SECTION 1. — TO THE CH. 1:1-5. Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man but through Jesus Christ and God, the Father, who raised Him from the dead, and all the brethren with me, to the Churches of Galatia; grace to you and peace from God, the Father, and our Lord, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins that He might deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of God, our Father, to whom be the glory for the ages of the ages. Amen. Galatians 1:1. Apostle: see under Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 15:7; Romans 1:1.Not from men: as though some body of men delegating to him authority were the starting point of Paul’s apostolic journeys. Cp. John 1:24. [So 1 Peter 1:12; Acts 11:11; John 1:6.Men, not man: for it was inconceivable that Paul was sent by any one man. Through (see Romans 1:5) man: i.e. through the agency or instrumentality of a man; as Elisha (1 Kings 19:16) was called to be a prophet by the agency of Elijah. Yet Elisha was sent from God, and was endowed with His authority. But so completely independent of everyone on earth was Paul’s apostleship that it was not even conveyed to him by human lips. This complete and emphatic and repeated denial, we shall find (cp. Galatians 1:11 f) to be Paul’s chief thought throughout DIV. I. So fully does it occupy his mind while writing, that it finds utterance in the first line of the Epistle.But through Jesus Christ: Romans 1:5; 1 Corinthians 8:6 : the channel of all good from God to us. These words are expounded in the narrative of Act 26:17 f.That Jesus Christ is placed in emphatic contrast to man and is linked under one preposition with God, reveals His absolute and infinite superiority, in Paul’s thought, to the entire human race, and His nearness to God. See my Romans, Diss. i. 7. The word man in 1 Timothy 2:5; Acts 17:31, presents no difficulty: for in Galatians 1:1 the same word is negatived simply as not being a full description of Him through whom Paul received the apostleship.God, the Father: Ephesians 6:23; Philippians 2:11; Colossians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4. The title Father is added, not to distinguish God the Father from God the Son, as in theological phrase, but to declare that God is also Father. The following words suggest that Paul thinks of Him chiefly as Father of Christ. But the close relation between Christ and His followers as sharers of His sonship suggests at once that God is also their Father.Through… God, the Father: through the agency, i.e. the immediate activity, not only of Christ but of God. The Father was Himself the medium (as well as the source) and the instrument or agent (as well as the First Cause) of Paul’s mission. For (Romans 11:36) All things are both from Him and through Him. In other words, God rose as it were from His throne and by His personal action invested Paul with the apostleship; the greatest conceivable proof of its importance. It is needless to add that God is also the source of Paul’s commission: for we cannot conceive Him acting as agent for another. Hence we have no from God corresponding to not from men. These last words were needful to rebut (so Galatians 1:11 f) a reproach of Paul’s enemies. Cp. an heir through God, in Galatians 4:7.That Paul’s apostleship was through the agency of Christ, is self-evident: but that it was through… God, the Father, requires further explanation. This is given in the following words, who raised Him from the dead. These words, thrust prominently forward in the first verse of the Epistle, reveal the importance in Paul’s thought of this great fact and its essential connection with the mission of the apostles. By the Risen Saviour, Paul was sent. Had He not risen, there had been no voice on the way to Damascus; and no apostolic mission. And, had not the apostles been sent to preach, the resurrection of Christ would have been without result. Therefore, when raising Christ by His own immediate power and without any human agent, with a view to the proclamation of the Gospel throughout the world, God was Himself personally taking part in the mission of the apostles. Paul thus begins his letter of rebuke by bringing his readers into the presence of the infinite power of God manifested on earth, thus raising at once the question at issue above man and all that man can do. Cp. Romans 1:4.From the dead: or, literally and more forcefully, from among dead-ones, among whom Christ lay in death. Galatians 1:2. All the brethren with me: Paul’s companions, probably, in travel and Gospel work. So Philippians 4:21, where they are contrasted with all the saints. For, Paul would hardly speak of the whole Church from whose midst he wrote as being with him: rather, he was with them. But, of the band of fellow travellers, he was indisputably the centre. They were probably in part those mentioned in Acts 20:4. See Diss. i. This mention of these fellow-workers implies that they recognised unanimously Paul’s apostolic commission as from God and independent of human authority. And this recognition by them, known as they doubtless were and respected in Galatia, could not but influence the readers of this Epistle. Not that Paul’s authority rested upon its recognition even by these good men. His reference to them merely suggests that they who reject it thereby separate themselves from this band of noble workers. The Churches of Galatia: close coincidence with 1 Corinthians 16:1; Acts 16:6; Acts 18:23, where no city is mentioned. This suggests that Christianity had not spread from one centre, as it did from Corinth and Ephesus, (contrast 2 Corinthians 1:1,) over the whole province. The reason is hidden under the obscurity which veils the origin of these Churches. These words also suggest that the Christian communities in Galatia were not united into one organic whole. And this accords with the fact that, except Acts 9:31, the Church throughout Judea and Samaria, we never find the Churches of a province spoken of as one Church.Galatians 1:3. See under Romans 1:7. The words to you between grace and peace detain our attention and mark off each as a distinct object of thought.Father: as in Galatians 1:1, and perhaps prompted by the phrase there. But here the foregoing words suggest that Paul thinks chiefly of God as Father of His people. The RV. margin has equal documentary evidence, but might easily be an imitation of Paul’s usual salutation. Notice that, as in Galatians 1:1 Christ and God are joined together under one preposition as agent of Paul’s apostleship, so here as the source of grace and peace.Galatians 1:4 a. An historical fact touching Christ, followed in Galatians 1:4 b by an eternal truth touching God, these underlying and prompting the foregoing good wish.Gave Himself: 1 Timothy 2:6; Titus 2:14; Ephesians 5:2; Ephesians 5:25; Romans 8:32; Romans 4:25 : i.e. undoubtedly, gave Himself up to die. Cp. Galatians 2:20 with Galatians 2:21; Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:19; John 6:51. For Christ’s death stood in special relation to our sins: 1 Corinthians 15:3; Romans 4:25; 1 Peter 3:18. Cp. 1 Maccabees vi. 44, where of Eleazar’s heroic death in battle we read: “and gave himself to save his people and to preserve for himself an eternal name.” The phrase suggests that a man’s life is his greatest conceivable gift, and includes all other possible gifts.For our sins: literally touching our sins. Another reading with less documentary evidence, and no better internal probability, is on behalf of our sins, as in 1 Corinthians 15:3. The whole clause receives its only and sufficient explanation in the teaching of Rom 3:24-26 (see note) that Christ was set forth in His blood in order to reconcile with the justice of God, and thus make possible, the justification of believers, i.e. the pardon of their sins. That He might: or may. The Greek does not suggest whether this purpose of Christ’s self-surrender is, or is not, already accomplished. The age: Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 1:20 : the whole course and current of things around, except so far as these are controlled by Christ, looked upon as existing and moving in time and for a time.Evil: actually hurtful: same word in Ephesians 5:16; Ephesians 6:13; often used of Satan, Ephesians 6:16; 2 Thessalonians 3:3; 1 John 2:13 f; 3:12; 5:18f. The present age is injurious in its influence. The word rendered present denotes sometimes, as in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, that which stands before us as now beginning or about to begin. But elsewhere (Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 3:22; 1 Corinthians 7:26; Hebrews 9:9) it has the simple sense of present in contrast to something future. And so probably here: for although Paul speaks often (Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 2:8; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 1:21; 1 Timothy 6:17; 2 Timothy 4:10; Titus 2:12) of the age in which he lived, he never suggests that any other age will begin earlier than that (Ephesians 2:7) which will be ushered in by the return of Christ. The present age, is stronger than this age and pictures the mass of things moving around us which ever tends to carry us along in its own direction as if, changing the metaphor, standing in our midst and face to face of us. Christ’s purpose to deliver us implies that the current around is a force carrying us to destruction, and from which we cannot rescue ourselves. Indisputably, the influences of the world around are a current, more tremendous than the rapids of Niagara, carrying to ruin all except those whom Christ saves. And the mention of our sins suggests that surrender to this current is the due punishment of sin. Into this seething whirlpool Christ flung Himself that He might rescue us from it. Galatians 1:4-5. The purpose of Christ’s historic self-surrender accords with, and therefore realises, the eternal will of God. Cp. Ephesians 1:5; Ephesians 1:11. Thus, as ever, Paul rises from the Son to the Father. Grammatically we might with RV. render our God and Father; or, as in the American Revisers’ margin, God and our Father, or rather in idiomatic English God our Father. Since the word God does not need a defining genitive, in order to convey a complete idea, whereas the idea of Father is essentially relative and therefore needs a complement expressed or understood, the latter renderings seem to me to convey more probably Paul’s exact thought. The whole title declares that He who reigns supreme as God is also our Father. And in the presence of God, in view of His Fatherhood and of His eternal purpose of salvation, Paul cannot refrain from an outburst of praise. So Romans 1:25; 2 Corinthians 11:31. The grandeur revealed in our rescue from the course of things around, by the self-surrender of Christ, belongs, and will be for ever ascribed, to our Father God.Taking up his pen to write to the Galatians, Paul’s first thought, forced upon him by the reproach of enemies, is that his apostleship, so far from being of human origin, is independent even of human agency; and that it was committed to him by the immediate action of Christ and of God. This is acknowledged by all his companions in evangelical labour. To men constitutionally prone to be carried away by surrounding influences, Paul intimates that these influences are bad, that surrender to them is a result of our sins, and that to rescue us from them Christ gave Himself to die, in accordance with an eternal purpose of God. This proves the deadly nature of these surrounding influences, and the earnestness of Christ and of God to save us from them. The splendour of God revealed in this deliverance will, as Paul desires, shine forth for ever. In § 1 we have the great historic fact that Christ rose from the dead on which rests the faith which justifies; and the great doctrine that salvation comes through Christ’s death, which harmonises justification by faith with the justice of God. We have no hint that either the fact or doctrine was questioned by Paul’s opponents. He therefore begins his letter by bringing his readers into the presence of truths which they admit and which are a firm foundation for the argument which follows. SECTION 2 . — THE EARLY OF THE . CH. 1:6-10. I wonder that ye are so quickly removing from Him that called you in the grace of Christ, to another kind of good tidings; which is not another good tidings, except that there are some who are disturbing you and wishing to overturn the good tidings of Christ. But even if we or an angel out of heaven announce good tidings to you other than the good tidings we announced to you, let him be anathema. As we have before said, also now again I say, if any one is announcing to you good tidings other than ye received, let him be anathema. For, now, is it men I am persuading, or God? Or am I seeking to please men? If I were still pleasing men, Christ’s servant I should not be. In § 2 we have the subject-matter of the Epistle, viz. an early defection in Galatia and efforts there to overturn the Gospel; Galatians 1:6-7 : Paul’s condemnation of the false teaching; Galatians 1:8-9 : his justification of the disregard of human approval which this condemnation involves; Galatians 1:10.Instead of thanks to God, as in all his other letters to Churches, Paul’s salutation is at once followed by severe blame. His wonder (cp. Mark 6:6; 1 John 3:13) tells how unusual is the conduct blamed; and thus adds severity to this rebuke.So quickly; denotes either (cp. Luke 14:21) a rapid defection now going on; or defection after ( 1 Corinthians 4:19) a short interval, measured here either from the arrival of the false teachers, or from Paul’s last visit, or from his readers’ conversion. Paul’s exact thought, we cannot determine with certainty. Even the last measurement would give a space of seven years at most. And this is a very short time for steadfastness which is worthless unless it endure till death and for a Church designed long to outlive the longest lived of its members. Consequently, this word affords no sure note of the time when the Epistle was written. See Diss. iii. 3. Removing: migration from place to place, or change of opinion. So Acts 7:16; Hebrews 11:5 : also 2 Macc. vii. 24, of an apostate Jew; and Sirach vi. 9, of a friend turned to an enemy. Ye-are-removing: defection now going on while Paul writes, and not yet complete. This agrees with the present tense in Galatians 3:3, are being-made perfect; Galatians 4:9, are-turning; Galatians 1:4, are-being-justified; and throughout the Epistle, e.g. Galatians 4:21; Galatians 5:1-3; Galatians 5:12; Galatians 6:12-13. These present tenses and Paul’s expression of wonder, suggest that he wrote while the sad news was still fresh; and while the apostacy was still going on, hoping thus to stay its progress. Him that called you: God, as always with Paul: cp. Galatians 5:8; Galatians 1:15; 1 Corinthians 7:17; Romans 8:30. These words remind us that the Gospel is the voice of God calling men to Himself; and imply that to forsake Gospel truth is to forsake God. For the Gospel call is the medium through which God presents Himself to us, and the instrument by which He draws us and binds us to Himself.In the grace of Christ: Romans 5:15 : cp. Galatians 6:18; 2 Corinthians 8:9; 2 Corinthians 12:9; 2 Corinthians 13:13. The Gospel call comes to us accompanied and surrounded by the undeserved favour which moved Christ to give Himself for our salvation. Apart from this favour, there had been no Gospel. Thus these words bring Galatians 1:4 to bear upon the apostacy of the Galatians.To another-kind-of Gospel, or a different Gospel: 2 Corinthians 11:4 : point towards which, while forsaking God, they are moving. The call of God was good news of coming deliverance: and nothing less than this could meet the case of men carried helplessly to ruin by the present evil age. Therefore, since his readers are turning from God who spoke to them these good tidings, Paul assumes in irony that they must have heard other good news. And, if so, it must have been of a kind quite different from that which they heard from Paul. He thus compares his own teaching with that which his opponents would put in its place, each being looked upon as good news. In the words called you, in the grace of Christ, another Gospel, we trace at once the pen of the author of the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. Galatians 1:7. Explanation of the foregoing veiled comparison.‘Which other kind of good tidings, as I have ventured to call this false teaching, is not really another good tidings, as though there could be two announcements of coming deliverance between which we might choose. It is, therefore, no Gospel at all. My own words are not correct except as pointing to the fact that there are some who disturb you, etc.’ Disturb: to destroy one’s peace: so Galatians 1:10; Acts 15:24; Acts 17:8; John 5:7; John 12:27; John 13:21; John 14:1; John 14:27. Who and how many the disturbers were, we are not told: simply the fact of disturbance is asserted.Gospel of Christ: Romans 15:19; (Galatians 1:9); 1 Corinthians 9:12; 2 Corinthians 2:12; 2 Corinthians 9:13; 2 Corinthians 10:14 : the good news about Christ. For Christ is present to our thought rather as the Great Matter, than as Author or Herald, of the Gospel. Cp. Romans 1:2; 2 Corinthians 4:4.Overturn the Gospel: the tendency, if not the deliberate aim, of the false teachers; so utterly opposed is their teaching to the good news about Christ. They were already disturbing Paul’s readers; and were wishing to overturn the Gospel. This last, they endeavour to do by putting in its place something quite different from it. The new teaching, in order to contrast it with the teaching it was designed to supersede, Paul calls in Galatians 1:6 another kind of Gospel. And only in this sense does he use this phrase. The matter of the Epistle is now fairly before us, viz. an early defection in Galatia. And the teaching which caused it, Paul declares to be an attempt to overturn the Gospel. To prove this assertion, will be the chief purpose of his argument. Galatians 1:8-9. This argument, Paul delays for a moment in order to pronounce, and to repeat, against the false teachers in Galatia the most tremendous condemnation possible. He thus reveals the greatness of the issues at stake in the argument he is about to begin.Even if we, etc.: an almost inconceivable supposition, giving to the condemnation which follows the widest application possible, and thus greatly increasing its force. We: Paul and the brethren with him. Angel out of heaven: graphic picture of the appearance of an angel. Other than, etc.: limited, by Paul’s reference to men who desired to overturn the Gospel, to teaching contrary to, and therefore subversive of, the Gospel preached by Paul. This fearful condemnation therefore does not bear upon merely defective teaching. Even the man who builds ( 1 Corinthians 3:15) with straw may himself be saved; so long as he does not endeavour to overturn the foundation. Anathema: see under Romans 9:3. It can denote no less than the actual curse of God. Under this curse Paul declares that the false teachers lie; and approves this. To this terrible condemnation, the repetition in Galatians 1:9 adds great force.The contrast with I say now implies that as we said before, does not refer to Galatians 1:8, and must therefore refer to words spoken by Paul and his companions either in an earlier letter or on an earlier visit. It is perhaps most easily explained as recalling Paul’s second visit to Galatia, recorded in Acts 18:23. But the prevalence of the error in question, and the important discussion of it at Jerusalem shortly before (Acts 16:6) Paul’s first visit, and the decrees which (Galatians 1:4) on that journey he circulated, make it quite possible that this warning was given by him even when founding the Galatian Churches. That if any one is announcing, etc. states actual fact, we infer confidently from Galatians 1:7. It is thus a contrast to the inconceivable supposition of Gal 1:8. [Hence the change in the Greek moods.] The changed ending of the conditional clause, that which ye received, brings as evidence against themselves the readers’ own previous acceptance of Paul’s teaching. Cp. 1 Corinthians 15:1. It is thus a forerunner of Gal 3:1.That this tremendous condemnation is due to narrow intolerance of opinions different from his own, Paul’s breadth of view disclosed throughout the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians forbids us to believe. We are therefore compelled to accept it as proof of the greatness of the error and the guilt of the men referred to. And we wait, with bated breath, to know what their teaching was. We expect to find it directly subversive (Galatians 1:7) of the Gospel, thus tending to rob the world of the blessings therein proclaimed and conveyed; and to find that it implied wilful rejection of the teaching of Christ. For, only against error involving moral guilt could this fearful curse be pronounced. Thus Paul’s words of condemnation raise our expectation, on the threshold of the Epistle, to the highest point.The nature of the error here referred to can be gathered only. by inference from the Epistle itself. It will be discussed fully at the close of our exposition. See note there. Galatians 1:10. Now: in emphatic prominence, revealing the importance of the present moment, and the mighty issues now at stake.Persuade: win over to our side as friends; same word in Acts 12:20. Is it at this present time the favour of men or of God I am securing?To please men: 1 Thessalonians 2:4 : method by which we persuade them. While seeking to please them we are actually engaged in the work of winning them to our side. That Paul actually persuaded (2 Corinthians 5:11) men and sought (Romans 15:2; 1 Corinthians 10:33) to please them, in order to save them, implies that he refers here to the favour of men sought only for our own selfish ends. To seek the favour of men in order to save them, and only so far as this motive leads us, is itself one of the best means of obtaining the favour of God. Between these two modes of pleasing men, the ultimate aim places an infinite difference.To the question of Gal 1:10 a, 10b gives both an answer and a reason for it.Still; suggests that Paul, like all men, had once the favour of men his main purpose. Apart from Christ, in life depends more or less on men around us. Consequently, the favour of some of them must at all costs be obtained. Consciousness of this is bondage to the caprice of those on whom our supposed welfare depends. But Christ’s servants know that their welfare depends only on their Master’s smile. They are therefore independent of men, and have no need to seek man’s favour except so far as by doing so they are serving and pleasing Christ. Consequently, to please men as we did in days gone by, is to abandon the liberty of a servant of Christ. Compare carefully 1 Corinthians 7:23. The conspicuous contrast of men and Christ involves, as in Galatians 1:1, the superhuman dignity of Christ.Galatians 1:10 is given to support Galatians 1:9. The support thus rendered, our ignorance of details somewhat obscures. But a clue is found in Galatians 6:12, where Paul declares that zeal for the Law was a mask under which the disturbers were endeavouring to escape from persecution. If so, they were mutilating the Gospel in order to conciliate its enemies. Such conduct is doubly incompatible with the service of Christ; and justifies the severe condemnation of Gal 1:10. By using the first person, and thus expounding the principles of his own action, in words which his readers knew were true, Paul brings his own contrary example to bear on the matter at issue. Cp. 1 Corinthians 8:13; 1 Corinthians 9:26; 1 Corinthians 10:33; 1 Corinthians 11:1. He also reveals by silent contrast the selfish motives of the seducers. His reference to himself is also a suitable stepping-stone to DIV. I. I PAUL’S CONDUCT AND . 1:11-12. SECTION 3. — PAUL’S GOSPEL IS DIVINE. CH. 1:11, 12. For I make known to you, brethren, the good tidings announced as good tidings by me, that it is not according to man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it; but it came through revelation of Jesus Christ. Make known to you; calls attention to an important matter, as in 1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Corinthians 15:1; 2 Corinthians 8:1. It also suggests that the error in Galatia arose from ignorance.Good-tidings, announce good-tidings: same word already five times in § 2, reminding us emphatically that the preaching of Paul was good news. That it is not, etc.: special element in the good tidings which Paul wishes to make known.Not according to man: it is not such teaching as man could produce, does not correspond with man’s powers. This calls attention to the nature and contents of Paul’s Gospel. Galatians 1:12. Explains how it is that Paul preached a Gospel which does not accord with, i.e. which surpasses, man’s own powers of intellectual discovery. The explanation is that it was received not from man but from Christ. Paul did not receive it from human lips, as something which one man hands over to another.Nor was I taught it: as something acquired by the intellectual effort of learning. Revelation (see under Romans 1:17) of Jesus Christ: either as the Author Himself revealing, Matthew 11:27; or the Object-matter, Himself revealed, 1 Corinthians 1:7; 1 Peter 4:7; 1 Peter 4:13. Here Galatians 1:16 suggests the latter thought: and this is the usual sense of the genitive after revelation. But the contrast with received from man reminds us that Jesus Christ is the source of this revelation. And this is possibly the sense of 2 Corinthians 12:1. Both ideas may have been present in Paul’s mind. The Revelation of Christ in 1 Corinthians 1:7 is His sudden unveiling at the Great Day: here, and in Galatians 1:16, it is His unveiling subjectively in the mind of Paul. Cp. Romans 16:25; Ephesians 3:5.The statements in Galatians 1:11-12 are given in support of something going before. And the repeated word good-tidings, or Gospel, at once recalls the same word in Galatians 1:6-9, thus overleaping the passing reference in Galatians 1:10. Paul assumed in Galatians 1:7 that the good news which he proclaimed and his readers accepted, but which the disturbers wish to overturn, is The Gospel of Christ. To defend this assumption, is the purpose of DIV. I. And this defence Paul has now introduced by a statement, which he will at once proceed to prove, that the matter of his preaching was acquired not by ordinary means but by a lifting up of the veil which hides Christ from mortal view. The above statement and the long argument following, which shed light on Galatians 1:1, can be explained only by supposing that the false teachers had insinuated that Paul received the Gospel at second hand and preached only in virtue of a commission from the apostles sent personally by Christ, and was therefore inferior to them; and that to their commission he had been unfaithful by preaching a Gospel different from that which he received from them. To this insinuation the facts which occupy the remainder of DIV. I. will be a crushing reply.This revelation was conveyed to Paul (Ephesians 3:5) by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit (Ephesians 1:17) of wisdom and revelation, received at Damascus by (Acts 9:17) the agency of Ananias. And doubtless the revelation was progressive. Yet we may suppose that he sought and received from others an account of the works and words of Jesus. Indeed he may have known these in part before his conversion; as many know them now and are uninfluenced by them. But, in addition to this external knowledge, Paul was deeply conscious that by the direct agency of God the eyes of his heart had been opened to see a heavenly light and to apprehend the life-giving truths underlying the words and works of Christ.And this is true, in some measure, of all believers: cp. Ephesians 1:17. Probably the matters in dispute turned not so much on what Christ had said as on the underlying significance of His words. And of this, Paul’s knowledge was derived, not from human witnesses, but from Him who was pleased to reveal His Son in him. SECTION 4. — PAUL’S FORMER LIFE. CH. 1:13, 14. For ye have heard my manner of life formerly in Judaism, that beyond measure I was persecuting the Church of God, and was laying it waste: and I was making progress in Judaism beyond many of my own age in my race, being more abundantly zealous for my paternal traditions. Now begins historical proof, occupying the rest of DIV. I., of the statement in Galatians 1:12. As a dark background for it, throwing into bold relief his subsequent career, Paul describes first his own earlier life. And this description is also the beginning of the proof. For, such terrible hostility could be overcome by nothing less than a revelation of Jesus Christ.Ye have heard: probably from Paul himself; a coincidence with Acts 22, 26, which reveal Paul’s habit of narrating his conversion. Manner of life: same word in Ephesians 4:22; 1 Timothy 4:12; 2 Corinthians 1:12; Ephesians 2:3; 1 Timothy 3:15.Judaism: the Jewish way of living, especially in religion. So 2 Macc. viii. 1, “those who had remained in Judaism,” in contrast to apostates; 2 Macc. ii. 21; xiv. 38. The Church of God: cp. 1 Corinthians 15:9. To persecute the Church is to make war against God.Was-laying-waste: Galatians 1:23 : was engaged in its utter destruction. Paul looked upon himself then as actually destroying the Church. The same word is used for destruction of cities; and, in Acts 9:21, of persons. Galatians 1:14. Making progress: same word in Romans 13:12 : literally knocking forward, laboriously making oneself a way. In everything distinctive of a Jew, especially in fanatical devotion to the Law and to Jewish prerogatives, Paul was day by day going forward. This devotion, many other young men shared: but in his fervour he left them behind. In my race: 2 Corinthians 11:26; Philippians 3:5. It suggests or implies that those to whom Paul wrote were for the more part not Jews.Zealous: emulous to maintain and defend: literally a zealot, which is an English form of the Greek word here used. Same word in Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13; Acts 21:20; Acts 22:3; 1 Corinthians 14:12; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 3:13. Of the same word, Cananaean in (RV.) Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18 is a Hebrew form. It became the name of a sect of fanatics madly jealous for what they thought to be the prerogatives of Israel.Traditions: customs or teaching handed down verbally or in writing from one to another. See under 1 Corinthians 11:2. Cp. Mark 7:3-13; Colossians 2:8. 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6.Paternal: see Diss. i. 2. That Paul says my traditions, even when comparing himself with others of his own race, suggests that he refers to something specially his own, probably to the traditional customs and interpretations of Scripture which distinguished the sect of the Pharisees. For Paul was (Philippians 3:5, Acts 26:5) a Pharisee, a son (Acts 23:6) of Pharisees. So Josephus, Antiquities bk. xiii. 10. 6, “The Pharisees handed over by tradition to the people many ordinances received from the fathers”: ch. 16. 2, “ the ordinances which the Pharisees brought in according to the paternal tradition.” A sample is in Mark 7:3-13.Notice that Paul’s words about his earlier life here and 1 Corinthians 15:9; Philippians 3:6; 1 Timothy 1:13 confirm completely the statement in Acts 8:3; Acts 9:1; Acts 9:13; Acts 22:4; Acts 22:19; Acts 26:10. SECTION 5. — PAUL’S AND JOURNEY TO ARABIA. CH. 1:15-17. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that as good tidings I might announce Him among the Gentiles, immediately I did not set the matter before flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and I returned again to Damascus. Galatians 1:15-16 a. A new era in Paul’s life, due entirely to the good pleasure of God, an historic realisation of an eternal purpose. When it pleased God; suggests that the time was chosen by the good will of God, who might have spoken to him earlier or later. Separated me, etc.: placed me, from the moment of my birth, apart from other men, i.e. in a unique position. This can refer only to the as yet unrevealed purpose of God. Paul cannot forget that the voice on the way to Damascus was a manifestation of a purpose which had followed him from the first moment of his personal existence. Even then God designed him for special work. Cp. Isaiah 49:1; Jeremiah 1:5.Called me: Romans 8:28 : by the voice of Jesus. This voice was the first link in the historic realisation of God’s purpose. Cp. Romans 8:30. Through His grace: channel by which the voice came to Paul. God first looked on him with undeserved favour; and then, in order to place him in the unique position for which from birth He had destined him, He spoke to him on the journey. Notice the parallel: it pleased God to reveal His Son in me; and by His grace He called me.To reveal, etc.: an inward unveiling and vision, in the heart of Paul, of the Son of God, of His Nature and Mission. See under Galatians 1:12. Thus to know Christ is the highest gain and joy, and would itself compensate for the lack of all besides. This revelation followed immediately Paul’s reception of the Holy Spirit: for he at once (Acts 9:20) began to preach. But it would be developed as day by day the Spirit gave him a nearer and clearer view of Christ. Paul then adds the definite purpose of this revelation. In me: in the mind and spiritual life of Paul; of which every part was permeated and ennobled by this vision of the unveiled face of Christ. It cannot refer, as in 1 Timothy 1:16, to an objective manifestation of Christ to men in (cp. Galatians 1:24) the person of Paul. For this would need to be clearly specified, would confound these words with those following, and would omit an all-important link of the chain, viz. Paul’s own inward vision of Christ. For, none but those in whose inner life Christ is revealed can preach Him aright. The other idea, the word manifest (2 Corinthians 4:10 f) would better express. Announce Him: for Christ is Himself the matter of the good news. Among the Gentiles: a definite element in God’s purpose; and a close coincidence with Acts 26:17.Galatians 1:16-17. Paul’s action immediately after this divine revelation, described, as his wont is, first negatively then positively.Set the matter before: for advice, as though Paul’s conduct would be influenced thereby. Same word in Galatians 2:6 : similar word in Galatians 1:2.Flesh and blood: men; whose intelligence is limited and their counsel moulded by the constitution of their material clothing. Cp. Matthew 16:17; Ephesians 6:12. Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:50; Hebrews 2:14 recall the conditions imposed by man’s bodily life. That Paul does not refer here to taking account of the needs and comfort of the body, is proved by his mention in Galatians 1:17 of the earlier apostles; and by the scope of DIV. I., viz. his independence of human authority.Nor did I go up, etc.: another negation specifying the former one. Go up to Jerusalem: Galatians 2:1 f, Acts 11:2; Acts 15:2; Acts 21:12; and Acts 18:22, which refers probably to Jerusalem. It was not only the head of the nation, but was situated on high ground. On receiving the heavenly vision, Paul did not go to present himself to the Mother-Church of Christendom in the metropolis of his nation. Consequently, his success was in no way due to any commission from those who were apostles before him. By going into Arabia instead of going up to Jerusalem, Paul went away from Christian counsellors. He went, probably, to the kingdom of Aretas, bordering Judaea, with Petra as capital. Cp. Josephus, Antiquities bk. xiv. 14. This journey is most easily harmonised with Acts 9:19 f by supposing that immediately after his conversion Paul preached for a short time (some days., Acts 9:19) in the synagogues at Damascus, and then went to Arabia; that after a short sojourn he returned to Damascus and stayed there a great part of the three years mentioned in Galatians 1:18; and that his departure from Damascus to Jerusalem was prompted, as narrated in Acts 9:23 ff and 2 Corinthians 11:33, by plots of the Jews. That the journey to Arabia is not mentioned in the Book of Acts, suggests that it was short, and thus perhaps unknown to the writer or omitted as unimportant. The purpose of the journey is not stated, and is unknown to us. Chrysostom and other early writers suppose that Paul went to Arabia, a Gentile country, to preach the Gospel there, thus beginning at once his destined work. If so, the temporary rule of Aretas over Damascus (see note under 2 Corinthians 11:32) may have afforded him a favourable opportunity of preaching in the capital of the Arabian kingdom. Or, in harmony with the deepest and noblest instincts of human nature, his sudden and wonderful change may have prompted Paul to seek retirement in order to ponder in the solitude of a foreign country the commission received from Christ. In this case, he may, like Elijah, have travelled as far as Sinai, which was included probably in the kingdom of Aretas: and to this visit may be due the allusion in Galatians 4:25. Between the above suggestions we cannot decide. Possibly, solitary contemplation in a land of strangers may have been combined with some measure of evangelical activity. In either case Paul went away from Christian counsellors: and this is the point he wishes to emphasise.Again: even from Arabia, which was nearer to Jerusalem than to Damascus, Paul simply retraced his steps to Damascus. These last words imply that his conversion was at Damascus, of which in this Epistle no other mention is made: an undesigned and important coincidence with Acts 9:3. SECTION 6. — PAUL’S VISIT TO, AND EARLY FROM, . CH. 1:18-24. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem, to make acquaintance of Cephas; and I remained with him fifteen days. But no other of the Apostles did I see, except James, the brother of the Lord. The things which I write to you, behold before God I do not lie. Then I came into the regions of Syria and of Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the Churches of Judaea, the Churches in Christ. But only they were hearing that, He who persecuted us formerly now announces as good news the faith which formerly he was laying waste. And they were glorifying God in me. Galatians 1:18. Then: Galatians 1:18; Galatians 1:21; Galatians 2:1 : three consecutive steps in the historic narrative.After three years: possibly only one whole year and parts of two others, as in Matthew 27:63, Mark 8:31. they were measured probably from Paul’s conversion, as is immediately in Galatians 1:16. If the visit to Arabia was short, most of this time would be spent at Damascus. probably after Paul’s return there.To-make-acquaintance-of Cephas: a purpose very different from a desire to obtain apostolic sanction for his work. Cephas: see under 1 Corinthians 1:12.Fifteen days: exact length of a memorable visit, fixed indelibly in the mind of Paul. This short sojourn, sufficient to make acquaintance of Peter, would give no time for training in Gospel truth. For the bearing of this verse on Acts 9:17; Acts 9:26, see Diss. i. 2.Galatians 1:19. The brother of the Lord: to distinguish this James from (Acts 12:2) the brother of John, who was not then put to death.Except James: or but only James. Grammatically the words so rendered do not necessarily imply that James was himself an apostle. See under Galatians 2:16. But here Paul cannot wish to say that besides Peter he saw no one, or no Christian, at Jerusalem except James. Cp. Acts 9:28 ff. And the whole Context, which refers specially to the apostles, shows that to these the exception refers. It implies fairly that James, if not himself actually and usually called an apostle, was yet so closely related to the apostles that the statement that at Jerusalem Paul saw no apostle except Peter needed to be qualified by the statement that he also saw James. And this agrees exactly with the prominent position of James, attested by his mention in Galatians 2:9 before Peter and John. The apostles held ( 1 Corinthians 12:28) the first rank in the Church: and in the first rank stood certainly James. This lessens the apparent discrepancy in Acts 9:27, by permitting us to speak of Peter and James as apostles. The others, possibly, were away from Jerusalem on evangelical work.Galatians 1:20. This protestation (peculiar in N. T. to Paul: Romans 9:1; 2 Corinthians 11:31; 1 Timothy 2:7) implies some difficulty, fancied or real, in the foregoing statement; and proves its great importance. It is most easily explained by supposing that Paul’s opponents boldly asserted, or insinuated, in order to prove that he had been unfaithful, that he had received a formal commission from the whole apostolic band; and that from this he derived his authority in the Church. To contradict any such assertion, Paul assures us in these solemn words that his purpose in going to Jerusalem was to become acquainted with Peter, and that he saw there no other leader of the Church except James. Thus, by directing attention to a matter of importance, this apparently casual protest helps us to understand Paul’s argument. Galatians 1:21-24. A third step in Paul’s narrative, following (1) Galatians 1:15-17 and (2) Galatians 1:18-20.Syria and Cilicia: adjoining provinces, far from Jerusalem: mentioned together in the same order in Acts 15:23; Acts 15:41. Syria is put first as nearer to Jerusalem, and as the more important. See Diss. i. 2. From Tarsus Barnabas brought Paul to Antioch, the Capital of Syria, where he laboured (Acts 11:26) a whole year. Thus agree the statements here and in the Book of Acts. The indefinite term regions of, Syria, etc. suggests various journeys within or around these provinces.Galatians 1:22. The Churches of Judaea; possibly do not include that at Jerusalem. For the people and life of the surrounding country are so different from those of a metropolis that the latter seems hardly to belong to the former: and it is not likely that Paul would be fifteen days in Jerusalem without meeting some Christians there. Similarly, from Jerusalem apparently (John 2:13) Jesus went (John 3:22) into the Judaean land. Yet in 1 Thessalonians 2:14, similar words certainly include Jerusalem. And it may be objected that if to these Paul was known it was immaterial to say that he had not visited the Churches in the small towns around. On the apparent contradiction with Acts 9:28, see Diss. i. 2. Perhaps these words were added to complete the account of Paul’s relations with the Jewish Christians, and to give opportunity for the statement in Galatians 1:24 of their accord with him.The Churches in Christ: a comment on these Judaean Christians, testifying their union with Christ and therefore the genuineness of their profession. So 1 Thessalonians 2:14. The plural Churches suggests, as in Galatians 1:2, that they were not united into one organised whole.Unknown by face; hardly implies that they had never seen his face even as a persecutor, and therefore does not prove that Paul refers only to Churches outside Jerusalem. For, if they had never met him as a Christian, he would be, as to personal intercourse, still unknown to them. Galatians 1:23-24. The only contact of Paul with the Christians of Judaea was that from time to time news came that their former persecutor was now preaching the Gospel. Of this Gospel, faith was a chief element. (Another chief element was the Cross of Christ: 1 Corinthians 1:18.) Paul announced as-good-tidings that God saves all who believe. Formerly he was at work crushing out this teaching by destroying (same word in Galatians 1:13, Acts 9:21) those who announced it. Cp. Acts 6:7, obeyed the faith; Romans 1:5.Glorified: see under Romans 1:21; Romans 15:6; Romans 15:9; 1 Corinthians 6:20.In me: John 17:10. In the changed conduct of Paul there shone forth to the Christians of Judaea the grandeur of God, awakening their admiration. This was his earnest desire: that in my body Christ shall be magnified, Philippians 1:20. Since this admiration was voluntary, they are said to have themselves glorified God. These words attest the agreement of the Judaean Christians with Paul at this early stage of his career, so far as he was known to them; and thus prepare the way for the formal agreement in § 7. SECTION 7. — A VISIT TO . CH. 2:1-10. Then, fourteen years having elapsed, again I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking along with me also Titus. And I went up according to revelation; and I set before them the Gospel which I proclaim among the Gentiles, (privately, however, to those of repute,) lest in any way I should be running or have run in vain. But not even Titus who was with me, he being a Greek, was compelled to receive circumcision, and that because of the false brethren privately brought in, who came in privately to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. To whom not even for an hour did we yield by submission; that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you. Moreover, from those reputed to be something-what kind of men they formerly were, makes no difference to me: a man’s appearance God does not accept: for to me those in repute proposed nothing: but, on the contrary, having seen that I am entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, according as Peter with that of the circumcision, (for he who wrought for Peter for apostleship of the circumcision wrought also for me for the Gentiles,) and having known the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, the men reputed to be pillars, gave their right hands to me and Barnabas, right hands of fellowship, that we should be for the Gentiles, but they for the circumcision. Only that the poor we should remember, which very thing I have also been eager to do. Paul’s independence of the earlier apostles, proved in §§ 5, 6, by the slightness of his intercourse with them in the years following his conversion, he now further proves by his formal intercourse with them on a later visit to Jerusalem. Of this visit, he describes (Galatians 2:2) the occasion and purpose; and the reception then given (Galatians 2:3-5) to Titus, and (Galatians 2:6-10) to himself.Galatians 2:1. Then: a fourth stage in the narrative, following those similarly introduced in Galatians 1:18; Galatians 1:21.Fourteen years: reckoned probably from the just-mentioned visit to Jerusalem, which visit is recalled by the word again. To this simple exposition there is no chronological objection. See Diss. i. 7; and 3, where I hope to show that this journey may be confidently identified with that in Acts 15:4.With Barnabas: as recorded in Acts 15:2 : see note under Galatians 2:21.Along with me; seems to reveal Paul’s consciousness that in this mission he took the chief part, and thus accords with the order of names in Acts 15:2, where compare certain others with them. Of Paul’s companions, Barnabas and Titus, and they only, are mentioned, in view of the incidents recorded in Galatians 2:3; Galatians 2:9; Galatians 2:13.Also Titus: as well as Barnabas: see note under 2 Corinthians 9:5.Galatians 2:2. Occasion and purpose of this journey.According to revelation: in agreement with, and therefore prompted by supernatural light from God, either in a vision or in some other mode unknown to us. Cp. 2 Corinthians 12:1 ff. This was the inner and real, as Acts 15:2 states the outer and formal occasion of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem. Similarly, Peter went to Caesarea (Acts 10:20) both by request of Cornelius and by Divine revelation. We can well conceive that amid the disputes at Antioch Paul sought counsel from God, and received a special reply which moved him to undertake the journey. This revelation, guiding Paul’s movements, attests his peculiar and independent relation to God.Set before (or presented to) them: for their judgment. Similar word in Galatians 2:6; Galatians 1:16; the same word in Acts 25:14.To them: indefinite, followed by the more exact statement, to those in repute. The looser statement was perhaps prompted by the thought that what Paul said to the leaders at Jerusalem he said through them to the whole Church. The Gospel which, etc.: the matter of his preaching in heathen countries. Privately, however: manner in which Paul presented his Gospel to the Christians at Jerusalem, viz. not in a public gathering but in a private interview, and not to the whole Church but to some of its members whom all esteemed. Those in repute: Galatians 2:6. There is no hint here that Paul presented his Gospel afterwards to the whole Church. Had he meant this, he would have said it. His words here are easily harmonised with Acts 15:12 by supposing that, before the public assembly met, Paul stated his principles privately to the leaders of the Church, and that in the assembly he merely narrated the facts of his missionary journey, leaving the exposition of Gospel principles to the earlier apostles. Possibly, to this preliminary interview was due the harmony of the assembly. See Diss. i. 3. Lest… in vain: purpose, not only of the subordinate details of manner, viz. privately, to those in repute, but of the more important general statement I presented to them the Gospel.In any way; suggests (cp. 1 Corinthians 9:27) Paul’s careful foresight of all contingencies.Be running: 1 Corinthians 9:26; Philippians 2:16; i.e. along the apostolic course marked out for him by God, with all speed, and for a prize. In order that his present strenuous efforts and those of the past seventeen years, may not be in vain, Paul expounded to the Church at Jerusalem his teaching among the Gentiles.Paul’s purpose implies that upon the approval of his teaching by the other apostles depended the permanent success of his past and present labours. And this, after the lapse of so many centuries, and without having received as yet any hint of the nature of the point in dispute, we can in some measure understand. Had there been essential diversity of teaching between Paul and the earlier apostles, Christianity would have perished in its cradle. For, the sole and sufficient proof that the Gospel as preached in the early Church was actually taught by Christ, was the unanimous testimony of the leaders of the Church. Had Paul’s Jewish opponents in Jerusalem (Acts 15:5) or Corinth (2 Corinthians 11:4) or Galatia (Galatians 1:7) been able successfully to appeal from him to Peter, their appeal would have been irresistible; and would either have discredited his teaching or have created most serious doubt as to what was the actual teaching of Christ. Such doubt would have rendered impossible the firm faith needful to inspire heroic Christian life capable of making head against the corruptions, and the tremendous hostility, of the world around. Therefore, in order that the Church might survive the storms which threatened its life, it was all-important that, by an unmistakable and formal declaration, such appeal to the earlier apostles should be rendered impossible. Discord between them and Paul would have shaken the faith of his converts, and have prevented the erection of a Church capable of enduring to the end of time. It would thus have made vain his past labours, and have blighted the hopes which were the inspiration of his life. The foregoing exposition implies that the point in dispute was vital. For, difference of opinion about a mere detail would not have been serious. And Paul’s calm resolution to maintain to the letter his own teaching, in spite of the felt importance of harmony, proves the infinite importance of the matter in debate. This explains in some measure the tremendous condemnation in Galatians 1:8 f. And it raises to the highest degree our eagerness to know the point at issue. For we feel instinctively that a matter of such transcendent importance then must pertain to all time and to all men. It will gradually transpire as we follow the argument of the Epistle. The purpose here stated does not necessarily imply any real fear about the result of this interview. Paul merely tells us the means he took to guard against what would otherwise have been a serious danger. Doubtless, he knew well that, whatever some other members of the Church at Jerusalem might say, the apostles would support him. Notice that Paul’s acknowledgment that his own permanent success depended on his colleagues’ approval of his teaching was the strongest denial he could give to the insinuation that his teaching differed from theirs. His wish to work in harmony with the earlier apostles is attested by his visits, at some peril, to Jerusalem. [The interpretation of the last words of Gal 2:2 is open to some doubt. The indicative εδραμον suggests that also τρεχω is indicative; and that μη introduces, not a negative purpose as expounded above, but an indirect question. Cp. 1 Thessalonians 3:5. If so, Paul asks whether his present or past labours were in vain. This would be practically an appeal to his success in proof of the divine authority of his teaching. And against the exposition adopted above it is objected that an aorist indicative cannot express a purpose. On the other hand, the construction just suggested is most unusual if not unparalleled; whereas μη introducing a negative purpose is very common.Moreover, in an appeal to the success of his work, Paul would have spoken first of his past efforts, whether I have run or am running in vain: or, rather, he would have spoken only of the past. For the results of his present efforts could not yet be tested. But here his present efforts are mentioned first. And, again, it is very doubtful whether Paul’s success among the Gentiles was sufficiently evident to his fellow-apostles to be the ground of an important argument about the truth of his teaching. It is much easier to suppose (with A.V. and R.V.) that τρεχω is subjunctive. noting a negative purpose; and that ηεδραμον is an afterthought, modifying somewhat the earlier construction. At the time of his journey to Jerusalem Paul was in the midst of Gospel effort. He remembers that the permanence of the Church, and therefore the abiding success of his present efforts, depend upon the harmony of the apostles. He remembers also his long course of past effort. And, since this past effort is now matter of fact, its results only being still contingent, he speaks of it in the aorist indicative. In this he is justified by its use after μη when, (e.g. Galatians 4:10) expressing fear: for in a negative purpose the idea of fear is always present.]Galatians 2:3-10. Result of Paul’s taking Titus to Jerusalem and presenting his Gospel to the Christians there: viz. that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, Galatians 2:3-5 : and that the teaching of Paul and Barnabas was cordially approved by the leaders of the Church, Galatians 2:6-10.Galatians 2:3. But, or nevertheless: although I took with me Titus, and presented the whole matter of my preaching, nevertheless, etc.Not even Titus: as one very likely to be compelled to be circumcised. This is explained by the words (cp. Galatians 1:2, Acts 15:25) who was with me. Even though other Gentile Christians were allowed to remain uncircumcised, yet the official position of Titus, as representative to Jerusalem along with Paul of the Church at Antioch, might have been urged as a reason why he should pay respect to the ancient Covenant of God with Israel by submitting to circumcision. That this was not required from Titus, is clear proof that the Church at Jerusalem did not consider circumcision needful for the highest Christian privileges. Greek: see under Romans 1:14.He being a Greek: and thus uncircumcised. This guards against the inference that the Christians at Jerusalem would have tolerated (cp. Acts 21:21; Acts 16:3) an uncircumcised descendant of Abraham.Was not compelled to be circumcised; suggests that there was pressure, in remarkable accord with Acts 15:5; but states that the pressure was not effective.Galatians 2:4. Reason why Titus was not compelled to be circumcised; or rather a reason of something therein implied, and stated plainly in Galatians 2:5, viz. that Paul and others strenuously resisted the pressure to have Titus circumcised. In ordinary circumstances the circumcision of a Gentile convert, at the request of Jewish Christians with whom he was associated, would have been less important. But at Jerusalem were men who had intruded themselves into the Church in order to rob the Gospel of its distinctive features and thus (Galatians 1:7) overturn it, and who with this in view demanded as obligatory the circumcision of Titus. Paul here says that their demand prevented his circumcision. For it would have been an admission that the rite was still binding.The privately-brought-in false-brethren: enemies of the Gospel, who by concealing their real opinions and pretending faith in Christ had crept into the Church at Jerusalem. In 2 Corinthians 11:13 we find similar men at Corinth. Privately… privately: suggested rather than expressed by the first syllable of the Greek words here used. The suggestion is strengthened by the repetition, and by the word spy-out. Same compound words in 2 Peter 2:1; Romans 5:20; cp. Jude 1:4; 2 Peter 1:5. This secrecy implies that these men were a small minority of the Church at Jerusalem; and that the majority did not share or know, and would not have tolerated, their views. Else, the secrecy were needless. Consequently, these words are an indirect and courteous recognition by Paul of the soundness of their faith. False-brethren: Christians only in pretence. Cp. 2 Corinthians 11:26; Acts 13:6; Matthew 24:24; 2 Corinthians 11:3. Contrast the weak brethren in 1 Corinthians 8:11 f. It would be unfair to assume that these false brethren were the Pharisees mentioned in Acts 15:5 : for these last are called actual believers. But the presence in the Church of converted Pharisees who had not cast off completely the prejudices of their early training would make more easy the entrance of the false brethren. Hence these passages confirm each other.To-spy-out: same word in 2 Samuel 10:3; similar words in Hebrews 11:31; Joshua 2:1-3 : definite purpose of these men when entering the Church. They wished to learn all they could about Christianity in order to pervert it.Our freedom: from the Mosaic Law of works, which they wished to reimpose. And this involves freedom from sin and from every humiliating restraint: cp. 1 Corinthians 7:22; 1 Corinthians 9:19; John 8:32.Which we have, etc.; expounds and dwells upon the word our. This freedom is in Christ: i.e. objectively, through the historical facts of His death and resurrection; and subjectively in virtue of, and in proportion to, our spiritual union with Him. Thus Paul, as his wont is, anticipates Galatians 4:26; Galatians 5:1; Galatians 5:13.Our… we… us: all Christians, specially including those at Jerusalem into whose midst the false brethren crept, and with whom Paul here associates himself as sharer of the same freedom. This is another acknowledgment of the spiritual life of the Jewish Christians. In Galatians 2:5, the Gentile Christians are specially referred to.Us: emphatic, the mass of the Christians at Jerusalem, in contrast to the secret intruders. Bring-into-bondage: a very strong word: they crept into our midst in order that they might crush us down into slavery.These words are the first indication of the error disseminated by the disturbers in Galatia. For, only by supposing that they asserted the universal necessity of circumcision can we account for the mention of the rite here. That our supposition is correct, is placed beyond doubt by Galatians 5:2; Galatians 6:12; and by the whole argument of DIV. II. which reveals the spiritual consequences of this demand. We therefore infer with certainty that Galatians 2:4 would recall to Paul’s readers men in their midst essentially the same as those here described. Against both classes of false teachers, the curse of Gal 1:8 f was valid. And their deceitfulness (cp. Galatians 4:17; Galatians 6:12) helps us to understand it.Galatians 2:5. We did not yield; implies that, through the resistance of Paul and others, the pressure put on Titus failed. Who these others were, we are left to infer. But the secrecy needed for the entrance of the false brethren, and the full accord with Paul of the leaders at Jerusalem, suggest that these last were included, as were probably other members of the Church there.Not even for an hour: emphatic. It implies that the demand was made at a definite time; and therefore more or less formally. It was at once resisted. By submission: suggested by bring-into bondage. To have yielded the circumcision of Titus, would have been to how to the yoke which the secret foes sought to impose. A close coincidence with Acts 15:10.The truth of the Gospel: Colossians 1:5 : the correspondence with reality which belongs to the good news. The teaching of the false brethren was at variance with reality. For, under the Gospel, circumcision is not actually a condition of the favour of God.Might continue; suggests that the Galatians were in danger of losing the truth they already possessed. With you: in contrast to we did not yield. Paul fought the battle of the Gentile Christians. This implies that the continuance of the spiritual life of Paul’s converts, which needed the truth for its nourishment, was at stake in his resistance to the demand that Titus be circumcised. Consequently, his resistance to this demand had the same purpose as his exposition (Galatians 2:2) of the Gospel he preached among the Gentiles. Hence the explanation under Galatians 2:2 is equally valid here. Moreover in DIV. II. we shall learn that this demand for the circumcision of Gentile converts involved an obligation (Galatians 2:3) to keep the whole Law, and thus made of no effect (Galatians 3:10) the Gospel promise and (Galatians 2:21) the death of Christ. Thus by matters far from Galatia Paul is preparing a way for an argument affecting most closely the spiritual interests of the Galatian Christians.Dr. Lightfoot suggests that Galatians 2:4 begins a new unfinished sentence; and that Paul was going on to say that because of the false brethren James and Peter counselled that Titus be circumcised, but that he hesitated to say this, and broke off the sentence, merely adding in Galatians 2:5 that he resisted the demand made. But we have no right even to suggest a difference of opinion between Paul and the other apostles without some sort of proof: and of such difference of opinion we have here no trace. Moreover, when an essential part of a sentence is broken off, we expect to find its sense reappearing in another form. But of this supposed counsel we have in the following verses not the faintest hint. In Galatians 2:6-10, the concord of the earlier apostles with Paul is as complete and unhesitating as in the contemporary speeches recorded in Acts 15:6-21. Nor can Peter’s conduct at Antioch (Galatians 2:11) be accepted as an indication of his advice at Jerusalem. The reason given in Galatians 2:4 can be no other than a reason for the great decisive fact stated in Galatians 2:3 and again in Galatians 2:5, viz. that through the resistance of Paul and others Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. [Had the word δε been absent, there would be no question about the relation of Gal 2:4 to Galatians 2:3. Its insertion merely gives independent importance to the reason thus introduced: cp. Romans 3:22; Romans 9:30; Philippians 2:8. So A.V. and R.V.]In Galatians 2:5, the words to whom not even are omitted, reversing the sense, in the Clermont MS., both Greek and Latin. Tertullian (Against Marcion bk. v. 3) charges Marcion with having wrongly inserted the negative. Some other Latin writers accept or refer to, this omission. And in the existing Latin translation of Irenaeus (bk. iii. 13. 3) the passage is quoted without these words: but the context leaves us in doubt whether they were actually omitted by him. The omission is confined to Latin copies. This places their genuineness beyond doubt. And it is confirmed by internal evidence. For, had Paul yielded, he would not have added the humiliating words by submission. Nor can we see how his submission would have secured the permanence of Gospel truth among his readers. This is an interesting example of a very early, and rather serious, error in some copies of the New Testament. The suggestion of Dr. Farrar (St. Paul vol. i. p. 413) that Titus was actually circumcised, and that Paul merely declare: that this was not by compulsion and was no act of submission, has no support in the Epistle; and is contradicted by the prominent position of the negatives in Galatians 2:3; Galatians 2:5 which evidently rule the entire assertions, whereas this suggestion would require them to be closely associated with the words compelled and submission. Moreover it is difficult to see how the circumcision of Titus, when once demanded, could be other than submission to compulsion. On the apparent inconsistency of Gal 2:3; Galatians 2:5 with Acts 16:3, see Diss. i. 5.Galatians 2:6-10. Result of Paul’s presentation (Galatians 2:2) of his Gospel at Jerusalem to those in repute. The connection is noted by the recurrence of these last words in Galatians 2:6 twice and in Galatians 2:9.Those reputed to be something: certain men (names given in Galatians 2:9) rightly or wrongly supposed to have special worth or special authority, of whatever kind and from whatever source: a rather fuller phrase than those in repute in Galatians 2:2.What sort of men . . God does not accept: a parenthesis breaking off the construction. After speaking of what they were reputed to be, Paul interposes a few words about what they actually were. Even this is nothing to him: for it is nothing to God.A man’s appearance, or face, God does not accept, or respect: His estimate and treatment of men is not determined by externals. Same teaching and almost same words in Romans 2:11. The order of the Greek words suggests the incongruity of appearances being taken into account by God. These last words imply that what sort of men they were refers to something merely external. The easiest explanation is that Paul thinks of their former relation to Christ on earth. For, that Peter and John were His chosen and intimate companions and that James was a member of His own family, would naturally give them great repute in the Church at Jerusalem. But this relation to Christ belonged only to externals. It therefore placed them neither higher nor lower in the sight of God; and had no bearing on the independent authority which Paul had received from the Risen Saviour. These words, unexpectedly interposed, suggest, as do Galatians 1:1; Galatians 1:11, that the disturbers had insinuated that Paul’s authority was inferior to that of the earlier apostles who had been personally associated with Jesus. He interrupts his argument to remind us that the difference between him and them was only external, and therefore of no weight with God.If the above exposition be correct, the best rendering will be what they once were as in RV. margin, or more literally what sort of men they were formerly; not whatsoever they were, A.V., and RV. text. [For, the word ποτε, which in the N.T. nowhere else means ever but frequently (e.g. Galatians 1:13; Galatians 1:23 twice) formerly, would at once suggest a reference to days gone by.] Instead of continuing and completing the sentence interrupted by the parenthesis, e.g. ‘from those reputed to be something’… I received nothing, Paul abandons it and begins a new sentence. He does so in order to weave his parenthesis into his main argument, as a general principle exemplified in his main assertion which follows it: for to me, etc. Those in repute takes up the thread broken off at those reputed to be something.Such broken construction is common in Greek: cp. Romans 5:12.Proposed nothing: literally presented nothing to me or set nothing before me: similar word in Galatians 2:2, same word in Galatians 1:16.To me: very emphatic. Paul set before the men in repute at Jerusalem the Gospel he preaches among the Gentiles: but before him they set nothing, i.e. they had no correction or addition to make. This proves that their earlier relation to Christ was nothing to Paul, and illustrates the general principle that externals avail not with God. They evidently knew no more about the Gospel than he did. And, that the earlier apostles had nothing to add to, or correct in, Paul’s exposition of his Gospel, proves both his independence of them and their complete accord with him. Galatians 2:7. But on the contrary: conduct the opposite of proposing anything to Paul. They merely acknowledged him as a fellow-worker.Having seen that, etc.: inward motive of their action. Having seen… and having known (Galatians 2:9) are in apposition with James and Cephas and John, which last expression is parallel to those in repute in Galatians 2:6.Entrusted with: same word and thought in 1 Timothy 1:11; Titus 1:3; 1 Thessalonians 2:4; 1 Corinthians 9:17; Romans 3:2. [Contrast the perfect tense here, noting permanence, with the aorist in Romans 3:2.Uncircumcision: see under Romans 2:26.Gospel of the uncircumcision, of the circumcision: difference of destination only. Cp. apostleship of circumcision in Galatians 2:8. Of any other difference, we have no hint: and all such is denied in Galatians 2:8. Moreover, God will treat (Romans 3:30) Jew and Gentile alike: and, since the Gospel announces His merciful treatment of men, it must in essence be the same to all. Consequently, the difference is only in the aim of the mission of Peter and of Paul.Galatians 2:8. A parenthesis explaining the phrase Gospel of the uncircumcision.He that wrought: cp. Colossians 1:29 : God the Father, the Source of whatever power for good operates in men. So 1 Corinthians 12:6; Ephesians 1:11; Ephesians 1:20; Philippians 2:13. But God operates always through the instrumentality of ( 1 Thessalonians 2:13) His word and (Ephesians 3:20) power and through the agency ( 1 Corinthians 12:4) of the Holy Spirit. Wrought: literally inwrought: an inward activity, and putting forth of power, of God in men. It is the Greek original of the English word energy. A close parallel in Ephesians 3:7.For Peter: not in Peter which is already implied (cp. Colossians 1:29) in the verb. The usefulness and consequent enrichment and honour of Peter were an aim of God’s work in him. And with similar aim God wrought also for Paul.This verse implies that only inward divine energy can fit a man to discharge a divine commission. Galatians 2:9. And having known, etc.; continues and completes, in strict grammatical sequence, the sentence interrupted by the parenthesis of Gal 2:8. Thus this parenthesis differs from that in Galatians 2:6. Having seen in Galatians 2:7, denoting mental apprehension of a fact, forms with having known, comprehension of the significance of a fact, a climax.The grace given to me: God’s undeserved favour revealed in the committal to Paul of the Gospel of the uncircumcision and in the corresponding divine energy at work in him. Same words and same thought in Ephesians 3:2; Ephesians 3:7-8; Ephesians 4:7. That James is put before Cephas and John, who were disciples of Christ long before he was, implies that in the Church at Jerusalem he held a place in some respects higher than that of the most prominent of the twelve apostles. It was a courteous recognition of the Church at Jerusalem, of which James was the head, as the Mother-Church of Christendom. See note at end of DIV. I.Reputed to be pillars; both completes the idea partly conveyed by the word reputed in Galatians 2:2; Galatians 2:6, and tells us that the men just named are those referred to there.Pillars: 1 Timothy 3:15; Revelation 3:12. So Ep. of Clement ch. v., the greatest and most righteous pillars, viz, Peter and Paul: see my Corinthians App. A. Of the Church, which is God’s temple, they were accounted to be conspicuous supports and ornaments. A metaphor common in Jewish, Greek, and Latin writers. Gave right hands: cp. 2 Kings 10:15; Ezra 10:19; 1 Macc. vi. 58; xi. 62. So Josephus, Antiq. bk. xviii. 9. 3, about the Parthians: “He gave his right hand, which is with all the barbarians there the greatest proof of confidence in those talking together.” The word of-fellowship is delayed, that we may think first of the outward act, viz. the shaking of hands, and then of its significance, viz. recognition that all were comrades. The order of words, me and Barnabas, (a remarkable coincidence with Acts 15:2; Acts 15:22; Acts 15:35,) suggests Paul’s consciousness that he held the first place; and this agrees with the singular number (I, me) throughout Galatians 2:6-9 a. See under Galatians 2:1.Fellowship: literally having something in common with others. See under 1 Corinthians 10:16; Romans 15:26. ‘James and Cephas and John recognised me and Barnabas as sharers with themselves of the rank and work of apostles.’ They did so in order that, while working in harmony, each party should devote itself to its divinely (Galatians 2:8) marked out sphere of labour.That we should be for the Gentiles: i.e. apostles to the Gentiles. Galatians 2:10. The only exception to the wish of James, Peter, and John that Paul and Barnabas should devote themselves to the Gentiles. The poor: or the poor ones. It implies a poverty so notorious as to make the Jewish poor a definite object of thought. And their mention by James, apparently without any special occasion, suggests that the poverty was abiding. A remarkable coincidence with Acts 11:28 f, Romans 15:26. That we should remember: assuming that mere remembrance would evoke help. [The subjunctive present notes an abiding remembrance.] This request reveals the deplorable state of Palestine even as compared with surrounding countries. I have also been eager to do; adds to the request Paul’s ready consent and fulfilment. Eager: same word as earnestness (RV.) in same connection in 2 Corinthians 8:7-8. The conspicuous change from we to I forbids us to limit this expression of eagerness to the promise then made; for in such promise Barnabas would certainly join; and if so Paul could not speak of it in the singular number. His assertion of eagerness covers his own conduct to the time of writing this Epistle: whereas Barnabas left him (Acts 15:39) soon after their return from Jerusalem to Antioch. [I have therefore correctly rendered the Greek aorist, retaining its absolute indefiniteness, I have been eager.] This request may have been recalled to Paul’s mind by the great collection for the poor at Jerusalem which he was making while writing these words, and which was a conspicuous proof of their truth. Possibly, on other occasions also he had rendered help. REVIEW. After proving negatively the independence of the Gospel he preached by the scantiness of his intercourse with the earlier apostles, Paul gives in Galatians 2:7 further proof of it by narrating their action when he met them at an important crisis in the history of the early Church, fourteen years after the visit mentioned above. This later visit to Jerusalem was undertaken by God’s direction: and Paul felt that upon its success hung the highest welfare and indeed the permanence of the Gentile Churches. The greatness of the issue moved him to present the matters in dispute, not publicly to the whole Church, but privately to its leaders. The chief point objected to in his teaching, viz. that circumcision was not binding on Gentile converts, was conceded, in spite of opposition, in the test case of Titus, a Gentile companion who had gone up with Paul to Jerusalem. And, when Paul expounded his teaching among the Gentiles, the earlier apostles had no correction or addition to suggest, but simply and readily recognised him as a fellow-worker, to whom along with Barnabas God had allotted work different from that allotted to them. They merely begged him, in his work among the Gentiles, not to forget the poverty of his fellow countrymen at home, a request with which during many years Paul had eagerly complied. This section has revealed a specific, and as we shall see probably the most conspicuous element of the erroneous teaching which in this letter Paul combats, viz. the universal obligation of circumcision. The tremendous spiritual consequences involved in this error, we shall learn in DIV. II. To overturn it by stating and defending the truth of the Gospel, we shall find to be the chief aim of this Epistle. SECTION 8. — PAUL’S TO PETER, AND OF HIS OWN CH. 2:11-21. But when Cephas had come to Antioch, to the face I withstood him, because he was known to be in the wrong. For, before there came some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they came, he began to withdraw and to separate himself fearing them of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was led away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they are not walking rightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before all, If thou, being a Jew, eatest as do the Gentiles and not as do the Jews, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to act as do the Jews? We, by nature Jews and not sinners from the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by works of law but only through belief of Jesus Christ, also we believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified by belief of Christ and not by works of law; because “By works of law will no flesh be justified.” (Psalms 143:2.) Now if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, also ourselves have been found to be sinners, are we to infer that Christ is a minister of sin? far from it. For, if what I pulled down these things again I build up, I present myself as a transgressor. For I through law died to law that I might live for God. With Christ I have been crucified, and it is no longer I that live, but in me Christ lives. And the life which I now live in flesh I live in faith, in belief of the Son of God who loved me and gave up Himself on my behalf. I do not set aside the grace of God: for if through law comes righteousness, then Christ died for nought.After proving the independence of his authority as an apostle, from the scantiness of his intercourse with the earlier apostles during the years following his conversion and from the formal recognition accorded to him by them at Jerusalem, Paul now goes on to give a final and conclusive proof of the same from an incident at Antioch in which he actually resisted publicly the chief of the twelve apostles. His words to Peter flow into a description of his own spiritual life, a description which is a reply both to Peter and to the disturbers in Galatia. Galatians 2:11. Another step (cp. Galatians 1:15) in the historical narrative.Had come: better than (R.V.) came. For evidently Peter had been some time at Antioch, and after him others had arrived, before Paul rebuked him. [For this correct use of the aorist where we use the pluperfect, cp. Acts 21:26; Acts 1:2. The action is looked upon merely as having occurred at some indefinite past time.] Cephas… to Antioch: a coincidence with Acts 15:35, where both Paul and Barnabas are said to have remained some time at Antioch after their return from the conference at Jerusalem. The scantiness of the narrative of the Book of Acts forbids all surprise that this incident is not recorded there.To the face I withstood him: graphic picture. Known to be in the wrong: same word in 1 John 3:20 f. It denotes, not spoken condemnation, but mental recognition of his guilt by those around; thus differing from the word in Romans 14:23. That Peter was known to have done wrong, moved Paul to reprove him publicly.Otherwise the rebuke might have been private. Galatians 2:12-13. The just-mentioned misconduct of Peter, and its effect upon others.Came… from James: probably to be taken together. For such a phrase as they from James (cp. Acts 6:9) is not found in the New Testament: and it is not likely that Paul would speak of any men as disciples of James. Cp. Mark 5:35; 1 Thessalonians 3:6; which also forbid us to infer that these men were sent by James. But, that his name is used in this semi-local sense, reveals his influence in the Church at Jerusalem, to which these men evidently belonged. And this professed relation to James suggests that he was in less marked antagonism to them than was Paul. That these were false brethren, we have no proof. For those in Galatians 2:4 were only a secret minority of the Church at Jerusalem. But evidently (cp. Acts 11:3; Acts 15:5) these men held the restrictions of the Mosaic Law to be still binding. He used to eat-with the Gentiles: as the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem complained that he did with Cornelius, in apposition to the practice of (Luke 15:2) the Pharisees and Scribes. The vision of Peter (Acts 10:28) implies that this refusal to eat with the Gentiles arose from fear of eating food forbidden (Leviticus 11:2 ff) in the Law. If so, by eating with Cornelius and with the Gentiles at Antioch, Peter acknowledged virtually that the Law of Moses was no longer binding even upon Jews; in direct opposition to the converted Pharisees (Acts 15:5) at Jerusalem. He thus went rather further than the Decree, which (Acts 15:24) merely refused to make the Law binding on Gentiles but said nothing about Jewish Christians. But he did so in obedience to a revelation (Acts 10:15) from God. Drew-back: same word in Acts 20:20; Acts 20:27, from the lips of Paul. It suggests a quiet and timid retirement leading to separation.Them of (or from) the circumcision: Romans 4:12, (cp. Galatians 2:14,) Acts 10:45; Acts 11:2 : converts from Judaism. Yet not all the converted Jews at Antioch. For in Galatians 2:13 other Jews imitated Peter’s example; and therefore could hardly be objects of fear to him. Probably Paul refers chiefly to the new comers from Jerusalem; and perhaps to others whose zeal for the Law was rekindled by their arrival. They were men whose religious life bore conspicuously the mark of their origin.Separated himself: from the society and from the tables of the Gentile Christians; who evidently did not observe the Mosaic distinctions of food. We have here a genuine trait of Peter’s character, viz. a proneness to yield, for good or ill, to the latest influence from without. Probably the influence of Paul’s exposition of his principles (Galatians 2:2) prompted the speech recorded in Acts 15:7 ff: the influence of these new arrivals now prompts conduct quite inconsistent with that speech. See note below.Galatians 2:13. Continues the narrative by adding the result of Peter’s conduct.Hypocrite: an English form of the Greek word for an actor in a theatre; then in the N.T. for one who pretends to be what he is not. The denunciations of Christ (Matthew 6:2; Matthew 6:5; Matthew 6:16, etc.) gave to the word a tremendous significance. Cp. 2 Macc. vi. 21, 24, 25.Played-the-hypocrite-with him: in the unreal part Peter was acting, the rest of the Christian Jews at Antioch joined him. This implies that formerly they had eaten with the Gentiles; and that now, while acting as though the Mosaic restrictions were still obligatory, they knew that the obligation had passed away. All this agrees with Acts 15:31. Paul thus claims both Peter and the Jewish Christians at Antioch as in their hearts agreeing with that which in this Epistle he so earnestly advocates. The word Jews recalls the powerful influence of nationality; especially of visitors from the capital on fellow-countrymen living in a foreign land.Even Barnabas: as though unlikely to be influenced by such an example: a courteous recognition of his superiority to those around him. And, that even he was led away, (same word in 2 Peter 3:17,) proves the strength of the influence which bore him along.With their hypocrisy: the repetition lays great stress on the unreality of their action. Notice the different relation of Peter and Barnabas to this movement. Apparently without any outward pressure. Peter yielded at once to the silent influence of the arrivals from Jerusalem. His powerful example, as the foremost of the twelve apostles, carried along the whole body of the Jewish Christians at Antioch. And to this accumulated influence Barnabas yielded. He could not stand alone. But he was moved by the mass. Peter moved the mass. Galatians 2:14. Paul’s view of the conduct just narrated; and his rebuke of Peter. ['αλλ ?' οτε introduces a contrast.] He thus expounds (Galatians 2:11) to the face I withstood him; as in Galatians 2:12-13 he expounded he was known to be in the wrong.Walking aright: along a straight road. The truth of the Gospel: as in Galatians 2:5. The Gospel corresponds with, and reveals, eternal realities. And this revealed reality is a straight line along which God designs us to go.Before all: for his bad example had been felt by all, and therefore needed public rebuke. As do the Gentiles: literally, in-Gentile-fashion and not in-Jewish-fashion: two modes of life placed side by side in marked contrast. Paul refers evidently to the Mosaic restrictions of animal food; the most conspicuous distinction between Jews and Gentiles, and evidently designed by God to be such. Rather than break through these restrictions, many Jews had preferred to die: 1 Macc. i. 63; 2 Macc. vi. 18f; vii. 1. In complete contrast to these traditions of martyrdom for the Jewish Law, was Peter’s conduct at Antioch before the men came from James.How, or how is it that thou: Galatians 4:9; Romans 6:2; Romans 8:32; 1 Corinthians 15:12. So remarkable, because so inconsistent, was Peter’s action that Paul asks how it comes about. To-act-as-do-the Jews: literally to Judaize; cognate to in-Jewish fashion, and Judaism in Galatians 1:13-14. Cp. Esther 8:17, many Gentiles were having themselves circumcised and were Judaizing because of the fear of the Jews: Plutarch, Cicero 8 7, “guilty of Judaizing.” It embraces whatever habits of life distinguished the Jews from other nations. By separating himself from the Gentile Christians. Peter virtually taught with apostolic authority that for the full enjoyment of the favour and covenant of God Jewish customs must be observed. And by so doing he was practically forcing the Gentile converts to live under Jewish restrictions.Compel: the real, though undesigned, significance and tendency of Peter’s action; according to the usual sense of the Greek present, which does not indicate whether or not the influence so exerted was effectual. Cp. 2 Macc. vi. 18; “Eleazar was being compelled to eat pork;” although he refused to eat it: so 2 Macc. vii. 1. Peter’s previous conduct, which agreed with his convictions, Paul assumes to be his normal conduct; and therefore speaks of it in the present tense, describing it for emphasis both positively and negatively. With this he contrasts the practical tendency of Peter’s later conduct. By his authoritative example he was compelling Gentiles to maintain Jewish distinctions which he, a born Jew, had systematically trampled under foot. The exposure of this inconsistency before the Christians at Antioch, who knew that Paul’s words were true, is his first argument against Peter, to whom it must have come with overwhelming force. And with equal force it bore upon the Churches in Galatia. For this question implies that both Peter and the Church at Antioch, in spite of their contrary action, agreed with Paul’s teaching, viz. that Mosaic restrictions are no longer binding. Galatians 2:15-16. A second appeal, based on the spiritual experience of Paul and Peter, against the teaching implied in Peter’s inconsistent conduct. It is suggested by the foregoing rebuke. We: Paul and Peter, in contrast to the Gentiles whom Peter was compelling to live like Jews. By-nature: by birth, and apart from their own action; in contrast to proselytes who became Jews by choice. See under Romans 2:14.By-nature Jews: parallel with, but more definite than, being a Jew in Galatians 2:14.And not, etc.: emphatic contrast, as in Galatians 2:14.From Gentiles: i.e. converts from heathenism. Sinners: necessary result of heathen origin, as all Jews would readily admit: for heathenism cannot save from sin. It was a common Jewish designation of Gentiles. So 1 Macc. ii. 44, “they smote sinners in their anger and lawless men in their fury;” Tobit. xiii. 6, “His greatness to a nation of sinners;” Wisdom x. 20, referring to the Egyptians in the Red Sea: cp. Luke 6:32 f with Matthew 5:47; Matthew 26:45 with Luke 18:32. For the sake of the contrast which follows Paul assumes the point of view of Jewish self-righteousness, a point of view actually correct in this one particular. For, like all men, the Gentiles were sinners.But knowing, etc.: in apposition with we, and continuing by a slight contrast the description begun in by-nature Jews. Although born Jews and not inheritors of the pollution of heathendom, yet we know that a man does not receive justification from works of law. A man is-justified: as from day to day one and another receive justification. Law: any rule of conduct. Jews would think only of the Mosaic Law. Works of law: cp. Romans 2:15 : actions prescribed in a rule of conduct. From such actions no one derives righteousness: i.e. no one is accepted by God as righteous because he had done what some law bids. See an instructive parallel in Romans 3:28. Naturally Paul thinks of actions prescribed in the Law of Moses; actions moral or ritual, both which are prescribed in the same Law and closely interwoven. But his words in their full latitude exclude justification by anything done in obedience to a rule of conduct. If there be justification, it must be apart from the works of law.But only (literally except, or if not) by works of law; suggests at first sight that only by faith are we justified by works of law. But this inference is not supported by Greek usage. For, inasmuch as exceptions are usually preceded by a universal assertion, positive or negative, the exception is, even when preceded by a limited assertion, sometimes taken, not to the entire assertion, but to a wide term contained in it. So Luke 4:26 f, many lepers in Israel… but not one of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian: i.e. no leper was cleansed except Naaman. So in Romans 14:14 an exception is taken, not to the statement nothing is common of itself, but simply to a wider assertion nothing is common. So Revelation 21:27 : there shall not enter into it anything common… except they that are written, etc. And that here except through faith limits, not justified by works of law, but the wider statement is not justified, is made quite certain by the clear statements in Galatians 3:11, in law no one is justified; in Romans 3:28, a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. Paul merely says in the strongest way possible that a man is not justified except through faith.Faith, or belief, of Jesus Christ: assurance that His words are true or will come true, as the case may be: see note under Romans 4:25.Also we; takes up the word we in Galatians 2:15 and puts it in conspicuous prominence on the pedestal erected for it by the intervening words. Then follows the chief assertion of the sentence occupying Galatians 2:15-16. This is better (so A.V. and RV.) than to begin a new sentence here. For, the foregoing words, which have great force as a preparation for those following, have not sufficient independent weight to be a separate sentence. Also, or even we: in addition to the sinners from the Gentiles; in spite of being born Jews, and prompted by our knowledge that justification comes only through faith.Believed in Christ: with Paul, only Romans 10:14; Philippians 1:29; Colossians 2:5; 1 Timothy 3:13; 2 Timothy 3:15 : very common in the 4th Gospel. See note under Romans 4:25. It denotes a confidence in Christ which assures us that He will fulfil His promises.We believed: when we first put faith in Christ: so Romans 13:11.In order that we might be justified, etc.: definite purpose with which we believed in Christ. On this purpose rests the weight of the argument. It is made very conspicuous by the repeated contrast, before and after, between belief of Christ, whose name is mentioned three times, and works of law. Over this contrast, Paul seems to linger. He declares emphatically that both he and Peter reposed faith in Christ because of the felt impossibility of gaining justification by works of law. [For ου in a final sentence, cp. 1 Corinthians 1:17. Paul says categorically that while seeking justification he was not seeking it from works of law.] Because from works, etc.: reason why Paul sought justification by faith and not by actions prescribed in a rule of conduct, or rather the reason already given repeated in epigrammatical form, viz because from that source justification will never come. No flesh: see under Romans 3:20. The Hebrew colouring of this conclusion, and its word for word agreement with Romans 3:20, which is evidently a quotation from Psalms 143:2, prove that it is also a reference to the same. Paul’s words are thus supported by Old Testament authority. Indeed otherwise they would be empty repetition. Their exact agreement with Romans 3:20, even where they differ from the LXX., suggests that this quotation was frequent in the lips of Paul: and its appropriateness makes this very likely.Galatians 2:15-16 give the inner side of the spiritual history of Peter and Paul. And they by no means contradict what we know of its outer side. We cannot doubt that Peter, before Andrew led him to Jesus, and Paul, before he went to Damascus, had like thousands since sought the favour of God by obedience to law, i.e. by morality or by religious duties; and that the failure of their search had taught them that not thus can it be obtained. Indeed without this preparation the words of Jesus to Peter and afterwards to Paul would have been ineffective. Until we find that morality cannot save us, we cannot trust for salvation to the word of Christ. Consequently, these words are true of all who venture to repose faith in Christ. And they were a powerful appeal to Peter’s remembrance of his own inner life. For he was now practically setting up as a condition, and in this sense as a means, of salvation that which, when he first came to Christ, he had forsaken because he had found that from it salvation could not be obtained. Paul says: Take the case of you and me. Although we were born Jews and not the offspring of idolaters and sharers of the awful immorality of heathenism, yet, inasmuch as we found by experience that no justification comes from works done in obedience to law, but only through faith, even we, born Jews and as compared with others moral men, put faith in Christ in order that from faith in Him we might have a justification not to be derived from works of law. And this motive for believing Christ, viz. that from works of law no one clothed in flesh and blood will receive justification, is frequently asserted in the Old Testament. This argument would come to Peter with force the more overwhelming because it is really a reproduction of his own earlier teaching; e.g. Acts 15:10 f; Acts 10:28; Acts 10:34; Acts 11:17. This long and emphatic quotation of Paul’s words to Peter assures us that they bear very closely upon the argument of this Epistle. We have thus another indication, in addition to that detected in Galatians 2:3, of the error then prevalent in Galatia. Evidently, the disturbers not only demanded that Gentile converts be circumcised, but did so on the ground that obedience to the Mosaic Law was an abiding and universal condition of justification. That this inference is correct, will be placed beyond doubt by the argument of Galatians 3; as our inferences in Galatians 2:3 about circumcision will be verified by plain assertions in Galatians 5:3; Galatians 6:12. Thus this verse prepares the way for the main argument of the Epistle.Galatians 2:17. An incorrect inference from Galatians 2:16 in the form of a question, suggesting an objection so serious that Paul must at once state and overturn it. It has a close parallel in Romans 6, where a similar objection is met by a similar argument: cp. Galatians 2:19 with Romans 6:6; Romans 6:11; Romans 7:4. Justified in Christ: in His blood, Romans 5:9; through the redemption which is in Christ, Romans 3:24; in law, Galatians 3:11; Galatians 5:4; sanctified in Christ, 1 Corinthians 1:2. Justification was wrought out for us objectively in the historic Person of Christ, and subjectively appropriated by the faith which unites men to Him.Seeking to be justified, etc.: implied in the purpose asserted in Galatians 2:16, viz. that we might be justified by belief of Christ.We were found, or have been found: [the Greek aorist includes both senses:] cp. 1 Corinthians 15:15; Romans 7:10.Also ourselves sinners: in addition to the sinners from the Gentiles in Galatians 2:15. It takes up also we in Galatians 2:16. The mere search for justification, apart from its success, was itself a discovery that the seekers, like the Gentiles whom they once despised, were also themselves sinners. For only sinners need justification. Consequently, this supposition is a correct inference from Galatians 2:16. Even Peter and Paul had by their turning to Christ been found to be previously sinners. Paul now asks whether from this we are to draw the further inference that Christ is a minister of sin. Cp. ministers of righteousness, 2 Corinthians 11:15, ministry of righteousness, 2 Corinthians 3:9; minister of circumcision, Romans 15:8. It is practically the same, but more dignified than servant of sin, Romans 6:20. Since the Law utterly condemns sin, and since by turning to Christ for justification we were found to be, in spite of our earnest efforts to keep the Law, sinners like other men, are we to infer that Christ is an officer in the service of sin, that His influence tends to extend its empire? This is, in another form, the ever recurring objection that the Gospel of Christ which reveals the guilt of even the most moral men is opposed to morality. Paul states it here in the form of a question in order that he may overturn it by a picture of his own life of faith. The above exposition implies that the questioned inference, Christ a minister of sin, is incorrectly deduced from a correct hypothesis, also ourselves found to be sinners; the hypothesis being really a correct inference from Galatians 2:16. The early Greek commentators suppose the undoubtedly false inference Christ a minister of sin to be correctly deduced from, thus disproving by reductio ad absurdum the hypothesis ourselves found to be sinners. If so, Galatians 2:17 proves that believers are no longer under the penalty of sin, by saying that otherwise Christ in whom they trust for pardon is, by leaving them still under condemnation, doing the work of sin. Paul’s question would thus be a proof of the truth of the Gospel which proclaims the justification of all who believe. But this argument would need to be more clearly indicated; especially as Galatians 2:16 is not so much an assertion of the Gospel as a denial that men are justified by works; whereas, as expounded above, the hypothesis flows naturally from the foregoing assertion.Galatians 2:18. Proof, extending to Galatians 2:21, of Paul’s indignant denial that the discovered sin of even moral seekers for salvation in Christ proves Him to be a minister of sin.Pulled down, build up: metaphor common with Paul, Romans 14:19 f; 15:20. By eating with the Gentiles Peter was pulling down the barrier of the Mosaic restrictions: by afterwards withdrawing from them he was building it again. This express and evident reference Paul courteously veils by using the first person as though merely stating a general principle. These again: emphatic exposure of Peter’s inconsistency. Transgressor: one who oversteps the limits marked by law; more precise than sinner, preparing the way for the word law twice in Galatians 2:19. If by formerly pulling down the restrictions of the Law, Peter had, as Galatians 2:19 will show, been really carrying out the ultimate purpose of the Law, he is now, by maintaining the same restrictions, opposing the Law and transgressing the limits it has marked out for its own operation. His own inconsistency condemns him.Galatians 2:19. Shows the bearing on Galatians 2:17 of the general and rather ambiguous statement in Galatians 2:18; and thus introduces the main proof that even though the Gospel brings down all men to the common level of sinners yet Christ is not a minister of sin.As to me: the Greek emphatic pronoun, recalling us from the general statement of Gal 2:18 to Paul’s own actual spiritual life.I died to law: expounded in Romans 7:4, put to death to the Law through the body of Christ. By His crucified body, Paul was removed completely from the jurisdiction of law, so that God no longer treats him according to his previous obedience to a rule of conduct as though such obedience were the means of obtaining His favour. This is another way of saying that by the death of Christ God has reconciled the justification of sinners with His own justice. And this escape from the claims of the Law and separation from its rule was brought about by means of law. For it was to satisfy these claims that Christ died: and the purpose of the Law was to force men to Christ, and by so doing place them beyond its own jurisdiction. Thus objectively and subjectively Paul’s deliverance from the rule of law was brought about by the operation of law.That I may live for God: God’s purpose in liberating Paul from law. Cp. Romans 7:4, put to death to the Law… that we may bear fruit for God: Romans 6:11, living for God in Christ Jesus. This verse embodies in a few words the most distinctive teaching of Paul.It is now evident that, if by the operation of the Law and in accomplishment of its original purpose Paul has been set free from law and therefore from the Mosaic restrictions, to build up again the barrier erected by these restrictions is to run counter to the spirit and purpose of the Law itself, and is therefore a transgression of the Law. Just so, to re-erect the scaffolding of a finished building is to thwart the original purpose of that scaffolding, which is a building free from scaffolding. Consequently, by separating himself from the Gentile converts at Antioch, Peter was resisting the voice of Sinai: for he was hindering its real and final purpose. Again, since the purpose of this release from law is that we may live for God, it is evident that although the Gospel brings down all men to the common level of sinners yet Christ is not thereby promoting the rule of sin. For, to use for God all the powers which life gives, is (cp. Romans 6:11) the absolute opposite of sin. All this is made more evident by the description in Galatians 2:20 of the life which Paul is living.Galatians 2:20. “The summit and marrow of Christianity:” Bengel.Crucified-with: same word in Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:32; John 19:32.With Christ I have been crucified: Romans 6:6; Galatians 6:14 : I have shared with Christ the results of His death on the cross. For by the agony of His crucifixion Paul escaped, as did Christ, from the penalty of sin imposed by the Law. Through the death of Christ, and therefore in some sense upon His cross, Paul’s old life came to an end.The rest of Gal 2:20 describes the life which Paul, though crucified, still lives. Of this life, his own personality is no longer, as it once was, the principle and source. He is deeply and gratefully conscious that his own life, both in its essence and its manifestations, is infinitely above himself who lives it; and is a direct outflow (John 14:19) of the immortal life of Christ, so that Paul’s thoughts and words and acts have their true source not in him but in Christ. Thus Paul lives on earth in human flesh a life, not earthly but heavenly, not human but divine; a life which is in some sense a continuation of Christ’s life on earth.These words are the highest development of the teaching that in us dwells the Spirit of God who is (Romans 8:9 ff) the Spirit of Christ and who breathes into those in whom He dwells the lifegiving, animating, controlling presence of Christ Himself. This inward presence of the Spirit of Christ makes us ( 1 Corinthians 12:12) members of the body of Christ. And Paul could say in Philippians 1:21 : to me to live is Christ. And if Christ lives in us as the animating principle of our life, we live in Christ as our surrounding element and home and refuge.Notice that it is the crucified Saviour who lives in those who have shared His crucifixion. Only they whose former lives have come to an end upon the cross of Christ have Christ living in them. For union with Him implies (Romans 6:3) union with His death.Now follows the subjective element and medium and condition of the life which Christ lives in Paul. I now live; counterpart to no longer I live.In flesh: in a body of flesh and blood, which in virtue of its material constitution influences and limits in so many ways the spirit within. And these limitations give occasion for a revelation in Paul’s bodily life of the grandeur of Christ, who in spite of them lives in him a life of constant victory over the flesh. In flesh, in faith: conspicuous contrast of the local physiological sphere with the spiritual sphere of Paul’s life. Faith, or belief, of the Son of God: as in Galatians 2:16 twice: assurance that the words of Jesus are true and will come true; in this case, an assurance that Christ will fulfil His promise by living in us as the animating principle of our life. This assurance is the surrounding element and atmosphere in which Paul lives and moves, and from which he draws his life and through which he sees objects around him on earth and above him in heaven.Son of God: Christ in His unique and eternal relation to the Father. Loved me etc.: close parallel in Ephesians 5:25; cp. Romans 8:37. It refers to the historical manifestation in time of Christ’s eternal love. Gave-up: to suffering and death, as suggested by crucified-with Christ. Cp. Galatians 1:4. It denotes frequently surrender into the power of another: cp. 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:20. Same word also in Romans 4:25; Romans 8:32; 1 Corinthians 11:23; Ephesians 5:2; Ephesians 5:25. On my behalf: for my benefit, viz. salvation. In view of the self-surrender of Christ, Paul forgets all others and remembers only that for him Christ died. Cp. 2 Corinthians 8:9. The love of Christ in its historical manifestation is a sure ground of the faith in which Paul lives. Because of His love and self-surrender we are sure that Christ will fulfil His promise to live in us: the faith thus evoked becomes the element of our life: and in proportion to our faith (but not because of it) Christ lives in our life. That such a life if lived in flesh, reveals the grandeur of Him who can inspire even flesh and blood with His own spirit.Galatians 2:21. The grace of God: cp. 1 Corinthians 15:10. It reminds us that the life just described is a gift of the undeserved favour of God, of the favour revealed in the death of Christ.Set-aside: strange contrast to Galatians 2:20, implying that it is possible to refuse and lose this great gift. It brings Galatians 2:20, which seemed for a moment to raise us far above all theological controversy into Heaven itself, to bear on the sad reality of the discord at Antioch.For if etc.; explains what Paul means by rejecting the grace of God. Righteousness: practically, the judge’s approval; see under Romans 1:17. Through law: of any kind, moral or ritual. Righteousness through law, is the judge’s approval obtained by obedience to prescriptions of conduct. God gave Christ to die in order to reconcile with justice favour shown to men who have disobeyed. Consequently, if by obedience men may obtain the favour of God, the death of Christ was needless; and the infinite favour shown therein was wasted. In this sense, to preach justification by law, is to set aside the grace of God.The objection in Galatians 2:17 is now completely silenced; not by exact syllogism, but by a reasoned exposition of Paul’s own spiritual life. It might seem that, by proclaiming a Gospel which reveals the failure of well-meant efforts to obtain the approval of God by keeping the Law’, Christ was an enemy of righteousness and a helper of sin. But this thought is dispelled by the fact that Christ lives in Paul and Paul lives in faith and thus lives for God; such a life being, as we at once feel instinctively, the noblest life conceivable. Paul entered this life by sharing in some sense the death of Christ and thus escaping from the jurisdiction of the Law. This escape from law was itself brought about by the operation of law. Consequently, the real transgressors are, not those who break down the Mosaic restrictions which were not designed to be permanent or universal, but those who run counter to the spirit and purpose of the Law by reinforcing these restrictions after having by their conduct broken them down. Such men trample under foot the favour of God shown in the death of Christ. For, by maintaining the Law as a condition of righteousness they say practically that men are able to keep it; and if so the death of Christ, who died to deliver us from its claims, was needless. The connecting links of this argument, which we have in some measure supplied in exposition, will be found developed in DIV. II., for which it prepares the way. The objection in Galatians 2:17 was probably frequent in the lips of Jewish opponents of Christianity. And the reply to it here given had as much force for the disturbers in Galatia as for Peter at Antioch. So in all ages and places a rich experience of spiritual life is the strongest condemnation of salvation by morality or by religious duties.It has been questioned whether the whole of Gal 2:14-21 was in substance actually spoken to Peter, or whether Paul glides away imperceptibly into a new argument with his Galatian readers. But, certainly, we and also we in Galatians 2:15-16 refer, not to the Galatians who were Gentiles, but to Paul and Peter who were Jews. And it is difficult to separate also ourselves sinners in Galatians 2:17 from sinners in Galatians 2:15 and also we in Galatians 2:16. Moreover, Galatians 2:18 is most easily explained as being a reference to Peter’s inconsistent conduct at Antioch. And the appeal in Galatians 3:1 seem to mark the point at which Paul turns to his readers in Galatia. We have, therefore, no reason to doubt that the whole paragraph, to Galatians 2:21, was in substance spoken by Paul to Peter.That Peter yielded at once, and fully, to this appeal, we infer with confidence. For, evidently, reply was impossible. His answer, which must have been humiliating, is therefore omitted. This was the more easy because, whatever Peter said, Paul’s appeal to him is an overwhelming argument against the disturbers in Galatia. For Peter, to whom they seem to have appealed as an authority superior to Paul, admitted by his conduct that the Law was not binding on Gentiles; thus contradicting them. Moreover, so far was Peter from being an absolute authority that subsequently he acted, influenced by men like-minded to them, in opposition to his previously avowed principles. And Paul’s declaration that the powerlessness of the Law to save had driven both Peter and himself to seek salvation in Christ, was equally true of the advocates of circumcision in Galatia, so far as they were honest men. Of I., the only explanation is that in the churches of Galatia Jewish teachers, either mistaken or feigned disciples of Christ, had said that Paul’s authority was inferior to that of the earlier apostles, because derived from them, and that he preached a false Gospel different from that committed to him by the twelve. We also infer that they demanded the circumcision of Gentile converts, as a condition of their justification. These teachers were unfortunately successful: and, led by them, while Paul wrote, many Galatian Christians were turning away from the Gospel and from God. In view of this false teaching which bore on its face marks of human origin, Paul declares that his own teaching is not such as man would devise; and explains this by saying that he received it, not from man, but by express revelation of Christ. Indeed, the contrast between his past and present life proclaims that Christ had been revealed to him and in him. So sufficient was this revelation that Paul sought no human counsel, but went away to Arabia; and even when returning from Arabia he did not go to Jerusalem but came back to Damascus. Only after three years did he visit the Mother-Church of Christianity. Naturally he wished to meet the chief of the earlier apostles: and he saw also James, but no others. This proves that from the apostolic college as such he had received no commission. And the length of his visit, only a fortnight, was insufficient to make Paul in any sense a disciple of Peter or James. For some time after this Paul was known only by hearsay to the Christians of Judaea. But what they heard gave them the highest satisfaction. The independence of Paul’s authority, proved by his distance from the Palestinian apostles, is confirmed by his intercourse with them fourteen years after his first meeting with Peter. The infinite importance of harmony between himself and them, even for the success of his own mission, Paul felt deeply; and, to secure it, he set before the leaders of the church at Jerusalem privately the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. Of the sentiments of the Christians at Jerusalem, the presence of Titus was a practical test. Although occupying a conspicuous position as Paul’s companion, and in spite of some pressure, he was allowed to remain uncircumcised. His circumcision was refused because it was demanded by guileful enemies of the Gospel. In Paul’s teaching the apostles at Jerusalem found nothing to correct and nothing defective. They simply recognised his independent mission. Subsequently, at Antioch Paul administered to Peter public rebuke for withdrawing from the Gentiles, influenced by Jews from Jerusalem, after having fraternised with them. So great was Peter’s influence that in his withdrawal he was followed by the other Jews at Antioch and even by Barnabas. Paul showed the gross inconsistency of his conduct, and reminded him that it was because the Law could not save that both Peter and himself put faith in Christ. And to the possible objection that if the Gospel brought down even moral men to the common level of sinners then was Christ a servant of sin, he replied by describing the spiritual life which had followed his death to the Law. By the metaphor of one who pulls down and then builds up, Paul exposes still further Peter’s inconsistency; and concludes by declaring, as in DIV. II. he will prove, that the practical teaching involved in this withdrawal makes needless and useless the death of Christ and the grace of God therein revealed. To the great argument which now lies before us in Galatians 3, these last words are the best possible stepping stone. A marked feature of DIV. I. is the number of definite allusions to men conspicuous in the early Church, making it an invaluable contribution to the biography of the New Testament. The characters here depicted we will now study. The term BROTHER OF THE LORD which in Galatians 1:19 designates James, the first of the three pillars mentioned in Galatians 2:9, demands attention. Brothers of Christ are three times (Matthew 12:47 ff; Mark 3:31 ff; Luke 8:19 ff; Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 2:12) associated with His mother. Our first thought is that these were later sons of Joseph and Mary: and this is supported by the word firstborn in Luke 2:7. This opinion, of which however we have no certain trace earlier than Helvidius, (A.D. 380,) has been advocated lately by Meyer, Alford, Farrar, and others. The only historical objection to it, but a very serious one, is John 19:26-27. For, if Mary had four sons of her own, who though perhaps not believers when Christ died became such (Acts 1:14 : cp. 1 Corinthians 15:7) immediately afterwards, of whom one was worthy to be made (Galatians 2:9) head of the Church at Jerusalem, we cannot conceive that Christ would set aside filial obligation by committing His mother to the care of John, even though he was the beloved apostle and not improbably nephew to Mary. It is easier to believe that the word firstborn had become, in consequence (Luke 2:23) of the Levitical ritual, equivalent to which openeth the womb in Exodus 13:2, etc., Or, it might refer to a later son who died early. The perpetual virginity of Mary rests on no historical evidence; and therefore cannot be adduced as an historical argument.That the Lord’s brothers were sons of Joseph by an earlier wife, is a conjecture without other Scripture proof, and suggested simply by John 19:25. But it would most easily account for all the known facts of the case. Mary’s step-sons would naturally be often with her. They would be called the Lord’s brothers in the sense in which even Mary in Luke 2:48 calls Joseph His father; and in recognition of their almost sacred social nearness to Christ. And, if they were not her own sons it is much more easy to conceive reasons which prompted Christ to commit her to John. This opinion was held probably by Clement of Alexandria, and certainly by Origen, Eusebius, and the early fathers generally.Another theory was in A.D. 382 advocated, and was probably invented by Jerome; and was accepted by Augustine and the Western fathers generally; viz. that the Lord’s brothers were cousins, sons of His mother’s sister, and that consequently the word brothers is used of them only in a looser sense, as in Genesis 13:8; Genesis 29:12; Leviticus 25:48. Jerome also supposes that in Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3, James (or Jacob) and Joseph (or Joses) were identical with James the little and Joseph, sons of the other Mary, in Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; that their mother was Mary of Clopas, whom he supposes to be Christ’s mother’s sister in John 19:25; and that James the little was both the Lord’s brother in Galatians 1:19 and the son of Alphaeus in Matthew 10:3. This theory rests entirely on the supposition that Mary the mother of James and Joses (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40) was sister to our Lord’s mother: and for this there is no ground except the assumption, adopted without any proof by Meyrick in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i., p. 920b, that in John 19:25 Mary of Clopas must necessarily be the same person as His mother’s sister. But surely it is as easy to understand this verse to mention four persons as three: cp. Acts 1:13. And it is in the highest degree unlikely, and so far as I know without parallel, that two sisters were commonly spoken of by the same name. Certainly, to suppose this, is much more difficult than to find four persons mentioned in John 19:25. That two pairs of brothers (Matthew 13:55; Matthew 27:56) bore the very common names James (or Jacob) and Joseph, cannot be accepted, even though the name Simon be added to each pair, as proving or hardly as suggesting that they were the same. The argument that, if James the Lord’s brother were not the son of Alphaeus, of this apostle nothing is known, loses all force amid the obscurity which surrounds the subsequent course of all the apostles except three. Thus vanishes New Testament support for Jerome’s theory. And it has no support in early tradition. This theory is, moreover, open to serious objection. The title assumed in Jude 1:1 suggests or implies that Jude’s brother was the well-known leader of the Church at Jerusalem: for any other James would need to be distinctly specified. And, if he were the son of Alphaeus, we are almost compelled to believe that the apostle Jude of James was also brother of the Lord. But if two out of the four, or indeed if James the most illustrious of the four, were already enrolled among the apostles, it could not have been said, as in John 7:5, that Christ’s brothers did not believe in Him.Nor is the looser sense given by this theory to the word brother allowable in this case. For, without any hint of any unusual sense the men in question are again and again in all four Gospels, in the Book of Acts, and twice by Paul, called the Lord’s brothers; never once His cousins or kinsmen. Yet for the relation of cousin there was a definite term both (Leviticus 25:49) in Hebrew and (Colossians 4:10) in Greek. Just so, Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius, (Church History bk. iii. 20, 32, iv. 22,) speaks of James and Jude as the Lord’s brothers, and of Simeon as His cousin, and as His uncle’s son. The occasional use, in cases open to no mistake or where the distinction was unimportant, of the word brother in the looser sense of kinsman surely does not warrant us to interpret thus this frequent and matter-of-fact designation. The effect of giving to words so indefinite a meaning is seen in Estius, who supposes that the Lord’s mother’s sister also was only her cousin. Moreover, if the Lord’s brothers were sons of Mary’s sister, it is difficult to account for their association three times with Mary without any reference (especially in John 2:12) to their own mother.Jerome’s theory may therefore, as destitute of solid evidence in Scripture or tradition and as opposed to the plain meaning of a common word and to John 7:5, be confidently set aside. We are therefore compelled to believe that the Lord’s brothers were sons of Joseph. And we have found one strong reason, viz. the words from the cross to Mary and John, for surmising that they were his sons by an earlier wife. And this surmise we may accept, in the absence of other evidence, as the easiest explanation of the known facts of the case.We must, accordingly, think of Jesus, not as a solitary child, but as one, probably the youngest, among four brothers and at least three sisters; and of Mary, not as devoting herself to the rapt contemplation of her one mysterious Son, but as discharging the many duties involved in the care of a large family. Into the privacy of that sacred home we are not allowed to intrude. And perhaps we need not envy its members their domestic nearness to the Saviour. It may be that even his nearness made it difficult for them to believe (John 7:5) that he whom they had known and cared for and played with in their own home as a little boy younger than themselves and needing their help was indeed the foretold deliverer and the Son of God. Perhaps it was only after He had risen and had appeared in special manner ( 1 Corinthians 15:7) to the oldest probably of the brothers that they were led (Acts 1:14) to bow to Him as their Lord.On the whole subject see a very able dissertation in Lightfoot’s Galatians.Of JAMES, THE LORD’S BROTHER, the notices in the New Testament are few, but harmonious and definite. The position of his name in Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3 suggests that he was the oldest of the four brothers. But this is no conclusive proof: for the order of Simon and Jude varies, showing that it is not according to age; and the subsequent fame of James would account for his place at the head of these lists. If he was Joseph’s son by an earlier wife, James was some years, if the oldest son, several years, older than Jesus. This suggests an explanation of the fact that (John 7:5) about six months before His death James and His brothers did not believe in Christ, and ventured to give Him advice. Possibly, to this unbelief refers Mark 6:4 : a prophet is not without honour except… among his kinsmen and in his own house. As to Peter who denied Him, so to His brother James who hesitated to believe in Him, the Risen Saviour ( 1 Corinthians 15:7) specially appeared. This was probably to him, as was a similar event to Paul, the turning point in life. For, immediately after the ascension (Acts 1:14) the brothers and mother of Jesus were associated with the apostles. The special message to James in Acts 12:17 suggests that he then already occupied a prominent place in the Church at Jerusalem. Still earlier Paul, on his first visit as a Christian, met James there. That at the conference at Jerusalem the name of James stands in Galatians 2:9 before those of Peter and John, seems to imply that already James held the first place in the Mother-Church. And with this agrees the decisive part taken by James at the conference, as recorded in Acts 15:13 ff. That in Galatians 2:12 some Christians are said to have come from James, implies that they sheltered themselves under his name ; and suggests that to their teaching the teaching of James was in less marked opposition than was that of Paul. And all this agrees with Acts 21:18-25, where James speaks as the recognised head and mouthpiece of the Christians at Jerusalem, all of whom are said to be zealous for the Law. From 1 Corinthians 9:5 we learn that the brothers of the Lord, and therefore presumably this most famous of them, were married. And, even by the strictest observers of the Mosaic Law, marriage was held in honour.That the Epistle of James was written by the Lord’s brother, is suggested at once by its opening words, James, servant of God. For, his unique position in the Mother-Church of Christendom would make further designation needless for him, but imperative for any other James. And modesty might easily restrain him from using a title of honour which others freely gave to him. The Epistle is quoted as Scripture by the Greek fathers of the fourth century. Jerome (Illustrious Men ch. ii.) says: “James, who is called the brother of the Lord, by surname the Just… wrote only one Epistle, which belongs to the seven Catholic Epistles, which also itself is said to have been edited by some one else under his name, although gradually in process of time it has obtained recognition.” Eusebius (Church History bk. iii. 25) says: “Of the books contradicted, but known nevertheless to most men, the so-called Epistle of James is in circulation, and that of Jude, and the Second Epistle of Peter, and the so-called Second and Third Epistles of John.” So bk. ii. 23: “It must be known that it is accounted spurious: at any rate not many of the old writers have mentioned it… Nevertheless we know that this with the others is publicly used in most Churches.” Origen (Comm. on John vol. xix. 6) says: “If faith is mentioned, but it be without works, such faith is dead; as we have read in the current Epistle of James.” So Notes on Exodus p. 124: “For which cause also it has been said, God cannot be tempted with evil;” word for word from James 1:13. In the Latin version of Origen by Rufinus, which however is not always reliable, we read (Homilies on Exodus viii. 4, p. 158): “But also the Apostle James says;” quoting James 1:8. And so elsewhere. We have no earlier quotations. But a passage in Hermas (Commandment ix.) suggests strongly that the writer had seen the Epistle of James. It is included in the Syrian Peshito Version, made probably earlier than the fourth century; and is quoted in existing copies of versions of the works of Ephrem, a Syrian father of the same century. These are valuable testimonies to the genuineness of the Epistle. For, it was most likely, as written for Jewish Christians probably at Jerusalem, to be known in Eastern churches using the Aramaic language. We notice at once the difference between these somewhat doubtful testimonies and the earlier and unanimous witnesses for the genuineness of the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians. And this weaker external evidence is not supported by any internal historical evidence such as that adduced for the Epistles. It is, however, supported by internal theological evidence so strong as almost to banish doubt, viz. a type of teaching differing widely from that of Paul, but in complete accord with the earlier and later surroundings, and the vocation, of the Lord’s brother. We can easily conceive that James, the son (Matthew 1:19) of a righteous man, and trained in a home adorned by the piety of Mary, would, like Timothy, ( 2 Timothy 1:5; 2 Timothy 3:15,) receive from the Jewish Scriptures rich spiritual nourishment. The Law would be to him a guide and delight, and a promise of a better revelation to come. But his nearness to Jesus would make it difficult to accept as the promised deliverer one whom as probably a younger brother he had loved and tended. And to him the Gospel itself would be, when at last the vision of the Risen Saviour had moved him to accept it without reserve, in some sense a consummation of the Law. Just as in the Epistles of Paul the antagonism of Law and Gospel recalls the writer’s sudden transition from the one to the other, so the absence of any such antagonism in the Epistle of James is in complete accord with his gradual transition from Judaism to Christianity. Consequently, with James the word law is always a title of honour; and even the Gospel is (James 1:25; James 2:12) a law of liberty. In short, the Epistle of James agrees so completely with the many casual but very definite references in the New Testament and (see below) in ancient tradition that we cannot doubt that it was written by the Lord’s brother.The apparent contradiction between James and Paul about justification is discussed in Dissertation 4. The disposition and training of James were admirably fitted for the work he had to do. He became a medium of transition from Judaism to Christianity. Sympathising deeply with all that was good in the earlier revelation, and finding even in its ritual probably abundant edification, and therefore unwilling to break away from it, he would gain and retain the confidence of the best of the Jews. At the same time his opening words are a confession that Jesus Christ is his Lord; and he places side by side the names of God and Christ. The kernel of his religion was (James 2:1) the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ. And, like Paul’s converts at Thessalonica, he was waiting (James 5:7-8) for the coming of the Lord.The chief aim of the Epistle is to rebuke those, be they Jews or Christians, who cling to some outward form, be it ritual or creed, and yet refuse to allow their religion to control their actions. That faith in Christ leads to right action, also Paul teaches constantly: cp. Galatians 5:16 ff. But by confining our attention to the practical outworking of religion as the one test of its genuineness, the Epistle of James supplements the writings of Paul, and becomes an element in the sacred volume of abiding and infinite value.Both in its outer form and in its spiritual significance, in its silence and in its teaching, the Epistle of James agrees closely with the First Gospel, which holds a place and discharges an office among the Gospels similar to that of this Epistle among the Epistles. Compare James 1:2 with Matthew 5:10 ff; James 1:4 with Matthew 5:48; James 1:20 with Matthew 5:22; James 1:26 and James 3:2 with Matthew 12:36; James 2:8 with Matthew 22:39; James 2:13 with Matthew 9:13; James 2:14 ff with Matthew 7:21 ff; James 3:12 with Matthew 7:16; James 4:4 with Matthew 6:24; James 4:11 with Matthew 7:1; James 4:12 with Matthew 10:28; James 5:2 with Matthew 6:19; James 5:12 with Matthew 5:33 ff; etc.By Luther, in the Preface to his German New Testament, A.D. 1522, this Epistle was rejected in strong language as unworthy of the Gospel. But the book he rejected would have saved him from many unguarded and injurious words which his enemies have used as weapons against Protestantism, and would have supplied the chief defect of his theological teaching. How serious is this defect, and how sharp are the weapons thus put into the hands of adversaries, we see in Dollinger’s Reformation, vol. iii., pp. 1-274. Later tradition confirms, amid much which is evidently fabulous, the picture of James given above. Josephus (Antiq. xx. 9. 1) narrates that, when “James the brother of Jesus which is called Christ” was put to death by the high priest Ananus, it displeased the best men in the city and those strictest about the laws. Hegesippus, in a lost work quoted at length by Eusebius, (Church History bk. ii. 23,) says that “James the brother of the Lord … because of his surpassing righteousness was called just;” that he was a Nazarite from birth; and that he alone used to go into the temple, i.e. into the sacred house itself. Hegesippus gives also an account of his death varying from that of Josephus. This quotation, in spite of much evidently incorrect, bears reliable witness to the opinions about James current in the second century. Similar evidence of the same date is found in the Clementine writings, which, while in the interests of Judaism bitterly opposing the teaching of Paul, without mentioning his name, make friendly reference to James. Enough has now been said to prove that the character, position and influence, and writings of James deserve the most careful study of all who wish to understand the early development of Christianity. Of PETER, the notices here accord exactly with those in the Gospels and in the Book of Acts, in reference both to his position in the Church and to his personal character. In the Gospels, not only do we find him in the inner circle of three disciples at the raising of Jairus’ daughter, at the Transfiguration, and in the agony of Gethsemane, but in all lists of the apostles his name is placed first: so Matthew 10:2; Matthew 17:1; Matthew 26:37; Mark 3:16; Mark 9:2; Mark 13:3; Mark 14:33; Luke 6:14; Luke 8:51; Luke 9:28; John 21:2; Acts 1:13; John 1:45being apparently the only exception. This remarkable uniformity suggests that among the twelve he was in some sense first. And this is put beyond doubt by Matthew 16:17-19; where the words Upon this rock I will build My Church, following the emphatic words Blessed art thou Simon son of Jonah… and I say to THEE that THOU art Rock and followed by I will give to thee the keys etc. refer certainly to Peter himself, designating him for a unique position in the Church. They were evidently designed to prepare Peter for special service, and to mark him out to his fellow-apostles as their divinely appointed leader. They are confirmed by the remarkable change in Luke 22:31 from Satan has asked for YOU, to I have made petition for THEE that THY faith fail not. And do THOU, when once thou hast turned again, make THY brethren firm. But the true explanation of these words is in Acts 1-5, where we find Peter acting as the recognised leader and mouthpiece of the apostles and throwing wide open to all seekers for salvation the gates of the Kingdom of God, and where we see resting upon his immoveable courage the entire interests, and indeed the existence, of the infant Church. See The Expositor for April 1884. In close agreement with all this, the motive of Paul’s first journey to Jerusalem after his conversion is in Galatians 1:18 said to be, to see Peter. And, even when surrounded by other apostles, Peter is in Galatians 2:8 spoken of singly as entrusted with apostleship of the circumcision, in a sense similar to Paul’s unique commission for the Gentiles. This is the more remarkable because immediately afterwards (Galatians 2:9) the name of James is placed before that of Peter. The best explanation is that James was head of the Church at Jerusalem, whereas the twelve were sent to proclaim the Gospel to the world; and that among the twelve Peter held the first place.The personal notices of Peter present a similar agreement. His concurrence, in Galatians 2:9, with the teaching of Paul is a remarkable coincidence with Acts 15:7 ff, where similar teaching is attributed to Peter himself; and with Acts 11:17. And that, through fear of new comers from Jerusalem, Peter contradicted by action his own previous words, is in exact accord with his denial of Christ under the sudden influence of a servant maid. His subsequent almost reckless courage, contrasted with his timidity then, has often and justly been appealed to as the effect in him of the Spirit given at Pentecost. His weakness at Antioch is but another proof, in addition to thousands in all ages and circumstances, that the weaknesses of earlier days are an abiding source of danger even to those who have received the impulse of new spiritual life. As an embodiment of this lesson the incident referred to is of immense value. These coincidences confirm strongly the genuineness of the Epistle to the Galatians and the correctness of the narratives in the Gospels and the Book of Acts. Of the two Epistles attributed to Peter, the former was accepted as undoubtedly genuine by all early Christian writers, and may be received with confidence as the voice of the Apostle of the Circumcision. The genuineness of the Second Epistle is surrounded by difficulties which cannot be discussed here. Touching Peter’s relation to the Church at Rome, Jerome (Illustrious Men ch. ii.) says: “Simon Peter… Prince of the apostles… in the second year of Claudius (i.e. A.D. 42)… went to Rome and there for twenty-five years occupied the priestly chair, until the last, i.e. the fourteenth, year (i.e. A.D. 67) of Nero. By Nero he was affixed to a cross, and thus was crowned with martyrdom, his head turned to the earth and his feet lifted high, inasmuch as he declared himself to be unworthy to be crucified like his Master.” Eusebius (in the Armenian text of his Chronicon) gives the same date for the beginning of Peter’s episcopate. But these statements are made unlikely in the last degree by (see Diss. i. 3, 7) Peter’s imprisonment at Jerusalem in A.D. 44 and his presence in A.D. 51 at the conference mentioned in Galatians 2:1-10; and by the absence of all reference to him in the Epistle to the Romans, and in that to the Philippians which was undoubtedly written from Rome.About the death of Peter, we read in Eusebius, Church History bk. iii. I, on the authority of Origen: “At the end, having come to Rome, he was empaled head downwards, himself having demanded to suffer thus.” So bk. ii. 25; and Demonstration of the Gospel, bk. iii. 5, vol. iv. p. 116. In his Church History, bk. ii. 25, Eusebius quotes Caius of Rome (A.D. 210 about) as saying: “If thou wilt go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way thou wilt find the monuments of those (Peter and Paul) who founded this Church.” He quotes also a letter of the same date to the Roman Church from Dionysius, bishop of Corinth saying that at both Corinth and Rome both Peter and Paul preached. Tertullian (Against Marcion bk. iv. 5) says: “the Romans… to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospel sealed by their own blood.” Similarly, in his Prescriptions against Heretics ch. 36. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/beet/ II IS BY FAITH, APART FROM LAW AND FROM .CH. 3:1-5:13a. SECTION 9. — BY FAITH THE THE SPIRIT. CH. 3:1-5. O senseless Galatians, who was bewitching you before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly written as Crucified. This only I wish to learn from you, From works of law did ye receive the Spirit, or from a hearing of faith? So senseless are ye? Having begun by the Spirit, are ye now by flesh being brought to maturity? So many things have ye suffered in vain? If at least it be indeed in vain. He then who supplies to you the Spirit and works powers in (or among) you, is it by works of law or by a hearing of faith? We have assumed as the only explanation of this Epistle that in Galatia were men who bitterly opposed Paul’s teaching that the good things of the New Covenant are received by faith and in proportion to our faith, apart from obedience to the Mosaic Law or to any law; and that these teachers insinuated that Paul’s authority was inferior to that of the earlier apostles, because derived from them, and intimated that he had been unfaithful to the teaching they had committed to him. That his authority as a teacher, and his teaching, were not derived from them, Paul has proved by the facts of DIV. I.; and in so doing has prepared a way for a defence and exposition of his teaching, which is the second, and chief, matter of this Epistle. It occupies DIV. II. Paul’s words to Peter have brought him to the cross of Christ and to the self-sacrificing love there manifested. From these, as the best possible starting point, he now passes to a series of arguments with his readers in Galatia. And, while turning to them, in the light which shines from the Cross, his first thought is wonder at their strange defection. Galatians 3:1. Senseless: lacking power to grasp underlying realities, to read the meaning of that which was written in letters so public and plain. Same word in Luke 24:25; Romans 1:14 : cognate word in Romans 1:20, R.V. perceived; Ephesians 3:4; Hebrews 11:3.Bewitch: deceive with magical art: same, or cognate, word in Sir 14:6; Sir 18:18; Wis 4:12. Was-bewitching: while the process of fascination was going on. So strange is their spiritual blindness that Paul assumes that someone has thrown a spell over them; and asks who the magician is. Who?… you: the deceiver confronting his victims. Before whose eyes, etc.: a fact proving the Galatians to be senseless and suggesting that they had been bewitched.Openly-written: publicly placarded, as in 1 Macc. x. 36, and probably Jude 1:4; or written-beforehand, as in Romans 15:4; Ephesians 3:3. Probably the former: for beforehand, which could only mean, before the wizard came, would, as already implied in the context, add no sense to the word written; whereas openly is a new and Important idea, and one suggested by before whose eyes. The name of Jesus Christ was written in plain letters before the eyes of Paul’s readers where they and all men could read it: and it had been written as the name of one Crucified. Cp. 1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Corinthians 2:2. This recalls crucified with Christ in Galatians 2:20 and Christ died in vain in Galatians 2:21. All this proves their spiritual blindness, and suggests that they had been bewitched. For the teaching which had beguiled them set aside (Galatians 2:21) practically the death of Christ.The words bewitch and eyes recall a widespread superstition that from the eye of the enchanter to that of his victim passed a fascinating glance. So Plutarch, Symposium Galatians 3:7, p. 680 c: “about those said to bewitch and to have a bewitching eye.” And Alexander of Aphrodisias, Physical Problems bk. ii. 53: “they send forth a ray as if poisonous and destroying from the pupil of their eye: and this entering in through the eyes of the envied one will change the soul and the nature.” From the fascinating and deadly glance of the deceiver, the vision of Jesus crucified should have saved the Galatians. Galatians 3:2. First argument in defence of Paul’s teaching.This only: this one argument being sufficient to decide the matter. I wish to learn; suggests deliberate and careful inquiry. From works of law: as in Galatians 2:16.The Spirit: not His miraculous gifts merely or chiefly, of which the real worth was that they revealed His presence; but Himself dwelling in the hearts of all His people in all ages as their life and light and strength and joy, and the bearer to them and in them of all that Christ has and is. Cp. Galatians 4:6; Galatians 5:16; Galatians 5:22; Galatians 5:25. The Spirit, Paul assumes that his readers have received; and that they know it. His inward presence was in the Apostolic Church outwardly manifested by supernatural gifts, especially by that of tongues: cp. Acts 10:44 ff; Acts 11:17; Acts 8:17 f; Acts 19:6. For it was important that both the receiver and others around should have unmistakable proof that he had received the Spirit. But the same Spirit in all His fulness dwells in us now, revealing Himself by a direct influence in our hearts moving us to call God our Father and breathing into us a strength and wisdom which we know to be not ours but God’s; and in some measure revealing Himself to others by the moral beauty of those in whom He dwells. The word rendered hearing denotes both the faculty (as in Mark 7:35; 1 Corinthians 12:17; Hebrews 5:11) and the act (as in 2 Peter 2:8) of hearing. It therefore easily denotes the matter heard: for there can be no hearing without something heard. Same word three times in Romans 10:16 f: faith comes from hearing; i.e. we first hear and then believe, and not otherwise can we believe. Similarly, the reception of the Spirit comes from hearing: the Galatian Christians heard a word preached, and thus received the Spirit. Moreover, it was a hearing of faith, i.e. accompanied, and therefore characterised, by faith. Cp. Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 4:2. The simplicity of this exposition renders needless the suggestion that faith was the matter heard, as in Romans 2:5 it is the object to be obeyed.This verse itself disproves the assertion of the disturbers that observance of the Mosaic Law is a condition of the blessings of the New Covenant. Already the readers had received the Holy Spirit who is Himself the great and promised (Ezekiel 36:27) gift of that Covenant. Paul asks, Whence did you obtain this gift? Was it by obeying prescriptions of conduct, or by hearing and believing a preached word? To state the only answer possible, is needless. A mere appeal to his readers’ memory of their early Christian life is conclusive argument. Galatians 3:3. Questions developing the arguments involved in Galatians 3:2. So senseless: introducing the absurdity exposed in Galatians 3:3 b. Begun… brought-to-maturity, or completion, or perfection: same words in 2 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 8:10 f; Philippians 1:6.Being-brought-to-maturity: a process now going on. Same word in 2 Corinthians 7:1, cognate word in 1 Corinthians 2:6 : see notes. That the circumcision urged upon Titus is needful for entrance into the Christian life, Galatians 3:2 has disproved. Consequently, the only supposition still open to its advocates is that by obeying the Mosaic Law the Galatian Christians were being brought to maturity.Spirit: the Holy Spirit, but looked upon in the abstract as a life-giving principle. Flesh; implies that the Jewish restrictions which the false teachers sought to impose on the Galatians pertained only to outward, bodily life, to something done by, or to, the body. And this we can understand. For, in its inner significance none can fulfil the Law. They who trust to it for salvation do so by limiting their thoughts to small outward details, of piety or morality, which they are able to perform; and by rigourously performing these. Just so, the Judaisers insisted on (Galatians 5:3; Galatians 6:12) circumcision and on (Galatians 2:12) Mosaic distinctions of meat, things pertaining to the body. Paul reminds his readers that their spiritual life began by reception of the Holy Spirit, an inward, pervasive, life-giving principle; and asks whether, after such a beginning they are now being raised to a further and final stage of development by something pertaining only to their outward covering of flesh and blood. Notice here the contrast of Spirit and flesh so deeply interwoven (cp. Galatians 5:16; Galatians 6:8; Romans 8:4-13) into the thought of Paul.It may be objected that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper touch only the flesh, and that therefore the same argument would prove that they cannot be obligatory on those who have already received the Spirit. But their solemn institution by Christ at the founding of His Church breathed into the outward rite a spiritual significance which can never be separated from it. Probably (Galatians 6:13) the disturbers in Galatia cared for nothing but the outward act of circumcision. Against them, therefore, this question would have irresistible force.Galatians 3:4. The mention of maturity suggests another element in the Christian life of the Galatians, viz. the many things they have suffered. These are most easily explained as persecutions aroused by Jews. For, the hostility to Paul (Acts 14:2; Acts 14:19) in the neighbouring cities of Iconium and Lystra was caused by Jews; and unquestionably their reason was that his teaching broke down Jewish prerogatives. To similar hostility, for the same reason, the Galatian Christians must have been exposed. They knew how much direct and indirect persecution was included in so many things. But if the new teaching be true, these sufferings were in vain, i.e. (cp. Galatians 4:11; 1 Corinthians 15:2) without sufficient cause and without result. For, against this teaching their enemies would have little or nothing to say. Similar argument in Galatians 5:11. Thus Paul appeals to his readers’ outward, as in Galatians 3:2 f to their inward Christian life. He asks, Are you willing to trample under foot as needless your own sufferings for the Gospel? These sufferings were provoked by the teaching you are now surrendering. This question rests on the broad principle that whatever we have suffered for is dear to us. We do not like to admit that our sufferings have been needless and without result.At the word in vain Paul starts, and adds as if apologizing for it if at least it be in vain. [ειγε implies emphatically that the foregoing question rests entirely upon the supposition embodied in the word in vain, which και raises into conspicuous prominence. These particles therefore suggest scrutiny whether the supposition be correct.] These added words reveal Paul’s reluctance to believe that these sufferings had been in vain; and thus suggest how serious his question is.Galatians 3:5. A repetition of the question in Galatians 3:2, transferred now from entrance into, to present continuance in, the Christian life; a transfer suggested by the arguments in Galatians 3:3-4, which give great force to the question now asked. It is an appeal to present religious experience.‘If your Christian life began by reception of the Holy Spirit, it being thus impossible for it to be brought to maturity by anything merely outward, and if for this Christian life you have already suffered so much, I ask whether God is now supplying to you the Spirit, etc.’ Supplies: see under 2 Corinthians 9:10; cp. Philippians 2:19.The Spirit: same full and general sense as in Romans 3:2. Of this inward presence of the Spirit, endowment with supernatural powers was one visible and conspicuous manifestation.He that supplies: God, who (Galatians 4:6) sends forth the Spirit of His Son into the hearts of His adopted sons. Paul thus supplements received the Spirit in Galatians 3:2; and removes the controversy into the presence of God, the source of all good. The present tense, with the definite word you, implies that each moment the Spirit goes forth (cp. John 15:26) from God to men. Paul thus courteously acknowledges his readers’ continued spiritual life; and assumes that they are conscious of a continuous reception of the Spirit by faith. This, the servants of Christ understand by personal experience. They find in their hearts an influence which raises them above themselves and enables them to live a life which is not their own but God’s; and they find that in proportion to their faith, and from the very words believed, this life flows from Him to them. Of this divine life thus received, their obedience to God is a joyful result, but by no means an instrument or source. Powers: either words of supernatural power, i.e. miracles, as in 1 Corinthians 12:10; 1 Corinthians 12:28-29. Probably the latter, as more usual with Paul: but the practical difference is hardly perceptible. In you, or among you: both meanings embraced in the Greek word. The miracles were wrought among (same word in 2 Corinthians 12:12) the Galatians: but capacity for miracles was by the energy of God operating in the hearts of those who did them. This latter exposition is suggested here by the inwardness of the Spirit’s operation, and is implied in my exposition of the word powers. Cp. Matthew 14:2; 1 Corinthians 12:6. This question implies that miracles were indisputably wrought in the apostolic Churches. Paul asks, what is the immediate source from which you receive day by day the Holy Spirit, and from which proceeds power to work miracles? is it works done in obedience to a rule of conduct, or attention to, and belief of, a spoken word? Answer is needless. They know that, when most firmly they believe the Gospel, then most richly does the Spirit animate and glorify their entire life, and then most mightily does the power of God endow them with supernatural capacities.REVIEW. The suggestion that Christ died in vain, as would be the case if the teaching of the Judaizers were correct, reveals to Paul, as he turns to discuss the teaching they contradict, the mental blindness of the Galatian Christians. A single argument seems to him sufficient to settle the matter at issue. His readers’ Christian course began with reception of the Spirit to be in them the animating principle of a new life. Paul asks whether they obtained the Spirit by means of obedience to legal prescriptions or by hearing with faith a preached word. Memory replies. The only supposition open is that obedience to law might lead them to a richer and higher Christian life. But the legal prescriptions of which the Judaizers think reach only to the material clothing of human life. Can mere bodily obedience develop a life begun by receiving a life-giving Spirit? The thought is absurd. Again, for the teaching of Justification by Faith apart from works of law, the Galatian Christians have already suffered persecution. Are they now prepared to admit that these sufferings were needless and profitless? These questions enable Paul to ask again in stronger form his first question. The Spirit whom day by day God still gives to his readers, and who reveals His presence by working miracles among them, do they receive by works of law or by faith? Thus not only their past but their present experience confirms the Apostle’s teaching. This section illustrates a principle in theology all-important yet very liable to abuse, viz. that frequently abstract teaching may be verified by reference to our own spiritual life. To make subjective feelings a standard of truth, is perilous in the last degree. But our inner life is capable of, and deserves scientific analysis. Such analysis must, if correct, agree with the teaching of Christ as expounded by His apostles. And the comparison will in some cases detect a misunderstanding of the words of Christ, and in others confirm our confidence that we have rightly interpreted His words. SECTION 10. — JUST SO, BY FAITH ABRAHAM WAS . CH. 3:6-9. According as “Abraham believed God; and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” (Genesis 15:6.) Know therefore that they of faith, these are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, having foreseen that by faith God justifies the Gentiles, (or nations,) announced beforehand good news to Abraham, that “In thee shall all the nations be blessed.” So then they of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. The foregoing appeal to his readers’ spiritual life past and present, Paul now supports by showing it to be in harmony with the spiritual history of the father of the Jewish nation. And this historical comparison becomes a starting point and basis of an exposition of the relation of the Gospel to the Law which occupies the remainder of DIV. II. Paul thus continues his defence, begun in § 9, Or the doctrine of salvation by faith, from the legal restrictions with which some sought to overload and practically invalidate it. Galatians 3:6. That Paul’s readers received the Holy Spirit by faith accords with a remarkable spiritual fact recorded of Abraham in Genesis 15:6. Paul thus verifies his appeal to personal experience by comparison of the ancient Scriptures. An excellent example.Believed God: word for word from the LXX. (cp. Exodus 14:31; Exodus 19:9) as in Romans 4:3; James 2:23 instead of believed in Jehovah as in the Hebrew: probably because believe in is not common in Greek. See my Romans p. 147. Abraham was sure that God will fulfil His promise to give him children as numerous as the stars: and this faith God reckoned to be fulfilment of the condition on which the promise was suspended. Thus by faith Abraham obtained the fulfilment of God’s promise. The express and conspicuous record of this, and of the covenant which on that day amid slain sacrifices God made with Abraham, is in remarkable agreement with the fact that by faith the Galatian Christians received the Spirit of God who is the bearer of all the blessings of the New Covenant.Galatians 3:7. Logical inference from the quotation in Romans 3:6, which Paul bids his readers make. They of faith: i.e. whose relation to God, and confidence, and character, are derived from, and determined by faith: so Romans 3:26; Romans 4:16; cp. Romans 2:8; Romans 4:14. They who have a spiritual life derived from faith are sharers of Abraham’s spiritual nature; and in some sense derive it from him. For they follow in the way of faith which he trod. And Paul will show that the blessings they now enjoy are those promised to his children. They may therefore be called his sons.Galatians 3:8. Not only does Genesis 15:6 prove that the men of faith are Abraham’s sons, but in the spiritual facts of Gen 15:2; Genesis 15:5 is a fulfilment of the first promise to Abraham so exact that it implies intelligent foresight.The Scripture: Galatians 3:22; Galatians 4:30; Romans 4:3; Romans 9:17; Romans 10:11; Romans 11:2 : the passage of Scripture here quoted, viz. Genesis 12:3. So always, apparently. The collective sacred writings are the Scriptures, Romans 1:2; Romans 15:4; Romans 16:26. Cp. this Scripture, Mark 12:10; Luke 4:21; another Scripture, John 19:37; every Scripture, 2 Timothy 3:16. Having foreseen: the divine foresight preceded the announcement recorded in Genesis 12:3. A strong personification: cp. Galatians 3:22; Galatians 4:30; Romans 9:17. That the solemn words of God are quoted simply as the Scripture, and that foresight is attributed to it as to a living person, reveals Paul’s firm conviction both of the correctness of the record and of its divine authority. See my Romans, Diss. iii. Similarly, the law of England, enforced as it is by the power of the government, is sometimes spoken of as though it were a living person. And this reveals the unique position of the law among other writings.By faith God justifies the Gentiles: simple matter of fact, going on day by day while Paul wrote this Epistle, and foreseen by God before He spoke the first promise to Abraham. Announced beforehand good things: viz. the spiritual good actually bestowed in Paul’s day. Compare carefully Romans 2:2 the Gospel which He promised beforehand in Holy Scriptures. The quotation is from Genesis 12:3, changing only all the families of the earth into all the nations or all the Gentiles, to agree with justifies the Gentiles.In thee: in virtue of something done to, or by, Abraham. So 1 Corinthians 15:22; in Adam all die.In Paul’s day God was giving to all who believe, in all nations, the blessings of the New Covenant. This Covenant was a development of that which God made with Abraham in the day when he believed the promise that he should have children numerous as the stars. Consequently, their faith was a development of his faith. And in their justification was fulfilled the promise made to Abraham before he left his own country. Paul will show in § 11 that not otherwise could this promise be fulfilled. So exact is the fulfilment that it must have been designed. He may therefore rightly say that the original promise, recorded in the ancient writings which were to Israel the voice of God, was a foresight of the blessings which in his day God was actually bestowing. Galatians 3:9. Logical result of Gen 12:3 taken in connection with Genesis 15:6, stated in a form similar to Galatians 5:7 and preparatory to § 11.They of faith… believing Abraham: the point of the argument. The blessings now received by those who believe in Christ are a fulfilment of the promises pledged to Abraham in the Covenant made with him by God in the day he believed. Consequently, they who share Abraham’s faith share also with him the blessings which follow his faith. Section 10 is preparatory to §§ 11, 12. In order to expound the true position and design of the Law, Paul has taken us into the presence of Abraham centuries before the Law was given, and proved from the Scriptures that he obtained the favour of God by faith, and that the justification of the Gentiles by faith is a fulfilment of the first promise made to Abraham. In the light of these facts he will now approach the Law. SECTION 11. — THE LAW BRINGS A CURSE. CH. 3:10-14. For so many as are of works of law are under a curse: for it is written that “Cursed is every one that does not continue in all the things written in the Book of the Law to do them.” (Deuteronomy 27:26.) And that in law no one is justified in the presence of God, is evident: because “the righteous man by faith will live.” (Habakkuk 2:4.) But the Law is not by faith, but “He that hath done them will live in them.” (Leviticus 18:5.) Christ hath bought us off from the curse of the Law having on our behalf become a curse; (because it is written, “Cursed is everyone that hangs upon wood:” Deuteronomy 21:23;) that to the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus, that we might receive through faith the promise of the Spirit.Proof that the promise to Abraham was a foresight of the Gospel; viz. because not otherwise can that promise be fulfilled, since all who trust in law are under a curse: Galatians 3:10. That the Law cannot save, is proved by its difference from faith as a means of salvation: Galatians 3:11-12. The powerlessness of the Law to save rendered needful the death of Christ for the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham: Galatians 3:13-14. Galatians 3:10. Proof of Gal 3:8-9. The original promise to Abraham is fulfilled in those who believe the Gospel: for all others, including all who trust in Law, are under a curse. Paul thus approaches, from the platform set up in § 10 on the firm foundation of God’s first treatment of Abraham which agrees with his readers’ own spiritual experience in § 9, the chief matter of DIV. II., viz. our relation to the Law. So many as: favourite phrase with Paul; Galatians 3:27; Galatians 6:12; Galatians 6:16; Romans 2:12; Romans 6:3; Romans 8:14.Of works of law: whose religious life and claim to God’s favour are derived from, and determined by, actions prescribed in a rule of conduct. That all such are under a curse, is proved by the very solemn and conspicuous words of Deu 27:26, which are a summary and culmination of the curses which Moses bade the Levites pronounce on Mount Ebal, and which embody the spirit of the entire Mosaic Law. The quotation is from the LXX., which however reads all the words of this Law. The Hebrew, omitting everyone and all reads Cursed is he who does not establish the words of this Law to do them. But the difference is unimportant: for these strong universal terms give the tenor of the whole Law.The Book of the Law: same phrase in Deuteronomy 31:26; Joshua 2:8; 2 Kings 22:8; 2 Kings 22:11.Continue in: abiding self-restraint within the limits marked out by the Law. To do them: purpose of this self-restraint. This argument implies that none have kept the Law, i.e. that all have sinned. So Romans 2:1; Romans 3:9; Romans 3:19; Romans 3:23. To make us conscious of this, Paul chose the exceedingly broad and conspicuous summary of the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy 27:26, which reminds us that the Law is no mere series of regulations which we can easily keep but covers and touches all the actions of life and even the secret springs of conduct. Consequently, each deeper insight into the Law reveals transgressions undetected before and pronounces against us a fresh condemnation. And if so, the first great promise to Abraham can never be fulfilled to any one on the basis of law. It can be fulfilled only as the Galatian Christians have already received blessing from God, viz. by faith. And all this was foreseen by God when He spoke the promise. Galatians 3:11-12. Further proof that the Law cannot save.Justified in law: same phrase in Galatians 5:4; and, from the lips of Paul, Acts 13:39 : to have a rule of life as the surrounding element in which, and therefore the medium through which, a man receives justification. Cp. in Christ, Galatians 2:17; Acts 13:39; in the blood and name of Christ, Romans 5:9; 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Corinthians 4:4.In the presence of God: the Great Judge who knows the whole case and pronounces just judgment. Cp. righteous before God, Romans 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:6; Romans 2:11; Romans 9:14; Romans 11:25.No one is justified: an abiding principle. No one obtains by accepting a rule of conduct as the surrounding element of his spiritual life, a favourable sentence in the presence of the heart-searching Judge. This is evident from the total difference between justification by faith and by law. These two incompatible principles Paul states in word-for-word quotations from Habakkuk 2:4 and Leviticus 18:5. God’s words to Habakkuk are not perhaps given as independent proof that salvation is by faith: yet, taken in connection with Genesis 15:6, they remind us that this doctrine has its roots in the records of the Old Covenant. See under Romans 1:17. Not only did God accept Abraham’s faith as a fulfilment of the required condition of the promise, but to Habakkuk He declared that by unshaken firmness, resting upon the believed word of God, the righteous man will survive the coming storm. But the main argument is the contrast with Leviticus 18:5.The Law is not by faith, or from faith: it is not derived from the principle believe and live. This modest and indisputable assertion reveals the infinite difference between the Law and faith.He that hath done, etc.: a broad principle prefixed in Leviticus 18:5 to a series of legal prescriptions. Same quotation in Romans 10:5. It is the principle underlying all law. Reward follows right doing. The word will-live is a link uniting the two quotations; life through faith and life through obedience. That in each case bodily life is referred to, does not weaken the argument: for even bodily life is in the Old Testament a mark of the smile of God. The total incompatibility of these two channels of life, in connection with the exceeding breadth of the Law and with the Gospel announced by Christ and reflected from afar here and there in the pages of the Old Testament, makes it quite evident that on the basis of law no one stands before God justified. Galatians 3:13-14. Relation of Justification by Faith to Christ.Us: rather emphatic: viz. Paul and the Jews who had received and broken the Mosaic Law. But this is true of all men: for all have (Romans 2:15) broken the same Law, and lie under the same curse.Bought-off: same word in Romans 4:5; Ephesians 5:16; Colossians 4:5; cp. bought in 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Corinthians 7:23; 2 Peter 2:1; Revelation 5:9. The word rendered redeem in Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 1:18; Luke 24:21 (cp. Romans 3:24) is quite different; yet similar in sense. See under Romans 3:24.The curse of the Mosaic Law: that pronounced in Deuteronomy 27:26, quoted in Galatians 3:10.Having become on our behalf a curse; explains and justifies bought off, by stating the price, i.e. the costly method, by which Christ set us free. On our behalf, or for our benefit: constant statement of the relation to us of Christ’s death; Galatians 2:20; Romans 5:6 ff; Romans 8:31 f; Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 11:24; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:15. That the benefit was rendered by Christ taking our place, we learn here from the context. For the price takes the place of the thing bought: and we were made free from the curse by Christ placing Himself under it. And, since that curse was death, we rightly say that Christ died in our stead. But this is only a forceful way of stating the great fundamental doctrine of Rom 3:24-26, (see note,) that we are justified by means of the death of Christ.A curse: an example and embodiment of a divine curse. What that is, we learn by contemplating Christ Crucified. The word was suggested by the Hebrew form of Deu 21:23, a curse of God is a hanged one. So Zechariah 8:13, ye were a curse among the nations. A very close parallel in 2 Corinthians 5:21.Because it is written, etc.: an important quotation (Deuteronomy 21:23) placing Christ actually under the curse of the Law; slightly changed from the LXX. in which upon wood is repeated from Deuteronomy 21:22. These words are needful here, to give the full sense of the original. As in the quotation in Galatians 3:10, the LXX. strengthens the passage by inserting everyone. The Hebrew equivalent of the word wood denotes primarily a tree, as in Genesis 2:9; Genesis 2:16; then the material derived from trees. The corresponding word denotes in classic Greek wood, or things made from wood, and very rarely or never a tree. But it is used by the LXX. for the above Hebrew word even when used in this last sense, as in Genesis 2:9; Genesis 2:16; and in the same sense and reference is found in Revelation 2:7; Revelation 22:2; Revelation 22:14; Revelation 22:19. But elsewhere in the N.T. there is no need to give it any other than its ordinary sense of a piece of wood. The original words of Deu 21:23 embrace both a living tree, and any pole from which a dead body might be hung. A corpse hanging from a tree or pole, as being a conspicuous presentation of death and of crime, was marked out in the Law as specially accursed; and was not allowed to remain over night. By a strange coincidence (for crucifixion was a Roman punishment) Christ came under this legal curse: and in obedience to the Law His body was removed lest even that Most Sacred Temple should defile the coming Sabbath. And this apparently small coincidence reveals how completely He had taken upon Him our curse. Thus the Law pronounced a curse upon the All-Blessed One; and by so doing proclaimed itself to be imperfect and passing. Galatians 3:14. Double purpose for which Christ became a curse. It thus expounds on our behalf.To the Gentiles, or nations: emphatic. The blessing of Abraham: recorded in Galatians 3:8 as proclaimed in Genesis 12:3.In Christ Jesus. Not until Christ came and bore our curse, and only in proportion to our spiritual union with the Risen Saviour, can the blessing of Abraham reach us. That we might receive, etc.: further purpose, expounding the practical significance of the foregoing. It leads us back to the spiritual facts of Gal 3:2-5, with which the case of Abraham was in Galatians 3:6 said to agree; thus preparing a way to Galatians 4:6 and Galatians 5:16.The promise of the Spirit: viz. that the Spirit shall be given: Joe 2:28; Ezekiel 36:27; John 14:16; John 14:26.Receive (or obtain) the promise: receive its fulfilment; Hebrews 10:36; Luke 24:49; Acts 2:4.Through faith, joins § 11 through § 10 to § 9. It marks the completion of the matter introduced in Galatians 3:2.Galatians 3:13-14 assume that Christ was crucified in order that God’s purpose of mercy might be accomplished in us, a fundamental doctrine which probably no Christian would deny. But, if crucified, he fell under a curse conspicuously pronounced by the Law. Now upon all men the Law pronounces a curse: for none have fully obeyed its commands. Consequently, Christ fell under the curse of the Law in order to rescue us from it. And only through Him, and to those who believe the Gospel, can the original promise made to Abraham be fulfilled: for all others are shut out from all blessing by the curse of the Law. Therefore, Christ bought us off from the curse of the Law by Himself submitting to its curse. Moreover the Spirit given to those who believe is Himself a fulfilment, and the agent of the complete fulfilment, of the first promise made to Abraham. Consequently, this gift was the aim of the death of Christ. In § 9 Paul appealed to his readers’ past and present experience in proof that the Holy Spirit, the great gift of the New Covenant, comes by faith and not by works of law. In § 10 he shows that this agrees with the story of Abraham; and asserts that it is a fulfilment of the original promise to Abraham. This last assertion, he proves in § 11 by showing that in no other way can this promise be fulfilled; that as a means of salvation obedience to law is incompatible with faith, by which he has already shown that Abraham obtained God’s favour; and that the only conceivable explanation of the death of Christ is that He died that in the spiritual facts of § 9 the promise to Abraham might be fulfilled. SECTION 12. — YET THE LAW CANNOT SET ASIDE THE STILL EARLIER PROMISE. CH. 3:15-18. Brethren after the manner of men I say it. Even a man’s confirmed covenant, no one sets aside or adds conditions to. Now to Abraham were spoken the promises, and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds” as of many, but as of one, “And to thy seed,” which is Christ. But this I say, a covenant before confirmed by God, the Law proclaimed four hundred and thirty years afterwards does not annul, in order to make of no effect the promise. For if the inheritance is by law, it is no longer by promise. But to Abraham God graciously granted it by promise. The Law is not a later-imposed condition: for, if it were, it would prevent fulfilment of the promise, which was earlier than the Law and had reference not only to Abraham but to Christ. Paul will thus prove that the Law (which cannot save: § 11) cannot hinder salvation. Galatians 3:15. After the manner of men (literally, according to man, as in Galatians 1:11)I say: Romans 3:5; 1 Corinthians 9:8 : taking human nature and its customs as my standard. Hence, Paul goes on to speak of a man’s covenant. He thus appeals to the principles of human morality in proof of what God will do. Cp. Matthew 7:11. This implies that what is wrong in man cannot be right in God.Covenant: an engagement in which men mutually bind themselves to do certain things on certain conditions. See my Romans pp. 136, 266. Confirmed: ratified, and thus made legally binding. Same word in Genesis 18:20. ‘Although it be only a man’s engagement, yet, when ratified, no one sets it aside.’ Nor, when a man has bound himself to do something on certain conditions, does he add other conditions and require their fulfilment before he performs his part of the engagement. For he would thus practically set aside the covenant.Galatians 3:16. This verse applies to Abraham, and through him to Paul’s readers, the principle stated in Galatians 3:15. They would remember that God’s words to Abraham were the well-known promises; and that in the day of Abraham’s faith (Genesis 15:18) these were confirmed by a solemn covenant. This familiar historical connection is the historical link binding Galatians 3:16, and Galatians 3:15. Cp. Galatians 3:17, and Ephesians 2:12 the covenants of the promise. Nearly all the many promises to Abraham have the conspicuous addition, and to thy seed: Genesis 13:15, (and in LXX. Genesis 13:17,) Genesis 17:8; Genesis 17:19. These words are quoted here to prove that on the principle asserted in Galatians 3:15, persons still living can claim the promises to Abraham. To complete this proof, Paul will show in Galatians 3:16 b that these added words pertain to Christ. To Abraham… and to (or for) his seed: the Greek dative includes both him to whom, and those for whom, the promises were spoken; a latitude which no English rendering can reproduce. He does not say: probably God; for the words referred to are in the promises spoken by Him. Instead of thy sons(as in the frequent phrase sons of Israel: Exodus 1:13; Exodus 12:37; Exodus 12:40) God says always (even in Genesis 26:24) thy seed; using a singular noun. This proves clearly that He looked upon Abraham’s descendants as one organic whole. The plural of the Hebrew word rendered seed denotes in 1 Samuel 8:15, where alone in the O. T. it is found, (cp. a similar word in Isaiah 61:11; Daniel 2:12; Daniel 2:16,) not persons but grains of seed; and therefore could not have been used to denote descendants. But the plural of the corresponding Greek word was sometimes, though rarely, so used: e.g. Plato, Laws p. 853c. Paul therefore adopts it here as the easiest way of describing popularly a grammatical construction conspicuously absent from the promises to Abraham. The exact words and to thy seed are found in (LXX.) Genesis 13:15; Genesis 13:17; Genesis 17:8. The word and recalls a conspicuous addition in the promises to Abraham.Which seed, looked upon as one organic whole, is Christ: a concisely expressed deduction from Galatians 3:14 a.Is; denotes coincidence or practical identity, as in 2 Corinthians 3:17; 1 Corinthians 10:16, ( 1 Corinthians 12:12,) Romans 2:12; Romans 2:16. The promise to Abraham’s seed is fulfilled, by God’s design, in those united to Christ, in them only, and in virtue of their union with Him. The personality of Christ enfolds them: (for they have put on Christ, Galatians 3:27 :) and His relationships and rights are theirs. Thus the personality of Christ is in some sense co-extensive with the fulfilment of the promise to Abraham. And, since this was originally designed by God, and since the fulfilment of the promises to Abraham will set up the kingdom of Christ, Paul does not hesitate to say in Galatians 3:19 that He was the seed to whom the promise was made, and to say here that the seed is Christ. The profound truth thus expressed, viz. the practical identity of Christ and His people, has many applications and is worthy of careful study. The expression itself was suggested by the form, conspicuous by its uniformity, of the promises to Abraham’s descendants.Galatians 3:17. But this I say, or mean: practical bearing of Gal 3:15-16 on the matter in hand. Galatians 3:15 states a universal principle of human morality: Galatians 3:16 proves that God’s relation to Abraham and to his spiritual children comes under it: and Galatians 3:17 shows how the principle applies to them. God bound Himself (Genesis 15:18; Genesis 17:2) by a covenant to fulfil the promises to Abraham.Ratified: the legal obligation by which God condescended to bind Himself. Possibly Paul has in mind (cp. Hebrews 6:17 f) the solemn oath in Genesis 22:16. The prefixed word before emphasizes the fact that this confirmed covenant was earlier than the Law.Does not annul: an unchangeable principle. For God to attach to the promises, centuries after He had confirmed them by oath, an impracticable (Galatians 3:10) condition, would be in effect to set aside His own covenant.In order to make-of-no-effect (see under Romans 3:3) the promise: the only conceivable purpose of God for annulling the covenant by adding a later and impossible condition, viz. to avoid fulfilling His own promise, i.e. to make it practically inoperative. To denote a mere result, another familiar Greek phrase would have been used, as in 1 Corinthians 2:7; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 13:2. All inevitable results of God’s action, being foreseen, are taken up into His plan, and are therefore His definite purposes. Consequently, had God afterwards made His promises to Abraham conditional on obedience to the Law, He would have done so with a deliberate purpose of evading His own promises. For God to plot this, and to accomplish it by giving the Law at Sinai, is inconceivable. Galatians 3:18. Explains how the Law, if it were a condition, would neutralise the promise.The inheritance: the benefits to Abraham’s children, bodily and spiritual, in virtue of their relation to him. It is a constant designation of the land of Canaan given to Israel as descendants of Abraham: Deuteronomy 4:38; Deuteronomy 15:4; Deuteronomy 19:10, etc. But Canaan was only an imperfect firstfruit of the infinite blessing which comes and will come to all who walk in the steps of the faith of their father Abraham. Thus will he become (Romans 4:13) heir of the world.By law: cp. Galatians 3:21 : derived from a rule of conduct, i.e. by obeying it.No longer: logical result, as in Romans 11:6; Romans 7:17.By promise: derived from an announcement of good things from God to us. As shown in Galatians 3:11-12, these modes of derivation, viz. man’s exact obedience to words of command, and God’s fulfilment of His own promise, are utterly incompatible. We must therefore choose between them. Which alternative is the true one, the following historical statement determines.By promise: more fully, by means of promise. Before giving the inheritance God gave a promise, and made belief of it the condition of fulfilment. The promise was thus the instrument and channel through which the inheritance came. Graciously-gave it, or gave it as an act of grace: Romans 8:32; 1 Corinthians 2:12 : akin to gift-of-grace, in Romans 1:11; Romans 5:15 f, etc.; and to the word grace in Galatians 1:3; Galatians 1:6; Galatians 1:15, etc. It suggests an argument. For the promises to Abraham were evidently undeserved favour. Therefore the inheritance does not come through law: for then (Romans 4:4 f) it would be matter not of favour but of debt. [The Greek perfect directs attention to the abiding results of God’s word of grace to Abraham, reminding us that it created an era in his history and in that of the world. But since Paul refers to a definite event or events in the past, the use of English tenses requires the preterite. The R.V. hath granted it does little or nothing to reproduce the force of the Greek perfect; and is very uncouth.] REVIEW. In proof that the benefits of the Gospel are obtained by faith and not by obedience to law, Paul has appealed to his readers’ spiritual life, and has shown that it accords with the story of Abraham. Not otherwise can the blessings promised to Abraham’s children be obtained: for the Law pronounces a universal curse, from which we are rescued only by the curse which fell upon Christ. Now if, hundreds of years after giving the promises and confirming them by a covenant, God had made their fulfilment conditional on obedience to law, He would have set aside His covenant, thus violating a recognised principle of human morality; in order to evade fulfilment of His promises. The evasion would be complete: for obedience as a condition of benefit is quite different from the undeserved favour manifested in God’s promises to Abraham. This last verse opens a way for the argument of § 13 which rests upon the total difference between law and promise. Paul’s appeal in Galatians 3:16 to a small grammatical distinction reveals his confidence that the Book of Genesis is a correct record of God’s words to Abraham. His argument rests, however, not on one passage, but on an expression used some fifteen times and forming a conspicuous feature of the narrative. In this, Paul is a pattern to us. Appeal to general usage is the only safe method of Biblical theology. Moreover, the point in question is only a detail confirming an argument already conclusive, by an interesting coincidence which cannot be explained except on a principle involved in the argument. This allusion to a grammatical detail thus differs altogether from the childish word-play of the Jewish writers. THE PRECISE of time in Galatians 3:17, 430 years, recalls Exodus 12:40-41, where (and there only) the same period is given twice, yet not as the time from Abraham to the Exodus, as Paul here says, but as the duration of the sojourn in Egypt. This discrepancy is evidently derived from the LXX., which Paul usually quotes, and of which the Vat. MS. reads which they sojourned in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, while the Alex. MS. adds further they and their fathers. With this last agrees the Samaritan Pentateuch. But the Hebrew text (given in the A.V.) is open to no doubt. For it is supported not only by the Peshito Syriac and the Latin Vulgate but also by internal evidence: for the Vatican reading betrays a clumsy attempt to shorten the stay in Egypt, perhaps to bring it into harmony with the genealogy in Exodus 6:16-20; and the Alex. reading looks like a correction of the other. Moreover, it is much more natural, in reckoning the time of the departure from Egypt, to give the length of the sojourn there than the period elapsed since Abraham entered Canaan. It is also difficult to suppose that in Genesis 15:13 the land not theirs, in which Israel was to dwell 400 years and which seems to be contrasted with the land promised to Abraham, includes both Egypt and Canaan, countries so different in their relation to Israel. The word rendered generation in Genesis 15:16 is an indefinite term for a human life or the men living at one time, e.g. Numbers 32:13; and is different from the word used in Genesis 11:10; Genesis 11:27, etc. The shorter chronology seems to be supported by the genealogy in Exodus 6:16 ff: but this is neutralised by the longer genealogies in Numbers 26:29; Joshua 17:3; #Rth 4:18 ff; 1 Chronicles 2:5 f; 2:18; 7:20ff. For it is more likely that names have fallen out of the shorter list than been inserted fictitiously into the longer one. Moreover, if taken as a complete list, Exodus 6:16-20 does not give the length of the stay in Egypt: for in this case the lives would overlap to an extent which is not specified, leaving us without any exact chronological data. The aggregate of these lives, viz. 487 years, rather suggests that they are in the main consecutive, and that these four lives represent the four centuries or generations which God foretold should live and be spent in Egypt. We find therefore no reason to suspect corruption in the plain historical statement of our best authority for the Old Testament, the Hebrew text. The above discrepancy is found also in Josephus who in Antiq. ii. 15. 2 follows the LXX. by interpreting the 430 years to include Abraham’s sojourn in Canaan, yet in ch. 9. 1 and Wars v. 9. 4 speaks of the bondage in Egypt as lasting 400 years. Against the foregoing historical arguments the cursory allusion in Galatians 3:17 has no weight. About trifling discrepancies between the Hebrew and Greek texts, Paul probably neither knew nor cared. And they have no bearing whatever upon the all-important matter he has here in hand. He adopted the chronology of the LXX. with which alone his readers were familiar; knowing, possibly, that if incorrect it was only an understatement of the case. The above discussion warns us not to try to settle questions of Old Testament historical criticism by casual allusions in the New Testament. All such attempts are unworthy of scientific Biblical scholarship. By inweaving His words to man in historic fact, God appealed to the ordinary laws of human credibility. These laws attest, with absolute certainty, the great facts of Christianity. And upon these great facts, and on these only, rest both our faith in the Gospel and in God and the authority of the Sacred Book. Consequently, as I have endeavoured to show in my Romans Diss. i. and iii., our faith does not require the absolute accuracy of every historical detail in the Bible, and is not disturbed by any error in detail which may be detected in its pages. At the same time our study of the Bible reveals there an historical accuracy which will make us very slow to condemn as erroneous even unimportant statements of Holy Scripture. And, in spite of any possible errors in small details or allusions, the Book itself remains to us as, in a unique and infinitely glorious sense, a literary embodiment of the Voice and Word of God. SECTION 13. — THE LAW WAS TO LEAD US TO FAITH IN CHRIST. CH. 3:19-24. What then is the Law? For the sake of the transgressions it was added, until the Seed should come to whom the promise had been made; ordained by the agency of angels, in the hand of a mediator. But the mediator does not pertain to one person: and God is one person. The Law then is it against the promises of God? Far from it. For if there had been given a law able to give life, really from law would righteousness be. But the Scripture has shut up together all things under sin, that the promise may by belief of Jesus Christ be given to those who believe. But before that the belief came, we were kept in ward under law, being shut up together for the belief about to be revealed. So that the Law has become our tutor for Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Galatians 3:19. After showing what the Law is not, viz. a later-imposed condition practically annulling the earlier promise, Paul will now say what it is. And this is absolutely needful to his argument. For, indisputably, the Law holds an all-important place in the Old Covenant: and until this place be found we shall ever be in danger of misinterpreting its purpose. Paul asks, ‘since the inheritance is not derived from a rule of conduct, what then is the meaning and aim of the Law?’ To this question, § 13 is the answer. Cp. Galatians 3:24.It was added; recalls adds conditions to, in Galatians 3:15, and reminds us that the Law was later than the promises, and suggests that it was subordinate to them.For-the-sake-of: a general term noting any kind of motive, something either existing or thought of; cp. Titus 2:11; Jude 1:16. Grammatically it might mean because of the sins committed before the giving of the Law; or perhaps, in order to restrain sin in the future. But these senses are foreign to the context. Paul’s meaning is expounded, and his teaching here completed, in Galatians 3:22; and in Romans 5:20, which teaches that the Law was given in order that it might be broken, that thus the previous moral fall of Adam might multiply into many breaches of a written law. And this meaning is confirmed by the word transgressions, which denotes (Romans 4:15) violations of actual commands. To men born in the power of sin and therefore unable to obey, God gave a law. The only possible result was disobedience; which, since it was inevitable and foreseen, must have been taken up by God into His plan, and in this sense designed by Him. Paul speaks therefore of the various subsequent transgressions, which were a definite object of God’s thought, as being His motive for giving the Law. The ultimate purpose of blessing behind this immediate purpose is stated in Galatians 3:22 and in Romans 5:21.Until the Seed, etc.: a second detail about the Law, and another mark of its subordinate position. It was an addition; and was only for a time. Cp. Galatians 3:25.The Seed: Christ, as declared in Galatians 3:16.To whom the promise had been made: Greek perfect as in Galatians 3:18. His coming gave birth to, and He was thus practically identical with, the many nations of Abraham’s spiritual children; in whom were fulfilled the promises to his seed, and whom God had specially in view when giving these promises. And their fulfilment involves the establishment of Christ’s kingdom. Consequently, the promises given to Abraham and designed to be fulfilled in those who in after-ages should believe the Gospel, were designed also for Christ. Ordained by the agency of angels: a third detail about the Law, revealing its importance as superhuman. Paul thus, as his wont is, pays it due honour. But even these words of honour place the Law below the Gospel. Same teaching in Acts 7:53, words heard probably by Paul before his conversion; and in Hebrews 2:2, where the Law is contrasted with the Gospel. That it was common among the Jews, we infer from Josephus, Antiq. bk. xv. 5. 3, “We have learnt from God by the agency of angels the best of the decrees and the most sacred of the things in the Law”; and from Philo, vol. ii. 642, “Angels announced the commands of the Father to His children.” All this proves how firmly in Paul’s day both Jews and Christians held that the Law of Moses was given by angels. Yet of a plurality of angels at the giving of the Law the only mention is Deuteronomy 33:2, which we may perhaps render, Jehovah came from Sinai… He drew near from multitudes of holiness, as though, surrounded by armies of the holy ones of heaven God proclaimed the Law. This the LXX. render with myriads of Kadesh, from His right hand angels with Him. Cp. Psalms 68:17, The chariots of God are multitudes, thousands twice-told: the Lord is among them: a Sinai in holiness. But these two ambiguous passages hardly account for definite teaching so widely accepted. Its source is rather the frequent mention of an angel as the medium through which God spoke to Moses. So Exodus 3:2; Exodus 23:20; Exodus 33:2; Numbers 20:16 : cp. Acts 7:30, there appeared to him an angel in a flame of fire Acts 7:35; Acts 7:38; Acts 7:53. This derivation is not disproved by the plural number, angels: for this merely leaves undetermined whether the angel of the Lord was always the same heavenly person, and asserts in general terms that the Law of Moses was given by angelic agency. And this general statement is sufficient to prove the infinite importance of the Law. That the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament was the pre-existent Son of God, was held by the earliest fathers. So Justin (Dialogue with Trypho, § 56ff) argues at length; and Tertullian, Against Marcion bk. ii. 27, iii. 9. But of this opinion we can find no trace in the New Testament: and, had it been true, it could hardly have been passed over in silence. Indeed, had the Angel in the burning bush and the pillar of cloud been immediately the Son of God, then by Him was the Law spoken at Sinai: and, if so, Paul’s words here would fall so far below the truth that we cannot conceive him using them. And the argument of Heb 2:1 ff would be invalid. Accordingly, Augustine (On the Trinity bk. iii. 11. 22f, 27) argues forcefully that through a created angel God appeared and spoke to Moses. So Jerome on Galatians 3:19, and other later writers. And this seems the best explanation. In Daniel 12:1; Daniel 10:13 we find Michael, one of the chief angel-princes or archangels, who cannot well be other than a created angel, standing in special relation to Israel. This suggests that possibly he led Israel in the wilderness.That God spoke to Israel His Law through a created angel, foreshadowed the day when through the face and lips of the Eternal Son, incarnate, God showed Himself and spoke to, and dwelt among, men. And this is the true relation between the Angel of the Lord and the Son of God. The one was forerunner of the other. Moreover, whatever God does visibly He does through the Son. Mediately, therefore, through the Son, God spoke the Law to Israel. A fourth detail about the Law.A mediator: Moses, who received from God through the agency of the angel the various commands of the Law. In the hand of: common Hebrew phrase for agency; so Numbers 4:37; Numbers 4:45, cp. Acts 7:35. But it reminds us that in the very hand of Moses (cp. Exodus 32:15) were brought down from Sinai the tables of stone which were the noblest part, and a visible and permanent embodiment, of the Law. Cp. Leviticus 26:46 : the Laws which Jehovah gave between Himself and the sons of Israel in Mount Sinai in the hand of Moses.Mediator: once in the LXX., Job 9:33. By Philo, Moses is twice called a mediator: vol. ii. 642 referring to Exodus 20:19, and vol. ii. 160 referring to Exodus 32:7. It reminds us that, not only did God select Moses to be His means of communicating with Israel, but that (Exodus 20:19) he was requested by Israel to be such, and that through him the people promised (Exodus 19:8; Exodus 24:3) to obey the commands of God. Thus in every sense Moses was a mediator through whom was negotiated the Covenant of God with Israel.Led astray by 1 Timothy 2:5 and Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24. Origen and most of the Fathers understood the mediator to be Christ. But He was mediator of a Better Covenant. This mistake warns us not to accept as decisive the united judgment of even the greatest of the Fathers. We have means and methods of research unknown to them.Galatians 3:20-21 a. An objection provoked by the word mediator, and noted here in order to be overturned by, and thus to prompt, a further exposition of the purpose of the Law.The mediator: any mediator, but looked upon as embodying and representing a definite conception. Hence the article. Does not belong to one: the very conception involving two contracting parties, each of whom is bound by the contract. ‘In the hand of a mediator. Yes. And this implies that by the Old Covenant more than one person was bound; i.e. someone else besides God who is only one person.’ Thus the obligation accepted by Israel at Sinai, which seemed to be overlooked in the argument of Gal 3:17, is silently brought before us, that the doubt thus suggested may be dispelled. The obscurity of Gal 3:20 no loss. For it is not a link in the argument; but merely suggests the important objection stated in Galatians 3:21 a, which is overturned in Galatians 3:21 b, Galatians 3:22, viz., the Law then, is it against the promises of God? The reply to this objection completes the answer to what then is the Law? in Galatians 3:19.Since the Law was an engagement binding not only God but another party, viz. Israel, it might be thought that this engagement would limit, and thus practically set aside, the earlier promises to Abraham. If so, it would be against the promises of God. This question Paul answers by an indignant negative; and supports his denial by completing in § 22 his exposition of the purpose of the Law. Of the New Covenant Christ is mediator, inasmuch as through Him God draws us to Himself. But Christ was not, as Moses was, requested by men to be a medium of communication between them and God. Consequently, he was not a mediator in the same sense as Moses, But to any contrast between them there is no reference here. An account of the many expositions of Gal 3:20 is given in the commentary of Meyer. See additional note on p. xxiii.Galatians 3:21-22. Proof that the Law is not against the promises. According to Paul’s wont, the weight of the proof rests on the second clause, viz.Galatians 3:22, that the promise may be given, etc.; for which Galatians 3:21 b prepares the way.Give-life: same word in Romans 4:17; Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 1 Corinthians 15:36; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:6; John 5:21; John 6:63. It denotes here eternal life. This is the ultimate design of the Law, Romans 7:10 : and in Galatians 3:22 we shall see the design accomplished. But that the Law is not of itself able to give life, Paul proves by saying that this would involve righteousness actually derived from law, which in Galatians 3:10-13 he has shown to be impossible. He thus introduces suitably the real purpose of the Law. It is not able to give life because (Romans 8:3) it is weak through the flesh.Righteousness: as in Galatians 2:21. It is the opposite of under a curse In Galatians 3:10.The Scripture: or rather the portion of Scripture; see under Galatians 3:8. It is the literary embodiment of the Law. So suitable here is Deuteronomy 27:26, quoted in Galatians 3:10, that we cannot but think that to this passage specially Paul refers. The Scripture is personified as in Galatians 3:8, to enable us to realise its tremendous power.Shut-up-together: same word, and a close parallel, in Romans 11:32.All things: probably all men, cp. Romans 11:32; for they only can sin. Cp. 1 Corinthians 1:27 f. The neuter looks upon men in the aggregate as an abstract idea.Under sin: Romans 3:9 : under its curse and penalty and power, and these looked upon as a burden from above pressing all men down. As Paul read Deuteronomy 27:26, the very words of Scripture seemed to bar irresistibly every way of escape from the deadly bondage of sin. For its words made him powerless to obtain, by anything he could do, the favour of God. See under Galatians 3:8.That the promise, etc.: ultimate purpose of the Law in shutting up all things under sin. It expounds, in answer to the question in Galatians 3:21, the relation of the Law to the promises, looking at these as one whole, as the promise.May-be-given: i.e. may be fulfilled, which alone remains to be done. So Hebrews 10:36; Hebrews 11:39. This promise includes virtually (cp. Galatians 3:14) the Holy Spirit and all the blessings of the New Covenant. By belief of the words of Jesus Christ: as in Galatians 3:16. It is thrown forward for emphasis. To them that believe: emphatic repetition cp. Romans 3:22. Believers are the recipients, and their faith the immediate source, of the blessings. It is conceivable that even believers might receive them from some other source, e.g. observance of ritual.The question in Galatians 3:19 is now answered. God gave a law which was powerless to save inasmuch as men were unable to obey it, a law which pronounced a curse upon all who did not obey it, in order to force men to seek and to obtain, by simple belief. the blessings promised by God to Abraham. Consequently, the Law is not against, but subservient to, the promises of God. A practical outworking of this divine purpose in the spiritual life of Paul is recorded in Galatians 2:16.Galatians 3:23. Restatement of Gal 3:22, in another form preparing a way for § 14. Faith (literally the faith) came, when belief of the good tidings of salvation proclaimed by Christ entered into the hearts of men.For then faith, i.e. assurance that God will fulfil His word, assumed in their thought a new and definite form as the abiding channel of spiritual life. Hence practically faith came when the Gospel came. But the argument suggests the former expression as the more suitable note of time. Kept-in-ward: 2 Corinthians 11:32; Philippians 4:7; 1 Peter 1:5 : a military term denoting both the closing of all way of escape and protection against enemies. Under law: the abstract principle of treating men according to their actions, (hence no article,) looked upon as an irresistible power under whose authority Paul and his readers were once held in guard. Doubtless he thought chiefly of the Mosaic Law, in which this principle assumed historic form. But these words are true also of the law (Romans 2:15) written on the heart; and therefore include all readers, Jews or Gentiles.Being-shut-up: Greek present passive; as though each moment at the bidding of the Law every way of escape was being closed. It defines kept-in-ward; and links Galatians 3:23 to Galatians 3:22. For, to be shut up under law, is, since we cannot obey it, to be shut up under sin. Contrast Romans 6:14.For the faith, etc.: purpose for which every way of escape was each moment closed: and therefore parallel with Galatians 3:22 b.Revealed: Galatians 1:16 : specially appropriate because faith is matter of immediate consciousness; which is implied in this word. See under Romans 1:17. The Gospel unveiled, not merely the truths therein set forth, but a new conception of confidence in the promises of God. And in order that we may have this conception of faith we were formerly held in prison under the irresistible rule of law.Galatians 3:24. Summing up of § 13, and especially of Gal 3:22-23.The Law: of Moses. But, in less degree, this is true of the law written on the heart. Tutor, or guardian: 1 Corinthians 4:15 : one who takes charge of children under seven years old, usually a slave. Cp. Plato, Lysis p. 208c: “Who rules thee? This tutor. Indeed, a slave!… Strange that one who is free be ruled by a slave! But, what doing, does the tutor rule thee? Leading me to the teacher’s house.”For Christ: purpose for which the Law has become our tutor, viz. that, instead of wandering elsewhere, we should come to Christ and belong to Him. That Paul thinks of Christ, not as a teacher, as the word tutor naturally suggests, but as a means of justification, the following words show. That we might, etc.: parallel with for Christ, and supplementing it. We were placed in helpless bondage under the iron rule of law, that for us there might be no way of escape except by coming to Christ to be justified through faith. Cp. Galatians 2:16.SECTION 13 is an important addition to the teaching about the Law in Romans 5:20. See note under Romans 8:11. The Law was given in order to reveal to us our utter moral helplessness and ruin, to destroy all hope of self-wrought salvation, and thus to drive us to Christ for help and to prepare us to accept in sheer desperation justification as God’s gift on the simple condition of faith. Notice carefully that the immediate moral purpose of the Law to hold men back from sin, which must have been in God’s thought when giving it, is by Paul completely subordinated to this ultimate evangelical purpose. To him the Law is only a preparation for the Gospel. This reveals his deep conviction of the powerlessness of mere morality to secure man’s highest interests, and of the infinitely greater importance of the new life proclaimed in the Gospel. With Paul, Christian morality is derived (Galatians 5:14) from the law of love accomplished in us by (Galatians 5:16) the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. SECTION 14. — BY FAITH WE ARE IN CHRIST, HEIRS OF ABRAHAM. CH. 3:25-29. But, faith having come, no longer are we under a tutor. For ye all are sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For so many of you as have been baptized for Christ have put on Christ. There is no Jew nor Greek; there is no servant nor freeman; there is no male and female. For ye all are one person in Christ Jesus. But if ye are Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise. In conspicuous contrast to the reign of law before faith came, Paul describes in Galatians 3:25-28 his readers’ changed position now; and in Galatians 3:29 their consequent relation to Abraham and to the promise made to him.Galatians 3:25. The change which followed the arrival of faith.Under a tutor; links the metaphor of Gal 3:24 to the words under law in Galatians 3:23.Galatians 3:26. Proof of the foregoing statement.All: an emphatic breaking down of the distinction (Galatians 3:28) of Jew and Gentile which the false teachers were so anxious to maintain. Note the change from we and our in Galatians 3:23-25, which refer chiefly to Jews who had the Law of Moses, to ye in Galatians 3:26-29, which embraces Paul’s Gentile readers as sharers of the blessings about to be described.Sons of God: Romans 8:14. Paul’s argument assumes that this title is inconsistent with being under a tutor. And, since the word son is in itself by no means inconsistent with being under a tutor but rather the reverse, this assumed inconsistency reveals the theological definiteness, in Paul’s thought, of the term sons of God denoting a relation to God incompatible with bondage to law. See further under Galatians 4:5; Galatians 4:7. This incompatibility, and that this sonship is through faith, imply that not all men are in this sense sons of God. So always in the New Testament. See my Romans, p. 239: cp. John 2:12.In Christ Jesus; might be joined to faith, as in Ephesians 2:15; 1 Timothy 3:13; 2 Timothy 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:15. But, if so, the addition of these words hardly adds to the sense. And, that they contain a new and independent thought, is suggested by the word Christ, at the end of Gal 3:27 and Galatians 3:28. So the R.V. By means of our faith and in virtue of union with Christ who is the only-begotten Son of God, we are ourselves sons of God. Of this great privilege Hosea 2:10, quoted in Romans 9:26, is a remarkable prophecy.Galatians 3:27. Proof of the whole statement in Galatians 3:26.So-many-as, covers all; baptized, covers by faith; put-on Christ, covers sons of God in Christ Jesus.Baptized for Christ: the formal and visible gate into the Christian life, designed to lead to a new relation to Christ. See under Romans 6:3.Put-on Christ: so that the nature and disposition and relations of Christ are like a garment enwrapping us on every side. See under Romans 13:14; and cp. Job 29:14, I put on righteousness; and it clothed me. Like a robe and turban was my justice. So Job 8:22; Job 39:19, etc. Objectively, they had already at their baptism put on Christ. For by thus publicly avowing faith in Him they had fulfilled a condition of the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to obtain these blessings; and had thus made them their own. Now the New Covenant makes us sharers of all that Christ has and is. Consequently, since He is Son of God, and the baptized have put on Christ, they also are sons of God in Christ. Subjectively, Paul bids his readers (in Romans 13:14) put on Christ, i.e. appropriate to themselves Christ’s moral disposition, which was already theirs at baptism by a right given to them in the undeserved favour of God.This argument implies that all Paul’s readers were baptized; and that their baptism was an expression of faith, so that what the baptized possess as such they have obtained by faith. Cp. Colossians 2:12 : wherein also ye were raised with Him by faith. Paul thus, as in Galatians 3:3-5, courteously assumes the genuineness of their Christian profession, and appeals to their entrance into the Christian life. Any false brethren among them are here left out of account.Since Galatians 3:26-27 cannot apply to infants, and indeed would hardly have been written had many of Paul’s readers been baptized in infancy, it is utterly unfair to infer, from the spiritual significance here attributed to the baptism of believers, that similar spiritual results are wrought in baptized infants. For the baptism of a believer is an outward expression of a great spiritual and personal crisis in his inner life: whereas an infant’s personal life has not yet begun. This difference bars all argument from the one to the other. Consequently, this passage and others similar have no bearing on the regeneration of infants in baptism. The inward and spiritual benefits of baptism are, by those baptized in infancy, obtained actually and personally only when the baptized one claims them by personal faith in, and confession of, Christ, thus joining the company of His professed followers. Galatians 3:28 a. In the embrace of Christ as the encompassing element of life, fade all earthly distinctions, nationality, social position, and even sex. Similar thought in Colossians 3:11; Romans 10:12; 1 Corinthians 12:13. The changed form male and female marks off this distinction from the others. And we remember that it was earlier than sin. Yet as we come to Christ even sex vanishes: and without distinction men and women of every rank and nationality receive in Him the same spiritual blessings. Only to sex as affecting our relation to Christ does this assertion apply. It therefore does not absolutely deny the distinction of sex in man’s future glory. And, that it belongs to man’s original constitution, suggests strongly that even sex will share that glory. We can well conceive that, just as the happiness of many families on earth is increased immensely by the mutual influence of brothers and sisters, so it will be in the great family above. Paul’s prohibition ( 1 Corinthians 14:34; 1 Timothy 2:12) to women to speak in the Church proves that in this relation also, in his view, the distinction of sex continues.Galatians 3:28 b. Broad foundation principle of the foregoing assertions.All ye: still more emphatic than the appeal in Galatians 3:26; recalling the varieties of Paul’s readers.Are one person: cp. Ephesians 2:15. It makes prominent that our relation to Christ is that of living persons. Contrast are one thing in 1 Corinthians 3:8; 1 Corinthians 11:5; John 17:11; John 17:21-23; where personality is left out of sight, and men and even the Father and Son are looked upon merely as abstract objects of thought.One-person: not identity, but the strongest description possible of absolute identity of relation; which, in the Father and Son, and in us so far as Christ’s purpose is realised, finds its consummation in absolute harmony. In Christ: John 17:21; John 17:23 : i.e. through the objective facts of Jesus, and through spiritual union with Him. This repetition of the last words of Gal 3:26 marks the completion of the argument there begun. Ye are no longer in bondage: for ye are all sons of God, a position incompatible with bondage: for the life ye entered at baptism is union with Christ, who is Son of God. And in union with Him all earthly distinctions fade.Galatians 3:29. Leads up the argument of §§ 13, 14 to the chief matter of Galatians 3, the promises to Abraham and his seed.Ye are Christ’s: 1 Corinthians 3:23; 1 Corinthians 15:23; Romans 14:8. They who have put on Christ themselves belong to Him.Then are ye, etc.: logical inference, Since all the Galatian Christians are in Christ and are thus in: some sense one person, and so belong to Christ and are in some sense a part of Christ; and since (as proved in Galatians 3:13; Galatians 3:16) the seed for which the promise to Abraham was made is coextensive with Christ, Paul infers that his readers also are included in Abraham’s seed. Heirs according to promise: practical significance of the foregoing. What the heritage is, we learn from sons of God in Galatians 3:26. Cp. Romans 8:17.Promise; recalls the whole argument of Gal 3:14-29.According to promise: the mode and kind of heirship, viz. in virtue of an announcement of Coming benefit. Paul has no need to say that he refers to the promises to Abraham. He therefore speaks merely of promise in the abstract. The word heirs which in Greek closes the verse opens a way for § 15. In SECTION 14 Paul describes his readers’ present position, after describing in § 13 their former state. They are no longer under any kind of restraint, and therefore not under the Law. For, by faith and in virtue of their union with Christ, they enjoy the glorious position of sons of God. For when they entered the Church of Christ they assumed His position and rights. In relation to Him all human relations vanish. For, in Christ, the many members of His Church become only one person. And, since they belong to Him in whom are fulfilled the promises made to Abraham’s seed, themselves are heirs on the basis of divine promise. SECTION 15. — IS PAST; AND WE HAVE THE SPIRIT OF . CH. 4:1-7. But I say that for so long time as the heir is a child he differs nothing from a servant, though he be Lord of all; but is under guardians and stewards until the father’s predetermined time. So also we, when we were children, were under the rudiments of the world, held in bondage. But when the fulness of the time came God sent forth his Son, born from woman, born under law, that He might buy off those under law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons God sent forth the Spirit of The Son into our hearts crying Abba, Father. So that no longer art thou a servant but a son: and, if a son, also an heir through God. In §, 13 Paul taught that by giving the Law God imposed a temporary bondage on those who afterwards became His sons and heirs of Abraham. His justification of this remarkable assertion, he postpones to § 15; eager to describe at once, in § 14, for the sake of contrast, his reader’s subsequent and present position of honour. That this previous temporary bondage is not inconsistent with their present position, he shows in Galatians 4:1-3; and in Galatians 4:4-7 supplements his description in § 14 of this position by recording the two great events which have brought about the change. Thus Galatians 4:1-3 are parallel to § 13; Galatians 4:4-7, to § 14. To the preliminary description of men under the guardianship of law, the word heirs, which concluded § 14, is a convenient stepping stone.Galatians 4:1. But I say; introduces a new point, as in Galatians 5:16; Galatians 3:17.For so long time as: exact co-extension of time, as in Romans 7:1; 1 Corinthians 7:39.Child: usually one under ten years old. Same word in 1 Corinthians 3:1; 1 Corinthians 13:11; Ephesians 4:14; Hebrews 5:13 f; Romans 2:20; Matthew 11:25; Luke 10:21.Servant, or slave: see under Romans 1:1.Lord: one having control over men or things, correlative to a servant who is under the control of his lord. Cp. Matthew 10:24 f. Even if the father was still living the heir was in some sense lord of all, as already possessing a relation to the father which will some day put the estate under his control. But the contrast between the child’s apparent and virtual position is more conspicuous if we conceive the father to be dead. For then the estate has no owner except one who is himself under the control of others. And, that our Father in heaven ever lives, does not exclude this thought. For the analogy is quoted merely to show that outward dependence is consistent with real and great wealth. Galatians 4:2. Further description of the child’s position.Guardians: literally, men to whose care something or someone is committed. Same word in Matthew 20:8; Luke 8:3. It is a wider term than stewards, which denotes (e.g. 1 Corinthians 4:1 f; Romans 16:23) one who has charge of the property of another, in this case, that of the heir. This narrower sense of stewards suggests that guardians refers chiefly to those in charge of the child himself. Whether in Roman law the father could determine the time when his heir should take possession, is immaterial. For Paul is now passing from the metaphor to its underlying reality. The son, although virtually possessing the whole estate, is under the control of others until a certain fixed time comes. Paul remembers that for us this was the Father’s predetermined time, i.e. a time fixed by our Father in heaven. Similarly, in English law a father can determine by will at what age his son shall receive from the trustees full control over the inheritance. Galatians 4:3. Application of the foregoing comparison.Also we: as well as the heir to an estate. That both Jewish and Gentile readers are included, is made quite certain by Galatians 4:5 and Galatians 4:8-9.When we were children: as implied in the word tutor in Galatians 3:24. It is the point of the foregoing comparison. Virtually it is explained and justified in the following words, which are evidence of spiritual childhood. In another sense, i.e. in contrast to the maturity of heaven, even believers ( 1 Corinthians 13:11) are children.Rudiments, or elements: primarily, the letters of the alphabet; then the simplest component parts of the material world, as in 2 Peter 3:10; 2 Peter 3:12; Wis 7:17; Wis 19:17, and especially earth, air, fire, water; then the simplest beginnings of any branch of knowledge, as in Hebrews 5:12. If we render elements, then the elements of the world (so Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:20) will denote the constituent parts composing the material world around us. But this would give no sense consistent with Paul’s teaching. For unbelievers, though in bondage to the material world around them, are in no special bondage to its component parts. Consequently, the inserted word elements would be meaningless. It remains therefore that here and in Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:20 Paul thinks of rudiments, i.e. of the simplest beginnings of spiritual education. So Hebrews 5:12. And, if so, since the world cannot possibly be the entire lesson, of which the rudiments are the beginning, these last words must be taken as conveying a complete idea, as in Galatians 4:9; and of the world must denote the matter of which the rudiments, these simplest beginnings, consist. The material world, with its various material objects, was the great lesson-book of pictures laid open by the great Father before the eyes of the infant human race, that men might read therein His name, and to some extent His nature and His will concerning them. Even to the heathen God revealed Himself (Romans 1:20) through the material world; and thus laid a foundation of moral obligation. And God’s revelation to Israel was conveyed through material objects, viz. the holy things of the Old Covenant. For this reason, the worship both of Jews and Gentiles took a material form. And since, by God’s design, both heathenism and Judaism were on their better sides a preparation for the Gospel, Paul embraces them here, overlooking for the moment their vast differences, under this one designation. The writings of Greece and Rome reveal some progress in these rudiments of religion. All this is not disproved by Paul’s description of idolatry, on its worse side, as ( 1 Corinthians 10:20) a worship of demons and as hostile to the Gospel. For in Galatians 4:10 even the divinely-ordained Mosaic ritual is treated as apostacy; and frequently those who claimed for it continued validity are denounced in strongest terms. And this we can understand. For they who place above and against the perfect teaching of Christ the rudimentary teaching of material forms pervert into positive error even divinely-given truth.Since, both in Jews and Gentiles, these rudiments of religion assume the form of law, i.e. of a rule of conduct with rewards and punishments, they were a superior power under which in earlier ages our race lay, against which there was no rising up, and from which no escape. Held-in-bondage: graphic description, expounding the word under; cognate to servant in Galatians 4:1. It recalls Galatians 3:22. The rudimentary teaching given to Jews and Gentiles in material forms belonging to the world around reveals God’s will that we obey Him, and the penalty awaiting disobedience; and, by prompting efforts after obedience, reveals our powerlessness to obey, and the presence of a power hostile to God forcing us to sin and from which we cannot free ourselves. Hence all who have only this rudimentary teaching are held-in-bondage: for they cannot do what their best judgment approves. This idea of bondage will be more fully developed in § 18. That, in contrast to the saved, the unsaved are here called children, and that they are placed by the Father under a tutor, implies that they stand in special relation to Him, and indeed in some sense are already His sons. For it is a man’s own sons whom he puts under a tutor. This relation of all men to God rests upon their creation and the death of Christ for all men. We must therefore not think that our faith evokes God’s paternal love to us. That love rested on us before time began; and manifested itself in the death of Christ for us even when we were sinners. Yet, in the New Testament, believers and no others are called (Galatians 3:26, Romans 8:14; John 1:12) sons of God. This limitation was probably designed to warn us that they who reject Christ are in a real sense, and unless saved by faith will be in every sense, outside the family of God. Galatians 4:4-7. Two facts, one (Galatians 4:4 f) historical and one (Galatians 4:6) spiritual which have put an end to the pupilage and bondage just described and brought about (Galatians 4:7) the happy state depicted in § 14.Galatians 4:4. The word rendered time, (same word in Galatians 4:1,) which differs from that in Ephesians 1:10, suggests the long delay of Christ’s coming.The fulness of the time: as though a long space were marked out to be filled up by successive moments. Cp. Mark 1:15; Luke 21:24; John 7:8; Genesis 29:21. It was the Father’s predetermined time. On what principles this space of time was marked out, Paul does not say. But doubtless the purpose of the delay was that the Law written on the hearts of men and on the tables of stone might have full scope, and thus prove itself powerless to save and in this way reveal man’s helpless bondage under sin; and that human nature might have time and opportunity to put forth all its powers, under the influence of law more or less fully understood, and thus find out its inability to attain for itself happiness. When Christ came, the civilisation and religious teaching of the ancient world were utterly worn out; and in spite of them society was rapidly sinking into ruin. Sent forth; recalls the surroundings from the midst of which, and away from which, Christ came to earth. His Son: as in Romans 1:3; Romans 8:3. That this title is used here as a sufficient designation of Christ, implies that it belongs to Him in a unique sense, i.e. that He holds a relation to the Father shared by none else. See my Romans Diss. i. 7. And, since this august title is evidently chosen to mark the dignity of Him whom God sent forth, it implies the pre-existence of Christ. This proof is not invalidated by John 1:6, which certainly does not imply the preexistence of John: for these very different words are fully accounted for by John’s designation from birth for a special office: cp. Luke 1:15; Jeremiah 1:5.Born from woman: bodily derivation of the earthly life into which God sent His Son. It is similar to, but wider than, Romans 1:3 : see notes.Under law: Galatians 4:21; Galatians 5:18; Romans 6:14; 1 Corinthians 9:20. Christ entered by birth a state of subjection to a prescribed rule of conduct. By being born a Jew, He took upon Himself the obligation to keep, in every sense, the Law of Moses; and accepted obedience to law as the condition of the approval of God. Galatians 4:5. Purpose for which Christ was born under obligation to keep law.Those under law: the Jews. A close verbal and real parallel is in 1 Corinthians 9:20, where a servant imitates His Master. In a wider yet correct sense all men are under law. For all are subject (Romans 2:14) to a rule of conduct by which they will be judged. Actually, those under obligation to keep the Law are also under its curse. For, all men have broken the Law. From this curse, Christ came to buy us off, (same word in Galatians 3:13,) by Himself enduring it. This purpose implies that Christ’s assumed obligation to keep the Law, and therefore His perfect obedience, were needful for man’s deliverance from the penalty of sin, i.e. needful to reconcile (Romans 3:26) his deliverance with God’s justice. It thus involves the active obedience of Christ as an essential element of man’s salvation. But this element Paul does not make prominent. He attributes salvation, always to the death, never to the obedient life, of Christ.The adoption: literally the son-making, the act in which God makes us His sons. See my Romans p. 238. Receive; reminds us that this act of God is an enrichment to us. We: not emphatic, yet reminding us that the adoption is for both born Jews and Paul’s Gentile readers. This further purpose implies that only those bought off from the curse of the Law can receive the adoption, i.e. that this curse excludes from the family of God. It gives also the ultimate object of the mission of the Son, which is not negative, i.e. to save us from death, but positive, i.e. to bring us to God. In order that we might enter His family, God sent His Son to liberate us, at the cost of His own life, from the penalty of the broken Law. Cp. Galatians 3:13-14.Galatians 4:6. A spiritual event in the hearts of Paul’s readers analogous to, and consequent upon, the above historical event.Ye are sons: as already stated in Galatians 3:26. This implies that the purpose of the sending of the Son, stated in Galatians 4:5, has been actually accomplished. And, because to be sons of God and yet not have the Spirit of His Son would be incongruous, God sent-forth, etc. Notice the stately parallel of Gal 4:4; Galatians 4:6 : cp. Romans 1:3-4.The Spirit of His Son: so Spirit of Christ, Romans 8:9; 1 Peter 1:11. An uncommon term, yet easily understood. For, that the Spirit is sent both by (John 14:26; John 15:26) the Son and the Father, suggests His similar relation to the Father and the Son. And the analogy of our own spirit in 1 Corinthians 2:11 suggests that the Son, like the Father, sends forth, in the person of the Holy Spirit, the animating principle of His own divine life to be the animating principle of His servants’ life. Thus the presence of the Spirit is virtually the presence of Christ Himself within us: Romans 8:9 f; Ephesians 3:17; John 14:18. That this animating principle is a Person distinct from the Son and the Father, (see under 1 Corinthians 12:11,) belongs to the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Sent forth: or has-sent forth. The Greek tense does not suggest, as does the English preterite, some definite time, e.g. Pentecost. By personal faith (Galatians 3:26) Paul’s readers became sons of God; and, because of this, received the Spirit of His Son. The Spirit, thus received, works a new birth: John 3:5. Consequently, the recipients are born from God: 1 John 3:9; 1 John 5:1; 1 John 5:18; James 1:18; cp. 1 Peter 1:23. But of this new birth Paul speaks only in the casual reference in Titus 3:5. He attributes the new life directly to the presence and activity of the Spirit: Galatians 5:16 ff. Since the Spirit is the source of this cry, He is said Himself to cry: cp. Romans 8:26. So do evil spirits, in Matthew 8:31. Since men are the mouthpiece of the cry, it is also attributed to them: in whom we cry, Romans 8:15.Abba, Father: see under Romans 8:15. The Eternal Son, as He looks at God, cries Father. This cry the Spirit of the Son, sent forth by God, puts into the hearts of His people. And, while they utter it, they are conscious that their own cry is the voice in them of the Spirit of the Son of God. This inward voice is thus a proof to them that they are sons of God. See under Romans 8:17.Galatians 4:7. Logical result of Gal 4:6.No longer: in contrast to Galatians 4:3. Although, as doing the work of God, we are (see under Romans 1:1) His servants, yet the word servant is no longer an accurate description of our position. The servant has become an adopted son. And, to be a son, is to be also an heir. In Roman law the adopted sons of an intestate father shared his property equally with the born sons. And they who believe in Christ will enjoy for ever, in virtue of their relation to God, His infinite wealth. So Romans 8:17. Through God, or by the agency of God: cp. Galatians 1:1, through God, the Father, who raised, etc.: and see notes. By sending His Son that we might receive the adoption, and by sending the Spirit of His Son to assure us of this, God is not only the ultimate source but Himself an immediate agent of our heirship.The apparent contradiction between no longer a servant and Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 7:22 results from the weakness of human language to set forth the many-sided truths of God; and warns us to use the utmost caution in interpreting solitary statements in the Bible. Neglect of this has given rise to innumerable and serious errors. Fortunately the chief doctrines of the New Testament are stated so frequently that, as here, one statement supplies the imperfection of another.SECTION 15 completes Paul’s teaching about the sons of God, teaching very conspicuous in Romans and Galatians but elsewhere rare (2 Corinthians 6:18; Ephesians 1:5; Philippians 2:15) with Paul. It is very similar to John 1:12; 1 John 3:1 f, and akin to Christ’s words in Matthew 5:45; Luke 20:36, and to His frequent teaching that God is our Father. We are said to be His children, not by creation but by adoption through faith into His family. Before our faith we were in bondage. But this is not inconsistent with our present relation to God. For even a born son is, during his minority, in the position of a servant. To us now these days of servitude are past. So important in the eyes of God was our new relation to Him that to bring it about He sent forth from the glories of heaven His Eternal Son. And, to make the adopted sons like the Firstborn and to set an inward seal upon their adoption, God sent forth into their hearts the Spirit of His Son. So that now, by the immediate agency of God, we are His sons and heirs of His wealth. SECTION 16. — THEN TURN NOT BACK TO THINGS LEFT BEHIND. CH. 4:8-11. Nevertheless at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to those who by nature are not gods. But now, having come to know God, or rather having become known by God, how are ye turning again to the weak and poor rudiments to which, beginning anew, ye wish to be again in bondage? Days ye observe, and months, and seasons, and years. I fear you, lest in any way I have in vain laboured for you. Practical and personal application to the Galatian Christians, closing the argument introduced in Galatians 3:1.Galatians 4:8-9. Startling and sad contrast to Galatians 4:7. The contrast is to be sought, not in the bygone detail ye were servants, but in turning back again to the rudiments, which is the chief matter of § 16 and indeed (Galatians 1:6; Galatians 4:21; Galatians 5:4) of the whole Epistle, and which was actually going on as Paul wrote, in almost tragic contrast to Galatians 4:7. Paul might have said nevertheless ye are turning back: but, as his manner (e.g. Romans 6:17; Romans 8:15) was, he preludes his chief point by other matter which throws it into stronger relief. Then, after the interval thus caused, instead of an assertion, he puts in Galatians 4:9 his chief point in the form of an astonished question.Not knowing God: 1 Thessalonians 4:5; John 17:25; contrast Romans 1:21. In each case the extent of the knowledge is determined by the context. The personal God who revealed Himself to Israel (Psalms 76:1) was not known, in the same sense, to the heathen. Yet they derived from Nature such knowledge of Him as should have prompted further search, and actually left them without excuse. On the other hand, only they who believe the Gospel, and in proportion to their faith, know God so as to rest and rejoice in Him. Cp. John 17:3. The heathens’ scantier opportunities of knowing God, as compared with the Jews’, were a palliation of their service of idols: but this palliation at that time aggravates by its absence now the guilt of turning back to the old rudiments of heathenism. Were-in-bondage or were-servants: same word in Galatians 4:25; Galatians 5:13; Romans 6:6; Romans 7:6; Romans 7:25; Ephesians 6:7. It involves the two ideas of doing work (cp. Galatians 5:13) for others and of being (cp. Galatians 4:25) under others’ control. By performing the ritual of idolatry, the heathen acknowledged themselves to be servants under the control of their supposed deities. And whether idols be looked upon as mere images or as demons, idolatry is service and bondage to objects which by nature, i.e. by their mode of existence, are no gods. The word nature (see under Romans 2:14) suggests the essential and infinite difference between God and the no-gods.Galatians 4:9. But now; a marked feature of Paul’s phraseology and thought, the contrast of past and present; see under Romans 6:22.Having-come-to-know God: as implied in Galatians 4:6.Known by God: see under 1 Corinthians 8:3. Paul remembers that the change has its ultimate source, not in the mind of man as though by his intelligence he had found out God, but in the mind of God who in mercy has looked upon man. Therefore, leaving out of sight for a moment God’s eternal knowledge of all men, which lay at that time outside his readers’ thought, Paul speaks here as though they had lately come within the embrace of this divine knowledge. They can now say, as once they never said, God knows me.How: as in Galatians 2:14 : by what process is so remarkable a retrogression taking place?Are turning: the apostacy now going on, and therefore not yet complete. See under Galatians 1:6. Same word in 2 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:9 : often used of turning to God, here the opposite. Again; recalls Galatians 4:3. Weak: unable to achieve results. Poor: unable to enrich.Again… again: emphatic reference to Galatians 4:3, reminding us that to go to the Law for salvation was to go again to something already tried and found unable to save.Beginning-anew: as though recommencing the severe discipline of their spiritual childhood. To-be-in-bondage: as in Galatians 4:8. Cp. Galatians 5:1. Since to seek salvation from law is essentially bondage, (for it is a vain effort to free ourselves from a terrible curse,) all desire for the Law as a means of salvation is practically a wish to be again in bondage to it. Cp. Acts 15:10. And this practical result of the present conduct of the Galatian Christians reveals its folly. They deliberately prefer now a path already tried, for which the only excuse at that time was their then ignorance of God. Paul assumes that both himself (Galatians 4:3) and his Gentile readers (Galatians 4:8-9) were formerly under the same rudiments, and in bondage to them. This implies, not only that Judaism was powerless to save and to enrich, but that heathenism, as well as Judaism, was in some sense and measure a preparation for the Gospel. Heathen sages taught the great principles of right and wrong, and that God’s favour was to be obtained only by doing right: and even the rites of heathenism, deeply corrupt as many of them were, contained elements expressive of man’s felt need of salvation and of God. In other words, the Old Covenant did but reveal, with greater distinctness and depth and certainty, truths already revealed, in Nature and in the law written on the heart, to the nations around; and added to these moral truths a prophecy of future salvation of which only the faintest outline was known to the heathen world. Consequently, to seek salvation by the Mosaic Covenant of works, was to go back, ignoring the noblest element in the earlier revelation, e.g. Genesis 15:6; Habakkuk 2:4; Jeremiah 31:31 ff; Ezekiel 36:25 ff, to that which in a lower degree heathenism had in common with Judaism, to that which both Jews and Gentiles had found unable to save them. That the Law is here called weak and poor. (cp. Romans 8:3) does not deny its infinite worth as a means (Galatians 3:24) of leading men to Christ. Cp. Romans 7:12. It is good as a stepping stone to the Gospel; but is utterly ruinous when chosen as a means of salvation in preference to the salvation proclaimed in the Gospel.This assumption that to go to the Mosaic Law for salvation was a return to the moral powerlessness and poverty of heathenism, although perfectly true and embodying a principle of immense importance, helps to explain the intense hatred of the Jews to a teacher of Jewish race who used such words. Galatians 4:10. Simple statement of fact. It explains and justifies the charge involved in the question of Gal 4:9.Days: cp. Romans 14:5 : the weekly Sabbath; but including probably the great days (John 7:37; John 19:31) of the yearly festivals. Cp. Colossians 2:16; where, in the inverse order of frequency, we have the weekly sabbath indisputably, the beginnings of months, and the yearly feasts. It is thrown conspicuously forward to the beginning of Gal 4:10, suggesting that these sacred days were a chief feature of the Jewish ritual adopted by the Galatian Christians.Observe: attend to them with scrupulous care. Same word in Josephus, Antiq. bk. iii. 5. 5, “to observe the seventh days;” in reference to the fourth commandment. Months: probably the new moons, which are constantly mentioned with the weekly Sabbath; Numbers 28:11; Isaiah 1:13; Hosea 2:11; 1 Chronicles 23:31, also Numbers 10:10; Psalms 81:3. Philo speaks (vol. ii. 286) of the seventh month as specially honoured by containing “the greatest of feasts.” But he says this chiefly to glorify the number seven. Moreover, this long festival is included in the seasons: and the new moons, a conspicuous feature of Jewish ritual, are unmentioned unless referred to as months. That only the beginnings of the months, but the whole of the days and seasons, were sacred, is an unimportant difference.Seasons: same word in Leviticus 23:4, introducing regulations for the Passover, Pentecost, and feast of Tabernacles. And to these feasts occupying several days, Paul probably refers here.Years: the seventh Sabbatic year. The plural number, making the reference general, forbids us to infer that Paul wrote during a sacred year. He merely says that, to observe the year when it came round, was part of his readers’ Judaizing programme. Galatians 4:11. Result, in Paul’s heart, of the conduct described in Galatians 4:10. His own converts were objects filling him with fear. For, their present conduct threatened to render fruitless his toil for them and thus to inflict upon him, eager for success, i.e. for their salvation, a severe blow. He was therefore in some sense at their mercy. This fear reveals their tremendous danger and Paul’s deep interest in them. In-any-way: as in Galatians 4:2; 1 Thessalonians 3:5. He thinks of the variety of ways in which his labours may become fruitless. The emphatic word is in-vain: cp. Galatians 3:4. For the result is still contingent; whereas Paul’s labours are already matter of fact, and therefore beyond reach of fear. [This explains sufficiently the perfect indicative, without supposing that Paul assumes that his fear is already realised.]Galatians 4:10 is Paul’s first plain statement of the nature of the incipient apostacy from which in this Epistle he seeks to recall his readers. Observance of the Jewish festivals and even of the Jewish Sabbath, though all these were ordained by God, is described as a turning back to the powerless rudiments of spiritual education and as a desire to return to bondage, and is said to inspire in Paul fear lest his labours for them be in vain. This reveals the vast issues at stake in this observance, and its tremendous significance. Evidently it implied that the Law of Moses was still binding as a condition, and therefore the only means of obtaining, the blessings of the New Covenant. This inference from the observance of Jewish ritual is plainly stated in Galatians 5:3. Cp. Acts 15:1; Acts 15:5. It explains the question in Galatians 3:2, and the argument following; and is the only conceivable explanation of them.This logical inference from these Jewish practices would produce various results in various persons. Since the Law contains moral precepts involving broad principles which reach to the inmost sources of human action, and thus reveals a morality far beyond reach of the best men who come to the Law for salvation, the result to earnest seekers would be a sense of condemnation deepening into despair. Of this, Paul had himself been an example: cp. Romans 7:24. Others would direct and limit their attention to those parts of the Law which seemed easy of fulfilment, especially the details of its ritual, e.g. observance of sacred days. And on such observance they would rely for the favour of God, silencing the voice of conscience by increased punctiliousness in small details. Of this false reliance a lowered moral tone is an inevitable result. In each case the result would be subversive of the Gospel and of Christianity. Yet these sacred days were ordained by God, in order to prepare a way, both as means of spiritual education and by their felt inability to save, for the salvation revealed by Christ. To retrace our steps in the path of life, is the way to destruction. In Acts 21:24 we find Paul himself doing that which in the Galatian Christians caused him so much fear. See Diss. i. 5. As a born Jew, to conciliate Jews and to avoid appearance of denying the divine origin of the Mosaic Law, Paul himself obeyed its requirements. But he taught strenuously that such observance was not needful for salvation, or in any way binding on Gentile converts. Thus Paul’s conduct and teaching were consistent, although easily misunderstood and misrepresented.REVIEW of §§ 9-16, the central argument of the Epistle. Some men in Galatia had taught that Christians are bound to be circumcised and to keep Jewish sacred seasons. Without discussing these details, Paul goes at once to a broad and erroneous principle underlying them, viz. that observance of the Law is still a condition of the favour of God. In disproof of this, he appeals to his readers’ earlier Christian life which was derived, as memory testifies, not from obedience to law but from belief of a preached word. He asks whether a life begun by reception of the Spirit is to be perfected by ordinances pertaining to mere bodily life. With his readers’ experience agrees the story of Abraham, who obtained by faith blessings for himself and promises for all nations. These promises are fulfilled in those who believe the Gospel, and in them only. For, on all who come to it for salvation the Law pronounces a curse. From this curse Christ bought us off, by Himself undergoing it, that by faith we might obtain the blessings promised to Abraham. if the Law be a condition of salvation, God has nullified His promises to Abraham by adding to them a later and impossible condition; which even human morality forbids. Paul notices incidentally that the heirs of the promises are uniformly designated by a word in the singular number, in close harmony with the fulfilment of these promises in Christ. The real purpose of the Law was to create in man consciousness of helpless bondage under the power of sin, in order to compel him to seek salvation by faith in Christ. The days of bondage are now past. By union with Christ we are sons of God, a relation in which all human distinctions fade; and heirs of Abraham’s promises. The former days were the bondage of childhood: but now that the set time has come we are adopted sons of God; and, in token of this, God has put in our hearts the filial cry of His Firstborn Son. In view of all this, Paul asks why his readers wish to begin over again the discipline and bondage of their earlier days, and expresses a fear lest they will rob him of the fruits of his toil on their behalf. THE weekly SABBATH is, as we have seen, included, and probably referred to specially, in the evidently sad statement of Gal 4:10. This agrees with Colossians 2:16, where the Sabbath, which must be chiefly the weekly rest, is joined to feasts and new moons and distinctions of food as a matter in which sentence must not be pronounced upon Christians; and with Romans 14:5, where the superiority of one day above another is left an open question. The relation therefore of the Jewish Sabbath to Christianity demands our attention.The word Sabbath is an English form of a Hebrew word denoting always a sacred rest. The corresponding verb denotes sometimes simply to cease or rest, as in Genesis 8:22; Joshua 5:12; Jeremiah 31:36; Proverbs 22:10; Job 32:1; Nehemiah 6:3; and sometimes to keep a sacred rest, as in Genesis 2:2 and He kept Sabbath on the seventh day from all His work which He did, Exodus 16:30; Exodus 23:12; Exodus 34:21; Leviticus 23:32; Leviticus 25:2.Although there are several festal days in which servile work was forbidden, e.g. Leviticus 23:7 f, and in a few places, e.g. Leviticus 23:11; Leviticus 23:15, these seem to be called Sabbaths or are indisputably called (so Leviticus 23:24) by the cognate name Shabbathon, yet the weekly Sabbath and the Day of Atonement are raised above all other days as (Leviticus 23:3; Leviticus 23:31 f) a cessation from all work and are designated by a special superlative name Sabbath of Sabbath-keeping or Rest of Resting, in A.V. Sabbath of Rest. When not otherwise defined, the word Sabbath is a sufficient and frequent designation of the weekly rest. Thus the usage of words gives to the seventh day a unique place of honour among the many sacred days of the Law of Moses.Amid many other ordinances, the weekly Sabbath is very conspicuous as being the special sign of the Mosaic Covenant: Exodus 31:12-17; cp. Ezekiel 20:12. It thus takes in some sense the place of circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14) in the covenant with Abraham. The frequent and regular recurrence of the weekly rest made it a very appropriate test and visible expression of loyalty to the covenant with God.Still further is the weekly Sabbath raised above all other ritual prescriptions by its place in the Decalogue, among commandments valid every one for all time and all men; and by being based in the Decalogue and in Genesis 2:3; Exodus 31:17 upon God’s work in creation. Of the close relation of the Sabbath to moral precepts, Isaiah 56:1-6 affords remarkable proof.That the weekly rest was ordained before Moses, is not proved by Genesis 2:3 : for even after a lapse of time an institution may have been ordained to commemorate a bygone event. Against this, the consecutive order of Genesis 2 cannot be appealed to for after the ordinance of the Sabbath in Genesis 2:3 we have in Genesis 2:7 the creation of man. Nor is it disproved by Ezekiel 20:12 : for an already existing institution might at the Exodus have been made by God a sign of the new covenant then given to Israel. That the princes of Israel in the wilderness (Exodus 16:22) did not understand the double supply of manna, suggests perhaps that the Sabbath was not then known to them. On the other hand, Genesis 8:10; Genesis 8:12; Genesis 29:27 suggest that a period of seven days was already used as a division of time: and, although this does not imply a weekly day of sacred rest, the division of time into weeks is much more easy to understand if the weeks were separated by a sacred day. The word remember in Exodus 20:8, if it is anything more than an emphatic form of the parallel phrase keep the Sabbath day in Deuteronomy 4:12, refers doubtless to the institution of the Sabbath in Exodus 16:29-30. Certainly it is no proof or suggestion that the Sabbath was ordained earlier than the departure from Egypt. Indeed, taken together, the above casual and uncertain notes have little weight as evidence either that the Sabbath was not, or was, ordained earlier than the Exodus. But the double supply of manna on the sixth day with no manna on the seventh, and the solemn ordinance of the Sabbath in Exodus 16:25-30 before the giving of the Decalogue, are additional marks of honour to the weekly Day of Rest. The week itself was unknown to the early Greeks and Romans, and apparently to the heathen world generally. But that something like it was known to the Babylonians and Assyrians, is proved by a Babylonian calendar for a sacred month written in the Assyrian language, in which amid sacrifices for other days, the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st, and 28th days have a uniform description as “days unlawful to work on,” and the king is forbidden to eat his ordinary food or change his dress or do his ordinary royal duties on them. See Smith’s Chaldaean Account of Genesis p. 89; Records of the Past, vol. vii. p. 159; Schrader, Keilinschriften und A.T. 2nd ed. p. 18. Since these were days of a lunar month, which contains 29½ days, they would not coincide with the Jewish Sabbath, which is each seventh day all the year round independently of the moon. But the similarity is worthy of notice. An Assyrian form of the word Sabbath has been found; (see Records of the Past, vol. vii. p. 157;) and is explained as “day of rest of heart.” But it is not used in the calendar mentioned above other Babylonian inscriptions reveal the sacredness of the number seven. A seven-fold division of time is also mentioned in the Indian Vedas. So Rig-veda i. 50, in a hymn to the Sun-god: “Clear-sighted god of day, thy seven ruddy mares bear on thy rushing car. With these thy self-yoked steeds, seven daughters of thy chariot, onward thou dost advance.” Also Atharva-veda xix. 53, in a hymn to Time: “Time, like a brilliant steed with seven rays… Time, like a seven-wheeled, seven-naved car, moves on.” But I learn from a reliable authority that these are the only references to a seven-fold division of time in Indian literature earlier than our era; and that there is no reference there to a weekly rest. But in later days the week became known in India. Similar scanty references are found in the literature of China. Dion Cassius (Roman History bk. 37. 16-18) states that in his day the division of time into weeks was universal, though not of early date among the Greeks and Romans, and that they received it from the Egyptians. But we have not, so far as I know, any reliable traces of a weekly day of rest among the Egyptians. And indeed the evidence of a weekly division of time earlier than the Christian era and outside Israel is at present very scanty and somewhat uncertain. The early Christian writers assume that the Sabbath did not exist before Moses. So Justin (Dialogue with Trypho ch. 19) says in argument with a Jew, referring to Adam, Abel, Enoch, and Melchizedec: “All these were just men and righteous in the sight of God without even keeping the Sabbath.” And Irenæus in his work Against Heresies (bk. iv. 16. 2) writes “Without circumcision and without observance of the Sabbath Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” Probably these quotations represent the opinion of the Apostolic Church. But the distance of time and absence of independent sources of information deprive this opinion of any critical value as evidence of the date of the first institution of the weekly rest. The above casual references leave us unable to determine with confidence whether the Sabbath was earlier than the Mosaic Covenant. And the matter is unimportant. For, that the Jewish Sabbath rested on a basis broader than the Mosaic Covenant, is proved by its connection with God’s work at the Creation. The importance of the Sabbath in the Old Covenant is attested by Jeremiah 17:21-27; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 10:31; Nehemiah 13:15-22. Its worth in the eyes of the more pious of the later Jews is seen in 1 Macc. i. 39; ii. 34, 38, 41. Yet that which to Israel of the Old Covenant was an obligatory mark of loyalty to God, was, in the Gentile Christians of Galatia, called by Paul a return to spiritual bondage. Indeed the prominent position in Galatians 4:10 of the word days suggests that their observance of the weekly Sabbath was a chief mark of their apostacy. And this, Paul’s foregoing argument enables us to understand. For it implies that the Galatian Christians kept the Jewish Sabbath as an essential condition of salvation. But this was an acknowledgment that the Mosaic Law is still binding as a condition of the favour of God. For the entire Law, including ritual and moral commands, was given by the same authority. Now Paul has proved that the Law pronounces a universal curse, and excludes from the blessings promised to Abraham all those under its domain. Consequently, the continued validity of the Law would close to all men the way of salvation. And this was involved in the observance by the Galatians of the Jewish Sabbath. This observance was therefore utterly subversive of the Gospel proclaimed by Christ. Hence Paul’s fear lest his labours in Galatia be in vain. All this implies that, like the distinction of food, (Mark 7:15; Mark 7:18; Acts 10:15,) so marked a feature of the Mosaic Covenant, also the command to keep sacred the seventh day was in some sense annulled by Christ, and that the great principle of Rom 6:14; 1 Corinthians 9:20, that we are not under law but under grace, includes the Sabbath Law. This inference compels us to consider now the relation of the Lord’s day to the Jewish Sabbath. In marked contrast to the comparative disregard of the day so highly honoured in the Old Covenant, we find in the New Testament special honour paid to another day. On the day following the Jewish Sabbath Christ rose from the dead; and on the evening of the same day (John 20:19) appeared to the assembled disciples. On the same day of the next week He appeared to them again. And on the same day six weeks later He founded His Church by pouring upon the assembled disciples the Holy Spirit. The infinite importance of these events gives to the first day of the week a glory never conferred on the seventh day. Accordingly we find in Acts 20:7 a Christian meeting held on the first day of the week; and in 1 Corinthians 16:2 Paul prescribes it as the day for laying by money for a charitable purpose. In Revelation 1:10, we read of the Lord’s Day, which is honoured by a special revelation to John. And the distinction already given to the first day of the week makes us quite certain that this was the Lord’s Day.All this is confirmed by early Christian writers. The lately discovered Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, written probably early in the second century, says in ch. 14: “Each Lord’s Day come together and break bread and give thanks,” i.e. celebrate the Eucharist. So the Epistle of Barnabas, probably a few years later, ch. 15, where after a long reference to the Sabbath we read: “For which cause also we keep the eighth day for gladness, in which Jesus rose from the dead.” Justin writes in the middle of the century, First Apology ch. 67: “On what is called Sunday there is a coming together to one place of all who dwell in town or country, and the memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets are read;” and says that this is followed by exhortation and the Lord’s Supper, adding: “On Sunday we all make our common gathering since it is the first day in which God changed darkness and crude matter and made the world: and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.” A succession of later writers removes all doubt that the first day of the week was called the Lord’s Day, and was a special day of worship in the early Church. We have already seen that unique honour to one day of the week was a marked feature of the Old Covenant; and that, by its reference to the work of Creation and its place in that Decalogue, the Jewish Sabbath was placed on a basis broader than the Mosaic Law. We now find in the New Covenant still more conspicuous honour paid to one day of the week; but not to the same day. The change of day marks a transition from the Old Covenant to the New. And the honour paid in each covenant to one day in seven suggests that a common element underlies both, and that the Lord’s Day bears to the Jewish Sabbath a relation similar to that of the New Covenant to the Old. That this is actually the case, is, I think, fully proved by the following considerations. We find by experience that the weekly day of rest is of incalculable and many-sided benefit. The gain to the body of regular intervals of rest from the monotonous toil of daily life can never be estimated. Still more valuable is the leisure thus obtained, amid the imperious demands of the present life, for contemplation of the eternal realities of the life to come. Moreover, the observance of this sacred rest in spite of these pressing cares is an acknowledgment, in view of many who through forgetfulness of God are slaves of the world around, of the greater importance of the world above us. Thus, like the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Day gives visible form to the service of God. Moreover, the observance by all Christians of the same day of rest renders united worship possible; and makes the outward aspect of society a recognition of God. For these reasons, (and they might be multiplied indefinitely and they have much more force than appears on the surface,) were there no divine obligation it would be expedient for our highest interests to keep a frequent and regularly recurring day of rest, and that all Christians should observe the same day. This reveals the gain actually derived from the prevalent belief, whatever be its grounds, that the day of rest was ordained by God. Indeed, it is not easy to conceive how otherwise all Christians would agree to keep the same day. Consequently, either this belief is correct or an error has been to the world a manifold and incalculable benefit. This benefit is an element of good in the Jewish Sabbath suitable to all nations and all ages. These spiritual gains go a long way to prove, or rather strongly confirm our other abundant proof of, the divine origin of the Mosaic Covenant. Certainly, the teacher who gave to his nation and institution so rich in blessing for all mankind was indeed taught by God. Admitting now the divine origin of the Jewish Sabbath, as we are compelled to do unless we reject the plain and repeated historical statements of the Old Testament, and observing the immense gain to all men of a weekly day of sacred rest, we are irresistibly driven to infer that the rest ordained at Sinai was designed for all mankind; or, in other words, that this gain is by divine purpose. While enjoying the benefits of the Lord’s Day, we feel that these benefits are God’s gift. And this wider purpose of Israel’s Day of Rest is the easiest explanation of its place in the Decalogue and of its reference there to the Creation of the World. Indeed we can well conceive that the great benefit it was designed to confer on Israel and on the world moved God to select the Sabbath, whether previously existing or not, as the special sign of the Mosaic Covenant. For, by thus selecting it, He gave it a sure place in the national life. If the above inference and explanation be correct, by keeping the Lord’s Day we are doing the will of God and are receiving benefits designed by Him for us. To neglect it, would be to trample under foot a precious and divine gift. We therefore keep it, not as a condition or means of the favour of God or under fear of penalty, but with gratitude for so great a gift and desirous to obtain all the blessings it is designed to convey. And this desire will determine our mode of spending the Sacred Day. In the above discussion we have left out of sight the symbolic significance which belongs to the Sabbath in common with the entire Mosaic ritual. This significance is embodied in the words holy and sanctify, which are everywhere given to every part of that ritual. God claimed from Israel for Himself one tribe out of twelve, one day in seven, and one-tenth of all produce, in order to assert His universal ownership. He now claims, in the New Covenant, that every man be His servant and priest, that all our possessions be consecrated to Him, and every day and hour be spent for Him. To us, therefore, in the highest conceivable sense every day is holy to the Lord. But this by no means lessens the benefit of separating, from the secular toil which forms so large a part of the work God has allotted to most of us, a portion of time for meditation and evangelical work. This separation of a part greatly aids us to spend our whole time for God. We understand now the relation to Christianity of the Jewish Sabbath. Whenever instituted, it was commanded in the Law; and was made a sign, and a conspicuous feature, of the Old Covenant of works. Consequently, as commanded by God, it was binding on every Israelite under pain of God’s displeasure. And they who sought salvation by law sought it in part by strict observance of the Sabbath. This is the legal aspect of the Jewish Sabbath. Again, like the entire Mosiac ritual, the Sabbath was a symbol of the Christian life. In these two aspects, the legal and the symbolic, the Jewish Sabbath passed away; or rather has attained its goal in the fuller revelation of the New Covenant. Instead of one day sanctified for Jehovah, every day is now spent for Christ. The Law has led us to Christ. And the Voice which once condemned us for past disobedience, and made the favour of God impossible by reason of our powerlessness to obey in the future, has been silenced by the Voice from the Cross. In these two senses the Law, even the law of the Sabbath, is to us as completely a thing of the past as is the schooling of our childhood. But underneath the legal and symbolic aspects of the Sabbath, which pertain only to the Old Covenant, lay an element of universal and abiding value, viz. the manifold benefit of the weekly rest. To secure this benefit for Israel, and through Israel for the world, God embodied the Sabbath in the Law and Ritual of the Old Covenant. And when the Old Covenant was superseded by the New, Christ secured for His Church the same advantages by paying special honour to the first day of the week. But, like everything in the Gospel, the Lord’s Day is not so much a law as a free gift of God. While keeping it we think, not of the penalty of disobedience, but of the great benefits received thereby in the kind providence of God: and we spend the day, not according to a written prescription, but in such way as seems to us most conducive to our spiritual growth. Thus the Lord’s Day is a Christian counterpart of the Jewish Sabbath; and differs from it only as the Gospel differs from the Law. Similarly, as a visible embodiment of the truth that our salvation comes through the shed blood of the innocent, the Jewish sacrifices have in some sense a Christian counterpart in the Lord’s Supper. And the rite of Infant Baptism, which is not expressly enjoined in the New Testament, reproduces in the Christian Church, by recognising the relation of little ones to the God of their fathers, a part of the spiritual significance of circumcision. We understand now Paul’s indifference in Romans 14:5 whether we esteem one day above another, or all days equally. Seen in the full light of the Gospel, all days are equal: for all are spent for Christ. And the service we render Him in the common duties of daily life is as precious in His sight and as rich an outflow of Christian life as are the meditation and evangelical activity of the Lord’s Day. This is perfectly consistent with the consecration of one day a week for the latter, and the equal consecration of six days for the former, kind of service. Nor is the absence from the New Testament of any express teaching about the relation of the Lord’s Day to the Jewish Sabbath and the Fourth Commandment difficult to understand. Any such teaching in the Epistle before us would have seriously blunted, by inevitable misinterpretation, Paul’s resistance to the advocates of the Mosaic Law as still binding on Christians. Abundant proofs of this relation were stored in the sacred volume. The inference from these proofs was left to be observed, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the later ages of the Church. And in the meantime, by Christ and by the apostolic Church an unique honour was paid to the first day of the week which marked it out unmistakably as the Day of Days. In exact accord with the above exposition is the usage of early Christian writers. The first day of the week is constantly called the Lord’s Day, and spoken of as specially honoured and as the chosen day of Christian worship. But, so far as I know, not until the Council of Macon in A.D. 585 have we any hint of a transfer of the sacred rest from the seventh to the first day, or of obligation to keep the Lord’s Day on the ground of the Fourth Commandment. Very interesting is Augustine’s note on Psalms 91:1, where he contrasts the Jews’ Sabbath, which he says they waste in bodily idleness, with the Christians’ inward rest, which he calls the Sabbath of the heart. The whole note makes us almost certain that Augustine did not look upon the Lord’s Day as a Christian counterpart of the Jewish Sabbath. Equally interesting is a treatise of doubtful authorship and date on The Sabbath and Circumcision attributed to Athanasius, in which, although the Lord’s Day is not called a Sabbath or placed in any relation to the Fourth Commandment, it is nevertheless shown to stand in close relation to the Jewish Sabbath. See also the much earlier quotation on p. 118 from the Epistle of Barnabas. The first Christian Emperor, Constantine, decreed, in A.D. 321, that all judges and people residing in cities rest from work on Sunday, permitting only agriculture. He thus recognised publicly the Day of Rest as a Christian institution. But neither imperial decrees nor command of the ancient Law of God nor tradition of the Early Church are needed by those who have experienced the great and various benefit of the rest and leisure of the Lord’s Day. The greatness of the benefit is to them abundant proof of the divine origin and authority of the Christian Day of Rest. SECTION 17. — APPEAL TO THE CH. 4:12-20. Become as I am, because also I have become as ye are, brethren, I beg you. No injustice have ye done me. And ye know that because of weakness of the flesh I preached the Gospel to you the first time: and your temptation in my flesh ye did not despise nor loathe, but as an angel of God ye welcomed me, as Christ Jesus. Where then is your professed holiness? For I bear you witness that, if possible, your own eyes ye would have dug out and given to me. So then am I become your enemy by speaking truth to you? Zealously they care for you, not in a good way: but they wish to shut you out, that ye may care for them zealously. And a good thing it is to be zealously cared for in a good matter always, and not only when I am present with you, my little children, for whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you. I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my voice: because I am perplexed about you. After the application to the readers, in § 16, of the foregoing argument, now follows (Galatians 4:12-16) a personal and loving appeal based on their welcome to Paul on his first visit to Galatia: then comes (Galatians 4:17-20) the first direct reference, after Galatians 1:7, to the men who were leading them astray.Galatians 4:12. A direct appeal prompted by Paul’s fear lest his labours for his readers be without result.Become as I am: i.e. free from the legal bondage implied in their observance (Galatians 4:10) of sacred days: not do as I do; for (see under Galatians 4:11) Paul himself kept the Jewish ritual. His motive in so doing differed infinitely from that of his opponents: cp. 1 Corinthians 9:20 with Acts 15:1; Acts 15:5.Because also I, etc.: a fact added to the foregoing entreaty, as a reason for it. By recognising the emptiness of Jewish prerogatives and thus laying them aside, Paul, a born Jew, placed himself on the spiritual level of his readers, who were born Gentiles. He now entreats them to come down, by laying aside the fancied superiority of Jewish proselytes, to the common level which he has long ago accepted. Thus Paul brings to bear, on those who as strangers were seeking prerogatives which were his by birth and to which from childhood he had been taught to cling proudly, the example of his own surrender of these prerogatives as worthless. Similar appeals to his own example, in 1 Corinthians 8:13; 1 Corinthians 10:33. Those to whom he appeals, he, a born Jew, recognises as brethren.No injustice; so literally: or no injury, without thought of injustice, as in Luke 10:19 : for, as the derivation of the words suggests, injury is usually injustice. A close parallel, in 2 Corinthians 12:13. The utter obscurity now of these words points to facts known to the readers but not to us. The emphasis rests, not on me in contrast to others, but on the negative: in NOTHING have ye done me injustice. Nor does this emphatic and unexpected denial refer necessarily to Paul’s visit to Galatia. [The Greek aorist covers the entire past to the moment of writing.] This denial was suggested naturally by Paul’s loving appeal; and suitably prefaces his mention of the, welcome given to him by the Galatians on his first visit.Galatians 4:13-14. Not only had his readers done Paul no injustice or injury, but on his first visit, although it was occasioned merely by sickness, they welcomed him with eager affection. This he recalls in order to arouse now a similar affection, and thus strengthen his own appeal.Weakness: absence of strength, of any kind. It is the usual term for sickness, of which absence of bodily strength is a constant mark: so Philippians 2:26 f; 2 Timothy 4:20; Matthew 10:8; Mark 6:56; Luke 4:40; John 11:1-6; Acts 4:9; Acts 5:15 f. And this is the only meaning which will make sense here.Of the flesh: the material of our bodies, which by its nature is in various ways (cp. Romans 8:3; Matthew 26:41) weak or liable to weakness.Because of weakness, etc.: i.e. detained in Galatia by some sickness. This led him to preach the Gospel and found Churches there. Thus Paul’s sickness brought good-news (see under Galatians 1:6) to his readers.The first time: or literally the former-time. It contrasts a former with a later visit. And, since contrast with the present was needless, (for this is sufficiently indicated by preached-the-Gospel,) it implies that twice Paul had preached in Galatia. If so, these words give definiteness to the statement in Galatians 4:13 : otherwise they are meaningless.The first recorded visit of Paul to Galatia is that mentioned in Acts 16:6, on his second missionary journey. And we have no difficulty in supposing that then he was detained in Galatia by illness. and founded Churches there. Another visit, on his third journey, is recorded in Acts 18:23. And we cannot well conceive any other earlier visit. Consequently, not earlier than this last visit was the letter before us written. See Diss. iii. That the Gospel was first preached to the Galatians by a man who lingered among them merely because of bodily weakness, put to a severe test their readiness to receive the truth. Many hearers would have turned away from a Gospel proclaimed by a sick man. Consequently, the sickness in Paul’s flesh was a trial or temptation (see under 1 Corinthians 10:13) to his readers. And, since the afflicted man was an embodiment of this trial, had they turned from him with disgust, they would have despised and loathed the temptation which God had laid upon them. Instead of this, they welcomed him (literally received with outstretched right hand) as though he were a visitant from heaven, an angel of mercy from God. Nay more. They welcomed him with the reverence they would have paid to his divine Master, to Christ Jesus. The words despise and loathe suggest that Paul’s sickness was of a kind calculated to evoke contempt and disgust. Galatians 4:15. Question prompted by the foregoing statement.Where then: as in Romans 3:27; cp. 1 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 12:17; 1 Corinthians 12:19; 1 Corinthians 15:55. It implies that their gratulation had vanished from view. Your professed happiness: literally your pronouncing-happy, or blessed.Same word in Romans 4:6; Romans 4:9; see note: cognate word in Romans 4:7 f; Matthew 5:3-11. They pronounced themselves happy, i.e. fortunate in the highest and holiest sense, because Paul had visited them. Of this felt good fortune, the enthusiasm of their welcome (Galatians 4:14) was proof and measure. Paul therefore supports his question by the following emphatic statement. Paul is able to bear-witness in his reader’s favour. Your, is not emphatic, as though in contrast with Paul’s eyes. Consequently, these words in no way suggest that Paul’s complaint was in his eyes. Dug-out your eyes: same words (LXX.) in 1 Samuel 11:2; cp. Judges 16:21 : graphic description of a painful and ruinous operation. Even this costly, and in fact impossible, gift would not have been too great in their view to express the benefits they had received from the preaching of Paul. This testimony, the readers knew to be true. Paul asks therefore what has become of this recognition of spiritual benefits.Galatians 4:16. An inference from Galatians 4:15, thrown because of its unlikeliness into the form of a question.Your enemy: or an enemy of yours: one intent on doing you harm. Paul’s earnestness suggests this rather than the weaker sense, one hated by you. The Galatians treated Paul as though he were actually hostile to them. And, since he was formerly so valued a friend, if he be now an enemy, as his readers suppose or act as though they supposed, he has become such: i.e. a change has taken place. Paul asks the reason. He has done nothing but speak-truth. Is this then the cause of the change? The precise reference of Paul’s question is unknown to us. It cannot be the letter he is now writing: for he refers to his readers’ present judgment about him. The easiest explanation is that on his second visit Paul rebuked a tendency to Judaism then visible: and that this rebuke was used by his enemies to alienate from him the Galatian Christians. He asks whether words which they know to be true have made a valued friend into an enemy. Review of Gal 4:12-16. Moved by fear which their observance of Jewish festivals inspires, Paul reminds his readers that he a born Jew has laid aside all Jewish prerogatives; and makes a brotherly appeal to them to lay aside the Jewish entanglements which were bringing them into bondage. He recalls the eagerness with which at the first they welcomed him, when as a sick man he lingered among them. Their devotion to the preacher knew no limits: and it proclaimed the benefits they had received from his preaching. Since then, all that Paul has done has been to speak what they know to be true. He asks if this has made their former friend into a foe. The above is, like Galatians 3:1-2, an appeal to the readers’ early Christian life in proof of the truth of the word they then received. It is also a welcome addition to the narrative of Paul’s life. We see him detained by serious illness (for no other would hinder him) among people of strange nationality and speech. We can imagine him preaching to them in great bodily weakness. But his word produced immediate and wonderful results. The preacher was welcomed with enthusiasm. And various scattered but flourishing Churches were formed among the Keltic settlers of Galatia. We have also an indication of a second visit: and Paul’s silence suggests that even then his converts’ loyalty to their great teacher had begun to decline. These biographical notes agree with Acts 16:6 where we find Paul passing through Galatia; and with Acts 18:23 where we find him visiting disciples in the Galatian country.Whether Paul’s sickness in Galatia had any relation to his probably much earlier stake in the flesh, is quite uncertain. See Under 2 Corinthians 12:7. But this abiding affliction reveals some kind of bodily unsoundness: and this might easily give rise to a passing illness which would detain the apostle. Galatians 4:17. A silent reference to Paul’s opponents in Galatia. That he does not find it needful to mention them expressly, proves that they are already present to his thought. Cp. Galatians 5:10; Galatians 6:12 f. And direct mention of them would be unpleasant.Zealously-care-for you: or they-are-zealous or jealous-about you: same word and construction in 1 Corinthians 12:31, Be zealous for the greater gifts; and 2 Corinthians 11:2, I am jealous about you. They are very eager about you; i.e. for your benefit apparently, and for your favour.Not-in-a-good-way, or manner: expounded by they wish, etc., which states the motive of their earnest effort. From whom or what, the false teachers wish to-shut-out the Galatian Christians, Paul does not say. He fixes attention simply on the designed isolation. The practical effect of the false teaching will be exclusion from Christ, from the Gospel and its blessings, and from the community of faithful Christians. But a special reference to these last is not required by the emphatic word them, as though the false teachers were compared with those from whom they would shut out the Galatian Christians: for it is simply a contrast to you, the excluders and the excluded being thus brought face to face. And Paul’s exact reference remains uncertain, and not very important. If the Galatian Christians yield to the disturbers and become circumcised, they will be shut out of that element in which they have found life and peace; and will become dependent on the favour and help of those who have led them astray. Consequently, the seduced will be compelled to court their seducers. And this Paul declares to be (that ye may, etc.) the purpose of the seduction. Since the last word of Gal 4:17 is the first word of 1 Corinthians 12:31, the four Greek-Latin uncials insert after it But be zealous for the better gifts: an interesting example of the way in which error has crept into our MSS. Galatians 4:18. A general statement suggested by the zealous efforts of these false friends to gain the Galatian Christians. It glides imperceptibly into a description of Paul’s own zeal for them, which is an example of the general statement. A good thing it is to be an object of earnest attention, provided it be in a good matter, i.e. with a good aim, this aim looked upon as the element of the earnest effort. Paul’s aim is (2 Corinthians 11:2) to present a pure maiden to Christ. The word always has no perceptible reference to the false teachers, (for we have no hint that their zeal was not constant,) but completes the transition, through this general remark, from Paul’s opponents to himself; and records a marked feature of his own zeal, viz. its constancy. This thought is further developed, without any reference to the false teachers, in the words following. Paul’s care for his readers is not limited to his presence with them. Indeed it prompts him now to write this earnest letter, and makes him wishful (Galatians 4:20) to be with them again.[Ζηλουσθαι is passive, corresponding to the active forms in Galatians 4:17, and in the same sense: for a change of sense would need to be clearly marked, as in Romans 14:13, to avoid mistake; especially here where the same sense gives an intelligent meaning. Moreover the middle voice of this verb is unknown elsewhere; and would have here practically the same sense as the active voice, and be therefore inexplicable. The emphasis is not on με, as though contrasting Paul with the false teachers, but on παρειναι, contrasting Paul’s presence with his absence. This is confirmed by the appearance of the same word in Galatians 4:20.Galatians 4:19. An expression of Paul’s love for his readers, and a proof of the intensity of his effort on their behalf. As being a sort of climax, it is most easily joined to the foregoing sentence. [And the preposition δε in Galatians 4:20 suggests, but does not prove that it begins a new sentence.] The Vat., Sinai, and Greek-Latin MSS., a combination seldom in error, read my children, as in 1 Corinthians 4:14, using a word very common with Paul. But the Alex., Ephraim, and later MSS., a combination often in evident error, read my little-children, as in 1 John 2:1 : cp. little-children in John 13:33; 1 John 2:12; 1 John 2:28; 1 John 3:7; 1 John 3:18; 1 John 4:4; 1 John 5:21. The difference is only one small letter. So appropriate here is the tender expression little-children, nowhere else found in Paul, and so easily changed to the common word children, that Westcott prefers it, placing in his margin my children, which last, is read by Tischendorf and without note by Tregelles. Thus external and internal evidence are at variance, which rarely happens. Perhaps probability inclines to my little-children. But certain decision is impossible. Paul’s earnest and constant efforts for his readers remind him that they are helpless as little children needing a parent’s care, and that they are his own little children. He therefore accosts them with a father’s affection and solicitude. Cp. 1 Corinthians 4:14; Philemon 1:10.The undeveloped spiritual life of the Galatian Christians, Paul compares to the undeveloped state of an unborn embryo; and compares his own painful anxiety for them to a mother’s birth-pangs, which can cease only when the development of the embryo is complete. For, till his readers show a Christian character in some degree mature, Paul’s anxiety will continue. Again: as though a mother were twice enduring birth-pangs for the same offspring. The desired development, Paul describes as Christ formed in you: i.e. the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them (Galatians 2:20) changing their outer life into moral likeness to Christ. Thus in them men will see the form of Christ, a visible manifestation of His actual inward presence. See under Romans 2:20 : cp. Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Philippians 2:6 f; 2 Timothy 3:5. This comparison reveals how intense is Paul’s effort (Galatians 4:18) for his readers, and how pure his motive.Galatians 4:20. A wish prompted by the readers’ undeveloped state and by Paul’s anxiety about them. Would that I were present with you now! a wish, felt to be vain, suggested by the words present with you in Galatians 4:18, which recall Paul’s earnest efforts for their good when he was in Galatia.He could wish to be with them now, (this last word emphatic,) instead of merely writing to them from a distance. And to change my voice: purpose of this impracticable wish. Paul’s love suggests that if he were himself with his readers he could bring them to a better mind, which would enable him to speak to them in a voice different from his present severity. Perplexed: not knowing which way to go. Same word in 2 Corinthians 4:8; Luke 24:4; Acts 25:20; John 13:22. That Paul does not know what to do to restore his relapsing converts, is the cause of his consciously futile wish to be with them now. Thus, like § 16, so § 17 closes with dark foreboding.Only for a moment does Paul refer to the false teachers, as though reluctant to give them a place on his pages. But his few words lay bare the selfish motive of their earnestness. Still greater earnestness for the Galatian Christians, with a motive as pure as theirs is selfish, does Paul whether present or absent ever cherish. For they are his own children. And till they bear the image of Christ there is nothing but anguish for him. His present perplexity makes him long to be with them now, hoping that his presence would effect the change he so earnestly desires. SECTION 18. — THE OF BONDAGE AND OF FREEDOM. CH. 4:21-5:1.Tell me, ye who wish to be under law, do ye not hear the Law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the maid and one by the free woman. Yet he by the maid was born according to flesh: but he by the free woman, through promise. Which things contain an allegory. For these women are two covenants; one from Mount Sinai bearing children for bondage, which is Hagar. Now this Hagar: Mount Sinai in Arabia; and stands in line with the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother. For it is written, “Rejoice, barren one that bearest not; burst forth and shout, thou that dost not travail in birth. For many are the children of the desolate woman, more than of her who has the husband.” (Isaiah 54:1). And we, brethren, like Isaac are children of promise. But just as then he that was born according to flesh was persecuting him born according to Spirit, so also now. So But what says the Scripture? “Cast out the maid and her son: for the son of the maid shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” (Genesis 21:10.) For which cause, brethren, we are not children of a maid but of the free woman. For freedom, Christ has made us free. Stand then, and be not again held fast by a yoke of bondage.Another appeal, an argument based upon facts recorded in the Book of the Law taken in connection with the teaching in Galatians 3:23; Galatians 4:1-3 that all who are under law are in bondage.Galatians 4:21. Law: the general principle, Do this and live.Under law: as in Galatians 4:4; Romans 6:14.Wish to be under law; describes suitably an apostacy now going on, as do the present tenses in Galatians 1:6; Galatians 4:9; Galatians 5:3-4; Galatians 6:12-13. They desire to have as the basis of their relation to God, and as the means of obtaining His favour, a prescribed rule of conduct, viz. the rule embodied in the five Books of Moses: i.e. practically, they wish to stand, or rather to lie in helpless bondage, under the authority of law.Hear the Law: cp. Romans 2:13, John 12:34. It recalls vividly the public reading in the synagogues, when this was, for Jews and proselytes, the chief means of acquaintance with the Jewish Scriptures.Paul asks of those who wish to be under a prescribed rule, Do you not hear what is said by those Books which are an authoritative embodiment of such rule? Galatians 4:22-23. The foregoing question will now be justified by a fact about Abraham recorded in the Books of the Law. Two sons; prepares us for a difference between them. Maid: same word in Genesis 16:1; Genesis 16:3; Genesis 16:5 f, Genesis 16:8; Genesis 21:10; Genesis 21:12 f; Matthew 26:69; Acts 12:13; Acts 16:16 : in N. T. always a maid-servant, but not so Rth 4:12. The word free implies that here the maid was a slave. Abraham had one son by the well-known maid-servant, and one by the well-known free woman.According to flesh: the process of birth corresponding to the constitution of human or animal bodies. This reminds us that Ishmael stood to Abraham in the same relation as the Jews of Paul’s day, viz. that of natural descent. This is embodied in the argument of Rom 9:8. [The Greek perfect tense intimates that the birth of Ishmael according to flesh has abiding significance. So 1 Corinthians 15:4; 1 Corinthians 15:14; 1 Corinthians 15:27. In reference to events so definite, the English language, which has no tense corresponding to the Greek perfect, uses the preterite, was born.]Through, or by means of, promise. Not only was Isaac’s birth a fulfilment of promise, but the faith elicited by the promise was an essential condition, according to the principles of the kingdom of God, of the putting forth of divine power and of the fulfilment of the promise. Hence the promise was the channel through which the power of God operated, producing first faith, in Abraham, and then the birth of Isaac. Similarly, in the birth of Jesus a promise to Mary was the vehicle through which the Spirit of God operated. ‘Although both were sons of Abraham, yet the offspring of the slave girl was born (and the significance of this fact remains) according to the ordinary laws of human bodies, the offspring of the free woman was produced by the special voice of God, by the word of promise which Abraham believed.’ Galatians 4:24. Which things: or rather, which class of things.Contain an allegory, or are-allegorized: they have another meaning beside the historical one. Same word and tense in Philo, vol. i. p. 143: “The cherubim are, according to one manner, in this way allegorized.” So Clement of Alex., Exhortation ch. xi. “The serpent is allegorized as pleasure, crawling upon its belly, an earthly vice, turning to matter.” That the narratives of Genesis are fact, Paul ever assumes: see my Romans, Diss. iii. He now declares that under the facts (as Philo says of the cherubim) lies spiritual significance. This significance, the rest of Gal 4:24 explains.Are two covenants: cp. 1 Corinthians 11:25. This cup is the New Covenant. In a mutual relation similar to the relation of these two women there actually are two covenants. Therefore, in Paul’s thought, and in objective reality, (for the relationships are real,) the women and the covenants are the same. So the word is, denoting practical identity, in Romans 1:12; Romans 1:16; 1 John 5:3-4; Matthew 13:37-39.The two covenants; recalls 2 Corinthians 3:6, written probably shortly before this letter.Of these two covenants, one is expounded in Galatians 4:24 b, Genesis 4:25; the other, under an altered form of speech, in Galatians 4:26-28. The Old Covenant, an abiding possession, was received from God speaking on Mount Sinai.Bearing children for bondage: just as children of a slave-mother are also slaves. This metaphor is the more easy because the word rendered covenant is feminine. They who accept the Law as the basis of their relation to God, and whose religious life is derived from and determined by it, are children of the Covenant (cp. sons of the Covenant, Acts 3:25) which had its origin at Sinai. And Paul has shown (Galatians 3:10 to Galatians 4:3) that, in consequence of the nature of the covenant then given, such persons are, and must be, in bondage. Thus their position is analogous to that of the boy who, though Abraham’s offspring, yet, because his mother was a servant, was not a sharer of the rights of Abraham’s son. For, the religious life derived from the Law, a life of bondage, was derived from God who gave the Law at Sinai. That Ishmael was not actually a slave, does not weaken this comparison. For, because he was a slave’s child, he could not claim a son’s rights. And this defect of Ishmael, the Jews eagerly asserted. Galatians 4:25. Between readings (1) Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and (2) For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, evidence is almost equally balanced. We find r. 1 in the Vat. and Alex. MSS., the Latin part of the Clermont MS., and the Coptic version; evidence perhaps slightly stronger than that for r. 2, viz. the Sinai and Ephraim MSS., two Greek-Latin uncials, and the Latin Vulgate Version. Uniting these two readings, the later Greek MSS. and the Syriac Version which often accompanies them read (3) for this Hagar is Mount Sinai, etc. Chrysostom read, as the tenor of his exposition proves, this Hagar is Mount Sinai. And existing copies of his exposition read also for this Hagar, etc. But the difference between now and for does not affect his argument. Consequently, in view of the great frequency of this last reading in later copies, we cannot be sure that Chrysostom himself accepted it. It seems to me that the documentary evidence for r. 1 preponderates slightly over that for r. 2. The difference is only three Greek letters, which must have been wrongly either inserted or omitted. Their accidental insertion is perhaps rather the more easy to conceive. For the insertion of Α, making ΓΑΡ into ΑΓΑΡ, might have been suggested by the same word at the end of Gal 4:24 : and the need for a particle would suggest the insertion of ΔΕ. But this possibility only counterbalances the slightly preponderant documentary evidence.Of Critical Editors, Lachmann gives r. 2 in his text, r. 1 in his margin. Tischendorf gave r. 3 in his 7th, and gives r. 2 in his 8th, edition. Tregelles places r. 3 in his text and r. 1 in his margin. Even the joint editors part company here, Westcott preferring r. 2 and Hort r. 1: but, like the R.V., their joint text gives r. 1, with r. 2 in the margin. Amid this conflict of evidence and opinion, I shall further test the readings by endeavouring to expound them. Reading 1. This Hagar: i.e. Hagar looked upon, not as a woman, but simply as an abstract object of thought and comparison. Already Paul has said that one covenant is Hagar. With Hagar he now links in his allegory Mount Sinai, from which (Galatians 4:24) the covenant was received.Is: as in Galatians 4:24 : in the allegory, Hagar and Sinai are the same. To assert this practical identity, is the purpose of Gal 4:25 a.In Arabia; recalls the geographical position of Sinai, where in solitary grandeur, away from the land promised to Abraham, the rugged mountain looks down upon the wilderness home of the children of Hagar. The position of Sinai reveals the appropriateness of the allegory. And this sufficiently accounts for these words, without the exposition of Chrysostom: “The bondwoman was called Hagar; and Mount Sinai is thus interpreted in the language of the locality.” For this last statement we have hardly any confirmatory evidence. Some Arabian tribes bore their mother’s name: e.g. Psalms 83:6; 1 Chronicles 5:10; 1 Chronicles 5:20; Eratosthenes in Strabo bk. xvi. 767. Possibly this tribal name may have been heard by Paul during his sojourn in Arabia, and have suggested the contrast of the sons of Hagar and of Sarah. But even this supposition is needless. We notice, however, that the Epistle which tells of Paul’s journey to Arabia contains this comparison. It may have been suggested by meditations on the spot.Goes in the same line: like soldiers in file. It recalls (Aristotle, Nicom. Ethics bk. i. 6. 7) the Pythagorean Lists of corresponding Opposites. In such a list, Hagar, Ishmael, Sinai, the Old Covenant, the now Jerusalem would stand opposite to Sarah, Isaac, Golgotha, the New Covenant, the Jerusalem above. Paul has just said that in his allegory Hagar, the mother of the alien race, is identical with Mount Sinai whence they who trust in the Law derive their spiritual life. He now takes the allegory a step further by saying that Hagar is in the same line with Jerusalem that now is, or the now Jerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish state and seat of the old Theocracy. This statement, the following words prove. Is in bondage: viz. Jerusalem, as proved by the contrast with Jerusalem above which is free. Moreover, to say that Hagar is in bondage, etc., would merely and needlessly repeat Galatians 4:24 b, and would do nothing to prove that either she or Mount Sinai goes in the same line with the now Jerusalem: whereas, that Jerusalem is in bondage, etc., as practically proved in Galatians 3:23 to Galatians 4:9, places the Mother-City of the Jews in line with Hagar and her banished offspring; which is the chief point of this allegory.With her children: cp. Matthew 23:37 : with those who look up to the old Theocratic state as their political and spiritual mother. For these are under the Law, and therefore (cp. Galatians 3:23 ff) in spiritual bondage; by the very nature of the Theocracy to which they owe their spiritual life.Reading 2 should probably be rendered For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia.It calls attention to the geographical position of Sinai, giving definiteness to our conception of the great mountain and silently reminding us that it was the home of Hagar’s children. Paul then, without further mention of Hagar, says that Sinai belongs to the same category as the present Jerusalem. For this statement, the following proof still holds good: for, that Jerusalem is in bondage with her children, places her in the same line both with the mother of the exiled race and with the mountain in Arabia whence Israel derived its spiritual life. Since it was more important, for Paul’s argument, to place Jerusalem in relation with Hagar, whom all Jews regarded as an alien, as in r. 1, rather than with Sinai, on which all looked with reverence, and since for r. 1 the documentary evidence slightly preponderates, we may perhaps accept it, with the R.V., as slightly the more likely. If we had proof that Sinai was actually called Hagar, we might take Galatians 4:25 a to mean that in Arabia Hagar is a name given to Sinai. But, as we have seen, this is needless for the argument. For, that Mount Sinai is in the land of Hagar’s children, whether or not the mountain bore her name, reveals in clear light the appropriateness of Paul’s allegory.Galatians 4:26. The second of the two Covenants, described in an altered form suggested by the foregoing words.Jerusalem above: or the above Jerusalem. Cp. the heavenly Jerusalem, Hebrews 12:22; the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven, Revelation 21:2; the city having the foundations, Hebrews 11:10; the city to come, Hebrews 13:14. It is the future home of the saved, looked upon as a city and a metropolis. The above different conceptions of it, we may harmonize by conceiving it as already existing in the purpose and forethought of God and influencing the thought and action of men. This city is free, with all that pertains to it. Restraint is needless there, and unknown.Our mother: that city is a mother, and we are her children. For it is the source, by the laws of spiritual generation, of our spiritual life; a life which partakes the nature of its source: in other words, our spiritual life is an outflow of the eternal and divine forces which will find their visible and necessary manifestation in that future city. Moreover, the city will be an integral part of the place of glory where already, surrounded by angels, the Risen Saviour sits enthroned. Therefore, to that future city we already look up as our mother. That city is no mere idea we are endeavouring to realise, and whose realisation is contingent; but actual reality, infinitely more real than the things we see around us. This eternal and spotless City stands in absolute contrast to that towards which the men of the Old Covenant looked up with filial reverence or fanatical devotion. Galatians 4:27. Proof that the Jerusalem above is a mother, and we her children. It is word for word (LXX.) from Isaiah 54:1; and recalls Isaiah 49:17-23; Isaiah 51:17-20; Isaiah 52:1-2; Isaiah 54:4-13; Isaiah 60:4; Isaiah 62:4-5; Isaiah 66:7-8. It is also an outburst of song evoked by this momentary vision of the heavenly city, and suitably clothed in the language of ancient prophecy. Barren: a past state spoken of as if now present, for vivid contrast with the actual present. She that does not bear: an abiding and melancholy characteristic. Burst forth: with joy, as implied by the word rejoice. The Hebrew reads shout for joy… break forth a joyful shout.Does not travail with child: more graphic than does not bear. (Cp. Isaiah 66:7.)Desolate: not only barren but without a husband, in lonely solitude. Yet she has many children, more even than some other woman who with her husband are (in the LXX.) definite objects of the prophet’s thought. After his vision of the smitten Servant of Jehovah, who bore the sin of many, Isaiah bursts into song, in view of the glory which will follow. in this song he bids Jerusalem join, describing her as a woman once without children and even without husband, but now having many sons. For, God (Isaiah 54:5) is her husband: and her sons will be taught by Him and have great peace. The prophet’s words imply sudden and unexpected and great increase of the citizens of the Kingdom of God; and infinite splendour and blessing awaiting them. These words found no adequate fulfilment in the exiles returning from captivity. But Paul had seen thousands of aliens and heathens turning to God, entering by the power of God a new life derived from above, and becoming children of God. And he looked forward to the day when these lately born children of the one Father will tread the streets of that city which from afar Isaiah saw. Already, in the unchangeable purpose of God, and to the eye of faith, the city stands secure in heaven, the eternal home of freedom, its future inhabitants look up to it with longing eyes; and from it derive all their hopes. In this wondrous accession to the people of God Paul sees fulfilled the ancient prophecy: and the vision moves him to re-echo the prophet’s song. The prophecy also justifies his assertion that Jerusalem above is mother of his readers and himself. Whatever may have been Isaiah’s own thought, Paul’s exposition points to the reality which in indistinct and distant outline the prophet saw. His exposition is, therefore, in the highest sense correct. it is reproduced by Justin, 1st Apology, ch. 53. Galatians 4:28. As Galatians 4:27 justified the word mother in Galatians 4:26, so Galatians 4:28 justifies the word our by proving that Paul and his readers are among the children foretold by Isaiah. The reading we or ye is uncertain and unimportant.Like Isaac: on the model of Isaac, our birth corresponding with his. Children of promise: almost the same words in Romans 9:8, proving how familiar to Paul was this thought. it recalls Galatians 4:23 b.Of promise: viz. the Gospel, the instrument by which God brought into being His children in Galatia. Cp. 1 Corinthians 4:15; James 1:18. Now, only in those whom by the Gospel promise God adds to His family does the above-quoted prophecy of Isaiah find fulfilment. Consequently, not only is (Galatians 4:26) the Jerusalem above a mother but she is our mother.Galatians 4:29. A further development of the analogy, a contrast and a comparison.But, or nevertheless: although children of promise, yet, just-as Isaac was then, so we also now are exposed to persecution. Born according to flesh: the point of contrast (Galatians 4:23) with Isaac. According to Spirit; Romans 8:4-5 : the Holy Spirit as a standard determining the manner of birth. For He (John 3:5) is the agent of the new birth: and all His works correspond with His nature. (Notice that whatever comes through belief of a promise is wrought by the Spirit, the divine Agent of all supernatural good.) The word here is suggested by Paul’s constant contrast of flesh and Spirit: Galatians 3:3; Galatians 5:16-17; Galatians 6:8; Romans 8:4. The Hebrew text of Gen 21:9 reads, Sarah saw the son of Hagar… mocking: but the LXX. reads, playing with Isaac her son. Sarah’s demand, made at the festival, implies some aggravation from Ishmael: and her comparison of the two boys suggests that the aggravation was something done to Isaac. And this idea was taken up by Jewish tradition. This ridicule from Ishmael Paul describes, in order to place the Christians of his day in line with Isaac, by the word persecuted, which recalls the many persecutions aroused against Christians by Jews: cp. 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Acts 13:50; Acts 14:5; Acts 14:19. Galatians 4:30. But: or nevertheless, as in Galatians 4:29 : a complete and now triumphant contrast. The words of Sarah, (Genesis 21:10 nearly word for word from the LXX.,) inasmuch as her request was approved by God, are introduced simply as the Scripture says: so Romans 9:17; Romans 10:11; cp. Galatians 3:8; Galatians 3:22. This implies that for Paul the Scripture had the authority of God. He quotes that authority in the literary form in which it lay before him. That Sarah’s petulant request obtained God’s sanction, and that a trifling sport of Ishmael caused his expulsion from Abraham’s home lest his presence should interfere with the unique honour due to Isaac, reveal in clearest light the infinite difference of position between the two sons. This difference gives great force to the contrast in Galatians 4:23-28. The last words of Gal 4:30 are changed from with my son, even with Isaac to with the son of the free woman, to suit Paul’s quotation. The change also places the two mothers in conspicuous contrast, the maid or slave girl and the free woman.Inherit: Genesis 15:3-4; Genesis 15:7-8; Genesis 17:8; receive, in virtue of relation to Abraham, the blessings promised to Abraham’s children. Galatians 4:31. Result, not inference, from Galatians 4:30. [For διο always points back to a cause or motive, of which it introduces an actual or desired result.] Galatians 4:30 embodies an essential principle of the Kingdom of God which found historic expression in the story of the two sons of Abraham, viz. that the blessings of the Kingdom are for the free and for these only, and that freedom or bondage depends upon the source of our spiritual life. For this cause, i.e. that we may obtain the inheritance possessed only by the free, God gave us a spiritual life derived from the Gospel, the mother of freemen, not from the Law which by its nature can produce only slaves. The negative side is put generally: we are not a slave girl’s children, i.e. our relation to Abraham and to God is not derived from a source which involves us in bondage, as the Law would. The positive side is definite, the free woman: for there is only one mother of spiritual freemen. Galatians 5:1. General statement linking the allegory to the general teaching of this Epistle. The transition is indicated by the word Christ, not found in § 18 till now. For freedom: in order that we may enjoy the Gospel freedom.Us: emphatic, revealing our great privilege as compared with others. That we may be free is the aim of (Galatians 4:4) the mission, and (Galatians 3:13) the death, of Christ.Stand then: practical application of Gal 4:1 a, and of the foregoing allegory.Stand: maintain your position of erectness; cp. Romans 11:20; 1 Corinthians 15:1; 2 Corinthians 1:24. It courteously assumes that the readers, although on the eve of falling, have not yet fallen. So Galatians 1:6; Galatians 4:9.Not again: recalls Galatians 4:9, ye wish to be again in bondage.Yoke of bondage: 1 Timothy 6:1; cp. Acts 15:10. It is, like maid in Galatians 4:31, quite general.That Christ has made us free, is a motive for not being again held in anything which destroys Christian freedom. THE of § 18, we will now endeavour to understand as a whole, and to estimate. Paul recognised (Romans 4:11 f) in believers a spiritual offspring of Abraham, in whom, and in them only, will be fulfilled the promises to Abraham and to his seed. Consequently, Abraham has a double offspring, the Jewish nation and the Christian Church, each looking up to him as father, and claiming inheritance through him. The Jewish nation based its claim on ordinary bodily descent: the Christian Church owes its existence to supernatural power working out in those who believe it, a fulfilment of the Gospel promise. And Paul has proved (e.g. Galatians 3:10) that they whose claim rests on bodily descent are outside the blessings promised to Abraham; which are therefore reserved for those who are sons by supernatural birth. All this recalls, and corresponds with, the historical facts of Abraham’s family. For he had two sons, one born according to the ordinary laws of human generation, the other by the extraordinary power of God in one who had believed a promise: and the older was expelled from the home in order that the inheritance might belong only to the younger. Consequently, the Jewish nation and the Christian Church correspond, in these particulars, to Ishmael and Isaac. Nay more. The Jewish nation owes its spiritual life to the Covenant received from Sinai, a covenant which from its nature can produce only bondmen. For, as Paul has proved, a spiritual life derived from law is helpless bondage. Consequently, Mount Sinai may be called the mother of Judaism, a mother whose children are slaves: and Paul remembers that she raises her rugged head amid the scattered and disinherited sons of Hagar. Again, for many long centuries the Jewish nation had been looking up to Jerusalem as its mother-city. And this ancient city gives form, not merely to the visions of the old prophets, but to the hopes of the Christian Church. Even to this day we sing of “Jerusalem the golden:” and its foreseen glory and rest have been to Christians in all ages a refuge from fiercest storms. But the city we look for is above. And though actually a place of the future, it is nevertheless the birthplace of our present spiritual life, our home, and our mother. That City and her children, wherever they be, are essentially and for ever free. The wonderful and unexpected increase of her children in Paul’s day was the beginning of the fulfilment, of the only worthy fulfilment, of the glorious visions of Isaiah. The Jerusalem above is, therefore, the city he beheld. This close parallel, like the similar argument in Romans 9:7-9, overthrows completely the claims of the Jewish disturbers in Galatia. For their relation to Abraham is simply that of Hagar’s descendants. And this reply is made the more crushing by the geographical position of the mountain whence they received the Law in which they trust. The worthlessness of such claims is revealed by the expulsion from Abraham’s home, at the bidding of the mother of the true seed, of Hagar and her son. So far then this historical comparison serves well a legitimate purpose. But this is not all. Under this apparently accidental coincidence lie important and eternal truths. Paul has taught (Galatians 3:22-24) that the Law is a necessary preparation for the Gospel. Consequently, the Jewish nation and the Christian Church represent two stages in the development of the kingdom of God, and indeed two stages in the spiritual history of every Christian.And we cannot doubt that the sequence of events was controlled by God to embody in historic form great spiritual realities. Already in Romans 4:10 ff, we have seen the significance of God’s Covenant with Abraham, immediately after his faith and many years before the command to circumcise. Similarly, the long delay in the birth of Isaac is analogous to the delay in the mission of the divine Son into the world. And, without assuming any sanction of God for Abraham’s relation to Hagar, we may yet believe that the two sons of Abraham were designed by God to prefigure, even in the order of their birth the spiritual offspring of the two Covenants of God with man. In other words, abiding truths find expression in historical facts. And this involves the deeper truth that throughout the universe of God great and broad principles find various embodiments, sometimes in trifling details, which details frequently become valuable indications and memorials of the principles they embody. Probably the above argument was due to Paul’s Rabbinical training. And it is an example of the one good element of this training, viz. careful sifting of the spiritual significance of the details of Holy Scripture. Paul’s use of Scripture assumes its historic truthfulness; and rests on broad principles already and independently proved to be true. Moreover, both here and else. where, he points to a correspondence which bears on its face the mark, not of accident, but of divine purpose. SECTION 18. — THE OF BONDAGE AND OF FREEDOM. CH. 4:21-5:1.Tell me, ye who wish to be under law, do ye not hear the Law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the maid and one by the free woman. Yet he by the maid was born according to flesh: but he by the free woman, through promise. Which things contain an allegory. For these women are two covenants; one from Mount Sinai bearing children for bondage, which is Hagar. Now this Hagar: Mount Sinai in Arabia; and stands in line with the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother. For it is written, “Rejoice, barren one that bearest not; burst forth and shout, thou that dost not travail in birth. For many are the children of the desolate woman, more than of her who has the husband.” (Isaiah 54:1). And we, brethren, like Isaac are children of promise. But just as then he that was born according to flesh was persecuting him born according to Spirit, so also now. So But what says the Scripture? “Cast out the maid and her son: for the son of the maid shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” (Genesis 21:10.) For which cause, brethren, we are not children of a maid but of the free woman. For freedom, Christ has made us free. Stand then, and be not again held fast by a yoke of bondage.Another appeal, an argument based upon facts recorded in the Book of the Law taken in connection with the teaching in Galatians 3:23; Galatians 4:1-3 that all who are under law are in bondage.Galatians 4:21. Law: the general principle, Do this and live.Under law: as in Galatians 4:4; Romans 6:14.Wish to be under law; describes suitably an apostacy now going on, as do the present tenses in Galatians 1:6; Galatians 4:9; Galatians 5:3-4; Galatians 6:12-13. They desire to have as the basis of their relation to God, and as the means of obtaining His favour, a prescribed rule of conduct, viz. the rule embodied in the five Books of Moses: i.e. practically, they wish to stand, or rather to lie in helpless bondage, under the authority of law.Hear the Law: cp. Romans 2:13, John 12:34. It recalls vividly the public reading in the synagogues, when this was, for Jews and proselytes, the chief means of acquaintance with the Jewish Scriptures.Paul asks of those who wish to be under a prescribed rule, Do you not hear what is said by those Books which are an authoritative embodiment of such rule? Galatians 4:22-23. The foregoing question will now be justified by a fact about Abraham recorded in the Books of the Law. Two sons; prepares us for a difference between them. Maid: same word in Genesis 16:1; Genesis 16:3; Genesis 16:5 f, Genesis 16:8; Genesis 21:10; Genesis 21:12 f; Matthew 26:69; Acts 12:13; Acts 16:16 : in N. T. always a maid-servant, but not so Rth 4:12. The word free implies that here the maid was a slave. Abraham had one son by the well-known maid-servant, and one by the well-known free woman.According to flesh: the process of birth corresponding to the constitution of human or animal bodies. This reminds us that Ishmael stood to Abraham in the same relation as the Jews of Paul’s day, viz. that of natural descent. This is embodied in the argument of Rom 9:8. [The Greek perfect tense intimates that the birth of Ishmael according to flesh has abiding significance. So 1 Corinthians 15:4; 1 Corinthians 15:14; 1 Corinthians 15:27. In reference to events so definite, the English language, which has no tense corresponding to the Greek perfect, uses the preterite, was born.]Through, or by means of, promise. Not only was Isaac’s birth a fulfilment of promise, but the faith elicited by the promise was an essential condition, according to the principles of the kingdom of God, of the putting forth of divine power and of the fulfilment of the promise. Hence the promise was the channel through which the power of God operated, producing first faith, in Abraham, and then the birth of Isaac. Similarly, in the birth of Jesus a promise to Mary was the vehicle through which the Spirit of God operated. ‘Although both were sons of Abraham, yet the offspring of the slave girl was born (and the significance of this fact remains) according to the ordinary laws of human bodies, the offspring of the free woman was produced by the special voice of God, by the word of promise which Abraham believed.’ Galatians 4:24. Which things: or rather, which class of things.Contain an allegory, or are-allegorized: they have another meaning beside the historical one. Same word and tense in Philo, vol. i. p. 143: “The cherubim are, according to one manner, in this way allegorized.” So Clement of Alex., Exhortation ch. xi. “The serpent is allegorized as pleasure, crawling upon its belly, an earthly vice, turning to matter.” That the narratives of Genesis are fact, Paul ever assumes: see my Romans, Diss. iii. He now declares that under the facts (as Philo says of the cherubim) lies spiritual significance. This significance, the rest of Gal 4:24 explains.Are two covenants: cp. 1 Corinthians 11:25. This cup is the New Covenant. In a mutual relation similar to the relation of these two women there actually are two covenants. Therefore, in Paul’s thought, and in objective reality, (for the relationships are real,) the women and the covenants are the same. So the word is, denoting practical identity, in Romans 1:12; Romans 1:16; 1 John 5:3-4; Matthew 13:37-39.The two covenants; recalls 2 Corinthians 3:6, written probably shortly before this letter.Of these two covenants, one is expounded in Galatians 4:24 b, Genesis 4:25; the other, under an altered form of speech, in Galatians 4:26-28. The Old Covenant, an abiding possession, was received from God speaking on Mount Sinai.Bearing children for bondage: just as children of a slave-mother are also slaves. This metaphor is the more easy because the word rendered covenant is feminine. They who accept the Law as the basis of their relation to God, and whose religious life is derived from and determined by it, are children of the Covenant (cp. sons of the Covenant, Acts 3:25) which had its origin at Sinai. And Paul has shown (Galatians 3:10 to Galatians 4:3) that, in consequence of the nature of the covenant then given, such persons are, and must be, in bondage. Thus their position is analogous to that of the boy who, though Abraham’s offspring, yet, because his mother was a servant, was not a sharer of the rights of Abraham’s son. For, the religious life derived from the Law, a life of bondage, was derived from God who gave the Law at Sinai. That Ishmael was not actually a slave, does not weaken this comparison. For, because he was a slave’s child, he could not claim a son’s rights. And this defect of Ishmael, the Jews eagerly asserted. Galatians 4:25. Between readings (1) Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and (2) For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, evidence is almost equally balanced. We find r. 1 in the Vat. and Alex. MSS., the Latin part of the Clermont MS., and the Coptic version; evidence perhaps slightly stronger than that for r. 2, viz. the Sinai and Ephraim MSS., two Greek-Latin uncials, and the Latin Vulgate Version. Uniting these two readings, the later Greek MSS. and the Syriac Version which often accompanies them read (3) for this Hagar is Mount Sinai, etc. Chrysostom read, as the tenor of his exposition proves, this Hagar is Mount Sinai. And existing copies of his exposition read also for this Hagar, etc. But the difference between now and for does not affect his argument. Consequently, in view of the great frequency of this last reading in later copies, we cannot be sure that Chrysostom himself accepted it. It seems to me that the documentary evidence for r. 1 preponderates slightly over that for r. 2. The difference is only three Greek letters, which must have been wrongly either inserted or omitted. Their accidental insertion is perhaps rather the more easy to conceive. For the insertion of Α, making ΓΑΡ into ΑΓΑΡ, might have been suggested by the same word at the end of Gal 4:24 : and the need for a particle would suggest the insertion of ΔΕ. But this possibility only counterbalances the slightly preponderant documentary evidence.Of Critical Editors, Lachmann gives r. 2 in his text, r. 1 in his margin. Tischendorf gave r. 3 in his 7th, and gives r. 2 in his 8th, edition. Tregelles places r. 3 in his text and r. 1 in his margin. Even the joint editors part company here, Westcott preferring r. 2 and Hort r. 1: but, like the R.V., their joint text gives r. 1, with r. 2 in the margin. Amid this conflict of evidence and opinion, I shall further test the readings by endeavouring to expound them. Reading 1. This Hagar: i.e. Hagar looked upon, not as a woman, but simply as an abstract object of thought and comparison. Already Paul has said that one covenant is Hagar. With Hagar he now links in his allegory Mount Sinai, from which (Galatians 4:24) the covenant was received.Is: as in Galatians 4:24 : in the allegory, Hagar and Sinai are the same. To assert this practical identity, is the purpose of Gal 4:25 a.In Arabia; recalls the geographical position of Sinai, where in solitary grandeur, away from the land promised to Abraham, the rugged mountain looks down upon the wilderness home of the children of Hagar. The position of Sinai reveals the appropriateness of the allegory. And this sufficiently accounts for these words, without the exposition of Chrysostom: “The bondwoman was called Hagar; and Mount Sinai is thus interpreted in the language of the locality.” For this last statement we have hardly any confirmatory evidence. Some Arabian tribes bore their mother’s name: e.g. Psalms 83:6; 1 Chronicles 5:10; 1 Chronicles 5:20; Eratosthenes in Strabo bk. xvi. 767. Possibly this tribal name may have been heard by Paul during his sojourn in Arabia, and have suggested the contrast of the sons of Hagar and of Sarah. But even this supposition is needless. We notice, however, that the Epistle which tells of Paul’s journey to Arabia contains this comparison. It may have been suggested by meditations on the spot.Goes in the same line: like soldiers in file. It recalls (Aristotle, Nicom. Ethics bk. i. 6. 7) the Pythagorean Lists of corresponding Opposites. In such a list, Hagar, Ishmael, Sinai, the Old Covenant, the now Jerusalem would stand opposite to Sarah, Isaac, Golgotha, the New Covenant, the Jerusalem above. Paul has just said that in his allegory Hagar, the mother of the alien race, is identical with Mount Sinai whence they who trust in the Law derive their spiritual life. He now takes the allegory a step further by saying that Hagar is in the same line with Jerusalem that now is, or the now Jerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish state and seat of the old Theocracy. This statement, the following words prove. Is in bondage: viz. Jerusalem, as proved by the contrast with Jerusalem above which is free. Moreover, to say that Hagar is in bondage, etc., would merely and needlessly repeat Galatians 4:24 b, and would do nothing to prove that either she or Mount Sinai goes in the same line with the now Jerusalem: whereas, that Jerusalem is in bondage, etc., as practically proved in Galatians 3:23 to Galatians 4:9, places the Mother-City of the Jews in line with Hagar and her banished offspring; which is the chief point of this allegory.With her children: cp. Matthew 23:37 : with those who look up to the old Theocratic state as their political and spiritual mother. For these are under the Law, and therefore (cp. Galatians 3:23 ff) in spiritual bondage; by the very nature of the Theocracy to which they owe their spiritual life.Reading 2 should probably be rendered For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia.It calls attention to the geographical position of Sinai, giving definiteness to our conception of the great mountain and silently reminding us that it was the home of Hagar’s children. Paul then, without further mention of Hagar, says that Sinai belongs to the same category as the present Jerusalem. For this statement, the following proof still holds good: for, that Jerusalem is in bondage with her children, places her in the same line both with the mother of the exiled race and with the mountain in Arabia whence Israel derived its spiritual life. Since it was more important, for Paul’s argument, to place Jerusalem in relation with Hagar, whom all Jews regarded as an alien, as in r. 1, rather than with Sinai, on which all looked with reverence, and since for r. 1 the documentary evidence slightly preponderates, we may perhaps accept it, with the R.V., as slightly the more likely. If we had proof that Sinai was actually called Hagar, we might take Galatians 4:25 a to mean that in Arabia Hagar is a name given to Sinai. But, as we have seen, this is needless for the argument. For, that Mount Sinai is in the land of Hagar’s children, whether or not the mountain bore her name, reveals in clear light the appropriateness of Paul’s allegory.Galatians 4:26. The second of the two Covenants, described in an altered form suggested by the foregoing words.Jerusalem above: or the above Jerusalem. Cp. the heavenly Jerusalem, Hebrews 12:22; the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven, Revelation 21:2; the city having the foundations, Hebrews 11:10; the city to come, Hebrews 13:14. It is the future home of the saved, looked upon as a city and a metropolis. The above different conceptions of it, we may harmonize by conceiving it as already existing in the purpose and forethought of God and influencing the thought and action of men. This city is free, with all that pertains to it. Restraint is needless there, and unknown.Our mother: that city is a mother, and we are her children. For it is the source, by the laws of spiritual generation, of our spiritual life; a life which partakes the nature of its source: in other words, our spiritual life is an outflow of the eternal and divine forces which will find their visible and necessary manifestation in that future city. Moreover, the city will be an integral part of the place of glory where already, surrounded by angels, the Risen Saviour sits enthroned. Therefore, to that future city we already look up as our mother. That city is no mere idea we are endeavouring to realise, and whose realisation is contingent; but actual reality, infinitely more real than the things we see around us. This eternal and spotless City stands in absolute contrast to that towards which the men of the Old Covenant looked up with filial reverence or fanatical devotion. Galatians 4:27. Proof that the Jerusalem above is a mother, and we her children. It is word for word (LXX.) from Isaiah 54:1; and recalls Isaiah 49:17-23; Isaiah 51:17-20; Isaiah 52:1-2; Isaiah 54:4-13; Isaiah 60:4; Isaiah 62:4-5; Isaiah 66:7-8. It is also an outburst of song evoked by this momentary vision of the heavenly city, and suitably clothed in the language of ancient prophecy. Barren: a past state spoken of as if now present, for vivid contrast with the actual present. She that does not bear: an abiding and melancholy characteristic. Burst forth: with joy, as implied by the word rejoice. The Hebrew reads shout for joy… break forth a joyful shout.Does not travail with child: more graphic than does not bear. (Cp. Isaiah 66:7.)Desolate: not only barren but without a husband, in lonely solitude. Yet she has many children, more even than some other woman who with her husband are (in the LXX.) definite objects of the prophet’s thought. After his vision of the smitten Servant of Jehovah, who bore the sin of many, Isaiah bursts into song, in view of the glory which will follow. in this song he bids Jerusalem join, describing her as a woman once without children and even without husband, but now having many sons. For, God (Isaiah 54:5) is her husband: and her sons will be taught by Him and have great peace. The prophet’s words imply sudden and unexpected and great increase of the citizens of the Kingdom of God; and infinite splendour and blessing awaiting them. These words found no adequate fulfilment in the exiles returning from captivity. But Paul had seen thousands of aliens and heathens turning to God, entering by the power of God a new life derived from above, and becoming children of God. And he looked forward to the day when these lately born children of the one Father will tread the streets of that city which from afar Isaiah saw. Already, in the unchangeable purpose of God, and to the eye of faith, the city stands secure in heaven, the eternal home of freedom, its future inhabitants look up to it with longing eyes; and from it derive all their hopes. In this wondrous accession to the people of God Paul sees fulfilled the ancient prophecy: and the vision moves him to re-echo the prophet’s song. The prophecy also justifies his assertion that Jerusalem above is mother of his readers and himself. Whatever may have been Isaiah’s own thought, Paul’s exposition points to the reality which in indistinct and distant outline the prophet saw. His exposition is, therefore, in the highest sense correct. it is reproduced by Justin, 1st Apology, ch. 53. Galatians 4:28. As Galatians 4:27 justified the word mother in Galatians 4:26, so Galatians 4:28 justifies the word our by proving that Paul and his readers are among the children foretold by Isaiah. The reading we or ye is uncertain and unimportant.Like Isaac: on the model of Isaac, our birth corresponding with his. Children of promise: almost the same words in Romans 9:8, proving how familiar to Paul was this thought. it recalls Galatians 4:23 b.Of promise: viz. the Gospel, the instrument by which God brought into being His children in Galatia. Cp. 1 Corinthians 4:15; James 1:18. Now, only in those whom by the Gospel promise God adds to His family does the above-quoted prophecy of Isaiah find fulfilment. Consequently, not only is (Galatians 4:26) the Jerusalem above a mother but she is our mother.Galatians 4:29. A further development of the analogy, a contrast and a comparison.But, or nevertheless: although children of promise, yet, just-as Isaac was then, so we also now are exposed to persecution. Born according to flesh: the point of contrast (Galatians 4:23) with Isaac. According to Spirit; Romans 8:4-5 : the Holy Spirit as a standard determining the manner of birth. For He (John 3:5) is the agent of the new birth: and all His works correspond with His nature. (Notice that whatever comes through belief of a promise is wrought by the Spirit, the divine Agent of all supernatural good.) The word here is suggested by Paul’s constant contrast of flesh and Spirit: Galatians 3:3; Galatians 5:16-17; Galatians 6:8; Romans 8:4. The Hebrew text of Gen 21:9 reads, Sarah saw the son of Hagar… mocking: but the LXX. reads, playing with Isaac her son. Sarah’s demand, made at the festival, implies some aggravation from Ishmael: and her comparison of the two boys suggests that the aggravation was something done to Isaac. And this idea was taken up by Jewish tradition. This ridicule from Ishmael Paul describes, in order to place the Christians of his day in line with Isaac, by the word persecuted, which recalls the many persecutions aroused against Christians by Jews: cp. 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Acts 13:50; Acts 14:5; Acts 14:19. Galatians 4:30. But: or nevertheless, as in Galatians 4:29 : a complete and now triumphant contrast. The words of Sarah, (Genesis 21:10 nearly word for word from the LXX.,) inasmuch as her request was approved by God, are introduced simply as the Scripture says: so Romans 9:17; Romans 10:11; cp. Galatians 3:8; Galatians 3:22. This implies that for Paul the Scripture had the authority of God. He quotes that authority in the literary form in which it lay before him. That Sarah’s petulant request obtained God’s sanction, and that a trifling sport of Ishmael caused his expulsion from Abraham’s home lest his presence should interfere with the unique honour due to Isaac, reveal in clearest light the infinite difference of position between the two sons. This difference gives great force to the contrast in Galatians 4:23-28. The last words of Gal 4:30 are changed from with my son, even with Isaac to with the son of the free woman, to suit Paul’s quotation. The change also places the two mothers in conspicuous contrast, the maid or slave girl and the free woman.Inherit: Genesis 15:3-4; Genesis 15:7-8; Genesis 17:8; receive, in virtue of relation to Abraham, the blessings promised to Abraham’s children. Galatians 4:31. Result, not inference, from Galatians 4:30. [For διο always points back to a cause or motive, of which it introduces an actual or desired result.] Galatians 4:30 embodies an essential principle of the Kingdom of God which found historic expression in the story of the two sons of Abraham, viz. that the blessings of the Kingdom are for the free and for these only, and that freedom or bondage depends upon the source of our spiritual life. For this cause, i.e. that we may obtain the inheritance possessed only by the free, God gave us a spiritual life derived from the Gospel, the mother of freemen, not from the Law which by its nature can produce only slaves. The negative side is put generally: we are not a slave girl’s children, i.e. our relation to Abraham and to God is not derived from a source which involves us in bondage, as the Law would. The positive side is definite, the free woman: for there is only one mother of spiritual freemen. Galatians 5:1. General statement linking the allegory to the general teaching of this Epistle. The transition is indicated by the word Christ, not found in § 18 till now. For freedom: in order that we may enjoy the Gospel freedom.Us: emphatic, revealing our great privilege as compared with others. That we may be free is the aim of (Galatians 4:4) the mission, and (Galatians 3:13) the death, of Christ.Stand then: practical application of Gal 4:1 a, and of the foregoing allegory.Stand: maintain your position of erectness; cp. Romans 11:20; 1 Corinthians 15:1; 2 Corinthians 1:24. It courteously assumes that the readers, although on the eve of falling, have not yet fallen. So Galatians 1:6; Galatians 4:9.Not again: recalls Galatians 4:9, ye wish to be again in bondage.Yoke of bondage: 1 Timothy 6:1; cp. Acts 15:10. It is, like maid in Galatians 4:31, quite general.That Christ has made us free, is a motive for not being again held in anything which destroys Christian freedom. THE of § 18, we will now endeavour to understand as a whole, and to estimate. Paul recognised (Romans 4:11 f) in believers a spiritual offspring of Abraham, in whom, and in them only, will be fulfilled the promises to Abraham and to his seed. Consequently, Abraham has a double offspring, the Jewish nation and the Christian Church, each looking up to him as father, and claiming inheritance through him. The Jewish nation based its claim on ordinary bodily descent: the Christian Church owes its existence to supernatural power working out in those who believe it, a fulfilment of the Gospel promise. And Paul has proved (e.g. Galatians 3:10) that they whose claim rests on bodily descent are outside the blessings promised to Abraham; which are therefore reserved for those who are sons by supernatural birth. All this recalls, and corresponds with, the historical facts of Abraham’s family. For he had two sons, one born according to the ordinary laws of human generation, the other by the extraordinary power of God in one who had believed a promise: and the older was expelled from the home in order that the inheritance might belong only to the younger. Consequently, the Jewish nation and the Christian Church correspond, in these particulars, to Ishmael and Isaac. Nay more. The Jewish nation owes its spiritual life to the Covenant received from Sinai, a covenant which from its nature can produce only bondmen. For, as Paul has proved, a spiritual life derived from law is helpless bondage. Consequently, Mount Sinai may be called the mother of Judaism, a mother whose children are slaves: and Paul remembers that she raises her rugged head amid the scattered and disinherited sons of Hagar. Again, for many long centuries the Jewish nation had been looking up to Jerusalem as its mother-city. And this ancient city gives form, not merely to the visions of the old prophets, but to the hopes of the Christian Church. Even to this day we sing of “Jerusalem the golden:” and its foreseen glory and rest have been to Christians in all ages a refuge from fiercest storms. But the city we look for is above. And though actually a place of the future, it is nevertheless the birthplace of our present spiritual life, our home, and our mother. That City and her children, wherever they be, are essentially and for ever free. The wonderful and unexpected increase of her children in Paul’s day was the beginning of the fulfilment, of the only worthy fulfilment, of the glorious visions of Isaiah. The Jerusalem above is, therefore, the city he beheld. This close parallel, like the similar argument in Romans 9:7-9, overthrows completely the claims of the Jewish disturbers in Galatia. For their relation to Abraham is simply that of Hagar’s descendants. And this reply is made the more crushing by the geographical position of the mountain whence they received the Law in which they trust. The worthlessness of such claims is revealed by the expulsion from Abraham’s home, at the bidding of the mother of the true seed, of Hagar and her son. So far then this historical comparison serves well a legitimate purpose. But this is not all. Under this apparently accidental coincidence lie important and eternal truths. Paul has taught (Galatians 3:22-24) that the Law is a necessary preparation for the Gospel. Consequently, the Jewish nation and the Christian Church represent two stages in the development of the kingdom of God, and indeed two stages in the spiritual history of every Christian.And we cannot doubt that the sequence of events was controlled by God to embody in historic form great spiritual realities. Already in Romans 4:10 ff, we have seen the significance of God’s Covenant with Abraham, immediately after his faith and many years before the command to circumcise. Similarly, the long delay in the birth of Isaac is analogous to the delay in the mission of the divine Son into the world. And, without assuming any sanction of God for Abraham’s relation to Hagar, we may yet believe that the two sons of Abraham were designed by God to prefigure, even in the order of their birth the spiritual offspring of the two Covenants of God with man. In other words, abiding truths find expression in historical facts. And this involves the deeper truth that throughout the universe of God great and broad principles find various embodiments, sometimes in trifling details, which details frequently become valuable indications and memorials of the principles they embody. Probably the above argument was due to Paul’s Rabbinical training. And it is an example of the one good element of this training, viz. careful sifting of the spiritual significance of the details of Holy Scripture. Paul’s use of Scripture assumes its historic truthfulness; and rests on broad principles already and independently proved to be true. Moreover, both here and else. where, he points to a correspondence which bears on its face the mark, not of accident, but of divine purpose. SECTION 19. — TO RECEIVE , IS TO REJECT CHRIST. CH. 5:2-13A. Behold I Paul say to you that if ye receive circumcision Christ will profit you nothing. And I protest again to every man receiving circumcision that he is a debtor to do the whole Law. Ye have been severed from Christ, whoever of you are being justified in law: from His grace ye have fallen away. For we, by the Spirit, through faith are eagerly waiting for a hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision but faith working through love. Ye were running nobly. Who hindered you that ye should not obey the truth? The persuasion is not from Him that calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I am confident about you in the Lord that ye will be no otherwise minded. And he that disturbs you will bear the judgment, whoever he be. But I brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then, of no effect has the snare of the cross become. Would that they who unsettle you would even mutilate themselves. For ye were called for freedom, Brethren. Galatians 5:2-6 bring the argument of DIV. II., which has been in part summed up in the allegory of § 18, to bear on the matter of circumcision. This practical application betrays a chief point in the teaching Paul combats in this Epistle, viz. that all Christians ought to be circumcised. So Galatians 6:12 : cp. Acts 15:1; Acts 15:5. Then follow in Galatians 5:7-12 sundry appeals. I Paul: the personal influence of the Apostle brought to bear on the matter in hand. So 2 Corinthians 10:1.: now first mentioned. But its casual appearance here without explanation, and again in Galatians 6:12, suggests that it has been in view throughout the Epistle. It was the outward and visible gate into the bondage of the Jewish Law. Circumcision was prescribed by God to Abraham (Genesis 17:10) some fourteen or more years after by faith he obtained (Genesis 15:18) the Covenant, as a token (Genesis 17:11; Romans 4:11) and condition of it. As a rite, it was in some sense a forerunner of the Mosaic ritual: but, as a simple command easily and fully obeyed, it differed altogether from the many-sided Law, to which none could render due obedience. The rite seems (so Joshua 5:5) to have been carefully observed by Israel in Egypt: for we have no hint of a great circumcising at the Exodus. Cp. Exodus 4:25. Once (Exodus 12:48) it is assumed, and once (Leviticus 12:3) expressly though casually enjoined in the Law. Yet, strangely, it was not performed in the wilderness; but was restored (Joshua 5:3; Joshua 5:8) at the entrance into Canaan. In the O.T. the word circumcise is found again only in Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 9:25, in a spiritual significance. But the common use(Judges 14:3; Judges 15:18; 1 Samuel 14:6; 1 Samuel 17:26; 1 Samuel 17:36; 1 Samuel 18:25; 1 Samuel 18:27; 1 Samuel 31:4, 2 Samuel 1:20; 2 Samuel 3:14) of the word uncircumcised to distinguish the Philistines from Israel proves that in Israel the practice was universal. Practically, circumcision was a part of the Law of Moses, and was the initial rite of the Old Covenant.If ye-receive-circumcision: not, if ye have already been circumcised, as though past circumcision were a final bar to future salvation; but, if ye are now undergoing circumcision, ye thereby deliberately reject the blessings brought by Christ. [The present subjunctive limits the assertion to the time during which the process of circumcision is going on; this being extended by implication so long as the persons concerned continue in the same mind. Subsequent repentance would remove them from under this tremendous condemnation. But this, Paul leaves now out of sight.] This word implies (so Galatians 6:12) that the Galatian Christians, though already observing sacred days, were as yet only contemplating circumcision. Hence the earnestness of Paul’s appeal.Profit you nothing: cp. Romans 2:25; Romans 3:1; 1 Corinthians 13:3; 1 Corinthians 14:6; 1 Corinthians 15:32; Hebrews 4:2; Hebrews 13:9; James 2:14; James 2:16. They will have no part in the infinite gain bought for men by the precious blood of Christ. This statement will be proved in Galatians 5:3-4. And if we receive no gain from Christ, through whom are all things, ( 1 Corinthians 8:6,) we are poor indeed.Galatians 5:3. Protest: literally call upon some one, especially God, as witness in our favour. It introduces a solemn assertion, as if made in the presence of God. Same word in N.T. only in Ephesians 4:17; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; Acts 20:26; Acts 26:22. That all these are from the pen or lips of Paul, is a remarkable coincidence. If on his second visit to Galatia he had made a similar protest, to this the word again would naturally refer. But this supposition is by no means necessary. For Galatians 5:3 is a repetition in stronger language of Gal 5:2.Debtor to do the whole Law, implies, as Galatians 5:4 will show, that Christ will profit you nothing: and every one receiving circumcision includes if ye receive circumcision. This solemn repetition reveals how terrible is the consequence here deprecated. And we can understand it. For, the only reason for circumcision was its prescription in the Law: cp. John 7:23. Therefore, to undergo it, was to admit that the Law was still binding; and, if so, it was binding as a condition of the favour of God. Hence to undergo circumcision was (Galatians 5:4) to seek to be justified in law. But, His favour, none can obtain by law. For none can render to the Law the obedience it requires. Consequently, the continued validity of the Law involves a universal curse Now, from this curse Christ died to save us. Therefore, to maintain, by undergoing circumcision, a Christian’s obligation to keep the whole Law, is to reject the benefits of the death of Christ.Galatians 5:4. Severed: so removed from Christ that in them He will produce no results. Same phrase in same sense in Romans 7:2; Romans 7:6 : same word in Romans 3:3; Romans 3:31; Galatians 3:17; Galatians 5:11. It states a fact which justifies the assertion Christ will profit you nothing, in a form suggesting that the cause is in themselves and not in Christ.Justified in law: the Mosaic Law, but looked at in the abstract as a rule of conduct, and as a surrounding element in which they receive justification. See under Galatians 3:11.Are-being-justified: the process now, from their point of view, actually going on. But it can never be completed: Galatians 3:11; Romans 3:20. See note under Romans 2:4. It is practically the same as seeking justification in law; but is more forcefully represented. Although actual justification in law is impossible, the mere beginning of the fruitless process, as Paul’s readers by their observance (Galatians 4:10) of days and seasons had already begun it, had actually separated them from the influences proceeding from the cross of Christ.From His grace: literally, from the grace; of God (Galatians 2:21) and (Galatians 1:6) of Christ. This undeserved favour is the source of all spiritual good, and especially of the profit which comes through Christ. Justification in law is (Romans 4:4) essentially by merit; and thus excludes the free undeserved favour which comes through Christ.Fallen-away, or fallen-out, from: James 1:11, 2 Peter 3:17. It is the exact opposite of stand in this grace, Romans 5:1; and suggests complete removal and lower position. [The Revisers’ rendering, are severed, are fallen, confuses needlessly the Greek perfect and aorist. The aorist merely records a past event, without thought of its results, and may be accurately rendered have been separated, have fallen.]By preparing to be circumcised, the Galatian Christians were entering a process of justification in law, i.e. of justification by obeying the prescriptions of the Law of Moses. They thus acknowledged that in order to enjoy the favour of God they were bound to keep the whole Law: for the whole was given by the same authority. But Christ died in order that upon men who have broken the Law may come the undeserved favour of God. Consequently, to receive circumcision was to place oneself beyond the benefits which proceed from Christ, to abandon the lofty position in the favour of God enjoyed by those who believe the Gospel. Galatians 5:5. We: very emphatic, contrasting the spiritual position of Paul and those like him with that of his readers. This contrast proves how far they have fallen.The Spirit: of God: for this can be no other than the Spirit received through faith in Galatians 3:2; Galatians 3:14; cp. Galatians 4:6. He is looked at here not as a definite person but in the abstract as an animating principle. By Him was prompted this eager-waiting: same word in Romans 8:19; Romans 8:23; Romans 8:25; 1 Corinthians 1:7; Philippians 3:20; Hebrews 9:28. Through faith: subjective source of the eager waiting, and (Galatians 3:2; Galatians 3:14) of the Holy Spirit who prompts it. For (Romans 5:1 f) by faith… we rejoice in hope. Since hope is a stretching forward to good things to come, it is here used objectively as itself to come. So Titus 2:13, looking for the blessed hope and the appearance, etc.; Acts 24:15; Colossians 1:5, the hope laid up for us in heaven.Hope of righteousness: a hope which belongs to, and goes along with, righteousness; cp. Ephesians 4:4; Colossians 1:23. Grammatically, righteousness might be the object hoped for. But this is unlikely. For, with Paul, the righteousness of faith is always (cp. Romans 9:30; 1 Corinthians 1:30) a present blessing; even though righteousness, in another sense, viz. the eternal principle of right doing, be still (1 Timothy 6:11; 2 Timothy 2:22) a matter of pursuit. And, if righteousness were the object hoped for, it would be clumsy to represent this hope as itself eagerly waited for.No: Paul waits ( 2 Timothy 4:8) for the crown of righteousness, the eternal reward which belongs to the righteous: and for the realisation of this hope he eagerly longs.Righteousness: as in Romans 4:11; Romans 4:13; Romans 9:30; Romans 10:4 : the position or condition of one whom the judge approves. Of God’s approval, obtained by faith, right doing is a result. This close connection causes occasional ambiguity in the use of the word. Righteousness is the link between our faith and the Spirit who prompts our Hope. By faith we obtain the approbation of the Judge: and in token thereof God gives us the Holy Spirit, who moves us to wait eagerly for the fulfilment of the visions of future blessing opened to our view by His approbation.Galatians 5:6. A general and contrasted statement, supporting the word faith in Galatians 5:5, and concluding the application to circumcision in Galatians 5:2-4 of the argument of DIV. II.In Christ: the all surrounding, and yet personal, element of the new life: as in Galatians 2:4; Galatians 3:14; Galatians 3:26; Galatians 3:28; 2 Corinthians 5:17.Avails anything: literally has any strength, i.e. is able to produce results. Neither circumcision… nor uncircumcision: cp. Galatians 6:15; 1 Corinthians 7:19. Therefore, circumcision neither helps nor hinders life in Christ. This is an express abrogation of the covenant with Abraham, of which (cp. Genesis 17:10-14) circumcision was an absolute condition. Similarly, Christ abrogated the Mosaic Law: Mark 7:15-19; cp. Leviticus 11:42-45.But faith: avails everything, as proved in the argument of Gal 3:1-14, and implied in Galatians 5:5.Working: producing results, an illustration and proof of the validity of faith. Love; to our fellows, as in Galatians 5:13; its usual sense when not further qualified. So 1 Corinthians 8:1; 1 Corinthians 13:1 ff. It is a principle prompting us to draw others to ourselves, that their interests may become ours. This is the direction of the working of faith; which produces love and through love other results. For saving faith is an active principle moulding conduct and character. Cp. 1 Thessalonians 1:3. It does this (Galatians 5:22) through the Holy Spirit given (Galatians 3:2; Galatians 3:14) to those who believe. That faith produces results which all must approve, reveals its superiority to circumcision; and thus strengthens the contrast here asserted. This reference to love as an effect of faith prepares the way to Galatians 5:13-15; as does the word Spirit in Galatians 5:5 to Galatians 5:16-26. Paul thus approaches the moral teaching of DIV. III.Notice in Galatians 5:5-6 faith, hope, and love; and in the same order as 1 Corinthians 13:13.This description of spiritual life proves how great is the profit through Christ lost by those who undergo circumcision in order to obtain justification in the Mosaic Law. Galatians 5:7-13 a. Sundry direct appeals against the teaching of the disturbers, concluding DIV. II.Ye-were-running: in the Christian racecourse, recalling the metaphor of 1 Corinthians 9:24 : cp. Galatians 2:2. Nobly: same word in Galatians 4:17. Hindered: as if by breaking up the path.You: emphatic. So good was their beginning that Paul asks who (cp. Galatians 3:1) has stopped them by breaking up the path along which they were running so well.Obey: literally be-persuaded-by; the obedience of persuasion. Same word in Romans 2:8; Hebrews 13:17; James 3:3; Acts 5:36 f, Acts 5:40; Acts 21:14; Acts 23:21; Acts 28:24.Obey truth: yield to the persuasive influence of the Gospel, this looked upon in its general character as corresponding with eternal reality. The article before truth is omitted in Vat., Sinai, Alex. MSS.; and by all editors later than Lachmann: but is found in almost all other MSS. Its insertion is so easy, its omission so difficult, to explain, that we may accept with some confidence the testimony of the oldest copies. That ye should not obey truth: actual result, and therefore represented as the purpose, of the hindrance. Persuasion: a word similar in form to that rendered obey; and suggested by it. Grammatically, it might denote either a persuasive influence, or surrender to such. Probably, the former here. For this is an answer to the question in Galatians 5:7 about the source of the disobedience. They refused to be persuaded by Truth because they had yielded to another persuasion. Close parallel in Romans 2:8. But the difference is very slight. For, passive surrender implies active persuasion. The influence to which they yielded is not from Him that calls you: i.e. God, as in Galatians 1:6. The present tense implies that the Gospel voice is still sounding. Galatians 1:6 refers to a voice heard in days gone by. Galatians 5:9. Word for word as in 1 Corinthians 5:6 : see note. This suggests that it was a common proverb. Its application was so evident that Paul did not expound it. This proverb is in some sense a positive answer to Galatians 5:7. For it suggests that the source of the persuasion was small either in the number of the false teachers or in the apparent unimportance of their error. The latter is perhaps the more likely reference: for the importance of doctrine is more often overlooked than that of a few false teachers. In all ages, differences of doctrine have been held to be unimportant: whereas the influence of even one man has been felt to be great. The proverb also suggests that the result would be, as of many little things, silent, unobserved, yet pervasive and great. For the unseen leaven changes completely the nature of the whole lump. Paul thus calls attention, as does his protest in Galatians 5:3, to the importance of what seemed to the Galatians a small matter.Galatians 5:10. I: emphatic contrast. After speaking of the obedient persuasion his readers refuse to the Truth and of the persuasion which does not come from Him that calls them, Paul gives his own persuasion about the Galatian Christians. In the Lord: Romans 14:14; Philippians 1:14; Philippians 2:24; 2 Thessalonians 3:4. His confidence comes from union with the Master, and has Him for its surrounding element. Minded: same word in Romans 8:5, (see note,) and Philippians 1:7; Philippians 2:2; Philippians 2:5; Philippians 3:15. No otherwise minded: than Paul has just stated. He has a confidence about them which he feels to be an outflow of Christian life that, when they receive this letter, they will share his alarm about the influence of a little leaven and will recognise in the teaching of the disturbers an influence to be feared. This reveals Paul’s confidence that this letter will have its designed salutary effect. It is almost the only gleam of light in the Epistle. He that disturbs you: hardly sufficient (in the absence of any other indication: contrast Galatians 5:12; Galatians 1:7; Galatians 6:12) to suggest one specially prominent man. Rather, Paul singles out any individual disturber who comes across his path and speaks of him personally.Bear the judgment: the sentence which will be pronounced upon disturbers, this looked upon as a heavy burden, Notice that, as in 2 Corinthians 10:2; 2 Corinthians 10:6, etc., Paul distinguishes his readers, to whom he speaks and for whom he has hopes, from the disturbers, about whom he writes but to whom he says nothing, thus indicating that for them he has no hope.Galatians 5:11. An abrupt question, which can be explained only as being a reply to a charge or insinuation, against Paul, of inconsistency. It is to us obscure because we do not know the charge which provoked it.But I: emphatic, in contrast to he that disturbs.Still preach: as before his conversion. For circumcision was an essential element of that Judaism which Paul then so eagerly advocated. Why still? logical consequence; why do they go on persecuting me? This question implies that the chief ground of the hostility of Paul’s enemies was his denial that circumcision was binding on Gentiles. And naturally so. For they saw that this denial broke down the spiritual prerogative and monopoly which the Old Covenant gave to the Jewish nation. Made-of-no-effect: shorn of results, as in Galatians 3:17.Then (or if so) is made, etc.: correct inference from a false premiss, if I still preach circumcision; revealing its falsity: cp. 1 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Corinthians 7:14; 1 Corinthians 15:14; 1 Corinthians 15:18. The snare of the cross: close coincidence with 1 Corinthians 1:23. The crucifixion of Christ led many to reject Him. It was therefore a trap in which they were caught. But Paul declares that if, while preaching the word of the cross, he still preaches the necessity of circumcision, then has the cross lost its power to hinder the faith of the Jews; in other words, that, if the shameful death of Christ is not inconsistent with the continued obligation of circumcision, i.e. with the continued prerogatives of Israel, it is no longer a difficulty to them. This implies that fear of the loss of spiritual pre-eminence lay at the root of that Jewish hatred to Jesus which took the form of bitter ridicule cast upon the mode of His death, a ridicule still recorded abundantly on the pages of ancient Jewish writers. Paul thus silently uncovers the wounded national pride which hid itself under the veil of refusal to believe in a crucified Messiah. His readers would understand the reference. See further under Galatians 6:12.Galatians 5:12. A mere passing wish. The almost unknown Greek construction rather suggests that the wish will not be gratified.Even; introduces a very extreme wish. Mutilate themselves, or cut themselves off: used in the former sense, without any further explanation, in Deuteronomy 23:1 and Strabo, bk. xiii. p. 630, and Justin, 1st Apology ch. 27, “Some men mutilate themselves; and ascribe the mysteries to the mother of the gods,” i.e. to the goddess Cybele. This meaning is adopted here without question by Chrysostom and most Fathers. And it alone suits the extreme and unpractical form of this wish. Merely to desire the disturbers to leave the Church, would be an ordinary and moderate wish; and could not have been expressed in so remarkable a form. Of course, separation from the Church is included in Paul’s desire. But this would follow at once from heathen mutilation. Self-mutilation in honour of Cybele was practised at Pessinus in Galatia, which was indeed a chief seat of her worship. Paul wishes for a moment that the disturbers would go so far as to join the ranks of the heathen devotees around them. He thus compares circumcision with idolatrous mutilation. And rightly. For, although once commanded by God as a sign of His Covenant, yet to do it when no longer required, was but to imitate the needless self-inflictions of heathenism. Unsettle: same word in Acts 17:6; Acts 21:38.Galatians 5:13 a. A link binding § 19 to § 18, bringing Paul’s teaching about freedom to bear on the matter of circumcision; and a stepping stone to the moral teaching of § 20.For ye: in marked contrast to they that unsettle you. The purpose of the Gospel summons is that we may become and continue free. But the Law brings bondage to all who trust in it. From this bondage Christ died to save us. Therefore Paul is prompted to wish for a moment that they who are causing confusion by endeavouring to lead his readers back into bondage would push their own conduct to its logical result and adopt the hideous mutilations common around them. For, thus, Christians would be saved from their subtle and evil influence. II. is, as we learn from its contents, a disproof of the teaching of some Jewish Christians in Galatia, as at Antioch (Acts 15:1) similar men taught, that Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved.Against this teaching Paul appeals to his readers’ early Christian life, which was derived from faith and not from obedience to law; and to the similar case of Abraham, who obtained by faith his Covenant with God. The promise that in Abraham should all nations be blessed was a foresight of the Gospel: for only through Christ who bore for us the curse of the Law can it be fulfilled. To make its fulfilment contingent on obedience to the Law afterwards given, would destroy the real worth of the promise: which even human morality forbids. The purpose of the Law was to render salvation impossible except through faith, and thus to force us to Christ. But now this purpose has been accomplished: and by faith we are sons of God. We are, therefore, no longer under the Law. For it belongs to our spiritual childhood: and, now that the set time has come, we are free. The Galatian Christians, however, by their observance of sacred seasons show that they are turning back again to the rudiments of childhood. Paul fears lest his toil for them be in vain. And his fear prompts an earnest appeal. He remembers the warmth of his first reception in Galatia, and asks the reason of the change. He points silently to its authors; and exposes their secret and selfish motives. The prominence given to the Mosaic Law by the disturbers suggests an appeal to its pages. In the family of Abraham were two sons: but only one was heir of the promise. So are there two Covenants of God with man. And the foregoing argument has shown that the children of the Old Covenant are, like those of Hagar, in bondage. But, in fulfilment of a joyous prophecy of Isaiah, there are now others, an unexpected offspring, who look up to Jerusalem as their Mother, to the free city above. Between the children of the Old and of the New Covenant there is conflict. But, as of yore, the bondmen have no inheritance with the free born. And, because his readers are children of freedom, Paul warns them not to submit to a yoke of bondage. In plain language Paul states the real significance and consequence of circumcision. To undergo it, is to accept the Law as a condition of God’s favour: and, to do this, is to reject the work of Christ and the undeserved favour of God. In complete contrast to all trust in law, Paul cherishes a hope received by faith and from the Holy Spirit, which works in him love and its various manifestations. He warns his readers that an influence not from God is among them, and that a small beginning may be followed by wide-spread results. Yet he has confidence in them. The punishment will fall on the guilty person. Some men charge the Apostle with inconsistency in this matter of circumcision. But the hostility of the Jews disproves the charge. Indeed, their rejection of Christ crucified has its real ground in the overthrow of Jewish prerogatives involved in his death. So damaging is the influence of the disturbers that for the moment Paul almost wishes that they would relieve the Church of it by joining the ranks of the mutilated devotees of Cybele. III MORALS. 5:13-6:18 SECTION 20. — LOVE TO OUR IS THE SUM OF THE LAW. CH. 5:13-15. Ye were called for freedom, Brethren. Only use not your freedom. for an occasion for the flesh: but through love be servants one to another. For the whole Law has been fulfilled in one word, in this, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18.) But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed lest one by another ye be consumed.After doctrinal exposition follows, as its needful complement, moral teaching. Cp. Romans 12:1 ff. Indeed, Paul’s exposition of the Law would be perilously incomplete if he did not show that it produces the highest morality. Oversight of this has again and again led, on the one hand to immorality, and on the other to rejection or mutilation of the teaching of Paul by those whose moral instinct assures them that morality is imperative. Hence Paul is compelled to add to the doctrinal teaching of DIV. II. the moral development of it in §§ 20, 21. To this he adds in § 22 sundry applications of the same. In § 23 he closes the Epistle by a few words from his own hand about its chief matter. Galatians 5:13 b. Paul’s passing wish in Galatians 5:12 that the disturbers would join the ranks of heathenism, he justified in Galatians 5:13 a by recalling his teaching in § 18 that God designs His servants to be free. He did this that in § 20 he may defend Christian freedom from its most serious abuse. The word freedom thus becomes a stepping stone to his exposition of Christian morality.Only; as in Galatians 1:23; Galatians 3:2; Galatians 6:12, gives special prominence to one thing. Cp. Philippians 1:27.The freedom: this definite liberty, to which God has called you. An occasion: as in Romans 7:8; Romans 7:11; 2 Corinthians 5:12; 2 Corinthians 11:12; a point of departure for a course of activity.The flesh: the material constitution of our bodies, which determines in great measure our present bodily life, and seeks to rule us entirely; this looked upon collectively and in the abstract as one definite and active power. See note under Romans 8:11. The flesh ever seeks to gratify its own desires and to avoid what it dislikes. Paul warns us not, on the ground that obedience to law is no longer to us a means of obtaining God’s favour, to surrender ourselves to the guidance of the flesh, as we shall do if we follow our own inclinations. He thus exposes a subtle foe ever present with us, and a very frequent and terrible abuse of justification by faith. This reference to the flesh prepares a way, as Paul’s wont is, to the teaching of § 21. Moreover, gratification of bodily desires is essentially and utterly opposed to love, and indeed lies at the root of all selfishness. Therefore, before introducing the Law of Love, Paul warns against the greatest obstacle to it. By love be-servants: exact opposite of an occasion for the flesh.Love: as in Galatians 5:6, where it is an outflow of faith.Be servants: same word in Galatians 4:25; Romans 6:6; Romans 7:6; Romans 7:25; Romans 14:18; Romans 16:18. It denotes both the position, and the action, of a servant or slave. See under Romans 1:1. As ordinarily used, the word combines the ideas of bondage and of work done for another, both ideas being exemplified in the numerous slaves of Paul’s day. Of these two ideas one or other frequently absorbs sole attention, leaving the other almost or quite out of sight. Hence the apparent variety in the use of the word and the apparent contradiction here. God has called us to Himself that we may be absolutely free, i.e. not hemmed in by outward restraint. Yet we love our brethren: and, prompted by this, we cannot but use all our powers for their good, as much as if we were their slaves. Such bondage is perfect freedom: for it is an unrestrained outflow of our own inmost and highest will. The apparent contradiction results from the poverty of human language. Only by using contradictory terms can we mark out the limits of our thoughts, and thus guard them from overstatement. Compare carefully similar language, evidently familiar to Paul, in Romans 6:18; Romans 6:22; 1 Corinthians 9:19; 1 Peter 2:16.Galatians 5:14. The whole Law: of Moses, which contains Leviticus 19:18.Has been fulfilled: or made-full: same word in Romans 13:8; Romans 8:4; Matthew 1:22, etc. Obedience to the whole Law has been embodied in one word, so that he who has obeyed this one precept has rendered all the obedience the Law requires. For all the commands of the Law are prohibitions of something contrary to love. (Cp. 1 Timothy 1:5.) This implies that even the ritual of the Mosaic Law is subordinate to this great command. And, to work in us love, which is the essence of God and involves all blessedness, is the ultimate aim (cp. Romans 8:4) of both the Law and the Gospel.Galatians 5:14 is a summary of Rom 13:8-10 : see my note. That Paul twice quotes Leviticus 19:18, reveals its importance to him. It is the complement of the twice quoted words in Habakkuk 2:4, The righteous man will live by faith. This precept is also quoted in James 2:8, thus forming a link between James and Paul; and in Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27, thus connecting the teaching of Paul and James with the recorded words of Jesus. That the fulfilment of THE LAW is here given as a motive for conduct, proves that in some real sense the Law has abiding validity. This agrees with Romans 8:4, which says that fulfilment of the Law was a purpose of the mission of the Son of God. For, if so, the Law is an embodiment of God’s will about us; and therefore a rule of life to His servants. This is true specially of the deep underlying principles of the Law of Moses, such as that now before us. The mass of moral precepts belongs rather to the alphabet of morality. The ritual has abiding value as an expression of Gospel truth. Therefore, as in this verse, the Law may be quoted as a motive for Christian conduct.All this does not contradict Paul’s teaching in Romans 7:4; Romans 7:6; Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:25 that we are dead to the Law and no longer under its power. For, obedience to law is no longer to us the condition, and means of obtaining, the favour of God. Else we should never obtain it. For until God smiles upon us we cannot obey Him aright. In the midst of our sins and our moral helplessness we obtain pardon simply by belief of the good news of Him who died for sinners. Pardon is followed by the gift of the Holy Spirit to be in us the motive-power of a new life in harmony with the will of God, and therefore with the Law. Yet, as a condition of the favour of God and consequently an iron gate excluding us from it, the Law has utterly lost its power. In this sense it has completely passed away. The barrier has been broken down by Him who bore our curse and burst for Himself and us the bars of death.On the other hand, the authority of the Law, which is strengthened immensely by the transcript of it in our hearts, prevents us from believing intelligently that God smiles upon us while we do what He forbids. Consequently, without obedience there can be no abiding faith; and therefore no abiding smile of God. But obedience is a result of His favour; and therefore cannot be a means of obtaining it. Between these views of obedience there is an infinite practical difference. We see therefore that the Law is no longer a dread taskmaster under whose rule we tremble, but our Father’s voice guiding our steps. And every precept is a promise of some good which our Father will work in us by His Spirit. Upon the ancient writing which condemned us has fallen light from the Cross of Christ: and the brightness of that light has changed its condemnation into promises of infinite blessing. It is now a lamp to our feet and a light to our path: and its statutes are our songs in the house of our pilgrimage. To the advocates in Galatia of the abiding validity of the Law of Moses, this verse would come with special force. Galatians 5:15. Conduct exactly opposed to love. That the readers were in danger of it, this warning proves.Bite: like dogs or wild beasts. And devour, or eat-up: a further stage. Same word in 2 Corinthians 11:20; Mark 12:40; Revelation 11:5.Consumed: ultimate destruction. Same word in Luke 9:54. [The Greek present tenses describe the process; and the aorist, the result.] This verse suggests that the Judaizers had caused (cp. Acts 15:2) bitter contention between church-members; and reveals the need of the moral teaching of Gal 5:13-14. Paul warns his readers that, if they so far forget the Law of love as to act like wild beasts, they will thereby destroy their spiritual life and themselves. SECTION 21. — THE SPIRIT AND THE FLESH. CH. 5:16-26. And I say, Walk by the Spirit, and the desire of the flesh ye will not fulfil. For the flesh desires against the Spirit; and the Spirit against the flesh. For these are contrary, one to the other; in order that whatever things ye may wish these ye may not do. But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under law. And manifest are the works of the flesh, which are fornication, uncleanness, wantonness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of fury, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revelling, and the things like these: of which I forewarn you, as I forewarned, that they who practise such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self control. Against such things there is no law. And they that belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the emotions and the desires of it. If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk. Let us not become vainglorious, provoking one another, envying one another. After pointing to Love as the disposition of heart from which flows human morality, in contrast to self-surrender to the flesh, which is ever a source of enmity, Paul now still further traces Christian morality to its divine source, viz. the Spirit of God, whom he contrasts with the flesh. For the love described in § 20 is the love of the Spirit, Romans 15:30. Already Paul has taught that God gives to His adopted sons the Spirit of the only begotten Son to evoke in them filial confidence in God. He now teaches that the same Spirit will be the guide and strength of their life, neutralising in them the influence of the flesh and producing every form of moral good. In Galatians 5:16-17, he states the contrast of flesh and Spirit; and makes it more conspicuous by turning in Galatians 5:18-22 f, Galatians 5:24-25 again and again (cp. Romans 1:24-32) from one to the other. Of this comparison the words Spirit and flesh in Galatians 5:5; Galatians 5:13 are forerunners. He then concludes § 21 with a warning similar to, but milder than, the close of § 20.Galatians 5:16. And I say: as in Galatians 4:1 : cp. Galatians 3:17. That Paul refers to the Spirit of the Son, is made quite certain by his constant teaching that He is the animating principle of the Christian life: cp. Galatians 4:6; Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:19. This constant usage renders the article needless: cp. Galatians 3:3; Romans 8:13. And the absence of the article directs us to the Holy Spirit in His abstract quality as an inward animating principle: so Galatians 5:5; Galatians 5:18; Galatians 5:25; and flesh and desire here.By the Spirit: under His active influence, both guiding and strengthening; ideas involved in the word Spirit. So Galatians 5:5; Galatians 5:18; Galatians 5:25; Galatians 3:3; Romans 8:13-14; Ephesians 1:13; in all which passages the Spirit is much more than (Ellicott and Lightfoot here) “the metaphorical path, manner, or rule of action.” He is the divine Agent of all Christian action. [Cp. Romans 3:24, by His grace; 1 Corinthians 15:10; Ephesians 2:1; Ephesians 2:5. The Spirit guides us along a path corresponding to His own nature: hence the companion phrase, according to Spirit, in Romans 8:4.Walk: cp. 2 Corinthians 12:18; Romans 8:4. Allow the Spirit to choose your steps.Desire is the chief feature of the flesh: Galatians 5:24; Ephesians 2:3; cp. Romans 6:12. In virtue of their common constitution, our bodies yearn for various objects needful or pleasant. See note under Romans 8:11. And these longings of the flesh do not distinguish right from wrong. Consequently, to yield to them, leads inevitably to sin. As in Galatians 5:13, the word flesh reveals the source of the contention condemned in Galatians 5:15. See notes under 1 Corinthians 3:3; Romans 8:11.Fulfil or accomplish: same word in Romans 2:27. It denotes the attainment of a goal or aim. Cognate word in 2 Corinthians 11:15, see note; Romans 6:21 f; 1 Corinthians 10:11; 1 Timothy 1:5. If the Holy Spirit guides our steps, then will the tendencies inherent to the constitution of our bodies be prevented from working out their otherwise inevitable results. (See note under Romans 8:17.) For the Spirit of God, if we yield to His inward guidance, will by His own infinite power defend us against the power of sin which seeks (Romans 6:12) to erect and maintain its throne in our bodies. Compare carefully Romans 8:13.Galatians 5:17. Supports Galatians 5:16 by restating, and further expounding, the above contrast.Desires against: absolute and mutual and active opposition of the flesh and the Spirit. The word desires is in itself neither good nor bad, and may therefore be supplied here as predicate of the Holy Spirit; as in Luke 22:15 it is predicated of Christ, and in 1 Peter 1:12 of angels. Cp. 1 Timothy 3:1; Hebrews 6:11. The rendering lust (A.V. and R.V.) is therefore most unsuitable: for it cannot be predicated of the Spirit, and suggests an idea, viz. sin, not involved in the word. But since desire is a chief element in the practical influence of the flesh, and since in the flesh sin dwells and reigns, we read in the New Testament much more often of bad than of good desires. This implied desire of the Spirit makes the contrast of the two tendencies the more marked.For these are opposed, etc.; supports the foregoing, by a restatement and further exposition. In order that… ye may not do: purpose of each of these opposing influences. If we wish to do a good thing, the desire of the flesh tends to lead us the opposite way: and conversely. This inherent tendency of the constitution of our bodies to hinder in us the work of the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit’s contrary purpose, are motives for following in all things the guidance of the Spirit; and are an assurance that if we do so this evil tendency will not in us attain its goal. The essential hostility of the two principles compels us to choose sides: and there can be no doubt what our choice should be. Thus Galatians 5:17 supports Galatians 5:16.We have here no trace of blame; and therefore no hint that these words are true only of immature Christians such as Paul’s readers undoubtedly were. And the general terms, the flesh and the Spirit, suggest a universal truth. See under Galatians 5:24. The A.V. so that ye cannot do, etc., is a serious mistranslation. For it implies that the readers were not able to do what their better judgment approved; whereas Paul speaks only of opposite tendencies, leaving open the possibility of successfully resisting them.Galatians 5:18. Another reason for Galatians 5:16.Led by the Spirit: Romans 8:14 : parallel and equal to walk by the Spirit, but making more prominent the intelligent activity of the Spirit. Under law: as in Galatians 4:4-5; Galatians 4:21; Romans 6:14 f; 1 Corinthians 9:20 : no longer held in bondage and condemnation under rules of conduct which we have already broken and are still unable to obey. This statement is proved in Galatians 5:23.Galatians 5:19-21. Catalogue of the works of the flesh, interrupting the argument of Gal 5:18 to reveal by contrast the excellence of the fruit of the Spirit, which last proves that those led by the Spirit are not under law.It is also a third reason for walking by the Spirit. Manifest: conspicuous before the eyes of men: see under Romans 1:19. All can see for themselves that the following list is correct. The works of the flesh: various fulfillments of the desire of the flesh, results of surrender to the influence of our bodily life. Cp. works of law in Galatians 2:16, cp. Romans 2:15; of the Lord, 1 Corinthians 16:10; of God, John 9:3; John 6:28 f; of faith, 2 Thessalonians 1:11.Which are: more correctly to which class belong, implying that the following list is not complete. Similar lists in Romans 1:29; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 2 Corinthians 12:20; Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 3:5; 1 Timothy 1:9; Mark 7:21; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15; 1 Peter 4:3. We note four divisions.(1) Sensuality, including fornication, intercourse with harlots; see under 1 Corinthians 5:1 : uncleanness; Romans 1:24; anything inconsistent with personal purity: wantonness; Romans 13:13; insolent and open disregard of all restraint. Same three words together in 2 Corinthians 12:21. The last forms a sort of climax.(2) Idolatry: and the closely related sorcery, the practice of magical arts; same word in Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15; Revelation 9:21; Revelation 18:23; Exodus 7:11; Exodus 7:22. (3) Various forms of discord. Strife, jealousies, outbursts of fury, factions: same words in same order in 2 Corinthians 12:20; see notes there and 1 Corinthians 3:3.Parties: same word in 1 Corinthians 11:18, the Greek original of our word heresy. They who adopted error formed themselves in later ages, for the more part, into parties outside the Catholic Church.Envy: Romans 1:29; Philippians 1:15; 1 Timothy 6:4; Titus 3:3; Matthew 27:18, James 4:5 : mere vexation at others’ good; a much worse word than jealousy which (see under 1 Corinthians 12:31) has good elements. (4) Drunkenness and revelling or riotous feasting: same words in Romans 13:13 : cp. 1 Peter 4:3. [The plurals in this passage denote various outbursts of drunkenness, etc.]And the like: added in a consciousness that even the above long list falls short of the infinite variety of sin. This list begins with sins immediately prompted by the constitution of our bodies; then passes on to idolatry which rules men by gratifying their bodily desires; and to the collision with others which results inevitably from the selfishness of such gratification, and against which Paul has in Galatians 5:15 just warned his readers; and concludes with another class of sins immediately prompted by the appetites of the flesh.I forewarn, or say-beforehand: before the penalty is inflicted. Same word in 2 Corinthians 13:2.Forewarned: on a previous visit to Galatia. Whether the second fore- contrasts Paul’s former words with his words now or, like the first fore-, with their future fulfilment, is uncertain and unimportant. The previous word forewarn suggests slightly the latter reference. Paul reminds his readers that he is only repeating what he has said before. Such things; reminds us again (cp. and the like just above and which sort of things in Galatians 5:19) of the infinite variety of sin, reaching far beyond the long catalogue given.Inherit the kingdom of God: become, in virtue of filial relation to God, citizens of the future and glorious realm over which, in a royalty which His children will share, God will reign for ever. Same words in 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Corinthians 15:50. Galatians 5:22-23. A fourth argument for Galatians 5:16; also completing the argument of Gal 5:18.Fruit: visible outgrowth of the unseen and mysterious vital force of the Holy Spirit. Cp. Romans 1:13; Romans 6:21 f; Ephesians 5:9; Philippians 1:11; Philippians 1:22; James 3:18. The change from works of the flesh to the fruit of the Spirit accords with Paul’s use of the word fruit only for good results. The various virtues following form, in organic unity, each promoting the others, the one fruit of the Spirit. Similar catalogues in Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 3:10.Love: put first as the central principle of the Christian life. It is an outflow of the Spirit received through faith: Galatians 3:14; Galatians 5:6. And it links § 21 to § 20. Joy: triumphant overflow of Christian gladness. Cp. joy in the Holy Spirit, Romans 14:17, 1 Thessalonians 1:6.Peace: probably, as suggested by the words following, (cp. Romans 14:17-19,) concord with others, in contrast to the discord of Gal 5:20. Longsuffering: Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 3:10; 2 Timothy 4:2 : a long holding back of passion; slow to anger, James 1:19. A frequent attribute of God, Romans 2:4; Romans 9:22; as is kindness, Ephesians 2:7, a gentle mode of dealing with others.Goodness: doing good to others, by methods not necessarily gentle; Romans 15:14; Ephesians 5:9; 2 Thessalonians 1:11.Faith: probably faithfulness, a disposition on which others can rely, as in Romans 3:3. For, in its usual meaning, viz., assurance that God will fulfil His word, faith holds a unique place as the means by which we receive the Holy Spirit and the entire fruit of the Spirit; and is therefore not likely to be classed as one among many elements of that fruit. Meekness: absence of self-assertion; see under 1 Corinthians 4:21.Self-control: Acts 24:25; 2 Peter 1:6; Sir 18:29, “self-control of soul after thy desires go not, and from thy passions refrain.” A cognate verb in 1 Corinthians 7:9; 1 Corinthians 9:25.Against such things: in contrast to (Galatians 5:21) those who practise such things, of whom the Law declares that they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Now, since the Spirit produces as His fruit dispositions which the Law does not condemn, they who (Galatians 5:18) are led by the Spirit are not under law. The law is no longer a burden under which they groan. Just so, upright citizens think nothing of the criminal law; whereas to those who break or wish to break it, the same law is a terrible reality. Thus Paul completes the argument of Gal 5:18 in support of Gal 5:16. This deliverance from the Law by fulfilment of it (Galatians 5:14) was a purpose of the mission of the Son of God: Romans 8:4. The unexpected reference to the Law in Galatians 5:14; Galatians 5:18; Galatians 5:23 reveals its large place in the thought of Paul.Galatians 5:24. Another argument in support of Gal 5:16, viz. that to fulfil the desire of the flesh is to renounce our own acceptance of the Christian life.Belong to Christ Jesus, or literally (R.V.) are of Christ Jesus: 1 Corinthians 3:23; 2 Corinthians 10:7; cp. 1 Corinthians 3:4. They stand in special relation to Christ as His servants, disciples, members of His body, etc.Crucified: as in Galatians 2:20; Galatians 6:14; Romans 6:6. Notice three crucifixions in this Epistle; of Paul, of the flesh and its desires, and of the world. Each of these implies the others. In each case crucified denotes death in virtue of Christ’s death on the cross and by union with the Crucified: cp. Galatians 2:20 with Galatians 5:19; Galatians 6:14 with Colossians 2:20.The flesh is dead, i.e. its life, or in other words its activity and power, has come to an end: see note under Romans 7:8, and compare carefully Romans 6:6 and my note. They have crucified the flesh, by their own act: for the destruction of the power of the flesh resulted from their own self-surrender and faith. See note under 2 Corinthians 7:1.The emotions: same word in same sense in Romans 7:5 : elsewhere it denotes suffering, as in 2 Corinthians 1:5 ff. Compare our word passion, which combines both meanings. Objects around first produce in us emotions, in which the mind is chiefly passive, acted upon from without: these, taking practical and active direction towards the objects which produce them, become desires. Desires are a constant accompaniment of flesh so long as it has vitality: and emotions are the beginning of desires. Paul declares that, together with the flesh these emotions and desires have, by self-surrender to Christ and by union with His death, altogether lost their power. The categorical statement of Gal 5:24, like Paul’s statements about himself in Galatians 2:20; Galatians 6:14, can be no less than a description of the ideal and normal Christian life, i.e. of the life which God designs us to live and which He is ready to work in us from this moment by His own infinite power and in proportion to our faith. At first sight this statement seems inconsistent with Galatians 5:17. For if the flesh has desire and purpose, it must be alive, whereas here Paul implies that it is dead. But this inconsistency is but the poverty of human language, which often compels us to state opposite sides of the same truth in terms apparently contradictory. Each statement admits an interpretation in harmony with the other. The flesh is still alive in the sense that it exerts upon us an influence towards forbidden objects which can be effectually resisted only by the presence of the Spirit of God within us. And this is a reason for following ever the guidance of the Spirit. On the other hand, if in all things we accept His guidance, this hostile influence of the flesh will be neutralised so completely that it will no longer influence our conduct or defile our thoughts. And, in view of this complete victory which Christ has gained for us by His death, and which God is ready to work now, in all who venture to believe His promise, by joining them to the Crucified One, Paul says correctly that to those who belong to Christ the flesh and its desires have passed away, that their life has altogether ceased. By so saying he greatly helps our faith to grasp and appropriate the victory here described. The discrepancy is not greater than that between Galatians 2:20, I live in the flesh and Romans 8:9, ye are not in the flesh.Notice that just as the flesh is the link uniting us to the material world around and the medium through which, by its susceptibility to material influences and by its desire for material objects, the world acts upon us, so it is also the link uniting the unsaved to sin and the avenue through which operate the evil influence and the domination of the material world. Christ died in order that by His death this link may be practically broken and this avenue closed, that by union with the Crucified we may be set free from this influence and bondage. Virtually, we were set free when Christ died: formally, when we joined His Church: actually, when, and so far as, we venture to believe that this inward crucifixion is already ours. Galatians 5:25. Concluding argument in support of Gal 5:16, which verse it recalls. It is a practical application of the foregoing doctrinal teaching.By the Spirit: as in Galatians 5:16; under the influence of the Holy Spirit acting upon us from within as an animating principle. If we live by the Spirit: an assumed fact: for He is in us the breath of immortal life. Therefore, Paul says, we should allow Him to direct our steps. For, in proportion as we yield to His influence, will the life He imparts be rich. Similar thought in Romans 8:2 : for the law of the Spirit is the Holy Spirit guiding our action; and since He has made us free from the law of sin and of death, He is to us the Spirit of life.Walk: different from the word in Galatians 5:16, but found in Galatians 6:16; Romans 4:12; Philippians 3:16; Acts 21:24; all very instructive parallels. It calls attention to the path in which we walk. Galatians 5:26. Steps in which the Spirit will never guide us, a negative specific application of the doctrinal teaching of § 21 and a transition to the positive specific application of the same in § 22. This application was prompted doubtless by the disposition in the readers which suggested the similar application (Galatians 5:15) of § 20.Vainglorious: Philippians 2:3, cherishing empty opinions about ourselves: further expounded in Galatians 6:3. From this root spring as offshoots mutual provocation and envy. Paul warns against both root and offshoots. [The present subjunctive suggests that the vainglory was already creeping in.]Provoking (or challenging) one another: a frequent outcome of envy, i.e. of vexation at the superiority of others. SECTION 21 implies that the great contrast of flesh and Spirit so familiar to Paul, (cp. Romans 8:4-13,) a contrast underlying and pervading both the natural and the moral constitution of man, is also the basis of his moral probation. See notes under Romans 8:11; Romans 8:17.The flesh is the visible side of man, animated matter. Mysteriously pervading it, preserving it from corruption and giving to it growth and well-being, is the invisible spirit. Thus in man meet and at every point interpenetrate, the seen and unseen worlds; the one destined to crumble soon into its original dust, the other created for endless life. We have thus the unseen world within us, actually present to our inmost consciousness. Now each of these elements claims to rule our entire action and to mould our inner life. And they are in absolute opposition. The flesh, acting upon us through desires aroused by material objects around, tends to beget various kinds of actions, many of them indisputably bad. Such actions will exclude us from the glory of the coming kingdom. But in absolute opposition to the flesh is the one Spirit of God, whom God has given to dwell in the hearts of His people, that thus their spirit may have (Romans 8:10) immortal life, and to be in them an all-wise guide. The Spirit is the living and divine seed from which springs a harvest of moral excellence. This excellence is all that the Law requires. Consequently, for those under His influence the Law has no terrors. And in proportion as they follow His guidance is the life which He imparts rich and strong.The evil influences of the flesh are still a power against which the Christian must needs be ever on his guard. But his warfare is shared by the Spirit of God, against whom even the flesh is powerless. Consequently, the presence of the Spirit in our hearts has already in us put an end, as we abide in faith, to the rule of the flesh. We may therefore say that in us, through the death of Christ, the flesh itself is already dead, that our old selves and our old life have been buried in His grave. All this is abundant reason for complete self-surrender to the guidance of the Spirit. He will inspire that love which is fulfilment of the Law, and which alone will save Christian liberty from degenerating into hurtful licence. Notice the massive simplicity and grandeur of Paul’s double foundation of Christian morality. He lays down first the one precept of love, in the very words of the ancient Law, a precept including all others. But even this, if it stood alone, would but reveal our inability to do what God requires, and thus condemn us. Paul therefore invokes the Spirit, the seed divine from which grows, by its unseen and mysterious vitality, the fruit of love and of all virtue. A specimen of the superstructure this foundation is capable of supporting, Paul will erect for us in § 22. SECTION 22. — SPECIAL . CH. 6:1-10.Brethren, if a man be even overtaken in some trespass, ye spiritual ones restore such a one in the Spirit of meekness, looking to thyself lest also thou be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens; and thus fulfil the laws of Christ. For if an one thinks himself to be something, while he is nothing, he deceives his own mind. But let each one prove his own work: and in reference to himself alone he will have his ground of exultation, and not in reference to another man. For each one will bear his own load. Let him that is instructed in the word take part with him that instructs, in all good things. Be not deceived: God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. Because he that sows for his own flesh, will from the flesh reap corruption: and he that sows for the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Moreover, in doing well let us not fail. For in due season we shall reap, if we do not faint. Therefore, as we have opportunity let us do good towards all men, and especially towards those of the household of the faith. Already, in Galatians 5:26, Paul has given a negative application of the teaching of § 21. This is now followed by the sundry positive applications of §§ 20 and 21, chiefly in the direction of mutual help.Galatians 6:1. Brothers; introduces suitably an appeal for brotherly aid.Overtaken: as though the evil deed, i.e. strong temptation to it, had come suddenly upon him; and he had been surprised into sin. Paul thus softens the case he supposes. Trespass: Romans 4:25; Romans 5:15 ff: a moral fall.Ye, the spiritual ones: 1 Corinthians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 3:1 : men under the influence of the Holy Spirit, in contrast to the man who has fallen. This title recalls the special teaching of § 21. Each reader would judge whether it describes himself and is here reminded of the obligation it involves. Cp. Romans 15:1; Philippians 3:15.Restore: so as to be again fully equipped for the service of God: same word in 1 Corinthians 1:10, see notes. [The present tense here and in 2 Corinthians 13:11, pictures the restoration as gradual.] Paul bids his fellow-Christians aid the recovery of their fallen brother.In the Spirit of meekness: 1 Corinthians 4:21 : the Holy Spirit, as the unseen root and seed (Galatians 5:23) of meekness, and as the all-surrounding element of Christian correction. The conspicuous place of the Holy Spirit in § 21 permits no other exposition. The inserted word Spirit was suggested probably by spiritual. Never are we in greater peril of undue self-assertion, and therefore in greater need of meekness, than in reproving others. For their fall evokes in us a sense of superiority. How deeply Paul felt this, we learn here and in 1 Corinthians 4:21; 2 Corinthians 10:1; 2 Timothy 2:25.Looking: more fully, looking with a purpose: see note, 2 Corinthians 4:18. The purpose is immediately stated. Tempted: our loyalty to Christ subjected to a test: see under 2 Corinthians 13:5; 1 Corinthians 7:5. These words further soften the supposed case by suggesting that if others had been similarly tempted they might also have fallen. A remembrance of this will mingle meekness with our reproof. The change from ye to thou suggests how personal and solitary is temptation. In the hour of trial we stand or fall alone.The exceptional case suggested in this verse implies the moral soundness of the Galatian Christians generally, in striking contrast to the doctrinal unsoundness which evoked in Paul fear lest his labours for them should be in vain. This implies further that morality, apart from correct doctrine, is not sufficient for the vitality of a Church. Galatians 6:2. Burdens: literally heavy-weights: same word in 2 Corinthians 4:17; Matthew 20:12; Acts 15:28; Revelation 2:24; 1 Thessalonians 2:6. One another’s: emphatic, in contrast to bearing only our own burdens. Bear: same word in same sense in Romans 15:1. Galatians 6:1 suggests that Paul refers chiefly to loving and intelligent sympathy with a fallen brother, making his spiritual loss our own loss and sorrow, and using our powers to raise him when pressed down under a consciousness of his own sin. An example of such sympathy we find in 2 Corinthians 11:29. These words imply that this sympathy and aid may involve us in difficulties, like the carrying of a heavy burden; and exhort us to submit to such for our brother’s good. The law of Christ: the rule of conduct supported by His authority; cp. the Law of Moses; in Luke 2:22; Luke 24:44; John 7:23; Acts 13:39; Acts 15:5; Acts 27:23. It refers evidently to the precept quoted in Galatians 5:14. And the phrase confirms the historical correctness of Mat 22:39, etc. where Christ is recorded to have paid to this precept special honor. Fulfil: or, fill up to the full: same strong word in 1 Thessalonians 2:16, fill up their sins; 1 Corinthians 16:17; Philippians 2:30. To sympathise with, and endeavour to raise, the fallen, is a genuine mark of Christian love. Just as the words spiritual and spirit bring to bear upon the exhortation of Gal 6:1 the teaching of § 21; so this phrase brings to bear upon it the teaching of § 20. Thus Paul exemplifies each of these foundation principles of Christian morality.Galatians 6:3. To be something: of intrinsic worth: same words in Galatians 2:6; cp. Acts 5:36.He being nothing: a suggestion which each reader would test in reference to his own case. It was Paul’s judgment about himself: 2 Corinthians 12:11. The wisest and best cannot in the least degree, by his own skill or strength, avoid the perils which surround him and attain his highest interest. To think we can, is to inflict on ourselves mental-deception: a word akin to this last, in Titus 1:10; cp. James 1:26.By making Galatians 6:3 a reason for Galatians 6:2, Paul suggests the all-important lesson that an inflated self-estimate makes us careless about the burdens of others, and thus hinders us from fulfilling the law of love. Similar teaching is suggested in Galatians 5:26; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Corinthians 5:2. Vainglory is a subtle and dangerous form of selfishness; and always obscures moral vision and weakens brotherly affection. There is therefore no need to join Galatians 6:3 to Galatians 6:1, making Galatians 6:2 a sort of parenthesis: and the importance of Gal 6:2 forbids this.Galatians 6:4. His own work: looked upon as one whole, (cp. 1 Corinthians 3:13 ff; 1 Corinthians 9:1,) including (2 Corinthians 11:15) various works.Conspicuous contrast to the mental hallucination of Gal 6:3.Prove: test with good intent; see under 2 Corinthians 13:5. Paul bids us, instead of indulging in vain subjective dreams, to put to the test, and thus discover the worth of, the total objective result of our labours.And then; emphasises the above exhortation as the condition of what follows. Exultation: see under Romans 2:17.Ground-of-exultation in-reference-to: similar words in same sense in Romans 4:2. We are all prone to indulge in an exultation based upon a comparison of ourselves with others who seem to be inferior to us. A conspicuous example of this, was the Pharisee of Luk 18:11. All such exultation is delusive: for the inferiority of others is no measure of our absolute worth. But a consideration of God’s work in us and through our agency, leaving out of sight all comparison with others, may justly give rise to deep gratitude and exultant joy that He has condescended to use us as agents of good: for all such is exultation in God. Of this, a conspicuous example is Paul himself: cp. Romans 15:17; 1 Corinthians 9:15 f; 2 Corinthians 1:12; 2 Corinthians 11:10. Moreover, if we limit our exultation to actual results, (each one his own work,) our exultation will frequently be turned into deep self-abasement. In 2 Corinthians 10:12-18 we find the same thought as in this verse, more fully developed.Galatians 6:5. Load: something to be carried, whether heavy or light; akin to a verb denoting to carry. Hence we have, with the same word, both light and heavy loads: Matthew 11:30; Matthew 23:4; Luke 11:46. It thus differs from the word in Galatians 6:2, of which the chief idea is heavy weight. In Acts 27:10, it denotes a ship’s cargo. Paul’s exhortation to cease comparing ourselves with others and look at ourselves alone, he now supports by saying that there is a load from which no one can release us, a load of his own which in spite of all brotherly help each one will himself bear. This is the solitary side of every one’s Christian life. Remembrance of it should deter us from comparisons with others, all which overlook our solitary personal responsibility, And, that the help we can render is thus limited, should move us to render to our brethren all the help we can. Galatians 6:6. From a specific exhortation in Galatians 6:1 to aid the fallen, Paul passed on in Galatians 6:2 to a more general exhortation to help the burdened ones, and supported this in Galatians 6:3 by a warning against inflated self-estimate and in Galatians 6:4 by a suggestion that each test his own work apart from comparison with others and in view (Galatians 6:5) of his own personal and solitary responsibility. He now goes a step further from the specific to the general, by bidding all his readers, whom he divides into two all-inclusive classes, to join together in doing every kind of good.Let-him-take-part or be-partner-with: either join with others in some action, or share with them something belonging to them or to him. Same or cognate word in Romans 12:13; Romans 15:26 f; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 2 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Corinthians 8:4; 2 Corinthians 9:13; 2 Corinthians 13:13.Instructed: the Greek original of the English word catechumen: same word in Romans 2:18; 1 Corinthians 14:19; Luke 1:4; Acts 18:25; Acts 21:21; Acts 21:24. From the standpoint of Gal 6:5, Paul looks at each one, instructed or instructing, singly cp. Galatians 6:1. The simple term, the word, (Colossians 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:6,) reveals the unique grandeur of the Gospel as the one Word of God and of life.Him that instructs: including Paul himself and all those who, church-officers or others, exercise the gift of teaching. This division of church-members implies that regular instruction was even then a part of church order. All good things: either material good; as in Luke 1:53; Luke 12:18 f; Luke 16:25; or good actions, especially beneficence, as always with Paul, e.g. Galatians 6:10; Romans 10:15; Romans 2:10; Romans 7:13; Romans 8:28; Romans 9:11; Romans 12:9; Romans 12:21; Romans 13:3 f; Romans 14:16; Romans 15:2; Romans 16:19. The plural number suggests the variety of good things. To these belong (1) the restoration of the fallen and (2) the bearing of others’ burdens. This exhortation is included in the final exhortation of Gal 6:10. Paul intimates that they who teach others must practise good things; and that in this they are to be joined by their pupils.Following Chrysostom and Jerome, many expositors suppose that all good things denotes liberal maintenance for Christian teachers; chiefly on the ground that the word rendered take-part has the sense of Christian liberality in three of four other places in Paul’s Epistles, and that not otherwise can we account, for the unexpected mention here of the teachers and the taught. But it is inconceivable that Paul would touch for a moment, in language altogether indefinite and ambiguous, and then leave, a matter so definite and specific, and one of which there is no hint in the foregoing or following context. Moreover, the tremendous warning of Gal 6:7 leads us to expect in Galatians 6:6 some indication of an error or peril proportionately great, as we find in the other places where similar though less solemn language is used; and a correction of the error in the words following, i.e. in Galatians 6:7 b, Galatians 6:8. Again, the maintenance of those set apart from secular work to serve the Church is not liberality but payment of a just debt. It is most unlikely that Paul would urge his readers to this duty by bidding them share with their teachers all their earthly goods. Indeed, he seems rather to dissuade from having many paid teachers in the infant Church. Although claiming for himself and others a right to be paid, he refused ( 1 Corinthians 9:15) to assert his claim; and in this he was setting ( 2 Thessalonians 3:9) an example for others. Once only (1 Timothy 5:17 f) apparently, near the close of his life, Paul refers to the maintenance of ordinary church-teachers. And, in the absence of other proof, this general and sweeping exhortation cannot be accepted as evidence that such teachers were supported in the Churches of Galatia. For it gives good sense, as shown in the above exposition, without supposing any such reference.Paul divided his readers into teachers and taught in order perhaps to say that restoration of the fallen and help for the burdened must not be left to the shepherds of the flock, but that all must join in all such works of mercy. That the metaphor of seed (Galatians 6:7) refers in 1 Corinthians 9:11; 2 Corinthians 9:6 to liberality, has little weight: for it is very common in various applications. And the tremendous language which introduces the metaphor suggests that Paul was thinking of something more solemn than maintenance of Christian teachers.The spread of the other exposition is easily explained by its usefulness to Church authorities. Galatians 6:7. Be not deceived: 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Corinthians 15:33, in each case introducing a safeguard against a serious moral error referred to in the foregoing words: cp. James 1:16.Is-not-mocked: treated with open ridicule and contempt: same word in Proverbs 1:30; Proverbs 15:20; Job 22:19; Psalms 80:6; Jeremiah 20:7; 1Ma 7:34; 2Ma 7:39. It implies that to disregard what follows is outrageous insult to God, and declares solemnly that such insult God will not tolerate. Galatians 6:7 b justifies this solemn protest, by stating a great principle worthy of it. He will also reap: same words in 2 Corinthians 9:6, referring to the measure of the harvest. But here Paul refers to its kind. If we sow wheat, we shall reap wheat, etc. A universal principle of widest application, viz. that actions are seeds reappearing in a harvest of results, by the outworking of their own organic laws, to be their authors’ abiding possession. Thus(cp. 2 Corinthians 5:10) a man’s own actions become, in their developed consequences, their own exact retribution. Same favourite metaphor in 2 Corinthians 9:6, where see notes, 1 Corinthians 9:11; James 3:18; Job 4:8; Psalms 126:5; Hosea 8:7.Galatians 6:8. Restatement of the metaphor of Gal 6:7 in view of the contrast of the flesh and the Spirit asserted and expounded in § 21. The metaphor was introduced because two widely different harvests are possible.[The all-important Greek word εις, which I have here rendered for, (see under Romans 1:1,) denotes in its simple local sense movement towards the inside of something, e.g. Galatians 1:17 into Jerusalem, Arabia, Damascus, Galatians 4:6 into our hearts; then a tendency of action whether desired or not, e.g. Galatians 4:24, brings forth children for bondage; and is a favourite word for mental direction, or purpose, i.e. for the aim of action, some desired object towards which the actor looks, e.g. Galatians 2:8, for apostleship… for the Gentiles. Sometimes, as in Galatians 6:4 in reference to himself alone, it is still less definite noting merely a point of view from which an object is regarded. But in every case it denotes direction, either of actual movement, or tendency, or thought.]In the words for his own flesh Paul forsakes the form of his metaphor in order to describe more clearly and fully the reality underlying it. Had he continued the form adopted in Galatians 6:7, he would have written he that sows carnal things will also reap carnal things. But he describes the only two kinds of action and result possible to men not (as in Galatians 6:7) by their nature but by their aim, suggesting that this is the true test of conduct. Yet he retains the words sow and reap to keep before us the great truth that, by the outworking of their own nature, actions will reappear, multiplied, in their results. The flesh: not the organized body with its various members; but the material constitution of the body, common to men and animals and desiring (Galatians 6:16) various material objects needful or pleasant to it. The seeds sown for the flesh are actions designed to gratify desires prompted by bodily life. His own flesh; suggests the essential selfishness of these desires. From the flesh: or out of the flesh: same transition of prepositions in Romans 1:17. If to gratify our own flesh be our aim, the flesh will be to us a source of corruption. For corruption is inseparable from flesh of all kinds: by its own nature it goes to ruin, and in repulsive forms. For this reason ( 1 Corinthians 15:50 : cp. 1 Corinthians 15:42) it cannot enter the kingdom of God. It is needless to say that Paul refers here to the ruin of eternal death. On the principle that a man’s actions will reappear in their results, Paul declares that they who choose as their aim gratification of the flesh will as an appropriate and inevitable consequence receive back from the flesh that corruption which essentially belongs to it.It is useless and needless to make this important and clear teaching fit in at all points with the metaphor of seed and harvest. See under Romans 11:24. All suggestions about different fields in which the seed is sown fail utterly: for the kind of harvest depends not on the field but on the seed. The metaphor simply teaches that actions, like seeds, reproduce themselves in their results. This great truth justifies and satisfies the metaphor. The Spirit, can be no other than the Spirit of God, as throughout Div. III. Like the material of our bodies, He claims that the aim of our life be to follow His guidance and to work out His purposes. To act with this in view, is to sow for the Spirit. And such action will, in virtue of the essential nature of the Spirit, be followed by eternal life. For He is the Spirit of life who makes free from the law of sin and of death. Cp. Romans 6:21-23, where, without the metaphor, we have the same thought. In this verse Paul teaches that the consequences of actions, and therefore their moral worth, are determined by their aim: a truth indisputable and of the highest importance. Many actions in themselves good are yet, because of a selfish aim, universally condemned and despised. By associating this truth with the metaphor of seed and harvest, Paul teaches that the consequences which follow different aims do so by organic and essential laws of human action. And he places the same truth in a more conspicuous light by deviating in some measure, in order to assert it in plainest terms, from a favourite metaphor. Galatians 6:9. Another point in the same subject, viz. continuance, even under difficulties.Well-doing: or doing the excellent thing, that which is morally beautiful. Same word in Romans 7:21.Fail: turn out badly in something, lose heart and give up through weariness or fear; as in 2 Corinthians 4:1; 2 Corinthians 4:16. It suggests that circumstances may arise to test our perseverance. In due season: literally in its own season, the set time when, in virtue of the laws of the moral world, the seed will produce fruit. Faint not: through failure in spiritual strength. The parallel term fail denotes rather failure in Christian courage. Each term involves the other: for the brave heart will find strength. We have no hint that Paul refers to the weariness of sowing: and toil is not specially conspicuous in the sower. Certainly he does not refer to the weariness of harvest: for in the eternal harvest there will be no toil. Galatians 6:10. Practical inference, summing up § 22.As we have, etc.: let our action correspond with our opportunity. [ως combines here the senses of inasmuch as and while: cp. John 12:35-36. For, although grammatically it merely denotes that the opportunity is looked upon from the speaker’s subjective point of view, yet evidently the opportunity is mentioned as a motive, and as one which will last only for a time.] Opportunity: same word as season in Galatians 6:9. The harvest has a season of its own, and so has the sowing.Do good, literally work the good: same words in Romans 2:10; Ephesians 4:28. Contrast Romans 13:10. It suggests the labour of doing good.Good: including (Galatians 6:1) the restoration of the fallen brother, bearing (Galatians 6:2) the burdens of others, joining (Galatians 6:6) with teachers in all good works, sowing (Galatians 6:8) for the Spirit, and (Galatians 6:9) continuing in all this without weariness.To (or towards) all men: the direction of our beneficence. They of the household of faith, or those belonging to the house of faith: same word in Ephesians 2:19; 1 Timothy 5:8; in 1 Samuel 10:14 for a male domestic servant, and in Leviticus 18:6; Leviticus 18:12 f, 17 for relatives in blood or law. The word is sometimes used in a more general sense for any close relationship; and for those who devote themselves to some special matter, e.g.. γεωγραφιαςοικειος, belonging to the household of geography, in Strabo bk. i. p. 13. But here it reminds us that the Church is the house (1 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 10:21; 1 Peter 4:17) and family of God. Paul bids us use towards all within our reach the opportunity which we all have of doing good; and recalls the special claim of our companions in the household bound together by our common faith.In § 22 Paul illustrates the two great principles of Christian morality expounded in §§ 20 and 21 respectively, by applying them to the mutual intercourse of members of a Christian Church. These he exhorts to show Christian love by bearing burdens one for another, e.g. by restoring any one who has fallen; and warns against inflated self-estimate, a chief hindrance to mutual help, urging rather a reasonable estimate of each one’s own work and independent responsibility. This thought reminds Paul that life is a seed time to be followed by harvest, a truth which he applies to the two principles of action expounded at length in § 21, the Flesh and the Spirit; as already while speaking of a brother’s fall he has pointed, to the Spirit as the source of the meekness needful in those who try to restore him. And upon all his readers, teachers and taught, he urges good doing of all kinds; and patient continuance therein. While all men have a claim to help, our fellow Christians have a special claim. III. is the needful complement of the doctrine of Justification by Faith asserted in its native ruggedness in DIV. II. This doctrine, Paul does not qualify by expounding at length what he means by faith and by justification, lest by so doing he should weaken its force or perplex his readers; but guards it from abuse by placing beside it the moral teaching of Div. III. Although none can, by good works, obtain the favour of God, and although all who believe the Gospel are already sons of God and heirs of His kingdom, yet from that kingdom will be excluded all who commit sin and consciously or unconsciously make self-indulgence the aim of life. This plainly asserted truth makes intelligent belief of the Gospel promise impossible except to those who earnestly resolve to forsake sin. On the other hand, the immovable certainty of the promise assures us that God will work in us the victory over sin needful for its fulfillment. In this way we have a practical harmony of these all-important doctrines. And neither of them invalidates or dilutes the other. This harmony is further discussed in Diss. vi. Christian morality is here, made to rest on two massive pillars: (1) the great commandment which in the Mosaic Law sums up our whole duty to our fellows, viz. to love them as ourselves; and (2) the Christian doctrine that the Holy Spirit given to those who believe the Gospel seeks to guide their steps and is essentially hostile to the influences of bodily life. These great principles of morality Paul expounds; and in a few words gives examples, both general and in detail, of their application to matters of daily life. SECTION 23. — THE ARE . CH. 6:11-16. See with how large letters I have written to you with my own hand. So many as wish to look well in the flesh, these are commanding you to receive circumcision; only in order that they may not, through the cross of Christ, be persecuted. For neither do they who are receiving circumcision themselves keep law. But they wish you to receive circumcision, in order that in your flesh they may exult. But far from me be it to exult except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ; through which to me the world is crucified, and I crucified to the world. For neither circumcision is anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And so many as walk by this rule peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. Galatians 6:11. With how large letters: so R.V. This rendering is determined by the Greek dative which denotes the instrument with which Paul wrote, viz. large characters, not the epistles written; by the word rendered large which denotes not number but size, whereas a long epistle would involve merely the number of characters used; and by Paul’s constant use (17 times) of another word, the Greek original of our word epistle, to denote a written communication. That Galatians 6:11 refers to Galatians 6:11-18, and not to the foregoing Epistle, is suggested by Paul’s custom of adding to each Epistle ( 2 Thessalonians 3:17; 1 Corinthians 16:21; Colossians 4:18) a short autograph, as a mark of genuineness and perhaps also as an expression of warm friendship. If so, the past tense, I-have-written, may have been suggested to Paul by the four preceding words lying already written before him while writing this word; and by easy transition of thought to his readers’ point of view. Cp. sent, in Acts 15:27; Acts 23:30. But we cannot safely quote Philemon 1:19; Philemon 1:21 as examples: for these refer in each case to foregoing words. The general usage of the Greek language forbids us to accept the word I-have-written as proof that the whole Epistle was written in large characters by Paul’s own hand. And his custom suggests that only this closing paragraph was so written. The size of the letters used proclaims, like capitals in modern printing, the earnestness of this concluding summary of the foregoing Epistle. Galatians 6:12. To-look-well: literally to-put-on-a-good-face; cp. Galatians 2:6; 2 Corinthians 5:12; 2 Corinthians 10:7; Matthew 16:3.In-the-flesh: in outward bodily life, the element of the desired good appearance. Are-commanding-you: so Galatians 2:3 : by proclaiming (Acts 15:1) that in order to be saved you must be circumcised; and by a personal influence which the Galatian Christians seemed unable to resist. [The Greek presents in Galatians 6:12-13 direct attention to a process going on, but which Paul hopes to stay. So Galatians 1:6; Galatians 3:3; Galatians 5:3-4. That they may not be persecuted: their only aim. For the cross of Christ: on the ground that they preach a crucified Messiah. A close parallel in Galatians 5:11. It implies that the seducers were professed Christians; that of Christian teaching the death of Christ was an essential and conspicuous element; and that this element (cp. 1 Corinthians 1:23) was the professed ground of the Jews’ hostility to the Gospel. But that the seducers hoped to escape persecution on this ground by proclaiming the necessity of circumcision, suggests that the real ground of the Jews’ opposition was that the Gospel overturned the exclusive spiritual prerogatives claimed by them under the Old Covenant, of which covenant circumcision was a conspicuous element; and that their scorn of the Crucified One was chiefly a means of pouring contempt on those who were breaking down, by a Gospel free for all men, the Jewish wall of partition. And we can well conceive the mass of the Jews looking with indifference or with favour on a profession of Christianity which did not interfere with, but rather exalted, their fancied spiritual pre-eminence. Possibly, the early success of the Gospel at Jerusalem (Acts 2:41; Acts 4:4; Acts 6:1) was aided by oversight on the part of all concerned, of the logical consequence of the Gospel so boldly preached by Jews and so numerously accepted. The word only implies that the men referred to cared nothing for circumcision in itself, (or for the Old Covenant,) that their apparently eager advocacy of it was only a means by which they hoped to escape persecution while yet remaining members of the Church of Christ. To believe in Him while preaching circumcision, was thus a safe and cheap form of religion. Such an aim Paul properly calls a desire to make a good appearance in outward bodily life, i.e. in that side of life which is under the eyes of men around. And since their aim was to avoid, while yet believing the Gospel and thus as they vainly thought securing the blessings of the life to come, the bodily hardship and peril which otherwise, Jewish hostility might cause them; their conduct was really a sowing for the flesh, and their actions were works of the flesh. For, protection of the body was to them a guiding principle. Paul thus reveals the secret and unworthy thought of the seducers, and brings to bear upon it (hence the word flesh) the teaching of §§ 21, 22. And this personal and skilful application reveals still further the appropriateness and value of that teaching. The men referred to here were probably Jewish Christians chiefly. For such were most likely to press Gentile converts to be circumcised, and to look upon this as a way of escape from persecution by non-Christian Jews. But, since even Gentile Christians may have been exposed to the same persecution, some circumcised Gentiles may have joined their Jewish brethren in eagerness for the rite as a means of escape from Jewish hostility. Galatians 6:13. Proof of the foregoing unworthy motive.They who receive circumcision: Gentile converts made from time to time by the false teachers. Not even do these themselves keep prescriptions of law: although they are enrolling themselves among the people of the Old Covenant. Whether this refers to ritual or moral prescriptions, is not stated: and it does not affect the argument; for both elements had the same authority. It implies that some of these Gentile converts to Judaism lived in evident disregard of Jewish legal restrictions, or possibly of morality. And that their seducers tolerated this neglect proves that regard for the Law was not the motive of this zealous advocacy of circumcision. But they wish: including probably the seducers and referring chiefly to them. For, to them chiefly refers the same word wish in Galatians 6:12 : they are the chief matter of Gal 6:12-13, their converts being introduced only casually in proof of the motive of the seducers: and theirs chiefly must have been this desire and exultation, though shared by their Gentile converts. The change of subject between Galatians 6:13 a and 13b is but an easy return to the chief matter of the paragraph. And it would be the more easy because the class referred to in Galatians 6:13 b included some, or most, of those referred to in Galatians 6:13 a; for Gentiles undergoing circumcision would themselves wish other Gentiles to follow their example, feeling that each fresh circumcision was a tribute to their recently adopted principles. Thus all the Christians in Galatia eager for circumcision, whether Jews or Gentiles, would form practically one body in opposition to the teaching of Paul. The reading in the R.V. text, they who receive (or are receiving) circumcision, is preferred by all editors since Lachmann, and has rather better documentary evidence than that in the R.V. margin, who have been circumcised. And this latter looks suspiciously like a correction by copyists who could not understand the other reading. The above exposition gives to the reading adopted its most natural meaning. Certainly it is easier to suppose a return, after the parenthesis of Gal 6:13 a, to Paul’s chief matter than to expound they who receive circumcision as “the advocates of circumcision.”In order that, etc.: selfish purpose of the seducers. Exult: see under Romans 2:17; 1 Corinthians 1:29.Your flesh: your circumcised bodies. These were the sought for element of exultation. They wished to point in triumph to the visible mark of proselyting success, as a tribute to their personal influence and to the grandeur of Jewish privileges; and to use this mark as a shelter for themselves against Jewish persecution. The word flesh, instead of body, reminds us that the matter of their triumph belonged to the outward and perishing and seductive side of human life. Cp. 2 Corinthians 11:18, boast according to flesh; and Philippians 3:3 f, confidence in the flesh. Thus, as in Galatians 6:12, this word keeps before us the teaching of §§ 21, 22. Galatians 6:14. Me: in emphatic contrast to those who boast in circumcision; literally, to me let there be no exultation.In the cross: a marked contrast to in your flesh. Various matters, e.g. those quoted in 2 Corinthians 11:22; Philippians 3:4 ff, and Paul’s matchless mental and moral power, might have aroused in him emotions of confidence and joy. But to him all these were nothing. Yet the heart which was indifferent to them was kindled into a glow of emotion by a symbol of his nation’s degradation, (for the cross was a Roman punishment,) by the cross on which his beloved Master died a death of pain and shame. The above wonderful statement, Galatians 6:14 b explains. Paul cannot boast except in the cross of Christ because on that cross himself has been crucified.Through which, or whom: each rendering grammatically correct; and certain decision impossible. But since these words evidently explain Paul’s exultation, of which not Christ but the cross of Christ is the specific and astounding element here, this is probably his precise reference. By means of the cross on which Christ died the world itself has been crucified.Crucified: as in Galatians 2:20; Galatians 5:24. It gives vividness to the mode of Christ’s death, and declares that in some real sense both the world and Paul have shared that death.The world: the entire realm of men and things around. [The absence twice of the Greek article bids us look at the world qualitatively, i.e. in view of its magnitude, variety, and power: to Paul a world has been crucified.] The world was once to him a living and vast and tremendous reality, Upon its smile hung all his hopes: its frown was ruin. Consequently, he was the world’s servant and slave: and the world was his absolute and imperious and cruel lord. This service was hopeless and degrading bondage. But now, through the death of Christ upon the cross, it has utterly and for ever passed away. The world can no longer terrify or beguile him. Thus Paul is free. Just so, around the corpse of Henry VIII., his courtiers felt themselves to be for the first time free; and breathed more freely because those lips and that brow and arm were henceforth silent and still and powerless. Also through death came Paul’s freedom; through Christ’s death upon the cross, which had brought about the death of Paul’s tremendous tyrant. But the world was dead relatively, not absolutely. To thousands it was still, and is now, a master possessing irresistible power. Only to those joined to Christ Crucified is the world dead. Hence the word to me, thrust to the front for conspicuous emphasis. And I to the world: added to remind us that, although it is the world which through Christ’s death has lost its vital power and may therefore be said to be crucified, yet the real change has taken place in Paul. By union with the Crucified his own past life of bondage and sin has come to an end. By his own, as well as by his Master’s death the captive has become free. Thus we have a triple crucifixion. Christ has set up His cross between Paul and the world: and they are separated completely and for ever. This triple crucifixion and its mysterious instrument evoke joy and a shout of liberty. And they forbid all other boasting: for all else belongs to a world which has been crucified. Thus the astounding statement of Gal 6:14 a is explained by the more astounding statement of Gal 6:14 b.Galatians 6:15. Galatians 6:14 is practically a refusal to boast in any way about circumcision. This refusal Paul now supports by again saying that circumcision is neither gain nor loss. Since it can (Galatians 5:6) do nothing, it is (cp. 1 Corinthians 7:19) worth nothing. And therefore Paul cannot boast in it.New creature, or new creation: see under 2 Corinthians 5:17; cp. Ephesians 2:10; Ephesians 4:24. So utterly lost is man that nothing less than a new putting forth of creative power can save him.This verse implies that circumcision was not a condition of the putting forth by God of this creative power; as it was a condition (Genesis 17:10) of the covenant with Abraham. That it was a condition also of the New Covenant, the false teachers evidently asserted. And of this Better Covenant Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, also outward rites, are conditions: for they were expressly ordained by Christ, and therefore refusal of them is disobedience to Him: cp. Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:4; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:25. But circumcision belonged to the earlier and now abrogated Covenant. To assert its perpetual obligation was to set up again the Mosaic Covenant which made the favour of God contingent on obedience to a multitude of moral and ritual prescriptions. No such obligation was involved in the requirement of Baptism. In the baptism of converts Paul might justly exult, as a triumph of the Gospel and such exultation would be an exulting in God. So might others in earlier days exult in the circumcision of born heathens, as a turning to the God of Israel. That to Paul circumcision is nothing, proves how completely in his view the Old Covenant had passed away. Thus these words are a summing up, at the close of the Epistle, of its chief argument, which, by their similarity to Galatians 5:6 at the close of that argument, they recall. Galatians 6:16. Walk: same word in Galatians 5:25; Romans 4:12. Thus, just as Galatians 6:15 sums up the argument of DIV. II., so Galatians 6:16, which bids us make the principle asserted in Galatians 6:15 our rule of conduct, recalls the summary in Galatians 5:25 of the argument of DIV. III.Rule: literally, canon: see under 2 Corinthians 10:13. It keeps up the metaphor suggested by the word walk. The principle in Galatians 6:15 was a marked out line along which Paul’s readers should direct their steps.Shall walk: throughout all future time. Peace: as in Romans 1:7, where see notes; cp. Ephesians 6:23; 2 Thessalonians 3:16. It is a profound calm and rest, a consciousness of absolute security, derived from the presence and smile of God; the opposite of discord and of fear.Upon them: for this peace comes down from heaven. Mercy: Ephesians 2:4; 1 Timothy 1:2 : that which prompts help to the helpless. That we need mercy, implies that we cannot save ourselves from wretchedness. Paul’s thought rises from the peace which fills and keeps our hearts to the mercy of God from which it flows.The Israel of God: that which God recognises as His chosen people: either the entire Church of God, or the Jewish part of it. The latter exposition would mark out (cp. and in Mark 1:5; Mark 16:7) the Jewish Christians as being specially objects of this good wish: the former would imply that they who accept the principle announced in Galatians 6:15 occupy now the place of honour granted of old to the sacred nation. And this latter is probably Paul’s meaning. For it is most unlikely that in this farewell blessing he would separate the Jewish Christians from, and raise them above, their Gentile brethren, when it has been the purpose of the whole Epistle to place Jews and Gentiles on the same level as equally children and heirs of Abraham: see Galatians 3:7; Galatians 3:9; Galatians 3:14; Galatians 3:28; Galatians 4:31; cp. Romans 4:11; Romans 4:16 f. Whereas, to speak of uncircumcised Gentile believers as the Israel of God, is a triumphant practical application, at the close of the Epistle, of its chief argument which has just been summed up in the assertion of Gal 6:15. And it is a suitable conclusion of § 23 which is specially directed against Jewish opponents.These words recall Psalms 125:5; Psalms 128:6.After proving by the arguments of this Epistle that the teaching of the disturbers is false, Paul now covers them with confusion by revealing the secret and unworthy motives of their apparent loyalty to the Law of Moses. Indeed, the proved falsity of the teaching prepares us to find that the teachers are insincere. Paul says that their professed loyalty is for the sake of appearances, a means of shielding themselves against persecution from the acknowledged enemies of the Crucified One. Such fear of men he disowned for himself utterly in Galatians 1:10, before he began the argument of the Epistle, as though indicating beforehand the secret source of the teaching he was about to combat. And to this way of escape from persecution he referred again in Galatians 5:11 at the close of his chief argument. A proof that this is his opponents’ real motive, Paul finds in the conduct of the Gentiles who from time to time receive circumcision. For, as matter of fact, they do not keep the Law. Consequently, desire that the Law be kept cannot be the motive of those who are so eager for the circumcision of Gentiles. Another motive for this eagerness is the tribute to the spiritual prerogatives of Israel, and to the personal influence of the proselyters, involved in the reception of the rite by fresh converts from heathenism. Probably, Galatians 6:12-13 would come to all parties concerned with an overwhelming force which we cannot now appreciate. For, doubtless, Paul’s charge would be confirmed in various ways unknown to us. His outspoken accusation would explain conduct otherwise inexplicable. For unworthy motives, however carefully concealed, reveal themselves in a multitude of casual indications. These hidden and base aims, thus brought to light, Paul puts utterly to shame by pointing to the Cross of Christ as his only ground of boasting; and to the total separation from the world, from its allurements and its terrors, which that Cross has wrought in him. And this exultation rests on the doctrines advocated throughout the Epistle. Upon all who hold them and make them their rule of life, Paul pronounces a rich blessing from God. In §§ 21, 22 we learn that the Holy Spirit given to believers is designed to save them from the rule of the flesh. The word flesh twice in § 23 brings this teaching to bear upon the disturbers in Galatia. For, their unworthy motives belong altogether to the domain of bodily life. They exult in a merely outward rite deprived now of all inward and spiritual significance, because it offers them deliverance from the bodily affliction with which they are threatened by the enemies of Christ. Consequently, their eagerness for circumcision is but a sowing for the flesh. SECTION 24. — . CH. 6:17, 18. Henceforth let no one cause me trouble. For I bear the brandmarks of Jesus in my body. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your Spirit, Brethren, Amen. Henceforth: the past troubles being more than sufficient. Let no one trouble me: literally, labours let no one afford me, viz. such toil and weariness as that imposed on Paul by his opponents. The marks: a technical term for tattoo or brand marks, which were frequent with slaves, criminals, soldiers, and even votaries of some particular deity. E.g. Herodotus (bk. vii. 233) says of the Thebans who at Thermopylae turned to the Persians; “the more part of them, by Xerxes command, they marked with royal marks.” So 3 Macc. ii. 29, “marked in the body by fire with the ivy-leaf sign of Dionysus.” Such marks were forbidden to Israel: Leviticus 19:28. Since these marks were evidently a badge of honour, and since there is no reference here to military life, whereas Paul ever rejoices to call himself a servant or slave of Christ and speak of him in Galatians 6:14; Galatians 6:18 as his Lord, it is easier to understand the word here in this last sense.In my body; suggests that he refers to the scars received in the many scourgings, imprisonments, and other hardships, (2 Corinthians 11:24,) endured in the service of Christ. These scars proclaimed, in contrast to the disturbers whose chief thought was to escape persecution, how faithful that service had been. Therefore, as insignia of his Master, Paul bore them in triumph. And, because of the sufferings of which these marks were witnesses, he claimed immunity from the weariness caused him by the contention of the Judaizers. The advocates of circumcision point with pride to the circumcised bodies of their converts. Paul points to his own body which bears marks of hardships endured for Christ, these hardships testifying the faithfulness of his service. This was no mere exultation in the flesh: for these scars in the flesh had deep spiritual significance, inasmuch as they reveal the work in Paul’s spirit of the Spirit of God. They place Paul and his career in significant contrast to his opponents. Than this silent comparison, no appeal could be more forceful. Galatians 6:18. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: as in ( 1 Corinthians 16:23;) 2 Corinthians 13:13.Your spirit: as in Romans 1:9; Romans 8:10; Romans 8:16; 1 Corinthians 2:11; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5; 1 Corinthians 14:14-16; 1 Corinthians 14:32; 1 Corinthians 16:18, 2 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 7:13. It is perhaps suggested here by the contrast of my body: although in 2 Timothy 4:22; Philemon 1:25 we have similar words without any such contrast. Paul desires that in the noblest element of his readers’ nature, in that part of them which is nearest to God and most like God and on which the Spirit of God directly operates, the smile of Christ may shine upon them. Parting with them, after a letter of severe condemnation, he calls them brothers. And with a concluding Amen he confirms his parting benediction. THE IN GALATIA. The letter before us is evidently an attempt to recall the Galatian Christians from an apostacy already making progress among them and threatening to destroy utterly the Churches of Galatia. Such a letter can be understood only so far as we understand the errors it was designed to correct. We will therefore gather together, before reviewing the Epistle, all indications, which are found chiefly in the Epistle itself, of these errors; and endeavour thus to gain a view of the teaching which Paul here combats. Beside the errors prevalent in Galatia, we meet in this Epistle with three types of Jewish error, viz. in certain false brethren at Jerusalem, Galatians 2:4; in some men who came from Jerusalem to Antioch, Galatians 2:11-12; and in the Jews resident at Antioch, Galatians 2:13. (1) That the false brethren at Jerusalem are said to have crept secretly into the Church in order to understand the Gospel that thus they might overthrow it, proves that their Christian profession was only a mask, that they were simply traitors in the camp. They were Jews who rejected Christianity and used against it weapons of deceit. Similar men, apparently connected with the Church at Corinth, are described and denounced in 2 Corinthians 11:13 ff. (2) That the Jews whose arrival at Antioch (cp. Acts 15:1) wrought so marked and evil a change there were guilty of like deception, Paul gives no hint. They may have been men who, after Jewish birth and training, finding the Law insufficient to save them, had accepted Jesus as the promised Messiah, had bowed to Him as their Lord and still clung to Him as their Saviour; but who nevertheless felt themselves bound by their ancient Law and believed that without obedience to its prescriptions they could not enjoy the favour of God or obtain the Eternal Life promised by Christ. Possibly, sincerity of belief and purity of life gave weight to their influence. Of the terrible logical consequence of such belief, their Jewish training and surroundings and their sincerity would easily make them unconscious. They looked up to James as their leader: for his teaching was in less marked opposition to their views than was that of Paul. Similar men we find on a visit to Antioch in Acts 15:1; and others at Jerusalem in Acts 15:5, these latter being called believers. But their faith was evidently immature. (3) From these we must distinguish the Jews already at Antioch, who yielded, under Peter’s example, to the influence of the new comers. These last, Paul calls hypocrites. For, living as they did among uncircumcised Gentile Christians, they knew in their hearts that the distinction of meats had passed away; and yet acted as though it were still binding. They did so apparently without any definite aim, influenced merely by the Jewish Christians lately come from Jerusalem who represented, and by their presence brought to bear at Antioch, the weight of the entire Jewish nation. The foregoing varieties of error had in common the assertion that circumcision and the prescriptions of the Law were still binding on all Christians. Paul’s condemnatory description of these Jewish Christians at Jerusalem and Antioch was evidently designed to be a mirror in which the Christians of Galatia should see reflected the Jewish teachers who were leading them astray. By these teachers they were treated with (Galatians 4:17) the greatest attention, were led to observe (Galatians 5:10) Jewish festivals, and were strenuously urged (Galatians 6:12) to receive circumcision. But in all this the false teachers were simply endeavouring to shield themselves from persecution. That they were in danger of it, proves that they were, in some imperfect and vain sense, believers in Christ. For against mere hypocrites, like those mentioned in Galatians 2:4, no persecution would be directed. Or, certainly, they might at once have escaped it by proclaiming themselves enemies of Christ. Their danger suggests that in their heart of hearts they believed that Jesus is the Messiah and were hoping for the blessings He promised to bestow. Their religion seems to have been a compromise between desire for the favour of Christ and a wish to propitiate His enemies. The former they sought by professing themselves Christians: the latter by eager advocacy (Galatians 6:12) of Jewish prerogatives. And Paul declares (Galatians 5:11) that he might escape persecution in the same way.That even in heathen countries the hostility of Jews was an element of danger to Christians, is proved by the ill treatment Paul received, at the instigation of Jews, at Antioch in Pisidia, at Iconium, and at Lystra, cities on the borders of Galatia. And the motive mentioned in Galatians 6:12 suggests that this hostility arose from jealousy for the peculiar spiritual prerogatives claimed by the Jews on the ground of the Old Covenant and strenuously asserted, of which prerogatives circumcision was a conspicuous badge. These prerogatives, the Gospel as preached by Paul utterly trampled under foot. This motive also suggests that, like the Jewish Christians residing at Antioch, the disturbers in Galatia did not themselves believe their own teaching that circumcision was needful for salvation. Or possibly the convenience of the compromise gradually perverted their judgment. If so their religious belief, and in any case their action, were controlled by care for their bodily life, i.e. by the flesh. That their zeal for circumcision was not prompted by genuine loyalty to the Law, Paul proves by their converts’ practical disregard of its requirements, which they evidently tolerated. Paul’s assertion and careful proof of his apostolic authority and of his independence of the earlier apostles can be explained only by supposing that these were denied by the disturbers in Galatia. And this we can easily understand. For the Gospel he preached repudiated utterly the compromise by which they hoped to escape persecution: and his teaching and influence could be withstood only by saying that he had himself perverted the Gospel of Christ. The distance of the other apostles made possible an insinuation that his authority as a Christian teacher was derived from them, and that he had been unfaithful to the charge thus received. The men before us were thus compelled, by the false position they had taken up, to place themselves in opposition to the greatest of the Apostles. Paul declares in Galatians 1:7; Galatians 5:10; Galatians 5:12 that his opponents were unsettling the Christians in Galatia, and were wishing to overturn the Gospel. They even threaten to destroy (Galatians 4:10) the Churches he had planted. For, by asserting the perpetual validity of the Law they proclaimed implicitly a universal curse which shuts out all men from the blessings promised by Christ and renders the death of Christ meaningless and useless. Against such teaching and teachers Paul pronounces a tremendous and repeated Anathema; and almost hopes that they will join the ranks of heathendom. This proves that their conduct was inexcusable and sinful, that their faith in Christ did not influence their inner life, and that their profession of Christianity was an empty name. That Paul, while writing about them, never speaks to them, but only to their victims, proves that in his view their case was utterly hopeless. All this we can best harmonise by supposing that the disturbers in Galatia had honestly accepted Jesus of Nazareth as the foretold Messiah, had believed His promise of eternal life, and had enrolled themselves among His professed followers. But the words and Spirit of Jesus had not permeated and renovated their heart and thought and life; or had ceased to do so. Consequently, as the first impulse which led them into the Church waned, they yielded to fear of the hostility of their fellow-countrymen. And the Gospel, which would have given them victory over all adverse surroundings had they accepted it without reserve, itself fell, in their conception of it, under the control of the needs of their bodily life and sank into an empty profession powerless to save. Yet the first influence did not altogether leave them. While pursuing eagerly a course subversive of the Church of Christ, they nevertheless called themselves His servants and hoped for a place in His eternal Kingdom. How vain were their hopes, the whole tenor of the Epistle afford tremendous proof. They are to us an abiding monument of the peril of permitting our belief and practice to be moulded by the needs or convenience of our present bodily life; of all compromises between the Spirit and the flesh, between truth and error. REVIEW OF THE EPISTLE. To a Church in which it had been questioned, Paul begins his letter by asserting his independent apostolic authority; and in the greeting of an Epistle devoted chiefly to the doctrine of justification by faith he weaves the correlative historical fact of Christ’s resurrection and the doctrine that He gave Himself for the sins of men. The gratitude with which in other Epistles he turns to his readers gives place here to wonder that they are so soon turning away from God, and to a repeated curse on any who lead them astray. And, in view of the secret motive of the false guides, he declares that to make the favour of men our aim is to renounce the service of Christ. Paul then proves from known facts that the Gospel he preaches is independent of human authority. His previous life attests the divine source of the revelation which has wrought in him so great a change. For three years after his conversion he did not so much as see the other apostles; and then saw only Peter and James, and for a short time. And when, many years later, he went up to Jerusalem and expounded to the apostles his teaching among the Gentiles, they desired no change in it, but recognised at once his independent mission. Indeed, some time afterwards, at Antioch, he publicly reproved Peter for action similar to that of the disturbers in Galatia; and supported his reproof by an appeal to the past inward experience of Peter and of himself and to his own present life in Christ. Having thus proved by known facts that his teaching is independent of human authority, Paul now comes to defend the teaching itself. That salvation is by faith, he proves from his readers’ own experience, which he shows to be in harmony with the story of Abraham. The Law cannot save: for it pronounces a universal curse, from which Christ saved us by Himself bearing it. Had God made obedience to law a condition of the fulfilment of His promise to Abraham, He would have invalidated the promise by a subsequent addition to it; which even human morality forbids. Yet the Law must have a worthy purpose. It was designed to force us to Christ for salvation by faith. And this purpose has in us been accomplished. The Law belongs to spiritual childhood, which is a state of bondage. But now the set time has come, and we are free: for in our hearts the Spirit proclaims that we are sons of God. Yet, by seeking salvation in sacred seasons, the Galatian Christians are turning back to the bondage of childhood. This complete argument is followed by a direct appeal recalling the joyous founding of the Galatian Churches and revealing the unworthy motive of the earnestness of the disturbers. This again is followed by an historical application of the main argument. Since the Law brings bondage, they who look to it for salvation are in the position of the children of Hagar. And the expulsion of Hagar and her son from the family of Abraham proclaims the exclusion of these their modern representatives from the blessings promised to Abraham’s seed. The entire foregoing argument, Paul then brings to bear on the matter of circumcision by asserting that to receive the rite is to accept obligation to keep the whole Law. With such obligation he contrasts his own religious life; and concludes the matter of circumcision by sundry appeals. The doctrine of justification by faith apart from works renders absolutely needful an exposition of Christian morals: and this exposition Paul throws into a form specially suitable to the case of his readers. To advocates of the abiding validity of the Mosaic Law, who yet needed to be warned against mutual conflict, he points out the sum of that Law, viz. love to our neighbour: and, in the presence of men whose teaching was moulded by care for the flesh, he proclaims the ceaseless antagonism of the flesh and the Spirit. These two great principles of Christian morality he applies to sundry details. A mark of his earnestness Paul gives by recurring, at the end of the Epistle, in his own hand-writing, to its chief matter; and reveals the real and specific motive of these eager advocates of circumcision. This evokes an exultant boast in that cross of Christ which his opponents practically trampled under foot.