|
VERSE I-3.
"Paul, an Apostle, (not from men, neither through man, but
through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the
dead;) and all the brethren which are with me, unto the Churches of
Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord
Jesus Christ."
The exordium is full of a vehement and lofty spirit, and not the
exordium only, but also, so to speak, the whole Epistle. For
always to address one's disciples with mildness, even when they need
severity is not the part of a teacher but it would be the part of a
corrupter and enemy. Wherefore our Lord too, though He generally
spoke gently to His disciples, here and there uses sterner language,
and at one time pronounces a blessing, at another a rebuke. Thus,
having said to Peter, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona,"
(Matt. xvi: 17.)and having promised to lay the foundation of the
Church upon his confession, shortly afterwards He says, "Get thee
behind Me, Satan: thou art a stumbling block unto Me." (Matt.
xvi: 23.) Again, on another occasion, "Are ye also even yet
without understanding?" (Matt. xv: 16.) And what awe He
inspired them with appears from John's saying, that, when they
beheld Him conversing. with the Samaritan woman, though they
reminded Him to take food, no one ventured to say, "What seekest
Thou, or why speakest thou with her?" (John iv: 27.) Thus
taught, and walking in the steps of his Master, Paul hath varied his
discourse according to the need of his disciples, at one time using
knife and cautery, at another, applying mild remedies. To the
Corinthians he says, "What will ye? shall I come unto you with a
rod, or in love, and in a spirit of meekness?" (I Cor. vi:
21.) but to the Galatians, "O foolish Galatians." (Gal.
iii: 1.) And not once only, but a second time, also he has
employed this reproof, and towards the conclusion he says with a
reproachful allusion to them, "Let no man trouble me; " (Gal.
vi: 17). but he soothes them again with the words, "My little
children, of whom "I am again in travail:" (Gal. iv: 19.)
and so in many other instances.
Now that this Epistle breathes an indignant spirit, is obvious to
every one even on the first perusal; but I must explain the cause of
his anger against the disciples. Slight and unimportant it could not
be, or he would not have used such vehemence. For to be exasperated
by common 'matters is the part of the little minded, morose, and
peevish; just as it is that of the more redolent and sluggish to lose
heart in weighty ones. Such a one was not Paul, What then was the
offence which roused him? it was grave and momentous, one which was
estranging them all from Christ, as he himself says further on,
"Behold, I
Paul say unto you, that if ye receive circumcision, Christ will
profit you nothing;" (Gal. v: 2.) and again, "Ye who would
be justified by the Law, ye are fallen away from Grace." (Gal.
v: 4.) What then is this? For it must be explained more clearly.
Some of the Jews who believed, being held down by the preposessions
of Judaism, and at the same time intoxicated by vain-glory, and
desirous of obtaining for themselves the dignity of teachers,. came to
the Galatians, and taught them that the observance of circumcision,
sabbaths, and new-moons, was necessary, and that Paul in abolishing
these things was not to be borne. For, said they, Peter and James
and John, the chiefs of the Apostles and the companions of Christ,
forbade them not. Now in fact they did not forbid these things, but
this was not by way of delivering positive doctrine, but in
condescension to the weakness of the Jewish believers, which
condescension paul had no need of when preaching to the Gentiles; but
when he was in Judaea, he employed it himself also. But these
deceivers, by withholding the causes both of Paul's condescension and
that of his brethren, misled the simpler ones, saying that he was not
to be tolerated, for he appeared but yesterday, while Peter and his
colleagues were from the first,--that he was a disciple of the
Apostles, but they of Christ,--that he was single, but they were
many, and pillars of the Church. They accused him too of acting a
part; saying, that this very man who forbids circumcision observes the
rite elsewhere, and preaches one way to you and another way to others.
Since Paul then saw the whole Galatian people in a state of
excitement, a flame kindled against their Church, and the edifice
shaken and tottering to its fall, filled with the mixed feelings of
just anger and despondency, (which he has expressed in the words,
"I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my voice,
"--Gal. iv: 20. )he writes the Epistle as an answer to these
charges. This is his aim from the very commencement, for the
underminers of his reputation had said, The others were disciples of
Christ but this man of the "Apostles." Wherefore he begins thus,
"Paul, an Apostle not from men, neither through man." For,
these deceivers, as I was saying before, had said that this man was
the last of all the Apostles and was taught by them, for Peter,
James, and John, were both first called, and held a primacy among
the disciples, and had also received their doctrines from Christ
Himself; and that it was therefore fitting to obey them rather than
this man; and that they forbad not circumcision nor the observance of
the Law. By this and similar language and by depreciating Paul, and
exalting the honor of the other Apostles, though not spoken for the
sake of praising them, but of deceiving the Galatians, they induced
them to adhere unseasonably to the Law. Hence the propriety of his
commencement. As they disparaged his doctrine, saying it came from
men, while that of Peter came from Christ, he immediately addresses
himself to this point, declaring himself an apostle "not from men,
neither through man." It was Ananias who baptized him, but it was
not he who delivered him from the way of error and initiated him into
the faith; but Christ Himself sent from on high that wondrous voice,
whereby He inclosed him in his net. For Peter and his brother, and
John and his brother, He called when walking by the seaside,
(Matt. iv: 18.) but Paul after His ascension into heaven.
(Acts. ix: 3, 4.) And just as these did not require a second
call, but straightway left their nets and all that they had, and
followed Him, so this man at his first vocation pressed vigorously
forward, waging, as soon as he was baptized, an implacable war with
the jews. In this respect he chiefly excelled the other Apostles, as
he says, "I labored more abundantly than they all;" (I Cot.
xv: 10.) at present, however, he makes no such claim, but is
content to be placed on a level with them. Indeed his eat object was,
not to establish any superiority for himself, but, to overthrow the
foundation of their error. The not being "from men" has reference to
all alike for the Gospel's root and origin is divine, but the not
being "through man" is peculiar to the Apostles; for He called them
not by men's agency, but by His own.
But why does be not speak of his vocation rather than his apostolate,
and say, "Paul" called "not by man?" Because here lay the whole
question; for they said that the office of a teacher had been committed
to him by men, namely by the Apostles, whom therefore it behooved him
to obey. But that it was not entrusted to him by men, Luke declares
in the words, "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the
Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul." (Acts xiii:
2.)
From this passage it is manifest that the power of the Son and Spirit
is one, for being commissioned by the Spirit, he says that he was
commissioned by Christ. This appears in another place, from his
ascription of the things of God to the Spirit, in the words which he
addresses to the elders at Miletus: "Take heed unto yourselves, and
to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost hath made you
bishops." (Acts xx: 28. ) Yet in another Epistle he says,
"And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly
prophets, thirdly teachers." (I Cor. xii: 28.) Thus he
ascribes indifferently the things of the Spirit to God, and the
things of God to the Spirit. Here too he stops the mouths of
heretics, by the words "through Jesus Christ and God the
Father;" for, inasmuch as they said this term "through" was
applied to the Son as importing inferiority, see what he does. He
ascribes it to the Father, thus teaching us not to prescribe laws to
the ineffable Nature, nor define the degrees of Godhead which belong
to the Father and Son. For to the words "through Jesus Christ"
he has added, "and God the Father;" for if at the mention of the
Father alone he had introduced the phrase "through whom," they might
have argued sophistically that it was peculiarly applicable to the
Father, in that the acts of the Son were to be referred to Him.
But he leaves no opening for this cavil, by mentioning at once both
the Son and the Father, and making his language apply to both. This
he does, not as referring the acts of the Son to the Father, but to
show that the expression implies no distinction of Essence. Further,
what can now be said by those, who have gathered a notion of
inferiority from the Baptismal formula,--from our being baptized
into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? For if the
Son be inferior because He is named after the Father, what will they
say seeing that, in the passage before us, the Apostle beginning from
Christ proceeds to mention the Father?--but let us not even utter
such a blasphemy, let us not swerve from the truth in our contention
with them; rather let us preserve, even if they rave ten thousand
times, the due measures of reverence. Since then it would be the
height of madness and impiety to argue that the Son was greater than
the Father because Christ was first named, so we dare not hold that
the Son is inferior to the Father, because He is placed after Him
in the Baptismal formula. "Who raised Him from the dead."
Wherefore is it, O Paul, that, wishing to bring these Judaizers
to the faith, you introduce none of those great and illustrious topics
which occur in your Epistle to the Philippians, as, "Who, being
in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with
God," (Phil. ii: 6.) or which you afterwards declared in that
to the Hebrews, "the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of
His substance;" (Heb. i: 3.) or again, what in the opening of
his Gospel the son of thunder sounded forth, "In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;"
(John i: I.) or what Jesus Himself oftentimes declared to the
Jews, "that His power and authority was equal to the Father's?"
(John v: 19, 27, &c.) Do you omit all these, and make
mention of the economy of His Incarnation only, bringing forward His
cross and dying? "Yes," would Paul answer. For had this
discourse been addressed to those who had unworthy conceptions of
Christ, it would have been well to mention those things; but,
inasmuch as the disturbance comes from persons who fear to incur
punishment should they abandon the Law, he therefore mentions that
whereby all need of the Law is excluded, I mean the benefit conferred
on all through the Cross and the Resurrection. To have said that
"in the beginning was the Word," and that "He was in the form of
God, and made Himself equal with God," and the like, would have
declared the divinity of the Word, but would have contributed nothing
to the matter in hand. Whereas it was highly pertinent thereto to
add, "Who raised Him from the dead," for our chiefest benefit was
thus brought to remembrance, and men in general are less interested by
discourses concerning the majesty of God, than by those which set
forth the benefits which come to mankind. Wherefore, omitting the
former topic, he discourses of the benefits which bad been conferred on
us.
But here the heretics insultingly exclaim, "Lo, the Father raises
the Son!" For when once infected, they are wilfully deaf to all
sublimer doctrines; and taking by itself and insisting on what is of a
less exalted nature, and expressed in less exalted terms, either on
account of the Son's humanity, or in honor of the Father, or for
some other temporary purpose, they outrage, I will not say the
Scripture, but themselves. I would fain ask such persons, why they
say this? do they hope to prove the Son weak and powerless to raise
one body?
Nay, verily, faith in Him enabled the very shadows of those who
believed in Him. to effect the resurrection of the dead. (Acts.
v: 15.) Then believers in Him, though mortal, yet by the very
shadows of their earthly bodies, and by the garments which had touched
these bodies, could raise the dead, but He could not raise Himself?
Is not this manifest madness, a great stretch of folly? Hast thou
not heard His saying, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I
will raise it up?" (John ii: 19.) and again, "I have power
to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again?" (John x:
18.) Wherefore then is the Father said to have raised Him up, as
also to have done other things which the Son Himself did? It is in
honor of the Father, and in compassion to the weakness of the
hearers. "And all the brethren which are with me." Why is it that
he has on no other occasion in sending an epistle added this phrase?
For either he puts his own name only or that of two or three others,
but here has mentioned the whole number and so has mentioned no one by
name. On what account then does he this?
They made the slanderous charge that he was singular in his preaching,
and desired to introduce novelty in Christian teaching. Wishing
therefore to remove their suspicion, and to show he had many to support
him in his doctrine, he has associated with himself "the brethren,"
to show that what he wrote he wrote with their accord. "Unto the
Churches of Galatia."
Thus it appears, that the flame of error had spread over not one or
two cities merely, but the whole Galatian people. Consider too the
grave indignation contained in the phrase, "unto the Churches of
Galatia:" he does not say, "to the beloved" or "to the
sanctified," and this omission of all names of affection or respect,
and this speaking of them as a society merely, without the addition
"Churches of God," for it is simply "Churches of Galatia," is
strongly expressive of deep concern and sorrow. Here at the outset,
as well as elsewhere, he attacks their irregularities, and therefore
gives them the name of "Churches," in order to shame them, and
reduce them to unity. For persons split into many parties cannot
properly claim this appellation, for the name of' "Church" is a
name of harmony and concord.
"Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus
Christ."
This he always mentions as indispensible, and in this Epistle to the
Galatians especially; for since they were in danger of falling from
grace he prays that they may recover it again, and since they had come
to be at war with God, he beseeches God to restore them to the same
peace. "God the Father."
Here again is a plain confutation of the heretics, who say that John
in the opening of his Gospel, where he says "the Word was God,"
used the word Qeos without the article, to imply an inferiority in the
Son's Godhead; and that Paul, where he says that the Son was "in
the form of God," did not mean the Father, because the word ?eos
without the article. For what can they say here, where Paul says,
apo Qeou IIatros, and not epo tou ?eou? And it is in no indulgent
mood towards them that he calls God, "Father," but by way of
severe rebuke, and suggestion of the source whence they became sons,
for the honor was vouch-safed to them not through the Law, but
through the washing of regeneration. Thus everywhere, even in his
exordium, he scatters traces of the goodness of God, and we may
conceive him speaking thus: "O ye who were lately slaves, enemies
and aliens, what right have ye suddenly acquired to call God your
Father? it was not the Law which conferred upon you this
relationship; why do ye therefore desert Him who brought you so near
to God, and return to your tutor?
But the Name of the Son, as well as that of the Father, had been
sufficient to declare to them these blessings. This will appear, if
we consider the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ with attention; for
it is said, "thou shalt call His Name Jesus; for it is He that
shall save His people from their sins;" (Matt. i: 21.) and
the appellation of" Christ" calls to mind the unction of the
Spirit. Ver 4. "Who gave himself for our sins." Thus it
appears, that the ministry which He undertook was free and
uncompelled; that He was delivered up by Himself, not by another.
Let not therefore the words of John, "that the Father gave His
only-begotten Son" (Jo. iii: 16.) for us, lead you to
derogate from the dignity of the Only-begotten, or to infer therefrom
that He is only human. For the Father is said to have given Him,
not as implying that the Son's ministry was a servile one, but to
teach us that it seemed good to the Father, as Paul too has shown in
the immediate context: "according to the will of our God, and
Father." He says not
"by the command," but "according to the will, " for inasmuch as
there is an unity of will in the Father and the Son, that which the
Son wills, the Father wills also.
"For our sins, says the Apostle; we had pierced ourselves with ten
thousand evils, and had deserved the gravest punishment; and the Law
not only did not deliver us, but it even condemned us, making sin more
manifest, without the power to release us from it, or to stay the
anger of God. But the Son of God made this impossibility possible
for he remitted our sins, He restored us from enmity to the condition
of friends, He freely bestowed on us numberless other blessings.
Ver. 4. "That He might deliver us out of this present evil
world."
Another class of heretics seize upon these words of Paul, and pervert
his testimony to an accusation of the present life. Lo, say they, he
has called this present world evil, and pray tell me what does
"world" [age] aiwn mean but time measured by days and seasons? Is
then the distinction of days and the course of the sun evil? no one
would assert this even if he be carried away to the extreme of
unreasonableness. "But" they say, "it is not the 'time,' but
the present ' life,' which he hath called evil.'" Now the words
themselves do not in fact say this; but the heretics do not rest in the
words, and frame their charge from them, but propose to themselves a
new mode of interpretation. At least therefore they must allow us to
produce our interpretation, and the rather in that it is both pious and
rational. We assert then that evil cannot be the cause of good, yet
that the present life is productive of a thousand prizes and rewards.
And so the blessed Paul himself extols it abundantly in the words,
"But if to live in the flesh, if this is the fruit of my work, then
what I shall choose I wont not;" (Phil. i: 22.) and then
placing before himself the alternative of living upon earth, and
departing and being with Christ, he decides for the former. But were
this life evil, he would not have thus spoken of it, nor could any
one, however strenuous his endeavor, draw it aside into the service of
virtue. For no one would ever use evil for good, fornication for
chastity, envy for benevolence. And so, when he says, that "the
mind of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can
it be, (Rom. viii: 7.) he means that vice, as such, cannot
become virtue; and the expression, "evil world," must be understood
to mean evil actions, and a depraved moral principle. Again, Christ
came not to put us to death and deliver us from the present life in that
sense, but to leave us in the world, and prepare us for a worthy
participation of our heavenly abode. Wherefore He saith to the
Father, "And these are in the world, and I come to Thee; I pray
not that Thou shouldest take them from the world, but that Thou
shouldest keep them from the evil," (Jo. xvii: 11, 15.)
i.e., from sin. Further, those who will not allow this, but
insist that the present life is evil, should not blame those who
destroy themselves; for as he who withdraws himself from evil is not
blamed, but deemed worthy of a crown, so he who by a violent death,
by hanging or otherwise, puts an end to his life, ought not to be
condemned. Whereas God punishes such men more than murderers, and we
all regard them with horror, and justly; for if it is base to destroy
others, much more is it to destroy one's self. Moreover, if this
life be evil, murderers would deserve a crown, as rescuing us from
evil. Besides this, they are caught by their own words, for in that
they place the sun in the first, and the moon in the second rank of
their deities, and worship them as the givers of many goods, their
statements are contradictory. For the use of these and the other
heavenly bodies, is none other than to contribute to our present life,
which they say is evil, by nourishing and giving light to the bodies of
men and animals and bringing plants to maturity. How is it then that
the constitution of this "evil life is so ministered to by those, who
according to you are gods? Gods indeed they are not, far from it,
but works of God created for our use; nor is this world evil. And if
you tell me of murderers, of adulterers, of tomb-robbers, these
things have nothing to do with the present life, for these offences
proceed not from that life which we live in the flesh, but from a
depraved will. For, if they were necessarily connected with this
life, as embraced in one lot with it, no man would be free or pure
from them, for no man can escape the characteristic accidents of
humanity, such as, to eat and drink, to sleep and grow, to hunger
and thirst, to be born and die, and the like; no man can ever become
superior to these, neither sinner nor just man, king nor peasant, We
all are subject to the necessity of nature. And so if vice were an
essential element of this life, no one could avoid it, any more than
the things just mentioned. And let me not be told that good men are
rare, for natural necessity is insuperable by all, so that as long as
one virtuous man shall be found, my argument will in no wise be
invalidated. Miserable, wretched man! what is it thou sayest? Is
this life evil, wherein we have learnt to know God, and meditate on
things to come, and have become angels instead of men, and take part
in the choirs of the heavenly powers? What other proof do we need of
an evil and.depraved mind?
"Why then," they say, "does Paul call the, present life evil?"
In calling the present world [age] evil, he has accommodated himself
to our usage, who are wont to say, "I have had a bad day," thereby
complaining not of the time itself, Out of actions or circumstances
And so Paul in complaining of evil principles of action has used these
customary forms of speech; and he shows that Christ hath both
delivered us from our offences, and secured us for the future. The
first he has declared in the words, "Who gave Himself for our
sins;" and by adding, "that He might deliver us out of this present
evil world," he has pronounced our future safety. For neither of
these did the Law avail, but grace was sufficient for both.
Ver. 4. "According to the will of our God and Father."
Since they were terrified by their notion that by deserting that old
Law and adhering to the new, they should disobey God, who gave the
Law, he corrects their error, and says, that this seemed good to the
Father also: and not simply "the Father," but "our Father,"
which he does in order to affect them by showing that Christ has made
His Father our Father.
Ver. 5. "To whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen."
This too is new and unusual, for we never find the word, "Amen"
placed at the beginning of an Epistle, but a good way on; here,
however he has it in his beginning,. to show that what he had already
said contained a sufficient charge against the Galatians, and that his
argument was complete, for a manifest offence does not require an
elaborate crimination. Having spoken of the Cross, and
Resurrection, of redemption from sin and security for the future, of
the purpose of the Father, and the will of the Son, of grace and
peace and His whole gift, he concludes with an ascription of praise.
Another reason for it is the exceeding astonishment into which he was
thrown by the magnitude of the gift, the superabundance of the grace,
the consideration who we were, and what God had wrought, and that at
once and in a single moment of time. Unable to express this in words,
he breaks out into a doxology, sending up for the whole world an
eulogium, not indeed worthy of the subject, but such as was possible
to him. Hence too he proceeds to use more vehement language; as if
greatly kindled by a sense of the Divine benefits, for having said,
"To whom be the glory for ever and ever, Amen," he commences with
a more severe reproof.
Ver. 6. "I marvel that ye are so quickly removing front Him that
called you in the grace of Christ, unto a different Gospel."
Like the Jews who persecuted Christ, they imagined their observance
of the Law was acceptable to the Father, and he therefore shows that
in doing this they displeased not only Christ, but the Father also,
for that they fell away thereby not from Christ only, but from the
Father also. As the old covenant was given not by the Father only,
but also by the Son, so the covenant of grace proceeded from the
Father as well as the Son, and Their every act is common: "All
things whatsoever the Father hath are Mine." (John xv: 16.)
By saying that they had fallen off from the Father, he brings a
twofold charge against them, of an apostasy, and of an immediate
apostasy. The opposite extreme a late apostasy, is also blameworthy,
but he who falls away at the first onset, and in the very skirmishing,
displays an example of the most extreme cowardice, of which very thing
he accuses them also saying: "How is this that your seducers need not
even time for their designs, but the first approaches suffice for your
overthrow and capture? And what excuse can ye have? If this is a
crime among friends, and he who deserts old and useful associates is to
be condemned, consider what punishment he is obnoxious to who revolts
from God that called him." He says," I marvel," not only byway
of reproof, that after such bounty, such a remission of their sins,
such overflowing kindness, they had deserted to the yoke of servitude,
but also in order to show, that the opinion he had had of them was a
favorable and exalted one. For, had he ranked them among ordinary and
easily deceived persons, he would not have felt surprise. "But since
you," he says, "are of the noble sort and have suffered, much, I
do marvel." Surely this was enough to recover and lead them back to
their first expressions. He alludes to it also in the middle of the
Epistle, "Did ye suffer so many things in vain? if it be indeed in
vain." (Gal. iii: 4.) "Ye are removing;" he says not, "ye
are removed," that is, "I will not believe or suppose that your
seduction is complete;" this is the language of one about to recover
them, which further on he expresses yet more clearly in the words,
"I have confidence to you-ward in the Lord that ye will be none
otherwise minded." (Gal. v: 10.)
"From Him that called you in the grace of Christ."
The calling is from the Father, but the cause of it is the Son. He
it is who hath brought about reconciliation and bestowed it as a gift,
for we were not saved by works in righteousness: or I should rather
say that these blessings proceed from Both; as He says, "Mine are
Thine, and Thine are Mine." (John xvii: 10.) He says not
"ye are removing from the Gospel" but "from God who called you,"
a more frightful expression, and more likely to affect them. Their
seducers did not act abruptly but gradually, and while they removed
them from the faith in fact, left names unchanged. It is the policy
of Satan not to set his snares in open view; had they urged them to
fall away from Christ, they would have been shunned as deceivers and
corrupters, but suffering them so far to continue in the faith, and
putting upon their error the name of the Gospel, without fear they
undermined the building employing the terms which they used as a sort of
curtain to conceal the destroyers themselves. As therefore they gave
the name of Gospel to this their imposture, he contends against the
very name, and boldly says, "unto a different Gospel,"- Ver.
7. "Which is not another Gospel." And justly, for there is not
another. Nevertheless the Marcionites are misled by this phrase, as
diseased persons are injured even by healthy food, for they have seized
upon it, and exclaim, "So Paul himself has declared there is no
other Gospel." For they do not allow all the Evangelists, but one
only, and him mutilated and confused according to their, pleasure.
Their explanation of the words, "according to my Gospel and the
preaching of Jesus Christ," (Rom. xvi: 25.) is sufficiently
ridiculous; nevertheless, for the sake of those who are easily
seduced, it is necessary to refute it. We assert, therefore, that,
although a thousand Gospels were written, if the contents of all were
the same, they would still be one, and their unity no wise infringed
by the number of writers. So, on the other hand, if there were one
writer only, but he were to contradict himself, the unity of the
things written would be destroyed. For the oneness of a work depends
not on the number of its authors, but on the agreement or
contra-dictoriness of its contents. Whence it is clear that the four
Gospels are one Gospel; for, as the four say the same thing, its
oneness is preserved by the harmony of the contents, and not impaired
by the difference of persons. And Paul is not now speaking of the
number but of the discrepancy of the things spoken. With justice might
they lay hold of this expression, if the Gospels of Matthew and Luke
differed in the signification of their contents, and in their doctrinal
accuracy; but as they are one and the same, let them cease being
senseless and pretending to be ignorant of these things which are plain
to the very children.
Ver. 7. "Only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert
the Gospel of Christ."
That is to say, ye will not recognize another Gospel, so long as
your mind is sane, so long as your vision remains healthy, and free
from distorted and imaginary phantoms. For as the disordered eye
mistakes the object presented to it, so does the mind when made turbid
by the confusion of evil thoughts. Thus the madman confounds objects;
but this insanity is more dangerous than a physical malady, for it
works injury not in the regions of sense, but of the mind; it creates
confusion not in the organ of bodily vision, but in the eye of the
understanding.
"And would pervert the Gospel of Christ." They had, in fact,
only introduced one or two commandments, circumcision and the
observance of days, but he says that the Gospel was subverted, in
order to show that a slight adulteration vitiates the whole. For as he
who but partially pares away the image on a royal coin renders the whole
spurious, so he who swerves ever so little from the pure faith, soon
proceeds from this to graver errors, and becomes entirely corrupted.
Where then are those who charge us with being contentious in separating
from heretics, and say that there is no real difference between us
except what arises from our ambition? Let them hear Paul's
assertion, that those who had but slightly innovated, subverted the
Gospel. Not to say that the Son of God is a created Being, is a
small matter. Know you not that even under the elder covenant, a man
who gathered sticks on the sabbath, and transgressed a single
commandment, and that not a great one, was punished with death?
(Num. xv: 32, 36.) and that Uzzah, who supported the Ark
when on the point of being overturned, was struck suddenly dead,
because he had intruded upon an office which did not pertain to him?
(2 Sam. vi: 6, 7.) Wherefore if to transgress the sabbath,
and to touch the falling Ark, drew down the wrath of God so signally
as to deprive the offender of even a momentary respite, shall he who
corrupts unutterably awful doctrines find excuse and par don?
Assuredly not. A want of zeal in small matters is the cause of all
our calamities; and because slight errors escape fitting correction,
greater ones creep in. As in the body, a neglect of wounds generates
fever, mortification, and death; so in the soul, slight evils
overlooked open the door to graver ones. It is accounted a trivial
fault that one man should neglect fasting; that another, who is
established in the pure faith, dissembling on account of
circumstances, should surrender his bold profession of it, neither is
this anything great or dreadful; that a third should be irritated, and
threaten to depart from the true faith, is excused on the plea of
passion and resentment.
Thus a thousand similar errors are daily introduced into the Church,
and we are become a laughing-stock to Jews and Greeks, seeing that
the Church is divided into a thousand parties. But if a proper rebuke
had at first been given to those who attempted slight perversions, and
a deflection from the divine oracles, such a pestilence would not have
been generated, nor such a storm have seized upon the Churches. You
will now understand why Paul calls circumcision a subversion of the
Gospel. There are many among us now, who fast on the same day as the
Jews, and keep the sabbaths in the same manner; and we endure it
nobly or rather ignobly and basely. And why do I speak of Jews
seeing that many Gentile customs are observed by some among us;
omens, auguries, presages, distinctions of days, a curious attention
to the circumstances of their children's birth, and, as soon as they
are born, tablets with impious inscriptions are placed upon their
unhappy heads, thereby teaching them from the first to lay aside
virtuous endeavors, and drawing part of them at least under the false
domination of fate. But if Christ in no way profits those that are
circumcised, what shall faith hereafter avail to the salvation of those
who have introduced such corruptions? Although circumcision was given
by God, yet Paul used every effort to abolish it, because its
unseasonable observance was injurious to the Gospel. If then he was
so earnest against the undue maintenance of Jewish customs, what
excuse can we have for not abrogating Gentile ones? Hence our affairs
are now in confusion and trouble, hence have our learners being filled
with pride, reversed the order of things throwing every thing into
confusion, and their discipline having been neglected by us their
governors, they spurn our reproof however gentle. And yet if their
superiors were even more worthless and full of numberless evils, it
would not be right for the disciple to disobey. It is said of the
Jewish doctors, that as they sat in Moses' seat, their disciples
were bound to obey them, though their works were so evil, that the
Lord forbad His disciples to imitate them. What excuse therefore is
there for those who insult and trample on men, rulers of the Church,
and living, by the grace of God, holy lives? If it be unlawful for
us to judge each other, much more is it to judge our teachers.
Ver. 8, 9. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, should
preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you,
let him be anathema."
See the Apostle's wisdom; to obviate the objection that he was
prompted by vainglory to applaud his own doctrine, he includes himself
also in his anathema; and as they betook themselves to authority, that
of James and John, he mentions angels also saying, "Tell me not of
James and John; if one of the most exalted angels of heaven corrupt
the Gospel, let him be anathema." The phrase "of heaven" is
purposely added, because priests are also called angels. "For the
priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at
his mouth: for he is the messenger [angel] of the Lord of hosts."
(Mal. ii: 7.) Lest therefore it should be thought that priests
are here meant, by the term "angels," he points out the celestial
intelligences by the addition, "from heaven." And he says not, if
they preach a contrary Gospel, or subvert the whole of the true one,
let them be anathema; but, if they even slightly vary, or
incidentally disturb, my doctrine. "As we have said before, so say
I now again." That his words might not seem to be spoken in anger,
or with exaggeration, or with recklessness he now repeats them.
Sentiments may perhaps change, when an expression has been called
forth by anger, but to repeat it a second time proves that it is spoken
advisedly, and was previously approved by the judgment. When Abraham
was requested to send Lazarus, he replied, "They have Moses and
the Prophets; let them hear them: if they hear them not, neither
will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead." ( Luke xvi:
31.) And Christ introduces Abraham thus speaking, to show that
He would have the Scriptures accounted more worthy of credence, even
than one raised from the dead: Paul too, (and when I say Paul, I
mean Christ, who directed his mind,)prefers them before an angel
come down from heaven. And justly, for the angels, though mighty,
are but servants and ministers, but the Scriptures were all written
and sent, not by servants, but by God the Lord of all. He says,
if "any man" preach another Gospel to you than that which we have
preached,--not "if this or that man:" and herein appears his
prudence, and care of giving offence, for what needed there still any
mention of names, when he had used such extensive terms as to embrace
all, both in heaven and earth? In that he anathemized evangelists and
angels, he included every dignity, and his mention of himself included
every intimacy and affinity. "Tell me not," he exclaims, "that my
fellow-apostles and colleagues have so spoken; I spare not myself if
I preach such doctrine." And he says this not as condemning the
Apostles for swerving from the message they were commissioned to
deliver; far from it, (for he says, whether we or they thus preach;
) but to show, that in the discussion of truth the dignity of persons
is not to be considered.
Ver. 10. "For am I now persuading men: or God?" or am I
seeking to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be
a servant of Christ."
Granting, says he, that I might deceive you by these doctrines,
could I deceive God, who knows my yet unuttered thoughts, and to
please whom is my unceasing endeavor? See here the Apostolical
spirit, the Evangelical loftiness! So too he writes to the
Corinthians, "For we are not again commending ourselves unto you,
but speak as giving you occasion of glorying;" (2 Cor. v:
12.) and again, "But with me it is a very small thing that I
should be judged of you, or of man's judgment." (I Cor. iv:
3.) For since he is compelled to justify himself to his disciples,
being their teacher, he submits to it; but he is grieved at it, not
on account of chagrin, far from it, but on account of the instability
of the minds of those led away and on account of not being fully trusted
by them. Wherefore Paul now speaks, as it were, thus:--Is my
account to be rendered to you? Shall I be judged by men? My account
is to God, and all my acts are with a view to that inquisition, nor
am I so miserably abandoned as to pervert my doctrine, seeing that I
am to justify what I preach before the Lord of all.
He thus expressed himself, as much with a view of withstanding their
opinions, as in self-defence; for it becomes disciples to obey, not
to judge, their master. But now, says he, that the order is
reversed, and ye sit as judges, know that I am but little concerned
to defend myself before you; all, I do for God's sake, and in
order that I may answer to Him concerning my doctrine. He who wishes
to persuade men, is led to act tortuously and insincerely, and to
employ deceit and falsehood, in order to engage the assent of his
hearers. But he who addresses himself to God, and desires to please
Him, needs simplicity and purity of mind, for God cannot be
deceived. Whence it is plain that I have thus written to you not from
the love of rule, or to gain disciples, or to receive honor at your
hands. My endeavor has been to please God, not man. Were it
otherwise, I should still consort with the Jews, still persecute the
Church, I who have cast off my country altogether, my companions,
my friends, my kindred, and all my reputation, and taken in exchange
for these, persecution, enmity, strife, and daily-impending death,
have given a signal proof that I speak not from love of human
applause. This he says, being about to narrate his former life, and
sudden conversion, and to demonstrate clearly that it was sincere.
And that they might not be elevated by a notion that he did this by way
of self-vindication to them, he premises, "For do I now persuade
men?" He well knew how, on a fitting occasion, to correct his
disciples, in a grave and lofty tone: assuredly he had other sources
whence to demonstrate the truth of his preaching,--by signs and
miracles, by dangers, by prisons, by daily deaths, by hunger and
thirst, by nakedness, and the like. Now however that he is speaking
not of false apostles, but of the true, who had shared these very
perils, he employs another method. For when his discourse was pointed
towards false apostles, he institutes a comparison by bringing forward
his endurance of danger, saying, "Are they ministers of Christ?
(I speak as one beside himself) I more; in labors more abundantly,
in prisons more abundantly, in stripes above measure, in deaths
oft." (2 Cor. xi: 23.) But now he speaks of his former
manner of life and says, Ver. 11, 12. "For I make known to
you, brethren, as touching the Gospel which was preached by me that
it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was
I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus
Christ."
You observe how sedulously he affirms that he was taught of Christ,
who Himself, without human intervention, condescended to reveal to
him all knowledge. And if he were asked for his proof that God
Himself thus immediately revealed to him these ineffable mysteries, he
would instance his former manner of life, arguing that his conversion
would not have been so sudden, had it not been by Divine revelation.
For when men have been vehement and eager on the contrary side, their
conviction, if it is effected by human means, requires much time and
ingenuity. It is clear therefore that he, whose conversion is
sudden, and who has been sobered in the very height of his madness,
must have been vouchsafed a Divine revelation and teaching, and so
have at once arrived at complete sanity. On this account he is obliged
to relate his former life, and to call the Galatians as witnesses of
past events. That the Only-Begotten Son of God had Himself from
heaven vouchsafed to call me, says he, you who were not present,
could not know, but that I was a persecutor you do know. For my
violence even reached your ears, and the distance between Palestine
and Galatia is so great, that the report would not have extended
thither, had not my acts exceeded all bounds and endurance. Wherefore
he says, Ver. 13. "For ye have heard of my manner of life in
time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I
persecuted the Church of God, and made havoc of it."
Observe how he shrinks not from aggravating each point; not saying
simply that he "persecuted" but "beyond measure," and not only
"persecuted" but "made havoc of it," which signifies an attempt to
extinguish, to pull down, to destroy, to annihilate, the Church.
Ver. 14. "And I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of
mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for
the traditions of my fathers."
To obviate the notion that his persecution arose from passion,
vain-glory, or enmity, he shows that he was actuated by zeal, not
indeed "according to knowledge," (Rom. x: 2.) still by a
zealous admiration of the traditions of his fathers. This is his
argument;--if my efforts against the Church sprung not from human
motives, but from religious though mistaken zeal, why should I be
actuated by vain-glory, now that I am contending for the Church,
and have embraced the truth? If it was not this motive, but a godly
zeal, which possessed me when I was in error, much more now that I
have come to know the truth, ought I to be free from such a
suspicion. As soon as I passed over to the doctrines of the Church
I shook off my Jewish prejudices, manifesting on that side a zeal
still more ardent; and this is a proof that my conversion is sincere,
and that the zeal which possesses me is from above. What other
inducement could I have to make such a change, and to barter honor for
contempt, repose for peril, security for distress? none surely but
the love of truth.
Ver. 15, 16. "But when it was the good pleasure of God, Who
separated me, even from my mother's womb, and called me through His
grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the
Gentiles, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood."
Here his object is to show, that it was by some secret providence that
he was left for a time to himself. For if he was set apart from his
mother's womb to be an Apostle and to be called to that ministry, yet
was not actually called till that juncture, which summons he instantly
obeyed, it is evident that God had some hidden reason for this delay.
What this purpose was, you are perhaps eager to learn from me, and
primarily, why he was not called with the twelve. But in order not to
protract this discourse by digressing from that which is more pressing,
I must entreat your love not to require all things from me, but to
search for it by yourselves, and to beg of God to reveal it to you.
Moreover I partly discussed this subject when I discoursed before you
on the change of his name from Saul to Paul; which, if you have
forgotten, you will fully gather from a perusal of that volume. At
present let us pursue the thread of our discourse, and consider the
proof he now adduces that no natural event had befallen him,--that
God Himself had providentially ordered the occurrence. "And called
me through His grace."
God indeed says that He called him on account of his excellent
capacity, as He said to Ananias, "for he is a chosen vessel unto
Me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings," (Acts ix:
15.) that is to say, capable of service, and the accomplishment of
great deeds. God gives this as the reason for his call. But he
himself everywhere ascribes it to grace, and to God's inexpressible
mercy, as in the words, "Howbeit for this cause I obtained
mercy," not that I was sufficient or even serviceable, but "that in
me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all His long-suffering,
for an ensample of them which should hereafter believe on Him unto
eternal life." (I Tim. i: 16.) Behold his overflowing
humility; I obtained mercy, says he, that no one might despair,
when the worst of men had shared His bounty. For this is the force of
the words, "that He might show forth all His long-suffering for an
ensample of them which should hereafter believe on Him."
"To reveal His Son in me."
Christ says in another place, "No one knoweth who the Son is, save
the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him." (Luke x: 22.) You
observe that the Father reveals the Son, and the Son the Father;
so it is as to Their glory, the Son glorifies the Father, and the
Father the Son; "glorify Thy Son, that the Son may glorify
Thee," and, "as I have glorified Thee." (John xvii: 1,
4.) But why does he say, "to reveal His Son in me," and not
"to me?" it is to signify, that he had not only been instructed in
the faith by words, but that he was richly endowed with the
Spirit;--that the revelation had enlightened his whole soul, and
that he had Christ speaking within him.
"That I might preach Him among the Gentiles." For not only his
faith, but his election to the Apostolic office proceeded from God.
The object, says he, of His thus specially revealing Himself to
me, was not only that I might myself behold Him, but that I might
also manifest Him to others. And he says not merely, "others,"
but, "that I might preach Him among the Gentiles," thus touching
beforehand on that great ground of his defence which lay in the
respective characters of the disciples; for it was necessary to preach
differently to the Jews and tO the heathen.
"Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood."
Here he alludes to the Apostles, naming them after their physical
nature; however, that he may have meant to include all mankind, I
shall not deny.
Ver. 17. "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were
Apostles before me."
These words weighed by themselves seem to breath an arrogant spirit,
and to be foreign to the Apostolic temper. For to give one's
suffrage for one's self, and to admit no man to share one's counsel,
is a sign of folly. It is said, "Seest thou a man wise in his own
conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him;" (Prov: xxvi:
12.) and, "Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and
prudent in their own sight!" (Isa. v: 21.) and Paul himself
in another place, "Be not wise in your own conceits." (Rom.
xii: 16.) Surely one who had been thus taught, and had thus
admonished others, would not fall into such an error, even were he an
ordinary man; much less then Paul himself. Nevertheless, as I
said, this expression nakedly considered may easily prove a snare and
offence to many hearers. But if the cause of it is subjoined, all
will applaud and admire the speaker. This then let us do; for it is
not the right course to weigh the mere words, nor examine the language
by itself, as many errors will be the consequence, but to attend to
the intention of the writer. And unless we pursue this method m our
own discourses, and examine into the mind of the speaker, we shall
make many enemies, and every thing will be thrown into disorder. Nor
is this confined to words, but the same result will follow, if this
rule is not observed in actions. For surgeons often cut and break
certain of the bones; so do robbers; yet it would be miserable indeed
not to be able to distinguish one from the other. Again, homicides
and martyrs, when tortured, suffer the same pangs, yet is the
difference between them great. Unless we attend to this rule, we
shall not be able to discriminate in these matters; but shall call
Elijah and Samuel and Phineas homicides, and Abraham a
son-slayer; that is, if we go about to scrutinize the bare facts,
without taking into account the intention of the agents. Let us then
inquire into the intention of Paul in thus writing, let us consider
his scope, and general deportment towards the Apostles, that we may
arrive at his present meaning. Neither formerly, nor in this case,
did he speak with a view of disparaging the Apostles or of extolling
himself, (how so? when he included himself under his anathema?) but
always in order to guard the integrity of the Gospel. Since the
troublers of the Church said that they ought to obey the Apostles who
suffered these observances, and not Paul who forbade them, and hence
the Judaizing heresy had gradually crept in, it was necessary for him
manfully to resist them, from a desire of repressing the arrogance of
those who improperly exalted themselves, and not of speaking ill of the
Apostles. And therefore he says, "I conferred not with flesh and
blood;" for it would have been extremely absurd for one who had been
taught by God, afterwards to refer himself to men. For it is right
that he who learns from men should in turn take men as his counsellors.
But he to whom that divine and blessed voice had been vouchsafed, and
who had been fully instructed by Him that possesses all the treasures
of wisdom, wherefore should he afterwards confer with men? It were
meet that he should teach, not be taught by them. Therefore he thus
spoke, not arrogantly, but to exhibit the dignity of his own
commission. "Neither went I up," says he, "to Jerusalem to them
which were Apostles before me." Because they were continually
repeating that the Apostles were before him, and were called before
him, he says, "I went not up to them." Had it been needful for
him to communicate with them, He, who revealed to him his
commission, would have given him this injunction.
Is it true, however, that he did not go up thither? nay, he went
up, and not merely so, but in order to learn somewhat of them. When
a question arose on our present subject in the city of Antioch, in the
Church which had from the beginning shown so much zeal, and it was
discussed whether the Gentile believers ought to be circumcised, or
were under no necessity to undergo the rite, this very Paul himself
and Silas went up. How is it then that he says, I went not up, nor
conferred? First, because he went not up of his own accord, but was
sent by others; next, because he came not to learn. but to bring
others over. For he was from the first of that opinion, which the
Apostles subsequently ratified,that circumcision was unnecessary.
But when these persons deemed him unworthy of credit and applied to
those at Jerusalem he went up not to be farther instructed, but to
convince the gain-sayers that those at Jerusalem agreed with him.
Thus he perceived from the first the fitting line of conduct, and
needed no teacher, but, primarily and before any discussion,
maintained without wavering what the Apostles, after much discussion,
(Acts xv: 2,7.) subsequently ratified. This Luke shows by his
own account, that Paul argued much at length with them on this subject
before he went to Jerusalem. But since the brethren chose to be
informed on this subject, by those at Jerusalem, he went up on their
own account, not on his own. And his expression, "I went not
up," signifies that he neither went at the outset of his teaching,
nor for the purpose of being instructed. Both are implied by the
phrase, "Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood." He
says not, "I conferred," merely, but, "immediately;" and his
subsequent journey was not to gain any additional instruction. Ver.
17. "But I went away into Arabia."
Behold a fervent soul! he longed to occupy regions not yet tilled,
but lying in a wild state. Had he remained with the Apostles, as he
had nothing to learn, his preaching would have been straitened, for it
behooved them to spread the word every where. Thus this blessed man,
fervent in spirit, straightway undertook to teach wild barbarians,
choosing a life full of battle and labor. Having said, "I went into
Arabia," he adds, "and again I returned unto Damascus." Here
observe his humility; he speaks not of his successes, nor of whom or
of how many he instructed. Yet such was his zeal immediately on his
baptism, that he confounded the Jews, and so exasperated them, that
they and the Greeks lay in wait for him with a view to kill him.
This would not have been the case, had he not greatly added to the
numbers of the faithful; since they were vanquished in doctrine, they
had recourse to murder, which was a manifest sign of Paul's
superiority. But Christ suffered him not to be put to death,
preserving him for his mission. Of these successes, however, he says
nothing, and so in all his discourses, his motive is not ambition,
nor to be honored more highly than the Apostles, nor because he is
mortified at being lightly esteemed, but it is a fear lest any
detriment should accrue to his mission. For he calls himself, "one
born out of due time," and, "the first of sinners," and "the last
of the Apostles," and, "not meet to be called an Apostle." And
this he said, who had labored more than all of them; which is real
humility; for he who, conscious of no excellence, speaks humbly of
himself, is candid but not humble; but to say so after such trophies,
is to be practised in self-control.
Ver. 17. "And again I returned unto Damascus."
But what great things did he not probably achieve in this city? for he
tells us that the governor under Aretas the king set guards about the
whole of it, hoping to entrap this blessed man. Which is a proof of
the strongest kind that he was violently persecuted by the Jews.
Here, however, he says nothing of this, but mentioning his arrival
and departure is silent concerning the events which there occurred, nor
would he have mentioned them in the place I have referred to, (2
Cor. xi: 32.) had not circumstances required their narration.
Ver. 18. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to
visit Cephas."
What can be more lowly than such a soul? After such successes,
wanting nothing of Peter, not even his assent, but being of equal
dignity with him, (for at present I will say no more,) he comes to
him as his elder and superior. And the only object of this journey was
to visit Peter; thus he pays due respect to the Apostles, and
esteems himself not only not their better but not their equal. Which
is plain from this journey, for Paul was induced to visit Peter by
the same feeling from which many of our brethren sojourn with holy men:
or rather by a humbler feeling for they do so for their own benefit,
but this blessed man, not for his own instruction or correction, but
merely for the sake of beholding and honoring Peter by his presence.
He says, "to visit Peter;" he does not say to see, (idein,)
but to visit and survey, (istorhsai,) a word which those, who seek
to become acquainted with great and splendid cities, apply to
themselves. Worthy of such trouble did he consider the very sight of
Peter; and this appears from the Acts of the Apostles also. (Acts
xxi: 17, 18 etc.) For on his arrival at Jerusalem, on another
occasion, after having converted many Gentiles, and, with labors far
surpassing the rest, reformed and brought to Christ Pamphylia,
Lycaonia, Cilicia, and all nations in that quarter of the world, he
first addresses himself with great humility to James, as to his elder
and superior. Next he submits to his counsel, and that counsel
contrary to this Epistle. "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands
there are among the Jews of them which have believed; therefore shave
thy head, and purify thyself." (Acts xxi: 20 f.) Accordingly
he shaved his head, and observed all the Jewish ceremonies; for where
the Gospel was not affected, he was the humblest of all men. But
where by such humility he saw any injured, he gave up that undue
exercise of it, for that was no longer to be humble but to outrage and
destroy the disciples.
Ver. 18. "And tarried with him fifteen days." To take a
journey on account of him was a mark of respect; but to remain so many
days, of friendship and the most earnest affection.
Ver. 19. "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James,
the Lord's brother."
See what great friends he was with Peter especially; on his account
he left his home, and with him he tarried. This I frequently
repeat, and desire you to remember, that no one, when he hears what
this Apostle seems to have spoken against Peter, may conceive a
suspicion of him. He premises this, that when he says, "I resisted
Peter," no one may suppose that these words imply enmity and
contention; for he honored and loved his person more than all and took
this journey for his sake only, not for any of the others. "But
other of the Apostles saw I none, save James." "I saw him
merely, I did not learn from him," he means. But observe how
honorably he mentions him, he says not "James" merely, but adds
this illustrious title, so free is he from all envy. Had he only
wished to point out whom he meant, he might have shown this by another
appellation, and called him the son of Cleophas, as the Evangelist
does.
But as he considered that he had a share in the august titles of the
Apostles, he exalts himself by honoring James; and this he does by
calling him "the Lord's brother," although he was not by birth His
brother, but only so reputed. Yet this did not deter him from giving
the title; and in many other instances he displays towards all the
Apostles that noble disposition, which beseemed him.
Ver. 20. "Now touching the things which I write unto you,
behold, before God, I lie not."
Observe throughout the transparent humility of this holy soul; his
earnestness in his own vindication is as great as if he had to render an
account of his deeds, and was pleading for his life in a court of
justice.
Ver. 21. "Then I came into the regions of Syria and
Cilicia."
After his interview with Peter, he resumes his preaching and the task
which lay before him, avoiding Judaea, both because of his mission
being to the Gentiles, and of his unwillingness to "build upon
another man's foundation." Wherefore there was not even a chance
meeting, as appears from what follows.
Ver. 22, 23. "And I was still unknown by face unto the
Churches of Judaea; but they only heard say, he that once persecuted
us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc."
What modesty in thus again mentioning the facts of his persecuting and
laying waste the Church, and in thus making infamous his former life,
while he passes over the illustrious deeds he was about to achieve! He
might have told, had he wished it, all his successes, but he mentions
none of these and stepping with one word over a vast expanse, he says
merely, "I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;" and,
"they had heard, that he, which once persecuted us, now preacheth
the faith of which he once made havoc." The purpose of the words,
"I was unknown to the Churches of Judaea," is to show, that so
far from preaching to them the necessity of circumcision, he was not
known to them even by sight.
Ver. 24. "And they glorified God in me." See here again how
accurately he observes the rule of his humility; he says not, they
admired me, they applauded or were astonished at me, but ascribes all
to Divine grace by the words, "they glorified God in me."
|
|