Albert Barnes Commentary Galatians 1

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE GALATIANS: INTRODUCTION

THE SITUATION OF GALATIA, AND THE CHARACTER OF THE PEOPLE

I. GALATIA was a province of Asia Minor, having Pontus on the east, Bithynia and Paphlagonia on the north, Cappadocia and Phrygia on the south, and Phrygia on the west. See the map prefixed to the Acts of the Apostles. In Tanner's Classical Atlas, however, it extends on the north to the Euxine or Black Sea. It was probably about two hundred miles in its greatest extent from east to west, and varied in breadth from twelve to a hundred and fifty miles.

It was one of the largest provinces of Asia Minor and covered an area almost as large as the State of New Jersey. It is probable, however, that the boundaries of Galatia varied at different times as circumstances dictated. It had no natural boundary, except on the north; and of course, the limits may have been varied by conquests, or by the will of the Roman emperor, when it was erected into a province.

The name Galatia is derived from the word Gaul and was given to it because it had been conquered by the Gauls, who, after subduing the country, settled in it (Pausanias, Attica, chapter 4). These were mixed with various Grecian families, and the country was also called Gallograecia (Justin, book 24, chapter 4; book 25, chapter 2; book 27, chapter 3). This invasion of Asia Minor was made, according to Justin (book 25, chapter 2), about the 479th year after the founding of Rome, and, of course, about 272 years before Christ. They invaded Macedonia and Greece, and subsequently invaded Asia Minor, becoming an object of terror to all that region.

This expedition issued from Gaul, passed over the Rhine, along the Danube, through Noricum, Pannonia, and Moesia, and at its entrance into Germany, carried many of the Tectosages with it. On their arrival in Thrace, Lutarius took them with him, crossed the Bosphorus, and effected the conquest of Asia Minor (Livy, book 38, chapter 16). Such was their number, that Justin says, "they filled all Asia (that is, all Asia Minor) like swarms of bees."

Finally, they became so numerous that no kings of the East could engage in war without an army of Gauls; nor, when driven from their kingdom, could they flee to any other than to the Gauls. Such was the terror of the name of Gauls, and such the invincible success of their arms—et armorum invicta felicitas erat—that they supposed that in no other way could their own majesty be protected, or, if lost, be recovered, without the aid of Gallic courage.

"Their being called in by the king of Bithynia for aid, when they had gained the victory, they divided the kingdom with him, and called that region Gallograecia" (Justin, book 25, chapter 2). Under the reign of Augustus Caesar, about 26 years before the birth of Christ, this region was reduced to the form of a Roman colony and was governed by a proprietor appointed by the emperor. Their original Gaulish language they retained as late as the fifth century, as appears from the testimony of Jerome, who says that their dialect was nearly the same as that of the Treviri (Tome 4, page 256, Benedictine edition). At the same time, they also spoke the Greek language in common with all the inhabitants of Asia Minor; therefore, the epistle to them was written in Greek and was intelligible to them as well as to others.

The Galatians, like the inhabitants of the surrounding country, were heathens, and their religion was of a gross and debasing kind. They are said to have worshipped "the mother of the gods" under the name of Agdistis. Callimachus, in his hymns, calls them "a foolish people." And Hilary, himself a Gaul, calls them Gallos indociles—expressions which, says Calmet, may well excuse Paul's addressing them as "foolish" (Galatians 3:1). There were few cities to be found among them, with the exception of Ancyra, Tavium, and Pessinus, which carried on some trade.

The possessors of Galatia were of three different nations or tribes of Gauls: the Tolistobogi, the Trocmi, and the Tectosages. Imperial medals are extant on which these names are found. It is of some importance to bear in mind these distinctions. It is possible that while Peter was making converts in one part of Galatia, the apostle Paul was in another; and that some, claiming authority as from Peter, propagated opinions not conformable to the views of Paul, to correct and expose which was one design of this epistle (Calmet).

The Gauls are mentioned by ancient historians as a tall and valiant people. They went nearly naked. Their arms were only a sword and buckler. The impetuosity of their attack, it is said, was irresistible, and hence they became so formidable and were usually so victorious. It is not possible to ascertain the number of the inhabitants of Galatia at the time when the gospel was preached there, or when this epistle was written.

In 2 Maccabees 8:20, it is said that Judas Maccabeus, exhorting his followers to fight manfully against the Syrians, referred to several instances of Divine interposition to encourage them, and among others, "he told them of the battle which they had in Babylon with the Galatians; how they came but eight thousand in all to the business, with four thousand Macedonians; and that the Macedonians being perplexed, the eight thousand destroyed a hundred and twenty thousand, because of the help which they had from Heaven, and so received a great booty." But it is not certain that this refers to those who dwelt in Galatia.

It may refer to Gauls who at that time had overrun Asia Minor; the Greek word here used, galatav, being taken equally for either. It is evident, however, that there was a large population that went under this general name, and it is probable that Galatia was thickly settled at the time when the gospel was preached there.

It was in a central part of Asia Minor, then one of the most densely populated parts of the world, and was a region singularly fertile (Strabo, book 12, pages 567, 568, Casaubon edition). Many persons were also attracted there for the sake of commerce. That there were many Jews also in all the provinces of Asia Minor is apparent not only from the Acts of the Apostles but is expressly declared by Josephus (Antiquities 16.6).

II. THE TIME WHEN THE GOSPEL WAS PREACHED IN GALATIA

There is no certain information as to the time when the gospel was first preached in Galatia, or the persons by whom it was done. There is mention, however, of Paul having preached there several times. Several circumstances lead us to suppose that those churches were established by him, or that he was the first to carry the gospel to them, or that he and Barnabas together preached the gospel there on the mission on which they were sent from Antioch (Acts 13:2 and following).

In Acts 16:5-6, it is expressly said that they went "throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia." This journey was for the purpose of confirming the churches and was undertaken at the suggestion of Paul (Acts 15:36), with the design of visiting their brethren in every city where they had preached the word of the Lord.

It is true that in the account of the mission of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14), it is not expressly said that they went into Galatia. However, it is said (Acts 14:5–6) that when they were in Iconium, an assault was made on them, or a purpose formed to stone them, and that, being apprised of it, they fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, "and unto the region that lieth round about." Pliny (book 5, chapter 27) says that a part of Lycaonia bordered on Galatia and contained fourteen cities, of which Iconium was the most celebrated. Phrygia also was contiguous to Galatia and to Lycaonia. These circumstances make it probable that when Paul proposed to Barnabas to visit again the churches where they had preached, Galatia was included, and that they had been there before this visit referred to in Acts 16:6.

It may also be that Paul refers to himself in the epistle (Galatians 1:6), where he says, "I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that CALLED YOU into the grace of Christ unto another gospel;" and if so, then it is plain that he preached to them first and founded the churches there.

The same thing may also be demonstrated from the expression in Galatians 4:15, where he says, "I bear you record, that if it had been possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me;" an expression which leads us to suppose that they had formed a peculiar attachment for him because he had first preached the gospel to them, and that all the ardor of attachment implied in their first love had existed.

It is quite evident, therefore, I think, that the gospel was first preached among the Galatians by Paul, either alone or in company with some other one of the apostles. It is possible, however, as has been intimated above, that Peter also may have preached in one part of Galatia at the time that Paul was preaching in other parts.

It is also a circumstance of some importance on this point that Paul speaks in this epistle in a tone of authority and with a severity of reproof which he would hardly have used unless he had first preached there, had a right to be regarded as the founder of the church, and could address it as its father.

In this respect, the tone here is quite different, as Mr. Locke has remarked, from what is observable in the Epistle to the Romans. Paul had not been at Rome when he addressed the church there by letter, and his language differs materially from that which occurs in the epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians. To them, it was the very respectful and mild language of a stranger; here it is respectful, but it is in the authoritative language of a father having a right to reprove.

III. THE DATE OF THIS EPISTLE

Many have supposed that this was the first epistle Paul wrote. Tertullian maintained this (see Lardner, volume 6, page 7, London edition, 1829), and Epiphanius also. Theodoret and others suppose it was written at Rome, and consequently was written near the close of Paul's life, and was one of his last epistles. Lightfoot also supposes that it was written from Rome and that it was among the first Paul wrote there. Chrysostom says that this epistle was written before that to the Romans. Lewis Capellus, Witsius, and Wall suppose that it was written from Ephesus after the apostle had been a second time in Galatia.

This was also the opinion of Pearson, who places it in the year 57, after the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and before Paul left Ephesus. Grotius thought it difficult to assign the date of the epistle but conjectures that it was written about the same time as that to the Romans. Mill supposes that it was not written until after that to the Romans, probably at Troas, or some other place in Asia, as Paul was going to Jerusalem. He dates the epistle in the year 58. Dr. Benson supposes that it was written at Corinth when the apostle was first there and made a long stay of a year and six months. While there, he supposes that Paul received news of the instability of the converts in Galatia, and wrote this epistle and sent it by one of his assistants. (See these opinions examined in Lardner as quoted above).

Lardner himself supposes that it was written from Corinth about the year 52, or the beginning of the year 53. Macknight supposes it was written from Antioch, after the council at Jerusalem, and before Paul and Silas undertook the journey in which they delivered to the churches the decrees which were ordained at Jerusalem (Acts 16:4). Hug, in his Introduction, supposes that it was written at Ephesus in the year 57, and after 1 and 2 Thessalonians and the Epistle to Titus had been written. Mr. Locke supposes that Paul established churches in Galatia in the year 51 and that this epistle was written between that time and the year 57. These opinions are mostly mere conjecture; and amidst such a variety of sentiment, it is evidently impossible to determine exactly when it was written.

The only mark of time in the epistle itself occurs in Galatians 1:6, where the apostle says, "I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you," etc.; where the words "so soon" (Greek: οὕτω ταχέως) would lead us to suppose that it was at no distant period after he had been among them. Still, it might have been several years. The date assigned to it in the Polyglot Bible (Bagster's) is the year 58. The exact date of the epistle is of very little importance.

Regarding the time when it was written, the only arguments that seem to me to be of much weight are those advanced by Paley in his Horae Paulinae. "It will hardly be doubted," he says, "but that it was written whilst the dispute concerning the circumcision of Gentile converts was fresh in men's minds; for even supposing it to have been a forgery, the only credible motive that can be assigned for the forgery, was to bring the name and authority of the apostle into this controversy."

"No design can be so insipid, or so unlikely to enter into the thoughts of any man, as to produce an epistle written earnestly and pointedly on one side of a controversy, when the controversy itself was dead, and the question no longer interesting to any class of readers whatever. Now the controversy concerning the circumcision of Gentiles was of such a nature, that, if it arose at all, it must have arisen in the beginning of Christianity."

Paley then goes on to show that it was natural that the Jews, and converts from the Jews, should start this question and agitate it; and that this was much more likely to be insisted on while the temple was standing, they continued as a nation, and sacrifices were offered, than after their city and temple were destroyed. It is therefore clear that the controversy must have been started, and the epistle written before the invasion of Judea by Titus and the destruction of Jerusalem. The internal evidence leads to this conclusion.

On the whole, it is probable that the epistle was written somewhere about the year 53, or between that and 57, and was evidently designed to settle an important controversy in the churches of Galatia. The place where it was written must be, I think, wholly a matter of conjecture. The subscription at the end, that it was written from Rome, is of no authority whatever; and there are no internal circumstances which, so far as I can see, throw any light on the subject.

IV. THE DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE

It is easy to discern from the epistle itself that the following circumstances existed in the churches of Galatia, and that it was written with reference to them:

1. That they had at first been devotedly attached to the apostle Paul and had received his commands and instructions with implicit confidence when he was among them (Galatians 4:14–15).
2. That they had been perverted from the doctrine which he taught them soon after he had left them (Galatians 1:6).
3. That this had been done by persons who were of Jewish origin and who insisted on the observance of the rites of the Jewish religion.
4. That they claimed to have come directly from Jerusalem and to have derived their views of religion and their authority from the apostles there.
5. That they taught that the apostle Paul was inferior to the apostles there; that he had been called more recently into the apostolic office; that the apostles at Jerusalem must be regarded as the source of authority in the Christian church; and that, therefore, the teaching of Paul should yield to that which was derived directly from Jerusalem.
6. That the laws of Moses were binding and were necessary for justification. That the rite of circumcision especially was of binding obligation; and it is probable (Galatians 6:12) that they had prevailed on many of the Galatians to be circumcised, and certain that they had induced them to observe the Jewish festivals (Galatians 4:10).
7. It would seem, also, that they urged that Paul himself had changed his views since he had been among the Galatians and now maintained the necessity of circumcision (Galatians 5:11). Perhaps they alleged this from the undoubted fact that Paul, when at Jerusalem (Acts 21:26), had complied with some of the customs of the Jewish ritual.
8. That they urged that all the promises of God were made to Abraham and that whoever would partake of those promises must be circumcised as Abraham was. This Paul answers (Galatians 3:7; Galatians 4:7).
9. That in consequence of the promulgation of these views, great dissensions had arisen in the church, and strifes of an unhappy nature existed, greatly contrary to the spirit which should be manifested by those who bore the Christian name.

From this description of the state of things in the churches of Galatia, the design of the epistle is apparent, and the scope of the argument will be easily seen. The apostle had undoubtedly been apprised of this state of things, but whether by letters or by messengers from the churches there is not declared. It is not improbable that some of his friends in the churches there had informed him of it, and he immediately set about remedying the evils existing there.

1. The first object, therefore, was to show that he had received his commission as an apostle directly from God. He had not received it at all from man; he had not even been instructed by the other apostles; he had not acknowledged their superiority; he had not even consulted them.

   He did not acknowledge, therefore, that the apostles at Jerusalem possessed any superior rank or authority. His commission, though he had not seen the Lord Jesus before He was crucified, he had nevertheless derived immediately from Him. The doctrine, therefore, which he had taught them—that the Mosaic laws were not binding and that there was no necessity of being circumcised—was a doctrine that had been derived directly from God.

   In proof of this, he goes into an extended statement (Galatians 1) of the manner in which he had been called; of the fact that he had not consulted with the apostles at Jerusalem or confessed his inferiority to them; of the fact that when they had become acquainted with the manner in which he preached, they approved his course (Galatians 1:24; Galatians 2:1–10); and of the fact that on one occasion, he had actually been constrained to differ from Peter, the oldest of the apostles, on a point in which Peter was manifestly wrong, and on one of the very points then under consideration.

2. The second great object, therefore, was to show the real nature and design of the law of Moses, and to prove that the peculiar rites of the Mosaic ritual, especially the rite of circumcision, were not necessary to justification and salvation; and that those who observed that rite did in fact renounce the scriptural method of justification, make the sacrifice of Christ of no value, and make slaves of themselves. This leads him into a consideration of the true nature of the doctrine of justification and of the way of salvation by a Redeemer.

   This point he shows in the following way:

   1. By showing that those who lived before Christ, and especially Abraham, were in fact justified, not by obedience to the ritual law of Moses, but by faith in the promises of God (Galatians 3:1–18).
   2. By showing that the design of the Mosaic ritual was only temporary and that it was intended to lead to Christ (Galatians 3:19–29; Galatians 4:1–8).
   3. In view of this, he reproves the Galatians for having so readily fallen into the observance of these customs (Galatians 4:9–21).
   4. This view of the design of the Mosaic law, and of its tendency, he illustrates by an allegory drawn from the case of Hagar (Galatians 4:21–31).

   This whole discourse is succeeded by an affectionate exhortation to the Galatians to avoid the evils which had been engendered; reproving them for the strifes existing in consequence of the attempt to introduce the Mosaic rites, and earnestly entreating them to stand firm in the liberty which Christ had granted to them from the servitude of the Mosaic institutions (Galatians 5 and 6).

The design of the whole epistle, therefore, is to state and defend the true doctrine of justification and to show that it did not depend on the observance of the laws of Moses. In this general purpose, therefore, it accords with the design of the Epistle to the Romans. In one respect, however, it differs from the design of that epistle.

That was written to show that man could not be justified by any works of the law, or by conformity to any law, moral or ceremonial; the object of this is to show that justification cannot be obtained by conformity to the ritual or ceremonial law, or that the observance of the ceremonial law is not necessary for salvation.

In this respect, therefore, this epistle is of less general interest than that to the Romans. It is also, in some respects, more difficult. The argument, if I may so express myself, is more Jewish. It is more in the Jewish manner, is designed to meet a Jew in his own way, and is, therefore, somewhat more difficult for all to follow. Still, it contains great and vital statements on the doctrines of salvation and, as such, demands the profound and careful attention of all who desire to be saved and who would know the way of acceptance with God.

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS

The main design of Paul in this chapter is to show that he had received his call to the apostleship not from man, but from God. It had been alleged (see the Introduction) that the apostles at Jerusalem possessed the most elevated rank and the highest authority in the Christian church; that they were to be regarded as the fountains and the judges of the truth; that Paul was inferior to them as an apostle; and that those who inculcated the necessity of circumcision and the observance of the rites of Moses were sustained by the authority and the examples of the apostles at Jerusalem.

To meet this statement was the design of this first chapter. Paul's grand object was to show that he was not appointed by men; that he had not been commissioned by men; that he had not derived his instructions from men; that he had not even consulted with them; but that he had been commissioned and taught expressly by Jesus Christ; and that when the apostles at Jerusalem had become acquainted with him, and with his views and plans of labor, long after he had begun to preach, they had fully concurred with him. This argument comprises the following parts:

1. The solemn declaration that he was not commissioned by men, and that he was not, in any sense, an apostle of man, together with the general salutation to the churches in Galatia (Galatians 1:1–5).
2. The expression of his astonishment that the Galatians had so soon forsaken his instructions and embraced another gospel; and a solemn declaration that whoever preached another gospel was to be held accursed (Galatians 1:6–10). Twice he anathematizes those who attempt to declare any other way of justification than that which consisted in faith in Christ, and says that it was no gospel at all. It was to be held as a great and fixed principle that there was but one way of salvation; and no matter who attempted to preach any other, he was to be held accursed.
3. To show, therefore, that he was not appointed by men, and that he had not received his instruction from men, but that he had preached the truth directly revealed to him by God, and that which was therefore immutable and eternal, he goes into a statement of the manner in which he was called into the ministry and made acquainted with the gospel .
   1. He affirms that he was not taught it by man, but by the express revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11–12).
   2. He refers to his former well-known life and his zeal in the Jewish religion, showing how much he had formerly been opposed to the gospel (Galatians 1:13–14).
   3. He says that he had been separated by the Divine purpose from his mother's womb to be a preacher of the gospel; and that when he was called to the ministry, he had no conference with any human being as to what he was to preach. He did not go up to Jerusalem to consult with those who were older apostles but retired far from them into Arabia, and from there returned again to Damascus (Galatians 1:15–17).
   4. After three years, he says, he did indeed go to Jerusalem; but he remained there only fifteen days and saw none of the apostles but Peter and James (Galatians 1:18–19). His views of the gospel were formed before that; and that he did not submit implicitly to Peter and learn from him, he shows in chapter 2, where he says he "withstood him to the face."
   5. After that, he says, he departed into the regions of Cilicia in Asia Minor and had no opportunity of conference with the churches which were in Judea. Yet they heard that he who had formerly been a persecutor had become a preacher, and they glorified God for it (Galatians 1:20–24). Of course, he had had no opportunity of deriving his views of religion from them; he had been in no sense dependent on them; but, so far as they were acquainted with his views, they concurred in them. The sum of the argument, therefore, in this chapter is that when Paul went into Cilicia and the adjacent regions, he had never seen but two of the apostles, and that only for a short time; he had never seen the apostles together, and he had never received any instructions from them. His views of the gospel, which he had imparted to the Galatians, he had derived directly from God.

*** Due to space limitations, see Notes on Verses 1 and 2 combined in Notes for Galatians Chapter 1, verse 2.*******

Due to the length of Introductory Material to Chapter, Notes for Verses 1 and 2 have been combined in notes for Verse 2.

Paul, an apostle. (See Barnes on Romans 1:1).

This is the usual form in which he begins his epistles; and it was of special importance to begin this epistle in this manner, because it was one design to vindicate his apostleship, or to show that he had received his commission directly from the Lord Jesus.

Not of men. "Not from ap men." That is, he was not from any group of men, or commissioned by men. The word apostle means sent; and Paul means to say, that he was not sent to execute any purpose of men, or commissioned by them.

His was a higher calling—a calling of God, and he had been sent directly by him. Of course, he means to exclude here all classes of men as having had anything to do in sending him out. Especially, he means to affirm that he had not been sent out by the body of apostles at Jerusalem. This, it will be remembered (see the Introduction), was one of the charges of those who had perverted the Galatians from the faith which Paul had preached to them.

Neither by man. "Neither by or through di the instrumentality of any man." Here he means to exclude all men from having had any agency in his appointment to the apostolic office. He was neither sent out from any group of men to execute their purposes, nor did he receive his commission, authority, or ordination, through the medium of any man.

A minister of the gospel now receives his call from God, but he is ordained or set apart to his office by man. Matthias, the apostle chosen in the place of Judas (Acts 1:17), received his call from God, but it was by the vote of the body of the apostles.

Timothy was also called of God, but he was appointed to his office by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery (1 Timothy 4:14). But Paul here says that he received no such commission as that from the apostles. They were not the means or the medium of ordaining him to his work.

He had, indeed, together with Barnabas, been set apart at Antioch by the brethren there (Acts 13:1–3), for a special mission in Asia Minor; but this was not an appointment to the apostleship. He had been restored to sight after the miraculous blindness produced by seeing the Lord Jesus on the way to Damascus, by the laying on of the hands of Ananias, and had received important instruction from him (Acts 9:17); but his commission as an apostle had been received directly from the Lord Jesus, without any intervening medium, or any form of human authority (Acts 9:15; Acts 22:17–21; 1 Corinthians 9:1).

But by Jesus Christ. That is, directly by Christ. He had been called by him, and commissioned by him, and sent by him, to engage in the work of the gospel.

And God the Father. These words were omitted by Marcion, because, says Jerome, he held that Christ raised himself from the dead. But there is no authority for omitting them. The sense is, that he had the highest possible authority for the office of an apostle; he had been called to it by God himself, who had raised up the Redeemer.

It is remarkable here, that Paul associates Jesus Christ and God the Father as having called and commissioned him. We may ask here, of one who should deny the Divinity of Christ, how Paul could mention him as being equal with God in the work of commissioning him? We may further ask, how could he say that he had not received his call to this office from a man, if Jesus Christ was a mere man? That he was called by Christ he expressly says, and strenuously maintains it as a point of great importance. And yet the very point and drift of his argument is to show that he was not called by man. How could this be if Christ was a mere man?

Who raised him from the dead. (See Barnes on Acts 2:24 and Acts 2:32).

It is not quite clear why Paul introduces this circumstance here. It may have been:

1. Because his mind was full of it, and he wished on all occasions to make that fact prominent.
2. Because this was the distinguishing feature of the Christian religion, that the Lord Jesus had been raised up from the dead; and he wished, in the outset, to present the superiority of that religion which had brought life and immortality to light.
3. Because he wished to show that he had received his commission from that same God who had raised up Jesus, and who was, therefore, the Author of the true religion. His commission was from the Source of life and lights; the God of the living and the dead; the God who was the Author of the glorious scheme which revealed life and immortality.

{*} "of men" "from men" {a} "Jesus Christ"Acts 9:6, 15 {b} "who raised"Acts 2:24

Verse 2. And all the brethren which are with me. It was usual for Paul to associate with him the ministers of the gospel, or other Christians who were with him, in expressing friendly salutations to the churches to which he wrote, or as uniting with him and concurring with the sentiments he expressed. Though Paul claimed to be inspired, yet it would do much to gain favor for what he advanced if others also concurred with what he said, and especially if they were known to the churches to which the epistles were written. Sometimes the names of others were associated with his in the epistle (See Barnes on 1 Corinthians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1).

As we do not know where this epistle was written, of course we are ignorant who the "brethren" were who are here referred to. They may have been ministers with Paul, or they may have been the private members of the churches. Commentators have been much divided in opinion on the subject; but all is conjecture. It is obviously impossible to determine.

Unto the churches. How many churches there were in Galatia is unknown. There were several cities in Galatia, as Ancyra, Tavia, Pessinus, etc. It is not improbable that a church had been established in each of the cities, and as they were not far distant from each other, and the people had the same general character and habits, it is not improbable that they had fallen into the same errors. Hence the epistle is directed to them collectively.

Grace be to you, etc. This is the usual apostolic salutation, imploring for them the blessing of God. See Barnes on Romans 1:7.

Who gave himself for our sins. The reason why Paul so soon introduces this important doctrine, and makes it so prominent here, probably is that this was the cardinal doctrine of the Christian religion—the great truth which was always to be kept before the mind, and because this truth had in fact been lost sight of by them.

They had embraced doctrines that tended to obscure it or make it void. They had been led into error by the Judaizing teachers, who held that it was necessary to be circumcised and to conform to the whole Jewish ritual. Yet the tendency of all this was to obscure the doctrines of the gospel, and particularly the great truth that men can be justified only by faith in the blood of Jesus (Galatians 5:4).

Paul, therefore, wished to make this prominent—the very starting point in their religion; a truth never to be forgotten: that Christ gave himself for their sins, so that he might deliver them from all the bad influences of this world and from all the false systems of religion engendered in this world.

The expression "who gave" (tou dontov) is one that often occurs in relation to the work of the Redeemer, where it is represented as a gift, either on the part of God or on the part of Christ himself.

(Romans 4:25; 2 Corinthians 9:15; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:25; Titus 2:14).

This passage proves:

1. that it was wholly voluntary on the part of the Lord Jesus. No one compelled him to come; no one could compel him. It is not too much to say that God could not, and would not, COMPEL any innocent and holy being to undertake the great work of the atonement and endure the bitter sorrows which were necessary to redeem man. God will compel the guilty to suffer, but he never will compel the innocent to endure sorrows, even on behalf of others. The whole work of redemption must be voluntary, or it could not be performed.
2. It showed great benevolence on the part of the Redeemer. He did not come to take upon himself unknown and unsurveyed woes. He did not go to work in the dark. He knew what was to be done. He knew just what sorrows were to be endured—how long, how keen, how awful. And yet, knowing this, he came resolved and prepared to endure all those woes and to drink the bitter cup to the dregs.
3. If there had not been this benevolence in his heart, man must have perished forever. He could not have saved himself; and he had no power or right to compel another to suffer in his behalf; and even God would not lay this mighty burden on any other, unless he was entirely willing to endure it.

How much, then, do we owe to the Lord Jesus; and how entirely should we devote our lives to him who loved us and gave himself for us! The word "himself" is rendered by the Syriac his life (Naphshe), and this is in fact the sense of the Greek: that he gave his life for our sins, or that he died in our place.

He gave his life up to toil, tears, privation, sorrow, and death, so that he might redeem us. The phrase, "for our sins" (uper twn amartiwn hmwn), means the same as on account of; meaning, that the cause or reason why he gave himself to death was our sins; that is, he died because we are sinners, and because we could be saved only by his giving himself up to death.

Many manuscripts, instead of uper, here read peri, but the sense is not materially varied. The Syriac translates it, "who gave himself instead of," by a word denoting that there was a substitution of the Redeemer in our place. The sense is that the Lord Jesus became a vicarious offering and died in the place of sinners. It is not possible to express this idea more distinctly and unambiguously than Paul has done in this passage. Sin was the procuring cause of his death; to make expiation for sin was the design of his coming; and sin is pardoned and removed only by his substituted suffering.

That he might deliver us. The word used here, exelhtai, properly means to pluck out, to tear out; to take out from a number, to select; then to rescue or deliver. This is the sense here. He came and gave himself that he might rescue or deliver us from this present evil world. It does not mean to take away by death, or to remove to another world, but that he might effect a separation between us and what the apostle calls here, "this present evil world." The grand purpose was to rescue sinners from the dominion of this world and separate them to God.

This present evil world. . Locke supposes that by this phrase is intended the Jewish institutions, or the Mosaic age, in contrast to the age of the Messiah. Bloomfield supposes that it means "the present state of being, this life, filled as it is with calamity, sin, and sorrow; or, rather, the sin itself, and the misery consequent upon it." Rosenmuller understands by it, "the men of this age, Jews, who reject the Messiah; and Pagans, who are devoted to idolatry and crime." The word rendered world, aiwn, means properly age, an indefinitely long period of time; then eternity, forever.

It then comes to mean the world, either present or future; and then the present world, as it is, with its cares, temptations, and desires—the idea of evil, physical and moral, being everywhere implied (Robinson, Lex.; Matthew 13:22; Luke 16:8; Luke 20:34; Romans 12:2). Here it means the world as it is, without religion: a world of bad passions, false opinions, corrupt desires; a world full of ambition, and of the love of pleasure and of gold; a world where God is not loved or obeyed; a world where men are regardless of right, truth, and duty; where they live for themselves and not for God—in short, that great community which in the Scriptures is called THE WORLD, in contrast to the kingdom of God.

That world, that evil world, is full of sin; and the object of the Redeemer was to deliver us from that; that is, to effect a separation between his followers and that world. It follows, therefore, that his followers constitute a peculiar community, not governed by the prevailing maxims or influenced by the peculiar feelings of the people of this world. And it follows, also, that if there is not in fact such a separation, then the purpose of the Redeemer's death, in regard to us, has not been effected, and we are still a part of that great and ungodly community, the world.

According to the will of God, etc. Not by the will of man, or by his wisdom, but in accordance with the will of God. It was his purpose that the Lord Jesus should thus give himself; and his doing it was in accordance with his will and was pleasing in his sight. The whole plan originated in the Divine purpose and has been executed in accordance with the Divine will. If in accordance with his will, it is good and is worthy of universal acceptance.

Cross-references:

• For deliver us: John 17:14
• For evil world: 1 John 2:16
• For according: Romans 8:27

To whom be glory, etc. Let him have all the praise and honour of the plan and its execution. It is not uncommon for Paul to introduce an ascription of praise in the midst of an argument. (See the notes on Romans 1:25.)

This practice results from the strong desire he had that all glory should be given to God—a desire that also showed his belief that all blessings had their origin in God, and that God should always be acknowledged.