Gal 1:1. Ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπʼ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ διʼ ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλά κ.τ.λ.] Thus does Paul, with deliberate incisiveness and careful definition, bring into prominence at the very head of his epistle his (in the strictest sense) apostolic dignity, because doubt had been thrown on it by his opponents in Galatia. For by οὐκ ἀπʼ ἀνθρώπων he denies that his apostleship proceeded from men (causa remotior), and by οὐδὲ διʼ ἄνθρ. that it came by means of a man (causa medians). It was neither of human origin, nor was a man the medium of conveying it. Comp. Bernhardy, pp. 222, 236; Winer, p. 390 [E. T. 521]. On ἀπό, comp. also Rom 13:1. To disregard the diversity of meaning in the two prepositions (Semler, Morus, Koppe, and others), although even Usteri is inclined to this view (“Paul meant to say that in no respect did his office depend on human authority”), is all the more arbitrary, seeing that, while the two negatives very definitely separate the two relations, these two relations cannot he expressed by the mere change of number (Koppe, “non hominum, ne cujusquam quidem hominis;” comp. Bengel, Semler, Morus, Rosenmüller). This in itself would be but a feeble amplification of the thought, and in order to be intelligible, would need to be more distinctly indicated (perhaps by the addition of πολλῶν and ἑνός), for otherwise the readers would not have their attention drawn off from the difference of the prepositions. Paul has on the second occasion written not ἀνθρώπων again, but ἀνθρώπου, because the contrast to διʼ ἀνθρώπου is διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. It was not a man, but the exalted Christ, through whom the divine call to the apostleship came to Paul at Damascus; αὐτὸς ὁ δεσπότης οὐρανόθεν ἐκάλεσεν οὐκ ἀνθρώπῳ χρησάμενος ὑπουργῷ, Theodoret. And this contrast is quite just: for Christ, the incarnate Son of God, was indeed as such, in the state of His self-renunciation and humiliation, ἄνθρωπος (Rom 5:15; 1Co 15:21), and in His human manifestation not specifically different from other men (Php 2:7; Gal 4:4; Rom 8:3); but in His state of exaltation, since He is as respects His whole divine-human nature in heaven (Eph 1:20 ff.; Php 2:9; Php 3:20-21), He is, although subordinate to the Father (1Co 3:23; 1Co 11:3; 1Co 15:28, et al.), partaker of the divine majesty which He had before the incarnation, and possesses in His whole person at the right hand of God divine honour and divine dominion. Comp. generally, Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 327; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 306.
καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός] Following out the contrast, we should expect καὶ ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρ. But availing himself of the variety of form in which his idea could be set forth, Paul comprehends the properly twofold relation under one preposition, since, in point of fact, with respect to the modification in the import of the διά no reader could doubt that here the causa principalis is conceived also as medians. As to this usage of διά in popular language, see on 1Co 1:9. Christ is the mediate agent of Paul’s apostleship, inasmuch as Christ was the instrument through which God called him; but God also, who nevertheless was the causa principalis, may be conceived of under the relation of διά (comp. Gal 4:7; Lachmann), inasmuch as Christ made him His apostle οὐκ ἄνευ Θεοῦ πατρός, but, on the contrary, through the working of God, that is, through the interposition of the divine will, which exerted its determining influence in the act of calling (comp. 1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1Ti 1:1; 2Ti 1:1). Comp. Plat. Symp. p. 186 E, διὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τουτοῦ κυβερνᾶται; and Rom 11:36, διʼ αὐτοῦ τὰ πάντα; Winer, p. 354 f. [E. T. 474].
The words Θεοῦ πατρός (which together have the nature of a proper name: comp. Php 2:11; Eph 6:23; 1Pe 1:2), according to the context, present God as the Father of Jesus Christ, not as Father generally (de Wette; comp. Hilgenfeld), nor as our Father (Paulus, Usteri, Wieseler). The Father is named after the Son by way of climax (comp. Eph 5:5): in describing the superhuman origin of his apostleship Paul proceeds from the Higher to the Highest, without whom (see what follows) Christ could not have called him. Of course the calling by Christ is the element decisive of the true ἀποστολή (Wieseler); but it would remain so, even if Paul, advancing to the more definite agent, had named Christ after God. The supposition of a dogmatic precaution (Theodoret, ἵνα μή τις ὑπολάβῃ ὑπουργὸν εἶναι τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱόν, εὑρὼν προσκείμενον τὸ διά, ἐπήγαγε καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός, comp. Chrysostom, Calovius, and others) would be as irrelevant and inappropriate, as Rückert’s opinion is arbitrary, that Paul at first intended merely to write διὰ Ἰ. Χ., and then added as an after-thought, but inexactly (therefore without ἀπό), καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός.
τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν] For Paul was called to be an apostle by the Christ who had been raised up bodily from the dead by the Father (1Co 15:8; 1Co 9:1; Act 9:22; Act 9:26); so that these words involve a historical confirmation of that καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός in its special relation as thoroughly assuring the full apostolic commission of Paul:[14] they are not a mere designation of God as originator of the work of redemption (de Wette), which does not correspond to the definite connection with ἀπόστολος. According to Wieseler, the addition is intended to awaken faith both in Jesus as the Son and in God as our reconciled Father. But apart from the fact that the Father is here the Father of Christ, the idea of reconciliation does not suggest itself at this stage; and the whole self-description, which is appended to Παῦλος, is introduced solely by his consciousness of full apostolic authority: it describes by contrast and historically what in other epistles is expressed by the simple κλητὸς ἀπόστολος. The opinion that Paul is pointing at the reproach made against him of not having seen Christ (Calvin, Morus, Semler, Koppe, Borger; comp. Ellicott), and that he here claims the pre-eminence of having been the only one called by the exalted Jesus (Augustine, Erasmus, Beza, Menochius, Estius, and others), is inappropriate, for the simple reason that the resurrection of Christ is mentioned in the form of a predicate of God (not of Christ). This reason also holds good against Matthies (comp. Winer), who thinks that the divine elevation of Christ is the point intended to be conveyed. Chrysostom and Oecumenius found even a reference directed against the validity of the Mosaical law, and Luther (comp. Calovius) against the trust in one’s own righteousness.
[14] Comp. Beyschlag in Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 225.
Gal 1:2. Καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί] ἀδελφοί denotes nothing more than fellow-Christians; but the words σὺν ἐμοί place the persons here intended in special connection with the person of the apostle (comp. Gal 2:3; Php 4:21): the fellow-Christians who are in my company. This is rightly understood as referring to his travelling companions, who were respectively his official assistants, at the time (comp. Pareus, Hammond, Semler, Michaelis, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmüller, Winer, Paulus, Rückert, Usteri, Wieseler, Reithmayr), just as Paul, in many other epistles, has conjoined the name of official associates with his own (1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1; Php 1:1; Col 1:1; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1). Instead of mentioning their names,[15] which were perhaps known to the Galatians at least in part-possibly from his last visit to them (Act 18:23) or in some other way-he uses the emphatic πάντες (which, however, by no means implies any very large number, as Erasmus and others, including Olshausen, have supposed), indicating that these brethren collectively desired to address the very same instructions, warnings, exhortations, etc., to the Galatians, whereby the impressive effect of the epistle, especially as regards the apostle’s opponents, could not but be strengthened, and therefore was certainly intended to be so strengthened (comp. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, and others). At the same time, there is no need to assume that his opponents had spread abroad the suggestion that some one in the personal circle of the apostle did not agree with him in his teaching (Wieseler); actual indications of this must have been found in the epistle. Others have thought of all the Christians in the place where he was then sojourning (Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Calovius, and others; also Schott). This is quite opposed to the analogy of all the other epistles of the N.T., not one of which is composed in the name of a church along with that of the writer. It would, in that case, have been more suitable that Paul should have either omitted σὺν ἐμοί (comp. 1Co 16:20), or expressed himself in such a way as to intimate, not that the church was σὺν αὐτῷ, but that he was σὺν αὐτοῖς. To refer it (with Beza) to the office-bearers of the church, is quite arbitrary; for the readers could not recognise this in σὺν ἐμοί without further explanation.
ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατ.] consequently a circular epistle to the several independent churches. The relations of the churches were different in Achaia: see on 1Co 1:2; 2Co 1:1. The fact that Paul adds no epithet of honour (as κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, or the like) is considered by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and by Winer, Credner, Olshausen (comp. Rückert), Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, a sign of indignation. Comp. Grotius, “quia coeperant ab evangelio declinare.” And justly so; because it is in keeping with the displeasure and chagrin which induce him afterwards to refrain from all such favourable testimony as he elsewhere usually bears to the Christian behaviour of his readers, and, on the contrary, to begin at once with blame (Gal 1:6). In no other epistle, not even in the two earliest, 1 and 2 Thess., has he put the address so barely, and so unaccompanied by any complimentary recognition, as in this; it is not sufficient, therefore, to appeal to the earlier and later “usage of the apostle” (Hofmann).
[15] Which indeed he might have done, even if the epistle had been, as an exception, written by his own hand (but see on Gal 6:11); so that Hofmann’s view is erroneous.
Gal 1:3. Θεοῦ πατρός] refers here, according to the context, to the Christians, who through Christ have received the υἱοθεσία. See Gal 4:26 ff.; Rom 8:15.
See, further, on Rom 1:7.
Gal 1:4. This addition prepares the readers thus early for the recognition of their error; for their adhesion to Judaism was indeed entirely opposed to the aim of the atoning death of Jesus. Comp. Gal 2:20, Gal 3:13 ff. “See how he directs every word against self-righteousness,” Luther’s gloss.
τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτόν] that is, who did not withhold (ἐφείσατο, Rom 8:32), but surrendered Himself, namely, to be put to death.[16] This special application of the words was obvious of itself to the Christian consciousness, and is placed beyond doubt by the addition περὶ τ. ἁμαρτ. ἡμ. Comp. Mat 20:28; Eph 5:25; Tit 2:14; 1Ti 2:6; 1Ma 6:44; and Wetstein in loc.
περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτ. ἡμ.] in respect of our sins (Rom 8:3), on account of them, namely, in order to atone for them. See Rom 3:23 ff.; Gal 3:12 ff. In essential sense περί is not different from ὑπέρ (1Pe 3:18; Mat 26:28; Heb 10:26; Heb 13:11; Xen. Mem. i. 1. 17; Eur. Alc. 176, comp. 701; Hom. Il. xii. 243, comp. i. 444; see Buttmann, Ind. ad Mid. p. 188; Schaefer, App. Dem. I. p. 190; Bremi, ad Dem. Ol. p. 188, Goth.), and the idea of satisfaction is implied, not in the signification of the preposition, but in the whole nature of the case. Hom. Il. i. 444: Φοίβῳ … ἑκατόμβην ῥέξαι ὑπὲρ Δαναῶν (for the benefit of the Danai), ὄφρʼ ἱλασόμεσθα ἄνακτα. As to περί and ὑπέρ in respect to the death of Jesus, the latter of which (never περί) is always used by Paul when the reference to persons is expressed, see further on 1Co 1:13; 1Co 15:3.
ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς κ.τ.λ.] End, which that self-surrender was to attain. The ἐνεστὼς αἰών is usually understood as equivalent to ὁ αἰὼν οὖτος, ὁ νῦν αἰών. Certainly in practical meaning ἐνεστώς may denote present (hence in the grammarians, ὁ ἐνεστὼς χρόνος, tempus praesens), but always only with the definite reference suggested by the literal signification, setting in, that is, in the course of entrance, that which has already begun. So not merely in passages such as Dem. 255. 9, 1466. 21; Herodian, ii. 2. 3; Polyb. i. 75. 2; 3 Esd. 5:47, 9:6; 3Ma 1:16, but also in Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 5; Plat. Legg. ix. p. 878; Dinarch. i. 93; Polyb. i. 83. 2, i. 60. 9, vii. 5. 4; 2Ma 3:17; 2Ma 6:9; comp. Schweighäuser, Lex. Polyb. p. 219; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 350. So also universally in the N.T., Rom 8:38; 1Co 3:22; 1Co 7:26; 2Th 2:2 (comp. 2Ti 3:1; Heb 9:9). Now, as this definite reference of its meaning would be quite unsuitable to designate the αἰὼν οὗτος, because the latter is not an aeon just begun, but one running its course from the beginning and lasting until the παρουσία; and as elsewhere Paul always describes this present αἰών as the αἰὼν οὗτος (Rom 12:2; 1Co 1:20; and frequently: comp. ὁ νῦν αἰών, 1Ti 6:17; 2Ti 4:10; Tit 2:12), we must explain it as the period of time which is already in the act of setting in, the evil time which has already begun, that is, the time immediately preceding the παρουσία, so that the αἰὼν ἐνεστώς is the last part of the αἰὼν οὗτος. This αἰὼν ἐνεστώς is not only very full of sorrow through the dolores Messiae (see on 1Co 7:26), to which, however, the ethical πονηρός in our passage does not refer; but it is also in the highest degree immoral, inasmuch as many fall away from the faith, and the antichristian principle developes great power and audacity (2Th 2:3 ff.; 1Ti 4:1 ff.; 2Ti 3:1 ff.; 2Pe 3:3; Jud 1:18; 1Jn 2:18; Mat 24:10-12). Comp. Usteri, l.c. p. 348 ff.; Lücke and Huther on 1Jn 2:18. On that account this period of time is pre-eminently ὁ αἰὼν πονηρός. With his idea of the nearness of the παρουσία, Paul conceived this period as having then already begun (comp. 2Th 2:7), although its full development was still in reserve (2Th 2:8). Accordingly, the same period is here designated ὁ αἰὼν ἐνεστώς which in other places is called καιρὸς ἔσχατος (1Pe 1:5), ἔσχαται ἡμέραι (Act 2:17; 2Ti 3:1), ἐσχάτη ὥρα (1Jn 2:18), and in Rabbinic קֵץ or סו̇ף or אַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים (Isa 2:2; Jer 23:20; Mic 4:1). See Schoettgen, Hor. ad 2Ti 3:1. Christ, says Paul, desired by means of His atoning death to deliver us out of this wicked period, that is, to place us out of fellowship with it, inasmuch as through His death the guilt of believers was blotted out, and through faith, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, the new moral life-the life in the Spirit-was brought about in them (Rom 6:8). Christians have become objects of God’s love and holy, and as such are now taken out of that ΑἸῺΝ ΠΟΝΗΡΌς, so that, although living in this ΑἸΏΝ, they yet have nothing in common with its ΠΟΝΗΡΊΑ.[17] Comp. Barnabas, Ep. 10, where the righteous man, walking in this world, τὸν ἅγιον αἰῶνα ἐκδέχεται. The ἘΞΈΛΗΤΑΙ, moreover, has the emphasis and is accordingly prefixed. For how antagonistic to this separation, designed by Christ, was the fellowship with the αἰὼν πονηρός into which the readers had relapsed through their devotion to the false teachers!
Observe, moreover, that the ΑἸῺΝ ΠΟΝΗΡΌς forms one idea, and therefore it was not necessary to repeat the article before ΠΟΝΗΡΟῦ (as Matthias contends); see Krüger, § 57. 2. 3.
ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῸ ΘΈΛΗΜΑ Κ.Τ.Λ.] strengthens the weight of the ὍΠΩς ἘΞΈΛΗΤΑΙ Κ.Τ.Λ., to which it belongs. Comp. Eph 1:4 f.; Col 1:13 f. The salvation was willed by God, to whom Christ was obedient (Php 2:8); the reference of κατὰ τ. θελ. κ.τ.λ. to the whole sentence from ΤΟῦ ΔΌΝΤΟς onwards (Bengel, Wieseler, probably also Hofmann) is less simple, and unnecessary. The connection with ΠΡΟΝΗΡΟῦ (Matthias) would only be possible, if the latter were predicative, and would yield an idea entirely paradoxical.
Τ. ΘΕΟῦ Κ. ΠΑΤΡ. ἩΜ.] of God, who (through Christ) is our Father. Comp. Php 4:20; 1Th 1:3; 1Th 3:11; 1Th 3:13. As to the ΚΑΊ, comp. on 1Co 15:24; Eph 1:3 : from the latter passage it must not be concluded that ἩΜῶΝ belongs also to ΘΕΟῦ (Hofmann). The more definite designation Κ. ΠΑΤΡ. ἩΜῶΝ conveys the motive of the θέλημα, love.
[16] Comp. Clem. Cor. I. 49, τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. For instances from Greek authors of ἔδωκεν ἑαυτόν, see Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 348.
[17] It is therefore self-evident how unjust is the objection taken by Hilgenfeld to our interpretation, that it limits the Redeemer’s death to this short period of transition. This the apostle in no way does, but he portrays redemption concretely, displaying the whole importance and greatness of its salvation by the force of strongest contrast. This remark also applies to Wieseler’s objection.
Gal 1:5. To the mention of this counsel of deliverance the piety of the apostle annexes a doxology. Comp. 1Ti 1:17; Rom 11:36; Rom 9:5; Rom 16:27; Eph 3:21.
ἡ δόξα] that is, the honour due to Him for this θέλημα. We have to supply εἴη, and not ἐστί (Vulgate, Hofmann, Matthias), which is inserted (Rom 1:25; 1Pe 4:11) where there is no doxology. So in the frequent doxologies in the apostolic Fathers, e.g. Clement, Cor. I. 20, 38, 43, 45, 50, 58. Comp. the customary εὐλογητός, sc. εἴη, at Rom 9:5; Eph 1:3. See, further, on Eph 3:21.
Gal 1:6. Without prefixing, as in other epistles, even in those to the Corinthians, a conciliatory preamble setting forth what was commendable in his readers, Paul at once plunges in mediam rem. He probably wrote without delay, immediately on receiving the accounts which arrived as to the falling away of his readers, while his mind was still in that state of agitated feeling which prevented him from using his customary preface of thanksgiving and conciliation,-a painful irritation (πυροῦμαι, 2Co 11:29), which was the more just, that in the case of the Galatians, the very foundation and substance of his gospel threatened to fall to pieces.
θαυμάζω] often used by Greek orators in the sense of surprise at something blameworthy. Dem. 349. 3; Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 511; Abresch, Diluc. Thuc. p. 309. In the N.T., comp. Mar 6:6; Joh 7:21; 1Jn 3:13.
οὕτω ταχέως] so very quickly, so recently, may denote either the rapid development of the apostasy (comp. 2Th 2:2; 1Ti 5:22; Wis 14:28), as Chrysostom (οὐδὲ χρόνου δέονται οἱ ἀπατῶντες ὑμᾶς κ.τ.λ.), Theophylact, Koppe, Schott, de Wette, Windischmann, Ellicott, Hofmann, Reithmayr understand it; or its early occurrence (1Co 4:19; Php 2:19, et al.), whether reckoned from the last visit of the apostle (Bengel, Flatt, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler) or from the conversion of the readers (Usteri, Olshausen). The latter is preferable, because it corresponds with ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος κ.τ.λ., whereby the time of the calling is indicated as the terminus a quo. Comp. Gal 3:1-3. This view is not inconsistent with the fact that the epistle was written a considerable time after the conversion of the readers; for, at all events, they had been Christians for but a few years, which the οὕτω ταχέως as a relative idea still suits well enough. By their μετατίθεσθαι they showed themselves to be πρόσκαιροι (Mat 13:21), and this surprises the apostle. As to οὕτω, comp. on Gal 3:3.
μετατίθεσθε] μετατίθημι, to transpose, in the middle, to alter one’s opinion, to become of another mind, and generally to fall away (with εἰς, App. Hisp. 17; Sir 6:8; with πρός, Polyb. xxvi. 2. 6). See Wetstein in loc.; Kypke, II. p. 273; Ast. ad Plat. de Leg. p. 497; from the LXX., Schleusner, s.v.; and from Philo, Loesner, p. 325. It might also be understood in a passive sense (Theodoras of Mopsuestia, μετατίθ., not μετάγεσθε, is used: ὡς ἐπὶ ἀψύχων; Beza, “verbum passivum usurpavit, ut culpam in pseudo-apostolos derivet”). But the use of the middle in this sense is the common one; so that the passive sense, and the nicety which, according to Beza, is involved in it, must have been more definitely indicated to the reader in order to be recognised. The present tense denotes that the readers were still in the very act of the falling away, which began so soon after their conversion. According to Jerome, the word itself is intended to convey an allusion to the name Galatia: “Galatia enim translationem in nostra lingua sonat” (גָּלָה; hence גּו̇לָה, גָּלוּת carrying away). Although approved by Bertholdt, this idea is nevertheless an empty figment, because the thing suggested the expression, and these Hebrew words denote the μετατίθεσθαι in the sense of exile (see Gesenius, Thes. I. p. 285). But from an historical point of view, the appeals of Grotius and Wetstein to the fickleness of the Gallic character (Caes. B. Gall. iii. 19, iv. 5, ii. 1, iii. 10) are not without interest as regards the Galatians.
ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι Χ.] On ἀπό, away from, comp. 2Ma 7:24; and see generally, Kühner, § 622 c. The τοῦ καλέσαντος is not to be taken with Χριστοῦ, as Syr., Jerome, Erasmus (in the version, not in the paraphrase and annotations), Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and others, also Morus and Flatt, understand it; against which may be urged, not (with Matthies and Schott) the want of the article before Χριστοῦ (see on Rom 9:5; comp. also 1Pe 1:15), but the fact that the calling into the kingdom of the Messiah is presented by Paul (and the apostles generally) so constantly as the work of God, that we must not deviate from this analogy in explaining the words (see on Rom 1:6; and Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 387). Thence, also, τοῦ καλέσ. is not to be taken as neuter, and referred to the gospel (Ewald); but ὁ καλέσας is God, and Χριστοῦ belongs to ἐν χάριτι, from Him who has called you through the grace of Christ. Ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ is instrumental; for the grace of Christ (Act 15:11; Rom 5:15; 2Co 8:9; Tit 3:6 : comp. also Rom 16:20; 2Co 12:9; 2Co 13:13; Phm 1:25), that is, the favour of Christ unmerited by sinful men, according to which He gave up His life to atone for them (comp. Gal 1:4), is that by which, that is, by the preaching of which, the divine calling reaches the subjects of it; comp. Act 14:3; Act 20:24. So καλεῖν with ἐν, 1Co 7:15; Eph 4:4; 1Th 4:7; to which passages the interpretation “on the ground of grace” (Wieseler) is not suitable. Others take ἐν for εἰς (Vulgate, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Beza and others, also Borger and Rückert); so that by brevity of language ἐν, indicating the result of the direction, includes within it this also; see Winer, p. 388 [E. T. 514]. This is unnecessarily forced, for such a constructio praegnans in Greek and in the N.T. is undisputed only in the case of verbs of motion (as ἔρχεσθαι, εἰσιέναι, ἐμπίπτειν, κ.τ.λ.). Comp. also Hartung, über d. Kas. p. 68 f. In point of sense, moreover, this view is liable to the objection that the κλῆσις always refers to the Messianic kingdom (1Th 2:12; 1Ti 6:12; 2Th 2:14; 1Pe 5:10; Rev 19:9, et al.; also 1Co 1:9, and passages such as Col 3:15; 1Th 4:7), and the grace of Christ is that which procures the Messianic σωτηρία (Rom 5:15, et al.), and not the σωτηρία itself. On the absence of the article before χάριτι, see Winer, p. 118 f. [E. T. 147 f.]
Observe, moreover how the whole mode of setting forth the apostasy makes the readers sensible of its antagonism to God and salvation! Comp. Chrysostom and Theodoret.
εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγ.] to a gospel of a different quality, from that, namely, which was preached to you when God called you. Comp. 2Co 11:4. The contrast is based on the previous designation of their calling as having taken place ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ (not somehow by the law),-a statement clearly enough indicating the specific nature of the Pauline gospel, from which the nature of the Judaistic teaching, although the Galatians had likewise received the latter as the gospel for which it had been passed off, was withal so different (ἕτερον). Comp. Gal 1:8.
Gal 1:7. The expression just used, εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, was a paradoxical one, for in the true sense there is only one gospel: it seems to presuppose the existence of several εὐαγγέλια, but only serves to bring into clearer light the misleading efforts of the Judaists, and in this sense the apostle now explains it.
ὅ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή κ.τ.λ.] which ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, to which ye have fallen away, is not another, not a second gospel, alongside of that by means of which ye were called (ἄλλο, not ἕτερον again), except there are certain persons who perplex you, etc. That is, this ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον is not another by the side of the former, only there are certain persons who perplex you; so that in this respect only can we speak of ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον as if it were an ἄλλο. So in substance Wieseler and Hofmann; comp. Matthias. It must be observed that the emphasis is laid first on οὐκ and then on ἄλλο; so that, although Paul has previously said εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, he yet guards the oneness of the gospel, and represents that to which he applied the words ἕτερον εὐαγγ. as only the corruption and perversion of the one (of the εὐαγγ. τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ). Thus εἰ μή retains its general meaning nisi, without any need to assume (with Matthies) an abbreviation for εἰ μὴ ἄλλο ἐστὶ διὰ τοῦτο, ὅτι τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες κ.τ.λ.[18] The two emphatic words ἕτερον and ἌΛΛΟ preserve, however, their difference in sense: ἌΛΛΟ meaning absolutely another, that is, a second likewise existing (besides the one gospel); and ἕτερον one of another kind, different (ἕτερον καὶ ἀνόμοιον Plat. Conv. p. 186 B). Dem. 911. 7; Soph. Phil. 501, O. C. 1446; Xen. Anab. vi. 4. 8 (and Krüger in loc.); Wis 7:5; Jdt 8:20. In the N.T., comp. especially 1Co 12:8-10; 1Co 15:40; 2Co 11:4; Act 4:12; also 1Co 14:21; Rom 7:23; Mar 16:12; Luk 9:29. Comp. also the expression ἕτερον παρά τι, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 71 A., Rep. p. 337 E. The interpretation most generally received (Peschito, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Wolf, Bengel, and many others; also Morus, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Usteri, de Wette, Hilgenfeld) connects ὅ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο merely with ΕὐΑΓΓΈΛΙΟΝ,[19] and for the most part understands εἰ μή adversatively, “Neque tamen est ulla alia doctrina de Jesu Christo vera; sunt vero homines,” etc., Koppe. Against this interpretation may be urged, first, the fact that ἝΤΕΡΟΝ previously had the chief emphasis laid on it, and is therefore quite unwarrantably excluded from the reference of the relative which follows; secondly, that Paul must have logically used some such expression as ΜῊ ὌΝΤΟς ἈΛΛΟῦ; and lastly, that ΕἸ ΜΉ never means anything else than nisi, not even in passages such as Gal 2:16; Mat 12:4 (see on this passage); Luk 4:26; 1Co 7:17; and Rev 9:4; Rev 21:27. Comp. Hom. Od. xii. 325 f., οὐδέ τις ἄλλος γίγνετʼ ἔπειτʼ ἀνέμων, εἰ μὴ Εὐρός τε Νότος τε, and the passages in Poppo, ad Thuc. III. 1, p. 216. Others, as Calvin, Grotius (not Calovius), Homberg, Winer, Rückert, Olshausen, refer ὅ to the whole contents of ὍΤΙ ΟὝΤΩ ΤΑΧΈΩς … ΕὐΑΓΓΈΛΙΟΝ, “quod quidem (sc. vos deficere a Christo) non est aliud, nisi, etc., the case is not otherwise than” (Winer). But by this interpretation the whole point of the relation, so Pauline in its character, which ὅ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο bears to ἝΤΕΡΟΝ, is lost; and why should the more special explanation of the deficere a Christo be annexed in so emphatic a form, and not by a simple γάρ or the like? Lastly, Schott (so also Cornelius a Lapide) looks upon Ὅ ΟὐΚ ἜΣΤΙΝ ἌΛΛΟ as a parenthesis, and makes ΕἸ ΜΉ ΤΙΝΕς Κ.Τ.Λ. depend on ΘΑΥΜΆΖΩ Κ.Τ.Λ.; so that that, which is expressed in the words ΘΑΥΜΆΖΩ Κ.Τ.Λ., by ΕἸ ΜΉ ΤΙΝΕς Κ.Τ.Λ. “limitibus circumscribatur proferenda defectionis causa, qua perpendenda illud θαυμάζειν vel minuatur vel tollatur.” This is incorrect, for logically Paul must have written ἐθαύμαζον ἄν … εἰ μή τινες ἦσαν; and with what arbitrary artifice Ὅ ΟὐΚ ἜΣΤΙΝ ἌΛΛΟ is thus set aside and, as it were, abandoned, and yet the reference of the Ὅ to the emphatic ἝΤΕΡΟΝ is assumed!
ΟἹ ΤΑΡΆΣΣΟΝΤΕς ὙΜᾶς] The participle with the article designates the ΤΙΝΈς as those whose characteristic was the ΤΑΡΆΣΣΕΙΝ of the Galatians, as persons who dealt in this, who were occupied with it. Comp. the very usual ΕἸΣῚΝ ΟἹ ΛΈΓΟΝΤΕς; also Luk 18:9; Col 2:8. See generally Winer, p. 104 [E. T. 136]; Krüger, § 50. 4. 3; Fritzsche, Quaest. Luk. p. 18; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 238. On ταράσσειν, in the sense of perplexing the faith and principles, comp. here and Gal 5:10, especially Act 15:24; Sir 28:9.
ΚΑῚ ΘΈΛΟΝΤΕς ΜΕΤΑΣΤΡΈΨΑΙ] “re ipsa non poterant, volebant tamen obnixe,” Bengel; “volunt … sed non valent,” Jerome. On the other hand, the ταράσσειν of the Galatians actually took place.
The article before ταρ. refers to ΘΈΛΟΝΤΕς as well. See Seidler, ad Eur. El. 429; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 52; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 19.
μεταστρέψαι, to pervert, that is, to alter so that it acquires an entirely opposite nature. Comp. LXX. 1Sa 10:9; Sir 11:31; Hom. Il. xv. 203; Dem. 1032. 1.
τὸ εὐαγγ. τοῦ Χ.] see generally on Mar 1:1. The genitive is here not auctoris, but, as expressing the specific characteristic of the one only gospel in contradistinction to those who were perplexing the Galatians, objecti (concerning Christ). This is evident from Gal 1:6, where ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ indicates the contents of the gospel.
[18] Fritzsche, ad Marc. vi. 5, takes εἰ μή ironically, and τινές in the well-known sense, people of importance (see on Act 5:36, and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 731): “nisi forte magni est facienda eorum auctoritas, qui,” etc. But the article which follows renders this interpretation not at all necessary (see below). Besides, in this sense Paul uses only the neuter (see Gal 2:6, Gal 6:3; 1Co 3:7). Lastly, he is fond of designating false teachers, adversaries, etc., as τινές, that is, quidam, quos nominare nolo (Hermann, ad Viger. l.c.). See 1Co 4:18; 2Co 3:1; Gal 2:12; 1Co 15:12; 1Ti 1:3.
[19] So already the Marcionites, who proved from our passage that there was no other gospel than theirs! See Chrysostom in loc.
Gal 1:8. Ἀλλά, not but, as an antithesis to οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο (Hofmann), which has already been fully disposed of by εἰ μὴ κ.τ.λ. It is rather the however confronting most emphatically the τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες κ.τ.λ. “There are some, etc.; whoso, however, it may be who so behaves, let him he accursed!” This curse pronounced by the apostle on his opponents is indirect, but, because it is brought about by a conclusion a majori ad minus, all the more emphatic.
καὶ ἐάν] to be taken together, even in the case that. See Herm. ad Viger. p. 832; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 140 f.
ἡμεῖς] applies primarily and chiefly to the apostle himself, but the σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοί (Gal 1:2) are also included. To embrace in the reference the associates of the apostle in founding the Galatian churches (Hofmann) is premature, for these are only presented to the reader in the εὐηγγελισάμεθα which follows.
ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ] to be taken together: an angel οὐρανόθεν καταβάς (Hom. Il. xi. 184). Comp. ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανῷ, Mat 22:30. If Paul rejects both his own and angelic authority-consequently even the supposed superhuman intervention (comp. 1Co 13:1)-with reference to the case assumed, as accursed,[20]every one without exception (comp. ὅστις ἄν ᾖ, Gal 5:10) is in the same case subject to the same curse. The certainty, that no other gospel but that preached by the apostle to his readers was the true one, cannot be more decisively confirmed.
παρʼ ὅ εὐηγγελισ. ὑμῖν] This ὅ, which is not to be explained by εὐαγγέλιον (Schott, Flatt, Hofmann), is simply that which, namely, as the context shows, as contents of the gospel; “beyond that which we,” etc. (Bernhardy, p. 259.) This may mean either praeterquam (Vulgate, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Calovius, Rambach, and others) or contra (so Theodoret and the older Catholics, Grotius, and many others; also Winer, Rückert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, Hofmann). For the two meanings, see Matthiae, p. 1381; Winer, p. 377 [E. T. 503]. In earlier times a dogmatic interest was involved in this point: the Lutherans, in order to combat tradition, laying the stress on praeterquam; and the Catholics, to protect the same, on contra. See Calovius and Estius. The contra, or more exactly, the sense of specific difference, is most suitable to the context (see Gal 1:6, ἕτερον εὐαγγέλ.). Comp. Rom 16:17.
εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν] that is, “I and my companions at the time of your conversion” (comp. παρελάβετε, Gal 1:9). The emphasis, however, lies on παρʼ.
ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.] Let him be subject to the divine wrath and everlasting perdition (חֵרֶם), the same as κατάρα and ἐπικατάρατος, Gal 3:13; see on Rom 9:3. The opposite, Gal 6:16. To apply it (Rosenmüller, Baumgarten-Crusius, comp. also Grotius and Semler) to the idea of excommunication subsequently expressed in the church (Suicer, Thes. I. p. 270) by the word ἀνάθεμα, is contrary to the usage of the N.T. (Rom 9:3; 1Co 12:3; 1Co 16:22), and is besides in this passage erroneous, because even a false-teaching angel is supposed in the protasis. Comp., on the contrary, Gal 5:10, ΒΑΣΤΆΣΕΙ ΤῸ ΚΡῖΜΑ; 2Th 1:9. See generally the thoroughly excellent discussion of Wieseler, p. 39 ff. Mark, moreover, in the use of the preceptive rather than the mere optative form, the expression of the apostolic ἘΞΟΥΣΊΑ, Let him be!
[20] Comp. Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 6, where it is said even of the angels, ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσωσιν εἰς τὸ αἷμα Χριστοῦ, κἀκείνοις κρίσις ἐστίν.
Gal 1:9. Again the same curse (“deliberate loquitur,” Bengel); but now the addition of an allusion to an earlier utterance of it increases still more its solemn earnestness.
ὡς προειρήκαμεν] is referred by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Luther, Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, and most of the earlier expositors, also Flatt, Winer, Matthies, Neander, to Gal 1:8. But in this case Paul would have written merely ὡς εἰρήκαμεν, πάλιν λέγω, or simply πάλιν ἐρῶ, as in Php 4:4. The compound verb προειρήκαμεν (Gal 5:21; 2Co 7:3; 2Co 13:2; 1Th 4:6) and καὶ ἄρτι point necessarily to an earlier time, in contrast to the present. Hence the Peschito, Jerome (comp. Augustine, who leaves a choice between the two views), Semler, Koppe, Borger, Rückert, Usteri, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others, rightly take it as indicating the presence of the apostle among the Galatians at the time when he uttered this curse; comp. Gal 5:3. We must, however, look upon this presence as the second and not the first visit (Hofmann); for the expression in the form of curse betrays an advanced stage of the danger, and not a merely prophylactic measure.
καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω] apodosis, “so say I also now (at the present moment) again;” so that πάλιν thus glances back to the time to which the προ applied. Rückert regards ὡς … λέγω together as the protasis (comp. Ewald), in which case the proper apodosis, so it is in fact, before εἴ τις would be wanting. Or rather, if ὡς … λέγω were the protasis, εἴ τις ὑμᾶς … ἀνάθεμα ἔστω would be the real apodosis. But why introduce at all such a forced departure from the separation, which presents itself so naturally, and is so full of emphasis, of ὡς … λέγω into protasis and apodosis? The reference of προειρήκ. to an earlier time is certain enough; and ἄρτι, now, in the sense of the point of time then present, is very usual in Greek authors (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 18 ff.) and in the N.T.
εἴ τις ὑμᾶς κ.τ.λ.] Paul does not here, as in Gal 1:8, again use ἐάν with the subjunctive, but on account of the actual occurrence puts the positive εἰ,-thus giving to his utterance a climactic character, as in Act 5:38 f. (see on the passage); Luk 13:9; Winer, p. 277 [E. T. 369]; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 190; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 93 B. Comp. 2Co 12:20-21, μήπως
μήπως-g0-
μή-g0-.
As to εὐαγγελίζεσθαι with the accusative,[21] which does not occur elsewhere in Paul’s writings, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 268.
παρελάβετε] often used of that which one gets through instruction. See Kypke, II. p. 222. It may, however, denote either to take (actively), as in 1Co 15:1; 1Jn 1:10; Php 4:9; or to receive (passively), as in Gal 1:12; 1Th 2:13; 1Co 15:3, et al. The latter is preferable here, as a parallel to εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν in Gal 1:8.
[21] The studied design which Bengel discovers in the alternation between ὑμῖν (ver. 8) and ὑμᾶς (ver. 9), “evangelio aliquem instruere convenit insultationi falsorum doctorum,” is groundless. For they might say just as boastingly, “evangelium praedicavimus vobis!” The change in the words is accidental.
Gal 1:10. Paul feels that the curse which he had just repeated twice might strike his readers as being repulsive and stern; and in reference thereto he now gives an explanatory justification (γάρ) of the harsh language. He would not have uttered that ἀνάθεμα ἔστω, if he had been concerned at present to influence men in his favour, and not God, etc.
ἄρτι] has the chief emphasis, corresponds to the ἄρτι in Gal 1:9, and is therefore to be understood, not, as it usually is (and by Wieseler also), in the wider sense of the period of the apostle’s Christian life generally, but (so Bengel, de Wette, Ellicott) in reference to the present moment, as in Gal 1:9, just as ἄρτι always in the N.T., corresponding to the Greek usage of the word, expresses the narrower idea modo, nunc ipsum, but does not represent the wider sense of νῦν (Gal 2:20; 2Co 5:16; Mat 26:53, et al.), which is not even the case in the passages in Lobeck, p. 20. Hence, often as νῦν in Paul’s writings covers the whole period from his conversion, ἄρτι is never used in this sense, not even in 1Co 13:12. The latter rather singles out from the more general compass of the νῦν the present moment specially, as in the classical combination νῦν ἄρτι (Plat. Polit. p. 291 B, Men. p. 85 C). Now, Paul would say, just now, when he is induced to write this letter by the Judaizing reaction against the very essence of the true and sole gospel which he upheld,-now, at this critical point of time-it could not possibly be his business to conciliate men, but God only. Comp. Hofmann.
ἀνθρώ πους] is quite general, and is not to be restricted either to his opponents (Hofmann) or otherwise. The category, which is pointed at, is negatived, and thus the generic ἀνθρώπ. needed no article (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 619. 13; Sauppe, ad Xen. Mem. i. 4, 14).
πείθω] persuadeo, whether by words or otherwise. The word never has any other signification; but the more precise definition of its meaning results from the context. Here, where that which was repulsive in the preceding curse is to receive explanation, and the parallel is ζητῶ ἀρέσκειν, and where also the words ἢ τὸν Θεόν must fit in with the idea of πείθω, it denotes, as often in classical authors (Nägelsbach zur Ilias. i. 100), to win over, to conciliate and render friendly to oneself (Act 12:20, and Kypke thereon). Comp. especially on πείθειν θεόν, Pind. Ol. ii. 144; Plat. Pol. iii. p. 390 E, ii. p. 364 C; Eur. Med. 964; also the passages from Josephus in Krebs. Lastly, the present tense expresses, I am occupied with it, I make it my business. See Bernhardy, p. 370. Our explanation of πείθω substantially agrees with that of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Flacius, Hammond, Grotius, Elsner, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Wolf, Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, and others; also Borger, Flatt, Winer, Rückert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald (who, however, restricts the reference of ἢ τὸν Θεόν, which there is nothing to limit, to the day of judgment), Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others. The interpretations which differ from this, such as “humana suadeo or doceo, an divina” (Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Vatablus, Gomarus, Cramer, Michaelis); or “suadeone secundum homines an secundum Deum,” thus expressing the intention and not the contents (Calvin); or “suadeone vobis, ut hominibus credatis an ut Deo” (Piscator, Pareus, Calixtus; so also in substance, Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 332 ff., and Hilgenfeld), are contrary to the meaning of the word: for πείθειν τινά always means persuadere alicui, and is not to be identified with πείθειν τι (Act 19:8; Act 28:23), placing the personal accusative under the point of view of the thing.
ἢ ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν] or do I strive to be an object of human goodwill?-not tautological, but more general than the preceding. The stress which lies on ἀνθρώποις makes any saving clause on the part of expositors (as, for example, Schott, “de ejusmodi cogitari studio hominibus placendi, quod Deo displiceat”) appear unsuitable. Even by his winning accommodation (1Co 9:19 ff; 1Co 10:15) Paul sought not at all to please men, but rather God. Comp. 1Th 2:4.
εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον κ.τ.λ.] contains the negative answer to the last question. The emphasis is placed first on ἀνθρώποις, and next on Χριστοῦ: “If I still pleased men, if I were not already beyond the possession of human favour, but were still well-pleasing to men, I should not be Christ’s servant.” According to de Wette, ἔτι is intended to affirm nothing more than that, if the one existed, the other could no longer exist. But in this case ἔτι must logically have been placed after οὐκ. The truth of the proposition, εἰ ἔτι κ.τ.λ., in which ἀνθρώπ. is not any more than before to be limited to Paul’s opponents (according to Holsten, even including the apostles at Jerusalem), rests upon the principle that no one can serve two masters (Mat 6:24), and corresponds to the οὐαί of the Lord Himself (Luk 6:26), and to His own precedent (Joh 6:41). But how decidedly, even at that period of the development of his apostolic consciousness, Paul had the full and clear conviction that he was an object, not of human goodwill, but of human hatred and calumny, is specially evident from the Epistles to the Corinthians composed soon afterwards; comp., however, even 1Th 2:4 ff. In this he recognised a mark of the servant of God and Christ (2Co 6:4 ff; 2Co 11:23 ff.; 1Co 4:9). The ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν is the result of ζητεῖν ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν, and consequently means to please men, not to seek to please or to live to please them, as most expositors, even Rückert, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius,[22] quite arbitrarily assume, although apart from the context the words might have this meaning; see on 1Co 10:33; and comp. ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, Eph 6:6
ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ΔΟῦΛΟς ΟὐΚ ἊΝ ἬΜΗΝ] is understood by most expositors, following Chrysostom, including Koppe, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Paulus, Schott, Rückert, “so should I now be no apostle, but I should have remained a Jew, Pharisee, and persecutor of Christians;” taking, therefore, ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ΔΟῦΛΟς in an historical sense. But how feeble this idea would be, and how lacking the usual depth of the apostle’s thought! No; Χριστοῦ δοῦλος is to be taken in its ethical character (Erasmus, Grotius, Bengel, Semler, Zachariae, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Wieseler, and others): “Were I still well-pleasing to men, this would exclude the character of a servant of Christ, and I should not be such an one; whom men misunderstand, hate, persecute, revile.” As to the relation, however, of our passage to 1Co 10:32, see Calovius, who justly remarks that in the latter passage the πάντα πᾶσιν ἀρέσκω is meant secundum Deum et ad hominum aedificationem, and not secundum auram et voluntatem nudam hominum.
[22] To live to please, to render oneself pleasing, is also Wieseler’s interpretation (comp. also Rom 15:1), who consistently understands the previous ἀρέσκειν in the same way. Comp. Winer and Hofmann. But there would thus be no motive for the change from ζητῶ ἀρέσκειν to ἤρεσκον only, which according to our view involves a very significant progress. Paul seeks not to please, and pleases not.
Gal 1:11-12.[23] Theme of the apologetic portion of the epistle. See Introd. sec. 2.
δέ] carrying on the discourse. The way having been prepared for this theme in Gal 1:8-10, it is now formally announced for further discussion.[24] And after the impassioned outburst in Gal 1:6-10, the language becomes composed and calm. Now therefore, for the first time, we find the address ἀδελφοί.
γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν] but (now to enter more particularly on the subject of my letter) I make known to you. This announcement has a certain solemnity (comp. 1Co 15:1; 2Co 8:1; 1Co 12:3), which is only enhanced by the fact that the matter must have been already known to the reader. There is no need to modify the sense of γνωρίζω, which neither here nor in 1Co 15:1 means monere vos volo or the like (Morus, Rosenmüller, and others).
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον … ὅτι] attraction, Winer, p. 581 f. [E. T. 781 f.]
τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπʼ ἐμοῦ] which has been announced by me, among you and among others (comp. ὃ κηρύσσω, Gal 2:2); not to be limited to the conversion of the readers only.
κατὰ ἄνθρωπον] cannot indicate the mode of announcement, which would require us to conceive εὐαγγελισθέν as repeated (Hofmann). Necessarily belonging to οὐκ ἔστι, it is the negative modal expression of the gospel itself which was preached by Paul; specifying, however, not its origin (Augustine, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others), which κατά in itself never expresses (Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 3), but its qualitative relation, although this is conditioned by its origin (Gal 1:12). The gospel announced by me is not according to men, that is, not of such quality as it would be if it were the work of men; it is not of the same nature as human wisdom, human efficiency, and the like. Comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 24, τὸ τοὺς νόμους αὐτοὺς τοῖς παραβαίνουσι τὰς τιμωρίας ἔχειν βελτίονος ἢ κατʼ ἄνθρωπον νομοθέτου δοκεῖ μοι εἶναι. Eur. Med. 673, σοφώτερʼ ἢ κατʼ ἄνδρα συμβαλεῖν ἔπη. Soph. Aj. 747, μὴ κατʼ ἄνθρωπον φρονεῖ. Comp. Aj. 764; Oed. Col. 604; Plat. Pol. 2. 359 D. The opposite, ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον εἶναι, Lucian, Vit. auct. 2. Looking to the context, the view of Grotius is too narrow, “nihil humani affectus admixtum habet.” Bengel hits the mark, “non est humani census evangelium meum.”
[23] See Hofmann’s interpretation of i. 11-ii. 14 in his heil. Schr. N. T. I. p. 60 ff., ed. 2. On the other hand, see Hilgenfeld, Kanon u. Kritik d. N. T. p. 190 ff.
[24] If γάρ were the correct reading (Hofmann), it would correspond to the immediately preceding contrast between ἀνθρώποις and Χριστοῦ, confirming ver. 10, but would not introduce a justification of ver. 9, as Hofmann, arbitrarily going back beyond ver. 10, assumes.
Gal 1:12. Proof of the statement, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον … οὐκ ἔστι κατὰ ἄνθρωπον.
οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγώ] for neither I, any more than the other apostles. On οὐδὲ γάρ, for neither, which corresponds with the positive καὶ γάρ, comp. Bornemann, ad Xen. Symp. p. 200; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 211. The earlier expositors (also Morus, Koppe, and others) neglect both the signification of οὐδέ and the emphasis on ἐγώ, which is also overlooked by de Wette, “for also I have not,” etc.; and Ewald, “I obtained it not at all.” Comp., on the contrary, Mat 21:27; Luk 20:8; Joh 8:11. Rückert, Matthies, and Schott understand οὐδέ only as if it were οὔ, assuming it to be used on account of the previous negation; and see in ἐγώ a contrast to those, quibus ipse tradiderit evangelium, in which case there must have been αὐτός instead of ἐγώ. This remark also applies to Hofmann’s view, “that he himself has not received what he preached through human instruction.” Besides, the supposed reference of ἐγώ would be quite unsuitable, for the apostle had not at all in view a comparison with his disciples; a comparison with the other apostles was the point agitating his mind. Lastly, Winer finds too much in οὐδέ, “nam ne ego quidem.” This is objectionable, not because, as Schott and Olshausen, following Rückert, assume, οὐδʼ ἐγὼ γάρ or καὶ γὰρ οὐδʼ ἐγώ must in that case have been written, for in fact γάρ would have its perfectly regular position (Gal 6:13; Rom 8:7; Joh 5:22; Joh 7:5; Joh 8:42, et al.); but because ne ego quidem would imply the concession of a certain higher position for the other apostles (comp. 1Co 15:8-9), which would not be in harmony with the apostle’s present train of thought, where his argument turned rather on his equality with them (comp. 1Co 9:1).
παρὰ ἀνθρώπου] from a man, who had given it to me. Not to be confounded with ἀπʼ ἀνθρώπου (see on 1Co 11:23, and Hermann, ad Soph. El. 65). Here also, as in Gal 1:1, we have the contrast between ἄνθρωπος and Ἰησ. Χριστός.
οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην] As οὔτε refers only to the οὐκ contained in the preceding οὐδέ, and δέ and τέ do not correspond, οὔτε is here by no means inappropriate (as Rückert alleges). See Hand, De part. τέ diss. II. p. 13; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 101 f.; Buttmann, neutest. Gr. p. 315. Comp. on Act 23:8. For neither have I received it from a man, nor learned it. Παρέλαβον denotes the receiving through communication in general (comp. Gal 1:9), ἐδιδάχθην the receiving specially through instruction duly used.
ἀλλὰ διʼ ἀποκαλύψ. Ἰ. Χ.] The contrast to παρὰ ἀνθρώπου; Ἰησοῦ Χ. is therefore the genitive, not of the object (Theodoret, Matthies, Schott), but of the subject (comp. 2Co 12:1; Rev 1:1), by Jesus Christ giving to me revelation. Paul alludes to the revelations[25] received soon after the event at Damascus, and consequent therefore upon his calling, which enabled him to comply with it and to come forward as a preacher of the gospel. Comp. Gal 1:15-16; Eph 3:3. The revelation referred to in 2Co 12:1 ff. (Thomas, Cornelius a Lapide, Balduin, and others) cannot be meant; because this occurred at a subsequent period, when Paul had for a long time been preaching the gospel. Nor must we (with Koppe, Flatt, and Schott) refer it to the revelations which were imparted to him generally, including those of the later period, for here mention is made only of a revelation by which he received and learned the gospel.
How the ἀποκάλυψις took place (according to Calovius, through the Holy Spirit; comp. Act 9:17), must be left undecided. It may have taken place with or without vision, in different stages, partly even before his baptism in the three days mentioned Act 9:6; Act 9:9, partly at and immediately after it, but not through instruction on the part of Ananias. The ἘΝ ἘΜΟΊ in Gal 1:16 is consistent with either supposition.
[25] Of which, however, the book of Acts gives us no account; for in Act 22:17, Christ appeared to him not to reveal to him the gospel, but for the purpose of giving a special instruction. Hence they are not to be referred to the event at Damascus itself, as, following Jerome and Theodoret, many earlier and more recent expositors (Rückert, Usteri, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, Wieseler) assume. The calling of the apostle, by which he was converted at Damascus, is expressly distinguished in ver. 16 from the divine ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν ἐν ἐμοί, so that this inward ἀποκάλυψις followed the calling; the calling was the fact which laid the foundation for the ἀποκάλυψις (comp. Möller on de Wette)-the historical preliminary to it. In identifying the ἀποκάλυψις of our passage with the phenomenon at Damascus, it would be necessary to assume that Paul, to whom at Damascus the resurrection of Jesus was revealed, had come to add to this fundamental fact of his preaching the remaining contents of the doctrine of salvation, partly by means of argument, partly by further revelation, and partly by information derived from others (see especially Wieseler). This idea is, however, inconsistent with the assurance of our passage, which relates without restriction to the whole gospel preached by the apostle, consequently to the whole of its essential contents. The same objection may be specially urged against the view, with which Hofmann contents himself, that the wonderful phenomenon at Damascus certified to Paul’s mind the truth of the Christian faith, which had not been unknown to him before. Such a conception of the matter falls far short of the idea of the ἀποκάλυψις of the gospel through Christ, especially as the apostle refers specifically to his gospel.
Gal 1:13. Now begins the historical proof that he was indebted for his gospel to the ἀποκάλυψις he had mentioned, and not to human communication and instruction. In the first place, in Gal 1:13-14, he calls to their remembrance his well-known conduct whilst a Jew; for, as a persecutor of the Christians and a Pharisaic zealot, he could not but be the less fitted for human instruction in the gospel, which must, on the contrary, have come to him in that superhuman mode.
ἠκούσατε] emphatically prefixed, indicates that what is contained in Gal 1:13-14, is something already well known to his readers, which therefore required only to be recalled, not to be proved.
τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ] my previous course of life in Judaism, how I formerly behaved myself as a Jew. Ἰουδαϊσμός is not Judaistic zeal and activity (Matthies, “when I was still out and out a Jew;” comp. Schott), but just simply Judaism, as his national religious condition: see 2Ma 2:21; 2Ma 8:1; 2Ma 14:38; 4Ma 4:26. It forms the historical contrast to the present Χριστιανισμός of the apostle. Comp. Ignat. ad Magnes. 8, 10, Philad. 6.
ἀναστροφή in the sense of course of life, behaviour, is found, in addition to the N.T. (Eph 4:22; 1Ti 4:12, et al.) and the Apocrypha (Tob 4:14; 2Ma 5:8), only in later Greek, such as Polyb. iv. 82. 1. See Wetstein.
ποτε ἐν τῷ Ἰουδ.] a definition of time attached to τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν, in which the repetition of τήν was not necessary. Comp. Plat. Legg. iii. p. 685 D, ἡ τῆς Τροίας ἅλωσις τὸ δεύτερον. Soph. O. R. 1043, τοῦ τυράννου τῆσδε γῆς πάλαι ποτέ. Php 1:26. Comp. also on 1Co 8:7 and on 2Co 11:23
ὅτι καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν κ.τ.λ.] a more precise definition of the object of ἠκούσατε, that I, namely, beyond measure persecuted, etc. On καθʼ ὑπερβολήν, the sense of which bears a superlative relation to σφόδρα, comp. Rom 7:13; 1Co 12:31; 2Co 1:8; 2Co 4:17; Bernhardy, p. 241.
τοῦ Θεοῦ] added in the painful consciousness of the wickedness and guilt of such doings. Comp. 1Co 15:9; 1Ti 1:13
ἐπόρθουν] is not to be understood de conatu (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Menochius, and others); Paul was then actually engaged in the work of destruction (Act 22:4, comp. Act 9:1, Act 26:10-11), and therefore it is not to be understood (with Beza, Piscator, Estius, Winer, Usteri, and Schott) merely as vastavi, depopulatus sum (Hom. Od. xiv. 264, ἀγροὺς πόρθεον, et al.). Paul wished to be not a mere devastator, not a mere disturber (see Luther’s translation), but a destroyer[26] of the church; and as such he was active (Hom. Il. iv. 308, πόλιας καὶ τείχεʼ ἐπόρθουν, et al.). Moreover, in the classic authors also πορθεῖν and ΠΈΡΘΕΙΝ are applied not only to things, but also to men (comp. Act 9:21) in the sense of bringing to ruin and the like. See Heindorf, ad Plat. Prot. p. 340 A; Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 1187; Jacobs, Del. epigr. i. 80.
[26] [Nicht bloss Verstörer, sondern Zerstörer.]
Gal 1:14. Still dependent on ὅτι.
καί] the προκόπτειν ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ had then been combined in Paul with his hostile action against Christianity, had kept pace with it.
Ἰουδαϊσμός, not Jewish theology (Grotius, Rückert), but just as in Gal 1:13. Judaism was the sphere in which he advanced further and improved more than those of his age by growth in Jewish culture, in Jewish zeal for the law, in Jewish energy of works, etc. On προκόπτειν as intransitive (Luk 2:52; 2Ti 2:16; 2Ti 3:9; 2Ti 3:13), very frequent in Polyb., Lucian, etc., comp. Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. p. 35; on ἐν τ. Ἰουδ., comp. Lucian, Herm. 63, ἐν τοῖς μαθήμασι, Paras. 13, ἐν ταῖς τέχναις.
συνηλικιώτης] one of the same age, occurring only here in the N.T., a word belonging to the later Greek (Diod. Sic. i. 53? Alciphr. i. 12). See Wetstein. The ancient authors use ἡλικιώτης (Plat. Apol. p. 33 C, and frequently).
ἐν τῷ γένει μου] a more precise definition of συνηλικ.; γένει is therefore, in conformity with the context (comp. ἐν τῷ Ἰουδ.), to be understood in a national sense,[27] and not of the sect of the Pharisees (Paulus). Comp. Php 3:5; 2Co 11:26; Rom 9:3; Act 7:19.
περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων κ.τ.λ.] a more detailed statement, specifying in what way the προέκοπτον … γένει μου found active expression; “so that I” etc.
περισσοτέρως] than those ΠΟΛΛΟΊ. They, too, were zealous for the traditions of their fathers (whether like Paul they were Pharisees, or not); but Paul was so in a more superabundant measure for his.
τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων] endeavouring with zealous interest to obey, uphold, and assert them. On the genitive of the object, comp. 2Ma 4:2; Act 21:20; Act 22:3; 1Co 14:12; Tit 2:14; Plat. Prot. p. 343 A. The πατρικαί μου παραδόσεις, that is, the religious definitions handed down to me from my fathers (in respect to doctrine, ritual, asceticism, interpretation of Scripture, conduct of life, and the like), are the Pharisaic traditions (comp. Mat 5:21; Mat 15:2; Mar 7:3); for Paul was Φαρισαῖος (Php 3:5; Act 26:5), ΥἹῸς ΦΑΡΙΣΑΊΩΝ (Act 23:6). So also Erasmus (Annot.), Beza, Calovius, de Wette, Hofmann, and others. If Paul had intended to refer to the Mosaic law, either alone (Erasmus, Paraphr., Luther, Calvin, and others) or together with the Pharisaic traditions (Estius, Grotius, Calixtus, Morus, Koppe, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Rückert, Schott, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, “the law according to the strict rule of Pharisaism,” comp. Möller), he would have named the law either by itself or along with the traditions (Act 21:20; Act 22:3; 2Ma 4:2); but by μου he limits the ΠΑΤΡΙΚᾺς ΠΑΡΑΔΌΣΕΙς to the special elements resulting from his descent, which did not apply to those who were in different circumstances as to descent; whereas the law applied to all Jews. Comp., as parallel, Act 26:5. That Paul had been zealous for the law in general, followed as a matter of course from προέκοπτ. ἐν τ. Ἰουδαϊσμῷ; but here he is stating the specific way in which his own peculiar προκόπτειν ἐν Ἰουδαϊσμῷ had displayed itself-his Pharisaic zealotry. It would have been surprising if in this connection he had omitted to mention the latter.
πατρικός, not found elsewhere in the N.T., means paternal. Comp. LXX. Gen 50:8; Lev 22:13; Sir 42:10; 3 Esd. 1:5, 29; 4Ma 18:7; Plat. Lach. p. 180 E, Soph. p. 242 A; Isocr. Evag. p. 218, 35; Diod. Sic. i. 88; Polyb. i. 78. 1; Athen. xv. p. 667 F. In this case the context alone decides whether the idea a patribus acceptus (πατροπαράδοτος, 1Pe 1:18) is conveyed by it, as in this passage by ΜΟΥ, or not (as, for instance, Polyb. xxi. 5, 7). The former is very frequently the case. As to the much discussed varying distinction between ΠΆΤΡΙΟς, ΠΑΤΡΙΚΌς, and ΠΑΤΡῷΟς, comp. on Act 22:3.
[27] For with Hellenist associates, of whom likewise in Jerusalem there could be no lack, he does not desire to compare himself.
Gal 1:15. But when it pleased, etc. Comp. Luk 12:32; 1Co 1:21; Rom 15:26; Col 1:19; 1Th 2:8; 1Th 3:1. It denotes, of course, the free placuit of the divine decree, but is here conceived as an act in time, which is immediately followed by the execution of it, not as from eternity (Beza).
ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου] who separated me, that is, in His counsel set me apart from other men for a special destination, from my mother’s womb; that is, not in the womb (Wieseler); nor, from the time when I was in the womb (Hofmann, comp. Möller); nor, ere I was born (Rückert); but, as soon as I had issued from the womb, from my birth. Comp. Psa 22:11; Isa 44:2; Isa 49:1; Isa 49:5; Mat 19:12; Act 3:2; Act 14:8 (in Luk 1:15, where ἔτι is added, the thought is different). ἐκ γενετῆς, Joh 9:1, has the same meaning. Comp. the Greek ἐκ γαστρός, and the like. We must not assume a reference to Jer 1:5 (Grotius, Semler, Reithmayr, and others), for in that passage there is an essentially different definition of time (πρὸ τοῦ με πλάσαι σε ἐν κοιλίᾳ κ.τ.λ.). We may add, that this designation of God completely corresponds with Paul’s representation of his apostolic independence of men. What it was, to which God had separated him from his birth and had called him (at Damascus), is of course evident in itself and from Gal 1:1; but it also results from the sequel (Gal 1:16). It was the apostleship, which he recognised as a special proof of free and undeserved divine grace (Rom 1:4; Rom 12:3; Rom 15:15; 1Co 15:10); hence here also he adds διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ.[28] Rückert is wrong in asserting that καλέσας cannot refer here to the call at Damascus, but can only denote the calling to salvation and the apostleship in the Divine mind. In favour of this view he adduces the aorist, which represents the κλῆσις as previous to the εὐδόκησεν ἀποκαλύψαι, and also the connection of καλέσας with ἀφορίσας by means of καί. Both arguments are based upon the erroneous idea that the revelation of the gospel was coincident with the calling of the apostle. But Paul was first called at Damascus by the miraculous appearance of Christ, which laid hold of him without any detailed instruction (Php 3:12), and thereafter, through the apocalyptic operation of God, the Son of God was revealed in him: the κλῆσις at Damascus preceded this ἀποκάλυψις;[29] the former called him to the service, the latter furnished him with the contents, of the gospel. Comp. on Gal 1:12. Moreover, the ΚΛΉΣΙς is never an act in the Divine mind, but always an historical fact (Rom 8:30). This also militates against Hofmann, who makes ἘΚ ΚΟΙΛΊΑς ΜΗΤΡΌς ΜΟΥ belong to ΚΑΛΈΣΑς as well-a connection excluded by the very position of the words. And what a strange definition of the idea conveyed by ΚΑΛΕῖΝ, and how completely foreign to the N.T., is the view of Hofmann, who makes it designate “an act executed in the course of the formation of this man”! Moreover, our passage undoubtedly implies that by the calling and revelation here spoken of the consciousness of apostleship-and apostleship in reference to the heathen-was divinely produced in Paul, and became clear and certain. This, however, does not exclude, but is, on the contrary, a divine preparation for, the fuller development of this consciousness in its more definite aspects by means of experience and the further guidance of Christ and His Spirit.
[28] For διὰ τ. χάρ. αὐτοῦ belongs to καλέσας as a modal definition of it, and not to ἀποκαλύψαι, as Hofmann, disregarding the symmetrically similar construction of the two participial statements, groundlessly asserts. Paul knew himself to be κλητὸς ἀπόστολος διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ (1Co 1:1; 2Co 1:1), and he knew that this θέλημα was that of the divine grace, 1Co 15:10; 1Co 3:10; Gal 2:9; Rom 1:5; Rom 12:3.
[29] Hence also ἐν ἐμοί by no means diminishes the importance of the external phenomenon at Damascus (as Baur and others contend).
Gal 1:16. Ἀποκαλύψαι] belongs to εὐδόκησεν; but ἐν ἐμοί is in my mind, in my consciousness, in which the Son of God was to become manifest as the sum and substance of knowledge (Php 3:8); comp. 2Co 4:6, ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν. See Chrysostom, τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως καταλαμπούσης αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχήν. Comp. Oecum. (εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον τῆς γνώσεως ἐνιζησάσης), Theophylact, Beza, and most expositors. Calvin, Koppe, Flatt, and others, wrongly hold that it stands for the mere dative. Comp. Bengel. But ἐν is never nota dativi, and all the passages adduced to that effect (such as 1Co 9:15; 1Co 14:11; 1Ti 4:15; Act 4:12, et al.) are to be so explained that ἐν shall retain its signification (Winer, p. 204 [E. T. 272]); as must also be the case in the passages used to support the sense of the dativus commodi (see Bernhardy, p. 212). Jerome, Pelagius, Erasmus, Piscator, Vorstius, Grotius, Estius, Morus, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, interpret it through me, “ut per me, velut organum, notum redderet filium suum” (Erasmus, Paraphr.). But the revelation given to the apostle himself is a necessary element in the connection (Gal 1:12): Paul was immediately after his birth set apart by God, subsequently called at Damascus, and thereafter provided inwardly with the revelation of the Son of God, in order that he might be able outwardly to preach, etc. Others, again,[30] take it as “on me,” in my case, which is explained to mean either that the conversion appeared as a proof of Christ’s power, etc. (Peter Lombard, Seb. Schmidt), or that the revelation had been imparted to the apostle as matter of fact, by means of his own experience, or, in other words, through his own case (Rückert). Comp. 1Jn 4:9, ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν. But the former explanation is unsuitable to the context, and the latter again depends on the erroneous identification of the calling of the apostle at Damascus with the revelation of the gospel which he received.
ΤῸΝ ΥἹῸΝ ΑὐΤΟῦ] This is the great foundation and whole sum of the gospel. Comp. Gal 1:6 f., Gal 2:20. In his pre-Christian blindness Paul had known Christ ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ, 2Co 5:16.
ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΖΩΜΑΙ] Present tense;[31] for the fulfilment of this destination which had even then been assigned to him by God (Act 9:15; Act 22:15; Act 26:17 f.) was, at the time when the epistle was written, still in course of execution (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 618). Thus, in opposition to his adversaries, the continuous divine right and obligation of this apostolic action is asserted.
ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν] among the heathen peoples. See Act 9:15; Act 22:21; Act 26:17-18; Eph 3:8; Rom 11:13. The fact that Paul always began his work of conversion with the Jews resident among the Gentiles, was not inconsistent with his destination as the apostle of the Gentiles; this, indeed, was the way of calling adopted by the Gentile apostle in accordance with that destination (see Rom 1:16). Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 37.
εὐθέως] does not belong exclusively either to the negative (Hilgenfeld, Hofmann) or to the affirmative part of the apodosis (Winer); but as the two parts themselves are inseparably associated, it belongs to the whole sentence οὐ προσανεθέμην … ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβ., “Immediately I took not counsel with flesh and blood, nor did I make a journey to Jerusalem, but,” etc. He expresses that which he had done immediately after he had received the revelation, by way of antithesis, negatively and positively; for it was his object most assiduously to dispel the notion that he had received human instruction. Jerome, in order to defend the apostle against Porphyry’s unjust reproach of presumption and fickleness, connects εὐθέως with ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΖΩΜΑΙ; as recently Credner, Einl. I. 1, p. 303, has also done. No objection can be taken to the emphasis of the adverb at the end of the sentence (Kühner, II. p. 625; Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 6. 9; Stallbaum, ad Phaedr. p. 256 E); but the whole strength of the proof lies not in what Paul was immediately to do, but in what he, had immediately done. “Notatur subita habilitas apostoli,” Bengel. We must, moreover, allow εὐθέως to retain its usual strict signification, and not, with Hofmann,[32] substitute the sense of “immediately then,” “just at once” (“not at a subsequent time only”), as if Paul had written ἤδη ἐκ τότε or the like. Observe, too, on comparing the book of Acts, that the purposely added εὐθέως still does not exclude a brief ministry in Damascus previous to the journey to Arabia (Act 9:20), the more especially as his main object was to show, that he had gone from Damascus to no other place than Arabia, and had not until three years later gone to Jerusalem. To make special mention of his brief working in Damascus, before his departure to Arabia, was foreign to the logical scope of his statement.
οὐ προσανεθέμην] I addressed no communication to flesh and blood, namely, in order to learn the opinion of others as to this revelation which I had received, and to obtain from them instruction, guidance, and advice. πρός conveys the notion of direction, not, as Beza and Bengel assert (comp. also Usteri and Jatho), the idea praeterea.[33] See Diod. Sic. xvii. 116, ΤΟῖς ΜΆΝΤΕΣΙ ΠΡΟΣΑΝΑΘΈΜΕΝΟς ΠΕΡῚ ΤΟῦ ΣΗΜΕΊΟΥ; Lucian, Jup. Trag. 1, ἐμοὶ προσανάθου, λάβε με σύμβουλον πόνων, in contrast to the preceding ΚΑΤΑΜΌΝΑς ΣΑΥΤῷ ΛΑΛΕῖς; Nicetas, Angel. Comnen ii. 5. Comp. C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 204. Just so προσαναφέρειν, 2Ma 11:36; Tob 12:15; Polyb. xxxi. 19. 4, xvii. 9. 10.
ΣΑΡΚῚ ΚΑῚ ΑἽΜΑΤΙ] that is, to weak men, in contrast to the experience of God’s working. See on Mat 16:17. Eph 6:12 is also analogous. Comp. the rabbinical בָּשָׂר וְדָם (Lightfoot on Matt. l.c.). As the apostle was concerned simply to show that he was not ἀνθρωποδίδακτος, it is wholly unsuitable in this connection to refer ΣΑΡΚῚ Κ. ΑἽΜ. to himself (Koppe, Ewald), and unsuitable, as regards half the reference, to apply it to others and the apostle himself (Winer, Matthies, Schott, comp. Olshausen). He is speaking simply of the consultation of others (Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Zachariae, Morus, Rosenmüller, Borger, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, and others), and that quite generally: “having received this divine revelation, I did not take weak men as my counsellors.” In the continuation of the discourse towards its climax the apostles are specially brought into prominence as members of this category, and therefore σαρκὶ κ. αἵμ. is not (with Chrysostom, Jerome, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and others) at once to be referred to the apostles themselves, although they also are included in it.
[30] Comp. Hilgenfeld in loc. and in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 164: Paul regarded his Christian and apostolic life and working as a revelation of Christ in his person. Similar is the view taken by Paul in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1863, p. 208.
[31] Which, according to Hofmann, is intended to designate the purpose from the standpoint of the present time in which it is being realized. This retrospective interpretation is purely imaginary, by no means suits even Plat. Legg. p. 653 D, and in our passage is opposed to the context (see ver. 17).
[32] Who invents the hypothesis, that the apostle had been reproached with having only subsequently taken up the ground that he did not apply to men in order to get advice from them. Hofmann strangely appeals to εὐθύς, Joh 13:32, and even to Xen. Cyr. i. 6. 20, where the idea, “not at a subsequent time only,” is indeed conveyed by ἐκ παιδίου, but not at all by εὐθύς in itself. Even in passages such as those in Dorvill. ad Charit. pp. 298, 326, εὐθύς, like εὐθέως constantly, means immediately, on the spot.
[33] So, too, Märcker in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 534, “no further communication.” It is not, however, apparent to what other ἀνατʼ θεσθαι this is conceived to refer.
Gal 1:17. Neither went I away (from Damascus) to Jerusalem, unto those who were apostles before me; but I went away into Arabia. So according to Lachmann’s reading; see the critical notes. Τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστ. is written by Paul in the consciousness of his full equality of apostolic rank (beginning from Damascus), in which nothing but greater seniority pertained to the older apostles. On the twice-employed emphatic ἀπῆλθον, comp. Rom 8:15; Heb 12:18 ff.; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 137.
εἰς Ἀραβίαν] It is possible that some special personal reason, unknown to us, induced him to choose this particular country. The region was heathen, containing, however, many Jews of the Diaspora (Act 2:11). This journey, which is to be looked upon not as having for its object a quiet preparation (Schrader, Köhler, Rückert, Schott), but (comp. Rom. Introd. § 1) as a first, certainly fervent experiment of extraneous ministry,[34] and which was of short duration,[35] is not mentioned in Acts. Perhaps not known to Luke at all, it is most probably to be placed in the period of the ἱκαναὶ ἡμέραι, Act 9:23,-an inexact statement of the interval between the conversion and the journey to Jerusalem, which betrays, on the part of Luke, only a vague and inadequate knowledge of the chronology of this period. See on Act 9:19 ff. Paul mentions the journey here, because he had to show-following the continuous thread of the history-that, in the first period after his conversion, he had not been anywhere where he could have received instruction from the apostles.
ΠΆΛΙΝ ὙΠΈΣΤΡΕΨΑ] ΠΆΛΙΝ, used on the hypothesis that the locality of the calling and revelation mentioned was well known to his readers, refers to the notion of coming conveyed in ὑπέστρ. Comp. Act 18:21; Hom. Od. viii. 301, αὖτις ὑποστρέψας, et al.; Eur. Alc. 1022; Bornemann, ad Cyrop. iii. 3. 60; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 2. 4.
[34] Our passage bears testimony in favour of this view by εὐθέως … ἀπῆλθον following immediately on ἵνα εὐαγγ. αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Hence Holsten’s view (die Bedeutung des Wortes σάρξ im N.T. p. 25; ueber Inh. u. Gedankeng. d. Gal. Br. p. 17 f.; also zum Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 269 f.), that Paul, “purposely tearing himself away for three years from the atmosphere of the national spirit at Jerusalem,” had gone to Arabia, “in order to reconcile the new revelation with the old by meditating on the religious records of his people,” is quite opposed to the context. Certainly the system of the apostle’s gospel, as it is exhibited in the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans, must have taken its shape gradually, and by means of a long process of thought amidst the widening of experience; but even in the absence of such a developed system he might make a commencement of his ministry, and might preach the Son of God as the latter had been directly revealed in him by divine agency. Thiersch arbitrarily considers (Kirche in apostol. Zeitalt. p. 116) that he desired to find protection with Aretas. It is the view also of Acts, that Paul immediately after his conversion followed the divine guidance, and did not postpone his beginning to preach till the expiration of three years. According to Acts, he preached immediately, even in Damascus, Act 9:20; comp. Act 26:19 f. See, besides, on Rom. Introd. § 1.
[35] L. Cappellus, Benson, Witsius, Eichhorn, Hemsen, and others, also Anger, Rat. temp. p. 122, and Laurent, hold the opinion that Paul spent almost the whole three years (ver. 18) in Arabia, because the Jews at Damascus would not have tolerated his remaining there so long. But in our ignorance of the precise state of things in Damascus, this argument is of too uncertain a character, especially as Act 9:22, comp. with ver. 23, ὡς δὲ ἐπληρ. ἡμέραι ἱκαναί, points to a relatively longer working in Damascus. And if Paul had laboured almost three years, or, according to Ewald, about two years, in Arabia, and that at the very beginning of his apostleship, we could hardly imagine that Luke should not have known of this ministry in Arabia, or, if he knew of it, that he should not have mentioned it, for Paul never stayed so long anywhere else, except perhaps at Ephesus. It may indeed be alleged that Luke purposely kept silence as to the journey to Arabia, because it would have proved the independent action of the apostle to the Gentiles (Hilgenfeld, Zeller); but this view sets out from the premiss that the book of Acts is a partisan treatise, wanting in historical honesty; and it moreover assumes-what without that premiss is not to be assumed-that the author was acquainted with our epistle. If he was acquainted with it, the intentional distortion of portions of his history, which it is alleged he allowed himself to make, would be the more shameless, and indeed foolish.
Gal 1:18. Ἔπειτα] After that, namely, after my second sojourn in Damascus-whence he escaped, as is related Act 9:24 f.; 2Co 11:32 f. The more precise statement of time then follows in the words μετὰ ἔτη τρία (comp. Gal 2:1), in which the terminus a quo is taken to be either his conversion (as by most expositors, including Winer, Fritzsche, Rückert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Caspari) or his return from Arabia (Marsh, Koppe, Borger). The former is to be preferred, as is suggested by the context in οὐδὲ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα … μετὰ ἔτη τρία ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσολ. Comp. also on Gal 2:1.
ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσ.] This is (contrary to Jerome’s view) the first journey to Jerusalem, not omitted in the Acts (Laurent), but mentioned in Act 9:26. The quite untenable arguments of Köhler (Abfassungszeit, p. 1 f.) against this identity are refuted by Anger, Rat. temp. p. 124 f. It must, however, be conceded that the account in Acts must receive a partial correction from our passage (see on Act 9:26 f.); a necessity, however, which is exaggerated by Baur, Hilgenfeld, and Zeller, and is attributed to intentional alteration of the history on the part of the author of Acts, it being supposed that the latter was unwilling to do the very thing which Paul in our passage wishes, namely, to bring out his independence of the original apostles. But this consciousness of independence is not to be exaggerated, as if Paul had felt himself “alien in the very centre of his being” from Peter (Holsten).
ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν] in order to make the personal acquaintance of Cephas; not, therefore, in order to obtain instruction. But the position of Peter as κορυφαῖος (Theodoret) in the apostolic circle, especially urged by the Catholics (see Windischmann and Reithmayr), appears at all events from this passage to have been then known to Paul and acknowledged by him. Ἱστορεῖν, coram cognoscere, which does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., is found in this sense applied to a person also in Joseph. Bell. vi. 1. 8, οὐκ ἄσημος ὤν ἀνὴρ, ὃν ἐγὼ κατʼ ἐκεῖνον ἱστόρησα τὸν πόλεμον, Antt. i. 11. 4, viii. 2. 5; frequently also in the Clementines. It is often used by Greek authors (comp also the passages from Josephus in Krebs, Obss. p. 318) in reference to things, as τὴν πόλιν, τὴν χώραν, τὴν νόσον κ.τ.λ. See Wetstein and Kypke. Bengel, moreover, well says: “grave verbum ut de re magna; non dixit ἰδεῖν (as in Joh 12:21) sed ἱστορῆσαι.” Comp. Chrysostom.
καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτόν] Comp. 1Co 16:7. πρός, with, conveys the direction of the intercourse implied in ἐπέμ. Comp. Mat 26:55; Joh 1:1; and the passages in Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 202. Comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 653.
ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε] For the historical cause why he did not remain longer, see Act 9:29; Act 22:17 ff. The intention, however, which induced Paul to specify the time, is manifest from the whole connection,-that the reader might judge for himself whether so short a sojourn, the object of which was to become personally acquainted for the first time with Peter, could have been also intended for the further object of receiving evangelic instruction, especially when Paul had himself been preaching the gospel already so long (for three years). This intention is denied by Rückert, because the period of fifteen days was not so short but that during it Paul might have been instructed by Peter. But Paul is giving an historical account; and in doing this the mention of a time so short could not but be welcome to him for his purpose, without his wishing to give it forth as a stringent proof. This, notwithstanding what Paul emphatically adds in Gal 1:19, it certainly was not, as is evident even from the high representative repute of Peter.[36] But the briefer his stay at that time, devoted to making the personal acquaintance of Peter, had been, the more it told against the notion of his having received instruction, although Paul naturally could not, and would not, represent this time as shorter than it had really been. Rückert’s arbitrary conjecture is therefore quite superfluous, that Paul mentions the fifteen days on account of the false allegation of his opponents that he had been first brought to Christianity by the apostles, or had, at any rate, spent a long time with them and as their disciple, but that he sought ungratefully and arrogantly either to conceal or deny these facts. According to Holsten, Peter and James were the representatives of the ἕτερον εὐαγγ., who in consequence could not have exerted any influence on Paul’s Gentile gospel. But this they were not at all. See on Gal 2:1 ff. and on Acts 15.
[36] Hofmann is of opinion that Paul desired his readers to understand that he could not have journeyed to Jerusalem in order to ask the opinion and advice of the “apostolic body” there. As if Peter and James could not have been “apostolic body” enough! Taking refuge in this way behind the distinction between apostles and the apostolic body was foreign to Paul.
Gal 1:19. But another of the apostles saw I not, save James the brother of the Lord. Thus this James is distinguished indeed from the circle of the twelve (1Co 15:5) to which Peter belonged, but yet is included in the number of the apostles, namely in the wider sense (comp. 1Co 15:7; 1Co 9:5); which explains the merely supplementary mention of this apostle. After εἰ μή we must supply not εἶδον merely (as Grotius, Fritzsche ad Matth. p. 482, Winer, Bleek in Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 1059, Wieseler), but, as the context requires, εἶδον τὸν ἀπόστολον.
ἕτερον is not qualitative here, as in Gal 1:6, but stands in contrast to the one who is named, Peter. In addition to the latter he saw not one more of the apostles, except only that he saw the apostle in the wider sense of the term
James the brother of the Lord (who indeed belonged to the church at Jerusalem as its president),-a fact which conscientiously he will not leave unmentioned.
On the point that James the brother of the Lord was not James the son of Alphaeus,-as, following Clemens Alex., Jerome, Augustine, Pelagius, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, most modern scholars, and among the expositors of the epistle Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Jatho, Hofmann, Reithmayr, maintain,-but a real brother of Jesus (Mat 13:35; Mar 6:3), the son of Mary, called James the Just (Heges. in Eus. ii. 23), who, having been a Nazarite from his birth, and having become a believer after the resurrection of Jesus (1Co 15:7; Act 1:14), attained to very high apostolic reputation among the Jewish Christians (Gal 2:9), and was the most influential presbyter of the church at Jerusalem,[37] see on Act 12:17; 1Co 9:5; Huther on Ep. of James, Introd. § 1; Laurent, neutest. Stud. p. 175 ff. By the more precise designation, τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου, he is distinguished not only from the elder James, the brother of John (Hofmann and others), but also from James the son of Alphaeus, who was one of the twelve. Comp. Victorinus, “cum autem fratrem dixit, apostolum negavit.” The whole figment of the identity of this James with the son of Alphaeus is a result of the unscriptural (Mat 1:25; Luk 2:7) although ecclesiastically orthodox (Form. Conc. p. 767) belief (extending beyond the birth of Christ) in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Comp. on Mat 12:46; 1Co 9:5. We may add that the statement, that Paul at this time saw only Peter and James at Jerusalem, is not at variance with the inexact expression τοὺς ἀποστόλους, Act 9:27, but is an authentic historical definition of it, of a more precise character.
[37] Wieseler also justly recognises here the actual brother of Jesus, but holds the James, who is named in Gal 2:9; Gal 2:12 (and Act 12:17; Act 15:13; Act 15:21; 1Co 15:7) as the head of the Jewish Christians, not to be identical with this brother of the Lord, but to be the apostle James the son of Alphaeus; affirming that it was the latter also who was called ὁ δίκαιος. See, however, on Gal 2:9. The Gospel of the Hebrews, in Jerome, Vir. ill. 2, puts James the Just among the apostles who partook of the last Supper with Jesus, but nevertheless represents him as a brother of the Lord, for it makes him to be addressed by the Risen One as “frater mi.” Wieseler, indeed, understands frater mi in a spiritual sense, as in Joh 20:17, Mat 28:10. But, just because the designation of a James as ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίον is so solemn, this interpretation appears arbitrary; nor do we find that anywhere in the Gospels Jesus addressed the disciples as brethren.
Gal 1:20. Not a parenthesis, but, at the conclusion of what Paul has just related of that first sojourn of his at Jerusalem after his conversion (namely, that he had travelled thither to make the acquaintance of Cephas, had remained with him fifteen days, and had seen none of the other apostles besides, only James the brother of the Lord), an affirmation by oath that in this he had spoken the pure truth. The importance of the facts he had just related for his object-to prove his apostolic independence-induced him to make this sacred assurance. For if Paul had ever been a disciple of the apostles, he must have become so then, when he was with the apostles at Jerusalem for the first time after his conversion; but not only had he been there with another object in view, and for so few days, but he had also met with James only, besides Peter. The reference to all that had been said from Gal 1:12 (Calvin, Koppe, Winer, Matthies), or at least to Gal 1:15-19 (Hofmann), is precluded by the fact that ἔπειτα in Gal 1:18 begins a fresh section of the report (comp. Gal 1:21; Gal 2:1), beyond which there is no reason to go back.
The sentence is so constructed that ἃ δὲ γράφω ὑμῖν stands emphatically by itself as an anacoluthon; and before ὅτι, that, we have again to supply γράφω, But what I write to you-behold in the sight of God I write, that I lie not; that is, in respect to what I write to you, I write, I assure you before the face of God (לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה, so that I have God present as witness), that I lie not. Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 338. Schott takes ὅτι as since, “coram Deo scribo, siquidem non mentior,” whereby ἃ δὲ γρ. ὑμ. does not appear as an anacoluthon. But this siquidem non mentior would be very flat; whereas the anacoluthon of the prefixed relative sentence is precisely in keeping with the fervency of the language (comp. Mat 10:14; Luk 21:6, and the note thereon). The completely parallel protestation also, ὁ Θεὸς … οἶδεν … ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι (2Co 11:31; comp. Rom 1:9; 2Co 1:23), is quite unfavourable to the explanation of ὅτι as siquidem. To supply with Bengel, Paulus, and Rückert (comp. Jerome), an ἐστί after Θεοῦ (ὅτι, that), does not make the construction easier (Rückert); on the contrary, it is arbitrary, and yields an unprecedented mode of expression.
Gal 1:21. After this stay of fifteen days in Jerusalem (ἔπειτα, comp. Gal 1:18), I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; and consequently was again far enough away from the seat of the apostles!
τῆς Συρίας] As it is said in Act 9:30 that Paul was accompanied from Jerusalem to Caesarea, it is assumed by most modern expositors: “Syriae earn partem dicit, cui Phoenices nomen fuit,” Winer. So also Koppe, Rückert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott. Comp. Mat 4:24; Act 21:3. This view runs entirely counter to the design of the apostle. For here his main concern was to bring out his comparatively wide separation from Judaea, as it had occurred in his actual history; the whole context (comp. Gal 1:22) shows that it was so, and therefore the reader could only understand τῆς Συρίας as meaning Syria proper (with Antioch as its capital). It could not in the least occur to him to think of Phoenicia (which even Wieseler, though not understanding it alone to be referred to, includes), the more especially as alongside of τῆς Συρίας Cilicia, which borders on Syria proper, is immediately named (comp. Act 15:23; Act 15:41; Plin. v. 22, xviii. 30). An appeal is also wrongly made to Mat 4:24 (where, in the language of hyperbole, a very large district-namely, the whole province of Syria, of which Judaea and Samaria formed portions-is meant to be designated) and Act 21:3 (where likewise the Roman province is intended, and that only loosely and indefinitely with reference to the coast district[38]). The relation of our passage to Act 9:30 is this: On leaving Jerusalem, Paul desired to visit Syria and Cilicia; he was accordingly conducted by the Christians as far as the first stage, Caesarea (the Roman capital of Judaea, not Caesarea Philippi), and thence he went on by land to Syria and Cilicia. Comp. on Act 9:30.
For what object he visited Syria and Cilicia, he does not state; but for this very reason, and in accordance with Gal 1:5, it cannot be doubted that he preached the gospel there. Tarsus was certainly the central point of this ministry; it was at Tarsus that Barnabas sought and found him (Act 11:25).
[38] For any one sailing from Patara and passing in front of Cyprus to the right has the Syrian coast before him towards the east, and is sailing towards it. Thus indefinitely, as was suggested by the popular view and report, Luke relates, Act 21:3, ἐπλέομεν εἰς Συρίαν, without meaning by the καὶ κατήχθημεν εἰς Τύρον that follows to make this Συρίαν equivalent to Phoenicia. For instance, a man might say, “We sailed towards Denmark and landed at Glückstadt,” without intending it to be inferred that Denmark is equivalent to Holstein.
Gal 1:22. But I was so completely a stranger to the land of Judaea, that at the time of my sojourn in Syria and Cilicia I was personally unknown to the churches, etc. These statements (Gal 1:22-24) likewise go to prove that Paul had not been a disciple of the apostles, which is indeed the object aimed at in the whole of the context. As a pupil of the apostles, he would have remained in communication with Jerusalem; and thence issuing, he would first of all have exercised his ministry in the churches of Judaea, and would have become well known to them. According to Hofmann, the end at which Paul aims in Gal 1:22 f. is conveyed by καὶ ἐδόξαζον κ.τ.λ. in Gal 1:24, so that Gal 1:22-23 are only related to this as the protasis to the apodosis. This idea is at variance with the independent and important nature of the two affirmations in Gal 1:22-23; if Paul had intended to give them so subordinate a position as that which Hofmann supposes, he would have done it by a participial construction (ἀγνοοῦντες δὲ … μόνον δὲ ἀκούοντες, ὅτι κ.τ.λ., ἐδόξαζον κ.τ.λ.), perhaps also with the addition of καίπερ, or in some other marked way. In the form in which the apostle has written it, his report introduced by ἔπειτα in Gal 1:21 is composed of propositions quite as independent as those following ἔπειτα in Gal 1:18, and Gal 1:22-23 cannot be intended merely to introduce Gal 1:24. Hofmann is therefore the more incorrect in asserting that Paul, from Gal 1:21 onwards, is not continuing the proof of his apostolic independence in contradistinction to the other apostles, but is exhibiting the harmony of his preaching with the faith of the mother-church at Jerusalem and its apostles. Others, inconsistently with the context, suppose that Paul desired to refute the allegation that he had been a learner from the churches of Judaea (Oecumenius, Gomarus, Olshausen), or that he himself had taught judaistically in Judaea (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius; comp. Usteri), or that he had visited Syria and Cilicia as the deputy of the churches of Judaea (Michaelis).
τῷ προσώπῳ] as regards the (my) countenance, that is, personally. Comp. 1Th 2:17.
ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ἰουδ.] This is meant to refer to the churches out of Jerusalem, consequently in the Ἰουδαία γῆ, Joh 3:22. For that he was known to the church in the capital is not only a matter of inference from his pre-Christian activity, but is certain from that fifteen days’ visit (Gal 1:18), and is attested by Act 9:26-30. Neither in Act 9:26-30 nor in Act 26:19 f. (see on these passages) is there any such inconsistency with the passage before us, as has been urged against the historical character of the Acts, especially by Hilgenfeld, Baur, and Zeller.
Gal 1:23-24. Δέ] places μόνον ἀκούοντες ἦσαν in correlation to ἤμην ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ; it is not, however, to be understood as a mere repetition of the former δέ (Hofmann), for it introduces another[39] subject (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 97). The masculine refers to the persons of whom those ἐκκλησίαι consisted. See Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 39; Winer, p. 586 [E. T. 787]. The participle with ἦσαν, however, does not stand for the simple imperfect (Luther renders quite incorrectly, “they had heard”), but prominence is given to the predicate as the main point. See Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 1179. The clause expresses the sole relation in which they were to Paul; they were simply in a position to hear. “Rumor apud illos erat,” Erasmus. Comp. Vulgate: “tantum autem auditum habebant.”
ὅτι ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε κ.τ.λ.] ὅτι is explained most simply, not by a supposed transition from the indirect to the direct form (so most expositors, including Rückert and Wieseler), but as the recitativum (Matthies, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann), the use of which by Paul is certain not merely in quotations of Scripture, but also in other cases (Rom 3:8; 2Th 3:10). Moreover, the statement thus gains in vividness. In ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς, ἡμᾶς applies to the Christians generally; the joyful information came to them from Christian lips (partly from inhabitants of Jerusalem, partly perhaps directly from Syrians and Cilicians). The present participle does not stand for the aorist (Grotius), but quite substantivally: our (former) persecutor. See Winer, p. 331 [E. T. 444]; Bremi, ad Dem. adv. Aphob. 17.
τὴν πίστιν] never means Christian doctrine (Beza, Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Rückert, and others), not even in Act 6:7, where faith in Christ is conceived as the authority commanding submission (comp. on Rom 1:5); it denotes the faith-regarded, however, objectively. Comp. on Gal 3:2; Gal 3:23. He preaches the faith (in the Son of God, Gal 1:16), which formerly he destroyed. On the latter point Estius justly remarks, “quia Christi fidelibus fidem extorquere persequendo nitebatur.” Comp. Gal 1:13.
ἐν ἐμοί] does not mean propter me (as was generally assumed before Winer), in support of which an appeal was erroneously made to Eph 4:1 et al.: for ἐν, used with persons, is never on account of (Winer, p. 363 [E. T. 484]); but it means, “they praised God on me,” so that their praise of God was based on me as the vehicle and instrument of the divine grace and efficacy (1Co 15:10). God made Himself known to them by my case, and so they praised Him; ὅλον γὰρ τὸ κατʼ ἐμέ, φησί, τῆς χάριτος ἦν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Oecumenius. Comp. Joh 17:10; Sir 47:6. See generally Bernhardy, p. 210; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 598. It was not, however, without a purpose, but with a just feeling of satisfaction, that Paul added καὶ ἐδόξαζον ἐν ἐμοὶ τὸν Θεόν; for this impression, which Paul then made on the churches in Judaea, stood in startling contrast to the hateful proceedings against him of the Judaizers in Galatia.
Mark further (in opposition to Holstein and others), how Gal 1:23 rests on the legitimate assumption that Paul preached in substance no other gospel than that which those churches had received from Jerusalem, although they were not yet instructed in the special peculiarities of his preaching; as, in fact, the antagonism between the Pauline teaching and Judaism did not become a matter of public interest until later (Act 15:1).
[39] Hofmann appeals to Eur. Iph. T. 1367. But in this, as in the other passages quoted by Hartung, I. p. 169, the well-known repetition of the same word with δέ occurs.
1. Paul, an apostle. In the salutations with which he commenced his Epistles, Paul was accustomed to claim the title of “an Apostle.” His object in doing so, as we have remarked on former occasions, was to employ the authority of his station, for the purpose of enforcing his doctrine. This authority depends not on the judgment or opinion of men, but exclusively on the calling of God; and therefore he demands a hearing on the ground of his being “an Apostle.” Let us always bear this in mind, that in the church we ought to listen to God alone, and to Jesus Christ, whom he has appointed to be our teacher. Whoever assumes a right to instruct us, must speak in the name of God or of Christ.
But as the calling of Paul was more vehemently disputed among the Galatians, he asserts it more strongly in his address to that church, than in his other Epistles; for he does not simply affirm that he was called by God, but states expressly that it was not either from men or by men. This statement, be it observed, applies not to the office which he held in common with other pastors, but to the apostleship. The authors of the calumnies which he has in his eye did not venture to deprive him altogether of the honor of the Christian ministry. They merely refused to allow him the name and rank of an apostle.
We are now speaking of the apostleship in the strictest sense; for the word is employed in two different ways. Sometimes, it denotes preachers of the Gospel, to whatever class they might belong; but here it bears a distinct reference to the highest rank in the church; so that Paul is equal to Peter and to the other twelve.
The first clause, that he was called not from men, he had in common with all the true ministers of Christ. As no man ought to “take this honor unto himself,” (Heb 5:4,) so it is not in the power of men to bestow it on whomsoever they choose. It belongs to God alone to govern his church; and therefore the calling cannot be lawful, unless it proceed from Him. So far as the church is concerned, a man who has been led to the ministry, not by a good conscience, but by ungodly motives, may happen to be regularly called. But Paul is here speaking of a call ascertained in so perfect, a manner, that nothing farther can be desired.
It will, perhaps, be objected — Do not the false apostles frequently indulge in the same kind of boasting? I admit they do, and in a more haughty and disdainful style than the servants of the Lord venture to employ; but they want that actual call from Heaven to which Paul was entitled to lay claim.
The second clause, that he was called not by man, belonged in a peculiar manner to the apostles; for in an ordinary pastor, this would have implied nothing wrong. Paul himself, when travelling through various cities in company with Barnabas, “ordained elders in every church,” by the votes of the people, (Act 14:23;) and he enjoins Titus and Timothy to proceed in the same work. (1. i 5:17. Titus 1:5.) Such is the ordinary method of electing pastors; for we are not entitled to wait until God shall reveal from heaven the names of the persons whom he has chosen.
But if human agency was not improper, if it was even commendable, why does Paul disclaim it in reference to himself? I have already mentioned that something more was necessary to be proved than that Paul was a pastor, or that he belonged to the number of the ministers of the Gospel; for the point in dispute was the apostleship. It was necessary that the apostles should be elected, not in the same manner as other pastors, but by the direct agency of the Lord himself. Thus, Christ himself (Mat 10:1) called the Twelve; and when a successor was to be appointed in the room of Judas, the church does not venture to choose one by votes, but has recourse to lot. (Act 1:26.) We are certain that the lot was not employed in electing pastors. Why was it resorted to in the election of Matthias? To mark the express agency of God for it was proper that the apostles should be distinguished from other ministers. And thus Paul, in order to shew that he does not belong to the ordinary rank of ministers, contends that his calling proceeded immediately from God. (13)
But how does Paul affirm that he was not called by men, while Luke records that Paul and Barnabas were called by the church at Antioch? Some have replied, that he had previously discharged the duties of an apostle, and that, consequently, his apostleship was not founded on his appointment by that church. But here, again, it may be objected, that this was his first designation to be the apostle of the Gentiles, to which class the Galatians belonged. The more correct, and obvious reply is, that he did not intend here to set aside entirely the calling of that church, but merely to shew that his apostleship rests on a higher title. This is true; for even those who laid their hands on Paul at Antioch did so, not of their own accord, but in obedience to express revelation.
“As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” (Act 13:2.)
Since, therefore, he was called by Divine revelation, and was also appointed and declared by the Holy Spirit to be the apostle of the Gentiles, it follows, that he was not brought forward by men, although the customary rite of ordination was afterwards added. (14)
It will, perhaps, be thought that an indirect contrast between Paul and the false apostles is here intended. I have no objection to that view; for they were in the habit of glorying in the name of men. His meaning will therefore stand thus: “Whoever may be the persons by whom others boast that they have been sent, I shall be superior to them; for I hold my commission from God and Christ.”
By Jesus Christ and God the Father He asserts that God the Father and Christ had bestowed on him his apostleship. Christ is first named, because it is his prerogative to send, and because we are his ambassadors. But to make the statement more complete, the Father is also mentioned; as if he had said, “If there be any one whom the name of Christ is not sufficient to inspire with reverence, let him know that I have also received my office from God the Father.”
Who raised him from the dead. The resurrection of Christ is the commencement of his reign, and is therefore closely connected with the present subject. It was a reproach brought by them against Paul that he had held no communication with Christ, while he was on the earth. He argues, on the other hand, that, as Christ was glorified by his resurrection, so he has actually exercised his authority in the government of his church. The calling of Paul is therefore more illustrious than it would have been, if Christ, while still a mortal, had ordained him to the office. And this circumstance deserves attention; for Paul intimates that the attempt to set aside his authority, involved a malignant opposition to the astonishing power of God, which was displayed in the resurrection of Christ; because the same heavenly Father, who raised Christ from the dead, commanded Paul to make known that exertion of his power.
(13) “C’est a dire, sans aucun moyen des hommes.” “That is, without any agency of men.”
(14) “Quoy que depuis on ait observe la ceremonie accoustumee en l’ordination des ministeres.” “Although the ceremony usually performed at the ordination of ministers was afterwards added.”
2. And all the brethren who are with me. — He appears to have usually written in the name of many persons, judging that, if those to whom he wrote should attach less weight to a solitary individual, they might listen to a greater number, and would not despise a whole congregation. His general practice is, to insert the salutations from brethren at the conclusion, instead of introducing them at the commencement as joint authors of the epistle: at least, he never mentions more than two names, and those very well known. But here he includes all the brethren; and thus adopts, though not without good reason, an opposite method. The concurrence of so many godly persons must have had some degree of influence in softening the minds of the Galatians, and preparing them to receive instruction.
To the churches of Galatia. It was an extensive country, and therefore contained many churches scattered through it. But is it not wonderful that the term “Church”, which always implies unity of faith, should have been applied to the Galatians, who had almost entirely revolted from Christ? I reply, so long as they professed Christianity, worshipped one God, observed the sacraments, and enjoyed some kind of Gospel ministry, they retained the external marks of a church. We do not always find in churches such a measure of purity as might be desired. The purest have their blemishes; and some are marked, not by a few spots, but by general deformity. Though the doctrines and practices of any society may not, in all respects, meet our wishes, we must not instantly pronounce its defects to be a sufficient reason for withholding from it the appellation of a Church. Paul manifests here a gentleness of disposition utterly at variance with such a course. Yet our acknowledgment of societies to be churches of Christ must be accompanied by an explicit condemnation of everything in them that is improper or defective; for we must not imagine, that, wherever there is some kind of church, everything in it that ought to be desired in a church is perfect.
I make this observation, because the Papists, seizing on the single word Church, think that whatever they choose to force upon us is sanctioned; though the condition and aspect of the Church of Rome are widely different from what existed in Galatia. If Paul were alive at the present day, he would perceive the miserable and dreadfully shattered remains of a church; but he would perceive no building. In short, the word Church is often applied by a figure of speech in which a part is taken for the whole, to any portion of the church, even though it may not fully answer to the name.
3. Grace be to you and peace. This form of salutation, which occurred in the other epistles, has received an explanation, to which I still adhere. Paul wishes for the Galatians a state of friendship with God, and, along with it, all good things; for the favor of God is the source from which we derive every kind of prosperity. He presents both petitions to Christ, as well as to the Father; because without Christ neither grace, nor any real prosperity, can be obtained.
4. Who gave himself for our sins. He begins with commending the grace of Christ, in order to recall and fix on Him the attention of the Galatians; for, if they had justly appreciated this benefit of redemption, they would never have fallen into opposite views of religion. He who knows Christ in a proper manner beholds him earnestly, embraces him with the warmest affection, is absorbed in the contemplation of him, and desires no other object. The best remedy for purifying our minds from any kind of errors or superstitions, is to keep in remembrance our relation to Christ, and the benefits which he has conferred upon us.
These words, who gave himself for our sins, were intended to convey to the Galatians a doctrine of vast importance; that no other satisfactions can lawfully be brought into comparison with that sacrifice of himself which Christ offered to the Father; that in Christ, therefore, and in him alone, atonement for sin, and perfect righteousness, must be sought; and that the manner in which we are redeemed by him ought to excite our highest admiration. What Paul here ascribes to Christ is, with equal propriety, ascribed in other parts of Scripture to God the Father; for, on the one hand, the Father, by an eternal purpose, decreed this atonement, and gave this proof of his love to us, that he “spared not his only-begotten Son, (Rom 8:32,) but delivered him up for us all;” and Christ, on the other hand, offered himself a sacrifice in order to reconcile us to God. Hence it follows, that his death is the satisfaction for sins. (15)
That he might deliver us. He likewise declares the design of our redemption to be, that Christ, by his death, might purchase us to be his own property. This takes place when we are separated from the world; for so long as we are of the world, we do not belong to Christ. The wordαιών, (age,) is here put for the corruption which is in the world; in the same manner as in the first Epistle of John, (1. o 5:19) where it is said that “the whole world lieth in the wicked one,” and in his Gospel, (Joh 17:15,) where the Savior says,
“I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world,
but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil;”
for there it signifies the present life.
What then is meant by the word “World” in this passage? Men separated from the kingdom of God and the grace of Christ. So long as a man lives to himself, he is altogether condemned. The World is, therefore, contrasted with regeneration, as nature with grace, or the flesh with the spirit. Those who are born of the world have nothing but sin and wickedness, not by creation, but by corruption. (16) Christ, therefore, died for our sins, in order to redeem or separate us from the world.
From the present wicked age. By adding the epithet “wicked”, he intended to shew that he is speaking of the corruption or depravity which proceeds from sin, and not of God’s creatures, or of the bodily life. And yet by this single word, as by a thunderbolt, he lays low all human pride; for he declares, that, apart from that renewal of the nature which is bestowed by the grace of Christ, there is nothing in us but unmixed wickedness. We are of the world; and, till Christ take us out of it, the world reigns in us, and we live to the world. Whatever delight men may take in their fancied excellence, they are worthless and depraved; not indeed in their own opinion, but in the judgment of our Lord, which is here pronounced by the mouth of Paul, and which ought to satisfy our minds.
According to the will. He points out the original fountain of grace, namely, the purpose of God;
“for God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son.” (Joh 3:16.)
But it deserves notice, that Paul is accustomed to represent the decree of God as setting aside all compensation or merit on the part of men, and so Will denotes here what is commonly called “good pleasure.” (17) The meaning is, that Christ suffered for us, not because we were worthy, or because anything done by us moved him to the act, but because such was the purpose of God. Of God and our Father is of the same import as if he had said, “Of God who is our Father.” (18)
(15) “Pour nos pechez.” “For our sins.”
(16) “Non pas que cela viene de la creation, mais de leur corruption.” “Not that this comes from creation, but from their corruption.”
(17) Οὐκ εἶπε κατ ᾿ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ θέλημα, τουτέστι τὴν εὐδοκίαν “He did not say, according to the command, but according to the will, that is, according to the good pleasure, of the Father.” — Theophylact.
(18) “An English reader would readily suppose that ‘God and our Father’ are two different persons. The original text suggests no such idea. The meaning is, ‘our God and Father’. — The particle καὶ (and) is here hermeneutic. As Crellius says, it is equivalent to ‘that is’ or ‘who is;’ or rather, it does not connect different persons, but different descriptions of the same person: 1. o 2:2; Eph 1:3; Eph 4:6; 1. h 1:3; 1. h 3:11; 1. e 1:2 ̔Ημῶν belongs equally to both nouns, Θεοῦ and Πατρός — Brown.
5. To whom be glory. By this sudden exclamation of thanksgiving, he intends to awaken powerfully in his readers the contemplation of that invaluable gift which they had received from God, and in this manner to prepare their minds more fully for receiving instruction. It must at the same time be viewed as a general exhortation. Every instance in which the mercy of God occurs to our remembrance, ought to be embraced by us as an occasion of ascribing glory to God.
6. I wonder. He commences by administering a rebuke, though a somewhat milder one than they deserved; but his greatest severity of language is directed, as we shall see, against the false apostles. He charges them with turning aside, not only from his gospel, but from Christ; for it was impossible for them to retain their attachment to Christ, without acknowledging that he has graciously delivered us from the bondage of the law. But such a belief cannot be reconciled with those notions respecting the obligation of ceremonial observance which the false apostles inculcated. They were removed from Christ; not that they entirely rejected Christianity, but that the corruption of their doctrines was such as to leave them nothing more than an imaginary Christ.
Thus, in our own times, the Papists, choosing to have a divided and mangled Christ, have none, and are therefore “removed from Christ.” They are full of superstitions, which are directly at variance with the nature of Christ. Let it be carefully observed, that we are removed from Christ, when we fall into those views which are inconsistent with his mediatorial office; for light can have no fellowship with darkness.
On the same principle, he calls it another gospel, that is, a gospel different from the true one. And yet the false apostles professed that they preached the gospel of Christ; but, mingling with it their own inventions, (19) by which its principal efficacy was destroyed, they held a false, corrupt, and spurious gospel. By using the present tense, (“ye are removed”) he appears to say that they were only in the act of failing. As if he had said, “I do not yet say that ye have been removed; for then it would be more difficult to return to the right path. But now, at the critical moment, do not advance a single step, but instantly retreat.”
From Christ, who called you by grace. Others read it, “from him who called you by the grace of Christ,” understanding it to refer to the Father; but the reading which we have followed is more simple. When he says that they were called by Christ through grace, this tends to heighten the criminality of their ingratitude. To revolt from the Son of God under any circumstances, is unworthy and disgraceful; but to revolt from him, after being invited to partake salvation by grace, is more eminently base. His goodness to us renders our ingratitude to him more dreadfully heinous.
So soon. When it is considered how soon they had discovered a want of steadfastness, their guilt is still further heightened. A proper season, indeed, for departing from Christ cannot be imagined. But the fact, that no sooner had Paul left them than the Galatians were led away from the truth, inferred still deeper blame. As the consideration of the grace by which they had been called was adduced to aggravate their ingratitude, so the circumstance of the time when they were removed is now adduced to aggravate their levity.
(19) “Leurs songes et inventions.” “Their dreams and inventions.”
7. Which is not another thing (20) Some explain it thus, “though there is not another gospel;” as if it were a sort of correction of the Apostle’s language, to guard against the supposition that there were more gospels than one. So far as the explanation of the words is concerned, I take a more simple view of them; for he speaks contemptuously of the doctrine of the false apostles, as being nothing else than a mass of confusion and destruction. As if he had said, “What do those persons allege? On what grounds do they attack the doctrine which I have delivered? They merely trouble you, and subvert the gospel. They do nothing more.” But it amounts to the same meaning; for this, too, I acknowledge, is a correction of the language he had used about another gospel. He declares that it is not a gospel, but a mere disturbance. All I intended to say was, that, in my opinion, the word another means another thing. It resembles strongly the expression in common use, “this amounts to nothing, but that you wish to deceive.”
And wish to pervert. He charges them with the additional crime of doing an injury to Christ, by endeavoring to subvert his gospel. Subversion is an enormous crime. It is worse than corruption. And with good reason does he fasten on them this charge. When the glow of justification is ascribed to another, and a snare is laid for the consciences of men, the Savior no longer occupies his place, and the doctrine of the gospel is utterly ruined.
The gospel of Christ. To know what are the leading points of the gospel, is a matter of unceasing importance. When these are attacked, the gospel is destroyed. When he adds the words, of Christ, this may be explained in two ways; either that it has come from Christ as its author, or that it purely exhibits Christ. The apostle’s reason for employing that expression unquestionably was to describe the true and genuine gospel, which alone is worthy of the name.
(20) “ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο. Some have questioned the genuineness of ἄλλο,— conjecturing that some one first introduced ἀλλὰ into the margin as an interpretation of εἰ μή, and then some other person changed it into ἄλλο, per incuriam , and introduced it into the text. This is ingenious, but, like all conjectural criticism on the New Testament, is of no value.” — Brown
8. But though we. As he proceeds in defending the authority of his doctrine, his confidence swells. First of all, he declares that the doctrine which he had preached is the only gospel, and that the attempt to set it aside is highly criminal. But then he was aware, the false apostles might object: “We will not yield to you in our desire to maintain the gospel, or in those feelings of respect for it which we are accustomed to cherish.” Just as, at the present day, the Papists describe in the strongest terms the sacredness with which they regard the gospel, and kiss the very name with the deepest reverence, and yet, when brought to the trial, are found to persecute fiercely the pure and simple doctrine of the gospel. Accordingly, Paul does not rest satisfied with this general declaration, but proceeds to define what the gospel is, and what it contains, and declares boldly that his doctrine is the true gospel; so as to resist all further inquiry.
Of what avail was it to profess respect for the gospel, and not to know what it meant? With Papists, who hold themselves bound to render implicit faith, that might be perfectly sufficient; but with Christians, where there is no knowledge, there is no faith. That the Galatians, who were otherwise disposed to obey the gospel, might not wander hither and thither, and “find no rest for the sole of their foot,” (Gen 8:9,) Paul enjoins them to stand steadfastly by his doctrine. He demands such unhesitating belief of his preaching, that he pronounces a curse on all who dared to contradict it.
And here it is not a little remarkable, that he begins with himself; for thus he anticipates a slander with which his enemies would have loaded him. “You wish to have everything which comes from you received without hesitation, because it is your own.” To show that there is no foundation for such a statement, he instantly surrenders the right of advancing anything against his own doctrine. He claims no superiority, in this respect, over other men, but justly demands from all, equally with himself, subjection to the word of God.
Or an angel from heaven. In order to destroy more completely the pretensions of the false apostles, he rises so high as to speak of angels; and, on the supposition that they taught a different doctrine, he does not satisfy himself with saying that they were not entitled to be heard, but declares that they ought to be held accursed. Some may think, that it was absurd to engage in a controversy with angels about his doctrine; but a just view of the whole matter will enable any one to perceive, that this part of the apostle’s proceedings was proper and necessary. It is impossible, no doubt, for angels from heaven to teach anything else than the certain truth of God. But when the credit due to doctrines which God had revealed concerning the salvation of men was the subject of controversy, he did not reckon it enough to disclaim the judgment of men, without declining, at the same time, the authority of angels.
And thus, when he pronounces a curse on angels who should teach any other doctrine (21) though his argument is derived from an impossibility, it is not superfluous. This exaggerated language must, have contributed greatly to strengthen the confidence in Paul’s preaching. His opponents, by employing the lofty titles of men, attempted to press hard on him and on his doctrine. He meets them by the bold assertion, that even angels are unable to shake his authority. This is no disparagement to angels. To promote the glory of God by every possible means was the design of their creation. He who endeavors, in a pious manner, to accomplish this object, by an apparently desrespectful mention of their name, detracts nothing from their high rank. This language not only exhibits, in an impressive manner, the majesty of the word of God, but yields, also, a powerful confirmation to our faith while, in reliance on that word, we feel ourselves at liberty to treat even angels with defiance and scorn. When he says, “let him be accursed,” the meaning must be, “let him be held by you as accursed.” In expounding 1. o 12:3, we had occasion to speak of the wordἀνάθεμα. (22). Here it denotes cursing, and answers to the Hebrew word, הרם (hherem.)
(21) “Quand il denonce les anges pour excommuniez et pour abominables, s’ils enseignent autre chose.” “When he denounces the angels as excommunicated and detestable persons, if they teach anything else.”
(22) “᾿Ανάθεμα. This word, which we render accursed, doth not signify ‘accursed or condemned of God to the punishments of another world.’ This the Apostle would not wish to the worst of men. The meaning is, ‘Let him be as a person excommunicated, or wholly cut off from the synagogue, or church, with whom it is unlawful to have any commerce or correspondence whatever.’ And so it is not properly a wish of the apostle, but a direction to the Galatians how to behave, Let him be ἀνάθεμα. ‘Hold him, and treat him as an excommunicated and accursed person.’” — Chandler.
9. As we said before. Leaving out, in this instance, the mention of himself and of angels, he repeats the former assertion, that it is unlawful for any man to teach anything contrary to what they had learned. (23) Observe the expression — ye have received; for he uniformly insists, that they must not regard the gospel as something unknown, existing in the air, or in their own imaginations. He exhorts them to entertain a firm and serious conviction, that the doctrine which they had received and embraced is the true gospel of Christ. Nothing can be more inconsistent with the nature of faith than a feeble, wavering assent. What, then, must be the consequence, if ignorance of the nature and character of the gospel shall lead to hesitation? Accordingly he enjoins them to regard as devils those who shall dare to bring forward a gospel different from his, — meaning by another gospel, one to which the inventions of other men are added; (24) for the doctrine of the false apostles was not entirely contrary, or even different, from that of Paul, but corrupted by false additions.
To what poor subterfuges do the Papists resort, in order to escape from the Apostle’s declaration! First, they tell us, that we have not in our possession the whole of Paul’s preaching, and cannot know what it contained, unless the Galatians who heard it shall be raised from the dead, in order to appear as witnesses. Next, they assert, that it is not every kind of addition which is forbidden, but that other gospels only are condemned. What Paul’s doctrine was, so far as it concerns us to know, may be learned with sufficient clearness from his writings. Of this gospel, it is plain, the whole of Popery is a dreadful perversion. And from the nature of the case, we remark in conclusion, it is manifest that any spurious doctrine whatever is at variance with Paul’s preaching; so that these cavils will avail them nothing.
(23) “D’enseigner autre doctrine que cello qu’il avoit enseignee aux Galatiens.” “To teach any other doctrine than that which he had taught to the Galatians.”
(24) “Quand on y mesle des inventions humaines, et des choses qui ne sont point de mesme.” “When it is mixed up with human inventions, and with things that are contrary to it.”
Having extolled so confidently his own preaching, he now shows that this was no idle or empty boast. He supports his assertion by two arguments. The first is, that he was not prompted by ambition, or flattery, or any similar passion, to accommodate himself to the views of men. The second and far stronger argument is, that he was not the author of the gospel, but delivered faithfully what he had received from God.
10. For do I now persuade according to men or according to God? The ambiguity of the Greek construction in this passage, has given rise to a variety of expositions. Some render it, Do I now persuade men or God? (25) Others interpret the words “God” and “men,” as meaning divine and human concerns. This sense would agree very well with the context, if it were not too wide a departure from the words. The view which I have preferred is more natural; for nothing is more common with the Greeks than to leave the prepositionκατὰ, according to, to be understood.
Paul is speaking, not about the subject of his preaching, but about the purpose of his own mind, which could not refer so properly to men as to God. The disposition of the speaker, it must be owned, may have some influence on his doctrine. As corruption of doctrine springs from ambition, avarice, or any other sinful passion, so the truth is maintained in its purity by an upright conscience. And so he contends that his doctrine is sound, because it is not modified so as to gratify men.
Or, do I seek to please men? This second clause differs not much, and yet it differs somewhat from the former; for the desire of obtaining favor is one motive for speaking “according to men.” When there reigns in our hearts such ambition, that we desire to regulate our discourse so as to obtain the favor of men, our instructions cannot be sincere. Paul therefore declares, that he is in no degree chargeable with this vice; and, the more boldly to repel the calumnious insinuation, he employs the interrogative form of speech; for interrogations carry the greater weight, when our opponents are allowed an opportunity of replying, if they have anything to say. This expresses the great boldness which Paul derived from the testimony of a good conscience; for he knew that he had discharged his duty in such a manner as not to be liable to any reproach of that kind. (Act 23:1; 2Co 1:12.)
If I yet pleased men This is a remarkable sentiment; that ambitious persons, that is, those who hunt after the applause of men, cannot serve Christ. He declares for himself, that he had freely renounced the estimation of men, in order to devote himself entirely to the service of Christ; and, in this respect, he contrasts his present position with that which he occupied at a former period of life. He had been regarded with the highest esteem, had received from every quarter loud applause; and, therefore, if he had chosen to please men, he would not have found it necessary to change his condition. But we may draw from it the general doctrine which I have stated, that those who resolve to serve Christ faithfully, must have boldness to despise the favor of men.
The word men is here employed in a limited sense; for the ministers of Christ ought not to labor for the express purpose of displeasing men. But there are various classes of men. Those to whom Christ “is precious,” (1Pe 2:7,) are men whom we should endeavor to please in Christ; while they who choose that the true doctrine shall give place to their own passions, are men to whom we must give no countenance. And godly, upright pastors, will always find it necessary to contend with the offenses of those who choose that, on all points, their own wishes shall be gratified; for the Church will always contain hypocrites and wicked men, by whom their own lusts will be preferred to the word of God. And even good men, either through ignorance, or through weak prejudice, are sometimes tempted by the devil to be displeased with the faithful warnings of their pastor. Our duty, therefore, is not to take alarm at any kind of offenses, provided, at the same time, that we do not excite in weak minds a prejudice against Christ himself.
Many interpret this passage in a different manner, as implying an admission to the following effect: “If I pleased men, then I should not be the servant of Christ. I own it, but who shall bring such a charge against me? Who does not see that I do not court the favor of men?” But I prefer the former view, that Paul is relating how large an amount of the estimation of men he had relinquished, in order to devote himself to the service of Christ.
(25) “Πείθω. This word, which we render persuade, frequently signifies ‘to obtain by treaty,’ or, ‘to endeavor the friendship and good will of any person.’ Thus in Mat 28:14, the chief-priests tell the soldiers, whom they corrupted, to give a false report: ‘If this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you, that is, prevail with him to be favorable to you, and save you from punishment.’ Thus, Act 12:20, πείσαντες Βλάστον, we render, ‘having made Blastus their friend.’ Vid. Pind. Ol. 3:28. And in the Apocryphal book of Maccabees, (2Ma 4:45,) when Menelaus found himself convicted of his crimes, he promised Ptolemy a large sum of money, πεῖσαι τὸν βασιλέα, ‘to pacify the king,’ to prevent his displeasure, and secure his favor. And thus, in the place before us, ‘to persuade God,’ is to endeavor to secure his approbation; which, the Apostle assures the Galatians, was his great and only view, as well as his great support, under the censure and displeasure of men, for preaching the pure and uncorrupted doctrines of the gospel.” — Chandler.
11. Now I make known to you. This is the most powerful argument, the main hinge on which the question turns, that he has not received the gospel from men, but that it has been revealed to him by God. As this might be denied, he offers a proof, drawn from a narrative of facts. To give his declaration the greater weight, he sets out with stating that the matter is not doubtful, (26) but one which he is prepared to prove; and thus introduces himself in a manner well adapted to a serious subject. He affirms that it is not according to man; that it savours of nothing human, or, that it was not of human contrivance; and in proof of this he afterwards adds, that he had not been instructed by any earthly teacher. (27)
(26) “Qu’il ne parle point d’une chose incertaine ou incognue.” “That he does not speak about a thing uncertain or unknown.”
(27) “The idiom by which there is a transposition of ὅτι is frequent, and may here, Schott thinks, have been made use of, in order to place a highly important topic in the most prominent point of view” — Bloomfield.
12. For I neither received it from man. What then? shall the authority of the word be diminished, because one who has been instructed by the instrumentality of men shall afterwards become a teacher? We must take into account, all along, the weapons with which the false apostles attacked him, alleging that his gospel was defective and spurious; that he had obtained it from an inferior and incompetent teacher; and that his imperfect education led him to make unguarded statements. They boasted, on the other hand, that they had been instructed by the highest apostles, with whose views they were most intimately acquainted. It was therefore necessary that Paul should state his doctrine in opposition to the whole world, and should rest it on this ground, that he had acquired it not in the school of any man, but by revelation from God. In no other way could he have set aside the reproaches of the false apostles.
The objection, that Ananias (Act 9:10) was his teacher, may be easily answered. His divine instruction, communicated to him by immediate inspiration, did not render it improper that a man should be employed in teaching him, were it only to give weight to his public ministry. In like manner, we have already shown, that he had a direct call from God by revelation, and that he was ordained by the votes and the solemn approbation of men. These statements are not inconsistent with each other.
13. For ye have heard of my conversation. The whole of this narrative was added as a part of his argument. He relates that, during his whole life, he had such an abhorrence of the gospel, that he was a mortal enemy of it, and a destroyer of the name of Christianity. Hence we infer that his conversion was divine. And indeed he calls them as witnesses of a matter not at all doubtful, so as to place beyond controversy what he is about to say.
His equals were those of his own age; for a comparison with older persons would have been unsuitable. When he speaks of the traditions of the fathers, he means, not those additions by which the law of God had been corrupted, but the law of God itself, in which he had been educated from his childhood, and which he had received through the hands of his parents and ancestors. Having been strongly attached to the customs of his fathers, it would have been no easy matter to tear him from them, had not the Lord drawn him by a miracle.
15. But after that it pleased God. This is the second part of the narrative, and relates to his miraculous conversion. He tells us, first, that he had been called by the grace of God to preach Christ among the Gentiles; and, next, that as soon as he had been called, without consulting the apostles, he unhesitatingly proceeded to the performance of the work, which, he felt assured, had been enjoined upon him by the appointment of God. In the construction of the words, Erasmus differs from the Vulgate. He connects them in the following manner: “When it pleased God that I should preach Christ among the Gentiles, who called me for this purpose that he might reveal him by me. ” But I prefer the old translation; for Christ had been revealed to Paul before he received a command to preach. Admitting that Erasmus were right in translatingἐν ἐμοὶ, by me, still the clause, that I might preach, is added for the purpose of describing the kind of revelation.
Paul’s reasoning does not, at first sight, appear so strong; for although, when he had been converted to Christianity, he instantly, and without consulting the apostles, entered into the office of preaching the gospel, it does not thence follow that he had been appointed to that office by the revelation of Christ. But the arguments which he employs are various, and, when they are all collected, will be found sufficiently strong to establish his conclusion. He argues, first, that he had been called by the grace of God; next, that his apostleship had been acknowledged by the other apostles; and the other arguments follow. Let the reader, therefore, remember to read the whole narrative together, and to draw the inference, not from single parts, but from the whole.
Who had separated me. This separation was the purpose of God, by which Paul was appointed to the apostolic office, before he knew that he was born. The calling followed afterwards at the proper time, when the Lord made known his will concerning him, and commanded him to proceed to the work. God had, no doubt, decreed, before the foundation of the world, what he would do with regard to every one of us, and had assigned to every one, by his secret counsel, his respective place. But the sacred writers frequently introduce those three steps: the eternal predestination of God, the destination from the womb, and the calling, which is the effect and accomplishment of both.
The word of the Lord which came to Jeremiah, though expressed a little differently from this passage, has entirely the same meaning.
“Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth from the womb I sanctified thee; a prophet to the nations have I made thee.” (Jer 1:5.)
Before they even existed, Jeremiah had been set apart to the office of a prophet, and Paul to that of an apostle; but he is said to separate us from the womb, because the design of our being sent into the world is, that he may accomplish, in us, what he has decreed. The calling is delayed till its proper time, when God has prepared us for the office which he commands us to undertake.
Paul’s words may therefore be read thus: “When it pleased God to reveal his Son, by me, who called me, as he had formerly separated me.” He intended to assert, that his calling depends on the secret election of God; and that he was ordained an apostle, not because by his own industry he had fitted himself for undertaking so high an office, or because God had accounted him worthy of having it bestowed upon him, but because, before he was born, he had been set apart by the secret purpose of God.
Thus, in his usual manner, he traces his calling to the good pleasure of God. This deserves our careful attention; for it shows us that we owe it to the goodness of God, not only that we have been elected and adopted to everlasting life, but that he deigns to make use of our services, who would otherwise have been altogether useless, and that he assigns to us a lawful calling, in which we may be employed. What had Paul, before he was born, to entitle him to so high an honor? In like manner we ought to believe, that it is entirely the gift of God, and not obtained by our own industry, that we have been called to govern the Church.
The subtle distinctions into which some commentators have entered in explaining the word separated, are altogether foreign to the subject. God is said to separate us, not because he bestows any peculiar disposition of mind which distinguishes us from others, but because he appoints us by his own purpose (28). Although the apostle had most explicitly attributed his calling to the free grace of God, when he pronounced that voluntary separation from the womb to be the origin of it, yet he repeats the direct statement, both that, by his commendation of Divine grace, he may take away all grounds of boasting, and that he may testify his own gratitude to God. On this subject he is wont freely to expatiate, even when he has no controversy with the false apostles.
(28) “Quand par son conseil il nous destine a quelque chose.” “When he appoints us to any thing by his purpose.”
16. To reveal his Son to me. If we read it, “to reveal by me, ” it will express the design of the apostleship, which is to make Christ known. And how was this to be accomplished? By preaching him among the Gentiles, which the false apostles treated as a crime. But I consider the Greek phraseἐν εμοὶ (29) to be a Hebrew idiom for to me; for the Hebrew particle ב (beth) is frequently redundant, as all who know that language are well aware. The meaning will therefore be, that Christ was revealed to Paul, not that he might alone enjoy, and silently retain in his own bosom the knowledge of Christ, but that he might preach among the Gentiles the Savior whom he had known.
Immediately I conferred not. To confer with flesh and blood, is to consult with flesh and blood. So far as the meaning of these words is concerned, his intention was absolutely to have nothing to do with any human counsels. The general expression, as will presently appear from the context, includes all men, and all the prudence or wisdom which they may possess. (30) He even makes a direct reference to the apostles, for the express purpose of exhibiting, in a stronger light, the immediate calling of God. Relying on the authority of God alone, and asking nothing more, he proceeded to discharge the duty of preaching the gospel.
(29) “᾿Εν ἐμοὶ, that is, ‘to me;’ but yet it appears to denote something more.” — Beza. “The ancient commentators, and, of the moderns, Winer, Schott, and Scott, seem right in regarding this as a strong expression for ‘in my mind and heart.’” — Bloomfield.
(30) “The expression, ‘flesh and blood,’ is used to denote men. Thus when Peter confessed to our Lord, ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,’ Jesus answered, ‘Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee.’ (Mat 16:17.) That is, no man hath made this discovery; and thus it hath the same meaning in the place before us. But as the apostle speaks of his countrymen and equals in age, in the verses before, I apprehend he particularly means them, and that he intends to assure the Galatians, that, notwithstanding his former zeal for the law and the traditions of the Jews, yet that, after his extraordinary conversion, he had no longer any dependence on them, nor sought the least direction from the wisest among them.” — Chandler.
17. Neither did I return to Jerusalem. What he had just written is now explained, and more fully stated. As if he had said, “I did not ask the authority of any man,” not even of the apostles themselves. It is a mistake to suppose, that, because the apostles are now separately mentioned, they are not included in the words, flesh and blood. Nothing new or different is here added, but merely a clearer explanation of what had been already said. And no disrespect to the apostles is implied in that expression. For the purpose of shewing that he did not owe his commission to man, the false boasting of unprincipled men laid him under the necessity of contrasting. the authority of the apostles themselves with the authority of God. When a creature is brought into comparison with God, however contemptuous or humiliating may be the language employed, he has no reason to complain.
But I went into Arabia. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke has omitted these three years. In like manner, there are other passages of the history which he does not touch; and hence the slander of those who seek to build on this a charge of inconsistency in the narratives is ridiculous. Let godly readers consider the severe temptation with which Paul was called to struggle at the very commencement of his course. He who but yesterday, for the sake of doing him honor, had been sent to Damascus with a magnificent retinue, is now compelled to wander as an exile in a foreign land: but he does not lose his courage.
18. Then after three years. It was not till three years after he had begun to discharge the apostolic office, that he went up to Jerusalem. Thus, he did not, at the outset, receive the calling of men. But lest it should be supposed that he had separate interests from theirs, and was desirous to avoid their society, he tells us that he went up for the express purposeto see (31) Peter. (32) Although he had not waited for their sanction before undertaking the office, yet it was not against their will, but with their full consent and approbation, that he held the rank of an apostle. He is desirous to shew that at no period was he at variance with the apostles, and that even now he is in full harmony with all their views. By mentioning the short time that he remained there, he shews that he had come, not with a view to learn, but solely for mutual intercourse.
(31) “̔ιστορεῖν signifies either ‘to ascertain any thing by inquiry, or any person by personal examination;’ but sometimes, as here, to visit for the purpose of becoming acquainted with any one by personal communication.’ So Josephus, Bell. 6:1-8, ὃν (scil. Julianum), ἱστόρησα, ‘whom when I came to know and be with.’ See Act 9:26.” — Bloomfield.
(32) “The distinguished guest of a distinguished host.” — Grotius.
19. But I saw no other of the apostles. This is added to make it evident that he had but one object in his journey, and attended to nothing else.
Except James. Who this James was, deserves inquiry. Almost all the ancients are agreed that he was one of the disciples, whose surname was “Oblias” and “The Just,” and that he presided over the church at Jerusalem. (33) Yet others think that he was the son of Joseph by another wife, and others (which is more probable) that he was the cousin of Christ by the mother’s side: (34) but as he is here mentioned among the apostles, I do not hold that opinion. Nor is there any force in the defense offered by Jerome, that the word Apostle is sometimes applied to others besides the twelve; for the subject under consideration is the highest rank of apostleship, and we shall presently see that he was considered one of the chief pillars. (Gal 2:9.) It appears to me, therefore, far more probable, that the person of whom he is speaking is the son of Alpheus. (35)
The rest of the apostles, there is reason to believe, were scattered through various countries; for they did not idly remain in one place. Luke relates that Paul was brought by Barnabas to the apostles. (Act 9:27.) This must be understood to relate, not to the twelve, but to these two apostles, who alone were at that time residing in Jerusalem.
(33) “Qui estoit pasteur en l’eglise de Jerusalem.” “Who was pastor in the church at Jerusalem.”
(34) “Qu’il estoit cousin-germain de Jesus Christ, fils de la soeur de sa mere.” “That he was cousin-german of Jesus Christ, his mother’s sister’s son.”
(35) This is fully consistent with the opinion commonly held, that Alpheus or Cleopas was the husband of the sister of Mary, the mother of our Lord, and consequently that James, the son of Alpheus, was our Lord’s cousin-german. — Ed.
20. Now the things which I write to you. This affirmation extends to the whole narrative. The vast earnestness of Paul on this subject is evinced by his resorting to an oath, which cannot lawfully be employed but on great and weighty occasions. Nor is it wonderful that he insists with so much earnestness on this point; for we have already seen to what expedients the impostors had recourse in order to take from him the name and credit of an apostle. Now the modes of swearing used by good men deserve our attention; for we learn from them that an oath must be viewed simply as an appeal to the judgment-seat of God for the integrity and truth of our words and actions; and such a transaction ought to be guided by religion and the fear of God.
22. And was unknown by face. This appears to be added for the sake of shewing more strongly the wickedness and malignity of his slanderers. If the churches of Judea who had only heard respecting him, were led to give glory to God for the astonishing change which he had wrought in Paul, how disgraceful was it that those who had beheld the fruits of his amazing labors should not have acted a similar part! If the mere report was enough for the former, why did not the facts before their eyes satisfy the latter?
23. Which once he destroyed. This does not mean that faith (36) may actually be destroyed, but that he lessened its influence on the minds of weak men. Besides, it is the will, rather than the deed, that is here expressed.
(36) ”The word πίστις denotes not only the act of believing, but that which is believed.” — Beza.
24. And they glorified God in me (37) This was an evident proof that his ministry was approved by all the churches of Judea, and approved in such a manner, that they broke out into admiration and praise of the wonderful power of God. Thus he indirectly reproves their malice, by showing that their venom and slanders could have no other effect than to hide the glory of God, which, as the apostles admitted and openly acknowledged, shone brightly in the apostleship of Paul.
This reminds us of the light in which the saints of the Lord ought to be regarded by us. When we behold men adorned with the gifts of God, such is our depravity, or ingratitude, or proneness to superstition, that we worship them as gods, unmindful of Him by whom those gifts were bestowed. These words remind us, on the contrary, to lift up our eyes to the Great Author, and to ascribe to Him what is his own, while they at the same time inform us that an occasion of offering praise to God was furnished by the change produced on Paul, from being an enemy to becoming a minister of Christ.
(37) “He does not say, They praised or glorified me, but, They glorified God. He says, They glorified God in me; for all that belongs to me was from the grace of God.” — OEcumenius.
