圣经注释书

在本章中，继序言或引言之后（加1:1-5），使徒严厉地责备这些教会偏离了真道（加1:6-9），然后证明他自己的使徒职分——这是他的仇敌使他们产生怀疑的。他从两方面证明：一、从他传福音的目的和动机来看（加1:10）。二、从他是直接借着启示领受福音这一事实来看（加1:11,12）。为证明这一点，他向他们说明：1. 他从前为人如何（加1:13,14）。2. 他是如何归信并蒙召作使徒的（加1:15,16）。3. 他后来的行事为人如何（加1:16-24）。

引言

保罗的作者身份之内证与外证是决定性的。其文风具有典型的保罗特色。本书信通篇的标题，以及对这位外邦人使徒的第一人称提及，都确立了同一真理

(加 1:1, 13-24; 2:1-14)。

其作者身份还得古代教会一致见证的支持：参爱任纽（Irenæus） [反异端, 3,7,2]

(加 3:19)；

波利卡普（Polycarp） [致腓立比人书, 3] 引

加 4:26; 6:7；

游斯丁（Justin Martyr），或《致希腊人讲论集》（Discourse to the Greeks）的作者，暗指

加 4:12; 5:20。

本书信写"给加拉太的各教会"

(加 1:2)，

加拉太是小亚细亚的一个地区，与弗吕家、本都、庇推尼、加帕多家、帕弗拉哥亚接壤。当地居民（Gallo-græci，缩写为 Galati，即克尔特人〔Celts〕这一名称的另一种形式）在血统上是高卢人（Gauls）。他们于约主前280年劫掠德尔斐（Delphi）之后席卷小亚细亚，最终永久定居于中部地区，该地由此被称为 Gallo-græcia 或加拉太。本书信中所显示的他们性格，与所有作者归诸高卢种族的性格完全一致。凯撒（Cæsar） [高卢战记, 4,5]，"高卢人的弱点是决心善变、喜新厌旧、不可信赖。"提埃里（Thierry，阿尔福德〔Alford〕所引）也说："坦率、冲动、易受感动、智力出众，但同时极其善变、反复无常、好炫耀、不断争吵——这都是过度虚荣的果子。"他们起初以极大的喜乐和善意接待保罗；但不久就在对福音和对他的效忠上摇摆，如今又像从前听从保罗那样急切地听从犹太派教师

(加 4:14-16)。

使徒本人是他们中间最早的传道者

(徒 16:6; 加 1:8; 4:13；

见

加 4:13 注释；

"我头一次传福音给你们，是因身体有疾病"：暗示疾病使他滞留他们中间）；那时他可能建立了若干教会，并在随后的访问中在信仰上"坚固"他们

(徒 18:23)。

他第一次访问约在主后51年第二次宣教旅程期间。约瑟夫（Josephus） [犹太古史, 16.62] 证实许多犹太人住在加拉太的安凯拉（Ancyra）。毫无疑问，像在别处一样，他是在这些犹太人及其同胞中间开始传道的。虽然后来加拉太各教会的多数是外邦人

(加 4:8, 9)，

但他们很快受犹太派教师影响，几乎被说服要受割礼

(加 1:6; 3:1, 3; 5:2, 3; 6:12, 13)。

加拉太人在异教时期惯于敬拜西布莉（Cybele）（在邻近的弗吕家地区盛行），并熟悉与该敬拜相关的通神论教义，因此更容易被引入一种观念：基督教的全备特权只能通过一套精密的仪式象征体系才能获得

(加 4:9-11; 5:7-12)。

他们甚至听从这样的暗示：保罗自己在犹太人中间遵行律法，却劝外邦人放弃律法，其动机是要把自己的归信者置于从属地位，使他们被排除在唯独受割礼之人才能享有的基督教全备特权之外

(加 5:11, 加 4:16，

与

加 2:17 比较)；

并且他在"向什么样的人就作什么样的人"时，是个谋求私利的阿谀者

(加 1:10)，

图谋为自己结党；况且他虚假地把自己装扮成基督所 divinely 委任的使徒，而实际上不过是十二使徒和耶路撒冷教会所差派的使者，他的教导如今又与教会"柱石"彼得和雅各的教导相左，因此不应当被接受。

所以他写这封书信的目的是：（1）为自己的使徒权柄辩护

(加 1:11-19; 2:1-14)；

（2）抵消犹太派教师在加拉太的恶影响

(加 3:1-4:31)，

并指出他们的教训把基督教的属灵性贬低为一套外在仪式体系，从而毁坏了基督教的本质；（3）劝勉加拉太信徒在向基督的信心和圣灵的果子上得着坚固

(加 5:1-6:18)。

他已经当面指责过犹太派教师

(加 1:9; 4:16; 徒 18:23)；

如今既听见这恶事持续且愈演愈烈，他便亲手写下

(加 6:11：

他通常将这工作委托给代笔人) 这封书信予以反驳。他在其中所勾画的使徒生涯概要，证实并扩充了《使徒行传》的记载，并表明他独立于任何人为的权威，无论其多么崇高。他在

加 2:14-21

中对彼得的抗议，驳斥了教皇至上论的虚构，甚至也驳斥了那位使徒至上论的虚构；表明彼得除了在特别受灵感时之外，与其他人一样会犯错。

在唯独因信称义、而非靠律法称义这一主题上，本书信与《罗马书》有许多共通之处。但《罗马书》以教导式、逻辑式的方式处理该主题，没有任何特定的针对性；本书信则以论战的方式，特别针对加拉太的犹太派教师来处理。

其文风结合了严厉

(加 1:1-24; 3:1-5)

与温柔

(加 4:19, 20)

这两个极端，正是一个感情强烈之人的特征，两者都同样适合作用于像加拉太人这样易受感动的民族。开头突兀，正适合问题的紧迫和危险的重大。一种悲伤的语调也很明显，这正是人们所预期的——一位热心的教师刚刚得知自己所爱的人正离弃他的教导，转去追随真理的曲解者，同时又在听信对自己的诽谤，他写的信中所应有的语调。

写作时间是

徒 15:1

及以下所记耶路撒冷访问之后。即如果那次访问就是

加 2:1

中的访问，则约在主后50年之后。再者，

加 1:9

（"我们从前说过"）与

加 4:16

（"我[阿尔福德]如今成了你们的仇敌吗？"——即指第二次访问，而第一次访问时你们欢迎我）都指他的第二次访问

(徒 18:23)，

所以这封书信必写于那次访问（主后54年秋）之后。

加 4:13，

"你们知道……我头一次传福音"（希腊文，"从前的时候"）暗示保罗写信时已经两次到过加拉太；而

加 1:6，

"我希奇你们这么快离开"，暗示他是在第二次离开加拉太之后不久写的；可能是在他住在以弗所的早期

(徒 18:23; 19:1，

及以下，自主后54年秋至主后57年五旬节)

[阿尔福德]。科尼比尔（Conybeare）与豪森（Howson）根据本书信与《罗马书》的相似性——两封信中同样的论证思路占据作者的思绪——认为它直到他住在哥林多时才写成

(徒 20:2, 3)，

即57-58年冬，他在那里写了《罗马书》；而且按较早的以弗所成书说，确实似乎不太可能：两封如此不相似的《哥林多前后书》竟会介入在如此相似的《加拉太书》和《罗马书》之间；或《加拉太书》竟会介入在《帖撒罗尼迦后书》和《哥林多前书》之间。两种理论之间的抉择在于"这么快"一词。若不认为这与他的第二次加拉太访问之后仅过了三年多相矛盾，那么从与《罗马书》相似性而来的论证在我看来是决定性的。这封《加拉太书》似乎是在情势紧迫之下写成——他在哥林多从以弗所听见许多加拉太归信者犹太化的消息，于是以劝诫与论战的语调，维护基督徒自由与唯独因信称义的重大原则；《罗马书》则是他随后向他个人并不熟悉的教会，更从容、更系统地阐述同样神学核心真理的著作。关于伯克斯（Birks）的观点，见

加 1:6

的注释。佩利（Paley） [Horæ Paulinæ] 精辟地指出，论证的展开与本书信写作的历史处境何等完美地相称！如此，对加拉太教会——保罗所建立的教会——他主要诉诸权柄；对罗马教会——他个人并不认识的教会——他完全诉诸论证。

加拉太书绪论

第一节 加拉太的地理位置与当地人民的性格

加拉太是小亚细亚的一个省份，东邻本都，北接庇推尼与帕夫拉哥尼亚，南连加帕多家与弗吕家，西面也是弗吕家。参见使徒行传卷首所附的地图。不过在 Tanner 的《Classical Atlas》中，它的北界一直延伸到攸克辛海，即黑海。它东西最长处约达二百英里，宽度则在十二至一百五十英里之间不等。它是小亚细亚最大的省份之一，疆域几乎与新泽西州相当。不过，加拉太的边界很可能随时代情势而变迁。除北面以外，它没有天然疆界，因此其范围自然会因征服，或因罗马皇帝将其建为行省时的旨意而变动。

“加拉太”一名源于“高卢”（Gaul）一词，因该地被高卢人征服并在其中定居而得名。——Pausanias, Attic. cap. iv.。这些高卢人与多个希腊家族混杂而居，该国也因此被称为“加卢希腊”（Gallogroecia）。——Justin, lib. xxiv. 4; xxv. 2; xvii. 3.。据 Justin 记载（lib. xxv. cap. 2），这次对小亚细亚的入侵发生于罗马建城后约第479年，亦即基督降生前约272年。他们先侵入马其顿和希腊，随后侵入小亚细亚，成为那一带全地恐怖的对象。这次远征发自高卢，渡过莱茵河，沿多瑙河而下，经诺里库姆、潘诺尼亚和默西亚，在进入日耳曼尼亚时裹挟了许多特克托萨吉人（Tectosages）。他们抵达色雷斯之后，卢塔里乌斯（Lutarius）率领他们渡过博斯普鲁斯海峡，完成了对小亚细亚的征服。——Liv. lib. xxxviii. c. 16.。他们人数之多，以致 Justin 说：“他们像蜂群一样充满了全亚细亚（即全小亚细亚）。最后他们多得使东方的诸王若没有高卢人的军队便无法作战；他们被逐出本国时，除了投奔高卢人之外别无可逃之处。‘高卢’之名令人生畏到如此地步，他们兵刃的无敌幸运——et armorum invicta felicitas erat——也是如此，以致人们认为，若没有高卢人的勇武相助，自己的威严便无从保全，一旦丧失也无从恢复。庇推尼王召他们前来援助，他们得胜之后，便与那王分了他的国，并称那地区为加卢希腊。”——Justin, xxv. 2.。在奥古斯都·凯撒在位期间，即基督降生前约26年，这一地区被编为罗马殖民地的建制，由皇帝任命的总督（proproetor）治理。

直到五世纪，他们仍保留着原有的高卢语言，这从耶柔米（Jerome）的见证可以看出；他说他们的方言与特雷维里人（Treviri）的方言几乎相同。——Tom. iv. p. 256. ed. Benedict.。同时，他们也像小亚细亚所有居民一样通用希腊语，因此写给他们的书信是用希腊文写成的，对他们和对别人一样明白易晓。

加拉太人与四周地方的居民一样，都是异教徒，他们的宗教粗鄙而使人败坏。据说他们在阿格底斯（Agdistis）之名下崇拜“众神之母”。卡利马科斯（Callimachus）在他的颂歌中称他们为“愚昧的民”。而本身是高卢人的希拉利（Hillary）称他们为 Gallos indociles——据 Calmet 说，这些说法足以说明保罗为何称他们为“无知的加拉太人”（Galatians 3:1）。他们当中除了经营些许贸易的安西拉（Ancyra）、塔维乌姆（Tavium）和佩西努斯（Pessinus）之外，几乎没有别的城市。

占据加拉太的，是高卢人的三个不同民族或部族，即托利斯托波吉人（Tolistobogi）、特罗克米人（Troemi）和特克托萨吉人（Tectosagi）。现存的一些帝国勋章上刻有这些名字。记住这些区分颇为重要。可能当彼得在加拉太一处使人归主时，使徒保罗正在另一处；也许有一些自称从彼得获得权柄的人，传播了与保罗观点不符的见解，而纠正并揭露这些见解，正是本书信的目的之一。——Calmet。

古代史家提到高卢人时，说他们是一个身材高大、勇猛善战的民族。他们几乎赤身行走。他们的武器只有刀剑和小圆盾。据说他们攻击的猛烈之势不可抵挡，因此他们成了极其可怖的对手，而且通常获胜。

无法确定福音传到那里或本书信写成时，加拉太居民的人数。2 Macc. 8:20 记载，犹大·马加比勉励跟随者勇敢抗击叙利亚人时，为鼓舞他们而列举了数次神施干预的事例；其中提到“他告诉他们，先祖在巴比伦与加拉太人争战的事；出战的一共只有八千人，另有四千马其顿人；马其顿人陷入困境时，那八千人因得着从天而来的帮助，竟消灭了十二万人，缴获大量战利品”。但这未必是指住在加拉太的人，也可能指当时席卷小亚细亚的高卢人，因为这里所用的希腊文（Γαλάτας Galatas）两义皆通。然而显而易见，统属这一泛称之下的人口甚众。福音传到那里时，加拉太大概人口稠密。它位于小亚细亚中部，而小亚细亚当时是世上人口最稠密的地区之一，又出奇地肥沃。——Strabo, lib. xii. p. 567, 568, ed. Casaub.。也有许多人为经商而被吸引到那里。小亚细亚各省都有许多犹太人，这不仅从使徒行传可以清楚看出，约瑟夫（Josephus）也明言此事；见 Ant. xvi. 6.。

第二节 福音何时在加拉太传开

关于福音最初何时在加拉太传开、由何人传开，并无确切的资料。不过，书中多次提到保罗曾在那里传道，而且若干情形使我们推想，那些教会是他建立的，或是他最先将福音传给他们的，或至少是他与巴拿巴在从安提阿奉差遣的宣教旅程中一同在那里传过福音；见 Acts 13:2 及以下。Acts 16:5-6 明说他们“经过弗吕家和加拉太地区”。这次旅行是为了坚固众教会，是出于保罗的建议（见 Acts 15:36），目的是要看望他们先前传过主的道之各城中的弟兄。诚然，使徒行传14章关于保罗与巴拿巴宣教行程的记载，并未明说他们进入过加拉太；但 Acts 14:5-6 说，他们在以哥念时，有人对他们发动袭击，或图谋用石头打他们，他们知道了，就逃往吕高尼的路司得、特庇二城“和周围地方”。普林尼（Pliny，lib. v. c. 27）说，吕高尼的一部分与加拉太接壤，共有十四座城，其中以以哥念最著名。弗吕家也与加拉太和吕高尼相邻。这些情形使人有理由推想，当保罗向巴拿巴提议重访他们传过道的各教会时，加拉太是包括在内的，而且在 Acts 16:6 所提的那次造访之前，他们已经去过那里。

也有可能，保罗在 Galatians 1:6 里是指着自己说的：“我希奇你们这么快离开那借着基督之恩召你们的，去从别的福音。”若是这样，那么显然是他先传福音给他们，并在那里建立了教会。同样的事也可以从 Galatians 4:15 的说法得到证实，那里他说：“我给你们作见证，若可能，你们早已把自己的眼睛剜出来给我了”——这话使我们推想，他们曾对他怀着特殊的依恋，因为他最先传福音给他们，而且存在着初爱所包含的一切热切之情。因此，依我看来，福音最先是由保罗——或单独、或与另一位使徒同行——传给加拉太人的，这是相当明显的。然而，正如上文所暗示，也可能当保罗在加拉太某些地区传道时，彼得正在另一些地区传道。关于这一点，还有一个相当重要的情形：保罗在这书信中以带着权柄、以严厉责备的语气说话；除非他最初在那里传过道，有被视作教会创立者、以父亲身份对教会说话的权利，他几乎不会用这样的语气。在这一点上，正如洛克先生（Mr. Locke）所指出的，这里的语气与罗马书中的很不相同。保罗写信给罗马教会时尚未到过罗马，他的措辞与哥林多书信和加拉太书中的措辞有实质的差异。对罗马人，他使用的是一位生疏之人极为恭敬而温和的语言；在这里，语言虽然恭敬，却是一位有权责备的父亲所有的带着权柄的语言。

第三节 本书信的年代

许多人认为这是保罗所写的第一封书信。特土良（Tertullian）持此主张（见 Lardner, vol. vi. p. 7. ed. Lond. 1829），伊皮法纽（Epiphanius）也这样认为。狄奥多雷特（Theodoret）等人则认为它写于罗马，因而写于保罗生平将尽之时，是他最后几封书信之一。莱特富特（Lightfoot）也认为它写于罗马，而且是保罗在那里最初写的书信之一。屈梭多模（Chrysostom）说这封书信写于罗马书之前。刘易斯·卡佩卢斯（Lewis Capellus）、维齐乌斯（Witsius）和沃尔（Wall）认为，它是使徒第二次在加拉太之后、于以弗所写成的。这也是皮尔逊（Pearson）的意见，他把本书信定于主后57年，在哥林多前书之后、保罗离开以弗所之前。格罗提乌斯（Grotius）认为难以确定本书信的年代，但推测它与罗马书约写于同时。米尔（Mill）认为它写于罗马书之后，可能是保罗往耶路撒冷途中、在特罗亚或亚细亚别的什么地方写的；他把本书信定于主后58年。本森博士（Dr. Benson）认为，它写于使徒初次在哥林多、在那里久居一年零六个月之时。

他认为，保罗在哥林多期间听到了加拉太信徒反复无常的消息，便写了这封书信，交托他的一位助手送去。这些看法的讨论见上引 Lardner。拉德纳（Lardner）本人认为，本书信约于主后52年或53年初写于哥林多。麦克奈特（Macknight）认为它写于耶路撒冷会议之后、保罗与西拉启程将耶路撒冷所定的条规交付众教会之前，地点在安提阿；见 Acts 16:4。胡格（Hug）在其《Introduction》中认为，它写于主后57年、在帖撒罗尼迦前书、帖撒罗尼迦后书和提多书之后，地点在以弗所。洛克先生（Mr. Locke）认为保罗于主后51年在加拉太建立了教会，本书信则写于那年至主后57年之间。这些意见大多纯属臆测；在如此纷纭的见解之中，显然无法确定它究竟写于何时。书信本身唯一的时间标记出现在 Galatians 1:6，使徒在那里说：“我希奇你们这么快（οὕτω ταχέως houtō tachys）离开那召你们的……”；“这么快”一语使我们推想，书信写于他在他们中间之后不久的时期，但也可能已经过了好几年。多语对照圣经（Bagster's Polyglot Bible）所注的年代是主后58年。

本书信的确切年代无关紧要。关于写作时间，在我看来唯一颇有分量的论证，是佩利（Paley）在《Horae Paulinae》中提出的。他说：“几乎无人会怀疑，这封书信写于外邦信徒受割礼之争在人心记忆犹新之时；因为即使假定它是伪作，伪造它唯一可信的动机，也无非是把使徒的名声与权柄引入这场论争。若争论本身已告平息，问题对任何读者都不再有趣，此时制造一封在一方立场上恳切而尖锐的书信，实在没有比这更乏味、更不会进入任何人念头的计划了。而外邦人受割礼的争论，若有发生，就必是发生在基督教的初期。”佩利接着说明，犹太人和犹太出身的归信者提出并鼓动这个问题本是自然之事；而且当圣殿还矗立、他们仍作为一个民族存在、献祭仍在进行时，这事被坚持的可能性，远大于他们的城和圣殿被毁之后。

因此，这场争论必发起于提多入侵犹太、耶路撒冷被毁之前，本书信也必写于那之前。内证也导出这一结论。总体而言，本书信大概写于主后53年前后，或在那年至主后57年之间；其目的显然是要解决加拉太教会中一场重大的争论。至于写作地点，我想纯属猜测之事。卷末所附“写于罗马”的附记毫无权威可言；就我所见，也没有任何内在情节能对此提供线索。

第四节 本书信的目的

从书信本身很容易看出，加拉太的教会中存在下列情形，而本书信正是针对这些情形写的：

（1）他们起初热切爱慕使徒保罗，当他在他们中间时，以毫不保留的信任接受他的吩咐与教导；见 Galatians 4:14-15；比较 Galatians 1:6。

（2）在他离开后不久，他们就被引诱偏离了他所教导他们的教义；见 Galatians 1:6。

（3）做成这事的人出于犹太渊源，坚持必须遵守犹太教的礼仪。

（4）他们声称自己直接从耶路撒冷来，其宗教见解和权柄都来自那里的使徒。

（5）他们教导说，使徒保罗低于那里的使徒；他进入使徒职分较晚；耶路撒冷的使徒必须被视为基督教会中权威的源头；因此，保罗的教导应当让位于直接出自耶路撒冷的教导。

（6）他们教导说，摩西的律法仍有约束力，是称义所必需的；尤其是割礼之礼是必须遵守的本分；而且按 Galatians 6:12 看，他们大概已诱使许多加拉太人受了割礼，并且他们确曾诱使众人遵守犹太节期，则是确定的；见 Galatians 4:10。

（7）看来他们还声称，保罗自己自离开加拉太人之后已经改变了观点，如今主张割礼的必要性；见 Galatians 5:11。也许他们是根据一个不可否认的事实推出这一点的，即保罗在耶路撒冷时曾依从犹太礼仪的某些习俗；见 Acts 21:26。

（8）他们主张，神的一切应许都是给亚伯拉罕的，凡要在这诸般应许上有份的，都必须像亚伯拉罕一样受割礼。对此保罗在 Galatians 3:7; Galatians 4:7 作出回答。

（9）由于这些见解的传播，教会中起了很大的纷争，存在性质不幸的争竞，与那称为基督徒之名的人所当显出的灵大相违背。

从对加拉太教会情形的这一描述，本书信的目的便显而易见，论证的范围也不难看出。使徒无疑已得知这些情形，但究竟是通过书信，还是由那里的教会差人传报，则未有说明。很可能那里的教会中有些朋友告知了他，他随即着手矫正那里存在的种种弊端。

一、因此，第一个目标，是要表明他使徒的职分是直接从神领受的，一点不是从人领受的；他甚至不是从别的使徒受教；他未曾承认他们的优越地位；他甚至不曾与他们商议。因此，他不承认耶路撒冷的使徒拥有任何更尊的等次或权柄。他的委任——尽管他在主耶稣被钉十字架之前未曾见过他——却是直接从他领受的。因此，他所教导他们的、摩西律法并无约束力、也无受割礼之必要的教义，乃是直接从神领受的教义。为证明这一点，他在 Galatians 1 中详述了他蒙召的方式，以及如下事实：他未曾与耶路撒冷的使徒商议，也未承认自己低于他们；当他们得知他传道的方式时，他们赞许他的行径（Galatians 1:24; Galatians 2:1-10）；而且有一次，他甚至不得不当面反对使徒中年资最长的彼得，而所涉的正是彼得明明有错的一点，也正是当时讨论的要点之一。

二、因此，第二个重大目标，是要阐明摩西律法的真实性质与目的，证明摩西礼制的特殊礼仪、尤其是割礼之礼，对于称义与得救并非必需；而且凡遵守那礼仪的，实际上是弃绝了圣经所称义的道路，使基督的牺牲失去价值，并使自己沦为奴仆。这引他进而思考称义教义的真实性质，以及借救赎主得救之道。

他以下列方式表明这一点：

（1）表明在基督之前活着的人、尤其是亚伯拉罕，事实上不是因遵行摩西的礼仪律，而是因信神的应许而称义；见 Galatians 3:1-18。

（2）表明摩西礼制的目的只是暂时的，乃是要引人归向基督；见 Galatians 3:19-29; Galatians 4:1-8。

（3）鉴于此，他责备加拉太人竟这样轻易落入对这些习俗的遵守；见 Galatians 4:9-21。

（4）他以从夏甲的事例引出的一则寓言，说明他对摩西律法之目的与倾向的这层看法；见 Galatians 4:21-31。

这整段论述之后，接着是对加拉太人一番满含深情的劝勉，要他们避免已经滋生的弊端；他责备他们因试图引入摩西礼仪而起的纷争，恳劝他们在基督从摩西制度的奴役中赐给他们的自由里站立得稳；见 Galatians 5; 6。

因此，全书信的目的，是陈述并捍卫称义的真教义，表明称义并不系于对摩西律法的遵守。就这一总旨而言，它与罗马书的目的相合。但在一方面，它与那书信的目的不同。罗马书要表明，人不能因任何律法的行为、不能因遵行任何律法——无论是道德律还是礼仪律——而称义；本书信则是要表明，称义不能因遵行礼仪律或礼制律而获得，或者说，礼仪律的遵守对得救并非必需。因此在这一方面，本书信不像罗马书那样具有普遍的意义。在某些方面，它也更为艰深。容我这样说，它的论证更带犹太色彩；它更循犹太人的方式，为要按犹太人自己的思路应对犹太人，因此众人跟起来略为费力。然而，它包含着关乎救恩诸教义的伟大而重大的陈述，正因如此，它要求一切盼望得救、愿意明白蒙神悦纳之道的人，予以深切而审慎的注意。

本章中保罗的主要目的，是要表明他蒙召担任使徒，不是出于人，乃是出于神。据称（见加拉太书绪论），耶路撒冷的使徒在基督教会中拥有最尊崇的等次与最高的权柄；他们当被视为真理的源头与裁判；保罗作为使徒低于他们；而那些教导割礼的必要和摩西礼仪之遵守的人，是得到耶路撒冷使徒之权威与榜样支持的。

第一章的目的正是要回应这一说法。保罗的主要目标，是要表明他不是由人所立，不是受人委派，不是从人领受教导，甚至不曾与人商议；他乃是由耶稣基督亲自委派并教导的；而当耶路撒冷的使徒认识了他、并在他开始传道许久之后得知他的观点与工作计划时，他们完全赞同他。这论证包括以下几个部分：

一、庄严的声明：他不是受人委派，在任何意义上都不是人的使徒；以及对加拉太众教会的总体问安；见 Galatians 1:1-5。

二、他表示惊异，加拉太人竟这么快离弃他的教导，去随从别的福音；并庄严宣告：凡传别的福音的，就当被咒诅；见 Galatians 1:6-10。他两次咒诅那些试图传讲以信基督为本的称义之外的任何道路的人，并说那根本不是福音。救恩只有一条路，这当被持守为重大而确定的准则；无论谁试图传别的，都当被咒诅。

三、因此，为表明他不是由人所立、不是从人受教，乃是传讲神直接启示给他、因而不变而永恒的真理，他叙述了自己蒙召进入传道职分、得以认识福音的方式；见 Galatians 1:11-24。

（a）他申明，这不是人教他的，乃是耶稣基督亲自启示的；见 Galatians 1:11-12。

（b）他提到他先前广为人知的生活和在犹太教中的热心，说明他从前何等激烈地敌挡福音；见 Galatians 1:13-14。

（c）他说，自己按神的旨意，从母腹里就被分别出来作福音的传道人；而且他蒙召进入职分时，没有与任何血气之人商议自己当传什么；他没有上耶路撒冷去见那些较早作使徒的，而是远遁阿拉伯，随后又回到大马士革；见 Galatians 1:15-17。

（d）他说，过了三年，他确曾上耶路撒冷去；但他只在那里停留了十五天，使徒中除了彼得和雅各，一个也没有见着；见 Galatians 1:18-19。他对福音的认识在那之前业已形成；而且他并非无条件服从彼得、从彼得受教，这一点他在 Galatians 2 表明，那里说他“当面抵挡他”。

（e）那以后，他说自己到了小亚细亚的基利家境内，没有机会与犹太的众教会交通。然而他们听说那从前逼迫教会的，如今传起了福音，就为此归荣耀给神；见 Galatians 1:20-24。当然，他不可能从他们那里领受他的宗教见解；他在任何意义上都不依赖他们；而就他们对他见解的了解而言，他们是赞同的。因此，本章论证的总意是：当保罗前往基利家和邻近地区时，他只见过两位使徒，而且时间甚短；他从未见过使徒们聚在一处；他也从未从他们领受任何教导。他传给加拉太人的那对福音的认识，是直接从神领受的。

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.