for had their discussion been real, they would not have rebuked each other in the presence of the disciples, for it would have been a great stumblingblock to them.
But now this apparent contest was much to their advantage; as Paul had yielded to the Apostles at Jerusalem, so in turn they yield to him at Antioch.
The cause of censure is this, '' For before that certain came from James,'' who was the teacher at Jerusalem, '' he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the Circumcision: '' his cause of fear was not his own danger, (for if he feared not in the beginning, much less would he do so then, ) but their defection.
As Paul himself says to the Galatians, <¢T am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain:'' (Gal. iv: bP) 11.) and again, ''I fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve, .
. so your minds should be corrupted.''
(2 Cor. xi: 3.) Thus the fear of death they knew not, but the fear lest their disciples should perish, agitated their inmost soul.
Ver. 13. ''Insom.ch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation."'
Be not surprised at his giving this proceeding the name of dissimulation, for he is unwilling, as I said before, to disclose the true state of the case, in order to the correction of his disciples.
On account of their vehement attachment to 1S. Jerome adopts the interpretation given inthe text, viz. that S.
Peter's dissimulation was no sin, but intended as an opportunity for S. Paul to declare the freedom of the Gentiles from the Jewish
Law.
On the other hand, S. Austin considers that heacted through wrong motives, and sinned in dissembling.
In this opinion he is supported by Tertullian, S. Cyprian S. Cyril, of Alexandria, S.
Gregory and Ambrosiaster.
(Hieron. 22 @oc, e¢ alz6z. August. de Bapt. contr. Donatist. ii. 2. de Mendactio 8. Tertull. de Prescript. 23. 2m Mare. iv. 3. v. 3. Cyprian, Zp. ad Quint. 71. Cyril.
Alex. 7x ¥udian. ix. fin. Gregor. zx Ezech. ii. Hom. 6,9.
Ambrosiast. zz @oc.) S. Austin is influenced in his judgment of the transaction by an anxiety lest disingenuousness and duplicity should receive countenance from the apparent example of an Apostle ; S. Chrysostom and S, Jerome by affectionate reverence for the memory of so great a benefactor and so exalted a saint.
Vid. Justinian, z7 Zoco.
| the Law, he calls the present proceeding ' dissimulation,'' and severely rebukes it, in order effectually to eradicate their prejudice.
And Peter too, hearing this joins in the feint, as if he had erred, that they might be corrected by means of the rebuke administered to him.
Had Paul reproved these Jews, they would have spurned at it with indignation, for they held him in slight esteem; but now, when they saw their Teacher silent under rebuke, they were unable to despise or resist Paul's sentence.
| {In earlier life Chrysostom had himself practised such a '*scheme,"'? as that which he here attributes to Paul.
In order to induce his friend Basil to be consecrated as a bishop he made on him the (false) impression that he himself had already been consecrated. ] Neander (Life of Chrysostom p. a) says: ''In the first book of his work on thePriesthood Chrysostom defends the principle that a falsehood is permitted for a good object.
An invention which has for its sole object the advantage of another is rather an oixovopmia, (the word he uses in expounding our passage.) This lax view respecting truth was not peculiar to Chrysostom but was consonant with the prevailing spirit of the Eastern Church.
There were a few exceptions however to this view, among whom were John of Lycopolis in Egypt, and Basil of Caesarea who says tov xuplov S:adhopav Wevdous ovdenatv expyvavtos.
Schaff says (Prolegomena p. 8):
'Origen, Jerome and Chrysostom explain the offense of this collision away by turning it into a theatrical and hypocritical farce, shrewdly arranged by the Apostle fora purpose.
In this respect the modern standard of ethics is far superior to that of the Fathers and more fully accords with the spirit of the New Testament.''
[We may add that Chrysostom's view gains nothing; for to save one Apostle from the charge of unpremeditated hypocrisy, he makes both guilty of premeditated hypocrisy.—G. A.] Ver. 14.
'* But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel."'
Neither let this phrase disturb you, for in using it he does not condemn Peter, but so expresses himself for the benefit of those who were to be reformed by the reproof of Peter.
Ver. 14. ''I said unto Cephas before them allen, Observe his mode of correcting the others ;
WORKS OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM.
[CHAPTER II.
These words are hortatory, but are couched in the form of a reproof, on account of those
Jews.
So elsewhere, under cover of one meaning he conveys another ; as where he says in his
Epistle to the Romans, '' But now I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints.'' (Rom. xv:
25.) Here his object was not simply to inform them of the motive of his journey to Jerusalem, but to excite them to emulation in the giving of alms.
Had he merely wished to explain his motive, it would have sufficed to say, ''I1 go to ministering unto the saints;"' but now observe what he says in addition ; '' For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem.
Yea, it hath been their good pleasure and their debtors they are.'' And again, '' For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them, also to minister unto them in carnal things.'' (Rom. xv: 26, 27.) he speaks '' before them all,'' that the hearers might be alarmed thereby.
And this is what he says, — Ver. 14. ''Ifthou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not asdo the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ?''!
But it was the Jews and not the Gentiles who were carried away together with Peter; why then does Paul impute what was not done, instead of directing his remarks, not against the Gentiles, but against the dissembling Jews?
And why does he accuse Peter alone, when the rest also dissembled together with him?
Let us consider the terms of his charge; '' If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?'' for in fact Peter alone had withdrawn himself.
His object then is to remove suspicion from his rebuke; had he blamed Peter for observing the Law, the Jews would have censured him for his _ boldness towards their Teacher.
But now arraigning him in behalf of his own peculiar disciples, I mean the Gentiles, he facilitates thereby the reception of what he has to say; which he also does by abstaining from reproof of the others, and 'addressing it all to the Apostle.
''If thou,' he says, '' being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not asdo the Jews ;'' which almost amounts to an explicit exhortation to imitate their Teacher, who, himself a Jew, lived after the manner of the Gentiles.
'This however he says not, for they could not have received such advice, but under color of reproving him in behalf of the Gentiles, he discloses Peter's real sentiments.
On the other hand, if he had said, Wherefore do you compel these Jews to Judaize P his language would have been too severe.
But now he effects their correction by appearing to espouse the part, not of the Jewish, but of the Gentile, disciples; for rebukes, which are moderately severe, secure the readiest reception.
And none of the Gentiles could object to Paul that he took up the defense of the Jews.
The whole difficulty was removed by Peter's submitting in silence to the imputation of dissimulation, in order that he might deliver the Jews from its reality.
At first Paul directs his argument to the character which Peter wore,.
'' If thou, being a Jew:'' but he generalizes as he goes on, and includes himself in the phrase,!
Observe how he represses the high thoughts of the Jews; preparing for one thing by means of another, and his language is authoritative.
'sWe being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles."'
The phrase, '' Jews by nature,'' implies that we, who are not proselytes, but educated from early youth in the Law, have relinquished our habitual mode of life, and betaken ourselves to the faith which is in Christ.
Ver. 16.
'' Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, save through faith, in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ
Jesus."' ee Observe here too how cautiously he expresses himself; he does not say that they had abandoned the Law as evil, but as weak.
If the law cannot confer righteousness, it follows that circumcision is superfluous; and so far he now proves; but he proceeds to show that it is not only superfluous but dangerous.
It deserves especial notice, how at the outset he says that a man is not justified by the works of the Law ; but as he proceeds he speaks more strongly ;
Ver.
17.
'* But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners is Christ a minister of sin?"
If faith in Him, says he, avail not for our justification, but it be necessary again to embrace the Law, and if, having forsaken the Law for Christ's sake, we are not justified but condemned for such abandonment,—then shall we find Him, for whose sake we forsook the Law and went over to faith the author of our condemnation.
Observe how, he has Ver. 15.
'*' We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.''?
—————— 1. [For the bearing of this passage upon the TiiBingen theory of Baur, "the most important of recent theological controvrrsies" see Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians, Excursus on St. Paul and the Three, pp. 191 ff., and Fisher's Sufernatural Origin of Christianity, pp. 205-ff.—G. A.] 3(« Thus to be justified in Christ, it was necessary to sink to the level of Gentiles, to become 'sinners' in fact.
But are we not thus making Christ a minster of sin ? Away with the profane thought!
No, the guilt is not in abandoning the Law, but in seeking it again when abandoned.
Thus alone we convict ourselves of transgression.
On the other hand in abandoning the Law we did but follow the promptings of the Law.""
Lightfoot.—G, A.] 2 [Schaff says: ''The following verses to the end of the chapter are a summary report or dramatic sketch of Paul's address to Peter.'"' So also Meyer who gives four good reasons for this view.
So also Schmoller (in pangs and Ellicott.
Others think that vv, 15-21 are addressed to the Galatians.—G. A.] ——— a
CHAPTER II.]
HOMILIES ON GALATIANS.
makes you fear condemnation, this fear attaches equally to all the parts.
If a transgression of the whole is not punishable, much less is the transgression of a part; on the other hand, if the latter be punishable, much more is the former.
But if we are bound to keep the whole, we are bound to disobey Christ, or by obedience to Him become transgressors of the Law.
If it ought to be kept, those who keep it not are transgressors, and Christ will be found to be the cause of this transgression, for He annulled the Law as regards these things Himself, and bid others annul it. Do you not understand what these
Judaizers are compassing?
'They would make Christ, who is to us the Author of righteousness, the Author of sin, as Paul says, '' Therefore Christ is the minister of sin.''
Having thus reduced the proposition to an absurdity, he had nothing further to do by way of overthrowing it, but was satisfied with the simple protestation, resolved the matter to a necessary absurdity.
And mark how earnestly and strongly he argues.
For if, he says, it behooved us not to abandon the Law, and we have so abandoned it for Christ's sake, we shall be judged.
Wherefore do you urge this upon Peter, who is more intimately acquainted with it than any one?
Hath not God declared to him, that an uncircumcised man ought not to be judged by circumcision ; and did he not in his discussion with the Jews rest his bold opposition upon the vision which he saw?
Did he not send from Jerusalem unequivocal decrees upon this subject?
Paul's object is not therefore to correct Peter, but his animadversion required to be addressed to him, though it was pointed at the disciples ; and not only at the Galatians, but also at others who labor under the same error with them.
For though few are now circumcised, yet, by fasting and observing the sabbath with the Jews, they equally exclude themselves from grace.
If Christ avails not to those who are only circumcised, much more is peril to be feared where fasting and _ sabbatizing are observed, and thus two commandments of the Law are kept in the place of one.
And this is aggravated by a consideration of time: for they so acted at first while the city and temple and other institutions yet existed; but these who with the punishment of the Jews, and the destruction of the city before their eyes,! observe more precepts of the Law than the others did, what apology can they find for such observance, at the very time when the Jews themselves, in spite of their strong desire, cannot keep it?
Thou hast put on Christ, thou hast become a member of the Lord, and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and dost thou still grovel in the Law?
How is it possible for thee to obtain the kingdom?
Listen to Paul's words, that the observance of the Law overthrows the Gospel, and learn, if thou wilt, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall.
Wherefore dost thou keep the sabbath, and fast with the Jews?
Is it that thou fearest the Law and abandonment of its letter?
But thou wouldest not entertain this fear, didst thou not disparage Ver. 17. ''God forbid:'' for shamelessness and irreverence need not be met by processes of reasoning, but a mere protest is enough.
Ver. 18.
'*For if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor.''?
Observe the Apostle's discernment ; his opponents endeavored to show, that he who kept not the Law was a transgressor, but he retorts the argument upon them, and shows that he who did keep the Law was atransgressor, not merely of faith, but of the Law itself.
'I build up again the things which I destroyed,"' that is, the Law; he means as follows: the Law has confessedly ceased, and we have abandoned it, and betaken ourselves to the salvation which comes of faith.
But if we make a point of setting it up again, we become by that very act transgressors, striving to keep what what
God has annulled.
Next he shows how it has been annulled.
Ver. 19.
'' For I? through the Law died unto the Law."
This may be viewed in two ways; it is either the law of grace which he speaks of, for he is wont to call this a law, as in the words, '' For the law of the Spirit of life made me free: "' faith as weak, and by itself powerless to save. | (Rom. viii: 2.) or it is the old Law, of which he
A fear to omit the sabbath plainly shows that says, that by the Law itself he has become dead to the Law. That is tosay, the Law itself has taught. me no longer to obey itself, and therefore if Ido so, I shall be transgressing even its teaching. 4 you fear the Law as still in force; and if the Law is needful, it is so as a whole, not in part, nor in one commandment only; and if as a whole, the righteousness which is by faith is little by little shut out.
If thou keep the sabbath, why not also be circumcised ? and if circumcised, why not also offer sacrifices?
If the Law is to be observed, it must be observed as a whole, or not at all.
If omitting one part 9['« I myself (Paul now politely chooses the first person but means Peter) stand convicted of transgression if I build again (as thou dost now at Antioch) the very law of Moses which I pulled down (as thou didst at Cxsarea by divine command and at first at Antioch) and thus condemn my own former conduct.''—Schaft in Pop.Com.—G. A.} 3 ['eyw yap—In my Case the process has been this, using his own experience.—G.
4['* This second interpretation of Chrysostom is undoubtedly the correct one (though he errs in elucidating the relation of éca by referring to Deut. xviii: 15.) comp. Rom. vii: 4,6; The law itself led him to Christ, by developing the sense of sin and the need of | redemption.""—Schaff in Pop. Com.—G. A.]
1[The Epistle to the Galatians was written inthe year A. D. 56 or 57 and the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in A, D. 70.-G, A.]}
WORKS tOrSS 1?
[CHAPTER II.
CHRYSOSTOM.
sin; and as Christ suffered bodily death, so does Paul a death tosin.
'' Mortify,'' says he How, in what way has it so taught?
Moses says, speaking of Christ, '' The Lord God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee of thy brethren, like unto me; unto Him shall ye hearken.'' (Deut. xvili: 15.) Therefore they who do not obey Him, transgress the Law.
Again, the expression, ''I through the Law died unto the Law,'' may be understood in another sense: the Law commands all its precepts to be performed, and punishes the transgressor; therefore we are all dead to it, for no man has fulfilled it.
Here observe, how guardedly he assails it; he says not, '' the Law is dead to me;"' but, '' I am dead to the Law ;'' the meaning of which is, that, as it is impossible for a dead corpse to obey the commands of the Law, so also is it for me who have perished by its curse, for by its word am I slain.
Let it not therefore lay commands on the dead, dead by its own act, dead not in body only, but in soul, which has involved the death of the body.
This he shows in what follows :
«¢ your members which are upon the earth ; fornication, uncleanness, passion ;"' (Col. ili:
5.) and again, ''our old man was crucified,''(Rom. vi: 6.) which took place in the Bath.* After which, if thou remainest dead to sin, thou livest to God, but if thou let it live again, thou art the ruin of thy new life.
This however did not Paul, but continued wholly dead; if then, he says, I live to God a life other than that in the Law, and am dead to the Law, I cannot possibly keep any part of the Law.
Consider how perfect was his walk, and thou wilt be transported with admiration of this blessed soul.
He 'says not), "°F lives buts Christ sliveth in me;'' who is bold enough to utter such words? Paulindeed, who had harnessed himself to Christ's yoke, and cast away all worldly things, and was paying universal obedience to His will, says not, ''I live to Christ,'' but what is far higher, '' Christ liveth in me.''
As sin, when it has the mastery, is itself the vital principle, and leads the soul whither it will, so, when it is slain and the will of Christ obeyed, this life is no longer earthly, but Christ liveth, that is, works, has mastery within us.
His saying, ''l am crucified with Him" '"'I no longer live,''? but ''am dead,'' seeming incredible to many, he adds, Ver. 19, 20. '' That I might live unto God,?I have been crucified with Christ.''
Having said, ''I am dead,"' lest it should be objected, how then dost thou live? he adds the cause of his living, and shows that when alive the Law slew him, but that when dead Christ through death restored him to life.
He shows the wonder to be twofold; that by Christ both the dead was begotten into life, and that by means of death.
He here means the immortal life, for this is the meaning of the words, '"*That I might live unto God I am crucified with Christ.'?!
How, it is asked, can a man now living and breathing have been crucified ?
That Christ hath been crucified is manifest, but how canst thou have been crucified, and yet live?
He explains it thus; Ver. 20. '' Yet?I live; and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me."'
Ver. 20.
*' And that life which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God."'
The foregoing, says he, relates to our spiritual life, but this life of sense too, if considered, will be found owing to my faith in Christ.
For as regards the former Dispensation and Law, I had incurred the severest punishment, and had long ago perished, '' for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.'' (Rom. ii:
23.) And we, who lay under sentence, have been liberated by Christ, for all of us are dead, if not in fact, at least by sentence; and He has delivered us from the expected blow.
When the Law had accused, and God condemned us, Christ came, and by giving Himself up to death, rescued us all from death. So that ''the life which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith.'"'
Had not this been, nothing could have averted a destruction as general as that which took place at the flood, but His advent arrested the wrath of God, and caused us to live by faith.
That such is his meaning appears from what follows.
After saying, that ''the life which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith," he adds, In these words, ''I am crucified with Christ,"' he alludes to Baptism,? and in the words ''nevertheless I live, yet not I,'' our subsequent manner of life whereby our members are mortified.
By saying '' Christ liveth in me,'' he means nothing is done by me, which Christ disapproves ; for as by death he signifies not what is commonly understood, but a death to sin; so by life, he signifies a delivery from sin.
For aman cannot live to God, otherwise than by dying to * [" That I might live unto God " is not to be joined to "I have been crucified with Christ '' as Chrysostom, for it belongs to the completeness of the thought introduced by yap ver. 19.—Meyer.—G. A.]
? (This is the rendering of the Rev. Ver; though the American Committee has, '* And it is no longer I that live ;"' and correctly so.
For as Dr. Schaff says, The reading of the Rev. Ver. (and the Author, Ver. too) conveys a beautiful and true idea, but itis grammatically incorrect, since the original has no ''nevertheless'"' and no 'fyet.""
Pop, Com. on Gal. and Companion to the Greek Testatment, Pp. 453.—G. A.] Ver. 20. 'Inthe Son of God, Who loved me, and gave Himself up for me."'
How is this, O Paul! why dost thou appropriate a general benefit, and make thine own what was done for the whole world's sake ? for * [Chrysostom held baptismal regeneration,—G, A.]
CHAPTER III. ]
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
Paul intimates, when he says, speaking about the Jews, ''For what if some were without faith, shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God?
God forbid: yea let God be found true, but every man a liar.'? (Rom. iii:
3, 4.) When He so loved thee as to give Himself up to bring thee who wast without hope to a life so great and blessed, canst thou, thus gifted. have recourse to things gone by?
His reasoning being completed, he concludes with a vehment asseveration, saying, hesays not, '' Who lovedus,'' but, '' Who loved | me.''
And besides the Evangelist says, '* God so loved the world;''
(John iii:
16.) and Paul himself, '' He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up, not for Paul only, but,
''for us all.;'' (Rom. vili: 32.) and again, ''that He might purify unto himself a people for his own possession, (Tit. 11: 14.) But considering the desperate condition of human nature, and the ineffably tender solicitude of Christ, in what He delivered us from, and what He freely gave us, and kindled by the yearning of affecVer. 21. ''I do not make void the grace of tion towards Him, he thus expresses himself. |
God.''3
Thus the Prophets often appropriate to them-; Let those, who even now Judaize and adhere selves Him who is God of all, as in the words, | tothe Law, listen to this, for it applies to them.
'OQ God, thou art my God, early will I seek| Ver. 21.
'For if righteousness is through Thee.'' (Psalm lxiii: 1.) Moreover, this lan-|the Law, then Christ died for naught.'' guage teaches that each individual justly owes as a great debt of gratitude to Christ, as if He had come for his sake alone, for He would not have grudged this His condescension though but for one, so that the measure of His love to each is as great as to the whole world.
'Truly the Sacrifice was offered for all mankind,! and was sufficient to save all, but those who enjoy the blessing are the believing only.
Nevertheless it did not deter Him from His so great condescension, that not all would come; but He acted after the pattern of the supper in the Gospel, which He prepared for all, (Luke xiv: 16.) yet when the guests came not, instead of withdrawing the viands, He called in others.
So too He did not despise that sheep, though one only, which had strayed from the ninety and nine.
(Mat. xviii: 12.) This too in like manner St.
What can be more heinous than this sin? 4 what more fit to put one to shame than these words?
Christ's death isa plain proof of the inability of the Law to justify us; andif it does justify, then 1s His death superfluous.
Yet how could it be reasonable to say that has been done heedlessly and in vain which is so awful, sosurpassing human reason, a mystery so ineffable, with which Patriarchs travailed, which Prophets foretold, which Angels gazed on with consternation, which all men confess as the summit of the Divine tenderness?
Reflecting how utterly out of place it would be if they should say that so great and high a deed had been done superfluously, (for this is what their conduct came to,) he even uses violent language against them, as we find in the words which follow.
Cisbav led loake J3 Gl VERSE I. course more confidently, and draws a comparison between faith and the Law.
At the outset he said, ''I marvel that ye are so quickly removing ;'' (Gal. i: 6.) but here, ''O foolish
Galatians ;'' then, his indignation was in its "QO foolish Galatians,2 who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth, crucified ?"
Here he passes to another subject; in the former chapters he had shown himself not to be an Apostle of men, nor by men, nor in want of Apostolic instruction.
Now, having established his authority as a teacher, he proceeds to dis- = ee side of the life which Paul (from ver. 19) has described as his own.
By this negative, with the grave reason assigned for it in the latter part of the verse, the perverse conduct of Peter is completely condemned.""—Meyer.—G. A.]
. bi This blasphemous inference gives the finishing stroke to the false Judaizing gospel.
1 ('Chrysostom teaches that God foreordained all men to holiness and salvation and that Christ died for all and is both willing and able to save all, but not against their will.'"'—Schaff, Proleg. p. 20.
"This collision between Peter and Paul furnished material to the Ebionites for an attack upon Paul, to the Gnostics for an attack upon the Jewish apostles and to Porphyry for an attack upon Christianity itself [as well as to Baur and the Tiibingen school for an attack in modern times from a different standpoint].
But Christianity has surveyed all these attacks and gains new strength A —G., A.
2 [«« Paul addresses himself again directly to the Galatians with an expression of indignant surprise at their relapse into eta and passes from the historical to the doctrinal part of the Epistle, from the apology of his apostolie authority to the defense of his apostolic teaching.'"'—Schaff in Pop, Com.—G. A.]
] | from every conflict.''—Schaff.—G. A.
WORKS OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM.
[CHAPTER III.
ply defects, but to mutilate what existed.
For envy, far from supplying what is wanting, subtracts from what is complete, and vitiates the whole.
And he speaks thus, not as if envy had any power of itself, but meaning, that the teachers of these doctrines did so from envious motives. birth, but now, after his refutation of the charges against himself, and his proofs, it bursts forth.
Let not his calling them ''foolish'' surprise you; for it is not a transgression of Christ's command not to call one's brother a fool, but rather a strict observance of it.
For it is not said simply, '' Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool,'' (Mat. v: 22.) but, whosoever shall do so, '' without a cause.''!
And who more fittingly than they could so be called, who after so great events, adhered to past things, as if nothing else had ever happened?
If on this account Paul is to be called a ''reviler,'' Peter may likewise, on account of Annanias and Sapphira, be called a homicide; but as it would be wildness to do so in that case, much more in this.
Moreover it is to be considered, that this vehemence is not used at the beginning, but after these evidences and proofs, which, rather than Paul himself, might now be held to administer the rebuke.
For after he had shown that they rejected the faith, and made the death of Christ to be without a purpose, he introduces his reproof, which, even as it is, is less severe than they merited.
Observe too how soon he stays his arm; for he adds not, Who has seduced you? who has perverted you ? who has been sophistical with you? but, '* Who hath cast an envious eye on you?"' thus tempering his reprimand with somewhat of praise.
For it implies that their previous course had excited jealousy,* and that the present occurrence arose from the malignity of a demon, whose breath had blasted their prosperous estate.
Ver. 1.
'* Before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth, crucified."'
Yet was He not crucified in Galatia, but at Jerusalem.
His reason for saying, '' among you,''3 is to declare the power of faith to see events which are atadistance.
He says not, '* crucified,'' but, '' openly set forth crucified,"' signifying that by the eye of faith they saw more distinctly than some who were present as spectators.
For many of the latter received no benefit, but the former, who were not eye-witnesses, yet saw it by faith more clearly.
These words convey both praise and blame; praise, for their implicit acceptance of the truth; blame, because Him whom they had seen, for their sakes, stripped naked, transfixed, nailed to the cross, spit upon, mocked, fed with vinegar, upbraided by thieves, pierced witha spear ;
(for all this is implied in the words, '' openly set forth, crucified,'')* Him had they left, and betaken themselves to the Law, unshamed by any of those sufferings.
Here observe how Paul, leaving all mention of heaven, earth, and sea, every where preaches the power of Christ, bearing about as he did, and holding up His cross: for this is the sum of the Divine love toward us.
Ver 2.
'* This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith? "'
And when you hear of jealousy in this place, and in the Gospel, of an evil eye, which means the same, you must not suppose that the glance of the eye has any natural power to injure those who look upon it.
For the eye, that is, the organ itself, cannot be evil; but Christ in that place means jealousy by theterm.
To behold, simply, is the function of the eye, but to behold in an evil manner belongs to a mind depraved within.
As through this sense the knowledge of visible objects enters the soul, and as jealousy is for the must part generated by wealth, and wealth and sovereignty and pomp are perceived by the eye, therefore he calls the eye evil; not as beholding merély, but as beholding enviously from some moral depravity.
Therefore by the words, '' Who hath looked enviously on you,"' he implies that the persons in question acted, not from concern, not to supAs ye do not attend, says he, to long discourses, nor are willing to contemplate the magnitude of this Economy, I am desirous, (seeing your extreme ignorance,) to convince you by concise arguments and a summary method of proof.
Before, he had convinced them by what he said to Peter; now, he encounters them entirely with arguments, drawn not from what had occurred elsewhere, but from what had happened among themselves.> And his persuasives and proofs are adduced, not merely from what was given them in common with others, but from what was especially conferred on themselves.
'Therefore he says, ''This only would I learn from you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith.''
Ye have received, he says, the Holy Spirit, ye 1{The word eixy, ' without a cause,' occurs in the fexrtus receptus on inferior authority in connection with the words 'whosoever shall be angry with his brother'
(without a cause), but no where with the words, ' whosoever shall say, Thou fool,' as Chrys. here connects them. i, A.
Rie Umcv is 4 SPANO being omitted by Aleph. A. B. C. Nei ca Fathers, and R Ver. as well as by W. and H.—G, ain This signthes the life-like pictorial vivacity and caeclediee of Paul's preaching of Christ and Him crucified.
The Greek verb is ay of placarding public notices and proclamations.''—Schaff.
2 ['* The word means 'to bewitch by words, to enchant,' and is not to be explained with Chrysostom, ' who has envied you?' that is, your previous happy condition ? '"—Meyer.—G. A.]
* [See how effectually he treats the topic from (their own) experience.''—Luther, quoted by Meyer.
G. A.]
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
CHAPTER III.]
have done many mighty works, ye have effected miracles in raising the dead, in cleansing lepers, in prophesying, in speaking with tongues,—did the Law confer this great power upon you? was it not rather Faith, seeing that, before, ye could do no such things? Is it not then the height of madness for these who have received such benefits from Faith, to abandon it, and desert back to the Law which can offer you nothing of the same kind ? vain ;'' if you have but a mind to shake off drowsiness and recover yourselves, he says, it is not in vain. Where then be those who would cut off repentance*?
Here were men who had received the Spirit, worked miracles, become confessors, encountered a thousand perils and persecutions for Christ's sake, and after so many achievements had fallen from grace; nevertheless he says, if ye have the purpose, ye may recover yourselves.
Ver. 3. '' Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?"
Ver. 5. '' He therefore that supplieth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? '"'
Here again he seasonably interposes a rebuke ; time, he says, should have brought improvement; but, so far from advancing, ye have even retrograded.
'Those who start from small beginnings make progress to higher things; ye, who began with the high, have relapsed to the low.
Even had your outset been carnal, your advance should have been spiritual, but now, after starting from things spiritual, ye have ended your journey in that which is carnal ; for to work miracles is spiritual, but to be circumcised is carnal.
And after miracles ye have passed to circumcision, after having apprehended the truth ye have fallen back to types, after gazing on the sun ye seek a candle, after having strong meat ye run for milk.
He says, Have ye been vouchsafed, he says, so great a gift, and achieved such wonders, because ye observed the Law, or because ye adhered to Faith? plainly on account of Faith.
Seeing that they played this argument to and fro, that apart from the Law, Faith had no force, he proves the contrary, viz., that if the Commandments be added, Faith no longer avails; for Faith then has efficacy when things from the Law are not added to it.
'' Ye who would be justified by the Law, ye are fallen away from gracets 7'
(Galievitt'4)) This! hee says: later, when his language has grown bolder, employing the vantage-ground by that time gained ; meanwhile while gaining it, he argues from their past experience.
For it was when ye obeyed Faith, he says, not the Law, that ye received the Spirit and wrought miracles.
'' made perfect,''! which means not ''initiated"' merely, but ''sacrificed,"' signifying that their teachers took and slew them like animals, while they resigned themselves to suffer what those teachers pleased.
As if some eaptain, or distinguished man, after a thousand victories and trophies, were to subject himself to infamy as a deserter, and offer his body to be branded at the will of others.
And here, as the Law was the subject of discussion, he moots another special point of controversy, and very opportunely and with much cogency introduces a notice of Abraham.
Ver. 6. '*Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness."'
Ver. 4. 'Did ye suffer so many things in vain ?? if it be indeed in vain."'
Even the miracles done by themselves, he says, declare the power of Faith, but I shall attempt if you will suffer me to draw my proofs from ancient narratives also.
Then, as they made great account of the Patriarch, he brings his example forward, and shows that he too was justified by Faith.4
And if he who was before grace, was justified by Faith, although plentiful in works, much more we.
For what loss was it to him, not being under the Law?
None, for his faith sufficed unto righteousness.
The Law did not then exist, he says, neither does it now exist, any more than then.
In disproving the need of the Law, he introduces one who was justified before the Law, lest an objection should also be made to him; for as then it was
This remark is far more piercing than the former, for the remembrance of their miracles would not be so powerful as the exhibition of their contests and endurance of sufferings for a Christ's sake.
All that you have endured, says he, these men would strip you of, and would rob you of your crown.
Then, lest he should dismay and unnerve, he proceeds not to a formal judgment, but subjoins, ''if it be indeed in
[This distinction between reAéw and émereAéw was not in the mind of the Apostle.
The contrast with évapédmevor, ' having begun,' shows that ém teAevoOe simply means 'are ye made perfect,'
"the compound involving the idea of bringing to a ' complete and perfect' end."
(Ellicott.) There may be a slight tinge of irony in the compound word.—G. A.] ? [''As we know nothing of persecutions endured by Galatians, it seems preferable to take the word in a neutral sense embracing all spiritual experiences (blessings and benefits as well) of the Galatians. (Comp.v.3 and 6.)''—Schaff, Lightfoot refers it to the persecutions endured by the Galatians from Jews citing Gal. v : 11; and says
"the e¢ ye leaves a loophole for doubt which the cai, following, widens."'
So Ellicott. Meyer says, "It refers toeverything which the false apostles in their Judaistic zeal had troubled and burdened the Galatians with, The etx then means "and all to no profit, all in vain," if indeed it be only (cai) in vain and not to the positive risk of your Messianic salvation that ye have suffered,""—G, A.J
3 The Novatians, who said the revealed covenant of grace did not provide for the case of the lapsed.
4['* The answer, obvious of itself, to the preceding question, is €& axons miatews, 'from the hearing of faith,' and to this Paul subjoins that great religious-historic argument forthe righteousness of faith which is presented in the justification of the progenitor of the theocratic people.''—Meyer.—G. A.] eee ee SC
CHRYSOSTOM.
[ CHAPTER III.
WORKS OF, ST:
necessary to give close attention to what follows.
He had already shown this, by referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, '' In thee shall all nations be blessed,'' (Gen. xii: 4.) at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law ; so he adds by way of conclusion, not yet given, so now, having been given, it was abrogated.
And as they made much of their descent from Abraham, and feared lest, abandoning the Law, they should be considered strangers to his kin; Paul removes this fear by turning their argument against themselves, and proves that faith is especially concerned in connecting them with Abraham.
He draws out this argument more at length in the Epistle to the Romans ; however he urges it also here in, the words, Ver. g. ''So then they which be of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham.''?
Then, that they might not turn round, and object that, true it was Abraham was justified by Faith, for the Law was not then given, but what instance would be found of Faith justifying after the delivery of the Law ? he addresses himself to this, and proves more than they required : namely, not only that Faith was justifying, but that the Law brought its adherents under a curse.
To be sure of this, listen to the very words of the Apostle.
Ver. 7. 'Know therefore, that they which be of faith, the same are sons of Abraham."'
Which he proves by ancient testimony thus:
Ver. 8. '' And the Scripture,! foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying,
In thee shall all the nations be blessed."'
Ver. to.
'' For? as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse."'
If then those were Abraham's sons, not, who were related to him by blood, but who follow his faith, for this is the meaning of the words,
This is what he lays down, before proving it ; and what is the proof? it is from the Law itself..—— 'Tn thee all the nations,'' it is plain that the heathen are brought into kindred with him.
Hereby too is proved another important point.
It perplexed them that the Law was the older, and Faith afterwards.
Now he removes this notion by showing that Faith was anterior to the Law; as is evident from Abraham's case, who was justified before the giving of the Law.
He shows too that late events fell out according to prophecy ; '' The Scripture,'' says he, '¢ foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand unto Abraham.''
Attend to this point.
He Himself who gave the Law, had decreed, before He gave it, that the heathen should be justified by Faith.
And he says not ''revealed,'' but, '' preached the Gospel,'' to signify that the patriarch was in joy at this method of justification, and in great desire for its accomplishment.
Ver.
10, 11.
''For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law to do them.
Now that no man is justified by the Law is evident."'
For all have sinned, and are under the curse.
However he does not say this yet, lest he should seem to lay it down of himself, but here again establishes his point by a text which concisely states both points; that no man has fulfilled the Law, (wherefore they are under the curse,) and, that Faith justifies.
What then is the text?
It is in the book of the prophet Habakkuk, ''The just shall live by faith, "'
(Hab. ii: 4.) which not only establishes the righteousness that is of Faith, but also that there is no salvation through the Law.
Asno one, he says, kept the Law, but all were under the curse, on account of transgression, an easy way was provided, that from Faith, which is in itself a strong proof that no man can be justified by the Law.
For the prophet says not, '' The just shall live by the Law,"' but, ** by faith : "'
Ver. 12. '¢And the Law is not of faith; but He that doeth them shall live in them."' a eee nnn Further, they were possessed with another apprehension ; it was written, '' Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law, to do them."'
(Deut. xxvii: 26.) And this he removes, with great skill and prudence, turning their argument against themselves, and showing that those who relinquish the Law are not only not cursed, but blessed ; and they who keep it, not only not blessed but cursed.
They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed.
Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed.
And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised ; wherefore it is
For the Law requires not only Faith but works also, but grace saves and justifies by Faith. (Eph. ii: 8.) 3 ('' After having pointed out from Scripture v. 6 and 7, that none other than believers are sons of Abraham, Paul now shows further from Scripture that none other than believers have ashare in Abraham's blessing, i. e., are justified.""—Meyer.—G. A.
'ka Having shown by postive proof that justification is of faith, he adds the negative argument derived from the impossibility of maintaining its opposite, argument is twofold :
First, it is impossible to fulfill the requirements of the law and nonfulfillment lays us under a curse (Ver. 10) ; Secondly, supposing the fulfilment. possible, still the spirit of the Law is antagonistic to faith, which is elsewhere spoken of as the source of life. (Ver, 1 and 12).'"'—Lightfoot.—G, A,] namely, justification by Law.
This negative * [The Scripture personified.
The only case in N. T. where the personification of Scripture goes beyond Aéyet Or elev," etc,
—Lightfoot.—G. A.] eS ee eS SE ee ee EE SS ee ee eee ee eee
CHAPTER III. ]
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
You see how he proves that they are under the curse who cleave to the Law, because it is impossible to fulfill it; next, how comes Faith to have this justifying power ? for to this doctrine he already stood pledged, and now maintains it with great force of argument.
The Law being too weak to lead man to righteousness, an effectual remedy was provided in Faith, which is the means of rendering that possible which was ''impossible by the Law.'' (Rom. viii: 3.)
Now as the Scripture says, '' the just shall live by faith,'' thus repudiating salvation by the Law, and moreover as Abraham was justified by Faith, it is evident that its efficacy is very great.
And it is also clear, that he who abides not by the Law is cursed, and that he who keeps to Faith is just.
But, you may ask me, how I prove that this curse is not still of force ?
Abraham lived before the Law, but we, who once were subject to the yoke of bondage, have made ourselves liable to the curse; and who shall release us therefrom?
Observe his ready answer to this; his former remark was sufficient; for, if a man be once justified, and has died to the Law and embraced a novel life, how can such a one be subject to the curse? however, this is not enough for him, so he begins with a fresh argument, as follows :— as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.
Ver. 14.
''That upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham."'
How on the Gentiles ? It is said, ''In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed: "'
(Gen. xxii: 185 xxvi: 4.) that is to say, in Christ.
If this were said of the Jews, how would it be reasonable that they who were themselves subject to the curse, on account of transgression, should become the authors of a blessing to others? an accursed person cannot impart to others that blessing of which he is himself deprived.
Plainly then it all refers to Christ who was the Seed of Abraham, and through whom the Gentiles are blessed.
And thus the promise of the Spirit is added, as Paul himself declares, ''that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.''2
As the grace of the Spirit could not possibly descend on the graceless and offending, they are first blessed the curse having been removed; then being justified by faith, they draw unto themselves the grace of the Spirit.
'Thus the Cross removed the curse, Faith brought in righteousness, righteousness drew on the grace of the Spirit.
Wers 13054* Christ redeemed) ' us)sfrom:
'the curse cf the Law, having becomea curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.'' }
Ver. 15.
'' Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void or addeth thereto.''
In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, '' Cursed is every one that continueth not in the things that are written in the book of the Law.'' (Deut. xxvii: 26.)
To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, ''Cursed is every one that hangeth on atree.''
Asthen both he who hanged on atree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore
Christ took opon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse.
It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment.
For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, inorder to remove that of others.
For,'' He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth...
(Isa. ili: 9
51° Peter ii :22,) And '¢'To speak after the manner of men'' means to use human examples.
Having founded his argument on the Scriptures, on the miracles wrought among themselves, on the sufferings of Christ, and on the Patriarch, he proceeds to common usages ; and this he does invariably, in order to sweeten his discourse, and render it more acceptable and intelligible to the duller sort.
Thus he argues with the Corinthians, '<< Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof? ''
(1 Cor. ix:
7.) and again with the Hebrews, ''For a testament is of force where there hath been death ; for doth it ever avail while he that made it livethie nr i@ Hebsix: 574
One may 'find? him dwelling with pleasure on such arguments.
In the Old Testament God does the same thing in many instances, as, '' Can a woman forget her sucking child?''
(Isa. xlix: 15.) and again, '« Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou?'
(Isa. xlv: g.) and in Hosea, He represents a husband set at nought by his wife. (Hos. 11: 5, f.) This use of human 1'
A parenthetic justification from Deut. xxi: 23 of the startling expression just used.
The passage refers to those criminals who, after being stoned, were hung upon a stake, but were not permitted to remain over night lest the holy land should be desecrated.
Our Saviour fulfilled the legal curse by hanging dead on the cross.
This is one of the strongest passages for the doctrine of a vicarious atonement.
The vicarious efficacy lies not so much See esition, v7ép,' 'for,' as in the whole sentence,''—Schaff
—G.
A.] 3 ('After a wondrous chain of arguments * * the apostle comes back to the subject of verse 2: the gift of the Holy Ghost came through faith in Christ.'""—-Ellicott.—G, A.]
3 ('Paul now assumes a milder tone and reasons from the common dealings of men,''—Schaff.—G. A,
WORKS OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM.
([Cuaprer IIL,
serve too how he glances round at every thing, as if he had an hundred eyes.
Having exalted Faith, and proved its elder claims, that the Law may not be considered superfluous, he sets right this side of the doctrine also, and proves that the Law was not given without a view, but altogether profitably.
'' Because of transgressions;'' that is to say, that the Jews might not be let live carelessly, and plunge into the depth of wickedness,* but that the Law might be placed upon them as a bridle, guiding, regulating, and checking them from transgressing, if not all, at least some of the commandments.
Not slight then was the advantage of the Law; but for how long?
| Ver. 19.
'Till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made."' examples frequently occurs in types also, as when the prophet takes the girdle, (Jer. xi:
1-9.) and goes down to the potter's house.
(Jer. xviii: 1-6.) The meaning of the present example is, that Faith is more ancient than the Law, which is later and only temporary, and delivered in order to pave the way for Faith.
Hence he says, ''Brethren, I speak after the manner of men;'' above he had called them
'¢foolish,'? now he calls them ''brethren,'' at once chiding and encouraging them.
''Though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed.''
Ifa man,says he, makes a covenant, does any one dare to come afterwards and overturn it, or subjoin aught to it? for this is the meaning of ''or addeth thereto.''
Much less then when God makesa covenant; and with whom did God make a covenant?
This is said of Christ; if then it was given until His advent, why do you protract it beyond its natural period ?
Ver.
16, 17, 18.
'*Now to Abraham were the promises spoken and to his seed.
He saith not, And to seeds,! as of many ; but as of One, And to thy seed, which is Christ.2_ Now this I say, A covenant, confirmed before hand by God the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect.
For if the inheritance is of the Law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted it to Abraham by promise."'
Ver. 19.
'' And it was ordained through Angels by the hand of a Mediator."
He either calls the priests Angels, or he declares that the Angels themselves ministered to the delivery of the Law.
By Mediator here he means Christ,4 and shows that He was before it, and Himself the Giver of it.
Ver. 20.
'' Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.'' 5
Thus God made a covenant with Abraham, promising that in his seed the blessing should come upon the heathen; and this blessing the Law cannot turn aside.
As this example was not in all respects appropriate to the matter in hand, he introduces it thus, ''I speak after the manner of men,'' that nothing might be deduced from it derogatory to the majesty of God.
But let us go to the bottom of this illustration.
It was promised Abraham that by his seed the heathen should be blessed ; and his seed according to the flesh is Christ; four hundred and thirty years after came the Law; now, if the Law bestows the blessings even life and righteousness, that promise is annulled.
And so while no one annuls a man's covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled ; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, whick is most unreasonable.
What can the heretics® say to this? for as, according to them, the expression '' the Only True God'' excludes the Son from being true
God, so here the phrase ''God is One,'' excludes Him from being God in any sense.
But if, although the Father is called '' One God,"' the Son is nevertheless God, it is very plain that though the Father is called '' Very God," the Son is very God likewise.
Now a mediator, says he, is between two parties; of whom then is Christ the Mediator? plainly of God and of men.
Observe, he says, that Christ also gave the Law; what therefore it was His to give, it is His to annul.
2 [' This interpretation of Chrysostom must be rejected on lexical grounds.
The law was in order to bring sin to light and make it appear in its true character and thus by a knowledge of the disease prepare its cure.""—Ellicott and Schaff.—G. A.]}
4[ " We may reasonably wonder," says Ellicott, "'how the early expositors (Basil and Theodoret excepted) could have so generally coincided in the perplexing view of Origen that the Mediator here mentioned was Christ.
On the contrary it is plain that it was Moses, Deut. v: 5."'—G. A.] Ver. 19.
'' What then is the Law? it was added because of transgressions.''
5['This verse is counted the most difficult passage in the New Testament, and has given rise to about 300 interpretations."
This remark again is not superfluous; obThat of Lightfoot seems to satisfy the context, and is thus forcibly put by him: '' The law is of the nature of a contract between two parties.
God on the one hand and the Jewish people on the other.
It is valid only so long as both parties fulfil the terms of contract.
It is therefore contingent and not absolute.
Unlike the Jaw the promise is absolute and unconditional.
It depends on the sole decree of God.
'There are not two contracting parties.
There is nothing of the nature of a stipulation.
The giver is everything and the recipient nothing.''—Com. 7% loco.—G. A.] 1 [* A difficulty arises here from the stress which Paul lays on the singular of the word 'seed,' which is a collective noun in Heb. and Greek, and includes the whole posterity.
But it isnot a question of grammar but of spiritual meaning.
The promise refers to Christ Jar excellence, and to all those and only those who are truly members of His body, united to Him by a living faith.
If all the single descendants of Abraham were meant, the children of Hagar and Keturah and subsequently of Esau and his descendants, would have to be included."'—Schaff.—G. A.
6 The heretics refered to are the Anomceans, who held Arianism in its most developed form, against whom S. Chrysostom has written Homilies.
For the particular objection answered in the text, vid. also Basil, in Eunom, iv. p. 294.
Athan. Orin Arian, iii. 9.
Greg. Vaz. Orat. 36, p. 586.
2"( Not as a single individual but as Head of the church which is His body, Eph. 1:23.
The keyto the passage is in ver. 28 and 2g:
'Ye are all ove in Christ Jesus.' ''—Schaff.—G, A.]
CHAPTER III.]
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
Ver. 21.
''Is the Law then against the promises of God ?"'
'For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not subject themselves to the rightousness of God.'' (Rom. x: 3.)
For if the blessing is given in the seed of Abraham, but the Law brings in the curse, it must be contrary to the promises.
This objection he meets, first, by a protest, in the words, Ver. 23.
'' But before faith came, we were kept inward under the Law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.''
Here he clearly puts forward what I have stated: for the expressions '' we were kept'' and Gia S tine Mr OGsFOr DIC
And next he brings his proof; Ver. 21.
'' For if there had been a law given which could make alive. verily righteousness would have been of the Law."'
'"'shut up,'' signify nothing else than the security given by the commandments of the Law ; which like a fortress fenced them round with fear and a life conformable to itself, and so preserved them unto Faith.
His meaning is as follows; If we had our hope of life in the Law, and our salvation depended on it, the objection might be valid.
But if it save you, by means of Faith, though it brings you under the curse, you suffer nothing from it, gain no harm, in that Faith comes and sets all right.
Had the promise been by the Law, you had reasonably feared lest, separating from the Law, you should separate
Ver. 24. ''So that the Law hath been our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."
Now the Tutor is not opposed to the Preceptor, but cooperates with him, ridding the youth from all vice, and having all leisure to fit him for receiving instructions from his Precepter.
But when the youth's habits are formed, then the Tutor leaves him, as Paul says.
Se ee from righteousness, but if it was given in order to shut up all, that is, to convince all and expose their individual sins, far from excluding
——EEEEEE Ver. 25, 26. 'But now that faith is come which leads to perfect manhood we are no longer under a tutor.
For ye are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.'' you from the promises, it now aids you in obtaining them.
This is shown by the words, Ver. 22.
'' Howbeit the scripture! hath shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them
The Law then, as it was our tutor, and we were kept shut up under it, is not the adversary but the fellow-worker of grace; but if when grace is come, it continues to hold us down, it becomes an adversary; for if it confines those who ought to go forward to grace, then it is the destruction of our salvation.
If a candle which gave light by night, kept us, when it became day, from the sun, it would not only not benefit, it would injure us; and so doth the Law, if it stands between us and greater benefits.
Those then are the greatest traducers of the Law, who still keep it, just as the tutor makes a youth ridiculous, by retaining him with himself, when time calls for his departure.
Hence Paul says, '' But after faith is come, we are nolonger under a tutor.'' We are then no longer under a tutor, '' for ye are all sons of God.''
Wonderful! see how mighty is the power of Faith, and how he unfolds as he proceeds!
Before, he showed that it made them sons of the Patriarch, that believe."'
As the Jews were not even conscious of their own sins, and in consequence did not even desire remission; the Law was given to probe their wounds, that they might long for a physician.
And the word ''shut up'' means ''convinced,'' and conviction held them in fear.
You see then it is not only not against, but was given for the promises.
Had it arrogated to itself the work and the authority, the objection would stand; but if its drift is something else, and it acted for that, how is it against the proSS
————— mises of God?
Had the Law not been given, all would have been wrecked upon wickedness, and there would have been no Jews to listen to Christ ; but now being given, it has effected two things ; it has schooled its followers in acertain degree of virtue, and has pressed on them the knowledge of theirownsins.
And thisespecially made them more zealous to seek the Son, for those who disbelieved, disbelieved from having no sense of their own sins, as Paul shows; '* Know therefore,'' says he, '' that they which be of faith, the same are sons of Abraham ;'' now he proves that they are sons of God also,
'« For ye are all,'' says he, '' sons of God through faith, which is in Christ Jesus ;'' by Faith, not by the Law.
Then, when he has said this 1["« The Law then though differing widely from the promise is not antagonistic to it, does not interfere with it.
On the contrary, we might imagine such a law as would justify and give life.
'This was not the effect of the law of Moses, however; on the contrary (aAAa) the Scripture (that, namely, about the curse, v. 10:) testifies that the Law condemned all alike, yet not finally and irrevocably but only as leading the way for the dispensation of faith.'
—Lightfoot. Meyer takes a different viewof v.21:
'For if it had been opposed to the promises, the Law must have been in a position to procure lifeandif this were so, then would righteousness actually be from the Law, which according to the Scripture cannot be so (ver. 22).""—G. A.] 3(**The pedagogus or tutor, frequently a superior slave, was entrusted withthe moral supervision of the child.
Thus his office was quite distinct from that of the étdadc0xKados; so the word ""Schoolmaster'' conveysa wrong idea.
As well in his inferior rank as in his recognized duty of enforcing discipline, this person was a fit emblem of the Mosaic law. here is a very complete illustration of the use which Paul makes of the metaphor in Plato
(Lysts, p, 208 C),"'—Lightfoot,—G. A.]
WORKS OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM.
(CHAPTER IV.
through Faith,'' he does not stop there, but tries to find something more exact, which may serve to convey a still closer oneness with tized into Christ, did put on Christ."'
Christ. Having said, '' ye have put on Christ,'
Why does he not say, '' For as many of you| even this does not suffice Him, but by way of as have been baptized into Christ, have been | penetrating more deeply into this union, he born of God?" for this was what directly went| comments on it thus:
''Ye are all One in to prove that they were sons ;——because he states | Christ Jesus,'' that is, ye have all one form and it in a much more awful point of view; If|one mould, even Christ's.
What can be more Christ be the Son of God, and thou hast put on | awful than these words!
He that was a Greek, Him, thou who hast the Son within thee, and|or Jew, or bond-man yesterday, carries about art fashioned after His pattern, hast been| with him the form, not of an Angel or Archanbrought into one kindred and nature with| gel, but of the Lord of all, yea displays in his
Him. own person the Christ.
Verov28i) ** There? can be, neither) Jew nor| Ver. "20. "SC And iii verare: Gnrist om tie oeare
Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, | ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."' there can be no male and female: for ye all are}
Here, you observe, he proves what he had one in Christ Jesus."' before stated concerning the seed of Abraham,—
See what an insatiable soul! for having | that to him and to his seed the promises were said, ''We are all made children of God | given. great and wonderful thing, he names also the mode of their adoption, Ver. 27.
'* For as many of you as were bap-
CHAR DER lV
VERSE I-3.
" But I say, that so long as the heir is a child, he differ- | were under the Law, that we might receive the eth nothing from a bond-servant, though he is adoption of sons." lord of all; but is under guardians and stewards,
: until the term appointed of the father.
So we also Here he states two objects and effects of the when we were children, were held in bondage under Incarnation, deliverance from evil and supply of the rudiments of the world.": good, things which none could compass but Christ.
They are these; deliverance from THE word ''child"' in this place denotes not | the curse of the Law, and promotion to sonage but understanding ;' meaning that God had | ship. Fitly does he say, that we might '' receive," from the beginning designed for us these gifts, | «« [be paid,]'' implying that it was due; for but, as we yet continued childish, He let us be| the promise was of old time made for these under the elements of the world, that 1s, | objects to Abraham, as the Apostle has himself new moons and sabbaths, for these days are| shown at great length. And how does it appear regulated by the course of sun and moon."
If} that we have become sons? he has told us one then also now they bring you under law they| mode, in that we have put on Christ who is the do nothing else but lead you backward now in | Son ; and now he mentions another, in that we the time of your perfect age and maturity. And | have received the Spirit of adoption. see what is the consequence of observing days;|
Ver. 6, 7. ««And because ye are sons, God the Lord, the Master of the house, the Sover- | sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, eign Ruler, is thereby reduced to the rank of ai crying, Abba, Father.
So that thou art no servant.
_ | longer a bond-servant, but a son; and if a son, Ver. 4, 5. '' But when the fulness of the time | then an beir through God." came God sent forth His Son, born of awoman,| ad not we_been first made sons, we could under the Law that he might redeem them which | not have called Him Father.
If then grace hath made us freemen instead of slaves, men 1 ('This reference of yjmtos to mental immaturity is quite in opposition to the context.—Meyer.
'' The heir in his nonage represents the Jewish people and the state-of the world before 3 (So Schaff: " Verse 16 must here be kept in view where Christ
Christ.''—Schaff. So Meyer:
'' The xAnpovésos vamos represents | is declared to be the seed of Abraham.
Union with Christ constithe Christians as a body regarded in their earlier pre-Christian tutes the true spiritual descent from Abraham and secures the inhercondition.''—G,
A. itance of all the Messianic blessings by promise as against inheri- °[ This interpretation is rejected by Schaff, Meyer, Ellicott,Light- | tance by law."?
Pop. Com. in loc.—G, A.] foot e¢ a2. Schaff says:
'' ' Elements' here represents the religion 4[ "The proposition here (amé6) simply means to receive from or before Christ as an elementary religion full of external rites and | at the hands of anyone.'-—Meyer.—But Lightfoot holds that amo ceremonies.
* * Comp. v:
10, for aspecimen,"'—G, A.] AdBwwev cannot be the same as AdBwuerv, the simple verb.—G. A.]
CHAPTER IV.]
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
Sel, Ver. 12. ''I beseech you, brethren, be asl am ; for I am as you are.'' instead of children, heirs and sons instead of aliens, is itnot utter absurdity and stupidity to desert this grace, and to turn away backwards?
This is addressed to his Jewish disciples, and he brings his own example forward, to induce them thereby to abandon their old customs.
Though you had none other for a pattern, he says, to look at me only would have sufficed for such a change, and for your taking courage.
Therefore gaze on me; I too was once in your state of mind, especially so; I had a burning zeal for the Law; yet afterwards I feared not to abandon the Law, to withdraw from that rule of life.
And this ye know full well how obstinately I clung hold of Judiaism, and how with yet greater force I let it go. He does well to place this last in order: for most men, though they are given a thousand reasons, and those just ones, are more readily influenced by that Ver. 8, 9. '' Howbeit at that time not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them which by nature are no gods.!
But now, that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known of God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again."'
Here turning to the Gentile believers he says that it isan idolatry, this rigid observance of days, and now incursa severe punishment.
To enforce this, and inspire them with a deeper anxiety, he calls the elements ''not by nature
Gods.''
And his meaning is,—Then indeed, as being benighted and bewildered, ye lay grovelling upon the earth, but now that ye have known God or rather are known of Him, how great and bitter will be the chastisement ye draw upon you, if, after such a treatment, ye relapse into the same disease.
It was not by your own pains that ye found out God, but while ye conwhich is like their own case, and more firmly hold to that which they see done by others.
Wer..12..«' Ye didime,no.wrong 7"
Observe how he again addresses them by a title of honor, which was a reminder moreover of the doctrine of grace.
Having chid them seriously, and brought things together from all quarters, and shown their violations of the Law, and hit them on many sides, he gives in and conciliates them speaking more tenderly.
For as todo nothing but conciliate causes negligence, so to be constantly talked at with sharpness sours a man ; sothatit is proper to observe due proportion everywhere.
See then how he excuses to them what he has said, and shows that it proceeded not simply because hedid not like them, but from anxiety.
After giving them a deep cut, he pours in this encouragement like oil ; and, showing that his words were not words of hate or enmity, he reminds them of the love which they had evinced toward him, mixing his self-vindication with praises.
Therefore he says, ''ye did me no wrong."' tinued in error, He drew you to Himself.
He says ''weak and beggarly rudiments,'' in that they avail nothing towards the good things held out to us.
Ver. 10.
'' Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years."' ° Hence is plain that their teachers were preaching to them not only circumscision, but also the feast-days and new-moons.
Ver. rz. ''I amafraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain."'
Observe the tender compassion of the Apostle ; they were shaken and he trembles and fears.
And hence he has put it so as thoroughly to shame them, ''I have bestowed labor upon you,'' saying, as it were, make not vain the labors which have cost me sweat and pain.
By saying ''I fear,'' and subjoining the word '<lest,'' he both inspires alarm, and encourages good hope.
He says not ''I have labored in vain,'' but '¢ lest,''? which is as much as to say, the wreck has not happened, but I see the storm big with it; so I am in fear, yet not in despair ; ye have the power to set all right, and to return into your former calm.
Then, as it were stretching out a hand to them thus tempest-tost,* he brings himself into the midst, saying, Ver. 13, 14.
'' But ye know that because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the Gospel unto you the first time.
And that which was a temptation in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected."'
Not to have injured one is indeed no great thing, for no man whatever would choose to hurt wantonly and without object to annoy another who had never injured him.
But for you, not only have ye not injured me, but ye have shown me great and inexpressible kindness, and it is impossible that one who has been treated with such attention should speak thus from any malevolent motive.
My language then cannot be caused by ill-will; it follows, that it proceeds 1 [* It is clear from the context that here the apostle is not speaking of the Jewish race alone but of the heathen world also before Christ.
He dfstinctly refers to their previous idolatrous worship (v. 8) and describes their adoption of Jewish ritualism as a ' return' to the weak and beggarly discipline of childhood.
* * * Heathenism had been in respect to the ' ritualistic' element, which is the meeting-point of Judaism and heathenism, a disciplinary training like Judaism.
They were made up of precepts and ordinances, as opposed to 'grace' and ' promise,' and in an imperfect way they might do the same work.
They might by multiplying transgression and begetting a conviction of it prepare the way for liberty in Christ.",—Lightfoot.—G. A.] 3['«'Eyevounv must be supplied in the second clause and not nunv as Chrysostom would understand: Become as I, free from Judaism, for I also have become as you.
For when | abandoned Judaism I became as a Gentile and put myself oh the same footing with you.'"'—Meyer.—G. A. ] 2(' Paul in the following paragraph (ver. 12-20) interrupts his argument for a moment by an affectionate appeal to the feelings of the Galatians,"'—Schaff,—G. A.]
WORKS OF ST
[CHAPTER IV.
CHRYSOSTOM.
that his language could not possibly have proceeded from unkind feeling.
For he says not; How is it supposable that one, who has been scourged and driven about, and ill-treated a thousand things for your sakes, should now have schemes against you?
But he argues from what they had reason to boast of, saying, How can one who has been honored by you, and received as an Angel, repay you by conduct the very opposite P from affection and solicitude.!
'' Ye did me no wrong; ye know that because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the Gospel unto you."'
What can be gentler than this holy soul, what sweeter, or more affectionate!
And the words he had already used, arose not from an unreasoning anger, nor from a passionate emotion, but from much solicitude.
And why do I say, ye have not injured me?
Rather have ye evinced a great and sincere regard for me.
For '¢ye know,"' he says, '' that because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the Gospel unto you; and that which was a temptation to you in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected."
What does he mean ? While I preached to you, I was driven about, I was scourged, I suffered a thousand deaths, yet ye thought no scorn of me; for this is meant by that which was a temptation to you in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected.''?
Observe his spiritual skill ; in the midst of his self-vindication, he again appeals to their feelings by showing what he had suffered for their sakes.
This however, says he, did not at all offend you, nor did ye reject me on account of my sufferings and persecutions ; or, as he now calls them, his infirmity and temptation.
Ver. 17.
'' They zealously seek you in no good way; nay, they desire to shut you out that ye may seek them."'
It is a wholesome emulation® which leads to an imitation of virtue, but an evil one, which seduces from virtue him who is in the right path.
And this is the object of those persons, who would deprive you of perfect knowledge,' and impart to you that which is mutilated and spurious, and this for no other purpose than that they may occupy the rank of teachers, and degrade you, who now stand higher than themselves, to the position of disciples.
For this is the meaning of the words '' that ye may seek them.''
But I, says he, desire the reverse, that ye may become a model for them, and a pattern of a higher perfection : a thing which actually happened when I was present with you. Wherefore he adds, ee Ver. 14.
'* But ye received me as an Angel of God."
Ver. 18.
'* But it is good to be zealously sought in a good matter at all times, and not only when I am present with you."'
"Was it not then absurd in them to receive him as an Angel of God, when he was persecuted and driven about, and then not to receive him when pressing on them what was fitting?
Here he hints that his absence had been the cause of this, and that the true blessing was for disciples to hold right opinions not only in the presence but also in the absence of their master.
But as they had not arrived at this point of perfection, he makes every effort to place them there.
Ver. 15, 16. '' Where then is that gratulation of yourselves? for I bear you witness, that, if possible, ye would have plucked out your eyes, and given them tome.
So then am I become your enemy, because I tell you the truth ? "
Here he shows perplexity and amazement, and desires to learn of themselves the reason of their change. Who, says he, hath deceived you, and caused a difference in your disposition towards me ? Are ye not the same who attended and ministered to me, counting me more precious than your own eyes? what then has happened ? whence this dislike? whence this suspicion ? Is it because I have told you the truth ?
You ought on this very account to pay me increased honor and attention; instead of which Ver. 19. 'My little children,® of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you."'
Observe his perplexity and _ perturbation, '< Brethren, I beseech you:'"' '* My little children, of whom I am again in travail: '' He resembles a mother trembling for her children.
<' Until Christ be formed in you.''
Behold his paternal tenderness, behold this despondency worthy of an Apostle.
Observe what a wail he utters, far more piercing than ofa woman in travail; —Ye have defaced the likeness, ye have destroyed the kinship, ye have changed the form, ye need
'¢T am become your enemy, because I tell you the truth,''—-for I can find no other reason but this.
Observe too what humbleness of mind appears in his defence of himself; he proves not by his conduct to them, but by theirs to him
3 [This word does not here mean "they vie with you," as Chrysostom interprets it, but ''they zealously seek you or pay court to you,"
(1 Cor. xii: 31).—G. A.
(They desire to shut you out" (not from a state of true knowledge, as Chrysostom interprets) but '' from other teachers,'' anti-judaizing teachers, (according to Meyer) or from me (Paul) and so virtually from Christ Himself (according to Schaff) or from Christ (Lightfoot).—G. A.]} 1 [««* Ye did me no wrong' probably means:
I have no personal ground of complaint.''—Schaff and Lightfoot.—G. A.] 2 ("On account of some weakness of the flesh,' means he was compelled by reason of bodily weakness to make a stay there which did not form part of his plan, and during that forced sojourn he preached there.''—Meyer.—G. A.
5[ A mode of address common in St. John but nowhere else found in St. Paul.''—Lightfoot.
'It expresses Paul's tenderness and their feebleness.''—Schaff.—G. A.] "'He was detained there by some bodily infirmitiy or sickness and was thus induced to preach the Gospel.''—Schaff.—G. A.]
CHAPTER IV.]
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
a5 another regeneration and refashioning ;! nevertheless I call you children, abortions and monsters though ye be.
However, he does not express himself in this way, but spares them, unwilling to strike, and to inflict wound upon wound.
Wise physicians do not cure those who have fallen into a long sickness all at once, but little by little, lest they should faint and die.
And so is it with this blessed man; for these pangs were more severe in proportion as the force of his affection was stronger.
And the offense was of no trivial kind.
And as I have ever said and ever will say, even a slight fault mars the appearance and distorts the figure of the whole. relax like indulgent treatment, but is a mixed remedy, and of great efficacy in the way of exhortation.
Having thus softened and powerfully engaged their hearts by his tears, he again advances to the contest," and lays down a larger propostion, proving that the Law itself was opposed to its being kept.
Before, he produced the example of Abraham, but now (what is more cogent) he brings forward the Law itself enjoining them not to keep itself, but to leave off. So that, says he, you must abandon the Law, if you would obey it, for this is its own wish: this however he does not say expressly, but enforces it in another mode, mixing up with it an account of facts.
Mer. war, (Telli me; ihe vsaysy<* yeu that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law ?''3
Ver.
20.
'' Yea, I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my voice.''
Observe his warmth, his inability to refrain himself, and to conceal these his feelings ; such is the nature of love; nor is he satisfied with words, but desires to be present with them, and so, as he says, to change his voice, that is, to change to lamentation, to shed tears, to turn every thing into mourning.
For he could not by letter show his tears or cries of grief, and therefore he ardently desires to be present with them.
He says rightly, '' ye that desire,'' for the matter was not one of a proper and orderly succession of things but of their own unseasonable contentiousness.
It is the Book of Creation which he here calls the Law, which name he often gives to the whole Old Testament.
) Ver. 22.
'' For it is written, (Gen. xv:
16.) that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid and the other by the freewoman.''
Ver. 20. '' For I am perplexed about you."'
I know not, says he, what to say, or what to think.
How is it, that ye who by dangers, which ye endured for the faith's sake, and by miracles, which ye performed through faith, had ascended to the highest heaven, should suddenly be brought to such a depth of degradation as to | be drawn aside to circumcision or sabbaths, and should rely wholly upon Judaizers? Hence in the beginning he says, ''I marvel that ye are so quickly removing,'' and here, ''I am perplexed about you,'' as if he said, What am I to speak?
What am I to utter? What am I to think? I am bitterly perplexed.
And so he must needs weep, as the prophets do when in perplexity ; for not only admonition but mourning also is a form in which solicitous attention is often manifested.
And what he said in his speech to those at Miletus, '' By the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one... with tears,'' he says here also, '' and to change my voice.''(Acts xx : 31.) When we find ourselves overcome by perplexity and helplessness which He returns again to Abraham, not in the way of repetition, but, inasmuch as the Patriarch's fame was great among the Jews, to show that the types had their origin from thence, and that present events were pictured aforetime in him.
Having previously shown that the Galatians were sons of Abraham, now, in that the Patriarch's sons were not of equal dignity, one being by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman, he shows that they were not only his sons, but sons in the same sense as he that was freeborn and noble.
Such is the power of Faith. i $$ Ver. 23.
'' Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise."'
What is the meaning of ''after the flesh?"'
Having said that Faith united us to Abraham, and it having seemed incredible to his hearers, that those who were not begotten by Abraham should be called his sons, he proves that this paradox had actually happened long ago; for that Isaac, born not according to the order of nature, nor the law of marriage, nor the power of the flesh, was yet truly his own son.
He was the issue of bodies that were dead, and of a womb that was dead ; his conception was not by the flesh, nor his birth by the seed, for the womb was dead both through age and barren_ come contrary to expectation, we are driven to tears ; and so Paul admonished themsharply, and endeavored to shame them, then in turn soothed them, and lastly he wept.
And this, weeping is not only a reproof but a blandish- | ment; it does not exasperate like reproof, nor |
2 [The digression which contains his "affectionate appeal" (see note above) ends with verse 20, after which he resumes.—G. A.
1 ("I travailed with you once in bringing you to Christ. By your relapse you have renewed a mother's pangs in me.''—Lightfoot.
"* Until Christ be formed in you,' is not an inversion of the metaphor he has begun with, but means, 'till you have taken the form of Christ as the embryo develops into the child.' ''—Lightfoot.—G. A.]
3 [** The Apostle resumes his argument for the superiority of the Gospel over the Law and illustrates the difference of the two by an allegorical interpretation of the history of Hagar and Sarah.""—
Schaff.—G. A.]
WORKS OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM.
[CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 25. ''And answereth to Jerusalem that now is."' ness, but the Word of God fashioned Him. Not so in the case of the bondman; He came by virtue of the laws of nature, and after the manner of marriage.
Nevertheless, he that was not according to the flesh was more honorable than he that was born after the flesh.
Therefore let it not disturb you that ye are not born after the flesh; for from the very reason that ye are not so born, are ye most of all Abraham's kindred.
The being born after the flesh renders one not more honorable, but less so, for a birth not after the flesh is more marvellous and more spiritual.
And this is plain from the case of those who were born of old time; Ishmael, for instance, who was born according to the flesh, was not only a bondman, but was cast out of his father's house; but Isaac, who was born according to the promise, being a true son and free, was lord of all.
That is, it borders on, and is contiguous to it.3
Ver. 25. ''For she is in bondage with her children."'
What follows from hence?
Not only that she was in bondage and brought forth bondmen, but that this Covenant is so too, whereof the bondwoman was atype.
For Jerusalem is adjacent to the mountain of the same name with the bondwoman, and in this mountain the Covenant was delivered.
Now where is the type of Sarah ?
'¢ But Jerusalem that is above is Ver. 26. frees Those therefore, who are born of her are not bondmen.
Thus the type of the Jerusalem below was Hagar, as is plain from the mountain being so called; but of that which is above is the Church.
Nevertheless he is not content with these types, but adds the testimony of Isaiah to what he has spoken. Having said that Jerusalem which is above ''is our Mother,'' and having given that name to the Church, he cites the suffrage of the Prophet in his favor,
Ver.
24. ''Which things contain an allegory.''!
Contrary to usage, he calls a type an allegory ; his meaning is as follows ; this history not only declares that which appears on the face of it, but announces somewhat farther, whence it is called an allegory.
And what hath it announced? no less than ail the things now present.
Ver. 27.
'* Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not, break forth and cry, thou that travailest not, for more are the children of the desolate than of her which hath the husband.'
(Isa. livisrar) Ver. 24.
'' For these women"' he says, ''are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.''
Who is this who before was '' barren,'' and '¢desolate?''
Clearly it is the Church of the Gentiles,* that was before deprived of the knowledge of God?
Who, ''she which hath the husband ?'' plainly the Synagogue.
Yet the barren woman surpassed her in the number of her children, for the other embraces one nation, but the children of the Church have filled the country of the Greeks and of the Barbarians, the earth and sea, the whole habitable world.
Observe how Sarah by acts, and the Prophet by words, have described the events about to befal us.
Observe too, that he whom Isaiah called barren, Paul hath proved to have many children, which also happened typically in the case of Sarah. For she too, although barren, became the mother of a numerous progeny.
This however does not suffice Paul, but he carefully follows out the mode whereby the barren woman became a mother, that in this particular likewise the type might harmonize with the truth.
Wherefore he adds '¢ These: '' who? the mothers of those children, Sarah and Hagar; and what are they?
Two covenants, two laws.
As the names of the women were given in the history, he abides by this designation of the two races, showing how much follows from the very names.
How from the names?
Ver. 25.
'' Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia: "'
The bond-woman was called Hagar, and '¢ Hagar'' is the word for Mount Sinai in the language of that country.?
So that it is necessary that all who are born of the Old Covenant should be bondmen, for that mountain where the Old Covenant was delivered hath a name in common with the bondwoman.
And it includes Jerusalem, for this is the meaning of, 1" The story of Hagar and Sarah has another (namely a figurative, typical) meaning besides (not instead of) the literal or historical.
Paul does not deny the fact but makes it the bearer of a general idea which was more fully expressed in two covenants.
He uses allegorical here in a sense similar to the word "'typical"' in x Cor x: 11.''—Schaff.—G. A.
[See on this difficult passage Schaff's Excursus in Com. and Lightfoot's Excursus xiii. Cow. p. 368.—G. A.
* [This interpretation of Chrysostom is hardly the right one.
The subject of ovvoroyet is Hagar and not Mt. Sinai—a view which runs counter to the context.
It means that Hagar belongs to the same category with the present Jerusalem, is like it in that she was ja bondwoman as Jerusalem with its children is also in bondage.""
Meyer.—G. A.] ellis Against this view of Chrysostom it may be urged that #rts eat yTHP Hu@v (which is our mother) is proved by (yap).
The passage of the O. T. quoted in v. 27 and the jap includes 'all' iguaamie ree (See his long and good note 7% Zoc.)—G.
2[So Meyer: "In Arabia the name Hagar be "Ayap) signifies Mt. Sinai." r a) , But Schaff says: '' It cannot be satisfactorily proven that the name Hagar was an Arabic designation for Mt. Sinai, as the testimonies of Chrysostom and the traveler Harant are isolated and unconfirmed.
The shorter reading, ' For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia' (ro yap Suwa dpos ¢otiv év TH ApaBia) given by the Sinaitic and other MSS. and préfested. ie Lachmann, Tischendorf and Lightfoot (Zxcursus p. 361 of Com.) : aaa intelligible and easily gives' rise to the longer reading." —
CHAPTER IV.]
COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS.
together with his mother, an exile and a wanderer.
And consider too the wisdom of the remark; for he says not that he was cast forth
'merely because he persecuted, but that he should Ver. 28. ''Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.''
It is not merely that the Church was barren like Sarah, or became a mother of many children like her, but she bore them in the way Sarah did.
As it was not nature but the promise of God which rendered Sarah a mother, [for the word of God which said, '' At the time appointed I will return unto thee, and Sarah shall have ason,'' (Gen. xvili:
14.) this entered into the womb and formed the babe, | so also in our regeneration it is not nature, but the Words of God spoken by the Priest,! (the faithful know them, ) which in the Bath of water as ina sort of womb, form and regenerate him who is baptized. not be heir.
For this punishment was not e# acted 'rom him on account of his temporary persecution, (for that would have been of little moment, and nothing to the point,) but he was not suffered to participate in the inheritance provided for the son.
And this proves that, putting the persecution aside, this very thing had been typified from the beginning, and did not originate in the persecution, but in the purpose of God.
Nor does he say, '' the son of Abraham shall not be heir,'' but, '' the son of the handmaid,"' distinguishing him by his inferior descent.
Now Sarah was barren, and so is the Gentile Church ;? observe how the type is preserved in every particular, as the former, through all the by-gone years, conceived not, and in extreme old age became a mother, so the latter, when the fulness of time is come, brings forth.
And this the prophets have proclaimed, saying, '* Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not ; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not ; for more are the children of the desolate than of her which hath the husband.''
And hereby they intend the Church ; for she knew not God, but as soon as she knew Him, she surpassed the fruitful synagogue.* Wherefore if we are sons of the barren woman, then are we free.
But what kind of freedom, it might be objected, is this, when the Jews seize and scourge the believers, and those who have this pretence of liberty are persecuted ? for these things then occurred, in the persecution of the faithful.
Neither let this disturb you, he replies, this also is anticipated in the type, for Isaac, who was free, was persecuted by Ishmael the bondman.
Wherefore he adds, Ver. 29, 30.
'' But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Howbeit what saith the Scripture ? (Gen. xxi: 10.) Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman."'
Ver. 31.
'' Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid but of the freewoman.''
What! does all this consolation consist in showing that freemen are persecuted by bondmen?
By no means, he says, I do not stop here, listen to what follows, and then, if you be not pusillanimous under persecution, you will be sufficiently comforted.
And what is it that follows?
'* Cast out the son of the handmaid, for he shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.''
Behold the reward of tyranny for a season, and of reckleness out of season ! the son is cast out of his father's house, and becomes,
He turns and discusses this on all sides, desiring to prove that what had taken place was no novelty, but had been before typified many ages ago.
How then can it be otherwise than absurd for those who had been set apart so long and who had obtained freedom, willingly to subject themselves to the yoke of bondage ?
Next he states another inducement to them to abide in his doctrine.
3 [See note above on this interpretation.—G. A.] G fe Before the emergence of the Christian people of God, the heavenly Jerusalem was still unpeopled, childless, ¢retpa, ' barren," ov tixtovaa ' not bearing,' and so like Sarah before she became the mother of Isaac.
But with the emergence of the Christian people of God this heavenly Jerusalem has become a fruitful mother richer in children than the Jerusalem that now is.''—Meyer.—G. A.]
+" Chrysostom assumes the prevailing conception of a real priesthood and sacrifice, baptismal regeneration, etc.''—Schaff, Prolegomena, p. 8.—G. A.]