<nmmi\

P
¦ r.t

131
cop.2.

<%ETVErU^r
YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE BIBLE FOR HOME AND SCHOOL
SHAILER MATHEWS, General Editor
PROFESSOR OF HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

pfr^rL

GALATIANS
BENJAMIN W. BACON

THE BIBLE FOR HOME AND SCHOOL
SHAILER MATHEWS, General Editor

GENESIS By Professor H. G. Mitchell
•ACTS By Professor George H. Gilbe ¦
HEBREWS By Professor E. J. Goodspeed
GALATIANS By Professor B. W. Bacon
VOLUMES IN PREPARATION
I SAMUEL By Professor L. W. Batten
PSALMS By Reverend J. P. Peters
ISAIAH By Professor John E. McFadyen
JUDGES By Professor Edward L. Curtis
JOB By Professor George A. Barton
AMOS, HOSEA, AND MICAH
By Professor J. M. P. Smith
MARK By Professor M. W. Jacobus
JOHN By Professor Shailer Mathews
ROMANS By Professor E. I. Bosworth
EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS
By Reverend Gross Alexander

THE BIBLE FOR HOME AND SCHOOL

COMMENTARY ON
THE EPT.STLE OF PAUL TO THE
GALATIANS

BY
BENJAMIN W. BACON, D.D., LL.D.
BUCKINGHAM PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND
EXEGESIS IN YALE UNIVERSITY

Nefo fgotfe
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1909
All rights reserved

Copyright, 1909,
By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.

Set up and electrotyped. Published September, 1909.

Norfroarj Ipress
J. S. Cashing Co. — Berwick & Smith Co.
Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The Bible for Home and School is intended to place
the results of the best modern biblical scholarship at the
disposal of the general reader. It does not seek to dupli
cate other commentaries to which the student must turn.
Its chief characteristics are (a) its rigid exclusion of all
processes, both critical and exegetical, from its notes ;
(£>) its presupposition and its use of the assured results
of historical investigation and criticism wherever such
results throw light on the biblical text ; (c) its running
analysis both in text and comment ; (tf) its brief explana
tory notes adapted to the rapid reader ; (<?) its thorough
but brief Introductions ; (/) its use of the Revised Version
of 1881, supplemented with all important renderings in
other versions.
Biblical science has progressed rapidly during the past
few years, but the reader still lacks a brief, comprehensive
commentary that shall extend to him in usable form mate
rial now at the disposition of the student. It is hoped
that in this series the needs of intelligent Sunday School
teachers have been met, as well as those of clergymen
and lay readers, and that in scope, purpose, and loyalty
to the Scriptures as a foundation of Christian thought and
life, its volumes will stimulate the intelligent use of the
Bible in the home and the school.

CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction  i
I. Text  i
II. Canonicitv  4
III. Authorship  7
IV. Relation to the Story of Paul in Acts . 11
V. To whom Galatians was Written . . 17
1. The Churches of Galatia . . . .18
2. The North Galatian Theory ... 20
3. The Pauline Geography .... 24
VI. Date and Occasion of the Letter . . 25
1. Relation of Galatians to Romans . . 26
2. Internal Indications ..... 29
3. The Judaizers and their Success among the
Galatians ...... 33
4. The Historical Order of Events in Paul's
Missionary Career ..... 38
VII. Analysis of the Epistle .... 41
VIII. Bibliography  43
Text and Commentary  47
Appended Notes  113
A. The Content of Paul's Gospel . . • nj
B. The Jerusalem Compact, and the Apostolic
Decrees  1 18
C. Justification by Faith, "Apart from " Works
of Law ....... 129
Index  '33
vii

INTRODUCTION I. Text
Although from the very outset the Epistle to the Gala
tians was adapted for circulation among a number of
"churches" (i : 2), we have no traces of it in separate form,
and can merely infer from the better acquaintance of the
very earliest writers such as Luke 1 and Clement of Rome
(ca. 95 a.d.) with Romans, First Corinthians, and Ephesians,
that there was a period extending approximately to no a.d.
during which the letters of Paul circulated as individual
writings. Those addressed to the remoter churches would
thus be less widely known. Books had at this time the form
of volumina, or scrolls of papyrus, and could not well be
made to include so extensive a work as the whole series of
Pauline Epistles. Still, so early as the time of Ignatius and
Polycarp (110-117 a.d.) these are referred to as "the
letters of Paul," and assumed to be current as a body of
writings by study of which the churches may be "built up."
In fact the first canon of Christian writings of which we have
definite information, set up about 145 a.d. by Marcion, the
great leader of the anti- Jewish Gnostic heresy, consisted of
two parts, a "Gospel" adapted from our Luke, and an
"Apostle" which began with Galatians and included all the
other letters of Paul save the Pastoral Epistles. By the end
of the second century it was considered quite axiomatic that
"the Apostle Paul himself following the example of his
predecessor John" should have "written by name to seven
churches only, in this order: First to the Corinthians, second
1 In giving this traditional name to the author of the third Gospel and book of Acts
the present writer does not wish to be understood as admitting the full validity of the
tradition.

INTRODUCTION

to the Ephesians, third to the Philippians, fourth to the
Colossians, fifth to the Galatians, sixth to the Thessalo-
nians, seventh to the Romans." 1
The earliest extant texts of Galatians belong to a period
two centuries later still, and happen to be included in
copies of the entire Greek Bible of Old and New Testa
ments. For by 400 a.d. these writings were easily com
prised between the covers of a single codex, or " book " of the
modern form. However, we also have codices of later date
which comprise the Pauline Epistles only, showing that
these still also circulated as a separate literary unit.
The great codices of about 400 a.d., designated Aleph
and B, or the Sinaitic and Vatican Bibles, present some
what divergent forms of the type of text current in Alex
andria about 200-400 a.d., and this type is also represented,
though in a form showing systematic emendation, by the
fragmentary rewritten Codex C, or Ephraem Syrus, of
about 500 a.d., which fortunately contains all but the first
nineteen verses of Galatians. Of similar type are the frag
ments of the so-called Cod. Coislinianus (H) at Peters
burg and Mt. Athos, containing respectively Gal. 1 : 4-10;
2 : 9-14, and 1 : 1-4; 2 : 14-17 ; 4 : 30-5 : 5. With these
may be grouped as partially "Alexandrian" the ninth cen
tury codices of Acts, Catholic Epistles and Pauline Epistles,
designated respectively Cod. Angelicus (L) and Cod. Por-
phyrianus (P), the latter including also Revelation.
A different, less carefully revised, type of text, very im
properly designated "Western," is represented, for the
Pauline Epistles only, by the sixth century, bilingual (Greek
and Latin in parallel columns), Codex Claromontanus (D),
and by a group of three similar bilinguals of the ninth cen
tury, Petropolitanus or Sangermanensis (E), Augiensis (F),
and Boernerianus (G) ; but of these E is only an unintelli
gent transcript of D, and has no independent value.
Codex Alexandrinus (A), in the British Museum, an entire
" Muratorian Fragment, 200-210 a.d. The author conceives of the seven letters of
Rev. 1-3 as written before the Pauline Epistles.

INTRODUCTION

Greek Bible, is earlier in date than any of the foregoing
save Aleph and B, but represents a later type of text than
either the Alexandrian or Western; for while the copyist
possessed a less altered exemplar for the Pauline Epistles
than for the four Gospels, it still shows a blending of Alex
andrian with Western readings. C and the secondary un
cials L and P are often found in agreement with A; but
readings thus attested are usually of late origin, and are
called "Syrian." Finally there will soon be available a
valuable though fragmentary manuscript of the Pauline
Epistles and Hebrews belonging to the fifth or sixth century,
brought to America from Egypt by Charles L. Freer, Esq.,
in 1907. Its type of text cannot be fully determined until
its appearance in the promised edition in photographic fac
simile, but it is said to contain "Syrian" as well as "Alex
andrian" readings.
There is also available for determination of the text of
the Pauline Epistles some further evidence. 1. That of the
cursive or small letter manuscripts of the tenth and later
centuries, some of which show from their readings that
they were copied from really ancient exemplars. 2. That
of the various early translations into Egyptian, Syriac, Ar
menian, and Latin. 3. That of a multitude of quotations
by Greek and Latin fathers of the Church. When it is
possible, as it frequently is, to determine which of several
variant readings these translators or fathers had before them,
we are enabled to say in general what type of text was cur
rent in Egypt, in Syria and Greece, or in Italy, North Africa,
and Gaul so early even as the latter part of the second cen
tury. We can even measure pretty closely the degree of
variation, and establish many individual readings.
The impression apt to be produced by the very magni
tude of the material at command for determination of the
New Testament text, and the prodigious pains taken by
generations of scholars to determine the origin and value of
each minutest variation, is an impression of uncertainty, as
though it were difficult to be sure exactly what the authors
3

INTRODUCTION

wrote. The logical impression should be just the contrary.
The real result is to make this text incomparably more ex
act and trustworthy than that of any other writing of equal
antiquity in the whole domain of literature. The changes
of the R. V. of 1881 from the A.V. of 161 1 exhibit about
the maximum difference between a wholly uncritical, cor
rupt text and a thoroughly scientific one. From a compari
son of these the reader will see to how slight an extent the
real substance of the writing is affected by textual criticism.
We may safely say, The difference between the text of Gala
tians as it left the hand of Paul's amanuensis and as it ap
pears to-day in any modern Greek New Testament is not
greater than the difference between our Authorized and our
Revised Version as a whole.
II. Canonicity
The process of canonization was of the utmost value in
the preservation of the text from corruption. We have
seen that so early as 145 a.d. ten of the principal epistles of
Paul were formed into a true "canon" or collection of
writings treated as sacred and authoritative "scripture"
suitable for public reading in the churches. The anticipa
tion of the ecclesiastical process thus noted in the case of
the Gnostic Marcion was due to his peculiar anti-Judaistic
doctrine, which utterly rejected the Old Testament, and
magnified Paul's quarrel with the Galilean apostles. Hav
ing thrown overboard the "sacred scriptures" of the Church,
without being able to remove the need supplied in both
Synagogue and Church by the use of these writings, Mar
cion was the more rapidly driven along the course on whose
first stages the Church had already entered. For even be
fore Marcion, as we have seen, Church leaders like Clement
of Rome (95 a.d.) and Ignatius (110-117 a.d.) were already
making use of individual letters, and Polycarp (110-117 a.d.)
was even commending a corpus Paulinum to the churches,
as the standard of apostolic doctrine, and a means of edifica-
4

INTRODUCTION

tion. Indeed while we must admit that the actual canoni
zation of any individual writing was a process of slow
growth in the Church, extending over many generations,
and the determination of the precise limits of the canon so
much slower still as to be not wholly complete in our own
day, nevertheless, there is a sense in which we may say of
the Pauline Epistles that they were "canonical" from the
very outset. Not that Paul had any idea of their being
collected and attached to the sacred rolls of the Law and
the Prophets, which he quotes with such reverence as the
word of God; but that he was saturated, dominated, and
controlled by the idea that his whole life was "inspired."
If of his life in general he could say, "It is no more I that
live, but Christ that liveth in me," how much more the Gos
pel which came to him by "revelation of the Lord," the
"visions and revelations" in which he heard "words that
are not lawful to utter," caught away into the third heaven
and not knowing whether he was "in the body or out of
the body " ? Paul beEeved that his very word of anathema
was enough to bring death upon an offending member
(i Cor. 5:5). He knew he "spoke with tongues more
than they all" (1 Cor. 14 : 18); he had done the signs of
an apostle in miracles and wonders of healing by direct en
dowment of the Spirit (Rom. 15 : 18, 19; 2 Cor. 12 : 12);
and he believed that when he gave advice, even unsup
ported by any express "word of the Lord," he also had
"the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 7 : 40)- If even a Clement
could look upon his own letter (lix) as "words spoken by
God through us," and an Ignatius his own utterance as
"God's own voice" (To the Philadelphia,™, vii), surely such
a " chosen vessel" of the Spirit as Paul was justified, in the
conviction of that earlier and still more enthusiastic age,_ in
regarding his weighty letters as conveying "what the Spirit
saith unto the churches." In a true sense it is with these
letters, carefully and laboriously constructed as they are,
notwithstanding their volcanic fervor of conviction, that
New Testament canonicity begins. Of course the " words
5

INTRODUCTION

of the Lord" already constitute to Paul a far higher stand
ard (i Cor. 7 : 10, 12; 1 Thess. 4 : 15; cf. 1 Tim. 6:3);
but, little as Paul would seem to have depended on it, this
very tradition of the Lord's sayings owes to none other than
to Paul himself so much of the reverence with which it
came to be regarded (1 Tim. 6 : 3 (ca. 90 a.d.); Poly-
carp, Philadelphians, vii). And this was not as yet a
written tradition. That the process should ever have begun
which in the course of 150 years was destined to place
alongside of the revered Scriptures of " the Law, the Prophets,
and the Psalms" a second canon of "Gospel, Epistle, and
Apocalypse," * equal or even superior in authority to the
Old Testament, is due very largely to the intense mysticism
of Paul. For Paul was convinced that he himself spoke
"God's wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath
been hidden, foreordained before the worlds unto our
glory," unknown to even the angelic and demonic "rulers
of the world," and revealed only by the indwelling "mind
of Christ" (1 Cor. 2 : 7-16). The greatest step, if not the
very first, in this significant process of the formation of a
Holy Scripture of the New Testament was the writing of
Paul's circular letter "to the churches of Galatia," pour
ing out his whole soul in passionate defence of the divine
origin of his apostleship and of his gospel. Needless, al
most, to say, since the time when Marcion adopted it and
made it the foundation stone of his Apostolos, it has never
entered the mind of the Church, or any branch of it, to
question the standing and authority thus recognized by
common consent. The occasional objections raised since
the middle of the nineteenth century by a few extremists
who question even the historical existence of Jesus and
Paul, have nothing whatever to do with the canonicity of
the writing. This is a matter which rests upon grounds
independent even of authenticity. Canonicity is a question
for the Church to determine on the basis of its own experi-
1 Cf. Justin M. Apol. I. vi. "We reverence and bow to God, and to the Son
who came from him and taught us these things, and to the prophetic Spirit."
6

INTRODUCTION

ence of benefit to its spiritual life ; and this question, so far
as Galatians is concerned, passed out of the field of debate
some eighteen centuries ago; or more strictly speaking has
never entered it at all.

III. Authorship
It is difficult to think of any writing of antiquity whose
reputed authorship could not be denied with greater plausi
bility than the Pauline authorship of Galatians. But just
because of the vital issues which in recent times have been
felt to hinge upon it, the attempt has been made. And we
may be thankful that it has ; because the complete security
of the writer's claim to be no other than the Apostle Paul
himself (i : i, 17; 2 : 1, 7, 11; 6 : n, 17) is thus estab
lished by processes of the higher criticism, just as textual
criticism establishes the accuracy of the text.
It is true that Galatians appears to be somewhat less
widely known in the earliest period 1 than First Corinthians
and Romans, but as the most morbid hypercriticism has
never soared to such a pitch as to separate the three epistles
in date of origin by more than about a decade, even when
attributing them to different hands,2 the existence of one
clearly implies the existence of the other two. If Gala
tians stood alone, we should be confined to such employ
ments of it in the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp (110-
117 a.d.) as Lightfoot (Commentary, Introd., § iv) enumer
ates, and those in a writing of the same region and period,
the Gospel of John,3 to prove its early date. We might
add the use of the doctrine of the new birth from " spiritual
seed" (Gal. 4 : 4-7, 28-31), a doctrine which not only re-
" For one reason see above, p. i. Quite probably the bitterly polemic character
of Galatians and 2 Corinthians prevented their attaining general circulation so early
as Romans, 1 Corinthians and Ephesians.
¦ R. Steck, Galaterbrief, 1888, brought forward and ably advocated a theory which
made all the Pauline Epistles spurious products of the second century. Galatians was
by a later hand than Romans and Corinthians, and was dependent on these and on
Acts. All four, however, he held to have been produced between 120 and 130 a.d.
3 With Gal. 3 : 28-4 : 7, cf. Jn. 8 : 31-42. 7

INTRODUCTION

appears in the Gospel of John,1 but also in First Peter,2
another writing of this region almost certainly known to
Clement of Rome (95 a.d.). Against this it might be
urged that the author of Acts seems to be unacquainted
with our Epistle, and the same is possibly true of his con
temporary Clement. It must also be admitted that Justin
Martyr (153-160 a.d.), while admittedly showing acquaint
ance with several Pauline Epistles, makes comparatively
little use of them as authority. But Galatians does not
stand alone. Evidence for First Corinthians and Romans
is evidence for it also. Now Clement in writing to the
Corinthians reminds them that "the blessed Paul the
Apostle" had written them an epistle "in the beginning of
the gospel," in which (xlvii, cf. 1 Cor. 1 : 10-12) "he
charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas
and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties."
Clement also uses Romans, and what is more, employs no
less than forty-seven times the Epistle to the Hebrews,"
which also uses Romans,3 and while making no claims*
whatever to apostolicity purports to be written at a time
when Timothy was still in active service (Heb. 13 : 23).
Thus by the use of external evidence only we are carried
back to the period of Paul's own companions and helpers
as that in which these great epistles were current, which
profess to be written by him, and were received as his by
the churches which had known him face to face.
Internal evidence gives even more decisive evidence in
the case of Galatians. We have seen above how the lan
guage, style, and theological standpoint compel its ascription
to the same author as the epistles to Rome and Corinth.
Until very recent times its whole aspect and content, together
with its tone of ardent sincerity, protected it from the
faintest whisper of suspicion. Even the sweeping proscrip-
' Jn. 1 : 11-13; 3 : 5-8.
' 1 Pt. 1 : 23-25. The thought is reproduced from i Peter in Jas. i : i, n, 18,
but the Epistle of James is usually regarded as later.
s Heb. 10 : 30 quotes Dt. 32 : 35 in the exact form of Rom. 12 : 19 which is not
that of the Septuagint. All the other quotations of Hebrews are very exact tran
scriptions of the Septuagint.

INTRODUCTION

tions of the radical school of Baur at Tubingen left the
authenticity of Galatians, Romans, and the two Epistles to
the Corinthians unchallenged. In fact, the sense of tre
mendous earnestness and reality suffused from its pages
makes it difficult to do real justice to the minute and learned
criticism of a few scholars who reject the Pauline author
ship. To the great majority of scholars this criticism repre
sents only a galvanizing into ephemeral activity of the long
defunct opposition of Bruno Bauer; but since it is ad
vanced by some serious investigators it is not right to dis
miss it unheard.
Necessarily this criticism is accompanied by a correspond
ing treatment as later and unauthentic of all the writings
of the sub-apostolic age already enumerated (i.e., Clement
of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp) as employing the great
Pauline Epistles, leaving nothing to the "Apostolic age"
as a really contemporary document save the Diary incor
porated by the author of Acts as one of his sources in por
tions of Acts 16 : 10-28 : 16.
But even the ultra-critics will not deny to that same sub-
apostolic age to which Galatians is attributed a reverence
for the memory of the apostles, and especially of Peter,
which verges on idolatry. In the book of Acts itself, which
the hypercritics regard as representing the currently, ac
cepted views of the Church regarding the apostles in the
period of their pseudo-Paul, both Peter (Acts 10 : 25-26)
and Paul (Acts 14 : n-15, 28 : 6) must deprecate divine
honors. But little later a Clement of Rome (Cor. v and
xlvii) and an Ignatius (Magnesians, vii. 1, xiii. 1 ; Romans,
iv. 3) regard the utterance of an Apostle as for all practical
purposes equivalent to the voice of God ! With all possible
concessions to the ingenuity and learning of the Dutch
school, surely common sense must revolt at the idea that
this age both produced and adopted into unquestioning
circulation a spurious writing which represented Paul as
rebuking Peter publicly to his face, and as imputing to
him both cowardice and "hypocrisy"! We have, indeed,
9

INTRODUCTION

instances in plenty of the acceptance by the Church of
pseudonymous documents. Those attributed to Peter are
instances, with one possible exception. But we have yet
to hear of a pseudonymous writing in antagonism to the
accepted and cherished beliefs of the Church obtaining
even temporary currency without the hue and cry of vehe
ment denunciation.
We are told that the Pauline Epistles were the products
of a local faction of the Church. Galatians represents the
beginning (ca. 130 a.d.) of that anti- Jewish ultra-Paulinism
which in less than a score of years produced the tremendous
schism of Marcion, almost dividing the Church in half.
We are willing to believe that with Paul as with some
other men the suaviter in modo yielded when he laid hold
of the pen to the fortiter in re, so that it was only the later
age, an age which came to know him through his writings
rather than his personality, which appreciated at its full
width the chasm which separates him from the Galilean
apostles. A certain rekindling of the old flame of contro
versy of the days of the first Gentile missions might thus
come from the glowing embers of Paul's " literary remains,"
when these came to be more widely known. It might
produce — it did produce in 140-160 a.d. — on the one side
a Marcion to out-Paul Paul, on the other a church father
as timid in the use of the Pauline Epistles as Justin Martyr,
Marcion's contemporary and antagonist.1 But there are
some things that a later than the great missionary age of
the outpouring of the Spirit could not produce. One of
these is a second great Apostle of the Gentiles to be the
Pseudo-Paul of the letters. A second is a repetition of the
historical conditions under which the propaganda of cir-
¦ Our only writings from Justin are directed to the defence of Christianity against
outsiders. In his Apologies, addressed to the Emperor, heof course referred' to " the
memoirs of the (Galilean) Apostles" rather than to the doctrinal writings of Paul
as authority. In his Dialogue against Trypho the Jew he would have even less
occasion to appeal to Paul. His argument passes from the predictions of the prophets
to the fulfilment of them in the life of Jesus, as described in the "memoirs." Had
we Justin's treatise against Marcion we should doubtless learn what he thought of
Paul, on whose doctrines Marcion so largely depends.

INTRODUCTION

cumcision(l) and "the yoke of the law" could become a
real peril to Gentile-Christian churches. A third is an
orthodoxy so pusillanimous as to receive without protest at
the hands of a Marcion, as authentic letters of Paul, a set
of spurious documents expressly framed to contradict the
older, better grounded, more widely prevalent representa
tion of its own book of Acts, whose author himself, on this
theory, would have been a contemporary of the forger!
IV. Relation to the Story of Paul in Acts
Since the opponents of the authenticity of the greater
Pauline Epistles have taken their stand upon the narrative
of Acts, and regard Galatians as belonging to a period
even later than that narrative in its present form, we may
appropriately consider at this point a question which in
any event would be vital, and is particularly unavoidable
in the case of this Epistle, viz. What is .the respective view
point of Galatians and Acts? What is the real measure of
difference between the two writers, and the relative degree
of credence assignable to the course of events as related by
the one and inferred from the other?
As much as possible the work of the individual commen
tator must be prevented from overlapping that of his fellow-
worker in adjacent fields; but in the case of Galatians
and Acts some overlapping is unavoidable. Both are con
cerned in a considerable part of their contents with the
same vitally important events, and both, to a greater degree
than is commonly realized, treat of those events in an in
terest which is fundamentally the same, viz. the vindication
of Paul's apostleship and gospel: though, as weTsEall see,
thpgpjyrp_rgal]y ™T""pl'vpd in widely different senses.
"Tiloreover, it must not be forgotten that while the book
of Acts as a whole is almost forty years later in date x than
the great Epistles, and unmistakably reflects that strongly
idealizing tendency of the post-apostolic age to which we
¦ Gilbert, Acts (Bible/or Home and School, p. 31), 70-90 A-D-
II

INTRODUCTION

have already referred, its compiler has employed through
out the portion dealing with Paul's later career a source,
limited indeed in extent but of almost incomparable value,
the so-called "Diary" of Paul's companion in travel of Acts
16 : 10-18; 20 : 5-15; 21 : 1-18; and 27 : 1-28 : 16.
Whether it be Luke himself, that one among the known
companions of Paul most plausibly to be identified with
this unknown diarist; or be it some later historian who
has combined the Diary with other sources relating to the
origins of the greater churches, and has given to the com
pilation its present development and rhetorical finish ; at
all events the author is mainly concerned with the same
(great conflict of the apostolic age which engages the pen
Vof Paul, the conflict through which Christianity threw off
/the swathing bands of Judaism, and became conscious of
itself as a world religion. Not alone the central portion of
the book (cc. 13-15) is occupied with the raising and settle
ment of the great question to what extent, if at all, the
"yoke of the law" should be considered binding on Gentile
converts; the earlier portion as well, which has Peter as
its leading character, also culminates in a settlement of
this question (in principle), by apostolic conclave in Jeru
salem (Acts 10 : 1-11 : 18). The later portion, having
Paul as its chief actor, and as its subject the peaceful and
triumphant progress of Gentile missions, starts from the
account of its settlement (in practice) by the second apos
tolic conclave in Jerusalem (c. 15). It centers upon the
story of still a third conclave (21 : 17-26), whereat Paul
meets in Jerusalem the leaders of Jewish Christian conser
vatism under the leadership of James, and establishes lo
their entire satisfaction the falsity of the charge that he
had taught "the Jews which are among the Gentiles" to
disregard the Mosaic law.1 The book concludes with the
establishment of free and untrammelled Gentile Christianity
(as Luke understands the terms) at Rome.
1 The present writer's views of the theological standpoint of the author of Luke-
Acts, which is a much more conservative standpoint than that of Mark, or of the
source embodied in Acts 10 : i-n : 18, differ to some extent from those of Professor

INTRODUCTION

Perhaps it is too much to expect that even a personal
adherent and ardent devotee of Paul should have so clear
a conception of Paul's own attitude regarding his apostle-
ship and gospel as not to yield more or less, when writing
the story of Christianity's triumph over Judaism some
twenty-five years after Paul's death, to the spell of later
_ygneration for the personal followers of Jesus. In any case
the evidences of "idealization" are admittedly abundant in
the Lukan story. Its author is convinced that the solution
accepted in his own time and environment had been from
the outset revealed to the twelve Apostles commissioned by
the Lord to the work of evangelizing the world (Lk. 24 : 47-
49; Acts 1:8; n : 1-18; 17: 22-29). This leaves, of
course, no room for any serious disagreement between Paul
and Peter, James, or any other of the apostolic circle. All
the painful and momentous breach with Peter at Antioch
so vividly described by Paul (Gal. 2 : 11-21), all the years
of storm and stress (the very years of Luke's companion
ship), during which Paul was battling almost single-handed
for the gospel of freedom from the law for Jew and Gentile
alike, wrestling in the agonies of a second childbirth (Gal.
4 : 19) against the reenslavement of his Gentile converts
under the Jewish Christian's "yoke of bondage," Luke
makes to disappear. There_arejio_jeriousjOT^^
the wicked Jews. On the contraryTwhen the work of the
crmfcFin Antioch, carried on in Gentile territory through
its missionaries ("apostles," Acts 14 : 4, 14) "Barnabas
and Paul," at first encounters opposition at the hands of cer
tain unauthorized "troublers" (Acts 15 : 1, 24), the opposi
tion is immediately quelled when brought to the attention
of the Twelve by their authoritative declaration of God's
special revelation to Peter of his approval of similar work
(Acts 15 : 7). Paul on his part, as we have seen, readily
silences the subsequent complaint that he has taught the
Gilbert in the companion volume of this series. They are made sufficiently clear
in two articles recentlv published in The American Journal of Theology entitled re
spectively "Acts versus Galatians, the Crux of Apostolic History (July, 1907), and
"Harnack and the Lukan Narrative" (January, icog).
13

INTRODUCTION

(unevangelized) Jews which are among the Gentiles to for
sake Moses. He does so by a public act undertaken at
Jerusalem for the express purpose of proving that in his
methods he has followed loyally and consistently the rules
prescribed by "the apostles and elders at Jerusalem."
"All shall know," says James, "that there is no truth in
the things whereof they (the believing Jews zealous for the
law) have been informed concerning thee, but that thou
thyself walkest orderly, keeping the law." And Paul ac
quiesces and undertakes the proof ! 1 The implications of
Luke here and elsewhere are clear and unmistakeable, and
reveal to us how he understood Paul's gospel of "iustifica-
iion apart from works of the law." It applied to Gentiles,
but not to Jews I The latter, including even "Jews which
are among the Gentiles," must continue to circumcise their
children,2 and to "walk after the customs." So far from
Peter, or even Paul himself, being under obligation to forego
their Jewish scruples and "eat with the Gentiles" when
among "those that are without the law" (Gal. 2 : 11-21;
1 Cor. 9 : 20-22), it is the Gentiles who are under obliga
tion to make such concessions as are "necessary" to meet
the scruples of their Jewish fellow-believers; because "in
every city" they hear Moses "read in the synagogues every
Sabbath" (Acts 15 : 21-29).3 Nay, Luke goes even be
yond this. He thinks that Paul himself personally set
the example to all "Jews which are among the Gentiles"
of "walking orderly, keeping the law." So far from
insisting that Peter and Barnabas and "the rest of the
Jews" when among Gentiles should renounce their
Mosaic scruples, he himself took formal part in the nazi-
rite ceremonial in the temple on a great and critical
occasion on purpose to prove that all reports to the con
trary notwithstanding he, Paul, even when among Gentiles,
1 Acts 2 1 : 24-26.
» The case of Timothy in Galatia is related as a precedent on this very point.
Acts 16 : 1-3. Paul's refusal to circumcise Titus, intended as a precedent on the other
side (Gal. 2 : 1-3), is passed over in silence.
' On the intention of the Jerusalem "decrees" see below p. 66 and Appended
Note B. 14

INTRODUCTION

set the example to the Jews of "walking orderly, keeping
the law!"1
So with the other matter so vital to Paul, the independence
of his apostleship, and its parity as "an apostleship to the
Gentiles" with Peter's as "an apostleship to the circum
cision." 2 Luke is committed to the view that the evangeli
zation of the Gentiles was the original commission of Jesus
to the Twelve.3 More particularly the definite direction to
begin the work was given, he declares, by special divine
revelation to Peter when the time was fully ripe ; 4 so that
Peter can subsequently declare in the very presence of
Paul, before the assembled church, "Brethren, ye know
how that a good while ago God made choice among you
that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the
gospel and believe." 5 Peter being thus the real Apostle to
the Gentiles, there is no room for Paul save as a practical
agent, "a chosen vessel to bear" the message "before the
Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel." Moreover,
this practical activity of Paul Luke cannot permit to antici
pate the precedent established by Peter. It must be deferred
until as missionary agent ("apostle") of the church in An
tioch, along with, and at first in subordination to Barnabas,
Paul accomplishes " the work whereunto " God had " called
him." ° Such an independent missionary activity as Paul
himself describes, making its very beginning among the
Gentiles,7 creating its own precedents, is simply inadmissible
on Luke's theory. Luke is compelled, from his general as
sumption, to think of Paul's earlier Christian career as spent
among Jewish believers in subordination to and in depend
ence on the apostles and Barnabas.8 He describes it as
> Acts 21 : 20-26. Cf. Gal. 2 : 11-21. * Gal. 2 : 8.
3 Lk. 24 : 49; Acts 1:8.
« Acts 9 : 32-n : 18. In the source this section probably came after c. 12.
s Acts 15 : 7. .« Acts 13 : 1-3; cf. 9 : 15, 26-30. ' Gal. 1 : 10-24.
8 Acts 9 : 22-30; 11:19-26. In the latter passage (ver. 20) an original Greeks
has been altered by Luke to "Grecian Jews" (on the question of text see Warfield,
Journ. of BiU. Lit. Ill, p. 113-137). This change, so clearly against the context,
is to avoid the (manifestly historical) representation that Antioch itself was a half
Gentile foundation and that the " trouble " of 15 : 24 alluded to by Paul (Gal. 2 : 4)
was really at this time. IS

INTRODUCTION

occupied with fruitless endeavors to convert the Greek-
speaking Jews, first at Damascus, afterwards at Jerusalem,
"and in all the country of Judaea" (Acts 9 : 22, 28-30;
22 : 17-21; 26 : 20). When he is "sent away to Tarsus"
to escape Jewish hostility, not a word is said about his
preaching there. Only after a second intervention of
Barnabas, and by special revelation of the Spirit, does Paul
find at last his life-work. This is that he should be the great
foreign missionary of the church of Antioch (Acts n : 19-
26; 13 : 1-3) ; but even then at the start as subordinate to
Barnabas. The visit to Jerusalem with Barnabas has no
relation to Paul's missionary activity. It is not made that
he and Barnabas may secure freedom to work in their own
province unmolested. It is not made that Paul "may not
labor in vain neither run in vain." Even if the partners
take back to Antioch with them from Jerusalem the nephew
of Barnabas, who became their minister on the great cam
paign of Gentile evangelization, this was mere coincidence.
The idea of the Gentile mission was a divine revelation,
but it came later.
The question whether so fundamental a difference in
view-point on such vital questions as those of Paul's apostle
ship and gospel is compatible with the theory of Lukan
authorship of Acts is one which can only be settled by a
criticism which is beyond our present province. But on
any theory the difference in view-point remains, and can
not be ignored in any attempt, such as we have now to
make, to reconstruct the historical background of the
Epistle to the Galatians. Disagreement with Acts, as we
have seen, cannot militate against the authenticity of the
great Pauline Epistles. It may compel us to exercise con
siderable caution in adopting the statements of Acts specially
affected by this view-point. In short we are obliged to use
with utmost respect the data afforded by this our one his
torical source; yet we must insist upon discrimination be
tween the more trustworthy and the less, and are now aware
pf certain general preconceptions which decidedly affect
16

INTRODUCTION

Luke's representation, particularly as regards Paul's earlier
career, and his relations to the Twelve.1
V. To whom Galatians was Written
From the very subject of Acts, which aims to vindicate
Paul's evangelization of the Gentile world by setting his
career in parallelism with that of Peter, though on a lower
plane, we should anticipate in its pages a specially full
account of the founding and development of " the churches
of Galatia," which from Paul's letter appear to have afforded
the chief battle-ground in the attempt to subject Gentile
believers to "the yoke of the law." And in point of fact
in Acts the story of the four great churches of (Pisidian)
Antioch, Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra is related with very
exceptional fulness. We have first two long chapters (cc.
13-14) descriptive of the First Missionary Journey and its
results, wherein their founding is the main matter. This
leads over to the story (c. 15) how delegates of the church
in Antioch, on whose initiative the missionary campaign
had been undertaken, went up to Jerusalem and obtained
from a solemn conclave of "the apostles and elders" a sort
of magna charta, endorsing the work, and limiting to four
"necessary things" the obligations which might be imposed
upon Gentile converts from the side of Judaism. Thirdly
and finally the succeeding section (Acts 15 : 30-16 : 6) re
lates how the two great Gentile districts thus evangelized
by Barnabas and Paul, Cyprus, and trans-Cilician Asia
Minor, were revisited and established on the basis of the
settlement effected in Jerusalem. Barnabas with Mark now
returned to Cyprus, his native province, while Paul with
Silas returned to Derbe and Lystra and the other trans-
Taurus cities. Luke adds: "And as they went on their
way through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for
to keep, which had been ordained of the apostles and elders
1 On Luke's transfer of the Conference of Barnabas and Paul with the Pillars at
Jerusalem from just before (Acts u : 19-30; 12 : 25) to just after the First Mis
sionary Journey (Acts 11:1-35) see above, p. 15, note 8, and Appended Note B.
C 17

INTRODUCTION

that were at Jerusalem." Thus he concludes his account
of how the systematic evangelization of the Gentile world
was begun, and how it was endorsed and regulated by " the
apostles and elders in Jerusalem.'
i. The Churches of Galatia. — From Acts 16 : 6 Luke
begins the account of the so-called Second Missionary
Journey, an (independent) missionary enterprise of Paul
and Silas, which resulted in the evangelization of both coasts
of the /Egean (Acts 16 : 6-18 : 23). The story of the con
quest of this new territory begins with a temporarily frus
trated attempt to enter the province of (proconsular) Asia.
The missionaries "passed through the region of Galatian
Phrygia" in an attempt to enter Bithynia, "because they
had been forbidden of the Holy Ghost to speak the word
in Asia." This is the only occurrence of the term " Gala
tia" in Acts, with one exception. A similar phrase in in
verted order is found in 18 : 23: "And having spent some
time (in Syrian Antioch) he departed, and went through
the region of Galatia and (through) Phrygia in order,
stablishing all the disciples." It is practically certain, that
in Acts 18 : 23 the writer means to include the four great
churches of the First Missionary Journey under the term
"region of Galatia"; for he is describing a systematic visi
tation ("in order") for the "stablishment" of "all the
disciples" between (Syrian) Antioch and Ephesus; and
Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and (Pisidian) Antioch lay di
rectly upon the great high road between Syria and Ephesus.
As these four cities at the time of Luke's writing had formed
part of the Roman province of Galatia for more than a
hundred years, and seventy-five or more at the time of
PauPs_ visit, it would be most natural for Luke thus to group
them in this general summary, although in the more de
tailed account of their founding (cc. 13, 14) he designates
them in accordance with their ethnic character as "cities
of Lycaonia" and "Pisidia," notwithstanding these former
territorial divisions no longer had existence on the Roman
map. If so, the region designated " Phrygo-Galatic region"
18

INTRODUCTION

or "region of Galatian Phrygia" in 16 : 6 is referred to in
the subsequent more summary account of 18 : 23 not as
" Galatia," but simply " Phrygia."
It thus appears that the only portion of the province of
Galatia ever entered by Paul according to Acts is "South
Galatia," for the phrase "Phrygo-Galatic " in Acts 16:6
expressly distinguishes this "region " from Galatia strictly
so called.1 But in the third century "South Galatia" in
the process of Roman redefinition of provincial frontiers was
again excluded from "Galatia," and, whether at the same
period or later, Acts 16:6 was altered to read "passed through
the regions of Galatia and Phrygia." It was quite inevitable
that the church fathers should assume after this that "the
churches of Galatia" were founded on this (supposed)
journey to "Galatia," and the majority of modern commen
tators, though rejecting the reading, still hold to this view.
What, then, is Luke's meaning in Acts 16 : 6-10 ? It is
clear from the formal wind-up of his whole account of the
"trouble " about the churches founded on the First Mis
sionary Journey in Acts 16 : 5, that "South Galatia " is now
left behind. After the settlement, wherein the essential
features are the circumcision of Timothy in Lystra, and the
distribution of the "decrees," Luke advances w^th ver. 6
to the new campaign on unevangelized territory. "Asia,"
that is Ephesus and its adjacent district, had been the strate
gic objective ; but for some reason, perhaps the same which
later made Paul hesitate to remain there although urgently
entreated (Acts 18 : 20), a reason which may readily be
guessed from Rom. 15 : 20-22 (cf. Acts 19 : 1), the mission
aries at their last station of Christianized territory (Pisidian
Antioch?) were turned from their course by a "revelation "
conveyed through the (local?) prophets. For this reason
they turned due north and "passed through the region of
Galatian Phrygia." This region, now "traversed " by Paul
' " The term Galatic excludes Galatia in the narrow sense: and Acts 16 : 6 when
taken according to contemporary usage asserts that Paul did not traverse North
Galatia." — Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, p. 81.
19

INTRODUCTION

with Silas and Timothy between Pisidian Antioch and an
unnamed point "over against Mysia" in their attempt to
"go into Bithynia," lay therefore on the very border between
"Asia" and Galatia, and had in older times formed part of
"Phrygia." The missionaries "passed through" Phrygia Galatica as
Peter was entreated to "pass through " without delay to
the help of the disciples in Joppa.1 Either Luke, whether
through ignorance. or design, had nothing to tell about the
founding of "the churches of Galatia" and their relation
to the historic controversy wherein Paul's championship
of their cause secured the truth of the gospel to the whole
Gentile world (Gal. 2:5); or else he understands by them
the ethnically diverse churches of Southern Galatia whose
evangelization and subsequent "stablishment" he relates
with such exceptional fulness and interest in 13 : 13-14 : 28 ;
15 : 30-16 : 5 and 18:23. Only in connection with these cities
of Pisidia, Phrygia, and Lycaonia have we any clear intimation
from Acts that Paul ever entered the province of Galatia.
2. The North Galatian Theory. — But many recent au
thorities still think it impossible to relinquish the North
Galatian theory. The great commentator Lightfoot found
evidence of Celtic blood (!) in the "fickleness" displayed
by Paul's converts in so soon forsaking his gospel (Gal.
1:6). But had the Galatians displayed all the volatility
which the typical Englishman imagines to be characteristic
of the typical Frenchman, they could hardly have surpassed
in fickleness the Lycaonians of Lystra, who were first for
worshipping Paul, and in a twinkling, under the influence of
"Jews from Antioch and Iconium," attempted to stone him
to death (Acts 13: 8-19).
Other arguments for the North Galatian theory have more
weight to-day, especially with German scholars. For while
it is difficult to suppose that an author with the aims and
interests of Luke would have been silent as to the founding
of "the churches of Galatia " so prominent in the Epistles,
» Acts 9 : 38 (Greek).

INTRODUCTION

there is an undeniable advantage in debate to the contestant
who can take refuge in our ignorance. As we know nothing
whatever about the evangelization of North Galatia, which
does not so much as come within the purview of ecclesiastical
writers until about 170 a.d., it is impossible to say that any
of the occurrences implied in Paul's allusions to his "former "
and latter visits among the "Galatians " could not have taken
place there. The most recent and one of the most eminent
of German commentators even finds it "fatal " to the South
Galatian theory that whereas according to Gal. 4 : 13 ff.
Paul was detained among the Galatians by illness, and so
engaged in their evangelization, we have in Acts 13-14 no
intimation of any illness of Paul, while in Acts 16 : 6 f. we
are told that Paul was "forbidden of the Holy Ghost to
speak the word in Asia." 1 We will not adopt the sarcasm
of R. Steck, who inquires whether then we are to identify
"the Holy Ghost" with Paul's "messenger of Satan sent
to buffet him " ; 2 but we may at least point out that illness is
certainly not the cause of the turning aside on the Second
Missionary Journey; whereas the similar turning back at
almost the identical spot on the First Missionary Journey
(Acts 13 : 51) might very well be due to illness. Acts is
simply silent as to the reason why Paul and Barnabas go
first to the extreme western limit of Galatian territory, and
then, when driven from Pisidian Antioch, return to its
nearer cities, instead of continuing on the road to the cities
of "Asia." Illness might well account for this seeming
halt and retreat. The case of the flank movement of Acts
16 : 6 is different. Here the reason is distinctly implied.
The intervention of "the Holy Spirit " meets the crying need
of "Macedonia" (ver. 9-10). If one interjects a campaign
in Galatia this motive is frustrated. And even were we to
suppose an illness, of which there is not the slightest inti
mation, no treatment could possibly be so improbable as the
undertaking of a new and arduous missionary campaign
« Bousset in J. Weiss' Schriften des neutn Testaments, 1908, II, p. 29.
¦ In 2 Cor. 12 : 5-10 Paul's "weakness" (Gr, "illness") is so described.

INTRODUCTION

across the half barbarous wilds of northern Galatia, among
an alien race speaking an unknown tongue.
Besides this, we know from Paul's letters that for years
before his final visit to Jerusalem he had been engaged in a
work of gathering contributions among his Gentile converts
"for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem "
(Rom. 15 : 25-31). The "churches of Galatia" were among
the first to engage in this work (1 Cor. 16 : 1) which seems to
have been undertaken in fulfilment of Paul's pledge to the
"Pillars" in Jerusalem, shortly before the rupture with
Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2 : 10, n ff.). In the great gather
ing of delegates assembled at Troas to make the journey with
Paul in Acts 20 : 4, in which as a rule each of the great pro
vincial churches of Paul's missionary field seems to have been
represented by two "messengers" (cf. 2 Cor. 8-9), it is
extremely improbable that "the churches of Galatia"
should have been unrepresented. If the North Galatian
theory be true, no name is given which can belong to their
representatives. Two names, however, will be left over
with no group of churches to represent. They will be ' ' Gaius
of Derbe " and "Timothy of Lystra."
If "the churches of Galatia" be not found in the com
paratively well-Hellenized cities of Derbe and Lystra,
Iconium and Pisidian Antioch, on the great high road from
Syria to "Asia," but in unknown cities of the remote high
lands of the original Galatia, we shall encounter another per
plexity. In Paul's case the enthusiasm of the cross would
doubtless triumph, even in the face of physical "weakness,"
against all deterrents of the most arduous and unpromising
field of labor. // the field toward which in the intention of
Luke in Acts 16: 6-8 Paul is being "driven by the Spirit"
is really the virgin soil of Galatia, and not Macedonia ripe
for the harvest, we may be sure that Paul would have gone,
in spite of all we know of his "eye for strategic points."
But what of the Judaizers? Thessalonica and Philippi
seem to have remained too remote from the headquarters
of these propagandists to be reached by them. Rome itself

INTRODUCTION

! I

was not seriously affected. But the North Galatian theory
requires us to assume that these reactionaries, who could
not hope for success save where a considerable Jewish
element formed the nucleus of the church, passed by the
flourishing Pauline mission field of Lycaonian and Pisidian
Galatia, leaving unmolested the churches formed out of the
"synagogues" (Acts 13 : 14, 15; 14: 1, 2) of Iconium and
Pisidian Antioch, neglecting Derbe and Lystra and "the
Jews that were in those parts" (Acts 14 : 19; 16 : 3), for
the uninviting task of reconverting to Mosaism ( ! ) Paul's
barbarian converts in Celtic Galatia. This seems hardly
probable, if the motives of the Judaizers were such as Paul
describes (Gal. 6 : 12, 13).
Other objections to the North Galatian theory perhaps as
serious as those already instanced spring from the later rela
tive dating which it involves. In Gal. 4 : 13 Paul implies
that he had been twice among the Galatians.1 Unless Acts
13-14 can be the first visit and Acts 15 : 30-16 : 5 the second,
this compels a dating of the letter subsequent to the estab
lishment of Paul's headquarters in Ephesus (Acts 19 : 10).
It is true that Paul returned to Greece shortly before writ
ing 2 Corinthians ; but so late as this the appearance of the
Judaizers in Galatia could hardly be the surprise to Paul
which the Epistle implies, nor the events of Gal. 2 unknown
to the churches. If on the other hand we date Galatians
during the period of his residence in "Asia," the cry of
4 : 20, "Would that I could be present with you now," be
comes difficult to explain. One asks, "Well, if he be no
further off than Ephesus, still more if he be in Antioch
(Acts 18 : 23) on the point of a journey through these very
regions, why in the world does he not go ? " An early date
with remoteness from Galatia can only be found in the
Second Missionary Journey before Paul's departure from
Corinth (Acts 18 : 18).
* See note ad he. Some think to avoid the implication by rendering to proleron
"formerly," instead of "the former time." But it is the presence of the distinguish
ing adverb, however rendered, that proves the point.
23

INTRODUCTION

3. The Pauline Geography. — If against the attempts to
adjust the implications of Paul's letter to the story of Acts
by the interjection of supposititious journeys to North
Galatia, we set the fact, demonstrable by the simple use of
the Greek concordance, that Paul and Luke differ in their
use of geographical terms, the difficulties disappear, and it
becomes apparent at once that those whom Paul addresses
as "Galatians" (Gal. 1:2; 3:1) are no other than the
churches which Luke describes as founded in Antioch of
Pisidia, Iconium of Phrygia, and Derbe and Lystra of Lyca
onia. Paul, who invariably employs the terminology of
the official Roman geography,1 could have found no other
common term to address them. To have called them
"Phrygians" would have been insulting.2 Many were
Jews, some were Romans. All would take most satisfac
tion in being called "Galatians."
Even Luke, as we have seen, when he wishes to speak of
all four churches as a group, refers to them as "the disciples
of the region of Galatia" (Acts 18: 23). Why then does
he not so describe them in cc. 13-14 ? In speaking of the
fortunes of "the apostles Barnabas and Saul," and how they
were affected in passing from one to another of these cities,
with their differing speech,3 differing customs and beliefs,
different government or proportion of Jewish influence,
Luke gives them the ethnic name indicative of these differ
ences. In like manner in 16 : 6 he speaks of the border
region between official "Asia" and "Galatia" as "the
Phrygo-Galatic region"; not because he aims at accuracy
as a historical geographer, and knows that this territory
had once belonged to Phrygia, though now incorporated in
"Galatia," but because he knows the experiences of the
travellers, and that they passed through a region where the

17; 4 : 25). Even had he not been a Roman born it wwld^bemcre'raturalfor
the campaign leader to use the language of the map.
""Phrygian" was equivalent to "slave." a Acts 14 : n.
24

INTRODUCTION

people whom they met spoke the Phrygian language and
wore the Phrygian cap, while at the same time one could see
not infrequently the big-boned, fair-haired Gaul, striding
about in his uncouth garb and weapons, and talking his
outlandish jargon. Ethnically, and for that which strikes the
traveller, the region was "Phrygo-Galatic " (16 : 6). Butwhen
Luke has occasion later to mention the disciples of this dis
trict as a whole, they are simply those of "Phrygia " (18 : 23).
In Lystra they used "the speech of Lycaonia" (14 : 11).
Since Pliny, Tacitus, and Ptolemy all speak of the hetero
geneous elements combined under Galatian sovereignty
as "Galatia," and since Iconium itself in one of its own
inscriptions of the first century a.d. is said to be "of the prov
ince of Galatia," we could not expect Paul to refer to the
churches of Acts 13-14 in any other way than as "churches
of Galatia." Until the more northerly region of the prov
ince was evangelized, which so far as we know did not take
place before 200 a.d., they would be "the churches of
Galatia." Indeed we have reason to think they long con
tinued to be so called. The second century romance of
Paul and Thekla does not indeed employ the collective term,
but only shows that the individual cities were still remembered
as one of Paul's great mission fields. But in the reign of
Domitian (81-95 A-D-) a Paulinist, writing under the pseu
donym of "Peter," addresses comprehensively the Chris
tians of all Asia Minor. As he has no other term under
which the great churches of the First Missionary Journey
can be included, we have either a most unaccountable
omission, or else this author too includes the Pisidian and
Lycaonian Christians under the head " the elect of the dis
persion who are sojourners in . . . Galatia." 1
VI. Date and Occasion of the Letter
If we may now regard it as reasonably established that
''the churches of Galatia" were those whose foundation is
• 1 Pet. r : r.
25

INTRODUCTION

related in Acts 13-14, we may properly look for some degree
of correspondence between the allusions of the letter and
the story as related by Luke.
We have seen already that Gal. 4 : 13-20 implies that
Paul had been among them on two previous occasions,
and that at the time of writing some insuperable obstacle,
so self-evident that he does not need to explain its nature,
makes his coming to them impracticable. These data,
meagre as they are, suffice to establish a probable situation
for the Apostle at the time of writing. Paul is probably
separated from them by the broad gulf of the iEgean.
1. Relation of Galatians to Romans. — So excellent
a critic as Adeney,1 who accepts this geographical infer
ence, argues, however, as Lightfoot did, from the close inter
relation of Galatians with Romans that it was written, like
Romans, from Corinth, and but shortly before Romans itself.
We have seen 2 that theories which regard Antioch or
Ephesus as the place of writing are improbable, and for
the most part are mere inferences from the dates adopted
by their advocates. But the relation of Galatians to Romans
is a fact not so lightly to be dismissed as is liable to be the
case when one regards it as a mere matter of style and
vocabulary. It is something much more far-reaching than
this, which could be easily accounted for in epistles separated
by the interval even of half a decade by similarity of occasion
and subject-matter. It is a relation much slighter in degree,
but similar to that which subsists between Ephesians and
Colossiahs, a tendency to revert to the same arguments, the
same data and illustrations, to prove the same points, in
language which here and there falls into even identical
phrases.3 Among the opponents of Pauline authorship this relation
is considered a phenomenon of fundamental importance.
To Steck it is the foundation stone of his argument for the
1 Century Bible, Thessalonians and Galatians, by W. F. Adeney, 1907 (?) (no
date), pp. 87-97.
3 Above, p. 23. See also Adeney, op. cil., pp. 95-97.
3 For parallel phrases see Adeney, ibid., p. 91 f.
26

INTRODUCTION

literary dependence of Galatians on Romans and Acts.
Galatians, we are told, would be unintelligible to readers
unacquainted with the fuller form of the Pauline argument
set forth in Romans. But surely this is precisely what the
conditions as usually understood should lead us to expect.
Galatians was written to converts_wIiQ_j3rj^two--rir£Yiaus
occa"si6ns"~had heard the exposition of Paul'§_ilgosp.el" ;
R6mahs~to conyerts who onjyknew~oT it by hearsay. Ga
latians was written in the violent agitation of intense polemic ;
Romans, as a calm and reasoned exposition of Paul's com
plete doctrine. Why should not Romans complete the
gaps and fill the leaps of logic in the shorter epistle? We
are not surprised to find great differences on this question
of priority among the ultra-critics themselves, while not only
conservatives such as Lightfoot and Adeney take the fuller,
more closely reasoned form of the argument as the later;
but the ultra-critics themselves, Steck and Van Manen in
the lead, free-lances like Volter and Spitta ardently espous
ing the cause, are eager to prove to us that Romans itself
is a composite, of which portions might well be earlier and
portions later than Galatians.1 In short, such a relation
does subsist in some degree as between Colossians and
Ephesians, and the ultra-critics are simply ringing the
changes on the intricate theory of a much greater scholar,2
elaborated to fit these phenomena in the case of Ephesians
and Colossians. But Holtzmann's theory of Ephesians and
Colossians as mutually related elaborations of a Pauline
substructure remains unconvincing even to critics of his
own school and following. Still more unconvincing must
be the far weaker case of Galatians and Romans. The
real explanation is much simpler. The same writer on
similar occasions will always tend to repeat himself. _ If
the subject-matter be something which his very occupation
compels him to constantly reiterate, he will repeat even
1 See the article s.v. "Romans" in Encycl. Bibl.,by Van Manen, with the earlier
authorities cited. . .
*H. J. Holtzmann, Krilik der Epheser und Colosserbnefe, 1872.
27

INTRODUCTION

whole phrases in identical, or very closely similar language.
So with Paul. The phenomenon is not confined to Ephesians
and Colossians, nor to Galatians and Romans. The figure
of i Thess. 5 : 4-10 of the sons of light, clad in armor and
waiting for the great Captain of their deliverance, derived
from Is. 59 : 17, probably through the mediation of an
Isaian apocalypse quoted in Eph. 5 : 14,1 recurs both in
Rom. 13 : 12 and in Eph. 5 : 9. Paul was beyond question
the mcst creative mind among all the missionaries of the
new propaganda. But we have no need to exaggerate his
originality in the face of his own statements regarding the
common element in "the preaching of the cross."2 When
we compare his own references to his regular type of mis
sionary preaching in 1 Thess. 1 : 9, 10 with Luke's report
of it in Acts 14 : 15-17; 17 : 24-31, and this in turn with
Rom. 1 : 18-2 : 16 on the one hand and a whole series of
Jewish and Christian kerygmas, extending from Pseudo-
Aristeas and the Wisdom of Solomon, through the Preach
ing of Peter down to Aristides, Tatian, ad Diognetum, and
Athenagoras, we see that there was a regular type corre
sponding to the diatribe of the Stoic and Cynic street
preachers. And Paul is not superior to using such forms,
just as Luke assumes that he would. If this be true re
garding the most general themes of missionary proclamation,
how much more might we expect that renewed occasion
for setting forth the nature and grounds of his gospel of
"justification apart from works of the law" would lead
Paul to revert in Romans once and again to the line of
argument pursued against the Judaizers in Galatia, albeit,
for the reason above stated, with more careful attention to
the logical nexus.
With this answer to the opponents of the authenticity
we have already answered those who find it hard to believe
that the Corinthian correspondence, and perhaps even the
Thessalonian as well, could have intervened between
Galatians and Romans. In neither case was there any such
1 See Bacon, Story of St. Paul, 1904, p. 341 ff. » 1 Cor. 15 : n.
28

INTRODUCTION

occasion as in Romans for a recapitulation of Paul's sys
tem, as against Jewish Christian misrepresentation. The
Judaizers do not seem ever to have reached Macedonia.
In Corinth the issues were drawn upon other, less theo
retical, lines. It was not so much a matter of the doctrine
of justification by faith and the obligation of the law, as
of local contentions and of Paul's personal authority. To
forestall misrepresentation in Rome Paul felt obliged to
present a full statement of his doctrinal system. Con
sidering the line his opponents could not fail to take, it is
not surprising that even a later letter should show more
resemblance in its doctrinal argument to Galatians than to
the Thessalonian or even the Corinthian letters.
2. Internal Indications. — If then neither the references
of Acts to Paul's "Galatian" journeys, nor the connection
of Galatians with Romans oblige us to bring down its date
to Paul's second journey down the Greek peninsula, we may
well turn to the Epistle itself for such intimations of con
ditions whether of writer or recipients as will tend to fix
its date and occasion.
It has been already intimated 1 that the indignant sur
prise of Paul on learning of the nefarious work of the Ju
daizers among his Galatian converts is hard to reconcile
with the idea that he had already passed through the ex
tremely trying experiences occasioned by their inroads in
the remoter field of Corinth. Also that the necessity Paul
seems to be under of relating the true history of his under
standing with the "pillars" at Jerusalem, and subsequent
misunderstanding with Peter, Barnabas, and "the rest of
the Jews" at Antioch, together with the extreme harshness of
his characterization of their conduct, are opposed to the
idea that our Epistle dates from so long an interval there
after. Some five or six years later we find Paul pointing
with approval to the example of " Barnabas " and " Cephas," 2
and very strenuously urging his "strong" adherents both
in Corinth and Rome to show more consideration for the
¦ Above, p. 23. 2 1 Cor. 3 : 22; 9:5-
29

INTRODUCTION

scruples of the "weak," who were in dread of contamination
by the pollutions of idols. We intimated above the im
probability after this of a renewed exacerbation of Paul's
feeling toward Peter and Barnabas. We have now to
consider whether the allusions of the letter itself, mainly
comprised in the appeal of 4 : 12-20 to the Galatians for
a return to the cordial relations which had subsisted when
Paul "preached the gospel to them the first time," can
enable us to fix upon any particular date and define in any
closer way the occasion of the letter.
It appears that the Galatians, or at least the great majority
of them, owed their conversion to Paul's own preaching.
He had been their spiritual mother in Christ.1 Although
in 1 : 8 ("we preached") it is made apparent that his
missionary preaching at the time of their evangelization
had been, as usual, in company with another, this other
cannot be included in the general expression "all the
brethren which are with me" of ver. 2. A founder of the
Galatian churches themselves would certainly have been
distinguished by name, as are "Silvanus and Timothy"
in 1 Thess. 1 : 1 ; 2 Thess. 1:1. These latter, companions
of the "second missionary journey," Timothy a native him
self of southern Galatia (Acts 16 : 1-3), must also, for the
same reason, have been away from Paul's immediate vicinity
at the time of writing.2 That the former companion in
question was Barnabas, Paul's fellow-" apostle " on the
"first missionary journey," is made probable by the ref
erences of 2 : 1, 9, 13, the last of which especially implies
some exceptional interest of the Galatians in Barnabas;
otherwise there would be no occasion for distinguishing
him among the general mass of those " carried away by their
[the Judaizers'] hypocrisy." After this rupture, or at least
after the first missionary journey, Barnabas ceased to be
Paul's missionary companion (Acts 15 : 36-41).
In 4 : 13-15 something is told us both of the occasion
of Paul's coming on his "former" tour of evangelization,
1 4 : n, 14, 19. ' See below, p. 48.
3°

INTRODUCTION

and of the nature of his reception. The evangelization of
the " Galatians " had not formed part of his original plan
of campaign, but had been forced on him by an attack of
illness, whose repugnant character might have been ex
pected to deter them from receiving his message. On the
contrary they had given him a reception of extraordinary
enthusiasm. Demonstrations of an exceptional, perhaps
public, character can alone account for the expressions of
4 : 14-15, though Paul does not enable us to determine their
exact nature. This enthusiastic beginning, accompanied
as it had been by the usual "demonstrations of the Spirit
and of power" (3 : 2, 5), had been followed by severe per
secution, doubtless instigated by the Jews (3:4; cf . 1 Thess.
2 : 14-16). The churches themselves, however, were
principally made up of converts from heathenism (4 : 8-
10). Some of these, no doubt, had been gleaned from the
class of "devout persons," whom the Synagogue habitually
attracted in heathen cities by its simple monotheistic teach
ing, and whose defection was bitterly resented (cf. Acts 18:7;
19 :g). Few, at all events, had adopted the Jewish mode
of life, and nonecan have actually submitted to circumcision
at the time of Paul's writing, else the indictment of 4 : 10
would be graver, and the threat of 5 : 2 belated. A con
siderable element, however, of the original constituency
was of actual Jewish descent, or (like Timothy) of mixed
blood; for the argument of 3 : 26-29 is clearly directed to
the unification on equal terms of both classes. The Jews
must have been among the first converts, for after rupture
with the Synagogue defection from the Jewish to the Gentile
mode of life maintained in the Pauline churches could occur
but rarely. The effort in progress on the part of Paul's
opponents at the time of writing is an endeavor primarily
to reclaim these renegades from the law by " another gospel "
(1 : 6, 8-9), which under the name of Christ should pre
serve the essential features of Jewish particularism. They
also aimed, however, to include as many as possible of
Paul's converts from heathenism (6 : 13). At Antioch

INTRODUCTION

the reactionary propaganda had already met at least a
temporary success (2 : 13).
At the time of Paul's second visit the Galatians had still
been "running well" (5:7). Yet from the references in
1 : 9! 5 : 3(?)> 2I> to former warnings against the Judaiz-
ing reaction, which would be scarcely appropriate at the
first visit, it is probable that Paul had even then had some
reason to anticipate the invasion. After the collision in
Antioch (2 : 10-21), nullifying, as Paul's opponents would
be sure to assume, any obligation upon them of the Jeru
salem compact (2 : 9), there would be reason enough for
such apprehension ; though the indignant surprise expressed
in 1 : 6 ; 3:1; 4 : 8-1 1 shows clearly that at the second visit
the interlopers had not yet made their appearance. We
may perhaps infer, with Zahn, from the completeness of
Paul's information, coupled with entire silence as to its
source, that a delegation from the Galatian churches them
selves had presented the matter to him in person, not
realizing the intensity of opposition the proposals of the
newcomers would arouse.
Such are the conditions presupposed by Paul's references
to the recent past. They can all be met by the supposition
that the Galatian churches are those whose founding is
related in the story of the First Missionary Journey (Acts
13-14). Some, such as the references to Barnabas, can
be met on no other. They also very strongly suggest that
the Epistle was written shortly after Paul's first arrival in
Corinth, before Silas and Timothy had come down from
Macedonia with the good news which heartened Paul for
his great task in that city.1 If the comparatively unruffled
tone of the Thessalonian letters seems to be an obstacle
to this view, inasmuch as they would then be later than
Galatians, we shall be obliged to suppose that some tem
porary absence accounts for Paul's failure to include special
greetings from them along with his own. It seems more
reasonable to account for the altered tone of the Thessa-
¦ Acts 18 : 1-5; 1 Thess. 3 : 6.
32

INTRODUCTION

Ionian correspondence by the relief occasioned by the ready
acquiescence of the "brethren" in Paul's views, and the
cheering news brought by Silas and Timothy from Mace
donia.1 We are not left to mere conjecture in fixing upon the first
weeks of Paul's stay in Corinth as the date of the Galatian
letter. As Zahn has pointed out, i Thess. i : 9 explicitly
refers to a "report" which has come echoing back to Paul,
from places "not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in
every place." It related Paul's own missionary successes
in Thessalonica. Such echoes could not be transmitted
by wireless telegraphy. They came to Paul in the person
of very real and human "messengers of the churches"
who could deliver to him not only congratulations on his
work, but reports on their own, and on conditions in the
home churches. From whence, outside the Greek penin
sula, could the echo come to which Paul here refers ? Surely
from no other region than that of Paul's own older founda
tions, where his new successes would be greeted with the
rejoicing he implies. And from whom should we most
expect the congratulations to come if not from Lystra and
Derbe, where Timothy's mother,2 and the elders whose
ordaining hands had been laid upon his head,3 would be
longing beyond all others for just such news as this ? The
messengers of the churches whose arrival is implied in 1
Thess. 1 : 9 will be those who brought to Paul the news
of Judaizing reaction in Galatia. They may be the
"brethren" referred to in Gal. 1:1.
3. The Judaizers and their Success among the Galatians..
— If the church at (Syrian) Antioch remained under the
influence of the delegation "from James,"4 it would be
almost unavoidable that attempts should be made, as
soon as Paul himself were known to be well out of the way
(4 : 18), to prevent the loss of its most promising mission
fields. Barnabas, who was the leading man in the Antioch
« 1 Thess. 3:6; Acts 18 : 1-5. • Acts 16 : 1-3.
32 Tim. 1 :5,6. < Gal. 2 : 12.
» 33

INTRODUCTION

church, had himself participated in their conquest, and had
now with Peter and "all the rest of the Jews" definitely
taken sides against Paul. For ourselves, at least, no other
inference is possible from the silence of Gal. 2 : 11-21
as to the effect of Paul's vehement harangue. He speaks
indeed later of Barnabas with respect (1 Cor. 9:6; Col.
4 : 10), as we have seen, but the separation in spheres of
activity seems to have been permanent. We learn, in fact,
from Acts 15 : 39 that Barnabas went to his own portion
of the new field formerly traversed in common, Cyprus,
which henceforth plays no part among Paul's "churches
of the Gentiles." The same relations of respect without
contact seem to be implied in Paul's subsequent references
to Peter.1 We have no more trace of any personal inter
course between the two apostles. It is observable, however,
that in rebuking the schism at Corinth, where one party
vaunt the name "of Peter" against those who claim to be
"of Paul," Paul avoids any treatment of the issues between
himself and Peter, confining himself to a "transfer of the
figure" of the different builders to himself and Apollos (1
Cor. 3 : 4-4 : 6) Moreover, the great emphasis laid both
in 1 Corinthians and Romans on the duty of avoiding offence
to the "weak" brother, by inconsiderate application of the
Pauline principle, "All things are lawful," especially in the
matter of "distinctions of meats" and the "pollutions of
idols," is very noticeable. It can only be for the benefit
of Jewish Christians, scrupulous of conscience regarding
Sabbaths, holy days, and meats (Rom. 14 : 2, 5), yet peace
ably disposed and not making their scruples a subject for
"doubtful disputations." Who are these toward whom
Paul shows himself so considerate, if not those who at
Corinth claimed to be "of Cephas," and who at Antioch
seem to have remained masters of the field?
It is a different type against whom Paul launches the
fierce invective of Galatians, Corinthians, and Philippians,
denying to them even the name of brethren, calling them
1 1 Cor. 3 : 22; 9:5.
34

INTRODUCTION

" spies," " ministers of Satan disguising themselves as angels
of light," "false apostles," "super-extra apostles," intruders
in the ready-reaped harvest-fields of others. These in
truders he expressly excludes from the farewell blessing of
his letter to the Galatians (6 : 16), and even invokes upon
them his solemn anathema (i : 9). Had we Galatians
alone we might easily be misled into thinking that Paul
classes Peter and Barnabas in this group. Some modern
scholars even, who base their views too exclusively on this
polemic epistle, seem to imagine that Peter and even Bar
nabas actually joined in the effort to impose circumcision
on Gentile Christians, after having already won the battle
of liberty on their behalf in Jerusalem. This would be
"hypocrisy" indeed, and not only cowardice, but cowardice
without a motive. But the later epistles enable us to dis
criminate. The Judaizers, even if any of them now came
from Antioch into its mission field, were not of Antiochian
origin, and did not appeal to its authority. "Those of
repute" at Jerusalem were the authority to which they first
appealed. Later, it would seem, they appealed to the
example of Christ himself "after the flesh " (1 Cor. 1 : 12;
2 Cor. 10 : 7; 5 : 16). It does not appear that they ever
claimed the support of Peter, nor even of James after Gal.
2 : 12. They urged that Jesus himself had been a Jewv
faithful to the law. Paul too, they pointed out, would admit
that Christ had been "a minister of the circumcision"
(Rom. 15 : 8). In the letter of boasting which his dis
loyal Corinthian converts compel him to write (2 Cor. 10 : 1
-13 : 10) to offset the "letters of commendation "which
these interlopers displayed, Paul draws their portrait with
no gentle hand. They were "Hebrews," "Israelites,"
the "seed of Abraham," "ministers of Christ." They
stretched themselves to reach out into another's province.
They called themselves "apostles (i.e. missionaries) of
Christ," and magnified their authority to take tribute of
the churches. The name of "James" is not mentioned.
Paul could not bring it in on his own behalf otherwise than
35

INTRODUCTION

he has done in Gal. 2 : 1-10, until a personal interview with
the head of the mother church (Rom. 15 : 30-32; Acts
21 : 18, 19) should clear away mutual misunderstanding.
James' death occurred but shortly after (ca. 62 A.D.).
Judaizers boasted a higher name (2 Cor. 10 : 7), and
perhaps were themselves not altogether sure of the ap
proval of James ; for on at least one critical- occasion his
verdict had been given against them (Gal. 2:9). Cer
tainly Paul was hopeful of a good understanding when he
"went in unto James" attended by the delegates of his
Gentile churches (Acts 21 : 18).
At all events, these false apostles of Christ, and not the
representatives of Antioch, Peter or Barnabas, or any of
their following, are certainly to be identified with the inter
loping Judaizers whose nefarious work among the Galatians
during Paul's absence (4 : 18) elicits his expressions of in
dignant surprise.
We are fortunately not altogether confined to New
Testament writings for our conception of these antagonists
of Paul and the nature of their opposition. The Clementine
Homilies in their present form of about 200 a.d. reflect the
hatred then still cherished among a Jewish Christian sect
in Palestine, and retain certain echoes of the great Petro-
Pauline conflict in the rebuke administered by Peter to
Simon Magus (a pseudonym for Paul) in a colloquy which
parodies that of Gal. 2 : 11-21: "If, then, our Jesus ap
peared to you in a vision, made himself known to you and
spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an adversary
(as the angel opposed Balaam). . . . But if he did appear
to you and taught you, and you became his apostle for
a single hour, proclaim his utterances, interpret his sayings,
love his apostles, contend not with me who companied
with him. For you now stand directly opposed to me who
am a firm 'Rock' the 'foundation of the church' ... as
if I were a person manifestly 'condemned' and in bad
repute." Taken with Paul's own references, particularly in the
36

INTRODUCTION

sarcastic comparison in 2 Corinthians 10-13, even this
late echo of anti-Pauline reaction will throw much light on
the plea of Paul's opponents. They did not deny " visions
and revelations of the Lord," nor his former employment
as an agent of the church in Antioch. But Paul, they said,
had never seen Christ after the flesh, and displayed no
"letters of commendation." He was conducting his mis
sions now on his own responsibility, not venturing to claim
support (2 Cor. n : 7-9). In pretending to dispense his
converts from the burden of his support he was really dis
honest; for he obtained afterwards much greater sums on
false pretenses.1 In assuming to dispense them from the
obligation of the law, he was putting a violent and unau
thorized interpretation of his own on the Scriptures, an
interpretation repudiated by all "those of repute." Jesus
himself and all the Twelve had acknowledged and lived
under the law, whose divine authority even Paul would
admit. Must not a gospel of such laxity from such a sec
ondary source, they asked, be regarded with the greatest sus
picion ? Would it not be the part of safety at the very least
to restore to it those divinely imposed conditions of salvation
from which Paul was offering his dubious dispensation?
We cannot perhaps wonder quite so much as Paul at the
promptness of the Galatians' inquiry evoked by representa
tions such as these. For there is no intimation in Galatians
of any intentional disloyalty, or denial of his apostleship, still
less such an attack upon his personal integrity as later at
Corinth (1 Cor. 9 : 1-3; 2 Cor. 12 : 11-18). Our Epistle
seems to bespeak only a disposition on the part of the Gala
tians to supplement Paul's gospel by certain legal ob
servances, and a failure to realize how much the term
"apostle of Christ" implied to their founder. As yet they
had adopted no more than the Mosaic sacred calendar,
doubtless as a token of respect for "the angels" (see on
4 : 8-10). At all events little stress can be laid for the
1 In Galatians there fa no intimation that the charge of dishonesty had been raised.
This appears later in the Corinthian letters. 37

INTRODUCTION

determination of date upon Paul's indignant exclamation
in i : 6. We can only infer that the time was long enough
after Paul's second visit for the Judaizers to learn that the
1 coast was clear and to intervene with their nefarious propa
ganda; and short enough for Paul, who certain y was
never long out of touch with his churches (2 Cor. n : 28),
to be amazed at the rapidity of the Judaizers' progress.
4. The Historical Order of Events in Paul's Missionary
Career. — If the churches of the First Missionary Journey
are Paul's "churches of Galatia," Acts 13 : 1-16 : 5 is
Luke's account of the Galatian crisis and its settlement.
In accordance with the general scheme of the book, wherein,
as we have seen, Peter establishes the precedents for Paul,
these chapters constitute a parallel to the story of Peter's
work among the Gentiles in Caesarea, his arraignment by
the reactionaries in Jerusalem, and his vindication in the
first Apostolic Conclave in Jerusalem in Acts 9 : 32-11 : 18.
So with Paul in the work of evangelization undertaken by
the leaders in Antioch. The Holy Ghost directs the enter
prise; Barnabas and Paul go forth and reap the harvest;
the church in Antioch sends them to Jerusalem, where they
vindicate their course before "the apostles and elders."
In Appended Note B : we have made an attempt to bring
out in contrast to this more or less theoretical account the
indications of Galatians, and to some extent of Acts itself,
of the historical course of events. The main differences
concern: (1) The number and occasion of Paul's visits to
Jerusalem; (2) the nature of the transactions between him
and the Pillars.
(1) Notoriously Galatians leaves no room for a second
visit to Jerusalem of Paul and Barnabas, but compels us
to identify the conference of Gal. 2 : 1-10 either with that
of Acts 11 : 30; 12 : 25, or Acts 15 : 2. As between the
two we are compelled to choose the former. 1 . Paul clearly
implies that it was the first time he had been in Jerusa-
1 See also my articles in Amer. Journal of Theol. for July, 1007, and January,
1009. 38

INTRODUCTION

lem for "fourteen years." 2. He positively declares that
the business which took him there was a private matter
transacted between him and the three "pillars" without
the participation of any ecclesiastical assembly. 3. The
agreement reached had exclusive reference to the mission
field which Paul and Barnabas were to occupy.
This leads to a chronology of events in Paul's mission
ary career of the following type:
Conversion, 32 or 34 a.d.
Sojourn in Arabia.
Return to Damascus.
First visit to Jerusalem for conference with Peter, 34
or 36 a.d.
(Escape from Damascus 37 a.d. or later.)
Missionary work in Syria and Cilicia, 34-47 a.d.
(Vision of 2 Cor. 12 : 2, 41 a.d.)
"False brethren" in Antioch, 44-46 a.d.
Barnabas and Paul in Antioch, 46-47 a.d.
Second visit to Jerusalem, for conference with the Pillars,
47 a.d.
First Missionary Journey. Founding of the churches of
Cyprus and Galatia, 47-49 a.d.
Peter comes to Antioch, 48 a.d.
Convocation at Jerusalem. Delegation "from James,"
48 a.d.
Paul's rupture with the leaders at Antioch. 49 a.d.
Second Missionary Journey. Founding of the churches
of Macedonia and Achaia, 49~5^ a.d.
Stay in Corinth, 50-52 a.d.
Epistle to the Galatians, 50 a.d.
Epistles to the Thessalonians, 50 a.d.
Paul in Ephesus. Founding of the churches of Asia,
52-55 a.d.
Paul revisits Syria, Antioch, and Galatia, 52-53 a.d.
First Epistle to the Corinthians, 54 a.d.
Paul revisits the churches of Macedonia and Achaia,
55-56 A.D. 39

INTRODUCTION

Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 55 a.d.
Epistle to the Romans, 56 a.d.
Delegation to Jerusalem. Paul's arrest, 56 A.D.
(2) Nevertheless Luke's story of an Apostolic Council
enacting "decrees" which settle all the "trouble" raised
by the "believers of the sect of the Pharisees" with regard
to the Galatian converts, so that Paul instead of resisting
Peter to the face, distributes among them the decrees for
to keep, quieting the opposition of "the Jews which were
in those parts" by circumcising Timothy, has real founda
tion in fact. In Appended Note B, the relation of this
convocation and its "decrees" to the private compact of
Paul and Barnabas with the Pillars has been explained on
the basis of a comparison which aims to do fuller justice
to the intention of each narrator than is possible when dis
agreement is treated as a priori inadmissible.
From no other aspect does the Epistle to the Galatians
appear in so inspiring a light as when viewed in contrast
with Luke's conventionalized treatment of the subject. It
burns with all the flaming ardor of a conflict which its
author feels touches the very continuance of "the truth of
the gospel." Jj»JSyjla]aJfce^y£rx.Sc^^
|£LU2£j^iib^r^swus to, Jhe vjc^udes^hiTwond^
|fnl rsi-gp^ hfc ronvfirsjon, his sense of apostleship, his^calL
ing-irom ,GQdrJni^u"j^dalJb^^HAJ,lga?ji^!L -it^klSKSu
his battles against, the^'false^brethren'' and his endeavors
Jor an understanding with the older apostle|7,even'"aT the
jjgst of conflict. , It..sJiQWs., his JenderRess paving the "way"
jor Jhat tactful and considerate treatment of the "weak
brethren" which at last made it possible" to hope that his
'rmimstfation which he had for Jerusalem might be ac
ceptable to the saints,"' and that he himself should come"
at last "with joy" to "find rest" at Rome (Rom. 15 : 30-33)7
For all that bears upon- the life of this great second founder
of the faith, .there. is. aoJntroduction which can_ compare in
_power and pathos with the Epistle to the Galatians.
T'Because'it thus bursts from the heart of the great anostle
40

INTRODUCTION

of liberty, at an agonizing crisis of J^casflict,,. this. Epistle,
Jias belenjjie, palladium, of Jiberty in .every ..gr^L-^uggle.
of the Church to assert the right of "the sons of God."
Luther loved it as his "Katharine von Bora." Religious
democracy willfoieyej: reyeirt ^liUS^iSMI^S^^^mL
charta of its rights. Nor will it detract from the service
thus rendered to religious faith, that since the first awaken
ing of historical study of the New Testament, the higher
critic also .finds here in this first great contemporary docu-
ffieSLfte key. to„aJisJtoijc^ljae^.ot
VII. Analysis of the Epistle
In spite of its torrential sweep of feeling, the Epistle to
the Galatians evinces a rigorous logical structure, recognized,
in principal outline at least, by all students. As the primary
condition of an adequate understanding of the document,
we may exhibit this structure as follows:
I. Defence of Paul's Apostleship, cc. 1-2.
i. Preliminary, 1 : 1-10.
(1) Greeting, 1 : 1-5.
(2) Occasion of Writing and General Thesis, 1 : 6-10.
ii. Historical Review of Paul's Ministry from his Con
version to the first Outbreak of Oppo
sition, 1 : 11-24.
(1) The Independence of his Entrance upon his Mis
sion Work, 1 : 11-17.
(2) His Slight Relations with the Twelve thereafter,
1 : 18-24.
iii. Account of Previous Oppositions and Paul's Defence
at Jerusalem and Antioch, c. 2.
(1) Indorsement of Paul and his Gospel of Freedom
from the Law by the "Pillars" at
Jerusalem and Agreement for a Di
vision of Fields, 2 : 1-10.
(2) Rebuke of Peter and the Rest of the Jews at Antioch
for coercing the Gentiles, 2 : 11-21.
41

INTRODUCTION

(a) The Conflict, 2 : n-14.
(b) The Argument (transitional), 2 : 15-21.
II. Defence of Paul's Gospel, 3 : 1-5 : 12.
i. Theoretical Argument against Legalism, c. 3.
General Statement of Principle. The _Gjft. .SLJhe
Srjjritkthg,, Sole-and..Decisive .Test
nf^Srsmp. 3 : 1-5.
(1) The Abrahamic Promise Universal and based on
Faith, 3 : 6-9.
(2) The Law brings not Blessing, but Curse, 3 :
10-12.
(3) Redemption from this Curse explains the Cross,
3 = I3-I4-
(4) The Opponents' Doctrine makes the Law an
(Afterthought conditioning the Prom
ise, and making Unjustifiable Distinc
tions between the Heirs, 3 : 15-29.
(a) Statement of the Two Principles, 3 : 15,
16.
(a) The Law is not a Condition limiting the
Promise, 3 : 17-18.
(/8) It is a Discipline to develop the Heir,
3 : i9-24-
(b) Conclusion: Faith, in Emancipating from
I this Discipline, nullifies Distinctions,
| justifying the Very Letter of the Prom
ise, 3 : 25-29.
ii. Practical Application to the Galatians' Case, 4 : 1-
5 : 12.
Restatement of the Principle of Adoption, 4 : 1-7.
(1) Inference as to Galatian Observance of Days,
4 : 8-1 1.
(2) Their Changed Attitude toward Paul, 4 : 12-20.
(3) Warning that Submission to the Yoke of the Law
is a Return to Bondage, 4 : 21-30.
(4) Entreaty to have done with Judaizing, 4:31-5:12,
(a) Vigilance the Price of Liberty, 4 : 31-5 : 1.
42

INTRODUCTION

(b) Circumcision as now urged incompatible with
Faith, 5 : 2-6.
(c) The Agitators and their False Charge, 5 : 7-
12.
III. Exhortation to Unity in Mutual Service, 5 : 13-6 : 18.
i. The Moral Effect of Paul's Gospel, 5 : 13-6 : 10.
General Proposition. Christian Freedom is under the
Law 61 Love, s : n-n.
(1) Curbing ofthe Flesh is a Necessary Result of
Dominion of the Spirit in the Indi
vidual, 5 : 16-24.
(2) It will also insure Unity in the Brotherhood,
5 : 25-6 : 6.
(a) This Spirit prevents Friction in the Church,
5 : 25-26.
(b) The Rule for "Those who Admonish," 6 : 1-5.
(c) The Rule for "Him that is Taught," 6 : 6.
(3) Moral Seriousness of Paul's Gospel reiterated.
Grace does not supplant Retribution,
6 : 7-10.
ii. Autograph Recapitulation and Farewell, 6 : n-18.
(1) The Judaizers glory in Outward Show, 6 : 11-13.
(2) Paul glories in the Cross, 6 : 14.
(3) The Rule of General Application, 6 : 15-16.
iii. Paul's Scars his Talisman, 6 : 17.
IV. Benediction, 6 : 18.
Vni. Bibliography
Introduction
Bacon, B. W. An Introduction to the New Testament. New
Testament Handbooks. New York. The Macmillan Co. 1900.
JutiCHER, Adolf. An Introduction to the New Testament. New
York. G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1904. Pp. 32-200.
Weiss, Bernhard. A Manual of Introduction to the New Testa
ment. New York. The Funk & WagnalJs Co. 1889. Vol. I,
pp. 234-250, 43

INTRODUCTION

Moffatt, James. The Historical New Testament. Edinburgh.
T. & T. Clark. 1901 (second ed.). Pp. 121-137, 150.
Shaw, R. D. The Pauline Epistles. Edinburgh. T. & T.
Clark. 1904 (second ed.). Pp. 63-126.
Commentary
Lightfoot, J. B. St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. New York.
The Macmillan Co. 1896 (tenth ed.).
Still the best of its type. Learned and philological. Espouses
the North Galatian theory. An equivalent commentary on the
South Galatian side can only be found in the German of Th.
Zahn (Kommentar, Bd. IX. 1905).
Meyer, H. A. W. Commentary on the New Testament. Galatians.
Transl. from the fifth German edition. New York. Funk
& Wagnalls. 1884.
Holsten, C. Short Protestant Commentary. Vol. II, pp. 254-
320. Galatians. Transl. from the third German edition.
London and Edinburgh. Williams & Norgate. 1883.
Drtjmmond, Jas. International Handbook to the New Testament,
Vol. II, pp. 189-242. New York. Putnam's. 1899.
Ramsay, W. M. Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to
the Galatians. New York. Putnam's. 1900. See also s.v.
"Galatia" in Hastings' Bible Dictionary.
Ramsay's work as a historical geographer is well known. He
appears in the New Testament field as an ardent advocate of
the South Galatian theory, and as apologete for the accuracy of
Luke. The "Commentary" aims to throw light "on con
temporary history in the widest sense — the history of religion,
society, thought, manners, education — in the Eastern Provinces
of the Empire."
Jowett, B. The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians,
Romans. Vol. I. London. John Murray. 1859 (second ed.).
Rendall, F. Expositor's Greek Testament. Vol. Ill, pp. 121-
200. Galatians. New York. Dodd, Mead & Co. 1903.
Adeney, W. F. The Century Bible. Vol. IX, 1 and 2 Thessalonians,
Galatians. Pp. 58-154 and 257-339. Edinburgh and London.
T. C. & E. C. Jack. No date.
General
Dods, M., and Findlay, G. G., in Hastings' Dictionary of the
Bible, s.v. "Galatians, Epistle to the," and s.v. "Paul the
Apostle."
Woodhouse, W. J., and Schmiedel, P. W., in Cheyne's Ency
clopaedia Biblica, s.v. "Galatia" and "Galatians (the Epistle),"
44

INTRODUCTION

Hatch, E., and Van Manen, W. C, ibid. s.v. "Paul," and s.v.
"Romans."
Knowling, R. J. Witness of the Epistles. London and New York.
Longmans, Green & Co. 1892.
Weinel, H. St. Paul, the Man and his Work. New York. G. P.
Putnam's Sons. 1906.
Conybeare and Howson. Life and Epistles of St. Paul. New
York. Chas. Scribner's Sons. 1894.
Cone, O. Paul the Man, the Missionary and the Teacher. New
York. The Macmillan Co. 1898.
Sabatier, A. The Apostle Paul. New York. James Pott & Co.
1891.
Wrede, W. Paul. London. Philip Green. 1907.
Baur, F. C. Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ. (Translation from
the second German ed.) London and Edinburgh. Williams
& Norgate. 1876.
Renan, E. St. Paul. New York. G. W. Carleton. 1869.
Pfleiderer, O. Paulinism. London. Williams & Norgate.
1891.
Stevens, G. B. The Pauline Theology. New York. Chas.
Scribner's Sons. 1894.
Bruce, A. B. St. Paul's Conception of Christianity. New York.
Chas. Scribner's Sons. 1894.
Du Bose, W. P. The Gospel according to St. Paul. New York.
Longmans, Green & Co. 1907.

45

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
I. The Apostleship claimed by Paul not a Matter
of Human Authorization. Before the Pres
ent Reaction began he had already
shown the Independence of his
Calling and the Divine Au
thority of his Message
and twice vindicated it
before the highest
Apostolic Au
thorities,
i : 1-2 : 21
i. The superhuman origin of his Gospel is proved from the
history of his conversion and missionary career, i : 1-24
1. Paul, an "apostle (not from men, neither through
1 man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father,
1 Or, a man

The Salutation: Greetings from an ambassador of heaven to
/. . ¦ U III Mill I lirL rfaMlip|fii««IHI1.^-.^......^-.w«i*i<dMH^..r**.,,~JW^ac,o
oundea on the hope of redemption, 1 : 1-5.

churches

The opening paragraph stands by itself. Its form is dictated by
ancient epistolary etiquette, as modified by Jewish and Christian
adaptation ("grace and peace" for the ordinary "greeting," Jas.
1:1). In this special case Paul's customary congratulations [cf.
1 Cor. 1 : 4—9) are omitted. Per contra he enlarges upon the title
"apostle," and the implication of the expression "Lord JesusChrist"
(ver. 4). The reason is apparent from the implied circumstances
(cf. ver. 11-12 and 2 : 21, and see above, Introduction, p. 31).
1. Apostle. The term owes its loftier significance to Paul, who in
face of opponents that deny his "delegation" by any responsible
body (1 Cor. 9 : 1-3), replies that he is an apostle (i.e., "delegate")
47

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

2. who raised him from the dead), and all °the brethren
which are with me, unto °the churches of Galatia:
3. Grace to you and peace 'from God the Father, and
4. our Lord Jesus Christ, who "gave himself 2 for our sins,
1 from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ a Or, on behalf of
from God. The raising of Jesus and manifestation of him to Paul
constituted the latter a " delegate." For two generations the ordi
nary sense of the term "apostle," a Greek word naturally applied by
the Gentile churches to all duly accredited travelling evangelists,
continued alongside the special (Rom. 16 : 7; 1 Thess. 2 : 6; Acts
14 : 14; Teaching cf the Twelve, n : 3-4). Gradually it was restricted
to the Twelve as having been the original "delegates" of Jesus.
Where Paul's authority has remained unquestioned he does not
advance his claim to the title ( 1 Thess. 1 : 1; 2Thess. 1 : 1; Philem. 1).
Here he insists upon it, but in a sublimated sense.
2. The brethren which are with me. Silas and Timothy, so well
known to the Galatians, would be mentioned by name if present
at the time (cf. 1 and 2 Thess. 1:1). The Galatians are supposed
to know who are meant. Probably their own messengers are in
cluded. See Introduction, p. 33.
3. The churches of Galatia. Probably those whose foundation is
related in Acts 13-14 are principally addressed. See Introduction,
p. 18 ff. The letter is intended for circulation over a large district.
4. This verse is added to the more or less conventional form of
salutation already current (ver. 3 ; cf. Rom. 1 : 7 ; 1 Cor. 1 : 3 ; 2 Cor.
1:2; etc.) to give it exceptional solemnity. Emphasis is laid upon
the self-surrender of Jesus to death as the divinely appointed means
of deliverance from the evil fate of the world, because the reactionary
teachers were making this doctrine of "grace" void; cf. 2 : 21.
Gave himself for our sins. The doctrine of the vicariousness of
the suffering of Jesus was one which Paul "received" at the outset
from the believers whom he had been persecuting (1 Cor. 15 : 3).
Without some such apologetic, primitive faith in Jesus as the Christ
could not have survived the assaults of Judaism. But Paul always
avoids the cruder form of the doctrine which may be called the " sub
stitutionary." In this form Jesus is said to have died "in our stead"
(anti), as against the Pauline "for us" (pert) or "for our advantage"
(hyper) (see on 2 : 16). In non-Pauline writings of the New Testa
ment it rests upon the Isaian doctrine of the Suffering Servant (Is.
53 : 4-6, n). This doctrine of substitution is pre-Christian. It had
been used by the authors of second and fourth Maccabees to explain the
sufferings of the Maccabean martyrs (2Macc. 7: 37 f.; 4 Mace, 6: 29).
48

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

that he might deliver us out of °this present evil ' world,
5. according to the will of our God and Father: °to whom
be the glory 2for ever and ever. °Amen.
1 Or, age 3 Gr. unto the ages of the ages.
In Mark and 1 Peter (Mk. 10 : 45; 14': 24; 1 Pt. 2 : 24) the very
phraseology of Isaiah is applied to the death of Jesus. Paul seems to
take special pains to avoid both the phraseology and the implications
of the substitutionary theory, conceiving the suffering of Jesus in a
more moral sense (see on 2 : 21; 3 : 13 f.). But to Paul also the evil
conditions out of which the sons of God must be delivered were the
consequence of "our sins," and "our sins" are therefore the ultimate
explanation of Christ's suffering, so that the Old Testament descrip
tion of sacrifice as " for (per i) sin" becomes appropriate (cf. Eph. 5 : 2).
In fact the whole story of Jesus' earthly career and fate is for Paul
almost lost in the excelling glory of the supramundane drama. For
him the gospel consists essentially of nothing else but the transaction
by which the preexistent Son of God obediently humbled himself
unto incarnation and death, and was for this reason exalted to God's
right hand (cf. Phil. 2 : 5-11). This cosmic drama is conceived under
the forms of Israel's redemption from bondage in Egypt; cf. Eph.
1 : 5-14 ; 1 Cor. 10 : 1-6 ; 5 : 7. Thus ver. 1 expresses Paul's apostle
ship in a nutshell, ver. 4 his message.
This present evil world. Rabbinic doctrine distinguished between
" this world " (or " age "), subjected to demonic powers (4 : 1-5),
Rom. 8 : 20), and the " age to come," which after victory over these
should be under the direct rule of God and his Christ (4:9; Heb.
2 : 5-8). The revelation of this Christ, victorious in the resurrection,
is therefore by implication an " assurance to all men " of the im
pending judgment and " restoration of all things " (Acts 17 : 30-31;
1 Thess. 1 : 10).
5. To whom (be) the glory for ever and ever. Or, " whose is the
glory; " i.e., the praise rightly belonging to this deliverance.
Amen. The doxology with its Hebrew response (Amen, " Be it
so ") appears already naturalized on Gentile soil. To Paul this is
a favorite method of setting a period to his sublimest thoughts,
especially when he has had occasion to set forth the redeeming " will
of God" (cf. Rom. n : 33-12 : 2; Eph. 1 : 6, 9, 11, 12; 3 : 19-21).
The Occasion of the Epistle: . I.nciiieiii,^ej&rMm.teJ&&J2<flQtian
duff/jlffi,* nf ffquf's fospel ofjtbertyfor thaTof the Judaizers, 1 : 6-io.
6-7. These two indignanTvlereeTtlukTme place of the' 'usual con
gratulations on the readers' progress in the faith, and prayer for their
continuance. The omission is paralleled by the absence of any com-
E 49

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

6. °I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from °him
that called you 1 in the "grace of Christ unto °a different
7. gospel; which is not another gospel: only there are
"some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel
8. of Christ. But though °we, or an angel from heaven,
1 Or, in grace
mandatory adjective qualifying the bald " churches of Galatia " in
the salutation. Cf. Rom. 1 : 7 ; 1 Cor. 1 : 2, etc.
6. I marvel. The news has taken Paul by surprise. His experi
ences with the work of the Judaizers at Corinth cannot therefore be
taken to lie between the second visit with its warning against " another
gospel " (ver. 9) and the time of writing. See Introduction, p. 33.
Him that called you. The " calling " (clesis) which constitutes
the new Israel, or commonwealth (ecclesid) of Christ, is always in
New Testament thought a " calling of God " (cf. 1 Pt. 5 : 10). Here
it is recalled that its nature was " grace," not merit (cf. Eph. 2 : 5, 8).
The reading of R. V., grace of Christ, is improbable. The gen
itive " Christ" seems to have been added to determine the refer
ence of the participle "him that called." It was in reality a "per
version of the gospel of Christ " (i.e., not the glad tidings about Christ
but brought by him) to make those to whom he had proclaimed for
giveness as a "Friend of sinners" seek to win that forgiveness by
imitating the Pharisees! Paul was true to the primitive gospel in
maintaining that it was "for the ungodly." Obscuration of this is
the denial of "grace"; cf. Eph. 2 : 5, 8; 1 Tim. 1 : 15, and see note on
2 : 16).
A different gospel. Etymologically the word rendered "different"
means other of two. In common employment it seems to have
connoted difference in kind, as against the word rendered "another"
in the next clause, other of many. At all events the scornful employ
ment of the phrase shows that Paul is quoting his adversaries. They
had offered to complete Paul's gospel with one which would make
the convert "perfect" (cf. 3 : 3) It may be possible to render the
following clause "which is nothing else but that," etc., but the R. V.
is preferable, because the new preaching did not purport to contro
vert, but to supplement, Paul. His answer is, No second gospel can
exist. So far as the preaching of the Judaizers is new it is not gospel.
So far as it is gospel it is not new.
7. Some that trouble you. Purposely unnamed, as in 5 : 7, 10, 12 ;
6:12. In 4 : 30 it seems to be intimated that they come from Je
rusalem. At all events they were outsiders. See Introduction.
8. We, Grammatically this should refer to the individuals of ver.
5°

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

should preach Junto you any gospel °2 other than that
which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.
9. As °3we have said before, so say I now again, If any
man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that
10. which ye received, let him be °anathema. For am I
now "persuading men, or God? or am I seeking to
"please men ? 4 if I were still "pleasing men, I should not
be a "servant of Christ.
1 Some ancient authorities omit unto you. 3 Or, contrary to that * Or, / + Some
ancient authorities add for. * Gr. bondservant.
2, but "we preached" shows that Silas at least is included in thought,
though the clear distinction of number in ver. 9 ("we," "I") shows
that he is not personally present.
Other than. The preposition may mean either "besides" or
"against"; see alternate rendering. If R. V. be followed in ver. 7,
we must take the former sense.
9. We (var. I) have said before. The warning is more likely to
have been given on the second of the two visits referred to in 4 : 13.
Supposing this visit to be that described in Acts 16 : 6 we can well
understand Paul's solicitude. Silas, who had then joined in the warn
ing, has now no part in it. See preceding note and Introduction,
p. 32. The var. "I" has inferior attestation and is of interest only
as showing that later copyists noticed the contrast of number and
assumed to correct it.
Anathema. A Greek word corresponding to the Hebrew herem,
denoting an object consigned to the powers of the underworld. Cf.
1 Cor. 5 : 5.
10. Persuading men . . . please men . . . pleasing men. The
phrase rankles with Paul. It had been applied to him by the Judaiz
ers, who thus turned his conciliatory principle, "All things to all men
that I may gain the more" (1 Cor. 9 : 21), into an accusation against
him. In 5 : n; 6 : 17, he adds further intimations that there are
limits beyond which conciliation may cease to be a virtue. In the
form "man-pleaser," already current in earlier Jewish literature
(Ps. Sal. 4 : 8, 10), Paul himself applies the opprobrious epithet,
1 Thess. 2 : 4, Eph. 6 : 6. Here the sense is : If they tell you I am
smooth-tongued, tell them I say — and reiterate — a curse on the
man, or the angel from heaven, who perverts the principles you re
ceived from me.
tr\ Th. ,„fr,,fc«.«.n.« nrioin nf VauVsjH>nsileskiH..ana\.eosf).el -Droved
from the firmmstoface^o^Jiis^ conversion, 1 : 11-17.
51

II EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
n. " ' For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the
gospel which was preached by me, that it is not "after
12. man. For neither did "I receive it from 2 man, nor was
I taught it, but it came to me through "revelation of
13. Jesus Christ. For ye have heard .of my manner of life
in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond
1 Or, but a Or, a man
11. For. This better attested reading of the R. V. (against A. V.
"but") connects the argument now begun with ver. 10, justifying its
almost violent language, and thus leading over to the systematic de
fence. Paul's gospel tolerates no supplementation in principle be
cause it is not after man, i.e. was not a product of human reflection and
adaptation. This conviction is the basis of Paul's indomitable courage
and sublime authority. I in ver. 12 is emphatic, "As for me, I nei
ther," etc. Ver. 13 indicates in what sense. Paul alone among Christians
had been a persecutor, 1 Tim. 1 : 12-16. He spoke out of a unique
personal experience, which to his mind was susceptible of no other
explanation than the miraculous intervention of God. A much later
writer seeking to vindicate a similar authority for Peter puts in the
mouth of Jesus a declaration so closely similar to that of this para
graph that literary independence is inadmissible. Peter also had
received his manifestation of the Christ by revelation from God and
not from "flesh and blood." While his first thought had been
"after the things of men" (Mk. 8 : 33) he was taught by a "voice
from heaven" the true nature of the messianic redemption (Mt.
16 : 17-19, 23; 17 : 1-8).
12. Revelation of Jesus Christ. The genitive is probably objec
tive, "It came to me by God's manifestation of the risen Christ," cf.
ver. 1 and ver. 16 and 2 Cor. 4 : 6. Had Paul referred to instruction
through subsequent "visions and revelations of (i.e., from) the Lord"
there would have been imperative occasion to mention these, as in
2 Cor. 12 : 1-4.
13-17. JHow Paul's gospel came to him. The object of this brief
rehearsal or tne circumstances ot'n'is1 "conversion, a story already
known in general outline to the Galatians (ver. 13), is to justify as
divinely authorized that doctrine of freedom from the law which
Paul's opponents declared to be his own later addition, a concession
designed to facilitate his propaganda among the Gentiles. The coin
cident elements of both "gospels" are not considered. While still a
persecutor Paul had of course not been ignorant of the doctrine of his
victims, nor of the general career and teaching of their Master. In

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

measure I persecuted "the church of God, and made
14. havock of it: and I advanced in the Jews' religion
beyond many of mine own age 'among my country
men, being more exceedingly "zealous for the traditions
15. of my fathers. But when it was the good pleasure of
1 Gr. in my race
ver. 18 he freely concedes his wish to learn from " Cephas" in such
matters, which were, however, to him always secondary (2 Cor. 5 : 16).
The point in dispute is the conditions of salvation. Do they, or do
they not, include "works of the law"? The reversal of Paul's con
viction on this point was far from having been a later concession to
Gentile prejudices. It was not derived from human teachers such as
Stephen, Ananias of Damascus, or Barnabas ; nor even from conscious
reflection in Paul's own mind. It had been involved in the sudden
manifestation of God's Son "in" him, an answer for which Paul him
self had been totally unprepared, to the despairing struggle of his soul
after "righteousness," Rom. 7 : 15-25 ; Phil. 3:8-11. It had been (to
Paul) the most vital element of that revelation. Hence from the very
outset, and consistently, and by divine authorization, Paul's gospel
had been "without the law," a commission distinctively "to the Gen
tiles "; ver. 16, Eph. 3 : 6, 8.
13. The Church of God. The commonwealth of believers, al
ready conceived as "the Israel of God," 6 : 16; messianic counter
part of the "general assembly " (Heb. qahal, rendered ecclesia, i.e.,
"Church," in Gr. Old Testament) of the people "called" out of
Egypt. This Old Testament sense seems to be the primary one. It con
ceives the brotherhood as " an elect race " (iPt. 1 : 1; 2:9; Jas. 1 : 1)
the roll-call of whose names is kept in the (as yet ) heavenly seat of
empire, 4 : 26 ; Phil. 3 : 20; cf. Lk. 10 : 20. From it is derived (not
without influence from purely Greek usage, Acts 19 : 41) the second
ary application to local subdivisions, "the Church in" Rome, Thessa
lonica, etc.; "the churches of" Galatia, Asia, Judaea (ver. 22). In
the case last mentioned, the distinctive clause "those in Christ" has
to be added to exclude the synagogues.
14. Zealous for the traditions. The words are not used in the
technical sense. Even if it could be supposed that Paul would ex
pect these Gentiles to appreciate the technical meaning of "Zealotry"
and "tradition" (as against the written law), the Zealot party was not
congenial to Paul, and comes forward at a later date. To Greeks
"the traditions of my fathers" could only be synonymous here with
"the Jews' religion."
15. The figure and phraseology are borrowed from Jer. 1:5. Paul
S3

16 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
¦ its * God, who separated me, even from my mother's womb,
16. and called me through his grace, "to reveal his Son in
me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles ; im-
17. mediately I conferred not with flesh and blood : neither
went I 2up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles
before me: but "I went away into Arabia; and again
I returned unto Damascus.
1 Better authorities, him. a Or, away
is unable to explain such gracious intervention on God's part, save
in the light of his entire previous career, including his birth and en
vironment. So peculiarly did they fit him to preach Christ among
the Gentiles, that the unique experience through which he alone had
been brought to the knowledge of the Redeemer must be attributed
to a special decree of divine foresight ("the good pleasure of God")
whose intention must be construed to have been the breaking down of
the barrier of the law, the "middle wall of partition" which still oper
ated to exclude Gentiles from the gospel of redemption. The fact
of Paul's having been the extreme representative of legalistic op
position to the gospel of grace was even more providential from this
point of view than the qualifications of his birth and breeding; cf.
ver. 14.
16. To reveal his Son in me. Paul's gospel is concerned with the
¦person of Christ. The way of life which Jesus taught and the partic
ular incidents of his public ministry are to Paul of secondary impor
tance. See Appended Note A.
17. I went away into Arabia ... I returned unto Damascus.
"Returned" implies that the conversion had been at Damascus as
Acts relates. The story was well known, as ver. 13 implies. Acts
knows nothing of this journey into "Arabia," but after a stay of
"certain days" in Damascus "with the disciples" during which Paul
proclaimed Jesus as the Christ "in the synagogues," he goes at once
to Jerusalem "to join himself to the disciples" and begins an unsuc
cessful work under their direction among " the Greek-speaking
Jews" (Acts 9 : 19-30; 22 : 6-21). The grouping of paragraphs in
Galatians also suggests that the first three years (ver. n-17) are
thought of rather as the time of Paul's receiving his gospel, the next
eleven (or fourteen ?) as the time of his imparting it. We need not
think of Elijah's flight to Horeb "the mount of God" as in Paul's
mind, though he clearly contrasts "Arabia" with "the apostles in
Jerusalem" as possible sources for his gospel. "Arabia" is simply
the kingdom of Aretas, and during at least a part of Paul's earlier
54

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

18. Then "after three years I went up to Jerusalem °to
19. 'visit 2 Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But
other of the apostles saw I none, 3save "James the
1 Or, become acquainted with a Western authorities, Peter. a Or, but only
career included Damascus itself (2 Cor. n : 32, 33). Paul's escape,
however, was probably later, during the period of missionary ac
tivity in "Syria" (ver. 21), for Damascus was in Roman control until
37 a.d. The emphasis here laid upon Paul's independence of Je
rusalem and its authorities has for its aim the very opposite of Acts,
where the dependence of Paul on the apostles and his intimate and
loyal cooperation with them until "sent away" for his own security
to Tarsus, is emphasized as the proof of his faithful and submissive
service. His work as a missionary to Gentiles begins after Barnabas
brings him to Antioch, on special revelation of "the Holy Ghost"
(Acts n : 25, 26; 13 : 1-4). On the difference in view-point between
Paul and Luke see Introduction, pp. 11-19, and Appended Note B.
(2) PmuI's earlier missionary career and its acceptance at Jerusalem,
i8_24_i_  ,  ----.-------i-.™^--.-,.,
18. After three years. In Acts (9 : 26) Paul comes to Jerusalem
in flight from Damascus. He arrives so soon after his conversion that
"the disciples" have not yet heard of it; and comes to begin his work.
there as a preacher to the Hellenistic Jews (9 : 27-29; 22 : 17-20).
By his own story this coming was a mere brief visit. He does not
appear to be a fugitive, and the journey has no relation to the crisis
created by his conversion.
To visit. The alternate rendering aims to do better justice to the
Greek (historesai), which involves the idea of learning the "story"
of Peter, who is here called by the name " Cephas" current among
Jewish Christians. If Paul has here the intention of missionary
work — and the analogy of the subsequent visit with Barnabas sug
gests it (2:2) — it is not to convert his unbelieving countrymen in
Jerusalem (Acts 22 : 6-21), but Gentiles "in the regions of Syria and
Cilicia." 19. James the Lord's brother. Eldest of the sons of Joseph and
Mary mentioned in Mk. 6:3. In the Jerusalem church the kindred of
Jesus early attained a preeminence long preserved. In Gal. 2 : 9, 1 2
and Acts 12 : 17 ; 15 : 13 ; 21 : 18 it is implied that James had become
head of the local brotherhood, to the subordination even of Peter. On
Paul's earlier visit "Peter" is the leading figure. "James" isonlyone
of the "others." He is not an "apostle" (travelling evangelist) but
a "pillar." The marginal rendering "but only" should be followed,
for the exception here is not from the noun "apostles," but from the
force of the verb ("save that I did see,") as in ver. 7, and 2 : 16.
55

20 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
20. Lord's brother. Now touching the things which I
21. write unto you, behold, "before God, I lie not. Then
22. I came into the regions of "Syria and Cilicia. And I
was still "unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea
20. Before God, I lie not. The use of an oath indicates how great
importance Paul attached to the independence of his career. The
accusation against him was not that he had not formerly been all that
could be asked of a missionary, but that he had subsequently departed
from the true doctrine as he had originally received it from the Twelve.
The example of Acts shows how even the friendly disposed might
think to enhance Paul's authority by attributing to him an apostle
ship "from men" (Acts 9 : 26-30; 13 : 1-3). Paul claims to be
teaching just what he had always taught. If his opponents had
taken pains to ascertain they would have found it so. They assume
that his gospel could not go beyond the teaching of his predecessors.
Luke makes the same assumption from a different motive. Paul con
tends that it went beyond theirs from the start.
21. Syria and Cilicia. The Taurus range marks the true boundary
for ancient thought between Asia Minor and the Syrian coast. This
coordinates Cilicia with Syria as in Acts 15 : 23, 41. Paul certainly
conceives his work by geographical stages from Jerusalem (cf. Rom.
15 : 19), which may account for the mention of Syria before Cilicia,
though 2 Cor. 11 : 32-33 strengthens the case for prolonged mission
ary work in Syria between the sojourn in Arabia (ver. 17) and that in
Tarsus (Acts 11 : 25). But the principal difficulty with the phrase is
the limitation of the field to the territory south of the Taurus range.
The conflicting representation of Acts, which places the First Mission
ary Journey before the conference in Jerusalem, seems to rest upon
theoretical considerations already explained. Cf. Acts 15 : 23 and see
Introduction, p. 11 ff., and Appended Note B. We may reasonably
infer from Paul's silence here regarding Cyprus and Galatia that his
activity had not yet extended beyond "Syria and Cilicia." The visit
with Barnabas to the Pillars (2 : 1-10) has in contemplation a field
of missionary activity in which the evangelizers wish to be free from
the annoying intervention of the "false brethren."
22. Unknown by face unto the churches of Judsea. A more exact
rendering would be "I was becoming unknown." The tense (peri
phrastic imperfect) does not of course cover the period of persecu
tion. "Judeea" in Pauline use (see Introduction, p. 24) includes at
least Csesarea besides Jerusalem, and thus conflicts with Acts 9 : 30.
But the instructive difference between the two narrations does not con
sist in mere items of detail, which by those so disposed might individ
ually be coerced into agreement, but in the general contrast in point of
5°

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

23. which were "in Christ: but they only heard say, He
that once persecuted us now preacheth "the faith of
24. which he once made havock; and they glorified God
in me.
2. On two occasions Paul had vindicated his apostleship and
gospel before the highest human authorities, 2 : 1-2 1
2. Then Q1 after the space of fourteen years I went up
again to Jerusalem with "Barnabas, taking "Titus also
1 Or, in the course of
view, which is obvious so soon as each is read by itself. See Intro
duction. In Christ. Synagogues also might be called "churches," and
conversely. On the Pauline formula "in Christ Jesus" see on 2 : 4.
23. The faith. The expression is on the road toward its later
sense, a form of doctrine. As yet it does not imply more than an
attitude of mind. The Christians of Judaea heard that Paul was now
inciting to that disposition of trust in Jesus which had previously
enraged him. They had not yet cared to question whether he re
quired his converts to accept the law.
24. As usually happens in controversy, each party accused the
other of inconsistency. Paul intimates that formerly the Jewish
churches were very well pleased with his work. In all probability
they would have been more dubious if they had had closer acquaint
ance with it. The Judaizers accuse Paul of inconsistency. For
merly he had "preached circumcision." He even did so still upon
occasion, when it seemed politic (5 : 11). The desire to make easy
conversions had led him, they intimated, to forsake the true doctrine
as he had learned it from apostles.
(1) The action taken by the Jerusalem authorities whenjna^more
Ma vtfa^iiBhkiiMtttTthe nature of Paul's work, 2 T1-10T
1. The identification of this visit to Jerusalem is one of the most
vital points in all New Testament history. (See Introduction, p. 15,
and Appended Note B.) The ordinary supposition that the " ministra
tion " visit of Acts 11 : 30; 12 : 25 was left unmentioned (!) by Paul
though of real occurrence in the interval between 1 : 18 and 2:1,
is made incredible by the solemnity of the asseverations in 1 : 20 and
22. Equally incredible is the dissociation of the supreme issue,
for the settlement of which Paul made the momentous journey here
57

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

2. with me. And "I went up by revelation; and I "laid
before them the gospel which I preach among the Gen-
described, from the occasion which in Acts 15 : 1-5 is made central
to the whole narrative. It is impossible to admit as historical this
addition of a third visit to Jerusalem, and the transaction of certain
matters explicitly excluded by Paul's definite statements. These
matters, however, are far from being mere fictions of Luke. They
are merely transferred from their true order in accordance with his
theoretical rearrangement of his material. See Introduction, p. 15,
and Appended Note B.
After the space of fourteen years. See alternate rendering. The
Greek is ambiguous. Paul may be reckoning from his conversion,
1 : 15, or from his first visit, 1 : 18. The apparent division of his
career into a first period marked rather by reflection and inquiry
than by evangelistic effort, 1 : 15-20, and a second marked by work
in Syria and Cilicia, 1 : 21-24, is perhaps favorable to the longer
reckoning. In any event we must by modern reckoning count not
fourteen but thirteen. Ancient reckoning counts both termini.
Barnabas. The name, though Aramaic, is strangely heathen for
a Levite. In Acts 4 : 36 it is explained as a surname given "by the
apostles" to the Cypriote convert, whose real name was Joseph.
Apparently by combination of the Aramaic bar ("son") with the
Hebrew naba ('to prophesy" or " exhort") the sense "Son of exhor
tation" is obtained. The name is really formed from the Syrian
divinity Nebo or Nabu (cf. We6«chadnezzar, iVa&onassar) with the
prefix Bar (cf. Barabbas, Bartimasus, Bartholomew, Bar-Jesus).
One of the primitive believers in Jerusalem, related to Mary, mother
of John Mark, a man who had consecrated property to the Church.
Despatched to Antioch because of rumors of its Gentile tendencies,
he espoused the liberal side and reenforced it by securing the accession
of Paul. At Antioch the two are commissioned first to negotiate in
Jerusalem, thereafter to an evangelistic campaign in Gentile terri
tory. Until the great exploit of Paul at Paphos (Acts 13 : 6-12)
Barnabas appears always as leader, and his name is mentioned first.
Thereafter we have not "Barnabas and Saul," but "Paul and Bar
nabas" except in the letter of commendation, Acts 15 : 25. The story
of Paul's rupture with Barnabas is briefly given in Gal. 2 : 13, and —
with a different, much less adequate motive — in Acts 15 : 27-29.
Subsequently Paul mentions him with respect (1 Cor. 9:6), but there
are no traces of resumption of the cordial relations here referred to.
The terms seem to presuppose the readers' acquaintance with the
man. Titus. A valued lieutenant of Paul only less prominent than
Timothy in his later missionary work (2 Cor. 2 : 13; 7 : 6, 13, 14; 8 : 6,
58

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

tiles, but "privately before them who ' were "of repute,
"lest by any means I should be running, or had run,
1 Or, are
16,23; 12 : 18; 2 Tim. 4 : 10; Tit. 1:4). Timothy is fully introduced
in Acts 16 : 1-3, and repeatedly referred to. Titus is never men
tioned by Luke. The reason is probably connected with the fact
that Titus had been made by Paul the example of what he would
not yield to Jewish scruples (Gal. 2:3), Timothy was the typical
example of his supreme concession (Acts 16 : 3). In fact the advan
tage taken of it seems to have made Paul regret having yielded so far.
2. I went up by revelation. Whether the intimation by "the
Spirit" was through Paul himself or some other "prophet" in the
Antioch church, or both, and whether it was accompanied or not by
official action, is immaterial ; though Paul emphasizes the former,
Acts (characteristically) the latter (Acts 15 : 2). Paul's omission of
reference here to the historical occasion (see however the reference
to the "spies" in ver. 4) is fortunately supplied by Luke (Acts 15 : 1).
There is no suppressio veri. The point made is that it was no lack
of authority felt by Paul himself which induced him now to submit
his gospel so long preached without conference with "flesh and
blood" (1 : 16, 17) to the approval or disapproval of the Jerusalem
authorities. He did so by divine direction.
Laid before them. The same verb as in 1 : 16 without the reenforc-
ing preposition (pros). Paul's gospel was not submitted for altera
tion, which would be inconceivable to him (1 : 7-9). If with the most
distinguished English commentators we render the last clause of
the verse "in order that I might not have run . . . in vain," the object
of the visit was to avoid the probable frustration of his former work,
and the threatened interference with that which he and Barnabas
had in contemplation. If we render it with German authorities as an
indirect question, "Whether I had run or was running in vain,"
the object was to obtain the acknowledgment actually received from
the "pillars." Had it been refused Paul's conviction would not have
been altered. His question in the oratio directa would have been
" Does it seem to you that I have been, or am running in vain ? " The
distinction of tenses in the last clause of the verse is intended to dif
ferentiate his earlier mission field from that now in contemplation.
Privately before them who were of repute. Again we note the
characteristic difference of Luke's point of view. In Acts no refer
ence is made to any conference of Paul and Barnabas on a footing
of equality with "the pillars." They merely present their report as
delegates from the Antioch church, submitting the question, which
is then settled by "the apostles and elders" without their partiripa-
59

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

3. in vain. But not even Titus who was with me, being
4. a Greek, "was compelled to be circumcised : ' and that
1 Or, but it was because of
tion, What shall be required of Gentile believers? The result is
then transmitted to the consulting church. Paul declares that he
would not have submitted his gospel to the approval or disapproval
of any man, had not the importance of keeping "the truth of the
gospel" intact "unto" the Galatians induced him to "yield for an
hour on the point of precedence." See on ver. 5. Public gatherings
he expressly excludes. If such there were, they did not affect the
agreement. Of repute. Greek usage seems to require that something be tacitly
supplied: "reputed (sc. to be authorities)." Ver. 9 uses the figure
"pillars" and shows that James, Peter, and John are chiefly in view.
The phrase, though probably borrowed from Paul's opponents (see
on ver. 6), involves no disrespect for the apostles, but only for the
opponents' view of what constitutes "authority."
Lest by any means. See the note on laid before them.
3. From the point of view of mere grammar the introduction of
"was compelled" leaves it an uncertainty, for moderns ignorant of
the facts, whether Titus was (a) not circumcised at all, or (6) only
that it was not a matter of compulsion, but voluntary. Practically
the former (a) is certain. The whole tone of the narrative shows
that Paul would have regarded it — and justly — as an abject sur
render of the principle for whose defence he went up, to yield on this
crucial point. If he "yielded for an hour" (see on ver. 5), it was not
on this issue, but on that of "rank" (R. V. "subjection"). The ad
dition of the clause "although he was a Greek," strengthens the case
against the idea that Titus was actually circumcised, and also sug
gests that the Galatians had not the same acquaintance with him as
with Barnabas.
Was (or "had been") compelled. The tense is the indefinite
past (aorist) and leaves no means of determining when the attempt
was made. The context, however, makes it probable that the pressure
was exerted and resisted at Antioch, before the journey to Jerusalem.
See on ver. 4, and cf. Acts 15 : 1-2.
4. As indicated by the alternate rendering, there is extreme diffi
culty in determining what it was that took place "because of the
false brethren." Certainly not the circumcision of Titus, for that
Paul' would have resisted all the more because of their demand.
And almost certainly not the refusal; for that would have been main
tained, false brethren or no false brethren. The real key is afforded
by the textual phenomena (see var.). We must read: "Butonac-
60

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

because of the "false brethren privily brought in, who
came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have
"in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage :
5. D1 to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, 'no,
not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might
1 The oldest authorities (western) omit to whom, no, not.
count of the false brethren . . . who came in (at Antioch) to spy out
our liberty . . . we yielded for an hour on the question of preced
ence." That is, Paul waived temporarily the question of his personal
independence, and went up to Jerusalem to lay his gospel before the
Pillars (cf. 1 : 16, 17). This statement was corrected (probably by
Marcion) to "did not yield," and later (to improve the grammar) to
"to whom we did not yield." The correction was thereafter widely
adopted, because the yielding was supposed to be on the point of
circumcising Titus — a manifest impossibility. But the earliest wit
nesses to the text indicate that it read "we yielded." Tertullian (ca.
210 a.d.) denounces Marcion for introducing the negative "did not
yield." False brethren privily brought in. Certainly the same referred
to in Acts 15 : 1, who "came down from Judaea (to Antioch) and
taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom
of Moses ye cannot be saved." The doublet (Acts 11 : 22-30) sub
stitutes "prophets," after the pattern of 15 : 32 and 21 : 10, even
borrowing "Agabus" from the latter passage, and makes of what
Paul calls his "ministration" or "contribution for the poor among
the saints that are at Jerusalem" (Rom. 15 : 26, 31) a parallel by
the church in Antioch to the famous munificence of Helena of Adia-
bene on occasion of the great Palestinian famine of a.d. 45-46 (Jo-
sephus, Antiq. XX, ii. 1-5, and v. 2). Paul implies that local dis
affection had "brought in" the reactionaries, and does not hesitate
to impute to them the motive of spying upon "our liberty which we
have in Christ Jesus" — a liberty, of course, not enjoyed in Judaea.
The issue had been drawn over Titus.
In Christ Jesus. Paul is the originator of the striking use of the
preposition " in" with the name of a person. He employs the present
expression with extreme frequency to express his mystical concep
tion of union with the spiritual Son of God, whether individually
or as a church. The Christian's life is in a living organic connection
with the all-pervading Spirit of the Lord. See notes on 3 : 26-29.
5. To whom ... no not. The omission of these (Gr. two) im
portant words in the chief "western" authority for the text makes
a decided difference for the clearness of the grammar, and some difc
61

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

6. continue "with you. But from those who ' were "reputed
to be somewhat (2 whatsoever they were, it maketh no
matter to me : God accepteth not man's person) —
they, I say, who were of repute "imparted nothing to
1 Or, are ' Or, what they once were
ference, though not a vital one, for the actual sense. The addition
of the two words (if unauthentic) is easily explicable (see on ver. 4).
If the doubtful words are authentic, it may imply that a new attempt
was made by the "false brethren" or their sympathizers in Jerusa
lem, but does not affect the principal point, that Paul made strenuous
and effectual resistance.
With you. Gr. "unto" (pros not para). The Galatians at the
time had not yet been evangelized, but that the truth of the gospel
might remain (unimpaired) unto them as well as to other Gentiles
still more remote it was imperative that Paul should yield on the
minor point of his personal precedence (or not yield to the demand
that Titus be circumcised).
6. Reputed to be somewhat. The persons referred to are named
in ver. 9. The reiteration (ver. 2, 6 bis, 9) of so singular a designa
tion for James and Peter and John suggests that Paul is sarcastically
quoting his opponents (see on ver. 2). They had declared that the
real authorities would not indorse Paul's gospel. The Jerusalem
conference, as Paul says, and as the nature of the compact would
suggest, had been "private."
Whatsoever. So R. V. rightly. The Greek permits the alternate
rendering, but the context is opposed. The parenthetic deprecation
of personal comparisons shows how distasteful to Paul had been
even such concession as he had felt obliged to make to his opponents'
methods. Imparted nothing. The question had been as to the completeness
of Paul's gospel. Were there not conditions attached to the offer
of salvation by "the grace of Christ," which he had suppressed?
But for the exception noted in ver. 10, which certainly is not a " con
dition of salvation," we might explain the omission of all reference
to the four "necessary things" prescribed in Acts 15 : 29 by the fact
that they appear to be asked — not to say demanded — as an accom
modation to Jewish scruples, and not as intrinsically necessary.
The nature of the exception is such as to exclude specific stipulations
such as these. Moreover Paul treats the whole question of "meats"
as a voluntary concession to the "weak brother." Although not
under obligation to abstain, he and his will do so to avoid putting
a stumbling-block in a brother's way (1 Cor. 8 : 8-13; Rom. 14 :
62

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

7. me: but Contrariwise, when they saw that I had been
"intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even
8. "as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision (for he
that "wrought for Peter unto the apostleship of the
circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles);
9. and when they perceived the "grace that was given
unto me, "James and Cephas and "John, they who ' were
1 Or, are
14-17). On the real occasion and significance of the "decrees"
see Introduction, p. 12, and Appended Note B.
7. Intrusted. Cf. the use of the same figure in Rom. 3:2; 2 Tim.
1 : 12, 14. Apostleship itself is to Paul only the highest of the "gifts
of the Spirit" (Eph. 4 : 11). Peter's and his own rest therefore on
the same basis, not an appointment even by Jesus, but "the works of
an apostle" "wrought for" the evangelist by divine power (ver. 8;
2 Cor. 12 : 12).
As Peter. The change from "Cephas" to the Greek name more
natural to Paul's readers may be due to the fact that in ver. 7b-8
they are more directly in view. The later conception of apostleship
connected it with the earthly ministry of Jesus (Acts 1 : 21, 22), and
thus inevitably tended to place Paul's on a lower plane than Peter's;
cf. Mt. 28 : 19; Lk. 24 : 47-49; Acts 1:8; 10 : 1-11 : 18; 15 : 7.
8. Wrought (Gr. "energized") for Peter. A similar comparison
of God's "energizing" for Peter and for Paul is traceable in the
structure of Acts, but not on equal terms.
9. Grace given unto me. I.e., the spiritual endowment (charisma)
of apostleship, recognizable in "the signs of an apostle." These
included "signs and wonders and mighty works" as well as more
commonplace evidences of a "calling" to the work. (See on ver. 8
and cf. 2 Cor. 12 : 12.)
James and Cephas. Later scribes alter to " Peter and James and
John," attempting to accommodate Paul's indication of relative rank
in the Jerusalem church to that derived by them from the Synoptic
Gospels. In reality the brother of Jesus was a more commanding
figure in Jewish-Christian circles than any of the apostles.
John. The only New Testamen t mention of this apostle's name out
side the Synoptic writings and Revelation. His enumeration among the
"pillars" tends to justify the shadowy connection with Peter effected
by "Luke" (Lk. 22 : 8; Acts 3 : 1, 3, 4. «; 4 : 13. i°; 8 : I4), and
shows that the martyr fate had not yet befallen him which is predicted
for him. in conjunction with his brother Jarn,e§ in Mk, 10 : 39, and
63

10 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
reputed to be "pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the "right
hands of fellowship, that "we should go unto the Gen-
10. tiles, and they unto the circumcision; only they would
that we should "remember the poor; which very thing
"I was also zealous to do.
referred to in a recently discovered fragment of Papias (ca. 150 A.D.).
Outside the group of late Ephesian writings more or less plausibly
attributed to " John," and the traditions traceable to these, we have
almost nothing on which to base a judgment of his character. The
only incident in which he plays a separate role (Mk. 9 : 38-40) is one
which draws upon him and the rest of the Twelve Jesus' rebuke for
their narrow intolerance. The only one wherein he appears with
James, outside the request for the places of honor in the kingdom
(Mk. 10 : 35-45), is another rebuke for a narrow and vindictive spirit
(Lk. 9 : 54-56). At the period of which Paul speaks (ca. 50 a.d.)
John's conception of his apostolic calling is at all events still limited
to "the circumcision." This extremely meagre mention of the "Son
of Thunder" (Mk. 3 : 17) in the period antecedent to Revelation is
hardly compatible with any far-reaching activity on his part during
Paul's lifetime.
Pillars. Principal supports of the building. Cf. the figure in
Rev. 3:12. Clement of Rome and Ignatius use the same comparison.
Right hands of fellowship. A current expression (here no doubt
accompanied by the visible act) betokening a brotherly covenant.
We should go . . . and they. This is not a decision enacted on
behalf of Barnabas and Paul by the Jerusalem authorities, as in Acts,
but an agreement between equals. On the questions settled and the
question left unsettled by the conference see Appended Note B.
10. Remember the poor. The form of the request is general, as if
involving only the universal duty of alms-giving (one of the chief
"acts of righteousness" in Jewish morality). This however is merely
a periphrase to avoid the direct request of alms for their own com
munity. For the Pauline Epistles show a proportion of effort be
stowed on the raising and transmission to Jerusalem of a great fund
for the relief of poverty in the mother community, which would be
unaccountable without some such agreement as the present under
stood as applying locally; (Rom. 15 : 25-28, 31; 1 Cor. 16 : 1-4;
2 Cor. 8 : 1-9 : 15 ; 12 : 14-18). It became indeed so prominent in
Paul's work as to furnish one of the chief occasions of " blame " against
him (2 Cor. 8 : 20), and, probably for this reason among others, is
suppressed in Luke's account of the great journey of "ministration"
(Rom. 15 : 25, 31; t Cor. 8:4; 9:1; cf. Acts 11 : 29, 12 : 25).
I was also zealous to do. The tense of the verb (aorist) does not
64

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

n. But "when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him
12. to the face, because "he stood condemned. For before
that "certain came from James, he did eat with the
Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back and
separated himself, fearing them that were of the cir-
13. cumcision. And the rest of the Jews "dissembled
likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was
14. carried away with their "dissimulation. But when I
admit a determination of the date at which Paul began the great
work which culminated with the fatal journey. It might even be
rendered "had been," implying a certain basis for the statement of
Acts 11 : 27-30. From 1 Cor. 16 : 1-4 it is apparent that the begin
ning was early, probably forthwith after the suggestion by the "pil
lars." A beginning previous to the date of Paul's separation from
Barnabas (Acts 15 : 39) is made improbable by the use of the singu
lar, "we should remember . . . 7 was zealous."
(2) The rupture caused by Peter's inconsistent conduct at Antioch,
2 : 11-21.
11. When Cephas came to Antioch. Probably while Paul and
Barnabas were in Galatia. See Appended Note B. The question
on what basis the Jewish Christian shall hold table fellowship with
his Gentile brother is necessarily subsequent to that whether the
latter shall be recognized at all. Hence the incident is certainly
later than that of ver. 1-10. But how much later? In ver. 12 Paul
is confronted with a condition of affairs in Antioch such as could
scarcely grow up without protest save in his absence. It is reason
able to infer that Peter's visit to this church occupied in part the
period of absence of its two great leaders. See Appended Note B.
He stood condemned. I.e., self-condemned by his inconsistency;
cf. ver. 18. See Introduction, p. 36, for the anti-Pauline representa
tion of this encounter.
12. Certain came from James. Of this delegation sent from
Jerusalem to Antioch we have no information outside the present
reference. It does seem to imply, however, a basis for Luke's account
of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem and its "decrees." See Ap
pended Note B.
13. Dissembled . . . dissimulation. Paul uses the strong term
"dissimulation" (Gr. "hypocrisy"), because, as appears from ver,
15-16, to his mind Peter and the rest were false to their fundamental
Christian principles. Later and cooler reflection must have convinced
Paul himself that he did them injustice. To reason from the knowl
edge " that a man is not justified by works of law but only by faith
J 65

14 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
saw that they walked "not uprightly according to the
truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas "before them
all, 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?
15. We being Jews by nature, and not "sinners of the

in Christ," that therefore it is " making void the grace of God" to seek
to have all the credit one can from works of law, might be logical for
one who had had Paul's religious experience, but it could not be ex
pected to convince men like Peter and Barnabas; and it certainly
did not convince the succeeding generation. Paul's own silence as
to the outcome at Antioch, the subsequent dissociation of his work
from Antiochian support (Phil. 4: 15), and 'above all the definite
solution of the questions officially communicated by Luke, show
that Pauline logic remained less cogent with the Church than Petrine
authority. Ultimately the practical experience of the Church, com
bined with the dwindling proportion and influence of Jewish believers,
led to the relaxation of the demands of James. In "Asia" ca. 95 A.D.
the "burden" is restricted to abstinence " from fornication and things
offered to idols" (Rev. 2 : 20, 24). The early Syrian church manual
called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (ca. 120) explicitly makes
abstinence from meats optional except such as have been offered to
idols ; "for it is the worship of dead gods" (Didache, vi. 3). Finally,
the second century recension of Acts transforms the "decrees" into
merely moral requirements. But this late return to a purely Pauline
standpoint came only with the extinction of the Jewish-Christian
element in the Church.
14. Not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. See the
preceding note, beginning.
Before them all. The wrong done to Gentile believers had been
public. Paul felt that its effects could only be arrested by equally
public protest.
Compellest the Gentiles to live as do the Jews. The whole point of
the charge lies in the fact that it is a breach of the fundamental spirit of
the Jerusalem agreement of mutual non-interference. Those who
would invert the order of 2: i-ioandi 1-2 1 must explain why it should
be regarded as heinous for Peter merely by clinging to his Jewish mode
of life among Gentile believers to induce them also to adopt it.
How the Pauline believer of Jewish birth "became as without law,"
ver. 15-21.
Opinion is divided on the question whether the argument of ver.
15-21 js a report of what Paul actually §aid to Peter at Antioch. oi
66

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

1 6. Gentiles, yet "knowing that a man is not justified by
1 the works of the law, 2 save through faith in Jesus
Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might
be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works
of the law: "because by the "works of the law shall Ps. 143:
1 Or, works of law ' Or, but only
whether the direct address ends with ver. 14, and 15-21 represents an
explanation, addressed to the Galatians, of the Paulinists' attitude.
The truth probably lies between the two. Direct address to the Gala
tians seems to begin markedly with 3 : 1. On the other hand we
have no other example of so long a quotation by Paul from his own
words, nor does the argument employ the "thou" of ver. 14, nor
suggest in its mystical theologizing so much what Peter could really
assent to, as what justifies Paul in his own present consciousness.
We conclude that Paul is using the privilege of the ancient historian
to present the substance of a past address in a form adapted to the
general enlightenment of his present readers on the subject. The
distinction is indicated in the text by spacing.
15. Sinners of the Gentiles. Paul assumes the point of view of an
unconverted Jew, to whom the Gentiles are not so much "trans
gressors" (Gr. parabatai), which would imply conscious resistance
to a clearly perceived moral requirement (so ver. 18), as "sinners"
(Gr. hamartoloi), i.e., men out of harmony with the moral ideal, known
or unknown. In the parable Lk. 12 : 47-48 they correspond to the
" servant which knew not his Lord's will."
16. Knowing (i.e., because we knew) that a man is not justified
by works of law (so alternate rendering). The divergence from the
type of teaching attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels is more
a matter of form than of substance. It is true this theological lan
guage might fall somewhat strangely on the ears of Peter, and he and
other personal followers of Jesus might well be tempted to resent an
attempt by Paul to prove them inconsistent with their Master's teach
ing. Nevertheless the real consistency was on Paul's side and not on
theirs. The essence of Jesus' teaching had been to substitute his
"easy yoke" for the "grievous burdens" of the scribes. To trust
the "Friend of publicans and sinners" was to seek access to the
heavenly Father by the road of the Prodigal and not that of the " elder
brother." On the Pauline Doctrine of Justification see Appended
Note C. Meantime it should be remembered that, while Paul's theo
logical phraseology comes from the schools, his underlying conflict
against legalism is the same as that waged by Jesus. Because by
works of law shall no flesh be justified. The expressions are bor-
67

i7

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

17. no flesh be justified. But if, while we sought to be
justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners,
is Christ a "minister of sin? "God forbid.

rowed (with free adaptation) from Ps. 143 : 2. Works of law. The
observance of injunctions, Mosaic or other. The distinction of
Christian ethics, as Paul perceived, is not a matter of the number of
its precepts, whether more or fewer than Moses'; nor in the greater or
less requirement ; but in the ideal presented — to have the disposition
of the heavenly Father. This alone makes men sons of God (Mt.
5 : 45; cf. Eph. 5:1; Rom. 8 : 14). The argument itself implies
of course that in this verse the alternative renderings must be preferred
to the text of R. V.
17. An inference of the objector, to which Paul opposes a strong
expletive (Anglice, God forbid). The expression is customary with
him in protest against false deduction (Rom. 3 : 4, 6, 31; 6 : 2, 15;
7 : 7, 13 ; 9 : 14; 11 : 1, 11 ; etc.). The opponent cannot see how the
gospel of Paul can have any other effect with Jews than their moral
degradation to the level of heathenism. If the Jew be taught that
for justification in Christ (see Appended Note C) he must first
cut loose for good and all from that law which to his mind alone gives
Israel its moral superiority (Ex. 33 : 16; Dt. 4 : 6-8), his new faith
will tend to demoralization. It will make Christ "a minister of sin."
This is the "slanderous report" of Paul's teaching referred to in Rom.
3 : 8, which Paul repudiates. Becoming "as without law" the Paul
ine Christian of Jewish birth is yet " not without law to God, but under
law to Christ," a law of loving service (5 : 14, 6 : 2, Rom. 13 : 8-10)
which gladly imitates the spirit of the heavenly Father as shown in
Christ (Eph. 4 : 31-5 : 2), and is thus identical with "the righteous
ness of God" defined in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5 : 43-48 =
Lk. 6 : 27-36). To this objection Paul returns in 5 : 13-6 : 10.
God forbid. The question arises, What is negatived in the repudi
ation of the inference " Christ a minister of sin"? Is it one of the
premises; or is it the justice of the deduction? The Greek admits
either, according to accentuation. Paul's mode of reasoning, how
ever, both here and in Romans, and the "boastful" expression
"sinners of the Gentiles," with which he had (almost ironically)
placed himself at the Jews' point of view at the outset, requires
the latter understanding. Yes, we do require to cut loose from
the law if we would be justified by faith in Christ; and yes, we
thus are "found sinners," no better than Gentiles. But are we
to infer that it is our faith in Christ which has made us such?
Far from it. We were so all the time, as even Scripture itself
subtly indicates. 68

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

18. For if I "build up again those things which I de
stroyed, I prove myself a transgressor.
19. For "I through l the law "died unto ' the law, that
1 Or, law
18-19. The two "fors" are at first confusing. To treat ver. 18
a? merely parenthetic would simplify; for manifestly ver. 19 presents
the true inference to be drawn from the premiss, 'Faith in Christ
involves abandonment of the law.' But Paul has two inferences,
the one self-stultifying, the other true, which he wishes to set in con
trast. The former is that of his opponents, who have just given in
the person of Peter an evidence of the inherent inconsistency of their
attitude. It is needless for him to pursue this inference further than
the impasse into which its distinguished leader has brought himself
by his attempt to
18. Build up again those things which he (I) destroyed. The refer
ence is of course to the distinctions of the law regarded as lifting the
Jew to a plane of ceremonial purity above the Gentile. Paul applies
this figure of tearing down a wall similarly in Eph. 2 : 14, where the
allusion is to the stone barrier in the temple excluding Gentiles from
the court of Israel, broken down, as Paul holds, by the death of Christ.
By attempting to rebuild this after having once destroyed it Peter
proves himself not merely a "sinner," but a wilful "transgressor."
(See on ver. 15.)
Why, for Paul, abandonment of the law cannot lead to sin, 2 : 19-21.
19. I. Strongly emphatic in the Greek. "I for my part."
Died . . . that I might live. This paradox is the fundamental
thing in Paul's religious system (cf. Rom. 6-8), and indicates how
completely his "gospel" sprang from his personal religious experi
ence. For this reason it was the more difficult to apprehend. To
many it seemed "veiled" (2 Cor. 4 : 3). Paul's moral struggle
had resulted in a despair which he can compare to nothing else but
"death." The comparison is something more than mere figure of
speech, because in Paul's case (treated as normal in Rom. 7) the
moral "death" is brought about by the discovery "through the law"
that the inherent disposition of "flesh" to sin is in all the race of
Adam stronger than the "law of the mind," and this invariably leads
to death. A longer or shorter period of delay may intervene, as in
Adam's case, but sin, the "sting" of death, is a poison in the blood
ultimately working physical death; though God "created man for
immortality." 1 The remedy is the infusion, by the grace of God,
of "the mind of the Spirit," which as an antidote counteracts the
> Wisd. of Solomon 1 : 13-16; s : 23> 24- cf- 2 Cor- 5 : 5'
69

20 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
20. I might live unto God. I have been crucified with
Christ ; 1 yet I live ; and yet no longer I, but Christ
liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh
I live in "faith, the faith which is in the Son of God,
21. "who loved me, and gave himself up for me. I do not
1 Or, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ &c.
poison, "quickening even your mortal bodies." The proof and ex
ample of this is the resurrection of Jesus, in whose case, because he
"knew no sin," but was on the contrary the complete embodiment of
the Spirit, even the body was miraculously transformed into a body
of " glory," exemplifying the change ultimately to be accomplished
for all who receive the adoption of the same Spirit, and foreshadow
ing the accompanying deliverance even of the creation itself, which
" awaits the manifestation of the sons of God " (Rom. c. 8 ; 12 : 1,2;
Phil. 3 : 10-12, 21; 1 Cor. 15 : 21-23, 35—54). In the briefest possible
form this whole mystical theory of redemption is embodied in the
sentence " I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto
God." 20. A more specific restatement of the principle of ver. 19, to
show its bearing on the present case. Paul's gospel does not promote
sin, for the act of faith (filial trust) by which "the Lord the Spirit"
is appropriated, comparable (at least in Paul's case), in its agony of
separation from the law and all the hopes of righteousness it could
offer, to the death which the law had inflicted upon Jesus as a male
factor, in the nature of the case involves a "walking after this Spirit"
(Rom. 8 : 3-9).
Faith which is in (Gr. "of") the Son of God. Filial trust which
rests upon the revelation of the glorified Redeemer. The title "Son
of God" is appropriate to the cosmic grandeur of the conception.
See Appended Note C.
Who loved me, and gave himself up for me. Paul's universalism in
volves the lifting of the simple story of Jesus, the Friend of Sinners,
who by his undaunted championship of the right of this outcast class
to full "sonship" in "the kingdom" had incurred the fate of impale
ment, to the cosmic plane. The tragedy is no longer viewed as local
and specific. It is the drama of a world-redemption. Every "sin
ner," even "sinners of the Gentiles," may thus appropriate the love
of God in Christ. The way of sacrifice, once conceived as Jesus'
"setting his face steadfastly to go up to Jerusalem," assumes larger,
even cosmic, dimensions. The Redeemer descended from highest
heaven to nethermost hell. " Though he was in the form of God he
took upon him the form of a servant and became obedient unto death,
7°

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 2 :2i
make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is
through ' the law, then Christ died for nought.
1 Or, law
even the death of the cross" (Phil. 2 : 5-11; cf. Gal. 4 : 4-5; 2 Cor.
8:9; and see Appended Note A).
21. A reenforcement of Paul's minor premiss, which might also
seem somewhat open to question. What call for the death of Christ
if redemption could be had without ? The syllogism is as follows :
Major premiss: All endeavor to be justified by works of the law
is hopeless.
Minor premiss: Supplementation of faith by even partial return to
Mosaism is also such an endeavor; for it implies distrust of the
adequacy of mere "grace," and thus "makes it void."
Conclusion: The gospel of the Judaizers is a counsel of despair.

7i

II. Doctrinal Argument, and Appeal against Re
action. Paul proves to the Galatians, from their
Experience of the Spirit, that they themselves,
and not the literal descendants of abraham,
nor Such as seek Justification by Works of
the Law, are the true Sons of God and
Heirs of the Promises of Scripture. He
contrasts the Freedom and Zeal of
their Condition under Grace with
the Bondage of Judaism, and
warns them of the conse
quences of accepting its yoke.
3 = 1-5 = 12
1. The Abrahamic inheritance is shown to be a prerogative
of those who have faith in Christ Jesus, 3 : 1-29
3. O foolish "Galatians, "who did bewitch you, before
whose eyes Jesus Christ was "openly set forth crucified ?
General Proposition: The messianic gift of the Spirit is alone
fundamental. This did not come as a result of legalism, but of faith,
3 = i-5-
1. Paul now turns to the Galatians themselves in direct address.
Galatians is the only term by which the mixed population of Lyca
onians, Pisidians, Romans, Greeks, Jews, and Anatolians in the
cities of Acts 13: 14-14 1.24 could be addressed with courtesy.
"Phrygians" would have been opprobrious.
Who did bewitch you ? A figure of speech to express the unaccount-
ableness of their folly. The "evil eye" (Mk. 7 : 22) was supposed to
exert the fascination of a serpent which "charms" a bird. Some
such fascination must have blinded the Galatians, else the spectacle
of Jesus Christ crucified by the very legalism to which they are now
invited must have deterred them.
Openly set forth. Gr. "placarded." In Rom. 3 : 25 God makes
73

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

2. "This only would I learn from you, Received ye the
Spirit by * the "works of the law, or by the ° 2 hearing of
3 . faith ? Are ye so foolish ? having begun in the Spirit,
4. 3 are ye now perfected in the flesh ? "Did ye suffer so
5. many things in vain? "if it be indeed in vain. "He
1 Or, works of law a Or, message 3 Or, do ye now make an end in the flesh ?
a votive spectacle of Jesus "in his blood." Jn. 3 : 14 adds a com
parison to the brazen serpent (Num. 21 : 8, 9) . Here the reference
is to Paul's own preaching, which made the cross central (1 Cor.
2:2). See Appended Note C.
2. This only. Paul knows that he can " rest his case " on this single
issue. He had done so with complete success at Jerusalem (2:9;
Acts 15 : 8, 12; cf. 10 : 44-47; 11 : 15-18). There was no escape
from it ; for the mother church itself dated its own foundation from
the same phenomenon. The fundamental confession which made
Christianity a religion was: "Jesus is Lord." It rested upon this
experience as its proof (Acts 2 : 33; Eph. 4 : 7-10). Jewish messi-
anism anticipated the "outpouring of the Spirit" in the last days as
the token of the Redeemer's advent. For legalists this was the spirit
of obedience to the law; for the 'Wisdom' writers the spirit of 'wis
dom,' for apocalyptists the spirit of 'prophecy' (Joel 2 : 28-32; cf.
Num. 11 : 29) . The appearance of these " gifts of the Spirit " upon
"faith in Christ Jesus," including the " signs and wonders" (Joel 2 : 30),
was the proof on which the Church itself rested its assurance that
"God hath made this Jesus . . . both Lord and Christ." If the
Gentiles also had had "the gifts of the Spirit" there was no more to be
said. The only point to be made clear was when the gifts came, i.e.,
not upon this attempt to supplement by works of the law their justi
fication in grace, but before it, at the time of their hearing (productive)
of faith.
3-4. Paul digresses to a brief reductio ad absurdum: This is a kind
of progress which starts from the higher and proceeds to the lower;
from the strong and eternal to the weak and ephemeral. God's
method is the reverse (1 Cor. 15 : 46).
4. Did ye suffer. In biblical use the verb has invariably the con
notation of evil ; not merely " did ye experience?" Of the churches
of South Galatia (not of Galatia proper) we know that they had "en
dured a great fight of affliction" (Acts 13 : 50-51; 14 : 2, 5, 19, 22;
2 Tim. 3 : 11).
If it be indeed "in vain." Paul qualifies his strong expression,
which would imply a greater hopelessness than he really feels in
their case; cf. 4 : 11. 74

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

therefore that supplieth to you the Spirit, and "worketh
1 miracles 2 among you, doeth he it by 3the works of the
law, or by the 4 hearing of faith ?
6. Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned Gen. is : 6
7. unto him for righteousness. 5Know therefore that
1 Gr. powers. a Or, in a Or , works of law « Or, message s Or, Ye perceive
5. He therefore, etc. A return to the point laid down in ver. *.
The "therefore" is resumptive, "Well, then, to return." We learn
now more specifically what Paul meant by "Received ye the Spirit?"
Worketh miracles among you (better "worketh miraculous power
in you"; see alternative rendering). The starting-point of the New
Testament argument from "miracles" is not with those wrought by
Jesus, but those of the writers' own time. They have "the gift of
miracles," and account for it by the working of God who "supplies
the Spirit" in response to faith. Jesus' miracles had been similar.
Paul, who but rarely refers to miracles of his own (2 Cor. 12 : 12),
never refers to any wrought by Jesus. "Miracle" has not disap
peared from modern experience of the Spirit except as a matter of
interpretation. The phenomena have not ceased ; but our idea of
their causation has changed in accordance with the modern concep
tion of "natural law" as the mode of the divine operation. That
which to the modern is accountable by natural causation, including
under this head the tendency of report to exaggerate, to the ancient
was accountable only as the interposition of a superhuman being
(divine, angelic, or demonic). Our definition of the New Testament
term "miracle" must therefore be: A surprising occurrence inter
preted as due to the intervention of a personal superhuman being,
in response to human appeal, athwart the observed course of
nature. As thus interpreted the restoration to consciousness of
Eutychus, after a fall "from the third story" (Acts 20 : 7-12), is a
"miracle." It was such to Luke, and possibly may have been to
Paul, though to the modern it may be only a more or less surprising
and providential occurrence. But of the conviction of Paul that the
surprising phenomena of "tongues," "healings," "helps," and
"miracles," which were often found to accompany acceptance of the
new "faith," were in the strictest sense "supernatural," there cannot
be the slightest question. The only surprising thing about this con
viction is its sobriety. For Paul's ethical sense leads him to insist
on the subordination of all such mere external "manifestations of the
Spirit," as destined to "cease" and be "done away" before the deeper
and more abiding gifts (1 Cor. c. 13).
75

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

they which be of faith, "the same are sons of Abraham.
8. And "the scripture, foreseeing that God 'would justify
the 2 Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel before-
Gen'il'ii ^and unt0 Abraham, saying, "In thee shall all the
9. nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith "are
blessed with the faithful Abraham.
1 Gr. juslifleth. a Gr. nations.
(1) The Abrahamic promise universal, and based on faith, 3 : 6-9.
The very man through whom the Jews claim to be "heirs of the
world" was given this distinction by God (Rom. 4 : 13) on the ground
not of works of the law (for his circumcision came afterward, Rom.
4 : 10), but of faith alone, ver. 6-9.
6. The remarkable statement of Gen. 15 : 6 (J, E), preceding Gen.
17 : 10-14 (P). gives Paul a redoubtable argument against the Juda
izers, which he develops at much greater length in Rom. c. 4.
7. The same. Strongly emphatic. "It is these (not the literal
descendants) who are," etc. The point at issue is that of Philo's
celebrated treatise (ca. 30 a.d.), " Who is the Heir of the Things of
God?" According to the Judaizers, those who become "sons of
Abraham" by entering into the covenant of adoption prescribed in
Gen. 17 : 10-14, an implied assumption of the "yoke of the law."
According to Paul those who by Abraham's faith become the sons of
God, and thus also his "heirs." See theQ. E. D. in 4 : 7.
8. The scripture . . . preached the gospel beforehand. Paul shares
the rabbinic theory of his time of a mysterious meaning miracu
lously embodied in "scripture" without the knowledge of the writers
themselves (1 Pt. 1 : 11 ; 1 Cor. 9 : 9-10). It is further developed in
ver. 16 and 4 : 21-31. It does not proceed, however, to the extent
denounced in Jn. 5 : 37-40, nor to the extravagances of post-apos
tolic allegorical exegesis.
In thee shall all the nations be blessed. In the Hebrew original at
first only a magnification of the greatness of Abraham's endowment.
The surrounding peoples will say, " God bless us, as he has done with
Abraham," using his name proverbially in blessing (see alternate
rendering to Gen. 22 : 18 and cf. 48 : 20). The more generous in
terpretation that the Gentiles shall not merely invoke, but receive,
blessing through Abraham is applicable in later prophecy, especially
Deutero-Isaiah. To Paul the passage is " prophetic " of Gentile
redemption by the same means as Abraham, i.e., faith.
9. Are blessed. Declared, or treated, as blessed in company with
Abraham. Further elaboration of the thought in ver. 16, 28-29.
76

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

10. For as many as are of 1 the works of the law are under
a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one which Dt. 27:26
continueth not in all things that are written in the book
11. of the law, to do them. Now that no man is justified
2 by the law in the sight of God, is evident: for, The Hab. 2:4
12. righteous shall live by faith; and the law is not of Lev. 18: s
faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them.
1 Or, works of law 3 Gr. in
(2) The law brings not blessing, but curse, 3 : 10-12.
10. Paul takes a world-wide view of redemption. Its historic
stages to his mind are three only: (1) Adam, in consequence of whose
fault the birthright of humanity to dominion (Gen. 1 : 26) and eternal
life (Gen. 6 : 3 ; cf. Wisdom of Sol. 2 : 23) was lost ; (2) Abraham,
in consequence of whose faith it was conditionally restored ; (3)
Christ, through whose victory and gift of the Spirit believers enter
upon the inheritance. The Mosaic dispensation of law was a tem
porary expedient adapted to special requirements ; it merely " came
in alongside" (Rom. 5 : 20; cf. ver. 19-22 below). To prove that
the law is not a superior prerogative of the "holy seed" enabling them
as "sons" who know and "do the will" of the Creator to secure the
"inheritance" to the exclusion of others, Paul advances the startling
paradox that the law results always and only in "curse," and was so
intended! See Appended Note C.
11. By stressing the word "all" in his quotation from the law (Dt.
27 : 26) Paul had given to the Old Testament requirement a severity
and strictness his opponents were far from conceding (cf. 5 : 3 ; 6 : 13).
The only way, after this, to give his contention verisimilitude was to
point out the "way of escape," as having been intimated even before
the coming of Christ. This intimation Paul finds not only in the gos
pel of faith "preached beforehand to Abraham," but in the prophets,
notably the passage from Hab. 2 : 4. "His soul (the wicked man's)
is puffed up, it is not upright in him ; but the just shall live by his
faith" (alternative rendering "in his faithfulness"). The exegesis is
manifestly forced, but the antithesis seemed to Paul to contrast the
"boasting" of the Jew (Rom. 3 : 27; 4:2), the spirit of Pharisaic
self-righteousness, with the "righteousness of God" preached by
Jesus. 12. Lev. 18 : 5 is quoted (appropriately) as exhibiting the spirit
of Mosaism in contrast with the evangelic. Again the word "doeth"
must be taken in an extreme sense, to reach the conclusion aimed at
(ver. 21). The law brings only death, never life.
77

13 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having
21 : 23 become a curse for us : for it is written, Cursed is
14. every one that hangeth on a tree: that upon the Gen
tiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ
Jesus ; that we might receive "the promise of the Spirit
through faith.
(3) Redemption from the curse of the Law explains the Cross, ver.
I3_I4- 13. Paul delights in paradox. His opponents having taken their
stand on the blessing given to Abraham as conditioned on obedience
to the law, he aims to show that it is precisely in the removal of this
alleged condition that the messianic blessing consists. For the death
of Christ, already referred to as the divine provocative of faith (see
on 1 : 4; 2 : 19-21 and Appended Note C), was in its very manner
defiant of the law and thus indicative of the liberation intended. Not
only did Jesus incur death as the champion of "sinners," but the
very mode of his martyrdom was a form of death, and the only one,
which the law pronounces "accursed" (Dt. 21 : 23).
14. The Q. E. D. of arguments (1) and (2). Christ's death, and
more particularly the special form of his death, proves that the prom
ise to Abraham was not nationalistic in application but universal,
and that obedience to the law is not the condition of inheriting it, but
rather relinquishment of Pharisaic self-righteousness, in filial "faith."
The promise of the Spirit. I.e., the promise whose content is the
Spirit. See on ver. 2 and below on ver. 21. Originally the promise
had been "this land" (Gen. 15 : 7-21). The decline of national
hopes had led to a gradual spiritualization and universalization of
this outlook (cf. Heb. 11 : 8-10, 13-15; Acts 7 : 5). "Prophecy,"
after Israel's national existence had been merged in that of great
world empires, became "apocalypse," which deals with cosmic re
adjustments. "Wisdom," equally universalistic, bases hope for the
world on anthropological and sociological transformation. This
involves a "spiritualizing" interpretation of "the promise" for which
the minds of devout Israelites were amply prepared, especially in the
Dispersion, and most of all at Alexandria. Cf. the spiritualization
in Acts 7 : 2-16. With Paul the promise is simply "sonship," which
involves "heirship" over God's creation, and "life." These all result
from the outpouring of the Spirit of adoption (4 : 5-7 ; Rom. 8 : 15-17).
(4) Impossibility of the law having been meant as a condition of the
promise, and of distinctions of race among the heirs, 3 : 15-29.
Statement of Principles : (a) Covenants do not admit of subse
quent alteration of the terms, (b) The promise in question was put
in aform adapted to universal, not particularistic application, 3 : 15—16.
78

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

15. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though
it be but "a man's 1 covenant, yet when it hath been
confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto.
16. Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, "and to
his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; Gen. 12:7;
but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17:7;'
17. "Now this I say ; A 1 covenant confirmed beforehand 24:7'
by God, the law, which came "four hundred and thirty Ex- I2 : 4°
1 Or, testament
15. The Abrahamic promise was a formal "covenant" (Gen.
15 : 8-18). Subsequent imposition of conditions in such cases are
regarded as dishonorable even for a man (Ps. 15 : 4).
16. And to his seed. The Judaizers propose to exclude the younger
son (cf. 4 : 22-28) from a share in the inheritance (4 : 17), by treating
the law as its condition. Paul argues (by a piece of rabbinic sub
tlety issuing in ver. 28) that if this had been the intention the cove
nant in its language would have employed a plural, "seeds," and not
the singular, "seed," because admittedly (?) the Gentiles have some
part in it (ver. 8), and if any distinction of race be made among the
heirs a plural would be necessary rather than a collective. The sin
gular therefore has a subtle, deep significance. It must be understood
in a sense comprehensive of all ; and this can be the case only when
we think of it as referring to Christ, who like a "second Adam" is
"the head of every man" (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 1 : 22 ; 4 : 15 ; Col.
1 : 18 ; 2 : 19). In reality the Hebrew collective term "seed" is used
precisely as the English would be. The argument has no force unless
we admit — as was admitted in Paul's time — ¦ that meanings may be
validly drawn from Scripture which were not intended or realized by
the writer.
17. Now this I say. Better, "This is what I mean." So 4 : 1.
Having stated (ver. 15, 16) his two propositions: (1) the law not a
condition ; (2) the heirs not plural, Paul now proceeds to develop
them in ver. 17-24 and 25-29 respectively.
For what purpose the law was really given, (a) not as a condition
limiting the promise, 3 : 17-18.
17. Four hundred and thirty years after. The number 430 is
taken from Ex. 12 : 40, 41, but does not include the lives of Isaac and
Jacob. In Gen. 15 : 13, the passage here interpreted, the coming
into the inheritance is reckoned as occurring roundly 400 years after.
There is confusion which resulted in two different reckonings current
in Paul's time, but it is immaterial to Paul's argument,
79

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the prom-
18. ise of none effect. For if the inheritance is of the
law, it is no more of promise: but God hath granted
jo. it to Abraham by promise. "What then is the law?
"It was added because of transgressions, till the seed
should come to whom the promise hath been made;
and it was "ordained through angels "by the hand of a
18. Emphasis laid on the evangelic nature of the "gospel" preached
beforehand to Abraham. The "covenant" was an act of "grace,"
not "disannulled" by subsequent imposition of conditions.
(j3) The Law was really meant for a discipline to develop the heir,
3 = 19-24-
19. What then is the law? Paul may well interject this question
of amazement and incredulity in the mouth of his opponents; for
the paradox he is about to propound is the most startling a Jew could
well conceive.
It was added because of (Gr. "for the sake of") transgressions. The
English versions by no means do justice to the startling force of the
Greek preposition, which implies nothing less than that it was the
intended purpose of the law to produce transgressions. In what
sense Paul could employ this paradoxical statement becomes ap
parent from the parallel in Rom. 5 : 13-20. The function of law
in Paul's philosophy of redemption is explained more fully in Ap
pended Note C. As conscious and painful and involving "curse"
the condition of a conscious "transgressor" to which man is brought
by the incoming of law is an advance upon the mere state of innocency
in that it paves the way for blessing.
Ordained through angels. In two further respects the law shows
its merely incidental, temporary, and provisional character. Both
parties were indirectly represented, instead of acting in person as in
the original covenant (Gen. 15 : 17, 18; cf. Ex. 20 : 18-21; 24 : 3-8).
The giving of the law "through angels" is a belief resting upon cur
rent interpretations of Dt. $$ : 2, which in combination with Ps.
68 : 11 was taken to identify the phenomena described in Ex. 19 : 18,
19; 20 : 18 as appearances of angels (cf. Ps. 104 : 4; Heb. 1 : 7).
To Luke (Acts 7 : 38, 53), as to Josephus (Antiq. XV. v. 3) and the
Jews generally, this only enhances the authority of the law. To
Paul and his disciple, the writer of Hebrews (Heb. 1 : 2, 7-8, 13-
14; 2:2, 3), it is a mark of inferiority. Israel is no more
under the direct leadership of God than the other nations, whom
God was believed to have committed each to the guardianship of
its own "angel" (Dan. 10 : 13, 21; 12 ; 1). Angelic guidance was
8g

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

20. mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one;
21. but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of
held_ to have been substituted for God's personal presence as a
punishment for Israel's " stiff- neckedness " in the wilderness (Ex.
23 : 20-23; 33 : 2-4; of. Acts 7 : 41-43). The standing reproach
of Judaism on the part of Christians of the second century is in fact
that it is a "worship of angels." See on 4 : 3, 8-9.
By (Gr. "in") the hand of a mediator. Moses' function in "medi
ating" for the people with God, plays a great part in the Old
Testament representation (Ex. 20 : 19; Dt. 5 : 19-25, 18 : 16),
in contemporary Jewish literature (Philo, Vita Mosis, iii. 20;
cf. Assumplio Mosis (ca. 40 a.d.) i. 14), and in Pauline (2 Cor.
3 : 7-4 : 6) and Deutero-Pauline writings of the New Testament
(1 Tim. 2 : 5; Heb. 8:6; 9 : 15; 12 : 24). He alone beheld "the
glory of God" (Ex. 33 : 17-23; 34 : 5-8), the people refused to
draw nigh (20 : 18-19), and could not endure to see even the
reflection of the "glory" from Moses' face (34 : 29-35). ^n 2
Cor. 3 : 7-4 : 6 Paul develops most poetically the contrast here
merely suggested between the mediation of Moses and that of Christ.
Ministers of the new covenant, though its "glory" far exceeds that
of the "ministration of death" and "condemnation," are "not as
Moses, who put a veil upon his face that the children of Israel might
not look steadfastly. . . . We (ministers of the better covenant)
with unveiled face reflect as mirrors the glory of the Lord (Jesus),
being transfigured into the same likeness." For "God that said (at
the first creation) Light shall shine out of darkness, shined (in the new
creation) in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of ' the glory
of God' in the face of Jesus Christ " (cf. Jn. 14 : 9).
20. A verse of extreme difficulty, for which Lightfoot counts " 250
or 300" interpretations. The difficulty lies in the introduction of a
new thought — the unity of God — not germane to the context, but
in the judgment of some patristic interpreters intended to contrast
the new covenant of Christianity as from the one God, with Judaism
as from a multiplicity of angels. God required no go-between for
his revelation (Christianity), because he "is one." That of the angels
(Mosaism) required a "mediator," for they are many. If this be
the intended sense the verse may be set down, even without manu
script evidence, as spurious; for however admirably this idea of
Christianity mediated by God in person vs. Judaism as a "worship of
angels" comports with second century patristic thought (see on 4 : 10),
it is certain from the New Testament parallels cited (preceding note)
that Moses is brought forward by Paul as appearing in behalf not
of the angels, but of the people. If the verse be authentic, we can only
hesitate between two general forms of interpretation, each open to
G 81

22 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
God? God forbid: "for if there had been a law given
which could make alive, verily righteousness would
22. have been of the law. Howbeit the scripture "hath

serious objection, a (Lightfoot): Mediatorship implies a condi
tional relationship. Promise, as in the case of Abraham and Christ,
"depends on the sole decree of God." But the former statement is
hardly valid and the latter is in conflict with Paulinism (i Tim.
2 : 5; Heb. 8:6; 9 : 15; 12 : 24). The whole could be far more
simply expressed had Paul so intended, b (Zahn): Mediatorship
implies a plurality in interest, "God is one," therefore the plurality
must be on the other side, that of the heirs ; but in the dispensa
tion of grace the heir is one (ver. 16, 28). This accords better with
the context, but would at least require us to read " But Christ is one,"
instead of the unnecessary truism "But God is one." The sense
becomes clearest by simple omission of the verse.
21. The natural objection of the Judaizer to Paul's doctrine of
"death" and "condemnation" as the object of the "ministration of
Moses" is that it sets the two revelations of God in conflict with one
another, an inference drawn in good faith by Marcion, the great
Paulinist of the second century. Paul answers with an attempt to
make good his extraordinary paradox that the object of the law was
not to give life. For if there had been a law given which could (i.e.,
such that it could) make alive. This is undermining the very centre
of his opponents' position, the point in their view least in need of
defence. It is in fact the explicit statement of the law that it is given
to "make alive" (Dt. 30 : 15-20), and this is the very foundation
principle of current Jewish orthodoxy (Mt. 19 : 16-19; 2 Esdras
14 : 30). We cannot wonder that Paul's arguments to disprove this
provoked from his antagonists the accusation of "handling the word
of God deceitfully" (2 Cor. 4 : 2). Only Paul's unyielding devotion
to the faith of his childhood in the superhuman sanctity of the law
(Rom. 7:12) can explain his resort to an interpretation so violent.
The current assumption of his time, of a sense in Scripture tran
scending that intended by its writers, could give momentary plausi
bility to such interpretations.
22. A falling back upon the passages quoted in ver. 10-11. The
real basis is broader. Paul expresses it by a word unknown to He
brew literature, but vital to his system, a coinage of the Stoics,
"conscience" (Rom. 2 : 15). Hath shut up all things. Not merely
men and angels (1 Cor. 6 : 3), but even the impersonal creation,
which now awaits with groaning the "incorruption" to be restored
to it when the sons of God are manifested (Rom, 8 : 19-21),
82

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

shut up all things under sin, that "the promise by faith
in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23. But before l faith came, we were "kept in ward under
the law, shut up unto "the faith which should afterwards
24. be revealed. So that the law hath been "our tutor to
bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25. But now that faith is come, "we are no longer under a
26. tutor. For "ye are all sons of God, through faith, "in
27. Christ Jesus. "For as many of you as were baptized
1 Or, the faith.
The promise — of Gen. 15 : 7, here interpreted as = "life" (ver.
21). See note on ver. 14.
23-24. Conclusion of Paul's answer to the objection, "What then
is the law?" (ver. 19).
Kept in ward . . . our tutor. The two comparisons do not pre
sent different aspects of the law (restraint, instruction) but the same,
viz. the discipline of restraint and prohibition. The "tutor" (pada-
gogus) in ancient use was not an instructor, but merely a slave re
sponsible for the child's safety and good conduct. The words " to
bring us" supplied in R. V. import somewhat more than the sense
warrants. Paul is not concerned here with the light given by the
law, but with its curse and bondage. Until we were brought "unto
Christ " it was jailer and mentor.
Faith . . . the faith. The spirit of filial trust evoked by the spec
tacle of the cross; see on 1 : 23; 2 : 16.
(b) Impossibility of distinctions between the heirs. The sonship is a
common life, 3 : 25—29.
25-26. We ... ye all. The change of person indicates the tran
sition from consideration of the Jewish believer (as in 2 : 15-16) to
the Gentile. For all alike faith results in the same gift of " the Spirit"
(ver. 2) giving assurance of sonship with all the heirship therein im
plied (4 : 6; cf. Rom. 8 : 15-17 and see note below).
In Christ Jesus. On the mystical sense of this phrase of Pauline
coinage see above (note on 2 : 4) and the notes here following.
27. For. Ver. 27-28 explain the clause "in Christ Jesus" ap
pended "so as to form in a manner a distinct proposition" (Light
foot) at the end of ver. 26.
Baptism, which all alike have undergone, by its very symbolism of
immersion, and its accompaniment of gifts of the Spirit, is the proof
of this unity "in Christ." The thought is more fully developed in
83

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

28. into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither
Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free,
there can be no male and female: for ye "all are one
Rom. 6 : 3-1 1, where the fundamental significance of the rite as
viewed by Paul is made apparent. Paul's ruling principle is that for
redemption a new infusion of "spirit" is indispensable to emancipate
flesh from the dominion of sin, and this divine operation of grace is
absolutely conditioned upon the renunciation of all attempts at self-
justification in a spirit of filial trust. In accordance with this princi
ple baptism symbolizes for Paul always death and resurrection. The
elements of this change are the cessation of life conceived as a self-
centred activity, and the beginning of eternal life, which is "hid
with Christ in God," and this not one's own, either in derivation or
direction (2 : 20; 2 Cor. 5 : 15; Col. 2 : 12, 20; 3:1; Phil. 2 : 13;
Rom. 12:2). The most essential "teaching of baptisms," therefore, is
" repentance from dead works and faith toward God" (Heb. 6 : 1-2),
since by this means we "put on Christ" (Eph. 4 : 23; Col. 3 : 9-11),
whose all-surrounding, all-pervading Spirit is a " Red Sea" of grace in
which all believers are baptized into mystic union with Christ, as the
fathers "were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and the sea" (1 Cor.
10 : 2).
28. The Jewish prayer-book still contains a thanksgiving corre
sponding to that of the ancient Greek for not having been born a bar
barian or a slave.
I thank thee that I was not born a Gentile.
I thank thee that I was not born a slave.
I thank thee that I was not born a woman.
Such distinctions "in Christ" are for Paul inadmissible. They are
not merely wrong; they are non-existent. All alike, Jews and Gen
tiles, men and women, have renounced and terminated their life " in
the flesh." So far as they have real life it is a life actually and really
of the same substance with the life of Christ; for "spirit" is to Paul
something far more real than mere influence. Christ is thus in a
perfectly concrete sense "the head of every man." He is a "second
Adam" in whom all are "made alive," and just as in Jewish specula
tion the first Adam was so representative of the common humanity
as not even to share in the distinctions of sex, so in the " man from
heaven" all distinctions of mere "flesh" will disappear.
All one man. The conclusion of the argument that the "seed" of
Abraham is not a plurality, ver. 16. This " one new man " whose mem
bers are pervaded and unified by the life-giving flow of the Spirit, is
described in Eph. 4 : 13-16. The arterial system, which at death
is found empty of blood, was supposed in antiquity to afford circula
tion to air or "animal spirits." 84

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

29. man in Christ Jesus. And "if ye are Christ's, then are
ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise.
2. The Galatmns are warned that their present apostasy is
a return to bondage, 4 : 1-5 : 12.
4. "But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he
differeth nothing from a bondservant, though he is "lord
29. If ye are Christ's (Gr. "of Christ"). We might render "mem
bers" or "parts of Christ." The unity is in Paul's view an actual
participation in the life of God in Christ. This mystical conception,
so real to his personal experience, justifies to his mind the belief that
in the use of the collective singular "seed" instead of the plural
"seeds" or some distributive of like sense, the Scripture was made
to utter a mysterious 'prophecy' of Christ.
General Proposition. In its very nature as an adoption the gift
of the Spirit is an emancipation for all mankind, 4 : 1-7.
1. But I say, or "mean"; i.e., " My proposition is this." Having
completed in 3 : 6-29 his proof that the Abrahamic inheritance was
intended for the spiritual "seed" who are "one" in Christ, Paul
returns to his original postulate, his "only" appeal, 3 : 2-5, for the
purpose of determining the nature of the "inheritance."
Lord of all. Contemporary writings, Jewish and Christian, leave no
doubt whatever as to the assumed content of the "inheritance."
Abraham was understood to have been literally, as Paul says, "made
heir of the world" (Rom. 4 : 13). It had been created for Adam
(Gen. 1 : 28; Ps. 8 : 5-7), but when Adam had evinced his unfitness,
Abraham and his seed, including all faithful Israelites, were chosen to
the exclusion of "sinners of the Gentiles" and disloyal Jews. "Es-
dras" (ca. 90 a.d.) complains, "O Lord, thou hast said that for our
sakes thou madest this world. As for the other nations which also
come of Adam, thou hast said (Is. 40 : 15) that they are nothing,
and are like unto spittle. . . . And now, O Lord, behold these na
tions, which are reputed as nothing, be lords over us and devour us.
But we, thy people whom thou hast called (Ex. 4 : 24) thy first-born,
thy only begotten, ... are given into their hands. If _ the world
now be made for our sakes why do we not possess for an inheritance
our world?" Christian expectations are not less, but greater. The
"son" must "inherit the earth" (Mt. 5:551 Cor. 3 : 22; Rev. 21 : 1,
7). If we "see not yet all things made subject unto him," Christ's
triumph over the (demonic) powers which now control the world,
including " him that hath the power of death" proves that he is hence
forth expecting until his (invisible) enemies be made subject unto
85

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

2. of all; but is "under guardians and stewards until "the
3. term appointed of the father. So we also, when we
were children, were held in bondage under the °lrudi-
1 Or, elements

him (1 Cor. 15 : 27; Heb. 2 : 8, 9). The object of creation which
the Gentiles vainly inquire after, angels are ignorant of, and which
Jews understand to have been their national benefit, is therefore
revealed in the Church (Eph. 3 : 9-10), which takes the place in
patristic thought of Israel as the heir of God. Its conflict accordingly
is "not (like Israel's), against flesh and blood, but against the prin
cipalities, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spirit
ual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Eph. 6 : 12) who
now struggle to prolong the dominion they have abused (1 Cor. 2 : 8),
supplanting and subjecting the rightful heir. When the sons of God
are manifested as God's adoptive heirs, the creation, delivered from
its bondage to "vanity," will gladly revert to its intended owners,
in spite of all that "death or life, angels or principalities, height or
depth" can do to prevent it (Rom. 8 : 19-22, 38-39). Thus in "the
adoption" will be made manifest "to every angel and spirit" the
hidden purpose of the Creator (Eph. 3 : 9-1 1).
2. Under guardians (of the person) and stewards (of the property).
Angelic "world-rulers" appointed to the guardianship of nations and
direction of the cosmic forces, according to contemporary Jewish
belief. The judgment of the angels (1 Cor. 6 : 3) for their malad
ministration of this trust it was believed would precede the general
judgment of mankind. See on ver. 3.
The term appointed. Whether Roman, or Greek, or (more prob
ably) some provincial legal practice of Galatia underlies Paul's
figure is of minor importance. Also whether the father is conceived
of as dead or not (cf. Heb. 9 : 16). Unlike certain Jewish liberals of
his time in Alexandria, who considered only the "spiritual" sense
of the law to be binding, Paul interpreted the obligation of the law
as literally as any Palestinian rabbi, until the death of Christ.
3. Rudiments (better alternative rendering "elements," Gr. sloi-
cheia) of the world. The sense of the word is not here inanimate simple
rules, as in Heb. 5 : 12, but animate beings "which by nature are no
gods" though mistaken for such (ver. 8), and which as "guardians
and stewards" might be mistakenly supposed to have authority and
wealth in their own right until shown by the manifestation of the
"heir" to be "weak and beggarly." This semi-personal sense is
more common to Jewish and patristic writings than that of "rudi
ments of learning," or "stars," i.e., cosmic beings of the constella-
86

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

ments of the world : but when "the fulness of the time
came, God sent forth his Son, "born of a woman, "born
under the law, that he might redeem them which were
under the law, that we might receive the adoption of
sons. And because ye are sons, God sent forth the
Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba, Father.

tions, the latter sense being nearer to the present. Here, as in Col.
2 : 8, 20 (cf. the adjoining ver. 10, 15, 18), Paul means "the princi
palities and powers, the world-rulers of this darkness" (Eph. 6 : 12;
1 Cor. 2 : 8).
4. In this semi-mythologic context it is obvious that Paul is not
thinking of a sending from Nazareth, but from the height of heaven
(cf. Rom. 10 : 6-8; Eph. 4 : 8-10). We must interpret accordingly
the self-impoverishment of the Son in 2 Cor. 8 : 9, and the "obedi
ence" of Phil. 2 : 6-9. It is a cosmic transaction in a preexistent
state. It should be needless to say that Paul does not derive this
conception of the career of Jesus from the story of Peter, but from
current apocalyptic ideas of the world-redeemer, interpreted in the
light of his own " visions and revelations of the Lord." Nevertheless
he takes pains to emphasize the purely human conditions under which
"the Son" appeared (cf. Heb. 2: 17; 4: 15); otherwise his cosmic
Christology could not have been adjusted to the simple recollection of
the Galilean apostles. The fulness of the time. The cosmic economy
of the Creator is conceived under the images of the redemption of
Israel from Egypt as in Eph. 1 : 3-14- The release of the "sons"
cannot occur until the period set for the dominion of the hostile
powers, as in Gen. 15 : 16. Born of a woman. The "weaker
vessel." The expression is used similarly of human frailty in Job
14 : 1; Mt. 11 : 11, and elsewhere. This context, where the effort
is to show the completeness of Christ's assumption of our com
mon humanity with all its weaknesses, should be the last to set
over against Rom. 1 : 3, as if it denied the human fatherhood. Born
under the law. The reason to Paul's mind why the world-redeemer
was "made a minister of the circumcision" (Rom. 15 : 8) was that
among the circumcision the opposition between the "law of sin in
our members" and the "law of the mind" had reached its acutest
stage. As friend and Redeemer of "sinners" he must go where the
sense of sin was most acute.
6. The reasoning is from the phenomena of "tongues," the most
conspicuous manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 14 : 2-19,
22). Among the "strange" (i.e. foreign) words most frequently
heard in these ecstatic utterances (1 Cor. 14 : 21) was the Aramaic
87

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

7. So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son;
"and if a son, then an heir through God.
8. Howbeit "at that time, "not knowing God, ye were "in
9. 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
Abba (i.e., Father), which the evangelist Mark retains in the original
as being characteristic of Jesus (Mk. 14 : 36) . The fuller parallel to
our present passage, Rom. 8 : 23, 26, 27, compares these "inarticu
late groanings" of the Spirit to the voiceless cry of the fettered crea
tion. It is "the Spirit of Adoption" which intercedes with God for
us, in sounds of which men catch only here and there the broken " cry,"
Abba, Abba.
7. Return to 3 : 2. The essence of the "gift of the Spirit" is
adoption. Herein Paul is true to the noblest teachings of Pharisaism;
and also profoundly, vitally true to the most essential teaching of
Jesus, seeing more clearly than the Galilean apostles themselves.
And if a son, then an heir. Herein Paul makes the polemic inference
required in the interest of his special gospel of Gentile equality. To
be a world-religion Christianity must take the step with him.
Practical Inference: (i) Galatian observance of the Mosaic
calendar is the beginning of a return to bondage, undoing the work of
redemption, 4 : 8-1 1.
8. At that time. When the spirit came ; cf. 3 : 2. Not knowing
God. The heathen are supposed to be ignorant of the true God (cf.
Acts 17 : 23; 1 Thess. 1:9). The Galatians had evidently been
converted from heathenism, though the work doubtless began from
Jewish synagogues (Acts 13 : 14, 43; 14 : t, 4). In bondage to . . .
no gods. See on ver. 3, and cf. Heb. 2 : 15.
9. Paul delights in the turning of the phrase "knowing God" —
somewhat redolent of Jewish self-complacency, Rom. 2 : 17-20 —
into its converse: The real revelation is not of the Father, but of the
Son, God's acknowledgment of "them that are his" (2 Tim. 2 : 19),
In 1 Cor. 8 : 2-3 it thus reappears. The same combination is effected
in a saying of Jesus, coincidently reported in Mt. 11 : 27 and Lk.
10 : 22. Against the claim of the scribes to define the limits of
sonship (Mt. 23 : 13) Jesus opposes that of the Father, who has
a prior right to acknowledge his own ; against their claim to have
the authoritative "knowledge of God" he advances that of "the
son" (generic as in Jn. 8 : 35), the insight of those who are like-minded
(Mt. 5 : 8, 45). The combination of the two sayings is perhaps due
to Pauline influence. Weak and beggarly. As only "clothed with

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

and beggarly * rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in
10. bondage over again? Ye observe "days, and months,
1 Or, elements
a little brief authority." See on ver. 3, and note Paul's disdain of
the Phrygian tendency to a ""worship of angels" (Col. 2 : 8-23).
The scientist's formula for the exorcism of the "spirits" that obsess
credulous humanity is the "reign of law " ; the Christian's is the reign
of the Son of God. Paul is thus emancipated from the debasing fear
of these "gods many and lords many" before science comes to prove
their non-existence.
10. Days, and months, and seasons, and years. We must distinguish
between a nobler and a baser type of Judaism in Paul's day. There
was (1) the Pharisaism represented by Paul himself, represented also
by the Palestinian synagogue, as we see it, purified from the super
stitions of Paul's time by the great reaction of the second century
a.d. There was also (2) what Harnack has called the " sy ncretistic "
Judaism popularly known throughout the Roman Empire as a de
basing superstition of "astrologers, haruspices and quacksalvers."
Acts 19 : 13 knows of Ephesus and Asia as particularly infested
with this type in the form of "strolling Jews, exorcists." It knows
elsewhere (13 : 6-8) of the hold they obtain by their "magic" in
the palaces of the great. Many contemporary evidences survive in
the form of amulets and "magic papyri" or lead rolls, of this de
based and mongrel type of Judaism which made merchandise of the
reputation of Moses. Paul himself in this same region of Phrygia
has occasion later to stem the tide of a similar mongrel Jewish an-
gelolatry (Col. 2 : 8-20). We need not then be surprised to find
a Christian writer of ca. 140 a.d. declaring that "the Jews, although
they think that they alone know God, do not know him, but worship
angels and archangels, the month and the moon." Paul certainly
condemns here implicitly that observance of sabbaths which in Col.
2 : 16 he condemns explicitly. And this was in fact to the Gentile
observer the most conspicuous and distinctive -feature of the Mosaic
system. In contemporary Jewish writings also the observance of
the feasts at exactly the legal time is made a matter of prime im
portance just because of the connection of this calendar with the
celestial luminaries, conceived as directly under the charge of "angels."
For the same reason Paul regards it as the most conspicuous evidence
of the Galatians' disposition to return into the bondage of the elements
of the world. This particular feature of the law is that which es
pecially marks it as "given through angels" (3 : 19)- what can be
tolerated as the scrupulousness of a "weak" conscience in a born
Jew (Rom. 14 : 5-6), Paul has no patience with in imitation
89

II EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
ii. and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any
means I have bestowed "labour upon you in vain.
12. I beseech you, brethren, "be as I am, for I am as ye
13. are. "Ye did me no wrong: but ye know that because
of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto

Mosaists. In the second century "sabbattizing" was still more
severely denounced.
11. Labour in vain. Cf. 2 : 2. The two passages are reciprocally
illuminative. (2) Paul entreats the Galatians by the contrast of their present cold
ness with the zeal and love of former days, 4 : 12-20.
12. Be (Gr. "become") as I. The true rendering of the first half
of ver. 12 compels the rendering "I became" in the second. Paul.
is far from acknowledging that he is as the Galatians are. He be
came as they were when he preached to them at the first, according
to his principle described in 1 Cor. 9 : 19-22, and the retrospect in
2 : 16. Abandoning his Pharisaic superiority, he had put himself
on the level of " sinners of the Gentiles." Now he has a right to expect
that they shall not seek a superiority which he had relinquished on
their account.
13. Our ignorance of the circumstances makes the allusions ob
scure. It is implied that Paul had made two visits prior to the time
of writing, the former either to recover health, or to avoid overtaxing
a weakened frame; in either case not conditions to suggest long
journeys over the sparsely settled plateau of Galatia proper. See
Introduction, p. 21.
Ye did (or "have done") me no wrong. In imposing the obliga
tion to become also a "sinner"? Cf. 2 : 17. Or perhaps, "You
never did me a wrong. Why then should I be your enemy?"
This sense is preferable to "You have never disobeyed me."
14. Paul's illness was a temptation to strangers to treat him with
loathing, or contempt. Its nature has been variously conjectured
as malarial fever, ophthalmia, and epilepsy. The last is suggested
by the fuller description of symptoms in 2 Cor. 12:7, and especially
by the expression "spat out" (see Gr.) in this verse. Epilepsy was
commonly regarded as of demonic origin (Mk. 9 : 14-29) and com
municable. Spitting was a practice specially employed in such cases,
not only as an expression of loathing, but as a prophylactic. If this
be really the nature of Paul's "stake in the flesh" which came to
"buffet" him, lest he should be exalted overmuch by the "visions
and revelations" he enjoyed, we must attribute the latter not to the
90

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

14. you the * first time : and that which was a temptation
to you in my flesh ye despised not, nor * rejected ; but
ye received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
15. Where then is that gratulation 3 of yourselves? for I
bear you witness, that, if possible, ye would have
16. "plucked out your eyes and given them to me. So
then am I become "your enemy, because I * tell you the
17. truth? "They zealously seek you in no good way; nay,
they desire to shut you out, that ye may seek them.
18. But it is good to be zealously sought in a good matter
"at all times, and not only when I am present with
1 Gr. Jormer. a Gr. spat out. 3 Or, of yours * Or, deal truly with you.
catalepsy itself, during which the victim is wholly unconscious, but
to the period of extreme exaltation which sometimes precedes the
attack. The Galatians, in spite of this "temptation," received Paul
not as possessed of an evil spirit, but as an angel of God, as an in
carnation of the spirit of Jesus. In Acts 14 : 11 we have an instance
of the extraordinary devotion paid to the missionaries in this region.
The fickleness of the mob's behavior immediately after (14 : 19) is
surely quite equal to anything attributable to " Celtic blood."
15. Plucked out your eyes. Affection of the sight is said some
times to accompany epilepsy. But the figure need not necessarily
have been suggested by any special symptom.
16. Your enemy. The epithet is probably quoted. It is the same
employed of the sower of tares in Mt. 13 : 28 and in the early anti-
Pauline literature specifically of Paul himself. The sentence need
not be a question, but an affirmation or exclamation: "So that now,
by telling you the truth I am become your "enemy" !
17. They zealously seek. Gr. "are zealous over." Again the
language is probably borrowed. The Judaizers explain their own
activity by zeal for the Galatians' welfare; for Paul in offering them
a gospel without the yoke of the law has been really their "enemy"
in the guise of a friend who makes the requirements of salvation easy.
Paul replies that this kind of "zeal" is far from disinterested. The
Judaizers are really interested in nothing but the safeguarding of
their own prerogative as "heirs." They are afraid of _ losing their
grasp on "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," possession of which
insures their being paid zealous court to.
18. At all times, and not only when I am present. The contrast
91

19 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
19. you. "My little children, of whom I am again in travail
20. "until Christ be formed in you, yea, "I could wish to
be present with you now, and to change my voice; for
"I am perplexed about you.
21. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, "do ye
22. not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had
two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the free-

shows that Paul is thinking of the zealous court first mentioned, that
paid by the Galatians to him. The other was paid in his absence.
The obscurity of the sense has led some scribes to insert "for you."
The sense really requires "for me" (see var.).
19. My little children. The endearing epithet is coined to meet
the situation Paul describes by comparison with the birth-pangs of
a mother. Their first zeal may have turned to indifference or even
hatred. His is renewed in a second agony.
Until Christ be formed in you. Not individually but in the aggre
gate. The Church as in 1 Cor. 12 : 12; Eph. 4 : 16 becomes an
organism incarnating the Spirit of Christ. Paul's sufferings are the
birth-pangs through which the man-child is brought into the world,
"the Christ that is to be."
20. I could wish. The fact that Paul finds it needless to explain
what prevents his coming, is taken by Zahn as evidence that he is
more remote from Galatia than Antioch or Ephesus. See Intro
duction, p. 33. I am perplexed. At a loss what to do. Shall he
"change his voice" (i.e. "tone") from rebuke to entreaty? The next
paragraph renews the appeal to scriptural authority.
(3) A warning against submission to the yoke. In allegory the
law itself prefigures the contrast between the fleshly heir of Abraham,
a bond-slave, and the spiritual, born of a freewoman, 4 : 21—30.
21. Do ye not hear the law ? In Paul's letters the practice of Gen
tile churches in using the Old Testament in public worship is clearly
attested, with a striking example in the present instance of the rab
binic allegorical interpretation in vogue.
22. Gen. 16 and 21 : 1-21 afford to Paul a "scriptural" con
firmation of his doctrine (3 : 8, 16, 22) of a spiritual "seed of Abra
ham" as real " heir of the world." In two respects the two sons born
to Abraham are differentiated. The elder, Ishmael, was (a) son of
a slave-woman, (b) born "after the flesh, " i.e., in the ordinary course
of nature. The younger, Isaac, was born (a) of a freewoman,
(b) against the course of nature, by the miraculous operation of a
"word of promise." 92

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

23. woman. Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born
after the flesh ; but the son by the freewoman is °bom
24. through promise. Which things "contain an allegory:
for these women "are two covenants; one from mount
Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, which is Hagar.
25. D1Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and
answereth to the Jerusalem that now is : "for she is in
1 Many ancient authorities read For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia.
23. Born through (i.e., "by the agency of") promise. The point
is more fully elaborated in Rom. 4 : 19-21 and 9 : 9. The latter
passage conveys the full Semitic sense, of the word itself operating as
the agency by means of which the result is attained. Isaac for this
reason was called in Jewish writings the " God-begotten," and in
Christian allegorization becomes a type of Christ. Thus in its earliest
manifestation the doctrine of the supernatural birth applies to Chris
tians generally, and is identical with that of the " sowing of the word ' '
in 1 Pt. 1 : 23-25; Jas. 1 : 18; Jn. 1 : 11-13. The application to
Jesus specifically is secondary.
24. Contain an allegory. The controversy as to whether we
should understand "are spoken allegorically," or "should (or may)
be understood allegorically," cannot be decided on merely philological
grounds. There is the less reason for the attempt in that to Paul it
would have made no difference. Anything that could be derived from
scripture was authoritative for his time, whether so intended by the
author, or not. See notes on 3 : 16 and 4 : 30. Are two covenants.
As in ver. 25-26 they are two cities. The appropriateness of making
Hagar correspond to the covenant of law is made to appear in several
ways, first of all from Hagar's birthplace near the scene of the giving
of the law, second from her condition as a slave.
25. For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia. (Better reading; see var.)
The clause has many variants in the Mss., and since the sense seems
much clearer without it, was regarded even by Lightfoot as very
probably a gloss introduced as a geographical note, to explain ver.
24. If retained as authentic the clause should at least be enclosed
in ( ), for not its subject, but that of the preceding clause, is the subject
of the following verb "answereth to." The tribe of the Hagarenes
has indeed its habitat "in Arabia," but there is no evidence extant
that the mountain of the law known in the Old Testament variously as
"Horeb" and "Sinai" was ever called by this tribal name.
For she is in bondage. A reference at once to the political condi-
93

26 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
26. bondage with her children. But "the Jerusalem that is
27. above is free, which is our mother. For it is written,
54 : 1 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.

tion of Jerusalem under the yoke of Rome, and the religious condition
of "her children" under the yoke of the law. From covenants the
metaphor is changed to cities, by force of the constant Semitic figure
of a city as "mother" of its inhabitants.
26. The Jerusalem that is above. The conception of the New
Jerusalem belongs already to messianic prophecy, or rather to the
conventions of contemporary apocalypse. In Ps. 87 : 6 God is rep
resented as counting, as he makes up the list of the redeemed, that
"this one and that one was born" in Zion. In New Testament
times the transformation of prophetic hopes from national into
cosmic forms, effected by the apocalyptic school, had changed the
ancient hope of a new (i.e. rebuilt) Jerusalem into that of a celes
tial city, already prepared in the treasuries of heaven (Heb. 11 : 16;
12 : 22), ready to be "let down out of heaven from God" (Rev.
21 •- 10) in the "age to come." In an age which could not conceive
of a united humanity save under the historic forms of its own city-
empires of Babylon and Rome, the "city of the Great King" (Mt.
5 : 35) must of course be Jerusalem, but for a heavenly king only a
heavenly city was admissible. In Rev. 21 : 9-22 : 5 the Christian
apocalyptist endeavors to complete the picture of this miraculous
capital of the kingdom of God along the lines first traced by Eze-
kiel. These conceptions are presupposed in substance in Paul's
references to our citizenship in heaven in Phil. 3 : 20 and here, as
well as in the saying of Jesus which perhaps suggests them and is
itself suggested by Ps. 87, "Rejoice that your names are written in
heaven" (Lk. 10 : 20). Note especially that the New Testament
conception is not of a city in heaven to which believers go at death;
but a city which comes from heaven to them in the Day of
Christ's appearing, and remains thereafter firm-fixed on the
mountains of Judah, the central metropolis of the earth (Rev.
21 : 24-26).
27. In "Isaiah's" contrast of the more populous restored Jerusa
lem with the city which had been destroyed, under the figure of a
wife once barren and deserted but now restored to her husband and
fruitful of children, Paul finds scriptural support for his figure of
Hagar and Sarah. As compared with the Jewish dispersion the
94

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

28. Now 1 we, brethren, as Isaac was, are "children of
29. promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh
"persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so
30. it is now. Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast Gen. 21: 10,
out the handmaid and her son : for the son of the hand
maid shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.
1 Many ancient authorities read ye.
"Israel of God" was at this time a pitiful handful, but Paul already
foresaw the coming reversal of conditions.
28. Children of promise. See note on ver. 23 and cf. Rom. 4 : 19-
21; 9 : 7-9; Jn. 1 : 11-13. The " spiritual seed" are the progeny of
a "new birth" effected by "the word of good tidings preached unto
you" (1 Pt. 1 : 25), and thus correspond to Isaac, who was born
"after the Spirit" through the operation of a "word of promise."
29. Persecuted. Persecution of Christians by Jews of the Dis
persion (not by the Roman power, which until the great tragedy at
Rome in 64 a.d. invariably appears as their protector against Jewish
hatred) is repeatedly referred to by Paul (6:12 and iThes. 2 : 14-16),
specifically in case of the Galatians themselves (see on 3 : 4). The
"persecution" of Isaac by Ishmael, however, requires the rabbinic eye
to discover in Scripture. Jewish legend interpreted the "playing"
or "mocking" of Ishmael which aroused the jealousy of Sarah (Gen.
21:9, one of the many plays upon the name " Isaac," as derived from
the Hebrew stem meaning to "laugh," "play," "sport") as at Isaac's
expense ; it even asserted that Ishmael "shot arrows at Isaac."
30. Paul is certainly a master in the rabbinic art of "scriptural"
polemic. Out of the ancient legend by which the Jews exalted Israel
the admittedly younger stock at the expense of Ishmael, — i.e., the
nomadic Arabians, — explaining that these were sons of a slave-
mother from Egypt (i.e., derived from the Hagarenes, a tribe under
Egyptian domination), their own ancestor on the contrary being of
free birth in the land, whence the divine appointment of "the inher
itance" (i.e. Canaan), Paul fashions a weapon against themselves.
It is they now who are claiming "the inheritance" by virtue of
mere descent, and thus putting themselves in the place of those whom
the Scripture declares "shall not inherit" but must be "cast out."
A similar application of the same two passages (Gen. 21 : io, 12 and
Is. 54 : 1) had been previously made by Philo ; but with the more
highly developed allegory characteristic of Alexandrianism Sarah's
children, the fruit of divine wisdom, displace those of Hagar, derived
from mere earthly knowledge. 95

31 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
31. Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of "a hand-
5. maid, but of the freewoman.1 °2With freedom did
Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not
entangled again in a yoke of bondage.
2. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive cir-
3. cumcision, Christ will profit you nothing. Yea, I
1 Some ancient authorities read Stand fast (therefore') in thai liberty wherewith
. . . and be not. 3 Or, For freedom
(4) Concluding Appeal. Paul entreats the Galatians to have done
with the Judaizers. 4 : 31-5 : 12.
(a) Vigilance the price of Christian liberty, 4 : 31-5 : 1.
The two verses which separate the exposition of Scripture from its
application are transitional. Interpreters naturally differ as to para
graphing. The text also varies, admitting as at least equally probable
the rendering: " But we, brethren, are not children of a slave, but of
the freewoman by virtue of the freedom wherewith Christ set us free.
Stand fast."
4 : 31. A handmaid. Sense and language alike require the ren
dering "stoe-woman."
5 : 1. With freedom. The alternative rendering "for freedom" is
preferable, or we may connect the clause with the preceding verse,
rendering, "Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a bond
woman, but of the freewoman through the liberty wherewith Christ
has made us free." (See var.) The concluding paragraph of the
section will then begin, " Stand fast, then, and be not entangled again
in a yoke of bondage." The general principle here laid down is de
veloped later in the practical division of the Epistle (5 : 13-6 : 10).
The apostle in including the conduct essential to the welfare of the
brotherhood makes it his point of departure to show what is involved
in Christian "freedom." So the gift of the Spirit enunciated in 3 : 1-5
is elaborated as to its content in 4 : 1-7. Previous to this definition
of "freedom" comes the special appeal against the Judaizers, ver.
2—12. (b) Circumcision is not a mere counsel of perfection, wherewith
the supposed deficiencies of faith may be supplemented. Its assump
tion under present conditions is destructive of the work of faith, 5 : 2-6.
2. Paul's own principle of the complete indifference of the Mosaic}
ritual prescriptions (ver. 6; 6 : 15) was liable to be invoked against
him, as his practice under it already had been (ver. 11). If indifferent,
circumcision could do no harm, and might better be adopted "for
safety." Against such reasoning Paul now insists again (see on 2 :
96

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

testify "again to every man that receiveth circumcision,
4. that he is a debtor "to do the whole law. Ye are
1 severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the
5. law; ye are fallen away from grace. For we through
the Spirit by faith wait for "the hope of righteousness.
6. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any-
1 Gr. brought to nought.
15-21) on the mutual exclusiveness of justification by the law and by
grace. Under other circumstances (see on ver. 11) circumcision
might be indifferent. Received as a supplement to faith, it is a testi
mony of distrust, the negation of faith, which is the fundamental
condition of profit from Christ.
3. Again. See 3 : 10-12 and notes. It is vital to Paul's argu
ment to show that the compromising attitude of the Judaizers, rep
resented in Mt. 19 : 17-21; Acts 13 : 39; Jas. 2 : 21-22, is untenable.
One cannot rely for "justification" partly on grace and partly on
merit; for the two are mutually exclusive. To do the whole law.
The Judaizers themselves did not insist upon all the Mosaic require
ments (6 : 13), and showed here the weakness of their position. In
fact even the Jewish propaganda in the Dispersion showed startling
discrepancies in this respect. Jas. 2 : 10-11 endeavors in another
way to check the inconsistency.
4. To realize the exceptional stress laid by Paul upon the complete
abandonment of all reliance upon merit we must recall his personal
religious experience (Phil. 3 : 3-10; Rom. 7 : 9-11). To bring the
general mass of believers in Christ to a similar experience was a task
which even a Paul found impossible.
5. The hope of righteousness. Abstract for concrete, as in Col.
1:5; Tit. 2 : 13 ; Heb. 6 : 18. Grammatically the clause might mean
"the hope of being justified" (in the judgment). In the light of the
developed parallel, Rom. 8 : 19-25, it is certain that Paul means the
hope given to the righteous (Rom. 8 : 24 ; Col. 1:5; Heb. 6 : 18).
This hope, including all the blessings of the messianic kingdom, is
awaited on both sides. The Judaizers rest their expectations on
fleshly descent, and obedience to the law ; Paul and those like-minded
on the "earnest" of the Spirit of adoption (Eph. 1 : 14) and the
'aith which had been the beginning of their redemption; cf. 2 :_ 20.
6. The indifference of circumcision is reasserted as a principle,
but only by virtue of the fact that "faith working through love" has
become the master motive. Hence resort to it to supplement the
possible insufficiency of grace is not indifferent, because, as already
H 97

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

thing, nor uncircumcision ; but faith" * working through
love.
7. Ye were running well; 2 who did hinder you that
8. ye should not obey the truth ? "This persuasion came
9. not of him that calleth you. A little leaven leaveneth
10. the whole lump. I have confidence to you-ward in
the Lord, that ye will be none "otherwise minded:
but "he that troubleth you shall bear his judgement,
11. whosoever he be. But I, brethren, "if I still preach
circumcision, why am I still persecuted? then hath
1 Or, wrought ' A few ancient authorities read who did hinder you ? Be
Persuaded by no one against the persuasion of the truth.
shown, the negation of faith. He who takes this course has no faith;
he is not "in Christ Jesus." Working (not "wrought," alternative
rendering) through love. Paul is approaching the practical section,
in which the objection will be met that to remove the motive of legal
obligation will result in moral laxity. Faith also results in works, and
therefore may even as a rule be judged by them (6 : 7, 1 Cor. 3 : 13;
2 Cor. 5 : 10), but it does not depend on them.
(c) The agitators and their false charge, 5 : 7-12.
7. The sense and grammar are much improved by following the
variant reading, which has good though not abundant manuscript
support. 8. This persuasion. That which is "against the truth."
9. A proverbial saying employed similarly in 1 Cor. 5 : 6. The
suggestion is that the reaction can only be explained by outside in
terference. 10. Otherwise minded. I.e., than myself; cf. Phil. 3 : 15. He
that troubleth. A singular here, against a plural in 1 : 7. Paul's
threat is directed against even the most influential of the disturbers,
with manifest allusion to "those of repute" in Jerusalem (2 : 2, 6, g).
11. If I still preach circumcision. A defence against the charge
of inconsistency. The Judaizers allege that Paul himself, when he
finds it politic, still recommends circumcision. This charge has a
certain support in the incident of the circumcision of Timothy, a
Galatian of Lystra, Greek on the father's side, very shortly before the
outbreak of the Judaizing opposition, by Paul himself, expressly for
the purpose of conciliating "the Jews that were in those parts"
(Acts 16 : 3). Previous to the Judaizing reaction, Paul may very

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

12. the "stumblingblock of the cross been done away. I
would that they which unsettle you would even ° 'cut
themselves off.

1 Or, mutilate themselves

well have taken the step described in Acts 16 : 1-3. The use of the
word "still" in his reply to the charge seems to indicate just this
distinction in time. On the general relation of Acts to Galatians, and
the real course of events after the first appearance of the "false breth
ren," see Introduction, p. 30 ff., and Appended Note B. Stumbling-
block of the cross. Cf. 6 : 12. The two passages furnish a clear
intimation that to Paul at least, and to Jews like-minded, Christianity
could have been tolerated but for its undermining of the authority of the
Law. But for the interpretation of the cross as assuring a "right
eousness not through the law" (2 : 21 ; cf. Rom. 1 : 17) there would
have been no persecution by the Synagogue. This was the unpar
donable "offence of the cross," 1 Cor. 1 : 23. Lightfoot paraphrases:
"So I have adopted their mode of justification ; I am silent about the
Cross of Christ ! no one takes offence at my preaching now ; all goes
on pleasantly enough ! "
12. Cut themselves off; or, "mutilate themselves." In spite of
what jars upon the sensibilities of the modern reader as savoring of
coarseness, we can only say, with Lightfoot, the alternative rendering
"seems alone tenable." In fact since circumcision is the rite in
question, and Paul has just been placing Mosaic ritual ordinances on
a level with those of the "world-rulers" or "Elements," it is at least
conceivable that he has in mind the self-castration of the Phrygian
priests of Cybele, as parallel to circumcision. If the rite is to be con
ceived as a means of attaining merit with God, then the heathen form
of the rite is even preferable, as more thoroughgoing. If such be
Paul's meaning, his plain language has at least the merit of dissipat
ing all further attempts to represent him as recommending circum
cision as a work of merit. The alternative interpretation, "Would
that they would sever their connection with the brotherhood," finds
meagre point of attachment in the context.

99

III. Practical Exhortation. Paul shows that the
Principle of Freedom does not lead to Licensej
being based upon the domination of the spirit
of Love, which impels to Purity and Kindness. J
In the Individual this Spirit gives control
OVER THE IMPULSES OF THE FLESH. In THE
Brotherhood it checks all Strife, and
impels Strong and Weak to Recipro
cal Service. In a Special Fare
well, written with his own Hand,
Paul epitomizes the Teaching
of his Letter, 5 : 13-6 : 18.
1. The moral effect of Christian freedom is shown to be
the curbing of the flesh, and the peaceful progress of the
brotherhood in mutual service, 5 : 13-6 : 10
13. For ye, brethren, were called for freedom; only
use not your freedom for "an occasion to the flesh, but
General Proposition : Christian freedom leads not to indulgence of
the flesh, but to mutual service, and thus meets the ideal of the law,
5:I3-I5- 13. A return to the point established in 4 : 1-5 : 12, made in order
to discriminate the true from the false inference. The false inference
drawn by Paul's detractors (see on 2 : 17 and cf. the " slander, " Rom.
3 : 8) is that without the obligation of law there will be no restraint
to the passions. An occasion (Gr. a sally-port, place from which to
launch an attack). The man who has been accustomed to refrain
from evil only through fear of penalty thinks thus of freedom. He
forgets that there is no freedom save to those in whose life the Spirit
has become dominant (2 : 20). And this Spirit is that of him who
"took upon him the form of a servant and became obedient unto the
death of the cross" (Phil. 2 : 5-11).

14 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
14. through love be servants one to another. For "the
. 19 : 18 whole law is fulfilled in one word, even in this ; Thou
15. shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite
and devour one another, take heed that ye be not con
sumed one of another.
16. "But I say, "Walk by the Spirit, and ye "shall not fulfil

14. Preeminently in the practical exhortations which form the
closing division of every letter of Paul to his churches, he approxi
mates to the sayings of Jesus reported in the Gospels.
The whole law is fulfilled, i.e., in the observance of one maxim,
not 'is summarized.' Cf. ver. 21 ; 6 : 2. The "new commandment"
of Christ is not here expressly attributed to him as in Mt. 22 : 38,
though not in the parallels (Mk. 12 : 29 = Lk. 10 : 27). The origi
nality of the ethics of Jesus lies not in his epitome of the spirit of the
Law, however noble ; for Hillel and others had similarly expressed it.
(It lies in the substitution of inward likeness to the Father for obedience
to prescription as the note of sonship (with Mt. 5 : 43-48 = Lk. 6 :
27~3°; cf. Eph. 4 : 31-5 : 2). Paul and Mark (Phil. 2 : 5-11; cf.
Mk. 10 : 43-45) express this by describing "the mind which was in
Christ Jesus"; "Matthew" and "Luke" by formulating his teaching
into a "new law." In Rom. 13 : 8-10 Paul repeats the principle
'Love fulfils the law' with more explicit application.
15. Equally characteristic of Paul as of "John" is the exhorta
tion, "Little children, love one another." Division and strife, whether
at Corinth (1 Cor. 1 : 10-13), m Asia (Eph. 4 : 1-3; Col. 2 : 2; 3 :
12-15), at Philippi (Phil. 2 : 1-4), and even where Paul's face was
not known (Rom. 14 : 1-15 : 7), is the danger that supremely moves
his soul for the churches. To meet it he has always the same remedy,
"the mind of Christ," a forbearing, forgiving, ministering spirit of
love, which "never faileth" (cf. 1 Cor. cc. 12-14). The presence of
the opposite spirit among the Galatians is a symptom of their back
ward movement, and portends disaster. This phase of the subject
is resumed in 5 : 25-6 : 6.
(1) The mind of the Spirit leads of itself to the curbing of the flesh,
5 = 16-24.
16. But I say. Better, "What I mean is"; see on 3 : 17 and
4:1. Walk by the Spirit. The doctrine of the Spirit is the founda
tion of the Church, as historically the coming of the Spirit was its
origin. This we have already seen (see on 3 : 2). But the personal
religious experience of Paul gave to his particular application of the
doctrine a new and mystical trend, which is not Jewish but Hellenis
tic, and ultimately Stoic. To the ordinary Christian, such as those

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

17. the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the
Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are
contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the
18. things that ye would. But if ye are led by the Spirit,

addressedin1C0r.ee. 12-14, or as the author of Acts, the "gifts of the
Spirit" are preeminently the phenomena of "tongues," "miracles,"
"healings," such as a SimonMagus may seek the power of conveying
for money (Acts 8 : 14-19); though the impulse to extraordinary
acts of self-sacrifice is also included (Acts 2 : 44; 4 : 33-35; 1 Cor.
13 : 3). To Paul the gift of the Spirit is the infusion from God of a
portion of his own nature, identical in substance with that of Christ
and with the latent power in all men which he designates in Rom.
7 : 22, 23 "the inward man" or the "mind." The reinforcement of
the "mind" by this infusion from God of the " mind of Christ " makes
men God's sons by adoption, as being henceforth predominantly
controlled by his Spirit; for the battle between flesh (controlled
since Adam's transgression by " sin ") and spirit, which previously had
been constantly and inevitably a losing fight, becomes thereafter with
equal certainty victorious. All mere outward "manifestations of
the Spirit," such as "tongues," "miracles," "prophecies," are nec
essarily temporary and subordinate to the ethical, since sonship is
seen rather in likeness to God's goodness than to his power, and su
premely in " love, " which was the key-note in the character of Jesus.
The mystery of the correlation of the individual's own will and per
sonality with the infused Spirit Paul does not attempt to solve. The
individual ego remains and seeks to "work out his own salvation,"
unhindered by the consciousness that even in willing as well as doing
"it is God that worketh in us." To "walk in (or by) the Spirit" is
therefore a proper form of exhortation even to those fully conscious
of the "adoption of sons"; cf. Rom. 8 : 12-14; Phil. 2 : 12-13 ; 1 Cor.
13. The Pauline mysticism is founded on an antithesis of flesh and
spirit alien to earlier Hebrew thought. To understand it requires
both an appreciation of Stoic influence in the later literature, and
sympathetic remembrance of Paul's special religious experience
(Phil. 3 : 5-7; Rom. 7 : 9-25).
Shall not fulfil. Better "will surely not." The word is not an
imperative but a strengthened form of the future.
17. Cf. Rom. 7 : 18-25, where the warfare, as including also the
period before the gift of the Spirit, is between the "mind" and the
flesh. 18. Cf. Rom. 8 : 14, 15; Jn. 15 : 15. Sonship and servitude are
mutually exclusive terms. The proof was given in 4 : 1-7.
103

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

19. ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh
are manifest, which are these, "fornication, unclean-
20.. ness, lasciviousness, idolatry, "sorcery] "enmities, strife,
21. jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, 'heresies, envy-
ings,/ "drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the
which I 2 forewarn you, even as "I did z forewarn
you, that they which practise such things shall not
22. "inherit the kingdom of God. But "the fruit of the
f Or, parties a Or, tell you plainly
19. The impulses of "flesh" under control of "sin" fall into three
classes in accordance with actual manifestations in the environment
of the Pauline churches: (a) Fornication . . . idolatry. The group
ing is characteristic of the times, immorality being chiefly practised
in connection with idol worship; cf. the "pollutions of idols" in Acts
15 : 20, 29 ; 1 Thess. 4 : 4, 5 ; 1 Cor. 10 : 1-22 ; Rom. 1 : 24-27 ; Eph.
5 : 3-5; Col. 3 : 5. Sorcery is kindred as a " holding converse with
demons" (1 Cor. 10 : 14-22; Acts 19 : 19; Rev. 21 : 8; 22 : 15).
20. Enmities . . . heresies, envyings. A single group (b) all
springing from the divisive spirit referred to in ver. 15. "Heresy"
in New Testament use has still its etymological sense of "factiousness,"
quite independent of the truth or falsity of the doctrine contended for.
21. Drunkenness, revellings. We should expect these to be men
tioned in connection with the "pollutions of idols," ver. 19; for the
reference is to the scandal referred to in Eph. 5:11, 12, the carousings
of orgiastic religious clubs, whose banquets were a prominent feature
of Graco-Roman social life, and are contrasted with the sobriety and
purity of the well-conducted Christian conventicle in Eph. 5 : 18-20.
I did forewarn you. Paul is not now making a belated attempt to
forestall the evil consequences of a former laxity. When he first pro
claimed his gospel of justification apart from works of the law he had
been no less strenuous than the Judaizers themselves in rebuking these
"pollutions." Inherit the kingdom of God. It is specially interesting to note how
in taking this common ethical ground he falls naturally into the phrase
ology of the Gospels ; cf. 1 Cor. 6 : 9, 10 ; 15 : 50 ; Mk. 25 : 34.
22. The fruit (not "works") of the Spirit is the converse of the
preceding, qualities that make for the welfare of the individual and
brotherhood alike. Faithfulness (Gr. "faith"). Here, as in Mt.
23 : 23; Tit. 2 : 10, 'fidelity,' 'trustworthiness.' The active and pas
sive senses of the word were both current. Temperance. The alter-
104

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, good-
23. ness, "faithfulness, meekness, °± temperance: "against
24. such there is no law. And they that are of Christ . rt
Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the -? ',m' J
lusts thereof.
25. If we live "by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also
26. walk. Let us not be vainglorious, provoking one
another, envying one another.
6. Brethren, even if a man be "overtaken in any tres
pass, "ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in a
spirit of meekness; looking to thyself, lest thou also
1 Or, self-control
.native rendering should be preferred, since that of the text is sometimes
limited in modern use.
23. Against such. The law is conceived as essentially prohibi
tive. There is no restraint upon those whose impulse is in this direc
tion ; for who ever heard of the prohibition of such acts ?
24. No other impulse remains in the true Christian, because the
act of faith was a decisive victory in the mortal conflict of spirit against
flesh; cf. 2 : 20.
(2) Dominance of the Spirit will also correct all the divisive ten
dencies in the brotherhood, 5 : 25-6 : 6.
(a) It will prevent friction in the church, 5 : 25—26.
25. A reiteration of ver. 16 for the purpose of returning to the
complementary effect of life "by the Spirit."
By the Spirit, by the Spirit. The first dative expresses means, the
second manner ; cf. Rom. 8: 1-11.
26. Friction has come through lack of the right spirit in the rela
tion between superiors and inferiors in the brotherhood; cf. Phil.
2 : 3-4. "Speaking truth" must be "in love," Eph. 4 : 15. A
"vainglorious" ruler is himself a "provoker" and instils "envy" in
his subordinate.
(b) The rule for "those who admonish," 6 : 1-5.
6: 1. Overtaken, i.e., 'Caught,' 'detected'; not 'overcome by.'
Ye which are spiritual. I.e., have the "spiritual gifts," particu
larly in this case that of "governments." The address is to those
"that have the leadership"; cf. 1 Cor. 2 : 13, 15 ; 3 : 1 ; 12 : 1 ; 14 : 17.
The reciprocal service of "him that is taught" (Gr. "the catechumen")

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

2. be tempted. Bear ye one another's "burdens, and so
3. "fulfil "the law of Christ. For if a man thinketh himself
to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth
4. himself. But let each man prove "his own work, and
then shall he have his "glorying in regard of himself
5. alone, and not of 1 his neighbour. For each man shall
bear his own 2 burden. 1 Gr. the other. * Or, load
is emphasized in ver. 6. In 1 Thess. 5 : 11-15, under the general
direction to exhort and edify one another, the order is reversed.
"Those that admonish" are charged to perform their office with
"long-suffering toward all." The admonition for which they appear
responsible covers a wide range. Here "restoration" refers to stand
ing in the brotherhood.
2. Burdens. A different Greek word from that used in ver. 5.
Here that which bears down ; in ver. 5 that which is contributed to.
It may very probably be chosen like the term ' law ' with special refer
ence to the 'burdens' of the law (Lk. 11 : 46; Rev. 2 : 25) the Gala
tians are prone to assume. What Paul means by bearing such
appears from Rom. 15 : 1-3.
Fulfil. The reading found in some Mss. with future indicative
instead of imperative is the more probable.
The law of Christ. The reference is not to a specific teaching,
even the "new commandment" of love as the epitome of the law
(see on 5 : 14), but to Jesus' principle of rulership, the constitutional
principle of his kingdom, Mk. 10 : 42-45; cf. Phil. 2 : 5-11.
3. "Those who admonish" are still addressed. Only the wish
to serve, and the sense of dependence on the Spirit for the means of
serving, can rightly qualify them. "Vainglory" is not only injurious
but senseless.
4. His own. Strongly emphasized. Judgment will sometimes
be unavoidable for men so placed (Paul is still addressing the leaders).
But the faculty should be mainly directed to one's own performance,
not another's. One's sense of confidence then will be based (if it
finds foundation) on progress over one's own past, not disesteem
of others. Cf. Mk. 9 : 50, "Salt for yourselves : for one another
peace"; and Mt. 7 : 1-5.
Glorying (elsewhere "boasting"). Almost a Pauline technical
term for the Pharisaic sense of merit or self-righteousness. Here,
ground of confidence before the tribunal of conscience. See on 6 : 14.
5. This keeping to oneself of one's judgment of merit or demerit
106

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

6. But let him that is taught in the word "communicate
unto him that teacheth in all good things.
7. °Be not deceived; "God is not mocked : for "what-'
8. soever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he
that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap
corruption ; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall cf

is the more imperative because the task or "load" of each has its
own peculiar difficulties.
(c) The rule for him that is taught, 6 : 6.
6. Paul now turns to the "catechumen." His part is the minis
tration of "carnal things," since the spiritual have not been com
mitted to him. Cf. Rom. 15 .-27; 1 Cor. 9: n. Communicate.
The word is used in a somewhat technical sense, as in the admonition
" To do good and to communicate (i.e., contribute to the needy) forget
not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased."
(3) Moral aspect of Paul's gospel. In general, so far from shield
ing self-indulgence or idleness, the principle of freedom leaves the great
cosmic law of retribution unimpaired; therefore work, 6 : 7-10.
7. The paragraph division should be sharply marked after ver. 6.
With ver. 7 Paul turns to his final and general exhortation.
Be not deceived, viz., by the statements of "slanderers" that the
Pauline teaching removes the incentive of reward for right-doing and
conversely. God is not mocked, as would be the case if an evil life might be
lived with impunity in anticipation of a death-bed repentance, a dis
counting of grace. The failure to observe the break between this
new paragraph and ver. 6 results in comments such as the following :
"Christians do not always reflect that they are trying to mock God
when they withhold, of their worldly possessions, what he requires."
This reflection is indeed unlikely to have occurred to the Galatians
before or after receipt of Paul's letter. It is still more unlikely that
the Judaizers were encouraging niggardly giving.
Whatsoever a man soweth. A proverbial expression of the uni
versal principle of moral retribution. Paul's doctrine does not pre
sume to deny or set it aside.
8. On the contrary, his doctrine of flesh and spirit already enun
ciated (see on 5 : 16 and cf. Rom. c. 8) is the very apotheosis of this
principle. It remains in the man's own choice to cultivate the field
of "the flesh" already impregnated with the germs of "corruption,"
or the field of "the spirit," whose essential nature is to give life eter
nally (Rom. 8 : 6, 11 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 22, 45-46).
107

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

9. the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not be weary
in well-doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we
10. faint not. So then, "as we have opportunity, let us
work that which is good toward all men, and especially
toward them that are of the household of the faith.
2. In a postscript appended with his own hand Paul
epitomizes the general admonition of his letter, pro
nouncing a blessing on such as are worthy, and bidding
the brethren farewell in Christ, 6 : 11-18
11. See with how large letters I ° 1 have written unto you
12. with mine own hand. As many as desire to make a
fair show in the flesh, they compel you to be circum-
1 Or, write
9. Beside this operation of the Spirit in our own bodies, as it were
by its very intrinsic nature, there is a further reward for service done
in behalf of others; cf. 1 Cor. 3 : 10-15. This reward, given at the
season God has appointed, should be a further incentive to good
works rendered with unflagging zeal. Cf. 2 Thess. 3 : 13.
10. As we have opportunity. Better, "since we have a period
appointed"; cf. Jn. n : 9. The reference seems to be to the "due
season" of ver. 9. The variant reading is less probable.
11. As Paul, according to a custom referred to in 2 Thess. 3:17;
1 Cor. 16 : 21 ; and Col. 4 : 18, takes over in his own hand the pen
of the amanuensis to whom he has been dictating (Rom. 16 : 22), he
seems to be struck half humorously with the contrast between his own
big and laborious letters, and the fair copy of the professional Greek
scribe. As is apt to be the case, especially with those more unaccus
tomed to the pen, he comments on its unpleasing appearance. The
"fair show in the flesh" is not his part (ver. 12). He leaves that to
the Judaizers, as he leaves the external matter of the handwriting of
his letter to the amanuensis. Such seems to be the bearing of the
singular allusion. Grammatically it is perhaps possible to render
"how large a letter," and some taking this sense suppose Paul to be
calling his readers' attention to the length of the epistle he has been
obliged to write, though unable (why does not appear) to command
the services of a letter writer. But Galatians is not long enough to
require very great manual effort for even an unpractised hand. More-;
108

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

cised; "only that they may not be persecuted 'for the
13. cross of Christ. For not even they who 2 receive
circumcision do themselves keep 3 the law ; but they
desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in
14. your flesh. But far be it from me "to glory, save "in
the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through 4 which
"the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the

1 Or, by reason of ' Some ancient authorities read have been circumcised.
3 a law * Or, whom
over on this interpretation all connection with ver. 12 is lost. It
seems more probable that in this quaint touch we have indeed a
"token" of authenticity not dreamed of by Paul.
Have written. Better with alternative rendering, "I write." Greek
idiom in such cases requires the past. The writer places himself at
the point of view of the correspondent addressed. Only that they
may not be persecuted. See on 5 : 11. It is implied that Chris
tianity would have been tolerated by the Synagogue if the crucifixion
had not been interpreted as "changing the customs delivered by
Moses." This lends color to the supposition that the Pharisaic per
secution in which Paul himself had been a leader was provoked by
anti-legalistic teaching; cf. Acts 6 : 14.
13. See on 3 : 11; 5 : 3. Were the proselyting zeal of the Juda
izers really due to the disinterested desire to see the law everywhere
honored, they would not inconsistently dispense from part of its
requirement (cf. 5 : 14; Mt. 23 : 23). The real motive, according to
Paul's perhaps somewhat intolerant judgment, is selfish. Besides
obtaining a cessation of the persecutions suffered because Christianity
is understood to be anti-legalistic, they will have the "glory " promised
in Dan. 12:3, for the sake of which the Pharisean propagandist was
ready to "compass sea and land," Mt. 23 : 15. That it is not so much
in the sight of men as before the divine Judge, appears from the con
trasted "glorying" of Paul. See note following. To glory. The
"glorying" or "boasting" which Paul deprecates, whether in his own
case or the Judaizers (ver. 13), or the self-righteous Jew (Rom. 2 : 17),
or Abraham (Rom. 4 : 2), is not a sense of merit in the eyes of men
so much as in the eye of God. Hence his own "glorying."
14. In the cross of Christ; i.e., it is his plea for justification at the
divine tribunal. "Boasting" is thus in Paul's use almost a synonym
for "the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees" in Synoptic use.
The world hath been crucified unto me. ' See on 2 : 20. "Dying unto
sin" by faith in the love of God displayed in the cross, and "rising
109

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

Ps. i2s:s; 15. world. For neither is circumcision anything, nor

128:6

16. uncircumcision, but a new x creature. And as many
as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and
mercy, and upon "the Israel of God.
17. From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear
branded on my body "the marks of Jesus.
1 Or, creation
again" out of its dominion by infusion of the Spirit of adoption alters
the believer's attitude to the entire creation (cf. Rom. 8 : 10-23).
The world is in fact for all practical purposes a "new creation"; old
things exist no more, all things become new in " the light of the knowl
edge of the glory of God (cf. Ex. 33 : 17-23; 34 : 5-8) given in the
face of Jesus Christ." This manifestation of the Son with its implica
tion of redemption to the cosmos is the work of him "who said (Gen.
1 : 1) Light shall shine out of darkness" (2 Cor. 4 : 6). To the be
liever thus the cross "crucifies the (old) world," or crucifies him to it.
15. A repetition of the basic principle of 5 : 6, but with the sub
stitution of the cosmic for the ethical aspect of the redemption. The
strong statement of ver. 14 is justified by this principle of the cross,
since it proves that God cares not for a mere mark in the flesh, but
for the utter transformation of the whole man. Several ancient au
thors declare this "rule" to be quoted from the Jewish writing, The
Apocalypse of Moses (ca. 40 a.d.). Paul makes use of such in 1 Cor.
2 : 9 and elsewhere, particularly the Apocalypse or Assumption of
Moses itself in Eph. 1 : 9-12, if we are not mistaken.
16. The limitation of the blessing is a kind of threat. Cf. 1 : 10;
Paul's voice is still for war.
The Israel of God. Men who, "though Jews by birth, yet because
they have learned that a man is not justified by works of the law, but
only through faith in Jesus Christ, have believed in Christ Jesus that
they might be justified by faith in Christ," 2 : 15-16. Yet not these
alone. The expression includes all true Christians, but the Hebraic
form(c/. Ps. 125 : 5; 128 : 6) is chosen to show that Paul has no preju
dice against the Jew as such, but only against those who refuse to
" walk by this rule."
17. It is remarkable that Paul should borrow his closing note of
defiance from the heathen formulae in customary use upon amulets
and in incantations, "Let no man trouble me, for I bear . . ." The
expression the marks of Jesus may very probably refer to scars of
Paul's many stripes, or even specifically to the recent marks of the

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your
spirit, brethren. Amen.1

1 Add subscription Unto the Galatians, written from Rome. Others further by
Paul and the brethren. Others further by lite Itand of Titus. Others further and Luke.

lictors' rods in Philippi (i Thess. 2:2; Acts 16 : 22-23). The word
(stigma) is employed of branding or tattoo marks which placed the
wearer under the protection of some patron or divinity. In regard to
the rest of the verse it is probable, since the discovery in Egypt
of many amulets and charms with similar inscriptions, that Paul pur
posely adopts the figure from heathen magic in order to symbolize
how as partaker of the sufferings of Christ he is also under his pro
tection. 18. The parting benediction is brief and formal; but as such the
Galatians would at least know it to be sincere.
The so-called "subscriptions" appended by later copyists, in
creasing in length with lateness of date, are of no value. They merely
illustrate the exclusive dependence of tradition on the book itself
for their information. Thus the statement "written from Rome"
is known to be based on a wrong inference from 4 . 20.

in

APPENDED NOTES

NOTE A. THE CONTENT OF PAUL'S GOSPEL
NOTE B. THE JERUSALEM COMPACT, AND THE
APOSTOLIC DECREES
NOTE C. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, APART FROM
WORKS OF LAW

APPENDED NOTE A
THE CONTENT OF PAUL'S GOSPEL
In the note on i : 16 it has been intimated that the emphasis of
Paul's message was otherwise placed than by those who had known
Jesus "after the flesh." To him particular sayings and incidents
of Jesus' earthly ministry were of value only as accessory to the great
fact that the man of Nazareth had been " by the resurrection from
the dead miraculously declared to be the Son of God promised in the
holy scriptures" (Rom. 1:4; cf. Acts 17 : 31).
Paul had come to recognize through a divinely wrought opening
of the eyes of his soul this promised "Son of God." This gave him
his "gospel." In the Being whom he thus designated Paul saw not
so much the national Deliverer of Israel as the deliverer of humanity
from the thraldom of "flesh" and its attendant doom. A larger
sense attaching to the term Son of God was inevitable in a convert
of larger experience, training, and mode of thought than the Galilean
apostles. But Paul's Deliverer of humanity was no other than that
Friend of Sinners whose independent attitude toward synagogue
orthodoxy had erstwhile provoked his fanatical antagonism. The
implications of the recognition were momentous. But to appreciate
its significance one must enter a realm of thought scarcely touched
in the Synoptic Gospels. As every one realizes, the system of thought
in which Christ appears as the Second Adam, rescuing a doomed
race from the law of sin and death implanted in its members by the
infusion of a higher dynamic, the "law of the Spirit of life," is widely
different from that preached by Jesus in Galilee. Is it legitimate
to identify the two?
Clearly Paul's antecedent ideas were profoundly tinged with
Hellenistic stoicism (see note on 2 : 19). By as much as these were
broader in scope than those of the Galilean apostles, by so much must
Paul's conception of "grace in Christ" exceed theirs, once he had
abandoned the attitude of legalistic exclusiveness. What in their
case had been glad tidings for "publicans and sinners," became
inevitably, for one who brought to his acceptance of the Christ the
presuppositions of the Roman citizen of Tarsus and the pupil of
Gamaliel, a. gospel of salvation for all the posterity of Adam. It
was still essentially a doctrine of salvation by "repentance toward
"5

APPENDED NOTE A

God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20 : 21); but it
must now include also "sinners of the Gentiles" (2 : 15), — nay, it
must include the whole universe of rational beings. Every knee,
whether of beings on earth, or above or under it, must bow to this
Son of God, because it is for the manifestation of him and his that
the creation has been groaning hitherto. Paul's gospel is therefore
"a revelation by the resurrection" that Jesus is "the Son." And
because this Son has relation to the whole creation of God — is, as
Paul says, a "Second Adam" — the revelation of him constitutes
of itself a commission to "preach him to the Gentiles," the sinners
of Israel having already received the proclamation, Rom. 1 : 2-4;
Acts 17 : 31.
Of the two terms of Paul's simple creed, "Jesus is the Christ,"
a creed given to him out of heaven, neither could be altered in its
essential content by anything later learned from other Christians.
Not that he did not welcome amplification. The title "Christ"
obtained a more and more exalted sense as Paul brought the wild
dreams of apocalyptic thought under subjection to the ethical prin
ciples of the law of Love. The name "Jesus" he gladly filled with
larger meaning by subsequent conference with Peter (ver. 18); though
even this continued fundamentally to signify to Paul what it had
already signified to him as a persecutor, viz., the man who in his life,
his teaching, his death, had done the utmost conceivable to, break
down the system of Pharisaic, legalistic salvation. But the outline
remains the same. Paul's gospel is complete in the simple declara
tion, "Jesus is the Christ," or in more truly Pauline language,
"Jesus is Lord." ' Formerly this had driven Paul to the extremity
of rage against the Nazarene. Now that his attitude toward "the
law" was reversed his Pharisaic exclusiveness was changed to hu
manitarian inclusiveness. The one all-dominating characteristic
of Paul's historic Jesus remained that he was "the end of the law"
(Rom. 10 : 4; cf. Rom. passim and Gal. 4 : 4, 5). As regards the
other term of his creed, Paul's definition of "the Christ" would neces
sarily obtain its chief enlargement from other sources than the teach
ing of his fellow-Christians. He purposely disregarded the merely
nationalistic ideal as "fleshly" (Rom. 1:3:2 Cor. 5 : 16). It must
be confessed too that the ethical sonship always fundamental with
Jesus (Mt. 5 : 45) tends to be overshadowed in Paul's mind by the
apocalyptic expectations of "the Lord from heaven." The Old
Testament passages which could be interpreted of a transcendental
and preexistent Being, Ps. 8:7; no : 1 (1 Cor. 15 : 25-27); Dt.
30 : 12-14; Fs. 68 : 19 (Rom. 10 : 6-8; Eph. 4 : 8-10) were those
on which Paul based his conception, just as apocalyptic literature,
already tinctured with Gentile dualism and Greek cosmological
¦ Cf. Rom. 10 : 9; 1 Cor. 8:6; 12 : 3; 2 Cor. 4 : 5; Phil. 2 : 11.
116

APPENDED NOTE A

speculation, had itself become predominantly cosmic and humani
tarian. Like Paul it already conceives the redemption as a deliverance
of humanity from the curse inherent in the race since Adam's fall.
And the "wisdom" literature is even more strongly humanitarian
and universalistic. We cannot wonder that it should seem to Paul
rather the duty of the Church to come up to the largeness of this
universalistic conception of the Christ " promised afore by the proph
ets in the holy scriptures," than his duty to limit his "spiritual"
view by the literalness of those who only knew a Christ "after the
flesh." And Paul had his way. The Greek humanitarian idea of " re
demption" prevailed over the Jewish nationalistic. The test of
orthodoxy became the confession "Jesus is Lord" (Rom. 10 : 9;
1 Cor. 12 : 3; 2 Cor. 4 : 5), interpreted as in Phil. 2 : 9-11. What
Paul found in the person of Jesus identified with the preexistent
Wisdom of God, through whom the world was created, the next
generation identified with the Logos of Greek philosophy, as Philo
a generation earlier had already done with the Wisdom of Prov. 8,
Ecclus. 24, and Wisd. of Sol., but without the intermediate link of
incarnation. There is difference here. There is sweeping advance.
But there is no perversion. What Paul found in the personality of
Jesus subsequent generations have found, will find, and are entitled
to find. Whether Jesus himself did or did not think of his mission
as destined ever to extend beyond the "lost sheep of the house of
Israel " does not affect the case. In showing to these the way of access
to "sonship" he in fact did "open the kingdom of heaven to all
believers." To-day it is only a plain matter of shrewd observation
that "there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby
we may be saved, save the name of Jesus." The foundation of ulti
mate religion rests where Paul laid it, in the person of Jesus the Son
of God.

117

APPENDED NOTE B

THE JERUSALEM COMPACT, AND THE APOSTOLIC
DECREES
Much confusion is caused by failure to distinguish between the
questions settled at Paul's wholly amicable interview with the " pillars "
at Jerusalem, and the question left unsettled, which gave rise to
the painful scene at Antioch described in Gal. 2 : 1 1-20, and through
it to all the misunderstanding, estrangement, and strife of the years
between the First Missionary Journey and Paul's arrest. Luke
indeed passes over this misunderstanding and strife in silence, but
they are superabundantly evidenced by all the Pauline Epistles.
Both Paul and Luke make it clear that the question of circum
cising Gentile converts and requiring them to keep the Mosaic law
was raised in Jerusalem at this time and promptly settled in the
negative. Luke even reports that Peter appealed to a precedent
established by himself. Paul declares that the objections raised
were a reaction against an earlier attitude of approval. Both imply
greater ..tole^^rjL^^^fta^ajh'^r^Bgj-jpH Nothing is more probable.
If even  Jewish propagandists dispensed from circumcision,1 the
Christian reactionaries cannot have had great hopes from the "pil
lars." According to Paul the indorsement of his gospel of freedom
from the law obtained at this private interview was the end of the
matter so far as any apostolic countenancing of the demands of the
reactionaries was concerned. On this point also Luke is in absolute
accord. To doubt it is doubly absurd, because insistence on the yoke
of the law would have made a rapid propaganda of the faith among
Gentiles impossible, besides contradicting the whole spirit of Jesus'
reform. Even the Nazarenes interpreted the breaking of "the yoke
of his burden" first in, "Galilee of the Gentiles," afterwards in "the
land of deep darkness" in Is. 9 : 1-7, of the work of Jesus and of
Paul.2 Gentile freedom from the law was almost axiomatic.
We may go a step farther still in determining the agreements of
Paul with Luke. The compact of mutual non-interference is in its
very nature a recognition by Paul of the inviolability of Peter's
"apostleship of the circumcision" as truly as a recognition by the
1 Josephus, Ant. XX. ii. 4. ' Jerome, Commentary on /j,-.note on Is. o : 1, Opera,
ed. Vallarsi, Vol, IV. p. 130. 118

APPENDED NOTE B

Pillars of Paul's " apostleship of the uncircumcision." Paul agrees
not to dissuade Jews already evangelized from observing the law. In
planting himself firmly upon this ground Luke is perfectly within
the implications of Paul's own story. It is also clear, however,
from the very Diary itself that Paul made no scruple of preaching
freedom from the law to unevangclized Jews. In fact the synagogue
was his habitual door of entrance in new fields. In omitting all
reference to the division of missionary fields, and to the request of
the Pillars for financial aid, Luke is doing no more than we should
expect; for these are just such "private" understandings as are im
plied in Paul's description of the conference. But if the conference
was so completely amicable, how could the disagreement come about ?
— If we follow Luke's narrative there not only was no disagreement,
but there could be none, since the difficulty had been foreseen and
provision made to meet the case by official enactment of four "de
crees." Only by following Paul against Luke is there room for its
occurrence. For the divergence is precisely here, that Luke inserts
these public legislative enactments in his story of the (second) Jeru
salem conference, while Paul explicitly excludes them.
An inherent defect of the agreement between Paul and the Pillars,
taking Paul's own account of it, was its failure to provide for mixed
communities. The compact is limited to mutual non-interference. ¦
To Paul there was here no difficulty, because, as we see from his
argument against Peter and Barnabas, he assumed that other Jews
when among Gentiles would do as he did himself, viz., become "as
without the law to them that are without the law." To his mind
anything else was inconsistent with the Christian's fundamental
principle of salvation by faith in Christ alone. By taking their stand
upon this they had "destroyed" the law, and could not "build it
up again" without "confessing themselves transgressors." James,
Peter, and John were less likely to realize this defect in the compact,
partly from lack of rabbinic training, partly because they had not
had Paul's experience among the Gentiles. At all events the question
what the Jew is to do who wishes to observe the law, and cannot
do so without withdrawing from his Gentile brother-Christian, was
left unsettled at the conference. The proof is that Peter at Antioch
does not know what to do, but is first swayed by Paul's example,
then by those "from James." "The rest of the Jews" and "even
Barnabas" are equally uncertain, but finally take sides against Paul.
On this point and this alone was there ever disagreement among the
apostles. There is no intimation anywhere that Peter and Barna
bas proposed to reimpose circumcision and "the yoke of the law
upon Gentile believers. The thing would be an absurdity at any
time, a thousand-fold more absurd in the half-Gentile church of
Antioch, when but shortly before the question had already been
officially decided in their favor at Jerusalem. Paul does not utter
119

APPENDED NOTE B

a syllable indicative of this incredible perfidy. He reproaches Peter
with inconsistency for wishing to retain his own ceremonial superiority
as a Jew, and thus exerting indirectly a kind of moral coercion upon
the Gentiles. The old question, shall the Gentiles be free from thej
law, is not raised at all. None of the parties to this controversy have!
the slightest idea of reopening it at Antioch. But its settlement has]
brought up the new question, How then shall the Jew retain hisl
cleanness if he eats with Gentile believers ?
We have seen how Paul answered this question, and that his an
swer was not satisfactory to the Jews. It is not satisfactory to Luke.
Those who had indorsed Paul's gospel of freedom from the law for
Gentiles had had no idea of admitting that Jews were free. But the
indorsement of Paul's gospel as from God, once given, could not be
rescinded. Barnabas, Peter, even James, were irrevocably com
mitted to the doctrine that the Gentiles are saved "apart from works,
of law." They could only insist that Paul and his followers should!
exercise no coercion upon Jews, nor invade Jewish territory, with!
an iconoclastic propaganda. Paul admits this; and Luke knows it.
What Paul will not admit is the converse, entrance into Gentile ter
ritory by apostles of the circumcision and " coercion of the Gentiles
to live as do the Jews." The mere setting of the example of regard
for Mosaic distinctions of meats is to him "coercion," Gal. 2 : 14. i
How extremely careful Paul was to avoid giving offence by dis
regard of the law among Jews, how scrupulously observant he was
of his side of the compact, is evidenced over and over again in the
great Epistles. This itself argues for similar respect on the other side. •
Recrudescence of the propaganda of the "false brethren" there was;
invasion there was of Paul's mission field, particularly that in which
he had worked with Barnabas; but certainly not with the conni
vance or sanction of Peter, Barnabas, or James. Paul, under the ,
strained relations of the situation after the conflict at Antioch, makes,
as we should expect, no further appeal to the Pillars to stop it. But
the notion that Peter, or John, or even James, ever so stultified them
selves as to oppose the gospel of Gentile freedom from the law which
they had once unqualifiedly indorsed, is inadmissible. On the con
trary, after Paul had covered all the field allotted to him "from Jeru-j
salem round about unto Illyricum" and was undertaking his last
great missionary campaign to the very confines of the west, we find
him hopefully undertaking another great Gentile Christian embassy
to Jerusalem. Surrounded by a company of delegates from all
the provinces of his Greek mission field, Paul "went in unto James"
bearing the fruits of Gentile bounty in fulfilment of the promise made
so many years before. It was a momentous interview, to obtain
which the great Apostle to the Gentiles had willingly risked his life;
but it certainly was not hopeless.1 ¦ Cf. Rom. 15 : 30-33.

APPENDED NOTE B

We have the less reason to question the general outline of the story
of Acts at this point, that the Diary itself leads up to and beyond the
very threshold of that audience. True it breaks off at the point
where '' Paul went in with us" and the story is rewritten, with large
expansions and introduction of apologetic speeches. But why should
we doubt Luke's general statement of fact ? Paul surely at this time
went as far as his principles would allow, to prove how loyally he had
lived up to the compact. He could justly claim to have scrupulously
abstained from any propaganda of his gospel of anti-legalism in
Jewish Christian territory (Rom. 15 : 20). He had even changed
his mode of life there to avoid giving offence (1 Cor. 9 : 20). Why
then might he not assume the charges and perform the sacrifices for
the Nazirites in the temple as James requested? Taken as an il
lustration of the Pauline principle, "all things to all men," "circum
cision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but a new creation,"
the transaction itself is scarcely open to reasonable objection. The
objection lies against its employment to defend a different principle,
opposed to that which Paul considers vital; and in Acts 21 : 20-26
it is so employed.
It is needless here to repeat what has already been said in the Intro
duction regarding the view-point of Luke on the two questions of
Paul's apostleship and his gospel. Luke forsakes Paul at the point
where Paul breaks with Peter and Barnabas and the rest of the Jews
at Antioch. He thoroughly agrees with the spirit of the compact of
mutual non-interference, that, the gospel of circumcision shall be
preached in Petrine territory, and the gospel of liberty from the law
in Pauline. Indeed from the Jewish point of view he is more con
sistent with it than Paul. For to Paul the gospel of circumcision is
not a. true gospel but in part a delusion. Paul spares it for the sake
of peace and goodwill; but he cannot indorse it. To Luke it is a real
gospel, "another gospel," which Jews are under divine obligation to
keep. Luke is not in sympathy with the idea that Jews are free
from the law. On this point he stands with the Pillars. Hence the
concessions without which fellowship in mixed churches would be
impracticable, and which Paul demands as of right from the Jews,
Luke imposes as " necessary" upon the Gentiles. It is but the logical
result of this, together with his general assumptions regarding apos
tolic infallibility, that determines his version of the Jerusalem Con
ference. To him it is a true Apostolic Council.
The real visit of Paul and Barnabas, undertaken on account of the
"false brethren privily brought in, which came in to spy out (Anti-
ochian) liberty," remains indeed in Luke's narrative. He has even re
tained a hint of its occasion, the report of multitudinous Gentile con
versions at Antioch carried to Jerusalem, with the consequent sending
of Barnabas (Acts n : 22). Traces of its outcome also remain in
the taking back of Mark and the First Missionary Journey. Just

APPENDED NOTE B

as in Galatians Paul's description of his field of work antecedent to
the compact includes only Syria and Cilicia without mention of Cy
prus and Galatia, and the compact itself mainly concerns a division
of territory for the future ; so even Acts has traces that the so-called
Famine-relief Visit is the visit of the Antiochian leaders. In Acts,
however, the real significance of this momentous but " private " visit
is eclipsed by the introduction of a version of Paul's "ministration"
of the Gentiles which assimilates it to Josephus' story of the minis
tration of Helena of Adiabene during the famine of 46 a.d. For
this purpose "Agabus," a figure who really belongs to the later story
(cf. 21 : 10), is brought in to prophesy the famine, whereupon the
Antiochian Christians send their relief before its outbreak. The
question of Gentile evangelization is postponed. But the inherent im
probability of Gentile Christianity in Antioch remaining so long un
molested, and the surviving traces of the materials embodied, are
all against this representation.
Not till after the First Missionary Journey has fully justified itself
by its divine inception no less than by its glorious results does Luke
permit the question of the reactionaries to be at last brought up in
Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas now go up a second time, but merely
as delegates of Antioch, and all questions are settled by unanimous
decision of "the apostles and elders." The Apostolic Council obvi
ates all the controversy "concerning meats" and "eating with Gen
tiles" by four decrees enacted to safeguard from "the pollutions of
idols" the Jews among the Gentiles who "hear Moses read every
Sabbath in the synagogues."
To appreciate why critics generally regard these decrees as abso
lutely excluded by Paul's account of his conference with the Pillars
it is needful to recognize their intrinsic bearing and the purpose for
which Luke himself considers them to be introduced.
They are not regarded in Acts as trenching in any degree on the
principle that Gentile converts are to be free from the law. That
was a yoke, as Peter says, "which neither we nor our fathers were
able to bear." The question whether Gentiles could be saved with
out the law had been settled, as he reminds the assembly, "a good
while ago." The decrees are proposed and carried without a word
of dissent, "not to trouble them which from among the Gentiles turn
to God "; but somehow for the advantage of the Jews among the Gen
tiles who "in every city hear Moses read every sabbath in the syna
gogues." Their intrinsic character shows how they were expected
to operate to the advantage of these.
In regard to three of the four requirements it is clear that the pro
hibition applies to meats. The Gentile Christian's table will present
no snare to his Jewish brother-Christian because, while not strictly
kosher according to the highest standard of Pharisaism, it will avoid
the causes of permanent uncleanness which the Jew in Gentile lands
122

APPENDED NOTE B

holds in abhorrence because they affect the inward man, or the life.
By abstaining from "meats offered to idols" he escapes the danger
of "communion with demons" (i Cor. 10 : 19-22). By abstaining
from "blood" he escapes the similar danger incurred through sacri
lege against "the life" of the animal (Gen. 9 : 4; Lev. 7 : 22-27).
The eating of "things strangled" involves a similar danger, because
"the life" has not been permitted to "return to God who gave it."
But why the special prohibition of "fornication," as though the
Jewish believer could be involuntarily contaminated by the moral
laxity of the Gentile ? So long as it was not realized that this was in
actual fact the belief of primitive Christians, the naming of "forni
cation" among the "decrees" seemed to constitute an exception.
It raised a barrier against understanding them as "necessary" con
ditions of fellowship between the two kinds of Christians. However
great heathen laxity in this respect, who could thus assume that any
body of real Christians might tolerate sexual immorality ? For this
reason many impossible suppositions have been made, even the sugges
tion that "the apostles and elders" undertook to impose on Gentile
churches the Mosaic limitations of consanguinity in marriage, calling
the type of wedlock in which many of their Gentile Christian brethren
were living "fornication." Such incredible shifts only show the
perplexity of the interpreter. In reality we have plenty of evidence
that the "fornication" so common in heathenism as to be the typical
"pollution of idols," and needing repeatedly to be warned against
by Paul even in his Christian brotherhoods,1 was regarded as convey
ing involuntary defilement to "those who eat and associate with"
the offender. This belief is stated in so many words by the Jewish
Christian writer of the Clementine Homilies, " Fornication and adul
tery differ from all other sins, in that they defile not only the offender,
but those also that eat and associate with him." 2 Hermas, writing in
Rome about 130 a.d., has the same idea: "If a man continue in such
deeds as these (adultery and sexual impurity) keep away from him,
and live not with him. Otherwise thou also art a partaker of his sin." s
Paul himself insists on similar exclusion of the "fornicator," in par
ticular from table fellowship. He had written to the Corinthians
that they must "have no company with fornicators." They either
could not or would not understand. He reiterates with emphasis
that with such an one they must "no, not so much as eat." "Every
other sin is without the body," but " He that is joined to a harlot takes
away the members of Christ and makes them the members of a harlot."
Therefore he must cease to be a "member" of the Church (1 Cor.
5 : 9-13: 6 : 13-20). In respect, then, to its being " necessary " for
the protection of the Jewish Christian in Gentile communities against
involuntary contamination from "the pollutions of idols" there is
' Gal. 5 : 20; 1 Thess. 4 : 3-8; 1 Cor. 5 : 1-13; 10 : 7, 8; Rom. 1 : 24-27;
Eph. 5 : 5; Col. 3 : 5, 6, etc. ' Clem, Horn. III. 68. » Mandate, IV, 1.

123

APPENDED NOTE B

nothing out of keeping with the rest of the "decrees" in the stipula
tion against "fornication."
Paul, as we have seen, was strenuous in checking the tendencies
to heathen laxity of morals in his churches, urging as an additional
motive the scandal caused among fellow-believers by their indifference.
He also forbids peremptorily participation in heathen banquets, on
the ground that this is a kind of "communion with" the demon wor
shipped. He even commands abstinence from the meat placed be
fore one in a neighbor's house if a fellow-guest whispers, " This hath
been offered to an idol." However, at this point we reach an end of
his agreement with the "decrees"; for he expressly goes on to point
out that this abstinence from "meat sold in the shambles" is not a
matter of requirement, but of gracious consideration for the weaker
conscience. Abstinence from "blood" and "things strangled" is
not even contemplated. The principle which governs his own ordi
nary conduct is that "there is nothing unclean of itself." Only a
timid conscience makes any food religiously objectionable ; but to
avoid leading such consciences astray he himself is willing to abstain
from meat, or wine, or anything else, " while the world standeth."
This very need among the Corinthians and Romans of pointing
out what is lawful and what is not, in the matter of "meats" and the
"pollutions of idols," proves that here at least the Gentile believers had
not received "the decrees for to keep." Paul's careful distinction
•between what his followers must do as of right, and what they ought
to be willing to do out of brotherly consideration, shows that he had
not bound himself and would not bind others to hard and fast rules of
"touch not, taste not, handle not." Not only, then, must we take
in the strictest sense his positive declaration that the Pillars imposed
no conditions whatever on their indorsement of the gospel which he
preached among the Gentiles (Gal. 2 : 6-10), but we must regard
his insistence on Peter's accommodating his Jewish scruples to Gen
tile practice in the matter of eating together at Antioch, as precluding
any admission by Paul, then or afterwards, of the method of solving
the problem of fellowship proposed by James. Concessions must
be made, but Paul insists that the Jews must make them; because for
them to stand upon legal "cleanness" is to build up again the wall
of partition they had once destroyed.
After all there is nothing incomprehensible in the fact that Acts
in this matter of the modus vivendi between Jewish and Gentile
believers should go the way of Peter and Barnabas, the way of " James
and the elders," the way of Jerusalem and Antioch, and not the way
of Paul. With Luke, Peter and James and "the apostles and elders"
are authority infallible and absolute. Paul's authority depends upon
theirs, and cannot be conceived as conflicting with it. Moreover, the
"decrees" are far from being an invention of his imagination. The
very incongruity of their address with the situation they are made
124

APPENDED NOTE B

to occupy in his narrative gives simultaneously a proof of their au
thenticity and an indication of their real occasion.
In the present story of Acts 13 : 1-16 : 5 the "decrees" are en
acted to meet the particular case of the Galatian churches, and are
therefore distributed among them "for to keep." But in the letter
itself which embodies them no mention whatever is made of the Ga
latians, but they are explicitly addressed to "the brethren which are
of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia," the region affected
by the "trouble" before the return of Paul and Barnabas from the
FjiskMissjgnary Journey.
We have seen that they cannot have been enacted before Peter's
coming to Antioch. Otherwise his vacillation would be unaccount
able.1 On the contrary they meet the very contingency Peter was
there facing. They apply the principle of the compact — mutual
non-interference — to the question of table-fellowship in a manner
contrary to the Pauline, which Peter had previously been following.
Nothing stands in the way of the conclusion that these "decrees"
were brought by the delegation "from James," to whose coming Paul
attributes the origin of the whole disturbance (Gal. 2 : 12).
Aside from the fact that Luke brings down Paul and Barnabas a
second time from Antioch to participate in his great Apostolic Con
clave, and postpones to it what really — as his own account confesses
— had been decided " a good while ago," the account of Acts 15 : 1-35
contains but little that might not correctly describe such a conclave.
To Luke, of course, its attempted settlement is the true and final one.
Instead of a conflict with Peter arising out of it, Paul distributes its
decrees among his Galatian converts for to keep, and quiets the op
position of "the Jews that were in those parts" by circumcising Timo
thy,2 a proof that "he himself walked orderly keeping the law."
This matter of the Jerusalem Council and its decrees permanently
settling the Galatian crisis is a matter of immense importance to the
author of Acts. He not only makes it central to his whole "treatise,"
but invokes on its behalf the authority of the entire college of "the
apostles and elders" assembled in solemn conclave in Jerusalem,
and prefaces the enactments with " It seemed good to the Holy Ghost
and to us." If ever a Christian document claimed all possible sanc
tions of apostolicity, catholicity, and divine inspiration, it is this.
Yet it seems to share the fate of all the ex cathedra utterances for
which infallibility is claimed with greatest vehemence. They seem
doomed to come into the world still-born. The joint attempt of
Antioch and Jerusalem at ecumenical legislation was a failure from
1 Even Zahn admits that Peter's conduct at Antioch would be "scarcely credible"
after the enactment of the decrees. Kommentar, 1905, p. in. m "The fact itself
is rather supported than made incredible by Gal. ; : 2, 3, 11. It is the suppression
of the converse case of the refusal to circumcise Titus, and the interest in which the
fact is adduced, which makes Acts 16 : 1-5 unhistorical. See above on Acts 21 :
17-26, p. 131. "5

APPENDED NOTE B

the start. Luke has gone to extraordinary lengths, it is true, to make
it appear that Paul also accepted the principle that "the Jews which
are among the Gentiles" are under obligation to keep the law, and that
it is therefore " necessary " for their sakes that Gentile converts " keep
the decrees." To give color to this view he transforms the whole nature
of the third conference in Jerusalem, an interview at which the author
of the Diary was himself present.
We know from the Epistles that Paul's main object in this great
delegation from all the churches of the Gentiles to "James and the
elders" was to convey his "ministration" which he had on their be
half, and that he was asking the prayers even of far-off Roman believers
"that it might be acceptable to the saints," and that his life might
be preserved against the threats of the "disobedient" as he went
to convey it. It was his olive branch on behalf of a free, yet brotherly
Gentile Christendom, proving the loyalty with which Paul and his
followers had. stood by the compact in its two principles of mutual
respect and brotherly kindness. We know too from the Epistles
that Paul peremptorily opposed the later inference by which Jeru
salem undertook to say what concessions were "necessary" from the
Gentiles. He even laid down a "must" of his own in the opposite
sense. The Jews must make the concession, else they would be " coerc
ing the Gentiles." We know on the other hand from the Epistles
that Paul could and did engage in Jewish rites like a Jew when among
Jews, and therefore could, and probably did, engage in sacrifices in
the temple on behalf of Jewish Christian Nazirites. But we also
know that if he did so it was to prove how free is the believing Jew
to become "all things to all men, as without law to them that are
without law," as well as "under law to them that are under the law."
In Acts it is adduced in support of just the contrary principle. It
exhibits Paul as officially showing how by precept and example he
has always maintained that the believing Jew is not free, and that
because he is not, even his Gentile fellow-Christian must in some
degree be "entangled in his yoke of bondage."
In spite of these sweeping claims for their ecumenical authority
and acceptance, the Jerusalem decrees can never have obtained
currency in the Pauline churches. Only Jerusalem could have been
fatuous enough to think it a practicable mode of settlement of the
question of fellowship to demand that Gentile tables should be par
tially kosherized throughout the world for the benefit of the Christian
Jew. Antioch yielded, as we know; for south of the Cilician Gates
the Jewish element in the churches was still strong, though gradually
weakening as the preponderance of Gentile converts increased, and
the Synagogue drew off in more and more bitter hostility. North
of the Taurus range the Judaizers, though they now reverted to some
thing like their original propaganda of circumcision and the law,
did not even secure the compromise of the four decrees. Galatia
126

APPENDED NOTE B

appears well represented in the Pauline delegation to James, and
we have later evidence of the gradual relaxation of the Petrine de
mands. About 85 to 90 a.d. Luke of Antioch in Syria still thinks
it possible to enforce the decrees of James in the Gentile world. But
that is the last trace we have of the attempt to prohibit "things
strangled" and "blood." Even the Syrian church manual of about
120 a.d., the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, no longer insists upon
these. "Concerning foods bear what thou art able" is its direction
to the catechumen; but with decided leaning toward the rule which
we find subsequently prevailing among the Pauline churches, it adds,
"However, abstain by all means from meats offered to idols, for it
is the food of dead gods." Among "the churches of Asia" in 95 a.d.
we find the stipulations reduced to these two, which in substance
really had the indorsement of Paul. Those who hold "the teaching
of Balaam" who led Israel to commit fornication and to eat things
offered to idols" are denounced. Upon the rest the Spirit imposes
"no other burden" (Rev. 2 : 14, 20-24). About 150 A.D., when the
Western text of Acts gained currency, the "decrees" were revised
by the elimination of the prohibition of "things strangled" and the
addition of the "golden rule." This permitted them to be taken as
general precepts of morality, "blood" being interpreted metaphoric
ally as "violence" or "injury." Thus at last, with the disappearance
of the Jewish element from the Church, the very understanding of
the "decrees" disappears, together with the occasion for their ex
istence. Neither Paul's solution of the problem of fellowship by
concessions on the Jewish side, nor James' by concessions from the
Gentile side, remains. The issue in the second century is no longer
between Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian, but between Chris
tian and Jew, or Christian and heathen. Hence the rule now becomes
simply: "Abstain from fornication, it is a heathen vice that con
taminates the whole brotherhood. Abstain from meats offered to
idols, it is the food of dead gods."
Scarcely less significant of the Lukan point of view than this mis
interpretation of Paul's attitude at the Conference with James in
Acts 21 : 17-26 is the suppression of the whole matter of his "minis
tration." It is not merely that the great contribution conveyed by
at least eight delegates of the Greek churches besides Paul, for whose
favorable reception Paul entreats the prayers of the Roman Christians,
is ignored by Luke. In the only allusion remaining it is given an
entirely different significance. In his speech before Felix, Paul is
made to say: " I came to bring alms to my nation and offerings."
This was not the real occasion of his coming. The "ministration,"
on the other hand, which was the real occasion, is carried back to
the time of its original proposal in the conference of Paul and Bar
nabas with the Pillars; but even there it is credited to the account
of Antioch. This, taken in conjunction with the description of An-
127

APPENDED NOTE B

tioch as the first Gentile Christian church, the note that it was there
that the name " Christian " originated, the crediting to Antioch of the
initiative in the evangelization of the whole Gentile world, and of
what Luke considers the ecumenical settlement of the basis of fellow
ship, is a strong confirmation of the tradition cited by Eusebius of
the Antiochian origin of "Luke." The view-point which we have
found so strikingly in contrast with that of Paul can now define itself.
It is the aspect the story of the great Galatian crisis presented in
Antioch a quarter century or so after the death of Paul. On the
other hand the letters themselves show not only a greater crisis, but
a greater gospel and a greater man.

128

APPENDED NOTE C
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, "APART FROM" WORKS
OF LAW
As a rule it forms no part of the commentator's province to justify,
but only to elucidate, his author. But much of the misunderstanding
of Paul's great doctrine of Justification by faith is really due to certain
associations of ideas connected with the term "justify," which com
pel the mind to question its validity. The validity of the doctrine
becomes readily apparent when we cease to connect with this term
the notion of a judge, and connect it with the action of a father.
And surely not to Jesus only, but to Paul also, Father is the more
appropriate name for God.
To "justify" (spoken of God) is not to make just, and is not merely
(as Judge) to declare just (acquit). It is in every respect (both as
Judge and as Father) to treat as just. "Faith" is the attitude of
mind corresponding to and conditioning this fatherly disposition of
God, i.e. filial trust and obedience. Without it God cannot be just
and still treat as just the ungodly. This is the heart of the Pauline
message. John the prophet preached "repentance": Turn ye, O
Israel, for why will ye die? Jesus the Son preached "faith." If
ye do turn, your Father may be trusted always, for everything, to
the uttermost. Paul the theologian preached "justification": an
interpretation of the significance of the cross as the central factor
in the divine redemption.
Once the term "justification" has been broadened to connote the
action of a father as well as that of a judge, the vindication of this
Pauline philosophy of redemption, both in itself and as a true corollary
of the teaching and life of Jesus, can be put in a nutshell. To de
clare the unjust just is immoral, no matter what the legal fiction.
To treat the unjust as just may be right or wrong, wise or unwise,
according to his attitude and disposition.
To "treat as just" the man who has only "works," no matter
how perfect, is superficial. It may produce an immoral result, for
the motive may be — it will always tend to be — mere expediency.
God, therefore, "who looketh upon the heart," does not "justify
on the ground of works."
K 129

APPENDED NOTE C

To do anything less than "treat as just" the man who comes to
God in "faith," no matter how imperfect in works, would be un
righteous; for the disposition of filial trust and obedience will in
evitably produce the works in good time. Therefore, God, whose
treatment of men is determined by what they really are, or may be,
and not by what they have done, does justify "on the ground of faith
apart from (choris) works."
The problem of redemption thus reduces simply to the question
how to produce this "faith." To Paul it is the cross which answers it,
just as the very existence of this problem itself explains the necessity
of the cross. Reasoning from his own hopeless struggle under the
law to obtain "a righteousness of mine own, even that which is of
the law," Paul believed that something similar to his own self-con
demnation must occur in the moral history of every man, even Gen
tiles which have not the law being a law unto themselves, their con
sciences, in each specific action, excusing or else accusing them.
"Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art." To
produce the sense of guilt was the very function of prescriptive law.
Given in a deeper and ultimate sense "unto life," Paul himself
had found it "unto death." He regards it therefore as given pri
marily "for the sake of transgression" — yes, even as provocative
of transgression.1 The ministry of it, therefore, to which many
alleged ministers of Christ were giving themselves so ardently, was
at best a "ministry of condemnation."2
How, then, produce faith? This was the work of God. What
the law could not do in that it was weak through the (inherent in
capacity of fallen) flesh, God did, by sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh, and (as an offering) for sin. Men would not
have been able to believe in the wideness of God's mercy had he not
"commended his own love toward us in that while we were yet sin
ners Christ died for us." * The "ministry of reconciliation" (atone
ment), therefore, is defined very carefully to be this work of God in
producing faith in himself in hearts reduced to moral death and de
spair. Paul compares it most appropriately to the raising of Christ
from physical death. It was Paul's own resurrection. God who
(in the physical creation) caused the light to shine out of darkness
shines in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of his glory
(i.e. his forgiving love; cf. Ex. t,^ : 19-34 : 6) in the face of Jesus
Christ.4 This, then, is the ministry of the atonement: "to wit, that God was
in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them
their trespasses." 6 The difficulties in the way of forgiveness over
come by the cross are indeed twofold ; but the root of both is in
the nature of man, not in the nature of God. Man is (1) incredulous
1 Gal. 3 : 19-22 ; Rom. 4 : 15 ; 7 : 7-15. ' 2 Cor. 3 : 6-11, 3 Rom. 4 : 18
24; 5 : 6-10. * a Cor. 4:6. 5 2 Cor. 5 : 14-21.
I3Q

APPENDED NOTE C

of the extent of God's love; (2) disposed to accept the proof of it as
evidence of indulgent laxity. The cross meets both. Man's dis
position is changed by it, not God's. "While we were yet weak,"
"while we were enemies," we were "reconciled to God through the
death of his Son." Also when God "set him forth in his blood, to
be a. votive offering through faith," he "showed his own righteous
ness, notwithstanding his forbearance in passing over sins done afore
time." For in the great cost to himself of this means of redemption
God proved himself just (i.e. unswerving in his determination to
produce in men likeness to his own moral perfectness), while he
treated as just him that had faith in Jesus.1 Both aspects of Paul's
doctrine of the cross are covered in the single statement: "He died
for all, that they which live might no longer live unto themselves, but
unto him who for their sakes died and rose again." 2 Paul's " ministry
of the new covenant," his ambassadorial message of reconciliation
was given him "when it pleased God to manifest his Son in" the last
and greatest of the apostles.3
¦ Rom. 4 : 25-5 : 10; 3 : 21-26. ' 2 Cor. 5 : 15- * Gal. 1 : 16; cf. 2 Cor. 4 : 1-6;
5 : 16-21.

i3«

INDEX

Abraham, 73, 75, 79, 92 ; inherit
ance of, 73, 85 ; promise to, 76,
80.
Achaia, 33.
Acts, 9, n, 16 f., 38, 125.
Adam, 84 f.; Second, 115.
Adeney, 26.
Adoption, 85, 87 f., 97.
Allegory, 93.
Analysis (of Gal.), 41 ff.
Angels, 37, 80, 86, 89.
Antioch, Pisidian, 17 f., 19, 21 ff.;
Syrian, 13, 15 f., 23, 29, 31, 33,
38, 65, 120 ff., 125, 127 f.
Apocalyptic Writers, 74.
Apostles, and Elders, 13 f., 124 ff.;
False, 35.
Apostleship, ii, 13, 15 f., 47, 57,
63-
Apostolic Council. See Jeru
salem Conclave.
Arabia, 54.
Aristldes, 28.
Assumptio Mosis, 81.
Athenagoras, 28.
Atonement, 48, 130.
Authorship (of Gal.), 7 ff.
Bacon {Story of St. Paul), 28;
<Joum. of Theol.), 38.
Baptism, 83.
Barnabas, 13, 15 ff., 24, 29, 32 ff.,
58.
, Bauer, 9.
Baur, 9.
Bibliography, 42 ff.
Bithynia, 18.

Blood, eating of, 123 ff.
Bousset, 21.
Brethren, 33; false, 61.
Calendar, 37, 88.
Canonicity, 4 ff.
Cephas, 29, 34, 65*
Christ Party, 35.
Church, 53.
Churches of Galatia, 18 ff., 24, 38,
"5-
Circumcision, 31, 96 ff., 109, 119;
of Timothy, 98, 125 ; of Titus,
60.
Clement or Rome, 5, 8 f.
Clementine Homilies, 36, 123.
Codices, 2.
Colossians, 26 f.
Communicate, 109.
Contributions, 22.
Corinth, 26, 29, 32, 34, 37.
Covenant, 79, 93.
Cybele, priests of, 99.
Cyprus, 17, 34.
Damascus, 54.
Decrees of Jerusalem, 40, 122 ff.
Derbe, 33.
Devout Persons, 31.
Diary of Acts, 9, 12, 119.
Diatribe, 28.
Diognetus, Ep. to, 28.
Dissimulation of Peter, 65.
Elements of the world, 86, 89.
Enemy (epithet of Paul), 91.
Ephesians, 26 f.

133

INDEX

Ephesus, 18 ff.

Conclave, 12, 17, 38, 40; de

Eschatology, 49.

crees, 122 ff. ; visits, 16, 23, 29,
Esdras, Second, 85.
32, 55. 57-
Jesus (as Lord), 116.
Faith, 70, 129 f.
John, 62 f.
Fornication, 123 f., 127.
(Gospel), 7.
Freedom, 96, 10 1.
Josephus (Antiquities), 80, 118.
Freer Manuscript, 3.
Judaizers, 22 f., 28 f., 31, 33 ff.,
38, 96, 126.
Gaius, 22.
Justification, 67, 129 ff.
Galatia, 19, 24; Paul's visits
to,
Justin Martyr, 6, 8, 10.
38.
Galatians (people), 24, 29
31-
Kerygmas, 28.
(letter), text, 1-4; canonicity,
Kosher Meats, 122.
4-7 ; authorship, 7-1 1 ;
internal
evidence, S, 29; relation
to
Law, works of, 68, 77, 80 f., 83,
Acts, 11; to whom written,
17;
97, 99, 102, 106.
date, 25, 29; relation
to
Ro-
Letters of Commendation, 37.
mans, 26 ff.
Lightfoot, 7, 20, 26, 81 f., 83,
Geography of Paul, 24.
99.
Gilbert (Acts), 11 f.
Luke, 13 ff., 19, 40, 118 ff., 127.
Glorying, 106, 109.
Luther, 41.
Gospel of Paul, 11, 13, 15
,47.
5°,
Lycaonia, 18, 20.
52, 107, 115 ff. ; of
circum-
Lystra, 20, 22, 33.
cision, 12 1.
Macedonia, 21 f., 29, 33.
Hagar, 93.
Man-pleaser, 51.
Harnack, 13.
Marcion, i, 4, 6, 10, 61, 82.
Heir, 88.
Mark, 17.
Helena of Adiabene, 122.
Meats, distinctions of, 120, 122.
Hermas, 123.
Mediator, 81.
Hillel, 102.
Ministration (at Jerusalem), 40,
Holtzmann (H. J.), 27.
64, 126 f.
Miracles, 75.
Iconium, 25.
Missionary Journey, First, 17 ff.,
Ignatius, 5, 7, 9.
21, 32, 121 f.; Second, 18, 21,
Isaac, 92, 95.
*3-
Isaiah, 94.
Moses, 81, 84, 122.
Isaian Apocalypse, 28.
Muratorian Fragment, 2.
Ishmael, 92, 95.
Mysia, 20.
Israel of God, no.
Mystic Union with Christ, 70.
James (of Jerusalem), 13 f.
33.
35,
North Galatia, 20.
55, 62, 65, 118 ff.
North Galatian Theory, 20 ff.
Jerome, 118.
Jerusalem, Compact, 32,
118
ff-;
Order of Events, 38 ff.
J34
INDEX

Papyri (magic), 89.

Spiritual persons, 104.

Paul, apostleship and gospel, 1 1

13.

Sputa, 27.

J5 f-> 47. 57; early career,

!5.

Steck, 7, 21, 26 f.

55; illness, 21, 90; charged

Stoicism, 115.

with dishonesty, 37.

Stoics, 82, 102 f.

Paul and Thekla, 25.

Subscriptions, hi.

Persecution, 95, 109.

Synagogue, 31, 126.
Peter, 13, 15, 25, 29, 34 f.,
63.
Syria and Cilicia, 56, 122, 125.
118 ff.
Peter, Preaching of, 28.
Tacitus, 25.
Philo {Vita Mosis), 81, 95.
Tatian, 28.
Phrygia, 18 ff., 24.
Teaching of the Twelve, 48, 66, 127.
Phrygo-Galatic Region, 25.
Tertullian, 61.
Pillars (at Jerusalem), 29, 38,
4°,
Thessalonians, 28, 32.
59, 64, 118 ff.
Timothy, 19, 22, 30, 33, 125.
Pisidia, 18.
Titus, 14, 58.
Pliny, 25.
Tongues, 87, 103.
Polycarp, 6 f.
Troas, 22.
Postscript, 108.
Practical Exhortation, ioi.
Van Manen, 27.
Psalms of Solomon, 51.
Visits of Paul, to Galatia, 90;
Ptolemy, 25.
to Jerusalem, 16, 23, 39, 32, 55,
57. I2i f-
Ramsay, 19.
Volter, 27.
Revelation (to Paul), 52, 59.
Rome, 12, 29.
Warfield (Joum. of Bibl. Lit.), 15.
Rudiments. See Elements.
Weak Brethren, 30, 34, 62.
Western Text, 2.
Sabbatizlng, 90.
Wisdom of Solomon, 69, 117.
Seed of Abraham, 80, 85.
Wisdom Writers, 74, 117.
Silas (Silvanus), 17, 30, 33.
Works of Law, 68, 129.
Simon Magus, 36.
World-rulers, 86 f.
Sinai, 93.
Sorcery, 104.
Zahn, 32 f., 82, 92, 125.
Spirit, gift of, 73; doctrine of, 102.
Zealots, 53.
13s
YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRAHY