{"id":29013,"date":"2022-09-24T13:04:32","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T18:04:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-galatians-111\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T13:04:32","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T18:04:32","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-galatians-111","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-galatians-111\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 1:11"},"content":{"rendered":"

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

11, 12<\/strong>. A statement of St Paul’s claims, followed by a sketch of his life<\/em>.<\/p>\n

11<\/strong>. But I certify<\/em> ] Now I declare to you<\/strong>. The same verb is used in 1Co 15:1<\/span> to introduce an emphatic statement.<\/p>\n

not after man<\/em> ] 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.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

But I certify you – <\/B>I make known to you; or, I declare to you; see 1Co 15:1<\/span>. 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.<\/P>

Is not after man – <\/B>The Greek text: Not according to man; see Gal 1:1<\/span>. 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.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 1:11-12<\/span><\/p>\n

That the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The inspiration of St. Paul<\/strong><\/p>\n

The <\/em>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.<\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>Nor through human instruction. Not merely conviction arrived at by self-study of others opinions.<\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>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.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The nature of revelation<\/strong><\/p>\n

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 <\/strong>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.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The gospel no work of man<\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. <\/em><\/strong>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.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>As a word of comfort, only through Him can we commit ourselves to it.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>As a word of power, in which there should be no change, from which no departure. (J. P. Lange, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

A solemn avowal concerning the gospel<\/strong><\/p>\n


I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>The <\/em>gospel that Paul preached. The purport of his ministry and the faith he proclaimed are given in Act 26:22-23<\/span>.<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>The gospel which Paul preached was not of man.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>Pauls gospel was not communicated by man. I neither received it of man.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>The gospel which Paul preached was not explained to him by man. Neither was I taught it.<\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>The gospel that Paul preached was revealed to him.<\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>Pauls testimony in relation to the gospel was delivered with great impressiveness and solemnity. I declare unto you, brethren. Lessons:<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>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.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>The gospel being a revelation, should be received with reverent trust. (Richard Nicholls.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

I certify you<\/strong><\/p>\n

Observe–<\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>That men may be certified that the gospel is not of man but of God, by–<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>The evidences of Gods Spirit imprinted on and expressed in it.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>The testimony of its promulgators who were neither knaves nor fools.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>The assurance of obedience and experience (Joh 7:17<\/span>).<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>That Christ is the great teacher of this gospel.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>He is the Revealer of the will of the Father touching the redemption of mankind (Joh 1:18<\/span>; Joh 8:26<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>He calls and sends the preachers of this gospel (Joh 20:21<\/span>; Eph 4:11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>He gives the Spirit who illuminates the mind and guides into all truth.<\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>That Christ teaches the teachers of this gospel.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>By immediate revelation,<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>By ordinary instruction in the schools.<\/p>\n


IV. <\/strong>That those who are teachers must be first taught, and must then teach what they have learned. (2Ti 3:14<\/span>). (W. Perkins.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Preaching the gospel<\/strong><\/p>\n

To <\/em>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.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The inspiration of St. Paul<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Certification of Divine revelation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Can a revelation be certified? The answer may be divided into three parts.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>The method of the revelation, by individual men, and by writings handed down from age to age, is not unreasonable.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>The anterior probability of such a revelation as is given in Scripture is undoubtedly strong.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>The test of time being applied to the revelation actually given, sufficiently approves the Divine authority which is claimed for it. (R. A. Redford.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Divine revelation from above<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>It occupies a higher region than that which is physical, mental, or moral.<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>It comes down upon the intellect, not out of it.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>It is sublimely authoritative.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>By the side of it the most advanced knowledge is halting and immature.<\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>Paul insisted on his apostleship because this revelation was committed to him. (S. Pearson, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

It is an historical fact that human nature is always below revelation<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Revelation by Christ<\/strong><\/p>\n

Revelation <\/em>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<\/span>; Rev 1:1<\/span>; Rev 5:9<\/span>). Whereas Inspiration <\/em>is usually connected with the Holy Spirit (2Pe 1:21<\/span>; Act 1:16<\/span>; Heb 7:8<\/span>). But Luk 2:26<\/span> 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.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 11. But I certify you, brethren<\/B><\/I>, 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.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

He calls them brethren, <\/B>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<\/span>; Joh 15:15<\/span>; 17:26<\/span>), 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 <\/P>

is not after man.<\/B> He fully openeth his own meaning in this phrase, in the next words. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11. certify<\/B>I made known toyou as to the Gospel which was preached by me, that it is not afterman, that is, not of, by,<\/I> or from<\/I> man (Gal 1:1<\/span>;Gal 1:12<\/span>). It is not according<\/I>to man; not influenced by mere human considerations, as it would be,if it were of human origin. <\/P>

brethren<\/B>He not tillnow calls them so.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

But I certify you, brethren<\/strong>,…. 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,<\/p>\n

that the Gospel which was preached of me, is not after man<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Which was preached <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Play on the word <\/SPAN><\/span> by first aorist passive participle of <\/SPAN><\/span>, “the gospel which was gospelized by me.”<\/P>

It is not after man <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Not after a human standard and so he does not try to conform to the human ideal. Paul alone (1Cor 3:3<\/span>; 1Cor 9:8<\/span>; 1Cor 15:32<\/span>; Rom 3:15<\/span>) in the N.T. uses this old and common idiom. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

I certify [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. 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<\/span>. <\/P>

After man [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. According to any human standard. The phrase only in Paul. See Rom 3:5<\/span>; 1Co 3:3<\/span>; 1Co 9:8<\/span>; 1Co 14:32<\/span>. Kata ajnqrwpouv according to men, 1Pe 4:6<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) “But I certify you, brethren,”<\/strong> (gnorizo gar humin, adelphoi) “For I make known to you all, brethren,” of a certainty, as a legal, testamentary affirmation of fact and truth, a reminder of what he had preached to them – not merely making known to them.<\/p>\n

2) “That the gospel which was preached of me,”<\/strong> (to euangelion to euangelisthen hup’ emou hoti) “That the gospel preached by me,” which was the gospel of Jesus Christ, even of God, Rom 1:16<\/span>; Rom 2:16<\/span>; Rom 15:16<\/span>; and of truth, Gal 2:14<\/span>.<\/p>\n

3) “Is not after man,”<\/strong> (ouk estin kata anthropon) “Is not according to man,” the order of things done by natural man, or received from a council of man; 1Co 15:1-4<\/span>; but by revelation of Jesus Christ, as Gen 12:1-3<\/span>; Gal 2:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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, (26) 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. (27) <\/p>\n

(26) “ Qu’il ne parle point d’une chose incertaine ou incognue.” “That he does not speak about a thing uncertain or unknown.” <\/p>\n

(27) “The idiom by which there is a transposition of ὅτι is frequent, and may here, Schott thinks, have been made use of, in order to place a highly important topic in the most prominent point of view” — Bloomfield. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

B. PAULS GOSPEL AND APOSTLESHIP DIVINELY DERIVED. 1:1124
1. The divine source of his gospel. 1:11, 12
TEXT 1:11, 12<\/strong><\/p>\n

(11) For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. (12) For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.<\/strong><\/p>\n

PARAPHRASE 1:11, 12<\/strong><\/p>\n

11 Now, because my doctrine hath been disregarded, on pretence that I was taught it by men, I assure you, brethren, concerning justification by faith, which was preached by me, that it is not a doctrine which I was taught by man, and which I was in danger of mistaking.
12 For I neither received it from Ananias, nor from any of the apostles at Jerusalem, nor was I taught it any how, except by a revelation from Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

COMMENT 1:11<\/strong><\/p>\n

not after man<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

All instruction he received from men was for his own salvation.<\/p>\n

a.<\/p>\n

Rise and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. Act. 9:6<\/span><\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

As God used human instrumentality for a divine message, so Paul had a divine message for men, but not from men.<\/p>\n

COMMENT 1:12<\/strong><\/p>\n

nor was I taught it<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

He didnt have any entrance or final examinations from men.<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

It was not received from the mouths or books of men.<\/p>\n

it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

Just when Paul received this revelation is uncertain.<\/p>\n

a.<\/p>\n

It could have been on the road to Damascus, for he started preaching at oncestraightway. Act. 9:20<\/span><\/p>\n

b.<\/p>\n

Perhaps it was during his sojourn in Arabia. Gal. 1:17<\/span><\/p>\n

c.<\/p>\n

It might have been each time he needed it, for Jesus had promised revelation to His apostles.<\/p>\n

1)<\/p>\n

He shall guide you into all truth. Joh. 16:13<\/span><\/p>\n

2)<\/p>\n

The Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very hour. <\/span>Luk. 12:12<\/span><\/p>\n

3)<\/p>\n

For no prophesy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God being moved by the Holy Spirit. 2Pe. 1:21<\/span><\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

The subject matter of his revelation Paul makes clear to us.<\/p>\n

THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST 1:11, 12<\/strong><\/p>\n

The true prophet says humbly, To me, a sinful man, God spoke, The scribes and the Pharisees declare, When we speak, God agrees.<\/p>\n

Paul either spoke the truth when he said that this message was from God or he was a liar. It is not possible to believe that a liar could produce most of the New Testament letters.
False teachers undermined Pauls truth that men are justified by faith by trying to destroy his apostleship. I prefer to believe that justification is a judicial act. It takes place in heaven. It is a pronouncement of the divine mind. It cannot be earned, purchased, or procured by works. It is solely the gift of grace, and having been accorded, it is not subject to reversal by virtue of additional testimony from an outside party. Justification takes into account all the factors, and the case will not be re-opened. In Christ I am free. I am safe. I am made to be guiltless by divine fiat.<\/p>\n

STUDY QUESTIONS 1:1012<\/strong><\/p>\n

65.<\/p>\n

Whose favor did Paul seek?<\/p>\n

66.<\/p>\n

Whose favor does the false teacher seek?<\/p>\n

67.<\/p>\n

Why do men teach false doctrine according to Tit. 1:11<\/span>?<\/p>\n

68.<\/p>\n

Give the source for Pauls message.<\/p>\n

69.<\/p>\n

Why did Paul need to emphasize this?<\/p>\n

70.<\/p>\n

Do people doubt his inspiration today?<\/p>\n

71.<\/p>\n

Have you evidence that men denounce the apostles in their writing today?<\/p>\n

72.<\/p>\n

How did Paul get his message?<\/p>\n

73.<\/p>\n

When did it come to him?<\/p>\n

74.<\/p>\n

Did it need to come all at once?<\/p>\n

75.<\/p>\n

Were the other apostles taught all the truth at one time by Jesus?<\/p>\n

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(11, et seq.<\/em>) 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<\/em>) I did not learn it in my youthvery much the contrary (Gal. 1:13-14<\/span>); (b<\/em>) 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<\/span>); (c<\/em>) 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<\/span>); (d<\/em>) 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<\/span>); (e<\/em>) Nay, I openly rebuked Peter for seeming to withdraw the support he had accorded to me (Gal. 2:11-14<\/span>); (f<\/em>) the law is dead, and the life which the Christian has he draws solely from Christ (Gal. 2:15-21<\/span>).<\/p>\n

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

Certify.<\/strong>The word which is thus translated is the same as that which is translated declare in 1Co. 15:1<\/span>; give you to understand, in 1Co. 12:3<\/span>; and do you to wit, in 2Co. 8:1<\/span>. It is used to introduce a statement made with emphasis and solemnity.<\/p>\n

After man.<\/strong>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<\/em>to be judged by human measure, and therefore human in all respects, in its nature and origin.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2<\/strong>. Paul’s gospel borrowed from no apostle<\/strong>, Gal 1:11-24<\/span>.<\/p>\n

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<\/span>; upon his conversion he visited not Jerusalem he saw no apostle for three years, Gal 1:16-17<\/span>; he then visited Peter at Jerusalem, and saw James alone besides, Gal 1:18-20<\/span>; thence departing to Syria he had no acquaintance at all with the Judean Churches, Gal 1:21-24<\/span>. His gospel, then, not being received from the apostles, if it coincided with the apostolic gospel was all the more certainly true.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11<\/strong>. <\/strong> 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 <\/em> gospel. So far as man was concerned, he was original. His <\/em> original was Christ. <\/p>\n

Certify<\/strong> Literally, make known, <\/em> cause you to know, assure you. <\/p>\n

After man<\/strong> So that man could frame it. It is not such as man would or could have framed.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Paul Received His Knowledge and Understanding of God’s Ways from God Himself, Not From Human Mouths ( Gal 1:11-17<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ).<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

‘For I make known to you, brothers, as touching the Gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.’<\/p>\n

Paul stresses the special revelation that he received. It is not something that he has learned from others. It came direct from God. It was revealed to him by Jesus Christ. It was not man made, but God-made. Others have learned what they have learned from men, but he had received what he taught directly from the Prime Source, the risen Christ.<\/p>\n

‘Through revelation of Jesus Christ.’ He first received this revelation very vividly on the road to Damascus when the risen Christ appeared to him (Acts 9<\/span>). The appearance of the risen Christ had given new meaning to all that he had previously known and learned about Jesus, and that must have been a considerable amount, even if received in slightly distorted fashion, given the circumstances that he had been an direct opponent of the Gospel and had put many Christians to questioning and torture. But then he had had further vivid experiences with God, experiences which were beyond the norm. See for example 2Co 12:2-4<\/span> which was almost certainly biographical. And through those experiences the truth was made known to him when he was alone with God. We may possibly compare how God spoke with Moses face to face as a man speaks with his friend (Exo 33:11<\/span>), although Paul may well have received his revelation through thoughts in his inward mind.<\/p>\n

And if they wish to they can confirm this themselves by considering his past.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Paul Declares His Credentials and States His Case ( Gal 1:11<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> – Gal 2:21<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ).<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Paul will now make clear to them what his credentials are. If they ask, why should they listen to him, he will now tell them. And he will then make clear exactly what his message is.<\/p>\n

Paul States His Credentials ( Gal 1:11<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> to Gal 2:10<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ).<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Paul now makes clear the grounds on which he considers that he has a right to be listened to. It is because:<\/p>\n

a) What he preaches is what he received by revelation from God Himself, even though he had himself previously been a zealous teacher of the Law (Gal 1:11-17<\/span>).<\/p>\n

b) Three years later he met with Peter only, and also met James the Lord’s brother when he went to Jerusalem for this purpose. He had no contact with the churches of Judea, although the latter rejoiced in his conversion. Thus what he taught was not something that he had learned from the latter (Gal 1:18-24<\/span>, compare Act 9:26-30<\/span>).<\/p>\n

c) Fourteen years later, (this may include the three years) in response to a revelation from God, he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus to set his teaching privately before ‘those who appeared to be leaders’ i.e. Peter, James, the brother of the Lord, and John (Gal 2:9<\/span>). And they had then agreed that circumcision was not necessary for non-Jews, and they could add nothing to what he preached. They had recognised that just as Peter had been given a ministry to the Jews, he and Barnabas had been given a ministry to the non-Jews. They had accepted him in full accord, and the only request that they had made was that he remember the needs of the poor, which was something he himself was already keen on. (Gal 1:24<\/span> – Gal 2:10<\/span> compare probably Act 11:26-30<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Thus he is stressing that what he taught was from God Himself, while at the same time being confirmed by his discussions with the chief Apostles. This was important. It demonstrated that he was not a maverick, but a teacher of the truth as taught by the twelve Apostles. Yet at the same time it emphasised that he taught it as a message that he had obtained, not from them, but from God. He was himself a source of God’s revelation. So the fact that the Apostles were satisfied that he taught what they taught demonstrated that it was the same Spirit Who had spoken to both them and him.<\/p>\n

But what was his purpose in this? it was clearly a) To demonstrate that what he taught was what he had from God and not from others. b) That he did not have continual contact with the church in Jerusalem and Judea, or with the Apostolic group as a whole, and indeed that he had had little contact with them, apart from a few days with Peter, over a fairly long period. c). That in the end what he preached paralleled what the Apostles preached and that they recognised the truth of what he taught and sealed it with the right hand of partnership.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Paul’s Conversion and Gospel Came by Divine Revelation (His Justification) <\/strong> In Gal 1:11-24<\/span> Paul places emphasis upon the fact that his conversion and justification through Jesus Christ came by divine revelation apart from any influence from the apostles at Jerusalem. He takes the time to explain how little contact he made with the apostles during his early years of ministry. He tells them about his conversion and explains how he received the Gospel directly by revelation alone (Gal 1:11-24<\/span>). Such a divine calling and impartation would place Paul on an equal footing with the other apostles. Paul discusses his extraordinary conversion experience and subsequent experiences after having come out of Judaism (Gal 1:11-17<\/span>), then his first, but brief, visit to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18-19<\/span>), and finally his zeal for the Gospel (Gal 1:21-24<\/span>). In the next passage Paul will follow this argument by explaining how the apostles in Jerusalem have confirmed the accuracy of his Gospel (Gal 2:1-10<\/span>). We can imagine that Paul’s adversaries, the Judaizers, were saying that Paul’s Gospel was incomplete, or that Paul lacked the authority to deliver his message to the Galatians. Thus, Paul was dealing with both accusations. We can read much more details about Paul’s conversion in Act 9:1-19<\/span>; Act 22:6-16<\/span>; Act 26:12-18<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:11-12<\/strong><\/span> Paul’s Divine Commission <\/strong> <\/em> In Gal 1:11-12<\/span> Paul states that he received a divine commission and instruction by direct revelation from Jesus Christ, something which no other apostle or person in the New Testament could declare. However, the twelve apostles of the Lamb also receive their commission directly from Jesus Christ while He was alive on earth prior to His Passion and Ascension. <\/p>\n

Scripture References – <\/em><\/strong> Note similar verses where Paul states that he received the Gospel of Jesus Christ by divine revelation:<\/p>\n

Gal 1:1<\/span>, “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)”<\/p>\n

Act 20:24<\/span>, “But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus , to testify the gospel of the grace of God.”<\/p>\n

Gal 1:11<\/strong><\/span>  But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:11<\/span><\/strong> Word Study on “certify” <\/em><\/strong> Strong <\/em> says the Greek word ( ) (G1107<\/span>) Or “to make known, to know.”<\/p>\n

Gal 1:12<\/strong><\/span>  For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:12<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “neither was I taught it” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Neither was Paul taught the Gospel, with the implied “by man” which is carried from the previous statement.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:12<\/strong><\/span> “but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” –<\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The revelation of the mystery was salvation by faith in Jesus Christ to all nations:<\/p>\n

Act 26:23<\/span>, “That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.”<\/p>\n

Rom 16:25<\/span>, “Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:”<\/p>\n

Col 1:27<\/span>, “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory :”<\/p>\n

Eph 3:3-12<\/span> – The mystery of the Gentiles as fellowheirs.<\/p>\n

Eph 3:3<\/span>, “How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,”<\/p>\n

Gal 1:13-14<\/strong><\/span> Paul’s Former Life in Judaism – <\/strong> Few people knew the emptiness of the Jewish religion like Paul the apostle. As a Pharisee, he had experiences the depths of its ceremonies and pursuits for righteousness. He had now totally abandoned this religion, never to return and had replaced this religion with a deep and living relationship with the true God of the Jewish faith. The emphasis of these two verses is Paul’s zeal for his religion, even to the point of persecuting the Church.<\/p>\n

It was necessary in some parts of Paul’s epistles to describe the Jewish religion from a positive light, as a people to whom were committed the oracles of God (Rom 3:1-2<\/span>), and as the people of the covenants of promise (Eph 2:11-12<\/span>). Now in Gal 1:13-14<\/span> Paul has to reveal the negative aspect of the Jewish religion, as one of “traditions” motivated by zeal, rather than out of godly devotion.<\/p>\n

Rom 3:1-2<\/span>, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”<\/p>\n

Eph 2:11-12<\/span>, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:”<\/p>\n

Gal 1:13<\/strong><\/span>  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:<\/p>\n

Gal 1:13<\/span><\/strong> “how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it”<\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Paul had a great zeal for persecuting God’s Church. Note other references to Paul’s zeal.<\/p>\n

Act 8:3<\/span>, “As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.”<\/p>\n

1Co 15:9<\/span>, “For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” <\/p>\n

1Ti 1:12-13<\/span>, “And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.”<\/p>\n

Php 3:6<\/span>, “Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.”<\/p>\n

Gal 1:14<\/strong><\/span>  And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:14<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <\/strong> Word Study on “profited” <\/em><\/strong> Strong <\/em> says the Greek word “profited” ( ) (G4982<\/span>) literally means, “to drive forward,” and figuratively, “to advance.” This same Greek word is used in Luk 2:52<\/span>, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”<\/p>\n

Gal 1:14<\/strong><\/span> “And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Judaism had established a system of rewards and promotions. Thus, Paul is saying by this statement that he was advancing in this religion according to man’s standards and not by God’s standards of success.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:14<\/strong><\/span> “being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Paul uses the words “zealous” and “traditions” rather than “devotion” and “divine ordinances” because he is having to bring out the negative side of the Jewish religion to his Galatian readers; for these churches were being side-tracked from the purity of the Gospel into man-made traditions by zealous Jewish converts whose motive was not pure.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:14<\/strong><\/span> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Paul also had a zeal for the tradition of the fathers of Israel.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:15-16<\/strong><\/span> Paul’s Conversion (A.D. 36) (The Foreknowledge of God the Father) <\/strong> Within the first section of Paul’s spiritual journey in which he explains his conversion and justification through faith in Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11-24<\/span>) he refers to a previous event of how God the Father separated him from his mother’s womb, and called him by His grace to reveal His Son to him so that he might preach Christ among the heathen (Gal 1:15-16<\/span>). Within the context of Gal 1:11<\/span> to Gal 2:21<\/span>, in which Paul is placing emphasis upon his divine calling, he explains his conversion and calling as a matter of divine providence, an event that God had planned before Paul’s birth. Thus, the emphasis in these two verses is God’s divine providence in his conversion.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:15<\/strong><\/span>  But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,<\/p>\n

Gal 1:15<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “But when it pleased God” – <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The apostles of the Lamb became so familiar with Jesus during His earthly ministry that they had difficulty understanding His heavenly ministry. Paul, however, only knew Jesus as the resurrected Lord and Saviour, from a heavenly perspective, so that he was able to better perceive and understand Christ Jesus’ work of redemption as we read in the Pauline epistles. Perhaps for this reason it was necessary for God to raise up Paul the apostle in due season, or when it pleased Him, after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, to whom He would impart the understanding of the doctrines of the New Testament Church.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:15<\/strong><\/span> “who separated me from my mother’s womb” <\/strong> – Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Note other people in the Scriptures who were separated to God from birth:<\/p>\n

David:<\/p>\n

Psa 22:10<\/span>, “ I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly .”<\/p>\n

Isaiah:<\/p>\n

Isa 49:1<\/span>, “Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name .”<\/p>\n

Isa 49:5<\/span>, “And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant , to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.”<\/p>\n

Jeremiah:<\/p>\n

Jer 1:5<\/span>, “ Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee , and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.”<\/p>\n

Why was Paul separated for the Gospel?<\/p>\n

Act 9:15<\/span>, “But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me , to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:”<\/p>\n

Rom 1:1<\/span>, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an <\/p>\n

apostle, separated unto the gospel of God ,”<\/p>\n

1Ti 1:14-16<\/span>, “And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting .”<\/p>\n

Gal 1:15<\/strong><\/span> “and called me by his grace”-<\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> This calling came by the sovereignty and grace of God in Paul’s life (1Ti 1:14-16<\/span>).<\/p>\n

1Ti 1:14-16<\/span>, “And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting .”<\/p>\n

Gal 1:16<\/strong><\/span>  To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:<\/p>\n

Gal 1:16<\/span><\/strong> “To reveal his Son in me”<\/strong> – Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The purpose of God’s work in Paul’s life and in ours is that others might see Jesus in us.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:16<\/strong><\/span> “I conferred not with flesh and blood” –<\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Note a similar use of this phrase in Mat 16:17<\/span>, “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”<\/p>\n

Gal 1:17<\/strong><\/span> Paul’s Stay in Damascus (A.D. 37-39) (17a) and Trip to Arabia (A.D. 36) (17b) – <\/strong> The book of Acts records Paul’s ministry during his first three years in Damascus (Act 9:19-25<\/span>). Scholars date Paul’s stay in Damascus around A.D. 37-39. How long he spent in Arabia is not known. After his return from this region, we are told that Paul preached Christ in the synagogues of Damascus. He continued this until the Jews plotted to kill him, whereby the disciples helped him escape over the city walls by night and Paul fled to Jerusalem. It was there that Barnabas stood with Paul and introduced him to the Church at Jerusalem. See find details to this story in Act 9:19-25<\/span>.<\/p>\n

It is very common for the Lord to pull young Christians aside for periods of solitude. It is during these times that God teaches His children in order to prepare them for the work that He has called them to. Paul’s time in Arabia was not wasted time, but a time for the Lord to teach him the ways of God. It is very likely that Mount Sinai is located in Arabia and that this is the sacred site that Paul visited on this journey. <\/p>\n

The Need for Solitude – <\/em><\/strong> Note these insightful words from Frances J. Roberts regarding Paul’s visit to Arabia:<\/p>\n

“O My beloved, ye do not need to make your path (like a snow plow), for lo, I say unto thee, I go before you. Yea, I shall engineer circumstances on thy behalf. I am thy husband, and I will protect thee and care for thee, and make full provision for thee. I know thy need, and I am concerned for thee: for thy peace, for thy health, for thy strength. I cannot use a tired body, and ye need to take time to renew thine energies, both spiritual and physical. I am the God of Battle, but I am also the One who said: They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength. And Jesus said, Come ye apart and rest a little while.<\/p>\n

“I will teach you, even as I taught Moses on the back side of the desert, and as I taught Paul in Arabia . So will I teach you. Thus it shall be a constructive period, and not in any sense wasted time. But as the summer course to the schoolteacher, it is vital to thee in order that ye be fully qualified for your ministry.<\/p>\n

“There is no virtue in activity as such neither in inactivity. I minister to thee in solitude that ye may minister of Me to others as a spontaneous overflow of our communion. Never labor to serve, nor force opportunities. Set thy heart to be at peace and to sit at My feet. Learn to be ready, but not to be anxious. Learn to say ‘no’ to the demands of men and to say ‘yes’ to the call of the Spirit…Come away, My beloved, and be as the doe upon the mountains; yea, we shall go down together to the gardens.” [79]<\/p>\n

[79] Frances J. Roberts, Come Away My Beloved<\/em> (Ojai, California: King’s Farspan, Inc., 1973), 145-6.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:17<\/strong><\/span>  Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:17<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> In his book He Gave Gifts Unto Men<\/em> Kenneth Hagin tells of a conversation that he had with Jesus Christ in one of his visions. [80] The Lord explained to him that there are four levels of apostles. Jesus Christ stood in the first level of an apostle with an anointing that no man has walked in. The second level of apostles was the twelve apostles of the Lamb. This unique class of apostles accompanied Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry and became eyewitnesses of His glory to the nations. This level of apostles laid the foundation of the New Testament writings. The third level of apostles was men like Paul who helped lay the final foundational writings in the New Testament. The fourth level of apostles is those who followed in the next generation. In light of this insight, it is interesting to note how Paul refers to the apostles of the Lamb in Gal 1:17<\/span> as “them which were apostles before me” as if he understood that they walked in a higher level. <\/p>\n

[80] Kenneth Hagin, He Gave Gifts Unto Men: A Biblical Perspective of Apostles, Prophets, and Pastors <\/em> (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Faith Library Publications, c1992, 1993), 1-40.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:17<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments (1) – <\/em><\/strong> Paul’s emphasis away from the church in Jerusalem and upon his time of separation from the apostles in Gal 1:17<\/span> may have been necessary because the troublesome Judaizers mentioned in Galatians could have based their authority and doctrine upon the mother church in Jerusalem. We know that they were preaching in the name of Christ, but with a clear emphasis on the need of circumcision and perhaps other Jewish traditions. Thus, Paul feels compelled to make a clear distinction to the Galatians between the liberties of the Gospel of Christ Jesus and Judaism. <\/p>\n

Gal 1:17<\/strong><\/span> Comments (2) – <\/em><\/strong> Jesus Christ definitely appeared to Paul again after his Damascus road experience, and very likely divine visions took place during these early times of solitude:<\/p>\n

Act 26:16<\/span>, “But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee ;”<\/p>\n

Gal 1:18-19<\/strong><\/span> Paul’s First Visit to Jerusalem (A.D. 39) – <\/strong> Many scholars date Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem around A.D. 39, having been converted on the road to Damascus about A.D. 36. The emphasis in these two verses is the fact that Paul did not receive revelation about the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the apostles.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:18<\/strong><\/span>  Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. <\/p>\n

Gal 1:19<\/strong><\/span><\/strong>  But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. <\/p>\n

Gal 1:19<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “save James the Lord’s brother” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Now James the Lord’s brother was the first pastor of the church in Jerusalem according to early church tradition. This is supported by his words of authority at the first church council held in Jerusalem in Acts 15<\/span>. (This would also make James the first person to hold the office of a pastor in the early church.) So it is very possible that Peter took Paul to his pastor and introduced him. We know that James would have certainly heard about Saul the persecutor of the church. But this meeting would have served to establish Paul’s acceptance by the church in Jerusalem and therefore by any church. In fact, this would have given Paul the credentials to move into the regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21<\/span>) and preach the Gospel with the church of Jerusalem giving him their stamp of approval.<\/p>\n

Paul will make a reference to his second visit to Jerusalem in Gal 2:1-2<\/span> which served to confirm the fact that he was preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ accurately and without error and to reconfirm that the church at Jerusalem continued their approval of his ministry.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:20<\/strong><\/span> Paul Pauses to Confirm His Testimony <\/strong> In Gal 1:20<\/span> Paul inserts a comment to confirm the testimony of his conversion.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:20<\/strong><\/span>  Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. <\/p>\n

Gal 1:21-24<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> Paul’s Stay in Syria (A.D. 39-43) – <\/strong> The book of Acts records Paul’s flight to Syria and Tarsus (Act 9:30-31<\/span>). Paul had been preaching the Gospel in Jerusalem and disputing with the Grecians. When they plotted to kill him, the disciples sent him forth to Tarsus via Caesarea. Scholars date Paul’s stay in Syria around A.D. 39-43, approximately 4-5 years.<\/p>\n

Act 9:28-31<\/span>, “And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him. Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus. Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.”<\/p>\n

Gal 1:21<\/strong><\/span>  Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; <\/p>\n

Gal 1:22<\/strong><\/span><\/strong>  And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: <\/p>\n

Gal 1:23<\/strong><\/span><\/strong>  But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. <\/p>\n

Gal 1:23<\/span><\/strong> Comments –<\/em><\/strong> Paul was then preaching in the regions of Syria and Cilicia (verse 21), because he was not known visually (by face) to the churches in Judea. Paul did this for 14 years. Some might say that these are Paul’s quiet years. However, he did preach, although we do not know where he traveled to preach during these years.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:24<\/strong><\/span>  And they glorified God in me.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:24<\/span><\/strong> Comments –<\/em><\/strong> A good illustration of how people glorify God in this manner can be found in Mat 5:6<\/span>. The praise certainly could not go to Paul, or any man, because it was his evident that God Himself had done this miraculous work in Paul’s life. Hence, they say “this is from the Lord; It is marvelous in our eyes” (Psa 118:23<\/span>), or “see what great things the Lord has done in our midst.” That is, to convert and use this man Saul who once persecuted us.<\/p>\n

Mat 5:16<\/span>, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.”<\/p>\n

Psa 118:23<\/span>, “This is the LORD’S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.”<\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Defense of Paul’s Divine Calling as an Apostle to the Gentiles – <\/strong> Paul opens this epistle to the churches of Galatia by stating that his divine calling was not orchestrated by man, but was entirely brought about by God’s divine interventions in his life. He now explains his opening statement at length by defending his apostleship in Gal 1:11<\/span> to Gal 2:21<\/span>. It is important to note that much of the material in this passage regarding Paul’s life is not found in any other place in the New Testament. We can divide this story into several sections. After rebuking the Galatians for their double-minded faith (Gal 1:6-10<\/span>) Paul then gives an account of his personal testimony as a witness of the truth of the freedom of the Gospel that he received by revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11<\/span> to Gal 2:21<\/span>). This testimony is a summary of Paul’s spiritual journey in light of the office and ministry of Jesus Christ setting him free from the bondages of this world. Paul could have told the churches of Galatia many other stories of his life and ministry. However, Paul picked out the key events that verified the authenticity of his apostleship, which were his supernatural conversion, his two visits to Jerusalem that sealed him as an apostle to the Gentiles and his zeal for the Gospel. <\/p>\n

Outline <\/em> Here is a proposed outline of Gal 1:11<\/span> to Gal 2:21<\/span>:<\/p>\n

1. Paul’s Conversion & Gospel by Divine Revelation Gal 1:11-24<\/span><\/p>\n

a. Paul’s Divine Commission Gal 1:11-12<\/span><\/p>\n

b. Paul’s Former Life in Judaism Gal 1:13-14<\/span><\/p>\n

c. Paul’s Conversion (A.D. 36) Gal 1:15-16<\/span><\/p>\n

d. Paul’s Stay in Damascus (A.D. 37-39) Gal 1:17<\/span><\/p>\n

e. Paul’s First Visit to Jerusalem (A.D. 39) Gal 1:18-19<\/span><\/p>\n

f. Paul Pauses to Confirm His Testimony Gal 1:20<\/span><\/p>\n

g. Paul’s Stay in Syria (A.D. 39-43) Gal 1:21-24<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Paul’s Gospel Approved by Church at Jerusalem Gal 2:1-6<\/span><\/p>\n

3. Paul’s Calling Approved by Church at Jerusalem Gal 2:7-10<\/span><\/p>\n

4. Paul’s Steadfastness to the Gospel Gal 2:11-21<\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Paul Protests His Apostolic Commission. <\/strong><\/p>\n

He has his Gospel by direct revelation of Jesus Christ:<\/p>\n

v. 11<\/strong>. But I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man.<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 12<\/strong>. For in either received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 13<\/strong>. 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,<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 14<\/strong>. and profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 15<\/strong>. but when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace,<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 16<\/strong>. to reveal His Son in me that I might preach Him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood,<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 17<\/strong>. neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus.<\/p>\n

<\/strong> 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<\/span>, 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.<\/p>\n

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<\/span>; Act 8:1-40<\/span>; Act 9:1-43<\/span>. 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<\/span>, 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.)<\/p>\n

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<\/span>. 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.<\/p>\n

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<\/span>. 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<\/span>; 2Co 11:32-33<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 1:11<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>The gospel which was preached of me<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> This being spoken indefinitely, must be understood “in generalevery where,” and so gives us the import of the foregoing verse. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 1:11-12<\/span> . [23] Theme of the apologetic portion of the epistle<\/em> . See Introd<\/em> . sec. 2.<\/p>\n

] carrying on the discourse. The way having been prepared<\/em> for this theme in Gal 1:8-10<\/span> , it is now formally announced<\/em> for further discussion. [24] And after the impassioned outburst in Gal 1:6-10<\/span> , the language becomes composed and calm. Now therefore, for the first time, we find the address .<\/p>\n

] but<\/em> (now to enter more particularly on the subject of my letter) I make known to you<\/em> . This announcement has a certain solemnity (comp. 1Co 15:1<\/span> ; 2Co 8:1<\/span> ; 1Co 12:3<\/span> ), 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 , which neither here nor in 1Co 15:1<\/span> means monere vos volo<\/em> or the like (Morus, Rosenmller, and others).<\/p>\n

] attraction, Winer, p. 581 f. [E. T. 781 f.]<\/p>\n

] which has been announced by me<\/em> , among you and among others (comp. , Gal 2:2<\/span> ); not to be limited to the conversion of the readers<\/em> only.<\/p>\n

] cannot indicate the mode of announcement<\/em> , which would require us to conceive as repeated (Hofmann). Necessarily belonging to , it is the negative modal expression of the gospel itself<\/em> which was preached by Paul; specifying, however, not its origin<\/em> (Augustine, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others), which in itself never expresses (Fritzsche, ad Matth<\/em> . p. 3), but its qualitative relation<\/em> , although this is conditioned<\/em> by its origin (Gal 1:12<\/span> ). The gospel announced by me is not according to men<\/em> , that is, not of such quality as it would be if it were the work of men;<\/em> it is not of the same nature as human wisdom, human efficiency, and the like. Comp. Xen. Mem<\/em> . iv. 4. 24, . Eur. Med<\/em> . 673, . Soph. Aj<\/em> . 747, . Comp. Aj<\/em> . 764; Oed. Col<\/em> . 604; Plat. Pol<\/em> . 2. 359 D. The opposite, , Lucian, Vit. auct<\/em> . 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<\/em> evangelium meum.”<\/p>\n

[23] See Hofmann’s interpretation of i. 11 ii. 14 in his heil. Schr. N. T<\/em> . I. p. 60 ff., Exo 2<\/span> . On the other hand, see Hilgenfeld, Kanon u. Kritik d. N. T<\/em> . p. 190 ff.<\/p>\n

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

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

I<\/p>\n

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<\/p>\n

Gal 1:11<\/span> to Gal 2:21<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/p>\n

(Gal 1:11-24<\/span>)<\/p>\n

11But I certify you [Now I declare unto you],16<\/span> brethren, that the gospel which was preached of [, by] me is not after man. 12For I neither received [For neither did I receive]17<\/span> it of [from] man, neither was I taught it<\/em>, but by [through] the [omit the] revelation of [from]18<\/span> Jesus Christ. 13For ye have [omit have] heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews religion [Judaism],19<\/span> how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and wasted [was destroying]20<\/span> it: 14And profited in the Jews religion above many my equals [And surpassed in Judaism many of my age]21<\/span> in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers [or my ancestral traditions]. 15But when it pleased God,22<\/span> who separated me 16[set me apart]23<\/span> from my mothers womb, and called me<\/em> 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<\/span> 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<\/span> and abode with him fifteen days. 19But other of the apostles saw I none [I did not see], save James the Lords 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<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gal 1:11<\/span>. Now I declare unto younot after man<\/strong>.[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 , 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 Apostles preaching, without having been expressly emphasized: hence the ; after it had been called in question, it must be definitely affirmed.<\/p>\n

The gospel which was preached by me<\/strong> is most naturally referred to the preaching of the gospel among the Galatians, although self-evidently the same declaration was of general validity. literally: not according to man, not after the fashion of man, not mans 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<\/span>). The sequel shows the phrase to be nearly equivalent in sense to scholastic [schulmssig<\/em>].<\/p>\n

Gal 1:12<\/span>. For neither did I receive it of man, neither was I taught it<\/strong>.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<\/span>, 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<\/span>).[Lightfoot: The idea of the preposition () is sufficiently wide to include both the and of Gal 1:1<\/span>R.]<\/p>\n

Through revelation from Jesus Christ<\/strong>.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 -, discovery. Here is taken as gen. Subj<\/em>. = 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 Pauls 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<\/em>, for this was a call to preach the gospel (see also Gal 1:18<\/span>), 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.<\/em>, is at all events the subjective genitive<\/em>, for Christ is in any case to be regarded as active in the installation of the Apostle (Gal 1:1<\/span>), 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 Christs 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 taughtan expression in itself awkward toobut 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<\/span>, 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 – 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.<\/p>\n

[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 , which he considers to be here except savenor was I taught it except<\/em> by revelation, He was . 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<\/span>, 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<\/span>; Act 23:11<\/span>; 1Co 11:13<\/span>; 2Co 12:1<\/span> sq.; Gal 2:2<\/span>. Schaff. Schmollers view on this point colors his notes on the entire section.R.]<\/p>\n

Gal 1:13<\/span>. For ye heard of my conversation in time past<\/strong>, etc<\/em>.How far this statement is meant to confirm the previous proposition (), 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.<\/p>\n

: 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<\/span>). This again finds its explanation in how that beyond measure I persecuted, etc<\/strong>. He was really engaged in the work of destruction, not merely in that of disturbance. Meyer.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:14<\/span>. In mine own nation<\/strong>.Literally race, the people are regarded as a single race, descending from the same ancestor.My ancestral traditions<\/strong>: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 , 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<\/span> (E. V. ordinances instead of traditions); 2Th 2:15<\/span>; 2Th 3:6<\/span>, 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<\/span>; Mar 7:3<\/span>; Mar 7:5<\/span>; Mar 7:8<\/span>; Col 2:8<\/span>. 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-foots 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.]<\/p>\n

Gal 1:15-16<\/span>. But when it pleased God<\/strong>.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 insistingthe sole agency of God as distinct from his own efforts.R.]From my mothers womb<\/strong>=when he was yet in his mothers womb, he was already set apart as an Apostle. [Schaff: Comp. Jer 1:5<\/span>; Isa 49:1<\/span>. The decree of redemption is eternal as Gods 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<\/em>, for which he was set apart or destined, elected and dedicated by a Divine act. Comp. the same term, Rom 1:1<\/span>; Act 13:2<\/span>.R.]His calling followed afterwards near Damascus. In the Acts, Christs 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<\/span>) which, therefore, refers to subsequent revelations (Meyer) [The aorist participle, , 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<\/em> cause of the call was the Divine pleasure; the mediating<\/em> 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.]<\/p>\n

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<\/strong>, 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<\/span>, 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, Jahrbcher fr deutsche Theologie<\/em>, 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<\/strong>.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<\/span>), this the gospel which was preached by me (Gal 1:11<\/span>). : among<\/em> the Gentile nations, therefore , 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.<\/p>\n

Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood<\/strong>, 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 directionflesh and blood; here merelyone clothed with a mortal body, therefore in sense equivalent simply toMan. The conception is thus strongly expressed, because Man appears here in antithesis with God.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:17<\/span>. Neither went I away to Jerusalem to them who were apostles before me<\/strong>.This is the only distinction which he concedes between himself and them.Into Arabia<\/strong>. This Arabian journey is to be regarded as his first essay of foreign labor, and it is, by , put in connection with the purpose of the divine revelation, that he should preach the gospel among the heathen.(<\/em>Meyer<\/em>)<\/em>. 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<\/span>; the flight from Damascus must therefore be placed at the end of this second visit there. [Two questions arise: 1. as to the place<\/em>; 2. the object<\/em> 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<\/em>. 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<\/span>), 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. Pauls life. If Gal 4:25<\/span> 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. Pauls object in this residence in Arabia, as seems most probable from the context, was not to preach the gospelbut to enjoy a season of undisturbed preparation for his high and holy calling. This period, therefore, belongs more properly to the history of the Apostles 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<\/em>, p. 236). This view of the object<\/em> 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<\/em>, p. 50.R.]<\/p>\n

Gal 1:18<\/span>.Then after three years<\/strong>.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<\/span>. .=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<\/strong>.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.]<\/p>\n

Gal 1:19<\/span>. But other of the apostles I did not see<\/strong>.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 Lords brother<\/strong> 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 ( ) 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<\/em>. 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<\/span>, 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 , Act 9:27<\/span>, but authentically defines it. Meyer.<\/p>\n

[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 Virgins sister, or the sons of Josephs brother, etc<\/em>. 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 Lords brother. To which view we are in a measure forced also by the statement of John (Joh 7:5<\/span> : neither did his brethren believe in him) after the twelve were chosen. Comp. Joh 6:67<\/span>, where the twelve are spoken of. That his brethren were afterwards believers is stated (Act 1:14<\/span>, where they are mentioned in distinction from the Apostles); the reason of the so speedy conversion may<\/em> be found in 1Co 15:7<\/span>, if James, of whom he was seen, be distinguished from the twelve (Gal 1:5<\/span>) and all the Apostles in the same verse.<\/p>\n

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 Langes Commentary, Matthew<\/em>, p. 255 sq., where Lange defends the modified cousintheory, and Schaff advocates at length the first view stated above. Also to Langes Commentary, James<\/em>, p. 9 sq.; Schaff, Monograph on James<\/em>, Berlin, 1842; Alford, Prolegomena, Epistle of James<\/em>. Comp. the authorities quoted by these writers. The best classification and history of opinions will be found in Lightfoot, Dissertat<\/em>. 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 James1. as not<\/em> identical with the son of Alpheus; 2. as not<\/em> an Apostle. Both points are involved in the exegesis of the passage, but as 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.]<\/p>\n

[Wordsworth: Pauls 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.]<\/p>\n

Gal 1:20<\/span>. Now the things which I write unto you<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:20<\/span> contains a solemn asseveration, which has its ground in the importance of the account just given for the Apostles purpose, namely, to prove his own apostolic dignity.<\/p>\n

[Gal 1:21<\/span>. Into the regions of Syria and Cilicia<\/strong>;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<\/span>; Act 11:25<\/span>). 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. Langes Comm., Acts<\/em>, p. 182.R.]<\/p>\n

Gal 1:22<\/span>. And I was unknown<\/strong>.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<\/strong>, i.e.<\/em>, outside of Jerusalem. [The phrase which are in Christ Jesus<\/strong>, 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.]<\/p>\n

Gal 1:23<\/span>. Is now preaching the faith<\/strong>. here also not=Christian doctrine [it being very doubtful, as Ellicott remarks, whether 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.<\/em>, Faith.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:24<\/span>. In me<\/strong>.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<\/em> in which, or the substratum<\/em> on which the action takes place.R.]<\/p>\n

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. How Paul was taught<\/em>. A right understanding of Gal 1:12<\/span>, 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<\/span>; 1Co 9:14<\/span>; 1Co 7:10; 1Co 7:25<\/span>; also 1co l 9:23. Comp. on this the instructive article of Paret, Paul and Jesus. Jahrbcher fr deutsche Theologie<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n

[It will appear from the exegetical notes on Gal 1:12<\/span>, 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 Pauls 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<\/em> 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.]<\/p>\n

2. The Revelation from Jesus Christ<\/em>. 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 vocationa 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<\/em> Paul, here the stress is laid by the Apostle himself on the other fact, the revelation of Christ within<\/em> him; both facts are essential in accounting for the conversion of Paul, and for Christianity itself.R. ] That the Apostle in this passage byrevelation 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<\/span>, which, however, as an , appears to be distinguished from that first fundamental one, or such as are alluded to in 2 Corinthians 12<\/span>, and besides immediately afterwards in this Epistle Gal 2:2<\/span>. (Comp. 1Ti 1:13<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3. The calling of Paul<\/em>. 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<\/span>), 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 Apostles own conception, the eighth chapter of Acts would be better entitled: the Calling of Paul. In this relation of the event to the whole churchinasmuch 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<\/span>; Act 22:15<\/span>; Act 26:17<\/span>, 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<\/span>, 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<\/span>, 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<\/span>; Gal 2:9<\/span>. 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 Gods 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 , the way to salvation of grace most stand open. Comp. also for 2 and 3, Langes Commentary, Acts<\/em>, p. 165 sq.<\/p>\n

4. Paul set apart by God<\/em>. Paul cannot regard himself otherwise than as destined by God Himself, even in his mothers womb, for what he now is, separated to the peculiar calling of the apostleship (an analogy, as it were, to the Nazarites 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 mothers 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 actedat 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.]<\/p>\n

5. Pauls walk in Judaism<\/em>. 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.<\/p>\n

6. Pauls solemn oaths<\/em>. The solemn asseverations which Paul more than once utters (in Gal 1:20<\/span>, Rom 1:9<\/span>; Rom 9:1<\/span>; 2Co 11:31<\/span>), would of themselves sufficiently show how little the passages, Mat 5:34<\/span> sq., Jam 5:12<\/span> 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<\/em> whom he swears, is not against our Lords precept: Swear not. Our Lord commands that as far as in us lies<\/em> 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.]<\/p>\n

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gal 1:11<\/span>. 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.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:12<\/span>. 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.<\/p>\n

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, Christs 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:13<\/span>. 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.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:14<\/span>. 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.<\/p>\n

On Gal 1:13-14<\/span>.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<\/em> take place within, as a sign of a converted heart; 2. it may<\/em> also become necessary before others, yet so that it is always done in humility.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:15<\/span>. Wrt. Summ.:Behold the Fatherly Providence of God, who careth for us and marks out the course of our life from our mothers 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 mothers 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.<\/p>\n

[Bushnell:Every mans 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.]<\/p>\n

Gal 1:16<\/span>. Spener:To the rightly profitable administration of the preachers 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.<\/p>\n

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 Gods 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 Gods counsel if we keep especially to Pauls 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.]<\/p>\n

On Gal 1:15-16<\/span>. The grace of God, as free (without any merit of ours) as it is mighty in workingit can change the hearts so fully, that the man throws himself into the directly opposite course.It is God, who defines our lifes 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 Gods 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.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:16<\/span>. 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 mans counsel, like one who doubted thereon.Starke, after the Berlenb. Bible:Yet the meaning is not, that we may not hear other peoples opinion, yet we are not to give it the pr<\/em>, the upper hand, where God has given His testimony. If the will of God is plain, and if the matter is plain in Gods 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 Gods 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.<\/p>\n

Divine guidance and human counsel in their right relation to each other.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:17<\/span> 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. Gods good Spirit always brings us out into a plain way.<\/p>\n

Even the apparently slight, accidental circumstances of our lives stand under Gods direction; if we know it not at the time, yet afterwards we do.<\/p>\n

[Gal 1:18<\/span>. 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<\/em> days. After the short<\/em> time spent in visiting, we must return to our business, and mind, above all things, our ministerial charge.R.]<\/p>\n

Gal 1:20<\/span>. 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<\/span>. 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<\/span>. It is of Gods 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.<\/p>\n

When Jesus, here and there again,
His time of grace declares,
That mercy count as thine own gain,
Which others find as theirs.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[16]<\/span>Gal 1:11<\/span>.The Recepta<\/em> is well attested, adopted by Lachmann and latterly by Tischendorf. [Alford retains on the authority of B. F. and a few others; is adopted by Wordsworth, Ellicott and Lightfoot, on the authority of , A. D23. K. L. and most versions. Now I declare unto you is taken from E. V., 1Co 15:1<\/span>, where the Greek is the same.R.]<\/p>\n

[17]<\/span>Gal 1:12<\/span>.[Ellicotts 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.]<\/p>\n

[18]<\/span>Gal 1:12<\/span>.[The genitive is a subjective genitive. See Exeg. Notes.R.]<\/p>\n

[19]<\/span>Gal 1:13<\/span>.[ is better rendered literally. So in Gal 1:14<\/span>.R.]<\/p>\n

[20]<\/span>Gal 1:13<\/span>.[The sense of the imperfect, , is best expressed thus. Schaff renders: labored to destroy. The same change in Gal 1:23<\/span>.R.]<\/p>\n

[21]<\/span>Gal 1:14<\/span>.[Schaff thus renders it. The E. V. is unusually unsatisfactory here; the , means contemporaries.R.]<\/p>\n

[22]<\/span>Gal 1:15<\/span>. of Rec. is rejected by Tischendorf, and bracketted by Lachmann. . 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.]<\/p>\n

[23]<\/span>Gal 1:15<\/span>[Separated has a local sense not intended here.R.]<\/p>\n

[24]<\/span>Gal 1:17<\/span>.Of the two readings (Rec.) and , about equally attested, the second is decidedly preferable on internal grounds. Not only does the latter give a more formal and sharper antithesis; , but the former betrays itself as a correction from the fact that or is generally used of the journey to Jerusalem, as in Gal 1:18<\/span>. Wieseler. . has , [adopted by Tischendorf, Wordsworth. B. D. F. have ; adopted by Lachmann, Meyer, Wieseler, Alford, Ellicott; Lightfoot is doubtful. Went away follows the latter reading.R.]<\/p>\n

[25]<\/span>Gal 1:18<\/span>.Instead of (Rec.), is to be read, as also in Gal 2:9<\/span>; Gal 2:11<\/span>; Gal 2:14<\/span>. So also . The Hebrew name was suppressed by the Greek gloss, hence in Gal 2:7-8<\/span>, where Paul himself wrote the Greek name, the variation ; is not found [So all modern editors. means more than to see, to visit, to make the acquaintance of.R.]<\/p>\n

[26]<\/span>Gal 1:23<\/span>.[The English text has been amended to bring out the force of the Greek imperfects.R.]<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11, 12<\/strong> .] Enunciation of this subject<\/em> .<\/p>\n

<\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> ] The seems to have been corrected to , as not applying immediately to the foregoing, or perhaps in reminiscence of 1Co 15:1<\/span> ; 2Co 8:1<\/span> . It refers back to Gal 1:8-9<\/span> . On <\/strong> .<\/strong> , see note, 1Co 15:1<\/span> .<\/p>\n

<\/strong> ] according to man<\/strong> , as E. V. (see reff.): i.e. measured by merely human rules and considerations, as it would be were it of human origin: so , Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 24, cannot itself express the origin<\/em> (as Aug., a-Lapide, Est., al.), though it is included by implication: see note Gal 1:4<\/span> , on .<\/p>\n

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11<\/strong> CHAP. Gal 2:21<\/span> .] FIRST, or APOLOGETIC PART OF THE EPISTLE; consisting in an historical defence of his own teaching, as not being from men, but revealed to him by the Lord, nor influenced even by the chief Apostles, but of independent authority<\/em> .<\/p>\n

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gal 1:11-17<\/p>\n

11For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to Man 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:11 to Gal 2:14 This is a literary unit in which Paul defends his apostleship, so as to defend his gospel.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:11<\/p>\n

NASB”For I would have you know, brethren”<\/p>\n

NKJV”But I make known to you, brethren”<\/p>\n

NRSV”For I want you to know, brothers and sisters”<\/p>\n

TEV”Let me tell you, my brothers”<\/p>\n

NJB”The fact is, brothers, and I want you to realize this”<\/p>\n

The KJV translates this as “I certify to you,” a technical rendering of the phrase (cf. 1Co 12:3; 1Co 15:1; 2Co 8:1).<\/p>\n

Gal 1:11-12 “the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man” This begins a phrase which repeats the twin disclaimers of Gal 1:1. Paul claimed that his message does not have a human origin (cf. 2Th 2:13; 2Pe 1:20-21). He further asserted that he did not receive it from any human. The word “receive” was used of students being taught in rabbinical schools. The gospel was contrary to the teachings Paul received as a rabbinical student in Jerusalem. It was taught to him by a revelation from Jesus Christ, both on the road to Damascus and in Arabia (cf. Eph 3:2-3). He stated this three times in Gal 1:11-12!<\/p>\n

The word “gospel” and the verb “was preached” are both from the compound term<\/p>\n

1. eu, “good”<\/p>\n

2. angelion, “news” or “message”<\/p>\n

Paul uses them together in 1Co 15:1.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:12 “a revelation of Jesus Christ” This may be either subjective genitive case (emphasizing Jesus as the agent of the revelation, i.e., opposite “from men”) or objective genitive case (emphasizing Jesus as the content of the revelation, cf. Gal 1:16).<\/p>\n

Gal 1:13 “you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism” It is not certain how these churches heard.<\/p>\n

1. it was common knowledge<\/p>\n

2. Paul shared with them<\/p>\n

3. the false teachers had alluded to his former conduct<\/p>\n

“Judaism” seems to refer to Pharisaism (cf. Act 26:4-5). After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the Roman general Titus, the Pharisaic party moved to the city of Jamnia. The Sadducean element was completely eliminated and Pharisaism developed into modern rabbinical Judaism. Paul mentioned something of his life as a zealous Pharisee in Php 3:4-6.<\/p>\n

SPECIAL TOPIC: PHARISEES <\/p>\n

NASB”how I used to persecute beyond measure”<\/p>\n

NKJV”how I persecuted”<\/p>\n

NRSV”I was violently persecuting”<\/p>\n

TEV”how I persecuted without mercy”<\/p>\n

NJB”how much damage I did to it”<\/p>\n

This imperfect tense verb is used in Act 9:4, referring to his repeated activity described in Act 8:1-3; Act 22:20; and Act 26:10 (cf. 1Co 15:9; 1Ti 1:13). These are the same general contexts in which Paul shared his personal testimony.<\/p>\n

For “beyond measure” (hyperbole), see Special Topic following.<\/p>\n

SPECIAL TOPIC: PAUL’S USE OF “HUPER” COMPOUNDS <\/p>\n

“the church of God” Ekklesia is a compound Greek word from “out of” and “to call.” This was used in Koine Greek to describe any kind of assembly, such as a town assembly (cf. Act 19:32). The Church chose this term because it was used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, written as early as 250 B.C. for the library at Alexandria, Egypt. This Greek term translated the Hebrew term qahal which was used in the covenantal phrase “the assembly of Israel” (cf. Num 20:4). The NT writers asserted that they were the “divinely called out ones” who were the People of God of their day. They saw no radical break between the OT People of God and themselves, the NT People of God. We must assert that the Church of Jesus Christ is the true heir to the OT Scriptures, not modern rabbinical Judaism.<\/p>\n

Note that Paul mentioned the local churches in Gal 1:2 and the universal Church in Gal 1:13. “Church” is used in three different ways in the NT.<\/p>\n

1. house churches (cf. Rom 16:5)<\/p>\n

2. local or area churches (cf. Gal 1:2; 1Co 1:2)<\/p>\n

3. the whole body of Christ on earth (Gal 1:13; Mat 16:18; Eph 1:22; Eph 3:21; Eph 5:23-32)<\/p>\n

“and tried to destroy it” This verb phrase is imperfect tense, meaning repeated action in past time.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:14 “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries” This refers to Paul’s fellow rabbinical students in Jerusalem. No one is more enthusiastic than a first-year theology student! The Jewish zeal for the Law was\/is actually devotion and zeal without knowledge and truth (cf. Rom 10:2 ff.). Paul was trying to please his Jewish contemporaries!<\/p>\n

“being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions” Here is the use of the term “traditions” which was a technical term for “the Oral Tradition.” The Jews believed that the Oral Tradition, like the written Old Testament, was given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The Oral Tradition was meant to surround, protect, and interpret the written Old Testament. Later codified in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds, it resulted in formalism and folklore instead of a vital faith relationship (cf. Isa 29:13; Col 2:16-23; 2Ti 3:1-5). See note on “traditions” at 2Th 2:15.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:15<\/p>\n

NASB”But when God”<\/p>\n

NKJV”But when it pleased God”<\/p>\n

NRSV”But when God”<\/p>\n

TEV”But God”<\/p>\n

NJB”Then God”<\/p>\n

Many reliable ancient manuscripts, instead of having the term “God,” use the Masculine pronoun “he,” (cf. manuscripts P46 and B). Theos [God] does occur in manuscripts , A, and D. “He” was likely original and scribes later added theos to clarify the ambiguous pronoun. See Appendix Two.<\/p>\n

“who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace” Paul is alluding to the call of some OT prophets, particularly Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:4-5, or the Servant of YHWH, Isa 49:1; Isa 49:5). He felt a divine call to the ministry (cf. Rom 1:1). This is another way of asserting that his authority and apostleship were not from men (cf. Gal 1:1; Gal 1:11-12). The concept of being “called” by God is emphasized in Paul’s personal testimony (cf. Act 9:1-19; Act 13:2; Act 22:1-16; and Act 26:9-18). Some of the strongest biblical passages on election can be found in Paul’s writings (cf. Romans 9 and Ephesians 1).<\/p>\n

It is interesting that Paul’s “through His grace” seems to be synonymous with “Holy Spirit.” The terminology is common in Paul’s writings (cf. Rom 3:24; 1Co 15:10; 2Co 6:1; Eph 2:8).<\/p>\n

Grace reflects the unchanging character of God and the spirit makes the contact between the Holy God and sinful mankind (cf. Joh 6:44; Joh 6:65).<\/p>\n

Gal 1:16<\/p>\n

NASB, NKJV,<\/p>\n

NJB”to reveal His Son in me”<\/p>\n

NRSV, TEV”to reveal his Son to me”<\/p>\n

“To reveal” [apocalupt], translated “revelation” in Gal 1:12 typically means “a clear manifestation or unveiling.” Apparently this occurred on the Damascus road and later in Arabia (cf. Gal 1:17).<\/p>\n

The phrase “in me” has been much debated. Some believe it means that God revealed Jesus to Paul while others think it means that God revealed Jesus through Paul. Both are true. The Revised English Bible translation combines both possibilities (“to reveal His Son in and through me”). The larger context seems to fit the first option best, but in Gal 1:16 the second option fits best.<\/p>\n

“that I might preach about Him among the Gentiles” The phrase “in me” is paralleled by “in the Gentiles.” God called Paul to call the heathen (cf. Act 9:15; Act 22:15; Act 26:16-18; Rom 1:5; Rom 11:13; Rom 15:16; Gal 2:7; Gal 2:9; E Php 3:8; 1Ti 2:7). We derive the English word “ethnic” from this Greek word for “Gentiles.”<\/p>\n

NASB”I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood”<\/p>\n

NKJV”I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood”<\/p>\n

NRSV”I did not confer with any human being”<\/p>\n

TEV”I did not go to anyone for advice”<\/p>\n

NJB”I did not stop to discuss this with any human being”<\/p>\n

This seems to refer to Paul’s private study time in Arabia (cf. Gal 1:17). We are not sure how long he studied or how long he remained in Arabia. It was probably the Nabatean kingdom, which was very close to the city of Damascus, just to the southeast (cf. 2Co 11:32). From Gal 1:18 it seems that he could have stayed for as long as three years (but not necessarily). Paul’s basic purpose for mentioning this (it is omitted in the book of Acts) was to show that he did not receive his gospel from the Apostles in Jerusalem, nor was he officially sanctioned by the Church in Jerusalem, but from God and by God (cf. Gal 1:1; Gal 1:11-12).<\/p>\n

“Flesh” has sexual connotations. See Special Topic below.<\/p>\n

SPECIAL TOPIC: FLESH (sarx) <\/p>\n

Gal 1:17 “to those who were apostles before me” Paul certainly recognized the leadership of the original Twelve, but also asserted his equality to them.<\/p>\n

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

certify = make known or declare to, as 1Co 15:1. Greek. gnorizo. <\/p>\n

or Greek. hupo. App-104. <\/p>\n

after. Same as “according to”, Gal 1:4. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11, 12.] Enunciation of this subject.<\/p>\n

. ] The seems to have been corrected to , as not applying immediately to the foregoing,-or perhaps in reminiscence of 1Co 15:1; 2Co 8:1. It refers back to Gal 1:8-9. On ., see note, 1Co 15:1.<\/p>\n

] according to man, as E. V. (see reff.): i.e. measured by merely human rules and considerations, as it would be were it of human origin: so , Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 24, cannot itself express the origin (as Aug., a-Lapide, Est., al.), though it is included by implication: see note Gal 1:4, on .<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 1:11-17. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel that was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but the revelation of Jesus Christ. 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: and profited in the Jews religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly jealous of the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mothers womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went up to Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.<\/p>\n

Paul was intensely desirous that the Galatian Christians should understand that he was no mere repeater of other mens doctrines, but that what he taught he had received directly from God by supernatural revelation. They knew that he had been a most determined opposer of the gospel. Indeed, he was a man of such great determination that, whatever he did he did with all his might; so, no sooner did God reveal Christ to him, so that he knew Jesus to be the Messiah, than he earnestly sought to learn yet more of the truth, not by going up to the apostles at Jerusalem, to borrow from them, but by getting alone in the waste places of Arabia? there, by thought and meditation upon the Word, and by communion with God, to learn yet more concerning the divine mysteries.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:18-24. Then after three years I went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lords brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; and was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: but they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. And they glorified God in me. <\/p>\n

This exposition consisted of readings from Gal 1:11-24; Galatians 2.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 1:11. , brethren) He now at length calls them brethren.-, according to [after]) includes the meaning of the prepositions , , and , in Gal 1:1; Gal 1:12. My Gospel is not according to the estimate of men.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 1:11<\/p>\n

Gal 1:11<\/p>\n

For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me,-[This was the turning point in Pauls life. If the Galatians were to understand his teaching, they must know why he became a Christian, how he had received the message of the gospel which he brought to them. He felt sure that they would enter more sympathetically into the gospel he preached if they were better acquainted with how he received it. They would see how well-justified was the authority, how needful the severity with which he wrote. 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 withstood Peter, the chief of the twelve, to the face because he separated himself from the Gentile Christians, fearing them that were of the circumcision. (Gal 2:11-14). His object in this recital seems to be threefold: to refute the misrepresentations of the Judaizers, to vindicate his independent authority as an apostle of Christ, and to unfold the nature and terms of the gospel, so as to pave the way for the argument which follows, and which forms the body of this epistle.]<\/p>\n

that it is not after man.-[Not according to man, but it was revealed to him by Jesus Christ. This initial revelation made to him was of inestimable importance to him. It made him an apostle in the august sense in which he claimed the title (Gal 1:1). This accounts for the vehemence with which he defends his teaching and for the awful sentence which he has passed upon his impugners. The divine authorship of the gospel he preached made it impossible for him to temporize with perverters, or to be influenced by human favor or disfavor in its administration. Had his teaching been according to man, he might have consented to compromise; he mighty reasonably have tried to humor and accommodate Jewish prejudices. But the case is far otherwise.]<\/p>\n

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

the True Gospel a Revelation <\/p>\n

Gal 1:11-17<\/p>\n

When men belittle the Apostles teaching as being purely Pauline, we should recall these strong statements, which attribute his knowledge of the gospel to the direct revelation of the Lord. He received from Christ Himself that which he delivered to the Church. See also Act 1:2. It was this that made his message authoritative.<\/p>\n

What intensity of interest must have gathered for him about Mount Sinai, which doubtless was the objective of his journey into Arabia! Moses and Elijah had been pupils before him in its majestic solitudes. As the Apostle dwelt there, with unlimited opportunity for communion with God, his mind was turned in the direction of that massive system of thought which at once distinguishes his Epistles and connects the New Testament with the Old. It is a profound discovery when God reveals His Son as resident in the believers soul. That Christ is in each of us, if we be truly regenerated, is indubitable. See 2Co 13:5. But it seems that, in many cases, a veil hides that blessed fact from our consciousness. We need a miracle of grace, similar to that which at the Crucifixion rent the veil in twain, from the top to the bottom, Mat 27:51.<\/p>\n

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Chapter 3<\/p>\n

Our Gospel is of God<\/p>\n

Gal 1:11-24<\/p>\n

There were false teachers at Galatia who imposed themselves upon the saints there by pretending that they had their commission from the apostles. In the same deceitful manner they asserted that Paul was not an apostle. They made much of the fact that he was not one of the original twelve. They declared that he had never been acknowledged by them and that he did not properly teach their doctrine. Paul replies to this groundless charge with boldness, declaring that his apostleship was directly from heaven; and that it was therefore authoritative. The other apostles had received their office from our Lord during his humiliation. Paul was called to this office by the exalted Redeemer.<\/p>\n

Paul, however, does not content himself with the mere assertion of his apostleship. He goes on to prove what he has said by an appeal to undisputed facts of his own life. He makes this appeal with the greatest earnestness, because these facts touch the recognition of the validity of his message in all future ages. It is not unlikely that he foresaw that the fiercest attacks upon Christianity would be made upon the doctrine revealed in his epistles. Therefore, he labors to show that what he says, Christ says, since Christ is speaking through him.<\/p>\n

It is not strange, said Spurgeon, to hear certain dubious people assert I do not agree with St. Paul. I remember the first time that I heard this expression I looked at the individual with astonishment. I was amazed that such a pigmy should say this of the great apostle. It seemed like a cheese-mite differing from a cherub, or a handful of chaff discussing the verdict of the fire.<\/p>\n

In the passage before us Paul is defending his apostleship by defending his message. In this defense we see certain definite characteristics of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Pauls object (the Holy Spirits object) in this passage is to demonstrate clearly that the gospel of Gods free and sovereign grace in Christ is not of man, but of God. This gospel, which, by the effectual power of the Holy Spirit, completely changes the heart and life of a man in a very brief moment, cannot be of man. Our gospel is of God! By relating his personal experiences, Paul shows that the gospel originates with God alone, is revealed by God alone, and is applied by God alone.<\/p>\n

Brethren<\/p>\n

(Gal 1:11) “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.<\/p>\n

Paul addresses the Galatian brethren as brethren. Even now, in spite of their deviation, he considers them as members of the same spiritual family, of which he also is a member The Fathers family (Eph 3:14).<\/p>\n

What a lesson there is here for us. Many are very quick to declare that others are lost, unbelieving sinners, void of Gods saving grace. Such judgment is both harsh and evil. You and I do not have the ability to discern wheat from tares or sheep from goats. Our Lords parables make that fact abundantly clear. We ought to always presume that those who profess to believe the gospel of the grace of God, who profess to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, do so. These Galatians had fallen into grievous doctrinal error, error which caused Paul to stand in doubt of them (Gal 4:11; Gal 4:20), just as the Corinthian saints had fallen into very grievous moral and spiritual errors (1 Corinthians 1-6). Yet, Paul addresses both the Corinthians and the Galatians as brethren and deals with them as brethren. He does so without compromise, or pretense, bending over backwards in giving them assurance that his heart embraces them as brethren.<\/p>\n

A Revelation<\/p>\n

(Gal 1:11-12) “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.”<\/p>\n

Here Paul continues to show, as he did in Gal 1:6-9, that the gospel he preached is the only message worthy of the name gospel, because it is of divine origin. The form of expression used here is very strong. When he says, I certify you brethren. He means, I assure you most certainly. I would have you certain of it. The gospel I preach is not after men. <\/p>\n

The gospel of Christ is not a human invention. It is of divine origin; and its character is divine. The gospel is unchanging and everlasting. It always lays man low in the dust and exalts the triune God. It exposes sin, demands righteousness, and proclaims righteousness as the gift of Gods free grace through the redemptive work of Christ. The gospel is neither good advice nor a gracious proposal. It is neither an offer of mercy nor an invitation to salvation. The gospel is good news, the proclamation of mercy, grace, and salvation in Christ, eternal redemption obtained by Christ for all who trust him. The gospel is the good news of a work finished for sinners, not a proposal of something for sinners to do.<\/p>\n

The gospel of free and sovereign grace is of God in its origin. It is not the result of human ingenuity or devising. Righteousness wrought by another and made over to us graciously is a mystery man cannot understand. Redemption accomplished by a divine Surety and Substitute, without human merit, is foolishness to me. Salvation accomplished for us, but altogether outside of us and without us, man can never grasp, except by divine revelation. Our gospel is totally contrary to human thought (2Co 2:14; Isa 55:8-9; Joh 1:5). It was devised in the eternal mind of God and brought into being by the sovereign will of God.<\/p>\n

Many agree that the gospel is from God in its origin who yet insist that it is of man in its reception. Paul declares plainly that that is not the case. I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ Paul did not receive it from his parents by his own will (Joh 1:12-13), the instruction of Gamalial, or from the other apostles. Without question, he heard the gospel from the lips of a man (Rom 10:14-17). He certainly heard it from Stephen (Act 7:58), and may have heard the message preached many times by others; but it was not a man who gave him faith and caused him to believe and understand the gospel he heard. That is the work of God the Holy Spirit alone. He alone commands the light to shine out of darkness and causes the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ to shine in our hearts (2Co 4:4-6).<\/p>\n

The only way any sinner can and will receive the gospel of Christ is by the revelation of Jesus Christ. That is how Paul received it; and that is how every chosen sinner receives it (Eph 3:3-8). Pauls conversion was not the exception, but the rule (1Ti 1:16). He was the pattern and example of the way God saves his people. It is only by the sovereign, irresistible, illuminating work of God the Holy Spirit that the dark abyss of any mans soul is enlightened to see and believe the gospel of Christ (Mat 16:17; Joh 3:3; 1Co 12:3; Luk 10:21-22). Paul says, God revealed his Son in me (Gal 1:16).<\/p>\n

Conversion<\/p>\n

(Gal 1:13-16) “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: And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.”<\/p>\n

Here the apostle relates the history of his conversion. It is not Pauls purpose here to give us a complete autobiography. He relates only those events that support his vindication of his calling and apostleship from heaven. Thus, his record here, and that recorded by Luke in the Book of Acts (which is a history of Christs work through the early church) do not contradict one another. They simply bring to light different events in the life of this man of God.<\/p>\n

Paul was not seeking Christ. He was seeking to destroy the very name and memory of Christ. He was a violent persecutor. He persecuted Gods peculiar treasure, his church, desiring to destroy the body of Christ. This became to him, after the Lord saved him, a source of continual sorrow. He acknowledged that he was, in those persecutions, wishing himself accursed from Christ (Rom 9:1-4). He had been a Pharisee of the Pharisees (Php 3:4-7). But, all the while, the Lord God was seeking him. It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. The Lord God had separated him as the object of his sovereign love from eternity and from his mothers womb in providence. And at the time appointed, when it pleased God, he revealed Christ in him.<\/p>\n

That is exactly how God saves all his chosen. His grace is sovereign, eternal, and irresistible (Jer 1:5; Luk 1:15; Rom 9:10-24). He has a people whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world to be his own peculiar objects of love (Joh 15:16; Eph 1:3-4; Eph 1:11; 2Th 2:13-14; 1Pe 1:2; 2Ti 1:9). At the appointed time of love, he calls each of his elect by his omnipotent grace (Rom 8:30). And his call is always effectual. Yes, always (Joh 6:37-39; Joh 6:63-65). It is by this omnipotent act of mercy and grace that God reveals his Son in chosen sinners, gives them repentance and faith, and sweetly compels them to come to Christ (Zec 12:10; Psa 65:4; Psa 110:3).<\/p>\n

Made A Preacher<\/p>\n

It was by that same irresistible power that the Lord God made that former blasphemer a preacher of the gospel (1Ti 2:7; 2Ti 1:11). Any man who has been called to preach the gospel is made a preacher by the call of God. He is not merely made to want to be a preacher, made an aspiring preacher, or made willing to be a preacher. He is made to be a preacher. I know that it is customary among men to speak of men being called into the ministry before they are actually engaged in the work. But you will search the Scriptures in vain to find an example of any prophet, apostle, or pastor who was called to the work of the gospel ministry who was not involved in that work.<\/p>\n

In this matter of the call to the ministry, as in all other things, the customary method is altogether wrong and evil. When men speak of themselves or others being called to the gospel ministry, who are not actually engaged in the work, they put the cart before the horse. In the Word of God no man is ever referred to as being called to the work, until God has put him in the work. The evil of reversing that order is quickly apparent. Once a man is convinced (or convinces himself) that he is called to be a preacher, he sets out on the relentless pursuit of an office and work to which God has not called him. If he succeeds in his pursuit, the result is disastrous. If he does not succeed in making a way for himself, he is in constant frustration.<\/p>\n

If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work (1Ti 3:10. But let the man quietly wait upon the Lord God to put him into that office and work. Until that actually happens, let him faithfully serve the cause of Christ where he is with joyful contentment. Until a man can serve Christ with joyful contentment as a door-keeper in the house of God, he is not fit to serve in any other capacity. Indeed, if we are Gods servants, it matters not to us where or in what capacity we serve him. A mans gift maketh room for him (Pro 18:16). <\/p>\n

Paul tells us, that once the Lord God had conquered him by his grace and called him to the work of preaching the gospel, I conferred not with flesh and blood. He did not consult with men about what he was to do. This was not a matter of arrogant independence, but of faithful obedience to Christ. If we know what the will of God is, to consult with flesh and blood concerning it is an act of disobedience. Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it (Joh 2:5).<\/p>\n

Paul and Other Apostles<\/p>\n

In Gal 1:17-24 Paul briefly describes his earliest work and his relationship with those who were apostles of our Lord before him. He did not disregard or seek independence from those faithful brethren. The Lord simply kept him from their immediate influence for three years. He tells us in Gal 1:17 that he spent some time in Arabia, by the will of God, and afterward came back to Damascus. How long he was there, what he did there, what his work was while he was there, we are not told.<\/p>\n

Then, after three years, he went up to Jerusalem and spent fifteen days with Peter (Gal 1:18). But while he was there, he had no communication with any of the other apostles except James (Gal 1:19). By asserting this fact, Paul is simply reaffirming the fact that what he believed and preached, and his authority for believing and preaching it, did not come from men, not even from the apostles, but from Christ alone (Gal 1:20-21). When the other apostles heard what God had done for Paul, they rejoiced, gave thanks, and glorified God for his work of grace in him (Gal 1:22-24).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

that: Gal 1:1, 1Co 2:9, 1Co 2:10, 1Co 11:23, 1Co 15:1-3, Eph 3:3-8 <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Mat 16:17 – for Rom 1:1 – called 2Co 10:7 – even Gal 1:16 – immediately 1Ti 1:1 – by<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 1:11. , -Now I declare unto you, brethren. Instead of , which is found in A, D & sup2, 3;, K, L, , Chrysostom and Theodoret, and in the Coptic and Syriac versions, is read in B, D1, F, 1, and by Jerome, the Vulgate, and Augustine. Tischendorf has in his second edition, but in his seventh; and the reading is adopted by Scholz, Griesbach, Lachmann, and the Textus Receptus. Authorities are thus nearly balanced. Possibly the apologetic nature of the section might suggest to a copyist to begin it with , argumentative; whereas is only transitional to another topic, or to some additional illustration of it. It may, however, be replied, that the insertion of by copyists was influenced by its occurrence with this verb in 1Co 15:1, 2Co 8:1. The topic has been twice referred to, in 1 and 9; so that this verse does not spring by direct logical connection out of the last verses, but rather gathers up the pervading thought of the previous paragraph. is a term of emphatic solemnity with the apostle (1Co 12:3; 1Co 15:1; 2Co 8:1), as if he were obliging himself to repeat, formally and fully, what had before been so explicitly made known. They are called -still dear to him, in spite of their begun aberration, as in Gal 3:15, Gal 4:12, Gal 5:13, Gal 6:1. What the apostle certified them of was: <\/p>\n

-As to the gospel preached by me, that is not after man. This clause may characterize his gospel wherever preached, (Gal 2:2); but the pointed language of Gal 1:6-9 specializes it as the gospel preached by him in Galatia. The attraction here is a common one, especially after verbs of knowing and declaring, the principal clause attracting from the dependent one, as if by anticipation. 1Co 3:20, 2Co 12:3; Winer, 66, 5; Krger, 61, 1. The noun and participle give a fulness and impressiveness to the statement, as if referring back to Gal 1:8-9 (compare Gal 1:16, Gal 2:2). The gospel preached by me is not -after man. The phrase does not express origin, as Augustine, a-Lapide, and Estius assert, though it implies it. The Syriac renders , from, as it does in Gal 1:1, and in Gal 1:12. It means after man’s style. Winer, 49. Xen. Mem. 4.4, ; Sophocles, Ajax, 747, ; OEdip. Col. 598, . For in form, quality, and contents, it was not human or manlike; it was Godlike in its truths, and in their connection and symmetry. It was God’s style of purpose and thought-in no sense man’s, and all about it, in disclosure and result, in adaptation and destiny, proves it to be after Him whose ways are not our ways. Turner presses too much upon the phrase, when he gives as its meaning, in character with human weakness and infirmity. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 1:11. To certify means to make known, and after man means to be according to man. Since the Gospel was not composed to suit the wishes of man, Paul could not be true to his call were he to try bending it to suit man in order to win his friendship and good will.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 1:11. Now I make known to you. This verb introduces a deliberate and emphatic statement of opinion (as in 1Co 15:1; 2Co 8:1). After the warm burst of feeling he proceeds to calm reasoning. Paul still acknowledges the readers as brethren, hoping to win them back from their error.<\/p>\n

According to man. The gospel in its origin and contents as received and taught by Paul is not human, but divine; yet intended for man, and satisfying the deepest wants of mans nature.<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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. <\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 1:11-17 begins a historical narrative proving Pauls independence of any human authority in his apostolic work. He learned by a revelation from heaven, not in any sense from flesh and blood: cf. Mat 16:17. All natural human tendencies inclined him towards different beliefs. He was born and grew up in Judaism and was the best Jew of them all. But the God who predestinates had other thoughts for him. From his very birth onwardsthe words partially echo Jer 1:5, Isa 49:1a Divine plan was shaping his life to undreamed-of issues. At last God spoke to him in that powerful call which dead souls hear, and revealed His Son within him<\/p>\n

Galatians 1 :2Co 4:6 is the best commentary on these wordsin a blaze of heavenly glory. And he learned at oncethis must be the meaningthat he, the Jew saved by that crucified Messiah whom he had been persecuting, was to preach the message of mercy among Gentiles furthest away from God and goodness. Did he as a preliminary consult Church authority? Far from it! Either he consulted God in solitude, or (according to another view of Gal 1:17) without delay, and without human authorisation, he began preaching Christ to the Gentile population of Arabia, i.e. the Nabatean Kingdom (p. 33). We note that Acts knows nothing of this. The two visits to Damascus implied by returned (Gal 1:17) most probably appear as one (Act 9:19-25); our first proof of the strange but certain fact, that Luke had access to no collection of Pauls letters when writing Acts.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 11 <\/p>\n

I certify you; I assure you.–Is not after man; was not communicated to me by man; that is, it does not rest on human authority.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

DIVISION I PAULS CONTRARY CONDUCT AND PRINCIPLES.<\/p>\n

CHAPTERS 1:11-12.<\/p>\n

SECTION 3. PAULS GOSPEL IS DIVINE.<\/p>\n

CH. 1:11, 12.<\/p>\n

For I make known to you, brethren, the good tidings announced as good tidings by me, that it is not according to man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it; but it came through revelation of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

Make known to you; calls attention to an important matter, as in 1Co 12:3; 1Co 15:1; 2Co 8:1. It also suggests that the error in Galatia arose from ignorance.<\/p>\n

Good-tidings, announce good-tidings: same word already five times in 2, reminding us emphatically that the preaching of Paul was good news.<\/p>\n

That it is not, etc.: special element in the good tidings which Paul wishes to make known.<\/p>\n

Not according to man: it is not such teaching as man could produce, does not correspond with mans powers. This calls attention to the nature and contents of Pauls Gospel.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:12. Explains how it is that Paul preached a Gospel which does not accord with, i.e. which surpasses, mans own powers of intellectual discovery. The explanation is that it was received not from man but from Christ. Paul did not receive it from human lips, as something which one man hands over to another.<\/p>\n

Nor was I taught it: as something acquired by the intellectual effort of learning.<\/p>\n

Revelation (see under Rom 1:17) of Jesus Christ: either as the Author Himself revealing, Mat 11:27; or the Object-matter, Himself revealed, 1Co 1:7; 1Pe 4:7; 1Pe 4:13. Here Gal 1:16 suggests the latter thought: and this is the usual sense of the genitive after revelation. But the contrast with received from man reminds us that Jesus Christ is the source of this revelation. And this is possibly the sense of 2Co 12:1. Both ideas may have been present in Pauls mind. The Revelation of Christ in 1Co 1:7 is His sudden unveiling at the Great Day: here, and in Gal 1:16, it is His unveiling subjectively in the mind of Paul. Cp. Rom 16:25; Eph 3:5.<\/p>\n

The statements in Gal 1:11-12 are given in support of something going before. And the repeated word good-tidings, or Gospel, at once recalls the same word in Gal 1:6-9, thus overleaping the passing reference in Gal 1:10. Paul assumed in Gal 1:7 that the good news which he proclaimed and his readers accepted, but which the disturbers wish to overturn, is The Gospel of Christ. To defend this assumption, is the purpose of DIV. I. And this defence Paul has now introduced by a statement, which he will at once proceed to prove, that the matter of his preaching was acquired not by ordinary means but by a lifting up of the veil which hides Christ from mortal view.<\/p>\n

The above statement and the long argument following, which shed light on Gal 1:1, can be explained only by supposing that the false teachers had insinuated that Paul received the Gospel at second hand and preached only in virtue of a commission from the apostles sent personally by Christ, and was therefore inferior to them; and that to their commission he had been unfaithful by preaching a Gospel different from that which he received from them. To this insinuation the facts which occupy the remainder of DIV. I. will be a crushing reply.<\/p>\n

This revelation was conveyed to Paul (Eph 3:5) by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit (Eph 1:17) of wisdom and revelation, received at Damascus by (Act 9:17) the agency of Ananias. And doubtless the revelation was progressive. Yet we may suppose that he sought and received from others an account of the works and words of Jesus. Indeed he may have known these in part before his conversion; as many know them now and are uninfluenced by them. But, in addition to this external knowledge, Paul was deeply conscious that by the direct agency of God the eyes of his heart had been opened to see a heavenly light and to apprehend the life-giving truths underlying the words and works of Christ.<\/p>\n

And this is true, in some measure, of all believers: cp. Eph 1:17. Probably the matters in dispute turned not so much on what Christ had said as on the underlying significance of His words. And of this, Pauls knowledge was derived, not from human witnesses, but from Him who was pleased to reveal His Son in him.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. <\/p>\n

Paul certifies that the gospel he preached was not from man. Certify has the thought of make known the fact. It relates to assuring others of a fact. There is the idea of guarantee as well. When a company certifies something in relation to their product, they are desirous of your trust in what they say. One usually assumes some amount of guarantee with this certification. <\/p>\n

Paul uses the term in Eph 1:9 in his introduction of his letter. He tells the Ephesian believers that God has made His will KNOWN to us – a revelation based on truth. The Greek word does not imply the certification idea, but does have the thought of a complete knowledge, thus certification is implied. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1:11 {6} But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.<\/p>\n

(6) A second argument to prove that his doctrine is heavenly, because he had it from heaven, from Jesus Christ himself, without any man’s help, in which he excels those whom Christ taught here on earth after the manner of men.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

A. Independence from other apostles 1:11-24<\/span><\/p>\n

This is the first of three subsections in Paul’s autobiographical account, the historical portion of the epistle. It relates Paul’s early Christian experience and his first meeting with the church leaders in Jerusalem. The other subsections record his meeting with the Jerusalem leaders over the scope and sphere of his missionary work (Gal 2:1-10) and his confrontation with Peter in Antioch (Gal 2:11-21). This all builds up to his pronouncement that justification is by faith alone.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

II. PERSONAL DEFENSE OF PAUL’S GOSPEL 1:11-2:21<\/span><\/p>\n

The first of the three major sections of the epistle begins here. We could classify them as history (Gal 1:11 to Gal 2:21), theology (chs. 3-4), and ethics (Gal 5:1 to Gal 6:10).<\/p>\n

". . . Paul was . . . following the logic of the Christian life: Because of who God is and what he has done (history) we must believe what he has said (theology) in order to live as he commands (ethics)." [Note: Ibid., p. 66. Cf. C. K. Barrett, Freedom and Obligation, p. 3.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1. The source of Paul’s gospel 1:11-17<\/span><\/p>\n

Paul clarified the source of his gospel message in this pericope to convince his readers that the gospel he had preached to them was the true gospel. What the false teachers were presenting was heresy. He began an autobiographical section here (Gal 1:11 to Gal 2:14). It fills one-fifth of the entire epistle. In it he went to great pains to prove that both his gospel and his commission to preach it came directly from Jesus Christ on the Damascus road (Gal 1:15-16). It did not come to him from any intermediary.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Whenever Paul wrote, "I would have you know" (cf. 1Co 12:3; 1Co 15:1; 2Co 8:1), he intended to draw special attention to what he proceeded to say. Paul did not receive his gospel from traditional sources (his teachers) nor did he learn it through traditional means (the curriculum of his formal education). It came to him as a special revelation from Jesus Christ, and it was a revelation of who Jesus Christ really is. "According to" (Gal 1:11; Gr. kata<\/span>) means "from."<\/p>\n

". . . it was the gospel of justification by faith which came to Paul as the result of a direct revelation of Jesus Christ." [Note: Fung, p. 54.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Chapter 4<\/p>\n

PAULS GOSPEL REVEALED BY CHRIST.<\/p>\n

Gal 1:11-14<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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}<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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!<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

“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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 , {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 mental conflict. 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?<\/p>\n

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?<\/p>\n

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 1Co 12:1-31; 1Co 14:1-40, 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 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. … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 1:11”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29013","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29013","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29013"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29013\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29013"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29013"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29013"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}