<title type="x-IS">INTRODUCTION</title>
 The internal and external evidence for Paul's authorship is conclusive. The style is characteristically Pauline. The superscription, and allusions to the apostle of the Gentiles in the first person, throughout the Epistle, establish the same truth (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.1">Ga 1:1</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.1.13-1Cor.1.24">13-24</reference>; 2:1-14). His authorship is also upheld by the unanimous testimony of the ancient Church: compare Irenæus [Against Heresies, 3,7,2] (<reference osisRef="Gal.3.19">Ga 3:19</reference>); Polycarp [Epistle to the Philippians, 3] quotes <reference osisRef="Gal.4.26">Ga 4:26</reference>; <reference osisRef="Gal.6.7">6:7</reference>; Justin Martyr, or whoever wrote the Discourse to the Greeks, alludes to <reference osisRef="Gal.4.12">Ga 4:12</reference>; <reference osisRef="Gal.5.20">5:20</reference>.

 The Epistle was written "TO THE CHURCHES OF Galatia" (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.2">Ga 1:2</reference>), a district of Asia Minor, bordering on Phrygia, Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Paphlagonia. The inhabitants (Gallo-græci, contracted into Galati, another form of the name Celts) were Gauls in origin, the latter having overrun Asia Minor after they had pillaged Delphi, about 280 B.C. and at last permanently settled in the central parts, thence called Gallo-græcia or Galatia. Their character, as shown in this Epistle, is in entire consonance with that ascribed to the Gallic race by all writers. Cæsar [Commentaries on the Gallic War, 4,5], "The infirmity of the Gauls is that they are fickle in their resolves and fond of change, and not to be trusted." So Thierry (quoted by Alford), "Frank, impetuous, impressible, eminently intelligent, but at the same time extremely changeable, inconstant, fond of show, perpetually quarrelling, the fruit of excessive vanity." They received Paul at first with all joy and kindness; but soon wavered in their allegiance to the Gospel and to him, and hearkened as eagerly now to Judaizing teachers as they had before to him (<reference osisRef="Gal.4.14-Gal.4.16">Ga 4:14-16</reference>). The apostle himself had been the first preacher among them (<reference osisRef="Acts.16.6">Ac 16:6</reference>; <reference osisRef="Gal.1.8">Ga 1:8</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.4.13">4:13</reference>; see on <reference osisRef="Gal.4.13">Ga 4:13</reference>; "on account of infirmity of flesh I preached unto you at the first": implying that sickness detained him among them); and had then probably founded churches, which at his subsequent visit he "strengthened" in the faith (<reference osisRef="Acts.18.23">Ac 18:23</reference>). His first visit was about A.D. 51, during his second missionary journey. Josephus [Antiquities, 16.62] testifies that many Jews resided in Ancyra in Galatia. Among these and their brethren, doubtless, as elsewhere, he began his preaching. And though subsequently the majority in the Galatian churches were Gentiles (<reference osisRef="Gal.4.8">Ga 4:8</reference>, <reference osisRef="Gal.4.9">9</reference>), yet these were soon infected by Judaizing teachers, and almost suffered themselves to be persuaded to undergo circumcision (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.6">Ga 1:6</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.3.1">3:1</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.3.3">3</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.5.2">5:2</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.5.3">3</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.6.12">6:12</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.6.13">13</reference>). Accustomed as the Galatians had been, when heathen, to the mystic worship of Cybele (prevalent in the neighboring region of Phrygia), and the theosophistic doctrines connected with that worship, they were the more readily led to believe that the full privileges of Christianity could only be attained through an elaborate system of ceremonial symbolism (Ga 4:9-11; 5:7-12). They even gave ear to the insinuation that Paul himself observed the law among the Jews, though he persuaded the Gentiles to renounce it, and that his motive was to keep his converts in a subordinate state, excluded from the full privileges of Christianity, which were enjoyed by the circumcised alone (<reference osisRef="Gal.5.11">Ga 5:11</reference>, <reference osisRef="Gal.4.16">Ga 4:16</reference>, compare with <reference osisRef="Gal.2.17">Ga 2:17</reference>); and that in "becoming all things to all men," he was an interested flatterer (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.10">Ga 1:10</reference>), aiming at forming a party for himself: moreover, that he falsely represented himself as an apostle divinely commissioned by Christ, whereas he was but a messenger sent by the Twelve and the Church at Jerusalem, and that his teaching was now at variance with that of Peter and James, "pillars" of the Church, and therefore ought not to be accepted.

 His PURPOSE, then, in writing this Epistle was: (1) to defend his apostolic authority (Ga 1:11-19; 2:1-14); (2) to counteract the evil influence of the Judaizers in Galatia (<reference osisRef="Gal.3.1-Gal.4.31">Ga 3:1-4:31</reference>), and to show that their doctrine destroyed the very essence of Christianity, by lowering its spirituality to an outward ceremonial system; (3) to give exhortation for the strengthening of Galatian believers in faith towards Christ, and in the fruits of the Spirit (<reference osisRef="Gal.5.1-Gal.6.18">Ga 5:1-6:18</reference>). He had already, face to face, testified against the Judaizing teachers (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.9">Ga 1:9</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.4.16">4:16</reference>; <reference osisRef="Acts.18.23">Ac 18:23</reference>); and now that he has heard of the continued and increasing prevalence of the evil, he writes with his own hand (<reference osisRef="Gal.6.11">Ga 6:11</reference>: a labor which he usually delegated to an amanuensis) this Epistle to oppose it. The sketch he gives in it of his apostolic career confirms and expands the account in Acts and shows his independence of human authority, however exalted. His protest against Peter in <reference osisRef="Gal.2.14-Gal.2.21">Ga 2:14-21</reference>, disproves the figment, not merely of papal, but even of that apostle's supremacy; and shows that Peter, save when specially inspired, was fallible like other men.

 There is much in common between this Epistle and that to the Romans on the subject of justification by faith only, and not by the law. But the Epistle to the Romans handles the subject in a didactic and logical mode, without any special reference; this Epistle, in a controversial manner, and with special reference to the Judaizers in Galatia.

 The STYLE combines the two extremes, sternness. (Ga 1:1-24; 3:1-5) and tenderness (<reference osisRef="Gal.4.19">Ga 4:19</reference>, <reference osisRef="Gal.4.20">20</reference>), the characteristics of a man of strong emotions, and both alike well suited for acting on an impressible people such as the Galatians were. The beginning is abrupt, as was suited to the urgency of the question and the greatness of the danger. A tone of sadness, too, is apparent, such as might be expected in the letter of a warm-hearted teacher who had just learned that those whom he loved were forsaking his teachings for those of perverters of the truth, as well as giving ear to calumnies against himself.

 The TIME OF WRITING was after the visit to Jerusalem recorded in <reference osisRef="Acts.15.1">Ac 15:1</reference>, &c.; that is, A.D. 50, if that visit be, as seems probable, identical with that in <reference osisRef="Gal.2.1">Ga 2:1</reference>. Further, as <reference osisRef="Gal.1.9">Ga 1:9</reference> ("as we said before"), and <reference osisRef="Gal.4.16">Ga 4:16</reference> ("Have [Alford] I become your enemy?" namely, at my second visit, whereas I was welcomed by you at my first visit), refer to his second visit (<reference osisRef="Acts.18.23">Ac 18:23</reference>), this Epistle must have been written after the date of that visit (the autumn of A.D. 54). <reference osisRef="Gal.4.13">Ga 4:13</reference>, "Ye know how ... I preached ... at the first" (Greek, "at the former time"), implies that Paul, at the time of writing, had been twice in Galatia; and <reference osisRef="Gal.1.6">Ga 1:6</reference>, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed," implies that he wrote not long after having left Galatia for the second time; probably in the early part of his residence at Ephesus (<reference osisRef="Acts.18.23">Ac 18:23</reference>; <reference osisRef="Acts.19.1">19:1</reference>, &c., from A.D. 54, the autumn, to A.D. 57, Pentecost) [Alford]. Conybeare and Howson, from the similarity between this Epistle and that to the Romans, the same line of argument in both occupying the writer's mind, think it was not written till his stay at Corinth (<reference osisRef="Acts.20.2">Ac 20:2</reference>, <reference osisRef="Acts.20.3">3</reference>), during the winter of 57-58, whence he wrote his Epistle to the Romans; and certainly, in the theory of the earlier writing of it from Ephesus, it does seem unlikely that the two Epistles to the Corinthians, so dissimilar, should intervene between those so similar as the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans; or that the Epistle to the Galatians should intervene between the second to the Thessalonians and the first to the Corinthians. The decision between the two theories rests on the words, "so soon." If these be not considered inconsistent with little more than three years having elapsed since his second visit to Galatia, the argument, from the similarity to the Epistle to the Romans, seems to me conclusive. This to the Galatians seems written on the urgency of the occasion, tidings having reached him at Corinth from Ephesus of the Judaizing of many of his Galatian converts, in an admonitory and controversial tone, to maintain the great principles of Christian liberty and justification by faith only; that to the Romans is a more deliberate and systematic exposition of the same central truths of theology, subsequently drawn up in writing to a Church with which he was personally unacquainted. See on <reference osisRef="Gal.1.6">Ga 1:6</reference>, for Birks's view. Paley [Horæ Paulinæ] well remarks how perfectly adapted the conduct of the argument is to the historical circumstances under which the Epistle was written! Thus, that to the Galatians, a Church which Paul had founded, he puts mainly upon authority; that to the Romans, to whom he was not personally known, entirely upon argument.
 <title type="x-s">CHAPTER 1</title> <title type="x-s3"><reference osisRef="Gal.1.1-Gal.1.24">Ga 1:1-24</reference>. Superscription. Greetings. The Cause of His Writing Is Their Speedy Falling Away from the Gospel He Taught. Defense of His Teaching:</title>
 His Apostolic Call Independent of Man.

 Judaizing teachers had persuaded the Galatians that Paul had taught them the new religion imperfectly, and at second hand; that the founder of their church himself possessed only a deputed commission, the seal of truth and authority being in the apostles at Jerusalem: moreover, that whatever he might profess among them, he had himself at other times, and in other places, given way to the doctrine of circumcision. To refute this, he appeals to the history of his conversion, and to the manner of his conferring with the apostles when he met them at Jerusalem; that so far was his doctrine from being derived from them, or they from exercising any superiority over him, that they had simply assented to what he had already preached among the Gentiles, which preaching was communicated, not by them to him, but by himself to them [Paley]. Such an apologetic Epistle could not be a later forgery, the objections which it meets only coming out incidentally, not being obtruded as they would be by a forger; and also being such as could only arise in the earliest age of the Church, when Jerusalem and Judaism still held a prominent place.

<hi type="bold">1. apostle--</hi>in the earliest Epistles, the two to the Thessalonians, through humility, he uses no title of authority; but associates with him "Silvanus and Timotheus"; yet here, though "brethren" (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.2">Ga 1:2</reference>) are with him, he does not name them but puts his own name and apostleship prominent: evidently because his apostolic commission needs now to be vindicated against deniers of it.

<hi type="bold">of--</hi>Greek, "from." Expressing the origin from which his mission came, "not from men," but from Christ and the Father (understood) as the source. "By" expresses the immediate operating agent in the call. Not only was the call from God as its ultimate source, but by Christ and the Father as the immediate agent in calling him (<reference osisRef="Acts.22.15">Ac 22:15</reference>; <reference osisRef="Acts.26.16-Acts.26.18">26:16-18</reference>). The laying on of Ananias' hands (<reference osisRef="Acts.9.17">Ac 9:17</reference>) is no objection to this; for that was but a sign of the fact, not an assisting cause. So the Holy Ghost calls him specially (<reference osisRef="Acts.13.2">Ac 13:2</reference>, <reference osisRef="Acts.13.3">3</reference>); he was an apostle before this special mission.

<hi type="bold">man--</hi>singular; to mark the contrast to "Jesus Christ." The opposition between "Christ" and "man," and His name being put in closest connection with God the Father, imply His Godhead.

<hi type="bold">raised him from the dead--</hi>implying that, though he had not seen Him in His humiliation as the other apostles (which was made an objection against him), he had seen and been constituted an apostle by Him in His resurrection power (<reference osisRef="Matt.28.18">Mt 28:18</reference>; <reference osisRef="Rom.1.4">Ro 1:4</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.1.5">5</reference>). Compare as to the ascension, the consequence of the resurrection, and the cause of His giving "apostles," <reference osisRef="Eph.4.11">Ep 4:11</reference>. He rose again, too, for our justification (<reference osisRef="Rom.4.25">Ro 4:25</reference>); thus Paul prepares the way for the prominent subject of the Epistle, justification in Christ, not by the law.

INTRODUCTION The internal and external evidence for Paul's authorship is conclusive. The style is characteristically Pauline. The superscription, and allusions to the apostle of the Gentiles in the first person, throughout the Epistle, establish the same truth (Ga 1:1, 13-24; 2:1-14). His authorship is also upheld by the unanimous testimony of the ancient Church: compare Irenæus [Against Heresies, 3,7,2] (Ga 3:19); Polycarp [Epistle to the Philippians, 3] quotes Ga 4:26; 6:7; Justin Martyr, or whoever wrote the Discourse to the Greeks, alludes to Ga 4:12; 5:20. The Epistle was written "TO THE CHURCHES OF Galatia" (Ga 1:2), a district of Asia Minor, bordering on Phrygia, Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Paphlagonia. The inhabitants (Gallo-græci, contracted into Galati, another form of the name Celts) were Gauls in origin, the latter having overrun Asia Minor after they had pillaged Delphi, about 280 B.C. and at last permanently settled in the central parts, thence called Gallo-græcia or Galatia. Their character, as shown in this Epistle, is in entire consonance with that ascribed to the Gallic race by all writers. Cæsar [Commentaries on the Gallic War, 4,5], "The infirmity of the Gauls is that they are fickle in their resolves and fond of change, and not to be trusted." So Thierry (quoted by Alford), "Frank, impetuous, impressible, eminently intelligent, but at the same time extremely changeable, inconstant, fond of show, perpetually quarrelling, the fruit of excessive vanity." They received Paul at first with all joy and kindness; but soon wavered in their allegiance to the Gospel and to him, and hearkened as eagerly now to Judaizing teachers as they had before to him (Ga 4:14-16). The apostle himself had been the first preacher among them (Ac 16:6; Ga 1:8; 4:13; see on Ga 4:13; "on account of infirmity of flesh I preached unto you at the first": implying that sickness detained him among them); and had then probably founded churches, which at his subsequent visit he "strengthened" in the faith (Ac 18:23). His first visit was about A.D. 51, during his second missionary journey. Josephus [Antiquities, 16.62] testifies that many Jews resided in Ancyra in Galatia. Among these and their brethren, doubtless, as elsewhere, he began his preaching. And though subsequently the majority in the Galatian churches were Gentiles (Ga 4:8, 9), yet these were soon infected by Judaizing teachers, and almost suffered themselves to be persuaded to undergo circumcision (Ga 1:6; 3:1, 3; 5:2, 3; 6:12, 13). Accustomed as the Galatians had been, when heathen, to the mystic worship of Cybele (prevalent in the neighboring region of Phrygia), and the theosophistic doctrines connected with that worship, they were the more readily led to believe that the full privileges of Christianity could only be attained through an elaborate system of ceremonial symbolism (Ga 4:9-11; 5:7-12). They even gave ear to the insinuation that Paul himself observed the law among the Jews, though he persuaded the Gentiles to renounce it, and that his motive was to keep his converts in a subordinate state, excluded from the full privileges of Christianity, which were enjoyed by the circumcised alone (Ga 5:11, Ga 4:16, compare with Ga 2:17); and that in "becoming all things to all men," he was an interested flatterer (Ga 1:10), aiming at forming a party for himself: moreover, that he falsely represented himself as an apostle divinely commissioned by Christ, whereas he was but a messenger sent by the Twelve and the Church at Jerusalem, and that his teaching was now at variance with that of Peter and James, "pillars" of the Church, and therefore ought not to be accepted. His PURPOSE, then, in writing this Epistle was: (1) to defend his apostolic authority (Ga 1:11-19; 2:1-14); (2) to counteract the evil influence of the Judaizers in Galatia (Ga 3:1-4:31), and to show that their doctrine destroyed the very essence of Christianity, by lowering its spirituality to an outward ceremonial system; (3) to give exhortation for the strengthening of Galatian believers in faith towards Christ, and in the fruits of the Spirit (Ga 5:1-6:18). He had already, face to face, testified against the Judaizing teachers (Ga 1:9; 4:16; Ac 18:23); and now that he has heard of the continued and increasing prevalence of the evil, he writes with his own hand (Ga 6:11: a labor which he usually delegated to an amanuensis) this Epistle to oppose it. The sketch he gives in it of his apostolic career confirms and expands the account in Acts and shows his independence of human authority, however exalted. His protest against Peter in Ga 2:14-21, disproves the figment, not merely of papal, but even of that apostle's supremacy; and shows that Peter, save when specially inspired, was fallible like other men. There is much in common between this Epistle and that to the Romans on the subject of justification by faith only, and not by the law. But the Epistle to the Romans handles the subject in a didactic and logical mode, without any special reference; this Epistle, in a controversial manner, and with special reference to the Judaizers in Galatia. The STYLE combines the two extremes, sternness. (Ga 1:1-24; 3:1-5) and tenderness (Ga 4:19, 20), the characteristics of a man of strong emotions, and both alike well suited for acting on an impressible people such as the Galatians were. The beginning is abrupt, as was suited to the urgency of the question and the greatness of the danger. A tone of sadness, too, is apparent, such as might be expected in the letter of a warm-hearted teacher who had just learned that those whom he loved were forsaking his teachings for those of perverters of the truth, as well as giving ear to calumnies against himself. The TIME OF WRITING was after the visit to Jerusalem recorded in Ac 15:1, &c.; that is, A.D. 50, if that visit be, as seems probable, identical with that in Ga 2:1. Further, as Ga 1:9 ("as we said before"), and Ga 4:16 ("Have [Alford] I become your enemy?" namely, at my second visit, whereas I was welcomed by you at my first visit), refer to his second visit (Ac 18:23), this Epistle must have been written after the date of that visit (the autumn of A.D. 54). Ga 4:13, "Ye know how... I preached... at the first" (Greek, "at the former time"), implies that Paul, at the time of writing, had been twice in Galatia; and Ga 1:6, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed," implies that he wrote not long after having left Galatia for the second time; probably in the early part of his residence at Ephesus (Ac 18:23; 19:1, &c., from A.D. 54, the autumn, to A.D. 57, Pentecost) [Alford]. Conybeare and Howson, from the similarity between this Epistle and that to the Romans, the same line of argument in both occupying the writer's mind, think it was not written till his stay at Corinth (Ac 20:2, 3), during the winter of 57-58, whence he wrote his Epistle to the Romans; and certainly, in the theory of the earlier writing of it from Ephesus, it does seem unlikely that the two Epistles to the Corinthians, so dissimilar, should intervene between those so similar as the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans; or that the Epistle to the Galatians should intervene between the second to the Thessalonians and the first to the Corinthians. The decision between the two theories rests on the words, "so soon." If these be not considered inconsistent with little more than three years having elapsed since his second visit to Galatia, the argument, from the similarity to the Epistle to the Romans, seems to me conclusive. This to the Galatians seems written on the urgency of the occasion, tidings having reached him at Corinth from Ephesus of the Judaizing of many of his Galatian converts, in an admonitory and controversial tone, to maintain the great principles of Christian liberty and justification by faith only; that to the Romans is a more deliberate and systematic exposition of the same central truths of theology, subsequently drawn up in writing to a Church with which he was personally unacquainted. See on Ga 1:6, for Birks's view. Paley [Horæ Paulinæ] well remarks how perfectly adapted the conduct of the argument is to the historical circumstances under which the Epistle was written! Thus, that to the Galatians, a Church which Paul had founded, he puts mainly upon authority; that to the Romans, to whom he was not personally known, entirely upon argument. CHAPTER 1 Ga 1:1-24. Superscription. Greetings. The Cause of His Writing Is Their Speedy Falling Away from the Gospel He Taught. Defense of His Teaching: His Apostolic Call Independent of Man. Judaizing teachers had persuaded the Galatians that Paul had taught them the new religion imperfectly, and at second hand; that the founder of their church himself possessed only a deputed commission, the seal of truth and authority being in the apostles at Jerusalem: moreover, that whatever he might profess among them, he had himself at other times, and in other places, given way to the doctrine of circumcision. To refute this, he appeals to the history of his conversion, and to the manner of his conferring with the apostles when he met them at Jerusalem; that so far was his doctrine from being derived from them, or they from exercising any superiority over him, that they had simply assented to what he had already preached among the Gentiles, which preaching was communicated, not by them to him, but by himself to them [Paley]. Such an apologetic Epistle could not be a later forgery, the objections which it meets only coming out incidentally, not being obtruded as they would be by a forger; and also being such as could only arise in the earliest age of the Church, when Jerusalem and Judaism still held a prominent place. 1. apostle-- in the earliest Epistles, the two to the Thessalonians, through humility, he uses no title of authority; but associates with him "Silvanus and Timotheus"; yet here, though "brethren" (Ga 1:2) are with him, he does not name them but puts his own name and apostleship prominent: evidently because his apostolic commission needs now to be vindicated against deniers of it. of-- Greek, "from." Expressing the origin from which his mission came, "not from men," but from Christ and the Father (understood) as the source. "By" expresses the immediate operating agent in the call. Not only was the call from God as its ultimate source, but by Christ and the Father as the immediate agent in calling him (Ac 22:15; 26:16-18). The laying on of Ananias' hands (Ac 9:17) is no objection to this; for that was but a sign of the fact, not an assisting cause. So the Holy Ghost calls him specially (Ac 13:2, 3); he was an apostle before this special mission. man-- singular; to mark the contrast to "Jesus Christ." The opposition between "Christ" and "man," and His name being put in closest connection with God the Father, imply His Godhead. raised him from the dead-- implying that, though he had not seen Him in His humiliation as the other apostles (which was made an objection against him), he had seen and been constituted an apostle by Him in His resurrection power (Mt 28:18; Ro 1:4, 5). Compare as to the ascension, the consequence of the resurrection, and the cause of His giving "apostles," Ep 4:11. He rose again, too, for our justification (Ro 4:25); thus Paul prepares the way for the prominent subject of the Epistle, justification in Christ, not by the law.


<hi type="bold">2. all the brethren--</hi>I am not alone in my doctrine; all my colleagues in the Gospel work, travelling with me (<reference osisRef="Acts.19.29">Ac 19:29</reference>, Gaius and Aristarchus at Ephesus: <reference osisRef="Acts.20.4">Ac 20:4</reference>, Sopater, Secundus, Timotheus, Tychicus, Trophimus, some, or all of these), join with me. Not that these were joint authors with Paul of the Epistle: but joined him in the sentiments and salutations. The phrase, "all the brethren," accords with a date when he had many travelling companions, he and they having to bear jointly the collection to Jerusalem [Conybeare and Howson].

<hi type="bold">the churches--</hi>Pessinus and Ancyra were the principal cities; but doubtless there were many other churches in Galatia (<reference osisRef="Acts.18.23">Ac 18:23</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.16.1">1Co 16:1</reference>). He does not attach any honorable title to the churches here, as elsewhere, being displeased at their Judaizing. See First Corinthians; First Thessalonians, &c. The first Epistle of Peter is addressed to Jewish Christians sojourning in Galatia (<reference osisRef="1Pet.1.1">1Pe 1:1</reference>), among other places mentioned. It is interesting thus to find the apostle of the circumcision, as well as the apostle of the uncircumcision, once at issue (<reference osisRef="Gal.2.7-Gal.2.15">Ga 2:7-15</reference>), co-operating to build up the same churches.

2. all the brethren-- I am not alone in my doctrine; all my colleagues in the Gospel work, travelling with me (Ac 19:29, Gaius and Aristarchus at Ephesus: Ac 20:4, Sopater, Secundus, Timotheus, Tychicus, Trophimus, some, or all of these), join with me. Not that these were joint authors with Paul of the Epistle: but joined him in the sentiments and salutations. The phrase, "all the brethren," accords with a date when he had many travelling companions, he and they having to bear jointly the collection to Jerusalem [Conybeare and Howson]. the churches-- Pessinus and Ancyra were the principal cities; but doubtless there were many other churches in Galatia (Ac 18:23; 1Co 16:1). He does not attach any honorable title to the churches here, as elsewhere, being displeased at their Judaizing. See First Corinthians; First Thessalonians, &c. The first Epistle of Peter is addressed to Jewish Christians sojourning in Galatia (1Pe 1:1), among other places mentioned. It is interesting thus to find the apostle of the circumcision, as well as the apostle of the uncircumcision, once at issue (Ga 2:7-15), co-operating to build up the same churches.


<hi type="bold">3. from ... from--</hi>Omit the second "from." The Greek joins God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ in closet union, by there being but the one preposition.

3. from... from-- Omit the second "from." The Greek joins God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ in closet union, by there being but the one preposition.


<hi type="bold">4. gave himself--</hi>(<reference osisRef="Gal.2.20">Ga 2:20</reference>); unto death, as an offering. Found only in this and the Pastoral Epistles. The Greek is different in <reference osisRef="Eph.5.25">Ep 5:25</reference> (see on <reference osisRef="Eph.5.25">Ep 5:25</reference>).

<hi type="bold">for our sins--</hi>which enslaved us to the present evil world.

<hi type="bold">deliver us from this--</hi>Greek, "out of the," &c. The Father and Son are each said to "deliver us," &c. (<reference osisRef="Col.1.13">Col 1:13</reference>): but the Son, not the Father, gave Himself for us in order to do so, and make us citizens of a better world (<reference osisRef="Phil.3.20">Php 3:20</reference>). The Galatians in desiring to return to legal bondage are, he implies, renouncing the deliverance which Christ wrought for us. This he more fully repeats in <reference osisRef="Gal.3.13">Ga 3:13</reference>. "Deliver" is the very word used by the Lord as to His deliverance of Paul himself (<reference osisRef="Acts.26.17">Ac 26:17</reference>): an undesigned coincidence between Paul and Luke.

<hi type="bold">world--</hi>Greek, "age"; system or course of the world, regarded from a religious point of view. The present age opposes the "glory" (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.5">Ga 1:5</reference>) of God, and is under the authority of the Evil One. The "ages of ages" (Greek, <reference osisRef="Gal.1.5">Ga 1:5</reference>) are opposed to "the present evil age."

<hi type="bold">according to the will of God and our Father--</hi>Greek, "of Him who is at once God [the sovereign Creator] and our Father" (<reference osisRef="John.6.38">Joh 6:38</reference>, <reference osisRef="John.6.39">39</reference>; <reference osisRef="John.10.18">10:18</reference>, end). Without merit of ours. His sovereignty as "God," and our filial relation to Him as "OUR Father," ought to keep us from blending our own legal notions (as the Galatians were doing) with His will and plan. This paves the way for his argument.

4. gave himself-- (Ga 2:20); unto death, as an offering. Found only in this and the Pastoral Epistles. The Greek is different in Ep 5:25 (see on Ep 5:25). for our sins-- which enslaved us to the present evil world. deliver us from this-- Greek, "out of the," &c. The Father and Son are each said to "deliver us," &c. (Col 1:13): but the Son, not the Father, gave Himself for us in order to do so, and make us citizens of a better world (Php 3:20). The Galatians in desiring to return to legal bondage are, he implies, renouncing the deliverance which Christ wrought for us. This he more fully repeats in Ga 3:13. "Deliver" is the very word used by the Lord as to His deliverance of Paul himself (Ac 26:17): an undesigned coincidence between Paul and Luke. world-- Greek, "age"; system or course of the world, regarded from a religious point of view. The present age opposes the "glory" (Ga 1:5) of God, and is under the authority of the Evil One. The "ages of ages" (Greek, Ga 1:5) are opposed to "the present evil age." according to the will of God and our Father-- Greek, "of Him who is at once God [the sovereign Creator] and our Father" (Joh 6:38, 39; 10:18, end). Without merit of ours. His sovereignty as "God," and our filial relation to Him as "OUR Father," ought to keep us from blending our own legal notions (as the Galatians were doing) with His will and plan. This paves the way for his argument.


<hi type="bold">5. be glory--</hi>rather, as Greek, "be the glory"; the glory which is peculiarly and exclusively His. Compare Note, see on <reference osisRef="Eph.3.21">Ep 3:21</reference>.

5. be glory-- rather, as Greek, "be the glory"; the glory which is peculiarly and exclusively His. Compare Note, see on Ep 3:21.


6. Without the usual expressions of thanksgiving for their faith, &c., he vehemently plunges into his subject, zealous for "the glory" of God (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.5">Ga 1:5</reference>), which was being disparaged by the Galatians falling away from the pure Gospel of the "grace" of God.

<hi type="bold">I marvel--</hi>implying that he had hoped better things from them, whence his sorrowful surprise at their turning out so different from his expectations.

<hi type="bold">so soon--</hi>after my last visit; when I hoped and thought you were untainted by the Judaizing teachers. If this Epistle was written from Corinth, the interval would be a little more than three years, which would be "soon" to have fallen away, if they were apparently sound at the time of his visit. <reference osisRef="Gal.4.18">Ga 4:18</reference>, <reference osisRef="Gal.4.20">20</reference> may imply that he saw no symptom of unsoundness then, such as he hears of in them now. But English Version is probably not correct there. See see on <reference osisRef="Gal.4.18">Ga 4:18</reference>; <reference osisRef="Gal.4.20">Ga 4:20</reference>; also see Introduction. If from Ephesus, the interval would be not more than one year. Birks holds the Epistle to have been written from Corinth after his FIRST visit to Galatia; for this agrees best with the "so soon" here: with <reference osisRef="Gal.4.18">Ga 4:18</reference>, "It is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you." If they had persevered in the faith during three years of his first absence, and only turned aside after his second visit, they could not be charged justly with adhering to the truth only when he was present: for his first absence was longer than both his visits, and they would have obeyed longer in his "absence" than in his "presence." But if their decline had begun immediately after he left them, and before his return to them, the reproof will be just. But see on <reference osisRef="Gal.4.13">Ga 4:13</reference>.

<hi type="bold">removed--</hi>Translate, "are being removed," that is, ye are suffering yourselves so soon (whether from the time of my last visit, or from the time of the first temptation held out to you) [Paræus] to be removed by Jewish seducers. Thus he softens the censure by implying that the Galatians were tempted by seducers from without, with whom the chief guilt lay: and the present, "ye are being removed," implies that their seduction was only in process of being effected, not that it was actually effected. Wahl, Alford, and others take the Greek as middle voice. "ye are removing" or "passing over." "Shifting your ground" [Conybeare and Howson]. But thus the point of Paul's oblique reference to their misleaders is lost; and in <reference osisRef="Heb.7.12">He 7:12</reference> the Greek is used passively, justifying its being taken so here. On the impulsiveness and fickleness of the Gauls (another form of Kel-t-s, the progenitors of the Erse, Gauls, Cymri, and Belgians), whence the Galatians sprang, see Introduction and Cæsar [Commentaries on the Gallic War, 3.19].

<hi type="bold">from him that called you--</hi>God the Father (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.15">Ga 1:15</reference>; <reference osisRef="Gal.5.8">Ga 5:8</reference>; <reference osisRef="Rom.8.30">Ro 8:30</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.1.9">1Co 1:9</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Thess.2.12">1Th 2:12</reference>; 5:24).

<hi type="bold">into--</hi>rather, as Greek, "IN the grace of Christ," as the element in which, and the instrument by which, God calls us to salvation. Compare Note, see on <reference osisRef="1Cor.7.15">1Co 7:15</reference>; <reference osisRef="Rom.5.15">Ro 5:15</reference>, "the gift by (Greek, 'in') grace (Greek, 'the grace') of (the) one man." "The grace of Christ," is Christ's gratuitously purchased and bestowed justification, reconciliation, and eternal life.

<hi type="bold">another--</hi>rather, as Greek, "a second and different gospel," that is, into a so-called gospel, different altogether from the only true Gospel.

6. Without the usual expressions of thanksgiving for their faith, &c., he vehemently plunges into his subject, zealous for "the glory" of God (Ga 1:5), which was being disparaged by the Galatians falling away from the pure Gospel of the "grace" of God. I marvel-- implying that he had hoped better things from them, whence his sorrowful surprise at their turning out so different from his expectations. so soon-- after my last visit; when I hoped and thought you were untainted by the Judaizing teachers. If this Epistle was written from Corinth, the interval would be a little more than three years, which would be "soon" to have fallen away, if they were apparently sound at the time of his visit. Ga 4:18, 20 may imply that he saw no symptom of unsoundness then, such as he hears of in them now. But English Version is probably not correct there. See see on Ga 4:18; Ga 4:20; also see Introduction. If from Ephesus, the interval would be not more than one year. Birks holds the Epistle to have been written from Corinth after his FIRST visit to Galatia; for this agrees best with the "so soon" here: with Ga 4:18, "It is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you." If they had persevered in the faith during three years of his first absence, and only turned aside after his second visit, they could not be charged justly with adhering to the truth only when he was present: for his first absence was longer than both his visits, and they would have obeyed longer in his "absence" than in his "presence." But if their decline had begun immediately after he left them, and before his return to them, the reproof will be just. But see on Ga 4:13. removed-- Translate, "are being removed," that is, ye are suffering yourselves so soon (whether from the time of my last visit, or from the time of the first temptation held out to you) [Paræus] to be removed by Jewish seducers. Thus he softens the censure by implying that the Galatians were tempted by seducers from without, with whom the chief guilt lay: and the present, "ye are being removed," implies that their seduction was only in process of being effected, not that it was actually effected. Wahl, Alford, and others take the Greek as middle voice. "ye are removing" or "passing over." "Shifting your ground" [Conybeare and Howson]. But thus the point of Paul's oblique reference to their misleaders is lost; and in He 7:12 the Greek is used passively, justifying its being taken so here. On the impulsiveness and fickleness of the Gauls (another form of Kel-t-s, the progenitors of the Erse, Gauls, Cymri, and Belgians), whence the Galatians sprang, see Introduction and Cæsar [Commentaries on the Gallic War, 3.19]. from him that called you-- God the Father (Ga 1:15; Ga 5:8; Ro 8:30; 1Co 1:9; 1Th 2:12; 5:24). into-- rather, as Greek, "IN the grace of Christ," as the element in which, and the instrument by which, God calls us to salvation. Compare Note, see on 1Co 7:15; Ro 5:15, "the gift by (Greek, 'in') grace (Greek, 'the grace') of (the) one man." "The grace of Christ," is Christ's gratuitously purchased and bestowed justification, reconciliation, and eternal life. another-- rather, as Greek, "a second and different gospel," that is, into a so-called gospel, different altogether from the only true Gospel.


<hi type="bold">7. another--</hi>A distinct Greek word from that in <reference osisRef="Gal.1.6">Ga 1:6</reference>. Though I called it a gospel (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.6">Ga 1:6</reference>), it is not really so. There is really but one Gospel, and no other gospel.

<hi type="bold">but--</hi>Translate, "Only that there are some that trouble you," &c. (<reference osisRef="Gal.5.10">Ga 5:10</reference>, <reference osisRef="Gal.5.12">12</reference>). All I meant by the "different gospel" was nothing but a perversion by "some" of the one Gospel of Christ.

<hi type="bold">would pervert--</hi>Greek, "wish to pervert"; they could not really pervert the Gospel, though they could pervert Gospel professors (compare <reference osisRef="Gal.4.9">Ga 4:9</reference>, 17, 21; <reference osisRef="Gal.6.12">6:12</reference>, <reference osisRef="Gal.6.13">13</reference>; <reference osisRef="Col.2.18">Col 2:18</reference>). Though acknowledging Christ, they insisted on circumcision and Jewish ordinances and professed to rest on the authority of other apostles, namely, Peter and James. But Paul recognizes no gospel, save the pure Gospel.

7. another-- A distinct Greek word from that in Ga 1:6. Though I called it a gospel (Ga 1:6), it is not really so. There is really but one Gospel, and no other gospel. but-- Translate, "Only that there are some that trouble you," &c. (Ga 5:10, 12). All I meant by the "different gospel" was nothing but a perversion by "some" of the one Gospel of Christ. would pervert-- Greek, "wish to pervert"; they could not really pervert the Gospel, though they could pervert Gospel professors (compare Ga 4:9, 17, 21; 6:12, 13; Col 2:18). Though acknowledging Christ, they insisted on circumcision and Jewish ordinances and professed to rest on the authority of other apostles, namely, Peter and James. But Paul recognizes no gospel, save the pure Gospel.


<hi type="bold">8. But--</hi>however weighty they may seem "who trouble you." Translate as Greek, "Even though we," namely, I and the brethren with me, weighty and many as we are (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.1">Ga 1:1</reference>, <reference osisRef="2Cor.1.2">2</reference>). The Greek implies a case supposed which never has occurred.

<hi type="bold">angel--</hi>in which light ye at first received me (compare <reference osisRef="Gal.4.14">Ga 4:14</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.13.1">1Co 13:1</reference>), and whose authority is the highest possible next to that of God and Christ. A new revelation, even though seemingly accredited by miracles, is not to be received if it contradict the already existing revelation. For God cannot contradict Himself (<reference osisRef="Deut.13.1-Deut.13.3">De 13:1-3</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Kgs.13.18">1Ki 13:18</reference>; <reference osisRef="Matt.24.24">Mt 24:24</reference>; <reference osisRef="2Thess.2.9">2Th 2:9</reference>). The Judaizing teachers sheltered themselves under the names of the great apostles, James, John, and Peter: "Do not bring these names up to me, for even if an angel," &c. Not that he means, the apostles really supported the Judaizers: but he wishes to show, when the truth is in question, respect of persons is inadmissible [Chrysostom].

<hi type="bold">preach--</hi>that is, "should preach."

<hi type="bold">any other gospel ... than--</hi>The Greek expresses not so much "any other gospel different from what we have preached," as, "any gospel BESIDE that which we preached." This distinctly opposes the traditions of the Church of Rome, which are at once besides and against (the Greek includes both ideas) the written Word, our only "attested rule."

8. But-- however weighty they may seem "who trouble you." Translate as Greek, "Even though we," namely, I and the brethren with me, weighty and many as we are (Ga 1:1, 2). The Greek implies a case supposed which never has occurred. angel-- in which light ye at first received me (compare Ga 4:14; 1Co 13:1), and whose authority is the highest possible next to that of God and Christ. A new revelation, even though seemingly accredited by miracles, is not to be received if it contradict the already existing revelation. For God cannot contradict Himself (De 13:1-3; 1Ki 13:18; Mt 24:24; 2Th 2:9). The Judaizing teachers sheltered themselves under the names of the great apostles, James, John, and Peter: "Do not bring these names up to me, for even if an angel," &c. Not that he means, the apostles really supported the Judaizers: but he wishes to show, when the truth is in question, respect of persons is inadmissible [Chrysostom]. preach-- that is, "should preach." any other gospel... than-- The Greek expresses not so much "any other gospel different from what we have preached," as, "any gospel BESIDE that which we preached." This distinctly opposes the traditions of the Church of Rome, which are at once besides and against (the Greek includes both ideas) the written Word, our only "attested rule."


<hi type="bold">9. said before--</hi>when we were visiting you (so "before" means, <reference osisRef="2Cor.13.2">2Co 13:2</reference>). Compare <reference osisRef="Gal.5.2">Ga 5:2</reference>, <reference osisRef="Gal.3.21">3, 21</reference>. Translate, "If any man preacheth unto you any gospel BESIDE that which," &c. Observe the indicative, not the subjunctive or conditional mood, is used, "preacheth," literally, "furnisheth you with any gospel." The fact is assumed, not merely supposed as a contingency, as in <reference osisRef="Gal.1.8">Ga 1:8</reference>, "preach," or "should preach." This implies that he had already observed (namely, during his last visit) the machinations of the Judaizing teachers: but his surprise (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.6">Ga 1:6</reference>) now at the Galatians being misled by them, implies that they had not apparently been so then. As in <reference osisRef="Gal.1.8">Ga 1:8</reference> he had said, "which we preached," so here, with an augmentation of the force, "which ye received"; acknowledging that they had truly accepted it.

<hi type="bold">accursed--</hi>The opposite appears in <reference osisRef="Gal.6.16">Ga 6:16</reference>.

9. said before-- when we were visiting you (so "before" means, 2Co 13:2). Compare Ga 5:2, 3, 21. Translate, "If any man preacheth unto you any gospel BESIDE that which," &c. Observe the indicative, not the subjunctive or conditional mood, is used, "preacheth," literally, "furnisheth you with any gospel." The fact is assumed, not merely supposed as a contingency, as in Ga 1:8, "preach," or "should preach." This implies that he had already observed (namely, during his last visit) the machinations of the Judaizing teachers: but his surprise (Ga 1:6) now at the Galatians being misled by them, implies that they had not apparently been so then. As in Ga 1:8 he had said, "which we preached," so here, with an augmentation of the force, "which ye received"; acknowledging that they had truly accepted it. accursed-- The opposite appears in Ga 6:16.


<hi type="bold">10. For--</hi>accounting for the strong language he has just used.

<hi type="bold">do I now--</hi>resuming the "now" of <reference osisRef="Gal.1.9">Ga 1:9</reference>. "Am I now persuading men?" [Alford], that is, conciliating. Is what I have just now said a sample of men-pleasing, of which I am accused? His adversaries accused him of being an interested flatterer of men, "becoming all things to all men," to make a party for himself, and so observing the law among the Jews (for instance, circumcising Timothy), yet persuading the Gentiles to renounce it (<reference osisRef="Gal.5.11">Ga 5:11</reference>) (in order to flatter those, really keeping them in a subordinate state, not admitted to the full privileges which the circumcised alone enjoyed). Neander explains the "now" thus: Once, when a Pharisee, I was actuated only by a regard to human authority and to please men (<reference osisRef="Luke.16.15">Lu 16:15</reference>; <reference osisRef="John.5.44">Joh 5:44</reference>), but NOW I teach as responsible to God alone (<reference osisRef="1Cor.4.3">1Co 4:3</reference>).

<hi type="bold">or God?--</hi>Regard is to be had to God alone.

<hi type="bold">for if I yet pleased men--</hi>The oldest manuscripts omit "for." "If I were still pleasing men," &c. (<reference osisRef="Luke.6.26">Lu 6:26</reference>; <reference osisRef="John.15.19">Joh 15:19</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Thess.2.4">1Th 2:4</reference>; <reference osisRef="Jas.4.4">Jas 4:4</reference>; <reference osisRef="1John.4.5">1Jo 4:5</reference>). On "yet," compare <reference osisRef="Gal.5.11">Ga 5:11</reference>.

<hi type="bold">servant of Christ--</hi>and so pleasing Him in all things (<reference osisRef="Titus.2.9">Tit 2:9</reference>; <reference osisRef="Col.3.22">Col 3:22</reference>).

10. For-- accounting for the strong language he has just used. do I now-- resuming the "now" of Ga 1:9. "Am I now persuading men?" [Alford], that is, conciliating. Is what I have just now said a sample of men-pleasing, of which I am accused? His adversaries accused him of being an interested flatterer of men, "becoming all things to all men," to make a party for himself, and so observing the law among the Jews (for instance, circumcising Timothy), yet persuading the Gentiles to renounce it (Ga 5:11) (in order to flatter those, really keeping them in a subordinate state, not admitted to the full privileges which the circumcised alone enjoyed). Neander explains the "now" thus: Once, when a Pharisee, I was actuated only by a regard to human authority and to please men (Lu 16:15; Joh 5:44), but NOW I teach as responsible to God alone (1Co 4:3). or God?-- Regard is to be had to God alone. for if I yet pleased men-- The oldest manuscripts omit "for." "If I were still pleasing men," &c. (Lu 6:26; Joh 15:19; 1Th 2:4; Jas 4:4; 1Jo 4:5). On "yet," compare Ga 5:11. servant of Christ-- and so pleasing Him in all things (Tit 2:9; Col 3:22).


<hi type="bold">11. certify--</hi>I made known to you as to the Gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man, that is, not of, by, or from man (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.1">Ga 1:1</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.1.12">12</reference>). It is not according to man; not influenced by mere human considerations, as it would be, if it were of human origin.

<hi type="bold">brethren--</hi>He not till now calls them so.

11. certify-- I made known to you as to the Gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man, that is, not of, by, or from man (Ga 1:1, 12). It is not according to man; not influenced by mere human considerations, as it would be, if it were of human origin. brethren-- He not till now calls them so.


12. Translate, "For not even did I myself (any more than the other apostles) receive it from man, nor was I taught it (by man)." "Received it," implies the absence of labor in acquiring it. "Taught it," implies the labor of learning.

<hi type="bold">by the revelation of Jesus Christ--</hi>Translate, "by revelation of [that is, from] Jesus Christ." By His revealing it to me. Probably this took place during the three years, in part of which he sojourned in Arabia (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.17">Ga 1:17</reference>, <reference osisRef="1Cor.1.18">18</reference>), in the vicinity of the scene of the giving of the law; a fit place for such a revelation of the Gospel of grace, which supersedes the ceremonial law (<reference osisRef="Gal.4.25">Ga 4:25</reference>). He, like other Pharisees who embraced Christianity, did not at first recognize its independence of the Mosaic law, but combined both together. Ananias, his first instructor, was universally esteemed for his legal piety and so was not likely to have taught him to sever Christianity from the law. This severance was partially recognized after the martyrdom of Stephen. But Paul received it by special revelation (<reference osisRef="1Cor.11.23">1Co 11:23</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Cor.15.3">15:3</reference>; <reference osisRef="1Thess.4.15">1Th 4:15</reference>). A vision of the Lord Jesus is mentioned (<reference osisRef="Acts.22.18">Ac 22:18</reference>), at his first visit to Jerusalem (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.18">Ga 1:18</reference>); but this seems to have been subsequent to the revelation here meant (compare <reference osisRef="Gal.1.15-Gal.1.18">Ga 1:15-18</reference>), and to have been confined to giving a particular command. The vision "fourteen years before" (<reference osisRef="2Cor.12.1">2Co 12:1</reference>) was in A.D. 43, still later, six years after his conversion. Thus Paul is an independent witness to the Gospel. Though he had received no instruction from the apostles, but from the Holy Ghost, yet when he met them his Gospel exactly agreed with theirs.

12. Translate, "For not even did I myself (any more than the other apostles) receive it from man, nor was I taught it (by man)." "Received it," implies the absence of labor in acquiring it. "Taught it," implies the labor of learning. by the revelation of Jesus Christ-- Translate, "by revelation of [that is, from] Jesus Christ." By His revealing it to me. Probably this took place during the three years, in part of which he sojourned in Arabia (Ga 1:17, 18), in the vicinity of the scene of the giving of the law; a fit place for such a revelation of the Gospel of grace, which supersedes the ceremonial law (Ga 4:25). He, like other Pharisees who embraced Christianity, did not at first recognize its independence of the Mosaic law, but combined both together. Ananias, his first instructor, was universally esteemed for his legal piety and so was not likely to have taught him to sever Christianity from the law. This severance was partially recognized after the martyrdom of Stephen. But Paul received it by special revelation (1Co 11:23; 15:3; 1Th 4:15). A vision of the Lord Jesus is mentioned (Ac 22:18), at his first visit to Jerusalem (Ga 1:18); but this seems to have been subsequent to the revelation here meant (compare Ga 1:15-18), and to have been confined to giving a particular command. The vision "fourteen years before" (2Co 12:1) was in A.D. 43, still later, six years after his conversion. Thus Paul is an independent witness to the Gospel. Though he had received no instruction from the apostles, but from the Holy Ghost, yet when he met them his Gospel exactly agreed with theirs.


<hi type="bold">13. heard--</hi>even before I came among you.

<hi type="bold">conversation--</hi>"my former way of life."

<hi type="bold">Jews' religion--</hi>The term, "Hebrew," expresses the language; "Jew," the nationality, as distinguished from the Gentiles; "Israelite," the highest title, the religious privileges, as a member of the theocracy.

<hi type="bold">the church--</hi>Here singular, marking its unity, though constituted of many particular churches, under the one Head, Christ.

<hi type="bold">of God--</hi>added to mark the greatness of his sinful alienation from God (<reference osisRef="1Cor.15.19">1Co 15:19</reference>).

<hi type="bold">wasted--</hi>laid it waste: the opposite of "building it up."

13. heard-- even before I came among you. conversation-- "my former way of life." Jews' religion-- The term, "Hebrew," expresses the language; "Jew," the nationality, as distinguished from the Gentiles; "Israelite," the highest title, the religious privileges, as a member of the theocracy. the church-- Here singular, marking its unity, though constituted of many particular churches, under the one Head, Christ. of God-- added to mark the greatness of his sinful alienation from God (1Co 15:19). wasted-- laid it waste: the opposite of "building it up."


<hi type="bold">14. profited--</hi>Greek, "I was becoming a proficient"; "I made progress."

<hi type="bold">above--</hi>beyond.

<hi type="bold">my equals--</hi>Greek, "Of mine own age, among my countrymen."

<hi type="bold">traditions of my fathers--</hi>namely, those of the Pharisees, Paul being "a Pharisee, and son of a Pharisee" (<reference osisRef="Acts.23.6">Ac 23:6</reference>; <reference osisRef="Acts.26.5">26:5</reference>). "MY fathers," shows that it is not to be understood generally of the traditions of the nation.

14. profited-- Greek, "I was becoming a proficient"; "I made progress." above-- beyond. my equals-- Greek, "Of mine own age, among my countrymen." traditions of my fathers-- namely, those of the Pharisees, Paul being "a Pharisee, and son of a Pharisee" (Ac 23:6; 26:5). "MY fathers," shows that it is not to be understood generally of the traditions of the nation.


<hi type="bold">15. separated--</hi>"set me apart": in the purposes of His electing love (compare <reference osisRef="Acts.9.15">Ac 9:15</reference>; <reference osisRef="Acts.22.14">22:14</reference>), in order to show in me His "pleasure," which is the farthest point that any can reach in inquiring the causes of his salvation. The actual "separating" or "setting apart" to the work marked out for him, is mentioned in <reference osisRef="Acts.13.2">Ac 13:2</reference>; <reference osisRef="Rom.1.1">Ro 1:1</reference>. There is an allusion, perhaps, in the way of contrast, to the derivation of Pharisee from Hebrew, "pharash," "separated." I was once a so-called Pharisee or Separatist, but God had separated me to something far better.

<hi type="bold">from ... womb--</hi>Thus merit in me was out of the question, in assigning causes for His call from <reference osisRef="Acts.9.11">Ac 9:11</reference>. Grace is the sole cause (<reference osisRef="Ps.22.9">Psa 22:9</reference>; <reference osisRef="Ps.71.6">71:6</reference>; <reference osisRef="Isa.49.1">Is 49:1</reference>, <reference osisRef="Isa.49.5">5</reference>; <reference osisRef="Jer.1.5">Jr 1:5</reference>; <reference osisRef="Luke.1.15">Lu 1:15</reference>).

<hi type="bold">called me--</hi>on the way to Damascus (<reference osisRef="Acts.9.3-Acts.9.8">Ac 9:3-8</reference>).

15. separated-- "set me apart": in the purposes of His electing love (compare Ac 9:15; 22:14), in order to show in me His "pleasure," which is the farthest point that any can reach in inquiring the causes of his salvation. The actual "separating" or "setting apart" to the work marked out for him, is mentioned in Ac 13:2; Ro 1:1. There is an allusion, perhaps, in the way of contrast, to the derivation of Pharisee from Hebrew, "pharash," "separated." I was once a so-called Pharisee or Separatist, but God had separated me to something far better. from... womb-- Thus merit in me was out of the question, in assigning causes for His call from Ac 9:11. Grace is the sole cause (Psa 22:9; 71:6; Is 49:1, 5; Jr 1:5; Lu 1:15). called me-- on the way to Damascus (Ac 9:3-8).


<hi type="bold">16. reveal his Son in me--</hi>within me, in my inmost soul, by the Holy Spirit (<reference osisRef="Gal.2.20">Ga 2:20</reference>). Compare <reference osisRef="2Cor.4.6">2Co 4:6</reference>, "shined in our hearts." The revealing of His Son by me to the Gentiles (so translate for "heathen") was impossible, unless He had first revealed His Son in me; at first on my conversion, but especially at the subsequent revelation from Jesus Christ (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.12">Ga 1:12</reference>), whereby I learned the Gospel's independence of the Mosaic law.

<hi type="bold">that I might preach--</hi>the present in the Greek, which includes the idea "that I may preach Him," implying an office still continuing. This was the main commission entrusted to him (<reference osisRef="Gal.2.7">Ga 2:7</reference>, <reference osisRef="2Cor.2.9">9</reference>).

<hi type="bold">immediately--</hi>connected chiefly with "I went into Arabia" (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.17">Ga 1:17</reference>). It denotes the sudden fitness of the apostle. So <reference osisRef="Acts.9.20">Ac 9:20</reference>, "Straightway he preached Christ in the synagogue."

<hi type="bold">I conferred not--</hi>Greek, "I had not further (namely, in addition to revelation) recourse to ... for the purpose of consulting." The divine revelation was sufficient for me [Bengel].

<hi type="bold">flesh and blood--</hi>(<reference osisRef="Matt.16.17">Mt 16:17</reference>).

16. reveal his Son in me-- within me, in my inmost soul, by the Holy Spirit (Ga 2:20). Compare 2Co 4:6, "shined in our hearts." The revealing of His Son by me to the Gentiles (so translate for "heathen") was impossible, unless He had first revealed His Son in me; at first on my conversion, but especially at the subsequent revelation from Jesus Christ (Ga 1:12), whereby I learned the Gospel's independence of the Mosaic law. that I might preach-- the present in the Greek, which includes the idea "that I may preach Him," implying an office still continuing. This was the main commission entrusted to him (Ga 2:7, 9). immediately-- connected chiefly with "I went into Arabia" (Ga 1:17). It denotes the sudden fitness of the apostle. So Ac 9:20, "Straightway he preached Christ in the synagogue." I conferred not-- Greek, "I had not further (namely, in addition to revelation) recourse to... for the purpose of consulting." The divine revelation was sufficient for me [Bengel]. flesh and blood-- (Mt 16:17).


<hi type="bold">17. went I up--</hi>Some of the oldest manuscripts read, "went away."

<hi type="bold">to Jerusalem--</hi>the seat of the apostles.

<hi type="bold">into Arabia--</hi>This journey (not recorded in Acts) was during the whole period of his stay at Damascus, called by Luke (<reference osisRef="Acts.9.23">Ac 9:23</reference>), "many [Greek, a considerable number of] days." It is curiously confirmatory of the legitimacy of taking "many days" to stand for "three years," that the same phrase exactly occurs in the same sense in <reference osisRef="1Kgs.2.38">1Ki 2:38</reference>, 39. This was a country of the Gentiles; here doubtless he preached as he did before and after (<reference osisRef="Acts.9.20">Ac 9:20</reference>, <reference osisRef="Acts.9.22">22</reference>) at Damascus: thus he shows the independence of his apostolic commission. He also here had that comparative retirement needed, after the first fervor of his conversion, to prepare him for the great work before him. Compare Moses (<reference osisRef="Acts.7.29">Ac 7:29</reference>, <reference osisRef="Acts.7.30">30</reference>). His familiarity with the scene of the giving of the law, and the meditations and revelations which he had there, appear in <reference osisRef="Gal.4.24">Ga 4:24</reference>, <reference osisRef="Gal.4.25">25</reference>; <reference osisRef="Heb.12.18">He 12:18</reference>. See on <reference osisRef="Gal.1.12">Ga 1:12</reference>. The Lord from heaven communed with him, as He on earth in the days of His flesh communed with the other apostles.

<hi type="bold">returned--</hi>Greek "returned back again."

17. went I up-- Some of the oldest manuscripts read, "went away." to Jerusalem-- the seat of the apostles. into Arabia-- This journey (not recorded in Acts) was during the whole period of his stay at Damascus, called by Luke (Ac 9:23), "many [Greek, a considerable number of] days." It is curiously confirmatory of the legitimacy of taking "many days" to stand for "three years," that the same phrase exactly occurs in the same sense in 1Ki 2:38, 39. This was a country of the Gentiles; here doubtless he preached as he did before and after (Ac 9:20, 22) at Damascus: thus he shows the independence of his apostolic commission. He also here had that comparative retirement needed, after the first fervor of his conversion, to prepare him for the great work before him. Compare Moses (Ac 7:29, 30). His familiarity with the scene of the giving of the law, and the meditations and revelations which he had there, appear in Ga 4:24, 25; He 12:18. See on Ga 1:12. The Lord from heaven communed with him, as He on earth in the days of His flesh communed with the other apostles. returned-- Greek "returned back again."


<hi type="bold">18. after three years--</hi>dating from my conversion, as appears by the contrast to "immediately" (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.16">Ga 1:16</reference>). This is the same visit to Jerusalem as in <reference osisRef="Acts.9.26">Ac 9:26</reference>, and at this visit occurred the vision (<reference osisRef="Acts.22.17">Ac 22:17</reference>, <reference osisRef="Acts.22.18">18</reference>). The incident which led to his leaving Damascus (<reference osisRef="Acts.9.25">Ac 9:25</reference>; <reference osisRef="2Cor.11.33">2Co 11:33</reference>) was not the main cause of his going to Jerusalem. So that there is no discrepancy in the statement here that he went "to see Peter"; or rather, as Greek, "to make the acquaintance of"; "to become personally acquainted with." The two oldest manuscripts read, "Cephas," the name given Peter elsewhere in the Epistle, the Hebrew name; as Peter is the Greek (<reference osisRef="John.1.42">Joh 1:42</reference>). Appropriate to the view of him here as the apostle especially of the Hebrews. It is remarkable that Peter himself, in his Epistles, uses the Greek name Peter, perhaps to mark his antagonism to the Judaizers who would cling to the Hebraic form. He was prominent among the apostles, though James, as bishop of Jerusalem, had the chief authority there (<reference osisRef="Matt.16.18">Mt 16:18</reference>).

<hi type="bold">abode--</hi>or "tarried" [Ellicott].

<hi type="bold">fifteen days--</hi>only fifteen days; contrasting with the long period of three years, during which, previously, he had exercised an independent commission in preaching: a fact proving on the face of it, how little he owed to Peter in regard to his apostolical authority or instruction. The Greek for "to see," at the same time implies visiting a person important to know, such as Peter was. The plots of the Jews prevented him staying longer (<reference osisRef="Acts.9.29">Ac 9:29</reference>). Also, the vision directing him to depart to the Gentiles, for that the people of Jerusalem would not receive his testimony (<reference osisRef="Acts.22.17">Ac 22:17</reference>, <reference osisRef="Acts.22.18">18</reference>).

18. after three years-- dating from my conversion, as appears by the contrast to "immediately" (Ga 1:16). This is the same visit to Jerusalem as in Ac 9:26, and at this visit occurred the vision (Ac 22:17, 18). The incident which led to his leaving Damascus (Ac 9:25; 2Co 11:33) was not the main cause of his going to Jerusalem. So that there is no discrepancy in the statement here that he went "to see Peter"; or rather, as Greek, "to make the acquaintance of"; "to become personally acquainted with." The two oldest manuscripts read, "Cephas," the name given Peter elsewhere in the Epistle, the Hebrew name; as Peter is the Greek (Joh 1:42). Appropriate to the view of him here as the apostle especially of the Hebrews. It is remarkable that Peter himself, in his Epistles, uses the Greek name Peter, perhaps to mark his antagonism to the Judaizers who would cling to the Hebraic form. He was prominent among the apostles, though James, as bishop of Jerusalem, had the chief authority there (Mt 16:18). abode-- or "tarried" [Ellicott]. fifteen days-- only fifteen days; contrasting with the long period of three years, during which, previously, he had exercised an independent commission in preaching: a fact proving on the face of it, how little he owed to Peter in regard to his apostolical authority or instruction. The Greek for "to see," at the same time implies visiting a person important to know, such as Peter was. The plots of the Jews prevented him staying longer (Ac 9:29). Also, the vision directing him to depart to the Gentiles, for that the people of Jerusalem would not receive his testimony (Ac 22:17, 18).


19. Compare <reference osisRef="Acts.9.27">Ac 9:27</reference>, <reference osisRef="Acts.9.28">28</reference>, wherein Luke, as an historian, describes more generally what Paul, the subject of the history, himself details more particularly. The history speaks of "apostles"; and Paul's mention of a second apostle, besides Peter, reconciles the Epistle and the history. At Stephen's martyrdom, and the consequent persecution, the other ten apostles, agreeably to Christ's directions, seem to have soon (though not immediately, <reference osisRef="Acts.8.14">Ac 8:14</reference>) left Jerusalem to preach elsewhere. James remained in charge of the mother church, as its bishop. Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, was present during Paul's fifteen days' stay; but he, too, presently after (<reference osisRef="Acts.9.32">Ac 9:32</reference>), went on a circuit through Judea.

<hi type="bold">James, the Lord's brother--</hi>This designation, to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee, was appropriate while that apostle was alive. But before Paul's second visit to Jerusalem (<reference osisRef="Gal.2.1">Ga 2:1</reference>; <reference osisRef="Acts.15.1-Acts.15.4">Ac 15:1-4</reference>), he had been beheaded by Herod (<reference osisRef="Acts.12.2">Ac 12:2</reference>). Accordingly, in the subsequent mention of James here (<reference osisRef="Gal.2.9">Ga 2:9</reference>, <reference osisRef="2Cor.2.12">12</reference>), he is not designated by this distinctive epithet: a minute, undesigned coincidence, and proof of genuineness. James was the Lord's brother, not in our strict sense, but in the sense, "cousin," or "kinsman" (<reference osisRef="Matt.28.10">Mt 28:10</reference>; <reference osisRef="John.20.17">Joh 20:17</reference>). His brethren are never called "sons of Joseph," which they would have been had they been the Lord's brothers strictly. However, compare <reference osisRef="Ps.69.8">Psa 69:8</reference>, "I am an alien to my mother's children." In <reference osisRef="John.7.3">Joh 7:3</reference>, <reference osisRef="John.7.5">5</reference>, the "brethren" who believed not in Him may mean His near relations, not including the two of His brethren, that is, relatives (James and Jude) who were among the Twelve apostles. <reference osisRef="Acts.1.14">Ac 1:14</reference>, "His brethren," refer to Simon and Joses, and others (<reference osisRef="Matt.13.55">Mt 13:55</reference>) of His kinsmen, who were not apostles. It is not likely there would be two pairs of brothers named alike, of such eminence as James and Jude; the likelihood is that the apostles James and Jude are also the writers of the Epistles, and the brethren of Jesus. James and Joses were sons of Alpheus and Mary, sister of the Virgin Mary.

19. Compare Ac 9:27, 28, wherein Luke, as an historian, describes more generally what Paul, the subject of the history, himself details more particularly. The history speaks of "apostles"; and Paul's mention of a second apostle, besides Peter, reconciles the Epistle and the history. At Stephen's martyrdom, and the consequent persecution, the other ten apostles, agreeably to Christ's directions, seem to have soon (though not immediately, Ac 8:14) left Jerusalem to preach elsewhere. James remained in charge of the mother church, as its bishop. Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, was present during Paul's fifteen days' stay; but he, too, presently after (Ac 9:32), went on a circuit through Judea. James, the Lord's brother-- This designation, to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee, was appropriate while that apostle was alive. But before Paul's second visit to Jerusalem (Ga 2:1; Ac 15:1-4), he had been beheaded by Herod (Ac 12:2). Accordingly, in the subsequent mention of James here (Ga 2:9, 12), he is not designated by this distinctive epithet: a minute, undesigned coincidence, and proof of genuineness. James was the Lord's brother, not in our strict sense, but in the sense, "cousin," or "kinsman" (Mt 28:10; Joh 20:17). His brethren are never called "sons of Joseph," which they would have been had they been the Lord's brothers strictly. However, compare Psa 69:8, "I am an alien to my mother's children." In Joh 7:3, 5, the "brethren" who believed not in Him may mean His near relations, not including the two of His brethren, that is, relatives (James and Jude) who were among the Twelve apostles. Ac 1:14, "His brethren," refer to Simon and Joses, and others (Mt 13:55) of His kinsmen, who were not apostles. It is not likely there would be two pairs of brothers named alike, of such eminence as James and Jude; the likelihood is that the apostles James and Jude are also the writers of the Epistles, and the brethren of Jesus. James and Joses were sons of Alpheus and Mary, sister of the Virgin Mary.


20. Solemn asseveration that his statement is true that his visit was but for fifteen days and that he saw no apostle save Peter and James. Probably it had been reported by Judaizers that he had received a long course of instruction from the apostles in Jerusalem from the first; hence his earnestness in asserting the contrary facts.


<hi type="bold">21. I came into ... Syria and Cilicia--</hi>"preaching the faith" (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.23">Ga 1:23</reference>), and so, no doubt, founding the churches in Syria and Cilicia, which he subsequently confirmed in the faith (<reference osisRef="Acts.15.23">Ac 15:23</reference>, <reference osisRef="Acts.15.41">41</reference>). He probably went first to Cæsarea, the main seaport, and thence by sea to Tarsus of Cilicia, his native place (<reference osisRef="Acts.9.30">Ac 9:30</reference>), and thence to Syria; Cilicia having its geographical affinities with Syria, rather than with Asia Minor, as the Tarsus mountains separate it from the latter. His placing "Syria" in the order of words before "Cilicia," is due to Antioch being a more important city than Tarsus, as also to his longer stay in the former city. Also "Syria and Cilicia," from their close geographical connection, became a generic geographical phrase, the more important district being placed first [Conybeare and Howson]. This sea journey accounts for his being "unknown by face to the churches of Judea" (<reference osisRef="Gal.1.22">Ga 1:22</reference>). He passes by in silence his second visit, with alms, to Judea and Jerusalem (<reference osisRef="Acts.11.30">Ac 11:30</reference>); doubtless because it was for a limited and special object, and would occupy but a few days (<reference osisRef="Acts.12.25">Ac 12:25</reference>), as there raged at Jerusalem at the time a persecution in which James, the brother of John, was martyred, and Peter was m prison, and James seems to have been the only apostle present (<reference osisRef="Acts.12.17">Ac 12:17</reference>); so it was needless to mention this visit, seeing that he could not at such a time have received the instructions which the Galatians alleged he had derived from the primary fountains of authority, the apostles.

21. I came into... Syria and Cilicia-- "preaching the faith" (Ga 1:23), and so, no doubt, founding the churches in Syria and Cilicia, which he subsequently confirmed in the faith (Ac 15:23, 41). He probably went first to Cæsarea, the main seaport, and thence by sea to Tarsus of Cilicia, his native place (Ac 9:30), and thence to Syria; Cilicia having its geographical affinities with Syria, rather than with Asia Minor, as the Tarsus mountains separate it from the latter. His placing "Syria" in the order of words before "Cilicia," is due to Antioch being a more important city than Tarsus, as also to his longer stay in the former city. Also "Syria and Cilicia," from their close geographical connection, became a generic geographical phrase, the more important district being placed first [Conybeare and Howson]. This sea journey accounts for his being "unknown by face to the churches of Judea" (Ga 1:22). He passes by in silence his second visit, with alms, to Judea and Jerusalem (Ac 11:30); doubtless because it was for a limited and special object, and would occupy but a few days (Ac 12:25), as there raged at Jerusalem at the time a persecution in which James, the brother of John, was martyred, and Peter was m prison, and James seems to have been the only apostle present (Ac 12:17); so it was needless to mention this visit, seeing that he could not at such a time have received the instructions which the Galatians alleged he had derived from the primary fountains of authority, the apostles.


22. So far was I from being a disciple of the apostles, that I was even unknown in the churches of Judea (excepting Jerusalem, <reference osisRef="Acts.9.26-Acts.9.29">Ac 9:26-29</reference>), which were the chief scene of their labors.

22. So far was I from being a disciple of the apostles, that I was even unknown in the churches of Judea (excepting Jerusalem, Ac 9:26-29), which were the chief scene of their labors.


23. Translate as Greek, "They were hearing": tidings were brought them from time to time [Conybeare and Howson].

<hi type="bold">he which persecuted us in times past--</hi>"our former persecutor" [Alford]. The designation by which he was known among Christians still better than by his name "Saul."

<hi type="bold">destroyed--</hi>Greek, "was destroying."

23. Translate as Greek, "They were hearing": tidings were brought them from time to time [Conybeare and Howson]. he which persecuted us in times past-- "our former persecutor" [Alford]. The designation by which he was known among Christians still better than by his name "Saul." destroyed-- Greek, "was destroying."


<hi type="bold">24. in me--</hi>"in my case." "Having understood the entire change, and that the former wolf is now acting the shepherd's part, they received occasion for joyful thanksgiving to God in respect to me" [Theodoret]. How different, he implies to the Galatians, their spirit from yours! <chapter eID="Gal.1"/>

24. in me-- "in my case." "Having understood the entire change, and that the former wolf is now acting the shepherd's part, they received occasion for joyful thanksgiving to God in respect to me" [Theodoret]. How different, he implies to the Galatians, their spirit from yours!


<title type="x-s2">CHAPTER 2</title> <title type="x-s3"><reference osisRef="Gal.2.1-Gal.2.21">Ga 2:1-21</reference>. His Co-ordinate Authority as Apostle of the Circumcision Recognized by the Apostles. Proved by His Rebuking Peter for Temporizing at Antioch: His Reasoning as to the Inconsistency of Judaizing with Justification by Faith.</title>

1. Translate, "After fourteen years"; namely, from Paul's conversion inclusive [Alford]. In the fourteenth year from his conversion [Birks]. The same visit to Jerusalem as in <reference osisRef="Acts.15.1-Acts.15.4">Ac 15:1-4</reference> (A.D. 50), when the council of the apostles and Church decided that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised. His omitting allusion to that decree is; (1) Because his design here is to show the Galatians his own independent apostolic authority, whence he was not likely to support himself by their decision. Thus we see that general councils are not above apostles. (2) Because he argues the point upon principle, not authoritative decisions. (3) The decree did not go the length of the position maintained here: the council did not impose Mosaic ordinances; the apostle maintains that the Mosaic institution itself is at an end. (4) The Galatians were Judaizing, not because the Jewish law was imposed by authority of the Church as necessary to Christianity, but because they thought it necessary to be observed by those who aspired to higher perfection (<reference osisRef="Gal.3.3">Ga 3:3</reference>; <reference osisRef="Gal.4.21">4:21</reference>). The decree would not at all disprove their view, and therefore would have been useless to quote. Paul meets them by a far more direct confutation, "Christ is of no effect unto you whosoever are justified by the law" (<reference osisRef="Gal.5.4">Ga 5:4</reference>), [Paley].

<hi type="bold">Titus ... also--</hi>specified on account of what follows as to him, in <reference osisRef="Gal.2.3">Ga 2:3</reference>. Paul and Barnabas, and others, were deputed by the Church of Antioch (<reference osisRef="Acts.15.2">Ac 15:2</reference>) to consult the apostles and elders at Jerusalem on the question of circumcision of Gentile Christians.

CHAPTER 2 Ga 2:1-21. His Co-ordinate Authority as Apostle of the Circumcision Recognized by the Apostles. Proved by His Rebuking Peter for Temporizing at Antioch: His Reasoning as to the Inconsistency of Judaizing with Justification by Faith. 1. Translate, "After fourteen years"; namely, from Paul's conversion inclusive [Alford]. In the fourteenth year from his conversion [Birks]. The same visit to Jerusalem as in Ac 15:1-4 (A.D. 50), when the council of the apostles and Church decided that Gentile Christians need not be circumcised. His omitting allusion to that decree is; (1) Because his design here is to show the Galatians his own independent apostolic authority, whence he was not likely to support himself by their decision. Thus we see that general councils are not above apostles. (2) Because he argues the point upon principle, not authoritative decisions. (3) The decree did not go the length of the position maintained here: the council did not impose Mosaic ordinances; the apostle maintains that the Mosaic institution itself is at an end. (4) The Galatians were Judaizing, not because the Jewish law was imposed by authority of the Church as necessary to Christianity, but because they thought it necessary to be observed by those who aspired to higher perfection (Ga 3:3; 4:21). The decree would not at all disprove their view, and therefore would have been useless to quote. Paul meets them by a far more direct confutation, "Christ is of no effect unto you whosoever are justified by the law" (Ga 5:4), [Paley]. Titus... also-- specified on account of what follows as to him, in Ga 2:3. Paul and Barnabas, and others, were deputed by the Church of Antioch (Ac 15:2) to consult the apostles and elders at Jerusalem on the question of circumcision of Gentile Christians.


<hi type="bold">2. by revelation--</hi>not from being absolutely dependent on the apostles at Jerusalem, but by independent divine "revelation." Quite consistent with his at the same time, being a deputy from the Church of Antioch, as <reference osisRef="Acts.15.2">Ac 15:2</reference> states. He by this revelation was led to suggest the sending of the deputation. Compare the case of Peter being led by vision, and at the same time by Cornelius' messengers, to go to Cæsarea, <reference osisRef="Acts.10.1-Acts.10.22">Ac 10:1-22</reference>.

<hi type="bold">I ... communicated unto them--</hi>namely, "to the apostles and elders" (<reference osisRef="Acts.15.2">Ac 15:2</reference>): to the apostles in particular (<reference osisRef="Gal.2.9">Ga 2:9</reference>).

<hi type="bold">privately--</hi>that he and the apostles at Jerusalem might decide previously on the principles to be adopted and set forward before the public council (<reference osisRef="Acts.15.1-Acts.15.29">Ac 15:1-29</reference>). It was necessary that the Jerusalem apostles should know beforehand that the Gospel Paul preached to the Gentiles was the same as theirs, and had received divine confirmation in the results it wrought on the Gentile converts. He and Barnabas related to the multitude, not the nature of the doctrine they preached (as Paul did privately to the apostles), but only the miracles vouchsafed in proof of God's sanctioning their preaching to the Gentiles (<reference osisRef="Acts.15.12">Ac 15:12</reference>).

<hi type="bold">to them ... of reputation--</hi>James, Cephas, and John, and probably some of the "elders"; <reference osisRef="Gal.2.6">Ga 2:6</reference>, "those who seemed to be somewhat."

<hi type="bold">lest, &c.--</hi>"lest I should be running, or have run, in vain"; that is, that they might see that I am not running, and have not run, in vain. Paul does not himself fear lest he be running, or had run, in vain; but lest he should, if he gave them no explanation, seem so to them. His race was the swift-running proclamation of the Gospel to the Gentiles (compare "run," Margin, for "Word ... have free course," <reference osisRef="2Thess.3.1">2Th 3:1</reference>). His running would have been in vain, had circumcision been necessary, since he did not require it of his converts.

2. by revelation-- not from being absolutely dependent on the apostles at Jerusalem, but by independent divine "revelation." Quite consistent with his at the same time, being a deputy from the Church of Antioch, as Ac 15:2 states. He by this revelation was led to suggest the sending of the deputation. Compare the case of Peter being led by vision, and at the same time by Cornelius' messengers, to go to Cæsarea, Ac 10:1-22. I... communicated unto them-- namely, "to the apostles and elders" (Ac 15:2): to the apostles in particular (Ga 2:9). privately-- that he and the apostles at Jerusalem might decide previously on the principles to be adopted and set forward before the public council (Ac 15:1-29). It was necessary that the Jerusalem apostles should know beforehand that the Gospel Paul preached to the Gentiles was the same as theirs, and had received divine confirmation in the results it wrought on the Gentile converts. He and Barnabas related to the multitude, not the nature of the doctrine they preached (as Paul did privately to the apostles), but only the miracles vouchsafed in proof of God's sanctioning their preaching to the Gentiles (Ac 15:12). to them... of reputation-- James, Cephas, and John, and probably some of the "elders"; Ga 2:6, "those who seemed to be somewhat." lest, &c.-- "lest I should be running, or have run, in vain"; that is, that they might see that I am not running, and have not run, in vain. Paul does not himself fear lest he be running, or had run, in vain; but lest he should, if he gave them no explanation, seem so to them. His race was the swift-running proclamation of the Gospel to the Gentiles (compare "run," Margin, for "Word... have free course," 2Th 3:1). His running would have been in vain, had circumcision been necessary, since he did not require it of his converts.


<hi type="bold">3. But--</hi>So far were they from regarding me as running in vain, that "not even Titus who was with me, who was a Greek (and therefore uncircumcised), was compelled to be circumcised." So the Greek should be translated. The "false brethren," <reference osisRef="Gal.2.4">Ga 2:4</reference> ("certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed," <reference osisRef="Acts.15.5">Ac 15:5</reference>), demanded his circumcision. The apostles, however, constrained by the firmness of Paul and Barnabas (<reference osisRef="Gal.2.5">Ga 2:5</reference>), did not compel or insist on his being circumcised. Thus they virtually sanctioned Paul's course among the Gentiles and admitted his independence as an apostle: the point he desires to set forth to the Galatians. Timothy, on the other hand, as being a proselyte of the gate, and son of a Jewess (<reference osisRef="Acts.16.1">Ac 16:1</reference>), he circumcised (<reference osisRef="Acts.16.3">Ac 16:3</reference>). Christianity did not interfere with Jewish usages, regarded merely as social ordinances, though no longer having their religious significance, in the case of Jews and proselytes, while the Jewish polity and temple still stood; after the overthrow of the latter, those usages naturally ceased. To have insisted on Jewish usages for Gentile converts, would have been to make them essential parts of Christianity. To have rudely violated them at first in the case of Jews, would have been inconsistent with that charity which (in matters indifferent) is made all things to all men, that by all means it may win some (<reference osisRef="1Cor.9.22">1Co 9:22</reference>; compare <reference osisRef="Rom.14.1-Rom.7.13">Ro 14:1-7, 13</reference>-23). Paul brought Titus about with him as a living example of the power of the Gospel upon the uncircumcised heathen.

3. But-- So far were they from regarding me as running in vain, that "not even Titus who was with me, who was a Greek (and therefore uncircumcised), was compelled to be circumcised." So the Greek should be translated. The "false brethren," Ga 2:4 ("certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed," Ac 15:5), demanded his circumcision. The apostles, however, constrained by the firmness of Paul and Barnabas (Ga 2:5), did not compel or insist on his being circumcised. Thus they virtually sanctioned Paul's course among the Gentiles and admitted his independence as an apostle: the point he desires to set forth to the Galatians. Timothy, on the other hand, as being a proselyte of the gate, and son of a Jewess (Ac 16:1), he circumcised (Ac 16:3). Christianity did not interfere with Jewish usages, regarded merely as social ordinances, though no longer having their religious significance, in the case of Jews and proselytes, while the Jewish polity and temple still stood; after the overthrow of the latter, those usages naturally ceased. To have insisted on Jewish usages for Gentile converts, would have been to make them essential parts of Christianity. To have rudely violated them at first in the case of Jews, would have been inconsistent with that charity which (in matters indifferent) is made all things to all men, that by all means it may win some (1Co 9:22; compare Ro 14:1-7, 13-23). Paul brought Titus about with him as a living example of the power of the Gospel upon the uncircumcised heathen.


<hi type="bold">4. And that--</hi>that is, What I did concerning Titus (namely, by not permitting him to be circumcised) was not from contempt of circumcision, but "on account of the false brethren" (<reference osisRef="Acts.15.1">Ac 15:1</reference>, <reference osisRef="Acts.15.24">24</reference>) who, had I yielded to the demand for his being circumcised, would have perverted the case into a proof that I deemed circumcision necessary.

<hi type="bold">unawares--</hi>"in an underhand manner brought in."

<hi type="bold">privily--</hi>stealthily.

<hi type="bold">to spy out--</hi>as foes in the guise of friends, wishing to destroy and rob us of

<hi type="bold">our liberty--</hi>from the yoke of the ceremonial law. If they had found that we circumcised Titus through fear of the apostles, they would have made that a ground for insisting on imposing the legal yoke on the Gentiles.

<hi type="bold">bring us into bondage--</hi>The Greek future implies the certainty and continuance of the bondage as the result.

4. And that-- that is, What I did concerning Titus (namely, by not permitting him to be circumcised) was not from contempt of circumcision, but "on account of the false brethren" (Ac 15:1, 24) who, had I yielded to the demand for his being circumcised, would have perverted the case into a proof that I deemed circumcision necessary. unawares-- "in an underhand manner brought in." privily-- stealthily. to spy out-- as foes in the guise of friends, wishing to destroy and rob us of our liberty-- from the yoke of the ceremonial law. If they had found that we circumcised Titus through fear of the apostles, they would have made that a ground for insisting on imposing the legal yoke on the Gentiles. bring us into bondage-- The Greek future implies the certainty and continuance of the bondage as the result.


5. Greek, "To whom not even for an hour did we yield by subjection." Alford renders the Greek article, "with THE subjection required of us." The sense rather is, We would willingly have yielded for love [Bengel] (if no principle was at issue), but not in the way of subjection, where "the truth of the Gospel" (<reference osisRef="Gal.2.14">Ga 2:14</reference>; <reference osisRef="Col.1.5">Col 1:5</reference>) was at stake (namely, the fundamental truth of justification by faith only, without the works of the law, contrasted with another Gospel, <reference osisRef="Gal.1.6">Ga 1:6</reference>). Truth precise, unaccommodating, abandons nothing that belongs to itself, admits nothing that is inconsistent with it [Bengel].

<hi type="bold">might continue with you--</hi>Gentiles. We defended for your sakes your true faith and liberties, which you are now renouncing.

5. Greek, "To whom not even for an hour did we yield by subjection." Alford renders the Greek article, "with THE subjection required of us." The sense rather is, We would willingly have yielded for love [Bengel] (if no principle was at issue), but not in the way of subjection, where "the truth of the Gospel" (Ga 2:14; Col 1:5) was at stake (namely, the fundamental truth of justification by faith only, without the works of the law, contrasted with another Gospel, Ga 1:6). Truth precise, unaccommodating, abandons nothing that belongs to itself, admits nothing that is inconsistent with it [Bengel]. might continue with you-- Gentiles. We defended for your sakes your true faith and liberties, which you are now renouncing.


6. Greek, "From those who," &c. He meant to complete the sentence with "I derived no special advantage"; but he alters it into "they ... added nothing to me."

<hi type="bold">accepteth--</hi>so as to show any partiality; "respecteth no man's person" (<reference osisRef="Eph.6.9">Ep 6:9</reference>).

<hi type="bold">seemed to be somewhat--</hi>that is, not that they seemed to be what they were not, but "were reputed as persons of some consequence"; not insinuating a doubt but that they were justly so reputed.

<hi type="bold">in conference added--</hi>or "imparted"; the same Greek as in <reference osisRef="Gal.1.16">Ga 1:16</reference>, "I conferred not with flesh and blood." As I did not by conference impart to them aught at my conversion, so they now did not impart aught additional to me, above what I already knew. This proves to the Galatians his independence as an apostle.

6. Greek, "From those who," &c. He meant to complete the sentence with "I derived no special advantage"; but he alters it into "they... added nothing to me." accepteth-- so as to show any partiality; "respecteth no man's person" (Ep 6:9). seemed to be somewhat-- that is, not that they seemed to be what they were not, but "were reputed as persons of some consequence"; not insinuating a doubt but that they were justly so reputed. in conference added-- or "imparted"; the same Greek as in Ga 1:16, "I conferred not with flesh and blood." As I did not by conference impart to them aught at my conversion, so they now did not impart aught additional to me, above what I already knew. This proves to the Galatians his independence as an apostle.


<hi type="bold">7. contrariwise--</hi>on the contrary. So far from adding any new light to ME, THEY gave in THEIR adhesion to the new path on which Barnabas and I, by independent revelation, had entered. So far from censuring, they gave a hearty approval to my independent course, namely, the innovation of preaching the Gospel without circumcision to the Gentiles.

<hi type="bold">when they saw--</hi>from the effects which I showed them, were "wrought" (<reference osisRef="Gal.2.8">Ga 2:8</reference>; <reference osisRef="Acts.15.12">Ac 15:12</reference>).

<hi type="bold">was committed unto me--</hi>Greek, "I was entrusted with."

<hi type="bold">gospel of the uncircumcision--</hi>that is, of the Gentiles, who were to be converted without circumcision being required.

<hi type="bold">circumcision ... unto Peter--</hi>Peter had originally opened the door to the Gentiles (Ac 10:1-48; 15:7). But in the ultimate apportionment of the spheres of labor, the Jews were assigned to him (compare <reference osisRef="1Pet.1.1">1Pe 1:1</reference>). So Paul on the other hand wrote to the Hebrews (compare also <reference osisRef="Col.4.11">Col 4:11</reference>), though his main work was among the Gentiles. The non-mention of Peter in the list of names, presciently through the Spirit, given in the sixteenth chapter of Romans, shows that Peter's residence at Rome, much more primacy, was then unknown. The same is palpable from the sphere here assigned to him.

7. contrariwise-- on the contrary. So far from adding any new light to ME, THEY gave in THEIR adhesion to the new path on which Barnabas and I, by independent revelation, had entered. So far from censuring, they gave a hearty approval to my independent course, namely, the innovation of preaching the Gospel without circumcision to the Gentiles. when they saw-- from the effects which I showed them, were "wrought" (Ga 2:8; Ac 15:12). was committed unto me-- Greek, "I was entrusted with." gospel of the uncircumcision-- that is, of the Gentiles, who were to be converted without circumcision being required. circumcision... unto Peter-- Peter had originally opened the door to the Gentiles (Ac 10:1-48; 15:7). But in the ultimate apportionment of the spheres of labor, the Jews were assigned to him (compare 1Pe 1:1). So Paul on the other hand wrote to the Hebrews (compare also Col 4:11), though his main work was among the Gentiles. The non-mention of Peter in the list of names, presciently through the Spirit, given in the sixteenth chapter of Romans, shows that Peter's residence at Rome, much more primacy, was then unknown. The same is palpable from the sphere here assigned to him.


<hi type="bold">8. he--</hi>God (<reference osisRef="1Cor.12.6">1Co 12:6</reference>).

<hi type="bold">wrought effectually--</hi>that is, made the preached word efficacious to conversion, not only by sensible miracles, but by the secret mighty power of the Holy Ghost.

<hi type="bold">in Peter--</hi>Ellicott and others, translate, "For Peter." Grotius translates as English Version.

<hi type="bold">to--</hi>with a view to.

<hi type="bold">was mighty--</hi>Translate as before, the Greek being the same, "wrought effectually."

<hi type="bold">in me--</hi>"for (or 'in') me also."

8. he-- God (1Co 12:6). wrought effectually-- that is, made the preached word efficacious to conversion, not only by sensible miracles, but by the secret mighty power of the Holy Ghost. in Peter-- Ellicott and others, translate, "For Peter." Grotius translates as English Version. to-- with a view to. was mighty-- Translate as before, the Greek being the same, "wrought effectually." in me-- "for (or 'in') me also."