12<\/strong>. For I neither received it of man] ‘I’<\/em> is emphatic: I received not the Gospel, any more than did the other Apostles, from man.<\/p>\n neither was I taught it<\/em> ] St Paul might have received the Gospel from God, and yet have been more fully instructed by men. This was not the case, comp. ch. Gal 2:6<\/span>. He both received and was taught it by direct revelation. The commission to Ananias (Act 9:10<\/span>, &c.) is not at variance with this declaration. It does not appear that he made any communication of religious knowledge to St Paul ( Gal 1:18-19<\/em><\/span>).<\/p>\n by the revelation of Jesus Christ<\/em> ] Rather, through the revelation<\/strong>. ‘Jesus Christ’ may be either the subject or the object, the Revealer or the Revealed; but probably the latter is primarily intended, see Gal 1:16<\/em><\/span>. Different opinions are held as to the time when this revelation was made. Certainly it took place at the time of his conversion, and probably on other subsequent occasions. In 2Co 12:7<\/span> he speaks of “the abundance of the revelations” which he had received; comp. 2Co 12:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n For I neither received it of man – <\/B>This is very probably said in reply to his opponents, who had maintained that Paul had derived his knowledge of the gospel from other people, since he had not been personally known to the Lord Jesus, or been of the number of those whom Jesus called to be his apostles. In reply to this, he says, that he did not receive his gospel in any way from man.<\/P> Neither was I taught it – <\/B>That is, by man. He was not taught it by any written account of it, or by the instruction of man in any way. The only plausible objection to this statement which could be urged would be the fact that Paul had an interview with Ananias Act 9:17<\/span> before his baptism, and that he would probably receive instructions from him. But to this it may be replied:<\/P> <\/p>\n But by the revelation of Jesus Christ – <\/B>On his way to Damascus, and subsequently in the temple, Act 22:17-21<\/span>. Doubtless, he received communications at various times from the Lord Jesus with regard to the nature of the gospel and his duty. The sense here is, that he was not indebted to people for his knowledge of the gospel, but had derived it entirely from the Saviour.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 12. I neither received it of man<\/B><\/I>] By means of any apostle<\/I>, as was remarked Ga 1:1<\/span>. No man taught me what I have preached to you.<\/P> <\/P> But by the revelation of Jesus Christ.<\/B><\/I>] Being commissioned by himself alone; receiving the knowledge of it from Christ crucified.<\/P><\/p>\n Not of man, <\/B>as my first and sole instructor, not only at second-hand, from Peter, James, or John, as the false teachers had suggested, nor was I taught it<\/B> otherwise than by the<\/B> immediate revelation of Jesus Christ.<\/B> <\/P> Revelation<\/B> signifieth the discovery of something which is secret (as the gospel, and doctrine of it, is called a mystery hid from<\/I> ages<\/I>). It may be objected, that Paul was instructed by Ananias, Act 9:17<\/span>. But this prejudiceth nothing the truth of what the apostle saith in this place, neither do we read of much that Ananias said to him in a way of instruction; it is only said, that he laid his hands on him, <\/I>and he was filled with the Holy Ghost.<\/I> When, or where, he had these revelations, the apostle saith not; probably while he lay in a trance, blind, and neither eating nor drinking for three days, Act 9:9<\/span>. Others think it was when he was caught up into the third heaven, 2Co 12:2<\/span>. Certain it is, that St. Paul had revelations from Christ, Act 22:17<\/span>,18<\/span>; 26:15-18<\/span>. Revelation signifies an immediate conveying of the knowledge of Divine things to a person, without human means; and in that Paul ascribes the revelation of the gospel to Jesus Christ, he plainly asserts the Divine nature of the Lord Jesus Christ. <\/P> <\/p>\n 12.<\/B> Translate, “For noteven<\/I> did I myself<\/I> (any more than the other apostles)receive it from man, nor<\/I> was I taught it (by man).””Received it,” implies the absence of labor in acquiringit. “Taught it,” implies the labor of learning. <\/P> by the revelation of JesusChrist<\/B>Translate, “by revelation of [that is, from] JesusChrist.” By His revealing it to me. Probably this took placeduring the three years, in part of which he sojourned in Arabia(Gal 1:17<\/span>; Gal 1:18<\/span>),in the vicinity of the scene of the giving of the law; a fit placefor such a revelation of the Gospel of grace, which supersedes theceremonial law (Ga 4:25<\/span>). He,like other Pharisees who embraced Christianity, did not at firstrecognize its independence of the Mosaic law, but combined bothtogether. Ananias, his first instructor, was universally esteemed forhis legal piety and so was not likely to have taught him to severChristianity from the law. This severance was partially recognizedafter the martyrdom of Stephen. But Paul received it by specialrevelation (1Co 11:23<\/span>; 1Co 15:3<\/span>;1Th 4:15<\/span>). A vision of the LordJesus is mentioned (Ac 22:18<\/span>),at his first visit to Jerusalem (Ga1:18<\/span>); but this seems to have been subsequent to the revelationhere meant (compare Ga1:15-18<\/span>), and to have been confined to giving a particularcommand. The vision “fourteen years before” (2Co12:1<\/span>) was in A.D. 43,still later, six years after his conversion. Thus Paul is anindependent witness to the Gospel. Though he had received noinstruction from the apostles, but from the Holy Ghost, yet when hemet them his Gospel exactly agreed with theirs.<\/P><\/p>\n For I neither received it of man<\/strong>,…. Not from Gamaliel, at whose feet he was brought up; he received the law from him, and knowledge in the Jews’ religion, and in the traditions of the elders, but not a whit of the Gospel; on the contrary, he received prejudices against it from him, or was strengthened in them by him; no, nor from the apostles of Christ neither, whom he saw not, had no conversation with for some years, after he was a preacher of the Gospel, and therefore did not receive it at their hands; no, nor from Ananias, nor any other man:<\/p>\n neither was I taught it<\/strong>: that is, by man; he did not learn it of men, as men learn law, physics, logic, rhetoric, natural philosophy, and other things at school:<\/p>\n but by the revelation of Jesus Christ<\/strong>; meaning, not through Christ being revealed to him by the Father, as in Ga 1:16<\/span> though it is a sense not to be overlooked; but by Christ, the revealer of it to him; and regards either the time of his rapture into the third heaven, when he heard words not to be uttered; or rather since that is not so certain when it was, the time of his conversion, when Christ personally appeared unto him, and made him a minister of his Gospel; and immediately from himself, without the interposition, or use of any man, or means, gave him such light into it, and such a furniture of mind for the preaching of it, that he directly, as soon as ever he was baptized, set about the ministration of it, to the admiration of the saints, and confusion of the enemies of Christ. These words furnish out another proof of the deity of Christ; for if the Gospel is not after man, nor received of, or taught by man, but by Christ, then Christ cannot be a mere man, or else being by him, it would be by man; and which also confirms the authority and validity of the Gospel, and carries in it a strong reason for the apostle’s anathematizing all such as preach any other.<\/p>\n Nor was I taught it <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). He did not receive it “from man” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>, which shuts out both <\/SPAN><\/span> and <\/SPAN><\/span> of verse 1<\/span>), whether Peter or any other apostle, nor was he taught it in the school of Gamaliel in Jerusalem or at the University of Tarsus. He “received” his gospel in one way, “through revelation of Jesus Christ” (‘ <\/SPAN><\/span>). He used <\/SPAN><\/span> in 1Co 15:3<\/span> about the reception of his message from Christ. It is not necessary to say that he had only one (because of the aorist active <\/SPAN><\/span>, from <\/SPAN><\/span>, for it can very well be constative aorist) revelation (unveiling) from Christ. In fact, we know that he had numerous visions of Christ and in 1Co 11:23<\/span> he expressly says concerning the origin of the Lord’s Supper: “I received (<\/SPAN><\/span>, again) from the Lord.” The Lord Jesus revealed his will to Paul. <\/P> <\/p>\n Of man [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Better, from man. Para from emphasises the idea of transmission, and marks the connection between giver and receiver. Comp. 1Th 2:13<\/span>; 1Th 4:1<\/span>; 2Ti 3:14<\/span>; Act 10:22<\/span>. In the Gospels and Acts paralambanein usually means to take, in the sense of causing to accompany, as Mt 4:5<\/span>; Mt 17:1<\/span>; Mr 4:36<\/span>, etc. Scarcely ever in the sense of receive : see Mr 7:4<\/span>. In Paul only in the sense of receive, and only with para, with the single exception of 1Co 11:23<\/span> [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The simple lambanw usually with para, but with ajpo, 1Jo 2:27<\/span>; 1Jo 3:22<\/span>. <\/P> By the revelation of Jesus Christ [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Not, by Jesus Christ being revealed to me, but, I received the gospel by Jesus Christ ‘s revealing it to me. The subject of the revelation is the gospel, not Christ. Christ was the revealer. Rev. (it came to me) through revelation of Jesus Christ.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “For I neither received it of men,”<\/strong> (oude gar ego para anthropou parelabon auto) “For I received it not from (a) man,” not from a council, board, Synod, etc.; but by Divine revelation, as follows: after the agency of Ananias’ baptizing him into the church at Damascus, no other man had any real active influence over his ministry.<\/p>\n 2) “Neither was I taught it,”<\/strong> (oute edidachthen) “nor was I taught it by (a) man, or mankind,” not by Gamaliel or by contemporary sages of his time, Act 22:3<\/span>; Tho he was brought up “at the feet of Gamaliel,” Gal 1:14-20<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “But the revelation of Jesus Christ,”<\/strong> (alla di’ apokalupseos lesou Christou) “but through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Gal 1:1<\/span>; Act 9:6<\/span>; Act 22:10<\/span>; Act 22:15<\/span>; Act 22:21<\/span>; Act 26:16-18<\/span>; Eph 3:2-6<\/span>.<\/p>\n 12. For I neither received it from man. What then? shall the authority of the word be diminished, because one who has been instructed by the instrumentality of men shall afterwards become a teacher? We must take into account, all along, the weapons with which the false apostles attacked him, alleging that his gospel was defective and spurious; that he had obtained it from an inferior and incompetent teacher; and that his imperfect education led him to make unguarded statements. They boasted, on the other hand, that they had been instructed by the highest apostles, with whose views they were most intimately acquainted. It was therefore necessary that Paul should state his doctrine in opposition to the whole world, and should rest it on this ground, that he had acquired it not in the school of any man, but by revelation from God. In no other way could he have set aside the reproaches of the false apostles. <\/p>\n The objection, that Ananias (Act 9:10<\/span>) was his teacher, may be easily answered. His divine instruction, communicated to him by immediate inspiration, did not render it improper that a man should be employed in teaching him, were it only to give weight to his public ministry. In like manner, we have already shown, that he had a direct call from God by revelation, and that he was ordained by the votes and the solemn approbation of men. These statements are not inconsistent with each other. <\/p>\n (12) For I neither received it.<\/strong>The first neither in this verse does not answer to the second, but qualifies the pronoun I. The connection in the thought is perhaps something of this kind: The gospel is not human as it comes to you;<\/em> neither was it human as it first came to me.<\/p>\n Taught.<\/strong>There is an antithesis between this word and revelation in the next clause. I did not receive my doctrine from man by a process of teaching and learning, but from Christ Himself by direct revelation.<\/p>\n By the revelation.<\/strong>It is better to omit the article: by, or through the medium of, revelation. What was this revelation, and when was it given? The context shows that it must have been at some time either at or near the Apostles conversion. This would be sufficient to exclude the later revelation of 2Co. 12:1<\/span>. But can it be the vision on the way to Damascus itself alone? At first sight it would seem as if this was too brief, and its object too special, to include the kind of sum of Christian doctrine of which the Apostle is speaking. But this at least contained the two main pointsthe Messiahship of Jesus, and faith in Jesus, from which all the rest of the Apostles teaching flowed naturally and logically. When once it was felt that the death of Christ upon the cross was not that of a criminal, but of the Son of God, the rest all seemed to follow. Putting this together with the sense, which we may well believe had been growing upon him, of the inefficacy of the Law, we can easily see how the idea would arise of a sacrifice superseding the Law, and in the relegation of the Law to this very secondary position the main barrier between Jew and Gentile would be removed. St. Paul himself, by laying stress upon his retreat to the deserts of Arabia, evidently implies that the gospel, as taught by him in its complete form, was the result of gradual development and prolonged reflection; but whether this is to be regarded as implicitly contained in the first revelation, or whether we are to suppose that there were successive revelations, of which there is no record in the Acts, cannot be positively determined.<\/p>\n Of Jesus Christ<\/strong>i.e.,<\/em> given by<\/em> Jesus Christ; of which Jesus Christ is the Author. 12<\/strong>. <\/strong> Received it<\/strong> As a gift or deposit. <\/p>\n Taught it<\/strong> As a lesson, doctrine, or system. <\/p>\n Revelation<\/strong> Direct disclosure from Christ to Paul. The Greek word is a form of our term apocalypse; so that not only John had his apocalypse, but Paul. See Introductory note to 1Co 15:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n Gal 1:12<\/span> . Proof of the statement, .<\/p>\n ] for neither I<\/em> , any more than the other apostles. On , for neither<\/em> , which corresponds with the positive , comp. Bornemann, ad Xen. Symp<\/em> . p. 200; Hartung, Partikell<\/em> . I. p. 211. The earlier expositors (also Morus, Koppe, and others) neglect both the signification of and the emphasis on , which is also overlooked by de Wette, “for also I have not,” etc.; and Ewald, “I obtained it not at all.” Comp., on the contrary, Mat 21:27<\/span> ; Luk 20:8<\/span> ; Joh 8:11<\/span> . Rckert, Matthies, and Schott understand only as if it were , assuming it to be used on account of the previous negation; and see in a contrast to those, quibus ipse tradiderit evangelium<\/em> , in which case there must have been instead of . This remark also applies to Hofmann’s view, “that he himself<\/em> has not received what he preached through human instruction.” Besides, the supposed reference of would be quite unsuitable, for the apostle had not at all in view a comparison with his disciples;<\/em> a comparison with the other apostles<\/em> was the point agitating his mind. Lastly, Winer finds too much in , “ nam ne ego quidem<\/em> .” This is objectionable, not because, as Schott and Olshausen, following Rckert, assume, or must in that case have been written, for in fact would have its perfectly regular position (Gal 6:13<\/span> ; Rom 8:7<\/span> ; Joh 5:22<\/span> ; Joh 7:5<\/span> ; Joh 8:42<\/span> , et al<\/em> .); but because ne ego quidem<\/em> would imply the concession of a certain higher position<\/em> for the other apostles (comp. 1Co 15:8-9<\/span> ), which would not be in harmony with the apostle’s present train of thought, where his argument turned rather on his equality<\/em> with them (comp. 1Co 9:1<\/span> ).<\/p>\n ] from a man<\/em> , who had given it to me. Not to be confounded with (see on 1Co 11:23<\/span> , and Hermann, ad Soph. El<\/em> . 65). Here also, as in Gal 1:1<\/span> , we have the contrast between and . .<\/p>\n ] viz. .<\/p>\n ] As refers only to the contained in the preceding , and and do not correspond, is here by no means inappropriate (as Rckert alleges). See Hand, De part.<\/em> diss<\/em> . II. p. 13; Hartung, Partikell<\/em> . I. p. 101 f.; Buttmann, neutest. Gr<\/em> . p. 315. Comp. on Act 23:8<\/span> . For neither have I received it from a man, nor learned it<\/em> . denotes the receiving through communication in general<\/em> (comp. Gal 1:9<\/span> ), the receiving specially<\/em> through instruction<\/em> duly used.<\/p>\n . . .] The contrast to ; . is therefore the genitive, not of the object<\/em> (Theodoret, Matthies, Schott), but of the subject<\/em> (comp. 2Co 12:1<\/span> ; Rev 1:1<\/span> ), by Jesus Christ giving to me revelation<\/em> . Paul alludes to the revelations [25] received soon after the event at Damascus, and consequent therefore upon his calling, which enabled him to comply with it and to come forward as a preacher of the gospel. Comp. Gal 1:15-16<\/span> ; Eph 3:3<\/span> . The revelation referred to in 2Co 12:1<\/span> ff. (Thomas, Cornelius a Lapide, Balduin, and others) cannot be meant; because this occurred at a subsequent period, when Paul had for a long time been preaching the gospel. Nor must we (with Koppe, Flatt, and Schott) refer it to the revelations which were imparted to him generally<\/em> , including those of the later period, for here mention is made only of a revelation by which he received and learned<\/em> the gospel.<\/p>\n How<\/em> the took place (according to Calovius, through the Holy Spirit; comp. Act 9:17<\/span> ), must be left undecided. It may have taken place with or without vision, in different stages, partly even before his baptism in the three days mentioned Act 9:6<\/span> ; Act 9:9<\/span> , partly at and immediately after it, but not through instruction on the part of Ananias. The <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> in Gal 1:16<\/span> is consistent with either supposition.<\/p>\n [25] Of which, however, the book of Acts gives us no account; for in Act 22:17<\/span> , Christ appeared to him not to reveal to him the gospel, but for the purpose of giving a special instruction. Hence they are not to be referred to the event at Damascus itself<\/em> , as, following Jerome and Theodoret, many earlier and more recent expositors (Rckert, Usteri, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, Wieseler) assume. The calling<\/em> of the apostle, by which he was converted at Damascus, is expressly distinguished in ver. 16 from the divine , so that this inward followed<\/em> the calling; the calling was the fact which laid the foundation for the (comp. Mller on de Wette) the historical preliminary to it. In identifying the of our passage with the phenomenon at Damascus, it would be necessary to assume that Paul, to whom at Damascus the resurrection of Jesus was revealed, had come to add to this fundamental fact of his preaching the remaining contents of the doctrine of salvation, partly by means of argument, partly by further revelation, and partly by information derived from others (see especially Wieseler). This idea is, however, inconsistent with the assurance of our passage, which relates without restriction to the whole gospel preached by the apostle, consequently to the whole of its essential contents. The same objection may be specially urged against the view, with which Hofmann contents himself, that the wonderful phenomenon at Damascus certified<\/em> to Paul’s mind the truth of the Christian faith, which had not been unknown to him before. Such a conception of the matter falls far short of the idea of the of the gospel through Christ, especially as the apostle refers specifically to his<\/em> gospel.<\/p>\n 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it<\/em> , but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 12. Received it of man<\/strong> ] i.e.<\/em> Of mere man. Jesus Christ is more than a man. <\/p>\n 12<\/strong> .] proof of this<\/em> . For neither<\/strong> ( in negative sentences, answers to in positive; e.g. in Herod. i. 3, : omit the , and substitute for , and the sentence becomes affirmative. So that has nothing to do, except in ruling the negative form of the clause, with following, but belongs to this clause only. See on the whole, Ellic.’s note) did I<\/strong> ( strongly emphatic, see example from Herodot. above: ‘ neither did I, any more than the other Apostles<\/em> .’ Thus this clause stands alone; the ‘ neither<\/em> ’ is exhausted and does not extend to the next clause) receive it<\/strong> (historically) from man<\/strong> (i.e. ‘any man;’ not ‘ a man<\/em> ,’ but generic, the article being omitted after the preposition as in Gal 1:1 ), nor was taught it<\/strong> (dogmatically); but through revelation of<\/strong> (i.e. from<\/strong> , genitive subjective: see reff. Thdrt. (but not altogether: for he subjoins, ) al. take the genitive as objective, ‘ revelation of<\/em> ,’ i.e. revealing<\/em> ) Jesus Christ<\/strong> .<\/p>\n WHEN did this revelation take place? clearly, soon after his conversion, imparting to him as it did the knowledge of the Gospel which he afterwards preached; and therefore in all probability it is to be placed during that sojourn in Arabia referred to in Gal 1:17<\/span> . It cannot be identical with the visions spoken of 2Co 12:1<\/span> ff., for 2 Cor. was written in A.D. 57, and fourteen years before that would bring us to A.D. 43, whereas his conversion was in 37 (see Chron. Table in Prolegomena, Vol. II.), and his subsequent silence, during which we may conceive him to have been under preparation by this apocalyptic imparting of the Gospel, lasted but three years, Gal 1:18<\/span> .<\/p>\n Nor can it be the same as that appearance of the Lord to him related Act 22:18<\/span> , for that was not the occasion of any revelation, but simply of warning and command.<\/p>\n He appears to refer to this special revelation in 1Co 11:23<\/span> (where see on the supposed distinction between and ); 1Co 15:3 . 1Th 4:15<\/span> ; see notes in those places.<\/p>\n Gal 1:12<\/span> . . The personal pronoun is inserted, because the author is here laying stress on the special education he had received for his ministry of the Gospel He had not learnt it, like his converts, from human teaching, but by direct communion with God in spirit, as the Twelve had learnt it from Christ’s own teaching. This independence of older Christians is a marked feature in the history of his life. The agency of Ananias was necessary for his admission into the Church, but after his baptism no older Christian appears on the scene at Damascus.<\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/em><\/p>\nFuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n