Galatians 1

Galatians 1:1-99

ΠΡΟΣΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ

Chap. 1:1-5. Address and greeting. πολλοῦτὸπροοίμιονγέμειθυμοῦκ . μεγάλουφρονήματος · οὐτὸπροοίμιονδὲμόνον , ἀλλὰκαὶπᾶσα , ὡςεἰπεῖν , ἡἐπιστολή . Chrys. In the very opening sentence of the Epistle, we see the fervour of the Apostle’ s mind and the weightiness of his subject betraying themselves. The vindication of his own apostolic calling,— and the description of the work and purpose of Christ towards us, shew him to be writing to those who had disparaged that apostleship, and were falling from their Saviour.

1. It is better not to join ἀπόστολος (here of course used in its strict and highest sense: see Ellicott, and an interesting note in Jowett) with ἀπ ʼ , but to let it stand by itself, and take the two prepositions as indicating, ἀπό the remote originating cause, διὰ the nearer instrumental one. In St. Paul’ s case, neither of these was merely human; the Lord Jesus was both the original Sender, and Himself the Announcer of the mission. Perhaps however the prepositions must not be so strictly pressed,— see ref. 1 Cor.,— and observe that the following διὰ belongs to θεοῦπατρός as well as to Ἰησοῦχριστοῦ .— ἀνθρώπου is perhaps (as Mey., De W., Ellic., al.) singular, for the sake of contrast to Ἰησ . χρ . following; but more probably for solemnity’ s sake, the singular making even a more marked exclusion of human agency than the plural. Luther’ s view of the sentence is: “ The Judaizing teachers could shew their credentials as disciples of Apostles or messengers of churches, and despised Paul as having none such. To this he answers that he had not indeed any commission from men, but derived his authority from a higher source.” But (1) this was not the fact, for he had a regular mission from the church at Antioch: (2) the words do not express it.

κ . θεοῦπατρός ] If by Jesus Christ then also by God the Father, in and by whose appointment all the mediatorial acts of Christ in the Headship of His Church are done. The inferences of Chrys. al. as to the equality of the Father and the Son from this juxtaposition, appear far-fetched, and according to “ the mind, not of the apostolic, but of the Nicene age,” as Jowett: but we may say at least this, that the strongest possible contrast is here drawn between man, in the ordinary sense, on the one side, and Jesus Christ, and God the Father, on the other. Had not the Apostle regarded Jesus Christ as one with the Father in the Godhead, he never could have written thus. On the use of διὰ here where ἀπό might be expected, see Ellicott’ s note. He refers it to the brevity with which St. Paul expresses himself: I should rather say that he states our Lord Jesus and God the Father to have been the causa medians, in bringing down divine agency even to the actual fact of his mission— and leaving it therefore to be inferred à fortiori that the causa principalis was the will of God.

It is important to remember that the mission of Paul to the actual work of the ministry was by the command of the Holy Spirit, Acts 13:2,— proceeding from, and expressing the will of, the Father and the Son.

πατρός is better taken generally, as in reff., the Father, than supplied with ἡμῶν (as De W. al.) or αὐτοῦ (as Meyer al.).

τοῦἐγ . αὐτ .] Why specified here? Not, I think, because (Meyer) Paul was called to be an Apostle by the risen Saviour,— nor merely (De W.) to identify the Father as the Originator of the Son’ s work of Redemption (which is so in Romans 4:24,— but here would not immediately concern Paul’ s calling to be an Apostle),— nor (Calvin, al.) to meet the objection that he had never seen Christ, and turn it into an advantage, in that (Aug. (but cf. his Retractations), Erasm., Beza, al.) he alone was commissioned by the already risen and ascended Jesus,— for in this case we should not find τοῦἐγείραντοςκ .τ .λ . stated as a predicate of the Father, but τοῦἐγερθέντοςκ .τ .λ . as one of the Son,— nor as asserting the Resurrection against the Jews and Judaizing Galatians (Chrys., Luther), which is far-fetched,— nor again (Jowett) as expressing an attribute of the Father, without which He can hardly be thought of by the believer,— for this is too loose a relevancy for a sentence so pointed as the present: but because the Resurrection, including and implying the Ascension, was the Father’ s bestowal on Christ of gifts for men, by virtue of which (ἔδωκεντοὺςμὲνἀποστόλους , κ .τ .λ . Ephesians 4:11) Paul’ s Apostleship had been received. Cf. a similar sentiment in Romans 1:4, Romans 1:5.

ἐκνεκρῶν = ἐκτῶνν .,— see note on Romans 4:24. In Matthew 14:2; Matthew 27:64; Matthew 28:7; Ephesians 5:14; Colossians 1:18 (2:12?); 1 Thessalonians 1:10, the article is expressed: otherwise it is always omitted.

2. ἀδελφοί ] Who these were, may best be inferred by the Apostle’ s usage in the addresses of other Epistles, where we have Σωσθένηςὁἀδελφός (1 Corinthians 1:1), Τιμόθεοςὁἀδ . (1 Chronicles 1:11 Ch 1:11 Ch 1:1.Philemon 1:1 Philemon 1:1). They were his colleagues in the work of the Gospel, his companions in travel, and the like (not all the members of the church where he was, as Erasm., Grot., Jowett, al., who would hardly be specified as being σὺναὐτῷ ,— besides that such an address would be unprecedented): and their unanimity is here stated, as Chrys., Luther, al., to shew that he was not alone in his doctrine, but joined by all the brethren who were present. At the same time πάντες would seem to imply that just now he had many of these ἀδελφοί with him. But we cannot draw any inference from this as to the date of our Epistle: for we do not know who were his companions on many occasions. At Ephesus, where probably it was written, we hear only of Gaius and Aristarchus (Acts 19:29), but we cannot say that there were not others: in all likelihood, several more of those mentioned Acts 20:4, were with him.

ταῖςἐκκλ .] πανταχοῦγὰρεἷρψενἡνόσος . Thdrt. The principal cities of Galatia were Pessinus and Ancyra: but this plural seems to imply more than two such churches. See 1 Corinthians 16:1, and Acts 16:6; Acts 18:23. That we have here barely ταῖςἐκκλ ., without any honourable adjunct (as in 1 Cor., 2 Cor., 1 Thess., 2 Thess., &c.), must he explained as Chrys. al.: θέαδέμοικαὶἐνταῦθατ . πολλὴνἀγανάκτησιν . οὐγὰρεἶπεΤοῖςἀγαπητοῖςοὐδὲΤοῖςἡγιασμένοις , ἀλλὰΤ . ἐκκλ . τ . Γαλ . Meyer denies this, alleging (carelessly, which is not usual with him) 1 Thess. and 2 Thess. as addressed barely τῇἐκκλησίᾳ , whereas in both we have added ἐνθεῷπατρὶκ . κυρίῳἸησ . χρ .

3. See introductory note on Romans 1:1-7.

4. He thus obiter reminds the Galatians, who wished to return to the bondage of the law, of the great object of the Atonement, which they had forgotten. Ch. 3:13 is but a restatement, in more precise terms, of this.

δόντοςἑαυ .] viz. as an offering, unto death: an expression only found (in N. T.) here and in the Pastoral Epistles. Several such will occur; see the inference, in Prolegomena to Past. Epistles, § i. 32, note.

περί , in this connexion, has much the same sense as ὑπέρ : see reff., and note on Ephesians 6:19; also Ellic.’ s note here.

ὅπ . ἐξέληται ] ἐξαιρεῖσθαι is the very word used by the Lord of St. Paul’ s own great deliverance, see reff.

τ . αἰῶνοςτ . ἐνεστ . πονηροῦ ] the present (not, as Mey., ‘ coming.’ The word will not bear this meaning in 1 Corinthians 7:26, nor apparently (see note) in 2 Thessalonians 2:2, much less in Romans 8:38) evil age (state of things; i.e. the course of this present evil world;— and, as understood, make us citizens and inheritors of a better αἰῶνος , τοῦμέλλοντος . So Luther: “ vocat hunc totum mundum, qui fuit, est et erit, præ sens seculum, ad differentiam futuri et æ terni sæ culi.” The allusion (Jowett) to the Jewish expressions, “ the present age,” “ the age to come,” as applying to the periods before and after the Messiah’ s coming, is very faint,— indeed hardly traceable, in the change which the terms had undergone as used in a spiritual sense by Christians. See however the rest of his note, which is full of interest).

κατὰτὸθέλημα … ] And this, (1) not according to our own plan, in proportion to our legal obedience or any quality in us, but according to the Father’ s sovereign will, the prime standard of all the process of redemption: and (2) not so that we may trifle with such rescuing purpose of Christ by mixing it with other schemes and fancies, seeing that it is according to a procedure prescribed by Him, who doeth all things after the counsel of His own will. And this, not as the lord merely of His works, but as πατρὸςἡμῶν , bound to us in the ties of closest love— for our good, as well as to fulfil His own eternal purpose. On the question, whether the genitive ἡμῶν depends on both, or only on the latter of the two nouns θεοῦκ . πατρός , I agree in Ellicott’ s conclusion, that as πατρός is regularly anarthrous, and thus purely grammatical considerations are confounded,— as θεός conveys one absolute idea, while πατήρ might convey many relative ones, it is natural to believe that the Apostle may have added a defining genitive to πατήρ , which he did not intend to be referred to θεός . Render therefore, God and our Father, not ‘ our God and Father.’

5. ᾧἡδόξα ] So (reff.) on other occasions, when speaking of the wonderful things of God, St. Paul adds a doxology. “ In politeia, quando regum aut principum nomina appellamus, id honesto quodam gestu, reverentia, et genuflexione facere solemus. Multo magis cum de Deo loquimur, genu cordis flectere debemus.” Luther. In ἡδόξα ,— the glory κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν , or ‘ the glory which is His,’ — the article is probably inserted for solemnity. “ In this and similar forms of doxology,— excepting the angelic doxology, Luke 2:14, and that of the multitude, Luke 19:38,— δόξα regularly takes the article when used alone: see Romans 11:36; Romans 16:27; Ephesians 3:21; Philippians 4:20; 2 Timothy 4:18; Hebrews 13:21; 2 Peter 3:18. When joined with one or more substantives, it appears sometimes with the article (1 Peter 4:11; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 7:12): sometimes without it (Romans 2:10; 1 Timothy 1:17; Jude 1:25).” Ellicott.

τοὺςαἰῶν . τ . αἰών .] See note on Ephesians 3:21.

6-10. Announcement of the occasion of the Epistle, in his amazement at their speedy falling away from the Gospel. Assertion of that Gospel’ s exclusive claim to their adhesion, as preached by him, who served God in Christ, and not popularity among men. We have none of the usual expressions of thankfulness for their faith, &c.; but he hurries vehemently into his subject, and, as Chrys. says, σφοδρότεροντῷμετὰταῦτακέχρηταιλόγῳ , καθάπερπυρωθεὶςσφοδρῶςὑπὸτῆςἐννοίαςτῶνεὐεργεσιῶντοῦθεοῦ .

6. θαυμάζω in this sense (see reff.) is a word of mildness, inasmuch as it imports that better things were expected of them,— and of condescension, as letting down the writer to the level of his readers and even challenging explanation from them. Still, like many other such mild words, it carries to the guilty conscience even sharper rebuke than a harsher one would.

οὕτωςταχέως ] either (1) ‘ so soon after your conversion’ (Calv., Olsh., Meyer, &c.), or (2) ‘ so quickly,’ — ‘ after so little persuasion,’ when the false teachers once came among you (Chr., De W., &c.), or (3) ‘ so soon after my recent visit among you’ (Bengel, &c.). Of these I prefer (1), as more suiting the dignity of the passage, and as the more general and comprehensive reason. But it does not exclude (2) and (3): ‘ so soon,’ might be, and might be intended to be, variously supplied. See Prolegomena, on the time and place of writing this Epistle.

μετατίθ .] are passing over, pres.: not as E. V. ‘ are removed,’ which is doubly wrong, for μετ . is not passive but middle, in the common usage of the word, according to which the Galatians would understand it. So Plato, Theog. 122 c, σμικρὸνγάρτιμετατίθεμαι , ‘ I am beginning somewhat to change my opinion:’ see also Gorg. 493 c: Demosth. 379. 10: Ἴβηρες , ὅσοι … ἐςῬωμαίουςμετέθεντο , Appian, Hisp. c. 17; &c. See also examples in Wetst. Chrys. says well, οὐκεἶπεΜετέθεσθε , ἀλλὰΜετατίθεσθε · τουτέστιν , οὐδέπωπιστεύω , οὐδὲἡγοῦμαιἀπηρτισμένηνεἶναιτὴνἀπάτην · δκαὶαὐτὸπάλινἐστὶνἀνακτωμένου .

It is interesting to notice, in connexion with οὕτωςταχέωςμετατίθεσθε , the character given by Cæ sar of the Gauls: “ ut ad bella suscipienda Gallorum alacer ac promtus est animus: sic mollis ac minime resistens ad calamitates mens ipsorum est.” B. G. iii. 19:— “ Cæ sar … infirmitatem Gallorum veritus, quod sint in consiliis capiendis mobiles, et novis plerumque rebus student:” ib. iv. 5: see also ib. ii. 8; iii. 10.

τοῦκαλέσ . ὑμ .] not to be taken with χριστοῦ , as Syr., Jer., Luth. (gives both constructions, but prefers this), Calv., Grot., Bengel, &c., nor understood of Paul, as al. and recently by Bagge,— but, as almost always with the Apostle (see note on Romans 1:6), of God the Father see ver. 15; and cf. Romans 8:30; Romans 9:24, Romans 9:25: 1 Corinthians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 7:15, 1 Corinthians 7:17: 1 Thessalonians 2:12: 2 Thessalonians 2:14: 2 Timothy 1:9. Also 1 Peter 5:10).

ἐνχάρ . χρ .] in (as the element, and hence the medium; not into, as E. V.; see for construction 1 Corinthians 7:15. In the secondary transferred sense of local prepositions, so often found in later Greek, it is extremely difficult to assign the precise shade of meaning: see Jowett’ s and Ellic.’ s notes here. But we may safely lay down two strongly marked regions of prepositional force, which must never be confounded, that of motion, and that of rest. ἐν , for example, can never be strictly rendered ‘ into,’ nor εἰς , ‘ in.’ Where such appears to be the case, some logical consideration has been overlooked, which if introduced would right the meaning) the grace of Christ. Christ’ s grace is the elementary medium of our ‘ calling of God,’ as is set forth in full, Romans 5:15, ἡδωρεὰἐνχάριτιτῇτοῦἑνὸςἀνθρ . Ἰησ . χρ .:— see also Acts 15:11. And ‘ Christ’ s grace’ is the sum of all that He has suffered and done for us to bring us to God;— whereby we come to the Father,— in which, as its element, the Father’ s calling of us has place.

εἰςἕτερ . εὐαγγ .] to a different (in kind: not ἄλλο , another of the same kind, which title he denies it, see below) gospel .

7. Meyer’ s note appears to me well to express the sense: “ the preceding εἰςἕτερονεὐαγγέλιον was a paradoxical expression, there being in reality but one Gospel. Paul appeared by it to admit the existence of many Gospels, and he therefore now explains himself more accurately, how he wishes to be understood— ὃοὐκἔστινἄλλο , εἰμή &c.,” i.e. which “ different Gospel,” whereto you are falling away, is not another, not a second, besides the one Gospel (ἄλλο , not ἕτερον again; see above), except that there are some who trouble yon &c. That is: ‘ This ἕτερονεὐαγγ . is only in so far another, that there are certain, who &c.’ Notice that the stress is on οὐκ ; so that Paul, though he had before said εἰςἕτερονεὐαγγ ., yet guards the unity of the Gospel, and explains what he meant by ἕτερονεὐαγγέλιον to be nothing but a corruption and perversion of the one Gospel of Christ. Others, as Chrys., Œ c., Thdrt., Luther, De Wette, &c., take ὃοὐκἔστινἄλλο as all referring to εὐαγγέλιον , “ which is (admits of being) no other” : and then εἰμή is merely adversative, ‘ but,’ or ‘ only,’ a meaning which it will hardly bear, but which, as De W. remarks, is not necessarily involved in his interpretation: ‘ except that’ answering for it quite as well. The objection to his view is (1) that the meaning assigned to ὃοὐκἔστινἄλλο is very harsh, taking the relative from its application to the concrete (ἕτερονεὐαγγ .), and enlarging it to the abstract (τὸεὺαγγ . in general) (2) that the juxtaposition of ἕτερον and ἄλλο in one sentence seems to require, as in 1 Corinthians 15:40, 1 Corinthians 15:41, that the strict meaning of each should he observed.

Others again (Winer, Olsh., &c.) refer the ὅ to the whole sentence from ὅτι &c. to εὐαγγέλιον — ‘ which (viz. your falling away) is nothing else but (has no other cause, but that) &c.’ To this the objection (2) above applies, and it is besides very unlikely that St. Paul would thus have shifted all blame from the Galatians to their false teachers (‘ hanc culpam non tam vobis imputo quam perturbatoribus illis,’ &c. Luther), and, as it were, wiped out the effect of his rebuke just after uttering it. Lastly, Schö tt., and Cornel.-a-Lapide, take ὃοὐκἔστ . ἄλλο as a parenthesis, and refer εἰμή to θαυμάζω , which should thus have been ἐθαύμαζον . This would besides make the sentence a very harsh and unnatural one. The nature of this ‘ different Gospel,’ as gathered from the data in our Epistle, was (1), though recognizing Jesus as the Christ, it insisted on circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic ordinances as to times, &c.: (2) it professed to rest on the authority of some of the other Apostles see Chrys. quoted below.

οἱταρ .] The article points out in a more marked manner the (notorious) occupation of these men, q. d. ‘ certain your disturbers, &c.’ Add to reff., Herodot. ix. 70, τὴνσκηνὴντ . Μαρδονίουοὗτοιἔσανοἱδιαρπάσαντες . Xen. An. ii. 4. 5, ὁἡγησόμενοςοὐδεὶςἔσται : and compare the common expression εἰσὶνοἱλέγοντες .

τὸεὐαγγ . τ . χρ .] perhaps here not ‘ Christ’ s Gospel,’ but the Gospel of (i.e. relating to, preaching) Christ. The context only can determine in such expressions whether the genitive is subjective or objective.

8. But (no matter who they are οἱταρ . &c.) even though (in καὶεἰ , καὶἐάν , &c., the force of the καί is distributed over the whole supposition following, see Hartung, Partikell. i. 139; and ἐάν is distinguished from εἰ , in supposing a case which has never occurred, see 1 Corinthians 13:1, and a full explanation in Herm. on Viger, p. 832) we (i.e. usually, ‘ I, Paul:’ but perhaps used here on account of οἱσὺνἐμοὶπάντεςἀδελφοί , ver. 2) or an angel from heaven , preach (evangelize: it is impossible to preserve in English the εὐαγγέλιον , and in it the reference back to vv. 6, 7) to you other than what (παρά (reff.) as in παρὰδόξαν , παρὰτοὺςὅρκους , παραβαίνειν , &c. not merely ‘ against,’ nor merely ‘ besides,’ but indicating ‘ beyond,’ in the sense of overstepping the limit into a new region, i.e. it points out specific difference. The preposition is important here, as it has been pressed by Protestants in the sense of ‘ besides,’ against Roman Catholic tradition, and in consequence maintained by the latter in the sense of ‘ against.’ It in fact includes both) we preached (evangelized) to you, let him be accursed (of God: no reference to ecclesiastical excommunication: for an angel is here included. See note, Romans 9:3, and compare ch. 5:10: also Ellic.’ s and Bagge’ s notes here).

9. As we said before (referring, not to ver. 8 as most Commentators; for the word more naturally, as in 2 Corinthians 13:2 (so προείπαμεν , 1 Thessalonians 4:6), relates to something said on a former occasion,— and the plural seems here to bind it to εὐηγγελισάμεθα ,— but to what he had said during his presence with them: see a similar reference, ch. 5:3, 21), I also now say again,— If any one is (no longer now a supposition, but an assumption of the fact: see Hermann, ut supra; and Ellic.’ s note) evangelizing you (reff.) other (with another gospel) than that which ye received (from us), let him be accursed (see above).

10. For (accounting for, and by so doing, softening, the seeming harshness of the last saying, by the fact which follows) am I now persuading (seeking to win over to me, ζητῶνἀρέσκειν nearly; see reff.) men (see 1 Corinthians 4:3; 2 Corinthians 5:11: not, as Erasm. (al. not Luther), ‘ num res humanas suadeo, an divinas?’ — nor as Calvin, ‘ suadeone secundum homines an secundum Deum?’ ) or (am I conciliating) (πείθω losing its more proper meaning, as of course, when thus applied) God? or am I seeking to please men (a somewhat wider expression than the other, embracing his whole course of procedure)? (Nay) if I any longer (implying that such is the course of the world before conversion to Christ; not necessarily referring back to the time before his own conversion, any more than that is contained by implication in the words, but rather perhaps to the accumulated enormity of his being, after all he had gone through, a man-pleaser) were pleasing men (either (1) imperf., = ‘ seeking to please:’ so that the fact, of being well-pleasing to men, does not come into question; or (2) as Mey., ‘ the fact of pleasing, result of seeking to please:’ ‘ if I were popular with men:’ the construction will bear both), I were not (ἤμην is a late form, found however in Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 9: see Ellic. here) the servant of Christ. Some interpret χρ . δοῦ . οὐκἂνἤμην as Chr., ἔτιμετὰἸουδαίωνἤμην , ἔτιτὴνἐκκλησίανἐδίωκον . But this would more naturally be expressed by οὐκἂνἐγενόμην , and, as Mey. remarks, would give a very flat and poor sense: it is better therefore to take δοῦλος in its ethical, not its historical meaning.

11-Chap. 2:21. 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.

11, 12. Enunciation of this subject.

γν . γάρ ] The γάρ seems to have been corrected to δέ , as not applying immediately to the foregoing,— or perhaps in reminiscence of 1 Corinthians 15:1; 2 Corinthians 8:1. It refers back to vv. 8, 9. On γνωρ ., see note, 1 Corinthians 15:1.

κατὰἄνθρωπον ] 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 βελτίονοςἢκατ ʼ ἄνθρωποννομοθέτου , Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 24, κατά cannot itself express the origin (as Aug., a-Lapide, Est., al.), though it is included by implication: see note ver. 4, on κατὰτὸθέλημα .

12. proof of this. For neither (οὐδὲγάρ in negative sentences, answers to καὶγάρ in positive; e.g. in Herod. i. 3, ἐπιστάμενονπάντωςὅτιοὐδώσειδίκας · οὐδὲγὰρἐκείνουςδιδόναι :— omit the οὐ , and substitute καί for οὐδέ , and the sentence becomes affirmative. So that οὐδέ has nothing to do, except in ruling the negative form of the clause, with οὔτε following, but belongs to this clause only. See on the whole, Ellic.’ s note) did I (ἐγώ strongly emphatic,— see example from Herodot. above: ‘ neither did I, any more than the other Apostles.’ Thus this clause stands alone; the ‘ neither’ is exhausted and does not extend to the next clause) receive it (historically) from man (i.e. ‘ any man;’ not ‘ a man,’ but generic, the article being omitted after the preposition as in ver. 1), nor was taught it (dogmatically); but through revelation of al. take the genitive as objective, ‘ revelation of,’ i.e. revealing) Jesus Christ.

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 ver. 17. It cannot be identical with the visions spoken of 2 Corinthians 12:1 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, ver. 18.

Nor can it be the same as that appearance of the Lord to him related Acts 22:18,— for that was not the occasion of any revelation, but simply of warning and command.

He appears to refer to this special revelation in 1 Corinthians 11:23 ; 15:3. 1 Thessalonians 4:15; see notes in those places.

13-2:21. Historical working out of this proof: and first (vv. 13, 14) by reminding them of his former life in Judaism, during which he certainly received no instruction in the Gospel from men.

13. ἠκούσ .] ye heard, viz. when I was among you: from myself: not as E. V., ‘ ye have heard.’ γάρ binds the narrative to the former verses, as in the opening of a mathematical proof.

ἀναστρ .] Wetst. cites Polyb. iv. 82. 1, κατάτετὴνλοιπὴνἀναστροφὴνκαὶτὰςπράξειςτεθαυμασμένοςὑπὲρτὴνἡλικίαν . This meaning of the word seems (Mey.) to belong to post-classical Greek. There is no article before nor after ποτε , perhaps because the whole, ἀναστ .-ποτε -ἐν -τῷ -Ἰουδ ., is taken as one, q.d. τὸνἐμόνποτεἸουδαϊσμόν : or better, as Donaldson in Ellicott, “ the position of ποτε is due to the verb included in ἀναστροφήν . As St. Paul would have said ἀνεστρεφόμηνποτε , he allows himself to write τὴνἐμ . ἀναστροφήνποτε .” Mey. cites as a parallel construction, ἡτῆςΤροίαςἅλωσιςτὸδεύτερον , Plato, Legg. iii. 685 d.

τ . ἐκκλ . τ . θεοῦ ] for solemnity, to set himself in contrast to the Gospel, and shew how alien he then was from it (1 Corinthians 15:9).

ἐπόρθ .] τουτέστι , σβέσαιἐπεχείρειτ . ἐκκλησίαν , καταστρέψαικ . καθελεῖν , ἀφανίσαι · τοῦτογὰρπορθοῦντοςἔργον . Chrys. But more than the mere attempt is to be understood: he was verily destroying the Church of God, as far as in him lay. Nor must we think of merely laying waste; the verb applies to men, not only to cities and lands, cf. Acts 9:21,— κεῖνοςγὰρἔπερσενἀνθρώπους , Soph. Aj. 1177, and σὲπαρακαλῶ , μὴἡμῖνὁΠρωταγόραςτὸνΣιμωνίδηνἐκπέρσῃ , Plato, Protag., p. 340.

14. συνηλικιώτας ] “ The compound form (compare συμμέτοχος , Ephesians 3:6; Ephesians 5:7: συγκοινωνός , 1 Corinthians 9:23 al,) is condemned by the Atticists: Attic writers using only the simple form.” Ellicott.

ἐντῷγένειμ ., in my nation, see reff.

περισσ .] viz. than they.

ζηλ . τ . πῷμ . παρ .] a zealous assertor (or defender) of my ancestral traditions (i.e. those handed down in the sect of the Pharisees, Paul being Φαρισαῖος , υἱὸςΦαρισαίων , Acts 23:6,— not, the law of Moses. This meaning is given by the μου : without it the παραδόσεις of the whole Jewish nation handed down from οἱπατέρες , might be meant: cf. Acts 26:5).

15-17. After his conversion also, he did not take counsel with men.

15. It was God’ s act, determined at his very birth (cf. especially Acts 13:2), and effected by a special calling: viz., that on the road to Damascus, carried out by the instrumentality of Ananias, To understand καλέσας of an act in the divine Mind, as Rü ckert, is contrary to our Apostle’ s usage of the word, cf. ver. 6; Romans 8:30 al. This calling first took place, then the revelation, as here.

16. ἀποκαλ . belongs to εὐδόκησεν , not to καλ . (Erasm.), nor to ἀφορ . and καλ . (Est., al.),— to reveal his Son in me (strictly: ‘ within me,’ τῆςἀποκαλύψεωςκαταλαμπούσηςαὐτοῦτὴνψυχήν , Chrys.: not ‘ through me’ (Jer., Erasm., Grot., &c), which follows in ἵναεὐαγγ . κ .τ .λ ., nor in my case (Rü ckert, al.), as manifested by me as an example to myself or to others, as in 1 John 4:9: the context here requires that his own personal illumination should be the point brought out;— nor ‘ to me’ (Calv., al.), which though nearly equivalent to ‘ in me,’ weakens the sense), &c. Notice the present εὐαγγελίζωμαι , the ministry being not a single act, but a lasting occupation.

ἐντ . ἔθν .] the main object of his Apostleship: see ch. 2:7, 9. ‘ εὐθέως is really connected with ἀπῆλθον : but the Apostle, whose thoughts outrun his words, has interposed the negative clause, to anticipate his purpose in going away.’ Jowett.

προσανεθ .] See reff. The classical sense is, ‘ to lay on an additional burden:’ and in middle voice, ‘ on oneself:’ cf. Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8. The later sense, ‘ to impart to,’ τινίτι , either, as here, with the view of getting, or as in ch. 2:6, with that of conferring. The πρός in composition does not signify addition, but direction: see Acts 27:7, note.

σαρκὶκ . αἵμ .] i.e. with mankind, “ generally with the idea of weakness and frailty,” Ellic. whose note see, and also reff.

17. ἀπῆλθον both times refers to his departure from Damascus: q.d. ‘ when I left Damascus, I did not go … but when I left Damascus, I went.’ The repetition of ἀπῆλθον is quite in the Apostle’ s manner; Meyer adduces as examples Romans 8:15 (Hebrews 12:18, Hebrews 12:22. We may add Hebrews 2:16).

εἰςἈραβ .] On the place which this journey holds in the narrative of Act_9, see notes on vv. 19, 22 there. Its object does not seem to have been (as Chrys., al., Meyer, al.) the preaching of the gospel,— nor are the words ἵναεὐαγγελ . κ .τ .λ . necessarily to be connected with it,— but preparation for the apostolic work; though of course we cannot say, that he did not preach during the time, as before and after it (Acts 9:20, Acts 9:22) in the synagogues at Damascus. Into what part of Arabia he went, we have no means of determining. The name was a very vague one, sometimes including Damascus (‘ Damascus Arabiæ retro deputabatur, antequam transcripta erat in Syrophœ nicem ex distinctione Syriarum.’ Tert. adv. Marcion., iii. 13, vol. ii. p. 339: so also (verbatim) adv. Judæ os 9, p. 619. ὅτιδὲΔάμασκοςτῆςἈραβικῆςγῆςἦκ . ἔστιν , εἰκαὶνῦνπροσνενέμηταιτῇΣυροφοινίκῃλεγομένῃ , οὐδ̓ὑμῶντινεςἀρνήσασθαιδὐνανται , Justin Mart. c.

Trypho, 78, p. 176),— sometimes extending even to Lebanon and the borders of Cilicia (Pliny, Hist. Nat. vi. 32). It was however more usually restricted to that peninsula now thus called, between the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. Here we must apparently take it in the wider sense, and understand that part of the Arabian desert which nearly bordered on Damascus. (From C. and H. edn. 2, i. p. 117, f.) How long he remained there we are equally at a loss to say. Hardly for any considerable portion of the three years: Acts 9:23 will scarcely admit of this: for those ἡμέραιἱκαναί were manifestly passed at Damascus. The journey is mentioned here, to account for the time, and to shew that he did not spend it in conferring with men, or with the other Apostles.

καὶπάλ . ὑπέστρ .] cf. Acts 9:22, Acts 9:25.

18-24. But after a very short visit to Peter at Jerusalem, he retired to Syria and Cilicia.

18. At first sight, it would appear as if the three years were to be reckoned from his return to Damascus: but on closer examination we see that μετὰἔτητρ . stands in opposition to εὐθέως above, and the ἀνῆλθονκ .τ .λ . here answers to ἀπῆλθονκ .τ .λ . there. So that we must reckon them from his conversion: ὅτεδὲεὐδόκησενκ .τ .λ . ruling the whole narrative. See also on ch. 2:1.

This is the journey of Act 9:26,— where see note. There is no real discrepancy between that account and this. The incident which led to his leaving Damascus (Acts 9:25. 2 Corinthians 11:32, 2 Corinthians 11:33) has not necessarily any connexion with his purpose in going to Jerusalem: a purpose which may have been entertained before, or determined on after, that incident. To this visit must be referred the vision of Act 22:17, Acts 22:18.

ἱστορ . Κηφ .] to make the acquaintance of Cephas— not to get information or instruction from him: see reff., and Ellic. here. Peter was at this early period the prominent person among the Apostles; see note on Matthew 16:18.

ἐπέμ . πρός ] originally a pregnant construction, but from usage become idiomatic. See reff.

ἡμέρ . δεκαπ .] mentioned to shew how little of his institution as an Apostle he could have owed to Peter. Why no longer, see in Acts 9:29; Acts 22:17-21. [On the form δεκαπέντε see Moulton’ s Winer, p. 313, note 5.

19. This verse admits of two interpretations, between which other considerations must decide. (1) That James, the Lord’ s brother, was one of the Twelve, and the only one besides Peter whom Paul saw at this visit: (2) that he was one τῶνὰποστόλων , but not necessarily of the Twelve. Of these, (1) apparently cannot be: for after the choosing of the Twelve (John 6:70), the ἀδελφοί of our Lord did not believe on Him (John 7:5): an expression (see note there) which will not admit of any of His brethren having then been His disciples. We must then adopt (2): which is besides in consonance with other notices respecting the term ἀπόστολος , and the person heve mentioned. I reserve the subject for full discussion in the prolegomena to the Ep. of James. See also notes, Matthew 10:3; Matthew 13:55; John 7:5.

20. This asseveration (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:31) applies most naturally to the important fact just asserted— his short visit to Jerusalem, and his having seen only Peter and James, rather than to the whole subject of the chapter. If a report had been spread in Galatia that after his conversion he spent years at Jerusalem and received regular institution in Christianity at the hands of the Apostles, this last fact would naturally cause amazement, and need a strong confirmatory asseveration.

As regards the construction, ἃ … ὑμῖν stands alone, (with regard to) the things which I am writing to you,— and the word necessary to be supplied to carry on the sense from ἰδοὺἐνώπ . τ . θεοῦ to ὅτι , lies under the ἰδού , which here answers to such words as διαμαρτύρομαι , 1 Timothy 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:14; 2 Timothy 4:1,— παραγγέλλω , 1 Timothy 6:13. Meyer would supply γράφω , which seems harsh: others take ὅτι as ‘ for,’ which is worse still ,— and this too, understanding ἐστίν after θεοῦ (Bengel).

21. The beginning only of this journey is related in Acts 9:30, where see note. Dean Howson suggests (edn. 2, i. p. 129, f.) that he may have gone at once from Cæ sarea to Tarsus by sea, and Syria and Cilicia may afterwards have been the field of his activity,— these provinces being very generally mentioned together, from their geographical affinity, Cilicia being separated from Asia Minor by Mount Taurus. (See also note on Luke 2:1, Luke 2:2.) Winer, al. have understood by Syria here, Phœ nicia: but as Meyer has shewn, inconsistently with usage. In Acts 15:23, Acts 15:41, we find churches in Syria and Cilicia, which may have been founded by Paul on this journey. The supposition is confirmed by our ver. 23: see below.

22, 23. ‘ So far was I from being a disciple of the Apostles, or tarrying in their company, that the churches of Judæ a, where they principally laboured, did not even know me by sight.’

τῷπροσώπῳ , the referential, or adverbial dative: Donalds., Gramm. § 457.

τῆςἸουδαίας excludes Jerusalem, where he was known. Jowett doubts this: but it seems to be required by Acts 9:26-29. Chrys. seems to mistake the Apostle’ s purpose, when he says, ἵναμάθη̣ς , ὅτιτοσοῦτονἀπεῖχετοῦκηρύξαιαὐτοῖςπεριτομήν , ὅτιοὐδὲἀπὸὄψεωςγνώριμοςἦναὐτοῖς : and Olshausen, in supposing him to be refuting the idea that he had learned the Gospel from other Christians in Palestine.

23. ἀκ . ἦσαν ] They heard reports (not ‘ had heard,’ as Luth.: the resolved imperfect gives the sense of duration: see reff. and passim) that (not the recitative ὅτι , but the explicative, following ἀκ . ἦσαν . Mey. remarks that no example is found of the former use of ὅτι by St. Paul, except in O. T. citations, as ch. 3:8) our (better taken as a change of person into the oratio directa, than with Mey. to understand ἡμᾶς as ‘ us Christians,’ the Apostle including himself as he writes) former persecutor (not, as Grot., for διώξας , but as ὁπειράζων , taken as a substantive: see reff.) is preaching the faith (objective, as in reff., and 1 Timothy 1:19 b; 1 Timothy 3:9; 1 Timothy 4:1, &c.; but not = the doctrine of the Gospel) which he once was destroying (see on ver. 13). And they glorified God in me (‘ in my case:’ i.e. my example was the cause of their glorifying God:— not, ‘ on account of me,’ see reff., and cf. ἐνἀρεταῖςγέγαθε , Pind. Nem. iii. 56,— ἐνσοὶπᾶσ ʼ ἔγωγεσώζομαι , Soph.

Aj. 519. Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 210). By thus shewing the spirit with which the churches of Judæ a were actuated towards him, he marks more strongly the contrast between them and the Galatian Judaizers. Thdrt. says strikingly: μανθάνοντεςγὰρτὴνἀθρόανμεταβολήν , κ . ὅτιὁλύκοςτὰποιμένωνἐργάζεται , τῆςεἰςτὸνθεὸνὑμνῳδίαςτὰκατ ʼ ἐμὲπρόφασινἐλάμβανον .