INTRODUCTION to The Epistle to the Galatians

Exposition of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon

NEW

TESTAMENT

COMMENTARY

Exposition of Galatians

William Hendriksen

BAKERBOOKS

A DIVISION OF BAKER BOOK HOUSE CO GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN 49516

Originally published in separate volumes:

First printing, December 1995

Published by Baker Books

a division of Baker Book House Company

P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516–6287

12 volume set, first available 2002

ISBN 0–8010–2606–7

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

ISBN 0–8010–2078–6

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

The letters in book-abbreviations are followed by periods. Those in periodical-abbreviations omit the periods and are in italics. Thus one can see at a glance whether the abbreviation refers to a book or to a periodical.

A. Book Abbreviations

A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

Gram.N.T. A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research

Gram.N.T. (Bl.-Debr) F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

Grk.N.T. (A-B-M-W) The Greek New Testament, edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, 1966 edition.

I.S.B.E. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

L.N.T.(Th.) Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

L.N.T.(A. and G.) W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

M.M. The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan (edition Grand Rapids, 1952)

N.A.S.B. (N.T.) New American Standard Bible (New Testament)

N.N. Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by D. Eberhard Nestle, revised by Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland, 25th edition, 1963

N.E.B. New English Bible

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

R.S.V. Revised Standard Version

S.H.E.R.K. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

Th.W.N.T. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (edited by G. Kittel)

W.D.B. Westminster Dictionary of the Bible

B. Periodical Abbreviations

ABR Australian Biblical Review

BA Biblical Archaeologist

BW Biblical World

CTM Concordia Theological Monthly

EQ Evangelical Quarterly

ET Expository Times

Exp The Expositor

GTT Gereformeerd theologisch tijdschrift

Int Interpretation

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

TT Theologisch tijdschrift

Please Note

In order to differentiate between the second person plural (see Gal. 6:1: “you who are spiritual”) and the second person singular (same verse: “lest you also be tempted”), the letters in “you pl.” are spaced; those in “you sing.” are not.

GALATIANS

INTRODUCTION to The Epistle to the Galatians

I. WHY IS THIS EPISTLE IMPORTANT?

“The epistle to the Galatians is my epistle. To it I am as it were in wedlock. It is my Katherine.” Thus spoke Luther, who considered Galatians the best of all the books in the Bible. It has been called “the battle-cry of the Reformation,” “the great charter of religious freedom,” “the Christian declaration of independence,” etc.

It is important because in any age it answers the basic question asked by the human heart: “How can I find true happiness?” “How can I obtain peace, tranquility, freedom from fear?”

In his own strength and by his own wisdom man is totally unable to discover the answer. The slogan that has appeared in various forms, one of them being: “No Christ for a gift God gave us, Mankind alone must save us,” fails completely. It fails in each of its manifestations, be it ritualism in obedience to the law of Moses—that was the snare in which the Galatians of Paul’s day were becoming entangled (3:10; 5:2–4) —, rigorous asceticism, the affliction of the body, works of supererogation, the self-righteous deeds of “the moral man,” strict obedience to “the laws of Nature,” confidence in Science (these two here purposely spelled with a capital letter), or, lastly, the leaning either on oneself, as the captain of one’s fate and the master of one’s soul, or on this or that political Führer or false religious Messiah.

At times the attempt to satisfy man’s deepest yearning takes an entirely different, even opposite, direction. Legalism yields to license. It is as if men were saying, “Since obedience to law—whether of Nature, of Moses, of the demagogue, or even of unenlightened conscience—has not brought the desired result, let us try disobedience to law. Let us break their bonds asunder, And cast away their cords from us. Away with every restraint!” However, those who have sown the wind of (what they are pleased to call) “personal liberty”—in reality it is unbridled license!—with its emphasis on such things as sex and sadism, robbery and rioting (cf. 5:19–21), are reaping the whirlwind of intellectual impoverishment, moral decay, and spiritual bankruptcy. The solution, clearly, does not lie in this direction.

For all those who are willing to take God at his word Galatians shows the way to true freedom (5:1). That genuine liberty is neither legalism nor license. It is the freedom of “bondage to Christ.” It consists in becoming a captive in his train, that is, surrendering oneself to God Triune as he has revealed himself in Jesus Christ unto salvation. It is discovered when one is willing to desist from every attempt to save oneself, and to accept Christ Jesus as his Lord and Savior, glorying in his cross alone (6:14) and trusting in him as the fulfiller of the law (3:13). For all those who have by God’s sovereign grace been led to do this the law ceases forevermore to be the means of attaining happiness now or the ticket to heaven when death arrives (2:16). Guided by Christ’s Spirit, the redeemed, out of gratitude for the salvation which they have thus received as a gift, begin to adorn their lives with “the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, and self-control” (5:22, 23). Now fear has fled. Lust has vanished as a guiding principle (5:24). The prison-door has been opened. The air is exhilarating, invigorating. True freedom at last has been found. The sinner has been reconciled to his God. He is walking by the Spirit (5:16). Not only has he found the blessing, but he has also become a blessing, for it is through him that God blesses the world.

This last observation deserves emphasis. In Paul’s day neither legalism nor libertinism (licentiousness) was winning any victories, real and lasting. It was exactly the gospel of liberty in and through Christ which was going forth conquering and to conquer. Had Paul surrendered to legalism Christianity would have become known as nothing more than a modified Judaism, which in no sense whatever could have conquered the world. The Gentiles would have rejected it. Had he compromised with libertinism after the example of those who had adopted the slogan, “Let us continue in sin that grace may abound” (cf. Rom. 6:1), the hearts of men chosen to eternal life would never have been satisfied. Sooner or later the falsity of “the new religion” would have been exposed. But because, by God’s sovereign power, he succumbed to neither but proclaimed the riches of God’s pardoning and transforming (!) grace, Christianity became—not just a but—the great world-religion, the religion destined to invade the hearts of all those whom God from eternity had chosen “out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). Legalism, libertinism, or true liberty, that was the question then. It is the question also today.

II. TO WHOM WAS IT ADDRESSED?

About the year 278 b.c. a large body of Gauls or Kelts, who had previously invaded and ravaged Greece, Macedonia, and Thrace, crossed over into Asia Minor. Their coming was not—at least not altogether—an unwarranted intrusion, for they arrived as a result of an invitation that had been extended to them by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia. So, here they were, with their wives and children, occupying the very heart-land of Asia Minor, a broad belt extending northward from the center (see accompanying sketch).

They belonged to three tribes: the Trochmi, Tectosages, and Tolisbogii, with whom are associated the cities, respectively, of Tavium, Ancyra, and Pessinus. All three of these tribes were Galli, that is, Gauls (“warriors”), also called Galatae, that is, Galatians (“nobles”). They rapidly gained the mastery over the native population of “Phrygians,” of mixed ancestry, devotees of the ancient and impressive religion of Cybele. For a long time, due to constant raids into adjacent districts, the boundaries of the Gallic domain remained fluid, but the newcomers were finally forced by the Romans to live in peace with their neighbors and to remain within the limits of their own territory. In course of time, as happens often in such cases, the Gauls amalgamated with the earlier population, adopted their religion, but in most other respects remained the dominant strain.

Since the Gallic rulers were gifted with shrewdness they generally allied themselves with whoever happened to be “on top” in Rome. The latter reciprocated by allowing the former to be treated more as an ally than as a conquered nation. They were considered a “kingdom.” During the reign of their last king, Amyntas IV, their realm was even extended southward. Upon the death of Amyntas (25 b.c.) the Romans fell heir to this already somewhat enlarged kingdom and converted it into the Roman “province of Galatia,” which soon comprised, in addition to the central and northern territory, to the south: parts of Phrygia, Lycaonia, Pisidia, and Isauria (see the sketch).

It is understandable that the terms Galatia and Galatians could now be used in a twofold sense, as indicating either a. Galatia proper with its Gallic population, or b. the larger Roman province, inhabited not only by the Gauls as the dominant race in the central and north, but also by others farther south. When the term Galatians was used in the former sense, it naturally could not refer to those to whom the gospel had been proclaimed in the course of Paul’s first missionary journey. The churches of Antioch (Pisidia), Iconium (Phrygia), Lystra and Derbe (cities of Lycaonia),¹ would then be excluded. On the other hand, when it was used in the latter sense it could very well refer to these early converts to the Christian faith about whom we read in Acts 13 and 14.

All of this leads to the question: “To whom was Galatians addressed: to the churches of Pessinus, Ancyra, Tavium and surroundings, or to those in Antioch (Pisidian), Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and vincinity? Did the apostle use the term Galatians (3:1; cf. 1:2) in the racial (ethnic) or in the political sense? Was he thinking of people in the north or of those in the south?”² For well-nigh two centuries there has been a sharp division of opinion with respect to this subject. Both camps of advocates have their great scholars as well as their lesser lights. For a representative defense of the North Galatian theory see J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, reprint,

Who were the Galatians?

ASIA, GALATIA, etc.: Roman Provinces

Mysia, Galatia, etc.: Geographic Regions

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ : Beginning of second Miss. Journey: Antioch (Syria) to Troas; and of third: Antioch (Syria) to Ephesus

Grand Rapids, no date, pp. 1–35; for the South Galatian view see W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, London, 1893, pp. 3–112; St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, reprint, Grand Rapids, 1949, pp. 89–151; and A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, reprint, Grand Rapids, 1965, pp. 1–234.³

Excellent summaries of arguments and counter-arguments, logically arranged, can be found in several commentaries. In order to avoid duplication and, if possible, increase the interest in this subject, which is not wholly devoid of significance for the proper interpretation of certain Galatian passages, I shall follow a new approach, and present the matter in the form of a brief imaginary debate between a defender of the North Galatian theory and an advocate of the opposite view.

Resolved: That Galatians is addressed to the churches in North Galatia.

A. Affirmative

Mr. chairman, honorable judges, worthy opponent, and all other friends of biblical investigation:

In the days of the apostle Paul there existed in central and northern Asia Minor a people known as Gauls or Galatians. They were Gauls or Galatians by blood and descent. Even long before they had crossed over from Europe into Asia Minor they were known thus. The new kingdom which they established in Asia Minor was consequently a Gallic or Galatian kingdom. It is true that when this kingdom was converted into a Roman province, named Galatia, a few small districts were added, inhabited by people of a different nationality, who, in a remote or definitely secondary sense, were able, from that moment on, to call themselves Galatians. However, it cannot be denied that the primary meaning of this word Galatians is not “inhabitants of the province of Galatia,” but Gauls, nothing else. When, therefore, a letter is addressed “To the Galatians,” convincing proof to the contrary would be needed before it would be possible to interpret this address in any other way than in harmony with the long established connotation of the word.

Such convincing proof, however, is completely absent. Ask the ancient interpreters, the men who lived much nearer to the time when this letter was written, how they interpreted the term Galatians as used in Gal. 3:1, cf. 1:2. With one voice they will tell you that it refers to the Gauls of Galatia proper, and not to just anyone who, due to some political maneuvering, happened to be living within the Roman province of Galatia. Now this testimony of the ancients should be given its proper due. In all other disputes—for example, touching such matters as the origin of Infant Baptism or of the religious observance of the first day of the week—we are always asking, “What does early tradition say about this?” Why should we ignore such unanimous tradition in this particular instance?

Besides, careful study of the contents of the epistle strengthens the proposition which I am defending. We note that those addressed are pictured as fickle. When the apostle arrived in their midst and preached to them the glorious gospel, they accepted it at once. Yes, they even welcomed him as they would have welcomed an angel or Jesus Christ himself, and had it been necessary, they would even have plucked out their very eyes and given them to Paul (Gal. 4:14, 15). Soon afterward, however, due to the arrival in their midst of some false teachers who slandered the apostle and belittled his preaching, they turn right around, so that they are now at the point of rejecting both Paul and his message (Gal 3:1–4). Now has not instability of character always been the outstanding trait of Gauls, yes, and even of their descendants to this present day? Do we not read in Caesar’s Gallic War IV.5: “Caesar was informed of these events; and fearing the fickleness of the Gauls … decided that no confidence could be reposed in them”? These Galatians whom Paul addressed in his epistle were typical Gauls, therefore.

Moreover, when with Luke’s account of the first missionary journey, during which the gospel was proclaimed to the people of Antioch (Pisidian), Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, we compare the apostle’s own account of his reception by the Galatians and his work among them (Gal. 4:13, 14), do we not see immediately that these two are completely different? This difference is not because one is true and the other false. Rather, it is because the two accounts deal with two entirely different subjects, two different missions. Thus, the apostle tells the Gauls or Galatians: “It was because of an infirmity of the flesh that I preached to you the gospel on that former occasion” (Gal. 4:13). Now compare this remark with Luke’s review of Paul’s work in Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 13 and 14). In that account is there even the least hint that it was because of infirmity that the apostle either began his work in these more southern cities or continued it for a longer period than he had at first intended? Of course not, for these are different people. They cannot be identified with Paul’s Galatians.

Besides, when does Luke first mention the word Galatia? Not until he has reached the point in his story where Paul, on his second missionary journey, has left behind the more southern cities of Derbe, Lystra, etc., and is turning northward (Acts 16:6; cf. 18:23; 19:1). It is very clear, then, that when Paul’s close friend and frequent companion, Luke, whom the apostle calls “the beloved physician,” now finally speaks about Galatia, he cannot have been thinking of the cities of the south that had but recently been added⁴ to the province of Galatia. His eyes are now turned toward the north. And if that was true with respect to Luke, why should it not hold for Paul? Why should we assume that the latter uses the terms Galatia and Galatians in any sense different than the ethnic?

There is one additional reason that makes it well-nigh impossible to identify the people of the more southern part of the Roman province of Galatia with the Galatians whom Paul addresses in his letter. It is clear from the entire contents of this epistle that those addressed were—either exclusively or at least almost exclusively—converts from the Gentile world (Gal. 4:8–11; 6:12). They were people who had never been circumcised (Gal. 5:2; 6:12), but were now in danger of accepting the rite of circumcision. They could not have been Jews, therefore, for the Jews were circumcised, and were even called “the circumcision.” On the other hand, the churches established in the southern part of the Roman province of Galatia consisted of both Jews and Gentiles, perhaps in equal proportion. The Jews may even have predominated. In fact, in Antioch of Pisidia there were “many Jews” who turned to Christ (Acts 13:43). In Antioch and in Iconium there were found synagogues of Jews. Into these synagogues the apostle entered and preached. At Iconium “a great multitude both of Jews and of Greeks believed” (Acts 14:1). This decided difference between the constituency of the southern churches, described in the book of Acts, and the Gentile converts whom Paul addresses in his letter to the Galatians, proves that this letter cannot have been written to South and must have been intended for North Galatia.

B. Negative

Mr. president, noble referees, friendly adversary, and all those interested in scriptural research:

First of all I wish to remind you of the proposition which my worthy opponent was supposed to defend. It was this: “Resolved: That Galatians is addressed to the churches in North Galatia.” Permit me to underscore the word churches. At what point in his argument did he ever give us a clear conception of these churches? All he told us was that at some point in the second missionary journey and also later Paul turned “to the north.” He evidently wanted us to draw the conclusion that since Paul’s letter was addressed to the Gauls, and since the more southern churches did not consist of Gauls, the apostle must have labored for a considerable time among the Gauls of the north, long enough to establish churches there. Am I being unfair when I state that his conclusion is drawn from a false premise? Fact is that when Paul says Galatians he does not necessarily mean Gauls. Rather, in distinction from Luke, he, Paul, in making mention of the churches under his care, and grouping them, uses the names of Roman provinces rather than those of races or nationalities. Thus, for example, in I Cor. 16:5 the apostle speaks of Macedonia; the fifteenth verse of the same chapter he refers to Achaia, and in the nineteenth verse to Asia. Now all of these were Roman provinces. Therefore, when in the opening of the chapter (I Cor. 16:1) he mentions “the churches of Galatia,” is it not logical to assume that here, too, as well as in the other three cases, he refers to it as a Roman province? And if in I Cor. 16:1 the meaning must be “the churches of the Roman province of Galatia,” why should the identical phrase in Gal. 1:2 have a diffierent meaning?⁵ We see, therefore, that it is far better to say that the epistle of Paul which figures in this debate was addressed to “churches in the Roman province of Galatia” than to argue that this letter must have been intended for churches in North Galatia.

My opponent made much of the fact that it was in the old ethnic sense that the Church Fathers interpreted the terms Galatia and Galatians. He omitted to mention the reason for this patristic error. That reason was that in the days of these fathers the province of Galatia had again been restricted to virtually its old dimensions, so that for them “the territory inhabited by the Gauls” and “the province of Galatia” coincided. Hence, without further investigation they concluded that Paul, in addressing the churches of Galatia, was speaking to the people who had come from across the sea, the Gauls. But, as has been shown, this opinion of the fathers is not in harmony with Paul’s use of political terms.

It somewhat amazes me that my beloved adversary, in the defense of his proposition, even resorts to the now seldom heard argument based on the instability of the Gauls. But is it ever fair and honest for us, who do not possess the gift of infallible inspiration, to characterize an entire nation as being fickle? Is instability a national characteristic? Is it not rather a weakness that pertains to unregenerate human nature in general? Let it be granted that the Galatians whom the apostle ad in his letter were fickle in that they so quickly abandoned their initial enthusiasm with respect to Paul and the message he had brought. Of whom does this instability remind us? Does it not immediately recall the scene at Lystra, a city of Lycaonia in the southern part of the province of Galatia, whose inhabitants, after having first welcomed Paul and Barnabas, shouting, “The gods have come down to us,” shortly afterward stoned the apostle almost to death? Truly, to be fickle one does not have to be a Gaul! Besides, strictly speaking, is it even correct to imply that at this late date, the first century a.d., the northern tribes were exclusively Gauls? Granted that the Gallic strain was dominant, is it not true that many tributaries had poured their water into the stream of their composite nationality?

My opponent also appeals to the fact that the book of Acts does not speak of physical infirmity (cf. Gal. 4:13) as a reason why Paul either began or prolonged his mission in South Galatia. But, first of all, this difference between the two accounts can be removed by a different interpretation of Gal. 4:13, according to which it would not read “because of” but “amid” physical infirmity, which would fully harmonize with Acts 13:50; 14:5, 6, 19; cf. II Tim. 3:11. And secondly, even if we retain “because of,” and assume a real difference between Gal. 4:13 and the account in Acts, let it be remembered that of those many afflictions which the apostle himself enumerates in II Cor. 11:23–33 Luke mentions only a few. Is it safe, then, to conclude that Paul never endured those which Luke does not record?

As to the Jew versus Gentile difference between Acts and Galatians, diligent study of Acts 13 and 14 leaves the impression that wherever there was a synagogue Paul entered it and proclaimed the gospel, reaching both Jews and Gentiles, proselytes (Acts 13:43; 14:1). Though Jews as well as Gentiles accepted the gospel, the former, on the whole, rejected it, causing the apostle to remark, “Since you thrust it from you, we turn to the Gentiles.” Moreover, in some of the places visited, Jews were so few in numbers that there was not even a synagogue. This tallies with the situation as pictured in Paul’s epistle. And as concerns the latter, the apostle assumes that those addressed have sufficient knowledge of the Old Testament to follow his reasoning, even including that of Gal. 4:21–31. Does not this fact rather point in the direction of the presence of at least some Jews among the addressed and of considerable Jewish influence even in these predominantly Gentile congregations?

I conclude by saying that my opponent has failed to show that Galatians is addressed to the churches of North Galatia. Of the founding and existence in Paul’s day of such churches the book of Acts does not with certainty say anything at all, neither in 16:6 nor in 18:23; 19:1. And, on the other hand, of the establishment of churches in South Galatia it has given us a detailed account.

C. Rebuttal for the Affirmative

As to my opponent’s contention that, in referring to groups of churches, Paul classifies them according to the Roman provinces in which they were located, and that, consequently, the term “the churches of Galatia” must refer to churches in the province of Galatia, that rule has its exceptions. Thus, it cannot be proved that the apostle is using political terminology when he speaks of Cilicia (Gal. 1:21), of Judea (Gal 1:22), and of Arabia (Gal. 4:25).

As for the rest, I must express my profound admiration for my opponent’s cleverness. He can turn an argument from silence in either direction, to suit his purpose. It makes me think of what a child will at times say to his playmate to determine who will receive the biggest slice of the apple: “Let’s flip a coin. Heads I win; tails you lose.” When I called attention to the silence of the book of Acts with respect to any infirmity on Paul’s part on his first missionary journey, during which he founded the churches of South Galatia, my opponent told us that such silence, if it were a fact, would mean nothing at all. Nevertheless, he was certain that when that same book of Acts fails to say in so many words that churches were established in North Galatia, this silence speaks volumes, and must mean that no churches were established there, churches to which Paul might have addressed his epistle. He maintains this in spite of the fact that Acts 18:23 states that the apostle went through this northern region “establishing all the disciples.” Does not the word all indicate that there were many? Does not this imply that these many disciples must have organized themselves into churches? And does not the fact that on this third missionary journey Paul established or strengthened all these disciples indicate that these several churches must have been founded previously, a fact to which Acts 16:6 would seem to call our attention? Moreover, does not Acts 19:1 say that Paul, having passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus? What else can this “upper country” mean but North Galatia, with its cities of Tavium, Ancyra, and Pessinus? It is true that Luke does not tell us in so many words that churches were established in these cities, but neither does he tell us that a church was ever established in Colosse. Yet Paul wrote a letter to the Colossians. Luke does not even tell us anything about the founding of the church in Rome. Yet we know that a church was established there and that Paul wrote a letter to that church.

I conclude my summary, therefore, by stating once more that it is my firm belief that there were churches in North Galatia, at it was to these genuinely Galatian churches that Paul addressed his letter.

D. Rebuttal for the Negative

It is clear, is it not, that my opponent has not succeeded to overthrow my contention that wherever in Paul’s epistles we are in a position to determine with certainty the location and extent of any group of churches the apostle use political terminology to describe it. He uses the names of Roman provinces.

As to these silences of the book of Acts, here my opponent fails to distinguish between expected and unexpected silences. When Luke presumably fails to mention Paul’s infirmity, this silence is more or less expected. At least it cannot mean that there was no such infirmity, for by comparing Luke’s account with Paul’s own catalogue of sufferings (II Cor. 11:23–33) we learn that Luke is not in the habit of particularizing Paul’s sufferings. Rather, he recounts Christ’s work on earth, establishing a church here, a church there, and welding them into an organic unity. So when, while narrating a journey in which churches were being established, Luke omits any reference to the establishment of churches in a district covered on that journey or to Paul’s preaching there, this would be an unexpected silence, unless nothing of importance happened in that district.

My opponent emphasized Acts 16:6; 18:23; 19:1, as if these three passages described Paul’s work in the cities of North Galatia. Now in Acts 16:6–8 (second missionary journey), since God intended to send Paul to Europe via Troas, the route may well have touched the western edge of the more northerly part of the Roman province of Galatia. But this passage in Acts says nothing about establishing churches or even preaching there. As to Acts 18:23; 19:1 (third missionary journey), a look at the map suffices to show that the route from Antioch (in Syria) to Ephesus was probably not over Tavium, Ancyra, and Pessinus! The more southerly part of this same Roman province of Galatia is indicated.⁶ And the words “establishing all the disciples” probably mean “in South Galatia.” Cf. Acts 14:20–23; 16:1–5.

It is also significant that, as the last, reference indicates, it was to the churches of South Galatia that the regulations of the Jerusalem Council were delivered, showing that it was exactly there that Judaism was a live issue, the very Judaism against which Paul contends in his letter. I believe, therefore, that Paul used the term Galatians in the political sense, as did also Peter (I Peter 1:1). It is hard to believe that the Judaistic errorists, with their sinister propaganda, would have bypassed South Galatia on their way to North Galatia. Moreover, Barnabas, mentioned three times in Galatians (2:1, 9, 13), had worked with Paul in South Galatia. And it was only with respect to the South Galatian churches, established on the first missionary journey, that Paul, at the time of the Jerusalem Council, could say, “(I did not yield to the infiltrators) in order that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal. 2:5).

I conclude, therefore, in stressing once again that the proposition according to which Paul’s letter was meant for North Galatia is to be rejected.

Report of one of the judges (the author of this book. The readers are the other judges): I believe that both speakers have done justice to their assignment. Nevertheless, the speaker for the negative deserves a slight reprimand for having saved a few of his minor arguments to the very last, so that his opponent lacked any opportunity to answer him. Had the latter been given this opportunity, he would, no doubt, have somewhat diminished the force of these arguments. He would have shown, for example, that Barnabas is mentioned not only in Galatians but also elsewhere (I Cor. 9:6; Col. 4:10). Nevertheless, all things considered, I cast my ballot in favor of the negative and of the South Galatian theory. To believe that the South Galatian churches, so dear to Paul because of his blessed experiences among them (Acts 13:33, 44, 48; 14:1, 3, 20–23), and so vividly impinged upon his memory because of the persecutions which he had endured while laboring in their cities (Acts 13:50; 14:2, 5, 19; cf. II Tim. 3:11), would have played virtually no part in his correspondence and would have disappeared almost completely from sacred history, is difficult. And if the apostle did write to them, as I believe the speaker for the negative has proved, by what common name could he have addressed them better than by that of Galatians?

III. WHEN, WHERE, AND WHY WAS IT WRITTEN?

A. When and Where?

On this subject there is a great diversity of opinion. Some accept as the date the close of the first missionary journey (about a.d. 50), and as the place of composition: Antioch. There are also those, at the other extreme, who assign this letter to the apostle’s Roman imprisonment (a.d. 60 and afterward). While the former date once enjoyed great popularity and is still being favored by certain eminent scholars, the latter is now seldom met.⁷ Various intermediate dates have gained large followings. Naturally, as a rule, the advocates of the North Galatian theory accept a rather late date because the apostle did not enter those parts until he was on his second missionary journey. As they see it, Paul revisited North Galatia during his third journey. And so, quite generally they hold that Galatians was written on the third missionary journey at Ephesus (Greijdanus), or, more precisely, at Ephesus a few weeks before I Corinthians (Warfield), or after I and II Corinthians but before Romans, and then either: a. on the journey from Macedonia to Achaia (Lightfoot) or b. at Corinth (Robertson). We who have adopted the South Galatian theory (see chapter II) arrive at an earlier date because during his three missionary journeys Paul labored in South Galatia earlier than in any other group of churches. Is it possible to be more specific? The following items may be of some help, though certainty cannot be attained:

1. Galatians was written after the Jerusalem Council, for it describes Paul’s relation to the other leaders at that great meeting. The journey to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal. 2:1 must be identified with the one indicated in Acts 15:1–4. For proof see on Gal. 2:1.

2. It was written after two previous visits to South Galatia, the first of which is indicated in Acts 13 and 14, the second in Acts 15:40–16:5. This is the most natural interpretation of Gal. 4:13 (see on that verse).

3. It was composed not long after the conversion of the Galatians—hence also: not long after Paul’s two visits—, for Paul is amazed that the Galatians are “so quickly” moving away from God who had called them (see on 1:6).

4. It may well have been written, therefore, on the second missionary journey, at Corinth, before the arrival of Timothy and Silas.⁸ This would explain the omission of greetings from these two men, both of whom occupied a special place in the hearts and memories of the South Galatian churches (Acts 15:40; 16:1–3). Contrast Gal. 1:1, 2, where these two names are omitted, with I Thess. 1:1; II Thess. 1:1, which mention both, the probable reason for the omission and the inclusion being that when Galatians was composed Timothy and Silas were still absent, but when the letters to the Thessalonians were written these two fellow-workers had arrived in Corinth and were again in Paul’s company. This would fix the date of composition somewhere near the middle of the period a.d. 50–53 (second missionary journey), just previous to the writing of I Thessalonians.

Galatians, then, may well be the very first or oldest of all the letters of Paul that have been preserved. It has been objected that it is improbable that Paul, during his early Corinthian ministry, would dispatch in close succession letters as diverse in general theme as Galatians, on the one hand, and I and II Thessalonians, on the other. To the Galatians Paul writes: “A man is not justified by law-works but only through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal. 2:16); while to the Thessalonians he writes: “For they [people everywhere] are reporting about us, what kind of entering in we had among you and how you turned to God from those idols (of yours), to serve God, the living and real One, and to await his Son out of the heavens” (I Thess. 1:9, 10). The following, however, should be borne in mind:

1. The subject matter of Paul’s epistles was determined not so much by the apostle’s gradual mental development as by specific needs arising from concrete situations in the various churches. The Galatians needed to be reminded about the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith only. The Thessalonians needed encouragement in connection with their dramatic conversion and with respect to the return of Christ. Each group receives what it needs!

2. The Galatians and the Thessalonians lived in different continents, amid different surroundings.

3. The two differed also in their degree of loyalty to the truth.

4. Even so, the difference between the two situations is not nearly as radical as it is sometimes made to appear. For example, the doctrine of conversion to the living God from dead idols was proclaimed among both (cf. Acts 14:15 with I Thess. 1:9). And as to the difference in content between the letters themselves: though it is true that the doctrine of the last things is stressed in Thessalonians far more than in Galatians, it is not absent from the latter (Gal. 5:21). Moreover, does faith working through love occupy a place of prominence in Galatians (Gal. 5:6)? It does also in I Thess. 1:3; 3:6; 5:8. Was Paul concerned lest he might have labored in vain among the Galatians (Gal. 3:4)? Before Silas and Timothy rejoined him he had entertained somewhat similar fears with respect to the Thessalonians (I Thess. 3:5). Cf. also Gal. 1:4; and 5:5 with I Thess. 1:10; and II Thess. 3:2; Gal. 5:3 with I Thess. 2:12; Gal. 5:13, 16, 19 with I Thess. 4:3; Gal. 5:21 with II Thess 2:5; Gal. 6:6 with I Thess. 5:12; and see footnote 129 on p. 175.

I can see no reason, therefore, to deny that the epistle to the Galatians was followed soon afterward by I Thessalonians, which, in quick succession, was followed by II Thessalonians, all three having been written from Corinth about the year a.d. 52.

B. Why?

Occasion and Purpose

In harmony with all that has been established, in this and in the preceding chapter, touching the identity of the Galatians, the time when, and the place from which Paul wrote his letter, the latter’s historical background and purpose will appear from the following account:

In the church of Syrian Antioch there was great joy, for, after an eventful and perilous journey, Paul and Barnabas, who had been ordained for missionary work, and had been sent forth by the Holy Spirit and by a dedicated congregation committed to the grace of God, had returned in safety, with a wonderful story to tell (Acts 13:1–3; 14:25–27). “They rehearsed all things that God had done with them, and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles,” we read. The two then spent “not a little time” with the church at Antioch.

Now Antioch, “the queen of the east,” was cosmopolitan in outlook. There was a colony of Jews here, to be sure (Acts 11:19), but the Christian community, which has been called “the cradle of Gentile Christianity and missionary endeavor,” refused to be hemmed in within the narrow limits of Jewry. It was in Antioch that it had been most clearly discerned that the followers of Jesus were not just another Jewish sect but had a religion that was unique among all the religions of the empire. It was here that the disciples were first called “Christians.” Hence, if anything were to occur that would tend to impede the worldwide progress of Christianity, the church of Antioch could be counted on to do something about it.

And something of this nature did indeed occur, for Antioch’s joy because of the return of the missionaries and the tidings which they had brought, about multitudes of people, especially Gentiles, having embraced Christ and salvation in him, did not remain a secret. It spread far and wide. Jerusalem, too, heard about it. Also there, we may well believe, the church rejoiced. But this joy was not universal. In this Judean city among those who heard the news there were also some nominal converts from the sect of the Pharisees (Acts 15:5). In common with the disciples of the Lord, all Pharisees believed in the resurrection from the dead. In addition, the Pharisees mentioned here in Acts 15:5 may have been impressed by the strength of the evidence for Christ’s resurrection, and by the indisputable grandeur of his miracles, and may for these reasons have joined the followers of the Nazarene. But at heart they had remained Jewish legalists. They were convinced that it took more than simple faith in Jesus to be saved; and that strict observance of Jewish ceremonies, particularly circumcision, was also necessary.

So, when news of the conversion of the Gentiles apart from the work of the law, and especially apart from the necessity of receiving circumcision, reached the ears of these men, off to Antioch they went, with a protest in their hearts and an ultimatum on their lips. Arrived in the city, they hesitated not a moment to announce to the startled, mostly Gentile, congregation, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). This stern pronouncement, whereby the majority of the congregation was relegated to the limbo of the lost, must have caused considerable consternation and alarm.

The church, however, decided to do something about it, encouraged no doubt by the growing and well-founded suspicion that these trouble-makers had not been authorized to deliver this scare-fomenting message (cf. Acts 15:24). And so it was agreed to refer this matter to a General Conference at Jerusalem, that is, to “the apostles and elders” (Acts 15:2) together with “the whole church at that place” (Acts 15:22). Paul, Barnabas, and certain other men were selected to go to Jerusalem in order to represent the church of Antioch (and, in a sense, every uncircumcised Gentile convert everywhere) with respect to this matter. As had been true when Paul was commissioned to go on his first missionary journey, so also now, the decision of the Antioch church and Paul’s compliance with it were no merely human matters. God himself had a hand in it: the apostle went up to Jerusalem “by revelation” (Gal. 2:2).

In the company of men going to Jerusalem was also Titus, of heathen extraction both on his father’s and on his mother’s side, a test case, therefore, a manifest challenge to the Judaizers. The decision to place the entire matter, with reference to uncircumcised Titus and every Gentile convert, before the Jerusalem Council by no means implied that Paul was thereby abdicating his authority as an apostle or that the validity of his gospel ministry among the Gentiles was left in doubt until the mother church would come forth with an official answer to the question: “Must Gentiles be circumcised in order to be saved?” Paul, “an apostle not from men nor through man but through Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Gal. 1:1), knew that the divine approval rested on him and his work. But on a matter as important as this the church must not be divided, for this would hurt the great cause of evangelizing the Gentiles. The leaders, moreover, must speak clearly and unequivocally to the people, so that all may know what is the truth. Solutions must also be reached to problems which, though not basic, deal with temporary arrangements whereby in mixed churches Jews and Gentiles can dwell together in harmony (cf. Acts 15:29). For these various reasons and others, no doubt, the convocation of this General Council or Conference was entirely in order.

The Council, described in Acts 15, was, in all probability, preceded by a private interview of the leaders, to which Gal. 2:2–10 refers. Paul says, “I set before them the gospel which I am accustomed to preach among the Gentiles; but (I did this) privately, to ‘those of repute,’ to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain” (Gal. 2:2). Complete agreement was evident on every point: Titus must not receive circumcision; the basic doctrine of salvation for Gentiles as well as for Jews by faith in Jesus Christ, apart from the works of the law, must be courageously upheld before the entire church; there must be a division (probably geographical) of labor, so that James, Cephas, and John will preach the gospel to the Jews, Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles; the poor must be remembered. At the close of the interview the Jerusalem “pillars” give to Paul and to Barnabas “the right hand of fellowship.”

At the meeting of the General Council the Judaists avail themselves of the opportunity to defend their position (Acts 15:5). However, when ample time has been allowed for this “questioning,” Peter arises and in well-chosen words defends the perfect parity of Jew and Gentile: “God made no distinction between us and them.” He points out that the way of salvation is exactly the same for both groups (15:7–11). After a respectful pause Paul and Barnabas take the floor and rehearse to the assembled multitude the phenomenal blessings which God had showered upon the Gentiles, “the signs and wonders” by means of which he had placed the seal of his approval on the work of his ambassadors (15:12). James then gives his judgment. Moved by the fact that what was happening in the Gentile world was a clear fulfilment of prophecy (Amos 9:11, 12), he states, “Wherefore my judgment is that we do not trouble those who from the Gentiles turn to God.” Without in any way injuring the doctrine of justification by faith alone, apart from the works of the law, James, who is a very practical individual, suggests the adoption of certain regulations which, in this period of transition, would make it possible for Jewish and Gentile Christians to live together in peace and harmony (Acts 15:20, 21).

The apostles and elders, together with “the whole church,” reach a consensus, and decide to embody the decision in a written decree, a Charter of Freedom, as it were, which is to be brought to Antioch by Paul, Barnabas, and two other leaders (15:22–29). The arrival of these men and the message which they convey bring general rejoicing (15:31).

The decision of the Conference was made known in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia (15:23), and also in the cities of South Galatia (16:1–4). “So the churches were strengthened in faith, and increased in number daily” (16:5).

The Judaizers, however, are not about to give up the fight. They follow Paul at his heels in order to destroy the results of his labors. In Antioch they are partly to blame for Peter’s reprehensible conduct (Gal. 2:11, 12). They traverse Galatia, insisting that the Gentiles be circumcised as a means unto salvation (Gal. 5:2, 3; 6:12). They do not deny that faith in Christ is necessary, but they loudly proclaim that circumcision and obedience to certain additional legal requirements are also necessary (4:9, 10). Yet, with amazing inconsistency, they do not insist on obedience to the whole law (5:3). In order to bolster their cause they cast suspicion on Paul. They attempt to discredit him, claiming that his apostleship is not from God but from men, and that his gospel is second-hand, therefore (Gal. 1:1; cf. I Cor. 9:1 ff.); that he is simply striving to win the favor of men (Gal. 1:10), and that when it suits him he himself preaches circumcision (Gal. 5:11).

Paul knew that these trouble-makers were Christians in name only. They were insincere and inconsistent, for while trying to force others to observe the law, they themselves failed to keep it (Gal. 6:13). Their aim was: a. to escape persecution from the side of the Jews, and b. out of personal ambition to glory in the flesh of their followers; that is, to be able to point with pride at those Gentiles who, due to their (the Judaizers’) urging, had received circumcision (4:17; 6:13). “But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ,” says Paul (6:14).

Strange to say, many of the Galatians listen attentively to these usurpers. They are on the point of exchanging bread for a stone, a fish for a serpent. Big-hearted, solicitous Paul is filled with sadness when he hears that in Galatia the doctrine of Christian freedom is in danger. Guided by the Spirit and under the latter’s direction, he decides to write a letter to these people who are so dear to his heart. Are they not among the first fruits of his labors as an ordained foreign missionary? To them the doctrine of sovereign grace in all its simplicity and glory must be set forth once again.

Yet, while glorying in the cross, the apostle knew that it was necessary to warn the Galatians against a perversion of this doctrine of grace, as if this new Christian liberty were tantamount to license. He emphasizes that if a person really walks by the Spirit, the Spirit of freedom, he will not fulfil the desire of the flesh but will instead bear fruit, even the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16–26).

Briefly, therefore, the occasion which prompted Paul to write this letter was the sinister and, to some extent, successful influence which Judaistic trouble-makers were exerting upon the churches of South Galatia. And the purpose was to counteract this dangerous error by re-emphasizing the glorious gospel of free grace in Christ Jesus: justification by faith alone, apart from the works of the law, and to urge those addressed to adorn their faith and prove its genuine character by means of a life in which the fruit of the Spirit would abound. Thus the cause of truth would be advanced, and sectionalism, caused in part by the sinister propaganda of the Judaizers, with which many agreed but others were undoubtedly not so ready to agree, would cease. By heeding Paul’s—that is, the Holy Spirit’s—admonitions the Galatian churches would be enabled to present a united testimony to the world.

IV. WHO WROTE IT?

Since the Pauline authorship of Galatians is almost universally acknowledged today, little need be said about it. In the middle of the nineteenth century under the influence of F. C. Baur, the Tübingen School, proceeding from the premise that only those writings can be ascribed to Paul in which he appears prepared for combat, denied the authenticity of all the letters passing under the apostle’s name except Galatians, I and II Corinthians and Romans. Bruno Bauer, in his extreme radicalism, considered even these four epistles as products not of Paul but of the second century. In this rejection of the Pauline authorship of Galatians, etc. he was followed by the radical Dutch School: Loman, Pierson, Naber, and Van Manen. They held that the sharp clash between Pauline and Judaistic Christianity pictured in Gal. 2:11–21 (as interpreted by them), could not have developed as early as the days of the apostle Paul, and that the Christology of Galatians was far too lofty. All of this rests on purely subjective reasoning and is not worthy of further comment.

Eusebius, writing at the beginning of the fourth century, includes Galatians in the list of Paul’s letters (Eccl. History III.iii. 4, 5). Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexander, and Irenaeus, in their respective writings, quote this epistle again and again. The Muratorian Fragment (about 180–200) places it second among Paul’s epistles. The canon of the heretic Marcion is the first to mention the epistle by name (about the year 144), and places it first in the list of ten Pauline letters. It is found in the Old Syriac and in the Old Latin Versions. Polycarp (martyred 155) in his Epistle to the Philadelphians V.1 quotes Gal. 6:7, “God is not mocked.” About the year 100 Clement of Rome writes, “You kept his sufferings before your eyes” (I Clement II.1), which reminds one of Gal. 3:1. And at about the same time Ignatius writes about a “ministry neither from himself nor through men, but in the love of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (To the Philippians III.1), in which there may be an allusion to Gal. 1:1. Barnabas, Hermas, Justin Martyr, the Epistle to Diognetus are among the other writings of very early date which contain passages which are viewed by many as allusions to Galatians.

But more important is the fact that as soon as this epistle was ascribed to anyone, it was ascribed to Paul. That has been the belief of the church throughout the centuries and is its conviction today. No argument of any merit has ever been presented to show that this view is in error. And the compromise theories, which are propounded every now and then up to the very present, according to which Galatians contains a Pauline core around which in post-apostolic times a pseudo-Pauline shell fastened itself, break down under the weight of their self-contradictions.

The author tells us that his name is Paul (1:1; 5:2). The letter is clearly a unit. It pictures a condition true to the times in which Paul lived (cf. Acts 15:1; I Cor. 7:19). It is, moreover, very personal, and reveals throughout “a man in Christ.” Here is a mind so broad that it has room for both sovereign grace and human responsibility, a heart so loving that it administers stern rebuke just because it loves so deeply! The Paul of Gal. 1:15, 16; 2:20; 3:1; 4:19, 20 is clearly also the Paul of Rom. 9:2; I Cor. 9:22; 10:33; II Cor. 11:28; 12:15; Eph. 4:1; and Phil. 3:18, 19. It is Paul of Tarsus.

V. WHAT IS ITS THEME? ITS OUTLINE?

It has become clear that the apostle’s chief concern was that the Galatians should not lose their hold on the only true gospel. It is significant how often the word gospel, either as a noun or as a component element of a verb, occurs in this small epistle: 1:6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 23; 2:2, 5, 7, 14; 3:8; 4:13. The essence or content of this gospel is also affirmed and reaffirmed: “A man is not justified by law-works but only through faith in Jesus Christ” (2:16; cf. 2:21; 3:9, 11; 4:2–6; 5:2–6; 6:14–16).

Now justification by faith apart from law-works is also the theme of Romans. There is a close resemblance between the larger and the smaller epistle. Gen. 15:6: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness” is quoted in both letters (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6). Among other verbal resemblances are especially the following: Rom. 6:6–8 and Gal. 2:20; Rom. 8:14–17 and Gal. 4:5–7; Rom. 13:13, 14 and Gal. 5:16, 17. Nevertheless, there is a striking difference between the two. Romans sets forth calmly and majestically that for every sinner, whether he be a Jew or a Gentile, there is salavation full and free through faith in Christ, apart from law-works. Galatians, in a tone that is not nearly as calm and at times becomes fiery, defends this glorious gospel over against its detractors. Against the latter its denunciations are withering (1:8, 9; 5:12). With respect to those addressed, with whom there was a tendency to lend a listening ear to the impostors, the apostle’s reprimands (1:6; 3:1–4) are as sharp as are the contrasts which characterize this epistle.⁹

The reason why Paul reprimands the Galatians so sharply and warns them so sternly is that he loves them with a love that is genuine, tender, and deep: “My dear children, for whom I am again suffering birth-pangs until Christ be formed in you, I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone of voice, for I am perplexed about you” (4:19, 20).

The theme of Galatians, then, is:

The Gospel of Justification by Faith apart from Law-works Defended against Its Detractors

Now in the first two chapters, by a selection of events from his life, the apostle defends himself against the charge, expressed or implied, that he had never received a divine commission and that his gospel was, accordingly, not to be trusted. This section is described at times as Paul’s Self-defense. It is more than this, however. Calvin aptly expresses this by saying, “Let us remember, then, that in the person of Paul the truth of the gospel was assailed.” The assailants attacked Paul in order thereby to destroy his gospel. They reasoned that if Paul’s so-called apostleship was of merely human origin, then his gospel was also a merely human invention. Hence, at bottom it is the gospel with which we are dealing in Chapters 1 and 2 as well as in the rest of the epistle. Briefly, then, Galatians may be divided as follows:

ch. 1 and 2	I. This Gospel’s Origination: it is not of human but of divine origin, hence, is independent.
ch. 3 and 4	II. Its Vindication: both Scripture—i.e., the Old Testament—and life (experience, past history) bear testimony to its truth.
ch. 5 and 6	III. Its Application: it produces true liberty. Let the Galatians stand firm, therefore, as does Paul, who glories in in the cross of Christ.

Extended Outline

ch. 1 and 2

I. This Gospel’s Origination: it is not of human but of divine origin (ch.1); hence, is independent (ch. 2).

Chapter 1

A. Introduction which really introduces! Name of addressor, of the addressed; opening salutation.

B. I am amazed that you are so quickly moving to a different gospel. There is only one true gospel. Let him be accursed who preaches another. There! Is it the favor of men that I am now seeking to win or of God?

C. The gospel I preach is not a human invention. I received it through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Rescued by God’s grace from intense Judaism, I did not immediately go to Jerusalem to seek men’s advice, but went to Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus.

D. Not until three years later did I go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, for fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles, only James. Then I went to Syria and Cilicia, but remained unknown by sight to the Christian churches of Judea. For the change wrought in me they glorified God.

Chapter 2

E. Then, on a visit to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus, its “pillars” in a private interview imparted nothing to me, but gave us the right hand of fellowship. Titus, a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised. Thus, there was no yielding to infiltrators but continuation of blessing for you. A division of missionary labor was agreed on. The poor were to be remembered.

F. Far from receiving anything from Jerusalem’s “pillars,” at Antioch I even took Cephas to task for his reversion to legalism: separating himself from Gentile converts after first eating with them. A man is not justified by law-works but through faith in Jesus Christ. For I through law died to law, that I might live to God.

ch. 3 and 4

II. Its Vindication: both Scripture—i.e., the Old Testament—and life (experience, past history) bear testimony to its truth.

Chapter 3

A. O foolish Galatians! Was it by doing what the law demands that you received the Spirit or was it by believing the gospel message?

B. The law (Deut. 27:26) pronounces a curse upon the disobedient. Christ crucified, by bearing this curse (Deut. 21:23), redeemed us from it, so that we are saved through faith in him. Abraham, too, was justified by faith (Gen. 15:6), and blessed with him are all those who are of faith, according to God’s promise (Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; Hab. 2:4).

C. This promise or covenant is superior to the law, for the latter reached us through mediation, the former came directly from God, and is still in force. The law, which came later, far from annulling the promise, serves it, by revealing our sinfulness and leading us to Christ. All who belong to Christ are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.

Chapter 4

D. We used to be in bondage to ordinances, regulations. God sent forth his Son to redeem those who were in bondage, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Do you then wish to exchange your former bondage to heathenism for bondage to Judaism? I am afraid about you, lest somehow I have labored among you in vain.

E. Become as I am as I also became as you are. Where is now that blessedness which you experienced on that former occasion when you welcomed me so warmly? Those (perverters of the true gospel) who pay court to you do so selfishly. I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone of voice, for I am perplexed about you.

F. History of the slave-woman (Hagar) and her son versus the free-woman (Sarah) and her son (Gen. 16:1–4; 21:8–12). Application: Cast out the slave-woman and her son. Not of a slave-woman are we children, but of the free-woman.

ch. 5 and 6

III. Its Application: it produces true liberty. Let the Galatians stand firm, therefore, as does Paul, who glories in the cross of Christ.

Chapter 5

A. For freedom Christ has set us free; continue to stand firm, therefore.

B. Do not try to combine both principles: a. justification by way of law and b. justification by grace through faith. If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you. If you cling to law, you have lost your hold on grace. Practice faith working through love.

C. You were running well; who was it that threw you off your course? I am convinced that you will see the matter my way. If I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? Would that the disturbers might make eunuchs of themselves.

D. Remember that true liberty does not mean license. It means love. It does not welcome the works of the flesh but the fruit of the Spirit. It produces unity, not strife.

Chapter 6

E. Restore the fallen in a spirit of gentleness. Bear one another’s burdens. Share all good things with your instructor. Bear in mind that a man will reap what he sows. Let us do good to everybody, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.

F. The Letter’s End: Paul’s “huge letters.” Final warning against the disturbers and exposure of their motives: ease, honor. Concluding testimony: Far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Last plea: From now on let no one cause trouble for me, etc. Closing benediction.

¹ Ancient writers do not always link these cities with the districts as here indicated. There is much confusion, brought about to some extent by the individual author’s point of departure, whether it be geographical or political. Moreover, boundaries shifted. See, however, Acts 13:14; 14:6.

² The great distance between the cities of the north and those of the south and also certain specific incidents mentioned in the letter (4:12–16) make it impossible to believe that he was addressing the churches of both North and South Galatia. Either the one or the other must be true.

³ Among those favoring the North Galatian theory are also the following (for titles of their works see the Bibliography): Calvin, Coneybeare and Howson, Erdman, Findlay, Greijdanus, Kerr, Moffatt, Schaff, and Schmoller. Kirsopp Lake’s criticism of the South Galatian view (in The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I, London, 1933, pp. 224–240) “has tended to keep minds open on this issue,” remarks Sherman E. Johnson, “Early Christianity in Asia Minor,” JBL, 77 (March 1958), p. 9. For the defense of the South Galatian theory see (in addition to Ramsay’s works) Berkhof, New Testament Introduction, p. 179 ff.; Bruce, Commentary on Acts, p. 300, Burton, Cole, Ellis, Emmet, Goodspeed, Jones, Rendall, Ridderbos, Ropes, Scott, Stamm, Tenney, Thiessen, Van Leeuwen, and Zahn.

⁴ His opponent might have challenged this bit of information, as these people had been “Galatians” for at least 75 years. But in a debate you cannot delve into every minor point!

⁵ Moreover, I Cor. 16:1 speaks about the collection for the Judean saints, which had been recommended to “the churches of Galatia” (among others). According to Acts 20:4, among the delegates who carry this gift to Jerusalem were Gaius of Derbe and Timothy (of Lystra, Acts 16:1), both, therefore, of South Galatia. Not a single delegate from North Galatia is mentioned. Though there are ways to circumvent the force of this argument, it may, nevertheless, carry some weight.

⁶ See sketch; also N.T.C. on Colossians and Philemon, pp. 6–9.

⁷ In addition to the various commentaries see the following articles all of which bear the identical title, “The Date of the Epistle to the Galatians”: F. F. Bruce, ET, 51 (1939–1940), pp. 157, 158; Maurice Jones, Exp, 8th series, 6 (1913), pp. 192–208; D. B. Knox, EQ, 13 (1941), pp. 262–268; and B. B. Warfield, JBL (June and December, 1884), pp. 50–64.

⁸ In general this is also the position taken by Zahn, Berkhof, Hiebert, Lenski, Ridderbos, etc.

⁹

only true gospel	versus	no gospel at all	(1:6–9)
grace or promise	versus	law	(2:21; 3:18)
faith	versus	law-works	(2:16; 3:2, 5, 10–14)
flesh	versus	Spirit	(3:3; 5:16; 6:8)
slave-woman	versus	free-woman	(4:21 ff.)
Jerusalem of today	versus	Jerusalem that is above	(4:25, 26)
freedom	versus	slavery	(5:1)
to love	versus	to bite and devour	(5:14, 15)
circumcision	versus	new creation	(6:15)

↑ Back to top