NEW

CENTURY
See
BIBLE
‘COMMENTARY.
GALATIANS

=
DONALD GUTHRIE
 NEW CENTURY Blb-
COMMENTARY
General Editors ae.

RONALD E. CLEMENTS MATTHEW BLACK

(Old Testament) (New Testament)

GALATIANS
 . vf{BLE COMMENTARIES

EXODUS (j»-. ryatt)

LEVITICUS AND NUMBERS (N. H. Snaith)*
DEUTERONOMY (A. D. H. Mayes)
JOSHUA, JUDGES, AND RUTH (John Gray)*
EZRA, NEHEMIAH, AND ESTHER (L. H. Brockington)*
jos (H. H. Rowley)
PSALMS Volumes | and 2 (A. A. Anderson)
ISAIAH 1-39 (R. E. Clements)
ISAIAH 40-66 (R. N. Whybray)
EZEKIEL (John W. Wevers)*
THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW (David Hill)
THE GOSPEL OF MARK (Hugh Anderson)
THE GOSPEL OF LUKE (E. Earle Ellis)
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN (Barnabas Lindars)
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES (William Neil)
ROMANS (Matthew Black)
l and 2 CORINTHIANS (F. F. Bruce)
GALATIANS (Donald Guthrie)
EPHESIANS (C. Leslie Mitton)
PHILIPPIANS (Ralph P. Martin)
COLOSSIANS AND PHILEMON (Ralph P. Martin)
1 PETER (Ernest Best)*
THE BOOK OF REVELATION (G. R. Beasley-Murray)

*Not yet available in paperback

Other titles are in preparation
 NEW CENTURY BIBLE
COMMENTARY

Based on the Revised Standard Version

GALATIANS
DONALD GUTHRIE

WM. B. EERDMANS PUBL.CO., GRAND RAPIDS

MARSHALL, MORGAN & SCOTT PUBL. LTD., LONDON
 Copyright © Marshall, Morgan & Scott 1973
First published 1973 by Marshall, Morgan & Scott, England
Softback edition published 1981

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America
for
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
255 Jefferson Ave. S.E., Grand Rapids, Mich. 49503
and
Marshall, Morgan & Scott
1 Bath Street, London ECIV 9LB
ISBN 0 551 009 08 X

Reprinted, November 1989

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Guthrie, Donald, 1916-
Galatians.
(New century Bible commentary)
Reprint. Originally published: London: Oliphants,
c1974. (The century Bible. New series)
Bibliography: p. xi
Includes index.
1. Bible. N.T. Galatians— Commentaries. I. Title.
II. Series. III. Series: Century Bible. New series.
BS2685.3.G84 1981 227'.407 81-5567
ISBN 0-8028-1906-0 (pbk.) AACR2

The Bible references in this publication are taken from the Revised Standard
Version of the Bible, copyrighted 1946 and 1952 by the Division of Christian
Education, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and used
by permission.
 CONTENTS

PREFACE Vii
LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION
1 The Author
2 The Style of the Epistle
3 The Epistle in the Ancient Church
4 Occasion and Purpose
5 The Importance of the Issue
6 The Destination of the Epistle
7 The Date of the Epistle
8 The Modern Relevance of Galatians
9 Analysis of Contents
10 The Argument of the Epistle
11 Commentators and Commentaries

COMMENTARY
Introduction 1.1-5 56
The Apostasy of the Galatians 1.6-10 61
Paul’s Apologia 1.18~-2.21 65
The Doctrinal Argument 3.1-4.31 QI
Ethical Exhortations s—6.10 127
Conclusion 6.11-18 148

APPENDIX
Note A. The Centrality of Christ in the Epistle 154
Note B. The Source of Opposition at Galatia 161

INDEX 163
 } itt sad
BOSE wich OR
barat Mit ts sya ita) at’
qi ans Wy eokemtinM iad
a to seta “alt
, vanes: ° apni Ket panboat oT
tine dSepaee,De. tire &

aa ewaD we
93) tas
40, nee qhate® ey
ie 7! am ‘ ee ares i eb 7
- 7 7 ‘wet

‘
: “

Ia i
¥ e
oe
=

ty

ey
4, ¥
ae wn"
os x
/
é ;
a
a
(a
 PREFACE

Every commentator is faced with initial decisions which affect his

approach to his text, and this is especially true of the commentator
on Paul’s epistle to the Galatians. A nice balance needs to be main-
tained between philological, historical, and theological considera-
tions. Over-emphasis on any one of these will result in one-sided
exegesis. Moreover, in the case of an epistle which is so closely tied
to a specific historical occasion it is important to bear in mind the
enunciation of principles which can have a more general application.
Unless this is done, the study of this epistle would lose all modern
relevance. It is part of the timeless quality of Paul’s writings that they
contain messages which are capable of application in a variety of
different ways.
In view of the great amount of literature which has already
appeared, no commentator would claim that he is not deeply
indebted to his predecessors. Indeed, can he hope to say anything
fresh? Since his task is to bring out the meaning of the text, originality
of ideas would at once become suspect. Yet in approaching his task,
a commentator inevitably projects much of himself. His own
experience cannot fail to affect his approach, and to this extent there
can be no two commentaries on this or any other epistle which are
alike. To this extent, there is some justification for the present
commentary. To think through the exegesis of an epistle such as this
is no easy task, but it is certainly enriching. My own appreciation of
the fundamental character of Paul’s theology and the dynamic faith
which launched a Martin Luther on his reforming quest has been
deepened.
There is much in this epistle about the true gospel which cannot
become dated. It is the mainspring of the modern evangelical move-
ment as it was of the sixteenth-century reformers. It will continue to
demand attention as long as the Christian Church exists. My prayer
is that some who read this commentary may discover the meaning
of the gospel through studying its pages, and that others who have
already imbibed its wisdom may themselves become wiser in the
understanding of it.
 *
aa Yes a nae x ; ay;

1 tN ee A
Stay ert 2a5Q 2s
Loomer ¢ oie «ol
stoete | } eect @ S¥te eh dee oe 47040 “haa! Gees
Ait be ski Live whudlaay u's , pools er ect) pesteF

Wey. web Sy yr 3 3 4? rileswersecee oi bo 2eeo9 We Atwes vsisx”

tevin @ od tion siegge Yo oll guar st Safle dgeernis Waste é
: teat eee
* sygpaazale goad dat it 1 aarere a, wt te wate ny
dea “ty tub? 7 oe seaoer tiki Laws oe PeneryAs:

ihgts hoa
nrg nic ipwtal. <vomndiary vel or, bortabty”
VP ade galeve!<a AAajet eal adesc?

= als eae
= . apr Pies
a
Esseneriant
aL
Hebi To
¥ oR NE a Z erg
nde eri ae
aS LOE SREY OL
ec agthaes ieeaa heal 9 agen -
aba “aahMMe >
Seinen yma aie itr eae Bees
So Rae
‘.
pee Ne ‘ a ae if
Tt ee
A yt -

=
 DisDy eOr AbD GEREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS OF THE BOOKSOF THE BIBLE
OLD TESTAMENT (OT)
Gen. fg: puchr Psi Lam. Ob. Hag.
Exod. Ru. ep@hreiwi Prov. tecHzek ev arjon. Zech.
bev 2 Sanya ror Ec. Dan. Mic. — Maal.
Num. 2Sam. Neh. Ca: Hos. Nah.
Dt. i Roaees, Pst. Isa. ji Hab.
Jos. 2 Kg: - . Job er. Am. Zeph.

APOCRYPHA (Apoc.)
1 Esd. Tob. Ad. Est. Sir. S3:GhseBel, 1 Mac.
2Esd. Jdt. Wis. Bar. Sus. Man. 2 Mac.
Ep. Jer.

NEW TESTAMENT (NT)

Mt. AC. Gal. Pie Lit: EPct. wesc
Mk Rom. — Eph. alk: Phin, 2 Pet? Jude
Lk. 1G, Phil. 1 Tim. Heb. I Jn Rev.
Jn 2's Col. 2 Tims jas 2 Jn

ABBREVIATIONS REFERRING TO DEAD SEA SCROLLS

1QIs First Isaiah Scroll

1QIs® Second Isaiah Scroll
1QLevi Second Testament of Levi
1QpHab Habakkuk Commentary
1QS Rule of the Community (Manual of Discipline)
1QSa (=1Qz28a) Rule of the Community (Appendix)
1QSb (=1Q28b) Collection of Benedictions |
1QM War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of
Darkness
1QH Hymns of Thanksgiving
LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS x

4QFlor Florilegium, Cave 4

4Qpatr Patriarchal Blessing, Cave 4
CD Fragments of a Zadokite work (Damascus
Document)

ABBREVIATIONS OF JEWISH WRITINGS

BABYLONIAN TALMUD TRACTATES

Aboth Aboth Meg. Megillah § Shek. Shekalim

B.B. Baba Bathra Naz. Nazir Suk. Sukkah
B.K. BabaKamma Ned. Nedarim Ta. Ta‘anith
Ber. Berakoth Nid. Niddah Tamid Tamid
Edu. Eduyoth Peah Peah Yeb. = Yebamoth
Pes. | Pesahim
Hag. Hagigah Sanh. Sanhedrin Yoma Yoma
Kid. Kiddushin Shab. Shabbath

OTHERS
T Sota Tosephta, Sota Mek. Mekilta
R. Midrash Rabbah Test. Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs
j Jerusalem Talmud
Jubil. Jubilees
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alford H. Alford, The Greek Testament, 1849.

Askwith E, H. Askwith, The Epistle to the Galatians, an essay on its destination
and date, 1899.
AV Authorized Version.
Barclay W. Barclay, Galatians and Ephesians (Daily Study Bible), 21958.
W. Barclay, Flesh and Spirit, 1962.
Bengel J. A. Bengel, Gnomon Novi Testamenti, 1742.
Beyer H. W. Beyer-P. Althaus, Das Neue Testament Deutsch, vol. 8, 1962.
Bonnard P. Bonnard, L’Epitre aux Galatiens, Commentaire du Nouveau
Testament, 1952.
Bring R. Bring, Pauli Brev till Galaterna, 1958, English translation
Commentary on Galatians, by E. Wahlstrom, 1961.
Burton E. de Witt Burton, A critical and exegetical commentary on The Epistle
to the Galatians, International Critical Commentaries, 1921.
Calvin John Calvin, Commentarii in omnes epistolas Pauli Apost., 1539.
Cole R. A. Cole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, Tyndale New
Testament Commentaries, 1965.
Duncan G. S. Duncan, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, Moffatt
Commentaries, 1934.
Ellicott C. J. Ellicott, A critical and grammatical commentary on St. Paul’s
Epistle to the Galatians, 1854.
Emmet G. Emmet, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, Reader’s Commentary,
1912.
Grayston K. Grayston, The Epistle to the Galatians and Philippians, Epworth
Preachers’ Commentaries, 1958.
Lagrange M.-J. Lagrange, Saint Paul, Epitre aux Galates, Etudes Bibliques,
21950.
Lietzmann H. Lietzmann, Der Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Galater, Handbuch
zum Neuen Testament, 21932.
Lightfoot J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, 1865.
Luther M. Luther, In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas Commentarius, 1519.
M. Luther, In Epistolam S. Pauli ad Galatas Commentarius ex
Praelectione D. M. Lutheri Collectus, 1535.
LXX Septuagint.
Meyer H. A. W. Meyer, Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch tiber den Brief an die
Galater, 1841.
Munck J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 1959.
NEB New English Bible.
Oepke A. Oepke, Der Galaterbrief, 1937.
BIBLIOGRAPHY xii
Ramsay Sir W. Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Galatians, 1900.
Ridderbos H. N. Ridderbos, The Epistle to the Galatians, New London
Commentary, 1954
Ropes J. H. Ropes, The Singular Problem ofthe Epistle to the Galatians, 1929.
Round D. Round, The Date of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, 1906.
RSV Revised Standard Version.
RV Revised Version.
Sanday W. Sanday, Galatians, in Ellicott’s Old Testament and New
Testament Commentary for English Readers.
Schlier H. Schlier, Der Galaterbrief, in the eleventh edition of Meyer’s
commentary, 1951.
Schoeps H. J. Schoeps, Paul, E.T. 1961.
Tenney M. C. Tenney, Galatians: The Charter of Christian Liberty, 1950.
Watkins C. H. Watkins, St. Paul’s Fight for Galatia, 1913.
Williams A. L. Williams, The Epistle to the Galatians, in Cambridge Greek
New Testament, 1910.
 INTRODUCTION

1. THE AUTHOR

In the long period of critical studies in the New Testament there have
been very few who have questioned the Pauline authorship of this
epistle. The radical late nineteenth-century Dutch School of critics
regarded it, like all the epistles of Paul, as pseudonymous, but the
theories of these critics were short-lived, and had very little influence
outside the immediate circle of their supporters. This epistle, perhaps
more than any of the Pauline epistles, bears the deep marks of the
- author’s personality and is wholly in harmony with what might be
reasonably expected from the apostle Paul. Indeed, there never has
been any dispute about this epistle, either in the early Church, or at
the Reformation, or among the thorough-going Tiibingen critics of
the last century, or in fact in the recent computer attack on Paul’s
epistles. Galatians has remained a solid witness to many facets of the
character of the great apostle to the Gentiles.
Using data drawn from this epistle alone it is possible to form a
surprisingly full portrait of the apostle and to gather something of
his movements and methods. It is worth doing this to show how
personally revealing the letter is. With a few deft words Paul refers
to his pre-Christian life. He uses great economy when speaking of
this, partly because the readers already knew of it (see 1.13) and
partly because it is of secondary importance to his main purpose.
Paul could never forget his former life, but his deepest recollection
is the profound change that Christ had brought. We learn from 1.13
that Paul was an ardent adherent of Judaism, that it was this ardour
which caused his persecuting violence against the Christian Church.
He sincerely believed at that time that he was earning merit with
God. The quicker the church was destroyed, the better. Moreover,
advancement in Judaism was his first priority. His ambition was
unlimited. He himself claims (1.14) to have advanced in Judaism
ahead of most of his contemporaries. He might have said ahead of
any of them, but modesty restrained him. He was a true Jew, with
the utmost enthusiasm to maintain tradition. The past was glorious.
GALATIANS 2

The accrued wisdom of his fathers must be maintained at all costs.

The man who now writes to Galatia was a one-time fanatic, con-
vinced, moreover, that his fanaticism was God-honouring, always
the most dangerous fanaticism when misguided so completely as
Saul’s. It is against this background that he tells of his liberation.
In many ways it is surprising that the apostle gives so little detail
about his conversion. Yet what he says is highly significant. He selects
rather the underlying principles than the actual details of the event.
He passes by the sudden brilliant light, the heavenly voice which
challenged him, the dramatic realization that he was blind, the dark
vigil, the first real Christian prayer, the touch and tender voice of
Ananias, his dramatic recovery of sight, and his baptism. He fastens
on two revolutionary ideas which suddenly became clear to him—
his separation and his calling (1.15, 16). The first happened long
before he was conscious of it, i.e. before he was born. The truth had
dawned on him that every aspect of his past life had been known to
God. He does not enlarge on this, but it clearly cut the ground away
from all his previous zealous and even violent attempts to earn merit.
When Paul further speaks of his calling he is thinking of that moment
in time when he became conscious that God’s grace had transformed
him. And the deepest impression it had on him was the commission
to preach among the Gentiles. Indeed, what Paul says about his
preaching in this epistle repays careful notice.
Throughout this letter the reader cannot fail to detect the words
of a man who is essentially a preacher. He is no theoretical theologian.
Here is a man used to pleading. It is thoroughly in keeping with this
that he draws such specific attention to his divine commission to
preach (1.16). Moreover, the gospel that he preached was not a
gospel of man’s making (1.11). There was an essentially divine
character about the message as well as the commission. The apostle
was a true ambassador. He had received his orders and was intent on
carrying them out. Indeed, Paul boldly states that he. received his
gospel by revelation (1.12), by which he means not something
visionary or ecstatic but a message received by direct contact with
Jesus Christ and not mediated through others, not even through
apostles. His calling was as highly individualistic as his character.
3 INTRODUCTION

When recounting his visit to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus,

Paul says he laid before them the gospel he preached (2.2), and this
again shows his deep awareness of the supreme importance of the
content of his preaching. He reminds the Galatians that he had
placarded the crucified Christ before them (3.1), and recalls to their
minds the physical difficulties which attended his first preaching
among them (4.13).
In close association with his sense of call to preach the gospel was
his call to the apostolic office (1.1). It was not without significance
that he begins the epistle with an assertion of the divine origin of his
apostolate, in view of the fact that he is clearly claiming equality
with the Jerusalem apostles in the first part of the epistle. Not all
preachers were apostles, but Paul is conscious of having received an
appointment which could even rank alongside those who had
companied with Jesus.
Some of the interesting details about Paul’s movements are unique
to this epistle. Almost directly after his conversion Paul spent some
time in Arabia (see note on 1.17 for a discussion of this location).
How long he was there he does not say. Moreover, he leaves us to
conjecture the purpose of his visit. It may well have been to seek
seclusion in order to have time to re-orientate his thoughts. But he
does not say so. He refers to his return to Damascus (1.17) and again
gives no hint of what he did there. It is unimportant for his present
purpose. The Book of Acts fills in some of the gaps (cf. 9.19ff.). The
Jerusalem visits to which he refers in 1.18 and 2.1 will require
detailed examination under the discussion concerning the date. But
there is no doubt of the importance of Jerusalem in Paul’s mind,
although his intention is to show his independence of the Jerusalem
apostles. There is but a passing reference to the churches of Judea
(1.22f.), although Paul disclaims any personal knowledge of them.
He also mentions going into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, but
gives no details of any activity there (cf. Ac. 15.41).
Paul’s own Christian experience shines through his epistle. His
call to the ministry is accompanied by a deep awareness ‘of his new
relationship to Christ. He uses the term “bond-servant’ (1.10), a
characteristic description which occurs in many of his other letters.
GALATIANS 4

He is not only an apostle, a position of honour, but also a slave, a

position of humiliation. It is particularly significant that he should
use the latter expression in an epistle in which he devotes such
attention to Christian liberty. He is freed from bondage to law, but
is still a bondman of Christ. Appeal to personal experience is often
the most effective method of dealing with the problems of others.
In this epistle the most notable example of this method is in 2.19, 20,.
where Paul appeals to his experience of death to the old life and to
his new life in Christ. He knows what it means to be crucified with
Christ. He has already experienced it.
The epistle reveals its author as an intensely human man. He feels
deeply. He is astonished at the speedy defection of his readers from
the true gospel (1.6). He is clearly disappointed with them, even
fearful lest all his work among them should prove vain (4.11). He
speaks of his perplexity about them (4.20). Yet in spite of this per-
plexity he is in no doubt about the issues at stake and uses great
plainness of speech. For instance, when he thinks of men preaching
some other gospel, he does not hesitate to declare an anathema against
them (1.9). The same steadfast bluntness for truth’s sake is seen in his
own account of his public criticism of Peter (2.14). But the clearest
instance of Paul’s downright bluntness is seen in 5.12, where the
somewhat crude expression which he uses testifies to the intensity of
his feeling against those perverting the gospel. It is in the light of this
that his concluding demand that no-one is to trouble him further is
to be understood (6.17).
Perhaps the most salient feature of Paul’s character seen in this
epistle is a rugged independence. More than once he disavows either
having been appointed an apostle or having received his gospel from
men (1.1, 12, 16). Yet his strongly independent claims are not to be
understood in any egotistical’ sense. He considered it to be a vital
matter to establish that behind his ministry and the very gospel he
preached was divine authority. Nevertheless, in spite of his own
claims to equality with the Jerusalem apostles, he shows no antago-
nism to the latter and in fact mentions with evident favour that they
extended to him the right hand of fellowship (2.9). In close associa-
tion with an independent spirit goes a sense of freedom. It was Paul’s
5 INTRODUCTION

appreciation of this freedom (cf. 2.4; 5.1) whicn produced in him

such deep distress over the Galatians’ apparent willingness to lose it.
His doctrinal argument is never purely intellectual but is an essential
part of his practical Christian approach. Let us call him a theologian
as we must, but let us not think of him as an armchair theologian.
He wrestled out his theology on his feet.
One other aspect of Paul’s personal life demands to be mentioned,
i.e. his physical condition. He refers in 4.13 to a bodily ailment but
gives no details to enable us to identify it. It may have caused some
unpleasantness in his appearance since he commends the Galatians for
not despising him (4.14). Moreover, his reference to the fact that
they would have plucked out their eyes for him (4.15) has led some
to suppose that the ailment was ophthalmia (so Calvin, Emmet).
But Paul may simply be using a figure of speech. In the conclusion
of the epistle the apostle’s allusion to the largeness of his hand-
writing may support the theory of eye-disease, but this is open to
other interpretations. (see comment on 6.17).
Further illumination on the author may be obtained from an
examination of his style as a writer, and this will be more fully
developed in the next section.

2.) [HE STYLE)OF ,THE, EPISTLE

It is a general truth that the style reflects the man, although this must
not be too rigidly applied so as to exclude the possibility of a wide
variety of styles for the same author. In studying the particular style
of this epistle it is intended to examine the literary method which
the author chose in order to express most clearly the specific message
which he had to impart. What is characteristic in Paul’s Epistle to the
Galatians need not necessarily be characteristic elsewhere.
The first feature which claims attention is the great number of
figures of speech. From many of them may be obtained some indi-
cation of Paul’s background (see Tenney’s discussion, 135ff.). An
author naturally takes the greatest number of his metaphors from
the sphere in which he himself moves. Those most characteristic of
GALATIANS 6

the Epistle to the Galatians are the bewitching eye (3.1), the placard-
ing of news (3.1), the function of a guardian (3.24), the figure of
child-bearing (4.19), the yoke (5.1), the athletic course (5.7), the
leaven (5.9), the stumbling-block (5.11), the ferocity of wild animals
(5.15), the fruit harvest (5.22), the processes of sowing and reaping
(6.7), the household (6.10), and the process of branding (6.17). These
show the apostle’s wide range of interests and his acute sense of the
value of metaphorical language in pressing home his points. Some
of these figures appear again in other Pauline Epistles, but some
(e.g. the first three mentioned) are peculiar to this epistle.
An even more marked feature of Paul’s style here is the number
of rhetorical questions. These are not, however, evenly distributed
throughout, but are almost wholly concentrated in the central
doctrinal portion (i.e. chapters 3 and 4). The first example is in 1.10,
where Paul asks a double question, enquiring whether he is seeking
to please men or God. The answer is obvious, although Paul gives a
hint of the result which must follow if the reverse were true. In the
short passage 3.1-5, six rhetorical questions follow in quick suc-
cession. This quick-fire method of challenge was calculated to ensure
the maximum impact. For other examples, see 3.21; 4.15; 4.16.
There are some stylistic features which bring considerable warmth
to the epistle in spite of the strong line which the apostle feels obliged
to take. On several occasions he addresses his readers as ‘brethren’
(I.1I; 3.15; 4.12, 28; 5.11; 6.1, 18) and these must be set against his
ejaculatory ‘O foolish Galatians!’ of 3.1. The use of this style of
address occurs, as will be seen, in all sections of the epistle, which
suggests that Paul is determined, in spite of his criticisms of his
readers, to keep constantly in mind his relation to them in Christ.
He even calls those who are making false demands ‘brethren’ (2.4),
although he shows himself so definitely opposed to their so-called
‘gospel’. The apostle is no self-opinionated heresy-hunter, but a
brother in Christ pleading with his fellows not to lose the precious
heritage of freedom which is rightly theirs. An even more tender
touch occurs in 4.19, where the apostle addresses them as ‘my little
children’.
It is noticeable that not infrequently Paul uses the first person
urd INTRODUCTION

plural, thus identifying himself with his readers, although he uses the
singular about seventy times. Sometimes the plural is used to include
others (though unidentified) who are distinct from the readers, as,
for instance, in 1.8, or else it is to be explained as the epistolary ‘we’.
In 1.9 Paul has both the plural and the singular, and in this case the
plural may refer to Paul’s companions. But when in 4.28, 31 he uses
the plural there can be no doubt that he includes his readers among
those who are children of promise, children of the free woman. In
the practical exhortations of chapter 6 the plural is also used, because
Paul is conscious of the need to apply to himself the same injunctions
(cf. the sudden change from third to first person at the end of
chapter 5).
Those who reflect carefully on the characteristics of style in this
epistle will discover with increasing clarity an advocate who not only
had a burning zeal for his cause, but also possessed considerable skill
in pleading. Unfortunately, history has left us without knowledge of
the sequel. Did the Galatians succumb to pressure. or was Paul’s
powerful pleading an effective deterrent? Since this epistle was soon
highly treasured within the Christian Church, it is a safe supposition
that it was so treasured because of its effectiveness in combating
Judaistic tendencies.

3. THE EPISTLE IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH

There is little need to discuss the authenticity of this epistle, for, as

has been shown, it has been the least disputed of any of Paul’s epistles.
In the ancient Church no voice was raised against it, while in the
modern Church only the protests of a few extremists, who have
denied all the Pauline epistles, have been heard. Indeed at no time
have any others of Paul’s epistles been accepted and this rejected. If
any standard epistle of the apostle’s is to be chosen to act as a norm
against which to judge the others there are few, if any, who would
deny the right of this epistle to the strongest consideration.
Nevertheless a brief statement of the early patristic evidence for the
Epistle to the Galatians will not be out of place. There are a few
 GALATIANS 8

possible allusions to the language of this epistle in the earliest patristic

writings. Barnabas 19.8 may be an echo of Gal. 6.6; and 1 Clem. 49.9
could be drawn from Gal. 1.4. The parallels in Polycarp are clearer
and more certainly indicate a knowledge of this epistle (Polycarp’s
Philippians 3.3, cf. Gal. 4.26; Polycarp 5.1, cf. Gal. 6.7; Polycarp 9.2;
cf. Gal. 2.2). Justin is generally not the best witness in discussions on
canonicity since his quotations of New Testament books are very
li ose, a fact which makes the establishment of dependence more
_ difficult. But in the case of this epistle, it is significant that on two
occasions Justin applies the same Old Testament passage in a similar
way to Paul (cf. Justin’s Dialogue, 95.1 and Gal. 3.10, 13, and Justin’s
Apology 53 and Gal. 4.27). There is evidence that Marcion placed
this epistle first among all Paul’s epistles, and the order must be
regarded as an indication of Marcion’s evaluation of this epistle. Both
Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 5) and Epiphanius (Haer. 42) testify to this
order in Marcion’s list.
The Muratorian Canon includes the Epistle to the Galatians as
fifth in order of the epistles of Paul addressed to churches, and there
is no doubt expressed concerning its genuineness. It is Irenaeus who
is first to quote the epistle as by Paul (Haer. 3.6.5; 3.10; and 4.4,. 5)
Similarly a clear statement by Clement of Alexandria in Strom. 3.18
cites Gal. 4.19 as words of Paul when writing to the Galatians. There
is no need to pursue the evidence further, since the canonicity of this
epistle was in all subsequent periods assumed without question.

4. OCCASION AND PURPOSE

This is one of the New Testament epistles of which it is possible to

be relatively certain of its occasion and purpose, for Paul has used
great plainness of speech about his intentions. It will be best to
summarize the occasion by considering in turn the relation that Paul
sustains to three different groups of people who are involved in the
situation.
The first consideration is the apostle’s previous relations with the
readers. There is no doubt that a special relationship existed between
9 INTRODUCTION

them, for they were his converts. He had preached the gospel to them
(1.8, 9; 4.13). Because of this and because of their response to the
preaching, they had formed a warm regard for the apostle, being
even prepared, had it been possible, to make sacrifices for his sake
(cf. 4.15). Clearly, also, Paul had from his side a warm feeling for
them, for the satisfaction was not one-sided. He remembered several
things about that first visit. He had not been well. He probably
looked the worse for wear. Travelling in those days was long and
wearisome, which could not have improved his physical condition.
And yet the Galatians gave him such a welcome that not even an
angel could have wished for more (4.14). The faith of these people
was strong enough to recognize in the ailing body of Paul an
indomitable spirit, which was none other than that of Christ himself.
It must be remembered that the Galatians had had no advantages
from a Jewish heritage. Paul reminds them of their former state when
they worshipped what he calls ‘no gods’ (4.8). The change from
paganism to Christianity was revolutionary. The apostolic mission
had preached to them about Christ, laying special stress on the
crucifixion. They in their turn had discovered a new liberty in Christ.
The heart of the great missionary apostle must have been greatly
thrilled as he saw the Spirit of God at work among these people.
Furthermore, he regarded them as the first fruits of a great harvest of
Gentile churches. And yet they have since caused him deep distress.
The reason will be fully discussed later, but for now it must be noted
that his present distress contrasts all the more vividly with his earlier
satisfaction. Many of the Galatians had been baptized (3.27), thus
openly testifying to their allegiance to Christ. Moreover, Paul’s
preaching had been backed up by miracles (3.5), although he gives
no details about these. The Galatians had no excuse for any ignorance
regarding the content or the authority of Paul’s gospel.
The second group with which he is concerned is the apostolic
group at Jerusalem. In the first two chapters he goes to considerable
trouble to explain his relationship with these, which could have been
necessary only because of some serious misunderstandings. It is clear
that the Galatians were being persuaded to heed other teachers at
Paul’s expense, because he was said to compare unfavourably with
GALATIANS 10

the original apostles in status, whereas they were claiming the support
of the leaders in Jerusalem. This latter factor would naturally have
carried some weight with the Galatians. In view of this, the epistle
is in the nature of an apologia pro vita sua. Paul’s whole apostolic
authority is at stake. If his inferiority to the Jerusalem apostles is
allowed to pass unchallenged, his apostolic mission would be in
jeopardy. In the first part of the epistle, the Jerusalem apostles are in
the background. Paul in a general manner denies that either his
apostleship (1.1) or his gospel (1.12) is from man. If either had been
of human origin, it would have been via the Jerusalem leaders. Later
on (1.16) he refers to ‘flesh and blood’ and only then to ‘those who
were apostles before me’. It is when he deals with his Jerusalem visits
that he becomes more specific, mentioning James, Cephas, and John
(2.9; cf. also 1.19). Of these three he says that they were reputed to
be ‘pillars’ (2.9), and his manner of reference suggests that he is
citing the language of his opponents. They were apparently drawing
a distinction between Paul and the ‘pillars’. The ‘pillars’ were held
in repute (cf. 2.2, 6), but by implication Paul was not.
The most important aspect of the apostle’s defence of his own
position is his express avowal that the Jerusalem leaders added
nothing to his gospel (2.6), that is, that both he and they adopted
precisely the same position and agreed amicably on their respective
spheres of mission activity. There had been one major clash with
Peter, but this concerned a matter of fellowship, not of doctrine. It
happened during a visit of Peter’s to Antioch, during which he at
first shared meals with Gentiles but declined to do so when Jewish
Christians arrived from James. Paul refers to his public reprimand of
Peter because of his inconsistency in order to prove that his authority
was not less than Peter’s. He does not tell us the outcome of the clash
because it is not essential to his argument. He leaves his readers to
assume that Peter heeded the rebuke. After 2.14, Paul says nothing
further about the other apostles.
The third group consisted of the conflicting teachers who appear
to be Judaizers. They are variously alluded to without any specific
classification being attached to them. The first reference is in 1.7,
where the phrase ‘some who trouble you’ occurs. These are said to
II INTRODUCTION

want to pervert the gospel. There is a vaguer reference in 1.9 to

anyone preaching a contrary gospel. In 2.4, Paul refers to false
brethren who had been secretly brought in at Jerusalem, suggesting
some methods of which the apostle did not approve. It is noticeable,
however, that he classes them as ‘brethren’, even although false.
Moreover, their purpose is further defined as spying out the freedom
of Paul and his companions. The apostle sees their movement as
enslaving. In2.11, 12 the description of ‘certain men from James’
and ‘the circumcision party’ suggests that they were of the same
spiritual kith and kin as the Galatians’ troublers. There is another
vague allusion to these troublers in 3.1, where Paul asks the Galatians,
‘who has bewitched you?’ In 3.10 Paul makes a statement about ‘all
who rely on works of the law’, which is in all probability a reference
to the same people. The argument then proceeds without reference
to the source of the trouble until 4.17, where there is a further vague
reference: “They make much of you . . . they want to shut you out.’
Not until 5.2 is there any reference to circumcision, and yet there is
no question that this is a major issue in Paul’s controversy with his
opponents. He addresses them directly, “You are severed from Christ
. .. you have fallen away from grace’ (5.4). This is followed by a
question in the singular, ‘who hindered you?’ (5.7), with a further
reference in the singular in 5.10. In his rather harsh statement in 5.12
Paul alludes to “those who unsettle you’. In the concluding chapter
there is a parting reference to ‘those who want to make a good
showing in the flesh’, and a further reference to circumcision (6.12).
In this context there is an illuminating reference to them wanting to
avoid persecution for the Cross of Christ. Paul closes with an appeal
that no man should further trouble him (6.17).
From these incidental references it is possible to form a reasonably
clear picture of the situation. How many people were involved it is
impossible to say. There was certainly a group in spite of the few
references to an individual. It is reasonable to suppose that in the
latter cases the leader or leaders are mainly in mind. That they were
regarded as part of the church is also evident, although they entered
surreptitiously. The cause of all the trouble was their insistence on
circumcision for Gentile believers and the securing of salvation
GALATIANS I2

through works. The apostle takes a serious view of this approach,

for he sees it as an attack on the whole concept of Christian freedom.
His strong reaction to this undermining movement provides the
immediate occasion for the epistle, the details of which will be
discussed in the next section.

5. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE

Circumcision was integral to the Jewish system. It was the sign of

the covenant and therefore involved initiation into a privileged
position. It was, moreover, commanded in the Old Testament. The
uncircumcised were essentially outcasts from the Commonwealth of
Israel and became objects of contempt. The earliest Christians, in
their pre-conversion days, had been conditioned to this kind of
approach, and it was not surprising that they should bring something
of it into the Christian Church. So long as all the believers were
already circumcised there was no critical problem. It did not even
dawn on them all at once that Christianity involved a totally dif-
ferent approach to the law. It was possible to continue under the old
legal obligations with the addition of the acceptance of Jesus as
Messiah. The radical nature of this Christian addition was not at first
clear to their minds. It was not until the crisis had developed at
Galatia that the serious character of the issue became clear. Paul had
established Gentile churches and had himself not insisted on circum-
cision. It is important to recognize that the first and most important
decision over the circumcision issue was taken, not in the Jerusalem
church when the matter was discussed in Council (Ac. 15), but in
the:mind of Paul.
It is a tremendous tribute to the spiritual insight of this great
missionary apostle that in spite of his strict upbringing as a Hebrew
of the Hebrews, a privileged member of the chosen race, he does not
entertain the thought that Gentiles must be circumcised to obtain
the full benefits of the Gospel. So great had been the emancipation
of Paul’s Damascus experience that he seems soon to have recognized
that an entirely new basis of approach to God had been inaugurated
13 INTRODUCTION
by Christ. This was in vivid contrast to the ultra-conservative
approach of the Judaizers, who were convinced that the Jewish
Christian position was right and that Gentiles must therefore submit
to it. It was no easy matter for a pious Jew to conceive of the possi-
bility of dispensing with circumcision, and this must not be over-
looked in assessing the situation. There is nothing to suggest that
these Judaizers desired anything less than the best for the Galatians.
They were sincere, dangerously sincere, for they were clearly active
in the propagation of their opinions. But Paul at once sees the danger.
If the Judaizers were right, Christianity would be little more than a
sect of Judaism. At first, Paul seems to have been alone in recognizing
the importance of the issue. It is clear from the epistle that he assumes
that the Galatians had previously understood their Christian standing
apart from circumcision. In all probability Paul had positively
informed them that cizcumcision was not required, for otherwise he
would not have marvelled at their present readiness to lose their
freedom. The apostle writes as if they were blameworthy for their
action (or intended action), which could be true only if they were
already aware of the position.
An interesting aspect of the Galatian position is the attitude of the
Jerusalem apostles towards the Judaizers. Did they look with
approval on the mission to circumcise Gentiles, or was this mission
carried out by some extremists irrespective of their leaders? The
epistle itself certainly gives no indication, although there is a passing
reference to ‘certain men . . . from James’ (2.12) who did not favour
eating with Gentiles. It seems reasonable to suppose that the ‘pillar’
apostles were more inclined to favour the circumcision party,
although Peter was apparently not so convinced about it as James.
According to Ac. 15.5, the advocates of circumcision for all are
described as ‘believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees’,
who are obviously distinct from the apostles themselves. The best
supposition is that there was no clash between the Pharisaic Christians
and the apostles until Paul’s Gentile mission precipitated a crisis, thus
forcing the apostles to face the issue. As far as the Galatian situation
is concerned, there can be no doubt that the Judaizers were claiming
apostolic authority, whether rightly or wrongly, for Paul goes to
GALATIANS I4

considerable trouble to demonstrate that the Jerusalem apostles were

in essential agreement with him.
It is important to have a clear picture of the way that Paul deals
with the issue, and the following summary will assist to this end.
(1) First, there is the historical approach. Paul is determined to scotch
the rumour that his opinion can be ignored in favour of the point of
view purporting to have the support of the ‘pillar’ apostles. This
section (1.1-2.14) is a necessary preliminary to the more important
doctrinal approach. Unless he can establish his apostolic claims and
the falseness of the Judaizer’s assertions that there was a vital dif-
ference between his position and the ‘pillar’ apostles, his doctrinal
section would carry little weight. The historical situation gives no
occasion for the view that Paul’s opinions are of secondary
importance.
(2) The doctrinal approach consists of several steps, the first of
which is an argument drawn from personal testimony (2.15-21). Paul
testifies to the fact that, although he was born a Jew, he had not
found justification through the law. Indeed, the Cross had become
the centre of his life.
(3) The next stage is an appeal to the Galatians’ own experience
(3.1-5). They had ‘known the aid of the Spirit and had seen miracles.
On the basis of this, Paul challenges them with a series of questions.
They know very well that they had not received the Spirit through
allegiance to the law. What logical reason, therefore, was there for
trying to continue in dependence on the law?
(4) This is followed by an appeal to the Old Testament (3.6-18).
Abraham had a special interest for all Jews, and served admirably as
an example to prove Paul’s point that promise was superior to law.
First Paul appeals to Abraham’s faith, then adds an interlude on the
curse of the law before returning to the promise made to Abraham
as being prior to the law. Paul’s use of the Old Testament is
authoritative. Therefore he feels free to use an argument based on
grammatical considerations (3.16).
(5) Next, Paul discusses the relationship between law and promise,
bringing out particularly the temporary function of the law and the
permanent function of faith in God’s word (3.19-29). In the same
I$ INTRODUCTION

vein, he likens those still under law to bondservants as compared

with the privileged position shared by sons (4.1-7).
(6) A further stage in the argument is a warning against returning
to a condition of bondage, and an exhortation based on Paul’s
previous experience among them (4.8-20).
(7) The final stage in the doctrinal argument is an appeal to an
allegory (4.21-31). This returns to the story of Abraham and makes
use of historical incidents to illustrate spiritual truths. However
strange such a method of argument appears in a scientifically domi-
nated age, it would have had considerable relevance in an age when
the allegorical interpretation of Scripture was receiving widespread
attention, as is clear from Philo’s expositions.
The result of this process of doctrinal argument is succinctly stated
in 5.1 (‘For freedom Christ has set us free’), on the basis of which
the Galatians are exhorted not to allow themselves to be enslaved
again. The focal point of Paul’s approach to the Galatian problem is
his firm conviction about Christian freedom. Anything which
threatened this was a matter of such urgency that Paul sees it as a
threat to the whole future of Christianity. It is for this reason that
he uses such energy to refute the aims of the Judaizers.

6. THE DESTINATION OF THE EPISTLE

There has been much discussion over this problem, and it cannot be
said that any indisputable conclusion has yet been reached. It will be
necessary therefore to set out the evidence on this issue fairly fully in
order to allow as fair an estimate of it as possible.

Tue History OF GALATIA

At the time of the apostle Paul there was a provincial district under
the organization of the Roman empire which was called Galatia, but
this province had at that time only a short history. It was established
as a province in 25 B.c. on the death of King Amyntas, who had
reigned over the territories of Pisidia, Isauria, part of Pamphylia,
GALATIANS 16

West Cilicia, Lycaonia, and Galatia, the latter being the geographical
district of that name to the north of Lycaonia. The newly formed
province consisted of the whole of this area except Pamphylia, which
became a new province on its own. The province of Galatia, there-
fore, took its name from one of its geographical districts. Henceforth
the term Galatia could describe either the geographical district in the
north of the province or the whole province. It is this ambiguity
which has given rise to the two different theories for the destination
of this epistle, the North and South Galatian theories, the former
restricting the term Galatia to the geographical area and the latter
interpreting it in the provincial sense in order to embrace the area in
the south.
Long before the districts mentioned became a Roman province,
groups of Celts had settled in the geographical region in the north,
being confined there by the victories of the Pergamene kings in the
third century B.c. Groups of the same tribes migrated farther into
France and settled in Gaul. In the geographical region of Galatia the
majority of the inhabitants were Phrygians, although the Galatians
were the dominant group. d
For a full discussion of the historical and geographical back-
ground, cf. Lightfoot, 1-17, and especially Ramsay, 1-234.

Tue TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION OF GALATIA

Until the nineteenth century no commentator seems to have disputed

that the Galatians were those of the northern geographical district.
There were three main cities in this district, Ancyra, Pessinus, and
Tavium, of which the first became the capital of the Roman province.
In view of this interpretation it was maintained that Paul must have
visited and established churches in these three cities on his second
missionary journey in accordance with Ac. 16.6. It will be best to
enumerate the various arguments for this North Galatian theory and
then to set down the support for the South Galatian theory, remem-
bering that the latter is the challenger of the older tradition.
17 INTRODUCTION

ARGUMENTS FOR THE NorTH GALATIAN THEORY

ARGUMENTS BASED ON THE USE OF THE TERM ‘GALATIA’

It is valuable to enquire whether there are any parallels which enable
the literary use of the term to be established. Lukyn Williams
(pp. xiv-xv) cited three from the Greek Bible, 1 Mac. 8.1, 2; 2 Mac.
8.20; and 2 Tim. 4.10, and thought that the first favours a reference
to Gaul but the other two to Galatia in Asia Minor. In the case of
2 Tim. 4.10, however, it cannot be determined whether the geo-
graphical or provincial district is meant. In addition there are various
extra-Biblical allusions which suggest that the term was not restricted
to those of Gallic descent, but also included Phrygians who resided
in the northern area. Lukyn Williams thought that the term
‘Galatians’ was widely used to describe slaves, perhaps because the
Roman Consul Manlius (189 B.c.) sold thousands of Galatians into
slavery. It was used in the provincial sense subsequent to 25 B.c. by
writers such as the elder Pliny and Tacitus when writing officially,
and this is readily understandable, but it is disputed that Paul would
have used it in this sense. At the same time there was no uniformity
of usage, for many other writers use it in the geographical sense (e.g.
Strabo, Memnon, Dio Cassius). It would seem that from the popular
viewpoint Galatia would generally represent the geographical
district.

ARGUMENT BASED ON LUKE'S USE OF NAMES IN ACTS

It may justifiably be claimed that Luke’s usual practice in describing
the location of places on the journeys of the apostle Paul is to cite the
geographical district and not the provincial one. Hence he refers to
Pamphylia (Ac. 13.13), Pisidia (13.14), and Lycaonia (14.6), but gives
no indication of the provincial district to which they belonged.
Moreover, the towns of South Galatia which Paul visited on his first
missionary journey (Antioch, Lystra, Derbe) are listed by geographi-
cal, not provincial, districts. Had the latter usage been adopted, Luke
would have referred to these as Galatian towns. Since he did not do
this, it may reasonably be supposed that he treated ‘Galatia’ as a
 GALATIANS 18

geographical district. This will throw light on the next matter to be

discussed.

PAUL'S VISITS TO GALATIA ACCORDING TO AC. 16.6 AND 18.23

If the preceding deductions from Luke’s practice are correct, the two
occasions when Paul is said to have visited Galatia (Ac. 16.6 and
18.23) must refer to the geographical district and not to the province.
The first occurrence reads as follows: ‘And they went through the
region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy
Spirit to speak the word in Asia.’ If this is a correct interpretation of
. the text of Acts, two regions are referred to which are presumably
mutually exclusive, in which case Galatia cannot be the province
because that included part of Phrygia. This interpretation has been
challenged by supporters of the South Galatian theory (see below for
arguments), but it must be admitted that the above seems a natural
interpretation of Luke’s words. In Ac. 18.23, the statement reads:
‘After spending some time there he departed and went from place to
place through the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all
the disciples.’ The same remark as above applies here, and therefore
a second visit to the geographical region of Galatia seems to be
involved.
It is naturally essential to the North Galatian theory to establish
that Paul visited the northern regions, for had he not done so he
could not have addressed an epistle to the churches which he founded
there. On the other hand, it should be noted that in neither reference
in Acts does it state that Paul established churches, although this
would be a reasonable inference from 18.23.

ARGUMENT BASED ON ETHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Lightfoot (13ff.) attempted to support the North Galatian theory by
an appeal to the known characteristics of the Gallic people. They
were, according to him, fickle. This would then account for the fact
that the Galatians were so quickly turning away from their faith and
were showing tendencies towards sins of temper (cf. Gal. 5.19, 20).
But the argument here does not present solid ground for the theory,
although it might be appealed to as corroborating evidence if the
19 INTRODUCTION

theory were proved on other grounds. The Gallic people were not
the only people in the ancient world who were fickle, and little
importance may therefore be attached to this consideration. It should
also be noted that the majority of the inhabitants of Galatia were
Phrygians and not of Gallic descent.

AN ARGUMENT BASED ON GRAMMAR

In both of the Acts passages already mentioned (16.6 and 18.23) the
same verb is used of the journey of Paul in the Galatian area (i.e. to
pass through—diélthon). According to Moffatt, this means more than
simply movement through, and involves a preaching ministry. This
argument is slight, but that based on the participle (having been
forbidden—kéluthentes, Ac. 16.6) is more weighty. It is contended
that the prohibition on Paul not to preach in Asia after visiting the
churches in the South Galatian cities would leave him with no
alternative but to turn northwards. It may, therefore, be contended
that the grammar of Ac. 16.6 requires the assumption that the Galatia
visited after Asia was closed to Paul must have been the geographical
district of that name. This grammatical argument has been disputed,
as will be mentioned below, but if it stands it is fair evidence of Paul’s
missionary activity in North Galatia on the second journey.
In support of this theory, cf. especially Lightfoot 1-35, Oepke
4ff., Schlier sff., Bonnard off., Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature
of the New Testament (#1918), goff.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE SOUTH GALATIAN THEORY

The arguments for this theory are of two kinds. The first type con-
sists of reassessment of the arguments used to support the North
Galatian theory, and the second type consists of appeal to additional
considerations. They will be dealt with in that order.

A REASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FROM AC. 16.6 AND 18.23

Sir William Ramsay, the most notable advocate of the South Galatian
theory, recognized that these two Acts references were fundamental
to the traditional theory. It could not be shown that Paul was
GALATIANS 20

addressing the North Galatians unless it could be proved that he had

visited the northern area. But Ramsay was not convinced that either
Ac. 16.6 or 18.23 were referring to Phrygia and Galatia. He main-
tained that both words should be regarded as adjectives, in which
case they would refer to the Phrygic-Galatic region (4o1ff ).He under-
stood by this the part of the province of Galatia which was known
geographically as Phrygia and was inhabited by Phrygians. In 18.23,
where the order of reference is reversed and where the construction
is slightly changed, the meaning would be the Galatian province and
Phrygia, i.e. that part of Phrygia in the province of Asia. Moreover,
this interpretation would suggest that by the Phrygic-Galatic region
Luke means to imply that Paul was not breaking new ground but
going again over old ground. This would mean that he not only
visited Derbe and Lystra, as mentioned in Ac. 16.15, but also other
places in this region, including Antioch in Pisidia and Iconium. If
this interpretation is correct the course of events on the second
missionary journey, after Paul’s passing through Syria and Cilicia,
was as follows. He revisited Derbe and Lystra, specially mentioned
because of Timothy joining him there. From this point he had
intended to preach in Asia, but was by some means forbidden to do
so by the Holy Spirit, and so proceeded via Iconium to Antioch and
then passed up the Phrygic-Galatic district running northwards along
the Asiatic border until he reached that part of the border opposite
to Mysia. Being again prevented by the Spirit from preaching in
Bithynia, he evidently proceeded along the Asiatic-Bithynic border,
then through Mysia until he came to Troas. It must be admitted that
this is a more logical interpretation of Paul’s movements in Ac. 16
than is possible under the North Galatian theory, in which a very
considerable and difficult detour is involved. It is no different in
18.22, 23, which describes in few words the commencement of the
third missionary journey up to the time of Paul’s arrival at Ephesus.
The most natural reading of this brief statement would suggest that
Paul took the opportunity of strengthening the churches which lay
on the route from Palestine to Ephesus, and it is certainly difficult to
imagine that he would have chosen a route through North Galatia.
It may, therefore, be said that although it is not impossible, it is
21 INTRODUCTION

improbable that Paul visited North Galatia on either the second or

third journeys. But if he did not do so, the North Galatian theory
must collapse.

PAUL'S USE OF PROVINCIAL TITLES

The first consideration has dealt with Acts, but supposing that
the evidence did support the idea of visits by Paul to North Galatia
it would still not be proof that Paul is addressing these churches,
unless it can be shown that when Paul uses the terms ‘Galatia’ and
‘Galatians’ he meant the same as Luke did. There would, of course,
be some expectation that both Luke and Paul are reflecting popular
usage, which would in turn support the contention that Paul must
mean the same as Luke. And yet further investigation shows that,
unlike Luke, Paul often prefers provincial titles, especially when
referring to the location of churches. It will be most valuable first to
consider the regions named in this epistle apart from Galatia. These
are Arabia (1.17), Syria and Cilicia (9.21), and Judea (1.22). Churches
are specifically mentioned only in the case of Judea. A parallel phrase
occurs in 1 Th. 2.14, but in that case there is a reference to Jewish
persecutors (cf. also Rom. 15.31), which might suggest that the
region described was essentially Jewish. In this case, it would not seem
that the province was in mind since it included both Judea and
Samaria. At the same time it is difficult to believe that Paul was
restricting his reference to the churches in the specific geographical
region of Judea. Was Galilee excluded? Of the other districts men-
tioned Arabia was in all probability the province (see comment on
1.17), although in 4.25 it may be used in a more restricted geographi-
cal sense. Syria and Cilicia are mentioned together in Ac. 15.23, 41.
In the former of the two references they are included in the address
of James’s letter and in the latter they represent the districts containing
churches which Paul and Silas visited on the second journey. Thus
Paul’s usage agrees with Luke’s. But this would not seem to support
the contention that Paul used provincial titles since both these districts
were probably in Paul’s time united to form one province in the
Roman administration. In this case therefore no certainty can be
achieved, but it is worth noting that Paul is describing his move-
GALATIANS 22

ments, not giving information about churches, and it may be that

on this occasion his mind dwells on the geographical regions through
which he passed (but see comment on 1.21). There would appear to
be some intended contrast between the ‘regions’ of Syria and Cilicia
and the ‘churches’ in Judea mentioned in the same verse.
In other epistles there are several instances where churches referred
to are grouped under provincial titles. In 1 C. 16.19 Paul includes a
greeting from the ‘churches of Asia’, and it would seem almost
certain that he means the churches in the province of Asia in
accordance with current usage. The only consideration which might
appear to militate against this is the fact that in the early church the
churches of Phrygia were sometimes separated from the churches of
Asia, although Phrygia was part of provincial Asia (Tertullian.
Contra Prax. 1, Letter of Churches of Vienne and Lyons (Euseb,
Ch. Hist. 5.1.3)). Several times Paul refers to the believers in Mace-
donia and also on other occasions mentions his travels to and from
Macedonia (e.g. Rom. 15.26; 2 C. 8.1; 9.2, 4; 11.9; I Thr.7i ALTO;
note also 2 C. 1.16; Phil. 4.15). In these cases the province of
Macedonia is almost certainly meant. The same goes for Achaia
(Rom. 15.26; 16.5; 1 C. 16.15; 2 C. 1.15 9.2; 11.10; 1 Th. 1.7, 8). An
objection has been raised to this interpretation of 2 C. 1.1, since this
appears to refer to all the believers including those at Athens, which
was independent of the province of Achaia (so Williams, xix).
Nevertheless an objection of this nature cannot invalidate the clear
usage of Paul in referring to groups of churches in any district by
the provincial name. This must have an important bearing on Paul’s
use of the term ‘Galatians’. Although in theory it could be either
geographical or provincial, it would accord with Paul’s normal
practice more closely if it were the latter.

A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THE GRAMMAR IN AC. 16.6

It has been seen that advocates of the North Galatian theory assume
that the participle (having been forbidden) must be retrospective and
must give the reason why Paul proceeded to Phrygia and Galatia.
But this is not in harmony with Luke’s grammatical usage. Askwith
(7ff.) makes out a strong case for the view that the participle cannot be
23 INTRODUCTION
retrospective. His understanding of it is that Paul and his companions
proceeded towards Mysia, having gone through Phrygia and Galatia
and having been forbidden to preach in Asia. This would slightly
modify the suggested sequence of developments mentioned above.
It would mean that the prohibition did not come until Paul was at
Antioch on the borders of Asia. This certainly seems a reasonable
interpretation and would at the same time exclude the North
Galatian theory by making the prohibition subsequent to the
Galatian journey.

THE ACCOUNT IN ACTS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SOUTH GALATIAN

CHURCHES AND THE LACK OF INFORMATION ABOUT NORTH GALATIAN
CHURCHES
From the amount of space devoted to the incidents which occurred
on the first missionary journey when the South Galatian churches
were established it is obvious that Luke had special interest in these
churches. The first happenings in any piece of work are of great
importance to the historian because they illustrate the principles on
which the work is based. Luke is clearly concerned to show that it
was first of all in these churches that the circumcision problem arose,
and that this led to the important conference at Jerusalem. If Paul in
this epistle is addressing the South Galatians the details would fit quite
naturally into the Acts account. But the North Galatian theory is here
at a serious disadvantage, for Acts tells us nothing about any
churches in North Galatia. Admittedly this consideration may seem
to be weakened by the fact that Acts says nothing about the church
at Colossae, which Paul also addresses. Yet it would be strange indeed
if there was the same unresolved circumcision problem in both the
Southern and Northern Galatian church, and Paul addressed only
the latter by letter. It is not impossible, but nevertheless strange. It
would seem preferable to suppose that this epistle was addressed to
those churches of which we know much rather than to those of
which we know nothing, not even for certain whether they existed.
GALATIANS 24
THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE NAME ‘GALATIANS’ FOR THE SOUTH
GALATIAN PEOPLES
It was Ramsay’s contention that no other name was available to
describe comprehensively the people of all the towns in the South
Galatian area. They could not be called by the geographical area to
which they belonged since more than one geographical term would
be involved. However, this claim has not gone without challenge. It
has been considered that the Southerners would have been insulted
by the title ‘Galatians’, because it would have gone against their
national feelings (cf. Bonnard). But it may be argued that they may
have regarded it with favour because of the advantages that Roman
occupation had brought with it. Whatever objections the Southerners
may have had, if Ramsay is right that no other all-inclusive term was
available it would be a strong argument for the South Galatian
theory.

AN ARGUMENT DRAWN FROM PAUL'S PHYSICAL CONDITION

Whatever the precise nature of the ailment referred to in 4.13 (see
Commentary), it is clear that Paul came to these people on the first
visit in a poor state of health and actually states that this provided
the occasion of his visit. From this somewhat enigmatic statement it
may be deduced that through illness Paul was obliged to change his
sphere of service to a district healthier than that in which he had been
working. Under the North Galatian theory, Paul would have been
involved in a tortuous mountainous journey, which is not easy to
imagine for an ill man. It will not do to maintain that the illness did
not develop until after the journey, for this would not be supported
by Paul’s own statement. Some advocates of the North Galatian
theory connect this illness with the prohibition mentioned in Ac.
16.6, but this is most unlikely. It would not be a normal method of
prohibition by the Spirit (cf Askwith, 2off.). It seems better to
interpret them separately, in which case the prohibition not to preach
in Asia had no connection with the initial preaching at Galatia. On
the South Galatian theory the first journey of Paul to Galatia was
from the low-lying district around Perga in Pamphylia to Pisidian
25 INTRODUCTION

Antioch, a none too easy but much shorter journey than that in-
volved in the other theory.

AN ARGUMENT FROM THE COLLECTION DELEGATES

According to Ac. 20.4, several companions accompanied Paul from
Macedonia to Jerusalem. It is generally assumed that these were
delegates from various churches who had been appointed to represent
them in Jerusalem. Luke connects most of them with their home
churches, and this may seem to support the theory of delegates. If
sO, it is to be noted that Gaius of Derbe (unless the Western reading
‘Doberus’ is preferred, in which case Gaius was a Macedonian) is
mentioned and he is linked with Timothy. Both of these were from
South Galatia. No-one is mentioned, however, from North Galatia.
But there are some weaknesses in the argument, since no delegates
are mentioned from Corinth, which certainly participated in the
scheme. That the Galatian churches contributed is equally clear from
1 C. 16.1, and it would seem probable therefore that if Galatia
contributed it would be represented. Nevertheless, since Acts makes
no mention of delegates and since there is no guarantee that every
church would have been able to send a delegate, this argument must
be treated as conjectural. It may even be that the North Galatian
churches (if existent) declined to join in the scheme.

THE REFERENCE TO BARNABAS

In the course of his explanation of his own position Paul refers to his
companion Barnabas three times (2.1, 9, 13). If we may deduce from
this that Barnabas was known personally to the Galatians, it would
be a strong basis for maintaining the South Galatian theory, since,
according to Acts, Barnabas accompanied Paul only on the first
missionary journey. It must be conceded that the references would
have had much more point if the readers could recall their own
contacts with Barnabas, for they would know that he was a reliable
corroborating witness of the truth of what Paul is here stating. This
seems particularly so when the Apostle in verse 13 says that “even
Barnabas’ defected. This implies that the Galatians will be as surprised
as Paul himself that such a man as Barnabas would be carried away.
GALATIANS 26

Nevertheless, too much weight must not be placed on this argument,

since Paul refers to Barnabas when writing to the church at Corinth
(x C. 9.6) where, as far as is known from Acts, Barnabas had
never visited and where he had certainly not accompanied Paul.
Nevertheless, Paul assumes that the Corinthians will be well
acquainted with the fact that he and Barnabas had at one stage been
prepared to labour for Christ while supporting themselves by the
work of their own hands. In spite of this argument, however, it
would seem reasonable to regard these allusions to Barnabas in
Galatians as possible support for a South Galatian destination.

THE OPPOSITION
It is not possible to define with any precision the origin of the
Judaistic party apart from the fact that they appear to have had
contact with the Jerusalem party. According to Ac. 15.1, the circum-
cision question had been brought up by Judean Jews, and if these
were responsible for the trouble in Galatia they must have had access
to the churches there. Yet the very existence of active Judaizers in the
Galatians’ churches would favour the South Galatian theory rather
more than the North theory, since it is not easy to suppose that Paul
and his companions had been pursued into the more inaccessible
regions of the North. At the same time it cannot be pronounced
impossible. (Compare -Munck’s contention (87ff.) that the Judaizers
were Gentiles who were misrepresenting the opinion of both Paul
and the Jerusalem apostles.)

INCIDENTAL INFERENCES
In Paul’s defence of his position in chapter 2, he maintainsssahas he did
not yield to the false brethren during his Jerusalem visit so that the
truth of the gospel might continue ‘for you’ (i.e. the Galatians). This
would seem to imply that the truth had been declared to them before
the Jerusalem visit, and if so this must have happened on the first
missionary journey, in which case South Galatia would be specifically
in mind. It is, of course, possible to interpret the ‘you’ more generally
of Gentile Christians as a whole (cf. Askwith, 81), but this would
not suit the context so well.
27 INTRODUCTION
Other allusions which have been claimed to support a South
Galatian destination are found in 4.14 and 6.17. The former, referring
to Paul’s reception among the Galatians as “an angel of God’, has been
supposed to be an indirect reference to the incident at Lystra where
Paul was called Hermes, but the connection of thought here is highly
dubious (cf. Askwith, 77). It is more likely that 6.17 (‘the marks of the
Lord Jesus’) could bear some reference to Ac. 14.19, where Paul is
said to have suffered from the stoning by Jews at Lystra. Yet the
apostle had suffered many more ‘marks’ than these, and there is no
necessity to connect his reference with any specific occurrence known
to the readers. Nevertheless since some of the South Galatians had
certainly been witnesses of the infliction of scars, Paul’s reference to
them would be invested with added meaning if the South Galatians
were the addressees.
These incidental inferences carry weight only in so far as they
corroborate a position based on firmer grounds.
In support of this theory, cf. Ramsay, Duncan, xviiiff., Burton,
xxiff., Ridderbos, 22ff:

CONCLUSION
In the foregoing discussion, it will have become evident that there is
much to be said for both these theories. Indeed, it is not possible to
be dogmatic in conclusion for this reason. Both theories can still
claim the support of eminent names, and whichever view is favoured
it must be held with some caution. On the whole it would seem
preferable to hold the South Galatian theory, since this involves only
churches of whose origin we know from Acts. But the exegesis of
the epistle will not be greatly influenced by our decision regarding
destination. The major factor affected is the date, although this is
equally difficult to decide, as will be seen from the following
discussion.

7. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE

It is impossible to discuss the date of the Epistle to the Galatians

without taking into account the divergent views regarding destina-
‘\
GALATIANS 28

tion, although destination does not necessarily determine date.

In the case of those who adhere to the North Galatian destination the
dating of the epistle must be confined within narrow limits, for the
hypothesis requires that it should have been sent while Paul was on
the third missionary journey. But the South Galatian theory makes
room for a much wider range of possibilities, as the following
discussion will show.

Dates ACCORDING TO THE NorTH GALATIAN THEORY

If the apostle has visited the readers twice (see 4.13 in the
Commentary) and if the North Galatian theory is maintained, the
date must be after the events of Ac. 18.23. While this interpretation
of Gal. 4.13 is not necessarily correct, the setting of the epistle during
the course of, or soon after, the Ephesian ministry is generally con-
ceded under this theory. In view of Gal. 1.6 it is considered unlikely
that much time has elapsed since Paul’s last visit, and this would
support an Ephesian origin, although the adverb (‘quickly’) need not
relate to the last visit but to the readers’ conversion.
There is little other data to enable us to affix a date with any greater
precision. It has been maintained that the contents of this epistle are
an indication of a rather earlier date than the Epistle to the Romans,
since the latter was clearly not produced under the same emotional
tension as Galatians, although both deal with the same general theme.
This was the contention of Lightfoot, who further maintained that
since the Jewish controversy is absent from the Corinthian epistles,
the Galatian epistle must have been subsequent to these. This led him
to place the epistle in the course of Paul’s visit to Corinth after his
withdrawal from Ephesus. But this last argument is by no means
satisfactory unless it can reasonably be assumed that the Jewish
controversy developed simultaneously in all churches, but, in
addition to lacking proof, such an assumption is highly improbable.
Even without this supporting argument, Lightfoot’s arrangement of
the order of the epistles (Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans) has
much to commend it, and may be correct (48, 49).
29 INTRODUCTION

There is much more to discuss under the South Galatian theory,

especially the problem which arises from Paul’s visits to Jerusalem.

Dates ACCORDING TO SOUTH GALATIAN THEORY

The dividing line between an early and a later dating of the epistle
under the South Galatian theory is the important occasion of the
Jerusalem Council in Ac. 15. Some date it before this Council and
others after, the latter dating often coinciding with that according to
the Northern theory. The data on which the matter must be decided
may be summarized as follows.

THE THEORY THAT AC. I5 AND GAL. 2 REFER TO THE SAME VISIT
This is stated first because it is the traditional view. It is, of course,
required by the North Galatian theory which ex hypothesi places the
epistle after the Council of Jerusalem, but it may also be strongly
maintained under the South Galatian theory. There are certainly
some similarities between Ac. 15 and Gal. 2. In both passages Paul
is accompanied by Barnabas, although an interesting difference is
that Titus accompanies them in Gal. 2, but no mention is made of
him in Ac. 15 (see later comment on this). In both passages Paul goes
up to Jerusalem. It is also clear from both passages that Paul has to
contend with Judaizers who are requiring Gentiles to be circumcised.
In both accounts, moreover, Peter and James are named among the
leading Jerusalem apostles. On the surface it would appear a reason-
able proposition that Gal. 2 is to be equated with Ac. 15. There are
two further, quite incidental, coincidences which add corroboration
to the idea. Acts 15 tells us who ‘the false brethren’ are who
Paul says had been brought in unawares. They were believers who
still belonged to the sect of the Pharisees (Ac. 15.5), which would
well explain why Paul deals at such length with the issue of circum-
cision. It should further be noted that in both accounts Paul and
Barnabas are said to have laid before the Jerusalem leaders a report of
their preaching (cf. Ac. 15.12; Gal. 2.2). Nevertheless, the theory is
not without its difficulties.
The first difficulty arises from the word ‘again’ (palin) in Gal. 2.1.
GALATIANS 30

It is reasonable to suppose that after referring to his first visit to

Jerusalem Paul meant by ‘again’ his next visit. But according to
Ac. 11.30 he had visited Jerusalem between his first visit (Ac. 9
(=Gal. 1.18)) and the Council visit, i.e. what is generally known as
the famine visit. The significance of this will be considered later,
when the theory that Gal. 2= Ac. 11 is considered. But the present
theory needs an adequate explanation of the palin in 2.1. The usual
explanation is that, on the occasion of the famine visit, Paul had no
communication with the Jerusalem apostles. Acts 11.30 states
that Barnabas and Saul delivered the contributions of the Antioch
church to the elders at Jerusalem. This is a reasonable explanation,
although not altogether convincing, as the discussion which follows
will show.
A way out of this difficulty which has been favoured by some
scholars is to dispute the historicity of Ac. 11.30, or else to regard it
as a duplicate of Ac. 15. But there is no supporting evidence for either
of these views, and they can therefore carry no weight as a solution
to the present problem. To make Ac. 11.30 to refer to the same visit
as Ac. 15 requires no little ingenuity, to say the least, and the most
natural and obvious interpretation is to take Acts as it stands and to
assume two quite distinct visits. (Cf. A. C. McGiffert, A History of
Christianity in the Apostolic Age (1897), 171.)
The second difficulty arises from differences between the accounts
in Gal. 2 and Ac. 15. In the latter passage Paul and Barnabas meet
the assembled company of apostles and elders, whereas Gal. 2 gives
a very different impression. There the idea seems to be of conversa-
tions with a few of those who were held in repute, a kind of
committee of leaders. The difference must at once be admitted, but
are the two accounts incompatible? Behind every public conference
there are committees which plan procedure and policies, and it would
not be strange, therefore, to discover that the same thing happened
at this official gathering of the Jerusalem church. In this way it is
certainly possible to reconcile Gal. 2 and Ac. 15, but some explanation
still needs to be given for Paul’s omission to mention the official
decisions of the full Council. The best that can be done is to claim
that Paul’s main interest is not in authoritative pronouncements of
31 INTRODUCTION
church councils, but in his relationship with the leading apostles
individually. This is not an altogether satisfactory explanation, and
the difficulty of Paul’s silence must remain (see further discussion
below).
In close connection with this is another omission on the part of
the apostle, i.e. his failure to mention the so-called Council decrees,
the prohibitions decided on as the sole requirements for Gentile
Christians (cf. Ac. 15.20). Paul refers on the other hand to the
leaders’ request to Paul and Barnabas to remember the poor (Gal.
2.10), while he explicitly states that they ‘added nothing to me’ (2.6).
Again the recourse of adherents of the theory that Ac. 15=Gal. 2
must be to an argument based on Paul’s independence, which
explains his preference for theological reasoning rather than an appeal
to decrees. This must be conceded as a possibility, but does not
greatly diminish the surprise occasioned by Paul’s omission.
Another problem of a personal kind is that Paul makes perfectly
clear that when he went up to Jerusalem he went up ‘by revelation’
(Gal. 2.2), whereas Acts make equally clear that he went up as
representative of the Antioch church. Again it is not impossible to
regard these statements as different aspects of the same event. From
the historian’s point of view the official position as delegate from
Antioch was the most obvious aspect to record, but Paul himself,
conscious as he was that all his affairs were under divine control,
fastens upon his own reactions. He recognized the momentous
character of his mission. To him it was not a parochial dispute
between Antioch and Jerusalem. It was a matter of life and death for
the church as a whole. He realized that he was being sent by God.
There is, therefore, no fundamental discrepancy between Gal. 2 and
Ac. 15 on this account (cf. a similar change of emphasis when
Ac. 9.29, 30 is compared with Ac. 22.17ff.). It should, of course, be
noted that the same difference would obtain if Gal. 2 paige to the
visit of Ac. 11.30.
Another problem is the account of Paul’s dispute with Peter at
Antioch in Gal. 2.11f. As Paul records it, the dissension would appear
to have followed his discussion with the Jerusalem apostles, in which
case some adequate explanation would need to be given of Peter’s
GALATIANS 32

inconsistency. It constitutes a difficulty that Peter acts so blatantly

against the decisions of the Council to which he himself had been a
party. It may, of course, be maintained that the Council did not deal
with the issue of Jewish-Gentile fellowship, although it is difficult to
imagine how the question of Gentile membership could be discussed
without reference to the problem of social intercourse, which must
have arisen as soon as Gentiles were admitted on equal terms. There
seems no real alternative but to regard Peter’s action as inconsistent,
as if he himself had not thoroughly thought through the principles
of his own behaviour or its social implications.
To avoid having to adopt such a poor view of Peter some
interpreters have claimed that the passage Gal. 2.11ff. actually pre-
ceded the narrative of Gal. 2.1-10 in chronological sequence. If this
could be maintained it would certainly lessen the charge of incon-
sistency against Peter. But Gal. 2.11 does not lead one to suppose that
Paul is recalling an earlier incident, and such a view tends to violate
Paul’s grammar (cf. Duncan’s discussion of this, xxv).

THE THEORY THAT AC. 11.30 AND GAL. 2.1-I0 REFER TO THE SAME
VISIT
This represents the only alternative to the view just discussed. It
certainly avoids some of the difficulties of the other view, but is not
without difficulties of its own.
Its first advantage is that the palin of Gal. 2.1 may be taken literally
as the next visit. This means that Paul need have no fear that any
accuser will be able to confront him with another visit to Jerusalem
which he has failed to mention. While this is an advantage, too much
stress should not be laid upon it since Ac. 11.30 states quite explicitly
that Barnabas and Paul delivered to the ‘elders’ the alms which the
Antiochene church had collected. If ‘elders’ are distinct from
‘apostles’, it would have to be maintained that Paul and Barnabas |
saw both groups. Certainly Ac. 15.6 draws a distinction between
apostles and elders, and it is therefore almost certain that the same
distinction must be made in Ac. 11.30.
It will at once be apparent that it is easier to fit the informal
character of Gal. 2 into the narrative of Ac. 11.30 than into Ac. 15,
33 INTRODUCTION
and this is a point in favour of the theory under discussion. The major
problem, however, is the extent to which Paul and Barnabas would
have had opportunity to discuss with any of the apostles. It was
during a time of political agitation against the apostles, James of
Zebedee being killed by Herod and Peter imprisoned. It may seem
improbable that such a time would have been favourable for the
discussion of so momentous a matter as Gal. 2 supposes. There is also
the added difficulty of understanding the subsequent Council if the
matter had already been agreed by the apostles, unless, of course, the
apostles had not carried with them the narrower Jewish Christian
party which was causing the trouble.
Another advantage of this theory is that it completely accounts for
Paul’s omission of the Council decrees by providing the opportunity
of dating the epistle before the Council. It would undoubtedly be a
more natural explanation of the omission than an appeal to Paul’s
independence, especially in view of the fact that he is anxious to prove
in Gal. 2 the substantial agreement of the Jerusalem leaders with his
position.
If the identification under discussion is correct it would be simpler
to explain Peter’s action at Antioch, for it would mean that it
occurred before any official apostolic policy had been agreed. At the
same time it does not absolve Peter from inconsistency, for he had
already had social fellowship with Gentiles at Cornelius’s house before
the visit of Paul to Jerusalem in Ac. 11.30. Indeed he had already
defended his action before the other apostles and elders at Jerusalem
against the circumcision party. There is, in fact, no way of saving
Peter from the charge of inconsistency. All that can be said is that it
is lessened if the incident happened before the Council.
It is possible under this theory to make a reasonable reconstruction
of the course of events, drawing upon both the Epistle to the
Galatians and Acts. (1) When the Antioch church heard of the
distress among the churches of Judea they decided to send a contri-
bution in the hands of Paul, Barnabas, and Titus. (2) The latter,
although a Gentile, was not obliged to be circumcised (Gal. 2.3).
(3) The apostles recognized Paul’s ministry to be among the
uncircumcised, and requested him and Barnabas to continue to
GALATIANS 34
remember the poor, which, as Paul himself says, was the very thing
that he was eager to do. (4) As a result of this visit Jewish-Gentile
fellowship was permitted at Antioch and was assented to by none
other than Peter himself when he visited them. But both Peter and
also Paul’s own associate Barnabas declined to have fellowship with
Gentiles after their action had been criticized by some who claimed
to represent James. (5) Following this incident, Barnabas and Paul
were commended by the Antiochene church to their first missionary
journey, in the course of which many Christian communities were
established, mainly in South Galatia. These were Gentile churches
and the members were therefore uncircumcised. But when Paul and
Barnabas arrived back at Antioch and informed the church about
the position, opposition again arose from the Judean Christians. It
may be surmised that a considerable group in Jerusalem were alarmed
at the idea of Gentiles joining the church without circumcision, and
so dispatched representatives not only to Antioch but also to the
South Galatian churches. (6) The church at Antioch recognized the
need for an opportunity to discuss the question and sent Barnabas
and Paul to Jerusalem for the purpose. At some time just before or
during the journey the Epistle to the Galatians may have been
written (cf. Duncan’s reconstruction, xxviff.).
If this reconstruction were correct it would make this epistle the
earliest of Paul’s epistles. But the theory is not without difficulties.
It has already been mentioned that Ac. 11.30 refers to elders but not
apostles, and this is a not inconsiderable difficulty. It has been sug-
gested that the matter of the contributions would no doubt come
under the jurisdiction of the elders rather than the apostles, but the
fact remains that according to Gal. 2 the leading apostles were by no
means unconcerned about the relief of the poor. Another difficulty
is the omission from Ac. 11.30 of any companions of Barnabas and
Paul, thus making it difficult to reconcile with Gal. 2.1, where Paul
states distinctly that they took Titus with them. It is just possible, of
course, that the Acts’ account concentrates on the official Antioch
representatives and omits the travelling companion Titus. On the
other hand, Acts generally mentions Paul’s companions. It must not
be overlooked that Ac. 15.2 mentions ‘some of the others’ who were
35 INTRODUCTION
appointed to go with Paul and Barnabas, and Titus could well have
been included in the party. It should be noted, of course, that Titus
is never mentioned in Acts, although the references to him in
Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians show that he was not only
a most active associate of Paul but was one of his most reliable. The
silence of Acts about him is mysterious.
Perhaps the most serious obstacle to the preceding reconstruction
is that it presupposes that James’s men were at first concerned about
Gentile-Jewish fellowship before the more fundamental problem of
Gentile circumcision arose. But it is most improbable that the food
restrictions could have been dealt with independent of the circum-
cision issue. Another difficulty which has some weight is that Paul
makes clear that he has already worked among the Gentiles. In
Gal. 2.2 he says that he had laid before the leaders the gospel which
he had preached among the Gentiles, while in Gal. 2.7 he says that
the leaders saw that he had been entrusted with the gospel for the
uncircumcised and were prepared to confirm him in it. It is difficult
to see how this could have happened prior to his first missionary
journey, as would be required if Gal. 2 refers to the same visit as
Ac. 11.30. The only recourse would be to suppose that he was
referring to his work at Antioch, a possible interpretation but not
the most natural.
When all these considerations are taken into account it will be seen
that both theories have their difficulties and it is not easy therefore
to choose between them. One consideration which has so far not
been taken into account is chronology, to which some attention
should be given. Paul himself supplies two dates in this epistle. The
first Jerusalem visit is said to be ‘after three years’ and the next ‘after
fourteen years’. It would seem most natural to take these calculations
from the date of Paul’s conversion, although Paul’s language could
be construed to mean three years after his return to Damascus from
Arabia. However, taking his conversion as the crisis from which he
would tend to date his future movements, it still remains to decide
whether the fourteen years were also from his conversion. If so, the
three years would be included in the fourteen years. If not, a period
of seventeen years would be involved between his conversion and
 GALATIANS
36
the visit of Gal. 2.1ff. On the whole, the former of these seems the
most probable in view of the importance of the conversion event in
Paul's thinking, but the alternative is certainly possible and may be
supported by the contention that Paul is giving here a sequence of
events.
But is it possible to fix the date of Paul’s conversion? Unfortu-
nately not with any precision. It is bound up with the probable date
of the crucifixion, which is itself a complex problem which cannot
be conclusively settled. A date of a.p. 29-30 seems most favoured.
The events in the history of the primitive church up to the conversion
of Paul may easily have occupied a year or so, but even here it is
impossible to be certain.
If it be assumed first of all that the visit of Gal. 2 was the visit of
Ac. 15, an interval of at least fourteen years separated the Council of
Jerusalem from Paul’s conversion. Since the Council may with reason
be dated in a.p. 49, it follows that Paul’s conversion could not have
been subsequent to a.p. 35. If the period was seventeen years, the
conversion date would need to be placed at least as early as a.D. 32,
which is a possible date in relation to the most probable date of the
crucifixion. But do these dates leave any possibility of an earlier
dating of the epistle (ice. assuming Gal. 2 may correspond to
Ac. 11.30)? The problem is to assess the time required for the first
missionary journey, which took place between Ac. 11.30 and Ac. 15.
There would not appear to be any necessity to assume a period of
more than two years, which would date Paul’s famine visit to
Jerusalem about a.p. 47 and his conversion A.D. 33. Under this
theory, however, it would be difficult to reconstruct the sequence of
events if a period of seventeen years separated Paul’s conversion from
the famine, for this would push the conversion into too great a
proximity to the Crucifixion. On the whole it must be admitted that
from a chronological point of view the former view presents less
difficulties.
Another matter worth mentioning is the doctrinal affinities of the
epistle, although considerable caution is necessary in using doctrinal
development as a datum for chronology, since this is so often a matter
of opinion rather than of fact. When a comparison is made between
 37 INTRODUCTION

this epistle and the First and Second Epistles of Paul to the Thessa-
lonians, to which period it would belong if it were dated early, there
are some marked differences in doctrinal emphasis. The Thessalonian
epistles are mainly eschatological, while the Epistle to the Galatians
contains few hints of such doctrine. There was, of course, no necessity
for Paul to include eschatology in every epistle, even although his
mind was being exercised about it. The more important considera-
tion is whether the doctrine in the Epistle to the Galatians is too
mature to be placed at the earliest stage of Paul’s epistles. It has
already been seen that J. B. Lightfoot maintained that doctrinal
considerations would place this epistle between the Corinthian
Epistles and the Epistle to the Romans, but this assumption is based
on a particular theory of doctrinal development. It is not to be ruled
out that Paul’s first epistle may have shown theological maturity in
view of the fact that so many years had already elapsed since his
- conversion. It is often forgotten that as many years passed before he
wrote any epistle as actually spanned the period of his extant letters,
and it is impossible to suppose that a mind as active as that of Paul,
would not have reached considerable maturity after such a period of
extensive thought on the major themes of Christianity. Since all the
data for any theory of doctrinal development are drawn from Paul’s
epistles themselves, it is unsatisfactory to use such evidence to
determine dating.
To conclude, it may be said that although the evidence is not
wholly satisfactory for either view, the earlier dating is slightly
preferable for the South Galatian theory, while the later dating is
unavoidable for the North Galatian theory. But uncertainty con-
cerning the dating has little effect on the interpretation of the epistle.
For a fuller treatment of the problems surrounding the date of
the epistle, cf: Round, Askwith, Duncan, xxiff., Lightfoot, 36ff.,
Watkins, 243-260.
GALATIANS 38

8. THE MODERN RELEVANCE OF THE EPISTLE

TO THE GALATIANS

It may at first be thought difficult to find much modern relevance in

an epistle which was addressed to a specific situation in a first-century
group of Christian churches threatened with a danger which belonged
essentially to the world of that time, the danger of Christianity
becoming stultified as a branch of Judaism. However direct and
powerful Paul’s historic plea for Christian freedom from Jewish
circumcision might be, the circumcision issue is now a back-number.
In few, if any, of Paul’s other epistles is the argument so closely tied
to an historically out-dated issue as in this epistle. Yet in spite of its
local historical setting its presentation of timeless Christian principles
has generally been recognized. This was doubtless the motive for its
preservation and for its unquestioned inclusion in the Christian
canon. Before discussing the relevance of the epistle to the twentieth
century, it will be valuable to consider three notable historical
instances of the application of the epistle to changed circumstances
to illustrate the continuous search for relevance from various points
of view.
It was in the first half of the second century that Marcion launched
his considerable challenge to the Christian church by the setting up
of a rival organization, which nevertheless claimed to be nearer to
the true apostolic position. This is not the place to discuss the nature
of the Marcion heresy, but it is worthy of note that he placed the
Epistle to the Galatians at the head of his list of Pauline epistles
because it formed the basis of his anti-Jewish approach. Marcion,
therefore, regarded the circumcision issue as typical of a general
antagonism to Judaism. In spite of the fact that Marcion’s exegesis
was faulty, his high regard for this epistle is a significant witness to
the need felt, not only by the orthodox, but also by the heretical, for
an understanding of the epistle which finds a general or contemporary
application.
Of much greater significance is the part played by this epistle in
the Reformation, particularly in the thinking and writing of Martin
39 INTRODUCTION

Luther. His commentary on the epistle is a notable exposition of

Reformed doctrine, while in many of his other works the influence
of this epistle is undeniable. In his great struggle with the papist
doctrines he saw in this epistle an illustration of the position in which
he himself was placed. He saw the Judaizers as examples of legalists
in religion, and therefore as examples of any religious system in
which approach to God was based on legal requirements. Luther
knew by experience that the monastic system was as much bondage
as the situation facing the Galatians. Justification by faith was Paul’s
answer to their situation and it became equally the answer to
Luther’s. It is no wonder that this became the main theme of his
preaching. Luther’s treatment of this epistle, while strongly con-
ditioned by his own contemporary problems, points the way to the
modern relevance of the epistle. Legalistic Christianity has shown
itself in many forms since Luther’s day, but the modern exegete can |
find no more effective way of dealing with it. It is still as true now
as it was then that any form of legalism leads to bondage and that
any form of bondage is alien to Christianity as Paul understood it.
The modern student of the Epistle to the Galatians should be deeply
grateful to Martin Luther for discovering its true relevance.
Our third example belongs to the age of modern criticism. The
Tiibingen critic, F. C. Baur, like Marcion, found this epistle much
to his liking, to such an extent that it furnished him with an effective
standard, as he thought, by which to measure the authenticity of the
other Pauline letters. His fundamental premiss of an antithesis
between Pauline and Petrine Christianity, once it was adopted, was
illustrated basically from this epistle. But this approach was far
removed from the traditional interpretation, and may be cited as
representative of the radical criticism of the nineteenth century which
still has some after-effects upon our own. Baur’s theory of antithesis
is now largely discounted, but there have been few throughout the
period of modern criticism who have disagreed with his high opinion
of Paul’s Galatian letter. It is worth noting that a recent approach to
Paul’s epistles which is closely akin to Baur’s type of criticism also
claims Galatians to be the norm for measuring authenticity.
A. Q. Morton begins his study of Paul’s letters (cf. Christianity and
 GALATIANS 40
the Computer (1964) 24ff.) by asserting that the Epistle to the
Galatians is too individualistic to be a forgery, and therefore provides
an admirable example for the statistical study of Paul’s style, as a
result of which he declares all but five Pauline epistles to be
unauthentic. His method and conclusions may be challenged, but his
high opinion of this epistle will not be disputed.
These illustrations of the adaptation of our epistle from totally
different points of view remind us of the abiding interest in it, and
supply in some cases a warning against using wrong presuppositions
in its exegesis.
It is appropriate to consider whether this epistle has any special
relevance for the mid-twentieth century and whether it may still be
regarded as one of the major anchorages of the Christian faith. This
study will lead us into a consideration of the modern applicability of
the main principles which Paul enunciates in the epistle.
(a) A serious warning against legalism. There is no doubt that the
Judaizers in Galatia were sincere people who honestly believed that
the best possible procedure for Gentiles was for them to be circum-
cised so as to become bona fide members of the Covenant people and
loyal adherents of the Jewish legal system. This was all the more
~ confirmed in their mind by the fact that the Gentile Christians
acknowledged the Jewish Scriptures as their own and by the constant
appeal to those Scriptures in the exegesis of the primitive Church.
To the sincere Jewish Christians it seemed quite natural that Gentiles
should therefore come within the orbit of Judaism. They were so
conditioned to a legalistic approach that they were oblivious to its
dangers and indeed to the fatal threat that it contained to the very
existence of Christianity itself.
The modern legalists are no less sincere and yet no less wrong. This
epistle should be regarded as a challenge to all within the professing
Christian Church to examine their basic principles. No-one would
_ deny that in its past history the Church has been seriously weakened
by formalism and there is no reason to doubt that religious formalism
is still a basic threat to the prosperity of the Church. Any approach
to Christianity which rests upon rigid observance of external rules as
a means of salvation is no better off than that which the Galatians
41 INTRODUCTION

were in danger of adopting. The rapid decline in church attendance

in Britain during the twentieth century has been partially due to the
increasing dissatisfaction with a merely formalistic approach. If
Christianity consists of no more than formal attendance at the place
of worship, its inadequacy in the complex world of the mid-
twentieth century becomes immediately apparent. The decline in
church attendance is often more a condemnation of the Church than
of the present generation. What message would the apostle Paul have
given ina situation like this? Since there is a close connection between
the circumcision issue and religious formalism in any age, it may
safely be assumed that he would have given the same answer. In his
mind salvation could come only as a result of personal faith, which
made Christianity a living and powerful factor. Wherever the
doctrine of justification by faith has not only been proclaimed but
believed and acted on, Christianity has become a dynamic influence
in human affairs, both individually and corporately.
But the legalistic method has its attractions. If the path to righteous-
ness consists of well-defined duties which can be verified, it is a
simpler matter for the individual to apply himself wholeheartedly to
such a fixed procedure than if he has to exercise the discipline of a
personal faith. Moreover, confusion is bound to arise if too much is
left to the individual conscience. TheJudaizers at Galatia could point
to the law as their standard and expect conformity to it. Paul displaces
this with the fruits of the Spirit, no longer appealing to a legal code
but to a living organism. To the apostle there was a strong antithesis
between them, but in the modern Church strong antitheses tend to
be weakened in the attempt to find a common basis for church unity.
Paul could not conceive how a formalistic approach could belong to
a personal faith. It may well be that one of the most urgent tasks of
the modern Church is to consider the relevance of the Pauline
doctrine of justification by faith as a basis for church unity.
Of particular importance is a study of this epistle in view of the
increasing modern tendency to discount the work of the Reformers.
If the doctrine of the Reformers is to find no place in modern
theology, this epistle will have correspondingly less significance. The
whole of its doctrinal argument is so integral to the doctrine of the
GALATIANS 42

Reformers that it is impossible to retain the epistle while rejecting the

doctrine. There is no doubt that any attempt to bridge the gap
between the Protestant Churches and the Church of Rome must
inevitably begin with the minimizing of the work of the Reforma-
tion. It would be difficult enough to achieve this with integrity from
a historical point of view, but it is impossible to do so if the abiding
relevance of this epistle is to be maintained. Unless justification has
ceased to be wholly by faith and Paul proved to be wrong, there cap
be no essential unity between those groups of Christians who believe
that acceptance with God is mediated by faith in Christ and those
who impose such a demand as priestly absolution.
(b) Another trend of our modern times is the growth of libertinism.
The idea of an ethical code to which members of society may reason-
ably be expected to conform is at a discount. The individual's liberty
has become more important than the well-being of society as a whole.
To what extent does this epistle carry a message for an age which is
being increasingly dominated by the new morality? At first sight,
Paul’s references to the freedom which we have obtained in Christ
might seem to support the claim to individual liberty. But Paul in
this epistle is not on the side of the new moralists. He makes
perfectly plain that freedom must not be used as an opportunity for
the flesh (5.13). Indeed, Paul’s teaching about the flesh is a sufficient
answer to those who would abolish time-honoured moral restraints.
Much may have altered in the standard of man’s intellectual and
cultural achievements, but the ‘flesh’, as Paul understood it, is still
unchanged. The concept of true freedom for the space age is no
different from the concept which met the need of Paul’s time. For
this reason the moral relevance of this epistle cannot be overstressed.
Rather than a slackening of standards the apostle is in favour of the
reverse. The type of Christianity which he advocated makes rigorous
demands upon a man in spite of its anti-legalism. The major demand
is for love. It is the primary fruit of the Spirit (5.22). It is the antidote
to the works of the flesh (5.19ff.). It is the safeguard against a wrong
use of Christian freedom, since it considers service to others of greater
esteem than self-indulgence (5.13f.). It is prepared to bear the burdens
of others (6.2) and to engage in well-doing for the benefit of others
43 INTRODUCTION
(6.9f.). And apart from this it is accompanied by other fruits of the
Spirit (5.22). The utter negation of the flesh is expressed vividly by
Paul in his statement, ‘I am crucified with Christ’ (2.20). Here then
is no immature ethical standard out of which modern man has been
able to grow so that he no longer needs such exhortations. Rather is
it the reverse. Paul’s challenge to his age is even more a challenge to
our own. If less of free self-expression and more of the tremendous
demands and responsibilities of the Christian life as portrayed in this
epistle were taught to teenagers the problems confronting our society
would be drastically reduced. The lack of moral discipline cannot fail
to produce an increasing crop of what the apostle calls ‘works of the
flesh’. There is no other answer to the increasing delinquency of our
times than the answer that Paul found—the crucifying of the flesh
with its desires and passions (5.24).
(c) A relevant enquiry is the extent to which Paul’s handling of
the Galatian situation was dictatorial and whether or not his action
can provide any pattern for the twentieth century. As to the first,
there is no denying that Paul took a strong line. Here was no matter
for complacency or compromise. Paul sees it as a matter of life and
death, and does not hesitate to use the plainest speech. There was no
doubt in his mind that peaceful co-existence within the Gentile
Church of a party which demanded circumcision and one that did
not was impossible. He saw clearly that the former group did not
represent pure Christianity at all and therefore must be vigorously
excluded. The modern movement towards Church unity would do
well to ponder, before being too generous in its attitude towards
groups of different outlook, whether or not there is any danger of
compromising the true Christian position as understood by the
apostolic Church. The apostle Paul believed in adopting a firm line
whether in matters of doctrine or discipline, for only in this way
could a strong Church be built. There is, of course, a difference
between Paul’s generation and our own in respect of authority. He
could claim apostolic authority which no modern leader can, Yet the
only safe basis for theological and moral leadership in the twentieth-
century Church is a reassertion of the authority of the apostolic
testimony.
GALATIANS 44
(d) Another factor of considerable interest is Paul’s use of the Old
Testament in this epistle and its relevance to modern approaches.
Paul’s use may be summarized under three categories. The first is
direct citation. He does this rather less often in the Epistle to the
Galatians than in some of his other epistles, but when he does it is
evident that he cites it with authority. When discussing the position
of Abraham, Paul personifies the Scripture (3.8), considering that it
possessed power of foresight. This transference of foreknowledge
from God to the Scripture is highly significant as revealing Paul’s
conception that when Scripture speaks it speaks with the voice of
God. There is something of this authority behind the formula, ‘It is
written’ (or ‘it stands written’, after Luther’s translation). It is used
in 3.10 for a citation from Dt. 27.26, referring to the curse of the law.
Another passage from the same book (Dt. 21.23) is introduced almost
immediately after by means of the same formula (3.13). It occurs
again in 4.21 and 4.27 in the course of the exposition of the allegory
about Hagar and Sarah, on the latter occasion for a citation from
Isa. $4.1.In the same context appeal is made to what the Scripture
says (4.20) in a citation from Gen. 21.10-12. In the practical part of
the epistle there is only one direct citation (5.14 from Lev. 19.18).
Sometimes Scripture is directly cited without any introductory
formula, as for instance in 3.6, II.
The second use of the Old Testament is seen in the indirect
allusions. Sometimes it is no more than a possible echo of Old
Testament language as in 1.15, where the language is reminiscent of
Isa. 49.1 and Jer. 1.5; or 2.16 where the words are an echo from
Ps. 143.2. In the deductions made from the use of the singular rather
than the plural in 3.15f., Paul assumes that his readers will be
acquainted with the Old Testament promise to Abraham and his
offspring (singular). In Gal. 6.16 there seems to be an allusion to the
language of Ps. 125.5. These instances are evidence of the high regard
in which Paul held the language of Scripture and of the way in which
it influenced his own.
The third use of Scripture is that of allegory, of which the Sarah
and Hagar incident is an example. Paul’s method of deducing
spiritual principles from Old Testament incidents by treating them
 45 INTRODUCTION

as allegorical in fact finds its most striking example here. Indeed,

there are few examples of it elsewhere in his epistles, which should
lead to caution before the conclusion is reached that the method was
normal in Paul’s teaching. Nevertheless the fact that he uses it at all
is evidence enough that he considered it valid. It is important, how-
ever, to mark a clear distinction between Paul’s use of allegory and
that of Philo, for, unlike the latter, he treats the characters in this
allegory as historical. In fact, the discussion hangs more on the
- historical relationship between Sarah and Hagar and Isaac and
Ishmael than on the allegorical meaning deduced.
The problem arises as to how far Paul’s use of the Old Testament
is to be regarded as normative for modern exegesis. There is a
tendency to dismiss allegory as an unscientific method, while appeal
ot the Old Testament as authoritative is as firmly rejected. But is
Paul’s method so out of date? If there is any real continuity between
Christianity and the old order—and there is no denying that Christ
and his apostles believed that there was—then the modern exegete
must be as clear as Paul over what method of interpretation to follow.
From Paul’s treatment of the Sarah-Hagar incident it is evident that
he considered that Scripture conveyed both a literal and an allegorical
interpretation. In a sense the spiritual significance of the historical
event is to be found in a re-enactment of similar circumstances, also
in history, but with a different set of characters. There is no difficulty
in seeing the relationship between Isaac and Ishmael as representative
of the relationship between the spirit of freedom seen in Paul’s
approach and the spirit of bondage seen in the Judaizers. This method
is far removed from the highly imaginative allegorization of those
early fathers who came under the influence of Greek ways of
thinking. In the epistle of Barnabas, for instance, the number of
Abraham’s servants becomes symbolic in a manner completely alien
to the historical context.

CONCLUSION

If the modern Church is to bear any relationship with the apostolic

Church it goes without saying that this epistle has a modern relevance
 GALATIANS 46

as important as its contribution to the first-century Church. It has

rightly been described as the charter of Christian freedom, and so
long as its teaching is heeded it will never happen that Christianity
becomes enslaved in bondage of any kind.

9. ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS

- Introduction (1.1-5)
The apostasy of the Galatians (1.6-10)
Paul’s apologia (1.11-2.21)
The doctrinal argument (3.1-4.31)
1. The Galatians’ own experience (3.1-5)
. The case of Abraham (3.6-9)
. The different results from faith and works (3.10-14)
. Promise and Law (3.15-29)
. Emerging into sonship (4.1-7)
. Returning to beggarliness (4.8-11)
. A personal appeal (4.12-20)
DN. An allegorical approach (4.21-31)
SPH
AN
oN
Ethical exhortations (5.1-6.10)
1. Christian life as a life of freedom (5.1-15)
2. Christian life as life in the Spirit (5.16-26)
3. Christian life in its responsibility to others (6.1-10)
Conclusion (6.11-18)

10. THE ARGUMENT OF THE EPISTLE

INTRODUCTION (I.1-5)

The opening to the epistle is abrupt. It lacks the usual commenda-

tions. It asserts Paul’s apostolic authority and then asserts his central
belief in the victory of Christ over the present evil age. This section
ends with a doxology.
47 INTRODUCTION

Tue APOSTASY OF THE GALATIANS (1.6-10)

The apostle substitutes threats in place of thanksgiving. Without
hesitation he launches an attack upon the Judaizers, whose gospel is
so fundamentally contrary to his own as to constitute another gospel.
He cannot refrain from pronouncing an anathema upon them.

PauL’s APOLOGIA (I.1I-2.21)

Not only his gospel, but his own authority is under attack. Paul
proceeds to defend his position in the following manner.
1. He makes clear the origin of his teaching (1.11, 12). It was received
from God. A man with a divinely given gospel carries with it a
divinely given authority,
2. He records how God called him from a successful career in Judaism
to become a preacher of the gospel (1.13-17). Paul lays special
emphasis upon his former zeal in order to prove that the commission
to preach required a radical transformation of his whole position.
3. It is important for him next to describe his personal contacts with
the Jerusalem apostles in order to make clear two facts (1.18-2.10).
He needs to show that these apostles did not tell him what to preach,
nor however did they disagree with him. He is both independent
of them and yet in harmony with them. This double aspect is
regarded by Paul as confirmatory of the position he is adopting. His
commission to preach to the Gentiles is fully recognized by the
‘pillar apostles’, Peter, James, and John.
4. An incident is next mentioned which happened at Antioch in
which Paul found it necessary to challenge Peter before the whole
company (2.11-14). He refers to it in this context to show that his
apostolic claims extended beyond mere words into action.
5. This leads Paul to assert that the principle of justification through
works of the law is futile, while justification through faith in Christ
is completely adequate (2.15-21). This is really the transition stage in
the argument, for it prepares the way for the doctrinal section which
follows. It is a good example of the way in which Paul turns almost
imperceptibly from historical demonstration to theological discussion.
GALATIANS 48

Tue DoctrinAL ARGUMENT (3.1-4.31)

In this section Paul develops his argument that justification by faith
is superior to salvation by works, and in the course of it he makes
reference to a wide variety of aspects of the Christian position, all of
which strengthen his concluding assertion that faith leads to freedom.

I. THE GALATIANS’ OWN EXPERIENCE (3.1-5)

There are two things which stand out in this experience: their initial
life in the Spirit and their present folly in exchanging it for works of
the law. Such an exchange could only have been made, as Paul thinks
it over, by the readers being bewitched. No-one in their right minds
would be so foolish.

2. THE CASE OF ABRAHAM (3.6-9)

Jewish and Gentile Christians alike acknowledged Abraham, and for
this reason the method of Abraham’s justification was relevant. Paul
proceeds to point out that faith played the key role in Abraham’s
experience, and then shows that the same method of justification
may be valid for all men of faith.

3. DIFFERENT RESULTS FROM WORKS AND FAITH (3.10-14)

These results may be summed up in the two words ‘curse’ and
‘blessing’. Paul shows from the law that a curse rests on all who do
not keep the whole law, and then proceeds to show how Christ
turned the curse into a blessing by becoming a curse for us.

4. PROMISE AND LAW (3-15-29)

Since Paul has appealed to Abraham, it is necessary for him next to
discuss the relationship of Abraham to the law. The fact that
Abraham lived 430 years before the law does not affect the issue,
since what God has previously promised must be maintained. But if
the promise must be kept, what was the purpose of the law? In
answer to this question Paul shows that until Christ came the law
49 INTRODUCTION

functioned as a custodian. But now in Christ the promise has been

fulfilled.

5. EMERGING INTO SONSHIP (4.1-7)

If promise is superior to law so is full sonship superior to the period
of restriction and discipline under tutelage. The apostle develops this
theme by drawing attention to the Father-son relationship of the
believer in Christ, so strongly contrasted with the position of aslave.

6. RETURNING TO BEGGARLINESS (4.8-11)

In view of the privileges inherited by the Galatians, Paul now makes
another direct appeal to them not to return to a bondage no better
than that from which they had been delivered.

7. A PERSONAL APPEAL (4.1220)

When Paul thinks back over the affectionate relations that he previ-
ously sustained with the readers he is perplexed over their present
attitude. They are not now acting as they once did when they were
prepared to do anything for him. He tries a tenderer appeal to them,
moved by his strong desires on their behalf.

8. AN ALLEGORICAL APPROACH (4.21-31)

He turns from appeal to argument again, maintaining that those who
wish to be under law should be prepared to heed the teaching of the
law. He therefore proceeds to illustrate his point by reference to an
Old Testament incident (Sarah and Hagar), which he then allegorizes.
Sarah symbolizes freedom and Hagar symbolizes bondage. The
sequel of the story shows that the son of the free woman and not the
son of the bond-woman inherited the promise. By this means Paul
transfers the thought from Isaac by treating him as symbolic of
Christian believers.

Eruicat ExHORTATIONS

I. CHRISTIAN LIFE AS A LIFE OF FREEDOM (5.1-I5)

If Christians are called to a life of freedom, bondage to the law is
GALATIANS 50

thereby excluded. Those who were attempting to lead the Gentile

Christians into Judaism must therefore be strongly condemned. Yet
a distinction must be made between liberty and libertinism. If love
rules, the former will never degenerate into the latter.

2. CHRISTIAN LIFE AS LIFE IN THE SPIRIT (5.16-26)

Here Paul contrasts results of life lived under the opposing principles
of flesh and Spirit. By means of an enumeration of examples he shows
the immeasurable superiority of life in the Spirit. But he reminds his
readers that such a life entails responsibilities as well as privileges.

3. CHRISTIAN LIFE AS A LIFE OF RESPONSIBILITY TO OTHERS (6.1-10)

There will be sympathy towards those carrying burdens and a readi-
ness to share in the burdens. Moreover the believer must be prepared
also to share with his instructors and must concentrate on doing good
towards others, particularly towards other Christian believers.

Conclusion (6.11-18)
Taking the pen in his own hand, Paul adds a concluding appeal by
reference to the Cross, which he has determined to place in the centre
of his own life as the sole occasion for boasting. He assumes that his
readers will see clearly how very different are the motives of the
circumcision party. He-is confident that he has satisfactorily dealt
with the matter and hopes that he will no more be troubled with it.

11. COMMENTATORS AND COMMENTARIES

Since the literature on this epistle has been vast, it will be necessary
to be selective in this bibliography. Some of the older commentators,
whose work made a significant contribution, will be mentioned,
but the major focus of attention will be on more recent books. Some
Continental works will be mentioned, but most stress will be placed
on English-speaking commentators.
The commentaries of Martin Luther are worthy to head the list.
 51 INTRODUCTION
The first book, In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas Commentarius, was pub-
lished in 1519, while a German edition of the same book appeared
in 1525. Later, in 1535, Luther published a larger work on the epistle,
which was not a revision of the earlier work and which appeared
under the title of In Epistolam S.Pauli ad Galatas Commentarius ex
Praelectione D. M. Lutheri Collectus. Luther is famed more for his
penetrating grasp of the real essence of Paul’s theology than for his
exegetical powers. His firm convictions regarding justification by
faith made the epistle a special favourite to him. Another of the
Reformers, John Calvin, published a commentary on this epistle,
included in his Commentarii in omnes epistolas Pauli Apost., 1539.
Calvin possessed more lucid exegetical ability than Luther and was
less affected in his commentating by his personal feelings.
The next notable exegete was Johann Albrecht Bengel, whose
commentary on Galatians in his Gnomon Novi Testamenti, 1742, still
repays attention. Bengel was a master of conciseness and his com-
ments are frequently suggestive and illuminative.
The nineteenth century produced a spate of commentaries on this
epistle. Most of the early ones were by Continental scholars. Of these
the most notable was in the series edited by H. A. W. Meyer entitled
Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar tiber das Neue Testament. The volume
on the Epistle to the Galatians, written by the editor himself,
appeared in 1841 under the title Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch iiber den
Brief an die Galater. The commentary is an example of the careful,
but rather too philogical, treatment of the epistle which was typical
of German commentating during the last century. An English edition
was prepared by Venables and Dickson, 1873. Meyer’s commentaries
have been re-edited more than once since the original edition, the
most recent being by Herman Schlier (eleventh edition, 1951), which
continues the same tradition. It is noteworthy that Schlier supports
the North Galatian theory.
The most important of the nineteenth-century British commenta-
tors were Alford, Ellicott, Sanday, and Lightfoot. Henry Alford’s
The Greek Testament (published in various editions from 1849) con-
. tains critical exegetical comments on all the books of the New
Testament. Alford was a careful exegete whose observations are still
GALATIANS §2
useful. A similar kind of approach is found in Charles John Ellicott’s
A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Galatians, 1854, which also-passed through subsequent editions. This,
like Alford’s, was based on the Greek text. But Ellicott also edited
an Old Testament and New Testament Commentary for English Readers,
in which the author on Galatians was William Sanday, well known
for his commentary with A. C. Headlam on Romans in the I.C.C.
Sanday’s comments are valuable for bringing out the meaning of
Paul’s thought and there is a useful excursus on Paul’s visits to
Jerusalem. But it was the careful exegetical work of Joseph Barber
Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (first published in 1865),
which was the most notable contribution of nineteenth-century
British scholarship. Lightfoot was steeped in the classics, which pro-
vided the background to his lexical comments. His exegesis may
generally be relied upon to present a sober interpretation, although
some of his lexical comments need some modification in the light of
more recent studies in Koiné Greek, facilitated by considerable
papyrological discoveries.
At the close of the century appeared Sir William Ramsay’s
A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, 1900.
This work is notable because of its emphasis upon the historical
background. It is also the first commentary to be published which
was fully committed to the South Galatian theory.
During the twentieth century many valuable contributions to the
study of this epistle have been made. A. Lukyn Williams’ commentary
in the Cambridge Greek Testament is valuable for its careful Greek
exegesis and for the author’s knowledge of the Jewish background.
This commentary was published in 1910.
Two years later was published Cyril Emmet’s commentary in the
Reader's Commentary. It is concise, to the point, and suggestive. It
was not until 1921 that the commentary on this epistle in the series
of International Critical Commentaries was published by Ernest de Witt
Burton. This author decided to concentrate on lexical considerations,
as a result of which his commentary is a mine of information on the
key words occurring in the epistle. In fact, in addition to his valuable
lexical exegesis, Burton included an appendix which consisted of
53 INTRODUCTION

twenty-one notes on important terms, which is valuable not only for

a study of this epistle, but also for Paul’s epistles generally. Hans
Lietzmann’s commentary in his own series of Handbuch zum Neuen
Testament has been published in several editions, the third being in
1932. It is valuable for background material.
The next important British work was George S. Duncan’s
commentary in the Moffatt Commentaries, which was published in
1934. It is written by an advocate of the South Galatian position, is
clear and suggestive, and makes easy reading. While written from a
historical point of view, this commentary aims to bring out the
essential meaning. Another German advocate of the North Galatian
position is A. Oepke, whose commentary, Der Galaterbrief, was
published in 1937.
Since 1950 several works have appeared. In that year a second
edition of Marie-Joseph Lagrange’s Saint Paul, Epitre aux Galates,
appeared in the well-known series Etudes Bibliques. This is the best
known commentary written from a Roman Catholic point of view.
Another French commentator from a very different school of
thought is P. Bonnard, whose commentary, L’Epitre aux Galatiens,
1952, was published in the Commentaire du Nouveau Testament. Soon
after this a commentary published in English by a Dutch commenta-
tor appeared in the series of New London Commentaries. This was
Hermann N. Ridderbos’s The Epistle to the Galatians, 1954, which is
useful, but on some important passages suffers from over-conciseness.
Of special interest for preachers is the Epworth Preachers
commentary by Kenneth Grayston, The Epistle to the Galatians and
Philippians, 1958. A more popular treatment of the epistle may also
be found in William Barclay’s Daily Study Bible commentary on this
epistle (second edition 1958). A fully theological commentary is that
of the Swedish scholar Ragnar Bring, Pauli Brev till Galaterna, 1958,
which has been translated into English by Eric Wahlstrom and
published in 1961 in the United States under the title of Commentary
on Galatians. Bring concentrates on the theological implications of
Paul’s statements and provides many valuable insights along that line.
In 1962 appeared the most recent edition of Das Neue Testament
Deutsch, volume 8, which includes a commentary on Galatians,
GALATIANS 54
originally written by Herman W. Beyer and now edited by Paul
Althaus.
The most recent commentary is that of R. Alan Cole (1965) in the
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, which provides a concise
and well-reasoned guide to the epistle. Cole’s exegesis is balanced
between good lexical comments and discussions of a more theological
nature.
In addition to these books devoted to commentating on the text,
there have been other works of a more general nature which deserve
to be mentioned. In 1899 E. H. Askwith published an essay entitled
The Epistle to the Galatians, an essay on its Destination and Date, in
which he maintained a South Galatian theory for the destination.
Another monograph on the date is D. Round’s The Date of St. Paul’s
Epistle to the Galatians, published in 1906. A general treatment of the
ideas of the epistle is found in.C. H. Watkins’ St. Paul’s Fight for
Galatia, 1913. In 1929J.H. Ropes published his book on The Singular
Problem ofthe Epistle to the Galatians. More recently Johannes Munck
in his Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 1959, also pays attention to
the Galatian problem, as does H. J. Schoeps in his Paul (E.T. 1961).
A useful little book of word studies in Gal. 5.19-23 is William
Barclay’s Flesh and Spirit, 1962, while for a general discussion of
various approaches to the epistle for study purposes reference may
be made to Merrill C. Tenney’s Galatians: The Charter of Christian
Liberiy, 1950.
 THE EPISTLE TO THE

GALATIANS
 THE EPISTLE TO THE

GALATIANS
INTRODUCTION 1.1-5

Whereas all the salutations at the commencement of Paul’s epistles have certain
features in common, each has its own characteristics, and this epistle has one feature
which marks it out distinctively from all the rest. It is more abrupt and omits the
usual feature of commendation of the readers. It at once reflects the mood of the
writer. He is not intent on emphasizing any feeling of affection for this group of
Christians, for a more urgent purpose lies before him. He must have felt strongly
about the failure of these people to measure up to his expectations, for in all other
epistles he uses encouragement at the outset even where he later proceeds to
criticism.
Another feature of this salutation is the extended description of the writer. It was
not enough to give the name. Even the office was insufficient of itself. It needed
authentication, and Paul gives this explicitly. Moreover, the formula used in the
greeting is expanded into a theological statement and concludes with a doxology.
The Epistle to the Romans can furnish aparallel example of a theological expansion,
but lacks a comparable doxology. All this is undoubtedly designed to impress the
readers with the fact that this epistle is not sent out as the mere expression of the
opinion of an ordinary man. It conveys at once the impression of authority, which
underlies the subsequent argument throughout the epistle.
1. Paul an apostle: there has been much discussion about the significance of the
word ‘apostle’ in the New Testament. Its Greek derivation shows that the main
idea is of a man who is sent, but in New Testament usage it carries a much fuller
implication than this. There are some similarities with the Jewish office of Shaliach,
which carried with it a legal status. The Shaliach could speak and act with the same
authority as his commissioning agent (Bring). He was not an independent person.
His importance was clearly conditioned by the status of the one who sent him.
This was certainly true in the case of Paul. He wishes to remind the readers at
once that the epistle has an official stamp upon it. He was representing another,
ie. God.
In using this title Paul also identifies himself at once with the circle of apostles
appointed by Jesus, and there was obvious point in him doing so when writing to
communities which were inclined to draw a distinction between the Jerusalem
apostles and other Christian teachers. It was of paramount importance, therefore,
for Paul to prove his claims. He was like an ambassador presenting his credentials.
His office bore the stamp of its divine origin. This Paul proceeds to clarify in the
next statement.
57 GALATIANS 1.1-2
not from men nor through man: there must be significance in the change
of preposition and in the change of number. Paul was generally careful in his choice
of words, and it may reasonably be supposed that he intended to convey a differ-
ence of meaning. The preposition ‘from’ (apo) appears to draw attention to the
source of Paul’s apostleship, and the preposition ‘through’ (dia) to the agency
through which it was bestowed. It was of utmost importance for him to make
clear that he was not an apostle because he had been elected to that office by those
who had been personally chosen by Jesus. The apostolate was certainly not a
democratic institution. The casting of lots for Matthias in Ac. 1.26 was not in itself
evidence of the democratic basis of the new Christian society, for it is clear that
the assembled company definitely prayed that God would indicate by this means
his own choice. But Paul’s opponents probably placed him in an inferior category
to Matthias, for the latter had apparently been a personal follower of Jesus (cf.
Ac. 1.21f.) and had also been a witness of the resurrection. But Paul was outside
the stipulation laid down by the Jerusalem church. In answer, he claims his
authority to be independent of human appointment. It was true that he had never
companied with Jesus and was not a witness to the resurrection, and so would not
even have been nominated as a candidate for Judas’ vacancy had he been present.
In short, Paul had no human sponsors. The whole operation was in an entirely
different category. It happened because God had appointed him. This epistle was
therefore God-sponsored.
Some have supposed that the singular ‘man’ may refer to a particular agent in
Paul’s early Christian experience, such as Ananias (cf. Sanday). Ifso Paul is definitely
repudiating any suggestion that such an intermediary had anything to do with his
apostolic office. While this interpretation of the singular cannot be ruled out, it is
more likely that Paul is using it almost in a general adjectival sense, equivalent to
‘human’.
through Jesus Christ: having stated the negative side of the agency through
whom he received his commission by denying human agency, Paul now comes to
the positive side. He is thinking of a specific occasion when he became an apostle
and it is most natural to connect this up with his encounter with Christ on the
Damascus road. That event dominated Paul’s later service for Christ for he could
never forget the commissioning he received from Christ through the lips of Ananias
(cf. Ac. 22.15). It was specially the living Christ to whom he traced his apostleship,
for which reason he dwells on the reality of the resurrection.
God the Father: it is significant that Paul not only (a) links the Father with Christ
in his commissioning, because he regards God as the ultimate source of all authority,
but also (b) links them under the same preposition (dia), which suggests that for
Paul no distinction could be made between the function of the Father and of the
Son in his appointment to the apostolate. It might have been expected that Paul
would have referred to the Father first, but it is possible that the existing order was
prompted by the contrast with the previous phrase (‘not through man’). Jesus
GALATIANS 1.3-5 58

Christ was more than a man, and Paul assumes without question that the Galatian
Christians will at once recognize this.
who raised him from the dead: Paul is not here simply calling attention to the
miraculous element in the resurrection, although he would not have denied that
the event itself was the most stupendous miracle connected with Jesus. It was the
significance of the event which struck him forcibly. It was an act of God. It was,
therefore, the divine seal upon Jesus as the Messiah. The resurrection banished all
doubts about the authenticity of the claims of Jesus, and since Paul's status was
bound up inextricably with Christ’s, the resurrection became of vital importance
to him whenever he thought of his apostolic office. Moreover, if the resurrection
of Christ were not a fact the experience on the Damascus road must have been no
more than an hallucination. Nothing would ever convince Paul that it was that.
He knew Christ was risen and he knew that God had raised him.
2. all the brethren who are with me: it is worth noting that Paul does not
name any associates in this epistle as he does, for instance, in his letters to Corinth
and Thessalonica. There is good reason for this, for Paul does not wish to give the
readers any grounds for supposing that he could not defend himself against the
charges brought against him. He therefore refers only to the ‘brethren’ with him.
Two interpretations are possible: (a) He may be referring to a church group in the
area where he is at present working, but this is unlikely because it was his usual
practice to define the location of church groups; (b) He is probably therefore
referring to a small group of his fellow-workers or travelling companions. They
cannot be further defined. The word adelphos used of membership of a religious
community is not new with Christianity, but when used of Christian brotherhood
it conveyed a deeper meaning than previously known (Cole). The gospel which
Paul preaches is shared by others of the household of faith. It is just possible
that the preposition which Paul uses (sun, with) may lend support to this view,
since it may convey a more intimate association than meta.
churches of Galatia: the plural shows that this letter was intended to be shared
by a number of communities. It must, therefore, be placed in the category of a
circular. And yet it must not be forgotten that all the communities addressed were
affected by the same threat to their liberty in Christ. The separate congregations
must have formed afairly closely knit society. The precise location of these churches
has been fully discussed in the Introduction.
3. Grace . . . and peace: in the modern world greetings are inclined to be
t,
formal and meaningless. But in the ancient world they were rather more significan
particularly among Christians. The Hebrew salutation shalém (peace) implied an
absence of hostility between two people on meeting. But for the Christian ‘peace’
involved also a right relation with God. Christians were at peace with each other
because they were at peace with God. The Greek greeting (chairein) became adapted
to the more meaningful ‘grace’ (charis), a change which is deeply significant. When
Paul used the combined form he may have been repeating a formula in common
59 | GALATIANS 1.3-5
‘use among Christians (cf. its use in the Old Testament in Num. 6.24-26), but for
him the special significance of the combination must be gauged by the key position
of both these concepts in his theology. Grace was nothing less than God’s unmerited
favour in Christ, and peace was one of the major fruits of the Spirit (see 5.22), as
well as being the symbol of reconciliation. Reliance on any other method of coming
to God, as for instance on circumcision, Paul represents as a defection from grace
(5.4). There is no Pauline concept more expressively comprehensive of the essence
of the gospel.
from God the Father: there is some textual uncertainty as to whether the true
reading is “God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ’, or ‘God our Father’. There
is MS support for both alternatives and it is not easy to decide, but the latter seems
to be the more natural and is paralleled in the salutation in all Paul’s earlier epistles
except 1 Thessalonians, which omits ‘our’ altogether. It should be noted that three
times in his introduction Paul makes reference to the Fatherhood of God. The
description does not occur elsewhere in the epistle except in the Spirit-promoted
cry of the adopted son (4.6). There is no doubt, however, that the family idea
occupied an important place in Paul’s thought as he commenced his epistle.
and our Lord Jesus Christ: as in verse 1, Christ is closely linked with the Father.
The grace and peace of Christ are indistinguishable from the grace and peace of
God. It is interesting to note that the threefold name used here does not occur again
in this epistle until the last verse, where it is also connected with the concept of
grace. It is common in Paul’s salutations and is frequently used in various other
epistles. It may have been a familiar form among Christians in greetings and
benedictions, although it was certainly more than a formal title. The combination
of Lord (Kurios) with Christ (Christos=Messiah) is significant as expressing the
fulfilment of the highest hopes of both Gentile and Jew. The full title had, therefore,
deep theological meaning.
4. who gave himself for our sins: the first part of this statement recurs in
Gal. 2.20 with the compound verb paradontos in place of dontos, as here. The idea
involved is a delivering up of oneself for a specific pee and this conception of
Christ’s mission was not only fundamental to Paul’s message, but was basic to his
notion of apostleship. The one who had commissioned him was one who himself
knew the meaning of sacrifice. There can be no doubt that Paul is thinking of the
death of Christ as a voluntary sacrificial act. Particular significance attached to the
phrase ‘for our sins’ in which the Greek, preposition huper is used. The phrase is
identical to that found in 1 C. 15.3, in which Paul sets out the most fundamental
feature of the primitive Gospel as it had been delivered to him by others, i.e. that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture. When used with such a word
as ‘sin’, the normal meaning of huper (on behalf of )becomes modified into the
ideas of deliverance and relationship (Burton). Hence Christ’s work is inseparably
connected with sin. The nature of the connection is not precisely defined, but the
following phrase throws valuable light upon it.
GALATIANS 1.3-5 60
to deliver us from the present evil age: the verb used (exaired) is unexpected,
for it does not occur elsewhere in Paul’s epistles. It suggests deliverance out of the
power of another (cf. Ac. 7.10; 12.11). The picture is of Christ as a victor who has
conducted a successful rescue operation, an imagery which goes well with Paul’s
dominant theme of Christian liberty in this epistle. The apostle is not, of course,
suggesting removal from an adverse environment, but triumph over it. The idea
of the present age (i.e. the present period of time, as compared with a future period,
the age to come) as evil is everywhere assumed in Paul’s theology, as it is indeed
in the teaching of our Lord. The whole world lay in the power of the evil one until
Jesus triumphed over him. It is not always easy for modern man to accept this
concept, largely because the concept of evil has been understood in a different way
from Paul’s understanding of it. For him it meant deviation from God’s purposes,
rebellion against God, transgression of righteous standards. It was not confined to
action. It was tracked down to motive. As a consequence no man could claim
exemption. This is the burden of argument in Rom. 1-3. Here Paul does not reason
it out; he assumes it and expects his readers to assent.
It should be noted that a possible alternative interpretation of ‘the present evil
age’ is ‘the age of the evil one, which is now present’ (cf. Lightfoot), drawing
attention to the triumph of Christ over the agencies of evil. That Paul shared the
contemporary belief that society was under the control of corrupt angelic powers
cannot be disputed. There are frequent references to these powers in his epistles and
there can be no doubt that in the present passage the evil age mentioned is closely
linked with the widespread belief in principalities and powers (cf. the study on this
aspect of Paul’s theology in G. B. Caird’s Principalities and Powers, 1956). It was one
of the major aspects of Christ’s work that the power of these evil agencies was
overcome.
according to the will of our God and Father: the will of the Father in the
redemptive acts of Christ is an important aspect of Paul’s theology and is indeed
integral to all Christian theology. It excludes any notion that what happened to
Christ was an accident of circumstances. It was all part of a plan to overthrow evil
and to deliver man from it. In several of his epistles Paul mentions that his apostle-
ship was by the will of God, and this springs from his deep conviction that the will
of God is behind every facet of the Christian gospel. In emphasizing it here the
apostle is preparing his readers for the major theme of this epistle—the deliverance
effected by Christ. It was never the divine purpose that men should be in bondage.
5. to whom be the glory: it is unusual for Paul to break into a doxology in
the introduction to a letter, although Ephesians supplies an extended example. It
is, moreover, unexpected in an epistle in which Paul finds nothing to recommend
in his readers. Perhaps it was his disappointment over the lack of progress of these
Christians which caused Paul to turn his thoughts towards God. The doxology
appears to be spontaneous. It should be noted that the presence of the article
concentrates attention on that glory which belongs particularly to God. The glory
61 GALATIANS 1.6-7
of God in Christian thought was conditioned by the Old Testament conception.
for ever and ever: again this shows Old Testament influence. It literally means
‘the ages of the ages’, which expresses an undefinably extensive duration of time,
an appropriate idiom in an ascription to God. The glory of God has an ever
enduring quality which contrasts vividly with the fading splendour of man’s
greatest glory.

THE APOSTASY OF THE GALATIANS 1.6-10

6. Iam astonished: in place of the usual thanksgiving the apostle gives vent to
an unrestrained expression of amazement, which draws attention to a matter over
which he clearly felt deeply.
so quickly: the reference would appear to be to the rapidity with which the
Galatians were responding to a counterfeit gospel, in which case the event to which
this relates must be the commencement of the false teaching. It is possible, of course,
to identify the event as the time of their conversion, and the cause of Paul’s
astonishment would then be the rapidity with which they had forsaken the true
gospel. It is also possible to relate this to the apostle’s last visit. But the first of these
interpretations would fit better into the context.
deserting: the verb is a colourful one, used both of military revolt and of a change
of attitude. The apostle thinks of the readers as having changed sides. It was a
serious case of defection. Another gospel was claiming an allegiance which should
have been exclusive to the true gospel. Paul’s astonishment that this should have
happened is readily intelligible.
him who called you: there is little doubt that this phrase refers to God the Father.
The opposing faction among the Galatians would certainly have been surprised to
learn that their defection was in fact from God himself. Their enthusiasm was for
the law of God. How then could they be said to be deserting God? Paul would
well understand this for he had himself imagined that he was doing God service
while persecuting the Church. This kind of delusion is one of the most difficult to
deal with, for there is a strong element of pious conviction. But as soon as the
realization comes that religious enthusiasm for God’s law may turn out to be a
desertion of God himself, there is hope that the true nature of the gospel will be
discerned.
in the grace of Christ: some manuscripts omit ‘of Christ’, but the major evidence
supports it. In any case the word ‘grace’ implies a connection with Christ. Paul’s
choice of the word ‘grace’ is probably intended to offset the emphasis on ‘law’
among the defectors. They must learn that when God called them it was through
grace and not law. Failure to grasp this had been their fundamental mistake. The
preposition (en) may be understood as instrumental (=by means of ), although this
does not exhaust the meaning here. It may also suggest the sphere in which the
calling becomes effective or even refer to entrance into a new condition. In the
GALATIANS 1.6-7 62
latter case en would represent eis, but this is less natural than the other possibilities.
Since the apostle is thinking of the Galatians’ shift of position, some local signifi-
cance in en would best fit the context. The implication is that by their different
gospel the Galatians were stepping out of the grace into which they had been
called.
to a different gospel: the adjective expresses a difference in kind and therefore
differentiates the gospel of the false teachers from the gospel which Paul has
preached. But in what sense is their gospel different? There is no evidence that there
was any dispute about the facts of the gospel. The difference consisted in variant
applications of those facts. No doubt the false teachers firmly believed that their
position was a true representation of the gospel, but Paul’s point is that their
application of it made it, in fact, an essentially different gospel.
7. not that there is another gospel: Paul appears here to be correcting himself,
as if he suddenly realizes that what he has just said might give the impression that
he is prepared to assign the word ‘gospel’ to any other form of teaching. In fact,
there cannot be any other gospel, if gospel is understood to describe God’s way of
salvation in Christ. What these other people are teaching is a perversion (Duncan).
Paul has a clear idea of what he meant by ‘gospel’, but it must not be supposed
that this was his own private notion. His words would in that case have carried no
weight. There was presumably a generally accepted definition of what was basic
to the concept. The modern Church has become less clear about the nature of the
gospel, but it would do well to ponder the importance that Paul here attaches to
distinctions between the true and false gospel.
some who trouble you: there are other occasions on which Paul refers to
opponents without naming them (cf. Gal. 2.12; 1 C. 4.18; 2 C. 3.1; 10.2). The
readers would know at once their identity. The word here used for ‘trouble’
(tarassontes) sometimes denotes physical agitation, sometimes mental disturbance,
and sometimes seditious activity. Used in conjunction with the metaphor of
desertion, the last of these three is to be preferred.
pervert: this word (metastrepho) means to transfer to a different opinion, hence to
change the essential character of a thing. The word need not imply deterioration,
but where that which is changed is good, the change must involve the idea of
perversion as here. The idea is not merely a twisting of the gospel, but of giving it
an emphasis which virtually transformed it into something else. In this way Paul
shows his masterly understanding of the principles behind the policy of the false
teachers. A salvation depending on circumcision, and by implication on legal
observances, was no true gospel at all. It was a perversion. It is worth noting that
Paul lays the responsibility for the perversion on the false teachers by showing that
they themselves want (thelontes) to pervert.
the gospel of Christ: since in the Greek the article is used with the name of
Christ, the genitive should be regarded as defining the gospel in a particular sense.
It was the gospel belonging to the Messiah, and yet those who were perverting it
63 GALATIANS 1.8—9

were professing to be zealous for his messianic claims by insisting on an essentially

Judaistic application. The genitive could also be understood as describing the gospel
which Christ proclaimed (i.e. a subjective genitive, so Williams), but the former
interpretation is more in keeping with the context.
8. But even if we or an angel from heaven: Paul is here anticipating an
objection. The false teachers might claim that what he has just described as the
gospel of Christ is really the gospel of Paul. They may well have put to the
Galatians that there was no more reason why Paul’s gospel should be the right one
than their own, especially if they were claiming it to be the same gospel. But the
apostle asserts with strong emphasis that the only authentic gospel is that originally
preached by him. Neither Paul himself nor an angel could change it. It was not
Paul’s gospel, it was Christ’s. This made it immutable.
contrary to: this is not the only interpretation of the Greek words (par’ho),
although it is almost certainly the correct one here. Paul is thinking of what the
false teachers are saying as being actually in opposition to the truth of the gospel.
This is even more strongly expressed than the reference to perversion in the
previous verse. The words could mean ‘besides’ or ‘beyond’, in which case the
anathema would be against additions to the pure gospel, as for instance in the
traditions of men. Some of the early Protestants so interpreted it in their denuncia-
tion of the Roman Catholic appeal to ecclesiastical tradition as being of equal value
to the Bible. There is a sense in which Paul was probably thinking of the circum-
cision requirement of these teachers as an addition to the gospel originally preached
to them, but the strong denunciation suggests that Paul views their actions as the
direct antithesis of the true gospel.
accursed: the word anathema is related to the Hebrew herem, used of what was
devoted to God, usually for destruction. Some have supposed that it was used among
the Jews to express excommunication (so Williams). In New Testament usage it is
a strong expression of separation from God. It implies the disapproval of God.
Indeed, ‘anathema’ is the strongest possible contrast to God’s grace. Its use here as
an asseveration upon those perverting the gospel reflects Paul’s assessment of the
serious character of their outlook. Here was no outburst of personal anger because
men were forsaking what Paul had preached. It was not an issue of personal
prestige. The essence of the gospel itself was at stake. If the false teachers were
directly contradicting the gospel of the grace of Christ, they could not possibly
avoid incurring the strong displeasure of Christ. In some ways it is strange that
Paul should express himself so violently before he has even outlined the nature of
the perversion, but it shows the intensity of the apostle’s apprehensions about the
situation. In the early Church there was a fuller appreciation of the sacred character
of the gospel than has often been the case in subsequent Church history. In modern
times there has been too much inclination to confuse personalities with the content
of the gospel, but Paul’s inclusion of himself or even an angel in the possibility of
 64
GALATIANS 1.9-10

an anathema makes indisputably clear the superiority of the message over the
messenger. For a similar use of an anathema, cf. 1 C. 12.3; Rom. 9.3.
9. As we have said before . . .: this verse is almost an exact repetition of verse 8.
But why does Paul repeat himself? It could not fail to impress the readers with a
sense of solemnity when the anathema is pronounced twice. The only change is
the substitution of ‘which you received’ for ‘which we preached to you’. The focus
shifts, therefore, from the messengers to the recipients. The two together reflect the
co-operative aspect of the origin of every new community of believers. Paul not
only himself declared the gospel, but it was fully acknowledged as the gospel by
the recipients. The word proeirékamen (we have said before) could refer.to what
Paul had said on his last visit to the Galatian churches (so Duncan), rather than to
the statement in the previous verse. The latter interpretation is said to be excluded
bythe use of arti (now) in the next phrase (now I say again), since the statement
of this verse would seem separated by an interval from what Paul had previously
said (Lightfoot). If this is correct, the Galatians had no excuse. They knew that
a contrary gospel would involve an anathema, and yet they had persisted in
their seditious activity.
which you received: the verb used here expresses the communication of author-
ized Christian teaching. Paul himself had once been at the receiving end of this
process as 1 C. 15.3ff. makes clear, in spite of what he says in verse 12 (see comment
below). The gospel needs more than preaching; it needs receiving. The process of
transmission is completed only when men acknowledge that the message preached
is God’s gospel, and once this has been done they have no excuse for deviating
from it.
10. Am I now seeking the favour of men? The ‘now’ in this statement
reinforces the ‘now’ in verse 9. It implies that Paul is answering a charge that his
motives have changed since he first preached to them. His rhetorical question
suggests that the charge of self-seeking was being brought against Paul, no doubt
with the intention of discrediting him and therefore refuting his influence. The
word used for seeking favour (peithd) means in this context ‘to conciliate’, and the
idea seems to be that Paul, by relaxing the requirement of circumcision for Gentile
converts, was making it easier for enquirers to become Christians. He was, in short,
playing to the gallery.
or of God? It may seem strange that Paul should state as a second alternative the
idea of seeking to win the favour of God, if the verb is to be understood in this
sense. It is better to assume that this second part of the question means, Am I
seeking God’s approval? There seems to be a distinct assumption that man has a
straight choice between pleasing other men or pleasing God and that those who do
the first cannot also do the second. It was of utmost importance for Paul to
demonstrate that he was in the latter category.
to please men? The first of the rhetorical questions is repeated for added emphasis,
with a significant change of verb from ‘conciliate’ to ‘please’ (areskein). It is more
65 GALATIANS 1I.10-12

than repetition that is involved. The former verb refers to making it easy for men
to accept the gospel, whereas this verb suggests currying favour with a view to
securing popularity.
If... Ishould not be a servant of Christ: the idea of Paul as a self-seeker can
at once be challenged by an appeal to his experience. Was slavery to Christ likely
to lead to popularity ?The word used (doulos) suggests such servitude to Christ that
any idea of popularity would be utterly alien. Paul uses the same description of his
status in the salutation of his Epistle to the Romans (cf. also Tit. 1.1).

PAUL’S APOLOGIA 1.11-2.21

What has preceded has already prepared the way for Paul’s defence. He now comes
to a more detailed refutation.
11. For I would have you know: when Paul uses this method of expression
he intends to draw particular attention to the subject about to be introduced, as is
clear from 1 C. 12.3; 15.1; 2 C. 8.1. The origin of the gospel is of such vital
importance that there must be no shadow of doubt about it. All his readers must
know it. It is still as important as it was in Paul’s day to be clear about this issue and
his careful clarification of the matter has put Christians in all periods of history in
his debt.
brethren: the apostle frequently addresses his fellow-Christians in this way, thus
drawing attention to the concept of believers as a household of faith. It is significant
that on eight other occasions in this epistle, Paul addresses the readers in the same
way, which suggests that he was anxious to avoid any impression that his criticism
of their doctrine and practice implied any lack of love towards them personally.
the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel: Paul’s first
assertion about the gospel is a negative one. It is not of human origin. It has not
been forged out by the human intellect. It is not a philosophic system, or areligious
faith created by some religious genius. It was, furthermore, not a human develop-
ment from the Jewish religion. It is something super-human, which cannot be
reduced to human terms. The Greek phrase translated ‘man’s gospel’ means strictly
‘according to man’ (kata anthropon). The thought is that the gospel does not con-
form to man’s ideas of what a gospel was to be. It had another mould or pattern.
Another kind of mind was behind it. This has always been part of the offence of
the gospel in the eyes of those who bow completely to the authority of reason.
The content of the gospel is often unacceptable to reason, when reason is not linked
to faith. There is no substitute for a God-given gospel.
12. For I did not receive it from man: the conjunction (Greek gar) expresses
the reason for the previous statement, although Paul is still concerned with the
negative aspect. The apostle asserts that the method of transmission is a sufficient
proof of its non-human origin. The same verb is used as in verse 9 of the handing-on
of an authentic message. Although there was a sense in which Paul ‘received’
certain primitive Christian traditions (as 1 C. 15.3 shows), yet he did not regard the
GALATIANS I.12-13 66
human channels, through which the traditions came, as their original source. It
would have been different if the gospel had consisted simply of a collection of facts.
But since it also involved interpretation, its divine authentication was of utmost
importance. The preposition para (from) is a general word to denote the idea of
transmission, the notion being of passing the gospel on from hand to hand. It was
not in this way that Paul received it. There is a strong contrast here with Jewish
methods of transmission.
nor was I taught it: this statement almost amounts to a duplication of the last, but
a subtle difference of meaning is implied. Paul wishes to exclude the idea of any
private human interpretation. What human agencies there might have been are
wholly subservient to the prime origin, i.e. God. In any case, as Paul proceeds to
argue, he was independent of the Jerusalem apostles.
it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ: at last Paul reaches his positive
assertion. The gospel was, in short, a revelation (apokalupsis) to him. This means
that it was an opening-up of what was previously secret. Paul’s Damascus experi-
ence is clearly in his mind. He had received a special disclosure. The revelation in
this case was a personal experience which burst upon him, the miraculous origin
of which he could not dispute. Paul’s conversion colours his whole approach in this
epistle. The precise meaning of the genitive (‘of Jesus Christ’) is not certain, for it
can be taken in two ways, implying either that Jesus Christ was the agent through
whom the revelation came (cf. Bring), or that Jesus Christ was the content of the
revelation (Duncan). It is not Paul’s most usual practice to speak of Christ as the
Revealer; more usually it is God. At the same time in view of the Damascus
experience the idea of a revelation by Christ himself would be intelligible. It is
more probable, however, that Paul is thinking of the whole content of what had
been revealed to him as being summed up in Christ. Some support for the former
interpretation may be found in Rev. 1.1, but it is unparalleled in Paul’s epistles.
13. For you have heard: the tense in the Greek points back to a specific
occasion, but Paul does not state either the occasion or the means used to inform
them. It is most natural to suppose that it was from Paul himself (so Burton).
Probably he appealed not infrequently to his own experience when preaching, for
he appears to have no doubt that his readers will be well acquainted with his
experience before conversion. The conjunction ‘for’ shows that he appeals to
his pre-Christian experience as evidence that he had no direct Christian influence
upon him until his conversion experience.
my former life: the word used means ‘manner of life’ and involves more than
behaviour, in the sense of outward activities. It refers to the whole way of life,
ethical, mental, and religious. The same word is translated ‘conduct’ in 1 Pet. 1.15.
Paul explains himself in the next phrase.
in Judaism: by this term the apostle describes not only his former religious ideas,
but also his former ethical ideals. Judaism was not unmindful of the effect of faith
on morals and there was undoubtedly much of good in it. Yet it was Judaism that
67 GALATIANS I.13-14
had rejected Christ. As a religious system it was therefore in direct antithesis to
Christianity. In the present context the use of the term, which occurs nowhere in
Paul’s epistles but in this verse and the next, is significant as demonstrating that
Paul could never tolerate any presentation of Christianity which regarded it as a
form of Judaism. Although Paul’s readers were Gentiles they would no doubt have
sufficient knowledge of the nature of Judaism to appreciate Paul’s allusion, par-
ticularly as they were being led astray by teachers who were still under the strong
influence of Judaism.
how I persecuted the church of God: in the Greek, the form of the verb
suggests a period of persecuting activity, which applies similarly to the next two
verbs. Paul’s antagonism was not confined to a single occasion, but was marked
by persistency. His reason for calling attention to his persecuting zeal is in order to
demonstrate the divine origin of a gospel which could transform a violent enemy
like him into a zealous missionary. By describing the church as ‘the church of
God’, Paul is no doubt recalling that in persecuting the church he was in fact
persecuting its divine originator (cf. 1 C. 15.9).
violently: the Greek phrase (kath huperbolén) means literally ‘beyond measure,
excessively’, and calls attention to the tremendous enthusiasm with which Paul
pursued his persecuting purpose, Perhaps as he looks back he can see that even for
a pious Jew he had gone much too far. It may also have happened that recollection
of his excessive zeal before conversion contributed to his heroic labours as a
Christian missionary, as he sought in some way to compensate for some of the
havoc to the primitive church which his former zeal had effected. That this perse-
cuting phase of Paul’s life was often in his thoughts is clear from the references to
it elsewhere (cf. 1 C. 15.9; Phil. 3.6; 1 Tim. 1.13).
tried to destroy it: the same word is used in Ac. 9.21. Later on in this chapter
Paul recalls the report which circulated after his conversion, and the same verb is
again used of his attempts to destroy the faith. There could hardly have been a
more notable antagonist of the Christian Church. His transformation became not
only an indisputable witness for the benefit of others to the power of God, but a
never-ceasing cause of amazement to Paul himself.
14. I advanced in Judaism: what sense is here to be attached to the word
‘advanced’? Does Paul mean that he had raced ahead of his Jewish contemporaries
in religious achievement? Or does he mean that he had advanced more in his zeal
to maintain the strictness of the Law as compared with some who were inclined
towards slackness in their application of Judaism? The word literally implies a
cutting of one’s way in a forward direction, and if this root-meaning is present at
all in this statement it would clearly favour the first view. That Saul of Tarsus was
ambitious to further the cause of Judaism is not to be disputed. He was so intent
upon it that he did not hesitate to cut down all opposition and in this respect he
outstripped his contemporaries.
beyond many of my own age among my people: it is in no spirit of boasting
GALATIANS I.14-I5 68

that Paul says this. His purpose is to dispel any notion that he is not sufficiently
acquainted with Judaism. Among his contemporary students of Jewish law and
customs he felt that he had few equals. Rather than showing pride in this achieve-
ment, Paul marvels that the revelation of Jesus Christ should have come to so
deep-dyed a Pharisaic enthusiast. In his pre-Christian career he appears to have
found considerable favour among his superiors as a man of outstanding promise.
It was all the more significant, therefore, that he turned his back on such brilliant
prospects.
so extremely zealous: since a comparative adverb is used the idea of zeal beyond
that of others must not be obscured. Paul is fond of emphatic words when
describing faith and is equally inclined to use them of his former experience. Zeal
is better than being lukewarm in the pursuance of one’s convictions, but over-
zealousness in a wrong cause can be very damaging, as Paul found out to his cost.
At least none of his opponents could accuse him of half-heartedness over Jewish
affairs. He was not at that time in a favourable frame of mind, from a natural point
of view, to receive the gospel. He is implying that a more than human ingenuity
would be required to dampen such zeal (cf. also Phil. 3.6).
the traditions of my fathers: it is usual for the word ‘traditions’ (paradoseis),
when used in connection with Judaism, to refer to that body of oral teaching which
was complementary to the written law and in fact possessed equal authority to the
law. Saul as a Pharisaic student would have been well drilled in the minutiae of
these oral traditions. The double use in this verse of the possessive ‘my’ is worth
observing. The apostle is still deeply conscious that he belongs to the Jewish people.
The Judaizers at Galatia should remember that. Some have interpreted the phrase
‘my fathers’ in a narrower sense of his own family connections (so Emmet),
but that would seem to limit too much the traditions involved.
15. he who had set me apart: Paul here uses a word which occurs also in
Rom. 1.1, where he makes plain that he was set apart for the gospel. The idea
behind the expression is of a distinct delimiting of boundaries. No longer was he
confined within the limits of Judaism, but he was still confined, nevertheless, to the
purposes of God. He never conceived of his ministry as a voluntary process. He
was called to it by God. ;
before I was born: literally, Paul dates the calling ‘from my mother’s womb’.
His point is that this process of setting apart antedates the earliest years of discretion.
The calling was in fact before he could think for himself, and this must prove that
his gospel was not of his own making. It is one of the most characteristic features
of Paul’s theology that he was deeply conscious that divine influences had been
operative in his life long before he had recognized them. It was part of his con-
victions about the sovereign purposes of God.
called me through his grace: this statement recalls the similar statement in 1.6,
and shows Paul’s deep consciousness of the effectiveness of God’s grace. It will be
noticed that Paul has changed the preposition from ‘in’ (en) to ‘through’ (dia), but
here he wishes to emphasize the divine initiative.
69 GALATIANS 1.16-17
16. was pleased to reveal his Son to me: again Paul draws attention to the
fact that his knowledge of Christ came through revelation. The words ‘to me’ are
literally ‘in me’, which may mean that Paul is thinking of himself as a channel
through which revelation was being passed on (Lightfoot). But since the revelation
had as its purpose to call Paul to be a preacher, it clearly had an intimate personal
character which would suggest that the word en is intended to express the idea of
inwardness. The revelation was in a sense localized in Paul. At the time of his
conversion, others heard sounds but he alone received a direct message from God.
Yet the inwardness of the revelation had an immediate reaching out for the apostle,
as his next statement shows.
in order that: although Paul is not thinking specifically of the purpose of the
remarkable character of his conversion, but rather of the fact of it, he cannot refrain
from an incidental reference to its purpose. A revelation of such a character could
never be intended merely for one man. It was intended to be shared. It was not
an end in itself. All three accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts make this plain.
I might preach him among the Gentiles: the commission was not simply to
preach. Had it been so expressed, in all probability Paul would have confined
himself to the Jews, ardent Hebrew of the Hebrews as he was. But the Gentile
direction of his commission seems to have been borne in upon him from the time
of his conversion. According to Ac. 9.15; 22.15; 26.16-18, the Gentile commission
was given at that time, and this accords fully with Paul’s own reflections upon that
experience. The universality of the gospel message has been so abundantly illus-
trated in Christian history that it is not easy for the modern mind to think back to
a time when for a Jew the very idea would have been revolutionary. When once
this remarkable characteristic of the gospel had fully taken possession of the apostle
it is small wonder that hefelt so deeply the attempts of the Judaizers to insist on
enslaving Gentiles in Jewish ritual requirements. Did he receive so clear-cut a
commission for the purpose of proselytizing for a kind of modified Judaism? That
was not the way that Paul had interpreted and pursued his mission. While this is
really a passing reference, it nevertheless is all of a piece with his present purpose
in writing to the Galatians. The gospel preached to them was preached by one who
was par excellence the apostle to the Gentiles, not self-appointed but God-appointed.
I did not confer with flesh and blood: in giving the immediate consequences of
his conversion, Paul first expresses these negatively and then positively. The
expression ‘flesh and blood’ is a common phrase to denote human beings generally,
usually in distinction from God. In view of the more specific statement which
follows, it is probable that Paul is here thinking mainly of the general rank and file
of Christians. He did not begin researches into primitive Christianity. Had he done
so, the Judaizers might well have had an opportunity to put a wrong construction
upon it. No-one could assert that Paul’s gospel was his own development from
consultations with others. It is noteworthy that our Lord used the same expression
as here in commenting on the origin of Peter’s confession (Mt. 16.17). The verb
GALATIANS I.16-17 70

prosanatithémi, which occurs only in this epistle in the New Testament (here and
in 2.6), means literally ‘to lay on oneself in addition’, and when used with a
genitive suggests the gaining of information by communicating with others.
Paul’s revelation was not modified by additional information gained in this way.
17. nor did I go up to Jerusalem: since Paul in his pre-conversion days was
based on Jerusalem in direct contact with the ecclesiastical authorities there, he was
no doubt well acquainted with the arrangements within the Christian Church. He
must have known that at the headquarters of the movement in Jerusalem the
direction of affairs was under the apostles. He might therefore have been excused
had he sought an interview with the leaders of the Jerusalem church. But he
expressly denies having done that. He may well have known them sufficiently to
suspect that he would not at first be made welcome, as turned out to be the case
(according to Ac. 9.26) when he did eventually visit them. Whatever the motive
behind his avoidance of such top-level discussion, he recognizes that he can appeal
to it in support of his present argument. At the time of his conversion he was
completely independent of the Jerusalem church.
those who were apostles before me: Paul has already in his salutation laid claim
to the apostolic office and now he makes a fleeting allusion to what is in fact the
crux of his apology. He admits the apostolicity of the Jerusalem leaders, but he will
allow only a temporal distinction between his office and theirs. They were, of
course, before him in point of time, but not in the importance of their office. He
seems to imply that his apostolic commission was as good as theirs, and there was
therefore no need for them to confirm his office, even although they preceded him
in time. It must be remembered that Paul is in no way showing contempt for the
original apostles, but is answering in a factual way the taunts of those who supposed
his apostleship to be inferior or secondary (cf. Cole).
I went away into Arabia: this is Paul’s positive action, but his fleeting reference
to it raises several problems. Firstly, what does he mean by Arabia? The name was
used of a very large area inhabited by Arabs, which in Paul’s day was under the
rule of Aretas, The area, in fact, seems to have included Damascus itself and to have
stretched southwards in the direction of the Sinaitic peninsula. If by Arabia is here
meant that part of the kingdom in the proximity of Damascus, it may readily be
understood why the apostle chose to withdraw there. It was the nearest district to
the scene of his conversion where he might find some temporary seclusion away
from the immediate hostility of his former Jewish contemporaries. There is much
to be said for this reconstruction of the events, especially in view of the fact that
Paul himself says that he returned to Damascus. The major objection, however, is
the use of the term Arabia in 4.25 of this epistle. There it is used to describe the
geographic situation of Mount Sinai, and this has given rise to the theory that the
apostle would have found a symbolic significance in visiting the same scenes as
Moses had looked upon before launching his campaign (Lightfoot). The idea is
suggestive but hardly practical or probable. The journey from Damascus to Sinai
71 GALATIANS 1.17

was difficult and is not likely to have been made in the spontaneous manner
in which Paul’s decision appears to have been effected. Moreover the return to
Damascus suggests a closer proximity than this theory allows. It is furthermore
improbable that Paul at this stage of his Christian experience had pondered on the
symbolic comparison between the giving of the old covenant and the new. Such a
comparison he would come to understand more fully as his Christian thought
matured. It would seem unlikely, therefore, that Paul means the Sinaitic peninsula.
In 4.25 his statement about Sinai would still be true, even if here the reference is to
the wider connotation of the term ‘Arabia’.
Secondly, what was the purpose of Paul’s visit? He himself does not say, and it
would probably be wiser to refrain from speculating. And yet the fact that he
mentions the visit shows that it possessed some significance for him. Two sug-
gestions have been made. Either he went there to meditate on the meaning of the
tremendous experience through which he had just passed, or he went there to
preach. Of these ideas the former is to be preferred (so Duncan), for if his motive
was preaching it is strange that he should have chosen so sparsely populated an area
to evangelize nomadic tribes while the populous district of Damascus lay close at
hand. Moreover, the silence of Acts about this Arabian visit is more intelligible
if Paul withdrew for meditation than if it were his first evangelistic campaign, since
the latter would have had considerable interest for the historian. We would have
liked more details of the spiritual and intellectual deliberations of those days, but
the apostle leaves a veil over them. One lesson is relevant and important for all
periods and personalities in Christian ministry. Movements of great activity must
always be based on periods of seeming inactivity which allow time for reflection
and for the clarification of ideas and motives.
Thirdly, what was the length of the visit? There is no certain answer. All that
Paul states is that three years after his conversion he returned to Jerusalem (see
comment on next verse). In that period must presumably be fitted his visit to
Arabia and his preaching activity in Damascus. It is not known whether any other
movements of Paul were included in this period, nor can it be determined how
long Paul worked in Damascus before going to Jerusalem. Acts 9.19 states rather
vaguely that ‘for several days’ he was in Damascus ‘with the disciples’, and after a
reference to his preaching the plot to kill him is said to have been conceived ‘when
many days had passed’ (Ac. 9.23). The Arabian visit might therefore have occupied
no more than a few weeks, or could have covered many months. The matter is
unimportant. What is vital for Paul’s present argument is that no space can be
found within the three years mentioned for consultation with the Jerusalem
apostles.
Fourthly, does Paul’s statement contradict Acts? There are two features to
be considered—the absence of mention of Arabia and the impression given by
Acts that Paul’s preaching activity immediately followed his conversion. On
the former, it may have been that Luke was not aware of Paul’s Arabian visit, but
GALATIANS 1.17-18 72
Christianity.Itcannot be said, moreover, that Acts excludes the possibility of
such a visit. On the second point, the real crux is the interpretation of ‘immediately’
(eutheds) in Ac. 9.20, for the most natural interpretation of this is to suppose that
no interval separated his conversion from his preaching. In this case, the Arabian
visit would need to be placed after such a brief period of ministry. But since Paul
confounded the Damascus Jews with his proofs that Jesus was the Christ, it is
preferable to regard the Arabian visit as preceding this to allow time for the
re-orientation of his thoughts. In this case, ‘immediately’ would need to be
interpreted as immediately following his return to Damascus.
and again I returned to Damascus: since Paul has not before mentioned
Damascus, the ‘again’ implies that his readers would know that his conversion took
place near that city. No doubt they had heard about the details of that experience
more than once from Paul’s own lips. At least, he assumes that they are acquainted
with this detail, even if they may be unaware of the Arabian visit. The fact that
Paul himself makes clear that his Jerusalem visit was from Damascus is in complete
agreement with Ac. 9.26. It was on this return visit that the apostle incurred the
hostility both of the ethnarch Aretas and of the Jews (cf. 2 C. 1.32ff.; Ac. 9.24).
18. Then after three years: the word translated ‘then’ (epeita) draws particular
attention to the next event in order of sequence (it is used also in verse 21 and in
2.1), and shows Paul’s sensitiveness to the historical connection between the various
events leading to his contacts with the Jerusalem leaders. The period of three years
may represent in the Jewish method of calculation little more than a year if the
first and third years represent only a part of a year, as is not improbable. It is
impossible to be more precise, for the expression could equally well mean three
full years. The shorter the period the better it would conform to the impression
given by Acts. The period mentioned presumably dates from Paul’s con-
version, as that is the critical point in his experience.
I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas: the verb used is that regularly employed
for travellers making acquaintance with places or people. Its choice here is in
harmony with Paul’s obvious desire to avoid any suggestion that he went to be
instructed by Cephas, i.e. Peter. In spite of this, some have suggested that on this
occasion Paul enquired from Peter the facts of our Lord’s life (cf. Cole), but he
must have been informed of these previously if he had been a Christian for some
time. It should be noted that the name Cephas, the Aramaic form equivalent to
the Greek Peter, is used in 2.9, 11, 14, but in 2.7, 8 the name Peter is used. In these
former three references, many Mss read Peter for Cephas, no doubt because of its
greater familiarity. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul refers to this apostle
four times, but in each case under the Aramaic form (cf. also its use in Jn 1.42). In
all probability both forms were current in Paul’s time.
and remained with him fifteen days: why does Paul mention so specifically
the period of his visit? It was evidently vividly impressed upon his mind, but his
73
GALATIANS I.18—21

main reason for referring to it here is to emphasize its brevity. The period was not
long enough to give any grounds for the charge that Paul had been dependent on
Peter, and this is the special point that he is wishing to establish.
19. none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother: the form
of the Greek may be understood in two ways: either the exceptive phrase relates
only to the verb, ‘I saw’, in which case Paul may not be describing James as an
apostle (Emmet, Munck, 92); or the phrase may relate to the whole preceding
statement, in which case James is numbered among the other apostles (cf. Burton).
Since in 2.9 Paul links James with Cephas and John as reputed pillars of the church,
it is most reasonable to suppose that he is here drawing no distinction between him
and the others as far as apostolic status is concerned. This wider use of the term is
probable here in view of Paul’s own insistence on appropriating the term to
describe his own position. It is part of his whole argument that apostleship is not
confined to the Jerusalem leaders, let alone to the original Twelve. There are three
different interpretations of the word ‘brother’ (adelphos) in this context. It may
mean half-brother, full brother, or cousin. In the first case James would have been
the son of Joseph by a previous wife; in the second case, he would have been a son
of Joseph and Mary, born later than Jesus; in the third case a son of Mary’s sister.
It is certainly more natural to take the word as brother rather than cousin, but it
is not easy to decide between the two interpretations of it. The second would avoid
what is, after all, purely a hypothetical assumption, i.e. that Joseph had had a former
wife. The balance of probability is therefore in support of the second. James’
kinship with our Lord may well have been a dominant factor in his becoming
leader of the Jerusalem church.
20. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie): although this
is placed in parenthesis, it is no side-issue. It brings home the solemn seriousness of
Paul’s theme in that he feels the need for such an asseveration as this. No doubt
this oath is to offset an adverse report which Paul’s opponents had put out about
him. Anything which conflicts with what he has just written may be disregarded
as being false. For other instances of the use of similar strong asseverations, cf.
Romo 321Cari 31st dam s2:93
21. Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia: another stage in
Paul’s missionary movements is now mentioned, not because he is wishing to give
his itinerary but because he wants to make clear that the sphere of his activity was
far enough removed from that of the Jerusalem apostles to show his independence
of them. The two regions specified formed one provincial district although there
is evidence from Tacitus (Annals 2.78) that Cilicia had its own governor, at least
in A.D. 67. Paul’s home city of Tarsus was in Cilicia, while the chief city of Syria
was Antioch, where by Paul’s time the Christian community had already become
a centre of missionary activity. This latter fact may account for the order in which
the districts are mentioned. It should be noted in this connection that later on
(in 2.11) the apostle specially mentions an incident which occurred at Antioch. It
GALATIANS 1.21-23 74

was also the church at Antioch and not the church at Jerusalem which had
sponsored his missionary work. His time spent in Syria was, therefore, another link
in his proof of independence of the Jerusalem apostles. Chronologically, according
to Ac. 9.30, 11.25, the districts should be reversed. Another suggestion is that Paul
is not referring to time spent in these districts, but only to the districts passed
through on his way to Tarsus from Jerusalem. Too much emphasis should surely
not be put on the order of mention since Paul’s main purpose is to show how little
he had had to do with Jerusalem (cf. Ridderbos).
22. And I was still not known by sight: the verb stresses the continuity of
the state of not knowing. In this way, the apostle makes perfectly clear that until
that time he had made no personal appearance in any of the churches of Judea.
The Greek expression is vivid, meaning that Paul was unknown ‘by face’, although
the Judean Christians must have known a good deal about him by repute, as
verse 23 suggests.
the churches of Christ inJudea: the description of the churches here as en Christo
(‘in Christ’ rather than ‘of Christ’) is a typically Pauline touch to distinguish the
Christian from the purely Jewish communities in Judea. There has been much
discussion over Paul’s use of the term Judea, since Jerusalem was included in Judea
and Paul had certainly paid a visit there. It has therefore been maintained that Judea
could in fact be regarded as distinct from Jerusalem (so Lightfoot), as it is in Mt.
3.5. Whatever the decision regarding the precise meaning of Judea in general
usage, there can be little doubt that in this case Paul intends it to be understood as
exclusive of Jerusalem. Ifthis is a correct interpretation, what would have been the
point in Paul’s mentioning the churches in Judea at all? The only reasonable
answer seems to be that Judea would probably have been the sphere of Paul’s
missionary labours had he been working under the auspices of the Jerusalem
church. Furthermore, would not the fact that he was. unknown personally among
the Judean churches have been to his disadvantage in the eyes of the Judaizing
party to whom he is addressing himself? Would they not have had more respect
for him if his work had been officially sponsored by these communities? But no!
He is independent of Jewish Christian sponsoring. Indeed, the next verse adds
further weight to this.
23. They only heard it said: again the tense is strongly frequentative and might
be rendered, ‘they kept on hearing’. Reports would come mainly from the
Jerusalem church, but no doubt most Christian travellers would carry news of the
remarkable transformation in Saul of Tarsus. He who once persecuted is now
preaching. From persecuting to preaching was an astonishing change, but the
active propagation of the very faith which he had so ardently wanted to stamp out
was indisputable proof, even for those who had never met Paul personally, that a
divine power had been at work. In similar ways in modern times Christian
believers can be moved by reports of remarkable conversions.
the faith he once tried to destroy: Acts bears testimony to Paul’s former
 75 GALATIANS 1.23-2.1

zeal for persecuting Christians. But here Paul himself recognizes the underlying
principle that it was not merely Christians he was harassing. His real target was
‘the faith’ itself. This word must be understood objectively of all that the gospel
stood for, as it was this that was the content of Paul’s preaching. But a subjective
element cannot be excluded in view of the fact that Paul laid such emphasis on
faith, as opposed to works, as the sole means whereby the gospel could be
appropriated.
Many have since tried to destroy the faith in precisely the same way as Saul of
Tarsus tried, but none has been any more successful than he. This fact alone is
further evidence of the divine character of the gospel which Paul received and
which he continued to preach. There is nothing man-made about a gospel that can
effect a transformation like this.
24. And they glorified God because of me: again the tense of the verb is
significant, for it means that the Judean churches kept on glorifying God on account
of Paul. For the apostle to report that he himself was the cause of their praising God
is no sign of boasting on his part, for he never ceased to marvel at what the grace
of God had effected in his own life, and it was a source of gratitude to him when
_ others also recognized it. But the real object of his mentioning it here is to
demonstrate that even churches as Jewish Christian as the Judean churches could
praise God for Paul, and yet the Judaizers at Galatia were critical of him. In the
Greek the object, ‘God’, is placed last for emphasis and is clearly more important
than ‘because of me’ (en moi).
2.1. Then after fourteen years: this is the third occasion on which Paul uses
the particle of sequence (epeita). This suggests that the Jerusalem visit to which he
is about to refer was the next important connection with the Christian leaders and
by implication excludes any intervening contact; unless it is maintained, as by
advocates of the North Galatian theory, that although he appears to exclude any
other contact with the leaders this does not necessarily exclude contact with the
Jerusalem church generally.
There is some question whether the fourteen years dates from the previous Jeru-
salem visit or from Paul’s conversion (cf. Duncan). If the latter, it would shorten
the period previous to his first missionary journey, and would make easier a chrono-
logical reconstruction of Paul’s movements up to the Council of Jerusalem (see
Introduction). Since the expression could be interpreted either way, the apostle
clearly attaches little importance to the precise duration of the periods intervening
hisJerusalem visits. Whether it was eleven years or fourteen years is immaterial to
Paul’s argument. The statement shows, under either interpretation, that a con-
siderable interval elapsed without any official interchange between the apostle and
the Jerusalem leaders.
I went up again: although the most natural interpretation of the word ‘again’
(palin) is that this was the next visit, it need not exclude an intervening visit (see
previous comment). The main difficulty is that a comprehensive account of the
GALATIANS 2.1-2 76

Jerusalem contacts seems required by Paul’s arguments (see Introduction, p. 32

on this).
with Barnabas: during the apostle’s earliest Christian life and missionary activity,
Barnabas was his closest associate. Although at first Barnabas took the lead by
reason of his seniority of Christian experience, it soon became evident that Paul
was the dominant partner. The preposition ‘with’ (meta) means in this context
‘accompanied by’, which suggests that Paul was the leader. But, of course, Paul is
listing his own activities here and his main attention is concentrated upon this.
The partnership broke up subsequent to the Council of Jerusalem (Ac. 15.29), and
so the visit mentioned heré must obviously be placed before that. But why is
Barnabas specifically mentioned? He was certainly well known in the South
Galatian churches, who would be well aware that he came from a Jewish Christian
background and would probably not have questioned his orthodoxy.
taking Titus along with me: why does Paul mention Titus? Of his earliest
movements we know nothing, for it is strange that Acts contains no reference to
him. This could hardly be because Luke did not know of him as a companion of
Paul, even if he had not known him personally. In the absence of data, it is of little
value to speculate. The suggestion that Titus was a brother of Luke is not impossible
but is purely hypothetical. In the end no answer can be given to this puzzle. But
one thing is clear from Paul’s own references to him elsewhere, and that is the high
regard in which he held him. Yet this would not account for Paul mentioning him
in this context, unless there was some dispute about him among the Judaizers. The
precise form of the expression here shows that Paul took full responsibility for his
presence with him at Jerusalem. A particular aspect of that visit is mentioned in
verse 3.
2. I went up by revelation: Paul does not tell us to whom the revelation was
made. It may have been to the group of Christians at Antioch or it may have been
to Paul himself or it may have come in some other undefined way. The
feature which the apostle wishes to make clear is that it was not his own idea. He
was not going with the intention of asking for the approbation of the Jerusalem
leaders. He felt he had no option but to respond to the divine leading.
I laid before them . . . the gospel which I preach: the verb conveys the idea
of consultation. It is to be noted that Paul does not define ‘them’. It could be a
reference to the Jerusalem Christians generally or to the leaders, most probably the
former since the authorities are mentioned in the next clause placed in parenthesis.
It is instructive to observe that Paul did not confine himself to reporting his
missionary work among the Gentiles. He was most concerned that the Jerusalem
Christians should know the content of his preaching. To the apostle this was
of paramount importance. In modern times there has been a tendency for the
procedure to be reversed and sometimes for all too little interest to be shown by
congregations at missionary gatherings in the character of the gospel being
preached.
Gf GALATIANS 2.2-3

The present tense is used in the reference to preaching, because although Paul is
describing an event in the past he knows that the Gospel he preached then is the
same as he preaches now.
(but privately before those who were of repute): while he had had oppor-
tunity to speak publicly to the Christians generally, he was able to speak with the
leaders in private conference, and this had afforded a much better opportunity to
avoid misunderstandings. It is a process worth copying. The phrase ‘those who
were of repute’ may seem later on in the chapter to be used in a derogatory sense,
but the word itself implies some position of honour. We have no grounds for
supposing that the apostle had no esteem for the Jerusalem leaders, and we must
therefore suppose that in this epistle he is bearing in mind his opponents’ opinions.
He may even be echoing their language. If the Judaizers were maintaining the
reputable character of their teaching on the grounds that it came from a reputable
source, the slightly derogatory tinge in Paul’s references becomes more intelligible.
It seems certain that those named in verse 9, James, Cephas, and John, are to be
identified with those mentioned here.
lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain: it may at first seem
that by this statement Paul is, in fact, conceding what he has all along been denying,
i.e. that he needed his course of action to be authenticated by the Jerusalem leaders
if he were to avoid making his work useless. But since he cannot mean that and
remain consistent in his argument, some other interpretation must surely be
possible. There is no suggestion here that Paul would have modified his gospel had
it not met with the approval of the Jerusalem apostles, but the position would
clearly be happier if there was seen to be general agreement between them and
Paul. The athletic metaphor is used to describe a futile procedure, i.e. a race in
which it is impossible to win. But what precisely was the goal that Paul has in
mind? Would he have regarded disagreements between him and the others as
leading to futility ?Or is he thinking that failure to report his gospel to them would
be a disqualification in the ‘race’? This latter suggestion is possible. The progress
of the Church as a whole and of Paul’s work in particular would have become
seriously impaired had there been any open rupture between two rival factions.
The importance attached to the conference in Ac. 15 bears witness to this.
3. But even Titus: the statement which commences with this verse presents
certain difficulties owing to the peculiarities of the Greek. Nevertheless the general
drift of the passage is clear. The ‘but’ (alla) at the beginning does not express an
opposing qualification, but serves to strengthen the more general statement just
made. The approach of the authorities to Titus serves as a kind of test case, which
illustrates without question their attitude towards the problem of circumcision.
was not compelled to be circumcised: there are two ways in which this can be
understood. It can be interpreted either as an indication (a) that Titus was not
circumcised (Lightfoot), or (b) that Titus’s circumcision was not by com-
pulsion but was voluntary (Duncan). The latter alternative assumes that the verb
GALATIANS 2.3-4 738

is emphatic, but it is not placed in an emphatic position in the Greek text. More-
over, it is difficult to believe that Paul would have agreed to the circumcision of a
Greek like Titus, for this would have undermined his whole position (cf. Watkins,
178f.) He may be answering insinuations against him on the part of the Judaizers,
and if this could be substantiated, it might lend support to the second alternative.
On the whole it seems better to suppose that Paul is referring to the case of Titus
to show that he had no clash with the Jerusalem leaders over circumcision, for if it
were a requirement for salvation the leaders would clearly have insisted on Titus
being circumcised. But they did not insist (cf. Munck, 9sff.).
though he was a Greek: the term Hellén is sometimes used of non-Jews generally,
but here it possibly conveys its more limited meaning of a Greek speaking non-
Jewish person. The main significance of the mention of Titus is as an example of
a Christian Gentile whose relationship to circumcision might be regarded as being
typical for all Gentiles.
4. But because of false brethren secretly brought in: the connection of
thought is not transparent, but Paul appears to be saying that it was the surrep-
titious entry of false brethren which brought the matter to a head, causing him to
take such a definite stand on this crucial issue. His description of them as false
brethren suggests that they were purporting to enter the church as Christian
believers, but that they were not true Christians at all. The fact that Paul refers to
them here shows that they were quite distinct from the Jerusalem leaders and the
rank and file of the Jerusalem church. The trouble evidently arose because these
intruders were attempting to force the apostle to submit to their own narrow
Jewish approach to the Gentile world. It is of small importance where the infiltra-
tion happened, but Antioch is as good a guess as any, since that church had much
to do with Paul and Barnabas. It is noticeable that the verb is passive, which implies
that some of the members of the church had invited them.
who slipped in to spy out (our freedom): here the main verb is active, placing
the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the false brethren. They had come
with a specific purpose—to discover what attitude Gentile Christians were taking
towards the law. The analogy to spying is suggestive. They were acting like
intelligence-agents building up a case against slackness over Jewish ritual require-
ments. The word implies close scrutiny, which brings out the seriousness of the
intruders’ intentions. The matter had not come to a head as a result of casual
observations. It was a planned campaign.
our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus: no phrase could sum up more
adequately the real theme of this epistle. Paul had known only too well the
bondage of Judaism. Indeed, the tremendous sense of liberty which he found in
Christ was the most notable feature of his conversion. Yet the policy of these false
teachers would have robbed him and his Gentile converts of this liberty. On the
words ‘in Christ Jesus’, see the comment on 1.22. Here the force of the words
shows that because of their identification with Christ they possess a special liberty.
79 GALATIANS 2.4—5
The phrase means more than ‘Christian’ liberty. There is a mystic quality about
this liberty which belongs to Paul’s doctrine of the union of the believer with
Christ (Ellicott). Asa result legal requirements have become dispensable. Since
Christ is free, no member of Christ’s body can be bound.
that they might bring us into bondage: the apostle states this as their specific
purpose. They aimed to make Paul and his converts slaves of the law. The words
suggest that an alien objective was being introduced into a situation in which
liberty was at present enjoyed, This was not the most primitive situation. It must
not be supposed that in pursuing their purpose the intruders were conscious of any
insincerity. They would probably have rejected Paul’s description of their policy
as ‘bondage’, but they would not have denied that to them an unquestioning
adherence to the requirements of the law was an essential feature of their Christian
faith. They had never known the glorious sense of freedom in Christ and had never
realized the real bondage of legalism.
5. to them we did not yield submission even for a moment: there is a
textual problem here which materially affects the interpretation of the passage.
While most authorities support the text behind the RSV there is evidence that the
Western text behind many ofits representatives omits the word ‘not’ (oude). In this
case the meaning would be, ‘we did yield to them for an hour’ (the Greek has hara
(hour) and the RSV ‘moment’ is therefore interpretative). This would require
verse 3 to mean that Titus was circumcised for the expediency of that ‘hour’. But
apart from the fact that the weight of ms evidence would appear to favour the
inclusion of the ‘not’, the omission would involve Paul in a glaring inconsistency.
A case has been made out for a concession by Paul on the occasion of the visit of
Titus to Jerusalem, as otherwise he would have been unable to have fellowship with
the Jewish Christians there (so Duncan). But this is based on the prior assumption
that none of the Christians would have found the same liberty in Christ as, for
instance, Paul had done. This may, of course, be a correct assumption, but at best
it is only an assumption. Indeed, Paul’s argument in this chapter suggests the
reverse, for the leaders did not raise any objection. At the same time there was
evidently some inconsistency, as Peter’s action at Antioch referred to in verses 11ff.
illustrates, but Paul would surely never have made any concession to this !
The passage yields the most satisfactory exegesis if it be supposed that Paul
resolutely refused to concede anything to those whom he deliberately describes as
‘false brethren’. The word ‘submission’ not only has an article but is in the dative
case in the Greek text. The meaning is therefore ‘we did not yield with respect to
the submission’, i.e. with regard to the matter under discussion, circumcision.
that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you: the previous verse
ended with a purpose clause and so does this. But the aims are opposite. One group
was out to make slaves; the other to ensure the continuance of a free and pure
gospel. The phrase ‘the truth of the gospel’ is intended to contrast with the per-
verted form of it which the false brethren were advocating. Paul’s special mention
GALATIANS 2.5—6 80

of preserving the gospel ‘for you’, i. the Galatian Christians, is a pointed

reminder that his firm stand was for their benefit, not so much for his own.
6. And from those who were reputed to be something: the construction
here is broken. The apostle is so deeply involved in his subject that he does not
finish what he begins to say. This statement has in fact a closer connection with
verse 2 than with the previous verse. It is probably best therefore to treat the Titus
incident as a parenthesis. Paul reverts to his associations with ‘the men of repute’ at
Jerusalem. Yet the parenthesis supplied him with an opportunity to show that the
attitude of the false brethren had not affected his own stand before the Jerusalem
authorities. It must not be supposed that the present statement is derogatory. What
Paul is opposing is an excessive estimate of the position of the Jerusalem leaders.
He was opposed to authoritarianism of an ecclesiastical kind. It should be noted
that the expression should strictly read, ‘those who are reputed’, referring to their
present status, not simply to a past estimate of them.
what they were makes no difference to me: here the verb changes to the
imperfect, and this is deeply significant for a true exegesis. “What they were’ would
appear to refer to the previous status of those mentioned (i.e. in verse 9), and can
hardly fail to be an allusion to their knowledge of Jesus in the flesh. It is a fair
inference that Paul’s opponents had appealed to the position of the Jerusalem
apostles as being superior to Paul because he had not had personal contact with
Jesus in the flesh. His reply is that their previous advantages make no difference
now. This is in line with the apostle’s contention in 2 C. 5.16, where he repudiates
the necessity of having known Christ from a human point of view.
God shows no partiality: whenever the Greek word translated ‘partiality’ occurs
in the New Testament, it always carries the sense of ‘looking upon and being
influenced by the outward appearance’ (literally the ‘face’ or “mask’). By making
this assertion here Paul is maintaining that God does not base his judgments on
external factors such as knowledge of Christ according tu the flesh. He judges
according to the condition of the spiritual lifeofeach. By implication, any partiality
on the part of the false brethren is at once seen to be inconsistent. That it was
difficult for Jewish Christians to appreciate the impartiality of God is seen from the
account of Peter’s vision before he went to Cornelius, as recorded in Ac. 10. The
Jewish background of intense nationalism led to the conviction that God must
show special favour to Israel in contradistinction to Gentile peoples. But such a
notion is alien to Christianity.
added nothing to me: Paul repeats his reference to those of repute to make more
impressive the real crux of the matter. The ‘authorities’ had imposed nothing
beyond what Paul had already proclaimed and practised. When they had heard
what had happened among the Gentiles they made no modifications whatever.
Prosanatithémi, here rendered ‘added’, can mean ‘confer’, as in 1.16 (v. Lightfoot),
in which case Paul would mean that the authorities took up no questions with
him; or it can mean ‘to set forth’, as in 2.2 (so Burton), which would suggest
8I GALATIANS 2.6-8

that they did not present Paul with any demands. Whatever the precise meaning
of the word, the apostle clearly intends to imply that he conceded nothing
to the ‘authorities’ because there was nothing he was required to concede.
In the Greek text a conjunction (gar) joins this statement to the first statement in
the verse, although this conjunction is omitted from the RSV. It seems to be used
to explain the significance of the first mention of the authorities.
7. but on the contrary: up to this point Paul has given only the negative side.
He now comes to the positive one. What the authorities were prepared to do was
diametrically opposed to what the false brethren were alleging.
when they saw that I had been entrusted: the first positive action on their part
was to perceive the nature of Paul’s commission. They were able to discern at once
from Paul’s report to them of his preaching that he was evidently specially set
apart for this particular work. The recognition in the case of both Paul and Peter
that their ministry was a divinely given trust meant that there could be no question
of either submitting to the other. An entrusted ministry was accountable only to
God. It speaks highly of the spiritual perception of Peter and his fellow apostles that
they at once recognized Paul’s calling. It seems best to take the ‘seeing’ in the sense
of mental and spiritual perception as above, although the word may be meant to
convey also a literal meaning. Yet the only possible assumption in that case is that
Titus was regarded as a living testimony to Paul’s commission.
the gospel to the uncircumcised . . . the gospel to the circumcised: the same
word is used in botli phrases and it cannot be supposed that Paul means to suggest
any difference of content. There is a distinction of the mode of presentation, but
no more. The gospel to the circumcision was in no way superior to the gospel to
the uncircumcision. Indeed, circumcision is not therefore a sine qua non of the
gospel. The apostle could never conceive of two gospels adapted to different kinds
of people. Both Jew and Gentile needed essentially the same good news. The
genitives are not therefore descriptive but objective, as the RSV makes clear.
just as Peter: it is significant that Peter alone is mentioned here, whereas James
and John are included in verse 9. The reason would appear to be that Peter’s
special commission was evangelistic work among the Jews and so formed a close
parallel to Paul’s work among the Gentiles.
8. he who worked through Peter: this verse strengthens the statement in
verse 7 and gives the basis for it. As the entrusting of the different commissions are
parallel, so the enabling was parallel. The verb used is a favourite one with Paul.
Indeed, almost all the instances of its use in the New Testament are in Paul’s
epistles. It draws attention to the dynamic of the gospel. The translation ‘through
Peter’ for the simple dative puts rather too much emphasis on the idea of agency.
A better rendering would be ‘in respect of’ Peter, in the sense of ‘on Peter’s
behalf’ (so Lightfoot). The motive force was God’s, but Peter’s own activity
was needed.
the mission to the circumcision: this time Paul uses the word ‘apostleship’
GALATIANS 2.8-—9 82

(apostolé), which the RSV translates as ‘mission’. This word is found elsewhere in
the New Testament only in Ac. 1.25, Rom. 1.5, and 1 C. 9.2. Paul is once again
deeply conscious of the equality of his own apostleship with that of Peter. No
doubt he changes the emphasis from the gospel to the apostolic office to draw more
specific attention to the implication that a common apostleship must go hand in
hand with a common gospel.
through me also: there is something rather pointed about Paul’s frequent
reference to himself in this chapter by means of the emphatic pronoun (emoi),
cf. verses 3, 6, and 9 as well as here. Again the dative bears the same sense as in the
statement above about Peter.
for the Gentiles: it is noticeable that in this comparison Paul substitutes ‘Gentiles’
for the ‘uncircumcised’ in the previous verse. A similar substitution is found
in verse 9. The reason seems to be that here and in verse 9, Paul’s thought turns
away from the people to whom he and Peter were called to preach and concen-
trates more on the location. Paul thinks of his apostleship as relating to Gentile
areas. This interpretation is supported by the Greek construction used (eis ta ethné),
which stresses more pointedly the objective of Paul’s apostleship than the genitive
in the parallel statement about Peter. God’s operation through Paul had as its target
the Gentiles.
9. when they perceived: this is really a repetition of the opening part of verse 7
but with a different verb. In the former verse the word used indicated ‘seeing’, but
now Paul uses the word ‘knowing’. As a result of what they saw, they came to the
point of recognition. But the distinction cannot be pressed, for the two verbs are
complementary.
the grace that was given to me: Paul is clearly here thinking of his commission
to preach (as in verse 7). The fact that he uses the word ‘grace’ (charis) draws
attention to the divine favour through which alone the commission was given. In
a sense this ‘grace’ would not have been understood until after Paul had recounted
his experiences. So manifestly had God endorsed the policy of Paul among the
Gentiles that the Jerusalem authorities could not deny the evidences of Divine
grace.
James and Cephas and John: the James mentioned here must be the Lord’s
brother, as in 1.9, of whom we are informed in Acts that he presided over the
Jerusalem church. It is significant that he is here mentioned first, which suggests
that he took precedence over the others in the negotiations with Paul. This detail
accords well with the description of James’ position at the Council of Jerusalem in
Ac. 15. The other two apostles, Cephas and John, so closely associated together in
the Gospels, were evidently still influential in the Jerusalem church. According to
Acts, John appears to have played a less dominant part than Peter and is not
referred to again after chapter 8.14. ;
who were reputed to be pillars: in all probability Paul is here borrowing the
language of the false brethren. They might well have been in the habit of referring
83 GALATIANS 2.9—-I0
to the ‘pillars’. The metaphor is not altogether inappropriate since the Church of
God is sometimes likened to a building. The view that Paul is here really disputing
the description, and implying that the three mentioned are not in fact ‘pillars’, but
are only reputed to be, cannot be ignored. It is not impossible that there was some
tension between Paul.and the Jerusalem apostles, but it is hardly conceivable that
Paul would have implied any opposition towards them, if his aim was to show that
real fellowship existed between him and them. It is much more probable, therefore,
that Paul is referring to the reputation of James, Cephas, and John in order to bring
out more forcefully the significance of his agreement with them. It was as if Paul
had said that even the acknowledged ‘pillars’ were prepared to have fellowship
with him (cf. Luther).
gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship: in modern parlance
this means that they all shook hands to signify agreement. Then as now refusal to
shake hands would have been regarded as an open testimony to disunity. The
characteristic word ‘fellowship’ (koindnia) sums up the true sense of Christian
oneness. Such fellowship would be completely denied by the policy which the false
brethren were insisting upon. The word for fellowship contains the basic idea of
sharing and implies some common ground. There was nothing to prevent Paul and
the ‘pillar’ apostles from joining forces.
that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised: in the Greek
there is no verb, but it is implied by the preposition (eis), which occurs in both
phrases and which expresses the goal of the activity of each group.
10. only they would have us remember the poor: again the Greek con-
struction is unusual, as the verb here is introduced in a subordinate clause (with
hina) but without a main clause. Some such main verb as ‘they requested that’
might be understood, or else*this present clause should be interpreted as an
accompaniment of the similar clause in the previous verse and the meaning of the
whole would be as follows: “They extended the right hand of fellowship so as to
make it plain that we went to the Gentiles and with the one proviso that we should
not forget the poor.’
The condition of the Judean Christians was the cause of Paul’s collection scheme.
Their poverty called forth the sympathy of the Gentile churches (cf. Rom. 15.25ff.;
1 C. 16.1ff.; 2 C. 8.1ff.; 9.1ff.). Here it was the one condition laid upon Paul and
his main reason for mentioning it was to exclude the possibility of any other
conditions. It should be noted that the verb ‘remember’ is in the present tense and
implies continual memory. Cf. Bring’s discussion of the collection.
which very thing I was eager to do: Paul changes to the first person singular
here, so excluding Barnabas. It was Paul who was perhaps the chief architect of the
schemes for helping the poor. He is particularly concerned to emphasize his eager-
ness, even to the extent of anxiety as the Greek word implies, to do what the
authorities suggested. It is strange that Paul uses a past tense (aorist) when referring
to his eagerness, but this must be understood of his diligence subsequent to the
GALATIANS 2.10-I2 84

Jerusalem meeting, but before the writing of the letter. The readers may well have
had evidence of Paul’s deep interest in Gentile benevolence towards their afflicted
Jewish brethren.
11. But when Cephas came to Antioch: for a full discussion of the timing of
this incident, sce Introduction, pp. 31 ff. The salient points to be noted here are as
follows. (a) The introductory particle (Greek de) need not imply that this incident
was next in sequence to the last. It is clearly intended rather to draw attention to
the inconsistency of Peter’s action in view of the agreement reached, as reported in
the previous section. (b) The location of the incident was no doubt the Syrian
Antioch, not Antioch of Pisidia. This is significant because of its importance in
early Christian missionary activity, where the matter of Jewish-Gentile fellowship
would at once have been an issue of critical decision. (c) It would seem that Cephas
came into an existing situation and at first conformed to the practice which had
already been adopted. In this respect Antioch was clearly more broadminded than
Jerusalem, owing, no doubt, to the less exclusive character of Hellenistic Judaism.
I opposed him to his face: the sole reason for Paul’s mentioning this personal
confrontation with Peter is to add further support to his previous arguments that
he was not called upon to submit his policies to the Jerusalem authorities. When
he actually withstood Peter publicly before the Antioch church, there could not
have been a clearer evidence of his own apostolic status. Peter’s action called forth
opposition, for it was by inference an attack on Paul’s own policy, and also if the
inference mentioned in the previous note is correct, it would have amounted to a
criticism of current Antiochene practice. Paul would have gained a considerable
amount of sympathy for his action.
because he stood condemned: by this brief phrase Paul gives the reason for his
opposition. Since he does not say who condemned Peter and since it is highly
unlikely that it was the church at Antioch, however much they may have
questioned his actions, it seems best to suppose that Paul regarded Peter as self-
condemned. His inconsistency was so apparent that there was no question of any
communal decision about the matter. It was unnecessary.
_ 12. certain men came from James: this expression may be compared with
Ac. 15.1, where there is a reference to some men coming down from Judea. There
can be no question that these belonged to the circumcision party, which believed
that all Gentiles should be circumcised, and which was apparently appealing to the
authority of James in support of their demands. If they had been commissioned by
James personally, it would be extremely difficult to harmonize this with James’
action reported in verse 9, unless some considerable interval separated the events.
Since this is unlikely it is more probable that these men were doing some special
mission under the direction of James and had not been specifically sent to spy out
the position regarding Jewish-Gentile fellowship. They possibly protested when
they saw what had happened and their protests may have been the occasion of
Peter’s inconsistency, since he wished to avoid a rift.
85 GALATIANS 2.12-13

he ate with the Gentiles: the food laws of Judaism were stringent, based on
Levitical law. Segregation from Gentiles while eating was not because of any
personal animosity towards the individual Gentiles concerned, but because of the
fear of contamination by eating food forbidden under the law. It was, therefore,
an essentially protective measure. It is understandable that many Jewish Christians,
with their continued respect for the Old Testament teaching, would assume
without question that the old prohibitions still existed. But Christian liberty and
fellowship were never intended to be shackled by ancient taboos. Peter had been
large-hearted enough to recognize this, until the narrower Jewish Christian
brethren arrived. If the Gentile is freed from the necessity of circumcision, he
cannot be bound by the concommitant food taboos. Indeed, the Christian gospel
demanded a new approach to the whole subject of taboos.
he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party: separa-
tion among brethren is not only lamentable but always causes embarrassment to the
whole movement. We are left to imagine what the Gentile believers thought about
it when not only Peter and all the Jewish believers but also Barnabas withdrew.
These probably at once discussed the matter with Paul, whose keen perception saw
the wider implication of the matter. Peter’s fear of the circumcision party seems to
have outweighed entirely any consideration he may have had for the Gentile
brethren. Paul’s use of the imperfect tense in the verbs denoting withdrawal is
significant in that it suggests a process rather than a single action. Perhaps Peter
vaccillated in his mind before finally yielding to the circumcision party.
13. with him the rest of the Jews: Peter’s action was all the more blame-
worthy because it implicated many others. If the chief apostle is bound by Jewish
scruples, it is no wonder that all the Jews follow suit. This is a fitting reminder that
Christian leadership always involves responsibility towards others. Nothing could
make plainer than the action of these Jews that Peter’s policy could not fail to
produce a distinct division within the church. Any action which was divisive
destroyed the essential ingredients of Christian fellowship.
acted insincerely: the word used is a colourful one. It means to play the hypocrite
together with others. The underlying Greek word was that used of actors hiding
their true selves behind the role they were playing. The implication is that neither
Peter nor the other Jews were acting true to character when they withdrew.
They were in fact going against their better judgment, and were giving a totally
wrong impression.
even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity: Barnabas was well
known to the Galatians, and in all probability the readers had heard about his
implication in this affair, for the false brethren would not have allowed such
a notable support for their contentions to pass unnoticed. But it is important
to observe that Paul does not suggest that he played any active part in the dissi-
mulation, for not only does the verb appear in the passive but its very meaning
implies that Barnabas was swept off his balance. It is also noteworthy that Barna-
GALATIANS 2.13-15 86
bas is not himself charged directly with insincerity, but is implicated in ‘their
insincerity’.
14. But when I saw: compare verse 7, where the same verb is used of the
Jerusalem authorities’ observance of Paul. Here it is the opposite. Paul conceives
himself as a kind of watch-dog for the gospel. It is possible that he had been in
Antioch all the time, and the perception to which he refers was the point at which
the full implication of Peter’s action dawned upon him. But more probably he was
absent for a time and observed the situation when he returned.
they were not straightforward: literally the word means that they did not walk
straight, suggesting a crookedness of action. Peter and his fellow-Jews were looking
in one direction and walking in another. Onlookers would never know the truth
about the gospel from their actions. Many times in the history of the Church
inconsistency has marred the witness to the truth. Straightforwardness is as essential
now as it was then. The major problem with all forms of inconsistency is the
unawareness of it on the part of those involved. It often takes a spectator to see the
position clearly.
I said to Cephas before them all: evidently a gathering of the whole is in mind,
but whether it was called specifically for the purpose is not stated. Paul considered
a public remonstrance was essential, because of the basic principle involved.
‘If you, though a Jew . . .”: Paul’s statement must be understood in the context
of the religious taboos under dispute. It was Peter’s ostensible allegiance to Jewish
religious demands, while at the same time living generally according to Gentile
customs, which showed the inconsistency.
‘how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’ Whether Peter had
been a party to the demand by some that Gentiles should be circumcised is not
stated, but his separatist action implied that the only satisfactory solution would
be for Gentiles to adopt Jewish customs. There seems to be no question here -
whether or not Peter was previously right when he was prepared to live like a
Gentile. Paul takes it for granted that his previous policy was proper. His failure
was an inability to recognize the implications of this. He probably thought that
- compromise was the best solution, both Jews and Gentiles keeping respectively to
their own customs. But Paul saw with acute penetration that this was no solution
at all.
15. With this verse Paul leaves his historical comments and passes on to a
theological discussion of the main principles lying behind the incidents just men-
tioned, although he still mentally addresses Peter and his fellow Christian Jews.
We ourselves, who are Jews by birth: this refers primarily to Peter and Paul,
but embraces all Jewish Christians. Every Jew was particularly conscious of the
richness of his heritage, and this accounts for his pride in his birth-rights.
not Gentile sinners: the description here must be viewed from the standpoint of
the law. According to this standard all Gentiles have fallen short. Here the apostle
is thinking mainly of the fact that Gentiles were outside the old covenant. But the
87 GALATIANS 2.15-16

major point of his argument is not that Jewish privileges must be compared with
Gentile guiltiness, but that the best of Jews with all their privileges must still come
through faith, and not works.
16. yet who know: the Christian faith is an intelligent faith, and there are
certain fundamental facets which must be known by all believers. The content of
knowledge here is Paul’s theme not only through most of this epistle but also in
the Epistle to the Romans. Both Peter and Paul are convinced about the validity
of the assertion that faith, not works, justifies a man. It is important to recognize
that the starting-point of Paul’s doctrinal argument is an appeal to a basic con-
viction.
not justified by works of the law: the verb used here (dikaiod) is so characteristic
of Paul and so integral to his theology that a right understanding of it is imperative.
In the RSV margin it is rendered ‘reckoned righteous’, i.e. regarded as righteous or
approved in the sight of God. Burton rightly maintains the forensic aspect in this
word (46of.). The issue at stake was the means by which a man might attain a right
standing before God. Whatever marred God’s highest purpose for man merits
condemnation, and justification is inextricably linked with the divinely appointed
means of obtaining release from this condemnation. Moreover, the ideas of
reconciliation and restoration are not lacking. A man cannot be regarded as
righteous in God’s eyes if any sin remains unforgiven and if the man is still left in
his old relationship. Justification is consequently more than merely legal acquittal.
In Paul’s vocabulary ‘works of the law’ always denote efforts to attain a stated goal
by conformity to a legal pattern, and have a particular application to the Jewish
doctrine of works (or merit). It should be noted that the Greek phrase contains no
article and need not therefore be restricted to the law of Moses. There is no
justification through the mere observance of any form of legal code.
through faith inJesus Christ: the words could be construed to mean ‘faith of
Jesus Christ’, but that would not be meaningful in this context. It clearly means
that faith which is centred upon Jesus Christ. Faith is set over against law, but it is
worth noting that Paul uses a different preposition. In the former phrase he uses ek
(i.e. out of works of the law) but here he uses dia (through). The first draws
attention to origin, the second to agency. Justification does not proceed from faith
any more than works, but it is appropriated by faith (cf. the similar distinction in
Rom. 3.30; Phil. 3.9). But see the further comment on ek in the note below.
even we have believed in Christ Jesus: the pronoun ‘we’ (hémeis) is emphatic
here and is clearly intended to reinforce the similar pronoun in the previous verse.
The formula used is literally ‘believed into Christ Jesus’, and conveys a character-
istic of Christian faith, ie. the entrusting of oneself to Christ. The change from
Jesus Christ to Christ Jesus has no significance, and shows the interchangable
character of these forms.
in order to be justified by faith in Christ: the repetition of the word ‘faith’ here,
where it is not strictly needed in view of the preceding statement, serves to empha-~
GALATIANS 2.16-17 88

size its cardinal importance in Paul’s theology. He loses no opportunity to place

emphasis upon it. Again, faith in Christ is expressed by the genitive, which must
again mean that kind of faith of which Christ is the object. In the phrase, ‘by faith’
the preposition used (ek) denotes source and not agency (cf. dia in the previous
phrase). The reason for the change is not easy to determine. It may be that in this
case Paul’s mind is obsessed with the contrast between faith and works, and for
this reason he brings out the parallel in the preposition (cf. Lightfoot).
not by works . . . no one be justified: there is more repetition here, but Paul
repeats the impossibility of justification by mere works in order to cite an Old
Testament passage in support, although he cites very freely. It is from Ps. 143.2.
It is thereby claimed to be an authoritative Scriptural principle that no living
person (Greek sarx, flesh) shall be justified, i.e. on his own merits.
17. in our endeavour to be justified in Christ: the apostle thinks of it as a
quest requiring effort. Indeed, the expression is particularly appropriate for those
who, in spite of being Christians, imagine their own efforts will contribute some-
thing to secure acceptance with God.
we ourselves: is Paul still thinking of Peter and the Jewish Christians ?The nice
verse only becomes intelligible if this assumption is made. The matter under
discussion has point only for those who have been in the habit of thinking of
justification in terms of law, as the following statement shows.
if... we... were found to be sinners: the connection of thought is not
obvious. Is Paul thinking purely hypothetically or is he basing his argument on
experience? The ‘if’ clause suggests that he is putting it in the form of a rhetorical
question to draw attention to the obvious answer which must be given. In all
probability, the Judaizers were maintaining that all who were ignoring the cere-
monial requirements of the law were found to be sinners, just as they were in the
habit of describing Gentiles (as Paul does in verse 15). If so, Paul nullifies the
position by implying that all who seek justification in Christ, by that very quest,
place themselves in the category of sinners. But the ‘if’ clause may be intended to
suggest an impossible state of affairs. If what the Jewish teachers conceive to be
justification in Christ leads to an increase of sin, clearly there must be something
wrong with their conception of justification.
is Christ then an agent of sin? The thought is that if the process of justification
leads men into sin, this would make Christ an agent for producing sin, which
would clearly be opposed to the nature of Christ. Paul strongly repudiates such an
idea.
Certainly not! This represents a characteristic Pauline repudiation of an unthink-
able suggestion (Greek mé genoito). It is frequently used in the Epistle to the
Romans. There is no doubt that Paul rejects the conclusion (that Christ is an agent
of sin), but does he reject the supposition that turning from the law makes men
sinners? He seems rather to be rejecting the notion that justification can leave sin
untouched.
 89 GALATIANS 2.18-19
18. But if I build up again: it is clear from the Greek conjunction used here
(gar) that there is a close connection between this and the preceding statements.
The rebuilding relates therefore to the idea of seeking justification by works, and
so Paul maintains that such an action would make him a transgressor. It is to be
noted that Paul, for the sake of demonstrating his point, is applying to himself the
procedure adopted by the false teachers. It was they who were attempting to
rebuild the citadel of the law and it was they who were demonstrating that they
were transgressors. But it was much more effective for Paul to describe the process
in the first person, because by this means he tactfully avoided sounding officious.
those things which I tore down: the same verb as is used here (katalué) is used
metaphorically of annulling or abrogating. It was appropriate, therefore, in a
context in which Paul is referring to the annulling of the statutes of the law. The
tearing-~down operations were strenuous enough, but it would be more than mere
folly to begin to rebuild. It would be sinful to reimpose law as a method of
salvation.
I prove myselfa transgressor: the verb is much more forceful than the words
‘were found to be sinners’ in the previous verse, because the action is described as
active rather than as passive. The responsibility would rest squarely on the shoul-
ders of Paul himself if he acted so inconsistently, as the argument supposes. The
change from ‘sinners’ (hamartéloi) to “transgressor’ (parabatés) is noticeable, and
draws more specific attention to contravention of that which is right. The word
means ‘one who steps aside’, used in a metaphorical sense of one who deviates from
a straight path. Paul uses it in this sense in Rom. 2.25, 27, apart from which it occurs
only in Jas 2.9, 11 in the New Testament.
19. For I through the law died to the law: the drift of Paul’s argument can be
understood as follows. He thinks that the real transgressors of the law are the very
people who are claiming to be its main supporters. But having transferred the
argument to himself, he realizes at once that the conclusion just stated at the end
of verse 18 is contrary to his own experience. He has died to the law, and any
rebuilding on the basis of law is clearly impossible. But what does he mean by
dying to the law? The answer seems to be that he ceased to live in that world in
which law was dominant (i.e. inJudaism). This dying had in fact come about by
his experience under the law (cf. especially Rom. 7 as a commentary on this
statement). The expression really stands for the idea of the law dying as the con-
trolling principle of Paul’s life, but it is much more vivid when Paul speaks as if it
was he himself who had died to the law. Moreover, it forms a better parallel with
the following phrase.
that I might live to God: Paul could never leave any description of his experience
on a negative note. Dying to the law immediately suggests living to God. The one
results from the other. The expression ‘live to God’ is clearly intended to contrast
with ‘died to the law’, and must therefore mean life under the control of God and
GALATIANS 2.19-20 90
for the honour of God, as contrasted with the mere observance of legal statutes.
Legalism could not infuse life, a fact that Paul had had to learn the hard way and
which the Judaizers had apparently not yet begun to learn.
20. I have been crucified with Christ: the transformation from death to life
causes Paul to dwell on the means by which this had been achieved, and his mind
turns instinctively to the cross of Christ. But he does not give a theological
exposition. Instead he shows the part played by the cross in his own experience.
The expression of it is mystical, and for that reason is difficult to fathom, but it
is clear enough that Paul conceives that he had a part in Christ’s experience on the
cross. He may be thinking of the objective effects of Christ’s death which every
believer enjoys, or he may be meditating on the believer’s fellowship with Christ
in being called upon to endure a similar spiritual crucifixion to self. The tense of
the verb (perfect) suggests that Paul is thinking of that specific completed event
which marked his identification with Christ and which has had an enduring effect
upon his life. The persecutor Saul would never have become the missionary Paul
by his own efforts. Saul had to die with Christ.
it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me: Paul’s sequence of
argument is clear. ‘I died’ is explained as being crucified with Christ; ‘I live’ as
Christ living in me. In one sense the apostle has ceased to have his own inde-
pendent experiences. He has become so identified with Christ that what Christ
does, he does. Yet when in this context he speaks of living, he gives a slightly
different slant to it. It is not merely that he lives with Christ, but that Christ takes
up his abode with him. There is a touch here of Paul’s mystical ‘in Christ’ train of
thought, but rather less mystical, for Paul thinks of himself as having become so
closely identified with Christ that Christ dominates his whole experience
cf, Duncan).
and the life I now live in the flesh: what Paul means is that if he now talks of
life in the generally accepted sense of the word, he thinks no longer of carnal living
pursuing the desires and impulses of the self, but a new kind of living, a faith-life.
The ‘now’ in this phrase marks the transition from his old life. Flesh (sarx) is used
to draw out the contrast between the physical and spiritual aspects of life.
I live by faith in the Son of God: the same preposition is used with the word
‘faith’ as is used with ‘flesh’ (Greek en), which suggests that Paul is here thinking
of faith as the sphere in which he lives. But he is careful to define the faith, which
is specifically centred in the Son of God. Some texts read “of God and of Christ’
instead of ‘Son of God’, but the latter is probably correct. Whichever is the true
reading, it is noticeable that this statement draws attention to the divine character
of the object of faith, and accordingly enhances the value of the life of faith itself.
who loved me and gave himself for me: the mention of faith in Christ as Son
of God leads Paul to dwell on what he has done. This is a dominant idea which
occurs elsewhere in Paul’s letters (cf. Rom. 4.25; 8.32; Eph. 5.25), and in each
OI GALATIANS 2.20-3.1

instance the same verb is used (paradidémi). The combination of the concepts of
love and sacrifice shows that the apostle has no harsh legalistic interpretation of the
death of Christ. To him Christ’s self-giving upon the cross was a definite act on
his behalf (huper emou). The main wonder for him is the love which prompted it.
The motive of love behind the self-giving of Christ is not only a powerful aspect
of Paul’s doctrine of the Atonement, but it is strongly emphasized in other streams
of New Testament teaching. Nothing but love would have been a sufficient motive
for God to send his Son to the cross, nor for the Son voluntarily to accept it.
21. I do not nullify the grace of God: the sudden introduction of this state-
ment may suggest that Paul is answering some criticism that he is in fact setting
aside the grace of God, i.e. as it is seen operating in the law. In this case his state-
ment amounts to an emphatic refutation. Yet there is no special emphasis in the
Greek of this sentence. It is better, therefore, to regard it as a brief summary of
Paul’s present position. In identifying himself with the crucified Christ, he was not
making of none effect God’s grace, and the implication seems to be that by contrast
the Judaizers are doing precisely this. For a comment on the word ‘grace’, see 1.15.
for if justification were through the law: here Paul summarizes the position
of the Judaizers. “Through the law’ is in direct contrast to the phrase ‘by faith’.
This antithesis is constantly in Paul’s mind in this epistle and in the Epistle to the
Romans. He once again draws from personal experience. He had tried to gain
justification through law and had utterly failed. As he ponders the hypothetical
possibility, he at once sees the implication it would have for his understanding of
the Atonement.
then Christ died to no purpose: the necessity for Christ’s death rests on the
utter failure of all human methods of being justified. If legal observance could have
achieved it there would have been no need for the cross. But since the cross is a
fact, it must imply in Paul’s reasoning that there was a definite purpose behind it.
This is a basic assumption of all early Christian Christology. To the apostle it was
so utterly unthinkable that Christ died to no purpose that he does not even con-
sider that there is any alternative but to reject justification through law.

THE DOCTRINAL ARGUMENT 3.14.31

THe GALATIANS OWN EXPERIENCE 3.1-5

3-1. O foolish Galatians: the description given here, which is prompted by

Paul’s contemplation of the folly of seeking justification by the works of the law,
suggests not so much inability to think as a failure to use one’s mental powers. The
suggestion is that anyone with spiritual perception ought to be able to see the
impossibility of legal efforts to save a man. This idea Paul proceeds to develop.
The fact that he addresses his readers by name suggests strong feeling on his part,
mostly of indignation that they should have allowed themselves to be misled.
 3.1I-2 Q2
GALATIANS

Who has bewitched you: the verb is one that was sometimes used in magical
spells, and while we cannot suppose that the apostle had any personal acquaintance
with contemporary magic, the word is vividly appropriate. They had looked,
but had not seen. It was as if some spell upon them completely distorted their
vision. The apostle cannot imagine that any whose minds were not under some
external influence would have been so foolish as these Galatians. He can only
suggest somewhat ironically that they must be under some adverse magic.
Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified: Paul is here using a sug-
gestive figure of speech. Items of news were normally announced in the ancient
world by means of a placard in some prominent place where it would catch the
public eye. When Paul had preached to the Galatians it was as if he had held up
before them some such placard (Lightfoot). And yet their eyes had turned away
from it.
The tense of the word ‘crucified’ should be noted, for the perfect participle means
literally ‘having been crucified’, and suggests that more than the mere historic event
hence
is in mind, Paul is thinking in fact of the abiding significance of the event,
the perfect tense. The cross occupied a large place in the thoughts of the apostle in
this epistle, and is undoubtedly central to his theology of justification. His basic
assumption here is that those who have looked upon the cross should be free of
adverse influences. It was an anomaly that any who had understood the significance
of that event should ever be bewitched.
2. Let me ask you only this: literally the words should read, ‘this thing alone
I am wanting to learn from you’, although the verb (manthané) should probably
be understood here in the sense of ‘ascertain’. Paul is clearly not asking for infor-
verb? Is
mation, for he knows the answer. Why then does he use this particular
he wishing to imply that for a moment he has become a pupil to these senseless
people? That is probably reading more into the verb than is warranted. Paul is
rather like a teacher with a class of unresponsive children demanding an answer
from them which will banish their inattention. Such a dialogue method of argu-
ment is used elsewhere to equally good effect by the apostle (cf., for example,
Rom. 2).
Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law? The apostle appeals to the
experience of his readers. How did they become Christians? They knew very well
it was not by fulfilling the law. The coming of the Spirit upon them marked their
initiation. They could not deny that law had had nothing to do with it. This is the
first of many references in this epistle to the Holy Spirit. It is significant that Paul
takes for granted here, what he specifically states in Rom. 8.9, that every believer
possesses the Spirit of Christ.
or by hearing with faith? The Greek phrase so translated is exactly parallel in
form to the antithetical ‘by the works of the law’, and could be rendered literally
‘by hearing of faith’. Yet there is a difference, for ‘works of the law’ are works done
in conformity with law, whereas the present phrase means the kind of hearing
93 GALATIANS 3.2-5
which leads to and is, therefore, accompanied by faith. The gift of the Spirit comes
when faith gives its response to the preaching of the gospel.
3- Are you so foolish? He does not answer the first question. It must have
seemed to him too obvious to need answering. So he asks another, calculated once
again to bring them to their senses, almost as if he can hardly credit the extent of
their folly.
Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?
The compound verb rendered ‘begun’ (enarchomai) is used in the New Testament
only here and in Phil. 1.6, and in both cases Paul links it with the same verb
(epiteled, to complete). The question as Paul states it here is incongruous, for such
an antithesis exists between Spirit and flesh that it is impossible to begin with spirit
and end with flesh. What Paul means therefore is that abandonment of the Spirit
excludes the possibility of ending. If they are trying to do so, this shows the extent
of their folly. The order of the Greek words in this statement is not without
importance, for the word Spirit (Pneumati) is brought into juxtaposition with flesh
(sarki), no doubt to heighten the contrast.
4. Did you experience so many things in vain? The question may be
endered, ‘Did you suffer?’ Either interpretation is possible. If, of course, the
Galatians had actually suffered for their faith, Paul’s allusion to it here would be
very much to the point. But if the other rendering is preferred, the reference
would be to the general Christian experience of the readers (Lietzmann). The
word is neutral, but all the other occurrences of it in the New Testament are in
the sense of misfortunes. It would be expected that if the experiences did not
involve suffering some qualifying word would have been inserted to indicate this.
The second rendering would seem to have rather more in its favour. In either
case, the apostle appeals to what they have already known. Could they possibly
regard this as vanity? The phrase ‘in vain’ (eiké) can mean either ‘ineffectively’ or
‘needlessly’, the latter obviously being more appropriate if the verb is understood
to mean suffering. They could have avoided suffering altogether if they had begun
in the flesh.
if it really is in vain: it would seem that Paul is still hopeful that they will change
their approach and so save the results of their previous experience. In other words,
he wants to put out of his mind the possibility that his previous work among them
was to no effect. The present statement seems intended to indicate that Paul is
treating his argument as hypothetical.
5. he who supplies the Spirit to you: this is an indirect description of God,
calling attention to the origin of the gifts of the Spirit. If the readers are turning
away from the Spirit they are turning away from God. The verb used here is also
used by Paul in 2 C. 9.10 and Col. 2.19, and the corresponding noun in Eph. 4.16
and Phil. 1.19, in all of which instances there is the idea of abundant supply. In
Phil. 1.19, the notion is applied as here to the Spirit.
and works miracles among you: there is but one article in Greek to serve both
 94
GALATIANS 3.5—6
ion between the gift of the
the last phrase and this, which shows the close connect
the divine power as the
Spirit and miracles. The latter word focuses attention upon
that the latter is a
former does on the divine grace. It could also be understood the
ous manifestation of
description of the former, in which case it is the miracul
gift of the Spirit more
Spirit which is in mind. But it seems better to regard the
as represe nting all spiritua l gifts (so Burton) .
comprehensively
is almost a reproduction
Does he . . . do so by works . . . or by hearing? This
the emphasis now
of the question in verse 2, with the significant difference that
nts to the giver. Neither the Galatia ns receive d nor did God
shifts from the recipie
act of pure grace which
give His Spirit according to legal measurements. It was an
questio n here arises from Paul’s doctrine
faith alone was able to appropriate. The spiritual
conceiv e of God as being bound by law. The
of God. He could never was
Since the Spirit
character of God demanded an altogether different motive. re an
of the law were therefo
essentially a gift, it could not be earned. Works argued
on of a gift from such a source. If it be
incongruous channel for the recepti
acknowledged that the
that law as much as Spirit originates with God, it must be
by human effort, the other
fundamental difference is that one must be obeyed
received by faith.
Tue CasE OF ABRAHAM 3.6-9
m appears
6. Thus Abraham believed God: Paul’s sudden appeal to Abraha
will recognize at
somewhat unexpected, but he evidently assumes that his readers
posited. The apostle
once that the case of Abraham answers the question he has just
that Scripture supplies a
proceeds to cite Gen. 15.6 in such a way as to imply
be acquainted
conclusive answer. He assumes that these Gentile Galatians would
features of Abraham ’s life. That the stateme nt cited must have been
with the salient
4.3 and Jas 2.23.
very well known is clear from the fact that it appears in Rom.
It is most probable
But what interest would the Gentiles have had in Abraham?
would soon learn the signific ance of Abraha m for the history
that Gentile converts
the Judaizer s had already
of salvation. In the case of the Galatians it is possible that
ision and that Paul found it necessary
appealed to Abraham in support of circumc
m is a witness for faith over against works. The passage cited
to show that Abraha
Jews at this time, and the apostle had no doubt been
was much debated among the
involved with it before his conversion (cf. Lightfo ot).
at his word
In what sense did Abraham ‘believe’? He was prepared to take God
promise d him a multitu dinous inherita nce, but what connect ion did this
when he
ion here, i.e. that all
have with Christian faith? Paul makes a tremendous assumpt
readers will at
true faith in God is a unity. Moreover, he further assumes that his
to this. They would readily recogniz e that there was nothing Abraham
once assent
nce, in view of the barrenne ss
could himself do to implement the promised inherita
believe in an attitude of utter depende nce upon
of Sarah. All he could do was to
faith. The principle
God, and it is this element which is common to all true
95 GALATIANS 3.6-8
underlying Abraham’s faith was no different from the basic principle of Christian
faith, although the latter was necessarily more comprehensive because of the
revelation of Christ.
‘reckoned to him as righteousness’: the verb involves the idea of calculation.
It is a metaphor drawn from the realm of accountancy, and yet the commercial
illustration must not be pushed too far. The reckoning was a reckoning of divine
grace, far removed from any idea of merit or of debt. The statement clearly means
that Abraham was regarded as a righteous man on the basis of his preparedness to
believe God. The apostle develops the same thought more fully in Rom. 4.
7. So you see: Paul proceeds to show the logical outcome of the Scriptural
statement about Abraham. The verb is gindsk6 (to know) and implies here mental
perception. The readers should know the implication of Abraham’s faith. The
verb could be regarded as imperative (so Emmet), but this is less likely.
men of faith: it is significant that Paul does not define the object of faith, because
to him Abraham’s faith was the same kind as Christian faith. The Greek phrase
means literally ‘those who proceed from faith as their source’, i.e. those in whom
faith is basic. ;
sons of Abraham: this was no doubt an echo of a term that the Judaizers were
using. To be sons of Abraham, they were maintaining, it was essential to be
circumcised. This was considered so great a privilege for the Jew that it is not
surprising that the idea of becoming one of the faithful was appealing to Gentiles.
See the comment on 4.5 on the non-Jewish notion of adoption. The Jewish argu-
ment is understandable, since circumcision was, after all, the sign of the inheritors
of the Abrahamic covenant, but Paul lifts the idea of ‘sons of Abraham’ from a
physical to a spiritual level. A son must substantiate his claims by walking in the
footsteps of the father, and in this case it was very evidently a matter of faith. Paul
sees that the common link of faith is a much stronger basis for sonship than
physical descent.
8. And the scripture: this verse is closely connected with the last and develops
the idea of Abraham’s family by again appealing to Scripture. Since Paul is dealing
with Judaizers he is particularly anxious to answer their arguments from Scripture,
which they would have regarded as authoritative in common with all the early
Christians.
foreseeing that God would justify: Paul treats Scripture as a personal agency,
no doubt because of his deep conviction that God speaks through it. By the verb
‘foreseeing’ (proidousa), Paul indicates something more than priority in time. It
implies a view of the continuity of the new order with the old. What happened
in Abraham’s day was, in fact, a forecast for the future. The faith element in God’s
method of justification is therefore timeless.
the Gentiles by faith: the thought here is that the promise to Abraham must have
embraced the Gentiles since the promise extended to all nations, and this inclusion
had come not by circumcision but by faith.
 3.8-10 96
GALATIANS

preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham: the choice of this verb in

relation to Abraham is significant, because it shows Paul’s conviction that the
promise to Abraham foreshadowed the gospel. It was fulfilled only in the gospel.
With this thought may be connected the words of Jesus, “Your father Abraham
rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad’ (Jn 8.56). Both our
Lord and his apostle recognize that there is continuity between Abraham’s faith and
the Christian era. This is clearly more than exegesis of the Genesis passage. It is a
reappraisal of the original promise in the light of the coming of Christ. It was only
in retrospect that it was appreciated that the word to Abraham was to be fulfilled
in the gospel.
‘In thee shall all the nations be blessed’: whereas the Jewish interpretation of
this was that other nations should be blessed through Israel, Paul understands it
more comprehensively of the coming of the gospel to the Gentiles. The statement
verb is
here is based on Gen. 12.3 and Gen. 18.8. The Old Testament form of the
reflexive (‘shall bless themselves’), but the change is clearly more appropriate for
application to the gospel. Paul might well have claimed that by understanding the
words of Genesis as referring to the inclusion of the Gentiles the promise gains
much fuller significance. Contemporary Jewish nationalism could only conceive of
an ideal world with Israel at the centre and with Gentiles subsidiary. That was as
far as the blessing could reach. But Paul has a larger vision.
9. So then: this verse is presented as a sequel to the last. Paul is drawing out the
consequences of the promise to Abraham for the present situation. In view of what
is admittedly true about Abraham, Paul considers that it must be equally true for
all genuine faith.
men of faith: this takes up the same phrase as in verse 7, but applies it differently.
Here the emphasis is laid on the blessing, there on the status of sonship.
blessed with Abraham who had faith: more literally this would read ‘with
faithful Abraham’ (as AV). Nevertheless, the adjective certainly has an active
meaning here, which the RSV clearly brings out. The other rendering would
suggest trustworthiness which does not fit the context. Abraham was a shining
example of a ‘man of faith’ (ho ek pisteds).

Tue DIFFERENT RESULTS FROM FAITH AND WORKS 3-10-14

10. For all who rely on works of the law: the same phrase is used in verses 2
and 5, with the addition of the word ‘all’ (hosoi), which makes it more compre-
hensive than Judaizers alone. Any who rely on legal efforts, whether Jew or Gentile,
are included, Although Paul develops a new line of argument, he makes this
connect up closely with the preceding argument, as is clear from the initial
conjunction “for’ (gar).
under a curse: the idea is of separation from God and is the very antithesis of
blessing.
97 GALATIANS 3.10-12
‘Cursed be . . . and do them’: this quotation of Scripture is from Dt. 27.26,
where it closes the list of curses pronounced at Mount Ebal. When Paul uses the
formula ‘It is written’ (gegraptai) he is doing so in more than a merely formal way.
It is an assertion of the authority of Scripture. To show that Scripture itself demon-
strates the judgment due to all who do not abide by everything in the law would
clearly be an effective argument in refuting those who were appealing to Scripture
in support of a continued legal approach to righteousness. The point is not that
justification by works of the law was impossible. But by insisting on the necessity
of any part of the law (such as circumcision) the Judaizers were, argues Paul,
incurring a curse if they failed in any other part of it. The fact was that law as a
means of salvation could bring only acurse and was therefore ineffective
(cf. Bring).
11. Now it is evident: the word used (délon) means “clear to the mind’, in a
way that should be generally admitted.
justified before God: the addition of the words “before God’ (para té Thed)
focuses attention on justification as seen in the eyes of God, and is contrasted with
any human interpretation of justification. An altogether different standard would
have obtained if man could have decided his own means. He would certainly have
chosen a course which would have ministered to his pride, which is precisely the
effect of the emphasis among the Judaizers on works of the law.
by the law: it is important to note that throughout his argument Paul is not
denying the function of law but only a legalistic interpretation of it.
‘He who through faith is righteous shall live’: here is a citation from Hab. 2.4,
but without any introductory formula. It evidently had made a deep impression
on the mind of Paul, for it is cited also in Rom. 1.17, and may be said to be the key
to the understanding of that epistle. No doubt its main appeal lay in its combina-
tion of faith and righteousness in a sense close to its Christian meaning. The words’
undoubtedly had a deeper meaning for Paul than for Habakkuk, but the germinal
ideas were there. Thus ‘faith’ becomes faith in Christ, ‘righteous’ means accounted
righteous in God’s sight, ‘living’ refers to the highest form of life, embracing
eternal life.
The rendering could be, ‘the righteous shall live by faith’ (RSV margin), in which
case the function of faith in the continuing life of the justified is in mind. But the
former translation is preferable, especially as it has more relevance to Paul's
argument here, although the former fits better the historical context of Habakkuk.
12. but the law does not rest on faith: there is no point of contact between
law and faith. A man is not called upon to believe the law but to do. it. In the
Greek no verb is used, but the idea is expressed by the prepositional phrase (ek
pistes) already used several times in this epistle, which in this case effectively denies
that law proceeds from faith. The apostle is not, of course, asserting that no legalist
can possess faith, but that law does not depend on faith for its basis (so Duncan).
‘He who does them shall live by them’: this is the essence of legalism. The law
 98
GALATIANS 3.12-13

lays down its commandments. Those who fail to fulfil them incur its condemna-
tion, whatever their own attitude might be. Faith in this case is irrelevant. The
echoed elsewhere
statement here is a free rendering of Lev. 18.5 and the same idea is
l statemen t refute Paul’s assertion in
by Paul in Rom. 10.5. But does this Scriptura
so, faith can
the first part of the verse? Is it possible to live by legal observance? If
be ruled out without loss. But the apostle would never make Scriptur e contradict
ate that a pure and perfect legalism,
itself like this. No doubt he means to demonstr
have led to justifica tion. But the mere fact that he
had it been possible, would
he assumes,
reverts in the next verse to dwell on the curse of the law shows that
is able to do, and therefore no-one is
without the necessity to prove, that no-one
able fully
able to live by, the law. Indeed, Christ is the only one who has ever been
to do the law (cf. Bring’s discussio n).
any con-
13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law: without using
The
necting particle Paul abruptly introduces an important doctrinal assertion.
verses have made abundant ly clear that those who seek for justifica tion
previous
new
by legalistic means are in a hopeless position. The only hope is an entirely
in Christ. He has not been mentione d since
departure, and this is where Paul brings
g
verse I. The idea of redemption had originally a commercial significance involvin
slave was sometime s
the payment of a price for the purchase of a slave. Since the
to
bought to be set free, the word particularly signifies ‘deliverance’ when applied
Our Lord’s own ‘ransom’ saying (Mk 10.45) must be under-
the work of Christ.
stood in this sense.
of
But to whom is Paul referring by ‘us’? Clearly those who are under the curse
the law. But does this restrict it to those who have known the yoke of Judaism?
of
This is possible, and would appear to gain some support from the mention
be a distinct group. But it is
Gentiles in the next verse, since these seem to
have so restricted the redempti ve work of Christ.
questionable whether Paul would
of the
It is reasonable to suppose that although he is thinking primarily of himself,
tion by means of law, he
Judaizers and of all those who have tried to attain justifica
the curse, so also were the Gentiles. There
‘would assume that if Jews were under
was no denying that all needed deliverance.
, for it
having become a curse for us: this is the real crux of Paul’s statement
yet the
explains how Christ could redeem men from the curse of the law. And
explanation needs explainin g. How could Christ possibly become a curse for us?
result that some
Such a notion does not come easily to modern minds, with the
with
expositors have maintained that Paul is not dealing here with an actuality but
(so Burton). But this would empty Paul’s
the wrong idea of the Judaizers
argument of its main spearhead. Justification by means of law is impossible because
have
law brings only a curse on those disobeying it. But the fact remains that all
must do somethin g about the curse. This was no
disobeyed and therefore Christ
acute tension
imaginary situation, but an intensely real one. Paul had known the
of it in his own experience. And he had found deliverance only when he realized
 99 GALATIANS 3.13-14
that Christ had done something for him. He uses the preposition huper (which means
‘on behalf of’), but the context implies that Christ took our place in becoming
a curse. What should have come to us went to him. No-one will deny the mystery
of this, but other Scriptures support the underlying principle. Our Lord’s word of
forsakenment on the cross, and Paul’s declaration in 2 C. 5.21 that Christ was made
sin are as unfathomable as this statement, but there is no justification for weaken-
ing them. Paul had caught more than a glimpse of the cost of our redemption. It
should be noted that the apostle uses the word ‘curse’ (katara), not ‘accursed’
(anathema), since the latter would have been unthinkable. He does not state
that Christ had become the curse of God. The curse is defined in relation to the
law.
for it is written: the same formula as in verse 10. Paul is determined to prove his
points from Scripture, not only because he knows that in this he shares common
ground with the Judaizers, but more fundamentally because any truth supported
by Scripture is, in his view, fully authenticated. The formula is repeated again in
4.22, 27. It is significant that in two of its occurrences the apostle is drawing
attention to curses pronounced by the law, in one to rejoicing (4.27) and in the
other to a historical narrative (4.22). Except in 4.22, the formula carries with it an
authoritative tone.
“Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree’: this is quoted from Dt. 21.23,
which in its context refers to the practice of hanging on a tree the body of a
ctiminal who had been put to death. It did not primarily therefore refer to cruci-
fixion. But it would not have been inappropriate to apply it to the crucifixion of
Christ, for his dead body had hung upon the cross before being removed by Joseph
of Arimathea. Paul sees in this statement of Scripture an explanation of how Christ
became a curse. The manner of his death had involved him in this. But the apostle
sees an infinitely deeper significance in Christ’s death than this, for the passage does
not and could not illuminate the mystery of how Christ became a curse for us.
Christ became implicated in the law’s condemnation of those with whom he was
identified. But some expositors interpret Paul’s intentions differently. Since Christ
hung upon a tree, from a legalistic point of view he must be cursed, but no
Christian could admit this, hence the legalistic view must be false (cf. Burton). But
this renders almost unintelligible the first part of the verse. Christ did not redeem
us from something only imaginary or something valid only from a legalist point
of view. The curse resting on the crucified Christ was the same curse resting on
all men.
14. This verse states the results of Christ’s death in a two-fold form: (a) that
Abraham’s blessing might become universal and (b) that all, Jew and Gentile alike,
might receive the Spirit.
in Christ Jesus: whatever blessings have accrued they come only to those in
Christ. The phrase here seems to refer to all Christians as forming a corporate
fellowship with Christ. The idea of a common union in him is integral to Paul’s
theology. See further comment on the phrase in 1.22.
GALATIANS 3.14-I5 100
the blessing of Abraham: Paul returns here to the thought expressed in verse 9.
The promise to Abraham was one of blessing, but the law had intervened with its
curse. However, since Christ has removed the curse of the law by taking it on
himself, a return to Abraham’s blessing is possible. Indeed, Paul states this in a
purpose clause (with hina), which makes clear that the removal of the curse was
n order that the blessing might be shared.
upon the Gentiles: while it was a question of legalism, the Gentiles were excluded
from the blessing. But if the promises come by faith instead of law, as they do in
Christ, there is no longer a barrier. Gentiles are at no disadvantage compared with
Jews.
that we might receive: this further consequence of Christ’s death is similarly
expressed in the form of a purpose clause (hina), and is probably to be taken as
co-ordinate with the first clause. This would mean that the extension of the
blessing to Gentiles and the gift of the Spirit are different aspects of the same
Operation, rather than being distinct from each other. By using the first person
plural here Paul not only includes himself, but comprehensively includes all
Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike.
the promise of the Spirit: in most cases where the word ‘promise’ (epangelia)
occurs in the New Testament it refers to a divine promise in the sense of something
given as a gracious act of God. To what does the promise in this passage relate? It
is natural to link it up with the promise of the Spirit made by Jesus (Lk. 24.49;
Ac. 1.4; Jn 14-16). There were also some Old Testament passages, such as Jl 2.28
and Ezek. 36.27 which pointed forward to the activity of the Spirit. It is highly
unlikely that Paul was unacquainted with the remarkable outpouring of the Spirit
at Pentecost. In any case the Galatians had experienced the presence of the Spirit.
The promise had been realized. The phrase may therefore be understood to mean
‘the promised Spirit’ (Moffatt’s rendering). The fact that Paul associates the gift of
the Spirit with Abraham’s blessing, although there is no mention of the Spirit in
the original promise to Abraham, shows that he conceives the fulfilment of the
blessing to be par excellence in the universal activity of the Spirit in men of
faith, .
through faith: already this has been strongly stressed, but the mention of promise
prompts a further reference. Receiving a promise is an act of faith, not of merit.

PROMISE AND LAW 3.15-29

15ff. Having introduced the idea of promise, Paul at once realizes the necessity
to discuss its relationship to law. The Judaizers, whom he has in mind all along,
would have been as zealous as anyone to claim a share in Abraham’s blessing and
would in fact imagine that they were doing so in insisting on circumcision. In this
next passage the apostle shows how law could not annul promise.
15. To give a human example: this is rather a free rendering of the Greek,
 IOI GALATIANS 3.15-I6

which literally states, ‘I speak according to a man’ (kata anthrdpon), a phrase which
occurs also in Rom. 3.5. In both cases the phrase means that Paul is attempting to
express the matter in terms of human speech and analogy, with the suggestion that
such terms are not entirely adequate to convey divine truths. Here he appeals to a
common practice of his time, and seeks to show how even a human analogy is in
harmony with the statements from Scripture just stated.
no one annuls even a man’s will: the word translated ‘will’ may equally well
be rendered ‘covenant’ (diathéké), but this raises a difficulty. The two ideas are quite
different, and it is important to decide which is correct. At first sight the former
would appear more probable since it is the more normal meaning of the Greek
word. Indeed, the latter meaning finds no support in classical usage, nor in the
inscriptions, nor in the papyri. Yet in the LXX the word almost invariably means
‘covenant’. When the apostle uses a word which for every Christian acquainted
with the Scriptures would have overtones of meaning which were absent from
contemporary usage, it is not easy to decide whether he intends the biblical or
the everyday sense. Since Paul was deeply versed in Septuagint usage, having been
_ steeped in it all his life, he could not have used the word here without thinking of
the idea of a contract between God and man. Moreover, his mind has been
dwelling on God’s covenant with Abraham. At the same time the word “covenant”
is apt to suggest an idea which is not to the fore here. It was not a bargain struck
between God and man. Even Abraham, with all his immense stature as a man of
God, depended wholly on the divine initiative for the effectiveness of the covenant.
It was a matter of grace, and therefore one-sided. Paul may be using the term here
in a sense somewhat between the idea of a ‘will’, which is too restricted because no
mention is made of the death of the testator, and the idea of a covenant. He means
that once an agreement has been made for the disposal of property, nothing can
alter this except the party or parties who have effected the agreement. It cannot be
cancelled by anyone else.
or adds to it: the legal imagery is clear. A codicil which modified the original
terms was always possible in a legal disposition. Paul imagines that some may
regard the law as a kind of codicil to the promise which therefore cancels out the
effect of the latter. But he cannot conceive that God would ever contradict himself
like this, and no-one else had the power to do it, as is sufficiently illustrated by
human dispositions, where only the parties concerned can change the terms.
ratified: when an agreement has been ratified it is actively in force. Paul is thinking
of God’s covenant, which has been operating in history since Abraham’s time.
‘
16. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring: here
Paul identifies the covenant to which he has just alluded. It is no new thing but was
made to Abraham. No-one has since been able to annul it or to modify it. In spite
of its antiquity and in spite of all that has happened during the intervening period,
it still stands ratified.
What significance is to be attached to the change from the singular ‘promise’ in
GALATIANS 3.16-17 102
verse 14 to the plural ‘promises’ here? It is to be noted that in verse 17 Paul returns
to the singular, although the plural reappears in verse 21. In all probability there is
no significance in these changes at all, although the plural may conceivably allude
to the frequent repetition of the same promise to Abraham. This plurality only
serves to emphasize the real basis of Abraham’s inheritance. Romans 9.4 furnishes
another example of Paul’s choice of the plural when speaking of Israel’s heritage.
The inclusion of Abraham’s offspring (the Greek has sperma (seed)) is essential to
Paul’s argument, for the covenant was not restricted to Abraham’s own lifetime.
It spanned the centuries of his descendants. But this idea leads to another, for he
notes that the promise was directed to offspring in the singular and the resultant
comment, though slightly parenthetical, is fraught with deep spiritual meaning, for
it turns his thought once more to Christ. As Duncan points out, Paul is
spiritualizing, not allegorizing as in 4.22f.
It does not say, ‘And to offsprings’, referring to many: is Paul’s argument
valid from a merely grammatical feature? At first it seems not only strange but
strangely unlike Paul to deduce so much from such a narrow basis. From a logical
point of view the singular could as easily denote plurality (considered collectively)
as the plural, just as the English word ‘seed’. An argument of this kind may savour
of illegitimately fine distinctions. And yet Paul is not basing a truth on a small
point of grammar. He has a deep spiritual appraisal of the real nature of
Abraham’s covenant. It was pointing to its fulfilment in Christ (Ridderbos).
Grammar was but indirectly supporting a truth which had already dawned on
the apostle as the real essence of the promise.
referring to one . . . which is Christ: there is no denying that there is a touch
of Rabbinical method in Paul’s argument, but he seems to have at the back of his
mind, even although he does not enlarge upon it, a conviction that none of
Abraham’s seed had inherited the promise until Christ. The real blessing which has
come upon Jew and Gentile alike has come only in Christ. He is the Seed of
Abraham par excellence, and all who are in him are equally Abraham’s sons, as Paul
has already shown in verse 7. The Jewish Christians would not readily admit that
all who were in Christ were thus sons ot Abraham, but this is clearly a deep
conviction with Paul, and because of this he can conceive of all men of faith as
summed up in Christ.
17. This is what I mean: the apostle now proceeds to a further development
of the argument begun in verse 15, and the present phrase draws attention to this.
four hundred and thirty years afterwards: the reason for the mention of the
number of years is to draw attention to the considerable priority of the promise to
the law. There are difficulties over this period of 430 years, for there seems to lave
been difference of opinion whether it referred originally to the sojourn in
Egypt or, as here, to the period separating the patriarchs from the giving of the
law. Exodus 12.40 supports the former in the Hebrew text, but in the LXX the
wording would support the latter. Genesis 15.13 and Ac. 7.6 both mention round
103 GALATIANS 3.17-19
figures of 400 years. There seems to be some confusion over the interpretation of
this period. Josephus makes contradictory statements concerning it. But the precise
explanation of the 430 years is unimportant for Paul’s argument.
a covenant previously ratified by God: this is the crucial factor in the argument.
The promise was ratified long before the law was instituted, therefore on the basis
of the principle enunciated in verse 15, the law could not possibly annul it. Par-
ticularly is this the case since the covenant was ratified by God, which is clearly
intended to contrast vividly with any human covenant, as mentioned in verse 15.
This brings out very clearly the one-sided nature of God’s covenant. So long as he
kept his promise the covenant would stand, for it did not depend on the merit of
the recipients.
so as to make the promise void: the verb used here occurs elsewhere in the
New Testament only in Mt. 15.6 and its parallel in Mk 7.13, where it expresses the
statement of Jesus about the effect of ‘tradition’ on the law (or word) of God. If
the law had made modifications to the promise, it would have emptied the promise
of its original meaning, which in Paul’s view is unthinkable.
18. the inheritance: by this term Paul means to include all the spiritual
blessings promised to Abraham and his seed. The Jews were deeply conscious of
their share in Abraham’s inheritance. This accounts for their jealous concern to
assert that they were Abraham’s children (cf. Jn 8.33). When Jews became
Christians they would not lose this sense of privilege. But the criterion used by the
Judaizers to determine the heirs was different from that used by Paul. The former
said that the qualification was circumcision and legal observance; the latter that
faith alone was sufficient. There could be no compromise between these opposing
principles. Law cancels out promise.
but God gave it to Abraham by a promise: the verb here indicates that behind
the promise was God’s free favour, which would be contradicted if inheritance
came by law. Paul makes this assertion as if there can be no question about it. The
emphatic position of Abraham in the Greek text suggests that Paul regards this
appeal to the historic covenant with Abraham as a conclusive test case. What is
true for Abraham must have a timeless validity. In Paul’s mind, once a divine
promise has been made it could not possibly be nullified without necessitating a
change in the divine character, which for him was unthinkable. It is noteworthy
that Paul’s argument throughout is soundly based in history.
19. Why then the law? If the promise to Abraham was entirely unaffected by
the law, what was the purpose of the law? Paul at once faces this perfectly fair
question which the Judaizers might ask. His argument thus far might seem to
suggest that the law could be completely ignored, and it was clearly essential for
him to deal with this problem, if he was to influence readers who were being taught
the absolute necessity to abide by every ordinance of the law.
it was added: the concept of the law as an addition or interpolation to the promise
would have been a revolutionary idea to pious Jews and scarcely less so to Jewish
GALATIANS 3.19 104
Christians still devoted to the sanctity of the law. So great was the esteem for the
Torah in Jewish thought that to think of it as an addition would have required a
complete reappraisal of its real significance. But this is precisely what had happened
in Paul’s thought.
because of transgressions: Paul’s choice of wording here must be noted. He
speaks of transgressions (parabaseis), not ‘sins’, for he has in mind intentional faults,
and the word used means a stepping aside from a right track. The law had laid
down the right track and had made men conscious of deviations from it. It is in
this sense that the apostle means that the law came ‘because’ of transgressions. The
law had no power to check transgressions, which could be achieved only by the
ospel.
filltheoffspring should come: the reason for Paul’s parenthesis in verse 16 now
becomes clear. ‘The offspring’ has already been identified as Christ. The apostle
points to the fact that the coming of Christ marked a crisis in the function of the
law (cf. Luther). He conceives of a sequence which may be summarized as
follows: age of promise, age of law, age of Christ, the last being conceived as a
fulfilment of the age of promise.
to whom the promise had been made: the verb used is in the perfect tense and
indicates a past promise with a present effect. This idea transforms the ancient
promise to Abraham and brings it into the first century a.D. The age of promise
is still present, in spite of the interlude of the law.
ordained by angels: the idea of the part played by angels in the giving of the law
occurs also in Ac. 7.53 and Heb. 2.2, but has no basis in the Old Testament except
in the LXX text of Dt. 33.2. It was a common notion of later Rabbinical teachers.
It was clearly a firm conviction of the early Christians. Paul’s allusion to it here
was to prove the secondary character of the law. The word translated ‘ordained’
(diatageis) is used in the sense of ‘administered’. The rendering ‘by’ would be better
translated as ‘through’, ie. ‘through the agency of’, which would then dis-
tinguish the angels from the ultimate originator of the law, i.e. God himself.
It is a relevant question what Gentile Christians like the Galatians would make
of Paul’s reasoning here. He assumes that they would not only understand but be
convinced by the force of the argument. It may well be that the Judaizers had
instructed them about the superhuman origin of the law and had cited the widely
held conviction that it was administered by angels to enhance its authority. Ifthis
is a true picture, Paul’s appeal to the same conviction to prove the secondary
character of the law would be exactly relevant. He had no fear that anyone would
deny angelic participation in the giving of the law, nor did he anticipate that
anyone would dispute that a promise by direct revelation would be superior to a
law mediated by angels.
through an intermediary: literally this means, ‘by the hand of an intermediary’,
thus introducing the human agent by whom the law was passed on, i.e. Moses. It
is worth noting that although Paul says so much about the law in this epistle he
105 GALATIANS 3.19-—20

does not once mention Moses by name. He is concentrating on principles and not
personalities in the case of the law. He is certainly not wishing to set Abraham over
against Moses. The word for ‘intermediary’ (mesités) occurs elsewhere in the New
Testament only in Heb. 8.6, 9.15, 12.24 and in 1 Tim. 2.5, in all of which cases it
refers to Christ as the mediator between God and man. Here, however, it cannot
sustain that interpretation and must refer to Moses. It occurs in a similar sense in
the Assumption of Moses, 1.14; 3.12.
20. Now an intermediary implies more than one: the obscurity of this verse
is at once obvious, and it is not surprising that there have been a vast number of
different interpretations. Many of them can immediately be ruled out because they
do not conform to the sound exegetical principle that the writer must have
intended his words to be intelligible to his immediate readers. The first half of this
verse is evidently meant to be a development of the concluding section of verse 19,
which has referred to the mediatorial work of Moses. It states a general principle
about intermediaries as a class. Although a definite article is used in Greek, it seems
highly probable that this is a generic usage since it states what is not confined to
any particular mediator but is true of all. The principle itself is indeed a truism, for
the root-idea of a mediator requires that there must be two opposing parties which
need reconciliation. It must follow, therefore, that at least three parties are involved
in mediatorship. In the special case of the law, apart from the agency of angels, the
mediator acted as the representative of the people to God and as the representative
of God to the people. The giving of the law was not therefore a direct divine
communication to those who were to be the beneficiaries. This at once put the law
in a different category from the promise which was a direct revelation to Abraham.
This makes reasonably good sense, but there is one problem. Is Paul’s assumption
that there is a real distinction between primary and secondary revelation valid?
He himself would not have denied the divine origin of the law. Was the means
used then of any real significance? Although the ultimate result was not affected,
to an oriental mind the means used would certainly tend to affect the esteem with
which the revelation was held. There would be some difference if a king sent an
ambassador to negotiate with an enemy or if he went himself. The peace would
be the same, but the importance of the mission would be differently construed.
The apostle by his own experience (see 1.12) had discovered the superior value of
a direct personal intervention from God, and this colours his whole approach to the
law. Paul’s conversion experience certainly partook of the nature of promise and
not law, which made him spiritually conditioned towards the position in which
Abraham was placed.
but God is one: it is this part of the verse which contains the greatest obscurity.
Two features, however, are clear. (1) There is an intended contrast between God
and an intermediary. Clearly, God is superior to anyone who acts as a representa-
tive for him, or as an intercessor before him on behalf of others. (2) There is equally
a contrast between ‘one’ and ‘more than one’, with the assumption that one is better
GALATIANS 3.20-21 106

than a plurality. Since the oneness applies to God it may be inferred that it concerns
the perfect unity of his person, although Paul does not make this explicit. The unity
of God was a dominant feature in the creed of every Jew and would not have been
less so among the Christians, although in a different sense when they once appreci-
ated the divine character of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. But theological unity is
not to the forefront in this passage. It is probably better to confine the notion of
oneness to numerical unity cited to support the superiority of promise to law. God
consulted with no others when he made the promises to Abraham. They were his
own supreme declarations. But the law was different, because this was essentially
a contract which depended on the good faith of both parties concerned, and if one
party failed a mediator would be necessary. But with a promise it is all in the hands
of one person, i.e. the giver.
Because of the difficulty of the verse, some have treated it as a gloss (so Emmet),
but this must be rejected, not only because of the lack of any manuscript support, but
even more because it is inconceivable that a statement of such apparent difficulty
would ever have found its way into the text if it did not originally belong.
21. Against the promises of God: a real problem arises over the relation of
law to promise. If law is inferior to promise, is there any possibility that they
conflict? Paul might have answered this by showing that since both had a divine
origin there could be no contradiction in the divine mind. But he does not answer
in this way, although his next statement implies it.
Certainly not: this is Paul’s usual strong expression for the rejection of an idea
(mé genoito), and here it is called forth by the implication of contradiction in God.
The conviction of the essential consistency of God’s character may be said to be a
sheet-anchor of the apostle’s theological position. If a man’s conception of law
creates a contradiction with promise, Paul can only conclude that that particular
view of law must be wrong. This was a lesson that he had had to learn himself at
considerable cost.
for if a law had been given which could make alive: here Paul gives a reason
for his emphatic rejection, and in doing so introduces a new element into the
discussion, ice. life. It has previously occurred in verses 11 and 12, but only in the
passages quoted and has been left in abeyance until now. Paul’s method of reasoning
appears to be as follows. Law is associated with curses, the very antithesis of life.
Law in fact could only show that man did not qualify for life. It had no power to
bring to life that which it had pronounced dead. That is because it is contrary to
the nature of law to give life. Paul’s if-clause is therefore positing the impossible
but his purpose is to show that the reason for the superiority of promise over law
is not due to any failure on the part of the latter to achieve what it was designed
to do. It had brought no life because it had never been intended for that purpose.
If law could have brought life, it would have no longer been inferior to promise.
then righteousness would indeed be by the law: in this then-clause, righteous-
ness is shown to be the counterpart of ‘life’ in the ifclause, and this combina-~
107 GALATIANS 3.21-22

tion has been carried over in Paul’s mind from the Habakkuk quotation in
verse 11. Here the apostle is probably using the word ‘law’ quite generally, since
no article is found in the Greek. At the same time, there can be little doubt that
he could not think of law generally without thinking of the supreme example of
it in the Mosaic law. To impart life, law would need to pardon the condemned,
i.e. to justify him or to give him a righteous standing. But this is beyond the
province of law. Both law and promise therefore had their respective spheres,
which neither overlapped nor conflicted. God could pardon those whom his own
law condemned. But this was an act of grace as the promise was also an act of
grace.
There is an alternative reading that would make the last phrase mean ‘in the
sphere of law’ (en nomoi) rather than ‘by law’ (ek nomou), but the latter is more
strongly supported in the manuscripts and is probably the correct reading.
22. But the scripture consigned all things to sin: the first word ‘but’ (alla)
is significant here because it draws attention to a contrast with the hypothetical
supposition of the preceding verse. What is the Scripture referred to here? That
this
is problematic, for no individual passage of Scripture makes a statement of
character, although the general tenor of Scripture supports it. It seems best to
suppose that by the singular (graphé) Paul is not conforming to general New
Testament usage in referring to a specific passage. By personifying Scripture the
apostle reveals his estimate of the activity of the Word, which derives its authority
from the activity of God.
as
The imagery in Paul's mind is that of a gaol, with sin as the gaoler, Scripture
the magistrate, and ‘all things’ (understood primarily as ‘all people’) as the prisoners.
In the Epistle to the Romans Paul uses a similar figure of speech in a semi-
personification of sin (cf. Rom. 7).
The whole statement is an example of a compressed sentence, which depends on
some unstated suppositions. What the apostle means is that Scripture shows the
true state of mankind before God, with the result that no-one is clear of guilt. It
therefore shuts up everyone to the consequences of sin. The verb used (sunkleio) is
vivid, for it means ‘to shut in on all sides’ with no possibility of escape (v. Duncan).
The apostle thinks back to the sense of hopeless frustration through which he had
himself passed before his conversion. In such a situation law had no help to offer.
It could only assure the miserable prisoner that his present plight was indisputably
just.
But why does Paul use the neuter ‘all things’ (ta panta)?While he thinks mostly
of people, it is not impossible to suppose that he implies the involvement of the
impersonal creation in the sinful consequences of man’s action. Yet since his whole
in a
argument here is on the personal level it seems better to interpret the neuter
personal way. A clear parallel to this personal use of the neuter to bring out the
).
idea of comprehensiveness is found in Jn 6.37, 39 (cf. Ellicott, Lightfoot
what was promised to faith: in the Greek text the phrase used ek pisteds (pro-
GALATIANS 3.22-2 108

ceeding from faith) is the same as used in verses 7 and 9 with the article to denote
‘men of faith’, men whose lives are based on faith. Here the similar idea is present
in the description of the promise, ie. a promise grounded in a faith-relationship
with Jesus Christ. The primary reference to Abraham’s faith is here extended to the
new covenant.
in Jesus Christ: this is a genitive construction and is to be distinguished from the
use of en or eis with a verb of believing. Here it could be understood either of the
faith which Jesus Christ possessed, or of the faith directed to Jesus Christ as its
object. Clearly the latter is more in harmony with the context.
might be given to those who believe: it is possible to connect the reference to
faith with the verb ‘believe’ rather than to the noun ‘promise’, although in this
case the idea of faith would be duplicated. Not only is the promise grounded in
faith; it is also dispensed only to those who believe. In no clearer way could Paul
bring out the inseparable connection between promise and faith. It would seem
that the giving to believers is here to distinguish it from the promise given to
Abraham’s physical descendants. Wide as the original promise was its application
is immeasurably increased in Jesus Christ.
23. Now before faith came: in the Greek there is an article which should be
observed in English if the full meaning is to be brought out. Paul is thinking not
of faith in general, which had, after all, been seen in Abraham’s experience, but in
the particular kind of faith to which reference has just been made in verse 22, i.e.
faith centred in Christ.
we were confined under the law, kept under restraint: of the two verbs used
here, one is the same as that used in the previous verse, but the other (phroured) has
the idea of setting a guard to protect. The function of law was not, therefore,
entirely adverse. Yet it clearly imposed such a severe limitation that even its cus-
todian function resulted in a sense of hopeless imprisonment. It should be noted
that the confinement is here related to law, not to sin, as in verse 22, although the
parallelism brings out the close connection between the two ideas. Being shut in
by the law would have an obvious relevance to the Judaizing Christians.
until faith should be revealed: the preposition translated ‘until’ (eis) could be
rendered ‘with a view to’, suggesting purpose (so Williams). The temporal idea
seems preferable, since the argument is concerned with historical sequences. The
coming of the Christian faith ended the custodian function of the Jewish law. The
preposition must, in fact, be understood in conjunction with the use of the same
preposition in the next verse.
The verb ‘should be revealed’ consists of two Greek verbs, the auxiliary one
(mello) stressing the future anticipation of the revelation. Such anticipation was
strong in the pre-Christian era.
24. So that the law was our custodian: this statement is closely connected
with the last, and defines in general terms the function of law in the pre-Christian
period. The word ‘custodian’ does not quite capture all the meaning of the Greek
109 GALATIANS 3.24-26
paidagogos, which was a term used for the attendant of a Greek boy whose duties
consisted of escorting the child, such as to and from school. But in addition to
escort duties there were disciplinary duties of a moral kind. The educative idea
(cf. AV ‘schoolmaster’) was not dominant, and was probably not present at all. By
describing the law under this metaphor, Paul means to bring clearly to the fore the
inferior function of the law as compared with Christ. Law was essentially a
disciplinarian.
until Christ came: some exegetes have supposed, that the law as a paidogdgos led
men to Christ as a superior teacher (cf. Cole, Williams). Law thus becomes an
active agency for salvation. But this seems to introduce a thought somewhat
alien to Paul’s earlier argument. The law could hardly shut us up to sin and lead us
to Christ at one and the same time. In the present phrase the preposition eis must
mean ‘up to’, which therefore requires the interpretation that the law’s function
as a paidagdgos ended with the advent of Christ (as Duncan).
that we might be justified by faith: it is as if the law lands us in such a hopeless
position that the only possibility is for a much stronger agency to take over and
deal with the situation on the basis of an entirely new principle—faith. This is the
essence of Paul’s position. The only hope was not a super paidagdgos or instructor
in some superior way of life, but a redeemer who could break open sin’s prison-
house and liberate its captives. To secure such liberty the sole requirement was
faith. This statement which consists of a purpose clause implies that the disciplinary
activity of law was indirectly designed to lead to justification by faith.
25. This verse states by way of conclusion the cessation of the custodian function
of law and supports the interpretation of verse 24 favoured above. It should not
be inferred from this that for Paul law has now ceased to have any function at all.
He is dealing here only with law as a method of acquiring justification.
But now that faith has come: again ‘faith’ must be understood of that faith
which has Jesus Christ as its object.
26. in Christ Jesus: this contrasts with the position of those under the custody
of the law. For believers there is a remarkable change of sphere. This phrase may
be understood either as relating to ‘sons of God’ or to ‘faith’. The result is the same,
although the emphasis is different. Sonship exists only in Christ Jesus, and this is
no doubt part of Paul’s thought here, understanding ‘in Christ Jesus’, (en Christo
Iésou) in Paul’s mystical sense. But it is equally integral to Paul’s theology that faith
must be centred in Christ.
all sons of God: the difference of status is intended to stand out in bold relief
when compared with the status of those who still need a paidagdgos. When the child
grows to the age of maturity and responsibility he takes on the full privileges of
sonship. The superiority of gospel over law could hardly be more succinctly stated.
It would have been foolish in the extreme for a child to claim the privileges of
sonship and still continue to rely on the protection and correction of the paidagogos.
In fact it was a sign of sonship that the services of the latter were no longer needed.
This idea is more fully developed in the next chapter.
GALATIANS 3.26—28 110

What is the significance of Paul’s ‘all’? The context would suggest that it is
intended to cover both Jews and Gentiles and is designed, therefore, to contrast
with the narrowness of the Jewish outlook. This ‘all’ is further illustrated in verse 28
as inclusive of all kinds of people.
It should be noted that the apostle transfers from ‘we’ in verse 25 to ‘you’ in this
verse to bring out more clearly his appeal to these readers.
through faith: there is again an article in the Greek, which identifies the faith
once more with that mentioned earlier, i.e. faith in Christ.
27. For as many: this verse gives the basis of the confident assertion in verse 26.
as were baptized into Christ: the same thought in a more developed form occurs
in Rom. 6.3-11. The early Christians attached great importance to the baptism of
believers. It was the sign of an entry into a new kind of life. In this it contrasts with
circumcision, which could do no more than initiate into a system of law. The
preposition ‘into’ is significant, for it almost seems as if Paul regarded the Christian
life as located in Christ. He uses the same formula in 1 C. 10.2 of the Israelites
baptized into Moses. On the other hand, it is not impossible that the expression
here is intended to convey the idea of baptism in the name of Christ (cf. Burton).
have put on Christ: this is a favourite metaphor of Paul’s (cf. Rom. 13.12;
Eph. 4.24; Col. 3.12f.), But here (and in Rom. 13.14) is his most daring use of it,
in which he likens Christ himself to a garment. The expression conveys a striking
suggestion of the closeness which exists between Christ and the believer. Those
who put on Christ can do no other than act in accordance with the Spirit of Christ.
In the Romans passage mentioned above (13.14), the putting on of Christ is
antithetical to making provision for the flesh, which supports the contention that
the metaphor conveys an essentially new kind of life. Everything has now to be
related to Christ.
28. neither Jew nor Greek: in the world of Paul’s day the distinction was
deep-seated. It was one of the marvels of Christianity to overcome it. Paul is not
expressing a hope, but a fact. To make all Greeks become Jews in order to enjoy
the privileges of the gospel would only propagate a distinction which has already
been done away in Christ. This specific case illustrates equally well the general
abolition of all racial barriers—a lesson of vital relevance to the mid-twentieth
century. In Christ there are neither Europeans nor Asiatics, Africans or Chinese,
or any other racial groups as such. In Christ there is a new bond which leaps over
colour, culture, and customs.
neither slave nor free: social distinctions have always been serious obstacles in
human relationships. For the Jews the idea of slavery was abhorrent. Consequently
they had as much contempt for slaves in particular as for Gentiles in general.
Christianity had within it the power to smash the whole system, although many
centuries were to pass before it took effect. Paul’s immediate approach to the
problem was to assert the abolition of the distinction in Christ, even although
it continued to be a potent force in the non-Christian world. When masters
III GALATIANS 3.28-4.1
could learn to treat their slaves as brothers in Christ, the barrier between
them was broken. The freeman and the slave both came to Christ in the same
way.
neither male nor female: there was particular point in the mention of the absence
of distinctions of sex for Jewish readers or those influenced by them. The Jew
tended to despise the woman. But the same approach was true of the majority of
the Gentile world (Macedonia was an exception). There is no doubt that few
outside the Christian Church in Paul’s day would have maintained any form of
equality of the sexes. The apostle himself drew some distinctions between the sexes
as far as their functions within the Church were concerned, but no distinctions over
their position in Christ.
you are all one in Christ Jesus: the most important factor for the exegesis of this
statement is the meaning of the word ‘one’. If all people, to. whichever of the
previously mentioned classes they belonged, are regarded as on an equal footing,
it is because in Christ everyone appears the same, as if one all-inclusive man includes
every other Christian. The full force of the masculine gender of heis (one) should
be retained, for the idea is not of a unified organization, but of a unified personality.
The Church is the body and Christ is the Head, in which case the only permissible
distinctions are those of function, like the distinction between the hand and the foot.
There is no room for a Jew to think that he is any special part of the body, and
the same applies to all the other distinctions.
The words ‘in Christ Jesus’ connect with the same phrase in verse 26. The unity
spoken of here is essentially a spiritual unity, inseparably connected with the
believer’s personal position in Christ.
29. And if you are Christ’s: the apostle assumes the truth of his ‘if’ clause for
those whom he is addressing. This clause follows on naturally from verse 28.
then you are Abraham’s offspring: Paul here reverts to the discussion which
he had introduced at the commencement of the chapter. This, in fact, echoes the
thought of verse 7, connected up with the comments on ‘offspring’ in verses 15ff.
This brings Paul’s argument to a climax, for Gentiles are Christ’s as much as Jews,
and both are therefore inheritors of Abraham’s promise.
heirs according to promise: there is an indirect allusion to the inheritance his-
torically promised to Abraham, but Paul is no doubt thinking here specifically of
justification. It is in this that Abraham’s inheritance finds its fulfilment. The main
point is that the heirs did not come into their inheritance through the law.

EMERGING INTO SONSHIP 4.I-7

4.1. I mean that . . .: there is no break between this and the preceding verse.
This is, in fact, an explanation of Paul’s reference to the heirs, prompted, no doubt,
by the fear that the Judaizers may have missed the real point.
the heir, as long as he is a child: the apostle, in likening the position of those
GALATIANS 4.1-3 II2

under the law to that of a minor, again draws attention to the inferiority of their
position. The word used for child (népios), while in legal terminology it could
denote a minor (who in Roman law was anyone under twenty-five years of
age), is probably here meant to distinguish him from an adult. In either case it
represents a person needing to be placed under the protection of others.
no better than a slave: the comparison refers, of course, to freedom of action,
not to status. The minor son and the slave alike are under the father’s authority.
If he were lord of the estate, either because the father is now dead or because the
father has put it in trust for him, it would make no difference for the time being.
2. under guardians and trustees: these two words may refer to the successive
people to whom a minor was responsible under Roman law, the former until the
age of 14 years and the latter until the age of 25 years. But there are difficulties in
this view, as the following note shows. Alternatively the words may respectively
represent those responsible for the child’s person and property (so Burton).
until the date set by the father: under Roman law the fixing of the time limit
was out of the father’s hands, so Paul must be thinking of some other legal system,
intelligible to his readers, which left this to the father’s discretion (cf. Ramsay).
Although the setting of the illustration is uncertain, the truth behind it is indis-
putable. The father is in charge of the situation and makes the best possible arrange-
ments for his son, and this serves as an admirable illustration of God’s provision for
his people. In verse 4 the apostle makes clear the application of ‘the time set by the
father’, for he calls it ‘the fullness of time’.
3. So with us: to whom is he now referring? In view of the fact that he pro-
ceeds with the first person plural to the end of verse 5, he evidently is thinking here
of Christians generally, although, no doubt, with special application to his readers.
when we were children, we were slaves: the apostle now applies his general
illustration in a spiritual sense. Sometimes the idea of ‘children’ is used to describe
spiritual immaturity, as in 1 C. 3.1 (‘babes in Christ’), but here it has a different
connotation, referring to pre-Christian experience. In a sense the application does
not fit the illustration, for now the child becomes identified with the slave, because
the latter idea is much more appropriate to describe the position of non-Christians.
The apostle says, in effect, that we were not even grown-up, we were no better
than slaves.
to the elemental spirits of the universe: there are various ways in which the
word rendered ‘elemental spirits’ (stoicheia) should be understood. Of the various
meanings which were attached to it in Greek writers, two have relevance for its
New Testament occurrences. It may mean (a) elementary teaching or rudiments,
or (b) as in the present translation, ‘spirits’. In the former case it may be understood
either of the elementary truths of natural religion or of the elementary rules and
regulations, samples of which are cited in verse 10 after a second occurrence of the
word. In the latter interpretation, Paul’s words would be a reference to the wide-
spread beliefs, which he himself seems to have shared, that spiritual agencies, some
113 GALATIANS 4.3-4
good, some evil, affected man’s destinies. The contemporary heathen world was
in bondage to such spirits, and Paul’s description here would have been particu-
larly apt for the pre-Christian position of his Gentile readers. This second usage is
rather more favouted by the addition of the genitive ‘of the universe’ (tou kosmou).
Elsewhere, Paul refers more than once to ‘principalities and powers’, by which he
also appears to mean spiritual agencies. One difficulty with this view is that there
is no evidence that the word stoicheia bore this meaning in the first century A.D.,
although it certainly did at a later period (cf. Burton).
It is not easy to decide between these two alternatives. Verses 9 and 10 would
favour rudimentary rules, but would be relevant in that case only to those who had
already been subject to them, i.e. Jews. But a wider application to include Gentiles
is preferable, in which case the second interpretation must be chosen. It involves
Paul in classing all the non-Christian world as being in slavery to powers utterly
beyond their control. The implication is that Jews are included and therefore any
submission to Jewish scruples would be a return to their former slavery (see
verse 9).
4. But when the time had fully come: here the apostle takes up the thought
of verse 2 and develops it in a spiritual sense. As in human affairs, a father sets a
time limit on his son’s minority, so there is a timetable with God. Although the
imagery of the opening verses is still hovering in Paul’s mind, the analogy really
fails at this point. The sending of the Son finds no counterpart in the illustration,
only the timing of the closure of the preliminary stage. The timing of Christ’s
advent was, however, of infinitely greater importance.
The phrase ‘had fully come’ renders a Greek phrase which literally means ‘the
fullness of time’ (plérdma tou chrono), which draws attention to the critical impor-
tance of this event. It marked the completion of the old era and the dawn of the
new. But what caused Paul to use this expression here? The appropriateness of the
time of the advent has often been pointed out. The Jewish world was expectant of
the coming of the Messiah. The Roman world, in its rapid spread, had contributed
a measure of peace and security, which had been previously unparalleled. It had,
moreover, developed communications to a remarkable extent, linking all the
strategic centres of the empire with Rome. The Greek language was widely used
for trade and communication and supplied an admirable medium for the trans-
mission of the gospel. But it may be questioned how much of these advantages
were in Paul’s mind when he wrote this statement, however valuable they may be.
In the context it is clear that his thought is still centred on servitude to the law and
the most reasonable assumption, therefore, is to regard the ‘fullness’ as the limit of
God’s testing time under the law, during which the hopelessness of man’s servitude
was fully demonstrated. Paul is convinced, as the early Christians were generally,
that the coming of Christ was not by accident but by divine appointment.
God sent forth his Son: the form of the verb (exapesteilen) involves more than
just a commissioning. It involves a sending out from a previous state, and must in
 GALATIANS 4.3-6 114

this case imply the pre-existence of the Son. Such a thought is fully in harmony
with Paul’s teaching elsewhere (cf. 1 C. 8.6; Phil. 2.6ff.; Col. 1.15ff.). It is appro-
priate that in this way he draws attention to the filial relationship in view of the
analogy used in the previous part of the chapter.
4. born of woman: the striking feature of the Incarnation is the form in which
it was effected. In this statement there is the greatest possible contrast with that
preceding. The Son of God being born of a woman was the supreme example of
his humiliation. Paul is more concerned about this than about a more specific
reference to the Virgin Birth (Ridderbos). At the same time the present statement
is not out of keeping with that doctrine. The verb can be understood in the sense
of becoming. The Son takes up human nature, which he did not possess before.
The same verb is used in John’s profound statement that the Word became flesh
(Jn 1.14), which expresses the same truth in a different way.
born under the law: in the Greck there is an absence of the article, thus drawing
attention to law in general, although in the context this cannot be divorced from
the Mosaic law, since Jesus was born into a Jewish milieu. The drift of the apostle’s
argument is that Jesus came into the same environment as those who were finding
it impossible to be justified under the law (cf. Bring’s discussion here).
5. to redeem those who were under the law: again there is no article in the
Greek before ‘law’, so that Christ’s redemptive work reaches beyond the Jewish
people, a factor which is, of course, integral to Paul’s theology. The idea of
redemption has already occurred in 3.13, and the same meaning of ‘deliverance at a
definite cost is evident here as there. This present reference to redemption contains
no hint of the method by which it was achieved, but in the light of 3.13f. there is
no doubt that Paul was here connecting up the redemptive act with the work of
Christ on the cross. Redemption has a double aspect: deliverance from bondage
to the law and deliverance to something better—here sonship.
so that we might receive adoption as sons: this is the positive aspect of
redemption. It is the ultimate purpose of the Incarnation. The word translated
‘adoption’ (huiothesia) occurs in the New Testament only in the epistles of Paul. In
Rom. 8.15 it occurs in a context which also has the “Abba! Father !” saying, as here
in verse 6. In both contexts it clearly denotes not merely sonship but the privileges
of sonship. In Christ believers are reinstated into their full status as sons in the
family. Paul’s thought seems to be that God sent his Son to gain other sons. This
involves a remarkable change of status from slavery to sonship.
_ 6. And because you are sons: this appears to give the basis on which the Spirit
is given. But realization of the full privileges of sonship can only come through the
Spirit. Rather is Paul making clear that adoption and the gift of the Spirit are
concomitant. Moreover, verse 5 is stated as a potential, but verse 6 as an actual,
experience. The Christian has already experienced the Spirit. That is an indisputable
evidence of his sonship. It is significant in this respect that Paul uses the second
person plural, although before and after he uses the first person. The change makes
a more direct appeal to the experience of his readers.
115 GALATIANS 4.6-7

God has sent the Spirit of his Son: since the same verb is used here as in verse 4,
the two actions may be regarded as complementary. The phrase ‘Spirit of his Son’
is significant because it is used only here in the New Testament, although ‘Spirit
of Christ’ occurs in Rom. 8.9. It is noticeable that in this context the activities of
Father, Son, and Spirit are mentioned together. The closeness of the activity of the
Spirit and of the Son is evident from the teaching of Jesus himself, when he
declared of the Spirit of truth that ‘he will not speak on his own authority . . . He
will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you’ (Jn 16.13, 14).
into our hearts: again the apostle returns to the first person plural. Here he
wishes to include himself because of the deep reality of his own Christian experi-
ence. It is as if Paul has no real desire to maintain the direct approach.
crying, ‘Abba! Father!’: the combination of an Aramaic and Greek form of the
same word suggests some kind of liturgical usage. This is supported by the fact
that the double form occurs elsewhere in the New Testament. There must have
been some reason for the retention of the Aramaic in writings designed for Greek-
speaking peoples. Its occurrence in Rom. 8.15 is closely parallel to this. The other
occurrence is in Mk 14.36, where it forms part of the prayer of Jesus in the garden
of Gethsemane. In all three cases, therefore, it expresses the prayerful cry of the
heart. The most probable explanation of the double form is that a special sacredness
attached to the form used by Jesus (i.e. Abba), which the early Christians retained
together with a translation for those unfamiliar with Aramaic (so Lagrange). The
opening words of the Lord’s prayer may have had something to do with the
sacredness of the form Abba, if this were in the original form of the prayer. It is
perhaps significant that both here and in the occurrence of the words in Rom. 8.15
the same verb is used. “Crying” (krazé) implies an importunate approach to God,
in which the most appropriate basis is an appeal to our filial relationship to God.
In both occurrences also the prayer is made through the agency of the Spirit.
7. So through God: in placing this phrase first the RSV loses some of the
emphasis seen in the Greek text, where it stands last, i.e. after the word ‘heir’. Paul
means to draw emphatic attention to the fact that any inheritance is entirely due
to the gracious action of God. He can never conceive of Christian experience apart
from the essential part played by the divine initiative.
no longer a slave, but a son: the thought reverts to verse 1. Christians have
acquired a new status. This verse is really a repetition of verse 5 with greater focus
on the remarkable transformation. As slavery and sonship are obviously mutually
exclusive, so the sons of God cannot be regarded as in bondage to anything.
if a son then a heir: cf. the comment on 3.29. The apostle is strangely attracted
to this idea. It occurs in the closely parallel passage in Rom. 8.17, where the even
more remarkable statement that we are ‘fellow heirs with Christ’ occurs. The
apostle assumes that adoption into the status of sons carries with it the full privileges
of sonship.
GALATIANS 4.8-9 116

RETURNING TO BEGGARLINESS 4.8—II

8. Formerly, when you did not know God: why does Paul go back in
thought to the former state of these Galatians, when he has already referred to their
sonship? He appears to be doing so by way of warning to focus attention on the
folly of their proposed action. The key is found in verse 9. It is noteworthy that
Paul describes the pre-Christian state as one of ignorance of God, a description
which would not have been so relevant to Jews as to Gentiles. In any case, the next
phrase shows clearly that pagans were in mind.
you were in bondage: a continuation of the slave metaphor of the previous
section. The same Greek word (douleud) is used for the idea of ‘being a slave’ and
of ‘service’, because in the ancient world these ideas were often inseparable. But
it is significant that in Christ, service can be transformed by love, as Paul points out
later in this epistle (5.13).
beings that by nature are no gods: paganism had its gods. Paul does not dispute
that fact but he does dispute that they were really gods. He was probably thinking
of them as spiritual agencies (i.e. demons). The phrase ‘by nature’ refers to their
essential character. The Gentile world in Paul’s day was certainly in bondage in its
various religious systems. Its gods were incapable of leading their devotees to
freedom. Hence the contrast between Christian liberty and bondage to no-gods
could not have been greater.
9. but now that you have come to know God: the strong contrast between
the conversion and pre-conversion state is brought out even more distinctly in the
Greek than in the English. Neither here nor in verse 8 is there an article with Theon
(God), and this is no doubt to draw a qualitative contrast with the ‘no gods’. They
have now come to know one who really is God.
rather be known by God: Paul adds this almost as an afterthought, no doubt
because he realized that what he had just stated might give a wrong impression. It
was no merit of the Galatians that they had come to know God. The initiative was
with God himself. The apostle is not, of course, suggesting that God had acquired
a knowledge which he did not previously possess, for the sense of the verb goes
beyond theoretical knowledge. True Christian knowledge has both an active and
a passive aspect, and Paul makes provision for both in his statement here. To
recognize oneself to be the centre of divine attention is one of the profounder
aspects of Christian conversion. It is also one of the most humbling. Not only do
believers acknowledge God, but he acknowledges them—as sons.
how can you turn back again? After so deep an experience Paul cannot imagine
how anyone could desire to revert to the old position. They have already once
turned from no-gods to God. Are they now going to turn from God to elemental
spirits? Such apostasy seems incredible to the apostle, yet he fears the possibility of
it, as verse 11 shows.
the weak and beggarly elemental spirits: the word stoicheia (elemental spirits)
117 GALATIANS 4.9-10
has been discussed in verse 3. The addition here of two descriptive adjectives is
evidently intended to contrast with the knowledge of God. The first adjective
stresses the inherent ‘feebleness’ of their former state, no doubt mainly an allusion
to the utter powerlessness of heathendom to assist man in his approach to the true
God. The second adjective is even more vivid, coming from a root-meaning ‘to
crouch or cower’, hence to show the qualities of a beggar. Paul could hardly have
chosen a more apt description. He is in fact transferring a major characteristic of
the devotees of paganism, i.e. a cringing attitude of fear, to the objects of worship
themselves.
If the word stoicheia means rudiments of religion as shared by all non-Christians,
the apostasy would include Jews as well as Gentiles. That this is Paul’s intention
may seem to be supported by his change from ‘no gods’ in verse 8 to ‘stoicheia’ here,
and by the typically Jewish character of the features mentioned in verse 10. It seems
most likely, however, that he is viewing the scheme of the Judaizers, however well
intentioned it was, to be in effect equivalent to a return to their non-Christian past.
Such an idea would be startling to Jewish Christians, but it may well be that Paul
intended to startle them.
There can be no denying that he classes all other religious systems outside
Christianity as ‘weak and beggarly’. To him Christ is the only means of coming
to a true knowledge of God.
whose slaves you want to be once more: neither the Judaizers nor the Galatian
Christians were probably aware of any desire to be enslaved. And yet Paul makes
it clear that they are not only in danger of returning to slavery, but are actually
desiring it. His reason for putting it in this form is that, knowing their desire for
Jewish legalistic practices and seeing clearly that the consequence of such a desire
is relapse into spiritual slavery, he transfers the result to the intention. It is a fitting
reminder that those who pursue a course which they know will end in spiritual
decline must be held responsible for desiring that decline. The words translated
‘once more’ (palin andthen) strongly express the completeness of their reversion, as
if they wished to begin all over again in heathenism.
10. You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years! These are best
regarded as references to Jewish ritual observances, mainly festivals. There were
holy days and new moons (months); special festivals, such as Passover and Taber-
nacles (probably denoted by ‘seasons’) and a festival connected with the New Year.
In other words the Galatian Christians were being urged to bind themselves to the
observances of the Jewish calendar. Some features of that calendar were undoubt-
edly taken over by the Christian Church although adapted to a Christian context
(e.g. Passover and Pentecost), but this was entirely different from a rigid legalistic
adoption of the Jewish system en toto, which seems to be in view here. The verb
(paratéreisthe) not only supports the idea of rigid observance, but shows it to be
currently in practice, since the present indicative is used. It should not be over-
looked that heathenism also had its festivals and this aspect of theJudaizers’ practices
GALATIANS 4.10—12 118

would, therefore, appeal to the Gentiles. Schlier sees in this verse a reference
to astrological powers.
11. I am afraid: in the Greek text the verb has an object, i.e. humas (you),
which expresses with some vividness that the Galatians themselves were the objects
of Paul’s fear. Yet the fear had a specific basis, as the following statement shows.
I have laboured in vain: the translation here obscures the fact that after the verb
of fearing the clause is introduced in an emphatic way, i.e. ‘lest by any means’. The
verb, which denotes toil with effort (kopiad), is in the perfect tense to draw attention
to what Paul fears may be the permanent result of his past effort. The indicative
rather than the subjunctive suggests that Paul fears it may be a fact rather than a
possibility. For the apostle’s reluctance to believe that his work could have been
in vain, cf. 3.4.

A PErsONAL APPEAL 4.12-20

12. Brethren, I beseech you: this personal address to them after all the hard
argument preceding shows the real pastoral heart of the apostle. It should be noted
that it does not stand first in the Greek but at the end of the sentence, which gives
it added emphasis. Not only the position of the words but the choice of the verb
strengthens the appeal, for the verb used (deomai) expresses greater urgency than
the synonymous parakaleé more frequently used by Paul. It is used elsewhere by
him only in Rom. 1.10, where it is associated with a feeling of intense longing, and
three times in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (cf. 5.20; 8.4; and 10.2), in all
of which a sense of intensity is present. There is no doubt about Paul’s feeling over
the Galatians’ defection.
become as I am, for I also am become as you are: at first sight this reads like
a riddle, but the solution is found in Paul’s own experience. He had been a Jew
bound by the law, but had become as they were at the time of their conversion,
ice. freed from the scruples of legal observances. His appeal is, therefore, that they
should imitate him in remaining free from such scruples. The strength of the appeal
lies in the fact that Paul knows from experience what the Galatians do not, i.e. the
misery of bondage to Jewish legalism. It is alternatively possible to regard the
second clause as meaning that Paul had virtually become a Gentile among them
and therefore appeals to them on the basis of the sacrifice he has made on their
behalf.
You did me no wrong: why this sudden interjection? It is not easy to say with
any certainty. Ifstress is put on the aorist tense of the verb, the sense would be—
previously you did not wrong me, but now you do. This would suit the context
and the following words could be understood as an explanation of this absence of
any wrong in the past. Some have supposed that Paul is replying to an assertion of
the Judaizers, i.e. “we did Paul no harm’ (cf. Burton). “Granted, you did me no
harm, but you are deeply injuring me if you now regard me as an enemy’. Another
119 GALATIANS 4.12-14
interpretation which does not, however, fit so well into the context, is to suppose
that ‘me’ is emphatic, and that Paul is implying that it is Christ, not himself, who
has been wronged, or else that it is themselves who have been wronged by their
own actions. In view of the next statement, in which Paul refers to their kindness
towards him, it seems best to accept the first of these various suggestions as most
probable.
13. you know: the way in which Paul introduces the reference to his physical
condition while he was among them shows that this was common knowledge
among them.
because of a bodily ailment: there is no knowing what the illness was from
which Paul was suffering and conjecture seems quite pointless. From verse 15 it
would appear that the illness affected Paul’s eyesight, while verse 14 suggests that
it may have seriously affected his appearance (see comment on next verse). Paul’s
language here would imply that it was illness that caused him to travel to Galatia,
as a result of which he was able to preach to them. This is claimed by Ramsay as
a support for the South Galatian theory, since it involves an initial journey to
Galatia while Paul was a sick man, and it is difficult to conceive a sick man travelling
to North Galatia on account of his illness (see Introduction, p. 26). Of course, even
on the South Galatian theory the journey from Perga on the coast across the Taurus
Mountains to Antioch was by no means easy, but the nature of Paul’s illness may
have called for the greater altitudes of the Antioch district.
I preached the gospel to you at first: there have been two interpretations of the
word translated ‘at first’ (proteron). It can either mean ‘formerly’, or ‘former of
two’. In the latter sense it would require two former visits, and this would support
the contention for a North Galatian destination according to Lightfoot. It seems
better to suppose that Paul refers here only to an early visit in comparison with his
present dealings with them.
14. though my condition was a trial: the Greek statement is more vivid than
this and may be literally represented as follows: ‘and the trial of yours in my flesh
you did not scom or despise.’ In this form it fixes attention on the trial rather than
on Paul. In what sense the Galatians found Paul’s flesh a trial is impossible to say.
It may have been his physical appearance if he was suffering from some malady
which disfigured him, or it may have been the trial of having the responsibility of
a sick man among them.
you did not scorn or despise me: both these verbs are strong terms, the second
literally meaning ‘to spit out’, used metaphorically as an expression of disgust or
revulsion. Why did Paul use such verbs as these? Was there some suggestion in his
mind that now the Galatians’ attitude had so changed that these verbs could
describe them, but that it was not always so? There is such a vast difference between
revulsion and reception as an angel that some such explanation seems necessary. It
has less probably been suggested that the second verb implies that they might
have regarded him as possessed by an evil spirit.
GALATIANS 4.14-17 120
as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus: is there here an allusion to Paul’s experience
at Lystra where he was supposed to be the god Hermes (Ac. 14.12)? Advocates of
the South Galatian theory have sometimes claimed this (cf. Ramsay, Askwith), but
it is not certain. What is indisputable is that the Galatians had come to recognize
Paul as a messenger of God bringing the good news of Christ Jesus. But the words
seem to go further than that, implying that the readers could not have received
an angel more courteously or even Christ Jesus himself. This brings up most
vividly the contrast with their present attitude towards him.
15. the satisfaction you felt: Paul is referring to the joy with which his
teaching and he himself had been received. The word translated ‘satisfaction’
(makarismos) occurs again in the New Testament only in Rom. 4.6, 9, in both cases
rendered ‘blessing’ and referring to the experience of justification apart from works.
But here it seems rather a personal pleasure over Paul’s presence among them. The
rhetorical question clearly implies that the satisfaction has apparently vanished.
For I bear you witness . . .: this statement is intended to illustrate the satisfaction.
if possible: this is added because of Paul’s use of metaphorical language. So deeply
were the readers in sympathy with Paul at that time that their willingness to help
outstripped possibilities.
you would have plucked out your eyes: it has been suggested either that Paul
had some eye-disease, and this statement represents the Galatians’ deep sympathy
for him, or that Paul is citing a proverbial saying denoting a willingness to make
any sacrifice on his behalf. There is, however, no evidence that this was a pro-
verbial saying, and the former interpretation is therefore to be preferred.
16. Have I then become your enemy? There is some question about the
punctuation here. The sentence is introduced by haste, which would fit better if
followed by an exclamation rather than an interrogative, in the sense, ‘So I have
become your enemy!’ In this case the word ‘enemy’ must be regarded as the
Judaizers’ own view of Paul, not his own estimate of them. He is most anxious to
avoid any feeling of enmity. But if the interrogative is allowed to stand, it suggests
that Paul wishes to leave a loop-hole for them to deny the charge.
by telling you the truth: when did this happen? Some suggest that it must have
been on a previous visit (cf. Lightfoot, Oepke). If this were true, it would not
necessitate the postulation of two former visits on the grounds that the first visit
did not result in enmity, for this misconstrues Paul’s meaning. The enmity need not
be coincident with the telling. But the more probable interpretation is to regard this
as a reference to the present letter. In that case Paul is wondering whether by his
plain speaking he has created enmity against himself. But some (Lietzmann,
Bonnard) take truth as meaning the gospel.
17. They make much of you: the same verb as is used here occurs also in
2 C. 11.2, where RSV renders it ‘to feel jealousy for’ and something of a similar
eager feeling is present here. The Judaizers are evidently in mind, although intro-
duced rather obscurely in the third person. This clearly distinguishes them from
121 GALATIANS 4.17-19
the readers whom he has been directly addressing in the previous verses. The idea
seems to be that in contrast to Paul’s plain speaking the Judaizers are eagerly
entreating the Galatians for their support.
for no good purpose: the Greek is abrupt here, equivalent to ‘not well’ (kalos).
Behind their enthusiastic regard for you, all is not as fine as it appears on the
surface, to give kalos its most literal meaning.
they want to shut you out: the apostle does not explain the shutting out process
and leaves us to conjecture from what the Judaizers desired to exclude the Galatians.
Does he mean excommunication from the church? This would import an alien
idea into the context. Is it exclusion from the truth of the gospel? This is not
impossible, but a better interpretation is to consider it in relation to Paul. The
apostle probably feels that the Judaizers want to cause a rift between the Galatians
and himself. This would free them to turn their enthusiasm towards the Judaizers
as the last part of this verse suggests.
18. For a good purpose it is always good to be made much of: there is a
direct contrast here with the ‘no good purpose’ in verse 17. But what is the good
purpose (kalos) to which Paul refers? He may, of course, be referring not to a
specific purpose, but to a general principle, as much as to say that to be made much
of in itself is not to be condemned so long as it is rightly directed. It is possible,
on the other hand, to suppose that Paul is thinking of the good purpose, which he
had while he was among them and of his enthusiastic interest in them. This would
suit well the conclusion of the sentence.
when I am present: this is a reference back to verse 14, to the occasion when
they received him as an angel of.God. It must have been a bitter disappointment
to Paul that the Galatians needed his presence to keep them stable. What Paul
experienced has been experienced by innumerable pioneers of the Christian faith.
19. My little children: it is astonishing to find Paul using a term (teknia) of
particular endearment in an epistle which begins without any affectionate greeting,
especially as this is the only occasion where this form of address occurs in Paul’s
epistles. It is found several times in the First Epistle of John, always denoting special
warmth of affection. Its use here reveals particular depth of feeling on Paul’s part
over the Galatian situation, and is especially appropriate to the following metaphor.
with whom I am again in travail: in 1 Th. 2.8, Paul pictures himself as a nurse,
while here he is even more daring in his illustration, using the metaphor of child-
birth. He thinks of the pain and trouble connected with the delivering of children
and transfers the figure to his own relationship to his ‘little children’. The fact that
he speaks of this travail as repeated shows that the metaphor must not be pressed,
although Paul continues the figure in the next clause (see comment). Clearly his
purpose is to show that his concern for his converts puts in the shade the attitude
of the Judaizers.
until Christ be formed in you! Here there is some confusion in the metaphor,
for the purpose as stated here is unexpected. What the apostle probably means is
GALATIANS 4.19—21 122
that he was like a mother in travail to bring forth children who would bear the
image of Christ in them. The Greek verb (morphod) is connected with the noun
(morphé), which means essential form rather than outward shape. The idea is
therefore of real Christ-like character. The implication is that if the Galatians follow
the Judaizers’ policy it will not result in Christ being formed in them. This is, in
fact, a shréwd and effective touchstone. Any religious system which does not
produce the image of Christ in the lives of its people is not thoroughly Christian.
20. I could wish to be present: in expressing a strong desire to be present with
them, although stating it in such a way as to indicate its impracticability, the
apostle strives to alleviate some of the antagonism which he fears that his previous
words have created. It is another one of his intensely human flashes, which often
reveal more of his true character than his reasoned arguments.
to change my tone: does this mean that he regrets what he has just said? If he
really felt he had overstated his case he would not have sent the letter. What he
means is that he regrets that his present tone is necessary and longs to see them face
to face, because he is confident that he will find them co-operative and he will,
therefore, be able to change his tone. It is evident that Paul has no love of an
ageressive approach. He prefers the method of personal appeal where that is
practical.
for Iam perplexed about you: the verb here used means ‘to be at a loss’ or ‘to
be at one’s wits’ end’, which vividly reflects the tension in the apostle’s mind. His
strong desire is to be warm-hearted towards them. He cannot bear the thought of
them regarding him as their enemy. Yet in the present situation he is perplexed to
know how to avoid it.

An ALLEGORICAL APPEAL 4.2I-31

21. Tell me: another direct, almost conversational, appeal to the readers, as if
Paul resolves in his perplexity to find some means of alleviating the situation. His
argument begins on ground that is common between himself and his readers, i.e.
acceptance of the authority of the books of the law.
you who desire to be under law: already in verse 9 he has referred to them
wanting to be slaves of the elementary spirits, and although the present expression
is less provocative, it still draws attention to a desire which was rather the result
than the cause of their policy. There is little doubt that theJudaizers’ genuine desire
was to conform to God’s pattern and that they believed that this involved being
under the law. The desire, however laudable in itself, would, nevertheless, be
wrongly implemented in Paul’s view.
do you not hear the law? This may refer to the public reading of Scripture
which formed a regular part of early Christian worship, or it may be understood
in the extended sense of not only hearing but also obeying. In all probability it is
the latter sense which is required. It is as if Paul were saying to them, “You claim
123 GALATIANS 4.21-24
to be under the law, but are you listening to what the law says about the present
situation ?”
22. For it is written: there is special point in the use of this authoritative formula
after the apostle has appealed to them to listen. It also sheds light upon his allegorical
approach to the interpretation of Scripture. It is evident that Paul regarded this
method as carrying with it full authority. The present phrase could, of course, be
understood as no more than a reference to the contents of the law, but the apostle
is more concerned about the significance than the facts of this story of Abraham’s
household. He proceeds as if he assumes that his readers, converted from paganism
as these were, would be familiar with the facts. The account is given in Gen. 16
and 17.
one by a slave and one by a free woman: in the Greek the definite articles are
used to denote those mentioned in Scripture. It is important to note that Paul does
not at first mention them by name, because he wishes rather to draw attention to
the categories to which they belonged. The word used for ‘slave’ means literally
‘maidservant’ (paidiské), but since in patriarchal times all servants were virtually
slaves, the contrast here is legitimate.
23. But the son of the slave: the introduction of this further statement with
the adversative particle ‘but’ (alla) is intended to bring out a deeper contrast
between these two sons of Abraham. It was not merely a difference in the status of
their respective mothers, but also in the circumstances of their birth.
according to the flesh: this phrase evidently denotes natural generation and is
distinguishable from the method of Isaac’s birth in that his was regarded as the
result of divine intervention, in what was otherwise a highly improbable situation
(i.e. through promise). Ishmael was the result of Abraham’s reliance on human
planning rather than reliance on God’s promise.
24. Now this is an allegory: a more literal rendering would be, ‘which kind
of things are allegorical’. The present participle of the verb (allegored) is designed,
therefore, to bring out the significance in the present circumstances, not in the
historical context.
The allegorizing of Scripture has had various advocates, but this is the clearest
example of it in the writings of Paul. It was used extensively by Philo to the
detriment of the historical sense. In this respect Paul differs markedly from Philo
and from the later Jewish exegetes, for he gives the full historical meaning to the
event and deduces almost as of secondary significance the deeper spiritual implica-
tion. At the same time Paul means to appeal to Abraham’s sons in this allegorical
way as more than a useful illustration of a spiritual truth. As an illustration it would
have failed to convince the readers of the folly of their ways, but as an allegory it
would carry the same authority as the literal meaning, because it conveyed divinely
authenticated principles (cf. Bring). As Paul draws them out, these are in full
harmony with, although additional to, the historical meaning. Attention to Paul’s
approach to allegorization would have avoided much fanciful exegesis. It was the
GALATIANS 4.24-25 124
Alexandrians who were renowned for this in the early Church, but the modern
period is still not without examples of excess in the same direction.
these women are two covenants: the line of thought transfers from the sons to
the mothers, although as yet unmentioned by name. It is surprising that Paul
should use the word ‘covenant’ (diathéké) here without further explanation, for so
far in this epistle he has used it only generally of God’s negotiations with Abraham
(3.17). But he assumes as common knowledge that his readers will at once identify
the covenants. The form of the Greek suggests that he is drawing attention to the
number of covenants, ‘two’, in order to contrast them. It is a choice between law
and promise; there are no further options.
One is from Mount Sinai: as he has not previously identified the position under
the law as a covenant, the apostle chooses this method of doing so, presumably
because Sinai. was regarded as symbolic of the divine origin of the law. But the
connection between Hagar and Sinai is not obvious, and Paul sees the need to make
a further identification in the next verse.
bearing children for slavery: here the apostle has in mind the double idea that
as Hagar, a slave-girl, could produce children only in a condition of slavery, so the
Mosaic law produced slaves to the law. The latter idea has not been specifically
mentioned, but is implicit in the opening section of this chapter. It was not
unintentional that Paul avoids the assertion that his readers are wanting to become
slaves of the law.
she is Hagar: this is added to make unmistakable which of the two women
represents the Sinaitic covenant. This was necessary because the Jewish people,
proud of their Abrahamic descent, would nevertheless have drawn no such con-
clusion. To them the law from Sinai was given to the descendants of Abraham
through Isaac and had nothing to do with Hagar’s descendants. This identification
on Paul’s part would, therefore, have appeared to them as something of a tour de
force, and Paul’s further explanations show that he is not unmindful of this.
25. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia: this statement is difficult in view
of verse 24, which has defined Hagar as the ‘one from Mount Sinai’. Here Paul
apparently feels that he has not gone far enough. He must assert some closer
connection. It is not that Hagar merely represents the covenant of law given on
Mount Sinai; she is to be identified with Mount Sinai itself. Moreover, the signifi-
cance of locality is brought out specifically by the addition of ‘in Arabia’. And yet
it is not easy to see what intelligible meaning can be attached to the present state-
ment. This was no doubt the cause of the modification of the text in some Mss to
read ‘For Sinai is a mountain, in Arabia’, omitting altogether the reference to
Hagar. But the only conceivable motive for such a statement, if original, would
be the fear that Gentile readers would lose the thread of the argument because of
their vagueness over geography. But since Paul immediately switches attention to
Jerusalem this seems unlikely. The inclusion of Hagar in the text is more intelligible,
because it follows naturally from the previous statement.
125 GALATIANS 4.25-27
It has been suggested that Paul may have known ofa tribe of nomads in the area of
Sinai called Hagarenes (cf. Ps. 83.6 for a tribe of people of this name (cf. Duncan)).
But such an inference is precarious. There may well have been some connection
in Paul’s mind, however, between Mount Sinai and the wilderness to which Hagar
fled from Sarah. A wilderness area was in any case a fitting symbol for the barren-
ness produced by the law. It must be remembered that Paul had himself spent some
time in Arabia, although it need not have been in the area of Sinai (see comment
on 1.17). But in the last analysis it seems impossible to be quite certain what Paul
had in mind in making this statement. The one thing that matters and that is
indisputable is the intended connection of Hagar with those under the law and this
is the assumption on which the argument proceeds.
she corresponds to: an interesting verb is here used which means ‘to line up in
the same rank’, in a military sense. Its meaning in this context is that Hagar is in
the same category as the present Jerusalem.
the present Jerusalem: this is clearly Paul’s description of contemporary Judaism,
of which Jerusalem was the acknowledged capital.
in slavery with her children: the apostle is possibly thinking of slavery in a
double sense. Jerusalem (and Judaism) was under Roman occupation. But his
primary thought must be of slavery to law. Pharisaism had so superimposed upon
the law a mass of minute regulations that observance of it had become a burden.
26. But the Jerusalem above is free: after the reference to theJerusalem which
is now, the antithesis is unexpected in its allusion to the ‘above’ Jerusalem. One
would have expected ‘which is to come’. But the reason why Paul avoids the more
precise parallel is clear, for he is still thinking of a present reality, the spiritual
Jerusalem which represents tne Christian Church. The use of the word ‘above’ (and)
in describing Jerusalem is probably influenced by pre-Christian notions of what
Jerusalem might one day be. The heavenly Jerusalem is an idea which occurs
elsewhere in the New Testament (cf. Heb, 12.22; Rev. 3.12; 21.2, off). It was
evidently a figure which would have been meaningful even to Gentile readers.
The freedom of those belonging to this Jerusalem is in marked contrast to slavery
under the law and constitutes an antithesis which is integral to the theme of the
whole letter.
and she is our mother: it is noticeable that Paul does not state that Sarah corre-
sponds to the ‘above’ Jerusalem. He takes it for granted. This accounts for the
figure of speech being continued in the following verses. The analogy is clarified
in verse 28, where ‘the children of promise’ are referred to as comparable to Isaac.
Paul is here thinking of all who are under the new covenant in Christ.
27. For it is written: this is a citation from the LXX of Isa. 54.1. The prophet
looks forward to the greater prosperity of the restored Jerusalem as compared with
the old. It is a song of rejoicing over barrenness transformed to fruitfulness. Paul
sees it, however, as an illustration of the fruitfulness of Sarah as compared with
Hagar. But Jerusalem is further an illustration of the fruitfulness of the Christian
Church.
GALATIANS 4.27-30 126
O barren one: since this describes one who is contrasted with ‘she who hath a
husband’, it seems likely that Paul regarded the former as a reference to Sarah and
the latter as a reference to Hagar. The analogy is clearly imperfect. Moreover,
Isaiah makes no reference to either in this context (although Sarah is mentioned in
Isa. 51.2). The real point of the quotation is the comparison of the number of
children. Sarah’s children through Isaac were innumerable as compared with the
descendants of Hagar. But Paul has already suggested that Hagar’s descendants
correspond to contemporary Judaism, and his thought must be that although the
Church at present seems to be barren, bereft of all the advantages and glories of
Judaism, it would nevertheless be more productive. History has confirmed this
application of the Isaianic prophecy, although in Paul’s day the Jews may well have
questioned it.
28. Now we: some texts have ‘you’ instead of ‘we’, but it seems most probable
on intrinsic grounds that Paul would include himself among those corresponding
to Isaac in his allegory.
brethren: this form of address is particularly relevant here in view of the phrase
‘children of promise’, which is clearly intended to refer to all Christian believers.
children of promise: in the Greek text the word for promise (epangelia) is
emphatic by position and must refer back to the references to promise earlier in
the epistle.
29. as at that time: in the comparison which Paul makes he refers back to an
incident which does not occur in the Old Testament narrative.
flesh . . . Spirit: this statement differs significantly from the similar one in verse 23,
where the son born according to flesh is contrasted with the Son born according
to promise. The change from ‘promise’ to ‘spirit’ shows that Paul is thinking of
his earlier statements regarding the activity of the Spirit within believers (cf. 3.2ff.;
4.6). In other words, Paul transfers the appropriate expression from the past to the
present, from promise to fulfilment.
persecuted: since no such incident is specifically mentioned in Scripture this may
be a reference to a Jewish Haggadah or Rabbinical enlargement of a narrative.
Genesis 21.9 does suggest friction, if not persecution, and friction of the kind
mentioned, i.e. involving mocking or scorn, may well have involved some form
of persecution (cf. Williams).
so it is now: whatever the explanation of the persecution, Paul uses it to point
to a parallel among the Galatians. There must have been something amounting to
persecution on the part of the Judaizers (so Burton). There is no need to think of
physical persecution, for in the present case it is more likely to have been mental
pressures.
30. But what does the scripture say? Paul is about to appeal to a contrast,
hence ‘but’ (alla) introduces this rhetorical question. He is determined to answer
the Jewish claims from Scripture, which they fully acknowledged. The force of the
citation naturally depends on the acceptance of Paul’s interpretation of the allegory
under discussion.
127 GALATIANS 4.30—-$.I

Cast out: the citation is from Sarah’s words in Gen. 21.10. The action which she
called for and which was acted upon meant the curbing of Ishmael’s hostility
towards Isaac, and Paul sees this as symbolic of the contemporary situation. What
was needed among the Galatians was equally firm action to prevent freedom giving
way to slavery.
shall not inherit: Paul’s previous discussion shows that he means by inheritance
the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham. He has made abundantly clear that
legalism cannot exist side by side with promise, and this is the principle which he
finds illustrated in this Old Testament story. When an important principle like
liberty in Christ is at stake the Christian position must be as uncompromising as
Sarah’s demand over Ishmael.
31. So, brethren: in this verse Paul sums up his allegory. In using the word
‘brethren’ he is once again including all true believers, and clearly excludes those
whom he thinks of as children of Hagar.
the slave: it should be noted that the Greek has ‘a slave’, which draws more
pointed attention to the qualitative aspect, i.e. slave children, although when the
free woman is referred to an article is used, no doubt because Paul sees a direct
connection between the Christian Church and God’s specific promise regarding
Sarah.
free woman: it is the apostle’s firm conviction that Christians are born to freedom,
for Christ is the Liberator. This is a matter of experience, and the validity of his
identifying them with the children of the free woman would not be questioned.

ETHICAL EXHORTATIONS 5-6.10

CHRISTIAN LiFE AS A LIFE OF FREEDOM 5.I-15

1. There is no break between this verse and the previous one. This is true whether
the first statement is connected with 4.31 or with the rest of the present verse, both
of which are possible. It is certainly true that we are spiritually children of the free
woman only because Christ has set us free. It is equally true that Paul is exhorting
his readers to stand fast, having been set free. The AV ‘Stand fast therefore in the
liberty’ is not based on the best mss.
For freedom Christ has set us free: here there appears at first to be repetition,
but undoubtedly Paul means to stress the incongruity of any other result. Christ
did not set us free so that we might become slaves again. He intended us to have
freedom. Paul sees the tendency of the Galatians as parallel to the position of a
slave who had been delivered from slavery, but who did not understand liberty
and preferred to submit to another slavery of a different kind. Had they no
thought for the one who had set them free?
stand fast therefore: they are exhorted, on the strength of the liberty which
Christ has secured for them, to dig their heels in firmly. There is an element of
tenacity which should characterize every Christian’s hold on his liberty. The use of
GALATIANS §.1-2 128

this word suggests that Paul realizes that their feet are on a slippery path and only
resolute action will save the situation. Once their feet begin to give way it is more
difficult to reach stability. Now is the time to secure a firm foothold.
do not submit: the verb is passive, meaning ‘do not be held in’, and the sense
must be ‘do not allow yourselves to have a yoke clamped on you’. The use of the
passive does not excuse the Galatians from responsibility in the matter, although it
makes room for an allusion to the real, though unnamed, agents, the Judaizers.
Paul pictures them like men trying to place a yoke on an ox, an action which calls
for some co-operation on the part of the ox. Let the creature dig in its heels and
refuse the yoke and the masters will not find it easy to impose it.
again to a yoke of slavery: the word ‘again’ (palin) refers to their former state,
and since it is applied to both Gentiles and Jews, it is clear that Paul regards all
pre-Christian states as slavery in some measure. The figure of a yoke is an apt
metaphor for bondage, since an animal in a yoke has no alternative but to submit
to the will of its master. It is significant that Jesus used the same word for the
submission of his followers to him (Mt. 11.29). Not all yokes chafe, but the
Judaizers’ yoke could only be described as slavery, very different from that of
Christ. It is one of the paradoxes of the Christian position that the ‘free’ are yoked
with Christ. It is because Paul recognizes the need for a true estimate of Christian
freedom that he devotes the remaining part of this letter to discussing its practical
implications.
2. Now I, Paul: on many occasions the apostle appeals to his own position or
to his own testimony in the body of his letters with the emphatic words, ‘I, Paul’
(egd Paulos). 2 Corinthians 10.1 is an example parallel to this, in which he intro-
duces almost abruptly an impassioned direct appeal to his readers. There is no
doubt that he intends the present statement to be regarded as authoritative. It
should be noted that the word translated ‘now’ is literally ‘behold’ (ide), which is
much more expressive than the RSV translation. Only here does it occur in Paul’s
writings, and it may reasonably be assumed that he uses it to draw attention to a
matter of particular importance. It is as if he wants his readers to listen now to a
different line of approach, i.e. an intensely personal appeal.
if you receive circumcision: there was no specific mention of circumcision in
the doctrinal section of the epistle, but Paul has had it in mind throughout. He has
been concentrating on fundamental principles. Now he comes to the matter of
great practical urgency. The fact that he expresses himself hypothetically suggests
that the Galatians have not yet succumbed to the Judaizers’ pressure.
Christ will be of no advantage to you: what Paul means here is that if circum-
cision is a necessity for salvation Christ’s work would be inadequate (cf. Beyer),
and, if so, is of no advantage to those who rely on circumcision. To put the matter
differently, Gentiles submitting to circumcision are in fact submitting to a legal
system from which Christ has freed them. They are undoing his work. In fact
they would be nullifying the essential message of the gospel. To the apostle, to
129 GALATIANS $§.2-5
whom Christ had come to mean everything, the threatened action of the Galatians
is incredible.
3. 1 testify again: the word ‘again’ (palin) introduces a further considera-
tion which should deter Gentiles from submitting to circumcision. As verse
2 shows what they would lose (nothing less than the benefit of Christ, and
no professing Christian could lose more) so this verse shows what they would
gain—the unenviable burden of observing the whole law. By placing these
negative and positive aspects in such bold juxtaposition, Paul hopes to impress
the readers with the utter senselessness of their proposed action. The verb used
gives support to this, for it means not merely ‘to bear witness’ but ‘to affirm
solemnly’.
he is bound to keep the whole law: a literal rendering of the Greek would be
‘he is a debtor to do the whole law’, which, when understood metaphorically,
refers to an obligation which must be discharged. In Rom. 8.12, Paul uses the same
words in relation to Christians. All men have some kind of obligation, but to enter
into an undertaking to keep the whole law was to place oneself under an impossible
task-master, as Paul had himself experienced. Nor could they opt out of any part
of the law if they were seeking justification by this means.
4. You are severed from Christ: the same verb has been used earlier in this
epistle to express the annulling of a covenant, but here it has the special sense of
separation in view of the following preposition (apo). This idea is closely akin to
but more vividly expressed than verse 2. It is not merely loss of the benefits of
Christ’s work that is involved. It is separation from Christ himself—in other words
apostasy (v. Bonnard). Such is the unavoidable consequence of adherence to a legal
system. Although the apostle has previously spoken as if the matter is still tentative,
he here addresses those affected as if it is an accomplished fact. This is to bring home
to them more vividly the consequences which must follow their proposed action.
Indeed an aorist tense is used, which has the sense, “You have been discharged from
Christ’.
justified by the law: here the phrase ‘by the law’ stands for ‘by the works of the
law’, as in 2.16, although a different preposition is used. The preposition en used
here, meaning ‘in the sphere of the law’, distinguishes this kind of justification from
that secured ‘in Christ’.
you have fallen away from grace: as in the first clause, so here the verb is an
aorist and treats the potential as actual. What Paul means by grace is all that Christ
has done for them. It involves God’s free favour towards them. It is like turning
their back on a free gift. Nothing could be more tragic than this.
5. through the Spirit: as there is no article in the Greek, the word ‘Spirit’ may
refer to man’s spirit or tothe Holy Spirit. If the former, it would be used in
antithesis to ‘flesh’; if the latter, it would denote the indwelling Spirit in the
believer. The two concepts merge in experience. It should be noted that there is
also no preposition to express ‘through’, and the notion of agency is not therefore
so strong as in the next phrase. It is the same construction as in 3.3.
GALATIANS $.5—7 130
by faith: Paul returns to the theme of faith which he has emphasized so much
in the earlier part of the epistle. The last mention was in 3.26. The apostle is anxious
lest they should forget their basis of acceptance and so he refers to his own position.
we wait for: the change of person from second to first emphasizes the contrast
between Paul (and all who share his point of view) and those who are following a
legalistic course. The verb indicates more than mere waiting. It conveys the idea
of eager expectation (cf. Rom. 8.19, 23, 25).
the hope of righteousness: clearly ‘righteousness’ is the object of the hope.
Neither word has an article in the Greek and they are therefore best regarded as
qualitative, i.e. the hoped-for kind of righteousness. But why does Paul put it in
this way? Is it merely a hope? The answer lies in the meaning of the word ‘hope’
(elpis). It is not simply a pious wish as it has come to mean in modern English
usage: rather it is a strong assurance. This transforms Paul’s words to mean that in
contrast to the Galatians’ threatened return to bondage, he was eagerly looking
forward to the full possession of that righteousness which he had inherited by faith.
6. For in Christ Jesus: here Paul defines clearly whom he means to indicate
by the ‘we’ in verse 5. The phrase ‘in Christ Jesus’ is more expressive than the
adjective Christian, for there is a sense of ‘abiding in’, which is particularly relevant
to Paul’s purpose here. Such mystic union cannot be obtained through external
means. :
neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail: the verb when used
of persons means ‘to have power’, but when used of things ‘to be serviceable’. But
serviceable for what? Surely for attaining righteousness, as referred to in verse 5.
The apostle wishes to make clear that there is no more virtue in being in a state of
uncircumcision than of circumcision. It is simply irrelevant in Christ. This state-
ment shows expressively the tremendous emancipation which has taken place in
Paul’s mind.
but faith working through love: the combination of faith and love is highly
significant. Faith in the abstract is not enough. Here Paul’s mind dwells on the
ethical aspect of Christian faith. It must work (energed), and the activity must be
in a particular manner, i.e. through the agency of love. So far in this letter Paul
has not mentioned the noun ‘love’ (agapé). Moreover, the verb ‘to love’ has
occurred only once, and that to express God’s love to us. But three times in this
chapter he refers to ‘love’ in believers. This verse on its own merits would show
that Paul isnot out of harmony with James’ doctrine of faith plus works (Jas 2.14ff.).
For the use of the same verb earlier in this epistle to describe the divine working
in man, cf. 2.8; 3.5.
7. You were running well: previously, in 2.2, Paul has used the athletic
metaphor. Now he uses it again to describe the former Christian state of his readers.
Like athletes in the first flush of the race, they had pressed on finely, but something
had since happened. Their early progress has not been maintained.
who hindered you from obeying the truth? The verb in its root-meaning was
131 GALATIANS §.7-10
used of breaking up roads in a military operation, and hence came to have the
derived meaning of obstructing. It may be, therefore, that Paul mixes his metaphors
here. A serious obstruction has arisen in the path of obedience. The apostle puts the
matter in the form of a question in order to challenge the readers. But it may also
be that the athletic metaphor is still in mind, and that Paul is thinking of the rules
of the race which all competitors must obey. In that case the hindrance is someone
who has caused them to disobey these rules. No doubt he has the Judaizers in
mind in all this, but his main purpose at this juncture is to point out the utter folly
of stopping short before the goal is reached.
8. This persuasion: there may be a play on words between this word and the
verb ‘obey’ in the last verse, since the roots are connected. The word ‘persuasion’
suggests that Paul is thinking of the Judaizers as using some persuasive method of
getting the Galatians to disobey what they know to be the truth.
him who called you: this is characteristic of Paul. So conscious was he of his own
divine calling that he cannot imagine Christians who do not constantly think of
God’s call to them. Had they done so, they would never have allowed anyone to
draw them away. The source of their ‘persuasion’ was hostile to God’s purpose for
them, as is made clear in the next verse.
9. A little yeast; this is a proverbial saying, for Paul cites it also in 1 C. 5.6,
where it refers, as here, to the permeating effect of an adverse influence. A very
similar metaphor is used in one of the parables of Jesus (cf. Mt. 13.33), although in
this case the influence appears to be good rather than harmful. The use of the
imagery. of the small amount of yeast to describe the adverse teaching of the
Judaizers suggests that, so far, they had had little apparent success, but the apostle
sees the potential danger of their teaching, particularly owing to its insidious
character (cf. Bring).
the whole lump: once the principle was accepted that circumcision was necessary
for Gentile Christians Paul sees clearly that none of the Christians would be
unaffected. He shows an insight which has often been sadly lacking in Christian
history. The insidious permeation of wrong doctrines and wrong practices has all
too often not been realized until too late to avoid the corruption of whole com-
munities. In recent times the rooting out of the offending ‘leaven’ has been made
infinitely more difficult because of the contemporary notion that anything savour-
ing of heresy-hunting must be avoided at all costs. The apostle was no heresy-
hunter, but he had an acute perception of the disastrous consequences of unchecked
wrong.
10. I have confidence in the Lord: the ‘I’ is emphatic because of the contrast
which the apostle is wanting to stress, as much as to say, ‘although I have been
speaking to you in a straight manner, I myself am confident over you’. Paul’s
confidence (pepoitha) is directly contrasted with the ‘persuasion’ (peismoné, from the
same root) of theJudaizers. He demonstrates the superiority of his own confidence
by adding the words ‘in the Lord’ (en Kurid). Ifthe Galatians allow the Judaizers to
GALATIANS §.10—-II 132

persuade them, they will be relying, on the contrary, on themselves. For Paul, no
firmer basis for confidence could be found than in Christ.
that you will take no other view than mine: the words in the Greek are less
explicit than this translation suggests. A literal rendering would be, “that you mind
no other thing’, which can either be understood as it is translated here, or as a vague
reference to their former position when they first became Christians to which they
were to add nothing else. Both would amount to much the same thing.
he who is troubling you: the same expression was used in 1.7, except that there
the reference is to more than one. In view of this, too much should not be made
of the singular here. If Paul momentarily thinks of an individual it is only as a
representative of the whole. Moreover the real point of his allusion is to warn all
the Galatians of the judgment which will fall on any who distract them from the
truth.
will bear his judgment: the verb means ‘to carry as a burden’, the same verb as
is used twice in the next chapter (verses 2 and 5) for the carrying of one’s own and
other people’s loads, and in 6.17 of Paul’s bearing the marks of Jesus. Nowhere
elsewhere in the New Testament is the word used as here of the bearing of judg-
ment. Paul thinks of the heavy weight which will press down on those who are
seeking to impose a load of legalism on these Christians. The word ‘judgment’
(krima) refers evidently to God’s judgment, not man’s.
whoever he is: although somewhat vague Paul’s reference is really all-inclusive.
This means that there are no exemptions from the judgment, no matter what status
is claimed. Is he here thinking of the Judaizers’ claims to represent those “who are
reputed to be pillars’? It may well be so (cf. Lietzmann, Oepke).
11. But if 1, brethren, still preach circumcision: by putting his proposition in
an if-clause, Paul is anticipating that some are asserting that in his preaching he
favoured circumcision. They may even have heard of the circumcision of Timothy,
if it had already happened (see Introduction). This is always a more insidious
approach on the part of opponents than a direct opposition. To claim Paul’s support
for a practice which he was actually opposed to was bound to confuse the issue for
the unwary. Here the apostle takes up the charge in order to show its illogical
character. Note the use of ‘brethren’ to give his statement the quality of a personal
appeal.
why am I still persecuted ? Paul assumes that his readers will know what he has
already endured for the sake of the gospel, particularly at the hands of the Jews.
Had he still been an ardent supporter of Jewish ritual requirements, he would not
have been so strongly persecuted as he had been. His experience refutes the charge
being brought against him.
the stumbling-block of the cross: in 1 C. 1.23 Paul uses the same word
‘stumbling-block’ (skandalon) of the Jewish attitude towards the cross. There was
an offence in the cross, as the apostle has already implied in chapter 3, in the passage
respecting the curse of the law. It was unthinkable for the Jew that their Messiah
133 GALATIANS §.11I-I3

could ever suffer the utter ignominy of crucifixion, and since this, and not circum-
cision, had been the real theme of Paul’s preaching Jewish persecution was highly
intelligible.
has been removed: the same verb as is used in 5.4 and in 3.17. In 5.4 the severance
is between those addressed and Christ. But here there is an imagined (though
incredible) severance between the cross and its stumbling-block.
12. those who unsettle you: only here does Paul use this verb, which means
‘to stir up’. It occurs in Ac. 17.6 in the sense of turning the world upside-down. The
apostle thinks of the creation of an unstable situation by these false teachers. They
are having a disastrous effect upon the readers. No wonder Paul’s reaction is so
violent.
would mutilate themselves: the bitterness of Paul’s feelings comes to expression
in a somewhat coarse wish that the circumcisers would turn their knives upon
themselves. In all probability Paul may be thinking of the practice of some heathen
priests (like those of Cybele) who emasculated themselves as a sign of devotion.
The apostle evidently feels that the Gentiles would not be able to :differentiate
between circumcision and mutilation, for the former had lost for them what
significance it had possessed for the Jew. Self-mutilation under the law was a basis
for excommunication (Dt. 23.1). The whole expression reflects deep disgust on the
apostle’s part.
13. For you were called to freedom, brethren: again the personal address is
emphasized and the emphatic pronoun is used, no doubt to heighten the contrast
with the previous attack on the instigators. The reference to freedom echoes verse 1
and the appeal to their calling echoes verse 8 (cf. also 1.6). The use of the aorist sets
the whole action in the past and points to the fact that the Galatians had already
experienced this freedom, although it would seem that they had not recognized the
true nature of it. The ethical implications of freedom, which Paul deals with in the
next portion of the epistle, are a vital part of his whole discussion. The freedom for
which he is contending is not a theoretical matter, but intensely practical.
only do not use: the verb is missing from the Greek which is, therefore, more
vivid than the English. A literal rendering might be ‘only as regards the freedom,
not for an opportunity . . .’. The abruptness suggests a sudden realization on Paul’s
part of the possibility that the Galatians’ liberty might degenerate to licence.
as an opportunity: the word used here (aphormé) is a military word for ‘a base
of operations’. It is used several times by Paul in the sense, as here, of a ‘convenient
occasion’. Flesh is represented as an opportunist ever ready to seize any suitable
occasion to exert itself.
flesh: already in the epistle there has been the conflict between Spirit and flesh, and
the next portion particularly concentrates on this theme from a practical point of
view. It is the mention of ‘flesh’ which seems to spark off the detailed discussion.
But why think of ‘flesh’ as the main opponent of freedom? Why not ‘law’, or even
‘sin’, as in Rom. 7.8? The choice of the word ‘flesh’ is significant because it sums
GALATIANS §.13-15 134
up the impelling motive of the natural man, the moral bias of the man who is not
energized by the Spirit.
but through love: just previously (in verse 6) Paul has linked faith and love, and
now he links freedom and love. Both faith and freedom may become warped,
when divorced from the warmth of love.
be servants of one another: the choice of verbs here is intentional to qualify the
idea of Christian freedom, i.e. the readers had not been called to bondage to the
law but to servitude to each other. Of course, love takes the sting out of this new
kind of bondage, but the whole idea is the antithesis of licence. True love must be
mutual and cannot put its own interests first. The idea of loving service as a
characteristic of Christian liberty has never been entirely absent from the Christian
Church, but in many periods of its history the evidence of it has been weak. This
fundamental principle is as much a lesson for our own age as for the first century.
An important feature of Christian service is its mutual character. No-one is to be
so superior that he claims exemption from the demands of loving service.
14. For the whole law: this is a justification for the preceding statement. Paul’s
train of thought seems to be that freedom needs love and that love is supported out
of the law. The phrase ‘the whole law’ points to the unity of the law, in the light
of which a piecemeal approach is quite inadequate.
in one word: a contrast is clearly intended between ‘one’ word and the whole
law. This concentration of law into the concept of love would have sounded
strange to the ears of the legalists with whom Paul is contending, although they
acknowledged the importance of the statement which Paul quotes.
“You shall love your neighbour as yourself’: cited from Lev. 19.18. Compare
also Lk. 10.27, where it is cited as one part of the essence of the law by a lawyer
in answer to a question put by Jesus. The idea of good neighbourliness as a require-
ment of law was clearly of current importance among the Jews. No doubt Paul
realized that even Judaizers would assent to this. In a Christian setting love for one’s
neighbour would mean much more, because of the new conception of love which
Jesus had brought. The whole verse emphasizes that Paul is not adverse to law, but
wishes to draw out its positive contribution.
15. But if you bite and devour one another: as an antithesis to love this
statement is striking. The apostle thinks of a pack of wild animals flying at each
other’s throats. It is a vivid representation not only of utter disorder, but also of
mutual destruction. The policy enjoined by the Judaizers could lead only to dis-
sension of the bitterest kind, for it must arouse passions which are unrestrained by
the influence of love. The picture painted is so far removed from the ideal Christian
community that the incongruity of the situation must have forcibly struck the
readers. It should be noted that Paul tactfully expresses the idea in a hypothetical
form.
take heed, or literally ‘watch out’. The prospect of the devourers themselves being
devoured is unexpected, but requires vigilance if it is to be avoided. It is a
138 GALATIANS §5.15-17
challenging example of the Golden Rule being used in a disastrous and negative
way. No-one willingly desires to be devoured and yet the action of these Galatians
was heading in that direction.

CHRISTIAN LiFe AS LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 5.16-26

16. But I say: this familiar introductory phrase of the apostle is never used in a
purely formal way. In 3.17 and 4.1 it is used to introduce a further explanation of
what has already been said. Here and in 5.2 it draws attention to Paul’s personal
appeal to his readers.
walk by the Spirit: some understand ‘spirit’ here in its general sense of the
spiritual life as opposed to the flesh. But the expression has more force if the
reference is to the Spirit of God, especially as this fits better into the immediate
context. The idea of the Christian life as a walk is frequent in the New Testament.
It should be noted that the tense of the imperative (present) shows that Paul is not
exhorting them to do what they have not done before; rather he urges them to
‘keep on walking by the Spirit’.
do not gratify: in the Greek the verb is in the future indicative, which gives a
more forceful sense than the imperative. Those who walk by the Spirit will
definitely not (emphatic) fulfil the desires of the flesh. This is an assured result of
the Spirit-life.
desires: this word (epithumia) is generally used in the sense of longing for forbidden
things, but not exclusively, as the next verse shows that it can be used of the Spirit’s
desires. When associated, as here, with ‘flesh’ its most dominant sense is to denote
‘passion’.
17. For the desires of the flesh: this expression is not identical to that of
verse 16, for the use of the cognate verb here (epithumed) brings the more active
side of the lust of the flesh. It lusts against the Spirit because it has no outlet for its
energies along the path of the Spirit. It can only be in direct opposition.
the desires of the Spirit: as in the previous phrase, so here the statement is active.
The Spirit is the subject in the same way as the flesh. The antithesis is as complete
in literary form as it is in actual fact.
are opposed: the verb denotes hostility, from the root-idea of two things lying
opposite to one another. In Paul’s view, spirit and flesh are irreconcilable adversaries.
to prevent you from doing what you would: here the Greek (a hina clause.
suggests a purpose clause, which would mean that the opposition between flesh and
Spirit is in order to prevent (so Burton). But if this is so there is some obscurity
about the meaning of the last phrase, which may be literally rendered ‘whatever
things you wish’. Does this refer to good things or bad things or both? It would
be most natural to suppose that bad things are in mind and that the Spirit is
conceived of as having the distinctive purpose of restraining the desires of the flesh.
But since the opposition is mutual it is not impossible that the idea of flesh aiming
GALATIANS §.17-19 136
to prevent the fulfilment of the good desires of the Spirit may also be in mind.
This, however, is less likely in view of Paul’s deep conviction that the Spirit is more
powerful than the flesh. The hina could, on the other hand, be regarded as express-
ing result, which is rather less difficult because it avoids attributing purpose to a
state of continuous opposition. Where a condition of conflict exists a loss of
freedom of action is the inevitable result (cf. Bonnard).
18. led by the Spirit: here the Spirit is regarded as a guide, to whom the
believer is expected to submit himself: Such a conception of the Spirit’s activity is
much more personal than the expression ‘walking in the Spirit’ in verse 16. It
should be noted that in this verse the distinction is not between Spirit and flesh, but
Spirit and law. What was the reason for this change in view of the fact that the
immediate context concerns flesh? In all probability Paul was afraid that the
Galatians would assume that only two alternatives existed. It may have been
thought that rejection of legalism must lead to antinomianism, with its consequent
licence. But the apostle inserts the present statement to correct this false impression.
There is a third option. The Spirit is antithetical to both law (in the sense of
legalism) and flesh. By this Paul is not, of course, placing law and flesh in the same
category, but he is showing that in relation to Spirit they have one thing in
common, i.e. opposition to the Spirit-controlled life. The idea of leading by the
Spirit occurs also in Rom. 8.14, where it is said to be the badge of sonship.
not under the law: both here and in the preceding phrase the article is missing in
the Greek, which would suggest general principles rather than specific examples.
Yet in the case of law, the specific Mosaic law is never far from Paul’s thoughts in
this epistle. It may be expressed as follows. Legalism and spiritual life do not
mix, as is clear from the distinction between the Mosaic era and the era of
the Spirit.
19. works of the flesh: it is rather surprising to find Paul using the word
‘works’ in conjunction with ‘flesh’, for in the four previous references to works in
this epistle it is related to the law. This is unexpected after the reference to law in
verse 18, but it nevertheless brings out most strongly the practical outworking of
life which is lived under the domination of the flesh. It is significant that ‘works’
are regarded sufficiently comprehensively to include not only overt deeds but also
attitudes, as the following list shows. The detailed list also shows that there is a
distinction in Paul’s mind between ‘works of the flesh’ and ‘works of the law’, the
latter denoting ‘obedience to given statutes’.
are plain, i.e. they are the kind of things which are well known to everyone.
There is not likely to be dispute about them. Libertinism cannot be pursued in
secret.
immorality, impurity, licentiousness: the list is introduced in the Greek by a
relative (hatina) which draws special attention to the qualitative aspect. The list
itself is a selection to illustrate the kind of things to be expected from the activity
of the flesh. The first three are all sins of sensuality. But why begin with these? It
137 GALATIANS 5.1921
may be because of the prevalence and apparentness of them in Paul’s time. They
were much in evidence in the pagan background from which the Galatians had
come. Indeed they were sanctioned in the rites of pagan worship. ‘Immorality’
(porneia) refers to a particular instance of the more general ‘impurity’ (akatharsia),
which, although it can sometimes denote ritual impurity, here refers to moral
impurity. The third word of the trio (aselgeia) means literally wantonness generally,
but is no doubt here used of looseness in sexual relationships. In modern times the
increase in these sensual sins and their disastrous effect on social relationships need
no illustration. The movement known as the New Morality comes perilously near
to sanctioning these sins which Paul so uncompromisingly classes as opposed to life
in the Spirit. It would be a sad thing for the world and a sadder thing for the
Church if it were ever assumed that free sexual expression could be excluded from
the works of the flesh.
20. idolatry, sorcery: the connection of immorality and idolatry in Paul’s mind
is not far to seek. The two were closely knit in contemporary paganism, especially
in much pagan worship. Sorcery or witchcraft, which was also a prevalent con-
temporary practice, is here represented by a word (pharmakeia) which means “use
of medicine or drugs’, but which has the derived meaning of the use of drugs for
magical purposes. It should be remembered that the dividing line between medicine
and magic was not clear-cut in those days, any more than it still is in many tribal
cultures. It is significant that Acts records a case of Paul having to deal with
an opponent of the gospel who was classed as a sorcerer (13.4ff.). No doubt Elymas
was not the only one of this prevalent class of people with whom Paul had clashed.
Both idolatry and sorcery were thus examples of the sins of pagan worship, the
first providing an inadequate substitute for God and the second counterfeiting the
works of the Spirit.
20, 21. enmity, strife . . . envy: the next eight form a self-contained group
which may be said to describe social evils. Some (e.g. Lightfoot) see an ascending
scale of intensity after the general term ‘enmity’ at the head of the list. But this is
probably reading too much into the arrangement of the list. Paul is no doubt led
from one thought to the next within the general category of enmity, which stands
first. There are four words which describe strife, the first two and then later on
‘dissension’ and ‘party-spirit’. ‘Enmity’ is general hostility, ‘strife’ is more overt,
stressing the idea of wrangling, ‘dissensions’ (the word dichostasia means ‘standing
apart’) drawing attention to the formation of hostile splinter groups, while ‘party
spirit’, which comes from the same word as ‘heresy’ (hairesis), refers to the develop-
ment of various conflicting opinions. The general impression created by these
words is one of chaos.
The other four ‘works of the flesh’ in this part of the list are all attitudes of mind
which result in actions implicating other people in the community. Perhaps the
most unpleasant of these is the first, ‘jealousy’, for the same word also means ‘zeal’,
and the idea in this context must be ‘perverted zeal’. This word coupled with the
GALATIANS §.20—21 138
eighth word, ‘envy’, make a formidable pair. These two are still the deadliest
enemies of the higher life of the Christian community. The other two in the group,
‘anger’ and ‘selfishness’, are very general human failings. The first, which in the
Greek is expressed in the plural (thumoi), describes outbursts of anger rather than a
settled attitude (Burton). The word ‘selfishness’ does not give quite the full sense
of the Greek (eritheia), which rather denotes ‘ambition, self-seeking’, i.e. a particu-
larly anti-social form of selfishness. Maybe the apostle is thinking of the striving of
one leading member of a community to oust out all rivals and to gain supporters
by fair means or foul, but rivalry is basic to all levels of society and this idea need
not be confined to the leadership.
It is worth noting that four of the sins mentioned in this list of eight occur also
in 2 C. 12.20 (jealousy, anger, selfishness, and quarrelling (=strife)). Paul fears that
he will find these in evidence, together with four other closely allied vices, when
he visits the Corinthians. It is possible in view of this and in view of the occurrence
of other ethical lists in Paul and other New Testament writers that the apostle is
reflecting a list or lists which were in current use among the popular moralists of
his day. For a comment on such lists, cf. B. S. Easton, The Pastoral Epistles, 1948,
pp- 197-202.
21. drunkenness, carousing: the whole list closes with sins of intemperance,
which were also not only prevalent but sanctioned by various heathen forms of
worship. In Rom.’13.13 Paul mentioned them together in conjunction with some
of the other evils mentioned here. In that passage the apostle exhorts his readers to
make no provision for the flesh to gratify its desires and thus the idea is closely
parallel to the present passage. In view of the necessity for constant repetition of
this warning against intemperance it is not surprising to find that one of the
negative qualifications of a bishop is that he should not be a drunkard (1 Tim. 3.3;
Tit. 1.17).
and the like: this is clearly added by Paul to show that he has intentionally been
selective for the purpose of illustrating his point. The works of the flesh are this
kind of thing and from these examples it should be possible to recognize others.
A modern list of samples would need to be little different if at all from Paul’s.
I warn you, as I warned you before: the verb used in each part of this state-
ment means ‘to say beforehand’, with a derived meaning ‘to declare’. Presumably
the previous occasion to which he refers was the instruction given during his
missionary work among them.
shall not inherit the kingdom of God: the warning is severe. The Jews would
mostly have agreed with Paul’s warning, for their moral standards were con-
siderably higher than those of the Gentile world. Gentiles would certainly need a
higher ethic when they embraced Christianity, but Paul is convinced that such
could be found, apart from a legalistic rule, in the life in the Spirit. The word
‘kingdom’ refers to the reign of God which was to take place at the end of the
present age, but it may also include a present realization as it seems to have done
139 GALATIANS §.21-22
in the teaching of our Lord. This statement shows that although Paul did not make
much of the kingdom teaching in his epistles, yet when he does refer to it it is full
of significance and of obvious importance in his thinking. Similar statements to the
present one, which bring out the ethical demands of the kingdom, may be found
in 1 C. 6.9f. and Eph. 5.5.
22. But the fruit of the Spirit: the change from ‘works’ to ‘fruit’ is important
because it shifts the emphasis away from human endeavour. The imagery used is
particularly suggestive to convey the idea of spiritual growth, in striking contrast
to the deterioration which follows the activities of the flesh. It is significant that
Paul uses the singular ‘fruit’ rather than the plural, because the latter would suggest
a number of variegated products, whereas his real aim is to show the various aspects
of the one harvest. Not one of those qualities which Paul names can be isolated and
treated as an end in itself. The metaphor of fruit, which is frequently used in the
teaching of Jesus, is found on a few other occasions in Paul’s epistles, the most
interesting of which is Eph. 5.9, where it occurs, as here, immediately after a
reference to the ethical character of the kingdom. It seems certain that in the
apostle’s mind there was a definite distinction between the fruit of the Spirit
and the spiritual gifts (charismata) mentioned in the First Epistle to the Corinthians
(so Ridderbos). In the latter the endowments were for special tasks and were not
therefore shared by all alike. But the fruit of the Spirit is the normal product of
every believer led by the Spirit.
As with the list of works of the flesh, so with this list it is impossible to place too
much emphasis on the precise order of each individual item. Nevertheless two
observations may be made. The first three are undoubtedly placed in a significant
order at the head of the list. Moreover, these three deal with inward qualities which
mainly affect the self, although they cannot be divorced from the Christian
reaching out; the final six are more socially orientated. Yet this must be regarded
as only a rough classification.
love: few would dispute Paul’s choice of love as being primary. It is in harmony
with his great hymn of love in 1 C. 13. It is at the heart of the gospel. Paul has
already had something to say about it in this epistle, both of Christ’s love to man
(2.20) and of man’s own love (5.6). Christian love was vastly different from the
contemporary notion of love, which was inextricably bound up with carnal
passion, because it is patterned on the love of Christ to man. Both his love and ours
are the product of the same Spirit.
joy, peace: joy is especially characteristic of Paul’s letter to the Philippians, but
it occurs also in several other letters. In this letter it is mentioned only here. Several
times Paul uses the expression ‘the God of peace’, which indicates the kind of peace
for which he looks. Cf. 1 C. 7.15, where he applies this to domestic relationships
by remarking that God has called us to peace. This peace is very different from the
general notion of peace, for it is an inward possession which brings with it serenity
of mind. It contrasts vividly with the chaotic ‘works of the flesh’. These first three
 GALATIANS §.22-23 140
qualities are completely alien to the very atmosphere which ‘flesh’ produces.
patience: the word contains the idea of ‘endurance’, which gives a stronger
content than the word ‘patience’. Nevertheless, the main emphasis here is on a
passive quality—bearing up under the stresses and strains of life. This is a quality
~ seen most vividly in a social context.
kindness, goodness: the first of these words can denote goodness, but always in
the New Testament it signifies ‘kindness’. The second word can also mean both
goodness and kindness. Indeed, there appears to be little distinction between the
two words. Nevertheless, it would be unlike Paul in a list of this kind to use two
synonymous words without intending some distinction. It is just possible, therefore,
that ‘goodness’ is conceived to be more active than ‘kindness’.
faithfulness: this translates the Greek word pistis, which has already played an
important part in the earlier portion of the epistle in the sense of ‘faith in God’.
But since faith is a basic requirement in man’s approach to God it cannot be
regarded as part of the fruit of the Spirit in the same way as the other virtues
mentioned. The word must therefore mean ‘trustworthiness’, either in the sense of
fidelity to standards of truth or in the sense of reliability in dealings with others
(cf. Burton).
23. gentleness: this word (prautés) conveys the idea of mildness, which is seen
in a willingness to submit to the will of God. The AV rendering (‘meekness’) has
often been misunderstood because it has been assumed that this implied a spineless
lack of resistance even to those things which are evil. But this is not the meaning
of the word. It is the counterpart of ‘anger’ in the other list.Itis not a natural
quality, otherwise it would not have been included in the fruit of the Spirit. It
needs spiritual cultivation. The development of it leads to harmony and not
discord. It is for that reason a potent factor in the elimination of those sins of strife
so prominent in the former list. Cf. Burton’s lexical discussion here.
self-control, i.e. mastery over the desires of the self: The corresponding verb is
used in 1 C. 7.9 of control of sexual desires, but the noun in the present context
unquestionably has a wider connotation. In the Spirit-directed life self must keep
its proper place. Selfcontrol, however, does not mean self-negation, but a true
estimate of the function of self in the noblest form of life. There can be no better
example than our Lord himself, who never emphasized his own will and yet never
failed to impress the power of his personality upon others. The Spirit reproduces
in the believer the same kind of balanced view of self.
against such there is no law: the apostle returns to his theme of law because he
probably has in mind the Judaizers’ insistence that a legal system is the only hope
of restraining the works of the flesh by condemning them. But Paul wishes to point
out that the Spirit-life is a real alternative because there is no need for any restrain-
ing law. The word ‘law’ is general here, although Paul may well have been thinking
of the Mosaic law. In one sense, if under the legal system men had shown the
qualities enumerated in this list, there would have been no need for the law’s
141 GALATIANS 5.24-26

condemnation. The fruit of the Spirit is, therefore, the positive answer to the
legalist’s challenge to the Galatians.
24. And those who belong to Christ Jesus: there is a close connection between
this verse and the last. As contrasted with a legal system Christ has introduced an
entirely new relationship. Flesh has been overcome by a new allegiance, indeed a
new ownership. It should be noted that there is an article in the Greek before
Christ Jesus, drawing attention to the title ‘the Messiah’, which would be of par-
ticular significance in Paul’s discussion with the Judaizers.
have crucified the flesh: the verb points to a completed action in the past and
might most naturally refer to conversion. Some see the aorist as referring to the
finality of the act rather than to the specific occasion, and this is a justifiable
interpretation. It is significant that the crucifying act is said to have been carried out
by those in Christ, i.e. the verb is put in the active. By way of contrast, when Paul
is dealing with his own continuous experience in 2.20 he uses the same verb in the
passive. The active voice in this present context emphasizes the believers’ responsi-
bility, although Paul would have been the first to admit that the crucifying of the
flesh with its passions and desires, is possible only by identification with the crucified
Christ. The listinverses 19 and 20 has already sufficiently illustrated what Paul
has in mind. The fruit of the Spirit is so antithetical to the operations of the flesh
that something drastic must be done to them, i.e. they must be crucified. In itself
the first word (pathéma) is neutral and is in fact often used by Paul in the sense of
suffering, but the ‘strong feeling’ is clearly used in a bad sense as the context shows,
and the article which is used with both words in the Greek denotes those passions
and desires which particularly belong to the flesh.
25. If we live by the Spirit: the ‘if’ clause is rhetorical and might be rendered,
‘Since we live by the Spirit’. The matter is not in doubt, but forms the basis of
Paul’s appeal. Life in the Spirit carries with it unavoidable responsibilities.
let us also walk by the Spirit: there is clearly a distinction in Paul’s mind between
‘living’ and ‘walking’, the latter requiring a constant application, while the former
expresses an abiding fellowship. The Christian believer has a different kind of life
compared with those under the domination of flesh. But the practical application
of this new life is not automatic. It requires some perseverance, just as a child who
is learning to walkeneeds persistence. The metaphor is suggestive, for the same
Spirit who gives life gives both strength and guidance throughout life’s journey.
26. Let us have no self-conceit: Paul continues his exhortation with three
negative aspects, all of which are an indication of what he means by walking in
the Spirit. It is like picking one’s way along a path filled with pot-holes. There are
many things to avoid such as these three. They are probably selected to give as
direct an antithesis to the strife engendered by the flesh as possible. A more literal
rendering of the Greek here would be, ‘Let us not become vainglorious people’,
i.e. let us not depart from the standard of humility set before us.
no provoking: a word, used only here in the New Testament, which literally
GALATIANS 5.26-6.1 142

means ‘to call forth’, hence ‘to challenge’. Where the Spirit controls there are no
combats among people because all are led by the same Spirit.
no envy: here the verb is used which corresponds to the noun used in verse 21,
which suggests that Paul’s aim is to show how the works of the flesh must be
actively resisted. It is tragic that church life has often been wrecked through failure
to observe the responsibilities of walking in the Spirit.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO OTHERS 6.I-10

6.1. Brethren, if a man . ..: there is no break between this verse and the
last, for this gives a particular example of the general principles already enunciated.
The repetition of ‘brethren’ reflects Paul’s anxiety to keep his exhortations on a
personal plane. He intends to treat his readers, in spite of his great concern over
their present condition, in accordance with his own principles. The if-clause (ean)
puts the proposition in a tentative form, and'the general character of this hypothesis
is emphasized by the use of ‘man’ instead of ‘brother’, although the man is pre-
sumably a Christian.
overtaken: the element of surprise is dominant in this word in this context, i.e.
overtaken or seized unawares. It is the unexpected occasions when Christians fall
which are most difficult to deal with and which tend to call forth harsh criticism
from fellow-believers.
trespass: the word means literally ‘to step aside’, and may have been chosen
because of its appropriateness to Paul’s thought of the Christian life as a walk by
the Spirit (5.16).
you who are spiritual: Paul is thinking of a distinct contrast between those who
obey the dictates of the Spirit and those who do not. There is no question here of
an exclusive group of believers more spiritual than others. This quality of spiritu-
ality is meant for all Christians. In the Greek, there is an emphasis on ‘you’, which
heightens the contrast.
restore: the tense is present drawing attention to the continuity of the action.
Restoration is generally not a single act, but a persistent procedure.
spirit of gentleness: the interpretation of this phrase will depend on whether the
divine or the human spirit is in mind. Ifthe former, the meaning would be ‘through
the aid of the Holy Spirit with the result of gentleness’; if the latter, ‘through a
gentility of spirit’. In Paul’s own thought there was probably little difference, for
the human spirit of the believer was conceived to be energized by the Holy Spirit.
Restoration is delicate work and requires a tender approach. Rebuke or condemna-
tion, however necessary in their place, are poor aids when a man is down.
Look to yourself: the change from plural to singular should be noted. Self-
examination can only be individual. The verb used (skoped) means more than just
seeing; it involves a steady consideration, like looking at a target before releasing
a shot.
143 GALATIANS 6.1-3

lest you too be tempted: this may be regarded as expressing either the object or
the purpose of the verb ‘look’. As the object it would restrict the sphere of self-
examination to areas of possible temptation. As the purpose of the verb, the clause
would suggest that self-examination will avoid the temptation to fall into the same
kind of trespass as the offending brother. It is significant that Paul refers to tempta-
tion rather than to sin, although it is the sin to which the temptation might lead
which is to be avoided. No doubt Paul considered that self-examination could and
should lead to the avoidance of a situation which, in this case, would lead to
temptation.
2. Bear one another’s burdens: while this is a general injunction, it no doubt
had a particular reference to the case just mentioned. A Christian falls to a surprise
temptation and immediately other Christians are to seek ways and means of
restoring the fallen brother. His burden has become theirs. The principle enunci-
ated is one of the most profound aspects of Christian fellowship. Because the
Christian community is closely knit in Christ, what affects one member must
affect the whole, a principle more than once illustrated elsewhere by the apostle
under the figure of the body (cf. 1 C. 12.12ff.). In the Greek of this statement the
first word is ‘of one another’ (allélén), which therefore carries special emphasis.
fulfil: the most probable reading is aorist, although there is some strong support
for the future. The aorist reinforces the completeness of the fulfilment, which is
also stressed by its compound form (anaplérod).
the law of Christ: in all probability some connection exists between “burdens’
and ‘law’, for Paul has had experience of the burden of the Mosaic law and has
been at such pains to dissuade the Galatians from accepting any such burdens. But
he is dealing here with burdens and law of a different kind. The burdens are human
burdens and the law is Christ’s. Undoubtedly the expression ‘law of Christ’ is
meant to contrast with the system of legalism as a religious principle. It involves
submission to a Person rather than to a code. It seems better to take it in this sense
than to suggest that ‘law’ here refers to any specific commandments or precepts of
Jesus. All that Christ has become to the believer incurs a new kind of obligation
upon him. As Christ bore the burdens of others, so the believer must do the same.
This is the ‘law’ of true Christian relationships.
3- For if any one: the conjunction shows a close connection with the previous
statement. Bearing other people’s burdens involves self-sacrifice, and this is utterly
incompatible with a sense of self-importance. Although the apostle expresses the
matter indefinitely, he is probably thinking of some specific individual or indi-
viduals who had too high a self-esteem.
thinks: the same verb is used here as occurs in chapter 2 of ‘those of repute’,
although here with a different sense; hence ‘thinks’ rather than ‘seems’.
something . . . nothing: the English translation obscures the emphatic juxtaposi-
tion of these two words. The contrast could not have been more vividly expressed.
There appear to be no grades between. No believer has a right to regard himself
GALATIANS 6.3-5 144

as any more than nothing, ie. in his own right, for he owes everything to Christ.
This contrasts strongly with the Pharisaic concept of self-righteousness.
deceives himself: the verb, which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament,
means to deceive one’s own mind. The apostle implies that any believer who claims
to be ‘something’ is filling his mind with fantasies.
4. But let each one test: the examination is an individual responsibility. No
Christians are set up as official testers. The word for testing (dokimazo) is charac-
teristic of Paul, who accounts for all the New Testament occurrences except four.
Its primary application is for the testing of metals to see whether they are pure.
This makes an apt metaphor for tests of moral worth.
his own work: two observations may be made here. The subject of examination
is to be work which is tangible enough to provide a fairly objective basis. This is
much more satisfactory than being called upon to test one’s influence, although the
latter is affected by one’s activity. There is, of course, the difficulty of finding
suitable standards against which to test our work, but Paul does not explicitly help
us here. But he does so implicitly by evidently assuming that a Spirit-led life will
have available spiritual means of assessment. The second worthwhile observation
is that each is exhorted to concentrate on his own, not on the work of others.
Much unpleasant criticism would have been avoided had this injunction been
more closely obeyed.
and then: the result stated presupposes that the testing referred to has proved
successful.
his reason to boast will be in himself alone: a literal rendering of the Greek
would be, ‘in respect to himself alone he will have the ground for glorying’, which
brings the emphasis more specifically on ‘himself’ (heauton). The word rendered
‘reason to boast’ (kauchéma) is another characteristic Pauline expression (cf. Rom.
4.2; 1 C. 9.15). This is not intended to be a sanction for boasting, but rather a focus
on individual responsibility. In the last analysis each man is answerable for himself,
not for others, and in view of verse 3 it would seem that Paul assumes that no-one
has any real ground for boasting, since “all believers are nothing’.
not in his neighbour: in the Greek the expression is very general, i.e. in respect
of the other, which suggests any other besides oneself.
5. For each man will have to bear his own load: this is not a contradiction
of verse 2, for a different type of burden is in mind. In the former verse it is a
question of some crushing weight which unexpectedly descends on the person
concerned and is completely outside his control. But here it is the general load
which all must carry, like a hiker equipped with the bare minimum. There are
certain responsibilities which cannot be shelved on to others. Each, for instance,
must bear the burden of his own sinful bias, the infirmity of the flesh. In many ways
this verse supplies the key to verse 2, for only those who know the measure of their
own weaknesses are qualified to share the burdens of others. Here is the paradox
of human sympathy. Those are best able to sustain another who have proved their
145 GALATIANS 6.5-7

own power to be sustained in trials of their own. It is suggestive that the same word
used here for load (phortion) is used by Jesus of the burden of his yoke, which he
himself describes as light (Mt. 11.30).

GENERAL EXHORTATIONS
6. Let him who is taught: the idea here is of oral teaching, and reflects the wide
use made of catechesis in the early Church. This statement comes rather abruptly
after the opening section of this chapter and raises the problem whether any con-
nection exists with what precedes, whether it stands as an isolated statement or
whether it introduces the next section. There is a connecting particle in the Greek
(de) which presupposes some connection with what precedes, although that
connection is not obvious on the surface. Ifit arises out of verse 5 it may introduce
anecessary modification to avoid any misapprehension. That each man should bear
his own burden does not exempt the taught having responsibilities towards the
teacher. But the precise connection can be determined only when the meaning of
this verse as a whole has been determined.
the word: this is the content of the catechesis and must therefore refer to the whole
content of the Christian message. It would, of course, include a Christian interpre-
tation of the Old Testament but would mainly consist of the positive aspects of
Christian doctrine, a development, no doubt, from Paul’s mission preaching to
them. There is no certain knowledge whether there wasafixed form in which oral
instruction was given, but it is highly probable. What is here most in view,
however, is not the teacher’s subject matter, but the teacher-pupil relationship.
share all good things: it is important to decide the precise meaning of the verb
used here (i.e. koindne6). Its root-meaning is ‘to be a partner in or with’. This would
suggest a partnership between teacher and taught, but it still remains to decide in
what sense this partnership operates. It is generally supposed that the sharing
involves the financial support of the teacher, and this may well fit in with the
context (cf. Lightfoot, Bonnard, Bring).
Did the apostle fear lest his statement in the previous verse might be taken by
the Galatians in the wrong way? Would they say that their instructors must bear
their own financial load and so cease to support them? There is much to be said
for this interpretation. Not only does it fit the context; it also suits the expression
‘all good things’. Moreover, it would be an appropriate injunction for a people
who had come from a heathen environment in which there was no custom of
financial support for religious instructors. And yet the term ‘good things. could be
otherwise interpreted in a spiritual sense, and this would be more in keeping with
the spiritual outlook of the epistle as a whole. In this case the emphasis must be
placed on the term ‘all’. It is the comprehensiveness of spiritual fellowship between
teacher and taught which, under this interpretation, is mainly in mind. Perhaps the
ambiguity of the statement is intentional to provide for both interpretations.
7. Do not be deceived: what is the connection of thought which causes the
GALATIANS 6.7-8 146

apostle to introduce this warning? It would appear reasonable to suppose that he

is thinking of the implications of a failure to assume one’s proper responsibilities.
The idea that a Christian who does not have the right kind of fellowship with his
instructor is comparable to one who mocks God seems rather too severe. It is
better, therefore, to assume a looser connection with verse 6 and to maintain that
Paul’s mind moves to a rather different aspect of human responsibility.
God is not mocked: the absence of the article in the Greek word for God shows
that it is intended to be taken qualitatively. God is not the kind who is susceptible
to mocking. He understands perfectly and it is futile in the extreme to treat his
judgments with contempt.
for whatever a man sows: this is certainly a proverbial saying. The metaphorical
use of sowing and reaping not only finds parallels in extra-biblical writings, but
particularly in the parables of Jesus. The proverb states an inexorable natural law.
The harvest bears a direct relationship to the seed sown. No farmer would dispute
this principle, but in the moral sphere some may be so self-deceived as to believe
otherwise, and this even applies to Christians.
8. For he who sows to his own flesh: Paul applies the metaphor by identifying
two different kinds of soil, flesh, and spirit, which have already been shown to be
antithetical (cf. 5.16f.). In this case the soil affects the harvest rather than the seed,
but although the metaphor becomes slightly mixed, the principle is undoubtedly
the same. Flesh cannot produce spiritual results, and the Spirit will always produce
results in harmony with his own nature. There is no doubt that Paul intended the
emphasis to fall on the words ‘his own’ (heautou), as contrasted with ‘the Spirit’ in
the second half of the verse. [n the former case it is integral to the man; in the latter
it is a gift from God. The expression ‘to sow to a thing’ (Greek eis) is used only in
this context and in the interpretation of the parable of the sower (Mt. 13.20;
Mk 4.18). In the latter case, the preposition denotes the direction in which the seed
fell, ie. towards the thorny area. If the same obtains here it must mean, in a
metaphorical sense, that flesh is the sphere in which a man sows with the additional
idea of direction. Paul is thinking of a man’s life which is lived as if ‘flesh’ and its
interests are the ultimate destiny.
reap corruption: the metaphor is vivid here, for who in his senses would ever
bother to harvest a field of decaying matter, but the very incongruity of the idea
serves to draw attention to the foolishness of those who sow to the flesh. As a
contrast to eternal life in the next clause, ‘corruption’ stands for that which results
in death. ;
he who sows to the Spirit: since this is an exact counterpart to the phrase ‘to his
own flesh’, it must refer to a man whose intentions are directed towards the
Spirit-dominated life.
will from the Spirit reap eternal life: the whole clause is exactly parallel in form
to the first. As ‘into the Spirit’ corresponds to ‘into the flesh’, so “from the Spirit’
is parallel to ‘from the flesh’; and ‘corruption’ to ‘eternal life’. Yet the metaphor of
147 GALATIANS 6.8-10

the soil is more appropriate to the flesh than to the Spirit. It isa bold idea on Paul’s
part to apply it to the Spirit, but he wishes to bring out the incalculable advantage
of embedding the seed of one’s moral life in the Spirit of God. A spiritual harvest
more surely follows right principles of sowing than a natural harvest.
The concept of eternal life is not as frequent in Paul as inJohn. In this context
Paul gives no direct definitions of its meaning, but since he uses the term in
antithesis to ‘corruption’ it may be inferred that his major stress is on the incorrupti-
bility of the Christian’s inheritance. This does not, of course, exhaust the meaning
of the term, which also has a positive content, i.e. all the positive qualities of ‘life’
in all its fullness. The future tense suggests that Paul is mainly concerned with the
ultimate harvest, and this is also supported by the following verse.
9. And let us not grow weary in well-doing: a similar statement occurs in
2 Th. 3.13, but there it is a direct exhortation in the second person. Here the apostle
includes himself, for he knows that he is not immune to discouragement. The
danger of sowing in the wrong soil is reasonably plain, but the danger of spoiling
good work by losing heart is more subtle. Paul may have been thinking that life
in the flesh may in its immediate effects seem more attractive, because the Christian
path so often involves hardship, and this tends sometimes to undermine morale.
When a man tires while he is doing fine things it means that he has temporarily
lost his real sense of values.
in due season we shall reap: literally this should read ‘in its own season’, which
clearly means the time of harvest. Metaphorically speaking, there is an appointed
time for the spiritual reaping.
lose heart: a different verb is used here (eklus), which contains the idea of fatigue.
The figure is probably of reapers in a cornfield, perhaps under the blazing sun, who
need to brace themselves for the task if the harvest is to be gathered. Those who
become enfeebled will never achieve their end. Paul expresses the condition here
by means of a participle to show that it is an integral part of reaping.
10. So then: Paul here uses a characteristic formula to draw out the logical
consequence of what he has just said (ara oun). No other New Testament writer
uses it.
as we have opportunity: this expression assumes that the opportunity is present,
in which case ‘as’ (hds) might be rendered ‘while’. The word for opportunity
(kairon), the same as in verse 9 translated ‘season’, points to the appropriate period
of sowing corresponding to the appropriate time for reaping already referred to.
The implication is that during the present life opportunities for doing good are
constant.
let us do good to all men: the exhortation is general and should be characteristic
of all Christians. But what does Paul mean by ‘good’ (literally ‘the good’ (to
agathon))? In the previous verse ‘well-doing’ is derived from a different word
(kalon), which more generally draws attention to the outward manifestation of
goodness. But the distinction cannot be pressed too far. There is possibly a con-
GALATIANS 6.10-II 148

nection here with verse 6 where the plural “good things’ (agathois) occurs. Probably
in both cases spiritual and material benefits may be in mind, although in both the
spiritual predominate.
and especially: whereas the previous statement is surprisingly comprehensive,
including ‘all men’ without barriers of race, status, or culture, the apostle wishes
to press home a specific application of this principle. Responsibility towards other
Christians is greater than towards other people generally.
those who are of the household of faith: there are other New Testament
examples of the metaphor of a house to represent the Church of God (cf. Eph. 2.19;
1 Tim. 3.15; 1 Pet. 4.17). Here the imagery is more specifically of the members of
a household, all together forming a unit. The genitive “of faith’ must then be
regarded as descriptive. The distinguishing mark of the members of the Christian
household is faith. This is better than treating faith as personified. On the other
hand the Greek possesses the article, which could possibly refer to the content of
belief, i.e. doctrine. But the present expression appears to be little more than a
colourful description of all true Christian believers (cf. Cole).
The apostle is here touching on an important principle of Christian behaviour.
If Christians neglect one another they will have little thought for the needs of
non-Christians. Material distress among any members of the Christian family
affects the whole family. The reality of the doctrine of the union of all in Christ
sees to that. For this very reason, Christians have always been in the vanguard of
schemes for social alleviation, although it must be admitted that organized
Christianity has not infrequently lamentably failed to face up to its responsibility
even towards its own members. No doubt Paul is here thinking of individual
action rather than corporate action, since a body of people can never act corporately
on any higher plane than its individual members.
CONCLUSION 6.11-18
11. See with what large letters, etc.: at this point the apostle may have taken
the pen from the amanuensis and have added the concluding remarks in his own
handwriting. If so, he felt it to be necessary to draw special attention to this, no
doubt because the change of script would have been noticed only by the reader
when the epistle was read aloud, and even he might well have overlooked the
significance of the change. But why did Paul conclude in his own hand? According
to this interpretation it would presumably have been designed to bring a warm
touch to the concluding appeal to the readers. The largeness of the letters would
then be in contrast to the smaller and neater script of the amanuensis. But there is
no specific reference to an amanuensis here, and it is therefore not impossible that
the whole epistle was written in his own hand. In that case his reference to it here
would need to be understood in a different way. The largeness of hand would
emphasize the intensity and earnestness of his thought in much the same way as
block capitals are sometimes now used to arrest attention. It is difficult to choose
149 GALATIANS 6.11-13

between this latter theory and the amanuensis proposition. The verb ‘Iam writing’
is in the aorist in Greek (egrapsa), which would most naturally refer to what
precedes, although it is sometimes used of what is currently being written. More-
over, the epistle as a whole does not read like a dictated epistle, although the force
of this argument would naturally be nullified if the amanuensis had reproduced
precisely Paul’s own statements. If 2 Th. 3.17 is regarded as a norm, it was evidently
Paul’s practice to take the pen at the conclusion. On the whole there would seem
rather more in favour of this view than the other.
Did Paul intend to close at this point and then decide to add a concluding
summarizing appeal? In all probability he did.
as
12. It is those who want: a more literal translation would read, ‘as many
yet all-inclusiv e. Paul’s aim is to
want’, which makes it rather more general and
draw attention to one characteristic of all who insist on circumcision, i.e. their
desire to create an impression.
to make a good showing in the flesh: the verb occurs only here in the New
Testament and implies a desire to put on a fair face. The emphasis is on outward
appearance as if God formed his estimates according to purely external measure-
ments. But the key to the verb is in the accompanying phrase. ‘Flesh’ must once
again be regarded as antithetical to Spirit, and Paul returns to his earlier contention
that circumcision belongs to the former rather than to the latter. To the Jewish
mind which had not been liberated from legalism, the finest outward display of a
man’s serious intentions towards piety was his willingness to submit to circum-
cision. This is what Paul means by a ‘good showing’.
compel: the same word as used in 2.14 of Peter’s action in insisting on Jewish
conditions of fellowship with Gentiles. It is a strong word, which underlines the
seriousness of the threat with which Paul is dealing. The Galatians may not yet
have yielded, but the pressure upon them is considerable.
only in order that they may not be persecuted: the Judaizers are striving for
a compromise between the non-Christian Jewish position of orthodox Judaism and
the non-Jewish Christian position of Paul. They feared persecution from the
orthodox party and yet their policy brought them into direct opposition to Paul.
cross,
for the cross of Christ: in 5.11 Paul refers to the stumbling-block of the
and it would seem from both these references that the Judaizers were ignoring or
even opposing the essentially Christian doctrine of the cross. Of course, they would
avoid persecution if they insisted on circumcision and removed the offence of the
cross. It is possible, however, that these Judaizers, if they were Christians at all,
were attempting to avert the antagonism of Jews to the gospel message by showing
their willingness to make Gentiles submit to Jewish scruples. Paul sees that even if
they still retain the doctrine of the cross, their policy, in fact, nulliftes it. Hence his
own emphasis upon it in verse 14.
13. For even those who receive circumcision: Paul is probably echoing here
an objection from the Judaizers that their motive was not to escape persecution but
GALATIANS 6.13-14 1§0

to uphold the law. They had no doubt convinced themselves of this altruistic
motive, but Paul points out that not even the circumcised keep the law (cf.
Munck, 87f.).
do not themselves keep the law: this can be understood in various ways. The
most natural would seem to be that they cannot keep the law because its demands
are impossible (so Duncan). Paul is not then criticizing them for failure to keep
the law, but for failure to recognize their inability to do so. Had they recognized
this failure they would certainly not have insisted on Gentiles attempting to do
what they themselves had failed to do. This is better than supposing that Paul
knew of any specific instances of their failure, or that he knew that they had not
tried to keep the law (cf. Lightfoot, Williams).
but they desire, etc.: this is almost a repetition of the first part of verse 12,
although the differences are worth noting. There they were trying to compel: here
Paul softens it to desire. There the purpose was to make a good showing; here to
glory in the flesh. This latter change is significant, as Paul wishes to contrast this
glorying with a glorying in an infinitely superior subject. The most that the
Judaizers would be able to glory in would be an increase in adherents to Israel,
which they supposed would be pleasing to God.
14. But far be it from me: Paul’s characteristic phrase of strong rejection
occurs here with the dative of the person to express the alien character of any other
object of glorying except the cross.
except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ: in no more conclusive way could
Paul express the centrality of the cross in his thinking than by exalting it as the sole
object of his boasting. He does not enter here, any more than elsewhere in the
epistle, upon a discussion of the work of Christ. For him it is the key to man’s
salvation, and he assumes that his readers will know what he means when he refers
to it. It clearly stands for much more than the mere historical fact that Jesus was
crucified. It stands for the whole significance of the event, not only for mankind
in general but for Paul in particular. He could understand how the cross was a
stumbling-block for Jews, but he could never understand how Christians could
ever fail to see it as their greatest glory. It may well be that a major part of the
weakness of much of the witness of the modern Church lies in a failure to boast in
the cross, whether or not its opponents treat this message with contempt or
hostility.
by which: the cross is here regarded as the instrument through which a remarkable
transformation of Paul’s relationship with the world has been made. He probable
thinks of Christ’s crucifixion as a pattern for the crucifixion of self, as he does in
2.20. An alternative understanding of the Greek could justify the translation
‘through whom’ (so Ellicott), thus relating the crucifixion of the world to the
agency of Christ. It amounts to the same, for the activity of Christ is inseparable
from his cross.
the world: here the apostle means the order of material creation and everything
151 GALATIANS 6.14-16

under its sway, independent of the control of the Holy Spirit. “The world’ has thus
a moral connotation in so far as it is adverse to the perfect pattern of the Creator
for his creation.
crucified to me: this is a vivid method of stating that the natural world as such
has ceased to have any claims upon him. Crucifixion is a strange figure in this
context, but Paul is no doubt regarding it as an act of finality in order to show that
something more is needed than a mere lessening of attraction in regard to the
world. It must be dealt a death-blow as far as Paul is concerned. It may at first seem
that this is far too drastic. Surely the world has much that is worth preserving?
But Paul’s uncompromising approach is the only effective one. When the world
had died to him and he to the world, he could discover real life. He could then
look out on the natural order from a different point of view, as verse 15 shows.
Henceforth his aims are spiritual and what the natural man regards as gain are for
him refuse (cf. Phil. 3.8).
15. neither circumcision . . . nor uncitcumcision: in harmony with his
general argument Paul asserts the irrelevance of the circumcision issue., The state-
ment is extremely compressed, but Paul’s present thought must be interpreted in
the light of verse 14. He is giving a reason for his boasting in the cross, i.e. because
through it has emerged a new creation. But he must again exclude circumcision as
a basis for boasting and with it he links uncircumcision in case the Gentiles should
find pride in their uncircumcised state.
a new creation: the same expression as here is found in 2 C. 5.7, where it probably
means ‘a new creature’. Here, however, the idea seems to be the totality of the
renewal effected by Christ. Whatever man might do to earn salvation, of which
circumcision is a conspicuous example, he could never succeed. He needed not only
to be crucified with Christ, but also to be recreated. Christians should remember,
according to Paul’s line of argument, that nothing they had ever done, nor ever
would do, nor any privileges they thought they possessed, contributed in any way
to the new creation. It was all God’s work.
16. Peace and mercy: in Ps. 125.5 occurs the phrase, ‘peace shall be upon Israel’,
and there is little doubt that Paul is echoing this Psalm. Nonetheless he has modified
the Psalmist’s thought, which contrasts the crooked ways of the wicked with Israel
as typical of those who trust in the Lord. He contrasts those who trust in circum-
cision with those who rely upon Christ. Moreover, the addition of ‘mercy’ is
interesting. It would be more general to place mercy before peace, which is the
result of an act of divine mercy as it is in 1 Tim. 1.2; 2 Tim, 1.2; 2 Jn 3; and Jude 2.
Perhaps the apostle makes the addition because he wants to show that in the
Christian sense ‘peace’ is different from the Psalmist’s use of it. It is the peace of
those who have thrown themselves on the mercy of God.
all who walk by this rule: since the verb has already occurred in 5.25 of the
believer’s walk by the Spirit, it is clear that Paul intends the same meaning here.
The key to Paul’s precise meaning lies in the interpretation of the word rendered
GALATIANS 6.16-18 1§2

‘rule’ (kandn). He uses the word, which literally means ‘a straight edge’, in the sense
of a ‘principle’, and he must mean the principle enunciated in the previous two
verses, i.e. the central importance of the cross.
the Israel of God: there are two ways in which this can be understood. It can refer
to the faithful Israelites, thus distinguishing them from Israel as a whole, or it can
refer to all Christians as the New Israel. The phrase occurs nowhere else in the New
Testament and so there are no parallels to which to appeal for a decision. Since
‘Israel’ seems to refer to the same people as ‘all who walk by this rule’, the second
interpretation seems preferable. No doubt Paul introduces this reference to Israel
not only because he is echoing it from the Psalm, but also because he wants to
assure the Galatians that they will not forfeit the benefits of being part of the true
Israel by refusing circumcision.
17. Henceforth let no man trouble me: this statement seems rather abruptly
introduced as a parting remark. It appears that Paul had made his last strong appeal
and realizes that nothing further can be done but to leave the matter with his
readers. He hopes that no-one will cause further trouble to him. It may be that this
is Paul’s tactful way of finishing on a note of personal appeal, as much as to say
‘have a thought for all the trouble you have already caused me and shame upon
you if you cause me any more’.
for I bear on my body: what the apostle carries in a physical sense is given as a
reason why they should cease troubling him. This appears to be an allusion to his
present circumstances. It is noticeable that Paul uses ‘body’ not ‘flesh’, which would
carry an undesired connotation.
the marks of Jesus: Ramsay has suggested that this is an allusion to the branding
of slaves as a sign of ownership, in which case Paul is thinking metaphorically of
the badge of Jesus upon him, perhaps in contrast to the badge of circumcision car-
ried by the legalists (so Bengel). But this is not the best interpretation. 2 Corinthians
4.10 supplies a suitable parallel. After speaking of being ‘persecuted’ and ‘struck
down’, he mentions carrying in the body the death of Jesus, an expression so closely
parallel to the present statement that it seems inescapable that Paul meant the same
thing in both cases. This being so, the marks of Jesus would be the scars of perse-
cution. Some of the Galatians had seen those scars. They were the marks of Jesus
in the sense that they had been incurred in the cause of Jesus. They were evidence
that Paul owed allegiance to Jesus. In view of those scars, the Galatians should avoid
any further harrying.
18. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: it is usual for Paul to begin and end
his epistles with a reference to grace. For a similar phrase to that used here, cf.
Rom. 16.20; Phil. 4.23.
be with your spirit: it is significant that Paul mentions the ‘spirit’ at this juncture
in this epistle, for he has had much to say about the Holy Spirit and this makes a
fitting conclusion. He treats the Galatians as spiritual people. Cf. Phil. 4.23;
2 Tim. 4.22, for the same expression.
153 GALATIANS 6.18

brethren: this adds warmth to the parting greeting. It does not occur in any other
of Paul’s epistolary conclusions.
Amen: apart from this, only that to the Romans of Paul’s epistles ends with an
Amen. It was no formal habit with Paul. He means to add weight to his conclusion.
It was intended as a prayer—‘so let it be’.
 APPENDIX

NOTE A: THE CENTRALITY OF CHRIST IN THE EPISTLE

It is generally supposed that the keynote to this epistle is justification by faith, and
there is no denying the prominence given to this important theme. Yet the most
dominating feature is the centrality of Christ in the theology of the epistle. This
latter, of course, includes the former, but justification can only be fully understood
when the nature of the justifier is in clear focus. Although in all Paul’s epistles
Christ is much spoken of, yet in none other is the mention of Christ so all-pervasive.
It is a rewarding study to consider the light that this epistle throws on Paul’s
Christology. It may be wondered what value attaches to this kind of study for a
single epistle, for it might be objected that the resultant study would tend to be
one-sided. Not only is such a fear without basis in the case of this epistle, but the
importance of the epistle for its spontaneity warrants a separate study. Since, as we
have seen, even the most liberal critics of Paul have left this epistle to him because
it bears the strong marks of his powerful personality, it is clearly of first-rate
importance to study its Christology. At the same time a caution needs to be entered
in case it should be assumed that a complete Pauline Christology can be found
here. Truth is many-sided, and cannot be contained within the confines of one
brief epistle.

PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP

The reader of this epistle will not progress far before he realizes that the author is a
man of deep conviction about the place Christ holds in his own life. Indeed, this
appears indirectly in the first verse, when Paul speaks of his apostleship. It is of ©
utmost importance for him to establish the divine origin of his office, but it is
significant in this respect that he couples Jesus Christ with God the Father. In his
vision on the Damascus road it was Christ who addressed him and who identified
himself so closely with his people that he charged Saul of Tarsus with persecuting
him rather than them. This was the beginning of a new relationship which became
completely Christ-centred.
This deep conviction recurs in 1.12, although in this case it is not Paul’s office but
his gospel which is in mind. The message is every whit as important as the
messenger. It was the apostle’s consciousness of his calling in Christ which invested
his message with a special authority. What he preached was about Christ, and had
been imparted by a special revelation. With such a gospel as that it is no wonder
that Christ was set so prominently at the heart of everything he did or thought.
The major statement relating to Paul’s consciousness of Christ is found in 2.20,
where he not only identifies himself with the crucified Christ, but declares that
155 APPENDIX
Christ now lives within him. More will be said later about the apostle’s doctrine
of a mystic union between believers and Christ, but this transference of Christ’s
death and resurrection to his own spiritual experience is strongly characteristic of
his thinking. He could not conceive of life apart from Christ, but he knew only too
well that there had to be a mortification of the flesh. He had learnt the deep secret
of the cross of Christ in his own spiritual experience. There is no doubt that this
experience coloured his whole approach to theological thinking, and is particularly
apparent in his handling of the Galatian situation. The idea of crucifixion with
Christ would have been quite alien to religious legalists, while the attempt to
obtain justification by works of the law could find no place in an experience like
Paul’s.
The deep impression of the crucified Christ on Paul’s own soul could not fail to
affect his preaching. In fact, he reminds the Galatians that he had placarded the
crucified Christ before them (3.1), clearly as the central feature of his message.
Paul’s words suggest that any influence which could cause the substitution of any
other object must be due to an adverse beguiling influence. Paul was so conscious
of Christ that he had no desire to proclaim anything else but Christ and him
crucified, as he reminded the Corinthians (1 C. 2.2).
Later on in the epistle, the apostle reminds his readers that they had received him
initially “as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus’ (4.14). Does this suggest that Paul bore
so closely the imprint of his master that the Galatians regarded him as an embodi-
ment of Christ, his true representative? This may be reading too much into the
reference, but the close personal connection between Paul and Jesus Christ is
unmistakable.
When he is expressing his confidence in the outcome of his pleadings with the
readers he makes clear that the basis of his confidence is ‘in the Lord’ (5.10). Here
is aman whose own opinions count less than Christ. He feels that his conviction is
not based on his own wishful feeling, but on his relationship to Christ. This is
another example of the influence of a man’s experience of Christ on his mental and
spiritual convictions.
The crucifixion theme as a personal experience is reiterated in 6.14, where the
apostle asserts that he glories only in the cross, because it is the instrument by which
he is crucified to the world and the world to him. There is a close parallel with 2.20,
but in the present case the reference to the world is significant, for there is a clear
antithesis between Christ and the world. For Paul, Christ has taken the place which
was previously occupied by the world in his consciousness. This does not mean that
he became other-worldly, but that he ceased to be under the damaging influence
of a world controlled by adverse powers. The principles of Christ were powerful
enough to supplant the normal principles of the world and the guarantee that they
could do so was found in the cross of Christ.
At the close of this epistle (6.17) the apostle suddenly states that he bears in his
body ‘the marks of Jesus’. His physical condition was in itself a testimony of what
GALATIANS 156

Jesus Christ meant to him. He had suffered much for Christ’s sake, so much so that
he conceives of Christ suffering in him. The marks of Jesus were a testimony that
all could see.

MystTicat UNION

One of the most characteristic facets of Paul’s Christology is the phrase ‘in Christ’
and its corresponding expressions. This epistle is not without considerable emphasis
on this aspect of the believer’s experience.
There has been much discussion of the meaning of the preposition ‘in’ (Greek en)
in the phrase under review, but even although it may carry with it different shades
of meaning according to its context the general idea of a close inward relationship
is always present. It undoubtedly expresses a high view of Christ. For Paul to
conceive of him as a person in whom not only faith but believers themselves might
be grounded, he must have recognized a relationship which could never have
existed between two purely human persons. The concept of being ‘in Christ’ at
once, therefore, draws attention to the uniqueness of Christ. The various usages of
this concept in this epistle will illustrate different aspects of that uniqueness.
The first occurrence is in 1.22, where the apostle refers to the churches of Judea
which are in Christ. This is a much more suggestive manner of speaking than if
Paul had spoken of the churches of Christ. There is more than the idea of owner-
ship in mind. In some sense these churches, as all essentially Christian churches,
were rooted in Christ. He was their basis and their life. There was more than an
external attachment. The phrase is not a synonym for ‘Christian’ as it is generally
understood. It involved a definite personal relationship between the group of
believers as a body and Christ.
A further aspect of the same idea occurs in 2.4, although here it is specifically
related to freedom. The thought is that those who are ‘in Christ’ are now in a
position of freedom. The two concepts are inseparable. The idea of ‘bondage’ and
the idea of being ‘in Christ’ are for Paul mutually exclusive. This is closely linked
with the corresponding statement in 5.1, which makes clear that Christ is the active
agent in securing our freedom. The peculiar richness of the present expression is
brought out by the incongruity of any parallel idea when another agent is substi-
tuted. For instance, in spite of all that the slaves owed to William Wilberforce for
their freedom, none would have referred to the freedom which he had ‘in
Wilberforce’. But the preposition which is so conspicuously out of place for
Wilberforce is perfectly adapted to Christ, for two reasons. Not only is the freedom
gained in Christ of a totally different order in that it is essentially spiritual, but the
agent is immeasurably superior in that he is capable of sustaining a spiritual
relationship with those whom he has freed. This latter condition could be fulfilled
only by one who was more than human, and again points to the high Christology
of the apostle.
$7 APPENDIX

The third occurrence of the phrase is in 2.17, where it relates to justification. It

is significant that in 2.16 Paul speaks of being justified by faith in Christ, but does
not use the formula en Christo. In this case the emphasis is upon the appropriation
of the benefits of Christ’s work by faith. In 2.17 the statement becomes contracted
to ‘justified in Christ’, and in this case there can be no doubt that ‘in Christ’
expresses the spiritual position of those who have put their faith in Christ, as a
result of which they are justified. The phrase thus sums up the result of Christ’s
work for believers in a direction towards God. It is to be noticed that Paul is using
the phrase in a hypothetical question which posits an endeavour to become justified
in Christ, which in the nature of the case is impossible, for justification, as Paul
shows, is not by human effort but by faith.
In the course of his discussion of Abraham’s faith in chapter 3, the apostle explains
that the blessing which accompanied Abraham’s faith is shared by Gentiles ‘in
Christ Jesus’ (3.14). This may be a concise way of saying that Gentiles who become
members of the Christian Church will share the same spiritual heritage as the Jews.
Butitprobably means more than that. The blessing promised to Abraham reached
its fulfilment only in Christ and those incorporated in him must naturally share in
the inheritance. The believers’ mystic oneness with Christ is no doubt in Paul’s
thought, and this for him is the deep spiritual principle which enables him to abolish
any distinction in his mind between Jew and Gentile. The latter could not lay any
firmer claim on Abraham’s blessing by means of circumcision than he already
enjoys in Christ.
A further development of the relationship is found in 3.26 where Paul equates
the sons of God with those ‘in Christ Jesus’. The latter phrase may relate to ‘faith’
rather than to ‘sons of God’, but it seems to make better sense if taken with “sons
of God’. When a man believes, he is then in Christ Jesus, and this invests him with
a new status before God. He may now be said to be ‘in the family’, although even
this analogy falls short. The true children of God are not those who could claim
physical descent from Abraham, asJews believed, but those who were in a position
of faith in Christ. This at once broadened the basis of sonship and at the same time _
excluded mere formal relationship from the qualification required. No amount of
circumcising of Gentiles could introduce them into God’s family without the
exercise of personal faith. The new relationship ‘in Christ’ introduced a new
element not only in man’s approach to God, but in men’s attitude to each other.
This is expressed succinctly in 3.28—‘you are all one in Christ Jesus’. In this state-
ment in which ‘in Christ Jesus’ is the basis of unity, it follows that all who are
‘in Christ’ must have a close relationship to each other. Any means whereby Jew
and Greek, slave and free man, male and female could in the ancient world of
Paul’s day achieve any sense of unity was nothing short of miraculous. This
demonstrates that ‘in Christ’ was no mere formula, but a powerful principle which
could overcome all barriers.
The remaining occurrence of the phrase is found in 5.6, where it is once again
GALATIANS 158

used to overthrow the distinction between circumcision and uncircumcision. Such

a distinction, Paul argues, simply does not exist ‘in Christ Jesus’. In place of it, faith
wotks through love. Because of the frequency with which Paul uses the phrase, its
extraordinary character is all too often missed. There was no other force of such
potency as this which could so effectively abolish age-old and deep-rooted dis-
tinctions which had hardened into prejudice. To be ‘in Christ’ was to be in
possession of an entirely new way of looking at things.
More could be said about the same idea of our mystical union with Christ
expressed in rather different ways in this epistle. For instance, there is the same
mystical idea in Paul’s metaphor of putting on Christ (3.27), or in the use of the
child-bearing imagery in 4.19, or in Paul’s claim that Christ lives within him
(2.20). For him Christ had become life’s centre.

REDEMPTIVE WORK

There are many references in this epistle to the work of Christ and particularly to
the meaning of the cross. The opening salutation (1.3-5) which begins in the usual
way leads into a statement concerning the purpose of Christ’s coming. (a) He is
said to have given himself, so drawing attention to the voluntary character of his
self-giving. (b) At the same time, this self-giving is said to have been according to
the will of God. Both these aspects are characteristic of Paul’s theology and throw
further light upon his Christology. What Christ voluntarily did was what God had
willed, and any cleavage between them was unthinkable to Paul. The self-giving
of Christ is further said (c) to be ‘for our sins’, reminiscent of the similar statement
in 1 C. 15.3. In the latter case Paul is clearly citing a statement of Christian doctrine
which he had received, and there is no denying that this interpretation of the death
of Christ was not only a dominant feature of early Christian belief but also was
deeply impressed upon the mind of the apostle. There is no developed theory of
the Atonement in either of these statements, but there is certainly the beginning of
an interpretation. No theory can possibly be satisfactory which does not explain the
connection between the death of Christ and man’s sins. A fourth assertion is (d) that
the purpose of Christ’s work was to deliver from the present evil age. Here the
apostle is thinking of Christ as a powerful victor over the present order, freeing
those who were captives to that order. This was a fitting introduction to an epistle
which was to battle for the freedom of the Galatian Christians.
There is a passing reference in 1.6 to the grace of Christ, and this must not be
overlooked in considering Paul’s Christology, for the Christian’s calling is the
result of Christ’s unmerited favour and not the result of any merit on man’s part.
Paul conceives of all that Christ has done as being grounded in grace. In the
classic statement in 2.20, after asserting that he himself has been crucified with
Christ, Paul once again refers to the self-giving of Christ on his behalf. The
 159 _ APPENDIX

significance of this statement is that the self-giving proceeded from the love of
Christ, an important element in the Atonement.
In the next verse (2.21) the apostle bases his argument on the assumption that any
religious principle which empties Christ’s death of its purpose must be false. It was
his deep conviction, shared indeed by all the apostolic preachers and writers, that
the cross was no unfortunate accident, but was undertaken with a specific purpose.
Paul would never have agreed with any doctrine of the Atonement which regarded
the cross as a cause of disillusionment for Christ. It was never planned to be useless,
an unnecessary tragedy.
In chapter 3 there is a more developed discussion of the meaning of what Christ
came to do, coming into focus particularly in verse 13—“Christ redeemed us from
the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’. The idea of redemption is
frequently met in Paul’s epistles, but only here is that redemption said to be from
the curse of the law. The whole statement is fraught with mystery, since it is
difficult to conceive in what sense the righteous Christ could actually become a
curse, or in what sense by so doing he could deliver those who were already under
a curse. Whatever might be the full explanation it seems inescapable that Paul
intends us to understand that in some way the effectiveness of Christ’s work was
due to his close identification with the sin of man. The present statement is parallel
to that of 2 C. 5.21, in which Christ is said to have been made sin for our sakes
although he himself was sinless. There can be no doubt that in Paul’s theology
Christ took the place of the sinner. At the close of chapter 3 the apostle shows that
the special function of law came to an end with the advent of Christ, thus
demonstrating that Christ’s coming marked a crucial stage in human history (3.24).
The idea of redemption recurs in 4.4, where it is related again to those under the
law. The most significant statement here is that Christ’s ability to redeem those
under law is due to his being himself born under the law. This shows the essential
connection between the manner of his coming and his ultimate purpose. It needed
one who was completely identified with those whom he intended to deliver. It is
to be noted also that in the present statement Paul once again shows his acute
awareness of the divine overruling of the advent of Christ, for it happened at the
precise time of God’s own choosing. There was no question in Paul’s mind of
accidental happenings. The whole process of redemption was perfectly planned.
The granting of freedom through Christ (5.1) is another way of expressing the idea
of deliverance already noted in previous statements, although here the concept is
more positive. Christ not only delivers from bondage but delivers to freedom.
In the concluding portion of the letter (6.11-18) there are two further references
to the cross, which shows the dominance of the theme in the apostle’s mind. In 6.12
he speaks of those who wish to avoid persecution for the cross of Christ, which
suggests that there is an inevitable offence in the cross, a theme which he develops
elsewhere (cf. 1 C. 1). But in 6.14 he comes to his own attitude towards it in which
he declares it to be his sole object of boasting and the reason given is the effective-
GALATIANS 160

ness of the cross in dealing with the world. From this it would seem reasonable to
conclude that there was an inward effect of Christ’s work on the cross which
transformed Paul’s thoughts about the world, conceived here again in an adverse
moral sense. It is a strong statement that the world is crucified to Paul, but it
vividly expresses the powerful effect of the atonement on his whole approach to
things. It is no wonder that he could write to the Philippians that he had come to
regard all his former advantages as mere refuse (Phil. 3.8). Paul never lost the
wonder of the atoning death of Christ.

CHRIST AS THE ESSENCE OF THE GOSPEL

Paul sometimes refers to ‘my gospel’, but he never means the message which he has
himself created. He always means ‘the gospel of Christ’ (cf. 1.6ff.). He was not
proclaiming any human philosophy (‘man’s gospel’, 1.12), but a revelation of
Christ. Just as his whole life was centred on Christ, so was his message. It is Christ
alone who must be the object of faith, reiterated three times in 2.16. It was Christ
whom Paul had placarded before the Galatians as crucified (3.1). It was to believers
in Christ that everything promised in the Scriptures to men of faith would be
fulfilled (3.22).
Whatever other themes found place in Paul’s preaching were subordinate to this.
As to the charge that he preached circumcision, he is quick to dispute it (5.11).

CHRIST IN CHRISTIAN LIFE AND SERVICE

It was Paul’s desire in all his service for Christ to become a servant of Christ. He
makes no claim to this title in his opening remarks as he does in some of his letters
(cf. Rom. 1.1; Phil. 1.1), but he takes it for granted in 1.10. He was not trying to
please men but God. His allegiance was to Christ, whose bondservant he was. Not
only did he maintain this for himself, but he assumed it as a norm for others.
The depth of Paul’s sense of responsibility towards others is most vividly seen
where he uses the metaphor of maternal travailing (4.19), longing that Christ
might be formed in his readers. This is all the more striking when it is remembered
that there were so many other things that Paul must also have desired for them.
In a pagan environment, he might have expressed the wish that they might have
wisdom in dealing with the many problems that confronted them, or that they
might have a developed social responsibility, or that they might manifest evangel-
istic zeal. But his dominating desire for them was for Christlikeness, for he knew
that this would embrace all the others. A group of Christians in whom Christ had
evidently been formed would prove the most powerfully effective agent for the
propagation of the faith and for the reform of society as a whole.
 161 APPENDIX

Christian believers certainly had a direct ethical responsibility as Paul shows in

chapter 5. There are works of the flesh which must have no place and there are
fruits of the Spirit which must appear (5.19-24). Particularly will there be mutual
concern ainong Christians. Envy is a special danger and must be watched (5.26). If
a fellow-believer should fall, the Christlike spirit is seen in a spirit of gentleness in
dealing with him. If a brother is bearing burdens it is part of the law of Christ, here
conceived as the normal principle of Christian living, for others to relieve him (6.2).
It is equally part of that law for a man to refuse to overestimate his own importance
(6.3, 4). The practical character of Paul’s Christology could not have been more
succinctly stated. When a man is Christ’s he must adopt Christ’s principles of
action and not his own.
Belonging to Christ may entail persecution (5.11; 6.12). It may involve bearing
the marks of Christ (6.17). But it is abundantly worth while.

NOTE B: THE SOURCE OF OPPOSITION AT GALATIA

It has been assumed in the discussion on the purpose of the epistle and throughout
the commentary that the troublemakers were Jewish Christians who were trying
to persuade Gentile Christians to embrace Judaism as well as Christianity. It would
appear to account for all the facts reasonably well. But two alternative theories have
been proposed which deserve mention, even although they do not carry conviction.
It is unlikely that these Judaizers were commissioned by the Jerusalem
apostles, although they were laying claim to their authority (cf. Schoep’s
discussion, 74ff.). A modification of this view is that the Judaizers were them-
selves Gentiles as Munck (87ff.) maintained. But Jewish Christians seem more
~ probable.
The first theory is that the troublers were non-Christian Jews who saw in the
Gentile Christian Church an opportunity to win over proselytes to Judaism. In this
case Paul’s purpose is to warn the Gentiles against such proselytism. Yet it is much
more probable that Jewish Christian activity is in mind since Acts makes clear
that such activity caused trouble in the Antiochene Church, and it is a reasonable
deduction from this that Gentile churches, which had been founded as a result of
the missionary activity based on Antioch, would also be affected. Whether or not
the Jewish Christian attempts would have been regarded favourably by the local
Jews is not known, but is not an unreasonable conjecture. Nevertheless, the ani-
mosity of the Jews was frequently stirred up by Christianity drawing away a
number of proselytes on which their own hopes of expansion were pinned, and
this must not be lost sight of in assessing the possible sympathy between Judaism
and Jewish Christianity. The above view was held by Kirsopp Lake (Beginnings
of Christianity, edited F. Jackson and K. Lake, Vol. V (1933), 215.
The other theory which must be mentioned is Ropes’ idea that the troublers
GALATIANS 162

included a group of Gentile perfectionists. Such people would regard themselves

as superior to law and would therefore claim a type of freedom which was alien
to Christianity. In support of the theory it has been maintained that Paul was con-
cerned not to separate Gentile Christians from Judaism, otherwise he would not
have appealed to Abraham in the course of his argument. But this position cannot
be maintained, for there is no suggestion that the Gentile Christians were in
danger of severing connection with Judaism. Moreover, it was certainly not
perfectionists who were urging circumcision upon the Gentiles.
 INDEX

Abraham, 94ff., 111 Date, North Theory, 28; South Theory,

Achaia, 22 20ff.
Adoption, 114 Derbe, 17, 20, 25
Alford, 51 Dio Cassius, 17
Allegory, 15, 44, 123 Doberus, 25
Althaus, 54 Duncan, 27, 32, 34, 37, 53, 62, 64, 66,
Ananias, 57 71, 75+ 77+ 791 99, 97; 102, 107, 109,
Anathema, 63 125, 150
Ancyra, 16
Angels, 104 Easton, 138
Antioch, 17, 35, 84 Elders, 32
Apologia, 10, 65ff. Elemental Spirits, 112, 116
Apostasy, 6rf. Ellicott, 52, 79, 107, 150
Arabia, 3, 21, 70ff. Emmet, 5, 52, 68, 73, 95, 106
Aramaic, 115 Epiphanius, 8
Askwith, 22, 24, 26, 27, 37 Eusebius, 22
Atonement, 91 Evil agencies, 60

Barclay, 53, 54 Famine visit, 30

Barnabas, 8, 25, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35; Fellowship, 83
76 First fruits, Galatians as, 9
Baur, 39 Formalism, 40
Bengel, 51, 152 Freedom, 15, 78, 127, 133
Beyer, 54, 128 Fullness of Time, 113
Bithynia, 20
Bonnard, 19, 24, $3, 120, 129, 136, 145 Galatia, 15, 18, 22, 23
Bring, 53, 56, 66, 83, 97, 98, 114, 123, Gallic people, 18
131, 145 Grayston, 53
Burton, 27, $2, 59, 66, 80, 87, 94, 98,
II0, II2, 118, 126, 136, 138, 140 Hagar, 124f.
Hagarenes, 125
Caird, 60 Haggadah, 126
Calvin, 5, 51 Hermes, 27
Celts, 16 Holy Spirit, 92, 100, 135, 136, 139, 141,
Cephas (Peter), 10, 29, 33, 72, 81f., 86 146
Christian responsibility, 142ff. Household of faith, 148
Christian standards, 42, 160
Chronological problems, 3 sff. Identification with Christ, 90
Cilicia, 20, 21, 73 Immorality, 136
Circumcision, 11, 12ff., 77, 128, 132 Inheritance, 103, 127
Clement of Alexandria, 8 Insincerity, 85
Clement of Rome, 8 Intermediary 104, 105
Cole, $4, 58, 70, 109, 148 Irenaeus, 8
Compromise, 43
Corinthians, 24 James, 10, 13, 29, 35, 73, 82, 83
Council of Jerusalem, 12, 29ff., 33 Jerusalem, 3, 125
Covenant, IOI, 103, 124 Jerusalem apostles, 70
Jerusalem council, 12, 29ff., 33
Damascus, 70 Jewish festivals, 117
 164
INDEX
Peter (see Cephas)
John, 10, 82, 83
Pessinus, 16
Judaism, 66
Pharisees, 13, 29
Judaizers, 10
Phrygia, 18, 22, 23
Justification, 87f., 91, 95, 97, 129
Phrygians, 16, 17, 19
Justin, 8 Phrygic-Galatic region, 20
Lagrange, 53, I15 Pillar apostles, 10, 13, 14
Lake, 161 Pisidia, 15, 17, 24
Legalism, 40 Pliny, 17
Libertinism, 42 Polycarp, 8
Lietzmann, $3, 93, 120, 132 Poverty, 83
Lightfoot, 16, 18, 19, 28, 37, 52, 60, 64, Primitive Gospel, 59
69, 70, 74, 77, 80, 81, 88, 92, 94, Promise, 103, 106, III
107, I19, 120, 137, 145, 150
Luther, 38, 50, 83 Ramsay, 16, 20, 24, 27, 52, 112, 119, 120
Lycaonia, 15, 17 Reconstruction (S. Galatian Theory), 33
Redemption, 98, 114, 158f.
Lystra, 17, 20, 27
Reformers, 41
Macedonia, 22, III Resurrection, 58
Manlius, 17 Revelation, 66, 76
Marcion, 8, 38 Ridderbos, 27, 53, 74, 102, 114, 139
Matthias, 57 Righteousness, 130
McGiffert, 30 Ropes, $4, 161
Memnon, 17 Round, 37, 54
Meyer, 51
Miracles, 9, 93 Sanday, $2, $7
Moffatt, 19, 100 Schlier, 19, 51
Morton, 39 Schoeps, 54, 161
Munck, 26, 54, 73, 78, 150, 161 Shaliach, 56
Muratorian Canon, 8 Sinai, 124
Sonship, 111ff.
New Morality, 42 South Galatian Theory, 1off.
North Galatian Theory, 17ff. Statistic approach, 39
Strabo, 17
Oepke, 19, $3, 120, 132 Syria, 20, 21, 73
Offspring, IOI, 104, III
Old Testament, use of, 44 Tacitus, 17
Tavium, 16
Pamphylia, 15, 17, 24 Tenney, 5, 54
Paul: authority, 56 Tertullian, 8, 22
commission, 69 Timothy, 25
conversion, 2 Titus, 29, 33, 35, 76, 77
deep feeling, 4, 9 Tradition, 65, 68
independence, 4
language, 5, 6 Union with Christ, 99, 109, 121, 156f.
persecuting activity, 67
portrait, 1 Vienne and Lyons, 22
physical condition, 5, 24, 119 Virgin Birth, 114
Pedagogue, 109
Perfectionists, 162 Watkins, 37, 54, 78
Perga, 24 West Cilicia, 15
Personal relationship with Christ, 154f. Williams, 17, 22, 52, 63, 108, 109, 126,
Perversion of the Gospel, 62 150

Dp.
 THE NEW CENTURY
BIBLE COMMENTARY
OLD TESTAMENT EDITOR: RONALD E. CLEMENTS
NEW TESTAMENT EDITOR: MATTHEW BLACK

This standard commentary on the books of the Old and New Tes-
taments is now being issued in paperback for the first time, with
some of the volumes being revised and replaced. Drawing on the
leading contemporary biblical scholars, the series editors have at-
tempted to provide a commentary, based on the Revised Standard
Version, that is balanced and up-to-date in terms of both its schol-
arship and its reflections of the contemporary relevance of the
biblical text.

GALATIANS
Donald Guthrie
The epistle to the Galatians is one of St. Paul’s most important
writings. Its main concern is the problem of the influence of
extraneous religious practices on belief in God as revealed through
Christ. In discussing the problem, St. Paul gives his decision on
matters important not only in the new Christian community, but
also in more mature Christian communities.
“There is not a waste of word, and the commentary on each
section brings out the meaning of the text so that Scripture is
illuminated for the student.” —The Witness
DONALD GUTHRIE is Lecturer in New Testament Studies at
the London Bible College, and has written extensively on the New
Testament epistles.

WM. B. EERDMANS
M MARSHALL, | \Neaareaee Co.
MORGAN & SCOTT Feeoa set] Grand Rapids, Michigan

ISBN o 551 009 08 X ISBN 0-8028-1906-0