THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE GALATIANS
[Sidenote: The Author.]
This Epistle, being one of the four Epistles which are almost
universally unquestioned, requires little or no defence. The Pauline
authorship "has never been called in question by a critic of first-rate
importance, and until recently has never been called in question at
all." The writings of those Fathers of the Church who lived nearest to
the apostolic age contain several possible allusions to it, and it is
expressly named by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.
The internal evidence shows that it must belong to the time of the
apostles, for the errors which are criticized in it are different from
the Ebionite ideas which existed at the beginning of the 2nd century,
and from the Gnosticism which existed even before the apostles were all
dead. They are evidently earlier than these heresies. Still more
convincing is the vehement and pathetic energy which marks this
Epistle. There is a ring of reality in its broken sentences and
earnest appeals. It displays none of the careful patchwork which we
should expect from a forger; it consists only of the quick hot words of
a man who is very deeply moved.
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
"Unto the Churches of Galatia." What is the meaning of the name
"Galatia"? Students are still divided on the question. If the word
"Galatia" is used in a popular sense to describe the country inhabited
by the Galatai, then it means North Galatia, a district in {151} the
extreme north of Asia Minor. It was mainly inhabited by Celts, who
came thither from Europe in the 3rd century B.C., and spoke a Celtic
language as late as the 2nd and even 4th century after Christ. This
language is mentioned by Pausanias, and St. Jerome says that it was a
dialect only slightly varying from that used in Gaul by the Treveri.
But if the word "Galatia" is used in a political sense, signifying a
particular province of the Roman empire, then it means a large area
much further south, including Pisidia, Lycaonia, and part of Phrygia.
In this province were Pisidian Antioch, Derbe, Iconium, and Lystra,
where St. Paul founded Churches in A.D. 47, on his first missionary
journey. The latter explanation is almost certainly correct.
No good argument can be brought forward in favour of North Galatia
which cannot be balanced by a better argument in favour of South
Galatia. For instance, though St. Luke in Acts uses the popular and
not the political names for districts, this cannot be urged in favour
of St. Paul's adopting the same usage. On the contrary, he uses Asia,
Macedonia, and Achaia in their political sense, and so we may suppose
that he would do the same in the case of Galatia. Again, though there
were in North Galatia Jews who would tempt the converts to Jewish
observances, there were Jews in plenty in South Galatia also. And
while many writers have said that the Celtic blood of these
recalcitrant Christians is proved by the enthusiasm, fickleness,
superstition, love of strife, and vanity which St. Paul rebukes, we may
reasonably urge that these defects are not confined to the Celts. The
Phrygians doted on a sombre and mysterious religion. In heathen times
they loved the worship of Cybele, with its exciting ceremonial and
cruel mutilations. And when they adopted Christianity, though their
morality was generally austere, their credulity was intense. In the
2nd century many of them embraced the new revelations of Montanus, and
in the 4th they largely affected the hard Puritanism of Novatian. In
religious matters the Celts are very little {152} inclined to
fickleness, and their superstitions are more closely connected with
dreaminess than with vehemence.
The following facts also deserve attention; (1) It would be strange if
Acts gave us no account of Churches in which St. Paul took so much
interest. If Galatia be North Galatia, there is no such account in
Acts. If it be South Galatia there is, and the polite and natural
manner of addressing the inhabitants of the cities of Antioch, Derbe,
etc., would be "Galatians." Their bond of union was association in one
Roman province. (2) It is improbable that St. Paul would take the very
difficult journey necessary for visiting the Celtic Galatians. His
usual plan was to travel on Roman high-roads to the big centres of
population. North Galatia was both isolated and half-civilized. Also,
he says that he visited the Galatians on account of an illness (iv.
13). It is incredible that he would have chosen the long unhealthy
journey to North Galatia when he was ill. But it is extremely probable
that he left the damp lowlands of Pamphylia for the bracing air of
Pisidian Antioch. The malady was probably the malarial neuralgia and
fever which are contracted in those lowlands. (3) The Epistle contains
technical legal terms for adoption, covenant, and tutor, which seem to
be used not in the Roman but in the Greek sense.[1] They would hardly
be intelligible except in cities like those of South Galatia where the
institutions were mainly Greek.
Assuming that the "Galatians" are those of South Galatia, we note that
in Gal. iv. 13 St. Paul speaks of preaching to them "the first time."
This first time must be the occasion mentioned in Acts xiii., xiv. The
second time is that in Acts xvi. 1-6. The Christians were mainly
converts from heathenism (iv. 8; v. 2; vi. 12), but some were no doubt
Jews or proselytes. {153} After the second visit of St. Paul, his
converts were tampered with. Some Judaizers had put a perverse
construction upon his action in promulgating the decrees of the Council
of Jerusalem of A.D. 49, and in circumcising Timothy. They urged that
St. Paul had thereby acknowledged his inferiority to the other
apostles, and practically advocated a return to Jewish ceremonial.
Instigated by other Judaizers from Jerusalem, the Galatians had changed
their Christianity into a semi-Judaism, and this all the more readily
because of their previous familiarity with the Jewish religion.
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
The place and date are both uncertain. The words, "I marvel that ye
are so _quickly_ removing from Him that called you" (i. 6), suggest
that it was written not long after the conversion of the Galatians.
But we cannot place it, as some writers have done, before 1 and 2
Thessalonians. Its style is allied with that of 1 and 2 Corinthians
and Romans. It must be earlier than Romans, as it is like a rough
model of that Epistle. If written soon before Romans, it was probably
composed at Corinth early in A.D. 56. It may, however, have been
written as early as A.D. 52, before St. Paul's third missionary journey.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
The Epistle is intended to recall the Galatians to St. Paul's true
gospel. In order to do this, he vindicates his own apostolic authority
to preach it, and expounds its great principle--justification by faith,
and not by observance of the Jewish law.
After a salutation, without the congratulations which the apostle
ordinarily offers, St. Paul expresses his astonishment at their
perversion, and vehemently asserts that if any one dares to preach a
gospel other than that which the Galatians first received, let him be
anathema (i. 1-10). The history of St. Paul's reception of the gospel
is then set out. It came to him by revelation of Jesus Christ: this is
at once the demonstration of its unique authority, and the decisive
fact which settles the relation of St. Paul to the other apostles. He
did {154} not receive from them the gospel he preached, and, to
emphasize this, St. Paul counts up the various opportunities he had of
intercourse with them, and says what use he made of each (i. 11-ii.
10). The best illustration of the independence of his position is the
attitude which he adopted towards St. Peter, the prince of the
apostles, when at Antioch he deceitfully took the same sort of line
with respect to Jewish ceremonial that the Galatians are taking now
(ii. 11-13).[2] St. Paul describes the speech he made in opposition to
St. Peter, but while he is dictating it, he is carried away by an
orator's enthusiasm: he forgets that he is telling the story only of an
old debate, and at some points we cannot confidently distinguish the
rebuke to St. Peter from the exhortation to the Galatians (ii. 14-21).
Then, still as if he were making a speech, the apostle proceeds to
argue as he does later in the Epistle to the Romans. He recalls to the
"bewitched" Galatians the happy memories of the days when they first
heard of Christ--the out-pouring of the Spirit, the first sharp
persecution endured so well. Did not all this happen when they were
under the gospel of Faith (iii. 2-5)? The true sons of Abraham are
those who accept the gospel (iii. 6-9). On the other hand, the people
who still desire to be under the Law can only avoid being under a curse
by keeping the whole Law--and this is impossible (iii. 10). God's will
is plain: He has said, "The righteous shall live by faith" (iii. 11,
12). Moreover, whatever claim the Law had on us is now discharged by
the satisfaction made by Christ (iii. 13, 14). Now St. Paul goes on to
show that the promise made by God to Abraham binds Him still. Just as
no subsequent transaction can nullify a Greek "covenant," _i.e._ will,
so the Law cannot nullify the earlier promise of God (iii. 15-18).[3]
Then he compares the promise made to {155} Abraham with the Law. The
latter was a contract, a mutual agreement between two parties involving
mutual obligations; if the Jews did not keep the Law, God was not bound
to bless them. But in the case of the promise, there is no suggestion
of contract. Then, lest his readers should suppose that there was an
inconsistency in the fact that God was the Author of both the Law and
the promise, St. Paul adds an explanation (iii. 19-22). The Law would
have been contrary to the promise if it had been intended to produce
the same result as the promise by another method. But, on the
contrary, the Law was added as a parenthesis in order to make known
transgressions, and with the result that it increased them (iii. 19).
Scripture shut up all mankind in the fold of sin, that they might look
forward to the reign of faith as the only means of escape. To
emphasize further the contrast between the Law and the promise, St.
Paul asserts that the Law did not come direct from God to man. It
came, as Jewish traditions said, from God and the angels to Moses, the
mediator, and from him to the Hebrews. The Law had a mediator,
therefore it involved two parties--God and the Hebrew people. But
there was no such mediator in the case of the promise. God spoke
directly to Abraham. And God in the Person of Christ spoke directly to
mankind. Thus the promises are greater and more gracious than the Law.
It is important to observe that the argument implies the Divinity of
Christ.
Before Faith came, the Law played the part of a Greek "tutor," _i.e._ a
trusted servant who attended a child. He took the child to the house
where he was taught, and kept him from harm and mischief. And we, if
we wish to be still under the Law, shall be as foolish as a grown-up
son who wishes to be under a steward and a guardian. We must leave the
mere rudiments of religion now that we have reached a stage at which we
have been taught that God is indeed our Father (iii. 23-iv. 11).
St. Paul supports this conclusion from his arguments by a {156}
touching appeal, in which he gratefully recalls the kindness he
received from the Galatians when he came to them in all the weakness
and distress of fever (iv. 12-20). Then he interprets for them the
story of Hagar, probably in answer to a reference in a letter which
they had sent him (iv. 21-v. 1). The Jew is in bondage like Hagar's
child, the Christian is free like Sarah's child.
After this we have another appeal, a medley of exhortation, warning,
denunciation, and pathetic entreaty: the apostle, himself so
appreciative of great ideas, tries to make the unaspiring Galatians
understand that they are called to the perfect freedom which is the
service of God (v. 2-26). The Epistle closes with some plain words
which the apostle wrote with his own hand in large characters so as to
emphasize them for his readers. The motive of the Judaizers is boldly
labelled. Then, as if there had been a question of his own humility,
he associates himself with the crucified Christ, for whose sake he
bears in his flesh the eloquent marks of the Roman rods and the stones
of the Jews. It was the cruel custom in Asia Minor, a custom not yet
extinct, for masters to wound their slaves with marks which made it
impossible for them to escape recognition. And so St. Paul glories in
the pitiful scars on his body, because they prove Whose he is and Whom
he serves.
{157}
ANALYSIS
Salutation, rebuke (i. 1-10).
(1) St. Paul defends his apostleship: i. 11-ii. 21.--He was called by
God in spite of his fanatical Judaism, God's Son was revealed in him,
he conferred with no man, but retired to Arabia, then three years after
his conversion he stayed fifteen days with Cephas, and afterwards
preached in Syria and Cilicia (i.).
Fourteen years after his conversion[4] he again went to Jerusalem "by
revelation." False brethren attempted to get Titus circumcised, but in
vain. James, Cephas, and John were most friendly to Paul and Barnabas,
agreeing that they should go to the Gentiles while remembering the poor
in Jerusalem. Cephas rebuked at Antioch by St. Paul (ii.).
(2) St. Paul defends justification by faith: iii. 1-v. 1.--Galatian
fickleness, even Abraham was justified by faith, and in the Old
Testament the righteous live by faith, the Jewish Law merely a
parenthesis between God's promise and its fulfilment, the Law a tutor
to bring us to Christ (iii.).
Judaism is the state of a son who is a minor, Christianity is the state
of a son who has attained his majority. Why return to the beggarly
rudiments of knowledge? The Jew is like the child of Hagar, the
Christian is like the child of Sarah (iv.-v. 1).
(3) Practical exhortation: v. 2-vi. 18.--Circumcision useless, freedom
and love are the allies of the true Law, the works of the flesh and the
fruits of the Spirit (v.). Bearing one another's burdens, supporting
our teachers. A conclusion in St. Paul's handwriting (vi.).
[1] The law implied in Gal. iv. 2 is in accordance with Syrian law. If
a father died, he left his son under the authority of a steward until
he was fourteen, and left his property in the hands of a guardian until
he was twenty-five. It is probable that in South Galatia as in Syria
this law was made under the reign of the Seleucids.
[2] For the explanation of this quarrel, see p. 121.
[3] The argument about "seeds" and "seed," in iii. 16, looks like a
mere verbal quibble in English. But it becomes quite intelligible when
we remember that in rabbinical Hebrew the word "seed_s_" was used in
the sense of descendant_s_.
[4] See Gal. ii. 1, "at an interval of fourteen years." This third
visit to Jerusalem (the second mentioned here) was in A.D. 49. The
verse probably means fourteen years after his _conversion_, and eleven
years after his first visit. If we reckon the fourteen years from his
_first visit_ to Jerusalem, the first visit would be in A.D. 33. This
will not agree with Acts ix. 25, 26; 2 Cor. xi. 32, which show us that
the first visit was made while Aretas ruled at Damascus. Aretas became
master of Damascus in A.D. 37.
{158}