Text -- Galatians 1:10 (NET)

1:10 Am I now trying to gain the approval of people, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a slave of Christ!

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Gal 1:10

Am I persuading? ( peithō̇ ).

Conative present, trying to persuade like zētō areskein (seeking to please) where the effort is stated plainly. See note on 2Co 5:11.

Robertson: Gal 1:10

I should not be ( ouk an ēmēn ).

Conclusion of second class condition, determined as unfulfilled. Regular construction here (ei and imperfect indicative in the condition ēreskon , ouk an and imperfect in the conclusion). About pleasing men see note on 1Th 2:4. In Col 3:22; Eph 6:6 Paul uses the word "men-pleasers"(anthrōpareskoi ).

Vincent: Gal 1:10

For do I now persuade ( ἄρτι γὰρ - πείθω )

For introduces a justification of the severe language just used. The emphasis is on now , which answers to now in Gal 1:9. I have been charged with conciliating men. Does this anathema of mine look like it? Is it a time for conciliatory words now , when Judaising emissaries are troubling you (Gal 1:7) and persuading you to forsake the true gospel? Persuade signifies conciliate , seek to win over .

Vincent: Gal 1:10

Or God

Persuade or conciliate God is an awkward phrase; but the expression is condensed, and persuade is carried forward from the previous clause. This is not uncommon in Paul's style: See Phm 1:5; Eph 1:15; Phi 2:6, where μορφὴ form , applied to God, is probably the result of μορφὴν δούλου form of a servant (Gal 1:7) on which the main stress of the thought lies.

Wesley: Gal 1:10

He adds the reason why he speaks so confidently.

Wesley: Gal 1:10

Is this what I aim at in preaching or writing? If I still - Since I was an apostle.

Wesley: Gal 1:10

Studied to please them; if this were my motive of action; nay, if I did in fact please the men who know not God.

Wesley: Gal 1:10

Hear this, all ye who vainly hope to keep in favour both with God and with the world!

JFB: Gal 1:10

Accounting for the strong language he has just used.

JFB: Gal 1:10

Resuming the "now" of Gal 1:9. "Am I now persuading men?" [ALFORD], that is, conciliating. Is what I have just now said a sample of men-pleasing, of which I am accused? His adversaries accused him of being an interested flatterer of men, "becoming all things to all men," to make a party for himself, and so observing the law among the Jews (for instance, circumcising Timothy), yet persuading the Gentiles to renounce it (Gal 5:11) (in order to flatter those, really keeping them in a subordinate state, not admitted to the full privileges which the circumcised alone enjoyed). NEANDER explains the "now" thus: Once, when a Pharisee, I was actuated only by a regard to human authority and to please men (Luk 16:15; Joh 5:44), but NOW I teach as responsible to God alone (1Co 4:3).

JFB: Gal 1:10

Regard is to be had to God alone.

JFB: Gal 1:10

The oldest manuscripts omit "for." "If I were still pleasing men," &c. (Luk 6:26; Joh 15:19; 1Th 2:4; Jam 4:4; 1Jo 4:5). On "yet," compare Gal 5:11.

JFB: Gal 1:10

And so pleasing Him in all things (Tit 2:9; Col 3:22).

Clarke: Gal 1:10

Do I now persuade men, or God? - The words πειθειν τον Θεον may be rendered to court or solicit the favor of God as the after clause sufficiently proves. This acceptation of πειθειν is very common in Greek authors. While the apostle was a persecutor of the Christians, he was the servant of men, and pleased men. When he embraced the Christian doctrine, he became the servant of God, and pleased Him. He therefore intimates that he was a widely different person now from what he had been while a Jew.

Calvin: Gal 1:10

Having extolled so confidently his own preaching, he now shows that this was no idle or empty boast. He supports his assertion by two arguments. The first is, that he was not prompted by ambition, or flattery, or any similar passion, to accommodate himself to the views of men. The second and far stronger argument is, that he was not the author of the gospel, but delivered faithfully what he had received from God.

10. For do I now persuade according to men or according to God? The ambiguity of the Greek construction in this passage, has given rise to a variety of expositions. Some render it, Do I now persuade men or God? ²⁵ Others interpret the words “God” and “men,” as meaning divine and human concerns. This sense would agree very well with the context, if it were not too wide a departure from the words. The view which I have preferred is more natural; for nothing is more common with the Greeks than to leave the prepositionκατὰ, according to, to be understood.

Paul is speaking, not about the subject of his preaching, but about the purpose of his own mind, which could not refer so properly to men as to God. The disposition of the speaker, it must be owned, may have some influence on his doctrine. As corruption of doctrine springs from ambition, avarice, or any other sinful passion, so the truth is maintained in its purity by an upright conscience. And so he contends that his doctrine is sound, because it is not modified so as to gratify men.

Or, do I seek to please men? This second clause differs not much, and yet it differs somewhat from the former; for the desire of obtaining favor is one motive for speaking “according to men.” When there reigns in our hearts such ambition, that we desire to regulate our discourse so as to obtain the favor of men, our instructions cannot be sincere. Paul therefore declares, that he is in no degree chargeable with this vice; and, the more boldly to repel the calumnious insinuation, he employs the interrogative form of speech; for interrogations carry the greater weight, when our opponents are allowed an opportunity of replying, if they have anything to say. This expresses the great boldness which Paul derived from the testimony of a good conscience; for he knew that he had discharged his duty in such a manner as not to be liable to any reproach of that kind. (Act 23:1; 2Co 1:12.)

If I yet pleased men This is a remarkable sentiment; that ambitious persons, that is, those who hunt after the applause of men, cannot serve Christ. He declares for himself, that he had freely renounced the estimation of men, in order to devote himself entirely to the service of Christ; and, in this respect, he contrasts his present position with that which he occupied at a former period of life. He had been regarded with the highest esteem, had received from every quarter loud applause; and, therefore, if he had chosen to please men, he would not have found it necessary to change his condition. But we may draw from it the general doctrine which I have stated, that those who resolve to serve Christ faithfully, must have boldness to despise the favor of men.

The word men is here employed in a limited sense; for the ministers of Christ ought not to labor for the express purpose of displeasing men. But there are various classes of men. Those to whom Christ “is precious,” (1Pe 2:7,) are men whom we should endeavor to please in Christ; while they who choose that the true doctrine shall give place to their own passions, are men to whom we must give no countenance. And godly, upright pastors, will always find it necessary to contend with the offenses of those who choose that, on all points, their own wishes shall be gratified; for the Church will always contain hypocrites and wicked men, by whom their own lusts will be preferred to the word of God. And even good men, either through ignorance, or through weak prejudice, are sometimes tempted by the devil to be displeased with the faithful warnings of their pastor. Our duty, therefore, is not to take alarm at any kind of offenses, provided, at the same time, that we do not excite in weak minds a prejudice against Christ himself.

Many interpret this passage in a different manner, as implying an admission to the following effect: “If I pleased men, then I should not be the servant of Christ. I own it, but who shall bring such a charge against me? Who does not see that I do not court the favor of men?” But I prefer the former view, that Paul is relating how large an amount of the estimation of men he had relinquished, in order to devote himself to the service of Christ.

TSK: Gal 1:10

do I now : Act 4:19, Act 4:20, Act 5:29; 2Co 5:9-11; 1Th 2:4

persuade : 1Sa 21:7; Mat 28:14; Act 12:20; Rom 2:8 *Gr: 1Jo 3:9

do I seek : 2Co 12:19; 1Th 2:4

for if : Mat 22:16; Rom 15:1, Rom 15:2; 1Co 10:33; Eph 6:6; Col 3:22; Jam 4:4

the servant : Rom 1:1

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Gal 1:10

For do I now persuade men, or God? - The word "now"( ἄρτι arti ) is used here, evidently, to express a contrast between his present and his former purpose of life. Before his conversion to Christianity, he impliedly admits, that it was his object to conciliate the favor of people; that he derived his authority from them Act 9:1-2; that he endeavored to act so as to please them and gain their good esteem. But "now"he says, this was not his object. He had a higher aim. It was to please God, and to conciliate His favor. The object of this verse is obscure; but it seems to me to be connected with what follows, and to be designed to introduce that by showing that he had not now received his commission from human beings, but had received it from God. perhaps there may be an allusion to an implied allegation in regard to him. It may have been alleged (see the notes at the previous verses) that even he had changed his mind, and was now himself an observer of the laws of Moses. To this, perhaps, he replies, by this question, that such conduct would not have been inconsistent in his view, when it was his main purpose to please people, and when he derived his commission from them; but that now he had a higher aim.

His purpose was to please God; and he was not aiming in any way to gratify people. The word which is rendered "persuade"here ( πείθω peithō ), has been very variously interpreted. Tyndale renders it: "seek now the favor of men or of God?"Doddridge: "Do I now solicit the favor of men or of God?"This also is the interpretation of Grotius, Hammond, Elsner, Koppe, Rosenmuller, Bloomfield, etc. and is undoubtedly the true explanation. The word properly means to "persuade,"or to "convince"; Act 18:4; Act 28:23; 2Co 5:11. But it also means, to bring over to kind feelings, to conciliate, to pacify, to quiet. Septuagint, 1Sa 24:8; 2 Macc. 4:25; Act 12:20; 1Jo 3:19. By the question here, Paul means to say, that his great object was now to "please God."He desired God’ s favor rather than the favor of man. He acted with reference to His will. He derived his authority from God, and not from the Sanhedrin or any earthly council. And the purpose of all this is to say, that he had not received his commission to preach from man, but had received it directly from God.

Or do I seek to please men? - It is not my aim or purpose to please people, and to conciliate their favor; compare 1Th 2:4.

For if I yet pleased men - If I made it my aim to please people: if this was the regulating principle of my conduct. The word "yet"here ( ἔτι eti ) has reference to his former purpose. It implies that this had once been his aim. But he says if he had pursued that purpose to please people; if this had continued to be the aim of his life, he would not "now have been a servant of Christ. He had been constrained to abandon that purpose in order that he might be a servant of Christ; and the sentiment is, that in order that a man may become a Christian, it is necessary for him to abandon the purpose of pleasing people as the rule of his life. It may be implied also that if in fact a man makes it his aim to please people, or if this is the purpose for which he lives and acts, and if he shapes his conduct with reference to that, he cannot be a Christian or a servant of Christ. A Christian must act from higher motives than those, and he who aims supremely at the favor of his fellowmen has full evidence that he is not a Christian. A friend of Christ must do his duty, and must regulate his conduct by the will of God, whether people are pleased with it or not.

And it may be further implied that the life and deportment of a sincere Christian will not please people. It is not what they love. A holy, humble, spiritual life they do not love. It is true, indeed, that their consciences tell them that such a life is right; that they are often constrained to speak well of the life of Christians, and to commend it; it is true that they are constrained to respect a person who is a sincere Christian, and that they often put confidence in such a person; and it is true also that they often speak with respect of them when they are dead; but the life of an humble, devoted, and zealous Christian they do not love. It is contrary to their views of life. And especially if a Christian so lives and acts as to reprove them either by his words or by his life; or if a Christian makes his religion so prominent as to interfere with their pursuits or pleasures, they do not love it. It follows from this:

(1) That a Christian is not to expect to please people. He must not be disappointed, therefore, if he does not. His Master did not please the world; and it is enough for the disciple that he be as his Master.

\caps1 (2) a\caps0 professing Christian, and especially a minister, should be alarmed when the world flatters and caresses him. He should fear either:

\tx720 \tx1080 (a)    That he is not living as he ought to do, and that sinners love him because he is so much like them, and keeps them in countenance; or,

(b)    That they mean to make him betray his religion and become conformed to them.

It is a great point gained for the frivolous world, when it can, by its caresses and attentions, get a Christian to forsake a prayer-meeting for a party, or surrender his deep spirituality to engage in some political project. "Woe unto you,"said the Redeemer, "when all men speak well of you,"Luk 6:26.

\caps1 (3) o\caps0 ne of the main differences between Christians and the world is, that others aim to please people; the Christian aims to please only God. And this is a great difference.

\caps1 (4) i\caps0 t follows that if people would become Christians, they must cease to make it their object to please people. They must be willing to be met with contempt and a frown; they must be willing to be persecuted and despised; they must he willing to lay aside all hope of the praise and the flattery of people, and be content with an honest effort to please God.

\caps1 (5) t\caps0 rue Christians must differ from the world. Their aims, feelings, purposes must be unlike the world. They are to be a special people; and they should be willing to be esteemed such. It does not follow, however, that a true Christian should not desire the good esteem of the world, or that he should be indifferent to an honorable reputation 1Ti 3:7; nor does it follow logically that a consistent Christian will not often command the respect of the world. In times of trial, the world will put confidence in Christians; when any work of benevolence is to be done, the world will instinctively look to Christians; and, notwithstanding, sinners will not love religion, yet they will secretly feel assured that some of the brightest ornaments of society are Christians, and that they have a claim to the confidence and esteem of their fellow-men.

The servant of Christ - A Christian.

Poole: Gal 1:10

For do I now persuade men, or God? There is an emphasis in the particle now, since I became a Christian, and was made an apostle; while I was a Pharisee I did otherwise, but since I became an apostle of Jesus Christ, do I persuade you to hear what men say, or what God saith? Or (as others) do I persuade the things of men, their notions and doctrines, or the things of God? Or do I in my preaching aim at the gratifying or the pleasing of men, or the pleasing of God? The last is plainly said in the next words,

do I seek to please men? Which must not be understood in the full latitude of the term, but restrainedly, do I seek to please and humour men in things wherein they teach and act contrary to God? It is the duty of inferiors to please their superiors, and of all good ministers and Christians, to please their brethren, so far as may tend to the advantage of their souls; or in civil things, so as to maintain a friendly and peaceable society; but they ought not to do any thing in humour to them, by which God may be displeased. In which sense it is that the apostle adds:

For if I pleased men that is, in saying as they say, and doing as they do, without regard to pleasing or displeasing of Christ,

I should not show myself

the servant of Christ for his servants we are whom we obey, and our Lord hath taught us, that no man can serve two masters, that is, commanding contrary things.

Haydock: Gal 1:10

If I did yet please men, I should not be the servant of Christ. I should not have embraced the Christian faith, I who was so zealous against it, and who by changing have exposed himself to persecutions, &c. (Witham)

Gill: Gal 1:10

For do I now persuade men, or God?.... To "persuade", is to teach; see Act 18:4 the sense of which, with respect to men, is easy, but, with regard to God, difficult; and indeed cannot be applied to him, consistent with his divine perfections; and therefore something must be understood, and which may be supplied either thus, "do I now persuade", you or others, that "men or God" are to be hearkened to? not men, but God; the apostle did not teach them to hearken either to himself, or any of the other apostles, Peter, James, and John, any further than as he and they preached the pure Gospel of Christ; but should they do otherwise, they were not to be attended to, but God, who spake by his Son; or Christ, who is God as well as man; who is the great prophet in the church, a son in his own house, whose voice is to be hearkened to in all matters of doctrine, worship, and duty: or thus, "do I now persuade" you, to obey "men or God"; not men, but God; he did not teach them to regard the traditions of the elders, or to obey the commandments of men, but, on the contrary, the ordinances of Christ, who is the one Lord, and only master, whose orders are to be observed: or thus, "do I now persuade", to trust in "men or God?" to believe in the one or the other; not in men, in the wisdom, strength, riches, and righteousness of men, but in the living God; in the grace of God, and in the blood, righteousness, and sacrifice of Christ: or thus, "do I persuade" for the sake of "men, or God?" not for the sake of gaining honour, glory, and applause from men, as the Pharisees and false apostles did, but for the glory of God, the hour of Christ, and the good of immortal souls: or else not persons, but things are meant, by men and God: and the sense is, that the apostle taught and persuaded men to believe, not things human, but divine; he did not preach himself, or seek to set up his own power and authority over men; or set forth his eloquence, learning, parts, and abilities; or to gain either applause or riches to himself; he did not teach human wisdom, the vain philosophy of the Gentiles, and opposition of science, falsely so called; nor the traditions of the elders, nor the commandments of men; nor the power and purity human nature, or the righteousness of man: but delivered things divine; he persuaded to things concerning God, and the kingdom of God; see Act 19:8 he taught, that without the regenerating grace of the Spirit of God, no man should see, and without the justifying righteousness of Christ, no man should enter into the kingdom of heaven, as his Lord had done before him; he preached the things concerning the grace and love of God, the person and offices of Christ, and the Spirit's work of regeneration and sanctification: the word "now", refers to all the time since his conversion, to the present: before his call by grace, he persuaded persons to hearken to men, to obey the traditions of the elders, to trust in their own righteousness for justification before God; but now he saw otherwise, and taught them to lay aside everything that was human, and to believe in God, trust in and depend on his justifying righteousness; and this he did, without any regard to the favour and affection of men, as appears from what follows:

or do I seek to please men? no, he neither pleased, nor sought to please them; neither in the matter of his ministry, which was the grace of God, salvation by a crucified Christ, and the things of the Spirit of God; for these were very distasteful to, and accounted foolishness by the men of the world; nor in the manner of it, which was not with excellency of speech, or the enticing words of man's wisdom, with the flowers of rhetoric, but in a plain and simple style. There is indeed a pleasing of men, which is right, and which the apostle elsewhere recommends, and was in the practice of himself; see Rom 15:2. This proceeds from right principles, by proper ways and means, and to right ends, the glory of God, the good, profit, edification, and salvation of men; and there is a pleasing of men that is wrong, which is done by dropping, concealing, or corrupting the doctrines of the Gospel, to gain the affection and applause of men, and amass wealth to themselves, as the false apostles did, and who are here tacitly struck at; a practice the apostle could by no means come into, and assigns this reason for it:

for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ: formerly he had studied to please men, when he held the clothes of those that stoned Stephen, made havoc of the church, hating men and women to prison; and went to the high priest, and asked letters of him to go to Damascus, and persecute the followers of Christ, thereby currying favour with him; but now it was otherwise, and he suggests, that was this his present temper and conduct he should have continued a Pharisee still, and have never entered into the service of Christ; for to please men, and be a servant of Christ, are things inconsistent, incompatible, and impracticable; no man pleaser can be a true faithful servant of Christ, or deserve the name of one: the apostle here refers to his office as an apostle of Christ, and minister of the Gospel, and not to his character as a private believer, in which sense every Christian is a servant of Christ; though to men is even contrary to this; for no man can serve two masters, God and the world, Christ and men. The Septuagint version of Psa 53:5 is, "for God hath scattered the bones", ανθρωπαρεσκων, "of men pleasers", to which agree the Syriac and Arabic versions.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Gal 1:10

¹ tn Grk “of men”; but here ἀνθρώπους (anqrwpou") is used in a generic sense of both men and women.

² tn Grk “men”; but here ἀνθρώποις (anqrwpoi") is used in a generic sense of both men and women.

³ tn The imperfect verb has been translated conatively (ExSyn 550).

⁴ tn Grk “men”; but here ἀνθρώποις (anqrwpoi") is used in a generic sense of both men and women.

⁵ tn Traditionally, “servant” or “bondservant.” Though δοῦλος (doulos) is normally translated “servant,” the word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving another. BDAG notes that “‘servant’ for ‘slave’ is largely confined to Biblical transl. and early American times…in normal usage at the present time the two words are carefully distinguished” (BDAG 260 s.v.). The most accurate translation is “bondservant” (sometimes found in the ASV for δοῦλος), in that it often indicates one who sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few today understand its force.

sn Undoubtedly the background for the concept of being the Lord’s slave or servant is to be found in the Old Testament scriptures. For a Jew this concept did not connote drudgery, but honor and privilege. It was used of national Israel at times (Isa 43:10), but was especially associated with famous OT personalities, including such great men as Moses (Josh 14:7), David (Ps 89:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 8) and Elijah (2 Kgs 10:10); all these men were “servants (or slaves) of the Lord.”

Geneva Bible: Gal 1:10

^{( 5 )} For do I now persuade ^{( h )} men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

^{( 5 )} A confirmation taken both from the nature of the doctrine itself, and also from the manner which he used in teachings. For neither, he says, did I teach those things which pleased men, as these men do who put part of salvation in external things, and works of the Law, neither went I about to procure any man's favour. And therefore the matter itself shows that that doctrine which I delivered to you is heavenly.

^{( h )} He refers to the false apostles, who had nothing but flattery in their mouths for men, and he, though he would not detract from the apostles, preaches God, and not to please men.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Gal 1:1-24

1 He wonders that they have so soon left him and the gospel;

8 and accurses those that preach any other gospel than he did.

11 He learned the gospel not of men, but of God;

14 and shows what he was before his calling;

17 and what he did immediately after it.

Combined Bible: Gal 1:10

color="#000000"> 10. For do I now persuade men, or God?  

  

With the same vehemence Paul continues: "You Galatians ought to be able to tell from my preaching and from the many afflictions which I have endured, whether I serve men or God. Everybody can see that my preaching has stirred up persecution against me everywhere, and has earned for me the cruel hatred of my own people, in fact the hatred of all men. This should convince you that by my preaching I do not seek the favor and praise of men, but the glory of God."  

  

No man can say that we are seeking the favor and praise of men with our doctrine. We teach that all men are naturally depraved. We condemn man's free will, his strength, wisdom, and righteousness. We say that we obtain grace by the free mercy of God alone for Christ's sake. This is no preaching to please men. This sort of preaching procures for us the hatred and disfavor of the world, persecutions, excommunications, murders, and curses.  

  

"Can't you see that I seek no man's favor by my doctrine?" asks Paul. "If I were anxious for the favor of men I would flatter them. But what do I do? I condemn their works. I teach things only that I have been commanded to teach from above. For that I bring down upon my head the wrath of Jews and Gentiles. My doctrine must be right. It must be divine. Any other doctrine cannot be better than mine. Any other doctrine must be false and wicked."  

  

With Paul we boldly pronounce a curse upon every doctrine that does not agree with ours. We do not preach for the praise of men, or the favor of princes. We preach for the favor of God alone whose grace and mercy we proclaim. Whosoever teaches a gospel contrary to ours, or different from ours, let us be bold to say that he is sent of the devil.  

  

VERSE 10. Or do I seek to please men?  

  

"Do I serve men or God?" Paul keeps an eye on the false apostles, those flatterers of men. They taught circumcision to avoid the hatred and persecution of men.  

  

To this day you will find many who seek to please men in order that they may live in peace and security. They teach whatever is agreeable to men, no matter whether it is contrary to God's Word or their own conscience. But we who endeavor to please God and not men, stir up hell itself. We must suffer reproach, slanders, death.  

  

For those who go about to please men we have a word from Christ recorded in the fifth chapter of St. John: "How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God alone?"  

  

VERSE 10. For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.  

  

Observe the consummate cleverness with which the false apostles went about to bring Paul into disrepute. They combed Paul's writings for contradictions (our opponents do the same) to accuse him of teaching contradictory things. They found that Paul had circumcised Timothy according to the Law, that Paul had purified himself with four other men in the Temple at Jerusalem, that Paul had shaven his head at Cenchrea. The false apostles slyly suggested that Paul had been constrained by the other apostles to observe these ceremonial laws. We know that Paul observed these decora out of charitable regard for the weak brethren. He did not want to offend them. But the false apostles turned Paul's charitable regard to his disadvantage. If Paul had preached the Law and circumcision, if he had commended the strength and free will of man, he would not have been so obnoxious to the Jews. On the contrary they would have praised his every action.  

  

MHCC: Gal 1:10-14

In preaching the gospel, the apostle sought to bring persons to the obedience, not of men, but of God. But Paul would not attempt to alter the doctrine of Christ, either to gain their favour, or to avoid their fury. In so important a matter we must not fear the frowns of men, nor seek their favour, by using words of men's wisdom. Concerning the manner wherein he received the gospel, he had it by revelation from Heaven. He was not led to Christianity, as many are, merely by education.

Matthew Henry: Gal 1:10-24

What Paul had said more generally, in the preface of this epistle, he now proceeds more particularly to enlarge upon. There he had declared himself to be an apostle of Christ; and here he comes more directly to support his claim to that character and office. There were some in the churches of Galatia who were prevailed with to call this in question; for those who preached up the ceremonial law did all they could to lessen Paul's reputation, who preached the pure gospel of Christ to the Gentiles: and therefore he here sets himself to prove the divinity both of his mission and doctrine, that thereby he might wipe off the aspersions which his enemies had cast upon him, and recover these Christians into a better opinion of the gospel he had preached to them. This he gives sufficient evidence of,

I. From the scope and design of his ministry, which was not to persuade men, but God, etc. The meaning of this may be either that in his preaching the gospel he did not act in obedience to men, but God, who had called him to this work and office; or that his aim therein was to bring persons to the obedience, not of men, but of God. As he professed to act by a commission from God; so that which he chiefly aimed at was to promote his glory, by recovering sinners into a state of subjection to him. And as this was the great end he was pursuing, so, agreeably hereunto, he did not seek to please men. He did not, in his doctrine, accommodate himself to the humours of persons, either to gain their affection or to avoid their resentment; but his great care was to approve himself to God. The judaizing teachers, by whom these churches were corrupted, had discovered a very different temper; they mixed works with faith, and the law with the gospel, only to please the Jews, whom they were willing to court and keep in with, that they might escape persecution. But Paul was a man of another spirit; he was not so solicitous to please them, nor to mitigate their rage against him, as to alter the doctrine of Christ either to gain their favour or to avoid their fury. And he gives this very good reason for it, that, if he yet pleased men, he would not be the servant of Christ. These he knew were utterly inconsistent, and that no man could serve two such masters; and therefore, though he would not needlessly displease any, yet he dared not allow himself to gratify men at the expense of his faithfulness to Christ. Thus, from the sincerity of his aims and intentions in the discharge of his office, he proves that he was truly an apostle of Christ. And from this his temper and behaviour we may note, 1. That the great end which ministers of the gospel should aim at is to bring men to God. 2. That those who are faithful will not seek to please men, but to approve themselves to God. 3. That they must not be solicitous to please men, if they would approve themselves faithful servants to Christ. But, if this argument should not be thought sufficient, he goes on to prove his apostleship,

II. From the manner wherein he received the gospel which he preached to them, concerning which he assures them (Gal 1:11, Gal 1:12) that he had it not by information from others, but by revelation from heaven. One thing peculiar in the character of an apostle was that he had been called to, and instructed for, this office immediately by Christ himself. And in this he here shows that he was by no means defective, whatever his enemies might suggest to the contrary. Ordinary ministers, as they receive their call to preach the gospel by the mediation of others, so it is by means of the instruction and assistance of others that they are brought to the knowledge of it. But Paul acquaints them that he had his knowledge of the gospel, as well as his authority to preach it, directly from the Lord Jesus: the gospel which he preached was not after man; he neither received it of man, nor was he taught it by man, but by immediate inspiration, or revelation from Christ himself. This he was concerned to make out, to prove himself an apostle: and to this purpose,

1. He tells them what his education was, and what, accordingly, his conversation in time past had been, Gal 1:13, Gal 1:14. Particularly, he acquaints them that he had been brought up in the Jewish religion, and that he had profited in it above many his equals of his own nation - that he had been exceedingly zealous of the traditions of the elders, such doctrines and customs as had been invented by their fathers, and conveyed down from one generation to another; yea, to such a degree that, in his zeal for them, he had beyond measure persecuted the church of God, and wasted it. He had not only been a rejecter of the Christian religion, notwithstanding the many evident proofs that were given of its divine origin; but he had been a persecutor of it too, and had applied himself with the utmost violence and rage to destroy the professors of it. This Paul often takes notice of, for the magnifying of that free and rich grace which had wrought so wonderful a change in him, whereby of so great a sinner he was made a sincere penitent, and from a persecutor had become an apostle. And it was very fit to mention it here; for it would hence appear that he was not led to Christianity, as many others are, purely by education, since he had been bred up in an enmity and opposition to it; and they might reasonably suppose that it must be something very extraordinary which had made so great a change in him, which had conquered the prejudices of his education, and brought him not only to profess, but to preach, that doctrine, which he had before so vehemently opposed.

2. In how wonderful a manner he was turned from the error of his ways, brought to the knowledge and faith of Christ, and appointed to the office of an apostle, Gal 1:15, Gal 1:16. This was not done in an ordinary way, nor by ordinary means, but in an extraordinary manner; for, (1.) God had separated him hereunto from his mother's womb: the change that was wrought in him was in pursuance of a divine purpose concerning him, whereby he was appointed to be a Christian and an apostle, before he came into the world, or had done either good or evil. (2.) he was called by his grace. All who are savingly converted are called by the grace of God; their conversion is the effect of his good pleasure concerning them, and is effected by his power and grace in them. But there was something peculiar in the case of Paul, both in the suddenness and in the greatness of the change wrought in him, and also in the manner wherein it was effected, which was not by the mediation of others, as the instruments of it, but by Christ's personal appearance to him, and immediate operation upon him, whereby it was rendered a more special and extraordinary instance of divine power and favour. (3.) He had Christ revealed in him. He was not only revealed to him, but in him. It will but little avail us to have Christ revealed to us if he is not also revealed in us; but this was not the case of Paul. It pleased God to reveal his Son in him, to bring him to the knowledge of Christ and his gospel by special and immediate revelation. And, (4.) It was with this design, that he should preach him among the heathen; not only that he should embrace him himself, but preach him to others; so that he was both a Christian and an apostle by revelation.

3. He acquaints them how he behaved himself hereupon, from Gal 1:16, to the end. Being thus called to his work and office, he conferred not with flesh and blood. This may be taken more generally, and so we may learn from it that, when God calls us by his grace, we must not consult flesh and blood. But the meaning of it here is that he did not consult men; he did not apply to any others for their advice and direction; neither did he go up to Jerusalem, to those that were apostles before him, as though he needed to be approved by them, or to receive any further instructions or authority from them: but, instead of that, he steered another course, and went into Arabia, either as a place of retirement proper for receiving further divine revelations, or in order to preach the gospel there among the Gentiles, being appointed to be the apostle of the Gentiles; and thence he returned again to Damascus, where he had first begun his ministry, and whence he had with difficulty escaped the rage of his enemies, Acts 9. It was not till three years after his conversion that he went up to Jerusalem, to see Peter; and when he did so he made but a very short stay with him, no more than fifteen days; nor, while he was there, did he go much into conversation; for others of the apostles he saw none, but James, the Lord's brother. So that it could not well be pretended that he was indebted to any other either for his knowledge of the gospel or his authority to preach it; but it appeared that both his qualifications for, and his call to, the apostolic office were extraordinary and divine. This account being of importance, to establish his claim to this office, to remove the unjust censures of his adversaries, and to recover the Galatians from the impressions they had received to his prejudice, he confirms it by a solemn oath (Gal 1:20), declaring, as in the presence of God, that what he had said was strictly true, and that he had not in the least falsified in what he had related, which, though it will not justify us in solemn appeals to God upon every occasion, yet shows that, in matters of weight and moment, this may sometimes not only be lawful, but duty. After this he acquaints them that he came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia: having made this short visit to Peter, he returns to his work again. He had no communication at that time with the churches of Christ in Judea, they had not so much as seen his face; but, having heard that he who persecuted them in times past now preached the faith which he once destroyed, they glorified God because of him; thanksgivings were rendered by many unto God on that behalf; the very report of this mighty change in him, as it filled them with joy, so it excited them to give glory to God on the account of it.

Barclay: Gal 1:6-10

The basic fact behind this epistle is that Paul's gospel was a gospel of free grace. He believed with all his heart that nothing a man could do could ever earn the love of God; and that therefore all a man could do was fling himself on his mercy in an act of faith. All a man could do was take in wondering gratitude what God offered; the important thing was not what we could do for ourselves but what he had done for us.

It was this gospel of the free grace of God that Paul had preached. After him there came men preaching a Jewish version of Christianity. They declared that, if a man wished to please God, he must be circumcised and then dedicate his life to carrying out all the rules and regulations of the law. Every time a man performed a deed of the law, so they said, that was a credit entry in his account with God. They were teaching that it was necessary for a man to earn the favour of God. To Paul that was utterly impossible.

Paul's opponents declared that he was making religion far too easy and doing so to ingratiate himself with men. In fact that accusation was the reverse of the truth. After all, if religion consists in fulfilling a mass of rules and regulations, it is, at least theoretically, possible to satisfy its demands; but Paul is holding up the Cross and saying, "God loved you like that." Religion becomes a matter, not of satisfying the claims of law, but of trying to meet the obligation of love. A man can satisfy the claims of law, for they have strict and statutory limits; but he can never satisfy the claims of love, for if he gave his loved one the sun, the moon and the stars he still would be left feeling that that was an offering far too small. But all that Paul's Jewish opponents could see was that he had declared that circumcision was no longer necessary and the law no longer relevant.

Paul denied that he was trying to ingratiate himself with men. It was not men he was serving; it was God. It made no difference to him what men said or thought about him; his master was God. And then he brought forward an unanswerable argument. "if," he said, "I were trying to curry favour with men I would not be the slave of Christ." What is in his mind is this--the slave had his master's name and sign stamped on him with a red-hot branding iron; he himself bore on his body the marks of his sufferings, the brand of the slavery of Christ. "If," he said, "I were out to curry favour with men would I have these scars on my body?" The fact that he was marked as he was was the final proof that his aim was to serve Christ and not to please men.

John Gunther tells us of the very early communists in Russia. Many of them had been in prison under the Czarist regime and bore on their bodies the physical marks of what they had suffered; and he tells us that, so far from being ashamed of the marks which disfigured them, they were their greatest pride. We may be convinced that they were misguided and misguiding, but we can not doubt the genuineness of their allegiance to the communist cause.

It is when men see that we are prepared to suffer for the faith which we say we hold that they begin to believe that we really hold it. If our faith costs us nothing, men will value it at nothing.

Constable: Gal 1:6-10

B. Denunciation 1:6-10

In these opening words Paul rebuked his readers for turning away from the gospel that he had preached to them and for turning toward a different "gospel." He accused them of being religious turncoats. He did so to impress them with the great folly of their action. The fiery opening of this epistle presents it "like a lion turned loose in the arena of Christianity."¹⁵

"The general proposition or causa of the letter is to persuade the Galatians to reject the Judaizers' nongospel and to continue in the true gospel Paul had preached to them."¹⁶

1:6-7 In every other one of his canonical epistles Paul commended his readers before launching into the main subject of his letter regardless of his general purpose in writing. Here he recorded no such praise. Its absence stressed the seriousness of his readers' error and the urgency of his appeal.

The best evidence points to Paul's writing Galatians before the Jerusalem Council, held in 49 A.D., and after he and Barnabas evangelized Asia Minor on their first missionary journey (Acts 13-14).¹⁷ Consequently it had been only a few months since his readers had accepted the gospel that he had preached to them and had turned from it. The Greek word thaumazo ("I am amazed") was a conventional expression in Greek letters that signaled astonishment, rebuke, disapproval, and disappointment.¹⁸ The Greek word tacheos ("quickly") also has the sense of easily (cf. 2 Thess. 2:2; 1 Tim. 5:22). The one who had called the Galatians was God (cf. v. 15; 5:8).

"Gospel," of course, means good news. However, the "gospel" that fascinated his readers was not good news.¹⁹ It was bad news. Teachers of false doctrine who were stirring up unrest had followed Paul. The root of the word translated "disturbing" (v. 7) is one that describes the opposite of what the word translated "peace" (v. 3) means. These teachers were distorting the good news of Christ.

Paul consistently referred to the Galatian trouble-makers in the third person but addressed his readers in the second person. This strongly suggests that the false teachers originated outside the church rather than from within it. We must deduce who they were from what Paul wrote about them in this epistle (cf. 1:6-9; 2:4-5; 3:1; 4:17; 5:10, 12; 6:12-13). Probably they were Jews who were putting pressure on Gentiles to believe and to live as religious Jews.²⁰

1:8 Paul leveled his strongest verbal artillery against these teachers. Whoever they were they apparently claimed the highest authority for their teaching since Paul warned his readers to reject it even if it had come from angelic messengers sent directly from heaven. By "accursed" Paul meant under God's judgment.

"In Paul's eyes, the acknowledgment of Jesus as Messiah logically implied the abrogation of the law . . . If Christ displaced the law as the activating centre of Paul's own life, he equally displaced the law in the economy of God, in the ordering of salvation-history. Therefore, if the law was still in force as a way of salvation and life, the messianic age had not yet dawned, and Jesus accordingly was not the Messiah."²¹

1:9 He even repeated his warning for emphasis. The prior warning in verse 9 probably refers to what Paul had told them when he was with them in person rather than to what he had just said in verse 8.²² "We" implies Paul and his fellow missionaries, not just Paul alone.

"The vehemence with which Paul denounces those who teach another gospel (literally, he say, Let them be damned') has bothered some commentators, as well as other readers of the letter. But this shows how little the gospel of God's grace is understood and appreciated and how little many Christians are concerned for the advance of biblical truth."²³

"Accursed" evidently refers to being under God's judgment, not just excommunication, since an angel could be the possible object.

1:10 The false teachers evidently charged Paul with preaching to curry the favor of his listeners, perhaps to gain a large number of converts to enhance his own reputation.

"There have always been preachers who have sought popular acclaim above all else, and there are some still. It is part of fallen human nature that even those charged with the responsibility of proclaiming the gospel can fall into the trap of trying to be popular rather than faithful."²⁴

Paul's critics may have accused him of preaching one thing to some people and the opposite to others (cf. 5:2 and 11). It is understandable how some people might have concluded this (cf. 1 Cor. 9:22). However, Paul's argument in this verse was that a person can only be the slave of one master. Paul was claiming to have behaved among them consistent with his commitment to Christ as his master.

". . . his uncompromising attitude as reflected in the severity of his language in condemning the counterfeit gospel (vv. 8f.) is proof positive that he is no men-pleaser."²⁵

Paul liked to describe himself as a "bond-servant" (Greek doulos) in relation to Christ (cf. Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1). This Greek word also describes Moses (Rev. 15:3), the Old Testament prophets (Rev. 10:7; 11:18), and the apostles (2 Cor. 4:5). Moreover it describes Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:7), Christian leaders (1 Tim. 2:24), James (James 1:1), Peter (2 Pet. 1:1), and Jude (Jude 1). Furthermore it describes John (Rev. 1:1), Christians (Acts 4:29; 1 Cor. 7:22; Gal. 4:7; Eph. 6:6; 1 Pet. 2:16; Rev. 1:1, 2:20), Tribulation saints (Rev. 7:3), and all believers (Rev. 19:2, 5; 22:3, 6) in the New Testament.

"Already in these opening verses the two key concepts in the letter have surfaced--gospel and grace."²⁶

College: Gal 1:1-24

GALATIANS 1

I. AUTHORITY:

THE APOSTOLIC GOSPEL (1:1-2:21)

A. GREETING (1:1-5)

¹ Paul, an apostle - sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead - ² and all the brothers with me, To the churches in Galatia: ³ Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, ⁴ who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, ⁵ to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

1:1 Paul, an apostle

Using the typical formula of ancient letter writing ("X to Y, greetings"), Paul identifies himself by name and by position of authority. His Roman name Paul was in keeping with being born in Tarsus, a Roman colony. His Jewish name Saul was a result of being born "a Hebrew of Hebrews." Both names were common in the first century. During the early years of rigorous adherence to the Jewish religion he was known primarily as Saul. On the first missionary journey, however, there was a deliberate switch to his Roman name (Acts 13:9ff.), apparently to make it easier for him to reach the Gentile audience.

An "apostle" (ajpovstolo" , apostolos ) is "one sent." In classical times the word carried two basic ideas: (1) an expressly stated commission, and (2) being sent overseas. In the New Testament one general sense of the word is the equivalent of "missionary" (from the Latin missio , "sending"). This is the meaning when the word is applied to Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Titus (2 Cor 8:23), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25), and possibly Andronicus and Junias (Rom 16:7). But these are clearly "apostles" sent by men. In a much more special sense an "apostle" was one of the men hand-picked and sent out by Jesus. These were the men who were promised special authority (Matt 16:19; John 20:23), the men whose doctrine was the rule of faith and practice for the early church (Acts 2:42). This kind of "apostle" is like the Hebrew jwlv (šaluas ), of which the Mishnah says, "a man's delegate is like himself." This is clearly the kind of apostleship Paul is claiming for himself in Galatians.

-sent not from men nor by man,

It is important to Paul that the Galatians remember his apostolic authority. While it is true that he and Barnabas were once "sent out" by men at Antioch as missionaries, this is not the foundation of his authority. Paul is an apostle in the fullest sense of the word, commissioned apart from any human intervention. (Could Paul have been thinking of Matthias, who was chosen to replace Judas? This is possible, though not probable, in this context.)

but by Jesus Christ and God the Father,

Notice that Paul's statement here does two things. First, it sets Paul apart as a special apostle, chosen by Jesus Christ himself through the encounter on the Damascus road. Second, it subtly but distinctly "sets Christ in a category apart from ordinary man" (see also v. 12). It was not any man that chose Paul - it was Jesus Christ!

who raised him from the dead-

Paul is eager to establish the core of the gospel truth in his opening verses. Jesus gave himself to save us from our sins (v. 4) and God the Father confirmed the validity of that sacrifice by raising him from the dead. It is by this act of grace, not by any works of law, that the Galatians are saved. Paul elsewhere recognized this death and resurrection as the core of the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-3) and the theme of his preaching and apostleship (1 Cor 2:2).

1:2 and all the brothers with me.

Paul usually includes in his opening statement the name of

an associate: Sosthenes in 1 Corinthians, Silvanus in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Timothy in six epistles. R. J. Bauckham has made the unlikely suggestion that Paul's generalizing phrase "covers his embarrassment in not being able to ask his partner to endorse the letter" after the painful incident narrated in 2:11-13. More likely, Paul wants to emphasize that in contrast to the local distortion of the gospel in Galatia, "all the brothers" elsewhere stand together with Paul in the true gospel.

To the churches in Galatia:

The churches in Galatia likely included several cities (Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe) Paul visited on his missionary journeys. While Galatia is often identified on Bible maps as the ethnic area to the north of any journeys Paul made, the Romans designated both the northern area and the southern area including these cities as "Galatia." Since Paul normally used Roman designations, it is likely that his "Galatia" took in the cities named in Acts 13:14-14:23. It might be further inferred that Paul intended this document to be carried by messenger and read in turn by all the churches, since each church could see "what large letters" he wrote at the end (6:11).

1:3 Grace and peace to you

There are two main ideas to the word "grace" (cavri" , charis ). The first is sheer beauty - the idea of charm and loveliness. The second is sheer undeserved generosity-the loving favor that God gives to

people who have not earned it. Putting it in somewhat more theological terms, Bruce says grace is God's "unconditioned good will towards mankind which is decisively expressed in the saving work of Christ."

Peace, on the other hand, is a natural result of grace. Peace is the "state of wholeness" enjoyed by those who have effectively experienced divine grace. They have not struggled to earn God's approval, nor must they find some way to earn the right to keep it. Because grace has been freely given, peace can be securely enjoyed.

The joining of grace and peace in the greeting is a reminder of the dual nature of Paul's ministry: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Grace was the normal word of salutation at the beginning of a Greek letter; peace was the normal word of salutation at the beginning of a Jewish letter. The combination is "characteristically Pauline."

from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,

The only real source of either grace or peace is God, acting through his Son. Some in Galatia were teaching converts to abandon grace for legalism, which would leave them without peace, never knowing if they had kept the rules well enough to be saved.

Paul's linking here of the work of Father and Son is typical. Later in this letter he will speak of both the grace of God (2:21) and the grace of Christ (1:6). In other epistles he can speak similarly of the peace of God (Phil 4:7) and the peace of Christ (Col 3:15).

1:4 who gave himself for our sins

As noted above, Paul wants to establish from the beginning what is the important theme of Christianity. Salvation is not based on man's ability to keep God's rules, but on Christ's ransom, paid with his blood. It was Christ "who gave himself as a ransom for all men" (1 Tim 2:6, cf. Mark 10:45). As the Galatians will be reminded, the atoning sacrifice of Christ is not compatible with man-made salvation. Either Jesus saves us, or we save ourselves.

to rescue us from the present evil age,

Paul wrote similarly to the Colossians that God "has rescued us from the dominion of darkness" (Col 1:13). The specific word for "rescue" (ejxairevomai , exaireomai ) used here in Galatians is found in five places in the book of Acts, each illustrating a dramatic act of saving someone just in the nick of time:

1. The rescue of Joseph from his afflictions (7:10).

2. The deliverance of Israel from Egypt (7:34).

3. The rescue of Peter from prison (12:11).

4. The rescue of Paul from the temple mob (23:27).

5. The deliverance of Paul from the Jews (26:17).

In Christ we have our timely rescue . . . but from what? Our deliverance in Christ is "not from the physical world but from the evil which dominates it." It is a rescue from temptation, sin, and legal condemnation. Even the Law of Moses, as an expression of the "elemental powers of this world" (Gal 4:3), is a part of the present evil age. The evil "age" (aijw'n , aiôn) of which Paul writes is much the same as the "world" (kovsmo" , kosmos ) in John. Both describe the lost world, loved by God, but heading in a direction that will end in doom.

according to the will of our God and Father,

It is God's will that we be saved! We do not need to do some heroic act to convince an unwilling God that he should change his mind about us. We do not even need to initiate some contact with him to apply for salvation. He has loved us; he has wanted us to be saved; he has sent his Son to pay for our pardon. The Father has stretched out his arms to us, and it is but for us to surrender to that love.

1:5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

In none of Paul's other letters does he add a benediction like this to the end of his salutation. Perhaps it helps take the place of the missing thanksgiving. Since Paul could not praise his audience, he gives all praise to God. Or perhaps, as Bruce suggests, "As this letter was read in the churches of Galatia, the hearers would add their 'Amen' to Paul's at the end of the doxology, thus endorsing the ascription of glory to God." This would set the tone for both writer and audience, giving God all the credit for man's salvation.

B. PAUL'S ASTONISHMENT (1:6-10)

⁶ I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- ⁷ which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. ⁸ But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! ⁹ As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! ¹⁰ Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

1:6 I am astonished

There can be no word of thanksgiving here, as in all Paul's other letters, because Paul found so little in the Galatian situation for which to be thankful. Like a grieving parent to a wayward child Paul can only blurt out his shock and dismay: "I am astonished at you!"

that you are so quickly deserting

Paul's term for "deserting" (metativqesqe , metatithesthe ) can be found in secular writing when a person deserts one school of philosophy for another (Diogenes, 3rd century A.D.). It is also found in 2 Macc 7:24 where Antiochus was trying to convince the 7th and last son of a devout mother to "turn from the laws of his fathers." Like our word "deserter," Paul's word carries a strong flavor of reproach.

In this verse and the next, Paul shows his shock over what his Galatian converts have done. It has been no more than perhaps a matter of months since Paul has been with them in Galatia. How appalling:

- to desert so quickly.

- to desert from so much.

- to desert to so little.

the one who called you by the grace of Christ

While "the one who called you" could refer to Paul himself, it is more likely God who has called them, and God whom they have deserted. In Scripture vocabulary "call" most often refers to what God has done, rather than what his spokesmen do. Just as God had "called" Paul himself "through his grace" (Gal 1:15), so it is God who calls all his children to his eternal glory in Christ (1 Pet 5:10, cf. Gal 5:8).

An important principle has been either overlooked or abandoned here by the Galatians. God can call people by law or by grace, but not both at the same time. The two are mutually exclusive. Salvation can be either a gift of grace or a payment rendered for services received.

and are turning to a different gospel -

The gospel, of course, is the "good news" (eujaggevlion , euangelion ) about Jesus Christ. This good news is that Jesus is the Messiah who saves us by his atoning death on the cross - not by our own works. The distinctive biblical tone of the word for "gospel" comes especially out of the use of its verb form (eujaggelivzomai , euangelizomai ) in Isaiah. Note especially Isaiah 52:7, where the word is used twice: those who "bring good news" and "bring good tidings" are proclaiming a deliverance accomplished by God. Note also Isaiah 61:1, as quoted by Jesus in Luke 4:18, where the mission of the Messiah was to "preach good news to the poor."

Now if this is what "gospel" is - the good news of deliverance by God's own hand - then what is a "different" gospel? To answer this question we must first note the distinction in two separate Greek

words for "different" (e{tero" , heteros and a[llo" , allos ). A heteros gospel would be something very different from the original, something that is not the same at all. An allos gospel would be one that is another of the same type as the first. What Paul says literally is that the Galatians have turned away to a gospel that is completely different from the "good news" kind of gospel (v. 6), one which is not at all another gospel of the same kind (v. 7). They had turned from salvation by God's hand to an attempt at salvation by their own hand.

We could compare this with the similar situation which existed later in Corinth. Paul complained to them, "For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough" (2 Cor 11:4).

1:7 which is really no gospel at all.

The KJV confuses the issue by saying they have turned "unto another gospel" ( heteros ) "which is not another" ( allos ). As explained with the previous verse, Paul is charging them with leaving the true gospel for a false one. They have turned from salvation by God's grace to salvation by human works.

Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion

Who are these people? Since Paul always speaks of them in the third person ("they"), while always addressing the church in the second person ("you"), the troublemakers are not a part of the church itself. Whether they are former Jews (as in Acts 15:5) or Gentiles who have come under the influence of Jews (as in Acts 14:19), the result would be much the same. The present tense indicates that these Judaizers are still in Galatia, and Paul intends to combat them in their very act of heresy.

"Throwing you into confusion" is literally "troubling you" (taravssw , tarassô). This is a strong word for causing emotional distress, as in the case of Herod when he heard about the birth of a new king (Matt 2:3; see also John 12:27; 13:21; and 14:1). Interestingly enough, this is the same word used in the letter drafted by the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:24) to counteract the way in which certain unauthorized brethren had "troubled" the Gentiles with the issue of circumcision. An even stronger word will be used of these troublemakers in Gal 5:12.

and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

This is no innocent misunderstanding of the gospel. Their calculated objective is to alter the message in such a way as to pervert the gospel of Christ. To "pervert" (metastrevfw , metastrephô) is to change something from what it is to a different state or form. When something is already perfect, the change can only be destructive. As Paul has noted earlier in this same verse, the Judaizers' form of the gospel is no longer a gospel at all.

Burton observes that the troubling of the emotional state of the local Christians is already an established fact, but the perversion of the gospel is "yet only a wish of the disturbers."

1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven

"It is the message, not the messenger, that ultimately matters. The gospel preached by Paul is not the true gospel because it is Paul who preaches it; it is the true gospel because the risen Christ gave it to Paul to preach." The issue is not whether Paul is more authoritative than the troublemakers; the issue is preserving the original truth of the gospel.

To illustrate the point that the true gospel can never change, Paul creates a hypothetical scenario. Suppose Paul ("we" meaning Paul himself, as in v. 9) should announce a revision of truth. Better yet, suppose an angel right out of heaven should arrive and begin changing the gospel. What should believers do? In the 19th century a major cult grew out of just this kind of situation. In September of 1823 Joseph Smith claimed that he had been visited by Moroni, a heavenly being who revealed the location of golden plates which contained "the fullness of the everlasting gospel of Jesus Christ." Smith claimed to have translated these plates and this became the Book of Mormon. While most non-Mormons do not believe any such angel appeared to Joseph Smith, it would not matter if the story were entirely true. Not even an angel from heaven has the right to change the original gospel.

should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you,

In Paul's hypothetical scenario the gospel is not being denied or denounced; it is merely being changed. Something "other than" the simple truth is being preached; instead of the true gospel, something "besides" (parav , para ) and in addition to the truth is proclaimed. The original gospel becomes somehow remodeled and revised. Simple faith in Christ is no longer sufficient; now circumcision and other laws are added. Again, what should believers do?

let him be eternally condemned!

Paul's verdict on himself, on an angel from heaven, or on anyone else who would presume to change the gospel is surprisingly harsh. Let him be anathema ! ( Anathema , ajnavqema , is the regular Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew word serem (mrj ), "ban." In a holy war everything and everybody that fell under such a ban was to be destroyed, as in Josh 6:17.) Such a person is to be considered the sure object of God's wrath, and people who value their own safety should stand back! (See also Paul's use of anathema in Rom 9:3.)

Why so harsh? Because the perverted gospel would not save! This strong language shows how great is the gulf between Paul and those who would "improve" the gospel by adding new requirements or prohibitions to it.

1:9 As we have already said, so now I say again:

Paul frequently refers to himself as "we" (1 Thess 2:18; 3:1, 6;

2 Cor 1:13f., 23; 10:2; 11:21). What he has "already said" does not refer to v. 8, but to teaching in Galatia on some former occasion. "Now," as distinguished from that earlier time, Paul must teach the same truth again.

If anybody is preaching to you

Verse nine differs from verse eight in at least three ways. The first is that verse eight uses the word "if" (ejavn , ean ) to set up a condition of future hypothesis, while the "if" (eij , ei ) of verse nine sets up a condition of present reality. Similarly, the second difference between the two statements is that verse eight uses the subjunctive to speak of something which might happen, while verse nine uses the present indicative to speak of what is happening already.

a gospel other than what you accepted,

The third difference between the warnings of verse eight and nine is that verse eight defines the original gospel as "the one we preached to you," while verse nine defines it as "what you accepted." This may seem like a small difference, but it serves to bring the Galatians themselves into the matter of judging the truth. "You have heard the original gospel," Paul says. "You are capable of comparing whatever you now hear to the truth of what you accepted in the beginning."

The word "accepted" (paralambavnw , paralambanô) is the regular word for receiving a tradition carefully handed down. The Galatians were not casually remembering something they carelessly heard. They were carefully taught and would have precise recollection of the message.

let him be eternally condemned!

As before, Paul announces a harsh verdict for anyone who distorts the gospel. In this verse the warning amounts to this: "If, as

I know to be the case, certain people there right now are trying

to change the gospel, mark them as people destined to receive

destruction from God. You know very well what the truth is. Take note of those who teach anything else and stand clear of them!"

The Christians in Galatia knew what was being taught that was different from the gospel, and they knew who the people were who were teaching it. Paul expects them to take his words "eternally condemned" and apply them directly to the guilty parties.

1:10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God?

When Paul says "now" he implies that some thought it had not always been so. They have charged that Paul lacks conviction and character, that he will say whatever people want to hear. It is easy to see how Paul could have been accused of being inconsistent, since some did not understand what he was doing when he became as a Jew to the Jews, and as a Gentile to the Gentiles (1 Cor 9:22). But "now" Paul challenges his critics to judge his courage to speak the truth even when it is unpopular. Paul clearly cares only for the approval of God.

Another interpretation of this verse is that winning the approval of men is exactly what Paul is trying to do. Bruce argues from Paul's only other use (2 Cor 5:11) of "win the approval" or "persuade" (peivqw , peithô), that persuading men is exactly what Paul is trying to do. "It is much more satisfactory to take him to mean that he persuades men, not God, and pleases God, not men." Following the NIV, however, it is more true to the flow of the context to understand Paul as saying the same thing in this question as he asks in the next part of this verse. "Do I try to persuade men (to approve me) or God (to approve me)? Do I try to please men, or God?"

Or am I trying to please men?

Paul no longer cares how men might evaluate him. He could well say here, as he would later say to the Corinthians, "I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court" (1 Cor 4:3). To his own master, not to his fellow servants, Paul will stand or fall (Rom 14:4). He will tell the truth about the gospel and let the chips fall where they may.

If I were still trying to please men,

In this expression Paul uses a grammatical device known as a

"contrary-to-fact condition." Paul knows the accusation of trying to please men is not true, and expects his readers to share his viewpoint. The addition of the word "still" implies that what was once true is now no longer true. To be sure, Paul did once glory in the praise of his teachers and students as he excelled in early training as a rabbi. But now that he has given his life to the Christ he met outside Damascus, Paul cares only about pleasing him.

The same grammatical device is also found in 5:11, where Paul says, "If I were still preaching circumcision. . . ." What he once did, he now does no longer.

I would not be a servant of Christ.

Paul has learned what Jesus taught: no man can serve two masters. If a man serves public opinion, he cannot serve Christ. If he starts catering to the wishes of men, he can no longer satisfy the will of God. What is true for Paul is also true for all followers of Jesus.

C. PAUL'S CALL BY GOD (1:11-17)

¹¹ I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. ¹² I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. ¹³ For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. ¹⁴ I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. ¹⁵ But when God, who set me apart from birth ^a and called me by his grace, was pleased ¹⁶ to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, ¹⁷ nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

^a 15 Or from my mother's womb

1:11 I want you to know, brothers,

Paul has wanted to focus attention on the message rather than the messenger. In spite of this, in order to defend the message it now becomes necessary to speak at length about himself. This autobiographical section (1:11-2:14) occupies nearly one-fifth of the whole letter. Despite the formality of "I make known to you" (gnwrivzw , gnôrizô), the section has a friendly, personal tone, as seen in Paul's reference to his readers as "brothers." In the course of six chapters Paul will call them "brothers" a total of nine times (1:11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18).

that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up.

It must not be overlooked that it is the gospel - not Paul himself -that is being defended in these verses. The gospel Paul preached to the Galatians in the beginning (v. 8) and which the Galatians themselves received (v. 9) is not of human invention. By using the aorist tense of past action ("preached") Paul wants to put the emphasis on the original gospel, not on the current standing of himself as the preacher. The phrase "something that man made up" is literally "not according to man," signifying that the true gospel draws neither its origin nor its authority from men.

1:12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it;

Paul did not "receive" (paralambanô, as in v. 9) the gospel as a person would faithfully listen and then pass on a tradition. The word normally implies receiving an oral tradition. While liberal theologians have many theories about the traditions that shaped Paul's gospel, Paul himself emphatically denies any such origin. Likewise, Paul affirms that he was not "taught" (didavskw , didaskô) the gospel. This word speaks of formal instruction in a classroom or at the feet of a master teacher. Other people knew the gospel by hearsay, by oral communication, or by instruction from Christian teachers, but Paul did not.

rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Paul's knowledge of the gospel came literally "through revelation of Jesus Christ." Revelation points to a divine implanting of knowledge in Paul's mind, not a fallible human effort to memorize and understand a body of facts. God revealed; Paul received. By this method none of the truth of the gospel depended on Paul's efforts to learn or remember. As with the other apostles, inspired truth was not a human work, but a work of the Spirit (John 14:26).

Since the Greek can be translated as a revelation either "from" or "of" Jesus Christ, Bruce argues it is more likely the revealing of Jesus to Paul by God, based on the similar phrase in 1:16. While it is possible to take the phrase in this way as an objective genitive, it seems unlikely. Paul is making a specific contrast-from man or from Christ-and this contrast would be lost if Christ is the content of the message, while the source of the message (God) is not stated, but merely implied.

1:13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism,

In order to underscore the fact that no man had a hand in teaching Paul the gospel, it is necessary to recount how Paul came to know the gospel. They may have heard of his early life from Paul's own lips, but the defection of Gamaliel's star pupil to Christianity was probably a well known event among Jews everywhere. To the extent that the Galatian audience included former Jews and those heavily influenced by former Jews (cf. v. 7), they knew all about Paul's background.

It is interesting that Paul refers to his way of life "in Judaism." He does not call it a time when he served God under the previous covenant; it is almost as though God had nothing to do with it. Similarly, in the next verse Paul will refer to "Judaism" and "the traditions of my fathers." These references show a clear-cut break with the past. Christianity is not just another sect of the Jews.

how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.

At that earlier time in Paul's life he was intensely ("according to a hyperbole," "beyond measure") persecuting the church of God. Since no fanatic is as ruthless and cruel as a religious fanatic, it is not surprising to read that young Paul assisted the stoning of Stephen, was ravaging the church, and dragged men and women from their homes to prison (Acts 8:1-4). His intent was to destroy the church, though he could no more have succeeded in his task than a man could conquer a glacier with an ice-pick.

It might be noted in passing that calling the Christian community the "church of God" was not an attempt to give it an official title. While this is the most common designation in Scripture for the church, it is also known by a wide variety of other descriptive names: the church, the church(es) of God, the church of the Lord, the churches of Christ, the body of Christ, the household of God, the church of the firstborn.

1:14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age

Paul himself relates in Acts 22:3 that "under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers, and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today." Not only so, but he was apparently at the top of his class, "advancing beyond many his own age." (The same word for "advance" is found in a similar context in Luke 2:52, where Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, in favor with God and men.)

and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

Paul was literally "a zealot to an excessive degree." This should probably not be linked too closely with the "zealots" who were political nationalists (cf. Acts 1:13). Paul was simply a zealous student in his youthful attempt to master the traditions of his fathers. These traditions were the teachings of the rabbis, faithfully memorized and passed on by each generation until A.D. 200, when they began to be written down in what is called the Mishnah. These teachings had little to do with Scripture exegesis, but dealt rather with the minute interpretations of things clean and unclean, actions permitted and forbidden. When one peruses the conflicting opinions in some 800 pages of the modern Oxford translation of the Mishnah, it is not hard to see why Paul associated this learning with the "fathers" and not with God. But the point not to be missed is that up to this point, Paul had no source of information for his gospel and no probable reason for ever learning it.

1:15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace,

Early manuscripts are evenly divided between "he who set me apart" and "God who set me apart," and thus modern translations differ ( NIV , NKJV and NRSV have "God"; NASB and RSV have "he"). Either way, it is clearly the work of the Father that Paul has in mind, and no man had a hand in it. In language that is "strongly

reminiscent" of that of Jer 1:5 and Isa 49:1, 5, Paul shows a clear sense of God's call that began even "from his mother's womb." Paul was "called to be an apostle, and set apart for the gospel of God" (Rom 1:1) by the gracious gift of God.

1:16 was pleased to reveal his Son in me

Although Paul is necessarily directing a lot of attention to himself in these verses, the real center of Paul's attention is God. It is God who set him apart, who called him, and who revealed his Son to him. Therefore it is God, and not man, who stands behind the gospel Paul now preaches. As in v. 12, Paul again affirms that God gave him this gospel by revealing it to him, not by a prolonged period of teaching or an indirect chain of human transmission. The prepositional phrase "in me" is a substitute for the simple dative "to me" and carries by implication the idea "and through me to others." The New English Bible catches the force of it with this translation: "to reveal his Son to me and through me."

so that I might preach him among the Gentiles,

The joy of glad tidings is involved in the word "preach" (eujaggelivzomai , euangelizomai ), a verb form of the word for "gospel." The present tense of this verb emphasizes the ongoing nature of Paul's task, a continuing lifetime of proclaiming the good news about Jesus. Although the legalistic supporters of the Old Testament law objected, the Jerusalem Conference endorsed and supported Paul in this mission (Acts 15:24-26; Gal 2:9). Paul's urgency in carrying out his commission can be seen often in his epistles (Rom 1:15; 1 Cor 2:2; 9:16; Eph 3:4-6; Col 1:28). Even though Paul yearned for the salvation of his fellow Jews (Rom 9:1-5), his preaching would be primarily to Gentiles.

I did not consult any man,

Following his baptism by Ananias (Acts 9:18) Paul did not seek out Christian leaders to learn the gospel from them. He did not consult "any man" (literally "flesh and blood" as in Matt 16:17). God's plans for him called for a period of three years away from any of the leaders of the church, as proof that his message was from heaven. The remainder of this chapter proves that Paul was never in a position to obtain his doctrine from the other apostles, which would have made his a second-hand gospel.

1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was,

The expression "go up" to Jerusalem is common in the N.T., even when one travels from north to south, as from Damascus down to Judea. This going "up" is due partly to the mountain elevation of Jerusalem, but even more to its spiritual importance. Acts 9:23 confirms that Paul did not go to Jerusalem for a long time after his conversion. When he did finally get to Jerusalem (v. 18) the Christians were still afraid to associate with him. The point of all this is that Paul had no opportunity to obtain the gospel from human sources.

but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

Arabia probably refers to the Nabatean kingdom, stretching from just outside Damascus down to Petra (its capital, 50 miles south of the Dead Sea) and beyond. Paul later notes that King

Aretas, known from other sources to be king of the Nabateans, was ruler of "Arabia" in 2 Cor 11:32. Arabia was well populated with Gentiles, the people to whom Paul was commissioned to preach. It would be a hasty assumption, therefore, to conclude that Paul went to a distant land and for three years did no preaching. Since Acts 9:20 says Paul immediately began preaching the gospel in the synagogues of Damascus, he did not need three years of solitary discipling. Moreover, as noted in the next verse, Paul does not say he spent three years in Arabia, but that it was three years before he left Damascus for Jerusalem. It is much more satisfactory to see Paul preaching immediately in Damascus, preaching soon afterwards in nearby parts of Arabia, returning for some time in Damascus, and finally journeying to Jerusalem.

Damascus is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world (cf. Gen 14:5). Josephus put its Jewish population at from 10,500 ( Wars 2.561) to 18,000 ( Wars 7.368).

D. PAUL'S BRIEF MEETING WITH LEADERS (1:18-24)

¹⁸ Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter ^a and stayed with him fifteen days. ¹⁹ I saw none of the other apostles - only James, the Lord's brother. ²⁰ I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. ²¹ Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. ²² I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. ²³ They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." ²⁴ And they praised God because of me.

^a 18 Greek Cephas

1:18 Then after three years,

The Jews of Damascus developed a fierce hatred for this rising young Pharisee who had suddenly turned Christian. Paul's escape in a basket lowered over the wall is related in Acts 9:23-25, and his subsequent visit to Jerusalem in Acts 9:26-30. It should also be noted that the Jews normally counted time from one New Year's Day to the next, and counted the fraction of a year on either side as a year. Taken in this way, Damascus - Arabia - Damascus could have been as little as thirteen or fourteen months.

I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.

For the first time since his conversion, Paul journeyed south from Damascus and began the long winding road that climbs up to Jerusalem. His purpose was to visit Peter (NIV), or Cephas (most translations). Cephas is an Aramaic name meaning "rock," while Peter is a Greek name meaning "rock." In John 1:42 Jesus had made clear the connection when he said, "You shall be called Cephas, which is translated Peter." Paul regularly uses the name Cephas

(1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14), using the name Peter only twice (Gal 2:7, 8).

While James (v. 19) would later become the leader of the church in Jerusalem, Peter was the primary leader in those earliest years. As an apostle himself, Paul would naturally desire to get acquainted with Peter eventually. His purpose was not to obtain schooling as a preacher, as is shown by his choice of verb ("get acquainted") and by the brevity of his visit (fifteen days).

1:19 I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the Lord's brother.

This verse creates three problems for interpretation. Before those are addressed, however, Paul's clear logic must be observed. He has been preaching the gospel for three years already, and has not had any previous occasion in which to be taught the gospel by man. Now on this occasion he sees only a couple of the leaders and is with them for a mere two weeks.

The first problem is Paul's assertion that he saw none of the other apostles. In the account of Acts 9:27, however, Barnabas brought Paul "to the apostles" and convinced them to receive Paul. While it seems probable that Acts 9:27 intends mere reference to any part of the twelve, and not numerical precision in its use of the plural, other interpretations have been made. Perhaps the plural includes Peter and James (although see below). Perhaps Acts 9 is an earlier trip (although Paul should then have mentioned it). Or perhaps the use of "apostles" in Acts means leaders in general (although this is not common in Acts).

The second problem is how to understand that James was a brother of the Lord. When certain leaders in the 4th century began pressing for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, this became a hot issue. Based on the naming of James and three others as brothers of Jesus in Mark 6:3, Helvidius correctly maintained that they were the natural sons of Mary and Joseph after Jesus' birth. Epiphanius said they were Joseph's children from a previous marriage; Jerome held them to be first cousins. There is no evidence to refute Mark 6:3, however, and it is best to accept Paul's description of James as "the brother of the Lord." (This is also the James who wrote the book of James.)

The third problem is whether Paul intends to include James as an apostle. It must be admitted that "the most natural way to understand Paul's construction is: 'The only other apostle I saw (apart

from Cephas) was James the Lord's brother.'" It is also possible, however, to take it to mean 'I saw none of the other apostles, but I did see James the Lord's brother.'" This mention of James would fit with Paul's purpose of listing all the occasions when he could have had any instruction at all. Although this James is not to be considered as an apostle, he did become the primary leader of the Jerusalem church at a fairly early point in history (1 Cor 15:7; Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18). While James did become a witness of the risen Lord (1 Cor 15:7), so did hundreds of other disciples (1 Cor 15:6). To be an apostle, one must be chosen, commissioned and sent forth by the personal call of the Lord.

1:20 I assure you before God that what I am writing to you is no lie.

Paul's sudden oath before God startles the reader who is comfortably retracing the early years of Paul's life. The outburst no doubt was also startling to the Galatians. J. Paul Sampley has suggested that Paul is speaking a rhetorical form well known in the Roman legal system. When two parties went to court, the defendant could be challenged to take an oath. He could take the oath and win the case, or he could throw back the challenge to the plaintiff, who would then win the case. If the defendant would neither swear nor throw back the challenge he was condemned. Sometimes, as perhaps the case here with Paul, a defendant would voluntarily indicate that he was willing to take an oath. This would show how sure he was that he was in the right. Quintilian noted that such an oath should not be volunteered "unless it is absolutely necessary," since it was "scarcely becoming to a self-respecting man."

Paul's oath, therefore, becomes all the more surprising. Roman law restricted it unless absolutely necessary, and Christ's teaching forbade it outright (Matt 5:34). In defense of Paul it should be noted that he was in an emergency situation: the souls of his spiritual children in Galatia were at stake! Furthermore, it could be said that Paul's statement does not constitute a formal oath in court, but a formal awareness that God is witness to what he says. (Cf. similar statements in 1 Thess 2:5; 2 Cor 1:23; 11:31.)

1:21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia.

At this point in history Syria and eastern Cilicia constituted a single Roman province. Since Syria was the more important half, and the site of the provincial headquarters, the area was usually named with Syria first. In Paul's history in the book of Acts, however, it was actually Cilicia to which he first traveled. When trouble in Jerusalem had made it dangerous for him to stay, the disciples sent him to Tarsus, his original home town (Acts 9:11), an important Cilician city with a population of half a million people. Later, when the Gentile church in Antioch needed teachers, Barnabas went to Tarsus to recruit Paul (Acts 11:25-26). So Paul labored for a year in Antioch, the capital of Syria, a city ranking behind only Rome and Alexandria in size and importance in the Roman Empire. In both areas Paul served as a leader, not as a student, and he was well beyond reach of opportunity to learn his gospel from the apostles.

1:22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

Literally "unknown by face," Paul had so little contact with Jerusalem and the other apostles that he would not have been recognized if the Christians of that area were to meet him. In referring to the "churches of Judea" (cf. 1 Thess 2:14) Paul follows his regular practice: the "church" in a city is singular, while in a province or more extensive area, the "churches" are plural.

1:23 They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."

Paul's use of the imperfect tense stresses that they "kept on hearing" the remarkable report. Perhaps the news was told and retold because many people just found it too incredible to accept on first hearing (Acts 9:26). It is significant that the Judean churches observed no difference between the gospel for which they had been persecuted and the gospel Paul now preached. Those who had followed the original apostles simply said Paul "is now preaching the faith."

1:24 And they praised God because of me.

The Christians in Judea finally believed what they were hearing about Paul and were thankful for the work he was doing in Antioch. One wonders if they had to resist their human nature and a desire to lionize this famous convert. They could have made quite a show of this trophy, parading him from church to church, making him a saintly celebrity. But the text says they praised God.

Having reaching the end of chapter one, as we now divide Paul's letter, we will do well to summarize what Paul has said. Shockingly, the Galatians have turned to a gospel different from the original. Paul is a preacher of the original gospel, and cares only about the approval of his God. This gospel has not evolved from Paul's early education, nor from later contact with Christian leaders. It is God's revealed truth.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Gal 1:10

For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. [Paul's enemies accused him of being a time-serving, man-pleasing factionist, who, to gain for himself a large party of adherents, had allowed the Gentiles undue liberty, even receiving them into the fellowship of the church without subjecting them to the essential rite of circumcision, thus being content to let them rest in a low state of imperfection and perhaps even risk their salvation rather than alienate their affections by telling them unpalatable truths, or making unwelcome requirements. Paul therefore makes his present conduct an answer to all this. Neither in his present utterance or in his life since his conversion had he proved himself such a time-server. On the contrary, however, whenever a crisis arose requiring him to make a choice between pleasing man and God, he had spoken God's unpleasant truths freely, regardless of their effect on human friendship. Whatever he had done when he was a Pharisee to please priest or people, he was not continuing to do so now. He was no longer a Jew, a Pharisee, or a persecutor of Christians as he would be if he were pleasing men, but he was a servant of Christ; though being so involved being misunderstood, hated, slandered, persecuted and reviled.]

Lapide: Gal 1:1-24

SAINT PAUL'S EPISTLE TO

THE GALATIANS

CHAPTER 1

CONTENTS

The Galatians were Gentiles who emigrated from Gaul into Greece, and so were called Gallo-Greeks. Suidas thinks that these Gauls were Sennonians, who, under the leadership of Brennus, invaded Rome, but being repulsed by Camillus, crossed over into Greece, and were there overthrown by a storm of rain and hail while they were attempting to plunder Delphi—the few, he says, who escaped were called Gallo-Greeks or Galatians. However, Justin (lib. 25), S. Jerome, and others give a different account of them. The Galatians were bounded by Cappadocia on the east, Bithynia on the west, Pamphylia on the south, and the Black Sea on the north. According to Pliny (lib. v. c. ult.), their chief cities were Tanium, Pessinuntis, and Ancyra. Of their language, S. Jerome, in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Proem. lib. 2, in fine ), says: "Apart from the Greek used by the whole of the East, their proper language is the same as that of the Treviri"—that is, German. Since, then, the Galatians derived their tongue together with their origin from the Gauls, some think that German was the language of these latter, and they add that the Franks proceeded from German Franconia and thence obtained their name. Moreover, Clovis, the first Christian king of the Frankish Gauls, is styled Sicambrian. So did S. Remigius address him when coming to be baptized: "Meekly bow thy neck, 0 Sicambrian; adore what once thou didst burn; burn what thou once didst adore" (Greg. Tur. de Gestis Franc. lib. 31). Now it is certain that the Sicambrians were Germans. In short, S. Jerome, Josephus, and Isidore lay down that the Galatians were descendants of Gomer, sprung from the Gomari or Cimbri, who were either Germans, or else closely akin to the Germans.

These Galatians some converted Jews had induced to accept a Judaised Gospel, by quoting the example of Peter and other Apostles, who observed the Mosaic Law. Accordingly, S. Paul sharply rebukes them, and calls them back, pointing out that Christians are free from the Old Law, and cannot be subjected to it. Although, he says, the Jews might keep it for a time, so as to give it an honourable burial, yet Gentiles—and such the Galatians were—had not this reason, or any other, for embracing the law of Moses. If, therefore, they had embraced it, they must he supposed to have done so under the belief inculcated by the Judaising Christians, that the law as well as the Gospel was necessary to salvation. This error the Apostle condemns by his declaration, that the profession of Judaism is the overthrowing of Christianity; for the Christian religion holds that Judaism has been done away, and that there is room for no religion save that of Christ, which alone is necessary and sufficient for salvation. This is the error that the Apostle so sharply condemns.

The argument of this Epistle, accordingly, is the same as that of the Epistle to the Romans, of which this may be considered an epitome, and with which it has many ideas and expressions in common, as is pointed out by Jerome, Anselm, Theophylact, and Chrysostom. There is, however, this difference between the two, that in the Epistle to the Romans he opposes both Jews and Gentiles, here Jews only; there he rejects the works of the law as well as the works of nature, here those of the law only, that he may establish the faith of Christ and the works of faith. This, then, occupies the first part of the Epistle, viz., chap. i. to v. 12; chap. v. 13 to the end is concerned with moral instruction.

Ephrem Syrus, Jerome, Athanasius, Theodoret, and others think that the Epistle was written at Rome ; but Chrysostom and Baronius reject this opinion, on the ground that mention of his imprisonment, customary in his other letters from Rome, is wanting in this. They think, therefore, that it was written before the Epistle to the Romans, and at Ephesus, or some other city of Greece. But the time and place of writing can be determined neither from the Epistle itself nor from any external authority; and in this respect it is the most obscure of all S. Paul's Epistles.  S. Jerome and Augustine wrote elaborate commentaries on it, which are still extant.

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

i. He chides the Galatians for suffering themselves to be seduced to Judaism, from the Gospel preached by him, by innovators and false teachers, against whom he pronounces an anathema.

ii. He shows (ver. 11) the certitude of his Gospel, from the fact that he received it directly from Christ.

iii. He describes (ver. 13) how, from the Judaism which he was vigorously defending, he was converted to Christ, and set apart for the preaching of the Gospel, and how he traversed Arabia, Damascus, Syria, and Cilicia.

Ver. 1 . — Paul, an apostle, not of men. That is, because the other Apostles were sent by Christ while still mortal, Paul by Christ when wholly deified, and therefore in every way immortal. So says S. Augustine. But the simpler explanation is to take not of men to mean, not of mere men, but of Christ, man and God.

There is a fourfold mission, says S. Jerome. Some are sent by God alone, as Paul; some by God through man's instrumentality, as Joshua was through Moses; some by man alone, as those who are promoted by their friends to be abbot, dean, or bishop; some by themselves, as heretics. The preposition "of" ( ab ) therefore, used here, denotes the principal cause, while "by" ( per ) denotes the instrumental; for the meaning is that he was not called by man, nor by God by means of man, but immediately by God Himself.

Ver. 4.— Who gave Himself.— to be an expiatory victim for an atonement, and to the death of the Cross, that He might pay the price of our redemption.

For our sins. " Righteousness Himself," says S. Jerome, " gave Himself, that He might destroy the unrighteousness in us; Wisdom gave Himself to undo our foolishness; Holiness and Fortitude offered Himself, that He might blot out our uncleanness and weakness."

From this present evil world. Why does he call the world evil? The Manichæans reply: Because the world is material, it is evil and the creation of the devil. But this is a foolish reply. The evil world is worldly and carnal life and conversation, such as this world lives, and such as it invites us to; and worldly men are such as by hook or by crook hunt after the goods of this world only—riches, honours, and pleasures. The figure of speech here is a metonymy; the world is put for those who are in, or who are coming into the world. " The whole world lieth in wickedness. Not that the world itself is evil, but that things in the world become evil through men. So says the Apostle himself: Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Sylvan glades become of evil report when they are filled with sins; not that the soil and the trees sin, but because the very places gain notoriety for murder. So the world (seculum, i.e., a period of time, in itself neither good nor evil ) is called good or evil through the actions of those who are in it " (S. Jerome in 1Jo 5:19).

Note that the word here rendered evil in the Greek, πονηρου̃, is rendered by S. Jerome bad, by Augustine great, by Erasmus crafty or miserable or full of toils, by Vatablus wearisome, especially on account of sins committed in this present life, which affords so many occasions of sin; whereas the future world, to which Christ is leading us, is free from sin and is altogether pure. Valentinus evolved from his own consciousness his own æons or worlds, declaring them to be animated beings, and the parents by quadrads, ogdoads, decads, and dodecads, of as many worlds as the son of Æneas had pigs (S. Jerome).

Ver. 6.— I marvel that ye are so soon removed— from Christianity to Judaism, from the liberty of the Gospel to the slavery of legal ceremonies, from the church to the synagogue. "The allusion," says S. Jerome, "is to the Hebrew, 'to roll,'" and hints that, "You Galatians are as easily moved as a globe or a wheel, since you suffer yourselves to be so quickly transferred from the Gospel of Christ to the law of Moses." Elsewhere, however, S. Jerome sees an allusion to ללנּ, "milk," and supposes that the Galatians were so called from the whiteness of their skin.

From Him that called you. You are apostates from the Gospel, nay, from God and Christ Jesus, and that to the greatest injury and contempt of God and Christ, who called you, without any merits of your own, nay, against your demerits, out of His abounding love, into grace, reconciliation, friendship with God, and salvation.  S. Jerome reads, by the grace of Christ, instead of into the grace of Christ, and so gets a more forcible rendering: I marvel that ye are so soon removed unto another Gospel from Christ, who called you by His grace, i.e., out of pure love and unmerited good-will towards you; I marvel that ye are so readily become apostates from God and from Christ, who hath called you so graciously and lovingly; that ye are so ungrateful, so heedless of His love, that ye trample on it.

Unto another gospel. Unto another doctrine about salvation, and your Saviour Christ, as though mine and Christ's were not sufficient, as though Moses must be taken into partnership with Christ, and the ceremonial law wedded to the Gospel. For even if these Judaisers preach that the Gospel is to be embraced together with the Mosaic law, yet they, thereby preach another Gospel, and destroy the true Gospel preached by Paul. For, according to him, the true Gospel of Christ is this: The law of Christ is necessary and sufficient to salvation, nor can any other be admitted. Whoever introduces or allows to be introduced any other, is injurious to Christ and His law, as implying that it is insufficient, and he, therefore, robs Christ, his only Redeemer, of His glory, and brings in another Saviour. This is what the Judaisers did. They declared the insufficiency of the law of Christ by adding to it the law of Moses as requisite for salvation and bliss. Hence they overturned the Gospel by introducing another, nay, a contrary Gospel. Therefore the Apostle proceeds,

Ver. 7.— Which is not another. S. Jerome and Ephrem omit another, and interpret the clause: "You transfer yourselves to another Gospel, which indeed is no Gospel." The meaning of the received text is "You transfer yourselves to another Gospel, which still is not another; for there is no other true Gospel save that which I have preached unto you." To which Ephrem adds: "But as they are, so is it." As their teachers are apostates, Judaisers, deceitful liars, so is their Gospel heretical, Judaising, deceitful, and false. If the Judaisers, who left the Gospel and teaching of Paul and the Church intact, overturned the Gospel and the Church of Christ, much more do the Protestants overturn it by introducing new dogmas contrary to the Catholic Church.

Unless there are some. This depends on I marvel. I marvel that ye so soon fall away from the Gospel, unless it be that there are some who are troubling you. And when I think this I partly cease to marvel, and I impute your defection to them rather than to you; for you would not have fallen away, if you had not been enticed and deceived.

That trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. To pervert is to subvert, according to Chrysostom. Properly, however, it is to invert, or to turn, as when the outside of a garment is turned inside because it is worn, and the less worn inside becomes the outside. Or, as Jerome says, when what is in front is put behind, and vice versâ. So the Church is like a garment of which the part in front or outside, and now somewhat worn thread-bare, was the old Church or the synagogue, with its Mosaic law, while the after part, or inner and sounder, is the new Church with Christ's Gospel. This Christ so changed round that He substituted the inward for the worn outward side, so making the after or the inner part, viz., the Gospel, the front or the outer, and putting it before all, to be known and adopted as the robe of righteousness and salvation. These self-appointed teachers wished to turn again this garment inside out, and to put the law first, and to subordinate to it the Gospel—in short, to exchange the spirit of piety breathed forth by the Gospel for Jewish ceremonies. So the Judaisers perverted, i.e., inverted the Gospel of Christ by substituting for it the law of Moses, and setting that before the Gospel (S. Jerome).

Ver. 8. — But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Understand. If that can be done; for, as a matter of fact, it is impossible, for the angels are established as in bliss so in all truth. It is an hyperbole, like that in 1Cor 13:i.: " Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels." S. Jerome quotes here a happy remark of Tertullian directed against Apelles and his virgin Philumena, which latter was filled by some perverse angel with an evil spirit, to the effect that this was an angel who, long before Apelles was born, was described as accursed by the Holy Spirit, speaking through, the Apostle. Such was the angel who taught Luther, and instructed Zwingli on the Eucharist, and about whom the latter writes, that he did not know whether it was black or white. But it is certain that it was a black angel, and that against it was directed the Apostle's anathema, as against one introducing a new Gospel, a new faith, and new dogmas, contrary to the accepted creed.

Observe how great is the certainty of the faith preached by the Apostles, confirmed by God by so many signs and miracles, and transmitted to us by the continuous tradition of so many centuries, and reflect how firm and constant in it we should be. So much so that we may better deny the evidence of our senses, of our reason, of the authority of all men and angels—even if they should work miracles as proof,—impossible though this really is—then deny the teaching of faith. For faith rests on the original revelation of God, who is the First and Incommutable Truth; all else may deceive and he deceived. Nay, to state an impossibility, if God were to reveal a faith contrary to that which we have received, and which He originally revealed Himself, we should be bound to believe the first, and not the second. For if He should reveal one contrary, He would be changed and would cease to be God, and the First and Infallible Truth; but since this is impossible, it follows that God cannot give a contrary revelation, and hence that those who teach contrary doctrine get it not from God but from their own heads, or else by revelation from devils.

We have here, then, a canon of faith given us by the Apostle, to this effect. If a new dogma arise anywhere, let it be examined to see whether it agree with the ancient, received faith of the Catholic Church, first preached by Paul and the Apostles; if it be found discordant, let it be regarded as heretical and accursed. This is a canon followed by all the Fathers.

" If any dispute arise," says Irenæus, " about any, even a small question, will it not be our duty to have recourse to the oldest churches, and to gather from them what is clear and certain with reference to the question in dispute?" ( Adv. Hær. lib. iii. c. x.).

So Tertullian: " I will lay it down as a canon that what the Apostles preached, what Christ revealed, ought not to be proved except by the same churches which the Apostles themselves founded. If this is so, it is clear that all doctrine which agrees with those Apostolic churches, being the very wombs and originals of the faith, must be put down as true, and all the rest condemned as false, without further examination "( de Præs. xxi.).

And again: " What is earlier in tradition is shown by its very date to be the Lord's and to be true; what has come in later is an importation and false " (Ibid. c. xxxi.). So Origen " Every one is to be counted a heretic who, while professing to believe in Christ, believes in a matter of faith otherwise than the traditional definition of the Church declares. " ( Hom. in S. Matt. 19)

This same rule is supported by Vincent of Lerins in his golden treatise on Præscription, against the impious novelties of heretics. " Antiquity is to be followed, novelty spurned. When certain innovators were going throughout provinces and cities, offering their errors for sale, and had arrived among the Galatians; and when the Galatians had given them a hearing, and were taken with a distaste for the truth, so much so that they, as it were, vomited the manna of apostolic and Catholic teaching, and were delighted with the filth of heretical novelty, then the authority of the apostolic power made itself heard in these stern words. 'Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.' What is this that he saith: 'Though we?—why not rather, 'Though I?' He means: 'Though Peter, though Andrew, though John—indeed, though the whole college of Apostles preach unto you anything beside what we have preached, let them be accursed.' An awful pronouncement! It is but a little thing to spare neither himself nor the other Apostles, so as to secure the firm continuance of the faith first preached. But he adds: 'Though an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.' It was not enough to bind men to preserve the faith delivered them—he must also bind angels. 'Though we,' he says, 'or an angel from heaven.' Not that the holy and heavenly angels can sin; but supposing it were possible that they should, if any one of them were to attempt to change the faith once delivered, let him be accursed " (lib. i. c. 12).

So S. John Damascene, who, like a roaring lion, attacked the iconoclastic Emperor Leo the Isaurian: " Hearken, ye peoples, tribes, tongues—men, women, boys, old men, young men, infants, the whole army of Christian saints: 'Though any one preach unto you anything beside that which the Catholic Church has received from the Holy Apostles, from the Fathers and Councils, and has preserved to this day, hear him not, nor follow the counsel of the serpent, as Eve did, who thereby drew upon herself death. Though an angel, though a king preach unto you anything beside what you have received, stop your ears. For I fear lest the warning of Paul be fulfilled, 'Let him be accursed'" ( Orat. 2 de Imagin.). He ends thus because he knew that it was the prerogative of Bishops, not of monks, of whom he was one, to pronounce anathema, as Baronius acutely notes ( Ann. A.D. 730, in fine ). So S. Augustine: " I do not accept what the Blessed Cyprian held on the baptism of heretics, because the Church, for whom Cyprian shed his blood, does not accept it" ( contra Cresconiuin, lib. ii. c. 31, 32). And the other Fathers follow him, and the reason they do so is clear. It is because the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1Ti 3:15). Whoever, therefore, following his own imaginations, teaches any new thing against her mind and doctrines, errs and strays from the home of truth and from truth itself, as S. Augustine urges in a fine dilemma. " Answer," he says—" Did the Church come to an end or not?" ( i.e., when Donatus arose). " Choose which you like. If she had come to an end, who was the mother who bore Donatus? If on the other hand, she could not have come to an end while so many had been gathered into her without your baptism, tell me, I pray you, what madness was it which induced the followers of Donatus to withdraw themselves from her, as if they were so avoiding communion with the wicked " ( contra Gaudentium, lib. ii. c. 8).

In the same way I will now conclude as follows: On the rise of Luther, Calvin, Menno, and other Protestants, either the Church and the true faith came to an end or they did not. For these two—the true Church and the true faith—are necessarily connected, so much so that if in a single point, say the Invocation of Saints, the Church were to leave the track of the true faith, she must become heretical, and the Church, not of God but of Satan; just as any individual who maintains a single heresy, even though he be otherwise orthodox, is a heretic. I repeat therefore, when Calvin arose, either the Church came to an end or she did not; if she did, and had not existed since the time of Gregory the Great, as the Protestants say, then the Church had been extinct for 900 years, that is to say, the world for 900 years was without true faith, true religion, sacraments, Church, and salvation; therefore for 900 years Christ deserted His Bride; therefore the Eternal Kingdom of Christ had fallen, for Christ reigns in His Church; therefore the gates of hell had prevailed against His Church; therefore Calvin was born outside the Church, was no member of the Church, but an unbeliever, a heretic, or a pagan; therefore he had not claim to be received by the people, by the world, and listened to as one of the faithful, but he should have been despised and rejected as an unbeliever not belonging, to the Church. If, however, the Church had not come to an end, and Calvin was born, baptized, educated, and brought up in the true Church—then, since he was born, baptized, educated, and brought up in the Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church, that Church was clearly a true Church, holding the true faith. Therefore, when he withdrew from her, and shut himself up in his new dogmas, he separated himself from the true faith and from the Church, and became an apostate. Therefore, when he established another and a reformed Church, it was not a true, apostolic, but an apostate, schismatical, heretical Church that he founded—a mistress and school, not of the faith, but of new doctrines and heresies. Let a fair-minded reader, who sincerely seeks in ignorance the true faith, outside which no one can be saved, consider and weigh the force of this dilemma, and ask himself whether there is any escape from its conclusions, whether the rule here given is not a touchstone of what is true in doctrine and in faith.

Any other gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. The Protestants hence conclude: Therefore the decrees of councils and the canons of pontiffs are accursed, because they contain many things not in the Gospel, and are consequently a Gospel other than that preached.

I reply: Other ( præterquam ) is here what is contrary to the accepted faith, such as are the doctrines of heretics.

1. This appears, firstly, because Paul is writing against the Judaisers, who were trying to introduce Judaism beside ( præter ), that is, against the Gospel. It was just as if any one were to try to add Calvinism or Mohammedanism to Christianity. He would be introducing a new law and society beside, i.e., against Christianity. Accordingly, in ver. 6, he calls this another Gospel, and in ver. 7 he says that the preachers of it pervert, or, as Chrysostom styles it overturn the Gospel of Christ.

2. It is clear and certain that not only an angel but Paul himself knew more, and consequently might have preached more truths than he did (2Co 12:1 and 2Co 12:6).

3. Paul constantly orders, as Christ did, the commands of Apostles and superiors to be obeyed (Act 16:4; Heb 13:I7).

4. Moreover, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Œcumenius explain the phrase as I have done. In 1 Cor. 2 the Apostle uses παρά ( præter ) in the sense of against, when he writes: " Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ ;" for he would set up another Christ, just as one who makes another Pope sets up an, anti-Pope, or he who invites another king into a kingdom sets up an enemy of the true king and a tyrant. Similarly, in Rom 11:24: " If thou wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive-tree "—contrary to nature is παρά φύσιν ( præter naturam ).Even in Latin we often use the same meiosis. For example, Terence ( Andria ) says, " Præter civium morem atque legem," i.e., against law and custom. So, too, in Greek, as, e.g., Aristotle ( de Cælo, lib. i. c. i) says παρά φύοιν, beside, i.e., against nature; παρά νόμον, beside, i.e., against law .

With this compare Deut. iv. " Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it." Ye shall not add to the precepts which I shall give you anything contradictory of them, especially, ye shall not add the worship of some new deity, for this the whole chapter, and indeed the whole Book of Deuteronomy, intends to forbid. Nor shall ye add, in the sense of saying that your words are mine; for to no one is it allowed to put forth his own writings or commands, as the commands of God or as the Holy Scriptures.

There is a similar phrase in Rev 22:18: " I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." As a matter of fact, prophets and Apostles have added many things to this Scripture. Nay, Moses, in Deut. iv. 2, would contradict himself in Deu 17:12, where he orders the words of the priest to be obeyed. Accordingly S. Augustine excellently explains this passage: " The Apostle does not say, 'More than you have received,' but, 'Beside that which you have received.' For if he had used the former phrase, he would condemn himself for saying that he wished to come to the Thessalonians to supply what was wanting to their faith. But he who supplies what is lacking merely adds, he does not take away what is already there. He, however, who oversteps the rule of faith does not approach the goal in the road, but departs from the road " ( Tract. in Joan. 99).

You will say perhaps: "Why, then, did the Apostle not say against instead of beside?" Chrysostom's answer is that he wanted to make it clear that any is accursed who even indirectly undermines the least important doctrine of the Gospel. But there is another reason, and that is, the Judaisers, against whom this passage is primarily directed, were introducing their Judaism beside the Gospel, i.e., their Jewish rites and sacraments, which by this very attempt became contrary to the Gospel and the New Law of Christ, as I said before.

We preach. I.e., by word or by writing. He does not, therefore, exclude, but rather includes traditions given by word of mouth only, for these he expressly orders to be observed in 2Th 2:14.

Accursed. Heb. cherem. See comment on this word under Rom 9:3.

Ver. 10 . — Do I now persuade men, or God? Theophylact, Vatablus, and Erasmus explain this to mean: " Am I now persuading you to human things or to Divine?"—as though the Apostle were showing, not the persons he was addressing, but his subject-matter, i.e., what he is putting forward to be believed. For the Judaisers were boasting that they followed Peter, John, James, who, by their example, seemed to teach the observance of the Old Law. In contrast to them Paul exclaims that he follows not men, or the doctrine of men, but God and His doctrine, and persuades others to do the same. It is from God that I have received what I have preached, and therefore I preach not human things, but Divine.

There is a second interpretation, which is not amiss, whatever Beza may say, which has S. Chrysostom's support. " Am I pleading a cause before men or before God?" For the word persuade (πείθειν ) is a forensic term, and implies a cause pleaded before judges. Hence S. Augustine interprets it here to mean, " I desire to render myself approved," and S. Ambrose renders it by I satisfy. When this Greek term is used in the sense of persuade, it is, as Beza admits, followed by an accusative of the person. Persuade is then here used in the sense of an inchoate act, "I try to persuade," according to my canon 32.

That this sense is the more apt appears: (1.) Because to persuade God and men is a phrase referring rather to the men persuaded than to the subject-matter—this last interpretation would make the sentence obscure and involved. (2.) Because the next clause illustrates this when it says, " Or do I seek to please men?" which implies that as he does not seek to please men, so he does not seek to persuade them. So S. Jerome says that "any one is said to persuade when he tries to instil into others what he has himself imbibed and still keeps."

The sense then is this: I, Paul, speak so boldly and sincerely, and denounce a curse on Judaisers and all who preach another Gospel, because, although I once contended vigorously against the Gospel on behalf of Jews and their religion, yet now, illuminated by the Gospel-light, it is not to men, least of all to Jews, that I do my best to approve myself and my Gospel, but to God, whom alone I seek to please, that I may give a true and good account before His tribunal. In other words, I do not care what the Jews or others think of me, as being too bigoted, or an enemy of my country and its religion, for I seek to please God alone. Formerly I pleased them but displeased Him; and if I wished now to please them, I should again displease Him, for I should be establishing the law of Moses and destroying the grace of Christ.

If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. S. Jerome and Anselm remark that the desire to please men is a vice whereby a man so yields to others, so seeks their favour and good-will, that he is prepared to break the law of God and offend Him. But whoever seeks to please men, in such a way and with such an end in view as to lead them to God and His service, seeks not so much to please men as God.  S. Augustine says: " A man does not please others to any useful end, save when he is pleasing for God's sake; i.e., when it is God in him that pleases and is glorified, as when it is His gifts in a man that are regarded, or that are received through man's instrumentality. For when a man is pleasing in this way, it is not now man that is pleasing but God." So S. Paul says, in 1 Cor. ix. 19-22, that he is made all things to all men, that he might gain all to Christ, S. Chrysostom, in his Hom. 29 in Epist. 2 ad. Corin., remarks how useless and contemptible are the favour and good report of this world; and S. Jerome devoutly and stoutly wrote to Asella, that he thanked God for being worthy of the world's hatred.

Ver. 11 . — The Gospel which was preached of me is not after man. It is not a human but a Divine Gospel; it is not man's but God's, or, as Ephrem puts it, it is not from man, i.e., it does not spring from man's opinions or from man's invention, but from God. Hence he adds:

Ver. 12 . — For I neither received it of man, neither was I taight it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Viz., when I was carried by Him into the third heaven (2Co 12:1).

Ver. 13 . — I persecuted the Church of God and wasted it. That is, I did my best to storm it and overturn it. Cf. Psa 129:1-2, The word translated waste here comes, as some think, from a word denoting the burning of a town by an enemy, or else, as Erasmus held, from one denoting the surrounding of it. Either way Paul's meaning is clear. He says this to remove from himself all suspicion of hatred of the Jews. Though they inveigh against me, he says, as their foe, yet my past life is sufficient answer. For I am myself a Jew, and fought more vigorously for Judaism than they, before God, by His call, changed my heart and enlightened it by faith in Christ.

Ver. 14.— In mine own nation being more exceedingly zealous. A more eager lover and follower; or better still, a more jealous lover of it, on behalf of the national institution, handed down to me from my ancestors; a zealot of the law though through ignorance. So much more when he knew the truth was he zealous for the Gospel, so expiating his former evil zeal. From this it seems that Paul's eager zeal was greater than that of his contemporaries, and acted as a handmaid and whetstone of virtue to him. For an eager nature does not creep along the ground, but, like a fire, leaps upwards and attempts to overcome all difficulties. On this, S. Augustine has some excellent remarks: " Souls that are capable of virtue and expansive often give birth to vices first, by which they show the virtue they are most adapted to produce, when they have been carefully disciplined. For instance, the hasty feeling which prompted Moses to revenge the wrong done to his brother in Egypt by a cruel Egyptian was indeed vicious, inasmuch as it overstepped the bounds of authority, but yet it gave great promise for the future. So in the case of Saul, when he was persecuting the Church, when God called to him out of heaven, smote him to the ground, lifted him up, drew him into the Church, he was as it were cut down, pruned, sown in the ground, and fertilised, for his very fierceness in persecuting the Gospel out of jealousy for the traditions of his fathers, thereby thinking that he was doing God service, was, like a vicious woodland growth, but a sign of greater power " ( contra Faustum, lib. xxii. c 70).

Ver. 15. — But when it pleased God. Vatablus has, "When it seemed good to God," which is too weak a rendering of εὺδόκησεν a word that denotes the free call of God's love to grace and salvation.

Who separated me from my mother's womb. Of His loving-kindness He separated me from my mother's womb, and caused me to be born into this world with this object in view, viz., to reveal His Son in me. Before all merit, and when not yet born, He predestined me; and when predestined, separated me from the womb, and caused me to be born; and when born He called me that He might bring me to the knowledge of Christ and His Gospel, and so to the apostleship, that I might preach Christ to the Gentiles.

S. Jerome remarks that the same thing is said of Jeremiah in Jer 1:5: " Before I found thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."Paul here alludes to this, for Jeremiah was a type of Paul. The Hebrew for sanctifier denotesboth sanctified and separated; for that is called sacred which is separated from father, mother, and all earthly things to be dedicated and consecrated to God. So Paul was separated by God's predestination from his mother's womb, and consecrated to the Gospel, to be a prophet and teacher of the Gentiles.

Mystically, says S. Anselm, from my mother's womb denotes "from the darkness of the synagogue to see the light of the Gospel."

Observe that segregatus, "separated," denotes one selected out of the flock, as the predestinate are selected by God out of the flock of men. So much more is an Apostle and Herald of the word of God separated from the many; and, as S. Chrysostom says, he ought to excel the many as a shepherd excels his flock. It was for this reason that the prophet exclaims, in Isa 6:5: " Woe is me! for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips." Woe is me! for I am nothing better than others, who are merely unholy themselves. See the comment on Rom 1:1.

Ver. 16 . — To reveal His Son in me. In my soul. The phrase is a Hebraism. He says in me rather than to me, to denote that he had received no bare revelation by ear or eye, but that in his inmost heart he had so entirely drunk in Christ and His teaching and Spirit that Christ was in him and spoke by him (Theophylact). Secondly, Jerome and Vatablus understand it, " To reveal His Son through me." Thirdly, Jerome has another interpretation more subtle than literal: "He does not say to me but in me, because Christ was already in Paul. For there were in him the principle of all virtues and of God, and the seeds of faith. These, however, he did not recognise, nor believe in them till God revealed them in him as being in his heart."

I conferred not with flesh and blood. I joined myself to no one; I conferred with no one about my vocation, or the revelation, or the way to act on it; I called into counsel no relations or any one else; but, knowing of a certainty that I had been called and taught by God, I followed God as my only teacher and leader. The word rendered confer denotes, says Budæus, to communicate secrets and counsels, to go to one's friends as counsellors and upright judges, that they may approve or disapprove, advise or dissuade, as they see fit.

Flesh and blood denotes, by synecdoche, the whole man consisting of these two elements. Cf. S. Matt. xvi. 17. I was not taught the Gospel, says S. Paul, by any man, for I conferred with none, but by revelation from God alone. See, then, 0 Galatians, how by rejecting it, and tainting it with an admixture of Judaism, you are tainting and rejecting the word of God, and even God Himself, who revealed it to me, that I might go and preach it.

It may be said: Why, then, did Paul afterwards go to Jerusalem to see Peter (ver. 18), and what is more, confer with him about the Gospel? I reply. He did not confer with him as though in doubt or imperfectly instructed, but that the faithful whom he taught might know him to be in communion with Peter and the other Apostles, to hold the same faith as they, that so they might give more credence to his preaching of the Gospel.

Jerome, however, refers the word immediately to the preceding clause, thus: " To reveal him immediately in the Gentiles I conferred not with flesh and blood." "Since I was ordered by God immediately to preach to the Gentiles, I immediately obeyed, so that I took no counsel with any man. Afterwards, however, I did confer with Peter, James, and John." The first explanation, however, is better. Or it may be rendered: I did not see, I did not cling to my earthly parents and relations, but, loving them, I followed the call of God (Augustine and Œcumenius).

Morally, he follows S. Paul's example who is called by God to the apostleship, to religion, to evangelical perfection, to heroic works, and does not yield to flesh and blood, but at once departs to gain that to which he feels himself called.  S. Jerome writes to Heliodorus: " 0 delicate soldier, what do you in your father's house? Where is the rampart, the fosse, the winter spent under tents? Call to mind the day of your enlistment, when you were buried with Christ in baptism, when you took your military oath that for His name you would spare neither father nor mother. Lo! the adversary is trying to slay Christ in your breast. Lo! the camp of the enemy is thirsting for the donative which you received when you started on your warfare. What, though a little grandson hang an your neck; though your mother, with dishevelled hair and garments rent, bare the breasts which suckled you; though your father lie on the threshold: go forth, trampling on his body, and with dry eyes hasten to the banner of the Cross. Filial piety demands that in this you be cruel . . .. The love of God and the fear of hell will easily break your fetters. If they believe in Christ, let them assist me who am about to fight for His name. If they do not, let the dead bury their dead."

Again, he writes to that noble widow, Furia: " The father will be sorrowful, but Christ will rejoice; the family will mourn, but there will be joy among the angels. Let your father do what he will with your goods. It is not he for whom you were born, but Christ, for whom you have been born again, who has redeemed you at a great price, even His own blood, of whom you have to think. Beware of nurses and bearers and venomous animals of that sort, who seek to fill their bellies with your husks. They advise not what is for your good but their own."

S. Bernard too, preaching on the text, "Lo, we have left all," says: " How many does the accursed wisdom of the world overcome, and extinguish the fire kindled in them, which the Lord had wished to see burn fiercely! Do nothing, it says, in a hurry: take plenty of time to think over it; it is an important step that you are proposing to take; you had better try first what you can do, and consult your friends, lest you come afterwards to be sorry for your action. This wisdom of the world is earthly, sensual, devilish, the foe of salvation, the destroyer of life, the mother of lust, and abominable unto the Lord."

Ver. 17. — Neither went I up to Jerusalem. But Acts ix. 26 represents Paul as flying directly after his conversion from Damascus to Jerusalem. Jerome and Lorinus, when commenting on that passage, say that he went to Jerusalem directly after his conversion, because compelled to seek safety in flight, not that he might see Peter and confer with him about the Gospel, for this latter is all that is denied here. Baronius replies differently, that Paul is not said directly after his conversion to have gone to Jerusalem, but after many days, i.e., after three years, spent partly in Arabia, partly in Damascus. After that he came to see Peter, as is said here (ver. 18), and afterwards went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia (Ver. 21). With this agrees Acts ix. 30, where it is said that the brethren brought him down to Cæsarea and sent him forth to Tarsus, which is the metropolis of Cilicia. If this be the true explanation, then S. Luke, in Acts 9., passes over the journey of Paul into Arabia, because in it nothing calling for mention had happened.

Both explanations are tenable. But the fear of the Apostles and the sponsorship of Barnabas (Act 9:26-27) favour the former. It is not likely that the miraculous conversion of Paul could for three years have remained unknown to the Apostles and the rest of the faithful at Jerusalem. If this be correct, then we must, with S. Chrysostom, marvel at the grace of God which so suddenly changed so bitter a persecutor as S. Paul was into a public teacher and a disputer with the Jews.

Ver. 18 . — Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter. Chrysostom and Theophylact remark on the distinction between ι̉δει̃ν and the word ίστορη̃σαι, used here. This latter is used of those who visit and go round splendid cities, like Rome, and carefully inspect its monuments, its Pontiff, its Cardinals, its clergy, and holy men. I came to Jerusalem, says S. Paul, to see Peter, not to learn anything from him (though Erasmus thinks that ίστορη̃σαι connotes this), for I had been taught from above, but merely to see and pay my respect to the chief of the Apostles (Theodoret, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome). In Gal. ii. 2 Paul gives another reason for his visit.

S. Chrysostom writes: " Peter was the chief and the mouth of the Apostles, and therefore Paul went up to see him especially " ( Hom. in Joan. 87). And S. Jerome on this passage: " Paul came to see Peter—not to gaze on his eyes, cheeks, and countenance—to see if he was fat or lean, if he had a hooked or a straight nose, whether he had hair on his head, or was (as Clement relates) bald headed. Nor is it to be supposed consistent with apostolical dignity, that after such a separation of three years he should wish to see anything in Peter that was merely human. Paul saw Cephas with those same eyes with which he himself is seen still by those who have power to see him. If this does not seem clear to any one, let him compare this sentence with the one before, in which it is said that the Apostles conferred nothing on him. For he went to Jerusalem, that he might see an Apostle, not to learn anything from him—for both had the same authority for their preaching but to do honour to one who was an Apostle before him." From this it is clear that Paul did not see Peter that he might be taught by him, as Erasmus and Vatablus think. For this is contradicted by Gal 2:6: " They added nothing to me," and by Gal 1:11-12, where he expressly says that he had been taught not by man but by God.

Ver. 19 .— But other of the apostles saw I none save James the Lord's brother. I.e., a cousin or relation of Christ's, for the Hebrews call cousins brothers. S. Jerome adds that S. James was called the Lord's brother before all the Apostles, even those related to Christ, on account of his lofty character, his incomparable faith and wisdom, which made him seem like a brother to Christ. For the same reason he was surnamed the Just. Secondly, S. Jerome says that Christ, when going to His Father, commended to James, as to a brother, the eldest children of His mother, i.e., those in Judæa who believed on Him; for this James, the son of Alphæus, the son of Mary, wife of Cleophas, one of the twelve Apostles, was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. This is why, in the First Council of Jerusalem, he was the first after Peter to pronounce judgment (Act 15:13). A Canonical Epistle of his is extant.

S. Jerome hints both here and in his book on Ecclesiastical Writers, when writing of James, that this James was not of the twelve Apostles, but was called an Apostle, only because he had seen Christ and preached Him. In this case we have three of the name of James—the brother of John, slain by Herod; the son of Alphæus, both of whom were Apostles; and this brother of the Lord. But since this brother of the Lord is called an Apostle, and there is no cogent reason for distinguishing him from James the Apostle and son of Alphæus, when, indeed, there are many reasons why we should identify them, the first opinion seems the better one.

Ver. 20. — Before God I lie not. Vatablus paraphrases this verse: " What I write unto you, behold I write before God—I lie not ;" and Theophylact agrees with him. But Ambrose and Augustine think that before God is a formal oath—I call God to witness. The Apostle asserts that he had not seen the other Apostles so strenuously that no one might be able to say that he had visited them in secret, and had not been taught by God (Jerome).

Ver. 22 . — And was unknown by face. The Christians in Judæa had not seen my face. He says this, says Chrysostom, to prove that he had not taught in Judæa, nor preached circumcision and the Old Law, as the Judaisers alleged he had done.

Which were in Christ— inHis faith and religion; which were Christians. See my canon 37.

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Galatians (Book Introduction)

The Epistle To The Galatians

Probable Date a.d. 56 Or 57

By Way of Introduction

It is a pity that we are not able to visualize more clearly the time and place of writing this powerful polemic against the Judaizers who were trying to draw away from the evangelical gospel the churches of Galatia. The data are not clear as in the Thessalonian and Corinthian Epistles. There are many things that can be said, but few are decisive. One is that the Epistle was written about seventeen years after Paul’s conversion, adding the three years of Gal_1:18 and the fourteen of Gal_2:1, though not insisting on the full number in either case. Unfortunately we do not know the precise year of his conversion. It was somewhere between a.d. 31 and 36. Another thing that is clear is that the Epistle was written after the Conference in Jerusalem over the Judaizing controversy to which Paul refers in Gal_2:1-10 and after the subsequent visit of Peter to Antioch (Gal_2:11-14). The natural interpretation of Acts 15:1-33 is to understand it as the historical narrative of the public meetings of which Paul gives an inside view in Gal_2:1-10. Not all scholars agree to this view, but the weight of the argument is for it. If so, that rules out the contention of Ramsay and others that Galatians is the earliest of Paul’s Epistles. It was written then after that Conference which took place about a.d. 49. It seems clear also that it was written after the Epistles to the Thessalonians (a.d. 50-51) which were sent from Corinth.

Did Paul mean by Galatia the Roman province as he usually does or does he make an ethnographic use of the term and mean the real Celts of North Galatia? Luke uses geographical terms in either sense. Certainly Paul preached in South Galatia in his first mission tour. See note on Act_16:6 for the discussion about the language there as bearing on his going into North Galatia. By " the churches of Galatia" Paul can mean the whole of Galatia or either South or North Galatia. The various items mentioned, like the illness that led to his preaching (Gal_4:13), " the first time" or " formerly" (Gal_4:13), " so quickly" (Gal_1:6), are not conclusive as to time or place. If Paul means only the South Galatian Churches (Pisidia, Lycaonia, Phrygia), then the Epistle, even if two visits had been made, could come some time after the second tour of Act_16:1. The place could be Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch. Even so room must be made for the seventeen years after his conversion plus the interval thereafter (some twenty years in all). If Paul includes North Galatia, the time would be more easily handled (the twenty years required from a.d. 31 to 36 to a.d. 51 to 57) and the place could be Ephesus, Philippi, or Corinth. Special treatises on the date of Galatians have been written by Askwith (1899), Round (1906), Steinmann (1908), Weber (1900)

Lightfoot held that the similarity of Galatians to Romans (written from Corinth spring of a.d. 56 or 57) naturally argues for the same general period and place. It is a possible hypothesis that, when Paul reached Corinth late autumn or early winter of A.D. 55 or 56 (Act_20:1.), he received alarming reports of the damage wrought by the Judaizers in Galatia. He had won his fight against them in Corinth (I and II Corinthians). So now he hurls this thunderbolt at them from Corinth and later, in a calmer mood, sends the fuller discussion to the church in Rome. This hypothesis is adopted here, but with full recognition of the fact that it is only hypothesis. The language and the topics and the treatment are the same that we find in Romans. Galatians thus fits in precisely between II Corinthians and Romans. It is a flaming torch in the Judaizing controversy. This Epistle was the battle cry of Martin Luther in the Reformation. Today it has served as a bulwark against the wild criticism that has sought to remove the Pauline Epistles from the realm of historical study. Paul is all ablaze in this Epistle with indignation as he faces the men who are undermining his work in Galatia.

JFB: Galatians (Book Introduction)

THE internal and external evidence for Paul's authorship is conclusive. The style is characteristically Pauline. The superscription, and allusions to the apostle of the Gentiles in the first person, throughout the Epistle, establish the same truth (Gal 1:1, Gal 1:13-24; Gal 2:1-14). His authorship is also upheld by the unanimous testimony of the ancient Church: compare IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3,7,2] (Gal 3:19); POLYCARP [Epistle to the Philippians, 3] quotes Gal 4:26; Gal 6:7; JUSTIN MARTYR, or whoever wrote the Discourse to the Greeks, alludes to Gal 4:12; Gal 5:20.

The Epistle was written "TO THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA" (Gal 1:2), a district of Asia Minor, bordering on Phrygia, Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Paphlagonia. The inhabitants (Gallo-græci, contracted into Galati, another form of the name Celts) were Gauls in origin, the latter having overrun Asia Minor after they had pillaged Delphi, about 280 B.C. and at last permanently settled in the central parts, thence called Gallo-græcia or Galatia. Their character, as shown in this Epistle, is in entire consonance with that ascribed to the Gallic race by all writers. Cæsar [Commentaries on the Gallic War, 4,5], "The infirmity of the Gauls is that they are fickle in their resolves and fond of change, and not to be trusted." So Thierry (quoted by ALFORD), "Frank, impetuous, impressible, eminently intelligent, but at the same time extremely changeable, inconstant, fond of show, perpetually quarrelling, the fruit of excessive vanity." They received Paul at first with all joy and kindness; but soon wavered in their allegiance to the Gospel and to him, and hearkened as eagerly now to Judaizing teachers as they had before to him (Gal 4:14-16). The apostle himself had been the first preacher among them (Act 16:6; Gal 1:8; Gal 4:13; see on Gal 4:13; "on account of infirmity of flesh I preached unto you at the first": implying that sickness detained him among them); and had then probably founded churches, which at his subsequent visit he "strengthened" in the faith (Act 18:23). His first visit was about A.D. 51, during his second missionary journey. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 16.62] testifies that many Jews resided in Ancyra in Galatia. Among these and their brethren, doubtless, as elsewhere, he began his preaching. And though subsequently the majority in the Galatian churches were Gentiles (Gal 4:8-9), yet these were soon infected by Judaizing teachers, and almost suffered themselves to be persuaded to undergo circumcision (Gal 1:6; Gal 3:1, Gal 3:3; Gal 5:2-3; Gal 6:12-13). Accustomed as the Galatians had been, when heathen, to the mystic worship of Cybele (prevalent in the neighboring region of Phrygia), and the theosophistic doctrines connected with that worship, they were the more readily led to believe that the full privileges of Christianity could only be attained through an elaborate system of ceremonial symbolism (Gal 4:9-11; Gal 5:7-12). They even gave ear to the insinuation that Paul himself observed the law among the Jews, though he persuaded the Gentiles to renounce it, and that his motive was to keep his converts in a subordinate state, excluded from the full privileges of Christianity, which were enjoyed by the circumcised alone (Gal 5:11, Gal 4:16, compare with Gal 2:17); and that in "becoming all things to all men," he was an interested flatterer (Gal 1:10), aiming at forming a party for himself: moreover, that he falsely represented himself as an apostle divinely commissioned by Christ, whereas he was but a messenger sent by the Twelve and the Church at Jerusalem, and that his teaching was now at variance with that of Peter and James, "pillars" of the Church, and therefore ought not to be accepted.

His PURPOSE, then, in writing this Epistle was: (1) to defend his apostolic authority (Gal 1:11-19; Gal 2:1-14); (2) to counteract the evil influence of the Judaizers in Galatia (Gal. 3:1-4:31), and to show that their doctrine destroyed the very essence of Christianity, by lowering its spirituality to an outward ceremonial system; (3) to give exhortation for the strengthening of Galatian believers in faith towards Christ, and in the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:1-6:18). He had already, face to face, testified against the Judaizing teachers (Gal 1:9; Gal 4:16; Act 18:23); and now that he has heard of the continued and increasing prevalence of the evil, he writes with his own hand (Gal 6:11 : a labor which he usually delegated to an amanuensis) this Epistle to oppose it. The sketch he gives in it of his apostolic career confirms and expands the account in Acts and shows his independence of human authority, however exalted. His protest against Peter in Gal 2:14-21, disproves the figment, not merely of papal, but even of that apostle's supremacy; and shows that Peter, save when specially inspired, was fallible like other men.

There is much in common between this Epistle and that to the Romans on the subject of justification by faith only, and not by the law. But the Epistle to the Romans handles the subject in a didactic and logical mode, without any special reference; this Epistle, in a controversial manner, and with special reference to the Judaizers in Galatia.

The STYLE combines the two extremes, sternness. (Gal. 1:1-24; Gal 3:1-5) and tenderness (Gal 4:19-20), the characteristics of a man of strong emotions, and both alike well suited for acting on an impressible people such as the Galatians were. The beginning is abrupt, as was suited to the urgency of the question and the greatness of the danger. A tone of sadness, too, is apparent, such as might be expected in the letter of a warm-hearted teacher who had just learned that those whom he loved were forsaking his teachings for those of perverters of the truth, as well as giving ear to calumnies against himself.

The TIME OF WRITING was after the visit to Jerusalem recorded in Act 15:1, &c.; that is, A.D. 50, if that visit be, as seems probable, identical with that in Gal 2:1. Further, as Gal 1:9 ("as we said before"), and Gal 4:16 ("Have [ALFORD] I become your enemy?" namely, at my second visit, whereas I was welcomed by you at my first visit), refer to his second visit (Act 18:23), this Epistle must have been written after the date of that visit (the autumn of A.D. 54). Gal 4:13, "Ye know how . . . I preached . . . at the first" (Greek, "at the former time"), implies that Paul, at the time of writing, had been twice in Galatia; and Gal 1:6, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed," implies that he wrote not long after having left Galatia for the second time; probably in the early part of his residence at Ephesus (Act 18:23; Act 19:1, &c., from A.D. 54, the autumn, to A.D. 57, Pentecost) [ALFORD]. CONYBEARE and HOWSON, from the similarity between this Epistle and that to the Romans, the same line of argument in both occupying the writer's mind, think it was not written till his stay at Corinth (Act 20:2-3), during the winter of 57-58, whence he wrote his Epistle to the Romans; and certainly, in the theory of the earlier writing of it from Ephesus, it does seem unlikely that the two Epistles to the Corinthians, so dissimilar, should intervene between those so similar as the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans; or that the Epistle to the Galatians should intervene between the second to the Thessalonians and the first to the Corinthians. The decision between the two theories rests on the words, "so soon." If these be not considered inconsistent with little more than three years having elapsed since his second visit to Galatia, the argument, from the similarity to the Epistle to the Romans, seems to me conclusive. This to the Galatians seems written on the urgency of the occasion, tidings having reached him at Corinth from Ephesus of the Judaizing of many of his Galatian converts, in an admonitory and controversial tone, to maintain the great principles of Christian liberty and justification by faith only; that to the Romans is a more deliberate and systematic exposition of the same central truths of theology, subsequently drawn up in writing to a Church with which he was personally unacquainted. See on Gal 1:6, for BIRKS'S view. PALEY [Horæ Paulinæ] well remarks how perfectly adapted the conduct of the argument is to the historical circumstances under which the Epistle was written! Thus, that to the Galatians, a Church which Paul had founded, he puts mainly upon authority; that to the Romans, to whom he was not personally known, entirely upon argument.

JFB: Galatians (Outline)

• SUPERSCRIPTION. GREETINGS. THE CAUSE OF HIS WRITING IS THEIR SPEEDY FALLING AWAY FROM THE GOSPEL HE TAUGHT. DEFENSE OF HIS TEACHING: HIS APOSTOLIC CALL INDEPENDENT OF MAN. (Gal. 1:1-24)
• HIS CO-ORDINATE AUTHORITY AS APOSTLE OF THE CIRCUMCISION RECOGNIZED BY THE APOSTLES. PROVED BY HIS REBUKING PETER FOR TEMPORIZING AT ANTIOCH: HIS REASONING AS TO THE INCONSISTENCY OF JUDAIZING WITH JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. (Gal. 2:1-21) Translate, "After fourteen years"; namely, from Paul's conversion inclusive [ALFORD]. In the fourteenth year from his conversion [BIRKS]. The same visit to Jerusalem as in Act 15:1-4 (A.D. 50), when the council of the apostles and Church decided that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised. His omitting allusion to that decree is; (1) Because his design here is to show the Galatians his own independent apostolic authority, whence he was not likely to support himself by their decision. Thus we see that general councils are not above apostles. (2) Because he argues the point upon principle, not authoritative decisions. (3) The decree did not go the length of the position maintained here: the council did not impose Mosaic ordinances; the apostle maintains that the Mosaic institution itself is at an end. (4) The Galatians were Judaizing, not because the Jewish law was imposed by authority of the Church as necessary to Christianity, but because they thought it necessary to be observed by those who aspired to higher perfection (Gal 3:3; Gal 4:21). The decree would not at all disprove their view, and therefore would have been useless to quote. Paul meets them by a far more direct confutation, "Christ is of no effect unto you whosoever are justified by the law" (Gal 5:4), [PALEY].
• REPROOF OF THE GALATIANS FOR ABANDONING FAITH FOR LEGALISM. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH VINDICATED: THE LAW SHOWN TO BE SUBSEQUENT TO THE PROMISE: BELIEVERS ARE THE SPIRITUAL SEED OF ABRAHAM, WHO WAS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH. THE LAW WAS OUR SCHOOLMASTER TO BRING US TO CHRIST, THAT WE MIGHT BECOME CHILDREN OF GOD BY FAITH. (Gal. 3:1-29)
• THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED: ILLUSTRATION OF OUR SUBJECTION TO THE LAW ONLY TILL CHRIST CAME, FROM THE SUBJECTION OF AN HEIR TO HIS GUARDIAN TILL HE IS OF AGE. PETER'S GOOD WILL TO THE GALATIANS SHOULD LEAD THEM TO THE SAME GOOD WILL TO HIM AS THEY HAD AT FIRST SHOWN. THEIR DESIRE TO BE UNDER THE LAW SHOWN BY THE ALLEGORY OF ISAAC AND ISHMAEL TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR GOSPEL LIBERTY. (Gal. 4:1-31) The fact of God's sending His Son to redeem us who were under the law (Gal 4:4), and sending the Spirit of His Son into our hearts (Gal 4:6), confirms the conclusion (Gal 3:29) that we are "heirs according to the promise."
• PERORATION. EXHORTATION TO STAND FAST IN THE GOSPEL LIBERTY, JUST SET FORTH, AND NOT TO BE LED BY JUDAIZERS INTO CIRCUMCISION, OR LAW JUSTIFICATION: YET THOUGH FREE, TO SERVE ONE ANOTHER BY LOVE: TO WALK IN THE SPIRIT, BEARING THE FRUIT THEREOF, NOT IN THE WORKS OF THE FLESH. (Gal. 5:1-26) The oldest manuscripts read, "in liberty (so ALFORD, MOBERLEY, HUMPHRY, and ELLICOTT. But as there is no Greek for 'in,' as there is in translating in 1Co 16:13; Phi 1:27; Phi 4:1, I prefer 'It is FOR freedom that') Christ hath made us free (not in, or for, a state of bondage). Stand fast, therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage" (namely, the law, Gal 4:24; Act 15:10). On "again," see on Gal 4:9.
• EXHORTATIONS CONTINUED; TO FORBEARANCE AND HUMILITY; LIBERALITY TO TEACHERS AND IN GENERAL. POSTSCRIPT AND BENEDICTION. (Gal. 6:1-18)

TSK: Galatians (Book Introduction)

The Galatians, or Gallograecians, were the descendants of Gauls, who migrated from their own country, and after a series of disasters, got possession of a large district in Asia Minor, from them called Galatia (Pausanias, Attic. c. iv). They are mentioned by historians as a tall and valiant people, who went nearly naked, and used for arms only a buckler and sword; and the impetuosity of their attack is said to have been irresistible. Their religion, before their conversion was extremely corrupt and superstitious; they are said to have worshipped the mother of the gods, under the name of Adgistis; and to have offered human sacrifices of the prisoners they took in war. Though they spoke the Greek language in common with almost all the inhabitants of Asia Minor, yet it appears from Jerome that they retained their original Gaulish language even as late as the fifth century. Christianity appears to have been first planted in these regions by St. Paul himself (Gal 1:6; Gal 4:13); who visited the churches at least twice in that country (Act 16:6; Act 18:23). It is evident that this epistle was written soon after their reception of the gospel, as he complains of their speedy apostasy from his doctrine (Gal 1:6); and as there is no notice of his second journey into that country, it has been supposed, with much probability, that it was written soon after his first, and consequently about ad 52 or 53. It appears that soon after the Apostle had left them, some Judaizing teachers intruded themselves into the churches; drawing them off from the true gospel, to depend on ceremonial observances, and to the vain endeavour of " establishing their own righteousness." It was in order to oppose this false gospel that St. Paul addressed the Galatians, and after saluting the churches of Galatia, and establishing his apostolic commission against the attacks of the false teachers, he reproves them for departing from that gospel which he had preached to them, and confirmed by the gift of the Holy Ghost - proves that justification is by faith alone, and not by the deeds of the law, from the example of Abraham, the testimony of Scripture, the curse of the law, the redemption of Christ, and the Abrahamic covenant, which the law could not disannul - shows the use of the law in connection with the covenant of grace; concludes that all believers are delivered from the law, and made the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Christ; illustrates his inference by God’s treatment of the Jewish church, which he put under the law, as a father puts a minor under a guardian; shows the weakness and folly of the Galatians in subjecting themselves to the law, and that by submitting themselves to circumcision they become subject to the whole law, and would forfeit the benefits of the covenant of grace; gives them various instructions and exhortations for their Christian conduct, and particularly concerning the right use of their Christian freedom; and concludes with a brief summary of the topics discussed, and by commending them to the grace of Christ.

TSK: Galatians 1 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Gal 1:1, He wonders that they have so soon left him and the gospel; Gal 1:8, and accurses those that preach any other gospel than he did; Gal 1:11, He learned the gospel not of men, but of God; Gal 1:14, and shows what he was before his calling; Gal 1:17, and what he did immediately after it.

Poole: Galatians 1 (Chapter Introduction)

ARGUMENT

Galatia (to the churches in which country this Epistle is directed) is by all agreed to be a part of Asia the Lesser, now under the power of the Turks, and by them called Chiangare. Geographers tell us, it is bounded on the west by Phrygia the Greater, (now called Germian), Bithynia, (now called Becksangel), and Asia Propria, a country of Anatolia; on the south, with Pisidia, (now called Versacgeli), and Licaonia (now called Cogni); on the east, with Cappadocia (now called Amasia); and on the north, with Paphlagonia (now called Bolli). The whole country was anciently called Gallo-Grecia, from some French, who, leaving their country and coming to inhabit there, gave it that name. It had in it several cities, amongst which geographers reckon Ancyra, Synopa, Pompeiopolis, Claudiopolis, Nicopolis, Laodicea, to which also some count Antioch. When or by whose ministry this people first received the gospel, we do not read. Paul travelled thither, Act 16:6 , but was at that time forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach there; but, Act 18:23 , it is said, that when he had spent some time at Antioch, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples. This was about two years after that he was forbidden to preach there, in which time the gospel was planted and disciples made in this country.

At what time Paul wrote this Epistle to them is very uncertain; some think that it was written much at the same time when the Epistle to the Romans was written (the argument being much the same with that of that Epistle). Others think it was written at Rome during his last imprisonment, because he saith, Gal 6:17 , that he bare in his body the marks of the Lord Jesus. It is manifest that it was written at some distance of time after the first plantation of the gospel there, for the enemy had had time to sow tares.

The occasion of writing it, was partly to reprove the members of this church, for their apostacy from the doctrine of the gospel, as to justification; partly to set them right again in it, and to vindicate himself from the aspersions and imputations which their false teachers had cast upon him, in order to their better success with their new doctrine.

The new doctrine brought in by these false teachers, was the necessity of circumcision, and other works of the law, as well as faith in Christ, in order to the justification of the sinner before God; which they pressed rather upon a politic, than any religious consideration, as being the way to avoid that persecution which at that time attended all Christians; from which imputation, those who were circumcised, though they also professed faith in Christ, saved themselves. To buoy up themselves they vilified the apostle Paul to these churches, as being no apostle, one that had learned all which he knew from James, and Peter, and John; yet varied from them as to his doctrine and practice, yea, from himself also.

The two first chapters of this Epistle are mostly spent in the apostle’ s vindication of himself; proving himself to be a true apostle, and not to have learned what he taught from Peter, or James, or John, but that he had it by revelation from Jesus Christ. In the two following chapters he proves the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, ( in opposition to the justification taught by these false teachers, by the works of the law ), by various arguments. In the two last chapters, he presseth their standing fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free, together with several other things, which are the common duties of all Christians. Then closeth his Epistle, with praying grace, mercy, and peace, to be their, and all true Christians’ , portion.

GALATIANS CHAPTER 1

Gal 1:1-5 After saluting the churches of Galatia,

Gal 1:6,7 Paul testifieth his surprise that they should so soon

have forsaken the truth of the gospel which he had

taught them,

Gal 1:8,9 and pronounceth those accursed who preach any other gospel.

Gal 1:10-12 He showeth that his doctrine was not concerted to please

men, but came to him by immediate revelation from God,

Gal 1:13,14 to confirm which he relateth his conversation before his

calling,

Gal 1:15-24 and what steps he had taken immediately thereupon.

The term apostle, in its native signification, signifieth no more then one sent; in its ecclesiastical use, it signifies one extraordinarily sent to preach the gospel; of these some were sent either more immediately by Christ, (as the twelve were sent, Mat 10:1 Mar 3:14 Luk 9:1 ), or more mediately, as Matthias, who was sent by the suffrage of the other apostles to supply the place of Judas, Act 1:25,26 , and Barnabas, and Silas, and others were. Paul saith he was sent not of men, neither by man, that is, not merely; for he was also sent by men to his particular province. Act 13:3 ; but he was immediately sent by Jesus Christ, ( as we read, Act 9:1-43 and Act 26:14-17 , of which also he gives us an account in this chapter, Gal 1:15-17 ), and by God the Father also, who, he saith, raised Christ from the dead. By this phrase the apostle doth not only assert Christ’ s resurrection, and the influence of the Father upon his resurrection, (though he rose by his own power, and took up his own life again, and was also quickened by the Spirit), but he also showeth a specialty in his call to the apostleship. As it differed from the call of ordinary ministers, who are called by men (though their ministry be not merely of men); so it differed from the call of the rest of the apostles, being made by Christ not in his state of humiliation, (as the twelve were called, Mat 10:1-42 ), but in his state of exaltation, after he was raised from the dead, and sat down on the right hand of God.

MHCC: Galatians (Book Introduction)

The churches in Galatia were formed partly of converted Jews, and partly of Gentile converts, as was generally the case. St. Paul asserts his apostolic character and the doctrines he taught, that he might confirm the Galatian churches in the faith of Christ, especially with respect to the important point of justification by faith alone. Thus the subject is mainly the same as that which is discussed in the epistle to the Romans, that is, justification by faith alone. In this epistle, however, attention is particularly directed to the point, that men are justified by faith without the works of the law of Moses. Of the importance of the doctrines prominently set forth in this epistle, Luther thus speaks: " We have to fear as the greatest and nearest danger, lest Satan take from us this doctrine of faith, and bring into the church again the doctrine of works and of men's traditions. Wherefore it is very necessary that this doctrine be kept in continual practice and public exercise, both of reading and hearing. If this doctrine be lost, then is also the doctrine of truth, life and salvation, lost and gone."

MHCC: Galatians 1 (Chapter Introduction)

(Gal 1:1-5) The apostle Paul asserts his apostolic character against such as lessened it.

(Gal 1:6-9) He reproves the Galatians for revolting from the gospel of Christ under the influence of evil teachers.

(Gal 1:10-14) He proves the Divine authority of his doctrine and mission; and declares what he was before his conversion and calling.

(Gal 1:15-24) And how he proceeded after it.

Matthew Henry: Galatians (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians

This epistle of Paul is directed not to the church or churches of a single city, as some others are, but of a country or province, for so Galatia was. It is very probable that these Galatians were first converted to the Christian faith by his ministry; or, if he was not the instrument of planting, yet at least he had been employed in watering these churches, as is evident from this epistle itself, and also from Act 18:23, where we find him going over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples. While he was with them, they had expressed the greatest esteem and affection both for his person and ministry; but he had not been long absent from them before some judaizing teachers got in among them, by whose arts and insinuations they were soon drawn into a meaner opinion both of the one and of the other. That which these false teachers chiefly aimed at was to draw them off from the truth as it is in Jesus, particularly in the great doctrine of justification, which they grossly perverted, by asserting the necessity of joining the observance of the law of Moses with faith in Christ in order to it: and, the better to accomplish this their design, they did all they could to lessen the character and reputation of the apostle, and to raise up their own on the ruins of his, representing him as one who, if he was to be owned as an apostle, yet was much inferior to others, and particularly who deserved not such a regard as Peter, James, and John, whose followers, it is likely, they pretended to be: and in both these attempts they had but too great success. This was the occasion of his writing this epistle, wherein he expresses his great concern that they had suffered themselves to be so soon turned aside from the faith of the gospel, vindicates his own character and authority as an apostle against the aspersions of his enemies, showing that his mission and doctrine were both divine, and that he was not, upon any account, behind the very chief of the apostles, 2Co 11:5. He then sets himself to assert and maintain the great gospel doctrine of justification by faith without the works of the law, and to obviate some difficulties that might be apt to arise in their minds concerning it: and, having established this important doctrine, he exhorts them to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free, cautions them against the abuse of this liberty, gives them several very needful counsels and directions and then concludes the epistle by giving them a just description of those false teachers by whom they had been ensnared, and, on the contrary, of his own temper and behaviour. In all this his great scope and design were to recover those who had been perverted, to settle those who might be wavering, and to confirm such among them as had kept their integrity.

Matthew Henry: Galatians 1 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter, after the preface or introduction (Gal 1:1-5), the apostle severely reproves these churches for their defection from the faith (Gal 1:6-9), and then proves his own apostleship, which his enemies had brought them to question, I. From his end and design in preaching the gospel (Gal 1:10). II. From his having received it by immediate revelation (Gal 1:11, Gal 1:12). For the proof of which he acquaints them, 1. What his former conversation was (Gal 1:13, Gal 1:14). 2. How he was converted, and called to the apostleship (Gal 1:15, Gal 1:16). 3. How he behaved himself afterwards (Gal 1:16 to the end).

Barclay: Galatians (Book Introduction)

A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL

The Letters Of Paul

There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writercharacter, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227.) It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.

The Difficulty Of Letters

At the same time there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.

The Ancient Letters

It is a great pity that Paulletters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paulletters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.

"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.

I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are

going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.

I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was

in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey

money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine

with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to let

me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly, that

I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because

of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my

heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and my friends.

I sent you a little picture of myself painted by Euctemon. My

military name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health.

Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimonboy, and Turbo,

Galloniuson." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri,

36.)

Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paulletters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.

(i) The Greeting: Rom_1:1 ; 1Co_1:1 ; 2Co_1:1 ; Gal_1:1 ; Eph_1:1 ; Phi_1:1 ; Col 2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:1 .

(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: Rom_1:7 ; 1Co_1:3 ; 2Co_1:2 ; Gal_1:3 ; Eph_1:2 ; Phi_1:3 ; Col_1:2 ; 1Th_1:1 ; 2Th_1:2 .

(iii) The Thanksgiving: Rom_1:8 ; 1Co_1:4 ; 2Co_1:3 ; Eph_1:3 ; Phi_1:3 ; 1Th_1:3 ; 2Th_1:3 .

(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.

(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: Rom 16 ; 1Co_16:19 ; 2Co_13:13 ; Phi_4:21-22 ; Col_4:12-15 ; 1Th_5:26 .

When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paulletters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.

The Immediate Situation

With a very few exceptions, all Paulletters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation.... He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paulletters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.

The Spoken Word

One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In Rom_16:22 Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end.) In 1Co_16:21 Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me" (compare Col_4:18 ; 2Th_3:17 ).

This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mindeye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

Paul Under Attack

Someone has likened the letter to the Galatians to a sword flashing in a great swordsmanhand. Both Paul and his gospel were under attack. If that attack had succeeded, Christianity might have become just another Jewish sect, might have become a thing dependent upon circumcision and on keeping the law, instead of being a thing of grace. It is strange to think that, if Paulopponents had had their way, the gospel might have been kept for Jews and we might never have had the chance to know the love of Christ.

PaulApostleship Attacked

It is impossible for a man to possess a vivid personality and a strong character like Paul and not encounter opposition; and equally impossible for a man to lead such a revolution in religious thought as he did and not be attacked. The first attack was on his apostleship. There were many to say that he was no apostle at all.

From their own point of view they were right. In Act_1:21-22 we have the basic definition of an apostle. Judas the traitor had committed suicide; it was necessary to fill the blank made in the apostolic band. They define the man to be chosen as one who must be "one of these men who were with us during all the time our Lord went in and out amongst us, beginning from the baptism of John, until the day he was taken from us" and "a witness of the Resurrection." To be an apostle a man must have companied with Jesus during his earthly life and have witnessed his Resurrection. That qualification Paul obviously did not fulfil. Further, not so very long ago he had been the arch-persecutor of the Christian Church.

In Gal_1:1 Paul answers that. Proudly he insists that his apostleship is from no human source and that no human hand ordained him to that office, but that he received his call direct from God. Others might have the qualifications demanded when the first blank in the apostolic band was filled; but he had a unique qualification--he had met Christ face to face on the Damascus Road.

Independence And Agreement

Further, Paul insists that for his message he was dependent on no man. That is why in Gal 1-2 he carefully details his visits to Jerusalem. He is insisting that he is not preaching some second-hand message which he received from a man; he is preaching a message which he received direct from Christ. But Paul was no anarchist. He insisted that, although his message was received in entire independence, it yet had received the full approval of those who were the acknowledged leaders of the Christian Church (Gal_2:6-10 ). The gospel he preached came direct from God to him; but it was a gospel in full agreement with the faith delivered to the Church.

The Judaizers

But that gospel was under attack as well. It was a struggle which had to come and a battle which had to be fought. There were Jews who had accepted Christianity; but they believed that all Godpromises and gifts were for Jews alone and that no Gentile could be admitted to these precious privileges. They therefore believed that Christianity was for Jews and Jews alone. If Christianity was Godgreatest gift to men, that was all the more reason that none but Jews should be allowed to enjoy it. In a way that was inevitable. There was a type of Jew who arrogantly believed in the idea of the chosen people. He could say the most terrible things--"God loves only Israel of all the nations he has made." "God will judge Israel with one measure and the Gentiles with another." "The best of the snakes crush; the best of the Gentiles kill." "God created the Gentiles to be fuel for the fires of Hell." This was the spirit which made the law lay it down that it was illegal to help a Gentile mother in her sorest hour, for that would only be to bring another Gentile into the world. When this type of Jew saw Paul bringing the gospel to the despised Gentile, he was appalled and infuriated.

The Law

There was a way out of this. If a Gentile wished to become a Christian, let him become a Jew first. What did that mean? It meant that he must be circumcised and take the whole burden of the law upon him. That, for Paul, was the opposite of all that Christianity meant. It meant that a mansalvation was dependent on his ability to keep the law and could be won by his own unaided efforts; whereas, to Paul salvation was entirely a thing of grace. He believed that no man could ever earn the favour of God. All he could do was accept the love God offered him by making an act of faith and flinging himself on his mercy. The Jew would go to God saying, "Look! Here is my circumcision. Here are my works. Give me the salvation I have earned." Paul would say:

"Not the labours of my hands

Can fulfil thy lawdemands;

Could my zeal no respite know,

Could my tears for ever flow,

All for sin could not atone:

Thou must save, and thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,

Simply to thy Cross I cling;

Naked, come to thee for dress;

Helpless, look to thee for grace;

Foul, I to the fountain fly;

Wash me, Saviour, or I die."

For him the essential thing was, not what a man could do for God, but what God had done for him.

"But," the Jews argued, "the greatest thing in our national life is the law. God gave that law to Moses and on it our very lives depend." Paul replied, "Wait one moment. Who is the founder of our nation? To whom were the greatest of Godpromises given?" Of course, the answer is Abraham. "Now," went on Paul, "how was it that Abraham gained the favour of God? He could not have gained it by keeping the law because he lived four hundred and thirty years before the law was given to Moses. He gained it by an act of faith. When God told him to leave his people and go out, Abraham made a sublime act of faith and went, trusting everything to him. It was faith that saved Abraham, not law; and," Paul continues, "it is faith that must save every man, not deeds of the law. The real son of Abraham is not a man racially descended from him but one who, no matter his race, makes the same surrender of faith to God."

The Law And Grace

If all this be true, one very serious question arises--what then is the place of the law? It cannot be denied that it was given by God; does this emphasis on grace simply wipe it out?

The law has its own place in the scheme of things. First, it tells men what sin is. If there is no law, a man cannot break it and there can be no such thing as sin. Second, and most important, the law really drives a man to the grace of God. The trouble about the law is that because we are sinful men we can never keep it perfectly. Its effect, therefore, is to show a man his weakness and to drive him to a despair in which he sees that there is nothing left but to throw himself on the mercy and the love of God. The law convinces us of our own insufficiency and in the end compels us to admit that the only thing which can save us is the grace of God. In other words the law is an essential stage on the way to that grace.

In this epistle Paulgreat theme is the glory of the grace of God and the necessity of realizing that we can never save ourselves.

FURTHER READING

Galatians

E. D. Burton, Galatians (ICC; G)

G. S. Duncan, The Epistle to the Galatians (MC; E)

D. Guthrie, Galatians (NCB; E)

J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle to the Galatians (MmC; G)

Abbreviations

ICC : International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

NCB: New Century Bible

E: English Text G: Greek Text

Barclay: Galatians 1 (Chapter Introduction)

The Trumpet Call Of The Gospel (Gal_1:1-5)

The Slave Of Christ (Gal_1:6-10)

The Arresting Hand Of God (Gal_1:11-17)

The Way Of The Chosen (Gal_1:18-25)

Constable: Galatians (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical Background

"The most uncontroverted matter in the study of Galatians is that the letter was written by Paul, the Christian apostle whose ministry is portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles."¹

The Apostle Paul directed this epistle to the churches of Galatia (1:2), and he called its recipients Galatians (3:1). However who these people were and where they lived are problems that have proved difficult to pinpoint.

The traditional opinion held that the recipients lived in the geographical district known as Galatia located in the northern part of the Roman province called Galatia in Asia Minor.² This view holds that Paul founded these churches on his second missionary journey after the Spirit forbade him to preach in the province of Asia (Acts 16:6). Paul could have written this epistle then during his third journey either from Ephesus about 54 A.D. or from Corinth about 57 A.D. The main arguments for this "North Galatian theory" are as follows. The popular use of the term "Galatians" usually signified people in this area. Second, Luke normally referred to geographical districts rather than Roman provinces in Acts. Third, there is some similarity between the Galatians as Paul referred to them in this epistle and the Gallic inhabitants of northern Galatia. Fourth, Paul travelled through this region during his second journey (Acts 16:6-8).

The more popular view today maintains that Paul wrote to the churches located in the Roman province of Galatia that he founded on his first missionary journey (cf. Acts 13:38-39, 46, 48; 14:3, 8-10).³ The arguments for this "South Galatian theory" are as follows. Acts 16:6 and 18:23 offer no support to the theory that Paul made a trip to the northern part of provincial Galatia. Second, there is no specific information about the northern Galatian churches in Acts. Third, the geographic isolation of the North Galatia district makes a visit by Paul improbable. Fourth, Paul usually referred to provincial titles in his writings. Fifth, the name "Galatians" was appropriate for the southern area. Sixth, the mention of Barnabas in Galatians 2 suggests that the Galatians had met him. Seventh, the absence of a North Galatian representative in the collection delegation referred to in 1 Corinthians 16:1 implies that it was not an evangelized area. Eighth, the influence of the Judaizers was extensive in South Galatia.

If Paul wrote this epistle to the churches of South Galatia, he probably did so at one of two times. If Paul's visit referred to in Galatians 4:13 is the same one described in Acts 16:6, he must have written this epistle after the Jerusalem Council (i.e., in or after 49 A.D.). Nevertheless it seems more likely that Galatians 4:13 refers to the visit described in Acts 14:21, so Paul must have written before the Jerusalem Council (i.e., before or in 49 A.D.). Assuming the earlier date Paul probably wrote Galatians from Antioch of Syria shortly after his first missionary journey and before the Jerusalem Council.⁴ Another less likely possibility is that he wrote it from Ephesus during his third missionary journey.⁵

The dating of the epistle affects the occasion for writing. Assuming the South Galatian theory and an early date of writing, Paul wrote mainly to stem the tide of Judaizing heresy to which he referred throughout the letter. He mentioned people who opposed him in every chapter (1:6-7; 2:4-5; 3:1; 4:17; 5:7-12; 6:12-13).

The identity of the Judaizers is also important. Their method included discrediting Paul. The first two chapters of Galatians especially deal with criticisms leveled against him personally. His critics appear to have been Jews who claimed to be Christians and who wanted Christians to submit to the authority of the Mosaic Law and its institutions. They probably came from Jerusalem and evidently had a wide influence (cf. Acts 15). One man seems to have been their spokesman (3:1; 5:7, 10) though there were several Judaizers in Galatia as the many references to "them" and "they" scattered throughout the epistle suggest.⁶

Message⁷

Probably the most distinctive impression one receives from this epistle is its severity. Paul wrote it with strong emotion, but he never let his emotions fog his argument. His dominant concern was for truth and its bearing on life.

Compared with the Corinthian correspondence Galatians is also corrective. However the tone is very different. There is no mention here of the readers' standing in Christ or any commendation of them.

The introduction is rather cold and prosaic with no mention of thankfulness. Paul begins at once to marvel at the Galatians' apostasy (1:6-9; cf. 3:1-5; 4:8-11). Even tender sentiments seem to rise from a very troubled heart (4:19-20). Obviously that of which Paul wrote in this letter was of utmost importance to him.

He was not dealing with behavior, as in Corinthians, so much as belief, which is foundational to behavior.

Galatians has been called the Manifesto of Christian Liberty. It explains that liberty: its nature, its laws, and its enemies. This little letter has at various times through history called God's people out of the bondage of legalism back into the liberty of freedom. Luther loved it so much he called it his wife.

The greatest value of this letter is not found in its denunciations but in its enunciations. We must not be so impressed with the fiery rhetoric and dramatic actions of Paul that we fail to understand the reasons underlying what he said and did.

Galatians' central teaching is a proclamation concerning liberty. It is a germinal form of the Epistle to the Romans, which Paul wrote 8 years later in 57 A.D.

Three sentences will state its major revelations.

First, the root of every Christian's Christianity is God's supply of His Holy Spirit to that person (3:5, 14). One receives new life by receiving the Holy Spirit by faith at conversion. Nothing other than faith is necessary for salvation. To affirm that one must be circumcised or baptized to receive life is to proclaim the worst of heresies. New life comes by faith alone. What makes Christians different is God indwelling us.

Second, the culture (medium) in which every Christian's Christianity grows is the desires of God's Spirit who indwells us (5:17). When a Christian has life by faith he or she is free from all other bondage: that of the flesh, and that of rites and ceremonies. (By "flesh" I mean our sinful human nature.) He has power to master the flesh, and he has found life apart from rites and ceremonies, so he is free from these. However, his liberty is not license to sin. God's Spirit enables the Christian to obey. Circumcision or baptism does not make anyone able to obey God. We can only obey God in the power of God's Spirit. In short, we are free to obey God, not to disobey Him, when the Spirit dwells within us. God's life in us bears fruit if we cooperate with Him. But if we conflict with Him it does not.

Third, the fruit that every Christian produces is the evidence of God's Spirit triumphing over his flesh (5:22). The essence of this fruit is love. The works of the flesh are the fruit of a religion that does not have the life-giving Spirit indwelling its members (i.e., ritualism). Fruit issues from life; works issue from ritualism.

The Galatians upset Paul exceedingly because whenever we add anything to faith for salvation inevitably we neglect faith. If we make something beside faith supreme, we establish a rite (e.g., baptism). When we establish a rite, practice of the rite becomes the message of religion and we divorce morality from religion. There is no motivation for righteous living. This is one difference between Christianity and all other religions. All other religions have rites, ceremonies, and creeds, but no life. Consequently there is no vital connection in these religions between belief and morality. We see that all kinds of sin result from the tragedy of adding something to the one responsibility of faith (e.g., Roman Catholicism).

Galatians is not only a proclamation, it is also a protest.

It protests against preachers of another gospel (1:8-9). These words of Paul are not only a curse, they are a statement of fact. One who preaches another gospel substitutes falsehood (which issues finally in the works of the flesh) for the truth (which issues finally in the fruit of the Spirit). Get the gospel straight before you finish your study of Galatians.

Galatians also protests against the receivers of another gospel (5:4). To add to faith is to trust ceremony, which is to deny Christ, which is to be cut off from Christ, which is to fall from grace. Ceremonies such as baptism and the Lord's Supper have a proper place in Christianity, but to make them necessary for justification is to deny Christ. A person is justified only when he or she says sincerely, "Nothing in my hands I bring, Simply to Thy cross I cling."

Galatians also protests against those who practice the deeds of the flesh, which result from a false gospel (5:21). They will not inherit God's kingdom. Their reward will be less than it would be if they did not practice the deeds of the flesh.

This letter warns us against adding any rite or ceremony or observance to faith to obtain God's acceptance. Such a practice cuts off those who rely on the ritual from Christ. Dr. William Culbertson used to say, "It is very hard to tell when the accretions to faith make faith invalid." We all struggle with this difficulty in our evangelism.

It also warns us against changing horses in midstream. That is, it warns us against trusting in faith for justification, but then concluding that the only way to be sanctified is to observe rites, ceremonies, or other observances. Having begun salvation by the Spirit we will not attain God's goal for us by the flesh. The life of the Spirit must remain the law of the Christian.

We may compare the Christian life to a three-stage Saturn rocket.

Here is another way to think of salvation. We can chart it showing the relationships of justification, sanctification, and glorification. Justification is solely an act of God that takes a moment. Sanctification is a joint enterprise between God and the Christian that takes a lifetime. Glorification is another act of God alone that takes only a moment.

I would summarize the message of the book as follows. Salvation is by God's grace through faith plus nothing. We will deal with these issues more in detail in our study of the book.

Outline⁸

I. Introduction 1:1-10

A. Salutation 1:1-5

B. Denunciation 1:6-10

II. Personal defense of Paul's gospel 1:11-2:21

A. Independence from other apostles 1:11-24

1. The source of Paul's gospel 1:11-17

2. The events of Paul's early ministry 1:18-24

B. Interdependence with other apostles 2:1-10

C. Correction of another apostle 2:11-21

III. Theological affirmation of salvation by faith 3:1-4:31

A. Vindication of the doctrine ch. 3

1. The experiential argument 3:1-5

2. The Scriptural argument 3:6-14

3. The logical argument 3:15-29

B. Clarification of the doctrine ch. 4

1. The domestic illustration 4:1-11

2. The historical illustration 4:12-20

3. The biblical illustration 4:21-31

IV. Practical application to Christian living 5:1-6:10

A. Balance in the Christian life ch. 5

1. Living without the Law 5:1-12

2. Living without license 5:13-15

3. Living by the Holy Spirit 5:16-26

B. Responsibilities of the Christian life 6:1-10

1. Toward sinning Christians 6:1

2. Toward burdened Christians 6:2-5

3. Toward teachers 6:6-9

4. Toward all people 6:10

V. Conclusion 6:11-18

Constable: Galatians

Galatians

Bibliography

Allen, Kenneth W. "Justification by Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):109-16.

Andrews, Mary E. "Paul and Repentance." Journal of Biblical Literature 54:2 (June 1935):125.

Barclay, William. The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians. Daily Study Bible series, 2nd ed. and reprint ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1962.

Barrett, C. K. Freedom and Obligation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985.

Bauckham, Richard. "Barnabas in Galatians." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2 (January 1979):61-70.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Betz, H. D. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia series. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Blass, F., and Debrunner, A. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and edited by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Blauvelt, Livingston, Jr. "Does the Bible Teach Lordship Salvation?" Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January--March 1986):37-45.

Boice, James Montgomery. "Galatians." In Romans-Galatians. Vol. 10 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Bornkamm, Gunther. Paul. New York: Harper and Row, 1971.

Brown, J. An Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians. Marshallton, Del.: Sovereign Grace, 1970.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1982; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Burton, Ernest deWitt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. International Critical Commentary series. Reprint ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1964.

Caird, George Bradford. Principalities and Powers. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Library of Christian Classics series. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Reprint ed., Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Campbell, Donald K. "Galatians." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 587-612. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Grace. 1922. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academic Books, n. d.

_____. Salvation. Philadelphia: Sunday School Times, 1926.

_____. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.

Chismar, Douglas E. and Raush, David A. "Regarding Theonomy: An Essay of Concern." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:3 (September 1984):315-23.

Clapp, Rodney. "Democracy as Heresy." Christianity Today 31:3 (February 20, 1987):17-23.

Cole, R. Alan. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976.

The Confession of Faith; the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, with the Scripture Proofs at Large. Reprint ed. Inverness, Scotland: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1981.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

_____. "The Gospel Message." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 201-17. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Conybeare, W. J. and Howson, J. S. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. New ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

Cosgrove, Charles H. "The Law Has Given Sarah No Children." Novum Testamentum 29:3 (July 1987):219-35.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

De Haan, M. R. Galatians. Grand Rapids: Radio Bible Class, 1960.

DeMar, Gary. The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction. Fort Worth: Dominion Press, 1988.

Denney, James. The Death of Christ. 4th ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1913.

Dickason, C. Fred. From Bondage to Freedom. Moody Manna series. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1963.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S.v. "Galatians, Epistle to the," by F. S. Marsh.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S.v. "Galatians, Epistle to the," by Marcus Dods.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Eadie, John. Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1884; reprint ed., Minneapolis: James and Klock Christian Publishing Co., 1977.

Ellicott, Charles J. A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, with a Revised Translation. Andover, Mass.: Warren F. Draper, 1896.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. "Israel and the Church." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 113-30. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Fuller, David P. "Paul and Galatians 3:28." Theological Students Fellowship Bulletin 9:2 (November-December 1985):9-13.

Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gangel, Kenneth O. "Biblical Feminism and Church Leadership." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:557 (January-March 1983):55-63.

George, Timothy. Galatians. New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gunn, James D. G. "Works of the Law and the Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.10-14)." New Testament StudiesNew Testament Studies 31:4 (October 1985):523-42.

Guthrie, Donald. Galatians. New Century Bible Commentary series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott Publishers, Ltd., 1981.

_____. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. "Sacred Violence and Works of Law.' Is Christ Then an Agent of Sin?' (Galatians 2:17)." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (January 1990):55-75.

Harrison, Everett F. "The Epistle to the Galatians." In Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1283-99. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Galatians and Exposition of Ephesians. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Hennecke, E., and Schneemelcher, W., eds. New Testament Apocraypha. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964.

Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Edited by Leslie F. Church. 1 vol. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Hodges, Zane C. Absolutely Free! A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation. Dallas: Redencion Viva, and Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1989.

_____. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. Grace in Eclipse. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1985.

Hoehner, Harold W. "The Duration of The Egyptian Bondage." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):306-16.

Hofius, O. "Gal 1:18: historesai Kephan." Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 75 (1984):73-84.

Hook, H. Phillip. "A Biblical Definition of Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:482 (April-June 1964):133-40.

House, H. Wayne. "Neither . . . Male nor Female . . . in Christ Jesus.'" Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):47-56.

Ice, Thomas D. "An Evaluation of Theonomic Neopostmillennialism." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:579 (July-September 1988):281-300.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S.v. "Galatians, Epistle to the," by George G. Findlay.

Ironside, Harry A. Expository Messages on the Epistle to the Galatians. Reprint ed. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1975.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Jewett, Paul K. Man as Male and Female. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975.

Jewett, Robert. Dating Paul's Life. London: SCM Press, 1979.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "Paul and The Israel of God:' An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 181-96. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Kelly, William. Lectures on the Epistle of Paul, the Apostle, to the Galatians, with a New Translation. London: G. Morrish, n.d.

Kim, Seyoon. The Origin of Paul's Gospel. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1981.

Kitchens, Ted G. "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.

Kline, Meredith G. "Comments on an Old-New Error." Westminster Theological Journal 41:1 (Fall 1978):172-89.

Knox, John. "On the Meaning of Galatians 1:15." Journal of Biblical Literature 106:2 (1987):301-4.

Laney, J. Carl. "The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):353-64.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 11: Galatians-Hebrews, by Otto Schmoller, Karl Braune, C. A. Auberlen, C. J. Riggenbach, J. J. Van Oosterzee, and Carl Bernhard Moll. Translated by C. C. Starbuck, M. B. Riddle, Horatio B. Hackett, John Lillie, E. A. Washburn, E. Harwood, George E. Day, and A. C. Kendrick.

Lea, Thomas D. and Griffin, Hayne P., Jr. 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. New American Commentary series. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians to the Ephesians and to the Philippians. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

Lightfoot, J. B. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Lightner, Robert P. "Theological Perspectives on Theonomy." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:569 (January-March 1986):26-36; 570 (April-June 1986):134-45; 571 (July-September 1986):228-45.

Litfin, A. Duane. "Evangelical Feminism: Why Traditionalists Reject It." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:543 (July-September 1979):259-71.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1990.

Lowery, David K. "A Theology of Paul's Missionary Epistles." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 243-97. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Lull, David J. "The Law Was Our Pedagogue': A Study of Galatians 3:19-25." Journal of Biblical Literature 105:3 (September 1986):481-98.

Lyttelton, George. Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of Saint Paul. 1769. Reprint ed. Philadelphia: Monarch, 1895.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

Matzat, Don. Christ-Esteem. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1990.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Morgado, Joe, Jr. "Paul in Jerusalem: A Comparison of His Visits in Acts and Galatians." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):55-68.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. Galatians: Paul's Charter of Christian Freedom. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Munck, J. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1959.

O'Brien, Peter Thomas. Introductory Thanksgivings in the Letters of Paul. Supplements to Novum Testamentum series. Vol. 49. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977.

Ogg, George. The Chronology of the Life of Paul. London: Epworth Press, 1968.

Oldham, Roger Singleton. "Positional and Functional Equality: An Appraisal of the Major Arguments for the Ordination of Women." Mid-America Theological Journal 9:2 (Fall 1985):1-29.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Pattern for Maturity. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.

_____. "The Purpose of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra. 128:511 (July-September 1971):227-33.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Pyne, Robert A. "Dependence and Duty: The Spiritual Life in Galatians 5 and Romans 6." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 144-56. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Seed,' the Spirit, and the Blessing of Abraham." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):211-22.

Rackham, Richard Belward. The Acts of the Apostles. Westminster Commentaries series. 9th ed. London: Methuen Co., 1922.

Raisanen, Heikki. "Galatians 2.16 and Paul's Break with Judaism." New Testament Studies 31(October 1985):543-53.

Ramsay, William M. A Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899.

_____. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960.

Richardson, Peter. Israel in the Apostolic Church. Society for New Testament Studies monograph series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia. Translated by Henry Zylstra. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Rosscup, James E. "Fruit in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):56-66.

Russell, Walter Bo, III. "Does the Christian Have Flesh' in Gal 5:13-26?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:2 (June 1993):179-87.

_____. "Rhetorical Analysis of the Book of Galatians, Part 1." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:599 (July-September 1993):341-58.

_____. "Rhetorical Analysis of the Book of Galatians, Part 2." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:600 (October-December 1993):416-39.

_____. "Who Were Paul's Opponents in Galatia?" Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September 1990):329-50.

Ryrie, Charles C. Balancing the Christian Life. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.

_____. "Contrasting Views on Sanctification." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 189-200. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

_____. The Grace of God. Chicago: Moody Press, 1963.

_____. So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe In Jesus Christ. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1989.

_____. "What Is Spirituality?" Bibliotheca Sacra 126:503 (July-September 1969):204-13.

Sampley, J. P. "Before God, I do not lie' (Gal. i.20): Paul's Self-Defence in the Light of Roman Legal Praxis." New Testament Studies 23 (1976-77):477-82.

Sanders, E. P. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

_____. "Sinners' Who Are Forgiven or Saints' Who Sin?" Biblitheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):400-12.

Scanzoni, Letha and Hardesty, Nancy. All We're Meant to Be. Waco: Word Books, 1974.

Schmithals, Walter. Paul and James. Translated by Dorthea M. Barton. Number 46 in the Studies in Biblical Theological series. Naperville, Il.: Alec R. Allenson Inc., 1965.

Schnackenburg, R. "Apostles before and during Paul's Time." In Apostolic History and the Gospel, pp. 287-303. Edited by W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970.

Schreiner, Thomas R. "The Church as the New Israel and the Future of Ethnic Israel." Studia Biblica et Theologica 13:1 (April 1983):17-38.

Schweizer, E. "Slaves of the Elements and Worshippers of Angels: Gal 4:3, 9 and Col 2:8, 18, 20." Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988):455-68.

Smith, Jay E. "Can Fallen Leaders Be Restored to Leadership? Bibliotheca Sacra 151:604 (October-December 1994):455-80.

Stott, John R. W. Only One Way: The Message of Galatians. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1968.

Strickland, Wayne G. "Preunderstanding and Daniel Fuller's Law-Gospel Continuum." Bibliotheca Sacra 144:574 (April-June 1987):181-93.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament. London: Macmillan and Co., 1909.

Tenney, Merrill C. Galatians: The Charter of Christian Liberty. Revised and enlarged ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.

Thatcher, Tom. "The Plot of Gal 3:1-18." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:3 (September 1997): 401-10.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. S.v. "abba," by G. Kittel.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Grace and Power. Reprint ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Chronological Problem of Galatians 2:1-10." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):334-40.

_____. "The Contrast between the Spiritual Conflict in Romans 7 and Galatians 5." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):310-14.

Towns, Elmer L. "Martin Luther on Sanctification." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:502 (April-June 1969):115-22.

Tozer, A. W. "Total Commitment." Decision 4:8 (August 1963):4.

Vidler, A. R. Christ's Strange Work. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1994.

Wedderburn, A. J. M. "Some Observations on Paul's Use of the Phrases In Christ' and With Christ.'" Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (October 1985):83-97.

Wiersbe, Warren W. Be Free. BE Books series. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1976.

Wilkin, Bob. "Galatians 5:19-21: Who Will Inherit the Kingdom?" Grace Evangelical Society Newsletter (December 1987), p. 2.

_____. "Sow for It! Reaping Abundant Eternal Life as a Reward (Galatians 6:8-9)." Grace Evangelical Society News 5:8 (August 1990):2.

Williams, Sam K. "Justification and the Spirit in Galatians." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (February 1987):91-100.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Galatians (Book Introduction)

THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE GALATIANS.

INTRODUCTION.

The Galatians, soon after St. Paul had preached the gospel to them, were seduced by some false teachers, who had been Jews, and who were for obliging all Christians, even those who had been Gentiles, to observe circumcision, and the other ceremonies of the Mosaical law. In this epistle he refutes the pernicious doctrine of those teachers, and also their calumny against his mission and apostleship. The subject matter of this epistle is much the same as of that to the Romans. It was written at Ephesus, about twenty-three years after our Lord's ascension. (Challoner) --- The Galatians were originally Gauls, who under their leader, Baennus, spread themselves over Greece, and at length passed over into Asia Minor, where they settled between Cappadocia and Phrygia, in the province afterwards called from them Galatia. It seems that St. Peter preached first in those parts; but it was only to the Jews, as my be gathered from the inscription of his first epistle, which he addresses to the Jews of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. But St. Paul was the first that preached to the Gentile inhabitants of this province. When he first preached to them, he was received as an angel from heaven, or rather, as Christ himself: he visited them oftener than once, and the Church he there formed was very considerable. It was the Jewish converts of Galatia (who, as we have before mentioned, were the spiritual children of St. Peter) that caused those troubles which gave rise to this epistle. They strongly advocated the legal observances; and making a handle of the high pre-eminence of St. Peter, they decried St. Paul, even calling in question his apostleship. They taught the necessity of circumcision, and other Mosaic rites, which the apostles then in part retained. Thus divisions were raised in this infant Church. On these accounts the apostle warmly asserts his apostleship, as being called by Christ himself. He shews that his doctrine was that of the other apostles, who, in the council of Jerusalem, four years before, testified their exemption from the legal observances. He teaches, that it is not by the law, but by faith, that the blessings of salvation are imparted to them. After establishing these more important parts of the epistle, he gives them instruction on various heads. The Greek subscription to this epistle informs us, that it was written from Rome. St. Jerome says, he wrote it when in chains. Theodoret says, it was the first epistle that St. Paul wrote from Rome. This opinion has probably been adopted from a mistaken interpretation of the text: I bear the marks of the wounds of Christ in my body. By these marks they understand chains, whilst the text equally applies to the mortifications and self-denials of a Christian. The contrary opinion is, that this epistle was written from Ephesus in the year of Christ 55. This is the more probable opinion, and is maintained by St. Gregory the Great, Ludovicus, Capellanus, Estius, Usher, Pearson, and many others. The authority of the Greek copies, in assigning the places whence the letters were written, has been long rejected by the learned. We find no such information in the more ancient Greek manuscripts of St. Germanus and Clermont, &c. (Calmet)

====================

Gill: Galatians (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO GALATIANS

The persons to whom this epistle is written were not such who made up a single church only, in some certain town or city, but were such of which several churches consisted, in a region or country called Galatia, as is evident from Gal 1:2 and the members of these churches seem to be chiefly, if not altogether Jews, since the apostle includes them with himself; as having been under the law, under tutors and governors, and in bondage under the elements of the world, and to whom the law had been a schoolmaster, though now they were no longer under it as such, Gal 3:23 or however, though some of them might have been originally Gentiles, yet, previous to their conversion, had become proselytes to the Jews, and now were returning to Judaism again, as appears from Gal 4:8. When and from whence this epistle was written, is not very clear and manifest: some have thought, that it was written about the time of the writing of the epistle to the Romans, and upon a like occasion; but if it was written about that time, it could not he written from Rome, as the subscription to this epistle attests, since it is certain, that when the apostle wrote his epistle to the Romans, he had never, as yet, been at Rome. Beza is of opinion, that it was written from Antioch, between the return of Paul and Barnabas thither from their first journey, and the troubles which broke out in that church, Act 14:28. But to this it is reasonably objected, that it is questionable whether there were so early any churches in Galatia at all; and if there were, it does not seem that the defection from the faith, complained of in this epistle, as yet had took place in any of the churches; for it was after this date that the troubles upon this head arose at Antioch, which seems to have been the first place, and the church there the first church the judaizing teachers practised at and upon. Some Latin exemplars testify that it was written from Ephesus; of which opinion was Erasmus; but as Dr. Lightfoot observes, the same reason is against this as the former, seeing the corruption that was got into this church was then but beginning, when the apostle was at Ephesus: it seems therefore most likely, that it was written from Rome, as the subscription in the Greek copies affirms; and which is strengthened by the Syriac and Arabic versions, seeing it seems to have been written after the apostle had made the collections, in several places, for the poor saints at Jerusalem, Gal 2:10 and when the apostasy from the faith had got to a great pitch; nor is it any objection that there is no express mention made of his bonds in it, as there is in those epistles of his, which were written from Rome; since, when he wrote this, he might have been delivered from them, as some have thought he was after his first defence; and besides, he does take notice of the marks of the Lord Jesus he bore in his body, Gal 6:17. Dr. Lightfoot places the writing of this epistle in the year and in the "fifth" of Nero; some place it in 55, and others in 58. That there were churches in Galatia very early, is certain from Act 18:23 but by whom they were planted is not so evident; very likely by the apostle, since, it is certain, both from this epistle, that he was personally in this country, and preached the Gospel here, Gal 4:13 and from Act 16:6 and if he was not the instrument of the conversion of the first of them, which laid the foundation of a Gospel church state, yet it is certain, that he was useful in strengthening the disciples and brethren throughout this country, Act 18:23. But after his departure from them, the false teachers got among them, and insinuated, that he was no apostle, at least that he was inferior to Peter, James, and John, the ministers of the circumcision; and these seduced many of the members of the churches in this place, drawing them off from the evangelical doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Christ, persuading them that the observation of the ceremonial law, particularly circumcision, was necessary to their acceptance with God, and justification in his sight: wherefore the occasion and design of this epistle were to vindicate the character of the apostle as such; to establish the true doctrine of justification by faith, in opposition to the works of the law; to recover those who were carried away with the other doctrines; to exhort the saints to stand fast in the liberty of Christ, and to various other duties of religion; and to give a true description of the false teachers, and their views, that so they might beware of them, and of their principles.

Gill: Galatians 1 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO GALATIANS 1

This chapter contains the inscription of the epistle, the apostle's usual salutation of the persons he writes to, and the charge he brought against them for their fickleness and inconstancy, in showing any manner of disposition towards a removal from the Gospel; the truth, certainty, and authority of the Gospel, and an account of himself, who was a preacher of it; of his life before conversion; of the nature and manner of his conversion; of his travels, labours, and usefulness afterwards. The inscription is in Gal 1:1 in which the writer of the epistle is described by his name Paul, and by his office, an apostle; which office he had not of men, but of God, of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and of God the Father, who is described by his power in raising Christ from the dead. The persons to whom the epistle is inscribed are the churches of Galatia, and those that joined the apostle in the salutation of them were the brethren that were with him. The salutation follows, Gal 1:3 in which mention being made of Christ, there is a declaration of a singular benefit by him, which contains the sum of the Gospel, as that he gave himself for the sins of his people, to deliver them from the present evil world, according to the will of God, Gal 1:4 upon which a doxology, or an ascription of glory is made, either to Christ, who gave himself, or to the Father, according to whose will he did, or to both, Gal 1:5. After which the apostle proceeds to exhibit a charge of levity against the Galatians; and which he expresses in a way of admiration, that they should so soon be carried away from the doctrine of grace, to another doctrine the reverse of it, Gal 1:6 though he somewhat mitigates this reproof by laying the blame on the false teachers, who were troublers of them, and perverters of the Gospel of Christ; and corrects himself for calling their false doctrine by the name of another Gospel, Gal 1:7 and delivers out, and pronounces an anathema on all such, whether angels or men, that should preach any other Gospel than he had preached, and they had received, Gal 1:8. The excellency of which Gospel is set forth, by the matter of it, being not human but divine, and by the manner of preaching it, with all simplicity and honesty, not seeking to please men, Gal 1:10 and from the efficient cause of it, it being denied to be after man, or received from, or taught by man, but is ascribed to the revelation of Christ Jesus, Gal 1:11. And that the apostle had it not from men, he proves by the account of himself, and his conversation before conversion, as how that he had been a persecutor of the church of God, of those that professed the Christian religion and doctrine; wherefore he could not have the Gospel, as not from nature and education, so not from the chief priests, Scribes, and elders, who encouraged him to persecute, Gal 1:13. And this he further makes to appear by his great proficiency in the religion of the Jews, and his abundant zeal for the traditions of the fathers, which set him at the greatest distance from, and opposition to, the Gospel of Christ, Gal 1:14. And, on the other hand, that he received it of God, and by the revelation of Christ, he proves by the account he gives of his effectual calling and conversion; the source and spring of which was the sovereign will of God in divine predestination, and the moving cause of it, the free grace of God, Gal 1:15. The manner in which this was done was by a revelation of Christ in him; and the end of it was, that he might preach Christ to the Gentiles, which he immediately did, without consulting flesh and blood, Gal 1:16. And as it was a clear point that he could never receive the Gospel from the Jews before his conversion, he and they being enemies to it, and persecutors of it; so it was evident that he did not receive it, after his conversion, even from Christian men, seeing he did not, upon his conversion, go directly to Jerusalem, and confer with the apostles there, who were the most likely persons to have taught him the Gospel; but instead of this he went into Arabia preaching the Gospel, and then came back to Damascus, where he was converted, Gal 1:17. And it was three years after his conversion, that he went to Jerusalem to visit Peter; and his stay with him was very short, no longer than fifteen days; and he was the only apostle he saw there, excepting James, the brother of Christ, Gal 1:18 for the truth of all which he appeals to God the searcher of hearts, Gal 1:20. And then goes on with the account of himself, and his travels; how that when he departed from Jerusalem, he did not go into any other parts of Judea, and visit the churches there, but went into the countries of Syria and Cilicia; and was not so much as known by thee, or personally, by any of the churches, or members of the churches in Judea, Gal 1:20 so that as it could not be thought by his short stay at Jerusalem, and the few apostles he saw there, that he received the Gospel he preached from them, so neither from any other ministers, or body of Christians in the land of Judea; for all they knew of him was by hearsay only, as that he who was formerly a persecutor of them, was now become a preacher of the Gospel he had sought to destroy, Gal 1:22 wherefore it was a clear case he had not received the Gospel from them. Besides, as they had heard that he preached the Gospel of Christ, they glorified God for it, who had revealed it to him, and bestowed gifts upon him, fitting him for such service, Gal 1:24.

College: Galatians (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

Since the earliest days of the concept of a commentary series jointly authored by church of Christ and Christian church scholars, I have eagerly anticipated the College Press NIV Bible Commentary. The dream of Don DeWelt was to bring brothers back together in a project honoring our common devotion to Scripture. Exegesis of the text should know no party line, but should interpret fairly and honestly what God said. Participating as a writer in this series is an honor and a challenge.

Having taught Galatians and Ephesians for twenty years in the Bible college classroom, I know that many good commentaries already exist. All the books that have been written provide a wonderful platform on which to build. No quantity of footnotes could adequately reflect my gratitude for the research of great scholars of the past.

I especially want to express my thanks to my family and my co-workers in Christ for the support and inspiration they have given me. Experience is teaching me that no member of the Lord's body functions well alone. In addition, I feel gratitude to a host of zealous students who have brought their enthusiasm and fresh insights to the halls of Ozark Christian College. Learning from students is one of the best ways to learn!

Out of my study of Galatians and Ephesians, I have learned to love the Lord and his people. Viewing God's children as my dear brothers and sisters is a rich blessing. Especially dear to me are the precious saints of God whose love has reached beyond the sectarian lines. Yearning to taste the freedom for which Christ has set us free, they have dared to love with God's own love. Out of their sincere faith and unfeigned love, it is possible to catch a glimpse of heaven. Until the family is reunited around the throne, may God bless you.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free (Gal 5:1). This freedom rings out in every page of Galatians, Paul's great "Magna Charta of the Christian faith." This epistle is our charter of Christian freedom, our declaration of independence from slavery

to the law.

Throughout the history of the church the message of Galatians has been needed to free men from chains of false doctrine. When the early Judaizers tried to bind men to the old commandments from Sinai, Galatians set them free. When the apostate church of the Dark Ages tried to bind men to a papal system of salvation by penance and works, Galatians set them free. When modern legalists try to bind us to a joyless religion of superior "rightness," Galatians sets us free.

Martin Luther was moved by Galatians to sound the reveille of the Reformation. He said, "The Epistle to the Galatians is my epistle; I have betrothed myself to it: it is my wife." His commentary on Galatians cost him more labor, and was more highly esteemed by him, than any of his other works. For Luther, as for every age, the simple gospel of the message of Galatians was a mighty weapon in the arsenal of freedom.

THE WRITER

No epistle can lay more claim to being a genuine product of the hand of Paul than can Galatians. As Kümmel says, "That Galatians is a genuine, authentic Epistle is indisputable." Paul claims to be the author (1:1 and 5:2), and the early church accepted this claim without reservation. The style and message are clearly Pauline. "His mind, character, and accents are to be seen in every paragraph."

THE GALATIAN CHURCHES

While the authorship is beyond dispute, there is considerable controversy regarding the recipients of this letter. They are called "the churches in Galatia," but just what is meant by this?

During the third century B.C. some barbarian people of Celtic origin migrated to the inner plateau of Asia Minor and established a kingdom there. Since some of the Celtic people were known in France as the Gauls, these people in Asia Minor were distinguished as the "Gallo-Graecians," from which the name "Galatians" comes.Their realm was centered around Ancyra (the modern capital of Turkey) in the northern highlands area.

After the Romans conquered this territory, it was combined in 25 B.C. into a large province containing the districts to the south, Lycaonia and Isauria, as well as parts of Pisidia and Phrygia. The newly created province was called Galatia, and included the cities known to us from Paul's missionary journeys - Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Derbe, and Lystra.

When Paul spoke of "Galatia," did he refer to ethnic Galatia (the tribal area limited to the north), or did he refer to political Galatia (the province which also included the districts to the south)? The traditional view, still shown on most Bible maps, is the "north Galatian theory." The view favored by most commentaries today is the "south Galatian theory."

The North Galatian Theory

If this view is correct, then Paul must have visited Galatia on the second missionary journey (Acts 16:6, although without preaching) and started churches there on the third missionary journey (Acts 18:23). However, Acts says nothing of the cities there, nor of Paul's preaching.

Possible arguments to support the "North Galatian theory" include the following:

1. "Galatia" meant a place inhabited specifically by the Gauls.

2. In Acts, Antioch is called "Pisidian," while Lystra and Derbe are cities of Lycaonia.

3. The Phrygians would have objected to being called Galatians, since it would remind them of their subjection to Rome.

4. Paul could not have addressed Lycaonians or Pisidians as "O foolish Galatians."

5. The fickle nature of the recipients suits the Gallic people.

6. "The region of Phrygia and Galatia" (Acts 16:6) appears to mean that Galatia was quite distinct from Phrygia.

7. There is no mention in Galatians that Paul experienced strong opposition when he preached there.

The South Galatian Theory

In the 1880s and 1890s William Ramsay did extensive archaeological work in Asia Minor. His careful research not only proved that Luke was an accurate historian; it also laid the foundation for the "south Galatian theory." This is the view favored in this commentary.

If this view is correct, then Paul visited cities of Galatia on all three of his missionary journeys. These were among the first churches he started. The cities would include Pisidian Antioch and Iconium (where Paul met resistance from the Jews), and Lystra (where Paul was first welcomed, and then stoned).

Possible arguments to support the "south Galatian theory" include the following:

1. If Galatia does not include the cities of Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, then we know absolutely nothing about the churches which were so important in Paul's life and to which such an important epistle was sent.

2. The expression "the region of Phrygia and Galatia" (Acts 16:6) is best understood as the area through which Paul would go when he left Lystra and Iconium, "the Phrygio-Galatian" territory.

3. Paul normally uses Roman imperial names for the provinces, and the Roman "Galatia" included the south.

4. "Galatians" was the only word available that would include the people of all four cities (just as "British" includes people who are Welsh, Scottish, and English).

5. "The Galatian churches" participated in the collection for the saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:1), and Paul's assistants included

two South Galatians - Gaius of Derbe and Timothy of Lystra (Acts 20:4).

6. The northern area was not on the common trade routes, and it is unlikely that Paul would have made a difficult journey to reach such an out-of-the-way place "because of an illness" (Gal 4:13).

7. Judaizers are known to have followed Paul through the cities of the south.

8. Paul's words "you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God" (4:14) could be connected with his reception at Lystra, where they wanted to worship him and Barnabas.

9. The early church developed along the great trade routes, and these went through the south parts of Galatia, not the north.

10. Barnabas is mentioned three times (2:1, 9, 13), as though he is known to the readers, and he accompanied Paul only on the journey that went to the cities of the south.

THE DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING

The date and place of writing are somewhat dependent on the choice of north or south Galatia as the destination. If the "north Galatian theory" is correct, the epistle could not have been written until after Paul arrived in Ephesus on the third missionary journey (Acts 18:23-24). This would produce a date no earlier than A.D. 52-55. Lightfoot proposed that the letter was written from Corinth, perhaps A.D. 56-57.

If one is convinced that the "south Galatian theory" is correct, a much wider range of dates is possible. Galatians could have been written as early as A.D. 48, even before the Jerusalem Conference.However, as our discussion of Gal 2:1-10 will show, it is more likely that the Jerusalem Conference had already taken place when Paul wrote the letter. This would move the probable date to A.D. 50 or later. It is likely that Galatians stands among the first of Paul's epistles.

The decision about the date and place of writing does not affect the interpretation of Galatians; in fact, the reverse is true. The exegesis of the text determines the decision about date and place. One cannot say, "Paul wrote at such and such a date; therefore, the text means this." Our decision about date and place comes from indications in the text itself (Gal 1:6 "so quickly deserting"; 2:1 "fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem"; 2:11 "when Peter came to Antioch"; 4:13 "because of an illness I first preached to you"; 4:20 "I wish I could be with you now.") What we know for certain about Paul's circumstances we will learn from the text.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barclay, William. Flesh and Spirit . Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962.

. The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians . Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958.

. The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians . Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

. New Testament Words . London: SCM Press, 1964.

Bartchy, S. Scott. First Century Slavery and 1 Corinthians 7:21 . Atlanta: Scholar's Press, 1973.

Barrett, C. K. "The Allegory of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar in the Argument of Galatians," Rechtfertigung: Festschrift fur Ernst Käsemann . Tübingen/Gottingen, 1976.

Barth, Markus. Romans . Oxford: University Press, 1980 (reprint).

Bauckham, R. J. "Barnabas in Galatians." Journal for the Study of the New Testament , Issue 2 (1979) 61-70.

Bauer, Walter; William F. Arndt; and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . 2nd ed. Rev. by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Blakely, Given. What the Bible Says About the Kingdom of God . Joplin: College Press, 1988.

Blass, F.; A. Debrunner; and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Boice, James Montgomery. Galatians . The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Brandenburger, Egon. "Cross," Dictionary of New Testament Theology (1975) I:391-403.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians (NIGTC). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Büchsel, Friedrich. "ajllhgorevw," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1964) I:260-263.

Bundrick, David R. "TA STOICHEIA TOU KOSMOU," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34 (Sept 1991) 353-364.

Burton, E. D. The Epistle to the Galatians (ICC). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921.

Carson, D. A.; Douglas J. Moo; and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Calvin, John. Commentary on Galatians . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961 (reprint).

Cullmann, Oskar. "Pevtro", Khfa'"," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1968) VI:100-112.

Dana, H. E. and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament . New York: Macmillan, 1955.

Deissmann, Adolph. Light from the Ancient East (Eng. Trans.). New York: Harper, 1927.

DeVries, C. E. "Paul's 'Cutting' Remarks about a Race: Galatians 5:1-12," Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Duncan, George S. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (MNTC). London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934.

Fairweather, William. The Background of the Epistles . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1935.

Fung, Ronald Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Green, Michael. The Empty Cross of Jesus . Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984.

Guthrie, Donald. Galatians (NCBC). London: Oliphants, 1969; revised edition 1974.

Hauck, Friedrich and Siegfried Schulz. "pornhv," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1968) VI:579-595.

Holly, David. A Complete Categorized Greek-English New Testament Vocabulary . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Howard, George. Paul: Crisis in Galatia (SNTSM 35). Cambridge: University Press, 1979.

Hurtado, L. W. "The Jerusalem Collection and the Book of Galatians," Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Issue 2 (Oct. 1979) 53.

Jewett, Robert. "Agitators and the Galatian Congregation," New Testament Studies 17 (1970-1971) 198-212.

Johnson, Robert L. The Letter of Paul to the Galatians (LWC). Austin: R. B. Sweet, 1969.

Lewis, C. S. The Four Loves . San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971 (reprint).

Liddell, Henry George; Robert Scott; and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek English Lexicon . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968.

Lightfoot, J. B. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957 (reprint).

Lohse, Eduard. "proswpolhmyiva," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1968) VI:779-780.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians (WBC). Dallas: Word, 1990.

Matera, Frank J. Galatians (Sacra Pagina). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992.

McCasland, S. Vernon. "The Greco-Roman World," The Interpreter's Bible Vol. 7, pp. 75-99. New York: Abingdon, 1951.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament . London: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Michaelis, Wilhelm. "pavqhma," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1967) V:930-935.

Moule, C. F. D. Worship in the New Testament . Richmond: John Knox Press, 1961.

Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Moulton, W. F. and A. S. Geden. A Concordance to the Greek Testament . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Müller, Dietrich. "Apostle," Dictionary of New Testament Theology (1975) I:126-135.

Parker, Pierson. "Once More, Acts and Galatians." Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967) 175-180.

Pinnock, Clark H. Truth on Fire: The Message of Galatians . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972.

Oepke, A. "mesivth"," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1967) IV:598-624.

Ramsay, W. M. St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949 (reprint).

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.

Sampley, J. Paul. "'Before God, I do not lie' (Gal 1:20): Paul's Self-Defence in the Light of Roman Legal Praxis." New Testament Studies 23 (1977) 477-482.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. "ajgapavw," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1964) I:35-55.

Stein, Robert H. "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times," Christianity Today (June 20, 1975) 9-11.

Stott, J. R. W. The Message of Galatians . Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1968.

Strelan, J. G. "Burden-Bearing and the Law of Christ: A Re-examination of Galatians 6:2," Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975) 266-276.

Stumpff, Albrecht. "zh'lo"," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1964) II:877-888.

Trench, R. C. Synonyms of the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953 (reprint).

Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words . Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1940.

Weiss, Konrad. "crhstov"," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1974) IX:483-492.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Greek Lexicon (2nd. ed.)

BDF Blass-Debrunner-Funk Greek Grammar

CT Christianity Today

ExpT Expository Times

DNTT Dictionary of the New Testament, by Colin Brown

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JSNT Journal of Studies for the New Testament

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

KJV King James Version

LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon

LXX Septuagint

NEB New English Bible

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NTS New Testament Studies

RSV Revised Standard Version

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by

Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich

TEV Today's English Version

TrinJ Trinity Journal

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Galatians (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. AUTHORITY: The Apostolic Gospel - 1:1-2:21

A. Greeting - 1:1-5

B. Paul's Astonishment - 1:6-10

C. Paul's Call by God - 1:11-17

D. Paul's Brief Meeting with Leaders - 1:18-24

E. Showdown: Conference in Jerusalem - 2:1-5

F. Apostolic Agreement - 2:6-10

G. Showdown: Conflict in Antioch - 2:11-14

H. Apostolic Conclusion - 2:15-21

II. ARGUMENTS: Law Vs. Faith - 3:1-4:31

A. Argument One: Receiving the Spirit - 3:1-5

B. Argument Two: Abraham - 3:6-9

C. Argument Three: The Curse - 3:10-14

D. Argument Four: A Human Covenant - 3:15-22

E. Argument Five: The Child-Keeper - 3:23-4:7

1. The Job of the Child-Keeper - 3:23-25

2. The Benefits for the Children - 3:26-29

3. The Full Rights of the Children - 4:1-7

4. The Folly of Turning Back - 4:8-11

F. Argument Six: Paul's Personal Plea - 4:12-20

1. Paul's Former Welcome - 4:12-16

2. Paul's Present Pains - 4:17-20

G. Argument Seven: Allegory of Hagar & Sarah - 4:21-31

III. APPLICATION: Living for Freedom - 5:1-6:18

A. Freedom or a Yoke? - 5:1-6

B. The Yeast of the Agitators - 5:7-12

C. The Essence of Law and Love - 5:13-15

D. The Acts of the Sinful Nature - 5:16-21

E. The Fruit of the Spirit - 5:22-26

F. The Law of Christ - 6:1-6

G. The Harvest of the Spirit - 6:7-10

H. Paul's Own Conclusion - 6:11-18

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV