Gal_1:16.
Ἀποκαλύψαι
] belongs to
εὐδόκησεν
; but
ἐν
ἐμοί
is in my mind, in my consciousness, in which the Son of God was to become manifest as the sum and substance of knowledge (Php_3:8); comp. 2Co_4:6,
ἐν
ταῖς
καρδίαις
ἡμῶν
. See Chrysostom,
τῆς
ἀποκαλύψεως
καταλαμπούσης
αὐτοῦ
τὴν
ψυχήν
. Comp. Oecum. (
εἰς
τὸν
ἔσω
ἄνθρωπον
τῆς
γνώσεως
ἐνιζησάσης
), Theophylact, Beza, and most expositors. Calvin, Koppe, Flatt, and others, wrongly hold that it stands for the mere dative. Comp. Bengel. But
ἐν
is never nota dativi, and all the passages adduced to that effect (such as 1Co_9:15; 1Co_14:11; 1Ti_4:15; Act_4:12, et al.) are to be so explained that
ἐν
shall retain its signification (Winer, p. 204 [E. T. 272]); as must also be the case in the passages used to support the sense of the dativus commodi (see Bernhardy, p. 212). Jerome, Pelagius, Erasmus, Piscator, Vorstius, Grotius, Estius, Morus, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, interpret it through me, “ut per me, velut organum, notum redderet filium suum” (Erasmus, Paraphr.). But the revelation given to the apostle himself is a necessary element in the connection (Gal_1:12): Paul was immediately after his birth set apart by God, subsequently called at Damascus, and thereafter provided inwardly with the revelation of the Son of God, in order that he might be able outwardly to preach, etc. Others, again,[30] take it as “on me,” in my case, which is explained to mean either that the conversion appeared as a proof of Christ’s power, etc. (Peter Lombard, Seb. Schmidt), or that the revelation had been imparted to the apostle as matter of fact, by means of his own experience, or, in other words, through his own case (Rückert). Comp. 1Jn_4:9,
ἐφανερώθη
ἡ
ἀγάπη
τοῦ
Θεοῦ
ἐν
ἡμῖν
. But the former explanation is unsuitable to the context, and the latter again depends on the erroneous identification of the calling of the apostle at Damascus with the revelation of the gospel which he received.
ΤῸΝ
ΥἹῸΝ
ΑὐΤΟῦ
] This is the great foundation and whole sum of the gospel. Comp. Gal_1:6 f., Gal_2:20. In his pre-Christian blindness Paul had known Christ
ΚΑΤᾺ
ΣΆΡΚΑ
, 2Co_5:16.
ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΖΩΜΑΙ
] Present tense;[31] for the fulfilment of this destination which had even then been assigned to him by God (Act_9:15; Act_22:15; Act_26:17 f.) was, at the time when the epistle was written, still in course of execution (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 618). Thus, in opposition to his adversaries, the continuous divine right and obligation of this apostolic action is asserted.
ἐν
τοῖς
ἔθνεσιν
] among the heathen peoples. See Act_9:15; Act_22:21; Act_26:17-18; Eph_3:8; Rom_11:13. The fact that Paul always began his work of conversion with the Jews resident among the Gentiles, was not inconsistent with his destination as the apostle of the Gentiles; this, indeed, was the way of calling adopted by the Gentile apostle in accordance with that destination (see Rom_1:16). Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 37.
εὐθέως
] does not belong exclusively either to the negative (Hilgenfeld, Hofmann) or to the affirmative part of the apodosis (Winer); but as the two parts themselves are inseparably associated, it belongs to the whole sentence
οὐ
προσανεθέμην
…
ἀλλὰ
ἀπῆλθον
εἰς
Ἀραβ
., “Immediately I took not counsel with flesh and blood, nor did I make a journey to Jerusalem, but,” etc. He expresses that which he had done immediately after he had received the revelation, by way of antithesis, negatively and positively; for it was his object most assiduously to dispel the notion that he had received human instruction. Jerome, in order to defend the apostle against Porphyry’s unjust reproach of presumption and fickleness, connects
εὐθέως
with
ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΖΩΜΑΙ
; as recently Credner, Einl. I. 1, p. 303, has also done. No objection can be taken to the emphasis of the adverb at the end of the sentence (Kühner, II. p. 625; Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 6. 9; Stallbaum, ad Phaedr. p. 256 E); but the whole strength of the proof lies not in what Paul was immediately to do, but in what he, had immediately done. “Notatur subita habilitas apostoli,” Bengel. We must, moreover, allow
εὐθέως
to retain its usual strict signification, and not, with Hofmann,[32] substitute the sense of “immediately then,” “just at once” (“not at a subsequent time only”), as if Paul had written
ἤδη
ἐκ
τότε
or the like. Observe, too, on comparing the book of Acts, that the purposely added
εὐθέως
still does not exclude a brief ministry in Damascus previous to the journey to Arabia (Act_9:20), the more especially as his main object was to show, that he had gone from Damascus to no other place than Arabia, and had not until three years later gone to Jerusalem. To make special mention of his brief working in Damascus, before his departure to Arabia, was foreign to the logical scope of his statement.
οὐ
προσανεθέμην
] I addressed no communication to flesh and blood, namely, in order to learn the opinion of others as to this revelation which I had received, and to obtain from them instruction, guidance, and advice.
πρός
conveys the notion of direction, not, as Beza and Bengel assert (comp. also Usteri and Jatho), the idea praeterea.[33] See Diod. Sic. xvii. 116,
ΤΟῖς
ΜΆΝΤΕΣΙ
ΠΡΟΣΑΝΑΘΈΜΕΝΟς
ΠΕΡῚ
ΤΟῦ
ΣΗΜΕΊΟΥ
; Lucian, Jup. Trag. 1,
ἐμοὶ
προσανάθου
,
λάβε
με
σύμβουλον
πόνων
, in contrast to the preceding
ΚΑΤΑΜΌΝΑς
ΣΑΥΤῷ
ΛΑΛΕῖς
; Nicetas, Angel. Comnen ii. 5. Comp. C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 204. Just so
προσαναφέρειν
, 2Ma_11:36; Tob_12:15; Polyb. xxxi. 19. 4, xvii. 9. 10.
ΣΑΡΚῚ
ΚΑῚ
ΑἽΜΑΤΙ
] that is, to weak men, in contrast to the experience of God’s working. See on Mat_16:17. Eph_6:12 is also analogous. Comp. the rabbinical
áÌÈùÒÈø åÀãÈí
(Lightfoot on Matt. l.c.). As the apostle was concerned simply to show that he was not
ἀνθρωποδίδακτος
, it is wholly unsuitable in this connection to refer
ΣΑΡΚῚ
Κ
.
ΑἽΜ
. to himself (Koppe, Ewald), and unsuitable, as regards half the reference, to apply it to others and the apostle himself (Winer, Matthies, Schott, comp. Olshausen). He is speaking simply of the consultation of others (Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Zachariae, Morus, Rosenmüller, Borger, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, and others), and that quite generally: “having received this divine revelation, I did not take weak men as my counsellors.” In the continuation of the discourse towards its climax the apostles are specially brought into prominence as members of this category, and therefore
σαρκὶ
κ
.
αἵμ
. is not (with Chrysostom, Jerome, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and others) at once to be referred to the apostles themselves, although they also are included in it.
[30] Comp. Hilgenfeld in loc. and in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 164: Paul regarded his Christian and apostolic life and working as a revelation of Christ in his person. Similar is the view taken by Paul in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1863, p. 208.
[31] Which, according to Hofmann, is intended to designate the purpose from the standpoint of the present time in which it is being realized. This retrospective interpretation is purely imaginary, by no means suits even Plat. Legg. p. 653 D, and in our passage is opposed to the context (see ver. 17).
[32] Who invents the hypothesis, that the apostle had been reproached with having only subsequently taken up the ground that he did not apply to men in order to get advice from them. Hofmann strangely appeals to
εὐθύς
, Joh_13:32, and even to Xen. Cyr. i. 6. 20, where the idea, “not at a subsequent time only,” is indeed conveyed by
ἐκ
παιδίου
, but not at all by
εὐθύς
in itself. Even in passages such as those in Dorvill. ad Charit. pp. 298, 326,
εὐθύς
, like
εὐθέως
constantly, means immediately, on the spot.
[33] So, too, Märcker in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 534, “no further communication.” It is not, however, apparent to what other
ἀνατʼ
θεσθαι
this is conceived to refer.