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 ( Galatians 4:13 ), he was welcomed in the most friendly way; on the second he warned them against [[Judaizers]] ( Galatians 1:9 , Galatians 5:3 ‘again,’ cf. 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 Galatians 3:1 , Galatians 5:7 is singular, cf. 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 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 Acts 16:6; 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 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’ ( 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’ (Acts 2:10; 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, Romans 15:25 , 2 Corinthians 9:2; 2Co 11:10 , 1 Thessalonians 1:7 f.; cf. 1 Corinthians 16:5 ), ‘Macedonia,’ ‘Illyricum’ ( 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 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 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 Acts 16:6; Acts 18:23 , which are appealed to on both sides. In 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 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 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’ ( 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 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, 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 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]] (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, Galatians 4:13 fits in very well with 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 Acts 16:1-40 to visit Bithynia, 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 ( Galatians 1:18 , 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 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 Galatians 1:18 = 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 Acts 2:1 . Lightfoot and Sanday identify this visit with that of Acts 15:2 (the Jerusalem Council), saying that at the intermediate visit of 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 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 Acts 11:30 would be due to the fact that they, not the Apostles, would administer the aims (cf. 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 Galatians 2:2 and 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 Galatians 2:1-21 suits Acts 15:1-41 rather than 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]] ( Acts 11:2 ff.), and from the nature of things must have been present whenever a [[Gentile]] became a Christian. The Council in 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 ( Galatians 2:11 ff.) is placed by Lightfoot immediately after 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 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 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 Acts 16:6; Acts 18:23 to represent the two visits to the Galatians implied in 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 Acts 19:8 ff., probably early in the stay (cf. 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]] ( 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]] (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 ( Acts 18:23 ). On this supposition the two visits to the Galatians implied by the Epistle would be those of 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 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. 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 ( Galatians 2:1 ) is met by placing the conversion of St. Paul in a.d. 32. Weber thinks that 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 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> Galatians 3:1 to 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> Galatians 5:13 to Galatians 6:10 . <strong> Hortatory </strong> . ‘Hold fast by freedom, but do not mistake it for licence. Be forbearing and liberal.’ </p> <p> Galatians 6:11-18 . <strong> [[Conclusion]] </strong> . Summing up of the whole in Paul’s own hand, written in large characters ( 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, 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. 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. Acts 16:6 . We learn from 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. 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 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> the fourth in order of the [[Pauline]] epistles of the N.T., entitled simply, according to the best MSS. (see Tischendorf, N.T. ad loc.), πρός Γαλάτας . (See the Mercersburg Review, January 1861.) </p> <p> 1. Authorship. — With regard to the genuineness and authenticity of this epistle, no writer of any credit or respectability has expressed any doubts. Its Pauline origin is attested not only by the superscription which it bears (Galatians 1:1), if this be genuine, but also by frequent allusions in the course of it to the great apostle of the [[Gentiles]] (Galatians 1:13-23; Galatians 2:1-14). It is corroborated also by the style, tone, and contents of the epistle, which are perfectly in keeping with those of the apostle's other writings. The testimony of the early [[Church]] on this subject is most decided and unanimous (see Lardner, Works, volume 2). Besides express references to the epistle (Irenaeus, Haer. 3:7, 2; 5:21,1; Tertullian, [[De]] Praescr. ch. 60, al.), we have one or two direct citations found as early as the time of the apostolic fathers (Polyc. ad Philippians chapter 3), and several apparent allusions (see Davidson, Introd. 2:318 sq.). The attempt of [[Bruno]] Bauer (Kritik der Paulin. Briefe, Berlin, 1850) to demonstrate that this epistle is a compilation of later times, out of those to the Romans and to the Corinthians, has been treated by Meyer with a contempt and a severity (Vorrede, page 7; Einleit. page 8) which, it does not seem too much to say, are completely deserved. </p> <p> 2. Occasion, etc. — The parties to whom this characteristic letter was addressed are described in the epistle itself as "the churches of Galatia" (Galatians 1:2; comp. Galatians 3:1) in [[Asia]] Minor, otherwise called Gallogriecia (Strabo, 12:566) — a province that bore in its name its well- founded claim to a Gallic or Celtic origin (Pausanias, 1:4), and that now, after an establishment, first by predatory conquest, and subsequently by recognition but limitation at the hands of neighboring rulers (Strabo, 1.c.; Pausanias, 4:5), could date an occupancy, though not an independence, extending to more than three hundred years; the first subjection of [[Galatia]] to the Romans having taken place in B.C. 189 (Livy, 38:16 sq.), and its formal reduction (with territorial additions) to a regular [[Roman]] province in A.D. 26. (See [[Galatia]]). </p> <p> Into this district the [[Gospel]] was first introduced by [[Paul]] himself (Acts 16:6; Galatians 1:8; Galatians 4:13; Galatians 4:19). Churches were then also probably formed, for on revisiting this district some time after his first visit it is mentioned that he "strengthened the disciples" (Acts 18:23). These churches seem to have been composed principally of converts directly from heathenism (Galatians 4:8), but partly, also, of [[Jewish]] converts, both pure [[Jews]] and proselytes. Unhappily, the latter, not thoroughly emancipated from early opinions and prepossessions, or probably influenced by [[Judaizing]] teachers who had visited these churches, had been seized with a zealous desire to incorporate the rites and ceremonies of [[Judaism]] (especially circumcision, Galatians 5:2; Galatians 5:11-12; Galatians 6:12 sq.) with the spiritual truths and simple ordinances of Christianity. (See Cruse, De statu Galatarum, etc., Hafn. 1722.) So active had this party been in disseminating their views on this head through the churches of Galatia, that the majority at least of the members had been seduced to adopt them (Galatians 1:6; Galatians 3:1, etc.). To this result it is probable that the previous religious conceptions of the Galatians contributed; for, accustomed to the worship of Cybele, which they had learned from their neighbors the Phrygians, and to theosophistic doctrines with which that worship was associated, they would be the more readily induced to believe that the fullness of [[Christianity]] could alone be developed through the symbolical adumbrations of an elaborate ceremonial (Neander, Apostolisches Zeitalter, 2d edit. page 400). It would seem that on his last visit to this region, Paul found the leaven of Judaism beginning to work in the churches of Galatia, and that he then warned them against it in language of the most decided character (Galatians 1:9; Galatians 5:3). From some passages in this epistle (e.g., Galatians 1:11-24; Galatians 2:1-21) it would appear also that insinuations had been disseminated among the [[Galatian]] churches to the effect that Paul was not a divinely-commissioned apostle, but only a messenger of the church at Jerusalem; that Peter and he were at variance upon the subject of the relation of the Jewish rites to Christianity; and that Paul himself was not at all times so strenuously opposed to those rites as he had chosen to be among the Galatians. Of this state of things intelligence having been conveyed to the apostle, he wrote this epistle for the purpose of vindicating his own pretensions and conduct, of counteracting the influence of these false views, and of recalling the Galatians to the simplicity of the Gospel which they had received. The importance of the case was probably the reason why the apostle put himself to the great labor of writing this epistle with his own hand (Galatians 6:11). </p> <p> 3. Time and Place of Writing. — On the date of this epistle great diversity of opinion prevails. (See Fischem, De tempore quo ep. ad G. scriptafuersit, s. Longos. 1808; Keil, De tempore, etc., in his Opusc. acad. page 351 sq.; also Ueb. d. Zeit. etc., in Tzschirner's Asalekten, 3:2, 55 sq., Niemeyer, De tempore, etc., Gott. 1827; Ulrich, Ueb. d. Abfassunqzeit, etc., in the Theol. Stud. n. Krit. 1836, 2:448 sq.). [[Marcion]] held this to be the earliest of Paul's letters (Epiphanius, adv. Hares. 42:9); and Tertullias is generally supposed to favor the same opinion, from his speaking of Paul's zeal against Judaismn displayed is this epistle as characteristic of his being yet a neophyte (adv. Marc. 1:20); though to us it does not appear that in this passage Tertullian is referring at all to the writing of this epistle, but only to Paul's personal intercourse with Peter and other of the apostles mentioned by him in the epistle (Galatians 2:9-14). Michaelis also has given his suffrage in favor of a date earlier than that of the apostle's second visit to Galatia, and very shortly after that of his first. Koppe's view (Nov. Test. 6:7) is the same, though he supposes the apostle to have preached in Galatia before the visit mentioned by Luke is Acts 16:6, and which is usually reckoned his first visit to that district. Others, again, such as [[Mill]] (Proleg. in Nov. Test. page 4), Calovius (Biblia Illust. 4:529), and, more recently, Schrader (Der Ap. Paulus, 1:226), place the date of this epistle at a late period of the apostle's life: the last, indeed, advocatest he date assigned in the [[Greek]] MSS., and in the [[Syrian]] and Arabic versions, which announce that it wag "written from Rome" during the apostle's imprisonment there. </p> <p> But this subscription is of very little critical authority, and seems in every way improbable; it was not unlikely suggested by a mistaken reference of the expressions in Galatians 6:17 to the sufferings of imprisonment. See Alford, Prolegomena, page 459. Lightfoot (Journal of [[Sacred]] and Class. Philo. January 1857) urges the probability of its having been written at about the same time as the [[Epistle]] to the Romans, and finds it very unlikely that two epistles so nearly allied in subject and line of argument should have been separated in order of composition by the two epistles to the Corinthians. He would therefore assign [[Corinth]] as the place where the epistle was written, and the three months that the apostle staid there (Acts 20:2-3) as the exact period. But when the language of the epistle to the Galatians is compared with that to the Romans, the similarity between the two is such as rather to suggest that the latter is a development at a later period, and in a more systematic form, of thoughts more hastily thrown out to meet a pressing emergency in the former. The majority of interpreters, however, concur in a medium view between these extremes, and fix the date of this epistle at some time shortly after the apostle's second visit to Galatia. From the apostle's abrupt exclamation in Galatians 1:6, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you," etc., it seems just to infer that he wrote this epistle not very long after he had left Galatia. It is true, as has been urged (see especially Conybeare and Howson's Life and [[Epistles]] of St. Paul 2:132), that οὔτω ταχέως in this verse may mean "so quickly" as well as "so soon;" but the abruptness of the apostle's statement appears to us rather to favor the latter rendering; for, as a complaint of the quickness of their change respected the manner in which it had been made, and as the apostle could be aware of that only by report, and as it was a matter on which there might be a difference of opinion between him and them, it would seem necessary that the grounds of such a charge should be stated; whereas if the complaint merely related to the shortness of time during which, after the apostle had been among them, they had remained steadfast in the faith, a mere allusion to it was sufficient, as it was a matter not admitting of any dieversity of opinion. We should consider, also, the obvious fervor and freshness of interest that seems to breathe through the whole epistle as an evidence that he had but lately left them. </p> <p> The question, however, still remains, which of the two visits of Paul to Galatia mentioned in the Acts was it after which this epistle was written? In reply to this, Michaelis and some others maintain that it was the first, but in coming to this conclusion they appear to have unaccountably overlooked the apostle's phraseology (4:13), where he speaks of circumstances connected with his preaching the Gospel among the Galatians, τὸ πρότερον , the former time, an expression which clearly indicates that at the period this epistle was written Paul had been at least twice in Galatia. On these grounds it is probable that the apostle wrote and dispatched this epistle not long after he had left Galatia for the second time, and perhaps whilst he was residing at [[Ephesus]] (comp. Acts 18:23; Acts 19:1 sq.), i.e., A.D. 51. The apostle would in that city have been easily able to receive tidings of his Galatian converts; the dangers of Judaism, against which be personally warned them, would have been fresh in his thoughts; and when he found that these warnings were proving unavailing, and that even his apostolic authority was becoming undermined by a fresh arrival of Judaizing teachers, it is then that he would have written, as it were on the spur of the moment, in those terms of earnest and almost impassioned warning that so noticeably mark this epistle. The reasons which Michaelis urges for an earlier date are of no weight. He appeals, in the first place, to Galatians 1:2, and asks whether Paul would have used the vague expression, "all the brethren," without naming them, had it not been that the parties in question were those by whose he had been accompanied on his first visit to Galatia, viz. [[Silas]] and Timothy, and, "perhaps, some others." The answer to this obviously is that had Paul referred in this expression to these individuals, who were known to the Galatians, he was much more likely, on that very account, to have named them than otherwise; and besides, the expressions "all the brethren that are with me" is much more naturally understood of a considerable number of persons, such as the elders of the church at Ephesus, than of two persons, and "perhaps some others." </p> <p> Again, he urges the fact that, about the time of Paul's first visit to Galatia, Asia Minor was full of zealots for the law, and that consequently it is easier to account for the seduction of the Galatians at this period than at a later. But the passage to which Michaelis refers in support of this assertion (Acts 15:1) simply informs us that certain Judaizing teachers visited Antioch, and gives us no information whatever as to the time when such zealots entered Asia Minor. In fine, he lays great stress on the circumtance that Paul, in recapitulating the history of his own life in the first and second chapters, brings the narrative down only to the period of the conference at Jerusalem, the reason of which is to be found, he thinks, in the fact that this epistle was written so soon after that event that nothing of moment had subsequently occurred in the apostle's history. But, even admitting that the period referred to in this second chapter was that of the conference mentioned Acts 15 (though this is much doubted by many writers of note), the reason assigned by Michaelis for Paul's carrying the narrative of his life no further than this cannot be admitted; for it overlooks the design of the apostle in furnishing that narrative, which was certainly not to deliver himself of a piece of mere autobiographical detail, but to show from certain leading incidents in his early apostolic life how from the first he had claimed and exercised an independent apostolic authority, and how his rights in this respect had been admitted by the pillars of the Church, Peter, James, and John. For this purpose it was not necessary that the narrative should be brought down to a lower date than the period when Paul went forth as the apostle of the Gentiles, formally recognized as such by the other apostles of Christ. </p> <p> Some of the advocates of a date earlier than A.D. 50 suppose that the persons addressed under the name of Galatians were not the inhabitants of Galatia proper, but of [[Lystra]] and [[Derbe]] (Acts 14:6), since among the seven districts into which Asia Minor was divided by the Romans the name of [[Lycaonia]] does not occur; the latter therefore, with its cities of Derbe and Lystra, must have been included in the province of Galatia, as indeed Pliny, (ist. Nat. 5:27) makes it a part thereof. (See Schmidt, De Galatas, etc., Hefeld. 1748.) It is urged, in addition, that, while copious details are given in Acts 14 respecting the founding of the [[Lycaonian]] churches, the first mention of Galatia (Acts 16:6) is merely to the effect that Paul passed through that country. On these grounds Pasilus, [[Ulrich]] (Stud. und Ksrit. 1836), Bö ttger, and others hold that under the term περίχωρον, "the region round about" (Acts 14:6), Galatia must be included; and therefore they put back the composition of the epistle to a date anterior to the apostolic council (Acts 15). It is certain, however, that Luke did not follow the Roman division into provinces (which, moreover, was frequently changed), because he specially mentions Lycaonia, which was no province, and distinguishes it from Galatia. As to the latter point, no valid inferences can be drawn from the comparative silence of the inspired history upon the details of Paul's labors in particular places, provided his presence there is clearly recorded, although in brief terms. There seems, therefore, no reason to depart from the common opinion that the apostle's first visit is recorded inActs 16:6; and consequently the epistle must have been written subsequently to the council (Acts 15). With this, too, the references in the epistle itself best agree. The visit to [[Jerusalem]] alluded to in Galatians 2:1-10, is, on the best grounds, supposed to be identical with that of Acts 15 (A.D. 47); and the apostle speaks of it as a thing of the past. (See [[Paul]]). </p> <p> 4. Contents. — The epistle consists of three parts. In the first part (1, 2), which is apologetic, Paul vindicates his own apostolic authority and independence as a directly-commissioned ambassador of [[Christ]] to men and especially to the [[Gentile]] portion of the race. After an address and salutation, in which his direct appointment by heaven is distinctly asserted (Galatians 1:1), and a brief doxology (Galatians 1:5), the apostle expresses his astonishment at the speedy lapse of his converts, and reminds them how he had forewarned them that even if an angel preached to them another gospel he was to be anathema (Galatians 1:6-10). The gospel he preached was not of men, as his former course of life (Galatians 1:11-14), and as his actual history subsequent to his conversion (Galatians 1:15-24), convincingly proved. When he went up to Jerusalem it was not to be instructed by the apostles, but on a special mission, which resulted in his being formally accredited by them. (Galatians 2:1-10); nay, more, when Peter dissembled in his communion with Gentiles, he rebuked him, and demonstrated the danger of such in consistency (Galatians 2:11-21). In the second part (3, 4), which is polemical, having been led to refer to his zeal for the great doctrine of salvation by the grace of [[God]] through faith in Christ, the apostle now enters at large upon the illustration and defense of this cardinal truth of Christianity. He appeals to the former experience of the Galaties. and urges specially the doctrine of justification, as evinced by the gift of the [[Spirit]] (Galatians 3:1-5), the case of [[Abraham]] (Galatians 3:6-9), the fact of the law involving a curse, from which Christ has freed us (Galatians 3:10-14), and, lastly, the prior validity of the promise (Galatians 3:16-18), and that preparatory character of the law (Galatians 3:19-24) which ceased when faith in Christ and baptism into him had fully come (Galatians 3:25-29). All this the apostle illustrates by a comparison of the nonage of an heir with that of bondage under the law: they were now sons ands inheritors (Galatians 4:1-7); why, then, were they now turning back to bondage (Galatians 4:8-11)? They once treated the apostle very differently (Galatians 4:12-16); now they pay court to others, and awaken feelings of serious mistrust (Galatians 4:17-20); and yet, with all their approval of the law, they show that they do not unederstand its deeper and more allegorical meanings (Galatians 4:21-31). In the third part (5, 6), which is hortatory and admonitory, the Galatians are exhorted to stand fast in their freedom, and beware that they make not void their union with Christ (v5:1-6): their perverters, at any rate, shall be punished (Galatians 5:7-12). The real fulfilment of the law is love (Galatians 5:13-15): the works of the Spirit are what no law condemns, the works of the flesh are what exclude from the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:16-26). The apostle further exhorts the spiritual to be forbearing (Galatians 6:1-5), the taught to be liberal to their teachers, and to remember that as they sowed so would they reap (Galatians 6:6-10). Then, after a noticeable recapitulation, and a contrast between his own conduct and that of the false teachers (Galatians 6:11-16), and an affecting entreaty that they would trouble him no more (Galatians 6:17), the apostle concludes with his usual benediction (Galatians 6:18). </p> <p> 5. Commentaries. — The following are special exegetical helps on the whole of this epistle, the most important being designated by an asterisk [*] prefixed: Victorinus, Commentarii (in Mai, Script. Vet. III, 2:1); Jerome, Comasentarii (in Opp. 7:367; Opp. Suppos. 11:97, 9); Augustine, Expositio (in Opp. 4:1248); Chrysostom, Commentarius (in Opp. 10:779; also Erasmi, Opp. 8:267, tr. in Lib. of Fathers, Oxf. 1840, volume 6, 8vo); Cramer, Catena (volume 6); [[Claudius]] Taur., Commentarius (in Bibl. Max. Patr. 14:139); Aquinas, Expositio (in Opp. 7); *Luther, Commentarius (Lips. 1519, 4to, and often since; also in Opp. 3:1, etc.; tr. London, 1807, 1835, 8vo); also his fuller Commentarius (Vitemb. and Hag. 1535, 8vo, and later; both works also in Germ. often); Bugenhagen, Adnotationes (Basil. 1525, 8vo); Megander, Commentarius (Tigur. 1:533, 8vo); Seripandus, Commenataria (in his work on Romans, Lugd. 1541, 8vo; also separately, Antw. 1565, 8vo, and later); Calvin, [[Commentaries]] et lemones (both in Opp.; the former tr. Edinb. 1854, 8vo; the latter, Lond. 1574, 4to); Meyer, Adnotationes, (Berne, 1546, Hanosa. 1602, 8vo); Sarcer, Adnotationes (Frankfort, 1542, 8vo); Salmeron, Disputationes (in Opp. 15); Major, Enarratio (Vitemb. 1560, 8mo; also in German ib. eod.); Musculus, Commentarius (Basil. 1561, 1569, fol.); Cogelerus, Solationes (Vitemb. 1564, 8vo); Chytraeus, Enarratio (Franc. 1569, 8vo); Heshusins, Commentarius (Helmst. 1579, 8vo); Wigand, Adnotatioae (Vitemb. 1580; Lips. 1596, 8vo); Grynous, Asnalysis (Basil. 1583, 4to); Cornesus, Commentarius [after Luther] (Heidelb. 1583, 8vo); Prime, [[Exposition]] (Oxford, 1587, 8mo); Heilbrunner, Commentarius (Lansug. 1591, 8vo); Perkins, [[Commentary]] (in Works, 2:153; Cambr. 1601, Lond. 1603; in Latin, Genev. 1611, 2 volumes, fol.); Rollock, Analysis (London, 1602, Geneva, 1603, 8vo); Hoe, Commentarius (Lips. 1605, 4to); Winckelmann, Commentarius (Giess. 1608, 8vo) Weinrich, Exposi (Lips. 1610, 4to); Betuleius: Paraphrasis (Halle, 1612, 1617, 8vo); Battus, Commentarii (Gryphisen. 1613, 4to); Lyser, Analysis (Lips. 1616, 4to); Pareus, Commentarius (Heidelb. 1621, 4to; also in Opp. 3); Crell, Commentarius (Raconigi. 1628, 8vo; also in Opp. 1:373); Coutzen, Commentarius (Colossians and Mog. 1631, folio); Himmel, Commentarius (Jena, 1641, 4to); Lithmann, Συζήτησις (Upsal. 1641, 4to); Weininann, Exercitationes (Altorf. 1647, 4to); Terser, Analysis (Upsal. 1649, 4to); Lushington, Conmmentary (Lond. 1650, fol.); Cocceius, Conmmentarius (Opp. 5.); also Explicatio (ib. 12:199); Feurborn, Expositio (Giess. 1653,1669, 4to); Chemnitz, Collegium (Jen. 1656, 1663, 4to); *Kunadus, Disputationes (Vitemb. 1658, 4to); Ferguson, Exposition (Edinb. 1657, Lond. 1841, 8vo); Lagus, Commentatio (Gryph. 1664, 4to); *Stolberg, Lectiones (Vitemb. 1667, 4to); Kronnayer, Commentarius (Lips. 1670, 4to); Moommas, Meditationes (Hag. 1678, 8vo); [[Van]] der Waeyen, Verklaaring (Lebard. 1682, 8vo; also in Latin, Franecker, 1681, 4to); *Steengracht, Vitlegging (Ench. 1688, 4to); *Schmid, Commentatio (Kilon. 1690, Hamb. 1696,1704, 4to); Leydekker, in ep. ad Galatians (Tr. ad Rh. 1694, 8vo); *Akersloot, an de Galatians (Leyd. 1695, 4to; in German, Brem. 1699, 4to); *Spener, Erklarung (F.a.M. 1677, 1714, 4to); Aurivilius, Animadversiones (Halle, 1702, 4to); Locke, [[Paraphrase]] (Lond. 1705, 1733, 4to); Weisius, Commentarius (Helmst. 1705, 4to); Mayer, Dissertationes (Grypl. 1709, 8vo); Van Dyck, Anmerking (Amst. 1710, 8vo); Boston, Paraphrase (in Works, 6:240); Hazevoet, Verklaaring (Leyd. 1720, 4to); Vitringa, De br. an d. Galatians (Franeq. 1728, 4to); *Plevier, Verklaaring (Leyden, 1738, 4to); Rambach, Erklarung (Giess. 1739, 4to); Murray, Erklarung (Lips. 1739, 8vo); Wessel, Commentarius (L. Bat. 1750, 4to); Hoffmann, Introductio (Lips. 1750, 4to); *Struensee, Erklarung (Flensb. 1764, 4to); Baumgarten, Auslegung (Hal. 1767, 4to); Michaelis, Anmerk. (2d ed. Gotting. 1769, 4to); Zacharia, Erklar. (Gotting. 1770, 8vo); Moldenhauer, Erklarung (Hamb. 1773, 8vo); Cramer, Versuch (in the Beitrdge zu Beford. 1:112 sq.); Chandler, Parcapthrase (London, 1777, 4to); Weber, Anmerkungen (Lpz. 1778, 8vo); Semler, Paraphrasis (Hal. 1779, 8vo); Lavater, Uezschreibung (in Pfenniger's Magaz. 1:33-72); Riccaltoun, [[Notes]] (in Works, 3); Anon. Erklar. (in the Beitrage zu Beford. 5:126 sq.); Esmarch, Uebersetzung (Flensburg, 1784); Schutze, [[Scholia]] (Ger. 1784, 4to); Roos, Auslegueng (Tub. 1784, 1786, 8vo); Mayer, Anmerk. (Wien, 1788, 8vo); Krause, Anmerkungen (Frkf. 1788, 8vo); Stroth, Erklar. (in Eichhorn's Report. 4:41 sq.); Schilling, Anmerkungen (Leipzig, 1792, 8vo); Carpzov, Uebersetzung (Helmstadt, 1794, 8vo); Morus, Acroases (Lips. 1795, 8vo); also Erklar. (Gorl. 1798, 8vo); Anonym. Anmerl. (in Henke's Magaz. 2:22); Bair, Explicatio (Frcft. 1798, 8vo); Hensler, Anmerk. (Lpz. 1805); Borger, Interpretatio (L. Bat. 1807, 8vo); *Winer, Commentarius (Lips. 1821, 1828, 1829, 1859, 8vo); Anon. Uebers. (Neust. 1827, 8vo); Flatt, Vorles. (Tub. 1828, 8vo); Paulus, Erlauterung (Heidelb. 1831, 8vo); Hermann, In primis 3 cap. (Lips. 1832,4to); *Usteri, Commentar (Zur. 1833, 8vo); *Matthies, Erklarung (Oreifs. 1833, 8vo); *Ruckert, Commentar. (Lpz. 1833, 8vo); Fritzsche, De nonnullis locis, etc. (Rostock, 1833-4, 4to); Zschocke, Erklarung (Halle, 1834, 8vo); Schott, Erklar. (Lpz. 1834, 8vo); Sardinoux, Commentaire (Valence, 1837, 8vo) Windischmann, Erklarung (Mainz, 1843, 8vo); Barnes, Notes (N.Y. 1844, 12mo); Baumgarten-Crusius, Galaterbrief (in Exeg. Schriften, II, 2), Haldane, Exposition (London, 1848, 8vo); Olshausen, Commentary (tr. Edinb. 1851, 8vo); *Hilgenfeld, Erklarung (Halle, 1852, 8vo); Brown, Exposition (Edinb. 1853, 8vo); Muller, Erklarung (Hamb. 1853, 8vo); *Ellicott, Commentary (Lond. 1854,1859, Andov. 1864, 8vo); *Turner, Commentary (N.Y. 1855, 8vo); Jatho, Erlauterung (Hildesheim, 1856, 8vo); Anasker, Auslegung (Lpz. 1856, 8vo); Meyer, Galaterbrief (in Commentar, 7, Gotting. 1857, 8vo); Bagge, Commentary (London, 1857, 8vo); Frana, Commentarius (Goth. 1857, 8vo); Twele, Predigten (Hann. 1858, 8vo) * Wieseler, Commentar (Gotting. 1859, 8vo); Jowett, Notes (in Epistle, 1, London, 1859, 8vo); Gwinne, Commentary (Dubl. 1863, 8vo); Lightfoot, Notes (Lond. 1855, 8vo); Reithmayer, Commentar (Munch. 1865, 8vo); Vomel; Anmerk. (Freft. a.M. 1865, 8vo); Matthias, Erkldrunag (Cassel, 1865, 8vo); *Eadie, Commentary (Glasg. 1869, 8vo); Brandes, Freiheitsbrief (Wiesb. 1869, 8vo). (See [[Epistle]]). </p>