SI.

DATE AND OCCASION OF THIS
EPISTLE.

N° O Epistle is more characteristic of St Paul than this. None bears more distinctively the impress of his personality, or proclaims its authorship more convincingly. This is true in regard to both its tone and its style. We must especially remark, in this connection, its sudden condensations of argument, its rapid alternations from severity to tenderness, and its inculcation of practical duties side by side with a high strain of doctrinal teaching. It is to be added that there is not one of St Paul's Epistles, concerning the genuineness of which less doubt has been expressed even by the most destructive critics. It has been justly remarked that he who denies its genuineness, "pronounces on himself the sentence of incapacity to distinguish false from true."

At the same time it must be admitted that this Epistle cannot be connected with a definite part of the Acts of the Apostles by the same kind of evidence as that which determines the chronology of the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Romans in connection with the facts recorded in the nineteenth chapter of the history and the early part of the twentieth. The links of person and place and circumstance, which are available in those cases, are not available in this. The evidence which determines the chronological position of the Epistle before us must be of another kind. Though,

§3. Contents and Doctrine of this Epistle

PAGE

489

however, it cannot be anchored in its right place by the side of that narrative in the same way as those other Epistles, its true moorings can be determined in a different way; and the evidence is very strong which leads to the conviction that it was on the whole contemporary with those three Epistles, and that it is a document belonging to the memorable period of St Paul's Third Missionary Journey.

The close affinity of this Epistle with that to the Romans is manifest at first sight. Every thoughtful reader of the New Testament mentally connects these two documents together. Even on a cursory comparison of the two documents there arises a strong primâ facie presumption that they were written about the same time. And this impression does not rest altogether on mere identity of theological statement. An argument based on this ground might easily be pressed too far. Even in Acts xiii. 38, 39 we find a doctrinal statement regarding Justification quite as mature as anything in the Epistles. It is rather the general sequence of thought, and similarity of illustration, on which stress must be laid in considering this question. It is hardly necessary to give the more conspicuous instances: they are very obvious; and several of them are alluded to in the notes. Some of the smaller examples of resemblance between these two Epistles are perhaps of even greater weight in this argument. Thus let Rom. viii. 14-17 be verbally compared with Gal.

iv. 6, 7. The "Abba, Father" is a very remarkable point of resemblance, especially as taken in combination with the manner in which the Holy Spirit is named, and the privileges of sonship and heirdom. Again, the same texts from the Old Testament are quoted, and in the same manner. Let Rom. x. 5, for instance, be placed side by side with Gal. iii. 12. The language concerning the promises to Abraham and his seed in Rom. iv. 13, 14, 16 not only reminds us of the language on the same subject in Gal. iii. 14, 16, 29, but has all the appearance of the same train of thought, flowing almost contemporaneously in a different channel. Once more, if Rom. xi. 31, "God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy on all," is set down in close juxtaposition with Gal. iii. 22, "the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe," there is a very striking suggestiveness in both the resemblance and the contrast. In fact there is between the letters to the Romans and Galatians a relationship very similar to, though neither so extensive nor so minute as, that which connects together the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians.

And if there is a strong presumption that this Epistle was sent to the Galatians within that well-marked period of St Paul's life in which the Epistle to the Romans was written, a further point is more than probable, viz. that the shorter of these two letters preceded the longer in its date. Hardly any commentator of note has taken a different view of this matter. There is in the letter to the Galatians all the appearance of the first vehement expression, under the urgency of a great crisis, of the religious truths which were afterwards elaborated, calmly and at length, when he wrote to the Romans. We must not indeed press this argument too far. The same truths, as was remarked in the preceding paragraph, were present in St Paul's mind at an earlier date. It would hardly be theologically correct to say that we have in the document before us the first rough sketch of that which reached its maturity in the longer document sent soon afterwards to Rome. Nor need we attempt

to say how long an interval separated the times of writing the two documents, whether it was a few days or several months. All that is urged here is, that while the Epistle to the Galatians belongs to the same Pauline epoch as that to the Romans, it almost certainly preceded it in point of time.

Now if from this comparison we turn to the affinity of our Epistle with the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, we find again this affinity to be very close, but of a different kind. Here the resemblance is rather personal than argumentative. Not only are there very remarkable verbal connections between the two letters, but, what is perhaps more to the purpose, the same state of feeling is indicated on the part of the writer. If we look, as it were, into his mind, we see the same conflict, the same depression, the same vehemence, the same indignation, the same tenderness. The subjective evidence, obtained in this way, is very strong. In this respect no two Epistles of St Paul are so much alike, though in other respects they are very different. But some particulars must be given in detail.

The same state of health is not obscurely indicated in the two Epistles. There is not only the same general reference to suffering and infirmity: but in one most remarkable and specific allusion of this kind the two Epistles are found in combination. Paley says in the 'Hora Pauline' (Gal. No. iv.) that "There can be no doubt but that the temptation which was in the flesh,' mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians, and the thorn in the flesh, the minister of Satan to buffet him,' mentioned in the Epistle to the Corinthians, were intended to denote the same thing;" and he adds most truly: "In both Epistles the notice of his infirmity is suited to the place in which it is found. In the Epistle to the Corinthians the train of thought draws up to the circumstance by a regular approximation: in this Epistle it is the subject and occasion of the Epistle itself." Paley uses this coincidence as a proof of the authenticity of the Epistle to the Galatians. Here it is brought forward for another reason, i.e. as an argument for the belief that these two Epistles were contemporaneous. In each case St Paul not only speaks of the intensity of his

suffering, but describes it as a kind of suffering which hindered him in his work, discouraged and disheartened him, and humiliated him before others. If we look closely into his expressions in both Epistles regarding this malady, and weigh them well, we find it very reasonable to believe that at the time of writing them he was again suffering in the same way, and that both these documents were written within the range of this painful experience.

This leads to another point of comparison. In these two Epistles the same remarkable sensitiveness is displayed, as it is nowhere else; the same passion, as it were, for speaking of himself. Professor Jowett has seized upon this point of resemblance and expressed it forcibly: "In both Epistles there is a greater display of his own feelings than in any other portion of his writings, a deeper contrast of inward exaltation and outward suffering, more of personal entreaty, a greater readiness to impart himself." And the same commentator adds another point, "There is in both the same consciousness of the precarious basis on which his own authority rested in the existing state of the two Churches." If we suppose these two letters to have been written in Macedonia, at a time of extreme depression from illness, and with anxious news from Galatia and Corinth pressing on him at the same time, and moving his indignation, each Epistle gains much from this theory in the impression of its reality.

But, to come to details, there are remarkable links between these two Epistles, as regards both persons and places. In respect of places we must specially name Damascus and Arabia. That St Paul should have pointedly named Damascus in each of these two Epistles (2 Cor. xi. 32; Gal. i. 17), and not have mentioned the place at all in any other Epistle, is a very singular fact, We might add that in the two cases, though he mentions the place with evident feeling, he does this in connection with two very different trains of thought, and -thus without any semblance of one Epistle being suggested by the other. Here the coincidence, however, is noted as an indication that the Epistles were written under the same mental impressions, and

therefore probably about the same time. As regards Arabia, it must suffice to refer to the longer note at the end of the fourth chapter. The reminiscence of this region, in connection with his conversion, was evidently very fresh in the Apostle's mind when he wrote the Epistle to the Galatians (Gal. i. 17, iv. 25); and though he does not actually name this region in the other Epistle, he virtually does so (2 Cor. xi. 32): for Aretas, whose officers kept the gates of Damascus, was king of Petra in Arabia.

The person on whose name it is most important to dwell in this connection is Titus (2 Cor. ii., vii., viii., xii.; Gal. ii. 1-3). In no other Epistle beyond that addressed to himself is he mentioned at all, except quite casually in 2 Tim. iv. 9. In these two Epistles he is made very prominent; and they shew that he was much in the Apostle's thoughts at the time of writing them. In the Galatians he appears as having been a close companion of the Apostle on a very memorable occasion. In the other letter his companionship at the very time of writing is made evident, with the warmest expressions of affection and confidence, That Titus should not be mentioned at all in the Acts of the Apostles', need cause us no difficulty. St Paul had many intimate friends, whose names find no place in that general history. This intimate friendship was a part of his personal biography; and if these two Epistles were written at the same time, and if Titus was actively engaged at this time in helping him, it is very natural that his name should appear in both, though in connection with very different trains of thought. Such a coincidence has all the air of reality.

We may turn now to various verbal links, which, as seen from our present point of view, are worthy of careful attention. Let, for instance, the manner in which St Paul speaks of his absence and presence in Gal. iv. 18, 20, and in 2 Cor. x. 1-11, xiii. 10 be compared. They not only bear the impress of the same writer, but are very like what would be written

1 The reading "Titus Justus," which some MSS. shew in Acts xviii. 7, has no authority sufficient to justify any exception to this statement. See the Bishop of Chester's note on the

passage.

by him at the same time, with a double anxiety pressing upon him. Again the catalogues of sins in Gal. v. 19-21, and in 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21, have very close resemblances, especially as regards the words "debates, envyings, wraths, strifes," in the one case, which in the original Greek are identical with the words "variance, emulation, wraths, strifes" in the other. The manner in which spiritual "sowing" and spiritual "reaping" come before us in Gal. vi. 7 is remarkably similar to what we find on the same subject in 2 Cor. ix. 6. The English Version obscures the resemblance between Gal. iv. 17 and 2 Cor. xi. 2: but in the Greek it is very close. Finally, we may note the singular use of the word "devour" in Gal. v. 15 and 2 Cor. xi. 20. This enumeration is not complete; but it is sufficient to make the argument very strong'.

On the whole a very confident opinion may be expressed that this Epistle was written during the Third Apostolic Journey, before the Epistle to the Romans, which was sent from Corinth, and about the same time as the Second Epistle to the Corinthians,-hence that it was written in Macedonia at the time corresponding with Acts xx. I, 2, though there is no objection to supposing that it was written at Ephesus in the later part of the "three years" (Acts xix. 8, 10, xx. 31) which immediately preceded the crossing over into MacedoniaR.

It is essential, however, that we should see how far this theory fits such direct chronological marks as we possess. Now there is nothing whatever in it to con

1 The chief points in this argument are the doctrinal affinity of this Epistle with that to the Romans, and its personal affinity with the Second to the Corinthians. We must not fail to observe, however, that it has close resemblances to the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and that these add much to the force of the general argument.

Of these resemblances the most remarkable are

the use of the proverb "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" in I Cor. v. 6 and Gal. v. 9, and the use of the saying "circumcision is nothing," with a balancing contrasted phrase in 1 Cor. vii. 19 and Gal. vi. 6, 15.

2 It ought not to be overlooked that the Bishop

of Lincoln in his Commentary on the Greek New Testament, and Professor Birks in his 'Hora Apostolicæ,' have argued carefully in favour of a

different date for this Epistle. It is believed,

however, by the writer of this Introduction that it contains satisfactory answers to their arguments.

tradict them, but on the contrary some things in it which distinctly harmonize with them. Our first note of time is the fact that this Epistle was written after the first visit to Galatia (Acts xvi. 6). Next, on the assumption that the argument in the note (p. 510) is sound for identifying the journey to Jerusalem of Gal. ii. with that of Acts xv. in connection with the Council, it is evident that the Epistle was written after that occacasion: to which must be added the further fact that some time must be allowed for the meeting of Peter and Paul at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11—16), which was manifestly subsequent to the Council. But further, the language of St Paul in this Epistle shews that it was written after the second visit to the Galatians (Acts xviii. 23). He says (Gal. iv. 13) that it was 66 on account of illness that he preached the Gospel to them on the first occasion." Hence he had been among them on more occasions than one. other interpretation of the passage is at all natural. Thus too we reach the most natural interpretations of the following phrases-"as we said before, so say I now again" (i. 9); "I testify again to every man (v. 3); "of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past" (v. 21); and especially, "am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (iv. 16). He could not possibly know what the effect would be of what he is now writing. Hence he must have expressed misgivings, when he had been personally among them. He probably saw at that time anxious symptoms of incipient evil, though the full news of the defection of the Galatians came upon him like a shock.

No

Thus by internal evidence of a different kind from the former we again bring the writing of this Epistle within the range of the Third Missionary Journey, and in general connection with the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. The only question which now remains has reference to the particular part of that journey which seems the most probable; and this depends on the interpretation of "so soon" in Gal. i. 6. At first sight we might be disposed to interpret it literally tion we should naturally fix upon the of lapse of time: and on this interpretaearly part of the long residence in Ephe

sus. But really not so much a short period of time, as moral haste and want of consideration, is denoted by the phrase. See the note on the passage. Thus we are quite at liberty to bring down the writing of this Epistle to the immediate neighbourhood of the writing of the Second to the Corinthians, and to fix upon the later part of the sojourn at Ephesus, or (more probably still) the short stay at Troas (2 Cor. ii. 13) or the longer stay in Macedonia.

As regards the occasion of the writing of this Epistle, this can be very easily stated. The document in this respect speaks very clearly for itself. After St Paul had left Galatia, emissaries of the Judaizing party had come from Judæa, proclaiming that circumcision and the keeping of the Mosaic law were necessary to salvation, or at least essential to the higher Christian life, thus making Judaism an antecedent condition of Christianity and the result had been a disastrous kind of fascination over the minds of some of the Galatian converts. At the same time, as was indeed quite essential for their purpose, these mischiefmakers denied the independent apostleship of St Paul, represented him as inferior to the other Apostles, and accused him likewise of inconsistency. Thus in writing this Epistle he had two purposes in view, each essentially bound up with the other. He found it necessary on the one hand to assert and demonstrate his apostolic independence and authority, and on the other hand to re-state and to prove by argument the doctrine of free justification through faith. These things are done with great vehemence and force. The news from Galatia had startled him and filled him with anxiety. He saw what great principles were at stake, and how the whole future of Christianity was likely to be compromised. Hence there is in this Epistle an impress of severity and indignation, which we find in no other.

§ 2. HISTORY AND CHARACTER OF THE GALATIANS.

Just as this Epistle has peculiar fea tures, which belong to no others, so is there a distinctive stamp upon the Galatians themselves, in both the national and the religious sense, which we find in

no other community addressed by St Paul in his Epistolary writings. We may first take note of the national characteristics of the Galatians.

The Epistle to the Galatians is really the Epistle to the Gauls. The words Kelta, Galate and Galli are in fact only various forms of the same word. A Latin writer, speaking of the Galatians of Asia Minor, would naturally call them 'Gauls;" and a Greek writer, speaking of the Gauls of France, would naturally call them "Galatians." We may give, as instances, Livy on the one hand and Polybius on the other.

The inhabitants of central Asia Minor, to whom St Paul wrote this Epistle, were an offshoot of that great Keltic migration which made itself memorable in Northern Italy and Northern Greece. After these barbarians had recoiled in confusion from the cliffs of Delphi, some of them crossed the Bosphorus, and penetrated into the region which afterwards bore their name. At the outset they were somewhat like the Turks, on their first invasion of the same district, a moveable army, encamping, marching and plundering at will. The surrounding monarchs gradually curtailed their power and repressed them within nar rower limits. In the end their divided sections coalesced into one united kingdom. For a time their kings were recognised by the Romans; but in the reign of Augustus this district was made a province of the Empire, reaching from the borders of Asia and Bithynia to the neighbourhood of Iconium, Lystra and Derbe. This was the political condition of Galatia, when St Paul passed in this direction on his Second and Third Missionary Journeys.

A question here arises as to whether, when Galatia is named in the New Testament, we are to understand the term in its general popular sense, or as denoting, with a more restricted meaning, a Roman province: and this question is not very difficult to answer. Phrygia was not a Roman province: and we find this term combined with the name of Galatia on both occasions when St Paul is described in passing through this region (Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23). The same remark is applicable to other geographical terms which St Luke employs