[184] 3. LETTER TO THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. Paul saw that his vision of the Church that should unite the civilised world was a vain dream, if it were to be bound by the fetters of Judaism; and he felt, as soon as he heard of this defection, that it must be met at once. If these Churches, his first foundations towards the west, were to pass under the party of slavery, his work was ruined at its inception: the blow to his policy and his influence was ruinous. One of the arguments by which the change had been produced was especially galling to him: his efforts at conciliation were taken advantage of to distort his motives, and to represent him as inconsistent and temporising, and his attempts to soothe the prejudices of the Judaistic party were treated as attempts at compromise. Hence he bursts forth at the outset in a strain of terrific vehemence (which I purposely give as far as possible in Lightfoot's language): "Though we (i.e., Silas and 1), or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we have told you before, so now once more I say, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. What! does my boldness startle you? Is this, I ask, the language of a time-server? Will any one say now that, careless of winning the favour of God, I seek to conciliate men, to ingratiate myself with men? I speak thus strongly, for my [185] language shall not be misconstrued, shall wear no semblance of compromise"(Gal. I 8-10). And towards the end of his letter he returns to the same point: "What! do I who have incurred the deadly hatred of the Judaisers, who am exposed to continual persecution from them, do I preach circumcision? If so, why do they persecute me? Surety what scandalises them in my teaching, the crucifixion with its atonement for sin, has been done away with, if I have, as they say, taken to their method, and begun to preach circumcision"(V 11).

Satisfied with the vehemence of the first outburst, and the sarcasm .of the second, Paul wastes no argument to prove that he has been consistent throughout. He knows that the Galatic Churches cannot really believe that part of his adversaries'arguments: they feel in their hearts that he has always been true to the first Gospel; and he proceeds to remind them of its origin and its hold on them, in order to enforce the conclusion that they must cling to the first Gospel, whoever it be that preaches any other. His argument, therefore, is directed to show that he came among them in the beginning with a message direct from God: "the Gospel which was preached by me is not after man"(I 11): "it came to me through revelation of Jesus". Then he proceeds to show, by appealing to the facts, that he had not had the opportunity of learning anything from the recognised pillars of the Church. When it pleased God to reveal Jesus in him, bitter enemy of the Church as he was, he "conferred not with flesh and blood,"but went away for solitary meditation into Arabia. He was made by God His Apostle to the Nations years before he conferred with any of the Apostles. Twice at a later date did [186] he go up to Jerusalem, in one case remaining fifteen days and seeing only Peter and James, in the second going up at the Divine command to help the poor at Jerusalem (II 10)-on which occasion, as a matter of fact, no injunction was laid on his Greek assistant Titus to accept the Judaic rite-and receiving the recognition of his Apostleship, but no instruction, from the heads of the Church (p. 56 f.).

Here in passing let us ask the question, Did Paul in this autobiographical sketch, given in such solemn yet vehement style, with the oath by God that he is not deceiving them-did Paul, I say, omit to mention that he had paid another visit to Jerusalem between the two that he describes? The question seems almost an insult; yet many scholars of the highest order consider that he here leaves out of sight the visit described by Luke, XI 28-30, and XII 25. I confess that, after studying all that the orthodox scholars say on this point I find a higher conception of Paul's character and truthfulness in the position of the critics who conclude that Luke utterly misconceived the sequence of events in early Christian history and interpolated an intermediate visit where no visit occurred, than in Bishop Lightfoot's position that "of this visit Paul makes no mention here". Paul 's argument is rounded on the rarity of his visits, and his aim is to show that on these visits he received no charge from the Twelve. Reason and truth rebel against the idea that he left out the middle visit. If he passed over part of the facts here, what situation can be imagined in which he would feel obliged to tell all the facts? And on that supposition, that Paul omitted a fact so essential to his purpose and to honest [187] autobiography, the entire body of orthodox scholars have built up their theory of early Church history! It cannot be! Luke's second visit must be Paul's second visit; and when we build boldly on that plain foundation, the history rises before us in order and symmetry.

But further, it is obvious that Paul appeals with absolute confidence to this second visit as proving his ease: he evidently conceives that he has merely to recall the facts to the Galatians in order to make all clear. Now, there is one situation in which a man is obviously not receiving from others, and that is when he is actually giving to them: that was the situation on the second visit according to Luke, and that explains Paul's confidence in appealing to his second visit.

Again, Paul knew that he had clever and skillful arguers to contend against. How could he expose himself to the retort that he was missing out the intermediate visit to Jerusalem? How could he feel confident that the Galatians, who had already shown themselves so liable to be deceived by specious arguments, would be able at once to reply to that obvious retort?

Finally, Paul, as an honest and rational man, could not appeal to the events of the third visit according to Luke, as proving beyond question that he received on that occasion no charge from the Apostles. He did receive a charge then, and he delivered that charge to the Churches.

Why, then, it may be objected, does Paul not mention his third visit? The answer is obvious. He is engaged in proving that, when he gave his first message to the Churches of Galatia, he had never received any charge from the older Apostles. His whole point is: "Cleave to my first message, which came direct from God: if Silas [188] and I afterwards said anything inconsistent with that message, we are accursed". The third visit to Jerusalem did not take place until after the Galatian Churches were rounded, and therefore it could find no place in the autobiographical retrospect of I 12-II 10; but it is clearly implied in the scornful and impetuous sentence, I 8: "Even if Silas and I (as these emissaries have been telling you), if an angel from heaven, should preach to you a Gospel contrary to that which we originally preached to you, a curse be upon us".

After this autobiographical sketch, Paul refers to an instance which showed very strongly his independence in face of the leading Apostle Peter, and then passes on to the third and main argument of his adversaries, rounded on the supposed grades in Christian life. His line of reply is to bring out in various ways the truth that the Judaistic form is the lower stage, and the Gospel of freedom which had been delivered to the Galatians the higher stage. The Law alone was not sufficient for salvation, inasmuch as Christ had died to supplement its deficiency; therefore life according to the Law could not be the highest stage of Christian life. How could the Galatians be so foolish as to think that, having begun in the Spirit, their higher stage of development would be in the flesh (III 3)? The Christians who have entered through the Spirit are the children of the free woman, but the Judaistic Christians are the children of the bond woman and lower in rank (IV 31). The latter may rise to be free, but, if the former sink under bondage to the Law, they sacrifice their Christianity. The Judaistic Christians are children under care of a pedagogue, who have to be raised by Christ to the full growth and freedom (III 23-4). In a variety of [189] other striking and impressive figures the superiority of the free to the Judaistic Christians is illustrated. It cannot be said that there is any reasoning or argument: illustrations are used to bring the Galatians to a clear consciousness of what they have in their own minds. Argument is too external a process; Paul merely points out to the Galatians that "they already know".

As a whole, the letter is an eloquent and powerful claim for freedom of life, freedom of thought, freedom of the individual from external restrictions and regulations, freedom for all to work out their own salvation and develop their own nature: "Ye were called for freedom"(V 13). And towards the conclusion this turns to a glorification of love. Their freedom is freedom to do right, not freedom to do everything; "the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"(V 14). Selfishness, i.e., "the flesh,"is the absolute antithesis of love, i.e., "the Spirit "; and the receiving of Christ is "crucifying the flesh with the passions thereof"(V 24). The essence of the true life lies neither in observing the Law nor in being above the Law, but in building anew one's nature (VI 15).