GALATIANS: Robertson's Word Pictures: While in Ephesus some hold that Paul at this time wrote the Epistle to the Galatians after his recent visit there, some that he did it before his recent visit to Jerusalem. But it is still possible that he wrote it from Corinth just before writing to Rome....

EPHESIANS: Robertson's Word Pictures: The oldest documents (Aleph and B) do not have the words en Ephesoi (in Ephesus) in Eph. 1:1 (inserted by a later hand). Origen did not have them in his copy. Marcion calls it the Epistle to the Laodiceans. We have only to put here Col. 4:16 "the letter from Laodicea" to find the probable explanation. After writing the stirring Epistle to the Colossians Paul dictated this so-called Epistle to the Ephesians as a general or circular letter for the churches in Asia (Roman province). Perhaps the original copy had no name in Eph. 1:1 as seen in Aleph and B and Origen, but only a blank space. Marcion was familiar with the copy in Laodicea. Basil in the fourth century mentions some MSS. with no name in the address. Most MSS. were copies from the one in Ephesus and so it came to be called the Epistle to the Ephesians. The general nature of the letter explains also the absence of names in it, though Paul lived three years in Ephesus.

JAMES: The strongest reason for concluding that James was written at an early date is probably its content and tone. The following is from Vincent's Word Studies: The epistle is written from a Jewish stand-point. Christianity appears in it, not as a new dispensation, but as a development and perfection of the old. The Christian's highest honor is not that he is a member of the universal church, but that he is the genuine type of the ancient Israelite. It reveals no new principle of spiritual life, such as those which were to turn the world upside down in the teaching of Paul or of John, but only that pure and perfect morality which was the true fulfilment of the law? (Stanley). Twice only the name of Christ occurs (Jam. 1:1; Jam. 2:1); the word "gospel" not at all; and there is no allusion to Redemption, Incarnation, Resurrection, or Ascension. The rules of morality which he lays down are enforced by Jewish rather than by Christian motives and sanctions. The violation of the "royal law" is menaced with the sentence of the law (Jam. 2:8, Jam. 2:13); and uncharitable judgment is deprecated on the ground of the law's condemnation, and not as alien to the spirit of Christ.

GNOSTICS ("The ones who know"): Robertson's Word Pictures: These new teachers professed new thought with a world-view that sought to explain everything on the assumption that matter was essentially evil and that the good God could only touch evil matter by means of a series of aeons or emanations so far removed from him as to prevent contamination by God and yet with enough power to create evil matter. . . . The Docetic (from dokeo, to seem) Gnostics held that Jesus did not have a real human body, but only a phantom body. He was, in fact, an aeon and had no real humanity. The Cerinthian (followers of Cerinthus) Gnostics admitted the humanity of the man Jesus, but claimed that the Christ was an aeon that came on Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove and left him on the Cross so that only the man Jesus died. At once this heresy sharpened the issue concerning the Person of Christ already set forth in Phi_2:5-11. Paul met the issue squarely and powerfully portrayed his full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man (both deity and humanity) in opposition to both types of Gnostics. So then Colossians seems written expressly for our own day when so many are trying to rob Jesus Christ of his deity. The Gnostics took varying views of moral issues also as men do now. There were the ascetics with rigorous rules and the licentious element that let down all the bars for the flesh while the spirit communed with God.

JUDAIZERS: The Judaizers were Jews from Judea, a central location of the Pharisees. Although the Judaizers Paul encountered were often from the Jerusalem Church, they held many of the same basic attitudes as the unbelieving Jews that Jesus had encountered throughout his life. They were so fanatically stuck on law that they found no mercy in their souls for human beings.
The problem with all law is that it must be interpreted before it can be applied in a specific situation. Doing so can be an almost impossible job. Judges want to uphold the law, but at the same time, they know they may not be applying the law in the same way in which it was intended. Some people become so rigid in their views that they loose the ability to discriminate between a situation where a law would apply and a situation where it would not apply. That is basically what had happened to first century Judaism. It had become the property of a class of people who had walled themselves off from the ordinary population of Judea and Galilee. Though these ruling Jews must have often wanted to honor God by standing firm on the law, they had lost the ability to make sound judgments. Jesus encountered those people when they brought before him a woman taken in adultery. Their actions show their lack of insight into the specific situation. We also see how political their views had become. A man of standing in the community was not given the same harsh treatment as this poor woman would have received at the hands of the ruling elite of the time. In the current Judaism, there was an extreme amount of discrimination based on wealth.
Attitudes like the above were expected to diminish when people became Christians. To believe in Jesus is nothing if it is not to accept his attitudes. The Book of James decries both insensitivity and discrimination based on wealth with respect to Christians.
Some of those legalistic Jews did accept Christ, at least nominally, and became pillars in the Jerusalem Church. That did not stop their tendency to revert to Phariseeism. Even when they were making progress in the enlightenment of Jesus, they could be easily swayed by peer pressure from the Jewish community, causing them to go back to the same old rigid ways of Bible interpretation that had existed before they learned about the love and mercy of God expressed in Christ.
When Jewish converts resorted to the old attitudes toward the Law of Moses, they often took upon themselves the responsibility to drive everyone else, in all churches everywhere, to the same conclusion. What we see is a general turning away from Christ, back toward all the trappings of Phariseeism.
Bodily circumcision became their main symbol of solidarity. If the Gentile churches could be convinced to accept that, they would tumble head over heels into the laps of the ones pushing the law on Paul's churches. So he took the challenge and a hard line against circumcision for Gentiles. He did not object to circumcision as such, but when it became the big issue that would crack his churches wide open, Paul became adament against those Judaizers who demanded it.
What these Judaizers were really driving for was to bring these churches back under the heavy hand of the most legalistic faction in the Jerusalem Church. Since Paul had formerly been one of the top Pharisees of his day, he understood that he must quickly draw the line to keep that from happening. He understood that legalism is diametrically opposed to Christianity and so he fought it with every fiber of his being. For his churches, there would be no return to that brand of Christianity (if we can call it that). He allowed no Judea-izing in his churches whatsoever.
There is a principle at stake here. For Paul, the law is useful only if it is used lawfully; but since very few people have what it takes to understand the difference, the law must be used quite sparingly in a fledgling Christian community. If not, that community has no chance to survive because it will tear itself apart.
Paul warned the elders of the church at Ephesus that like grievous wolves, Judaizers and other creators of factions would soon enter into those churches Paul founded. He knew that ahead of time and indeed, that is exactly what happened. After Paul's imprisonment, the Judaizers took over. They quickly destroyed many of the churches he founded.
The general threat of Judaism is that it would completely destroy Christianity, returning it even to those Old Testament ordinances that were typical -- i.e., never intended to be permanent. These are the ordinances that all Christians today recognize as having been done away in Christ. Judaizers would ultimately reinvigorate the whole system of dead works, a merit system of salvation based on human effort, instead of on the grace of God expressed through the sacrifice of Christ, and obtainable by faith in him. Paul knew that we are accepted in God's courtroom only because the atoning work of Jesus is acceptable. To forsake that knowledge spells doom for the whole human race. The following is a note from John Darby's Synopsis on Phil. 3:1-3: [It] was not burdensome to [Paul], and it was safe for [the believers at Philippi] (danger being present and his tender love watchful), to renew his warnings and instructions respecting the admixture of Judaising principles with the doctrine of a glorified Christ. It was in fact to destroy the latter and to reinstate the flesh (that is, sin and alienation from God) in its place. It was the first man, already rejected and condemned, and not the second Man. Yet it is not in the shape of sin that the flesh appears here, but in that of righteousness, of all that is respectable and religious, of ordinances which had the venerable weight of antiquity attached to them, and as to their origin, if all had not been done away in Christ, the authority of God Himself.

PAUL'S POSSIBLE RELEASE FROM PRISON: The tradition that Paul was released from Roman captivity and that he resumed his missionary work for a while, was later captured again, taken to Rome and finally beheaded is based on very little evidence. The following is from Vincent's Word Studies: It is claimed that Paul was released from prison after his first confinement at Rome (Acts 28:16-31) and that he then continued his missionary labors in Ephesus, Epirus, Macedonia, and Crete: that he was again arrested and imprisoned, and that the second imprisonment was terminated by his execution. Of this there is no sound historical evidence whatever. The narrative of Acts leaves him in his first confinement. The ordinary course of argument forms a circle. The hypothesis of a second imprisonment can be sustained only by the Pastoral Epistles if they are authentic. Their authenticity can be shown only on that hypothesis. The only evidence adduced for the second imprisonment outside of these letters is, 1. A passage in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians (v.), as follows: (Paul) “having preached the gospel both in the East; and in the West, received the glorious renown due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the boundary of the West, and having born his testimony before the rulers. Thus he departed out of the world.” The main point is having come to the boundary of the West [epi to terma tes duseoos elthoon]. It is claimed that this expression refers to Spain, and that Clement thus records the fulfillment of the apostle's intention stated in Rom. 15:24, Rom. 15:28. Others, however, hold that it refers to Rome. Apart from this difference, which it is impossible to settle, the whole statement is general, vague, and rhetorical, and has no historical value. 2. The Muratorian Canon (about 170 a.d.) contains a passage apparently to the effect that Luke relates to Theophilus the things which fell under his own notice, and evidently declares as apart from his purpose the martyrdom of Peter; but the departure of Paul setting out from the city to Spain - here the text is mutilated. How the writer intended to complete it can only be guessed. The passage is worthless as evidence. 3. After these two we have nothing until the fourth century, when Eusebius says that there was a tradition that the apostle again set forth to the ministry of his preaching, and having a second time entered the same city of Rome, was perfected by his martyrdom before Nero. That in this imprisonment he wrote the second Epistle to Timothy (H. E. ii. 22, 25). This is all. Jerome merely echoes Eusebius. Eusebius does not mention Spain. History does not show any apostolic foundation in Spain. Neither Irenaeus, Caius, Tertullian, nor Origen allude to such a mission; and although Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen mention the death of Paul at Rome, they say nothing of any journeys subsequent to his first arrival there. Dr. McGiffert remarks (note on Euseb. ii. 22, 2): “The strongest argument against the visit to Spain is the absence of any trace of it in Spain itself. If any church there could have claimed the great apostle to the Gentiles as its founder, it seems that it must have asserted its claim, and the tradition have been preserved at least in that church.” It is also said that 2Tim. 4:16, 2Tim. 4:17 implies that Paul had had a hearing and been discharged and permitted to preach. The assumption is entirely gratuitous. The words may have referred to a hearing during his first captivity, when he was delivered from imminent danger, but not set at liberty. In short, historical evidence for a release from the first Roman imprisonment, a subsequent missionary activity, and a second imprisonment, is utterly wanting. It seems hardly conceivable that no traces of a renewed ministry should be left in history except these instructions to friends and pupils. If Paul was liberated from his first imprisonment, it is singular that Luke should not have recorded the fact as a triumph of the gospel. Such being the case, it remains only to find a place for these letters in the recorded ministry of Paul. This cannot be done. There is no period of that ministry, from Damascus to Rome, into which they will fit.