commentary
5
of St. John Chrysostom,
archbishop of
constantinople,
on the
epistle of St. paul the
apostle
to the
galatians.
————————————
Chapter I.
Verse
1–3
“Paul, an Apostle, (not
from men, neither through man, but through 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 to you and peace from God
the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”
The
exordium
6
is full of a vehement and lofty spirit,
and not the exordium only, but also, so to speak, the whole Epistle.
For always to address one’s disciples with mildness, even when
they need severity is not the part of a teacher but it would be the
part of a corrupter and enemy. Wherefore our Lord too, though He
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,” (
Matt. xvi. 17
.) and having promised
to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession, shortly
afterwards He says, “Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art a
stumbling block unto Me.” (
Matt. xvi. 23
.) Again, on
another occasion, “Are ye also even yet without
understanding?” (
Matt. xv. 16
.) 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, “What seekest Thou, or
why speakest thou with her?” (
John iv. 27
.) 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 a spirit of meekness?” (
1 Cor. vi. 21
.) but to the
Galatians, “O foolish Galatians.” (
Gal. iii. 1
.) And not once
only, but a second time, also he has employed this reproof, and towards
the conclusion he says with a reproachful allusion to them, “Let
no man trouble me;” (
Gal. vi. 17
.) but he soothes
them again with the words, “My little children, of whom I
am again in travail:” (
Gal. iv. 19
.) and so in many
other instances.
Now that this Epistle breathes
an indignant spirit, is obvious to every one even on the first perusal;
but I must explain the cause of his anger against the disciples. Slight
and unimportant it could not be, or he would not have used such
vehemence. For to be exasperated by common matters is the part of the
little-
minded, morose, and peevish; just as it is that of the more
redolent and sluggish to lose heart in weighty ones. Such a one was not
Paul. What then was the offence which roused him? it was grave and
momentous, one which was estranging them all from Christ, as he himself
says further on, “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye receive
circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing;” (
Gal. v. 2
.)
and again, “Ye who would be justified by the Law, ye are fallen
away from Grace.” (
Gal. v. 4
.) What then is
this? For it must be explained more clearly. Some of the Jews who
believed, being held down by the preposessions of Judaism, and at the
same time 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 Paul in abolishing these things was not to be
borne. For, said they, Peter and James and John, the chiefs of the
Apostles and the companions of Christ, forbade them not. Now in fact
they did not forbid these things, but this was not by way of delivering
positive doctrine, but in condescension 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
7
also. But these deceivers, by withholding the
causes both of Paul’s condescension and that of his brethren,
misled the simpler ones, saying 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 one way to you and another way to others.
Since Paul then 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 could wish to be present with you now,
and to change my voice,”—
Gal. iv. 20
.) 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, The
others were disciples of Christ but this man of the
“Apostles.” Wherefore he begins thus, “Paul, an
Apostle not from men, neither through man.” For, these deceivers,
as I was saying before, had said that this man was the last of all the
Apostles and was taught by them, for 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 and by depreciating Paul, and exalting the honor 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, saying it came from men, while that of Peter came from
Christ, he immediately addresses himself to this point, declaring
himself an apostle “not from men, neither through man.” It
was Ananias who baptized him, but it was not he who delivered him from
the way of error and initiated him into the faith; but Christ Himself
sent from on high that wondrous voice, whereby He inclosed him in his
net. For Peter and his brother, and John and his brother, He called
when walking by the seaside, (
Matt. iv. 18
.) but Paul after
His ascension into heaven. (
Acts. ix. 3,
4
.)
And just 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 labored more
abundantly than they all;” (
1 Cor. xv. 10
.) 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” has reference to all alike
for the Gospel’s root and origin is divine, but the not being
“through man” is peculiar to the Apostles; for He called
them not by men’s agency, but by His own.
8
But why does he not speak of his
vocation rather than his apostolate, and say, “Paul” called
“not by man?” Because here lay the whole question; for they
said that the office of a teacher had been committed to him by men,
namely by the Apostles, whom therefore it behooved 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.” (
Acts xiii. 2
.)
From this passage it is
manifest
9
that the power of the Son and Spirit is one,
for being commissioned by the Spirit, he says that he was commissioned
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 unto yourselves, and to all the
flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops.”
(
Acts
xx. 28
.) Yet in another Epistle he says, “And God hath set some in
the Church, first Apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers.”
(
1
Cor. xii. 28
.) Thus he ascribes indifferently the things of the Spirit
to God, and the things of God to the Spirit. Here too he stops the
mouths of heretics, by the words “through Jesus Christ and God
the Father;” for, inasmuch as they said this term
“through” was applied to the Son as importing inferiority,
see what he does. 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 Son. For to the words
“through Jesus Christ” he has added, “and God the
Father;” for if at the mention of the Father alone he had
introduced the phrase “through 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 as
referring the acts of the Son to the Father, but to show that the
expression implies no distinction of Essence.
10
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?
11
For
if the Son be inferior because He is named after the Father, what will
they say seeing that, in the passage before us, the Apostle beginning
from Christ proceeds to mention the Father?—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, even if they rave ten
thousand times, 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 we dare not hold
that the Son is inferior to the Father, because He is placed after Him
in the Baptismal formula.
“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, counted it not a
prize to be on an equality with God,” (
Philip. ii. 6
.) or which you
afterwards declared in that to the Hebrews, “the effulgence of
his glory, and the very image of His substance;” (
Heb. i.
3
.)
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;” (
John i. 1
..) or what Jesus
Himself oftentimes declared to the Jews, “that His power and
authority was equal to the Father’s?” (
John v. 19,
27
,
&c.) Do you omit all these, and make mention of the economy of His
Incarnation only, bringing forward His cross and dying?
“Yes,” would Paul answer. For had this discourse been
addressed to those who had unworthy conceptions of Christ, it would
have been well to mention those things; but, inasmuch as the
disturbance comes from persons who fear to incur punishment should they
abandon the Law, he therefore mentions 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 add, “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
the benefits which come to 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, either on account of the
Son’s humanity, or in honor 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?
Nay,
verily, faith in Him enabled the very shadows of those who believed in
Him to effect the resurrection of the dead. (
Acts. v. 15
.) Then believers
in Him, though mortal, yet by the very shadows of their earthly bodies,
and by the garments which had touched these bodies, could raise the
dead, but He could not raise Himself? Is not this manifest madness, a
great stretch of folly? Hast thou not heard His saying, “Destroy
this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up?” (
John ii.
19
.)
and again, “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to
take it again?” (
John x. 18
.) 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 honor of the Father, and in
compassion to the weakness of the hearers.
“And all the brethren
which are with me.”
Why is it that he has on no
other occasion in sending an epistle added this phrase? For either he
puts his own name only or that of two or three others, but here has
mentioned the whole number and so has mentioned no one by
name.
On what account then does he
this?
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 show he had many to support him in his doctrine, he has associated
with himself “the brethren,” to show that what he wrote he
wrote with their accord.
12
“Unto the Churches of
Galatia.”
Thus it appears, that the flame
of error had spread over 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 sanctified,” 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 shame 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 to you and peace
from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”
This he always mentions as
indispensible, and in this Epistle to the Galatians especially; for
since they were in danger of falling from grace he prays that they may
recover it again, and since they had come to be at war with God, he
beseeches God to restore them to the same peace.
“God the
Father.”
Here again 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
Πατρος
, and
not
ἀπὸ τοῦ
Θεοῦ
? And it is in no
indulgent mood towards them that he calls God, “Father,”
but by way of severe rebuke, and suggestion of the source whence they
became sons, for the honor was vouchsafed to them not through the Law,
but through the washing of regeneration. Thus everywhere, even in his
exordium, he scatters traces of the goodness 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 relationship;
why do ye therefore desert Him who brought you so near to God, and
return to your tutor?
13
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 it is He that shall save His people from their sins;”
(
Matt.
i. 21
.) and the appellation of “Christ” calls to mind the
unction of the Spirit.
Ver.
4
.
“Who gave himself for our sins.”
14
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”
(
John
iii. 16
.) for us, lead you to derogate from the dignity of the
Only-begotten, or to infer therefrom that He is only human. 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 seemed good to the
Father, as Paul too has shown in the immediate context:
“according to the will of our God, and 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,”
15
says the Apostle; we had pierced ourselves
with ten thousand evils, and had deserved the gravest punishment; and
the Law not only did not deliver us, but it even condemned us, making
sin more manifest, without the power to release us from it, or to stay
the anger of God. But the Son of God made this impossibility possible
for he remitted our sins, He restored us from enmity to the condition
of friends, He freely bestowed on us numberless other
blessings.
Ver.
4
.
“That He might deliver us out of this present evil
world.”
Another class of heretics
16
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 pray tell me what does
“world” [age]
αἴων
mean but time
measured by days and seasons? Is then the distinction of days and the
course of the sun evil? no one would assert this even if he be carried
away to the extreme of unreasonableness. “But” they say,
“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 the
words, and frame their charge from them, 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, yet
that the present life is productive of a thousand prizes and rewards.
And so the blessed Paul himself extols it abundantly in the words,
“But if to live in the flesh, if this is the fruit of my work,
then what I shall choose I wont not;” (
Philip. i. 22
.) 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 endeavor, draw it aside into the service of
virtue. For no one would ever use evil for good, fornication for
chastity, envy for benevolence. And so, when he says, that “the
mind of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can
it be,” (
Rom. viii. 7
.) 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 in that sense, but to leave us in the world,
and prepare us for a worthy participation of our heavenly abode.
Wherefore He saith to the Father, “And these are in the world,
and I come to Thee; I pray not that Thou shouldest take them from the
world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil,”
(
John
xvii. 11, 15
.) 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. For the use of these and the other
heavenly bodies, is none other than to contribute to our present life,
which they say is evil, by nourishing and giving light to the bodies of
men and animals and bringing plants 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 if you tell me of murderers, of adulterers, of tomb-robbers, 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 will. For, if they were necessarily connected with this life,
as embraced in one lot with it, 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; no man can ever become superior to these,
neither sinner nor just man, king nor peasant, We all are subject to
the necessity of nature. And so if vice were an essential element of
this life, no one could avoid it, any more than the things just
mentioned. 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?
“Why then,” they
say, “does Paul call the present life evil?” In calling the
present world [age] evil, he 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 in complaining of evil principles of action has used these
customary forms of speech; and he shows 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 out of 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 our God and Father.”
17
Since they were terrified by
their notion that by deserting that old Law and adhering to the new,
they should disobey God, who gave the Law, he corrects their error, and
says, that this seemed good to the Father also: and not simply
“the Father,” but “our Father,” which he does
in order to affect them by showing that Christ has made His Father our
Father.
Ver.
5
.
“To whom be the 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 show 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
exceeding astonishment into which he was thrown by the magnitude of the
gift, the superabundance of the grace, the consideration who we were,
and what God had wrought, and that at once and in a single moment of
time. Unable to express this in words, he breaks out into a doxology,
sending up for the whole world an eulogium, not indeed worthy of the
subject, but such as was possible to him. 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 the glory for ever and
ever, Amen,” he commences with a more severe reproof.
Ver.
6
.
“I marvel that ye are so quickly
18
removing from
Him that called you in the grace of Christ, unto a different
Gospel.”
Like the Jews who persecuted
Christ, they imagined their observance of the Law was acceptable to the
Father, and he therefore shows that in doing this they displeased 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 whatsoever the Father hath are
Mine.” (
John xv. 16
.) 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, of which very thing he accuses them also
saying: “How is this that your seducers need not even time for
their designs, but the first approaches suffice for your overthrow and
capture? And what excuse can ye have? If this is a crime among friends,
and he who deserts old and useful associates is to be condemned,
consider what punishment he is obnoxious to who revolts from God that
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 show, that the opinion he had had of them was a
favorable and exalted one. For, had he ranked them among ordinary and
easily deceived persons, he would not have felt surprise. “But
since you,” he says, “are of the noble sort and have
suffered, much, I do marvel.” Surely this was enough to recover
and lead them back to their first expressions. He alludes to it also in
the middle of the Epistle, “Did ye suffer so many things in vain?
if it be indeed in vain.” (
Gal. iii. 4
.) “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 further on he expresses yet more clearly in the words, “I
have confidence to you-ward in the Lord that ye will be none otherwise
minded.” (
Gal. v. 10
.)
“From Him that called you
in the grace of Christ.”
The calling is from the Father, but the cause of it is the Son. He
it is who hath brought about reconciliation and bestowed it as a gift,
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.” (
John xvii. 10
.) He says not
“ye are removing 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 putting upon their error the name of the Gospel, without
fear they undermined the building employing the terms which they used
as a sort of curtain to conceal the destroyers themselves. As therefore
they gave the name of Gospel to this their imposture, he contends
against the very name, and boldly says, “unto a different
Gospel,”—
Ver.
7
.
“Which is not another Gospel.”
And justly, for there is not
another.
19
Nevertheless the Marcionites
20
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 confused according to their pleasure. Their
explanation of the words, “according to my Gospel and the
preaching of Jesus Christ,” (
Rom. xvi. 25
.) 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 agreement or contradictoriness of
its contents. Whence it is clear that the four Gospels 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, let them cease being senseless and pretending to be
ignorant of these things which are plain to the very
children.
Ver.
7
.
“Only there are 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 object presented to it, so does
the mind when made turbid by the confusion 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
21
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 show 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. Where then are 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? Let them hear
Paul’s assertion, that those who had but slightly innovated,
subverted the Gospel. Not 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?
(
Num.
xv. 32, 36
.) 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? (
2 Sam. vi. 6,
7
.)
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 par
don? Assuredly not. A want of
zeal in small matters is the cause of all our calamities; and 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,
dissembling on account of circumstances, should surrender his bold
profession of it, neither is this anything great or dreadful; 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, and we are become
a laughing-stock to Jews and Greeks, seeing that the Church is divided
into a thousand parties. 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 seized upon the Churches. You will now understand why
Paul calls circumcision a subversion of the Gospel. There are many
among us now, who fast on the same day as the Jews, and keep the
sabbaths in the same manner; and we endure it nobly or rather ignobly
and basely. And why do I speak of Jews seeing that 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 are placed upon their unhappy heads, thereby
teaching them from the first to lay aside virtuous endeavors, and
drawing part of them at least under the false domination of fate.
22
But if Christ in no way profits those that
are circumcised, what 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 our affairs are now
in confusion and trouble, hence have our learners being filled with
pride, reversed the order of things throwing every thing into
confusion, and their discipline having been neglected by us their
governors, they spurn our reproof however gentle. And yet if their
superiors were even more worthless and full of numberless evils, it
would not be right for the disciple to disobey. 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 we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you
any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be
anathema.”
See the Apostle’s wisdom;
to obviate the objection that he was prompted by vainglory to applaud
his own doctrine, he includes himself also in his anathema; and as they
betook themselves to authority, that of James and John, he mentions
angels also 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.”
(
Mal.
ii. 7
.) 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 we have said before, so
say I now again.” That his words might not seem to be spoken in
anger, or with exaggeration, or with recklessness he now repeats
them.
23
Sentiments may perhaps change, when an
expression has been called forth by anger, but to repeat it a second
time proves that it is 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, if one rise from the
dead.” (
Luke xvi. 31
.) 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 still any mention of names, when he had
used such extensive terms as to embrace all, both in heaven and earth?
In that he anathemized 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 show, that in the discussion of truth the dignity of persons is
not to be considered.
Ver.
10
.
“For
24
am I now persuading men: or
God?” or am I seeking to please men? if I were still pleasing
men, I should not be a 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 endeavor? See
here the Apostolical spirit, the Evangelical loftiness! So too he
writes to the Corinthians, “For we are not again commending
ourselves unto you, but speak as giving you occasion of
glorying;” (
2 Cor. v. 12
.) and again, “But
with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of
man’s judgment.” (
1 Cor. iv. 3
.) For since he is
compelled to justify himself to his disciples, being their teacher, he
submits to it; but he is grieved at it, not on account of chagrin, far
from it, but on account of the instability of the minds of those led
away and on account of not being fully trusted by them. 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 becomes 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 for
God’s sake, and in order that I may answer to Him concerning my
doctrine. He who wishes to persuade men, is led to act tortuously and
insincerely, and to employ deceit and falsehood, in order to engage the
assent of his 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 honor at your
hands. My endeavor has been to please God, not man. Were it otherwise,
I should still consort with the Jews,
25
still persecute
the Church, I who have cast off my country altogether, 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 one beside himself) I
more; in labors more abundantly, in prisons more abundantly, in stripes
above measure, in deaths oft.” (
2 Cor. xi. 23
.) But now he
speaks of his former manner of life and says,
Ver. 11,
12
.
“For
26
I make known to you, brethren, as
touching the Gospel which was preached by me that it is not after man.
For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came
to me through 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 God Himself thus immediately revealed to
him these ineffable mysteries, he would instance his former manner of
life, 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 who 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 me, says he, you who
were not present, could not know, but that I was a persecutor you do
know. For my violence even reached your ears, and the distance between
Palestine and Galatia is so great, that the report would not have
extended thither, had not my acts exceeded all bounds and endurance.
Wherefore he says,
Ver.
13
.
“For
27
ye have heard of my manner of life in
time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I
persecuted the Church of God, and made havoc of it.”
Observe how he shrinks not from
aggravating each point; not saying simply that he
“persecuted” but “beyond measure,” and not only
“persecuted” but “made havoc of it,” which
signifies an attempt to extinguish, to pull down, to destroy, to
annihilate, the Church.
Ver.
14
.
“And I advanced in the Jews’ religion beyond many of mine
own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the
traditions of my fathers.”
To obviate the notion that his
persecution arose from passion, vain-glory, or enmity, he shows that he
was actuated by zeal, not indeed “according to knowledge,”
(
Rom.
x. 2
.) still by a zealous admiration of the traditions of his fathers.
This is his argument;
28
—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 come to know the truth, ought I to be
free from such a suspicion. As soon as I passed over to the doctrines
of the Church I shook off my Jewish prejudices, manifesting 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
honor for contempt, repose for peril, security for distress? none
surely but the love of truth.
Ver. 15,
16
.
“But when it was the good pleasure of God, Who separated me, even
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, immediately
I conferred not with flesh and blood.”
Here his object is to show, 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 that which is more pressing, I must entreat your love
not to require all things from me, 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 perusal of that volume.
29
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 through His
grace.”
God indeed says that He called
him on account of his excellent capacity, as He said to Ananias,
“for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear my name before the
Gentiles, and kings,” (
Acts ix. 15
.) that is to say,
capable of service, and the accomplishment of great deeds. God gives
this as the reason for his call. But he himself everywhere 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 as chief might
Jesus Christ show forth all His long-suffering, for an ensample of them
which should hereafter believe on Him unto eternal life.”
(
1
Tim. i. 16
.) 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 show forth all
His long-suffering for an ensample of them which should hereafter
believe on Him.”
“To reveal His Son
30
in me.”
Christ says in another place, “No one knoweth who the Son
is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him.” (
Luke x. 22
.) 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 the Son may glorify Thee,” and,
“as I have glorified Thee.” (
John xvii. 1,
4
.)
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.
31
“That I might preach Him
among the Gentiles.” 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 Gentiles,” thus touching beforehand on that great
ground of his defence which lay in the respective characters of the
disciples; for it was necessary to preach differently 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, that he may have
meant to include all mankind, I shall not deny.
32
Ver.
17
.
“Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles
before me.”
These words weighed by
themselves seem to breath 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;” (
Prov. xxvi.
12
.)
and, “Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent
in their own sight!” (
Isa. v. 21
.) and Paul
himself in another place, “Be not wise in your own
conceits.” (
Rom. xii. 16
.) 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, and 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 take men as his counsellors.
But he to whom that divine and blessed voice had been vouchsafed, and
who had been fully instructed by Him that possesses all 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, would have given him this injunction.
Is it true, however, that he
did not go up thither?
33
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 from the beginning shown 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
34
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 these persons deemed him unworthy of credit and applied to
those at Jerusalem he went up not to be farther instructed, but to
convince the gain-sayers 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, (
Acts xv. 2, 7
.) subsequently
ratified. This Luke shows 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, by those at
Jerusalem, he went up on their own 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 additional instruction.
Ver.
17
.
“But I went away 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 behooved them to spread the word
every where. Thus this blessed man, fervent in spirit, straightway
undertook to teach wild barbarians,
35
choosing a life
full of battle and labor. Having said, “I went into
Arabia,” he adds, “and again I returned 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 lay 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 murder, 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, however, he
says nothing, and so in all his discourses, his motive is not ambition,
nor to be honored 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, who
had labored 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
self-control.
Ver.
17
.
“And again I returned unto Damascus.”
But what great things did he not
probably 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 of the strongest kind 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, (
2 Cor. xi. 32
.) had not
circumstances required their narration.
Ver.
18
.
“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem
36
to visit Cephas.”
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 feeling 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 honoring Peter
by his presence. He says, “to visit Peter;” he does not say
to see, (
ἰδεῖν
,) but
to visit and survey, (
ἰστορῆσαι
,) 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 the Acts
of the Apostles also. (
Acts xxi. 17,
18
etc.) For on his arrival at Jerusalem, on another occasion, after
having converted many Gentiles, and, with labors far surpassing the
rest, reformed and brought 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 there are among the Jews
of them which have believed; therefore shave thy head, and purify
thyself.” (
Acts xxi. 20
f.) 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 that was no longer to be humble but to outrage and destroy the
disciples.
Ver.
18
.
“And tarried with him fifteen days.”
To take a journey on account of
him was a mark of respect; but to remain so many days, of friendship
and the most earnest affection.
37
Ver.
19
.
“But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James,
38
the Lord’s
brother.”
See what great friends he was
with Peter especially; on his account he left his home, and with him he
tarried. 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 may suppose that these
words imply enmity and contention; for he honored and loved his person
more than all and took this journey for his sake only, not for any of
the others. “But other of the Apostles saw I none, save
James.” “I saw him merely, I did not learn from him,”
he means. But observe how honorably 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 shown this by another appellation, and called him the son of
Cleophas, as the Evangelist does.
39
But as he
considered that he had a share in the august titles of the Apostles, he
exalts himself by honoring 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 touching 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
.
“Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.”
40
After his interview with Peter,
he resumes his preaching and the task which lay before him, 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 I was still unknown by face unto the Churches of Judæa;
but they only heard say, he that once persecuted us now preacheth the
faith of which he once made havoc.”
What modesty in thus again
mentioning the facts of his persecuting and laying waste the Church,
and in thus making infamous 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 mentions none of these and
stepping with one word over a vast expanse, he says merely, “I
came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;” and, “they had
heard, that he, which once persecuted us, now preacheth the faith of
which he once made havoc.” The purpose of the words, “I was
unknown to the Churches of Judæa,” is to show, 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.”
5
[Properly
so-called. His other works on the Scriptures are in the form of
homilies, or expository sermons, with the exception of his continuous
commentary on the first six chapters of Isaiah. But as Schaff says
“his homilies are expository and his commentaries are
homiletical.”—G.A.]
6
“The
two threads which run through this Epistle—the defence of the
Apostle’s own authority, and the maintenance of the doctrine of
grace—are knotted together in the opening salutation. By
expanding his official title into a statement of his direct commission
from God, he meets the personal attack of his enemies; and by dwelling
on the work of redemption in connection with the name of Christ
(
v.
4
.)
he resists their doctrinal
errors.”—Lightfoot.—G.A.]
7
[As is
narrated, for example, in
Acts xxi.
20–26
, which was, Baur and his Tübingen critics to the
contrary notwithstanding, in accordance with Paul’s principle and
practice, as announced in
1 Cor. ix. 20
.—G.A.]
8
“Not from men
as an ultimate, nor through man as a mediate
authority.”—Ellicott.
“In the first clause,
‘from men,’ he distinguishes himself from the false
apostles who did not derive their authority from God at all; in the
second, ‘through man,’ he ranks himself with the twelve who
were commissioned directly from God. The singular is used in second
clause, ‘through man,’ because offices which emanate from a
body of men are conferred by their single
representative.”—Lightfoot.
[“Paul has in
second clause used the singular because the contrast is ‘through
Jesus Christ.’”—Meyer.—G.A.]
9
This
digression, and others which follow, were occasioned by the
controversies of the day; the Arians and Macedonians denying the
co-equality and consubstantiality of
Father,
Son
, and
Holy Ghost
.
10
[“To
urge this use of
διἃ
in connection with Son
and the Father as direct evidence for the
ὀμοουσια
of the Father and the Son (as Chrysostom and Theod.) may perhaps
be rightly deemed precarious. Yet 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.—G.A.]
11
[That is,
from the order of the three names.—G.A.]
12
[Meyer
agrees with Lightfoot and Ellicott in the view that
πἁντες
means not all the Christians of the place where he was
(probably Ephesus), but only his traveling companions; but he differs
from them in holding that “the impressive effect of the epistle
could not but be strengthened by indicating that these brethren
collectively desired to address the very same instructions, warnings
and exhortations to the Galatians.”—G.A.]
13
[The
word is
παιδαγωγός
, the same that is used in
Gal. 3: 24,
25
,
and translated ‘school-master’ in the A.V., but
‘tutor’ in the Rev. Ver.—G.A.]
14
[“The Galatians had practically ignored the atoning death of
Christ; compare
ii. 21 and v. 4
.”—Lightfoot.—G.A.]
15
[“The idea of satisfaction is implied not in the
preposition
ὑπέρ
but the
whole nature of the case.”—Meyer.—G.A.]
16
That is,
the Manichees, who considered matter intrinsically evil, and paid
divine honors to the sun, moon, and stars. Vid.
Epiph.
Hær.
lxvi. [On Mani and the Manichean heresy see
Schaff,
Church History
, Vol. II. pp. 498–508 where a full
account of the literature is given also.—G.A.]
17
[“And not by our own merits. cf.
τοῦ
καλέσαντος
,
v. 6
.”—Lightfoot.
“The salvation was
willed by God to whom Christ was obedient (
Philip. ii. 9
.).”—Meyer.—G.A.]
18
[This
note of time helps to fix the date of the Epistle as being about 56 or
57 during Paul’s two years’ stay at Ephesus (
Acts 19:
10
.).
So most modern expositors, though Lightfoot and some others put it
later.—G.A.]
19
[The
Revised version brings out the difference of the words for
“another.” The
ἕτερον
, “a
different kind of” gospel, the second is
ἄλλο
, “another,”
simply. “To a different sort of gospel,—nay, it is not
another gospel. There cannot be two gospels. Only certain men are
troubling you and trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But a
perverted gospel is no gospel at all.”—G.A.]
20
Marcion
flourished about
a.d.
120–130. His
doctrine was a compound of various preceding theologies, chiefly the
Gnostic. He received only a part of St. Luke’s Gospel. Tertull.
in
Marc.
iv. 2–4. He it was who on asking Polycarp
to “acknowledge” him, received for answer, “I
acknowledge thee as the first-born of Satan.”
21
[
θέλοντες
: On this word Jerome aptly says,
Volunt sed non valent
. The troubling
of the Galatians, however, did actually take
place.—G.A.]
22
[There
is an eloquent passage on this same subject of foolish and sinful
superstitions among Christians in Homily xii. on Ephesians, near the
end.—G.A.]
23
[Though this view of Chrysostom, that the
προειρήκαμεν
refers to what immediately precedes is held by many
others, it is not tenable for two reasons; 1. St. Paul would have used
the singular
προειρηκα
, as he does in
λέγω
, immediately
following. 2 The
πρό
in composition, and
the
καί
ἄρτι
, both, mark some
greater distinction of time than this would
allow.—G.A.]
24
[“I speak thus strongly, for my language shall not be
misconstrued. Will any one now say that careless of winning the favor
of God, I seek to ingratiate myself with men?”
Lightfoot.—G.A.]
25
“
χριστοῦ
δοῦλος
should
not be taken in an historical sense, as Chrysostom. This would be
feeble and lacking in depth of thought. No, it is to be taken in its
ethical character.”—Meyer.—G.A.]
26
[The
reading
γάρ
(Rev. Ver. W. H.) gives a reason for what is implied
in the sentence preceding, while
δέ
, an inferior reading, means
‘but,’ (now to enter more particularly on the subject of my
letter) “I make known to you.”—So
Meyer.—G.A.]
27
[“He begins here the
historical proof
that he was
indebted for his gospel to the
revelation
he had
mentioned.”—Meyer.
“My early
education was such that no human agency could have brought the change
(from Judaism to Christianity). It required a direct interposition from
God.”—Lightfoot.—G.A.]
28
[Chrysostom’s interpretation of this passage is hardly
sustained by the context. It is not a proof of his sincerity that he is
adducing; he is continuing and completing the statement that his former
manner of life was proof that he could not have received the Gospel
from man.—G.A.]
29
[Vid.
Hom. de Mut. Nom.
t. iii. p.
98. Ed. Ben.—G.A.]
30
[“In his pre-Christian blindness Paul had known
Christ
κατὰ
σάρκα
,
2 Cor. v. 16
.”—Meyer.—G.A.]
31
[“
Εν
ἐμοί
means ‘in my
mind,’ ‘in my consciousness.’
2 Cor. iv. 6
,” in
opposition to Lightfoot who says, “‘In me’ means, as
the context shows, not a revelation made inwardly to himself, but
through him to others.”—G.A.]
32
[“Flesh and blood,” is twice used elsewhere
(
Mat. 16: 17 and Eph. 6:
12
,)
to denote “weak human nature,” “feeble
man.”—G.A.]
33
[Paul
here simply means he did not go to Jerusalem before he began
preaching.—G.A.]
34
Of
those who were sent with St. Paul from Antioch to Jerusalem, Barnabas
is the only one named in
Acts xv. 2
, and it would
rather seem from
Ver.
22
,
that Silas was then at Jerusalem, and did not accompany St. Paul till
his return from thence.
35
[“This journey is to be looked upon not as having for its
object a quiet preparation, but as a first experiment of extraneous
ministry.”—Meyer. Farrar,
Life and Work of Paul
. Ch.
xi. takes the opposite view and says, “No one, I think, who reads
this passage attentively can deny that it gives the impression of an
intentional retirement from human intercourse.” So also Schaff,
who says it was a sort of substitute for the three years intercourse
with Jesus enjoyed by the other Apostles.
Ap. Ch.
236.—G.A.]
36
[First
visit to Jerusalem,
Acts ix. 26
. For a
reconciliation of the two accounts of this visit see
Handy Com. on
Gal.
Excursus A (by Sanday).—G.A.]
37
[And
yet it was not long enough to have allowed his receiving his doctrine
and Gospel from Peter. Besides he had already been preaching three
years.—G.A.]
38
“Thus this James is distinguished from the circle of the
twelve (
1 Cor. xv. 8
.) to which Peter belonged but included in the number of
Apostles in the wider sense, which explains the merely supplementary
mention of this Apostle.”—Meyer.
39
[Compare
John xix. 25 with
Matt. xxvii. 56
. But see Lightfoot’s learned and exhaustive essay on
“The Brethren of the Lord,”
Com. on Gal.
pp.
88–127, and Schaff,
Church History,
I,
272–275.—G.A.]
40
[Compare
Acts ix. 30
, where Luke says the
brethren took Paul to Cæsarea, and thence despatched him to Tarsus
(in Cilicia).—G.A.]