Galatians 1

The theme of this epistle is: SALVATION BY GRACE, NOT BY LAW

Galatia included the cities of Iconium, Lystra, Derbe and probably

Pisidian Antioch – (See Acts 13 and 14)

This geographic area was originally settled by a branch of Gauls,

from north of the Black Sea, that split off from the main migration

westward into France, and settled in Asia Minor in the third century

before Christ.

The Churches of Galatia.

Probably in the towns of Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium. It is interesting to

mark that we have not in the New Testament a single name of a place or

person, scarcely a single incident of any kind, connected with the apostle’s

preaching in Galatia. He had paid two visits to Galatia before this time.

THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE GALATIAN CHURCHES. The

members belonged, as their name signifies, to the Celtic race, and differed

in character and habits from all the other nations to whom Epistles were

addressed. “It is the Celtic blood which gives a distinctive color to the

Galatian character.” We hardly needed the authority of Caesar to know

that instability of character was the chief difficulty in dealing with the

Galatians, and that they were prone to all sorts of ritualistic observances.

Thus they received the apostle with true Celtic heartiness at his first visit;

they “received him as an angel of God, even as Christ.” (ch. 4:14) The

Church was mainly Gentile, but gathered round a nucleus of Jewish converts.

The fact that this Epistle was addressed to Churches over so extensive a tract of

country would imply the wide prevalence of the Judaistic heresy. Yet the

apostasy was as yet only in its incipient stage. It is a characteristic fact that

false teachers never appear except in Churches already established. They

seldom attempt the conversion of either Jew or Gentile, thus carefully

avoiding persecution; but wherever they scent a work of grace from afar,

they gather in eager haste to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Taken from Halley’s Bible Handbook

The Introductory Greeting (vs. 1-5)

The style of this greeting, compared with those found in St. Paul’s other Epistles,

gives indications of his having addressed himself to the composition of the letter

under strong perturbation of feeling. This transpires in the abruptness with which,

at the very outset, he at once sweeps aside, as it were, out of his path, a slur cast

upon his apostolic commission, in protesting that he was “apostle, not from

man nor through a man.” It appears again in that impetuous negligence of

exact precision of language, with which the mention of “God the Father” is

conjoined with that of “Jesus Christ” under the one preposition “through,”

as the medium through which his apostleship had been conferred upon him.

We cannot help receiving the impression that the apostle had only just

before received that intelligence from Galatia which called forth from him

the letter, and that he set himself to its composition while the strong

emotions which the tidings had produced were still fresh in his mind. That

these emotions were those of indignant grief and displeasure is likewise

evident. He will not, indeed, withhold the salutation which in all Christian

and ministerial courtesy was due from him in addressing what,

notwithstanding all, were still Churches of Christ. But all such expressions

of affectionate feeling he does withhold, and all such sympathetic reference

to matters and individuals of personal interest, as in almost every other

Epistle he is seen indulging himself in, and which are not even then found

wanting, when, as in the case of the Corinthians, he has occasion to

administer much and strong rebuke. No such sympathetic reference, we

observe, is found here. As soon as he has penned the salutation, itself

singularly cold in respect to those he is addressing, he at once proceeds, in

v. 6, to assail his readers with words of indignant reproach.

1 “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus

Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead”

Paul, an apostle (Παῦλος ἀπόστολος – Paulos apostolos - Paul, apostle). The

designation of “apostle,” as here appropriated by St. Paul in explanation of

his right to authoritatively address those he was writing to, points to a

function with which he was permanently invested, and which placed him in

a relation to these Galatian Churches which no other apostle ever

occupied. Some years later, indeed, when St. Peter had occasion to address

these same Churches, together with others in neighboring countries, he

likewise felt himself authorized to do it on the score of his apostolical

character (“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,” I Peter. 1:1); but there is

nothing to show that St. Peter had any personal relations with them at

present. Under these circumstances, it is perhaps best in translation to

prefix no article at all before “apostle.” This designation of himself as

“apostle’ St. Paul subjoined to his name in almost all of his Epistles

subsequent to the two addressed to the Thessalonians. The only exceptions

are those to the Philippians and to Philemon, in writing to whom there was

less occasion for introducing it. He had now, in the third of his three great

journeys recorded in the Acts, assumed openly in the Church the position

of an apostle in the highest sense. In several of these Epistles (I Corinthians 1:1;

II Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; II Timothy 1:1), to the designation

of apostle, St. Paul adds the words, “through (διὰ - dia - through) the will of God;”

i.e. by means of an express volition of God explicitly revealed. In what way God

had revealed this to be His will is clearly intimated in this letter to the Galatians,

in which the words, “through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him

from the dead,” which take the place of the formula, “through the will of God,”

found elsewhere, indicate that it was through Jesus Christ raised from the

dead that this particular volition of God was declared and brought to

effect. The formula referred to, “through the will of God,” was apparently

introduced with the view of confronting those who were disposed to

question his right to claim this supreme form of apostleship, with the aegis

of Divine authorization: they had God to reckon with. The like is the

purport of the substituted words in I Timothy 1:1, “According to the

commandment of God our Saviour, and Christ Jesus our Hope.” Not of

men, neither by man (οὐκ ἀπ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι ἀνθρώπου – ouk ap anthropon

oude di anthropou – not from men, neither through a man). The preposition “from”

(ἀπὸ - apo) points to the primary fountain of the delegation referred to; “through”

(διὰ) to the medium through which it was conveyed. The necessity for this twofold

negation arose from the fact that the word “apostle,” as I have had

occasion fully to set forth elsewhere, was frequently among Christians

applied to messengers deputed by Churches, or, probably, even by some

important representative officer in the Church, whether on a mission for

the propagation of the gospel or for the discharge at some distant place of

matters of business connected with the Christian cause. St. Paul had

himself frequently served in this lower form of apostleship, both as

commissioned by the Church to carry abroad the message of the gospel,

and also as deputed to go to and fro between Churches on errands of

charity or for the settlement of controversies. In either case he as well as

others acting in the like capacity, would very naturally and properly be

spoken of as an “apostle” by others, as we actually find him to have been;

as also he would appear to have been ready on this same account so to

designate himself. That he was an “apostle” in this sense none probably

would have been minded to dispute. Why should they? His having, even

repeatedly, held this kind of subordinate commission did not of itself give

him a greater importance than attached to many others who had held the

same. Neither did it invest his statements of religious truth with a higher

sanction than theirs. This last was the point which, in St. Paul’s own

estimation, gave the question of the real nature of his apostleship its whole

significance. Was he a commissioned envoy of men, deputed to convey to

others a message of theirs? or was he an envoy commissioned immediately

by Christ to convey to the world a message which likewise was received

immediately from Christ? Those who disputed his statements of religious

doctrine might admit that he had been deputed to preach the gospel by

Christian Churches or by eminently representative leaders of the Church,

while they nevertheless asserted that he had misrepresented, or perhaps

misapprehended, the message entrusted to him. At all events, they would

be at liberty to affirm that the statements he made in delivering his message

were subject to an appeal on the part of his hearers to the human

authorities who had delegated him. If he owed alike his commission and his

message to (say) the Church of Antioch, or to the Church at Jerusalem, or

to the twelve, or to James the Lord’s brother, or to other leaders

whomsoever of the venerable mother Church, then it followed that he was

to be held amenable to their overruling judgment in the discharge of this

apostleship of his. What he taught had no force if this higher court of

appeal withheld its sanction. Now, this touched no mere problematical

contingency, but was a practical issue which, just at this time, was one of

even vital importance. It had an intimate connection with the fierce

antagonism of contending parties in the Church, then waged over the dying

body of the Levitical Law. St. Paul’s mission as an apostle is most

reasonably considered to (late from the time when, as he stated in his

defense before King Agrippa (Acts 26:16-17), the Lord Jesus said to

him, “To this end have I appeared unto time, to appoint thee a minister and

a witness [ὑπηρέτην καὶ μάρτυρα – hupaeretaen kai martura – minister and

witness; compare αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται – autoptai kai hupaeretai – eyewitnesses

and ministers Luke 1:2 and Acts 1:2, 3, 8, 22] both of the things wherein thou

hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee; delivering

thee from the people [λαοῦ - laou – people; Israel], and from the Gentiles,

unto whom I myself send thee [εἰς οὕς ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω σε – eis hous ego apostello se –

into whom now you I am commissioning - thus L. T. Tr. Rev.; the Textus Receptus

reads εἰς ους νῦν σε ἀποστέλλω – eis hous nun se apostello - unto whom I now

send thee]” (compare Acts 22:14-15; I Corinthians 9:1). But though his appointment

was in reality coeval with his conversion, it was only in course of time and by slow

degrees that his properly apostolic function became signalized to the

consciousness of the Church. Nevertheless, there is no reason for doubting

that to his own consciousness his vocation as apostle was clearly

manifested from the very first. The prompt and independent manner in

which he at once set himself to preach the gospel, which itself, he tells the

Galatians in this chapter, he had received immediately from heaven,

betokens his having this consciousness. The time and the manner in which

the fact was to become manifest to others he would seem, in a spirit of

compliant obedience, to have left to the ordering of his Master. But by

Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

(ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν –

alla dia Iaesou Christou kai Theou patros tou egeirantos auton ek nekron –

but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead.

The conjunction “neither” (οὐδὲ - oude), which comes before

δι ἀνθρώπου – di anthropou – by man; through human - marks the clause it

introduces as containing a distinctly different negation from the preceding, and

shows that the preposition “through” is used in contradistinction to the “from”

(ἀπὸ) of the foregoing clause in its proper sense of denoting the instrument or

medium through which an act is done. St. Paul affirms that there was no human

instrumentality or intermediation whatever at work in the act of delegation

which constituted him an apostle. This affirmation places him in this

respect precisely on a level with the twelve; perhaps in making it he has an

eye to this. The notion has been frequently broached that the apostleship

which St. Paul made claim to was conveyed to him at Antioch through the

brethren who there, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, formally set him

apart, together with Barnabas, for the missionary enterprise which they

forthwith entered upon (Acts 13:1-3). But words could scarcely have

been selected which should more decisively negate any such notion than

those to which St. Paul here makes use of. One form of apostleship was no

doubt then conferred upon Barnabas and Paul; but it was not the

apostleship of which he is now thinking (see essay on “Apostles,” pp. 31.,

32.). In defining the precise import and bearing of the expression, δι ἀνθρώπου –

“through a man,” we may compare it with its use in I Corinthians 15:21,

“Since δι ἀνθρώπου came death, δι ἀνθρώπου came also the resurrection of

the dead;” where in the second clause the word “man,” employed to recite the

Lord Jesus, contemplates that aspect of His twofold being which places Him as

“the second Man” (ibid. v. 47) in correlation to Adam, “the first Man.” Similarly,

the parallel with Adam again in Romans 5:12, 15 leads the apostle to adopt the

expression, “the one Man Jesus Christ” (compare also ibid. v.19). In I Timothy

2:5, “There is one God, one Mediator also between God and men, himself

Man [or, ‘a man’], Christ Jesus,” our Lord’s manhood, in accordance with

the requirement of the context, is put forward as a bond of connection

linking him with every human creature alike. These passages present Christ

in the character simply of a human being. But in the passage before us the

apostle at first sight appears to imply that, because he was an apostle

through the agency of Jesus Christ, he was not an apostle through the

agency of a human being; thus negating, apparently, the manhood of

Christ, at least as viewed in His present glorified condition. The inference,

however, is plainly contradicted by both I Corinthians 15:21 and I Timothy 2:5;

for the former passage points in “the second Man” to the “Lord from heaven,”

while the other refers to Him as permanent “Mediator between God and men,”

both, therefore, speaking of Jesus in His present glorified condition. To obviate

this difficulty some have proposed to take the “but” (ἀλλά)), not as adversative,

but as exceptive. But there is no justification for this — not even Mark 9:8 (see

Winer’s ‘Gram. N. T.,’ 53, 10, 1 b). A less precarious solution is arrived at by

gathering out of the context the precise shade of meaning in which the word “man”

is here used. Christ is indeed “Man,” and His true manhood is the sense required in

the two passages above cited; but He is also more than man; and it is those

qualities of His being and of His state of existence which distinguish Him

from mere men, which the context shows to be now present to the

apostle’s mind. For the phrase, “through a man,” is not contrasted by the

words, “through Jesus Christ,” alone, but by the whole clause: “through

Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead.” That is to

say, in penning the former phrase, the apostle indicates by the word “man”

one invested with the ordinary qualities of an earthly human condition;

whereas the “Jesus Christ” through whom Heaven sent forth Saul as an

apostle to the Gentiles was Jesus Christ blended with, inconceivably near

to, God the Father, one with Him; His oneness with Him not veiled, as it was

when He was upon earth, though really subsisting even then (John 10:30),

but to all the universe manifested — manifested visibly to us upon

earth by the resurrection of His body; in the spiritual, as yet now to us

invisible world, by that sitting down on the right hand of God which was

the implied sequel and climax of his resurrection. The strong sense which

the apostle has of the unspeakably intimate conjunction subsisting. since His

resurrection, between Jesus Christ viewed in His whole incarnate being and.

God the Father, explains how it comes to pass that the two august Names

are combined together under one single preposition, “through Jesus Christ,

and God the Father.” We shall have to notice the same phenomenon in v. 3

in the apostle’s formula of greeting prayer, “Grace to you and peace from

God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ;” on which see the note. We

have the same conception of Christ’s personality consequent upon His

resurrection in the apostle’s words relative to his apostolic appointment in

Romans 1:4-5; where the Jesus Christ through whom “he had received

grace and apostleship,” in contrast with his merely human condition as “of

the seed of David according to the flesh,” is described as “Him who was

declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of

holiness by the resurrection of the dead.” The clause, “who raised him from

the dead,” has a twofold bearing upon the point in hand.

1. It supplies an answer to the objection which may be believed to have been

made to Paul’s claim to be regarded as an apostle sent forth by Jesus Christ,

by those who said, “You have never seen Christ or been taught by him, like

those whom He Himself named apostles.” The answer is, “You might object

so if Jesus were no more than a dead man; but He is not that: He is a living Man

raised from the dead by the Father; and as such I have myself seen Him

(Compare I Corinthians 9:1); and He it was that in His own person, and through

no intervention of human agency, gave me both the commission to preach and

the gospel which I was to preach” (see below, vs. 11-12).

2. It connects the action of God the Father with that of Jesus Christ in appointing

Paul to be an apostle; for the things which Christ did when raised from the dead

and glorified with Himself (John 17:5) by the Father must obviously

have been done from, with, and in God the Father. It would unduly narrow

the pragmatism of the clause if we limited it to either of the two purposes

above indicated; both were probably in the mind of St. Paul in adding it.

The immediate context gives no warrant for our supposing, as many have

done, that the apostle has just here other truths in view as involved in the

fact of our Lord’s resurrection; such e.g. as he has himself indicated in

Romans 4:24-25; ch.6.; Colossians 3:1. However cogent and closely

relevant some of these inferences might have been with respect to the

subjects treated of in this Epistle, the Epistle itself, as a matter of fact,

makes no other reference whatever to that great event, whether directly or

indirectly. Should δι ἀνθρώπου be rendered “through man,” the noun

understood generically, as e.g. Psalm 56:1 (Septuagint), or “through a

man,” pointing to one individual being? It is not very material; but perhaps

the second rendering is recommended by the consideration that, if the

apostle had meant still to write generically, he would have repeated the

plural noun already employed. Indeed, it may be thought a preferable

rendering in the other passages above cited. The transition from the plural

noun to the singular, as is noted by Bishop Lightfoot and others,

“suggested itself in anticipation of the clause, ‘through Jesus Christ,’ which

was to follow.” In the expression, “God the Father,” the addition of the

words, “the Father,” was not necessary for the indication of the Person

meant, any more than in I Peter 1:21, “Believers in God which raised

him from the dead,” or in numberless other passages where the term “God”

regularly designates the First Person in the blessed Trinity. It would be an

incomplete paraphrase to explain it either as “God the Father of our Lord

Jesus Christ,” or as “God our Father.” It is rather, “God the primary

Author and supreme Orderer of all things,” or, as in the Creed, “God the

Father Almighty.” It is best illustrated by the apostle’s words in

I Corinthians 8:6, “To us there is one God, the Father, of whom [i.e. out of

whom, ἐξ οῦ - ex ou] are all things, and we unto Him”; and in Romans 11:36,

Of Him, and through Him, and unto Him, are all things.” The apostle adds

the term in order to make the designation of the supreme God, who is the

Source of his apostleship, the more august and impressive.

Paul vindicates his apostleship and calling - Emissaries of the Judaistic party,

who had obtained access to the Galatian Churches, sought to undermine his doctrine

by denying or minimizing his apostleship. They limited the term “apostle” almost

exclusively to the twelve, and were thus enabled to assert:

that he was not an apostle in the highest sense, as he was not a personal

disciple of Jesus Christ, and therefore could not claim the inspiration of

those on whom He breathed the Holy Ghost (John 20:22); (Paul says

that he received his call from Jesus Christ (Acts 9:1-18) and God the

Father who raised Him from the dead! His commission dates

from the day of his conversion on the Damascus road.

that, in any case, he stood in official subordination to the twelve, and

was not, therefore, to be followed where he diverged from their teaching;

and that the proceedings at Antioch (Acts 13:1-2) necessarily implied

that he received alike his commission and his gospel from man.

2 “And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:”

And all the brethren which are with me (καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί -

kai hoi sun emoi pantes adelphoi - and the brethren which are with me, one and all).

The ordinary unaccentuated collocation of πάντες would be, πάντες οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ

ἀδελφοί. Its position here, where, perhaps, it was thrust in by a kind of after-thought,

marks it as emphatic; there is not one of those about him who does not feel the like

grief and indignation as himself in reference to the news just now received. We have

a similar collocation in Romans 16:15. Πάντες (all) would be marked as emphatic also

if placed last, as in I Corinthians 7:17; 13:2; 1 15:7; Titus 3:15. Our attention is

arrested by the absence of any name. A number of persons are named by St. Luke

in the Acts (Acts 18:18-20:5), and by the apostle himself in his Epistles to the

Corinthians and to the Romans, as about his person at different times during

the latter part of his third journey; and it does not seem very likely that not one

was now with him of those who had accompanied him, either in the first or in the

second of his two visits in Galatia. The most probable way of explaining the entire

suppression of names is by reference to the present mood of the writer; he is too

indignant at the behavior of the Galatian Churchmen to weave into his greeting any

such thread of mutual personal interest. It is enough to intimate that all about him

felt as he did. Unto the Churches of Galatia (ταῖς ἐκκλησίας τῆς Γαλατίας – tais

ekklaesias taes Galatias). The dry coldness of tone with which this is written will

be best understood by the reader upon his comparing the apostle's manner in his

other letters, in all of which he is found adding some words marking the high

dignity which attached to the communities he is addressing. He is too much

displeased to do this now. The plurality of the Galatian Churches, each of them

apparently forming a distinct organization, is expressed again in I Corinthians 16:1,

"As I gave order to the Churches of Galatia;" and agrees very well with what we

read in Acts 18:23, "Went through the region of Galatia and Phrygia in order

(καθεξῆς – kathexaes – in order; consecutively), stablishing all the disciples."

The leaven of Judaizing, whether imported by visitants from other regions or

originating within these Churches themselves, appears to have been working very

extensively among these communities, and not in one or two of them only. If the

latter had been the case, the apostle would not have involved the collective Churches

in the like censure, but, as in the case of Colossae, compared with the "Ephesians,"

have singled out for warning those actually peccant (offending). This fact, of the

general diffusion among them of one particular taint, warrants the belief that

certain persons had been at the pains of going about among these Churches to

propagate it. Who these persons were, or where they came from, there is nothing

to show. It has, indeed, been assumed by many that, like those disturbers of the

Church of Antioch mentioned in Acts 15:1 and here ch. 2:12, they had come from

Judaea, or rather Jerusalem. But the Epistle gives no hint of this in respect to the

Galatian Churches. What the apostle writes in ch. 6:12-13 points rather to the

surmise that this particular distraction was caused by some Churchmen of their own,

who had given themselves to this heretical proselytizing in order to truckle to

non-Christian Jews living in their neighborhood. Compare the apostle's foreboding

respecting the future of the Ephesian Church, in Acts 20:30. (See note on

ch. 6:12-13.)

3 “Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord

Jesus Christ,” Grace be to you and peace (χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη – charis humin

kai eiraenae - grace to you and peace). Here, as often, we have combined the form

of salutation prevalent among Greeks, χαίρειν (found in its unaltered form in

James 1:1, "wishing joy"), Christianized into χάρις - grace, which denotes the

outpouring of Divine benignity in all such spiritual blessings as sinful creatures

need; and the Hebrew greeting, shalom, which in its transformation into εἰρήνη

(peace) may be supposed to have dropped in its Christianized signification some

of its originally comprehensive meaning, which comprised all "health and wealth"

as well as "peace," and to have generally expressed the more limited idea of that

calm sense of reconciliation and that perfect security against evil which constitute

the peculiar happiness of a soul which believes in Christ. It is nevertheless

conceivable that εἰρήνη, as used in Hellenistic Greek, may at times have widened

the sense proper to it in ordinary Greek into the more comprehensive import of

the shalom, which it was regularly employed to represent. From God the Father,

and from our Lord Jesus Christ (ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρός καὶ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Ξριστοῦ -

apo Theou patros kai Kuriou haemon Iaesou Christou). These words regularly form

a part in the apostle's formula of greeting. With slight variations they are found in

all his Epistles, except, perhaps, the First to the Thessalonians, where, though read

in the Textus Receptus, they are omitted by recent editors. "Our" is added to "Father"

in at least seven of St. Paul's Epistles (Romans, I and II Corinthians, Ephesians,

Philippians, Colossians, Philemon). This warrants the belief that, when as in

I Timothy, Titus, and here, he wrote "God the Father," he most probably did so

with reference to God's fatherly relation to the members of Christ's Church. Tregelles

and the margin of the revised Greek text, in fact, read ἡμῶν (our) after πατρὸς

(Father) here, omitting it after Κυρίου (Lord). Uniformly in this formula of greeting

we find only one preposition, "from" (ἀπό), before the two names, "God" and

"Jesus Christ;" as in the first verse in this Epistle there is only one preposition,

"through," before "Jesus Christ" and "God." The apostle, looking upwards,

discerns, as St. Stephen did, in the ineffable glory, the supreme God in whom

he recognizes "our Father," and with Him Jesus Christ, "our Lord;" that is,

our Master, Head, Mediator, "through whom are all things, and we through him."

Grace and peace coming down from heaven, must come from God our Father

and Jesus Christ our Lord. From the very nature of the case it is obvious that the

blessings referred to come to us through Christ, though also "from" Him; as also

that St. Paul's delegation as apostle, spoken of in the first verse, originated from a

volition and appointment of God the Father, as well as was brought about "through"

the ordering of His providence. But in each case the preposition used by the apostle

preserves its proper force, not to be confused by our thrusting into it another notion

not just then in the writer's view.

Grace is free, undeserved love manifesting itself in a free gift. (Romans 5:15.)

It is the foundation of our redemption. It is also an operation of that free love in our

hearts — grace, quickening, sanctifying, comforting, strengthening. It is the first

blessing the apostle asks for; it is what we all need; it is but the beginning of

blessings innumerable.

Peace is not peace with God (Romans 5:1), but the peace that

springs from it. The true order of blessing and experience is not peace and

grace, but grace and peace. Grace is the root of peace; peace is the inner

comfort that springs from grace. The apostle desires that the Galatians may

not only share in Divine grace, but possess the assurance of it. Without

peace, thousands are unhappy. The worldly man longs for peace without

grace. But the two are inseparably linked. Without it there is no progress in

religion Luther says, “Grace releaseth sin, and peace maketh the

conscience quiet. The two fiends that torment us are sin and conscience.”

4 “Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this

present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:”

Who gave Himself (τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτόν – tou dontos heauton – the one giving

Himself). This is the strongest imaginable description of what Christ did to redeem us.

The phrase occurs in I Maccabees 6:44, with reference to the Eleazar who rushed upon

certain death to kill the elephant which was carrying the king, Antiochus: "He gave

himself (ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν – edoken heauton) to save his people." It is applied to Christ

also in Titus 2:14, “Who gave Himself for us;" and I Timothy 2:6, "Who gave

Himself a ransom for all." In the ch. 2:20, the apostle writes, "Who loved me, and

gave himself up (πυραδόντος ἑαυτὸν – puradontas heauton – giving up Himself)

for me." Similarly, St. Paul writes in Romans 8:32, "He that spared not [i.e. 'kept

not back'] His own Son, but gave Him up (παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν – paredoken auton –

gives up Him) for us all." The addition, in Matthew 26:45, of the words, "into the

hands of sinners," and our Lord's utterance in Luke 22:53, "This is your hour, and

the power of darkness," help to illustrate the exceedingly pregnant expression now

before us. For our sins (ὑπέρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν – huper ton amartion haemon –

for the sins of us). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus, retained by the Revisers.

On the other hand, L. T. Tr., for ὑπέρ, substitute περί. These two prepositions ὑπὲρ

(for) and περὶ (for) are, in this relation as well as in some others, used indifferently.

If we follow the reading of Rec. L. T. Tr. Rev. (for very often the manuscripts

oscillate between the two), we have ὑπὲρ in I Corinthians 15:3, "Died for our sins;"

Hebrews 7:27, "To offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins

of the people;" (speaking of the priest in the Old Testament) Hebrews 9:7,

"Blood, which he offereth for himself, and for the ignorances of the people."

On the other hand, we find in the same authorities περὶ in Romans 8:3, "Sending

His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin;" Hebrews 5:3, "As for

the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins" (where, however, the Receptus

has ὑπὲρ in the last clause, ("for sins"); Hebrews 10:6, "Whole burnt offerings,

and sacrifices for sin;" Hebrews 10:18, "No more offering for sin;" I John 2:2,10,

"Propitiation for our sins;" I Peter 3:16, "Died [or, 'suffered'] for (περὶ) sins, the

righteous for (ὑπὲρ) the unrighteous." The last passage (1 Peter 3:18) suggests the

remark that ὑπὲρ is the more appropriate word before persons, and περὶ before "sins."

We find, however, that, in the Septuagint, in the Pentateuch περὶ is used also before

persons as it is in Hebrews 5:3; thus: Leviticus 5:18, "The priest shall make atonement

for περὶ him concerning (περὶ) his ignorance;" in both cases rendering the Hebrew al.

So Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35; Numbers 8:12. On the other hand, in Exodus 32:30 we

have "I will go up unto the Lord, that I may make atonement for (περί, b'ad) your

sin." The truth seems to be that ὑπέρ, which is more properly "on behalf of" often

denotes "for," equivalent to "on account of;" as e.g. Psalm 39:11, Septuagint,

"rebukes for sin;" Ephesians 5:20, "Giving thanks always for all things;"

Romans 15:9, "Glorify God for His mercy." And this sense passes into

"concerning," "with reference to;" as II Corinthians 1:8, "I would not have

you ignorant concerning our affliction;" II Corinthians 8:23, "Whether any

inquire about Titus." On the other hand, περί, which more properly denotes

"concerning," "with reference to," passes into the sense of "on account of;"

as Luke 19:37, "Praise God for all the mighty works;" John 10:33, "For a good

work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy;" I Corinthians 1:4, "I thank my God...

concerning you;" I Thessalonians 1:2, "We give thanks to God for you all;"

Romans 1:8, "I thank my God for [Receptus, ὑπὲρ] you all." The use of περὶ in

the verse before us, and in the similar passages above cited, no doubt followed its

use in the phrase περὶ ἁμαρτίας – peri hamartias which in the Septuagint so commonly

describes the "sin offering" of the Levitical institute. This phrase sometimes represents

what in the Hebrew text is the simple noun (chattath) "sin," put for "sin offering;"

as e.g. Leviticus 7:37, "This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meat offering,

and of the sin offering (chattath)," etc. (οῦτος ὁ νόμος τῶν ὁλοκαυτωμάτων καὶ

θυσίας καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας – outos ho nomos ton holokautomaton kai thusias kai

peri hamartias - etc.). Sometimes it represents the same Hebrew noun preceded

by the preposition al, for: "For the sin of such or such a one (περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας

τοῦ δεῖνα – peri taes hamartias tou deina);" as e.g. Leviticus 5:13, where the

Septuagint has, "The priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he

hath sinned (ἐξιλάσεται περι αὐτοῦ ὁ ἱερεὺς περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἧς ἥμαρτε –

exilasetai peri auton ho hiereus peri taes hamartias haes hamarte)." The precise

force of περὶ in this phrase was probably "on account of sin," or "having reference

to sin;" senses of περὶ which, as has been seen, are borne by ὑπὲρ as well. This v

iew of the force of these two prepositions, as employed in this relation, seems to

the present writer more satisfactory than that which refers it to the notion of protection,

"on behalf of" or "for the good of" some one; though it must unquestionably be

allowed that this is a notion which they both of them frequently convey. To this

latter notion, indeed, we must in all probability refer the use of ὑπὲρ in

Galatians 2:20, "Gave himself up for me," as well as in I Peter 3:18, 6,

for the unrighteous;" Luke 22:19-20, "Given for you," "Poured out for you,"

and the like; and also that of περὶ in Matthew 26:28, "Shed for many;" John 17:9,

"I pray for them;" Colossians 4:3, "Praying for us." The result of this inquiry

into the usus loquendi with reference to these prepositions appears to be this:

in what manner the death of Christ affected our condition in those respects in

which that condition was antecedently qualified by our sins, neither ὑπὲρ nor περὶ

as prefixed to the noun "sins" enables us precisely to determine, further than as

it recalls for illustration the "sin offering" of the Law. For the more complete

development of the idea intended to be conveyed, we must look to other

references made in Scripture to the subject, such as e.g. II Corinthians 5:21;

Galatians 3:13; I Peter 1:19. Thus much, however, we may confidently assume:

both ὑπὲρ and περὶ as so applied do alike warrant us in concluding, not only that

it was because of our sins that Christ behoved to die, but also that His death is

efficacious for the complete removal of those evils which accrue to us from our

sins. That He might deliver (extricating; up lift) us from this present evil world

(ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ - hopos exelaetai haemas

ek tou aionos tou enestotos ponaerou. Such is the reading of L. T. Tr. Rev.; while

the Textus Receptus has ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος πονηροῦ -

the only difference being ἐνεστῶτος – enestotos); that he might deliver us

out of the present world, evil that it is. The verb ἐξαιρέομαι – exaireomai –

originally "take out," renders the Hebrew hitztzil in I Samuel 4:8 and Jeremiah 1:8

in the sense of "deliver;" it points to "the present state" as one of helpless misery

or danger. Compare the use of the verb, Acts 7:10, 34; Acts 12:11; it is equivalent

to ῤύεσθαι – ruesthai – being rescued as found in Colossians 1:13 and Luke 1:74.

The participle "present" or "subsisting," ἐνεστώς - enestos is found in explicit

contrast with the participle "to come," μέλλοντα - mellonta – things impending,

Romans 8:38,"Nor things present nor things to come;" and I Corinthians 3:22.

We are, therefore, naturally led to suppose that the apostle means to contrast

the "world" here referred to with a "world to come;" which latter is mentioned

in Hebrews 6:5, and seems synonymous with the "world [literally, 'inhabited earth']

to come," οἰκουμένη μέλλουσα – oikoumenae mellousa – inhabited earth impending

of Hebrews 2:5. Compare our Lord's words in Matthew 12:32, "Neither in this world

nor in that which is to come," and His contrast of "this world" with "that world" in

Luke 20:34- 35. The Greek word here employed, αἰῶν – aion – age; eon; world, like

κόσμος – kosmos – world - is used with varying shades of meaning. The two nouns,

used interchangeably in 1 Corinthians 3:18-19 are, however, not altogether equivalent.

The former originally denotes a mode of time; the latter, a mode of space. In particular,

αἰῶν is never used in the Greek Testament to denote "mankind," as κόσμος not

unfrequently is by all its writers. In the Syriac Version, olmo represents both αἰῶν

and κόσμος in all their senses, with a slight variation in its form to represent αἰῶν

in Ephesians 2:2, "The course (αἰῶνα) of this world (κόσμος)," as if it were

"The worldliness of this world." Probably the same word olmo, in the

Chaldean-Hebrew language current amongst the Palestinian Jews, was the term

employed by them in all those connections in which either aion or κόσμος would

have been used by them if speaking in Hellenistic Greek; for it is to the Hellenistic

dialect of the Greek language that both words as so employed belong. We never

find αἰῶν at all in any of St. John's writings, except in the phrases, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

or εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, denoting "for ever." In other significations, when other writers

of the New Testament might have used αἰῶν, St. John always puts κόσμος. The

word αἰῶν, denoting a cycle of time, is used also to signify a material world, as

Hebrews 1:2; and, in particular, the state of things found existing in that cycle of

time; and this as viewed in various aspects. In Luke 20:34-35 αἰῶνος τούτου –

aionos toutou - "this world" contrasts the present state, as one of mortality and

successive reproduction, with αἰῶνος ἐκείνου - "that world," viewed as one of

immortality, in which processes of reproduction are found no more. But in

Luke 16:8 "the children of this αἰῶν " are those who live after the world-loving,

sinful fashion which characterizes mankind in general in contrast with "the

children of light," who have been enlightened to recognize their relation to a

spiritual world. In St. Paul, "the present αἰὼν denotes the entire moral and

spiritual state of mankind viewed in the aspect in which he contemplated it –

a state wrapped in spiritual "darkness," pervaded by ungodliness and

general immorality, and dominated by Satan; as Bengel puts it, "tota

oeconomia peceati sub potestate Satanae" (Ephesians 2:2; Ephesians 4:18;

II Corinthians 4:4); a state from which Christians ought to study to get wholly

weaned in all their moral and spiritual habits (Romans 12:2; Ephesians 4:22-24).

In St. John, the phrases, "the world (κόσμος)," or "this world" are frequently

employed to express the same idea; as e.g. John 12:31; 16:11; I John 2:15-16;

5:19. Out of this "power, empire, of darkness," in which by nature apart from

Christ's grace all men are hopelessly enthralled; out of the grasp, inextricable

by any efforts of their own, with which Satan holds them, - the apostle recognizes

Christ as alone able to "rescue" us; and even Him only able to "rescue" us by virtue

of His atoning sacrifice of Himself Thus, in an eminently just application of the verb,

He is said to "redeem" (λυτροῦσθαι - lutrousthai) them from all iniquity, which

expression includes, not only the idea of His paying down a ransom for their

emancipation, but also the thought that, by the power of His grace, He makes

the ransom effectual for the actual MORAL and SPIRITUAL DELIVERANCE,

one by one, of those who believe in Him: "He purifies them a people of His very own,

devoted to good works" (Titus 2:14). The position in the Greek of the epithet "evil,"

standing in a peculiar manner without the article after "this present world" (τοῦ αἰῶνος

τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ - tou aionos tou enestotos ponaerou), is discussed both by

Bishop Ellicott and by Bishop) Lightfoot in their respective Commentaries on the

Epistle; the latter of whom takes it as equivalent to "with all its evils." It seems to

the present writer that the syntax of the clause groups it with Ephesians 2:11,"

That which is called circumcision, in the flesh, made [or, 'done '] with hands

(τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιητοῦ - taes legomenaes peritomaes

en sarki cheiropoiaetou)," where ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιητοῦ has no article, because

it is a logical adjunct: the circumcision "which is made in the flesh with hands,"

is of course no real circumcision (cf. Romans 2), and therefore is only one so "called."

So in the present passage the epithet "evil" is a logical adjunct: the state of the world

being an "evil state," craved Christ's redemption, and this fact should make that

redemption welcome to us. Similarly, in I Peter 1:18 the epithet “handed from your

fathers (πατροπαραδοτοῦ - patroparadotou)," added after "your vain manner of life,"

is a logical adjunct: the fact that it was ancient and traditional gave it so strong a hold

upon them as to crave the intervention of a no ordinary ransom to redeem them from it.

With the turn of thought, which according to this view is indicated by the epithet

πονηροῦ (ponaerou – wicked) having been added to the noun without the article,

agrees likewise the emphatic position of the verb ἐξέληται – exelaetai – He may

be delivering; extricating) at the head of the sentence. Christ gave His own very self

for this end, that He might deliver us out of this wretched state of things to which

we belonged. But the reactionary movement now showing itself among the Galatians

would inevitably, the apostle feels (see ch. 5:4), have the effect of making void

this redeeming work of Christ, and of involving them afresh in their original misery.

If we adhere to the reading in the Textus Receptus, τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος πονηροῦ -

tou enestotos aionos ponaerou – this present evil world, the present wicked age,

we had best, perhaps, accept Winer's proposal ('Gram. N. T.,' § 20, 1 a), and explain

the absence of the article by supposing αἰὼν πονηριὸς (evil age) as forming one

notion, as in the case of βρῶμα πνευματικὸν – broma pneumatikon – spiritual food,

meat; and πόμα πν – poma pneumatikon – spiritual drink in the Textus Receptus

of I Corinthians 10:3. But this reading, though grammatically it runs more smoothly

than the other, is on that very account the less likely to have been the original one,

and seems greatly to blunt the significance of the adjective. May we not detect in

this epithet "evil" the sound of a sigh, drawn from the apostle's heart by this fresh

worry and disappointment now cropping up for him and for all who cared for the

success of the gospel? His feeling seems to be - Oh the weary evilness of this

present state! When will it be brought to an end by the appearing of that blissful

hope? (compare II Corinthians 5:4). According to the will of God and our Father

(κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν – kata to thelaema tou Theou kai

patros haemon - according to the will of our God and Father). It is, perhaps,

of no great consequence whether we understand this clause as pointing to the

whole preceding sentence, "Who gave himself... world," or to the last clause of it,

"That He might deliver... world." But the former is the more probable construction:

(1) there is no reason for restricting it to the last words;

(2) it is in perfect accordance with the apostle's usual reference of Christ's coming

into the world and dying for us to the Father's appointment, that he should here

too be understood as referring to this work of delivering grace also.

The feeling apparently underlies these words of the apostle, that the Judaizing which

he has now before his eyes was both setting itself in opposition to the supreme ordering

of "our God" - and His sovereign "will" who of us shall dare to contravene? - and

also thwarting the operation of His fatherly loving-kindness. For the lack of filial

confidence in God's love to us, and the slavish ceremonialism which characterized

Judaical legalism, were both of them adjuncts of the unspiritual mind still in

bondage to "the flesh" (compare Romans chapters 7 and 8), and therefore part

and parcel of "this present world." Compare ch. 3:3; 4:3, 8-10; and Colossians

2:20, “Why, as living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances,

Handle not," etc.? As Professor Jowett observes, in this case as well as in the

Epistle to the Romans, "The salutation is the proem (preface) of the whole Epistle."

The expression, "our God and Father," is pathetic; it is an outcome of the deep

complacency with which the apostle cherishes the assurance of God's fatherly love

given us in the gospel - a sentiment of complacency stimulated into increased

fervency by antagonism to the spiritual mischief confronting him. Of our God

and Father. So Revised Version. This rendering appears decidedly preferable

to that given by the Authorized Version, "of God and our Father," though

grammatically this latter is confessedly not inadmissible. The like remark applies

to all the other passages in the New Testament in which Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ – Theos

kai Pathaer – God and Father is found followed by a genitive; namely:

by πάντων – panton – of all - (Ephesians 4:6);
by ἡμῶν – haemon - our - as in the passage before us –

(I Thessalonians 1:3; 3:11, 13; Philippians 4:20);

by τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Ξριστοῦ - tou Kuriou haemon Iaesou Christou -

of our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 15:6; Ephesians 1:3; Colossians 1:3;

II Corinthians 1:3; I Peter 1:3);

by τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ - tou Kuriou Iaesou – the Lord Jesus (II Corinthians

11:31 [L. T. Tr. Rev.; Receptus has τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Ξριστοῦ -

tou Kuriou haemon Iaesou Christou – our Lord Jesus Christ]; and

by αὐτοῦ - auton – of Him - (Revelation 1:6).

5 “To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen (ῶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων

Ἀμήν – ho hae doxa eis tous aionas ton aionon – unto whom the glory into the

eons of eons). This doxology is not introduced as merely a reverential closing up

of the greeting, before the writer hastens on to the subsequent words of rebuke.

It is rather an indignant tender of homage to the Most High, flashing forth from

a loyal, filial heart; confronting and seeking, so far as it thus may, to redress

the wrong done to "our God and Father" by the Judaizing spirit uprearing

itself among the Galatians. It is similar in tone to the indignant doxology in

Romans 1:25. This view of its origin explains the fact that, as connected with

a greeting, such doxology is found only in this of all St. Paul's Epistles. The

indignation which pervades the tone of the whole passage favors the suppletion

of ἔστω – esto - be rather than of ἐστίν – estin – is/are. Perhaps, indeed ἔστω is

in general the more natural suppletion. In I Peter 4:11, where ἐστὶν is added by

the writer, we have not so much a direct ascription of praise as an affirmation

that to God belongs or is due the glory of our performing our several duties with

reference to this end. In like manner in the (most probably interpolated) doxology

at the close of the Lord's prayer in Matthew 6:13, "For thine is the kingdom," etc.,

the ascription of praise is not so much expressed as implied. Viewed in themselves,

the words simply state the truth which constitutes the ground for our addressing to

"our Father" our praises and our petitions. The article is most commonly prefixed

to δόξα (glory) in such ascriptions of praise, whether δόξα stands alone, as

Romans 11:36; 16:27; Ephesians 3:21; Philippians 4:20; II Timothy 4:18;

Hebrews 13:21; II Peter 3:18; or in conjunction with other nouns, as I Peter 4:11;

Revelation 1:6; 7:12. It is wanting in Luke 2:14; 19:38; I Timothy 1:17; Jude 1:25.

When the article is added it marks the noun as expressing its notion viewed absolutely,

in its entirety or universality: q.d. "Whatever glory is to be ascribed anywhere, be it

ascribed to Him." Thus ἡ δόξα is equivalent to "all glory." For ever and ever; literally,

into the aions of the aions; apparently a form of expression adopted to denote

intensification or superlativeness, like "holy of holies" (compare

Winer, 'Gram. N. T.,' § 36, 2). It is used where especial intensity is wished

to be added to the notion of long undetermined duration; as Revelation 14:11;

15:7; 22:5, etc. The same notion is expressed, only with not the same passionate

earnestness, by the phrase, "into the aions," in Luke 1:33; Romans 1:25; 9:5; 11:36,

etc.; and by "into the aion," in Matthew 21:19; John 6:51, 58, etc. Possibly there is

a reference of contrast to "this present aion" of v. 4. This, however, is doubtful;

for in v. 4 aion points to a particular condition of affairs subsisting in this aion

rather than to a mere mode of duration, which latter is alone in view here. The

like observation applies to Ephesians 2:2 compared with v. 7.

THIS IS THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THIS EPISTLE!

I. MARK THE SELF-OBLATION OF CHRIST. “Who gave Himself for

our sins.” Our Redeemer was not killed by the hand of violence, though

“by lawless hands” He was crucified and slain; He spontaneously offered

Himself, and His offering was not the impulse of mere excited feeling. The

expression, “gave Himself,” always points to the free surrender of His life

(I Timothy 2:6; Titus 2:14; Matthew 20:28). It accords with His own

language, “I lay down my life of myself” (John 10:17); “How am I

straitened till it be accomplished!” (Luke 12:50) The Father is elsewhere

described as providing the sacrifice, and delivering Him up for us all

(Romans 8:32), but the text describes His own priestly act in accordance

“with the Father’s will.”

There is a direct causal connection between Christ’s death and the pardon

of our sins. The reason why He gave Himself is here assigned. Our sins were

the procuring cause of His death. This is the plain teaching of Isaiah 53:5;

Romans 4:25; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 3:18.

II. THE END RESULT OF THE SACRIFICE - “That He might

deliver us from this present evil world.” This shows the truly sanctifying

result of Christ’s death. This marks out the gospel as an instrument of

emancipation from a state of bondage. It strikes the key-note of the

Epistle. As the oblation is perfect, so the deliverance secured by it is

perfect; there is, therefore, no compatibility between obedience to the

Mosaic Law and faith in Jesus Christ. The deliverance is from “this present

evil world;” not from the Jewish dispensation, which is nowhere called evil

in itself, though it became so through a grave misapplication of its

principles. It was deliverance from the corrupt course of this world which

was under bondage to gods (2 Corinthians 4:4), from that world which was

crucified to Paul and he to it (Galatians 6:14). It is deliverance from the power

of that world which has its threefold seductiveness “in the lust of the flesh,

the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.” (I John 2:15-17) Thus provision is

made in the atonement for the sanctification as well as the justification of sinners.

Christ is become to us “Sanctification” as well as “Righteousness.”

III. THE ORIGIN OF THE WHOLE WORK OF CHRIST. “By the will

of God the Father.” It was the Father’s appointed work. It was an act of

obedience on Christ’s part to his Father’s will. “For this cause came I into

the world, that I might do the will of my Father.” Christ’s sacrifice was

thus in no sense a human plan, nor dependent upon man’s obedience; it

was the effect of the commanded will of our Father wishing to win back His

lost children. Therefore let us not attempt to overturn or neutralize the

system of grace by our legal obedience.

IV. THE DOXOLOGY. “To whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

The glory of salvation being due, not to man, but God, for its initiation,

for its execution, for its bestowal, it becomes our duty to give Him glory

in all our worship and in all our duties (1 Corinthians 10:31).

The doxology is an implied reproof of the Galatians for attempting to

divide the work of salvation between God and man.

The praises of the redeemed, though begun on earth, will continue

through all eternity. (Revelation 5:11-14)

vs. 6-7 – “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called

you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is

not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would

pervert the gospel of Christ”

THE RAPIDITY OF THE DEFECTION. “Ye are so quickly turning

away.” So soon after their conversion, or so soon after their hearty

reception of Him (Galatians 4:14-15). How fickle and changeable the

Celtic temper! Caesar says, “The Gauls for the most part affect new

things.” “Giddy-headed hearers have religionem ephemeram, are whirled

about by every wind of doctrine, being “constant only in their inconstancy”

(Trappe). “They had itching ears; they had heaped to themselves teachers

according to their own lusts” (2 Timothy 4:3); that is, they liked to

taste the humor of teachers who would not disturb them in their sinful

ways, and used “feigned words (plastoi~v logoi~v),” rather, words

fashioned so as to suit the humor of their disciples. There are men who

“by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple”

(Romans 16:18). And the devil is always at hand to corrupt from the

simplicity that is in Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3). The Galatians had

begun to grow weary of sound doctrine — perhaps from the rooted enmity

of the carnal mind to spiritual things, and error once received into a mind

that has departed from the freshness of first love, takes firmer root than

truth, because it is more in affinity with our lower moods. Besides, there is

something in error to recommend it to the curiosity, or pride, or superstition

of unstable natures.

THE DANGER OF APOSTASY. The forcible language of the apostle

implies the fearful risks involved in the perversions of the false teachers. Of

all falls those of apostates are the most melancholy. They fall from a great

height of privilege. They deliberately part with all the hopes of mercy and

glory in the world to come.

“pervert the gospel of Christ” – It was not only a mingling of the law and

the gospel, but an attempt to neutralize the MERIT OF CHRIST which is

the great teaching of the gospel!

vs. 8-9 – “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel

unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel

unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

The apostle’s anathemas. The severity of these sentences is directed against the

Judaizing teachers, not against the Galatians, whom he evidently regards as

influenced by others.

HERESY IS A VERY SERIOUS THING.

It has power to damn the soul.

It is a sin against God, against the soul, against the truth, against the

Church, and against the world.

It is the habit of modern times to regard error in religious matters as in no

way endangering the salvation of man.

A flippant infidelity denies that a man is responsible for his beliefs.

There is a spirit abroad that leads men to think that everybody is right,

that nobody is wrong, that nothing but an evil life will bring retribution

hereafter.

The apostle regarded heresy as a serious thing when he attached a curse to it.

And if the anathema would fall upon an apostle like himself, or upon an angel

from heaven, it would be much more likely to fall upon men neither apostles nor

angels.

THE CHURCH HAS NO POWER TO ADD DOCTRINES TO THE

GOSPEL OF CHRIST. It is bound to discover the whole truth contained

in the gospel, to exhibit it in all its relations, and to adapt it to the various

exigencies of human speculation and the various needs of men. But it has

no power or authority to invent a new doctrine. The gospel will tolerate no

rival; it will allow no alien elements; it will admit no additions that would

undermine its essential principles. All things necessary to salvation are to

be found in the Word of God.

Paul was willing to be involved in the curse if he taught anything wrong!

From where did Paul get the authority to pronounce such a curse? By

the same authority that sent him to preach the gospel – the authority

of that Lord who has the keys of “hell and death” – God only can

pronounce the curse and inflict it! (May we ever be faithful in the

proclamation of the gospel and we will not have to worry about it –

(CY – 2009)

v. 10 – “do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be

the servant of Christ”

IT IS WRONG TO BE MEN-PLEASERS. Corrupt men-pleasing is that

sinful complaisance to the humors and prejudices of men which sacrifices

truth, righteousness, and honor. This sentence of the apostle is a rebuke to

time-serving ministers who attenuate the claims of the gospel or conceal its

doctrines to avert the displeasure or catch the applause of their hearers.

The friendship of men would be dearly bought at the cost of the Lord’s

friendship. “No man can serve two masters.” (Matthew 6:24) The teacher

who gives evidence that he pleases God rather than men, gives evidence

likewise that his teaching is just and pure.

vs. 11-12 - THE GOSPEL WAS NOT HUMAN IN ITS CHARACTER. “The

gospel which was preached of me is not after man.” He refers here, not to

its origin, but to its character. It is not discoverable by man. Human reasoning

or human intuition could not have discovered its facts, its truths, its blessings.

THE GOSPEL WAS NOT HUMAN IN ITS ORIGIN. “For I neither

received it of man, neither was I taught it.” He did not receive it from man,

any more than the twelve. Men receive most of their knowledge from one

another, yet he was no more man-taught than Peter, or James, or John. He

received exactly what they received —he by apocalyptic communications,

they by personal communications in the days of Christ’s life.

THE GOSPEL CAME TO HIM BY DIVINE REVELATION. His

gospel was not human, but Divine, for he received it by revelation of the

Lord Jesus Christ. It had, therefore, a Christly origin. The revelation is not

to be identified with the visions of 2 Corinthians 12., nor with the

appearance of the Lord to him in Acts 22:18, nor with the period of the

sojourn in Arabia; but with the appearance of Christ, as the Son of God, on

the way to Damascus, as “the fundamental central illumination,” which was

followed by a progressive development. The apostle might, therefore, well

describe his gospel as not of man. We know nothing of the mode of the

Divine communications; the actual results are contained in the writings of

the apostle. Thus it was that he spoke of “his gospel,” which exhibited, as

no other inspired writer did, “the mystery hid from generations,” which

forms the distinguishing glory of the Ephesian (3:2-7) and Colossian Epistles.

He sees in the gospel a Divine plan of salvation, whose center is Christ, and

whose end is the revelation of God’s glorious perfection (Romans 11:36).

The revelation from Christ was thus a revelation of Christ. He was at once the

Source and Subject of it.

vs. 13-14 – “I persectuted the church of God and wasted it” – (an almost

remorseful confession of his crimes against the church) - This is the

best proof that he did not receive the gospel from man – he did not learn

the gospel from those he was persecuting and trying to put to death

although in the case of Stephen (Acts 7:58), Paul (who was Saul until

the name change – Acts 13:9) no doubt was convicted and impressed

by the martyrdom of Stephen.

“zealous of the traditions of my fathers” - His zeal was manifest in his

earnest study of Judaism. He studied it under Gamaliel, with the best

advantages of instruction, and he excelled many of the young Pharisees of his

own age in the ardor and in the results of his studies. It was still more manifest

in his extraordinary devotion to the traditions of his fathers. This was the natural

token of an enthusiastic Pharisaism. “He was a Pharisee, and the son of a

Pharisee” (Acts 23:6).

The traditions in question were not the Mosaic Law, but the interpretations of

that Law, which found their true place afterwards in the Mishna. They were,

in a word, “the traditions of the elders,” which our Lord so severely condemned.

(Mark 7:9,13) They were traditions, strong in the letter, weak in the spirit,

strict in trifles, lax in weighty matters. They made void the Law on some of

the plainest questions of duty

vs. 15-16 – “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s

womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might

PREACH HIM among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh

and blood”

After Paul’s conversion he took no counsel with men as to his doctrine or

career. “God, who separated me from my mother’s womb.” Here is an

instance of prevenient grace. From his very birth, and therefore before he

could have any impulses or ideas of his own, God destined him to apostleship,

no matter how wayward or inconsistent may have been the career of his youth.

Looking back now upon his full history, we can see the marks of that momentous

“separation.” We see the working of prevenient, formative, restraining,

preparatory grace. We see it:

In the splendid intellect with which he was endowed. God did verily

prepare this large brain to be touched in his own time with heavenly fire.

In his education. He was a pure Jew, not half Greek, half Jew, but

thoroughly versed in all the traditions of the Jews, and so trained in

rabbinical traditions that he could afterwards thoroughly understand and

confront the Judaist spirit everywhere, while he was led through inward

struggles and fightings out of the darkness of Judaism into the full light of

the gospel.

In his thoroughness of character. He could be nothing by halves; as a

sinner, he was the very chief of sinners. Conversion made no change in

his temperament and in the force of his character.

“and called me by His grace” – not on the ground of Saul’s Pharisaic

strictness nor on the madness of his violence as a persecutor but

wholly and solely in grace! It was of grace, not of works!

“to reveal His Son in me” - THE REVELATION OF GOD’S SON IN THE

APOSTLE - The gospel is a revelation of the Son in His person, life, death,

resurrection, and ascension. It reveals Him to poor sinners as “Wisdom,

Righteousness, Sanctification, and Redemption.” It is a revelation in

individual lives. “In me.”

“that I might preach him among the Gentiles” - that he might be able to

make known to others what had been so graciously conveyed to himself.

It was the Son who was to be preached to the Gentiles, not the Law, or

circumcision, or holy days; not the righteousness of works, but “the

righteousness of faith.”

v. 17 – “Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before

me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus”

HIS FIRST ACT AFTER CONVERSION WAS HIS WITHDRAWAL

INTO ARABIA. “But I went into Arabia.”

This fact showed that he had at once placed himself completely beyond

the reach of human influence. It was a proof of his statement that he did

not confer with flesh and blood.

His retirement to Arabia — that is, to the Sinaitic peninsula — was

evidently for the purpose of solitary communion with God. There would

be a natural yearning, after such a scene as broke his life into two widely

sundered parts, to be for a time alone with God, that he might receive in

his heart the healing of those wounds which the hand of Divine mercy had

inflicted, as well as to learn by revelation the glories of the gospel which

was entrusted to him for promulgation among the Gentiles.

This mysterious pause at the beginning of his career lasted a

considerable time. It is not possible to say whether it was the whole of

three years; for the text merely asserts it was three years from the date of

his conversion till his first visit to Jerusalem, and we know that after his

conversion he stayed a few days (hJme>rav tina>v) with the disciples at

Damascus, and returned again from Arabia to Damascus. Yet it is probable

that he was the most part of three years in Arabia, as a sort of substitute,

we may suppose, for the three years’ personal training of the other apostles

under Christ, This period of lonely thought and meditation was prolific!

HIS FIRST APPEARANCE IN PUBLIC LIFE AFTER THE ARABIAN

SECLUSION WAS NOT AT JERUSALEM, BUT AT DAMASCUS. - “I went

into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.” It was natural that his career

as an apostle should begin at the scene of his gracious call. That ancient city,

with its unbroken history of four thousand years, (Damascus is the oldest

continually inhabited city in the world) standing on the great road of

communication between Eastern and Western Asia, was a fitting starting-point

for the career of one who was to embrace both East and West in the amplitude

of his apostolic labors.

v. 18 – “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and

abode with him fifteen days. The fortnight’s sojourn in Jerusalem was

long enough to enable Peter to know Paul and to ascertain the true

character of his gospel. But the visit was abruptly ended by a plot against

the apostle’s life (Acts 9:29) and by a vision from heaven (Acts 22:17-21).

v. 21 – “Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia” - This shows

how he left Palestine altogether and passed beyond the reach of Judaean influence.

There were Churches in these Cilician and Syrian regions at a subsequent period;

probably founded by the apostle at this very time (Acts 15:23, 41).

vs. 22-24 – “And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which

were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in

times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. And they

glorified God in me.

Paul was a stranger to the Judaean Churches; for, in travelling from

Damascus to Jerusalem, after his Arabian seclusion, he visited none of the

Churches by the way, but went straight to the metropolis. Then he was so

suddenly hurried away from the city that he had no time to become known

to the Judaean Churches, while, in any case, he may have thought that, as

the destined apostle of the Gentiles, his way did not lie through the

Churches of the Jews. He must have become well known to them if he had

stood in very intimate relations with the apostles.

Yet he was not a stranger by character and repute; for the Judaean

Churches had already heard of his conversion with joy.

The conversion of Saul the persecutor was a widely known event.

“They kept hearing.” Christian love made it impossible that they

should be indifferent to anything that concerned so remarkable a man.

It is the duty of Christians, not only to receive a converted persecutor,

but to glorify God “in him;”

(a) because his talents were no longer perverted to evil;

(b) because they were now employed to build up the faith be was once

trying to extinguish in blood;

(c) because nothing but God’s grace could change the career of one

who was pre-eminently a blasphemer, and persecutor, and injurious.

The conversion of Paul — what an event to the world, to the Church,

to theology!

The grateful joy of the Judaean Churches over such a conversion was a

rebuke to Judaists who aimed to destroy his influence and undermine his

authority.

v. 20 – “Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I

lie not” - As there could be no witness to most of the facts hereinbefore

recited, Paul can only appeal directly to God.

Materials are reproduced by permission."

v. 15 – This is in reference to Paul’s testimony “when it pleased God, who

separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace”

In early June, 2009 – another abortion doctor has been murdered bringing

the total to five (5) since Roe vs. Wade in 1973. The Liberal Media

and spin doctors are calling this an act of terrorism while they ignore

the children of the womb. To me it is a part of THE LIE of which

we are warned in Romans 1:18-28 and II Thessalonians 2:1-12 –

God’s testimony concerning abortion is (and He is Omniscient – He

knows all things) that it never entered His mind for a person to

offer children for sins of their own soul! (Jeremiah 19:5)

(Consider that the majority of abortions are associated with the breaking of

two commandments: “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not commit

adultery” and now a third “thou shalt not bear false witness (lie)” –

also consider the following chart to put things in perspective –

CY – June 13, 2009)

HOMILETICS.

Ver. 1. —

The inspired authority of the apostle.

The first line of the Epistle is designed to settle the question of his

authority and independence as a teacher of the Church. The truth of the

gospel, as he phrases it (<480205>Galatians 2:5), was involved in this merely

personal question.

I. THE NECESSITY FOR VINDICATING HIS AUTHORITY.

Emissaries of the Judaistic party, who had obtained access to the Galatian

Churches, sought to undermine his doctrine by denying or minimizing his

apostleship. They limited the term “apostle” almost exclusively to the

twelve, and were thus enabled to assert

(1) that he was not an apostle in the highest sense, as he was not a personal

disciple of Jesus Christ, and therefore could not claim the inspiration of

those on whom he breathed the Holy Ghost (<432022>John 20:22);

(2) that, in any case, he stood in official subordination to the twelve, and

was not, therefore, to be followed where he diverged from their teaching;

and

(3) that the proceedings at Antioch (<441301>Acts 13:1, 2) necessarily implied

that he received alike his commission and his gospel from man.

II. HIS COMMISSION AT ONCE ORIGINAL AND DIVINE. “An

apostle, not from men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the

Father, who raised him from the dead.”

1. He was a true apostle. He emphatically asserts his independent

apostleship, placing his official title in the very forefront of his Epistle. He

affirms that he was an apostle before he had any intercourse with the

twelve (<480117>Galatians 1:17, 18), and that on three different occasions the

apostles recognized his full apostolic standing (<480118>Galatians 1:18, 19, 2:9,

10, 11-21). He was, therefore, no delegate of the twelve, and had no

secondary or intermediate place of authority under them. He was, as he

described himself to the Corinthians, “a called apostle of Jesus Christ by

the will of God.”

2. His commission was not “from (ajpo<) men, nor by (dia<) man.” The

false teachers might have suggested that the pro ceedings at Antioch

implied a purely human commission. But he had been called to the

apostleship long before his designation at Antioch to a special missionary

work (<442616>Acts 26:16-20). His calling was neither that of Matthias nor of

Barnabas. He was called neither by a body of men nor by an individual

representing the authority of such a body.

3. His commission was entirely Divine. “By Jesus Christ, and God the

Father, who raised him from the dead.”

(1) It was by Jesus Christ; for his commission dated from the day of his

conversion on the road to Damascus. “The Gentiles, unto whom now I

send thee” (<442617>Acts 26:17). He speaks elsewhere of his having seen the

Lord, as a token of his apostleship (<460901>1 Corinthians 9:1). He was directly

and immediately called by Jesus Christ.

(2) It was by “God the Father, who raised him from the dead” — acting in

and through Christ; the reference to the resurrection making it plain that

Jesus could call him, though he had not called him when he called the

twelve, and that the apostleship was one of the gracious gifts conferred

upon the Church by the ascended Redeemer (<490411>Ephesians 4:11). Thus the

apostle was not self-called to his high office, and does not even now refer

to the source of his calling from vanity or self-assertion, but from a

supreme regard to the welfare of his converts.

Ver. 2. —

The apostle’s companions in the gospel.

“And all the brethren which are with me.” It was after his manner to

associate brethren with him in the inscriptions of his Epistles.

I. WHO WERE THESE BRETHREN?

1. They were not the Christian people among whom he resided; for it was

his habit to distinguish between “the brethren which are with me” and “the

saints” (<500421>Philippians 4:21, 22). Besides, in that case he would rather

have spoken of the brethren as the persons with whom he was.

2. They were his colleagues in gospel work and gospel travel, including

probably Timothy and Titus, who had accompanied him in his first visit to

Galatia, and who had rejoined him there (<441805>Acts 18:5), and perhaps

Erastus, Trophimus, and others.

3. They were very numerous. If the Epistle was written during the apostle’s

three months’ visit to Corinth, toward the close of A.D. 57, he was now

accompanied by a larger number of brethren than at almost any other time.

II. WHY DOES HE IDENTIFY THESE BRETHREN WITH HIMSELF

IN THE EPISTLE?

1. The concurrence of such brethren as Timothy and Silas, with whom the

Galatians were personally acquainted, might have the effect of conciliating

their affection and abating the bitterness of their opposition.

2. His emphatic reference to “all the brethren” seems to show that there

was no singularity in his views; that he was supported by the best and the

wisest of the Church’s leaders, and that the Galatians, by repudiating

Pauline teaching, were really severing themselves from the recognized

guides of visible Christianity.

Ver. 2. —

The Churches of Galatia.

Probably in the towns of Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium. It is interesting to

mark that we have not in the New Testament a single name of a place or

person, scarcely a single incident of any kind, connected with the apostle’s

preaching in Galatia. He had paid two visits to Galatia before this time.

I. THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE GALATIAN CHURCHES. The

members belonged, as their name signifies, to the Celtic race, and differed

in character and habits from all the other nations to whom Epistles were

addressed. “It is the Celtic blood which gives a distinctive colour to the

Galatian character.” We hardly needed the authority of Caesar to know

that instability of character was the chief difficulty in dealing with the

Galatians, and that they were prone to all sorts of ritualistic observances.

Thus they received the apostle with true Celtic heartiness at his first visit;

they “received him as an angel of God, even as Christ.” The Church was

mainly Gentile, but gathered round a nucleus of Jewish converts. The fact

that this Epistle was addressed to Churches over so extensive a tract of

country would imply the wide prevalence of the Judaistic heresy. Yet the

apostasy was as yet only in its incipient stage. It is a characteristic fact that

false teachers never appear except in Churches already established. They

seldom attempt the conversion of either Jew or Gentile, thus carefully

avoiding persecution; but wherever they scent a work of grace from afar,

they gather in eager haste to pervert the gospel of Christ.

II. THOUGH THE GALATIAN CHURCHES WERE IN ERROR,

THEY WERE STILL TRUE CHURCHES OF CHRIST. They were not

guilty of idolatry or of total apostasy, but they were stained by serious

doctrinal corruptions and grave moral disorders. Yet the apostle owns

them as true Churches of Christ. The lesson is a rebuke to the unchurching

spirit so often manifest in Christian history.

III. THE APOSTLE’S ADDRESS TO THEM WAS

CHARACTERISTIC. He addresses them simply as “Churches of Galatia,”

without one word of commendation or familiar greeting or kindly

remembrance, such as we find in his addresses to other Churches. He does

not address them as “faithful brethren,” as “the saints in Christ Jesus.”

There is something suggestive in this method of prefacing the Epistle. He

ends it with a perceptible softening of tone, his last word being “brethren.”

Ver. 3. —

The apostolic benediction.

“Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus

Christ.” This benediction is a proof of the hearty love of the apostle, as

well as a mark of his unswerving loyalty to the doctrine of salvation by

Christ only.

I. THE BLESSINGS WISHED FOR. “Grace and peace.” Nearly twenty

times in Scripture are these two graces linked together, but never so

significantly as at present, when the Galatians manifested a disposition to

return to the Law with its terrors and disquietudes.

1. Grace is free, undeserved love manifesting itself in a free gift.

(<450515>Romans 5:15.) It is the foundation of our redemption. It is also an

operation of that free love in our hearts — grace, quickening, sanctifying,

comforting, strengthening. It is the first blessing the apostle asks for; it is

what we all need; it is but the beginning of blessings innumerable.

2. -Peace is not peace with God (<450501>Romans 5:1), but the peace that

springs from it. The true order of blessing and experience is not peace and

grace, but grace and peace. Grace is the root of peace; peace is the inner

comfort that springs from grace. The apostle desires that the Galatians may

not only share in Divine grace, but possess the assurance of it. Without

peace, thousands are unhappy, and the desire of it causes many a pagan to

bear labour and pain in the vain effort to enjoy it. The worldly man longs

for peace without grace. But the two are inseparably linked. Without it

there is no progress in religion, and no real test of the value of a man’s

religion. Luther says, “Grace releaseth sin, and peace maketh the

conscience quiet. The two fiends that torment us are sin and conscience.”

Another says,” If you have peace, you are rich without money; if you have

it not, you are poor with millions.”

II. THE SOURCE OF THESE BLESSINGS. “From God the Father, and

from cur Lord Jesus Christ” — from God the Father as Fountain, and Jesus

Christ as the Channel of conveyance to us. The highest blessings of the

gospel, as well as the appointment to apostolic office, spring alike from

Father and Son. They are here both associated as objects of Divine

worship, and as the sources of spiritual blessing. This proves Christ’s

Deity. “The living fountain of grace which ever flowed and never ebbed in

the bosom of our God has been gloriously opened to a thirsty world in the

bleeding side of Christ.”

Vers. 4, 5. —

The sum and substance of the Epistle.

He here declares the true ground of acceptance with God which the

Galatians practically ignored by their system of legalism.

I. MARK THE SELF-OBLATION OF CHRIST. “Who gave himself for

our sins.” Our Redeemer was not killed by the hand of violence, though

“by lawless hands” he was crucified and slain; he spontaneously offered

himself, and his offering was not the impulse of mere excited feeling. The

expression, “gave himself,” always points to the free surrender of his life ([

Timothy 2:6; <560114>Titus 1:14; <402028>Matthew 20:28). It accords with his own

language, “I lay down my life of myself” (<431017>John 10:17); “How am I

straitened till it be accomplished!” The Father is elsewhere described as

providing the sacrifice, and delivering him up for us all (<450832>Romans 8:32),

but the text describes his own priestly act in accordance “with the Father’s

will.” It is needless to say that the phrase does not point to his incarnation,

but to his death.

II. THE RELATION BETWEEN HIS DEATH AND OUR SINS. “Who

gave himself for our sins.” Some divines connect Christ’s death, not with

the pardon of sin, but with our deliverance from its power. They regard sin

as a disease rather than as an offence, a calamity rather than a crime against

God; they represent the difficulty as not on God’s side, but on man’s, so

that forgiveness is sure to follow upon spiritual recovery. In other words,

they place life first and pardon next, basing our acceptance, not upon

Christ’s death, but upon the possession of the Divine life. The Bible sense

is that “his blood was shed for the remission of sins.” The life is regarded

as the effect or reward of the Crucifixion. There is a direct causal

connection between Christ’s death and the pardon of our sins. The reason

why he gave himself is here assigned. Our sins were the procuring cause of

his death. This is the plain teaching of <235305>Isaiah 53:5; <450425>Romans 4:25;

<461503>1 Corinthians 15:3; <600318>1 Peter 3:18. Besides, it would be tautology for

the apostle to refer here to mere human improvement, since the design of

the sacrifice is to accomplish this very improvement, as we see by the

terminating clause. It would be absurd to confound the means and the end,

the cause with the effect.

III. THE ETHICAL RESULT OF THE SACRIFICE. “That he might

deliver us from this present evil world.” This shows the truly sanctifying

result of Christ’s death. This marks out the gospel as an instrument of

emancipation from a state of bondage. It strikes the key-note of the

Epistle. As the oblation is perfect, so the deliverance secured by it is

perfect; there is, therefore, no compatibility between obedience to the

Mosaic Law and faith in Jesus Christ. The deliverance is from “this present

evil world;” not from the Jewish dispensation, which is nowhere called evil

in itself, though it became so through a grave misapplication of its

principles — besides, the Gentiles had not by Christianity been delivered

from it; nor is it deliverance in the sense of an abandonment of our place

and duty in the world; but it is the world as it is, without religion, under

curse, transitory, corrupt, and doomed. It was deliverance from the corrupt

course of this world which was under bondage to gods (<470404>2 Corinthians

4:4), from that world which was crucified to Paul and he to it

(<480614>Galatians 6:14). It is deliverance from the power of that world which

has its threefold seductiveness “in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye,

and the pride of life.” Thus provision is made in the atonement for the

sanctification as well as the justification of sinners. Christ is become to us

“Sanctification” as well as “Righteousness.”

IV. THE ORIGIN OF THE WHOLE WORK OF CHRIST. “By the will

of God the Father.” It was the Father’s appointed work. It was an act of

obedience on Christ’s part to his Father’s will. “For this cause came I into

the world, that I might do the will of my Father.” Christ’s sacrifice was

thus in no sense a human plan, nor dependent upon man’s obedience; it

was the effect of the commanded will of our Father wishing to win back his

lost children. Therefore let us not attempt to overturn or neutralize the

system of grace by our legal obedience.

V. THE DOXOLOGY. “To whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

1. The glory of salvation being due, not to man, but God, for its initiation,

for its execution, for its bestowal, it becomes our duty to give him glory in

all our worship and in all our duties (<461031>1 Corinthians 10:31).

2. The doxology is an implied reproof of the Galatians for attempting to

divide the work of salvation between God and man.

3. The praises of the redeemed, though begun on earth, will continue

through all eternity.

Ver. 6. —

The sad defection of the Galatians.

The apostle enters at once upon the business in hand, and calls them to

account for their incipient apostasy.

I. MARK THE APOSTLE’S SORROWFUL SURPRISE. “I marvel that

ye are so quickly turning away from him who called you in the grace of

Christ unto a different gospel.” The Celtic heartiness with which they

received him at the first, “as an angel of God, even as Christ,” might well

excite his wonder at their rapid defection. He understood human nature,

but there was something in their conduct which baffled ordinary

calculations. His surprise is tinged with sorrow, disappointment, perhaps

the least touch of anger, and has, unhappily, to occupy the place usually

assigned in his Epistles to thanksgivings for the gifts and graces of his

converts. Yet there is a tender and cautious tone in the rebuke, as if to

imply that his indignation was directed rather against their seducers than

against themselves. It does not exclude the idea that they might yet be

recovered from their error.

II. THE RAPIDITY OF THE DEFECTION. “Ye are so quickly turning

away.” So soon after their conversion, or so soon after their hearty

reception of him (<480414>Galatians 4:14, 15). How fickle and changeable the

Celtic temper! Caesar says, “The Gauls for the most part affect new

things.” “Giddy-headed hearers have religionem ephemeram, are whirled

about by every wind of doctrine, being “constant only in their inconstancy”

(Trappe). “They had itching ears; they had heaped to themselves teachers

according to their own lusts” (<550403>2 Timothy 4:3); that is, they liked to

taste the humour of teachers who would not disturb them in their sinful

ways, and used “feigned words (plastoi~v logoi~v),” rather, words

fashioned so as to suit the humour of their disciples. There are men who

“by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple”

(<451618>Romans 16:18). And the devil is always at hand to corrupt from the

simplicity that is in Christ (<471103>2 Corinthians 11:3). The Galatians had

begun to grow weary of sound doctrine — perhaps from the rooted enmity

of the carnal mind to spiritual things, and error once received into a mind

that has departed from the freshness of first love, takes firmer root than

truth, because it is more in affinity with our lower moods. Besides, there is

something in error to recommend it to the curiosity, or pride, or

superstition of unstable natures.

III. THE SERIOUS ASPECT OF THE DEFECTION. It was not only in

its incipiency, as the apostle signifies, but it was in real process of

development. It had a double aspect.

1. It was defection/tom a person. “From him who called you.” This was

not the apostle himself, for he does not usually give prominence to his own

labours, but rather ascribes the successes of the gospel to the grace and

Spirit of God. It was a defection from God the Father, to whom the calling

is uniformly ascribed (<450830>Romans 8:30; 9:24; <460109>1 Corinthians 1:9). As

such, the apostasy had all the character of ingratitude. But this apostasy, in

its completed aspect, is a crucifying of Christ afresh, a fresh immolation of

the Redeemer.

2. It was defection from the system of grace. They were called “into the

grace of Christ.” They had their standing in the dispensation of grace: for

the call of God works only in that sphere (<450515>Romans 5:15), and the

Judaist emissaries sinned by attempting to draw them off from their true

standing-ground (<450502>Romans 5:2). Thus the Galatians made a double

mistake, pregnant with the worst results — they forgot that conversion is

God’s work, not man’s, and that the covenant under which the blessing is

realized is not of works, but of grace.

IV. THE “TERMINUS AD QUEM” OF THE DEFECTION. “TO a

different gospel.” The apostle does not concede that the Jewish teachers

taught the gospel, even in a perverted form, though it might be called a

gospel by its teachers. Luther says, “No heretic ever cometh under the title

of errors or of the devil.” The apostle’s phrase, e[teron, points to a

difference in kind which is not involved in ajllo<. The gospel, in fact, lost

its true character by the perverting additions of the Judaists.

V. THE DANGER OF APOSTASY. The forcible language of the apostle

implies the fearful risks involved in the perversions of the false teachers. Of

all falls those of apostates are the most melancholy. They fall from a great

height of privilege. They lose all their past pains and sacrifices in the cause

of religion. They deliberately part with all the hopes of mercy and glory in

the world to come.

Ver. 7. —

The true character of the perverters.

The apostle says that the “different gospel” to which they were verging

was really not another (ajllo<) — not a second gospel. He abruptly

corrects his phraseology so as to forbid the idea of the possibility of

another gospel. There is only one gospel — “the gospel of Christ.” The

gospel of the Judaists, though it formally accepted Christianity, revealed a

different way of justification. If it is a gospel at all, it is only in this sense,

that it is an attempt to pervert the gospel of Christ. The passage suggests

—

I. THAT THE PERVERTERS WERE WELL-KNOWN PERSONS.

“Certain persons.” The allusion is not to their fewness or their

insignificance. He speaks of them in this manner without conferring any

celebrity upon them, or exciting personal animosity against them. They

may well rest in oblivion.

II. IT SUGGESTS TWO CHARACTERISTIC QUALITIES IN THEIR

CAREER.

1. Their unsettling influence. “They trouble you.” They disturbed the

minds of quiet and honest Christians by unhinging doubts. They disturbed

the peace of Churches by the cleavage of new doctrines. They created

schisms and rivalries that led to the weakening of Christian love, and

ultimately made way for Christians “biting and devouring one another”

(<480515>Galatians 5:15).

2. Their downright perversions of the gospel. “They would pervert the

gospel of Christ. So far as the Galatians were concerned, it had not become

a case of actual perversion. But there could be no doubt about the

tendency of the Judaist teaching. It was a reversal of the gospel, not merely

by mingling law and gospel, but by practically neutralizing all the merit of

Christ which is the great characteristic fact of the gospel.

Vers. 8, 9. —

The apostle’s anathemas.

The severity of these sentences is directed against the Judaizing teachers,

not against the Galatians, whom he evidently regards as influenced by

others. There is great mildness in his method of reproving the Galatians.

The apostle first puts a hypothetical case, applicable to himself and his

colleagues in the gospel, even to angels in heaven, and then he deals with

an assumption of fact — fact that had actually occurred and was now

occurring — that a gospel had been preached different from that they had

already received, and, in both cases, he ends with an anathema.

I. HERESY IS A VERY SERIOUS THING. It has power to damn the

soul. It is a sin against God, against the soul, against the truth, against the

Church, against the world. It is the habit of modern times to regard error in

religious matters as in no way endangering the salvation of man. A flippant

infidelity denies that a man is responsible for his beliefs. There is a spirit

abroad that leads men to think that everybody is right, that nobody is

wrong, that nothing but an evil life will bring retribution hereafter. By men

of this spirit the apostle would be regarded as cruelly illiberal and narrow.

Yet we must hold that there are fundamental doctrines in religion which are

essential to salvation. The apostle regarded heresy as a serious thing when

he attached a curse to it. And if the anathema would fall upon an apostle

like himself, or upon an angel from heaven, it would be much more likely

to fall upon men neither apostles nor angels.

II. THE CHURCH HAS NO POWER TO ADD DOCTRINES TO THE

GOSPEL OF CHRIST. It is bound to discover the whole truth contained

in the gospel, to exhibit it in all its relations, and to adapt it to the various

exigencies of human speculation and the various needs of men. But it has

no power or authority to invent a new doctrine. Thus the apostle condemns

the Church of Rome in decreeing new articles of faith, not only not found

in Scripture, but altogether inconsistent with it. The gospel will tolerate no

rival; it will allow no alien elements; it will admit no additions that would

undermine its essential principles. All things necessary to salvation are to

be found in the Word of God.

III. APOSTLES ARE NOT ABOVE THE GOSPEL. The false teachers

may have sheltered themselves under the authority of great names,

probably the apostles at Jerusalem. But not even an apostle may publish

anything contrary to the truth of the gospel. Even an angel in heaven,

representing the highest created authority, dare not oppose the gospel.

There is a disposition sometimes to excuse the heresies of zealous teachers

on the ground of their great zeal or their pretension to godliness. But the

truth is not to be measured by any standard of mere human excellence. We

must always remember that Satan can at times transform himself into an

angel of light. Think of the fearful responsibility of a teacher! We must

hold hard by the truth of the gospel if we would not imperil the souls of

men or diminish the comforts of believers.

IV. THE APOSTLE’S ANATHEMA. It is not to be traced to personal

annoyance at men who slighted or denied his authority as an apostle; for he

was willing to involve himself in the curse if he taught anything wrong.

This anathema was not excommunication; for an angel could not be

affected by such a thing; but the very curse of the living God. Whence,

then, did the apostle derive the authority to pronounce it? God only can

inflict it. The apostle did it by the same authority that sent him to preach

the gospel — the authority of that Lord who has the keys of hell and death.

Ver. 10. —

The apostle’s explanation of his severity.

“For do I now conciliate men, or God? or do I seek to please men?” Let

them judge after his anathemas whether he would make concessions to

please or conciliate the Judaists.

I. IT IS WRONG TO BE MEN-PLEASERS. Perhaps the apostle had

been charged by his enemies with a too accommodating spirit in being a

Gentile to Gentiles and a Jew to Jews. He says, “I please all men in all

things” (l Corinthians 10:33); but this referred to circumstances in which he

sought “the profit of men that they might be saved,” and in which there

was no principle involved. The true principle is,” Let every one please his

neighbour for his good to edification; for even Christ pleased not himself.”

But corrupt men-pleasing is that sinful complaisance to the humours and

prejudices of men which sacrifices truth, righteousness, and honour. This

sentence of the apostle is a rebuke to time-serving ministers who attenuate

the claims of the gospel or conceal its doctrines to avert the displeasure or

catch the applause of their hearers.

II. THE SERVICE OF CHRIST DEMANDS A COMPLETE

INDEPENDENCE. “For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant

of Christ.” The friendship of men would be dearly bought at the cost of the

Lord’s friendship. “No man can serve two masters.” To Christ he owes

obedience, reverence, diligence, faithfulness; for he bore the “brands of his

slavery.” Therefore his subjection to him implied the rejection of all human

authority in matters of faith. Yet it was not inconsistent with his being “a

Jew to Jews,” and” all things to all men,” so long as he refused to

compromise the truth of the gospel. The teacher who gives evidence that

he pleases God rather than men, gives evidence likewise that his teaching is

just and pure.

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR

Vers. 1-5. —

The gospel of self-sacrifice.

In sending an Epistle to an apostate people, Paul does not indulge in

unmeaning compliments. These Celts in Asia had been showing some of

their proverbial fickleness, and going back from the doctrine of justification

by faith to a ritualism whose development must be self-righteousness. It is

needful for their recovery from apostasy that the authority of the apostle

and the truth of the gospel should be put before them in unmistakable

terms. Hence we find Paul plunging at once into the needful expositions of

his own apostleship and of the gospel of Christ with which as an apostle he

was charged. In this salutation we have the following lessons distinctly

taught: —

I. PAUL’S APOSTLESHIP WAS RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM

JESUS CHRIST. (Ver. 1.) Doubtless he had merely human hands laid

upon his head at Antioch (<441303>Acts 13:3), but the imposition of the hands

of the brethren was not the conveyance of authority, but simply the

recognition of authority as already conveyed. The “ordination” at Antioch

was the recognition by the Church of’ authority and mission already

conveyed by the Lord to the apostle. Accordingly in this instance before us

Paul claims an apostleship directly from the hands of Christ. He was an

apostle “not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and

God the Father, who raised him from the dead” (Revised Version). No

intermediate hands conveyed the authority to him; he was conscious of

having received it directly from the fountain-head. This gave him

confidence consequently in dealing with the Judaizing teachers. It mattered

not to him what parade of authority these teachers made; he stood as a

rock upon his own commission with all its hallowed associations. And

should this not instruct every true teacher as to the source of his authority?

It is a mistake to imagine that men can do more than recognize God-given

authority. It is from Christ directly we must each receive our office. Church

officers, in putting their imprimatur upon any of us, merely recognize a

Divine work which they believe on due evidence to be already there.

II. THE DESIRE OF THE APOSTLE FOR THE GALATIANS’

WELFARE. (Vers. 2, 3.) The deep longing of Paul and those associated

with him in his captivity for these apostate Galatians was that grace and

peace from God the Father and from Christ might be theirs. “Grace,” the

gratuitous, undeserved favour which wells forth from the Divine heart,

when it is received into the sinner’s soul, produces “peace which passeth all

understanding.” It was this blessed experience Paul desired for the

Galatians. They may have traduced his office and his character, but this did

not prevent him entertaining the deep desire that into “truths of peace”

they, like himself, should be led. And indeed we cannot wish people better

than that grace and peace from heaven should be theirs. To live in the felt

favour of God, to realize that it is at the same time quite undeserved,

produces a peace and a humility of spirit beyond all price!

III. THE GOSPEL PAUL PREACHED WAS THAT OF THE SELFSACRIFICE

OF CHRIST, (Ver. 4.) Jesus, he asserts, “gave himself for

our sins.” The foundation of the gospel is self-sacrifice. But we must

always remember that self-sacrifice, if for the merest trifle, may be moral

madness. In self-sacrifice as such there is no necessary virtue. A man may

lose his life in an utterly unworthy cause. Hence the necessity for the selfsacrifice

of Christ must be made out before its real virtue is established.

This necessity appears when we consider that it was “for our sins ‘ he gave

himself. For if our sins had been removed at some meaner cost than the

blood of the Son of God, we should be disposed to say that sin is after all a

light thing in God’s sight, a mere bagatelle to him. But inasmuch as it

required such a sacrifice to take away sin, its enormity is made manifest to

all. Christ laid down his life, then, in a noble cause. Surely to take away sin,

to remove from human hearts their heavy burdens, to bestow on men peace

and deliverance from all fear, was a worthy object in self-sacrifice. We

stand before the cross, therefore, believing that the sacrifice upon it is of

infinite value and efficacy. He was no martyr by mistake as he died upon

the tree, but the most glorious of all heroes.

IV. CHRIST’S AIM IN SELF-SACRIFICE WAS OUR DELIVERANCE

FROM THIS PRESENT EVIL WORLD. (Ver. 4.) The world is the

totality of tendencies which oppose themselves to God. To love such a

world is incompatible with love to God the Father (<620215>1 John 2:15). It is,

moreover, made up of “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and

the pride of life” (<620216>1 John 2:16). Now, it is to this world that the ritualist

falls a prey. This was the danger of the Galatians. The revival of rites and

ceremonies, which had been fulfilled and therefore done away in Christ,

pandered to the lust of the eyes and to the pride of life. Hence Paul

proclaims at the outset that one purpose of the gospel of self-sacrifice is to

deliver its recipients from the power of this present evil world which is

constantly trying to bring us into bondage. The religion of Christ is

freedom. He means to deliver us from bondage. It is our own fault if we

are not delivered.

V. THE FINAL END OF THE GOSPEL IS ALWAYS THE GLORY OF

THE FATHER. (Ver. 5.) Hence the doxology with which the apostolic

desire closes. It is with doxologies that the dispensation of grace must end.

Heaven itself is the concentration of the doxologies which have been

gathering upon earth; the full concert after the terrestrial rehearsals. And it

is here that the safety of the whole dispensation may be seen; for if the

glory of some imperfect Being were contemplated, his designs would of

necessity run contrary in many cases to the real good of others. But God

the Father is so perfect that his glory always consists with the real good of

all his creatures. Doubtless some of his creatures will not believe this, and

will insist on suspecting and hating his designs. In consequence they must

be exposed to his righteous indignation. But this is quite compatible with

the fact that the Divine glory and the real good of all are meant to

harmonize. Happy will it be for us if we join in the rehearsals of his glory

here, and are promoted to the chorus full-orbed and like the sound of many

waters above. But even should we insist on discord, our own discomfort

alone shall be secured; discords can, we know, be so wedded to harmony

as to swell and not diminish the effect of the full orchestra. And God will

secure his glory even in our poor despite. — R.M.E.

Vers. 6-10. —

Paul’s intolerance of any other gospel

After the usual apostolic greeting, Paul proceeds, not to congratulate or

compliment the Galatians in any way, but to reprimand them for turning

away from the gospel to ritualism. Their idea of salvation through

becoming Jews was subversive of the gospel of grace, and so the apostle

shows himself intolerant of the false doctrine which was so mischievous.

So sure is he of his position that he does not hesitate to denounce with the

curse of God any, be they men or angels, who would preach a different

gospel from that gospel of Christ’s self-sacrifice which he preached.

Moreover, if they imagined that to be popular he would trifle with

principle, he gave them to understand that he would never, to propitiate

public opinion, violate in the least degree his obligation as the slave of

Christ.

I. IT IS MARVELLOUS HOW ATTRACTIVE RITUALISM IS TO

FICKLE MINDS. (Ver. 6.) Now, by ritualism we mean a plan of salvation

by rites and ceremonies. The principle is the same whether the rites and

ceremonies are Jewish or mediaeval. It is a substitute for the gospel of

grace. 1%w, Paul marvelled that these Celts in Asia so speedily turned

away from the gospel of grace to a gospel of ritual. He wondered at their

fickleness. And yet, when we consider the sensationalism which underlies

every ritualistic system, we can understand the hold it has upon those

constitutionally fickle. Whatever is showy, palpable, and helpful to selfesteem

and pride secures the homage of shallow minds. But the sad aspect

of this tendency is that it removes souls from God. Every rite and

ceremony which is interposed as essential between man and God creates a

sense of distance between those whom the gospel would bring nigh.

Instead of ritualism tending to intensify communion with God, it can only

intensify the superstitious feeling which puts souls at a distance from him.

II. RITUALISM IS A PERVERSION OF THE GOSPEL. (Ver. 7.) For

Paul would not admit that the ritualism imported by the Judaizers into

Galatia was another gospel; in his view it was no gospel, but a perversion

of it. For if I am told I can be saved only by becoming a Jew, by being

circumcised, and keeping the Old Testament ritual, and that I cannot be

saved by faith alone, I am deprived of the glad tidings which Christ’s

gospel gives, and projected upon a path of real self-righteousness. It is the

same with modern ritualism. Salvation by ceremonies is the antithesis of

salvation by grace. It is a perversion of God’s good news to man and must

result in disappointment.

III. WE OUGHT, LIKE PAUL, TO BE S0 SURE OF THE GOSPEL

WE PROCLAIM AS TO BE INTOLERANT OF ANY OTHER. (Ver. 8.)

Paul had got such a grasp of the gospel of grace, the self-sacrifice of Christ

was so sure and so sufficient a foundation for man’s hope, that he could

not tolerate any other message. Even should he himself change his views in

the course of years and come to Galatia with another gospel, or should an

angel from heaven with an aureole of light proclaim another gospel than

the one Paul had at first proclaimed, then is the apostle ready to call down

upon his perverted self or the perverted angel the curse of God. Now, this

intolerant side of truth really springs from the sure grasp we have of it. It is

inseparable from intense conviction. Of course, it is quite distinct from the

intolerance which dictates persecution. Paul would not persecute; but he

would leave the perverts in the hands of God that he might deal with them.

Persecution is devoting men to the curse of men; the true intolerance

contents itself with leaving the offenders in the hands of a holy and just

God.

IV. THE BEING WHO MISLEADS HIS FELLOWS ABOUT

SALVATION DESERVES THE CURSE OF GOD. (Ver. 9.) Paul has not

been rashly betrayed into intolerance of spirit. He had expressed himself to

the same effect on a previous occasion, probably during his second visit to

Galatia (<441823>Acts 18:23). He is now prepared to stick to his anathema. He

feels in his heart of hearts that the person who trifles with the eternal

interests of others and proclaims a false method of salvation deserves the

Divine curse. The gospel Paul had preached was the gospel of free grace.

No simpler terms of pardon and acceptance can be imagined than are

offered in the gospel; it is only devil’s work which those persons manage to

perform who complicate salvation with rites and ceremonies, making it less

easy than God intends. Having regard, then, to the eternal interests at

stake, it must be admitted that the deceiver of souls deserves the curse of

Heaven. How solemn a responsibility it is to guide men to God! How clear

and unmistakable should the plan of salvation be made! How deep the guilt

and how dire the doom of those who pervert the gospel!

V. THE SLAVE OF CHRIST WILL NOT BE THE SLAVE OF PUBLIC

OPINION. (Ver. 10.) Paul was undoubtedly a man of great breadth of

view and sympathy. It was a principle with him to please his neighbour for

his good to edification (<451502>Romans 15:2). He was ready to become all

things to all men in the hope of saving some (<460922>1 Corinthians 9:22;

10:33). And the Judaizers thought that this pleasing of men on Paul’s part

would lead him to accept of their ritualism and give up his gospel if their

policy was once thoroughly popular. In short, their notion was that Paul

was so enamoured of popularity that he would bow to public opinion at all

hazards. Now, this is what he repudiates in this last verse. “Do I now,” he

asks, “win over to myself men or God? Or am I seeking to be an object of

man’s good will? No; and there is a decisive reason against any such

efforts. If I were still pleasing men, if I had not resigned the hope of human

favour and of human approval, I should not be the slave of Christ.” This

leads us into the wide subject of our attitude towards public opinion. Now,

our danger undoubtedly is in over-estimating it. Our safety lies in being

slaves to Christ. His opinion is to be our one simple concern, and public

opinion may coincide with or differ from his, but we must hold firmly by

our obligations to the one Master, and all other things will range

themselves rightly around us. The uncompromising slave of Christ will be

found to be after all the most considerate servant of men. — R.M.E.

Vers. 1-5. —

Introduction.

The tone of this Epistle is decidedly controversial. In the first and second

chapters the writer establishes against Judaistic assailants his apostolic

authority. This, however, is only subsidiary to his main design, which is in

the third and fourth chapters, as an accredited servant of God, to establish

the gospel of Christ, or justification by faith against Judaism (a different

gospel), or justification by the works of the Law. The fifth and sixth

chapters may be said to contain the application. There is thus the same

central thought in this Epistle that there is in the Epistle to the Romans.

Here there is the thought as it flashed out against Judaism as it threatened

the very existence of Christianity in a very interesting circle of Churches,

and while the writer’s feelings were still keen. In the later Epistle there is

the thought as it shaped itself against Judaism, when there was time to look

at it calmly and in its widest aspects. It is worthy of being remembered that

an historical interest attaches to this Epistle. The Romanism with which

Luther was confronted bore a striking resemblance to Judaism. On that

account he was led to make a special study of this Epistle. “The Epistle to

the Galatians,” he said, “is my Epistle. I have betrothed myself to it; it is

my wife.”

I. ADDRESS.

1. The writer. “Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but

through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead).”

Paul’s apostleship was not without relation to men. It was directed to men,

and intended for their benefit. His appointment to office was announced to

him by a man (Ananias). But the authority under which the appointment

was made was not derived from men. Nor was it through man as the

medium that it was communicated. It was communicated through Jesus

Christ. The Lord said by Ananias, “He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear

my Name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel.” When

afterwards he essayed to preach the gospel at Jerusalem, he was overruled.

While praying in the temple he fell into a trance, and saw Jesus, who said

unto him,” Depart; for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles.”

The authority under which Paul acted as apostle was ultimately derived

from God. That is not the form in which it is put here. For the same

preposition is used in connection with God as with Christ, as if God were

in himself both the Medium and the Source of authority. And, in keeping

with that view, one of the forms in which Ananias announced to Paul his

appointment to apostleship was this: “The God of our fathers hath

appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear

a voice from his mouth.” Authority was communicated to Paul only

through God as the Father, i.e. as acting through his Son Jesus Christ. This

great Agent the Father raised from the dead. In the corresponding place in

Romans the raising of Christ is also introduced: “Declared to be the Son of

God with power, according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection of

the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we received grace

and apostleship.” The thought there is that, as divinely attested in his

resurrection, he could appoint to apostleship. The further thought is

suggested here that, as raised, he could appoint him to apostleship. He was

not among those who received appointment from Christ when he was in

flesh; but the risen Christ had appeared to him, and, without any elective

body of men coming between, without any action of the Church as in the

election of Matthias, had immediately appointed him to apostleship.

2. Those associated with him. “And all the brethren which are with me.”

However high ground Paul took as to his apostleship, that did not separate

him from his brethren. He even courted their Christian sympathy and

support. He was open with. his companions in travel, and divulged to them

his thoughts, read to them his letters. On this occasion he could say that

they were at one with him. In the whole of his warm remonstrance against

giving way to Judaism, there was not one expression which they wished

him to tone down.

3. The Churches addressed. “Unto the Churches of Galatia.” At the dawn

of history the home of the Celtic race, known to the Greeks as Galatians,

and to the Romans as Gauls, was the continent west of the Rhine, with

these adjoining islands. In their migrations hordes of Celts poured into

Italy. They also followed the course of the Danube, turning southward into

Greece. Three tribes of them, crossing the Hellespont, after wide

devastations, were confined in the heart of Asia Minor. The tract of

country which they occupied, about two hundred miles in length, and

watered by the Halys, was called after them Galatia (land of the Celts). The

head towns of the three tribes were Tavium, Pessinus, and Ancyra. The

original inhabitants were Phrygians, and in later times there were additions

of Romans and of Greeks and also of Jews. But the predominant element

was Celtic, and the Celtic language was spoken along with Greek. To

peoples, then, with more or less of a Celtic origin this Epistle to the Celts is

invested with special interest. Paul came into contact with this new race in

his second missionary tour. There is a singular meagreness of information

regarding his visit. All that is recorded is that, being overruled as to his

intended route, he passed through the region of Phrygia and Galatia. As

meagrely it is said, in connection with his third missionary tour, that he

passed through the same region in order, stablishing all the disciples. The

result of his evangelizing was the formation of several Churches. They are

(as was pointed out by Chrysostom) addressed here without title. What

there is of characterization is thrown into the salutation.

II. SALUTATION. Notwithstanding what he refuses to them at the

present juncture, he heartily wishes them well.

1. Blessing invoked. “Grace to you and peace.” He invokes grace on them,

or the bestowment of the Divine favour, not because of merit in them, but

because of merit obtained for them. As the result of grace, he invokes

peace, or the absence of inward misgiving, and as far as possible the

absence also of disturbing influences from without, Judaism included.

2. From whom invoked. “From God the Father, and our Lord Jesus

Christ.” He first invokes blessing from God the Father. He goes to the

very fountain-head. The fatherhood of God is the ultimate reason for our

being blessed. It is impossible to go higher than that. Where is there hope

for the child who disobeys his father’s command? The hope lies in what the

father is. He naturally pities his child, and desires to bless him. So where is

there hope for us in our state of disobedience? The hope lies in what God

is. He is the Fountain of all fatherly feeling. As the Father, he was moved

with compassion toward us, and desired to bless us notwithstanding all our

unworthiness. It was the fatherly feeling that moved to redemption. It is the

fatherly feeling that moves to bless in connection with redemption. This,

then, is the height to which we must lift up our eyes, from whence cometh

help. He also invokes blessing from our Lord Jesus Christ. As the Father

was formerly bound with Christ by the preposition “through,” so now

Christ is bound with the Father by the preposition “from.” Such freedom is

significant. He who is the Channel is also the Source of blessing. He is

Jesus, the higher Joshua, who saves his people from their sins. It was

through him that effect was given to the fatherly feeling in God, and that

the Father approaches man with blessing. He is the Christ who was

anointed of God for this end. He is our Lord, as the successful

Accomplisher of salvation placed over the house of God, to whom it

belongs to dispense blessing. It is to him, then, as sovereign Dispenser of

blessing that we must look. Central truth made prominent by being thrown

into the salutation. “Who gave himself for our sizes, that he might deliver

us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and

Father.” The language has evidently a sacrificial colouring. The worshipper

came with his sins before God. The oblation he presented to God was an

animal. With his sins taken over, the animal paid the penalty in its death. So

the oblation which Christ presented to God was himself. With our sins

taken over, he really and fully suffered the desert of them in his death,

especially in the hiding of the Father’s countenance. What gave this selfoblation

infinite value was the dignity of the Sufferer; and also his perfect

trust in God, and all-absorbing love for men, and never-failing hope for

their salvation in the mysterious forsaking which made trial of him. The

object with which Christ gave himself Was, not only that he might deliver

us from the guilt of sin, but also that he might deliver us from the

manifestation of sin in this present evil world. This world is thought of, not

as it might have been, but as it actually is. It might have been a good

world; it is instead an evil world. Its evil character consists, not only in its

opposing itself in its opinions and practices to men’s good, but especially in

its opposing itself to God. It is a world that, in its wickedness, forgets God,

casts off God. “The Lord shall not see;” “What is the Almighty, that we

should serve him?” Now, Christ died that we might be delivered from this

tyrannous world, and introduced into the liberty, if not at once of a perfect

form of society, yet of a personal condition, and Church condition too, in

which God has something of the place to which he is entitled. And all this

is to be thought of as according to the will of our God and Father. The

Father has the primacy throughout. It was in his will that salvation

originated. It was his will that was carried out by Christ. “Then said I, Lo,

I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy

will, O my God: yea, thy Law is within my heart.” The outcome is the

doing of the Father’s will by man as it is by the angels.

III. DOXOLOGY. “To whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.” The

foundation of the ascription of glory to God is the glory displayed by God

in salvation. There was a glorious display of wisdom in the planning of

salvation. There was a glorious display of justice in the satisfaction made

for sin. There was a glorious display of power in the overcoming of sin.

There was especially a glorious display of love in its overflowing on

sinners. In view of such a display it becomes us to ascribe glory to God.

We cannot take it to ourselves. Our language must ever be, “Not unto us,

O Lord, not unto us.” In what God has done for our salvation there will be

found subject for our doxologies to the ages of ages. To every ascription

of glory it becomes us to add our “Amen.” May our “Amen” become ever

deeper, and may the circle of such “Amens” evermore increase. — R.F.

Vers. 6-10. —

Occasion of the Epistle.

I. THE APOSTLE EXPRESSES AMAZEMENT AT THE CHANGED

BEARING OF THE GALATIANS TOWARDS THE GOSPEL. “I marvel

that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of

Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another gospel: only there are

some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ? Only in this

Epistle are wanting prefatory words of acknowledgment. In the case of the

Corinthians he has words of warm acknowledgment, because,

notwithstanding irregularities, they were in the main attached to the gospel.

But all of attachment to the gospel that the apostle had formerly been

thankful for in the Galatians was now so endangered that he can only

approach them with a feeling of utter amazement.

1. The fundamental nature of the change. They were removing from him

that called them in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel. If this was a

different gospel, then we have a description of the gospel of Christ going

before. It is the grace of Christ. It is the good offer of pardon and

salvation, not on the ground of our merits, but purely on the ground of the

sacrifice and merits of Christ. That gospel had been preached in Galatia,

and in and by it God had called them unto himself, unto fellowship with

himself, unto holiness and happiness. But now they were moving away

from him that called them in that gospel unto a different gospel. The

difference was that it was no more the pure grace of Christ, but a mixture

of grace and works. Their departure from the gospel was not completed,

the process was still going on; but it was so fundamental a departure that

the apostle marvels at their guilt.

2. The suddenness of the change. They were removing so quickly from him

that called them in the gospel unto a different gospel. From the point of

their being called up to the present point, their Christian career had

certainly been short. But that does not seem sufficient by itself to account

for the abruptness with which the apostle breaks in here. God had called

them in the gospel, and they had continued in the gospel up to a certain

point. From the experience of his second visit, and from information

received, he was thinking hopefully of them; when all at once he is

informed of apostasy in rapid progress. They were acting with

characteristic Gallic mobility. Fickleness is the name applied to it, when

the form is evil. A Gallic tribe might be to all appearance contented and

prosperous, when, suddenly impelled by the love of change, it would move

away to another locality. “Almost all the Gauls,” says Caesar, in his

account of his Gallic wars, “are given to change.” The Galatians

themselves were a striking example of this love of change. This

characteristic would be in favour of their reception of the gospel at the

first. But would they not as easily move away from the gospel? In view of

Gallic mobility, the apostle of Christ needed to be as vigorous as the

Roman captain was.

3. The unsatisfactoriness of the change. He had said “different gospel”

with a certain accommodation. It professed to be a gospel, and he objected

to it that it was another kind of gospel. That, however, might seem to

contain an admission by him, which he does not wish to make, of there

being many gospels, among which a selection might be made. So he

hastens to deny that this other kind is a second gospel. He lets it be known

that there is only one gospel of Christ. What was being palmed upon them

was only misnamed gospel. It was not improving the gospel to add

circumcision to it. It was only perverting it, making it no more the gospel

of Christ. And this perversion was being palmed upon them by men who

had not their real good at heart, whose real character was that of troublers,

harassers. They would put upon them a yoke which Christians did not need

to bear. And they were men who followed in the track of the preachers of

the gospel to break the unity of the Christian communities.

II. THE APOSTLE PRONOUNCES AN ANATHEMA ON

PERVERTERS OF THE GOSPEL. “But though we, or an angel from

heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we

preached unto you, let him be anathema.” Anathema is a thing devoted to

destruction, or on which a curse is laid. An animal laid on the altar was

anathema, i.e. doomed to death. Christ was anathema for us, i.e. given

over, and the curse of God fell on him. He supposes two cases: it is

implied that they are not actual. The first is the case of a genuine

preacher of the gospel — himself or any of his associates. He (others

assisting) had preached the gospel among the Galatians. He had been the

instrument of God in their conversion and in forming them into Churches.

He had given them many proofs of his earnestness. If he — which God

forbid! — should be so far left to himself as to turn his back on his

previous history as a Christian teacher, if he should profess to have got

new light, if he should say that they could be saved on any other ground

than the grace of Christ, — then (protecting their liberty even against

himself, and protecting the interests of Christ) his feeling with regard to

himself, acting in the way supposed, would be, “Let him be anathema.” The

second is the ease of an angel from heaven. This calls up an image of

extraordinary saintliness, greater than that of any of the best men, who are

all compassed about with infirmity. What an influence is here supposed to

back up a message] If an angel should come among them, fresh from the

presence of God, with the atmosphere of heaven around him; if by the

saintliness of his life he should succeed in establishing himself beyond all

parallel in their affection and confidence; if in this position he should teach

that they could be roved on any other ground than the grace of Christ; —

then (protecting their liberty, and protecting the interests of Christ) he

would say, “Let him be accursed.” It might seem that this is asseveration

made strong as strong can be; but its strength is yet added to.

Reaffirmation of a former anathema. “As we have said before, so say I

now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which

ye received, let him be anathema.” At a former time (it may have been on

the occasion of his second visit) others had joined with him in pronouncing

an anathema which only differs from the foregoing in three minor

particulars.

1. It is put in the most general form. “If any man.”

2. An actual case is supposed. “If any man preacheth.” Wherever they had

the opportunity, Judaizing teachers were doing what is denounced.

3. They had affixed their seal to the gospel. It had not only been preached

to them, but also received by them. They had from their own experience of

it known what it was. The anathema in this form the apostle for himself

reaffirms. Being substantially the same as the foregoing, it is thus brought

about that a threefold anathema is uttered against perverters of the gospel.

Nor is there anything in this inconsistent with good feeling. Let us

suppose that one man has in his power the lives of a thousand persons. By

applying a match he may be able to throw away all these valuable lives.

Better tar that he himself should perish than that by his wickedness a

thousand persons should perish. It was not dissimilar in the case of the

Galatians. A good work had been going on among them. By the preaching

of the gospel many had been brought to the Saviour. If this good work

went on, many more, from time to time, would be added to their number.

But if these perverters of the gospel succeeded, then all that good work

would be spoiled. Better far that they themselves should be wrecked in

their interests than that by them hundreds should be wrecked in their

interests. There is a solemn warning here to all perverters of the gospel, of

whom there are not a few in our day. The curse of God rests on the man

who would displace the grace of Christ as the sole ground of a sinner’s

salvation.

III. THE APOSTLE TURNS HIS USE OF STRONG LANGUAGE

INTO AN ARGUMENT AGAINST HIS BEING A MAN-PLEASER.

“For am I now persuading men, or God? or am I seeking to please men? if

I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.” His

opponents warned men against his persuasive powers. He could make the

Jews believe one thing and the Gentiles another. He could prove that

circumcision was right and that circumcision was wrong, as it suited him.

Against this charge he here, by the way, points the Galatians to the strong

language which he has just used, and has not used for the first time. Could

it be said in view of that language that he was making it his highest object

to persuade men, i.e. without reference to truth, without reference to

Divine ends? Was he not rather making it his highest object to persuade

God, i.e. so to speak to men as to have the Divine judgment in his favour?

His opponents said more widely that he was a man-pleaser, that he sought

by unworthy methods to ingratiate himself into men’s favour. The strong

language he had used could not be construed into man-pleasing. He had

got beyond human good will in becoming a servant of Christ. And as a

servant of Christ he had known not a little of what it is to want the good

opinion and good will of men. — R.F.

Ver. 1. —

Apostolic authority.

St. Paul opens the Epistle to the Galatians with an unusual assertion of his

own authority. Generally he describes himself as “the bondservant” of

Jesus Christ, and addresses his converts with affectionate gentleness. But

something almost stern marks the beginning of this Epistle, and indeed

characterizes the whole of it; and the writer at the outset sets forth the

highest claims of apostolic rank. This was necessary because disloyalty to

the authority of St. Paul had been used as one of the strongest

encouragements for unfaithfulness to the fundamental principles of

Christianity. It is very difficult to know when self-assertion is a duty, and

more difficult to perform the duty with modesty. Yet there are occasions

— for most of us rare occasions — when the cause of truth and

righteousness requires the firm, dignified claim of one’s lawful position.

This is perfectly consistent with unselfishness and humility if the motive is

some interest outside ourselves. Herein is the important point, namely, that

the self-assertion is not to be for our own honour, but for the glory of God,

or the good of man, or the maintenance of right.

I. THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY IS CONFERRED. It does not

originate in the man who possesses it. He is “one sent,” a messenger, a

missionary, an ambassador. As the prophet is the man who “speaks for”

God, the Divine spokesman, so the apostle is he who is sent by his Lord,

the messenger of Christ. Thus the apostolic authority is very different from

that of the philosopher which depends entirely on his own intellectual

powers, and that of the religious founder which grows out of the man’s

own spiritual ideas, and all purely personal authority. It is derived from the

authority of Christ. Natural gifts can no more make a man an apostle than

they can give a free-lance the right to command a national army.

II. THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY IS INDEPENDENT OF HUMAN

INFLUENCES.

1. It is not derived from a human origin. It is not “of men.” No man and no

body of men can create an apostle. To attempt such a creation is to put

forth forged credentials; it is like the act of a man who engraves his own

notes and passes them in currency as though they had been issued by a

bank.

2. It is not derived through a human medium. It is not “through man.”

Matthias was thought to be appointed by God since he was chosen by lot

after prayer for Divine guidance; but he certainly received his apostleship,

such as it was, through men, for the election of him was arranged by the

Church (<440123>Acts 1:23-26). This was not the case with St. Paul. The

highest authority is independent of all ecclesiastical arrangements and of all

official management.

III. THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY COMES DIRECT FROM

CHRIST AND GOD. The sovereign commissions his own ministers. The

office derives its high influence from this origin.

1. It is from God. Therefore the apostle is divinely inspired. The Church

order that he establishes and the doctrinal truth that he preaches have both

claims upon our reverence, because they come through him from God.

2. It is also from Christ. It is “through” Christ as being received

immediately from him, but it is also “through” God, for no distinction is

here to be made. Christ, however, is personally concerned. The apostle is a

Christian officer. His work is not to serve the general religion of faith in

God and providence and natural revelation, but to promote the special faith

of the gospel.

IV. THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY IS DEPENDENT ON THE

RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, God is named as “the Father, who raised

him from the dead.” St. Paul alone of all the apostles received his

commission in the first instance from the risen Christ. But the other

apostles were also especially endowed and sent forth by Christ after the

resurrection (<402816>Matthew 28:16-20). Apart from the importance that

attaches itself in many ways to the resurrection of Christ as the proof of his

victory, the assurance of our future, etc., there is this particular point here

of significance that Christ still lives, that the apostle is not merely faithful to

a memory, but serves a living Lord, that he is not the successor of Christ,

but the servant who carries out the fresh mandates of the living and

reigning King. — W.F.A.

Vers. 3, 4. —

Christ’s sacrifice for our deliverance.

The salutation is more than a kindly expression of good will; it is a true

benediction based on the grand assurance of grace and peace that grows

out of a right understanding of the sacrifice of Christ. St. Paul describes the

bearings of that wonderful sacrifice in order to give support to his

benediction. But it is clear that he does this with great fulness and

distinctness for a further purpose. He wishes at the outset to set forth the

fundamental principles of that gospel which the Galatians are forsaking for

“a different gospel, which is not another gospel.” We have here, then, St.

Paul’s compendium of the gospel which, for force and terseness, will even

bear comparison with St. John’s — the most perfect of all compendiums of

the gospel (<430316>John 3:16). The two do not cover exactly the same ground,

for the gospel is so large that no sentence can comprehend even its leading

truths, and so many-sided that no two minds can see it in the same light.

Consider the main points of the one now before us.

I. CHRIST VOLUNTARILY SACRIFICED HIMSELF. In the passage

just referred to St. John tells us how God gave his only begotten Son on

our behalf, now St. Paul reminds us that Christ also freely gave himself. It

was of his own will, subject also to the will of his Father, that he lived a life

of humiliation. He could have escaped the cross by abandoning his mission.

He went right on to death clearly knowing what was before him, able to

deliver himself at the last by calling legions of angels to his aid

(<402653>Matthew 26:53), yet willingly submitting to death. The self-sacrifice of

Christ was distinct from suicide in the fact that he did not seek death, and

only met it in the course necessary for the carrying out of his life’s mission.

It is important to bear in mind that the essence of the sacrifice of Christ lies

in this conscious, willing surrender of himself. It is not the mere tortures he

suffered, nor the bare fact of his death that gives a value to his endurance.

If he had died of a natural disease after bearing worse pain he could have

made no atonement thereby. The willing “obedience unto death” gives a

sacrificial value to his death.

1. This only could be a “satisfaction” to God.

2. This only could be a claim upon our faith and love.

II. THE OCCASION OF THE SACRIFICE WAS OUR SINS. We cannot

say that God would not have become incarnate if man had not fallen. But if

the happy event at Bethlehem would still have taken place, the awful

tragedy at Calvary would have been spared. It is not only that the sin of the

world directly caused the rejection and killing of Christ; his submission to

death was occasioned by sin; it was to save us from the power and curse of

sin.

1. Sin alienated us from God and occasioned the need of a reconciling

sacrifice.

2. Sin cast us into bondage and created the necessity for a redeeming

ransom.

III. THE OBJECT OF THE SACRIFICE WAS TO DELIVER US

FROM THE PRESENT EVIL WORLD.

1. It was not to deliver us from God, as false notions of the atonement

have almost suggested, but the very opposite, i.e. to deliver us from that

which is most opposed to God.

2. It was not primarily to deliver us from the future evil world, from the

pains and penalties of sin there to be endured. A most degrading view of

redemption is that which regards it as having little effect on our life now —

as chiefly a means of escape from future suffering.

3. It was essentially deliverance from the dominion of the evil present, of

our own bad habits, of the corrupt customs of the age.

IV. THE DELIVERANCE THUS EFFECTED WAS IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE WILL OF GOD.

1. The object was in accordance with the will of God. He was the first to

desire the deliverance of his poor lost children. When they are delivered

they are brought out of conflict into harmony with his will.

2. The method of the deliverance was also in agreement with God’s will. It

was God’s will to send his Son. What Christ did was accepted by God as

well-pleasing in his sight. The whole sacrifice of Christ was an obedience

and submission to God’s will. Herein lay its value (<581009>Hebrews 10:9, 10).

The fact is here declared by St. Paul. He offers no theory to account for it.

Theories of the atonement are after-growths of theology, and valuable as

some of them may be, they are not of essential importance. The fact is the

one ground for our faith. — W.F.A.

Ver. 8. —

The duty of intolerance.

The frightful excesses of unchristian intolerance that disgrace the history of

the Church have led to a revulsion of feeling in which indifference is

honoured with the name of charity. The advocate of any kind of intolerance

is regarded with aversion as a bigot and a persecutor. But the duty of

intolerance at the right and necessary time needs to be more clearly

discerned.

I. THE GROUNDS OF THE DUTY OF INTOLERANCE.

1. The exclusive claims of the gospel. There is but one gospel; a rival is a

counterfeit. There is room for but one; a rival is a usurper. For:

(1) The gospel of Christ is a declaration of facts, and facts once

accomplished cannot vary; it is a revelation of truth, and truth is intolerant

of error; the highest truth, too, is one.

(2) The gospel of Christ is the most perfect satisfaction of our needs.

Another gospel could not be a better one, for this is all we want. Nothing

can be better than forgiveness and eternal life through faith in Christ.

(3) The gospel of Christ is the only possible gospel. God would not

sacrifice his Son to death if redemption were to be obtained at a less cost.

The gospel is the expression of the love and will of God. As such it is the

eternal voice of an immutable Being.

2. The honour of Christ. He who proposes another gospel than that of

Christ crucified and Christ risen, directly insults the Name of our Lord.

Loyalty to Christ compels intolerance for all enmity to him. That is no true

Christian charity which has no regard for the rights of the Lord, who

should have the first claim upon our love.

3. The good of men. The gospel offers the highest blessings to men in the

greatest need. It is the one anchor of hope to the despairing, the one

comfort to the miserable, the one salvation for the test. If it be true, we

cannot permit so precious a boon to be lost through the usurpation of a

false gospel. The charity that would do this is like that which would allow

multitudes of sick people to perish through the maltreatment of a quack,

rather than be so unkind to him as to show the least intolerance of his

delusions.

II. THE LIMITS OF THE DUTY OF INTOLERANCE.

1. The rights of the gospel, not the claims of the preacher. St. Paul has just

been asserting his claims. Here, however, he entirely subordinates them to

iris message. Intolerance commonly springs from personal jealousy or party

spirit, and therefore it is generally so evil a thing. We are not to be

intolerant for ourselves, only for the truth. The truth is infinitely more

important than the teacher. The rank, the character, the ability of the man

should count for nothing if he is unfaithful to the Christian truth.

2. The gospel itself, not minor accessories.

(1) Great liberty must be left in regard to details, both because these often

lie on debatable gourd and because they are less important than charity.

There is a point beyond which more harm will be done in disturbing the

peace of the Church and wounding our fellow-Christians than good in

establishing minor truths against all opposition.

(2) Account also must be taken of varying views of the gospel. Even the

apostles did not state it in the same words; Peter and Paul, John and James

thus vary, though with unbroken loyalty to the central truth as it is in Jesus.

Language, habits of thought, aspects of truth from different standpoints

necessarily present great variety. Let us see that we do not condemn a man

for his clothes.

3. Spiritual intolerance, not physical persecution. St. Paul pronounces a

curse on the enemy of the gospel. But he does not draw the sword upon

him. He leaves him with God. There if he have erred, he will be rightly

judged. We have no excuse, then, for the exercise of violence against those

whom we regard as the enemies of Christ, but only for bold testimony

against their errors — leaving all else in the hands of God.

In conclusion, see that

(1) we receive the one true gospel, and

(2) faithfully declare it, and

(3) firmly resist manifest perversions of it.

Materials are reproduced by permission."

This material can be found at:

http://www.adultbibleclass.com

If this exposition is helpful, please share with others.