GALATIANS
339
GALATIANS
zers wish the Galatians to be circumcised. If there is
virtue in the mere cutting of the flesh, the inference
from the argument is that the Judaizers could become
still more perfect by making themselves eunuchs —
mutilating themselves like the priests of t'ybele. lie
writes the epilogue in large letters with his own hand.
Importance of the Epistle. — As it is admitted on all hands that St. Paul wrote the Epistle, and as its authenticity has never been seriously called in ques- tion, it is important, not only for its biographical data and direct teaching, but also for the teaching implied in it as being known at the time. He claims, at least indirectly, to have worked miracles amongst the Gala- tians, and that they received the Holy Ghost (iii, 5), almost in the words of St. Luke as to the events at Ico- nium (Acts, xiv, 3). It is the Catholic doctrine that faith is a gratuitous gift of God; but it is the teaching of the Church, as it is of St. Paul, that the faith that is of any avail is " faith that worketh by charity" (Gal., V, 6) ; and he states most emphatically that a good life is necessary for salvation; for, after enumerating the works of the flesh, he writes (v, 21), "Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." In vi, 8, he writes: " For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting." The same teaching is found in others of his Epistles, and is in perfect agreement with St. James: "For even as tlie body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead" (James, ii, 26). The Epistle implies that the Galatians were well acquainted with the doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, Incarnation, Redemption, Baj)- tism, Grace, etc. As he had never to defend his teaching on these points against Judaizers, and as the Epistle is so early, it is clear that his teaching was identical with that of the Twelve, and did not, even in appearance, lend itself to attack.
Date of the Epistle. — (1) Marcion asserted that it was the first of St. Paul's Epistles. Prof. Sir W. Ramsay (Expositor, Aug., 1895, etc.) and a Catholic professor. Dr. Valentin Weber (see below), maintain that it was written from Antioch, before the council (a. D- 49-50). Weber's arguments are very plausi- ble, but not quite convincing. There is a good sum- mar}' of them in a review by Gayford, "Journal of Theological Studies", July, 1902. The two visits to Galatia are the double journey to Derbe and back. This solution is oR'ered to obviate apparent discrepan- cies between Gal., ii, and Acts, xv. (2) Cornely and the majority of the upholders of the South-Galatian theory suppose, with much greater probability, that it was written about a. d. 53, 54. (3) Those who defend the North-Galatian theory place it as late as a. d. 57 or 58.
Difficulties of Gal., ii and i. — (a) "I went up . . . and communicated to them the gospel . . . lest perhaps I should run, or had run in vain. " This does not imply any doubt about the truth of his teaching, but he wanted to neutralize the opposition of the Judaizers by proving he was at one with the others.
(b) The following have the appearance of being iron- ical : — " I communicated ... to them who seemed to be some thing" (ii, 2); "But of them who seemed to be something ... for to me they that seemed to be some- thing added nothing" (ii, 6); "But contrariwise . . . James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars ". Here we have three expressions toU SoKovaif in verse 2; Tuv boKovvTijiv ihal Ti, and o! SoKoCi/rts in verse 6; and oi 5oKo\ivTt$ <ttv\oi ehat in verse 9. Non-Catholic scholars agree with St. John Chrysostom that there is nothing ironical in the original context. As the verbs are in the present tense, the translations should be: "those who are in repute"; "who are (rightly) regarded as pillars". It is better to under-
stand, with Rendall, that two classes of persons are
meant: first, the leading men at Jerusalem; secondly,
the three Apostles. St. Paul's argument was to show
that his teaching had the approval of the great men.
St. James is mentioned first because the Judaizers
made the greatest use of his name and example.
" But of them who are in repute (what they were some
time, it is nothing to me. God accepteth not the
person of man)", verse 6. St. Augustine is almost alone
in his interpretation that it made no matter to St.
Paul that the Apostles were once poor ignorant men.
Others hold that St. Paul was referring to the privi-
lege of being personal disciples of our Lord. He said
that that did not alter the fact of his Apostolate, as
God does not regard the person of men. Most prob-
ably this verse does not refer to the Apostles at all;
and Cornely supposes that St. Paul is speaking of the
elevated position held by the presbyters at the coun-
cil, and insists that it did not derogate from his Apos-
tolate.
(c) "/ withstood Cephas". — "But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was blamed [KaTcyvuiafi^vo!, perf. part. — not, "to be blamed", as in Vulg.]. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimu- lation. But when I saw that they walked not up- rightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (ii, 11-14). Here St. Peter was found fault with, probably by the Greek converts. He did not with- draw on account of bodily fear, saj's St. John Chrys- ostom; but as his special mission was at this time to the Jews, he was afraid of shocking them who were still weak in the Faith. His usual manner of acting, to which he was led by his vision many }-ears pre- viously, shows that his exceptional withdrawal was not due to any error of doctrine. He had motives like those which induced St. Paul to circumcise Timothy, etc. ; and there is no proof that in acting upon them he committed the slightest sin. Those who came from James probably came for no evil purpose ; nor does it follow they were sent by him. The Apostles in their letter (Acts, xv, 24) say: "Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you ... to whom we gave no commandment". We need not suppose that St. Peter foresaw the effect of his example. The whole thing must have taken some time. St. Paul did not at first object. It was only when he saw the result that he spoke. The silence of St. Peter shows that he must have agreed with St. Paul; and, indeed, the argument to the Galatians required that this was the case. St. Peter's exalted position is indicated by the manner in which St. Paul says (i, IS) that he went to behold Peter, as people go to view some remarkable sight ; and by the fact that in spite of the preaching of St. Paul and Barnabas for a long time at Antioch, his mere withdrawal was suffi- cient to draw all after him, and in a manner compel the Gentiles to be circumcised. In the expression "when I saw that they walked not uprightly", they does not necessarily include St. Peter. The incident is not mentioned in the Acts, as it was only transitory. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., I, xii) says that St. Clement of Alexandria, in the fifth book of the 'TTroTUTriio-eis (Out- lines), asserts that this Cephas was not the Apostle, but one of the seventy disciples. Clement here has few followers.
A very spirited controversy was carried on be- tween St. Jerome and St. Augustine about the inter- pretation of this passage. In his "Commentary on the Galatians", St. Jerome, following earlier writers
