"he went down to Antioch; and having spent some time there, he went forth, going through in order the Galatic Land ancl Phrygia, Rtabiishing all the disciples." 'fhen, after an interesting parenthesis respecting Apolla9, the historian adds (Acts xix. 1), "Paul having passed through the upper country [that is, the upland plateau in tho northern part of which the Galatic Land and Phrygia were situated], came to Ephesus." At Ephesus, 0,s we learn from verB. 8 and 10, he spent upwards of two years, spreading the knowledge of the gospel far and wide in the province of A.sia; after which he crossed the sea to visit the Churches previously founded by him in Europe.
DATE OF THE APOSTLE'S LEAVING EPHESUS.
In the reference which St. Luke here (Acts xviii. 23) makes to the "Galatic Land," we observe that, mentioning it as before in conjunction with Phrygia, he now reverses the order in which the two districts are named. This suggests the impression that the apostle approached those countries by a different route from before, one which brought him into the Galatic first. This would be the case if he had ascended the plateau from its eastern or Cappadocian side. A few years later there were believ<1rs in Cappadocia so numerous as to call for especial mention by St. Peter in the greeting of his first letter: "To the sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." Before starting for that long continuance in the West which probably he had already in view, St. Paul appears to have been anxious to secure in the first instance, so far as he might, ground already occupied. That he made a poiot of doing this is shown, both by the words, "stablishing all the disciples," and the phrase "going through in order (Ka0E~~);" both expressions point to centres of co11verts already formed. After completing the visitation of the Churches in the Galatic and Phrygia, he probably inspected also the stations of Christian work dotted over other portions of "the upper country ''-for example, in Lycaonia and Pisidia-before descending to tbe lowlands to reach Ephesus. Now, when we consider that this extended tour from Antioch to Ephesus by a circuitous route, involving also frequent deto1'\I"s as well as frequent stpppages necessary in the prosecution of his evangelistic work, means a journey of not much less than a thousand miles, for thA most part probably on foot-the traveller a man of by no means robust health, one subject to attacks of illness-we can hardly suppose but that the greater part of a year at the very least must have elapsed from the time of his leaving Jerusalem before he reached the capital of "Asia." If so, then supposing the visit to Jerusalem to have been A.D. 53 or 54, it was prob11bly not till the spring of 57, perhaps not till the spring of 58 (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 8), that the apostle left Ephesus for Macedonia. xii lNTHODUC'l'ION TO
Wru.T LED TO THE W&rrrNG OF THE EPISTLE.
The manner in which the Epistle opens makes it clear that the apostle nddressed himself to the writing of it under the impulse of strong emotion, excit,ed by tidings from G-alatia which he had newly received. He had learnt to his grief and astonishment that they were giving heed to certain who wonld fain "turn the doctrine of the gospel of Christ into its clean contrary," and yielding themselves to their direction. The seducers probably not strangers, but Churchmen of Galatia itself. Who the sedncers were the apostle nowhere explicitly states. We read in the Acts (xv. 1) that the Judaizing trouble at Antioch, which occasioned the important conference held at Jerusalem, had originated with "certain men coming down from Judaaa." And in the Epistle itself (eh. ii. 12) St. Paul refers to the coming to Antioch of "certain from James" as having, again in that city, led to serious embarrassments indirectly connected with the same great Judaistic controversy. This has suggested to many the surmise that the fomenters of the movement in Galatia, which was manifestly of a Jndaizing character, had likewise come from Jerusalem or from Judaaa, and some have considered that the apostle's reference in the Epistle to such persons having been the cause of the second trouble at Antioch was e. significant though veiled allusion to a similar cause of likewise the Galatian trouble. The existence of this shade of e.llnsion is, however, purely hypo- thetical, having no ground in what is really written. That" the troublers" h&d come from Judrea or from any other place out of Galatia is a conjecture both ungrounded and unnecessary. No hint of this is given in any one of the several references which the apostle makes to them: none in eh. i. 7, nor in eh. iii. 1, nor in eh. iv. 17, nor in eh. v. 10-12, nor in eh. vi. 12, 13. The words (in eh. v. 10), "He that tronbleth yon shall bear his judgment whosoever he be," appear to hint :i, certain eminence of position held by one or more of these mischievous teachers; and possibly this is also alluded to in the words (in eh. i. 8), "Though we or an angel from heaven preach a difierent gospel," etc. ; but the requirement of either passage is amply met by the supposition that one, or more than one, of the Galatian elders or deacons themselves had committed the offence. This would be only in accordance with what we read in Acts xx. 30, where the apostle warns the Ephesian elders that from among their own selves should men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Possibly it may have been this very experience of his, then quite recent, in respect to the Galatian elders, which, together with probably other experiences of a similar kind, prompted that utterance of warning at Miletus. The intimation in eh. v. 12, that it might be a very good thing if those who were UI1Bettling them would even inflict apowpe upon themselves, seems far more appropriate and possible on the supposition that they were Galatians who had fellow-countrymen among the priests of Pessinus, than on the supposition that they were persons belonging to other lands. But most THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.