true object is to make capital out of their influence over you, to boast publicly of your submission to the rite. I, too, will boast, but of something very different. My boast is in the cross of Christ. When I attached myself to the crucified Messiah, from that moment the world became nothing to me. Circumcision and uncircumcision matter not. The essential point is that total change which such a relation implies. On all who take this for their rule I can invoke a blessing, for they are the true Israel. Enough. I have a right to claim exemption from these attacks. The scars that I bear upon me are marks of the place I hold in my Master's service.

(11) Ye see. Rather, See. The Apostle calls the attention of his readers to the handwriting of these concluding paragraphs.

46

39 66

How large a letter.-Rather, in what large letters: i.e., characters. The exact significance of these words is somewhat enigmatic, and can only be matter of conjecture. Two points, however, are clear:-(1) The latter part of the Greek phrase means "in" or "with" letters-i.e., characters of hand-writing-and not "a letter," 'an epistle," as it is taken in the Authorised version; (2) The former half of the phrase means how large," strictly in respect of size. The Apostle, for some reason or other, points out that the characters in which he is writing are larger than usual. What is his reason? It is hard to say. Some have thought that the reference was to the "shapelessness" of the letters, whether as due to the fact that the Apostle himself was not accustomed to the manual work of writing, or possibly to physical weakness from the hardships that he had undergone. The idea of "shapelessness," however, is not necessarily included in that of size. It seems, on the whole, most probable that the size of the characters express the emphasis and authority with which the Apostle is writing. He adds to the Epistle-which had so far been written by an amanuensis-a few bold incisive strokes in his own hand, trenchantly exposing the motives of the Judaising faction, and re-asserting his own position.

I have written.-Must this be so taken: I have written? or may it be idiomatically translated: I write? In other words, does it refer to the whole previous portion of the Epistle, or only to these concluding paragraphs? The question turns upon a nice point of Greek scholarship, on which such authorities as Bishop Ellicott and Dr. Lightfoot take different sides. It will only be possible in a Commentary like this to express a general conclusion, without going into the arguments on which it is based. That conclusion would be that the Greek may, quite fairly and tenably, be translated: I write; and that being so, considerations of exegesis would seem to tell somewhat decidedly in the same direction. The whole character of this concluding section is very much what we should expect if St. Paul followed his usual custom of taking the pen from the amanuensis to write it, and its brief weighty sum

against Judaism Teachers.

1 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. (14) But God forbid that I should glory, save Chap. vi. 14— in the cross of our Lord 16. The true Jesus Christ, by whom' the gospel.

marising style would correspond well with the "large letters" in which he says that it was written. If this description is to be applied to the whole Epistle, it must remain a riddle to which there is no clue.

With mine own hand. It was the Apostle's custom to make use of an amanuensis, and only to add a few final words in proof of the genuineness of the writing. (See especially 2 Thess. iii. 17; and comp. also Rom. xvi. 22; 1 Cor. xvi. 21; Col. iv. 18.)

(12) To make a fair shew in the flesh.-To obtain a reputation for religiousness in externals, like the hypocrites, who "love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men" (Matt. vi. 5). The object of the Judaisers was by this means to keep in with their countrymen, the Jews, and even to gain favour amongst them by seeming to win over proselytes to the Mosaic law.

Only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.—What aroused the antagonism of the Jews against the Christians was evidently not so much the confession of the Messiahship of Jesus as the declared abolition of the Law of Moses. By suppressing this side of Christian teaching, the Judaisers could easily obtain toleration for their other tenets. If, on the other hand, they were to emphasise it, the full weight of persecution would fall upon them-its ostensible ground being the doctrine of a crucified Messiah. Accordingly, they persuaded as many of the Galatians as they could to accept circumcision, and made the most of this propagandist zeal to their Jewish neighbours.

(13) Their insincerity is shown by the fact that they are not really careful to observe the Law. What they do is only to serve as a blind, that they may be able to point to your mutilated flesh as the visible sign of their success in gaining proselytes.

They themselves who are circumcised.— The expression in the Greek includes, not only those who were circumcised themselves, but also those who were for circumcising others.

Glory in your flesh.-Make a boast of getting this rite performed upon your bodies.

(14) God forbid that I should glory.-There is a stress upon the pronoun "I," which, in the Greek, stands first, in emphatic contrast to the party who had been the subjects of the last verse. They make their boast in a mere external; but for me-far be it from me to make my boast in anything but the cross of Christ.

The cross of our Lord Jesus Christ-i.e., "in the death and passion which Christ underwent for me." The Apostle is aware that in this he is putting forward a startling paradox. The cross of Christ was " to the Jews a stumbling-block." They attached to it only ideas of ignominy and shame, and yet it is precisely this of which the Apostle is most proud. He is proud of it

as the ground of his salvation, and therefore as the cardinal object of all his hopes and aims.

By whom.-It seems better, on the whole, to adopt the marginal rendering: whereby. The antecedent is thus not Christ, but more especially the cross of Christ. It is the intense contemplation of a crucified Saviour through which the Christian dies to the world.

The world.-By this is meant here the world of sense, the sphere of outward and sensible things, at once with its manifold temptations to sin and with its inadequate methods of escaping from them-mere external rites, such as circumcision.

(15) In Christ Jesus.-These words are omitted by the Vatican MS. and by the best editors. They would seem to have come in from the parallel passage in chap. v. 6.

Neither circumcision. -We have had almost the same words in chap. v. 6 and in 1 Cor. vii. 19. It is interesting to note the different ways in which the sentence is completed :

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision isnothing, but

Faith which worketh by love (chap. v. 6).

A new creature (chap. vi. 15). Keeping the commandments of God (1 Cor. vii. 19). The first is an analytical statement of the process which takes place in the Christian; the second is the state resulting from that process; the last is the visible sign and expression of the presence of that state.

A new creature.-The Greek may mean either the "act of new creation" or the "person newly created." The Authorised version apparently takes it in the latter sense, which perhaps is to be preferred.

(16) According to this rule.-The word for "rule” is the same that afterwards received a special application in the phrase, "Canon of Scripture." It meant originally a carpenter's rule, or the line that a carpenter works by-hence, a rule or standard; and, from that, the list of books coming up to a certain standard-not (as might be thought) which themselves supplied a

standard.

The Apostle confines his benediction to those who hold the fundamental truths of Christianity-i.e., here more especially, the doctrine of justification by faith and the spiritual view of Christianity connected with it, as opposed to the merely external and mechanical system of the Judaisers.

And upon the Israel of God.-The benediction is addressed, not to two distinct sets of persons ("those

Conclusion.

henceforth let no man trouble me : for I bear in my body the Chap. vi. 17. marks of the Lord Jesus. Christ's brand

(18) Brethren, the grace of ing mark. our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

Unto the Galatians written from Rome.

who walk by this rule" and "the Israel of God"), but to the same set of persons described in different ways. "And" is therefore equivalent to "namely:" Yea, upon the Israel of God. By the "Israel of God" is here meant the "spiritual Israel; " not converts from Judaism alone, but all who prove their real affinity to Abraham by a faith like Abraham's. (Comp. chap. iii. 7-9, 14, 29; Rom. iv. 11, 12; ix. 6—8.)

(17) The Apostle has done. He will not dally with these vexatious attacks upon himself and his authority any more. He dismisses them with an appeal which ought to be final. He points to the scars of wounds which he had received in his Master's service. The branding-irons of Christ, he says, have imprinted these upon me. They show that I, like the slaves of a heathen temple, am devoted and consecrated to His service. They are my credentials, and I shall produce no others. My assailants must leave me in peace.

The marks.-The stigmata, or marks inflicted with branding-irons, such as those which show that a slave is attached to a particular temple or to the service of some particular deity. Branding was applied in some other cases, but especially to temple slaves. Those with which the Galatians were most familiar would be engaged in the worship of Cybele.

There does not seem to be evidence to connect this passage directly with the incident of the "stigmata" in the life of St. Francis of Assisi, but it would seem very probable that the use of the word, which was left untranslated in the Latin versions, suggested, whether by a more or by a less distant association, the idea which took so strong a hold upon his mind that in a moment of extreme spiritual tension the actual marks of the Passion seemed to imprint themselves upon his body.

Of the Lord Jesus.-The true text is simply, "of Jesus."

(18) With your spirit.-The grace of God works especially on the "spirit," or highest part, of man.

The subscription, as it stands in our Bibles, appears for the first time in MSS. dating from about the beginning of the ninth century, though before this the Epistle had been described as written from Rome by Theodoret, Euthalius, and Jerome. We have seen

that the choice really lies between Ephesus and Macedonia, or Corinth, and that the probability seems to be somewhat in favour of the latter.]

EXCURSUS A: ON THE VISITS THE parallel accounts of the intercourse of St. Paul with the Church at Jerusalem, given in this Epistle and in the Acts of the Apostles, have been a double source of difficulty. To writers who have accepted the general truthfulness of both narratives, they have seemed hard to harmonise and arrange in due chronological sequence; and, on the other hand, to those who were already prepared to cast a doubt upon the veracity of the historical work, the autobiographical notices in the Epistle have furnished a means of attack of which they have very unsparingly availed themselves.

The critic who wishes to look at things as they really are, without prejudice and without captiousness, will certainly confess that all is not perfectly smooth or plain, and that the two narratives do not fit into each other at once with exact precision; but he will none the less vehemently repudiate the exaggerated conclusions which have been drawn from the differences which exist―conclusions which, while professing to be based upon the application to the Bible of the same principles that would be made use of in judging any other book, are such as in fact are totally inapplicable both to books and to real life. It is not too much to say that, if the principles carried out, e.g., by F. C. Baur in his famous criticism of these narratives were applied with equal thoroughness elsewhere, history would not exist, or would simply become a field for the exercise of the imagination, and common affairs would be reduced to a dead-lock of universal scepticism. The standard by which these writers have judged of what is historical and what is not, is a standard which exists only in the pedantry of the study or the lecture-room, and which is least of all applicable here, where our ignorance of all the surrounding circumstances is so large, and the whole body of direct evidence so very small.

We shall proceed to place the two narratives side by side, pointing out as well as we can what are the real and what are only apparent differences between them. At the same time it must be fully acknowledged that, however sincere the motives with which any particular statement of the case is made, there will still be a certain room for honest diversity of opinion. One mind will lean to a greater and another to a less amount of stringency, though it is hard to believe that any properly-trained and soundly-balanced judg ment will fall into the extravagances to which the criticism of this unfortunate chapter of history has been subject.

In estimating the apparent divergencies of the two writers, the position and object of each should be borne in mind. St. Paul is writing with the most intimate acquaintance with the inner course of events, but at the same time with a definite and limited object in viewto vindicate his own independence. He is writing under the pressure of controversy which served sharply to accentuate the points of difference between himself and all who were in any way mixed up with the Juda

OF ST. PAUL TO JERUSALEM.

ising party. On the other hand, St. Luke was writing at a greater distance of time, from information which in this part of his narrative he was obliged to take at second-hand, and that from persons who were themselves only acquainted with so much of the events as had passed in public. He may have had a wish not to give too much relief to the oppositions which still threatened the peace of the Church, but there is nothing to show that this went so far as to distort his representation of the facts.

We shall assume the view which is current amongst a large majority of the best and most trustworthy critics as to the order of the visits, and we shall confine ourselves to considering the relation between the two narratives.

The first visit, then, with which we have to deal will be that recorded in Acts ix. 26-30, Gal. i. 18-24, which we place in parallel columns.

ACTS ix. 26-30. When Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians [Hellenists, or Greek speaking Jews]: but they went about to slay him. Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Casarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.

GAL. i. 18-24. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter [Cephas], and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; and was unknown by face unto the churches of Judæa 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.

The narratives here do not really clash, though they are presented from different sides. St. Paul says nothing about his introduction to the Church at Jerusalem by Barnabas, because that had no bearing upon his argument; neither does he speak of his public preaching at Jerusalem, for that, too, was not to the point. There would be ample time for this preaching during the fifteen days that he was residing in the house of St. Peter; and as he would be seen coming in

and going out of this house-sometimes, no doubt, in company with St. Peter, and once or twice, perhaps, also in company with St. James-it would be very natural that St. Luke's informants and St. Luke, wishing to show how entirely the former persecutor was now reconciled to the Church, should speak of him as "coming in and going out" with the Apostles. St. Paul himself hints at the impression which this great change made upon the churches of Judæa collectively, though he was brought directly in contact only with the Church at Jerusalem. There is nothing to surprise us in the fact that St. Paul saw only two of the Apostles the rest may have been absent upon some mission, or there may have been other causes, about which it would be vain to speculate. It would, perhaps, be possible to derive from St. Luke's narrative an exaggerated idea of the extent to which the Apostle preached in public; but there, too, it is to be noticed that the preaching is described as confined to a particular, not very large, section of the Jewish community; and St. Luke relates nothing that would carry him beyond the walls of Jerusalem. The question whether St. Paul went direct from Cæsarea to Tarsus, or landed upon the coast of Syria on the way, will be found discussed in the Notes to Gal. i. 21.

The second visit to Jerusalem is mentioned only in the Acts. After recounting the success of the Apostle's preaching at Antioch, and the great famine of the reign of Claudius, the historian proceeds to give an account of the collection that was made for the suffering churches of Judæa.

ACTS xi. 29, 30; xii. 25. Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judæa: which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

[Here follows an account of the imprisonment and deliverance of St. Peter, and of the death of Herod.]

And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.

The only question that occurs to us here is, Why is this visit omitted by St. Paul? Nor is the answer far to seek. If St. Paul had been giving a professed list of his visits to Jerusalem, it might have seemed strange. But he is not giving such a list. His object is to explain the extent of his communications with the elder Apostles. But on this occasion there is every reason to think that he had no such communication. From the order of the narrative in the Acts we should infer that St. Paul arrived at Jerusalem during the confusion which was caused by Herod's persecution. St. Peter was in prison; the Elder James had just been slain; James, the Lord's brother was in hiding (Acts xii. 17). No sooner was St. Peter delivered than he too went into hiding again (Acts xii. 17-19). In the Church assembled at the house of Mary, none of the prominent members seem to have been present. And that Paul

and Barnabas came to this house, we have an incidental proof in the fact that they took back with them John Mark, the son of the lady to whom it belonged. We should gather from the Acts that all they did was simply to fulfil their commission, by depositing the sums of which they were the bearers, in trustworthy hands, and return. But if so, there was no reason why St. Paul should allude to this visit in his argument with the Galatians. It had taken place nearly fourteen years before the date at which he was writing: and though it is not necessary to suppose that he had exactly forgotten it, still there was nothing to recall it to him, and it was not present to his mind. This is quite sufficient to explain the expression with which he introduces his account of his next, really his third, visit. He does not use a precise expression, "I went up a second time," but simply, "I went up again.”

This third visit is the most important. That both accounts relate to the same visit cannot be doubted, though there is, at the first blush, a considerable difference between them.

GAL. ii. 1-11.

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But

:

of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person :) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was comImitted unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (for he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles :)

our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets;

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

[To the same effect

the letter is written, and sent by the hands of Judas Barsabas, and Silas, who returned to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, as a delegation from the Church of Jerusalem.]

and when James, Cephas, || and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. But when Peter [Cephas] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed, &c.

In one respect the narrative of St. Paul is strikingly supplemented by that of St. Luke. It tells us who were the "false brethren unawares brought in." They were "certain of the sect of Pharisees which believed," i.e., Pharisees who called themselves Christians, though without forsaking their peculiar tenets, and wishing to impose them upon the Church. The true opposition to St. Paul came from these. Both in the Epistle and in the work of the historian it is they who are put forward prominently. And it is a gross exaggeration, nay, a distortion of the facts, to represent the opposition as proceeding from the Judæan Apostles. These appear rather as mediators, standing by birth and antecedents upon the one side, but yielding to the reasonableness of the case so far as to make large concessions upon the other.

It is noticeable, too, as another minute coincidence between the two accounts, that in both stress is laid upon the success of the Gentile Apostle's preaching as a proof that he enjoyed the divine favour. In the Acts Paul and Barnabas defend themselves by "declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them;" and in the Galatians the Judæan Apostles are described as giving to St. Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship because they "perceived the grace given to him," and because they saw that the same Power who enabled Peter to preach to the Jews "was mighty in him toward the Gentiles."

These two quite "undesigned" coincidences are a strong confirmation of the narratives in which they are found. But the differences must also be noticed. (1) In the Epistle St. Paul speaks of himself as going up "by revelation"-i.e., in accordance with some private intimation of the divine will. In the Acts it is determined for him that he should go as the deputy of the Church at Antioch. But the two things do not exclude each other: they rather represent the different aspects of the same event as it would appear when looked at from without and when looked at from within. A precisely similar difference may be observed in Acts ix. 29, 30, compared with Acts xxii. 17 et seq. In the one passage the disciples are said to have “brought down" St. Paul to Cæsarea, for fear the Jews should slay him. In the other passage St. Paul himself, relating the same incident, says that, while praying in the Temple, he “fell into a trance," and heard a voice bidding him “make haste and get quickly out of Jerusalem," because his testimony would not be received. In like manner a double cause-the prompting of the Holy Spirit and the act of the Church at Antioch-is assigned to the same event in Acts xiii. 2-4. Discrepancies like these in two independent narratives are common and natural enough. (2) Nothing is said about the incident of Titus in the Acts. But Titus is included amongst the "others" of Acts xv. 2 ("Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them"); and the incident is sufficiently pointed to in verse 5, where the Pharisaic converts insist on the circumcision of the Gentile converts. Nor if it had been entirely omitted need this cause any surprise. St. Luke knew only so much of what hap pened at the Council as his informants themselves knew or were able to tell him. (3) In the Acts we have described to us a great public meeting: the Epistle seems to speak rather of private conferences. But a public meeting on a matter of this kind, so far from excluding would naturally pre-suppose private conferences. We have recently had a conspicuous instance of this in the conduct so discreetly pursued at the Congress which resulted in the Treaty of Berlin. And a public meeting is both indicated by the Greek of the phrase "communicated unto them" (Gal. ii. 2; see the Commentary ad loc.), and falls in naturally with the account of the dismissal of the two Apostles in verse 9. So far the differences are of no importance, and are perfectly compatible with the complete truth of both accounts; but the one that remains is rather more substantial. (4) St. Paul makes no mention of the so-called "apostolic decree." The exhortation to "remember the poor" is all that he retains of the letter enjoining the Gentile Christians to "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from things strangled, and from fornication." Nor is the decree appealed to -as it might have been here to the Galatians-as a proof that circumcision was not held to be obligatory even by the mother Church; while some of these provisions-e.g., the abstinence from meat offered to idols - are left entirely unnoticed in the discussion of the subject in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Romans. A partial answer to the questions raised by this remarkable silence may be found in the fact that the letter was addressed, in the first instance, to the churches of a particular district-Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia-which was in comparatively close communion with Judæa. It would not follow that the decree would be binding on other Gentile churches. A partial answer, again, is supplied by the Apostle's natural independence of character. The argument from authority is the last that he would use; and if he had been