A SHORT EXPOSITION
OF THE EPISTLE
TO THE GALATIANS

ID

•YAEJE-waiVEiasjnnr-

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

»u. rj«ff»M.mi. .

A SHORT EXPOSITION

EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

DESIGNED AS A TEXT-BOOK FOB CLASS-BOOM USE
AND FOB PBIVATE STUDY

GEOKGE B. STEVENS/ Ph.D., D. D.
PBOPESSOB OP NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND INTEBPBE-
TATION IN TALE TJNIVEBSITT

THE STUDENT PUBLISHING CO.
HARTFORD, CONN.

Coptrioht, 1890
By GEOEGE B. STEVENS.

PREFACE.
The author has aimed, in the preparation of this
handbook, to supply to the student the means of
clearly tracing Paul's course of thought in the
Epistle to the Galatians. He has sought to present
the essential results of critical study, without intro
ducing into the exposition so many of the details of
the critical process as to embarrass the mind and
withdraw attention from the ideas themselves.
The explanations were written with constant refer
ence to the original text, but it accorded with the
purpose which the book was designed to serve to
place in connection with the exposition of each
verse the translation of the Eevised Version. In
cases where anything could be gained for the criti
cal student by so doing, I have placed the Greek
text of the words and phrases commented upon in
parenthesis. By this method I have sought to
adapt the exposition alike to students of the orig
inal and of the English Version.
In a few instances it seemed necessary to com
ment on points connected with the original lan
guage which it was not easy to make plain to one

iv Preface.
who should read the translation only. In such
cases, I have inserted in parenthesis the English of
the words in question, or, if that plan seemed
; unlikely to make the matter intelligible to the
i English reader, I have remanded the explanation to
the margin. It is believed that the entire exposi-
i tion, with these few exceptions, will be readily
| understood by the intelligent and diligent student
of the English text.
Where the meaning of passages is doubtful or
much disputed, I have generally mentioned in
parenthesis a few prominent representatives, among
well known interpreters, of the different views. It
has been, however, no part of my plan to give a full
account of varying interpretations; yet the brief
exposition of opposing opinions in the case of ob
scure and difficult passages has often seemed advisa
ble in order that the student might consider and
compare the more plausible explanations.
To each chapter has been prefixed an analysis
and a paraphrase. The divisions of the chapters
correspond to the paragraphs in the Eevised Ver
sion. To each of these I have prefixed a title
which gives the leading thought of the section.
These titles, taken together, constitute the analysis
of the Epistle. I commend to the student the
constant use of the paraphrase in connection with
his effort to trace the Apostle's argument. It is
often possible to bring out the essential idea of an

Preface. v
obscure passage by such a free rendering more
clearly than can be done by explanations in detail
of the writer's own words. I have not attempted in '
5the paraphrase to represent the minor turns and
jshades of thought, but rather to place in sharp
relief those great central ideas, whose clear appre
hension will render comparatively easy the appreci
ation of the more detailed explanations which are
presented in the notes. It would be a great advan
tage for the student to read through the entire
Epistle, — and more than once, — consulting the par
aphrase in cases where the thought is not under
stood, before the study in detail is begun. By
doing this, in connection with the mastery of the
main points presented in the Introduction, the
great' advantage arising from a clear idea of the
purpose and scope of the letter as a whole is gained,
and the task of threading one's way through all the
turnings and digressions of the thought rendered a
far easier one.
The object which I have kept steadily in mind in
the preparation of this manual, has been to furnish
the student of the Bible, — whether a professional
.student of theology or not, — with an introduction
to the religious and theological teaching of the
Apostle Paul. The method of Biblical study, com
paratively new among us, which investigates each
book of the Bible, or each group of books which
belong together by reason of common authorship or

vi Preface.
similarity of character, as a whole, and explains all
its parts in the light of their historic occasion, pur
pose and peculiarities, is one of so great value and
importance that it is certain to be more and more
widely employed and to be adapted, in all practi-!
cable ways, to the popular study of the Bible. A
wholly new light is shed upon the meaning of the
Biblical books when the historic situation in which
they arose is understood and their occasion and
immediate purpose and use made clear.
The author's effort has been to trace the move
ment of the argument in this Epistle throughout in
the light of those conditions which furnished the
immediate occasion of its composition and did so
much to determine its peculiarities. Fortunately
the numerous local and personal allusions in the
letter, together with kindred courses of thought in
the Epistle to the Eomans and historic notices in
the Book of Acts, enable us to form a clear and
well-defined picture alike of the condition of the
Galatian churches and of the grounds of the Apos
tle's convictions and fears which find expression in
the Epistle.
In an appendix I have presented an outline plan
for the study of the Epistle which I think may be
of service, especially to those who study it without
the aid of an instructor. Some teachers may prefer
to follow the method which is here outlined, — sup
plementing it perhaps, with additional material, —

Preface. vii
rather than to proceed upon the ordinary plan of
studying the Epistle section by section and verse
by verse. Such a course would have important
advantages and could, I think, be planned with
little difficulty and pursued with great profit. But
whether this outline is employed in the study or
not, the questions and topics which it supplies
should be used in review. Prom them also may be
derived abundant material for an examination upon
the Epistle.
With these explanations of its method and pur
pose, the author dedicates this manual to that large
and increasing company of Bible students who are
eager to gain a clearer understanding and a more
intelligent appreciation of the Sacred Scriptures.
Yale University, October, 1890.

INTEODUCTION.
I. The Place of Galatians among the
Pauline Epistles.
Galatians is the earliest of the four great doc
trinal Epistles of Paul (Gal., I and II Cor., Eom.).
Next to Eomans it is the most important for the
study of the Apostle's teaching, and in the exposi
tion of the doctrines of faith, justification and
Christian freedom, is scarcely second to the longer
and more comprehensive letter. It is a peculiarly
desirable Epistle with which to begin the critical
study of the Pauline writings, both because of its
vigor, intensity and comparative brevity, and be
cause the circumstances which called it forth were
such as to lead the Apostle to concentrate his atten
tion throughout upon the central principles of his
theology and to set them in sharpest contrast with
opposing principles. One who masters Galatians
will the more easily master Eomans; he will also
find that the thoughts which are developed in this
Epistle furnish, to a great extent, the key to the
understanding of Paul's whole theological system.
1

2 Introduction.
II. General Character of the Epistle.
It is pre-eminently doctrinal and controversial.
It most closely resembles Eomans in contents ; I and
II Corinthians in its mingling of doctrine and
exhortation. Like Eomans, it has for its central
thought justification by faith. Being less syste
matic, however, it does not so readily admit of
analysis. Eomans is general, having more of the
character of a treatise; Galatians is specific and is
written with direct reference to local conditions.
In this respect it resembles I and II Corinthians.
Our Epistle seems to have been written with the
apostle's own hand (t# epj x^pi, vi. 11); if so, it is
the only instance (with the possible exception of
the short personal letter to Philemon, see ver. 19).
Paul usually dictated his letters to an amanuensis,
adding with his own hand only the closing words of
salutation (see notes on vi. 11).
Galatians is a peculiarly spirited, and indeed,
vehement letter. It bears the clearest marks of
Paul's mind and genius. Criticism has universally
ascribed it to him.* Though apparently written
without conscious plan, it has a striking compact
ness and unity. Its emphasis of faith and its bold
assertions of the freedom of the Christian from the
law, made it the favorite Epistle of the Eeformers.
* The denial of its genuineness by Bruno Bauer and one
or two followers, deserves mention merely as a vagary of
a reckless, iconoclastic skepticism.

Introduction. 3
Luther declared: "It is my Epistle; I have be
trothed myself to it."
III. Analysis of the Epistle.
1. Apologetic Section: Chs. i. and ii.
Paul vindicates his apostolic commission and
authority. His gospel was not received from men,
nor from the primitive apostles even, but from
heaven by direct revelation. He shows with what
authority and effect he had rebuked even Peter,
when, on one occasion, he had yielded too much to
the extreme Pharisaic party who maintained that
the Gentile converts must be circumcised and keep
the law.
2. Dogmatic Section: Ch. iii. 1 — Ch. v. 12.
In this division Paul develops the doctrine of
salvation by faith alone, apart from deeds of the
law. He exhibits the difference between the faith-
principle and the works-principle, shows that both
cannot be essential conditions of salvation and
proves (chiefly from the Old Testament itself) both
that faith is the only necessary condition, and that
the effort to be saved by works, always has been,
and always must be, futile.
3. Hortatory or Practical Section: Ch. v. 13 —
Ch. vi. 18.
This portion is occupied with warnings against
the abuse of Christian freedom and the misapplica-

4 Introduction.
tion of his teaching. He exhorts the Galatians to
humility and helpfulness toward the erring and
reminds them of the essential Christian virtues.
He closes with the assertion that the question of
circumcision (on which his opponents so much
insisted) is, in itself, of no importance, but that it
is all-important that men should be renewed in life
through Christ.
IV. The Occasion of the Epistle.
This occasion is found in the presence in the
Galatian community of Jewish-Christian teachers
who insisted that Gentiles who became Christians
must also become Jews, that is, be circumcised and
keep the Old Testament law as such. It is gener
ally thought that these Judaizers had come from
Palestine (so Meyer); others (as Neander) suppose
that they were partly from Judea and partly native
to Galatia, and still others (as Weiss) maintain that
they were connected with Jewish-Christian congre
gations which had been gathered in Galatia previous
to Paul's founding the Gentile-Christian churches
in the province. No data exist for confidently set
tling this question. Whoever these persons were,
it is certain that they did not comprehend the new
ness and completeness of Christianity; it was to them
but an appendix or supplement to the Old Testa
ment system. Paul was the champion of the oppo
site view. For him Christianity was complete in

Introduction. 5
itself and those who accepted it were not under the
law. His opponents' position was contrary to the
decision of the Apostolic conference held at Jerusa
lem (Acts xv., Gal. ii.) at which the most conserva
tive primitive apostles, Peter, James and John, had
approved his teaching and disclaimed any desire to
supplement or change it. (Cf. analysis of Ch. ii.
and notes).
The Tubingen critics (Baur, Schwegler, Zeller,
et al.) have maintained that Paul's difference was
not merely with an extreme Jewish party in the
church (cf. Acts xv. 1; Gal. ii. 12; II Cor. xi. 5,
13), but with the primitive apostles as well, and
that the differences between himself and the " pil
lars" (Gal. ii. 9) were irreconcilable. The usual
view is that there were indeed difficulties between
him and them, arising out of their different circum
stances and points of view, but that on full consid
eration, they were readily adjusted and never
amounted to a fundamental opposition of opinion.
The study of Ch. ii. (in connection with Acts xv.)
must determine the answer to this question.
V. Galatia and the Galatian Churches.
Galatia was a province in Central Asia Minor so
called from the Galli or Galatae who invaded and
settled this region 280 b. c. The Eoman province
of Galatia, strictly speaking, included Pisidia and
Lycaonia, but in the New Testament the name

6 Introduction.
Galatia is used geographically to denote the region
actually occupied by the Galatian people. Ancyra
was the principal city. It is a disputed point
whether the Galatians were Teutons (and accord
ingly allied to the German peoples) or Celts (and so
connected with the ancient Britons). As a repre
sentative of the former view Meyer says, " The con
version of the Galatians is the beginning of German
church history."* As a defender of the latter
opinion, Lightfoot declares, "They were genuine
Celts belonging to the Cymric subdivision of which
the Welsh are the modern representatives." \ Upon
the basis of this conviction Bishop Lightfoot in
dulges the fancy that one of these people on
coming to South Britain for purposes of trade,
may have planted Christianity in the Brit
ish Isles. On this supposition their conver
sion would be the beginning of British church
history. The Galatians had become a Greek-speaking peo
ple at the time of their conversion. They were
genuine Gentile-Christians and had received from
the Apostle Paul himself instruction in his own
type of doctrine. He twice visited them, (1) on his
second missionary journey, — a fact which the Acts

* Introduction to Commentary on Galatians.
t Essay: "Were the Galatians Celts or Teutons?" in
his Commentary on Galatians.

Introduction. 7
(xvi. 6) mentions quite incidentally. The Epistle
(iv. 13, 14) supplies the additional information that
he was detained among them on this visit by an
infirmity which would have made him burdensome
to them had they been less kind and forbearing.
During this visit the churches were established
(cf. iv. 19). (2) In the course of his third missionary
journey he again visited them (two or three years
after the first visit) for the purpose of strengthening
and encouraging them in the Christian life (Acts
xviii. 23).
Though predominantly Gentile, these churches
must have had in their membership native Jews and
proselytes. The Apostle presupposes their acquaint
ance with the Old Testament. They were affected
with Jewish prejudices and were the more easily
seduced into a Pharisaic interpretation of Chris
tianity and a spirit of opposition to Paul. More
over, they appear to have been naturally a fickle
people (i. 6. ; iv. 14, 15).
V. Date and Place of Writing.
A majority of scholars (chiefly on the ground of
Gal. i. 6), suppose that the Epistle was written
shortly after Paul's second visit during his three
years' stay at Ephesus, therefore within the pe
riod a. d. 54-56. Others place it a little later
during the winter which the Apostle spent at

8 * Introduction.
Corinth (Acts xx. 3) and hence fix the date
at A. d. 57.*
* It may be useful to add a grouping of the Pauline
Epistles which is not only chronological but according
to their subject-matter, together with their probable dates,
as follows:
1. The Missionaby Epistles (52-58).
I and II Thessalonians.
2. The Gbeat Doctrinal Epistles (55-58).
Galatians,
I and II Corinthians,
Bomans.
3. The Epistles of the Imprisonment (62-63).
Colossians,
Philemon,Ephesians,Philippians.
4. The Pastoral Epistles (67-68).
I Timothy,
Titus,II Timothy.

ANALYSIS AND PAEAPHEASE OF
CHAPTEE I.
1. Salutation, 1-5. I affirm the genuineness of
my apostleship (which my opponents in Galatia
have called in question) (1), and declare that I did
not receive my commission from any human source,
but from God, through a revelation of the risen and
glorified Christ, who is the world's Saviour from sin
and to whom belongs eternal glory (3-5).
2. The truthfulness of his teaching, 6-10. I am
surprised that so soon after your conversion (or after
my visit, — see notes on verse 6) you should have de
serted the doctrine of grace, which I taught you,
for that of works, which may be called a "different
gospel," but would better (since there is but one
true gospel) be called no gospel at all (6, 7). This
counter-teaching only aims to mislead you and to
overthrow the true Christian doctrine (7). My
teaching is true and I should denounce any pre
tended " gospel " which was subversive of it, even
though it were delivered by an angel from heaven ;
should any man teach contrary to my gospel of
grace and faith, I pronounce a curse upon him
9

10 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter I.
(8, 9). I justify this boldness and vehemence by
the confident assurance that in my preaching I am
not seeking human favor, but obeying God's will
(10). 3. The divine origin of Ms gospel, (11-17). As a
ground for my strong assertions, I allege the cer
tainty that my teaching is not shaped by a human
standard or derived from a human source, but that
it came to me by a revelation of Jesus Christ
(11, 12). My zealous adherence to the Jewish relig
ion which led me to become the persecutor of the
church, is proof that I could not have been trans
formed into a Christian Apostle by mere human
means (13, 14). It was only when God, who had a
great purpose to serve in my life, was pleased to re
veal Christ as the truly risen and glorified Messiah
to my spirit, that I became a Christian and a mis
sionary (15, 16) ; after this event no more than
before can my course be explained as a result of
human influence or instruction (16); I did not
resort (as may be supposed) to the primitive Apostles
at Jerusalem, there to be taught the truths which I
proclaim ; on the contrary, I went away into the re
mote regions of Arabia whence I returned to Da
mascus [rather than to Jerusalem] (17).
4. Paul's movements after his conversion (18-24).
After my conversion my course was such as to prove
my independence of human teachers. For three
years I did not see Jerusalem and the authorities of

Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter I. 11
the church there. At the expiration of that
period, however, I went thither to interview Peter
but my visit was a brief one. I only saw one other
apostle (18, 19). I then returned through Syria to
my native province. My brief stay in Jerusalem
and Judea occasioned, indeed, a new interest and
rejoicing at my conversion, but I was not there long
enough so that the churches at large even knew me
by sight (21-24).

THE SALUTATION : i. 1-5.
This is one of the briefest of the salutations to be
found in the letters of Paul to the churches. The
abruptness with which he plunges into the midst of
his theme, and the absence of all commendation of
the Galatian Christians, are noticeable features,
and are doubtless explained by the Apostle's intense
feeling of displeasure and grief at the readiness of
the Galatians to desert the principles which he had
taught them.
The passage consists of a greeting (vv. 1, 2) and,
in connection with the benediction, a statement
concerning Christ's saving and redeeming work. It
is clear, from the parenthesis of verse 1, that Paul
has the opposition to himself in the Galatian
churches clearly in mind from the beginning of the
letter.
1. Paul, an Apostle (not from men,
neither through man, but through Jesus
Christ, and God the Father, who raised
him from the dead). The Apostle calls him
self, as always, Paul. Why never Saul, which ap
pears to have been his proper name? The first
12

The Salutation: i. 1. 13
trace of the change of name is found in Acts xiii. 9.
It is not in connection with his conversion, but
directly after his separation to missionary service,
that the change is found. In explanation of it va
rious reasons are assigned: — (1) He received this
new name from the converted Eoman deputy, Ser-
gius Paulus; or if he had previously received this
Eoman name, he began to use it in commemoration
of that event (Acts xiii. 7 seq.); (so Meyer, Bengel
and Olshausen). But there is no ground for this in
the text, and it is altogether improbable that he
would be named for one of his converts. (2) The
Lexical meaning of "Paulus" is "small," and he
so designated himself from humility (see I Cor. xv.
9); (so Augustine, Witsius). But the term "the
least " (6 krXaxioToc) in that passage Paul applies
to himself in view of his career as a persecutor; in
other respects he maintains his full equality with
the primitive Apostles, (Gal. i. ii., passim). (3)
He had both a Jewish and a Eoman name. The
latter was brought into exclusive use in connection
with his work as the Apostle to the Gentiles. It
was either preferred by himself from a sense of fit
ness, or applied to him by others in recognition of
the sphere of his ministry; (so, substantially,
Lightfoot, Wieseler, Neander, Gloag, et ah). This
is probably the correct view. Cf. John Mark, at
first called simply John, (Acts xiii. 5), but later, as
a missionary, Mark, (Acts xv. 37-39). Paul was

14 The Epistle to the Galatians.
a very common Eoman name. An apostle
(dmSoroAo?): Paul claims the same title as belonged
to the twelve. Elsewhere James seems to be so en
titled (i. 19).
In the connection of this very word with his
name, we have the key-note of the first part of the
Epistle, in which he claims the rank of an Apostle,
as being equal with the twelve, and as having a
direct divine commission. It is noticeable how
Paul ranks himself as inferior when the faults of
his life come into view (I Cor. xv. 9), but asserts
his equal rank when the validity of his office is as
sailed. Not from men (ovk. aV M.), not from men as
source ; neither through man (om sc hvd), nor
through the intervention of man as the medium.
His apostolate is not from men, but from God
as its source and authority; nor yet (ovSe) is it
mediated through (any) man (but through Christ).
God appointed him to his work; he is not a false
Apostle, as the Judaizers say. Such is the force of
from (a.w6). He further asserts that he too (as
well as the twelve) received his commission direct
from Christ, and does not stand merely in the rank
of such men as Timothy who were sent out by the
Apostles. The suggestion of Luther and others is
correct: from implies a contrast to "false apos
tles; " and through implies a contrast to " Chris
tian workers who were not apostles." The change

Tlie Salutation : i. 1. 15
from the plural (from men) to the singular
(through man) is probably made in order to adapt
the expression to the coming correlative phrase,
through Jesus Christ (<s<a -l^os xpiarm,).
The exact development of the parallelism would
have yielded: Not from (w) men, neither
through (dtd) man, but through Jesus
Christ and from (<«r<s) God, where from God
would have been correlative to from men, as
stating the ultimate source whence his office
had come. But Paul rarely carries out his par
allels in so precise a manner. The mediation is
here carried back and ascribed to God himself,
(cf. Eom. xi. 36). Paul is probably thinking of the
revelation made to him in the experience of his con
version as constituting his direct commission from
Christ, and this, as being providential, may be said
to have been given through the agency or operation
of God.
God the Father (deov urarpdc): the expression is
closely like a proper name. God is here called
Father in relation to Christ (so Meyer and Ellicott).
DeWette interprets the expression as referring to
God's fatherhood to all men. TTsteri and Wieseler
refer it to his paternal relation to Christians. Christ
is named first because the statement is a climax;
as if he said: " My mission is mediated through the
direct call of Christ, but this call has its basis in
the counsels of God himself, who was Christ's

16 The Epistle to the Galatians.
Father, and who was the power that wrought in and
through him."
The contrast of through man, through
Christ, would clearly indicate that Paul thought
of Christ as superhuman. He was indeed a man in
his manifested human life; but as the exalted par
taker of the divine majesty, he was more.
Why should Paul add: Who raised him from
the dead ? How does this bear upon the assertion
of his apostolic authority? He wishes to emphasize
the exalted and glorious source of his calling. He
is the chosen instrument of the risen Christ; his
commission is from the God who lived behind and
wrought through this earthly life of Christ; who
wrought miracles through him, even the crowning
miracle of raising him from the dead. It is from
no less a source than this that he has derived his
apostolate (so Meyer, Ellicott). The phrase kx vek-
pdv (from [the] dead) is regularly without the
article in the New Testament.
2. And all the brethren which are with
me, unto the churches of Galatia:— All
the brethren which are with me (oi <yh> t/wi
K&vTeQ abe'Atfoi), i. e. his traveling companions, and
official assistants, such as Timothy and Titus were;
cf. Phil. iv. 21, where from the " saints " in gen
eral, "those with him" are distinguished. It is
against the Pauline usage to suppose that he means
" all the Christians in the place where he wrote,"

The Salutation: i. 3. 17
since Paul never writes in the name of any .church.
Unto the churches (rate insx^ciaic): language
more abrupt than is elsewhere found in the
introductions to Paul's Epistles. There is no com
mendation of the Galatians; not even so much as
would be implied in the expression "called saints,"
or "who are in God the Father." Clearly the Apos
tle has vividly and painfully in mind the extent of
their apostasy, and their sad lapse from his teaching.
3. Grace to you and peace from God the
Father., and our Lord Jesus Christ:— The
benediction, substantially in the same form as here,
is a mark of every Epistle of Paul. It is an ampli
fication of the Jewish greeting, " Peace to thee "
Cn1? Di1?^). Grace and peace (x&pv Kal <w<0
are related as ground and consequence. " Grace "
denotes the loving favor of QoA'. " Peace " is the
inner joy and repose of soul which follow upon it.
For the Hebrew greeting of peace, see Luke x. 5, 6.
The Father (tov warpdr) here designates God as
father in relation to those who send the greeting
and also to the Christians addressed. Our Lord
(nvplov ruivv): the word niptoc (Lord) came into use,
perhaps, as the Greek equivalent of Eabbi (so
Wieseler). It designates Christ as Master in rela
tion to his disciples and followers; but it also goes
beyond this, and designates him as the exalted One
who commands his servants (Sovtoi) and administers
his kingdom on earth. Observe the conjoining of
2

18 The Epistle to the Galatians.
the names God and Christ by prepositions covering
both names, as by through (did) in the first
verse, and here by from (<J7r<s).
4. Who gave himself for our sins, that
he might deliver us out of this present
evil world, according to the will of our
God and Father:— Who gave himself for
OUr SinS (tov 66vtoc eavrov irepi tov dfiap.): the vica
rious death of Christ is here so early alluded to be
cause the Apostle has in mind their neglect of that
doctrine, (cf. ii. 21). Their Judaistic errors in
volved an abandonment of the sole saving signifi
cance of Christ's sufferings and death.*
This present evil world (£« tov aiavoe tov
* The reading irepi is best attested (vs. Tex. Bee. and B,
virip). The former is strictly more appropriate as applied
to things; the latter as applied to persons (cf. I Pet.
iii. 18); though Paul writes virip tov d/iapTiav in I Cor.
xv. 3, and here only. With a personal noun or pronoun
Paul always uses virep in connection with the vicarious
death of Christ, except in I Thess. v. 10 (and here some
MSS. read virip). The two prepositions are closely alike,
irepi meaning "on account of," "for"; virep "on behalf
of." Neither directly expresses the strict idea of vicari-
ousness in the sense of "instead of " (avri), but the context
implies a vicarious self-giving. He gave himself on behalf
of our sins ; in order to atone for them, and to rescue us from
their power. We find MiTpov dvrl irollov, Matt. 20. 28; also,
avTiXvrpov iirlp irdvrov, I Tim. ii. 6. We have in the New
Testament no such expression as XptoTbt; atridavev avrl tiuov.

The Salutation : i. 4. 19
kvearoToc iroviipav), is the age or world-period previous
to the second advent or parousia, which is evil, and
is to be marked by greater wickedness as the parou
sia draws nigh (II Thess. ii. 3. seq.). The present
age (<5 vvv alov, alov obroe) is opposed to the coming age
(ai£n> /liUav) which ensues upon the parousia. Both
are Hebraistic expressions (pljil tiTiVft and O^i VH
N3H). T T
" Present (hearac) world " (or age): Meyer ren
ders "impending," "beginning," and understands
by alov here, the evil period which is to immediately
precede Messiah's advent. This the phrase can
well mean; but the Pauline usage favors the com
mon view, and there is no hint that the Apostle is
here thinking of the "last times."*
The redemptive work of Christ is to deliver us
out of the present world-age, which is evil; to take
us out of relation to this evil stage of historical de
velopment, and to bring us into harmony with the
principles and motives of a higher order. Evil
(irovripov) is emphatic: "evil as it is."
According to the will of our God,
etc. (xara to Oifa/pa tov 8eov) designates this self -giving
and deliverance of Christ, as ordained of God. The
work of Christ is an act of sovereign, divine mercy,
far removed from human merit or attainment. The
article of the original text which is joined to the
word God (™s Beov) belongs, in my judgment, to
* On Paul's use of ivearoc cf. Eom. viii. 38; I Cor. iii. 22.

20 The Epistle to the Galatians.
both the word God and the word Father.
The article not being necessary to the former word
would hardly have been used if this meaning had
not been intended (Lightfoot). It binds the two
terms together, and our (vp-ov) is dependent
upon both; the force of the phrase, then, is our
God and Father ; cf. II Cor. i. 3. Meyer and
Wieseler construe our with Father only. These
two constructions underlie the renderings in the
Eevised and the King James Versions respectively.
Many similar passages occur and the point is a
doubtful one. The Greek commentators them
selves differ. In saying our Paul is referring
to the Christians. This is the prevailing New
Testament usage. God is Father to his obedient
sons (wi). An ethical relation and harmony, and
not a mere natural relation, is involved in these
words. Fatherhood means more than creatorship.
God is designated as Father only in relation to per
sons, who alone are capable of being the objects of
the divine love.
5. To whom be the glory forever and
ever. Amen.— The mention of God as "our
Father " implies the motif of his will (dH^ia) in the
work of Christ, viz., love, and it is this thought
that calls out the ascription of praise: To whom
be the glory, etc.
The glory (#<Wf<z, sc. dv), means the glory
which is due him for his gracious action. It is the

Ttie Salutation : i. 5. 21
ascription of thankfulness and praise; the recogni
tion of, and rejoicing in, the love and grace of God
which are his peculiar glory. As opposed to this
evil, passing age (aeon), Paul ascribes honor to God
for "the ages of the ages;" the unnumbered,
COUntleSS ages Of eternity. (el; tov; dldvac tov alovuv).
Amen (auin>), is the Hebrew JDN true, faithful;
(Greek, (aKrfta>6c). It is applied to God in the
Old Testament. It is also used as an imprecation
after prayers or oaths, Deut. xxvii. 15 seq., meaning,
" Surely let what has been said stand fast." In the
Septuagint it is either transliterated (d^), or trans
lated by some expression signifying "truly" or
" let it be so," (as alndoc or yhoiro). Thus it passed
into the New Testament, and has become a part
of the devotional language of every Christian
people.

THE TEUTHFULNESS OF HIS TEACHING,
vv. 6-10.
Instead of the usual thanksgiving which Paul
early introduces into his letters (II Cor. is an
exception), we find here an indignant rebuke for
their speedy and deep fall away from the gospel
which he had taught them, and their persuasion
to the opinions and practices of errorists which
were inconsistent with the true gospel. The Apos
tle adds his vehement protest against any person,
be he man or angel, who may teach any other
doctrine than that which he had taught them. He
thus shows his profound conviction that he has
taught them the truth, and that only.
6. I marvel that ye are so quickly
removing from him that called you in the
grace of Christ unto a different gospel :—
I marvel (6avpdru): Almost always after the
salutation Paul continues his Epistles with an
expression of thankfulness (evxw™); cf. Eom. i. 8;
I Cor. i. 4. The word recalls the wonder of Jesus
at the people's unbelief (Mark vi. 6, ko.1 Wav/iaaev Sea t^>
airioTtav avrav). SO quickly (ovruf Taxeoc), either
22

The Truthfulness of his Teaching : i. 6. 23
(1), So rashly, suddenly, indicating the readiness with
which they seized hold of the false doctrines (Chry-
sostom, De Wette); or (2), So soon after my leaving
you, referring to his labors among them (Calvin,
Bengel and Wieseler), or (3), So soon after their con
version. The reference to God's calling them favors
this view (so Lightfoot, Meyer, Olshausen). Ye
are so quickly removing (juraTiBsaee), middle
not passive (as Beza): to turn one's self from, to
fall away from; so used in the Septuagint of false
ness to one's allegiance. The present indicates the
process as going on (cf. iv. 9-11). From him
that Called yOU (airo tov KaXeaavTocvpdc), that is,
God. The call of God is his gracious invitation
which comes to man through the gospel. The
phrase cannot refer to Paul (so Paulus) nor to
Christ (so Lachmann, Calvin, Bengel). In the
grace of Christ : The grace of Christ denotes
the means by which, or, perhaps, more strictly, the
sphere within which, God's call is made effectual.
Unto a different gospel (ae irepov evayytTuovy.
Thus does Paul characterize the doctrine of the
Judaizers. It is, in relation to the true teaching,
different (irepov), so that the two are mutually
exclusive. The Greek word here used implies
a comparison between only two, one of which
must be chosen. Which is not another,
(8 ovk term d/Uo): The term rendered another (a\h>)
implies the possession of something additional.

24 The Epistle to the Galatians.
Their gospel would be another, if it added to
the true; but if it took the place of the true it
would be different. They adhere to the Jewish
law in such a way as to exclude the gospel. They
give up the Christian principle of grace and faith;
they nullify the distinctive doctrine of Christ's
redeeming death.
7. Which is not another gospel: only
there are some that trouble you, and
would pervert the gospel of Christ.— It was
a paradox to call their doctrine a gospel for
there can be but one. The Apostle now corrects
the expression by adding: " This which I called a
different gospel is no gospel at all. It is not
another set along side of mine, as if there were
several gospels. There can be no gospels in
addition to the one." In the first phrase, dif
ferent is the emphatic word; here it is not.
Only (el /4; lit. " except "). Their doctrine can be
called another gospel only in the sense that
it is a perversion of the true. This again is a modi
fication of the correction made in the expression:
which is not another. The sense is:
" Theirs is a different gospel, that is, no true gos
pel at all, but only a perversion of the gospel."
There are some that trouble you
(rapdaaovTec): This verb is often used of throw
ing into doctrinal unrest, by unsettling the mind
(Acts xv. 24). The force of would pervert,

The Truthfulness of his Teaching : i. 7. 25
(eiXovrec peraar. lit., " wish to pervert ") can hardly be,
(as Bengel), " wishing, but not able to pervert," for
they certainly accomplished their object; but rather,
" they are those who will to do it, who have this
purpose." Cf. "If any man wills (0a«) to do his
will," etc., John vii. 17.
Pervert (jteraorpeipat), means to distort a thing,
so that it is no longer its true self. What Paul
meant can be seen from iii. 3. From a doctrine in
the sphere of the Spirit, they now departed to one
in the sphere of the flesh, placing salvation in mer
itorious outward acts and observances, by adher
ence to Jewish law. Gospel of Christ : The
phrase of Christ (xptarov) is probably objective gen
itive, designating Christ as the theme and content
of the gospel, as commonly in the New Testament
where this phrase is used, and this was the gospel
which Paul had preached to them. Paul maintains
the identity of " his gospel " with the gospel which
was related to, and connected with Christ, as
opposed to all doctrines of Jewish legalism and
meritorious obedience.
8. But though we, or an angel from
heaven, should preach unto you any
gospel other than that which we preached
unto you, let him be anathema :— But
though we (dUd ml hdviipeir): The strict sense of
this expression is "even if," rather than "al
though" (hdv Kai), and indicates an extremely

26 The Epistle to the Galatians.
improbable supposition. "Even if we" (the
Apostle and his fellow laborers, i. 2) or, indeed, an
angel from heaven, etc. It is doubtful if Paul ever
uses we (vp-eic) to denote merely himself as an
individual. Other than that which (iraP' &).-
The relative pronoun (a) can refer to the word
gospel (evay.), "to that gospel which," or be gen
eral, "to what" we have preached (Meyer). The
preposition here used (irapd) implies a comparison of
the two in which they exclude one another: If any
one preaches a different gospel, one which is
contrary to, or inconsistent with ours, etc. In
former times there was a doctrinal controversy
connected with this word between Lutherans and
Eoman Catholics regarding tradition. Was it said
only that what is contrary to the gospel is accursed
(the E. C. view); or that what is additional to,
supplementary of it, is also condemned (Lutherans) ?
i. e. Is supplementary tradition allowable or not?
Let him be anathema (dvdeepa ioto) ¦. The word
anathema denotes a thing devoted to God; either
in the sense of an offering, gift, etc. (Luke xxi. 5, so
only here in the N. T.), or as consigned to divine
punishment i. e.j devoted to destruction, (so in
six New Testament passages.)* Cf. our English
* It is the Septuagint word for the Hebrew D"lll which
has the same twofold signification, in accordance with the
use of the Hiphil of D"yi, "to devote," (cf. for example,
Lev. xxvii. 28, with Deut. ii. 34). In the latter meaning it
is something worthy or destined to be destroyed utterly.

The Truthfulness of his Teaching : i. 9. 27
" devote " and Latin sacrare. In later times this
word, and the verb " to anathematize " (dvadepaTireiv),
were applied to Ecclesiastical censures and excom
munication. This force of the terms is not found
in the New Testament. Anathema here means
"an accursed thing." Luther renders: der sei
verfiucht. Cf. Gal. v. 10.
9. As we have said before, so say I now
again, If any man preacheth unto you
any gospel other than that which ye
received, let him be anathema. — This phrase
As we have said before (<k irpoup^mpev) may
either refer to v. 8 (so the older interpreters, Ee-
formers, and Neander), or to what he had said when
he was among them, (probably on his second visit
(Acts xviii. 23); (so Ellicott, Lightfoot, Meyer,
Wieseler). No grammatical reasons are decisive,
but it is more natural to suppose that So say I
now again (KalapmrdXivMyo) refers to something
past, a previous occasion, rather than to what he
has just written.*
10. For am I now persuading men, or
God? or am I seeking to please men? if I
were still pleasing men, I should not
be a servant of Christ :— For am I now
persuading, etc. Explanation of his boldness
* The student of the original text will note the unclassi-
cal use of the accusative (vpac) for the dative after
tvayyeXt^opat.

28 The Epistle to the Galatians.
and vehemence. For (ydp) gives the ground or
reason for his daring assertion. The truth of the
second alternative implied in his question is the
ground of his boldness. "Am I engaged in an
effort to please men, or is this a case of fealty to
God? It is the latter, hence I must proclaim and
defend my doctrine which conserves the truth and
the honor of Christ." The word persuade (irelda)
is used here in a frequent classical sense, "concili
ate," "win favor with," cf. Acts xii. 20 (irehavrec
mdo-Tov). The now (dprc) may imply a contradiction
to the alleged occasions on which the Judaizers say
he acted as a Jew (Lightfoot); or may refer to the
time of his conversion (Wieseler); but probably
rather serves to emphasize the present critical mo
ment (Meyer). " Now of all other times am I seek
ing the favor of men? " etc.
Or am I seeking (v fro): The same thought is
taken up in a more general form. It is a question
as between pleasing men or God. Paul cannot
yield here without "obeying men rather than
God." If I were Still (in): If I yet, since my
conversion (Wieseler), or, if I am still, as you say, a
man-pleaser, preaching circumcision when occa
sion demands (cf. v. ii). A servant of Christ
(xpicrov dovloc:)-. The expression refers to his moral re
lation to Christ, Christ's true and faithful bondman
(Meyer, Wieseler), and not to a historical relation
(Chrysostom, Schott, Buckert), as if he said: "If I

The Truthfulness of his Teaching : i. 10. 29
were now pleasing men I should have remained a
Pharisee and a persecutor and never have become a
Christian and an Apostle. " Meyer regards servant
here as an unofficial, Wieseler as the official title of
his apostleship.

THE DIVINE OEIGIN OF HIS GOSPEL,
vv. 11-17.
Verses 11, 12 bring forward the main theme of
the Apologetic Section, the Independence and
Divine Origin of his Gospel. After the impassioned
outburst of feeling in verses 6-10, the Epistle con
tinues in a calmer strain, and with a certain
solemnity.
11. For I make known to you, breth
ren, as touching the gospel which was
preached by me, that it is not after man.
— For I make known, etc. (yvopZo ydP ip.iv); I
make known (yvopiZo) introduces a formal and
solemn declaration. It was indeed known to them
before, but not appreciated. "I make you aware;
I would impress it upon you." So in I Cor. xv. 1;
II Cor. viii. 1. " I urge again upon your attention,
and for your reception, the same doctrine which I
formerly preached to you; and as connected with
this doctrine, the specific thing which I urge is,
that it is not a human work but a divine." Breth
ren (d&etyoi) indicates a changed phase of the Apos
tle's temper. He had reproached them; he will

The Divine Origin of his Gospel: i. 12 31
now reason with them, and win them. The Gos
pel (to evayy&aov) is used by attraction or anticipa
tion, as the object of I make known, with
which the sentence beginning with that (on) is in
grammatical apposition. The other construction
would have been: I make known to you that
the gospel which was preached by me is
nOt alter man (yv. bn to evay. rd evay. vir' epov eoTiv
k. t. 2.); or: I make known to you concerning
the gospel which was preached by me,
that it is not alter man (yv. vuiv irepi tov day. tov
evayyeXiodevToc inr' epov on k. t. r\.). — Not after man
(ov mrd &v6.=KaTd dedv) designates not only its origin
as not human but its character as well. It was not
a human work or product.
12. For neither did I receive it from
man, nor was I taught it, but it came to
me through revelation of Jesus Christ.
This verse contains the proof of the statement im
mediately preceding. For neither did I (ovSe yaP
i yo irapa av Bpairov irapelapov dvro) : The Use of the pro-
noun (tyo), so commonly omitted, seems to show
that the word neither (obSi) has its proper adversa
tive force: neither did I any more than the original
twelve, etc. Since Paul so frequently compares
himself with the twelve in relation to his authority
and the validity of his apostolic call, it is natural to
think that this thought is here in mind. (So
Meyer, Wieseler, Ellicott, Olshausen). Others (as

32 The Epistle to the Galatians.
Lightfoot) make the word neither simply continu-
ative, and do not find the force of an implied com
parison in the I (iyo). Neither did I receive
it, states the general fact that his gospel was not
communicated to him from a man, but from Christ.
Nor was I taught it (ome kdiSdxdm) denies more
specifically that it is the result of his own study
under any one's instruction. The contrast to this
statement is found in through revelation
(6e dirom-kvTpeor). Of Jesus Christ (lo°ov Xp.) is the
genitive of the subject, revelation from Jesus
Christ. The context only decides the sense of
this phrase since it occurs in both the subjective
and the objective force. The point is, "My doc
trine is not a matter of instruction, but of revela
tion; not a human product, but a divine."
The passage suggests such inquiries as: What
was this revelation and when did Paul receive it?
Does he mean to say that every doctrine and opin
ion which he taught was a matter of supernatural
revelation; or would the supposition that he re
ceived the central principles of- his doctrine thus,
and developed and applied them by reflection and
reasoning, satisfy his language, and accord with the
facts? How much does he mean to embrace in that
gospel which he declares to have been a matter of
revelation? Cf. on these points his other claims as
a recipient of revelation. Eph. iii. 3; II Cor. xii.
1; Acts xxii. 17, seq.

The Divine Origin of his Gospel : i. 12. 33
As to the reference in the word revelation, the
following opinions are current : (1) The reve
lations mentioned in II Cor. xii. 1. (2) Eevela-
tions from Christ in general. (3) A special
revelation received not long after "his conversion, on
his way to Damascus (so Meyer and apparently
Ellicott). (4) A revelation in connection with his
experience on the way to Damascus (so Wieseler,
Usteri, Euckert, Olshausen). Either (3) or (4)
is to be preferred. It is not possible to decide
confidently between them. The revelation (see ver.
16) was such a manifestation of Christ to the
Apostle's soul that he saw him in his true char
acter as the Saviour, — a revelation which de
stroyed forever his Pharisaic theories and gave
him a new principle of religion. The reference in
vv. 13-16 to his conversion makes it necessary to
assume that the revelation was closely connected with
the experience of his conversion. The whole drift of
the Epistle shows that by his gospel he is thinking
of those distinctive principles which he opposed to
the Judaizing errors, — grace, faith, and Christ as
sole Saviour. It is against the facts to suppose that
Paul claimed a direct supernatural attestation of his
every argument or opinion. See I Cor. vii. 12, 25,
26. It was those central principles which made the
gospel what it was, and which, if overthrown, nul
lified its character, that Paul had received as divine,
and for which he claimed the direct authentication
of Christ. 3

34 TJie Epistle to the Galatians.
We cannot suppose that Paul knew nothing of
Christian doctrine before this revelation. The
point is, that no such knowledge convinced him, or
made the gospel Ms gospel. It was in the crisis
when Christ stood revealed to him and in him
(iv ipoi, ver. 16), that he received the divine authenti
cation; so that his certainty rests on no reasoning
or argument, but on a divine revelation. The vision
of Christ, the revelation of Christ to him, convinced
him of what he had often heard, that Christ was
the Son of God. This new conviction carried
everything with it. If he was the Messiah, then he
did not die for his own sins, but for others'. His
death must therefore be the means of salvation.
He is the suffering Messiah of Old Testament
prophecy (I Cor. xv. 3, 4). He is the bringer of
God's grace to men, and the way to God is through
faith in him. Thus Paul's gospel springs directly
from the certainty given in the revelation that
Christ is the true Messiah, the Son of God. Ac
cordingly, the first assertion that he made as a
Christian was that "Jesus is the Son of God."
(Acts ix. 20.)
Having asserted (vv. 11, 12) his apostolic author
ity, and the independence of his doctrine, the
Apostle now enters upon a detailed proof of his
statement (vv. 13-24). In addition to the general
analysis already given the points of this proof may
be stated more in detail, thus: —

The Divine Origin of Ms Gospel : i. 13. 35
(1). My career (dvaorpotf) as a strict Jew and perse
cutor of Christianity proves that no mere human
persuasion could have transformed me into an
Apostle, v. 13.
(2). My intense prejudice and attachment to
Jewish traditions, rendered me impervious to mere
human influences, v. 14.
(3). I did not communicate or consult with men
about the change, vv. 15, 16.
(4). I did not confer with the prior Apostles. I
kept aloof from Jerusalem, the seat of apostolic
authority. I withdrew into retirement, v. 17.
(5). When later I visited Peter, I saw but one
other Apostle, v. 19.
(6). The people of Judea did not even know me
by sight; they had merely heard of my conversion
and rejoiced in it, but that was all. I could not,
therefore, have been under instruction at the cen
ter of apostolic teaching and influence. My relations
and history do not permit the supposition that I
received my gospel from any human source, 22-24.
13. For ye have heard of my manner of
life in time past in the Jews' religion, how
that beyond measure I persecuted the
church of God, and made havoc of it :—
For ye have heard (ifaotxrare): emphatically pre
fixed. My course of life was something notorious
and requiring no proof. My manner of life,
way of acting, uniformly rendered " conversation "

36 The Epistle to the Galatians.
in A. V. (so in 13 passages). This translation was
not incorrect when made, but owing to the change of
meaning which "conversation" has undergone,
does not convey the true idea. We have here a
later usage of the Greek word (dvaoTpo^ij), which in
the classical language means a "turning about"
(as in battle) or a "dwelling." In time past
etc., a designation of the time when he was living
in the condition and under the prejudices of a
Jew. Beyond measure (ko& itmppoivv), literally,
"in accordance with excess." I persecuted
and made havoc (kdioKov, iirdpdow): The imperfect
tenses denote the course of conduct in which he
was continuously engaged. The verb uniformly
translated made havOC in the E. V., is used in
application either to the organization, the church,
or to the people composing it. It means more than
to disturb and break up the organization. Saul
killed as well as disturbed. Cf. Acts xxii. 4.
14. And I advanced in the Jews' relig
ion beyond many of mine own age among
my countrymen, being more exceedingly
zealous for the traditions of my fathers:—
I advanced, etc., (irpoeKoirrov): The word literally
means "to strike forward," and so to advance, and
is applied to time or to growth in character, in the
New Testament. The meaning is: — "I advanced
in that mode and sphere of life in which I formerly
acted." Cf. Acts xxii. 3. Many of mine own

The Divine Origin of his Gospel : i. 14. 37
age, compeers, companions. Among my coun
trymen, (h t$ ytvei pov), literally, "in my race."
The term for " race " (yhoc) may be used of com
munities larger or smaller, ranging from the family
to the nation; here, probably, it denotes the Jewish
people. Being more exceedingly zealous, etc.,
(irepusoorepos rijr\oriiQ mrdpxov): This is said with refer
ence to the preceding many, "being in a higher
degree than the many a zealot." For the tradi
tions, etc. : The genitive here (wapadoaeov) is the gen
itive of the object, denoting the matters with which
the zeal occupied itself. These were the Pharisaic
traditions relating to Scripture, fine distinctions in
conduct, principle, etc., which we meet with in the
Gospels. In designating them as his own (pov), he
no doubt refers to those specific traditions which
characterized his party, the Pharisees. In using
the term "zealot," it is not probable that he means
to say that he belonged to the faction of the Phari
sees which took this name in the later Jewish times,
and to which belonged the apostle Simon "the Ca-
nanean " (that is, the " zealous," typ)> Mk. iii. 18,
— or "the Zealot," Luke vi. 15. Such had been his
former life. How unlikely from a human point of
view, that he ever should become an Apostle or a
Christian. No mere human means could have
effected it. When therefore his conversion came,
it was a work of God's sovereign grace.

38 The Epistle to the Galatians.
15. But when it was the good pleasure of
God, who separated me, even from my
mother's womb, and called me through
his grace. — This work Paul grounds in the pur
pose of God, which here is not, as so often, referred
to eternity, but is traced back only to the time of
his birth. What God has done, he from the begin
ning of his life intended to do. But when
(brey. when the set time of the divine counsel
arrived. The order of thought is, (1) God deter
mines (d cupopiaac) upon him as an Apostle from the
time of his birth. (2) The call (mteaac) comes to
him, — referring to the experience on the way to
Damascus. (3) The revelation (diroKaTivipai) follows, —
referring either to the experience of his conversion,
or to experiences in close connection with it. Thus
again it is shown how independent of men his
apostleship was. He had it as the result of a divine
decree and call, and through a revelation. When
this divine work had been wrought he followed in
the line of its indications. He did not proceed to
fall back upon human authority and guidance, as
might be supposed.
16. To reveal his Son in me, that I might
preach him among the Gentiles ; immedi
ately I conferred not with flesh and
blood: — In me (ivipoi) is variously interpreted:
(1) instrumentally, " by means of me " (to others),
so Lightfoot, on the ground that this makes a third

The Divine Origin of his Gospel : i. 16. 39
and distinct point in the actions of vv. 15 and 16.
(2) In my soul, or in my consciousness (Ellicott,
Meyer), denoting such a disclosure of Christ to the
Apostle, that he became known to Paul as his own
and the world's Saviour. The latter view is prefer
able, because (a) this is the natural force of the
preposition used (h) ; (b) the Apostle's experience,
the making effectual of the divine call, would nat
urally be the next step of thought, rather than the
work of Paul as an Apostle. He is dealing with
what happened at the outset of his Christian life.
This is the "revelation" (cf. v. 12) in which Paul
received his "gospel." What may have been the
time, method, or accompaniments, we do not pre
cisely know; these are subordinate questions. The
revelation gave him that knowledge of Christ as
Messiah and Saviour compared with which he counted
all other things as worthless (Phil. iii. 8). The time
came when he saw Christ in his true glory and sav
ing power. In that vision of the soul, all things
were changed. He saw his former folly and wick
edness; the path of meritorious performance closed
before him, and that of faith opened. Henceforth
he seizes the principles which became central for all
his later teaching; he has his gospel of grace and
faith. In the revelation was contained his mission.
When Paul saw that Christ was Messiah and
Saviour, he saw that all narrowness and Jewish
legalism must disappear; that Christ was the head

40 The Epistle to the Galatians.
of a kingdom which was to be universal. It was
his duty to promote this kingdom as eagerly as he
had tried to promote the legal system. Immedi
ately I Conferred not (cvdeoc ov irpoaaveBeu/jii
a. t. l) : The word immediately belongs to the
four verbs following (two negative and two positive),
and shows the course which he forthwith pursued;
i. e. directly after his conversion and the revelation of
Christ to him; there was no interval during which
human means could have taught him the gospel.
I conferred not, "did not apply to" "consult."
Flesh and blood (D"]1 "^3) is the Hebrew idiom
for man, — mankind. It is several times used in
the New Testament, denoting either the gross-
ness of the corporeal nature ( I Cor. xv. 50) or man
in his incompetence as opposed to God, (Matt. xvi.
17).' 17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to
them which were apostles before me:
but I went away into Arabia ; and again
I returned unto Damascus :— Neither
went I up (ovSe avrfkQov): He did not resort to the
great seat of apostolic influence, Jerusalem. The
reference in the statement, I went away, is to
Damascus. That he should go to Jerusalem might
have been expected. Three years intervened, how
ever, before he visited Jerusalem at all after his
conversion. He designates the twelve as "those
who were apostles before me," thus claiming that

The Divine Origin of his Gospel : i. 18. 41
priority of time was the only mark of superiority
belonging to their office as compared with his.
After the sojourn in Arabia, he returned to Damas
cus, where he has a perilous experience in being let
down along side the city-wall in a basket. (Acts ix.
24 seq.; II Cor. xi. 32 seq.) Where Paul sojourned
in Arabia is unknown, whether in the Sinaitic
peninsula or in some region not far from Damascus.
Arabia was a vague term which might include re
gions so distant. Luke does not mention this sojourn,
and seems to have had only an indistinct knowledge
of the chronology of Paul's life in the years directly
following his conversion, as he calls the period be
tween his conversion and his visit to Jerusalem
" certain days " (vpepai havai), — Acts ix. 23, — an ex
pression which he could hardly have used had he
known of this sojourn, and that the " considerable
number of days" were three years. Nor do we
know the length of time which this sojourn covered.
It is not certain that it occupied the entire three
years. Nor do we know its purpose. The patristic
view was that he went into Arabia to preach. The
modern conjecture is, that he went for meditation,
study and thought, as a preparation for his public
life. 18. Then after three years I went up to
Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried
with him fifteen days. — This visit is, no doubt,
identical with that related in Acts ix. 26-30. The

42 The Epistle to the Galatians.
only objection to this identification is found in the
differences between the two narratives; but we
have already seen that Luke's information concern
ing this period must have been scanty; and it is not
strange that, writing from a different point of view,
his account has few points of contact with Paul's
own, given for a special purpose.
In Acts are mentioned the following particulars:
(a) Suspicion of Paul on the part of the Jerusalem
Christians, (b) Barnabas introduces him to the
Apostles, and explains his conversion and preaching
at Damascus, (c) Paul preached repeatedly in
and about Jerusalem, especially to the Hellenists.
Paul's own account makes no allusion to (a), nor to
(b), and states that he saw but two Apostles, Peter
and James. Luke evidently supposed him to have
been introduced to the whole company. It is pos
sible to explain this seeming difference by saying
that all were absent from Jerusalem except Peter
and James. Paul's mention of two Apostles only is
not a contradiction to the inexact expression " the
apostles," (Acts ix. 27), although the two narratives,
independently considered, would produce different
impressions. Luke's description of his preaching in
and about Jerusalem gives a different impression
from Paul's statement that he was unknown by
sight to the people of Judea. Luke however men
tions that his preaching was to a certain class, the
Greek-speaking Jews. After three years,

The Divine Origin of Ms Gospel : i. 19. 43
doubtless reckoned from his conversion, and not
from his return from Arabia, since the former is
the great event from which the narrative proceeds.
To Visit (laTopijeai) Cephas: The word rendered
to visit is thought to be allied to the words mean
ing to see, and to know (ideiv, 616a) and therefore
means, primarily, to look into, and so to examine,
search; whence our English word "History." In
later Greek it is used of seeing in the sense of mak
ing the acquaintance of and occurs only here in the
N. T. The Aramaic name Cephas is supported
by some of the most important authorities as
against the majority of MSS., and is confirmed by
ii. 9-11. This name was still, no doubt, in familiar
use. Paul's purpose to make Peter's acquaintance
confirms the fact, which is otherwise attested,
that he had a certain precedence. Paul no doubt
states the duration of his stay, fifteen days, as
showing that so short a sojourn could not have been
intended or have served for receiving instruction in
the gospel. Both the purpose and the duration of
the visit would tend to establish this conclusion.
According to Luke (Acts ix. 29), he left Jerusalem
because of plots against his life.
19. But other of the apostles saw I none,
save James the Lord's brother. — Another
fact bears in the same direction. He saw only one
other Apostle, James the Lord's brother.
This is the man who is later called Bishop of Jeru-

44 The Epistle to the Galatians.
salem; the James who appears at the first apostolic
council (Acts xv.), the writer of the Epistle, and
the proper brother of Jesus. * The question arises,
Is James here called an apostle? i. e. does (1) the
word Save (el pv) bear as an exception against
I saw (elSov) only, (I saw no other Apostle; I saw
only James)? (so Fritzsche, Winer, Wieseler), or
(2) against the whole previous sentence (I saw no
other of the Apostles, except that I saw James)? (So
Meyer, Lightfoot and Ellicott). Cf. I Cor. xv. 7,
where James is clearly spoken of as an Apostle,
though distinguished from the twelve. That he
saw but these two would increase the improbability
that he learned his gospel at Jerusalem.
20. Now touching the things which I
write unto you, behold, before God, I lie
not. — The aspersions of his enemies lead him to
solemnly assert that in narrating these circum
stances so directly bearing upon the independence
and validity of his apostleship, he speaks the exact
truth. The verse is loosely constructed. A literal
translation would be : " But what things I write
to you, behold before God that I do not lie." The
sentence "that I do not," etc., can either be under
stood as an anacoluthon depending on I write
(ypdipu) repeated (so Meyer); or one may suppose that
there is implied in the words before God some
* See Lightfoofs Dissertation: "The Brethren of the
Lord " in his Commentary on Galatians.

The Divine Origin of his Gospel: i. 22. 45
such thought as: "I call you to witness" (that)
etc. (So Lightfoot and Wieseler). Others (as
Ellicott and De Wette) supply such a thought as:
" I assert," "I solemnly declare " from the context.
This seems the most natural explanation since with
such expressions as before God some such word
is generally used by Paul, and the thought of it is
implied here, leaving the verse a graphic anacolu-
thon. The E. V. omits the translation of (on)
("that"). 21. Then I came into the regions of
Syria and Cilicia.— Luke says (ix. 30) that Paul
went from Jerusalem to Caesarea and Tarsus.
Paul's explanations are general, the design being
to show that he went to regions remote from Jerusa
lem. The two accounts coincide in that Tarsus was
a city of Cilicia, and they in no respect conflict.
The data are not sufficient to determine the order
of his movements.
This Caesarea is probably the Eoman capital of
Judea. From Caesarea he could travel either by
land (Meyer) to Syria, (whose capital was Antioch),
and to Cilicia in the northwest, or (Lightfoot) could
go by sea.
22. And I was still unknown by face
unto the churches of Judea which were
in Christ:— And I was still unknown:
That he should be unknown to the churches of
Judea is not inconsistent with his preaching in and

46 The Epistle to the Galatians.
around Jerusalem (narrated by Luke, Acts ix. 28
seq.) especially since he labored there distinctively
among the Hellenists. To the great mass of
Judean Christians he must have been unknown
except by report. If, on the contrary, he had been
a pupil of the Apostles he would naturally have as
sociated with the Judean Christians.
23. But they only heard say, He that
once persecuted us now preacheth the
faith of which he once made havoc—
The force of the expression the faith here ap
proaches the later doctrinal usage. He preached
the doctrine of the necessity of faith in Christ;
meaning, however, not primarily a certain doctrine
about Christ, but personal belief on Christ. Faith
always means personal faith in Christ in the New
Testament (even in Acts vi. 7) but, as Meyer says,
it may be objectively considered; i. e., regarded as
a principle governing conduct, requiring defense,
etc., (Jude 3). To preach the faith is the same as
to preach the gospel which required faith. So
Wieseler, Meyer, Dwight (notes in Meyer's Commen
tary on Eomans i. 5) Ellicott. Per contra, Thayer's
Lexicon, Lightfoot (Com. p. 157), Pfleiderer.
24. And they glorified God in me :— In
me, i. e., "in my case." They considered Paul's
conversion as an occasion and ground for rendering
praise to God. There could then have been no such
opposition between his gospel and that of the other
Apostles as the Tubingen critics maintain.

ANALYSIS AND PAEAPHEASE OF
CHAPTEE II.
1. The approval of Paul's Gospel by the Primitive
Apostles, w. 1-10. — It was fourteen years before I
again visited Jerusalem; when I did so it was in re
sponse to an impulse from the Spirit and with the
desire to be assured by the Apostles there in person
that my teaching was acceptable to them (1, 2).
So far from their criticising or amending my teach
ing they did not even require the circumcision of
my Gentile traveling companion, Titus, (though
in the circumstances to do this might have been
natural and, in itself, allowable); there were, in
deed, those who urged it but I refused to allow it
because of the presence of Pharisaic extremists
who, by insisting upon the necessity of circumcision
in order to the attainment of salvation, sought to
restrict our freedom as Christians from the law, and
to put us again under its burdens; to have yielded
would, in this case, have compromised the essential
principles of the gospel, (3-5). [Verses 5 and 6 are
a digression treating of the attitude of the extreme
Jewish party, as contrasted with the Apostles; at
47

48 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter II.
verse 6 the thread which was dropped for a moment
at the end of verse 3 is resumed]. The influential
primitive Apostles [and however great their influ
ence or authority might be, it could not affect the
truth and divineness of my mission, since God's
approval does not follow human judgment], did not
in any way attempt to supplement or correct my
teaching, but rather agreed that I had as truly a
divine commission to continue my present work
among the Gentiles as Peter to proceed with his
among the Jews (6, 7); this conviction was based
upon our success in our respective spheres of labor
(8). The three who were present at this interview
accordingly approved the course and teaching of
myself and Barnabas, and in token of this approval
gave us the right hand of fellowship and commended
us in our Gentile-Christian mission (9), only urging
us to continue mindful of the poor Christians at
Jerusalem, and to collect from the wealthier Gentile
churches contributions to their support, thus keep
ing this bond of Christian charity between the Jew
ish and Gentile Christians and, by so doing, help
ing to prevent jealousy and alienation (10).
2. Peter's inconsistent action at Antioch and
Paul's reproof of his course, vv. 11-21.— On a later
occasion at Antioch I equally maintained my inde
pendence. Peter had been accustomed, when there,
to mingle freely with the Gentile converts who had
not been circumcised (cf. vv. 7-9), eating at the

Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter II. 49
same table with them at the love-feasts. But cer
tain Judaizers, alleging the authority of James for
their position (see notes on ver. 12), had opposed
this fellowship with the uncircumcised, and Peter,
on this occasion, timidly yielded to this persuasion
and withdrew from the company. For this I
rebuked him because he was worthy of blame
(11, 12). The other Jewish Christians followed his
example, not excepting my companion Barnabas
(13). Deeply feeling that the integrity and sole
sufficiency of the gospel was compromised by this
action, I publicly challenged Peter in the matter as
follows: How is it that you now deviate from your
ordinary and normal course of freely associating
with Gentile converts and not only renounce that
course but go farther and by your action demand
that even Gentiles shall live as do the Jews, that is,
be circumcised and observe the law (14)? We Jew
ish Christians have long ago learned that it is faith
in Christ, not works of law, which saves us. How
is it, then, that you now act as if legal observance
was also necessary, thus inconsistently, by your
action, denying that the faith which we hold is
sufficient (15, 16)? If now we again resort to the
legal course may it not give occasion to say that we
confess ourselves still unforgiven sinners and that
Christ, so far from delivering us from sin and its
curse, plunges us deeper into it? We cannot admit
any such conclusion and no more can we tolerate
4

50 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter II.
any principle of action that (like yours in this case)
gives occasion to it. The real "transgressor," the
"sinner," is not the man who renounces the law
altogether and clings solely to Christ (as we all
should), but it is he who tries to "build up again
those things which he destroyed," that is, to still
cling to and even to insist upon the observance of
the legal system whose renunciation as a means of
salvation is logically involved in the very idea of
Christian faith, which means the sole sufficiency and
necessity of Christ. Hence it is the Judaizing course,
rather than that of the Gentile Christians, which
stamps those who pursue it as " sinners " — unjusti
fied persons, by the tacit confession contained in the
idea that something additional to faith in Christ is
needful (17, 18). For the law itself through its
revelation of my sin to me and its ethical death-
sentence, slew me. I thus broke all relation to the
law, as earthly relations are broken by death (19).
I died to the old life and old relations with Christ
on the cross, and yet, in a new and higher sense, I
live; or rather, it would be more correct to say, that
Christ lives in me, for my new spiritual life has its
source and support in him, who, through love, gave
himself up to death for my salvation (20). My doc
trine, thus, magnifies God's grace (as is not the case
with those who still cling to the law and to works),
and well I may, for if men could ever have been
justified by the law, Christ need not have died;

Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter II. 51
and, since it is an axiom with all Christians that
Christ's death was not for naught, that fact may
prove the entire futility of seeking righteousness in
any other way than through faith in him (21).

CHAPTEE II.
I. The Approval op Paul's Gospel by the
Pbimitive Apostles, 1-10.
On another visit to Jerusalem he had laid his
gospel before the chief authorities there, and
they had approved him as a divinely sent
Apostle. 1. Then after the space of fourteen
years I went up again to Jerusalem with
Barnabas, taking Titus also with me:—
Then might refer either to the journey to Syria
and Cilicia (Meyer), or to his first journey to Jeru
salem (Wieseler). After the space of (&£),
literally, "through." This temporal use of the
preposition results from the conception of travers
ing the time. Should the fourteen years be reck
oned from his conversion (Wieseler, Ellicott), or
from the first visit to Jerusalem (i. 18), (Meyer,
Lightfoot)? The word again (irdliv) favors the
latter view. This is the journey related in Acts
xv., and the third visit of Paul to Jerusalem. For
the view that it was the second, see Meyer on the
52

The Approval of Paul's Gospel, etc. : ii. 1. 53
passage, who maintains that Paul could not have
omitted the mention of a journey to Jerusalem here
without breaking down his argument. Therefore
the narrative of the journey in Acts xi. 30 and xii. 25
is, in his opinion, only semi-historical. Paul turned
back before reaching Jerusalem. Gal. ii. synchro
nizes therefore with Acts xv. ; but that is the sec
ond, not the third journey as Luke would make it.
The second visit (Acts xi. 27-30) was for a special
purpose, viz., the carrying of a gift of alms to the
poor and persecuted at Jerusalem, and Paul has no
occasion to mention it here. This then is that visit
during which he attended the apostolic council.*
The following differences between the narratives
in Acts xv. and Gal. ii. may be noted: —
(a) Acts xv. 2 states that Paul and Barnabas were
sent by the church of Antioch to Jerusalem; Gal.
ii. 2 makes him to go in consequence of a special
revelation. But this representation is not incon
sistent with Luke, who states the historical and
human side, while Paul, with his special pur
pose in mind, states the providential side of the
event. (b) Acts xv. 4-7, describes a general council; Gal.
ii. 2, speaks only of a private interview with the in
fluential Apostles. Luke's narrative is general,
* For the discussion of the relation of Acts and Gala
tians on this point, see Lightf oot's note on "The Later
Visit of St. Paul at Jerusalem," in his Commentary, p. 91.

54 The Epistle to the Galatians.
from the historical point of view. Paul's is specific,
with one object in mind, his relation to the
" pillars." (c) Acts reveals no disharmony in the delibera
tions. Gal. ii. 14 seq. narrates a sharp rebuke by
Paul to Peter (at Antioch afterwards), showing,
however, an imperfect conversion on Peter's part to
the more liberal view of the rights of Gentile con
verts. Here again Paul narrates a specific incident,
with which Luke may not have been acquainted, or
have had no occasion to mention.
(d) Galatians omits all mention of the Apostles'
decision. This does not seem strange when it is re
membered that this decision was of local and tem
porary significance. Paul does, however, make the
general statement, " They added nothing to me."
The following agreements in the accounts should
also be noticed: — (a) The places in question are the
same, — Antioch and Jerusalem, (b) The chief per
sons concerned are the same, — Paul and Barnabas
on the one hand, Peter, James, (and in Galatians)
John, on the other, (c) The subject is the same,
— the relation of the Gentile converts to the Jewish
(Mosaic) law. (d) The result is the same, — the ap
proval of Paul's work by the Jerusalem Apostles,
the agreement that the Gentiles need not be cir
cumcised, and that Paul and his converts have spe
cial regard to some points which will be likely to
promote harmony.

The Approval of Paul's Gospel, etc. : ii. 2. 55
If the conversion of Saul occurred in the year 35,
then the first visit to Jerusalem would fall in 38, and
the third visit to attend the apostolic council in 52.
With Barnabas, the regular companion of Paul
in his missionary labors, from the time when Paul
and Barnabas were commissioned (Acts xiii. 2),
until the " sharp contention " which occurred be
tween him and Paul in regard to Mark (Acts xv. 36,
seq.). Here Paul assumes a certain precedence over
Barnabas. Earlier (Acts xi. xii.) Barnabas seems to
have been the leader. Titus also, i. e. in addition
to Barnabas. Titus is nowhere mentioned by name
in the Acts, but is naturally included in the " cer
tain others," (Acts xv. 2). This is the first appear
ance of Titus in the New Testament history, but
numerous references to him are afterward found in
II Cor., Titus, and II Timothy. He and Timothy
were among the most trusted of the Apostle's
helpers.
2. And I went up by revelation; and
I laid before them the gospel which I
preach among the Gentiles, but privately
before them who were of repute, lest by
any means I should be running, or had
run, in vain: — By revelation: Such was
the motive of the journey to Paul. To the church
at large, he was chosen as a deputy, as Luke nar
rates; but, in his own thought, his going was in obe
dience to a "revelation," by which some inner

56 The Epistle to the Galatians.
experience of his own soul must be meant. What
the form or mode of the revelation was, we do not
know. Cf. in Acts. xxii. 17 his reference to the
experience of a " trance " or ecstacy; also to that of
a " vision " in Acts xvi. 9. In Acts xx. 23 he re
fers to an impulse of the Spirit, or a prophetic in
spiration, in which the Spirit had taught him
through the events that were happening, how
critical would be his situation, on another occasion,
in Jerusalem. I laid before them the gospel
which I preach, which I continue to proclaim
Qaipvaao). This gospel was the doctrine of salvation
through Christ alone, apart from obedience to the
Mosaic Law. More specifically, it was justification
by faith in Christ, as opposed to justification by
works of meritorious obedience, — the Jewish idea.
This gospel in the form in which he taught it
among the Gentiles, in contrast to the Judaic phase
of Christian teaching, with emphasis, no doubt, upon
its universality and completeness in itself, he laid
before them who were of repute Q>i sonovvTes),
i. e., Peter, James and John. Why did he do this ?
The answer given is: lest by any means I
should be running, or had run, in vain.
Does this mean (a) in order to correct it by the author
ity of the "pillars"? i. e. lest it be found that,
after all, he had made a mistake in his teaching. (So
Tertullian, DeWette). This explanation would be
contrary to the whole course of the argument,

The Approval of Paul's Gospel, etc. : ii. 2. 57
which assumes a revelation and fixed certainty as
the warrant of his teaching, (b) He wished to
come to an understanding with them, because the
Jewish views which claimed to rest on their author
ity might thwart his labors and make his running
in vain. Paul does this lest his labors be rendered
unsuccessful (Lightfoot). (c) He laid his gospel
before them in order to learn whether, perhaps, he
was running in vain, not as indicating uncertainty
on his part, but as desiring to satisfy their minds
(Thayer's Lex. on pijiroc, Meyer). View (b) takes
the terms lest by any means (y-woc) as indicat
ing purpose (= ne forte) ; view (c) as interrogative
(= num forte). The word pi/nog can be either telic or
interrogative, and rp^w (E. V. I should be run
ning) can be either indicative or subjunctive.*
If pi/irur is telic, then rpkx<-> is subjunctive; if inter
rogative, then it is indicative. To me the view (c)
seems more probably correct. Paul's object was to
secure their approval, not because he felt uncertain
in regard to the success of his work, or feared oppo
sition from them, but in order that it might be
seen that in their view also he was not laboring in
vain.
3. But not even Titus who was with me,
l>eing a Greek, was compelled to be cir
cumcised. — The force of the argument is: But so
* In I Thess. iii. 5, we have a mixture of indicative and
subjunctive constructions after pijiroQ.

58 The Epistle to the Galatians.
far from it appearing that I was running in vain; so
far from the Apostles at Jerusalem rejecting my
gospel and disapproving my procedure; they did not
even require the circumcision of Titus, my com
panion, which the Judeo-Christians, no doubt,
desired and probably demanded. The Apostles did
not eyen (oi<5c) require this, which from a Jewish
point of view would have been quite natural. Ac
cording to this interpretation, the phrase being a
Greek is concessive. Although he was a Gentile
traveling with me in Judea, they did not require
his circumcision. The implication seems to be that
the circumcision of Titus had been demanded by
certain Judaizers; the Apostles, however, did not
enforce the demand. It would be clearly inconsist
ent with Acts xv. to suppose (with the Tubingen
critics) that it was the Apostles who made this de
mand. Inasmuch as Titus was a Greek, they con
ceded, as against the extremists, that circumcision
was unnecessary, and this concession was proof that
in the judgment of the three, Paul was not running
in vain, but was working in harmony with the
divine plan in his Gentile ministry and in discoun
tenancing circumcision for the Gentile convert.
For Paul's conciliatory action in the case of Tim
othy whose mother was a Jewess, see Acts xvi. 1-3.
4. And that because of the false breth
ren privily brought in, who came in priv
ily to spy out our liberty which we have

The Approval of Paul's Gospel, etc. : ii. 4. 59
in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us
into bondage. — The grammatical connection is
loose throughout this and the following verses.
The various interpretations of this verse may be
summed up thus: (a) verse 4 gives the reason for
the fact that Titus was not compelled to be circum
cised, stating it rather on the side of Paul's non-
permission of it (so Meyer). He was not compelled,
that is, we did not permit him to be circumcised on
account of the false brethren (the implied thought
being that they had demanded it), (b) We should
supply: I permitted it. Though the Apostles
did not compel it, I allowed Titus to be circumcised
on account of, as a concession to, the Judaizers
(so Tertullian, Euckert). The fatal objection to
this view is that it is wholly contrary to Paul's con
victions upon the subject in question. Moreover,
the very character of the persons making the de
mand would make the Apostle more inflexible in
standing by his principles, (c) We are to supply:
" The primitive Apostles advised me to yield,
though they did not compel it; they advised me to
make the concession to the weaker brethren " (so
Lightfoot). The objection to this view is that it is
contrary to the temper shown in the decree of Acts
xv. 24-29, as well as grammatically quite arbitrary.
The false brethren (cf. Acts xv. 1) were pro
fessedly Christians, who, however, maintained the
erroneous idea that circumcision was necessary to

60 The Epistle to the Galatians.
salvation. Such were false to the distinctive prin
ciples of Christianity, salvation by grace through
faith in Christ. There was a party of this kind in
Judea who had thrown the church at Antioch, the
chief sphere of their influence among the Gentiles,
into great disturbance. They had taken pains to
be present and to urge their Jewish opinions.
They are designated as brought in (irapucdKTovg),
illegitimately added, to the Christian brotherhood,
to which they did not properly belong. The same
idea is repeated in came in privily (irapeiaijMov),
making a play on words. They assumed toward
the Pauline Christians the attitude of spies. The
liberty in which Paul taught his converts to rejoice
was freedom from the Mosaic law, deliverance from
the moral bondage which it engendered, but was
powerless to lift. This liberty they regarded with
suspicion and restless hostility. They perpetually
sought to construe it as laxness and unfaithfulness
to the Scriptures. Cf. the testimony against
Stephen of the witnesses who said that he had
spoken against Moses and the Temple, Acts vi. 13,
14. " This they do," says the Apostle, "that they
may bring us into bondage to the Mosaic law," that
is, into the helpless and hopeless condition of those
who make the futile effort to be saved by works.
5. To whom we gave place in the way
of subjection, no, not for an hour; that
the truth of the gospel might continue

The Approval of Paul's Gospel, etc. : ii. 5. 61
With you. — This verse reaffirms, concerning the
false brethren, what was already stated in verse 4,
but in a changed construction, and with added em
phasis upon the fact that he and his companions,
Barnabas and Titus, did not yield to them in the
least. The meaning is: — "Not even for an hour
did we yield by (rendering) obedience (to their
demand)." He refers here directly to the ex
tremists, the false brethren, who demanded
the circumcision of all Gentile converts: " We
did not even (oidi) yield for an hour." Note
that the oi>6e of ver. 3 repels the idea that the
Apostles were hostile; that of ver. 5 emphasizes
the determined attitude of Paul toward the
Pharisaic party; as if he said: The "pillar"
Apostles by no means opposed me, but as for the
demands of the extremists, I gave them no con
sideration. In the clause beginning, that the truth, etc.
(iva v a\. Tab day.) he states the bearing of this action
upon his Galatian readers. He affirms: " We main
tained our ground thus firmly in order to conserve for
you the distinctive truth of the gospel." The Gala
tian Christians, as being predominantly Gentile,
would be directly included in their fixed purpose to
maintain the principle of freedom from the law.
We cannot well overestimate the importance of the
Apostle's position upon the question at issue. He
was the great champion of the independence, com-

62 The Epistle to the Galatians.
pleteness, and sufficiency of Christianity. He
declares that it does not need to be, and must not
be, mixed up with Mosaism, of which it is the ful
filment, and from which it is free. It is difficult to
see, humanly speaking, how the church could ever
have freed itself from the leading-strings of Juda
ism, and how Christianity could have developed its
own distinctive character, but for the work of some
such man as Paul who clearly saw the issue and
bravely faced it. It was a question between Chris
tianity dominated by Jewish particularism> and
Christianity for all men offered on moral and spir
itual conditions. Well might the duty to secure the
triumph of the latter conception have for Paul the
character of a direct revelation.
6. But from those who were reputed to
be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it
maketh no matter to me : God accepteth
not man's person)— they, I say, who were
of repute imparted nothing to me.— The
student of the original text will observe that the
grammatical structure of verses 6-10 is very irreg
ular. In verse 2 he had said that he laid his gospel
before them who were of repute, but does not there
proceed to state definitely what attitude they took
in respect to it. Their verdict upon his teaching is
taken up in verse 6, beginning with, but from
those, etc., (airb de rav 6ok.), as if he would say: "but
from those who were of repute, I received this

The Approval of Paul's Gospel, etc. : ii. 6. 63
reply or decision " ; but at the expression, those
who were reputed to be somewhat (tov
doKoivrov eivai n), he delays the completion of his
statement to insert the parenthetical remark that it
does not matter to him who they are, for God does
not judge by rank or station, and when he resumes
the statement as to what they said, he does so as if
forgetting that he had started with the preposition
from (diri) and resumes the sentence in new form.
(Cf. the paraphrase prefixed to Chap. II. Lightfoot
has a clear paraphrase of verses 6-9, Commentary
in loco.) They, I say, who were of repute
(ol doKovvrer), better, perhaps, " those who are of
repute" (in the judgment of the Galatians);
"those who appear to you as something (great)."
The expression is slightly ironical, not as reflecting
upon the twelve themselves, but as reflecting upon
those to whom the Jerusalem Apostles seemed to be
such great authorities, in comparison with Paul
himself. The parenthetical, whatsoever they
were (6iroioi wore fjcav), is thrown into the balance
over against the Judeo-Christian attachment to the
authority of the twelve. He says in effect : " Hold
them in as high honor as you please; it does not
matter how great their influence and authority; I
am independent of them. God judges not by rank,
but has chosen me as truly as he has them."
There are two interpretations of whatsoever
they [then, irori] were, etc. (1.) The adverb (iron)

64 The Epistle to the Galatians.
has its usual temporal force, (= olim), "whatever
they were once," the reference being to their personal
knowledge of Christ on earth. [Beza renders, olim,
the Vulgate, aliquando], (so Luther, Olshausen, Hil-
genfeld, Wieseler, Ewald, Lightfoot).
It is favorable to this view that everywhere else
in Paul the adverb (iron) has its usual temporal
force, though in classic Greek authors it is often
equivalent to the Latin suffix cunque. (2.) The
phrase means: "of whatever sort;" "whatever
their pre-eminence or advantage " (= qualescunque).
(So Meyer, Ellicott, Thayer's Lexicon, E. V.) If
this is the correct interpretation of the phrase, it
could mean, whatsoever they were in any one
of several respects: (a) in having seen Christ,
(comes to same meaning as view above), (so Augus
tine), (b) Whatever they were in respect to repute
and influence, (Meyer). The past tense (faav) may
be considered as favoring the first view (1.), but is
not decisive, for " whatsoever they were " may be said
of any time past, relative to the time of writing,
the were (yaav) pointing back from this time of
writing to the time, for example, when he was in
Jerusalem at the council, five or six years before.
This (b) is, on the whole, the preferable view, as
being most in harmony with the whole context and
situation. He has no occasion here to refer to the
remote past, but only to the alleged superiority of
the twelve relatively to himself. The argument is:

The Approval of Paul's Gospel, etc. : ii. 6. 65
" Whatever character you may, in your preference
and prejudice, attach to them, it matters not to
me; I have my authority unquestionably and
directly from Christ." God accepteth not, etc.
(irpoaoirov [6] 6. hvd. ov lapjidvei) : The expression, to accept
the person or countenance, came into the New Tes
tament usage through the Septuagint, for the
Hebrew D'J|) NiZ'J, to bear, receive, or accept
the countenance, that is, to admit to favor (said,
e. g. of kings in their relation to subjects), and so in
the New Testament, "to show partiality to," — a
force which the Old Testament expression does not
generally bear. Examples of the bad sense, which
is found in the Old Testament, and which is the
exclusive sense of the phrase in the New Testament,
are found in Lev. xix. 15, Deut. x. 17. From this
expression are formed the New Testament terms,
"respecter of persons" (irpoo-oiroiyimic, Acts x. 34) and
" to have respect of persons " (irpoaoiroXtiirreiv, Jas.
ii. 9).
The New Testament bad sense is not, I think, to
be attributed (with Lightfoot), to the fact that the
word irpdauirov at first meant a mask (and so came to
stand for outward circumstances or appearances in
general), but to the natural extension of the idea of
showing favor to that of exercising partiality, a step
of thought actually made in several Old Testament

Imparted nothing to me, etc. — Now for the
5

66 The Epistle to the Galatians.
first time is stated just what the primitive Apostles
did or did not do in view of the explanation by Paul
of his teaching (verse 2), and with the grammatical
peculiarity that it is now introduced as a ground
(ydp) for the statement in the parenthesis that
"God shows partiality to no one." The word ren
dered I say (ydp) strictly assigns a reason for some
thing that has been stated. The irregular construc
tion of the passage gives rise to several interpreta
tions of the word (ydp). The proof that God does
not show partiality is, that the other Apostles recog
nized his equality with themselves; they communi
cated nothing to him by way of supplementing his
teaching (so Meyer), (b) The sentence assigns the
reason for the statement, it maketh no matter
to me (ovSh pot Stafepei); "it does not matter to me
what preference you assign to the twelve, they, as a
matter of fact, asserted no such pre-eminence by
adding to my teaching," (so Alford). (c) The
"for" may be considered as explicative; "to me it
is certainly a fact, that whatever they have done
for others, they have added nothing to my gospel,"
(so Ellicott). Meyer, in my judgment, takes the
words naturally, and does not attempt to lessen the
grammatical peculiarity. They imparted
nothing to me (ovSev irpoaaveBevro) means, they did
not supplement my teaching as if it needed correc
tion or addition. This statement is the nerve of
the whole argument, and constituted a complete

TJie Approval of Paul's Gospel, etc. : ii. 7. 67
refutation of the position of the Apostle's opponents
and critics.
7. But contrariwise, when they saw
that I had been intrusted with the gospel
of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with
the gospel of the circumcision.— So far from
correcting my teaching, we came, continues the
Apostle, to a good understanding and agreement.
When they saw (probably as the result of Paul's
explanations, or perhaps, from the known results of
Paul's preaching) that his mission too was a di
vinely ordained one, and that they and he had been
assigned by divine providence to different spheres
of a common work. The expressions, the gospel
of the uncircumcision, and the gospel of
the CirCUmCisiOn (to evay. Tijc aKpoj3voTiac,—ryg irepc
Topijc) are to be understood, not as different gospels,
but as the one gospel defined according to these two
spheres of its operation; — the Gentile and the Jew
ish world. The division of labor was not made on
doctrinal grounds, nor was it strictly a geographical
division, but rather an ethnographical one. The
student of the original should notice that to eiayyeXwv
is accusative with the passive ireiriarevpat, see Butt-
mann, p. 189. Cf. Eom. iii. 2, where Mym is accusa
tive, not nominative. Peter is singled out as the
representative of the Jewish apostolate, for though
he was the first preacher to the Gentiles (Acts xv. 7),
his life-work, certainly up to this time, was chiefly

68 The Epistle to the Galatians.
among Jews, and in his sympathies he seemed to
cling to the Jewish phase of Christianity.
8. (For he that wrought for Peter
unto the apostleship of the circumcision
wrought for me also unto the Gentiles) :—
He that WrOUght (o evepyyaac, i. e. God) for
Peter, or in his behalf, i. e. to render successful
the apostleship of the circumcision (i. e., his work
among the circumcised) wrought also for me, to the
end of making successful my apostleship to the
Gentiles. The exact carrying out of the parallelism
would require "for the apostleship of the Gentiles."
The dative for Peter is, as Ellicott explains, not
governed by the preposition (iv) in composition with
the verb (hepyyaac,) since this verb is not a pure
compound, but is dative commodi.
9. And when they perceived the grace
that was given unto me, James and Cephas
and John, they who were reputed to be
pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right
hands of fellowship, that we should go
unto the Gentiles, and they unto the
circumcision.— The phrase when they per
ceived (yvdvnc) takes up the thought and construc
tion begun with when they saw (i.S6vnc) in verse
7. The grace which they perceived in Paul was
the evident favor of God which had in their judg
ment authenticated his apostleship. It is noticeable
that James here stands first, as Cephas certainly

The Approval of Paul's Gospel, etc. : ii. 9. 69
had at i. 18, 19. Some writers maintain that in
matters relating to the apostolic College, Peter
stands first, but in matters done at the Jerusalem
church, James, its pastor, takes the pre-eminence.
It is doubtful whether this distinction can be suc
cessfully defended for here certainly the act of the
three is an act on behalf of all the Apostles present
and of the whole council, and not of the Jerusalem
church. In any case, James, the Lord's brother,
rivalled Peter in prominence, — a distinction to which
his relation to Jesus as well as his great zeal and
excellence no doubt contributed. The point that
he is not now called the Lord's brother, because
between the first visit (i. 19) and this, James the
son of Alphaeus had suffered martyrdom, making it
unnecessary to distinguish this James, is better
taken; but the omission is sufficiently explained by
the simple fact that, having once given him this
specific designation, it was not necessary to do so
again in the immediate connection. In the word
pillars (orvloi) is implied the figure of a building.
These three Apostles had the reputation of being
the chief supports of the church and they, no
doubt, were the most prominent and influential of
the apostolic company at that time ; from our
point of view, however, Paul surpasses them all in
these respects. Right hands of fellowship
(decide Kotvoviac): The term right hands has no
article because the phrase to give right hands

70 The Epistle to the Galatians.
(&f. Siidvai) is a stereotyped phrase. The phrase of
fellowship is a defining genitive, — right hands ex
pressive of fellowship. In the original text tcoivoviac
is so far removed from <5ef tdc in order to bring it near
to the clause of purpose (iva seq.) which follows, as
indicating the meaning of the fellowship expressed.
Thus the phrase that we should go, etc. (iva seq.)
logically depends upon the idea of fellowship and
expresses the purpose of the agreement which was
involved in the extension of the right hand, thus:
" They gave us the right hand of fellowship expres
sive of the agreement that we go to the Gentiles,
they to the Jews." In the final clause (iva seq.),
there is an ellipsis of the thought, that we
Should go (iropevBoptv), which the sense readily sup
plies. This general definition of the two spheres
for the two branches of the apostolate in no way
involved an exclusive adherence to Gentile commu
nities for Paul. He never abandoned the maxim,
" To the Jew first and also the Greek." (Eom.
i. 16 et al.) The purpose of the council was met
in reaching this general decision. Paul was to
proceed with his work as before; so were the twelve.
The council changed nothing. It approved Paul's
ministry among the Gentiles, and proclaimed that
the burdens which the extreme Jewish Christians
wished to impose upon them should not be im
posed. This decision was sufficient for Paul, both
in respect to his public ministry, and in re-

The Approval of Paul's Gospel, etc. : ii. 10. 71
gard to his personal justification as a genuine
Apostle. 10. Only they would that we should
remember the poor; which very thing I
was also zealous to do :— Only they would
that (ptdvov iva, k. t. w.): This clause depends upon the
implied thought in the phrase " right hands of fel
lowship," in the same way as does the previous clause
of purpose. They gave the right hand of fellowship
expressive of agreement (in general) that, etc., only
with this one specification that we should re
member the poor. It is needless to supply any
verb. This specific agreement to remember the
poor related to the poor of Jerusalem and Judea.
They were careful to insert among the terms this
one limitation that Paul and Barnabas should not
consider their Gentile apostleship as exempting them
from securing aid for the poor of the circumcision;
further than that they specified nothing. Their
poverty was, no doubt, occasioned in part by perse
cution and perhaps also by the improvidence which
the expectation of the speedy return of Christ had
fostered (cf. II Thess. iii. 10-12), and probably,
still further, by the working of the policy of a com
munity of goods (Acts iv. 32-37). This remem
brance of the poor is not mentioned in the Acts.
It belonged to the more private compact made
with the three. Paul had already (Acts xi. 29, 30)
brought aid to the poor of Jerusalem, and they took

72 The Epistle to the Galatians.
a pledge of him that he would continue his interest
and efforts, and he did so; cf. Acts xxiv. 17 (his
fifth and last visit to Jerusalem). Which very
thing (o aiirb tovto); Note the emphatic repetition.
The change from plural (we should remember)
to singular (I was zealous), is probably occa
sioned by the fact that before any effort occurred to
carry out the agreement he and Barnabas had sepa
rated (Acts xv. 39). Strictly speaking, we have no
individual instance confirmatory of the words, I
was zealous (eairovdaaa), because the case in Acts
xi. 29, 30 occurred before the assembling of the
council, and the others (I Cor. xvi. 3; Acts xxiv. 17)
after the writing of the Epistle; (unless we suppose,
with Lightfoot, that I Cor. was written before
Galatians, in which case I Cor. xvi. 1-3 would be
very much in point, since it would show that the
Galatians themselves had shortly before the time of
writing been solicited to contribute). We are prob
ably to regard the cases mentioned as illustrations
of the Apostle's practice and constant willingness
in the matter.
II. Peteb's Inconsistent Action at Antioch
and Paul's Eepkooe of His Course, vv. 11-21.
11. But when Cephas came to Antioch,
I resisted him to the face, because he
stood condemned :— But when Cephas
came to Antioch, etc. : After the council Paul

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 11. 73
and Barnabas returned to Antioch to deliver the de
cision (Acts xv. 30, seq.) and continued there for
some time. During this sojourn, Peter came to
Antioch, — a fact not mentioned by Luke. I re
sisted him tO the face (/card irpdoairov avry avriaTyv),
"I stood against him to the face," denoting the
directness and sharpness of the reproof. Paul
"faced" him in opposition and rebuke. The
phrase mrd irpdaowov does not mean " in the presence
(of all) " (Erasmus, Beza), much less (= koto oxypa),
"in appearance" (Chrysostom, Theodoret). Be
cause he StOOd Condemned (on Kareyvaapivoc yv):
The verb here used (KaTaywuo-Ko) means to inquire
into (judicially) i. e. to accuse or to condemn.
Paul's strenuous opposition to Peter favors the
stronger meaning here. " Because he was (or stood)
•condemned," not condemned by himself, nor by
God, primarily, but by the Christian public of An
tioch. The A. V. " was to be blamed," is too weak,
and gives to the passive participle the force of the
¦ending of the verbal adjective which it cannot bear.
This translation resulted, perhaps, from a desire to
minimize this difficulty between the Apostles.
12. For before that certain came from
James, he did eat with the Gentiles : but
when they came, he drew back and sepa
rated himself, fearing them that were of
the circumcision :— For before that, etc.,
{irpb tov ydp iWeto); explanatory of Paul's opposition,

74 The Epistle to the Galatians.
and especially of the condemnation accorded to
Peter. After Peter's vision (Acts x. 10, seq.), he
had avowed the principle (x. 34, 35) that God is no
respecter of persons, but that in every nation he
that feareth him and worketh righteousness is ac
ceptable to him, and had mingled freely in social
intercourse with the converted heathen, — a proceed
ing which provoked objection from the Jewish
party (Acts xi. 2, 3). Here at Antioch he was met
again by the same criticism, and yielded to it. In
so doing he acted contrary to the lesson of his
vision. The objection rested on the Pharisaic dis
tinction of clean and unclean which had been used
against Jesus (Luke xv. 2), and which he had
undermined by his teaching that not outward con
tact but inner character, thoughts, motives, and
the deeds in which they issue, can defile a man.
The lesson of the vision had been designed to abol
ish this distinction of clean and unclean (Acts x.
12-15). His action at Antioch was inconsistent
with his former conduct which he had defended
(Acts xi. 4, seq.). It was a yielding to Jewish prej
udice and narrowness which Paul regarded as a
violation of Christian principle, and a contradiction
to Peter's position in the council where he had de
fended Gentile freedom and declared that God had
put no difference between them and the Jews (Acts
xv. 8-10). He did eat With, etc., (awyoBiev): The
imperfect tense denotes his former customary action

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 12. 75
and included, if it did not chiefly refer to, the love-
feasts (dydirai), in connection with which the Lord's
supper was observed. To make on these occasions
the separation which Peter's conduct logically im
plied and recommended, was to divide the church
in that symbol of fellowship which best signified its
unity and brotherhood. The difference between
Paul and the Jewish Christian party was not as to
whether the Gentiles should receive the gospel, for
all agreed in this; but it was, as to whether they
must also embrace the Jewish religion by being cir
cumcised and keeping the Mosaic law in addition
to exercising faith in Christ. This was the practi
cal question between Paul and the Judaizers.
The extreme Pharisaic party reasoned thus: "So
long as they do not so obey the law, are they not
unclean? How, then, can we associate with them?
Must they not remain separate from us?" This
view made full Christian fellowship dependent upon
a ritualistic prerequisite. They acknowledged the
Gentiles as Christians, but they had not been cir
cumcised. They, therefore, denied them full fel
lowship. To this view James seems to have been,
of all the apostolic company, the most inclined,
although it is certain that he was ready to concede
to Paul that the Gentile converts need not take
upon them the burdens of the law. The point in
regard to full fellowship had not been decided in
the council, although the spirit of the decision cer-

76 The Epistle to the Galatians.
tainly looked strongly toward equality and full fel
lowship of Jews and Gentiles. Paul must now
carry this point on which Peter wavered, else all
that had been gained might have been lost. The
Judeo-Christian opinion was a weak one, springing
from a defective appreciation of certain teachings
of Christ and an imperfect understanding of the na
ture and destination of the gospel, but it was a
natural one, and illustrates Christ's saying: "No
one having drunk old wine desireth new: for he
saith, The old is good" (Luke v. 39), indicating
the slowness with which the Christian world was
able to break loose from Jewish particularism, and
to grasp the full import and scope of the truth that
Christianity was not a patch to be sewed upon the
old garment of Judaism, but a new and perfect gar
ment, and that, since it was the fulfillment of the
law and the prophets, it was complete in itself and
must abrogate the Mosaic system.
The phrase from James (awb 'iaicaj3ov) should
probably go with came (iTSeiv). These persons (cf.
them that were of the circumcision, infra)
had come down from Jerusalem to spy out the lib
erty of the Gentile Christians. It is not said that
they were sent by James for this purpose (Meyer),
but they may have been. If so, we may hold, (a)
that they abused their mission, since it can hardly
be supposed that James would feel called upon to
institute such proceedings (cf. Acts xv. 24). Or, it

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 12. 77
may be thought that they were zealots for the law
who represented the view of James in reference to
the subject of fellowship with the uncircumcised.
In either case they would not be strictly identical
with the "false brethren" (ii. 4) who held that cir
cumcision was necessary to salvation. He drew
back (vireoreMev) and separated (d^op^v) him
self : The imperfect tenses describe what he pro
ceeded to do, as if he were gradually overcome by
their persuasions and objections. Fearing
them, i. e., fearing to excite the displeasure and
disapprobation of the Jewish Christians, who had
come to Antioch from Jerusalem. The statement.
that Peter was overawed by the Pharisaic party, is
Paul's version of Peter's action. To Peter it was
doubtless only caution, or accommodation (which
Paul also practiced), but to Paul it was cowardice
and inconsistency, involving a breach of Christian
principle, viz., the full access of the Gentiles to all
the benefits of the gospel on the same conditions.
with the Jews, and consequently their equal rights
to full Christian fellowship " apart from deeds of
the law."
13. And the rest of the Jews dissembled
likewise with him ; insomuch that even
Barnabas was carried away with their
dissimulation. — He here states two circum
stances which were, in great part occasioned by
Peter's action: — (1) The Jewish Christians at Antioch

78 The Epistle to the Galatians.
who had formerly felt no scruple about mingling
with the Gentile Christians, now followed Peter and
those who had come from James, and thus a schism
was produced. (2) Even Barnabas, Paul's compan
ion, was carried away by their inconsistent action.
Here again the conduct of these persons is referred
to by Paul in his apology, which is not free from
polemic, as dissimulation, hypocrisy (hirdKpunc).
It did not have this character to Peter and the
others. It was the result of human prejudice and
weakness, and in the case of Peter, it was, as Calo-
vius says, an actio, non habitus. It was, however,
hypocrisy, in the sense that it was playing a part
inconsistent with principles which they had for
merly accepted and practiced; logically it was infi
delity to Christianity which deserved unsparing
rebuke. Peter's hypocrisy consisted in constraining
the Gentile converts to act the Jew (lovSaiZeiv) (v. 14),
contrary to his previously avowed convictions. It
is to be noticed that Acts and Galatians clearly rep
resent his conviction as in agreement with Paul,
and his Judaizing action as an inconsistency with
that conviction, and not (as the Tubingen criticism
assumes) that his Judaizing was according to his
conviction, and his Pauline action an exception
to his custom. Then all his ordinary action, as
Acts and Galatians represent it, would have been
" hypocrisy," and this withdrawal from the Gentiles
his one act of perfect consistency. The Tubingen

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 14. 79
criticism here simply sets aside the testimony which
the New Testament contains on the subject includ
ing that of Paul's most polemic letter, and replaces
it by a subjective theory of its own. The " hypoc
risy " ascribed to Peter does not necessarily imply a
conscious inconsistency with principle, but it clearly
designates Peter's action as really such, in the judg
ment of the Apostle to the Gentiles.
14. But when I saw that they walked
not uprightly according to the truth of
the gospel, I said unto Cephas before
them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do
the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how
compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do
the Jews?— They walked not uprightly
(ovk opBoirodovaiv, " to walk straight"): The figure is
of keeping to a path or line, hence "to act rightly
according to the gospel." This departure from
gospel truth Paul rebukes openly, before them
all (ipirpoodev irdvrov). Peter's attitude was public
and far-reaching in its influence. Paul would re
buke it and show its inconsistency before the assem
bled Christian community at Antioch. If thou,
the if supposes the case so well known to be true.
The sense is: " You, Peter, are a born Jew; yet you
are accustomed to live (ryc) in a Gentile manner
(iBviKoc) not as a Jew ('lovdancac) that is, to do as
Gentiles do in reference to such questions as this of
eating with the uncircumcised. If, then, although

80 ¦ The Epistle to the Galatians.
you are a native Jew, you are wont to discard Jew
ish scruples, how can you justify yourself in now, by
your example, constraining those who are not native
Jews to adopt Jewish customs?" There are two
degrees of inconsistency here: (1) that implied in
the condition, his own inconsistency with himself;
(2) that contained in the conclusion of the sentence,
his effort to constrain the Gentiles into harmony
with his scruples. Paul says in effect: — Your own
customary action would not even warrant your con
straining Jewish Christians to hold by Jewish scru
ples; much more is that action inconsistent which
constrains Gpntiles to do so. Compellest (dvay-
K&reic), referring to that moral constraint which
comes from example and influence. The action of
Peter, by reason of his position, amounted to a con
straining force in regard to such a vexed question
as this, concerning which there was so much unclear
discernment and blindly zealous prejudice^ To
live as do the Jews (iovsait,uv = " to play the
Jew"). This word touches the heart of the question
in dispute, a question almost of destiny for the early
church. Must the Gentile converts also become
Jews? Must Christianity have Judaism added to
itself before it became the perfect religion? Was
Christianity thus deficient? Paul resisted this view
and the course of Christian history justified his
position. Vvs. 15-21 are general statements, but are ad-

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 15. 81
dressed to Peter, not to the Galatians, to whom he
directly turns only at iii. 1. The object of Paul in
these verses is to show that although Jewish Chris
tian converts like himself and Peter belong to the
so-called chosen people, yet, as a matter of fact, in
becoming Christians they have confessed that sal
vation is not by their law, but only by Christ, and
'this step logically involves the uselessness for the
attainment of salvation of all legal works and the
wrong of imposing, them on Christians. Paul op
poses to Peter's action, not merely arguments, but
the whole nature and meaning of the Christian life
upon which Peter has himself entered.
15. We, being Jewsjby nature, and not
sinners of the Gentiles, may be regarded
as a concessive conditional .sentence to which
v. 16, seq., forms a conclusion, thus: — (ver. 15)
" True, we are born Jews, ano> not Gentile * sin
ners,' as we native Jews are accustomed to call
them; (ver. 16) yet we have broken with our old re
ligion, and have taken the ground that salvation is
through Christ alone. How inconsistent then to
impose the burdens of that system which we have
ourselves resigned upon ourselves and our converts.
If you, Peter, put a high price upon Jewish privi
leges and connections, I have to remind you that we
have voluntarily surrendered them in becoming
Christians, and that we cannot go back to them
without falseness to our Christian decision and posi-
6

/

82 Tlie Epistle to the Galatians.
tion." There is a touch of subtle irony in verse 15.
If the Greek language had possessed quotation
marks, the word " sinners " (dpaproloi) would, no
doubt, have been designated by them, since the
word voices the popular Jewish idea of the Gentiles.
16. Yet knowing that a man is not jus
tified by the works of the law, save
through faith in Jesus Christ, even we
believed on Christ Jesus, that we might
be justified by faith in Christ, and not by
the works of the law: because by the
works of the law shall no flesh be justi
fied. — The first part of this verse illustrates
a mixture of two constructions. (1) "A man
is not justified except through faith," and (2) " A
man is not justified by works of law but by
faith." We have a combination of these two:
"A man is not justified by works of law except
through faith."* The works of the law
(epyavopov), i. e., deeds of obedience to the Mosaic
law contemplated as a ground of acceptance with
God. The real reason for this denial of their justi
fying power is found in Eom. viii. 3. There are
two conceivable modes of salvation, (a) that by
* The two constructions in Greek would be : ov diKatmiTai
dvd. lav pi) did irloreoc, and, oti Sik. 'avB. 'ef epyov vdpov aUa did
iriaTeof. In the mixed construction of the text lav py
logically belongs not to the whole preceding sentence, but
only to oil dtKaiovrai.

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 16. 83
works or merit, on the principle of quid pro quo, in
which case a man "hath whereof to glory" (Eom.
iv. 2); and (b) that by grace through faith, trust or
self-surrender. We Christians, says Paul, have
abandoned the former principle as impracticable on
account of the power of sin which dwells in the
flesh, and which prevents our perfect fulfillment of
the law's requirements, without which justification
by its deeds is impossible, and have adopted the
other. Even we (nal ypeic), Paul and Peter, who are
genuine Jews. This lays emphasis upon the personal
acceptance by Peter and Paul of the principle of jus
tification by faith only. In believing on Christ we
have broken with the old system and have re
nounced the possibility of salvation in the way in
which we formerly held it as Jews. We are com
mitted to the way of faith as the way to justifica
tion. Notice the two forms of thought, through
faith (did ir.) and by faith *. e. "from " or " out of "
(ck ir.), the former denoting the relation of faith as
that through the operation of which the righteous
state is entered, the latter designating the right
eousness as originating in faith. This last phrase
cannot mean, however, that faith is the producing
source of righteousness, which is always a "right
eousness which comes from God as its source"
(dimioavvy Beov, Eom. iii. 21), but signifies the procur
ing cause on man's part, so that righteousness is
said to proceed from faith in the sense that it is at-

84 The Epistle to the Galatians.
tained in the line of faith (as opposed to works).
Paul ordinarily uses the former phrase; the latter
(Ik iriareoc) perhaps arising as correlative to " from
works," 'ef ipyav (as here), or more probably as con
forming to the Septuagint translation of Paul's
favorite text (see Eom. i. 17). The phrase "upon
faith " (km ry iriam) also occurs (Philip, iii. 9). By
the works of the law shall no flesh be jus
tified, assigns the Old Testament authority for our
knowledge that a man is not justified by legal ob
servance and for our consequent action in adopting
another principle. So Wieseler, Lightfoot, Elli-
cott, vs. Meyer, who argues from the absence of a
formula of quotation, and from the variation of the
words from the supposed quotation (Ps. cxliii. 2)
that no Scripture proof is intended. But the varia
tion of the words from the LXX. (ov diKaiud^aerai ivo-
mdv cov irac rav, cf. our text) is much less marked than
is frequently the case in Paul's quotations, and it is
by no means a universal habit of Paul to use a
formula of quotation. Cf. Eom. iii. 20 where the
same words with the addition of "before him"
{kvoirmv avrov) are used in proof, and without any
formula of quotation, and concerning which Meyer
says (in loco) that Paul has Ps. cxliii. 2 in mind.
If so there, why not here also? On the use of this
passage I would remark: (1) Literally translated, it
would be, "For before thee, no man living is
righteous" (Toy, Perowne). The LXX. renders

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 16. 85
OCT1?? ?f^? p"3V?-^? ??) "shall not be justi
fied," etc. (ov diKaioByaerai) and this meaning is followed
by both our English versions. (2) The Psalm passage
refers to the universal sinfulness of men. " Enter
not into judgment with thy servant, for no living
man stands blameless before thee." Paul by con
necting the expression with the phrase, "by works
of law," (both here and in Eom. iii. 20), has. applied
the passage to justification by faith. (3) The
term " all flesh " Uaaa odpi; =*1JS>3~I?3) is a familiar
T T T
Hebraism for the actual Septuagint reading (wdc
rov). The construction " all flesh shall not be jus
tified " (oi dm. irdoa adpf) is an exact imitation of the
Hebrew construction, and means " no flesh shall be
justified " Or " no One shall be " (otideif diKaioByaerai).
The negative ov is to be understood as standing in
closest connection with its verb.
Eespecting the Pauline doctrine of justification,
it should here be observed (1) that the word " jus
tify " (Sumtmiv) in the New Testament is connected
through the LXX. with the causative forms (Hiphil
or Piel) of the Hebrew verb meaning "to be right
eous " (pip which prevailingly mean in the Old
Testament, "to declare, or pronounce righteous,"
"to acquit from guilt and blame." "To justify"
is, with Paul, a forensic term, and accordingly
justification is expounded by judicial analogies
chiefly. (2) " Eighteousness " (diKaioo-bvy) is the
status or character of one whom God thus pro-

86 The Epistle to the Galatians.
nounces just (dkaioc). He is acquitted, forgiven, de
clared free. His relation to God is now denoted by
" righteousness. " (3) Faith in Christ is the condi
tion on which God pronounces the judgment of
justification. Paul's usual statement is that faith
is reckoned to the believer "for righteousness"
(elc dm). (See especially Eom. iv). The two expres
sions, "faith is reckoned," and "righteousness is
reckoned," are synonymous. The meaning is that,
on condition of faith, God regards and treats the
sinner as if righteous, as if he was what he ought to
be; or, in other words, righteousness is reckoned to
him, set over to his account. This means that faith
is that attitude of mind and heart which makes it
possible for God to treat the sinner so much better
than he deserves as to acquit him before the law
and pronounce him righteous, though, from the
standing-point of his mere personal merit, he is not
yet such. (4) The righteousness of Christ is never
said to be imputed to the believer, not even in
Phil. iii. 9, where the Apostle explains the "right
eousness of his own " by calling it " a righteousness
which is by the law." The doctrine of the imputa
tion of Christ's righteousness has been obtained by
carrying out and developing the analogies which
constitute the form of Paul's thought into a full
system. This theological formula rests upon infer
ences drawn from Paul's language, and is to be dis
tinguished from the Pauline doctrine proper, in

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 16. 87
which no statement which is the equivalent of it
is found. (5) The interpretation which gives full
weight to the legal or juridical form of Paul's
teaching concerning justification, is the correct one.
It is possible, however, to lay an undue stress upon
the formal element of Paul's doctrine, the Jewish
moulds into which it was run, and not enough upon
its substance, the ethical and spiritual truths which
are the content of its outer form. May not theol
ogy distinguish between the inherited Jewish
moulds of Paul's thought, and the vital and essen
tial truths which those moulds contain ? It seems
to be the excessive emphasis of legal analogies in
this sphere of doctrine which has imparted to the
Protestant doctrine of justification, in the judg
ment of many profound theologians, an appearance
of arbitrariness and even of injustice, according to
which righteousness is merely the result of a
declaration and not an ethical reality. To such a
one-sided view, we think, a candid study of Paul's
teaching, as a whole, will not lead.
(6) Many modern theologians, in their reaction
from the formal, judicial aspect of justification,
have erred as much in regard to exegetical exact
ness as the older Eeformed theologians sometimes
did in doctrinal formalism and one-sidedness.
While the latter identified Paul's Jewish thought-
forms with the whole truth, and then built
wholly upon them, the former have commonly over-

88 The Epistle to the Galatians.
looked them, or have subjected the Apostle's lan
guage to unnatural interpretations in order to elimi
nate this element. It is desirable to expound the
moral and spiritual truths and experiences which
form the content or ethical counterpart of Paul's
legal system, but exegesis is, first of all, a study of
form, and must not, for any supposed or real theo
logical interest, eliminate or disregard the peculiari
ties of the writer's modes of thought and expression,
however subordinate it may suppose them to be to
the spiritual facts involved. The error, on the
one side, is in supposing it necessary to limit
all theological thought to the Jewish thought-
forms of the Apostle Paul; that, on the other,
lies in not acknowledging and emphasizing those
thought-forms just as they are. I venture to
think that what is needed, both for theology and
exegesis, is a clearer perception of the Jewish for
mal element in Paul's modes of thought and argu
ment and an equally clear discernment and recogni
tion of his clear, strong grasp upon the facts of the
spiritual life which correspond to the judicial pro
cesses through which, in accord with his Jewish train
ing, he conceives of the believer as passing. The
figurative language, the analogies which the Apostle
draws from the law or the current thought of his time,
are of first importance for exegesis, while for theology
they yield to the deeper truths of spiritual life and
experience which they serve to illustrate or convey.

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 17. 89
17. But if, while we sought to be justi
fied in Christ, we ourselves also were
found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin?
God forbid. — Paul is still engaged in refuting
Peter's position. There are two interpretations of
the word sinners (duapTafol): (a) It is the same as
in ver. 15, sinners from the Jewish point of
view (= Gentiles), (b) It means primarily sinners
in fact, as opposed to " righteous " (dUaioi). If the
former interpretation be given, the protasis of the
sentence would seem to mean, " If when seeking to
be justified in Christ, even we ourselves (Jews) were
found to be ' sinners ' (i. e. to stand on the same level
as the Gentiles), then might not one conclude that
Christ is the minister of sin? We abandon the law
and betake ourselves to Christ. We confess the in
adequacy of our legal righteousness, and resort to
Christ for justification, but in vain. We find our
selves on the plane of Gentile ' sinners ' and that is
all." Perhaps it might be said that Christ was re
sponsible for that failure, and is thus a minister of
sin (an illogical conclusion), (so Lightfoot). This
view lays the main emphasis in the word "sin
ners " on the idea of sinners from the Jewish point
of view, meaning those who have abandoned the
law. If on the other hand the word sinners means pri
marily sinners really, i. e. before God, unjustified
men, as opposed to " righteous," the sense would seem

90 The Epistle to the Galatians.
to be: If our effort to be justified in Christ left us
' just where we were before, would not Christ be a
minister of sin because he led us to abandon our ef
forts to obtain legal righteousness, and then did not
safely conduct us to the goal by any other way?
The Apostle then answers: — Let this conclusion
never be drawn; i. e. the supposition on which it
rests is false. Christ does not leave us sinners as he
found us, but leaves us " just " (dinaioi). (So Meyer,
Ellicott). In this case the words God forbid
(jirjyhoiTo) negative the whole verse; in the other
view, they negative only the illogical conclusion
sought to be based upon the supposition made. In
the former case the question: Is Christ a minister
of sin, supposes a distinctly negative answer. In the
latter, it indicates what is a plausible but erroneous
conclusion from premises in themselves correct.
What is the bearing of these explanations upon
Paul's refutation of Peter? On the former inter
pretation he seems to be charging upon Peter the
assertion or admission of this false conclusion that
Christ is a minister of sin, and assumes that Peter's
abandonment of his ordinary conduct, (" living as
do the Gentiles," ver. 14), is equivalent to the con
fession that he acted wrongly in forsaking the law
and attaching himself to Christ. He thus
brought himself down upon the plane of Gentile
"sinners." This view seems to me far-fetched.
The emphasis of Paul's thought does not rest upon

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 17. 91
the question whether it was sinful to abandon the
law or not, but upon the question whether
faith in Christ was attended with success or fail
ure. Peter had acted as if it were a failure, and
thereby gave color to the idea that Christ left those
in sin who applied to him for salvation. The whole
force of the verse is aimed at Peter's action which
involved the idea that justification by faith in
Christ was not perfectly successful and complete.
Lightfoot's exposition of the views which he rejects
seems to me unsatisfactory, because he treats them
as if all turned on the one point of the sinfulness of
abandoning the law ; whereas the thought is,
whether Christ leaves men unjustified sinners, re
quiring still to observe the law to complete their sal
vation. It is this idea which Paul negatives, as well
as the conclusion (Christ a minister of sin),
which might be drawn from it. This view alone
places the right emphasis and sets the verse in its
true relation to Peter's inconsistency. Paul's
thought is that Peter has acted in such a way as to
make plausible the idea that Christ could not jus
tify; that he was a helper to sin rather than to
righteousness. Cf. Meyer in loco.
The following particulars should be further ob
served; While We SOUght (Zyrovvnc) is emphatic
by position, and is in itself an emphatic expression
for the idea of believing, in order to make the an
tithesis to the result supposed (were found sin-

92 The Epistle to the Galatians.
ners) the sharper: " If after our effort to be saved
by faith, it turns out that we are after all only sin
ners still." In Christ, (ivXpicru) while suostan-
tially equivalent to " through Christ " (did Xpiarov) is
different in form, and should be noted as a mark of
Paul's conception of the believer's vital personal
relation to Christ in justification which is less in
the foreground in his formal discussion of the doc
trine of justification, but which predominates in his
language touching the Christian life. It shows the
reality of the spiritual groundwork and counterpart
of Paul's juristic theology. Justification is, in the
terms of Paul's system, a sentence pronounced on
condition of faith which ushers the believer into a
new state and relation to God; but it is also that
new character in Christ which springs from the ap
propriation of the person and spirit of Christ in love
and trust. The sentence or verdict has new spirit-
itual relationship, vital fellowship with Christ and
newness of personal life, as its essential spiritual
content. It means not merely new standing, but
new heart. This latter is the reality, the life and
substance which fills the Jewish inherited mould of
the Apostle's thought. As exegesis must not slight
the latter, so must theology and practical religious
thought dwell much upon the former. Were
found sinners (eipteqpev dpap.) forms the counter
part to while we sought. " If after all our seek
ing we were found to be," etc. The verb refers to

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 18. 93
the ascertaining of a result in experience (cf. Eom.
vii. 10); " if it has turned out that," etc. The word
expresses the idea that the supposed case would be
something surprising, which already creates a pre
sumption against the supposition made. We
Ourselves (Kalavroi), would, on Lightf oot's inter
pretation, emphasize Peter and Paul as Jews. On
the other interpretation the idea would be: If even
we Apostles and Christian leaders are still left un-
forgiven sinners. The student of the original text
should note the force of dpa (unrepresented in our
translations). It is an interrogative particle, ex
pressive of anxiety or hesitation and is here slightly
ironical. "Would it then follow? Some might
easily suppose so."
Minister of Sin: — Sin is here used in almost a
personified sense. It is the contrast to righteous
ness in its objective, forensic meaning. If Christ
does not work in the sphere of righteousness, then
he works in its opposite sphere, promotes sin, by
leaving his adherents under its power, and thus
helps it on. To such a supposition or question,
Paul replies by his characteristic, "Let it not be "
(jiy yivoiro) found here, as always, after an interroga
tion. 18. For if I buildup again those things
which I destroyed, I prove myself a
transgressor. — The meaning may be thus repre
sented: Why do I say that justification in Christ is

94 The Epistle to the Galatians.
no failure, and that Christ is no minister of sin?
I say so because the real transgressor of the law
is he who goes back from its fulfillment to its
letter, who turns away from what the law pointed
to, i. e. Christ, who is its end. He is the man
who really breaks the law, because he fails to
appreciate its deepest providential purpose. He
is like one who gathers up the fragments and
husks from which the fully ripe fruit had been
taken out, and tries to combine them and keep
them, instead of seeking and prizing the fruit.
This passage thus intimates how the law is dishon
ored by those who place it above, or on a par with,
the gospel. The charge of "transgression" falls
not on Christ, but on the one who thus goes back to
the law and deserts Christ who is its fulfillment.
The case is made more vivid by the use of the first
person (cf. Eom. vii.) I build up again (irdTuv
oiKodopo) refers to the effort to set up the authority of
the law as of perpetual obligation, as Peter was logi
cally doing by his " dissimulation." I destroyed
(Karilvaa), refers to the renunciation of the law as a
ground of justification. Paul is fond of the figure
of a building. The verse describes the tendency of
Peter's conduct and charges him with the grave
mistake of trying to re-instate in authority a sys
tem which was fulfilled and done away in Christ,
and therefore with falseness to his Christian
position. The remaining verses elaborate the

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 19. 95
idea of the sole sufficiency of Christ for salva
tion. 19. For I through the law died unto the
law, that I might live unto God.— Paul now
adduces as proof of the statement in verse 18 his
own actual experience. I through the law
(kyo did vdpav); Law here means the Mosaic law.
"I died to the law," i. e. ethically; I became in
relation to the law as a dead man; I broke all
relation with it in becoming a Christian. Cf. Eom.
vii. 4, where the dying to the law is illustrated by
the dissolution of the marriage bond by the death
of one of the parties. Cf. " the world hath been
crucified to me and I unto the world," (vi. 14). But
how did I die to the law (dat. commodi) by means
of the law? The steps of thought implied in this
condensed formula are found in Eom. vii. 7 seq.,
(a) The law quickens sin, "By the law is the
knowledge of sin." The law awakens the conscious
ness of sin and shows man his guilt. It shuts him
up under sin that he may be delivered by Christ.
(b) The law thus has a part in the work of salva
tion, but it is negative and preparatory. It slays
men ethically, that is, in respect to their self-right
eousness, in order that they may be ready to live by
faith, (c) Thus the law leads men to Christ, which
involves a breaking off of relations to itself. The
law contributes to its own renunciation by leading
to Christ for salvation. The connection of thought

96 The Epistle to the Galatians.
here is : The reason why I say that he most truly
observes and honors the law who does not seek to be
justified by it or regard it as essential, is that the
law itself, in God's providence, serves the purpose of
leading men to Christ for salvation instead of to
itself. The purpose of this dying to sin, to the
world, to the law, (all equivalent ideas though dif
fering in form) is to live a higher life, unto
God. Cf. Eom. vii. 4.
20. I have been crucified with Christ ;
yet I live ; and yet no longer I, but Christ
liveth in me: and that life which I now
live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith
which is in the Son of God, who loved
me, and gave himself up for me.— Here we
observe the bold figure of dying and living again
carried out more specifically under the terms of cru
cifixion. The motive of this mode of representa
tion is to be found in the fact of Christ's sacrificial
death for us. That, as the ground of our new life,
is easily spoken of, in a figurative manner, as that in
which our ethical death to sin and life to God are
included. The figure is based upon an identifica
tion of things which are causally and vitally related.
The thought is: " I died when Christ died." "If
one died for all, then all died," II Cor. v. 14; and
Eom. vi. 8. (Note the Aorist here, expressing a defi
nite past fact). These forms of thought illustrate
Paul's mystical realism. All natural humanity

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 20. 97
sinned when Adam sinned (Eom. v. 12 seq.). All
spiritual humanity died (to sin) when Christ died, was
crucified with him, was raised (ethically) when he was
raised. (Eom. vi. 5-6). This is an intensely realis
tic way of expressing the consequences of fellowship
with Christ. When the perfect is used in these ex
pressions (e. g. I have been crucified, cf. vi. 14)
it denotes the abiding fact of fellowship. But the
force of the Aorist should be noted in Eom. iii. 23;
v. 12; vi. 8; and Col. iii. 3, signifying a definite
action conceived as occurring at a definite past
time; e. g. " All sinned when Adam sinned " ; " All
died when Christ died." These two forms of repre
sentation are the same, and should be understood in
the same mystical manner. Paul carries out the
figure of dying with Christ by representing the
Christian in his transition to his new life as being
buried with him, and as rising with him from
the grave, and in some passages complicates this
representation by joining with it the figures of
baptism: Eom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12.
Yet I live (ro di) has this force: I spoke of dying
to sin and living to God, but (di) this living
is not the old natural life which indeed I once lived
(Eom. vii. 9 "I was alive apart from the law
once "), but a new life in Christ. By the emphatic
I (iya), he means the self which previous to his con
version struggled vainly with sin (Eom. vii. 15 seq.)
the " old (unregenerate) man " (Eom. vi. 6). The
7

98 The Epistle to the Galatians.
living is no longer that of my natural unrenewed
self ; that has died, and a new life in fellowship
with Christ, nay, a living of Christ in me, has
begun. " Christ liveth in me," that is, through
the union of faith and love. The fellowship of life
is such that Christ may be said to dwell and live in
me. The reception of the mind and spirit of Christ
is referred to (cf. Phil. i. 21: "For to me to live is
Christ "). Both the expression: I live and Christ
liveth have emphatic positions. The subse
quent statement: and that life which I now
live seq., explains the meaning of Christ living in
him. The word rendered "and" (di) is mildly ad
versative, thus: I do not mean to say by my strong
language that I have wholly ceased from the natural
life, but, so far as I am still in it, I have a higher
stimulus and principle animating me, namely faith.
It thus marks the limitation upon the strong
statements going before.
In the Greek text the neuter pronoun (5) is
cognate accusative, as in Eom. vi. 10 (b yap dirh
davev); not " in that he died " (A. V.) but " the
death which he died " (E. V.). Now (tw) marks
the contrast between the life which he is at present
living in Christ, and the natural life which he for
merly lived. The flesh (odpf) is here used in its
primary meaning where it is equivalent to this
weak, material form of existence, and not in the
ethical signification so common with Paul where it

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 20. 99
denotes the natural unrenewed human nature.
"Though I am still living the life of sense in this
temporary sphere of perishable, material elements,
my chief life element is not connected with this
sphere, but with a higher. I am in a real sense ' in
the flesh' but, in a deeper sense, am living 'in
faith,' because it is in the faith-fellowship with
Christ that my life-interests are found."
This faith he now traces to its basis. It is in the
Son Of God (genitive of the object) who loved
me, etc. The object of his faith is the divine Son
who from love gave himself up to suffering on his
behalf (inrlp ipov). This love is the motive of the
giving and the warrant of faith. Faith is the human
counterpart of the self-revealing, self-imparting
love of God; the attitude of receptiveness, grati
tude and trust toward that love which has evidenced
itself in history most signally in the sacrifice of
Christ. In Christ faith has the pledge of the
divine love of which it may lay hold. The sacri
ficial work of Christ springs out of the self-impart
ing love of God and is the revelation of that
love in its totality, both on the side of its vicari-
ousness and sympathy, and on the side of its
self -preservative quality, that is, its righteousness
which is the self-respect of perfect love. The
gift was of Himself. Self-giving is the deepest
and truest giving. For me, i. e. on my behalf
(virip, as always with Paul when speaking of the

100 The Epistle to the Galatians.
vicarious work of Christ for men, except, possibly,
I Thess. v. 10, where many texts and MSS. read
irepi; dvri is never so used). Paul, in the vividness
and intensity of his interest in Christ's love and
self-giving, speaks of it as done for him personally.
21. I do not make void the grace of
God: for if righteousness is through the
law, then Christ died for naught.— One
final stroke at Peter's conduct. " I do not nullify
the grace of God which has been revealed in Christ
by going back to the legal system (as the conduct of
the Judaizers practically does). Grace (x<*ptc) is
the term which expresses the character of the
Christian system as opposed to the legal system of
commandment and of a corresponding obedience
establishing merit. To go back to these is to desert
and to set at naught the distinctive principles of
grace and faith as applicable to salvation." For if
(el ydp) explains and justifies this bold statement.
" I speak of such Judaizing conduct as a setting at
naught of God's grace as revealed in Christ, for it
treats it as if it were not necessary. If men can be
justified by the law, there is no need of the way of
grace through Christ, and Christ died in vain.
But it is an axiom with all Christians that Christ
did not die in vain. This was so even with the
Judaizing Christians. If then he did not die in
vain, he must have died because it was necessary,
i. e. to open a way which the law did not and could

Peter's Inconsistent Action, etc. : ii. 21. 101
not open. Thus Paul proves his point against
Peter and the Judeo-Christians generally. Their
conduct logically involves the putting of a light es
timate upon Christianity, and regarding the death
of Christ as needless. The argument is a reductio
ad dbsurdum from the Christian point of view.
It has been concluded from this and similar
passages that the genesis of Paul's doctrine of the
insufficiency and temporary character of the law is
here shown. It is an inference from the axiom that
Christ's death must have been necessary (so Pflei-
derer). But the Apostle is not tracing the logical
genesis of his own thought here, but conducting an
argumentum ad hominem against Peter from an as
sumption which Peter, equally with himself, would
be compelled to grant. How Paul reached that
axiom is in no way indicated. He is simply show
ing that Peter's Judaizing is inconsistent with the
Christian view of Christ's death, not that his own
view of the law sprang from that view of Christ's
death. The contrast of the law and the gospel is sharper
in Galatians than in Eomans because of the Judaiz
ing tendencies and the suspicion concerning his
apostleship in the Galatian churches. The two are
pictured as mutually exclusive, not in their inherent
nature, but with reference to becoming methods of
salvation. In the divine intention of the two sys
tems there could be no disharmony according to

102 The Epistle to the Galatians.
Paul's premises, since the law-system was quite sub
ordinate and preparatory to the gospel and could by
no means come into rivalry with it. The mutual
exclusiveness arises only in the false application and
wrong adjustment of the two which those make
who seek to hold both systems at once, and to com
bine the characteristic principles of both, works
and faith, and make them equally essential condi
tions of salvation.

ANALYSIS AND PAEAPHEASE OF
CHAPTEE III.
1. The antagonism between the teaching of the
Judaizers and the gospel of Christ, vv. 1-14. You
Galatians have been drawn away as if by magic
from the truth so plainly taught you that you were
saved through Christ's death (1). Eeflect whether
when you were converted, you received the gift of
the Spirit by the doing of meritorious works, or by
obeying the call to simply believe on Christ. Of
course, the latter was the case. Will you, then,
after having begun the life of the Spirit, fall back
upon that lower plane where the flesh is the ruling
element of life, — a power from which the law is
unable to deliver you (2, 3)? What folly to endure
persecution for the gospel, when you do not really
remain true to it (4)! Have not all your spiritual
gifts come to you in the line of faith, and not of
works? Be true, then, to this principle and re
nounce the rival and futile principle of legal works
of merit (5). From the typical case of Abraham
you may learn the truth which I am urging. He
was not justified by works, but by faith; now all
103

104 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter III.
believers are his spiritual sons and are saved in the
same manner (6, 7). The Old Testament recog
nizes the universal validity of the principle of faith
(8, 9). On the contrary, those who stand upon the
plane of law and seek to be saved by obedience to it
will fail, for an absolutely perfect performance of
all that the law requires is necessary in order to
justification by law, and that man can never render
(10). The law-principle says: Do all that the law
requires and thou shalt live; the faith-principle
says: Trust in God and thou shalt live. These
indicate two different methods of salvation and the
Scripture sanctions the latter as the only practica
ble one (11, 12). So far from having hope of being
saved by the law, man had fallen under its curse
and was helpless, but Christ, by taking the curse
upon himself, freed us from it, that we might be
justified and saved simply by trusting in him and
his work for us (13, 14).
2. The principle of the gospel antedates and under
lies the law, 15-22. Even a covenant between men,
when once ratified, no third party may annul or
supplement with new provisions; much less may
God's gracious covenant of promise with Abraham
be affected in its conditions and provisions by any
subsequent dispensations (15). Now the promise
to Abraham's seed is fulfilled only in Christ, and
thus an identity and continuity of principle exists
between that ancient covenant and the Christian

Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter III. 105
gospel (16). Now the law which was given so long
subsequent to this " proto-gospel," cannot affect its
validity or change its provisions (17), and since salva
tion cannot be both by works and by faith, we must
adhere to the more original and fundamental prin
ciple (18). What purpose, then, did the law serve
if not that of justifying men? It showed them
their need of justification and the impossibility of
themselves attaining it, because it made them con
scious of the depth and heinousness of their sins;
thus this divinely ordained system was designed to
lead men to Christ for salvation, rather than to be
itself a means of saving them (19). It was a dis
pensation given to men through the agency of
Moses; it was mediate and conditional, therefore.
But in giving the promise and so in promulgating
the gospel of faith, God stands forth alone and acts
in independence and sovereignty. Hence the prom
ise stands on a higher plane than the law (20).
But it does not follow from this difference that the
two dispensations, and their characteristic princi
ples, are in all respects contrary. The legal sys
tem is subordinate to the gospel, but it serves the
ends of the gospel; it must be subordinate, for
otherwise the gospel would not have been needed
as a saving agency (21). But it serves the ends of
the gospel by teaching men their sinfulness, putting
them in the prison-houses of remorse and despair
until they shall long for the gracious deliverance

106 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter III.
which Christ freely offers to those who trust in
him (22).
3. The disciplinary and preparatory office of the
law, 23-29. It was the office of the law to imprison
us by its condemnation until we should be set free
by believing on Christ (23). The law may be
called our tutor who, by his stern discipline and
chastisement, prepared us for Christ and made us
glad to find freedom and peace in him by faith (24).
But now, as believers, we are no longer subject to
this severe master, but possess the sense of liberty
and sonship through Christ (25, 26). For truly
all believers have entered into a unique relation to
Christ which affects their whole attitude and stand
ing. The distinctions of nationality, condition and
sex are as nothing in the presence of that deeper
unity which binds together all believers in Christ,
so that all who believe, regardless of these distinc
tions, are really Abraham's seed (since Abraham's
great significance was not in the fact that he was a
Jew, but in the fact that he was a man of faith) and
therefore inherit the blessings promised to him and
to his seed in the covenant which God made with
him (27-29).

CHAPTEE III.
I. The Antagonism Between the Teaching op
the Judaizers and the Gospel of Christ,
vv. 1-14.
The doctrinal statements of ii. 19-21 form a
connecting link between the apologetic section and
the distinctly doctrinal section (iii. 1-v. 12) of the
Epistle. The Apostle does not develop his doctrine
abstractly but in connection with the lapse of
the Galatians into Judaism. Having proved the
independence and divine authority of his aposto-
late, and shown that his doctrine alone is consistent
with the sole sufficiency of Christ, he reproaches
the Galatians with having fallen away from his
teaching. 1. O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch
you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was
openly set forth crucified?— He calls them
foolish (dvdyroi), without mind or reason (w%),
irrational, undiscerning, easily duped by an unspirit-
ual conception of life and salvation, readily yield
ing to the inconsistency and absurdity of the Jewish-
107

108 The Epistle to the Galatians.
Christian position. He expresses his surprise and
displeasure, both by the rhetorical question, who
did bewitch you ? and by the word bewitch
(ij3daKavev), which occurs only here and is apparently
connected with jidmew "to talk," hence, "to use in
cantations," and so, in general, " to bewitch." It
here denotes the subtle and radical character of the
perversion and the dishonor connected with being
thus misled. He regards this radical perversion as
the more astonishing because he had set i Christ
clearly before them as the crucified one. He had
preached the doctrine of the cross and its significance
as involving the abrogation of the law and exclusive
dependence upon Christ for salvation, so that he
can say that he placed his cross before their very
eyes, and yet they have surrendered and deserted
him. The force of the preposition in composition
(irpd) which is rendered openly (set forth, etc.)
might either be temporal, "was formerly written
(irpoeypdipn) in their hearts," i. e. the meaning of
Christ's death was impressed upon them when he
preached to them (so Meyer). The prevailing
use of this verb (irpoypdfeiv) in the New Testament
favors this meaning (Eom. xv. 4; Eph. iii. 3).
Or, it may be understood in a local sense, "was
written before you," the figure being drawn
from the posting of public notices, a frequent
meaning of the word (so Lightfoot, Ellicott). The
phrase before whose eyes (/car" o<p6aipovc) lends

The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 1. 109
some support to this more external figure, and the
words among you (iv ipiv, cf. A. V. and T. E.)
which Meyer urges against it, are wanting in
many important manuscripts (e. g. A B C N cf.
W. and H., Tisch. and E. V.) and, even if read,
might mean " among you " (so our older version)
as well as "within you" as in the expression:
" The kingdom of God is within (or among) you "
(iv ipiv) Luke xvii. 21. The local force of the prep
osition in this particular case, gives a more vivid
character to the passage, and more appropriately
emphasizes the plainness with which Christ was set
before them in the character of the crucified one,
than would be done by the mention of the mere
time relations, which would not be very essential
here. This force of the words adds emphasis to
the contrast between what they ought to have been
and what they are. Both our English versions em
body this interpretation. Before whose eyes:
The phrase is emphatic, indicating the clearness of
Paul's preaching on the point, which should have
prevented such a result. Crucified (iaravpopivoc)
is an emphatic predicate defining more exactly and
fully the phrase: Jesus Christ was openly
set forth. It emphasizes that which was distinct
ive in Paul's preaching, and which stands in sharp
est contrast to their present Judaizing. If the
phrase " among you " is read, it is better to con
nect it with the verb was set forth than with the

110 Tlie Epistle to the Galatians.
participle crucified (as commonly and in A. V.).
He was set forth among them in the character of
the crucified one.
2. This only would I learn from you,
Received ye the Spirit by the works of
the law, or by the hearing of faith ?— Paul
wishes now to point out their inconsistency, and
this he will do by asking them one decisive ques
tion. This only (tovto pdvov), i. e., this question
only as bearing upon the subject in hand, I would
ask, and the answer will reveal your error. " Was
it in the line of the law that you received the
Spirit, or in the line of faith? On which of these
contrasted principles did you begin the Christian
life?" Of course the former was the case. Then
why not remain faithful to the principle with which
you started? Learn (jiaBeiv) is to acquire informa
tion, (= cognoscere); here it is half sarcastic, be
cause Paul knew the necessary answer. I wish to
confront you plainly, he says, with this alternative.
By (lit. "from "if) the works, etc., or by (if)
the hearing, etc.: The preposition denotes in
each case, that by which the reception of the
Spirit is mediated. Paul supposes two conceivable
conditions on man's part of receiving the Spirit: (a)
by doing works of law, so that these works of
obedience may be contemplated as in a secondary
sense the source (If) of the benefit derived; (b) by
accepting the message of faith, in which case the

The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 2. Ill
Spirit is received from, or as the result of faith.
From which of these sources, in the line of which
of these methods, did you receive the Holy Spirit?
Here again it should be noted that receiving the
Spirit is to Paul synonymous with justification. It
will thus be observed that the juristic forms of
thought are by no means exclusively employed.
(Cf. again ii. 17, dixaiaByvai iv Xpio-Ty). When discuss
ing the contrast between faith and works Paul com
monly employs the forensic language (see, especially,
Eom. iv. passim), but here he does not. The
works of the law (ipya vdpov), are works which
the commandments of the law require, and which,
in this connection, are conceived of as an alleged
ground of meriting salvation. The hearing
(amy) might be either (a), active " hearing " (Light
foot, E. V.); or (b) passive, "report," "message"
(Meyer, Ellicott, E. V. marg). It is indecisive to
say (with Lightfoot) that (a) makes a better con
trast with works of law, i. e., the contrast be
tween doing works and hearing faith, since the
contrast is rather between the principles or methods,
than between two specific actions like doing and
hearing. Hearing is no more efficacious than
doing. The contrast lies rather in the opposition
between law and faith. New Testament usage
favors (b) as does the natural force of " faith " (irianc).
On view (a) faith is conceived objectively as a thing
heard, — not a characteristic Pauline conception. On

112 The Epistle to the Galatians.
view (b) the meaning is: "through the message
which proclaimed faith as the essential condition of
salvation." Faith is not with Paul primarily a
doctrine, but an action, a thing to be done, a trust
to be exercised. It was in the acceptance of the
message which said: "Believe on Christ," that they
received the Holy Spirit.
3. Are ye so foolish? having begun in
the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the
flesh ?— The emphatic word, SO (ovroc) refers to the
seriousness of the mistake of forsaking the gospel
for the law. Then follows the statement of the
inconsistency. The beginning spoken of (ivapfdpevoi
irvsvpan) was the course of their Christian life up to
the commencement of their Judaizing tendencies;
the finishing (aapKl iirinleioBe), is the course of their
life since then as influenced by the false teachers.
The contrast of beginning in the Spirit to be
ing perfected in the flesh is parallel to that of
" the hearing of faith " and " the works of the law "
(verse 2). The terms rendered Spirit and flesh
are in the dative case which here is instrumental
and designates the character, principles, or quali
ties of the New and Old Testament systems respect
ively. Flesh (odpf) means the natural sinful char
acter of men which the law cannot overcome. On
the contrary the law but rouses this slumbering sin,
and shows men how completely under the bondage
of the flesh they are. (Cf. Eom. vii. 5, 6, where

The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 3. 113
to be " in the flesh " (5), and under bondage to the
law (6), are practically synonymous). " Will you,
then," says the Apostle, " abandon the aid of the
Spirit which you received by the message of faith,
and try to work out your salvation on the plane of
the law, giving yourselves up again to the govern
ment of the flesh? " If this view (substantially that
of Meyer, Ellicott, Thayer's Lexicon and Julius
Miiller), be correct, then " the flesh " denotes the
principle that obtains in the sphere of law, that
dominates the natural man and defies the power of
the law to break it. " Will you now try by means
of the flesh to complete your Christian life, though
all experience proves that the sinful flesh under the
operation of law is the very power that crushes man
and makes him powerless?" The difficulty with
this interpretation is that " the flesh " is primarily
connected with man as characterizing his unchris
tian life and action, and not with the law which we
should here expect. Hence the majority of inter
preters suppose that " the flesh " here stands as a
designation of the law in its outward, ceremonial
character (so Lightfoot, Euckert); most of whom
find a reference either to circumcision or sacrifice.
This view yields a meaning which, at first sight,
seems more appropriate, but has decisive objections:
(a) He would never characterize the law as such, by
the word " flesh " (<rdpf) it is rather "spiritual,"
"pneumatic" (irvevpariKdc), Eom. vii. 12-14. (b)
8

114 The Epistle to the Galatians.
The habit of singling out the ceremonial and exter
nal features of the law in order to emphasize its
inadequacy is a modern, not a Pauline one. (c) The
Pauline usage of the word " flesh " (in contrast to
" Spirit ") is decidedly favorable to making it charac
terize man's state under the law, rather than the
character of the law per se. If in Eom. iv. 1, the
phrase "according to the flesh" (/card odpm) is to be
joined with the verb "hath found" (eipiiKlvai), (as
Meyer, Godet, rendering of the American commit
tee in the E. V.), we then have in that passage a
very similar thought and contrast between what
Abraham found apart from and in faith.* The
present tense in the phrase, are ye HOW per
fected, enhances the irony ; " Are you just now
receiving the completion of your Christian life?"
4. Did ye suffer so many things in vain ?
if it be indeed in vain :— So many things
in vain may be taken as an exclamation (so
Meyer); or, as generally, may be understood inter
rogatively. Did ye suffer ? (iirdBen) is variously
understood: in good (= to experience benefits), neu
tral (= to experience), or bad sense (= to painfully
endure). The latter meaning is generally main
tained and is required by the uniform use of the
word in the New Testament and the Septuagint, as
well as favored by the context (so Meyer, Lightfoot,
* Some critical texts, as that of Westcott and Hort, omit
evpr/Khai altogether (cf. margin of K. V.).

The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 4. 115
Ellicott). What particular sufferings are meant?
Interpreters reply: (a) Persecutions, such as over
took other Christians (II Cor. i. 8); though the
New Testament says nothing of it among the
Galatian churches (the commonest view), (b) It
refers to the molestation of the Galatian churches
by the Judaizers, and the imposing of unnecessary
burdens upon them by these errorists (so Meyer).
The sense requires that something be referred to
which they had endured before, because of their
devotion to Christianity. Was that suffering in
vain? It was all for naught and might better not
have been borne, if they were wrong in their exclu
sive adherence to Christ. The condition, if it be
indeed in vain intimates Paul's opinion. They
did right to suffer for their faith, because their
faith was worth suffering for. But if they continue
in this state of lapse, they would be confessing their
former sufferings as vain and useless. Only the
suffering of something which they endured at an
earlier period because of their Christian faith, and
rather than give it up, can satisfy the language.
The meddling of the Judaizers was not of this char
acter. The usual interpretation seems to me the
preferable one.
5. He therefore that supplieth to you
the Spirit, and worketh miracles among
you, doeth he it by the works of the law,
or by the hearing of faith ?— He now resumes

116 The Epistle to the Galatians.
the contrast of law and faith which was drawn in
verse 2, verses 3 and 4 being logically parenthetic.
He that supplieth to you the Spirit, (that is,
God). Miracles, (lit. powers dvvdpeic), might
either mean miraculous works or miraculous^owers.
In the former case " among you " would be the proper
rendering of the phrase hipiv (so Winer); in the lat
ter " in you " is the better translation (so Meyer,
Ellicott, Wieseler). The verb worketh (ivepyov) in
both its inherent meaning and regular New Testa
ment use seems to favor the latter interpretation.
In this case, the meaning would be: "He that be-
stoweth upon you the Spirit and worketh mighty
powers within you. " The reference is to the mirac
ulous endowments so frequently spoken of in the
New Testament, and which according to I Cor. xii.
28, were among the "gifts" which Christ en
trusted to the church at his ascension. The sen
tence is elliptical and can be completed by supply
ing in indicative form the ideas of the participles
doeth he it ? etc. Of course, the answer to the
question must be: He doeth it by the hearing
of faith.
6. Even as Abraham believed God, and
it was reckoned unto him for righteous
ness. — At this point, Paul brings forward the case
of the believing Abraham to illustrate from the Old
Testament itself the principle on which he was jus
tified. It was not by works but by faith and you

The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 6. 117
are justified, he would say, in accordance with (koBoc)
the typical case of Abraham, by faith also. The
passage is from the Septuagint of Gen. xv. 6, with
the variation from the Hebrew of the passive
(iAoyiady) for the active: "He reckoned it to him"
(rOtfTt)- The logical subject of was reck
oned is "faith" (yiricnc) or "believing" (to
irusrtviiv). The preposition for («f) is used with the
predicative force so common in later Greek. The
¦conception, well-nigh uniform with Paul, is that
faith is that which is imputed, a formula which the
ology has sometimes repudiated lest to faith should
be ascribed a meritorious character.* But this peril
is better avoided by a right apprehension of the
doctrine of faith than by a rejection of the Pauline
formula. The very nature of faith excludes desert
in the sense of a meritorious ground of salvation.
Its very idea is receptiveness, trust and humble
self -surrender, answering to the idea of " grace "
(x&pic) on God's part, which is the idea of doing bet
ter for men than they deserve. Hence Paul's
language does not and cannot mean that faith is
reckoned for righteousness by reason of its inherent
merit, as if it founded a claim upon God, but that,
being an obedient and receptive attitude toward
God and his salvation, it is the condition precedent

* E. g. in this statement: " He freely justifleth, » * * not
by imputing faith itself," etc., Westminster Confession, xi. 1.

118 The Epistle to the Galatians.
to our entering a right relation to God; so that,
on the one hand, faith is distinguished from
righteousness, contemplated as an achievement by
man, a reward of merit; while, on the other hand,
it may be reckoned as righteousness in the sense of
a gracious gift because it is the act and spirit on
man's part which receive the proffered righteous
ness in a consciousness of personal unworthiness.
While therefore faith may be sharply distinguished
from legal righteousness contemplated as a quid pro
quo, it may be closely identified with righteousness
considered as a gracious gift.
7. Know therefore that they which be
of faith, the same are sons of Abraham.
— The Apostle now develops his conclusion drawn
from the principle contained in the Scripture cited.
Since the significance of Abraham's religious life is
found in faith, it follows that he is the typical
father of the faithful; that sonship to him, in the
spiritual sense, is determined by faith. The terms,
they which be of faith (oi i« moreac) is commonly
understood as a contrast to lineal descendants, but
its more exact counterpart would be (so Wieseler,
Meyer), legalists, "those who are of works of the
law," (oi If epyov vdpov, verse 10). The preposition
"of "(«) has the same meaning as in verses 2-5;
"those who proceed forth in their religious life
from that principle."
8. And the scripture, foreseeing that

The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 8. 119
God would justify the Gentiles by faith,
preached the gospel beforehand unto
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the na
tions be blessed. — This verse forms the transi
tion to the proof that since believers only are sons
of Abraham, they alone can share the blessing of
justification promised to the nations in him.
Foreseeing (irpoidovaa) implies a kind of personifi
cation of Scripture, based upon the idea of God as
foreseeing what is promised in Scripture. The
word rendered would justify (diKaioi) is rendered
by many " justifieth " (Meyer, Ellicott, E. V. marg.)
and in that case denotes the present fact which
Scripture foresaw as future. Preached the gos
pel beforehand (irpoevrryyeMoaTo), declared the glad
tidings in advance, viz., in the quotation which fol
lows. The passage is taken from the Septuagint
with the modification that the terms of the orig
inal, "all the tribes of the earth," are replaced by
all the nations, (see Gen. xii. 3). They shall be
blessed in him in the sense that their blessing
(justification by faith), is typically included in his
own. In here denotes to Paul the relation of
spiritual sonship which is based on faith. Others
understand the blessing more comprehensively (as
Wieseler, De Wette) as referring to participation in
the kingdom of God in general. The Gentiles
(lit. the nations, rd iBvy) is here the contrast to the
Jews. The same words in the original are found in

120 The Epistle to the Galatians.
the quotation where they have the same meaning.
Perhaps the term, the nations (i. e. Gentiles,
TdlBvy) was chosen in preference to "the tribes"
(al fvlai) of the original, — which would certainly in
clude Jews, — in order the more clearly to apply the
passage to the heathen world. On this supposition,
Paul uses the passage in a somewhat more specific
sense than that which the original bears, in so far
as he limits it by changing "tribes of the earth,"
including Jews, to "the nations," meaning Gen
tiles, thus suggesting a contrast of Gentiles to
Jews. It is, however, at most, a specific limitation
or application; not a change of the original force of
the passage.
9. So then they which be of faith are
blessed with the faithful Abraham.— This
verse draws the conclusion from the confessed fact
that the Galatian Christians received the Holy
Spirit "by the hearing of faith," (vv. 2, 5); and
asserts the harmony of this fact with the principle
illustrated in the typical case of Abraham, and with
the promise given to him. With gives the same
fundamental conception as "in" (8) but with a
different phase of thought. Together they would
signify that in and with his blessing, they were
blessed. The former implies the spiritual kinship
which the latter more explicitly expresses.
10. For as many as are of the works of
the law are under a curse : for it is writ-

Tlie Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 10. 121
ten, Cursed is every one which contin-
ueth not in all things that are written in
the book of the law, to do them.— The state
ments here made are the proof that the blessing of
justification comes only by faith and are based upon
the affirmation of Scripture that only a curse (and not
a blessing) comes to those who adhere to the plane
of mere law. In the phrase, as many as are of
works of the law, we have for the first time the
•exact counterpart of, " they which be of faith "
(9). The citation here found is quoted freely, but
without variation of sense, from the Septuagint
¦(Deut. xxvii. 26), which, in turn, renders freely but
not inexactly, the Old Testament " Cursed is he
who does not maintain (D?pP the words of this
law to do them." The contrast here intended is
•clearly stated in Eom. iv. 4, 5. The principle is
stated positively in Eom. ii. 13; "The doers of a
law shall be justified," and again in Eom. x. 5.
The reason why in fact this doing of the law is
never successful, i. e. never conducts to salvation,
is found primarily in man's sinfulness which has its
seat in the flesh (o-dpf) (cf. Eom. viii. 3). So far
from justifying, it is found that the law can only
produce the knowledge of sin and quicken the
indwelling evil into new energy, but cannot deliver
man from its power. (See especially Eom. iii. 20).
The assumption of the whole argument is that
no one can perfectly keep the law, hence all are

122 The Epistle to the Galatians.
under its penalty. He who should render a com
plete and constant obedience could establish a meri
torious claim to salvation; but there is no such
person: "Every one is cursed who does not do every
thing which the law requires." Much of the em
phasis and force of Paul's argumentative use of the
passage depends upon the words every one and
all things, which are, indeed, in the Septuagint
(from which Paul's quotations are directly taken),
but not in the original. They may have been in
the text from which the translation of the Seventy
was made. The force of the argument does not
depend upon these emphases for which our Hebrew
text supplies no basis, but it is plain that its force
is greatly enhanced by them. The argument
hinges also on the idea of doing; in legal relations
doing is the test, but no one does the law, hence no
one can be justified by it. Paul here gives to the
passage from Deuteronomy (as in Eom. x. 5 to the
passage from Lev. xviii. 5) a specific application
which the passage in its original Old Testament set
ting did not bear, in using it so as to point a con
trast between the law-principle and the faith-prin
ciple; between a debit and credit method and a gra
cious method of divine action. Both the passages
just alluded to are general enforcements of the law-
codes in which they occur. They were not meant
to imply that everything which the people received
from God should be in mathematical proportion to

The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 11, 12. 123
the degree of this obedience. Paul states with ab
stract exactness the legal principle, and treats it as
a complete contrast to the gospel principle, but as a
matter of fact the Old Testament did not present
the principle to the Jews in this abstract character.
There was to them a gospel in the law; the legal
system was not merely abstractly legal, but gracious
as well. Of course Paul does not say that it was so,
but it cannot escape notice that he draws this con
trast with a sharpness which, while abstractly
exact, was never concretely illustrated in the Old
Testament, and was not present to the minds of the
writers of the passages referred to.
11, 12. Now that no man is justified by
the law in the sight of God, is evident:
for, The righteous shall live by faith,
and the law is not of faith; but, He
that doeth them shall live in them.—
The argument of 11, 12 in syllogistic form would
be: major premise, It is a Scripture axiom that the
just man lives from faith: minor premise, But doing
and merit are the test on the plane of law; therefore
no one lives the just life by the law (iv v6pu). The
underlying assumption of the argument is: No one
perfectly keeps the law. The first quotation is from
Hab. ii. 4 OTH! UV0^ pHV). (LXX., 6 a dkawc
ix irlareac pov ryaerai). The passage is quoted exactly
from the Septuagint both here and in Eom. i. 17,
except that the word "my" (jiov) is omitted. The

124 Tlie Epistle to the Galatians.
original passage is a part of the prophet's encourage
ment to the people in view of a Chaldean invasion.
He declares that the destruction of the enemy is sure
to come. " Be encouraged" he says, " and trust in
Jehovah; the righteous man, the true Israelite, shall
live by his constancy, fidelity " (iTJIO^). Apart
from the particular circumstances surrounding the
passage, it becomes an assurance that the righteous
man shall, in the exercise of faithfulness, find life
and blessing. It is possible to join the phrase by
faith with shall live (as is commonly done) or
with the righteous (so Meyer). For the expres
sion of the latter idea another order of words (d Ik
irioTeoc SiKaioc) would have been unambiguous, but
may have been prevented by the well-known order
of words in the LXX. Whether it is the righteous
ness or the life which is said to be "from faith"
makes no essential difference. The common
connection is favored by the evident meaning of
the original passage in the Old Testament. It
is certain, however, that the word for faith
here (iriancj is more specific than the correspond
ing Hebrew term in the original passage. It is
frequently rendered by the same Greek word (irianc)
in the LXX., and this usage is the connecting
link between the more general Old Testament idea
and Paul's specific conception of faith. As Abra
ham's faith was not exactly the same as the Christ
ian's in content, yet was for Paul the same in

The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 11, 12. 125
principle, viz. : trust in God's grace, so the faithful
ness in hardship and danger spoken of in Habakkuk
is treated as being the same in principle with the
specific faith which is exercised towards Christ for
salvation. So the matter is treated, but we should
not suppose that Paul turned his attention con
sciously to the limitation of the meaning in the Old
Testament, and deliberately decided to use the pas
sage in a somewhat different sense. He seized the:
words for the principle which they contained, and
without reference to the Old Testament setting.
The law does not spring out of the principle of faith,.
but out of a different principle, that pf enactment.
and obedience. Hence, of course, we have nothing
to hope from the law, and the conclusion is : No<
man is justified by the law. The Apostle
evidently intends to prove this by the Old Testa
ment quotations, so that the Jewish party will be
powerless to reply. He has put two passages of
Scripture together as premises, and drawn his con
clusion. So long as they accept these Scriptures:
they must accept his conclusion unless they should.
dispute his use of the passages.*
* What flaw would a keen scribe be likely to have
found here from his viewpoint? Perhaps in reference to
the first quotation he would object that " faith " in the
passage means constancy and fidelity to God and would
maintain that the prophet's view and his own were the-
same, viz. : that a man shall live now as then by fidelity to*

126 The Epistle to the Galatians.
13. Christ redeemed us from the curse
Of the law, having become a curse for us:
for it is written, Cursed is every one that
hangeth on a tree. — In verses 11 and 12 Paul
had shown that under the law, not a blessing, but a
curse, is experienced. Through Christ the curse is
taken away. This process is represented by com
mercial analogies. The curse is conceived as a
debt to be met. God as the lawgiver exacted
obedience; it has not been rendered; there is an
unpaid obligation which puts men in a relation to
Ood. He might urge that " faith " in the Old Testament
passage does not bear the sense of trust as opposed to
legal obedience and hold that he supported the princi
ple precisely in its Old Testament sense. Perhaps in re
gard to the second quotation he would say that " shall live"
does not refer to justification, and that the passage is not
meant to establish an exact relation under the Old Testa
ment between doing and receiving from God; that it means
rather that the man who is obedient in heart and purpose
shall have life, room being left for gracious forgiveness for
sins and failures. He might conclude: — "We hold both
these principles too, hut in the sense in which they stand
in the Old Testament, and in that sense they have no bear
ing upon specific faith in Christ." Paul might answer:
" The passages bear on the two principles which are the con
spicuous marks of the two systems respectively. They
show that from the Old Testament itself it was clear that
salvation is not by debt but of grace ; i. e. that, even under
the Old Testament, justification by faith was the principle
of salvation, as illustrated by the case of Abraham ".

The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 13. 127
God which might be likened to that of captives,
who, having been false to their rightful king, are
held awaiting ransom. Christ pays that ransom
and the obligation arising from the violated law is
forever discharged. His death for men is the
ransom price. He becomes a curse; i. e. he vicari
ously takes the place of those whom he sets free,
enduring the penal sufferings which must have been
theirs under the curse of the law. Cf. II Cor. v.
21, where Christ is said to become "sin for
us." Next the idea of the curse under which Christ, as
the Eedeemer, comes, is enforced by the Old Testa
ment statement (Deut. xxi. 23) of the ignominy
attaching to such as have their bodies hung upon a
stake or tree. So far did Christ become as one
accursed that he stopped not short of this pitch of
shame. Eespecting the theological bearing of these
statements it may be observed, (a) that Paul is not
presenting an abstract theory of the mode of
redemption. The pronoun " us " ("redeemed us ")
refers primarily to the Jews who alone were under
the Mosaic law. It is neither of law in the abstract
nor of man in the abstract, that Paul is speaking.
He is not speculating as to how Christ's vicarious
sufferings satisfy the penal righteousness of God;
although theological speculation, following out his
language, must face this question. He is treating a
concrete question: the way in which Christ helped

128 The Epistle to the Galatians.
the Jews out of that bondage of debt which their
disobedience involved them in.
(b) It is to be remembered that the (Mosaic) law
with Paul is only one of the dispensations of God.
There was also the gracious covenant of promise
which antedates the law, (verses 17-19). This dis
pensation is the older and more fundamental; the
law entered alongside (irapursfpStv, Eom. v. 20) of it
four hundred and twenty years after to make trans
gressions abound, and thus led on to the ideal fulfill
ment of the covenant of promise whose principle is
faith (cf. Eom. iv. 13-16). The law and this
primeval gospel existed side by side, and the law
must by no means be conceived of as annulling that
gospel of promise (v. 21). The Mosaic law repre
sents but one phase of the divine economy, and that
a subordinate one; the gospel of grace and faith
antedates it, and contains the higher ends which it
is to serve. Thus there existed a gospel of God's
grace according to which he was forgiving men
upon faith, before the law, alongside of the law,
and after the law is done away. The whole pur
pose of the law is subordinate to God's gracious
redemption; it comes in to reveal the exceeding
sinfulness of sin, for this is a necessary step in the
redemption of man from it. It follows that
redemption is not conceived of as a makeshift to
satisfy the law, but as the product of divine ideas
and modes of action that are more fundamental and

The Judaizers and the Gospel, iii. 13. 129
original than the legal system. While Christ satis
fies the demands of the law for obedience, the
larger Pauline truth is, that he satisfies the ends to
which the legal system, first, midst and last, is
subordinate. (c) It is important for theology to translate the
figure of ransoming into its moral and spiritual
equivalents and to build on these, not on the form
or metaphor merely. The Mosaic law may be said
to represent the law and penalty side of the divine
nature; there is such a side. The primeval gospel
of grace and faith may be said to represent the
gracious, benevolent element in the nature of God.
Both of these are constituent in the divine nature.
Both must be manifested, revealed, satisfied, by any
divine method or process of salvation. Christ, in
his vicarious identification of himself with man
in his sinful condition, comes into the intense
realization of the misery and hatefulness to
God, of human sin. He suffers with and for man
by virtue of his union with him in his sinful lot.
In this sense he becomes a curse or "sin," for us.
His sufferings are penal, not in the sense that they
are personally deserved, nor that he comes under the
personal displeasure of God; but in the sense that
just so far as he is identified with man through the
vicariousness of love, he is identified with him in
suffering the consequences of sin. The severity of
this suffering freely' borne by the sinless Christ is

130 The Epistle to the Galatians.
the vindication of God's attitude towards sin.
Christ must suffer as he does, because he has
become the representative man, and those sufferings
are the answer to the question: What is God's feel
ing toward sin?
In Christ's sufferings there is therefore a revela
tion of the holy nature of God which vindicates that
holiness beyond what punishment could do. Thus
Christ meets the ends of punishment. This is the
essential truth underlying the figure of the ransom.
The act or process denoted by this term is vicarious,
but the vicariousness is moral and spiritual; there is,
indeed, no other vicariousness, which is of any value.
14. That upon the Gentiles might come
the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus;
that we might receive the promise of the
Spirit through faith. — This verse states the
purpose or aim of the redemption of the Jews from
the curse, as terminating on the Gentiles. How
should the deliverance of the Jews from the curse
which the law pronounced secure justification, (the
blessing of Abraham) to the Gentiles? Vari
ous replies are given:
(1) Christ does away with the Jewish law, and
breaks down the partition between Jew and
Gentile (Euckert, Lightfoot). But Paul says
nothing of doing away with the law here, but only
of ransoming men from its curse. This view seems
to be influenced by Eph. ii. 14, ff.

The Gospel Antedates the Law, etc. : iii. 15. 131
(2) Christ redeems the Jews from the curse,
thereby putting Jew and Gentile on one common
ground, in that he requires faith alike in both
(Usteri). But this would not yet show how the
redemption of the Jews accomplished the justifica
tion of the Gentiles.
(3) The Jews were the divinely chosen media
through whom salvation should be brought to the
Gentiles. "Salvation is of the Jews." Their re
demption logically precedes the salvation of the
Gentiles, on the principle: "To the Jew first," etc.
(Meyer). This interpretation is the preferable one.
This blessing is to come to the Gentiles in Christ
Jesus, as opposed to "through the law." The
second final clause, that we might receive,
etc., may be taken as co-ordinate with the first,
that upon the Gentiles, etc., by way of climax
(so Meyer, Ellicott); or as subordinate to the first
as further defining it (Lightfoot). Either construc
tion makes good sense.
The Principle oe the Gospel Antedates and
Underlies the Law, 15-22.
15. Brethren, I speak after the manner
of men : Though it be but a man's cov
enant, yet when it hath been confirmed,
no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto.
— Here begins the argument to show the priority
and superiority of the covenant of promise with

132 The Epistle to the Galatians.
Abraham to which the law was subordinate.
After the manner of men («ard avePoirov),
means, " in accordance with what happens among
men." It introduces an argument a fortiori to show
that, if a covenant, properly ratified, is certain in
human relations, much more will a divine promise
be secure. Covenant (diaByny) is the equivalent of
the Old Testament term (rV"]3), and signifies a
solemn compact or agreement. It means "testa
ment " or "will," only once in the New Testament
(Heb. ix. 16, 17) — a meaning common in classic
Greek, — but being translated testamentum by the
Vulgate, the rendering " testament " has passed
into our common usage as its English equivalent.
Of this inaccuracy the title "The New Testament"
must now stand as a perpetual witness. The cor
rect title would have been "The New Covenant."
In the text the E. V. has set the translation right.
Addeth thereto (iiridiaTaaaeTai), i. e. "to Ordain
besides," "to add stipulations to." The word
translated yet (opoc) belongs logically with no one
(ohSeic), though separated so far from it, in the
original text, (cf. I Cor. xiv. 7); the participle
(KeKvpopivyv) is temporal: "when confirmed." The
object of the sentence, a man's covenant, is
thrown into the emphatic position, and the par
ticular emphasis is like that given by a concessive
clause: " Even though it be the case of a human
covenant, yet, when it is confirmed, no one," etc.,

The Gospel Antedates the Law, etc. : iii. 16. 133
or, " Man's covenant though it be, yet," etc. The
confirmation spoken of is the solemn ratification of
the agreement by the contracting parties. When
this is done no one (*. e. no third party) sets it aside
or adds to it. It must stand, so far as any outside
interference is concerned. This he will now apply.
The typical covenant-promise is to Abraham. It is
confirmed by God; and no one (such as a Judaizer,
or an adherent of the Mosaic law), must interfere
with or replace its provisions.
16. Now to Abraham were the prom
ises spoken, and to his seed. He saith
not, And to seeds, as of many ; but as of
one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.—
The truth which he now wishes to establish is the
indestructible character of the Abrahamic covenant
and its connection with Christ. The promises,
— the plural denoting that they were oft repeated,
and in different forms, — were spoken to Abraham;
but also to his seed. They were not merely spoken
personally to Abraham, but had a forward look
which Paul associates with Christ. The quotation
includes the connecting word and. The words are
found in Gen. xiii. 15 and xvii. 8. And he saith
not: And to seeds (icai ™? airlppaatv), as if referring
to many, but: And tO thy Seed (Kal to oirippaH arm),
as if referring to one, who is Christ.
The various methods of explaining this difficult
passage may be summarized thus: (a) The object of

134 The Epistle to the Galatians.
Paul is to show that the promise referred to does not
apply to Abraham's descendants in a literal sense,
but to one class of his descendants, his spiritual
children (so Augustine, Tholuck, Olshausen; sim
ilarly, Ellicott, Lightfoot). Of this spiritual prog
eny of Abraham, Christ is the head; indeed it
has no existence apart from Christ. It is he in
a mystical sense. (b) The argument with Paul
turns on the use in the Old Testament of the
singular number and not the plural (mrippa, not
turippara). His meaning is: since the singular is
used, the passage proves that one individual must
be referred to, and that must be Christ. The
passage cannot refer to many descendants of
Abraham, but must refer to one, that anti-typical
Son of Abraham, who has the closest spiritual
relationship with Abraham, the man of faith,
viz.: Christ. In the original, however, the word
for seed (JHf) is a collective noun, as it regu
larly is in the Old Testament in such cases. (So
Meyer, Weiss and German critics generally). There
is, I think, a truth in both views, which must be rec
ognized. Formaliter, the latter view is more nearly
correct; materialiter, the former. Paul's method
of argument is undoubtedly Eabbinic, and he draws
more from the use of the singular than an exact'
exegesis of the Old Testament can directly justify,
but not more than according to the typical view of
prophecy which is pervading in the New Testament,

The Gospel Antedates the Law, etc. : iii. 17. 135
can be justly claimed to be involved in the passage.
The essential idea is: The promise to Abraham
meets its true, ideal fulfillment only in Christ. The
argument, if formally unwarranted, rests neverthe
less on the profound view of Old Testament proph
ecy and history as looking forward to Christ, and
reaching its culmination only in him. Wieseler
justly says (Com. in loco): "That the idea of the
Messiah is veiled in the Abrahamic promise, and
that we may understand the expression 'seed of
Abraham ' in the light of later revelation to refer
really to the Messiah, is the thoroughly correct
view upon which the whole explanation of Paul
rests, but the form in which he incidentally ex
presses this correct view in this passage is due to his
Eabbinic training." It is to be remembered that
Paul's argument by no means rests upon this par
ticular interpretation. Speaking on this point,
Luther quaintly and aptly says that this argument
is but the painting of the house which has been
already built.
17. Now this I say; A covenant con
firmed beforehand by God, the law,
which came four hundred and thirty
years after, doth not disannul, so as to
make the promise of none effect.— Now
follows the application of what was said in verse 15.
No third party can break up or add to a covenant
between two parties. Now the law, if it interfered

136 The Epistle to the Galatians.
with the covenant of promise, which pointed to
Christ, would be doing that. But that it cannot
do, especially since God is a party to the transac
tion. This covenant has faith as its human condi
tion. It is a kind of divine ratification beforehand
of the faith-principle, and especially so because it is
Messianic. The faith-principle is older and more
fundamental than the law system. The law came
in long after, — four hundred and thirty years (Exod.
xii. 40). In Gen. xv. 13 and Acts vii. 6 it is the
round number four hundred. In the LXX. at Ex.
xii. 40 the sojourn in Egypt and Canaan is said to
be four hundred and thirty years. This reckoning
is found in Josephus and elsewhere, and would ma
terially shorten the sojourn in Egypt. Opinion is
divided as to which is the more correct. Paul's
statement harmonizes with the LXX., in which
four hundred and thirty embraces the time from
Abraham's call to the Exodus, but is against the
Old Testament Hebrew text, as we have it, and
against Acts vii. 6, where four hundred and thirty
embraces only the Egyptian period.
18. For if the inheritance is of the law
it is no more of promise ; but God hath
granted it to Abraham by promise.— This
verse marks the opposition to which the argument
has been leading up, the inheritance (y Klypovopia)
of the Messianic blessing must come either in the line
of the law or of promise (implying grace and faith).

TJie Gospel Antedates the Law, etc. : iii. 18. 137
The two are mutually exclusive. If the inheritance
is in the line of the gracious promise, which has been
made on condition of faith, and only so, then it can
not be of the law (l/c vdpov). And the Scriptural argu
ment has plainly shown that the former is the case,
the latter possibility is therefore excluded. Note
the way in which the gospel (promise, faith, etc.,) is
brought up in contrast with the law in Galatians, a
result of the Judaizing attachment to the covenant
which Paul is combating. It is enough in Eomans
to show that faith has always been the way of salva
tion and that sinfulness prevents the practicability of
justification by works. But here the two must be
sharply contrasted and their mutual exclusiveness
shown. When one now adheres to the law he is
opposing the original divine covenant; setting him
self against the primeval way of salvation, and the
deepest principle of the divine procedure. The law
•came in only as a temporary expedient, a "tutor
unto Christ " (v. 24). It has no equal rights with
the promise. It is treated, when such a claim is
made for it, as an interfering party seeking to break
up a sealed contract or to get a codicil inserted into
a will in favor of itself. It serves a good but tem
porary end. Now that faith is come we are no
longer under the provisional tutor (iraidayoydc).
19. What then is the law? It was
added because of transgressions, till the
seed should come to whom the promise

138 The Epistle to the Galatians.
hath been made ; and it was ordained
through angels by the hand of a medi
ator. — Having now shown that the promise ante
dates the law, and that the inheritance of Messianic
blessings is connected with the promise, and not
with the law, the question arises what were the
purpose and use of the law? Paul answers:
It was added because of trangressiona
(rav irapafidoeuv xdpiv irpoaeriBy). To these Words three
interpretations are given: (1) To check transgres
sions (so Olshausen, Neander). This view is
against the context, and the Pauline doctrine, cf.
especially Eom. v. 20. (2) That men might recog
nize their transgressions (so Augustine, Calvin,
Ellicott). This interpretation proceeds in the right
direction, but does not fully express the Pauline
view of the function of the law. (3) To multi
ply transgressions. The law reveals, provokes,
and multiplies transgressions (Eom. iii. 20; vii. 7;
v. 20). "Where there is no law there is no trans
gression (irapafiaoic), (Eom. iv. 15). There is sin
(dpapria) but not transgression. The purpose of
the law is to bring out sin into definite expres
sion as transgression (so Lightfoot, Meyer). Thus
sin is revealed to itself, its ill desert is seen, the
displeasure of God is felt, and the sinner sees him
self as guilty and punishable. This knowledge
leads him to seek salvation. Meyer says: "The
real idea of the Apostle is that the emergence of

Tlie Gospel Antedates the Law, etc. : iii. 19. 139
sins, viz., in the penal wrath-deserving moral form
of transgressions, which the law brought about was
designed by God (who must indeed have foreseen
this effect), when he gave the law, and designed in
fact as a mediate end in reference to the future
redemption; for the evil was to become truly great
that it might nevertheless be outdone by grace "
(Eom. v. 20). Paul holds that what the law did
it was intended to do. Does it then increase sin
and was this its purpose? Not in the sense of
enhancing the amount of moral evil in the world,
but in the sense of bringing out this evil into the
form of conscious transgression where it can be
seen and felt, and therefore forsaken. The law
provokes in this sin a reaction against itself, and it
bursts into expression and activity, but its principle
was there before. The sin was not created by the
the law, but only its expression, (transgression), was
caused or stimulated by the law. Was added
(irpoaeriBy) indicates that the law was something
supplementary to the promise. Cf. " Came in
beside" (irapetayWev, Eom. v. 20). It holds a sec
ondary rank compared with the promise. The
seed (rd eirippa) here refers to Christ, (cf. verse 16).
To whom the promise hath been made
(iirijyyelTai) ; the perfect tense denotes the past and
abiding fact of the confirmed promise. Ordained
through angels (dmrayelc ie dyyi?Mv); the law was or
dained through the mediation of angels, and was en-

140 The Epistle to the Galatians.
trusted to a mediator, Moses. The reference to the
mediation of angels in the giving of the law is
found in the LXX. rendering of Deut. xxxiii. 2.
The original passage is uncertain in meaning, since
there is doubt regarding the pointing of a word
which in our text signifies " Holiness " (SJHp): hence,
" myriads of holiness." Some, however, interpret
this word to mean Kadesh, (and indeed so the LXX.
but they also add the reference to angels, which
must, therefore, have been found in the text used
by them). Eabbinical literature greatly elaborated
this idea of angel mediation; it is also found in Heb.
ii. 2.
By the hand (iv x*h>>) ma7 De taken literally
(so Meyer) as a reference to Moses receiving the
tables of the law; or understood as a Hebraism
0!5)- Mediator, (peainic), that is, Moses, and
not Christ, (as the Church Fathers usually under
stood it), an interpretation which would confuse
the argument. Is this introduction of angels and
Moses designed to depreciate the law as compared
with the promise (as most critics maintain), or to
exalt the promise by showing that such a glorious
system as the law was auxiliary to it? (So Meyer,
Winer, Wieseler). Cf., in this connection, the
argument in Heb. ii. 1-4. Which is more directly
appropriate to the Apostle's course of thought in
our passage, a glorifying, or a relative depreciation
of the law? I think the latter.

The Gospel Antedates the Law, etc. : iii. 20. 141
20. Now a mediator is not a mediator
of one ; but God is one.— The connection of
thought may be indicated thus: In the case of the
giving of the law there was a mediator, Moses.
That implied something of the nature of a contract,
because a mediator involves two parties; God was
one party and the people of Israel the other. The
law-system therefore, might be terminated when
ever the relations of the parties might require it.
It was relative and conditional. But in the case of
the promise there was no mediator; that is, it was
an act of God alone and was absolute and uncondi
tional. The promise was a sovereign declaration
proceeding from God and extending to all time. It
therefore stands upon a higher plane than this
mediated and conditional system. The sense of the
words, therefore is: " Now a mediator implies two
parties, but God (in making the promise) is one,
that is, stands alone and is sovereign in his action."
Hence the implied conclusion: The promise has an
absolute character, as compared with the contingent.
law-system, and thus stands above it.
21. Is the law then against the prom
ises of God? God forbid : for if there had
been a law given which could make alive,
verily righteousness would have been of
the law. — But now, the question arises: If the
law and the promise stand on different planes, shall
we go further and say that they are in antagonism?

142 The Epistle to the Galatians.
No, answers the Apostle, and why? Because they
serve different ends and cannot be compared. Those
things cannot be said to be in antagonism which do
not come into competition at all. If the law ever
could have saved men, then an antagonism might,
perhaps, be spoken of, but since it could not do this,
it could not be said to be a rival system to the prom
ise. The full reason for Paul's denial of such a
conclusion Qiy yivono) is contained in the whole pas
sage, vv. 21-24, and may be summarized thus:
" If there had ever been any law which could have
.given life, then righteousness might have been at
tained by means of it, and that law would have been
a rival of the promise; but, as a matter of fact,
the Mosaic law, so far from giving life, pronounces a
curse, shuts men up under sin as if in prison, and
holds them there in ward, until the promise comes
and delivers them. Thus the immediate aim of the
law is not to procure salvation, but only to make men
conscious of their need of Christ, by showing them
their guilt. The law thus has its purpose as sub
ordinate to the gospel, and hence can never be
against it or come into rivalry with it."
22. Howbeit the scripture hath shut up
all things under sin, that the promise by
faith in Jesus Christ might be given to
them that believe. — This verse points the con
trast between such a case as is supposed in v. 21,
and the actual case of the Mosaic law. Paul cites

The Preparatory Office of the Law : iii. 23. 143
the testimony of the Old Testament in regard to
what the Mosaic law does. The scripture (per
sonified) hath shut up all things under sin; i.
e. by showing men how sinful they were, it kept them
shut up as under a charge of guilt until the time of
the Messianic deliverance. All things (rd irdvra)
is the neuter plural of category referring to persons,
(cf. I Cor. i. 27, 28). But this custody was not for
its own sake, but as a necessary step toward the
final fulfillment of the gracious promise. The pur
pose is stated in the clause beginning that the
promise, etc. Promise (iirayyeMa) is here equiva
lent to the fulfillment of the promise (i. e., of course,
justification) as the verb might be given (do&ij)
shows. The idea of faith being the condition of re
ceiving this promise is twice stated in the phrases
by faith («««¦«>?) and them that believe
(rotf irusrevovoiv), very probably because Paul is not
content to say that it is given to believers (which
all would allow), but wishes to especially emphasize
the idea that it is given them by faith (emphatic)
and not also " by works," as the Judaizing Chris
tians would suppose.
III. The Disciplinary and Preparatory Office
of the Law, 23-29.
23. But before faith came, we were
kept in ward under the law, shut up unto
the faith which should afterwards be re-

144 The Epistle to the Galatians.
vealed: — Faith is here half personified (cf. the
predicate came) and objectively treated, but with
out ceasing to mean subjective faith in Christ.
The thought is : " Before the gospel whose charac
teristic is faith, came," etc. We were kept in
Ward (iQpovpoipeBa), i. e., We (Jews) were kept in
ward by the law (personified) as disobedient slaves
are shut up in prison by their master ; shut up
unto i. e. until the coming (for our deliverance) of
the faith about to be revealed. The law did its ut
most when it imprisoned us. It must wait for
faith to come and open the door. Unto (ek) de
notes the end contemplated in the action of shutting
up ; it was that (by exercising faith) we might be
released. 24. So that the law hath been our tutor
to bring us unto Christ, that we might be
justified by faith. — This statement concludes
the description of the function of the law and sums
up all that has been said concerning it. It " has
become " (yeyovev) in the divine providence our tutor
unto Christ (iraid. elc Xpiardv). This phrase has
often been understood thus: As the pedagogue (gen.
erally a slave) in ancient times conducted the boy
to school, so the law conducts us to the school of
Christ, that we may learn of him (so Chrysostom,
Erasmus). But this hangs too much on the word
" pedagogue " or tutor, to the neglect of the context.
The thought rather is that the law trained and

The Preparatory Office of the Law : iii. 24. 145
disciplined the Jews for Christianity. Nor is the
idea here that the law restrained from sin, and so
was a preparation for Christ; but the reference is to
that harsh treatment which the law administers to
sinful men which constitutes its pedagogic function,
its pronouncing of a curse upon them, and shutting
them up under accusation, (so Meyer, Lightfoot
and most moderns). The method of this discipline
is sketched in Eom. vii. It prepares men for Christ
because it begets dissatisfaction with themselves,
reveals their sins, and (as Luther says) " humbles
the proud to desire Christ's aid." On the force of
the phrase unto Christ, Luther quaintly says:
"For what a schoolmaster were he which would
always torment and beat the child and teach him
nothing at all? And yet, such schoolmasters there
were in time past when schools were nothing else
but a prison and a very hell, and the schoolmasters
cruel tyrants and very butchers. The children
were always beaten, they learned with continual
pain and travail, and yet few of them came to any
proof. The law is not such a schoolmaster. For it
doth not only terrify and torment, as the foolish
schoolmaster beateth his scholars and teacheth them
nothing, but with his rods he driveth us unto Christ,
like as a good schoolmaster instructeth and exer-
ciseth his scholars in reading and writing, to the
end that they may come to the knowledge of good
letters and other profitable things, that afterwards
10

146 The Epistle to the Galatians.
they may have a delight in doing of that which be
fore, when they were constrained thereunto, they
did against their wills " (Commentary in loco).
Again Luther pithily says: "Therefore the law
doth not only kill, but it killeth that we may live."
25. But now that faith is come, we are
no longer under a tutor. — Since the law had
it as iis purpose to usher in the faith-system, it fol
lows that, when that system enters, the law ceases
to be in effect. Faith is here also objectively
treated and almost personified, but still meaning,
not primarily a doctrine, but an act of trust. We
designates primarily Jews who had been under the
tutor. The Gentiles, of course, had never been
under the law.
26. For ye are all sons of God, through
faith, in Christ Jesus.— The assurance, that
the Jews are no longer under the tutor, the Apostle
grounds by the general statement that the Galatian
Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are sons of
God. How should sonship to God prove that Chris
tians are not under the law? Because, in the Apos
tle's view, the state under the law is a bondage in
which men are servants (dovloi), and not sons (vlo'i).
The adoption (vioBeaia) brings in "the liberty of the
glory of the children of God " (Eom. viii. 14, 15
seq.). Hence to be sons of God is to be free from
the law, to enjoy the sense of pardon and of liberty
from all that bondage and guilt which the law en-

The Preparatory Office of the Law : iii. 26. 147
genders. Ye, Galatian Christians, are all (em
phatic position) such. The primary emphasis is on
all as embracing Christians without distinction;
and the secondary on sons of God as the con
trast to the servitude " under a tutor." The
phrase: In Christ Jesus, may be taken either
with ye are or with the word faith. The con
struction of the preposition here used (iv) after the
words "faith" (nianc) or believing (iriordeiv) occurs
only in Mark i. 15; Eph. i. 13. It may be said, on
the one hand, that taken with "faith " it is superflu
ous, because the meaning of " faith " is evident; to
which it may be answered, that it adds a full and
solemn emphasis to the meaning of the faith which
is set in contrast to the law. The E. V. favors the
former (so Lightfoot, Wieseler); the A. V. favors
the latter (so Meyer and Ellicott); I prefer the lat
ter construction.
27. For as many of you as were bap
tized into Christ did put on Christ.— The
Apostle now explains the nature of this relation of
sonship and faith: "Why do I insist that all you
Christians are sons of God, entitled to the liberty
and joy of sonship? I do so because all you who have
been baptized, have entered into this deep and close
union with Christ which constitutes your freedom
and your salvation. So great things can be predi
cated of faith because it has brought you into such
vital communion with Christ."

148 The Epistle to the Galatians.
To be baptized into Christ (pair. «f xpun-6»)
means to enter by baptism into the relationship of
fellowship with Christ. Baptism is here expressly
treated from the standpoint of the faith which it
presupposes. The statement is introduced as an ex
planation of the sonship to God which arises on con
dition of faith. The statement is practically equiv
alent to: as many as have believed have entered
into a spiritual union with Christ. (Cf. Eom. vi.
3). The figure of " putting on Christ " is very
probably derived from the putting on of clothing,
which comes to be applied to the taking on of quali
ties such as righteousness, shame, etc. In the
Apostle's language it expresses the mystical union
into which the believer enters with Christ at his
conversion. Christ becomes, as it were, the life-
element of the soul;. Christ is in the believer, he is
in Christ, his life is hid with Christ in God. He
has put on Christ, entered into fellowship of life
with him, so that in his relations to Christ are
found the deepest meanings of his life.
28. There can be neither Jew nor
Greek, there can be neither bond nor
free, there can be no male and female;
for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.
— Since this freedom and sonship are shared by all
Christians by virtue of their common relation to
Christ, it follows that there is among them a union
deeper than diversities of nation, condition or sex.

The Preparatory Office of the Law : iii. 28. 149
The student of the original text will notice that
while the relation of Jew and Greek, and of bond
and free, are contrasted by the emphatic negative
(oiidi), the terms male and female are connected by
and (mi), indicating the difference of this distinc
tion from those social ones mentioned above. The
meaning of the verse is not, that Christianity
knows no such distinctions in themselves, but that
Christianity knows no such distinctions as essential
or determining. It goes beneath and behind all
these natural diversities and lays a deep ground
for unity beneath them. The thought is: So far
as any of these distinctions have ever been grounds
of separation and estrangement among mankind,
they are now non-existent, for those who breathe
the one spirit which emanates from Christ.
29. And if ye are Christ's then are ye
Abraham's seed, heirs according to prom
ise. — If ye belong to Christ who is pre-eminently
the seed of Abraham, then are ye also his seed,
that is, true spiritual descendants of Abraham. Not
those who are in lineal descent from Abraham and
who make their boast in the law, but those who,
like Abraham, exercise faith, are his true spiritual
sons. They are like him, walk in his footsteps,
and illustrate that which was most characteristic
and significant in his life. The believers, then, are
the true inheritors of the Messianic salvation. This
is said in opposition to the Apostle's Judaizing

150 The Epistle to the Galatians.
opponents, who made heirship to depend also upon
observance of the law. The great terms of the dis
cussion thus far are, according to Paul's system, on
the divine side, "promise" (iirayyeiia); on the
human side "faith" (irionq). Eesult, in the former
case, "inheritance" (Klypovopia) or "righteousness"
(diKatoainiij)', the correlative terms in the view op
posed by the Apostle are, on the divine side, " the
law " (d vdpoc); on the human, " works " (ipya v6pov)}
and the result a " curse " (nardpa).

ANALYSIS AND PAEAPHEASE OF CHAP
TEE IV.
1. Our position under the law and under the
Gospel, 1-7. — The heir, before he attains his major
ity, can no more enter upon the actual possession of
his destined estate, than can a bond servant in the
family possess himself of it (1). Until the set time,
he must continue in a subordinate position, under
the authority and discipline of others (2). Our
position (he is here thinking more particularly of
the Jewish Christians) under the law was analo
gous. We were as children, having a great inher
itance (the gospel) in prospect, but kept in a
preparatory process of training (3), but the coming
of Christ marks the period of release from this
tutelage and of entrance upon the promised posses
sion (4, 5). This full sense of sonship is imparted
by the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the heart of
the believer, assuring him of the divine fatherhood
(6); hence we are no longer in the position of ser
vants, but in that of the sons of full age in the
family who have attained the clear consciousness of
151

152 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter IV.
sonship and with it have entered upon their right
ful, destined possession.
2. The stage of religious development represented
by the lata, 8-11. — (He is speaking now more par
ticularly with reference to the Gentile Christians).
We were all in bondage before we became Chris
tians, either to the law, or under a worse master,
idolatry (8); but since we have through Christ
learned to know the true and only God, or rather,
since he has made himself known to us, how un
reasonable in us to wish to return to an elemen
tary stage of religion again, by continuing to
adhere to the Jewish observances. That is like
going back to bondage after having been once set
free (9). This you Galatians are doing; your ob
servances of Jewish feast-days and ceremonies,
make me afraid that my labor among you will
prove to have been for naught (10, 11).
3. Exhortation to the Galatians to return to the
true Christian position, 12-20. — Let me plead with
you to come to my point of view in this matter,
even as I, in renouncing Judaism, put myself upon
the same plane with you Gentiles (12). I hope for
this result from my experience of your former kind
ness and attachment, for I remember that when I
was detained among you by sickness, in consequence
of which I became your Christian teacher, you did
not consider my presence among you burdensome,
nor did your regard fail to endure the test to which

Analysis and Paraphrase of Cliapter IV. 153
it was put; on the contrary, you received me with
the utmost, — indeed, with excessive honor (13, 14).
But all seems changed now! You appear not to
count it any felicity now to receive and obey my
instructions. How great the change of temper, for
when I was among you, you would gladly have
made the greatest sacrifice for me (15). Have I
become the object of your enmity because I now
urge upon you the true and only gospel (16)?
Those who are leading you astray from my teach
ing (the Judaizing leaders) are indeed eager in
courting your favor, but it is in no good spirit and
for no good end; what they really seek is to impart
to you an exclusive and partisan spirit (cf. notes),
that they may attach you to themselves as followers
and supporters (17). It is always well to be zeaL
ously sought after by others if the object of this
enthusiasm is a worthy one. I do not begrudge
you this attention from others; when I am absent
others must exercise this care (cf. notes), (18). My
children, so great is my anxiety for you on account
of your defection from the truth that I seem to be
again undergoing the pains and labors by which you
were brought into the church. I should be glad to
be personally present with you and to adopt a less
censorious tone; for I am perplexed and uncertain
whether I can by any means win you back and
would gladly make all possible efforts (19, 20).
4. A narrative from the law itself may be allegor-

154 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter IV.
ically applied so as to illustrate the truth that those
who adhere to the law are in bondage, 21-v. 1. — My
readers who are familiar with the Old Testament
will readily recall the history of Abraham's two
sons, Ishmael and Isaac, the former the child of the
bondwoman, Hagar, whose birth was merely in the
ordinary course of nature, and Isaac, the child of
Sarah, born in accordance with a divine promise
(21-23). These persons and events have an alle
gorical significance. The two women, Hagar and
Sarah, represent respectively the Old and the New
Testament systems; the former — the bondwoman —
corresponds to the covenant whose sign or symbol is
Mt. Sinai, since her children, like those who con
tinue under the Old Covenant, are brought forth in
and for a state of bondage (24). Now this analogy
is the more appropriate because Mt. Sinai is actu
ally situated in Arabia, the land of Hagar's de
scendants (so E. V. margin; cf. notes).* If, then,
Hagar fitly represents Sinai, she may as fitly be said
to represent the earthly city of Jerusalem, which
stands as a symbol of the Jewish religion. Sinai
and Jerusalem have the same religious significance.
Jerusalem (personified as the mother of the Jewish
people), like Hagar and her descendants, is in
* Following the text of the K. V. the analysis would be :
Now the correspondence between Hagar and Sinai is seen
in the fact that the name Hagar is applied to the mountain
by the people of Arabia, etc.

Analysis and Paraphrase of Cliapter IV. 155
bondage with her children (25). But the upper
Jerusalem, the spiritual commonwealth, typified by
Sarah, is free and, since she is the mother of all
believers, her children (Christians) are also free
(26). Our spiritual mother may rejoice, therefore,
in the language of ancient prophecy concerning the
hope of the childless, and we, her children, like
Isaac, are heirs of God's gracious promise, made to
all believers (27, 28).
But as in ancient days, so now, the spiritual must
suffer persecution from the unspiritual (29). But
as then, the Ishmaelites were rejected from the true
theocracy, so now shall the unfree Jews who persist
in refusing their spiritual freedom in Christ, be
excluded from the people of God (30). We are free
then; let us maintain and prize our freedom and
not surrender it by returning to the bondage with
which the law enslaves those who try to be saved by
its works (21, v. 1).

CHAPTEE IV.
I. Our Position Under the Law and Under
the Gospel, 1-7.
1. But I say that so long as the heir is a
child, he differeth nothing from a bond
servant, though he is lord of all.— This
verse explains that even the one who is the destined
heir in the family, must continue for a time with
out entering upon his possession. Until he is of
age he cannot inherit, but remains, so far as posses
sion in his own right is concerned, on the same
plane with a servant in the family. Instead of
being master he is more in the position of a servant
(dovXoc), so long as he is under age (vyirioc).
2. But is under guardians and stewards
until the term appointed of the father.—
He is under guardians, overseers (iirirpoiroi) and
stewards (oimvdpoi) who exercise authority over him
and discipline him, notwithstanding his destined
superiority. Now we Jews, continues the Apostle in
v. 3, were in this case. We were destined to
possess the Messianic inheritance, but not before
156

Our Position under the Law, etc. : iv. 2. 157
the time. There was a period of our minority
when we must stand on the plane of servants and
receive tutelage and chastisement. That was the
law-period, and the law was the disciplinarian.
This was the period of waiting and training. But
now the time of our majority is come. We should
enter into our divinely destined inheritance.
Child (vyirioc) may mean either a babe, or a legal
minor (as here). Commonly in Paul's writings it is
opposed to a mature, full-grown man (t^uoc).
Here it is practically so, but the contrast is not
explicitly made, because the Apostle changes the
figure of minority vs. majority, and shades off into
that of servitude and sonship, in verse 5 seq.
Differeth nothing from (ovdh dia<j>iPei), i. e.
so far as the necessity of discipline and training is
concerned. He is indeed prospective master but
must in his youth be governed and trained by
others, just as much as if he were the child of a
bondservant in the family. Though he is lord
of all, " Lord of all in prospect though he is."
During his nonage he is under guardians or
overseers, who have charge of his education, and
Stewards, who have the management of the
property which he will inherit, until the term ap
pointed (dxpt Tyc irpoBeapiac — SC. fipipac — roS irarpdg) ; the
time which must elapse before the attainment of full
age is here spoken of as being determined by the
father. In both Jewish and Eoman law the age at

158 The Epistle to the Galatians.
which majority was reached was determined by
statute ; but Paul was in no way concerned
with the technical arrangements on this point. It
serves better as an illustration to speak of the
father as determining the time, which indeed he
could do so far as to put an end to the tutelage
under which he chose to have his child trained.
The question is sometimes raised whether the father
is conceived of as living ? It is irrelevant to Paul's
argument. Does the "we" (v. 3) refer to the
Jews (Wieseler) or to all Christians (Meyer)? The
answer must be: Strictly, to the Jews who alone
were under the tutelage of the law, and the servi
tude connected therewith, though the same princi
ples might be equally well applied, with change of
terms, to the pre-Christian Gentile world who
possessed an analogue to the Mosaic law, the revela
tion of God in nature and conscience. (Eom. i. 18-
23). 3. So we also, when we were children,
were held in bondage under the rudi
ments Of the world.— We (Jews) were in our
pre-Christian state enslaved under the rudi
ments Of the WOrld (rd aroixeta tov Kdapov) ; evi
dently a designation for the law. What does it
mean? The same expression is found in Col. ii. 8
and 20, "If ye died with Christ to the rudiments of
the world," why do ye, as living (in a pre-Christian
state), subject yourselves to such ascetic rules as

Our Position under the Law, etc. : iv. 3. 159
" touch not, taste not, handle not," etc. ? Hence
these ascetic abstinences (ddypara), are examples of
the rudiments of the world spoken of. In Gal.
iv. 9, where those who are heathen are addressed,
we have the term rudiments (oTotxc'ia) used of Jew
ish observances to which the Galatians were in
clined to turn, and, by clear implication, used to
characterize their former idolatrous worship. The
expression may, therefore, refer to those elementary
and imperfect religious devotions and observances,
whether Jewish or heathen, which preceded Chris
tianity. The same word is applied in Heb. v. 12 to
the elements of Christian doctrine.
These observances and services of imperfect
religions are rudiments in so far as they repre
sent only an imperfect state of religious knowledge.
They belong to the world (ndapoc), as being out
ward and visible, the symbols and pictures of spirit
ual realities. They belong to this present sphere of
sensuous and transient existence and do not rise to
the sphere of eternal, spiritual realities. Yet that
the law is so characterized must never be supposed
to militate against its divine origin and character.
It is of divine origin, but it is at the same time
imperfect and provisional. Its highest dignity and
honor are found in the fact that it ministers to the
bringing in of the Gospel. As Luther justly insists,
we are to remember that Paul's seeming deprecia
tion of the law, is in view of its utter inability to

160 The Epistle to the Galatians.
justify. Luther however speaks too strongly when
he says: "Because Paul is here in the matter of
justification, it was necessary that he should speak
of the law as a thing very contemptible and
odious." 4. But when the fulness of the time
came, God sent forth his Son, born of a
woman, born under the law:— The fulness
here denotes, "that which fills up something,"
complementum; the meaning is, when the time
which completes the period of waiting, came. The
coming of Christ into the world is at the end of a
destined time of preparation during which the con
sciousness of a need of salvation should be developed,
as is evident from iii. 19, 24, and from Eom. v. 20,
21. The words: God sent forth his Son, cer
tainly presuppose the preexistence of Christ, as do
the kindred expressions in Eom. viii. 3; II Cor. vii.
9, and especially the locus classicus, Phil. ii. 5 seq.
In Col. i. 15, Christ is called " the image of the in
visible God, the first-born of every creature," that is,
the embodiment and revelation of the Father and the
one whose existence antedates that of every created
thing, and is also described (v. 16) as the one
through whom is mediated the creation of all
things. That Paul teaches the personal preexist
ence of Christ is not denied by competent scholars
whether they themselves hold that doctrine or not.

Our Position under the Law, etc. : iv. 4. 161
It is commonly thought that the logical starting-
point for the development of the doctrine of the
preexistence with Paul is his view of the exalted
Christ. Perhaps, in that case, the idea of the incar
nation and humiliation, as found especially in II
Cor. viii. 9 and Phil. ii. 5, seq., would come next in
logical order of development. But these three
ideas certainly belong inseparably together in the
Pauline system, and no chronological order in their
development can be confidently determined.
Bom Of a WOman (yev6pevov Ik yvvaiKdc.), — to
show that he came in a human manner into human
life, while the words, born under the law
(yev. iiro vdym), emphasize the idea of his coming into
full natural relations as a Jew. He was a real man
and a real Jew. The participle as employed the sec
ond time should have the same sense as in the first
case, viz.: born. (So E. V. vs. A. V.). The
phrase born of a woman does not intimate any
idea of a supernatural birth, nor does Paul elsewhere.
He may have known nothing of this subject, which
lay outside the current apostolic tradition, and
may not have gained currency fn the church until
considerably later, as a result of subsequent inquir
ies, (cf. Luke i. 1-4). Paul has nowhere given any
intimation on this subject. It is too much to say
(with Pfleiderer) that he denies the supernatural
generation of Christ. He says that Christ is
" according to the flesh " (/card o-dpua), son of David
11

162 The Epistle to the Galatians.
(Eom. i. 3), which would be just as true in literal
fact, if he was the putative son of Joseph, provided
the genealogy of Luke is that of Mary, since that
genealogy traces Christ's descent through David's
line. It is evident that the Apostle regards it as a
necessary condition of saving men that the Christ
should come into their condition. He is born
under the law that "he might redeem them
which were under the law," (v. 5). The thought is
similar in Eom. viii. 3; Christ entered into the
sphere of the flesh that he might destroy the power
of sin which rules there. What is the causal con
nection between Christ's taking the condition of
those whom he would save and the salvation itself?
Or, to put the question more specifically, and with
reference to our present passage, why, according to
Paul, must Christ become subject to the law in
order to save those who are under it, (the Jews)?
The following views may be noted:
(1) It was that, by perfect obedience to the law,
he might exhibit the true life and thus set men
upon the course of a similar life of obedience.
(2) It was that this perfect obedience might be
imputed to the disobedient. He came under the
law and perfectly obeyed it, and his obedience
serves for ours by being reckoned to us.
The following difficulties have been urged against
this view:
(a) The point in the discussion turns upon sav-

Our Position under the Law, etc. : iv. 4. 163
ing the Jews (ol virb vdpov), and not upon the doctrine
of salvation in general. The view overlooks the
Pauline use of law (= the Mosaic law), and makes it
signify moral law in general. Per contra, it is said,
that law is for Paul the concrete embodiment of
divine or moral law in general. But is Paul so
treating it here in our passage? It can hardly be
maintained that he is.
(b) There is no mention in Paul's writings of the
imputation of Christ's obedience to us. Two
things are said to be imputed: faith (generally),
and righteousness (not Christ's personal righteous
ness, but that status or character of righteousness
into which faith introduces us), so that these two
resolve into precisely the same thing.
(3) It may be held that Gal. iii. 13 furnishes the
key for the solution of the question. Christ redeems
the Jews from the curse by coming under the law
and receiving its curse upon himself. Bearing the
curse for them he can liberate them from it.
There still remains the difficulty mentioned above
[denoted by (a)] which, however, may be solved on
Pauline principles by the view presented in Eom.
i. that the Gentiles are also under law in the sense
of having a revelation of God in nature and in
conscience which renders them without excuse and
proves them sinful and guilty. If so, then the
"curse" which rested upon the Gentiles, came
upon Christ as truly as that which rested upon the

164 The Epistle to the Galatians.
Jews, and in the same sense. This view, if taken,
decides nothing as to the exact sense in which
Christ assumed the curse, — a question to which Paul
has given no explicit answer. He, however, points
out (Eom. iii. 25), that it was in such a way as to
reveal God's righteousness and to show him to be
just in effecting this work of Christ, while he, at the
same time, graciously provides salvation for sinful
men. Doubtless Christ comes under the law,
first of all, that he may perfectly obey the law:
Eom. v. 19, "on account of the obedience of one
many are made righteous;" II Cor. v. 21, "He
made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we
might become the righteousness of God in him."
How should his obedience accomplish this result
for and in us? Perhaps because, though obeying
the law perfectly, he yet comes under its curse
(becomes a "curse," — becomes "sin"), thus show
ing that this curse does not come upon him on his
own account, but is assumed vicariously for us.
His perfect obedience is thus the condition prece
dent of his vicarious suffering, because if he had
not been perfectly obedient, he would have deserved
the curse and must have borne it for himself and
not for us. His perfect obedience avails for us,
according to Paul, neither, primarily, by way of
example, nor by way of imputation, but by being
the essential prerequisite of the vicarious bearing
of the curse on our behalf. Neither does this fact

Our Position under the Law, etc. : iv. 5. 165
determine the sense in which he bears the curse,
— which always remains a problem of speculative
theology, — but only gives the form and order of the
Pauline thought.
5. That he might redeem them which
were under the law, that we might re
ceive the adoption of sons.— In the second
clause: that we might receive, etc., the
thought which had been moving in the Jewish
sphere, broadens to embrace all Christians, whether
Jewish or Gentile, as the recipients of the adoption.
The word rendered receive (lit. to "receive back,"
diroTLdpopev), is understood: (a) to receive back what
was lost in Adam, (so Augustine). A fatal objec
tion to this view is, that it makes viodeaia mean
"sonship," whereas it means adoption; (b) to re
ceive back as due or destined for us, as the result of
the promise; (c) to receive from (dird), the redemp
tion, as its fruit or consequence; (d) simply receive
(=Mpupev) (so, Meyer, E. V.) Usage favors making
dirol. express something more than TiAfiapev and
very probably the idea of either (b) or (c) may be
implied, though it is, perhaps, impracticable to
recognize it in translation.
6. And because ye are sons, God sent
forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,
crying, Abba, Father.— The "adoption"
being now accomplished in objective fact, the
Apostle next alludes to the subjective certitude of

166 The Epistle to the Galatians.
it. Because ye (without distinction of Jew and
Gentile) are sons, did God send forth his Spirit,
which could not have been done for those under the
bondage of the law. The possession of the Spirit
is at once the consequence and the proof of son-
ship. The specific designation, the Spirit of his
Son, is no doubt chosen with regard to the term
sons above. Since ye are sons, God has sent the
Spirit of him who is preeminently God's Son. Ye
share the same Spirit with the divine Son. The
term means distinctively the Holy Spirit. The
believer is conceived of as being the organ of the
Holy Spirit, who, entering his heart, cries aloud,
i. e., enables the man to say, Abba, Father, by
inspiring within him the consciousness and expe
rience of sonship to God. Cf. Eom. viii. 15. The
point is that the Holy Spirit inspires the sense of
sonship. Abba, Father ('A/3/35 d iraryp), is a somewhat
stereotyped phrase (Eom. viii. 15; Mark xiv. 36),
evidently resulting from the use of the Aramaic
word "Abba" in prayer; but whether from Christ's
own use of it (as Meyer supposes), or only from its
use by the Jews cannot be determined. Others sup
pose that "Father" is added only to explain the
word "Abba" to Gentile readers, but it probably
was too common to need such explanation. Cf.
the devotional use in many languages of the
Hebrew "Amen."

Our Position under the Law, etc. : iv. 7. 167
7. So that thou art no longer a bondser
vant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir
through God. — This is the application to the
individual (thou art), of the conclusion that
Christians are sons and heirs. It is here seen that
Paul treats the bondage (dovfoia) as practically
belonging to the Gentiles as well as the Jews under
the law, showing that, in principle, the bondage
and curse of the Jews under the law was representa
tive of the state of the whole world. Thou (Jew or
Gentile) art not a bondservant, (dovtoc) (which
therefore each had been), but a son, and if a son
also an heir. The inheritance here spoken of refers
to the Messianic blessedness which God had
promised. Now only the sons inherit, hence son-
ship and inheritance are one and indivisible. We
may here note the transitions of thought, from
Jews in 5 (a), to all Christians in 5 (b); and from
Christians in general in 6 (a), to the individual
Christian in 6 (b). For the expression through
God (did Beov), the Textus Receptus (so A. V.) reads
"Of God through Christ" (Beov did Xpiarov). The
former reading is overwhelmingly attested and
is adopted by all recent critics. The sense prob
ably is: an heir through the adopting act of God.
The representation throughout this passage is pre
vailingly that of sonship by adoption, and not, as
with John, that of sonship to God by new birth.
If the former figure is kept in mind, the appar-

168 The Epistle to the Galatians.
ent harshness of the reading "through God" is
lessened. It may have been the overlooking of this
fact by copyists which occasioned the gloss found in
the Textus Receptus.
II. The Stage of Eeligious Development Eep-
RESENTED BY THE LAW, 8-11.
8. Howbeit at that time, not knowing
God, ye were in bondage to them which
by nature are no gods. — Paul here alludes to
their ignorant condition as unconverted heathen in
contrast to their ideal Christian position. How
beit (dXU) points this contrast between their true
and proper sonship to God, previously described,
and the fact that they now desire to return to a
condition as far below it as that in which they were
at their conversion. The terms, at that time
(t6ts ph) and " but now " (vvv di, ver. 9), contrast their
past ignorance with their present knowledge, not
withstanding which they are ready to fall down
upon the lower plane of bondage. As once in
service to those beings which are not in their real
nature gods, but only " so-called gods " (Xeydpevoi Beoi),
(see I Cor. viii. 5), and in reality " demons "
(daipdvm) (see I Cor. x. 20), it might be thought that
they would appreciate and use their better knowl
edge. Thus Paul puts the present Jewish-Christian
and the present Heathen-Christian state in the same
category. The one he describes as a "childhood,"

Religious Development under the Law : iv. 9. 169
to the other he imputes " ignorance; " both are a
"bondage," both religions are elementary, — illus
trations of the "rudiments of the world."
9. But now that ye have come to know
God, or rather to be known of God, how
turn ye back again to the weak and beg
garly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to
be in bondage over again ?— Now that ye
have come to know God (yvdvnc eidv): This
verb denotes " to know by ascertaining," while the
word used in the previous verse (dddnc) refers rather
to the possession of knowledge: "Not yourselves
possessing the knowledge of God (elddnc), but after
having learned of him (yvdvrec). Or rather (jidTOov di)
is a quasi-correction, for greater clearness and fulness,
adding also a statement of the divine side of the
matter, perhaps, as Meyer suggests, in order to
make their threatened lapse appear more clearly as
a desertion of God, thus: "You are not only for
saking what you know, but him who has known
you, taught you, loved you." The statement of
this knowledge on its divine side, as an outgoing of
divine interest in them, adds a further element of
culpability to their retrogade movement. How
tum ye back again (irag iiriorpfyere irdXiv) expresses
the Apostle's surprise and indignation. Again
having been, tor the most part, heathen (and not
Jews) before their conversion, their religion was
rudimentary, so " again" is it to be, if under the

170 The Epistle to the Galatians.
influence of the Judaizers, they go back from
Christianity to Mosaism. The Apostle assures them
that the worship and service to which they aro
going is as truly an example of " the weak and beg
garly rudiments of the World " (rd aaBevy Kal irroxa
oTotxeid) as that from which they came. This is
Paul's most depreciatory characterization of the
Mosaic system and yet it is "weak "not as being
a mere human system, but as being powerless to-
justify (cf. iii. 21; Eom. viii. 3, — rd ddvvarov nv
vduov); it is " poor " as being unable to confer that
rich benefit of sonship and peace which is the gift.
of God through faith in Christ. How completely
Paul puts the heathen and Jewish religions upon
the same plane is here clearly seen in the force of
" again," and in both being called rudiments (the
former by implication, the latter directly); but it
is to be carefully noted that it is in respect to their
powerlessness to justify that he puts them into the-
same category. Paul's view of the Old Testament
system, as elsewhere expounded, would render his-
putting them upon the same plane in origin and
character, utterly impossible.
Over again (irdiiv dvoBev); The latter of these-
words may have either of three meanings: (1)
"from above," its strict, original signification;
(2) "from the beginning," and so, (3) "over again. 'r
To me (3) seems improbable because we have the
word "again" (ndliv), which suffices for that idea;

Religious Development under the Law: iv. 10. 171
(1) gives, in this passage, no proper sense. I there
fore prefer (2) so that the two terms together
express emphatically the idea of going back to the
"rudiments" again and commencing religious
development from the beginning. The only passage
where much doubt or importance attaches to the
meaning of this word (dvw&Vv) is John iii. 3 "born
again " (A. V.),—"anew " (E. V.),— "from above "
(B. V. marg.). It is here most commonly ex
plained as meaning " from above," but the wonder
of Nicodemus was in regard to being born a second
time from which it is a natural inference that he
understood the word in the question of Jesus to mean
" again." The old interpretation is, in my judg
ment, to be preferred.
10. Te observe days, and months, and
seasons, and years. — Many punctuate this sen
tence interrogatively (as Tischendorf, Meyer,
Alford, Lightfoot); others with a period (Westcott
and Hort, Ellicott). In the former case, verse 10
continues the surprised and indignant questioning
of verse 9. In the latter, it introduces positive
proof of their desire to be enslaved again. Either
yields a good sense. This observance of days, etc.,
was clearly a Jewish observance. Days would
naturally refer to Jewish feast or fast days, and
sabbaths, in respect to which (according to Col. ii.
16) no one is to judge the Christian, and which are
a shadow of things to come. Months are com-

172 The Epistle to the Galatians.
monly supposed to refer to the new moons (also
mentioned in Col. ii. 16).
Others suppose that some particular months of
the year are meant. The seventh (Tisri) as the
sabbatic month had a sacred character, (Meyer).
Seasons (natpovc) would naturally embrace such
festal occasions, as Passover, Pentecost and the Feast
of Booths; while years (iviavroic), would doubtless
refer to the sabbatic years, and perhaps to the year
of Jubilee (which, however, some maintain had
long before fallen into abeyance). He charges
them with taking up the observance of this system
of sacred times and seasons, not because it is evil in
itself, but because it marks on their part a retrograde
movement in religion. In regard to these observ
ances, so far as their merits were concerned, the
Apostle's position was conciliatory and his spirit
that of concession (Eom. xiv. 5-6; Col. ii. 16); but,
in the present situation, a principle was at stake
and must not be compromised. He is opposed to
all participation in these Jewish observances because
they are regarded as necessary to salvation; they
thus threaten the sole sufficiency of faith. Com
pare his attitude toward circumcision in general,
(Acts xvi. 3; Gal. vi. 15; I Cor. ix. 20); but, note
how strenuously he is opposed to it when it is
sought to be forced upon one (Titus) who would
have no reason to choose it for himself, and where
the claim savored of enforcing it as a necessity to

The True Christian Position: iv. 12. 173
salvation. The explanation of Lightfoot, who sup
poses a division of the law into spiritual and ritual
istic elements, is not in accord with the unity of the
law. 11. I am afraid of you, lest by any
means I have bestowed labor upon you in
vain:— You after I am afraid of (^ovpat) prob
ably designates them as the objects of his anxious
solicitude. " I am afraid in regard to you " (so
Meyer, Ellicott). By many the accusative (iuac) is
explained as a case of attraction or assimilation to
the case of the you in the following subordinate
clause (so Winer, Wieseler). The indicative after
lest 0"fa-<jf) denotes his apprehension that it is really
the fact that he has bestowed his labor in vain
i. e. without bringing them to permanent Christian
life and character.
III. Exhortation to the Galatians to Eeturn
to the True Christian Position, 12-20.
12.1 beseech you, brethren, be as I am,
for I am as ye are. — After the censure of the
previous verses, the Apostle adopts a more persua
sive tone; his language changes from that of dis
couragement to that of entreaty and hopefulness in
regard to their defections from the faith. "Be
come as I am, because I became (sc. lyevdpyv) as you."
Because I, who was a Jew by nature and conviction,
became as a Gentile for your sakes, you should now

174 The Epistle to the Galatians.
reciprocate by renouncing your Judaism and com-
iug to my standing-point. I became as a Gentile
in order that I might bring you to a state where
there is neither Jew nor Greek, but where all stand
above these distinctions in Christ. The "becom
ing" on Paul's part is fully described in I Cor. ix.
20-23. When he says " Become as I " he is refer
ring to the true Christian position as contrasted
with narrow and prejudiced national Christianity.
What he says in no way involves the setting forth
of himself as a model of perfection. His thought
is: "I make this conciliatory and persuasive
appeal on the ground of our friendly relations;
when I was among you you did me no injustice;
I may therefore hopefully appeal to you now to
grant my reasonable and just request.
13. Ye did me no wrong: but ye know
that because of an infirmity of the flesh I
preached the gospel unto you the first
time. — " So far from doing me injustice," contin
ues the Apostle, " you sympathized with me in my
infirmity and patiently bore the trial which my
infirmity caused. Nay, you received me with the
greatest honor and reverence." These conciliatory
and persuasive expressions were adapted to secure a
favorable consideration of his exhortation. The
word but (di) forms the transition to that descrip
tion of their kindness which is contrasted with the
idea of doing him injustice (ydiKyaan). The force of

The True Christian Position: iv. 14 175
verse 13 depends upon the meaning of the word
rendered, "because of" (did); usage strongly
favors this meaning, i. e. by reason of an illness I
was detained among you when I came and preached
to you, and from this illness arose a trial for you,
a care and embarrassment, which, however, you
kindly bore, even treating me with excessive con
sideration. (So Meyer, Ellicott, and Lightfoot).
Others, (as Olshausen, Ewald) explain this preposi
tion as meaning " in the experience of " (=fr), which
gives substantially the same sense, though not assign
ing his weakness as the cause of his remaining and
preaching. Others, (as De Wette, Wieseler), explain
the reference in the infirmity of the flesh, not
to Paul, but to the Galatians, and translate: "on
account of the weakness of your flesh," a view of the
passage which does not naturally explain the refer
ence in the next verse to the trial (" temptation" —
ireipaapdc), which Paul occasioned the Galatians and
their patience in bearing it.
The first time, i. e. at his first visit, when he
established Christianity in Galatia (Acts xvi. 6).
The second visit is mentioned in Acts xviii. 23.
14. And that which was a temptation
to you in my flesh ye despised not, nor
rejected ; but ye received me as an angel
of God, even as Christ Jesus.— The older
texts read, " My temptation " (irupaaptv pov) : cf. A.
V. According to this reading the meaning is, my

176 The Epistle to the Galatians.
trial (the trial which God sent upon me) you did
not despise nor disdainfully reject; i. e. you were
not indifferent to my feeble condition and did not
reject me in consequence of it. But the reading,
"your temptation" (ireipaapbv ipov) is much better
supported (A B D F G N Copt. Vulg. It.), ac
cording to which the meaning is : But your proof
or trial (viz. that which was occasioned by my in
firmity), you did not reject, or refuse to submit to.
On the contrary you bore the test which my condi
tion imposed. What this sickness was we do not
know. The terms despised and rejected
(i%ov6evyaaTt oidl ifrirTvaaTe) are strong words hardly ap
propriate to the object, temptation, especially
the latter verb; but they express in a hyperbolic
way the idea of rejection in order to point the con
trast with their actual reception of him as an angel,
and even as Christ himself — in whose name he had
come, — equally emphatic statements of their con
duct, and together reflecting the enthusiastic but
mercurial character of the Galatians.
15. Where then is that gratulation of
yourselves ? for I bear you witness, that,
if possible, ye would have plucked out
your eyes and given them to me.— The
meaning of the question, Where then etc., prob
ably is: Where then is your felicitation of your
selves; your self-congratulation and joy in my la
bors ? It is nowhere. What a change has come

The True Cluristian Position: iv. 16. 177
over you ! How different now your attitude and
feeling toward me! The word for (ydp) refers to
the gratulation mentioned. It was a great self-
gratulation/or you were so devoted that you would
have given me your very eyes. Many suppose that
the allusion implies that Paul had some malady of
the eyes, a defect which the Galatians would,
if possible, have been willing to supply, but
he is probably merely using a popular hyper
bole.
16. So then am I become your enemy,
because I tell you the truth?— He here
abruptly introduces a question which presents the
consequence (aare) of that cooling of their ardor
which is alluded to in ver. 15. Your joy and satis
faction in my labors are no more. Your devotion is
gone. Has it accordingly come to this, that I have
become your enemy because I spoke the truth to
you ? Your enemy (ixfipoc ipdv) is probably
active in force; " hostile to you," though, of course,
mutual hostility is involved. The time when he
thinks of himself as having become their enemy is
not that at which the Epistle was read (so Jerome,
Luther), for that was yet future; nor that of the
first visit (for then he experienced only the regard
spoken of above), but that of the second visit, when
the seeds of Judaism had, no doubt, already been
sown, and the germs of the future troubles planted.
The solemn affirmations of i. 9 and v. 3 probably
12

178 The Epistle to the Galatians.
refer to reproofs of the Galatians by Paul while
with them, during the second visit.
17. They zealously seek you in no
good way; nay, they desire to shut you
out, that ye may seek them.— The mention
of a feeling of hostility between themselves and him,
calls to his mind the persons to whom he had be
come hostile, that is, the Jewish extremists, and
the affirmation of verse 17 refers to them. They
are zealous for you; i. e. they interest themselves to
draw you over to their side ; in no good way
(ov Kala() i. e. in a party spirit, not in a way to pro
mote your true good. Their proselytism proceeds
from narrow conceptions of Christianity and cannot
issue in a real benefit to you. Nay, they desire
tO Shut yOU OUt (fKKleiaai ipa; BiXovatv), that y6
may seek them, i. e. in order that you may zeal
ously seek (pay court to, Iva amove rylovre) them.
Shut you out from what ? Many answers have
been given : (a) From Paul and from communion
with him (Winer, Bengel, Olshausen); (b) from the
whole body of Christians (Flatt); (c) from all Chris
tians thinking differently (Schott); (d) from true
knowledge (Chrysostom, Theophylact); (e) from
Christian freedom (Erasmus); (/) from Christ and
confidence in him (Luther); (g) from the kingdom
of truth (Matthies); (h) from the kingdom of
heaven (Wieseler); (i) from salvation by faith
(Matthias); (j) from other teachers, who do not be-

The True Christian Position : iv. 18. 179
long to their way of thinking, (Meyer, Ellicott).
This is the preferable view as shown by the following
clause, which states the aim of this " shutting out."
The purpose of the Judaizing sectaries is, that they
may cut the Galatians off from that larger Christian
fellowship which Paul advocates and represents, and
thus oblige them to cling zealously to themselves
(the Judaizers). " They wish to make you exclu
sive," says the Apostle, " so as to attach you to them
selves." It should be noticed that the telic con
junction that (iva), is here used with the indicative,
as in I Cor. iv. 6, an unclassical construction, (so
explained by most critics, including Lightfoot,
Ellicott, Winer, Olshausen, Wieseler). Meyer,
however, contends that iva here is local, meaning
"where," and referring to the Jewish Christian
sphere. 18. But it is good to be zealously
sought in a good matter at all times, and
not only when I am present with you.—
The Apostle now assures his readers that he does
not object to their being zealously sought in
itself. But the instance in question is a case of
perverted zeal. " It is good to be zealously sought,
to have one's favor courted in a good way or cause,
but they are not courting it in this way. It is well
that this zeal should be always operative in this
good way and not merely when I am with you."
The words at all times, and not only when,

180 The Epistle to the Galatians.
etc., seem to mean: "I could wish you to be always
the object of zealous attention from others; I can
not always be with you to direct your religious
life, but I greatly desire that this zeal of others for
you be sincere and be directed not by party-spirit
but by an interest in your spiritual growth."
19. My little children, of whom I am
again in travail until Christ be formed in
you. — Paul now ends his rebuke in a strain of
tenderness, and with a singularly complex meta
phor, in which he not only represents himself as the
mother bringing forth the child (I am again in
travail, etc.), but instead of carrying out that
violent figure, adds to its confusion by speaking, not
of their being born, but of Christ as being formed
within them. Practically what he means is, that it
seems as if he must convert them over again to
Christ, so sadly have they fallen away.
20. Yea, I could wish to be present
with you now, and to change my voice ;
for I am perplexed about you.— But (yea,
dl) — speaking of being present with you (v. 18), — I
could wish (if such a thing were possible), to be
present with you. I could wish (y8e\ov) is the
apodosis (without the classical dv) corresponding to
an implied protasis, and denoting a conclusion whose
fulfillment is out of the question, cf. Eom. ix. 3.
To Change my voice means, to adopt a more
winsome manner of dealing with your apostasy

An Allegorical Illustration from the Law : iv. 21. 181
which the Apostle thinks, if he were among them,
might prove effectual. He could wish this because
he is in perplexity about them as to whether he has
dealt with them in the wisest and most effectual
way, and he would gladly make every possible effort.
IV. A NARRATIVE FROM THE LAW ITSELF MAY
BE ALLEGORICALLY APPLIED SO AS TO ILLUS
TRATE THE TRUTH THAT THOSE WHO AD
HERE TO THE LAW ARE IN BONDAGE,
21-V. 1.
These verses should first be observed in their con
nection. The passage is an argumentum ad homi-
nem. In its form it would be harmonious with
modes of handling the Old Testament familiar and
valid with those to whom it is addressed.
21. Tell me, ye that desire to be under
the law, do ye not hear the law ? He here
appeals to the devotees of the law to take a lesson
out of the law.
22. For it is written, that Abraham
had two sons, one by the handmaid, and
one by the freewoman. This verse states the
case: Abraham had two sons, who, from the cir
cumstances of their birth, may be contemplated as
representing two principles, bondage and freedom.
23. Howbeit the son by the handmaid
is born after the flesh ; but the son by the
freewoman is born through promise.— He

182 The Epistle to the Galatians.
next states the ground of this application of the
matter. The one, as being the son of a bond
woman, is a child after the flesh (/card adp«a), and
represents the earthly and carnal; while the other
child, being born in fulfillment of a divine promise
(dl iirayyeXiac), stands in relation to that which ie
higher and spiritual.
24. Which things contain an allegory :
for these women are two covenants ; one
from mount Sinai, bearing children unto
bondage, which is Hagar.— The allegorical
application is now made: The character of these
two, as connected with their birth, fitly represents
the respective principles of the two covenants, the
old and the new; descent in Hagar's line symbolizes
the bondage and the carnal element in the Old Tes
tament system, while descent from Sarah expresses
promise, freedom, and typifies spiritual life. The
former stands for the Sinai covenant.
25. Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in
Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem
that now is : for she is in bondage with
her children. — In this verse a local consideration
is thrown in which makes his allegory the more ap
propriate: * " I may fitly represent the Sinai-covenant
* This explanation proceeds upon my preference for the
text which is followed by the marginal translation of the
K. V., and which is discussed a little further on. Cf. the
paraphrase and the fuller note on ver. 25, p. 187, seq.

An Allegorical Illustration from the Law : iv. 25. 183
by Hagar, because Sinai is situated in Arabia, the
land of Hagar's descendants. Or, to liken it to
something else which stands for the old covenant as
truly as Sinai does, it corresponds to the Jerusalem
of Judaism, the earthly and temporal city, which is
the center of the old dispensation, whose children
(the Jews still under the law) are in a state of bond
age. But there is another Jerusalem, a heavenly
city, the city of God, the spiritual commonwealth
whose law is freedom, that is, Christianity, to
which the promise looked forward. In this city the
joyous promises to the desolate are realized, and
here we find the inheritance to which the ancient
gracious covenant with Abraham respecting Isaac
looked forward (27-30). Apart from the allegorical
form, what is the real thought of the passage ?
Simply this: The characteristic quality and effect
of the two covenants, externality and bondage on
the one hand, spirituality and freedom on the
other, are represented and illustrated by the natural
relations of bondage and freedom iu the case of the
two women, Hagar and Sarah, and in the case of
their descendants. Apart from the allegorical form
of the argument (which is very sparingly used by
Paul), we have here simply the use of the differing
relations of these two women to Abraham, and the
historic relations of the two lines of descent, to
illustrate the respective principles of the two cov
enants. The form of thought is Eabbinic as in the

184 The Epistle to the Galatians.
case of the argument upon the words " seed " and
"seeds" (iii. 16), and in the application of the
passage " Thou shalt not muzzle the ox," etc. (I
Cor. ix. 9) to Christian teachers; but, apart from
this, the parallel instituted is ingenious and appro
priate, and this fact is all that is essential in the
case. Two points should be remembered: (1) How
sparingly and temperately Paul uses the allegorical
method, a remarkable fact when his strict Pharisaic
training is considered; and (2) that there is no case,
in which he uses the allegorical form of argument,
where, if the form were dropped, a forcible and
valid argument could not still be derived and devel
oped from the relations which the allegory contem
plates. It was a keen and true observation of
Luther that Paul's allegorical arguments were the
painting of the house after it had been built.
These verses may now be considered more in de
tail. (21) Do ye not hear the law (rbv vdpov oi«
d/cowre;), is generally understood to mean: "Will you
not listen to the law, attend to a lesson out of your
venerated law? " The present tense rather favors
the interpretation : " Do you not hear the law
read in your synagogue service ? " (So Usteri,
Meyer, Ellicott). The appeal is to those who are
inclined to hold the view that the Mosaic law is
binding on Christians. Ver. 22 refers to no single
passage, but to the history recorded in Genesis
Chs. xvi. and xxi.

An Allegorical Illustration from the Law: iv. 23. 185
23. The emphasis is laid upon the two sets of
contrasted terms handmaid and free woman,
after the flesh, and through promise ; the
first pair of terms setting forth the principles of
bondage and freedom which the Apostle is to apply
to the two covenants; and the second pair expressing,
on the one hand, the carnal, outward and tempo
rary relations of Hagar and her son Ishmael and his
descendants, as connected with Abraham, and on
the other hand, the spiritual and permanent rela
tions symbolized in the birth of Isaac according to a
divine promise, — relations which are paralleled in
the spiritual system of Christianity, which is the
ideal fulfillment of these ancient promises and cove
nants. The word "through" (did), ascribes the
birth of Isaac to the agency of the promise, in the
sense that it was due to that divine operation
which lay behind the promise as the guaranty of
its fulfillment.
24. Which things (= quippe quae) contain
an allegory (or, are spoken allegorically).
Two general views are commonly taken of this
assertion: —
I. Paul meant that the facts under consideration
could be treated allegorically, though not necessarily
affirming that they contained an allegory in the pur
pose of the writer. On this view, the allegory is
lound only in Paul's own use and application of the
listory (so Lightfoot).

186 The Epistle to the Galatians.
II. He meant that this history contained an
allegorical meaning in addition to the historical;
that the facts narrated concerning the persons here
referred to, contained, in the thought of the writer,
or, in the purpose of divine providence, a hidden,
spiritual sense which referred to the nature and re
lations of the two covenants (so Chrysostom, Weiss,
Ellicott). There is, in any case, no good reason to suppose
that the Apostle here set aside the historical sense
and replaced it by the allegorical meaning; (cf.,
however, I Cor. ix. 9, 10, where if iravruc mean
"altogether" (E. V.) and not " certainly," the his
torical sense seems to be set aside). The second
explanation is more probably correct in that form of
it which holds, not that it was the conscious pur
pose of the writer to compose an allegory when
writing the Genesis narratives (as the A. V. might
imply by rendering: "which things are an alle
gory "); but that there was, in the divine thought,
a typical and mystical meaning in this history which
was revealed and fulfilled in the gospel.
This interpretation seems probable on two
grounds: (a) It is natural to expect that Paul would
not be wholly free from the Eabbinic habits of
thought in which he had been trained, prominent
among which was the allegorical method of inter
pretation which sought a hidden sense, a spiritual
meaning, in the historical narratives of the Old

An Allegorical Illustration from the Law : iv. 25. 187
Testament, not merely as being suggested or typi
fied by them, but as being contained in them and as
intended by the writers, or, at any rate, by the
divine mind, (b) Paul's actual use, in a few other
clear instances, (I Cor. ix. 9, 10; Gal. iii. 16 and
II Cor. iii. 13, 14) of allegorical interpretations,
where it can hardly be doubted that he finds the fig
urative meaning in the passages, and does not
merely develop it from them by way of application
or illustration, renders the supposition that he does
so in this case also extremely probable.
25. The word Hagar ("Ayap) is omitted by K
CFG Aeth., Armen., Vulg., Goth, and by the
Latin Fathers; deleted by Tischendorf, Lightfoot,
Lachmann, margin of E. V., Wieseler; and brack
eted by Westcott and Hort. It is sustained by A.
B D K L P, the Cursive Mss., Chrysostom,
Meyer, T. E., A. V., E. V. If retained, the mean
ing is: "The name Hagar is applied to Mount
Sinai, and this fact establishes the connection be
tween the bondwoman Hagar and Mount Sinai as
the symbol of the Old Testament." If it is
omitted, the sense would be: "Mount Sinai is in
Arabia, the land of Hagar's descendants." The
allegorizing element is larger in the former reading
and the connection more artificial. Apart from the
external evidence, it appears to me that the slight
modification of the text so as to suggest an alle
gorical connection of thought by affirming the iden-

188 The Epistle to the Galatians.
tity of the names Hagar and Sinai can be more
easily supposed, than can the omission of this word,
if originally written; also, that it is unlikely that
Paul would think of, or even know, such a fact as
that in Arabia Mount Sinai was called by a name
closely resembling " Hagar." This view introduces
an element which is generally felt to be more artifi
cial and extraneous. The search for a name sound
ing like Hagar as an appellation for Mount Sinai
has not been clearly successful. (See Meyer m
loco, and Lightfoot's Excursus on the point). The
evidence is indeed closely balanced, but I believe
that, on the whole, the probability is against the
reading of "kyap here.
And now, after establishing a connection between
Arabia, the land of the bondwoman's descendants,
and Sinai, the same purpose is further subserved by
joining Sinai and Jerusalem. Sinai corresponds to
Jerusalem; both alike are symbols of the old cove
nant. The allegorical correlative of Hagar and her
country is Sinai, but since Sinai and Jerusalem sig
nify the same, Jerusalem may, with equal propriety,
take the place of Sinai. If " Hagar " is read in ver.
25, then that name (note the neuter rd "Kyap, as de
noting the name and not the person Hagar) is the
subject of the verb " answereth " (owoTotxei); but if
not, then the subject is "Sinai" considered as the
symbol of the Old Testament system. But "Jeru
salem," regarded in this same relation, is probably

An Allegorical Illustration from the Law: iv. 26. 189
the subject of " is in bondage " (dovfa&ei) in either
case. At this point the figure of Jerusalem as a.
mother of children creeps in, so that Jerusalem can
be said to be in bondage with her children. The
figure becomes explicit in verse 26. The simple
sense here is that the Old Testament system is a
system of bondage, as opposed to the freedom of the
gospel, because the law lays upon men burdens of
obligation which by reason of sin and weakness.
they cannot lift, and then the law shuts them up in
ward until the grace of God, which is the principle
of the gospel, sets them free. The bondage is the
result of the guilt which the law can charge upon
man, but from which it cannot deliver him.
26. But the Jerusalem that is above is
free, which is our mother. — The contrast to
the Old Testament system in this respect, to this
present earthly Jerusalem, (y vvv 'lepovoaXyp) is the
upper Jerusalem, the spiritual Jerusalem, (y dvo 'lep.)
the city and commonwealth of God whose principle
is freedom and which is the mother of whom we
believers, the children of promise, are born. Note
then, the two correlative sets of terms and ideas.
They are, on the one side: Hagar, a bondwoman;
Ishmael, a son born in mere carnal relations; his de
scendants inhabiting a land of bondage. To this
series of facts, correspond the character and effects
of the Old Testament system, which shuts sinners
up in bondage. On the other side: Sarah, who-

190 The Epistle to the Galatians.
bears a child of promise, and who, with her descend
ants, illustrates the principles of the kingdom of
God which sets men free from their sins; to which
kingdom we belong. The analogy is not only in
genious, but striking and appropriate.
27. For it is written Rejoice, thou bar
ren that bearest not ;
Break forth and cry, thou that travail-
est not :
For more are the children of the deso
late than of her which hath the husband.
— The figure of the mother (Jerusalem) who had
been prefigured by Sarah, once childless, but later
the glad mother of a child of promise, suggests an
Old Testament passage where the same figure had
been applied to Jerusalem the holy city in its deso
lation during the exile (Isa. liv. 1). In the exile,
the forsaken city is congratulated in hope of the re
turn of her people and of renewed prosperity. This
language is now applied to the spiritual Jerusalem
whose children (the faithful) shall be numerous,
though descended from the long childless Sarah.
The passage is at least indirectly Messianic in the
Old Testament, inasmuch as the theocratic Jerusa
lem is a type of the "upper Jerusalem." The
application of the figure is not to be forced beyond
this limit. The woman that "hath the husband"
is the theocracy; the " barren " one is the Christian
church, but these terms are applied in keeping

An Allegorical Illustration from the Law: iv. 28. 191
with the Old Testament sense of the passage and
are not to be forced rigidly through in the applica
tion. 28. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was,
are children of promise.— This verse contains
the application of the allegory to the Apostle's
practical purpose. He declares: "Yon Christians
belong to this free lineage which stands in the line
of promise connected with Isaac." Here it is seen
how the whole force of his " allegory " bears upon
the Judaizers. " When you go over to the law again
and cling to it, it is as if you were determined to
prove yourselves Hagar's descendants, and so to give
up your true lineage and privileges. As Isaac
(/card 'iaad/c), refers to the promise connected with his
birth, a promise which extends itself to, and is ful
filled in, all believers. Faith is that which assures
to us the inheritance of the promises.
29. But as then he that was born after
the flesh persecuted him that was born
after the Spirit, even so it is now.— The
" persecution " of Isaac by Ishmael is explained in
two ways: (1) The reference is to Gen. xxi. 9,
where on the feast day when Isaac was weaned, it is
said that Sarah saw Ishmael "mocking" (E. V.
text) or "laughing" (margin). The Hebrew verb
meaning to laugh (pP?V), ^oes sometimes mean
"to laugh contemptuously; " i. e. to mock, and is
generally so understood in that passage. This in-

192 The Epistle to the Galatians.
terpretation would harmonize with the sequel where
Hagar and her son are sent away for this act of
Ishmael. But this " mocking " does not amount
to "persecution." Another explanation, somewhat
different, but still resting on Gen. xxi. 9, is some
times given: This act of mocking is typical of the
hostile relations of the descendants of Hagar to
Israel (Ps. lxxxiii. 7; I Chron. v. 10, 19). It is very
probable that Paul contemplates the personal rela
tions of the two sons as typical of the relations of
their descendants, but it still remains the sons per
sonally to which this language applies. The LXX.
understood the original word here (pDVP) to mean
"laughing," "playing," and rendered "playing
with Isaac her son " (irairovra k. t. l.). (2) The refer
ence is to the Jewish tradition which was developed
on the basis of Gen. xxi. 9, according to which Isaac
was tormented by his half-brother. Meyer quotes
an example of this tradition: " Ishmael said to
Isaac, Let us go and see our portion in the field;
and Ishmael carried the bow and arrows, and shot
at Isaac, and acted as though he were in sport."
This is doubtless what formed the basis of Paul's
statement, but, as stated above, these relations are
contemplated as representative. So it is now,
that is, so now the Jews (Christians who will still
be Jews, Judaizers), who still cling to the bondage
system, persecute the adherents of Christianity.
Others (as Meyer) refer this persecution to the hard-

An Allegorical Illustration from the Law:iv. 30. 193
ships which the Christians suffered from the literal
Jews. In principle, both would be included.
30. Howbeit what saith the scripture?
Cast out the handmaid and her son : for
the son of the handmaid shall not inherit
with the son of the freewoman.— The re
sult of these hostile relations is now depicted. As
the mocking son of the bondwoman was cast out
of the family to wander forsaken, so shall the Jew
ish opposition to the spiritual kingdom of God be
terminated by God's providential judgment. The
Scripture cited is the language of Sarah, (Gen. xxi.
10), confirmed by the command of God in verse 12.
31. Wherefore, brethren, we are not
children of a handmaid, but of the free-
woman. — This is the practical conclusion and
application of the whole allegory. As the bond
woman was cast out, so is the Jewish system, which
she typified, set aside. We belong to a different
and higher lineage and order. This statement
clearly involves the obligation to be devoted to the
Christian system and not longer to confuse it with
that of the law from which the readers, as Chris
tians, are free.
13

ANALYSIS AND PAEAPHEASE OF
CHAPTEE V.
1. The Futility of Seeking Justification by Legal
Works, 2-12.— To receive circumcision as being
necessary to salvation is a virtual renunciation of
Christ (2). When one submits to this rite as a
condition of justification, he thereby commits him
self to the legal method, and, by the very meaning
of his act, is bound to do all that the law requires
and must do this, if he is to be saved (3). You
Galatians, in so doing, are cutting your life loose
from Christ by renouncing the faith-principle of sal
vation and are already turned away from God's free
grace in the attempt to achieve your own salvation
by works of merit (4). I assure you of your great
error] and certain failure, for we who hold to the
opposite course base all our hope upon the grace in
which we trust (5); and rightly so, for, with refer
ence to the attainment of salvation, the question
whether one is circumcised or not, is of no impor
tance; the only essential condition being a faith
which gives evidence of its vital power by love (6).
194

Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter V. 195
You were making good progress in Christian life
and knowledge; who has checked you in this and
led you into such disloyalty to the truth? Their
dissuasion of you from the right path is not in line
with God's call. This wrong tendency is jndeed
serious, for, though the defection be limited, it will
spread like leaven (7-8). I have good hope, how
ever, that you Galatians as a whole will not be led
astray by this error, but will continue faithful to
my instructions; but the leader in this sedition will
receive a heavy chastisement (10). As for the accu
sation of the Judaizers that I too, upon occasion,
preach circumcision, it involves an absurdity; they
would not continue to persecute me if I were not in
antagonism to them; if their accusation were true,
there would no longer be any offence to the Jews
from my preaching of the cross; but the fact that
my work still arouses Jewish opposition, proves
their charge untrue. These extremists who pervert
your faith and hinder your Christian growth, — who
think so much of circumcision — should have it to
the point of mutilation! (11, 12).
2. The right use of Christian freedom, 13-15. —
I speak thus vehemently, for you, Christian
brethren, were destined (in your divine call) for the
enjoyment of freedom from these legal require
ments; but this freedom does not mean lawlessness,
but requires a loving service to others; for love to
one's fellows as to himself is the sum of the law for

196 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter V.
which you profess so much zeal, (13, 14). But if,
instead of living the life of love, you continue in
disputes, such as that now prevailing, you will end
in the utter destruction of your Christian fellow
ship (15).
3. The Spiritual and the Carnal life contrasted,
16-26. — My advice is: Live under the power of the
Spirit and, in so doing, you will find the true safe
guard against the evils of which I warn you (16).
For there is a sharp conflict in Christian men between
the inspiration of the Spirit and the sinful impulses
which operate to prevent your doing what your
conscience would prompt (17). But if you keep
your lives under the guidance of the Spirit you shall
have the victory over evil, because you will not then
be under that condemnation and bondage which
they experience who live under the law, but will
enjoy the sense of freedom and pardon which the
Spirit imparts (18). Now by considering the sins
which spring from carnal impulse, you may see how
wholly incompatible they are with participation in
the kingdom of God (19-21), and by contemplating
the fruit in human life of the Spirit's guidance, it
is equally seen that those who produce it cannot be
under the bondage of sin and the sentence of the
law, since those virtues are the ideal requirements
of all law (22, 23). Now Christians have put to
death the impulses which lead to the works of the

Atialysis and Paraphrase of Chapter V. 197
flesh (24). If, then, we have our life in the power
of the Spirit and not of the flesh, let our outward
action be ruled by the true power of Christian liv
ing — that of the Spirit; let us not act as if we were
ruled by the contrary and inconsistent principle
which excites factious boasting leading to the chal
lenging of one another to conflicts and to jealous
retaliation (25, 26).

CHAPTEE V.
1. With freedom did Christ set us free :
stand fast therefore, and be not entangled
in a yoke of bondage. This verse logically
belongs in connection with the preceding section.
The text is well nigh hopelessly undetermined and
the precise force intended not certain, whichever
reading is chosen.* The general sense, however,
cannot be in doubt. " Ye Christians are no longer
* For an account of the various readings in the original
text, see Lightfoot' s Excursus in his Commentary, page
200 seq. The preferred reading (so N A. B. C. D. et al.)
is: ti) iXevBepia i/pas Xp. yX., (so Westcott and Hort, Meyer,
Tischendorf). If the relative v is thus omitted, ry IXevBepia.
is to be joined with the verb, yXevdipoaev, and the meaning
is either: " With freedom did Christ set us free: " t\ e. y is
a dative of means (so R. V. text); or: "For freedom
did Christ set us free," i. e. y is a dative commodi, (so E. V.
margin, Lightfoot, [in case the text is to be so written]
Meyer). All things considered, this last meaning seems to
be the most natural sense of the passage, though by no
means free from difficulty and objection. If y is read (so
Lightfoot, Ellicott), then ry IXevBepia, may be connected
either with what precedes (Lightfoot) and a period placed
198

No Justification by Legal Works: v. 2. 199
under the guilt and curse of the law. Make the
most of the fact and stand boldly forth as the rep
resentatives of the liberty from sin which is yours,"
is the Apostle's meaning.
II. The Futility op Seeking Justification by
Legal Works, 2-12.
2. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if
ye receive circumcision, Christ will pro
fit you nothing. — As a reason for his exhortation
Paul now asserts the mutually exclusive character
of the systems of law and grace. If one commits
himself to the law-system by circumcision, he can
not be, at the same time, an adherent of the grace-
system. One cannot hold these contradictory
opposites in respect to the mode of justification and
the conditions of salvation, at the same time.
Paul will sharply set before them the alternative.
He will present this alternative sharply to every
person by the use of Behold in a singular
(form ide) and by appealing to them individ-
after yXevBipoaev, or with otj/kctc (A. V. Ellicott); a con
struction which would yield two possible meanings (a)
= hi ry iXevB. (A. V.), or (6) Ty iXevB. might be dative of re
spect, quod attinet ad libertatem (Ellicott), and y in that case
can be taken either instrumentally (A. V.) "wherewith:"
or as dative commodi (Ellicott) "for which Christ hath
made us free."

200 The Epistle to the Galatians.
ually (iravri dvBpimo, ver. 3). He introduces his
own name to add to his warning the solemn em
phasis of his Apostolic authority. His argu
ment is: "If you become circumcised then you
deliberately commit yourselves to the law-system
and renounce the benefits of the gracious sys
tem; you are then seeking salvation on your own
merits, a proceeding which, by its very nature,
shuts you out from the acceptance of God's grace
by faith." His meaning cannot be that circumci
sion in itself is a barrier to Christian salvation, for
neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, is any
thing in itself (v. 6; vi. 15), from the point of view
of Christian salvation. On the contrary, the mean
ing is: "If you by circumcision espouse the old
system as necessary to salvation," — as the whole
course of the argument shows.
3. Yea, I testify again to every man
that receiveth circumcision, that he is a
debtor to do the whole law. — "Yea(di)in
that case," continues the Apostle, " so far will you
be from receiving profit of Christ that you will find
yourselves under all the burdens of debt which the
law imposes." Again probably refers back to sim
ilar warnings given them when he visited them.
To every person who thus chooses the law-method,
he again bears testimony that such a one is a debtor
to keep the whole law. The law is a unit, and it is
vain to suppose that any one of its requirements (as

2fo Justification by Legal Works: v. 4. 201
circumcision) is necessary to salvation, and not all.
He will not succeed in attaining justification on the
legal basis, unless he attain complete obedience.
If they will appeal from Christ to Moses, to Moses
they shall go.
4. Ye are severed from Christ, ye who
would be justified by the law; ye are
fallen away from grace:— Severed from
(Karypy/jByre dirt Xp.) — lit. " destroyed or made nothing
from," a constructio pregnans (= KarapyeiaBai Kal xwK-
eoBat dird). See also Eom. vii: 2-6 where the dissolu
tion of the relation of the Christian to the law is
referred to. The meaning is: " Ye are wholly separ
ated from Christ ye who are such as (dinvec) to be
justified by the law. The present tense, " receiveth
•circumcision," v. 3, and " are justified, (E. V.
" would be justified ") (mpiTepyoplvo, diKawvaBe) refer to
the effort now making by the Judaizers to have
recourse to the law-principle in seeking salvation.
Ye are fallen away from grace, lit. " ye fell
Out from grace," (rye xaptToc i^eiriaan). The past
tense (Aorist) is used in reference to the time
when they committed themselves to the effort
which they are now making, i. e. by appealing to
the law they adopt the principle of salvation by
works instead of salvation by grace. They have
thus fallen away from the plane of grace down
upon the debit and credit basis where they find
themselves powerless to pay their obligations.

202 The Epistle to the Galatians.
Paul here speaks as if this desertion of Christ
were an accomplished fact, but other expressions
show that he was not yet without hope of reclaim
ing these misguided Galatians. The completed
lapse seems to have been logically rather than actu
ally accomplished. Their position that circumci
sion was necessary to salvation had not yet led them
to perceive that this position involved the giving up
of Christ as Saviour. Paul's purpose was to warn
them by pointing out the inevitable consequence to
which this position must lead. Already their atti
tude logically separated them from Christ; it had
not actually done so in most cases; certainly not
consciously to themselves.
5. For we through the Spirit by faith
wait for the hope of righteousness.— This
verse and the next introduce the Christian princi
ple by way of contrast to the law-principle and thus
confirm the mutual exclusiveness of the two. " For
we, on our part, by the (Holy) Spirit (which we
received through the hearing of faith, iii. 2) eagerly
expect the hope of righteousness as the result of
faith." Here are presented two ideas regarding the
mode of salvation: (a) It is through the agency of
the Spirit; (b) It is from faith, as the condition, on
man's part, of apprehending the grace offered.
The expression: We wait for the hope of
righteousness, points forward to the completed
salvation in the future life. The hope of righteous-

iVb Justification by Legal Works : v. 6. 203
ness (iXirida dmatoavvnc) probably means: The hope
of being declared righteous at the last judg
ment. It is thus the hope which terminates upon
and is fulfilled in, the declared acceptance with
God, (i. e. ducaioavvyc, genitive of the object). Others
interpret thus: We await the hope (the fulfillment
of the hope) which springs from and is warranted
by our justification thus making due subjective geni
tive. 6. For in Christ Jesus neither circum
cision availeth anything, nor uncircum
cision ; but faith working through love —
This statement is confirmatory (ydp) of the principle
that the hope of righteousness is born of faith and
based upon grace. An outward rite like circumci
sion counts for nothing in itself in God's judgment,
nor can it as a symbol of attachment to the law,
have saving significance, because the law itself is ren
dered powerless to save by the flesh (Eom. viii. 3).
Hence this door of hope is shut; there remains only
the way of faith. " But in saying faith," says Paul,
" I mean an active and energetic faith." * This pas
sage shows how far Paul is from employing faith
in the sense of dead and inactive belief, — the mean
ing of the term against which James inveighs (Jas.

* ''Kvepryovpivi) is middle, not passive, and active in force
(as always in the New Testament; e. jr. II Cor. i. 6; I
Thess. ii. 13).

204 The Epistle to the Galatians.
ii. 14-26). Faith is an energetic principle which
is active in the sphere of love; i. e. which leads
to good works in the sense in which James com
mends them. Vv. 7-9 contain a warning to the Ga
latian Christians against the Judaizers; 10-12, a
severe censure of those who have led them astray.
7. Ye were running well; who did
hinder you that ye should not obey the
truth?— Ye were running well, i. e., grow
ing and prospering in the Christian life. Who did
hinder, etc., (ric ipac ivlKoipev), is the rhetorical ques
tion expressing surprise. Some one has impeded
you in your course of obeying the truth. By
the truth here is meant the doctrine of the sole
saving efficacy of faith.
8. This persuasion came not of him
that calleth you. — The word rendered persua
sion here (ireiauovij) is apparently chosen with refer
ence to the verb meaning to obey (ireideaBai) in the
previous verse, thus making a paronomasia. The
meaning seems to be: "This dissuasion (active)
from the truth of the gospel emanates not from him
who calls you, i. e., from God. It is hostile to the
divine purpose and requirement for your Christian
lives." Many understand "persuasion" in a pas
sive sense: "the compliance which you have ac
corded to these teachers," but that meaning does
not seem to agree so well with the phrase, of him
that calleth you. Still others render, " credu-

No Justification by Legal Works : v. 9. 205
lity;" others, "obstinacy;" others, "self-confi
dence." But the choice lies between the first two.
Meyer, Ellicott and Thayer's Lexicon take the
word in an active sense.
9. A little leaven leaveneth the whole
lump. — To the assurance that the persuasion to
still cling to the law is evil and perilous, Paul ap
plies the maxim concerning the spread of evil
which likens it to leaven. Probably the basis of the
maxim was the Levitical defilement occasioned by
leaven which necessitated its removal from the
house before the Passover. The same figure occurs
in I Cor. v. 7; Mark viii. 15. Whether the doc
trines or the persons of the Judaizers are meant by
leaven is probably a fruitless dispute, since, if it
is their doctrines, it is these as made effectual by
personal effort; and, if it is the persons, it is they
as teaching certain doctrines.
10. I have confidence to you- ward in
the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise
minded : but he that troubleth you shall
bear his judgment, whosoever he be. —
Here the Apostle adopts a more hopeful and confi
dent tone, which shows that he did not regard the
Galatians as having actually reached the pitch of
apostasy described, but rather as having entered the
way which, if continued in, would inevitably lead
to it. He has confidence in respect to them in the
Lord that they will not be otherwise minded; i, e.r

206 The Epistle to the Galatians.
otherwise than his warnings and advice would re
quire. His vehemence is directed rather against
the Judaizing false teachers and their principles,
than against the Galatian church as such. He be
lieves that they will be recovered out of their peril.
The troubler (whoever he is), — a quite general ex
pression, as if Paul did not wish "to personally spec
ify even if he knew who he was, — shall bear his
judgment. Some person who had been chiefly in
fluential in producing the schism is evidently in the
writer's mind.
11. But I, brethren, if I still preach
circumcision, why am I still persecuted ?
then hath the stumblingblock of the cross
been done away. — The mention of these error-
ists calls to mind their charge or assertion that he
(Paul) at other times and places so far agreed with
them as to preach circumcision. They might ap
peal to the circumcision of Timothy (Acts xvi. 3),
or, possibly, to such principles as that of Paul:
" To the Jews I became as a Jew " (I Cor. ix. 20),
which apparently led to his taking the vow and
shaving his head at Cenchreae (Acts xviii. 18).
"But how absurd!" exclaims Paul, "as if I would
continue to suffer persecution for a principle which
I do not think important enough to always and con
sistently maintain." His persecution was just be
cause of his opposition to the law as a means of
salvation. There would be no occasion for such

The Right Use of Christian Freedom : v. 13. 207
persecution if this assertion were true. "Then
were the offense of the cross done away; " that is,
if it were true that I continue to preach circumci
sion, then the Jews ought to cease to persecute me
for preaching the cross instead of the law, for then
I should really be on their side and the offensive
doctrine of the cross need no longer provoke their
persecutions. 12. I would that they which unsettle
you would even cut themselves off.— The
thought of such false charges from his opponents
now wrings from Paul this bitterly satirical wish.
They think so much of circumcision that they
falsify my teaching to support their view of it.
They ought to have it to the point of mutilation.*
II. The Eight Use of Chbistian Freedom, 13-15.
13. For ye, brethren, were called for
freedom ; only use not your freedom for
an occasion to the flesh, but through love
be servants one to another. — In contrast with
the bondage into which circumcision leads, stands
the liberty to which the Christian is called. The
* Such is the meaning of 'airoKdirTopai (and not " excom
municate ") as most interpreters now agree. Septuagint
usage in similar connections (cf. Deut. xxiii. 1) confirms
this view. The verb is reflexive middle, and the Kai desig
nates this action as something beyond circumcision : " even
do this."

208 The Epistle to the Galatians.
for gives the ground for Paul's strong denuncia
tion of those who would lead the Galatian Christians
into bondage. " Well, may I rebuke them, for (ydp)
they would prevent the realization of the very idea
of Christian calling, which is that of liberty."
For (iiri) freedom, lit. " on the ground of free
dom, on the plane of freedom," — so that freedom is
the characteristic of your calling, — and thus the
preposition comes to denote the moral end in view.
Only use not, etc., introduces a caution against
misunderstanding this doctrine of liberty: "Do
not understand that liberty involves license. Free
dom from the Mosaic law is not equivalent to free
dom from moral law or constraints. You are freed
from its curse, but are under Christ's law, the high
est of all moral requirements," etc.
The flesh (ryaapKi), in an ethical sense, as op
posed to love and service. Compare the " works of
the flesh," ver. 19 seq. They are under Christ's law
of love and service which forms the sharpest con
trast to the freedom of license.
14. For the whole law is fulfilled in
one word, even in this; Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself.— This verse is ex
planatory of that serving of one another, in love
which was just commanded. The whole law is
the whole Mosaic law. They are still under its es
sential content of moral requirement because that is
taken up into Christianity as the law of love ; they

Spiritual and Carnal Life Contrasted : v. 15. 209
are not under the Mosaic system as such, but are
under the law of love, which was, indeed, an ele
ment of that system. Is fulfilled, i. e. "stands
fulfilled " (weirXyparai), denoting a present and perma
nent fact. Compliance with the law of love, which
Christianity requires, is the fulfillment of the ideal
content of the Mosaic system. Christianity has
taken up this ideal content and fully developed and
fulfilled it; each person, therefore, who obeys that
law of love as taught by Christ fulfils the law per
sonally. Love is the all-comprehending principle
which embraces the moral ends which the Mosaic
law was designed to serve.
15. But if ye bite and devour one
another, take heed that ye be not con
sumed one of another: — But if, forsaking this
law, ye bite and devour one another, in
party strife, such as these heretical teachers engen
der, you will end by destroying each other as a
Christian community. Love is the only true bond
of fellowship. If yon resort to selfish strife and
censorious treatment of each other, your common
Christian life will be rendered impossible. That
spirit destroys Christian society.
III. The Spiritual and the Carnal Life
Contrasted, 16-26.
16. But I say, Walk by the Spirit, and
ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.—
14

210 The Epistle to the Galatians.
We now have a fuller exposition of these two con
trasted courses of life: love and selfish strife. But
I Say, that is, this is what I mean: Walk by
the Spirit, by the aid of the Holy Spirit who
sheds abroad in the heart the love of God, and ye
(certainly) shall not (note the double negative
oi py with the Aorist subjunctive) fulfil, etc. The
two courses are contrary, and if you follow the true
one, you will thereby be protected against the false.
17. For the flesh lusteth against the
Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh;
for these are contrary the one to the
other ; that ye may not do the things that
ye would. — He further explains the mutually ex
clusive character of these two modes of life; they
are irreconcilable in principle, — the flesh and the
Spirit, — or love, issuing in service (ver. 13), and sel
fishness issuing in strife and hatred (ver. 15), are
contrary. There is a zeugma here. The verb
lusteth (iiriBvpei), could not in strict propriety be
predicated of the Spirit. The meaning is, the car
nal desires are contrary to the Spirit, and the im
pulses from the Spirit are contrary to these desires.
That Spirit here is the Holy Spirit, not man's own
spirit, is rendered almost certain by such analogous
passages as Eom. viii. 9, 11, 14; Gal. iii. 2, 5; iv. 6.
That ye may not, etc., (iva py «. r. x.) has here the
full telic force. It is the purpose of this opposition
on the part of each principle, that men should not

Spiritual and Carnal Life Contrasted : v. 18. 211
follow the other. The flesh is opposed to the Spirit
in order to secure the result that men should not do
what they wish, so far as they may be aiming and
striving to follow the Spirit; and the Spirit opposes
the flesh in order to secure the result that men do
not what they wish, so far as they wish to follow the
flesh. In saying the things that ye would,
Paul is thinking of the will as for the time identi
fied with the principle against which the active
opposition is at any time made by the opposing
principle. Thus: The Spirit strives to hinder your
following the flesh when you desire to do so; and
the flesh tries to hinder your following the Spirit
when you wish to do that. No onesided interpreta
tion of the phrase, (e. g. by defining it as the "car
nal will," or the "moral will,") should be adopted.
18. But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye
are not under the law. — Here the opposition
of principles seems almost to be between the Spirit
and the law. It is so in this sense: If ye are led
by the Spirit then you have freedom and newness
of life, and are not under the condemnation of the
law which your carnal lives brought upon you.
The opposition is not strictly between the Spirit
and the law as such, but between being led by the
Spirit and the condition of condemnation under
the law. It is a contrast of two human conditions:
that in which men are led by the Spirit, and that of
being under the law. The common interpretation:

212 The Epistle to the Galatians.
Being led by the Spirit you have the law in your
hearts, etc., and hence are not under it, yields an
idea correct and important in itself, but not the
primary thought here intended.
19. Now the works of the flesh are man
ifest, which are these, fornication, un
cleanness, lasciviousness.— The two modes of
life are now pictured by their operations and effects.
From the enumeration of the works of the
flesh (rd Ipya rye aapKdc), we See that the flesh (adpf)
must be used in an ethical, and not in a physical,
sense. The first three (fornication, unclean
ness, lasciviousness), are carnal sins.
20. Idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife,
jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions,
heresies.— ;The next two (idolatry, sorcery)
are connected especially with false religious.
The next four (enmities, strife, jealousies,
wraths) are evil passions. The next three (fac
tions, divisions, heresies) denote certain
social effects which spring from evil passions.
21. Envyings, drunkenness, revellings,
and such like : of the which I forewarn
you, even as I did forewarn you, that
they which practice such things shall not
inherit the kingdom of God :— Envyings
seem to belong logically with the group beginning :
Enmities, and then follows the mention of such
outbreaking sins as drunkenness and revel-

Spiritual and Carnal Life Contrasted : v. 22. 213
lings. The phrase kingdom of God seems to
be used eschatologically here, but it does not seem
probable that (with Meyer) they which prac
tice Such things (roiavra irpdaaovrec), should be un
derstood to refer to Christians who by doing these
things had forfeited the kingdom. The inference
is rather that such persons may not enter the king
dom, because they have nothing in common with its
principles and truths.
22. But the fruit of the Spirit is love,
joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, good
ness, faithfulness.— Observe the use of the sin
gular fruit (mpirdc), — rather than the plural — to de
note the idea of internal unity and moral homoge
neity (so Meyer); but no good reason for the change
from the term works (ipya) to fruit can be given,
except variety. No special logical arrangement
seems intended among these nine virtues.
23. Meekness, temperance: against
SUCh there is no law. — Against them there is
no law; therefore there can be no condemnation to
those who possess these qualities. To be led by the
Spirit means to possess and cultivate these quali
ties, and those who are so led are not under law be
cause there is no law against the character which
they possess. Such (toiovtov) is, most probably,
neuter, and not masculine (as is frequently held),
and refers to the virtues enumerated above.
24. And they that are of Christ Jesus

214 The Epistle to the Galatians.
have crucified the flesh with the passions
and the lusts thereof:— Have crucified,
more exactly, crucified (ioravpaaav). The Aorist
most naturally refers to the time when they became
Christians; cf. " We who died to sin," Eom. vi. 2;
" I am crucified with Christ," Gal. ii. 20; " Buried
with him through baptism," Eom. vi. 4. The
death, resurrection and glorification of Christ yield
a terminology which is used in an ethical sense in
application to the believer in his Christian life.
The crucifixion of the flesh is the renouncing of the
life of sin whose seat is in the flesh, so that as
Christ was crucified objectively, so the Christian
should, in a moral sense, crucify, that is, put to
death the flesh, so as to render its sinful im
pulses ineffective. The passions (iradypara) are the
affections which give rise to the feelings called
lUStS (iirtdvpiai).
25. If we live by the Spirit, by the
Spirit let US also walk.— The inner life and
outward conduct should correspond. By the
Spirit (in both cases dative of instrument, as in
verse 16): If our inner, spiritual life is sustained
by the power of the Spirit, we should also walk by
his aid and according to his guidance.
26. Let us not be vainglorious, provok
ing one another, envying one another.—
This is the concluding exhortation. "Desirous of
vain glory," (Kev6do^oi), — a reference to the spirit of

Spiritual and Carnal Life Contrasted : v. 26. 215
rivalry and jealousy which Pharisaic influences had
awakened and developed among them, (cf. ver. 15) ;
provoking or "challenging one another" (dXXyXovc
irapaxaXovuevoi), referring to strifes of opinion in the
hope of triumphing over the rival party; envying
one another (dXXyXois <p8ovovvrec), that is, cherishing
grudges against those whom, perhaps, they would
not openly challenge to party strife.

ANALYSIS AND PAEAPHEASE OF CHAP
TEE VI.
1. The Nature and Obligation of the Christian
Law of Love, 1-5. — Brethren, if sin overtake one
of your number, you who are guided by the Spirit
should correct the fault and restore the man in a
temper of gentleness, remembering that you too
may be similarly tempted and may need a similar
forgiveness (1). The true law which you are to
obey is that of Christ which requires you, through
love, to share the cares and sorrows of others (2).
For if, on the contrary, one cultivates the opposite
spirit of pride and self-sufficiency, he exercises a
perverted moral judgment and is self -deceived (3).
Each man stands for himself and not by comparison
with others. Let him, therefore, test his own ac
tions on their own merits, for each must bear his
own burden of responsibility and accountability
(4, 5).
2. The Law of the Spiritual Harvest, 6-10. —
Those who receive Christian instruction should per
mit their teachers to share in the good things
which God has given them (6). Do not deceive
216

Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter VI. 217
yourselves by thinking that you can shun this obli
gation of love; God does not submit to the mockery
attempted by those who think they may escape the
just consequences of their actions; he that lives and
acts in accord with the natural, selfish impulses
shall incur the consequence, — a corrupted moral
life, while he who lives under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit shall attain the goal of an incorruptible
existence (7, 8). Let this law of the spiritual har
vest encourage us to right-doing, for our reward is
secure; let us, accordingly, faithfully discharge our
obligations to all men, remembering those special
duties which we owe to Christian brethren (9, 10).
3. The True Ground of Glorying, 11-18.— Ob
serve' with what large (misshapen) letters I have
written this Epistle with my own hand (betokening
my great concern for you which overcame my hesi
tation from inexperience in writing; See Introduc
tion (II) and notes), (1). To sum up: Those who
are constraining you to be circumcised are thereby
but displaying their zeal for carnal ordinances;
their aim is to escape those persecutions from the
Jews which they would suffer if, like myself, they
avowed their adherence solely to the doctrine of
the cross (1 2). They are themselves not consistent
in observing the law, but they are anxious to have
you circumcised that they may make a great show
of zeal for the Jewish religion by having won you
Gentiles to its observance (13). But, as for me, I

218 Analysis and Paraphrase of Chapter VI.
disclaim all grounds of glorying except the cross of
Christ by which (so E. V., see notes) I have broken
off all relations to the sinful world as if by death
(14). Since Christ's death is the true saving power,
I am indifferent to the question of circumcision (in
itself) and make newness of life through Christ my
great concern (15). This truth (the importance of
renewed life) supplies the rule and test of action
and belief. Peace and mercy be upon all such (who
will thereby prove themselves the true Israelites) as
adopt and obey it! (16). Let me not be troubled
more by these errors and accusations, for the proof
that I am Christ's is found in the scars upon my
body which I have received in his service. Grace
be with you (17, 18).

CHAPTEE VI.
I. The Nature and Obligation of the Chris
tian Law of Love, 1-5.
After administering the severe rebukes to the
Galatians which we have studied, the Apostle takes
a more conciliatory tone. He reminds them that,
though some have been led astray into faults and
errors, they are not to reject but rather to restore
them. The lack of any praise at the beginning of
the letter is partially compensated by this kindly
and gentle closing, beginning with a fraternal ad
dress. 1. Brethren, even if a man be over
taken in any trespass, ye which are spirit
ual, restore such a one in a spirit of meek
ness ; looking to thyself, lest thou also be
tempted: — Even if (lav mi), more exactly: "if
even," or "although;" if a man be even overtaken
by a fault, which pursues him faster than he can
escape (so Meyer, Ellicott). The word even (nai)
"points to an aggravated offense" (Ellicott).
Others interpret overtaken (irpoXypfly) as meaning
219

320 Tfie Epistle to the Galatians.
"to be caught by it before one fairly sees it," that
is, "to be surprised by it," (so Lightfoot). In
either case, the preposition in (iv) conveys the idea
of one's being held in it, caught in its grasp or
power. In any trespass or transgression
(irapdirrapa); no doubt said with special reference to
the lapse of the Galatians from Christian faith and
life under the leading of the Jewish errorists, but
yet left quite general so as to be a comprehensive
statement of principle. Ye which are spirit
ual (ol irvevpartKoi) those who are led by the Holy
Spirit (irvevpa dyiov) as opposed to the "natural"
(fvxixo'i) I Cor. ii. 14, or " carnal " (aapKinoi) I Cor. iii.
1-4. In Eom. xv. 1 we have a kindred contrast of
the "strong" (dwaroi) and "weak" (ddiivaroi). Paul
leaves each person to decide to which class he be
longs, in accordance with the definitions of the
"spiritual" and the "carnal" life which he has
given, (the walking (card irvevpa, Or /card adpm). R,e-
store (/carapr(?fr£), lit. "adjust," "set right," that
is, bring back to their true normal Christian life.
A Spirit Of meekneSS (irvevpa irpavrnroc) is under-
tood by Luther, Calvin, Lightfoot, De Wette,
Wieseler et al. to denote a certain tone or temper of
the human spirit. Meyer regards it as a designa
tion of the Holy Spirit (as also in I Cor. iv. 21).
But in this passage the phrase is correlative to "in
love" (ivdydiry), a fact which strongly favors the
meaning: "in a temper of meekness." The primary

Tlie Christian Law of Love : vi. 2. 221
reference seems clearly to be to that temper whereby
they prove themselves to be spiritual, and thus
the reference is, indirectly, to the Holy Spirit, so
far as this grace of meekness is a fruit of his in
dwelling, (so Ellicott). Looking to thyself
(bkoitov eeavrdo); he here changes to the singular num
ber and individualizes the thought: "taking heed
each of you;" lest thou also be tempted,
drawn by temptation into the sins of the unspirit-
ual, and thus fall into the same need of sympathy and
help which it is now your duty to render in the cases
of the fallen one just spoken of.
2. Bear ye one another's burdens, and
so fulfil the law of Christ.— The bearing of
burdens here refers primarily to such a possible fall
as is alluded to in verse 1. Bear, that is, take on_
thyself, sympathize with, — the condition precedent.
of all successful efforts to free one from those bur
dens. And SO fulfil, etc.* The law of Christ is.
the law of love, and it is the nature of love by sym
pathy to bear the burdens of its object. Perhaps in
* Most recent texts here read the future indicative
(dvairXypaoETe) instead of the Aorist imperative (avairXijpb-
caTE) of the older editions. (So Meyer, Lightfoot, Ellicott,
Tischendorf; per contra, Westcott and Hort, E. V.) The
meaning is more pointed and forcible if the future is read.
" Do this and then you will fulfil Christ's law." The ful
fillment is accomplished in the bearing of burdens; that fe
the fulfillment.

222 The Epistle to the Galatian
the word law here there is a side reference to the
Galatians' legal tendencies. "If you will obey the
law," says the Apostle, "this is the law, viz.,
love." It is the law of Christ both as given, and as
perfectly illustrated, by Christ, (cf. Matt. viii.
17). The meaning of burdens (fidpy) can be legit
imately extended in idea so as to embrace "infirmi
ties" (doBevT/paTa, Eom. xv. 1), though the primary
reference is to cases of lapse into error and conse
quent unfaithfulness to Christ.
3. For if a man thinketh himself to be
something, when he is nothing, he deceiv-
eth himself. — A contrast with the two preceding
verses is now introduced. If, instead of helping
others in a spirit of meekness, and bearing their
burdens, which involves humility and unselfishness,
the opposite spirit is cherished, the Christian de
ceives himself by supposing that he is morally some
thing when he is nothing. If one thinks that he is
so great that he cannot stoop to service, then he is,
when morally judged, simply nothing, and his self-
esteem is self-deception. The true greatness of the
Christian is found, where Christ's greatness was
found, in service and usefulness. He that is above
it in his own conceit, is wholly below it in fact, and
hence deCOiVeth himself, ((ppsvairarg iavrdv), — he
practices a mental and moral deception upon him
self.
4. But let each man prove his own

The Christian Law of Love : vi. 5. 223
work, and then shall he have his glorying
in regard of himself alone, and not of his
neighbor. — But, as opposed to this' vain course of
self-esteem and self-deception, let each man
prOVO, etc. (doKipaZera, k. t. X.) that is, put his work
to the test, to see whether it is real and genuine, to
discover what are the real motives and principles
out of which it springs. His own work (rd ipyov
iavTov); work is used in a collective sense, as in
cluding his whole life and conduct. And then he
shall have a ground of boasting (mbxypa) with refer
ence to himself, and not with reference to his neigh
bor; i. e., he shall have a real ground of rejoicing
by reason of the value and genuineness of his own
work, and not merely with reference to some one
else's work. It will be in re, non in collatione
(Castalio). The "ground of boasting "of the one
who thinks he is something when he is nothing, is
the false and vain glorying of one who fancies him
self superior to others. It has no real and valid
basis, as it does in the case of the man who puts his
work to the test of the gospel of love and burden-
bearing (cf. II Cor. x. 12).
5. For each man shall bear his own
burden. — This saying sharpens and confirms the
contrast between the true glorying in regard to
one's own work (elc iavrdv), and not merely by con
trast with others (elc t&v Itepov). The argument is:
You should test your work and have a basis of re-

224 The Epistle to the Galatians.
joicing in your own work, for every one must bear
his own burden (or "load," <popriov) of responsibility,
and, if his work does not stand the test, his burden
of blame. We cannot escape the obligations con
nected with our own work, and no one else can
carry them for us. There is here only a verbal, not
a real, disharmony with verse 2. There we have a
command; here a statement of fact. There bur
dens of sin and sorrow are meant; here burdens of
responsibility. There, the maxim is urged as a
proof of being spiritual; here the law of individual
responsibility is laid down as an explanation of the
moral testing which comes to every life.
The Law of the Spiritual Harvest, 6-10.
6. But let him that is taught in the
word communicate unto him that teach-
eth in all good things :— Is taught (K*mXov-
pevoc); the verb literally means, " to sound down "
(into the ears), applied, e. g. to the instruction pro
ceeding from the teacher to the child; in the pas
sive, to be instructed (cf. Luke i. 4). From this
verb we have our word "Catechumen." Of the
verse, as a whole, there are two interpretations: (1)
Let him that is taught, that is, the hearer, the
church-member, communicate, have something in
common with him that teaches, the Christian
preacher, meaning, "Let the church support its
ministers." Here all good things refers to

The Law of the Spiritual Harvest : vi. 7. 225
worldly goods, and communicate refers to the
impartation of these to the Christian teachers, (so
Lightfoot, Ellicott, De Wette, Olshausen, Wieseler).
(2) "Let the disciple have fellowship with the
teacher in everything morally good " (Meyer). The
terms used by the Apostle are quite general, and can
hardly be said to refer explicitly to the support of
the ministry; but the habit of Paul in freely men
tioning the duty of giving, makes it probable that
he had this in mind here. In either case, the verse
urges the duty of fellowship as contrasted with that
selfish isolation of those who falsely " think them
selves to be something."
7. Be not deceived ; God is not mocked :
for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall
he also reap. — The thought is: Do not think
that you can evade these duties and obligations.
Do not deceive yourselves. God is not mocked,
does not suffer himself to be mocked, as if one
could omit his obligation, and, escaping notice,
taunt the divine Being with having overlooked his
omission. That can never be. None can escape
God's order or his law. The relation between
action and judgment is inevitable, and this is proof
that God does not permit himself to be mocked.
8. For he that soweth unto his own
flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption;
but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall
of the Spirit reap eternal life.— These words
16

226 The Epistle to the Galatians.
are designed to illustrate the principle that we reap
what we sow. In verse 7 two opposite kinds of seed
are thought of; here opposite kinds of recipient soil,
i. e. the flesh (odpt;) and the spirit (irvevpa). The
meaning is: "He who acts with reference to the
flesh, whose life is determined by the natural im
pulses and desires, rather than by the divine law of
love, shall reap ' corruption,' — the opposite of eter
nal life ; not physical corruption, which comes to all,
but moral corruption or destruction, the death of
the soul as opposed to its true life. He that sows
unto the Spirit, whose life is determined and guided
by the Spirit, shall attain eternal life."
9. And let us not be weary in well-do
ing: for in due season we shall reap, if
we faint not. — "As opposed to the carnal life
whose end is loss of soul, let us not lose heart in
well-doing." The figure of labor in sowing is still
carried out. Let us keep on sowing "unto the
Spirit," for we have the encouragement that we
shall reap, at the time destined for reaping. Luther
has this apt comment on the words: "It is an easy
matter for a man to do good once or twice; but to
continue and not to be discouraged through the in
gratitude and perverseness of those to whom he hath
done good, that is very hard. Therefore he doth
not only exhort us to do good, but also not to be
weary in doing good. As if he said: Wait and look
for the perfected harvest that is to come and then

The True Ground of Glorying: vi. 11. 227
shall no ingratitude or perverse dealing of men be
able to pluck you away from well-doing; for in the
harvest time ye shall receive most plentiful increase
and proof of your seed. Thus with the most sweet
words he exhorteth the faithful to the doing of good
works." 10. So then, as we have opportunity, let
us work that which is good toward all
men, and especially toward them that
are of the household of the faith:— So
then, as a conclusion from the certainty of our
reaping if we faint not, when we have a favoring
time, opportunity (naipdv), let us work, etc.
That Which iS gOOd (rddya0dv) is "the true,
moral, Christian good." Them that are of the
household (ol oIke'ioi) are the members of the Chris
tian family, whose bond of union is faith. Our duty
is to minister to the true good of all, but there are spe
cial obligations between those who have the common
bond of faith, as there are special obligations between
members of the same family, to serve each other.
The True Ground of Glorying, 11-18.
11. See with how large letters I have
written unto you with mine own hand —
The A. V. is certainly wrong in rendering: "Ye
see how large a letter I have written," as if the ref
erence were to the length of the Epistle. The stu
dent of the original text will note that the Apostle

228 The Epistle to the Galatians.
does not use the word for an " epistle " (iiriaroXy), but
that which refers to letters of the alphabet (ypdp/iara),
and that it is dative plural, denoting means. Paul
was accustomed to write the closing verses of his
Epistles (cf. II Thess. iii. 17; I Cor. xvi. 21), con
taining his own and, perhaps, other salutations,
while the body of the letter was written by an aman
uensis (Eom. xvi. 22).
There are two views of the phrase (rendered in E.
V.): I have written (lypaiia): (1) Epistolary
aorist. "I wrote," — thought of from the point of
time when it should be read (cf. Philemon 19)
(so Meyer, Lightfoot). (2) It refers to the writing
of the whole epistle which Paul had written with his
own hand (if so, it is the only known case of the kind,
except, perhaps, the private letter to Philemon, cf.
verse 19). It is certain that the epistolary aorist
usually refers, in Paul's writings, to what has gone
before, either in some other letter (I Cor. v. 9), or
to a foregoing part of the letter in writing (I Cor.
ix. 15), and, in the view of many, it is so in all
cases (so Ewald, Ellicott, Wieseler). This view
appears to me preferable. Many take how large
(iryXiKotc) to mean large and bungling, because he was
unaccustomed to writing Greek. Meyer interprets:
"Written large for emphasis." * All things con-
* In Meyer's view the reason for the emphasis is, that in
these concluding verses, he sums up the most important
points of the Epistle, and wishes to call special attention to
them by the large hand in which they are written.

TJie True Ground of Glorying: vi. 12. 229
sidered, the verse seems to imply that Paul wrote
the whole letter with characters unusually large,
probably from inexpertness or lack of practice in
the writing of Greek; possibly because " more ac
customed to the use of a tool than a pen " (Weiss).
12. As many as desire to make a fair
show in the flesh, they compel you to be
circumcised ; only that they may not be
persecuted for the cross of Christ.— He now
commences a summing up of the main points in
controversy, considering first the spirit and effect of
the Judaizers' teaching. The first charge against
them is, that they wish to make a display of their
religion in outward ordinances. In the flesh,
that is, in the sphere to which circumcision belongs;
in outward observances as opposed to spiritual life
and service. They wish to show fair, to be
punctilious and zealous in this sphere, so as to put
on an appearance of much religious earnestness.
But this apparent religious zeal is really selfish and
hypocritical. They urge you to be circumcised
only that they may not , incur the dislike of the
Jews, and so be compelled to suffer persecution.
If they espoused the doctrine of the cross as teach
ing the one true way of salvation, the Jews would
persecute them. This they avoid by a pretence of
great devotion to the Jewish law, ac when thoy in
sist upon the necessity of circumcision. According
to Meyer, in the flesh here means "the cinful

230 The Epistle to the Galatians.
nature of man," and describes rather the inward
life-element in which they are striving to make a
fair show, than the outward sphere in which they
choose to make the effort. The term the flesh
usually has this ethical sense in Paul's writings, and
always when used in direct contrast with "the
Spirit," but I am inclined, from the reference in the
context to circumcision, and from the phrase, " in
your flesh " (verse 13), where the reference is to cir
cumcision, to give the word here the meaning of
the outward sphere as opposed to the spiritual
realm. (So Thayer's Lexicon ; cf. Phil. iii. 3, 4).
The second charge against the Judaizers is, then,
that their religious zeal for circumcision has in it
the prudential motive of escaping persecution on
account of the doctrine of the cross for which they
would be persecuted if they preached it.
13. For not even they who receive cir
cumcision do themselves keep the law;
but they desire to have you circumcised,
that they may glory in your flesh.— A third
point in the arraignment is now brought forward:
They do not themselves keep the law. Their zeal
expends itself chiefly upon an outward rite. How
shallow, after all, is their zeal for the law. It is a
zeal which seizes upon an external ritualistic feature
of the law and is indifferent to its great moral
truths and requirements. The " circumcised "
(there is a suggestion of contempt in the term),

The True Ground of Glorying: vi. 14. 231
judged by the standard of real devotion to the law,
would make a very sorry showing. Keeping the
law in a true and deep sense is quite out of the
scope of their purpose.
The fourth element in the indictment is, that
their real wish is to glory in your flesh. They wish
to persuade the Christians that it is necessary for
them to be circumcised, and to have them become so,
in order that they may, by this apparent zeal for
the Jewish religion, gain favor with the Jews and
thus secure themselves against opposition from the
Jews. Paul by again using the word " flesh " reminds
his readers that all that the Judaizers are doing is
done in the sphere of the outward, which by itself
can have no spiritual value. Their glorying rests
upon that which, in itself, is morally insignificant,
and in the spirit in which it is done, is morally rep
rehensible. 14. But far be it from me to glory, save
in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,
through which the world hath been cru
cified unto me, and I unto the world.—
The opposing position of the Apostle is now defined.
He will glory in precisely what they wish to shun,
the doctrine of the cross, — that which is the stum
bling-block to the Jews; in salvation by Christ
through his sacrifice; salvation by God's grace to
be received by faith, as opposed to all ideas of salva
tion by outward deeds or meritorious services

232 The Epistle to the Galatians.
wrought by man. For Paul the cross is the symbol
of God's love, pity and condescension, the sign and
proof of his grace and self-sacrifice. It represents a
widely different realm of ideas from those involved
in the Pharisaic conception of salvation. Through
the cross the world is crucified unto him and he
unto the world. The use of the cross as a symbol
gives the motive for the figure of crucifixion as ap
plied to the sundering of relations between the soul
and the world (Kdapoc), this mere outward and tran
sient sphere of things. The cross is the symbol of
spiritual and eternal things, God's love, pity and
sacrifice. When one apprehends these, they lift
him above the world of form and unreality, and sun
der his relations to them as by a violent death, i. e.
"crucify him" to the world. (Compare the rela
tion of the Christian to the law (vdpoc): Eom. vii. 4).
I refer the phrase through which (diov) to the
cross (with E. V., Lightfoot; versus Ellicott, Meyer,
et al.) because, in the connection, the cross
(aravpy) appears to be the emphatic word, and more
over, the cross is the instrument (did) of crucifixion.
The cross (not Christ as such, — Xpiardc = Messiah) is
that at which the Jew stumbles and which occasions
persecution for the Judaizer; but it is that in which
Paul glories, just because it is the means whereby he
is liberated from the world of external form, to which
circumcision belongs, and brought into the sphere
of the spiritual and eternal.

The True Ground of Glorying: vi. 15. 233
15. For neither is circumcision any
thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new
creature. — By this assertion he illustrates and
confirms the statement that by the cross the world
is crucified unto him. He, in effect, says: "From
my present standing-point, I lay no stress at all
upon such outward rites. The only important
question is: whether a man is a new creature in heart
and life. I care no longer for the outward, these
extra-moral observances and relations which belong
to the " world; " I am wholly concerned for the in
ward and spiritual as related to salvation. The fact
that I lay the main emphasis upon moral and
spiritual character, proves that the world and I
have parted company." It should be remembered
that the Apostle is here speaking of the attainment
of salvation, and is not in any ascetic way express
ing contempt for all the relations and interests of
the ordinary outward world.
16. And as many as shall walk by this
rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and
upon the Israel of God.— The rule or canon
{Kav6v) spoken of, is the principle laid down in verse
15. As many as adopt this principle, that newness
of life is the all-important thing and not outward
conformities regardless of the spirit which is cher
ished in their observance, peace be upon such and
upon the Israel Of God ; an explanatory repe
tition, as if we said: "Such are the true Israel."

234 The Epistle to the Galatians.
17. From henceforth let no man trouble
me : for I bear branded on my body the
marks of Jesus:— From henceforth (tov
Xomov), lit. " during the rest of the time " (genitive of
time), that is, hereafter. " Let these hostile annoy
ances forever oease. Give these false teachers
henceforth no place. They are acting a selfish
part; but I appeal to my sufferings for the gospel.
I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus, the scars and
traces of ill-treatment which mark me as Christ's
servant and Apostle." In II Cor. xi. 23 seq. he ap
peals to his sufferings in proof of his full equality
with the Judeo-Christian teachers at Corinth.
These marks of his devotion to his work and his
doctrine he contrasts with the prudential efforts of
the Judaizers to avoid persecution. I bear (paard^a)
is said with reference to the dignity and honor
which the "brands" (rd aiiypaTa) impart. Such are
the credentials of his apostleship and his commen
dation to their confidence.
18. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ
be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.—
The addition of the word brethren to the bene
diction is noticeable in connection with the absence
of commendation in the exordium and the severe
tone of the letter. He thus closes with an appella
tion of affection.

APPENDIX.
AN OUTLINE PLAN FOE THE STUDY OF
THE EPISTLE.
I. Preliminary Studies.
1. Bead the entire Epistle with a view to divid
ing it into its three natural divisions, (a) apologetic,
in which the Apostle defends himself and his teach
ing, (b) doctrinal, in which he explains and defends
" his gospel," (c) practical or hortatory, in which he
warns his readers against a possible abuse of his
principles and adds exhortations regarding the Chris
tian life.
2. Determine by this reading (or still better, by a
second reading), (a) what were the personal objec
tions or accusations against the Apostle and his
course of life, which had developed in the Galatian
churches; (b) what were the grave doctrinal errors
in which these accusations had their root.
3. Ascertain from the Acts, (a) what can be known
of Paul's visits to Galatia and of his relation to the
churches there; (b) seek in the Acts (cf. especially
xv. 1 with Gal. ii. 12) any light that may be thrown
upon the origin, opinions and spirit of the " false

236 The Epistle to the Galatians.
brethren" (Gal. ii. 4) who were stirring up strife in
Galatia. 4. In the light of the foregoing studies, define
accurately (a) the occasion, (b) the object of the
Epistle. II. Closer Analysis of the Epistle.
Taking the apologetic section, note (a) the saluta
tion and by comparing it with those of other Pauline
letters, ascertain its marked peculiarity and the sig
nificance of this for the whole letter, (b) How
does the polemic element in Galatians differ from
that in Eomans? (c) Note the point of Ch. I and
define the bearing upon it of each section of the
chapter (as it is divided in the Eev. Ver.). (d) De
termine the point of Ch. II. and observe the way in
which it is supported by two series of facts and
arguments. 2. In the doctrinal portion, study (a) the use made
of the case of Abraham and define carefully the
principle which is thereby established, (b) Note the
relation which the Apostle defines between the gra
cious covenant of promise and the legal system, (c)
Observe the description of the preparatory office of
the law in leading men to Christ ; (d) the way in
which Paul illustrates the difference between freedom
under the gospel and bondage under the law. (e) Note
his polemic against circumcision and account for it
in the circumstances which called forth the Epistle.

Appendix. 237"
3. . In the practical portion collate (a) the warn
ings against dangers to which the readers were espe-
pecially exposed, and (b) the maxims or principles
for the Christian life. III. Exegesis.
1. When the Epistle has been thus analyzed and
distributed into sections or topical divisions, a more
critical study should be made of each part, (a)
The writing of a paraphrase of a given section is a.
useful exercise, (b) Each obscure expression should
receive careful attention, (c) The rapid rush of
Paul's passionate thought in the Epistle has occa
sioned many grammatical ellipses; the omitted or
implied thought should be supplied by a study of
the context, (d) In the doctrinal portion, study
closely the characteristic gospel principles as opposed
to the legal principles, determining thus the essen
tial content of Paul's gospel, (e) Define carefully
the relation between the proto-gospel (" covenant "
or "promise ") given to Abraham and the legal sys
tem; how is this original gospel related to Chris
tianity, and what does this relation prove respecting
the relation of the law to the gospel of Christ ?
2. Study with special care the terms which repre
sent the key-thoughts of the Epistle, such as "gospel"
(its origin and content), "revelation" (i. 12, 16,
when experienced?), " the gospel of the circumcision"
(ii. 7, how different from Paul's "gospel?") " pil-

238 The Epistle to the Galatians.
lars " (ii. 9, why so called?), "dissimulation " (ii. 13,
Gk: "hypocrisy;" meaning and nature of?), "no
Jlesh justified by law " (ii. 16 et al, why? cf. esp.
Eom. viii. 3), "crucified with Christ " (ii. 20, meaning
and origin of this and kindred expressions; collate
the passages from Gal. and other Eps. of Paul),
" reckoned for righteousness " (what is reckoned,
why, and how?), "covenant," " promise," " media
tor," "kept in ward," "tutor unto Christ," "heir
and bond-servant," " rudiments of the world,"
" weak and beggarly rudiments," "fallen away from
grace," "freedom," "walk by the Spirit," "the
flesh " (works of), " new creature."
3. Certain passages, of special difficulty or impor
tance, may be selected for more exhaustive study,
such as iii. 16; iii. 20 and iv. 24-31 (the three most
difficult passages in the Epistle), (a) Collate from
the foregoing exposition and from other commen
taries the leading interpretations, (b) Carefully
note the difficulties connected with each, (c) By
study of the passage and comparison of views try to
elaborate an opinion which shall be your own.
IV. Biblical Theology of the Epistle.
[EEMAEK. — A few subjects are here given upon which it
is thought that the studies outlined above would enable
the student to form intelligent and comprehensive
views.]
1. The teacning of the Epistle respecting the
purpose of the law. (a) The origin of the law. (b)

Appendix. 239
The mode of its promulgation, (c) The time of its
publication as related to the gracious promise, (d)
Its supplementary character in its relation to the
" proto-gospel." (e) Seasons why it cannot justify.
(f) Its relation to sin; in what sense does it increase
sin? (g) How can this aim of the law be harmon
ized with the common view that it was given to
check transgressions? Does Paul recognize this
latter purpose? (h) How does the law by rousing
the power of sin lead to Christ? (i) Is the law abro
gated by Christianity? If so, in what sense? (j) Is
it a direct prescriptive authority for the church and
the Christian to-day?
2. Teaching respecting redemption from the
curse of the law by the cross of Christ, (a) What is
the "curse of the law?" (b) What does the
" cross " mean or symbolize for Paul? (c) How was
Christ "made a curse for us?" (d) On what
grounds, then, will Paul "glory" only in the cross?
V. Special Topics.
1. Critical comparison of Gal. I and II with the
corresponding narratives in the Acts with a view to
exhibiting their similarities and differences.
2. Paul's use of allegory in the Epistle and other
alleged uses by him of " Eabbinic exegesis."
3. A comparison of the doctrinal method and con
tent of Galatians with those of Eomans.
4. A comparison of the Galatian heresies with

240 The Epistle to the Galatians.
those which existed in the church at Colossae with
a view to showing in what different ways they
threatened the integrity of the gospel.
5. The Apostle Paul as the champion of a uni
versal gospel, including an examination of the
nature and extent of his difference from the "pil
lar " Apostles.
6. Paul's Doctrine of the Christian life as devel
oped in Galatians.
7. Are the law and the gospel, in Paul's view,
antagonistic and exclusive of each other; if not,
may they become so and under what circumstances
do tbey in fact become so?
8. The use of the Old Testament in the Epistle.

COEEIGEKDA.

Page 21, line 6, for almvcov read alwvwv.
Page 21, line 7, for ] DN read |QK •
Page 37, line 11, for TrapaSocrecov read irapahoo-ewv.
Page 41. Before verse 18 insert the heading, Paul's Move
ments after his Conversion, 18-24 ; ditto above pp. 43 and 45.
Page 47, line 16, after "freedom" and " Christians" insert
comma. Page 47, line 19, for " 5 and 6," read " 4 and 5."
Page 50, line 28, after "I may," insert "magnify it."
Page 66, line 10, before " The proof," insert (a).
Page 67, line 9, for " When they saw," read When they
saw: Page 97, line 4, for 5-6, read 5, 6.
Page 98, line 9, for " expression " read " expressions."
Page 98, lines 9 and 11, omit the colons.
Page 100, line 24, after the word vain insert ".
Page 109, line 2, read : words ev vfiiv, " among you " (cf.
A. Y. etc.
Page 110, line 15, for "former," read "latter."
Page 110, lines 21 and 28, for ef read iic.
Page 113, lines 27, 28, erase the comma after " such " and
insert one after (<rdp!;).
Page 114, line 24, for " latter," read " last."
Page 121, line 8, after are of insert the.
Page 121, line 15, for O^p', read D»p» •
Page 128, line 9, for " twenty," read " thirty."
Page 137, line 9, for " covenant," read " O. T. law."
Page 138, line 21, after (irapdBao-K) insert ".

Page 147, line 10, reconstruct thus: occurs in Mk. i. 15 ;
Col. i. 4 ; Eph. i. 13, 15.
Page 152, line 2, after "possession," insert (7).
Page 160, line 19, for vii, read viii.
Page 164, line 13, after "us" insert comma.
Page 169, line 14, after him insert ".
Page 169, line 26, after Again insert :
Page 174, line 16, after request insert ".
Page 185, line 1, for 23. read (23).
Page 185, line 20, for 24. read (24).
Page 187, line 12, for 25. read (25).
Page 191, line 14, after ^privileges insert ".
Page 198, line 3 (note) erase periods after A B etc.
Page 198, line 5 (note) for y read y.
Page 198, line 7 (note) for rj read t§ e\.
Page 198, line 9 (note) for y read ry i\.
Page 198, line 13 (note) for y read y.
Page 199, line 18, for (form, read form (
Page 214, line 15, after the word death insert comma.

Illillillllllll

1lisiz?ssissss?zilsi