Commentary on Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians Thessalonians Timothy Titus and Philemon John Calvin
John Calvin was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
7. Imo contra, quum vidissent mihi concreditum fuisse evangelium praeprputii, quemadmodum Petro Circumcisionis;
8. (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
8. (Nam qui efficax fuit in Petro ad apostolatum Circumcisionis efficax fuit et in me erga Gentes);
9. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
9. Quumque cognovissent gratiam mihi datam Iaeobus et Cephas et Ioannes, qui videbantur columnae esse, dextras dederunt mihi ac Barnabae societatis, ut nos inter Gentes, ipsi vore in Circumcisionem, apestolatu fungerenur.
10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
10. Tanturn ut pauperurn memores essenms, in quo et diligens fui, ut hoc ipsum facerem.
6. Of those who seemed to be somewhat. 55 Paul is not yet satisfied, without making the Galatians understand that he had learned nothing from Peter and the apostles. Hence Porphyry and Julian 56 accuse the holy man of pride, because he claims so much for himself that he cannot endure to learn anything from others; because he boasts of having become a teacher without any instruction or assistance; and because he labors so hard not to appear in an inferior character. But any one who will consider how necessary that boasting was, will acknowledge that it was holy boasting, and worthy of the highest praise; for, if he had yielded this point to his opponents, that he had profited under the apostles, he would have furnished them with two charges against him. They would immediately have said, ``And so you made some progress; you corrected your past errors, and did not repeat your former rashness.'' Thus, in the first place, the whole doctrine which he had hitherto taught would have fallen under suspicion; and, secondly, he would ever afterwards have possessed less authority, because he would have been reckoned but an ordinary disciple. We find, therefore, that it was not on his own account, but by the necessity under which he lay to establish the doctrine, that he was led to this holy boasting. The controversy has no reference to individuals, and therefore cannot be a struggle of ambition; but Paul's determination was that no man, however eminent, should throw into the shade his apostleship, on which the authority of his doctrine depended. If 55"{Τῶν} {δοκούντων} {εἶναί} {τι}, the men `who appeared to be somewhat,' that is, persons of highest character and estimation. For though this word signifies to `appear,' or `seem,' yet it is not always used in a diminutive or disparaging sense, but to denote what they really are, and what others think them to be. Thus, {τῶν} {᾿Ελλήνων} {δοκοῦντες} {διαφέρειν} (AElian) are persons esteemed as the principal men of Greece; and Aristotle is said {σόφος} {ἄνηρ} {καὶ} {ὦν} {καὶ} {εἶναι} {δοκῶν}, both to be, and to be esteemed as a wise man.' ``Chandler.
56Porphyry, ({Πορφύριος}.) a Greek philosopher, (whose original name was Malchus,) and Julian, the Roman emperor, (commonly called ``the apostate,'') were able and virulent opponents of Christianity. Their writings drew forth powerful defences, by which all their arguments were triumphantly confuted. --- Ed.
CHAPTER 2
this be not enough to silence those dogs, their barking is sufficiently answered.
Whatsoever they were. These words must be read as a separate clause; for the parenthesis was intended to assure his opponents that he did not concern himself with the opinions of men. This passage has been variously interpreted. Ambrose thinks that it is a passing reference to the folly of attempting to lower Paul by holding up the apostles; and represents him as saying; ``As if I were not equally at liberty to object that they were poor, illiterate men, while I, from my early years, enjoyed a liberal education under the care of Gamaliel. But I pass over all this, because I know that there is no respect of persons with God.'' Chrysostom and Jerome take a harsher view of the words, as an indirect threatening of the most distinguished apostles. ``Whatsoever they may be, if they swerve from duty, they shall not escape the judgment of God; neither the dignity of their office, nor the estimation of men, shall protect them.'' But another interpretation appears to me more simple, and more agreeable to Paul's design. He admits that they were first in the order of time, but contends that this did not prevent him from being their equal in rank. He does not say that it is of no consequence to him what they are at present; but he is speaking of a period now past, when they were already apostles, and when he was opposed to the faith of Christ. In short, he does not choose that what is past shall decide the matter; and refuses to admit the proverb, that he who comes first has the best right.
No man's person. Besides the interpretations which I have mentioned, a third is not unworthy of notice, --- that in the government of the world distinctions of rank are admitted, but in the spiritual kingdom of Christ they can have no place. There is plausibility in the statement, but it is in reference to worldly government, that it is said, ``Ye shall not respect persons in judgment,.'' (Deuteronomy 1:17.)
But I do not enter into that argument, for it does not affect this passage. Paul simply means, that the honorable rank which the apostles had attained did not prevent him from being called by God, and raised, all at once, from the lowest condition to be their equal. The difference between them, though great, is of no value in the sight of God, who does not accept persons, and whose calling is not influenced by any prejudices. But this view may likewise appear liable to objection; for, granting it to be true, and a truth which must be carefully maintained, that in our intercourse with God there is no respect of persons, how does this apply to Peter and his fellow-apostles, who were venerable, not merely for their rank, but for true holiness and spiritual gifts?
The word person is contrasted with the fear of God and a good conscience; and this is its ordinary acceptation in Scripture. (Acts 10:34,35 1 Peter 1:17.) But piety, zeal, holiness, and other similar graces, were the principal grounds of the esteem and respect in which the apostles were held; while Paul speaks contemptuously of them, as if they had possessed nothing but the outward forms.
I reply: Paul is not discussing the real worth of the apostles, but the idle