Cole - Galatians

The Epistle to the Galatians is spiritual dynamite, and it is therefore almost impossible to handle it without explosions. It has often been so in the history of the church. The great spiritual awakening of Martin Luther came as he expounded and studied this Epistle, while it was a sermon on Galatians that brought peace of heart to John Wesley. Small wonder that both of these men dearly loved the book; it spoke directly from Pauls experience to their own. But this letter is not one with a message simply for those of centuries earlier than ours, nor is it an Epistle that can be read in comfortable detachment without personal involvement. At every point it challenges our present-day shallow, easy acceptances and provokes our opposition. It was a controversial letter; and it is vain to expect any commentator, however humble, to avoid controversy when expounding it especially when the issues are just as alive today. The only danger is that we may try to use Gods Word as a big stick wherewith to belabour our theological opponents instead of allowing the exegesis to search our own hearts and condemn our own cherished presuppositions.

What, then, is the Epistle to the Galatians? It is a statement of Pauls gospel, which is also that of the church universal. It is an apologia pro vita sua by the prince of apostles. So far, so good; but already we may be on dangerous ground. For Paul was a man whose orders were not accepted by many of his fellow-countrymen. His claim to apostleship they regarded as unwarranted. More; in its refusal to allow salvation to depend on anything save the work done for helpless man by God almighty, and enjoyed by a faith which is itself the gift of God, it is a cry for Christian freedom. True, this condemns those who make salvation depend on forms and ceremonies as well as on faith in Christ (for the crime of the Judaizers was not that they substituted something for Christs work, but that they tried to add something to it). But it equally condemns those earnest Christians who subconsciously make salvation depend, not only on faith in Christ, but also on the observance of negative moral laws (There are three things I will not do , in the words of the old negro spiritual). Which of us can throw the rst stone?

Furthermore, at the risk of being accused of an anachronism, it could be said that Galatians is a passionate appeal for InterCommunion. The table-fellowship for which Paul fought at Antioch was certainly not restricted to the Lords Table, but it is hard to see how it could have failed to include it. On a matter like this, it is painfully easy to allow our own pet theological or ecclesiastical prejudices to blind our eyes; but Pauls reaction is obvious. He cannot conceive the possibility of two groups of Christians in one place who refuse to eat with each other because of theological scruples (for we wrong the Judaizers if we fail to realize that, whatever we may think about the playacting of Peter and Barnabas, this was a real theological scruple with them).

Again, there seems to be here a recognition that it is possible for the church of God to be one without being uniform in custom, habit, or sphere. Paul never seems to have compelled the Gentile churches to act like Jews; indeed, this is precisely the charge that he brings against the erring Peter. Now those of us with a Reformed background nd this congenial and easy to understand. But it remains equally true that he does not expect Jewish churches to act like Gentile believers; he never says that it is wrong for them to be circumcised, or to keep the law, or to observe the festivals. All he insists is that these things have nothing to do with the gift of salvation. Not only so, but here is also a glad recognition of differences of sphere appointed by God: Paul is to go to the Gentiles; James and the rest are to work among the Jews.