Galatians 1:11

Gal_1:11-12

That the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

The inspiration of St. Paul

The greater part of our knowledge must always rest on the authority of others. No single man is able to ascertain for himself the innumerable facts, in all the various fields of human investigation, out of which alone a personal conviction can grow. Nor can we always reason out the conclusions that we accept on others testimony. We must take them on faith. False teachers in Galatia attempted to weaken Pauls authority by asserting that he, having never been a personal disciple of Jesus, and not therefore included in the original commission, was to be looked on as no more than a self-appointed proclaimer of a self-invented doctrine, or as the agent only of other persons who employed his zeal and talents to diffuse their error, or perhaps as the ignorant perverter of the truths which he had at first been taught by the apostles at Jerusalem, and from which he had gone aside. St. Paul here refutes these accusations and insinuations.

I. His principles of Christianity were not derived from human authority. He was not the retailer of other mens notions, and proclaimer of what others had invented for him and enjoined on him. He had not been drilled in any human school, and then sent forth to talk--to distribute the materials which had been put into his hands, and to hawk about the goods which others had manufactured for him. Far higher than this was his authority; far deeper his knowledge and convictions.

II. Nor through human instruction. Not merely conviction arrived at by self-study of others opinions.

III. But from divine disclosure. God unveiled His hidden things to the mental vision of the apostle. His inspiration is a revelation, disclosure, communication from God. Therefore he speaks with authority. (Prebendary Griffith.)

The nature of revelation

Revelation is distinguished from ordinary moral and spiritual influences by its suddenness. It shows us in an instant, what, under ordinary circumstances, would grow up gradually and insensibly. In the individual it is accompanied by a sudden transition from darkness to light; in the world at large it is an anticipation of moral truth and of the course of human experience. Reducible to no natural laws, it is to our ordinary moral and spiritual nature what peculiar cataleptic conditions are to our bodily, constitution. It seems to come from without, and is not; to be confounded with any inward emotion, any more than a dream or the sight of a painting. As compared with prophecy, it is nearer to us, representing as in a picture the things that shall shortly come to pass, and yet embracing a wider range; not, like the prophets of old, describing the fortunes of an individual nation, as it may have crossed the path of the Jewish people, but lifting up the veil from the whole invisible world. In all its different senses it retains this external, present, immediate character. Whether it be the future kingdom of Christ, or the fall of Jerusalem or of Rome, or the world lying in wickedness, that is described, all is displayed immediately before us as on some mount of transfiguration--the figures near to us, and the colours bright. (B. Jowett, M. A.)

The gospel no work of man

1. As a word of doctrine, it did not spring from men, nor was it taught by men, but by Christ Himself, who brought it Himself, and through whom alone His people have it.

2. As a word of comfort, only through Him can we commit ourselves to it.

3. As a word of power, in which there should be no change, from which no departure. (J. P. Lange, D. D.)

A solemn avowal concerning the gospel

I. The gospel that Paul preached. The purport of his ministry and the faith he proclaimed are given in Act_26:22-23.

II. The gospel which Paul preached was not of man.

1. His gospel was not after man. It did not originate with man. Human schemes of salvation have ever been imperfect in theory and worthless in practice.

2. Pauls gospel was not communicated by man. I neither received it of man.

3. The gospel which Paul preached was not explained to him by man. Neither was I taught it.

III. The gospel that Paul preached was revealed to him.

IV. Pauls testimony in relation to the gospel was delivered with great impressiveness and solemnity. I declare unto you, brethren. Lessons:

1. Paul and the other apostles preached what had been revealed to them; there cannot, therefore, be in the true sense, any successors to the apostles now.

2. The gospel being a revelation, should be received with reverent trust. (Richard Nicholls.)

I certify you

Observe--

I. That men may be certified that the gospel is not of man but of God, by--

1. The evidences of Gods Spirit imprinted on and expressed in it.

2. The testimony of its promulgators who were neither knaves nor fools.

3. The assurance of obedience and experience (Joh_7:17).

II. That Christ is the great teacher of this gospel.

1. He is the Revealer of the will of the Father touching the redemption of mankind (Joh_1:18; Joh_8:26).

2. He calls and sends the preachers of this gospel (Joh_20:21; Eph_4:11).

3. He gives the Spirit who illuminates the mind and guides into all truth.

III. That Christ teaches the teachers of this gospel.

1. By immediate revelation,

2. By ordinary instruction in the schools.

IV. That those who are teachers must be first taught, and must then teach what they have learned. (2Ti_3:14). (W. Perkins.)

Preaching the gospel

To preach is to announce by heralding. We have to reiterate as new and happy tidings in the ear of a stranger that Gods kingdom is come, is to come, and that we can help it to come, I ask any man, if this be true and not romance, is it not an honour to proclaim it, although it be with us as with Paul, against difficulties and calumnies. (T. T. Lynch.)

The inspiration of St. Paul

In an important sense the inspiration of St. Paul is the highest in Holy Scripture; for while Moses laid a foundation, and prophets brought together the Divine materials, and evangelists built up the walls of the glorious temple of Gods truth, it was reserved for Paul to complete the structure and bring out its beauties to be seen of the whole earth. There are magnificent temples in Bible lands that have served for quarries for the structures the Turks have built under their shadow. Yet even in ruin their greatness is more conspicuous from the contrast. So the ablest theologians have gone to Paul for the choicest stones of their goodly structures, and still the temple he was commissioned to complete looks down on them all, not a ruin but perfect as at the first. His Epistles form the crowning glory of that Word of God that abideth for ever. (M. Laurie, D. D.)

Certification of Divine revelation

Can a revelation be certified? The answer may be divided into three parts.

1. The method of the revelation, by individual men, and by writings handed down from age to age, is not unreasonable.

2. The anterior probability of such a revelation as is given in Scripture is undoubtedly strong.

3. The test of time being applied to the revelation actually given, sufficiently approves the Divine authority which is claimed for it. (R. A. Redford.)

Divine revelation from above

I. It occupies a higher region than that which is physical, mental, or moral.

II. It comes down upon the intellect, not out of it.

1. It is sublimely authoritative.

2. By the side of it the most advanced knowledge is halting and immature.

III. Paul insisted on his apostleship because this revelation was committed to him. (S. Pearson, M. A.)

It is an historical fact that human nature is always below revelation

Great discoveries are usually the product of preceding ages of thought. One mind developes the idea; but it is the fruitage of the ages ripened in that mind. A pearl is found; but the location has been indicated by previous researches. But revealed religion is something different from this. It is separate from and superior to the thought of the age. It calls the wisdom of the world foolishness, and introduces a new standpoint and starting-point around which it gathers what was valuable in the old, and destroys the remainder. Hence it will always be found true that a struggle is necessary to bring up the human mind and keep it up to the level of revealed religion, anti that revealed religion produces the struggle. Even those who profess to be its friends retrograde as soon as its power abates, and new applications of that power have to be made to bring them up again. (J. B. Walker, M. A.)

Revelation by Christ

Revelation seems usually to be ascribed to the Son of God in consistency with His character as the Word, the declarer of Gods will who has manifested God in the flesh (see also 1Co_11:23; Rev_1:1; Rev_5:9). Whereas Inspiration is usually connected with the Holy Spirit (2Pe_1:21; Act_1:16; Heb_7:8). But Luk_2:26 is an exception to the rule. And, doubtless as on the one hand it is from the Son that the Spirit proceeds, being indeed the water which flows out of the rock of our salvation: so, on the other, no revelation can be made without the Spirit who opens the inward eye to what is outwardly communicated. (Dean Goulburn.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal 1:11-12. But I certify you, brethren — He does not, till now, give them even this appellation; that the gospel which was preached by me — Among you; is not after man — Of mere human authority and invention; is not from man, not by man, nor suited to the taste of man; for I neither received it of man — From the authority or interposition of any man; neither was I taught it — By any writing or any human method of instruction; but by revelation of Jesus Christ — Who communicated to me by inspiration his gospel in all its parts, and sent me forth to publish it to the world. If Paul did not receive the gospel from man, as he here asserts, and as we are therefore sure he did not, the perfect conformity of his doctrine with the doctrine of the other apostles, is a proof that he was taught it by revelation from Jesus Christ, who revealed to him at first his resurrection, ascension, and the calling of the Gentiles, and his own apostleship; and told him then there were other things for which he would appear to him. See on Act 26:16-18.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2. Paul’s gospel borrowed from no apostle, Gal_1:11-24.

Paul now, to prove that his gospel was not derived from man, gives a narrative showing that he did not obtain it from the only men supposable— the apostles; nor from the Jerusalem centre. He was first wrapped in the intensest Judaism, Gal_1:13-14; upon his conversion he visited not Jerusalem—he saw no apostle for three years, Gal_1:16-17; he then visited Peter at Jerusalem, and saw James alone besides, Gal_1:18-20; thence departing to Syria he had no acquaintance at all with the Judean Churches, Gal_1:21-24. His gospel, then, not being received from the apostles, if it coincided with the apostolic gospel was all the more certainly true.

11. This and the verse following state the apostle’s line of defence, affirming the broad fact of the divine origin, not of the gospel merely, but of his gospel. So far as man was concerned, he was original. His original was Christ.

Certify—Literally, make known, cause you to know, assure you.

After man—So that man could frame it. It is not such as man would or could have framed.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I

TO DESTROY THE INFLUENCE WHICH THE FALSE TEACHERS HAD GAINED IN THE CHURCHES, PAUL REFUTES THEIR ATTACKS UPON HIS APOSTOLIC DIGNITY, AND PROVES THEREBY THE FULL AUTHORITY OF HIS PREACHING

Gal_1:11 to Gal_2:21

1. To this end the appeals to the fact that he received his commission to declare the Gospel from God and Christ Himself through immediate revelation, not from the senior Apostles

(Gal_1:11-24)

11But I certify you [Now I declare unto you],16 brethren, that the gospel which was preached of [ὑπʼ, by] me is not after man. 12For I neither received [For neither did I receive]17 it of [from] man, neither was I taught it, but by [through] the [omit the] revelation of [from]18 Jesus Christ. 13For ye have [omit have] heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion [Judaism],19 how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and wasted [was destroying]20 it: 14And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals [And surpassed in Judaism many of my age]21 in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers [or my ancestral traditions]. 15But when it pleased God,22 who separated me 16[set me apart]23 from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in [within] me, that I might preach him among the heathen [Gentiles]; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17Neither went I up [away]24 to Jerusalem to them which [who] were apostles before me; but I went [went away] into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter [to make the acquaintance of Cephas],25 and abode with him fifteen days. 19But other of the apostles saw I none [I did not see], save James the Lord’s brother. 20Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God I lie not. 21Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; 22And [but] was unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ: 23But they had heard only [only they were hearing],26 That he which persecuted us in times past [who once persecuted us] now preacheth [is now preaching] the faith which once he destroyed [was destroying]. 24And they glorified God in me.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Gal_1:11. Now I declare unto you—not after man.—[Literally: “I make known unto you as respects the gospel, the one preached by me, that it is not according to man.”—R.] To the warm burst of feeling succeeds the composed statement of reasons. Accordingly we have the formal γνωρίζω, and the address “brethren,” which also shows that Paul, although in the introduction he gives no peculiar title of honor to the Galatian Christians, feels himself to be still standing in the fraternal relation to them. He takes this as his starting point with them, because his aim in what follows is to bring them back and win them again from their error. He first justifies his preceding rebuke by the distinct and formal assurance that his teaching is not of man. Of course this was not something entirely new to the church, yet it had, doubtless, been at first a merely tacit presupposition in connection with the Apostle’s preaching, without having been expressly emphasized: hence the γνωρίζω; after it had been called in question, it must be definitely affirmed.

The gospel which was preached by me is most naturally referred to the preaching of the gospel among the Galatians, although self-evidently the same declaration was of general validity.—Οὐ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον literally: “not according to man,” not after the fashion of man, not man’s work. This applies not immediately to its origin, but to its character, which however is especially and primarily conditioned by its origin (Gal_1:12). The sequel shows the phrase to be nearly equivalent in sense to “scholastic” [schulmässig].

Gal_1:12. For neither did I receive it of man, neither was I taught it.—“Neither did I”=any more than the Twelve. By the denial of any human origin of his gospel he asserts his equal rank with the other Apostles. The sentence receives a simple exposition when compared with Gal_1:1, which it more closely explains. The first and negative part: “neither did I receive it from man, neither was I taught it,” is an explanation of “not of men, neither through man,” while the second part, “but through revelation from Jesus Christ,” is an explanation of “through Jesus Christ and God the Father,” which is afterwards made yet more definite (Gal_1:15-16).—[Lightfoot: The idea of the preposition (παρά) is sufficiently wide to include both the ἀπό and διά of Gal_1:1—R.]

Through revelation from Jesus Christ.—This is commonly explained as merely a giving of instruction respecting the contents of the gospel, and there is then a difficulty as to when Christ gave to Paul this ἀπο-κάλνψις, discovery. Here Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is taken as gen. Subj. = the revelation which Jesus Christ gave. Meyer explains it of revelations received soon after the event near Damascus, of which, however, there is no mention in the Acts. Others, with reason, refuse to assume any such revelations, but explain the “revelation” as identical with the actual appearance of Christ on the way to Damascus, through which Paul received certainty of that which is precisely the essence of the gospel, namely, “Jesus the Son of God.” They are led to this, moreover, by a just instinct, that it is not the developed contents of that which Paul taught, that is here in question. This explanation, therefore, is quite correct, and Paul’s reference here is solely to the fact of that appearance on the way. Yet he has in view chiefly, not a receiving of instruction thereby, but his call to the apostleship itself, for this was a call “to preach the gospel” (see also Gal_1:18), and therefore a “receiving the gospel.” The expression, that he had received the gospel through revelation from Jesus Christ, has primarily the simple meaning, that through this he had been called and appointed to preach. In the phrase “through revelation,” etc., Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is at all events the subjective genitive, for Christ is in any case to be regarded as active in the installation of the Apostle (Gal_1:1), and hence in his call to preach. As the object of this “revelation” we are to understand not the contents of the gospel, but more simply Christ Himself, hence it is=by Christ’s revealing Himself to me.—This view is, it is true, in apparent contradiction to the “taught” immediately preceding, which seems to point to a definitely developed doctrine, but only in apparent contradiction. It is only in the negative that he speaks of “being taught;” in order to deny most entirely the human calling to preach, Paul denies also the “being taught;” he did not, he says, first receive in a course of school instruction, his equipment, authorization and capacity to preach, hence not in a secondary, derived manner, as a scholar (of the Apostles). Over against this human origin, Paul now simply asserts his “revelation from Jesus Christ” which need not be complemented by “taught”—an expression in itself awkward too—but merely by “received.”—In what immediately follows it is not “through revelation from Jesus Christ,” so much as the negative “neither was I taught it,” that is proven. For in Gal_1:15-16, where “through revelation” has to be touched, it is mentioned properly only as a historical notice, in order to mark the transition from the first period of his life to the second, hence only in the subordinate clause. From this, however, the conclusion cannot of course be drawn; “I was taught through revelation from Jesus Christ;” for this reason first, that then we should expect a detailed statement of this positive side. But all that was to be said on the positive side, had been said already in the short διʼ ἀπο-καλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ because here a simple fact only was in question; on the other hand the “received from man” and “taught” could have taken place in many ways and at different times, might have been of long continuance; and on this account the demonstration was needed that there had been no point of time whatever, when such instruction from the senior Apostles (whom he has in mind throughout in “from man”), could have taken place, since at first he has been hostile to Christianity, and after his calling had never lived in intercourse with the senior Apostles, though at the same time he had already preached the gospel. And, he proceeds to say in chap. 2, when afterwards, he was once somewhat longer with them, he then appeared as a fully equal Apostle, and was so acknowledged; hence there could no longer be any talk of his occupying the place of a pupil.

[Since the design of the Apostle in what follows is to prove that his doctrine as well as his apostleship was God-given, that He was “taught of God,” it seems more natural to refer “revelation from Jesus Christ,” to instruction as well as to calling to the apostleship. Wordsworth calls attention to the force of ἀλλά, which he considers to be here “except” “save”—“nor was I taught it except by revelation,” He was θεοδίδακτος. And this view is further sustained by the omission of the article before the noun, which is not rendered definite either by the genitive following or by the fact that there was but one revelation (Paul undoubtedly had many). To what instructive revelation does he refer? Undoubtedly to that on the way to Damascus, but not to that exclusively. Nor to any particular revelation soon after his conversion (Aquinas, Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, who suggest the sojourn in Arabia, Gal_1:17, as the probable time), but to the revelation on the way to Damascus as “the fundamental and central illumination,” “followed by special revelation” at different periods of his life. Comp. Act_22:17; Act_23:11; 1Co_11:13; 2Co_12:1 sq.; Gal_2:2. Schaff. Schmoller’s view on this point colors his notes on the entire section.—R.]

Gal_1:13. For ye heard of my conversation in time past, etc.—How far this statement is meant to confirm the previous proposition (γάρ), has just been indicated. Perhaps, however, he also emphasizes his former Jewish zeal, with particular reference to his Judaistic opposers. He wishes thereby to call attention to the fact that his present anti-Judaistic position does not result from any want of acquaintance with Judaism, but that, on the contrary, it rests upon only too intimate an acquaintance with it.

Ἰουδαϊσμός: the word in itself, it is true, signifies nothing more than the Jewish religion; yet Paul, in this connection, evidently throws more meaning into it, joining with it the additional idea: Jewish zealotism. Only thus is a proper meaning given to “surpassed in Judaism” (Gal_1:14). This again finds its explanation in how that beyond measure I persecuted, etc. “He was really engaged in the work of destruction, not merely in that of disturbance.” Meyer.

Gal_1:14. In mine own nation.—Literally “race,” the people are regarded as a single race, descending from the same ancestor.—My ancestral traditions:—not the Pharisaic traditions or the Mosaic law, together with those traditions, but teachings which the fathers of the collective people held (see Wieseler). The phrase: “the traditions of my fathers,” in itself, describes only the doctrinal and ritual definitions respecting the Jewish worship which then obtained, though, of course, resting on the Mosaic law as their foundation. But Paul, in calling himself a zealot, who surpassed many of his contemporaries, has undoubtedly in view chiefly his observance of these usages according to the peculiarly strict rule of Pharisaism. [Schaff: “The word παράδοσις, ‘tradition,’ which figures so prominently in the Roman Catholic controversy, in the general sense, embraces everything which is taught and handed down, either orally or in writing, or in both ways, from generation to generation; in the particular sense it may be used favorably of the divine doctrine, and even of Christianity itself, as is the case 1Co_11:2 (E. V. ‘ordinances instead of ‘traditions’); 2Th_2:15; 2Th_3:6, or unfavorably of the human additions to, and perversions of the religion of the Old or New Testament, in which case it is generally more clearly defined as the traditions ‘of the elders’ or of men,’ as Mat_25:2; Mar_7:3; Mar_7:5; Mar_7:8; Col_2:8. In our passage it means the whole Jewish religion, or mode of worship, divine and human; but in the Pharisaic sense, as opposed to Christianity.” Light-foot’s paraphrase is excellent: “My early education is a proof that I did not receive the gospel from man. I was brought up in a rigid school of ritualism, directly opposed to the liberty of the gospel. I was from age and temper a staunch adherent of the principles of that school. Acting upon them, I relentlessly persecuted the Christian brotherhood. No human agency, therefore, could have brought about the change. It required a direct interposition from God.”—R.]

Gal_1:15-16. But when it pleased God.—In the interest of his demonstration of the independence of his apostolate, as respects men, he here studiously emphasizes the activity of God in conferring it, going back even to the divine ordination thereto at his very conception. [Lightfoot: “Observe how words are accumulated to tell upon the one point on which he is insisting—the sole agency of God as distinct from his own efforts.”—R.]—From my mother’s womb=when he was yet in his mother’s womb, he was already set apart as an Apostle. [Schaff: “Comp. Jer_1:5; Isa_49:1. The decree of redemption is eternal as God’s love and omniscience, but its temporal realization begins in each individual case with the natural birth, and more properly with the gospel call and the spiritual birth. He refers, however, here more particularly to his call to the apostleship, for which he was ‘set apart’ or destined, elected and dedicated by a Divine act. Comp. the same term, Rom_1:1; Act_13:2.”—R.]—His calling followed afterwards near Damascus. In the Acts, Christ’s appearance only is mentioned; here Paul takes up the event with a more doctrinal reference, and hence refers this appearance to its first cause, God. This, of course, implies no discrepancy with the narrative of the Acts.—Although appearances favor such a view, “called” does not denote an earlier act, preceding the revelation (Gal_1:16) which, therefore, refers to subsequent revelations (Meyer) [The aorist participle, καλέσας, in this connection, at first sight, seems to refer to an act prior to the “revelation,” not, however, necessarily long before. It does not mean a “calling” in the Divine mind, as some infer from its connection with “set apart;” but most probably the Divine act which, “by means of His grace,” resulted immediately in his conversion, when the revelation was made. Ellicott: “The moving cause of the call was the Divine pleasure; the mediating cause, the boundless grace of God; the instrument, the heavensent voice” or revelation; the purpose of the setting apart, the call and the revelation alike was, “that I might preach him among the Gentiles.” “To reveal” depends on “pleased,” not on “called.”—R.]

So then “reveal” is only the explanation of the “calling;” more precisely: there is thereby indicated what took place at the calling, namely, the enlightenment and conviction then effected. For this reason also, because the calling comes into mention only as respects its result, he speaks only of revealing “His Son within me.” Accordingly Paul, in this passage, indeed, says nothing of having had an outward appearance of Christ. But, that Paul, in the expression, to reveal his Son within me, was thinking of a definite, individual fact, which was connected with a definite locality, the city or the neighborhood of the city of Damascus, and not of a purely internal event, appears most clearly from what follows Gal_1:17, “returned again.” “Had the event of his conversion been a purely inward one, his recollection of the locality where it occurred would not, more than twenty years after, have still forced itself so strongly into the foreground that, in describing only the general inner result of that revolution, he would have been constrained at once to think of Damascus.” Paret, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1858. H. 1. Furthermore and principally, the whole proof which Paul here brings for his apostolic parity rests upon the fact that he had really and truly had an appearance of the Risen One. “I have not been called by men, but just as truly as the older Apostles, by Christ Himself to be an Apostle,” is his fundamental thought: how could he be thinking on a mere internal event, a vocation by Christ only in spirit? With that, instead of his equality, his difference from the others would have been established. Therefore, if any conclusion is justified, it is this: Paul has here in his eye the event related in the Acts; presupposing, however, the outward occurrence as well known, he avails himself only of that element of it which has pertinence here, namely, that he was inwardly enlightened concerning Christ, that Christ was revealed to his inner eye, to faith. Of his conversion in itself, Paul does not speak here, or only so far as it was a condition of his capacity for the apostleship, as through it the “calling” to be an Apostle became a reality. He dates his calling, therefore, from the moment of his conversion. Therefore, he continues: that I might preach him among the Gentiles.—Him whom God has revealed to him as His Son, he was, and is still (therefore the present), to declare as such; this is the gospel which he received “through revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal_1:12), this “the gospel which was preached by me” (Gal_1:11).—Ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν: among the Gentile nations, therefore ἐν, not the dative. For Paul preached not merely to the Gentiles, but among the Gentile nations, first to the Jews dwelling among them, and only then to the heathen themselves.

Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood—Εὐθέως, of course, belongs strictly not to the negative sentence immediately following, but to the affirmative sentence: “went away into Arabia,” it does not, however, exclude a brief previous activity in Damascus, since the Apostle was only concerned to prove that he did not go out from Damascus in any other direction than Arabia, and particularly that he did not go to Jerusalem.—“I conferred not,” I addressed no communication to flesh and blood, in order to receive instruction and direction—“flesh and blood;” here merely—one clothed with a mortal body, therefore in sense equivalent simply to—Man. The conception is thus strongly expressed, because Man appears here in antithesis with God.

Gal_1:17. Neither went I away to Jerusalem to them who were apostles before me.—This is the only distinction which he concedes between himself and them.—Into Arabia. “This Arabian journey is to be regarded as his first essay of foreign labor, and it is, by εὐθέως, put in connection with the purpose of the divine revelation, that he should preach the gospel among the heathen.”—(Meyer). Yet I would not on this account wholly reject the other conjectures that have been offered as to the purpose of this journey, such as seeking protection from the Jews, “severing himself from pressure of the national spirit,” and partially also, perhaps to prepare himself in stillness for his work.—This journey into Arabia is not mentioned in the Acts, probably because it was of short duration and therefore perhaps not known to Luke; it is, with most probability, placed in the time of the “many days,” Act_9:23; the flight from Damascus must therefore be placed at the end of this second visit there. [Two questions arise: 1. as to the place; 2. the object of this sojourn. 1. Although “the desert region about Damascus” may have been the place (since Justin includes Damascus in Arabia, and Xenophon applies the name to the region beyond the Euphrates, Anab. I. 5), yet Paul is always more definite in his geographical statements than most ancient authors, and as in the only other place where Arabia is mentioned in the N. T. (Gal_4:25), it must mean the Sinaitic peninsula, it seems decidedly preferable to refer it to that locality in this case. Besides, as Lightfoot well remarks, any other view “deprives this visit of a significance which, on a more probable hypothesis, it possesses in relation to this crisis of St. Paul’s life.” If Gal_4:25 refers to “Hagar” as the Arabic name of Sinai, the argument is conclusive, for he was not likely to have heard this name anywhere but on the spot. If it be a mere geographical remark, then it is a very indefinite one, granting that Paul here uses “Arabia” with so extended a signification. 2. “Paul’s object in this residence in Arabia, as seems most probable from the context, was not to preach the gospel—but to enjoy a season of undisturbed preparation for his high and holy calling. This period, therefore, belongs more properly to the history of the Apostle’s inward life; and this affords the simplest explanation of the silence of the book of Acts respecting it. It was for him a sort of substitute for the three years’ personal intercourse with the Lord, enjoyed by the other Apostles” (Schaff, Apostolic Church, p. 236). This view of the object confirms the opinion that the Sinaitic peninsula was the locality. Where Moses and Elijah had been before him, Paul went. “Thus in the wilderness of Sinai, as on the mount of transfiguration, the three dispensations met in one;” Law, Prophecy and Gospel; Moses, Elijah and Paul. Comp. Lightfoot, p. 87 sq.; Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, p. 50.—R.]

Gal_1:18.Then after three years.—To be reckoned probably from his calling to the apostleship; for he means: I did not go up at once to Jerusalem, but only three years after. This is the first journey of Paul to Jerusalem, Act_9:26.—Ἱστορῆοαι Κ.=in order to become personally acquainted with Cephas, not: in order to obtain instruction from him. The more precise expression is therefore designedly chosen.—Fifteen days.—Had it been in itself possible that Paul at this time received instruction, still a course of instruction strictly so called, a schooling under the senior Apostles would not have been possible in so short a time. Hence the length of his stay is expressly mentioned. [Nor does the singling out of Peter prove anything more than his prominence among the Twelve; Paul puts himself on a par with all the Apostles, including Peter.—R.]

Gal_1:19. But other of the apostles I did not see.—“Apostle” must be taken in the strict sense of the Twelve, since it is precisely his parity with these that Paul wishes to make out. Therefore James the Lord’s brother is either to be reckoned among the Apostles and identified with James, the son of Alpheus, and so “brother” to be taken in the sense of “cousin;” or “save” (εἰ μή) is to be referred only to “I did not see”=another one of the apostles I did not see, but I saw only James. Grammatically the former is decidedly the less difficult; but the identification with James, the son of Alpheus, is attended with great difficulties. Comp. Wieseler in loco. Besides this impression is evidently conveyed, that Paul by the special addition he appends to the name, wishes to distinguish this James from the Apostles, not to include him in their number. For this reason the second interpretation is to be preferred. Although not an Apostle, this James could still be mentioned by Paul, as is done here, along with the Twelve, because he had a standing well-nigh apostolic. Respecting the question how the James mentioned Gal_2:9, is related to this James, see remarks on that passage. “The notice that at that time Paul only saw Peter and James in Jerusalem, does not conflict with the indefinite τοὺς ἀποστόλους, Act_9:27, but authentically defines it.” Meyer.

[The interpretation turns upon the much discussed question what is meant by “the brethren of the Lord,” for unless this James can be identified with James, the son of Alpheus, he is not an Apostle. The view of Lightfoot, Alford and others that he might be an Apostle, and yet not of the Twelve, seems altogether untenable. Only one point is undisputed: This James is the one who was frequently called by the church fathers “bishop of Jerusalem,” and also “the Just.” Whether he were an Apostle, whether he wrote the general Epistle, whether referred to again in this Epistle, are open questions. Without entering into an extended discussion, it will suffice to mention the leading views and their bearing on this passage, referring the reader to special dissertations. There are three principal theories. That the brethren of the Lord were 1. the sons of Joseph and Mary; 2. the sons of Joseph by a former wife; 3. the cousins of our Lord, either the sons of the Virgin’s sister, or the sons of Joseph’s brother, etc. 1 and 2 are the older views; 3 originated with Jerome.—On this latter theory alone can we identify James, the brother of our Lord, with James, the son of Alpheus, for the other theories imply that Joseph, not Alpheus, was his father. But this theory is with difficulty supported, for not only did it originate in an attempt to justify and thus enjoin virginity in man as well as woman, but it has always been forced to call to its aid mere conjectures. Hence, if it be rejected, our verse means that Paul saw none other of the Apostles, but he did see the Lord’s brother. To which view we are in a measure forced also by the statement of John (Joh_7:5 : “neither did his brethren believe in him”) after the twelve were chosen. Comp. Joh_6:67, where “the twelve” are spoken of. That his brethren were afterwards believers is stated (Act_1:14, where they are mentioned in distinction from the Apostles); the reason of the so speedy conversion may be found in 1Co_15:7, if “James,” of whom “he was seen,” be distinguished from “the twelve” (Gal_1:5) and “all the Apostles” in the same verse.

As between 1 and 2, it may be remarked, that it seems more natural to consider the brethren of our Lord the sons of Mary, were it not for two reasons, first, the instinctive repugnance (Jos. Add. Alexander) to such a view, and secondly, the fact that the dying Saviour committed His mother to another than these brethren, a strange fact, were they her own sons. Still these are not insuperable objections. The whole question is an open one, and it was only necessary to discuss it here so far as to decide upon the meaning of this particular passage. The reader is referred to Lange’s Commentary, Matthew, p. 255 sq., where Lange defends the modified cousintheory, and Schaff advocates at length the first view stated above. Also to Lange’s Commentary, James, p. 9 sq.; Schaff, Monograph on James, Berlin, 1842; Alford, Prolegomena, Epistle of James. Comp. the authorities quoted by these writers. The best classification and history of opinions will be found in Lightfoot, Dissertat. II., p. 247 sq., which has been freely used in the above remarks. He, however, defends the second theory. As regards this passage, it seems on the whole best to consider this James—1. as not identical with the son of Alpheus; 2. as not an Apostle. Both points are involved in the exegesis of the passage, but as εἰ μή is susceptible of either interpretation, these results must be reached on other than grammatical grounds. The grounds for the above opinions cannot be stated at length, but may be found in the more extended discussions.—R.]

[Wordsworth: “Paul’s meeting with Peter ana James. Peter cordially received him.—‘Fifteen days;’ ample time for Peter to have seen what I was, and to have proclaimed me to the world as a deceiver, if the Gospel which I preached was not consistent with his own. Therefore they who cavil at me involve Peter also in the charge of conniving at error and delusion.” But thus indicating his respect for Peter and James,“he wisely guards himself against any imputations on the part of his Judaizing adversaries, that he, a new Apostle, was liable to the charge of disparaging the original Apostles of Christ. And he prepares the way for what he is about to say in the next chapter concerning his resistance to St. Peter.”—R.]

Gal_1:20. Now the things which I write unto you.

Gal_1:20 contains a solemn asseveration, which has its ground in the importance of the account just given for the Apostle’s purpose, namely, to prove his own apostolic dignity.

[Gal_1:21. Into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;—No mention is made of his going into Syria in the narrative in the Acts, but he is said to have been brought down to Cesarea, and sent forth to Tarsus (in Cilicia), where Barnabas afterwards went to seek him (Act_9:30; Act_11:25). There is no discrepancy. Paul may have gone to Antioch on his way to Cilicia, or returned that way in his labors before Barnabas came for him; or the expression here may be indefinite, since “Syria and Cilicia” appears in history almost as a generic geographical term, the more important district being mentioned first. Comp. Cony. and Howson. I. pp. 104, 105. Lange’s Comm., Acts, p. 182.—R.]

Gal_1:22. And I was unknown.—This remark also belongs to the proof that he bad not been a disciple of the Apostles, for had he stood in near connection with them, he could not but have become known to the churches of Judea.—The churches of Judea, i.e., outside of Jerusalem. [The phrase which are in Christ Jesus, doubtless means “which are incorporated with Him who is the head” (Ellicott), yet it is also used to distinguish the bodies of believers from other bodies, of Jews, for example. Alford: “By thus showing the spirit with which the churches of Judea were actuated toward him, he marks more strongly the contrast between them and the Galatian Judaizers.”—R.]

Gal_1:23. Is now preaching the faith.—Πίστις here also not=Christian doctrine [it being very doubtful, as Ellicott remarks, whether πίστις ever has in the N. T., this more distinctly objective sense, so frequent in ecclesiastical writers. See also the valuable note of Lightfoot, p. 152, sq. on the word “faith.”—R.], but=Faith; he preached that men should believe, as well as, of course, what they should believe. Formerly he sought by persecution to hinder men from believing in Christ, that is, he was destroying it; i.e., Faith.

Gal_1:24. In me.—Paul is not only regarded as the occasion of the praise, but as the foundation on which their faith rested. “With this impression which Paul then made upon the congregations in Judea, the hateful plotting of the Judaizers in Galatia against him stood in striking contrast. Therefore the added clause.” Meyer. [Ellicott: “The preposition in such cases as the present, points to the object as being, as it were, the sphere in which, or the substratum on which the action takes place.”—R.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. How Paul was taught. A right understanding of Gal_1:12, according to which Paul here denies only that his calling and preparation to be an Apostle (a preacher of the gospel) was through men, is by no means inconsistent with assuming, as in any case is necessary, that Paul learned the historical particulars of the life of Jesus not by immediate intuition, but through the testimony of men, as indeed the Apostle in other passages unhesitatingly expresses the traditional character of his historical knowledge, as in 1Co_15:1; 1Co_9:14; 1Co_7:10; 1Co_7:25; also 1co l 9:23. Comp. on this the instructive article of Paret, “Paul and Jesus.” Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie B. 3, H. 1,1858. “The passage in the Galatians,” remarks Paret, “becomes, in fact, first fairly intelligible by assuming as above. Just because Paul was remitted, in respect to particulars, to the testimony of others, could his opposers make the attempt to represent his whole knowledge and teaching, and ultimately his faith in Jesus itself, as something merely derivative, to construct the whole man, as it were, out of purely external Christian influences, human in immediate origin, and thereby to depress him in the esteem of his churches below the Apostolic elevation, to place him on one level with common Christians, and to dispute his right to make valid decisions in the domain of doctrine and discipline. If his antagonists thus made this one side prominent, in a one-sided, unintelligent way, Paul was constrained, accordingly, to bring the other side forward in the strongest light: to show that it was not from men or through any man that he from a persecutor had become an Apostle, but through Jesus Christ Himself, whom he had seen alive; that his gospel was not a school task got by heart, but rested upon a revelation of Jesus.” But according to the representation of the course of events in our chapter, according to which Paul for three years did not come at all, and then came only for a very short time, into contact with the senior Apostles, we must assume that he did not derive even his knowledge of the historical particulars of the life of Jesus from these, but from other Christians; possibly from Ananias. In view of the attack which his apostolic rank suffered, compared with that of the senior Apostles, even this circumstance is of moment to him, although it was not from the beginning precisely the result of design.

[It will appear from the exegetical notes on Gal_1:12, how labored an effort is required to support the view, that Paul does not intend to assert here that he had learned his gospel through revelation from Jesus Christ. Of course on any theory of inspiration, save that mechanical one, which ignores the human element, it will be admitted that Paul learned the facts of the life and death of Christ from human lips; but that must be a narrow view of the gospel as Paul preached it, which could limit his “being taught it” to such human statements.“Paul does not mean here the outward historical information concerning the life of Christ, but the internal exhibition of Christ to his spiritual sense as the Messiah, and the only and all-sufficient Saviour of the world, and the unfolding of the true import of His death and resurrection; in other words the spiritual communication of the gospel system of saving truth as taught by him in his sermons and Epistles” (Schaff). It is more in accordance both with Paul’s argument here, and with the actual phenomena of his history to believe that after the revelation on the way to Damascus there were “subsequent special disclosures of the Spirit, respecting single points of Christian doctrine and practice; for we are to conceive the inspiration of the Apostles in general as not merely an act, done once for all, but a permanent influence and state, varying in strength as occasion required” (Schaff). Ellicott very judiciously remarks: “On the one hand we may reverently presume that all the fundamental truths of the Gospel would be fully revealed to St. Paul before he commenced preaching; so, on the other, it might have been ordained, that (in accordance with the laws of our spiritual nature) its deeper mysteries and profounder harmonies should be seen and felt through the practical experiences of his apostolical labors.”—R.]

2. The Revelation from Jesus Christ. Paul has been called by the Lord Himself to the apostleship, as well as the other Apostles, with the single exception that they were called by the Lord in His state of humiliation, he by the Lord in His state of exaltation; this is the fundamental truth, which stands to the Apostle immovably firm, and on which he founded the whole proof of his apostolic parity. There can therefore be no doubt that he was conscious of an objective appearance of Christ, in the well known occurrence on the way to Damascus, and we have in the decision with which Paul himself in this doctrinal treatise, in opposition to hostilely disposed antagonists, asserts this immediateness of his calling through Christ, the simplest and surest proof for the historical character of the narrative respecting the conversion of Paul contained in the Acts. For, as has been already remarked in the exegesis, we are of course not to think of a merely internal vocation—a calling in spirit. Such a notion would take away from the proof which Paul is setting forth its very ground and foundation. It is true that in it a spiritual operation, an operation of the Spirit of God upon the mind of the Apostle, also took place (“to reveal within me”), but only in consequence of the objective outward appearance of Christ. This itself was, first of all, the deciding and penetrating power; upon it all turned. And very naturally. That Christ had risen and was living, became by means of this at once a certainty to Paul. This, however, involved almost necessarily that total revolution of all his views and of the direction of his life, which followed. For Paul was a man who even previously stood upon the foundation of Israelitish faith, and whose faith in the Messiah was in itself steadfast, and who had even been misled by this to take his hostile position against Jesus and His cause, under the delusion that the dignity of Messiah was claimed for Him presumptuously. So much the more overpowering must the impression of the actual appearance of Christ, who was thereby manifested as risen and exalted to Heaven, have been upon him. This was a sudden collapse of the system held fast with so much zeal, a sudden conviction of the nothingness of that persuasion to which he had so energetically clung, and, moreover, a conviction through fact, against which therefore there was nothing more to object. As it would have been almost incomprehensible if that effect had not followed, which did follow, so on the other hand this effect presupposes the definite cause which is related in the Acts, and indicated by the Apostle himself in this passage. [That the conversion of Paul must necessarily follow the actual appearance of Jesus Christ to him, is not to be assumed in order to establish the fact of such appearance; for as in the narrative prominence is given to the actual revelation to Paul, here the stress is laid by the Apostle himself on the other fact, the revelation of Christ within him; both facts are essential in accounting for the conversion of Paul, and for Christianity itself.—R. ] That the Apostle in this passage by“revelation from Christ,” “to reveal His Son within me,” means primarily only the external revelation at his conversion is, of course, not inconsistent with his having received subsequent revelations, such as that mentioned in Act_22:17, which, however, as an εἶναι ἐν ἐκστάσει, appears to be distinguished from that first fundamental one, or such as are alluded to in 2 Corinthians 12, and besides immediately afterwards in this Epistle Gal_2:2. (Comp. 1Ti_1:13).

3. The calling of Paul. The conversion of Paul according to his own representation is to be viewed essentially as a call to the apostleship. Although at the same time his conversion was of course for him personally, of the greatest moment, and undoubtedly the condition of his apostolic activity (comp. 1Ti_1:14), yet strictly speaking the appearance on the way to Damascus had as its end the calling to the apostleship as well, and not merely his personal conversion to Christianity. Indeed, according to the Apostle’s own conception, the eighth chapter of Acts would be better entitled: the Calling of Paul. In this relation of the event to the whole church—inasmuch as it specially concerned the calling of an Apostle, that which is extraordinary in it, namely, the revelation of Christ finds its explanation. This event appears also as a call to the apostleship according to the representation of the Apostle in Act_9:15; Act_22:15; Act_26:17, that is, it was first made known to Ananias, but in immediate connection with the wonderful scene, so that the purpose of the latter cannot be mistaken, and Paul, before Herod Agrippa, Act_26:17, could speak of the message which was communicated to him by the mouth of Ananias, as an immediate message of Jesus to himself. The definite direction to preach the gospel among the Gentiles, Paul first received, according to Act_22:21, during his first visit to Jerusalem. Yet even the first commission he received, pointed in a very distinct manner to the Gentiles, so that from the very beginning his call as Apostle of the Gentiles, in distinction from the other Apostles, was firmly established. So far, therefore, Paul is not to be reckoned with them, as thirteenth or indeed as twelfth (if the choice of Matthias be considered a premature one), but he stands beside them, in a certain measure over against them, with a special calling; only in the originality of his apostleship he is not inferior to them, but fully their peer. Comp. Gal_2:7; Gal_2:9. Futhermore, the special purpose of his calling stands certainly in a causal connection with the manner of the calling. “The Paul who through so unexpected a mercy of God was brought to the knowledge of His Son, was well fitted for the preaching of the same among the Gentiles, called as they also were out of God’s unlooked for mercy” (Rieger). The very manner of his calling, out of pure grace, passing thus a sentence of condemnation upon the legal position, caused him to know that to the Gentiles also, who, are ἄνομοι, the way to salvation of grace most stand open. Comp. also for 2 and 3, Lange’s Commentary, Acts, p. 165 sq.

4. Paul set apart by God. Paul cannot regard himself otherwise than as destined by God Himself, even in his mother’s womb, for what he now is, separated to the peculiar calling of the apostleship (an analogy, as it were, to the Nazarite’s vow, by which the child was dedicated, even from the womb, to be a Nazarite). His life up to his conversion, Paul then of course regards as standing in opposition to this, his divine destination; and therefore a special vocation was necessary. This vocation, however, has its root in the elections and as this, of course, was an entirely free one, founded on no manner of merit (as being entirely predent to the whole course of his life), the calling, therefore, was a pure act of grace (“by his grace”), on account of the opposition in which the previous life of Paul stood to his destined work. In the connection of this particular passage Paul contemplates his previous life from no other point of view, and certainly therefore does not designate himself as one set apart even from his mother’s womb, because he thought that before his conversion he possessed qualities for the sake of which God had called him. It is true his natural gifts and his acquirements of knowledge served to capacitate him for his vocation; and it was doubtless providential that even before his conversion he was the person that he was; and this natural adaptedness itself had its root in the divine destination of the man. And negatively, beyond question, the legal zeal by which Paul was animated, bringing as it did his subsequent evangelical position into so much more decided contrast with it, was advantageous to his apostolic activity, as in general the zeal with which Paul acted—at first, it is true, in the interest of the law, turned afterwards to the good of the gospel. Otherwise, however, his religious character, as a blindly legal, Pharisaical one, resting on the righteousness of works, stood in decided opposition to his destination. “ ‘He has called me,’ says the Apostle. But how? For my standing as a Pharisee? For my holy and blameless life? For my admirable works? No; I trow! Still less, then, for my blasphemy against God, my persecution and mad rage. How then? Through his pure grace.” Luther.—[Calvin:—He intends to assert that his calling depends on the secret election of God; and that he was ordained an Apostle not because by his own industry he had fitted himself, but because God had counted him worthy to undertake that high office, and because, before he was born, he had been set apart by the secret purpose of God. The Apostle had most explicitly attributed his calling to the free grace of God, when he traced its origin to his separation from the womb. But he repeats the direct statement (“by his grace”) both to take away all grounds of boasting by his commendation of Divine grace, and to testify his own gratitude to God.—R.]

5. Paul’s walk in Judaism. “His former walk Paul calls a walk in Judaism: if it had been a walk in the footsteps of the faith of Abraham, it would have led him to faith in the gospel. It was, therefore, a walk in the Judaism that was tending towards apostasy, that, under pretext of the law, would defend itself against the faith in Christ.” Rieger.—Judaism of course here means the Jewish religion in its then form, when the soul of the Old Covenant, by which it pointed beyond itself, and in general its character of promise, was more or less overlooked. Or at least the legal sense in which the whole divine revelation was then apprehended, took away the right understanding of this character of promise. Hence the incapacity to understand Him in whom the fulfillment came. On this account proficiency in Judaism and persecution of the Christian church could go hand in hand with each other.

6. Paul’s solemn oaths. The solemn asseverations which Paul more than once utters (in Gal_1:20, Rom_1:9; Rom_9:1; 2Co_11:31), would of themselves sufficiently show how little the passages, Mat_5:34 sq., Jam_5:12 sq., are meant to forbid swearing in itself and totally, and how unwarranted it is to limit lawful oaths to oaths required by the magistrate, while on the other hand we certainly cannot be too strongly warned against all lightness in the taking of an oath. It must ever, as here, have respect to a weighty matter. [Wordsworth from Augustine: “An oath which cometh not from the evil of him who swears, but from the unbelief of him to whom he swears, is not against our Lord’s precept: ‘Swear not.’ Our Lord commands that as far as in us lies we should not swear; which command is broken by those who have in their mouths an oath as if it were something pleasant in itself. As far as in him lies, the Apostle swears not. He does not catch at an oath with eagerness, but when he swears it is by constraint, through the infirmity or incredulity of those who will not otherwise believe what he says.”—R.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Gal_1:11. Rieger:—In the address he has omitted the customary appellations: saints, beloved of God, etc.; after the first rebuke, however, he now adds, as the mollifying ointment, the name of “brethren.” What we cannot always do in unimpaired love, may yet be done at times in hope.

Gal_1:12. Luther (who emphasizes this so expressly in remarking on this passage):—Human teaching, human tradition, though it come down from holy fathers and teachers, from the holy Church herself, is in itself nothing; for in all this there may be error, just because it is human. And hence we must not let any one scare us by appealing to never so great human authorities; over against all this the only concern is, to abide simply by the Word of God.

Spener:—Such as should be true, enlightened preachers, must have learned the Gospel through revelation from Christ; not immediately, to be sure, but so that, having been instructed by men, Christ’s spirit by means of such instruction having become a power in their hearts, they truly have a divine light in their souls, from which they then enlighten others.

The gospel no work of man: 1. as a word of doctrine, not sprung from men, nor taught by men, but by Christ Himself (who brought it Himself and through whom alone His people have it); 2. as a word of comfort, only through Him can we commit ourselves to it; 3. as a word of power, in which there should be no change, from which no departure.

Gal_1:13. Rieger:—Oh, how often and how toilsomely do we gather much that in the right light must be counted harm and dung, and cast from us.—Quesnel:—A man may make his past sins known out of pride, but also out of humility. Whoever does not boast himself of the same, but humbles himself therefor before God, and willingly bears the shame of them before men, not relying upon himself, makes a good confession, but one not needful to be uttered before every man, as sometimes it would bring more scandal than benefit.—From Starke:—God is wise, permitting some things to be accomplished even by His enemies, that in His time He will direct to His own honor, to which before they were quite opposed. Paul studied in the law, and in his ancestral institutions, that he might thereby the better withstand the Christians. This afterwards served to enable him to dispute all the better with the Jews in favor of Christianity, as thoroughly understanding their side.

Gal_1:14. Berlenb. Bible:—Even unconverted men may be exceedingly zealous for ancestral traditions, traditional doctrines.—[Yes, the might of traditions, because received from “my fathers,”—whether from God or no, not being taken into the account,—is often in proportion to the ignorance of real Christianity. How conservative, yet often how contracting and how cruel the zeal for “the traditions of my fathers!” True in every age.—R.]—Starke:—Good intentions do not of themselves make a thing good before God. Many a one means well in his conduct, and see, he still is doing a sin; yes, out of good intentions the most cruel actions may sometimes arise. Such sins, however, are much less heinous than those which spring from real godlessness and malice.

On Gal_1:13-14.—Judaism and the Old Testament are different from one another: 1. the former closes the sense for Christ; 2. the latter opens it.—Persecution of the Church of God 1. takes place so easily in false zeal; 2. is so evil, therefore, take good heed!—When against others, so zealous; when for them, so lukewarm!—Take heed: is not thy progress, in reality, a retrogression?—Zeal for ancestral traditions 1. in itself good, but 2. no proof of a converted heart.—Condemnation of the perverseness of a former walk: 1. It must take place within, as a sign of a converted heart; 2. it may also become necessary before others, yet so that it is always done in humility.

Gal_1:15. Würt. Summ.:—Behold the Fatherly Providence of God, who careth for us and marks out the course of our life from our mother’s womb. Think not that God hath passed thee over, and that thou must care for thyself. Fear God and trust Him, for what He has designed for us from our mother’s womb will be sure to come, and no one shall divert it from us.—Berlenb. Bible:—As Paul here does, so should we look back and behold God from behind, as God says to Moses. God gives preintimations, which are forgotten. But then men should wake up when the work of God is fulfilled, and bethink themselves. His work is nothing uncertain and doubtful, although we cannot constrain others to believe it. Nevertheless we yet ourselves may know well enough how we are to look upon it.

[Bushnell:—Every man’s life a plan of God. Go to God Himself, and ask for the calling of God; for as certainly as He has a place or calling for you, He will somehow guide you into it. Do you call it success, that you are getting on in a plan of your own? There cannot be a greater delusion.—R.]

Gal_1:16. Spener:—To the rightly profitable administration of the preacher’s office, there is needful the revelation of God in us, that we should have a living knowledge of that which we are to declare to others. Without this, the word preached retains, to be sure, its power, if it is left pure and unadulterated; but such people cannot well leave it pure, or set it forth worthily; they understand not to apply it rightly, and destroy much of its power with the hearers.—Berl. Bible:—The true work of God is done within, albeit He uses all manner of means thereto. The hurt is within; therefore, must the enlightenment also have place within. God must come and take away the veil. There needs then a heavenly illumination. This is the crown of conversions, that the Son becomes right plainly known to a man. But there are many veils between, and one after another is taken away, till one comes at last into the knowledge of God and the Son.

Rieger:—The Son of God is still the pith and kernel of all revelation to be wished for in the heart.—Luther:—If the gospel is a revelation of the Son of God, as Paul declares, it is then certain that it does not accuse poor consciences, nor terrify them, but of Christ alone does it teach, who is no law nor work, but our righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption.—The gospel is a divine word, that comes down from Heaven, and is revealed by the Holy Ghost, yet so that the outward word goes before. For even St. Paul himself first heard the outward word from Heaven: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Not till then did he have secret and hidden, inner revelations.—Among the Gentiles, therefore, should be preached no law, but the gospel; no Moses, but God’s Son; no righteousness of works. but the righteousness of faith. This is the right preaching, whereto the heathen have claim, and which is apt for them.—Starke:—Paul was chiefly a teacher of the Gentiles, and that of divine purpose. Therefore we act not against God’s counsel if we keep especially to Paul’s writings (not excluding the other apostolical books), because in these we find most distinctly and most expressly what suits our condition, and is needful for us to know.—[Wordsworth:—A striking contrast! He who had been stricken with blindness as a persecutor, has now Christ, the Light of the world, revealed in him as a preacher. He who was himself dark, has become a light to others, a light revealing to them Christ.—R.]

On Gal_1:15-16. The grace of God, as free (without any merit of ours) as it is mighty in working—it can change the hearts so fully, that the man throws himself into the directly opposite course.—It is God, who defines our life’s course: therefore, courage!—All depends on this, that the Son of God be revealed in us.—The revelation of Christ in us: 1. wherein it consists; 2. how it is brought to pass (only through God’s grace); 3. whereto it helps.—Christ, the marrow 1. of all Christian knowledge, 2. of all Christian testimony.—God reveals His Son in the hearts of believers, that they may preach Him among the Gentiles. The former attains its purpose only in the latter; the latter has its foundation only in the former.—Every Christian, even without a special call to the ministry, is yet called to preach Christ among the heathen, that is he is called to a steady testimony in deed (and more or less also in word), against all heathen living, to call men back from dead idols to serve the living God.

Gal_1:16. Luther:—Herein the Apostle did right. For it would, indeed, have been a godless thing, if he would have had the divine revelation Strengthened by man’s counsel, like one who doubted thereon.—Starke, after the Berlenb. Bible:—Yet the meaning is not, that we may not hear other people’s opinion, yet we are not to give it the præ, the upper hand, where God has given His testimony. If the will of God is plain, and if the matter is plain in God’s word, there is no need to ask other men for counsel. But if the will of God is yet doubtful, we may well ask good friends for advice; only these advisers must be such as possess the fear of God and wisdom.—Rieger:—Now, as then, the surest course for every one who will find the way of life is, to look alone upon God’s commandment, to make the testimonies of the Lord his counsellors, and to hasten thereunto. Without this faithfulness in that which is hidden, the best advice of another may become a temptation and a snare.—Hedinger:—Much doubting and long considering spoils matters. The good will, which God creates, goes to work and does not stand hesitating long.

Divine guidance and human counsel in their right relation to each other.

Gal_1:17 sq. Rieger:—God foresaw all that would afterwards be brought against Paul, therefore He so ordered his ways that men could not say: he received his authority from the chief Apostles at Jerusalem; nor yet on the other side: he does not presume to go to Jerusalem; he joins himself with no one. God’s good Spirit always brings us out into a plain way.

Even the apparently slight, accidental circumstances of our lives stand under God’s direction; if we know it not at the time, yet afterwards we do.

[Gal_1:18. Burkitt:—Ministers ought to maintain correspondency and familiarity with each other, in token of their harmony. But though this visit was in the most delightful and desirable, yea most profitable company, yet it was but for fifteen days. After the short time spent in visiting, we must return to our business, and mind, above all things, our ministerial charge.—R.]

Gal_1:20. Starke:—God is a witness of the truth, and a righteous judge of all lies. Can you in all that you say, call on God as the witness of its truth? In all cases this ought to be possible, although it is seldom needful or proper. Gal_1:21. It is excellent, when any one, having left his country and his friends, a wicked man, returns back to them again a true child of God. Universities should especially serve this purpose, that those who went to them unconverted youths, should return home converted ones. Gal_1:23. It is of God’s grace, when from a persecutor and misleader a man becomes a true teacher and confessor. O wonder! Is not that as much as if a dead man were raised to life? And it serves to the praise of the Divine compassion, that the Lord does not destroy His enemies, but wins them over and converts them to his service.—Rieger:—The glory redounding to God from his conversion has wiped out much of the harm of his former course.

When Jesus, here and there again,

His time of grace declares,

That mercy count as thine own gain,

Which others find as theirs.

2. In a subsequent conference in the mother church, he had most definitely guarded the Gospel liberty over against the demands of false brethren; while the Apostles had been fully convinced of his divine mission to preach to the Gentiles, and hence in an entirely free and peaceful agreement a division of the field of labor had been decided upon, and the Gentile world committed to him, without any obligation (respecting doctrine) to the mother church.

Footnotes:

[16]Gal_1:11.—The Recepta γνωρίζω δέ is well attested, adopted by Lachmann and latterly by Tischendorf. [Alford retains γάρ on the authority of B. F. and a few others; δέ is adopted by Wordsworth, Ellicott and Lightfoot, on the authority of א, A. D23. K. L. and most versions. “Now I declare unto you” is taken from E. V., 1Co_15:1, where the Greek is the same.—R.]

[17]Gal_1:12.—[Ellicott’s rendering given above, is an alteration made to retain the emphasis on “I,” and to indicate that the first negative is not strictly correlative to the second. “From” instead of “of,” in conformity with modern usage.—R.]

[18]Gal_1:12.—[The genitive Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is a subjective genitive. See Exeg. Notes.—R.]

[19]Gal_1:13.—[Ἰουδαϊσμῷ is better rendered literally. So in Gal_1:14.—R.]

[20]Gal_1:13.—[The sense of the imperfect, ἐπόρθουν, is best expressed thus. Schaff renders: “labored to destroy.” The same change in Gal_1:23.—R.]

[21]Gal_1:14.—[Schaff thus renders it. The E. V. is unusually unsatisfactory here; the ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, συνηλικιώτας means “contemporaries.”—R.]

[22]Gal_1:15.—Ὁ Θεός of Rec. is rejected by Tischendorf, and bracketted by Lachmann. א. has the words [so also A. D. K. L., many cursives and versions; retained by Ellicott, Wordsworth. There are paradiplomatic reasons for retaining it, but if a gloss, undoubtedly a correct one.—R.]

[23]Gal_1:15—[“Separated” has a local sense not intended here.—R.]

[24]Gal_1:17.—Of the two readings ἀνῆλθον (Rec.) and ἀπῆλθον, about equally attested, the second is decidedly preferable on internal grounds. Not only does the latter give a more formal and sharper antithesis; οὐδὲ ἀπῆλθον—ἀλλὰἀπῆλθον, but the former betrays itself as a correction from the fact that ἀνέρχομαι or ἀναβαίνω is generally used of the journey to Jerusalem, as in Gal_1:18. Wieseler. א. has ἀνῆλθον, [adopted by Tischendorf, Wordsworth. B. D. F. have ἀπῆλθον; adopted by Lachmann, Meyer, Wieseler, Alford, Ellicott; Lightfoot is doubtful. “Went away follows the latter reading.—R.]

[25]Gal_1:18.—Instead of Πέτρον (Rec.), Κηφᾶν is to be read, as also in Gal_2:9; Gal_2:11; Gal_2:14. So also א. The Hebrew name was suppressed by the Greek gloss, hence in Gal_2:7-8, where Paul himself wrote the Greek name, the variation Κηφᾶς; is not found [So all modern editors. Ἱστορῆσαι means more than to see, “to visit, to make the acquaintance of.”—R.]

[26]Gal_1:23.—[The English text has been amended to bring out the force of the Greek imperfects.—R.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 4

PAULS GOSPEL REVEALED BY CHRIST.

Gal_1:11-14

HERE the Epistle begins in its main purport. What has gone before is so much exordium. The sharp, stern sentences of Gal_1:6-10 are like the roll of artillery that ushers in the battle. The mists rise from the field. We see the combatants arrayed on either side. In due order and with cool self-command the Apostle proceeds to marshal and deploy his forces. His truthful narrative corrects the misrepresentations of his opponents, and repels their attack upon himself. His powerful dialectic wrests from their hands and turns against them their weapons of Scriptural proof. He wins the citadel of their position, by establishing the claim of the men of faith to be the sons of Abraham. On the ruins of confuted legalism he builds up an impregnable fortress for Christian liberty, an immortal vindication of the gospel of the grace of God.

The cause of Gentile freedom at this crisis was bound up with the person of the Apostle Paul. His Gospel and his Apostleship must stand or fall together. The former was assailed through the latter. He was himself just now "the pillar and stay of the truth." If his character had been successfully attacked and his influence destroyed, nothing, humanly speaking, could have saved Gentile Christendom at this decisive moment from falling under the assaults of Judaism. When he begins his crucial appeal with the words, "Behold, I Paul say unto you," {Gal_5:2} we feel that the issue depends upon the weight which his readers may attach to his personal affirmation. He pits his own truthfulness, his knowledge of Christ, his spiritual discernment and authority, and the respect due to himself from the Galatians, against the pretentions of the new teachers. The comparison is not indeed so open and express as that made in Corinthians; none the less it tacitly runs through this Epistle. Paul is compelled to put himself in the forefront of his argument. In the eyes of his children in the faith, he is bound to vindicate his Apostolic character, defamed by Jewish malice and untruth.

The first two chapters of this Epistle are therefore Pauls "Apologia pro vita sua." With certain chapters in 2 Corinthians, and scattered passages in other letters, they form the Apostles autobiography, one of the most perfect self-portraitures that literature contains. They reveal to us the man more effectively than any ostensible description could have done. They furnish an indispensable supplement to the external and cursory delineations given in the Acts of the Apostles. While Luke skilfully presents the outward framework of Pauls life and the events of his public career, it is to the Epistles that we turn-to none more frequently than this-for the necessary subjective data, for all that belongs to his inner character, his motives and principles. This Epistle brings into bold relief the Apostles moral physiognomy. Above all, it throws a clear and penetrating light on the event which determined his career-the greatest event in the history of Christianity after the Day of Pentecost-Pauls conversion to faith in the Lord Jesus.

This was at once the turning-point in the Apostles life, and the birth-hour of his gospel. If the Galatians were to understand his teaching, they must understand this occurrence; they must know why he became a Christian, how he had received the message which he brought to them. They would, he felt sure, enter more sympathetically into this doctrine, if they were better acquainted with the way in which he had arrived at it. They would see how well-justified was the authority, how needful the severity with which he writes. Accordingly he begins with a brief relation of the circumstances of his call to the service of Christ, and his career from the days of his Judaistic zeal, when he made havoc of the faith, till the well-known occasion on which he became its champion against Peter himself, the chief of the Twelve. {Gal_1:2-24; Gal_2:1-21} His object in this recital appears to be three-fold: to refute the misrepresentations of the Circumcisionists; to vindicate his independent authority as an Apostle of Christ; and further. to unfold the nature and terms of his gospel, so as to pave the way for the theological argument which is to follow, and which forms the body of the Epistle.

1. Pauls gospel was supernaturally conveyed to him, by a personal intervention of Jesus Christ. This assertion is the Apostles starting-point. "My gospel is not after man. I received it as Jesus Christ revealed it to me."

That the initial revelation was made to him by Christ in person was a fact of incalculable importance for Paul. This had made him an Apostle in the august sense in which he claims the title (Gal_1:1). This accounts for the vehemence with which he defends his doctrine, and for the awful sentence which he has passed upon its impugners. The Divine authorship of the gospel he preached made it impossible for him to temporise with its perverters, or to be influenced by human favour or disfavour in its administration. Had his teaching been "according to man," he might have consented to a compromise; he might reasonably have tried to humour and accommodate Jewish prejudices. But the case is far otherwise. "I am not at liberty to please men," he says, "for my gospel comes directly from Jesus Christ" (Gal_1:10-11). So he "gives" his readers "to know," as if by way of formal notification. {Comp. Rom_9:22; 1Co_12:3; 1Co_15:1; 2Co_8:1}

The gospel of Paul was inviolable, then, because of its superhuman character. And this character was impressed upon it by its superhuman origin: "not according to man, for neither from man did I receive it, nor was I taught it, but by a revelation of Jesus Christ." The Apostles knowledge of Christianity did not come through the ordinary channel of tradition and indoctrination; Jesus Christ had, by a miraculous interposition, taught him the truth about Himself. He says, "Neither did I," with an emphasis that points tacitly to the elder Apostles, whom he mentions a few sentences later (Gal_1:17). To this comparison his adversaries forced him, making use of it, as they freely did, to his disparagement. But it comes in by implication rather than direct assertion. Only by putting violence upon himself, and with strong expressions of his unworthiness, can Paul be brought to set his official claims in competition with those of the Twelve. Notwithstanding, it is perfectly clear that he puts his ministry on a level with theirs. He is no Apostle at second-hand, no disciple of Peters or dependent of the "pillars" at Jerusalem. "Neither did I," he declares, "any more than they, take my instructions from other lips than those of Jesus our Lord."

But what of this "revelation of Jesus Christ," on which Paul lays so much stress? Does he mean a revelation made by Christ, or about Christ? Taken by itself, the expression, in Greek as in English, bears either interpretation. In favour of the second construction-viz., that Paul speaks of a revelation by which Christ was made known to him-the language of Gal_1:16 is adduced: "It pleased God to reveal His Son in me." Pauls general usage points in the same direction. With him Christ is the object of manifestation, preaching, and the like. 2Co_12:1 is probably an instance to the contrary: "I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord." But it should be observed that wherever this genitive is objective (a revelation revealing Christ), God appears in the context, just as in Gal_1:16 below, to Whom the authorship of the revelation is ascribed. In this instance, the gospel is the object revealed; and Jesus Christ, in contrast with man, is claimed for its Author. So at the outset (Gal_1:1) Christ, in His Divine character, was the Agent by whom Paul, as veritably as the Twelve, had received his Apostleship. We therefore assent to the ordinary view, reading this passage in the light of the vision of Jesus thrice related in the Act_9:1-19; Act_22:5-16; Act_26:12-18. We understand Paul to say that no mere man imparted to him the gospel he preached, but Jesus Christ revealed it.

On the Damascus road the Apostle Paul found his mission. The vision of the glorified Jesus made him a Christian, and an Apostle. The act was a revelation- that is, in New Testament phrase, a supernatural, an immediately Divine communication of truth. And it was a revelation not conveyed in the first instance, as were the ordinary prophetic inspirations, through the Spirit; "Jesus Christ," in His Divine-human person, made Himself known to His persecutor. Paul had "seen that Just One and heard a voice from His mouth."

The appearance of Jesus to Saul of Tarsus was in itself a gospel, an earnest of the good tidings he was to convey to the world. "Why persecutest thou Me?" that Divine voice said, in tones of reproach, yet of infinite pity. The sight of Jesus the Lord, meeting Sauls eyes, revealed His grace and truth to the persecutors heart. He was brought in a moment to the obedience of faith; he said, "Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?" He "confessed with his mouth the Lord Jesus"; he "believed in his heart that God had raised Him from the dead." It was true, after all, that "God had made" the crucified Nazarene "both Lord and Christ"; for this was He!

The cross, which had been Sauls stumbling-block, deeply affronting his Jewish pride, from this moment was transformed. The glory of the exalted Redeemer cast back its light upon the tree of shame. The curse of the Law visibly resting upon Him, the rejection of men, marked Him out as Gods chosen sacrifice for sin. This explanation at once presented itself to an instructed and keenly theological mind like Sauls, so soon as it was evident that Jesus was not accursed, as he had supposed, but approved by God. So Pauls gospel was given him at a stroke. Jesus Christ dying for our sins, Jesus Christ living to save and to rule-behold "the good news"! The Apostle had it on no less authority than that of the risen Saviour. From Him he received it to publish wide as the world.

Thus Saul of Tarsus was born again. And with the Christian man the Christian thinker, the theologian, was born in him. The Pauline doctrine has its root in Pauls conversion. It was a single, organic growth, the seed of which was this "revelation of Jesus Christ." Its creative impulse was given in the experience of the memorable hour, when "God who said, Light shall shine out of darkness, in the face of Jesus Christ shined" into Sauls heart. As the light of this revelation penetrated his spirit, he recognised, step by step, the fact of the resurrection, the import of the crucifixion, the Divinity of Jesus, His human mediatorship, the virtue of faith, the office of the Holy Spirit, the futility of Jewish ritual and works of law, and all the essential principles of his theology. Given the genius of Saul and his religious training, and the Pauline system of doctrine was, one might almost say, a necessary deduction from the fact of the appearance to him of the glorified Jesus. If that form of celestial splendour was Jesus, then He was risen indeed; then He was the Christ; He was, as He affirmed, the Son of God. If He was Lord and Christ, and yet died by the Fathers will on the cross of shame, then his death could only be a propitiation, accepted by God, for the sins of men, whose efficacy had no limit, and whose merit left no room for legal works of righteousness. If this Jesus was the Christ, then the assumptions of Sauls Judaism, which had led him into blasphemous hatred and outrage towards Him, were radically false; he will purge himself from the "old leaven," that his life may become "a new lump." From that moment a world of life and thought began for the future Apostle, the opposite in all respects of that in which hitherto he had moved. "The old things," he cries, "passed away; lo, they have become new". {2Co_5:17} Pauls conversion was as complete as it was sudden.

This intimate relation of doctrine and experience gives to Pauls teaching a peculiar warmth and freshness, a vividness of human reality which it everywhere retains, despite its lofty intellectualism and the scholastic form in which it is largely cast. It is theology alive, trembling with emotion, speaking words like flames, forming dogmas hard as rock, that when you touch them are yet glowing with the heat of those central depths of the human spirit from which they were cast up. The collision of the two great Apostles at Antioch shows how the strength of Pauls teaching lay in his inward realisation of the truth. There was life behind his doctrine. He was, and for the time the Jewish Apostle was not, acting and speaking out of the reality of spiritual conviction, of truth personally verified. Of the Apostle Paul above all divines the saying is true, Pectus facit theologum. And this personal knowledge of Christ, "the master light of all his seeing," began when on the way to Damascus his eyes beheld Jesus our Lord. His farewell charge to the Church through Timothy, {2Ti_1:9-12} while referring to the general manifestation of Christ to the world, does so in language coloured by the recollection of the peculiar revelation made at the beginning to himself: "God," he says, "called us with a holy calling, according to His purpose and grace, which hath now been manifested by the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, whereunto I was appointed a preacher and apostle. For which cause I also suffer these things. But I am not ashamed: for I know Him in whom I have believed." This manifestation of the celestial Christ shed its brightness along all his path.

2. His assertion of the Divine origin of his doctrine Paul sustains by referring to the previous course of his life. There was certainly nothing in that to account for his preaching Christ crucified. "For you have heard," he continues, "of my manner of life aforetime, when I followed Judaism."

Here ends the chain of fors reaching from Gal_1:10-13 -a succession of explanations linking Pauls denunciation of the Christian Judaisers to the fact that he had himself been a violent anti-Christian Judaist. The seeming contradiction is in reality a consistent sequence. Only one who had imbibed the spirit of legalism as Saul of Tarsus had done could justly appreciate the hostility of its principles to the new faith, and the sinister motives actuating the men who pretended to reconcile them. Paul knew Judaism by heart. He understood the sort of men who opposed him in the Gentile Churches. And if his anathema appear needlessly severe, we must remember that no one was so well able to judge of the necessities of the case as the man who pronounced it.

"You have heard"-from whom? In the first instance, probably, from Paul himself. But on this matter, we may be pretty sure, his opponents would have something to say. They did not scruple to assert that he "still preached circumcision" {Gal_5:11; comp. 1Co_9:20; Act_16:3; Act_21:20-26; Act_23:6} and played the Jew even now when it suited him, charging him with insincerity. Or they might say, "Paul is a renegade. Once the most ardent of zealots for Judaism, he has passed to the opposite extreme. He is a man you cannot trust. Apostates are proverbially bitter against their old faith." In these and in other ways Pauls Pharisaic career was doubtless thrown in his teeth.

The Apostle sorrowfully confesses "that above measure he persecuted the Church of God and laid it waste." His friend Luke makes the same admission in similar language. {Act_7:58; Act_8:1-3; Act_9:1} There is no attempt to conceal or palliate this painful fact, that the famous Apostle of the Gentiles had been a persecutor, the deadliest enemy of the Church in its infant days. He was the very type of a determined, pitiless oppressor, the forerunner of the Jewish fanatics who afterwards sought his life, and of the cruel bigots of the Inquisition and the Star-chamber in later times. His restless energy, his indifference to the feelings of humanity in this work of destruction, were due to religious zeal. "I thought," he says, "I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." In him, as in so many others, the saying of Christ was fulfilled: "The time cometh, when whoso killeth you will think that he is offering a sacrifice to God." These Nazarenes were heretics, traitors to Israel, enemies of God. Their leader had been crucified, branded with the extremest mark of Divine displeasure. His followers must perish. Their success meant the ruin of Mosaism. God willed their destruction. Such were Sauls thoughts, until he heard the protesting voice of Jesus as he approached Damascus to ravage His little flock. No wonder that he suffered remorse to the end of his days.

Sauls persecution of the Church was the natural result of his earlier training, of the course to which in his youth he committed himself. The Galatians had heard also "how proficient he was in Judaism, beyond many of his kindred and age; that he was surpassed by none in zeal for their ancestral traditions." His birth, {Php_3:4-5} education, {Act_22:3} temperament, circumstances, all combined to make him a zealot of the first water, the pink and pattern of Jewish orthodoxy, the rising hope of the Pharisaic party, and an instrument admirably fitted to crush the hated and dangerous sect of the Nazarenes. These facts go to prove, not that Paul is a traitor to his own people, still less that he is a Pharisee at heart, preaching Gentile liberty from interested motives; but that it must have been some extraordinary occurrence, quite out of the common run of human influences and probabilities, that set him on his present course. What could have turned this furious Jewish persecutor all at once into tile champion of the cross? What indeed but the revelation of Christ which he received at the Damascus gate? His previous career up to that hour had been such as to make it impossible that he should have received his gospel through human means. The chasm between his Christian and pre-Christian life had only been bridged by a supernatural interposition of the mercy of Christ.

Our modern critics, however, think that they know Paul better than he knew himself. They hold that the problem raised by this passage is capable of a natural solution. Psychological analysis, we are told, sets the matter in a different light. Saul of Tarsus had a tender conscience. Underneath his fevered and ambitious zeal, there lay in the young persecutors heart a profound misgiving, a mortifying sense of his failure, and the failure of his people, to attain the righteousness of the Law. The seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans is a leaf taken out of the inner history of this period of the Apostles life. Through what a stern discipline the Tarsian youth had passed in these legal years! How his haughty spirit chafed and tortured itself under the growing consciousness of its moral impotence! The law had been truly his παιδαγωγος, {Gal_3:24} a severe tutor, preparing him unconsciously "for Christ." In this state of mind such scenes as the martyrdom of Stephen could not but powerfully affect Saul, in spite of himself. The bearing of the persecuted Nazarenes, the words of peace and forgiveness that they uttered under their sufferings, stirred questionings in his breast not always to be silenced. Self-distrust and remorse were secretly undermining the rigour of his Judaic faith. They acted like a "goad," {Act_26:14} against which he "kicked in vain." He rode to Damascus - a long and lonely journey-in a state of increasing disquiet and mentalconflict. The heat and exhaustion of the desert march, acting on a nervous temperament naturally excitable and overwrought, hastened the crisis. Saul fell from his horse in an access of fever, or catalepsy. His brain was on fire. The convictions that haunted him suddenly took form and voice in the apparition of the glorified Jesus, whom Stephen in his dying moments had addressed. From that figure seemed to proceed the reproachful cry which the persecutors conscience had in vain been striving to make him hear. A flash of lightning, or, if you like, a Sunstroke, is readily imagined to fire this train of circumstances, -and the explanation is complete! When, besides, M. Renan is good enough to tell us that he has himself "experienced an attack of this kind at Byblos," and "with other principles would certainly have taken the hallucinations he then had for visions," what more can we desire? Nay, does not Paul himself admit, in ver. 16 {Gal_1:16) of this chapter, that his conversion was essentially a spiritual and subjective event?

Such is the diagnosis of Pauls conversion offered us by rationalism; and it is not wanting in boldness nor in skill. But the corner-stone on which it rests, the hinge of the whole theory, is imaginary and in fatal contradiction with the facts of the case. Paul himself knows nothing of the remorse imputed to him previously to the vision of Jesus. The historian of the Acts knows nothing of it. In a nature so upright and conscientious as that of Saul, this misgiving would at least have induced him to desist from persecution. From first to last his testimony is, "I did it ignorantly, in unbelief." It was this ignorance, this absence of any sense of wrong in the violence he used against the followers of Jesus, that, in his view, accounted for his "obtaining mercy". {1Ti_1:13} If impressions of an opposite kind were previously struggling in his mind, with such force that on a mere nervous shock they were ready to precipitate themselves in the shape of an overmastering hallucination, changing instantly and for ever the current of his life, how comes it that the Apostle has told us nothing about them? That he should have forgotten impressions so poignant and so powerful, is inconceivable. And if he has of set purpose ignored, nay, virtually denied this all-important fact, what becomes of his sincerity?

The Apostle was manifestly innocent of any such predisposition to Christian faith as the above theory imputes to him. True, he was conscious in those Judaistic days of his failure to attain righteousness, of the disharmony existing between "the law of his reason" and that which wrought "in his members." His conviction of sin supplied the moral precondition necessary in every case to saving faith in Christ. But this negative condition does not help us in the least to explain the vision of the glorified Jesus. By no psychological process whatever could the experience Rom_7:7-24 be made to project itself in such an apparition. With all his mysticism and emotional susceptibility, Pauls mind was essentially sane and critical. To call him epileptic is a calumny. No man so diseased could have gone through the Apostles labours, or written these Epistles. His discussion of the subject of supernatural gifts, in 1 Cor. 12 and 14, is a model of shrewdness and good sense. He had experience of trances and ecstatic visions; and he knew, perhaps as well as M. Renan, how to distinguish them from objective realities. {1Co_14:18; 2Co_12:1-6; Act_16:9; Act_18:8-9; Act_22:17-18} The manner in which he. speaks of this appearance allows of no reasonable doubt as to the Apostles full persuasion that "in sober certainty of waking sense" he had seen Jesus our Lord.

It was this sensible and outward revelation that led to the inward revelation of the Redeemer to his soul, of which Paul goes on to speak in Gal_1:16. Without the latter the former would have been purposeless and useless. The objective vision could only have revealed a "Christ after the flesh," had it not been the means of opening Sauls closed heart to the influence of the Spirit of Christ. It was the means to this, and in the given circumstances. the indispensable means.

To a history that "knows no miracles," the Apostle Paul must remain an enigma. His faith in the crucified Jesus is equally baffling to naturalism with that of the first disciples, who. had laid Him in the grave. When the Apostle argues that his antecedent relations to Christianity were such as to preclude his conversion having come about by natural human means, we: are bound to admit both the sincerity and the conclusiveness of his appeal.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

1:11–2:21 The Judaizers who had come to Galatia preaching faith plus circumcision questioned Paul’s apostleship and attempted to discredit his message. Paul defended his apostolic authority, demonstrating from past events that his message was the true Good News.

1:11 the gospel message I preach: Paul’s message was that people are made right with God by grace through faith, not by obeying the law (see 2:16-17; Rom 10:9-13; Eph 2:8-9).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Gal 1:11. Ἀδελφοὶ, brethren) He now at length calls them brethren.—κατὰ, according to [after]) κατὰ includes the meaning of the prepositions ἀπὸ, διὰ, and παρὰ, in Gal 1:1; Gal 1:12. My Gospel is not according to the estimate of men.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal_1:11-12.[23] Theme of the apologetic portion of the epistle. See Introd. sec. 2.

δέ] carrying on the discourse. The way having been prepared for this theme in Gal_1:8-10, it is now formally announced for further discussion.[24] And after the impassioned outburst in Gal_1:6-10, the language becomes composed and calm. Now therefore, for the first time, we find the address ἀδελφοί.

γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν] but (now to enter more particularly on the subject of my letter) I make known to you. This announcement has a certain solemnity (comp. 1Co_15:1; 2Co_8:1; 1Co_12:3), which is only enhanced by the fact that the matter must have been already known to the reader. There is no need to modify the sense of γνωρίζω, which neither here nor in 1Co_15:1 means monere vos volo or the like (Morus, Rosenmüller, and others).

τὸ εὐαγγέλιον … ὅτι] attraction, Winer, p. 581 f. [E. T. 781 f.]

τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπʼ ἐμοῦ] which has been announced by me, among you and among others (comp. ὃ κηρύσσω, Gal_2:2); not to be limited to the conversion of the readers only.

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον] cannot indicate the mode of announcement, which would require us to conceive εὐαγγελισθέν as repeated (Hofmann). Necessarily belonging to οὐκ ἔστι, it is the negative modal expression of the gospel itself which was preached by Paul; specifying, however, not its origin (Augustine, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others), which κατά in itself never expresses (Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 3), but its qualitative relation, although this is conditioned by its origin (Gal_1:12). The gospel announced by me is not according to men, that is, not of such quality as it would be if it were the work of men; it is not of the same nature as human wisdom, human efficiency, and the like. Comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 24, τὸ τοὺς νόμους αὐτοὺς τοῖς παραβαίνουσι τὰς τιμωρίας ἔχειν βελτίονος ἢ κατʼ ἄνθρωπον νομοθέτου δοκεῖ μοι εἶναι. Eur. Med. 673, σοφώτερʼ ἢ κατʼ ἄνδρα συμβαλεῖν ἔπη. Soph. Aj. 747, μὴ κατʼ ἄνθρωπον φρονεῖ. Comp. Aj. 764; Oed. Col. 604; Plat. Pol. 2. 359 D. The opposite, ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον εἶναι, Lucian, Vit. auct. 2. Looking to the context, the view of Grotius is too narrow, nihil humani affectus admixtum habet. Bengel hits the mark, non est humani census evangelium meum.

[23] See Hofmanns interpretation of i. 11ii. 14 in his heil. Schr. N. T. I. p. 60 ff., ed. 2. On the other hand, see Hilgenfeld, Kanon u. Kritik d. N. T. p. 190 ff.

[24] If γάρ were the correct reading (Hofmann), it would correspond to the immediately preceding contrast between ἀνθρώποις and Χριστοῦ, confirming ver. 10, but would not introduce a justification of ver. 9, as Hofmann, arbitrarily going back beyond ver. 10, assumes.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal 1:11 . γνωρίζω . Here, as in 1Co 12:3 ; 1Co 15:1 , this verb has the force of reminding rather than of making known . In all three passages the author calls attention to forgotten truths, which had once been well known.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A second argument to prove that this doctrine is heavenly, because he had it from heaven, from Jesus Christ himself, without any man’s help, wherein he excelleth them whom Christ taught here on earth after the manner of men.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

certify--I made known to you as to the Gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man, that is, not of, by, or from man (Gal 1:1, Gal 1:12). It is not according to man; not influenced by mere human considerations, as it would be, if it were of human origin.

brethren--He not till now calls them so.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 11. But I certify you, brethren, c.] I wish you fully to comprehend that the Gospel which I preached to you is not after man there is not a spark of human invention in it, nor the slightest touch of human cunning.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

11. Now I make known to you. This is the most powerful argument, the main hinge on which the question turns, that he has not received the gospel from men, but that it has been revealed to him by God. As this might be denied, he offers a proof, drawn from a narrative of facts. To give his declaration the greater weight, he sets out with stating that the matter is not doubtful, but one which he is prepared to prove; and thus introduces himself in a manner well adapted to a serious subject. He affirms that it is not according to man; that it savours of nothing human, or, that it was not of human contrivance; and in proof of this he afterwards adds, that he had not been instructed by any earthly teacher.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(11, et seq.) The Apostle now enters at length upon his personal defence against his opponents. He does this by means of an historical retrospect of his career, proving by an exhaustive process the thesis with which he starts that the doctrine taught by him comes from a divine source, and possesses the divine sanction. My doctrine is not human, but divine; it could not be otherwise. For (a) I did not learn it in my youth—very much the contrary (Gal_1:13-14); (b) I did not learn it at my conversion, for I went straight into the desert to wrestle with God in solitude (Gal_1:15-17); (c) I did not learn it at my first visit to Jerusalem, for then I saw only Peter and James, and them but for a short time (Gal_1:18-24); (d) I did not learn it at my later visit, for then I dealt with the other Apostles on equal terms, and was fully and freely acknowledged by them as the Apostle of the Gentiles (Gal_2:1-10); (e) Nay, I openly rebuked Peter for seeming to withdraw the support he had accorded to me (Gal_2:11-14); (f) the law is dead, and the life which the Christian has he draws solely from Christ (Gal_2:15-21).

(11) But.—There is a nearly even balance of MSS. authority between this word and For. In any case we should in English naturally omit the conjunction, though a translation must represent it.

Certify.—The word which is thus translated is the same as that which is translated “declare” in 1Co_15:1; “give you to understand,” in 1Co_12:3; and “do you to wit,” in 2Co_8:1. It is used to introduce a statement made with emphasis and solemnity.

After man.—Perhaps the best way to express the force of this phrase would be by the adjective, “Is not human.” Literally it is, is not according to the standard of man—to be judged by human measure, and therefore human in all respects, in its nature and origin.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11, 12. A statement of St Paul’s claims, followed by a sketch of his life.

11. But I certify] Now I declare to you. The same verb is used in 1Co_15:1 to introduce an emphatic statement.

not after man] i.e. not in accordance with human notions or conceptions, and therefore not such as could have been evolved out of human consciousness. It was communicated to St Paul by direct revelation from God.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But I certify you, brethren,.... Though the Galatians had gone such lengths with their false teachers, yet the apostle still calls them "brethren"; as hoping well of them, that they were born of God, did belong to his family, and were heirs of the grace of life; and this he the rather makes use of, to show his affection to them, and to engage their attention to the assurance he gives, of the divine original and authority of the Gospel preached by him; which though they formerly knew and believed, yet through the insinuations of the false apostles, were drawn into some doubts about it: wherefore he declares in the most solemn and affectionate manner,

that the Gospel which was preached of me, is not after man. Their guides that were leading them wrong, did not presume to say, that the Gospel was after man, for they themselves pretended to preach the Gospel; but that the Gospel preached by the apostle had no other authority than human, or than his own to support it: wherefore he denies that it was "after man"; after the wisdom of man, an human invention and contrivance, a device and fiction of man's brain; nor was it after the mind of man, or agreeably to his carnal reason, it was disapproved of by him, and beyond his capacity to reach it; nor was it of his revealing, a discovery of his; flesh and blood, human nature, could never have revealed it; nor is it in the power of one man to make another a minister of the Gospel, or to give him or himself success in the ministration of it, but the whole is of God.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Ver. 11. Is not after, man] This he often inculcateth, because the false apostles had buzzed such a thing into their ears to disparage his ministry.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But I certify you - I make known to you; or, I declare to you; see 1Co 15:1. Doubtless this had been known to them before, but he now assures them of it, and goes into an extended illustration to show them that he had not received his authority from man to preach the gospel To state and prove this is the main design of this chapter.

Is not after man - The Greek text: “Not according to man”; see Gal 1:1. That is, he was not appointed by man, nor did he have any human instructor to make known to him what the gospel was. He had neither received it from man, nor had it been debased or adulterated by any human admixtures. He had received it directly from the Lord Jesus.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

He calls them brethren, though some of them were revolted, because they owned Christ, and makes known or declares to them, (so the word is translated, Luk 2:15; Joh 15:15; 17:26), that the doctrine of the gospel, which he had preached unto them, was no human invention or fiction, nor rested upon human authority, but was from God, immediately revealed to him: and herein he reflecteth upon the false teachers that had seduced them, and, in order to that, vilifled him, as being but a disciple to some other of the apostles, yet teaching otherwise than they taught. I would have you know (saith he) that it is otherwise; the gospel which I preached

is not after man. He fully openeth his own meaning in this phrase, in the next words.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

But I certify you, brethren (gnwrizw dezw ga) now (or, for) I make known unto you, brethren. The external evidence, as well as the judgment of critics, is so evenly divided between the two readings, gnwrizw de and gnwrizw gar, that the decision as to which is to be preferred seems to lie with exegesis rather than with diplomatic criticism. On the one hand, the fact that the gospel which the apostle had delivered to the Galatians came to him by a direct revelation from Christ, would be properly viewed as a reason for regarding it as sacred and inviolable. Viewed thus, the reading, "now I make known to you," appears justified as introducing a plea warranting the anathema of vers. 8, 9. On the other hand, there is a difference of tone perceptible between the previous context, which is strongly marked, as we have seen, by intense excitement of feeling, and the passage which commences with this verse. The relaxation in the latter of the stern, indignant severity of the former is indicated

(1) by the phrase, "I make known unto you," which, as well as the equivalent phrase, "I would not have you ignorant (ouj qelw uJmav ajgnoein)," is with the apostle a customary prelude to a context of deliberate and measured statement;

(2) by the introduction of the word "brethren," even though, perhaps, holding the position in the sentence which it does here, this compellation has not the same pathetic affectionateness as marks it when heading a sentence; and

(3) by the strain of quiet narration which the apostle now enters upon. This change in the tone is somewhat adverse to the supposition that the two passages were, as originally written, linked together by the closely connective "for." It suggests to the careful reader the feeling that, after the apostle had somewhat relieved his spirit of the indignant excitement with which he at first addressed himself to the writing of the letter, he laid down his pen at the end of the tenth verse, which had introduced a topic of thought that threatened to lead him aside from his present business; and, after pausing to re fleet how he had best proceed, resumed his work with the purpose of calmly showing, from the very circumstances of his personal history, that the gospel which the Galatians had received from him had solely a Divine origin. This view of the passage likewise favours the reading, "Now I make known to you." For the conjunction de has here that simply metabatic or transitionary sense which it often bears when the writer is passing on to a fresh section of discourse. Thus, in par-titular, the conjunction is found with "I make known (gnwrizw)," in 2Co_8:1; and with "I would not have you ignorant," in Rom_1:13; 1Th_4:13; zw 1Co_12:1. In fact, the direct purpose of the succeeding exposition would seem to be, not precisely so much to make good the particular point that the gospel which the apostle taught was sacred and inviolable, as to show that it was certainly true, and on that ground not to be departed from. The verb gnwri) cannot mean "draw attention to" or remind you." Its only sense is "make known." Its employment here appears to indicate a feeling on the apostle"s part that the point referred to had, perhaps, not as yet been made definitely clear to those, or at least to some of those, whom he was addressing. That the gospel which was preached of me (tolion to eujaggelisqen uJp ajmou oti); touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it. In the Greek, the noun "the gospel" is the accusative governed by "make known;" while in fact the object contemplated by the verb is, not the gospel itself in general, but certain circumstances relating to it expressed and implied in the following clause: "that it is not after man"s fashion." This kind of construction is of frequent occurrence in Greek authors. Analogous examples are found in ver. 13 of this chapter, and 1Co_3:20 1Co_15:15 1Co_16:15. The aorist tense of eujaggelisqen points to the same time as was referred to in "called you" (ver. 6) and "we preached" (ver. 8), which are both in the same tense. Is not after man (oujk esti kata anqrwpon); is not after the fashion of man; that is, "is not to be estimated as a merely human thing." The clause does not immediately describe the origin of the gospel, which point is distinctly brought out in the next sentence; but rather the character which attaches to it in consequence of its origin. The sense of the phrase, "according to man," is illustrated by its use innqrwpon)?" 1Co_9:8," Do I speak these things after the manner of men (kata a)i.e. "accord-lug to merely human principles of action." 1Co_3:3, "Walk after the manner of men." On the other band, in 2Co_7:10, "godly sorrow," literally, "the grief which is according to God," is a grief such as God inspires and approves; and in Eph_4:24, "The new man, which after God literally, "according to God hath been created," is "created in conformity with God"s model or approval" The present tense "is" marks the permanent character attaching to Paul"s gospel; it was "the faith once for all (apax) delivered to the saints". (Jud_1:3)

Vers. 11, 12.

The true origin of the apostle"s gospel.

Here he begins the apologetic portion of his Epistle, vindicating his independent apostolic authority. The phrase with which he prefaces his statement, "I declare unto you, brethren," is at once solemn and emphatic, as if he could allow of no misunderstanding affecting "the truth of the gospel," and is a sign that, in spite of their aberrations, the Galatians are still dear to him. He calls them "brethren" after his first grave censure, as if he indulged the hope of winning them back to the truth.

I HIS GOSPEL WAS NOT HUMAN IN ITS CHARACTER. "The gospel which was preached of me is not alter man." He refers here, not to its origin, but to its character.

1. It is not discoverable by man. Human reasoning or human intuition could not have discovered its facts, its truths, its blessings.

2. It is not constructed on the principles or ideas of human wisdom, which is carnal in its instincts, and therefore it is a "foolishness to the Greeks" of speculative thought.

3. It is unchangeable in its great principles; unlike the systems of men, which are constantly varying with the spirit of each age.

II HIS GOSPEL WAS NOT HUMAN IN ITS ORIGIN. "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it.

1. He did not receive it from man, any more than the twelve. Men receive most of their knowledge from one another, yet he was no more man-taught than Peter, or James, or John. He received exactly what they received he by apocalyptic communications, they by personal communications in the days of Christ"s life.

2. He was not taught the gospel by man, much less by any apostle. In that case the fact of his agreement with the other apostles proved that his knowledge of Divine truth was in no sense derivative. It might be urged that Ananias gave the apostle full instructions at his baptism. But there is no evidence that Ananias gave him any instructions; his errand was that Saul should receive his sight and receive the Holy Ghost. Saul had, in fact, before this time, received his instructions on the way to Damascus. (Act_26:15-18)

3. In matters of religious moment especially affecting the foundation of asinner"s hopes, human teaching, human traditions, and human authority, are of slight importance.

III HIS GOSPEL CAME TO HIM BY DIVINE REVELATION. His gospel was not human, but Divine, for he received it by revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ. It had, therefore, a Christly origin. The revelation is not to be identified with the visions of 2Co 12., nor with the appearance of the Lord to him in Act_22:18, nor with the period of the sojourn in Arabia; but with the appearance of Christ, as the Son of God, on the way to Damascus, as "the fundamental central illumination," which was followed by a progressive development. The apostle might, therefore, well describe his gospel as not of man. We know nothing of the mode of the Divine communications; the actual results are contained in the writings of the apostle. Thus it was that he spoke of "his gospel," which exhibited, as no other inspired writer did, "the mystery hid from generations," which forms the distinguishing glory of the Ephesian and Colossian Epistles. He sees in the gospel a Divine plan of salvation, whose centre is Christ, and whose end is the revelation of God"s glorious perfection. (Rom_11:36) The revelation from Christ was thus a revelation of Christ. He was at once the Source and Subject of it.

Vers. 11-24.

Paul"s personal grasp of the gospel.

Paul, as we have seen, is so certain of the gospel of grace being the only gospel for sinful men, that he is prepared to pronounce an anathema on all who preach any other gospel. Lest it might be supposed that he took up this intolerant position rashly, he now proceeds to give us a short autobiography, in which he shows how he had received the gospel, and what a hold it had upon him. Let us notice the salient points in this narrative.

I HIS LIFE AS A JEW. (Vers. 13, 14.) Paul, before his conversion, was the most zealous persecutor of Christianity. A strict Pharisee, he added to his self-righteousness an uncommon zeal for the old religion, and hesitated not to persecute to the death those who had embraced the new. He was zealous, but not according to knowledge.

II THE REVELATION OF JESUS TO HIM AND IN HIM. (Vers. 11, 12, 15, 16.) It was Jesus himself who undertook Saul"s conversion. There was no intermediate instrument. On the way to Damascus Jesus appeared to him in dazzling, overwhelming radiance, and compelled the persecutor to recognize, not only his existence, but his sovereign authority. That manifestation of Jesus to him revolutionized his life. Henceforth he could have no doubt regarding the reign of Jesus Christ. This was the revelation of Jesus to him the historic interview which made Paul"s career so different and so glorious. But next there was the revelation of Jesus in Paul. This was by the Holy Spirit entering into him and giving him Christ"s mind, Christ"s heart, Christ"s compassions, so that Paul became a revelation of Christ to other men. Henceforward he was a "Christophor," carrying Christ in him, not only as his Hope of glory, but as his animating, regulating, ruling power. Paul was from that hour" possessed," but it was by the Spirit of Christ. His personality became a new centre of spiritual force and power.

III THUS POSSESSED BY JESUS, HE BECAME INDEPENDENT OF MEN. (Vers. 16, 17.) Now, this independence of Paul had two sides.

1. He became independent of popular opinion "Immediately I conferred notwith flesh and blood" Now it must have been very trying to surrender all his hopes as a Jew. The fact is, he was the foremost man of his nation just when Jesus converted him. The nation would gladly have followed his leadership. There was no man who had so much weight and force of character as Saul. To renounce all these hopes, and the friendships of his early years, and to face the world a lonely man was trying. Yet he was enabled by God"s grace to do so. He made no truce with flesh and blood, but renounced all for Christ.

2. He felt independent of apostolic recognition. He never thought ofhurrying off to Jerusalem to stand an examination at the hands of the apostles, and receive their imorimatur. He dealt at first hand with the Fountain of authority. Hence he passed to Arabia soon after his conversion, and in the solitudes of the desert, in the places associated with such master spirits as Moses, Elijah, and Christ, he communed with Christ, and pondered and laid the foundations of his theology. He called no man master; he felt that he had but one Master, and he was Christ. Now, this independence of character is what we should all seek. It can only be secured when we have renounced self-confidence and betaken ourselves to the feet of our Lord. There at the fountain of life and power we can rise up our own masters and his faithful servants, prepared to do battle, if need be, against the world.

IV PAUL"S INTERVIEW AT JERUSALEM WITH CEPHAS AND JAMES. (Vers. 18, 19.) While Paul was properly independent in spirit, this does not imply that he was in any way morose or unsocial. His internment in Arabia, his earnest study of the whole plan of the gospel, only made him long for an interview with Cephas, the recognized leader at Jerusalem. Hence he passed from solitude to society, and had an interview of fifteen days with the apostle of the circumcision. James, who had ministerial oversight of the Jerusalem Church, shared his society too. It must have been a blessed meeting between the two mighty apostles. The meeting of two generals before some important campaign was never so momentous in its consequences as the meeting of these two humble men, Saul and Cephas. They were set upon the conquest for Christ of the world. Now, we have every reason to believe that the interview was simply one for conference. It was not that Saul might receive any authority from the hands either of Cephas or of James. He had his authority directly from Christ.

V HIS EVANGELISTIC WORK. (Vers. 20-24.) Perhaps through mutual agreement with Peter, Paul leaves Jerusalem and Judaea and confines himself to the districts beyond. Syria and Cilicia, territories beyond the bounds of Palestine proper, where the apostles were operating, were selected by the apostle to the Gentiles for his first evangelistic efforts. He did not seek the acquaintance of the Churches in Judaea. He kept to his own province. They heard gladly that the arch-persecutor had become a chief preacher of the once despised faith. They accordingly praised God for the monument of his mercy he had raised up in Paul. But his knowledge of the gospel and his authority in proclaiming it were not, he wishes these Galatians to understand, derived from men. We should surely learn from this autobiography of Paul the secret of personal independence and power. It consists in going to the sources themselves. If we refuse to depend upon men and depend on the Lord only, we shall secure a grasp of his holy gospel and an efficiency in proclaiming it which are impossible otherwise. What the world needs now is what it needed then men pervaded like Paul by the Spirit of Christ, and so radiating the true ideas about Christ all around. R.M.E.

Vers. 11-24.

Position.

I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me." To the remarkable outburst of feeling with which the apostle approaches the Galatians, succeeds affectionate, calm statement. He addresses them now as brethren. His object in writing to them is not to excommunicate them, but to bring them back from their error. Against the misrepresentations of the Judaists he wishes to make known to them as his brethren his exact position, touching the gospel which was preached by him. The gospel points to a system of ideas by which men are to be enlightened. It also points to a number of institutions by which men are to be moulded. It principally points to a method by which men are to be saved. Paul was not simply an utterer of thoughts, nor a setter-up of institutions, but he was in the first place a proclaimer of the way of salvation. He preached with a view to his hearers taking action in a matter of infinite moment. Threefold exclusion of man from connection with the gospel as preached by the apostle.

1. He did not preach a man-made gospel. "That it is not alter man." If a division of the realm is disaffected, measures must be adopted to cope with the disaffection. Such measures may be described as after man; they are the result of human counsels. There cannot be claimed for them perfection. The gospel is not after man; it has not been devised by a man or by a body of men. It is free from imperfections that attach to human methods.

2. The gospel was not delivered to him any more than to the other apostles by man. "Neither did I receive it from man." There is not particularized the supposition of it being his own invention. We may conclude, therefore, against that being the form which the representation against him took. On the supposition of it not being a human invention, this exclusion relates to the mode of delivery. The I is emphatic. He did not receive it, any more than the other apostles received it from man.

3. He was no pupil of the apostles. "Nor was I taught it." On the supposition of it being no human invention he did not receive it in a particular form, which may therefore be concluded to be the form which the representation against him took. He was not taught it, by whom is left indefinite. As it is unqualified, part of the idea must be that he was not taught it by the apostles. The exclusion then comes to this in the end, that he was no pupil of the apostles. What is included in the gospel as preached by the apostle. "But it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ." On this too the former language, by its indefiniteness, has a bearing. The twelve enjoyed three years of teaching under Christ on earth. It was true that he was not taught in that way. The substitute for such teaching, apart from subsequent meditation, was that he was supernaturally furnished by Jesus Christ with the contents of the gospel Historical proof to show that he was no pupil of the apostles.

I THE JUDAISTIC PERIOD OF HIS LIFE. "For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews" religion." He recalls the fact that they had heard, viz. from his own mouth, when he was with them, of his manner of life in Judaism. This Judaism was a good thing in its right conception and time. There were human adjuncts of it which were not good. It was intended that Judaism should be carried up into Christianity. To adhere to it, then, after Christianity had come, was to go against the Divine intention. This was what Paul did.

1. Outstanding feature of his Judaism. "How that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and made havoc of it." The Church of Christ is named, from his later point of view, the Church of God. He now realizes it as the painful element in his guilt, that he persecuted the Church of God. He was beyond measure a persecutor. It would appear, from the language which is used in one place, that at his instance Christians were put to death: "He persecuted this Way unto the death. " As a consequence, he made havoc of the Church. He had put the Church at Jerusalem into confusion, and he was on his way to exterminate, if he could, the Church at Damascus.

2. Spirit by which he was animated in Judaism. "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." He was brought up in a Hebrew home in Tarsus. Amid Gentile influences he would feel free in the world of Hebrew memories and hopes. We can think of him as showing forwardness beyond many of his own age while yet at the Hebrew school. The strong impression of his forwardness may have led to his being sent on to Jerusalem for wider opportunity. In the city of his fathers there was everything that was fitted to excite his youthful imagination, to fire his youthful enthusiasm. At the feet of Gamaliel he would come to a more intelligent appreciation of the traditions of his fathers, i.e. of the Law, with its historical accompaniments, and especially with its traditional interpretations. Here, too, we can think of him as showing forwardness beyond many of those who were receiving instruction along with him. While yet a young man he seems to have become a member of the Sanhedrim, or assembly of elders. For it is recorded of him that he gave his vote for the death of Stephen. Where he was during our Lord"s ministry we have not the means of knowing. But in the subsequent development of events he very soon appears as a chief actor. It was here that he showed forwardness in Judaism beyond many of his own age among his countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of his fathers. He was zealous beyond his own master, Gamaliel, who, against manifestations of zeal, advised that, if Christianity were not of God, it would come to nought. There was this to be said for Paul, that he had a keen perception of the situation. He saw that Judaism, which he mistakenly but fondly cherished, was threatened at vital points by the forces which were at work in Christianity. He saw that, with its doctrine of a Messiah in heaven and the Holy Spirit from heaven, with the patient bearing of its adherents, and with the progress it was making, it was formidable. Either Judaism must destroy it or it would destroy Judaism. Therefore he was exceedingly zealous beyond many for Judaism.

II THE CRISIS OF HIS LIFE.

1. His predestination to apostleship. "But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother"s womb." This is the only mention that Paul makes of his mother. We can believe that the kind of mother he had was connected with his separation to apostleship. He was separated from his birth. Being separated so early, there is precluded the supposition of human agency, his own or that of others. The separation was the act of God.

2. His call to apostleship. "And called me through his grace." This was on the road to Damascus. It was through no meritorious doing of his own, but evidently through Divine grace. He was engaged at the time in the persecution of Jesus. He had a vivid impression of a Jesus who was dead and buried, whom his disciples spoke of as alive, who was so strongly moving their hearts as to make him fear for Judaism. But now, by a supernatural intervention, he got a vivid impression of Jesus as the Messiah. In the actual appearance of Jesus the fact was given him in a way which, notwithstanding all his prejudices against it, he could not deny that he was risen and living. And making a total surrender, from that moment the authority of Christ was laid on him.

3. His qualification for apostleship. "To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles." In connection with his call there was given the fact of the Messiahship of Jesus, but there was also needed the expansion of its meaning. So it was the good pleasure of God, Dot only to give him an outward appearance, but an inward revelation. The revelation of God"s Son here is to be identified with the revelation of Jesus Christ in the twelfth verse. It probably succeeded, as it was based on, the appearance of Jesus. It was not a natural excogitation, but a supernatural communication to his mind of the great truths about Christ. It was this, that he might be fitted for preaching Christ among the Gentiles.

III THE PERIOD FOLLOWING THE CRISIS OF HIS LIFE. "Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus." So satisfying were the communications made to him by God that he needed nothing from man. Immediately (made emphatic by position) he conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went he up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles (as though he needed to get authority or instruction from them); but he went away into Arabia. The retirement is mentioned to show that, during a most important period, he kept away from Jerusalem. His first attempts at Damascus seem to have convinced him of the need of lengthened preparation for his work. In silent communion with God he sought what the other apostles got in a three years" course of training under Christ. He had to adjust himself to the new situation; he had to recast his thoughts.

The contents of the gospel, which had been supernaturally communicated to him, had in a natural way to be examined and inwrought with his own thoughts. The facts connected with the earthly manifestation of Christ had to be gone over and assigned their place in his thoughts. If we are to suppose him drawn to the scene of the giving of the Law (as is suggested in the fourth chapter), he would be helped thereby to read the old in the light of the new. He had withal to brace his own soul in the new truth against all contingencies connected with his work. After his retirement he returned to the Christian circle at Damascus, only, however, to be compelled to leave it after a brief experience of preaching.

IV THE PERIOD OF HIS FIRST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. Four facts to which he attached importance as showing that his independence was not compromised by this visit were these.

1. He did not visit Jerusalem till three years after his conversion. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem." He was converted at the age of thirty. At that time his powers had been matured. He had been accustomed to look closely into the nature, drift, causes, worth of things. Three years of his application would suffice to achieve his independence as a Christian thinker, so that it could not be disturbed even by Peter.

2. He visited Jerusalem then to make the acquaintance of Peter. "To visit Cephas." It was not of purpose that he kept away from Jerusalem. It was simply that, in the satisfying call and communications, he felt no need to draw to the senior apostles. He freely recognized the work done by Peter, and, when the opportunity offered, he was moved to pay him a brotherly visit. Beyond that his visit had not significance.

3. His visit extended over no more than fifteen days. "And tarried with him fifteen days." As his object was to visit Peter, he stayed with him. He recalls the precise length of his stay. He had not set that as the limit beforehand. But he had to make a hurried escape from Jerusalem. And he recalls it now as a singular providence, inasmuch as it took away the appearance of his being a pupil of the Apostle Peter.

4. His visit brought him into contact only with one man of note besides Peter. "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord"s brother." James was labouring with Peter in Jerusalem; the other apostles were labouring elsewhere. This James was not of the number of the twelve. The reason for mentioning him is that, though not an apostle (in the strict sense which is necessary for the argument here), he was the Lord"s brother.

He was brother in the sense of having the same mother as our Lord. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not to be thought of. Our feelings are no more shocked in thinking of James as her son than in thinking of her as the wife of Joseph. The difficulty is that our Lord at the last committed his mother to the care of the Apostle John. But the difficulty to a large extent remains on the supposition of James being only her stepson. Why pass over one who in that relation (whatever he was at the time) had the making of such a man in him? The conclusion to be come to is. not that James was no son of Mary, but that we are left in ignorance of the reason of his being passed over. Attestation of the foregoing facts. "Now touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not." The language approaches to oath-taking. The facts were so important, as affecting his independence as an apostle, that he gives them his most solemn attestation.

V THE PERIOD FOLLOWING HIS FIRST VISIT TO JERUSALEM.

1. Unknown by face unto the Churches of Judaea. "Then I came unto the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown by face unto the Churches of Judaea which were in Christ." So far from being sent out by the twelve, the sphere of his labour during this period was far away in Syria and Cilicia. If we are to understand the Churches of Judaea as distinguished from the Church of Jerusalem, it does not exclude visits by Paul to Jerusalem during the period in question. And it appears that there was one visit by Paul during this period, viz. with contributions for the relief of the brethren in Judaea. The reason for it not being mentioned here is that it was aside from his purpose. It was a visit connected with his work in Syria and Cilicia. It did not affect his relations to the twelve; for it was during a time of persecution, when he only came into contact with the elders, and would have to make a speedy departure. It was still true that he was unknown by face unto the Christian communities of Judaea.

2. What they heard say. "But they only heard say, He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc; and they glorified God in me." It was only in this way that they had knowledge of Paul. The great condition of salvation is used as an equivalent for the religion of Christ. It shows how largely faith bulked in Paul"s preaching. The Churches of Judaea (and they were under the influence of the Church of Jerusalem) ascribed glory to God on account of the marvellous transformation wrought on Paul. It showed the good feeling of the twelve towards Paul, so different from the feeling of the Judaists. And it showed also how these Churches rose above Paul to God. R.F.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But I certify you, brethren -- he does not till now give them even this appellation. That the gospel which was preached by me among you is not according to man - Not from man, not by man, not suited to the taste of man.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

VERSES 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.

This passage constitutes Paul’s chief defense against the accusations of his opponents. He maintains under oath that he received his Gospel not from men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

In declaring that his Gospel is not after man, Paul does not merely wish to state that his Gospel is not mundane. The false apostles made the same claim for their gospel. Paul means to say that he learned his Gospel not in the usual and accepted manner through the agency of men by hearing, reading, or writing. He received the Gospel by special revelation directly from Jesus Christ.

Paul received his Gospel on the way to Damascus when Christ appeared to him. St. Luke furnishes an account of the incident in the ninth chapter of the Book of Acts. "Arise," said Christ to Paul, "and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do." Christ did not send Paul into the city to learn the Gospel from Ananias. Ananias was only to baptize Paul, to lay his hands on Paul, to commit the ministry of the Word unto Paul, and to recommend him to the Church. Ananias recognized his limited assignment when he said to Paul: "Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." Paul did not receive instruction from Ananias. Paul had already been called, enlightened, and taught by Christ in the road. His contact with Ananias was merely a testimonial to the fact that Paul had been called by Christ to preach the Gospel.

Paul was forced to speak of his conversion to combat the slanderous contention of the false apostles to the effect that this apostleship was inferior to that of the other apostles.

If it were not for the example of the Galatian churches I would never have thought it possible that anybody who had received the Word of God with such eagerness as they had, could so quickly let go of it. Good Lord, what terrible mischief one single false statement can create.

The article of justification is fragile. Not in itself, of course, but in us. I know how quickly a person can forfeit the joy of the Gospel. I know in what slippery places even those stand who seem to have a good footing in the matters of faith. In the midst of the conflict when we should be consoling ourselves with the Gospel, the Law rears up and begins to rage all over our conscience. I say the Gospel is frail because we are frail.

What makes matters worse is that one-half of ourselves, our own reason, stands against us. The flesh resists the spirit, or as Paul puts it, "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit." Therefore we teach that to know Christ and to believe in Him is no achievement of man, but the gift of God. God alone can create and preserve faith in us. God creates faith in us through the Word. He increases, strengthens and confirms faith in us through His word. Hence the best service that anybody can render God is diligently to hear and read God’s Word. On the other hand, nothing is more perilous than to be weary of the Word of God. Thinking he knows enough, a person begins little by little to despise the Word until he has lost Christ and the Gospel altogether.

Let every believer carefully learn the Gospel. Let him continue in humble prayer. We are molested not by puny foes, but by mighty ones, foes who never grow tired of warring against us. These, our enemies, are many: Our own flesh, the world, the Law, sin, death, the wrath and judgment of God, and the devil himself.

The arguments which the false apostles advanced impress people to this day. "Who are you to dissent from the fathers and the entire Church, and to bring a contradictory doctrine? Are you wiser than so many holy men, wiser than the whole Church?" When Satan, abetted by our own reason, advances these arguments against us, we lose heart, unless we keep on saying to ourselves: "I don’t care if Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Peter, Paul, John, or an angel from heaven, teaches so and so. I know that I teach the truth of God in Christ Jesus."

When I first took over the defense of the Gospel, I remembered what Doctor Staupitz said to me. "I like it well," he said, "that the doctrine which you proclaim gives glory to God alone and none to man. For never can too much glory, goodness, and mercy be ascribed unto God." These words of the worthy Doctor comforted and confirmed me. The Gospel is true because it deprives men of all glory, wisdom, and righteousness and turns over all honor to the Creator alone. It is safer to attribute too much glory unto God than unto man.

You may argue that the Church and the fathers are holy. Yet the Church is compelled to pray: "Forgive us our trespasses," I am not to be believed, nor is the Church to be believed, or the fathers, or the apostles, or an angel from heaven, if they teach anything contrary to the Word of God. Let the Word of God abide forever.

Peter erred in life and in doctrine. Paul might have dismissed Peter’s error as a matter of no consequence. But Paul saw that Peter’s error would lead to the damage of the whole Church unless it were corrected. Therefore he withstood Peter to his face. The Church, Peter, the apostles, angels from heaven, are not to be heard unless they teach the genuine Word of God.

This argument is not always to our advantage. People ask: "Whom then shall we believe?" Our opponents maintain that they teach the pure Word of God. We do not believe them. They in turn hate and persecute us for vile heretics. What can we do about it? With Paul we glory in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What do we gain? We are told that our glorying is idle vanity and unadulterated blasphemy. The moment we abase ourselves and give in to the rage of our opponents, Papists and Anabaptists grow arrogant. The Anabaptists hatch out some new monstrosity. The Papists revive their old abominations. What to do? Let everybody become sure of his calling and doctrine, that he may boldly say with Paul: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than ye have received, let him be accursed."

Martin Luther — Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), English translation by Theodore Graebner (Zondervan, 1939) — public domain (U.S. copyright not renewed). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Paul Protests His Apostolic Commission.

He has his Gospel by direct revelation of Jesus Christ:

v. 11. But I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

v. 12. For in either received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

v. 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,

v. 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.

v. 15. but when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace,

v. 16. to reveal His Son in me that I might preach Him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood,

v. 17. neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus.

The apostle here takes up the first point of his argument, meeting the objection as though his preaching had no claim to apostolic authority and power, that he was not an apostle like the Twelve, who received their commission directly from Christ, who had been trained in doctrine and preaching by the Lord Himself. With all the force of truthful assertion he states: But I declare to you, brethren, concerning the Gospel as preached by me, that it is not according to man. Although he is writing in indignant protest against a false opinion, which is dangerous to the Gospel itself, his kind address shows that his vehement denunciation is directed against the doctrine which was perverting the Galatians rather than against their persons. He reminds them of the fact which was surely known to them before, but which must be brought out now with peculiar emphasis, that the Gospel-message as proclaimed by him had nothing in common with man-made doctrines, neither according to its origin nor according to its character. He had not received it from any man, nor, on the other hand, had he been taught it. He deliberately places his own person forward: No more than any of the Twelve had he been given instruction in the Christian doctrines by any man; he was of equal rank with the other apostles. It had not been necessary for him to take a course in catechetical instruction, as for instance, Theophilus, Luk 1:4, or the Galatian Christians, but he had received full knowledge and understanding through a revelation of Jesus Christ, in a supernatural manner. Whether he refers to the vision on the way to Damascus or to subsequent extraordinary manifestations, does not appear from the text; perhaps he intends to convey both, the fundamental and central illumination being that at the time of his conversion, which was followed by special revelations at different periods of his life.

To substantiate his assertion that his only teacher in the Christian doctrine was Christ, Paul now refers to some facts connected with his life at the time of his conversion. Luther gives the connection of thought as follows: "That you may know very exactly that I neither from my progenitors nor from the apostles nor from any man received my instruction, but from God alone, in order that you may be certain and not permit yourselves to be turned away to human things under any pretense, whether it be my name or the names of the apostles, behold, I tell you my history anew and insert it here. " They had heard about, they were fully acquainted with, his manner of living, with his behavior while still in Judaism, while his heart was yet filled with Jewish partisanship. They had received the information that this bitter party spirit had been surpassingly strong in his case, prompting him to take the lead in persecuting the congregation of God and in destroying it. With absolute frankness Paul confesses his incessant activity against the Church of Christ, his firm determination to bring about its total annihilation. See Act 7:1-60; Act 8:1-40; Act 9:1-43. He even made progress, he advanced in his bitter zealotism beyond many men of his own race and nation; he outstripped them in his ardor for his ancestral traditions. As the son of a Pharisee, Act 23:6, he thought it was his duty to uphold the hereditary traditions of his family at all costs. Such was the disposition of his mind, such was the situation: "My early education is a proof that I did not receive the Gospel from man. I was brought up in a rigid school of ritualism, directly opposed to the liberty of the Gospel. I was from age and temper a staunch adherent of the principles of that school. Acting upon them, I relentlessly persecuted the Christian brotherhood. So human agency, therefore, could have brought about the change. It required a direct interposition from God. " (Lightfoot.)

How God interfered in his Pharisaic designs Paul relates nest: But when it pleased Him who had set me aside from the womb of my mother, from the very hour of my birth, and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, in order that I might preach Him in the Gospel among the Gentiles, immediately not did I take counsel with flesh and blood, nor journeyed I up to Jerusalem to those that were apostles before me, but went away to Arabia, and again turned back to Damascus. Here is a song of praise to God’s merciful pleasure, by which, without any human aid and human merit, he had experienced His wonderful grace and been commissioned as an apostle. According to this good pleasure, the Lord had set Paul aside even before his birth for this purpose; He had influenced his entire life, his education, his intellectual development in such a manner as to enable him later to become a chosen instrument, Act 9:15. The result was that God called him through His grace, both to faith and to the apostolic ministry, these two events being coincident in his case. The purpose of the call was that Paul should, in and through the Gospel-message, preach Christ, who had been revealed to him in such a remarkable manner, to the Gentiles. It is probable that this miraculous communication, by which Paul learned to know Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of the world, came to him at the time when he spent three days in blindness, in solitary communion with himself. At this time God reinforced the knowledge which Paul had concerning the history of Jesus with a complete revelation of His person and office, thus giving to this chosen vessel the preparation which enabled him to go forth as a witness for, and a servant of, Christ.

The effect of the call on Paul was remarkable; he gave heed to it at once. He did not take time to discuss the weighty matter with flesh and blood, with any mere man, neither himself nor any other person; his answer was: Here am I, send me. Straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, Act 9:20. Since his call was direct and immediate, it was not necessary for him to make the journey up to Jerusalem, with the idea of getting the sanction of the apostles. Instead, without any further command and commission from Jerusalem, he made a journey to Arabia, in whose deserts he was shut off entirely from all intercourse with the brethren, but, on the other hand, had plenty of opportunity for solitary communion with God. At the close of this sojourn, of which we have no other information, Paul returned to Damascus, where he resumed his activities and was forced to flee from the city on account of the hatred of the Jews, Act 9:23-25; 2Co 11:32-33.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The apostle here, as he did before, Gal 1:1-2, asserts the divinity of the doctrine of the gospel which he had preached to them; and assures them likewise of his own lawful call to be an apostle, which was questioned by his adversaries, who affirmed, that he had received his doctrine only from others at the second-hand. To satisfy them in the divinity of his doctrine, he tells them, it was not after man; that is, it was not human, but divine; nothing belonging to man, but all from God in it: And as for his authority to preach it, he assures them, he had a revelation and commission from Jesus Christ so to do; he learned not his doctrine from any human teacher, nor undertook to preach it by any human authority, but from Christ’s immediate revelation.

Learn hence, it is a singular satisfaction to the ministers of Christ, and that which gives them boldness before their false accusers, when they can give good proof of their regular call to the work of the ministry, and of the divinity of the doctrine dispensed by them. Thus did St. Paul here: the gospel, says he, which I preach to you, and the mission I had so to preach it, was not after man, nor from man, nor by man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Where note, from Christ’s being so often opposed to man in these verses, and in the first verse, that he is not mere man, but God as well as man: why else doth the apostle oppose Christ to man so often as he doth here? Not of man, neither by man, nor after man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, who is God.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For I make known to you, brethren [Paul's affection will crop out], as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man .

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

11, 12. The gospel which was preached by me is not after to man. It is not preached to please man, nor is it of human origin.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul explains that he did not learn the gospel from others; he learned it from Jesus Christ.

brothers

See how you translated this in Galatians 1:2.

not man's gospel

By using this phrase, Paul was not trying to say that Jesus Christ is not himself human. Because Christ is both man and God, however, he is not a sinful human being. Paul is writing about where the gospel came from; that it did not come from other sinful human beings, but it came from Jesus Christ.

it was by revelation of Jesus Christ to me

Possible meanings are 1) "Jesus Christ himself revealed the gospel to me" or 2) "God made me know the gospel when he showed me who Jesus Christ was."

translationWords

brother

good news

preach

Jesus

reveal

Christ

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

11. γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν. The δέ of the Received Text and W.H. margin is perhaps taken from 1Co 15:1. γὰρ. I have suggested that a great change came over me; I say so for I will now tell you more fully of it and the nature of the Gospel entrusted then to me. The direct personal statement γνωρίζω (-ομεν) ὑμῖν is found only in the nearly contemporary letters 1Co 12:3; 1Co 15:1; 2Co 8:1, in each case introducing matter of grave importance.

ἀδελφοί. St Paul uses this appeal no less than nine times in this epistle. Its absence from “Eph.” Col. suggests that, besides meaning “brethren in Christ,” it had also the connotation of personal and individual acquaintance. Its frequency in Rom. is more an apparent than a real exception, in view of the number of his friends at Rome (c. 16). It is also not found in the Pastoral Epistles, for Timothy and Titus were rather his sons.

τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπʼ ἐμοῦ. Cf. Gal 2:2. The gospel for the preaching of which among them he himself had been responsible. For the form of the sentence cf. 1Th 2:1. He appears to mean not the historical facts (1Co 15:1), but the Gospel as it essentially is, including (but not confined to) the freedom of Gentile converts from the Law.

ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον. Not after the standard and measure of man. The phrase is stronger than κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τ. ἀνθρώπων Col 2:8, and even than διδασκαλίαι τῶν ἀνθρώπων Col 2:22. It is above man’s devising, to be received and handed on in its integrity, neither diminished nor increased. Compare Gal 3:15 note.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11. Γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, “For I declare to you, brethren.” The verb γνωρίζω suggests a somewhat formal or solemn assertion. Cf. 1Co 12:3, 1Co 12:15:1, 2Co 8:1, Eph 1:9, the similar expression οὐ θέλω ἀγνοεῖν in Rom 1:13, Rom 1:11:25, 1Co 10:1, 1Co 10:12:1, 2Co 1:8, 1Th 4:13, and M. and M. Voc. on γνωρίζω and γινώσκω. The assertion that follows is in effect the proposition to the proving of which the whole argument of 1:13-2:21 is directed. This relation of vv. 11, 12 to what follows remains the same whether we read δέ or γάρ. Only in the latter case the apostle (as in Rom 1:16) has attached his leading proposition to a preceding statement as a justification of it, not, however, of v. 10, which is itself a mere appendix to vv. 6-9 and almost parenthetical, but of the whole passage, vv. 6-9, as an expression of his surprise at their apostasy and his stern denunciation of those who are leading them astray. See a somewhat similar use of γάρ at the beginning of a new division of the argument in Rom 1:18; cf. also Rom 1:16, Rom 1:17. The word “brethren,” ἀδελφοί, doubtless here, as almost invariably in Paul’s epistles, signifies fellow-Christians. See more fully in fine print below, and on v. 2.

Γάρ after γνωρίζω is the reading of אaBD*FG 33 d f g Vg. Dam. Victorin. Hier. Aug.; δέ: א*ADb et c KLP, the major portion of the cursives. Syr. (psh. harcl. pal.) Boh. Orint. Chr. Euthal. Cyr. Thdrt. al. The preponderance of evidence for γάρ is very slight. Both readings must be very ancient. γάρ is the reading of the distinctively Western authorities, and δέ apparently of the Alexandrian text. But which in this case diverged from the original can not be decided by genealogical evidence. The group BDFG supporting γάρ, and that supporting δέ, viz., אAP al., each support readings well attested by internal evidence. See Introd., p. lxxx. The addition of 33 to the former group in this case somewhat strengthens it, and throws the balance of evidence slightly in favour of γάρ. Internal evidence gives no decided ground of preference for either against the other, and the question must apparently be left about as it is by WH., γάρ in the text as a little more probably right, δέ on the margin as almost equally well attested. If δέ is the true reading, it is probably resumptive in force (Th. s. v. 7; W. LIII. 7 b; Rob. p. 1185 init.), marking a return to the main thought of the superhuman authority of the gospel after the partial digression of v. 10.

Among the Jews it was customary to recognise as brethren all the members of a given family or tribe (Lev 25:25, Num 16:10), and indeed all members of the nation (Lev 19:17, Deu 1:16, Deu 1:2 Mal 1:1, Act 7:2, Rom 9:3). Papyri of the second century BC show that members of the same religious community were called ἀδελφοί. See M. and M. Voc. s. v. The habit of the Christians to call one another brethren may have been the product in part of both these older usages. In the Christian usage the basis of the relation is purely religious, family and national lines, as well as lines of merely personal friendship, being disregarded. Thus while the brethren mentioned in v. 2 were presumably Jews, those who are here addressed as brethren were Gentiles. Cf. also Act 15:23. According to the gospels Jesus had taught that they are his brethren who do God’s will, and they brethren to one another who unite in recognising Jesus himself as Master. Mar 3:31-34, Mat 23:8. In Paul the emphasis of the term is upon the fraternal, affectionate, mutually regardful attitude of Christians to one another (1Co 5:11, 6:1Co 5:5-8, 8:1Co 5:11-13, 15:58, 2Co 1:1, 2Co 2:13, Rom 14:10, Rom 14:13, Rom 14:15), though the suggestion of a common relationship to Christ and God is not wholly lacking (see Rom 8:16, Rom 8:17, Rom 8:29), and the use of it constitutes an appeal to all those relations of affection and fellowship which Christians sustain to one another by virtue of their common faith, and membership in one body (1Co 12:1ff.). On later Christian usage, see Harnack, Mission and Expansion of Christianity, 2 I 405 f.

τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπʼ ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον· “that the gospel that was preached by me is not according to man.” τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, logically the subject of ἔστιν, is, by a species of attraction common both in classical writers and N. T. (Jelf 898. 2; W. LXVI 5 a) introduced as the object of γνωρίζω. On the meaning of εὐαγγέλιον, see detached note, p. 422, and on εὐαγγελισθέν see on v. 8. On the use of the verb with an accusative of content, or in the passive with a subject denoting the gospel or its content, see vv. 16, 23, Luk 8:1, Luk 8:16:16, 1Co 15:1, 2Co 11:7. The aorist tense, εὐαγγελισθέν, is probably used in preference to the present because Paul has in mind at this moment the gospel not as that which he is wont to preach, or is now preaching, but as that which was preached by him to the Galatians. That the gospel preached by him is always the same is at once suggested, however, by the use of the present tense, ἔστιν. A converse use of aorist and present occurs with similar effect in 2:2, ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ κηρύσσω.

Κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, a phrase used by Greek writers from Aeschyl. down (see Wetst. on Rom 3:5), but in N. T. by Paul only, is of very general significance, the noun being neither on the one hand generic (which would require τὸν ἄνθρωπον) nor individually indefinite, “a man,” but merely qualitative. The preposition signifies “according to,” “agreeably to,” “according to the will or thought of,” or “after the manner of” (see it used similarly in the phrases κατὰ θεόν, Rom 8:27, 2Co 7:9, 2Co 7:11, κατὰ κύριον, 2Co 11:7, and κατὰ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, Rom 15:5), and the whole phrase means “human” or “humanly,” “from a human point of view,” “according to human will or thought”: Rom 3:5, 1Co 3:3, 1Co 9:8, 1Co 15:22, Gal 3:15. Respecting its precise force here there are three possibilities: (a) As in 1Co 9:8 it may signify “according to the thought of man,” i. e., of human authority; (b) under the influence of the idea of a message in εὐαγγέλιον it may mean “of human origin”; (c) it may convey simply the general idea “human” without more exact discrimination. There is no decisive ground of choice among these, but the last seems more consistent both with the usage of the phrase and with the context; notice that v. 12 covers both source and method of origin, and does not specifically mention authority. The suggestion of Bous. (SNT.) that it means “self-originated,” “eigene Phantasie,” is not sustained by usage, and is excluded by the next two clauses, οὐδέ … ἐδιδάχθην, in which it is in effect defined.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I certify [γνωριζω] . Or, I make known. Certify, even in older English, is to assure or attest, which is too strong for gnwrizein to make known or declare. This, which in the New Testament is the universal meaning of gnwrizein, and the prevailing sense in LXX, is extremely rare in Class., where the usual sense is to become acquainted with. For the formula see on 1Th 4:13.

After man [κατα ανθρωπον] . According to any human standard. The phrase only in Paul. See Rom 3:5; 1Co 3:3; 1Co 9:8; 1Co 14:32. Kata ajnqrwpouv according to men, 1Pe 4:6.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.