Difference between revisions of "Epistle To The Galatians"

<p> <strong> [[Galatians, Epistle To The]]  </strong> </p> <p> 1. [[Occasion]] of the [[Epistle]] . From internal evidence we gather that St. Paul had, when he wrote, paid two visits to the Galatians. On the first visit, which was due to an illness (&nbsp; Galatians 4:13 ), he was welcomed in the most friendly way; on the second he warned them against [[Judaizers]] (&nbsp; Galatians 1:9 , &nbsp; Galatians 5:3 ‘again,’ cf. &nbsp; Galatians 4:13 ‘the former time,’ though this <em> may </em> be translated ‘formerly’). After the second visit Judaizers came among the Galatians, and, under the influence of a single individual (the ‘who’ of &nbsp; Galatians 3:1 , &nbsp; Galatians 5:7 is singular, cf. &nbsp; Galatians 5:10 ) persuaded them that they must be circumcised, that St. Paul had changed his mind and was inconsistent, that he had refrained from preaching circumcision to <em> them </em> only from a desire to be ‘all things to all men,’ but that he had preached it (at any rate as the better way) to others. It is doubtful if the Judaizers upheld circumcision as necessary to salvation, or only as necessary to a complete Christianity. It depends on whether we fix the date before or after the [[Council]] of &nbsp; Acts 15:1-41 , which of these views we adopt (see § <strong> 4 </strong> ). Further, the Judaizers disparaged St. Paul’s authority as compared with that of the Twelve. On hearing this the [[Apostle]] hastily wrote the Epistle to check the evil, and (probably) soon followed up the Epistle with a personal visit. </p> <p> <strong> 2. To whom written. The North [[Galatian]] and South Galatian theories </strong> . It is disputed whether the inhabitants of N. [[Galatia]] are addressed (Lightfoot, Salmon, the older commentators, Schmiedel in <em> Encyc. Bibl. </em> ), or the inhabitants of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, which lay in the S. part of the Roman province Galatia (Ramsay, Sanday, Zahn, Renan, Pfleiderer, etc.). Those who hold the N. Galatian theory take &nbsp; Acts 16:6; &nbsp; Acts 18:23 as indicating that St. Paul visited Galatia proper, making a long detour. They press the argument that he would not have called men of the four cities by the name ‘Galatians,’ as these lay outside Galatia proper, and that ‘Galatians’ must mean men who are [[Gauls]] by blood and descent; also that ‘by writers speaking familiarly of the scenes in which they had themselves taken part’ popular usage rather than official is probable, and therefore to call the [[Christian]] communities in the four cities ‘the churches of Galatia’ would be as unnatural as to speak of [[Pesth]] or (before the Italo-Austrian war) [[Venice]] as ‘the Austrian cities’ (Lightfoot, <em> Gal. </em> p. 19). Pesth is not a case in point, for no educated person would call it ‘Austrian’; but the Venice illustration is apt. These are the only weighty arguments. On the other hand, the N. Galatian theory creates Churches unheard of elsewhere in 1st cent. records; it is difficult on this hypothesis to understand the silence of Acts, which narrates all the critical points of St. Paul’s work. But Acts does tell us very fully of the foundation of the Church in S. Galatia. Then, again, on the N. Galatian theory, St. Paul nowhere in his [[Epistles]] mentions the four cities where such eventful things happened, except once for blame in &nbsp; 2 Timothy 3:11 a silence made more remarkable by the fact that in the collection of the alms he <em> does </em> mention ‘the churches of Galatia’ (&nbsp; 1 Corinthians 16:1 ). If the four cities are not here referred to, why were they omitted? The main argument of the N. Galatian theory, given above, is sufficiently answered by taking into account St. Paul’s relation to the Roman [[Empire]] (see art. Acts of the Apostles, § <strong> 7 </strong> .) </p> <p> With regard to the nomenclature, we notice that St. Luke sometimes uses popular non-political names like ‘Phrygia’ or ‘Mysia’ (&nbsp;Acts 2:10; &nbsp; Acts 16:3 ); but St. Paul, as a Roman citizen, uses place-names in their Roman sense throughout, <em> e.g. </em> ‘Achaia’ (which in Greek popular usage had a much narrower meaning than the Roman province, and did not include Athens, while St. Paul contrasts it with Macedonia, the only other Roman province in Greece, and therefore clearly uses it in its Roman sense, &nbsp; Romans 15:25 , &nbsp; 2 Corinthians 9:2; 2Co 11:10 , &nbsp; 1 Thessalonians 1:7 f.; cf. &nbsp; 1 Corinthians 16:5 ), ‘Macedonia,’ ‘Illyricum’ (&nbsp; Romans 15:19 only; the [[Greeks]] did not use this name popularly as a substantive, and none but a Roman could so denote the province; in &nbsp; 2 Timothy 4:10 St. Paul himself calls it ‘Dalmatia,’ as the name-usage was changing from the one to the other),‘Syria and Cilicia’ (one Roman province), and ‘Asia’ (the Roman province of that name, the W. part of Asia Minor, including Mysia). We may compare St. Peter’s nomenclature in &nbsp; 1 Peter 1:1 , where he is so much influenced by [[Pauline]] ideas as to designate all Asia Minor north of the [[Taurus]] by enumerating the Roman provinces. St. Paul, then, calls all citizens of the province of Galatia by the honourable name ‘Galatians.’ To call the inhabitants of the four cities ‘Phrygians’ or ‘Lycaonians’ would be as discourteous as to call them ‘slaves’ or ‘barbarians.’ The Roman colonies like Pisidian [[Antioch]] were most jealous of their Roman connexion. </p> <p> The South Galatian theory reconciles the Epistle and Acts without the somewhat violent hypotheses of the rival theory. The crucial passages are &nbsp;Acts 16:6; &nbsp; Acts 18:23 , which are appealed to on both sides. In &nbsp; Acts 16:6 St. Paul comes from Syro-Cilicia to [[Derbe]] and Lystra, no doubt by land, through the Cilician [[Gates]] [Derbe being mentioned first as being reached first, while in &nbsp; Acts 14:6 [[Lystra]] was reached first and mentioned first], and then ‘they went through ( <em> v.l. </em> going through) the region of [[Phrygia]] and Galatia,’ lit. ‘the Phrygian and Galatic region’ [so all the best MSS read these last words]. This ‘region,’ then (probably a technical term for the subdivision of a province), was a single district to which the epithets ‘Phrygian’ and ‘Galatic’ could both be applied; that is, it was that district which was part of the old country of Phrygia, and also part of the Roman province of Galatia. But no part of the old Galatia overlapped Phrygia, and the only district satisfying the requirements is the region around Pisidian Antioch and Iconium; therefore in &nbsp; Acts 16:6 a detour to N. Galatia is excluded. Moreover, no route from N. Galatia to [[Bithynia]] could bring the travellers ‘over against Mysia’ (&nbsp; Acts 16:7 ). They would have had to return almost to the spot from which they started on their hypothetic journey to N. Galatia. Attempts to translate this passage, even as read by the best MSS, as if it were ‘Phrygia and the Galatic region,’ as the AV [Note: Authorized Version.] text (following inferior MSS) has it, have been made by a citation of &nbsp; Luke 3:1 , but this appears to be a mistake; the word translated there ‘Ituræa’ is really an adjective ‘Ituræan,’ and the meaning probably is ‘the Ituræan region which is also called Trachonitis.’ </p> <p> In the other passage, &nbsp;Acts 18:23 , the grammar and therefore the meaning are different. St. Paul comes, probably, by the same land route as before, and to the same district; yet now Derbe and Lystra are not mentioned by name. St. Paul went in succession through ‘the Galatic region’ and through ‘Phrygia’ (or ‘[the] Phrygian [region]’). The grammar requires two different districts here. The first is the’ Galatic region’ [of Lycaonia] that part of old [[Lycaonia]] which was in the province Galatia, <em> i.e. </em> the region round Derbe and Lystra. The second is the ‘Phrygian region’ [of Galatia], <em> i.e. </em> what was in &nbsp; Acts 16:6 called the Phrygo-Galatic region, that around Antioch and Iconium. In using a different phrase St. Luke considers the travellers’ point of view; for in the latter case they leave [[Syrian]] Antioch, and enter, by way of non-Roman Lycaonia, into Galatic Lycaonia (‘the Galatic region’), while in the former case they start from Lystra and enter the Phrygo-Galatic region near Iconium. </p> <p> All this is clear on the S. Galatian theory. But on the other theory it is very hard to reconcile the Epistle with Acts. The S. Galatian theory also fits in very well with incidental notices in the Epistle, such as the fact that the Galatians evidently knew [[Barnabas]] well, and were aware that he was the champion of the [[Gentiles]] (&nbsp;Galatians 2:13 ‘ <em> even </em> Barnabas’); but Barnabas did not accompany Paul on the Second Missionary Journey, when, on the N. Galatian theory, the Galatians were first evangelized. Again, &nbsp; Galatians 4:13 fits in very well with &nbsp; Acts 13:14 on the S. Galatian theory; for the very thing that one attacked with an illness in the low-lying lands of [[Pamphylia]] would do would be to go to the high uplands of Pisidian Antioch. This seems to have been an unexpected change of plan (one which perhaps caused Mark’s defection). On the other hand, if a visit to Galatia proper were part of the plan in &nbsp; Acts 16:1-40 to visit Bithynia, &nbsp; Galatians 4:13 is unintelligible. </p> <p> <strong> 3. St. Paul’s autobiography </strong> . In chs. <strong> 1, 2 </strong> the Apostle vindicates his authority by saying that he received it direct from God, and not through the older Apostles, with whom the Judaizers compared him unfavourably. For this purpose he tells of his conversion, of his relations with the Twelve, and of his visits to Jerusalem; and shows that he did not receive his commission from men. Prof. Ramsay urges with much force that it was essential to Paul’s argument that he should mention all visits paid by him to [[Jerusalem]] between his conversion and the time of his evangelizing the Galatians. In the Epistle we read of two visits (&nbsp; Galatians 1:18 , &nbsp; Galatians 2:1 ), the former 3 years after his conversion (or after his return to Damascus), to visit Cephas, when of the [[Apostles]] he saw only James the Lord’s brother besides, and the latter 14 years after his conversion (or after his first visit), when he went ‘by revelation’ with Barnabas and Titus and privately laid before the Twelve (this probably is the meaning of ‘them’ in &nbsp; Galatians 2:2 : James, Cephas, and John are mentioned) the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. We have, then, to ask, To which, if any, of the visits recorded in Acts do these correspond? Most scholars agree that &nbsp; Galatians 1:18 = &nbsp; Acts 9:26 ff., and that the word ‘Apostles’ In the latter place means Peter and James only. But there is much diversity of opinion concerning &nbsp; Acts 2:1 . Lightfoot and Sanday identify this visit with that of &nbsp; Acts 15:2 (the Jerusalem Council), saying that at the intermediate visit of &nbsp; Acts 11:30 there were no Apostles in Jerusalem, the storm of persecution having broken over the Church (only the ‘elders’ are mentioned), and the Apostles having retired; as, therefore, St. Paul’s object was to give his relation to the Twelve, he does not mention this visit, during which he did not see them. Ramsay identifies the visit with that of &nbsp; Acts 11:30 , since otherwise St. Paul would be suppressing a point which would tell in favour of his opponents, it being essential to his argument to mention all his visits (see above); moreover, the hypothesis of the flight of the Apostles and of ‘every Christian of rank’ is scarcely creditable to them. They would hardly have left the Church to take care of itself, or have allowed the elders to bear the brunt of the storm; while the mention of elders only in &nbsp; Acts 11:30 would be due to the fact that they, not the Apostles, would administer the aims (cf. &nbsp; Acts 6:2 ). </p> <p> Other arguments on either side may perhaps balance each other, and are not crucial. Thus Prof. Ramsay adduces the discrepancies between &nbsp;Galatians 2:2 and &nbsp; Acts 15:2; in the former case the visit was ‘by revelation,’ in the latter by appointment of the brethren (these are not altogether incompatible facts); in the former case the discussion was private, in the latter public (this is accounted for by the supposition of a preliminary private conference, but that greatly damages St. Paul’s argument). On the other band, Dr. Sanday thinks that the stage of controversy in &nbsp; Galatians 2:1-21 suits &nbsp; Acts 15:1-41 rather than &nbsp; Acts 11:1-30 . This argument does not appear to the present writer to be of much value, for the question of the Gentiles and the [[Mosaic]] Law had really arisen with the case of [[Cornelius]] (&nbsp; Acts 11:2 ff.), and from the nature of things must have been present whenever a [[Gentile]] became a Christian. The Council in &nbsp; Acts 15:1-41 represents the climax when the matter came to public discussion and formal decision; we cannot suppose that the controversy sprang up suddenly with a mushroom growth. On the whole, in spite of the great weight of the names of Bp. Lightfoot and Dr. Sanday, the balance of the argument appears to lie on the side of Prof. Ramsay. </p> <p> <em> St. Peter at Antioch </em> . This incident in the autobiography (&nbsp; Galatians 2:11 ff.) is placed by Lightfoot immediately after &nbsp; Acts 15:36 . Ramsay thinks that it was not <em> necessarily </em> later in time than that which precedes, though on his view of the second visit it is in its proper chronological order. He puts it about the time of &nbsp; Acts 15:1 . The situation would then be as follows. At first many [[Jewish]] [[Christians]] began to associate with Gentile Christians. But when the logical position was put to them that God had opened another door to salvation outside the Law of Moses, and so had practically annulled the Law, they shrank from the consequences, Peter <em> began to draw back </em> (this is the force of the tenses in &nbsp; Galatians 2:12 ), and even Barnabas was somewhat carried away. But Paul’s arguments were convincing, and both Peter and Barnabas became champions of the Gentiles at the Council. It is difficult to understand Peter’s action if it happened <em> after </em> the Council. </p> <p> <strong> 4. Date and place of writing </strong> . Upholders of the N. Galatian theory, understanding &nbsp; Acts 16:6; &nbsp; Acts 18:23 to represent the two visits to the Galatians implied in &nbsp; Galatians 4:13 , usually fix on [[Ephesus]] as the place of writing, and suppose that the Epistle dates from the long stay there recorded in &nbsp; Acts 19:8 ff., probably early in the stay (cf. &nbsp; Galatians 1:6 ‘ye are <em> so quickly </em> removing’); but Lightfoot postpones the date for some two years, and thinks that the Epistle was written from [[Macedonia]] (&nbsp; Acts 20:1 ), rather earlier than Romans and after 2 Corinthians. He gives a comparison of these Epistles, showing the very close connexion between Romans and Galatians: the same use of OT, the same ideas and same arguments, founded on the same texts; in the doctrinal part of Galatians we can find a parallel for almost every thought and argument in Romans. It is generally agreed that the latter, a systematic treatise, is later than the former, a personal and fragmentary Epistle. The likeness is much less marked between Galatians and I and 2 Corinthians; but in 2 Corinthians the Apostle vindicates his authority much as in Galatians. The opposition to him evidently died away with the controversy about circumcision. Thus it is clear that these four Epistles hang together and are to be separated chronologically from the rest. </p> <p> On the S. Galatian theory, the Epistle was written from Antioch. Ramsay puts it at the end of the Second Missionary [[Journey]] (&nbsp;Acts 18:22 ). Timothy, he thinks, had been sent to his home at Lystra from Corinth, and rejoined Paul at Syrian Antioch, bringing news of the Galatian defection. Paul wrote off hastily, despatched Timothy back with the letter, and as soon as possible followed himself (&nbsp; Acts 18:23 ). On this supposition the two visits to the Galatians implied by the Epistle would be those of &nbsp; Acts 13:1-52 f. and 16. The intended visit of Paul would be announced by Timothy, though it was not mentioned in the letter, which in any case was clearly written in great haste. It is certainly strange, on the Ephesus or Macedonia hypothesis, that Paul neither took any steps to visit the erring Galatians, nor, if he could not go to them, explained the reason of his inability. Ramsay’s view, however, has the disadvantage that it separates Galatians and Romans by some years. Yet if St. Paul kept a copy of his letters, he might well have elaborated his hastily sketched argument in Galatians into the treatise in Romans, at some little interval of time. Ramsay gives a.d. 53 for Galatians, the other three Epistles following in 56 and 57. </p> <p> Another view is that of Weber, who also holds that Syrian Antioch was the place of writing, but dates the Epistle <em> before </em> the Council (see &nbsp; Acts 14:28 ). He agrees with Ramsay as to the two visits to Jerusalem; but he thinks that the manner of the Judaizers’ attack points to a time before the [[Apostolic]] decreee. &nbsp; Galatians 6:12 (‘compel’) suggests that they insisted on circumcision as necessary <em> for salvation </em> (§ <strong> 1 </strong> ). If so, their action could hardly have taken place after the Council. A strong argument on this side is that St. Paul makes no allusion to the decision of the Council. The chronological difficulty of the 14 years (&nbsp; Galatians 2:1 ) is met by placing the conversion of St. Paul in a.d. 32. Weber thinks that &nbsp; Galatians 5:2 could not have been written after the circumcision of Timothy; but this is doubtful. The two visits to the Galatians, on this view, would be those of &nbsp; Acts 13:1-52 , on the outward and the homeward journey respectively. The strongest argument against Weber’s date is that it necessitates such a long interval between Galatians and Romans. </p> <p> <strong> 5. Abstract of the Epistle </strong> . Chs. 1, 2. [[Answer]] to the Judaizers’ disparagement of Paul’s office and message. [[Narrative]] of his life from his conversion onwards, showing that he did not receive his Apostleship and his gospel through the medium of other Apostles, but direct from God. </p> <p> &nbsp;Galatians 3:1 to &nbsp; Galatians 5:12 . Doctrinal exposition of the freedom of the gospel, as against the legalism of the Judaizers. [[Abraham]] was justified by faith, not by the Law, and so are the children of Abraham. The Law was an inferior dispensation, though good for the time, and useful as educating the world for freedom; the Galatians were bent on returning to a state of tutelage, and their present attitude was retrogressive. </p> <p> &nbsp;Galatians 5:13 to &nbsp; Galatians 6:10 . <strong> Hortatory </strong> . ‘Hold fast by freedom, but do not mistake it for licence. Be forbearing and liberal.’ </p> <p> &nbsp;Galatians 6:11-18 . <strong> [[Conclusion]] </strong> . Summing up of the whole in Paul’s own hand, written in large characters (&nbsp; Galatians 6:11 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) to show the importance of the subject of the autograph. </p> <p> <strong> 6. Genuineness of the Epistle </strong> . Until lately Galatians, &nbsp; Romans 1:1-32 and 2 Corinthians were universally acknowledged to be by St. Paul, and the Tübingen school made their genuineness the basis of their attack on the other Epistles. [[Lately]] Prof. van Manen ( <em> Encyc. Bibl. s.v. </em> ‘Paul’) and others have denied the genuineness of these four also, chiefly on the ground that they are said to quote late Jewish apocalypses, to assume the existence of written Gospels, and to quote [[Philo]] and Seneca, and because the external attestation is said to begin as late as a.d. 150. These arguments are very unconvincing, the facts being improbable. And why should there not have been written [[Gospels]] in St. Paul’s time? (cf. &nbsp; Luke 1:1 ). As for the testimony, [[Clement]] of Rome explicitly mentions and quotes 1 Corinthians, and his date cannot be brought down later than a.d. 100. Our Epistle is probably alluded to or cited by Barnabas, Hermas, and [[Ignatius]] (5 times); certainly by [[Polycarp]] (4 times), the <em> Epistle to [[Diognetus]] </em> , Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and the <em> Acts of Paul and [[Thecla]] </em> . It is found in the Old Latin and Syrian versions and in the Muratorian [[Fragment]] ( <em> c </em> <em> [Note: circa, about.] </em> . a.d. 180 200), used by 2nd cent. heretics, alluded to by adversaries like [[Celsus]] and the writer of the <em> Clementine Homilies </em> , and quoted by name and distinctly (as their fashion was) by Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, at the end of the 2nd century. But, apart from this external testimony, the spontaneous nature of the Epistle is decisive in favour of its genuineness. There is no possible motive for forgery. An anti-Jewish [[Gnostic]] would not have used expressions of deference to the Apostles of the Circumcision; an Ebionite would not have used the arguments of the Epistle against the Mosaic Law (thus the <em> Clementine Homilies </em> , an Ebionite work, clearly hits at the Epistle in several passages); an orthodox forger would avoid all appearance of conflict between Peter and Paul. After a.d. 70 there never was the least danger of the Gentile Christians being made to submit to the Law. There is therefore no reason for surprise that the recent attack on the authenticity of the Epistle has been decisively rejected in this country by all the best critics. </p> <p> A. J. Maclean. </p>

<p> The date when this Epistle was written has been disputed more than that of any of the others, some placing it early, and others later. The events seem best to agree thus: on Paul's second missionary journey he went throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia. &nbsp;Acts 16:6 . We learn from &nbsp;Galatians 4:13-15 that he had preached the gospel to them, and that they had received him as an angel and would have plucked out their eyes for him. This visit would have been about A.D. 51. Then about 54Paul again visited them; all we read as to this journey is that he went over all the country of Galatia, strengthening, or confirming, all the disciples. &nbsp; Acts 18:23 . They may, alas, have as readily received the Judaising teachers, and when this came to the ears of Paul, he wrote this Epistle to them. He grieved that they were so soon diverted to another gospel which was not another. In &nbsp;1 Corinthians 16:1 we read that Paul had instructed the churches in Galatia as to the collection for the poor. This was written to [[Corinth]] about A.D. 55. The collection is not mentioned in his Epistle to the Galatians, and as far as we know he did not visit them again. This has caused some to suppose that Paul wrote the Epistle to them after his <i> first </i> visit; and that he gave them the directions as to the collection on his <i> second </i> visit; but they may have been given by another letter or by a private messenger. </p> <p> &nbsp;Galatians 1 . After a brief opening, in which the intent of the Lord's giving Himself for our sins is set forth, namely, to deliver us from this present age according to the will of God, the apostle proceeds directly to the point and marvels at the rapid departure of the Galatian converts from the gospel. In the strongest terms he denounces the efforts made to pervert them from the grace of Christ to other ground. Paul would have them know that his apostleship was not by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father; that the gospel he preached was by the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Jews' religion, by which they were so attracted, had led him to be a bitter persecutor, but it had pleased God to reveal His Son in him that he might preach <i> Him </i> among the Gentiles. His commission and authority had come direct from on high, and had no connection with Jerusalem as a source. The saints in [[Judaea]] did but glorify God in him. </p> <p> &nbsp;Galatians 2 . [[Fourteen]] Years after [his conversion] he went up to Jerusalem and communicated to those there the gospel he preached to the Gentiles. He utterly refused to submit to pressure from Judaising brethren in the case of the Gentile convert Titus, and in result received the full fellowship of the three pillars — James, Cephas, and John — in regard to his ministry among the heathen. Subsequently, at Antioch, Paul had actually withstood Peter to the face as to the truth of the gospel, which Peter was fatally compromising from fear of the Jews. Peter's conduct was wholly inconsistent. Peter and Paul had themselves left the law for justification, to find it alone on the principle of faith in Christ. Had Christ become the minister of sin in their doing this? If not, in going back to the law they built anew what they had destroyed, and were confessedly transgressors; for if right in leaving it for Christ, they were wrong in returning to it. For Paul, however, it was true that through law he had died to law, in order to live to God. With Christ he was crucified (was judicially dead); yet he lived, but no longer himself, for Christ lived in him, and his life as still in this world was by <i> faith </i> — the faith of the Son of God, a living object whose love filled his soul. Christ had died in vain if righteousness came by the law. </p> <p> &nbsp;Galatians 3 . The Galatians were as though bewitched. Had they received the Spirit on the principle of law or of faith? To this there could be but one answer. Having begun in the Spirit, were they now to be made perfect by the flesh ? Faith was the principle on which Abraham, the head of promise and blessing, was reckoned righteous, and on which the Gentiles would, with believing Abraham, receive blessing, according to God's promise to him. Those under law were under the curse; and on that ground none could be justified. Christ had borne the curse that Abraham's blessing might come on the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, and that through faith they might receive the promise of the Spirit. The law, given four hundred and thirty years after the promise, could not set the latter aside, which was made not only to Abraham, but to his Seed, even to Christ. The law came in by the way till the Seed should come: it proved transgressions; it had been useful as a guard: it had been for those under it a tutor up to Christ. Now faith had come, such were no longer under a tutor; the Gentile believers were now God's sons by faith in Christ Jesus. In Christ distinctions between Jew and Gentile disappeared: all were one, and the Gentile believers being of Christ were Abraham's seed and heirs according to promise. </p> <p> &nbsp;Galatians 4 . Though heirs, the [[Jews]] were, under law, in the condition of children under age, held in bondage under the elements of the world, with which indeed the law had to do. But now God had sent forth His Son, to redeem those under law, that believers might receive sonship. He had sent the Spirit of His Son into their hearts, giving the cry of relationship, 'Abba, Father.' They were therefore no longer bondmen, but sons; and if sons, then heirs through God. Were the Gentile believers (formerly in heathen darkness, but now knowing God) going to turn back to the principles of law, which the apostle does not hesitate to call weak and beggarly elements? They observed days, and months, and times, and years, as though [[Christianity]] were a system for man in the flesh. But he reminds them of their former affection for him, and how they had received him as an angel of God. Was he now their enemy because he told them the truth? These Judaising teachers had sown this discord in order that they might supplant the apostle in their affections. [[Spiritually]] he again travailed in birth with them till Christ should be formed in them. He knew not what to make of them. Let those who wanted to be under law listen to it. He then submits to them the allegory of [[Sarah]] and Hagar, in which the principles of law and faith in God's promise are seen in conflict. The promise is secured in Isaac, that is, in Christ. Believers, as Isaac was, are children of promise, they are not children of the maid-servant but of the free woman. </p> <p> &nbsp;Galatians 5 . He exhorts the Galatians to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ made free. If circumcised they were debtors to do the whole law, and were deprived of all profit from the Christ. They had in such case fallen from grace. Christians awaited the hope of righteousness, by the Spirit, on the principle of faith. For those in Christ faith wrought through love. The Galatians <i> had </i> run well, but who had now hindered them? The guilt of this mischief should be borne by the troubler, whoever he was. The scandal of the cross was done away if circumcision was preached, for it was rehabilitating the flesh. But love was the fulfilment of the law. The flesh and Spirit were in fact utterly opposed, but if led by the Spirit they were not under law. The works of the flesh are set forth in contrast to the fruit of the Spirit. Those that were of Christ had crucified the flesh with its lusts, the Spirit being the only power for christian walk. </p> <p> &nbsp;Galatians 6 . Some closing exhortations follow. The spiritual were to restore those taken in a fault, remembering what they were in themselves. They were to care for one another — to think nothing of themselves — to care for those who ministered to them in the word. He warns them of the consequences of sowing to the flesh, but in sowing to the Spirit they should reap eternal life. Let them do good then to all, but especially to the household of faith. He tells them he had written this letter with his own hand as evidence of his deep concern as to them. He once again refers to the mischief-makers in scathing terms. But the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ was his only boast, through whom the world was crucified unto him, and he to it. In Christ Jesus nothing availed but a new creation; and upon those who walked according to this rule peace and mercy are invoked. This Epistle, in which the grief of the apostle is mingled with indignation, is concluded by an affecting allusion to the sufferings he had endured in the maintenance of the truth which they were so lightly turning from: he bore in his body the marks of the Lord Jesus. There are none of the customary salutations. </p> <p> The epistle is an example of the energy and rapidity of the apostle's style, and ofthe spiritual power of his argument. We see him deeply moved by the baneful influence of the Judaisers in Galatia and at their success. Alas! it is what has extended everywhere throughout Christendom. </p>

<p> An epistle of St. Paul to the churches in Galatia, which was an especial favourite with Luther, as, with its doctrine of spiritual freedom in Christ, it might well be, for it corroborated the great revelation first made to him by a neighbour monk; "man is not saved by singing masses, but by the grace of God"; it is a didactic epistle, in assertion, on the one hand, of freedom from the law, and, on the other, of the power of the spirit. </p>