聖書注解書

本章では、序言すなわち導入（Ga 1:1-5）の後、使徒はこれらの教会の信仰からの離反を厳しく戒め（Ga 1:6-9）、次いで、敵対者たちが疑わせようとした彼自身の使徒としての資格を証明する。I. 福音宣教の目的と趣旨から（Ga 1:10）。II. 福音を直接の啓示によって受けたことから（Ga 1:11,12）。その証明として彼は、1. 以前の生き方がどのようなものであったかを語り（Ga 1:13,14）、2. どのように回心し、使徒職に召されたかを述べ（Ga 1:15,16）、3. その後どのように振る舞ったかを明らかにする（Ga 1:16-24）。

序論

パウロの著者性に関する内的・外的証拠は決定的である。文体はパウロ特有のものである。書簡全体を通じて、一人称で異邦人の使徒としての言及があることと、上書き（宛先・差出人）が、同一の真理を確立している

(Ga 1:1, 13-24; 2:1-14)。

古代教会の全員一致の証言も、彼の著者性を支持している。比較せよ：エイレナイオス[Against Heresies, 3,7,2]

(Ga 3:19)；

ポリュカルポス[Epistle to the Philippians, 3]は

Ga 4:26; 6:7を引用し、

ユスティノス・マルティル（あるいはDiscourse to the Greeksの真の著者が誰であれ）は

Ga 4:12; 5:20に言及している。

本書簡は「ガラテヤの諸教会あて」に書かれた

(Ga 1:2)。

ガラテヤは小アジアの一地方で、ピリギア、ポントス、ビテュニア、カッパドキア、パフラゴニアと境を接していた。住民（ガロ・グライキ、略してガラティ、ケルト人という名の別形）はもともとガリア人であった。彼らは紀元前280年頃にデルポイを略奪した後、小アジアを席巻し、ついに中央部に定住して、それゆえガロ・グライキアすなわちガラテヤと呼ばれるようになった。本書簡に見える彼らの性格は、すべての著述家がガリア民族に帰しているそれと完全に一致している。カエサル[Commentaries on the Gallic War, 4,5]、「ガリア人の弱点は、決断が移り気で変化を好み、信頼に値しないことにある。」テリー（ALFORDの引用）も同様に、「率直で、激烈で、感化されやすく、きわめて知性に富んでいるが、同時にきわめて変わりやすく、不恒で、誇示を好み、常に争っており、それは過度の虚栄の果実である。」彼らは最初、パウロをあらゆる喜びと親切をもって迎えた。しかし間もなく福音およびパウロに対する忠誠を揺るがし、以前彼に熱心に耳を傾けたのと同じように、今はユダヤ化教師たちに等しく熱心に耳を傾けるようになった

(Ga 4:14-16)。

使徒自身が彼らの間の最初の伝道者であった

(Ac 16:6; Ga 1:8; 4:13;

…を見よ

Ga 4:13；

「肉の弱さのゆえに、私は最初あなたがたに福音を宣べ伝えた」：これは病気が彼を彼らの間に留まらせたことを暗示する）。そしてその時おそらく諸教会を設立し、後の訪問では信仰において彼らを「力づけた」

(Ac 18:23)。

最初の訪問は紀元後51年頃、第二回伝道旅行の間のことである。ジョセファス[Antiquities, 16.62]は、多くのユダヤ人がガラテヤのアンキュラに住んでいたことを証言している。他の場所と同様に、これらのユダヤ人とその同胞の中から、彼はおそらく伝道を始めたのである。のちにガラテヤの諸教会の多数は異邦人であったが

(Ga 4:8, 9)、

これらも間もなくユダヤ化教師たちに感染し、ほとんど割礼を受けるよう説き勧められるまでになった

(Ga 1:6; 3:1, 3; 5:2, 3; 6:12, 13)。

ガラテヤ人が異教であった時、キュベレ（隣接するピリギア地方に流行していた）の神秘的礼拝と、その礼拝に関連した神智学的教義に慣れ親しんでいたため、彼らはキリスト教の完全な特権は精緻な儀式的象徴主義の体系を通じてのみ達しうると、いっそう容易に信じるよう導かれた

(Ga 4:9-11; 5:7-12)。

彼らはさらに、パウロ自身はユダヤ人の間では律法を守りながら、異邦人にはそれを捨てるように説得しており、その動機は自分の改宗者たちを従属的な状態に留め、割礼を受けた者だけが享受するキリスト教の完全な特権から締め出しておくことにあった、という暗黙の示唆にすら耳を傾けた

(Ga 5:11, Ga 4:16、

…と比較せよ

Ga 2:17)；

そして「すべての人にすべてのものとなった」彼は、自分の党派を作ろうと企てる下心のあるおべっか使いである、と。そのうえ、彼は自分がキリストによって神の任命を受けた使徒であると偽っており、実は十二使徒とエルサレムの教会から遣わされた使者にすぎず、その教えは今やペテロやヤコブという教会の「柱」と異なっているのだから、受け入れられるべきではない、と。

したがって、本書簡を書いた彼の目的は次の通りであった：(1) 自分の使徒的権威を擁護すること

(Ga 1:11-19; 2:1-14)；

(2) ガラテヤにおけるユダヤ化教師たちの悪影響を打ち消すこと

(Ga 3:1-4:31)、

そして彼らの教えが、キリスト教の霊性を外面的儀式体系にまで引き下げることによって、キリスト教の本質そのものを破壊してしまうことを示すこと。(3) ガラテヤの信者たちがキリストに対する信仰と御霊の実において強められるための勧告を与えること

(Ga 5:1-6:18)。

彼はすでに面と向かってユダヤ化教師たちに反対を証ししていた

(Ga 1:9; 4:16; Ac 18:23)；

そして今、その悪が継続し増大していることを耳にして、彼は自筆で

(Ga 6:11：

これは通常口述筆記者に委ねていた労働である) 本書簡を書いてこれに対抗した。本書簡で彼が与える使徒的生涯の素描は、使徒行伝の記述を確認しつつ拡張し、いかに高きに位する者であろうと人的権威からの彼の独立を示している。

Ga 2:14-21における

ペテロに対する彼の抗議は、教皇の至上性ばかりでなく、その使徒自身の至上性という架空の説をも論駁し、ペテロが特別に霊感された時以外は、他の人々と同じく誤りうる者であったことを示している。

本書簡とローマ人への書簡は、律法によるのではなく、信仰による義認を主題として多くの共通点を持つ。しかしローマ人への書簡は、特別な関連なしに教訓的・論理的な様式で主題を扱うが、本書簡は論争的な様式で、ガラテヤのユダヤ化教師たちに特別な関連をもって主題を扱う。

その文体は、二つの極、厳しさ

(Ga 1:1-24; 3:1-5)

と優しさ

(Ga 4:19, 20)

を結び合わせている。これは強い感情の持ち主の特徴であり、ガラテヤ人のような感化されやすい民に働きかけるのにいずれもよく適している。書き出しは唐突であるが、これは問題の緊急性と危機の大きさにふさわしいものであった。悲しみの調べも感じられ、これは自分が愛した人々が真理を曲げる者たちの教えのために自分の教えを捨てつつあり、みずからに対する中傷にも耳を傾けていることをちょうど知った、温かい心の教師の手紙に予期されるものであった。

執筆の時期は、

Ac 15:1以下に

記録されたエルサレム訪問の後であった。すなわち、もしその訪問が（可能性があると思われるように）

Ga 2:1の

それと同一であるならば、紀元後50年である。さらに、

Ga 1:9

（「以前に述べたように」）および

Ga 4:16

（「私は[ALFORD]あなたがたの敵と[なった]のですか」すなわち、第二回の訪問において。一方、第一回の訪問では私はあなたがたに歓迎された）が彼の第二回の訪問

(Ac 18:23)

に関係することから、本書簡はその訪問（紀元後54年秋）の時期より後に書かれたに違いない。

Ga 4:13、

「あなたがたは知っている…私が…最初に福音を宣べ伝えたのは」（ギリシャ語、「前の時に」）は、執筆の時点でパウロがガラテヤに二度滞在していたことを暗示する。そして

Ga 1:6、

「あなたがたがこんなにも速く離れ去るのを私は驚き思う」は、彼が二度目にガラテヤを去ってから間もなく書いたことを暗示する。おそらく彼のエペソ滞在の初期に

(Ac 18:23; 19:1

以下、紀元後54年秋から 紀元後57年のペンテコステまで) [ALFORD]。

CONYBEAREと HOWSONは、本書簡とローマ人への書簡との類似、両書において同じ論法が著者の心を占めていることから、コリント滞在中まで執筆されなかったと考える

(Ac 20:2, 3)、

すなわち57-58年の冬、彼がそこからローマ人への書簡を書いた時期である。確かに、エペソからの早期執筆説によれば、あれほど異なる二つのコリント人への書簡が、ガラテヤ人とローマ人への書簡のように似通った二つの書簡の間に入り込むことはありそうになく、あるいはガラテヤ人への書簡がテサロニケ人への第二の手紙とコリント人への第一の手紙の間に入ることもありそうにない。二つの説の決定は「こんなにも速く」という言葉にかかっている。もしこれが、彼の二度目のガラテヤ訪問からわずか三年余り経過したことと矛盾しないとみなされるなら、ローマ人への書簡との類似からの議論は、私には決定的と思われる。このガラテヤ人への書簡は、緊急の事情のゆえに、すなわちエペソからコリントに伝えられた知らせ、すなわち自分のガラテヤの改宗者の多くがユダヤ化しつつあるとの知らせに応えて、キリスト教的自由と信仰のみによる義認という大原則を擁護するために、訓戒的かつ論争的な調子で書かれた。ローマ人への書簡は、個人的には面識のない教会に向けて、後に書き上げられた、同じ神学の中心的真理のより慎重で体系的な解説である。BIRKSの見解については

Ga 1:6を

見よ。

ペイリー[Horæ Paulinæ]は、論証の進め方が、書簡が書かれた歴史的事といかに完全に適合しているかを適切に論評している。すなわち、パウロが設立した教会であるガラテヤ人に対しては、主として権威に拠り、個人的に知られていなかったローマ人に対しては、完全に論証に拠っているのである。

ガラテヤ書 序論

第1節 ガラテヤの位置とその民の性格

ガラテヤは小アジアの一属州であり、東にポントス、北にビテニアとパフラゴニア、南にカパドキアとフリギア、西にフリギアが接していた。使徒行伝の巻頭に付された地図を参照されたい。もっともタナーの古典地図(Tanner's Classical Atlas)では、北はエウクセイノス海、すなわち黒海にまで及んでいる。東西の最大距離は約二百マイルに達し、幅は十二マイルから百五十マイルまで不一であったとみられる。ガラテヤは小アジア最大級の属州の一つであり、ほぼニュージャージー州に等しい広さの地域を覆っていた。とはいえガラテヤの境界は、事情しだいで時代ごとに異なっていた可能性が高い。北側を除けば天然の境界を持たなかったため、その限界は征服によって、また属州として編成された際のローマ皇帝の意志によって変動し得たのである。

「ガラテヤ」という名はガリア(Gaul)という語に由来し、ガリア人がこの地を征服してそこに定住したためにこの名が与えられた(Pausanias, Attic. cap. iv.)。ガリア人はさまざまなギリシア系の諸家系と混交したため、この地方はガロ・グラエキア(Gallogroecia)、すなわちガリア・ギリシアとも呼ばれた(Justin, lib. xxiv. 4; xxv. 2; xvii. 3.)。ユスティヌスの記述(Justin, lib. xxv. cap. 2)によれば、この小アジア侵入はローマ建国後およそ479年、すなわちキリスト以前およそ272年に行われた。ガリア人はマケドニアとギリシアに侵入し、続いて小アジアに侵入して、その全地域の恐怖の的となった。この遠征はガリアから発し、ライン川を渡り、ドナウ川に沿ってノリクム、パンノニア、モエシアを経由し、ゲルマニアに入る際に多くのテクトサゲス人を同行させた。ガリア人がトラキアに到着したとき、ルタリウスは彼らを率いてボスポラス海峡を渡り、小アジアの征服を成し遂げた(Liv. lib. xxxviii. c. 16.)。その数がいかに多かったかについて、ユスティヌスは「ガリア人は蜂の群れのように全アジア(すなわち小アジア全域)を満たした。ついに彼らは非常に増え広がって、東方の王たちでガリア人の軍勢なしに戦争を遂行できる者はなく、王国から追放されたときにもガリア人以外に逃れる先はなかった。ガリアという名への恐怖がこれほどであり、その武具の不敗の幸運――et armorum invicta felicitas erat――がこれほどであったので、ガリア人の武勇の助けなしには、自分たちの威厳を保つことも、失われた威厳を回復することもできないと人々は考えた。ビテニア王が応援を求めて彼らを招き入れたとき、勝利を収めた彼らは王と王国を分かち合い、その地方をガロ・グラエキアと呼んだ」と述べている(Justin, xxv. 2.)。アウグストゥス・カエサルの治世、キリストの降誕の約26年前に、この地方はローマ植民地の形式に組み入れられ、皇帝が任命したプロプラエトル(proproetor)によって統治された。

ガリア人は5世紀に至るまで本来のガリア語を保っていた。これはヒエロニムスの証言から明らかである。彼によれば、彼らの方言はトレウィリ族の方言とほぼ同じであった(Tom. iv. p. 256. ed. Benedict.)。同時に彼らは、小アジアのすべての住民と同じくギリシア語も話した。それゆえ彼らに宛てたこの手紙はギリシア語で書かれ、他の諸民と同じく彼らにも理解可能であった。

ガラテヤ人は周辺地方の住民と同じく異教徒であり、その宗教は粗野で人を堕落させる類のものであった。彼らはアグディスティス(Agdistis)の名のもとに「神々の母」を礼拝したと伝えられる。カリマコスはその賛歌の中で彼らを「愚かな民」と呼び、同じくガリア人であったヒラリウスは彼らを教えがたいガリア人、すなわち Gallos indociles と呼んだ。カルメ(Calmer)によれば、こうした表現は、パウロが彼らを「愚かなガラテヤ人たち」と呼んだこと(Galatians 3:1)を十分に説明し得るという。彼らのうちには都市はほとんど見いだされず、いくらかの商取引きを営んでいたアンキュラ、タウィウム、ペシヌスが例外であった。

ガラテヤの占領者は、ガリア人の三つの異なる民族ないし部族、すなわちトリストボギイ(Tolistobogi)、トロクミ(Troemi)、テクトサゲス(Tectosagi)であった。これらの名が刻まれた帝政期のメダルが現存している。この区別を心に留めておくことは若干重要である。ペテロがガラテヤの一地方で回心者を得ていたちょうどそのとき、使徒パウロは別の地方にいた可能性があり、また、ペテロに由来する権威を主張する者たちが、パウロの見解に沿わない意見を広めた可能性もある。それを正し、暴くことがこの手紙の目的の一つであった(Calmet)。

ガリア人は古代の歴史家たちによって、背が高く勇猛な民として言及されている。彼らはほとんど裸で歩き回った。その武器は剣と小盾のみであった。彼らの攻撃の勢いは抵抗を許さないものであったといわれ、それゆえ彼らは恐るべき存在となり、通例勝利を収めた。

福音がそこで宣べ伝えられたとき、あるいはこの手紙が書かれたときのガラテヤ住民の数を確定することは不可能である。2 Macc. 8:20には、ユダ・マカベオがシリア人と雄々しく戦うよう従者たちを励ました際、彼らを励ますために神の介入のいくつかの実例に言及したことが記されている。その中の一つとして、「彼はバビロンでガラテヤ人たちと交えた戦いについて彼らに語った。その戦いに臨んだのは全部で八千人、うち四千人はマケドニア人であった。マケドニア人が窮地に陥ったとき、その八千人は天から受けた助けゆえに十二万人を打ち破り、こうして大きな戦利品を得た」とある。しかし、これがガラテヤに住んでいた者たちを指すのかは確かでない。当時小アジアを席巻していたガリア人を指す可能性もある。ここで用いられたギリシア語(Γαλάτας Galatas)は、いずれの意味にも等しく用いられ得るからである。とはいえ、この包括的な名のもとに大規模な人口が存在したことは明らかであり、福音が宣べ伝えられた時期のガラテヤは人口稠密であったと考えられる。ガラテヤは小アジアの中央部、当時の世界で最も人口稠密な地域の一つに位置し、格別に肥沃な地帯であった(Strabo, lib. xii. p. 567, 568, ed. Casaub.)。また多くの人々が商業のためにそこに引き寄せられた。小アジアのすべての属州に多くのユダヤ人がいたことは、使徒行伝から明白であるだけでなく、ヨセフスによっても明言されている(Josephus, Ant. xvi. 6.)。

第2節 福音がガラテヤで宣べ伝えられた時期

福音が最初にガラテヤで宣べ伝えられた時期、またそれを行った人物についての確実な情報はない。ただしパウロがそこで数回説教したことが言及されており、いくつかの事情から、それらの教会が彼によって立てられたこと、彼が福音を最初に彼らに携えて行った者であったこと、あるいは彼とバルナバがアンテオケから遣わされた伝道旅行の際に(Acts 13:2以下)、共にそこで福音を宣べ伝えたことが推察される。Acts 16:5-6には、彼らが「フリギアとガラテヤの地方を通って」行ったことが明記されている。この旅行は諸教会を堅く立たせるためのものであり、Acts 15:36に記されているとおりパウロの提案により、主のことばを宣べ伝えたすべての町で兄弟たちを訪問する意図をもって行われた。確かに、パウロとバルナバの伝道の記録(Acts 14)には、彼らがガラテヤに入ったとは明言されていない。しかしActs 14:5-6には、彼らがイコニオムにいたとき暴挙が企てられ、石打ちにする意図が形成され、それを知らされて彼らがリストラとデルベ、すなわちリカオニヤの諸都市へ、「またその周辺の地方へ」逃げたことが記されている。プリニウスは、リカオニヤの一部はガラテヤに接し、十四の都市を含み、その中でイコニオムが最も名高かったと述べている(Pliny, lib. v. c. 27.)。フリギアもまたガラテヤとリカオニヤに隣接していた。これらの事情から、パウロが以前福音を宣べ伝えた諸教会を再び訪問しようとバルナバに提案したとき、ガラテヤが含まれており、Acts 16:6に言及される訪問に先立って彼らはすでにそこにいたと考えることが最もらしい。

さらにまた、パウロが「私は驚いています。あなたがたをキリストの恵みへ召してくださった方から、あなたがたがこんなにも早く離れて、別の福音に移って行くことに」(Galatians 1:6)と述べる箇所で、彼が自分自身を指している可能性もある。もしそうなら、彼が最初に彼らに福音を宣べ伝え、そこに教会を立てたことは明白である。同じことは、「私はあなたがたの証人となります。もしできたのなら、あなたがたは自分の目をえぐり出して私にくださったことでしょう」(Galatians 4:15)という表現からも裏付けられる。この表現から、彼が最初に彼らに福音を宣べ伝えたために彼らが彼に対して特別な愛着を抱いていたこと、また初恋に伴う熱情が存在したことが推察される。したがって、私の考えでは、福音がガラテヤ人の中で最初にパウロによって宣べ伝えられたことは極めて明白である。それは、彼が単独で、あるいは他の使徒の一人と共に行ったかのいずれかであろう。もっとも、上で示唆したように、パウロが他の地方で説教していたまさにその時期に、ペテロもガラテヤの一地方で説教していた可能性もある。この点に関してなお若干重要な事情は、パウロがこの手紙を権威ある口調で、また最初からそこで福音を宣べ伝えて教会の創立者として、その父として彼らに語る権利を持っていたのでなければ用いなかったであろう厳しい責めの口調で書いていることである。この点で、ロック氏が指摘したように、ここでの口調はローマ人への手紙に見られるものとかなり異なる。パウロは、ローマの教会に手紙で語りかけたときにはまだローマに行ったことがなく、そのことばはコリント人への手紙やガラテヤ人への手紙に見られるものと実質的に異なる。ローマ書においてそれは外国人の実に丁寧で穏やかなことばであり、ここでは丁寧ではあるが、責める権利を持つ父の権威あることばなのである。

第3節 この手紙の書かれた年代

多くの人々が、これがパウロの書いた最初の手紙であると考えてきた。テルトゥリアヌスはこの見解を擁護し(ラードナー第6巻7頁、ロンドン1829年版参照)、エピファニオスも同様である。テオドレトスその他の人々は、この手紙はローマで書かれ、したがってパウロの生涯の終わり近くに書かれた、彼の最後の手紙の一つであると考える。ライトフットも、これがローマから書かれ、パウロがそこで書いた手紙の中で最初のものの一つであると考える。クリュソストモスは、この手紙がローマ人への手紙に先行して書かれたと述べている。ルドヴィクス・カペルス、ウィッシウス、ウォールは、使徒が二度目にガラテヤにいた後、エペソから書かれたと考える。これはピアソンの見解でもあり、彼はこれを紀元57年、コリント人への第一の手紙の後、パウロがエペソを去る前に置く。グロティウスはこの手紙の年代を定めることを困難としたが、ローマ人への手紙とほぼ同時期に書かれたと推測した。ミルはそれはローマ人への手紙の後、パウロがエルサレムへ向かう途中、おそらくトロアスかアジアの他のどこかの場所で書かれたと考え、この手紙を紀元58年とする。ベンソン博士は、使徒が最初にコリントにいたとき、そこに一年六か月の長く滞在したときに書かれたと考える。その滞在中にパウロはガラテヤの回心者たちの不安定さについての知らせを受け、この手紙を書いて助力者の一人によって送ったと彼は考える。これらの見解の検討については、上に引用したラードナーを参照されたい。ラードナー自身は、紀元52年ごろ、あるいは紀元53年初めごろ、コリントから書かれたと考える。マックナイトは、エルサレムの会議の後、パウロとシラスがエルサレムで定められた規定を諸教会に届けた旅行(Acts 16:4)に出る前に、アンテオケから書かれたと考える。フークはその序論において、テサロニケ人への第一、第二の手紙とテトスへの手紙の後、紀元57年にエペソで書かれたと考える。ロック氏は、パウロが紀元51年にガラテヤに教会を立て、この手紙はその時から紀元57年までの間に書かれたと考える。これらの見解の大部分は単なる推測であり、これほど意見が分かれる中では、それがいつ書かれたかを正確に定めることは明らかに不可能である。手紙自体に含まれる唯一の時期の標識は、使徒が「私は驚いています。あなたがたをキリストの恵みへ召してくださった方から、あなたがたがこんなにも早く(οὕτω ταχέως houtō tacheōs)離れて……」(Galatians 1:6)と言う箇所に現れる。「こんなにも早く」ということばから、パウロが彼らの間にいた時期からそれほど隔たらない時期に書かれたと推察される。とはいえ数年を経ていた可能性もある。多国語聖書(バグスター版)がこの手紙に付した年代は紀元58年である。

この手紙の正確な年代はごくわずかな重要性しか持たない。書かれた時期に関して、私にとって実際に重みがあると思われる唯一の論証は、ペイリーがその『ホラエ・パウリナエ』(Horae Paulinae)において提出したものである。「異邦人回心者の割礼をめぐる論争が人々の記憶に新しいうちにこの手紙が書かれたことは、ほとんど疑い得ない。たとえそれが偽作であったとしても、偽作の唯一のもっともらしい動機は、使徒の名と権威をこの論争に持ち込むことにあったからである。論争そのものがすでに死んで、その問題がもはやいかなる読者階級にとっても関心を引かないときに、その論争の一方の側に立って熱心かつ的確に書かれた手紙を作り出すことほど、無味乾燥で、だれの心にも浮かびそうにない意図はあり得ないからである。ところで異邦人の割礼をめぐる論争は、それが起こるとしたらキリスト教の初期に起こったに違いない性質のものである」。ペイリーはさらに、ユダヤ人とユダヤ人からの回心者たちがこの問題を提起し、かき立てることが自然であったこと、またそれは、神殿が立ち、彼らが一つの国民として存続し、いけにえがささげられていた間のほうが、彼らの都市と神殿が破壊された後よりも、はるかに強く主張されやすかったことを示している。

それゆえ、この論争はティトゥスによるユダヤ侵入とエルサレム破壊に先立って始まり、手紙もまた書かれたに違いないことは明らかである。内的証拠はこの結論を導く。全体として、この手紙は紀元53年ごろ、あるいはそれから紀元57年までの間のどこかで書かれたと考えるのが最もらしい。また、これは明らかにガラテヤの諸教会における一つの重要な論争を決着させることを意図していた。それが書かれた場所は、私の考えでは、まったく推測の問題である。ローマから書かれたとする末尾の付記は何の権威も持たず、私の見るところ、この問題に光を投げかける内的事情は何もない。

第4節 この手紙の目的

この手紙自体から、ガラテヤの諸教会に次の事情が存在したこと、またこの手紙がそれらを念頭に置いて書かれたことを知ることは容易である。

(1) 彼らが最初、使徒パウロに敬虔な愛着を抱き、彼が彼らの間にいたとき、彼の命令と教えを疑いのない信頼をもって受け入れていたこと(Galatians 4:14-15。Galatians 1:6と比較せよ)。

(2) 彼が彼らを去った後まもなく、彼らが彼の教えた教えから迷わされたこと(Galatians 1:6)。

(3) これがユダヤ出身の人々によってなされ、彼らがユダヤ教の諸儀式の遵守を主張したこと。

(4) 彼らが直接エルサレムから来たと主張し、その宗教上の見解と権威とをエルサレムの使徒たちに由来させたこと。

(5) 彼らが、使徒パウロはエルサレムの使徒たちより劣ること、彼がより後になって使徒職に召されたこと、エルサレムの使徒たちこそキリスト教会における権威の源とみなされるべきこと、したがってパウロの教えはエルサレムから直接由来する教えに譲歩すべきことを教えたこと。

(6) モーセの律法が拘束力を持ち、義認のために必要であること。とりわけ割礼の儀式が拘束的な義務であること。さらにGalatians 6:12から判断して、彼らが多くのガラテヤ人を割礼を受けるように説き伏せた可能性があり、彼らにユダヤ人の諸祭りを守らせたことは確実である(Galatians 4:10)。

(7) また、彼らは、パウロ自身もガラテヤ人たちの間にいた時以来見解を変え、今では割礼の必要を主張していると論じたように思われること(Galatians 5:11)。おそらく彼らは、パウロがエルサレムにいたときユダヤ式のいくつかの慣習に従ったという動かし難い事実(Acts 21:26)から、これを主張したのであろう。

(8) 彼らが、神のすべての約束はアブラハムに与えられたのであり、それらの約束にあずかろうとする者はだれでも、アブラハムと同じように割礼を受けなければならないと主張したこと。これに対してパウロはGalatians 3:7とGalatians 4:7において答えている。

(9) これらの見解の宣布の結果、教会内に大きな分裂が生じ、不幸な性質の争いが存在し、キリストの名を負う者たちが示すべき御霊に大いに反していたこと。

ガラテヤの諸教会における事態のこの描写から、この手紙の目的は明白であり、論証の全体的な趣旨も容易に見て取れる。使徒はこうした事態を間違いなく知らされていたが、それが手紙によってであったか、諸教会からの使者によってであったかは述べられていない。おそらくそこにいた彼の友人たちの何人かが彼にこれを知らせ、彼はただちにそこに存在する悪への対処に取りかかったのであろう。

I. そこで第一の目的は、彼が使徒としての任職を直接神から受けたことを示すことであった。彼はそれを少しも人間から受けてはいない。彼は他の使徒たちによって教えられたのでもなく、彼らの優位を承認したのでもなく、彼らと協議したことさえない。それゆえ彼は、エルサレムの使徒たちが何らかのより高い地位や権威を保持することを承認しなかった。十字架につけられる前の主イエスを見たことはなかったものの、彼の任職はそれでも直接主ご自身から由来した。それゆえ、彼が彼らに教えた教え、すなわちモーセの律法は拘束力を持たず、割礼を受ける必要もないという教えは、直接神から由来する教えであった。これを証明するため彼は、自分がどのように召されたかについての詳細な叙述(Galatians 1章)へと進み、自分がエルサレムの使徒たちと協議したことも、彼らに対する自分の劣等を告白したこともないという事実、自分の宣教のあり方を彼らが知るようになったとき彼らが自分の歩みを承認したという事実(Galatians 1:24; Galatians 2:1-10)、そしてある機会に、当時論争の対象となっていたまさにその問題の一つについて明らかに誤っていた、最古の使徒ペテロと実際に意見を異にせざるを得なかったという事実へと進んでいく。

II. したがって第二の大きな目的は、モーセの律法の本来の性質と目的を示し、モーセの儀式の特殊的な諸規定、とりわけ割礼の儀式が義認と救いに必要ではないこと、またその儀式を守る者は、実際には聖書の示す義認の方法を放棄し、キリストのいけにえを無価値なものとし、自分自身を奴隷にしていることを証明することであった。このことから彼は、義認の教理の真の性質と、贖い主による救いの道についての考察へと導かれていく。

この点を彼は次の仕方で示す。

(1) キリスト以前に生きた人々、とりわけアブラハムが、実際にはモーセの儀式的律法への従順によってではなく、神の約束への信仰によって義と認められたことを示すことによって(Galatians 3:1-18)。

(2) モーセの儀式の目的が一時的なものにすぎず、キリストへと導くためのものであったことを示すことによって(Galatians 3:19-29; Galatians 4:1-8)。

(3) これを踏まえて、ガラテヤ人がこれほど容易にこれらの慣習の遵守に陥ったことを責めることによって(Galatians 4:9-21)。

(4) モーセの律法の目的とその傾向についてのこの見解を、ハガルの事例から引いた寓話によって例証することによって(Galatians 4:21-31)。

この論述全体に続いて、生じた悪を避けるようガラテヤ人に宛てた愛情あふれる勧告が置かれ、モーセの諸儀式を導入しようとする試みの結果として生じた争いを責め、モーセの制度の隷役からキリストが彼らに与えてくださった自由の中に堅く立つよう切に懇願している(Galatians 5章、6章)。

したがってこの手紙全体の目的は、義認の真の教理を述べ擁護し、それがモーセの律法の遵守に依存しないことを示すことにある。それゆえ全体的な目的において、この手紙はローマ人への手紙の目的と一致する。しかし一つの点でローマ書の目的とは異なる。ローマ書は、人が律法のいかなる行いによっても、道徳律であれ儀式律であれ、いかなる律法への従順によっても義と認められないことを示すために書かれたが、この手紙は、儀式律ないし典礼律への従順によっては義認が得られないこと、すなわち儀式律の遵守が救いに必要ではないことを示すことを目的としている。この点において、この手紙はローマ書よりも一般的な関心に値する度合いが小さい。またいくつかの点でより困難でもある。その論法は、私がそう表現してよいならば、よりユダヤ的である。よりユダヤ的な仕方であって、ユダヤ人をそのユダヤ人自身のやり方において迎え撃つことを意図しており、それゆえすべての人にとって追うことがやや難しい。それでもなお、この手紙には救いの諸教理についての偉大で生命にかかわる言明が含まれており、それゆえ、救いを望み、神に受け入れられる道を知ろうと願うすべての人の、深く注意深い考察を要求するのである。

本章におけるパウロの主な目的は、自分が使徒職への召しを人間からではなく神から受けたことを示すことである。すでに主張されていたのは(ガラテヤ書序論を参照)、エルサレムの使徒たちがキリスト教会において最も高い地位と最高の権威を持ち、真理の源泉かつ審判者とみなされるべきであること、パウロは使徒として彼らに劣ること、また割礼の必要とモーセの諸規定の遵守を説く者たちは、エルサレムの使徒たちの権威と模範によって支えられているということであった。

この主張に応えることがこの第1章の目的であった。パウロの壮大な目的は、自分が人間たちによって任命されたのではなく、人間たちから任職を受けたのでもなく、自分の教えを人間たちから受け取ったのでもなく、彼らと協議したことさえなく、イエス・キリストによって明示的に任職され教えられたこと、また、エルサレムの使徒たちが、彼が宣教を開始してからかなり後になって、彼と彼の見解および労働の計画を知り、彼に完全に同意したことを示すことであった。この論証は次の各部分から成る。

I. 自分が人間たちから任職されたのではなく、いかなる意味においても人間の使徒ではないという厳粛な宣言、ならびにガラテヤの諸教会への一般的な挨拶(Galatians 1:1-5)。

II. ガラテヤ人がこれほど早く彼の教えを捨てて別の福音を受け入れたことへの驚きの表明、ならびに別の福音を宣べ伝える者はだれでものろわれた者とされるべきであるという厳粛な宣言(Galatians 1:6-10)。彼は、キリストへの信仰から成るもの以外のいかなる義認の道を宣べ伝えようとする者をも二度にわたってのろい、そのようなものはまったく福音ではないと言う。救いの道はただ一つであるということが、偉大で確立された原理として扱われるべきであり、他の何を説教しようと試みる者がいても、その者はのろわれた者とみなされるべきであった。

III. そこで、自分が人間たちから任命されたのでも人間たちから教えを受けたのでもなく、神によって直接啓示された真理――それゆえ不変かつ永遠にして変わらない真理――を宣べ伝えたことを示すために、彼は自分がどのように伝道の務めに召され、福音を知るようになったかについての叙述へと進む(Galatians 1:11-24)。

(a) 彼は、福音を人から教えられたのではなく、イエス・キリストの明示的な啓示によって受けたと断言する(Galatians 1:11-12)。

(b) 彼は、かつての周知の生涯とユダヤ教における熱心さとに言及し、かつて自分がいかに福音に激しく反対であったかを示す(Galatians 1:13-14)。

(c) 彼は、母の胎にあるときから神の目的によって福音の説教者となるために隔てられており、伝道の務めに召されたとき、何を宣べ伝えるべきかについてだれひとり人間と協議しなかったと言う。年長の使徒たちと相談するためにエルサレムに上ることなく、彼らから遠く離れてアラビヤに入り、そこから再びダマスコに戻ったのである(Galatians 1:15-17)。

(d) 三年後、彼は確かにエルサレムに行った。しかしそこに滞在したのは十五日間にすぎず、ペテロとヤコブ以外の使徒にはだれにも会わなかった(Galatians 1:18-19)。彼の福音についての見解はそれ以前に形成されていた。また、自分がペテロに盲従して彼から学んだのではないことは、Galatians 2章で示される。そこで彼は、ペテロを「面と向かって」しかったと言っているのである。

(e) その後、彼は小アジアのキリキヤの地方に入り、ユダヤにある諸教会と協議する機会がまったくなかったと言う。それにもかかわらず彼らは、かつて迫害者であった者が説教者となったと聞き、そのために神に栄光を帰した(Galatians 1:20-24)。もちろん彼には、自分の宗教上の見解を彼らから得る機会はなく、いかなる意味でも彼らに依存してはいなかった。しかし、彼らが彼の見解を知る限りにおいて、彼らはそれに同意したのである。したがって本章の論証の要旨はこうである。すなわち、パウロがキリキヤおよびその周辺の地方に入ったとき、彼は二人の使徒と短期間会ったことがあるだけで、使徒たちが一堂に会したところには一度も同席しておらず、彼らからいかなる教えも受けたことがない。彼がガラテヤ人に伝えた福音についての見解は、直接神から受け取ったのである。

Preface to the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians

Galatia was anciently a part of Phrygia and the neighboring countries. It had its name from the Gauls, who, having in several bodies invaded Asia Minor, as Pausanius (Attic., cap. iv.) relates, conquered this country and settled in it. As these were mixed with various Grecian families, the country was also called Gallograecia, see Justin, lib. xxiv. 4; xxv. 2; xxvii. 3; xxviii. 3; and Strabo, xiv. Under the reign of Augustus Caesar, about the year of Rome 727, and 26 years before our Lord, it was reduced into the form of a Roman colony, and was governed by a propraetor, appointed by the emperor.

This country is bounded on the east by Cappadocia; on the west by Bithynia; on the south by Pamphylia; and on the north by the Euxine Sea. These are its limits according to Strabo, which some think too extensive; but the different provinces of Asia Minor being the subjects of continual contentions and inroads, very frequently changed their boundaries as well as their masters, and were seldom at one stay.

The Galatae were divided into three tribes, the Tectosages, the Trocmi, and the Tolistobogi. According to Pliny their country was divided into 195 tetrarchies, and, according to Strabo, each of the three divisions above mentioned was subdivided into four cantons, each of which had a tetrarch; and besides these twelve tetrarchs, there was a general council of the nation, consisting of 300 senators. These tetrarchs were at last reduced in number to three, then to two, and lastly to one; the last tetrarch and king of Galatia was Amyntas, who, from being secretary to Dejotarus, the first person that possessed the whole tetrarchy, was made king of Pisidia in the year of Rome 714. And in the year 718, Mark Antony made him tetrarch of Galatia. After the death of Amyntas, Galatia was ranked by Augustus among the Roman provinces, and governed as aforesaid. The administration of the propraetors continued till the reign of Theodosius the Great, or Valens; and, under the Christian emperors, it was divided into two provinces, Galatia prima being subject to a consul; Galatia secunda, or salutaris, governed by a president.

The religion of the ancient Galatae was extremely corrupt and superstitious; and they are said to have worshipped the mother of the gods under the name of Agdistis, and to have offered human sacrifices of the prisoners they took in war.

They are mentioned by historians as a tall and valiant people, who went nearly naked; and used for arms only a sword and buckler. The impetuosity of their attack is stated to have been irresistible; and this generally made them victorious.

It appears, from the Acts of the Apostles, that St. Paul visited this country more than once. Two visits to this region are particularly marked in the Acts, viz. the first about a.d. 53, Acts 16:6 : "Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia," etc.; the second about a.d. 56, Acts 18:23 : "He went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples."

St. Paul was probably the first who had preached the Gospel in this region, as appears pretty evident from Galatians 1:6 : "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that Called You into the Grace of Christ;? and from Galatians 4:13 : "Ye know how, through infirmity of the flesh, I preached the Gospel unto you at the first." Others suppose that it is not unlikely that St. Peter had preached the Gospel there to the Jews or Helenists only, as his first epistle is directed "to the strangers who were scattered abroad throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia;" and it is supposed, also, that the persons converted by St. Peter probably occasioned those differences among the Galatian converts, which induced St. Paul to write this epistle, in which he takes pains to establish his own character as an apostle, which had been disputed by some, with a view of placing him below Peter, who preached generally to the Jews only, and observed the law. See Calmet and the New Encyclopedia, article Galatia. That St. Peter thought at first that the Gospel should be confined to the Jews is sufficiently evident from the Acts of the Apostles; but after his Divine vision, which happened about a.d. 41, related Acts 10, he saw that God had also called the Gentiles into the Church; and his first epistle, which was written in a.d. 64, was probably twelve years posterior to that written by St. Paul to the Galatians.

As to the precise time in which this epistle was written, there have been various opinions among learned men. Some of the ancients believed it to be the very first written of all St. Paul's epistles. See Epiphanius, tom. i., Haeres. 42. Others have supposed that it was written after his second journey to Galatia, Acts 18:23, which in the chronology I have placed in a.d. 54; and others, with more probability, after his first journey, see Acts 16:6, which in the chronology I have placed in a.d. 53. That it was written soon after one of the apostle's visits to that region seems evident from the following complaint: "I marvel that ye are so Soon removed from him that hath called you," Galatians 1:6; it has been therefore conjectured that only one or two years had elapsed from that time, and that the epistle must have been written about a.d. 52 or 53. Beausobre and L'Enfant speak very judiciously on this subject: "We do not find in the Epistle to the Galatians any mark that can enable us to determine with certainty at what time or in what place it was written. It is dated at Rome in some printed copies and MSS., but there is nothing in the epistle itself to confirm this date. Paul does not here make any mention of his bonds, as he does in all his epistles written from Rome. He says, indeed, Galatians 6:17 : 'I bear about in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus;' but he had often suffered before he came to Rome. Some learned chronologers think that it was written between the third and fourth journey of St. Paul to Jerusalem, and between his first and second into Galatia; which opinion appears very probable; for, since the apostle says, he wonders that they were so soon turned to another gospel, this epistle must have been written a short time after he had preached in Galatia.

"Nor can we discern in the epistle any notice of the second journey which St. Paul made into this country. For this reason it is thought that the Epistle to the Galatians was written at Corinth, where the apostle made a long stay, or else in some city of Asia, particularly Ephesus, where he stayed some days on his way to Jerusalem, Acts 18:19-21; therefore, in all probability the epistle was written from Corinth, or from Ephesus, in the year 52 or 53."

Dr. Lardner confirms this opinion by the following considerations: -

1. St. Paul says to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 16:1 : "Now, concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the Churches of Galatia, so do ye;" which shows that at the writing of that epistle to the Corinthians, in 56, he had a good opinion of his converts in Galatia; and that he had no doubt of their respect to his directions, which probably had been sent to them from Ephesus during his long abode there.

2. And now we shall be better able to account for what appears very remarkable: when Paul left Corinth, after his long stay there, he went to Jerusalem, having a vow; in his way he came to Ephesus, Acts 18:10-21 : "And when they desired him to tarry longer with them, he consented not, but bade them farewell saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh at Jerusalem; but I will return unto you again, if God will." When we read this, we might be apt to think that Paul should hasten back to Ephesus and return thither presently, after he had been at Jerusalem; but instead of doing so, after he had been at Jerusalem, he went down to Antioch; "And after he had spent some time there he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening the disciples," Acts 18:22, Acts 18:23. We now seem to see the reason of this course. At Corinth he heard of the defection of many in Galatia, whereupon he sent a sharp letter to them; but, considering the nature of the case, he judged it best to take the first opportunity to go to Galatia, and support the instructions of his letter; and both together had a good effect. Galatians 4:19, Galatians 4:20 : "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again - I desire to be present with you, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you;" or, I am perplexed for you. Now, then, we see the reason of the apostle's not coming directly from Jerusalem to Ephesus. However, he was not unmindful of his promise, and came thither after he had been in Galatia.

3. Upon the whole, the Epistle to the Galatians is an early epistle, and, as seems to me most probable, was written at Corinth near the end of a.d. 52, or the very beginning of 53, before St. Paul set out to go to Jerusalem by the way of Ephesus.

But if any should rather think that it was written at Ephesus, during the apostle's short stay there, on his way from Corinth to Jerusalem, that will make but very little difference; for still, according to our computation, the epistle was written at the beginning of the year 53. See Lardner's Works, vol. vi., page 309.

Every thing considered, I feel no hesitation to place this epistle in the 52nd or 53rd year of our Lord; either the end of the former or the beginning of the latter.

From the complexion of this epistle it appears to have been written to the Jews who were dispersed in Galatia; see Acts 2:9. And although in Galatians 4:8, it is said that the persons to whom the apostle writes did not know God, and did service to them which by nature were no gods; this must be understood of those who had been proselytes to the Jewish religion, as Galatians 4:9 sufficiently shows; for, after they had been converted to Christianity, they turned Again to the weak and beggarly elements.

These Galatians were doubtless converted by St. Paul; see Acts 16:6; Acts 18:23; but, after his departure from them, some teachers had got in among them who endeavored to persuade them, and successfully too, that they should be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law. See Galatians 1:6; Galatians 4:9, Galatians 4:10, Galatians 4:21; Galatians 5:1, Galatians 5:2; Galatians 6:12. And the apostle labors to bring them back from the errors of these false teachers.

The arguments which the apostle uses to prove the truth of the Christian religion, as well as the nullity of the Mosaic institutions, are the following: -

1. That himself, immediately after his conversion, without having any conference with any of the apostles, preached the pure doctrines of Christianity doctrines strictly conformable to those preached by the genuine disciples of the Lord; and this was a proof that he had received them by immediate inspiration, as he could have known them no other way.

2. That he was led to oppose Peter because he had withdrawn himself from communion with the converted Gentiles, and thereby gave occasion to some to suppose that he considered the law as still binding on those who believed; and that the Gentiles were not to be admitted to an equality of religious privileges with the Jews.

3. That no rites or ceremonies of the Jewish law could avail any thing in the justification of a sinner; and that faith in Christ was the only means of justification.

4. That their own works could avail nothing towards their justification: -

(1.) For the Spirit of God was given them in consequence of receiving the Christian doctrine, Galatians 3:2-5.

(2.) That the works of the law cannot justify, because Abraham was justified by faith long before the law of Moses was given, Galatians 3:6, Galatians 3:7.

(3.) That the curse of the law, under which every sinner lives, is not removed but by the sacrifice of Christ, Galatians 3:8, Galatians 3:9.

5. That it is absurd for the sons of God to become slaves to Mosaic rites and ceremonies.

The rest of the epistle is of a practical nature. Although subjects of this kind may be gathered out of the epistle, yet it is very evident that the apostle himself has observed no technical division or arrangement of his matter; his chief design being,

1. To vindicate his own apostleship, and to show that he was not inferior to Peter himself, whom their false teachers appear to have set up in opposition to St. Paul.

2. To assert and maintain justification by faith in opposition to all Judaizing teachers.

3. To call them back to the liberty of the Gospel, from which, and its privileges, they had shamelessly apostatized. And,

4. To admonish and exhort them to walk worthy of their vocation, by devoting themselves to the glory of God and the benefit of their brethren. Lastly, he asserts his own determination to be faithful, and concludes with his apostolical benediction.

St. Paul shows that he was especially called of God to be an apostle, Galatians 1:1. Directs his epistle to the Churches through the regions of Galatia, Galatians 1:2. Commends them to the grace of Christ, who gave himself for their sins, Galatians 1:3-5. Marvels that they had so soon turned away from the grace of the Gospel of Christ, to what falsely pretended to be another gospel, Galatians 1:6, Galatians 1:7. Pronounces him accursed who shall preach any other doctrine than that which he had delivered to them, Galatians 1:8, Galatians 1:9. Shows his own uprightness, and that he received his doctrine from God, Galatians 1:10-12. Gives an account of his conversion and call to the apostleship, Galatians 1:13-17. How three years after his conversion he went up to Jerusalem, and afterwards went through the regions of Syria and Cilicia, preaching the faith of Christ to the great joy of the Christian Churches in Judea, Galatians 1:18-24.

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 Galatians 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, Galatians 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 Galatians 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, Acts 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 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 Acts 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, Galatians 4:13 and from Acts 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, Acts 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.

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 Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 1:18 for the truth of all which he appeals to God the searcher of hearts, Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 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, Galatians 1:24.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

The Epistle to the Galatians

BY

THE REV. W. SANDAY, M.A. D.D.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

I. Galatia.—The name Galatia is used in two senses. In ordinary speech it was used to designate that portion of Asia Minor lying chiefly between the rivers Sangarius and Halys, which was inhabited by the tribe of Galatæ, or Galli. This warlike people had been invited over from Europe by Nicomedes king of Bithynia, who repaid their services by a grant of land. Issuing forth from thence, they had been for a time the terror and the scourge of Asia Minor, but they had been at last driven back and confined within the territory originally assigned to them. These events took place in the latter half of the third century B.C. Their power was broken by the Romans in B.C. 189, and though for another century and a half they retained a nominal independence, in B.C. 25 they were formally annexed to the empire of Rome.

Just before this final annexation, during the reign of the last king, Amyntas, the kingdom of Galatia had been considerably enlarged. Amyntas had ranged himself on the winning side in the great civil wars, and he had received as his reward Pisidia, Isauria, parts of Lycaonia and Phrygia, and Cilicia Trachæa. On his death the greater part of these dominions, with the exception of Cilicia Trachæa, became a single Roman province, which, for administrative purposes, was also known by the name Galatia.

To which of these two Galatias did St. Paul address his Epistle? Was it to the narrower Galatia—Galatia proper—or to the wider Galatia—the Roman province? There are some temptations to adopt the second of these views. In that case we should have a graphic account of the founding of the Galatian churches—for such they would be—in Acts 13, 14. At Antioch in Pisidia, which we are expressly told formed part of the kingdom of Amyntas, the Apostle had preached with a success which had called down violent opposition. Iconium, to which he retreated, appears not to have been given to Amyntas, and whether it formed part of the Roman province at this time is uncertain. There is, however, no doubt as to Lystra—where the two Apostles were received so enthusiastically—and Derbe. On the hypothesis that the Galatia of the Epistle is the Roman province, the scenes of this first missionary journey would be directly associated with it. On the contrary assumption, no details whatever as to the founding of the Galatian churches have come down to us.

In spite of this, and in spite of some other points in which the history may seem to be simplified by assigning to Galatia the wider signification, a balance of considerations seems to prevent us from doing so. There can be no question that St. Luke, in the Acts, wherever he speaks of Galatia, uses the word in its narrower and proper sense, and though this would not be in itself decisive as to the usage of St. Paul, still it is impossible to think that in impassioned passages like Galatians 3:1, “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you,” &c., the Apostle is using only an official title. We shall be safe in assuming that he was really writing to the descendants of the Gallic invaders, and that he addresses them by the name by which they were familiarly known.

II. The Galatians.—It does not, however, follow from what has just been said that the Christian converts were taken solely or even chiefly from the native Galatians. They did but give a name to the country; three other nationalities went to make up its population. First came the Greeks, who were so numerous as to give to their adopted home the second name of Gallogræcia. Then, beneath the upper layer of conquering Galatians, there lay a large substratum of the older inhabitants, the conquered Phrygians; and by the side of both—brought partly by colonisation and partly by purposes of trade—were considerable numbers of Jews. Of the disturbing presence of this latter element the Epistle itself gives us ample evidence.

Still, the predominant body, and that which gave its most distinctive characteristics to the Church, were the genuine Galatians themselves. A question similar to that as to the boundaries of Galatia has been raised in regard to these. To what race did they belong? A large section of the ablest German commentators until quite recently were disposed to claim them as Teutons, the main ground for this being that Jerome, in the fourth century, observed a resemblance between the language spoken in Galatia and that of the Treveri, who bequeathed their name to the modern district of Treves, and who are said to have been German. This point, however, is itself perhaps more than doubtful, and as to the Galatæ there is abundant evidence, besides their name, to show that they were Celts, and not Teutons. This was the universal opinion of antiquity, to which even Jerome, notwithstanding his statement about the language, was no exception; and it is confirmed by a philological analysis of the names both of persons and of places in Galatia that have come down to us. The theory of the Teutonic origin of the Galatians is now given up, not only in England, but in Germany.

The Galatians, then, were Celts, and we are not surprised to find in them the Celtic qualities. They came of the race which “shook all empires, but founded none.” Their great failing was in stability. Quick to receive impressions, they were quick to lose them; at one moment ardently attached, at the next violently opposed. This is precisely what St. Paul complains of. He gives a striking picture of the enthusiasm with which he had been received on his first visit. He himself was stricken down with sickness, but that did not damp the ardour of his converts. They would even have “plucked out their eyes,” and given them to him. But in a short space of time all this was gone. They had now made common cause with his adversaries. They had forsaken his teaching and repudiated his authority.

The cause of the evil lay in the intrigues of certain Judaisers. And the consideration of the question in debate between them and St. Paul opens out a new subject for discussion.

III. Contents and Doctrinal Character of the Epistle.—The controversy that divided, and could not but divide, the infant Church, came to a head most conspicuously in Galatia. Was the Jewish Law to be binding upon Christians? It was only natural that many should be found to say that it was. Christianity had sprung out of Judaism. The first and most obvious article in the Christian creed—the Messiahship of Jesus—was one that might easily be accepted, and yet all the prejudices in favour of the Jewish Law be retained. It was only a deeper and prolonged reflection that could show the fundamental antagonism between the Jewish view of things and the Christian. St. Paul saw this, but there were many who were not so clear-sighted. The main body of the Church at Jerusalem held tenaciously to the Jewish practices. The old Pharisaic passion for making proselytes still clung to them. And emissaries from this Church had found their way—as they easily might, through the chain of Jewish posts scattered over Asia Minor—as far north as Galatia.

These emissaries pursued the same tactics as they had pursued elsewhere. They called in question the Apostle’s authority. They claimed to act from a superior commission themselves. They disparaged his teaching of personal faith in Jesus. They knew nothing of such faith. They acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah, and with that they were content. They still looked for salvation, as they had done hitherto, from the literal performance of the Mosaic Law, and they forced this view upon the Galatians. They insisted specially on the rite of circumcision. They would not allow the Gentile converts to escape it. They proclaimed it as the only avenue to the covenant relation with God. And no sooner had the convert submitted to circumcision than they proceeded to lay upon him an oppressive burden of ritualistic ceremonies. He was to keep a multitude of seasons, “days, and months, and times, and years.’ If he was to enjoy the Messianic privileges he must be righteous. But to be righteous was to perform scrupulously the precepts of the Mosaic Law, and in the attempt to do this the convert’s whole powers and energies were consumed. The Messiahship of Jesus was something secondary and subordinate. The Judaisers accepted it so far as it seemed to hold out to them a prospect of advantage, but otherwise it remained a mere passive belief. The key to life and conduct was still sought in the fulfilment of the Mosaic Law.

With such a position as this the Apostle could not but be directly at issue. To him the Messiahship of Jesus (including, as it did, His eternal Sonship) formed the very root and centre of his whole religious being. Faith—or the ardent conviction of this Messiahship in its completest sense—was the one great motive power which he recognised. And the state in which the Christian was placed by faith was itself—apart from any laborious system of legal observances—an attainment of righteousness. The Messianic system was everything. The Law henceforth was nothing. By his relation to the Messiah the Christian obtained all of which he had need. Sin stood between him and the favour of God, but the Messiah had died to remove the curse entailed by sin; and by his adhesion to the Messiah the Christian at once stepped into the enjoyment of all the blessings and immunities which the Messianic reign conferred. It was not that he was released from the obligations of morality (as represented by the Law), but morality was absorbed in religion. One who stood in the relation that the Christian did to Christ could not but lead a holy life; but the holy life was a consequence—a natural, easy, necessary consequence—of this relation, not something to be worked out by the man’s unaided efforts, independently of any such relation. The command, “Be ye holy as I am holy,” remained, but there intervened the motive and stimulus afforded by the death and exaltation of Christ. “Be ye holy, because ye are bought with a price; because ye are Christ’s, and your life is hid with Christ in God.”

The Law then no longer held that primary position which it had occupied under the old covenant. It had fulfilled its functions, which were preparatory and not final. Its object had been to deepen the sense of sin, to define unmistakably the line which separated it from righteousness, and so to prepare the way for that new Messianic system in which the power of sin was not ignored but overcome, and overcome by lifting the believer as it were bodily into a higher sphere. He was taken out of a sphere of human effort and ritual observance, and raised into a sphere in which he was surrounded by divine influences, and in which all that he had to do was to realise practically what had already been accomplished for him ideally. In that sphere the centre and life-giving agency was Christ, and the means by which Christ was to be apprehended was Faith. So that Christ and Faith were the watchwords of the Apostle, just as the Law and Circumcision were the watchwords of the Jews.

Thus the line that the Apostle takes in this Epistle was clearly marked out for him. Against the attacks upon his apostolic authority he defended himself by claiming that, although he was a late comer in point of time, this did not imply any real inferiority. His was not an authority derived at second-hand. On the contrary, he owed his calling and commission directly to God Himself. The proof was to be seen both in the circumstances of his conversion and also in the fact that, though he had once or twice been brought into apparent contact with the elder Apostles, his teaching was entirely independent of them, and was already fully formed when he had at last an opportunity of consulting them about it. And in practice, not only was he recognised by them as an equal, but even Peter submitted to a rebuke from him. On the other hand, upon the great dogmatic question, St. Paul meets his opponents by an emphatic statement of his own position. Christianity is not something accessory to the Law, but supersedes it. Righteousness is to be sought not by legal observances, but by faith. The old system was carnal, material, an affair of externals. The new system is a spiritual renewal by spiritual forces. Not that there is any real contradiction between the new and the old. For the very type and pattern of the old dispensation—Abraham himself—obtained the righteousness that was imputed to him not by works, but by faith. Thus, the true descendant of Abraham is he who puts faith in Christ. It was to Christ that the promise related, in Christ that the whole divine scheme of redemption and regeneration centred. The Law could not interfere with it, for the Law came after the Promise, by which it was guaranteed. The function of the Law was something temporary and transient. It was, as it were, a state of tutelage for mankind. The full admission to the privileges of the divine patrimony was reserved for those who became personal followers of the Messiah. He was the Son of God, and those who cast in their lot wholly with Him were admitted to a share in His sonship. To go back to the old stage of ritual observance was pure retrogression. It was an unnatural exchange—a state of drudgery for a state of freedom. It was a reversal of the old patriarchal story—a preferring of Hagar and Ishmael for Isaac, the child of promise. The Apostle cannot think that the Galatians will do this. He exhorts them earnestly to hold fast to their liberty, to hold fast to Christ, not to give up their high privilege of seeking righteousness by faith, and accepting it through grace, for any useless ordinance like circumcision. Yet the liberty of the Christian is far from meaning license. License proceeds from giving way to the impulses of the flesh, but these impulses the Christian has got rid of. His relation to Christ has brought him under the dominion of the Spirit of Christ. He is spiritual, not carnal; and to be spiritual implies, or should imply, every grace and every virtue. The Galatians should be gentle and charitable to offenders. They should be liberal in their alms. The Epistle concludes with a repeated warning against the Judaising intruders. Their motives are low and interested. They wish to pass off themselves and their converts as Jews, and to escape persecution as Christians. But to do so they must give up the very essentials of Christianity.

The Epistle is not constructed upon any artificial system of divisions, but the subject-matter falls naturally into three main sections, each consisting of two of our present chapters, with a short preface and conclusion, the last in the Apostle’s own handwriting. The first section contains the defence of his apostolic authority and independence in a review of his own career for the first seventeen years from his conversion. This leads him to speak of the dispute with St. Peter at Antioch, and the doctrinal questions involved in that dispute lead up to the second or doctrinal section, in which his own main tenet of righteousness by faith is contrasted with the teaching of the Judaisers and established out of the Old Testament. This occupies Galatians 3, 4. The last section, is, as usual with St. Paul, hortatory, and consists of an application of the principles just laid down to practice, with such cautions as they may seem to need, and one or two special points which his experience in the Church at Corinth and the news brought to him from Galatia appear to have suggested.

The following may be taken as a tabular outline of the Epistle[61]:—

[61] Figures are used where the subdivisions are continuous steps in the same argument, letters where they are distinct arguments.

I.—Introductory Address (Galatians 1:1-10).

a.The apostolic salutation (Galatians 1:1-5).

b.The Galatians’ defection (Galatians 1:6-10).

II—Personal Apologia: an Autobiographical Retrospect (Galatians 1:11 to Galatians 2:21).

The Apostle’s teaching derived from God and not man (Galatians 1:11-12), as proved by the circumstances of—

(1)His education (Galatians 1:13-14).

(2)His conversion (Galatians 1:15-17).

(3)His intercourse with the other Apostles whether at (a) his first visit to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18-24), or (b) his later visit (Galatians 2:1-10).

(4)His conduct in the controversy with Peter at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-14);

The subject of which controversy was the supersession of the Law by Christ (Galatians 2:15-21).

III.—Dogmatic Apologia: Inferiority of Judaism, or Legal Christianity, to the Doctrine of Faith (Galatians 3:1 to Galatians 4:31).

(a)The Galatians bewitched into retrogression from a spiritual system to a carnal system (Galatians 3:1-5).

(b)Abraham himself a witness to the efficacy of faith (Galatians 3:6-9).

(c)Faith in Christ alone removes the curse which the Law entailed (Galatians 3:10-14).

(d)The validity of the Promise unaffected by the Law (Galatians 3:15-18).

(e)Special pædagogic function of the Law, which must needs give way to the larger scope of Christianity (Galatians 3:19-29).

(f)The Law a state of tutelage (Galatians 4:1-7).

(g)Meanness and barrenness of mere ritualism (Galatians 4:8-11).

(h)The past zeal of the Galatians contrasted with their present coldness (Galatians 4:12-20).

(i)The allegory of Isaac and Ishmael (Galatians 4:21-31).

IV.—Hortatory Application of the Foregoing (Galatians 5:1 to Galatians 6:10).

(a)Christian liberty excludes Judaism (Galatians 5:1-6).

(b)The Judaising intruders (Galatians 5:7-12).

(c)Liberty not license, but love (Galatians 5:13-15).

(d)The works of the flesh and of the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-26).

(e)The duty of sympathy (Galatians 6:1-5).

(f)The duty of liberality (Galatians 6:6-10).

V.—Autograph Conclusion (Galatians 6:11-18).

(a)The Judaisers’ motive (Galatians 6:12-13).

(b)The Apostle’s motive (Galatians 6:14-15).

(c)His parting benediction, and claim to be freed from further annoyance (Galatians 6:16-18).

The subject of the Epistle to the Galatians might be summarily described as the same as that to the Romans—the doctrine of justification by faith—i.e., the state of righteousness entered by means of faith. For a further discussion of the group of ideas involved in this the reader may be referred to the Excursus on Romans.

IV. Date of the Epistle.—Mention has just been made of the Epistle to the Romans, and the resemblance between these two Epistles forms an important element in the consideration of the next question with which we have to deal—the question as to the date of the Epistle, and the place from which it was written.

On this point two views are current. It is agreed that the Epistle was written on St. Paul’s third great missionary journey. It is agreed that it belongs to the group which includes 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans. The difference is as to the place which it occupies in this group. A large majority of commentators suppose it to have been the first of the four Epistles, and date it from Ephesus at some time during the Apostle’s lengthened stay there, i.e., at some time during the three years A.D. 54-57. The other view is that the Epistle was written after the two Epistles to the Corinthians, but before the Epistle to the Romans, i.e., at the end of the year 57 or beginning of 58, from Macedonia or Greece. This view has until recently not had many supporters, but it has lately found a strong advocate in Dr. Lightfoot.

Practically there is a single main argument on each side. In favour of the earlier date, the one point that can be pressed is the expression used in Galatians 1:6 : “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you, into another gospel.” The conversion of the Galatians appears to have taken place in A.D. 51. St. Paul paid them a second visit in A.D. 54. In the autumn of that year his three years’ stay at Ephesus began. And it is argued that the expression “soon” will not allow us to go beyond these three years. “Soon,” however, is a relative term. It may mean any interval from a few minutes to one or more centuries. The context must decide. A change, which in the natural course of things would take a protracted length of time to accomplish, might be described as taking place “soon” if it was brought about in a space of time conspicuously shorter than might have been expected. But for the conversion of a whole community to Christianity, and for their second conversion to another form of Christianity wholly distinct from the first, we should surely expect a long and protracted period. Under such circumstances a period of six or seven years might very well be called “soon.” To this argument, then, it does not seem that very much, or indeed any, weight can be attached.

The one chief argument upon the other side is the very close and remarkable similarity, both in ideas and language, between the Epistles to Galatians and the Romans, and, in somewhat lower degree, 2 Corinthians. Any one may observe in himself a tendency to use similar words, and to fall into similar trains of thought at particular periods. This is especially the case with strong thinkers who take a firm grip of ideas, but are possessed of less facility and command of words in which to express them. Such was St. Paul. And accordingly we find that the evidence of style as a help to determine the chronological relations of the different Epistles is peculiarly clear and distinct. But in the doctrinal portions of Romans and Galatians we have a resemblance so marked—the same main thesis, supported by the same arguments, the same Scripture proofs (Leviticus 18:5; Psalm 143:2; Habakkuk 2:4), the same example, Abraham, thrown into relief by the same contrast, that of the Law, developed to the same consequences and couched throughout in language of striking similarity—that we seem to be precluded from supposing any interval between them sufficient to allow of a break in the Apostle’s mind. And considering the throng of events and emotions through which the Apostle was now passing; observing further that the three Epistles, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans, in this order, form a climax as to the distinctness with which the ideas expressed in them are elaborated, it would seem that the Epistle with which we are dealing should be placed between the other two; that is to say, we should assign it to the end of the year 57, or beginning of 58, and the place of its composition would probably be Macedonia or Greece.

The course, then, of the history will be this: St. Paul first visited Galatia on the occasion of his second missionary journey soon after the memorable conference at Jerusalem, and probably about the year A.D. 51. His intention had been to pass from Lycaonia due west into the Roman province of Asia. From this, however, he was prevented, as St. Luke informs us, by some supernatural intimation. Accordingly he turned northwards through Phrygia, and so entered Galatia. Here he seems to have been detained by illness (Galatians 4:13-14). He took the opportunity to preach, and his preaching was so successful that the Church in Galatia was definitely founded. This work accomplished, he left for Mysia, and thence passed on to Troas and Macedonia, where the better known portion of the second missionary journey begins. After the conclusion of this journey St. Paul, in starting upon his third missionary journey, again directed his course to Galatia. This time the historian mentions “the country of Galatia and Phrygia” in a different order from that in which they had occurred before. We should conclude, therefore, that St. Paul made his way straight from Antioch; and as no mention is made this time of the churches of Lycaonia, it would seem probable that he took the direct Roman road skirting Cappadocia. On his arrival in Galatia we read that he went through it “in order, strengthening the disciples” (Acts 18:23). We should gather from some indications in the Epistle (Galatians 4:16; Galatians 5:21) that he had found it necessary to administer rather severe reproof to his converts. Already there were signs of false teaching in the Church. The Apostle’s Judaising opponents had obtained an entrance, and he was obliged to speak of them in language of strong condemnation (Galatians 1:9). But the warning was in vain. This second visit had taken place in the autumn of A.D. 54, and from the end of that year till the autumn of A.D. 57, during which he was settled at Ephesus, disquieting rumours continued to be brought to him of the increasing defection of his converts, and the increasing influence of the Judaising party. Matters went on from bad to worse; and at last, apparently upon his way through Macedonia to Greece, the Apostle received such news as determined him to write at once. The Epistle bears marks of having been written under the influence of a strong and fresh impression; and Dr. Lightfoot, with his usual delicate acumen, infers from the greeting, “from all the brethren that are with me” (Galatians 1:2), that it was probably written en voyage, and not from any of the larger churches of Macedonia, or, as might have been otherwise thought natural, Corinth. At all events, it would seem that we should be keeping most closely to the canons of probability if we assign the Epistle to the winter months of the years 57-58.

V. Genuineness of the Epistle.—No doubt of any real importance has been or can be cast upon the genuineness of the Epistle. It is one of those fervid outbursts of impassioned thought and feeling which are too rare and too strongly individual to be imitated. The internal evidence, therefore, alone would be sufficient, but the external evidence is also considerable. It is true that nothing conclusive is found in the apostolic fathers. The clearest allusion would seem to be in the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, cap. 5: “Knowing, then, that God is not mocked” (a peculiar and striking word) “we ought to walk in His commandment and His glory” (comp. Galatians 6:7); and again, in Galatians 3, with perhaps a somewhat more direct reference, “who (St. Paul) also in his absence wrote unto you Epistles that you might be able to be built up unto the faith given you, which is the mother of us all.” (Comp. Galatians 4:26.) It is noticeable that though Justin Martyr does not name the Epistle, and, indeed, nowhere directly quotes from St. Paul, yet in two consecutive chapters he makes use of two passages of the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 21:23; Deuteronomy 27:26), which are also quoted in close connection by St. Paul, and that these passages are given with precisely the same variations both from the Septuagint and the Hebrew. There is also a clear quotation in Athenagoras (circ. 177 A.D.). But, until we get towards the end of the second century, the best evidence is not so much that of orthodox writers as of heretics. Marcion, who flourished A.D. 140, laid great stress upon this Epistle, which he placed first of the ten which he recognised as St. Paul’s. The Ophites and Valentinians, in writings belonging to this century, quoted largely from it. Celsus (circ. 178) speaks of the saying, Galatians 6:14, “The world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world,” as commonly heard amongst Christians. The author of the Clementine Homilies (which may be probably, though not certainly, placed about 160 A.D.) grounds upon St. Paul’s account of the dispute at Antioch an attack upon the Apostle himself; and the Epistle furnishes other material for accusation. As we draw near the last quarter of the century the evidence for this, as for most other books of the New Testament, becomes ample. The Muratorian Canon (circ. 170 A.D.) places the Epistle in the second place, next to 1 and 2 Corinthians. The Syriac and the Old Latin translations (the second of which was certainly, and the first probably, made before this time), both contain it. Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, quote the Epistle frequently, and as a work of St. Paul’s. And, what is of still more importance, the text, as it appears in quotations by these writers, as well as in the versions, and even so far back as Marcion, already bears marks of corruption, showing that it had been for some time in existence, and that it had passed through a lengthened process of corruption. But to prove the genuineness of the Epistle to the Galatians is superfluous. It is rather interesting to collect the evidence as a specimen of the kind of evidence that, in the case of a work of acknowledged genuineness, is forthcoming.

[The English commentator upon the Epistle to the Galatians has no excuse beyond the calibre of his own powers, if his treatment of the subject is inadequate. He has before him two commentaries in his own language, Dr. Lightfoot’s and Bishop Ellicott’s, which, in their Kind, cannot easily be surpassed. It is needless to say that these, along with Meyer, have been taken as the basis of the present edition, Wieseler, Alford, and Wordsworth being occasionally consulted]

EXCURSUS ON NOTES TO GALATIANS.

EXCURSUS A: ON THE VISITS OF ST. PAUL TO JERUSALEM.

THE parallel accounts of the intercourse of St. Paul with the Church at Jerusalem, given in this Epistle and in the Acts of the Apostles, have been a double source of difficulty. To writers who have accepted the general truthfulness of both narratives, they have seemed hard to harmonise and arrange in due chronological sequence; and, on the other hand, to those who were already prepared to cast a doubt upon the veracity of the historical work, the autobiographical notices in the Epistle have furnished a means of attack of which they have very unsparingly availed themselves.

The critic who wishes to look at things as they really are, without prejudice and without captiousness, will certainly confess that all is not perfectly smooth or plain, and that the two narratives do not fit into each other at once with exact precision; but he will none the less vehemently repudiate the exaggerated conclusions which have been drawn from the differences which exist—conclusions which, while professing to be based upon the application to the Bible of the same principles that would be made use of in judging any other book, are such as in fact are totally inapplicable both to books and to real life. It is not too much to say that, if the principles carried out, e.g., by F. C. Baur in his famous criticism of these narratives were applied with equal thoroughness elsewhere, history would not exist, or would simply become a field for the exercise of the imagination, and common affairs would be reduced to a dead-lock of universal scepticism. The standard by which these writers have judged of what is historical and what is not, is a standard which exists only in the pedantry of the study or the lecture-room, and which is least of all applicable here, where our ignorance of all the surrounding circumstances is so large, and the whole body of direct evidence so very small.

We shall proceed to place the two narratives side by side, pointing out as well as we can what are the real and what are only apparent differences between them. At the same time it must be fully acknowledged that, however sincere the motives with which any particular statement of the case is made, there will still be a certain room for honest diversity of opinion. One mind will lean to a greater and another to a less amount of stringency, though it is hard to believe that any properly-trained and soundly-balanced judgment will fall into the extravagances to which the criticism of this unfortunate chapter of history has been subject.

In estimating the apparent divergences of the two writers, the position and object of each should be borne in mind. St. Paul is writing with the most intimate acquaintance with the inner course of events, but at the same time with a definite and limited object in view—to vindicate his own independence. He is writing under the pressure of controversy which served sharply to accentuate the points of difference between himself and all who were in any way mixed up with the Judaising party. On the other hand, St. Luke was writing at a greater distance of time, from information which in this part of his narrative he was obliged to take at second-hand, and that from persons who were themselves only acquainted with so much of the events as had passed in public. He may have had a wish not to give too much relief to the oppositions which still threatened the peace of the Church, but there is nothing to show that this went so far as to distort his representation of the facts.

We shall assume the view which is current amongst a large majority of the best and most trustworthy critics as to the order of the visits, and we shall confine ourselves to considering the relation between the two narratives.

The first visit, then, with which we have to deal will be that recorded in Acts 9:26-30, Galatians 1:18-24, which we place in parallel columns.

Acts 9:26-30.

Galatians 1:18-24.

When Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought hint to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians [Hellenists, or Greek speaking Jews]: but they went about to slay him. Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter [Cephas], and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; and was unknown by face unto the churches of Judæa which were in Christ: but they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. And they glorified God in me.

The narratives here do not really clash, though they are presented from different sides. St. Paul says nothing about his introduction to the Church at Jerusalem by Barnabas, because that had no bearing upon his argument; neither does he speak of his public preaching at Jerusalem, for that, too, was not to the point. There would be ample time for this preaching during the fifteen days that he was residing in the house of St. Peter; and as he would be seen coming in and going out of this house—sometimes, no doubt, in company with St. Peter, and once or twice, perhaps, also in company with St. James—it would be very natural that St. Luke’s informants and St. Luke, wishing to show how entirely the former persecutor was now reconciled to the Church, should speak of him as “coming in and going out” with the Apostles. St. Paul himself hints at the impression which this great change made upon the churches of Judæa collectively, though he was brought directly in contact only with the Church at Jerusalem. There is nothing to surprise us in the fact that St. Paul saw only two of the Apostles: the rest may have been absent upon some mission, or there may have been other causes, about which it would be vain to speculate. It would, perhaps, be possible to derive from St. Luke’s narrative an exaggerated idea of the extent to which the Apostle preached in public; but there, too, it is to be noticed that the preaching is described as confined to a particular, not very large, section of the Jewish community; and St. Luke relates nothing that would carry him beyond the walls of Jerusalem. The question whether St. Paul went direct from Cæsarea to Tarsus, or landed upon the coast of Syria on the way, will be found discussed in the Notes to Galatians 1:21.

The second visit to Jerusalem is mentioned only in the Acts. After recounting the success of the Apostle’s preaching at Antioch, and the great famine of the reign of Claudius, the historian proceeds to give an account of the collection that was made for the suffering churches of Judæa.

Acts 11:29-30; Acts 12:25.

Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judæa: which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

[Here follows an account of the imprisonment and deliverance of St. Peter, and of the death of Herod.]

And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.

The only question that occurs to us here is, Why is this visit omitted by St. Paul? Nor is the answer far to seek. If St. Paul had been giving a professed list of his visits to Jerusalem, it might have seemed strange. But he is not giving such a list. His object is to explain the extent of his communications with the elder Apostles. But on this occasion there is every reason to think that he had no such communication. From the order of the narrative in the Acts we should infer that St. Paul arrived at Jerusalem during the confusion which was caused by Herod’s persecution. St. Peter was in prison; the Elder James had just been slain; James, the Lord’s brother was in hiding (Acts 12:17). No sooner was St. Peter delivered than he too went into hiding again (Acts 12:17-19). In the Church assembled at the house of Mary, none of the prominent members seem to have been present. And that Paul and Barnabas came to this house, we have an incidental proof in the fact that they took back with them John Mark, the son of the lady to whom it belonged. We should gather from the Acts that all they did was simply to fulfil their commission, by depositing the sums of which they were the bearers, in trustworthy hands, and return. But if so, there was no reason why St. Paul should allude to this visit in his argument with the Galatians. It had taken place nearly fourteen years before the date at which he was writing; and though it is not necessary to suppose that he had exactly forgotten it, still there was nothing to recall it to him, and it was not present to his mind. This is quite sufficient to explain the expression with which he introduces his account of his next, really his third, visit. He does not use a precise expression, “I went up a second time,” but simply, “I went up again.”

This third visit is the most important. That both accounts relate to the same visit cannot be doubted, though there is, at the first blush, a considerable difference between them.

Acts 15:1-31.

Galatians 2:1-11.

And certain men which came down from Judæa taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question . . . And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe . . . Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; . . . Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. [To the same effect the letter is written, and sent by the hands of Judas Barsabas, and Silas, who returned to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, as a delegation from the Church of Jerusalem.]

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. But when Peter [Cephas] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed, &c

In one respect the narrative of St. Paul is strikingly supplemented by that of St. Luke. It tells us who were the “false brethren unawares brought in.” They were “certain of the sect of Pharisees which believed,” i.e., Pharisees who called themselves Christians, though without forsaking their peculiar tenets, and wishing to impose them upon the Church. The true opposition to St. Paul came from these. Both in the Epistle and in the work of the historian it is they who are put forward prominently. And it is a gross exaggeration, nay, a distortion of the facts, to represent the opposition as proceeding from the Judæan Apostles. These appear rather as mediators, standing by birth and antecedents upon the one side, but yielding to the reasonableness of the case so far as to make large concessions upon the other.

It is noticeable, too, as another minute coincidence between the two accounts, that in both stress is laid upon the success of the Gentile Apostle’s preaching as a proof that he enjoyed the divine favour. In the Acts Paul and Barnabas defend themselves by “declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them;” and in the Galatians the Judæan Apostles are described as giving to St. Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship because they “perceived the grace given to him,” and because they saw that the same Power who enabled Peter to preach to the Jews “was mighty in him toward the Gentiles.”

These two quite “undesigned” coincidences are a strong confirmation of the narratives in which they are found. But the differences must also be noticed. (1) In the Epistle St. Paul speaks of himself as going up “by revelation”—i.e., in accordance with some private intimation of the divine will. In the Acts it is determined for him that he should go as the deputy of the Church at Antioch. But the two things do not exclude each other: they rather represent the different aspects of the same event as it would appear when looked at from without and when looked at from within. A precisely similar difference may be observed in Acts 9:29-30, compared with Acts 22:17 et seq. In the one passage the disciples are said to have “brought down” St. Paul to Cæsarea, for fear the Jews should slay him. In the other passage St. Paul himself, relating the same incident, says that, while praying in the Temple, he “fell into a trance,” and heard a voice bidding him “make haste and get quickly out of Jerusalem,” because his testimony would not be received. In like manner a double cause—the prompting of the Holy Spirit and the act of the Church at Antioch—is assigned to the same event in Acts 13:2-4. Discrepancies like these in two independent narratives are common and natural enough. (2) Nothing is said about the incident of Titus in the Acts. But Titus is included amongst the “others” of Acts 15:2 (“Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them”); and the incident is sufficiently pointed to in 2Corinthians 13:5, where the Pharisaic converts insist on the circumcision of the Gentile converts. Nor if it had been entirely omitted need this cause any surprise. St. Luke knew only so much of what happened at the Council as his informants themselves knew or were able to tell him. (3) In the Acts we have described to us a great public meeting: the Epistle seems to speak rather of private conferences. But a public meeting on a matter of this kind, so far from excluding would naturally pre-suppose private conferences. We have recently had a conspicuous instance of this in the conduct so discreetly pursued at the Congress which resulted in the Treaty of Berlin. And a public meeting is both indicated by the Greek of the phrase “communicated unto them” (Galatians 2:2; see the Commentary ad loc.), and falls in naturally with the account of the dismissal of the two Apostles in 2Corinthians 13:9. So far the differences are of no importance, and are perfectly compatible with the complete truth of both accounts; but the one that remains is rather more substantial. (4) St. Paul makes no mention of the so-called “apostolic decree.” The exhortation to “remember the poor” is all that he retains of the letter enjoining the Gentile Christians to “abstain from meats offered to idols, and from things strangled, and from fornication.” Nor is the decree appealed to—as it might have been here to the Galatians—as a proof that circumcision was not held to be obligatory even by the mother Church; while some of these provisions—e.g., the abstinence from meat offered to idols—are left entirely unnoticed in the discussion of the subject in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Romans. A partial answer to the questions raised by this remarkable silence may be found in the fact that the letter was addressed, in the first instance, to the churches of a particular district—Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia—which was in comparatively close communion with Judæa. It would not follow that the decree would be binding on other Gentile churches. A partial answer, again, is supplied by the Apostle’s natural independence of character. The argument from authority is the last that he would use; and if he had been more inclined to use it, the authority of the Church of Jerusalem was too often set in opposition to his own for it to be safe for him to have recourse to it as if to a higher court of appeal. These considerations may go some way, and yet we feel that the answer is still incomplete. If we knew the whole circumstances, there would probably be something more to be said. We do not know them, and therefore we must be content to remain in ignorance. But to take this ignorance as a ground for discrediting the history of the Acts is wanton in the extreme, and wholly unwarranted by anything that we see in the events that pass under our eyes or in the general relation of testimony to fact. Discrepancies greater than any that appear here may be observed in the accounts of events separated from their record by but a small interval of time, and attested by numerous witnesses: how much more, then, are they to be expected where two writers are looking back, one at a distance of seven or eight, the other, perhaps, of thirty years; where the one is writing a continuous history, and the other an apology for himself against a special and definite charge; and where they, and they two alone, supply all the information we possess as to the event itself, while all around it is little more than darkness visible!

So shallow and so slight is the foundation on which has been built that house of cards which forms one of the most imposing structures of modern negative criticism! To say that it has collapsed already would not be true, as men of learning and ability are still found to support it; but to say that it is doomed to collapse would be a prophecy based upon all the laws which distinguish between what is solid and permanent and what is fictitious and unreal.

Chapters 1, 2. (First Division of the Epistle)

The assertion of St Paul’s Apostolical Authority

For a general analysis of the Epistle see Introduction.