OCR sma Pe bbb %
ea Reece ee ens : os a eens ne aihcces aan
CR
eter PENNE . a
oe
eat
Res entateyas ; Bk
et Sethi ry
Cee GEORG SRY ARMAS
a aiaonatetatahate
KK Rae aN ei arate ata aPay!
HerGe noe. RG
* ee
eee Ci
PSPAT PO RMSDA SPADE YORE AMER T AE Leas staat) ‘< SODA ENN Eh Gis wsrataapbeanpenre aera ara ate aie
a AN
oa cu
aaah Bases paella
o
Rau tater staaMa Dart Ree srorarsramtetoneceertet yey sates orcta ann
ony
5
2
ne
rr
£. m2"
43 oa
ee
oa i arte
mt ix % wy
> ee 2)
*. tet
ny AN
fo3 ie a Kaba pen my 7
7
face
bet wht
bye
Si aout ‘ SOREN a ME eet eet
33
re) Cliath sete : nae
ans PARAMNEN sate ne
; (. y CAL 4 Phy ty preaeoatyse nye ehateeeter at ue NERY peter ntaretatatatahy eprneeeetatat ata? Pa
aaa
re
2
3
525
eee
Rie
asad
(a ate RR oAR NAN SHOU
Paes eee Gaia us
WMG t
a
Stee etetettabatete tee »
‘ i}
State Telelgiet wy ata elas
De SRS
Hanae
Met ahy
uv
Ranieri >
rear!
Sbeiarce cae
PAS Ph pebatee
Pon Ge OD Na og “4
Ee
13K) aes eae Me
Con ee
OOD Crone aes
ee hy wives Bae cae eH,
¢ Cate ter aNd
ee ees
ie I,
sev sats Se aaah ove
as
08 ay
BOL Hie wreath ee
ny i athe
eh fein fi
Ore
¥ OLS Ore rere De eiey yy, Hee
hears OC eee OES
BAG
Ae este! AGS
ee ECE
sri ety el) fe
ots Secs eat
are siti datal a
Fah eA se
ra phaser
= Oe)
dst stor tentck naeeeete : enleehalsai cama hye ea taaettanatta Gout : LAA) i ee fe
i
Ae
Or
4, tents $4.
areas Ries
ey 1 iy
a statete rh Sera
ae Veit, a
‘ a hes pieeeee fee eae tees +
tae Sop
.
aes
fetaleiete
He
tye pos epee
C, I Biblical Re
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
GIFT OF
NOT TO BE TAKEN FROM THE ROOM.
nee uW PRESENTED BY ALFRED C, BARNES.
Cornell University
Library
The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924092344377
A
COMMENTARY
ON THE
HOLY SCRIPTURES:
CRITICAL, DOCTRINAL, AND HOMILETICAL,
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO MINISTERS AND STUDENTS.
BY
JOHN PETER LANGE, D.D.
IN CONNECTION WITH A NUMBER OF EMINENT EUROPEAN DIVINES.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, REVISED, ENLARGED, AND EDITED,
BY
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D.
IN CONNECTION WITH AMERICAN SCHOLARS OF VARIOUS EVANGELICAL DENOMINATIONS.
VOL. VII. OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: CONTAINING THE EPISTLES OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, AND COLOSSIANS.
NEW YORK:
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS, 1887.
THE
EPISTLE OF PAUL
#
TO THE
GALATIANS.
BY
OTTO SCHMOLLER, PH. DR.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN,
BY
C. OC. STARBUCK, A.M.
EDITED, WITH ADDITIONS,
BY
M. B. RIDDLE, D.D.
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS,
ENTERED, according to act of Congress, in the year 1870, by
CHARLES SCRIBNER & CO. Tn the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington.
Trow’s PRINTING AND BooxBinpDING Co., 205-213 East 12th S?., NEW YORK.
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
TO THE ORITICAL, DOCTRINAL, AND HOMILETICAL COMMEN. TARY ON THE BIBLE.
GENERAL EDITORS:
Rev. JOHANN PETER LANGE, D.D., Oonsistorial Counselor and Professor of Theology in the Untversity of Bonn.
Rev. PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Sacred Literature in the Union Theological Seminary, New York.
I. CONTRIBUTORS TO THE GERMAN EDITION.
Rev. 0. A. AUBERLEN, Ph.D., D.D., Rev. CHRIST. FR. KLING, D.D., Professor of sae es pnuareenty of Basle, Dean of Marbach on the Neckar, Wurtemberg. witzerianod, ms Rev. GOTTHARD VICTOR LEOHLER, D.D., Rev. KARL CHR. W. F. BAHR, D.D., Professor of Theology, and Superintendent at Leipaig.
Ministerial Counselor at Carlaruhe, Rev. CARL BERNHARD MOLL, D.D., Rev. KARL BRAUNE, D.D., General Superi dent in Ktni
General Superintendent at Altenburg, Saxony. Rev. 0. W. EDWARD NAEGELSBAOH, Ph.D., Rev. PAULUS CASSEL, Ph.D., Dean at Bayreuth, Bavaria,
Professor in Berlin.
Rev. J. J. VAN OOSTERZER, D.D.,
Rey. OHH: Fi. DAVID ERDMANN, D:D Professor of Theology in the University of Utrecht, @en. Superintendent of Silesia, and Prof. Honorarius of Theology in the University of Breslau. Rev. O. J. RIGGENBACH, D.D., Rev. F. R. FAY, Professor of Theology in the University of Basle, Pastor in Crefeld, Prussia. Rev. OTTO SCHMOLLER, Ph.D., B.D., Rev. G. F. 0. FRONMULLER, Ph.D., Urach, Wirtemberg. Pastor at Kemnath, Wtrtemberg. Rey, FR. JULIUS 8CHROEDER, D.Dy Rey. KARL GEROK, D.D., Pastor at Elberfeld, Prussia. Prelate and Chief Chaplain of the Court, Stuttgart. Rev. FR. W. SCHULTZ, D.D., AUL KLBINERT, Ph.D., B.D. Professor of Theology in Breslan. pike rg he camper ae Rev. OTTO ZOECKLER, D.D., P of Old T t Exegesis in the University of Berlin, Professor of Theology in the University at Greifswald,
Il CONTRIBUTORS TO THE ANGLO-AMERICAN EDITION.
. OHARLES A. AIKEN, Ph.D., D.D. Rev. JOHN A. BROADUS, D.D., ieee of Christian Ethics and ‘Apologetica at Professor of New Testament Exegesis at Louisville, Ky. ccpusaiahe Rev. TALBOT W. CHAMBERS, D.D., Rev. SAMUEL RALPH ASBURY, M.A., Pastor of the Collegiate Reformed Dutch Church, Philadelphia, New York. EDWIN CONE BISSELL, D.D. Rev. THOMAS J. CONANT, D.D., Professor in the Theol. Seminary at Hartford, Ct. Brooklyn, N. ¥. Rev. GEORGE R. BLISS, D.D., 4 A ‘ Upland, Pa. Rev. E. R. CRAVEN, D.D., Professor in Orozor Theological Seminary, Up! Newark, N. J. Rev. CHAS. A. BRIGGS, D.D., 7 D. guor in the Union Theological Rev. HOWARD OROSBY, D.D., LL.D., eae a Ore nay, Sow Sark: ie Chancellor of the University of New York.
LIST OF OONTRIBUTORS.
Rev. GEO. E. DAY, D.D., Professor in Yale Divinity School. New Haven, Conn.
Rev, CHAS, ELLIOTT, D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Chicago, Ill.
Rev. L, J. EVANS, D.D.,
Professor of New Test. Exegesis in Lane Theol. Seminary, Cincinnati.
Rev. PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, D.D.,
Principal and Professor of Divinity in the Free Church |
College, Glasgow.
Rev. WILLIAM FINDLAY, M.A, Pastor of the Free Church, Larkhall, Scotland.
Rev. JOHN FORSYTH, D.D., LL.D., Chaplain and Frof. of Ethics and Law in U. 8. Military Academy, West Point, N. Y. Rev. FREDERIO GARDINER, D.D., Prof. of the Literature of the O. T. in Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Ct. Rev. ABRAHAM GOSMAN, D.D., Lawrenceville, N. J.
Rev. W. HENRY GREEN, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Oriental Literature in the Theol. Seminary at Princeton, N. J.
Rev. JAMES B, HAMMOND, MLA,
New York.
Rev. HORATIO B, HACKETT, D.D, Prof of Biblical Exegesis in the Th Rochester, N. Y. Rev. EDWIN HARWOOD, D.D., Rector of Trinity Church, New Haven, Conn.
Rev. W. H. HORNBLOWER, D.D.,
Professor of Sacred Rhetoric, etc., in the TheoL Seminary at Alleghany, Pa.
Rev. JOHN F. HURST, D.D., President of the Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, N. J.
Rev. A, 0. KENDRICK, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Greek in the University of Rochester, N. ¥.
TAYLER LEWIS, LL.D.,
Professer of Oriertal Languages in Union College, Schenectady, N. Y.
Jovical Semi
Je
Rev. JOHN LILLIE, D.D., Kingston, N. Y.
Rev. SAMUEL T. LOWRIE, D.D., Philadelphia, Pa,
Rev. J. FRED. McCURDY, M.A.,
Ass’t Profesgor of the Hebrew Language in the Theol, Sem. at Princeton, N. J.
Rev. CHARLES M. MEAD, Ph.D.,
Professor of the Hebrew Language and Literature in the Theol Sem,, Andover, Mass,
Rev. J. ISADOR MOMBERT, D,D., Philadelphia, Pa.
Rev. DUNLOP MOORE, D.D., New Brighton, Pa.
Miss EVELINA MOORS, Newark, N. J.
JAMES G. MURPHY, LL.D.,
Professor in the General Assembly's and the Queen’s College at Belfast.
Rev. HOWARD OSGOOD, D.D.,
Professor of the Interpretation of the Old Test. ‘in the Theol. Sem., Rochester, N. Y.
Rev, JOSEPH PACKARD, D.D.
Professor of Biblical Literature in the Theological Seminary at Alexandria, Va.
Rev. DANIEL W. POOR, D.D.,
Professor of Church History in the Theological Seminary at San Francisco, Cal,
Rev. MATTHEW B. RIDDLE, D.D.,
Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the TheoL Seminary at Hartford, Conn.
Rev. CHAS. F. SOHAEFFER, D.D.,
Professor of Theology in the Evangelical Lutheran Seminary at Philadelphia.
Rev. WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology in the Union Theological Seminary, New York,
Rev. CHAS. 0. STARBUCK, M.A, Formerly Tutor in the Theological Seminary at Andover, ass. Rey. P. H. STEENSTRA, Professor of Biblical Literature at Cambridge, Masa.
Rev. JAMES STRONG, D.D., Professor of Exegetical Theology in the Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, N. J. ie Rev. W. G. SUMNER, M.A., Professor in Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
Rev. 0, H. TOY, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Rev. TA. WASHBURN, D.D., LL.D., Rector of Calvary Church, New York.
WILLIAM WELLS, M. A., LL.D., Professor of Modern Langnages in Union | Collega, New York. Rev. 0. P. WING, D.D., Carlisle, Pa. Rev. E. D. YEOMANS, D. Dy Orange, N. J,
EDITOR'S PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH VOLUME.
This volume of the American edition of Lange’s Biblework, being the seventh of the New Testament Division, embraces the following Epistles of St. Paul:
GatatTians, By Orro Scumouier, Ph. D., of Urach, Wiirtemberg. Translated by C. C. Srarsucs, A. M., with additions by M. B. Rrppzz, D. D.
EpHEsIANS AND CoLosstans, By Kann Bravunz, D.D., General Superintendent of Alten- burg, Saxony. Translated, enlarged and edited by M. B. Rippzz, D. D.
Puiuirrrans. By Dr. Bravne. Edited, with additions, by Prof. Hacxszrt, D. D., formerly of Newton Centre, now of the Theological Seminary at Rochester, N. Y.
The Epistle to the Ephesians had been originally assigned to Prof. Dr. Hrrcucoor, of Union Theological Seminary, New York, but, much to the regret of the general editor, Dr. H. was obliged to abandon the task on account of illness. This interruption and the absence of Dr. Riddle in Germany have caused some delay in the publication of the volume.
The translation was prepared from the last editions of the original. The additions were made with constant reference to the best German as well as English and American commentators, especially to ALForD, Exutcort, Lieurroor, Hapru and Hope, Dr, Eapin’s work on the Galatians appeared after this part of the volume was in type. Dr. ScHENKEL’s commentaries on the Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians (1862, 2d ed., 1867),—originally a part of the Bibée- work, but replaced since, for reasons connected with the theological change of the author, by those of Dr. Brauwe—were also consulted throughout. Brauns is an able, careful, concise, sound and judicious exegete. Special attention was paid to the enlargement of the Textual and Exegetical departments, Where the translators differ from the German authors, the reasons are generally given.
Upon the whole, the additions amount to about one third of the volume, and will commend themselves to the judgment of competent readers as a valuable improvement.
The New Testament part of this laborious work is now drawing toa close, The Commen- taries on the Gospel of John, and on Revelation will complete it. The former is far advanced and, if the Lord spare the health and strength of the general editor, will be finished during the coming winter.* The commentary on Revelation has not yet appeared in German, but may be expected in a few months, and will be immediately taken in hand. The last part will also contain a complete and careful Index of all the volumes on the New Testament. The Old Testa- ment.is progressing more slowly, yet as fast as the nature of the work will admit.
New York, 10 Bible House, Aug. 24jh, 1870. Pariure ScHAFF.
*In reply tothe many inquiries concerning the issue of the volumeon John, I beg leave to say that the delay has been occasioned in great part by the death of my dear friend, Dr. Yeomans, to whom it had been originally assigned, and who San lation to meas asacred legacy. Iam progressing with the revision and the numerous additions
left his unfinished trans aa fast as the multiplicity of my engagements and constant interruptions will at all permit, and Iam desirous to make the
commentary as full and satisfactory to English readers as I can. i
THE
EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS,
INTRODUCTION.
21. THE RECIPIENTS OF THE EPISTLE,
The recipients of the Epistle areal éxxAnotas tH¢ Tadariag, the churches of Galatia.
The district of Galatia in Asia Minor owes its name and origin to the immigration of the tribes of the Trocmi, Tolistobogii and Tectosages, included by ancient writers under the generic name of Galatians, Gauls or Celts. These left their abode on the Rhine in the third century B. C., and after having made desolating incursions into Macedonia and Greece, they founded in Thrace the kingdom of Thyle, whence they forced their way into Asia Minor under the leaders. Leonorius and Lutarius. Here they received from the Bithynian king Nicomedes, a part of Phrygia as areward for services rendered in war. [LiaHTFoot intimates that this movement. across the Hellespont was connected with the final repulse, given at Delphi (B. 0. 279) to the Celtic invasion of Greece, A considerable force that had refused to take part in this expedition was joined by a remnant of the repulsed army, and under the leaders above named forced their way through Thrace to the Hellespont, across which they were soon attracted by the fertility of Asia Minor. They overran a large extent of territory, but their power was finally curbed by the Pergamene prince Attalus the First (about B.C. 280). See the authorities quoted in his Introd. Galatians, pp. 5,6.—R.] As they mixed with the Greeks and spoke the Greek language too, they were also called Gallograeci, and their territory, Gallograecta, TaAdoypatxia. They are described as a valiant and liberty-loving people, who, from their fondness for fighting, could readily be hired as mercenaries, and were dreaded as soldiers, far and wide. Butin the year B, C. 189, they were subjected to the Roman power by Consul Cneius Manlius Vulso; retaining, however, their ancient federative constitution under their own Tetrarchs, who finally bore the title of Kings. From this time forth they devoted themselves more and more to the arts of peace, and made their country one of the most flourishing in existence. Through the favor of Antony and Au- gustus towards their last king, Amyntas, Pisidia and parts of Lycaonia and Pamphylia were added to his dominions. After the death of Amyntas, Galatia thus enlarged became a Roman province.
JEROME, who spent some time in Gaul and also in Galatia, remarks (Proleg. in libr. IT, ep. ad. Gai.) that the language of the Galatians was identical with that of the Treviri; thisis the: chief ground for the opinion that the Galatians were not Celts, but Germans. The name, Gala- tians, Gauls, is not against this; for this designation is to be explained from the usage of the third century B. C., when the Romans as yet included the Germans under the name of Gauls. Since, however, the nationality of the Treviri themselves is a matter of dispute, that of the Galatians cannot be certainly thus determined. Tho supposition that one tribe of the Galatians, the Tec- tosages (Mryer), were Germans, while the other two were Gauls, is inconsistent with Strabo’s, remark, that the three tribes had the same manners and the same language; and as a native of the neighboring Cappadocia, he must have been accurately informed on this point. ite can. at.
2 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
all events adduce in favor of their German origin the names of the leaders, Leonorius (comp. Leonhardt, Leonore) and Lutharius, that is, Lothar, and also their polity as described by Strabo, according to which their princes, and not their priests, dispensed justice, this being, according ta Casar (Bell, Gall. VI. 18), a chief distinction between the Gauls and Germans (WIESELER). Tradition relates also, that an army of crusaders was struck with astonishment at hearing all at once, in this region, the Bavarian dialect.
(WIEsELER and OusHavusEN advocate the Teutonic origin, at which Luther hints in his warning to the Germans against like inconstancy (Com. Gal. 1.6). Muymr suggests the mixed origin mentioned above, while Thierry, and other French writers (including the Emperor Napo- leon III. Cesar. ZZ. p. 2), claim this settlement of Celts as an evidence of Gallic enterprise. Eng- lish writers generally advocate the Celtic origin. The matter is ably discussed by Liaurroot, Galatians, Dissert. I. p. 235 sq.: “Were the Galatians Celts or Teutons?’ He maintains that they were Celts, arguing both from the authority of classical writers, and from the philological data furnished by the proper names which remain. But the most convincing argument is drawn from the character of the people. ‘They are described by the ancient writers as a frank, warlike, impetuous, intelligent and impressible, but unsteady, ostentatious and vain people, strongly re- sembling the cognate French” (ScHarr). ‘That their peculiarities were more akin to those of the ancient Gauls and modern Celtic races, than to those of the Teutonic race, ancient or modern, is very evident. Luther might have spared his rebuke about “inconstancy,” could he have fore- told modern history. LreHtroor (Jnétrod. pp. 1-17) speaks of the tough vitality of national character, so strongly marked in the Celts, which is shown also by the Galatians in Asia Minor; the similar fickle temperament (i. 6; iii. 1), and even hints thatthe vices rebuked in this epistle are not foreign to the distinctive character of the Celts, e. g.: v. 21, “drunkenness and revellings;”
avi. 6, 7, niggardliness in alms giving; v. 26, “vain glory;” v. 15, “bite and devour one another.” «Certainly the tendency of the Galatians in religion was toward superstitious ritualism (iii. 3), not vto mysticism as among their neighbors, the Phrygians, and to-day the Celtic people have the ‘same tendency. It is worthy of note, if the Celtic extraction be admitted, that those Epistles (@a- -latvans and Romans) which assail most plainly the errors of legalism and ritualism, should have ‘been addressed to Celtic and Latin readers. The progress of ethnographic science seems to favor the view that the Galatians were Celts. Comp. ConyBearzand Howson: Life and Epistle of St. Paul, £ p. 243 sg.—R.]
The opinion, that we are to regard, not the Galatians proper, but inhabitants of the district added under King Amyntas, Lycaonians (especially the christians of Derbe and Lystra), and Pisidians, as the recipients of our Epistle, is altogether untenable, owing its rise to hypotheses about the time of its composition.
The recipients of the Epistle are more particularly, the Christian congregations, al éxxAnolae .of Galatia. ‘There were therefore several Christian churches in this district—perhaps in the ‘chief places, Ancyra, Tavium and Pessinus, according to a missionary principle observed by the
Apostle (WiEsELEE). In the book of Acts also no places are mentioned. In one other passage these churches are spoken of in the same way (1 Cor. xvi. 1). The passages, 2 Tim. iv. 10; 1 Pet. i. 1, also presuppose Christians in Galatia, These churches were founded by Paul himself. This appears indisputably from our Epistle, i. 6-8; iv. 13 sq., and is confirmed by the narrative in the Acts. According to this he came hither for the first time soon after the apostolic coun- cil, Acts xvi. 6. He must then have preached the gospel there, and founded churches ; for al- though this is not expressly stated, it is to be assumed, since, at the visit mentioned in Acts xviii 23, he was already employed in * strengthening” the churches there. A second visit of the Apostle to Galatia is also indicated in our Hpistle, especially iv. 13 (comp. ad. loe.). The first one ig more particularly described as having been occasioned by bodily weakness, which had constrained him to. delay in Galatia, and given him opportunity to preach the gospel there. This visit, therefore, cannot well coincide with that mentioned in Acts xviii. 23.
These churches were undoubtedly chiefly composed of Gentile Christians, as is clear from our Epistle, partl y from the passages of general reference, i. 16; ii, 9, in which Paul takes pains to prove to the Galatians his vocation as Apostle to the Gentiles, partly and especially from iy, 8, where .the readers, as a whole, are designated as having been idolaters, and from v. 2, 8; vi. 12, 18, ace
gi. run RECIPIENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 3
a
cording to which they were as yet uncircumcised. Unquestionably there was also in Galatia a Jewish population, perhaps a numerous one (comp. Josephus, Ant. 12, 8, 4; 16, 6, 2), and so there may have been Jewish Christians also in the churches. But we cannot draw a certain con- clusion from the uei¢ in passages which refer especially to Jewish Christians, as iii, 23-25; iv. 3; for we cannot decidedly affirm that here Paul includes the readers also in the first person. The abrupt transition from the first to the second person in iti, 25, 26; iv. 5, 6, might rather favor the opposite conclusion, namely, that he has reference to the readers only in the second part of these passages where he treats of the Christian state, and not in what precedes, respecting the condi- tion of a Jew. [It is by no means certain that the use of the first person in the passages cited involves an exclusive reference to “the condition of a Jew.’ See EXEG. NotES, iv. 3—R.] Nor is the fact that acquaintance with the Old Testament is presupposed in the arguments of the epistle, a convincing proof. For all evangelical preaching rested on the Old Testament Scripture. Besides this, thorough discussion of the Old Testament was here demanded by the subject of the epistle. For the churches were wrought upon by Judaizing false teachers, who endeavored to lead them back to an Old Testament position ; as they had doubtless been already sufficiently instructed by these teachers in the Old Testament, on this account alone Paul was obliged to enter on the discussion of the Old Testament, and out of it to refute them; to open up to them a still deeper and juster understanding of the Old Testament economy. Only so could they be delivered from an authority pretending a support from the Old Testament. The suppo- ‘sition that the Galatian Christians had formerly been in great part proselytes, is therefore unne- cessary. [Scuarr: The congregations of Galatia were, like all the churches founded by Paul, of @ mixed, yet predominantly Gentile Christian character.—R.]
% 2. OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE,
‘The spiritual state of these Galatian churches, at first a matter of joy, had been sadly disturbed by certain unnamed persons, who, to be sure, were Christians, but of Judaizing or pharisaistic tendencies. These, it is plain, had come from abroad, and .perhaps were emissaries from Pales- tine. They were hardly proselytes. Such a conclusion does not follow from v. 12; vi. 13. They set themselves in direct opposition to the Christian view, which had, till then, prevailed in the church; and, moreover, directed their polemics expressly against Paul, as the first promulga- tor of this view. To the persuasion which had taken root through him, that justification and salvation are to be attaied alone through faith in Christ, by grace, they opposed the assertion that. certain works of the law, especially the observance of the Jewish festivals, and the receiv- ing of circumcision, were necessary to salvation. From prudential motives, they did not require the observance of the whole law. In order to gain entrance for this view, diametrically opposed as it was to the doctrine of Paul, they sought to undermine the consideration in which the Gala- tians held him, by denying to him the apostolic dignity, and by appealing, in opposition, to the authority of the senior Apostles, especially James, Peter and John, as the true pillars of the church, to whom Paul, as they represented, stood in opposition, while they proceeded in concur- rence with them. Nay, they appear to have even imputed to Paul the inconsistency of sometimes himself preaching circumcision among the Jews, v. 11; and would have it, therefore, that his doctrine of the freedom of believers from the law proceeded only from unworthy complaisance towards the Gentiles. (Comp. i. 10.)
How long these false teachers had been working in the church cannot be precisely determined; -yet we see from i. 9; v. 3; iv. 16, that Paul, on his second visit, had already spoken against this Judaizing error; chiefly, we may suppote, by way of warning and precautionary instruction, as the danger was yet only imminent, although the inclination to yield was already present, Matters came to an actual leading astray only after the departure of the Apostle. For from the impression which the Epistle makes, we must conclude that he has now, for the first time, to deal with the church after its actual fall into error. This falling away, however, must have made surprisingly rapid progress, as unmistakably appears from the tone of the Epistle; comp. also i, 6: otrw rayéas.
As just remarked, the false teachers actually succeeded in finding entrance and seducing the churches, How far can only be partially determined, At all events, we must not underrate
4 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
their success. From the whole tenor of the Epistle from the earnestness with which Paul speaks (e. g. i. 6; iii. i. 3; iv. 12, 19, 20; v. 1sq. 7), from his thorough handling of the question of hig own doctrinal position, and of the question respecting his apostolic authority, as also from the allusion to the division that had arisen in the church (chaps. v. and vi.), it is sufficiently clear that the Judaizing view, at least, had already completely got the upper hand, and especially that the consideration enjoyed by the Apostle was already a good deal shaken. (Comp. the peculi- arly full exposition of this question in the Epistle.) On the other hand, the apostasy from the principle of justifying faith was as yet by no means complete, but only incipient. (Comp. e. g. 1. 6; iv. 9,17, 21.) Especially the practical observance of Judaism was only in its beginnings. The observance of the Jewish days and times had commenced, but “to the chief requirement of the’ false teachers, obedience to which would first render the apostasy from evangelical Christi- anity complete, namely the receiving of circumcision, they had as yet yielded no compliance, in any numbers worth speaking of, since the circumcision of the readers is mentioned as something still impending.” On the other hand, we cannot, from the “little leaven,” (v. 2), draw the in- ference of a falling away as yet insignificant, since this expression rather refers to the small number of their corrupters, or rather to the fact that a deviation from evangelical truth in one point or a few points may easily work great mischief.
This condition of the Galatian churches has evidently been speedily reported to the Apostle; for, as yet, allis in the bud; he has still good hope of the Galatians, that all will come right again; he deals with them throughout as having but just set foot on the downward path, and feels himself to be still standing in close connection with them, notwithstanding that, on their side, some estrangement may have already taken place, inasmuch as the personal consideration of the apostle itself had been so directly impugned. Yet he does not appear to have received his intelligence so very soon, but that he speaks of their already having begun to observe days, and months, and times, and years. Though we cannot, of course, from this last expression, draw the inference of their having been already a year in this condition, yet the Judaizing usage in this respect must have already, in some measure, obtained prevalence. Such intelligence is it which gives the Apostle occasion for the writing of our Epistle to the Galatians.
[Liautroor: “The fragmentary notices of its subsequent career reflect some light on the temper and disposition of the Galatian church in St. Paul’s day. Asia Minor was the nursery of heresy, and, of all the Asiatic churches, it was no where so rife ag in Galatia, The Galatian capital was the stronghold of the Montanist revival, which lingered on for more than two centu- ries, splitting into diverse sects, each distinguished by some fantastic gesture or minute ritual observance. Here too were to be found Ophites, Manichzans, sectarians of all kinds. Hence during the great controversies of the fourth century issued two successive bishops (Marcellus and Basilius), who disturbed the peace of the Church, the one on the sideof Sabellian, the other of Arian error. A Christian father of this period (Gregory Naz.), denounces ‘the folly of the Ga- latians, who abound in many impious denominations,’”’ Still both in the Diocletian persecution and. against Julian, who personally attempted the restoration of heathenism in Galatia, the Christians bore themselves with fortitude and constancy.—R.]
3 3, TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION: GENUINENESS.
It is evident that Paul composed the Epistle immediately after he had received the unpleasing intelligence, for it is written under the fresh, immediate impression of it, as appears by the troubled style, full of astonishment and strong feeling. If the opinion given above is correct, that Paul himself, in his letter, intimates having made a second visit to Galatia (comp. espe- cially iv. 13), the Epistle was, of course, written after this; and, therefore, if the second visit is the one mentioned, Acts xviii. 23, about A. D. 55 or 56. As Paul, after laboring the second time in Galatia, went to Ephesus, and remained there three years, it is most natural to suppose that he wrote the Epistle in Ephesus. The common subscription says, éypd¢y ard ‘Péune, and several fathers favor this view, but it has arisen only out of a misunderstanding of iv. 20; vi. 2, and especially of vi. 17.
[Time and place are linked together; the two most probable opinions are: 1. That it was written from Ephesus, A. D, 54-57 (Acts xix. 1-10), 2. From Corinth, A. D, 57-58 (Acts
¢4. OBJECT, STYLE AND COURSE OF THOUGHT OF THE EPISTLE. §
xx. 3). If 1. be adopted, then it was written before the Epistles to the Corinthians; if 2., then. subsequently. 1, is held by as more probable among others by Mzver, Lanas, Scuarr (His- tory of the apostolic church, p. 282), Ruuss (Gesch. der heil. Schriften des N. T 4th ed. p- 73), AurorD, Exuicorr, Davipson, TURNER ; 2. by Dz Wertz, ConyBEarz, Burgsg, and by Licut.- Foot most decidedly. Sranney and Jowett, leave the question undetermined, while Worps-. WorTH dates it as early as A. D.53, before Paul’s second visit from Corinth, during his first visit there. (See his Introd. to Gal.) As the first named is the view generally received, it will be pro- per to state more fully the arguments of Lianrroor. 1. The resemblance to the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and that to the Romans, between which he would place it, its affinity in tone. of feeling to the former, and in thought to the latter. 2. This order best accords with the history of Paul’s personal sufferings and the progress of his controversy with the J udaizers, as shown in the fulness of doctrinal statement against their views. 3. This date explains one or two allu-- sions more satisfactorily, as vi. 1, against severe treatment, the evil effects of which he may have witnessed at Corinth; vi. 7: “Be not deceived,” etc., referring to their illiberality in response to the “orders to the churches of Galatia,” mentioned 1 Cor. xvi. 1. See Liaurroor, pp. 36-56, The question is one of probabilities, yet, as respects internal evidence, it may be remarked that the strong emotion of the Galatian Epistle renders it more probable that it was written speedily after the news of their error had come to the Apostle, while the calmer, more didactic setting of the same truth in the Epistle to the Romans indicates the lapse of a considerable in- terval between the two. Hence, the earlier date, from Ephesus, is to be preferred, and until lately was generally allowed by the best commentators. The view of WorpswortH, assigning a yet earlier date, involves a somewhat forced intepretation of iv. 13, 14, and, while ingeniously supported, rests too entirely upon hypotheses respecting Paul’s course in dealing with an erring church.—R.]
Although the apostolic fathers contain no trace even measurably certain, and Justin’s writings only a probable trace of the Epistle, its genuineness is nevertheless so firmly established, that it has never yet been doubted. Itis supported partly by external, and partly by internal testimony. As to the former, the Epistle is already in use by the Gnostic Valentine (IREN. Adv. hur. 3: 3.) and by his disciple Taroportus (Lxe, ap, Clem. Alex. c. 53*) ; and by Marcion about the middle of the second century, who has it in his canon as the first of the Pauline epistles, and draws his chief arguments from it to prove the other apostles Judaizers (Zpiph. her, 42: 9); it is known to Tatian (JEROME, Comm. in Gal. 6); itis found on the testimony of the elder Peshito in the Syrian church; and according to the Canon of Muratori, composed in 170, it is found in the church of the Occident; towards the end of the second century, it is used by the fathers Iran. xus [Adv. her, III. 7,2—R.], Cuem. Avex. [ Strom. III. p. 468—R.] and Terrunuian [De Preseript. her. c. 6—R.]; and, finally, it is reckoned by Eusesrusamong the Homologoumena. Yet stronger is the thoroughly Pauline character and style of the Hpistle. The Tubingen school, far from denying its genuineness, uses it rather as the great lever of its criticism upon the writings whose genuineness this school impugns. The sole exception to this universal consent is Bruno Baur (Kritik der Paulin. Br., lste Abtheilung, 1850), who has discovered in the author a compiler, that fabricated the Epistle out of that tothe Romans and the two to the Corinthians. His imaginary proof, however, isso utterly without foundation, orscientific worth, that it bears its refutation on its face (WIESELER, MnYEr).
é 4. OBJECT, STYLE AND COURSE .OF THOUGHT OF THE EPISTLE.
As implied in the occasion of writing indicated above, the Apostle intended by this, his Epistle, to destroy the influence which the Judaizing teachers, with their legal doctrine, had gained in the Galatian churches, and to bring anew to general acknowledgment, in the first place his apos- tolic authority, and next, on this basis, the gospel preached by him of the sinner’s justification through faith, and of the freedom of the believer from the law. His essential aim is, to bring back the misled Galatians into the right path, as he also cherishes the strong hope, that he shall succeed in this, To this end he exhorts them most earnestly to a return, and supports this ad-
+ *[ Where Gal. iii. 19, 20 is quoted: but the date and authorship of these excerpts are uncertain” (Ligurroot),—R.]
6 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
monition by a careful demonstration of the perversity of that which the false teachers have brought in the way.
Inasmuch, therefore, as the Epistle has as its object, on the one hand, the combatting of an in- triguing attempt, that had succeeded but too well, to destroy a work which had had a fair begin- ning, and at the same time, the combatting of a general doctrine of error, which overturned the evangelical foundation; and on the other hand the bringing back of a beloved church, which had erred from the truth, and the firm establishment of a momentous fundamental truth of the gospel, it is easy to explain the style of strong feeling which the Apostle on the whole maintains. Hspe- cially may we thus explain the sharp earnestness with which ever and anon he breaks forth. against the false teachers; the zeal of love pervaded by sadness, with which hesecks to persuade the readers of their error, and to make clear the matter to them in the most varied aspects; while. with all this personal reference he does not shrink from going into the most thorough exposition’ of that which had been brought into doubt.
In treating a writing of such a kind, nothing is more mistaken than the desire to dispose it ac« cording to scholastic rules. It is true, the thought moves in thoroughly close connection, and a steady and clear progress is found, but the whole is a living growth, where one thing grows out of the other in the most immediate connection. With all the steadiness of the progress of thought, there prevails also a freedom of movement, and all pedantic analysis does violence. to this mighty gush of thought.
As usual, Paul begins his Epistle with an ADDREss and SALUTATION (i. 1-5), except that even here, agreeably to the purpose of the Epistle he emphasizes his apostolate in a very peculiar man- ner, i. 1, and brings into prominence the significance of the atoning death of Christ (i, 4). Then entering at once upon the matter, he sets forth the occasion of the Epistle, by ex- pressing his astonishment at the speedy entrance which false teachers had found into the Gala- tian churches; and against every one, who preaches another gospel than that which he had brought them, denounces the Anathema—a severity which he justifies by reference to his duty as a servant of Christ (i. 6-10). There follows now:
I. The clearly marked First Curer Drviston of the Epistle (I, 4—I1, 21)—a detailed demon- stration of his full apostolie dignity, and thereby of the full authority of his evangelical preaching. Although the polemical reference is not distinctly announced, this is of course in definite opposi- tion to the attacks of his opposers. Because this was the point of departure, the base of opera- tions for the legal doctrine, he accordingly refutes these attacks first and before all, in order to have a foundation for what follows. For only by re-establishing his apostolic consideration,, could he hope to destroy the influence which the false teachers and their legal doctrine had won and to convince his readers of the truth of his own preaching. The proof Paul conducts in the following manner. He shows,
(1), How he had received his commission to preach the gospel from God and Christ Himself, through special revelation, and not otherwise, as from the senior Apostles; how he could not possibly have received it from these, since for a long time he had only come once into hasty com- munication with them (vers. 11-24).
(2), That during a later interview in Jerusalem with the senior Apostles, having reference to doctrine, the latter by no means assumed any authority over him, or uttered any censure of his course; that on the contrary, while he, in opposition to the false brethren, most decidedly up- held the evangelical truth, it was precisely by the “pillars” of the church, the Apostles James, Peter and John that he was acknowledged as an Apostle of equal authority, and the preaching among the Gentiles left to him by a free and friendly agreement (ii. 1-10).
(8), That when Peter, although himself fully committed to the freer view respecting the Mo- saic law, yet from fear of man had once deviated from it, he had not hesitated publicly to re- buke him, and to lay before him in the most definite manner the principles of his preaching among the Gentile Christians, in order to guard against these being led astray (ii. 11, 26). With Chap. iii. Paul passes over:
IL. to a new section, the umaRrt of the whole Epistle. In this, he sets himself in complete op. position to the legal tendency itself, or to the opinion of a necessity of the observance of the law to the attainment of salvation, which, in opposition. to. the evangelical view inculcated by him,
@% UBIEUT, STYLE AND COURSE OF THOUGHT OF THE EPISTLE. 1
had found entrance, by means of the false teachers, among the Galatians. In this part, doctrine,
complaint, and admonition alternate with one another (III. 1—VI. 10),
A. He begins (iii. 1-5) by expressing astonishment at the’ opposition into which they thua come with their own experience in the receiving of the Spirit, and then:
B. For the first time passes into a doctrinal exposition, namely,
_1. To the proof of the principle, that through works of the law, Salvation (Justification Blessedness, Inheritance) is not to be obtained, but through Faith alone. (ii. 6-18). The proof of this he finds in the Scripture, partly in the testimony of the Scripture concerning the justifica- tion of Abraham through faith, partly in the promise given to Abraham, that in him all the Gen- tiles shall be dvessed; which promise finds its fulfilment only through faith in Christ, since the law intead of a blessing, brings a curse, while Christ has become a curse, in order to redeem us from that curse (ili, 6-14). The principle to be proved is, moreover, indicated even by the relation of time between the law and the covenant of promise. According to a fundamental principle of law, universally valid, the law, as given much later, could not annul the promise, that is, works of law could not be subsequently made a condition of attaining the inheritance, after it had been first promised as a gift (iii, 15-18). Paul, however, does not content himself with this demon- stration, which, in relation to the law, afforded @ merely negative result, nor indeed could the readers content themselves with it, since the fact of the law was not thereby explained. He therefore passes now :
2. To the Law itseff, and its relation to the covenant of promise, and shows, (positively), what significance attaches tothe law, in order therefrom to demonstrate, definitely and positively the freedom of Christians from the same (iii. 19; iv. 7).
a) The law had its sufficient end, one having an important reference even to the attainment of salvation. This end, however, was only preparatory, namely, to prepare the way, as a school: master to bring us to Christ.
6) But from this itself appears the merely transitory significance of the law: with the coming in of faith, the way forwhich it was to prepare, this ceases; believers are now all, without distinction, God’s children, and so heirs (iii. 25-29), That is, remarks Paul more definitely still:
c) God’s children and heirs (as were the children of Israel), might, it is true (after the analogy of human relations), be placed in servitude under the law, during their state of minority, but With the sending of the Son of God the stated majority, and with it the full position of children and heirs, has come in, which finds its realization in fact through the Spirit’s inward witness of adoption (iv. 1-7). With this, the didactic exposition is, in its main part completed, and the Apostle’s painful sense of the contrast in which the present behavior of the Galatians stands to the freedom from the law, which has fallen to the portion of Christians and therefore to them also, forces him again:
C. To a lamentation over this behavior of theirs. He presents before them the inconceivable retrogression which they make, and also, in painfully agitated language, the equally groundless personal estrangement, which had sprung up between themselves and him, through the selfish intrigues of the false teachers (iv. 8-18).
D. His complaint, pervaded by the motherly wish for a restoration of misguided children to the right way,* unconsciously passes over once more into instruction, into a confirmation of what had been taught concerning the freedom of Christians, from the Scripture narrative of the two sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, by means of an interpretation referring these to the Jewish and the Christian churches (iv. 19-31).
E. This gives so mueh the better right to utter the admonition to stand fast in this freedom from the law; an admonition which is at once strengthened by a threatening reference to the dan-+ gerous consequences of a return to the law, even in the one point of circumcision: that thus they lost Christ in whom alone that faith which works by love is efficacious (v. 1-6).
F, This admonition and warning now suggesting the thought how much lies at stake, pass over again into complaint, through which, however, hopefulness is visible, the complaint taking rather the form of accusation against their false guides (v. 7-12).
_G, But so much the more urgently is the admonition again pressed, in the form of an exhor-
*[Vers. 19, 20, containing this motherly wish, seem to belong more properly to the preceding section, and are thur joined by most commentators. The illustration or allegory (vers. 21-30) then forms a section by itself.—R.]
8 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
ee
tation (supplementing that under E.), instead of returning to the law, as if faith were insufficient, to accredit their faith, in a right understanding of the freedom bestowed on believers, by @ serving Jove, through a walk in the Spirit, which is the best fulfilling of the law. This ads monition is given @) more in general, and with reference to the principle on which it rests, namely, the opposition between Flesh and Spirit; 6) with a special inculcation of the duty of love in several particular relations, for which the churches may have given occasion (v. 25—vi. 10).
VI. 11-18. Paul adds a concuusion written with his own hand.* In this with a few strokes he portrays himself in opposition to the false teachers, and opposes to their shrinking from perse- cution his own joy in the cross of Christ, through which he has become a new man. Wishing then a blessing on all who walk according to the principles laid down by him, he alludes to the marks of the Lord Jesus in his body, and begs that henceforth no man may trouble him, closing with the accustomed benediction.
[Subjoined is the satisfactory summary of Dr. Scuarr, published as a part of a projected com- mentary:
The object of the Epistle was both apologetic and polemic. It is a personal and a doctrinal self-defence, anda refutation of the Judaizing heresy. To thisare added appropriate exhortations.
The first part, chap. i. 1—ii. 14, is historical and personal, giving a resumé of the Apostle’s career, partly confirmatory, partly supplementary to the narrative of the Acts, and justifying his office and authority from the direct call of Christ, the revelation of the gospel doctrine made to him, and the testimony of the other Apostles during the Council of Jerusalem.
In the second or doctrinal part, chap. ii, 15—iv. 31, he defends his teaching, the free gospel of Christianity, in opposition to the slavish and carnal legalism of his opponents.
In the third or practical part, chaps. v. vi., he exhorts the Galatians to hold fast to the evan- gelical liberty without abusing it, to study love, unity and other Christian virtues, and concludes with a benediction.
Comp. the able analysis of Lieurroot, which may be roughly sketched as a division into three sections of two chapters each: the first couplet Personaé, the second Doetrinal, the third Hortatory.—R.]
@ 5. VALUE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EPISTLE.
The high doctrinal importance of our Epistle needs no proof. It is the Magna Charta of the freedom of a Christian man. A spirit of holy zeal for the freedom which the Christian has through his faith, and for the Christian’s right thereto, breathes through the whole. Hereby is the freedom which we have in Christ, established for all time; and against all attempts to induce it to make a law, or any outward performances, the condition of salvation, the Christian com- monwealth can always oppose our Epistle as its charter of manumission. Our Reformers, there- fore, in contending against the yoke, which the papacy, in the course of time, had again laid on the Christian conscience, supported themselves chiefly on our Epistle, and the nearly related Epistle to the Romans: and “through the famous exposition of its doctrinal contents rendered by Luther, has it become for ever part and parcel of the church of the Reformation.” WizseLeEr.
A more particular comparison presents the doctrine of justification by faith, and not by works of the law, as, it is true, developed in the Epistle to the Romans with greater fulness, “ according to its essence and its effects, in contrast with the corruption of sin;” in our Epistle it is brought forward rather as a means of proving the freedom of Christians from the obligation of observing the law. In this direction, then, are we to look for the peculiar significance of our Epistle: in the firm establishment of the high and holy right which Christians have to this freedom through their faith, in the demonstration of the dignity which faith in Christ bestows, so that our Epistle might be called not only the Christian’s deed of manumission, but also his patent of nobility At the same time the relation of law and promise, of religious childhood and maturity, eke which this freedom results, are so clearly exhibited, in a profound and noble interpretation of the history of salvation, as to give a sure and immovable basis for all more special exposition,
*(On the disputed point whether the whole letter or only this conclusion. was written by Paul’s own hand, see notea en vi. 11.—R.] :
36. LITERATURE. 8 ane But decidedly as the Apostle enters the lists to combat for the freedom of a Christian man, he is just as far from overlooking its ethical character, so that in cour Epistle, both the dogmatical and the ethical features, essential to the idea of evangelical freedom, are contained.
While our Epistle is thus, first and chiefly, of high, abiding worth for Christian doctrine, it is moreover, important for the history of the church, through the valuable communications which it gives in chaps. i, and il, respecting the history of the Apostle, and of the beginnings of Chris- tianity generally. Considering the indisputable genuineness of the Epistle, these accounts, as being statements of the Apostle himself, are peculiarly valuable; and, although it is true that they have -been abused by negative criticism of a destructive tendency, for the construction of its own system, yet the unprejudiced Church historian will, on the other hand, use them only the more effectively, as a sure starting point, with which what is elsewhere related respecting the state of things in early Christianity connects itself, and with which it unites itself to form a harmonious whole.
(Scuarr: “The Epistle is polemical, impetuous and overpowering; and yet tender, affec- hionate and warning in tone. It strikes like lightning every projecting point that approaches ats path, and yet undelayed by these zigzag deflexions, instantaneously attains thegoal. Every verse breathes the spirit of the great and free Apostle of the Gentiles. His earnestness and mildness, his severity and love, his vehemence and tenderness, his depth and simplicity, his com- yanding authority and sincere humility, are here vividly brought before us in fresh and bold outlines.” A half barbarous people, like the Galatians, known for their simplicity and impres- sibility, would be likely to listen to both of these methods of address; to be won by his fatherly pleading, as well as over-awed by his apostolic rebukes and denunciations (ALFoRD).
Luruer said of it, “The Epistle to the Galatians is my Epistle; I have betrothed myself to ft; itis my wife”” And he might well thus speak of “his most efficient engine in overthrowing the mass of error which time had piled on the simple foundations of the gospel.” “In this apistle we have to this day the divine right and divine seal of genuine Protestantism against Romanism as far as this ig a revival of Judaism, and denies to the Christian man that liberty ‘wherewith Christ hath made us free.’ But itis also, at the same time, an earnest protest against all pseudo-protestantism, which would abuse the evangelical freedom and pervert it into. carnal license” (ScHAFF),
Besides furnishing the keenest weapons for the Reformers in their struggle for liberty within the camp, it is now of like value in the war of defence against assailants from without. This Epistle affords the refutation of that rationalistic view, which claims that the earliest form. of Christianity was a modified Judaism, but that the distinctive features of our Christianity were. added by Paul, which distinctive features prevailed after a long struggle between the Apostles and their antagonistic doctrines. True we here see the mutual jealousy of the Jew and Gentile converts, and are told of ‘personal but temporary disagreement between Paul and Peter, yet are also shown the true relation between Paul and the Twelve; in fact, both the narrative and argument of the Epistle lose their point, if any such continued antagonism be admitted. See. Licutroot, Introd. p. 58.—R.]
26. LITERATURE.
Of Antiquity—The well-known works of CuRysosTom, THEroporet, (icumentvus, THEOPHY- Lact, JrromE, AmBRosrasTER (Hilary), AUGUSTINE, PELAGIUS, Cuavpius of Turin. Of the time of the Reformation—The classical exposition of Lurner: 1. In epistolam Pauli ad Galatas commentarius (minor) primum anno 1519 excusus, anno 1523 ab auctore recognitus. 2. In epist. Pauli ad Gal. Commentarius (major) ex preelectiontbus Dr. M. LIntheri collectus a M. Georg. Rorario, a Luthero recognitus et castigatus, primum anno 1535 Viteb. excusus. Trans- lated into German by Justus Menius; published separately, among others, by J. G. Walch, 1737; a new impression in 1856, by G. Schlawitz. (This detailed exposition is used in the present com- mentary).* Also, Cavin: In Novi Testamenti epist. commentarti., miletical department of this work, that it almost requires
“This methinks I must let fall before all men, before all hooks that ever I have,
*(Schmoller uses Luther’s Commentary so largely in the Ho an apology, Which apology may be made in the words of JoHN Bunyan: Ido prefer this | ook o* Martin Luther upon the Galatians, excepting the Holy Bible, geen, as most fit for a wounded conscience.”—R.]
10 INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Among modern commentators, besidés Winer, Ricxurt, Ustreri, Scuort, De WeTTS, BauMGaRTeN-Crvsivs, the most noteworthy are, Mzver, Kritisch-exeg. Handbuch tber den Brief an die Galater [4th ed., 1862.—R.]; Ewaup: Die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus, 1857; Wreseier: Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Galater, Mit besonderer Riuchsicht auf die Lehre und Geschichte des Apostels, 1859.—J atno: Pauli Brief an die Galater, nach seinem inneren Gedankengang, 1856.—Hotsten : Inhalt und Gedankengang des Briefs an die Galater, Rostock, 1859.—Von Hormann: Die heilige Schrift Neuen Testamentes, 2 Thi. 1 Abth. Brief an die Gulater, 1863.—Dz Werte: Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch, 11.3, Briefe an die Galater und Thessalonicher, 8. Aufl. ed. Dr. Moller, 1864.
[G. W. Marruias: Der Galaterbrief griechish wnd deutsch, nebst einer Erkidrung seiner schwierigeren Stellen, etc., Cassel, 1865.—R.]
For the practical exposition of the epistle, besides Sranne’s Bibelwerk; BENGEL, Gnomon; Rieger, Betrachtungen uber das Newe Testament; M. F. Roos, a contemporary of these, Kurze Auslegung des Briefs St. Pauli an die Galater, 1786 (a small, but admirable tractate) ; in this century: F. Mtuuer, formerly pastor at Wandsbeck, Brief Pawh an die Galater, in Bibelstunden erklart, 1853; AnackEr, the same, 1856; Tween, Galaterbrief in Predigten ausgelegt, 1858; A. Franz: Die Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben, Homiletische Auslegung der Ep. 8t. Pauli an die Galater, 1860; and Hevsyer, Praktische Lrklarung des Neuen Testa- ments. B.3. 1858.
[For a full list and notices of patristic commentaries, see Liaurroot, p. 223 sq.
Luther's commentary was translated into English, and published under the approval of the Bishop of London, 1575. So highly esteemed was this work that there are but few early En- glish commentaries. We may notice, however, THomas LusHineron: Commentary on the Galatians, London, 1650. Jamzs Ferauson, Edinburgh, 1659.
Of later works, the following are prominent:
J, A. HALDANE: Commentary. 1848.
Joun Brown: An exposition of the Epistle af Paul the Apostle to the Galatians. Edinburgh, 2858.
C. J. Exuicort: A Commentary, critical and grammatical, of the Epistle to the Gal., with a revised translation. London, 1853. 3d edition, 1863. The first commentary of this lucid, ex- act, and scholarly author, whose translation has been largely used in the emendations of the English text in the present work.
B. Jowett: The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians and Romans, with critical notes and illustrations. London, 1856.
Samus. H. Turner: The Epistle to the Galatians in Greek and English, with an analysis and exegetical commentary. New York, 1856.
H.T.J. Bacar: The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, with a revised text and commen- tary. London, 1857.
J. B. Ligurroor: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. A revised text with introduction, notes and dissertations. London, 1865. Exceedingly valuable, on account of its full discussion of difficult questions. The frequent citations from this work are made from the Second Edition. 1866.
The American Editor of Lange’s Commentary, Puiuip Scuarr, D. D., has published an In- troduction and comments on chaps. i., ii., as a specimen of a projected popular commentary on the New Testament. Mercersburg Review, Jan., 1861. Most of the material there presented is incorporated here.
The EHistory of the Apostolic Church of the same author treats of many questions belonging to the exposition of this Epistle. So ConyBEarE and Howson, Life and Epistles of St, Paul. The works of ALForp, Worpsworrs, Burxrrr, Hewry, and others (for full list, see General Introduction to New Testament, Lanax’s Comm. Matthew), include comments on this Epistle, The reader is also referred to the Introduction to the Pauline Epistles in ‘the volume on the Epistle to the Romans.—R.]
THE
EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS*
Introduction: appREss AND saLUTATION (WITH BENEDICTION). Cuaprer I. 1-5.
1 Paul, an apostle, (not [apostle not]! of men, neither by [through, 6¢] man, but
by [through] Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead ;) 2 [omit parenthesis] And all the brethren which [who] are with me, unto the churches 3 of Galatia: [.] Grace be to you, and peace, from God the Father, and from our’ 4 Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for® our sins, that he might deliver us from 5 this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: To whom be
glory for ever and ever, Amen.
*[Tirie: Rec. } mpds Taddras émuoroAy Mavaov. Elz, Mavdoy tod amoordaov % mpos Taddtas émoroAy. N. A.B. K., Lachmann, Tischendorf and most editors, rpds Taddras.—R.]
1 Ver, 1—[The comma after “ apostle,” and the parenthesis are better omitted, since the clauses immediately following “ Apostle” are most closely connected with it, and the idea so far from being parenthetical is one of the most prominent
in the whole Epistle. of $ca.—R.]
2 Ver, 3.—N. inserts 7uay after rarpoés, omitting it after kupiov. That of Rec. is undoubtedly correct.
other salutations (Meyer).
“Of” is changed to “from” by Ellicott, while he retains “by” as a sufficiently exact translation
[This reading is an alteration to conform with So all modern editors.—R.]
3 Ver. 4.—Iepé (instead of wep. Rec.) is found in most MSS. and in the best MSS. WN. also, though N%., reads imep. [The external authorities are decisive against the reading of the Rec.; mwepé is adopted by modern editors almost uni-
.versally.—R.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL.
Ver. 1. Paul, an apostle not of men, neither through man, etc.—His office, Paul says, is not derived from men (a7’ Gv0paTowr), so as to be in itself human, and therefore sub- servient only to human interests; nor has it even been committed to him through the medium of any man (J? dv0p4rov), in which case it might still be a divine function, although only not directly so. The change of number is only of secondary im- portance. The general sense: ‘of human de- rivation,” is better expressed by the indefinite plural; while on the other hand, in denying human mediation, the singular is used with more precision, by Paul, the rather, as having already in mind the definite antithesis ‘‘but by Jesus Christ.”
This double negation is essentially only sct- ting forth of the definition of “Apostle.” He would be in no event an Apostle, if he had his office, dm’ dvOp.; nor yet, if he had it, d? avOp. He would then stand only on equal footing with a Timothy and others, in short with all laborers in the gospel, who are inducted into their office by men; he is an Apostle only because called and inducted into his office, through Jesus
Christ, etc. He was therefore placed in his office immediately through Christ, not through a man; for the activity of Ananias in Damascus had been only secondary and subsequent, the beginnings were divine. But, furthermore, he has received his office through Christ from God the Father, so that, as ‘through Jesus Christ” explains “not through man,” so God the Father ex- plains ‘‘not of men.” Yet Paul does not place this Ocov warp. in express antithesis to an’ dvOp., inasmuch as he does not. say dé Oeot m. There being on the positive side no occasion for so precise a discrimination, he here no longer dis- tinguishes between author and medium: perhaps not without design, in order thus to set his apos- tleship in a like direct relation, as to Christ, so to God the Father, and thereby to place the dignity of the same so much the more strongly in view. What in the first place constitutes the apostolic office, is the immediate calling through Christ, who is the x«bpsoc arooré.Awy (on which account dia ‘I. Xp. is placed before kal rarpéc). Christ Himself, certainly, cannot be reduced to the same level with men, if ‘not of men,” etc., isto remain true. And every thought of it is precluded by this very comprehending of Christ with God the Father, as it were, in one concep- tion, under one preposition. 11
THE EPISTLE TO
THE GALATIANS.
[Exxicort neatly paraphrases thus: ‘“‘Not from men‘as an ultimate, nor through man as a medi- ate authority.’ The second avé which we should expect to find before Ge0% mwartpée has not been omitted without good reason: while the preposi- tion sé admits an extension of meaning that would cover both ideas (Muyenr), the Apostle’s language, as it stands, is more forcible; the di- rectness of his divine commission is emphasized (Lieurroot), and although an argument for the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, must uot be forced from the passage, ‘there is something very noticeable in this use of a com- mon preposition with both the first and second Persons of the Trinity, by a writer so cumula- tive, and yet for the most part so exact in his use of prepositions as St. Panl” (Exxicorr). Scuarr: ‘By includes here the instrumental and the more remote originating cause.—The imme- diate codrdination of Christ with God the Father, and this in contrast with the preceding men and man, prove that the Apostle regarded the Sa- viour as a Divine being.”’—R.
Paul here, probably, designates God the Father Ng e., “of Christ,’—R.] as who raised him rom the dead, simply because through this divine act, namely, the resurrection of Christ, his own immediate vocation through Christ. had been made possible (1 Cor. xv. 8). [While it is not necessary *o insist on a polemic reference here, as an answer to the reproach that he had not seen Christ (Carvin), there seems to be an immediate reference to the fact that Paul was called by the exalted Christ, not that he claimed a preéminence on this ac- count (AuGausTINE, Erasmus, and others), but. God having raised Christ from the dead, and Christ Having immediately chosen him to be an Apostle, it was fitting that he should give pro- minence here to that act of God which enabled him also to be an Apostle, a witness of the resur- rection.—R. ]
This laying claim so expressly to apostolic dignity in the very introduction, stands (as is shown by what follows) in connection with the vital questions of the Epistle, since his equal apostolic rank had been impugned by the Gala- tinn false teachers. In chap. i. 11-ii. fin. there follows the detailed proof of this «not through man, but through Jesus Christ,” whereby the “not of men” is also indirectly proved. (In other Epistles, where he has not this definite purpose in mind, Paul designates himself more simply, but in substantially the same style as andatohoc or KAqric az. ’I. Xp. dud GeAjwarog Geod. )
Ver. 2. And all the brethren who are with me.—Hardly his companions in travel at that time merely, especially helpers in his office (Meyer), but rather all the Christinngs of his place of residence at that time. This addition has, at all events, the special purpose of adding the authority of others to his own. He wishes the Galatians to understand, that he has on his side all the brethren in the midst. of whom he writes, that these have the same opinion of their conduct, and thus indicates that the Galatians, unless they came to another mind, would sever themselves ‘from the great communion of the brethren, who stand and abide upon the founda- tion of faith which Paulhad laid. Of course the
Apostle alone wrote the Epistle. He can, how- ever, bring in the brethren as joint authors, se far as they may, after a previous communication of the leading thoughts, or, more probably, after hearing the Epistle itself read, have signified their agreement with it. [The more restricted meaning is allowable (see Phil. iv. 21, 22,
; where “the brethren which are with me” are
distinguished from ‘‘all the saints.”) Tho idea of the patristic commentators, that thus additional authority would be given, is in- correct; ‘the Epistle, being the product of an infallible Apostle, required no such help” (Scuarr). Cazyin’s remark is just, however: “The concurrence of so many godly persons must have had some degree of influence in softening the minds of the Galatians, and preparing them to receive instruction.”” Exzicorr: ‘‘He adopts the inclusive term to show the unanimity that was felt on the subject of the Epistle; did it mean the whole Christian community we should certainly have expected ‘with whom lam’ rather than ‘who are with me.’”—R.
Unto the churches of Galatia.—The same title, 1 Cor. xvi. 1. There existed there, it seems, therefore, different local congregations, of which each one constituted at least a rela- tively complete whole, and the Epistle was so far a circular letter. The omission of a phrase of commendation, such as is usually found in the other Epistles of the Apostle, has perhaps its ground in dissatisfaction with the Galatians. Per- haps, however, the omission is in part attributable to the external circumstance, that éxxAyoiat, whole congregations, arc addressed, hence any such titles as KAyrtoi, dytoc, would have been less suitable. [The dissatisfaction of the Apostle is so natu- ral and evident a reason for the omission of any commendatory addition to the simple address, that any other explanation is farfetched. Ax- FORD quotes Meyer as saying that 1 and 2 Thess. preseut a similar instance, but in the 4th ed. Meyur expressly mentions these Epistles as no exceptions. WorpswortH: ‘a remarkable ad- dress in what it does not, as well as in what it does say.’’—R.
Ver. 8. Grace be to you—and peace.—Re- specting the Pauline form of salutation, Napes kai eipavn, consult remarks on the other Epis- tles.—From God the Father and our Lord, ete. Asin ver. 1. Christ and the Father were comprehended under the one preposition dud, without distinction of the Father through an a76, so here the reverse takes place, an evident token how little Paul has in mind severance of the Divine Persons. Christ is by no means, then, the merely instrumental medium of grace, but, as well as the Father Himself, the Bestower of grace (see Doctrinat and Erarcan notes). Here, however, ‘‘God the Father” is placed first; in ver. 1 the order was reversed. There is, mMore- over, a special reason here for placing “ our Lord Jesus Christ” last, namely, that it receives in addition a predicate defining it more closely. Grace and peace, Paul wishes for the Galatians, especially in view of the path of error into which they had been led, and for this very reason with especial allusion to that, which alone secures this grace and this peace, namely, the atoning death of Christ.
CIAP.
I. 1-6. 1B
Who gave Himself for us,—In this clause the Apostle anticipates the other main point which he has tounfold, Instead of regarding the cross of Christ alone as the ground of salvation, the false teachers had influenced the Galatians to seek salvation again in observance of the law. In ver. 1 Paul touches on the personal, here he touches on the doctrinal question, which he afterwards handles. Advtoc éautdy, ‘pave Himself,” nothing less than His own persun, which could be fully accomplished only in Ilis death. Ilepiundetined: ‘in respect to our sins.” The sense, however, clearly appears not only from the following, ‘that He might deliver us,” but alsointhe very form of the expression, which sets forth an expiatory sacrifice that has been of- fered, in which Christ was the Offerer and the Offered, the Highpriest and the Sacrifice, in one person (comp. WIESELER’s careful investi- gation of the use of mepi, imép, avri, in decla- rations respecting the death of Christ). [EL- uicotr: In its ethical sense, irép retains some trace of its local meaning, ‘‘ bending over to protect,” and thus points more immediately to the action, than to the object or circumstance from which the action is supposed to spring. The latter relation is more correctly defined by epi, whichis thus more naturally used with the thing, “sins,” drép with the persons, “sinners.” Often, however, in the N. T. the distinction is scarcely appreciable.—R. ]
Ver. 4. That He might deliver us.—Effect of the expiation accomplished through Christ.— "Ef£arpeio daz, to tear away from a power. The evil world is viewed as possessor by force, as o tyrant, who brings destruction, and in whose power we are by nature. This deliverance Paul doubtless understands in a double sense, as a making free from the moral corruption of the world, and also as a keeping from the destruction which it thereby brings upon its own at the judg- ment day. The immediate reference is to the latter, which, however, in view of the ethical character of Christianity, cannot take place with- out the former, as indeed there can be no doubt that the death of Christ has an ethical intent. It is false, however, to think only of this here.— ‘Present world” may mean, present or impend- ing age. The latter signification is, however, hardly to be assumed here—contrary to Mrver, who would take it as meaning the evil times which, according to many passages of Scripture, are shortly to precede the second coming of Christ, and on this account are wont elsewhere to be called the last times. But ‘our phrase, on account of the union of évecra@e with aidy, is most naturally regarded as parallel with 6 aidy obroc or 6 viv aidv. The expression 4 aidy, since this appears to denote a period of time complete in itself, is nowhere used of the last times, prepa- ratory only, as the pangs of travail, to the aia uéAdwr. Nor, finally, is there in the connection the least reason why Paul should have confined the salutary workings of the redeeming death of Jesus to the last times.” (WiEsELER). Therefore we must take itas, ‘‘the present period of time,” in sense the same as 6 Kéouoc, 30 that the transla- tion “ present world,” is substantially correct.— « Bvil” emphasizes the ethical character of ‘this world,” which is besides included in the very con-
ception of “the present world.” It is equi- valent to ‘‘ruined by sin,” and therefore a deliverance out of it was necessary in the twofold relation given above. [Sowarr: “The words contain an allusion to the Jewish dis- tinction between ‘this world,’ and ‘the world to come,’ or the period before, and the period after the appearance of the Messiah. But the sense of these terms is modified in the N. T., so as to make the second coming of Christ the dividing line between the two gons.” Liaut- roor: ‘The distinction of time between the two, which is the primary distinction, becomes lost in the moral and spiritual conception.” The second adjective movypdc, emphatically placed, gives pro- minence to the ethical idea, especially if the better supported order of the Rec., é« tod éveotdtog ai@voc tovnpod, be adopted.—R. ]
According to the will of God and our Father.—lt is best to connect this with the whole of ver. 4. It refers the redeeming work ag a whole to the gracious will of the Father, and thus cuts off every ground of objection against this work from the legal point of view. The thought of this redemptive counsel of the Father moves him very naturally, then, to the conclu- ding doxology.—In tov @eov kati warpod¢ juav, yuav belongs probably only to marpdc. By 6e6¢ God is meant to be designated as the God of all alike; by maryp, according to His special relation to the Christian. By the prefixed article two predicates are ascribed to the same person. The same who is God is also our Father. [Licutroor argues from the absence of the ar- tiele before warpéc, that quer belongs to both nouns, but as Exuicotr well remarks, ‘ warp is anarthrous according to rule.” Catvin, MnyER and most, restrict the pronoun to Father, giving the last words somewhat of uw predicative force: “God, who.is our Father.” Itisto be remarked that in vers. 1-3 Paul speaks of ‘¢God the Father,”’ 7. ¢., the Father of Christ—but having in this verse spoken of the redemptive act of Christ, and its redeeming design for us le calls God, who has purposed this ‘‘ our Father.”’— WorpswortH: “Specially our Father by the redemption of us His children by the blood of His Son.”—R. ]
Ver. 5. To whom be glory.—To be taken as optative; for défa means Honor, Praise— not Essential Glory, although it is true that the 66a which should be given to God, rests upon the dég¢ which He has. [Scuarr: “ The doxology in this place is likewise an indi- rect reproof of the Galatians for dividing the glory of our salvation between God and man.” Jt is an affirmation rather than a wish. There can be no reasonable doubt that rove. alavac Tv atévwv here is an expression for eternity.—R. ]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL.
1. The Apostolate. wu. An essential characteris- tic of the apostolate was the immediate “eall” through Christ, as whose ‘‘delegates” the apostles went out into the world with that proclamation of the Gospel, which should lay the foundation of all that followed, Hence the express assertion here (and afterwards the detailed proof) of this imme- diate calling. For this. if for no other reason, the
14 THE EPISTLE TO
THE GALATIANS.
——__-
office of the Apostles was specifically distinct from all others.* In the office of preacher in these days, there always occurs a ‘‘call” dv’ av0pérov. The office, however, is not on this account dn’ avOp4ruv, nor should any bearer of it thus regard it. It is on the contrary “from” ‘Jesus Christ and God the Father,” is divina institutio.
b. In the decision and certainty with which Paul insists upon his apostolic rank, there is im- plied, on the one hand, a justifiable sense of per- sonal dignity in opposition to all who would ques- tion it, and especially to false teachers: “I am an Apostle and nothing less.” This personal feeling, however, was certainly counterpoised at once, by the feeling of humility in view of the momentous duties involved, for the discharge of which grace alone could give strength. But, above all, the Apostle lays stress on this his dig- nity, not in his personal interest, but in the in- terest of his Lord, and the gospel of his Lord; in order to shield this against the ‘‘perverting” (ver. 7) of the false teachers, he is forced to lay this emphasis on the fact that he is really an Apostle of Christ, and therefore was such in his preaching of the gospel.
c. The care with which he proves his funda- mental authority and capacity for preaching the gospel, is a pledge to us of the soundness of this preaching. The Christian church has, therefore, in this foundation laid by the Apostle, a standard for all time by which to prove doctrine.
d. That Christ has been raised, and now lives, is the fundamental truth, which to the Apostle stands immovably firm, and on which rests, for Paul, the certainty of his calling, and for him and the other Apostles the vigor and joyfulness of their labor in their vocation. For the Apos- tles were in a special sense to be witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus, and to be persuaded of it by a personal beholding of the Risen One. It was only because the risen Jesus had appeared to him, that Paul was an Apostle.
2. The brethren. This strong emphasizing of his particular vocation (or office) does not imply the least prejudice to his brotherly relation to- ward other Christians, who have no such vocation.
+ It is one of the anti-scriptural fancies of the Irvingites to believe, notwithstanding this, in the reappearance of Apos- tles proper in their churches. WIESELER. [In LigHrroor, p. 92 sq., there is an interesting discussion on “ the name and office of an Apostle.’ He, however, objects to the restric- tion of the office to the twelve, with only the exception of 8t. Paul, adducing the apostleship of Barnabas, and implying that “James, the Lord’s brother” (ver. 19) was an Apostle, even though not the same as James, the son of Alpheus. This position is not safe, nor ia it accordant with the argu- ment of Paul in this Epistle, where he lays so much stress upon the “immediate call.” Lightfoot is forced, therefore, to deny the necessity fora call from an outward personal communication with our Lord, though his admission that the having seen Christ was a necessary qualification, is a denial of the perpetuation of the office. It is better to hold that there were but Twelve Apostles, to whom was added, by direct call, Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles—Barnabag and others were “apostolic men.” On the relation of Paul to the original college of apostles, see Sonarr, History of the Apostolic Church, p. 512 8q., p. 233 sq. His note p. 234 is appropriate here: “The strict hierarchical view, which always looks for an outward, palpable succession, admits no satisfactory explanation of the tact, that the Apostles had no share whatever in the ordination of Paul after his conver- sion (Acts ix. 17), and in his being sent to the Gentiles by the Church of Antioch (xiii. 3). The divine irregularity of his call, and the subsequent independence of his labors, make Paul, so to speak. a prototype of evangelical Protestantism, whicn has always looked to him as its main authority, aa Romanism to Peter.”—R.]
Far from it. ‘Paul not only mentions them in im- mediate connection with himself, including him- self and them in the same salutation, but even treats them as fellow-writers, hence as those who, together with him, impart instruction and admo- nition, thus strengthening the weight of his own words by their concurrence. He is only called to preach what, as the substance of his faith, is the substance of theirs also; and he wishes to bring back his erring readers to the same faith in which these, his companions, stand and have remained firm. [Their concurrence could add nothing to the real authority of his apostolic teaching, but might aid in establishing that au- thority among the Galatians. Yet the Apostle seems fond of thus associating others of lower rank with himself in his Epistles.—R.] Here is a hint for the behavior of office-bearers towards other Christians now as well; in personal con- duct, to regard and treat them as ‘‘brethren,” standing on precisely the same footing; to lay claim to no precedence; and in official activity also, while maintaining full consciousness of their own special vocation, and of the authority inhe- rent in it, never to ignore the might which dwells in the personal faith and believing life of the members of the Church, when there is an oppor- tunity of joining them with one’s self in exhor- tation and rebuke.
8. “Churches” still. Paul, it is true, gives to the Galatian Christians no especial title of honor, “yet he still counts them worthy to be called churches, because, though they were indeed for the most part fallen from the truth in some main points, they had, notwithstanding this, retained many parts of the pure Christian doctrine; he cherishes then the hope that they would still suf- fer themselves to be brought right again” (Srarku). Hence important doctrinal and ethi- cal defects of a church do not of themselves war- rant us in withholding or withdrawing from it the predicate éxxAycia. A judgment, whether in any place there is the Church of Christ or not, de- pends, although largely, yet not in the chief de- gree, upon subjective character, but in the chief degree stand the objective factors, namely, that verbum divinum recte docetur, aud sacrumenta recie administrantur. This, as ig well known, is one of Luther’s prime principles. In the objective fac- tors, there certainly resides the power (even if latent) to work subjectively.—Yet it cannot therefore be denied that there may be, notwith- standing, a subjective character of the congrega- tion as respects doctrine and morals, where the predicate éxxAyoia ceases to be applicable; we cannot, however, pronounce a judgment thereon, but must leave this to the searcher of hearts, so far asit is not a question of scandalous offences in the case of individuals.
4. God and Christ. Both in ver. 1 and in ver. 3, Christ is placed in the closest connection with God the Father; and in ver. 3 in such a way that Grace and Peace are invoked in the same manner from God the Father, and from Christ. From this ap- pears, in immediate certainty, the eminent, god- like position of Christ. For the highest and best things, those which are needful for all men, pro- ceed from Him, as much as from the Father. As respects grace, as much depends on His disposi- tions towards us, as on those of the Father. Ag
CHAP.
I. 1-5. 15
Christ is thus placed with the Father on one Divine level, so is the Father, on the other side, placed on the same level with the Son, who, through His Incarnation, has drawn so near to us. Luruer: ‘“ Therefore Paul, in wishing grace and peace not only from God the Father, but also from Jesus Christ, teacheth, first, that we should abstain from the curious searching of the Divine Majesty (for God no man knoweth), and hear Christ, who is in the bosom of the Father, and uttereth to us His will.”
5. Christ’s giving Himself. The expression for the death of Christ is here (ver. 4) so chosen, that it appears as His own free act, while, as is known, there runs parallel to the series of pas- sages which apprehend it thus, another repre- senting it as something decreed by God concern- ing Christ, representing Christ as burdened with the Father’s curse (comp. iii.13). This designa- tion is here chosen, in order to render prominent and bring home to the hearts of the Galatians the great love of Christ, displayed in His ‘giving Himself for us.” ‘‘The giving of Himself consisted of many actions, from the incarnation on, but it applies especially to his atoning death.” This “giving Himself’—this morally great act was occasioned by our sins, our moral perversion; a cutting contrast, and yet a necessary nexus be- tween cause and effect!—For its intent was to procure a remedy for our sins, and their ruinous results.
6. This present evil world. Through our sins we belong to this present evil world, bear its charac- ter, and are in its power, that is, through it and with it are going to destruction. From this de- stroying might Christ would rescue us, and has rescued us, by His giving Himself for our sins, that is, through the reconciliation thus accom- plished for our sins; because we, when reconciled, lie no longer under the judgment of God upon the sinful world, and therefore do not go with it to ruin. Undoubtedly Christ had in view besides, an inward, moral deliverance from the corrupt course of the world; yet this is the secondary aim; the primary is the deliverance from judgment and perdition.—God’s acts of grace, according to the Biblical view, are throughout directed, first of all, toward a, deliverance from destruction, and consequently to the impartation of a good, of a definite happy destiny, not chiefly to the rehabil- itation of certain ethical qualities, of a particu- lar direction of life and will. They are directed thus, in a certain measure, towards an outward end, with which however an inward one is in- separably connected, as the economy of the Spi- rit, whose work it is to bring forth the corre- sponding ethical quality, is, although insepara- ble from that of the Father and the Son, yet dis- tinct from it, presupposing it. The deliverance from the evil world, is, so far as concerns its being won, already accomplished by the sacrifice of Christ. Of course a participation in this is only gained through faith (this is implied in jac, which refers to believers), and is ac- tually perfected only on the coming in of the aidv péddwv. A certain pledge and a joyful foretaste of it, however, the believer has already in justification, because this is an assurance of the divine grace. As to the rest, the apostolical expectation of the aidy uéAAwy as near lies at
the foundation of this passage. [Whatever indi- eations there may be elsewhere of ‘this apostoli- cal expectation,” neither the words nor context show any trace of it here, except on the view of Meyrr, which refers ‘present evil world” to the times of danger immediately preceding the second coming of Christ, a view which is not adopted by Schmoller himself, nor by any other commenta- tor of note.—R.]
7. Redemption according to Gods will. The work of redemption was accomplished ‘according to the will” of the Father. This indicates the other side in the redeeming work, alluded to under 6, namely, that ‘the death of Christ was also decreed to Him, by God for an expiation, and that Christ’s ‘(giving Himself!’ was accordingly, at the same time an act of obedience to the Father’s will, a suf- fering Himself to be givenup. Love to man and obedience to the Father, all in one, was the source of His sacrifice of Himself. This view is in full harmony with the declarations of Christ Himself, especially in John, with the emphasis which He lays on His having been sent, on His doing the willofthe Father. There was nothing whatever self-elected in the redeeming work of Christ; it was a God-appointed work.—In this it first finds its firm, immovable foundation, and all scruples as to the availing worth of this self-sacrifice of Christ before God are taken away from the trou- bled conscience. At the same time, all clinging to such scruples is also condemned, as a striving against the will of God. We may, but we also ought to believe in the atoning death of Christ; hence especially, we ought not to lessen its signi- ficance by a righteousness of works. This will of God is the will that we should be saved, according to which, He willed both the way that should lead to our salvation, Christ’s dying on account of our sins, and also the result, our redemption. It was a loving will, but also a will of holy love, con- demning sin and forgiving it; the latter only on the foundation of the former, but the former also for the sake of the latter. Because aiming at our salvation it was in any case the will of God our Father. —
8. God’s honor its end. As and because the will of God is the origin of the work of redemption, go the honor of God is its aim. That He, His name, be honored, is the purpose and result of redemption. To Him belongeth honor—and that honor forever—for redemption, and such honor will be rendered Him by the Redeemed. The phrase ¢éi¢ robe aidv. r. aio. no doubt looks for- ward to the aidy péAdwy. The expression is, however, thus indefinitely framed, in order, as far as the language admits, to express an eter- nal duration. There is nothing in this, of course, against the division found elsewhere, into simply two eons, present and future.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL.
Ver. 1. Srarke:—To all peculiarly spiritual’ offices belongs a divine vocation. Every man: may take comfort in the consciousness of his of-- fice and calling, and also appeal to it when there: ig need. Let no one deem this pride or boasting. —Spenun :—Christ is the founder of the preach-. er’s office. He is the King in His Kingdom, and so sends whom He will. He is the Chief Shep-
16 THE EPISTLE TO
THE GALATIANS.
herd, and therefore all under shepherds must be appointed by Him. He has obtained by His merits the spiritual power needed for the ministry, and has received the Holy Ghost to that end for our sakes. It is He, therefore, who speaks through His servants.—LUTHER :— Wert thou wiser than Solomon and Daniel, yet ‘until thou art called, flee the sacred ministry, as thou wouldst hell and the devil, then wilt thou not spill the word of God to no purpose. If God needs thee, He will know how to call thee. — Lance:—To be sure of one’s divine, although only mediate vocation, is a weighty matter, and gives to the conscience rest, in the office blessing, and to vindication of the same and of the pure doctrine, much joyfulness. —Winr. Summ. :—There is a twofold vocation to the ministry; both are of God, who will have the gospel preached to the end of the world; but some are called of God without means, of which sort are the patriarchs, prophets, apostles; and some through men, although according to God’s commandment aud ordinance. — Rircer: — As certainly as every believer shall be taught of God, so that what he has apprehended from human instruction is confirmed in his heart with divine impressions and powerful workings, just so certainly must every teacher have in his. consci- ence uw divine seal upon his vocation, although derived through men, and on this account a joyfulness which his hearers cannot impeach.
The apostolate in its high significance; 1. for the founding, 2. for the continuance of the Chris- tian church which must perpetually rest upon the foundation of the apostolic doctrine.—The divine vocation to office: 1. To have it, is under all circumstances necdful; 2. To be certain of it, is often imp-rtant; 3. “o appeal to it, may often be right ana proper.—How independent (of men), and yet at the same time, how dependent cs God), the preacher of the gospel is and knows himself {may and should know himself) to be!—Even so the Christian generally: he is what he is, not from men (although through men), for not natu- ral descent nor outward fellowship makes him such — but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.—Christian sense of personal worth: 1. its justification, 2. its limits.—All through Je- sus Christ! a) humbling truth—not through us; 6) exalting truth — through no less a one than Christ, and thereby through the Highest, God.— arane :—In the church we ought to listen to
od alone, and to Jesus Christ, whom He has ap- pointed to be our teacher Whoever assumes a right to instruct us, must speak in the name of God or of Christ.—Burxirr:—Behold the pecu- liar prerogative of St. Paul above the rest of the Apostles; they were called by Christ in the day of His humiliation; but he was called by Christ when sitting at His Father’s right hand in heaven. As his call was thus very extraordinary, so his gifts were answerable to his call.—R.
Ver. 2, Wixt. Summ. :—Although the truth of a doctrine does not rest upon the multitude of people, but alone upon God’s word, yet, when many support a doctrine founded in God’s word, the weak in the faith are noticeably strength- ened thereby, because they see that not merely one or two, but many, confess such a doctrine. — WpeneR: — Christians are “brethren” to each
other; for they have one Heavenly Father, one first-born brother, Christ; one mother, the Chris- tian church; one seed of regeneration, the divine word; one inheritance of eternal life. That is @ more intimate and strict brotherhood than the common one among all men.—STARKE :—In names and titles we must give good heed not willingly to commit falsehood, nor attribute to any one, praise that does not belong to him; yct common and authorized titles must be understood not in absolute strictness, but according to common use. —SpENER:—There remuins even ina loose crowd a Christian ‘church, even though grave errors, which remove the ground of faith are found there, so long as God’s word and the holy sa- craments are there and are maintained.
On Vers. 1 and 2. Let us hear, when we begin to waver in the truth: 1. Apostolic doctrine; 2. The testimony of brethren!—Apostolic doctrine and the voice of brethren; an admonition to every church to abide in the evangelical truth.
Ver. 8. Rieaer :—Paul flees in this perplexity to the riches of God in Christ Jesus, and en- trusts to the grace and the peace from thence, the restoration of the Galatians also; with this greeting, as with a cordial, he not only refreshes their hearts but quickens himself also to a confidence towards God in Christ. — Wirt. Summ.: — We see here where we must begin, when after sin committed we will come to God for grace; namely, not. with ourselves, not with our piety! for if we had kept this, we should be already in favor with God, nor even with God Himself out of Christ, for He is to sin- ners a consuming fire, but alone with Christ, and His bitter passion and death for our sins.— LurHer: — Paul wishes the Galatians grace and peace, not from the emperor or kings and princes; for these are wont ofttimes to persecute the godly: nor does he wish them grace and peace from the world, for in the world they shall have tribulation; but from God our Father, that is, he wishes them a godly and heavenly peace. —Lancr:—True peace can never exist without grace, for grace is the ground and source of peace; on the other hand there is grace some- times without peace, especially with the tempted, who may, for awhile fall into great disquiet- ness of soul, and yet remain in God’s grace.
Ver. 4. Stanke:—lIf Christ has for our sakes given His all, ah! should not we surrender our- selves, with all that in us is, to Him? Man! keep thyself from sin, on account of which Christ hath endured so much, lest thou thyself bring to nought for Him this great work, for which He came. — Lurmer:—Mark diligently the word: «for our.” For therein lies all the virtue, namely, that all which is said concerning us in the Holy Scriptures, in such passages as ‘for me,” ‘for us,” ‘for our sin,” aud the like, we should know how to take well in mind, and apply par- ticularly to ourselves, and hold fast thercto by faith. — For thou hast, no doubt, easily brought thyself to believe that Christ, God’s Son, was given for St. Peter’s, St. Paul’s, and other saints’ sins, who were worthy of such grace; but, contrariwise it is especially and thoroughly hard, that thou, for thine own person, & poor, unworthy, condemned sinner, shouldst from thine heart certainly believe, held, and
CHAP.
I. 1-5. 17
guy, that Christ, God’s Son was given for thy so many and so great sins, who yet never- theless hast never yet been worthy of such grace.—Therefore should we well train and pre- pare our hearts with this utterance and the like utterances of St. Paul, that when the devil here- after comes and accuses us and says: ‘See, you area sinner, therefore you must be damned!” we may meet him and answer, ‘yea, good devil, for the very reason that you accuse me and will be condemning me for asinner, for that reason will I be righteous and holy, be not damned, but saved the rather. For in this very thing, that you tell me how Iam a poor sinner, and a great one, you give me a sword and weapon in hand wherewith I can mightily overcome you, yea, slay you and put you under my feet with your ownarms. For if you can tell me thatIam a poor sinner, I can say to you again, that Christ. died for sinners.”’—Count these words of St. Paulas said in earnest, and to be true, and not asa dream, when he says that the world is evil, although many people therein have many noble, beautiful, virtues; and although in outward guise and ap- pearance there is much holiness and brilliant ex- cellence.—To this evil world belongs also all art, wisdom, righteousness, &c., of a godless man. Thy wisdom, which thou hast out of Christ, is a double folly, thy righteousness isa double sin and godlessness, since it knows nothing of the wis- dom and righteousness of Christ, and since, over and above this, it darkens, hinders, reviles and persecutes you; wherefore St. Paul may well name the world an evil world; for it is the worst when it will be at the best and most pious. In the religious, wise and learned men, it will be at its most pious and best, and yet it is twice as wicked.
Brriens. Biztu:—Of this present evil world, ordinances of religion form no small part, of which much is instituted whereby men will take one another captive to the spirit of the world. With- out religion nevertheless will the world not be; so it dresses up such things as may be congruous with flesh and blood; but true religion burdens and depresses it. Thus the deliverance takes place especially from the Pharisaic leaven. — Srargke:—See how availing and certain is our redemption and salvation, because it proceeds from the will of the Father: how can that he unavailing, which has come to pass according to His will.—[Scaarr :—God is our Father because He isthe Father (not simply of Jesus Christ which would place him on a par with us, but) of our Lord Jesus Christ.—R. ]
Ver. 5. As often as we think on the great work of redemption, we should heartily praise God; and therefore should we often think thereon; that we may be powerfully excited to praise.—To praise God is the best divine service; it is that which must endure unto eternity. Happy he who begins it here, and prepares himself thereby for a blessed eternity. It is a proof that he knows God aright, and has become partaker of
His grace, and that he will one day come to the heavenly choirs of angels who praise God.
Jesus’ giving Himself to death: 1, Its occasion (our sins); 2. Its purpose (our deliverance therefrom) ;-or: 1. the strongest testimony against us (our sin).; 2. the mightiest consolation for us ; or: 1. Its great effect (to deliver us from this evil world); 2. Whence it has this effect (as being a satisfying and bearing and thereby a taking away of the divine wrath; 8. in whom it is thus effectual (only in those who are His in faith).— What defends us from being lost with thig evil worid? 1. Not our own righteousness whereby we only entangle ourselves in this evil world the more, but 2. Christ’s sacrificial death alone. —The appropriation of the merits of Christ: 1. Every one needs it on account of his sins; 2. The sinner needs it precisely as sinner.—Jesus Christ the Deliverer out of the power of this present evil world: 1. The world the tyrant in whose power we are; 2. Christ the Deliverer that has appeared.—Evil—the character of this world: 1. Therefore the Christian in this world longs for the world to come; 2. He must how- over be delivered from this present world, in order to enter the world to come.—Redemption through Christ rests upon the will of God: 1. A rich consolation (against all doubts); 2. An earnest admonition: Whoever lightly esteems the redemption accomplished through Christ, sins thereby against the will of God Himself.— The honor which is due to God for the redemp- tion in Christ.—The praise of God: 1. a fruit of the redeemed state; 2, a proof of the same.—The praise which the redeemed bring to God: 1. be- gins in time; 2. continues into eternity,
Vers. 38-5. Lisco:—The Apostle’s invocation of blessings for his churches: 1. What does it contain? The greatest benefits which are be- stowed by God on man. 2. On what is this in- vocation grounded? a. On the free will offering of Christ. b, On the gracious counsel of God, to redeem us by such offering. —The benediction of the Apostle: 1. A proof his hearty love: even to the unthankful, who through their apostasy have so troubled him, he wishes the best things; 2. A proof of his standing fast in the truth: in di- rect opposition to them he held fast so much the more definitely the evangelical truth, of redemp- tion through Christ’s death alone, and points them to that in contrast with their erroneous opinions.—Right wishing: 1. wishes true bene- fits; 2. points to the true source of such bene- fits.—The right behavior toward those who are disposed to depart from the truth: to open the heart fully to them in expressions of desire, full of divine blessing, before closing with and combatting their errors.
Vers. 1-5. The appearance of the Apostle against the Galatians: 1. in the full dignity of his office, at the same time, however, associating the brethren with himself; 2. with the full love of his heart, at the same time conceding nothing of the truth.
18
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Occasion of the Epistle: apostasy oF THE
QGQALATIANS FROM THE GOSPEL, WHICH PAUL Hab
PREACHED TO THEM, TO THE FALSE DOCTRINE OF CERTAIN SEDUCERS, AGAINST WHOM HE
THEREFORE UTTERS THE ANATHEMA.
Cuarter I. 6-10.
6 Imarvel that ye are so soon removed [changing over]! from him that called you 7 into [in or by} the grace of Christ® unto another [a different]* gospel: Which is not another; but there be [except that there are] some that trouble you, and would
8 [@édovtes, wish to] pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from
heaven, preach [should preach] any other gospel unto you® than [er contrary to]’
9 that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed [anathema]. As we
said before,’ so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than
10 [or contrary to] that ye have received, let him be accursed [anathema]. For do I
now persuade [am I now conciliating]’ men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for [omit for} if I yet pleased men, I should not be the [a] servant of Christ.
1Ver.6.—[Metatidea6e, middle, not passive, see EXEG. NOTES.—R.]
2 Ver. 6.—|’Ev cannot mean “into,” especially after cadkéw.—R.]
3 Ver. 6,—(The many variations, such as the omission of Xp., the insertion of "Ijcod, the substitution of cod, all pro- bably sprang from mistaken exegesis, joining Xp. with kaXéaavtTogs. The reading Xptorod is very well supported
and now universally retained.—R.]
4Ver. 6.—["Erepov, “different in kind,” not “another of the same kind” (@AAo, ver.7). So Alford, Ellicott,
Wordsworth, Lightfoot.—R.]
6 Ver, 8—{The periphrasis of the E. V. is necessary to bring out the force of evayyeAt¢nrac, in its reference to evayyeAcoy, vers. 6,7; but the subjunctive must not be overlooked, as marking the different conditional propositions af
vers. 8, 9.—R.] 6 Ver. 8.—N. omits Uutv, N%. first adds it. 7 Ver. 8 Ver. 9.—NI1.: mpoeipyxa.
.—[On the meaning of mapd, here and ver.9. See Exe. Notzs.—R.]
® Ver. 10—(‘ Persuade ” is obviously inapplicable to God. Teé@ here means “to conciliate,” “to make friends of." 80 modern English commentators. The form: “am I,” etc., is required by the emphatic apre (Ellicott).—R.]
10 Ver, 10.—Rec, €¢ yap re; but ydp is best omitted. editors—R.]
EXEGETICAn AND CRITICAL.
Without any thanksgiving for the readers’ gifts of grace, as in other Epistles, the Apostle passes immediately from the invocation of a blessing. to sharp rebuke which, however, strikes not so much the Galatians themselves as their seducing teaches. Vers. 6-9.
Ver. 6. I marvel that ye are so soon changing over.—He finds it strange, since he has expected, and had reason to expect, something different. ‘‘So soon” refers rather to the en- trance of the apostasy than to its course, as having so rapidly developed itself from its com- mencement. The latter view suits the connection the less, inasmuch as werar/GeoGe designates the apostasy as yet in process of development; oitw rayzéu¢, is therefore, wemay say, equivalent to— so soon after the last visit of the Apostle. [‘*So soon’’ either 1) after conversion, or 2) after his visit, or 8) after the false teachers came; all three may be included, and are true; which is the primary reference cannot be certainly deter- mined. In any case in view of the middle force of weraribeobe (“turning renegades,” Ligut- FOOT), it is a charge that the change was sudden aud one for which they were to blame. Scuarr: «The Greek implies first that the apostasy was voluntary, hence their own guilt; secondly, that
{Rejected on preponderant MSS. authority by all modern
it was not yet completed, and hence might be averted. The passive rendering would transfer the guilt to the false teachers.”—R. ]
From him that called you: most probably from God, who called you on the ground of the grace of Christ, which He has shown in His sur- render of Himself to death ; not—from Christ, wha out of grace has called you. It is true that with the first explanation év ydp. Xp. is difficult te render, but in any case it is not to be understood of the state of grace, as if—called you to the possession and enjoyment of grace.—[ By the grace of Christ.—The E. V. renders év yé- pete, “into the grace,” following the Vulgate, but év is here used in its instrumental sense, ALrorp: ‘“Christ’s grace is the elementary me- dium of our ‘calling of God;’ the sum of all that He has suffered and done for us to bring us to God; — whereby we come to the Father, — in which, as its element, the Father’s calling of us has place.” Enxicotr: “The dogmatical consi- deration that the grace of Christ, in the sense it here appears used by St. Paul, denotes an active and energizing influence rather than a passive element, seems distinctly to suggest the instru- mentul sense.’’ Comp. his notes in loco.—R. | But it is God Himself who *calls.” The reference of Kadgoavroc to the Apostle has some support in the fact that he afterwards opposes so expressly his own preacking to that of others, yet must
CHAP.
I. 6-10. 10
r
be rejected, as xadciv too constantly expresses an activity of God for this interpretation. The apostasy is described, doubtless not undesignedly, as an apostasy from a person, not from a doctrine, that it may appear as ingratitude—To a dif- ferent gospel.— More exactly: to another kind of gospel — evayy. map’ 6 raped. (ver. 9). A gospel, either because the Galatians naturally took the doctrine which the false teachers brought them for the Gospel, or primarily in the gen- eral sense of Doctrine of Salvation, which the legal doctrine also claimed to be.
Ver. 7. Yet Paul as it were at once corrects himself, and respecting that which he has just named ‘ gospel,” denies again that this predicate in fact belongs to it, this false teaching is no gospel, but a subversion of the gospel. This is at all events the sense, if — the most obvious construction —is referred to the immediately preceding cvayy. — “which other sort of gospel is no other, by the side of that preached by me, except that there are,” etc. [The more correct reference is to €tepov evayyédiov. So Murer, Axnrorp, Exticott, Licatroot, and Schmoller himself. See ALrorp’s notes in loco for a full discussion and objections to the reference below. —R.] The reference however to the whole sen- tence is possible—which is nothing else (that is, this turning to another gospel) than that you have let yourselves be seduced by such as wish to subvert the gospel.
There be some that trouble you.—“Paul is fond of calling his opposers: rivéc, 7. e., cer- tain well known people, whom one for any reason whatever, in this case out of disparagement, will not designate more nearly.” WinseLux.— [Worpsworrn suggests and defends an ironical meaning: ‘unless they who are troubling you, are somebody,” but thisseems forced. LiguTroor paraphrases well: ‘‘only in this sense is it another gospel, in that it is an attempt to pervert the one true gospel.”—R.] — Tapao- ceiv=to disturb the conscience and thereby the feelings by exciting doubts whether the gos- pel preached to them were the true teaching or not.— Wish to pervert =to have the will, to labor for; as the sequel plainly shows, it has not yet come to an actual perversion ; peractpébeww— 48a, funditus evertere.—The gospel of Christ, probably—gospel respecting Christ, inasmuch as in the first place the gospel treats of Christ gen- erally; especially, however, because the merit of Christ is the chief theme of the true gospel in distinction from the legal teaching. The gospel, of course, could not, in itself, be destroyed, but the evangelical preaching among the Galatians might be, if they received another teaching.
Ver. 8. But though we—let him be ana- thema.—Certain persons wish to destroy the gospel of Christ among you, and bring you an- other, but (4444) rather let every one who does that be dvdeua, instead of passing for an evan- gelist,—'H zeig: first and chiefly the Apostle him- self, then, however, also the “brethren who are with me,” in whose name he likewise writes.— Angel from heaven, to be taken together—an- gel descended from heaven. ‘If Paul repudiates his own and even angelic authority in the case assumed, as accursed, then every one, without exception (comp. dori dv %, v. 10), is subject to
ae same curse in the same case.” Muyrr. — ap 6 evynyy. Upiveliterally: beyond that, etc., may be equivalent to praterquam, or to con- tra. “Formerly dogmatic interest came here into play, the Lutherans, in opposition to tradi- tion, contending for praterguam, and the Catholics in defence of it, for contra, Contra, or more ex- actly the sense of specific difference, is according to the context the right sense. (See ver. 6, érepov.)” Muryer. [This sense of rapé, “contrary to,” is now generally conceded by Protestant commentators. WorpswortH and Licurroot give it the sense of ‘ besides;” the latter arguing from the context that Paul means, his gospel will brook no rival, will suffer no foreign admixture, but, as Exuicorr remarks: ‘‘the Apostle implies throughout the Epistle that the Judaical gospel was in the strict sense of the words an érepov ebayy., and in its very essence opposed to the true gospel.” Both ideas: may properly be included (AuForp, Scuarr).—R.]—Evayyetodueba tuiv: namely, I and my companions at the time of your conver- sion. Comp. rapeadaf. ver. 9.
Let him be anathema. — A translation of DN = Dedicated to God without ransom—given over to annihilation, to death, in the Old Testa- ment to bodily, in the New Testament to @dvatoc in opposition to Cw, to eternal death, See in Wieseiexr a detailed elucidation and refutation of the explanation, ‘“‘excommunicated.” [’Avd- deua is the common Hellenistic form of the classi- cal and Attic word dvdfmua, which in both forms originally meant ‘devoted to God.” When the two forms were desynonymized, the Hellenistic word naturally took a meaning from the Hebrew (through the LXX.) in malam partem, while the Attic form was used in a good sense. Comp. Luke xxi. 5, where only itis foundin N.T. This distinction was general, but not universal. Af- terwards the common patristic sense of our word undoubtedly was ‘‘excommunicated,” though sometimes accompanied with distinct execration. Jt cannot have this meaning here, for ‘‘an angel from heaven” is not open to excommunication, nor does N. T. usage favor such a signification. Comp. Rom. ix. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 8. See also TRencu, Syn. N. T. 35, Muvex, Exticort, Ligurroor.— This passage affords no warrant for ecclesiastical anathemas.. Such a practice presupposes the milder meaning, which is incorrect, and as milder, in itself forbids such anathematizing. It is ob- viously unfair to find in St. Paul’s language first, a reason for ecclesiastical ‘‘excommunication,” and then a warrant for ‘“anathematizing.”—R.]
Ver. 9. As we said before.—Referring pro- bably to his last visit, not to ver. 8.—The Apos- tle repeats the curse, which he has pronounced ver. 8, in order to show that he ‘‘speaks deli- berately.” Bzunazt. — [Notice that in ver. 8 the Apostle uses éév with the subjunctive: “though we, or an angel, should preach,” in ver. 9, ef with the indicative: “if any man preach,” appending the anathema in both cases. “In the former, a pure hypothesis is put for- ward, in itself highly improbable; in the latter a fact which had actually occurred and was oc- curring” (Licutroor). There is additional force in the change of subject: even Paul or an angel from heaven — did they do so — would be
20 THE EPISTLE TO
THE GALATIANS.
anathema, much more —any man, neither Apos- tle nor angel—is anathema, having done so.—R. ] Ver. 10. For am I now conciliating men ?—Explanation (yép) of the severity with which he demecans himself towards the false teachers by this repeated avdOcua. He does it, because he is concerned only for the favor of God, not that of men. It would be natural to understand “now” like ver. 9 of the time of the composition of the epistle. Yet on the other hand this limitation is not quite congruous to the general contents of the verse, it is therefore better to understand it more generally of the time of the Apostle’s conversion. [It seems more natural to regard ‘“‘now”’ as an emphatic taking up of “now” in ver. 9—‘‘now in what I have said.” Paul had not been a man-pleaser before conver- sion. If he had been charged with it among the Galatians, he was not so Now in what he had been writing.—R.]—Tleifecv—=to win over, to draw to one’s side by persuasion, whether directly by words or otherwise; here, in view of the refer- ence to God=to gain for one’s self, to win for one’s self as a friend.—’Apéoxev: sometimes to please, sometimes to be disposed to please, to live according to the pleasure of; the latter here. “Yet” goes back to the same time with “now.” “Vet,” a ¢., after my call to the apostleship, and all that has happened to me (Scmarr). ‘It is equivalent to ‘at this stage, at this late date’” (Ligurroot).—R.]—I should not be a serv- ant of Christ=could make no claim to this title. As a true servant of Christ, who dares not act to please men, I must, even though it should not. please men, judge with all sharpness and severity respecting those who subvert the gospel. ‘Servant of Christ”? is here doubtless to be taken in its official sense=could make no claim to the name of ateacher. With how much right Paul could say so of himself is shown, e. g., by 2 Cor. xi. 23 sq.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL.
1. Apostasy even in the early church. The glimpse of such scenes of the first Cliristian Church as our Epistle speaks of, and as are mentioned by anti- cipation in our section, is instructive, Even in such as had been brought to the faith by a Paul himself, u speedy lapse was possible, and yet he certainly fulfilled his office among them in the right way, and his activity was blessed. Even the best preaching cannot overcome the sinful nature of the human heart. This preserving and making steadfast in the truth, is a work of the Holy Ghost, and it goes on, just as growth is wont to do: through advances and fallings back on account of the opposing might of the flesh, according to the account of the Apostle himself. Chap. v. 17.
2. The false teachers. Deflections from evangeli- eal truth, however, are not on this account to be taken lightly; but on the contrary, very gravely, as the language of the Apostle in this passage shows. Paul had full justification in ultering a curse against the false teachers, and thus giving them over to everlasting destruction, in the wick. edness they committed with their false teaching ; which was a double one—1) against persons: they perplexed their consciences and brought them in danger of losing the salvation of their souls; 2)
against the cause: they went about to subvert the gospel of Christ. They made an attack on the sacred rights of believers, and their conduct was therefore worthy of a curse. That this curse does not flow from personal mortification, because they had rejected his teaching, Paul shows plainly by placing himself under the curse, in case he should teach differently. Besides, the anathema is, of course, aimed at this conduct of the false teachers in itself, and this sharp op- position by no means excluded the wish that they might themselves sec the error of their way, and themselves come to the knowledge of the evangelical truth. But this was not the place for saying this. He expresses himself with thorough earnestness against the false teachers, only to open the eyes of the Galatians, and to release them from the snares in which they had allowed themselves to be taken. Although in this earnestness he comes in conflict with men, he must do what beseems a servant of Christ: be zealous for Christ and the salvation of His people.
38. Pleasing. men. What Paul says, ver. 10, ap- pears to be opposite to 1 Cor. x. 33; but in 1 Cor. Paul speaks of things indifferent, in which a man may yield somewhat without wounding his con- science (comp. Rom. xv. 2). Here, however, he means sinful complaisance, where one fashions his doctrine and preaching according to the sense of men, in order thus to gain their favor. Te only then is a servant of Christ, who subordinates unconditionally pet hea of men to the favor of God, who in His official activity does not seek to make Himself pleasing to men, does not make this his object. When, however, from time to time — for uninterrupted it can never be — the favor of men falls to his lot, he is to receive it from God’s hand with thankfulness and humility, as a kind indulgence, which in his manifold con- flicts may be of value. That the servant of Christ must be on his guard, not to draw upon himself deservedly the ill-will of the world through pride aud self-will; that he is not in carnal temper to fly in the face of men, and hence that he must always examine well whether his zeal is a spiritual one, or is not becoming a carnal one, if it were not such from the begin- ning, is indeed self-evident, but cannot be carefully enough considered; as in general the theory of the relation of human and divine favor is tolerably simple, but the practice is very dif- ficult.
[4. Worpsworta: — Not to please men, be they never so many or great, out of flatness of spirit, so as, for the pleasing of them, either 1) To neglect any part of our duty towards God
and Christ; or,
2) To go against our own consciences, by doing any dishonest or unlawful thing; or,
8) To do them harm whom we would please, by confirming them in their errors, flattering them in their sins, humoring them in their pecvishness, or but even cherishing their weakness; for weakness, though it may be borne with, yet it must not be cherished,
But then, by yielding to their infirmities for a time, in hope to win them, by patiently expect~ ing their conversion or strengthening, by restor- ing them with the spirit of meekness, with meek-
CHAP. I. 6-10,
21
ness instructing them that oppose themselves, should we seek to please all men.—R. ]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL,
Ver. 1. “I marvel:’—is a word of apostolic wisdom.—Luruer:—St. Paul does not set upon the Galatians with vehement and terrifying words, but speaks in quite fatherly and friendly wise with them; and does not only soften down their fall and error, but excuses them also in a manner, yet so that he nevertheless also pun- ishes them. Therefore, of all sweet and mild words, he could hardly have chosen one more fit than when he says, ‘‘I marvel.””—Riresr :—In itself the preservation and perseverance of aman in good is more to be wondered at than when there is a stumbling or falling. But the Apostle says, ‘‘I marvel,” in order to express to them thereby the confidence of something better, which he has retained on their behalf, and to let them discover something of the hope, in which he stands, of begetting them again through the gos- pel unto their first faith.
Wirt. Summ. :—We are here reminded of our human weakness. We should endeavor to beso assured of divine truth in our own heart, as to be able to persevere therein, though even an angel would persuade us of something else, and the whole world would believe otherwise. Such perseverance is not in our power, however, but must be obtained from God through prayer and through diligent use of the divine word, which alone can make our walk steadfast.
“From him that called you by the grace of Christ unto another gospel.””—RingeR:—A ten- der description of the good work begun in them. A feeling contrast with the yoke which some would now lay upon their necks,—Srener:—Whogo- ever will no longer be saved simply through the grace of God in Christ falls away from the Father and the grace of Christ to another gospel, even though he holds the other articles of faith. For so soon as merit is mixed therewith, it is no more grace.
Apostasy from the truth: 1. how far not to be wondered at; 2. how far to be wondered at. —So soon alienated! 1. 4 word of grief, true
of so many; 2. a warning word, in relation to |
all.—aAn apostatizing tendency, or inconstancy a radical fault of the human heart: 1. sluggish and immovable, where it is of moment that it should move and apply itself; 2. so movable and unsteady where it should abide firm.—To turn ourselves from Him who hath called us: 1. go lightly done; 2. weighs yet so heavily.— Another Gospel! is the world’s cry; no other! must forever remain our answering testimony. Ver. 7. Spanen:—The gospel of Christ will not let itself be mixed with the doctrine of works, as if these were necessary to salvation; but as soon as this is done, the gospel is perverted.— Hepinenr:—More taught than God has thought, is to the gospel quite athwart. The false teach- ers will have Christ’s grace, to be sure, but something of their own works therewith. Gross error! Adding more destroys the store.— Stanxe:—Where Satan cannot persuade men to open sins, he seeks to perplex their consciences, and pervert the gospel, which is the only means
of salvation; in this too he very easily sue- ceeds, because the doctrine of works appears quite agreeable to the reason. .
Ver. 8. Luruzr:—It is not in vain that St. Paul sets himself first, and will, first of all, be accursed, if he shows himself horein worthy of it. For all excellent workmen are wont also thus to do, namely, to reprehend their own faults first, for then can they so much the more freely chide and censure the faults of others.— Spener:—No creature has authority to change anything in the gospel, or to add thereto, of however eminent rank, office, enlightenment, holi- ness, and miraculous power he may be. Not even the whole Church, nor her teachers, nor her councils and the like. If the change is made, no inquiry is needed; but it is to be reprobated, because it is new and another.—Lancr:—As the blessing coming out of the gospel is the most weighty and noble of all, s0 is the curse which rests upon the hindering of the blessing through falsifying the gospel, the greatest of all, one which remains forever upon soul and body.
Ver. 10. LurHer:—We cannot more hotly and bitterly anger the world than by attacking and condemning her wisdom, righteousness, ability, and powers. If we now reject and con- demn these highest gifts of the world, that is truly not to behave feigningly to the world, but to strive after hate and ill luck, and, moreover, to get both our hands full of the same. For if we condemn men with all their doings, it can never fail but that we must soon take our chance and bring upon ourselves such scorn and envy that we shall be persecuted, hunted, banished, condemned, and, very likely, even murdered.— Spener:—The sincerity of a teacher, when men see that his concern is alone to please God, and not men, is a strong ground for believing that his teaching is sound and pure.—Hepincer :— Just so! ‘Whoever in the church, in the state, in the family, serves men, fears and cowers be- fore men, and, for their sake, bends the right, flatters and fawns, has trifled away his best title—Christ’s servant and disciple. A thunder- stroke! Whose ears tingle not, when he hears it?—RizceR:—O God! preserve all thy servants, that no one, through pride and self-will, may draw persecution upon himself, and fly in the faces of men; but grant also that we may not count persecution, mocking, and contempt as tokens of our having betrayed the truth, but may view them and bear them as the marks in the forcheads of thine approved servants !
The earnestness with which Paul opposes the false teachers: 1. well founded, 2. very signi- ficant for us: should (a) withhold us from the reception of any unevangelical doctrine; (b) strengthen us in the certainty that the gospel, which we have, is the true one.—A curse upon him who preaches a false doctrine! 1. A fearfully earnest utterance; 2. yet pressingly necdful; 8. instructive for all that are waver- ing.—Let not every man undertake to be a teacher, but whoever is, let him take heed what he teaches.—The curse which Paul pronounces upon himself, if he should preach another gospel, is u token: 1. how high the gospel stands in his vicw; 2. how humbly he thinks of him- self (viewing himself only as a mere instrument,
22 THE EPISTLE TO
THE GALATIANS.
as a servant, who has to accomplish what his Master has commanded him).—Not the Church above the word, but the word above the Church ! —Two earnest questions: 1. Which seekest thou most, man’s favor or God’s favor? 2. Which is weightier, man’s favor or God’s favor? —Man’s favor or God’s favor? Choose: there is no third.—The right union of unsparingness and forbearance in our intercourse with men: an art of difficult attainment.—To be entirely un- sparing, and entirely forbearing, each in the right way, is the Christian’s duty in dealing with men.—Man’s disfavor, compared with God’s favor, as insignificant as wholesome, perfects us in humility, and impels us the more to assure ourselves of the favor of God.
On the whole section.—Lisco:—The curse of the Apostle against the false apostles: I. Whom it strikes: 1. Necessarily every one, without exception, who changes the blessing of the gospel into mischief, and so out of good pre-
pares for himself death; 2. those also who have deep insight, or other high qualities for serving the kingdom of God, and yet do not preach it purely; 8. even an angel himself, if he could preach another gospel. II. Why must it be ut- tered? 1. He who preaches the gospel must have a will thereby to serve, not men, but God; 2. through a false gospel men may, indeed, be attracted, but God views it as blasphemy; 3. therefore, he is placed under the curse, who will serve the gospel, and yet doing so a8 @ man- pleaser, is found an unfruitful servant of Christ.
The apostasy of believers: 1. is, alas, some- times a fact; 2. from what does it proceed? 8. how is it to be remedied ?—The Apostle’s de- meanor: 1. towards the misled: he makes a complaint and charge; but through it all the full tones of compassion and love are heard; 2. towards the misleaders: unsparingly stern even to denouncing a curse.—To fall away from the gospel is bad, but to subvert the gospel is worse.
I.
To DESTROY THE INFLUENCE WHICH THE FALSE TEACHERS HAD GAINED IN THE CHURCHES, PAUL REFUTES THEIR ATTACKS UPON HIS APOSTOLIC DIGNITY, AND PROVES THEREBY THE FULL AUTHORITY OF HIS PREACHING.
Cuaarter I, 11—II. 21.
1, To this end he appeals to the fact that he received his commission to declare the Gospel from God and Christ Himself through immediate revelation, not from the senior Apostles.
(Cap. i, 11-24.)
11 But I certify you [Now I declare unto you], brethren, that the gospel which was’ 12 preached of [2’, by] me is not after man. For I neither received [For neither did I receive}’ it of [from] man, neither was I taught it, but by [through] the [omit the] 13 revelation of [from] Jesus Christ. For ye have [omit have] heard of my conversa- tion in time past in the Jews’ religion [Judaism],‘ how that beyond measure I per- 14 secuted the church of God and wasted [was destroying] it: “And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals [And surpassed in Judaism many of my age] in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my 16 fathers [or my ancestral traditions]. But when it pleased God,’ who separated me 16 [set me apart]* from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in [within] me, that I might preach him among the heathen [Gentiles]; 17 immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up [away]? to Jerusalem to them which [who] were apostles before me; but I went [went away ] into 18 Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter [to make the acquaintance: of Cephas],° and abode with 19 him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none [I did not see], save 20 James the Lord’s brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, be- 21 fore God I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia ; 22 And [but] was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ: 23 But they had heard only [only they were hearing]," That he which persecuted ug in times past [who once persecuted us] now preacheth [is now reaching] the faith 24 which once he destroyed [was destroying]. And they glorified God in me.
CHAP, I, 11-24.
23
1Ver.11.—The Recepta yvw
tains ydp on the authority of B. F. and a few others; 8€ is ado “Now I declare unt
of &, A. D233. K. L. and most versions. the same.—R.]
hanger i 8 Ver. 12.—[The genitive 4Ver.18.—[lovdaion 5Ver. 13.—[The sense of the imporfect, The same change in ver. 23.—R.
6Ver. 14.-—-[Schaff thus renders it. means “ contemporaries.”—R.]
TVer.15.—O @eé5 of Rec. is rejected by Tischendorf, and bracketted by Lachmann.
"lycot Xptorod isa subjective genitive. See Exzg. @ is better rendered literally. So in ver. 14,—R.)
émép0ouy, is best expressed thus. Schaff renders: “Jabored to destroy.”
pigw &éis well attested, adopted by Lachmann and latter] y by Tischendorf. [Alford re- pted by Wordsworth, Ellicott and Lightfoot, on theeete © you” is taken from HE. V.,1 Cor. xv.1, where the Greek ig
2 Ver. 12.—[Ellicott’s rendering given above, is an alteration mad that the first negative is not strictly correlative to the second. fc
to retain the emphasis on “I,”
1 and to indi “From” instead of “ moe
of,” in conformity with modern Nores.—R.]
The E. V. is unusually unsatisfactory here; the dnag Aeyéuevor, guy nALKLOTAsS
N. has the words [so also A. D.
K.1L., many cursives and versions; retained by Ellicott, Wordsworth. There are paradiplomatic reasons for retaining it ,
but if a gloss, undoubtedly a correct one.—R.
8 Ver. 15.—[‘‘ Separated” has a local sense not intended here.—R.]
9 Ver. 17.
reading.—R.
10 Ver. 18.—Instead of Iérpov (Rec.), Kn day is to be read, as also in ii. 9, 11,
7 f the two readings a vA 60 v (Rec.) and dam A@ov, ferable on internal grounds. Not only does the latter give a more at oe the srmeL betrays ieelt as a correction from the fact journey to Jerusalem, as in ver. 18. Wieseler. SX. has dvqA8ov. [adopted by Tischendort.
@ov; adopted by Lachmann, Meyer, Wieseler, Alford, Biheotks 4 ‘4 ee ta
about equally attested, the second is decidedly pre- formal and sharper antithesis; o¥5& dm7A@ov—aAda that dvépyouar or dvaPaivw is generally used of the 1 I . have amja- Lightfoot is doubtful. “Went away” follows the latter
14. Soalso%. The Hebrew name was
suppressed by the Greek gloss, hence in il. 7, 8, where Paul himself wrote the Greek name, the variation Kndas is not found
[So all modern editors. ‘lo70p%oaa. means more than to see, Ui Ver, 23,—[The English text has been amended to bring out
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL.
Ver. 11. Now I declare unto you—not after man.—(Literally: “I make known unto you as respects the gospel, the one preached by me, that it is not according to man.”—R.] To the warm burst of feeling succeeds the composed statement of reasons. Accordingly we have the formal yvwpifo, and the address ‘‘brethren,”’ which also shows that Paul, although in the in- troduction he.gives no peculiar title of honor to the Galatian Christians, feels himself to be still standing in the fraternal relation to them. He takes this as his starting point with them, be- cause his aim in what follows is to bring them back and win them again from their error. He first justifies his preceding rebuke by the dis- tinct and formal assurance that his teaching is not of man. Of course this was not something en- tirely new to the church, yet it had, doubtless, been at first a merely tacit presupposition in connection with the Apostle’s preaching, without having been expressly emphasized: hence the yropilw ; after it had been called in question, it must be definitely affirmed.
The gospel which was preached by me is most naturally referred to the preaching of the gospel among the Galatians, although self-evidently the same declaration was of gen- eral validity.—Ov cata &v@pwror literally: “not according to man,” not after the fashion of man, not man’swork. This applies notimmediate- ly to its origin, but to its character, which how- ever is especially and primarily conditioned by its origin (ver. 12). The sequel shows the phrase to be nearly equivalent in sense to “scholastic” [schulmdssig ].
Ver. 12. For neither did I receive it of man, neither was I taught it.— “Neither did 1” —any more than the Twelve. By the denial of any human origin of his gospel he asserts his equal rank with the other Apostles. The sentence receives a simple exposition when compared with ver. 1, which it more closely explains. The first and negative part: ‘neither did I receive it from man, neither was I taught it,” is an explanation of ‘not of men, neither through man,” while the second
“to visit, to make the acquaintance of.”"—R.] the force.of the Greek imperfects. —R.]
part, ‘but through revelation from Jesus Christ,” isan explanation of ‘through Jesus Christ and God the Father,” which is afterwards made yet more definite (vers. 15, 16).—[Licurroor: The idea of the preposition (tap) is sufficiently easy include both the dmé and did of ver.
Through revelation from Jesus Christ. —This is commonly explained as merely a giving of instruction respecting the contents of the gospel, and there is then a difficulty as to when Christ gave to Paul this dmo- kadAvwpec, discovery. Here ’Iyoov Xpicros is taken as gen. subj. =the revelation which Jesus Christ gave. Muvyer explains it of reve- lations received soon after the event near Da- mascus, of which, however, there is no mention in the Acts. Others, with reason, refuse to as- sume any:such revelations, but explain the ‘ re- velation” as identical with the actual appearance of Christ on the way to Damascus, through which Paul received certainty of that which is precisely the essence of the gospel, namely, ‘«Jesus the Son of God.” They are led to this, moreover, by a just instinct, that it is not the developed contents of that which Paul taught, that is here in question. This explanation, therefore,.is quite correct, and Paul’s reference here is solely to the fact of that appearance on the way. Yet he has in view chiefly, not a re- ceiving of instruction thereby, but his call to the apostleship itself, for this was a call ‘to preach the gospel” (see also ver. 18), and therefore a “receiving the gospel.” The expression, that he had received the gospel through revelation from Jesus Christ, has primarily the simple meaning, that through this he had been called and appointed to preach, In the phrase ‘through revelation,” etc., "Iycot Xpiorov is at all events the subjective genitive, for Christ is in any case to be regarded as active in the installation of the Apostle (ver. 1), and hence in his call to preach. ‘As the object of this ‘‘revelation’” we are to understand not the contents of the gospel, but more simply Christ Himself, hence it is—by Christ’s revealing Himself to me.—This view is, it ig true, in apparent contradiction to the “taught” immediately preceding, which seems to point to a definitely developed doctrine, but
24 THE EPISTLE TO
THE GALATIANS,
ae
only in apparent contradiction. It is only in the negative that he speaks of ‘being taught ;” in order to deny most entirely the human calling to preach, Paul denies also the * being taught ;”’ he did not, he says, first receive in a course of school instruction, his equipment, authorization and capacity to preach, hence not ina secondary, derived manner, as a scholar (of the Apostles). Over against this human origin, Paul now sim- ply asserts his “revelation from Jesus Christ” which need not be complemented by ‘ taught”— an expression in itself awkward too—but merely by ‘received.”—In what immediately follows it is not “through revelation from Jesus Christ,” so much as the negative ‘neither was I taught it,” that is proven. For in vers. 15, 16, where “through revelation” has to be touched, it is mentioned properly only as a historical notice, in order to wark the transition from the first period of his life to the second, hence only in the subordinate clause. From this, however, the conclusion cannot of course be drawn; “I was taught through revelation from Jesus Christ;” for this reason first, that then we should expect a detailed statement of this posi- tive side. But all that was to be said on the posi- tive side, had been said already in the short 0?’ aro- KaAbpewo Lyoov Xpeorov because herea simple fact only was in question; on the other hand the ‘‘re- ceived from man” and ‘‘taught” could have taken place in many ways and at different times, might have been of long continuance; and on this ac- count the demonstration was needed that there had been no point of time whatever, when such instruction from the senior Apostles (whom he has in mind throughout in ‘from man’’), could have taken place, since at first he has been hostile to Christianity, and after his calling had never lived in intercourse with the senior Apostles, though at the same time he had already preached the gospel. And, he proceeds to sayin chap. ii., when. afterwards, he was once somewhat longer with them, he then appeared as a fully equal Apostle, and was so acknowledged; hence there could no longer be any talk of his occupying the place of a pupil.
[Since the design of the Apostle in what fol- lows is to prove that his doctrine as well as his apostleship was God-given, that He was “taught of God,” it seems more natural to refer ‘‘revela- tion from Jesus Christ,” to instruction as well as to calling to the apostleship. WorpsworrTHa calls attention to the force of dad, which he considers 10 be here ‘‘except” ‘save’—‘ nor was I tanght it except by revelation.’”” He was Geodidaxrog. And this view is further sustained by the omission of the article before the noun, which is not rendered definite either by the geni- tive following or by the fact that there was but one revelation (Paul undoubtedly had many). To what instructive revelation does he refer ? Undoubtedly to that on the way to Damascus, but not to that exclusively. Nor to any partic- ular revelation soon after his conversion (Agui- nas, Mryer, Exuicott, Atrorp, who suggest the sojourn in Arabia, ver. 17, ag the probable time); but to the revelation on the way to Da- mascus as ‘‘the fundamental and central illumina- tion,” ‘followed by special revelation” at differ- ent periods of his life. Comp. Acts xxii. 17;
xxiii 11; 1 Cor. xi. 18; 2 Cor. xii. 1 sq. ; Gal. ii. 2. Scwarr. Schmoller’s view on this point colors his notes on the entire section.—R. ]
Ver. 13. For ye heard of my conversa- tion in time past, etc.—How far this statement is meant to confirm the previous proposition (7ép), has just been indicated. Perhaps, how- ever, he also emphasizes his former Jewish zeal, with particular reference to his Judaistic oppo- ‘sers. He wishes thereby to call attention to the fact that his present anti-Judaistic position does not result from any want of acquaintance with Judaism, but that, on the contrary, it rests upon only too intimate an acquaintance with it.
‘Tovdaiowdc¢: the word in itself, it is true, signifies nothing more than the Jewish religion ;' yet Paul, in this connection, evidently throws more meaning into it, joining with it the addi- tional idea: Jewish zealotism. Only thus isa proper meaning given to ‘‘ surpassed in Judaism” (ver. 14). This again finds its explanation in how that beyond measure I persecuted, etc. “‘ He was really engaged in the work of destruc- tion, not merely in that of disturbance.” MEYER.
Ver. 14. In mine own nation. — Liter- ally ‘‘race,” the people are regarded as a single race, descending from the same ancestor. —My ancestral traditions :—not the Pharisaic tradi- tions or the Mosaic law, together with those traditions, but teachings which the fathers of the collective people held (see WirsELER). The phrase: ‘the traditions of my fathers,” in itself, describes only the doctrinal and ritual definitions respecting the Jewish worship which then ob- tained, though, of course, resting on the Mosaic law as their foundation. But Paul, in calling himself a zealot, who surpassed many of his contemporaries, has undoubtedly in view chiefly his observance of these usages according to the peculiarly strict rule of Pharisaism. [Scwarr: “The word reapddoorc, ‘tradition,’ which figures so prominently in the Roman Catholic contro- versy, in the general sense, embraces everything which is taught and handed down, either orally or in writing, or in both ways, from generation to generation; in the particular sense it may be used favorably of the divine doctrine, and even of Christianity itself, as is the case 1 Cor. xi. 2 (E. V. ‘ordinances’ instead of ‘traditions’); 2 Thess. ii.15; iii. 6, or unfavorably of the human additions to, and perversions of the re- ligion of the Old or New ‘Testament, in which case it is generally more clearly defined as the traditions ‘of the elders’ or ‘of men,’ as Matt. xxv. 2; Mark vii. 3, 5, 8; Col. ii. 8. In our pas- sage it means the whole Jewish religion, or mode of worship, divine and human; but in the Phari- saic sense, as opposed to Christianity.” Liqur- root’s paraphrase is excellent; ‘My early edu- cation is a proof that I did not receive the gospel fromman. I was brought up in a rigid school of ritualism, directly opposed to the liberty of the gospel. Iwas from age and temper w staunch adherent of the principles of that school. Act ing upon them, I relentlessly persecuted the Christian brotherhood. No human agency, there- fore, could have brought about the change. It required a direct interposition from God.”—R.
Vers. 15, 16. But when it pleased God.
—In the interest of his demonstration of the in-
CHAP. I. 11-24.
25
dependence of his apostolate, as respects men, he here studiously emphasizes the activity of God in conferring it, going back even to the di- vine ordination thereto at bis very conception. [Licurroor: “Observe how words are accumu- lated to tell upon the one point on which he is insisting—the sole agency of God as distinct from his own efforts.”—R. |—From my moth- er’s womb—when he was yet in his mother’s womb, he was already set apart as an Apostle. [Scnarr: ‘‘Comp. Jerem. i. 6; Isa. xlix.1. The decree of redemption is eternal as God’s love and omniscience, but its temporal realization begins in each individual case with the natural birth, and more properly with the gospel call and the spiritual birth. He refers, however, here more particularly to his call to the apostleship, for which he was ‘set apart’ or destined, elected and dedicated by a Divine act. Comp. the same term, Rom. i. 1; Acts xiii. 2.”—R.]—His calling followed afterwards near Damascus. Inthe Acts, Christ’s appearance only is mentioned; here Paul takes up the event with a more doctrinal reference, and hence refers this appearance to its first cause, God. This, of course, implies no discrepancy with the narrative of the Acts.— Although appearances favor sucha view, “called” does not denote an earlier act, preceding the revelation (ver. 16) which, therefore, refers to subsequent revelations (Mryrr). [The aorist participle, xaAécac, in this connection, at first sight, seems to refer to an act prior to the ‘“‘rey- elation,” not, however, necessarily long before. It does not mean a ‘‘calling” in the Divine mind, as some infer from its connection with ‘‘set apart ;”’ but most probably the Divine act which, ‘““by means of His grace,” resulted immediately in his conversion, when the revelation was made. Exxicott: ‘‘ The moving cause of the call was the Divine pleasure; the mediating cause, the bound- less grace of God; the instrument, the heaven- sent voice” or revelation; the purpose of the setting apart, the call and the revelation alike was, ‘that I might preach him among the Gen- tiles.” ‘To reveal” depends on ‘ pleased,” not on ‘called.”—R. ]
So then ‘‘reveal” is only the explanation of the ‘‘calling ;” more precisely: there is thereby indicated what took place at the calling, namely, the enlightenment and conviction then effected. For this reason also, because the calling comes into mention only as respects its result, he speaks only of revealing ‘“‘His Son within me.” Ac- cordingly Paul, in this passage, indeed, says nothing of having had an outward appearance of Christ. But, that Paul, in the expression, to reveal his Son within me, was thinking of a definite, individual fact, which was connected with a definite locality, the city or the neighbor- hood of the city of Damascus, and not of a purely internal event, appears most clearly from what follows ver. 17, ‘‘returned again.” <‘‘Had the event of his conversion been a purely inward one, his recollection of the locality where it oc- curred would not, more than twenty years after, have still forced itself so strongly into the fore- ground that, in describing only the general inner result of that revolution, he would have been constrained at once to think of Damascus.” Parer, Jahrbiicher fiw deutsche Theologie, 1858,
Hi. 1. Furthermore and principally, the whole proof which Paul here brings for his apos- tolic parity rests upon the fact that he had really and truly had an appearance of the Risen One. ‘TI have not been called by men, but just ‘as truly as the older Apostles, by Christ Himself to be an Apostle,” is his fundamental thought: how could he be thinking on a mere internal event, a vocation by Christ only in spirit? With that, instead of his equality, his difference from the others would have been established. There- fore, if any conclusion is justified, it is this: Paul has here in his eye the event related in the Acts; presupposing, however, the outward oc- currence as well known, he avails himself only of that element of it which has pertinence here, namely, that he was inwardly enlightened con- cerning Christ, that Christ was revealed to his inner eye, to faith. Of his conversion in itself, Paul does not speak here, or only so far as it was a condition of his capacity for the apostle- ship, as through it the ‘calling ” to be an Apos- tle became.a reality. He dates his calling, therefore, from the moment of his conversion. Therefore, he continues: that I might preach him among the Gentiles.—Him whom God has revealed to him as His Son, he was, and is still (therefore the present), to declare as such; this is the gospel which he received ‘through reve- lation from. Jesus Christ” (ver. 12), this «the gospel which was preached by me” (ver. 11).— "Ev toic é@veccv: among the Gentile nations, therefore év,'not the dative. For Paul preached not merely to the Gentiles, but among the Gen- tile nations, first to the Jews dwelling among them, and only then to the heathen themselves.
Immediately I conferred not with flesh. and blood.—Ew@é we, of course, belongs strictly not to the negative sentence immediately follow- ing, but to the affirmative sentence: ‘went away into Arabia,” it does not, however, exclude a brief previous activity in Damascus, since the. Apostle was.only concerned to prove that he did not go oul from Damascus in any other direction. than Arabia, and particularly that he did not go to Jerusalem.—‘‘I conferred not,” I addressed: no communication to flesh and blood, in order to receive instruction and direction—‘flesh and. blood ;” here merely—one clothed with a mor- tal body, therefore in sense equivalent simply to. —Man. The conception is thus strongly ex- pressed, because Man appears here in antithesis with God.
Ver. 17. Neither went I away to Jerusa- lem to them who were apostles before me.—This is the only distinction which he con- cedes between himself and them.—Into Arabia. “This Arabian journey is to be regarded as his first essay of foreign labor, and it is, by ed0éwe, put in connection with the purpose of the divine: revelation, that he should preach the gospel among the heathen.”—(Mzyer). Yet I would not on this account wholly reject the other con- jectures that have been offered as to the purpose of this journey, such as seeking protection from the Jews, “severing himself from pressure of the national spirit,” and partially also, perhaps: to prepare himsclf in stillness for his work.— This journey into Arabia is not mentioned in the: Acts, probably because it was of short duration:
26
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
and therefore perhaps not known to Luke; it is, with most probability, placed in the time of the “many days,” Acts ix. 28; the flight from Da- mascus must therefore be placed at the end of this second visit there. [Two questions arise:
l. as to the place; 2. the odject of this sojourn. |
1. Although “the desert region about Damas- cus’? may have been the place (since Justin in- cludes Damascus in Arabia, and Xenophon ap- plies the name to the region beyond the Euphrates, Anab, I. 5), yet Paul is always more definite in his geographical statements than most ancient au- thors, and as in the only other place where Arabia is mentioned in the N. T. (Gal. iv. 25), it must mean the Sinaitic peninsula, it seems de- cidedly preferable to refer it to that locality in this case. Besides, as Liautroor well remarks, any other view “deprives this visit of a signi- ficance which, on a more probable hypothesis, it possesses in relation to this crisis of St. Paul’s life.” If iv. 25 refers to ‘‘ Hagar” as the Arabic name of Sinai, the argument is conclusive, for he was not likely to have heard this name any- where but on the spot. If it be a mere geogra- phical remark, then it is a very indefinite one, granting that Paul here uses ‘‘Arabia’”’ with so extended a signification. 2. ‘Paul’s object in this residence in Arabia, as seems most probable from the context, was not to preach the gospel— but to enjoy a season of undisturbed preparation sfor his high and holy calling. This period, therefore, belongs more properly to the history of the Apostle’s inward life; and this affords the -eimplest explanation of the silence of the book of Acts respecting it. It was for him a sort of ‘substitute for the three years’ personal inter- «course with the Lord, enjoyed by the other Apos- itles””’ (Scuarr, Apostolic Church, p. 286). This view of the odject confirms the opinion that the Sinaitic peninsula was the locality. Where Moses and Elijah had been before him, Paul went. “Thus in the wilderness of Sinai, as on the mount of transfiguration, the three dispensations met in one;”’ Law, Prophecy and Gospel; Moses, Elijah and Paul. Comp. Licurroor, p. 87 sq.; Staney, Sinai and Palestine, p. 50.—R. |
Ver. 18. Then after three years.—To be reckoned probably from his calling to the apos- tleship; for he means: I did not go up at once to Jerusalem, but only three years after. This is the first journey of Paul to Jerusalem, Acts ix.26.—'lorop joac K.=in order to become per- sonally acquainted with Cephas, not: in order to obtain instruction from him. The more precise expression is therefore designedly chosen.—Fif- teen days.—Had it been in itself possible that Paul at this time received instruction, still a ‘course, of instruction strictly so called, a school- ing under the senior Apostles would not have been possible in’ so short a time. Hence the length of his stay is expressly mentioned. [Nor does the singling out of Peter prove anything more than his prominence among the Twelve; Paul puts himself on a par with all the Apostles, including Peter.—R.]
Ver. 19. But other of the apostles I did not see.—‘“‘Apostle’’ must be taken in the strict sense of the Twelve, since it is precisely his parity with these that Paul wishes to make out. Therefore James the Lord’s brother is either
to be reckoned among the Apostles and identified with James, the son of Alpheus, and so “brother” to be taken in the sense of ‘‘ cousin 3? or “(gave (et w#) is to be referred only to “ I did not see” ==another one of the apostles I did not see, but I saw only James. Grammatically the former is decidedly the less difficult; but the identifica- tion with James, the gon of Alpheus, is attended with great difficulties. Comp. WIEsELER in loco. Besides this impression is evidently conveyed, that Paul by the special addition he appends to the name, wishes to distinguish this James from the Apostles, not to include him in their number. For this reason the second interpretation is to be preferred. Although not an Apostle, this James could still be mentioned by Paul, as is done here, along with the Twelve, because he had a standing well-nigh apostolic. Respecting the question how the James mentioned chap. ii. 9, is related to this James, see remarks on that passage. ‘The notice that at that time Paul only saw Peter and James in Jerusalem, does not conflict with the indefinite rov¢ aroardAove, Acts ix. 27, but authentically defines it.” Mzyrzr.
[The interpretation turns upon the much dis- cussed question what is meant by ‘‘the brethren of the Lord,” for unless this James can be iden- tified with James, the son of Alpheus, he is not an Apostle. The view of LigHTFooT, ALFORD and others that he might be an Apostle, and yet not of the Twelve, seems altogether untenable. Only one point is undisputed: This James is the one who was frequently called by the church fathers ‘“‘bishop of Jerusalem,” and also ‘the Just.” Whether he were an Apostle, whether he wrote the general Epistle, whether referred to again in this Epistle, are open questions. Without entering into an extended discussion, it will suffice to mention the leading views and their bearing on this passage, referring the reader to special dissertations. There are three principal theories. That the brethren of the Lord were 1.'the sons of Joseph and Mary; 2. the sons of Joseph by a former wife; 3. the cousins of our Lord, either the sons of the Virgin’s sister, or the sons of Joseph’s brother, etc. 1 and 2 are the older views; 3 originated with Jerome.— On this latter theory alone can we identify James, the brother of our Lord, with James, the son of Alpheus, for the other theories imply that Joseph, not Alpheus, was his father. But this theory is with difficulty supported, for not only did it originate in an attempt to justify and thus enjoin virginity in man as well as woman, but it has always been forced to call to its aid mere conjectures. Hence, if it be rejected, our verse means that Paul saw none other of the Apostles, but he did see the Lord’s brother. To which view we are in a measure forced also by the statement: of John (vii. 5: ‘neither did his brethren believe in him’’) after the twelve were chosen. Comp. John vi. 67, where “the twelve” are spoken of. That his brethren were after. wards believers is stated (Acts i. 14, where they are mentioned in distinction from the Apostles) ; the reason of the so speedy conversion may be found in 1 Cor. xv. 7, if “James,” of whom ‘he was seen,” be distinguished from “the twelve” (ver. 5) and ‘all the Apostles” in the same verse.
CHAP. I. 11-24,
27
As between 1 and 2, it may be remarked, that it seems more natural to consider the brethren of our Lord the sons of Mary, were it not for two reasons, first, the instinctive repugnance (Jos. App. ALEXANDER) to such o view, and secondly, the fact that the dying Saviour committed His mother to another than these brethren, a strange fact, were they her own sons. Still these are not insuperable objections. The whole ques- tion is an open one, and it was only necessary to discuss it here so far as to decide upon the meaning of this particular passage. The reader is referred to Lanar’s Commentary, Matthew, p- 256 sq., where Lanaz defends the modified cousin- theory, and Scuarr advocates at length the first view stated above. Also to Lanau’s Commentary, James, p. 98q.; Scuarr, Monograph on James, Berlin, 1842; Anrorp, Prolegomena, Epistle of James. Comp. the authorities quoted by these writers. The best classification and history of opinions will be found in Liautroot, Disseriat. IL, p. 247 sq., which has been freely used in the above remarks. He, however, defends the sec- ond theory. As regards this passage, it seems on the whole best to consider this James—1. as not identical with the son of Alpheus; 2. as not an Apostle. Both points are involved in the exegesis of the passage, but as ci uf is susceptible of either interpretation, these results must be reached on other than grammatical grounds. The grounds for the above opinions cannot be stated at length, but may be found in the more extended discussions. —R.
en ‘Paul’s meeting with Peter and James. Peter cordially received him,—< Fif- teen days ;’ ample time for Peter to have seen what I was, and to have proclaimed me to the world as a deceiver, if the Gospel which I preached was not consistent with hisown. Therefore they who cavil at me involve Peter also in the charge of conniving at error and delusion.”” But thus in- dicating his respect for Peter and James, “he wisely guards himself against any imputations on the part of his Judaizing adversaries, that he, a new Apostle, was liable to the charge of dispa- raging the original Apostles of Christ. And he prepares the way for what he is about to say in the next chapter concerning his resistance to St. Peter.”—R. ]
Ver. 20. Now the things which I write unto you.—Ver. 20 contains a solemn assev- eration, which has its ground in the importance of the account just given for the Apostle’s pur- pose, namely, to prove his own apostolic dignity.
[Ver. 21. Into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;—No mention is made of his going into Syria in the narrative in the Acts, but he is said to have been brought down to Cesarea, and sent forth to Tarsus (in Cilicia), where Barnabas afterwards went to seek him (Acts ix. 80; xi. 25). There is no discrepancy. Paul may have gone to Antioch on his way to Cilicia, or returned that way in his labors before Barnabas came for him; or the expression here may be indefinite, since ‘Syria and Cilicia’ appears in history al- most as a generic geographical term, the more important district being mentioned first. Comp. Cony. and Howson. I. pp. 104, 105. Lanas’s Comm., Acts, p. 182.—R.]
Ver. 22. And I was unknown,—This re-
mark also belongs to the proof that he had not been a disciple of the Apostles, for had he stood in near connection with them, he could not but have become known to the churches of Judea.— The churches of Judea, i. c., outside of Jerusalem. [The phrase which are in Christ Jesus, doubtless means “which are incorpo- rated with Him who is the head” (Euxicorr), yet it is also used to distinguish the bodies of be- lievers from other bodies, of Jews, for example. ALrorD: ‘By thus showing the spirit with which the churches of Judea were actuated toward hin, he marks more strongly the contrast hetween them and the Galatian Judaizers.’”—R.
Ver. 23. Is now preaching the faith.— ILicrec here also not—=Christian doctrine [it being very doubtful, as Exuicorr remarks, whether niorec ever hasin the N. T., this more distinctly objective sense, 80 frequent in ecclesiastical writers. See also the valuable note of LicHtroor, p- 152, sq. on the word « faith.”—R.], but= Faith; he preached that men should believe, as well as, of course, what they should believe. Formerly he sought by persecution to hinder men from believing in Christ, that is, he was destroy- ing it; ¢.¢., Faith.
Ver, 24. In me.—Paul is not only regarded as the occasion of the praise, but as the founda- tion on which their faith rested. «With this impression which Paul then made upon the con- gregations in Judea, the hateful plotting of the Judaizers in Galatia against him stood in striking contrast. Therefore the added clause.” MEYER. [Exuicorr: ‘‘The preposition in such cases as the present, points to the object as being, as it were, the sphere in which, or the substratum on which the action takes place.”—R. ]
DOOTRINAL AND ETHICAL.
1. How Paul was taught. A right understand- ing of ver. 12, according to which Paul here de- nies only that his calling and preparation to be an Apostle (a preacher of the gospel) was through men, is by no means inconsistent with assuming, as in any case is necessary, that Paul learned the historical particulars of the life of Jesus not by immediate intuition, but through the testimony of men, as indeed the Apostle in other passages uuhesitatingly expresses the traditional charac- ter of his historical knowledge, as in I Cor. xv. 1; ix. 14; vii. 10, 25; also xi. 23. Comp. on this the instructive article of Part, ‘Paul and Jesus.” Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie B. 3, H. 1, 1858. ‘The passage in the Galatians,” re- marks Paret, ‘‘ becomes, in fact, first fairly in- telligible by assuming as above. Just because Paul was remitted, in respect to particulars, to the testimony of others, could his opposers make the attempt to represent his whole knowledge and teaching, and ultimately his faith in Jesus itself, as something merely derivative, to con- struct the whole man, as it were, out of purely external Christian influences, human in imme~ diate origin, and thereby to depress him in the esteem of his churches below:the Apostolic eleva- tion, to place him on one level with common Christians, and to dispute his right to make valid decisions in the domain of doctrine and discipline.
If his antagonists thus made this one side promi-
28 THE EPISTLE TO
THE GALATIANS.
nent, in a one-sided, unintelligent way, Paul was constrained, accordingly, to bring the other side forward in the strongest light: to show that it was not from men or through any man that he from a peisecutor had become an Apostle, but through Jesus Christ Himself, whom he had seen alive; that his gospel was not a school task got by heart, but rested upon a revelation of Jesus.” But according to the representation of the course of events in our chapter, according to which Paul for three years did not come at all, and then came only for a very short time, into contact with the senior Apostles, we must assume that he did not derive even his knowledge of the his- torical particulars of the life of Jesus from these, but from other Christians; possibly from Ana- nias. In view of the attack which his apostolic rank suffered, compared with that of the senior Apostles, even this circumstance is of moment to him, although it was not from the beginning pre- cisely the result of design.
[It will appear from the exegetical notes on yer. 12, how labored an effort is required to sup- port the view, that Paul does not intend to assert here that he had learned his gospel through re- velation from Jesus Christ. Of course on any theory of inspiration, save that mechanical one, which ignores the human element, it will be ad- mitted that Paul learned the facts of the lite and death. of Christ from human lips; but that must be a narrow view of the gospel as Paul preached it, which could limit his ‘“‘being taught it” to such human statements. ‘Paul does not mean here the outward historical information concern- ing the life of Christ, but the internal exhibition of Christ to his spiritual sense as the Messiah, and the only and all-sufficient Saviour of the world, and the unfolding of the true import of Tlis death and resurrection; in other words the spiritual communication of the gospel system of saving truth as taught by him in his sermons and Epistles” (Scuarr). Itis more in accordance both with Paul’s argument here, and with the actual phenomena of his history to believe that after the revelation on the way to Damascus there were ‘subsequent special disclosures of the Spi- rit, respecting single points of Christian doctrine and practice; for we are to conccive the inspira- tion of the Apostles in general as not merely an act, done once for all, but a permanent influence and state, varying in strength as occasion re- quired” (Scuarr). Eriicorr very judiciously remarks: ‘“‘On the one hand we may reverently presume that all the fundamental truths of the Gospel would be fully revealed to St. Paul before he commenced preaching; so, on the other, it might have been ordaincd, that (in accordance with the laws of our spiritual nature) its deeper mysteries and profounder harmonies should be seen and felt through the practical experiences of his apostolical labors.”—R.]
2. Lhe Revelation from Jesus Christ. Paul has been called by the Lord Himself to the apostle- ship, as well as the other Apostles, with the sin- gle exception that they were called by the Lord in His state of humiliation, he by the Lord in His state of exaltation; this is the fundamental truth, which stands to the Apostle immovably firm, and on which he founded the whole proof of his apostolic parity. There can therefore be no doubt
And very naturally.
that he was conscious of an objective appearance of Christ, in the well known occurrence on the way to Damascus, and we have in the decision with which Paul himself in this doctrinal trea- tise, in opposition to hostilely disposed antago- nists, asserts this immediateness of his calling through Christ, the simplest and surest proof for the historical character of the narrative respect- ing the conversion of Paul contained in the Acts. For, as has been already remarked in the exegesis, we are of course not to think of a merely internal vocation—a calling in spirit. Such a notion would take away from the proof which Paul is setting forth its very ground and foundation. It is true that in it a spiritual operation, an operation of the Spirit of God upon the mind of the Apostle, also took place (‘‘to reveal within me”’), but on- ly in consequence of the objective outward appear- ance of Christ. This itself was, first of all, the de- ciding and penetrating power; upon it all turned. That Christ had risen and was living, became by means of this at once a cer- tainty to Paul. This, however, involved almost necessarily that total revolution of all his views and of the direction of his life, which followed. For Paul was a man who even previously stood upon the foundation of Israelitish faith, and whose faith in the Messiah was in itself steadfast, and who had even been misled by this to take his hostile position against Jesus and His cause, un- der the delusion that the dignity of Messiah was claimed for Him presumptuously. So much the more overpowering must the impression of the actual appearance of Christ, who was thereby manifested as risen and exalted to Heaven, have been upon him. This was a sudden collapse of the system held fast with so much zeal, a sudden conviction of the nothingness of that persuasion to which he had so energetically clung, and, moreover, a conviction through fact, against which therefore there was nothing more to object. As it would have been almost incomprehensible if that effect had not followed, which did follow, so on the other hand this effect presupposes the definite cause which is related in the Acts, and indicated by the Apostle himself in this passage. [That the conversion of Paul must necessarily follow the actual appearance of Jesus Christ to him, is not to be assumed in order to establish the fact of such appearance; for as in the nar- rative prominence is given to the actual revela- tion to Paul, here the stress is laid by the Apostle himself on the other fact, the revelation of Christ within him; both facts are essential in accounting for the conversion of Paul, and for Christianity it- self.—R.] That the Apostle in this passage by “re- velation from Christ,” ‘to reveal His Son within me,” means primarily only the external revelay tion at his conversion is, of course, not incon. sistent with his having received subsequent rev- elations, such as that mentioned in Acts xxii. 17, which, however, as an elvac év éxordoet, appears to be distinguished from that first fundamental one, or such as are alluded to in 2 Cor. xii., and be- sides immediately afterwards in this Epistle ii. 2. (Comp. 1 Tim. i. 13).
3. The calling of Paul. The conversion of Paul according to his own representation is to be viewed essentially as a call to the apostleship. Although at the same time his conversion was of course for
CHAP. I. 11-24.
29
him personally, of the greatest moment, and un- doubtedly the condition of his apostolic activity (comp. 1 Tim. i. 14), yet strictly speaking the ap- pearance on the way to Damascus had as its end the calling to the apostleship as well, and not mere- ly his personal conversion to Christianity. Indeed, according to the Apostle’s own conception, the eighth chapter of Acts would be better entitled: The Calling of Paul. In this relation of the event to the whole church—inasmuch as it spe- cially concerned the calling of an Apostle, that which is extraordinary in it, namely, the reve- lation of Christ finds its explanation. This event appears also as a call to the apostleship accord- ing to the representation of the Apostle in Acts ix. 15; xxii. 15; xxvi. 17, that is, it was first made known to Ananias, but in immediate con- nection with the wonderful scene, so that the purpose of the latter cannot be mistaken, and Paul, before Herod Agrippa, Acts xxvi. 17, could speak of the message which was communi- cated to him by the mouth of Ananias, as an im- mediate message of Jesus to himself. The defi- nite direction to preach the gospel among the Gentiles, Paul first received, according to Acts xxii..21, during his first visit to Jerusalem. Yet even the first commission he received, pointed in a very distinct manner to the Gentiles, so that from the very beginning his call as Apostle of the Gentiles, in distinction from the other Apos- tles, was firmly established. So far, therefore, Paul is not to be reckoned with them, as thir- teenth or indeed as twelfth (if the choice of Mat- thias be considered a premature one), but he stands beside them, in a certain measure over against them, with a special calling; only in the originality of his apostleship he is not inferior to them, but fully their peer. Comp. ii. 7, 9. Futhermore, the special purpose of his calling stands certainly in a causal connection with the manner of the calling. ‘The Paul who through so unexpected a mercy of God was brought to the knowledge of His Son, was well fitted for the preaching of the same among the Gentiles, called as they also were out of God’s unlooked for mercy” (Rigcur). The very manner of his calling, out of pure grace, passing thus a sen- tence of condemnation upon the legal position, caused him to know that to the Gentiles also, who are dvoyo., the way to salvation of grace must stand open. Comp. also for 2 and 3, Lanan’s Commentary, Acts, p. 165 sq.
4. Paul set apart by God. Paul cannot regard himself otherwise than as destined by God Him- self, even in his mother’s womb, for what he now is, separated to the peculiar calling of the apos- tleship (an analogy, as it were, to the Nazarite’s vow, by which the child was dedicated, even from the womb, to be a Nazarite). His life up to his conversion, Paul then of course regards as stand- jing in opposition to this, his divine destination ; and therefore a special vocation was necessary. This vocation, however, has its root in the elec- tions and as this, of course, was an entirely free one, founded on no manner of merit (as being en- tirely precedent to the whole course of his life), the calling, therefore, was a pure act of grace (‘‘by his grace”), on account of the opposition in which the previous life of Paul stood to his des- tined work. In the connection of this particular
passage Paul contemplates his previous life from no other point of view, and certainly therefore does not designate himself as one set apart even from his mother’s womb, because he thought that before his conversion he possessed qualities for the sake of which God had called him. It is true his natural gifts and his acquirements of knowledge served to capacitate him for his voca- tion; and it was doubtless providential that even before his conversion he was the person that he was; and this natural adaptedness itself had its root in the divine destination of the man. And negatively, beyond question, the legal zeal by which Paul was animated, bringing as it did his subsequent evangelical position into so much more decided contrast with it, was advantageous to his apostolic activity, as in general the zeal with which Paul acted—at first, it is true, in the interest of the law, turned afterwards to the good of the gospel. Otherwise, however, his re- ligious character, as a blindly legal, Pharisaical one, resting on the righteousness of works, stood in decided opposition to his destination. “‘He has called me,’ says the Apostle. But how? For my standing as a Pharisee? For my holy and blameless life? For my admirable works? No; Itrow! Still less, then, for my blasphemy against God, my persecution and madrage. How then? Through his pure grace.” Lurazr.— [Carvin :—He intends to assert that his calling depends on the secret election of God; and that he was ordained an Apostle not because by his own industry he had fitted himself, but because God had counted him worthy to undertake that high office, and because, before he was born, he had been set apart hy the secret purpose of God. The Apostle had most explicitly attributed his calling to the free grace of God, when he traced its origin to his separation from the womb. But he repeats the direct statement (‘by his grace’) both to take away all grounds of boasting by his commendation of Divine grace, and to testify his own gratitude to God.—R.]
5. Paul's walk in Judaism. ‘‘ His former walk Paul calls a walk in Judaism: if it had been a walk in the footsteps of the faith of Abraham, it would have led him to faith in the gospel. It was, therefore, a-walk in the Judaism that was tending towards apostasy, that, under pretext of the law, would defend itself against the faith in Christ.” RircER.—Judaism of course here means the Jew- ish religion.in its then form, when the soul of the Old Covenant, by which it pointed beyond itself, and in general its character of promise, was more or less overlooked. Or at least the legal sense in which the whole divine revelation was then ap- prehended, took away the right understanding of this character of promise. Hence the incapa- city to understand Him in whom the fulfillment came. On this account proficiency in Judaism and persecution of the Christian church could go hand in hand with each other.
6. Paul's solemn oaths. The solemn assevera- tions which Paul more than once utters (in ver. 20, Rom. i. 9; ix. 1; 2 Cor. xi. 81), would of themselves sufficiently show how little the pas- sages, Matt. v. 84 sq., James v. 12 sq., are meant to forbid swearing in itself and totally, and how unwarranted it is to limit lawful oaths to oaths required by the magistrate, while on the other
80 THE EPISTLE TO
THE GALATIANS.
hand we certainly cannot be too strongly warned against all lightness in the taking of un oath. It must ever, as here, have respect to a weighty mat- ter. [Worpswortn from Augustine: “An oath which cometh not from the evilof him who swears, but from the unbelief of him zo whom he swears, 18 not against our Lord’s precept : ‘Swear not.’ Our Lord commands that as far as in us lies we should not swear; which command is broken by those who have in their mouths an oath as if it were something pleasant in itself. As far as in him lies, the Apostle swears not. He does not catch at an oath with eagerness, but when he swears it is by constraint, through the infirmity or in- credulity of those who will not otherwise believe what he says.”—R.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL.
Ver. 11. Rizonr:—In the address he has omitted the customary appellations: saints, be- loved of God, etc. ; after the first rebuke, how- ever, he now adds, as the mollifying ointment, the name of “brethren.” What we cannot al- ways do in unimpaired love, may yet be done at times in hope.
Ver. 12. Lutuer (who emphasizes this so expressly in remarking on this passage) :—Hu- man teaching, human tradition, though it come down from holy fathers and teachers, from the holy Church herself, is in itself nothing; for in all this there may be error, just because it is human. And hence we must not let any one scare us by appealing to never so great human authorities; over against all this the only con- cern is, to abide simply by the Word of God.
Srener:—Such as should be true, enlightened preachers, must have learned the Gospel through revelation from Christ; not immediately, to be sure, but so that, having been instructed by men, Christ’s spirit by means of such instruction hav- ing become a power in their hearts, they truly have a divine light in their souls, from which they then enlighten others.
The gospel no work of man: 1. as a word of doctrine, not sprung from men, nor tanght by men, but by Christ Himself (who brought it Himself and through whom alone His people have it); 2. as a word of comfort, only through Him can we commit ourselves to it; 38. as a word of power, in which there should be no change, from which no departure.
Ver. 13. Rizgur:—Oh, how often and how toilsomely do we gather much that in the right light must be counted harm and dung, and cast from us.—QuzEsneL:—A man may make his past sins known out of pride, but also out of hu- mility. Whoever does not boast himself of the same, but humbles himself therefor before God, and willingly bears the shame of them before men, not relying upon himself, makes a good confession, but one not needful to be uttered before every man, as sometimes it would bring more scandal than benefit.—From StrarKe:— God is wise, permitting some things to be ac- complished even by His enemies, that in His time He will direct to His own honor, to which before they were quite opposed. Paul studied in the law, and in his ancestral institutions, that he might thereby the better withstand the Chris-
tians. This afterwards served -to enable him to dispute all the better with the Jews in favor of Christianity, as thoroughly understanding their side.
Ver. 14. Burtens. Brste:—Even unconyer- ted men may be exceedingly zealous for ances- tral traditions, traditional doctrines. — [Yes, the might of traditions, because received from “my fathers,”—whether from God or no, not being taken into the account, — is often in proportion to the ignorance of real Christiani- ty. How conservative, yet often how contracting and how cruel the zeal for ‘‘the traditions of my fathers!”’ True in every age.—R.]—Srarxe :-— Good intentions do not of themselves make a thing good before God. Many a one means well in his conduct, and see, he still is doing w sin; yes, out of good intentions the most cruel actions may sometimes arise. Such sins, however, are much less heinous than those which spring from real godlessness and malice.
On vers. 18, 14.—Judaism and the Old Testa- ment are different from one another: 1. the former closes the sense for Christ; 2. the latter opens it.—Persecution of the Church of God 1. takes place so easily in false zeal; 2. is so evil, therefore, take good heed !—When against others, so zealous; when for them, so lukewarm !—Take heed: is not thy progress, in reality, w retro- gression?—Zeal for ancestral traditions 1. in itself good, but 2. no proof of a converted heart. —Condemnation of the perverseness of a former walk: 1. It must take place within, as a sign of a converted heart ; 2. it may also become neces- sary before others, yet so that it is always done in humility.
Ver. 15. Wiinr. Summ.:—Behold the Fatherly Providence of God, who careth for us and marks out the course of our life from our mother’s womb. Think not that God hath passed thee over, and that thou must care for thyself. Fear God and trust Him, for what He has designed for us from our mother’s womb will be sure to come, and no one shall divert it from us.—BERLENB. Bipitz:—As Paul here does, so should we look back and behold God from behind, as God says to Moses. God gives preintimations, which are forgotten. But then men should wake up when the work of God is fulfilled, and bethink them- selves. His work is nothing uncertain and doubtful, although we cannot constrain others to believe it. Nevertheless we yet ourselves may know well enough how we are to look upon it.
[BusunsiL:—Every man’s life a plan of God. Go to God Himself, and ask for the calling of God; for as certainly as He has a place or calling for you, He will somehow guide you into it. Do you call it success, that you are getting on ina plan of your own? There cannot bea greater delusion.—R. ]
Ver. 16. Spzner:—To the rightly profitable administration of the preacher’s office, there is needful the revelation of God in us, that we should have a living knowledge of that which we are to declare to others. Without this, the word preached retains, to be sure, its power, if it is left pure and unadulterated ; but such people can- not well leave it pure, or set it forth worthily ; they understand not to apply it rightly, and de- stroy much of its power with the hearers. —
CHAP. I. 11-24.
81
Ber. Biste:—The true work of God is done within, albeit He uses all mauner of means there- to. The hurt is within; therefore, must the en- lightenment also have place within, God must come and take away the veil. There needs then a heavenly illumination. This is the crown of conversions, that the Son becomes right plainly known toa man. But there are many veils be- tween, and one after another is taken away, till one comes at last into the knowledge of God and the Son. ;
Rizger:—The Son of God is still the pith and kernel of all revelation to be wished for in the heart.—LutuHer:—If the gospel is a revelation of the Son of God, as Paul declares, it is then certain that it does not accuse poor consciences, nor terrify them, but of Christ alone does it teach, who is no law nor work, but our righte- ousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption. —The gospel is a divine word, that comes down from Heaven, and is revealed by the Holy Ghost, yet so that the outward word goes before. For even St. Paul himself first heard the outward word from Heaven: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Not till then did he have secret and hidden, inner revelations.—Among the Gentiles, therefore, should be preached no law, but the gospel; no Moses, but God’s Son; no righteous- ness of works, but the righteousness of faith. This is the right preaching, whereto the heathen have claim, and which is apt for them. — Starks :— Paul was chiefly a teacher of the Gentiles, and that of divine purpose. Therefore we act not against God’s counsel if we keep especially to Paul’s writings (not excluding the other aposto- lical books), because in these we find most dis- tinctly and most expressly what suits our condi- tion, and is needful for us to know.—[Worps- worta :—A striking contrast! He who had been stricken with blindness as a persecutor, has now Christ, the Light of the world, revealed in him as a preacher. He who was himself dark, has become a light to others, a light revealing to them Christ. —R. ]
On-vers. 15 and 16. The grace of God, as free (without any merit of ours) as it is mighty in working—it can change the hearts so fully, that the man throws himself into the directly opposite course. —It ig God, who defines our life’s course: therefore, courage!—All depends on this, that the Son of God be revealed in us.—The revela- tion of Christ in us: 1. wherein it consists; 2. how it is brought to pass (only through God’s grace); 8. whereto it helps. —Christ, the marrow 1. of all Christian knowledge, 3. of all Christian testimony —God_ reveals His Son in the hearts of believers, that they may preach Him among the Gentiles. The former attains its purpose only in the latter ; the Jatter has its foundation only in the former.— Every Christian, even without o special call to the ministry, is yet called to preach Christ among the heathen, that is he is called to a steady testimony in deed (and more or less also in word), against all heathen living, to call men back from dead idols to serve the living God.
Ver. 16. Luruer:—Herein the Apostle did right. For it would, indeed, have been a godless thing, if he would have had the divine revelation strengthened by man’s counsel, like one who
doubted thereon. —Starxez, after the Berlenb. Bible: —Yet the meaning is not, that we may not hear other people’s opinion, yet we are not to give it the pra, the upper hand, where God has given His testimony. If the will of God is plain, and if the matter is plain in God’s word, there is no need to ask other men for counsel. But if the will of God is yet doubtful, we may well ask good friends for advice; only these advisers must be such as possess the fear of God and wisdom. —Ruinaun:—Now, as then, the surest course for every one who will find the way of life is, to look alone upon God’s commandment, to make the testimonies of the Lord his counsellors, and to hasten thereunto. Without this faithfulness in that which is hidden, the best advice of an- other may become a temptation and a snare. — Hepineer :—Much doubting and long consider- ing spoils matters. The good will, which God creates, goes to work and does not stand hesitat- ing long.
Divine guidance and human counsel in their right relation to each other.
Ver. 17 sq. RiEcGER:—God foresaw all that would afterwards be brought against Paul, there- fore He so ordered his ways that men could not say: he received his authority from the chief Apostles at Jerusalem; nor yet on the other side: he does not presume to go to Jerusalem ; he joins himself with no one. God’s good Spirit always brings us out into a plain way.
Even the apparently slight, accidental circum- stances of our lives stand under God's direction; if we know it not at the time, yet afterwards we do. i
[Ver. 18. Burxrirr: — Ministers ought to maintain correspondency and familiarity with each other, in token of their harmony. But though this visit was in the most delightful and desirable, yea most profitable company, yet it was but for fifteen days. After the short time spent in visiting, we must return to our business, and mind, above all things, our ministerial charge.—R. ]
Ver. 20. Stanxu:—God is a witness of the truth, and a righteous judge of all lies. Can you in all that you say, call on God as the wit- ness of its truth? In all cases this ought to be possible, although it is seldom needful or proper. Ver. 21. It is excellent, when any one, having left hig country and his friends, a wicked man, returns back to them again a true child of God. Universities should especially serve this purpose, that those who went to them unconverted youths, should return home con- verted ones. Ver. 28. Itisof God’s grace, when from a persecutor and misleader a man becomes a true teacher and confessor. QO wonder! Is not that ag much as if a dead man were raised to life? And it serves to the praise of the Divine compassion, that the Lord does not destroy His enemies, but wins them over and converts them to his service. —RizcEr :—The glory redounding to God from his conversion has wiped out much of the harm of his former course.
When Jesus, here and there again, His time of grace declares,
That mercy count as thine own gain, Which others find as theirs.
82 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
i ‘ i ded the Gospel
2. In a subsequent conference in the mother church, he had most definitely guar ! liberty pes against the demands of false brethren; while the Apostles had ee oes vinced of his divine mission to preach to the Gentiles, and hence in an en get ile peaceful agreement a division of the field of labor had been decided upon, an a e oe 4 world committed to him, without any obligation (respecting doctrine) to the mother church.
(Cuap. ii. 1-10.)
Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also [also with me]. And I went up by revelation, and communi- cated unto [or laid before] them that [the] gospel which I preach among the Gen- tiles, but privately to them which were [are] of reputation, lest by any means [per- chance]! I should run [be running]? or had [have]’ run, in vain. But neither [not even] Titus, who was with me, being [though he was] a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: And that because of [the] false brethren unawares [insidiously}° brought in, who came in privily [crept in] to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:* To whom we gave place by subjection [by the submission, .e, required of us]’ no, not [not even]’ for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But of those who seemed to be somewhat, [who are of reputation—]° whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: [—to me those who are of reputation imparted’ nothing]:
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was commit-
ted unto me [that I'am entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision],” as the gos-
8 pel of the circumcision was unto Peter [as Peter with that of the circumcision]: (For
he that wrought effectually [omit effectually] in [for] Peter to [toward] the apostle-
ship of the circumcision, the same [omit the same] was mighty in me (wrought for
9 me also] toward the Gentiles;) And when James, Cephas,” and John, who seemed to
be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they [and became aware of the
grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who were esteemed as pil-
lars, |'* gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go" unto
10 the heathen [Gentiles], and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we
should remember the poor; the same which [which very thing]'*I also was for- ward to do.
Ne
Da oT - ©
1Ver. ac myimws. See EXEGETICAL NoTES.—R.] 2 Ver. 2.—[This form of the English present undoubtedly gives the better meaning. So Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot.—R.] ; 8 i 2—[“ Have” must take the place of “had” tor grammatical reasons, “should” being an auxiliary here also.—R, 3 F ve ; oe 5. Y. is literally correct, but does not bring out the reason for his being circumcised, here im- plied._R.
5 Ver. 4.—[Ilapetoaxrovus, only here in N.T. It means “ insidious,” “those foisted in” (Alford, Schaff). It must be rendered adverbially in English.—R.]
6 Ver. 4.—[The reading of the Rec. caradovAdowvrat is generally regarded as a correction, since the subjunctive usually follows iva. Nhe future ckatadovAscovger is found in N. A. B.C. D. E., and adopted by modern editors.—R.]
er. 5.—[T 7 vmotayy, a particular submission, that demanded of us.—R.
7 Ver. 5.—Ois ovb6¢ is to be retained with Lachmann, Tischendorf, ete. {For this reading there is an immense pre- ponderance of external authority; &. A.B. 0. F. K. Ll. Modern editors all retain it—the omission is easily accounted for. See the extended crit ical note of Lightfoot on this passage, p. 120 sq.—R.]
8 Ver.6—[(Tav doxovvruy eivai tu The idea of “ seeming to be somewhat,” must give place to that of “being deemed somewhat.” So Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, and most commentators, and H. V. ver.2. The very strong anacoluthon is rendered More easy by putting émoiod... AawBaver, “whatsoever... person” in a parenthesis, and placing “ to me” in the bexinuing of tha resumptive clause, as indeed is done in the Greck, éwoi standing first.—R.]
9 Ver. 6.—[Tlposave@evro, Hllicott, “ communicated ;” Alford, “ imparted ;” Schaff, “gave no new instruction.” See Exec, Nores.—R. | :
1 Ver, 7—[The sts ucture 1s altered from the original in the E. V., “I and“ Peter” are the proper subjects of the respective clauses. Am entrusted with ” is a better rendering of rewioTeupmat, the perfect of permanent state.—R.]
11 Ver. 8.—| Evepyéw takes év after it, when the meaning is “wrought in;” here it is the simple dative. The E. V. renders the same verb differently in this verse. Literally: “energized,” “ gave strength to.”’"—R.]}
. Re rc ae Ea ea aoe of woo hathats have Ilérpos kai "Iéxwos. An inversion to preserve the precedenco . yer. AKWHOS Kai ¥ i at internal ae alas ectevach glee nas is supported by &. B,C. K. L. and adopted by modern editors generally, Ver. 9.—[The order of the E. V. is an inversion of the original. The true order, given above, is found in Wickliffe’ Tyndale’s, Cranmer’s, Bishop’s and Rhemish, with a slight variation from the above’ Saaine: The participle yy ee aah is co-ordinate with i Sovres (ver. 7). The whole passage should read thus: “ When they saw that I am entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter with that of the circumcision: (For he that wrought for Peter toward the apostleship of the circumcisiou, wrought for me also toward the Gentiles ;) and became aware of the grace that waa given
CHAP. II. 1-10.
33
unto me, James and Cephas and John, ship.”’—R.]
14 Ver. 9.—[Ellicott supplies here “should be apostles,” Schaff; “that we should preach the gospel for.”—R}.
16 Ver.10.[°O avri
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL.
Ver. 1. Then fourteen years after. —Is this to be reckoned from the calling of the Apos- tle, or from his first journey to Jerusalem (chap. i.18)? At first view we might incline to the latter opinion. But the period of time mentioned chap. i. 18, is unquestionably to be reckoned from the calling, not from the return to Damas- cus; itis natural, therefore, to do the same here. His calling is the deciding point of time, and Paul wishes to show what he was dving from that time on, how his apostolical activity has its root in the revelation of Christ then given, and not in human instruction. Besides, if it is ac- knowledged that Paul here does not mean to enumerate his journeys to Jerusalem in an unin- terrupted series, but that the journey to the apostolic council is here meant, there is no pur- pose served in giving the interval between the two journeys; but it might well be of importance to make known how many years he had already spent in his apostolical office. It would be im- portant to know that, having received it at his calling, he had already been long in the exercise of it, when the other Apostles expressed their concurrence with his doctrine. Comp. also EL- wert, Programm ou Galat. ii. 1-10. The dif- ficult question, which of the Apostle’s journeys to Jerusalem, mentioned in the Acts, is here meant, is too extended to be treated in our pre- sent space. Besides, it is of more essential im- portance for the Acts than for our Epistle. For no one doubts the historical character of the journey mentioned in the Epistle. The result of my investigation is that it was no other than the journey to the apostolic council, that it is not that mentioned Acts xi. 80—since he is not giving an unbroken enumeration—nor that men- tioned Acts xviii. 21 (against WreseLer),
[Although this question occupies so large a space in most commentaries on this Epistle, the view given above has been so ably defended lat- terly, and is now so well established, that a synopsis of the argument and a reference to more extended discussions will be sufficient. The point from which Paul reckons, is his conversion, “being a purely subjective epoch” (Exuicorr). Scuarr ‘thus states the case: ‘‘ The Acts mention five journeys after his conversion, viz.- 1. ix. 23 (comp. Gul. i. 18), the journey of the year 40, three years after his conversion. 2. xi. 80; xii. 25, the journey during the famine year in 44, 8. xv. 2, the journey to the apostolic council in 60 or 51. 4. xviii. 22, the journey in 54. 6. xxi. 15 (comp. Rom. xv. 25 sq.), the last visit, on which he was made a prisoner and sent to Caesarea, in 58.
“Of'these journeys the first, of course, can- not be meant on account of Gal. i. 18. The second is excluded by the chronological date in ii, 1. For as it took place during the famine of Palestine and in the year in which Herod died,
| TovTo, is stronger th. 1 “the same which.” literally: “ Which was the very thing that I alsu wos auxivus to do.” —R.
who were esteemed as pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellow
which is objectionable on historical and dogmatical grounds.
“Which yery thing” (Ellicott). Alford mora
A.D. 44, it would put the conversion of back to the year 40, which is much i 7 Some proposed to read four instead of fourteen but without any critical authority whatever. There is no necessity why Paul should have mentioned this second journey, since it was un- dertaken simply for the transmission of a collec- tion of the Christians at Antioch for the relicf of the brethren in Judea, and not for the purpose of conferring with the Apostles on maiters of dispute. In all probability he saw none of them on that occasion, since in that year a persecution raged in which James the elder suffered martyr- dom, and Peter was imprisoned. The fifth jour- ney cannot be meant, as it took place after the composition of the Epistle to the Galatians and after the dispersion of the Apostles, Nor can we think of the fourth, which was very short and transient (Acts xviii. 21, 22), leaving no time for such important transactions as are here alluded to; nor was Barnabas with him on that occasion, having separated from Paul some time before (Acts xy. 39).
‘‘We must therefore identify our journey with the third one mentioned in the 15th chapter of Acts. For this took place in 50 or 51, 7. e., four- teen years after his conversion (87), and wag occasioned by the important controversy on the authority of the law of Moses and the exact re- lation of the Gentile converts to the Christian church (Acts xv. 2). This visit Paul could not possibly pass over, as it was of the greatest mo- ment to his argument. Itis true our passage differs somewhat from the account given by the Acts. But the difference is not irreconcilable. Luke, in keeping with the documentary character of hig historical narrative, gives us only the public transactions of the council at Jerusalem; Paul shortly alludes to his personal conference and agreement with the Apostles (ver. 2); both together give us a complete history of that re- markable convention, the first Synod in Chris- tendom, for the settlement of the first doctrinal and practical controversy which agitated the Church.”’ (Scuarr, Comm. in loco.) Seealso his Apostolic Church, p. 245 sq.; Conyz. and How- son, Vol. I., p. 227 sq.; Murer and Worps- wortu, in loco; AtForD, Vol. II., Proleg., p. 26; and the valuable note of Liaurroor, p. 122 sq. The authorities in support of this view might be multiplied.—R. ]
Ver. 2. And I went up by revelation,— Not without design, doubtless, does he bring into view the fact that he went up kata admokd- Avwpev, and so was again deemed worthy of a special revelation from God. He will also re- move every thought of his having been, as it were, obliged to present himself before the Apos- tles, of their having summoned him before them. Laid before them the gospel—that which I preach among the Gentiles, namely, that they are justified by faith. —‘‘Them,” probably the whole church of Jerusalem. —But privately to them which are of reputation.—Besides
84 THE EPISTLE TO
THE GALATIANS.
having addressed the Christians in Jerusalem generally, he appears to have held separate con- ferences with those “of reputation.” Wieseler’s distinction, however, is quite arbitrary; making vers. 3-5 contain the account of his general agreement with the whole church of Jerusa- lem, and vers. 6-10 the first account of the separate conferences with the Apostles. [Atrorp thinks there was but one confer- ence, making kar’ idiav dé limit airoi¢; ‘when I say ‘to them,’ I mean privately to those,” ete., but the view given above (that of Meyer, Exricorr, Liaxrroot) is preferable. The general confer- ence is described Acts xv.; ‘‘they declared what things God had done with them,” (Acts. xv. 4) may refer to these private conferences which pro- bably preceded. The emphasis here is undoubt- edly on the private consultations, the result of the public council being already known to the Galatians.—R.] The judgment of “them” [the whole body] is thrown in the background, and he only speaks of ‘those in reputation,” just mentioned; for the fact that he had received their acquiescence is what he is opposing to the false teachers. Hence we must regard what is stated in ver. 8, as their judgment also. — Aokouvrec, xstimati, principal'persons. Men of authority ; in fact, doubtless, the senior Apostles ; especially the three who are named afterwards in ver. 9. Hecalls them not “Apostles,” but Ooxotvrec, ‘*men of repute” because it is as au- thorities, as those who stood inrepute inthe Je- rusalem church first, but also in the Christian church generally, nay more, were decisive au- thorities, that they come into consideration. For precisely this is of moment to him, to be able to say to the Galatians that he has been ac- knowledged by these as an equally authorized Apostle. Of course doxovvte¢ does not in the least imply a disparagement of the Apostles themselves, for it is the church that accords to them this consideration;—the expression con- veysa censure upon this estimation in the church only so far as it might imply a failure to recog- nize his own apostolic dignity. The censures therefore, touched especially this estimation in the sense in which the Apostles were doxpvvrec for the Galatian false teachers, and in Which these turned it to their own account. The censure of this false preference is given prominence in ver. 6, by the addditional phrase ‘*whatsoever they were,” Paul cannot intend to dispute in the least that in the right sense the senior Apostles were doxotvrec for the Christians. [The force of Paul’s expression is weakened hy rendering ‘‘were of re- putation,”’ since when he writes, they “are” of re- putation, hence thus brought into the argument (LigutFoor).—It must be noted also that Paul throughout does not use the word “Apostle.” Whether they were Apostles or no, is not evident from anything in the passage, except the mention of James and Cephas and John (ver. 9), and whether that James was either an Apostle or one of the twelve is an open question. With- out discussing the point here, it may be suggested that one reason for not calling them “ Apos- tles,” was that one of the three “(who seemed to be pillars,” and ‘‘of repute” was not an Apos- tle, but James the Just, the head of the church at Jerusalem. This will not only explain the
omission of the title, but meet subsequent diffi. culties.—R. ] F Lest perchance I should be running or have run in vain.—The sense remains es- sentially the same, whether we take LAT WC AS & final particle, or—-whether perchance. After the thorough exposition of WiIkSELER, however, the latter is to be preferred. (So also Murer in 4th ed.) Of course, however, he does not mean to say that he himself was doubtful about it. This would have been in conflict with the whole pur- pose of his detailed account, and would have represented him as dependent on the Senior Apostles. He wished only, on account of the antagonists of his teaching, to obtain from the Apostles, on whose authority these supported themselves, a confirmation of this teaching, in order to cut offevery pretext from his opponents, «Run in vain”’=labor to no purpose, operam per- dere. This would have been the case, if Paul had actually proclaimed a false doctrine, with which the senior Apostles could not agree. The out- ward success of his preaching is not primarily in view, though we may conclude from ver. 7, 8, 9, that he spoke of this also. Others take p#mwc as a final particle, and interpret as follows: in or- der not to appear as one who was running or had run, in vain, as might have been the case, if I had not submitted my gospel to examination, had its harmony with Apostles established; but the idea of “appearing” is extraneous to the passage. [For a clear discussion of the grammatical and exegetical difficulties of this clause, see ExzicoTt, in loco. Whatever view be adopted, we must not concede that Paul had any doubt about. his Gos- pel. The conditional yarwc is probably used to indicate respect for those in reputation at Jeru- salem. Thedoubt could only concern the opinion of others, which by being opposed, might render his labors in-vain.—R.] In what follows he says that he received the desired acquiescence on the part of the Apostles. He does not however at once declare this, but mentions a special circum- stance, which implies it in a striking manner. Vers. 3. But not even Titus.—The sense is clear; ovdé points to a thought to be sup- plied. “I laid frankly before them, how I preach among the Gentiles; not concealing that Ido not at all hold them to the keeping of the law, to the receiving of circumcision—and now, according to the representation of the false teachers, it was to be expected that they would appear in opposition to me; but (dAAd) so far was this from being the case, so far from de- claring this doctrine false [or, connecting it with the last clause, so far from my having run in vain—R.], not even with respect to Titus, a born Gentile, who had come to Jerusalem, to the very mother of the Jewish Christian churches with me, was the demand made that he should be circumcised, though it might readily have been, when Jewish prejudice was so greatly of- fended by his uncircumcision.” Still less did they censure the doctrine of Paul, or demand of him that he should preach the necessity of cir- cumcision among the Gentile Christians as a body. The case has been thoroughly per- plexed by bringing in, in direct contradiction to what the words say, the thought, that the Apostles had wished, or even demanded, the cir
CHAP. II. 1-10.
35
cumcision of Titus; but that Paul and Titus had set themselves against their desire. ELwerr justly remarks, Programm, p. 10: Quid enim ineplius dict potest quam illud: tantum abfuit, ut apostoli causam meam improbarent, ut ne Titus quidem illis contraria petentibus obsequeretur ? [The word #vayxdéoOy seems to imply that there was a demand made for the circumcision of Titus, not by the Apostles, but by the false brethren (ver. 4). Had the idea been merely, that the cir- cumcision was not even demanded, so strong a word. would not have been used. There is some force. in the suggestion of Liaarroor, that the Apostles recommended Paul to yield as w chari- table concession, but convinced at length that he was right, they gave him their support. Still we have not sufficient knowledge of the circum- stances to decide whether Paul cites this as an evidence of the Apostles’ agreement with him or of his firmness—in all probability it is both. Not even Titus, of whom as a Grevk the false breth- ren made the demand, was required to submit— or whom as a Greek I would not allow to be cir- cumcised, since this would have been a giving up ofthe whole matter. The preceding context sug- gests the former, the subsequent context the lat- ter side of the occurrence. On the reasons for the non-circumcision of Titus, and the circumcision of Timothy (Acts xvi. 2), see pocrRINAL NoTES.—R. |
Ver. 4. And that because of the false brethren.—What is to be supplied with “be- cause of the false brethren?” After an examina- tion of all the views presented, it appears to me that we can only say: we donot and cannot know, since Paul has broken off the sentence, and all at- tempts to fill it out are hazardous, from the dan- ger of introducing foreign matter. The mention of the pevdddeApoe is very intelligible. He has already indicated the concurrence of the Apostles by reference to the striking case of Titus, or at least, negatively, that they did not oppose him. But before he says anything definite, positive, re- specting this concurrence (ver. 6 sq), he men- tions his opposers, who did not concur, who at- tacked him and his teaching, and had also espe- cially occasioned his journey to Jerusalem. The mention of the false brethren, however, stirs his displeasure, so that he does not complete the thought begun, but first by a brief and fit phrase, describes