Ver. 1–3. Paul, An Apostle, (Not Of Men, Neither By Men, But By Jesus Christ And God The Father, Who Raised Him From The
CHAPTER 1
VER. 1–3. PAUL, AN APOSTLE, (NOT OF MEN, NEITHER BY MEN, BUT BY JESUS CHRIST AND GOD THE FATHER, WHO RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD;) AND ALL THE BRETHREN WHICH ARE WITH ME, UNTO THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA: GRACE BE TO YOU AND PEACE FROM GOD THE FATHER, AND FROM OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
Not only this exordium, but, so to speak, the whole Epistle, is full of a vehement and lofty spirit. For always to address one’s disciples with mildness, even when they needed severity, would be to play the corrupter and enemy, not the teacher. Wherefore our Lord too, who generally spoke gently to His disciples, here and there uses sterner language, and at one time pronounces a blessing, at another a rebuke. Thus, having said to Peter, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, and having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession, shortly afterwards He says, Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me. Again, on another occasion, Are ye also yet without understanding? And what awe He inspired them with appears from John’s saying, that, when they beheld Him conversing with the Samaritan woman, though they reminded Him to take food, no one ventured to say, Why talkest Thou, or what seekest Thou, with her? Thus taught, and walking in the steps of his Master, Paul hath varied his discourse according to the need of his disciples, at one time using knife and cautery, at another applying mild remedies. To the Corinthians he says, What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? but to the Galatians, O foolish Galatians. Which reproof he gives not once only, but a second time, and towards the conclusion he says with a reproachful allusion to them, Let no man trouble me; then he sooths them again with the words, My little children, of whom I travail in birth again: and so in many other instances.
Now that this Epistle breathes an indignant spirit, is obvious to every one on the first perusal; but I must explain the cause of his anger against his disciples. Slight and unimportant it could not be, or he would not have used such vehemence. For to be exasperated by chance matters is the part of the little-minded, morose, and peevish; just as it is that of the indolent and sluggish to shrink from reproof in weighty ones. This was not Paul’s character: what then was the offence which roused him? it was grave and momentous, one which had estranged them all from Christ, as he himself says further on, Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; and again, Whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace. What this is, must be explained more clearly. Some of the Jews who believed, yet were filled with the prepossessions of Judaism, intoxicated by vain-glory, and desirous of obtaining for themselves the dignity of teachers, came to the Galatians, and taught them that the observance of circumcision, sabbaths, and new-moons, was necessary, and that the endeavour of Paul to abolish it was not to be borne. For, said they, Peter and James and John, the chiefs of the Apostles and the companions of Christ, forbad it not. Now in fact on this point they did not deliver positive doctrine, but condescended to the weakness of the Jewish believers, which condescension Paul had no need of when preaching to the Gentiles; but when he was in Judæa, he employed it himself also. But these deceivers, by withholding the causes both of Paul’s condescension and that of his brethren, misled the simpler ones. They said that he was not to be tolerated, for he appeared but yesterday, while Peter and his colleagues were from the first,—that he was a disciple of the Apostles, but they of Christ,—that he was single, but they were many, and pillars of the Church. They accused him too of acting a part; saying, that this very man who forbids circumcision observes the rite elsewhere, and preaches differently to you and to others.
Thus Paul saw the whole Galatian people in a state of excitement, a flame kindled against their Church, and the edifice shaken and tottering to its fall. Filled with the mixed feelings of just anger and despondency, which he has expressed in the words, I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice, he writes the Epistle as an answer to these charges. This is his aim from the very commencement, for the underminers of his reputation had said, This man is the last of all the Apostles, and has been taught by them. Wherefore he begins thus, Paul, an Apostle not of men, neither by men. For these deceivers, as I was saying before, had said that Peter, James, and John, were both first called, and held a primacy among the disciples, and had also received their doctrines from Christ Himself; and that it was therefore fitting to obey them rather than this man; and that they forbad not circumcision nor the observance of the Law. By this and similar language, derogatory to Paul, and exalting the honour of the other Apostles, though not spoken for the sake of praising them, but of deceiving the Galatians, they induced them to adhere unseasonably to the Law. Hence the propriety of his commencement. As they disparaged his doctrine, and said it came from men, while Peter came from Christ, he immediately addresses himself to this point, and declares himself an apostle not of men, neither by men. It was Ananias who baptized him, but it was not he who delivered him from error and initiated him into the faith; Christ Himself sent from on high that wondrous voice, whereby He inclosed him in His net. Peter and his brother, John and his brother, He called when walking by the sea-side, but Paul after His ascension into heaven. And as these did not require a second call, but straightway left their nets and all that they had, and followed Him, so this man at his first vocation pressed vigorously forward, waging, as soon as he was baptized, an implacable war with the Jews. In this respect he chiefly excelled the other Apostles, as he says, I laboured more abundantly than they all; at present, however, he makes no such claim, but is content to be placed on a level with them. Indeed his great object was,—not to establish any superiority for himself, but,—to overthrow the foundation of their error. The not being from men belongs to preaching generally, for the Gospel’s root and origin is divine, but the not being by men is peculiar to that of the Apostles; for He called them not by men’s agency, but by His own.
But why does he not speak of his vocation rather than his apostolate, and say, Paul called not by man? Here lies the whole question; for they said that the office of a teacher had been committed to him by men, by the Apostles, whom therefore it behoved him to obey. But that it was not entrusted to him by men, Luke declares in the words, As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul.
From this passage it is manifest that the power of the Son and Spirit is one, for, being commissioned by the Spirit, he says that he was sent by Christ. This appears in another place, from his ascription of the things of God to the Spirit, in the words which he addresses to the elders at Miletus: Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you pastors and overseers. Yet in another Epistle he says, And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly pastors and teachers. Thus he ascribes indifferently the things of the Spirit to God, and those of God to the Spirit. Here too he stops the mouths of heretics, by the words by Jesus Christ and God the Father; for, inasmuch as they said this term “by” was applied to the Son as importing inferiority, he ascribes it to the Father, thus teaching us not to prescribe laws to the ineffable Nature, nor define the degrees of Godhead which belong to the Father and the Son. To the words by Jesus Christ he has added, and God the Father; for if at the mention of the Father alone he had introduced the phrase by whom, they might have argued sophistically that it was peculiarly applicable to the Father, in that the acts of the Son were to be referred to Him. But he leaves no opening for this cavil, by mentioning at once both the Son and the Father, and making his language apply to both. This he does, not in order to ascribe the acts of the Son to the Father, but to shew that the expression implies no distinction of Essence. Further, what can now be said by those, who have gathered a notion of inferiority from the Baptismal formula,—from our being baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? For if the Son be inferior because He is here named after the Father, (where the Apostle beginning at Christ proceeds to mention the Father,) what will they say—but let us not even utter such a blasphemy, let us not swerve from the truth in our contention with them; rather let us preserve, rave they never so often, the due measures of reverence. Since then it would be the height of madness and impiety to argue that the Son was greater than the Father because Christ was first named, so dare we not hold that the Son is inferior to the Father, because He is placed after Him.
Who raised Him from the dead.
Wherefore is it, O Paul, that, wishing to bring these Judaizers to the faith, you introduce none of those great and illustrious topics which occur in your Epistle to the Philippians, as, Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, or which you declared in that to the Hebrews, the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person; or again, what in the opening of his Gospel the son of thunder sounded forth, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; or what Jesus Himself oftentimes declared to the Jews, that His power and authority was equal to the Father’s? Wherefore is it that you omit all these, and make mention of the economy of His Incarnation, bringing forward His cross and dying? Yea, would Paul answer, had this discourse been addressed to those who had unworthy conceptions of Christ, it would have been well to mention these things; but, inasmuch as the disturbance comes from those who fear to incur punishment should they abandon the Law, he therefore doth mention that whereby all need of the Law is excluded, I mean the benefit conferred on all through the Cross and the Resurrection. To have said that in the beginning was the Word, and that He was in the form of God, and made Himself equal with God, and the like, would have declared the divinity of the Word, but would have contributed nothing to the matter in hand. Whereas it was highly pertinent thereto to say, Who raised Him from the dead, for our chiefest benefit was thus brought to remembrance, and men in general are less interested by discourses concerning the majesty of God, than by those which set forth His mercy towards mankind. Wherefore, omitting the former topic, he discourses of the benefits which had been conferred on us.
But here the heretics insultingly exclaim, “Lo, the Father raises the Son!” For when once infected, they are wilfully deaf to all sublimer doctrines; and taking by itself and insisting on what is of a less exalted nature, and expressed in less exalted terms, on account of the Son’s humanity, or in honour of the Father, or for some other temporary purpose, they outrage, I will not say the Scripture, but themselves. I would fain ask such persons, why they say this? do they hope to prove the Son weak and powerless to raise one body, when faith in Him enabled the very shadows of those who believed in Him to effect the resurrection of the dead? If then believers in Him, though mortal, yet by the very shadow of their earthly bodies, and by the garments which had touched these bodies, could raise the dead, is it not a stretch of folly, a manifest insanity, to affirm, that He could not raise Himself? Hast thou not heard His saying, Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up? and again, I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again? Wherefore then is the Father said to have raised Him up, as also to have done other things which the Son Himself did? It is in honour of the Father, and in compassion to the weakness of the hearers.
And all the brethren which are with me.
How does it happen, that, contrary to his usual practice of giving his own name only, or that of two or three of the brethren, he here mentions the whole number, and no one individually by name? They made the slanderous charge that he was singular in his preaching, and desired to introduce novelty in Christian teaching. Wishing therefore to remove their suspicion, and to shew he had many to support him in his doctrine, he has associated with himself the brethren, to shew that they agreed with what he wrote.
Unto the Churches of Galatia.
Thus it appears, that the flame of error had reached not one or two cities merely, but the whole Galatian people. Consider too the grave indignation contained in the phrase, unto the Churches of Galatia: he does not say to the beloved or to the saints, and this omission of all names of affection or respect, and this speaking of them as a society merely, without the addition Churches of God, for it is simply Churches of Galatia, is strongly expressive of deep concern and sorrow. Here at the outset, as well as elsewhere, he attacks their irregularities, and therefore gives them the name of Churches, in order to impress them, and reduce them to unity. For persons split into many parties cannot properly claim this appellation, for the name of “Church” is a name of harmony and concord.
Grace and peace be to you from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ.
This he always mentions as indispensable; and in this Epistle to the Galatians especially, he prays that they may recover that grace which they had well nigh fallen from; he implores God, with whom they were at enmity, to restore them to His peace.
God the Father.
Here is a plain confutation of the heretics, who say that John in the opening of his Gospel, where he says the Word was God, used the word Θεὸς without the article, to imply an inferiority in the Son’s Godhead; and that Paul, where he says that the Son was in the form of God, did not mean the Father, because the word Θεὸς is without the article. For what can they say here, where Paul says, ἀπὸ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς, and not ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ? And it is in no indulgent mood towards them that he says God the Father, but by way of severe rebuke, and suggestion of the source whence they became sons, for the honour was vouchsafed to them not through the Law, but through the Bath of regeneration. Thus every where, even in his exordium, he scatters traces of the mercy of God, and we may conceive him speaking thus: “O ye who were lately slaves, enemies and aliens, what right have ye suddenly acquired to call God your Father? it was not the Law which conferred upon you this affinity; why do ye therefore desert Him who brought you so near to God, and return to your schoolmaster? for were ye not subject to a schoolmaster?”
But the Name of the Son, as well as that of the Father, had been sufficient to declare to them these blessings. This will appear, if we consider the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ with attention; for it is said, thou shalt call His Name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins; and the appellation of “Christ” calls to mind the unction of the Spirit.
Ver. 4. Who gave Himself for our sins.
Thus it appears, that the ministry which He undertook was free and uncompelled; that He was delivered up by Himself, not by another. Let not therefore the words of John, that the Father gave His only-begotten Son for us, lead you to derogate from the dignity of the Only-begotten, or conceive any thing of earth in Him. For the Father is said to have given Him, not as implying that the Son’s ministry was a servile one, but to teach us that it was willed by the Father, as Paul too has shewn here, according to the will of God, and our Father. He says not “by the command,” but “according to the will,” for inasmuch as there is an unity of will in the Father and the Son, that which the Son wills, the Father wills also.
For our sins, says the Apostle; we had pierced ourselves with a thousand evils, and had deserved the gravest punishment; the Law not only could not deliver us, but in that it had rendered sin more manifest, without the power to release us from it, or to stay the anger of God, it condemned us. But the Son of God overcame this impossibility, for He remitted our sins, He restored us from enmity to the condition of friends, He bestowed on us numberless other blessings.
Ver. 4. That He might deliver us from this present evil world.
Another class of heretics seize upon these words of Paul, and pervert his testimony to an accusation of the present life. Lo, say they, he has called this present world evil, and what does “world” [age] mean but time measured by days and seasons? Is then the distinction of days and the course of the sun evil? it were the height of folly to assert it. But it will be said that it is not the time, but the present life, which he hath called evil. Now the words themselves do not in fact say this; but the heretics do not rest in them, and frame their charge therefrom, but propose to themselves a new mode of interpretation. At least therefore they must allow us to produce our interpretation, and the rather in that it is both pious and rational. We assert then that evil cannot be the cause of good, and that the present life is productive of a thousand prizes and rewards. The blessed Paul himself extols it abundantly in the words, But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not; and then placing before himself the alternative of living upon earth, and departing and being with Christ, he decides for the former. But were this life evil, he would not have thus spoken of it, nor could any one, however strenuous his endeavour, draw it aside into the service of virtue. For it is impossible for man to use vice for good purposes, fornication for chastity, envy for benevolence. And so, when he says, that the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be, he means that vice, as such, cannot become virtue; and the expression, evil world, must be understood to mean evil actions, and a depraved moral principle. Again, Christ came not to put us to death and deliver us from the present life, but to leave us in the world, and prepare us for a worthy participation of our heavenly abode. Wherefore He saith to the Father, But these are in the world, and I come to Thee; I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil, i.e. from sin. Further, those who will not allow this, but insist that the present life is evil, should not blame those who destroy themselves; for as he who withdraws himself from evil is not blamed, but deemed worthy of a crown, so he who by a violent death, by hanging or otherwise, puts an end to his life, ought not to be condemned. Whereas God punishes such men more than murderers, and we all regard them with horror, and justly; for if it is base to destroy others, much more is it to destroy one’s self. Moreover, if this life be evil, murderers would deserve a crown, as rescuing us from evil. Besides this, they are caught by their own words, for in that they place the sun in the first, and the moon in the second rank of their deities, and worship them as the givers of many goods, their statements are contradictory. Now the well-being of that life which, as they themselves assert, is evil, is promoted by these and other heavenly bodies, for they impart nourishment and light to animals, and bring vegetables to maturity. How is it then that the constitution of this evil life is so ministered to by those, who according to you are gods? gods indeed they are not, far from it, but works of God created for our use; nor is this world evil. And tell me not of murderers, of adulterers, of robbers, of tombs, these things have nothing to do with the present life, for these offences proceed not from that life which we live in the flesh, but from a depraved principle of action. For, if they were necessarily connected with this life, no man would be free or pure from them, for no man can escape the characteristic accidents of humanity, such as, to eat and drink, to sleep and grow, to hunger and thirst, to be born and die, and the like; these no man hath vanquished, neither sinner nor just man, king nor private person, all are subject to the law of nature. And so if vice was an essential element of this life, no one could avoid it, any more than the former things. And let me not be told that good men are rare, for natural necessity is insuperable by all, so that as long as one virtuous man shall be found, my argument will in no wise be invalidated. Miserable, wretched man! what is it thou sayest? Is this life evil, wherein we have learnt to know God, and meditate on things to come, and have become angels instead of men, and take part in the choirs of the heavenly powers? What other proof do we need of an evil and depraved mind?
In calling then the present world [age] evil, Paul has accommodated himself to our usage, who are wont to say, “I have had a bad day,” thereby complaining not of the time itself, but of actions or circumstances. And so Paul complains of evil principles of action, and shews that Christ hath both delivered us from our offences, and secured us for the future. The first he has declared in the words, Who gave Himself for our sins; and by adding, that He might deliver us from this present evil world, he has pronounced our future safety. For neither of these did the Law avail, but grace was sufficient for both.
Ver. 4. According to the will of God and our Father.
Since they were terrified by their notion that they should disobey God, who gave the Law, by deserting that old Law and adhering to the new, he corrects their error, and says, that this seemed good to the Father: and not simply “the Father,” but “our Father,” which he does in order to affect them by shewing that Christ has made His Father our Father.
Ver. 5. To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
This too is new and unusual, for we never find the word, Amen, placed at the beginning of an Epistle, but a good way on; here, however, he has it in his beginning, to shew that what he had already said contained a sufficient charge against the Galatians, and that his argument was complete, for a manifest offence does not require an elaborate crimination. Having spoken of the Cross, and Resurrection, of redemption from sin and security for the future, of the purpose of the Father, and the will of the Son, of grace and peace and His whole gift, he concludes with an ascription of praise.
Another reason for it is the astonishment into which he was thrown by the exceeding magnitude of the gift, the abounding of grace, the consideration who we were, and what God had conferred, and that at once and in a single moment of time. Unable to express this in words, he breaks out into a doxology, and sends forth over the whole world an eulogium, not indeed proportioned to the subject, but to his own power. Hence too he proceeds to use more vehement language; as if greatly kindled by a sense of the Divine benefits, for having said, To whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen, he commences with a more severe reproof.
Ver. 6. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another Gospel.
Like the Jews who persecuted Christ, they imagined their observance of the Law was acceptable to the Father, and he therefore shews that this act displeases not only Christ, but the Father also, for that they fell away thereby not from Christ only, but from the Father also. As the old covenant was given not by the Father only, but also by the Son, so the covenant of grace proceeded from the Father as well as the Son, and Their every act is common: All things that the Father hath are mine. By saying that they had fallen off from the Father, he brings a twofold charge against them, of an apostasy, and of an immediate apostasy. The opposite extreme, a late apostasy, is also blameworthy, but he who falls away at the first onset, and in the very skirmishing, displays an example of the most extreme cowardice. However, here the Apostle speaks not of apostasy only, but of their credulity, and says—What, if your seducers need not time for their designs, but the first approaches suffice for your overthrow and capture, what excuse can ye have? If this is a crime among friends, and he who deserts old and useful associates is to be blamed, consider what punishment he is obnoxious to who revolts from God who called him. He says, I marvel, not only by way of reproof, that after such bounty, such a remission of their sins, such overflowing kindness, they had deserted to the yoke of servitude, but also in order to shew, that the opinion he had of them was a favourable and exalted one. For, had he ranked them among ordinary and credulous persons, he would not have felt surprise; this he does however, having accounted them noble and much-enduring. Surely this was enough to recover and recall them; he alludes to it also in the middle of the Epistle, Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. Ye are removing; he says not, “ye are removed,” that is, I will not believe or suppose that your seduction is complete; this is the language of one about to recover them, which he expresses yet more clearly in the words, I have confidence in you, that ye will be none otherwise minded.
From Him that called you into the grace of Christ.
The calling is from the Father, but the cause of it is the Son. He it is who hath conferred upon us the gift of Atonement, for we were not saved by works in righteousness: or I should rather say that these blessings proceed from Both; as He says, Mine are Thine and Thine are Mine. He says not “ye are removed from the Gospel” but “from God who called you,” a more frightful expression, and more likely to affect them. Their seducers did not act abruptly but gradually, and while they removed them from the faith in fact, left names unchanged. It is the policy of Satan not to set his snares in open view; had they urged them to fall away from Christ, they would have been shunned as deceivers and corrupters, but suffering them so far to continue in the faith, and calling their error the Gospel, they dug through the edifice, using these names as protections (so to speak) to cover their approaches. As therefore they gave the name of Gospel to this their imposture, he contends against the very name, and boldly says, unto another Gospel,—
Ver. 7. Which is not another.
And justly, for there is not another. Nevertheless the Marcionites are misled by this phrase, as diseased persons are injured even by healthy food, for they have seized upon it, and exclaim, “So Paul himself has declared there is no other Gospel.” For they do not allow all the Evangelists, but one only, and him mutilated and broken up according to their pleasure. This explanation of the words, according to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, is sufficiently ridiculous, nevertheless for the sake of those who are easily seduced it is necessary to refute it. We assert, therefore, that, although a thousand Gospels were written, if the contents of all were the same, they would still be one, and their unity no wise infringed by the number of writers. So, on the other hand, if there were one writer only, but he were to contradict himself, the unity of the things written would be destroyed. For the oneness of a work depends not on the number of its authors, but on the similarity or diversity of its contents. Whence it is clear that the Gospels of the Four are one Gospel; for, as the four say the same thing, its oneness is preserved by the harmony of the contents, and not impaired by the difference of persons. And Paul is not now speaking of the number but of the discrepancy of the things spoken. With justice might they lay hold of this expression, if the Gospels of Matthew and Luke differed in the signification of their contents, and in their doctrinal accuracy; but as they are one and the same, this trifling and pretended ignorance of what is obvious even to children, should be abandoned.
Ver. 7. But there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ.
That is to say, ye will not recognize another Gospel, so long as your mind is sane, so long as your vision remains healthy, and free from distorted and imaginary phantoms. For as the disordered eye mistakes the objects presented to it, so does the mind when made turbid by the agitation of evil thoughts. Thus the madman confounds objects; but this insanity is more dangerous than a physical malady, for it works injury not in the regions of sense, but of the mind; it creates confusion not in the organ of bodily vision, but in the eye of the understanding.
And would pervert the Gospel of Christ.
They had, in fact, only introduced one or two commandments, circumcision and the observance of days, but he says that the Gospel was subverted, in order to shew that a slight adulteration vitiates the whole. For as he who but partially pares away the image on a royal coin renders the whole spurious, so he who swerves ever so little from the pure faith, soon proceeds from this to graver errors, and becomes entirely corrupted. Let those who charge us with being contentious in separating from heretics, and say that there is no real difference between us except what arises from our ambition, hear Paul’s assertion, that those who had but slightly innovated, subverted the Gospel. Not that to say that the Son of God is a created Being, is a small matter. Know you not that even under the elder covenant, a man who gathered sticks on the sabbath, and transgressed a single commandment, and that not a great one, was punished with death? and that Uzzah, who supported the Ark when on the point of being overturned, was struck suddenly dead, because he had intruded upon an office which did not pertain to him? Wherefore if to transgress the sabbath, and to touch the falling Ark, drew down the wrath of God so signally as to deprive the offender of even a momentary respite, shall he who corrupts unutterably awful doctrines find excuse and pardon? Assuredly not. A want of zeal in small matters is the cause of all our calamities; because slight errors escape fitting correction, greater ones creep in. As in the body, a neglect of wounds generates fever, mortification, and death; so in the soul, slight evils overlooked open the door to graver ones. It is accounted a trivial fault that one man should neglect fasting; that another, who is established in the pure faith, should shrink from its bold profession, and be led by circumstances to dissemble; that a third should be irritated, and threaten to depart from the true faith, is excused on the plea of passion and resentment. Thus a thousand similar errors are daily introduced into the Church, which is divided into as many parties, and we are become a laughing-stock to Jews and Greeks. But if a proper rebuke had at first been given to those who attempted slight perversions, and a deflection from the divine oracles, such a pestilence would not have been generated, nor such a storm have shaken the Churches. You will now understand why Paul calls circumcision a subversion of the Gospel. There are many of us now, who fast on the same day as the Jews, and keep the sabbaths in the same manner; and what shall I call our tolerance of this, noble or miserable? Again, many Gentile customs are observed by some among us; omens, auguries, presages, distinctions of days, a curious attention to the circumstances of their children’s birth, and, as soon as they are born, tablets with impious inscriptions placed upon their unhappy heads, thereby teaching them from the first to lay aside virtuous endeavours, and drawing them as much as possible under the false domination of fate. But if Christ profits nothing those that are circumcised, how shall faith hereafter avail to the salvation of those who have introduced such corruptions? Although circumcision was given by God, yet Paul used every effort to abolish it, because its unseasonable observance was injurious to the Gospel. If then he was so earnest against the undue maintenance of Jewish customs, what excuse can we have for not abrogating Gentile ones? Hence have arisen our tumults and troubles, hence have our learners been filled with pride, and left their ranks, throwing every thing into confusion, and their discipline having been neglected by us their governors, they spurn our reproof however gentle. But disobedience in a disciple is not lawful, be his superior never so wicked. It is said of the Jewish doctors, that as they sat in Moses’ seat, their disciples were bound to obey them, though their works were so evil, that the Lord forbad His disciples to imitate them. What excuse therefore is there for those who insult and trample on men, rulers of the Church, and living by the grace of God, holy lives? if it be unlawful for us to judge each other, much more is it to judge our teachers.
Ver. 8, 9. But though I, or an Angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than [beside] that ye have received, let him be accursed.
See the Apostle’s wisdom; to obviate the objection that he was prompted by vainglory to applaud his own doctrine, he includes himself in his anathema; and as they referred to authority, that of James and John, he mentions Angels, saying, “Tell me not of James and John; if one of the most exalted Angels of heaven corrupt the Gospel, let him be anathema.” The phrase “of heaven” is purposely added, because priests are also called Angels. For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger [Angel] of the Lord of hosts. Lest therefore it should be thought that priests are here meant by the term “Angels,” he points out the celestial intelligences by the addition, “from heaven.” And he says not, if they preach a contrary Gospel, or subvert the whole of the true one, let them be anathema; but, if they even slightly vary, or incidentally disturb, my doctrine. As I said before, so say I now again. That his words might not seem to be spoken in anger, or with exaggeration, or dropped in the heat of argument, he now repeats them. Sentiments may perhaps change, when an expression has been called forth by anger, but to repeat it a second time proves that it was spoken advisedly, and was previously approved by the judgment. When Abraham was requested to send Lazarus, he replied, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them: if they hear them not, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. And Christ introduces Abraham thus speaking, to show that He would have the Scriptures accounted more worthy of credence, even than one raised from the dead: Paul too, (and when I say Paul, I mean Christ, who directed his mind,) prefers them before an Angel come down from heaven. And justly, for the Angels, though mighty, are but servants and ministers, but the Scriptures were all written and sent, not by servants, but by God the Lord of all. He says, if “any man” preach another Gospel to you than that which we have preached,—not “if this or that man:” and herein appears his prudence, and care of giving offence, for what needed there any mention of names, when he had used such extensive terms as to embrace all, both in heaven and earth? In that he anathematized Evangelists and Angels, he included every dignity, and his mention of himself included every intimacy and affinity. “Tell me not,” he exclaims, “that my fellow-apostles and colleagues have so spoken; I spare not myself if I preach such doctrine.” And he says this not as condemning the Apostles for swerving from the message they were commissioned to deliver; far from it, (for he says, whether we or they thus preach;) but to shew, that in the discussion of truth the dignity of persons is not considered.
Ver. 10. For do I now persuade men or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Granting, says he, that I might deceive you by these doctrines, could I deceive God, who knows my yet unuttered thoughts, and to please whom is my unceasing endeavour? See here the Apostolical spirit, the Evangelical loftiness! So too he writes to the Corinthians, For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory; and again, But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment. It is with reluctance that a teacher submits to defend himself before his disciples, and this not from arrogance, far from it, but from distress at the instability of mind which led to this seduction, and at the little credence they placed in him. Wherefore Paul now speaks (as it were) thus:—Is my account to be rendered to you? Shall I be judged by men? My account is to God, and all my acts are with a view to that inquisition, nor am I so miserably abandoned as to pervert my doctrine, seeing that I am to justify what I preach before the Lord of all.
He thus expressed himself, as much with a view of withstanding their opinions, as in self-defence; for it became disciples to obey, not to judge, their master. But now, says he, that the order is reversed, and ye sit as judges, know that I am but little concerned to defend myself before you; all I do is done for God’s sake, and in order that He himself may justify my doctrine. Those who wish to persuade men, are led to act tortuously and insincerely, and to employ deceit and falsehood, in order to engage the assent of their hearers. But he who addresses himself to God, and desires to please Him, needs simplicity and purity of mind, for God cannot be deceived. Whence it is plain that I have thus written to you not from the love of rule, or to gain disciples, or to receive honour at your hands. My endeavour is to please God, not man. Were it otherwise, I should still consort with the Jews, still persecute the Church. I who have cast off my country, my companions, my friends, my kindred, and all my reputation, and taken in exchange for these, persecution, enmity, strife, and daily-impending death, have given a signal proof that I speak not from love of human applause. This he says, being about to narrate his former life, and sudden conversion, and to demonstrate clearly that it was sincere. And that they might not be elevated by a notion that he did this by way of self-vindication to them, he premises, For do I now persuade men? He well knew how, on a fitting occasion, to correct his disciples, in a grave and lofty tone: assuredly he had other sources whence to demonstrate the truth of his preaching,—by signs and miracles, by dangers, by prisons, by daily deaths, by hunger and thirst, by nakedness, and the like. Now however that he is speaking not of false apostles, but of the true, who had shared these very perils, he employs another method. For when his discourse was pointed towards false apostles, he institutes a comparison by bringing forward his endurance of danger, saying, Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. But now he speaks of his former conversation, and says,
Ver. 11, 12. But I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
You observe how sedulously he affirms that he was taught of Christ, who Himself, without human intervention, condescended to reveal to him all knowledge. And if he were asked for his proof that Christ Himself thus immediately revealed to him these ineffable mysteries, he would instance his former conversation, arguing that his conversion would not have been so sudden, had it not been by Divine revelation. For when men have been vehement and eager on the contrary side, their conviction, if it is effected by human means, requires much time and ingenuity. It is clear therefore that he, whose conversion is sudden, and has been sobered in the very height of his madness, must have been vouchsafed a Divine revelation and teaching, and so have at once arrived at complete sanity. On this account he is obliged to relate his former life, and to call the Galatians as witnesses of past events. That the Only-begotten Son of God had Himself from heaven vouchsafed to call him, they who were not present could not know, but that he had been a persecutor they well knew. For his violence had even reached their ears, and the distance between Palestine and Galatia was so great, that the report would not have extended thither, had not his acts exceeded all bounds and endurance. Wherefore he says,
Ver. 13. For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and wasted it.
Observe how he shrinks not from aggravating each point; not saying simply that he persecuted but beyond measure, and not only persecuted but wasted, which signifies an attempt to extinguish, to pull down, to destroy, to annihilate, the Church.
Ver. 14. And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
To obviate the notion that his persecution arose from passion, vain-glory, or enmity, he shews that he was actuated by zeal, not indeed according to knowledge, still by a zealous admiration of the traditions of his fathers. This is his argument;—if my efforts against the Church sprung not from human motives, but from religious though mistaken zeal, why should I be actuated by vain-glory, now that I am contending for the Church, and have embraced the truth? If it was not this motive, but a godly zeal, which possessed me when I was in error, much more now that I have acknowledged the truth, ought I to be free from such a suspicion. As soon as I passed over to the doctrines of the Church and shook off my Jewish prejudices, I manifested on that side a zeal still more ardent; and this is a proof that my conversion is sincere, and that the zeal which possesses me is from above. What other inducement could I have to make such a change, and to barter honour for contempt, repose for peril, security for distress? none surely but the love of truth.
Ver. 15, 16. But when it pleased God, Who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the brethren, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.
Here his object is to shew, that it was by some secret providence that he was left for a time to himself. For if he was set apart from his mother’s womb to be an Apostle and to be called to that ministry, yet was not actually called till that juncture, which summons he instantly obeyed, it is evident that God had some hidden reason for this delay. What this purpose was, you are perhaps eager to learn from me, and primarily, why he was not called with the twelve. But in order not to protract this discourse by digressing from its immediate scope, I must entreat your love not to require it at my hands, but to search for it by yourselves, and to beg of God to reveal it to you. Moreover I partly discussed this subject when I discoursed before you on the change of his name from Saul to Paul; which, if you have forgotten, you will fully gather from a persual of that volume. At present let us pursue the thread of our discourse, and consider the proof he now adduces that no natural event had befallen him,—that God Himself had providentially ordered the occurrence.
And called me by His grace.
It was, he says, on account of his excellent capacity that God called him; as He said to Ananias, for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name before the Gentiles, and kings, that is to say, capable of service, and the accomplishment of great deeds. And he gives this as the reason for his call; at the same time he every where ascribes it to grace, and to God’s inexpressible mercy, as in the words, Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, not that I was sufficient or even serviceable, but that in me He might shew forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on Him to life everlasting. Behold his overflowing humility; I obtained mercy, says he, that no one might despair, when the worst of men had shared His bounty. For this is the force of the words, that He might shew forth all long-suffering for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on Him.
To reveal His Son in me.
Christ says in another place, No man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him. You observe that the Father reveals the Son, and the Son the Father; so it is as to Their glory, the Son glorifies the Father, and the Father the Son; glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee, and as I have glorified Thee. But why does he say, to reveal His Son in me, and not to me? it is to signify, that he had not only been instructed in the faith by words, but that he was richly endowed with the Spirit;—that the revelation had enlightened his whole soul, and that he had Christ speaking within him.
That I might preach Him among the heathen.
For not only his faith, but his election to the Apostolic office, proceeded from God. The object, says he, of His thus specially revealing Himself to me, was not only that I might myself behold Him, but that I might also manifest Him to others. And he says not merely, “others,” but, that I might preach Him among the heathen, thus touching beforehand on that great ground of his defence which lay in the respective characters of the disciples; for it was not necessary to preach alike to the Jews and to the heathen.
Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.
Here he alludes to the Apostles, naming them after their physical nature; however, he may have meant to include all mankind.
Ver. 17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me.
These words weighed by themselves seem to breathe an arrogant spirit, and to be foreign to the Apostolic temper. For to give one’s suffrage for one’s self, and to admit no man to share one’s counsel, is a sign of folly. It is said, Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him; and, Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! and Paul himself in another place, Be not wise in your own conceits. Surely one who had been thus taught, and had thus admonished others, would not fall into such an error, even were he an ordinary man; much less then Paul himself. Nevertheless, as I said, this expression nakedly considered may easily prove a snare and offence to many hearers. But if the cause of it is subjoined, all will applaud and admire the speaker. This then let us do; for it is not the right course to weigh the mere words, nor examine the language by itself, as many errors will be the consequence, but to attend to the intention of the writer. And unless we pursue this method in our own discourses, and examine into the mind of the speaker, we shall make many enemies, and every thing will be thrown into disorder. Nor is this confined to words, but the same result will follow, if this rule is not observed in actions. For surgeons often cut and break certain of the bones; so do robbers; yet it would be miserable indeed not to be able to distinguish one from the other. Again, homicides and martyrs, when tortured, suffer the same pangs, yet is the difference between them great. Unless we attend to this rule, we shall not be able to discriminate in these matters; but shall call Elijah and Samuel and Phineas homicides, and Abraham a son-slayer; that is, if we go about to scrutinize the bare facts, without taking into account the intention of the agents. Let us then inquire into the intention of Paul in thus writing, let us consider his scope, and general deportment towards the Apostles, that we may arrive at his present meaning. Neither formerly, nor in this case, did he speak with a view of disparaging the Apostles or of extolling himself, (how so? when he included himself under his anathema?) but always in order to guard the integrity of the Gospel. Since the troublers of the Church said that they ought to obey the Apostles who suffered these observances, and not Paul who forbade them, and hence the Judaizing heresy had gradually crept in, it was necessary for him manfully to resist them, from a desire of repressing the arrogance of those who improperly exalted themselves, not of speaking ill of the Apostles. And therefore he says, I conferred not with flesh and blood; for it would have been extremely absurd for one who had been taught by God, afterwards to refer himself to men. For it is right that he who learns from men should in turn admit men into partnership. But he to whom that divine and blessed voice had been vouchsafed, and who had been fully instructed by Him Who possesses the treasures of wisdom, wherefore should he afterwards confer with men? it were meet that he should teach, not be taught by them. Therefore he thus spoke, not arrogantly, but to exhibit the dignity of his own commission. Neither went I up, says he, to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me. Because they were continually repeating that the Apostles were before him, and were called before him, he says, I went not up to them. Had it been needful for him to communicate with them, He, who revealed to him his commission, could have given him this injunction. Is it true, however, that he did not go up thither? nay, he went up, and not merely so, but in order to learn somewhat of them. When a question arose on our present subject in the city of Antioch, in the Church which had before shewn so much zeal, and it was discussed whether the Gentile believers ought to be circumcised, or were under no necessity to undergo the rite, this very Paul himself and Silas went up. How is it then that he says, I went not up, nor conferred? First, because he went not up of his own accord, but was sent by others; next, because he came not to learn, but to bring others over. For he was from the first of that opinion, which the Apostles subsequently ratified, that circumcision was unnecessary. But when he was deemed unworthy of credit by these persons, who inclined to those at Jerusalem, he went up not to be farther instructed, but to convince the gainsayers that those at Jerusalem agreed with him. Thus he perceived from the first the fitting line of conduct, and needed no teacher, but, primarily and before any discussion, maintained without wavering what the Apostles, after much discussion, subsequently ratified. This Luke shews by his own account, that Paul argued much at length with them on this subject before he went to Jerusalem. But since the brethren chose to be informed on this subject, he went up on their account, not on his own. And his expression, I went not up, signifies that he neither went at the outset of his teaching, nor for the purpose of being instructed. Both are implied by the phrase, Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood. He says not, I conferred, merely, but, immediately; and his subsequent journey was not to gain any instruction.
Ver. 17. But I went into Arabia.
Behold a fervent soul! he longed to occupy regions not yet tilled, but lying in a wild state. Had he remained with the Apostles, as he had nothing to learn, his preaching would have been straitened, for it behoved them to spread the word every where. Thus this blessed man, fervent in spirit, straightway undertook to teach wild barbarians, choosing a life full of difficulty and labour. Having said, I went into Arabia, he adds, and returned again unto Damascus. Here observe his humility; he speaks not of his successes, nor of whom or of how many he instructed. Yet such was his zeal immediately on his baptism, that he confounded the Jews, and so exasperated them, that they and the Greeks laid in wait for him with a view to kill him. This would not have been the case, had he not greatly added to the numbers of the faithful; since they were vanquished in doctrine, they had recourse to violence, which was a manifest sign of Paul’s superiority. But Christ suffered him not to be put to death, preserving him for his mission. Of these successes he says nothing, and so in all his discourses, his motive is not ambition, nor to be honoured more highly than the Apostles, nor because he is mortified at being lightly esteemed, but it is a fear lest any detriment should accrue to his mission. For he calls himself, one born out of due time, and, the first of sinners, and the last of the Apostles, and, not meet to be called an Apostle. And this he said, when he had laboured more than all of them; which is real humility; for he who, conscious of no excellence, speaks humbly of himself, is candid but not humble; but to say so after such trophies, is to be practised in sobriety.
Ver. 17. And I returned again unto Damascus.
But what great things, as it would seem, did he not achieve in this city? for he tells us that the governor under Aretas the king set guards about the whole of it, hoping to entrap this blessed man. Which is a proof that he was violently persecuted by the Jews. Here, however, he says nothing of this, but mentioning his arrival and departure is silent concerning the events which there occurred, nor would he have mentioned them in the place I have referred to, had not circumstances required their narration.
Ver. 18. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter.
What can be more lowly than such a soul? after such successes, wanting nothing of Peter, not even his assent, but being of equal dignity with him, (for at present I will say no more,) he comes to him as his elder and superior. And the only object of this journey was to visit Peter; thus he pays due respect to the Apostles, and esteems himself not only not their better but not their equal. Which is plain from this journey, for Paul was induced to visit Peter by the same feeling from which many of our brethren sojourn with holy men: or rather by a humbler one, for they do so for their own benefit, but this blessed man, not for his own instruction or correction, but merely for the sake of beholding and honouring him by his presence. He says, to see Peter; he does not say to see, (ἰδεῖν,) but to survey, (ἱστορῆσαι,) a word which those, who seek to become acquainted with great and splendid cities, apply to themselves. Worthy of such trouble did he consider the very sight of Peter; and this appears from his conduct. For on his arrival at Jerusalem, after having converted many Gentiles, and, with labours far surpassing the rest, reformed and brought near to Christ Pamphylia, Lycaonia, Cilicia, and all nations in that quarter of the world, he first addresses himself with great humility to James, as to his elder and superior. Next he submits to his counsel, and that counsel contrary to this Epistle. Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; therefore shave thy head, and purify thyself. Accordingly he shaved his head, and observed all the Jewish ceremonies; for where the Gospel was not affected, he was the humblest of all men. But where by such humility he saw any injured, he gave up that undue exercise of it, for it then was no longer humility, but mischief and corruption to the disciples.
Ver. 18. And abode with him fifteen days.
To take a journey to him was a mark of respect; but to remain so many days, of friendship and earnest affection.
Ver. 19. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord’s brother.
See what great friends he was with Peter especially; on his account he left his home, and with him he abode. This I frequently repeat, and desire you to remember, that no one, when he hears what this Apostle seems to have spoken against Peter, may conceive a suspicion of him. He premises this, that when he says, I resisted Peter, no one must suppose that these words imply enmity and contention; for he honoured and loved his person, and took this journey for his sake only, not of any of the others. But other of the Apostles saw I none, but James. He says “I saw,” not, “I learnt aught from him.” But observe how honourably he mentions him, he says not “James” merely, but adds this illustrious title, so free is he from all envy. Had he only wished to point out whom he meant, he might have shewn this by another appellation, and called him the son of Cleophas, as the Evangelist does. But as he considered that he had a share in the august titles of the Apostles, he exalts himself by honouring James; and this he does by calling him “the Lord’s brother,” although he was not by birth His brother, but only so reputed. Yet this did not deter him from giving the title; and in many other instances he displays towards all the Apostles that noble disposition, which beseemed him.
Ver. 20. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
Observe throughout the transparent humility of this holy soul; his earnestness in his own vindication is as great as if he had to render an account of his deeds, and was pleading for his life in a court of justice.
Ver. 21. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
After his interview with Peter, he resumes his account of his labours in the field which he had chosen, avoiding Judæa, both because of his mission being to the Gentiles, and of his unwillingness to build upon another man’s foundation. Wherefore there was not even a chance meeting, as appears from what follows.
Ver. 22, 23. And was unknown by face unto the Churches of Judæa; but they had heard only that he, which persecuted as in times past, now preacheth the faith which then he destroyed.
What modesty in thus again mentioning the facts of his persecuting and laying waste the Church, and in thus studiously setting forth his former life, while he passes over the illustrious deeds he was about to achieve! He might have told, had he wished it, all his successes, but he steps with one word over a vast expanse, and says merely, I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; and, they had heard, that he, which persecuted as in times past, now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. The purpose of the words, I was unknown to the Churches of Judæa, is to shew, that so far from preaching to them the necessity of circumcision, he was not known to them even by sight.
Ver. 24. And they glorified God in me.
See here again how accurately he observes the rule of his humility; he says not, they admired me, they applauded or were astonished at me, but ascribes all to Divine grace by the words, they glorified God in me.