Includes a fresh translation of Galatians by James D.G. Dunn What does it mean to be saved? That, says Bruce Atkinson, is the chief question addressed by Saint Paul in his passionate letter to the Galatians, one of his earliest surviving epistles. As you would expect from the title, this commentary is very concerned about legalism, not just in the Galatian church but also in today’s church. ‘Legalistic Christians are the ugliest people in the world.’ Atkinson goes to great lengths to explain what the Law was and how it was being abused by the ‘Judah–isers’. Christians have absolutely no need for the Law because they have the Spirit.’ ‘We do not need the Law, because we have Christ, his words and life for our pattern of living.’ The law of Christ is the golden rule – ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ You should know where Bruce Atkinson is coming from. Galatians, he asserts on page 2, is ‘the 100 percent infallible Word of God,’ God’s ‘perfect’ Word. The Holy Spirit ‘superintends’ the thoughts of the Bible’s human authors, but doesn’t ‘violate’ them, so that they end up writing ‘exactly what He desired’. Atkinson presents a controversial view in Chapter 4 on a topic where there is ‘an important difference of opinion’ among commentators; he argues strongly that Paul is referring in Galatians 2 to the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15. So the confrontation between Paul and Peter at Antioch (their ‘nasty spiritual punch-up!’) must have come after that decisive Council. You may not agree with Atkinson’s view of the Bible or his stress on imputed righteousness. You may wonder if we actually need yet another commentary on Galatians. But this one does contain helpful material about, for example, flesh and the body, baptism in and walking by the Spirit, about the value of experience (‘We really must confront our Protestant distrust of the pursuit of experience!’), and about being ‘justified by the faith of Christ, rather than by faith in Christ.’ So I think there’s room on the shelf for this new volume. By the way, what makes a commentary ‘bold’?