BLTC Press Titles

available for Kindle at

The Haunted Bookshop

Christopher Morely

The Bhagavad Gita


Further Adventures of an Irish R. M.

Edith Somerville and Martin Ross

Some Experiences of an Irish R. M.

Edith Somerville and Martin Ross

A commentary on the Greek text of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians

by John Eadie


1 Ylam; irt^ohiyoi sw70u(«ae «*i tt»a6r,fj.a Tisyoiwf*. Cramer, Anecd. Grasca, vol. i. 105, Oxon. 1835.

raj Kvpiw . . . Oavarq> Oavaro>Orjaerai: the city of Jericho, and all in it, was declared dvdOefia Kvpip 2a(3atbO. Josh. vi. 16, 17. This consecration of Jericho to utter ruin was in obedience to the command, Deut. xiii. 14-16, dvaOefiari avaOefiarieire avrrfv, and was a reproduction of an older scene (Num. xxi. 1-3), where a city was devoted, and then truly named ,ip"!?, dvdOefia. Comp. Josh. vii. 11. In the case of Jericho, portion of the spoil was set apart for the sacred treasury, and part was to be utterly destroyed—two modes of consecration to God, for divine blessing and for divine curse—God glorified in it, or glorified on it. Trench, Syn. p. 17, 1st ser. In Ezek. xliv. 29, the offering of a dedicated thing given to the priests (the same Hebrew term) is rendered a(popiafm in the Septuagint, but dvdOrjfia by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Orig. Hex. torn. ii. p. 321, ed. Montfaucon. In the Apocrypha the distinction appears to be preserved: 2 Mace. ix. 16, Kuwuttok avaOrffiaai Koap,rjaeiv; 3 Mace. iii. 14; Judith xvi. 19; also in Joseph. Antiq. xv. 11, 3, Bell. Jud. ii. 17, 3. So in the New Testament, Luke xxi. 5, the temple adorned with goodly stones, Kox dvaO^fiaai, " and gifts." But the other form, avdOefia, occurs six times, and in all of them it has the meaning of accursed. Acts xxiii. 14; Rom. ix. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 3, xvi. 22; and Gal. i. 8, 9. Theodoret, on Rom. ix. 3, recognises this BnrXrjv Bidvoiav, which he gives to dvaOrjfui; also on Isa. xiii., and on Zeph. i. See also Suidas, sub voce; Chrysostom on Rom. ix. 3; and Suicer, sub voce. Among the ecclesiastical writers, dvdOefia came to signify excommunication, the cursing and separation of one put out of communion. Bingham, Antiquities, Works, vol. v. p. 471, London 1844. Such a use of the word was natural. Council of Laodicea, Canon xxix. But to justify this use by any appeal to the New Testament is vain. Nowhere has it this meaning, but a darker and a more awful one. Nor does tain in the Old Testament ever signify ecclesiastical separation; it is synonymous with airwkela, Isa. liv. 5; e^oXoOpevfia, 1 Sam. xv. 21; dcpdviafia, Deut. vii. 2. On the various forms of the Jewish curse, see Selden, De Syned. viii.; Opera, vol. i. p. 883, etc. The idea of excommunication cannot be adopted here (Grotius, Semler, Flatt, BaumgartenCrusius, Hammond, and Waterland); for it is contrary to the usage of the New Testament, and could not be applicable to an "angel from heaven." Excommunication is described in very different terms, as in John ix. 22, xii. 42, xvi. 2, or Luke vi. 22, 1 Cor. v. 2, 13. Winer, sub voce. How tame Grotius, cum eo nihil vobis sit commercii; or Rosenmiiller, excludatur e ccetu vestro. The preacher of another gospel exposes himself to the divine indignation, and the awful penalty incurred by him is not inflicted by man: he falls u into the hands of the living God." See Wieseler's long note.

Ver. 9. 'fli irpoeiprfKafiev—" as we have said before." The reference implied in irpo. is doubtful. By a great number— including Chrysostom, Bengel, Winer, Neander—the reference is supposed to be simply to the previous verse: "As we have just said, so I repeat it." 2 Cor. vii. 3; 2 Mace. iii. 7; and Winer, § 40. Others, as the Peschito, Borger, Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Meyer, Wieseler, suppose the allusion to be to a previous visit of the apostle. The use of the perfect, though not decisive, and the antithesis of apri in the following clause, favour this view. The language would have been different had the apostle wished to say nothing more. See v. 21; 2 Cor. xiii. 2; 1 Thess. iv. 6. This opinion is confirmed by the sameness of tense of the two verbs, as if they referred to the same event. The re-asseveration in v. 2, 3 is no case in point to be adduced as an objection; for it has no verb compounded with irpo, and the statement in ver. 3 is far from being a repetition of the second verse. EvayyeXiadfieOa, irpoeiprjKafievKal dpri mark a more distinct lapse of time than a recurrence to what had just been written, and the change from eiiayyeXiaafieOa to irapekafiere points to the same conclusion: As he had said when among them by way of affirmation and warning.

Kal dpri iraXiv Xeyw—" and now again I say." The change from the plural irpoeiprjKafiev to the present Xeyw is significant. The previous warning was uttered by the apostle and his fellow-labourers, but the following sentence is based on his sole apostolical authority. This is not, as Ruckert makes it, part of the protasis or preceding sentence: "As I said before, I now say again." The meaning is: As we said before, so now I say again,—iraXiv referring to repetition of the same sentiment, and apri in contrast with irpo. in composition with the verb. The first of these opinions preserves, as Ellicott says, the classical meaning of dpri, for it refers to a time just passed away. Matt. ix. 18. Tempus quodque proximum, aprt et a/>r('<B? significant" Lobeck, Phryn. pp. 18-20. But later writers use it as it is employed in this clause, " now," or in this next sentence. Matt. iii. 15; John ix. 19, 25, xiii. 7; 1 Cor. xiii. 12. The statement is:

Et Tk vfia< ; evarfyeXi^erai irap o irapekdfiere—" If any man is preaching to you a gospel different from what ye received, let him be accursed." The Rheims version tries to preserve the original in both verses: "evangelize to you beside that which we have evangelized to you." The statement is now made merely conditional, or the fact is assumed by ei with the indicative. The case is put as one that may be found real. Donaldson, § 502. See also Tischendorf, Pra,f. p. Ivii. 7 ed.; Klotz-Devarius, vol. ii. 455; Luke xiii. 9 ; Acts v. 38, 39. The verb evar/y. is here followed by the accusative of person, vfwK, emphatic from its position. No other example occurs in the writings of the apostle. But we have the same construction in Luke iii. 18, Acts viii. 25, 40, xiii. 32, xiv. 15, 21, xvi. 10, 1 Pet. i. 12. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, 266, etc.; Winer, § 32. For irap' 3, see on previous verse. The verb irapaXafifidvw, followed either by diro or by irapd, pointing to the source, is to receive, to take into the mind, what is given by instruction, and corresponds to the vfilv of the preceding verse. In this verse the evangel, which is the theme of the verb, goes out on them as its direct objects—vpJx<;; in the other it is given to them, or for their benefit—vfilv—and they received it. The change may have been intentionally suggestive. For dvdOefia eareo, see previous verse.

Ver. 10. "Apri yap dvOpd)irov<; irelOw, ,!) Tov Qeov ;a For do I now conciliate men or God?" or, "Now, is it men I am conciliating, or God?" The emphatic dpri of this verse must have the same sense as that of the preceding verse—" now," at the present moment, or as I am writing. It cannot contrast vaguely the apostle's present with his previous unconverted Jewish state, as is held by Winer, Riickert, Matthies, Bisping, Olshausen, Neander, and Turner. For, grammatically, we cannot well sever the second dpri in meaning and reference from the first; and historically, the favour of men was not a ruling motive with the apostle in his pharisaic state. Phil. iii. The connection is somewhat more difficult, as expressed by ydp. It might mean, "Well, now, am I pleasing men?" KlotzDevarius, ii. 245. But it rather states an argument. It is no apology, as Dr. Brown takes it, for the preceding language; nor, as Alford similarly asserts, "softening the seeming harshness of the saying." It states the reason idiomatically why he pronounces anathema on the Judaizers,—that he did it from divine sanction, or in accordance with the divine will. His fidelity was so stern, that it might be unpalatable to his enemies; but he was securing through it the friendship of God. There is some probability that he is rebutting a calumny of his opponents (Usteri, Lightfoot), based on a misconstruction of some previous portion of his career, such as the circumcision of Timothy. The verb ireiOw, to persuade, signifies, by a natural transition, to conciliate by persuasion or to make friends of. Acts xii. 20, xiv. 19. Josephus, irelaai Top Qebv, Ant. iv. 6, 5; Znvb< ; fyrop hreiae, Pindar, 01. ii. 80, ed. Dissen; Bwpa 0eov? ireiOei, a, portion of a line ascribed by Suidas to Ilesiod; Plato, De Repub. iii. 344, 390 E, do. Opera, vol. iii. pp. 146, 231, ed. Stallbaum; similarly Euripides, Medea, 960. There is no occasion to attach to the verb the idea of conatus as distinct from effectus: "For am I, at the moment of uttering such an anathema against perverters of the gospel, making friends of men or of God?" What but faithfulness to my divine commission can prompt me to it? It was no human passion, no personal animosity, no envious or jealous emotion at being superseded iu the affections of the Galatian churches: it was simply duty done in compliance with the ruling motive of his soul, and to enjoy and secure the divine complacency. The noun avOpanrov;, wanting the article, is "men generally," while Qeov has it, as if to specialize it by the contrast. The connection of ireiOco with Tov Qeov is no formal zeugma, though the sense is necessarily changed with such a change of object. What fully applies to men can only in a vaguer reference apply to God; but it has suggested several improbable forms of exegesis. Calvin goes the length of interposing a Koto, before the two nouns, owing to what he calls the ambiguity of the Greek construction; and nothing, he adds, is more common with the Greeks than to leave Kara understood: "Do I persuade according to men or God?" Webster and Wilkinson apparently follow Estius, non apud homines judiees, sed apud tribunal Dei causam hanc ago, but without any warrant or adduced example. Piscator renders, "Do I persuade you to believe men or God?" Utrum vobis suadeo ul hominibus credatis an ut Deo? Luther, Erasmus, Vatablus, and others give, Nurn res humanas suadeo an divinas? But ireiOw governing a person is distinct in meaning from ,ireiOw governing a thing or object; ireiOeiv riva being, as Meyer remarks, quite distinct from ireiOeiv Ti. The meaning is more fully explained in the following clause, where the apostle adds more broadly:

... from the RetroRead library, using Google Book Search, and download any of the books already converted to Kindle format.

Browse the 100 most recent additions to the RetroRead library

Browse the library alphabetically by title

Make books:

Login or register to convert Google epubs to Kindle ebooks



Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Register here, and convert any Google epub you wish

Powerd by Calibre powered by calibre