With Introduction and Notes, by Rev. JAMES MACGREGOR, D.D., Professor of
Systematic Theology in the New College, Edinburgh.
THE Epistle to the Galatians is essentially doctrinal in its teaching. The foundations of the faith were being undermined in Galatia by Judaizing teachers, who insisted upon circumcision, and the keeping of the law by converts from heathenism, as necessary for justification. Very strongly then did the Apostle warn the Galatian Christians against such teaching. " Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace " (Gal. 5:4). The matter was a serious, a vital one in his eyes, who travailed in birth again till Christ was formed in them (4: 19). Those teachers were not merely mistaken, they were leading souls really off Christian ground altogether. To Paul this was intolerable, so he writes, He that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be" (v. 10); and "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (1: 8). So any study of this Epistle cannot be conducted aright unless the doctrines insisted upon therein are understood, and accepted by the student. And no exposition of it will be a fitting Handbook for Bible Classes if the doctrinal teaching contained in it is not clearly enunciated.
Now of doctrines specially treated of in this apostolic and inspired letter are those which concern righteousness, faith, law, and the Spirit. To some of these we must refer. The doctrine of righteousness divides itself into two parts, according as we look at it in relation to God or to the ungodly. If we think of God in connection with righteousness, we know that He is righteous; and will by and by " judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men in. that He hath raised Him from the dead" (Acts 17:31). But if this were all that we knew of God's righteousness, who could be saved? For, if God enters into judgment with us, we know what the end of that must be (Psa. 143:2). Thank God, His righteousness is also manifested in justifying the ungodly, and this is one of Paul's special subjects of instruction. The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:17). It is manifested now apart from law, though "witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe" (Rom. 3:21,22). To this people are to submit themselves if they would be saved (Rom. 10:3); and all who do that become God's righteousness in Christ (2 Cor. 5:21).
Viewing righteousness in relation to the sinner, we learn that God can impute to him righteousness without (or apart from χωρὶς) works (Rom. 4:6). The principle on which God can do this is faith; hence it is called the righteousness which is of faith (Rom. 10:6); and we are reminded of the Old Testament Scripture which declared, " The just shall live by his faith" (Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17). An illustration of God justifying a man on this principle is given us in Abraham (Rom. 4:1-3); the moral class who can share in it is exemplified in David, after he had sinned so frightfully in the matter of Uriah the Hittite (verses 6-8); whilst the special testimony now put before souls for them to be justified by faith, when they believe it, is set forth in verses 23-25 of that same chapter; and the effect on the man of this way of justification is this, he has peace with God, and can rejoice in hope of the glory of God (Rom. 5: 1, 2); for the whole question of his standing before the throne of God is settled by the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, who, writes the Apostle, " was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification." Hence justification is more than forgiveness, for it witnesses to the soul of its unchallengeable standing before the throne of God. Forgiveness of sins the sinner needs to be assured of. Justification forms part of the gospel for God's saints, as the Epistle to the Romans makes clear, in which forgiveness, only twice mentioned (4: 7; 11: 27), is assumed as known, and enjoyed by those to whom Paul wrote to unfold the manner and result of their justification by faith.
Turning now to Professor Macgregor's book on the Epistle to the Galatians, and testing its statements on this question of righteousness by the divine word, what is the result? Justification, he tells us (p. 34), is sometimes found " describing only pardon without express reference to what is further meant by acceptance, e.g. justified from all things from which,' etc. (Acts 13:39)." But the passage cited does not bear out the assertion that justification sometimes describes only pardon. It is more than pardon, since it has to do with the standing of one before the throne of God who has sinned, and the one justified by faith has peace with God. This is more than pardon, and differs too from acceptance in this, that if we think of justification, we think of our standing before the throne of God; if we think of acceptance, we remember in whom it is we stand in the presence of God. Again, looking at Acts 13:39, if we follow the reading of BC³D ELP, the passage clearly distinguishes between forgiveness and justification, as we read, "Through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." If, on the other hand, we agree to omit the conjunction and, in accordance with the reading of AC1 and the Sinaitic MS., the difference between the two is still apparent, " Through (Sat) Him is preached forgiveness. By (ἐν) Him all that believe are justified." We must demur therefore to the Professor's statement, whilst we turn to another passage.
At p. 35 we read-" At the present point we shall only dwell on the one expression about Abraham
(3: 6). It was accounted (imputed, reckoned) to him for righteousness.' We need not now inquire what was imputed, whether, for instance, it was his faith, or whether it was his work, or whether it was God's righteousness received by faith." Again, in p. 66, in a note at Gal. 2:21, we read-Righteousness here " means either the result of the justifying process in placing a man on the footing of a servant entitled to reward, or the ground on which God proceeds in justifying; the legal reason why of the process-most probably the latter." It is clear that the distinctive teaching of Rom. 3, and iv. has not been apprehended. The righteousness of God is never imputed to the sinner. God imputes righteousness to the one who believes His testimony about His Son, that is, He reckons that person righteous; but He is never said to impute His righteousness. Rom. 3 shows us how God can be righteous in justifying the ungodly; there, then, His righteousness is treated of. Rom. 4 teaches us on what principle a person can, be justified: hence the term righteousness of God is dropped throughout that chapter, and righteousness alone is therein treated of. For the righteousness of God means that God is righteous, and acts consistently with what He is. The moment, then, that we seize the meaning of the term " righteousness of God," we understand why Scripture never speaks of God imputing His righteousness to the sinner, and the phraseology is seen to be clear and precise. Had this point been understood, we should not have read the sentence quoted from
p. 35, nor would the simple meaning of Gal. 2:21, " If righteousness come by law then Christ is dead in vain," have been obscured by the note on p. 66. " If righteousness come by law," means simply, if a man is righteous by works of law, conformably with what the apostle has written in v. 16 of the same chapter.
Now this statement is a simple and withal an important one, because it cuts at the root of the teaching about the active and passive obedience of Christ, which Professor Macgregor evidently endorses on p. 37, writing of the " Pauline testimony regarding the way and manner in which the righteousness has been achieved by Christ, namely, through His vicarious obedience unto death- His passive obedience' for the expiation of our guilt, and His active obedience' for the purchase to us of sonship and inheritance." Now what says the Scripture-" If righteousness come by law Christ is dead in vain," not simply, as the Professor would paraphrase it, " Christ is superfluous " (p. 66, note), but Christ is dead in vain. If the active obedience of Christ purchased for His people sonship and the inheritance, then they had that procured for them before He died. Now such teaching really, though unintentionally, undermines the atonement. How did those under law get sonship and the promise of inheritance? " Christ," says the apostle, " has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us... that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith " (3: 13, 14). Again, " God sent forth His Son made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (4: 4, 5). Again, "For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect" (Rom. 4:13-14). In a word, the teaching of Scripture directly condemns the theory of the active, vicarious obedience of Christ. The Word knows nothing of vicarious keeping of the law. If righteousness come by law, by the sinner, or by anybody keeping it for him,-Christ is dead in vain.
But what about the law? It was not given till more than four centuries after the promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:17). Abraham then was never under it, nor did God ever put Gentiles under it (Rom. 2:14;
Gal. 4:3-5), as the council at Jerusalem distinctly owned (Acts 15:14-21). Wherefore then serveth it? " It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made "
(Gal. 3:19). It " entered that the offense might abound " (Rom. 5:20). It has not its application to righteous people, but to lawless, etc. (1Tim. 1: 9, 1-0). It could not give life, so righteousness could not come by it (Gal. 3:21), and " as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse" (Gal. 3:10), and the righteousness which is of the law is clean contrary to that which is of faith (Rom. 10: 5-10). Further, it has dominion over a man only as long as he liveth, and those once under it as Jews, were, if Christians, dead to it by the body of Christ, to be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead to bring forth fruit unto God (Rom. 7:4). Now, what says the Professor? " Of its use as a rule of life to the justified man (v.14) this is not the place to speak" (p. 77). But how can it be his rule of life if he has died to it, as Rom. 7:6 distinctly teaches? " Now we are delivered from the law, having died to that wherein we were held, that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Our rule of life is Christ (1 John 2:6; 3:16; Eph. 5:2; Rom. 13:14). Again, p. 91, "under the law, instead of under law, not only is unwarranted by the Greek, but is fitted to countenance the mistaken impression that Christ was, so to speak, merely a born Jew; that His subjection to law by birth had reference only to the law under which the Jews were placed by positive revelation, not to the law under which all men are by nature.... At or by His birth He was under the whole burden of law which has to be borne for man's redemption and adoption, of which law the Old Testament revelation had made a full declaration." Now all this is a mere figment of man's (we do not mean of Professor Macgregor's) invention, clean contrary to Scripture and to the decision of the council at Jerusalem. Scripture distinctly speaks of a class who were under law, but only a class, to redeem them that were under the law. Is " them that were under law " a periphrasis for man? Christ was made a curse, says the apostle, " for us, i.e. Jews, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles; that we might receive (both Jews and Gentiles) the promise of the Spirit through faith " (Gal. 3:13-14). " When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made
of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we (i.e. Jews) might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye (i.e. Gentiles) are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your (better our') hearts, crying, Abba, Father " (Gal. 4:4-6). How clearly the apostle guards the doctrine that Gentiles were never put under law by God. Why the " for us " and " Gentiles " in 3: 13, 14, and the " we " of 4: 5, contrasted with the " ye " of 4: 6, if the Professor's teaching is correct? The fact is, the purport of the law, and the position of the believer in Christ is not apprehended where such. doctrines are held; for he is looked at as in the flesh (Rom. 8:9), instead of being alive in Christ risen from the dead
(Rom. 6:11).
A third doctrine, referred to in the Epistle, is that of the Spirit whom the Galatians had received. Born of the Spirit (John 3:5), the believer bowing to God's testimony concerning the atoning death of the Lord Jesus Christ and its results, has forgiveness of sins through His blood, and receives the Holy Ghost (Eph. 1:13; Acts 2:38;10:43-45, 47); and His body thereby becomes a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). What the believer receives is the Holy Ghost, called the gift of God (Acts 11:17). This is a gift quite distinct from any miraculous power, which last is an endowment by the Holy Ghost Himself; who divides His gifts; whether of miraculous powers or not, as He pleases (1 Cor. 12:7-11). The gift, 80.yeci, then
of the Holy Ghost means, according to Scripture, the Holy Ghost given by God to dwell in the believer. The gifts of the Spirit, χάρισμα, are from the Holy Ghost. Often in apostolic times the two went together, as at Caesarea (Acts 10:44-47), and at Ephesus (Acts 19:6), the display of miraculous power being the attestation of the reception of the Holy Ghost by the person so energized. Yet the two are not confounded. Speaking with tongues was a witness that the person had received the Holy Ghost. All who heard him would know that lie was energized. by the Holy Ghost; but more, they would understand that he had received the Holy Ghost. Now we have no reason to conclude that every believer in apostolic days was endowed with miraculous powers. 1 Cor. 12:29-30, would lead us to believe the contrary; and there is no hint that all the Galatian Christians were endowed with such powers. Yet they had all received the Holy Ghost, and they knew it well; and as such were partakers of full Christian blessing, having the earnest of the inheritance, for the Holy Ghost is the earnest (Eph. 1:14), and the Spirit of adoption too, for He also is that (Rom. 8:15), by which they could cry, Abba, Father. Now having, received the Spirit, what did they lack of Christian blessing, the fruit of divine grace? Nothing. But how did they receive the Spirit? By works of law or by the hearing of faith? They knew. Hence the folly of their turning to be justified by the law, and to be circumcised in. order to become of the seed of Abraham. They were that already. For, writes the apostle, " If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise"
(3: 29).
Now how does the professor treat of this truth? "The gift of the Spirit," he writes (p. 68), "had, from the beginning, been recognized as divinely attesting the receiver's Christianity, and consequently settling the disputed question about Mosaic ceremonial (Acts 10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15: 6-17). The gift which then was so recognized appears to have been, and in some cases certainly was, properly miraculous (Acts 10:46;12: 8-11). The distinctively miraculous 'gifts' were, from the first, intended to be superseded by the abiding graces' of Christian character (1 Cor. 13:8-13), which, also supernatural in their origin, are really evidential (Eph. 2:17; 1 John 3:14), though not so as to supersede the abiding evidence of miracles done in the first age." Now this statement confounds the gift of the Spirit with the gifts from the Spirit. The Apostle referred to the former in Gal. 3:2. Professor Macgregor confounds it here with the latter, and asserts what has no foundation in the Word, that the miraculous gifts were from the first intended to be superseded by the abiding graces of Christian character. The truth is, miraculous powers might cease, but the abiding graces of Christian character would continue. They would not supersede the others, for they existed from the first, even when miraculous powers were in the fullest exercise (1 Cor. 13:13). But abiding Christian graces are not what Scripture calls the gift of the Holy Ghost, nor are they classed with the manifestations of the Spirit, but are contrasted with them (1 Cor. 12:31;14: 1). Nor are all gifts of the Spirit miraculous in their character. The word of wisdom, and the word of knowledge, have these ceased to exist? Has faith, of which 1 Cor. 12: 9 treats, wholly ceased to be manifested? Has prophecy, as explained in 1 Cor. 14:3, died out? With the exception of the first sentence the paragraph quoted above evidences a want of understanding of the Scripture teaching about the Holy Ghost.
Again, we read, p. 91, " What we get back is sonship. Adoption we do not get back, we simply receive it." Indeed! With the last clause we can agree. But when did we lose sonship? Adoption is sonship,υἱοθεσία. When did Gentiles, as such, formerly enjoy it? How do we become sons? "Ye are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus " (Gal. 3:26). How did those under law get it? " God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the sonship " (4: 5). That " we might receive" it is the language of Scripture, not that any might get it back, of which Scripture says not one word. Here, again, is confusion. Sonship is not spoken of as the privilege of a creature unfallen, but of those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ. We read not of angels that they participate in sonship, υἱοθεσία, though they all owe their existence to God the Father of all. Servants they are, but they share not in Sonship.
On points, then, of important Christian doctrine, this book is unsound and defective. The Scripture teaching concerning the righteousness of God, the law, and the Spirit, does not agree with that set forth in its pages. Other points might be noticed, but these fundamental ones may suffice.