NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gal 1:1-5 1Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), 2and all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia: 3Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5to whom be the glory forevermore. Amen.
Gal 1:1 "Paul" Saul of Tarsus is first called Paul in Act 13:9 . It is probable that most Jews of the "diaspora" had a Hebrew name and a Greek name. If so, then Saul's parents gave him this name but why, then, does "Paul" suddenly appear in Acts 1:3 ? Possibly (1) others began to call him by this name or (2) he began to refer to himself by the term "little" or "least." The Greek name Paulos meant "little." Several theories have been advanced about the origin of his Greek name.
1. the second century tradition that Paul was short, fat, bald, bow-legged, bushy eye-browed, and had protruding eyes is a possible source of the name, deriving from a non-canonical book from Thessalonica called Paul and Thekla
2. passages where Paul calls himself the "the least of the saints" because he persecuted the Church as in Act 9:1-2 (cf. 1Co 15:9 ; Eph 3:8 ; 1Ti 1:15 ).
Some have seen this "leastness" as the origin of the self-chosen title. However, in a book like Galatians, where he emphasized his independence and equality with the Jerusalem Twelve, this option is somewhat unlikely (cf. 2Co 11:5 ; 2Co 12:11 ; 2 Cor. 15:10).
▣ "an apostle" "Apostle" comes from one of the Greek words "to send" (apostellô). Jesus chose twelve of His disciples to be with Him in a special sense and called them "Apostles" (cf. Mar 6:30 ; Luk 6:13 ).
Paul asserted his apostleship in all of his letters except for Philippians , 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon. This introductory paragraph is one of the strongest affirmations of his apostleship found in any of his letters, due to the situations in the churches where false teachers tried to refute his gospel by attacking him personally.
SPECIAL TOPIC: SEND (APOSTELLÔ) <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/send.html>
NASB "not sent from men, nor through the agency of man"
NKJV "not from men nor through man"
NRSV "sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities"
TEV "did not come from man or by means of man"
JB "who does not owe his authority to men or his appointment to any human being"
This underscores one of Paul's major emphases, that his apostleship originated from a divine, not human, source (cf. Gal 1:12 ; Gal 1:16 ). The false teachers may have alleged that Paul received his gospel from: (1) the Twelve in Jerusalem (cf. Act 9:19-22 ); or (2) the Mother Church, but he had subtly changed this gospel that he had been given. Paul defended himself in this regard because the gospel itself, not his credentials or reputation, was at stake (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:0-13 ).
▣ "but through Jesus Christ and God the Father" Note Paul's bold assertion that he received his revelation and the content of the gospel from the resurrected, glorified Jesus Himself (cf. Gal 1:12 ). Although Paul did not fit the criteria of apostleship found in Act 1:21-22 , he believed he was called by the Lord to perform this specific task (i.e., Apostle to the Gentiles).
"Jesus" means "YHWH saves" (cf. Mat 1:21 ). It is the same as the Hebrew name Joshua. When this term is used alone in the NT, it emphasizes the humanity of Jesus (cf. Eph 4:21 ).
"Christ" is equivalent to the Hebrew term, Messiah or Anointed One (see SPECIAL TOPIC: MESSIAH <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/messiah.html> below), which emphasizes the OT promise of the uniquely called, divinely inspired, coming One to bring in the New Age of righteousness.
"Jesus Christ" and "God the Father" are linked by one preposition which was the NT author's way of asserting the full deity of Christ; this occurs both in Gal 1:1 and Gal 1:3 (cf. 1Th 1:1 ; 1Th 3:11 ; 2Th 1:2 ; 2Th 1:12 ; 2Th 2:16 ).
God is Father, not in the sense of sexual generation or chronological precedence, but interpersonal relationship and leadership, as in a Jewish home.
SPECIAL TOPIC: MESSIAH <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/messiah.html>
SPECIAL TOPIC: FATHER <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/father.html>
▣ "who raised Him from the dead" Paul emphasizes that it was God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead. It was both the Father and the Son who gave him the gospel. Paul may have been asserting that he was called by the Risen Lord while the Twelve in Jerusalem were called by the still-human Lord, although this may be reading too much into the phrase.
In most passages, it is God the Father who raised Jesus from the dead and thereby gives Him the divine stamp of approval on His ministry (cf. 2Co 4:14 ; Act 2:24 ; Act 3:15 ; Act 10:40 ; Rom 6:4 ; 1Pe 1:21 ). In Rom 8:17 it is God the Spirit who raises Jesus from the dead. However, in Joh 10:17-18 , God the Son asserts that He laid down His own life, and took it up again. This shows the fluidity between the work of the persons of the Trinity.
SPECIAL TOPIC: THE RESURRECTION <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/resurrection.html>
Gal 1:2 "and all the brethren who are with me" It is unfortunate for modern Bible students that Paul did not name his companions, which would have confirmed one of the two theories concerning the recipients of the letter. The Northern Theory focuses on ethnic Galatia while the Southern Theory focuses on the Roman administrative province of Galatia. Paul did not mention whether it was Barnabas (first journey) or Timothy and Silas (second journey). The name "Barnabas" occurs three times in Galatians implying the first journey and, therefore, the early date.
Paul uses "brethren" often in this letter (cf. Gal 3:15 ; Gal 4:12 ; Gal 5:11 ; Gal 6:18 ), possibly because his message to these churches was so pointed, stern, or even combative. Paul often introduced new subjects by beginning with "brothers."
▣ "to the churches of Galatia" Again, the exact location of these churches remains undetermined. Some assert that it is Northern Galatia (cf. 1Pe 1:1 ), and make the date of this epistle in the middle 5:0 's A.D. Act 26:6 ; Act 18:23 are interpreted as evidence that Paul preached in this area. Others interpret Galatia as the Roman province of Galatia, which encompassed a much larger area referred to in Acts 1:3 , 14 and would thereby refer to the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas. This would make the date in the late 4:0 's A.D., just before, but not identical with, the Jerusalem Council of Acts 1:5 .
SPECIAL TOPIC: CHURCH (EKKLESIA) <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/church.html>
Gal 1:3 "Grace to you and peace" The normal Greek epistolary greeting was the word charein. Paul characteristically changed this to the similar sounding Christian term charis, or grace. Many have suggested Paul combined the Greek greeting of "grace" with the Hebrew greeting "peace" [shalom]. Although this is an attractive theory, it may be reading too much into this typically Pauline introductory phrase. Theologically it is interesting to notice that grace alone precedes peace.
▣ "the Lord" The Greek term kurios is similar in meaning to the Hebrew term adon. Both were used in the sense of "sir," "master," "owner," "husband," or "lord" (cf. Gen 24:9 ; Exo 21:4 ; 2Sa 2:7 ; and Mat 6:24 ; Joh 4:11 ; Joh 9:36 ). However, it also came to refer to Jesus as God's Sent One, the Messiah (cf. Joh 9:38 ).
The OT usage of this term comes from the later reluctance of Judaism to pronounce the covenant name for God, YHWH, which is the Hebrew verb "to be" (cf. Exo 3:14 ). They were afraid of breaking one of the Ten Commandments which said, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord Thy God in vain." Therefore, they thought if they did not pronounce it, they could not take it in vain. So, they substituted the Hebrew adon [Lord] which has a similar meaning to the Greek kurios [Lord]. The NT authors used this term to describe the full deity of Christ. The phrase "Jesus is Lord" was the public confession of faith and baptismal formula of the early church (cf. Rom 10:9-14 ).
YHWH
1. This is the name which reflects deity as the covenant making God; God as savior, redeemer! Humans break covenants, but God is loyal to His word, promise, covenant (cf. Psalms 10:3 ).
This name is first mentioned in combination with Elohim in Gen 2:4 . There are not two creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, but two emphases: (1) God (i.e., Elohim) as the creator of the universe (the physical) and (2) God as the special creator of humanity (i.e., YHWH). Gen 2:4 begins the special revelation about the privileged position and purpose of mankind, as well as the problem of sin and rebellion associated with the unique position.
2. In Gen 4:26 it is said "men began to call upon the name of the Lord " (YHWH). However, Exo 6:3 implies that early covenant people (the Patriarchs and their families) knew God only as El-Shaddai. The name YHWH is explained only one time in Exo 3:13-16 , esp. Gal 1:14 . However, the writings of Moses often interpret words by popular word plays, not etymologies (cf. Gen 17:5 ; Gen 27:36 ; Gen 29:13-35 ). There have been several theories as to the meaning of this name (taken from IDB, vol. 2, pp. 409-11).
a. from an Arabic root, "to show fervent love"
b. from an Arabic root "to blow" (YHWH as storm God)
c. from a Ugartic (Canaanite) root "to speak"
d. following a Phoenician inscription, a causative participle meaning "the One who sustains," or "the One who establishes"
e. from the Hebrew Qal form "the One who is," or "the One who is present" (in future sense, "the One who will be")
f. from the Hebrew Hiphil form "the One who causes to be"
g. from the Hebrew root "to live" (e.g., Gen 3:20 ), meaning "the ever living, only living One"
h. from the context of Exo 3:13-16 a play on the imperfect form used in a perfect sense, "I shall continue to be what I used to be" or "I shall continue to be what I have always been" (cf. J. Wash Watts, A Survey of Syntax in the Old Testament, p. 67
The full name YHWH is often expressed in abbreviation or possibly an original form
(1) Yah (e.g., Hallelu - yah)
(2) Yahu (names, e.g., the "iah" in Isaiah)
(3) Yo (names, e.g., Joel)
3. As with El, often YHWH is combined with other terms to emphasize certain characteristics of the Covenant God of Israel. While there are many possible combinations terms, here are some.
a. YHWH – Yireh (YHWH will provide), Gen 22:14 b. YHWH – Rophekha (YHWH is your healer), Exo 15:26 c. YHWH – Nissi (YHWH is my banner), Exo 17:15 d. YHWH – Meqaddishkem (YHWH the One who sanctifies you), Exo 31:13 e. YHWH – Shalom (YHWH is Peace), Jdg 6:24 f. YHWH – Sabbaoth (YHWH of hosts), 1Sa 1:3 ; 1Sa 1:11 ; 1Sa 4:4 ; 1Sa 15:2 ; often in the Prophets)
g. YHWH – Ro‘I (YHWH is my shepherd), Psa 23:1 h. YHWH – Sidqenu (YHWH is our righteousness), Jer 23:6 i. YHWH – Shammah (YHWH is there), Eze 48:35
Gal 1:4 This series of phrases illuminates three major aspects of Paul's gospel message. Paul expanded the introduction to show the centrality of the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. The three aspects are:
1. His substitutionary death on our behalf (cf. Rom 4:25 ; Rom 5:6 ; Rom 5:8 ; 1Co 15:3 ; 2Co 5:14 ; 2Co 5:21 )
2. His introduction of the New Messianic Age—this is an aorist middle verbal form which means "He, Himself, once and for all, plucked us out" of this present evil age
3. His mission was in obedience to the eternal, redemptive plan of God. He came to die (cf. Gen 3:15 ; Isa 53:4 ; Isa 53:10 ; Mar 10:45 ; Joh 3:16 ; Act 2:22-23 ; Act 4:27-28 ; 2Co 5:21 ; 2Ti 1:9 ; 1Pe 1:20 and Rev 13:8 ). See Special Topic: YHWH's ETERNAL REDEMPTIVE PLAN at Gal 1:7 .
"Wicked" is placed in an emphatic position which conveys the idea that "this is an evil, godless age" (cf. Joh 12:31 ; 2Co 4:4 ; Eph 2:2-7 ). The concept of the two Jewish ages—a current evil age and the age to come, which will be brought in by God's Messiah—can be seen in Mat 12:32 ; Mat 13:39 ; Mat 28:20 and other passages in the NT. Although Jesus has ushered in the New Age, it has not yet been fully consummated.
▣ "who gave Himself for our sins" The word "gift" is a metaphor for God's initiating, free grace toward sinful humanity.
1. Jesus gave Himself, cf. Mat 20:28 ; Luk 22:19 ; Gal 1:4 ; 1Ti 2:6 2. God gave His Son for the world to be saved, cf. Joh 3:16 ; 1Jn 4:10 3. Jesus is the gift of God, cf. Joh 4:10 ; Rom 5:15 ; 2Co 9:15 4. justification by grace through faith in Christ is the gift of God, cf. Rom 3:24 ; Eph 2:8
NASB, NIV"rescue us"
NKJV "deliver us"
NRSV "to set us free"
TEV "to deliver us"
NJB "to liberate us"
This is an aorist middle subjunctive. In Act 7:10 ; Act 7:34 it is used of the Exodus. Jesus is the new Moses/new Exodus! In the context of Galatians this means that Christ's death brings believers forgiveness of sin (cf. Isaiah 5:3 ) potentially to all humans. It is God's will that sinful mankind be saved (cf. Joh 3:16 ; 1Ti 2:4 ; 2Pe 3:9 ).
▣ "this present evil age" See Special Topic following.
SPECIAL TOPIC: THIS AGE AND THE AGE TO COME <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/age_(this)_and_the_age_to_come.html>
▣ "according to the will of our God and Father" See Special Topic following.
SPECIAL TOPIC: THE WILL (thelçma) OF GOD <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/will_of_god.html>
Gal 1:5 "to whom be the glory forevermore" Typically Pauline, this doxology breaks into the context because of the majesty of God. Often the pronouns in Paul's writings have ambiguous antecedents. Most of the time, in these occurrences, the masculine singular pronouns refer to God the Father.
▣ "the glory" In the OT the most common Hebrew word for "glory" (kabod, BDB 21:7 ) was originally a commercial term (which referred to the use of a pair of scales) which meant "to be heavy." That which was heavy was valuable or had intrinsic worth. Often the concept of brightness (Shekinah cloud of glory during the wilderness wandering period) was added to the word to express God's majesty. He alone is worthy and honorable. He is too brilliant for fallen mankind to behold. God can only be truly known through Christ (cf. Jer 1:14 ; Mat 17:2 ; Heb 1:3 ; Jas 2:1 ).
SPECIAL TOPIC: GLORY (DOXA) <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/glory_doxa.html>
▣ "forevermore" Literally "unto the ages of the ages."
SPECIAL TOPIC: FOREVER (GREEK IDIOM) <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/forever_greek_idiom.html>
▣ "Amen" This is a form of the OT Hebrew term for "faith" (emeth, cf. Hab 2:4 , see Special Topic at Gal 3:6 ). Its original etymology was "to be firm or sure." However, the connotation changed to that which is to be affirmed (cf. 2Co 1:20 ). It was used metaphorically of someone who was faithful, loyal, steadfast, trustworthy (cf. Robert B. Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, pp. 102-106). Here it functions as a close to a doxology to God the Father (cf. Rom 1:25 ; Rom 9:5 ; Rom 11:36 ; Rom 16:27 ; Eph 3:21 ; Php 4:20 ).
SPECIAL TOPIC: AMEN <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/amen.html>
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gal 1:6-10 6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, he is to be accursed! 10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
Gal 1:6 "I am amazed" Instead of a thanksgiving—so common in Pauline writings—Paul observed with astonishment (the verb is found only here and 2Th 1:10 in Paul's writings) that the Galatians had been too easily wooed away from the pure, simple, majestic gospel of justification by grace through faith by the false teachers.
▣ "so quickly" Two senses are possible: (1) so soon after they accepted the gospel that Paul preached, or (2) so soon after the false teachers came.
▣ "deserting Him" This verb is present tense, indicating the Galatians were in the process of turning away. "deserting" is a military term for revolt. Note the emphasis is on the personal element of turning away from God Himself by rejecting Paul's gospel. It can be a present passive verbal form, but the larger context (cf. Gal 3:1 ff; Gal 5:7 ) implies a present middle form. This emphasizes that although the false teachers instigated the deserting, the Galatians willingly participated in it.
▣ "who called you by the grace of Christ" The phrase "called you" usually refers to an action of God the Father (cf. Rom 8:30 ; Rom 9:24 ; 1Co 1:9 ). This is significant because of the textual problem with the addition of the phrase "of Christ." It is not found in the papyrus P46, F*, or G, but it is found in the papyrus P51, and the uncial manuscripts א, A, B, K and F2. "Of Jesus Christ" is found in MS D. This may be an early addition to clarify that it is the Father who calls us through Christ. It must be stated again: God always takes the initiative in human salvation (cf. Joh 6:44 ; Joh 6:65 ; Romans 9; Eph 1:3-14 ). See SPECIAL TOPIC: ELECTION/PREDESTINATION AND THE NEED FOR A THEOLOGICAL BALANCE <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/election.html> at 1Th 1:4 and SPECIAL TOPIC: CALLED <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/called.html> at 2Th 1:11 .
▣ "for a different gospel" "Different" [heteros] is sometimes used in the sense of "another of a different kind," (cf. 2Co 11:4 ). In Gal 1:7 allos (i.e., "another of the same kind") is used; it can be translated "another of the same kind in a series." However, in Koine Greek these terms were becoming synonymous and a distinction should not be insisted upon too strongly. But, in this context, Paul obviously used both for contrast.
Gal 1:7 NASB "which is really not another"
NKJV "which is not another"
NRSV "not that there is another gospel"
TEV "there is no ‘other gospel'"
NJB "Not that there can be more than one Good News"
There are not two gospels, though the one true gospel is often perverted. The KJV translation of Gal 2:7 has been often interpreted as referring to two gospels, one for the Greeks and one for the Jews. This is an unfortunate and untrue inference, although it may have been a statement of the false teachers.
NASB "only there are some who are disturbing you"
NKJV "but there are some who trouble you"
NRSV "but there are some who are confusing you"
TEV "there are some people who are upsetting you"
NJB "it is merely that some troublemakers among you"
"Disturbing" refers to a purposeful action like a military revolt (i.e., this context has several military terms). "False teachers" is plural in Gal 5:12 , but possibly only the leader of the false teachers is actually meant because of the use of the singular in Gal 5:7 and twice in Gal 5:10 . They are called "agitators" in Gal 5:12 . Many assume the Judaizers of Galatians are synonymous with the converted Pharisees or priests of Act 15:1 ; Act 15:5 ; Act 15:24 . They emphasized the necessity of becoming a Jew before one could become a Christian. The Judaizers' emphasis on the Jewish Law can be seen in:
1. the necessity of circumcision (cf. Gal 2:3-4 ; Gal 5:1 ; Gal 6:12-15 )
2. their keeping of special days (cf. Gal 4:10 )
3. a possible inclusion of keeping the food laws which is implied in Paul's confrontation with Peter (cf. Gal 2:11-14 )
This was probably the same group of false teachers mentioned in 2Co 11:26 and 1Th 2:14-16 . Their problem was not that they denied the central place of Christ in salvation, but that they also required the Mosaic Law, which confuses grace and human performance. The New Covenant does not focus on human merit (cf. Jer 31:31-34 ; Eze 36:22-38 ).
The theological and practical problem of how to relate the OT and NT remains even today. Here are some possible options suggested through the years.
1. ignore the OT
2. magnify the OT
3. continue the ethics, but not the cultus of Israel
4. read the NT through the eyes of the OT categories
5. read the OT through the new message of Jesus
6. see it as a promise (OT) and fulfillment (NT)
I have struggled with this issue! It seems to me the OT is surely revelation (Mat 5:17-19 ; 2Ti 3:15-16 ). One cannot understand the Bible without Genesis. The OT surely reveals God in marvelous ways, however, it seems to me that Judaism mishandled the Mosaic covenant by emphasizing the human aspect of covenant! I prefer to emphasize the divine universal aspect (i.e., Gen 3:15 ; Gen 12:3 ; Exo 19:5-6 ) with a mandated covenantal human response!
The NT universalizes the national promises to Israel whereby the original intent of God to redeem fallen mankind, made in His image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26-27 ) is fully realized! One God, one world, one way to restored fellowship (i.e., Isaiah's message)!
SPECIAL TOPIC: YHWH's ETERNAL REDEMPTIVE PLAN <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/YHWHs_plan.html>
NASB "and want to distort the gospel of Christ"
NKJV, NRSV "and want to pervert the gospel of Christ"
TEV "and trying to change the gospel of Christ"
NJB "want to change the Good News of Christ"
"To distort" is an aorist infinitive meaning "to reverse," possibly another military term. Although morality is a significant element of the gospel, it always follows salvation. It does not precede it as the Judaizers asserted (cf. Eph 2:8-10 ). Paul's gospel was Christ, then Christlikeness; their gospel was works righteousness (Mosaic Law) and then God's righteousness in Christ.
Gal 1:8 "but even if" This third class conditional sentence with an aorist middle subjunctive which shows a hypothetical situation (cf. 2Co 11:3-4 ). Paul asserted that if he, or an angel from heaven, should preach a different gospel, they should be judged and separated from God.
NASB "he is to be accursed!"
NKJV "let him be accursed"
NRSV "let that one be accursed"
TEV "may he be condemned to hell"
NJB "he is to be condemned"
"Curse" (anathema, cf. Mat 18:7 ; Rom 9:3 ; 1Co 12:3 ; 1Co 16:22 ) may reflect the Hebrew word herem which was employed in the sense of dedicating something to God. Herem developed a negative connotation from its use in the case of Jericho being dedicated to God for destruction (cf. Joshua 6-7). God's curse is a natural result of His people breaking a covenant (cf. Deu 27:11-26 ). However, Paul specifically used this term to show the seriousness of the false teachers' gospel by consigning them to God's wrath
Syntactically, Gal 1:8-9 are parallel. However, the third class condition sentence of Gal 1:8 shows potential action (i.e., hypothetical), while the first class condition sentence of Gal 1:9 shows current, assumed action (i.e., the preaching of the false teachers).
SPECIAL TOPIC: CURSE (ANATHEMA) <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/curse.html>
Gal 1:9 "as we have said before" This is a perfect active indicative plural, which refers to the previous teaching and preaching of Paul's mission team.
▣ "a gospel contrary to that which you have received" The verb "received" (paralambanô, aorist active indicative) is a technical term in rabbinical writings for passing on "the Oral Tradition," indicating Paul was passing on the gospel tradition (cf. Gal 1:12 ; 1Co 11:23 ; 1Co 15:3 ; Php 4:9 ; 1Th 2:13 ; 1Th 4:1 ; 2Th 3:6 )), but the context is emphatic that he did not receive this tradition from other humans (cf. Gal 1:12 ).
To become a Christian one must receive (cf. Joh 1:12 ) or to put it another way, believe (cf. Joh 3:16 ) the gospel. Christian conversion has three aspects, all of which are crucial (all three correspond to the three uses of pistis - pistellô, see note at Gal 1:23-24 ):
1. welcome Jesus personally (a person to believe in)
2. believe the NT truths about Him (truths about that person to affirm)
3. live a life like His (a life to live like that person's)
It must be clarified that the central elements of Paul's gospel came from Jesus directly (cf. Gal 1:12 ). Paul contemplated and developed them for several years before he went to visit the Mother Church and its leaders in Jerusalem (cf. Gal 1:18 ; Gal 2:1 ). However, Paul also learned much about the words and actions of Jesus from those who knew Him in the flesh:
1. those he persecuted witnessed to him
2. he saw and heard the defense of Stephen (cf. Act 7:58 )
3. Ananias witnessed to him (cf. Act 9:10-19 )
4. he visited with Peter for 1:5 days (cf. Gal 1:18 )
Additionally, Paul also quotes many creeds or hymns of the early Church in his writings (cf. Gal 1:4-5 ; 1Co 15:3-4 ; Eph 5:14 ; Php 2:6-11 ; Col 1:15-20 ; 1Ti 3:16 ); and mentions Christian traditions several times (cf. 1Co 11:2 ; 2Th 3:6 ). Paul was speaking in very specific terms and in a guarded sense because of the accusations of the false teachers.
Gal 1:10 "For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God" This is a development and continuation of the theme which began in Gal 1:1 . Paul's strong words to the false teachers proved that he was not trying to please men which they had apparently alleged. Possibly Paul was being criticized for his statement that he became all things to all men similar to 1Co 9:19-27 ; Act 21:17-26 . This was misinterpreted as:
1. compromising with pagan culture
2. his preaching two gospels, one for Jews and another easier one for pagans
▣ "If" Gal 1:10 is a second class conditional sentence which expresses a statement "contrary to fact." Amplified, the sentence would read: "If I were still trying to please men, which I am not, then I would not be a bond-servant of Christ, which I am." See Appendix One, VII.
▣ "I were still trying to please men" There has been much discussion about the word "still." Does this imply that he never appealed to men or that it was a confession that as a zealous Pharisee in his earlier days he did attempt to please men (i.e., Pharisees, cf. Gal 1:14 )?
▣ "I would not be a bond-servant of Christ" This is an allusion to Christ's teaching that one cannot serve two masters (cf. Mat 6:24 ). "Bond-servant" may have been used by Paul to refer to
1. Jesus as Lord and Paul as slave
2. an honorific title of leadership from the OT used of Moses (cf. Deu 34:5 ; Jos 8:31 ; Jos 8:33 ), Joshua (cf. Jos 24:29 ; Jdg 2:8 ), and to David (cf. 2Sa 7:5 ; title, Psalms 1:8 )
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gal 1:11-17 11For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to Man 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 1:6 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
Gal 1:11 to Gal 2:14 This is a literary unit in which Paul defends his apostleship, so as to defend his gospel.
Gal 1:11 NASB "For I would have you know, brethren"
NKJV "But I make known to you, brethren"
NRSV "For I want you to know, brothers and sisters"
TEV "Let me tell you, my brothers"
NJB "The fact is, brothers, and I want you to realize this"
The KJV translates this as "I certify to you," a technical rendering of the phrase (cf. 1Co 12:3 ; 1Co 15:1 ; 2Co 8:1 ).
Gal 1:11-12 "the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man" This begins a phrase which repeats the twin disclaimers of Gal 1:1 . Paul claimed that his message does not have a human origin (cf. 2Th 2:13 ; 2Pe 1:20-21 ). He further asserted that he did not receive it from any human. The word "receive" was used of students being taught in rabbinical schools. The gospel was contrary to the teachings Paul received as a rabbinical student in Jerusalem. It was taught to him by a revelation from Jesus Christ, both on the road to Damascus and in Arabia (cf. Eph 3:2-3 ). He stated this three times in Gal 1:11-12 !
The word "gospel" and the verb "was preached" are both from the compound term
1. eu, "good"
2. angelion, "news" or "message"
Paul uses them together in 1Co 15:1 .
Gal 1:12 "a revelation of Jesus Christ" This may be either subjective genitive case (emphasizing Jesus as the agent of the revelation, i.e., opposite "from men") or objective genitive case (emphasizing Jesus as the content of the revelation, cf. Gal 1:16 ).
Gal 1:13 "you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism" It is not certain how these churches heard.
1. it was common knowledge
2. Paul shared with them
3. the false teachers had alluded to his former conduct
"Judaism" seems to refer to Pharisaism (cf. Act 26:4-5 ). After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Roman general Titus, the Pharisaic party moved to the city of Jamnia. The Sadducean element was completely eliminated and Pharisaism developed into modern rabbinical Judaism. Paul mentioned something of his life as a zealous Pharisee in Php 3:4-6 .
SPECIAL TOPIC: PHARISEES <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/pharisees.html>
NASB "how I used to persecute beyond measure"
NKJV "how I persecuted"
NRSV "I was violently persecuting"
TEV "how I persecuted without mercy"
NJB "how much damage I did to it"
This imperfect tense verb is used in Act 9:4 , referring to his repeated activity described in Act 8:1-3 ; Act 22:20 ; and Act 26:10 (cf. 1Co 15:9 ; 1Ti 1:13 ). These are the same general contexts in which Paul shared his personal testimony.
For "beyond measure" (hyperbole), see Special Topic following.
SPECIAL TOPIC: PAUL'S USE OF "HUPER" COMPOUNDS <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/paul_huper.html>
▣ "the church of God" Ekklesia is a compound Greek word from "out of" and "to call." This was used in Koine Greek to describe any kind of assembly, such as a town assembly (cf. Act 19:32 ). The Church chose this term because it was used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, written as early as 25:0 B.C. for the library at Alexandria, Egypt. This Greek term translated the Hebrew term qahal which was used in the covenantal phrase "the assembly of Israel" (cf. Num 20:4 ). The NT writers asserted that they were the "divinely called out ones" who were the People of God of their day. They saw no radical break between the OT People of God and themselves, the NT People of God. We must assert that the Church of Jesus Christ is the true heir to the OT Scriptures, not modern rabbinical Judaism.
Note that Paul mentioned the local churches in Gal 1:2 and the universal Church in Gal 1:13 . "Church" is used in three different ways in the NT.
1. house churches (cf. Rom 16:5 )
2. local or area churches (cf. Gal 1:2 ; 1Co 1:2 )
3. the whole body of Christ on earth (Gal 1:13 ; Mat 16:18 ; Eph 1:22 ; Eph 3:21 ; Eph 5:23-32 )
▣ "and tried to destroy it" This verb phrase is imperfect tense, meaning repeated action in past time.
Gal 1:14 "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries" This refers to Paul's fellow rabbinical students in Jerusalem. No one is more enthusiastic than a first-year theology student! The Jewish zeal for the Law was/is actually devotion and zeal without knowledge and truth (cf. Rom 10:2 ff.). Paul was trying to please his Jewish contemporaries!
▣ "being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions" Here is the use of the term "traditions" which was a technical term for "the Oral Tradition." The Jews believed that the Oral Tradition, like the written Old Testament, was given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The Oral Tradition was meant to surround, protect, and interpret the written Old Testament. Later codified in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds, it resulted in formalism and folklore instead of a vital faith relationship (cf. Isa 29:13 ; Col 2:16-23 ; 2Ti 3:1-5 ). See note on "traditions" at 2Th 2:15 .
Gal 1:15 NASB "But when God"
NKJV "But when it pleased God"
NRSV "But when God"
TEV "But God"
NJB "Then God"
Many reliable ancient manuscripts, instead of having the term "God," use the Masculine pronoun "he," (cf. manuscripts P46 and B). Theos [God] does occur in manuscripts א, A, and D. "He" was likely original and scribes later added theos to clarify the ambiguous pronoun. See Appendix Two.
▣ "who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace" Paul is alluding to the call of some OT prophets, particularly Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:4-5 , or the Servant of YHWH, Isa 49:1 ; Isa 49:5 ). He felt a divine call to the ministry (cf. Rom 1:1 ). This is another way of asserting that his authority and apostleship were not from men (cf. Gal 1:1 ; Gal 1:11-12 ). The concept of being "called" by God is emphasized in Paul's personal testimony (cf. Act 9:1-19 ; Act 13:2 ; Act 22:1-16 ; and Act 26:9-18 ). Some of the strongest biblical passages on election can be found in Paul's writings (cf. Romans 9 and Ephesians 1).
It is interesting that Paul's "through His grace" seems to be synonymous with "Holy Spirit." The terminology is common in Paul's writings (cf. Rom 3:24 ; 1Co 15:10 ; 2Co 6:1 ; Eph 2:8 ).
Grace reflects the unchanging character of God and the spirit makes the contact between the Holy God and sinful mankind (cf. Joh 6:44 ; Joh 6:65 ).
Gal 1:16 NASB, NKJV,
NJB "to reveal His Son in me"
NRSV, TEV "to reveal his Son to me"
"To reveal" [apocaluptô], translated "revelation" in Gal 1:12 typically means "a clear manifestation or unveiling." Apparently this occurred on the Damascus road and later in Arabia (cf. Gal 1:17 ).
The phrase "in me" has been much debated. Some believe it means that God revealed Jesus to Paul while others think it means that God revealed Jesus through Paul. Both are true. The Revised English Bible translation combines both possibilities ("to reveal His Son in and through me"). The larger context seems to fit the first option best, but in Gal 1:16 the second option fits best.
▣ "that I might preach about Him among the Gentiles" The phrase "in me" is paralleled by "in the Gentiles." God called Paul to call the heathen (cf. Act 9:15 ; Act 22:15 ; Act 26:16-18 ; Rom 1:5 ; Rom 11:13 ; Rom 15:16 ; Gal 2:7 ; Gal 2:9 ; E Php 3:8 ; 1Ti 2:7 ). We derive the English word "ethnic" from this Greek word for "Gentiles."
NASB "I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood"
NKJV "I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood"
NRSV "I did not confer with any human being"
TEV "I did not go to anyone for advice"
NJB "I did not stop to discuss this with any human being"
This seems to refer to Paul's private study time in Arabia (cf. Gal 1:17 ). We are not sure how long he studied or how long he remained in Arabia. It was probably the Nabatean kingdom, which was very close to the city of Damascus, just to the southeast (cf. 2Co 11:32 ). From Gal 1:18 it seems that he could have stayed for as long as three years (but not necessarily). Paul's basic purpose for mentioning this (it is omitted in the book of Acts) was to show that he did not receive his gospel from the Apostles in Jerusalem, nor was he officially sanctioned by the Church in Jerusalem, but from God and by God (cf. Gal 1:1 ; Gal 1:11-12 ).
"Flesh" has sexual connotations. See Special Topic below.
SPECIAL TOPIC: FLESH (sarx) <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/flesh.html>
Gal 1:17 "to those who were apostles before me" Paul certainly recognized the leadership of the original Twelve, but also asserted his equality to them.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gal 1:18-24 18Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. 20(Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy." 24And they were glorifying God because of me.
Gal 1:18 "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem" Paul freely admitted that he visited Jerusalem. The emphasis of this sentence is that Paul had no contact with Jerusalem or the Twelve until three years after his conversion. The book of Acts records five visits by Paul to Jerusalem, but Galatians only records two. It is very difficult to know which of the visits recorded in Acts are similarly recorded in the book of Galatians or if there were additional visits. Most people believe that this visit mentioned in Gal 1:18 is equal to the visit recorded in Act 9:26-30 . See Introduction, Date and Recipients, C.
▣ "to become acquainted with" This is a Greek phrase from which we get our English word "history." Paul went (1) to get to know Peter or (2) for the specific purpose of learning from Peter the teachings of Jesus. Yet Paul did not stay with Peter the entire time (cf. Act 9:28-30 ). He was preaching in the area and probably just spent the evenings and the Sabbath with him. This verse also emphasizes that he only stayed for fifteen days, which is much too short a stay for extended instruction. However, from the Pauline terminology and theology so obvious in I and 2 Pet., Peter may have learned more from Paul than Paul did from Peter.
NASB, NRSV,
NJB "Cephas"
NKJV, TEV "Peter"
Cephas (Aramaic for "rock") is found in MSS P46, P51, א*, A, B. Peter (Greek for boulder) is found in MSS אc, D, F, G, K, L, and P. Paul uses "Cephas" in Gal 2:9 ; Gal 2:11 ; Gal 2:14 .
Gal 1:19 "But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother" This Greek sentence is very ambiguous. The context implies that James was an apostle, but this meaning is not certain. It (apostles) could refer to Peter in Gal 1:18 . James seems to be an "apostle" in the same sense as Barnabas (cf. Act 14:4 ; Act 14:14 ); Andronicus and Junias (cf. Rom 16:7 ); Apollos (cf. 1Co 4:9 ); Epaphroditus (Php 2:25 ); or Silvanas and Timothy (cf. 1Th 2:6 ; Act 18:5 ). This James was identified as the Lord's half-brother (cf. Mat 13:55 ; Mar 6:3 ), in order to differentiate him from James the Apostle, part of the Inner Circle, who was killed very early (cf. Acts 1:2 ). For several generations the church in Jerusalem had a physical relative of Jesus as their leader. Several biblical passages (cf. Act 12:17 ; Act 15:13 ; Act 21:18 ; 1Co 15:7 ; and Jas 1:1 ) indicate that James was a very important leader in the Church in Jerusalem. See SPECIAL TOPIC: JAMES, THE HALF-BROTHER OF JESUS <http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/james.html> at Gal 2:9 .
For "apostles" see Special Topic: Send at Gal 1:1 .
Gal 1:20 "I assure you before God that I am not lying" Paul knew the seriousness of oath-taking and still felt that it was important to assert his truthfulness by oath (cf. Rom 9:1 ; 1Ti 2:7 ). Paul also employed God as a witness to his truthfulness elsewhere (cf. Rom 1:9 ; 2Co 1:23 ; 2Co 4:2 ; 2Co 11:31 ; 1Th 2:5 ; 1Th 2:10 ). Paul was certain of the divine origin and content of his message.
Gal 1:21 "Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia" Syria and Cilicia were Roman provinces but the smaller province of Cilicia was not totally independent (cf. Act 15:41 ). This may be the reason it was mentioned second, even though in chronology it is first, Paul's work was in Cilicia first, for it was the area in which Tarsus, his hometown, was located. This seems to be recorded in Act 9:30 . Paul's time in Syria is recorded in conjunction with Antioch which was the capital of the Roman province of Syria. This period is recorded in Act 11:25-26 .
Gal 1:22 "but I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea" The word "unknown" in Greek is reflected in the English cognate "agnostic." "Knowledge" [gnosis] in this case has the alpha privitive which negates it. This is somewhat surprising because Paul was a famous persecutor of the Church, however, not all of the churches knew who he was, and he did not seek recognition from the churches of Palestine for his ministry.
▣ ""churches" See Special Topic at Gal 1:2 .
Gal 1:23-24 Although Paul did not seek affirmation from these early Jewish Christian churches, they gave it to him (cf. Gal 1:24 ) when they heard about his ministry among the Gentiles. This is another point in his argument against the Jewish "Christian" false teachers who said that he did not have proper authority.
▣ "the faith" This term may have several distinct connotations. For the most part the presence or absence of the article does not help clarify which meaning.
1. OT background means "faithfulness" or "trustworthiness," therefore, it is used of our faithing the faithfulness of God or our trusting in the trustworthiness of God
2. in our accepting or receiving God's free offer of forgiveness in Christ
3. in the sense of faithful, godly living
4. in the collective sense of the Christian faith or truth about Jesus (cf. Act 6:7 and Jud 1:3 ; Jud 1:20 )
In several passages, such as 2Th 3:2 , it is difficult to know which sense Paul had in mind. Here, option #4 is best.
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.
