CHAPTER I Chapter 1 Verses 1 5 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors I. This Gospel's Origination: it is not of human but of divine origin A. Introduction which really introduces! Name of addressor, of the addressed; opening salutation. 1:1–5 A. Introduction 1 1 Paul, an apostle not from men nor through man but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead 2 and all the brothers who are with me, to the churches of Galatia; 3 grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ; 4 who gave himself for our sins, that he might rescue us out of this present world dominated by evil; (having thus given himself) according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom (be) the glory forever and ever. Amen. The spiritual atmosphere is charged. It is sultry, sweltering. A storm is threatening. The sky is darkening. In the distance one can see flashes of lightning; one can hear faint muttering sounds. When each line of verses 1 5 is read in the light of the letter's occasion and purpose (see Introduction III B, pp. 16–19) the atmospheric turbulence is immediately detected. The apostle, though in perfect control of himself, for he is writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is greatly agitated, deeply moved. His heart and mind are filled with a medley of emotions. For the perverters there is withering denunciation springing from holy indignation. For the addressed there is marked disapproval and an earnest desire to restore. For the One who has called him there is profound reverence and humble gratitude. Now in these opening lines there is, to be sure, a measure of restraint. The most vivid flashes of lightning and the most deafening peals of thunder are reserved for later (1:6–9; 3:1, 10; 5:4, 12; 6:12, 13). Nevertheless, even now the storm is definitely approaching. This will be shown in connection with each element of this Introduction: a. the manner in which the addressor describes himself, b. the way in which he designates the addressed, and c. the qualifying clause by means of which he enlarges on his opening salutation. 1. Paul, an apostle. He is a sent, a commissioned one (John 20:21), an apostle in the deepest, richest sense, fully clothed with the authority of the One who sent him. His apostleship is equal to that of the Twelve. Hence, we speak of the Twelve and Paul. Elsewhere he even stresses the fact that the risen and exalted Savior had appeared to him just as truly as to Cephas (I Cor. 15:5, 8; cf. 9:1). The Savior had assigned to him a task so broad and universal that his entire life was henceforth to be occupied with it. To the words Paul, an apostle the writer adds a very significant modifier, one which immediately points to the theme of the entire letter. Among uninspired men introductions do not always introduce. In fact, at times they may even confuse. But here is an Introduction which really introduces, for the words not from men nor through man but through Jesus Christ and God the Father can only mean: My apostleship is genuine; hence, so is the gospel which I proclaim, no matter what the Judaizers who disturb you may say! I am a divinely appointed emissary. As was pointed out previously, Paul's opponents had infiltrated the South Galatian churches, and were casting slurs on his apostleship, in order to show that his gospel was not from God. They charged or at least insinuated that Paul's apostolic office or commission was either not derived from God but merely from men, from the church of Syrian Antioch perhaps, as if this church had acted without divine guidance and authorization (Acts 13:2); or else, though derived originally from God, had been transmitted to him through this or that man (Ananias or an apostle?), with the implication that in the process of transmission it had been substantially modified, adulterated. Paul's answer is an unequivocal and double denial. Not only had he received his office from the historical Jesus, who is at the same time the Anointed One, but that very Jesus Christ in person had invested him with this high distinction. Hence, Paul is an apostle through not only from Jesus Christ. Moreover, since Jesus Christ, in turn, as Son is one in essence with the Father (John 1:1; 10:30), and as Mediator always performs his Father's willJohn 4:34; 5:30, etc. , hence Paul's apostleship is through^[10] Jesus Christ and God the Father. The implication is clear: since Paul and his message are backed by divine authority, those who reject him and his gospel are rejectors of Christ, hence also of the Father who sent him and who raised him from the dead. The detractors oppose the very One whom the Father had honored; the very One upon whose work of redemption the Father, by the act of raising him from the dead, had placed the seal of his approval, thereby designating him as the complete and perfect Savior, whose work does not need to be, and cannot be, supplemented; the very One who from his exalted position in heaven had called Paul to be an apostle! The divine source of Paul's mission, to which he here bears witness, is confirmed by the book of Acts, which shows that it was Christ himself who had appeared to Paul (9:1–5; 22:1–9). True, it was Ananias who encouraged Paul concerning his commission (Acts 22:15), but either a. Ananias conveyed that commission to Paul so exactly that the latter was able afterward to merge the words of Jesus and those of Ananias as if all had been spoken by Christ himself, or (better perhaps) b. the commission itself also had first of all been uttered directly by Christ, not by Ananias. When Acts 26:12 18is interpreted either way, Gal. 1:1a remains true. See also on Gal. 1:16. 2. Paul adds, and all the brothers who are with me. Of these words there are three main interpretations: a. all fellow-believers at the place from which I am writing this letter. Those who favor this view stress the fact that brothers is a very common term that is often used to indicate Christians in generalI Thess. 1:4; 2:1; I Cor. 5:11; 6:5–8; 8:12; etc. . Some also add that if it be true that this letter was written from Corinth in the early days of the work there, a church may not yet have been organized, though there were already some believers or brothers. Interpretation b. is: all those mentioned under a. (above) plus all the members of the Galatian delegation that is with me. The adherents of this view point out that Paul must have received his information about the situation in the South Galatian churches from some reliable source (I Cor. 1:11), perhaps from a delegation sent to him by the officials of these churches, who wanted him to know what was going on and who desired to benefit by his advice. Theory c.: all my fellow-workers who are with me here. Those who favor this interpretation point to a similar phrase in (Phil. 4:21, where it refers to the apostle's assistants in Rome, in distinction from all the saints, namely, all of Rome's resident Christians, mentioned in the next verse. They are of the opinion, moreover, that a traveling missionary like Paul, one who stays in a place for a while and then moves on again, would hardly refer to the place's residents as all the brothers who are with me. A closer look as this argument, however, shows that it is not as strong as it may at first appear to be. The distinction drawn in Phil. 4:21, 22between Paul's assistants and all of Rome's resident Christians is altogether natural in a city (Rome) where there was a numerically strong church that had been established long before the apostle's arrival. But in Corinth from which, probably on his second missionary journey, the apostle wrote Galatians (see our Introduction, pp. 14–16), and where the work had just begun and the number of believers may still have been rather small, the apostle could very well have referred to this small company as all the brothers who are with me. The word all, moreover, stresses unanimity of sentiment rather than numerical immensity. Even if there were only ten or twenty converts, as long as there was no disagreement among them the apostle would still be justified in writing in the name of all the brothers who are with me. Also, as to the several fellow-workers who, according to theory c. were with Paul, I answer that if the time and place of the letter's composition was as has been surmised, their presence in any considerable quantity would seem rather doubtful. On his second missionary journey only one assistant accompanied the apostle from the start: Silas; a little later also TimothyActs 15:40 16:3). Luke was with them for a little while, but soon left again (16:10–17). He was no longer present when Paul reached Corinth and did not rejoin him until the latter, returning from his third missionary journey, had reached Troas (20:5). As has been indicated previously, when Galatians was written even Silvanus and Timothy were probably not in Paul's company. All things considered, therefore, the true meaning of the words and all the brothers who are with me would seem to lie in the direction of theory a. or possibly b. rather than in that of theory c. Certainty on this point, is, however, unattainable. What is often forgotten, however, is the main lesson. That lesson would seem to be this, that even though it is true that Paul alone not Paul plus these brothers who are with him authored this letterGal. 1:6, 10 17, etc. , nevertheless, before composing and sending it he thoroughly discussed with all the brothers the matter with which it was to deal. So unanimous was their agreement with Paul's proposed method of handling this difficult situation that the apostle writes in the name of all. Moral: when it becomes necessary to send someone a letter of sharp reproof, discuss the matter with others who also have the welfare of Zion at heart, if such can be done without violating any confidences or of coming into conflict with the principles established in Matt. 18. Were this rule always observed, what a difference it would make in the end-product! It is true that Paul was writing under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit. Even so, however, this work of inspiration makes use of means. It operates organically, not mechanically. Besides, Paul's loving heart, filled with intense yearning to reclaim the Galatians, makes use of every legitimate means to attain this end, one of these means being to impress upon the addressed that his own apprehensions concerning the course which they are now beginning to pursue is being shared by all the brothers who are with^[11] him. Those whom Paul addresses are designated as follows: to the churches of Galatia. Every commendatory modifier for example, beloved of God (Rom. 1:7), sanctified in Christ Jesus (I Cor. 1:2), saints and believers (Eph. 1:1) is lacking here. The apostle loves, but does not believe in flattery. The atmosphere remains tense. Note: churches both here and in 1:22. Paul recognizes the autonomy of the local church. Nevertheless, he is also fully aware of the fact that all believers everywhere constitute one body of Christ, one church (1:13). He keeps perfect balance, a lesson for all time! That these churches were in all probability located in the southern part of the Roman province of Galatia has been established (Introduction, Chapter II). 3. The opening salutation proper is as in (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:3; II Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:2; and Phil. 1:2: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Although it is true that the apostle finds little to praise, much to deplore, in the churches of Galatia, this does not mean that he has given them up as being hopeless. Far from it. See on 5:10a; cf. 4:19, 20. Though he is perplexed about them, he still regards them as Christian communities, upon whom, accordingly, he is fully justified in pronouncing this salutation. Grace, as here used, is God's spontaneous, unmerited favor in action, his freely bestowed lovingkindness in operation, bestowing salvation upon guilt-laden sinners who turn to him for refuge. It is, as it were, the rainbow round about the very throne out of which proceed flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunderRev. 4:3, 5). We think of the Judge who not only remits the penalty but also cancels the guilt of the offender and even adopts him as his own son. Grace brings peace. The latter is both a state, that of reconciliation with God, and a condition, the inner conviction that consequently all is well. It is the great blessing which Christ by his atoning sacrifice bestowed upon the church (John 14:27), and it surpasses all understanding (Phil. 4:7). It is not the reflection of an unclouded sky in the tranquil waters of a picturesque lake, but rather the cleft of the rock in which the Lord hides his children when the storm is raging (think of the theme of Zephaniah's prophecy); or, to change the figure somewhat but with retention of the main thought, it is the hiding place under the wings, to which the hen gathers her brood, so that the little chicks are safe while the storm bursts loose in all its fury upon herself. Now this grace and this peace have their origin in God our (precious word of appropriation and inclusion!) Father, and have been merited for believers by him who is the great Master-Owner-Conqueror, Savior, and Office-Bearer, and who, because of his threefold anointing is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near to God through him (Heb. 7:25).^[12] For further details about certain aspects of Paul's opening salutations see N.T.C. on I and II Thessalonians, pp. 37–45; on Philippians, pp. 43–49; and on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 49–56; 339 344. 4. Everywhere else the opening salutation proper is very brief. Having read the words from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, the addition here of a modifier to the title of the second person of the Holy Trinity comes as somewhat of a surprise. Clearly, in keeping with the occasion and purpose of the letter, there must be a reason why Paul here adds: who gave himself for our sins, that he might rescue us out of this present world dominated by evil. The reason is that the atmosphere continues to be loaded. The greatness and magnanimity of Christ's act of self-surrender is stressed in order to underscore the grievous nature of the sin of those who teach that this supreme sacrifice must be supplemented by law-works. Christ surrendered himself to sorrow and scorn, to the curse of eternal death during his entire sojourn on earth but especially at Gethsemane, Gabbatha, and Golgotha. He laid down his life for his sheep. No one took it from him, but he laid it down of his own accord, voluntarily (John 10:11, 17, 18). He did this motivated by love incomprehensible; hence, for our sins, that is, to deliver us from the pollution, guilt, and punishment adhering to the many ways in which, by inner disposition, thought, word, and deed, we miss the mark of existing and living to the glory of God Triune. Note: He gave himself &that [meaning: that in so doing] he might rescue us. The word rescue is very descriptive. It presupposes that those to whom it applies are in great danger from which they are unable to extricate themselves. Thus Joseph was rescued out of all his afflictions (Acts 7:10), Israel out of Egypt's house of bondage (Acts 7:34), Peter out of Herod's hand (Acts 12:11), and thus also Paul would one day be delivered or rescued out of the hands of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 23:27; 26:17). The rescue described here in Gal. 1:4is all the more glorious because: a. it concerns those who by nature are enemies of the Rescuer, and b. it was accomplished by means of the voluntary death (in this case eternal death) of the Rescuer. One is reminded of a swimmer who plunges into the fast moving current in order to rescue the child that has fallen into the stream and is about to be pitched over the cliff of the cataract to its death. In the act of seizing the youngster and hurling him to the side where loving arms reach out and catch him, he himself is swept over the precipice to his death. All comparisons fall short, however, since in the case of Christ the sacrifice was great beyond all comprehension, and the beneficiaries were thoroughly unworthy of such love! Paul states that Christ gave himself that he might rescue us out of this present world dominated by evil.^[13] For world Paul uses the term aeon. It denotes the world in motion in contrast with cosmos which, though used in a variety of senses, indicates the world at rest. The aeon, then, refers to the world viewed from the standpoint of time and change. This is especially true when the adjective present is added, as here. It is the world or transitory era which is hastening to its close and in which, in spite of all its pleasures and treasures, there is nothing of abiding value. Over against this present world or age is the coming world, the glory-age, that will be ushered in at the consummation of all things (Eph. 1:21; I Tim. 6:17; II Tim. 4:10; Titus 2:12). The rescue from this present world dominated by evil, though not complete until the last trumpet has sounded, is progressive in character. It is being accomplished whenever a sinner is brought out of the darkness into the light and whenever a saint gains a victory in his struggle against sin. It is not sufficient, however, to bow in adoration before the Son, as if he alone were deserving of thanksgiving and honor because of his marvelous, self-sacrificing, work of redemption. On the contrary, the Son gave himself for our sins, that he might rescue us, etc. (having thus given himself) according to the will of our God and Father.^[14] The son gave himself; the Father yes, our (see on 1:3) God and Father spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all (Rom. 8:32). In fact, in the very act of the Son's self-sacrifice the Father's will his decree as revealed in time, his desire was being accomplished. Therefore the Father loved the Son! (John 10:17, 18; cf. 4:34; 6:38). Let the trouble-makers bear in mind, therefore, that when they belittle the work of the Son, they make light of the Father also! 5. When the apostle contemplates the Father's marvelous love revealed in delivering up his own dear Son, the Only-begotten, for our salvation, his soul is lost in wonder, love, and praise, so that he exclaims: to whom be^[15] the glory^[16] forever and ever. Amen. When the wicked infiltrators minimize God's work of redemption, Paul will magnify it, calling upon all men to do this with him. So marvelous is this work that it is worthy of never-ending praise; hence, to whom be the glory forever and ever, literally: to the ages of the ages. With a solemn Amen he reaffirms his personal gratitude as again and again he ponders God's great undying love, the unfathomable depth of his grace and mercy in Jesus Christ. Chapter 1 Verses 6 10 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors I. This Gospel's Origination: it is not of human but of divine origin B. I am amazed that you are so quickly moving to a different gospel. There is only one true gospel. Let him be accursed who preaches another. There! Is it the favor of men that I am now seeking to win or of God? 1:6–10 B. There is only one true gospel 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly moving away from him who called you (and turning) to a different gospel, 7 which (in reality) is not (even) another; but (the fact is that) certain individuals are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even though we ourselves or an angel from heaven were to preach to you any gospel other than the one which we preached to you, let him be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If anyone is preaching to you any gospel other than that which you have received, let him be accursed! 10 There! Is it the favor of men that I am now seeking to win or of God? Or is it men whom I am seeking to please? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. 6, 7. We have reached the place in the letter where ordinarily, according to the custom of the day, words of thanksgiving would be found. It stands to reason that in Paul's epistles this expression of gratitude would be addressed to the one true God and not, as among the Gentiles, to this or that pagan divinity. For the apostle, then, it was generally a grateful acknowledgment of divine grace bestowed upon the addressed, whereby they had been enabled to make progress in knowledge, faith, love, etc. It was an expression of inner satisfaction and was frequently accompanied by a prayer that the advance already made might continue on and onRom. 1:8ff.; I Cor. 1:4–9; Phil. 1:3–11; Col. 1:3ff.; I Thess. 1:2ff.; II Thess. 1:3ff. . Sometimes the thanksgiving was in the form of a doxologyII Cor. 1:3ff.; Eph. 1:3ff. . In Galatians, however, we are confronted with the very opposite. What we find here is not satisfaction but stupefaction: overwhelming amazement, painful perplexity. Says Paul: I am amazed that you are so quickly moving away from him who called you (and turning) to a different gospel, which (in reality) is not (even) another. Paul could be stern.^[17] He was no flatterer. To be sure, he was very tactful. It was his custom to commend before he began to condemn, to use words of praise and encouragement before using words of criticism and warning. He does this even in I Corinthians, addressed to a church not lacking in failings both common and uncommon. But in Galatians the very essence of the gospel is at stake. Had this not been the case Paul would have been very tolerant, as Phil. 1:15 18proves. But when the issue is momentous God's glory and man's salvation tolerance has its limits. In view of the occasion and purpose of Galatians, as previously explained, the unceremonious and uncompromising character of 1:6–10 is not surprising. Now this does not mean that in connection with those whom he addresses the apostle was unaware of anything whatever that he might be able to acknowledge with gratitude. In the present circumstances, however, such acknowledgment must bide its time (3:3; 4:12–15; 5:7). But although 1:6–10 is in the nature of an outburst, nevertheless, as far as the Galatians themselves are concerned it is not an outburst of anger. There is consternation rather than indignation, amazement rather than resentment. Though Paul reproaches, he does not reject. Even now he is convinced that in the end everything will turn out favorably (5:10). The apostle is amazed or astonished to hear that the addressed are in the process of changing their position. The verb used can have either a favorable or an unfavorable sense; here obviously the latter. Moreover, the Galatians are transferring their loyalty so quickly, that is, so soon after their conversion (4:12–15; 5:7); hence also: so soon after the evangelistic labor that had been performed in their midst by Paul and his companions. And it is they themselves who are turning (themselves) away; they are not just being turned away.^[18] Neither is it merely a theological position from which they are swerving. On the contrary, they are in the process of transferring their loyalty from the One who in his grace and mercy had called them that is, from God (Rom. 4:17; 8:30; 9:11, 24; Gal. 1:15; Eph. 1:18; 4:1, 4; Phil. 3:14; I Thess. 2:12; 4:7; II Thess. 1:11; II Tim. 1:9) to a different gospel. The call to which reference is made, is here, as everywhere in Paul, the internal or effectual calling: that act of the Holy Spirit whereby he savingly applies the gospel-invitation to the heart and life of certain definite individuals among all of those to whom, in the course of history, that invitation is extended. It is a call to salvation, full and free, via the avenue of sanctification. Speaking by and large, the apostle is convinced that the Galatians whom he here addresses had received that effectual call. If it be argued that surely in the case of the Galatians the call cannot have been effectual since they were in the process of turning away from the God who had called them, the answer is that this position can be maintained only if it could be demonstrated that these people, after having first accepted the gospel by a true and living faith, afterward rejected it and died in that condition, not having given heed to Paul's admonition contained in this letter or to subsequent warnings. As has been pointed out, Paul himself is far more optimistic (5:10). It must ever be borne in mind that divine sovereignty does not abrogate human responsibility, and that God, accordingly, carries out his eternal purpose by so operating through his Spirit in the hearts of backsliders that they give heed to the earnest appeals that are made to them. Individuals who until their last breath persist in their disobedience prove that they had never embraced Christ with a true and living faith, even though they may have been church-members outwardly. The fact that the internal call results in salvation, in other words, that God's grace is irresistible, in the sense that it cannot be resisted effectively to the very end, is clear from such passages as John 4:14; 10:28; Rom. 8:28–39; 11:29; I Cor. 1:9; and Phil. 1:6. In the chain of means whereby this calling is made effectual, and this grace irresistible, earnest warnings and obedience to these warnings are important links. No one can ever afford to take his ultimate salvation for granted. Everyone must strive to enter in. And as it has pleased God, by the preaching of the gospel to begin his work in us, so he preserves, continues, and perfects it by the hearing and reading of his Word, by meditation thereon, and by the exhortations, threatenings, and promises thereof, and by the use of the sacraments (Canons of Dort, v. 14). Note the threatenings and the warnings! In their present condition, then, the Galatians are turning to a different gospel, that is, to a gospel that differs radically from the one which they had received from Paul. The latter gospel was: that a man is not justified by law-works but only through faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 2:8; Titus 3:4 7). That gospel the Galatians were abandoning in favor of a different gospel, one which proclaimed faith plus law-works as the way to salvation. It stands to reason that the substitute to which the addressed were turning was a gospel only in name, not in reality. It was really no gospel at all, exactly as Paul here declares: a different gospel, which (in reality) is not (even) another. Much has been written about the combination different &not another. ^[19] The translation which I favor and which, in one way or another, is also favored by A.R.V., N.E.B., N.A.S.B., (N.T.), Williams, Goodspeed, Weymouth, etc. (contrast A.V.), has been sharply criticized, even ridiculed at times! Some have arrived at the conclusion that Paul is saying that the Galatians are turning away to another gospel which in reality is not essentially different! But the context is clear and decisive: the gospel (?) to which the Galatians are in the process of turning is the perversion of the true gospel (verse 7); it is a gospel (?) different in quality from the one which Paul and his assistants had preached to the Galatians (verse 8), and which the latter had embraced (verse 9); it is a gospel (?) so bad that a curse is invoked upon him who might and also upon him who actually does proclaim it (respectively verses 8 and 9). With disdain for such a perversion of the true gospel the apostle continues: but (the fact is that) certain individuals are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. The reference is clearly to the extreme rightists, the Judean Judaizers (Acts 15:1), who, though in a very general sense coming from James (Gal. 2:12), do not truly represent James at all (Acts 15:24). Very descriptively the apostle says that these certain individuals they are not nearly as important as they assume themselves to be! are throwing you into confusion. Literally this verb means to shake, stir up, trouble, agitate, as when Egypt's king is said to resemble a monster that troubles the waters with its feet, thereby contaminating the rivers (Ezek. 32:2). Figuratively, as here, it has reference to upsetting the mind and/or heart. Thus Herod was shaken, deeply disturbed, when he heard about the birth of a king of the Jews (Matt. 2:3); the disciples were troubled when they imagined that they were looking at a ghost (Matt. 14:26); and Zechariah when he saw an angel (Luke 1:12). Another unforgettable illustration of the meaning of the word is found in John 14:1, where Jesus, in the night of his betrayal, says to his disciples, who are gathered with him in the upper room, Let not your hearts any longer be troubled (see N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. II, pp. 262, 263). The Galatians, then, were being thrown into confusion by men who were wishing and attempting to turn upside down the gospel which centers about Christ and glories in him, the Christ-gospel. Surely, a teaching according to which men are saved through faith plus law-works is a perversion of the true gospel which proclaims the glad tidings of salvation (by grace) through faith alone. 8. Paul continues: But even though we ourselves or an angel from heaven were to preach to you any gospel other than the one which we preached to you, let him be accursed; that is, Even though we, God's human representatives (I, Paul, and my assistants^[20]), or a good angel, one who descends out of heaven in the radiant blaze of his consummate holiness, should begin to preach to you any good news other than hence, contrary to^[21] the gospel which we previously (on the first missionary journeys and on the first leg of this second missionary journey) preached to you, let him (I myself in that case, any of my assistants, that angel) be doomed.^[22] So far the hypothetical case. There follows reality,^[23] verse 9. As we have said before, so now I say again, If anyone is preaching to you any gospel other than that which you have received, let him be accursed. The truth expressed in the first conditional sentence (verse 8) greatly strengthens that expressed in the second (verse 9). We have here the reasoning: if even, then all the more. In effect, Paul is saying, If even we (I, or a fellow-worker) or a holy angel must be the object of God's righteous curse, were any of us ever to preach a gospel contrary to the one we humans previously preached to you, then all the more the divine wrath must be poured out upon those self-appointed nobodies who are now making themselves guilty of this crime. Here the storm is unleashed in all its fury. Paul's Let him be anathema is not a mere wish, but an effective invocation. The apostle, as Christ's fully authorized representative, is pronouncing the curse upon the Judaizers, who are committing the terrible crime of calling the true gospel false, and of substituting the false and ruinously dangerous gospel for the true and saving one. But this word of severe condemnation for the trouble-makers is at the same time one of earnest remonstrance and warning for the Galatians, who were in the process of allowing themselves to be misled, and were actually moving away from the One who, in his love and mercy, had called them. That the addressed deserved this rebuke is clear first of all from the fact that they had been forewarned, and forewarned is forearmed, that is, if one heeds the warning. When Paul says, As we have said before, he probably means that immediately after the Jerusalem Council the apostle and Silas, fully realizing that the Judaizers were not at all satisfied with the decisions of this council and would do all in their power to render them ineffective, had plainly told the Galatians, There is every possibility that soon after we, your true shepherds, have left you, wolves will arrive and will try to destroy you, by substituting the false gospel of salvation by law-works for the true gospel of salvation by grace through faith. Be on your guard against these destroyers. It is even possible that already on the first missionary journey similar warnings had been issued, but certainly on the second. Paul adds, So now I say again, ^[24] etc. He now says I and not we because he alone is the author of this epistle, he himself is the apostle, clothed with full authority, and his former associates are absent at this moment. Also later on in life Paul would continue to warn those entrusted to his care about impending dangers (Acts 20:29ff.; cf. II Tim. 3:1–5; 4:1–5). In this, as in so many other respects, he was following the example of his Master (John 16:1, 4, 33). Since the Galatians had disregarded the earlier warning, they had earned the reprimand. Secondly, they had merited this reproof because not only had the gospel been previously preached to them (verse 8), but they had also accepted it (verse 9). In this respect verse 9 says more than verse 8. By the power of the Holy Spirit the external message had been translated into an inward conviction. They should have guarded the deposit that had been entrusted to them. The question might be asked, But was not Paul too severe in his denunciation and in his rebuke? Is it not true that even now the Judaizers believed in Jesus Christ for salvation, the only difference between Paul and those who differed with him being that to this required faith the latter added strict obedience to certain Mosaic regulations? The answer is that the addition was in the nature of a complete repudiation of the all-sufficiency of Christ's redemption. Read Gal. 5:2. A beverage may be very healthful and refreshing, but when a drop of poison is added to it, it becomes deadly. Christ, too, used severe language in condemning the hypocrites of his dayMatt. 23, especially verses 15 and 33 . Pharisees and Judaizers had much in common, were in fact closely related (Acts 15:5; Luke 11:46; cf. Gal. 6:12, 13). Moreover, Paul and the gospel were friends. To him that gospel was the good news of salvation which God addresses to a world lost in sin. He considered it indispensable for salvation (Rom. 10:14, 15), and was so enthused about it that affectionately he called it my gospel (Rom. 2:16; cf. Rom. 1:16; I Cor. 1:17; 9:16; II Cor. 4:4; Phil. 1:17; I Tim. 1:11). On the concept gospel and preaching the gospel see N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 81–85. Paul's sharp distinction between the true and the false gospel has a present day application. Illustrations: a. At a church service hymns are sung which set forth salvation by grace. The sermon, however, proclaims an entirely different gospel (?). b. The pastor calls on a family and enquires about the absent daughter. The parents exultantly inform him that she is about to marry a very nice young man, a member of a church which our daughter, too, will soon join. Are these parents blissfully unaware of the fact that in that church the true gospel is not being proclaimed; or does this not matter? c. At a crusade many people sign decision-cards. They begin to attend various churches, from some of which the crusader's gospel is banned! 10. Paul has used forceful language. That gives him an opportunity to answer a charge of the opponents. He writes: There!^[25] Is it the favor of men that I am now seeking to win or of God? Or is it men whom I am seeking to please? Here one detects an echo of the opponents accusations and insinuations, on this order: Paul is trying to win human, rather than divine, favor. He tries to please everybody, so that everybody may follow him. Among his own people he preaches circumcision (Gal. 5:11; cf. Acts 16:3), for he knows that they believe in it. But he withholds this rite from the Gentiles because they welcome exemption from it. Paul answers: Would a popularity-seeker hurl anathemas at people? Is it not clear that it is not men's but God's approval in which I am interested, and that I am seeking to please my Lord? Continued: If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.^[26] Two misinterpretations: a. I never yield to human customs and traditions. Total indifference on this score would not have been like Paul. It would bring (Gal. 1:10into conflict with I Cor. 9:22. Tactfulness is not a vice but a virtue when paired with honesty and truth. The apostle desired to be all things to all men, in order in one way or another to save some. Hence, among the Jews he was willing, during this transition period, to observe certain traditionsActs 16:3; 21:17–26; cf. 18:18), as long as these were not considered means unto salvation, for on that issue he was adament. When Judaizers tried to force circumcision upon Gentiles, declaring that otherwise salvation could not be obtained, the apostle invoked God's curse on these distorters. In Paul's religion there was room for flexibility, but ever within the limits prescribed by the gospel. b. If I were still, as formerly, trying to please men, etc. This supposed reference to the apostle's unconverted state is out of line with the present context. The true interpretation is this: If, in spite of my claim that I am Christ's servant, I were still, or nevertheless, attempting to please men, my claim would be false. One who trims his sails to every breeze of opinion and bias, cannot be a servant^[27] of Christ. Paul, on the contrary, is such a servant, for he joyfully acknowledges Jesus as his Redeemer, Owner, and Lord, and is fully surrendered to him. It was this very Christ who said, No man can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24). Paul realizes that for himself this life of complete loyalty means persecution (Gal. 5:1), but he glories in such affliction. Not Paul but his opponents are trying to avoid persecution (Gal. 6:12). They are the men-pleasers (Gal. 6:13), a type of conduct reprehensible even in slaves (Eph. 6:6; Col. 3:22). Paul's chief concern is God's glory. Chapter 1 Verses 11 17 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors I. This Gospel's Origination: it is not of human but of divine origin C. The gospel I preach is not a human invention. I received it through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Rescued by God's grace from intense Judaism, I did not immediately go to Jerusalem to seek men's advice, but went to Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. 1:11–17 C. This gospel originated in God, as shown by Paul's experiences before, during, and shortly after his conversion 11 For I make known to you, brothers, with respect to the gospel that was preached by me, that it is not a human invention; 12 for as concerns myself, I did not receive it from men nor was I taught it; on the contrary (I received it) through the revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former manner of life when I practiced the Jewish religion, how beyond all bounds I was persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it; 14 and I advanced in the Jewish religion more than many of my contemporaries among my people, and was a more ardent enthusiast for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased him, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through his grace, 16 to reveal his Son in me, in order that I might preach his gospel among the Gentiles, I did not at once confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away to Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. 11. Paul continues to show that the gospel which he proclaims is the only one worthy of the name, being of divine origin. He writes, For I make known to you, brothers, with respect to the gospel that was preached by me, that it is not a human invention. In connection with the present context for must mean something like In justification of the facts which I have stated, namely, that my gospel is of divine origin and is the only true gospel, so that anyone who distorts it is accursed, note the following corroborative facts selected from the story of my life. In the verses which follow, the apostle is not trying to present a complete autobiography. He chooses from his career only those events which support his main contention with reference to the source of his calling as an apostle and of the message which he proclaims. Hence, when he omits an event mentioned elsewhere for example, in Acts or in Paul's letters to the Corinthians this must not be charged against him, as if he were purposely suppressing certain facts in order to win the argument against the Judaizers. On the contrary, he is deeply conscious of telling the truth (Gal. 1:20). The omitted incidents are left unmentioned for the simple reason that they have nothing to do with the point which Paul is trying to prove. The beginning of the sentence is rather striking: For I make known to you, as if they did not already know. But they must have known many of the facts which Paul is going to relate. However, they were acting as if they did not know them. Otherwise they would not be lending a listening ear to the distorters of the true and only gospel of salvation. And for this reason the apostle must remind them again of the truth with reference to himself and the gospel he proclaims. He does this in a very tactful and tender manner, calling them brothers, for even now, in spite of their deviation, he regards them as members of the same spiritual family to which he, too, belongs, the Father's Family (Eph. 3:14). The subject to which he calls their attention is the gospel that was preached by me, preached; hence, they have heard it and are responsible for what they have heard; by me, never mind what enemies have been proclaiming; the gospel, for, as stated previously, the apostle's defense of himself is in reality a defense of the one and only gospel. He makes known to them that this good news is not a human invention. This rendering, adopted also by Phillips and by N.E.B.,^[28] is well-founded. Literally Paul writes, not in accordance with man. This might leave the impression that he is simply saying that his gospel is not in human style. But though, to be sure, this is implied and is even basic, yet the next verse clearly shows that what Paul has in mind is that the gospel which the Galatians have heard from his lips differs not only in character and content from any human gospel (?), but also and for that very reason in origin: it is not the result of human ingenuity or devising.^[29] Continued: 12. for as concerns myself, I did not receive it from men nor was I taught it, probably meaning: As far as I myself am concerned, in no way whatever did it reach me from any human source. It was not transmitted to me by means of tradition from father to son (or from one generation to the next), nor by means of instruction from teacher to pupil. ^[30] Continued: on the contrary (I received it) through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Paul here declares that he had received the gospel by a direct revelation of Jesus Christ concerning himself, exactly as the other apostles had also received it (Gal. 1:15, 16; cf. I Cor. 9:1; 15:8). This introduces a problem. The question might be asked, But were there not ever so many human agents that had taken part, at one time or another, in supplying Paul with the materials for his gospel? How then can he affirm, repeatedly and with great emphasis, that he had received his gospel from Christ, from him alone, and not at all from men? Leaving out of consideration many speculative theories concerning contacts which Saul of Tarsus may have had with Jesus during the latter's sojourn on earth, when the future apostle was in Jerusalem, where as a young man he was brought up as a pupil of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), speculative theories for which it is hard to find solid support in (II Cor. 5:16or anywhere else, it remains true that even before his conversion Paul must have received a great deal of information about Jesus. If he had not known what believers were saying about Jesus, why would he have persecuted them hence himActs 9:4) so bitterly? The persecutor must have heard many a ringing testimony from the quivering lips of martyrs, uttered while, with his approval, they were being put in chains, dragged off to prison, and at times even put to death. He had been present when Stephen was being stoned, and had heard his testimony (Acts 7:58). It is safe to assume, therefore, that even before his conversion Paul must have been fairly well acquainted with many of the historical facts and happenings regarding Jesus. In his epistles he gives evidence of a vast amount of historical knowledge (Rom. 1:3; 9:5; I Cor. 1:23; 15:1ff.; Phil. 2:5ff.; I Tim. 3:16; and see also on Gal. 3:1), which he must have gathered little by little, much of it even before Christ had met him, Saul the persecutor, as he approached the ancient city of Damascus. Moreover, these historical facts are important. Apart from these events Christ's birth, suffering, death, resurrection, etc. there is no basis for salvation. How is it, then, that Paul can say that he had received his gospel from Christ, and not from men? The answer is that no matter how detailed Paul's knowledge of these events may have been, their totality does not as yet constitute the gospel. For, first of all, the persecutor rejected forthwith the fact of Christ's resurrection from the grave and that of his ascension to heaven. And secondly, as to the other facts and events of which he had been apprised, he failed to see them in their true significance. He was constantly giving the wrong answer to such questions as these: Was this Jesus merely born or had he come from heaven? Was his birth a mere happenstance, or had he been born with a purpose? Was he merely human, or divine and human in one person? Was he a dreadful danger to true religion, or a great blessing? Was he a tool of Satan, or the Son of God? Were his life and death a mere vapor that vanishes quickly, or were they of abiding and universal significance? When he died on the cross, was he merely a victim, or was he Victor? It was when the light from heaven had suddenly descended upon him and had engulfed him, and when he had heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? &I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, etc., it was then that everything changed. It was here, close to Damascus, that in principle the radical turnabout was accomplished, and Paul received his gospel. He now saw the Christ as the really risen and exalted One, full of majesty and power, but also &full of incomprehensible love, love so marvelous and condescending that it had sought and found this ruthless, mordacious foe in order to make of him an ardent and kind-hearted friend. He now saw Christ as Victor, full of mercy and grace, reaching out his loving arms to embrace both Jew and Gentile, yes all those who would place their (God-given) trust in him. The experience, therefore, on the way to Damascus shed a flood of light on all the information which had been reaching Paul. It changed vehement denial into rapturous conviction, vague outward awareness into marvelous insight. 13. Paul now briefly touches upon the three important facts of a. his life as a persecutor, b. his conversion, and c. his activity immediately and shortly after his conversion, in order to show with reference to each of these items that the gospel had not been given to him by any human agency but was a gift from heaven. He writes: For you have heard of my former manner of life when I practiced the Jewish religion. Yes, the Galatians have heard, probably both from Paul himself and from others, about the manner in which he had conducted himself when his life was still being regulated by the principles which governed the lives of the Jews, unconverted to Christ. Continued: how beyond all bounds I was persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy^[31] it. For his present purpose it was not necessary that Paul make mention of all the horrid details of this persecuting activity: that it concerned women as well as men, that the victims were bound with chains, imprisoned, urged to blaspheme, sometimes even put to death (Acts 8:3; 9:1, 13, 14; 22:4, 5; 26:10, 11). What he does say here in Galatians speaks volumes, showing that the persecution of which Paul had been guilty was a. extremely violent, b. directed against God's peculiar treasure, the church (as Paul now, after his conversion, sees it), the body of those whom God had called out from among all the children of men, to be his very own; and c. most sinister in its purpose, namely, utterly to destroy this church. Note that the word church as here used is a universal concept (other than in 1:2, 22), and that as such it embraces both Gentiles and Jews, also both dispensations, as is made clear in this very epistle (Gen. 22:18; Isa. 54:1–3; Amos 9:11ff.; Matt. 21:33ff.; Rom. 11:15–24; Eph. 2:14; I Peter 2:9; and Rev. 21:12, 14). 14. The activity of persecution has been described, though in general terms. And now the drive or impetus behind it is indicated. For Paul this incentive was supplied by the progress which he had made in Pharisaic Judaism, a religion of works and bondage, and by his recognition of the fact that this was the very opposite of the Christian religion of grace and freedom. He thoroughly understood that Judaism and Christianity were irreconcilable enemies. Moreover, lukewarmness was not in his blood. He was not at all the kind of person who, in a mood of relative indifference, afflicts others because he has been ordered to do this. On the contrary, the man from Tarsus was himself bent on oppression and destruction, and he put his whole soul into it. He was a fully convinced persecutor, believing with all his heart that what he was setting out to do must be done (Acts 26:9). It is in this light that we should understand him when he now writes: and I advanced in the Jewish religion more than many of my contemporaries among my people, and was a more ardent enthusiast for the traditions of my fathers. Paul here pictures himself in his pre-conversion state as a dedicated enthusiast (Phil. 3:6), filled with Pharisaic zeal. In fact, in the original the word enthusiast is literally zealot. Elsewhere Paul describes himself as persecuting this Way unto death (Acts 22:4), and as being exceedingly mad against the saints (Acts 26:11). Luke writes that Saul of Tarsus was breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord (Acts 9:1). This is not surprising, for, as he tells us here in Gal. 1:14, he had been chopping ahead in the Jewish religion, hewing out a path as a pioneer who is cutting his way through a forest, destroying every obstacle in order to advance. This Jewish religion was not that of Old Testament revelation, whose lines historical, typological, psychological, and prophetical converge at Bethlehem, Calvary, Olivet.^[32] No, the Jewish religion in which Paul had been pushing his way forward was that in which God's holy law was being buried under a load of human traditions, which Paul calls the traditions of my fathers, the entire halakah or body of Jewish oral law which supplemented the written law. In such passages as (Matt. 5:21ff.; 15:3, 6; 23:2ff., Jesus states his opinion about some of these oral traditions. According to one of them God's commandment, You shall love your neighbor as yourselfLev. 19:18; cf. Exod. 23:4, 5; Prov. 25:21, 22) really meant, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy (Matt. 5:43); and according to another, the exhortation to honor father and mother (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) was similarly emasculated (Matt. 15:1–6). By means of obedience to the entire Mosaic law as interpreted by all these traditions, many of them trivial and at times even directly contrary to the very intention of the commandment as originally given, the Jews, including Paul before his conversion, tried to work their way into the kingdom of heaven. And according to Paul's own testimony as here given, he had advanced in this Jewish religion more than many of his own age among his people. And as he made progress in the Jewish religion, he naturally also advanced in hatred against the Christian religion. In fact, he had been going ahead with such frightful fanaticism and terrorism that in this area, at least, he had already surpassed his own teacher, Gamaliel (Acts 5:33 39). The apostle's purpose in reminding the Galatians of this sad episode in his life must be borne in mind in order to grasp what he is trying to convey. He is saying that no human persuasion would ever have been able to impart the gospel to such a confirmed and ferocious persecutor. His purpose is to show that his gospel is from God, not from men. 15, 16a. It is with this same purpose in mind that he now continues: But when it pleased him,^[33] who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, in order that I might preach his gospel among the Gentiles.& Here Paul's conversion story is told from the inside. To be sure, there was also the outward or physical side. Paul's conversion was not the product of mere subjective imagination. What he had seen was no hallucination. With his physical eyes he had really beheld the ascended Christ. With his physical ears he had actually heard his voice. But the outward and physical would never have sufficed. What Paul had seen and heard had to be applied to his heart. That story is told here. But when it pleased him &to reveal his Son in me can also be rendered, But when in his good pleasure he &revealed his Son in me. Though, according to what is probably the best text, the name God is here not mentioned, the reference to him is clear. When God's name, attitude, or activity is clearly implied, he is not always mentioned by name. In fact, not mentioning his name but merely saying he who places the emphasis on God's gracious deeds and attributes. Another striking instance of this type of omission is found in (Phil. 1:6: he who began a good work in you. (See N.T.C. on that passage.) The words who separated me &and called me through his grace form a combination in which both God's sovereign good pleasure and his marvelous love to one so undeserving are stressed. The expression separated me from my mother's womb refers to far more than the divine providential activity revealed in Paul's physical birth. It indicates that God did not, as it were, wait until Paul had first proved his worth before appointing him to an important function in his kingdom. No, from his very birth Paul had already been designed for his specific mission, that design being itself the expression of God's plan from eternityEph. 1:11). Hence, the verb separated, as here used, means nothing less than set (me) aside, consecrated (me), marked (me) off from the rest of mankind. Similarly, called me through his grace refers here not only to the effectual call to salvation through sanctification (see on verse 6), but also to the assignment unto plenary apostleship. There is a rather clear allusion here to Jer. 1:5: Before I formed you in your mother's body I knew you; and before you came out of the womb I sanctified you; a prophet to the nations I ordained you. Cf. Luke 1:15. How wonderful this grace operated in the calling of Paul. It changed a man who was breathing murderous threats against Christ's church into one who breathed doxologies whenever he reflected on this marvelous redeeming love which had been shown to him, yes to him so undeserving! In fact, Paul's career as a relentless persecutor, and whatever intervened between his birth and his entrance upon his work as an effective missionary for Christ, made grace stand out all the more brilliantly! The immediate purpose of this separation and calling is here said to have been to reveal his Son in me. To reveal, that is, to remove the scales from the eyes of my heart, as the scales were removed from my physical eyes (Acts 9:18). Moreover, Paul does not say Jesus or Christ Jesus, but his Son, for God wanted him to see that the Jesus whom in his disciples Paul had been persecuting, was indeed God's only Son, partaker of God's very essence, himself God! Yet, the words to reveal his Son in me ^[34] mean vastly more than to my intellect. The phrase has reference to illumining grace which is at the same time transforming. Cf. (II Cor. 3:18. The more Paul sees that it was this very Son of God whom he had been persecuting but who, nevertheless, had taken pity on him, and in his infinite and tender love had sought him, had stopped him in his tracks, and had changed him into an enthusiastic ambassador of the mysteries of grace, so much the more he also loves and adores this Christ! And the more he adores him, so much the more his own mind, his inner disposition, is patterned after that of his SaviorPhil. 2:5). It is thus that God's Son was revealed in Paul! Now just as the separation and the calling had as its purpose to reveal his Son in me, so, in turn, this revelation whereby, as just indicated, the image of Christ was engraved upon the very heart of Paul, had as its purpose: in order that I might preach his gospel among the Gentiles; literally, in order that I might gospel him among the Gentiles. It should be obvious, therefore, that indirectly the call or calling was not just unto salvation but definitely also unto the office of apostle to the Gentiles. In Paul's case these two cannot be separated. And in this connection one might well ask, Is it ever possible to separate calling unto salvation from calling unto a task in God's kingdom? Does not everyone who is called have a duty to show forth the excellencies of the One who called him out of the darkness into his marvelous light? (I Peter 2:9). Throughout his apostolic career Paul remained very conscious of the fact that even though he had been called to be an apostle to Jews and Gentiles alike (Acts 9:15; 26:20, 23), yet he had been especially selected as God's ambassador to the latter (Acts 13:47; 15:12; 18:6; 22:21; 26:17; 28:28; Rom. 11:13; Gal. 2:2, 8; Eph. 3:1, 6, 8; I Tim. 2:7; II Tim. 1:11; 4:17). But was this purpose made clear to Paul directly by Christ himself or indirectly through the mediation of Ananias or anyone else? This question has already been touched upon in the discussion of verse 1, but requires a more detailed answer here. Now in connection with Paul's dramatic experience on the way to Damascus it must be admitted that either alternative makes sense. As long as Ananias was, as it were, the mouth of Christ, Paul's unshakable conviction that he had been called by Christ and had received his gospel from him, and not from men, nor even through man in the sense that somehow it had lost its purity through this human intervention, was altogether justified. Nevertheless, if a choice must be made, I would favor the former alternative.^[35] According to (Acts 26:15 18, in answer to Paul's question, Who art thou, Lord? the Lord answers, I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But arise and stand upon your feet because for this purpose have I appeared to you: to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen but also to the things in connection with which I will appear to you; delivering you from the [Jewish] people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in me. This account certainly leaves the impression that not only the words, I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, reported in all three accountsActs 9:5; 22:8; 26:15), but also the call to apostleship among the Gentiles had come directly from the lips of Christ! And do not even the words of 22:15, where Ananias is saying to Paul, You will be a witness for him to all men concerning the things which you have seen and heard, imply that Paul had already heard many things from the lips of Christ? Is it not probable, therefore, that the accounts which we have in Acts 9and 22 were never intended to reproduce in full the words which Jesus addressed to Paul? To this should be added Paul's experience while he was praying in the temple at Jerusalem, three years after his conversion, and long before he wrote Galatians. While Paul had fallen into a trance it was the Savior who had said to him, Depart, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles (Acts 22:21). It is clear, therefore, that not only in connection with Paul's experience before his conversion (Gal. 1:13, 14) but also in connection with his conversion itself the point has been established that the gospel which he received and the call to proclaim it originated not in man but in God. 16b, 17. This holds also with respect to the apostle's experience, immediately and shortly after his conversion, for he continues: I did not at once confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went to Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Having been led by the hand to Damascus (Acts 9:8), Paul never gave anyone an opportunity to impose his subjective ideas upon him. To be sure, Ananias, at the direction of the Lord, had visited the former persecutor, had laid his hands upon him, had restored his sight, had baptized him, and had told him that he, Paul, would be a witness to all men (Acts 9:10 18; 22:12–16). But all of this had been done at Christ's own command. In fact, Ananias, having heard so many distressing reports with respect to Saul the persecutor, had been reluctant to carry out the order he received. His reluctance had to be overcome (Acts 9:13, 14). Moreover, it is not at all strange that the Lord had told Ananias to speak to Paul about the latter's mission to all men. After all, Paul's experience had been so sudden and had occasioned such a complete turn-about in his thinking, and such a radical reversal in his aiming, that a full discussion of its meaning under calmer circumstances was altogether natural and required. Kind-hearted Ananias was the right man for this task. But inasmuch as the message which the latter conveyed to Paul was not his own, Paul here in Galatians is fully justified in omitting any reference to this disciple of the Lord and his mission, since it did not in any way affect the point which he, Paul, is trying to establish, namely, that his gospel and his calling to proclaim it came from above, not from below. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER II Chapter 2 Verses 1 10 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors I. This Gospel's Origination: it is not of human but of divine origin; hence, is independent E. Then, on a visit to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus, its pillars in a private interview imparted nothing to me, but gave us the right hand of fellowship. Titus, a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised. Thus, there was no yielding to infiltrators but continuation of blessing for you. A division of missionary labor was agreed on. The poor were to be remembered. 2:1–10 E. The Validity of the gospel as proclaimed by Paul acknowledged by Jerusalem's pillars; the work divided; the poor to be remembered 2 1 Then, after an interval of fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, also taking Titus with me. 2 I went up, moreover, as a result of a revelation, and I set before them the gospel which I am accustomed to preach among the Gentiles; but (I did this) privately to those of repute, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 Yet even Titus who was with me, Greek though he is, was not compelled to be circumcised; 4 (in fact, the suggestion would never have arisen) but for the uninvited sham brothers, who had infiltrated our ranks to spy on our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, and thus to reduce us to slavery; 5 to whom not even for a moment did we yield submission, in order that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 Well, from those who were reputed to be something whatever they once were makes no difference to me; God accepts no man's person to me those of repute imparted nothing; 7 on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter (with that) to the circumcised 8 for he who was at work through Peter in apostolic mission activity for the circumcised was also at work in me for the Gentiles, 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should (go) to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, we were to continue to remember the poor, the very thing which I was also eager to do. In Chapter 1 the apostle has shown that he had received his gospel directly from Christ, not from men nor through this or that man. He now proceeds to show that, because of this very fact, this gospel which he proclaims is independent of men's evaluation. A God-given gospel does not need human validation. It can stand on its own feet. And for this very reason, as soon as Jerusalem's pillars see that Paul and Barnabas had been thus divinely entrusted with the gospel, they extend to them the right hand of fellowship and agree to divide the work. James, Cephas, and John recognize God's hand when they see it! 1. The paragraph begins as follows: Then, after an interval of fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, also taking Titus with me. In 1:15, 16 Paul, in touching language, has spoken about his conversion. In verse 18 of that same chapter he has related how three years afterward he had gone to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas. Leaving Jerusalem he had spent some time in Syria and Cilicia (verse 21). When he now continues by saying, Then, after an interval of fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, it is natural to interpret this statement as meaning that the trip to Jerusalem which he here introduces occurred fourteen years after that other visit to this city described in 1:18, not fourteen years after his conversion. If Paul's conversion occurred in a.d. 34, then the first trip to Jerusalem after three years took place circa a.d. 37. Nevertheless, as already indicated, it is impossible to be precise, since these three years may not have amounted to a full three years as we now count them. Thus, the real date may have been a.d. 36. Similarly, all we can safely affirm about the expression after an interval of fourteen years is that it probably means that the trip to Jerusalem described here in Gal. 2took place about the year a.d. 50.^[43] Between the trip to Jerusalem indicated in (Gal. 1:18and the one here in 2:1 Paul had been in Tarsus, had labored with Barnabas in Antioch (Syria), about the time of the death of Herod Agrippa I (a.d. 44) had accompanied Barnabas on a relief mission to Jerusalem, had gone back to Antioch, and, together with Barnabas, had made his first missionary journey. It is from Antioch, to which they have again returned, that Paul and Barnabas now after these fourteen years make their trip to Jerusalem. They are sent to Jerusalem in order to assure Gentile freedom over against the insistent demand of the Judaizers that the Gentiles be circumcisedActs 15:1, 2; Gal. 5:1). On this issue the minds of Paul and Barnabas are made up, but they are going to prove to the entire assembly, if such proof be required, that their own view and the course which they have been following is the only right one. It is evident that, along with ever so many interpreters,^[44] I accept the identification of the Gal. 2trip with that of Acts 15. My reasons are: (1) The big question in both accounts amounts to this: Is Christ sufficient unto salvation? Phrased differently, this question may be expressed in these words, Is it necessary to require of the Gentiles who have embraced Christ by a living faith that, for the sake of their salvation, they, in addition, observe the Mosaic ordinances? Specifically, Is it necessary that they be circumcised? (Acts 15:1 3, 10, with Gal. 2:3; 4:10; 5:2–4; 6:12, 13). (2) Acts mentions the main speakers, namely, Peter, Barnabas, Paul, and James (15:7, 12, 13). These four are also mentioned in Galatians, as being, along with John, those who supply the leadership (2:7, 9). (3) According to Acts, Barnabas and Paul relate before the whole assembly what signs and wonders God had performed through them among the Gentiles (15:12). And in Galatians Paul reports, I set before them the gospel which I am accustomed to preach among the Gentiles. Also, And he [God] was &at work in me for the Gentiles (2:2a, 8). (4) According to Acts some of those who belonged to the party of the Pharisees tell the assembly that for the Gentiles, too, circumcision is a necessity (15:5). The voices of these Judaizers are also heard in Galatians (2:4, 5). (5) In Luke's account there is never any yielding to the expressed opinions and wishes of the Judaists or Judaizers (Acts 15:8 19). This is forcefully expressed in 15:10. The statement in Galatians is just as emphatic: to whom [that is, to the sham brothers] not even for a moment did we yield submission (2:5). (6) From the start and throughout, according to Acts, there is perfect harmony among the leaders (15:8–29). This, according to the most reasonable interpretation, is also the case in Galatians: James and Cephas and John extend the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas (2:5, 9). For the arguments which have, nevertheless, been advanced against this identification, see the footnote.^[45] There are some^[46] who prefer to identify the Gal. 2visit with that of Acts 11:27 30; 12:25. Their reasons for doing this may be gathered from footnote 45; see especially item (7). With due respect for the scholarliness of the eminent men who favor this theory and for the many valuable works which they, as well as those who disagree with them, have produced, I here state the reasons for my inability to concur with their opinion: (1) The two accounts differ in their main theme. Galatians 2deals with the question whether or not the Gentiles who turn to Christ must be circumcised; Acts 11, 12describes a relief mission, and (in the section referred to) says nothing about circumcision. (2) In Acts 11:27 30; 12:25it is Barnabas who takes the lead (note Barnabas and Saul in 11:30 and 12:25). In Gal. 2Barnabas has no such priority (see verses 2:1, 6, 8, 9).^[47] (3) If the visit recorded in Gal. 2:1 10is that of Acts 11:27 30; 12:25, then the question whether or not the Gentiles should receive circumcision was officially settled long before the time of the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15. On that supposition would not the latter meeting have been superfluous? (4) Acts 11:30makes mention only of elders. No apostles are referred to, either as a group or individually. Also in this respect Gal. 2(see verse 9) resembles Acts 15(see verses 7, 12, 22) far more closely than it does Acts 11:27 30; 12:25. (5) Chronologically the identification of the (Gal. 2visit with the relief mission described in Acts 11:27 30; 12:25, which occurred at about the time of the death of Herod Agrippa I hence, about a.d. 44, presents difficulties that are well-nigh insurmountable. It would mean that the apostle's first post-conversion visit to Jerusalem fourteen years earlier took place around a.d. 30 or 31, and the conversion itself three years earlier than that; that is, during Christ's earthly ministry. Only by a very unnatural explanation of Gal. 2:1is it possible to avoid that conclusion. Perhaps Lenski's remark is not too strong, The supposition that [in Gal. 2:1–10] Paul is speaking of the visit which he and Barnabas paid to Jerusalem to bring relief &Acts 11:27 30; 12:25) is chronologically impossible (op. cit., p. 68). Now when Paul declares that after an interval of fourteen years he went up again to Jerusalem, this word again does not necessarily mean for the second time. ^[48] It can just as well mean once again, without indicating how many previous trips to Jerusalem there had been.^[49] Moreover, it is not at all strange that here in the second chapter of Galatians Paul says not a word about the relief mission recorded in Acts 11:27 30; 12:25. The simple fact is that he is no longer talking per se about the source of his gospel but rather about the implication of the fact that he had obtained it directly from God; that implication being that this gospel is independent, does not need to stand, hat in hand, begging human approval for its existence and proper functioning. It must be borne in mind that whatever happened in the year a.d. 44 whether it were a mission of relief or anything else could have had no bearing whatever on the question how the gospel had originally been given to Paul, for by that time he had already been an apostle for some ten years! He had been preaching the gospel not only in Damascus and Jerusalem but also in (Tarsus? and) Antioch of Syria. It is exactly as Greijdanus says: The question whether Paul in obtaining his gospel ministry had been dependent on the other apostles could have reference only to the early period of that ministry. ^[50] It is not even strictly necessary to argue that on this relief mission Paul and Barnabas had contacted only elders and not apostles in Jerusalem, for even if everyone of the apostles had been in the welcoming committee and if Paul had remained with them for an entire year, they could not have given him the gospel which he already had, and which he had been proclaiming for such a long period! This is the answer to objection (7), footnote 45. Among the men who went up to Jerusalem three are definitely indicated here in Gal. 2:1: Paul, Barnabas, and Titus. Paul was a man of boundless energy, steadfast determination, earnest devotion to his Lord, zeal for the work of winning souls, and resolute unwillingness that the great cause of the evangelization of the Gentiles be hindered in any way. He was not only an intellectual giant but also deeply emotional and expertly tactful. However, since this has been set forth in some detail in other commentaries of this series, it is not necessary to repeat it here. See N.T.C. on Philippians, p. 181; and on Colossians and Philemon, pp. 231, 232. Paul was truly a man in Christ, and for all these reasons the proper person to be sent to Jerusalem for the purpose that has been indicated. Most of these characteristics applied also to Barnabas, the Levite from the island of Cyprus. By means of the many biblical references to him approximately thirty we are given a rather complete picture. He was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith (Acts 11:24). The very name, Barnabas, that is, son of prophecy (Acts 4:36), hence of consolation (A.V.) or exhortation (A.R.V.; N.E.B.) or encouragement (R.S.V.; Williams), had been appropriately substituted for the one that had been given to him at birth, namely, Joses or Joseph. He was a spiritually eloquent man. When he is first mentioned (Acts 4:36, 37) he has moved from Cyprus to Jerusalem, where he has bought some property. When he realizes that many of the saints in that city and surroundings are poor, to which condition not only a famine but also their conversion to faith in Jesus may well have contributed, he, being himself also a believer and filled with generosity, sells a field and lays the proceeds at the apostles feet. That same spirit of generosity, now coupled with pleasing trustfulness, also manifested itself in a totally different way. It caused him to dispel the suspicions of the disciples when Saul of Tarsus, known as the most bitter persecutor of the church, suddenly entered the city of Jerusalem, and claimed that he had experienced a dramatic conversion. When nobody else believed this story, it was Barnabas who stood by the side of the convert, and secured his admission into the disciples fellowship (Acts 9:26 28). To these traits of eloquence, generosity, and trustfulness should be added that of mission-mindedness, which is broadmindedness in the best sense of that term. He entertained no scruples about allowing Gentiles to enter the church on the basis of simple faith in Christ, without the works of the law. Accordingly, when, in Antioch (Syria), due to the preaching of his own countrymen and others, a great number of Greeks turned to the Lord, it was Barnabas who by the church of Jerusalem was sent to this new Christian community to give direction and leadership to it (Acts 11:19 22). Touchingly beautiful, in this connection, is the description of this warmhearted missionary's reaction to the mighty work of the Lord that was taking place in Antioch: When he came and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced; and he encouraged them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast hearts (Acts 11:23). What a picture of genuine, fatherly sympathy! Add also wisdom, a wisdom in one respect exceeding even that of Moses (Exod. 18; Num. 11:17). While Moses overloaded himself with work and had to be advised to share responsibility with others, Barnabas, confronted with a similar situation, immediately went into action of his own accord, and secured the help of Paul, whom he sought and found in Tarsus. Thus, the two men worked side by side for an entire year in this flourishing field (Acts 11:25, 26). And the Lord blessed their labors. Together also they are sent to Jerusalem with gifts for the needy (Acts 11:27 30, 12:25). And, having returned to Antioch, they are together ordained as missionaries and proceed on the trip that has become known as Paul's First Missionary JourneyActs 13:1ff. . At this point another virtue, of which Barnabas had so many, begins to stand out, namely, that of marked humility; for, though the man (Paul) who at the beginning was the assistant of Barnabas gradually becomes the leader, the son of encouragement (Barnabas) never shows the least resentment on that score. And to top it all, add unwearying patience, the willingness to give a deserter another chance. This characteristic was to manifest itself shortly after the Jerusalem Conference, to which (Gal. 2refers, but is mentioned here to fill out the picture. The deserter was John Mark, who, having started out with Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey, had left during its course and had returned to his home. Because of this act of disloyalty and cowardice Paul, after the close of the Conference, was going to turn down the suggestion of Barnabas that Mark be taken along on the second journey. Between the two leaders there was going to arise a sharp contentionActs 15:36 41). But Barnabas was going to stand by John Mark, even though it would mean parting company with Paul. And his patience was gloriously rewarded, for this same Mark at a later time becomes a comfort to Paul (Col. 4:10b, 11), very useful to him for kingdom work (II Tim. 4:11), and the writer of the second Gospel! The purpose of the description just given is not at all to exalt Barnabas above Paul, as if the former were the better of the two. As concerns Mark, did he not stand in need of Paul's stern discipline as well as of Barnabas untiring patience &and, besides, of Peter's fatherly oversight? See N.T.C. on Colossians and Philemon, pp. 188, 189. Moreover, the fact that Barnabas, too, had his moments of weakness is clear from Gal. 2:13. And as to leadership qualities, penetrating insight into redemptive truth, and consistency in applying this truth to the conditions of everyday living, was there anyone in the days of the apostles who surpassed Paul? No one, not even Barnabas! The real purpose, therefore, of the descriptions of Paul and Barnabas was to show how eminently fit both of these big-hearted men were for accomplishing their task of making certain at Jerusalem that those who had already been gathered into Christ's fold from the Gentile world should not lose their freedom, that others, Gentile as well as Jew, should be added to the multitude of the saved, and that the glory of Christ as all-sufficient Savior should not be debilitated. And then there was Titus, who was taken along on Paul's initiative, as verse 1 clearly implies: also taking Titus with me. For a delineation of his character see N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 36, 37. From that description it will be evident that the apostle could not have taken along a better brother in the Lord, one who was more willing and eager to co-operate in every way, and who, being by race a Gentile of unmixed extraction, and thus uncircumcised, was a test case, a definite challenge to the Judaizers, as has already been explained. See p. 17. 2. Paul continues: I went up, moreover, as a result of a revelation. Whatever hesitancy there may have been on Paul's part when he and others were delegated by the Antiochian church to go to Jerusalem for the purpose already indicated, was removed by this divine revelation. See footnote 45, point (4). The Lord knew that the contemplated conference to be held in that city would prove to be of great value not only for Paul, Barnabas, Titus, etc., but also for James, Cephas, and John; and, in fact, for all the assembled brothers; yes, even for the entire church on earth both then and in the ages to follow. Continued: and I set before them the gospel which I am accustomed to preach among the Gentiles. For a commentary on this see Acts 15:4, 12. With enthusiasm and candor Paul and Barnabas related to the entire assembly the course which had been followed in proclaiming to the Gentiles the gospel of free grace, untrammeled by any ceremonial ordinances. They took special delight in rehearsing how astonishingly the Lord, by means of conversions, signs and wonders, had placed the stamp of his approval on this work. In addition to the meeting which was attended by the apostles and the elders and the whole church (Acts 15:22), there had also been a private interview, a meeting of the leaders: Paul, Barnabas, James, Cephas, and John. Borrowing a term used with fondness by the Judaizers with respect to the last three of this list of five men, namely, the appellation those of repute, Paul continues: but (I did this) privately to those of repute. Exactly when this interview occurred, or whether these leaders met privately only once or more often, is of no great importance. It seems reasonable, however, to believe that upon arrival in Jerusalem the delegation from Antioch first of all went into conference with the local church leaders. Since the term those of repute occurs not only once but, in one form or another, no less than four times (2:2, 6a, 6b, 9), it is safe to assume that the apostle is here quoting the phraseology of the opponents. He is, however, not trying to belittle the men of prominence in the church at Jerusalem. He does not use the term those of repute to heap scorn upon them or to ridicule them. True, the language he uses here implies a degree of resentment, but the latter is not directed at James, Cephas, and John, but at the legalists who have made it a habit to exalt these three at the expense of Paul, a man altogether insignificant in their eyes, a merely second-hand apostle, not even worthy to be called apostle. And be it always borne in mind that basic to their attack on Paul was their attack on the gospel which he proclaimed! It is the worthiness and independence of this gospel that Paul is here defending. Continued: to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain; or, somewhat more literally, lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain. ^[51] If, while Paul was preaching the gospel of justification by faith, without the works of the law, the other apostles, though in principle agreeing with him, would have been soft in their attitude toward those who seriously questioned the rightness of his convictions and of his preaching, the cause of mission work among the Gentiles would have been seriously undermined. The effectiveness of that which Paul had been doing in the past and was still doing would have been decisively weakened. 3 5. Any fears, however, which Paul may have entertained on this score were quickly dispelled. He writes: Yet even Titus who was with me, Greek though he is, was not compelled to be circumcised; (in fact, the suggestion would never have arisen) but for the uninvited sham brothers.^[52] Even Titus! If a Christian of unalloyed Gentile extraction, though present here in the very heartland of the Jews, and in an assembly in which Jewish Christian leaders filled an influential role, was not compelled to be circumcised, then surely there could be no objection to waiving this requirement in the case of other non-Jewish converts who were living in a partly or wholly Gentile environment. From the very outset the leaders at Jerusalem agreed with the position of Paul and Barnabas anent the question of the circumcision of the Gentiles who accepted Christ. Was it not Peter who (in the plenary session of the assembly) uttered these emphatic words: Now therefore why do you put God to the test by putting on the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? (Acts 15:10). And did not James immediately endorse that position by adding that those who from among the Gentiles turn to God should not be troubled? (15:19). Not that everything went smoothly in the public gathering. It is implied both in (Acts 15:5, 7and in Gal. 2:4, 5that the Judaizers voiced their opinions in no uncertain terms. But the point is: according to both accounts the leaders never wavered! The very suggestion that Titus be circumcised would never even have been broached had not the Judaizers brought it up. They they alone were the ones who had started all the trouble. They, these uninvited guests, these intruders, who had wormed their way into the assembly from the sidelines,^[53] were the ones, says Paul, who had infiltrated our ranks to spy on our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus. The interlopers mingled among the true believers with the purpose of spying, that is, discovering the strategic situation of those whom they opposed their strong and their weak points specifically, their liberty, that is, their freedom from the curse of the law, from the law as a way to salvation, and from the ceremonial observances which that law demands. This is the freedom which believers enjoy in Christ, for had it not been for his atonement they would have been deprived of itGal. 3:13). Continued: and thus to reduce us to slavery. The word slavery, as used here, is none too strong, for the demands of the law constituted an unbearable yoke, as not only Peter put it (Acts 15:10) but Paul also (Gal. 5:1). The effort to comply with these demands amounted to a bleeding to climb to God in one's own strength, a tremendous effort to attain salvation by law-works, only to discover that this effort is hopeless, and that, like the fly in the spider's web, the more one struggles, the more he also imprisons himself. With respect, then, to these pseudo-brothers, these infiltrators, the apostle continues: to whom not even^[54] for a moment^[55] did we yield submission. The meaning is clear and simple: not at any time during the Conference whether in the private interview or at the public meeting; whether at the beginning, in the middle, or at the close was there any yielding to the wishes of the enemies of the one and only true gospel. It was one and the same gospel, whether proclaimed by Paul or Barnabas; by Cephas, James, or John. It was not dependent on anything men might say about it. They were able neither to subtract from it nor to add to it. Neither did they wish to do so: in order that the truth of the gospel that is, the gospel in all its purity might continue with you. Those who oppose the South Galatian theory at times interpret this to mean, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you, believers (in general) from the Gentiles. It should be apparent, however, that in a letter written specifically to the Galatians, a missive with so much local color, the alternative explanation, namely, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you Galatians is more natural. The Galatians had already been evangelized, namely, on Paul's first journey. Soon afterward the trouble had started: the Judaizers had tried to substitute their gospel (?) of salvation by grace-plus-works (with emphasis probably on the latter) for Paul's gospel of salvation solely by grace through faith. Which view was to prevail? The unyielding stand of Paul and Barnabas, supported from start to finish by Jerusalem's pillars, had as its purpose that from now on the Judaizers would never be able to say to the Galatians, Paul has deceived you. The really prominent leaders of the mother church in Jerusalem agree with us, not with him. Thus, the inflexible stand taken at Jerusalem would contribute significantly to the perpetuation of the true gospel among the Galatians. Here is a lesson for all time. Paul was by no means a stubborn, inflexible individual. On the contrary, he was ready to accommodate himself and his message to any situation, becoming a Jew to the Jews, a Gentile to the Gentiles (I Cor. 9:19–23). Striking instances of this are reported in (Acts 16:3; 21:17–26. But he was not willing to put any obstacle in the way of the gospel of ChristI Cor. 9:12). In fact, rightly viewed, it was his inflexibility with respect to doing everything in his power to promote the simple gospel of God's grace in all its immaculate purity that made him so flexible in all relatively minor matters. 6. Returning now to those of repute (for the meaning see on verse 2) Paul continues: Well, from those who were reputed to be something whatever they once were makes no difference to me; God accepts no man's person-to me those of repute imparted nothing. The break in grammatical sequence is clear: when Paul starts out by saying, Well, from those who were reputed to be something, we expect him to conclude the sentence by adding, I received nothing. Instead of this he interrupts himself. The thoroughly unfair comparison which his opponents are constantly drawing between himself and those of repute, as if he and his gospel were definitely inferior, causes him to insert a parenthetical comment with respect to these vaunted leaders, the Jerusalem pillars, not out of disrespect for them but from disapproval of the comparison. He then returns to the subject, but instead of completing the sentence by means of a predicate, he comes up with another independent clause in which the words those of repute constitute the subject: to me those of repute imparted nothing. Essentially this disruption of grammatical sequence makes very little difference in meaning. If there be any difference at all it may possibly be indicated thus: Not only did I, on my part, not receive or accept any new doctrine or regulation from these men of prominence, but I wish to emphasize that they, on their part, did not try to impose any dictates upon me. The main point to be emphasized in this connection is, however, the fact that the anacoluthon, coupled with parenthesis, reveals strong emotion. It shows how deeply Paul was affected by any attempt to downgrade his divine commission and/or his gospel. Hence, he stresses the fact that the Jerusalem leaders did not try in any way to propose any changes in the gospel (of salvation solely by grace through faith) which he had been proclaiming. Specifically, they did not advise Paul that he must tell the Gentiles that in addition to believing in Jesus Christ they must be circumcised. It is possible that the apostle also implies that these leaders did not urge him to impose upon Gentile believers any new rules of conduct. To help them to live in peace with Jewish believers, the Council of Jerusalem asked the converts from paganism to observe the rules mentioned in (Acts 15:20, 28, 29: avoiding meats sacrificed to idols or from which the blood had not been properly drained, and avoiding marriage within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity offensive to Jews and contrary to the regulations laid down in Lev. 18. But Paul did not regard such rules as bothersome novelties, impositions either upon himself or upon Gentile believers. In fact, as is clearly indicated in Rom. 12:18; 14:1ff.; I Cor. 8:1ff.; 9:19ff.; 10:14ff.; 10:23ff., Paul was in the habit of insisting that for the sake of peace and harmony, as also to promote the spread of the gospel, Christians should, of their own accord, deny themselves certain privileges. As remarked earlier, though entirely inflexible in matters of principleGal. 1:6–9), in all other matters the apostle was ready to yield and conform to the habits and wishes of others. Naturally, he taught those whom the Lord had placed under his spiritual care to be similarly disposed. As to the parenthesis, how could it make any difference to Paul, who had been divinely appointed and had received his gospel directly from Christ, exalted in heavenly glory, whether those of repute had been closely associated with Jesus during the latter's earthly ministry? Why were the Judaizers always emphasizing that earthly fellowship, as if, because of it, men like James, Cephas, John, etc., were intrinsically better than he and more to be trusted? What (that is, of what kind) they once^[56] were makes no difference to Paul. God takes no account of a man's face or person. An individual's outward circumstances whether, for example, he has been closely associated with Jesus as a disciple (Cephas and John) or as his brother (James); whether he occupies a certain position, or has a reputation matter nothing to God; hence, not to Paul either. Things of that nature can never determine the intrinsic value of the gospel as proclaimed by Paul. Cf. I Sam. 16:7; Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:21; II Cor. 12:5. 7 9. But though Paul is not impressed with the propaganda of the Judaizers, who are constantly playing off those of repute against him, he is very definitely impressed by the divine influence upon James, Cephas, and John, causing them to welcome the grace of God when they saw its manifestation in the apostle to the Gentiles. Having stated that the Jerusalem leaders had imparted nothing to him, the writer continues: On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter (with that) to the circumcised for he who was at work through Peter in apostolic mission activity for the circumcised was also at work in me for the Gentiles, and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should (go) to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. At Jerusalem those of repute (see on verse 2), having taken note of the soundness of the gospel as proclaimed by Paul, of the enthusiasm with which he spoke of it, of the manner in which the Lord had been placing his seal of approval upon its proclamation among the Gentiles, namely, by means of conversions, signs and wonders (Acts 15:4, 12; I Cor. 9:2; II Cor. 12:12), heartily and enthusiastically endorsed both him and his co-laborer, Barnabas. Literally, Paul speaks about the gospel of the uncircumcision just as Peter of the circumcision. This is one and the same gospel (Gal. 1:6–9), and the terms the uncircumcision and the circumcision use the abstract for the concrete (Rom. 3:30; 4:9; Eph. 2:11; Col. 3:11). The distinction made is that between the gospel to the Gentile world and that to the Jewish world. ^[57] It is clear that equal honor is accorded to Paul and Peter. Since in this combination nothing is said about John, whereas we know, nevertheless, that Paul's designation those of repute, a term borrowed from the Judaizers, included John, it would appear to be a fair conclusion that Peter represents The Twelve (Matt. 16:15, 16; Acts 2:37), including John. Peter and John, in fact, were often found togetherJohn 1:35 41; 13:23, 24; 18:15, 16; 20:1–10; 21:2, 7, 20 22; Acts 3:1 4, 11ff.; 4:13ff.; 8:14ff. . That among the Twelve Peter was the recognized leader is shown by the fact that in every list of apostles his name is mentioned first of all (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16 19; Luke 6:14 16; Acts 1:13). That the Lord had been at work energetically operative in connection with Peter, and this especially (though by no means exclusively) in connection with the latter's apostolic mission activity ^[58] for the Jews, is clear from many other passages besides Gal. 2:7, 8; namely, from Gal. 1:18(by implication); Acts 1:15 ff.; 2:14 ff.; 2:37 ff.; 3:1 ff.; 4:8 ff.; 5:3 ff. (notably 5:15); 11:2 ff.; 12:1 ff.; 15:7 ff. That the same Lord who empowered Peter was also energizing Paul, but in his case especially (though by no means exclusively) in apostolic mission activity for the benefit of the Gentiles, was now being made clear at Jerusalem, where, both in the private interview and at the public gathering, Paul and Barnabas gave a run-down of the astonishing results that had been accomplished. The result was that James and Cephas and John, the reputed pillars, clearly recognized that a ministry carried on by Paul and Barnabas with such conscientious regard for the will and revelation of God, such unswerving and pious purpose, such boundless energy, such tender love for souls, and, last but not least, such marvelous results, must be the product of the grace that was given to the agents used by the Lord. They saw the amazing manifestation of God's undeserved, but energetically operating, favor. Of the three Jerusalem leaders James is mentioned first. See on 1:19. As has been shown, he is definitely linked with Jerusalem, more so even than Peter and John. It is not surprising, therefore, that he is mentioned first. Though not properly an apostle (in the plenary sense), his position as the Lord's brother, his moderation, wisdom, and sympathetic nature, assured him a place of special prominence in this stronghold of Jewry, in which many people had already accepted Christ, and many more were to follow (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 21:20). Peter, the leader of The Twelve, has just been described. See also on Gal. 2:11ff. Probably because his influence and activity in Jerusalem are here emphasized, he is now called by his Aramaic name, Cephas. There follows John, Peter's frequent companion, as has been shown. Though for a while similarly linked with Judea, he probably left Jerusalem at the beginning of the Jewish War, and chose Ephesus as his headquarters. Banished to the island of Patmos, he was subsequently permitted to return to Ephesus. According to tradition he, the disciple whom Jesus loved, survived all the other apostles. By the Judaizers these three men were regarded as pillars (I Tim. 3:15; Rev. 3:12), that is, those who gave stability to the church, its genuine leaders, whom they loved to contrast with Paul at the latter's expense. Paul does not begrudge the three the honor that is bestowed upon them. The real thrust of his argument is to show that these pillars, far from disagreeing with him, enthusiastically approve of him, and acknowledge the fact that his gospel and their gospel are one and the same, to which nothing can be added, and from which nothing must be subtracted. The singularly striking manner in which they confirmed their enthusiastic endorsement of the two foreign missionaries, herein following the example, years earlier, of the common people of Judea who were believers (1:22–24), is expressed in the words: When they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised &and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, they &gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. Note that they themselves James, Cephas, and John took the initiative. This handshake, to be sure, was a sign of mutual agreement and acknowledgment; more than that, of fellowship (koinonia), one of the richest terms in the entire New Testament. See the detailed treatment of this concept in N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 51–54; 93 95. But it also served as the confirmation of a solemn covenant^[59] into which these five men now entered, as they divided the work-load: that we [Paul and Barnabas] should (go) to the Gentiles, and they [James, Cephas, and John] to the circumcised. This division of labor must be interpreted in general terms. It amounted to a ratification of what had already begun; for, as has been indicated, Paul and Barnabas were bestowing their special attention upon the Gentiles; James, Cephas, and John, upon the Jews. This did not prevent the two from first of all addressing the Jews, wherever there was a synagogue, nor the three from reaching out also to the non-Jews. Thus, Peter did not have to apologize for having worked among the SamaritansActs 8:14ff. and having preached to the Roman centurion Cornelius and his friends and relativesActs 10:1ff.; 11:1ff., especially 15:7! . Nevertheless, from now on and as long as circumstances would permit it, the Jews and the country they inhabited would be the chief responsibility of the three and of those whom they represented, while Paul and Barnabas were to proclaim the gospel far away to the Gentiles (Acts 22:21). In verses 7 9 the following lessons stand out: (1) Under God Paul's gospel is independent; that is, it is able to maintain itself in relation to friends and foes. It vanquishes the arguments of its foes, and is enthusiastically endorsed by its friends, who recognize it as the gospel which they themselves charish. (2) One gospel suffices for every age and every clime. Methods of presentation may have to vary, but essentially the gospel for the first century a.d. is the gospel for today. Those who maintain that it is not relevant for this day and age are committing a tragic error. Only then when the message of the love of God in Christ has penetrated heart and mind, resulting in a life of unselfish dedication to God and grateful observance of the principles of conduct he has laid down in his Word, will solutions be found for the problems that now vex the individual, the family, society, the church, the nation, and the world. (3) The New Testament is not a hodgepodge of conflicting theologies the theology of John, the theology of Paul, etc. but a harmonious, beautifully variegated, unit. It is a remarkable fact that the five men, whose handclasp of ringing harmony is here described, produced, between them, no less than twenty-one of the twenty-seven New Testament books!^[60] 10. To the major agreement touching the essence of the gospel and the division of the field of labor, one stipulation was added: Only, we were to continue to remember the poor,^[61] the very thing which I was also eager to do. The difficult situation of the Judean poor required that special measures be taken to help them. It would seem that this situation, though more severe at one time than at another, was rather constant (Acts 11:27 30; 12:25; II Cor. 8:14). A few years earlier Barnabas and Paul had been sent on a relief mission. Paul and Barnabas now agree that such aid should be continued. Paul says that he was eager was taking pains, making every effort to do this. In fact, so eager was he to engage in this work of mercy that his third missionary journey, the one that was to follow immediately the present (second) trip during which Galatians was written, had as one of its chief objects, in the words of the apostle himself, to bring alms to my nation (Acts 24:17). The words, We were to continue to remember, probably do not only mean that the work already begun should be resumed and thus continued, but also that to help the poor should be and remain the regular practice of the church. I Cor. 16:1, 2certainly points in that direction. Work of this nature should be pushed with all vigor. This is demanded by the laws of God (Exod. 23:10, 11; 30:15; Lev. 19:10; Deut. 15:7–11), the exhortations of the prophets (Jer. 22:16; Dan. 4:27; Amos 2:6, 7), and the teaching of Jesus (Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:36, 38; cf. 21:1–4; John 13:29; Gal. 6:2). It also pertains to the expression of gratitude for benefits received. Those to whom mercy has been shown should be merciful. Paul points to the fact that since the Gentiles have received so many spiritual blessings from the saints of Jerusalem, they should certainly be of service to them in matters material (Rom. 15:26, 27). And the greatest text of all, in this connection, is surely (II Cor. 8:9! A rich reward awaits the generousMatt. 25:31–40). It is remarkable that Paul, the deep thinker, is at the same time the Christian benefactor, who believes wholeheartedly in doing good to everybody, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith, as he says in this very letter (6:10). Such is Christianity. If it is genuine, it is concerned about the poor, their health and their housing, their spiritual but also their material welfare. It does all in its power to help the underprivileged, under-educated, undernourished, the migrants and those who belong to minority groups. Overwhelmed by the love of God in Christ, it is eager to do so! The five men who concluded this agreement must have been very happy, indeed, as they stood there, firmly clasping each other's right hand, brothers in a common cause. Accordingly, Paul and Barnabas entered into a solemn agreement with the others, promising that they would remind the Gentiles that they should help the poor; particularly, in the present instance, Jerusalem's saints. One of these five men was James, the Lord's brother, who, with respect to the rich and the poor, wrote the unforgettable words found in the second and fifth chapters of his epistle! Chapter 2 Verses 11 21 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors I. This Gospel's Origination: it is not of human but of divine origin: hence, is independent F. Far from receiving anything from Jerusalem's pillars, at Antioch I even took Cephas to task for his reversion to legalism: separating himself from Gentile converts after first eating with them. A man is not justified by law-works but through faith in Jesus Christ. For I through law died to law, that I might live to God. 2:11–21 F. The gospel as proclaimed by Paul maintained even over against Peter's deviation 11 Now when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain individuals from James arrived he had been in the habit of eating his meals with the Gentiles. But when they came he began to draw back and to separate himself, being afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in playing the hypocrite, so that even Barnabas was carried along by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not pursuing a straight course in accordance with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas, in everybody's presence, If you, though a Jew, can live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you (now) force the Gentiles to live like Jews? 15 We ourselves, though by nature Jews and not Gentile sinners, 16 yet, knowing that a man is not justified by law-works but only through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by law-works, because by law-works will no flesh be justified. 17 But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also turn out to be sinners, is Christ then a sin-promotor? By no means! 18 For, if I start to rebuild the very things which I have torn down, it is then that I prove myself a transgressor. 19 For I through law died to law, that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who lives, but Christ who lives in me; and that (life) which I now live in flesh I live in faith, (the faith) which is in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if justification (were) through law, then Christ died in vain. Paul continues to prove the essential independence both of his gospel and of his position. ^[62] That gospel which had been so enthusiastically endorsed by the pillars, etc. at Jerusalem was able to assert itself, when necessary, even over against one of those very men of repute. The theory according to which the rebuke here administered was addressed to some other Cephas, not to the apostle, is without a shred of evidence. The Cephas or Peter indicated here in 2:11 ff. must have been the one to whom Paul referred previously in this same letter (1:18; 2:7–9). And that person was one of Jerusalem's pillars, none other than Peter the apostle, the leader of The Twelve. The episode in which Peter was involved may well have occurred during the interval between the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:1 29) and the beginning of the second missionary journey (15:40 ff.). We know from the book of Acts (15:22, 30 39) that it was then that Paul and Barnabas tarried for some time in Syrian Antioch. And here in Galatians the Paul-versus-Peter controversy immediately follows the conference (inclusive of private interview). 11. Paul writes: Now when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face. We are not told just why Cephas visited Antioch at this time. Various guesses have been made but none of them serves any useful purpose. The important fact is that Cephas committed an error of conduct so serious that Paul felt obliged to oppose or resist^[63] him to his face, that is, directly, openly, man to man. Peter's action was entirely inexcusable, to which Paul calls attention by adding: because he stood condemned. His own behavior condemned him. Why this was true will become clear from the discussion of verses 12 14. These lines begin as follows: 12. For before certain individuals from James arrived he had been in the habit of eating his meals with the Gentiles. But when they came he began to draw back and to separate himself, being afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision party. The reference is, no doubt, to the fellowship meals or agapae of the early Christians. The food which otherwise would have been consumed at home was brought to the meeting-place of the congregation. It would seem that originally the Lord's Supper took place at the conclusion of such a get-together. Whether such meetings were ordinary church services or congregational meetings is not always clear and, for the present purpose, does not matter. The abuses to which such social meals could lead are pointed out in I Cor. 11:17–34. In Corinth there was segregation according to wealth, the rich separating from the poor; in Antioch the segregation which threatened was of an ethnic character, the Jewish Christians separating from their Gentile brothers in the faith, as will become clear. The question, How can Jewish Christians eat with Gentile Christians? was a very perplexing one in the apostolic age. It is true that, with a view especially to those who from the Gentiles turned to God (Acts 15:19), the Jerusalem Council had made an important decision, namely, that you abstain from that which has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from anything that has been strangled &(15:29).^[64] But even though this decision to a certain extent limits the area in which it was possible for Jews and Gentiles to enjoy meal-time fellowship, it did not by any means settle everything with reference to such eating and drinking. First, there were the Old Testament rules concerning clean and unclean (Lev. 11). For centuries the Jews had observed such and similar divine ordinances. Josephus (Antiquities IV.vi.8) puts into the mouths of the Midianite women who came to entice the IsraelitesNum. 25and 31 these words: Your kinds of food are peculiar to yourselves, and your kinds of drinks are common to no others. Well-known is the Old Testament passage: But Daniel resolved in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king's dainties, nor with the wine which he drank (Dan. 1:8). From the apocryphal book Tobit (1:10–12) note the following: And when I was carried away captive to Nineveh, all my brothers and those that were of my kindred ate the bread of the Gentiles, but I kept myself from eating because I remembered God with all my soul. There is also I Macc. 1:62: And many in Israel were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves not to eat unclean things; and the dramatic story of the mother and her seven sons who were martyred because they refused to eat abominable swine's flesh (II Macc. 7). In some of the cases listed aboveDan. 1:8ff. the revulsion of the devout Jews aroused by the sight of heathen food may have been due to a combination of reasons; for example, some of the food set before them may have been unclean according to the regulations of Lev. 11, and most or all of it may have been previously consecrated to idols. Secondly, there were the man-made restrictions and stipulations, handed down from generation to generation, by means of which the rabbis had sought to explain and expand the divinely imparted ordinances. These, in turn, were of various kinds. Some dealt with the purchase of meats from Gentile meat-markets; for example: The Jews were permitted to get meat from a Gentile meat-market when the animal had not been slaughtered by a non-Israelite, when the meat had not been brought into contact with pagan religious ceremonies, and when the proprietor of the place where the meat was sold guaranteed that he did not handle inferior meat, the kind that had been prohibited for Jewish consumption. ^[65] There was also the peculiar Pharisaic interpretation of the law of purity (Lev. 15). This may well furnish the true explanation of John 4:7 9with reference to Christ's conversation with the Samaritan woman. Jesus said to her, Give me a drink. Continued: So the Samaritan woman said to him, How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a Samaritan woman? (For Jews do not use [vessels] together with Samaritans). See N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, pp. 160, 161. Still another set of halakoth had to do with washing the hands before eating, a washing not for ordinary hygienic reasons but out of fear lest these hands had been contaminated by contact with a Gentile or with something that belonged to a GentileMatt. 15:1ff.; Mark 7:1ff. . Finally, to mention only one more reason why it was so difficult for a devout Jew to eat with a Gentile, think of the many man-made rules which the rabbis had laid down regarding the consumption of food on the sabbath! In view of all this, it is easy to see that for a Jew to eat in the company of a Gentile, whether on the sabbath or not, was considered by many to be positively wicked. But had not Christ, by his death on the cross, fulfilled, and thereby abolished, the Old Testament shadows? And if even the divinely established rules had lost their validity, was not the same true even more decisively with respect to all the man-made regulations that had been embroidered upon these rules? True indeed, but this legitimate inference was not drawn by every believer in Christ. Many, especially in and around Jerusalem, held fast to their traditions. Provided that no saving significance of any kind was ascribed to the continuation of such habits and that no offense was given, such persistence could be tolerated, particularly during what might be called the period of transition. However, in mixed communities problems immediately presented themselves. See I Cor. 8:1ff.; 10:14ff. Customs (Gentile versus Jewish) were bound to clash. The fact that the law of ordinances had been nailed to the cross was not always fully appreciated, and the further and closely related fact that in Christ the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile had been broken down, never to be rebuilt, was frequently ignored (as it is even today in certain circles!). In liberal (I now use the word in its most favorable sense) Antioch the far-reaching implication of the Jerusalem Council had been fathomed. The logical deduction had been drawn, namely, that if the ceremonial ordinances regarding eating and drinking were not to be imposed upon the Gentiles, they should not be saddled upon the Jews either. Here it was understood that the unity of the church, consisting of Jew and Gentile, demanded, among other things, eating and drinking together in sweet fellowship, with restrictions reduced to the very minimum (Acts 15:20, 29). Were not all of the brothers Christians, and was it not Antioch in which this beautiful new name had first been given to Christ's followers? (11:26). According to this principle of love and fellowship the members of the Antiochian church had now for some time been eating and drinking. When Cephas arrived in Antioch he, too, had fallen in line with this new procedure and had continued in this manner for some time. But then something occurred which brought about an inexcusable and dangerous change in his behavior. Into the church-gathering walked certain individuals from James. ^[66] In the light of such passages as Acts 15:1, 24it is not necessary to conclude that these investigators actually represented the views of James or that they had been delegated by him. Far more natural would seem to be the explanation that they came from the church at Jerusalem, a church in which James occupied a position of special prominence. Although some cling to the theory that these individuals from James and those who belonged to the circumcision party are two different groups, the text does not demand this interpretation. In all probability the individuals from James belonged to the same group as the Judaizers to which reference is made in Acts 15:1. In the latter passage they demanded that the Gentiles, in order to be admitted to the church, be circumcised. Here we meet them once more in the same city of Antioch, and this time they insist (perhaps by their very presence and refusal to eat with Gentile believers) that Jews dine with Jews, Gentiles with Gentiles. And Cephas hesitates, then little by little begins to withdraw himself from the Gentiles, until at length he is completely separating himself and is no longer eating with the Gentiles.^[67] Peter, in so doing, was motivated by fear. Was he afraid that by means of continued eating with the Gentiles (believers in Christ, gathered from the Gentiles) he would antagonize the men from James to such an extent that the evil report which they would bring to their like-minded friends in Jerusalem would weaken his prestige in that city and might even cause him to be persecuted? It is argued that the Peter who had spoken with such courage at the Council of Jerusalem would not have turned around so completely here at Antioch, certainly not so shortly afterward. This argument fails to give due consideration to two facts: a. Peter may not have been aware of the full implications of his action; for, after all, the decisions of that council explicitly dealt with Gentiles, not with Jews; b. inconsistency and momentary fear consituted the weak strain in Peter's character. Besides, though a believer's progress in sanctification is capable of being represented by a rising diagonal, so that the Peter of (Acts 2:22 36; 4:19, 20; 5:12–16, 29shows far more courage than the one of Matt. 27:69–75; Mark 14:66 72; Luke 22:54 62; and John 18:15 18, 25 27, nevertheless, this diagonal is not a straight line. It dips at times. And so it was here. Instability was again asserting itself, as it had done so often before. Accordingly, far from saying that Cephas could not have changed so quickly from one kind of conduct to another, we should rather affirm that the description here given is exactly in character for that particular apostle. For proof see N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. II, p. 232. The change from Peter's excellent emphasis on the unity of Jew and Gentile, when at the Council of Jerusalem he said, And God made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faithActs 15:9) and his present encouragement of separation between these two groups, was certainly not any more drastic and sudden than that between his boast, Even if I must die with thee, yet will I not deny thee and his complete disavowal, I do not even know the man. 13. Continued: And the rest of the Jews joined him in playing the hypocrite. Whether or not Peter had understood the full implications of the decisions of the Jerusalem Council, one thing at least is certain: he knew that in separating himself from the believing Gentiles he was acting contrary to his own inner convictions. He was hiding his real beliefs, just as an actor conceals his real face under a mask. He was playing the hypocrite. We know that this is true, for: (1) During Christ's sojourn on earth Peter had been one of his closest disciples. He had heard the teaching of Jesus whereby he made all meats clean (Mark 7:19). He knew that this same Jesus had urged sinners, one and all, to come unto him and be saved by simple trust in him (Matt. 11:28–30). He knew, too, that the Master had welcomed non-Israelites (Matt. 8:11; 28:18–20; Mark 12:9; Luke 4:16 30; 17:11–19); and that in ever so many of his sayings he had emphasized the oneness in him of all believers throughout the whole wide earth (Matt. 13:31, 32; Luke 14:23; 19:10; John 3:16; 4:42; 10:16; 12:32; 17:19, 20). (2) As if that were not sufficient, to Peter had been given and this not once but three times! the vision of the sheet. On the housetop at Joppa he had learned that it was wrong to regard as unclean that which God had cleansed (Acts 10:9 16). (3) He had also understood the implication of this vision and had acted upon it. Boldly he had gone to Caesarea and had entered the house of the centurion Cornelius of the Italian band. It was to the group gathered at the home of this non-Jew that he had said, You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit a person of another nation; yet to me God has shown that I should not call any man common or unclean (Acts 10:28). (4) Not only had he visited the uncircumcised but he had even eaten with them. And when those of the circumcision party had criticized him for such conduct, Peter had come forth with a lengthy defense (Acts 11:1 18). And, in the full assurance of the fact that he was following the only divinely approved course, he had in the beginning repeated at Antioch what he had already done at Caesarea. In both cases he had taken his meals with the Gentiles. (5) In fact, if it was right for Peter to eat with Gentile enquirers at Caesarea, it certainly must have been right for him to eat with Gentile believers in Antioch! Accordingly, when Paul accuses Peter of insincerity or hypocrisy he is not using too strong a word. Peter's conduct was all the more reprehensible because he was a recognized leader. His example was prone to be followed by others. So it was also in the present case. When the courage of Cephas was oozing out, faint-heartedness also took possession of the rest of the Jews (that is, all the other Jewish Christians who were present). Even Barnabas, whom we would never have accused of narrow-mindedness (Gal. 2:1), who had co-operated heartily with Paul in the establishment of several churches in Gentile regions, and who must have enjoyed many a meal with the young converts from the heathen world, now meekly went along with Peter in the latter's insincere behavior: so that even Barnabas was carried along by their hypocrisy. The courage and firmness of Paul's reaction to this inexcusable hypocrisy merit profound admiration: 14. But when I saw that they were not pursuing a straight course in accordance with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas, in everybody's presence, If you, though a Jew, can live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you (now) force the Gentiles to live like Jews? Paul saw that Peter and all those who followed his example were not straight-footing toward, or in accordance with, the truth of the gospel, thus literally. In the New Testament the verb they are straight-footings^[68] occurs only here. The meaning is probably either that, as Paul saw it, these people were not advancing toward, i.e., in the direction of, the gospel-truth, or that they were not pursuing a straight course in accordance with^[69] that truth. According to the latter view, to which I would give a slight preference, the two lines of which one is the guideline and represents the gospel-truth, and the other represents the conduct of these segregationists were not running parallel. On the contrary, they were pulling farther and farther apart. The straight course in accordance with gospel-truth is the gospel message presented in all its purity. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER III Chapter 3 Verses 1 5 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors II. Its Vindication: both Scripture i.e., the Old Testament and life (experience, past history) bear testimony to its truth A. O foolish Galatians! Was it by doing what the law demands that you received the Spirit or was it by believing the gospel message? 3:1–5 A. By what avenue did you receive the Spirit and its fruits? 3 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose very eyes Jesus was openly displayed as crucified? 2 This only would I learn from you: Was it by doing what (the) law demands that you received the Spirit, or was it by believing (the) gospel message?^[76] 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, now by fleshly means are you being made perfect? 4 Did you experience so many things in vain? if (it be) really in vain. 5 He, accordingly, who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you (does he bring this about) because you do what (the) law demands or because you believe (the) gospel message?^[77] 1. The apostle, having proved that the gospel as proclaimed by himself that is, the good tidings of justification by faith apart from law-works is of divine origin and is therefore able to maintain itself everywhere and at all times, now proceeds to show that both Scripture and experience bear testimony to its truth. He turns to experience first of all, that is, to that which the Galatians themselves had begun to experience when they, by sovereign grace, had accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. He says: O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose very eyes Jesus was openly displayed as crucified? As is clear from a study of the word foolish or senseless in Luke 24:25; Rom. 1:14; I Tim. 6:9; and to a certain extent even in Titus 3:3, the original indicates an attitude of heart as well as a quality of mind. It refers not to bluntness but to a sinful neglect to use one's mental power to the best advantage. The Galatians, in lending a listening ear to the arguments of the legalists, must be considered not necessarily dull but thoughtless, not ignorant but senseless, not stupid but foolish. And is not everyone foolish who barters the truth of God for the lie of Satan, peace for unrest, assurance for doubt, joy for fear, and freedom for bondage? Paul, deeply moved, asks, Who has bewitched you? Neither in Greek, however, nor in modern English does the word bewitch always have reference to literal witchcraft. In the interpretation of this passage much has been made of the evil eye (Deut. 28:54, 56; Prov. 23:6; 28:22; Matt. 20:15; Mark 7:22). But Paul was probably not thinking about the sorcerer who had brought the Galatians under the baleful influence of his evil eye, but rather of the Judaizer who had cast a spell upon them not by means of his eyes but by means of his words, his teaching; specifically, by telling them that faith in Christ must be supplemented by Mosaic ritualism.^[78] And the Galatians, by yielding to this influence, had failed to understand that a Christ supplemented is a Christ supplanted. Moreover, such yielding was entirely inexcusable, since Jesus, as the source of salvation full and free to all who believe, had been openly displayed, clearly and publicly proclaimed^[79] to the Galatians. With their very eyes, as it were, they had seen him. So clear and vivid had been the presentation of this Christ that they had formed a mental picture of him, dying for sinners and promising salvation to all who would accept him by true faith. When Paul says before whose very eyes Jesus was openly displayed as crucified, he is thinking not so much of the historical details of the crucifixion as of the supreme value of Christ Crucified for a world lost in sin, and of the implication that obedience to law contributes nothing to this salvation. 2. Paul continues: This only would I learn from you: Was it by doing what (the) law demands that you received the Spirit, or was it by believing (the) gospel message? A somewhat different translation not differing, however, in its basic idea is also possible, namely, &Was it as a result of law-works that you received the Spirit, or was it as a result of faith-inspired listening? ^[80] The two renderings agree in this that according to both salvation by works is placed over against salvation by faith. Paul's question is filled with significance and applies to every age. Let the tree be judged by the fruits it produces. It is as if Paul were asking, My dear Galatians, does the course which you are now following make you more happy and contented than that which you previously selected? By what avenue were you first made conscious of having the Holy Spirit in your hearts? Was it by the avenue of rigorous bondage to ceremonial ordinances or was it by the exercise of faith in Christ, so that you listened and listened and eagerly took to heart the marvelous message of the gospel? In verse 5 the apostle is going to come back to this question and is going to expand it. See on that verse. 3. Continued: Are you so foolish? What their folly consisted of has already been explained (see on verse 1). Nevertheless, there is a further explication of the concept Galatian Folly in these words: Having begun by the Spirit, now by fleshly means are you being made perfect?^[81] In the original there is a double contrast, namely, a. between having begun and being made perfect, and b. between by the Spirit and by flesh. This double contrast is made all the more effective by the chiastic (or letter X) arrangement of the words in the sentence: By placing Spirit and flesh so near to each other (as is done in the original and in my translation) the difference between the two receives the proper emphasis. The active presence of the Spirit spells the indwelling of Christ; hence, rebirth, the implantation of the seed of true faith, the sense of forgiveness and sonship, and the further gifts of illumination, liberty, joy, assurance of salvation, power against Satan, answered prayers, effective witness-bearing, etc. It produces gifts both outward and inward, as will be indicated (see on verse 5). On the other hand, the flesh^[82] is the absence of Christ's indwelling. It indicates anything apart from Christ on which one bases his hope for salvation. The Galatians were beginning to renounce Christ as the all-sufficient Savior. Having begun in the Spirit they were now tending to place their confidence in fleshly means such as trusting in the advice of the Judaizers, hence also in legal works, strict observance of ceremonies, circumcision, etc. in order that by means such as these they might become perfected. What stupendous and disastrous folly! They remind one of the prodigal son who leaves the home of his father, with the security, peace, love, and understanding which that home offered, in order that he might roam about in a strange and hostile environment, where he would suffer hunger and want. Flesh spells doubt, fear, darkness, weakness, bondage, gloom, defeat, etc. It is as if Paul were saying, How hopeful was your beginning, and how sad your continuation! And just think of it: those false guides whom you are now beginning to follow have a name for this process of going downhill. They call it becoming perfected! What tragic irony! What the apostle writes applies not only to the Galatians of his own day. It applies equally to those who today are trusting in such things as ritual, the moral life, scientific achievement, intellectual attainment, physical charm, financial resources, political power, doctrinal liberalism, or even doctrinal purity. If one bases his hope for this life or the next upon anything apart from Christ he is placing confidence in flesh. 4. In close connection with the words Having begun by the Spirit (verse 3 and cf. also verses 1 and 2) Paul continues: Did you experience so many things in vain? A.V. reads, Have ye suffered so many things in vain? This wording (with suffered instead of experienced) is found also in many other translations, both ancient and modern, and is recommended by many interpreters. If it be correct, Paul would be introducing an entirely new thought at this point, one about which he has said nothing whatever in the preceding, which he drops immediately, and to which he never again alludes in the remainder of the letter! Now, it can hardly be questioned that the Galatians, along with all others who turn to Christ, had suffered. Cf. John 16:33; II Tim. 3:12. Even the book of Acts which dwells in some detail on Paul's sufferings in South Galatia (13:50; 14:2, 5, 19) and says but little about the afflictions which the Galatians themselves endured, nevertheless implies that many tribulations awaited them (14:22). It is also true that the word used in the original and translated suffered in A.V., etc., generally has that meaning. And, taken in and by itself, the question, Have ye suffered so much in vain? yields an intelligible sense, for the Galatians might well be asked whether the game had been worth the candle, if they now were at the point of deserting the very faith which they had once confessed and for which they had suffered a measure of persecution. Notwithstanding these arguments in support of the rendering suffered, there remain a few considerations which have moved many to part company with the A.V. at this point. First, it should be borne in mind that the verb used in the original is neutral. It really means no more than to experience. Whether the things which have been experienced were good or bad, favorable or unfavorable, is not indicated in the verb as such.^[83] Then also the argument based upon the prevalent meaning of the word (namely, to suffer) in Paul's epistles (and elsewhere) loses much of its force as soon as it is discovered, after detailed examination of all the other Pauline passages in which it is found (I Cor. 12:26; II Cor. 1:6; Phil. 1:29; I Thess. 2:14; II Thess. 1:5; and II Tim. 1:12) that in all these other cases the context clearly demands, as translation, a form of the verb to suffer, but that the present context, on the contrary, points in the opposite direction. Both preceding and succeeding verses speak of past favors: the public proclamation of the Christ to the Galatians, the reception of the Spirit, and the occurrence of miracles in their midst. See also Gal. 4:14, 15. It is in this general context that Paul asks, Did you experience so many things in vain (that is, to no effect)? The implied lesson, always applicable, is surely this, that the Lord wants everyone to profit spiritually by the experiences through which he has passed. He wants his people to use those experiences in the present case blessings, but the lesson applies to all experiences to good advantage. In the old dispensation Laban, though he refers to what he has learned from experience, made a selfish application (Gen. 30:27). The Galatians likewise were showing by their erring ways that theirs was not the proper response. On the other hand, David, reflecting on God's mercies, proves that these tokens of divine love had not been lost on him. He said, Who am I, O Lord Jehovah, and what is my house, that thou hast brought me thus far? (II Sam. 7:18). Cf. also (Ps. 103; 116; 119:67; Luke 17:11 19; Acts 3:23 31; I Tim. 1:12–17; and Rev. 15:2–4. Paul adds: if (it be) really in vain. Some interpret this to mean, If (it be) only in vain and not worse than in vain. I cannot agree with this rather harsh (?) interpretation. Gal. 5:10definitely shows that Paul had not given up hope in connection with the Galatians. Even now he regarded them as being his dear childrenGal. 4:19), yes, as God's dear but grievously erring children. I agree with Calvin's remark on this verse: But to mitigate the severity of this complaint, he [Paul] adds, if (it be) really in vain, thus inspiring their minds with the expectation of something better, and rousing them to the exercise of repentance. Thus also Berkhof, Lightfoot, Luther, and most commentators. The opposite view is defended by Ridderbos (among others), op. cit., pp. 115, 116. 5. As the word accordingly indicates, Paul now returns to the question which he had asked previously (see verse 2), changing the second person to the third, and the past tense to the present, for heightened effect: He, accordingly, who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you (does he bring this about) because you do what (the) law demands or because you believe (the) gospel message?^[84] Note the addition: and works miracles among you. Instead of among you one can also translate within you. This means that the miracles, forces, or powers of which the apostle makes mention can be viewed either as outward charismata (special gifts), such as healing, prophecy, tongues, interpretation of tongues (I Cor. 12:10; II Cor. 12:12), or as inward moral and spiritual endowments, such as faith, hope, and love. There would seem to be good reason to believe that Paul had both of these groups in mind, for when he himself enumerates the various blessings which the Holy Spirit had bestowed on another church, he proceeds, by a very easy transition, from the first group (I Cor. 12) to the second (I Cor. 13). Blessings of both kinds had been bestowed yes, liberally bestowed^[85] upon the Galatians. But had they been imparted as a result of obedience to law or as a result of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, as set forth in the gospel? And if the latter, as was most certainly true, then why are the Galatians turning away from faith to works, from the Fountain to the broken cistern that holds no water? O foolish Galatians! O equally foolish modern man! Chapter 3 Verses 6 14 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors II. Its Vindication: both Scripture i.e., the Old Testament and life (experience, past history) bear testimony to its truth B. The law (Deut. 27:26) pronounces a curse upon the disobedient. Christ Crucified, by bearing this curse (Deut. 21:23), redeemed us from it, so that we are saved through faith in him. Abraham, too, was justified by faith (Gen. 15:6), and blessed with him are all those who are of faith, according to Gods promise (Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; Hab. 2:4). 3:6–14 B. Faith: blessing &works: curse. The promise to Abraham 6 (It is) even as (recorded): Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness. 7 Know then that those that are of faith, it is they who are sons of Abraham. 8 Now Scripture, foreseeing that it was by faith that God would justify the Gentiles, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, (saying): In you all the nations shall be blessed. 9 Therefore, those that are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the man of faith. 10 For as many as rely on law-works are under a curse; for it is written, Cursed (is) everyone who does not continue in all the things that are written in the book of the law, to do them. 11 Now it is evident that by law no one is justified before God, for The righteous shall live by faith. 12 But the law does not belong to faith; on the contrary, He who does them shall live by them. 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us for it is written. Cursed is everyone who is hanging on a tree 14 in order that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Jesus Christ, in order that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. For the idea that justification hence, salvation in all its fulness is obtained by way of faith and not by reliance on law-works Paul now appeals to Scripture, and first of all to the story of Abraham. In fact, the present section begins and ends with a reference to Abraham (verses 6 8, 14). We may well believe that throughout this entire paragraph (3:6–14), and, in a sense, throughout the entire chapter (cf. verses 15 18, 29), Abraham is never absent from the apostle's mind. Paul probably selected the scriptural references to Abraham in order to show a. that already at the very beginning of Israel's history it is clearly evident that God had chosen this one nation in order that in and through its great seed it might not only receive a blessing but also become a blessing to the world; and b. that equally from the very beginning the divinely appointed means of receiving this blessing, so as to be able to impart it to the nations, was faith, not works. 6. Accordingly, Paul writes: (It is) even as (recorded): Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness. Probably an additional reason for devoting so much attention to Abraham was the fact that the opponents were constantly boasting about their descent from Abraham, as if this biological circumstance would give them a higher rating with God (Acts 15:5; Gal. 2:3; 5:2, 3; 6:12, 13, 15; cf. Matt. 3:9; Luke 3:8; John 8:33, 39, 40, 53), and as if the righteousness which Jehovah had reckoned to Abraham (Gen. 15:6) had been a debt which God owed him for his work (Rom. 4:4).^[86] So Paul refers to this very passage from Genesis and shows that it teaches the exact opposite, and places the emphasis on faith, not on work. Abraham believed God, that is, believed what God had spoken. Moreover, this faith, says Paul, in complete harmony with (Gal. 3:1–5, was not a matter of merit on Abraham's part, but was by God graciously reckoned or imputed to him for righteousness. Also, if the opponents imagine that for their emphasis on the necessity of circumcision as a means unto salvation they can appeal to the story of AbrahamGen. 17:23–27), let it then be emphasized that the patriarch's justification preceded his circumcision by many years (Gen. 15:6; 16:16; 17:24). Righteousness was reckoned to him not after but long before he had been circumcised (Rom. 4:9–12); so that, as a result of this prior justification, he became the father of all believers, the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised. That, in brief, is Paul's argumentation, according to Gal. 3:6 10as illumined by Rom. 4:1–12. Abraham's life is, in fact, an illustration of the manner in which men, in all ages, are saved. Confidence in God, come what may, and resulting obedience to God's revealed will, characterize Abraham's life. Of these two confidence and obedience the former is basic throughout. Abraham obeyed because he believed. He heeded God's command because, first of all, he trusted God. The work of obedience proved that the confidence was genuine.^[87] Abraham's faith is being constantly put to the test. By God's grace he triumphs again and again. When God appears to him in Ur of the Chaldeans (Acts 7:3; cf. Gen. 11:28–32) he is told to leave country and kindred. Fully trusting that God will make all things well, he obeys. When Jehovah appears the second time, in Haran of Mesopotamia (Gen. 12:1), the test is even more severe: Abraham^[88] must leave his father's house. Again he trusts and obeys (Heb. 11:8). It is at this time that he receives the wonderful promise, In you shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Here we notice that God's particularism in selecting Abraham from among all of mankind had a universalistic purpose: the salvation of men of every nation. At Shechem in the land of Canaan Jehovah appears again, this time with the promise, To your seed I will give this land (Gen. 12:6, 7). This promise constitutes another test of faith, for Sarai is barren (Gen. 11:30), and the Canaanite, who was not at all eager to yield his soil to a stranger, was then in the land. Again Abraham believes, and builds an altar to Jehovah. After an unhappy incident in Egypt (Gen. 12:10–20), in which the weaker side of the mans character becomes manifest, Jehovah appears to him at Bethel. This occurred when Abraham had separated himself from Lot (Gen. 13:1–13). God's friend (James 2:23) is promised a. all the land which he sees, extending in every direction, and b. a seed as the dust of the earth (Gen. 13:14–18). But Abraham himself during his lifetime did not see the fulfilment of these promises. He lived by faith (Heb. 11:18–13) After his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer and his associates the word of Jehovah comes to Abraham in a vision, saying, Fear not &I am your shield and your exceeding great reward. Offspring is promised to him as the stars in multitude. There follows the passage which Paul quotes here in (Gal. 3:6Rom. 4:3, 20, 22; James 2:23): Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness. Subsequently, to Abraham, aged ninety-nine, the promise is repeated (Gen. 17). With him, as prospective father of a numerous race, the covenant of grace is established (17:7). Even before the promised child's birth it is already given a name (17:19). A little later the very time of the birth is revealed to Abraham and his wife (18:10). Abraham, though overcome with wonder, continues to cling to God's promise. Isaac is born, Abraham being now a centenarian (21:1, 2, 5). The most excruciating test of Abraham's faith occurs when God says to him, Now take your son, your only son, whom you love, even Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the summits which I will indicate to you (Gen. 22:2). Yet Abraham knows that Isaac is the very son who, in the line of descent, must some day produce the seed (as to his human nature), the very One in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed! How then can God command Abraham to offer up Isaac? By divine grace the father of all believers sustains even this fearfully bitter trial. He triumphs through faith in God, being deeply convinced that God was able even to raise up Isaac from the dead (Hebrews 11:19). His faith is gloriously rewarded. It is with this climax of Abraham's faith (Gen. 22) that James in his epistle links Gen. 15:6. He had every right to make this application, for whether Abraham professes his faith at the terebinths of Mamre, at the tamarisk of Beer-sheba, or on a high hill in Moriah, that marvelous confidence is still the same subtle chain that binds him to the Infinite, the same resting on the promises, the same looking forward to the city with the solid foundations, whose Architect and Builder is God. Paul, on the other hand, leaves Gen. 15:6in its own historical context, as is clear from Rom. 4:3, 10. For Paul's reasoning, both in Galatians and in Romans, this actual historical context was very meaningful, since, as has been indicated, it showed that even before his circumcision Abraham's faith was already reckoned to him for righteousness. Hence, it also proved that circumcision was not nearly as important as the Judaizers were trying to make it appear! Two questions demand an answer, however. The first one is this: Is not forensic righteousness or justification a matter of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner? But if this be true, then how is it that here in (Gal. 3:6Rom. 4:3, 20, 22), as in (Gen. 15:6, Abraham's faith is said to have been reckoned for righteousness, and this without any reference to Christ? Does not Christ figure in this account of imputation? Or must a reference to him be artificially superimposed upon the story or dragged into it? The answer is: Scripture itself shows us the Christ in the story. He is there, for all to see who are willing to see. Even better: it is Christ himself who reveals himself with respect to this story. It was he who said to the hostile Jews of his day, Abraham, your father, was extremely happy that he was to see my day, and he saw it and rejoicedJohn 8:56). When the promise concerning a son was made to Abraham, the latter believed, therefore, that in the line of Isaac the blessed seed would at length arrive through whom God would bless all the nations. Thus, as is stated clearly in Heb. 11:13, Abraham (and others before and after him) died in faith, not having received (the fulfilment of) the promises, but having greeted them from afar. See N.T.C. on John 8:56, Vol. II, pp. 64–66. It is not necessary, however, to establish to what extent Abraham had received clarity with respect to the coming Redeemer and the task assigned to him by the Father. It is far more important to take note of the fact that Paul himself, here in Gal. 3, links the promise that was given to Abraham with Christ and his redemptive work (verses 13, 14, 16, 22, 29). For Abraham also, therefore, the real basis of justification pardon for sin, right standing before God, adoption as a son was Christ's voluntary and vicarious sacrifice. For him, too, faith was the hand that laid hold on God's promise, however dimly apprehended. It is in that sense that Gen. 15:6and Gal. 3:6must be understood. The second question, which also is being asked again and again is this: Does Paul have any right, in his defense of faith over against law-works, to appeal to the faith of Abraham, which, after all, is mentioned in an entirely different setting? A quick, true, and also at times the only possible, answer would be that it was the Holy Spirit who inspired both Moses and Paul, both Genesis and Galatians, and who therefore had the right to apply his own previous utterances to new situations. Having granted this, however, must it not be added that basically the two situations were very similar? When, step by step, we followed the life of Abraham up to Moriah, did it not become clear that (with few exceptions) he was constantly rejecting the flesh for the Spirit, the earthly in favor of the heavenly, the visible in the interest of the invisible? Did he not do exactly this when, purely at God's bidding, he left his home and kindred for regions unknown; again when he rejected the well-watered Plain of the Jordan, giving Lot first choice; and once more when, in obedience to God, the God in whom he trusted, he even suppressed his strong and natural desire to keep alive his own dear and long-awaited son, in order that he might do God's bidding with respect to him? Is it not clear then that Abraham's chief desire was to lean for his salvation entirely on God and his will, and not on the arm of flesh? And was not the latter, namely, leaning on the arm of flesh, exactly what the Judaizers of Paul's day were doing when, prompted by fleshly considerations (Gal. 6:12), they continued to demand that the Gentiles supplement their faith in Jesus with fleshly trust in fleshly ordinances? Over against all those who placed their confidence in flesh anything apart from Christ on which one relies both Abraham and Paul manifested their faith, and were able to say, We look not at the things that are seen but at the things that are not seen; for the things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal (II Cor. 4:18). Therefore the appeal to Gen. 15:6is not only fully justified but even natural. 7. Paul continues: Know^[89] then that those that are of faith, it is they who are sons of Abraham. To be of faith means to be characterized or controlled by faith, to have trust in God as one's guiding principle. When this can be truly affirmed of persons, then they are sons of Abraham; and if sons then also heirs, true partakers of the spiritual promise that was made to Abraham. Note the emphasis on the fact that they, they alone but also all of them, are the true sons of Abraham. What Paul is writing was nothing new. Christ in his teaching had emphasized the same truth, namely, that not physical descent but spiritual likeness makes a person a true son of Abraham. Those are sons of Abraham who do the works of Abraham (Luke 19:9; John 8:39, 40; cf. Matt. 8:11, 12). And John the Baptist had taught similarly (Matt. 3:9; Luke 3:8). Just as it is true that to be a child of God one must be like God (Eph. 5:1; I John 2:29: 3:1, 8, 9), so also it cannot be denied that to be a son of Abraham one must be like Abraham, imitate his conduct, and thus become a partaker of his blessedness. Therefore, even though a man should be a Hebrew of Hebrews, he is not, in the spiritual sense, a son of Abraham unless he be a true believer. Conversely, if he be a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, he is a son of Abraham, whether he be a Gentile or a Jew by race. 8. Continued: Now Scripture, foreseeing that it was by faith that God would justify the Gentiles, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, (saying): In you all the nations shall be blessed. In the words Scripture foreseeing &preached the gospel beforehand we have a very emphatic identification of God and his Word: what Scripture promises God promises, for he is the Speaker. Since the Holy Spirit is Scripture's Primary Author the conclusion is inevitable that God and his Word are most closely connected. The thing foreseen, because it had been thus ordained before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4, 11), was that it was by faith ^[90] and not by works that God would justify the Gentiles. If the Galatians would only understand this, they would not allow themselves to he misled by the Judaizers. By faith means by trustfully receiving God's gift out of his hand. It is thus, thus only, that the nations of the world were to receive pardon, right standing in the sight of God and his holy law, and adoption as sons; in a word: justification. This precious doctrine had been previously gospeled to Abraham. It had been proclaimed to him as good tidings of great joy for the entire world. This promise, though always valid, was to be realized on an international scale with the coming of Christ and of the dispensation which that coming would usher in. The content of the promise proclaimed to Abraham, recorded in words varying slightly but always essentially the same, was this: In you all the nations shall be blessed (Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18). The blessing of which Paul is thinking is that of justification by faith, as the context indicates; and this, in turn, was basic to all the blessings of salvation full and free. But inasmuch as the fulfilment of this promise, on a world-wide scale, was a matter of the future, it is readily understood that the phrase in you must be understood as Abraham himself also certainly understood it, namely, in the Messiah, the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), Abraham's seed (see on verse 16). 9. A significant and logical conclusion is drawn. The assurances were: a. Those that are of faith, they alone but also all of them without exception, are sons of Abraham (verse 7); and b. in Abraham, that is, in his seed, shall all the nations be blessed, for it was foretold that it would be by faith that God would justify the Gentiles (verse 8). Conclusion: Therefore, those that are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the man of faith.^[91] This conclusion is warranted, for those who are of faith are the ones who exercise faith. As such they are the sons of Abraham; hence, they are blessed with him, the man of faith, who in hope believed against hope, in order that he might become a father of many nations (Rom. 4:18). The passageGal. 3:6–9; cf. verses 14, 26 29 clearly teaches the important truth by many so deplorably rejected that the church of both dispensations, the old and the new, is one. All believers dwell in the same tent (Isa. 54:1–3). When the old dispensation ended it was not necessary to pitch a new tent; the old one was simply enlarged. All of God's children are represented by the same olive tree. The old tree did not have to be uprooted; new branches were grafted in among the old (Rom. 11:17). To each of the saints the same promise is given: I will be your God. Note how this promise runs through both Testaments (Gen. 15:1, 2; 17:7, 8: Exod. 20:2; Deut. 5:6; Josh. 1:5; II Chron. 20:17; Jer. 15:20; 24:7; 30:22; 31:33; Ezek. 11:20; Zech. 8:8; 13:9; II Cor 6:16; Heb. 8:10; Rev. 21:3, 7). All are saved by the same faith in the same Savior (Gen. 15:6; Isa. 53: Jer. 23:5, 6; Matt. 1:21; John 3:16; Acts 4:12; 10:43; 15:11; Rom. 3:24; 4:11). Apart from us those of the old dispensation do not reach perfection (Heb. 11:40). The names of all God's people are written in the same book of life. There are not two of those books: one for the old and one for the new dispensation; there is only one (Exod. 32:32, 33; Ps. 69:28; Dan. 12:1; Mal. 3:16, 17; Luke 10:20; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8, 20:12, 15; 21:27; 22:19). All are foreknown, foreordained, called, justified (by faith), and glorified (Rom. 8:29, 30). All partake and will partake of the glories of Jerusalem the Golden, the city on whose gates are written the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel, and on whose foundation stones are engraved the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Rev. 12:12, 14). Cf. John 10:16; 17:11. Once this is understood the Bible becomes a living book, for we begin to realize that when God says to Abraham, Fear not &I am your shield and your exceeding great reward &your God, he is speaking also to us. This central^[92] promise concerns all believers of both dispensations, for all those that are of faith are Abraham's children and heirs (Gal. 3:29). No clearer language could have been used than that which is found in Rom. 4:22–24. There Paul, having again made mention of the fact that Abraham's faith was reckoned to him for righteousness, adds, But not for his sake alone was it written that it was reckoned to him, but for our sake also. 10. Having shown that righteousness comes by way of faith, Paul now expresses this same truth negatively. What he states in verse 10 ff. may therefore be considered a corollary of the thought expressed in verses 6 9. Moreover, his attack against the false doctrine of the Judaizers, by which the Galatians were being influenced, thus increases in intensity and directness. It develops into a head-on collision: For as many as rely on law-works are under a curse; for it is written: Cursed (is) everyone who does not continue in all the things that are written in the book of the law, to do them. This is a modified quotation from Deut. 27:26, which, according to the Hebrew reads: Cursed (is) he who does not confirm the words of this law, to do them. In the Old Testament these words form the conclusion of the chapter that contains the curses the were to be pronounced front Mt. Ebal after the children of Israel would have passed over the Jordan. Now the curse which the law here pronounces is very real. Unless this be granted Gal. 3:13will be meaningless. Nevertheless, it is a fact, often ignored, that in Deuteronomy not only the blessing which was to be shouted from Mt. Gerizim but also the curse occurs in a setting of love, the idea being that by means of proclamation of this blessing and curse Israel, tenderly addressed as the people of Jehovah thy God, shall live a consecrated life to the glory of their merciful Deliverer. Paul's intentional departure from the Hebrew text when he writes, the book of the law may have been occasioned by his desire to emphasize the thought that the entire law, with all its precepts, considered as a unity, is meant. His reference to everyone and to all the things reminds one of the LXX rendering: Cursed (is) every man who does not continue in all the words of this law, to do them. But these changes are not of an essential nature. Now what was really the purpose of God's law? God gave his law in order that man, by nature a child of wrath, and thus lying under the curse (Gal. 3:13), as definitely declared in (Deut. 27:26; John 3:36; Eph. 3:2, might be reminded not only of his unchanged obligation to live in perfect harmony with this lawLev. 19:2) but also of his total inability to fulfil this obligation (Rom. 7:24).^[93] Thus this law would serve as a custodian to conduct the sinner to Christ (Gal. 3:24; cf. Rom. 7:25), in order that, having been saved by grace, he might, in principle, live the life of gratitude. That life is one of freedom in harmony with God's law (Gal. 5:13, 14). However, the Judaizers were perverting this true purpose of the law. They were relying on law-works as a means of salvation. On that basis they would fail forever, and (Deut. 27:26, when interpreted in that framework, pronounced God's heavy and unmitigated curse upon them; yes, curse,^[94] not blessing. The law condemns, works wrathRom. 4:15; 5:16, 18). 11. The fact that the opponents were diverting the law from its true purpose and that this attempt was bound to result in tragic failure is brought out clearly, as Paul continues: Now it is evident that by law no one is justified before God, for The righteous shall live by faith. ^[95] The law has no power to subdue man's sinful tendencies. It cannot destroy the power of sin within man (Rom. 8:3). How then can a sinner ever attain to the ultimate blessing of being righteous in the sight of God? How can that true, rich, full life in which man is at peace with his Maker, and abides in sweet communion with him, ever be reached? The answer, which holds for both dispensations, the old and the new, and for people of every race or nationality, whether Gentile or Jew, is this: The righteous shall live by faith. It is the man who has placed his entire confidence in God, trusting him implicitly, and accepting with gladness of heart the gracious provision which that merciful Father has made for his salvation, it is he, he alone, who shall live. This living consists in such things as: a. enjoying the peace of God which passes all understanding (Phil. 4:7), in the knowledge that in the sight of God's holy majesty the believer is righteous (Rom. 5:1; 8:15); b. having fellowship with God in Christ (John 17:3); c. rejoicing greatly with joy unspeakable and full of glory (I Peter 1:8); d. being transformed into the image of the Lord from glory to glory (II Cor. 3:18); and e., last but not least, striving to be a spiritual blessing to others to the glory of God (I Thess. 3:8). Now if the Judaizers had only paid more attention to the Word of God and had accepted it, they would have known that not by trusting in his own reasoning or in his own accomplishments but by faith the righteous man attains to this bliss of living. This had been clearly stated by Habakkuk the prophet (Hab. 2:4). That man of God appeared upon the scene of history during the reign of wicked Jehoiakim (608 597 b.c.). The words The righteous shall live by his faith may even be considered the theme of Habakkuk's prophecy. The divisions then would be: I. Faith tested: the prophet's questions and Jehovah's answers (chapters 1 and 2), and II. Faith strengthened by a vision shown in answer to the prophet's prayer. What bothered Habakkuk was that it seemed as if wicked men were getting away with their wickedness. Jehovah apparently tolerated such evils as the exploitation of the needy, strife, contention, violence, etc. So the prophet begins to ask questions. He addresses these questions to Jehovah. He complains, objects, and waits for an answer. Habakkuk's first question amounted to this, Why does Jehovah allow the wicked in Judah to oppress the righteous? Jehovah answers, Evil-doers will be punished. The Chaldeans (Babylonians) are coming. But this answer does not quite satisfy the prophet. So he asks another one, which was tantamount to this: Why does Jehovah allow the Chaldeans to punish the Jews, who, at least are more righteous than these foreigners? The prophet stations himself upon his watch-tower and awaits an answer. The answer arrives: The Chaldeans, too, will be punished. In fact all sinners will be punished &but the righteous shall live by his faith. It is his duty and privilege to trust, and to do this even then when he is not able to figure out the justice of Jehovah's doings. In this humble trust and quiet confidence he shall truly live. But Jehovah does more than merely tell the prophet that he must exercise faith. He also strengthens that faith by means of a marvelous, progressive vision. Habakkuk sees the symbol of Jehovah's presence, descending from Mt. Paran. Having descended he stands firm and shakes the earth. The tent-hangings of Cushan and Midian are trembling and are being torn to shreds. One question worries the prophet: Upon whom is Jehovah's wrath going to fall? Merely upon the realm of nature? Upon Judah perhaps? Finally, the answer arrives: Jehovah destroys the Chaldeans and delivers his people. So fearful and terrifying had been the appearance of Jehovah, so alarming the sound of the tempest, of crumbling mountains, etc., that the prophet is trembling in every part of his body. Nevertheless, having witnessed that Jehovah had descended for the defense of his own people, Habakkuk no longer questions the ways of God's providence. From now on he waits quietly. He expresses his feelings in a beautiful Psalm of Trust: For though the fig-tree shall not flourish.& Yet I will rejoice in Jehovah, I will joy in the God of my salvation. In this case, too, as with the quotation from the story of Abraham (Gen. 15:6; cf. Gal. 3:6), I beg to differ from those who think that Paul's appeal to an Old Testament passage in his battle with the Judaizers is far-fetched. These interpreters seem to see little if any connection between the faith versus law-works controversy of Paul's day and the faith versus Chaldean self-confidence contrast described in Habakkuk's prophecy. It is an error, however, to restrict the latter contrast so narrowly. A rapid review of the contents of the Old testament book has certainly shown that the quiet confidence which Jehovah so patiently teaches his servant is contrasted also perhaps especially with the prophet's own tendency to question the ways of God's providence. Fact is that the sinner is beset with enemies: the accusing voice of conscience, the doubting mind, etc. He must have peace. How will he obtain it? The Judaizers answer: by trusting in his own works (circumcision, etc.). Habakkuk, before he had fully learned the lesson which God was teaching him, gives evidence of answering: by trusting in his own reason. That is why it was so difficult for him to harmonize the events that were happening in Judah with the existence of a holy God. That is why he had asked so many questions. But Habakkuk learned his lesson. When he sat down to write his prophecy he had learned it thoroughly, and gave an account of the experience through which he had passed. But whether a person trusts in his own works or in his own reason, in either case is he not trusting in flesh? As I see it, therefore, to clinch his argument Paul could not have chosen a better prophecy from which to quote than that of Habakkuk. The passage fits the situation exactly! In every age it remains true that The righteous shall live by faith. In quietness and confidence shall be your strength (Isa. 30:15). 12. Continued: But the law does not belong to faith; on the contrary, He who does them shall live by them. In its own setting the included quotation from the book of Leviticus (18:5) is beautiful and comforting. It is introduced as follows: Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, I am Jehovah your God (verse 2). This encouraging assurance is repeated in verse 4, and is followed by You must therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances; which, if a man do, he shall live by them: I am Jehovah (verse 5). In summary this means: As your sovereign God I have a right to order you to keep my statutes, and as your faithful and loving God I will help and strengthen you to observe these statutes out of gratitude. So interpreted, observing God's law is the believer's joy. Did not the Psalmist exclaim: O how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day? However, when one begins to rely on law-works (Gal. 3:10), as if such obedience to law amounts to a ticket of admission into the kingdom of heaven and that, after all, is the context here in Galatians he should bear in mind that, so conceived, law is the very opposite of faith. The two cannot be combined. Leaning on law means leaning on self. Exercising faith means leaning on Christ. As avenues by which men attempt to obtain salvation the two simply do not mix. They are thoroughly antagonistic. Paul himself supplies the best commentary: But when the kindness of God our Savior and his love toward man appeared, he saved us, not by virtue of works which we ourselves had performed in a (state of) righteousness, but according to his mercy through the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:4, 5). Cf. John 1:17. Those who expect to be justified by observing all the statutes and ordinances of the law should remember that He who does them shall live by them. They are even more foolish than those who imagine that they can quench their thirst by drinking salt water. Lev. 18:5now becomes their accuser, but that is their fault! 13. The penitent sinner does not need to despair, however. To be sure, he is by nature under the curse of the law, as has been indicated. From this pitiable situation he is unable to deliver himself. But God has provided the remedy: Christ redeemed us Gentiles as well as Jews (see verse 14) from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. Christ purchased us free from the curse of the law. He bought us back^[96] from the sentence of condemnation which the law pronounced on us and from the punishment of eternal death which it exacted (Gen. 2:17; Deut. 30:15, 19; John 3:36; Rom. 5:12; 8:1; Eph. 2:3). He rescued us by the payment of a ransom (Exod. 21:30), the ransom price being his own precious blood (I Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev. 5:9; cf. I Peter 1:18, 19). He became a curse that is, an accursed one for us. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive of the majestic Christ as being accursed. What! Jesus anathema? In the face of (I Cor. 12:3how would one dare to say that? This becomes all the more a problem when we consider that we generally and rightly associate the curse with sin, and Christ had no sinIsa. 53:9; John 8:46; II Cor. 5:21; I Peter 2:22). The only solution is the one supplied by the beautiful words of (Isa. 53:6: Jehovah laid on him the iniquity of us all; cf. also verses 10 12. Christ's curse-bearing, then, was vicarious: Him who knew no sin he made to be sin for our sake, in order that in him we might become the righteousness of GodII Cor. 5:21). This eminently scriptural truth of Christ's substitutionary atonement is being denied by ever so many people. It has been called butchershop theology. Nevertheless, not only is it taught here in (Gal. 3:13in unmistakable language^[97] but it is the doctrine of Scripture throughoutExod. 12:13; Lev. 1:4; 16:20–22; 17:11; Ps. 40:6, 7; 49:7, 8; Isa. 53; Zech. 13:1; Matt. 20:28; 26:27, 28; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:14 23; John 1:29; 10:11, 14; Acts 20:28; Rom. 3:24, 25; 8:3, 4; I Cor. 6:20; 7:23; II Cor. 5:18–21; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Eph. 1:7; 2:16; Col. 1:19–23; Heb. 9:22, 28; I Peter 1:18, 19; 2:24; 3:18; I John 1:7; 2:2; 4:10; Rev. 5:9; 7:14). In support of the idea that Christ became a curse for us Paul appeals to Deut. 21:23: for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanging on a tree. In its Old Testament context, however, that passage does not refer to death by crucifixion, which was not known among the Israelites as a mode of capital punishment. It refers, instead, to the custom according to which after a wrong-doer had been executed, his dead body was nailed to a post or tree. But if, in the sight of God, the hanging of a dead body was a curse, how much more would not the slow, painful, and shameful death by crucifixion of a living person be a curse, especially when that dying one was experiencing anguish beyond the power of description! See Matt. 27:46. 14. The curse having thus been borne and lifted off our shoulders, the blessing can now flow forth: in order that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Jesus Christ, in order that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. The two purpose clauses are co-ordinate. They cover the same ground, the second explaining the first. Among all the priceless gems sparkling in the crown of Abraham's blessing (the blessing he received) this surely was one of the most precious, namely, that through him more precisely through his seed, the Messiah a countless multitude of people was to be blessed. Through Christ and his Spirit (Acts 1:4, 5; Eph. 1:13) the river of grace (Ezek. 47:3–5; Ps. 46:4; Rev. 22:1, 2), full, flowing, freshening, fructifying, and free, would continue on and on, blessing first the Jews but subsequently men of every race, Gentiles as well as Jews. And to receive this blessing, namely, the realization of the promise, I will be your God, all that is necessary is faith, confidence in Christ Crucified, for it is at Calvary that the fires of Gods wrath have spent all their fury, and believers of every tribe and tongue and people and nation are therefore perfectly safe! Chapter 3 Verses 15 29 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors II. Its Vindication: both Scripture i.e., the Old Testament and life (experience, past history) bear testimony to its truth C. This promise or convenant is superior to the law, for the latter reached us through mediation, the former came directly from God, and is still in force. The law, which came later, far from annulling the promise, serves it, by revealing our sinfulness and leading us to Christ. All who belong to Christ are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise. 3:15–29 C. The superiority of the promise over the law 15 Brothers, I speak from a human standpoint: even a human testament, once ratified, no one sets aside or amplifies. 16 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He does not say, And to the seeds, as (referring) to many, but as (referring) to one, And to your seed, which is Christ. 17 Now this is what I mean: a covenant that has been ratified by God, the law, which came into existence four hundred thirty years afterward, does not annul so as to make the promise ineffective. 18 For if the inheritance (is) due to law, it (is) no longer due to promise; but to Abraham it was through a promise that God graciously granted it. 19 Why then the law? By reason of the transgressions it was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made, having been ordained through angels by the agency of an intermediary. 20 Now the intermediary does not represent (just) one party, but God is one. 21 (Is) the law then contrary to the promises of God? By no means. For if a law had been given that was able to impart life, then indeed righteousness would have come by law. 22 But Scripture has locked up the whole world under (the power of) sin, in order that as a result of faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before this faith came, we were kept in custody under law, being locked up with a view to the faith that was to be revealed. 24 So the law became our custodian (to conduct us) to Christ, that by faith we might be justified. 25 But now that this faith has come we are no longer under a custodian. 26 For you are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into (union with) Christ have put on Christ. 28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek; there can be neither slave nor freeman; there can be no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise. The promise is superior to the law because it was earlier. Moreover, being in the nature of a testament, already ratified and in force, this promise or covenant could not be set aside by the law which came so much later (verses 15 18). Besides, the promise came to Abraham directly; the law was given to Israel indirectly, by mediation (verses 19, 20). For both of these reasons the promise is superior to the law. The Galatians should remember this and repent of their error of listening to the Judaizers who exalt the law above the promise. 15. Paul writes: Brothers, I speak from a human standpoint. He is taking his illustration from human life so that the Galatians may understand all the better that those to whom they have been lending a listening ear are false guides. Jesus also often made use of earthly stories (parables) to illustrate heavenly realities. Note that Paul calls the Galatians brothers. This shows that when he exclaimed O foolish Galatians he was scolding them as a father or mother rebukes an erring son who is the object of tender love (cf. 4:19, 20). Continued: even a human testament, once ratified, no one sets aside or amplifies. It is a matter of common knowledge that among men a last will or testament, legally ratified, cannot be nullified. Nor can it be amplified: not a single codicil can be added to it. Then would not this be true all the more with respect to the covenant-promise which the immutable Jehovah made to Abraham and his seed? Was not this covenant in the nature of a testament?^[98] Was it not re-affirmed to Isaac, Jacob, etc.? Did it not begin to go into effect immediately, namely, when Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness? Surely, when God's will or testament has been thus decreed and ratified it cannot be set aside or changed. This logical deduction, already implied here in verse 15, is going to be clearly expressed in verse 17. However, the inviolability and immutability of God's promise will become all the more evident when it is understood first of all that, in the final analysis, it is a promise that concerns not physical Israel but Christ together with those who are in him, for all the promises of God find their Yes in him (II Cor. 1:20; cf. Eph. 1:3). If this be understood it will be seen that the words which now follow are not really a parenthesis but part of the argument: 16. Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He does not say, And to the seeds, as (referring) to many, but as (referring) to one, And to your seed, which is Christ. Is this argument a bit of rabbinical casuistry, ingenious perhaps but unconvincing? Does not Paul know that even in Hebrew the word seed is a collective noun, so that no plural is needed to indicate more than one? See (Gen. 15:5; 16:10; 22:17; 46:6; II Kings 11:1; II Chron. 20:7; Mal. 2:15; etc.^[99] And as to the Greek word for seed, namely, sperma, does the apostle not realize that this word also is a collective nounMatt. 22:24; Rom. 4:18; Acts 7:6; II Cor. 11:22), so that spermata (seeds) would have been unnecessary in any case? Shall we say then that in arguing against rabbinical adversaries Paul was using rabbinical methods that belonged to the exegesis of that happily bygone day and age? How can Paul say that the singular seed indicates one person, namely, Christ, when in (Gal. 3:29he himself uses that very word in the singular as a collective noun which refers to all believers? Besides, did he not realize that the seed promised to Abraham would be as the stars in multitudeGen. 15:5; 22:17)? As I see it, the answer is as follows: (1) It is not true that the Hebrew word for seed always refers to more than one person. In Gen. 4:25it refers to Seth, to him alone; in 21:13 to Ishmael; in I Sam. 1:11to Samuel; in II Sam. 7:12to Solomon as a type of Christ; so also in I Chron. 17:11. And obviously see the context in each case the Greek equivalent sperma has a singular reference not only here in Gal. 3:16but also in 3:19; Acts 3:25; Rom. 9:7, 8; and Heb. 11:18. (2) It should be readily admitted that Paul knew that both the Hebrew and the Greek word for seed (singular) often refer to more than one person. He knew that Abraham's seed would be as the stars in multitude. However, in keeping with the point which he is driving home, namely, that God promised salvation not to Abraham's physical descendants but to true believers, to them all (whether Jew or Gentile) and to them alone, he is saying that this great blessing is concentrated in one person, namely, Christ. It is in him, in him alone, that all these multitudes of believing Jews and Gentiles are blessed. It is in this sense that seed is singular, definitely not plural. It is true that the physical descendants of Abraham inherited the physical land of Canaan, according to God's promise (Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:8; 24:7), but even Abraham already knew that there was more to this promise than appeared on the surface. The promised country on earth was the type of the better country, the heavenly, reserved for believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, for them all and for them alone, as is beautifully stated in (Heb. 11:8–16. Now the one and only heir of that country is Christ, for he is the Son by nature. It is by his grace that believers, as children by adoption, are joint-heirs with himRom. 8:17). And as for the basic promise, expressed from the beginning in spiritual terms, the promise according to which God assures Abraham that he will be his God and that in Abraham's seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed (17:7; 22:18), is it not very obvious that this promise also, in its fulfilment, was centered exclusively in one person, namely, Christ? The many are blessed in the One! (3) In promising these rich spiritual blessings God had from the very beginning turned Abraham's attention away from the plural to the singular, from seeds to seed: As for Ishmael, I have heard you &but I will establish my covenant with Isaac.& In Isaac shall your seed be called (Gen. 17:20, 21; 21:12; cf. Rom. 9:7). Similarly, at a later time God made it very clear to Isaac and Rebekah that not in the line of Esau but in that of Jacob the promise would be continued (Gen. 25:23; cf. 27:27–29). Accordingly, Paul's distinction here in Gal. 3:16between seeds and seed is based on the words which God himself addressed to the patriarchs. (4) It appears to be clearly implied in such passages as (John 8:56; Heb. 11:13, 17 19that Abraham understood that Isaac would not himself be the Hope of mankind. He knew that Isaac's birth would pave the way for the coming of the real Messiah, the genuine seed, the One through whom God would bless all the nations. He was aware of the fact that the promised blessings would be concentrated in this one great person. At the time of Christ's birth even the highest court in Israel, the Sanhedrin, interpreted the prophecy of Micah 5:2personally, that is, as referring to the birth of one definite person, ChristMatt. 2:4–6). Is not the personal interpretation of Isa. 53Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.& He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, etc. better by far than the exclusively nationalistic? Were not Isaiah and Micah contemporaries? And can we not go back beyond these two prophets, and their Messianic utterances, to II Sam. 7:12, 13? Does a reference to Solomon exhaust the meaning of the words, I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever? Does not also that promise refer to one exalted person, one greater by far than Solomon? Does not the same thing apply to Gen. 49:10? And does not this series of promises, everyone of which refers ultimately to one definite person, a person who had not yet arrived but was eagerly awaited, finally point back to Gen. 3:15, which concerns the seed of the woman, the very culmination of God's promise not only to Adam but also to Abraham? The words which, according to Gen. 3:15, God addressed to the serpent that is, to Satan were as follows: And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. Is it not probable that Abraham knew this prophecy? It refers to the woman's seed, and here, too, the primary reference would appear to be to one person, though a further collective reference is not thereby ruled out. Dr. G. Ch. Aalders makes the following comment (my translation from the Dutch): There is more here than merely this, that man will gain the victory over the serpent.& In that serpent a definite personality is being addressed.& And if the enemy whose discomfiture is here announced must be a definite personality, then would it even be possible that the One who conquers him could be other than also a definite personality? Even the contrast head and heel suggests that the struggle will finally be fought between two contestants. Also the Hebrew demonstrative pronoun [that one or he] strongly suggests that the conqueror is to be regarded as one person. Having pointed out that this protevangelium does not exclude the reference to a collective interpretation of the concepts your seed and her seed, Aalders continues: But in the end the figure of the Mediator stands in the foreground, and this so much so that in the words in which the final struggle is described there is definite mention of only one person, who is indicated by this seed of the woman. The real struggle is won by no one else than by our Lord Jesus Christ (Korte Verklaring, Genesis, Vol. I, pp. 136–138). As mentioned earlier, Abraham probably knew this prophecy. But more important is the fact that the Holy Spirit, who inspired Galatians as well as Genesis, knew what content he was pouring into Gen. 3:15; 13:15; 17:7, 8; 22:18; 24:7, as well as into Gal. 3:16. And is it not significant that in the echo of Gen. 3:15which we have in Rev. 12:1 6the struggle is again primarily between the two personal antagonists: Christ and Satan? To be sure, from this struggle the woman is not excluded (verses 6. 13) yet the central figure, the One who really conquers, is Christ. Accordingly, Paul's intention in writing, He does not say. And to the seeds, as (referring) to many, but as (referring) to one, And to your seed, which is Christ, is to show a. that God's promise to Abraham, in its richest, spiritual meaning, was to be fulfilled in connection with one and not more than one definite person, Christ, the true seed; b. that all those and only those who are in him are saved; c. that had the case been otherwise, that is, had the promised blessings been dispersed indiscriminately among an indefinite aggregate of individuals, such plurality would have been definitely indicated; and d. that being thus concentrated unchangeably in the one seed, Christ, nothing, not even the law, is able to nullify this promise, a truth to which the apostle gives further expression by continuing: 17. Now this is what I mean: a covenant that has been ratified by God, the law, which came into existence four hundred thirty years afterward, does not annul so as to make the promise ineffective. Even a human testament, once ratified, no one sets aside or amplifies (verse 15); hence, this holds all the more with respect to a testament or covenant (same word in the original) ordained and ratified by God. Between the giving of the promise and the promulgation of the law at Sinai there had been an interval of four hundred thirty (Exod. 12:40) or, in round figures, four hundred years (Gen. 15:13; Acts 7:6). Surely a covenant that had been in effect for so long a time, that partook of the nature of a testament, and had been established by the unchangeable Jehovah, whose word never fails, could not be annulled by the law! This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER IV Chapter 4 Verses 1 11 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against its Detractors II. Its Vindication: both Scripture i.e., the Old Testament and life (experience, past history) bear testimony to its truth D. We used to be in bondage to ordinances, regulations. God sent forth his Son to redeem those who were in bondage, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father! Do you then wish to exchange your former bondage to heathenism for bondage to Judaism? I am afraid about you, lest somehow I have labored among you in vain. 4:1–11 D. Why exchange one bondage for another? 4 1 What I mean is this, that as long as the heir is a child he differs in no respect from a slave though he is owner of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time fixed by the father. 3 So also we, when we were children, were enslaved by the rudiments of the world. 4 But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 in order that he might redeem them (who were) under law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father! 7 So, no longer are you a slave but a son; and if a son then also an heir through God. 8 However, at that time, since you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are no gods; 9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how (is it) that you turn back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments by which all over again you wish to be enslaved? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid about you, lest somehow I have labored among you in vain. Paul has shown that as many as rely on law-works are under a curse, that by Jaw no one is justified before God, that no law was ever given that could impart life, and that the law served only in a preparatory way, namely, as a custodian to bring sinners to Christ. Here, so it might seem, the argument could have ended. Why is it that one entire chapter (ch. 4) is added to drive home the same central point: the sinners inferiority under law? The answer is probably this, that the apostle loved his Galatians so very much (see verses 19 and 20) that he wished to leave no stone unturned in order to deliver them from their grievous error. Besides, what he now presents is by no means mere repetition. Though here, too, as in chapter 3, there is an appeal to past history and experience (verses 1 20), as well as to Scripture (verses 21 31), there is material difference. In chapter 3 the argument from experience centered about the gifts which at their conversion the Galatians had received, and the question was asked, By what avenue did you receive them? In chapter 4 it is rather the joy or blessedness that had accompanied the reception of these gifts that is recounted. Again, in chapter 3 the argument from Scripture centered about Abraham, Habakkuk, and Moses. In chapter 4 the reference is to Abraham's wife Sarah and her son versus Abraham's concubine Hagar and her son. In driving home his point Paul (in time present paragraph, verses 1 11, and the next, verses 12 20) appeals to both heart and mind: to feelings, desires, and considerations which could be counted on to affect profoundly the members of the Galatian churches. Accordingly he appeals to their desire for freedom, a yearning that dwells in every human breast (verses 1 11), their sense of honor, by reminding them of their past nobility in attitude and action (verses 12 14), their presupposed nostalgia for former bliss (verse 15), their presumed sense of fairness (verse 16), and their dread of being duped (verses 17, 18). Last but not least he mentions the birth-pangs endured at this very moment by his own tenderly loving heart (verses 19, 20). The immediate connection with the preceding paragraph is found in the word heir(s), which is found both in 3:29 and 4:1. Chapter 3 ended with the significant statement, filled with comfort for both Gentile and Jew, And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise. Hence, Paul continues: 1, 2. What I mean is this, that as long as the heir is a child he differs in no respect from a slave though he is owner of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time fixed by the father. When a young father dies^[112] his minor child will have to wait for the inheritance until he is of age. Though this child is, accordingly, the legal heir and as such lord, master or, as here, owner of everything, yet with respect to taking possession of, and exercising control over, the estate that has been left to him he is no better off than a slave. Until he attains to the age previously stipulated by the father, he is heir de jure (by right) but not as yet de facto (in fact). For the time being this child is under guardians, to whose care he has been personally entrusted, and under stewards (often slaves) to whom the oversight of his estate has been committed (Luke 12:42; 16:1ff.; Rom. 16:23). Continued: 3. So also we, when we were children, were enlsaved by the rudiments of the world. Just as an immature child is governed by rules and regulations, so also before the dawning of the light of the gospel, we were in bondage to the rudiments of the world. For a rather detailed study of this concept I refer the reader to N.T.C. on Colossians and Philemon, pp. 108–110, 130 137; especially to footnote 83 on pp. 135–137. The context in Gal. 3:3, 9(see verse 10) and in Col. 2:8, 20(see verses 16, 18, 21 23), demands, as I see it, that we interpret these worldly rudiments as elementary teachings regarding rules and regulations, by means of which, before Christ's coming, people, both Jews and Gentiles, each in their own way, attempted by their own efforts, and in accordance with the promptings of their own fleshly (unregenerate) nature, to achieve salvation.^[113] There was nothing wrong with the law given at Sinai, but when the Jews and the proselytes to the Jewish religion began to look upon law-observance as the way whereby salvation could be achieved, and when, with this in mind, the Jewish religious leaders began to add their own multitudinous rules and regulations to those previously received, that law became their tyrant, to which they became enslaved. The same was true with respect to the prescriptions and ordinances by which the worshipers of pagan deities sought to achieve redemption. By all such means, whether Jewish or pagan, men were putting themselves in bondage. This interpretation is also in harmony with Paul's previous statement in 3:23 (see on that verse). With the coming of Christ and the full light of special revelation which he brought (John 1:17, 18) there was even less excuse than there had ever been for this servitude, this catering to false philosophy and empty deceit. To the Colossians Paul was going to say, If with Christ you died to the rudiments of the world, why, as though you were (still) living in the world, do you submit to regulations, Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch referring to things that are meant for destruction by their consumption according to the precepts and doctrines of men? Regulations of this kind, though to be sure having a reputation for wisdom because of their self-imposed ritual, humility, and unsparing treatment of the body, are of no value whatever, (serving only) to indulge the flesh (Col. 2:20–23). Continued: 4. But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son.& Christ's coming supplied the basis of freedom for man. He came, moreover, in the fulness of the time; that is, he arrived upon the scene of human history at the time previously fixed by the Father (cf. the illustration, verse 2). This is about all we can say with certainty about the phrase the fulness of the time. Other ideas, however, may have been included in the concept; for example, to mention but one, that of ripeness of opportunity for the scattering, far and wide, of the seeds of the gospel. In this connection think of: a. the spread of the Greek language throughout the civilized world, b. the presence of Jewish synagogues in many places, enabling Christian missionaries to reach both Jews and Gentiles (proselytes) simultaneously, and c. the help which these evangelists derived from the network of Roman roads and, to some extent, from the enforcement of Roman peace. But it is God alone who fully knows why, in his inscrutable decree, he had decided that the long period of time (chronos) in which all the preparatory events were to occur would run out at that specific moment. It was then that he sent out from himself his Son. We say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and that is correct. But in some respects his birth was not like that of any other child. Other children do not exist in any real sense before they are conceived in the womb. It is by means of conception and birth that they come into existence. But God's Son existed already from eternity with the Father (John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; Rom. 8:3; II Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). He existed and exists forevermore as to his deity. Accordingly, the fact that he was now sent forth must mean that he now assumed the human nature (John 1:14), which was wondrously prepared in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). Thus he now became, and would forever remain, the possessor of two natures, the divine and the human, united indissolubly in the one divine person. From the very beginning Christ's human (as well as his divine) nature was without sin and filled with positive holiness (Mark 1:24; Luke 1:35; John 4:34; 6:38; 8:29, 46; Acts 3:14; 22:14; II Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; I Peter 1:19; 2:21; 3:18; I John 2:1; 3:5). And so it will remain forever. Nevertheless, during the days of his humiliation it was oppressed by the effects of sin, for Paul continues: born of a woman. Some have used this expression as a proof-text for the doctrine of the virgin birth, as if born of a woman meant born without human paternity. Now it is certainly true that the Holy Spirit has seen to it that Paul expressed himself in a way which causes (Gal. 4:4to be in full harmony with the teaching elsewhere of the doctrine of the virgin birth. Nevertheless, direct evidence for the virgin birth a most important truth, to be sure is found not here in Gal. 4:4but rather in Matt. 1:18 25Isa. 7:14) and (Luke 1:34, 35. The fact that Jesus was born of a woman does not in and by itself mean that he was virgin born. John the Baptist, too, was born of a woman, and so is everybody else, with the exception of Adam and EveMatt. 11:11)^[114] J. G. Machen correctly observes: This passage [Gal. 4:14] has sometimes been held to show that Paul did not believe in the virgin birth and sometimes also has been held to show that he did so. As a matter of fact both opinions are probably wrong; the passage does not enable us to draw any conclusion with respect to Paul's belief in the matter one way or the other (The Virgin Birth of Christ, New York and London, 1930, p. 259). Fact is that in order to save us Jesus Christ had to be in one person both divine and human, divine in order to give his sacrifice infinite value, to deliver us out of the realm of darkness, and to transplant us into the realm of everlasting light (Isa. 9:1, 2, 6; John 1:1 4; Col. 1:13, 14); and human because since it was man who sinned it is also man who must bear the penalty for sin and render his life to God in perfect obedience (Rom. 5:18; I Cor. 15:21; Heb. 2:14–17). It stands to reason that the Redeemer must be a sinless man, for one who is himself a sinner cannot satisfy either for himself or for others (Ps. 49:7, 8; Heb. 7:26, 27; I Peter 3:18). There is, accordingly, something special and something common about Christ's birth. That which is special is stressed in the words: God sent forth his Son. That which is common is brought out in the phrase: born of a woman, meaning: like any other human being, born to affliction, pain, trouble, etc. Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble (Job 14:1). Truly, Christ was in every respect tempted as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15). Continued: born under law, and this in the sense not only of being under personal obligation to keep that law, but also of being duty-bound (with a duty to which he voluntarily bound himself!) vicariously to bear the law's penalty and to satisfy its demand of perfect obedience. The altruistic nature of Christ's coming is stressed in the purpose clause: 5. in order that he might redeem them (who were) under law. Essentially we have here the same thought that was expressed previously in 3:13: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. Even the verb redeem is the same. Hence, see the explanation of 3:13, and for the thought compare (II Cor. 5:21. Yet, there is a difference, for here in Gal. 4:5emphasis is placed on the fact that we (Gentiles, Jews; the addressed, the addressor, everybody destined to be redeemed) were under law, and this not only in the sense of being subject to the moral law, which by nature we were unable to fulfil and whose curse we were unable to carry so as to get out from under it; but alsoCol. 2:8, 14, 20 23) in the sense that we regarded strict obedience to the ceremonial law and all its man-made additions to be necessary for salvation. Accordingly, the Father's object in commissioning his Son was that, in the most comprehensive sense, the latter might purchase those free that were under law; and not only that but also: that we might receive the adoption as sons. Cf. (Rom. 8:15, 23; 9:4; Eph. 1:5. Plainly, then, the purpose of the Father in sending his Son, and of the Son in condescending to be born of a woman, under law, was that we might not only be delivered from the greatest evil but might also be crowned with the choicest blessing. The best interpreter of Paul's statement in Gal. 4:4, 5is Paul himself: For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, that you through his poverty might become richII Cor. 8:9). Rich, indeed, we become, for we are made members of the Father's Family (Eph. 3:14, 15). With respect to this adoption it is rather useless to look for human analogies, for it surpasses anything that takes place on earth. It bestows upon its recipients not only a new name, a new legal standing, and a new family-relationship, but also a new image, the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29). Earthly parents may love an adopted child ever so much. Nevertheless, they are, to a certain extent, unable to impart their spirit to that child; but when God adopts, he imparts to us the Spirit of his Son, as Paul indicates by continuing: 6. And because you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father! The redeemed are now sons, not minors but majors. They have reached maturity and with it freedom. It is remarkable that the apostle is saying this to the Galatians! He says, as it were, You, Galatians, weak, foolish, erring, must consider that you, yes even you, are sons of the heavenly Father, the Father of your Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, he is not giving up hope with respect to them, even though he is baffled about their present behavior (4:11). Now because they are sons, God, the Father, having adopted them as sons, has sent forth the Spirit into their hearts. They are sons; hence they receive the Holy Spirit. They receive the Spirit; hence they become conscious of their sonship (Rom. 8:15). All three persons of the Holy Trinity are indicated in this passage, and their harmonious co-operation as the one true God is beautifully set forth. Moreover, the third person is called the Spirit of his (God the Father's) Son. He is the Spirit of the Son because he proceeds from the Son (John 15:26), as well as from the Father, and because he glorifies the Son, causing men to ponder the Son's teaching, love unto death, heavenly intercession, and constant care (John 16:14). God sent forth his Son (verse 4); God sent forth the Spirit of his Son (verse 6). The same word is used with reference to the sending of the Spirit as was previously used in connection with the sending of the Son. The two are equally real, and also equally important. In fact, the salvation that was bought for God's people by the Son will not avail except it be also wrought in their hearts by that Son's Spirit. The heart, moreover, controls the entire personality. It is the core and center of man's being, man's inmost self. It is the hub whence radiate all the spokes of his existence, the fulcrum of feeling and faith as well as the mainspring of words and actions (Rom. 10:10; cf. Matt. 12:34; 15:19; 22:37; John 14:1). Out of it are the issues of life (Prov. 4:23). In dwelling on the great mysteries of salvation, matters in which he himself has become intensely and lastingly involved, Paul frequently changes from the second to the first person pluralGal. 1:3, 4; 2:14, 15; Eph. 1:17, 19; 2:1, 5; 2:8, 10; 2:13, 14; 5:1, 2; 6:11, 12; Phil. 3:2, 3; 3:15, 16; Col. 1:11–13; 2:13; etc. . So also here: And because you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts. About such marvelous realities he is unable to write in an abstract, detached manner; hence not you &your, but you &our. And why is his soul thus lost in wonder, love, and praise? The very contents of verses 4 6 clearly shows why. First, the Father had sent the Son, sent him from his very heart, as it were: he spared not his own Son! (Rom. 8:32), his only Son (John 3:16). He sent him into a world of sin and ruin, where for our sake and in our stead he was to suffer innumerable reproaches. And what did we (all those who were to be redeemed) do? We (that is, our sins) nailed him to the cross! This we did to him who came to dwell with us. Yet, instead of casting us away forever from his presence of love, the Father then sent the Spirit of his Son, in order that this Spirit (and in him also the Father and the Son) might draw even closer to us, dwelling not just with but within us, in our very hearts, and transforming these hearts from being hateful to being loving, from being rebellious to being obedient, from being distrustful to being faith-filled, and from being despondent to being exuberant with praise and adoration. Within these hearts the Spirit speaks peace, assurance. He bears witness with our spirit that we are God's very children, his adopted sons and heirs. Is it any wonder that such hearts begin to respond to the Father's love, so that love answers love, and a blessed interchange takes place? Is it not natural that the Spirit, dwelling within these hearts, impels them to address their Benefactor jubilantly, calling him Father? The text reads: crying, Abba! Father! In reality the outcry of joyful recognition, sweet response, appropriating love, overwhelming gratitude, and last but not least, filial trust, is ascribed to the Spirit. Nevertheless, this must be understood mediately, meaning that it is the Spirit whereby we cry Abba! Father! (Rom. 8:15). Similarly, in connection with the church's yearning for Christ's return we read, And the Spirit and the bride say, Come (Rev. 22:17). Here, too, the bride is moved by the Spirit. Spirit and bride always work together (Rom. 8:16). It is a well-known fact that those who have acquired proficiency in more than one language will at times give preference to their native tongue as a vehicle for the expression of their deepest emotions. Being a Hebrew of Hebrews (Phil. 3:5), a Hebrew son of Hebrew parents, Paul must have been fond of the language spoken by the Jews as they returned from the lands of the captivity, namely Aramaic, akin to Hebrew (Acts 21:40). Aramaic, in fact, was a very important language in those days, being spoken not only by the Jews but by many others besides, even far outside the borders of Palestine. Jesus, too, spoke Aramaic, and it is altogether probable that in his frequent teaching about the Father, he had often used the term Abba. His disciples, therefore, relished the use of this word. Thus it passed into the vocabulary of the primitive church. Naturally, in writing to churches consisting for the greater part of people who were non-Jews, the word Abba had to be translated into the Greek p�ter, as Paul does here. Paul, then, is giving expression to his own inner devotion as well as to the deepest feelings of the early church when he tells us that now that freedom has arrived, through the redemption accomplished by Christ, and the way of access to the throne of God has been opened wider than ever, redeemed humanity, both Jew and Gentile, takes hold on God by crying, Abba! Father! By means of this expression of filial trust and closeness to the Father believers echoed the words of their Lord, spoken at a time when, in order to obtain this closeness of fellowship for us, he himself was being driven into isolation, was losing this very sense of nearness to his Father. It was in Gethsemane that Jesus, in deep anguish, said, Abba, which by the evangelist Mark is similarly rendered into the Greek equivalent for Father (Mark 14:36). 7. At this point there is a change in the form of address which Paul uses. He has been addressing the Galatians as a group. He now turns to each one individually, saying: So, no longer are you a slave but a son.& Once a man has accepted Christ's sacrifice as the only ground of his salvation, and has drawn near with confidence to the throne of grace, addressing God as Abba! Father!, the shackles of bondage to law have been thrown off. No longer is man a slave. He not only is a son now (4:1, 2), but knows that he is. For him the way to the Father's heart is no longer blocked. Every valley has been raised, every mountain and hill made low, the crooked turns have been straightened, and all rough places have been made smooth. There are no longer any obstructions. Grace has removed them all. Continued: and if a son then also an heir &, as was stated previously (3:29). For the comforting implications of heirship see on 3:18. The very word heir already implies that the son's salvation is not his own achievement but the gift of God's marvelous grace. But since this is hard for man's proud heart to admit, and since salvation by self-effort and not by grace was the very error against which Paul is here directing his attack, he adds: (according to the best reading) through God. Soli Deo Gloria! The sovereign, divine, nature of the work which made a man a son and an heir is stressed throughout Scripture (Deut. 7:7, 8; Isa. 48:11; Dan. 9:19; Hos. 14:4; John 15:16; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 1:4; I John 4:10, 19). This doctrine gives a person a sturdy foundation to stand on. It spells eternal security, without in any way violating personal responsibility. The glory, Lord, from first to last, Is due to thee alone; Aught to ourselves we dare not take, Or rob thee of thy crown. Augustus M. Toplady 8, 9. Assurance of full redemption through Christ, sonship, the blessed indwelling of the Spirit, freedom of access to the Father, heirship are the Galatians now ready to sacrifice all these? Are they really going back to their former state of slavery, with this difference that they will be exchanging one type of bondage (to heathenism) for another (to Judaism)? It is evident that the apostle is here returning to the very occasion that had led him to write this letter. There is thunder in the sky, and the lightning flashes again, as it had done in 1:6–10 and 3:1 ff. Paul writes: However, at that time, since you did not know^[115] God, you were slaves to those who by nature are no gods. Formerly the Galatians, then mostly pagans, had been without saving knowledge of God. It is not denied that by virtue of the manner in which God created man there is a certain kind of knowledge of God and of his law inherent in man's mind. Even the heathen show the work of the law written in their hearts (Rom. 2:14, 15). Nor is it denied that all men including, therefore, non-Christians derive from general revelation a certain amount of knowledge of God's attributes (Rom. 1:19, 20). That all of this knowledge is indeed important is plainly taught in the passages referred to. But saving knowledge is not found outside of Christ. Though the heathen have knowledge of God, they fail to render to God the glory and the thanksgiving that is his due (Rom. 1:21). They do not acknowledge him but instead, in their perversity, serve the creature rather than the Creator, and for the glory of God they substitute the likeness of an image of corruptible man and of birds and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things, and make these the objects of their worship.^[116] This foolish and wicked failure to acknowledge God results in slavery for those who are guilty of it, slavery to the products of their own wicked invention: gods which in reality are no gods at all, as is clear from their very nature, for they are but objects of wood, stone, etc. They have no breath, no power, no wisdom, and no concern for man. Instead of carrying man through his difficulties, they themselves must be carried (Isa. 46:1; contrast Isa. 63:9). Idolatry always spells slavery, not only the slavery of fear but also that of moral and spiritual degradation of every variety. Such, then, had been the former condition of most of those whom Paul here addresses. A great change had occurred however, as Paul indicates by continuing: but now that you have come to know God.& In his marvelous grace it had pleased God to send Paul, Barnabas, etc. to preach the gospel to these wretched ones. And through the work of the Holy Spirit the Galatians had come to acknowledge the true God as he stands revealed in Christ. With respect to the dramatic and basic experience which these Galatians had undergone Paul is going to say more in verses 12 15. Here in verse 9 he adds one important point, however: or rather to be known by God.& This is an expression full of glorious significance. It means far more than that God would have a bare, factual knowledge with reference to them, or would simply be acquainted with them. In the case of the Galatians it indicates at least this, that God had visited them in his mercy (thus John Calvin). In view of what the apostle says in verse 6 is it not possible that also in the present passage the words are rich with such meaning as this: that they had been acknowledged as God's own; that, accordingly, God had set his love upon them and had chosen them to eternal life? This would certainly not have to apply to each and every one of them, but it could well apply to most of them, if we may assume that God blessed this letter to their hearts. We are reminded of such passages as: I am the good shepherd, and I know my own (John 10:14); The Lord knows those who are his (II Tim. 2:19). See also Gen. 18:19; Exod. 33:12, 17; Nah. 1:7; John 10:28; and Rom. 8:28, in all of which the statement that God knows or has known (or foreknown) a person is rich in meaning toward salvation. When Paul says, &but now that you have come to know God or rather to be known by God he is clearly stressing the fact that We love him because he first loved us. Here, as at the close of verse 7 (see on that passage), there is, accordingly, a renewed emphasis on God's sovereignty in the effectuation of man's salvation. And that was exactly the lesson which the Galatians needed, and which, in a sense, we all need. Right at this moment these Galatians were guilty of backsliding, so that Paul continues: (in view of these facts) how (is it) that you turn back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments by which all over again you wish to be enslaved? The apostle was shocked to learn that men who had been so enriched with the gospel of God's free and bounteous grace in Jesus Christ would now, under the influence of false teachers, be turning back again to those rudiments of the world (verse 3), which here, in verse 9, are described as being weak and beggarly. What makes matters worse is that they are doing this by choice. Formerly they had been enslaved by the childish teachings of pagan priests and ritualists. They had been taught to obey all kinds of prescriptions regarding the discovery of the will of the gods by means of omens, the benefit of afflicting the body and of submission to fate. See on 5:1. There had been moral stipulations derived from nature, custom, and arbitrary will. Having been delivered from all this folly, do they now wish to become enslaved all over again, this time by Judaistic regulations? Paul calls these rudiments weak and beggarly because they have no power to help man in any way. Luther, commenting on this verse and applying the lesson to his own day, tells us that he had known monks who zealously labored to please God for salvation, but the more they labored the more impatient, miserable, uncertain, and fearful they became. And he adds, People who prefer the law to the gospel are like Aesop's dog who let go of the meat to snatch at the shadow in the water.& The law is weak and poor, the sinner is weak and poor: two feeble beggars trying to help each other. They cannot do it. They only wear each other out. But through Christ a weak and poor sinner is revived and enriched unto eternal life. The apostle then gives an illustration which sheds much light on what he meant when he spoke about turning back to the weak and beggarly rudiments: 10. You observe days and months and seasons and years. Since Paul in the entire preceding argument has made it abundantly clear that he is mainly attacking the false doctrine that law-works are the road to salvation (2:16, 19; 3:2, 5, 10 13, 17, 21; 4:5), and since by law he is referring specifically to that of Sinai, which came into existence four hundred and thirty years after the promise had been given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it follows that here in 4:10 he is not referring to days, months, etc., that pertained to this or that pagan system of religious worship, or even to some mixed cultus, but definitely to the sabbathdays, days of the new moon, festival seasons belonging to the Jewish cycle, and either a. the sabbath and jubilee years, or b. the New Year (Rosh Hashana) on the first day of the month Tishri (September or October).^[117] Paul is saying that strict observance of such days and festivals has nothing whatever to do with securing the divine favor. As a foundation upon which to build one's hope of being justified in the sight of God such a superstition is utterly futile, nothing but sinking sand! In fact, though deep down in his heart Paul certainly has not given up hope regarding the eternal welfare of the Galatians, as he indicates again and again (1:11; 3:4, 15; 4:6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 19; 5:10), he, as it were, shakes his head in utter disgust when he reflects on the fact that rigid, painstaking, adherence to the Mosaic law regarding sacred days, and to all kinds of man-made rules and regulations with respect to such celebrations, was actually beginning to be substituted for the simplicity of faith in Jesus Christ unto salvation full and free. Such folly staggers him. Have these Galatians learned nothing then? That seems to be the meaning of the words: 11. I am afraid about you, lest somehow I have labored among you in vain. Note the word somehow or perhaps, strangely ignored in several translations,^[118] yet of some importance, as it shows that the apostle has not definitely decided that all his efforts in the interest of the Galatians have been a waste of time. In fact, though admittedly this verse is one of Paul's gloomiest utterances in the entire epistle, so that, as some see it, the pendulum of his emotions, which is swinging between hope and fear, has here swung all the way to the latter, even here the door of hope has not been shut. Gal. 4:11is not really in conflict with the somewhat similar 3:4. And the noble purpose of 4:11 as well as of 3:4 is to rouse the minds of the Galatians to the exercise of repentance. Chapter 4 Verses 12 20 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors II. Its Vindication: both Scripture i.e., the Old Testament and life (experience, past history) bear testimony to its truth E. Become as I am as I also became as you are. Where is now that blessedness which you experienced on that former occasion when you welcomed me so warmly? Those (perverters of the true gospel) who pay court to you do so selfishly. I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone of voice, for I am perplexed about you. 4:12–20 E. Where is now your blessedness? 12 Become as I (am), because I also became as you (are) brothers; (this) I beg of you. No wrong did you do me. 13 You know, moreover, that it was because of an infirmity of the flesh that I preached to you the gospel on that former occasion; 14 and though my physical condition was a temptation to you, yet you did not despise or loathe me, but as an angel of God you welcomed me, as Christ Jesus. 15 Where, then, (is) your (former) blessedness? For I testify to you that, had it been possible, your very eyes you would have plucked out and given to me. 16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth? 17 These people are zealously courting you for no commendable purpose: on the contrary, they want to isolate you, in order that you may zealously court them. 18 Now (it is) commendable to be zealously courted in connection with a commendable cause (and this) always, and not only when I am present with you. 19 My dear children, for whom I am again suffering birth-pangs until Christ be formed in you, 20 I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone of voice, for I am perplexed about you. 12. It is characteristic of Paul, the tactful shepherd of souls, the warm-hearted master-psychologist, that his rather sharp reproof (verses 8 11) is followed immediately by tender, urgent, intensely personal appeal. This paragraph is one of the most gripping in all of Paul's epistles. The apostle implores and agonizes, because he cannot endure the thought that those whom he addresses and who at one time had treated him with such sympathetic consideration and had accepted his gospel with such enthusiasm would now continue to wander farther and farther away from home. Hence, lovingly, as a parent speaking to children, for such in a sense they are (see verse 19), he writes: Become as I (am), because I also became as you (are), brothers; (this) I beg of you. In the light of such stirring passages as (Gal. 2:16, 19, 20; Phil. 3:7Titus 3:5) this must mean: Cast aside all thought of being able, by means of law-works, to become righteous in the sight of God, for that is exactly what I by grace was taught to do. At one time, I, a proud Jew, imagined that I would be able to achieve my own righteousness before God. But I became as you Gentiles are, by nature condemnable in his sight, with nothing of self to appeal to. Because Paul, by Gods marvelous grace, has learned that this shedding of all self-righteousness is the only way to please and glorify God, he beseeches the Galatians to follow this course. They should return to the point from which they started out when they had accepted the gospel of salvation, full and free, on the basis solely of Christ's redemptive sacrifice. They should spurn once and for all the sinister teachings of the Judaizers. Let them, as his children, reveal their likeness to him. Let them return to that simple, childlike, faith which, in addressing the Savior, says, Nothing in my hand I bring, Simply to thy cross I cling. Cf. 2:20; 6:14. That the plea is very earnest and touching appears from the affectionate word of address, brothers (1:11; 3:15; 4:28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18), and from the emphatic appeal with which the sentence ends: (This) I beg of you. ^[119] Continued: No wrong did you do me. At first glance this statement may surprise us because of its suddenness. Some have explained it as a response to an assertion made by the Galatians: We have not wronged you in any way. But there is no basis for this theory. Nor is there any need for it. Paul's soul was in a state of intense agitation, brought about by grave concern about the present disloyalty of the Galatians, especially as contrasted with their past enthusiasm. Therefore, his abruptness is, after all, understandable. When he now says, No wrong did you do me, he is reflecting on the manner in which he had been received by the Galatians when he had met them for the first time and worked among them, as is clear from verses 13 15. Continued: 13. You know, moreover, that it was because of an infirmity of the flesh that I preached to you the gospel on that former occasion.& ^[120] Paul had visited the Galatians twice, that is, on two separate missionary journeys: the firstActs 13and 14 and the second (Acts 15:40 16:5). He refers now to what had happened on the first of these two trips. The apostle states that it was because of an infirmity of the flesh an illness so severe that on the part of the Galatians it might have given rise to contempt and disgust (verse 14) that he had preached the gospel to them on that former occasion. Some interpreters, however, do not look with favor on the rendering because of. They prefer or at least regard as worthy of very serious consideration a translation such as amid, or while suffering from or simply in bodily weakness.^[121] Reference to this difference of opinion was made earlier. See p. 11. In favor of the idea that the infirmity of which Paul speaks was not the cause of the apostle's preaching but rather the accompanying circumstance it might be stated that not only Luke (Acts 13:50; 14:5, 6, 19) makes some remarks about the physical afflictions which Paul, and to some extent also Barnabas, had to endure while working in Galatia, but so does also Paul himself, many years later. These experiences were never erased from the latter's memory. Even in his very last epistle that has been preserved the afflictions suffered on that journey march in rapid procession before his mind's eye, as he writes to Timothy: You, however, followed my &persecutions, my sufferings, what kind of things happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, (and) at Lystra, what kind of persecutions I underwent; yet from them all the Lord rescued me! (II Tim. 3:10, 11). For this and other, more technical, reasons,^[122] the possibility that this was actually what the apostle had in mind, and that what he wrote should be rendered, &it was amid bodily weakness that I preached to you the gospel on that former occasion must be granted. Nevertheless, it must also be admitted that the far more usual sense of the phrase found here is because of an infirmity. It is so understood by the vast majority of exegetes.^[123] And on the basis of this interpretation of the phrase Ramsay's conclusion, that because of malaria with accompanying severe headaches Paul had been forced to leave the lowlands of Perga and vicinity for the considerably higher elevation of Antioch and the other cities of Galatia, has been accepted by many. It could be right. Yet, in reality we know nothing about the nature of the illness which, if the preferred rendering because of an infirmity of the flesh is accepted, caused the apostle to preach the gospel in Galatia and/or to continue his ministry there for a longer period than he had at first contemplated. The idea that verse 15 (cf. 6:11) points to an affliction of the eyes is not well grounded, since in that passage the apostle is no longer speaking about his physical infirmity. And so it is with the other guesses that have been made. Those who immerse themselves in such matters sometimes miss the real intention of the passage, as when a Bible study group, spending several evenings on the first few chapters of the book of Genesis, instead of taking to heart the marvelous spiritual lessons taught there, how God is there revealed in all his power, wisdom, and love, wholly concentrates its attention on the question: How long were the days of the creation week? By writing, You know that it was because of an infirmity, etc., the apostle causes the scenes and experiences of the not very distance past to flash vividly across the memory of the errant Galatians. Their thoughts are carried back to the events that had taken place at the time of the first meeting with the missionaries, and shortly afterward. The sentence continues: 14. and though my physical condition was a temptation to you, yet you did not despise or loathe me.& This is a very compressed statement. Literally, according to what is probably the best reading, this clause reads: And your temptation in my flesh you neither despised nor loathed. Two ideas are here combined: a. You did not despise or loathe me because of my physical condition; b. You did not yield to the temptation to do so. The resultant meaning is clear enough, just so also at this point we avoid wild conjectures. The first verb causes no difficulty: You did not regard (me) of no account, as good for nothing; hence, You did not despise (me). There follows, if the verb is to be taken literally: or spit out (at me.). ^[124] On the basis of that literal rendering some have said that Paul was surprised because the Galatians had not expectorated when they first met him, for that was their custom when they saw a person who was having an epileptic fit. The conclusion drawn from the use of this verb is, accordingly, that Paul was an epileptic. But since from very early times this verb was also used in a metaphorical sense to loathe, and since after You did not despise, this secondary meaning or loathe completes the pair of synonyms, the latter translation is certainly to be preferred. Besides, nowhere in Paul's epistles or in the book of Acts is there the slightest evidence to support the notion that Paul was an epileptic. Therefore, all we can really affirm is that when, during this first missionary journey, the Galatians saw Paul, they saw a man who was afflicted with a grievous physical illness. But even though such bodily infirmity was regarded by the Jews, and even more so by the Gentiles, as a token of God's displeasure (Job 4:7; John 9:2; Acts 28:4), so that the Galatians had been tempted to treat Paul with contemptuous scorn, they had done nothing of the kind. Continued: but as an angel of God you welcomed me, as Christ Jesus. So great had been their respect for Paul, so generous the welcome extended to him, as if his voice had been that of an angel of God, yes even that of Christ Jesus himself (Acts 13:42, 44, 48; 14:1, 11 13, 21). The Galatians had experienced a season of thrilling discovery, of joy unspeakable and full of glory. What had become of it? How completely different was their present condition. Says Paul: 15. Where,^[125] then, (is) your (former) blessedness, the disposition of mind and heart in which, because of our presence, you blessed or congratulated yourselves? Continued: For I testify to you that, had it been possible, your very eyes you would have plucked out and given to me.^[126] In the original the words your eyes are, for the sake of emphasis, given a forward position: your eyes, having plucked (or: dug) out, you would have given to me. My translation preserves this special stress. What the apostle evidently means is this: You thought so highly of me at that time, and felt so happy in our presence, that, had it been possible, you would have given me the most precious member of your body. Continued: 16. Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?^[127] To what does Paul refer when he asks this question? In which way does he assume that he might have become their enemy? The opinions given may be classified as follows: a. by means of a previous letter which he had written to them but which was not preserved; b. by means of warnings against the Judaizers which he had issued on his second journey through GalatiaActs 15:40ff. ; c. by means of the strong language which he had used earlier in the very letter which he is now writing (1:6; 3:1 ff.; 4:11). For the first of these suggestions I see no need whatever, nor probability. The second is very well possible. The Galatians may not have taken kindly to these warnings. The third impresses me as being the most natural, though b and c may well be combined. What Paul is telling the Galatians by means of this question is that he has proved himself their real friend, for the mark of such a friend is that he tells those whom he loves the truth even though it may hurt. Nathan, for example, proved that he was David's genuine supporter when, in the name of his Sender, he rebuked the king, saying, You are the man! (II Sam. 12:7). Paul, then, is saying, You have heard what I have said. Now what is your reaction? Have I become your enemy by rendering this service to you, namely, telling you the truth? Are the Galatians unable to tolerate the truth? Are they like a foolish woman who breaks her mirror because it reveals the wrinkles on her face? Do they not realize that were the apostle, in this important matter, concealing the truth, he would be committing a crime? Do they resemble those fickle church-members who are always demanding that their minister says nothing but nice things to them? Paul's own stand on this matter is that one should always practice integrity in all his dealings, and that he should do so in the spirit of love (Eph. 4:15). Said Lincoln: If it is decreed that I should go down because of this speech, then let me go down linked to the truth. This attitude gave him peace of mind. And as to his influence? Though defeated in his bid for the Senate, he became President two years later. It is but natural that Paul, who has just asked whether he had possibly become the enemy of the Galatians by telling them the truth, now states who are their real enemies. In what he is about to say he probes into and exposes the motives of the Judaizers, without mentioning them by name: 17. These people are zealously courting you for no commendable purpose: on the contrary, they want to isolate you, in order that you may zealously court them. The Judaizers are trying to curry favor with the Galatians, ostensibly being deeply concerned about them. However, their purpose is not commendable, their motivation is not honorable. Literally Paul says not properly, not in the right way. Their real object is to exclude the Galatians, that is, to shut them out from all influences except their own; particularly, of course, to isolate them from any effect Paul and his associates might have upon them. But man cannot live in a vacuum. He is a social being. Once these opponents have succeeded in deluding the minds of the Galatians with an untrue image of Paul and of his message, the sadly deluded ones will then become wholly dependent upon these detractors of the only true gospel. Accordingly, the apostle states, They want to isolate you, in order that you may zealously court them. To zealously court someone (active voice), to be deeply concerned about that person, and to bestow much attention upon him, need not be a bad thing. Good parents are deeply concerned about their children. The very idea that those so dear to them might succumb to the temptation of being led astray by evil companions, so that in that sense these parents might lose their children, fills them with dismay and incites them to earnest prayer and strenuous effort on their behalf. They are jealous for their children with God's own jealousy, as was, for example, Paul himself, with respect to the Corinthians (II Cor. 11:2: same verb in the original as here in Gal. 4:18). So also, says Paul, to be zealously courted (passive voice), diligently sought after, is not a bad thing in and by itself, no matter whom it concerns, provided, however, that it be in something good, that is, in connection with a commendable cause: 18. Now (it is) commendable to be zealously courted in connection with a commendable cause. Then suddenly the apostle rivets the mind of the Galatians upon the fact that this rule applies also to himself. On that unforgettable former occasion had he not been the object of their whole-souled attention, intense interest, unmistakable favor, and genuine respect, and this in connection with the noblest of all causes, namely, the proclamation of the one and only true gospel? Would that this had endured and were true even today! Continued: (and this) always, and not only when I am present with you. That was the trouble. Their attachment to Paul had lost its warmth, to say the least. Their zeal for the truth had subsided. Their loyalty was in the process of being transferred from Paul to the proponents of dangerous error. Everything was fine, as long as Paul had been present with them. But once he was gone and the distorters of the true gospel had arrived, the alienation of affection had begun, to their own hurt! This situation almost breaks Paul's heart. No wonder, for he knows so much better than they do what would be the result of such apostasy were it to run its full course. But this must not, this cannot be. So, in spite of the fact that their feelings toward him had cooled, he, still filled with the most tender love toward them, now addresses them in the language of warm, pastoral and we may well add: parental affection, as follows: 19, 20. My dear children,^[128] for whom I am again suffering birth-pangs.& Paul compares himself to a mother who is giving birth to a child. Thus also in I Thess. 2:7^[129] he says, employing a figure only slightly different: But we were gentle in the midst of you, as when a nurse cherishes her own children, meaning: as when a mother-nurse warms, fondles, cherishes the children that are her very own because she gave them birth. Here in Gal. 4:19note the word again: for whom I am again suffering birth-pangs. Once before he had endured these labor pains for them, as Luke so vividly portrays in Acts 13and 14. At that time he, as God's instrument, had brought these children to the point where they loved him and trusted him; even better: where they loved and trusted Christ, placing their hope for salvation in him alone. And now, having been displaced in their affections by others, Paul's birth-pangs have returned. He hopes with all the ardor of his soul that, for the sake of their own salvation, the Galatians will renew their former attachment to him. O that they might be his children once more, as children imitating him! O that they might become as he is (verse 12), trusting solely in Christ for their salvation! O that they would cast aside all reliance on self, on law-works, as he, by the grace of God, had learned to do! The apostle is yearning for his children. He is afflicted. In his heartache also this element is included, that the Galatians are making the maternal heart of Paul suffer all the birth-pains a second time, something which no offspring ever does in nature.& Unnaturally they are causing Paul to suffer all these pains over again, even in a more severe way (Lenski, op. cit., p. 227). Though, according to the entire preceding context, it was especially the acceptance of legalism by the Galatians that made Paul suffer and yearn as he did, nevertheless the danger of libertinism (immorality) can hardly have been absent from his mind, for in the very next chapter he earnestly warns the Galatians that they must not turn their freedom into an opportunity for the flesh (5:13, 16 24; cf. 6:7, 8). Hence, it is in that broad connection, reflecting on the situation in Galatia in is entirety, that he says: until Christ be formed in you, that is, until your whole inner being^[130] proclaims Christ's being and his ways, so that you will trust fully in your Savior, will be like him in your thoughts, wishes, and aspirations, and will reflect him in the common words you speak, in life's common looks and tones, in intercourse at hearth or board with your beloved ones, in brief: in the entire gamut of your existence and manifestation among men.^[131] Continued: I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone of voice, for I am perplexed about you. Though Paul was writing as a holy man of God who was being moved by the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1:21; 3:15, 16), he, nevertheless, was conscious of the manner in which he was restricted by the limitations of time and space. Right now he wishes that he could be with those whom he addresses. However, with his hands full of work in Corinth (if that supposition be correct), he finds it impossible right now to rush off to distant Galatia. Ah, if he could only be with them, then, perhaps by hearing and seeing them and conversing with them, the change in them for which he so yearns might be brought about more speedily. Then possibly he might no longer have to rebuke them as he has done in this epistle, might not have to call them foolish Galatians any longer, but might be able to change his tone of voice. As of now, however, he is perplexed about them, at a loss to know why they have yielded to temptation. O that his dear children would return to the home from which they have wandered away! Yes, indeed, Paul is suffering birth-pangs &again! The passage is one of the finest practical applications of I Cor. 13, written by Paul himself. Though the Galatians have failed Paul, his love toward them never fails, for love is longsuffering and kind, and even now hopes all things. Chapter 4 Verses 21 31 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors II. Its Vindication: both Scripture i.e., the Old Testament and life (experience, past history) bear testimony to its truth F. History of the slave-woman (Hagar) and her son versus the free-woman (Sarah) and her son (Gen. 16:1–4; 21:8–12). Application: Cast out the slave-woman and her son. Not of a slave-woman are we children, but of the free-woman. 4:21–31 F. Instructive Allegory 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave-woman and one by the free-woman. 23 But the son of the slave-woman was flesh-horn; the son of the free-woman (was born) through promise. 24 Now things of this nature were spoken with another meaning in mind, for these two women represent two covenants: one from Mount Sinai, bearing children destined for slavery. She is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the Jerusalem of today, for she is in bondage with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem (that is) above is free, and she is our mother; 27 for it is written: Rejoice O barren one, you who do not bear; Break forth and shout, you who have no birth-pangs; For more are the children of the desolate than of her who has a husband. 28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he (who was) flesh-born persecuted the one (who was) Spirit-born, so (it is) also now. 30 But what does Scripture say? Cast out the slave-woman and her son; for in no way shall the son of the slave-woman share in the inheritance with the son of the free-woman. 31 Wherefore, brothers, not of a slave-woman are we children, but of the free-woman. The proposition that those those alone, all those who by a true and living faith accept God's promise are the children of God, is defended once more, and now for the last time, with an appeal to Scripture. Rigid adherence to law, as if this were the way to be saved, is exposed as being in reality nothing but bondage, spiritual slavery. Faith, on the contrary, spells freedom. Accordingly, this section, too, is true to the theme of the entire epistle, namely, The gospel of justification by faith apart from law-works defended against its detractors. This time, however, the apostle makes use of a type of argumentation which he has not employed before. He avails himself of an allegory. It is not wrong to call it that, provided that the term allegory be interpreted in the most favorable sense (see on verse 24). Paul sets forth the spiritual meaning of a familiar story, that of two women that dwelt in Abraham's tents: a. his wife Sarah, b. Sarah's personal slave Hagar, whom she gave to Abraham in order that she, Sarah, might obtain children by her. Hagar bore Ishmael. Several years later Sarah bore Isaac. Sarah and her son are now described as representing all those freedom-loving people who live by faith, as contrasted with Hagar and her son who are designated as representing those spiritually enslaved individuals who live by law. Cf. Gen. 16:1–4; 21:1–12. Those who suppose that by using this kind of an argument Paul arrives at an interpretation that is fallacious, far-fetched, and fantastic, betraying the influence of his own early training in worthless rabbinical methods of exegesis, do him an injustice, and are themselves guilty of misinterpretation, for they misinterpret the apostle. What his allegory really amounts to is an obvious lesson plus a self-invited comparison, both of them derived from the ancient narrative in a manner so natural that in a mood of surprise Paul says: 21. Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law? Those people the Judaizers and also the Galatians themselves to the extent in which they allow themselves to be influenced by these legalists are always talking about the indispensable necessity of keeping the Mosaic law (see on verse 10); nevertheless, they seem to forget that the law itself clearly contradicts their belief. In this second reference to law Paul uses the term in a wider sense: Torah or Pentateuch. With a lively Tell me, he calls his opponents to account. Continued: 22. For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave-woman and one by the free-woman. As has been shown earlier (see on 3:6), Paul's adversaries and their Jewish followers prided themselves in the fact that they were the descendants of Abraham, as if that biological relationship were of paramount significance for salvation, of such superior value that even the non-Jewish converts to Christianity should, by being circumcised, strive to resemble their Jewish co-religionists as closely as possible. Paul's argument, then, is this: Those who are always boasting about their descent from Abraham are forgetting that Abraham had not one son but two sons^[132]: Ishmael by Hagar as well as Isaac by Sarah. Accordingly, if physical descent from Abraham is so all-important, then they who are Jews by birth are not any better off than are the Ishmaelites. Nevertheless, so runs Paul's argument, there is, indeed a marked difference between the son of Hagar, the slave-woman, and the son of Sarah, the free-woman, but that difference is not of a physical but of a spiritual nature. It represents the contrast between those who live by law and those who live by faith; in other words, between those who depend on that which they themselves are able to bring about and those who rely on the effectuation of God's gracious promise. The basic difference between Ishmael and Isaac, and between the two groups which they respectively represent, reveals itself in their contrasted birth (verses 23 28), their relation to each other (verse 29), and their lack of right, or right, to the inheritance (verse 30). First, then, there is the contrast in birth: 23. But the son of the slave-woman was flesh-born; the son of the free-woman (was born) through promise. Meaning: Ishmael was the product of his parents natural power of procreation. He was born in accordance with that which Abraham and Hagar were able to accomplish in the ordinary course of nature (John 1:13; Rom. 9:7–9). Accordingly, he represents all those who base their hope for eternity on what they themselves are able to effectuate, that is, on their own works. There are those who think that this conclusion, already obvious, gains added strength when the full story, as related in (Gen. 16:1–4, is taken into account. According to that passage Ishmael's birth was the result not only of a physical act but also of sinful deliberation. Abraham and Sarah, unwilling to bide God's time for the fulfilment of the promise, took matters into their own hands, so that, on the advice of Sarah, Abraham went in to Hagar, Sarah's Egyptian maid, with the result that she conceived and bore Abraham a son, Ishmael. However, the purpose of this scheme was not thereby realized, for Ishmael was not the child of promise. As these interpreters see it, therefore, when Paul here in Gal. 4:23describes Ishmael as flesh-born, he attaches a double sense to this term, namely, born according to carnal deliberationGen. 16:2), and by virtue of the physical capacity of both Abraham and Hagar, which had not yet died (Gen. 16:4). ^[133] Thus, in the opinion of these exegetes, it becomes even more strikingly evident how the son of the slave-woman could represent all those who, instead of trusting in Christ for their salvation, labor slavishly to attain it by their own cunning, and are doomed to bitter disappointment. This double sense theory is attractive, but whether or not it be correct cannot be proved. Moreover, the theory is not necessary. Ishmael, as a son born in the usual, natural, way, is even so a true representative of all those who have experienced only the natural birth, not the birth from above. And on either theory he remains a slave, a fit symbol of all those who labor slavishly to enter into the kingdom. Isaac, on the other hand, was born as a result of Abraham's faith in God's promise. It was as a reward for the exercise of this faith that God intervened miraculously, enabling Abraham, though he had become as good as dead, to deposit seed, and making it possible for Sarah, heretofore barren, to conceive (Rom. 4:19; Heb. 11:11, 12). Isaac, then, was Spirit-born (verse 29), for it was the Holy Spirit who caused the promise to be realized. The conclusion, therefore, that Isaac is a symbol of all Spirit-born (now in the sense of regenerated) men is not far-fetched. It is all the more natural in view of the fact that he, in spite of his weaknesses, was going to manifest himself as a true believer, one who by faith rested in God's promise (Gen. 24:63; 26:18, 22 25; 28:1–4). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER V Chapter 5 Verse 1 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors III. Its Application: it produces true liberty. Let the Galatians stand firm, therefore, as does Paul, who glories in the cross of Christ A. For freedom Christ has set us free; continue to stand firm, therefore. 5:1 A. Maintain your freedom! 5 1 For freedom Christ has set us free; continue to stand firm, therefore, and do not be loaded down again with a yoke of slavery. 1. For freedom Christ has set us free.^[140] There is every reason to agree with modern versions when they print Gal. 5:1as a little paragraph all by itself, the first paragraph of a new chapter. That something new begins here is clearly evident from the contrast between the argumentative style of the earlier chapters, including the immediately preceding context, and the hortatory language that begins here in 5:1. Having been taught that in Christ we are free, we (here specifically the Galatians) are now encouraged to maintain that freedom (verse 1) and to interpret and apply it properly (verse 13 ff.). But this very statement also indicates the close connection between chapters 4 and 5. The truth stated and vigorously defended in the preceding chapters is applied to life in chapters 5 and 6. That the idea of freedom is very much in the foreground is clear not only from verse 1 but also from verse 13 ff. The question arises: Just what does Paul mean when he speaks of freedom? It implies first of all deliverance. This deliverance is sometimes conceived of as rescue from the guilt and power of sin (Rom. 6:18); hence, from an accusing conscience (Heb. 10:22), from the wrath of God (Rom. 5:1; cf. Heb. 10:27), and the tyranny of Satan (II Tim. 2:26; cf. Heb. 2:14). Nevertheless, although all of this is probably implied in Paul's use of the term here in (Gal. 5:1, 13, the context indicates that he is thinking particularly of freedom from the law, that is, deliverance from the curse which the law pronounces upon the sinner who had been striving unsuccessfully, of course to achieve his own righteousnessGal. 3:13, 22 26; 4:1–7), but has now, by grace, turned to Christ and salvation in him. Cf. (Phil. 3:4–9. For God's chosen one this freedom includes rescue from the results of the law's inability to make alive what is deadGal. 3:21). Implied is also freedom from fear, the fear that arises from a. the erroneous idea that both the moral and the ceremonial law must be strictly obeyed if one is to be saved, and b. the oppressing awareness of inability to meet this demand (Gal. 3:23; 4:21–31; Rom. 7:24 8:2). Deliverance is, however, a negative concept, though the positive is clearly implied. Freedom is more than deliverance. It is a positive endowment. What the law could not do God has accomplished through Christ and the Spirit (Rom. 8:3, 4). Positively, then, freedom, as Paul sees it, is the state in which a person is walking and living in the Spirit (Gal. 5:25), so that he produces the fruit of the Spirit (5:22, 23), and with joy and gratitude does the will of God (Rom. 8:4), in principle fulfilling the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2), even the law of liberty (James 1:25). This liberty amounts to delighting in the law of God in one's inmost self (Rom. 7:22). The person who is truly free no longer acts from constraint but serves his God willingly, with cheerfulness of heart. Freedom of access to the Father is implied, of course, for the blessing of which Paul speaks is enjoyed by sons (Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15). Such true freedom is therefore always a freedom plus. It is with freedom as with justification. See p. 98. When an accused man is declared not guilty, he is free. Likewise when a slave has been emancipated, he is free. But the judge or the emancipator does not, as a rule, adopt the acquitted individual as his son. But when the Son makes one free, he is free indeed (John 8:36). He then rejoices in the glorious liberty of sonship, with all that this implies as to access, right to the inheritance, etc. Paul emphasizes that it was Christ himself not our own merits or our own deeds that set us free. He did it by becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3:13); hence, by his blood (Heb. 10, 19, 22); and he did it and is constantly doing it through his Spirit (Gal. 3:2, 3, 14; 4:6, 29; cf. Rom. 8:4). Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (II Cor. 3:17). The thoroughly human Paul expresses himself in a manner which could almost be described as containing a bit of humor when he says, For freedom Christ has set us free, as if to say, Is it not ridiculous to imagine that Christ would have opened for us the gate of our prison at such a cost! merely to transfer us to another prison? Surely, he set us free in order that we might indeed be and remain free! Continued: continue to stand firm, therefore (II Thess. 2:15). Perseverance in the fight against re-enslavement is here prescribed. The Galatians had been running beautifully (5:7), but they had failed to carry on. They had, in fact, reversed their course. What Paul is saying, then, is that over against the opponents they should stand firm and should so continue. This standing firm is not that of a well-nigh unassailable fenced-in statue, but rather that of a tree firmly rooted in the midst of the raging storm. Even better, it is that of the soldier on the field of battle, not fleeing but offering stout resistance to the enemy and defeating him (Eph. 6:10–20). The very fact that it was no one less than Christ himself who had set the Galatians free, so that by standing firm, they are voluntarily continuing in the sphere of his activity, should encourage them; hence, Continue to stand firm, therefore. The crown of valor is victory (Matt. 10:22; Rev. 2:10). Paul adds: and do not be loaded down^[141] again with a yoke of slavery. Peter had spoken about an unbearable yoke (Acts 15:10). He was referring to the yoke of the law, including its many regulations, augmented subsequently by man-made traditions. Under that yoke Israel had groaned. The Galatians, mostly of pagan origin (4:8), had been similarly subjected to rules and regulations pertaining to their former pagan religion. Ramsay speaks of a highly elaborate system of such burdensome stipulations, prevalent in Galatia. Hence, what the apostle is saying is that those who were delivered from this unbearable yoke of paganism should certainly not try to shoulder another similar yoke, that of Judaism. See also on 4:9. Having escaped from one ritualism are they now going to bow before another? Rather, let them flee for refuge to him whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light (Matt. 11:29, 30). Chapter 5 Verses 2 6 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors III. Its Application: it produces true liberty. Let the Galatians stand firm, therefore, as does Paul, who glories in the cross of Christ B. Do not try to combine both principles: a. justification by way of law and b. justification by grace through faith. If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you. If you cling to law, you have lost your hold on grace. Practice faith working through love. 5:2–6 B. Faith in Christ plus circumcision will not do 2 Now I, Paul, say to you that if you let yourselves be circumcised Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who lets himself be circumcised, that he is under obligation to keep the whole law. 4 You are estranged from Christ, whoever (you are who) seek to be justified by way of law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For, as to ourselves, it is through the Spirit, by faith, that we eagerly await the hoped-for righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. It was a gain of incalculable value that Christ obtained for his people, namely, freedom. Over against this stands the frightful loss that is incurred by those who refuse to recognize him as their all-sufficient Savior. Therefore the text continues: 2. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you let yourselves be circumcised^[142] Christ will be of no advantage to you. From the stately style it is evident that the writer is conscious of his authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ. He has every right to speak thus, not only because he is, in fact, a true apostle, invested with this office by Christ himself (1:1, 12), but also because the matter at hand concerns the eternal weal or woe of those addressed. For I, Paul see also II Cor. 10:1; Eph. 3:1; Col. 1:23; and I Thess. 2:18. The substance of Paul's words is this, that a man's faith rests on Christ either entirely or not at all. God's Anointed One must be recognized and worshiped as the one and only Savior. Since the Galatians were already yielding to the Judaizers in the matter of observing days and months and seasons and years (4:10), the danger was great that they would yield also in the matter of circumcision, and that, as a result, their whole religion would be reduced to ritualism with a slightly Christian tinge. It is for this reason that the apostle uses such incisive language. If they accept circumcision, thinking that this is necessary for salvation, or at least for a full measure of salvation, Christ will be of no advantage to them whatever. A Christ supplemented is a Christ supplanted. Continued: 3. And I testify again to every man who lets himself be circumcised, that he is under obligation to keep the whole law. Continuing in the same solemn vein Paul testifies, so that the Galatians may act reverently, with a proper sense of respect for the will of God as revealed to them by his ambassador Paul. For testify see also Eph. 4:17and I Thess. 2:12. The gravity of the expression is shown especially in the manner in which it is used in the speeches of Paul as reported by Luke in Acts 20:26and 26:22. Paul testifies to every man. He is not only addressing the churches en masse, or even the Galatian congregations one by one, but each member individually and personally. Let his warning be taken to heart by each and by all. Note the significant word again. The sense, in connection with the preceding verse, is in all probability this, You must accept the whole Christ (Christ in all the fulness of his saving power and grace); again, if you refuse, then you will have to keep the whole law. The one is implied in the other. If salvation is by law, why should one be obliged to keep just one ceremonial commandment, or even two or three, and not the rest? If the pathway to salvation is thought to lie in that direction one should travel it to the very end. He will discover, however, that the base from which he started was located in enemy territory that his presupposition was a tragic error and that the destination for which he is actually headed is the curse (3:10). 4. In this verse the same truth is reiterated: You are estranged^[143] from Christ, whoever (you are who) seek to be justified^[144] by way of law; you have fallen away from grace. If the Galatians, whether all or some, should seek to be justified by way of law, and should persist to the end in this error, the cord that binds them to Christ would not be able to bear that strain. It would snap! They would then have fallen away from the domain of grace, would have lost their hold on grace. It would be with them like it is with withered flowers that fall to the ground and perish. We should not try to diminish the force of these words, in the interest, perhaps, of this or that theological presupposition. It might seem as if what Paul is here saying is inconsistent with the doctrine of the preservation of the saints, a doctrine not only scriptural in general but also particularly dear to Paul. For evidence see N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 54, 55. In reality, however, there is no conflict at all, as has been shown in connection with the explanation of Gal. 1:6, 7. Let it be borne in mind that Paul is speaking here from the standpoint of human responsibility. 5. In contrast with those who presumably might fall into the error against which the apostle issues his warning, Paul's own position, the conviction of the Galatians who have remained loyal, and, in general, the firm persuasion of believers everywhere, is set forth in the following passage, in which the emphasis falls on the word which in the original heads the sentence, namely, we or, as we can also render it, as to ourselves. Says Paul: For, as to ourselves, it is through the Spirit, by faith, that we eagerly await the hoped for righteousness. The conjunction [Greek] can best be interpreted in its more usual sense as indicating the cause or reason for the thought that was expressed in the preceding verse. What Paul is saying then amounts to something along this line, Those who yield to the Judaizers have fallen away from grace because they refuse to give due credit to the work of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, as to ourselves, we recognize that Spirit as the source of all our striving and of our ultimate victory. That the word pneuma, which by itself can be rendered either spirit (6:1, 18) or Spirit (the Holy), must here be interpreted in the latter sense, as nearly always in Galatians, follows from all that Paul has been saying previously in this epistle and from all that he says elsewhere concerning the activity of the third person of the Trinity. Thus, the idea that it is through the Spirit that by faith we eagerly await the hoped-for righteousness is in line with the teaching that the law produces death (Rom. 7:10; 8:2), but the Spirit makes alive (Gal. 4:29; Rom. 8:3, 4, 10; cf. John 3:5); that the law creates fear and wretchedness (Rom. 8:15), but the Spirit brings about hope and assurance (Rom. 8:16; Eph. 1:13); that the law enslaves (Gal. 3:23; 4:24, 25), but the Spirit brings about freedom (Gal. 4:29 5:1). Considered from God's side, therefore, salvation is the gift of the Spirit (II Thess. 2:13; cf. Eph. 2:5, 8). Viewed from man's side it is received by faith, but even this faith, both in its initiation and at every step of the way, is Spirit-given. And if faith is God-given, why should not hope be also? And why should not the thing hoped for, in this case: the hoped-for righteousness,^[145] be also assigned to the Holy Spirit, this all the more because the very presence of the Spirit in the hearts of believers is considered a pledge and first instalment of greater glories to come (Eph. 1:13, 14)?^[146] These greater glories to come are definitely in the mind of the writer, for he says that through the Spirit, by faith we eagerly await (Rom. 8:19, 23, 25; I Cor. 1:7) the hoped-for righteousness. To be sure, the verdict of acquittal has already been pronounced, so that even now the peace of God has smiled its way into our hearts (Rom. 5:1). But one day, namely, at Christ's glorious return, our righteousness will be declared publicly. Cf. Matt. 25:31–40; Luke 18:1 8; I Thess. 3:13; II Thess. 1:10. To this day and to this blessing we, through the Spirit, by faith, eagerly look forward, not doubting that God will fulfil his promise. 6. This declaration concerning the eager forward look of Spirit-imparted faith is true, For in Christ Jesus^[147] neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. As far as Christ Jesus is concerned or, as one might say, in the sphere of Christian religion being circumcised will be of no benefit toward salvation. But here as always Paul shows excellent balance by immediately adding, nor being uncircumcised. The circumcised person must not boast about the fact that his foreskin was removed, nor should the uncircumcised put on airs because he still has his. Cf. the similar statement in I Cor. 8:8regarding food. What is important, however, is faith working through love. Compare Rom. 14:17, For the rule of God does not consist in eating and drinking but in righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. A controversy has long raged between Roman Catholic and Protestant interpreters with respect to the question whether Paul meant to say faith wrought through love or faith working through love. According to the first view, generally favored by Rome, love precedes faith. Our works of love or charity give substance to faith. In this way the danger of ascribing too great a value to works and of making works basic in the effectuation of our salvation, is great indeed. This theory, therefore, contradicts the very thesis which the apostle is trying to establish in this epistle, namely, that justification is by faith, apart from works.^[148] And as to which is first in order, whether a. love and the work it produces or b. faith, basically the priority should be given to faith. The works are fruits, not roots. Cf. Eph. 2:8–10; I Thess. 1:3; and see N.T.C. on I Tim. 1:5. This having been said, it is well, nevertheless, to point out that just as in the natural sphere the young married woman who becomes the happy mother of a child, not only lavishes her love upon that child but is also herself reciprocally enriched, so also mother faith, having produced her child love, receives grace and glory from this child. Action begets reaction in this blessed circle of interrelationships.^[149] The endowments with which the Holy Spirit graces the believer overlap. None stands by itself. And is not this implied in Paul's very statement that faith works through love? It works, becomes effective, proves its genuine character, by means of love and loving deeds. Indeed, by works faith is made perfect (James 2:22). Paul and James are in complete agreement! Whether or not those are right who say that the Judaizers must have accused Paul of minimizing love, and that in this passage the apostle is answering this charge, we do not know. One fact, however, stands out clearly: the faith which Paul proclaims is always far richer than mere understanding. It is fruitful (John 16:2, 5, 8), not barren. It is warm, not cold. The man who wrote Gal. 5:6also wrote I Cor. 13:2. Chapter 5 Verses 7 12 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors III. Its Application: it produces true liberty. Let the Galatians stand firm, therefore, as does Paul, who glories in the cross of Christ C. You were running well; who was it that threw you off your course? I am convinced that you will see the matter my way. If I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? Would that the disturbers might make eunuchs of themselves! 5:7–12 C. You were running well. I am persuaded that you will repent 7 You were running well; who cut in on you so that you did not continue to obey the truth? 8 This persuasion (is) not (derived) from him who is calling you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I on my part am persuaded in the Lord with respect to you, that you will not adopt a different view (than mine). And the one who is throwing you into confusion will have to pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11 Now as for myself, brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the stumbling-block of the cross has been removed. 12 Would that those who upset you might make eunuchs of themselves! 7. Turning back once more (cf. 1:8, 9; 3:2, 3; 4:9, 12 15) to the time when the Galatians had heard the gospel from the lips of Paul and had accepted Christ as their Savior and Lord, the apostle says: You were running well. They had started out beautifully. Proof for this statement is found in 4:13, 14; cf. the account in Acts 13and 14. The metaphor is taken from the footrace in the stadium. A similar figure underlies Gal. 2:2; Phil. 2:16; I Tim. 4:7, 8; Heb. 12:1, 2. If Paul was in Corinth when he wrote this letter, as seems probable, he must have been hearing about such and other athletic contests, and may even have been a spectator at one time or another. But rivalry in games and sports was not confined to the city famous for its Isthmian contests, but was prevalent in greater or lesser extent throughout the world, then as well as now. The Galatians understood the metaphor. Continued: who cut in on you so that you did not continue to obey the truth? Paul is not asking for information. He is not necessarily referring to any ringleader. In all probability he is simply saying to the Galatians, Before you continue to yield to the wishes of any person who belongs to this group, would it not be wise to consider carefully what kind of a person it was that threw you off your course? It is not the identity but the character of the Judaizers which the apostle is bringing into the foreground. This is in harmony with 6:12, 13. The Galatians, having been diverted from their proper course, were now proceeding on a path that would lead them to ruin, unless they returned to the base from which they had started out. They had discontinued to obey the truth. By this truth is meant God's special revelation as embodied in the gospel proclaimed by Paul and the other apostles and fellow-workers. Cf. 2:5, 14. That truth is full of practical implications. It concerns both doctrine and life. It not only tells men what to believe but also how they should conduct themselves. It reveals to them that God gave his Son as a complete and perfect Savior, and that, out of gratitude for the salvation that is freely given to all who embrace him by a living faith, the redeemed should spend their days showing forth God's praise in thought, word, and deed. Continued: 8. This persuasion^[150] (is) not (derived) from him who is calling you. For calling see on 1:6. The Galatians are being told that the persuasion that draws them away from the truth does not have its source in him who not only called them in the beginning but is calling them even now: Day by day his sweet voice soundeth, Saying, Christian, follow me (Mrs. Cecil F. Alexander). They must realize that their present course of action means that they are saying No to no one less than God himself (cf. 1:15). And this is a mild way of declaring that they have begun to say Yes to Satan, who is using the Judaizers in the distortion of the only true gospel (Matt. 13:25, 28). 9. The warning continues, this time in the form of a proverbial saying, found also in (I Cor. 5:6: A little leaven leavens the whole lump. Seemingly insignificant causes can lead to momentous consequences, whether for goodMatt. 13:33) or for evil, as in the present case. Principles penetrate! When a person has forsaken the sound principle of salvation by grace alone through faith (Eph. 2:8), and has taken his stand on a new persuasion, namely, salvation by grace plus works, the attention is gradually shifted to works, until grace has disappeared completely, and so has Christ, on whom grace rests. Illustrations of the penetrating power of evil: a. In ancient Israel the deceptively innocent worship of Jehovah under the symbolism (and by means) of an image soon led to gross idolatry; b. it took only a worm to destroy Jonah's gourd (Jonah 4:7); c. cancer spreads (metastasizes), so that a malignant tumor, ever so small in its beginning, may in the end destroy the entire body (II Tim. 2:17); d. a little (?) carelessness starts a forest-fire, with destruction of thousands of valuable lumber-producing trees, or sets fire to a hotel, killing several people; e. someone tosses a few roots of a beautiful flower into a stream; result: many of the rivers, canals, lakes, and bayous of beautiful Florida, etc., are choked with the water hyacinth, which menaces wildlife, causes floods, strangles navigation, costs a fortune in attempts at eradication, so far with no completely satisfactory remedy in sight; and f.: For want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; for want of a horse the rider was lost; for want of a rider the battle was lost; and for want of a battle the kingdom was lost. All this for want of a horseshoe nail (Benjamin Franklin, according to one version). 10. But though again and again the apostle has expressed his deep concern with reference to the Galatians (1:6, 7; 3:1–5; 4:11–20; 5:1–4, 7), he now reiterates his conviction that the letter which he is writing will have the desired effect. For other traces of this confidence see 3:4b; 4:6, 7, and the frequent use of the endearing form of address: brothers (1:11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1, 18). He writes: I on my part am persuaded in the Lord with respect to you, that you will not adopt a different view (than mine). His conviction or persuasion regarding the Galatians rests not on any innate goodness of theirs, but solely on their and his relation to Christ, their and also his Lord. It is that Lord who, having begun a good work in the Galatians, will carry it on toward completion. See N.T.C. on Phil. 1:6. Continued: And the one who is throwing you into confusion will have to pay the penalty, whoever he may be. For the meaning of the verb to throw into confusion see on 1:7. Here in 5:10, as in verse 7 above, some see a reference to a ringleader. Some venture even farther away from shore, embarking boldly upon the sea of speculation when they suggest that either the apostle Peter, or else James the brother of the Lord, was that ringleader. But as to Peter see II Peter 3:15; and as to James see Acts 15:19, 24 26. Fact is that in referring to the disturbers Paul again and again uses the plural (1:7; 4:17; 5:12; 6:12, 13). But he also does not hesitate to use the plural and the singular in one breath. Does that mean that from the many disturbers he suddenly turns to the one ringleader? That would be rather strange. So also here the very wording would seem to point in the opposite direction: the one who is throwing you into confusion &whoever he may be. The probable meaning is: There are several disturbers. Be on your guard, therefore, so that if one anyone at all of these creators of confusion approaches, you resist him, bearing in mind that, whoever he may be, he will have to pay the penalty. Implication: and you also will have to pay the penalty (literally: bear the judgment) if you become involved in his guilt. That the apostle is referring to God's judgment upon the distorters of the truth is not open to doubt. Whether Paul was thinking of punishment here and now, or rather of retribution in the hereafter, is not indicated. He may well have been thinking of both. 11. It is but natural that in connection with the strong condemnation of the teachers of error Paul would be reminded of an accusation which, in all probability, these men had hurled against him; namely, that he himself was inconsistent in his presentation of the gospel; specifically, that in regard to circumcision, the very matter with respect to which he censured his opponents so unmercifully, he himself was not to be trusted. They charged him with duplicity. At one time, so they said, Paul would have nothing whatever to do with this rite, and would denounce those who honored it. At another time he himself would preach it. Had he not circumcised Timothy? Viewed in the light of this accusation we understand what the apostle means when he continues: Now as for myself, brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?^[151] If there had not been a radical change in Paul's philosophy of life, so that he who at one time had been a self-righteous Pharisee and an ardent advocate of the Jewish traditions had even now not been truly converted, but was still clinging to his earlier beliefs, then why would he nevertheless be persecuted? In that case the Judaizers would have welcomed him as one of their own circle! As to the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:3), it certainly was one thing to circumcise a person of mixed parentage, as was Timothy, in order to make him a more effective missionary among the Jews, and to do this without the least suggestion that in some way this circumcision would contribute toward his salvation; it was an entirely different matter to force circumcision upon the Gentiles, with the implication that unless they were circumcised they could not be saved! See (Acts 15:1. In matters in which no principle was involved Paul was very accommodating, flexible, and conciliatoryActs 21:17 26), but when a deep principle was at stake for example, Christ's all-sufficiency for salvation he was unbending, and rightly so. Moreover, far from being inconsistent when, on the one hand, he circumcised Timothy, yet on the other hand strongly condemned the circumcision of the Galatians, he was most gloriously consistent, for in both instances he was promoting the spread of the one true gospel, subordinating everything else to this marvelous cause. If, therefore, the opponents, in charging Paul with inconsistency, were thinking of what he had done to Timothy, and were implying that by that very act he had been preaching circumcision, they really had no case at all. For a different interpretation of the passage see footnote.^[152] See also on 2:5. Paul continues: In that case the stumbling-block of the cross has been removed. For the Jews the death of the Messiah even more so, the accursed death of the cross! was a stumbling-block, a definite obstacle or hindrance to their acceptance of the Christian religion (I Cor. 1:23). They would say, What, the Messiah crucified? Perish the thought! What added to the offensiveness of this doctrine, as they saw it, was the claim that by means of this cross the old shadows had been fulfilled, the old ceremonial ordinances abrogated. Moreover, the burden of obedience to the law as a precondition of salvation had been lifted. And, to make things even worse in their eyes, by this cross the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile had been removed once for all, never to be rebuilt. Therefore, the all-sufficiency of Christ Crucified for salvation, completely obliterating the need of any additional props such as circumcision, was the stumbling-block for the Jews. But if the apostle were still preaching circumcision as a means of salvation, that offense would have been removed. Also, in that case Paul would no longer be persecuted by his kinsmen. Hence, the very fact that this persecution had not been discontinued was adequate proof that the charge of the opponents was false. 12. Paul closes this brief paragraph with a rather startling expression: Would that those who upset you might make eunuchs of themselves!^[153] In view of the fact that the basic meaning of the verb which Paul uses in expressing his wish is to cut off, there are those who think that the apostle voices his desire that the opponents may be cut off from the church ( I would that they were even cut off which trouble you, A.V.), or, better still, that they would cut themselves off ( &would cut themselves off from you altogether, Phillips; cf. Ramsay, Historical Commentary, pp. 437–440). A more reasonable interpretation, however, one which (because it agrees with the use of the verb in such contexts in contemporary sources)^[154] is supported by most commentators both ancient and modern, interprets the meaning to be this, that the apostle is saying, As for these agitators, they had better go the whole way and make eunuchs of themselves! (N.E.B.). Paul reasons, as it were, as follows: Since circumcision has lost its religious value, it is nothing more than a concision (Phil. 3:2), which differs only in degree but not essentially from the practices of pagan priests, practices well-known to the Galatians. But since the Judaizers who are upsetting the Galatians believe a little physical mutilation is of spiritual value, let them be consistent and cut away more radically. Let them go all the way, and castrate themselves, thus making eunuchs of themselves like the priests of Cybele in their wild devotions. The question arises whether Paul was justified in uttering this wish. A few points should be borne in mind in this connection: (1) In the final analysis Paul, in expressing this wish, was responsible to God, not to us. It is God alone who is able to judge the ethical value of such an utterance. (2) Did not even the sinless Jesus say, Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea? (Matt. 18:6; cf. Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2). (3) The situation in which Paul found himself was similar: the Galatians, who were very dear to him (4:19) were being led astray. Also, the purity of the gospel was being undermined. Paul loved the Galatians and the true gospel deeply enough to be disturbed! (4) Accordingly, instead of saying, Shame on you, Paul, for wishing such a thing! should we not rather say, Shame on ourselves, that when in our own day and age the soundness of the gospel is being sacrificed upon the altar of ecumenism, and when ever so many people are being led astray by a so-called gospel that recognizes no contrast between saved and unsaved, but only the brotherhood of all men (as if, in a redemptive sense, all men were brothers), our own cheeks have lost the ability to glow with righteous indignation! (5) Nevertheless, in all our thoughts, wishes, and expressions, may the prayer of the Psalmist, uttered in connection with a somewhat similar revelation of indignation, be ours also: Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me, and know my thoughts; And see if there be any wicked way in me, And lead me in the way everlasting (Psalms 139:23, 24). Such language reminds us of Paul's own sentiments (Eph. 4:31, 32; Col. 4:4, 6; Titus 3:2). Chapter 5 Verses 13 26 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors III. Its Application: it produces true liberty. Let the Galatians stand firm, therefore, as does Paul, who glories in the cross of Christ D. Remember that true liberty does not mean license. It means love. It does not welcome the works of the flesh but the fruit of the Spirit. It produces unity, not strife. 5:13–26 D. Freedom means love, not license 13 For you were called to freedom, brothers; only (do) not (turn) this freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be serving one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, namely, in this: You must love your neighbor as yourself. 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out lest you be consumed by one another. 16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will definitely not fulfil the desire of the flesh; 17 for the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: for these are opposed to each other, so that these very things which you may wish to be doing, these you are not doing. 18 But if you are being led by the Spirit you are not under law. 19 Now obvious are the works of the flesh, which are: immorality, impurity, indecency, 20 idolatry, sorcery, quarrels, wrangling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, party intrigues, 21 envyings, drinking bouts, revelries, and the like, of which I forewarn you, as I previously forewarned you, that those who indulge in such practices will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law. 24 And those who believe in Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk. 26 Let us not become boasters, challenging one another, envying one another. Having previously dealt with the subject of freedom (2:4; 4:21–30; 5:1), Paul feels that further treatment is necessary, and this, it may well be surmised, particularly for two reasons: a. the charge of the Judaizers, that Paul's rejection of the law as a precondition of salvation would lead to lawlessness, and b. the presence of leftovers of pagan vices in the hearts and lives of the formerly chiefly pagan Galatians. The Christian religion resembles a narrow bridge over a place where two polluted streams meet: one is called legalism, the other libertinism. The believer must not lose his balance, lest he tumble into the refined (?) faults of Judaism on the one side, or into the gross vices of paganism on the other. He must tread the safe and narrow path. Whether fashionable or coarse, both kinds of evils are products of the flesh, that is, of sinful human nature. Since the apostle had devoted a large part of his epistle to the task of combating Judaistic self-righteousness, arrogance, exclusivism, etc., he now turns the attention of the Galatians, and of all who then or now read these warnings, to those sins which, though to a certain extent also present among the Jews (Rom. 2:1, 21 24), were especially conspicuous among the Gentiles. He fully realizes that even though the Galatians were now brothers in Christ, they were still plagued and beset by the sinster influences of contaminated heredity, long-existing habit, and dissolute environment. Generally speaking, sanctification does not complete its task in one day. So, this new section begins as follows: 13. For you were called to freedom, brothers; only (do) not (turn) this freedom into an opportunity for the flesh.& For the meaning of freedom see on 5:1. The present passage is linked in thought especially with verse 8. When these two verses (8 and 13) are combined the meaning of for and of both passages becomes clearer: This persuasion (is) not (derived) from him who is calling you.& For you were called to freedom, brothers; only (do) not (turn) this freedom into an opportunity for the flesh. When God applies the outward call, the gospel message, to the heart, thereby producing the effectual call, the person who experiences this basic change is introduced into the realm of freedom, the sphere of grateful and spontaneous living to the glory of his marvelous Benefactor, and is invited to roam about freely in this new country, delighting in its treasures and making full use of its opportunities. The Galatians must beware, nevertheless, that they do not accept a distorted interpretation of the concept freedom, as if it were an opportunity, that is, bridgehead, springboard, pretext, or incentive (II Cor. 5:12; 11:12; I Tim. 5:14) for sinful human nature to assert itself. Paul is not tilting at windmills when he issues this warning. Cf. Rom. 3:8; 6:1; Rasputin (cf. R. K. Massie, Nicholas and Alexandra, New York, 1967, p. 196). Turning liberty into license is an evil ingrained in sinful human nature. It is so easy to interpret liberty as the right to sin, and to construe freedom as the privilege to do whatever one's evil heart wants to do, instead of looking upon it as the Spirit-imparted ability and desire to do what one should do. Even today how often does it not happen that such baneful practices as attending places of worldly amusement, chain-smoking, boozing, desecrating the sabbath, and reading smutty novels are defended with an appeal to Christian liberty! The apostle's own inspired interpretation of the meaning of true liberty is set forth both here in Galatians and in equally touching passages of his first epistle to the Corinthians: see especially 6:12; 8:9, 13; 9:12, 19, 22; 10:23, 24, 31; 11:1. Surely no loftier description of the essence of true freedom has ever been offered than the one given in the words: but through love be serving one another. For the concept love see the explanation of verse 6, where Paul speaks about faith working through love. Here in verse 13 note the paradox: freedom &serving. A paradox, indeed, but not a self-contradiction, for such service is voluntary, from the heart. It is a service rendered in imitation of him who took the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7), and who, during the solemn night when he stepped upon the threshold of his most profound and indescribable agony, rose from the supper, laid aside his garments, and having taken a towel, tied it around his waist, poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples feet and to dry them with the towel (John 13:4, 5). He was the thoroughly consecrated, wise and willing servant pictured by Isaiah (42:1–9; 49:1 9a; 50:4–11; and 52:13 53:12), the spontaneously acting servant who resolutely fulfilled his mission, so that with reference to him Jehovah said: Behold, my servant, whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delights. It is such service that Paul has in mind when he says: &through love be serving one another. ^[155] And what is meant by this love by means of which one brother voluntarily serves the other? Such ingredients as deep affection, self-sacrificing tenderness, genuine sympathy, readiness to render assistance, yearning to promote the brother's (and in a wider sense the neighbor's) welfare, spontaneous giving and forgiving: all these enter into it. But would it not be easier to count the glistening beads in the descending chains of rain than to catalogue all the elements that enter into that mysterious force which causes many hearts to beat as one?^[156] When Paul warns the Galatians not to turn freedom into an opportunity for the flesh but through love to be serving one another, he is placing service over against selfishness, the positive over against the negative. Paul does this frequently: see (Rom. 12:21; 13:14; I Cor. 6:18–20; Eph. 4:28, 31, 32; 5:28, 29; 6:4; Col. 3:5–17; I Thess. 4:7, etc. Vice can only be conquered by virtue, which is the Spirit's gift, man's responsibility. Continued: 14. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, namely, in this: You must love your neighbor as yourself. Paul quotes Lev. 19:18. One can also say that he is quoting the words of JesusMatt. 22:39, 40; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; cf. Matt. 7:12; 19:19; Rom. 13:8–10; and I Cor. 13). Love, then, is both the summary (interpretive epitome or condensation) and the realization in practice of the entire God-given moral law, viewed as a unit. True, in harmony with the immediately preceding context, the apostle here refers specifically to the second, not to the first, table of the law, but that first table is in the background, for the two are inseparable (I John 4:20, 21). Paul's teaching throughout is that though it would be a gross error to say that the sinner must love God and his neighbor in order to be saved, it is entirely true that the saint, saved by grace, out of gratitude for (and by dint of) this salvation loves God and his neighbor. Though love and the deeds which it produces must not be considered preconditions of salvation, they are, nevertheless, very important, namely, as fruits of the work of the Holy Spirit in man's heart. Once this is understood it becomes clear that Paul is entirely consistent when, on the one hand, he maintains that believers are not under law, yet, on the other hand, emphasizes that they are under law to Christ (I Cor. 9:21; and see on Gal. 6:2). It has been maintained that the rule here quoted differs in no respect from that of the non-Christian moralist. The resemblance, however, is only superficial. The believer's incentive to obey this summarizing command is gratitude for the redemption accomplished by Christ; the strength to observe it is furnished by the Spirit of ChristGal. 5:1, 13, 25; cf. Eph. 3:16, 17; 4:20ff.; 5:1ff. ; and it was also Christ who himself supplied the example of obedience (John 13:34). When the question is asked, But who is my neighbor? (Luke 10:29), the answer is: anyone with whom, in God's providence, we come into contact; anyone whom we can assist in any way, even though he hates us and in that sense is our enemy (Matt. 5:43–48). Here, too, Christ himself has given us the supreme example (Luke 23:34; cf. I Peter 2:21–24). The parable of The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25 37) proves, moreover, that, instead of asking, But who is my neighbor? each person should prove himself a neighbor to the one whom he is able to benefit in any way. Continued: 15. But if you bite and devour one another, watch out lest you be consumed by one another. The attitude toward one another that is described and condemned in this passage is the very opposite of the one that was urged upon the addressed in verses 13 and 14. Here, in verse 15, people church-members at that! are pictured in the act of rushing at each other like wild beasts. By means of an ascending series of gruesome acts their violence and its threatening woeful result is pictured: they bite each other, gulp each other down, and, if they persist, will in the end be totally consumed by one another. They obey the dictates of their old self, and resemble nature raw in tooth and claw. Robertson reminds us of the story of two snakes that grabbed each other by the tail and each swallowed the other. (Word Pictures, Vol. IV, p. 311). And Cole refers to the two Kilkenny cats of Cromwellian times who fought so furiously that not a scrap of fur remained of either (The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, in The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p. 158). One might expect such acts of terror and violence from the enemies of God's people in their onslaught upon the righteous (Ps. 35:25; 79:2, 7; 80:13; 124:3), but surely those who style themselves believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and members of the one holy universal church cannot be accused of such behavior? The question arises, therefore, Just what does Paul have in mind? Is he merely warning the Galatians against certain sins which they might be considering, without in any way implying that such evils as biting and devouring already existed in their midst? Or, on the other hand, has he received information regarding actual conditions of dissension and strife, and is he now warning the churches as to what will be the inevitable result of the continuation of such discord and contention? Some commentators favor the first,^[157] some the second^[158] alternative. I side with the latter. My reason is as follows. It is clear from the entire epistle especially from 1:1 5:12 that a considerable segment of the membership here addressed was in the process of yielding to the wishes of the Judaizers. Also, it is equally obvious (see 5:19, 21) that there were others who leaned in the exactly opposite direction, and were abusing the doctrine of grace, as if it implied a license to sin. Paul surely must have had a reason to dwell in such detail on the vices enumerated in the verses that follow. And finally, does not the fact that he knew so much about the conditions that prevailed in these churches indicate that he must have had close friends there, who shared his views, were infected neither with legalism nor with libertinism, and were his informers? Does it not seem reasonable, therefore, to believe that, at least to some extent, there were parties or factions in these churches? Besides, as Ramsay points out, older rivalries, as between person and person, town and town, race and race, etc., may not have been completely and immediately eliminated with the coming of Christianity to these parts. Of course, it is not necessary or even reasonable to suppose that all the Galatians were engaged in internecine strife. If we accept the theory that at least some of the addressed were thus engaged, and that Paul writes as he does not only to prevent these quarrels from becoming more extensive and/or intensive, but also to put an end to them completely by urging the contending parties to adopt the more excellent way of love, have we not done justice to the meaning of his words? At any rate, the apostle shows how distressing, how mad it is that we, who are members of the same body, should be leagued together, of our own accord, for mutual destruction (Calvin). What, then, is the remedy for this evil? Paul mentions it in these words: 16. But I say, walk by the Spirit,^[159] and you will definitely not fulfil the desire of the flesh.^[160] Let your conduct be governed by the Spirit, that is, by God's gift imparted to you (3:2, 5). If you follow his directions and promptings you will not be dominated by your human nature regarded as the seat and vehicle of sinful desire (as in 5:13), but instead will conquer it. It takes the tender leaves of early springtime to rid the oak tree of the remnants of last autumn's withered foliage. It is only the living that can expel the dead. It is only the good that can push out the bad. See also on verse 13 above. Verse 16 clearly implies that there is a conflict between the Spirit and the flesh, therefore also between the believer's new, Spirit-indwelt, nature and his old, sinful, self. Hence, Paul continues: 17. for the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: for these are opposed to each other.& True, as long as one allows himself to be led by the Spirit he will definitely not fulfil the desire of the flesh, but how often does it not happen that the person in question does not allow the Spirit to be his Leader? And so, because the Spirit persists, a fierce conflict takes place inside the believer's heart. The antagonists are: the Spirit hence also the Spirit-indwelt new nature, on the one side; and on the other side: the flesh, that is, the old man of sin and corruption (Rom. 7:25; 8:4–9, 12, 13). In connection with this contest, note the following: (1) The libertine experiences no such struggle at all, for he follows his natural inclinations. (2) The legalist, who is destined for grace and glory, having been reminded of his sinfulness by the law but for a while unwilling to accept grace, struggles and struggles but without achieving victory or experiencing the sense of certain, ultimate triumph. This condition lasts until grace finally breaks down all the barriers of oppositionPhil. 3:7ff. . (3) The believer, while still on earth, experiences an agonizing conflict in his own heart, but in principle, has already gained the victory, as the very presence of the Holy Spirit in his heart testifies. In full measure this victory will be his portion in the hereafter; hence, (4) For the redeemed-soul in glory the battle is over. He wears the victor's wreath. As to (3), therefore, the very wording of the text note: sets its desire against and are opposed to each other indicates the intensity of the lifelong tug of war. This shows that the Christian life means far more than stepping forward to register one's decision at a great revival meeting, after listening to a powerful, evangelical, and heart-warming message, and while one is under the influence of the singing of old familiar hymns by a massive choir. When, under such circumstances, the sudden change is genuine, it is wonderful, but it must be borne in mind that as a rule a sinner is not wholly saved all at once. He does not leap into heaven in one prodigious bound. On the contrary, he has to work out his own salvation (Phil. 2:12). This takes time, struggle, intense effort and exertion. He is his own most powerful enemy, as Paul proves by continuing: so that these very things which you may wish to be doing, these you are not doing. What a battle between the will and the deed! Paul, writing as a converted man (Rom. 7:14–25) and recording his present, state of grace experiences (Rom. 7:22, 25), complains bitterly about the fact that he practices that in which his soul no longer takes delight; in fact, practices that which his regenerated self hates (Rom. 7:15). He cries out, Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me out of the body of this death? (Rom. 7:24). Nevertheless, he is also fully aware of the fact that in the struggle between his own flesh and God's Spirit, the latter's victory hence also Paul's is certain; in fact, in principle is a fact even now. Would there have been this genuine, God-centered sorrow for sin, had not Paul been a truly converted man? Of course not! This very conflict, therefore, is a charter of the apostle's salvation. We are not surprised, therefore, that the exclamation Wretched man! &Who will deliver me? is followed by I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.& There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 7:25; 8:1; cf. I Cor. 15:57). Similarly here in Galatians the thought of victory through the Spirit is basic to the understanding of verse 18. But if you are being led by the Spirit you are not under law.^[161] Being under law spells defeat, bondage, the curse, spiritual impotence, for the law cannot save (Gal. 3:11–13, 21 23, 25; 4:3, 24, 25; 5:1). It takes the Spirit to set one free (II Cor. 3:17). Being Led by the Spirit (1). Whom It Concerns According to a rather popular view spiritual leading is the Spirit's gift to the select few, the holiest men, the flower of the flock. It is imparted to them to protect them from physical harm, especially while traveling, to deliver them from dangerous situations, and sometimes even to insure them success in their business enterprises. However, when, with Gal. 5:18as our starting-point, we trace back the line of Paul's thinking, it becomes evident that this limitation of spiritual leading to a group of super-saints is completely foreign to his mind. Those who are being led by the Spirit (5:18) are the same as those who walk by the Spirit (5:16), and vice versa. Going back a little farther, we notice that these, in turn, are the ones who have been set free (5:1; 4:31, 26), who belong to Christ (3:29), and are of faith (3:9). All true believers, therefore, are being led by the Spirit. Moreover, the powerful influence that is being exercised upon and within them by the Spirit is not of a sporadic character, being, as it were, injected into their lives now and then in moments of great need or danger. On the contrary, it is steady, constant, as even the tense here in Gal. 5:18implies: they are being led by the Spirit. Even when they disobey the Spirit and they certainly do, as has just been set forth (verses 13 17) the Spirit does not leave them alone but works repentance within their hearts. This representation is in keeping with the only other truly parallel passage in Paul's epistles, namely, Rom. 8:14: For as many as are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. Here, too, being led by the Spirit is set forth as the indispensable characteristic of God's children. If a person is a child of God he is being led by the Spirit. If he is being led by the Spirit he is a child of God. (2). What It Is Before giving a positive answer to this question it may be well to point out what is not meant by being led by the Spirit. Naturally, it cannot refer to being governed by one's own sinful impulses and inclinations, nor to being easily led into waywardness by evil companions. Also definitely excluded here is the idea of those moral philosophers, ancient and modern, who hold that in every man there is a higher and a lower nature, and that each human being has within himself the power of causing the former to triumph over the latter. This idea is excluded even if for no other reason than this, that throughout, in Paul's teaching, the Holy Spirit is a distinct person, of one substance with the Father and the Son. He is not our other or better self. See Rom. 8:26, 27; I Cor. 2:10; II Cor. 13:14. This also shows that, strictly speaking, being led by the Spirit cannot even be identified with the triumph of the new man (the regenerated nature) within us over the old man (our corrupt nature, not yet fully destroyed). That victory and that implied struggle are certainly very real; yet they are not in and by themselves what is meant by being led by the Spirit, but are rather the result of the Spirit's active indwelling. They are certainly implied, but are not basic. What then does the leading of the Spirit to change from the passive to the active voice, for the sake of the definition actually mean? It means sanctification. It is that constant, effective, and beneficent influence which the Holy Spirit exercises within the hearts of God's children whereby they are being directed and enabled more and more to crush the power of indwelling sin and to walk in the way of God's commandments, freely and cheerfully. By so defining it extremes are avoided. Thus, on the one hand, to be led by the Spirit means more than to be guided by him, though, to be sure, the Spirit is also our Guide (John 16:13; cf. Matt. 15:14; Luke 6:39; Acts 8:31; Rev. 7:17). But the very fact that, according to the passage now under consideration (Gal. 5:18), the enslaving power of the law has been broken for all those who are being led by the Spirit, indicates that this leadership which the Spirit provides implies more than pointing out the right way. It reminds us not so much of the Indian guide who pointed out to the pioneer white explorers the pass through the Rockies, as of the blind man of Jericho who was led to Jesus (Luke 18:40; cf. Matt. 21:2; Luke 10:34; John 18:28; Acts 6:12; 9:2). Merely pointing out the way to him would not have helped him. When the Holy Spirit leads believers he becomes the controlling influence in their lives, bringing them at last to glory. On the other hand, however, this representation also steers clear of the opposite extreme, that of denying human responsibility and activity. The blind man of Jericho was not carried or borne (II Peter 1:21) to Jesus, but did his own walking. Warfield has said very aptly: It is his [the Holy Spirit's] part to keep us in the path and to bring us at length to the goal. But it is we who tread every step of the way; our limbs that grow weary with the labor; our hearts that faint, our courage that fails our faith that revives our sinking strength, our hope that instills new courage into our souls as we toil over the steep ascent (The Power of God unto Salvation, p. 172). Being led by the Holy Spirit, to be fully effective, implies that one allows himself to be led. As to the interrelation of these two factors the believers self-activity and God's (the Holy Spirit's) leading, Paul's own Spirit-inspired statement cannot be improved upon: With fear and trembling continue to work out your own salvation; for it is God who is working in you both to will and to work for his good pleasurePhil. 2:12, 13; and see N.T.C. on that passage . (3). Its Blessed Results a. Those who are being led by the Spirit breathe the exhilarating and invigorating air of moral and spiritual freedom. Being no longer under law's bondage, they obey God's precepts with gladness of heart (Gal. 5:1, 18). b. They detest and vigorously oppose the works of the flesh (5:17, 19 21, 24). c. They love the Word (whose very Author is the Spirit) and the Triune God revealed therein in all his marvelous attributes (Rom. 7:22; cf. Ps. 119; John 16:14). d. The fruit of the Spirit abounds in their lives (Gal. 5:22, 23; 6:2, 8 10). e. This enhances their freedom of access in approaching the throne of grace (Eph. 2:18; cf. Rom. 5:1, 2; Heb. 4:14–16). f. It also goes hand in hand with the testimony of the Spirit in their hearts, assuring them that they are children of God (II Peter 1:5–11; cf. Rom. 8:16). g. Finally, it (the fruit of the Spirit abounding in their lives) greatly strengthens their testimony to the world, all this to the glory of God Triune (Acts 1:8; cf. John 15:26, 27). 19 21. The various ways in which the desire of the flesh (verse 17) manifests itself are now set forth. With the majority of commentators I hold that the apostle mentions the particular vices in the list that follows because they needed to be mentioned. In other words, the Galatians had not as yet gained a complete victory over these evils, though here as always the degree of success must have varied with the individual. The list which follows may be compared with similar ones in Paul's other epistles (Rom. 1:18–32; 13:13; I Cor. 5:9–11; 6:9, 10; II Cor. 12:20, 21; Eph. 4:19; 5:3–5; Col. 3:5–9; I Thess. 2:3; 4:3–7; I Tim. 1:9, 10; 6:4, 5; II Tim. 3:2–5; and Titus 3:3, 9, 10). Striking, for example, is the similarity (note, however, also the differences) between Gal. 5:19, 20and II Cor. 12:20, 21. Whether there were factors other than identity of authorship (for example, already existing lists) that account for this and similar resemblances is difficult to ascertain. Paul writes: Now obvious hence undeniable, self-evident as vices are the works of the flesh, which are: immorality, impurity, indecency, idolatry, sorcery,^[162] quarrels, wrangling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, party intrigues, envyings, drinking bouts, revelries, and the like.& There are fifteen items in the list. In content there is, of course, considerable overlapping. Thus, while each of the three vices immorality, impurity, and indecency, has a distinct meaning, yet the three have something in common, namely, departure from the will of God in the matter of sex. And so it is also with the other items in the list. The first three vices, accordingly, are in the realm of sex. The next two pertain to false gods. There follow eight that have to do with strife. The last two indicate abuses in the sphere of drink. Or, dropping these monosyllables, the fifteen items can be grouped as follows: Immorality and kindred evils; hence, immorality, impurity, indecency Idolatry and the sin associated with it; hence, idolatry, sorcery Rivalry: quarrels, wrangling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, party intrigues, envyings Inebriety: drinking bouts, revelries. First on the list, then, is immorality, a term which in Paul's writings is used also in (I Cor. 5:1; 6:13, 18; 7:2; II Cor. 12:21; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; and I Thess. 4:3. It refers basically to unlawful sexual intercourse. It probably includes illicit, clandestine relationships of every description. Evil in the sexual realm was, and is today, a characteristic feature of life apart from Christ. In paganism it is often closely associated with idolatry. That even among those who had turned to Christ it was not unheard of is clear from I Cor. 5:1ff. Closely associated with immorality, impurityII Cor. 12:21; Eph. 4:19; 5:3; Col. 3:5; I Thess. 2:3; 4:7) is mentioned next. It is a very comprehensive concept, and includes not only uncleanness in deeds but also in words, thoughts, and desires of the heart. Indecency or licentiousness (Rom. 13:13; II Cor. 12:21; Eph. 4:19) emphasizes the lack of self-control that characterizes the person who gives free play to the impulses of his sinful nature. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER VI Chapter 6 Verses 1 10 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors III. Its Application: it produces true liberty. Let the Galatians stand firm, therefore, as does Paul, who glories in the cross of Christ E. Restore the fallen in a spirit of gentleness. Bear one another's burdens. Share all good things with your instructor. Bear in mind that a man will reap what he sows. Let us do good to everybody, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith. 6:1–10 E. Show this love to all 6 1 Brothers, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore such a person in a spirit of gentleness, constantly looking yourself, lest also you be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone imagines that he amounts to something, while he amounts to nothing, he is deluding himself. 4 But let each one test his own work: then his reason to boast will be in himself alone, and not in (comparing himself with) someone else; 5 for each person will have to bear his own load. 6 Let him who receives instruction in the Word share all good things with his instructor. 7 Do not be deceived; God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that also will he reap; 8 for he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, and he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9 And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap if we do not give up. 10 So then, as we have opportunity let us do good to everybody, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith. Over against rudeness (5:26) the apostle places gentleness. He says: 1. Brothers, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore such a person in a spirit of gentleness.& Here, let us say, is a person who, without deliberately planning to perform a wicked deed or to embark upon a devious course, is overtaken in a trespass. [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 ([Greek] Before he even realizes to the full extent the ethically reprehensible or injurious nature of the act he has already committed it, He was overtaken. The question then arises, How must such a case be handled? The answer is that those members of the churches who are more consistent in following the promptings of the Spirit (5:16, 18, 25) should, in the spirit of gentleness or meekness(cf. 5:23), restore the one who committed the trespass. This word restoremeans to mend,to bring something or someone back to its or his former position of wholeness or soundness. Thus, it is used with respect to mending netsMatt. 4:21; Mark 1:19), and perfecting human characterII Cor. 13:11: Be perfected . Cf. (Luke 6:40; I Thess. 3:10. The main idea certainly is this: Follow a positive, not a negative course with respect to the trespasser. Do not hurt him but help him. Treat him as you yourselves would wish to be treated if you were in his place. Continued: constantly looking to yourselfnote change from plural to singular lest also you be tempted.Rudeness or boastfulness ill befits the person who at any moment may himself also be tempted. Instead of being self-righteous and arrogant let each one offer the prayers suggested in such passages as Matt. 6:14; 26:41; Mark 14:38; Luke 22:40. The man who thinks that he is standing erect should all the more take heed to himself lest he fallI Cor. 10:12, 13). Note how Paul himself practices what he preaches. Was it not true that many Galatians had erred, not mildly but grievously? Nevertheless, though he did not spare them (1:6; 3:1 ff.; 4:11; 5:7), did he not treat them gently, tenderly (4:12 ff., 19, 20)? For the endearing word of address Brothers, with which this chapter opens, see on 6:18. Entirely in line with the preceding verse is verse 2. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.This does not merely mean Tolerate each other, or Put up with each other. It means: Jointly shoulder each members burdens. Every body should put his shoulder under the burdens under which this or that individual member is groaning, whatever these burdens may be. They must be [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] jointly. Though the term one another's burdens is very general, and applies to every type of oppressing affliction that is capable of being shared by the brotherhood, it should be borne in mind, nevertheless, that the point of departure for this exhortation (see on 6:1) is the duty to extend help to the brother so that he may overcome his spiritual [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 ([Greek] Continued: and so fulfil the law of Christ.This law of Christ is the principle of love for one another laid down by ChristJohn 13:34; see also on Gal. 5:14; cf. James 2:8). However, Christ not only promulgated this law; he also exemplified it. Note how tenderly he dealt with: the sinful woman (Luke 7:36 50), the pentitent thief (Luke 23:43), Simon Peter (Luke 22:61; cf. John 21:15 17), an invalid (John 5:14), and the woman taken in adultery (John 8:11). And note also the marvelously generous reception which, according to Christ's (Parable of the Prodigal Son(commonly so described), is accorded to the returning penitent. Paul constantly holds before us the exampleof ChristRom. 15:3–8; II Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5–8), as well as Christ's precept. What follows stands in very close connection with the thought of verses 1 and 2. The connection with verse 1 might be stated as follows: Constantly look to yourself, lest you also be tempted &for if anyone imagines that he amounts to something.& And with verse 2, thus: Bear one another's burdens for no one can stand by himself alone &for if anyone imagines that he amounts to something, &Accordingly, the apostle writes: (3. For if anyone imagines that he amounts to something, while he amounts to nothing, he is deluding himself.What makes us tender and generous, meek and humble, sympathetic and helpful, toward others is the realization that we ourselves amount to so little. This does not mean that anyone should lose courage, thinking, I amount to nothing, and am completely unfit to perform any kingdom work. On the contrary, Paul says, I can do all things through him that infuses strength into me (4:13). Morbid self-contempt is unfair to the Giver of all good gifts. Paul would have none of this. He recognizes that when the Holy Spirit distributed his gifts he (Paul) had not been passed by. Accordingly, he calls himself a wise master-builderI Cor. 3:10), and a steward of the mysteries of God (I Cor. 4:1; cf. 9:17). He ranks himself higher than ten thousand tutors (I Cor. 4:15). He knows that he is able to speak with tongues more than you all (I Cor. 14:18). He is convinced that as an apostle he has labored more abundantly than anyone else (I Cor. 15:10). See also (II Cor. 11:22–33; Gal. 1:1, 14; and Phil. 3:4–6. But he ascribes all of these gifts to the GiverRom. 12:3; Gal. 6:14), and never claims personal credit for any virtue or talent (Rom. 7:24, 25; I Cor. 4:7). Besides, it should be borne in mind that Paul does not say, For if anyone imagines that he amounts to something he is deluding himself. He says, For if anyone imagines that he amounts to something, (while he amounts to nothing,he is deluding himself. Paul is attacking the spirit of overconfidence in oneself. It was this error that caused Peter to deny his LordMatt. 26:33, 35; Mark 14:29, 31; Luke 22:33; John 13:37), and that denied the blessing to the Pharisee (Luke 18:9 14), just as much earlier it had brought about the discomfiture of Goliath (I Sam. 17:42–44), of BenhadadI Kings 20:1ff. , of Edom (Obad. 1 4), and of NebuchadnezzarDan. 4:30; cf. Isa. 14:12ff. . See also Rev. 3:17; 18:7. Instead, therefore, of looking down upon the rest of the members, each member should examine himself. Says Paul: 4. But let each one [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] his own work; then his reason to boast will be in himself alone, and not in (comparing himself with) someone else.He who mirrors himself in the mirror of another Person's conduct mirrors himself gently. [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] He should mirror himself in the mirror of God's law and of Christ's example. If, after doing this, there is still room for making any claims as there may be, [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 ([Greek] then the possibilities of glorying will have arisen from himself, that is, from that which God has accomplished in his heart, not from comparing himself within someone else. The man who is constantly comparing himself with others is senselessII Cor. 10:12). He that boasts, let him boast in the Lord (II Cor. 10:17; cf. I Cor. 9:16; 10:31). The folly of trying to derive comfort for oneself by comparing oneself with someone else is obvious, 5. for each person will have to bear his own [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 ([Greek] Responsibility cannot be transferred. Each man will be judged in accordance with his own deedsJer. 17:10; 32:19; Ezek. 18:20; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 2:23; 20:13). Works do not save anyone. That truth has been emphasized over and over again in this epistle. Nevertheless, the reward will be measured out in harmony with each man's works. These works will show the degree in which each man has been true to his trust, the extent to which grace has been operative in his life. Burdensshould be carried jointly, but the load of responsibilitydiffers for each individual, and in the Judgment Day the manner in which brother Ahas assumed his responsibility will not make things easier or harder for brother B. The latter, too, will have to carry his own load. At first glance it might well seem as if there is no connection between verses 1 5, on the one hand, and what now follows in verse 6. This may, in fact, be the case. It is entirely possible that Paul, realizing that what he mainly wanted to say has been said, asks himself, Are there any other matters on which I must briefly comment before dispatching the letter? And it is possible that it then occurred to him under the direction of the Spirit that there was, indeed, one rather important matter, namely, that pertaining to providing materially for those in need, including those who had been entrusted with the oversight of the various flocks. Nevertheless, there may, after all, have been a closer connection between verses 1 5, on the one hand, and verse 6 ff., on the other. Ministers who are serving large congregations or have done so at one time or another, will probably sense the possibility of this connection at once. Paul has been speaking about restoring the erring brother. One should not immediately draw the conclusion that this weakling has deliberately cast aside the truth. He may have been caught in a trap. Before he knew it, he had allowed himself to be deceived. Or, theoretically he may have stood for the truth, but in defending it he completely lost his temper. In any event, as was pointed out previously, the party-spirit had left its mark upon these churches. Much work had to be done, and it had to be done firmly, yet lovingly, tactfully. And in this connection a disproportionate burden would rest on the leaders, particularly on those who gave instruction in the Word. We can well imagine that in these early days of the establishment of the church and of its growth in the midst of much opposition both from within and from without, it must have seemed almost impossible, at times, for a church-leader to earn his living and, in addition, to perform all of his spiritual functions. Could this possibly be the reason why the apostle now adds: (6. Let him who receives instructionliterally, the catechumen, a word that is still being used in religious circles in the Word share all good things with his instructor,that is, with the catechist?It is worthy of note that even at this very early date there was in existence something similar to today's official Christian ministry. Cf. I Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11. In a letter that was probably written very shortly afterward the apostle says, Now we request you, brothers, to appreciate those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their workI Thess. 5:12, 13). Paul was a great organizer (Acts 20:17; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:5). Even during his first missionary journey he was already appointing elders in every church (Acts 14:23). That among the several duties of these elders there was also that of imparting instruction is understandable. Just how long it took the church to divide the work of the elders between those who governed but did not specialize in imparting instruction, on the one hand, and those, on the other hand, who in addition to governing also specialized in catechizing, we do not know. It may not have taken very long. In any event the Galatians must bear in mind that there is such a thing as the principle of reciprocity (Rom. 15:27; I Cor. 9:4–14; II Cor. 8:7–9, 14; I Tim. 5:8). Hence, those who receive instruction in the Word should (shareRom. 15:26; II Cor. 9:13; and Heb. 13:16) all good things including material things with their instructor. Paul had laid the foundation. He asks nothing for himself. He does, however, definitely urge the Galatians to provide adequately for those who are building on the foundation that had been [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] With respect not only to what he has just said with reference to attending to the needs of the ministers but also to all the admonitions contained in this letter, the apostle summarizes as follows: 7. Do not be deceived; God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that also will he reap.& This rule holds not only for church-members; it holds for everybody. God is not mocked. He does not permit anyone to make light of his gospel or of the exhortations that are implied in it. To sneer at him, thinking, God is dead, will not go unnoticed. On the contrary, every person will be rewarded according to his works (see on verse 5). This also means, of course, that the manner in which anyone reacts toward the present letter, in which the doctrine of justification by faith apart from law-works is defended against its detractors (be they legalists or libertines), does not escape Gods notice, and will definitely be taken into account. Continued: 8. for he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, and he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap life everlasting.Sowing to the fleshmeans to allow the old nature to have its way. So also, sowing to the Spiritmeans to allow the Holy Spirit to have his way. The one who does the latter is walking by the Spirit (5:16), and is being led by the Spirit (5:18). What happens to these contrasted representative individuals? Already in this life, but especially in and after the resurrection at the last day, he who has been sowing to please his flesh will from the harvest-field of the flesh reap destruction, decay. On the other hand, he who has been sowing to please the Spirit will from the harvest-field of the Spirit reap life everlasting. The two terms corruption and life everlasting must be understood in a double sense: quantitative and qualitative. With respect to the former, the two are alike: both last on and on and on. Corruption, for example, far from amounting to annihilation, indicates everlasting destruction (II Thess. 1:9). Life everlasting (occurring frequently in the Gospels, especially in the Gospel according to John 3:16, etc.; further also in (Acts 13:46, 48; Rom. 2:7; 5:21; 6:22, 23; I Tim. 1:16; 6:12; Titus 1:2; 3:7; frequently also in I John 3:15, etc.; Jude 21) is equal in durationMatt. 25:46). Qualitatively, and this with reference to both body and soul, the two corruption and life everlasting form a striking contrast. Those who have sown to the flesh will awaken unto shame and everlasting contempt (Dan. 12:2). Their worm will not die, neither will their fire be quenched (Mark 9:48). Their dwelling-place will be outside the banquet-hall (Matt. 8:11, 12; 22:13; 25:10–13). On the other hand, those who have sown to the Spirit will then shine as the brightness of the firmament and as the stars forever and ever (Dan. 12:3). They will bear the image of the heavenly (I Cor. 15:49), and physically will be conformed to the body of Christ's glory (Phil. 3:21). They will be like Christ, for they will see him even as he Isaiah (I John 3:2). For the qualitative content of the term life everlasting see also on Gal. 3:11; cf. -2 _ftnref9 N.T.C.on John 3:16. 9.The idea of reaping(verses 7 and 8) is continued in this verse, now with emphasis on the perseverance in well-doing that is required of believers if they are going to reap the blessings of life everlasting. There would also seem to be a connection between verse 9 and the matter mentioned in verse 6. Moreover, with respect to well-doing the connection between verses 9 and 10 is obvious. Says Paul: And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap if we do not give up.Well-doing literally, doing that which is beautifulis a very broad concept, as comprehensive as is walking by the Spirit and being led by the Spirit. See also Rom. 7:21; II Cor. 13:7; and II Thess. 3:13. In each of these passages the meaning is general; that is, the term well-doing is not limited to giving to the poor. This having been admitted, it should now also be affirmed that the idea of providing for the needy(in any sense) is certainly not excluded. Is not this work of charity and of giving spiritual guidance an essential ingredient of well-doing? In fact, it is entirely possible that in the present context Paul was thinking especially of helping anyone who is in need, whether it be of things physical: food, clothing, shelterGal. 2:10; II Cor. 16:1 ; things spiritual: instruction, encouragement, advice, etc.; or both. The admonition contained in this verse may well be viewed as a commentary on verse 2: Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. When the apostle says, Let us not (grow wearyLuke 18:1; II Thess. 3:13) in well-doing, he is pointing his finger at a well-known weakness of human nature (see 5:7). Well-doing requires (continuedeffort, constanttoil; but human nature, being fond of ease, lacks staying-power, is easily discouraged. This is especially true when results are not always apparent at once, when those who should help refuse to co-operate, and when no reward seems ever to be coming our way. It is entirely possible that it was especially this last thought namely, the apparent delay with respect to the fulfilment of the promise regarding Christ's return to reward his servants that troubled the Galatians. So the apostle reminds them of the fact that we shall reap in due season, that is, at the moment of time that is exactly right, not, however, as determined by us but as fixed in God's eternal plan. It is then that the reward of grace not of merit! will be conferred. We shall receive it if we do not lose heart and give upHeb. 12:3, 5). Continued: 10. So then, as we [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] opportunity, let us do good to everybody.& Here again the negative Do not grow weary, Do not give up is followed by the positive, Let us do good. Perseverance in good works as a product of grace is what Paul is constantly urging (3:3; 5:7, 18, 25; 6:2). God preserves his people by means of their perseverance. The power to persevere is from him; the responsibility is theirs. Accordingly, as long as and since we have opportunity, let us at each and every occasion that presents itself do good to everybody. The believer has been placed on this earth for a purpose. The best way to prepare for Christ's second coming is to use to the full every opportunity of rendering service. Moreover, this service should be rendered to everybody regardless of race, nationality, class, religion, sex, or anything else. As our lord's active love overleaped boundaries (Luke 9:54, 55; 10:25–37; 17:11–19; John 4:42; I Tim. 4:10), so should ours. This, however, does not mean that there is no sphere of special concern. This is altogether to be expected. Parents, for example, have a duty toward their neighbors. Nevertheless, their first obligation is toward their own children. So also here. Paul says: (and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.In this respect, too, we should imitate our heavenly Father, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. For explanation see N.T.C. on I Tim. 4:10. Note the term, full of comfort, the household of the faith. All believers constitute one family, the Father's FamilyEph. 3:14, 15). See also I Cor. 3:9; Eph. 2:19; I Tim. 3:15; and let us not forget Ps. 133. By the term the household of the faith is meant those who share the gospel. With respect to material aid, is it not altogether probable that it was exactly this household of the faith that was most direly in need of such assistance? Chapter 6 Verses 11 18 Theme: The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors III. Its Application: it produces true liberty. Let the Galatians stand firm, therefore, as does Paul, who glories in the cross of Christ F. The Letter's End: Paul's huge letters. Final warning against the disturbers and exposure of their motives: ease, honor. Concluding testimony: Far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Last plea: From now on let no one cause trouble for me, etc. Closing benediction. 6:11–18 F. Conclusion 11 Look with what huge letters I am writing to you with my own hand. 12 It is those who desire to make a fine outward impression that are trying to compel you to be circumcised, their sole purpose being that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 For even those who favor circumcision are not law-observers themselves, but want you to be circumcised that they may glory in your flesh. 14 As for myself, however, far be it for me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace (be) upon them and mercy, even upon the Israel of God. 17 From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I, on my part, bear on my body the marks of Jesus. 18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (be) with your spirit, brothers. Amen. Paul has arrived at the conclusion. This he introduces as follows: 11. Look with what huge letters I am [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] to you with my own hand.Another translation is: Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand -2 _ftnref12 (A.V.). The Greek allows either rendering. Galatians is, indeed, larger than any of eight other epistles that tradition ascribes to Paul. Only Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, and [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] are larger (the last one only slightly). So, especially if, of all Paul's letters that have been preserved, Galatians was the very first one he wrote, as we have assumed, he could perhaps have written, See what a big letter I wrote you. Nevertheless, today very few interpreters would adopt the translation found in A.V. The most valid reason for this rejection is probably this: whenever the apostle refers to a letter,in the sense of a communication in writing, as distinguished from a character of the alphabet, he always uses the word epistleRom. 16:22; I Cor. 5:9; II Cor. 7:8; Col. 4:16; I Thess. 5:27; etc. . That word is not found here in Gal. [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] Having then adopted the rendering, Look with what huge letters I am writing to you with my own hand, the next question would be, Does Paul say this with respect to the entire epistle or only in connection with the closing paragraph (verses 11 18)? Although there are those who have expressed very positively that the apostle wrote the entire Galatians with his own hand, I cannot go along with this conclusion. It would mean a departure, at the very outset, from what was going to be Paul's usual course, namely, to write (the closing greeting(and perhaps a few words in connection with it) with his own hand. Thus we read, The greetingby the hand of me, Paul, which is a token of genuineness in every epistle; so I writeII Thess. 3:17). Cf. I Cor. 16:21; Col. [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] This also indicates whythe closing words were written by the author himself. Besides, it may well be that especially in the case of Galatians there was still another reason, namely, to add emphasis to the concluding words. In reading verses 11 18 one seems to sense the author's special emphasis, as if he were saying, Let me summarize the entire argument, and let me give you one final, emphatic fatherly warning. This, therefore, may also account for the fact that these letters were huge, namely, for the sake of special emphasis. But there may have been other reasons for this. Here, however, we have already entered the realm of speculation; for example: a.Paul's eyesight was impaired; b.his writing hand was sore; c.he had never learned to write very well; etc. The next five verses contain a final warning against the Judaizers. Paul once again exposes their motives and in no uncertain terms blasts their compromising doctrine. In the course of doing this he comes up with one of his marvelous sayings, a profession of his personal faith. The warning begins as follows: (12. It is those who desire to make a fine outward impression that are trying to compel you to be circumcised, their sole purpose being that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.Whatever the apostle has said earlier about these opponents (see especially 1:7–9; 2:4, 5, 12; 3:1, 10; 4:17; 5:2–5, 7, 11, 12) is here brought to a head. In a few crisp phrases he makes clear that these Judaizers are not at all interested in the welfare of the Galatians. On the contrary, they are concerned only about themselves: their own honor, their own ease (freedom from persecution). They desire to make a good outward impression; literally: to present a pleasing front in flesh, that is, outwardly. They are eager to cut a respectable figure when they come face to face with other Jews, those who have not even nominally accepted Christ. By making so much of circumcision as if that were far more important than the cross of Christ they are trying to work their way back into the good graces of their relatives and former friends. They know very well that a Jew who departs from the Jewish traditions and accepts Christ wholeheartedly can expect nothing but bitter presecution: ostracism, threats, calumny, physical and mental torture, etc.Matt. 10:17; John 11:57; Acts 4:27, 28; 5:33; 13:45, 50; 14:2, 19; 21:27–36; II Cor. 11:24; Col. 1:24; I Thess. 2:14–16; II Tim. 3:10–12; Rev. 2:9). They are trying to escape all this, therefore, by means of effecting a compromise; something like: Salvation is achieved by means of faith in Jesus plus law-works, especially circumcision. Their hypocrisy and selfishness is evident: 13: For even those who favor [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 ([Greek] are not law-observers themselves, but want you to be circumcised that they may glory in your flesh.By all kinds of devious means and subterfuges these legalists tried to circumvent the law's real intention. The relation between the Judaizers and the Pharisees is clear from Acts 15:5. Jesus again and again characterized the Pharisees as being hypocritesMatt. 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29). He also called them serpents and offspring of vipers (Matt. 23:33), and declared that they made void the word of God by their tradition (Matt. 15:6). Relevant to the present context is also this saying of the Lord: They tie together heavy loads, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to raise a finger to lift them (Matt. 23:4). Paul therefore tells the Galatians: These hypocrites want you to be circumcised that they may glory in [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] flesh, that is, that your circumcised organ may provide them with a reason to boast. They would then be able to step up to their fellow-countrymen with an air of confidence, bragging, Just think of it, we persuaded so many Galatians to become circumcised! Over against this type of glorying Paul now sets his own: 14. As for myself, however, far be it for me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. The Cross: Paul's Only Reason for Glorying (1). Why Paul Glories Only in the Cross The cross is about the last thing which natural man would ever have selected as a reason for boasting. It was to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness (I Cor. 1:23). The cross exposes man's desperate state, his utter bankruptcy that made such suffering necessary. Accordingly, it reveals the folly of all human pride. It teaches man to say: I never knew myself as a sinner, nor recognized Christ as my Savior, Until upon the cross I saw My God, who died to meet the law That I had broken; then I saw My sin, and then my Savior. No one is ever able to see on that cross the wonder of God's glorious love unless he also sees his own unworthiness, and pours contempt on all his pride. By God's marvelous grace Paul had come to view that cross as: a. The M irror, (and this not only of his own unworthiness but also of God's resplendent attributes, that is, of such excellencies as God's righteousness which must receive its dueRom. 8:3, 4); God's power and wisdom (I Cor. 1:24); and his love, mercy, and grace (II Cor. 5:19–21; Gal. 2:20); all of these in sublime harmony with each other (Ps. 85:10). b. The M eans of Redemptionin its most comprehensive sense (Justification, Sanctification, Glorification). See such passages as Rom. 3:25, 26; 6:6; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 1:7; 2:16; Col. 1:20; 2:14. Cf. Heb. 9:22; Rev. 7:14. c. The M agnet (by means of which men of every tribe and nation, being drawn to Christ Crucified, are also drawn together as one bodyGal. 3:23–29; Eph. 2:16, 18; Col. 3:11. Cf. John 3:13, 14; 12:32). d. The M odel (for men to imitate. The redemptive acts can never be imitated, but the spirit of self-sacrifice and love that is revealed in these acts should be reflected in the hearts and lives of God's childrenRom. 15:1, 2; II Cor. 8:9; Eph. 5:1, 2; Phil. 2:5–8). Cf. John 13:14, 34; I Peter 2:21–24. Is it any wonder, then, that Paul glories only in the cross? (2). How Paul Glories in the Cross a. (By surrendering himself to Christ Crucified as his own Lord and SaviorGal. 2:20); b. (By praying that the power of the crucified and risen Savior may more and more assert itself in his own lifePhil. 3:7–16); c. (By proclaiming the crucified and risen Lord notice full title our Lord Jesus Christ wherever he is sentGal. 1:16), the love of Christ constraining him to do so (I Cor. 9:16; II Cor. 5:14); and d.By courageously defending the gospel of Christ Crucified over against every attack upon it (as is shown by this very epistle to the Galatians, in its entirety). (3). What Effect Paul's Glorying in the Cross Has upon the Relation between Paul and the World a.By this cross, says Paul, the world has been crucified to me. He does not say, I crucified the world, but the world has been crucified to me. In other words, he bears testimony to the fact that the Holy Spirit, by means of the pure doctrine of the cross, had wrought a mighty work in his soul. The world, that is, all those earthly pleasures and treasures, honors and values, that tend to draw the soul away from Christ, had lost their charm for Paul. The world had become dead to Paul.I am in complete agreement with Calvin when, in commenting on this expression, he states: This exactly agrees with the language which Paul employs on another occasion, and then refers to Phil. 3:7, 8: Nevertheless, such things as once were gains to me these have I counted loss for Christ. Yes, what is more, I certainly do count all things to be sheer loss because of the all-surpassing excellence of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I suffered the loss of all these things, and I am still counting them refuse, in order that I may gain Christ (my translation, not Calvin's). b. (Paul adds, and I (have been crucified) to the world. Logic would seem to demand that, as far as possible, the two statementsa.and b.) be interpreted, in such a manner that the words has or: have been crucified have the same meaning in both cases. Hence, this second clause must mean that Paul had become dead to the world,an object of contempt to all those who place their confidence in earthly pleasures and treasures, honors and values, that tend to draw the soul away from Christ. Duncan expresses it very aptly: Paul's ideals and outlook have now become so spiritual and unworldly that the world can ignore him, just as if he had ceased to be. Paul continues: (15. For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.The conjunction forindicates the relation between this and the preceding verse. It shows that what Paul means is this: salvation by means of the cross of Christ is everything to me; worldly inventions, on the contrary, such as salvation through circumcision, mean nothing, For (or: the reason being that) neither is circumcision anything.& The present passage (6:15) comes very close to saying what Paul had said before, namely, For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love (5:6). See the explanation of that passage. Cf. I Cor. 7:19; II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28; and Col. 3:10, 11. Being circumcised contributes nothing toward being saved, nor does notbeing circumcised; neither is it possible for either of these two states to assure us of salvation or to make us effective witnesses for God. The one and only thing that really matters is a new creation, that is, the new life, the life of regeneration, which the Holy Spirit brings about in a person's heartJohn 3:3, 5; Rom. 2:29). That creation is new, as contrasted with man's old, outworn nature. It is infinitely (betterthan the old. It is God swork, and is therefore what really counts. It is the product of him who says, Behold, I make all things newRev. 21:5). It has come (freshfrom the heart of God Almighty, and is a firm pledge of even greater glories to follow, as a result of histransforming power, For his handiwork are we, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in themEph. 2:10). Paul continues: 16. And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace (be) upon them and mercy, even upon the Israel of God.According to the preceding context, this [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 ([Greek] is the one by which before God only this is of consequence, that a person places his complete trust in Christ Crucified, and that, therefore, he regulates his life by this principle. This will mean that his life will be one of gratitude and Christian service out of love for his wonderful Savior. Upon those allthose and onlythose who are governed by this rule peace and mercyare pronounced. Peaceis the serenity of heart that is the portion of all those who have been justified by faithRom. 5:1). In the midst of the storms of life they are safe because they have found shelter in the cleft of the rock. In the day of wrath, wasteness, and desolation God hides all those who take refuge in him (Zeph. 1:2ff.; 2:3; 3:12). See on 1:3. Hence, peace is spiritual wholeness and prosperity. Peaceand mercyare inseparable. Had not the mercyof God been shown to his people they would not have enjoyed peace. God's mercy is his love directed toward sinners viewed in their wretchedness and need. See N.T.C. on Philippians, 142, for a list of over one hundred Old and New Testament passages in which this divine attribute is described. So far the interpretation runs smoothly. A difficulty arises because of the last phrase of this verse. That last phrase is: kaiupon the Israel of God. Now, varying with the specific context in which this conjunction kaioccurs, it can be rendered: and, and so, also, likewise, even, nevertheless, and yet, but,etc. Sometimes it is best left untranslated. Now when this conjunction is rendered and -2 _ftnref19 (A.R.V., ) -2 _ftnref20 (N.E.B.), it yields this result, that after having pronounced God's blessing upon all those who place their trust exclusively in Christ Crucified, the apostle pronounces an additional blessing upon the Israel of God, which is then interpreted to mean the Jews, or all such Jews as would in the future be converted to Christ, etc. Now this interpretation tends to make Paul contradict his whole line of reasoning in this epistle. Over against the Judaizers perversion of the gospel he has emphasized the fact that the blessing of Abraham now rests upon all those, and only upon those, who are of faith (3:9); that all those, and only those, who belong to Christ are heirs according to promise (3:29). These are the very people who walk by the Spirit (5:16), and are led by the Spirit (5:18). Moreover, to make his meaning very clear, the apostle has even called special attention to the fact that God bestows his blessings on all true believers, regardless of nationality, race, social position, or sex: There can be neither Jew nor Greek; there can be neither slave nor freeman; there can be no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (3:28). By means of an allegory (4:21–31) he has re-emphasized this truth. And would he now, at the very close of the letter, undo all this by first of all pronouncing a blessing on as many as who walk by the rule of glorying in the cross, be they Jew or Gentile by birth, and then pronouncing a blessing upon those who do not (or: do not yet) walk by that rule? I refuse to accept that explanation. Appeals to the well-known Eighteen petition prayer of the Jews, to the meaning of the word (Israelin other New Testament passages, etc., cannot rescue this interpretation. As to the former, Gal. 6:16must be interpreted in accordance with its own specific contextand in the light of the entire argument of this particular epistle. And as to the latter, it is very clear that in his epistles the apostle employs the term IsraelIn more than one sense. In fact, in the small compass of a single verseRom. 9:6) he uses it in two different senses. Each passage in which that term occurs must therefore be explained in the light of its [Greek] -2 _ftnref21 [Greek] Besides, Paul uses the term the Israel of God only in the present passage, nowhere else. What, then, is the solution? In harmony with all of Paul's teaching in this epistle (Eph. 2:14–22), and also in harmony with the broad, all-inclusive statement at the beginning of the present passage, where the apostle pronounces God's blessing of peace and mercy upon as many as shall walk by this rule, an object from which nothing can be subtracted and to which nothing can be added, it is my firm belief that those many translators and interpreters are right who have decided that kai, as here used, must be rendered even,or (with equal effect) must be left untranslated. Hence, what the apostle says is this: And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace (be) upon them and mercy, even upon the Israel of God. Cf. Ps. 125:5. Upon all of God's true Israel, Jew or Gentile, all who truly glory in the cross, the blessing is [Greek] -2 _ftnref22 [Greek] 17.Paul presents a final request: From now [Greek] -2 _ftnref23 [Greek] let no one cause trouble for me, for I, on my part, bear on my body the marks of Jesus.The apostle, loaded down with many responsibilities, asks that in the future he may not again be troubled by departures from the truth in the Galatian churches. He asks, in other words, that these churches may take his message to heart. Troublesome churches, and also troublesome individuals, at times forget that, while their own misbehavior is bad enough in itself, they also deprive others of the attention that could have been bestowed upon them. Cf. Luke 13:7. Besides, on the part of the person who must set them straight they often require energy that is exhausting. It is especially the latter thought which Paul has in mind when he reminds the Galatians that he bears on his body the marks of Jesus. Evidently the apostle was referring to the scars ([Greek] -2 _ftnref24 ([Greek] that had been left on his body by the persecutions which he had endured while traveling through Galatia on his first missionary journeyActs 13:50; 14:19: II Cor. 11:25; II Tim. 3:10, 11). At Lystra, for example, he had been almost stoned to death! Up to this point there is very little disagreement among commentators. However, when the question is asked, In what sense were these scars the marks of Jesus? the opinions vary widely. Some of them are as follows: They characterized Paul as a.as slave of Jesus, b.a prisoner of Jesus, c.a soldier of Jesus, d.in possession of an amulet or Jesus-charm, as if the apostle were warning the Galatians: Do be sensible, you cannot make any trouble for me, for I am protected by a charm (a most unlikely explanation!). The best explanation, as far as I can see, is the one offered by Lenski (among others): The scars on Paul's body belonged to Jesus, like the wounds he himself suffered, for Paul's scars were truly suffered because of Christ. Cf. II Cor. 1:5; 4:10; Col. 1:24op. cit.,p. 321 . The wounds inflicted on Paul's body were evidence of the closeness of the fellowship between Jesus and Paul (Gal. 1:8–12, 15, 16; 2:19ff.; 4:12–20). It is just possible that Paul's emphatic I, on my part [Greek] -2 _ftnref25 ([Greek] forms a contrast with 6:13, where Paul tells the Galatians that the purpose of the Judaizers is that they may glory in your flesh. If that be so, then the apostle is, as it were, saying, I, too, have marksor scars,namely those that link me with my Savior. Remember that, Galatians! And be reminded that when, because of departure from the faith, you trouble me, you are grieving my Savior, whose ambassador I AmosActs 9:4, 5; 22:7, 8; 26:14, 15). Verse 18.contains the closing benediction: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (be) with your spirit, brothers, Amen.It has been remarked that the brevity which characterizes this benediction reflects the tension under which the apostle wrote this letter. Accordingly, these few words have been compared with the rich and bountiful parting salutations found in Rom. 16:25–27; II Cor. 13:14; Eph. 6:23, 24; and Jude 24, 25. Nevertheless, further reflection indicates that Paul's final word, here in Gal. 6:18, is by no means wanting in beauty and meaning. Note the following: a.It concentrates the attention of those to whom it is addressed on the marvelous grace of our loving Lord. This is the grace (love to the undeserving) that had atoned for their sin, had brought about the operation of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, and their adoption as children and heirs. It is the grace that sustains them, equips them to be living witnesses, fills their hearts with peace that passes understanding and with joy unspeakable and full of glory, and brings them at last to their inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, and never-fading. Is it not true that throughout the letter the emphasis is on the marvel of God's graceas contrasted with human work? b. (It mentions Jesus in all the fulness of his saving power, giving him his full title our Lord Jesus Christ. The solemnity with which the apostle utters this full name deserves attention. As Lordhe owns us, governs and protects us, and we belong to him and should do his bidding. As Jesushe, he alone,is our SaviorMatt. 1:21; Acts 4:12). And as Christhe was appointed and (as to his human nature) gloriously qualified to be, in his capacity as our Mediator, our chief Prophet, only Highpriest, and eternal King. See Acts 2:36. c.It focuses the attention of the Galatians on the necessity of having this grace of the Lord Jesus Christ in their inner personality,viewed as contact-point between God and his children: (be) with your spirit. The Judaizers were fond of making a good outwardimpression. The Galatians are reminded of the fact that what they need is grace that will strengthen and cleanse within. d. (Finally, it does not take leave of these Galatians, many of whom were erring grievously, before it has once more, as so often before (1:11; 3:15; 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13; 6:1), addressed them with that term of endearment and close Christian fellowship: brothers, members by grace! of the same family, the Father's FamilyEph. 3:14, 15). A church that was dear in fact, very dear to the heart of Paul was that at Philippi. Note how he was going to describe it in Phil. 4:1: my brothers, beloved and longed for, my joy and crown &beloved. Surely Paul would put just as much love into the closing benediction addressed to that church as he now puts into the final blessing which he pronounces on the Galatians. Now compare the two: 1 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (be) with your spirit. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (be) with your spirit, brothers. Amen. Note: brothers in (Gal. 6:18. The Philippians did not need to be reassured of this. They knew itPhil. 1:12; 3:1, 13, 17; 4:1, 8). The Galatians must hear it once more; for the heart of Paul, that warm, throbbing heart, feels the need of once again embracing these erring children of his with his love! The solemn word of affirmation and confirmation, Amen, closes this epistle. Galatians 6: Seed Thoughts (one thought for each verse) See Verse 1 Restore lovingly those who were caught in temptation's net. 2 Burdens must be shouldered jointly. 3 Be conceited and be cheated! 4 He who mirrors himself in the mirror of another person's conduct mirrors himself gently. 5 Responsibility's load cannot be transferred. 6 Provide well for God's servant, the minister. 7 Those who sow weeds must not expect to reap wheat. 8 The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is life everlasting in Christ Jesus our Lord. 9 Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. 10 Love overleaps yet also recognizes boundaries. 11 Do not soft-pedal the gospel. 12 Beware of compromising when principles are at stake. 13 Practice what you preach. 14 The cross of Christ: our only glory. 15 On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand; All other ground is sinking sand. 16 This (No. 15) is the Rule of Gratitude for every Christian. 17 Do not trouble those who bear the marks of Jesus, but help them in every way. 18 The man who preaches Salvation through Imitation forgets that it even takes grace to imitate. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians Chapter 1 1 Paul, an apostle not from men nor through man but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead 2 and all the brothers who are with me, to the churches of Galatia; 3 grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ; 4 who gave himself for our sins, that he might rescue us out of this present world dominated by evil; (having thus given himself) according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom (be) the glory forever and ever. Amen. 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly moving away from him who called you (and turning) to a different gospel, 7 which (in reality) is not (even) another; but (the fact is that) certain individuals are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even though we ourselves or an angel from heaven were to preach to you any gospel other than the one which we preached to you, let him he accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If anyone is preaching to you any gospel other than that which you have received, let him be accursed! 10 There! Is it the favor of men that I am now seeking to win or of God? Or is it men whom I am seeking to please? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. 11 For I make known to you, brothers, with respect to the gospel that was preached by me, that it is not a human invention; 12 for as concerns myself, I did not receive it from men nor was I taught it; on the contrary (I received it) through the revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former manner of life when I practiced the Jewish religion, how beyond all bounds I was persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it; 14 and I advanced in the Jewish religion more than many of my contemporaries among my people, and was a more ardent enthusiast for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased him, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through his grace, 16 to reveal his Son in me, in order that I might preach his gospel among the Gentiles, I did not at once confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away to Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and I remained with him fifteen days; 19 but none of the other apostles did I see, only James the Lord's brother. 20 Now take note: with respect to the things which I am writing to you, in the presence of God (I affirm) that I am not lying. 21 Then I came to the districts of Syria and Cilicia. 22 But I was still unknown by sight to the Christian churches of Judea. 23 They simply kept hearing, He who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the gospel of the faith which he formerly was trying to destroy. 24 And they were glorifying God on my account. Chapter 2 1 Then, after an interval of fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, also taking Titus with me. 2 I went up, moreover, as a result of a revelation, and I set before them the gospel which I am accustomed to preach among the Gentiles: but (I did this) privately to those of repute, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 Yet even Titus who was with me, Greek though he is, was not compelled to be circumcised; 4 (in fact, the suggestion would never have arisen) but for the uninvited sham brothers, who had infiltrated our ranks to spy on our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, and thus to reduce us to slavery; 5 to whom not even for a moment did we yield submission, in order that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6 Well, from those who were reputed to be something whatever they once were makes no difference to me; God accepts no man's person to me those of repute imparted nothing; 7 on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter (with that) to the circumcised 8 for he who was at work through Peter in apostolic mission activity for the circumcised was also at work in me for the Gentiles, 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should (go) to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, we were to continue to remember the poor, the very thing which I was also eager to do. 11 Now when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain individuals from James arrived he had been in the habit of eating his meals with the Gentiles. But when they came he began to draw back and to separate himself, being afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in playing the hypocrite, so that even Barnabas was carried along by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not pursuing a straight course in accordance with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas, in everybody's presence, If you, though a Jew, can live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you (now) force the Gentiles to live like Jews? 15 We ourselves, though by nature Jews and not Gentile sinners, 16 yet, knowing that a man is not justified by law-works but only through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by law-works, because by law-works will no flesh be justified. 17 But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also turn out to be sinners, is Christ then a sin-promoter? By no means! 18 For, if I start to rebuild the very things which I have torn down, it is then that I prove myself a transgressor. 19 For I through law died to law, that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who lives, but Christ who lives in me; and that (life) which I now live in flesh I live in faith, (the faith) which is in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if justification (were) through law, then Christ died in vain. Chapter 3 1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose very eyes Jesus was openly displayed as crucified? 2 This only would I learn from you: Was it by doing what (the) law demands that you received the Spirit, or was it by believing (the) gospel message? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, now by fleshly means are you being made perfect? 4 Did you experience so many things in vain? if (it be) really in vain. 5 He, accordingly, who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you (does he bring this about) because you do what (the) law demands or because you believe (the) gospel message? 6 (It is) even as (recorded): Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness. 7 Know then that those that are of faith, it is they who are sons of Abraham. 8 Now Scripture, foreseeing that it was by faith that God would justify the Gentiles, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, (saying): In you all the nations shall be blessed. 9 Therefore, those that are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the man of faith. 10 For as many as rely on law-works are under a curse; for it is written, Cursed (is) everyone who does not continue in all the things that are written in the book of the law, to do them. 11 Now it is evident that by law no one is justified before God, for The righteous shall live by faith. 12 But the law does not belong to faith; on the contrary, He who does them shall live by them. 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanging on a tree 14 in order that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Jesus Christ, in order that we might receive the promise Spirit through faith. 15 Brothers, I speak from a human standpoint: even a human testament, once ratified, no one sets aside or amplifies. 16 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He does not say, And to the seeds, as (referring) to many, but as (referring) to one, And to your seed, which is Christ. 17 Now this is what I mean: a covenant that has been ratified by God, the law, which came into existence four hundred thirty years afterward, does not annul so as to make the promise ineffective. 18 For if the inheritance (is) due to law, it (is) no longer due to promise; but to Abraham it was through a promise that God graciously granted it. 19 Why then the law? By reason of the transgressions it was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made, having been ordained through angels by the agency of an intermediary. 20 Now the intermediary does not represent (just) one party, but God is one. 21 (Is) the law then contrary to the promises of God; By no means. For if a law had been given that was able to impart life, then indeed righteousness would have come by law. 22 But Scripture has locked up the whole world under (the power of) sin, in order that as a result of faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before this faith came, we were kept in custody under law, being locked up with a view to the faith that was to be revealed. 24 So the law became our custodian (to conduct us) to Christ, that by faith we might be justified. 25 But now that this faith has come we are no longer under a custodian. 26 For you are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into (union with) Christ have put on Christ. 28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek; there can be neither slave nor freeman; there can be no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise. Chapter 4 1 What I mean is this, that as long as the heir is a child he differs in no respect from a slave though he is owner of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time fixed by the father. 3 So also we, when we were children, were enslaved by the rudiments of the world. 4 But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 in order that he might redeem them (who were) under law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father! 7 So, no longer are you a slave but a son; and if a son then also an heir through God. 8 However, at that time, since you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are no gods; 9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how (is it) that you turn back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments by which all over again you wish to be enslaved? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid about you, lest somehow I have labored among you in vain. 12 Become as I (am), because I also became as you (are), brothers; (this) I beg of you. No wrong did you do me. 13 You know, moreover, that it was because of an infirmity of the flesh that I preached to you the gospel on that former occasion; 14 and though my physical condition was a temptation to you, yet you did not despise or loathe me, but as an angel of God you welcomed me, as Christ Jesus. 15 Where, then, (is) your (former) blessedness? For I testify to you that, had it been possible, your very eyes you would have plucked out and given to me. 16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth? 17 These people are zealously courting you for no commendable purpose: on the contrary, they want to isolate you, in order that you may zealously court them. 18 Now (it is) commendable to be zealously courted in connection with a commendable cause (and this) always, and not only when I am present with you. 19 My dear children, for whom I am again suffering birth-pangs until Christ be formed in you, 20 I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone of voice, for I am perplexed about you. 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave-woman and one by the free-woman. 23 But the son of the slave-woman was flesh-born; the son of the free-woman (was born) through promise. 24 Now things of this nature were spoken with another meaning in mind, for these two women represent two covenants: one from Mount Sinai, bearing children destined for slavery. She is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar represents Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the Jerusalem of today, for she is in bondage with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem (that is) above is free, and she is our mother; 27 for it is written: Rejoice O barren one, you who do not bear; Break forth and shout, you who have no birth-pangs; For more are the children of the desolate than of her who has a husband. 28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he (who was) flesh-born persecuted the one (who was) Spirit-born, so (it is) also now. 30 But what does Scripture say? Cast out the slave-woman and her son; for in no way shall the son of the slave-woman share in the inheritance with the son of the free-woman. 31 Wherefore, brothers, not of a slave-woman are we children, but of the free-woman. Chapter 5 1 For freedom Christ has set us free; continue to stand firm, therefore, and do not be loaded down again with a yoke of slavery. 2 Now I, Paul, say to you that if you let yourselves be circumcised Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who lets himself be circumcised, that he is under obligation to keep the whole law. 4 You are estranged from Christ, whoever (you are who) seek to be justified by way of law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For, as to ourselves, it is through the Spirit, by faith, that we eagerly await the hoped-for righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love. 7 You were running well; who cut in on you that you did not continue to obey the truth? 8 This persuasion (is) not (derived) from him who is calling you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I on my part am persuaded in the Lord with respect to you, that you will not adopt a different view (than mine). And the one who is throwing you into confusion will have to pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11 Now as for myself, brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the stumbling-block of the cross has been removed. 12 Would that those who upset you might make eunuchs of themselves! 13 For you were called to freedom, brothers; only (do) not (turn) this freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be serving one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, namely, in this: You must love your neighbor as yourself. 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out lest you be consumed by one another. 16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will definitely not fulfil the desire of the flesh; 17 for the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: for these are opposed to each other, so that these very things which you may wish to be doing, these you are not doing. 18 But if you are being led by the Spirit you are not under law. 19 Now obvious are the works of the flesh, which are: immorality, impurity, indecency, 20 idolatry, sorcery, quarrels, wrangling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, party intrigues, 21 envyings, drinking bouts, revelries, and the like, of which I forewarn you, as I previously forewarned you, that those who indulge in such practices will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law. 24 And those who believe in Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk. 26 Let us not become boasters, challenging one another, envying one another. Chapter 6 1 Brothers, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore such a person in a spirit of gentleness; constantly looking to yourself, lest also you be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone imagines that he amounts to something, while he amounts to nothing, he is deluding himself. 4 But let each one test his own work; then his reason to boast will be in himself alone, and not in (comparing himself with) someone else; 5 for each person will have to bear his own load. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/