Paul, an apostle—not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the brothers who are with me, to the assemblies of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father— to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
I marvel that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different “good news”, but there isn’t another “good news.” Only there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the Good News of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any “good news” other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed. As we have said before, so I now say again: if any man preaches to you any “good news” other than that which you received, let him be cursed. For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? For if I were still pleasing men, I wouldn’t be a servant of Christ.
But I make known to you, brothers, concerning the Good News which was preached by me, that it is not according to man. For I didn’t receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my way of living in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the assembly of God and ravaged it. I advanced in the Jews’ religion beyond many of my own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through his grace to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I didn’t immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia. Then I returned to Damascus.
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days. But of the other apostles I saw no one except James, the Lord’s brother. Now about the things which I write to you, behold, before God, I’m not lying. Then I came to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. I was still unknown by face to the assemblies of Judea which were in Christ, but they only heard: “He who once persecuted us now preaches the faith that he once tried to destroy.” So they glorified God in me.
Martin Luther 1535 · Public Domain On vv1–24 VERSE 1. Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither…
VERSE 1. Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead).
St. Paul wrote this epistle because, after his departure from the Galatian churches, Jewish-Christian fanatics moved in, who perverted Paul’s Gospel of man’s free justification by faith in Christ Jesus.
Read full note →
The world bears the Gospel a grudge because the Gospel condemns the religious wisdom of the world. Jealous for its own religious views, the world in turn charges the Gospel with being a subversive and licentious doctrine, offensive to God and man, a doctrine to be persecuted as the worst plague on earth.
As a result we have this paradoxical situation: The Gospel supplies the world with the salvation of Jesus Christ, peace of conscience, and every blessing. Just for that the world abhors the Gospel.
These Jewish-Christian fanatics who pushed themselves into the Galatian churches after Paul’s departure, boasted that they were the descendants of Abraham, true ministers of Christ, having been trained by the apostles themselves, that they were able to perform miracles.
In every way they sought to undermine the authority of St. Paul. They said to the Galatians: "You have no right to think highly of Paul. He was the last to turn to Christ. But we have seen Christ. We heard Him preach. Paul came later and is beneath us. It is possible for us to be in error--we who have received the Holy Ghost? Paul stands alone. He has not seen Christ, nor has he had much contact with the other apostles. Indeed, he persecuted the Church of Christ for a long time."
When men claiming such credentials come along, they deceive not only the naive, but also those who seemingly are well-established in the faith. This same argument is used by the papacy. "Do you suppose that God for the sake of a few Lutheran heretics would disown His entire Church? Or do you suppose that God would have left His Church floundering in error all these centuries?" The Galatians were taken in by such arguments with the result that Paul’s authority and doctrine were drawn in question.
Against these boasting, false apostles, Paul boldly defends his apostolic authority and ministry. Humble man that he was, he will not now take a back seat. He reminds them of the time when he opposed Peter to his face and reproved the chief of the apostles.
Paul devotes the first two chapters to a defense of his office and his Gospel, affirming that he received it, not from men, but from the Lord Jesus Christ by special revelation, and that if he or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than the one he had preached, he shall be accursed.
The Certainty of Our Calling
Every minister should make much of his calling and impress upon others the fact that he has been delegated by God to preach the Gospel. As the ambassador of a government is honored for his office and not for his private person, so the minister of Christ should exalt his office in order to gain authority among men. This is not vain glory, but needful glorying.
Paul takes pride in his ministry, not to his own praise but to the praise of God. Writing to the Romans, he declares, "Inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office," i.e., I want to be received not as Paul of Tarsus, but as Paul the apostle and ambassador of Jesus Christ, in order that people might be more eager to hear. Paul exalts his ministry out of the desire to make known the name, the grace, and the mercy of God.
VERSE 1. Paul, an apostle, (not of men, etc.)
Paul loses no time in defending himself against the charge that he had thrust himself into the ministry. He says to the Galatians: "My call may seem inferior to you. But those who have come to you are either called of men or by man. My call is the highest possible, for it is by Jesus Christ, and God the Father."
When Paul speaks of those called "by men," I take it he means those whom neither God nor man sent, but who go wherever they like and speak for themselves.
When Paul speaks of those called "by man" I take it he means those who have a divine call extended to them through other persons. God calls in two ways. Either He calls ministers through the agency of men, or He calls them directly as He called the prophets and apostles. Paul declares that the false apostles were called or sent neither by men, nor by man. The most they could claim is that they were sent by others. "But as for me I was called neither of men, nor by man, but directly by Jesus Christ. My call is in every respect like the call of the apostles. In fact I am an apostle."
Elsewhere Paul draws a sharp distinction between an apostleship and lesser functions, as in 1Co 12:28 : "And God hath set some in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers." He mentions the apostles first because they were appointed directly by God.
Matthias was called in this manner. The apostles chose two candidates and then cast lots, praying that God would indicate which one He would have. To be an apostle he had to have his appointment from God. In the same manner Paul was called as the apostle of the Gentiles.
The call is not to be taken lightly. For a person to possess knowledge is not enough. He must be sure that he is properly called. Those who operate without a proper call seek no good purpose. God does not bless their labors. They may be good preachers, but they do no edify. Many of the fanatics of our day pronounce words of faith, but they bear no good fruit, because their purpose is to turn men to their perverse opinions. On the other hand, those who have a divine call must suffer a good deal of opposition in order that they may become fortified against the running attacks of the devil and the world.
This is our comfort in the ministry, that ours is a divine office to which we have been divinely called. Reversely, what an awful thing it must be for the conscience if one is not properly called. It spoils one’s best work. When I was a young man I thought Paul was making too much of his call. I did not understand his purpose. I did not then realize the importance of the ministry. I knew nothing of the doctrine of faith because we were taught sophistry instead of certainty, and nobody understood spiritual boasting. We exalt our calling, not to gain glory among men, or money, or satisfaction, or favor, but because people need to be assured that the words we speak are the words of God. This is no sinful pride. It is holy pride.
VERSE 1. And God the Father, who raised him from the dead.
Paul is so eager to come to the subject matter of his epistle, the righteousness of faith in opposition to the righteousness of works, that already in the title he must speak his mind. He did not think it quite enough to say that he was an apostle "by Jesus Christ"; he adds, "and God the Father, who raised him from the dead."
The clause seems superfluous on first sight. Yet Paul had a good reason for adding it. He had to deal with Satan and his agents who endeavored to deprive him of the righteousness of Christ, who was raised by God the Father from the dead. These perverters of the righteousness of Christ resist the Father and the Son, and the works of them both.
In this whole epistle Paul treats of the resurrection of Christ. By His resurrection Christ won the victory over law, sin, flesh, world, devil, death, hell, and every evil. And this His victory He donated unto us. These many tyrants and enemies of ours may accuse and frighten us, but they dare not condemn us, for Christ, whom God the Father has raised from the dead is our righteousness and our victory.
Do you notice how well suited to his purpose Paul writes? He does not say, "By God who made heaven and earth, who is Lord of the angels," but Paul has in mind the righteousness of Christ, and speaks to the point, saying, "I am an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead."
Martin Luther — Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), English translation by Theodore Graebner (Zondervan, 1939) — public domain (U.S. copyright not renewed). Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 What part of Asia was inhabited by the Galatians,…
What part of Asia was inhabited by the Galatians, and what were the boundaries of their country, is well known; but whence they originally came is not agreed among historians. It is universally admitted that they were Gauls, and, on that account, were denominated Gallo-Grecians. But from what part of Gaul they came it is more difficult to determine.
Strabo thought that the Tectosages came from Gallia Narbonensis, and that the remainder were Celtae; and this opinion has been generally adopted. But, as Pliny enumerates the Ambiani among the Tectosagi, and as it is universally agreed that they were allied to the Tolistobogi, who dwelt on the banks of the Rhine, I think it more probable that, they were Belgians, whose territory extended from a very distant part of the course of the Rhine to the English Channel. The Tolistobogi inhabited that part which receives from its present inhabitants the names of Cleves and Brabant.
Read full note →
The mistake originated, I think, in this way. A band of Tectosagi, who had made all irruption into Gallia Narbonensis, retained their own name, and gave it to the country which they had conquered. This is intimated by Ausonius, who says, “As far as the Teutosagi, whose original name was Belgians; for he calls them Belgians, and says that they were first called Teutosagi, and afterwards Tectosagi. Caesar, indeed, places the Tectosagi in the Hercynian forest; but I consider this to have been in consequence of their emigration, which indeed appears from that very passage.
But more than enough has now been said as to the origin of the nation, so far as relates to the present passage. Pliny informs us that the Galatians, who inhabited that part of Asia to which they gave their name, were divided into three chief nations, Tectosagi, Tolistobogi, and Trocmi, and accordingly occupied three chief cities. So great was the power which they at one time swayed over their unwarlike neighbors, that they received tribute from a great part of Lesser Asia. Losing at length their ancient valor, and giving themselves up to pleasure and luxury, they were vanquished in war and subdued, with little difficulty, by Cneius Manlius, a Roman consul.
At the time of the Apostle Paul they were under the dominion of the Romans. He had purely and faithfully instructed them in the Gospel; but false apostles had entered, during his absence, and had corrupted the true seed by false and erroneous doctrines. They taught that the observation of ceremonies was still necessary. This might appear to be a trivial matter; but Paul very properly contends as for a fundamental article of the Christian faith. It is no small evil to quench the light of the Gospel, to lay a snare for consciences, and to remove the distinction between the Old and New Testaments. He perceived that these errors were also connected with a wicked and dangerous opinion as to the manner in which justification is obtained. This is the reason why he fights with so much earnestness and vehemence; and, having learned from him the important and serious nature of the controversy, it is our duty to read with greater attention.
One who forms his views of the subject from the Commentaries of Origen and Jerome, will be astonished that Paul should take so deep an interest in external rites; but whoever goes to the fountain will acknowledge that there was abundant reason for all this sharpness of reproof. The Galatians had allowed themselves to be drawn aside from the right course by excessive credulity, or rather by lightness and folly. He therefore censures them more severely; for I do not agree with those who attribute the harshness of his language to their slowness of apprehension. The Ephesians and Colossians had been subjected to the same temptations. If they had lent as ready an ear to the tale of the impostors, do we imagine that Paul would have treated them with greater gentleness? This boldness of rebuke was not suggested by the disposition of the people, but extorted by the baseness of their conduct.
Having ascertained what was the design of writing the Epistle, let us attend to the order in which it is treated. In the first and second Chapters (Galatians 1 and Galatians 2) he maintains the authority of his Apostleship, except that, towards the close of the second chapter, he touches incidentally on his main point, the question of Man’s Justification, which, however, is avowedly and directly argued in the third Chapter, Galatians 3. Although he appears in those two Chapters to have many objects in view, yet his sole object is to prove that He is equal to the highest apostles, and that there is no reason why he should not be considered to hold an equally honorable rank with any of them.
But it is of importance to know why he labors so hard in establishing his own claim to respect. Provided that Christ reigns, and that the purity of doctrine remains uncontaminated, what matters it whether he is higher or lower than Peter, or whether they are all on a footing of equality? If all must “decrease,” that Christ alone may “increase,” (John 3:30,) it is idle to dispute about human ranks. Besides, it may be asked, why does he draw a comparison between himself and other apostles? What dispute had he with Peter, and James, and John? What good purpose did it serve to bring into collision those who were united in sentiment, and in the closest friendship?
I reply, the false apostles, who had deceived the Galatians, endeavored to obtain favor by pretending that they had received a commission from the Apostles. Their chief influence arose from insinuating the belief that they represented the Apostles, and delivered their message. To Paul, on the other hand, they refused the name and authority of an Apostle. They objected that he had not been chosen by our Lord as one of the Twelve; that he had never been acknowledged as such by the college of the Apostles; that he did not receive his doctrine from Christ, or even from the Apostles themselves. All this tended not only to lower Paul’s authority, but to rank him with the ordinary members of the Church, and therefore to place him far below those persons who made these insinuations.
If this had been merely a personal matter, it would have given no uneasiness to Paul to be reckoned an ordinary disciple. But when he saw that his doctrine was beginning to lose its weight and authority, he was not entitled to be silent. It became his duty to make a bold resistance. When Satan does not venture openly to attack doctrine, his next stratagem is to diminish its influence by indirect attacks. Let us remember, then, that in the person of Paul the truth of the Gospel was assailed; for, if he had allowed himself to be stripped of the honor of apostleship, it followed that he had hitherto claimed what he had no title to enjoy; and this false boasting would have made him liable to suspicion in other matters. The estimation in which his doctrine was held depended on the question, whether it came, as some had begun to think, from an ordinary disciple, or from an apostle of Christ.
He was overwhelmed, on the other hand, by the lustre of great names. Those who referred, in a boastful manner, to Peter, and James, and John, pretended to apostolical authority. If Paul had not manfully resisted this boasting, he would have given way to falsehood, and would have allowed the truth of God to suffer again in his own person. He therefore contends earnestly for both points: that he was appointed by the Lord to be an apostle, and that he was in no respect inferior to the rest, but enjoyed the same title, and was equal to them in authority and rank. He might, indeed, have denied that those men were either sent, or hold any commission from Peter and his associates. But he takes far higher ground, that he does not yield to the Apostles themselves; and if he had declined doing so, he would have been supposed to have distrusted his cause.
Jerusalem was, at that time, the Mother of all the Churches; for the Gospel had spread from it over the whole world, and it might be said to be the principal seat of the kingdom of Christ. Any one who came from it into other churches was received with due respect. But many were foolishly elated with the thought that they had enjoyed the friendship of the Apostles, or at least had been taught in their school; and therefore nothing pleased them but what they had seen at Jerusalem. Every custom that had not been practiced there was not only disliked, but unsparingly condemned by them. This peevish manner becomes highly pernicious, when the custom of a single church is attempted to be enforced as a universal law. We are sometimes so devoted to an instructor or a place, that, without exercising any judgment of our own, we make the opinion of one man the standard for all men, and the customs of one place the standard for every other place. Such attachment is ridiculous, if there be not always in it a mixture of ambition; or rather we should say, excessive peevishness is always ambitious.
To return to those false apostles, if they had only attempted, through wicked contention, to establish everywhere the use of those ceremonies, which they had seen observed at Jerusalem, that would have been no slight offense; for, when a custom is forthwith converted into a law, injustice is perpetrated. But a more serious evil was involved in the wicked and dangerous doctrine, which held consciences to be bound to them by religious considerations, which made justification to depend on the observation of them. Such were the reasons why Paul defended his Apostleship with so much earnestness, and why he contrasted himself with the rest of the Apostles.
He pursues this subject to the end of the second Chapter, Galatians 2, when he proceeds to argue the doctrine, that we are justified in the sight of God by Free Grace, and not by the Works of the Law. His argument is this: If Ceremonies have not the power of bestowing Justification, the observation of them is therefore unnecessary. We must remark, however, that he does not confine himself entirely to Ceremonies, but argues generally about Works, otherwise the whole discussion would be trifling.
If any person thinks that we are thus straining the matter too far, let him attend to the two following reasons. First, the question could not be settled without assuming the general principle, that we are justified by the free grace of God; and this principle sets aside not only ceremonies, but every other kind of works. Secondly, Paul did not attach so much importance to Ceremonies as to the wicked doctrine of obtaining Salvation by Works. Let it be observed, therefore, that Paul had good reasons for recurring to first principles. It was necessary to go to the fountain, and to warn his readers that the controversy related, not to some insignificant trifle, but to the most important of all matters — the method of obtaining salvation.
It is a mistake, therefore, to suppose that the Apostle confined himself wholly to the special question about Ceremonies, a subject which did not admit of being settled by itself. A similar instance occurs in history. (Acts 15:2.) Strife and contention had arisen out of the question, whether or not Ceremonies were necessary to be observed. In the course of the discussion, the Apostles dwell largely on the intolerable yoke of the Law, and on the Forgiveness of Sins through Free Grace. What was the object of this? It appears to be a foolish departure from the point in hand; but the contrary is the fact, for a particular error cannot be satisfactorily refuted without assuming a universal principle. As, for instance, if I am called to dispute about, forbidding the use of flesh, I shall not speak merely about the different kinds of food, but shall arm myself with the general doctrine: What authority have the Traditions of men for binding the conscience? I shall quote the declaration, that
“There is one Lawgiver, who has power to save and to destroy.” (James 4:12.)
In short, Paul here argues negatively from general to particular propositions, which is the ordinary and most natural method of reasoning. By what evidences and arguments he proves this principle, that we are justified by the grace of God alone, we shall see when we come to the passage. He pursues this topic till the end of the third Chapter, Galatians 3.
In the commencement of the fourth Chapter, Galatians 4, he inquires into the proper use of Ceremonies, and the reason why they were appointed; shewing, at the same time, that they are now abolished. It became necessary to meet this silly objection, which might occur to some minds. What, then, was the purpose of Ceremonies? Were they useless? Were the Fathers idly employed in observing them? He illustrates briefly two statements, that in their own time they were not superfluous, and that they have now been abolished by the coming of Christ, because He is the truth and end of them; and therefore he shews that we must abide by Him. Glancing briefly at the difference between our condition and that of the Fathers, he infers that the doctrine of the false apostles is wicked and dangerous, because it darkens the clearness of the gospel by ancient shadows. The Apostle’s doctrine is now intermingled with some affecting exhortations. Towards the close of the Chapter his argument is enlivened by a beautiful allegory.
In the fifth Chapter, Galatians 5, he exhorts them to hold fast the Liberty which has been obtained by the blood of Christ, that they may not surrender their consciences to be ensnared by the opinions of men. But he reminds them, at the same time, in what manner Liberty may be lawfully used. He then takes occasion to point out the proper employments of Christians, that they may not uselessly spend their time in Ceremonies, and neglect matters of real importance.
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,” (Hebrews 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, (Acts 14:23;) and he enjoins Titus and Timothy to proceed in the same work. (1 Timothy 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 (Matthew 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. (Acts 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.
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.” (Acts 13:2,3.)
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.
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.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 22 He showeth who is the author of the minister…
He showeth who is the author of the minister generally: for herein the whole ministry agreeth, that whether they be Apostles, or Shepherds, or Doctors, they are appointed of God.
Christ no doubt is man, but he is God also, and head of the Church, and in this respect to be exempted out of the number of men.
Read full note →
A salutation comprehending in few words, the sum of the Apostle’s doctrine, and also besides straightway from the beginning, showing the gravity meet for the authority of an Apostle, which he had to maintain against the false apostles.
He toucheth the instrumental cause: for this is a peculiar prerogative to the Apostles, to be called immediately from Christ.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–24 1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by…
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Ver. 1. Who raised him from the dead] And by the same almighty power causeth dead souls to hear the voice of the Son of God in his ministers and live, Joh 5:25; Eph 1:19.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 The term apostle, in its native signification, signifieth no…
The term apostle, in its native signification, signifieth no more then one sent; in its ecclesiastical use, it signifies one extraordinarily sent to preach the gospel; of these some were sent either more immediately by Christ, (as the twelve were sent, Mat 10:1; Mar 3:14; Luk 9:1), or more mediately, as Matthias, who was sent by the suffrage of the other apostles to supply the place of Judas, Act 1:25,26, and Barnabas, and Silas, and others were. Paul saith he was sent not of men, neither by man, that is, not merely; for he was also sent by men to his particular province. Act 13:3; but he was immediately sent by Jesus Christ, ( as we read, Act 9:1-43 and Act 26:14-17, of which also he gives us an account in this chapter, Gal 1:15-17), and by God the Father also, who, he saith, raised Christ from the dead. By this phrase the apostle doth not only assert Christ's resurrection, and the influence of the Father upon his resurrection, (though he rose by his own power, and took up his own life again, and was also quickened by the Spirit), but he also showeth a specialty in his call to the apostleship. As it differed from the call of ordinary ministers, who are called by men (though their ministry be not merely of men); so it differed from the call of the rest of the apostles, being made by Christ not in his state of humiliation, (as the twelve were called, Mat 10:1-42), but in his state of exaltation, after he was raised from the dead, and sat down on the right hand of God.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21 The penman of this epistle is here described by…
The penman of this epistle is here described by his name, Paul: by his office, an apostle; and by his commission to that office, which was not human, but altogether divine, even from God the Father by Jesus Christ.
Observe here, 1. The great modesty of this great apostle, in the setting forth his authority as an apostle; you will find, in the front of his epistles, when he names any others in the salutation with himself (as Silvanus and Timotheus) he mentions not himself as an apostle, when named with them, lest he should be thought to magnify himself above them. But here, because his apostolical office was called in question, he is necessitated to vindicate his authority, and accordingly declared himself an apostle, not of men, nor by man; that is, men were neither the authors nor choosers of him to his office: he was not called, as Matthias was, Act 1:23 by the suffrage of the rest of the apostles: he was not an apostle of men’s election, nor by men’s instruction; but appointed by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.
Read full note →
Learn hence, that no sins before, nor yet after, conversion, can hinder the rich mercy and free grace of God, from using men in the highest employments in the church, if he pleases to make use of them. Paul, after he had been a blasphemer, was made an apostle; and Peter, after his conversion, denied Christ with oaths and curses: yet is a chief apostle and an inspired penman of holy scripture.
Observe, 2. The high dignity conferred upon St. Paul, with reference to his apostolical office, he did not take it upon himself, but was chosen to it; he was not chosen to it for any merit in himself, but it was a grace freely bestowed upon him: and this not by the ministry and mediation of man, but by the immediate resignation and election of Jesus Christ.
Thus far he stands upon equal terms with the rest of the apostles; they did not call themselves, nor were they called by Christ, for any worthiness in themselves above others: but behold the peculiar prerogative of St. Paul above the rest of the apostles, in this particular; they were called by Christ, in the day of his humiliation, when he was here upon earth in the flesh; but he was called by Christ after his resurrection, yea, in his highest state of exaltation, when sitting at his Father’s right hand in heaven.
And as his call was thus very extraordinary, so his gifts were answerable to his call: the gospel which he preached he received by inward and immediate revelation, which made him so much excel all the other apostles; insomuch, that although, in his own opinion, he was the least of saints when here upon earth: yet, in the opinion of others, he was the holiest man when upon earth, and the highest now in heaven, next the man Jesus Christ.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 10 In these verses we have the preface or introduction…
In these verses we have the preface or introduction to the epistle, where observe,
I. The person or persons from whom this epistle is sent - from Paul an apostle, etc., and all the brethren that were with him. 1. The epistle is sent from Paul; he only was the penman of it. And, because there were some among the Galatians who endeavoured to lessen his character and authority, in the front of it he gives a general account both of his office and of the manner in which he was called to it, which afterwards, in this and the following chapter, he enlarges more upon. As to his office, he was an apostle. He is not afraid to style himself so, though his enemies would scarcely allow him this title: and, to let them see that he did not assume this character without just ground, he acquaints them how he was called to this dignity and office, and assures them that his commission to it was wholly divine, for he was an apostle, not of man, neither by man; he had not the common call of an ordinary minister, but an extraordinary call from heaven to this office. He neither received his qualification for it, nor his designation to it, by the mediation of men, but had both the one and the other directly from above; for he was an apostle by Jesus Christ, he had his instructions and commission immediately from him, and consequently from God the Father, who was one with him in respect of his divine nature, and who had appointed him, as Mediator, to be the apostle and high priest of our profession, and as such to authorize others to this office. He adds, Who raised him from the dead, both to acquaint us that herein God the Father gave a public testimony to Christ's being his Son and the promised Messiah, and also that, as his call to the apostleship was immediately from Christ, so it was after his resurrection from the dead, and when he had entered upon his exalted state; so that he had reason to look upon himself, not only as standing upon a level with the other apostles, but as in some sort preferred above them; for, whereas they were called by him when on earth, he had his call from him when in heaven. Thus does the apostle, being constrained to it by his adversaries, magnify his office, which shows that though men should by no means be proud of any authority they are possessed of, yet at certain times and upon certain occasions it may become needful to assert it. But, 2. He joins all the brethren that were with him in the inscription of the epistle, and writes in their name as well as his own. By the brethren that were with him may be understood either the Christians in common of that place where he now was, or such as were employed as ministers of the gospel. These, notwithstanding his own superior character and attainments, he is ready to own as his brethren; and, though he alone wrote the epistle, yet he joins them with himself in the inscription of it. Herein, as he shows his own great modesty and humility, and how remote he was from an assuming temper, so he might do this to dispose these churches to a greater regard to what he wrote, since hereby it would appear that he had their concurrence with him in the doctrine which he had preached, and was now about to confirm, and that it was no other than what was both published and professed by others as well as himself.
Read full note →
II. To whom this epistle is sent - to the churches of Galatia. There were several churches at that time in this country, and it should seem that all of them were more or less corrupted through the arts of those seducers who had crept in among them; and therefore Paul, on whom came daily the care of all the churches, being deeply affected with their state, and concerned for their recovery to the faith and establishment in it, writes this epistle to them. He directs it to all of them, as being all more or less concerned in the matter of it; and he gives them the name of churches, though they had done enough to forfeit it, for corrupt churches are never allowed to be churches: no doubt there were some among them who still continued in the faith, and he was not without hope that others might be recovered to it.
III. The apostolical benediction, Gal 1:3. Herein the apostle, and the brethren who were with him, wish these churches grace and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the usual blessing wherewith he blesses the churches in the name of the Lord - grace and peace. Grace includes God's good-will towards us and his good work upon us; and peace implies in it all that inward comfort, or outward prosperity, which is really needful for us; and they come from God the Father as the fountain, through Jesus Christ as the channel of conveyance. Both these the apostle wishes for these Christians. But we may observe, First grace, and then peace, for there can be no true peace without grace. Having mentioned the Lord Jesus Christ, he cannot pass without enlarging upon his love; and therefore adds (Gal 1:4), Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver, etc. Jesus Christ gave himself for our sins, as a great sacrifice to make atonement for us; this the justice of God required, and to this he freely submitted for our sakes. One great end hereof was to deliver us from this present evil world; not only to redeem us from the wrath of God, and the curse of the law, but also to recover us from the corruption that is in the world through lust, and to rescue us from the vicious practices and customs of it, unto which we are naturally enslaved; and possibly also to set us free from the Mosaic constitution, for so aiōn houtos is used, Co1 2:6, Co1 2:8. From this we may note, 1. This present world is an evil world: it has become so by the sin of man, and it is so on account of the sin and sorrow with which it abounds and the many snares and temptations to which we are exposed as long as we continue in it. But, 2. Jesus Christ has died to deliver us from this present evil world, not presently to remove his people out of it, but to rescue them from the power of it, to keep them from the evil of it, and in due time to possess them of another and better world. This, the apostle informs us, he has done according to the will of God and our Father. In offering up himself a sacrifice for this end and purpose, he acted by the appointment of the Father, as well as with his own free consent; and therefore we have the greatest reason to depend upon the efficacy and acceptableness of what he has done and suffered for us; yea, hence we have encouragement to look upon God as our Father, for thus the apostle here represents him: as he is the Father of our Lord Jesus, so in and through him he is also the Father of all true believers, as our blessed Saviour himself acquaints us (Joh 20:17), when he tells his disciples that he was ascending to his Father and their Father.
The apostle, having thus taken notice of the great love wherewith Christ hath loved us, concludes this preface with a solemn ascription of praise and glory to him (Gal 1:5): To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. Intimating that on this account he is justly entitled to our highest esteem and regard. Or this doxology may be considered as referring both to God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom he had just before been wishing grace and peace. They are both the proper objects of our worship and adoration, and all honour and glory are perpetually due to them, both on account of their own infinite excellences, and also on account of the blessings we receive from them.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man,....…
Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man,.... The writer of this epistle, Paul, puts his name to it, as to all his epistles, excepting that to the Hebrews, if that be his, being neither afraid nor ashamed to own what is herein contained. He asserts himself to be "an apostle", which was the highest office in the church, to which he was immediately called by Christ, and confirmed in it by signs and wonders. This he chose to mention, because of the false teachers, who had insinuated he was no apostle, and not to be regarded; whereas he had received grace and apostleship from Christ, and was an apostle, "not of men", as were the apostles or messengers of the sanhedrim (a); See Gill on Co2 8:23 and as were the false apostles, who were sent out by men, who had no authority to send them forth: the apostle, as he did not take this honour to himself, did not thrust himself into this office, or run before he was sent; so he was not sent by men; he did not act upon human authority, or by an human commission: this is said in opposition to the false apostles, and to an unlawful investiture with the office of apostleship, and an usurpation of it, as well as to distinguish himself from the messengers and ambassadors of princes, who are sent with credentials by them to negotiate civil affairs for them in foreign courts, he being an ambassador of Christ; and from the messengers of churches, who were sometimes sent with assistance or advice to other churches; and he moreover says, "nor by man"; by a mere man, but by one that was more than a man; nor by a mortal man, but by Christ, as raised from the dead, immortal and glorious at God's right hand: or rather the sense is, he was not chosen into the office of apostleship by the suffrages of men, as Matthias was; or he was not ordained an apostle in the manner the ordinary ministers of the Gospel and pastors are, by the churches of Christ; so that as the former clause is opposed to an unlawful call of men, this is opposed to a lawful one; and shows him to be not an ordinary minister, but an extraordinary one, who was called to this office, not mediately by men, by any of the churches as common ministers are:
but by Jesus Christ; immediately, without the intervention of men, as appears from Act 26:16. For what Ananias did upon his conversion was only putting his hands on him to recover his sight, and baptizing him; it was Christ that appeared to him personally, and made him a minister; and his separation with Barnabas, by the church, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, Act 13:2 was to some particular work and service to be done by them, and not to apostleship, and which was long after Paul was made an apostle by Christ. Jesus Christ being here opposed to man, does not suggest that he was not a man, really and truly, for he certainly was; he partook of the same flesh and blood with us, and was in all things made like unto us, sin excepted; but that he was not a mere man, he was truly God as well as man; for as the raising him from the dead, in the next clause, shows him to be a man, or he could not have died; so his being opposed to man, and set in equality with God the Father, in this verse, and grace and peace being prayed for from him, as from the Father, Gal 1:4 and the same glory ascribed to him as to the Father, Gal 1:5 prove him to be truly and properly God. The apostle adds,
Read full note →
and God the Father; Christ and his Father being of the same nature and essence, power and authority, as they are jointly concerned and work together in the affairs or nature and Providence, so in those of grace; and particularly in constituting and ordaining apostles, and setting them in the church. This serves the more to confirm the divine authority under which Paul acted as an apostle, being not only made so by Christ, but also by God the Father, who is described as he,
who raised him from the dead; which is observed, not so much to express the divine power of the Father, or the glory of Christ, as raised from the dead, but to strengthen the validity of the apostle's character and commission as such; to whom it might have been objected, that he had not seen Christ in the flesh, nor familiarly conversed with him, as the rest of the apostles did: to which he was able to reply, that he was not called to be an apostle by Christ in his low and mean estate of humiliation, but by him after he was raised from the dead, and was set down at the right hand of God; who personally appeared to him in his glory, and was seen by him, and who made and appointed him his apostle, to bear his name before Gentiles, and kings, and the people of Israel; so that his call to apostleship was rather more grand and illustrious than that of any of the other apostles.
(a) Misn. Menachot, c. 10. sect. 3. & Yoma, c. 1. sect. 5.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24 Paul, an apostle - Here it was necessary for…
Paul, an apostle - Here it was necessary for St. Paul to assert his authority; otherwise he is very modest in the use of this title. He seldom mentions it when he mentions others in the salutations with himself, as in the Epistles to the Philippians and Thessalonians; or when he writes about secular affairs, as in that to Philemon; nor yet in writing to the Hebrews because he was not properly their apostle. Not of men - Not commissioned from them, but from God the Father. Neither by man - Neither by any man as an instrument, but by Jesus Christ. Who raised him from the dead - Of which it was the peculiar business of an apostle to bear witness.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1–24 Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Chronological Notes relative to this Epistle.
Read full note →
Usherian year of the world, 4056.
-Alexandrian era of the world, 5554.
-Antiochian era of the world, 5544.
-Constantinopolitan era of the world, 5560.
-Year of the Eusebian epocha of the Creation, 4280.
-Year of the Julian period, 4762.
-Year of the minor Jewish era of the world, 3812.
-Year of the greater Rabbinical era of the world, 4411.
-Year from the Flood, according to Archbishop Usher, and the English Bible, 2400.
-Year of the Cali yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 3154.
-Year of the era of Iphitus, or since the first commencement of the Olympic games, 992.
-Year of the Nabonassarean era, 799.
-Year of the era of the Seleucidae, 364.
-Year of the Spanish era, 90.
-Year of the Actiac or Actian era, 83.
-Year of the vulgar era of Christ's nativity, 52.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Varro, 805.
-Year of the CCVIIth Olympiad, 4.
-Year of Ananias, high priest of the Jews, 8.
-Common Golden Number, 15.
-Jewish Golden Number, 12.
-Year of the Solar Cycle, 5.
-Dominical Letters; it being Bissextile or Leap year, BA.
-Jewish Passover, April lst.
-Easter Sunday, April 2d.
-Epact, or the moon's age on the 22d of March, or the Xth of the Calends of April, 4.
-Year of the reign of Claudius Caesar, the fifth emperor of the Romans, 12.
-In the last year of Ventidius Cumanus, governor of the Jews.
-Year of Vologesus, king of the Parthians, 2.
-Year of Cains Numidius Quadratus, governor of Syria, 1.
-Roman Consuls; Publius Cornelius Sylla Faustus, and Lucius Salvius Otho Titianus; and for the following year, viz. A. D. 53, (which is supposed by some to be the date of the epistle,) Decimus Junius Silanus, and Quintus Haterius Antoninus.
CHAPTER I.
St. Paul shows that he was especially called of God to be an
apostle, 1.
Directs his epistle to the Churches through the regions of
Galatia, 2.
Commends them to the grace of Christ, who gave himself for their
sins, 3-5.
Marvels that they had so soon turned away from the grace of the
Gospel of Christ, to what falsely pretended to be another
gospel, 6, 7.
Pronounces him accursed who shall preach any other doctrine than
that which he had delivered to them, 8, 9.
Shows his own uprightness, and that he received his doctrine
from God, 10-12.
Gives an account of his conversion and call to the apostleship,
13-17.
How three years after his conversion he went up to Jerusalem,
and afterwards went through the regions of Syria and Cilicia,
preaching the faith of Christ to the great joy of the Christian
Churches in Judea, 18-24.
NOTES ON CHAP. I.
Verse 1. Paul, an apostle, not of men] Not commissioned by any assembly or council of the apostles.
Neither by man] Nor by any one of the apostles; neither by James, who seems to have been president of the apostolic council at Jerusalem; nor by Peter, to whom, in a particular manner, the keys of the kingdom were intrusted.
But by Jesus Christ] Having his mission immediately from Christ himself, and God the Father who raised him from the dead, see Ac 22:14; Ac 22:15, and commanded him to go both to the Jews and to the Gentiles, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they might obtain remission of sins, and an inheritance among them that are sanctified. See Ac 9:1, &c., and the notes there.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20 Gal 1:1-3. Paul, an apostle — Here it was…
Gal 1:1-3. Paul, an apostle — Here it was necessary for Paul to assert his authority, otherwise he is very modest in the use of this title. He seldom mentions it when he joins others with himself in the salutations, as in the epistles to the Philippians and Thessalonians; or when he writes about secular affairs, as in that to Philemon: nor yet in writing to the Hebrews. Not of men — Not commissioned from them. It seems the false teachers had insinuated, if not openly asserted, that he was merely an apostle of men; made an apostle by the church at Antioch, or at best by the apostles in Jerusalem. This false insinuation, which struck at the root of his authority and usefulness, in the exercise of his office, St. Paul saw it necessary to contradict, in the very beginning of his epistle. Perhaps he also glances at Matthias, who was an apostle sent from a general meeting at Jerusalem, as mentioned Act 1:22. Neither by man — As an instrument. He here seems to have had Peter and James in his eye, whom alone he saw at his first coming to Jerusalem, after his conversion, and denies that he was appointed an apostle by them. But by Jesus Christ — “Paul was first made an apostle by Christ, when Christ appeared to him in the way to Damascus, Act 9:15. And three years after that his apostolic commission was renewed, Act 22:21. So that he was sent forth neither by the church at Jerusalem, nor by that at Antioch. The Holy Ghost indeed ordered the prophets at Antioch (Act 13:2) to separate Paul and Barnabas; but it was to the work whereunto he had called them formerly. This separation was simply a recommending them to the grace of God by prayer; and in fact it is so termed, Act 14:26.” — Macknight. And God the Father, who raised him from the dead — And after his resurrection sent him from heaven to make me an apostle. And all the brethren who are with me — And agree with me in what I now write, and by joining with me in this letter, attest the truth of the facts which I relate; unto the churches of Galatia — Or the several societies or congregations of professing Christians which have been collected in that province. Grace be to you, &c. — See on Rom 1:7.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1–24 Paul an apostle - See the note at Rom…
Paul an apostle - See the note at Rom 1:1. This is the usual form in which he commences his epistles; and it was of special importance to commence the Epistle in this manner, because it was one design to vindicate his apostleship, or to show that he had received his commission directly from the Lord Jesus.
Not of men - “Not from ἀπ ̓ ap' men.” That is, he was not “from” any body of people, or commissioned by people. The word apostle means “sent,” and Paul means to say, that he was not “sent” to execute any purpose of human beings, or commissioned by them. His was a higher calling; a calling of God, and he had been sent directly by him. Of course, he means to exclude here all classes of people as having had anything to do in sending him forth; and, especially, he means to affirm, that he had not been sent out by the body of apostles at Jerusalem. This, it will be remembered (see the introduction to Galatians) was one of the charges of those who had perverted the Galatians from the faith which Paul had preached to them.
Read full note →
Neither by man - “Neither by or through δι ̓ di' the instrumentality of any man.” Here he designs to exclude all people from having had any agency in his appointment to the apostolic office. He was neither sent out from any body of people to execute their purposes; nor did he receive his commission, authority, or ordination through the medium of any man. A minister of the gospel now receives his call from God, but he is ordained or set apart to his office by man. Matthias, the apostle chosen in the place of Judas Act 1:26, received his call from God, but it was by the vote of the body of the apostles. Timothy was also called of God, but he was appointed to his office by the laying on the hands of the presbytery; 1Ti 4:14. But Paul here says, that he received no such commission as that from the apostles. They were not the means or the medium of ordaining him to his work. He had, indeed, together with Barnabas, been set apart at Antioch, by the brethren there Act 13:1-3, for a “special mission” in Asia Minor; but this was not an appointment to the apostleship. He had been restored to sight after the miraculous blindness produced by seeing the Lord Jesus on the way to Damascus, by the laying on of the hands of Ananias, and had received important instruction from him Act 9:17, but his commission as an apostle had been received directly from the Lord Jesus, without any intervening medium, or any form of human authority, Act 9:15; Act 22:17-21; 1Co 9:1.
But by Jesus Christ - That is, directly by Christ. He had been called by him, and commissioned by him, and sent by him, to engage in the work of the gospel.
And God the Father - These words were omitted by Marcion, because, says Jerome he held that Christ raised himself from the dead. But there is no authority for omitting them. The sense is, that he had the highest possible authority for the office of an apostle; he had been called to it by God himself, who had raised up the Redeemer. It is remarkable here, that Paul associates Jesus Christ and God the Father, as having called and commissioned him. We may ask here, of one who should deny the divinity of Christ, how Paul could mention him as being equal with God in the work of commissioning him? We may ask further, how could he say that he had not received his call to this office from a man, if Jesus Christ were a mere man? That he was called by Christ, he expressly says, and strenuously maintains as a point of great importance. And yet, the very point and drift of his argument is, to show that he was not called by man. How could this be if Christ were a mere man?
Who raised him from the dead - See the notes at Act 2:24, Act 2:32. It is not quite clear why Paul introduces this circumstance here. It may have been:
Because his mind was full of it. and he wished on all occasions to make that fact prominent; Because this was the distinguishing feature of the Christian religion, that the Lord Jesus had been raised up from the dead, and he wished, in the outset, to present the superiority of that religion which had brought life and immortality to light; and, Because he wished to show that he had received his commission from that same God who had raised up Jesus, and who was, therefore, the author of the true religion. His commission was from the Source of life and light, the God of the living and the dead; the God who was the Author of the glorious scheme which revealed life and immortality.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18 The apostle begins by asserting his apostleship which the…
The apostle begins by asserting his apostleship which the false teachers had called in question. He was called to it by Christ himself, in his miraculous conversion, being changed "into a vessel of election to carry his name before kings and nations, and the children of Israel." Thus chosen, we see him immediately after his conversion, preaching in Damascus and Arabia. (Calmet) --- Let us beware of self-appointed teachers, who are neither called by God nor rightly ordained by men, and yet are observed to intrude themselves into the ministry. --- Not from man, neither by man.[1] The apostle here expressly says, all the brethren who are with me; to shew that he advanced nothing which was not conformable to the belief of all the faithful. (St. Jerome) --- And again he says, (ver. 12.) neither did I receive it from man, nor did I learn it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. That is, not from him, who was a man only, but from Jesus Christ, who was both God and man. St. Jerome, who has left us a commentary on this epistle, (tom. iv. p. 222. Ed. Ben. as also St. John Chrysostom, tom. iii. p. 709. Ed. Sav.) takes notice, that Christ’s divinity is proved from these expressions, that St. Paul was not an apostle, nor had his mission from man only, but from Jesus Christ, who therefore was not a man only. --- By Jesus Christ and God the Father. A second argument to shew the equality of the Son with the Father. And thirdly, it destroys another objection of the Arians, who used to pretend that the Father, being always first named, he only, and not the Son, was properly God. Fourthly, another of their arguments to prove only the Father truly God, was that he was called the God, with the Greek article; and here the Father is called God, without the said Greek article. Fifthly, they also pretended that the Son was not God, because the Father was said to deliver him to death: and here (ver. 3.) the Son is said to give and deliver himself. (Witham)
===============================
Read full note →
[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
Non ab homine, on which words St. Jerome, ergo non homo tantum est Christus. See St. John Chrysostom in his commentary, or Greek: ermeneia, on this epistle, p. 713, where he takes notice against the Arians, that here God the Father is called Greek: Theos, not Greek: o Theos; so that their argument from the Greek article is of no force; Greek: choris arthrou....ouk apo tou, alla apo theou patros, &c.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
John Nelson Darby 1862 · Public Domain On v1 Galatians Chapter 1
Galatians Chapter 1
The epistle to the Galatians sets before us the great source of the afflictions and conflicts of the apostle in the regions where he had preached the glad tidings; that which was at the same time the principal means employed by the enemy to corrupt the gospel. God, it is true, in His love, has suited the gospel to the wants of man. The enemy brings down that which still bears its name to the level of the haughty will of man and the corruption of the natural heart, turning Christianity into a religion that suits that heart, in place of one that is the expression of the heart of God-an all-holy God-and the revelation of that which He has done in His love to bring us into communion with His holiness. We see, at the same time, the connection between the judaising doctrine-which is the denial of full redemption, and looking for good in flesh and man’s will, power in man to work out righteousness in himself for God-in those who hindered the apostle’s work, and the attacks that were constantly aimed against his ministry; because that ministry appealed directly to the power of the Holy Ghost and to the immediate authority of a glorified Christ, and set man as ruined, and Judaism which dealt with man, wholly aside. In withstanding the efforts of the judaisers, the apostle necessarily establishes the elementary principles of justification by grace. Traces both of this combat with the spirit of Judaism, by which Satan endeavoured to destroy true Christianity, and of the maintenance by the apostle of this liberty, and of the authority of his ministry, are found in a multitude of passages in Corinthians, in Philippians, in Colossians, in Timothy, and historically in the Acts. In Galatians the two subjects are treated in a direct and formal way. But the gospel is consequently reduced to its most simple elements, grace to its most simple expression. But, with regard to the error, the question is but the more decisively settled; the irreconcilable difference between the two principles, Judaism and the gospel, is the more strongly marked.
Read full note →
God allowed this invasion of His assembly in the earliest days of its existence, in order that we might have the answer of divine inspiration to these very principles, when they should be developed in an established system which would claim submission from the children of God as being the church that He had established and the only ministry that He acknowledged. The immediate source of true ministry, according to the gospel that Paul preached to the Gentiles, the impossibility of uniting the law and that gospel-of binding up together subjection to its ordinances and distinction of days-with the holy and heavenly liberty into which we are brought by a risen Christ, the impossibility, I repeat, of uniting the religion of the flesh with that of the Spirit, are plainly set forth in this epistle.
The apostle begins, at the very outset, with the independence, as to all other men, of the ministry which he exercised, pointing out its true source, from which he received it without the intervention of any intermediate instrument whatsoever: adding, in order to shew that the Galatians were forsaking the common faith of the saints, “all the brethren which are with me.” Also, in opening the subject of his epistle, the apostle declares at once, that the doctrine introduced by the judaisers among the Galatians was a different gospel (but which was not really another), not the gospel of Christ.
He begins then by declaring that he is not an apostle either of men or by man. He does not come on the part of men as though sent by them, and it is not by means of any man that he had received his commission, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead. It was by Jesus Christ, on the way to Damascus; and by the Father, it appears to me, when the Holy Ghost said, “Separate to me Barnabas and Paul.” But he speaks thus, in order to carry up the origin of his ministry to the primary source of all real good, and of all legitimate authority. [1] He wishes, as usual, to the assembly, grace and peace from God in His character of Father, and from Jesus in His character of Lord. But he adds here to the name of Jesus, that which belongs to that character of the gospel which the Galatians had lost sight of, namely, that Christ had given Himself for our sins that He might deliver us from this present evil age. The natural man, in his sins, belongs to this age. The Galatians desired to return to it under the pretext of a righteousness according to the law. Christ had given Himself for our sins in order to take us out of it: for the world is judged. Looked at as in the flesh, we are of it. Now the righteousness of the law has to do with men in the flesh. It is man as in the flesh who is to fulfil it, and the flesh has its sphere in this world; the righteousness which man would accomplish in the flesh is directed according to the elements of this world. Legal righteousness, man in the flesh, and the world, go together. Whereas Christ has viewed us as sinners, having no righteousness, and has given Himself for our sins, and to deliver us from this condemned world, in which men seek to establish righteousness by putting themselves on the ground of the flesh which can never accomplish it. This deliverance is also according to the will of our God and Father. He will have a heavenly people, redeemed according to that love which has given us a place on high with Himself, and a life in which the Holy Ghost works, to make us enjoy it and cause us to walk in the liberty and in the holiness which He gives us in this new creation, of which Jesus Himself, risen and glorified, is the head and the glory.
The apostle opens his subject without preamble: he was full of it, and the state of the Galatians who were giving up the gospel in its foundations forced it out from an oppressed, and I may say, an indignant heart. How was it possible that the Galatians had so quickly forsaken him, who had called them according to the power of the grace of Christ, for a different gospel? It was by this call of God that they had part in the glorious liberty, and in the salvation that has its realisation in heaven. It was by the redemption that Christ had accomplished and the grace that belongs to us in Him, that they enjoyed heavenly and Christian happiness. And now they were turning to an entirely different testimony; a testimony which was not another gospel, another true glad tidings. It did but trouble their minds by perverting the true gospel. “But,” says the apostle, reiterating his words on the subject, “if an angel from heaven, or he [Paul himself], preached anything besides the gospel that he had already preached to them, let him be accursed.” Observe here, that he will allow nothing in addition to that which he had preached.
They did not formally deny Christ; they wished to add circumcision. But the gospel which the apostle had preached was the complete and whole gospel. Nothing could be added to it without altering it, without saying that it was not the perfect gospel, without really adding something that was of another nature, that is to say, corrupting it. For the entirely heavenly revelation of God was what Paul had taught them. In his teaching he had completed the circle of the doctrine of God. To add anything to it was to deny its perfection; and to alter its character, to corrupt it. The apostle is not speaking of a doctrine openly opposed to it, but of that which is outside the gospel which he had preached. Thus, he says, there cannot be another gospel; it is a different gospel, but there are no glad tidings except that which he had preached. It is but a corruption of the true, a corruption by which they troubled souls. Thus, in love to souls, he could anathematise those who turned them away from the perfect truth that he had preached. It was the gospel of God Himself. Everything else was of Satan. If Paul himself brought another, let him be anathema. The pure and entire gospel was already proclaimed, and it asserted its claims in the name of God against all that pretended to associate itself with it. Did Paul seek to satisfy the minds of men in his gospel, or to please men? In no wise; he would not thus be the servant of Christ.
Footnotes for Galatians Chapter 1
1: Not “of men” what calls itself the clergy would freely admit, but not “by man” they cannot. It strikes at the root of their existence as such. They boast its descent from man, but (it is remarkable enough) none from Paul, the true minister of the assembly, and, where most insisted on, from Peter, the apostle of the circumcision. Peter was not the apostle to the Gentiles at all, and, as far as we know, never went to them.
John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 11
THE
EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS1
Read full note →
_____________
Introduction:
Address And Salutation (With Benediction)
Gal_1:1-5
1Paul, an apostle, (not [apostle not]2 of men, neither by [through, διά] man, but by [through] Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) 2[omit parenthesis] And all the brethren which [who] are with me, unto the churches 3of Galatia: [.] Grace be to you, and peace, from God the Father, and from our3 Lord Jesus Christ, 4Who gave himself for4 our sins, that he might deliver us from 5this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Gal_1:1. Paul, an apostle not of men, neither through man, etc.—His office, Paul says, is not derived from men (ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων), so as to be in itself human, and therefore subservient only to human interests; nor has it even been committed to him through the medium of any man (δι’ ἀνθρώπου), in which case it might still be a divine function, although only not directly so. The change of number is only of secondary importance. The general sense: “of human derivation,” is better expressed by the indefinite plural; while on the other hand, in denying human mediation, the singular is used with more precision, by Paul, the rather, as having already in mind the definite antithesis “but by Jesus Christ.”
This double negation is essentially only a setting forth of the definition of “Apostle.” He would be in no event an Apostle, if he had his office, ἀπʼ ἀνθρ.; nor yet, if he had it, δι’ ἀνθρ. He would then stand only on equal footing with a Timothy and others, in short with all laborers in the gospel, who are inducted into their office by men; he is an Apostle only because called and inducted into his office, through Jesus Christ, etc. He was therefore placed in his office immediately through Christ, not through a man; for the activity of Ananias in Damascus had been only secondary and subsequent, the beginnings were divine. But, furthermore he has received his office through Christ from God the Father, so that, as “through Jesus Christ” explains “not through man,” so God the Father explains “not of men.” Yet Paul does not place this θεοῦ πατρ. in express antithesis to ἀπʼ ἀνθρ., inasmuch as he does not say ἀπὸ θεοῦ π. There being on the positive side no occasion for so precise a discrimination, he here no longer distinguishes between author and medium: perhaps not without design, in order thus to set his apostleship in a like direct relation, as to Christ, so to God the Father, and thereby to place the dignity of the same so much the more strongly in view. What in the first place constitutes the apostolic office, is the immediate calling through Christ, who is the κύριος ἀποστέλλων (on which account διὰ Ἰ Χρ. is placed before καὶ πατρο̇ς). Christ Himself, certainly, cannot be reduced to the same level with men, if “not of men,” etc., is to remain true. And every thought of it is precluded by this very comprehending of Christ with God the Father, as it were, in one conception, under one preposition.
[Ellicott neatly paraphrases thus: “Not from men as an ultimate, nor through man as a mediate authority.” The second ἀπό which we should expect to find before θεοῦ πατρός has not been omitted without good reason: while the preposition διά admits an extension of meaning that would cover both ideas (Meyer), the Apostle’s language, as it stands, is more forcible; the directness of his divine commission is emphasized (Lightfoot), and although an argument for the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, must not be forced from the passage, “there is something very noticeable in this use of a common preposition with both the first and second Persons of the Trinity, by a writer so cumulative, and yet for the most part so exact in his use of prepositions as St. Paul” (Ellicott). Schaff: “By includes here the instrumental and the more remote originating cause.—The immediate coördination of Christ with God the Father, and this in contrast with the preceding men and man, prove that the Apostle regarded the Saviour as a Divine being.”—R.]
Paul here, probably, designates God the Father [i.e., “of Christ,”—R.] as who raised him from the dead, simply because through this divine act, namely, the resurrection of Christ, his own immediate vocation through Christ had been made possible (1Co_15:8). [While it is not necessary to insist on a polemic reference here, as an answer to the reproach that he had not seen Christ (Calvin), there seems to be an immediate reference to the fact that Paul was called by the exalted Christ, not that he claimed a preëminence on this account (Augustine, Erasmus, and others), but God having raised Christ from the dead, and Christ having immediately chosen him to be an Apostle, it was fitting that he should give prominence here to that act of God which enabled him also to be an Apostle, a witness of the resurrection.—R.]
This laying claim so expressly to apostolic dignity in the very introduction, stands (as is shown by what follows) in connection with the vital questions of the Epistle, since his equal apostolic rank had been impugned by the Galatian false teachers. In Gal_1:11-12 fin. there follows the detailed proof of this “not through man, but through Jesus Christ,” whereby the “not of men” is also indirectly proved. (In other Epistles, where he has not this definite purpose in mind, Paul designates himself more simply, but in substantially the same style as ἀπόστολος or κλητὸς ἀπ. Ἰ. Χρ. διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ.)
Gal_1:2. And all the brethren who are with me.—Hardly his companions in travel at that time merely, especially helpers in his office (Meyer), but rather all the Christians of his place of residence at that time. This addition has, at all events, the special purpose of adding the authority of others to his own. He wishes the Galatians to understand, that he has on his side all the brethren in the midst of whom he writes, that these have the same opinion of their conduct, and thus indicates that the Galatians, unless they came to another mind, would sever themselves from the great communion of the brethren, who stand and abide upon the foundation of faith which Paul had laid. Of course the Apostle alone wrote the Epistle. He can, however, bring in the brethren as joint authors, so far as they may, after a previous communication of the leading thoughts, or, more probably, after hearing the Epistle itself read, have signified their agreement with it. [The more restricted meaning is allowable (see Php_4:21-22, where “the brethren which are with me” are distinguished from “all the saints.”) The idea of the patristic commentators, that thus additional authority would be given, is incorrect; “the Epistle, being the product of an infallible Apostle, required no such help” (Schaff). Calvin’s remark is just, however: “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.” Ellicott: “He adopts the inclusive term to show the unanimity that was felt on the subject of the Epistle; did it mean the whole Christian community we should certainly have expected ‘with whom I am’ rather than ‘who are with me.’ ”—R.]
Unto the churches of Galatia.—The same title, 1Co_16:1. There existed there, it seems, therefore, different local congregations, of which each one constituted at least a relatively complete whole, and the Epistle was so far a circular letter. The omission of a phrase of commendation, such as is usually found in the other Epistles of the Apostle, has perhaps its ground in dissatisfaction with the Galatians. Perhaps, however, the omission is in part attributable to the external circumstance, that ἐκκλησίαι, whole congregations, are addressed, hence any such titles as κλητοί, ἅγιοι, would have been less suitable. [The dissatisfaction of the Apostle is so natural and evident a reason for the omission of any commendatory addition to the simple address, that any other explanation is farfetched. Alford quotes Meyer as saying that 1 and 2 Thess. present a similar instance, but in the 4th ed. Meyer expressly mentions these Epistles as no exceptions. Wordsworth: “a remarkable address in what it does not, as well as in what it does say.”—R.]
Gal_1:3. Grace be to you—and peace.—Respecting the Pauline form of salutation, χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη, consult remarks on the other Epistles.—From God the Father and our Lord, etc. As in Gal_1:1. Christ and the Father were comprehended under the one preposition διά, without distinction of the Father through an ἀπό, so here the reverse takes place, an evident token how little Paul has in mind a severance of the Divine Persons. Christ is by no means, then, the merely instrumental medium of grace, but, as well as the Father Himself, the Bestower of grace (see Doctrinal and Ethical notes). Here, however, “God the Father” is placed first; in Gal_1:1 the order was reversed. There is, moreover, a special reason here for placing “our Lord Jesus Christ” last, namely, that it receives in addition a predicate defining it more closely. Grace and peace, Paul wishes for the Galatians, especially in view of the path of error into which they had been led, and for this very reason with especial allusion to that, which alone secures this grace and this peace, namely, the atoning death of Christ.
Who gave Himself for us.—In this clause the Apostle anticipates the other main point which he has to unfold. Instead of regarding the cross of Christ alone as the ground of salvation, the false teachers had influenced the Galatians to seek salvation again in observance of the law. In Gal_1:1 Paul touches on the personal, here he touches on the doctrinal question, which he afterwards handles. Δόντος ἑαυτόν “gave Himself,” nothing less than His own person, which could be fully accomplished only in His death, Περί undefined: “in respect to our sins.” The sense, however, clearly appears not only from the following, “that He might deliver us,” but also in the very form of the expression, which sets forth an expiatory sacrifice that has been offered, in which Christ was the Offerer and the Offered, the Highpriest and the Sacrifice, in one person (comp. Wieseler’s careful investigation of the use of περί, ὑπέρ, ἀντί, in declarations respecting the death of Christ). [Ellicott: In its ethical sense, ὑπέρ retains some trace of its local meaning, “bending over to protect,” and thus points more immediately to the action, than to the object or circumstance from which the action is supposed to spring. The latter relation is more correctly defined by περί, which is thus more naturally used with the thing, “sins,” ὑπέρ with the persons, “sinners.” Often, however, in the N. T. the distinction is scarcely appreciable.—R.]
Gal_1:4. That He might deliver us.—Effect of the expiation accomplished through Christ.—Ἐξαιρεῖσθαι, to tear away from a power. The evil world is viewed as possessor by force, as a tyrant, who brings destruction, and in whose power we are by nature. This deliverance Paul doubtless understands in a double sense, as a making free from the moral corruption of the world, and also as a keeping from the destruction which it thereby brings upon its own at the judgment day. The immediate reference is to the latter, which, however, in view of the ethical character of Christianity, cannot take place without the former, as indeed there can be no doubt that the death of Christ has an ethical intent. It is false, however, to think only of this here.—“Present world” may mean, present or impending age. The latter signification is, however, hardly to be assumed here—contrary to Meyer, who would take it as meaning the evil times which, according to many passages of Scripture, are shortly to precede the second coming of Christ, and on this account are wont elsewhere to be called the last times. But “our phrase, on account of the union of ἐνεστώς with αἰών, is most naturally regarded as parallel with ὁ αἰὼν οῦτος or ὁ νῦν αἰών. The expression ὁ αἰών, since this appears to denote a period of time complete in itself, is nowhere used of the last times, preparatory only, as the pangs of travail, to the αἰὼν μέλλων. Nor, finally, is there in the connection the least reason why Paul should have confined the salutary workings of the redeeming death of Jesus to the last times.” (Wieseler). Therefore we must take it as, “the present period of time,” in sense the same as ὁ κόσμος, so that the translation “present world,” is substantially correct.—“Evil” emphasizes the ethical character of “this world,” which is besides included in the very conception of “the present world.” It is equivalent to “ruined by sin,” and therefore a deliverance out of it was necessary in the twofold relation given above. [Schaff: “The words contain an allusion to the Jewish distinction between ‘this world,’ and ‘the world to come,’ or the period before, and the period after the appearance of the Messiah. But the sense of these terms is modified in the N. T., so as to make the second coming of Christ the dividing line between the two æons.” Lightfoot: “The distinction of time between the two, which is the primary distinction, becomes lost in the moral and spiritual conception.” The second adjective πονηρός, emphatically placed, gives prominence to the ethical idea, especially if the better supported order of the Rec., ἐκ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος πονηροῦ, be adopted.—R.]
According to the will of God and our Father.—It is best to connect this with the whole of Gal_1:4. It refers the redeeming work as a whole to the gracious will of the Father, and thus cuts off every ground of objection against this work from the legal point of view. The thought of this redemptive counsel of the Father moves him very naturally, then, to the concluding doxology.—In τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, ἡμῶν belongs probably only to πατρός. By θεός God is meant to be designated as the God of all alike; by πατήρ, according to His special relation to the Christian. By the prefixed article two predicates are ascribed to the same person. The same who is God is also our Father. [Lightfoot argues from the absence of the article before πατρός, that ἡμῶν belongs to both nouns, but as Ellicott well remarks, “πατήρ is anarthrous according to rule.” Calvin, Meyer and most, restrict the pronoun to Father, giving the last words somewhat of a predicative force: “God, who is our Father.” It is to be remarked that in Gal_1:1-3 Paul speaks of “God the Father,” i.e., the Father of Christ—but having in this verse spoken of the redemptive act of Christ, and its redeeming design for us he calls God, who has purposed this “our Father.”—Wordsworth: “Specially our Father by the redemption of us His children by the blood of His Son.”—R.]
Gal_1:5. To whom be glory.—To be taken as optative; for δόξα means Honor, Praise—not Essential Glory, although it is true that the δόξα which should be given to God, rests upon the δόξα which He has. [Schaff: “The doxology in this place is likewise an indirect reproof of the Galatians for dividing the glory of our salvation between God and man.” It is an affirmation rather than a wish. There can be no reasonable doubt that τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων here is an expression for eternity.—R.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The Apostolate. a. An essential characteristic of the apostolate was the immediate “call” through Christ, as whose “delegates” the apostles went out into the world with that proclamation of the Gospel, which should lay the foundation of all that followed. Hence the express assertion here (and afterwards the detailed proof) of this immediate calling. For this, if for no other reason, the office of the Apostles was specifically distinct from all others.5 In the office of preacher in these days, there always occurs a “call” διʼ ἀνθρώπου. The office, however, is not on this account ἀπʼ ἀνθρώπων, nor should any bearer of it thus regard it. It is on the contrary “from” “Jesus Christ and God the Father,” is divina institutio.
b. In the decision and certainty with which Paul insists upon his apostolic rank, there is implied, on the one hand, a justifiable sense of personal dignity in opposition to all who would question it, and especially to false teachers: “I am an Apostle and nothing less.” This personal feeling, however, was certainly counterpoised at once, by the feeling of humility in view of the momentous duties involved, for the discharge of which grace alone could give strength. But, above all, the Apostle lays stress on this his dignity, not in his personal interest, but in the interest of his Lord, and the gospel of his Lord; in order to shield this against the “perverting” (Gal_1:7) of the false teachers, he is forced to lay this emphasis on the fact that he is really an Apostle of Christ, and therefore was such in his preaching of the gospel.
c. The care with which he proves his fundamental authority and capacity for preaching the gospel, is a pledge to us of the soundness of this preaching. The Christian church has, therefore, in this foundation laid by the Apostle, a standard for all time by which to prove doctrine.
d. That Christ has been raised, and now lives, is the fundamental truth, which to the Apostle stands immovably firm, and on which rests, for Paul, the certainty of his calling, and for him and the other Apostles the vigor and joyfulness of their labor in their vocation. For the Apostles were in a special sense to be witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus, and to be persuaded of it by a personal beholding of the Risen One. It was only because the risen Jesus had appeared to him, that Paul was an Apostle.
2. The brethren. This strong emphasizing of his particular vocation (or office) does not imply the least prejudice to his brotherly relation toward other Christians, who have no such vocation. Far from it. Paul not only mentions them in immediate connection with himself, including himself and them in the same salutation, but even treats them as fellow-writers, hence as those who, together with him, impart instruction and admonition, thus strengthening the weight of his own words by their concurrence. He is only called to preach what, as the substance of his faith, is the substance of theirs also; and he wishes to bring back his erring readers to the same faith in which these, his companions, stand and have remained firm. [Their concurrence could add nothing to the real authority of his apostolic teaching, but might aid in establishing that authority among the Galatians. Yet the Apostle seems fond of thus associating others of lower rank with himself in his Epistles.—R.] Here is a hint for the behavior of office-bearers towards other Christians now as well; in personal conduct, to regard and treat them as “brethren,” standing on precisely the same footing; to lay claim to no precedence; and in official activity also, while maintaining full consciousness of their own special vocation, and of the authority inherent in it, never to ignore the might which dwells in the personal faith and believing life of the members of the Church, when there is an opportunity of joining them with one’s self in exhortation and rebuke.
3. “Churches” still. Paul, it is true, gives to the Galatian Christians no especial title of honor, “yet he still counts them worthy to be called churches, because, though they were indeed for the most part fallen from the truth in some main points, they had, notwithstanding this, retained many parts of the pure Christian doctrine; he cherishes then the hope that they would still suffer themselves to be brought right again” (Starke). Hence important doctrinal and ethical defects of a church do not of themselves warrant us in withholding or withdrawing from it the predicate ἐκκλησία. A judgment, whether in any place there is the Church of Christ or not, depends, although largely, yet not in the chief degree, upon subjective character, but in the chief degree stand the objective factors, namely, that verbum divinum recte docetur, and sacramenta recte administrantur. This, as is well known, is one of Luther’s prime principles. In the objective factors, there certainly resides the power (even if latent) to work subjectively.—Yet it cannot therefore be denied that there may be, notwithstanding, a subjective character of the congregation as respects doctrine and morals, where the predicate ἐκκλησία ceases to be applicable; we cannot, however, pronounce a judgment thereon, but must leave this to the searcher of hearts, so far as it is not a question of scandalous offences in the case of individuals.
4. God and Christ. Both in Gal_1:1 and in Gal_1:3, Christ is placed in the closest connection with God the Father; and in Gal_1:3 in such a way that Grace and Peace are invoked in the same manner from God the Father, and from Christ. From this appears, in immediate certainty, the eminent, godlike position of Christ. For the highest and best things, those which are needful for all men, proceed from Him, as much as from the Father. As respects grace, as much depends on His dispositions towards us, as on those of the Father. As Christ is thus placed with the Father on one Divine level, so is the Father, on the other side, placed on the same level with the Son, who, through His Incarnation, has drawn so near to us. Luther: “Therefore Paul, in wishing grace and peace not only from God the Father, but also from Jesus Christ, teacheth, first, that we should abstain from the curious searching of the Divine Majesty (for God no man knoweth), and hear Christ, who is in the bosom of the Father, and uttereth to us His will.”
5. Christ’s giving Himself. The expression for the death of Christ is here (Gal_1:4) so chosen, that it appears as His own free act, while, as is known, there runs parallel to the series of passages which apprehend it thus, another representing it as something decreed by God concerning Christ, representing Christ as burdened with the Father’s curse (comp. Gal_3:13). This designation is here chosen, in order to render prominent and bring home to the hearts of the Galatians the great love of Christ, displayed in His “giving Himself for us.” “The giving of Himself consisted of many actions, from the incarnation on, but it applies especially to his atoning death.” This “giving Himself”—this morally great act was occasioned by our sins, our moral perversion; a cutting contrast, and yet a necessary nexus between cause and effect!—For its intent was to procure a remedy for our sins, and their ruinous results.
6. This present evil world. Through our sins we belong to this present evil world, bear its character, and are in its power, that is, through it and with it are going to destruction. From this destroying might Christ would rescue us, and has rescued us, by His giving Himself for our sins, that is, through the reconciliation thus accomplished for our sins; because we, when reconciled, lie no longer under the judgment of God upon the sinful world, and therefore do not go with it to ruin. Undoubtedly Christ had in view besides, an inward, moral deliverance from the corrupt course of the world; yet this is the secondary aim; the primary is the deliverance from judgment and perdition.—God’s acts of grace, according to the Biblical view, are throughout directed, first of all, toward a deliverance from destruction, and consequently to the impartation of a good, of a definite happy destiny, not chiefly to the rehabilitation of certain ethical qualities, of a particular direction of life and will. They are directed thus, in a certain measure, towards an outward end, with which however an inward one is inseparably connected, as the economy of the Spirit, whose work it is to bring forth the corresponding ethical quality, is, although inseparable from that of the Father and the Son, yet distinct from it, presupposing it. The deliverance from the evil world, is, so far as concerns its being won, already accomplished by the sacrifice of Christ. Of course a participation in this is only gained through faith (this is implied in ἡμᾶς, which refers to believers), and is actually perfected only on the coming in of the αἰὼν μέλλων. A certain pledge and a joyful foretaste of it, however, the believer has already in justification, because this is an assurance of the divine grace. As to the rest, the apostolical expectation of the αἰὼν μέλλων as near lies at the foundation of this passage. [Whatever indications there may be elsewhere of “this apostolical expectation,” neither the words nor context show any trace of it here, except on the view of Meyer, which refers “present evil world” to the times of danger immediately preceding the second coming of Christ, a view which is not adopted by Schmoller himself, nor by any other commentator of note.—R.]
7. Redemption according to God’s will. The work of redemption was accomplished “according to the will” of the Father. This indicates the other side in the redeeming work, alluded to under 6, namely, that the death of Christ was also decreed to Him, by God for an expiation, and that Christ’s “giving Himself” was accordingly, at the same time an act of obedience to the Father’s will, a suffering Himself to be given up. Love to man and obedience to the Father, all in one, was the source of His sacrifice of Himself. This view is in full harmony with the declarations of Christ Himself, especially in John, with the emphasis which He lays on His having been sent, on His doing the will of the Father. There was nothing whatever self-elected in the redeeming work of Christ; it was a God-appointed work.—In this it first finds its firm, immovable foundation, and all scruples as to the availing worth of this self-sacrifice of Christ before God are taken away from the troubled conscience. At the same time, all clinging to such scruples is also condemned, as a striving against the will of God. We may, but we also ought to believe in the atoning death of Christ; hence especially, we ought not to lessen its significance by a righteousness of works. This will of God is the will that we should be saved, according to which, He willed both the way that should lead to our salvation, Christ’s dying on account of our sins, and also the result, our redemption. It was a loving will, but also a will of holy love, condemning sin and forgiving it; the latter only on the foundation of the former, but the former also for the sake of the latter. Because aiming at our salvation it was in any case the will of God our Father.
8. God’s honor its end. As and because the will of God is the origin of the work of redemption, so the honor of God is its aim. That He, His name, be honored, is the purpose and result of redemption. To Him belongeth honor—and that honor forever—for redemption, and such honor will be rendered Him by the Redeemed. The phrase εἰς τοὺς αἰω̈ν. τ. αἰών. no doubt looks forward to the αἰὼν μέλλων. The expression is, however, thus indefinitely framed, in order, far as the language admits, to express an eternal duration. There is nothing in this, of course, against the division found elsewhere, into simply two æons, present and future.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Gal_1:1. Starke:—To all peculiarly spiritual offices belongs a divine vocation. Every man may take comfort in the consciousness of his office and calling, and also appeal to it when there is need. Let no one deem this pride or boasting.—Spener:—Christ is the founder of the preacher’s office. He is the King in His Kingdom, and so sends whom He will. He is the Chief Shepherd, and therefore all under shepherds must be appointed by Him. He has obtained by His merits the spiritual power needed for the ministry, and has received the Holy Ghost to that end for our sakes. It is He, therefore, who speaks through His servants.—Luther:—Wert thou wiser than Solomon and Daniel, yet until thou art called, flee the sacred ministry, as thou wouldst hell and the devil, then wilt thou not spill the word of God to no purpose. If God needs thee, He will know how to call thee.—Lange:—To be sure of one’s divine, although only mediate vocation, is a weighty matter, and gives to the conscience rest, in the office blessing, and to vindication of the same and of the pure doctrine, much joyfulness.—Würt. Summ.:—There is a twofold vocation to the ministry; both are of God, who will have the gospel preached to the end of the world; but some are called of God without means, of which sort are the patriarchs, prophets, apostles; and some through men, although according to God’s commandment and ordinance.—Rieger:—As certainly as every believer shall be taught of God, so that what he has apprehended from human instruction is confirmed in his heart with divine impressions and powerful workings, just so certainly must every teacher have in his conscience a divine seal upon his vocation, although derived through men, and on this account a joyfulness which his hearers cannot impeach.
The apostolate in its high significance; 1. for the founding, 2. for the continuance of the Christian church which must perpetually rest upon the foundation of the apostolic doctrine.—The divine vocation to office: 1. To have it, is under all circumstances needful; 2.To be certain of it, is often important; 3. To appeal to it, may often be right and proper.—How independent (of men), and yet at the same time, how dependent (on God), the preacher of the gospel is and knows himself (may and should know himself) to be!—Even so the Christian generally: he is what he is, not from men (although through men), for not natural descent nor outward fellowship makes him such—but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.—Christian sense of personal worth: 1. its justification, 2. its limits.—All through Jesus Christ! a) humbling truth—not through us; b) exalting truth—through no less a one than Christ, and thereby through the Highest, God.—[Calvin:—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.—Burkitt:—Behold the peculiar prerogative of St. Paul above the rest of the Apostles; they were called by Christ in the day of His humiliation; but he was called by Christ when sitting at His Father’s right hand in heaven. As his call was thus very extraordinary, so his gifts were answerable to his call.—R.]
Gal_1:2. Würt. Summ.:—Although the truth of a doctrine does not rest upon the multitude of people, but alone upon God’s word, yet, when many support a doctrine founded in God’s word, the weak in the faith are noticeably strengthened thereby, because they see that not merely one or two, but many, confess such a doctrine.—Spener:—Christians are “brethren” to each other; for they have one Heavenly Father, one first-born brother, Christ; one mother‚ the Christian church; one seed of regeneration, the divine word; one inheritance of eternal life. That is a more intimate and strict brotherhood than the common one among all men.—Starke:—In names and titles we must give good heed not willingly to commit falsehood, nor attribute to any one, praise that does not belong to him; yet common and authorized titles must be understood not in absolute strictness, but according to common use.—spener:—There remains even in a loose crowd a Christian church, even though grave errors, which remove the ground of faith are found there, so long as God’s word and the holy sacraments are there and are maintained.
On Gal_1:1-2. Let us hear, when we begin to waver in the truth: 1. Apostolic doctrine; 2. The testimony of brethren!—Apostolic doctrine and the voice of brethren; an admonition to every church to abide in the evangelical truth.
Ver.3. Rieger:—Paul flees in this perplexity to the riches of God in Christ Jesus, and entrusts to the grace and the peace from thence, the restoration of the Galatians also; with this greeting, as with a cordial, he not only refreshes their hearts but quickens himself also to a confidence towards God in Christ.—Würt. Summ. We see here where we must begin, when after sin committed we will come to God for grace; namely, not with ourselves, not with our piety! for if we had kept this, we should be already in favor with God, nor even with God Himself out of Christ, for He is to sinners a consuming fire, but alone with Christ, and His bitter passion and death for our sins.—Luther:—Paul wishes the Galatians grace and peace, not from the emperor or kings and princes; for these are wont ofttimes to persecute the godly: nor does he wish them grace and peace from the world, for in the world they shall have tribulation; but from God our Father, that is, he wishes them a godly and heavenly peace.—Lange:—True peace can never exist without grace, for grace is the ground and source of peace; on the other hand there is grace sometimes without peace, especially with the tempted, who may, for awhile fall into great disquietness of soul, and yet remain in God’s grace.
Gal_1:4. starke—If Christ has for our sakes given His all, ah! should not we surrender ourselves, with all that in us is, to Him? Man! keep thyself from sin, on account of which Christ hath endured so much, lest thou thyself bring to nought for Him this great work, for which He came.—Luther—mark diligently the word: “for our.” For therein lies all the virtue, namely, that all which is said concerning us in the Holy Scriptures, in such passages as “for me,” “for us,” “for our sin,” and the like, we should know how to take well in mind, and apply particularly to ourselves, and hold fast thereto by faith.—For thou hast, no doubt, easily brought thyself to believe that Christ, God’s Son, was given for St. Peter’s, St. Paul’s, and other saints’ sins, who were worthy of such grace; but, contrariwise it is especially and thoroughly hard, that thou, for thine own person, a poor, unworthy, condemned sinner, shouldst from thine heart certainly believe, hold, and say, that Christ, God’s Son was given for thy so many and so great sins, who yet nevertheless hast never yet been worthy of such grace.—Therefore should we well train and prepare our hearts with this utterance and the like utterances of St. Paul, that when the devil hereafter comes and accuses us and says: “See, you are a sinner, therefore you must be damned!” we may meet him and answer, “yea, good devil, for the very reason that you accuse me and will be condemning me for a sinner, for that reason will I be righteous and holy, be not damned, but saved the rather. For in this very thing, that you tell me how I am a poor sinner, and a great one, you give me a sword and weapon in hand wherewith I can mightily overcome you, yea, slay you and put you under my feet with your own arms. For if you can tell me that I am a poor sinner, I can say to you again, that Christ died for sinners.”—Count these words of St. Paul as said in earnest, and to be true, and not as a dream, when he says that the world is evil, although many people therein have many noble, beautiful, virtues; and although in outward guise and appearance there is much holiness and brilliant excellence.—To this evil world belongs also all art, wisdom, righteousness, &c., of a godless man. Thy wisdom, which thou hast out of Christ, is a double folly, thy righteousness is a double sin and godlessness, since it knows nothing of the wisdom and righteousness of Christ, and since, over and above this, it darkens, hinders, reviles and persecutes you; wherefore St. Paul may well name the world an evil world; for it is the worst when it will be at the best and most pious. In the religious, wise and learned men, it will be at its most pious and best, and yet it is twice as wicked.
Berlenb. Bible:—Of this present evil world, ordinances of religion form no small part, of which much is instituted whereby men will take one another captive to the spirit of the world. Without religion nevertheless will the world not be; so it dresses up such things as may be congruous with flesh and blood; but true religion burdens and depresses it. Thus the deliverance takes place especially from the Pharisaic leaven.
Starke:—See how availing and certain is our redemption and salvation, because it proceeds from the will of the Father: how can that be unavailing, which has come to pass according to His will.
[Schaff:—God is our Father because He is the Father (not simply of Jesus Christ which would place him on a par with us, but) of our Lord Jesus Christ.—R.]
Gal_1:5. As often as we think on the great work of redemption, we should heartily praise God; and therefore should we often think thereon; that we may be powerfully excited to praise.—To praise God is the best divine service; it is that which must endure unto eternity. Happy he who begins it here, and prepares himself thereby for a blessed eternity. It is a proof that he knows God aright, and has become partaker of His grace, and that he will one day come to the heavenly choirs of angels who praise God.
Jesus’ giving Himself to death: 1. Its occasion (our sins); 2. Its purpose (our deliverance therefrom); or: 1. the strongest testimony against us (our sin); 2. the mightiest consolation for us; or: 1. Its great effect (to deliver us from this evil world); 2. Whence it has this effect (as being a satisfying and bearing and thereby a taking away of the divine wrath; 3. in whom it is thus effectual (only in those who are His in faith).—What defends us from being lost with this evil world? 1. Not our own righteousness whereby we only entangle ourselves in this evil world the more, but 2. Christ’s sacrificial death alone.—The appropriation of the merits of Christ: 1. Every one needs it on account of his sins; 2. The sinner needs it precisely as sinner.—Jesus Christ the Deliverer out of the power of this present evil world: 1. The world the tyrant in whose power we are; 2. Christ the Deliverer that has appeared.—Evil—the character of this world: 1. Therefore the Christian in this world longs for the world to come; 2. He must how-over be delivered from this present world, in order to enter the world to come.—Redemption through Christ rests upon the will of God: 1. A rich consolation (against all doubts); 2. An earnest admonition: Whoever lightly esteems the redemption accomplished through Christ, sins thereby against the will of God Himself.—The honor which is due to God for the redemption in Christ.—The praise of God: 1. a fruit of the redeemed state; 2. a proof of the same.—The praise which the redeemed bring to God: 1. begins in time; 2. continues into eternity.
Gal_1:3-5. Lisco:—The Apostle’s invocation of blessings for his churches: 1. What does it contain? The greatest benefits which are bestowed by God on man. 2. On what is this invocation grounded? a. On the free will offering of Christ. b. On the gracious counsel of God, to redeem us by such offering.—The benediction of the Apostle: 1. A proof his hearty love: even to the unthankful, who through their apostasy have so troubled him, he wishes the best things; 2. A proof of his standing fast in the truth: in direct opposition to them he held fast so much the more definitely the evangelical truth, of redemption through Christ’s death alone, and points them to that in contrast with their erroneous opinions.—Right wishing: 1. wishes true benefits; 2. points to the true source of such benefits.—The right behavior toward those who are disposed to depart from the truth: to open the heart fully to them in expressions of desire, full of divine blessing, before closing with and combatting their errors.
Gal_1:1-5. The appearance of the Apostle against the Galatians: 1. in the full dignity of his office, at the same time, however, associating the brethren with himself; 2. with the full love of his heart, at the same time conceding nothing of the truth.
Footnotes:
[1][Title: Rec. ἡ πρὸς Γαλάτας ἐπιστολὴ Παύλου. Elz. Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἡ πρὸς Γαλάτας ἐπιστολή. א. A. B. K., Lachmann, Tischendorf and most editors, πρὸς Γαλάτας.—R.]
[2]Gal_1:1.—[The comma after “apostle” and the parenthesis are better omitted, since the clauses immediately following “Apostle” are most closely connected with it, and the idea so far from being parenthetical is one of the most prominent in the whole Epistle. “Of” is changed to “from” by Ellicott, while he retains “by” as a sufficiently exact translation of διά—R.]
[3]Gal_1:3.—א. inserts ἡμῶν after πατρός, omitting it after κυρίου. [This reading is an alteration to conform with other salutations (Meyer). That of Rec. is undoubtedly correct. So all modern editors.—R.]
[4]Gal_1:4.—Περί (instead of Rec.) is found in most MSS. and in the best MSS. א also, though א3., reads ὑπέρ. [The external authorities are decisive against the reading of the Rec; περί is adopted by modern editors almost universally.—R.]
[5]It is one of the anti-scriptural fancies of the Irvingites to believe, notwithstanding this, in the reappearance of Apostles proper in their churches. Wieseler. [In Lightfoot, p. 92 sq., there is an interesting discussion on “the name and office of an Apostle.” He, however, objects to the restriction of the office to the twelve, with only the exception of St. Paul, adducing the apostleship of Barnabas, and implying that “James, the Lord’s brother” (Gal_1:19) was an Apostle, even, though not the same as James, the son of Alpheus. This position is not safe, nor is it accordant with the argument of Paul in this Epistle, where he lays so much stress upon the “immediate call.” Lightfoot is forced, therefore, to deny the necessity for a call from an outward personal communication with our Lord, though his admission that the having seen Christ was a necessary qualification, is a denial of the perpetuation of the office. It is better to hold that there were but Twelve Apostles, to whom was added, by direct call, Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles—Barnabas and others were “apostolic men.” On the relation of Paul to the original college of apostles, see Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church, p. 512 sq., p. 233 sq. His note p. 234 is appropriate here: “The strict hierarchical view, which always looks for an outward, palpable succession, admits no satisfactory explanation of the fact, that the Apostles had no share whatever in the ordination of Paul after his conversion (Act_9:17), and in his being sent to the Gentiles by the Church of Antioch (Act_13:3). The divine irregularity of his call, and the subsequent independence of his labors, make Paul, so to speak, a prototype of evangelical Protestantism, which has always looked to him as its main authority, as Romanism to Peter.”—R.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2–24 all the brethren--I am not alone in my doctrine;…
all the brethren--I am not alone in my doctrine; all my colleagues in the Gospel work, travelling with me (Act 19:29, Gaius and Aristarchus at Ephesus: Act 20:4, Sopater, Secundus, Timotheus, Tychicus, Trophimus, some, or all of these), join with me. Not that these were joint authors with Paul of the Epistle: but joined him in the sentiments and salutations. The phrase, "all the brethren," accords with a date when he had many travelling companions, he and they having to bear jointly the collection to Jerusalem [CONYBEARE and HOWSON].
the churches--Pessinus and Ancyra were the principal cities; but doubtless there were many other churches in Galatia (Act 18:23; Co1 16:1). He does not attach any honorable title to the churches here, as elsewhere, being displeased at their Judaizing. See First Corinthians; First Thessalonians, &c. The first Epistle of Peter is addressed to Jewish Christians sojourning in Galatia (Pe1 1:1), among other places mentioned. It is interesting thus to find the apostle of the circumcision, as well as the apostle of the uncircumcision, once at issue (Gal 2:7-15), co-operating to build up the same churches.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1–24 Superscription and Address, Gal_1:1-5.
Superscription and Address, Gal_1:1-5.
WHEN this epistle was read in their assemblies the Galatians would hear, in the very naming of the apostle by himself, and in his greeting, an intense assertion both of his disputed apostleship and of the atonement through Christ; both of which their apostasy to circumcision had invalidated. The keynote of the whole epistle is struck, to their ears, at the start.
Read full note →
1. Of men… by man—The translation should be, from men, as the source; through man, (rather than by,) as the instrument. His apostleship had no human origin, no human medium.
But by—Rather, through, as the instrument.
God the Father—As Christ is Son in the Trinity, the Father is still named with a through, as the agent or instrument. For though God is truly source as well as agent, yet the apostle here names him as agent, solely because it is human instrumentality he wishes to shut out from the Galatian mind, and the divine to assert.
Raised him from the dead—That he might be dispenser of grace and apostleship from on high.
Dead—With a from, or out from, and without the article in the plural. See note on Luk_20:35.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–24 1–5. Introduction. Salutation and ascription of praise
1–5. Introduction. Salutation and ascription of praise
1. Paul, an apostle] In the opening of this Epistle, as of those to the Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians and Timothy, St Paul designates himself an Apostle. Elsewhere he either adds no descriptive epithet to his name, or he is a bondservant of Christ Jesus (Php_1:1), or of God (Tit_1:1), or a prisoner of Christ Jesus (Phm_1:1). In the present instance the addition is not without reference to the circumstances under which he wrote. His authority had been impugned, and a great fundamental doctrine of the Gospel perverted. The former must be asserted, that the latter may be maintained.
Read full note →
an apostle] Lit. ‘a messenger’. The title was given by our Lord Himself (Luk_6:13) to twelve chosen by Himself out of the number of His disciples. The qualifications for the office are (1) a Divine call (Luk_6:13; Joh_15:16; Act_1:2; Act_1:24); (2) a personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus, as the Risen Saviour (Act_1:21-22; 1Co_9:6); (3) the inspiration and infallible teaching of the Holy Ghost (Joh_14:26; Joh_16:13); (4) a Divine commission (Act_22:21; Act_26:16-18). On the wider use of the term see Bp. Lightfoot, Gal. pp. 91–97.
not of men, … the dead] ‘Not of men’, rather, not from men. Unlike the false apostles, he did not go forth commissioned by men, as their messenger, or as deriving his authority from them; nor again was he sent ‘by man’ (abstract, not concrete; as in Joh_2:25). Paul commissioned others, because himself not commissioned by other men.
but by Jesus Christ] A clear proof of the proper Deity of the Lord Jesus. As Jesus was the source from which, so was He also the channel through which St Paul derived his authority. The occasion on which he received this authority was doubtless his miraculous conversion. It is however instructive to observe that even this Divine call and appointment did not supersede the outward commission and ‘investiture’ ‘through the medium of the Church’ (Act_13:2). The latter, while owing all its value to the former, is distinctly stated to have taken place by the express direction of the Holy Ghost.
“The Apostles are both ‘from Christ’ and ‘through Christ;’ their disciples (and all regular teachers of the Church) are ‘from Christ,’ but ‘through man;’ the false teachers are ‘from men’ and ‘through man.’ Paul’s call was just as direct as that of the Twelve; but the Judaizers, in their tendency to overrate external forms and secondary causes, laid great stress upon the personal intercourse with Christ in the days of His flesh, and hence they were disposed either to declare Paul a pseudoapostle, or at least to subordinate him to the Twelve, especially to Peter and James.” Dr Schaff.
and God the Father … dead] It may at first sight surprise us that St Paul should thus closely unite God the Father with Jesus Christ, as the channel or agency by which he received his commission. But the difficulty is removed by the addition of the words, ‘Who raised Him from the dead.’ Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power … by” i.e. as the result of “the resurrection from the dead”. The hypostatic union of the Father and the Son is presupposed (Joh_10:30). “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.” If then St Paul had received his apostolic commission ‘by’ the Risen Christ who “appeared to him on the way”, he might truly be said to have received it ‘by’ God the Father. Luther ascribes the addition of these words to St Paul’s “burning desire to set forth even in the very entry of his epistle, the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to preach the righteousness of God”. “He was raised again for our justification,” Rom_4:25.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–24 (1) An apostle.—This title is evidently to be taken…
(1) An apostle.—This title is evidently to be taken here in its strictest sense, as St. Paul is insisting upon his equality in every respect with the Twelve. The word was also capable of a less exclusive use, in which the Apostle would seem to be distinguished from the Twelve (1Co_15:5; 1Co_15:7). In this sense Barnabas and James the Lord’s brother, possibly also Andronicus and Junias in Rom_16:7, were called “Apostles.”
Not of men, neither by man.—Two distinct prepositions are used:—“not of” (i.e., from) “men,” in the sense of the ultimate source from which authority is derived; “neither by” (or, through) “man,” with reference to the channel or agency by which it is conveyed. Thus we speak of the Queen as the “fount” of honour, though honour may be conferred by the ministry acting in her name. The kind of honour which St. Paul held (his Apostleship) was such as could be derived only from God; nor was any human instrumentality made use of in conferring it upon him. His appointment to the Apostolate is connected by St. Paul directly with the supernatural appearance which met him upon the way to Damascus. The part played by Ananias was too subordinate to introduce a human element into it; and the subsequent “separation” of Paul and Barnabas for the mission to the Gentiles, though the act of the Church at Antioch, was dictated by the Holy Ghost, and was rather the assignment of a special sphere than the conferring of a new office and new powers.
Read full note →
By Jesus Christ.—The preposition here, as in the last clause, is that which is usually taken to express the idea of mediate agency. It represents the channel down which the stream flows, not the fountain-head from which it springs. Hence it is applied appropriately to Christ as the Logos, or Word, through whom God the Father communicates with men as the divine agent in the work of creation, redemption, revelation. (See Joh_1:3; 1Co_8:6; Heb_1:2, et al.) It is also applied to men as the instruments for carrying out the divine purposes. The intervention of Jesus Christ took place in the vision through which, from a persecutor, St. Paul became a “chosen vessel” for the propagation of the gospel.
And God the Father—i.e., and by (or, through) God the Father; the same preposition governing the whole clause. We should naturally have expected the other preposition (“of,” or “from”), which signifies source, and not this, which signifies instrumentality; and it would have been more usual with the Apostle to say, “from God,” and “by, or through, Christ.” But God is at once the remote and the mediate, or efficient, cause of all that is done in carrying out His own designs. “Of him, and through him, and to him are all things” (Rom_11:36).
The Father.—This is to be taken in the sense in which our Lord Himself spoke of God as “My Father,” with reference to the peculiar and unique character of His own sonship—the Father, i.e., of Christ, not of all Christians, and still less, as the phrase is sometimes used, of all men. This appears from the context. The title is evidently given for the sake of contradistinction; and it is noticeable that at this very early date the same phrase is chosen as that which bore so prominent a place in the later creeds and the theology of which they were the expression.
Who raised him from the dead.—Comp. Rom_1:4 : “Declared to be the Son of God with power . . . by the resurrection from the dead.” The resurrection is the act which the Apostle regards as completing the divine exaltation of Christ. It is this exaltation, therefore, which seems to be in his mind. He had derived his own authority directly from God and Christ as sharers of the same divine majesty. It was not the man Jesus by whom it had been conferred upon him, but the risen and ascended Saviour, who, by the fact of his resurrection, was “declared to be the Son of God with power.” So that the commission of the Apostle was, in all respects, divine and not human.
I.
(1-5) It is no self-constituted teacher by whom the Galatians are addressed, but an Apostle who, like the chosen Twelve, had received his commission, not from any human source or through any human agency, but directly from God and Christ. As such, he and his companions that are with him give Christian greeting to the Galatian churches, invoking upon them the highest of spiritual blessings from God, the common Father of all believers, and that Redeemer whose saving work they denied and, by their relapse into the ways of the world around them, practically frustrated.
St. Paul had a two-fold object in writing to the Galatians. They had disparaged his authority, and they had fallen back from the true spiritual view of Christianity—in which all was due to the divine grace and love manifested in the death of Christ—to a system of Jewish ceremonialism. And at the very outset of his Epistle, in the salutation itself, the Apostle meets them on both these points. On the one hand, he asserts the divine basis of the authority which he himself claimed; and on the other, he takes occasion to state emphatically the redeeming work of Christ, and its object to free mankind from those evil surroundings into the grasp of which the Galatians seemed again to be falling.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1–24 Vers. 1-5. The introductory greeting. The style of this…
Vers. 1-5. The introductory greeting. The style of this greeting, compared with those found in St. Paul"s other Epistles, gives indications of his having addressed himself to the composition of the letter under strong perturbation of feeling. This transpires in the abruptness with which, at the very outset, he at once sweeps aside, as it were, out of his path, a slur east upon his apostolic commission, in protesting that he was "apostle, not from man nor through a man." It appears again in that impetuous negligence of exact precision of language, with which the mention of "God the Father" is conjoined with that of "Jesus Christ" under the one preposition "through," as the medium through which his apostleship had been conferred upon him. We cannot help receiving the impression that the apostle had only just before received that intelligence from Galatia which called forth from him the letter, and that he set himself to its composition while the strong emotions which the tidings had produced were still fresh in his mind. That these emotions were those of indignant grief and displeasure is likewise evident. He will not, indeed, withhold the salutation which in all Christian and ministerial courtesy was due from him in addressing what, notwithstanding all, were still Churches of Christ. But all such expressions of affectionate feeling he does withhold, and all such sympathetic reference to matters and individuals of personal interest, as in almost every other Epistle he is seen indulging himself in, and which are not even then found wanting, when, as in the ease of the Corinthians, he has occasion to administer much and strong rebuke. No such sympathetic reference, we observe, is found here. As soon as he has penned the salutation, itself singularly cold in respect to those he is addressing, he at once proceeds, in ver. 6, to assail his readers with words of indignant reproach.
Paul, an apostle (Paulov ajpostolov); Paul, apostle. The designation of "apostle," as here appropriated by St. Paul in explanation of his right to authoritatively address those he was writing to, points to a function with which he was permanently invested, and which placed him in a relation to these Galatian Churches which no other apostle ever occupied. Some years later, indeed, when St. Peter had occasion to address these same Churches, together with others in neighbouring countries, he likewise felt himself authorized to do it on the score of his apostolical character; ("Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ," 1Pe_1:1) but there is nothing to show that St. Peter had any personal relations with them at present. Under these circumstances, it is perhaps best in translation to prefix no article at all before "apostle." This designation of himself as "apostle" St. Paul subjoined to his name in almost all of his Epistles subsequent to the two addressed to the Thessalonians. The only exceptions are those to the Philippians and to Philemon, in writing to whom there was less occasion for introducing it. He had now, in the third of his three great journeys recorded in the Acts, assumed openly in the Church the position of an apostle in the highest sense. In several of these Epistles. (1Co_1:1; 2Co_1:1; Eph_1:1; 2Ti_1:1) to the designation of apostle, St. Paul adds the words," through (dia) the will of God;" i.e. by means of an express volition of God explicitly revealed. In what way God had revealed this to be his will is clearly intimated in this letter to the Galatians, in which the words," through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead," which take the place of the formula, "through the will of God," found elsewhere, indicate that it was through Jesus Christ raised from the dead that this particular volition of God was declared and brought to eft; set. The formula referred to, "through the will of God," was apparently introduced with the view of confronting those who were disposed to question his right to claim this supreme form of apostleship, with the aegis of Divine authorization: they had God to reckon with. The like is the purport of the substituted words inpwn 1Ti_1:1, "According to the commandment of God our Saviour, and Christ Jesus our Hope." Not of men, neither by man (oujk ajp ajnqrw oujdepou); not from men, neither through a man. The preposition "from" (ajpo) points to the primary fountain of the delegation referred to; "through" (dia) to the medium through which it was conveyed. The necessity for this twofold negation arose from the fact that the word "apostle," as I have had occasion fully to set forth elsewhere, was frequently among Christians applied to messengers deputed by Churches, or, probably, even by some important representative officer in the Church, whether on a mission for the propagation of the gospel or for the discharge at some distant place of matters of business connected with the Christian cause. St. Paul had himself frequently served in this lower form of apostleship, both as commissioned by the Church to carry abroad the message of the gospel, and also as deputed to go to and fro between Churches on errands of charity or for the settlement of controversies. In either ease he as well as others acting in the like capacity, would very naturally and properly be spoken of as an "apostle" by others, as we actually find him to have been; as also he would appear to have been ready on this same account so to designate himself, That he was an "apostle" in this sense none probably would have been minded to dispute. Why should they? His having, even repeatedly, held this kind of subordinate commission did not of itself give him a greater importance than attached to many ethers who had held the same. Neither did it invest his statements of religious truth with a higher sanction than theirs. This last was the point which, in St. Paul"s own estimation, gave the question of the real nature of his apostleship its whole significance. Was he a commissioned envoy of men, deputed to convey to others a message of theirs? or was he an envoy commissioned immediately by Christ to convey to the world a message which likewise was received immediately from Christ? Those who disputed his statements of religious doctrine might admit that he had been deputed to preach the gospel by Christian Churches or by eminently representative leaders of the Church, while they nevertheless asserted that he had misrepresented, or perhaps misapprehended, the message entrusted to him. At all events, they would be at liberty to affirm that the statements he made in delivering his message were subject to an appeal on the part of his hearers to the human authorities who had delegated him. If he owed alike his commission and his message to (say) the Church of Antioch, or to the Church at Jerusalem, or to the twelve, or to James the Lord"s brother, or to other leaders whomsoever of the venerable mother Church, then it followed that he was to be held amenable to their overruling judgment in the discharge of this apostleship of his. What he taught had no force if this higher court of appeal withheld its sanction. Now, this touched no mere problematical contingency, but was a practical issue which, just at this time, was one of even vital importance. It had an intimate connection with the fierce antagonism of contending parties in the Church, then waged over the dying body of the Levitical Law. St. Paul"s mission as an apostle is most reasonably considered to (late from the time when, as he stated in his defence before King Agrippa, (Act_26:16, Act_26:17) the Lord Jesus said to him, "To this end have I appeared unto time, to appoint thee a minister and a witness uJphrethn kairtura: comp. aujtoptai kaitai, (Luk_1:2 and (Act_1:2, Act_1:3, Act_1:8, Act_1:22) both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people laou, so. Israel, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I myself send thee eijv ouv ejgwllw se: thus L. T. Tr. Rev.; the Textus Receptus reads eijv ouv nun se ajpostellw". (comp. Act_22:14, Act_22:15; 1Co_9:1) But though his appointment was in reality coeval with his conversion, it was only in course of time and by slow degrees that his properly apostolic function became signalized to the consciousness of the Church. Nevertheless, there is no reason for doubting that to his own consciousness his vocation as apostle was clearly manifested from the very first. The prompt and independent manner in which he at once set himself to preach the gospel, which itself, he tells the Galatians in this chapter, he had received immediately from heaven, betokens his having this consciousness. The time and the manner in which the fact was to become manifest to others he would seem, in a spirit of compliant obedience, to have left to the ordering of his Master. But by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead (ajlla dia jIhsou Xristou kai Qeou patrorantov aujton ejk nekrwn); but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. The conjunction "neither" (oujde), which comes before di ajnqrwpou, marks the clause it introduces as containing a distinctly different negation from the preceding, and shows that the preposition "through" is used in contradistinction to the "from" (ajpo) of the foregoing clause in its proper sense of denoting the instrument or medium through which an act is done. St. Paul affirms that there was no human instrumentality or intermediation whatever at work in the act of delegation which constituted him an apostle. This affirmation places him in this respect precisely on a level with the twelve; perhaps in making it he has an eye 1o this. The notion has been frequently broached that the apostleship which St. Paul made claim to was conveyed to him at Antioch through the brethren who there, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, formally set him apart, together with Barnabas, for the missionary enterprise which they forthwith entered upon. (Act_13:1-3) But words could scarcely have been selected which should more decisively negative any such notion than those do which St. Paul here makes use of. One form of apostleship was no doubt then conferred upon Barnabas and Paul; but it was not the apostleship of which he is now thinking (see essay on "Apostles," pp. 31., 32.). In defining the precise import and bearing of the expression, di ajnqrwpou, "through a man," we may compare it with its use inpou 1Co_15:21, "Since di ajnqrw came death, di ajnqrwpou came also the resurrection of the dead;" where in the second clause the word "man," employed to recite the Lord Jesus, contemplates that aspect of his twofold being which places him as "the second Man" (1Co_15:47) in correlation to Adam, "the first Man." Similarly, the parallel with Adam again in Rom_5:12, 15 leads the apostle to adopt the expression," the one Man Jesus Christ" (cf. also ibid. 19). in 1Ti_2:5, "There is one God, one Mediator also between God and men, himself Man or, "a man") Christ Jesus," our Lord"s manhood, in accordance with the requirement of the context, is put forward as a bond of connection linking him with every human creature alike. These passages present Christ in the character simply of a human being. But in the passage before us the apostle at first sight appears to imply that, because he was an apostle through the agency of Jesus Christ, he was not an apostle through the agency of a human being; thus negativing, apparently, the manhood of Christ, at least as viewed in his present glorified condition. The inference, however, is plainly contradicted by both 1Co_15:21 and, 1Ti_2:5; for the former passage points in "the second Man" to the "Lord from heaven," while the other refers to him as permanent "Mediator between God and men," both, therefore, speaking of Jesus in his present glorified condition. To obviate this difficulty some have proposed to take the "but" (ajlla) not as adversative, but as exceptive. But there is no justification for this not even Mar_9:8 (see Winer"s "Gram. N. T.," 53, 10, 1 b). A less precarious solution is arrived at by gathering out of the context the precise shade of meaning in which the word "man" is here used. Christ is indeed "Man," and his true manhood is the sense required in the two passages above cited; but he is also more than man; and it is those qualities of his being and of his state of existence which distinguish him from mere men, which the context shows to be now present to the apostle"s mind. For the phrase, "through a man," is not contrasted by the words, "through Jesus Christ," alone, but by the whole clause: "through Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead." That is to say, in penning the former phrase, the apostle indicates by the word "man" one invested with the ordinary qualities of an earthly human condition; whereas the "Jesus Christ" through whom Heaven sent forth Saul as an apostle to the Gentiles was Jesus Christ blended with, inconceivably near to, God the Father, one with him; his oneness with him not veiled, as it was when he was upon earth, though really subsisting even then, (Joh_10:30) but to all the universe manifested manifested visibly to us upon earth by the resurrection of his body; in the spiritual, as yet now to us invisible world, by that sitting down on the right hand of God which was the implied sequel and climax of his resurrection. The strong sense which the apostle has of the unspeakably intimate conjunction subsisting. since his resurrection, between Jesus Christ viewed in his whole incarnate being and. God the Father, explains how it comes to pass that the two august Names are combined together under one single preposition, "through Jesus Christ, and God the Father." We shall have to notice the same phenomenon in ver. 3 in the apostle"s formula of greeting prayer, "Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ;" on which see the note. We have the same conception of Christ"s personality consequent upon his resurrection in the apostle"s words relative to his apostolic appointment in Rom_1:4, Rom_1:5; where the Jesus Christ through whom "he had received grace and apostleship," in contrast with his merely human condition as "of the seed of David according to the flesh," is described as "him who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead." The clause, "who raised him from the dead," has a twofold bearing upon the point in hand. 1. It supplies an answer to the objection which may be believed to have been made to Paul"s claim to be regarded as an apostle sent forth by Jesus Christ, by those who said, "You have never seen Christ or been taught by him, like those whom he himself named apostles." The answer is, "You might object so if Jesus were no more than a dead man; but he is not that: he is a living Man raised from the dead by the Father; and as such I have myself seen him; (cf. 1Co_9:1) and he it was that in his own person, and through no intervention of human agency, gave me both the commission to preach and the gospel which I was to preach" (see below, vers. 11, 12). 2. It connects the action of God the Father with that of Jesus Christ in appointing Paul to be an apostle; for the things which Christ did when raised from the dead and glorified with himself (Joh_17:5) by the Father must obviously have been done from, with, and in God the Father. It would unduly narrow the pragmatism of the clause if we limited it to either of the two purposes above indicated; both were probably in the mind of St. Paul in adding it. The immediate context gives no warrant for our supposing, as many have done, that the apostle has just here other truths in view as involved in the fact of our Lord"s resurrection; such e.g. as he has himself indicated in Rom_4:24, 25 6; pou Col_3:1. However cogent and closely relevant some of these inferences might have been with respect to the subjects treated of in this Epistle, the Epistle itself, as a matter of fact, makes no other reference whatever to that great event, whether directly or indirectly. Should di ajnqrw be rendered "through man," the noun understood generically, as e.g. , (Psa_56:1) (Septuagint) or "through a man," pointing to one individual being? It is not very material; but perhaps the second rendering is recommended by the consideration that, if the apostle had meant still to write generically, he would have repeated the plural noun already employed. Indeed, it may be thought a preferable rendering in the other passages above cited. The transition from the plural noun to the singular, as is noted by Bishop Lightfoot and others, "suggested itself in anticipation of the clause, "through Jesus Christ," which was to follow." In the expression, "God the Father," the addition of the words, "the Father," was not necessary for the indication of the Person meant, any more than in 1Pe_1:21, "Believers in God which raised him from the dead," or in numberless other passages where the term "God" regularly designates the First Person in the blessed Trinity. It would be an incomplete paraphrase to explain it either as "God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," or as "God our Father." It is rather, "God the primary Author and supreme Orderer of all things," or, as in the Creed, "God the Father Almighty." It is best illustrated by the apostle"s words in 1Co_8:6, To us there is one God, the Father, of whom i.e. out of whom, ejx ou are all things, and we unto him; "and in Rom_11:36," Of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things." The apostle adds the term in order to make the designation of the supreme God, who is the Source of his apostleship, the more august and impressive.
Read full note →
Ver. 1.
The inspired authority of the apostle.
The first line of the Epistle is designed to settle the question of his authority and independence as a teacher of the Church. The truth of the gospel, as he phrases it, (Gal_2:5) was involved in this merely personal question.
I THE NECESSITY FOR VINDICATING HIS AUTHORITY. Emissaries of the Judaistic party, who had obtained access to the Galatian Churches, sought to undermine his doctrine by denying or minimizing his apostleship. They limited the term "apostle" almost exclusively to the twelve, and were thus enabled to assert
(1) that he was not an apostle in the highest sense, as he was not a personal disciple of Jesus Christ, and therefore could not claim the inspiration of those on whom he breathed the Holy Ghost; (Joh_20:22)
(2) that, in any case, he stood in official subordination to the twelve, and was not, therefore, to be followed where he diverged from their teaching; and
(3) that the proceedings at Antioch (Act_13:1, Act_13:2) necessarily implied that he received alike his commission and his gospel from man.
II HIS COMMISSION AT ONCE ORIGINAL AND DIVINE. "An apostle, not from men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.
1. He was a true apostle. He emphatically asserts his independent apostleship, placing his official title in the very forefront of his Epistle. He affirms that he was an apostle before he had any intercourse with the twelve, (Gal_1:17, Gal_1:18) and that on three different occasions the apostles recognized his full apostolic standing. (Gal_1:18, Gal_1:19, Gal_2:9, Gal_2:10, Gal_2:11-21) He was, therefore, no delegate of the twelve, and had no secondary or intermediate place of authority under them. He was, as he described himself to the Corinthians, "a called apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God.
2. His commission was not from (ajpo) men, nor by (dia) man. " The false teachers might have suggested that the pro ceedings at Antioch implied a purely human commission. But he had been called to the apostleship long before his designation at Antioch to a special missionary. (Act_26:16-20) His calling was neither that of Matthias nor of Barnabas. He was called neither by a body of men nor by an individual representing the authority of such a body.
3. His commission was entirely Divine. "By Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.
(1) It was by Jesus Christ; for his commission dated from the day of his conversion on the road to Damascus. "The Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee". (Act_26:17) He speaks elsewhere of his having seen the Lord, as a token of his apostleship. (1Co_9:1) He was directly and immediately called by Jesus Christ.
(2) It was by "God the Father, who raised him from the dead acting in and through Christ; the reference to the resurrection making it plain that Jesus could call him, though he had not called him when he called the twelve, and that the apostleship was one of the gracious gifts conferred upon the Church by the ascended Redeemer. (Eph_4:11) Thus the apostle was not self-called to his high office, and does not even now refer to the source of his calling from vanity or self-assertion, but from a supreme regard to the welfare of his converts.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Vers. 1-5.
The gospel of self-sacrifice.
In sending an Epistle to an apostate people, Paul does not indulge in unmeaning compliments. These Celts in Asia had been showing some of their proverbial fickleness, and going back from the doctrine of justification by faith to a ritualism whose development must be self-righteousness. It is needful for their recovery from apostasy that the authority of the apostle and the truth of the gospel should be put before them in unmistakable terms. Hence we find Paul plunging at once into the needful expositions of his own apostleship and of the gospel of Christ with which as an apostle he was charged. In this salutation we have the following lessons distinctly taught:
I PAUL"S APOSTLESHIP WAS RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM JESUS CHRIST. (Ver. 1.) Doubtless he had merely human hands laid upon his head at Antioch, (Act_13:3) but the imposition of the hands of the brethren was not the conveyance of authority, but simply the recognition of authority as already conveyed. The "ordination" at Antioch was the recognition by the Church of" authority and mission already conveyed by the Lord to the apostle. Accordingly in this instance before us Paul claims an apostleship directly from the hands of Christ. He was an apostle "not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead" (Revised Version). No intermediate hands conveyed the authority to him; he was conscious of having received it directly from the fountain-head. This gave him confidence consequently in dealing with the Judaizing teachers. It mattered not to him what parade of authority these teachers made; he stood as a rock upon his own commission with all its hallowed associations. And should this not instruct every true teacher as to the source of his authority? It is a mistake to imagine that men can do more than recognize God-given authority. It is from Christ directly we must each receive our office. Church officers, in putting their imprimatur upon any of us, merely recognize a Divine work which they believe on due evidence to be already there.
II THE DESIRE OF THE APOSTLE FOR THE GALATIANS" WELFARE. (Vers. 2, 3.) The deep longing of Paul and those associated with him in his captivity for these apostate Galatians was that grace and peace from God the Father and from Christ might be theirs. "Grace," the gratuitous, undeserved favour which wells forth from the Divine heart, when it is received into the sinner"s soul, produces "peace which passeth all understanding." It was this blessed experience Paul desired for the Galatians. They may have traduced his office and his character, but this did not prevent him entertaining the deep desire that into "truths of peace" they, like himself, should be led. And indeed we cannot wish people better than that grace and peace from heaven should be theirs. To live in the felt favour of God, to realize that it is at the same time quite undeserved, produces a peace and a humility of spirit beyond all price!
III THE GOSPEL PAUL PREACHED WAS THAT OF THE SELFSACRIFICE OF CHRIST, (Ver. 4.) Jesus, he asserts, gave himself for our sins." The foundation of the gospel is self-sacrifice. But we must always remember that self-sacrifice, if for the merest trifle, may be moral madness. In self-sacrifice as such there is no necessary virtue. A man may lose his life in an utterly unworthy cause. Hence the necessity for the self-sacrifice of Christ must be made out before its real virtue is established. This necessity appears when we consider that it was "for our sins " he gave himself. For if our sins had been removed at some meaner cost than the blood of the Son of God, we should be disposed to say that sin is after all a light thing in God"s sight, a mere bagatelle to him. But inasmuch as it required such a sacrifice to take away sin, its enormity is made manifest to all. Christ laid down his life, then, in a noble cause. Surely to take away sin, to remove from human hearts their heavy burdens, to bestow on men peace and deliverance from all fear, was a worthy object in self-sacrifice. We stand before the cross, therefore, believing that the sacrifice upon it is of infinite value and efficacy. He was no martyr by mistake as he died upon the tree, but the most glorious of all heroes.
IV CHRIST"S AIM IN SELF-SACRIFICE WAS OUR DELIVERANCE FROM THIS PRESENT EVIL WORLD. (Ver. 4.) The world is the totality of tendencies which oppose themselves to God. To love such a world is incompatible with love to God the Father. (1Jn_2:15) It is, moreover, made up of "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life". (1Jn_2:16) Now, it is to this world that the ritualist falls a prey. This was the danger of the Galatians. The revival of rites and ceremonies, which had been fulfilled and therefore done away in Christ, pandered to the lust of the eyes and to the pride of life. Hence Paul proclaims at the outset that one purpose of the gospel of self-sacrifice is to deliver its recipients from the power of this present evil world which is constantly trying to bring us into bondage. The religion of Christ is freedom. He means to deliver us from bondage. It is our own fault if we are not delivered.
V THE FINAL END OF THE GOSPEL IS ALWAYS THE GLORY OF THE FATHER. (Ver. 5.) Hence the doxology with which the apostolic desire closes. It is with doxologies that the dispensation of grace must end. Heaven itself is the concentration of the doxologies which have been gathering upon earth; the full concert after the terrestrial rehearsals. And it is here that the safety of the whole dispensation may be seen; for if the glory of some imperfect Being were contemplated, his designs would of necessity run contrary in many cases to the real good of others. But God the Father is so perfect that his glory always consists with the real good of all his creatures. Doubtless some of his creatures will not believe this, and will insist on suspecting and hating his designs. In consequence they must be exposed to his righteous indignation. But this is quite compatible with the fact that the Divine glory and the real good of all are meant to harmonize. Happy will it be for us if we join in the rehearsals of his glory here, and are promoted to the chorus full-orbed and like the sound of many waters above. But even should we insist on discord, our own discomfort alone shall be secured; discords can, we know, be so wedded to harmony as to swell and not diminish the effect of the full orchestra. And God will secure his glory even in our poor despite. R.M.E.
HOMILIES BY R. FINLAYSON Vers. 1-5.
Introduction.
The tone of this Epistle is decidedly controversial. In the first and second chapters the writer establishes against Judaistic assailants his apostolic authority. This, however, is only subsidiary to his main design, which is in the third and fourth chapters, as an accredited servant of God, to establish the gospel of Christ, or justification by faith against Judaism (a different gospel), or justification by the works of the Law. The fifth and sixth chapters may be said to contain the application. There is thus the same central thought in this Epistle that there is in the Epistle to the Romans. Here there is the thought as it flashed out against Judaism as it threatened the very existence of Christianity in a very interesting circle of Churches, and while the writer"s feelings were still keen. In the later Epistle there is the thought as it shaped itself against Judaism, when there was time to look at it calmly and in its widest aspects. It is worthy of being remembered that a historical interest attaches to this Epistle. The Romanism with which Luther was confronted bore a striking resemblance to Judaism. On that account he was led to make a special study of this Epistle. "The Epistle to the Galatians," he said, "is my Epistle. I have betrothed myself to it; it is my wife.
I ADDRESS.
1. The writer. "Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)." Paul"s apostleship was not without relation to men. It was directed to men, and intended for their benefit. His appointment to office was announced to him by a man (Ananias). But the authority under which the appointment was made was not derived from men. Nor was it through man as the medium that it was communicated. It was communicated through Jesus Christ. The Lord said by Ananias, He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my Name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel." When afterwards he essayed to preach the gospel at Jerusalem, he was overruled. While praying in the temple he fell into a trance, and saw Jesus, who said unto him," Depart; for I will send thee forth far hence unto the Gentiles." The authority under which Paul acted as apostle was ultimately derived from God. That is not the form in which it is put here. For the same preposition is used in connection with God as with Christ, as if God were in himself both the Medium and the Source of authority. And, in keeping with that view, one of the forms in which Ananias announced to Paul his appointment to apostleship was this: "The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his mouth." Authority was communicated to Paul only through God as the Father, i.e. as acting through his Son Jesus Christ. This great Agent the Father raised from the dead. In the corresponding place in Romans the raising of Christ is also introduced: "Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we received grace and apostleship." The thought there is that, as divinely attested in his resurrection, he could appoint to apostleship. The further thought is suggested here that, as raised, he could appoint him to apostleship. He was not among those who received appointment from Christ when he was in flesh; but the risen Christ had appeared to him, and, without any elective body of men coming between, without any action of the Church as in the election of Matthias, had immediately appointed him to apostleship.
2. Those associated with him. "And all the brethren which are with me." However high ground Paul took as to his apostleship, that did not separate him from his brethren. He even courted their Christian sympathy and support. He was open with. his companions in travel, and divulged to them his thoughts, read to them his letters. On this occasion he could say that they were at one with him. In the whole of his warm remonstrance against giving way to Judaism, there was not one expression which they wished him to tone down.
3. The Churches addressed. "Unto the Churches of Galatia." At the dawn of history the home of the Celtic race, known to the Greeks as Galatians, and to the Romans as Gauls, was the continent west of the Rhine, with these adjoining islands. In their migrations hordes of Celts poured into Italy. They also followed the course of the Danube, turning southward into Greece. Three tribes of them, crossing the Hellespont, after wide devastations, were confined in the heart of Asia Minor. The tract of country which they occupied, about two hundred miles in length, and watered by the Halys, was called after them Galatia (land of the Celts). The head towns of the three tribes were Tavium, Pessinus, and Ancyra. The original inhabitants were Phrygians, and in later times there were additions of Romans and of Greeks and also of Jews. But the predominant element was Celtic, and the Celtic language was spoken along with Greek. To peoples, then, with more or less of a Celtic origin this Epistle to the Celts is invested with special interest. Paul came into contact with this new race in his second missionary tour. There is a singular meagreness of information regarding his visit. All that is recorded is that, being overruled as to his intended route, he passed through the region of Phrygia and Galatia. As meagrely it is said, in connection with his third missionary tour, that he passed through the same region in order, stablishing all the disciples. The result of his evangelizing was the formation of several Churches. They are (as was pointed out by Chrysostom) addressed here without title. What there is of characterization is thrown into the salutation.
II SALUTATION. Notwithstanding what he refuses to them at the present juncture, he heartily wishes them well.
1. Blessing invoked. "Grace to you and peace." He invokes grace on them, or the bestowment of the Divine favour, not because of merit in them, but because of merit obtained for them. As the result of grace, he invokes peace, or the absence of inward misgiving, and as far as possible the absence also of disturbing influences from without, Judaism included.
2. From whom invoked. From God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ." He first invokes blessing from God the Father. He goes to the very fountain-head. The fatherhood of God is the ultimate reason for our being blessed. It is impossible to go higher than that. Where is there hope for the child who disobeys his father"s command? The hope lies in what the father is. He naturally pities his child, and desires to bless him. So where is there hope for us in our state of disobedience? The hope lies in what God is. He is the Fountain of all fatherly feeling. As the Father, he was moved with compassion toward us, and desired to bless us notwithstanding all our unworthiness. It was the fatherly feeling that moved to redemption. It is the fatherly feeling that moves to bless in connection with redemption. This, then, is the height to which we must lift up our eyes, from whence cometh help. He also invokes blessing from our Lord Jesus Christ. As the Father was formerly bound with Christ by the preposition "through," so now Christ is bound with the Father by the preposition "from." Such freedom is significant. He who is the Channel is also the Source of blessing. He is Jesus, the higher Joshua, who saves his people from their sins. It was through him that effect was given to the fatherly feeling in God, and that the Father approaches man with blessing. He is the Christ who was anointed of God for this end. He is our Lord, as the successful Accomplisher of salvation placed over the house of God, to whom it belongs to dispense blessing. It is to him, then, as sovereign Dispenser of blessing that we must look. Central truth made prominent by being thrown into the salutation. "Who gave himself for our sizes, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father." The language has evidently a sacrificial colouring. The worshipper came with his sins before God. The oblation he presented to God was an animal. With his sins taken over, the animal paid the penalty in its death. So the oblation which Christ presented to God was himself. With our sins taken over, he really and fully suffered the desert of them in his death, especially in the hiding of the Father"s countenance. What gave this self-oblation infinite value was the dignity of the Sufferer; and also his perfect trust in God, and all-absorbing love for men, and never-failing hope for their salvation in the mysterious forsaking which made trial of him. The object with which Christ gave himself Was, not only that he might deliver us from the guilt of sin, but also that he might deliver us from the manifestation of sin in this present evil world. This world is thought of, not as it might have been, but as it actually is. It might have been a good world; it is instead an evil world. Its evil character consists, not only in its opposing itself in its opinions and practices to men"s good, but especially in its opposing itself to God. It is a world that, in its wickedness, forgets God, casts off God. "The Lord shall not see;" "What is the Almighty, that we should serve him?" Now, Christ died that we might be delivered from this tyrannous world, and introduced into the liberty, if not at once of a perfect form of society, yet of a personal condition, and Church condition too, in which God has something of the place to which he is entitled. And all this is to be thought of as according to the will of our God and Father. The Father has the primacy throughout. It was in his will that salvation originated. It was his will that was carried out by Christ. "Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy Law is within my heart." The outcome is the doing of the Father"s will by man as it is by the angels.
III DOXOLOGY. "To whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen." The foundation of the ascription of glory to God is the glory displayed by God in salvation. There was a glorious display of wisdom in the planning of salvation. There was a glorious display of justice in the satisfaction made for sin. There was a glorious display of power in the overcoming of sin. There was especially a glorious display of love in its overflowing on sinners. In view of such a display it becomes us to ascribe glory to God. We cannot take it to ourselves. Our language must ever be, "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us." In what God has done for our salvation there will be found subject for our doxologies to the ages of ages. To every ascription of glory it becomes us to add our "Amen." May our "Amen" become ever deeper, and may the circle of such "Amens" evermore increase. R.F.
HOMILIES BY W.F. ADENEY
Ver. 1.
Apostolic authority.
St. Paul opens the Epistle to the Galatians with an unusual assertion of his own authority. Generally he describes himself as "the bondservant" of Jesus Christ, and addresses his converts with affectionate gentleness. But something almost stern marks the beginning of this Epistle, and indeed characterizes the whole of it; and the writer at the outset sets forth the highest claims of apostolic rank. This was necessary because disloyalty to the authority of St. Paul had been used as one of the strongest encouragements for unfaithfulness to the fundamental principles of Christianity. It is very difficult to know when self-assertion is a duty, and more difficult to perform the duty with modesty. Yet there are occasions for most of us rare occasions when the cause of truth andrighteousness requires the firm, dignified claim of one"s lawful position. This is perfectly consistent with unselfishness and humility if the motive is some interest outside ourselves. Herein is the important point, namely, that the self-assertion is not to be for our own honour, but for the glory of God, or the good of man, or the maintenance of right.
I THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY IS CONFERRED. It does not originate in the man who possesses it. He is "one sent," a messenger, a missionary, an ambassador. As the prophet is the man who "speaks for" God, the Divine spokesman, so the apostle is he who is sent by his Lord, the messenger of Christ. Thus the apostolic authority is very different from that of the philosopher which depends entirely on his own intellectual powers, and that of the religious founder which grows out of the man"s own spiritual ideas, and all purely personal authority. It is derived from the authority of Christ. Natural gifts can no more make a man an apostle than they can give a free-lance the right to command a national army.
II THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY IS INDEPENDENT OF HUMAN INFLUENCES.
1. It is not derived from a human origin. It is not "of men." No man and no body of men can create an apostle. To attempt such a creation is to put forth forged credentials; it is like the act of a man who engraves his own notes and passes them in currency as though they had been issued by a bank.
2. It is not derived through a human medium. It is not "through man." Matthias was thought to be appointed by God since he was chosen by lot after prayer for Divine guidance; but he certainly received his apostleship, such as it was, through men, for the election of him was arranged by the Church. (Act_1:23-26) This was not the case with St. Paul. The highest authority is independent of all ecclesiastical arrangements and of all official management.
III THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY COMES DIRECT FROM CHRIST AND GOD. The sovereign commissions his own ministers. The office derives its high influence from this origin.
1. It is from God. Therefore the apostle is divinely inspired. The Church order that he establishes and the doctrinal truth that he preaches have both claims upon our reverence, because they come through him from God.
2. It is also from Christ. It is "through" Christ as being received immediately from him, but it is also "through" God, for no distinction is here to be made. Christ, however, is personally concerned. The apostle is a Christian officer. His work is not to serve the general religion of faith in God and providence and natural revelation, but to promote the special faith of the gospel.
IV THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY IS DEPENDENT ON THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, God is named as "the Father, who raised him from the dead." St. Paul alone of all the apostles received his commission in the first instance from the risen Christ. But the other apostles were also especially endowed and sent forth by Christ after the resurrection. (Mat_28:16-20) Apart from the importance that attaches itself in many ways to the resurrection of Christ as the proof of his victory, the assurance of our future, etc., there is this particular point here of significance that Christ still lives, that the apostle is not merely faithful to a memory, but serves a living Lord, that he is not the successor of Christ, but the servant who carries out the fresh mandates of the living and reigning King. W.F.A.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 Paul, an apostle, not of men.
Gal_1:1
Paul, an apostle, not of men.
Read full note →
The inscription
According to the custom of the age, the apostle begins with a short description of himself and his correspondents, connected with a wish for their happiness. Paul was above the affectation of singularity. In the form of his Epistles, he follows the ordinary custom of his country and age; and he thus teaches us that a Christian ought not to be unnecessarily singular. By readily complying with innocent customs, we are the more likely, when we conscientiously abstain from what we account sinful customs, to impress the minds of those around us that we have some other and better reason for our conduct than whim or humour. Yet the apostle contrives to give, even to the inscription of his letter, a decidedly Christian character; and shows us that, though we should not make an ostentatious display of our Christianity, yet, if we are truly religious, our religion will give a colour to the whole of our conduct: even what may seem most remote from direct religious employment will be tinged by it. The manner in which the apostle manages the inscription of this and his other letters, is a fine illustration of his own injunction, Whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by Him (Col_3:17). He shows his Christianity even in the mode of addressing his letters. (John Brown, D. D.)
The opening salutation
The two threads which run through this Epistle--the defence of the apostles own authority, and the maintenance of the doctrine of grace--are knotted together in the opening salutation. By expanding his official title into statement of his direct commission from God (Gal_1:1), St. Paul meets the personal attack of his opponents; by dwelling on the work of redemption in connection with the name of Christ (Gal_1:4), he protests against their doctrinal errors. (Bishop Lightfoot.)
The high significance of the apostolate
1. For the founding;
2. For the continuance of the Christian Church, which must perpetually rest upon the foundation of the apostolic doctrine. (J. P. Lange, D. D.)
Divine vocation
1. To have the Divine vocation is in all circumstances necessary.
2. To be certain of its possession is often important.
3. To appeal to it may often be right and proper. How independent of men, and at the same time how dependent on God, the minister of the gospel is, and knows himself to be I Even so the Christian generally is what he is, not from men, although through men, for neither natural descent nor outward fellowship makes him such--but through Jesus Christ and the Father. (J. P. Lange, D. D.)
Christian sense of personal worth
1. Its justification.
2. Its limits. (J. P. Lange, D. D.)
Jesus Christ supreme
All through Jesus Christ l
1. Humbling truth; for then nothing is through us.
2. Exalting truth; all is through no less an one than Christ, and thereby through the highest of all, viz., God. (J. P. Lange, D. D.)
God the Instructor of the Church
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. (Calvin.)
Extraordinary gifts associated with extraordinary vocation
Behold the peculiar prerogative of St. Paul above the rest of the apostles. They were called by Christ in the day of His humiliation, but he was called by Christ when sitting at His Fathers right hand in heaven. As his call was thus very extraordinary, so his gifts were answerable to his call. (W. Burkitt.)
The apostles attitude
The appearance of the apostle against the Galatians.
1. In the full dignity of his office; at the same time, however, associating the brethren with himself.
2. With the full love of his heart, at the same time conceding nothing of the truth. (J. P. Lange, D. D.)
Certainty of Divine calling
What means Paul by this boasting? I answer: This commonplace serves to this end, that every minister of Gods Word should be sure of his calling, that before God and man he may with a bold conscience glory therein, that he preaches the gospel as one that is called and sent: even as the ambassador of a king glories and vaunts in this, that he comes not as a private person, but as the kings ambassador; and because of this dignity--that he is the kings ambassador--he is honoured and set in the highest place; which honour should not be given him if he came as a private person. Wherefore, let the preacher of the gospel be certain that his calling is from God. (Luther.)
The name and office of an apostle
The word ἀπόστολος in the first instance is an adjective signifying despatched or sent forth. Applied to a person, it denotes more than ἄγγελος. The apostle is not only the messenger, but the delegate of the person who sends him. He is entrusted with a mission, has powers conferred upon him …. With the later Jews, the word was in common use. It was the title borne by those who were despatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any foreign mission, especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute paid to the temple service. After the destruction of Jerusalem, the apostles formed a sort of council about the Jewish patriarch, assisting him in his deliberations at home, and executing his orders abroad. Thus in designating His immediate dud most favoured disciples apostles, our Lord was not introducing a new term, but adopting one, which from its current usage would suggest to His hearers the idea of a highly responsible mission. At the first institution of the office, the apostles were twelve in number, but in the New Testament there is no hint that the number was intended to be limited to twelve--any more than there is that the number of deacons was intended to remain seven. The Twelve were primarily the Apostles of the Circumcision, the representatives of the twelve tribes. The extension of the Church to the Gentiles might be accompanied by an extension of the apostolate As a matter of fact, we do not find the term apostle restricted to the Twelve with only the exception of St. Paul. St. Paul himself seems in one passage to distinguish between the Twelve and all the apostles, as if the latter were the more comprehensive term (1Co_15:5; 1Co_15:7). It appears both there and in other places (Gal_1:19; 1Co_9:5) that James the Lords brother is styled an apostle. On the most natural interpretation of another passage (Rom_16:7), Andronicus and Junias, two Christians otherwise unknown to us, are called distinguished members of the apostolate, language which indirectly implies a very considerable extension of the term. In 1Th_2:6, again, where in reference to his visit to Thessalonica, he speaks of the disinterested labours of himself and his colleagues, adding, though we might have been burdensome to you, being apostles of Christ, it is probable that under this term he includes Sylvanus, who had laboured with him in Thessalonica, and whose name appears in the superscription of the letter. The apostleship of Barnabas, at any rate, is beyond question. St. Luke records his consecration to the office as taking place at the same time with, and in the same manner as, St. Pauls (Act_13:2-3). In his account of their missionary labours again, he names them together as apostles, even mentioning Barnabas first (Act_14:4; Act_14:14). St. Paul himself also in two different Epistles holds similar language (Gal_2:9; 1Co_9:5). If, therefore, St. Paul has held a larger place than Barnabas, in the gratitude and veneration of the Church of all ages, this is due not to any superiority of rank or office, but to the ascendency of his personal gifts, a more intense energy and self-devotion, wider and deeper sympathies, a firmer intellectual grasp, a larger measure of the Spirit of Christ. It may be added also, that only by such an extension of the office could any footing be found for the pretensions of the false apostles (2Co_11:13; Rev_2:2). Had the number been definitely restricted, the claims of these interlopers would have been self-condemned. But if the term is so extended, can we determine the limit to its extension? This will depend on the answer given to such questions as these:--What was the nature of the call? What were the necessary qualifications for the office? What were the duties attached to it? The facts gathered from the New Testament are insufficient to supply a decisive answer to these questions; but they enable us to draw roughly the line by which the apostolate was bounded.
1. The rank of an apostle. The first order in the Church (1Co_12:28-29; Eph_4:11).
2. Tests of apostleship.
(1) Having seen Christ after His resurrection (Luk_24:48; Act_1:8; Act_1:21-22). This knowledge was supplied to St. Paul miraculously.
(2) Possessing the powers of an apostle (1Co_9:1-2; 2Co_12:1-2). These signs our modern conceptions would lead us to separate into two classes. The one of these includes moral and spiritual gifts--patience, self-denial, effective preaching; the other comprises such powers as we call supernatural. (Bishop Lightfoot.)
Necessity of a Divine call
Wert thou wiser than Solomon and Daniel, yet until thou art called, flee the sacred ministry, as thou wouldst hell and the devil; then wilt thou not spill the Word of God to no purpose. If God needs thee, He will know how to call thee. (Luther.)
St. Pauls call to the apostleship
There is something very grand in the conversion of a man who has been so fierce an enemy as St. Paul was; it makes us feel that the gospel is indeed the power of God unto salvation: for no other power would be equal to the task of taming so fierce a spirit, and yet of losing none of its power, but turning it to edification instead of destruction.
I. Why was St. Paul called to be an apostle? St. Paul asserts his apostleship: for the reason that his call and commission were made after the ascension of our Lord, and after the number of the apostles would appear to have been completed. Judas proved unworthy of his sacred trust. The twelve felt that their body was incomplete. St. Peter urged the selection of another; Matthias was chosen. I venture to say that St. Peter was wrong in this instance. The assembled disciples had no power to elect such an apostle; and Matthias was not in the full sense an apostle of Jesus Christ. When he was chosen, the Holy Spirit was not yet poured out; the eleven were not yet endued with power from on high for the discharge of their sacred office. St. Peter might therefore be wrong in this instance, however unintentionally he might have erred. It did not belong to any human assembly to choose those who could only be chosen by Christ Himself. The peculiar characteristic of the apostolate was that each one was personally called by Christ Himself; this was their authority and glory. The body of the disciples had not this power; therefore Matthias was not duly called to the apostleship. Nothing is afterwards heard of him in the sacred writings. If it is objected that we hear little of the other apostles after this date, we have at any rate heard of them before, and have known that they were called by Christ. Hence St. Paul was the new twelfth apostle; and was not called of men as was Matthias. Nobly has he filled the trust betrayed by the Traitor. The dignity, and sanctity of the pastoral office: when the Blessed Trinity ordain and commission the minister, he will go forth with power; but if only of man little more will be heard of him.
II. The manner in which he was called and instructed. Though the voice of Jesus addressed him, this was not the means used for directing his soul to peace. God sent a man to instruct him. To us men is committed the word of grace. To the Man Christ Jesus was committed the glorious ministry of the gospel. (A. J. J. Cachemaille.)
Apostolic salutation and vindication of apostolic teaching
I. This salutation embraces a vindication of apostolic authority. The Church sometimes fails to understand and estimate the honour which Christ bestows upon His chosen servants.
II. This salutation embraces a defence of apostolic doctrine. Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.
1. Christs work was voluntary. He gave Himself.
2. Christs work was vicarious. He gave Himself for our sins.
3. Christs work was redemptive. That He might deliver us from this present evil world. The idea here expressed is that of rescuing from danger.
4. Christs redemptive work is in harmony with the will of the Father. There is no separation, much less antagonism, between the will of the Father and of the Son in saving.
5. Christs redemptive work secures the highest praise of God. To Him be glory for ever and ever.
III. This salutation embraces a profound desire for the bestowal of highest blessings. Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ. The greetings men offer each other are determined by the views they entertain of life. They wish each other health, long life, success, enjoyment. But Christians acknowledge another and a higher life. These two words comprehend whatever belongs to Christianity. Grace releaseth sin, and peace makes the conscience quiet.--Luther.
This desire for the highest welfare of the Galatians was the harmonious out-flow of the unselfish love of Paul and his fellow-labourers. And all the brethren which are, etc. Lessons:
1. It is sometimes necessary for Gods servants to defend their office and teaching.
2. We learn the Spirit we should cherish toward men. We can desire for others no greater blessings than grace and peace. (Richard Nicholls.)
The divinity of the gospel
1. Its ministers are divinely commissioned.
2. Its blessings are divinely secured.
3. Its end is the Divine glory. (J. Lyth.)
Paul an apostle
Observe--
I. That as Paul puts his call to the apostleship in the forefront of the Epistle, so every minister must have a good and lawful call.
II. That as Paul says, Not of man, etc., So every lawful call is from God.
1. God only can call.
2. The Church can only consent and approve.
III. That as Paul proclaims his call, so the call of every minister must be manifest to his conscience and his hearers. Ministers--
1. Are Gods ambassadors.
2. Need divine help.
3. Require human obedience.
IV. That Paul indicates three kinds of call.
1. Human and not Divine--false teachers.
2. Divine though human--ordinary ministers.
3. Wholly Divine--apostles.
V. That as the property of an apostle is to be called immediately by Christ, it follows that the apostolic office ceased with those who filled it. (W. Perkins.)
Pauls insistance on his apostleship
Who was Paul? Had he sat at the feet of the Master? Had he even seen Christ, or received his commission direct from Him? These questions were asked often and openly, as we gather from Pauls eagerness in all his Epistles to reply to them. More than once he goes thoroughly into the matter (1Co_9:1-27.; 2Co_11:1-33.; Eph_3:7; 1Th_2:4; 1Ti_1:1-20.; Tit_1:3), and the superscriptions and subscription of his letters show how he felt the need of thus vindicating himself from false imputations. (E. Reuss, B. A.)
Genuine and spurious apostles
The true apostle is like the tree which grows out of the soil and brings forth out of its own inherent vitality living fruit and foliage. The false apostle resembles the artificial tree which is stuck in the soil, and can only bear such painted leaves and fruit as are affixed by the hand of man. Hence the anxiety of Paul to show that man had nothing to do with making him an apostle.
The true apostolical succession
Though you have a straight line of apostolical ancestors, if your work is poor, you are not in the line of the succession; and if your Church does not make full-grown men, it is not. I do not care about the pedigree of my grapes if my vineyard bears better fruit than yours. You may say that yours came from those which Noah planted--but by their fruits shall ye know them. And the tests of all churches, doctrines, usages, governments, is this: What are their effects on the generations of men. (H. W. Beecher.)
The apostles defined
It was essential to their office that--
1. They should have seen the Lord, and been ear and eye-witnesses of what they testified to the world.
2. They must have been immediately called and chosen to that office by Christ Himself.
3. Infallible inspiration was also essentially necessary to that office.
4. Another qualification was the power of working miracles.
5. To these qualifications may be added the universality of their commission. (J. McLean.)
Christ the fountain of gospel teaching
See what a plenty of wisdom is in Christ, who is the great doctor of His Church, and gives saving knowledge to all His people. The body of the sun must be needs full of brightness that enlightens the whole world. Christ is the great luminary; in Him are hid all the treasures of knowledge. We are apt to admire the learning of Aristotle and Plato. Alas l what is this poor spark of light to that which is in Christ from whose infinite wisdom both men and angels light their lamp. (T. Watson.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 6, 11, 15, 18 Chapter 1
Chapter 1
THE ADDRESS.
Read full note →
Gal_1:1-2
ANTIQUITY has nothing to show more notable in its kind, or more precious, than this letter of Paul to the Churches of Galatia. It takes us back, in some respects nearer than any other document we possess, to the beginnings of Christian theology and the Christian Church. In it the spiritual consciousness of Christianity first reveals itself in its distinctive character and its full strength, free from the trammels of the past, realising the advent of the new kingdom of God that was founded in the death of Christ. It is the voice of the Church testifying "God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts." Buried for a thousand years under the weight of the Catholic legalism, the teaching of this Epistle came to life again in the rise of Protestantism. Martin Luther put it to his lips as a trumpet to blow the reveille of the Reformation. His famous Commentary summoned enslaved Christendom to recover "the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free." Of all the great Reformers writings this was the widest in its influence and the dearest to himself. For the spirit of Paul lived again in Luther, as in no other since the Apostles day. The Epistle to the Galatians is the charter of Evangelical faith.
The historical criticism of the present century has brought this writing once more to the front of the conflict of faith. Born in controversy, it seems inevitably to be born for controversy. Its interpretation forms the pivot of the most thoroughgoing recent discussions touching the beginnings of Christian history and the authenticity of the New Testament record. The Galatian Epistle is, in fact, the key of New Testament Apologetics. Round it the Roman and Corinthian Letters group themselves, forming together a solid, impregnable quaternion, and supplying a fixed starting-point and an indubitable test for the examination of the critical questions belonging to the Apostolic age. Whatever else may be disputed, it is agreed that there was an apostle Paul, who wrote these four Epistles to certain Christian societies gathered out of heathenism, communities numerous, widely scattered, and containing men of advanced intelligence; and this within thirty years of the death of Jesus Christ. Every critic must reckon with this fact. The most sceptical criticism makes a respectful pause before our Epistle. Hopeless of destroying its testimony, Rationalism treats it with an even exaggerated deference; and seeks to extract evidence from it against its companion witnesses amongst the New Testament writings. This attempt, however misdirected, is a signal tribute to the importance of the document, and to the force with which the personality of the writer and the conditions of the time have stamped themselves upon it. The deductions of the Baurian criticism appear to us to rest on a narrow and arbitrary examination of isolated passages; they spring from a mistaken a priori view of the historical situation. Granting, however, to these inferences, which will meet us as we proceed, their utmost weight, they still leave the testimony of Paul to the supernatural character of Christianity substantially intact.
Of the four major Epistles, this one is superlatively characteristic of its author. It is Paulinissima Paulinarum - most Pauline of Pauline things. It is largely autobiographical; hence its peculiar value. Reading it, we watch history in the making. We trace the rise of the new religion in the typical man of the epoch. The master-builder of the Apostolic Church stands before us, at the crisis of his work. He lets us look into his heart, and learn the secret of his power. We come to know the Apostle Paul as we know scarcely any other of the worlds great minds. We find in him a man of the highest intellectual and spiritual powers, equally great in passion and in action, as a thinker and a leader of men. But at every step of our acquaintance the Apostle points us beyond himself; he says, "It is not I: it is Christ that lives in me." If this Epistle teaches us the greatness of Paul, it teaches us all the more the Divine greatness of Jesus Christ, before whom that kingly intellect and passionate heart bowed in absolute devotion.
The situation which the Epistle reveals and the personal references in which it abounds are full of interest at every point. They furnish quite essential data to the historian of the Early Church. We could wish that the Apostle, telling us so much, had told us more. His allusions, clear enough, we must suppose, to the first readers, have lent themselves subsequently to very conflicting interpretations. But as they stand, they are invaluable. The fragmentary narrative of the Acts requires, especially in its earlier sections, all the illustration that can be obtained from other sources. The conversion of Paul, and the Council at Jerusalem, events of capital importance for the history of Apostolic times, are thereby set in a light certainly more complete and satisfactory than is furnished in Lukes narrative, taken by itself. And Pauls references to the Judean Church and its three "pillars," touch the crucial question of Now Testament criticism, namely that concerning the relation of the Gentile Apostle to Jewish Christianity and the connection between his theology and the teaching of Jesus. Our judgment respecting the conflict between Peter and Paul at Antioch in particular will determine our whole conception of the legalist controversy, and consequently of the course of Church history during the first two centuries. Around these cursory allusions has gathered a contest only less momentous than that from which they sprung.
The personal and the doctrinal element are equally prominent in this Epistle; and appear in a combination characteristic of the writer. Pauls theology is the theology of experience. It pleased God, he says, to reveal His Son in me. {Gal_1:16} His teaching is cast in a psychological mould. It is largely a record of the Apostles spiritual history; it is the expression of a living, inward process-a personal appropriation of Christ, and a growing realisation of the fulness of the Godhead in Him. The doctrine of Paul was as far as possible removed from being the result of abstract deduction, or any mere combination of data externally given. In his individual consciousness, illuminated by the vision of Christ and penetrated by the Spirit of God, he found his message for the world. "We believe, and therefore speak. We have received the Spirit of God, that we may know the things freely given us of God": sentences like these show us very clearly how the Apostles doctrine formed itself in his mind. His apprehension of Christ, above all of the cross, was the focus, the creative and governing centre, of all his thoughts concerning God and man, time and eternity. In the light of this knowledge he read the Old Testament, he interpreted the earthly life and teaching of Jesus. On the ground of this personal sense of salvation he confronted Peter at Antioch; on the same ground he appeals to the vacillating Galatians, sharers with himself in the new life of the Spirit. Here lies the nerve of his argument in this Epistle. The theory of the relation of the Law to the Abrahamic promise developed in the third chapter, is the historical counterpart of the relation of the legal to the evangelical consciousness, as he had experienced the two states in turn within his own breast. The spirit of Paul was a microcosm, in which the course of the worlds religious evolution was summed up, and brought to the knowledge of itself.
The Apostles influence over the minds of others was due in great part to the extraordinary force with which he apprehended the facts of his own spiritual nature. Through the depth and intensity of his personal experience he touched the experience of his fellows, he seized on those universal truths that are latent in the consciousness of mankind, "by manifestation of the truth commending himself to every mans conscience in the sight of God." But this knowledge of the things of God was not the mere fruit of reflection and self-searching; it was "the ministration of the Spirit." Paul did not simply know Christ; he was one with Christ, "joined to the Lord, one spirit" with Him. He did not therefore speak out of the findings of his own spirit; the absolute Spirit, the Spirit of truth and of Christ, spoke in him. Truth, as he knew it, was the self-assertion of a Divine life. And so this handful of old letters, broken and casual in form, with their "rudeness of speech," their many obscurities, their-rabbinical logic, have stirred the thoughts of men and swayed their lives with a power greater perhaps than belongs to any human utterances, saving only those of the Divine Master.
The features of Pauls style show themselves here in their most pronounced form. "The style is the man." And the whole man is in this letter. Other Epistles bring into relief this or that quality of the Apostles disposition and of his manner as a writer; here all are present. The subtlety and trenchant vigour of Pauline dialectic are nowhere more conspicuous than in the discussion with Peter in chap. 2. The discourse on Promise and Law in chap. 3, is a master-piece of exposition, unsurpassed in its keenness of insight, breadth of view, and skill of application. Such passages as Gal_1:15-16; Gal_2:19-20; Gal_6:14, take us into the heart of the Apostles teaching, and reveal its mystical depth of intuition. Behind the masterful dialectician we find the spiritual seer, the man of contemplation, whose fellowship is with the eternal and unseen. And the emotional temperament of the writer has left its impress on this Epistle not less distinctly than his mental and spiritual gifts. The denunciations of Gal_1:6-10; Gal_2:4-5; Gal_4:9; Gal_5:7-12; Gal_6:12-14, burn with a concentrated intensity of passion, a sublime and holy scorn against the enemies of the cross, such as a nature like Pauls alone is capable of feeling. Nor has the Apostle penned anything on the other hand more amiable and touching, more winningly frank and tender in appeal, than the entreaty of Gal_4:11-20. His last sentence, in Gal_6:17, is an irresistible stroke of pathos. The ardour of his soul, his vivacity of mind and quick sensibility, are apparent throughout. Those sudden turns of thought and bursts of emotion that occur in all his Epistles and so much perplex their interpreters, are especially numerous in this. And yet we find that these interruptions are never allowed to divert the writer from his purpose, nor to destroy the sequence of his thought. They rather carry it forward with greater vehemence along the chosen course, as storms will a strong and well-manned ship. The Epistle is strictly a unity. It is written, as one might say, at a single breath, as if under pressure and in stress of mind.
There is little of the amplitude of expression and the delight in lingering over some favourite idea that characterise the later Epistles. Nor is there any passage of sustained eloquence to compare with those that are found in the Roman and Corinthian letters. The business on which the Apostle writes is too urgent, his anxiety too great, to allow of freedom and discursiveness of thought. Hence this Epistle is to an unusual degree closely packed in matter, rapid in movement, and severe in tone.
In its construction the Epistle exhibits an almost dramatic character. It is full of action and animation. There is a gradual unfolding of the subject, and a skilful combination of scene and incident brought to bear on the solution of the crucial question. The Apostle himself, the insidious Judaisers, and the wavering Galatians, - these are the protagonists of the action; with Peter anti the Church at Jerusalem playing a secondary part, and Abraham and Moses, Isaac and Ishmael, appearing in the distance. The first Act conducts us rapidly from scene to scene till we behold Paul labouring amongst the Gentiles, and the Churches of Judea listening with approval to the reports of his success. The Council of Jerusalem opens a new stage in the history. Now Gentile liberties are at stake; but Titus circumcision is successfully resisted, and Paul as the Apostle of the Uncircumcised is acknowledged by "the pillars" as their equal; and finally Peter, when he betrays the truth of the Gospel at Antioch, is corrected by the Gentile Apostle. The third chapter carries us away from the present conflict into the region of first principles, - to the Abrahamic Covenant with its spiritual blessing and world-wide promise, opposed by the condemning Mosaic Law, an opposition finally resolved by the coming of Christ and the gift of His Spirit of adoption. At this point the Apostle turns the gathered force of his argument upon his readers, and grapples with them front to front in the expostulation carried on from Gal_4:8-12, in which the story of Hagar forms a telling episode. The fifth and closing Act, extending to the middle of chap. 6, turns on the antithesis of Flesh and Spirit, bringing home the contention to the region of ethics, and exhibiting to the Galatians the practical effect of their following the Pauline or the Judaistic leadership. Patti and the Primitive Church; Judaism and Gentile-Christian liberties; the Covenants of Promise and of Law; the circumcision or non-circumcision of the Galatians; the dominion of Flesh or Spirit: these are the contrasts through which the Epistle advances. Its centre, lies in the decisive question given in the fourth of these antitheses. If we were to fix it in a single point, Gal_5:2 is the sentence we should choose:-
"Behold, I Paul say unto you, If ye be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing."
The above analysis may be reduced to the common threefold division, followed in this exposition:-viz.
(1) "Personal History," Gal. 1:11 - 2:1-21:
(2) "Doctrinal Polemic," Gal. 3:1 - 5:12;
(3) "Ethical Application," Gal_5:13-26; Gal_6:1-10.
The epistolary Introduction forms the Prologue, Gal_1:1-10; and an Epilogue is appended, by way of renewed warning and protestation, followed by the concluding signature and benediction, - Gal_6:11-18.
The Address occupies the first two verses of the Epistle.
1. On the one side is the writer: "Paul, an Apostle." In his earliest Letters (to Thessalonica) the title is wanting; so also in Philippians and Philemon. The last instance explains the other two. To the Macedonian Churches Paul writes more in the style of friendship than authority: "for loves sake he rather entreats." With the Galatians it is different. He proceeds to define his apostleship in terms that should leave no possible doubt respecting its character and rights: "not from men," he adds, "nor through man; but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, that raised Him from the dead."
This reads like a contradiction of some statement made by Pauls opposers. Had they insinuated that he was "an apostle from men," that his office was derived, like their own, only from the mother Church in Jerusalem? Such insinuations would very well serve their purpose; and if they were made, Paul would be sure not to lose a moment in meeting them.
The word apostle had a certain latitude of meaning. It was already, there is reason to believe, a term of Jewish official usage when our Lord applied it to His chosen Twelve. It signified a delegate or envoy, accredited by some public authority, and charged with a special message. We can understand, therefore, its application to the emissaries of particular Churches-of Jerusalem or Antioch, for example-despatched as their messengers to other Churches, or with a general commission to proclaim the Gospel. The recently discovered "Teaching of the Apostles" shows that this use of the title continued in Jewish-Christian circles to the end of the first century, alongside of the restricted and higher use. The lower apostleship belonged to Paul in common with Barnabas and Silas and many others.
In the earlier period of his ministry, the Apostle was seemingly content to rank in public estimation with his companions in the Gentile mission. But a time came when he was compelled to arrogate to himself the higher dignity. His right thereto was acknowledged at the memorable conference in Jerusalem by the leaders of the Jewish Church. So we gather from the language of Gal_2:7-9. But the full exercise of his authority was reserved for the present emergency, when all his energy and influence were required to stem the tide of the Judaistic reaction. We can well imagine that Paul, "gentle in the midst" of his flock and "not seeking to be of weight," {1Th_2:6-7} had hitherto said as little as need be on the subject of his official rights. His modesty had exposed him to misrepresentations both in Corinth and in Galatia. He will "have" these people "to know" that his gospel is in the strictest sense Divine, and that he received his commission, as certainly as any of the Twelve, from the lips of Jesus Christ Himself (Gal_1:11-12).
"Not from men" excludes human derivation; "not through man," human intervention in the conferment of Pauls office. The singular number (man) replaces the plural in the latter phrase, because it stands immediately opposed to "Jesus Christ" (a striking witness this to His Divinity). The second clause carries the negation farther than the first; for a call from God may be, and commonly is, imposed by human hands. There are, says Jerome, four kinds of Christian ministers: first, those sent neither from men nor through man, like the prophets of old time and the Apostles; secondly, those who are from God, but through man, as it is with their legitimate successors; thirdly, those who are from men, but not from God, as when one is ordained through mere human favour and flattery; the fourth class consists of such as have their call neither from God nor man, but wholly from themselves, as with false prophets and the false apostles of whom Paul speaks. His vocation, the Apostle declares, was superhuman, alike in its origin and in the channel by which it was conveyed. It was no voice of man that summoned Saul of Tarsus from the ranks of the enemies to those of the servants of Christ, and gave him the message he proclaimed. Damascus and Jerusalem in turn acknowledged the grace given unto him; Antioch has sent him forth on her behalf to the regions beyond: but he was conscious of a call anterior to all this, and that admitted of no earthly validation. "Am I not an apostle?" he exclaims, "have I not seen Jesus our Lord?". {1Co_9:1} "Truly the signs of the Apostle were wrought in him," both in the miraculous powers attending his office, and in those moral and spiritual qualities of a minister of God in which he was inferior to none. {1Co_15:10; 2Co_4:2; 2Co_5:3-10; 2Co_11:5; 2Co_11:16-33; 2Co_12:1-13} For the exercise of his ministry he was responsible neither to "those of repute" at Jerusalem, nor to his censurers at Corinth; but to Christ who had bestowed it. {1Co_4:3-4}
The call of the Apostle proceeded also from "God the Father, who raised Jesus Christ from the dead." Christ was in this act the mediator, declaring the Supreme will. In other places, more briefly, he styles himself "Apostle by the will of God." His appointment took place by a Divine intervention, in which the ordinary sequence of events was broken through. Long after the Saviour in His bodily presence had ascended to heaven, when in the order of nature it was impossible that another Apostle should be elected, and when the administration of His Church had been for several years carried on by human hands, He appeared once more on earth for the purpose of making this man His "minister and witness"; He appeared in the name of "the Father, who had raised Him from the dead." This interposition gave to Pauls ministry an exceptional character. While the mode of his election was in one aspect humbling, and put him in the position of "the untimely one," the "least of the Apostles," whose appearance in that capacity was unlooked for and necessarily open to suspicion; on the other hand, it was glorious and exalting, since it so richly displayed the Divine mercy and the transforming power of grace.
But why does he say, who raised Him from the dead? Because it was the risen Jesus that he saw, and that he was conscious of seeing in the moment of the vision. The revelation that arrested him before Damascus, in the same moment convinced him that Jesus was risen, and that he himself was called to be His servant. These two convictions were inseparably linked in Pauls recollections. As surely as God the Father had raised His Son Jesus from the dead and given Him glory, so surely had the glorified Jesus revealed Himself to Saul his persecutor to make him His Apostle. He was, not less truly than Peter or John, a witness of His resurrection. The message of the Resurrection was the burden of the Apostleship.
He adds, "and all the brethren which are with me." For it was Pauls custom to associate with himself in these official letters his fellow-labourers, present at the time. From this expression we gather that he was attended just now by a considerable band of companions, such as we find enumerated in Act_20:2-6, attending him on his journey from Ephesus to Corinth during the third missionary tour. This circumstance has some bearing on the date of the letter. Bishop Lightfoot (in his Commentary) shows reason for believing that it was written, not from Ephesus as commonly supposed, but at a somewhat later time, from Macedonia. It is connected by numerous and close links of internal association with the Epistle to the Romans, which on this supposition speedily followed, and with 2 Corinthians, immediately preceding it. And the allusion of the text, though of no decisive weight taken by itself, goes to support this reasoning. Upon this hypothesis, our Epistle was composed in Macedonia, during the autumn of 57 (or possibly, 58) A.D. The emotion which surcharges 2 Corinthians runs over into Galatians; while the theology which labours for expression in Galatians finds ampler and calmer development in Romans.
2. Of the readers, "the churches of Galatia," it is not necessary to say much at present. The character of the Galatians, and the condition of their Churches, will speak for themselves as we proceed. Galatian is equivalent to Gaul, or Kelt. This people was a detached fragment of the great Western-European race, which forms the basis of our own Irish and West-British populations, as well as of the French nationality. They had conquered for themselves a home in the north of Asia Minor during the Gaulish invasion that poured over Southeastern Europe and into the Asiatic peninsula some three and a half centuries before. Here the Gallic intruders stubbornly held their ground; and only succumbed to the irresistible power of Rome. Defeated by the Consul Manlius in 189 B.C., the Galatians retained their autonomy, under the rule of native princes, until in the year 25 B.C., on the death of Amyntas, the country was made a province of the Empire. The people maintained their distinctive character and speech despite these changes. At the same time they readily acquired Greek culture, and were by no means barbarians; indeed they were noted for their intelligence. In religion they seem to have largely imbibed the Phrygian idolatry of the earlier inhabitants.
The Roman Government had annexed to Galatia certain districts lying to the south, in which were situated most of the cities visited by Paul and Barnabas in their first missionary tour. This has led some scholars to surmise that Pauls "Galatians" were really Pisidians and Lycaonians, the people of Derbe, Lystra, and Pisidian Antioch. But this is improbable. The inhabitants of these regions were never called Galatians in common speech; and Luke distinguishes "the Galatic country" quite clearly from its southern borderlands. Besides, the Epistle contains no allusions, such as we should expect in the case supposed, to the Apostles earlier and memorable associations with these cities of the South. Elsewhere he mentions them by 2Ti_3:2; and why not here, if he were addressing this circle of Churches?
The Acts of the Apostles relates nothing of Pauls sojourn in Galatia, beyond the fact that he twice "passed through the Galatic country," {Act_16:6; Act_18:23} on the first occasion during the second missionary journey, in travelling north and then westwards from Pisidia; the second time, on his way from Antioch to Ephesus, in the course of the third tour. Galatia lay outside the main line of Pauls evangelistic career, as the historian of the Acts describes it, outside the Apostles own design, as it would appear from Gal_4:13. In the first instance Galatia follows (in the order of the Acts), in the second precedes Phrygia, a change which seems to indicate some new Importance accruing…to this region: the further clause Act_18:23, "strengthening all the disciples," shows that the writer was aware that by this time a number of Christian societies were in existence in this neighbourhood.
No city is mentioned in the address, but the country of Galatia only-the single example of the kind in Pauls Epistles. The Galatians were countryfolk rather than townsfolk. And the Church seems to have spread over the district at large, without gathering itself into any one centre, such as the Apostle had occupied in other parts of his Gentile field.
Still more significant is the curtness of this designation. Paul does not say, "To the Churches of God in Galatia," or "to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ," as in other Epistles. He is in no mood for compliments. These Galatians are, he fears, "removing from God who had called them" (Gal_1:6). He stands in doubt of them. It is a question whether they are now, or will long continue, "Churches of God" at all. He would gladly commend them if he could; but he must instead begin with reproaches. And yet we shall find that, as the Apostle proceeds, his sternness gradually relaxes. He remembers that these "foolish Galatians" are his "children," once ardently attached to him. {Gal_4:12-20} His heart yearns towards them; he travails over them in birth again. Surely they will not forsake him, and renounce the gospel of whose blessings they had enjoyed so rich an experience. {Gal_3:3; Gal_5:10} He calls them "brethren" once and again; and with this kindly word, holding out the hand of forgiveness, he concludes the letter.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv1–24 1–5. Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by…
1–5. Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man. This verse is the text of the first two chapters. In the Introduction I have pointed out that this Epistle was written on account of the disturbance made among the churches of Galatia by false teachers. These teachers sought to prepare a way for their doctrines by discrediting Paul. If they admitted that he was an apostle at all, they claimed that he was inferior to Peter and the Twelve; that he had received his gospel from them, and hence all must look to Jerusalem for the true gospel. Hence Paul here begins by declaring that his apostleship is not from man, but directly from Christ. The other apostles did not convert, choose, or appoint him, but Christ came from heaven to commission him.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 10, 13, 15, 20 Gal_1:1. Paul, an apostle.—He puts his own name and…
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES
Gal_1:1. Paul, an apostle.—He puts his own name and apostleship prominent, because his apostolic commission needs to be vindicated against deniers of it. Not of, or from, men, but by, or from, Jesus Christ and God the Father. The divine source of his apostleship is emphatically stated, as also the infallible authority for the gospel he taught.
Read full note →
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Gal_1:1-5
Apostolic Credentials.
I. That apostolic credentials claim distinctively divine authority.—“Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Gal_1:1). It must have been a painful moment when Paul first became aware that spurious teachers questioned the validity of his apostolic call, and a still more painful disappointment when he discovered his Galatian converts so readily gave credence to those who maligned him. His fears were roused, not so much for his personal reputation as for the injury to the religious life of his converts if they cherished suspicions as to the divine character of the truth they had been taught. The mischief must be dealt with at once. He boldly and emphatically declared that his commission was direct from God, and bore the same divine stamp as that of the other apostles, whose authority even the false teachers had not the temerity to deny. It has ever been the rôle of the subtle adversary of man to strive to eliminate the divine element from the truth and drag it down to a common human level. Truth then loses its stability, begins to move in a flux of confused human opinions, and the soul is plunged into bewilderment and doubt. Whatever tends to vitiate the truth brings peril to the peace and upward progress of the soul. The power of the teacher increases with an ever-deepening conviction of the divine authority of his message.
II. That apostolic credentials recognise the oneness of the Christian brotherhood.—“And all the brethren which are with me” (Gal_1:2). Here is the indication that St. Paul was not unduly solicitous about his personal reputation. While insisting upon the unquestioned divine source of his apostleship, he does not arrogate a haughty superiority over his brethren. He is one with them in Christ, in the belief of and fidelity to the truth, in the arduous labours of pioneer work, in building up and consolidating the Church, and unites them with himself in his Christian greeting. It is the sublime aim of the gospel to promote universal brotherhood by bringing men into spiritual union with Christ, the Elder Brother. Christ is the unifying force of redeemed humanity. Ecclesiastical ranks are largely human expedients, necessary for maintaining order and discipline. The great Head of the Church has promulgated the unchallengeable law of religious equality: “One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren” (Mat_23:8).
III. That apostolic credentials justify the use of a sublime and comprehensive greeting.—“Grace be to you and peace,” etc. (Gal_1:3). A greeting like this from some lips would be fulsome, or at the best mere exaggerated politeness. But coming from one who was in constant communion with the Source of the blessings desired, and from which Source he received his call to the apostleship, it is at once dignified, large-hearted, and genuine. Grace and peace are inclusive of the best blessings Heaven can bestow or man receive. They are divine in their origin and nature—“from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.” Grace is the spontaneous outflow of divine love in the redemption of the race, and is the more precious because unmerited; and peace is the conscious experience of that grace in the believing soul—peace from outward dissension and inward fret, peace of conscience, peace with God and man. The blessings the apostle desires God is ever eager to bestow. “Filling up our time with and for God is the way,” said David Brainerd, “to rise up and lie down in peace. I longed that my life might be filled up with fervency and activity in the things of God. Oh the peace, composure, and God like serenity of such a frame! Heaven must differ from this only in degree, not in kind.”
IV. That apostolic credentials are evident in the clear statement of the great principles of the gospel salvation.—“Who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us,” etc. (Gal_1:4-5). In these words we have a suggestive epitome of the whole gospel. Man is delivered from sin and from the present evil age by the self-sacrifice of Jesus; and this method is “according to the will of God,” and brings unceasing glory to His name. This is the gospel in a nutshell, and involves all the grand principles of redemption the apostle was commissioned to declare, and which he develops more clearly in the course of this epistle. Deliverance is divinely provided, irrespective of human effort or merit. The Galatians in seeking to return to legal bondage ignored the root principles of the gospel and imperilled their salvation. The apostle vindicated the credentials of his high office by faithful remonstrance and plain authoritative statement of the truth divinely revealed to him. It is a mark of high intellectual power to make the greatest truths clear to the humblest mind. Christian teaching has all the more weight when associated with irreproachable moral character.
Lessons.—
1. God should be gratefully recognised as the Giver of all good.
2. The special endowments of one are for the benefit of all.
3. It is a solemn responsibility to be entrusted with the preaching of the gospel.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
Gal_1:1. The Power of the Gospel.—
1. Free grace doth often light upon the most unworthy, not only by giving salvation to themselves, but making them instrumental for the kingdom of Christ and bringing about the salvation of others.
2. Faithful and called ministers of Christ are to be so far from cowardly ceding, or heartless fainting under the bold, bitter, and unjust aspersions of those who question their calling, and thereby weaken their authority and render the truth of their doctrine doubtsome, that they ought the more to avow their calling against all who question it.
3. The office of an apostle had this peculiar to itself, that the designation was not mediately by the election and suffrages of men, as in the calling of ordinary office-bearers, but immediately from God, so that the function of the apostles ceased with them, and did not pass by succession to a pope or any other.
4. The false apostles, that they might shake the truth preached by Paul and establish their own contrary error, alleged that he was no lawful apostle. This Paul refutes by showing he was called by Christ after He was raised from the dead and had taken possession of His kingdom, so that his calling had at least no less dignity and glory in it than if he had been called by Christ when He was on earth.—Fergusson.
Gal_1:2. The Church a Witness.—
1. The more they are whom God maketh use of to hold out the beauty of truth that we may embrace and follow it, or the deformity and danger of error that we may fly from and hate it, we are the more to take heed how we reject or embrace what is pressed upon us, as there will be the more to bear witness of our guilt and subscribe to the equity of God’s judgment if we obey not.
2. We are not so to stumble at the many sinful failings which may be in Churches, as to unchurch them, by denying them to be a Church, or to separate from them, if their error be not contrary to fundamental truths, or if they err from human frailty, and not obstinately and avowedly.—Ibid.
Gal_1:3. Christian Salutation.—
1. God’s gracious favour and goodwill is to be sought by us in the first place, whether for ourselves or others, that being a discriminating mercy betwixt the godly and the wicked.
2. Peace is to be sought after grace, and not to be expected before it. Peace without grace is no peace. There can be no peace with God or His creatures, nor sanctified prosperity, except through Jesus Christ we lay hold on God’s favour and grace.
3. Grace and peace we cannot acquire by our own industry or pains. They come from God, are to be sought from Him, and His blessing is more to be depended on than our own wisdom or diligence.
4. They to whom grace and peace belong are such as acknowledge Christ to be their Lord to command and rule them, and yield subjection to Him in their heart and life.—Ibid.
Grace and Peace.
I. Grace is not any gift in man, but is God’s and in God. It signifies His gracious favour and goodwill, whereby He is well pleased with us in Christ.
II. Peace is a gift not in God, but in us.
1. Peace of conscience—a quietness and tranquillity of mind arising from a sense of reconciliation with God.
2. Peace with the creatures—with angels, with the godly, with our enemies.
3. Prosperity and good success.
III. Whereas Paul begins his prayer with grace we learn that grace in God is the cause of all good things in us.
IV. The chief things to be sought after are the favour of God in Christ and the peace of a good conscience.
V. As grace and peace are joined we learn that peace without grace is no peace.—Perkins.
Gal_1:4-5. The Unselfishness of Jesus.
I. Prompting self-surrender.—“Who gave Himself.”
II. His self-surrender was an unmerited and unlooked-for expiation.—“For our sins.”
III. Creates the hope and possibility of immediate salvation.—“That He might deliver us from this present evil World.”
IV. Was a suggestive revelation of the divine character.—“According to the will of God and our Father.”
V. Should evoke the spirit of grateful praise.—“To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
Gal_1:4. Christ our Sacrifice.
I. Whereas Christ is the giver of Himself it follows that His death and sacrifice were voluntary.
II. Therefore all merit and satisfaction for sin are reduced to the person of Christ, and there are no human satisfactions for sin, nor meritorious works done by us.
III. Christ our sacrifice works love in us.—We must in mind and meditation come to the cross of Christ.
1. The consideration of His endless pains for our sins must breed in us a godly sorrow. If He sorrowed for them, much more must we.
2. This knowledge is the beginning of amendment of life.
3. Is the foundation of comfort in them that truly turn to Christ.
IV. Christ gave Himself that He might deliver us from this evil world.—
1. We must be grieved at the wickedness of the world.
2. We must not fashion ourselves to the wicked lives of the men of this world.
3. Seeing we are taken out of this world, our dwelling must be in heaven.—Perkins.
The Gift of Christ.
I. The gift.—“He gave Himself.” Regard Christ:
1. As the object of every prophecy.
2. The substance of every type and shadow.
3. The subject of every promise.
4. He was qualified for the work of redemption. Divine, human, spotless.
II. Christ’s marvellous act.—“He gave Himself for our sins.”
1. To what He gave Himself. To all the privations and sorrows of human life, to obscurity and indigence, to scorn and infamy, to pain and anguish, to an ignominious and painful death.
2. The purpose for which He gave Himself. To deliver us from sin’s curse, defilement, dominion, and from the effects of sin in this world and in eternity.
III. The design of Christ’s offering—“That He might deliver us from the present evil world.” From its evil practices, its spirit, from attachment to it, and from the condemnation to which it will be subjected.
IV. Christ’s offering was according to the will of God.—
1. It was the will of God we should be saved.
2. Christ was the appointed agent.
3. The sacrifice of Christ was voluntary.—Helps.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 Gal 1:15-16
Gal 1:15-16
Delay the Silence of Conscience.
Read full note →
I. There are grounds, in the very nature of the case, for questioning whether in religion second thoughts are best. It shall hardly ever happen that the man who does not at once act on the impulse to prayer, but takes time for deliberation, will set himself solemnly to the duty of prayer. It is not that the duty will not bear being deliberated; it is only that second thoughts are worse than the first, as being thoughts that have been tampered with and alloyed by human pride and corruption. The best rule is the rule on which St. Paul acted, the rule of allowing no pause, no time for a second thought, between conviction as to a thing being right and adopting it, conviction as to a thing being wrong and avoiding it. "Immediately" and "I conferred not with flesh and blood."
II. It is painful to observe how Christians often halt between two opinions; how perplexed they are as to the right or the wrong of certain courses of action; how they run hither and thither for advice and for counsel, asking the sentiments of all their acquaintances and changing their own as they receive different answers. The first touches of God’s Spirit are meant to be transient, unless they are attended to. If you would keep the dew on the grass, you must keep the sun from the plant. If you would keep the impression on the heart, you must keep the world from the heart. Second thoughts make infidels, when first would have made believers. Second thoughts crucified the Lord Jesus Christ, when first would have crucified the flesh.
H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 1585.
References: Gal 1:15-17.—Homilist, 1st series, vol. v., p. 50; Ibid., 3rd series, vol. vii., p. 33. Gal 1:16.—R. Tuck, Christian World Pulpit, vol. v., p. 125; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 250. 1. 16, 17.—Ince, Church of England Pulpit, vol. vii., p. 137.
Gal 1:20
Men-pleasing.
I. Deliverance from the fear of men and from the necessity of always seeking to please men may be taken as a general description of the liberty of Christians; while, on the other hand, the necessity to please men represents, as it were, in a very typical manner, the non-freedom of a natural unredeemed man. All social relations involve a desire and an endeavour to please, to be accounted by other people as reposing a certain worth in them and as having a corresponding worth for them. That is a necessary thing, and therefore, of course, it is not in itself a wrong thing. Respect for others and due regard for the respect which others may pay to us is a necessary foundation of social life. If there is any man on earth for whom you have lost all respect, you may be sure that the fault is yours not less than his. It is plain, then, that slavery of the fear of man and bondage, the desire of pleasing men, is not the same thing as regard for the esteem of our fellow-men, with true respect for them. The real tyranny of men-pleasing which runs through natural society is this: that we are constantly constrained to do something, not because the action has any value towards God or man, but simply because usage and custom demand it of us, and if we did otherwise, we should give offence, be misunderstood, and so forth. The regard for what our neighbours will say or think constrains us to do things which we know are not our right work, things that are really a waste of the strength that God has given us. But what we have here to observe is, that this bondage is part of the bondage of sin.
II. How are we to be freed from this yoke of men-serving? Observe that even in a state of nature the slavery of men-pleasing does not press equally on all. Most persons have definite hard work to do, and they have to do it without looking either to the right or to the left; but that is not a true deliverance, because the work takes up every energy of life, cuts the worker off from all human fellowship, and so lays him under a more galling bondage. So, on the other hand, when I have done my day’s work, part of life remains, and this part is sure to become more or less subject to men-pleasing. The only true deliverance is the plan of life large enough to take in both the hours of work and play, a scheme in which a man can find his own day’s work laid out and plainly set before him, so that he may set himself to do it unswayed by what men may say or think, and yet with an assurance that just in doing this work, and doing it without any men-pleasing, he shall realise a true and full fellowship of life with his fellow-men; and this, I say, no man can realise till he becomes a servant of Christ. The true life can only be a life for God and in God; but then a life to and in God is only possible in Christ, for however noble and clear a plan God in law and providence may set before us, still sin can prevent us following the plan. We must have the forgiveness of sin, the promise of the Holy Spirit, the assurance of a Divine grace strong enough to conquer sin, of a power surrounding our life and keeping us close to God, in spite of all our weakness and all our sin; and this we can only have in a personal relation of faith to Christ our Saviour.
W. Robertson Smith, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xii., p. 241.
Reference: Gal 1:20.—T. T. Carter, Sermons, p. 386.
Gal 1:23
The Conversion of St. Paul.
I. The change that was made in Saul was of the most extraordinary kind, and not to be accounted for by any of those sudden transitions which one sometimes sees in unstable and vacillating characters. He was a man whose whole feelings, prejudices, and interests were enlisted against Christianity. He could become a Christian only by the sacrifice of position, property, and perhaps even of life. And if you consider the history of Saul, his hatred of Christianity, the ties which bound him to great men amongst the Jews, and the advantages which depended on adherence to his party, you must allow that he would not have been brought to preach the faith which once he destroyed unless by such a demonstration that Jesus was God’s Son, as to his own mind at least was quite irresistible. The brightness which struck down Saul of Tarsus lights up the moral firmament of every other generation. The voice by which he was arrested sends its echoes to the remotest lands and the remotest times.
II. The operations of God’s Spirit are various, and the only proof of being in Christ is to be a new creature; but being a new creature does not in any degree depend on being able to tell how and when you were renewed. Make it your business to ascertain the change, and not to explain it.
H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 2022.
References: Gal 1:23.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 246. Gal 1:23, Gal 1:24.—S. Pearson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 24. Gal 1:24.—F. Aveling, Ibid., vol. ii., p. 4; J. Stoughton, Ibid., vol. v., p. 145; H. Simon, Ibid., vol. xiv., p. 53.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain On v1 Subdivision 1. (Gal 1:1-24.)
Subdivision 1. (Gal 1:1-24.)
His entire independence of man in it.
Read full note →
The Galatians show us, in a pregnant example, how little man can be trusted to hold the blessing that he has. If, in fact, its continuance to him depended upon this, how hopeless would be the case; but our blessings are in Christ, held fast there by divine grace for us, and thus it is alone that they could avail us.
The Galatians had received the gospel with joy and thankfulness, yet now seemed ready to surrender it, no doubt without proper realization that they were doing so. They were simply adding the law to it, but, as the apostle shows them, this would be, in fact, to surrender it altogether. He writes with earnestness as always, but with a sharpness which was not characteristic of him. He salutes no one in the letter. He starts at once with his theme, wishing them, indeed, "grace and peace from God the Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ," but not even addressing them as the church of God, but simply as the "churches" (or assemblies) "of Galatia." He is, as he says, "in doubt about them." He has "to travail in birth again until Christ be formed" in them. Thus, they are for him assemblies which have afresh to prove their right to be called Christian assemblies. Their doctrinal wanderings he treats more seriously than that moral evil which we find at Corinth, and which strikes men naturally as being of a far worse character; but without the gospel, morality cannot maintain itself, and in the doctrine of Christ is the root of all morality. Thus he is as strong and peremptory as possible, pronouncing a curse upon himself or an angel from heaven, if it were possible for such to preach any different gospel from that he had preached to them.
1. He begins at once declaring the unique character of his ministry. He affirms his apostleship in the fullest manner, as "not of men," (derived from them as its source,) "nor through man" as the channel of its conveyance; but alone "through Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised Him from the dead." He is sent by the risen Christ, as we know, and not simply by Christ risen, but by One whom he sees for the first time in the glory of God in heaven. This character of his ministry marks his whole teaching here. He adds as confirmation of what he is saying, that all the brethren are with him in what he writes. This defection of the Galatians was, as he will show more perfectly, in fact, from the faith held by all. He adds that "Christ gave Himself for our sins that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father." The age, as we have seen, is the time-world, characterized by its opposition to God. The true Prince of the world has been crucified and cast out; the "god of this age" is Satan, but we are thus at once outside the world, -outside the whole region to which the law applies, as is evident. The Father’s will is our deliverance from it.
2. He begins at once, his heart full, to express his wonderment, knowing what he had known of how divine grace had wrought in them, that they were so soon being removed from Him who had called them unto the grace of Christ, to a different gospel. They had had in themselves, surely, the evidence that this call was of God. Blessing and power had not lacked. The gospel to which now they were listening was not another gospel, for there was no other. It was no true gospel, though it might bear the name of that. It was only the effort of some who were troubling them and who wished to pervert the gospel of Christ. Immediately he denounces them with the utmost severity; but it is love that speaks in the severity itself. If it were himself or "an angel from heaven who preached any other gospel than that which had been preached to them," (and he repeats this lest they should think that it was an ill-considered outburst) -if any one "preached any other gospel than that," not merely which had been preached to them, but which they had received" also, "let him be accursed." He was not, he adds, concerned about conciliating men in desiring saying this. It was for God he spoke, as desiring to have Him upon his side, not seeking to please men; for to be a man-pleaser and a servant of Christ would be in total contradiction.
3. He goes on now to show how he had himself learned this gospel. He had not learned it of men, he had not preached it as being educated in any human school. He had been taught it by one thing alone, the marvelous revelation of Christ to him. It was this which changed him from an enemy and a persecutor to the ardent and self-sacrificing disciple of Christ. The Galatians were listening to human teachers, though, as he has already intimated, they had, in fact, had the gospel which they had received, confirmed to them by the internal evidence as to its character, and the joy and power with which God had accompanied it.
4. He goes now into the circumstances of his conversion. He knew all about this Judaism which they were getting back into. He did not speak as one who had been a stranger to it. On the contrary, he had made the very greatest advances, -was an enthusiast for the law, beyond those of his own nation amongst whom he was, and, as an evidence of this he was beyond them all in persecuting the Church of God and wasting it. How the essential opposition of principles comes out here! Here it was only the human school that he was following; the traditions of his fathers, with all their appeal to nature and self-interest, stirred up his zeal; but God had better purposes for him, God, who had separated him from his mother’s womb, and now called him by His grace. His Son was revealed, not merely to him, objectively, but in him, to be henceforth the one abiding power and reality for his soul; and the spell of his traditional religion which had set him in opposition to the Christ of God, collapsed in that moment.
He was thus the suited preacher for the Gentiles, just as himself no Gentile, but a Jew in fullest reality of zealous legalism. If he gave this up, he gave it up as fully knowing it, as realizing in himself its contrariety to the grace which God had shown him. In the consciousness of this divine call, he now conferred not with flesh and blood, and not even with those who were apostles before him. God had, in his case, broken through all semblance even of apostolic succession, so dear to many since. On the contrary, having received this revelation, he went off into Arabia, into the desert, and returned once more, from such a school as Moses learned in, to the place to which he had come to persecute this faith which he now was preaching. By and by he did indeed go up to Jerusalem "to see Peter; but abode with him only fifteen days, and other of the apostles saw none except James, the Lord’s brother." Again he went off into regions far apart, and the churches of Judea which were in Christ did not know him even by face. They had simply heard that the persecutor preached now what he had been persecuting, and they glorified God in him.
As we think upon this history in its connection with what we have already seen as to the character of Christianity, it is plain how fully the prophetic character is manifested in it as characteristic of its ministry. The prophet is one brought near to God, to learn His mind in His presence, and is sent forth from God, responsible to Him alone in the message entrusted to him, to declare that mind. The priesthood in Israel was successional; but, as a consequence, in fact, of this, the succession guaranteed to it no true spiritual character whatever. The priesthood might, and did as we know, go far astray from God. Still the priest was the priest, and to be owned as that until God were pleased to set him aside; but the prophet even in Israel was a totally different person. Receiving his call in the most distinct way possible from God Himself, his spiritual character was vouched for by this independent call of God. He who sent him was responsible for him. Acquaintance with God was what marked him. He was characteristically the "man of God"; and as such stood forth for God, as we see in the history, in the times of deepest defection and apostasy, with his message of recall or of warning and judgment. This is, in fact, the character of all New Testament ministry. There is no official standing anywhere, to be revered whatever the life may be. The message from God is the whole matter; and the life if not with God would forfeit at once the claim to reality in the message. The gift is from God alone, bringing its responsibility with it. To accept man’s authorization of it would only be dishonor to the glorious Giver.
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 St. Paul maintains the Validity of his Apostleship and…
St. Paul maintains the Validity of his Apostleship and the Truth of his Gospel
1-5. The Apostle sends greetings from himself and the brethren with him to the Churches of Galatia, reminding them at the same time that his apostolic authority was not of human but of divine origin.
Read full note →
Paraphrase. '(1) I, Paul,—no self-constituted or humanly appointed missionary, but an Apostle divinely called by Christ and by God, who raised Him from the dead—(2) send greetings to the Churches of Galatia, in which all the brethren who are with me join. (3) May all spiritual blessings be yours from God and from Christ, (4) who offered Himself a living sacrifice for our sins, in order to save us from the spiritual bondage of this world and its lusts. (5) May all praise and glory be ascribed to Him eternally. Amen.'
1. An apostle] The title is used in the technical sense, and is introduced by St. Paul to assert his equality with the Twelve which had been challenged. It is always used by him in letters to Churches where his authority was questioned or to which he was unknown in person (Rom_1:1; 1Co_1:1; 2Co_1:1; Eph_1:1; Col_1:1); whereas in the cases where the Churches were thoroughly devoted to him he drops it altogether (Php_1:1; 1Th_1:1; 2Th_1:1). Not of men, as source, neither by (RV 'through') man, as medium. Sanday suggests the illuminative analogy of the Sovereign as the fount of honour, and the ministry as the channel through which the honour is conferred. But by (RV 'through') Jesus Christ, and God the Father] Both his conversion (Act_9:4-6; Gal_1:15) and his call to missionary work (Act_13:2 cp. Act_22:21) were directly from God and Jesus Christ.
Who raised him] It is the risen Christ from whom St. Paul derives his authority.
2. All the brethren which are with me] Some think this refers to the Apostle's travelling companions. Others hold that it includes the whole Church. If the letter was written from Antioch, it would thus convey the greeting of the Church which was the Mother-Church of the Galatian communities, as from it St. Paul proceeded to them. If it was written from Ephesus, it would inform them of the interest of that Church in their welfare.
Unto the churches] There is no commendation of them, as is usual in his letters (Rom_1:8; 1Co_1:4; Php_1:3).
4. Who gave himself up to death for our sins] cp. 1Co_15:3 on account of them, to atone for them, and to rescue us from their power. That he might deliver (recover) us from the evil which characterises this present evil world (age), according, etc.] connect with 'gave himself.'
5. (The) glory due to Him for His gracious action in salvation. Amen] = truly, may it be so.
6-10. A sharp rebuke for their speedy departure from the truth (of salvation by grace) under the influence of false teaching. There is but one true gospel; all rival teachings, whether proclaimed by man or angel, are false. Hence the Apostle's boldness and confidence.
Paraphrase. '(6) I am surprised that you should so soon have deserted the truth which I taught you for a spurious gospel. (7) This perversion is due to false teachers. (8, 9) But if we Apostles even—yes, if an angel from heaven—should proclaim any teaching contrary to the doctrine of salvation by grace and faith, I pronounce a curse upon him. (10) I make this strong assertion—and I repeat it—in the knowledge that in my teaching I am not seeking man's favour, but obeying God's will in the service of Christ.'
6. So soon] after their conversion; or better, after the Apostle's last visit. Him that called] that is, God. Another gospel] RV 'a different gospel'; a (pretended) gospel of a different kind (from mine), that is, false.
7. Which is not another] i.e. in addition to the true one, since, in the nature of the case, there can be but one. But there be] RV 'Only there are'; these heralds of a different doctrine are Jewish Christians who believe that observance of the Mosaic Law is necessary to salvation, and are misleading you through misconceiving and misrepresenting the gospel.
8. Accursed] the strongest possible form of condemnation: cp. Act_23:14; Rom_9:3; 1Co_12:3; 1Co_16:22.
9. We] the epistolary plural, as also in Gal_1:8 on repetition it becomes the emphatic 'I.' Said before] in his personal teaching when with them. Now again] emphatic and solemn repetition.
11-17. The gospel which St. Paul preached not of human origin. Twofold proof of the fact: (1) the Apostle's whole course of life until his conversion was intensely Jewish, and only by a divine revelation was he made a messenger of Christ; and (2) after his conversion he remained aloof from the men from whom he might have been supposed to receive his message.
Paraphrase. '(11, 12) I solemnly assure you that the doctrine which I have taught was not a human product or derived from any human source, but that it came to me by revelation from Christ Himself. (13, 14) In proof of this, consider how unlikely it is that I, an intense Jewish zealot and a fierce persecutor of the Church, should have been transformed into a preacher of Christ by any merely human means. (15, 16) But when God, who had chosen me from my birth and graciously called me, disclosed Christ to my heart and designated me as His messenger, I did not resort to human authorities in order to learn what my message was to be; (17) I did not visit the primitive Apostles to learn anything from them, but went away into the seclusion of Arabia, and thence returned, not to Jerusalem, but to Damascus.'
11. Certify] RV 'make known'; urge and impress upon you. The gospel] the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. Not after man] not human, but divine, in origin and character.
12. I neither received it of man, any more than the original Twelve received it from man (but from Christ); but I received it through (RV) the revelation of Jesus Christ] His conversion was a disclosure to him of the Messiahship and Saviourhood of Christ.
13. Ye have heard] a notorious fact. Beyond measure] Saul killed, as well as disturbed (Act_19:24; Act_22:4).
14. Profited] RV 'I advanced': cp. Act_22:3. Saul was more devoted than most of his compeers to the customs and traditions of his people and his sect (the Pharisees).
15. Who separated] God determined upon him as an Apostle from the time of his birth: cp. Isa_49:1; Jer_1:5. And called] in his experience on the Damascus road.
16. To reveal, etc.] to disclose in my consciousness—to my soul—the real meaning and saving power of Christ. That I might, etc.] This revelation carried with it this result. St. Paul seems to have been absent from Jerusalem during the ministry of Christ, and to have had no direct knowledge of Him before the vision on the road to Damascus.
17. Neither went I, etc.] I did not visit the seat of apostolic influence, as might have been expected. Arabia] This is not mentioned in Acts, as St. Luke does not deal with St. Paul's private life except in so far as is necessary to explain movements in prosecution of his work. The Apostle retired to the wilderness in the neighbourhood of Damascus (which was at that time subject to the king of Arabia) for thought and prayer. Perhaps it was there that he saw some of those visions and revelations of the Lord to which he refers in 2 Corinthians 12. Damascus] see also Act_9:25; 2Co_11:22-23, and notes.
18-24. It was a long time before St. Paul saw any of the original Apostles. When he did at length visit Jerusalem he saw only Peter and James. Then he departed to regions remote from Jerusalem. The Judæan Christians did not even know him by sight.
Paraphrase. '(18, 19) After my conversion my course was such as to prove my independence of human teachers. It was three years before I visited Jerusalem; then I went to interview Peter, and my stay was a short one. Of the other Apostles I saw only James. (20) I solemnly assert the truth of these statements. (21) I next travelled through Syria and Cilicia to my native province. (22-24) Up to this time I was personally quite unknown to the Judæan believers; they had merely heard that I, the fierce persecutor, had now become a preacher of the gospel, and they gave thanks to God for my conversion.'
18. After three years] a long time (though it probably does not mean, 'at the end of three years,' but rather, 'in the third year'), during which he could not have received instruction from the original Apostles. To see] RV 'to visit Cephas' (Peter)—to make his acquaintance and hear his story. Fifteen days] So short a sojourn could not have served for a course of instruction in the gospel. Act_9:26-30 must be read in the light of the first-hand information given here by St. Paul.
19. James] here called an Apostle in the secondary sense: cp. 1Co_15:7. Barnabas (Act_14:14) and Paul were also Apostles, though not of the Twelve.
20. To this solemn iteration he is moved, no doubt, by the thought of the aspersions of his enemies.
21. St. Luke says (Act_9:30) that he went from Jerusalem to Cæsarea (Roman capital of Judæa) and Tarsus—a more specific statement. By Syria and Cilicia is meant the Roman province of that name in which Tarsus was situated.
22. Unknown] though he had preached in and about Jerusalem (Act_9:28), since his labours there had been among the Greek-speaking Jews.
The Churches.. which were in Christ] not merely 'the Christian Churches' as opposed to the Jewish; but the Churches whose members were in a living relation to Christ, who fulfilled the command, 'Abide in me.'
23. They had heard only] that was all the knowledge they had of me. Preacheth the faith] proclaims the necessity of trust in Christ as the sole essential to salvation.
24. They glorified, etc.] They considered Saul's conversion not as a great gain to the Church, but as a great victory of grace. In me] in my case.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv1–24 Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man,…
Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv3, 4, 6, 10, 13, 14 Grace (in salvation). Gal 1:6; Gal 1:15; Gal 2:21;…
Grace
Grace (in salvation). Gal 1:6; Gal 1:15; Gal 2:21; Rom 3:24. (See Scofield "Joh 1:17").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 Analysis and Annotations
Analysis and Annotations
I. THE TESTIMONY OF PAUL CONCERNING HIS APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND THE GOSPEL
Read full note →
CHAPTER 1
1. The Introduction. (Gal 1:1-5)
2. The Rebuke. (Gal 1:6-10)
3. Paul’s Gospel Given by Revelation. (Gal 1:11-12)
4. How Paul became an Apostle Independent of Jerusalem. (Gal 1:13-24)
The introductory words of this Epistle are brief and of deep significance. He speaks of himself as an apostle not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father. His apostleship had been called in question and the gospel he preached branded as lacking authority. This opening statement of how Paul became an apostle is more fully developed in the main part of this chapter (Gal 1:11-24). He did not receive his apostleship through any man; his authority was neither successional nor derived. The Judaizing teachers who had sown their evil seed among the Galatians, had spoken of Peter as the apostle with authority and probably demanded that he should be recognized as the ecclesiastical head. Inasmuch as Paul had not been constituted an apostle through Peter’s authority, they said that he was no apostle at all. With their wrong doctrines about the law as a means to obtain righteousness, they evidently attempted to foster upon Christian ground an ecclesiastical authority, corresponding to the successional priesthood of the law covenant. What was begun by these false teachers has become the curse of Christianity, for any priestly assumption in the church is the corruption of Christian doctrine.
The Apostle Paul declares therefore that the source of his authority and his ministry was higher than man. He received his commission “through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from among the dead.” On the way to Damascus the risen Christ appeared to him in glory and made him an apostle. God the Father, who had raised His Son from the dead and gave Him glory (1Pe 1:21) also made Paul an apostle. To be one of the twelve apostles it was necessary to have been an eyewitness of His deeds and a listener to His words (Act 1:21). Matthias met this requirement and was therefore divinely chosen to fill the place of Judas. Some teach that Paul should have been put in the apostolate as the twelfth. But Paul could not have been one of the twelve apostles for he did not follow the Lord Jesus during the days of His earthly ministry. He did not know Christ after the flesh, but his acquaintance with Him began when he beheld Him in resurrection-glory. All his ministry, the gospel he preached, the glorious truths he taught, had their blessed source in the risen and exalted Christ. He therefore owned no other source, no other authority, but God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
And he mentions in these introductory words “all the brethren which are with me.” This means that the brethren with him endorsed all he was about to write to the Galatians in his great, God-given defense of the gospel. None of them could have any sympathy whatever with the most serious errors, aiming at the very heart of true Christianity, to which the Galatians had been willing listeners.
Another important fact is that the epistle is not addressed “to the church in Galatia “ but “to the churches.” The Spirit of God in the Corinthian Epistles addressed the Corinthians as “the church of God, the sanctified in Christ, called Saints” (1Co 1:2). In spite of their carnal walk and their spiritual declension the church in Corinth is recognized as being the church of God and its members as Saints. In writing to the Galatians, who were relinquishing the essential truths of the gospel of grace, departing from it and going back to the law as a means of justification, the Spirit of God does not make use of these distinguishing terms. He does not recognize as the church of God those who fall away from grace. From this we may learn that doctrinal evil is even a more serious matter than moral evil. How serious a thing a perverted gospel is we shall soon discover. “Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to Whom be glory forever and ever, Amen.” The great truth in these concluding introductory words the Galatians had forgotten. Righteousness cannot come by the law, to which the Galatians were turning again. Man destitute of all righteousness, helpless to obtain any kind of righteousness, is a lost and condemned sinner. But Christ came and gave Himself for our sins and to deliver us from this present evil age.
The words of introduction are followed by words of rebuke and painful surprise. The Apostle marvelled at their strange behavior, that they were so quickly changing from him who had called them in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel. From his lips they had heard the glad tidings of the grace of Christ when they were serving idols (4: 8). And now suddenly they were abandoning the gospel which had brought them such blessing, peace and power, and had saved them from the degradation of idolatry. They were accepting a different gospel, which was not another. Though another gospel was preached unto them, it was no gospel at all, for there can be no other gospel. There is but one gospel and that is the gospel of God concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, the love-gift of God, who became incarnate in order to die for sinners and be the propitiation for our sins. He finished the great work on the cross, a work which has glorified God and which enables Him to be a just God and a justifier (Rom 3:26) of all them that believe in Jesus. And He who finished this work is at the right hand of God. Therefore God has not another gospel, nor can He tolerate the perversion of His gospel. This is what the false teachers among the Galatians were doing as Paul writes: “but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” They were perverting the gospel by teaching that the finished work of Christ was not sufficient for salvation, but that man must add his works, keep the law, and become circumcised. It was a God-dishonoring denial of the completeness and perfection of the work of Christ. And this perversion of the gospel, and more than that, the setting aside of that gospel altogether, is the almost universal thing in Christendom in our times. We hear much of “salvation by character,” which is Satan’s invention. Ritualism which makes ordinances the necessary means of salvation is another perversion of the gospel of grace; and so is the teaching of Seventh Day Adventism. The phrase one hears so much, “God has done His part and we must do our part,” is another phase of a perverted gospel. Man is a lost sinner, helpless and hopeless in himself; he can do nothing, for he is without strength (Rom 5:6). The doing is all on God’s side; all the sinner can do is to accept what the grace of God in Christ offers to him. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8-9).
“But though we, or an angel from heaven should preach unto you any other gospel than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed (anathema). As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any other gospel than that ye did receive, let him be accursed.” These are strong and solemn words. Some have suggested that Paul was carried away by his passion, when he heard that his authority had been impeached, and that he wrote unwisely. They forget that it was not Paul who penned these words but the Spirit of God. The anathema upon the perverters of the gospel of Christ is fully justified when we consider what is at stake. The perversion of the gospel touches the unspeakably blessed work of Christ on Calvary’s cross. If in any way righteousness is through the law, by what man does, then Christ died in vain (Gal 2:21). Behind every perversion of the gospel, be it Ritualism, Christian Science, Seventh-Day Keeping, the new theology and other systems, stands the enemy of the truth of God, who always aims at the Person and Work of Christ. God, and it is a solemn truth, can do nothing else than put His curse upon those who reject, pervert and falsify the gospel of His Son. The ardent words of the apostle are very remarkable. The Holy Spirit has given us God’s own testimony, that if an angel came to teach what the apostle had not taught, he would be anathema. It little mattered who he might be, if he contradicted the testimony of God. Paul well knew that he had received it from God Himself, and he who opposed or falsified it, opposed the authority of God, and the truth which He in His grace made known.
Let Christians take heed to the solemn words of the apostle. We possess them in this Epistle, as well as in others which he wrote. They are the touchstone for all teaching; and we need to study them in order to know if he who speaks, tells us the truth of God. So solemn was this point, so deeply was it felt by the apostle, that he again repeats what he had before said--that whoever should preach any other gospel than that which the Galatians had received from himself, should be anathema.--J. Nelson Darby.
Nor must we forget that a day is coming when the divine anathema pronounced here will be executed. God will surely not tolerate forever the rejection of His Son and the work He accomplished. The vengeance of God is in store for all who do not obey the gospel (2Th 1:8). The doom of an apostate Christendom is pre-written in God’s Word; and the apostasy is the rejection and perversion of the gospel. Let God’s people everywhere witness against the spurious gospel as positively and solemnly as the great servant of Christ did in these words.
In his testimony and service he was not a man-pleaser, “for if I were pleasing men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” He did not seek the applause of men and of the world. If he accommodated himself to men, seeking to please them, he would not be Christ’s servant. Characteristic of the preachers of a perverted gospel is that they are catering to the wishes of men. When sound doctrine is no longer endured, then after their own lusts do they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2Ti 4:3). And Jude describes these “men-pleasers” as follows: “Their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage” (Jud 1:16).
The words of rebuke are followed by an historical account of his ministry, how he received the gospel and how he became an apostle independent of Jerusalem. The gospel he preached was not according to man, by which he meant, that he had not received it from any man, nor had somebody taught it to him. He did not get his instructions from those who were apostles before him. He had received it all by the immediate revelation of Jesus Christ. It is then incorrect to speak of a “Pauline theology” and “Pauline gospel” as if his mind had somehow put it all together and constructed a gospel-scheme. No Mind of man could have ever invented or discovered the marvelous truths of the gospel. It is supernatural in its revelation and in its power. He then traces his remarkable experience once more, what a religious, zealous, law-keeping Jew he was. And where did all his zeal, his law-keeping lead him? It made him a persecutor of the church of God. (Legalism is harsh like the law which can only curse man. The great legalistic and ritualistic system, Rome, is the persecutor of the Saints of God. Wherever grace is denied and the legal principle is made prominent harshness and intolerance are the results, if not actual persecution.) On the road to Damascus the God who had separated him called him by his grace, and the Son of God in His glory was revealed to him as well as in him, so that He might preach Him to the Gentiles. And he did not confer with flesh and blood after his conversion, neither did he go to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before him. To go up to Jerusalem would have been for him a natural thing; to go back to the city where he had wrought such havoc as a persecutor and there to confess his guilt and testify of Christ, may have appealed to him as manly. But he did not confer with flesh and blood; he did not follow his own reasonings. And why should he go to Jerusalem to consult with the other apostles? Should he go there to report to them of what had happened, ask their council and gain their sanction? All this was unnecessary for he had received his call and commission from the Lord, and there was no need to go and consult any man about it. His independence of Jerusalem and his dependence on the Lord as His servant is thereby established. Jerusalem did not make him an apostle; the Lord had done this. Instead of going to see the apostles and put himself under them he went under the Lord, into Arabia and returned again to Damascus. After three years he went up to Jerusalem to visit with Peter. What happened during that visit? The apostles did not meet in council to examine Paul about his experience and fitness to preach the gospel. He did not seek the sanction or authority of Jerusalem, but he abode there with Peter for only fifteen days, to become acquainted with him. The other apostles he did not see at all, not even the beloved disciple, save James, the Lord’s brother. All this proves his claim “an apostle not from men, nor through man.” Afterwards he went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, everywhere preaching and teaching his God-given gospel. The many churches of Judea did not know him by face, but heard that the erstwhile persecutor now preached the faith he once destroyed. He tells the Galatians how little he had to do with Peter and the other apostles. The false teachers had brought this against him and had challenged his authority as an apostle on account of not being linked with Peter. He fully avows all this and shows that his apostleship was entirely independent of Jerusalem and the twelve apostles. And here we have the character of true New Testament ministry. It is from the Lord, independent of man and human, ecclesiastical authority. Its message is the message of God.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv6, 11, 18 Paul’s Reason for Writing the epistle. Gal 1:6-10,
Paul’s Reason for Writing the epistle. Gal 1:6-10,
v. 6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel;
Read full note →
v. 7. which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ.
v. 8. But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
v. 9. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
v. 10. For do I now persuade men or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet please men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Paul’s agitation is evident from the first, in every word which he writes. He had been startled by the intelligence which he received, he was intensely indignant at the attitude taken by the Galatians. Instead of offering general remarks, he immediately launches forth in a vehement discussion of the situation as it presented itself according to trustworthy accounts; for the perversion of the truth as practiced by the agitators struck at the very core of Christianity; in pretending to aim at the apostle, the enemies were really placing his office under suspicion and directly hurting the cause of the Gospel.
Like a mighty torrent the force of his resentment bursts forth: I am astonished, I marvel, that so quickly you are changing over from Him that called you in the grace of Christ to another gospel. The news which Paul had received had filled him with surprised astonishment, it had almost taken his breath away, since it indicated such a quick change of mind on the part of the Galatians. For although his opponents had not yet scored a definite success, the idea which they broached had found entrance, it had gained adherents with remarkable rapidity, a fact which in itself was a disgrace to the people that had shown such an encouraging interest in the true Gospel; they were being won over, and in this they were willingly lending their ear to the false teachers. Their apostasy (for it was that to which their fickleness was drawing them) to another gospel, to a message which purported to be a message of salvation, a different, a spurious gospel, was not so much from Paul, who had issued to them the Gospel-call, as from Christ and God; for the call proceeded in the grace of Christ, from the divine love. Note: That the call to grace goes forth is due to the free mercy and love of Christ, and it is issued through the Word, by the mouth of the messengers of Christ.
That it was a false lead to which the attention of the Galatians had been drawn in their fickleness is asserted by Paul with the greatest vehemence: Whereas there is no other; or: Which other sort of gospel can make no claim of genuineness, except there are some that are unsettling you and wanting to corrupt the Gospel of Christ. That was the apostle’s charge against the agitators, that they were attempting to pass off their false message as the only true and genuine Gospel, and that they were thus marketing a lie. The result of this deception was a twofold one: They were disturbing and troubling the minds and consciences of the Galatians, causing them to be doubtful as to the doctrine which they had been taught; and they were incidentally doing their best to distort and pervert the real Gospel of Christ, the glorious message of salvation through His name. If they had succeeded in their design, it would have meant the end of pure evangelical preaching in the congregations affected. Note: This verse must be kept in mind at all times against the perverters of the message of sin and grace, no matter in what guise they come, just as it was used by the reformers in rejecting the claims of the Romish Church.
In a ringing challenge the words of Paul sound forth: But now also, though we or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you contrary to the Gospel which we preached to you, let God’s curse be on him! The word anathema, rendered "accursed" in the Authorized Version, was applied especially to all offerings devoted under a solemn oath to death or destruction, Lev 27:28; Jos 7:1; Act 13:14. It was not that Paul was arrogating to himself the right to excommunicate any individuals without the consent and resolution of the congregation, but that he was affirming general principles, which, on the part of God, hold true for all times. Speaking of himself and his coworkers, and therefore of all true ministers of the Gospel, he states that no doctrine has the right to exist in the Church which differs from, and contradicts, the Gospel as it has been proclaimed by him in all his work. It is not a matter of dispute between various teachers, all of whom may claim purity of truth for themselves, but the contrast is that between truth and falsehood. And there it holds good: Not Paul himself, not any of his assistants, not any minister of the Gospel, not even an angel from heaven can alter the truth in Christ. If anyone should, in spite of this principle, presume to substitute a spurious Gospel, any false doctrine, for the truth of redemption, then such a one should be subject to God’s curse, the end of which is eternal death. Note: This principle must be upheld by all Christians over against the claims of false teachers; any deviation from the sound doctrine as found in the Bible, any substitution of man-made philosophies and expositions, places the authors of such attempts under the curse of God. "The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel. " "Therefore we shall confidently say with Paul: May all doctrine from heaven or from the earth or no matter whence it may have been brought, perish and be accursed, which teaches to rely upon other works, other righteousness, other merits than those which belong to Christ."
For the sake of emphasis, Paul repeats this solemn statement: As we have lately forewarned you, so I say also again: If any one preaches a gospel to you which contradicts that which you have received, let God’s curse be upon him. Paul seems not only to have uttered general warnings against any doctrine at variance with the pure Gospel which he was preaching, but also to have pointed out specifically, also through Silas and Timothy, that any religion of works would remove the very foundation of the Gospel. These warnings may have been given particularly on the third journey, when the news of the activity of Judaizing teachers was spread. And he explains the severity of his expressions, of his double anathema, by asking indignantly: For is it men that I am now striving to please, to conciliate, or God? Or am I zealous about finding the favor of men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. If his object were to persuade men, to gain them for his own person, to seek their approval for selfish reasons, then his boasting about being an unselfish servant of Christ, for the purpose of advancing the glory of Christ only, would be hypocrisy and deception. But he insists that his sole aim and object in preaching the Gospel is the furtherance of God’s glory through the declaration of the entire counsel of salvation; this he does in his capacity as servant of Christ, whether it pleases men or not, for all men by nature are opposed to the truth and do not desire the vicarious atonement of Jesus. If he were speaking to please men, he would thereby admit that he had personal interests at stake, and his message would be bound to be influenced by that fact. But since he has in mind the glory of the Lord, he speaks after the manner and by the Spirit of God, in disinterested single-mindedness. It is the disposition which must animate and actuate every true servant of Christ at all times.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21 General Information:
General Information:
Paul, an apostle, writes this letter to the churches in the area of Galatia.
Read full note →
General Information:
Unless noted otherwise, all instances of "you" and "your" in this letter refer to the Galatians and are plural. (See: Forms of You)
who raised him
"who caused him to live again"
brothers
Here this means fellow Christians, including both men and women, since all believers in Christ are members of one spiritual family, with God as their heavenly Father. AT: "brothers and sisters" (See: When Masculine Words Include Women)
translationWords
Paul
apostle
Jesus
God the Father
brother
church
Galatia
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23 1:1–2:21 Paul’s opponents had questioned his integrity and authority…
1:1–2:21 Paul’s opponents had questioned his integrity and authority as an apostle, so he opens his letter by defending his apostleship.
1:1-5 As in all his letters, Paul identifies himself and greets the recipients. This greeting is notable for (1) Paul’s strong assertion of his apostolic authority (1:1); and (2) the lack of thanks, prayer, or praise, which are replaced by rebuke (1:6-10).
Read full note →
1:1 Paul, an apostle: Apostles were commissioned representatives having authority delegated by a sending agent, often a church body or council (e.g., 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). But Paul was not made an apostle by the Jerusalem church. Rather, he was directly commissioned by Jesus Christ himself and had Christ’s authority (Acts 9:1-15; 26:12-20; see also Rom 1:5), which gave him equal authority with the other apostles. • Paul traced his commission to God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead. The resurrection made Paul’s commission possible.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.