Lightfoot and Salmon bring the Ep. down a few months later, and date it from Corinth early in the year A.D. 58. The resemblances between Gal and 2 Co and Eo are obvious. The ideas suggested in Gal 3 and 4 regarding the Spirit as the promise of the Father, and as the true emancipator and sign of sonship, are elaborated in Ro 8. The impossibility of salvation by works, or of finding anything but a curse in the law», is taken up again in Ro and e.xpounded at large. But neither can there be any doubt regarding the priority of the Ep. to the Galatians. The similarity and dis- similarity between the two Epp. are of that kind which tends to show that the Ep. to the GaL could not have been written either after or con- temporary with the Ep. to the Rom., and that it was not, therefore, a compendium of it ; nor is it probable that it was written very long before it. See Jowett, St. Paul's Epp.' i. 240 (2nd ed. om.).
The similarity to 2 Co is also apparent. There is the same selt-defensive tone and the same in- vective against those teachers who interfered with his work. In Corinth as well as in G. emissaries from Jerus. were at work ; but in the Cor. Ep. no elaborate exposure of their doctrinal error is given. The conflict between himself and the Judaizers has not reached the doctrinal stage. And hence it is argued that the Ep. to the Gal., in which this stage is reached, and in which, together with a defence of his apostolic authority, there is also an elaborate exposure of the error of the Judaizers, must be later than the 2nd to the Corinthians. This conclusion, though not certain, is highly probable.
Recently, however, fresh indications of date have been pointed out by Ramsay and McGifTert. The former in his illuminating papers on the Ep. {Expositor, 1898) argues with much force that it was written from Antioch at the dose of the
second missionary journey (Ac IS*"). It was on that journey St. Paul had circumcised Timothy (Ac 16'"^), and this gave plausibility to the insinua- tion of the Judaizers that when it suited him he preached circumcision (Gal 5"). It was on that journey also he delivered to the Galatians the decrees ordained at Jerus. (Ac 16'), and this might seem to give colour to the allegation that he was the mere messenger of the higher otficials and not himself an apostle (Gal 1. 2). McGilfert, on the other hand, thinks it is unquestionable that in Gal 2 St. Paul is relating events about which the Galatians had no previous knowledge, at least from him ; while it is incredible that he should have visited G. subsequent to these events without speaking of them. On these and other grounds, therefore, McGiflert(ylpwsiui. Age, pp. 227-8) thinks it probable that the Ep. was written from Antioch previous to his departure on the second missionary journey. Subsequently, the Judaizers, whUe they might, as at Antioch, refuse to eat with the Gentiles, could scarcely urge their circumcision without seeming to break with the mother-church.
Contents of the Epistle. — The Epistle divides itself into three almost equal portions — a personal, a doctrinal, and a practical. In the hrst two chapters St. Paul disposes of the insinuations which the Judaizers had made against his authority and standing as an apostle. In the two following chapters he explains the relation of the law to Christ, or of Mosaism to Christianity. And in the closing chapters he refutes the allegation that liberty and licence are the same.
To the disparagement of his apostolic standing, and consequently of the gospel he preached, he makes a threefold reply: (l)He declares himself to be an apostle, not sent merely from a Chris- tian community, or commissioned hy a human authority, but by Jesus Christ ; and this he proves by a brief narrative of his movements subsequent to his conversion, by which it is made apparent that his gospel could not have been learned from men (eh. 1). (2) It was only after he had been preaching for many years that he went at length to confer with the apostles at .Jerus. ; and even then, so far from receiving additional light or being reprimanded, he received from them ac- knowledgment and encouragement (2'"'°). (3) In- stead of being instructed by the older apostles, or being obliged to occupy a subordinate place, he himself had occasion to rebuke St. Peter and assume the position of instructor (2'''").
Ne.xt, St. Paul examines the dogmatic signifi- cance of the demand that the Gentiles should Keep the whole law. And first he appeals to their own experience. As Christian men they had received the Spirit. Had this all - comprehending gift become theirs by the observance of the lawl They knew it was not so ; they had received the Spirit as a gift. Believing God s offer of the Spirit, they had accepted what God gave (S'-"). Nor was this an exceptional or novel experience. It was the same with the typical justified man, Abraham. Whatever he enjoyed of God's favour he had by faith (3'''). Indeed, so far from the law having power to bless, it has only power to curse, and on this account and from this curse Christ came to redeem us (3'"""). Moreover, hundreds of years before the law was heard of, the promise had been given to Abraham, and could not be made of none effect by any subsequently introduced institution. The promise held the field. It was given irrespec- tive of the law, and could not be annulled by it. And yet the law was not superfluous. It had its use. It was added to instruct the conscience, that men might know their sin to be transgression, and might learn to crave righteousness. It was meant to stimulate men to crave the coming of the Spirit.