But if the word "Galatia" is used in a political sense, signifying a particular province of the Roman empire, then it means a large area much further south, including Pisidia, Lycaonia, and part of Phrygia.
In this province were Pisidian Antioch, Derbe, Iconium, and Lystra, where St. Paul founded Churches in A.D. 47, on his first missionary journey. The latter explanation is almost certainly correct.
No good argument can be brought forward in favour of North Galatia which cannot be balanced by a better argument in favour of South Galatia. For instance, though St. Luke in Acts uses the popular and not the political names for districts, this cannot be urged in favour of St. Paul"s adopting the same usage. On the contrary, he uses Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia in their political sense, and so we may suppose that he would do the same in the case of Galatia. Again, though there were in North Galatia Jews who would tempt the converts to Jewish observances, there were Jews in plenty in South Galatia also. And while many writers have said that the Celtic blood of these recalcitrant Christians is proved by the enthusiasm, fickleness, superst.i.tion, love of strife, and vanity which St. Paul rebukes, we may reasonably urge that these defects are not confined to the Celts. The Phrygians doted on a sombre and mysterious religion. In heathen times they loved the worship of Cybele, with its exciting ceremonial and cruel mutilations. And when they adopted Christianity, though their morality was generally austere, their credulity was intense. In the 2nd century many of them embraced the new revelations of Monta.n.u.s, and in the 4th they largely affected the hard Puritanism of Novatian. In religious matters the Celts are very little {152} inclined to fickleness, and their superst.i.tions are more closely connected with dreaminess than with vehemence.
The following facts also deserve attention; (1) It would be strange if Acts gave us no account of Churches in which St. Paul took so much interest. If Galatia be North Galatia, there is no such account in Acts. If it be South Galatia there is, and the polite and natural manner of addressing the inhabitants of the cities of Antioch, Derbe, etc., would be "Galatians." Their bond of union was a.s.sociation in one Roman province. (2) It is improbable that St. Paul would take the very difficult journey necessary for visiting the Celtic Galatians. His usual plan was to travel on Roman high-roads to the big centres of population. North Galatia was both isolated and half-civilized. Also, he says that he visited the Galatians on account of an illness (iv.
13). It is incredible that he would have chosen the long unhealthy journey to North Galatia when he was ill. But it is extremely probable that he left the damp lowlands of Pamphylia for the bracing air of Pisidian Antioch. The malady was probably the malarial neuralgia and fever which are contracted in those lowlands. (3) The Epistle contains technical legal terms for adoption, covenant, and tutor, which seem to be used not in the Roman but in the Greek sense.[1] They would hardly be intelligible except in cities like those of South Galatia where the inst.i.tutions were mainly Greek.
a.s.suming that the "Galatians" are those of South Galatia, we note that in Gal. iv. 13 St. Paul speaks of preaching to them "the first time."
This first time must be the occasion mentioned in Acts xiii., xiv. The second time is that in Acts xvi. 1-6. The Christians were mainly converts from heathenism (iv. 8; v. 2; vi. 12), but some were no doubt Jews or proselytes. {153} After the second visit of St. Paul, his converts were tampered with. Some Judaizers had put a perverse construction upon his action in promulgating the decrees of the Council of Jerusalem of A.D. 49, and in circ.u.mcising Timothy. They urged that St. Paul had thereby acknowledged his inferiority to the other apostles, and practically advocated a return to Jewish ceremonial.
Instigated by other Judaizers from Jerusalem, the Galatians had changed their Christianity into a semi-Judaism, and this all the more readily because of their previous familiarity with the Jewish religion.
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
The place and date are both uncertain. The words, "I marvel that ye are so _quickly_ removing from Him that called you" (i. 6), suggest that it was written not long after the conversion of the Galatians.
But we cannot place it, as some writers have done, before 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Its style is allied with that of 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans. It must be earlier than Romans, as it is like a rough model of that Epistle. If written soon before Romans, it was probably composed at Corinth early in A.D. 56. It may, however, have been written as early as A.D. 52, before St. Paul"s third missionary journey.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
The Epistle is intended to recall the Galatians to St. Paul"s true gospel. In order to do this, he vindicates his own apostolic authority to preach it, and expounds its great principle--justification by faith, and not by observance of the Jewish law.
After a salutation, without the congratulations which the apostle ordinarily offers, St. Paul expresses his astonishment at their perversion, and vehemently a.s.serts that if any one dares to preach a gospel other than that which the Galatians first received, let him be anathema (i. 1-10). The history of St. Paul"s reception of the gospel is then set out. It came to him by revelation of Jesus Christ: this is at once the demonstration of its unique authority, and the decisive fact which settles the relation of St. Paul to the other apostles. He did {154} not receive from them the gospel he preached, and, to emphasize this, St. Paul counts up the various opportunities he had of intercourse with them, and says what use he made of each (i. 11-ii.
10). The best ill.u.s.tration of the independence of his position is the att.i.tude which he adopted towards St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, when at Antioch he deceitfully took the same sort of line with respect to Jewish ceremonial that the Galatians are taking now (ii. 11-13).[2] St. Paul describes the speech he made in opposition to St. Peter, but while he is dictating it, he is carried away by an orator"s enthusiasm: he forgets that he is telling the story only of an old debate, and at some points we cannot confidently distinguish the rebuke to St. Peter from the exhortation to the Galatians (ii. 14-21).
Then, still as if he were making a speech, the apostle proceeds to argue as he does later in the Epistle to the Romans. He recalls to the "bewitched" Galatians the happy memories of the days when they first heard of Christ--the out-pouring of the Spirit, the first sharp persecution endured so well. Did not all this happen when they were under the gospel of Faith (iii. 2-5)? The true sons of Abraham are those who accept the gospel (iii. 6-9). On the other hand, the people who still desire to be under the Law can only avoid being under a curse by keeping the whole Law--and this is impossible (iii. 10). G.o.d"s will is plain: He has said, "The righteous shall live by faith" (iii. 11, 12). Moreover, whatever claim the Law had on us is now discharged by the satisfaction made by Christ (iii. 13, 14). Now St. Paul goes on to show that the promise made by G.o.d to Abraham binds Him still. Just as no subsequent transaction can nullify a Greek "covenant," _i.e._ will, so the Law cannot nullify the earlier promise of G.o.d (iii. 15-18).[3]
Then he compares the promise made to {155} Abraham with the Law. The latter was a contract, a mutual agreement between two parties involving mutual obligations; if the Jews did not keep the Law, G.o.d was not bound to bless them. But in the case of the promise, there is no suggestion of contract. Then, lest his readers should suppose that there was an inconsistency in the fact that G.o.d was the Author of both the Law and the promise, St. Paul adds an explanation (iii. 19-22). The Law would have been contrary to the promise if it had been intended to produce the same result as the promise by another method. But, on the contrary, the Law was added as a parenthesis in order to make known transgressions, and with the result that it increased them (iii. 19).
Scripture shut up all mankind in the fold of sin, that they might look forward to the reign of faith as the only means of escape. To emphasize further the contrast between the Law and the promise, St.
Paul a.s.serts that the Law did not come direct from G.o.d to man. It came, as Jewish traditions said, from G.o.d and the angels to Moses, the mediator, and from him to the Hebrews. The Law had a mediator, therefore it involved two parties--G.o.d and the Hebrew people. But there was no such mediator in the case of the promise. G.o.d spoke directly to Abraham. And G.o.d in the Person of Christ spoke directly to mankind. Thus the promises are greater and more gracious than the Law.
It is important to observe that the argument implies the Divinity of Christ.
Before Faith came, the Law played the part of a Greek "tutor," _i.e._ a trusted servant who attended a child. He took the child to the house where he was taught, and kept him from harm and mischief. And we, if we wish to be still under the Law, shall be as foolish as a grown-up son who wishes to be under a steward and a guardian. We must leave the mere rudiments of religion now that we have reached a stage at which we have been taught that G.o.d is indeed our Father (iii. 23-iv. 11).
St. Paul supports this conclusion from his arguments by a {156} touching appeal, in which he gratefully recalls the kindness he received from the Galatians when he came to them in all the weakness and distress of fever (iv. 12-20). Then he interprets for them the story of Hagar, probably in answer to a reference in a letter which they had sent him (iv. 21-v. 1). The Jew is in bondage like Hagar"s child, the Christian is free like Sarah"s child.
After this we have another appeal, a medley of exhortation, warning, denunciation, and pathetic entreaty: the apostle, himself so appreciative of great ideas, tries to make the unaspiring Galatians understand that they are called to the perfect freedom which is the service of G.o.d (v. 2-26). The Epistle closes with some plain words which the apostle wrote with his own hand in large characters so as to emphasize them for his readers. The motive of the Judaizers is boldly labelled. Then, as if there had been a question of his own humility, he a.s.sociates himself with the crucified Christ, for whose sake he bears in his flesh the eloquent marks of the Roman rods and the stones of the Jews. It was the cruel custom in Asia Minor, a custom not yet extinct, for masters to wound their slaves with marks which made it impossible for them to escape recognition. And so St. Paul glories in the pitiful scars on his body, because they prove Whose he is and Whom he serves.
{157}
a.n.a.lYSIS
Salutation, rebuke (i. 1-10).
(1) St. Paul defends his apostleship: i. 11-ii. 21.--He was called by G.o.d in spite of his fanatical Judaism, G.o.d"s Son was revealed in him, he conferred with no man, but retired to Arabia, then three years after his conversion he stayed fifteen days with Cephas, and afterwards preached in Syria and Cilicia (i.).
Fourteen years after his conversion[4] he again went to Jerusalem "by revelation." False brethren attempted to get t.i.tus circ.u.mcised, but in vain. James, Cephas, and John were most friendly to Paul and Barnabas, agreeing that they should go to the Gentiles while remembering the poor in Jerusalem. Cephas rebuked at Antioch by St. Paul (ii.).
(2) St. Paul defends justification by faith: iii. 1-v. 1.--Galatian fickleness, even Abraham was justified by faith, and in the Old Testament the righteous live by faith, the Jewish Law merely a parenthesis between G.o.d"s promise and its fulfilment, the Law a tutor to bring us to Christ (iii.).
Judaism is the state of a son who is a minor, Christianity is the state of a son who has attained his majority. Why return to the beggarly rudiments of knowledge? The Jew is like the child of Hagar, the Christian is like the child of Sarah (iv.-v. 1).
(3) Practical exhortation: v. 2-vi. 18.--Circ.u.mcision useless, freedom and love are the allies of the true Law, the works of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit (v.). Bearing one another"s burdens, supporting our teachers. A conclusion in St. Paul"s handwriting (vi.).
[1] The law implied in Gal. iv. 2 is in accordance with Syrian law. If a father died, he left his son under the authority of a steward until he was fourteen, and left his property in the hands of a guardian until he was twenty-five. It is probable that in South Galatia as in Syria this law was made under the reign of the Seleucids.
[2] For the explanation of this quarrel, see p. 121.
[3] The argument about "seeds" and "seed," in iii. 16, looks like a mere verbal quibble in English. But it becomes quite intelligible when we remember that in rabbinical Hebrew the word "seed_s_" was used in the sense of descendant_s_.
[4] See Gal. ii. 1, "at an interval of fourteen years." This third visit to Jerusalem (the second mentioned here) was in A.D. 49. The verse probably means fourteen years after his _conversion_, and eleven years after his first visit. If we reckon the fourteen years from his _first visit_ to Jerusalem, the first visit would be in A.D. 33. This will not agree with Acts ix. 25, 26; 2 Cor. xi. 32, which show us that the first visit was made while Aretas ruled at Damascus. Aretas became master of Damascus in A.D. 37.
{158}
CHAPTER XIII
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE ROMANS
[Sidenote: The Author.]
The genuineness of this Epistle, like that of Galatians and 1 and 2 Corinthians, is practically undisputed. No one ever seems to have questioned it between the time that Marcion drew up his _Apostolicon_, about A.D. 140, and A.D. 1792. Before the time of Marcion it is quoted by St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius, and St. Polycarp. And there seem to be some reminiscences of it in 1 Peter. It is first definitely mentioned by name in the writings of St. Irenaeus, who quotes it several times. This early and frequent use postulates for the Epistle a very authoritative source. There is no one that we know of among the first Christians who could have written it except St. Paul. What he tells the Romans about his personal wishes and intentions is exactly consonant with what he says elsewhere. The notices that he gives them of his movements perfectly accord with the notices in Acts. The primary conceptions of the Epistle are more or less common to all St.
Paul"s works. They are concerned with the guilt and the power of sin, the eternal purpose which G.o.d has for man, the meaning of Christ"s death and the effect of His resurrection, the nature of our acquittal by G.o.d and our new spiritual life.
The only serious question with regard to the criticism of the outward letter of the Epistle, is connected with the last two chapters (xv., xvi.). Baur rejected both as spurious compilations, {159} intended to reconcile "Paulinism" with the more Jewish school of early Christian thought. But Baur"s habit of p.r.o.nouncing spurious every book or part of a book which did not agree with his peculiar estimate of St. Paul, is now discredited. In spite of this, many critics think that xv. and xvi. do not belong to this Epistle. They are generally admitted to be by St. Paul, but it is thought that they are simply pages which have become detached from some other writings of the apostle. Chapter xvi.
in particular is supposed to be a fragment of an Epistle to Ephesus.
It abounds in personal greetings to intimate friends; and yet it is difficult to believe that St. Paul had many friends in Rome before he visited it. And among these friends are Prisca and Aquila (xvi. 3), who certainly stayed at Ephesus, where St. Paul had laboured for two years and must have had many friends. The tone of xvi. 17-20 is thought to imply sectarian divisions which the rest of the Epistle ignores. And the final doxology appears in different places in different MSS., a fact which suggests that the early Church doubted where the Epistle ended. No real importance need be attached to another argument used by some critics, viz. that Marcion omitted xv.
and xvi. He would have rejected them, whether genuine or not, on account of the sanction given to the Old Testament in xv. 4.
On the other hand, the integrity of the Epistle is maintained by some of the best recent critics, including Sanday, Zahn, and G.o.det. The best MSS. place the final doxology in its present position. The fact that the majority of cursive MSS. and some valuable versions, such as the later Syriac and the Armenian, place it at the end of xiv. seems to be accounted for by the fact that the last two chapters were often omitted in the lessons read in church, being considered unimportant for the purposes of general edification. The fact that the Epistle seems to come to an end at xv. 33, and also at xvi. 20, before the final doxology in xvi. 27, suggests the best solution. It is that the apostle, after concluding the argument of the Epistle, made various {160} additions of a personal nature with reference to himself and his friends as they occurred to his mind. He then summed up the whole argument in xvi. 25-27, where the obedience of _faith_ is stated to be the purpose of G.o.d"s final revelation. The number of friends mentioned in xvi. is not incredibly large when we remember the easy and frequent intercourse which existed between Rome and the east.
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
"To all that are in Rome, beloved by G.o.d, called to be saints." It has been well said that the universality of the gospel made St. Paul desire to preach it in the universal city. He longed to "see Rome;" he was conscious that Christ had called him to "bear witness at Rome." He himself had the freedom of the city of Rome, and he was inspired with the hope, which was fulfilled three hundred years afterwards, that the religion of Christ would be the religion of the Roman empire. The territory then ruled by Rome more nearly embraced the whole of the civilized world than any empire that has since been seen. It included London and Toledo, Constantinople and Jerusalem. Roman soldiers kept their watch on the blue Danube, and were planting outposts on the far-off grey Euphrates. The city of Rome itself contained about a million and a half of inhabitants. It was well governed and sumptuously adorned. A real belief in the homely vulgar G.o.ds of their forefathers had declined among educated people, and the humane principles of Stoic philosophy were instilling a new regard for the less fortunate cla.s.ses of mankind. Strange foreign devotions were satisfying some of the yearnings which found no nourishment in the hard old Roman paganism. Men who took no interest in Jupiter were attracted by Mithras, the Eastern G.o.d of the light. Women who could obtain no entrance into the exclusive sisterhood of the Vestal Virgins, could find occupation in the worship of the Egyptian Isis. Some vague belief in a Divine One was rising in minds who thought that Jupiter Mithras and Isis were only symbols of a power behind the mists of human wisdom.
Jews {161} of all cla.s.ses were numerous, though the majority were as poor as those of East London. They made some converts, and Poppaea, the mistress of Nero in A.D. 58, dallied with Judaism as with a new sensation. Men and women of every race were included among the slaves of Rome, and the arts and elegance of Greek and Syrian slaves often proved a staircase by which new religions found a way into the chambers of the great and wealthy. In spite of some signs of moral vigour, society was cankered with pride of cla.s.s and with self-indulgence. It possessed no regenerating force capable of checking the repulsive vice which was encouraged by the obscenity of actors and the frivolity of sceptics.
We are told that "sojourners from Rome," both Jews and proselytes, were in the crowd which listened to St. Peter"s address on the Day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 10). It is possible that these men brought news of the gospel to the large body in Rome of Jews, and of Gentiles influenced by Jewish ideas. In any case, communication between the chief cities of the empire was at this time so frequent that we may be sure that the principles and attractions of Christianity were soon heard of at Rome. Gradually a small band formed there of people who were interested and pleased by what they had learnt of Christ; it is probable that St. Paul sent Aquila and Prisca from Ephesus to give them definite instruction. It does not seem that they had been visited by an apostle (xv. 20). The Epistle is addressed to a community consisting of Jews and Gentiles, but the Gentiles are by far the more numerous.
The apostle"s claim in ch. i. to address this Church as within the jurisdiction of "the apostle of the Gentiles," his direct appeal to the Gentiles in xi. 13, and the statement of his priestly office exercised over the Gentiles in xv. 16, show that the Church of Rome was Gentile in character. The proper names in the Epistle afford us little indication of the proportion of Jews and Gentiles. The majority of the names are Greek, and four names are Latin; but the Jews of that time, like the {162} Jews of the present day, often pa.s.sed under Gentile names. We know how the English Jews now disguise Moses as "Moss" Judah as "Leo," and Levi as "Lewis."
The majority of the converts were probably in a humble social position.
When St. Paul wrote to the Philippians, there were Christians in the imperial household itself, and it is possible that the Narcissus mentioned in Romans may be the freedman of the Emperor Claudius, put to death in A.D. 54. Ordinary slaves and freedmen seem to have been the princ.i.p.al element among those who were first "called to be saints" at Rome, but before long there were people of good birth and cultured intelligence who turned gladly from the lifeless old Roman religion and the fantastic new-fashioned Eastern cults to this original faith in the incarnate G.o.d.
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
St. Paul wrote this letter towards the end of his stay at Corinth, at the close of A.D. 55 or the beginning of A.D. 56 (see xvi. 1; xv.
23-26, and Acts xix. 21).