Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Galatians 1:11 - 1:24
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
TO DESTROY THE INFLUENCE WHICH THE FALSE TEACHERS HAD GAINED IN THE CHURCHES, PAUL REFUTES THEIR ATTACKS UPON HIS APOSTOLIC DIGNITY, AND PROVES THEREBY THE FULL AUTHORITY OF HIS PREACHING
Gal_1:11 to Gal_2:21
1. To this end the appeals to the fact that he received his commission to declare the Gospel from God and Christ Himself through immediate revelation, not from the senior Apostles
(Gal_1:11-24)
The gospel which was preached by me is most naturally referred to the preaching of the gospel among the Galatians, although self-evidently the same declaration was of general validity.— Ïὐ êáôὰ ἄíèñùðïí literally: “not according to man,” not after the fashion of man, not man’s work. This applies not immediately to its origin, but to its character, which however is especially and primarily conditioned by its origin (Gal_1:12). The sequel shows the phrase to be nearly equivalent in sense to “scholastic” [schulmässig].
Gal_1:12. For neither did I receive it of man, neither was I taught it.—“Neither did I”=any more than the Twelve. By the denial of any human origin of his gospel he asserts his equal rank with the other Apostles. The sentence receives a simple exposition when compared with Gal_1:1, which it more closely explains. The first and negative part: “neither did I receive it from man, neither was I taught it,” is an explanation of “not of men, neither through man,” while the second part, “but through revelation from Jesus Christ,” is an explanation of “through Jesus Christ and God the Father,” which is afterwards made yet more definite (Gal_1:15-16).—[Lightfoot: The idea of the preposition ( ðáñÜ ) is sufficiently wide to include both the ἀðü and äéÜ of Gal_1:1—R.]
Through revelation from Jesus Christ.—This is commonly explained as merely a giving of instruction respecting the contents of the gospel, and there is then a difficulty as to when Christ gave to Paul this ἀðï - êÜëíøéò , discovery. Here Ἰçóïῦ ×ñéóôïῦ is taken as gen. Subj. = the revelation which Jesus Christ gave. Meyer explains it of revelations received soon after the event near Damascus, of which, however, there is no mention in the Acts. Others, with reason, refuse to assume any such revelations, but explain the “revelation” as identical with the actual appearance of Christ on the way to Damascus, through which Paul received certainty of that which is precisely the essence of the gospel, namely, “Jesus the Son of God.” They are led to this, moreover, by a just instinct, that it is not the developed contents of that which Paul taught, that is here in question. This explanation, therefore, is quite correct, and Paul’s reference here is solely to the fact of that appearance on the way. Yet he has in view chiefly, not a receiving of instruction thereby, but his call to the apostleship itself, for this was a call “to preach the gospel” (see also Gal_1:18), and therefore a “receiving the gospel.” The expression, that he had received the gospel through revelation from Jesus Christ, has primarily the simple meaning, that through this he had been called and appointed to preach. In the phrase “through revelation,” etc., Ἰçóïῦ ×ñéóôïῦ is at all events the subjective genitive, for Christ is in any case to be regarded as active in the installation of the Apostle (Gal_1:1), and hence in his call to preach. As the object of this “revelation” we are to understand not the contents of the gospel, but more simply Christ Himself, hence it is=by Christ’s revealing Himself to me.—This view is, it is true, in apparent contradiction to the “taught” immediately preceding, which seems to point to a definitely developed doctrine, but only in apparent contradiction. It is only in the negative that he speaks of “being taught;” in order to deny most entirely the human calling to preach, Paul denies also the “being taught;” he did not, he says, first receive in a course of school instruction, his equipment, authorization and capacity to preach, hence not in a secondary, derived manner, as a scholar (of the Apostles). Over against this human origin, Paul now simply asserts his “revelation from Jesus Christ” which need not be complemented by “taught”—an expression in itself awkward too—but merely by “received.”—In what immediately follows it is not “through revelation from Jesus Christ,” so much as the negative “neither was I taught it,” that is proven. For in Gal_1:15-16, where “through revelation” has to be touched, it is mentioned properly only as a historical notice, in order to mark the transition from the first period of his life to the second, hence only in the subordinate clause. From this, however, the conclusion cannot of course be drawn; “I was taught through revelation from Jesus Christ;” for this reason first, that then we should expect a detailed statement of this positive side. But all that was to be said on the positive side, had been said already in the short äé ʼ ἀðï - êáëýøåùò Ἰçóïῦ ×ñéóôïῦ because here a simple fact only was in question; on the other hand the “received from man” and “taught” could have taken place in many ways and at different times, might have been of long continuance; and on this account the demonstration was needed that there had been no point of time whatever, when such instruction from the senior Apostles (whom he has in mind throughout in “from man”), could have taken place, since at first he has been hostile to Christianity, and after his calling had never lived in intercourse with the senior Apostles, though at the same time he had already preached the gospel. And, he proceeds to say in chap. 2, when afterwards, he was once somewhat longer with them, he then appeared as a fully equal Apostle, and was so acknowledged; hence there could no longer be any talk of his occupying the place of a pupil.
[Since the design of the Apostle in what follows is to prove that his doctrine as well as his apostleship was God-given, that He was “taught of God,” it seems more natural to refer “revelation from Jesus Christ,” to instruction as well as to calling to the apostleship. Wordsworth calls attention to the force of ἀëëÜ , which he considers to be here “except” “save”—“nor was I taught it except by revelation,” He was èåïäßäáêôïò . And this view is further sustained by the omission of the article before the noun, which is not rendered definite either by the genitive following or by the fact that there was but one revelation (Paul undoubtedly had many). To what instructive revelation does he refer? Undoubtedly to that on the way to Damascus, but not to that exclusively. Nor to any particular revelation soon after his conversion (Aquinas, Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, who suggest the sojourn in Arabia, Gal_1:17, as the probable time), but to the revelation on the way to Damascus as “the fundamental and central illumination,” “followed by special revelation” at different periods of his life. Comp. Act_22:17; Act_23:11; 1Co_11:13; 2Co_12:1 sq.; Gal_2:2. Schaff. Schmoller’s view on this point colors his notes on the entire section.—R.]
Gal_1:13. For ye heard of my conversation in time past, etc.—How far this statement is meant to confirm the previous proposition ( ãÜñ ), has just been indicated. Perhaps, however, he also emphasizes his former Jewish zeal, with particular reference to his Judaistic opposers. He wishes thereby to call attention to the fact that his present anti-Judaistic position does not result from any want of acquaintance with Judaism, but that, on the contrary, it rests upon only too intimate an acquaintance with it.
Ἰïõäáúóìüò : the word in itself, it is true, signifies nothing more than the Jewish religion; yet Paul, in this connection, evidently throws more meaning into it, joining with it the additional idea: Jewish zealotism. Only thus is a proper meaning given to “surpassed in Judaism” (Gal_1:14). This again finds its explanation in how that beyond measure I persecuted, etc. “He was really engaged in the work of destruction, not merely in that of disturbance.” Meyer.
Gal_1:14. In mine own nation.—Literally “race,” the people are regarded as a single race, descending from the same ancestor.—My ancestral traditions:—not the Pharisaic traditions or the Mosaic law, together with those traditions, but teachings which the fathers of the collective people held (see Wieseler). The phrase: “the traditions of my fathers,” in itself, describes only the doctrinal and ritual definitions respecting the Jewish worship which then obtained, though, of course, resting on the Mosaic law as their foundation. But Paul, in calling himself a zealot, who surpassed many of his contemporaries, has undoubtedly in view chiefly his observance of these usages according to the peculiarly strict rule of Pharisaism. [Schaff: “The word ðáñÜäïóéò , ‘tradition,’ which figures so prominently in the Roman Catholic controversy, in the general sense, embraces everything which is taught and handed down, either orally or in writing, or in both ways, from generation to generation; in the particular sense it may be used favorably of the divine doctrine, and even of Christianity itself, as is the case 1Co_11:2 (E. V. ‘ordinances instead of ‘traditions’); 2Th_2:15; 2Th_3:6, or unfavorably of the human additions to, and perversions of the religion of the Old or New Testament, in which case it is generally more clearly defined as the traditions ‘of the elders’ or of men,’ as Mat_25:2; Mar_7:3; Mar_7:5; Mar_7:8; Col_2:8. In our passage it means the whole Jewish religion, or mode of worship, divine and human; but in the Pharisaic sense, as opposed to Christianity.” Light-foot’s paraphrase is excellent: “My early education is a proof that I did not receive the gospel from man. I was brought up in a rigid school of ritualism, directly opposed to the liberty of the gospel. I was from age and temper a staunch adherent of the principles of that school. Acting upon them, I relentlessly persecuted the Christian brotherhood. No human agency, therefore, could have brought about the change. It required a direct interposition from God.”—R.]
Gal_1:15-16. But when it pleased God.—In the interest of his demonstration of the independence of his apostolate, as respects men, he here studiously emphasizes the activity of God in conferring it, going back even to the divine ordination thereto at his very conception. [Lightfoot: “Observe how words are accumulated to tell upon the one point on which he is insisting—the sole agency of God as distinct from his own efforts.”—R.]—From my mother’s womb=when he was yet in his mother’s womb, he was already set apart as an Apostle. [Schaff: “Comp. Jer_1:5; Isa_49:1. The decree of redemption is eternal as God’s love and omniscience, but its temporal realization begins in each individual case with the natural birth, and more properly with the gospel call and the spiritual birth. He refers, however, here more particularly to his call to the apostleship, for which he was ‘set apart’ or destined, elected and dedicated by a Divine act. Comp. the same term, Rom_1:1; Act_13:2.”—R.]—His calling followed afterwards near Damascus. In the Acts, Christ’s appearance only is mentioned; here Paul takes up the event with a more doctrinal reference, and hence refers this appearance to its first cause, God. This, of course, implies no discrepancy with the narrative of the Acts.—Although appearances favor such a view, “called” does not denote an earlier act, preceding the revelation (Gal_1:16) which, therefore, refers to subsequent revelations (Meyer) [The aorist participle, êáëÝóáò , in this connection, at first sight, seems to refer to an act prior to the “revelation,” not, however, necessarily long before. It does not mean a “calling” in the Divine mind, as some infer from its connection with “set apart;” but most probably the Divine act which, “by means of His grace,” resulted immediately in his conversion, when the revelation was made. Ellicott: “The moving cause of the call was the Divine pleasure; the mediating cause, the boundless grace of God; the instrument, the heavensent voice” or revelation; the purpose of the setting apart, the call and the revelation alike was, “that I might preach him among the Gentiles.” “To reveal” depends on “pleased,” not on “called.”—R.]
So then “reveal” is only the explanation of the “calling;” more precisely: there is thereby indicated what took place at the calling, namely, the enlightenment and conviction then effected. For this reason also, because the calling comes into mention only as respects its result, he speaks only of revealing “His Son within me.” Accordingly Paul, in this passage, indeed, says nothing of having had an outward appearance of Christ. But, that Paul, in the expression, to reveal his Son within me, was thinking of a definite, individual fact, which was connected with a definite locality, the city or the neighborhood of the city of Damascus, and not of a purely internal event, appears most clearly from what follows Gal_1:17, “returned again.” “Had the event of his conversion been a purely inward one, his recollection of the locality where it occurred would not, more than twenty years after, have still forced itself so strongly into the foreground that, in describing only the general inner result of that revolution, he would have been constrained at once to think of Damascus.” Paret, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1858. H. 1. Furthermore and principally, the whole proof which Paul here brings for his apostolic parity rests upon the fact that he had really and truly had an appearance of the Risen One. “I have not been called by men, but just as truly as the older Apostles, by Christ Himself to be an Apostle,” is his fundamental thought: how could he be thinking on a mere internal event, a vocation by Christ only in spirit? With that, instead of his equality, his difference from the others would have been established. Therefore, if any conclusion is justified, it is this: Paul has here in his eye the event related in the Acts; presupposing, however, the outward occurrence as well known, he avails himself only of that element of it which has pertinence here, namely, that he was inwardly enlightened concerning Christ, that Christ was revealed to his inner eye, to faith. Of his conversion in itself, Paul does not speak here, or only so far as it was a condition of his capacity for the apostleship, as through it the “calling” to be an Apostle became a reality. He dates his calling, therefore, from the moment of his conversion. Therefore, he continues: that I might preach him among the Gentiles.—Him whom God has revealed to him as His Son, he was, and is still (therefore the present), to declare as such; this is the gospel which he received “through revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal_1:12), this “the gospel which was preached by me” (Gal_1:11).— Ἐí ôïῖò ἔèíåóéí : among the Gentile nations, therefore ἐí , not the dative. For Paul preached not merely to the Gentiles, but among the Gentile nations, first to the Jews dwelling among them, and only then to the heathen themselves.
Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood— ÅὐèÝùò , of course, belongs strictly not to the negative sentence immediately following, but to the affirmative sentence: “went away into Arabia,” it does not, however, exclude a brief previous activity in Damascus, since the Apostle was only concerned to prove that he did not go out from Damascus in any other direction than Arabia, and particularly that he did not go to Jerusalem.—“I conferred not,” I addressed no communication to flesh and blood, in order to receive instruction and direction—“flesh and blood;” here merely—one clothed with a mortal body, therefore in sense equivalent simply to—Man. The conception is thus strongly expressed, because Man appears here in antithesis with God.
Gal_1:17. Neither went I away to Jerusalem to them who were apostles before me.—This is the only distinction which he concedes between himself and them.—Into Arabia. “This Arabian journey is to be regarded as his first essay of foreign labor, and it is, by åὐèÝùò , put in connection with the purpose of the divine revelation, that he should preach the gospel among the heathen.”—(Meyer). Yet I would not on this account wholly reject the other conjectures that have been offered as to the purpose of this journey, such as seeking protection from the Jews, “severing himself from pressure of the national spirit,” and partially also, perhaps to prepare himself in stillness for his work.—This journey into Arabia is not mentioned in the Acts, probably because it was of short duration and therefore perhaps not known to Luke; it is, with most probability, placed in the time of the “many days,” Act_9:23; the flight from Damascus must therefore be placed at the end of this second visit there. [Two questions arise: 1. as to the place; 2. the object of this sojourn. 1. Although “the desert region about Damascus” may have been the place (since Justin includes Damascus in Arabia, and Xenophon applies the name to the region beyond the Euphrates, Anab. I. 5), yet Paul is always more definite in his geographical statements than most ancient authors, and as in the only other place where Arabia is mentioned in the N. T. (Gal_4:25), it must mean the Sinaitic peninsula, it seems decidedly preferable to refer it to that locality in this case. Besides, as Lightfoot well remarks, any other view “deprives this visit of a significance which, on a more probable hypothesis, it possesses in relation to this crisis of St. Paul’s life.” If Gal_4:25 refers to “Hagar” as the Arabic name of Sinai, the argument is conclusive, for he was not likely to have heard this name anywhere but on the spot. If it be a mere geographical remark, then it is a very indefinite one, granting that Paul here uses “Arabia” with so extended a signification. 2. “Paul’s object in this residence in Arabia, as seems most probable from the context, was not to preach the gospel—but to enjoy a season of undisturbed preparation for his high and holy calling. This period, therefore, belongs more properly to the history of the Apostle’s inward life; and this affords the simplest explanation of the silence of the book of Acts respecting it. It was for him a sort of substitute for the three years’ personal intercourse with the Lord, enjoyed by the other Apostles” (Schaff, Apostolic Church, p. 236). This view of the object confirms the opinion that the Sinaitic peninsula was the locality. Where Moses and Elijah had been before him, Paul went. “Thus in the wilderness of Sinai, as on the mount of transfiguration, the three dispensations met in one;” Law, Prophecy and Gospel; Moses, Elijah and Paul. Comp. Lightfoot, p. 87 sq.; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 50.—R.]
Gal_1:18.Then after three years.—To be reckoned probably from his calling to the apostleship; for he means: I did not go up at once to Jerusalem, but only three years after. This is the first journey of Paul to Jerusalem, Act_9:26.— Ἱóôïñῆïáé Ê .=in order to become personally acquainted with Cephas, not: in order to obtain instruction from him. The more precise expression is therefore designedly chosen.—Fifteen days.—Had it been in itself possible that Paul at this time received instruction, still a course of instruction strictly so called, a schooling under the senior Apostles would not have been possible in so short a time. Hence the length of his stay is expressly mentioned. [Nor does the singling out of Peter prove anything more than his prominence among the Twelve; Paul puts himself on a par with all the Apostles, including Peter.—R.]
Gal_1:19. But other of the apostles I did not see.—“Apostle” must be taken in the strict sense of the Twelve, since it is precisely his parity with these that Paul wishes to make out. Therefore James the Lord’s brother is either to be reckoned among the Apostles and identified with James, the son of Alpheus, and so “brother” to be taken in the sense of “cousin;” or “save” ( åἰ ìÞ ) is to be referred only to “I did not see”=another one of the apostles I did not see, but I saw only James. Grammatically the former is decidedly the less difficult; but the identification with James, the son of Alpheus, is attended with great difficulties. Comp. Wieseler in loco. Besides this impression is evidently conveyed, that Paul by the special addition he appends to the name, wishes to distinguish this James from the Apostles, not to include him in their number. For this reason the second interpretation is to be preferred. Although not an Apostle, this James could still be mentioned by Paul, as is done here, along with the Twelve, because he had a standing well-nigh apostolic. Respecting the question how the James mentioned Gal_2:9, is related to this James, see remarks on that passage. “The notice that at that time Paul only saw Peter and James in Jerusalem, does not conflict with the indefinite ôïὺò ἀðïóôüëïõò , Act_9:27, but authentically defines it.” Meyer.
[The interpretation turns upon the much discussed question what is meant by “the brethren of the Lord,” for unless this James can be identified with James, the son of Alpheus, he is not an Apostle. The view of Lightfoot, Alford and others that he might be an Apostle, and yet not of the Twelve, seems altogether untenable. Only one point is undisputed: This James is the one who was frequently called by the church fathers “bishop of Jerusalem,” and also “the Just.” Whether he were an Apostle, whether he wrote the general Epistle, whether referred to again in this Epistle, are open questions. Without entering into an extended discussion, it will suffice to mention the leading views and their bearing on this passage, referring the reader to special dissertations. There are three principal theories. That the brethren of the Lord were 1. the sons of Joseph and Mary; 2. the sons of Joseph by a former wife; 3. the cousins of our Lord, either the sons of the Virgin’s sister, or the sons of Joseph’s brother, etc. 1 and 2 are the older views; 3 originated with Jerome.—On this latter theory alone can we identify James, the brother of our Lord, with James, the son of Alpheus, for the other theories imply that Joseph, not Alpheus, was his father. But this theory is with difficulty supported, for not only did it originate in an attempt to justify and thus enjoin virginity in man as well as woman, but it has always been forced to call to its aid mere conjectures. Hence, if it be rejected, our verse means that Paul saw none other of the Apostles, but he did see the Lord’s brother. To which view we are in a measure forced also by the statement of John (Joh_7:5 : “neither did his brethren believe in him”) after the twelve were chosen. Comp. Joh_6:67, where “the twelve” are spoken of. That his brethren were afterwards believers is stated (Act_1:14, where they are mentioned in distinction from the Apostles); the reason of the so speedy conversion may be found in 1Co_15:7, if “James,” of whom “he was seen,” be distinguished from “the twelve” (Gal_1:5) and “all the Apostles” in the same verse.
As between 1 and 2, it may be remarked, that it seems more natural to consider the brethren of our Lord the sons of Mary, were it not for two reasons, first, the instinctive repugnance (Jos. Add. Alexander) to such a view, and secondly, the fact that the dying Saviour committed His mother to another than these brethren, a strange fact, were they her own sons. Still these are not insuperable objections. The whole question is an open one, and it was only necessary to discuss it here so far as to decide upon the meaning of this particular passage. The reader is referred to Lange’s Commentary, Matthew, p. 255 sq., where Lange defends the modified cousintheory, and Schaff advocates at length the first view stated above. Also to Lange’s Commentary, James, p. 9 sq.; Schaff, Monograph on James, Berlin, 1842; Alford, Prolegomena, Epistle of James. Comp. the authorities quoted by these writers. The best classification and history of opinions will be found in Lightfoot, Dissertat. II., p. 247 sq., which has been freely used in the above remarks. He, however, defends the second theory. As regards this passage, it seems on the whole best to consider this James—1. as not identical with the son of Alpheus; 2. as not an Apostle. Both points are involved in the exegesis of the passage, but as åἰ ìÞ is susceptible of either interpretation, these results must be reached on other than grammatical grounds. The grounds for the above opinions cannot be stated at length, but may be found in the more extended discussions.—R.]
[Wordsworth: “Paul’s meeting with Peter ana James. Peter cordially received him.—‘Fifteen days;’ ample time for Peter to have seen what I was, and to have proclaimed me to the world as a deceiver, if the Gospel which I preached was not consistent with his own. Therefore they who cavil at me involve Peter also in the charge of conniving at error and delusion.” But thus indicating his respect for Peter and James,“he wisely guards himself against any imputations on the part of his Judaizing adversaries, that he, a new Apostle, was liable to the charge of disparaging the original Apostles of Christ. And he prepares the way for what he is about to say in the next chapter concerning his resistance to St. Peter.”—R.]
Gal_1:20. Now the things which I write unto you.
Gal_1:20 contains a solemn asseveration, which has its ground in the importance of the account just given for the Apostle’s purpose, namely, to prove his own apostolic dignity.
[Gal_1:21. Into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;—No mention is made of his going into Syria in the narrative in the Acts, but he is said to have been brought down to Cesarea, and sent forth to Tarsus (in Cilicia), where Barnabas afterwards went to seek him (Act_9:30; Act_11:25). There is no discrepancy. Paul may have gone to Antioch on his way to Cilicia, or returned that way in his labors before Barnabas came for him; or the expression here may be indefinite, since “Syria and Cilicia” appears in history almost as a generic geographical term, the more important district being mentioned first. Comp. Cony. and Howson. I. pp. 104, 105. Lange’s Comm., Acts, p. 182.—R.]
Gal_1:22. And I was unknown.—This remark also belongs to the proof that he bad not been a disciple of the Apostles, for had he stood in near connection with them, he could not but have become known to the churches of Judea.—The churches of Judea, i.e., outside of Jerusalem. [The phrase which are in Christ Jesus, doubtless means “which are incorporated with Him who is the head” (Ellicott), yet it is also used to distinguish the bodies of believers from other bodies, of Jews, for example. Alford: “By thus showing the spirit with which the churches of Judea were actuated toward him, he marks more strongly the contrast between them and the Galatian Judaizers.”—R.]
Gal_1:23. Is now preaching the faith.— Ðßóôéò here also not=Christian doctrine [it being very doubtful, as Ellicott remarks, whether ðßóôéò ever has in the N. T., this more distinctly objective sense, so frequent in ecclesiastical writers. See also the valuable note of Lightfoot, p. 152, sq. on the word “faith.”—R.], but=Faith; he preached that men should believe, as well as, of course, what they should believe. Formerly he sought by persecution to hinder men from believing in Christ, that is, he was destroying it; i.e., Faith.
Gal_1:24. In me.—Paul is not only regarded as the occasion of the praise, but as the foundation on which their faith rested. “With this impression which Paul then made upon the congregations in Judea, the hateful plotting of the Judaizers in Galatia against him stood in striking contrast. Therefore the added clause.” Meyer. [Ellicott: “The preposition in such cases as the present, points to the object as being, as it were, the sphere in which, or the substratum on which the action takes place.”—R.]
[It will appear from the exegetical notes on Gal_1:12, how labored an effort is required to support the view, that Paul does not intend to assert here that he had learned his gospel through revelation from Jesus Christ. Of course on any theory of inspiration, save that mechanical one, which ignores the human element, it will be admitted that Paul learned the facts of the life and death of Christ from human lips; but that must be a narrow view of the gospel as Paul preached it, which could limit his “being taught it” to such human statements.“Paul does not mean here the outward historical information concerning the life of Christ, but the internal exhibition of Christ to his spiritual sense as the Messiah, and the only and all-sufficient Saviour of the world, and the unfolding of the true import of His death and resurrection; in other words the spiritual communication of the gospel system of saving truth as taught by him in his sermons and Epistles” (Schaff). It is more in accordance both with Paul’s argument here, and with the actual phenomena of his history to believe that after the revelation on the way to Damascus there were “subsequent special disclosures of the Spirit, respecting single points of Christian doctrine and practice; for we are to conceive the inspiration of the Apostles in general as not merely an act, done once for all, but a permanent influence and state, varying in strength as occasion required” (Schaff). Ellicott very judiciously remarks: “On the one hand we may reverently presume that all the fundamental truths of the Gospel would be fully revealed to St. Paul before he commenced preaching; so, on the other, it might have been ordained, that (in accordance with the laws of our spiritual nature) its deeper mysteries and profounder harmonies should be seen and felt through the practical experiences of his apostolical labors.”—R.]
2. The Revelation from Jesus Christ. Paul has been called by the Lord Himself to the apostleship, as well as the other Apostles, with the single exception that they were called by the Lord in His state of humiliation, he by the Lord in His state of exaltation; this is the fundamental truth, which stands to the Apostle immovably firm, and on which he founded the whole proof of his apostolic parity. There can therefore be no doubt that he was conscious of an objective appearance of Christ, in the well known occurrence on the way to Damascus, and we have in the decision with which Paul himself in this doctrinal treatise, in opposition to hostilely disposed antagonists, asserts this immediateness of his calling through Christ, the simplest and surest proof for the historical character of the narrative respecting the conversion of Paul contained in the Acts. For, as has been already remarked in the exegesis, we are of course not to think of a merely internal vocation—a calling in spirit. Such a notion would take away from the proof which Paul is setting forth its very ground and foundation. It is true that in it a spiritual operation, an operation of the Spirit of God upon the mind of the Apostle, also took place (“to reveal within me”), but only in consequence of the objective outward appearance of Christ. This itself was, first of all, the deciding and penetrating power; upon it all turned. And very naturally. That Christ had risen and was living, became by means of this at once a certainty to Paul. This, however, involved almost necessarily that total revolution of all his views and of the direction of his life, which followed. For Paul was a man who even previously stood upon the foundation of Israelitish faith, and whose faith in the Messiah was in itself steadfast, and who had even been misled by this to take his hostile position against Jesus and His cause, under the delusion that the dignity of Messiah was claimed for Him presumptuously. So much the more overpowering must the impression of the actual appearance of Christ, who was thereby manifested as risen and exalted to Heaven, have been upon him. This was a sudden collapse of the system held fast with so much zeal, a sudden conviction of the nothingness of that persuasion to which he had so energetically clung, and, moreover, a conviction through fact, against which therefore there was nothing more to object. As it would have been almost incomprehensible if that effect had not followed, which did follow, so on the other hand this effect presupposes the definite cause which is related in the Acts, and indicated by the Apostle himself in this passage. [That the conversion of Paul must necessarily follow the actual appearance of Jesus Christ to him, is not to be assumed in order to establish the fact of such appearance; for as in the narrative prominence is given to the actual revelation to Paul, here the stress is laid by the Apostle himself on the other fact, the revelation of Christ within him; both facts are essential in accounting for the conversion of Paul, and for Christianity itself.—R. ] That the Apostle in this passage by“revelation from Christ,” “to reveal His Son within me,” means primarily only the external revelation at his conversion is, of course, not inconsistent with his having received subsequent revelations, such as that mentioned in Act_22:17, which, however, as an åἶíáé ἐí ἐêóôÜóåé , appears to be distinguished from that first fundamental one, or such as are alluded to in 2 Corinthians 12, and besides immediately afterwards in this Epistle Gal_2:2. (Comp. 1Ti_1:13).
3. The calling of Paul. The conversion of Paul according to his own representation is to be viewed essentially as a call to the apostleship. Although at the same time his conversion was of course for him personally, of the greatest moment, and undoubtedly the condition of his apostolic activity (comp. 1Ti_1:14), yet strictly speaking the appearance on the way to Damascus had as its end the calling to the apostleship as well, and not merely his personal conversion to Christianity. Indeed, according to the Apostle’s own conception, the eighth chapter of Acts would be better entitled: the Calling of Paul. In this relation of the event to the whole church—inasmuch as it specially concerned the calling of an Apostle, that which is extraordinary in it, namely, the revelation of Christ finds its explanation. This event appears also as a call to the apostleship according to the representation of the Apostle in Act_9:15; Act_22:15; Act_26:17, that is, it was first made known to Ananias, but in immediate connection with the wonderful scene, so that the purpose of the latter cannot be mistaken, and Paul, before Herod Agrippa, Act_26:17, could speak of the message which was communicated to him by the mouth of Ananias, as an immediate message of Jesus to himself. The definite direction to preach the gospel among the Gentiles, Paul first received, according to Act_22:21, during his first visit to Jerusalem. Yet even the first commission he received, pointed in a very distinct manner to the Gentiles, so that from the very beginning his call as Apostle of the Gentiles, in distinction from the other Apostles, was firmly established. So far, therefore, Paul is not to be reckoned with them, as thirteenth or indeed as twelfth (if the choice of Matthias be considered a premature one), but he stands beside them, in a certain measure over against them, with a special calling; only in the originality of his apostleship he is not inferior to them, but fully their peer. Comp. Gal_2:7; Gal_2:9. Futhermore, the special purpose of his calling stands certainly in a causal connection with the manner of the calling. “The Paul who through so unexpected a mercy of God was brought to the knowledge of His Son, was well fitted for the preaching of the same among the Gentiles, called as they also were out of God’s unlooked for mercy” (Rieger). The very manner of his calling, out of pure grace, passing thus a sentence of condemnation upon the legal position, caused him to know that to the Gentiles also, who, are ἄíïìïé , the way to salvation of grace most stand open. Comp. also for 2 and 3, Lange’s Commentary, Acts, p. 165 sq.
4. Paul set apart by God. Paul cannot regard himself otherwise than as destined by God Himself, even in his mother’s womb, for what he now is, separated to the peculiar calling of the apostleship (an analogy, as it were, to the Nazarite’s vow, by which the child was dedicated, even from the womb, to be a Nazarite). His life up to his conversion, Paul then of course regards as standing in opposition to this, his divine destination; and therefore a special vocation was necessary. This vocation, however, has its root in the elections and as this, of course, was an entirely free one, founded on no manner of merit (as being entirely predent to the whole course of his life), the calling, therefore, was a pure act of grace (“by his grace”), on account of the opposition in which the previous life of Paul stood to his destined work. In the connection of this particular passage Paul contemplates his previous life from no other point of view, and certainly therefore does not designate himself as one set apart even from his mother’s womb, because he thought that before his conversion he possessed qualities for the sake of which God had called him. It is true his natural gifts and his acquirements of knowledge served to capacitate him for his vocation; and it was doubtless providential that even before his conversion he was the person that he was; and this natural adaptedness itself had its root in the divine destination of the man. And negatively, beyond question, the legal zeal by which Paul was animated, bringing as it did his subsequent evangelical position into so much more decided contrast with it, was advantageous to his apostolic activity, as in general the zeal with which Paul acted—at first, it is true, in the interest of the law, turned afterwards to the good of the gospel. Otherwise, however, his religious character, as a blindly legal, Pharisaical one, resting on the righteousness of works, stood in decided opposition to his destination. “ ‘He has called me,’ says the Apostle. But how? For my standing as a Pharisee? For my holy and blameless life? For my admirable works? No; I trow! Still less, then, for my blasphemy against God, my persecution and mad rage. How then? Through his pure grace.” Luther.—[Calvin:—He intends 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, but because God had counted him worthy to undertake that high office, and because, before he was born, he had been set apart by the secret purpose of God. The Apostle had most explicitly attributed his calling to the free grace of God, when he traced its origin to his separation from the womb. But he repeats the direct statement (“by his grace”) both to take away all grounds of boasting by his commendation of Divine grace, and to testify his own gratitude to God.—R.]
5. Paul’s walk in Judaism. “His former walk Paul calls a walk in Judaism: if it had been a walk in the footsteps of the faith of Abraham, it would have led him to faith in the gospel. It was, therefore, a walk in the Judaism that was tending towards apostasy, that, under pretext of the law, would defend itself against the faith in Christ.” Rieger.—Judaism of course here means the Jewish religion in its then form, when the soul of the Old Covenant, by which it pointed beyond itself, and in general its character of promise, was more or less overlooked. Or at least the legal sense in which the whole divine revelation was then apprehended, took away the right understanding of this character of promise. Hence the incapacity to understand Him in whom the fulfillment came. On this account proficiency in Judaism and persecution of the Christian church could go hand in hand with each other.
6. Paul’s solemn oaths. The solemn asseverations which Paul more than once utters (in Gal_1:20, Rom_1:9; Rom_9:1; 2Co_11:31), would of themselves sufficiently show how little the passages, Mat_5:34 sq., Jam_5:12 sq., are meant to forbid swearing in itself and totally, and how unwarranted it is to limit lawful oaths to oaths required by the magistrate, while on the other hand we certainly cannot be too strongly warned against all lightness in the taking of an oath. It must ever, as here, have respect to a weighty matter. [Wordsworth from Augustine: “An oath which cometh not from the evil of him who swears, but from the unbelief of him to whom he swears, is not against our Lord’s precept: ‘Swear not.’ Our Lord commands that as far as in us lies we should not swear; which command is broken by those who have in their mouths an oath as if it were something pleasant in itself. As far as in him lies, the Apostle swears not. He does not catch at an oath with eagerness, but when he swears it is by constraint, through the infirmity or incredulity of those who will not otherwise believe what he says.”—R.]
Gal_1:12. Luther (who emphasizes this so expressly in remarking on this passage):—Human teaching, human tradition, though it come down from holy fathers and teachers, from the holy Church herself, is in itself nothing; for in all this there may be error, just because it is human. And hence we must not let any one scare us by appealing to never so great human authorities; over against all this the only concern is, to abide simply by the Word of God.
Spener:—Such as should be true, enlightened preachers, must have learned the Gospel through revelation from Christ; not immediately, to be sure, but so that, having been instructed by men, Christ’s spirit by means of such instruction having become a power in their hearts, they truly have a divine light in their souls, from which they then enlighten others.
The gospel no work of man: 1. as a word of doctrine, not sprung from men, nor taught by men, but by Christ Himself (who brought it Himself and through whom alone His people have it); 2. as a word of comfort, only through Him can we commit ourselves to it; 3. as a word of power, in which there should be no change, from which no departure.
Gal_1:13. Rieger:—Oh, how often and how toilsomely do we gather much that in the right light must be counted harm and dung, and cast from us.—Quesnel:—A man may make his past sins known out of pride, but also out of humility. Whoever does not boast himself of the same, but humbles himself therefor before God, and willingly bears the shame of them before men, not relying upon himself, makes a good confession, but one not needful to be uttered before every man, as sometimes it would bring more scandal than benefit.—From Starke:—God is wise, permitting some things to be accomplished even by His enemies, that in His time He will direct to His own honor, to which before they were quite opposed. Paul studied in the law, and in his ancestral institutions, that he might thereby the better withstand the Christians. This afterwards served to enable him to dispute all the better with the Jews in favor of Christianity, as thoroughly understanding their side.
Gal_1:14. Berlenb. Bible:—Even unconverted men may be exceedingly zealous for ancestral traditions, traditional doctrines.—[Yes, the might of traditions, because received from “my fathers,”—whether from God or no, not being taken into the account,—is often in proportion to the ignorance of real Christianity. How conservative, yet often how contracting and how cruel the zeal for “the traditions of my fathers!” True in every age.—R.]—Starke:—Good intentions do not of themselves make a thing good before God. Many a one means well in his conduct, and see, he still is doing a sin; yes, out of good intentions the most cruel actions may sometimes arise. Such sins, however, are much less heinous than those which spring from real godlessness and malice.
On Gal_1:13-14.—Judaism and the Old Testament are different from one another: 1. the former closes the sense for Christ; 2. the latter opens it.—Persecution of the Church of God 1. takes place so easily in false zeal; 2. is so evil, therefore, take good heed!—When against others, so zealous; when for them, so lukewarm!—Take heed: is not thy progress, in reality, a retrogression?—Zeal for ancestral traditions 1. in itself good, but 2. no proof of a converted heart.—Condemnation of the perverseness of a former walk: 1. It must take place within, as a sign of a converted heart; 2. it may also become necessary before others, yet so that it is always done in humility.
Gal_1:15. Würt. Summ.:—Behold the Fatherly Providence of God, who careth for us and marks out the course of our life from our mother’s womb. Think not that God hath passed thee over, and that thou must care for thyself. Fear God and trust Him, for what He has designed for us from our mother’s womb will be sure to come, and no one shall divert it from us.—Berlenb. Bible:—As Paul here does, so should we look back and behold God from behind, as God says to Moses. God gives preintimations, which are forgotten. But then men should wake up when the work of God is fulfilled, and bethink themselves. His work is nothing uncertain and doubtful, although we cannot constrain others to believe it. Nevertheless we yet ourselves may know well enough how we are to look upon it.
[Bushnell:—Every man’s life a plan of God. Go to God Himself, and ask for the calling of God; for as certainly as He has a place or calling for you, He will somehow guide you into it. Do you call it success, that you are getting on in a plan of your own? There cannot be a greater delusion.—R.]
Gal_1:16. Spener:—To the rightly profitable administration of the preacher’s office, there is needful the revelation of God in us, that we should have a living knowledge of that which we are to declare to others. Without this, the word preached retains, to be sure, its power, if it is left pure and unadulterated; but such people cannot well leave it pure, or set it forth worthily; they understand not to apply it rightly, and destroy much of its power with the hearers.—Berl. Bible:—The true work of God is done within, albeit He uses all manner of means thereto. The hurt is within; therefore, must the enlightenment also have place within. God must come and take away the veil. There needs then a heavenly illumination. This is the crown of conversions, that the Son becomes right plainly known to a man. But there are many veils between, and one after another is taken away, till one comes at last into the knowledge of God and the Son.
Rieger:—The Son of God is still the pith and kernel of all revelation to be wished for in the heart.—Luther:—If the gospel is a revelation of the Son of God, as Paul declares, it is then certain that it does not accuse poor consciences, nor terrify them, but of Christ alone does it teach, who is no law nor work, but our righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption.—The gospel is a divine word, that comes down from Heaven, and is revealed by the Holy Ghost, yet so that the outward word goes before. For even St. Paul himself first heard the outward word from Heaven: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Not till then did he have secret and hidden, inner revelations.—Among the Gentiles, therefore, should be preached no law, but the gospel; no Moses, but God’s Son; no righteousness of works. but the righteousness of faith. This is the right preaching, whereto the heathen have claim, and which is apt for them.—Starke:—Paul was chiefly a teacher of the Gentiles, and that of divine purpose. Therefore we act not against God’s counsel if we keep especially to Paul’s writings (not excluding the other apostolical books), because in these we find most distinctly and most expressly what suits our condition, and is needful for us to know.—[Wordsworth:—A striking contrast! He who had been stricken with blindness as a persecutor, has now Christ, the Light of the world, revealed in him as a preacher. He who was himself dark, has become a light to others, a light revealing to them Christ.—R.]
On Gal_1:15-16. The grace of God, as free (without any merit of ours) as it is mighty in working—it can change the hearts so fully, that the man throws himself into the directly opposite course.—It is God, who defines our life’s course: therefore, courage!—All depends on this, that the Son of God be revealed in us.—The revelation of Christ in us: 1. wherein it consists; 2. how it is brought to pass (only through God’s grace); 3. whereto it helps.—Christ, the marrow 1. of all Christian knowledge, 2. of all Christian testimony.—God reveals His Son in the hearts of believers, that they may preach Him among the Gentiles. The former attains its purpose only in the latter; the latter has its foundation only in the former.—Every Christian, even without a special call to the ministry, is yet called to preach Christ among the heathen, that is he is called to a steady testimony in deed (and more or less also in word), against all heathen living, to call men back from dead idols to serve the living God.
Gal_1:16. Luther:—Herein the Apostle did right. For it would, indeed, have been a godless thing, if he would have had the divine revelation Strengthened by man’s counsel, like one who doubted thereon.—Starke, after the Berlenb. Bible:—Yet the meaning is not, that we may not hear other people’s opinion, yet we are not to give it the præ, the upper hand, where God has given His testimony. If the will of God is plain, and if the matter is plain in God’s word, there is no need to ask other men for counsel. But if the will of God is yet doubtful, we may well ask good friends for advice; only these advisers must be such as possess the fear of God and wisdom.—Rieger:—Now, as then, the surest course for every one who will find the way of life is, to look alone upon God’s commandment, to make the testimonies of the Lord his counsellors, and to hasten thereunto. Without this faithfulness in that which is hidden, the best advice of another may become a temptation and a snare.—Hedinger:—Much doubting and long considering spoils matters. The good will, which God creates, goes to work and does not stand hesitating long.
Divine guidance and human counsel in their right relation to each other.
Gal_1:17 sq. Rieger:—God foresaw all that would afterwards be brought against Paul, therefore He so ordered his ways that men could not say: he received his authority from the chief Apostles at Jerusalem; nor yet on the other side: he does not presume to go to Jerusalem; he joins himself with no one. God’s good Spirit always brings us out into a plain way.
Even the apparently slight, accidental circumstances of our lives stand under God’s direction; if we know it not at the time, yet afterwards we do.
[Gal_1:18. Burkitt:—Ministers ought to maintain correspondency and familiarity with each other, in token of their harmony. But though this visit was in the most delightful and desirable, yea most profitable company, yet it was but for fifteen days. After the short time spent in visiting, we must return to our business, and mind, above all things, our ministerial charge.—R.]
Gal_1:20. Starke:—God is a witness of the truth, and a righteous judge of all lies. Can you in all that you say, call on God as the witness of its truth? In all cases this ought to be possible, although it is seldom needful or proper. Gal_1:21. It is excellent, when any one, having left his country and his friends, a wicked man, returns back to them again a true child of God. Universities should especially serve this purpose, that those who went to them unconverted youths, should return home converted ones. Gal_1: