Chapter One

Greeting to the readers (1-5). Occasion for writing the epistle (6-10). The Apostle Paul did not receive his gospel from human sources (11-24)

Gal 1:1-5. In his greeting the Apostle immediately outlines the basic content of the chapters that follow. He speaks of himself as a true Apostle of Christ—which the Judaizers then active in Galatia did not want to acknowledge—and states that Christ gave himself to death in order to redeem people from subjection to the present evil age. The Apostle makes this last point with the Judaizers in view, who, so to speak, were depriving of proper dignity the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ by insisting on the need for the Law of Moses for salvation even in Christianity.

Galatians 1:1. Paul, an Apostle chosen not by human beings and not through a human being, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead, Apostles in the primitive Church were generally called preachers of the gospel, not only the disciples of Christ himself. The Judaizers wanted to rank the Apostle Paul with ordinary preachers of the gospel, saying that he had not heard Christ himself and was below any one of the twelve Apostles. For this reason Paul emphasized that he is an Apostle in the fullest sense of the word, equal to any of the twelve Apostles. First, he was chosen to his service “not by human beings,” that is, either by other Apostles or by the assembly of believers, as for example the churches chose Titus and Epaphroditus (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). Second, he was called and “not through a human being,” that is, Christ did not appoint him to apostolic service through someone’s mediation, but called him directly himself. However, the primary cause of his calling, Paul names “God the Father, who raised Christ from the dead.” The Apostle mentions this fact in order to show that both Christ and God the Father are on his side: Christ properly called him, and the Father placed Christ in such a state that he can call apostles again, after his resurrection. — God the Father. The Apostle says here that Christ was “raised” by God the Father, as also in the epistle to Rome (Rom 8:11), meaning that Christ was truly raised by the Father, since he, as the God-Man, placed himself in dependence on the Father in all things (John 5:19). But the Apostle, nevertheless, was at the same time fully convinced that Christ, as God, rose himself (Rom 4:25).

Galatians 1:2. and all the brothers with me—to the churches of Galatia: The Apostle wants to say that all the Christians surrounding him at the present time (instead of “were with” it is better to translate “are with”) sympathetically support the step he has taken toward the Galatian churches and agree with his views.

Galatians 1:3. grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, The Apostle does not add, contrary to his usual custom (cf. for example the opening of the epistle to Romans and 1 Corinthians), praise of the readers for the firmness of their faith. This shows that the Apostle was deeply grieved by the behavior of the Galatian Christians, who at the present time were siding with Paul’s opponents—the Judaizers. — “Grace and peace” — cf. Rom 1:7.

Galatians 1:4. who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father; Galatians 1:5. to him be glory forever and ever. Amen. The Apostle certainly has the Judaizers in mind here, who by insisting on the requirement that the fulfillment of the ceremonial law of Moses is necessary even in Christianity, were in a sense weakening the power of the saving merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostle says therefore that Christ “gave himself as a sacrifice for our sins, in order that, according to the will or decision of our God and Father, he might rescue us from subjection to the present evil age, or in other words, such an order of life in which a person could not help but sin.” If the Apostle calls this order of life “present” (ἐνεστῶς), this does not mean that it still continues: this word is equivalent here to the expression “this” (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 3:22) and presents the opposite of the expression “the age to come,” as the times of messianic salvation are designated in the New Testament (Matt 12:32; Rom 8:38). — Since the Judaizers, by diminishing the significance of Christ’s merits, were at the same time dishonoring God the Father, who deigned to accept these merits as a fully satisfactory sacrifice for the sins of humanity, the Apostle at the end of his greeting renders glory “to God and the Father.” Gal 1:6-10. Indicating the occasion on which he addresses the Galatians with this epistle, the Apostle says that the Galatians have allowed false teachers to turn them away from God, who called them to fellowship with himself in Christ. In doing this he mentions that the Galatians have sided with Paul’s opponents. So separation from God and Christ and at the same time loss of trust in their enlightener Paul—this is what compels the Apostle to address the Galatians with a word of stern exhortation.

Galatians 1:6. I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from the one who called you by the grace of Christ to a different gospel, “From the one who called” — from God (cf. 1 Thess 2:12; Eph 4:4). — “By the grace of Christ.” This expression (Χριστοῦ) is considered inauthentic by modern textual scholars (see Zahn p. 44 with reference to the most ancient manuscripts in which this expression is absent). If one reads simply “by grace,” then by “the one who called” one can understand Christ himself. — “So quickly,” that is, so rapidly, without deliberation. — “To a different gospel,” that is, to a new gospel that has just appeared (ἕτερος—denotes difference only in quantity or time of origin). The Judaizers came to Galatia with a different or second gospel about Christ, declaring thereby that Paul’s former gospel was insufficient. Perhaps they said that the Apostle had forgotten to tell the Galatians that Christ, as always, came forward as one who recognizes the eternal significance of the Law of Moses (Matt 5:17-19). They advised the Galatians to forget Paul’s preaching altogether as failing to illuminate the work of Christ adequately.

Galatians 1:7. which is not really a different one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. “Which is not really different...” Here the Apostle uses a different term to denote the preaching of the Judaizers. “Not really different” — “ἄλλο,” that is, not different in quality, not another in content, not distinct from mine in content. What, indeed, could the Judaizers tell the Galatians that was new about Christ? The Apostle undoubtedly presented the life and teaching of Christ in full detail, and to add something to the actual history of Christ without falling into fantastic fabrications, the Judaizers certainly could not... — “But there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” Yes, the Apostle might say, the Judaizers cannot add anything to my gospel. All they want is to create confusion and agitation among you (to trouble, in Greek ταράσσειν, means to disturb, to throw into turmoil), to pervert the gospel about Christ (μεταστρέψαι, τοῦ Χριστοῦ — objective genitive), which the Apostle Paul explained to the Galatians in perfectly correct form. They want to pervert the gospel, evidently, by introducing into it the teaching of the necessity to observe circumcision and the law even in Christianity.

Galatians 1:8. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, were to proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let him be cursed. “Contrary to what we proclaimed.” More precisely: against what we (παρ ό) or: apart from what we proclaimed—with additions of their own. — “But even if we...” The Apostle supposes, on the basis of the example of the Apostle Peter (see below chapter Gal 2:11-14), that even he is not protected from the possibility of turning away from his gospel (for example, under the pressure of torments). — “An angel from heaven.” This is an impossible case, and the Apostle cites it only to strengthen his point. One should therefore insert the expression here: “if this were possible”... “Let him be cursed.” Among the seventy this word served as a term for designating the concept “cherem”—excommunication, the designation of something taken from a person’s property or family, for God or to be brought as an offering to God, or for destruction, as something that aroused against itself the anger of God. As in other epistles of the Apostle Paul (cf. for example 1 Cor 16:22), here this word is used in the last sense. But in what sense does the Apostle understand excommunication itself—in the sense of God’s judgment or the Church’s judgment? It seems to Zahn that here it is only said that such a preacher of the gospel is left to God’s judgment, not to church disciplinary judgment (p. 50). But the concept of excommunication or cherem among the Hebrews presupposed removal from Israelite society (cf. Ezra 10:8; Nehem 13:28). If Zahn finds it impossible to apply church excommunication to an angel, this objection is itself unfounded: the Apostle thinks of the angel as present on earth in the form of a human and as a member of the Church, and thus as in a certain sense subject to church discipline (again, of course, hypothetically).

Galatians 1:9. As I have said before, so now I say again: if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be cursed. So the Apostle pronounces a curse on the Judaizers who were distorting the gospel of Christ. But this should not shock the Galatians: even before, during his second stay in Galatia, he said the same thing (cf. Gal 5:3). But then he expressed this as a supposition, because the Judaizers at that time had not yet come forward openly, whereas now he directly sends excommunication upon the false teachers who have appeared or are about to appear. — “I have said.” According to Zahn, here the Apostle, as in verse 8 (“I proclaimed”) has in mind not only himself but also his helpers in the work of proclaiming the gospel.

Galatians 1:10. Am I now trying to persuade people or God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. The Judaizers, in all likelihood, reproached Paul for what appeared to be his inconsistency: “Now he adapts to the customs of Jews (Gal 5:11; cf. 1 Cor 9:20), now he lives with gentiles as a gentile (cf. 1 Cor 9:21). Was this not a manifestation of a desire by all means to increase the number of people favorably disposed toward him?” The Judaizers probably reasoned this way before the listeners in Galatia. The Apostle, now beginning his defense, says that he never acted in this way: he sought only “God’s” favor, and he never had any designs on respect from “people,” and therefore he cannot be accused of adapting his conduct to the chance tastes of his listeners. And how could he have become a “servant of Christ” if he had a tendency to seek popularity? He had enjoyed enormous popularity among the Jews and yet he spurned it to walk the thorny path of a servant “of Christ”—a preacher of the gospel... Gal 1:11-24. From verse 11 begins the apologetic section of the epistle, ending at Gal 2:21. Here the Apostle proves that his gospel is not a gospel he received from human beings but received directly from Christ himself. Here he describes in detail his life after his conversion to Christianity and clearly shows that he had no teachers even among the twelve Apostles.

Galatians 1:11. I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel proclaimed by me is not a human gospel; Galatians 1:12. I did not receive it from human sources, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Since the Judaizers cast doubt on the divine origin of the gospel that the Apostle Paul preached, the Apostle first of all declares the position that his gospel “is not a human gospel.” He did not receive it as a complete thing (παρέλαβον) and did not learn to understand it (εδιδάχθην) from anyone among people, but through a revelation received by him from Jesus Christ himself. Christ as if suddenly opened the veil that had concealed from Paul’s sight true Christianity, and the Apostle understood all its greatness. Of course, we cannot think that this happened in a single moment—at Damascus: the Apostle certainly means here all the numerous revelations that came to him, in which he learned all the mysteries of Christian faith (cf. 2 Cor 12:2)—revelations he received before writing the epistle to the Galatians. It should be noted that this does not deny the possibility that the Apostle became acquainted with historical events from the life of Christ through conversations with Christians who had been converted to Christ earlier; revelation imparts only ideas, not historical facts.

Galatians 1:13. You have heard, no doubt, of my former life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it; Galatians 1:14. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. The Apostle’s life before his conversion to Christ clearly testifies that he could not have become imbued with Christian ideas during that time. He was a fierce persecutor of Christianity who did not want to penetrate at all into the essence of the new teaching. He was not like some of the Pharisees who took a waiting attitude toward Christianity (cf. Acts 5:34-39). He advanced in “Judaism,” that is, in the way of life that had developed in Judaism under the influence of the traditions of the elders, and was among his contemporaries (“among my people”) an immoderate zealot for carrying into practice those traditions which he had inherited from his father or from his ancestors in general (the word πατρικός is not the same as πατρῶος: it denotes traditions—in this case clearly Pharisaic traditions—preserved in a particular family more strictly than in others).

Galatians 1:15. But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased Galatians 1:16. to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, Galatians 1:17. nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away to Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. But could the Apostle after his conversion to Christ submit to human influence in developing his worldview? This would have happened, of course, with everyone who received Christianity at that time: the Galatians themselves knew from their own experience that without instruction from others they could not have become what they had become. In order to exclude the assumption of such external influence upon him, the Apostle notes as a very important fact that after his conversion he did not go to Jerusalem to receive instruction in the faith from the Apostles, but withdrew to Arabia, and then, without going to Jerusalem, which was at that time the center of Christianity, returned to Damascus. — “Set me apart...” see Commentary on the Bible vol. X. — “Reveal his Son to me.” Before the Apostle’s conversion darkness reigned in his soul, which prevented him from seeing in the persecuted Jesus the true Messiah and Son of God. This darkness consisted of Jewish prejudices and, especially, of Pharisaic strivings which had ruled Paul’s soul up to that point. The overcoming of these prejudices through special divine action on Paul’s soul (cf. John 6:44) is the “revelation of the Son of God” of which the Apostle speaks here. Only through it came to its full development and became effective that first self-revelation of Christ (Gal 1:12) which was directly connected with the appearance of Christ to Paul and Paul’s calling into the Church of Christ and to apostolic service. The three days of physical blindness (Acts 9:9) which followed the appearance of Christ to Paul and the calling of the Apostle can be understood as the time during which this divine action on Paul’s soul was accomplished. — “So that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles.” The purpose of such a “revelation of the Son of God” in Paul’s soul was that Paul would become a preacher of the gospel among the gentiles. And how could Paul not proclaim to the gentiles the one in whom, through special divine action on his soul, he recognized as the true Son of God? As God is the God of both Jews and gentiles (Rom 3:29), so Christ—the Son of God—must be the rightful possession of all peoples. Such was the purpose God had in this “revelation of his Son” to Paul. — “I did not confer...” The Apostle, having received from God a direct explanation of Christ, did not find it necessary to submit what he had acquired in such an extraordinary manner to the judgment of people (“flesh and blood” cf. Eph 6:12; Matt 16:17): this would have been from his side a manifestation of disrespect toward divine teaching. — “Right away.” He thought and acted this way beginning from those very days of his calling. Clearly, his enemies spread the rumor to the Galatians that at first after his conversion Paul still sought recognition from the older Christians and Apostles, tried to obtain from them certain necessary guidance, and only later unexpectedly broke off all communion with them and came forward with his “false” gospel in open contradiction to the Jerusalem church. — “Nor did I go up to Jerusalem...” Where else, if not in Jerusalem, the oldest city of Christianity, could Paul seek guidance if he had needed it? Yet he did not go there (απῆλθον—according to the better reading, that is, he did not leave Damascus in order to go to Jerusalem). — “Those who were already apostles before me” (Τ. πρό εμοῦ), that is, those called before me. — “I went away to Arabia,” that is, if he went anywhere, perhaps even more than once, from Damascus, which served three years after his conversion as a constant place of residence, it was only to Arabia—the region lying to the southeast of Damascus in the kingdom of the Nabataeans, whose ruler was King Aretas (2 Cor 11:32). Regarding his stay in Arabia the Apostle says nothing more here—he had no need to (see Commentary on the Bible vol. X). He only wants to show his independence from the influence of human authorities, and he does this by mentioning that he left Damascus only for Arabia, where, of course, he could not have met any of the twelve Apostles...

Galatians 1:18. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. Galatians 1:19. But I did not see any of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. Only three years after his conversion, when, consequently, the Apostle’s views should have taken on a completely finished form, did he go to Jerusalem in order to see or become properly acquainted (ιστορῆσαι) with the Apostle Peter. The Judaizers apparently tried to twist even this visit of Paul to Jerusalem to their own advantage... With this in view, Paul speaks of this visit to Jerusalem in a completely cool tone. Like an inquisitive traveler who seeks out the most famous cities and wants to look at all their sights, so Paul traveled to Jerusalem to become acquainted, at his leisure, with the head of the small circle of Christ’s disciples—the Apostle Peter. But Paul stayed in Jerusalem only fifteen days—a time much too short to learn everything, so to speak, from the beginning and to forget all that the Apostle had acquired during three years away from Jerusalem... With the other Apostles from the twelve, Paul did not manage to become acquainted on that occasion—probably they were not in Jerusalem. To be accurate in his account of his stay in Jerusalem—for the Apostle knew that his epistle would be read by his enemies, the Judaizers, who would certainly try to point out everything the Apostle had not fully stated—he adds that he also saw James, the Lord’s brother, the leader of the Jerusalem church (see Commentary on the Bible vol. X). In doing this the Apostle probably deliberately uses the word “saw”: he wants thereby to convey that he precisely only saw, but did not learn from the Apostle James, did not try to learn from him anything in the realm of Christian doctrine that was unknown to Paul.

Galatians 1:20. In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie. Galatians 1:21. Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, Galatians 1:22. and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; Galatians 1:23. they only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy. Galatians 1:24. And they glorified God because of me. Having confirmed the truth of his statement by oath, the Apostle makes a remark about what happened in his life after the aforesaid visit to Jerusalem. He departed from Jerusalem (having spent some time in Caesarea Acts 9:30) into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. More precisely, it would be to say: to Cilicia (and namely first of all to the city of Tarsus Acts 9:30) and then to Syria, but the Apostle mentions Syria first because he is thinking of the geographical arrangement of the regions: it was Syria that directly bordered Palestine, and then, beyond Syria, came Cilicia. By mentioning these regions far from Jerusalem, the Apostle wants to say that even after visiting Jerusalem he remained far from any influence of the chief apostles. Then he emphasizes an especially important fact for him. The various Palestinian provincial Christian communities did not know the Apostle Paul personally, but heard, of course, from the Jerusalem Christians that the Apostle Paul, once a fierce persecutor of Christianity, had now become a preacher of this Christianity. It is evident that the Apostle Paul in the days of his stay in Jerusalem—namely in those fifteen days—had already come forward there as a fully independent preacher (see Rom 15:19). This report of the Jerusalem Christians about Paul’s preaching activity was, on the whole, evidently very sympathetic, and the provincial Palestinian Christians glorified God, who had made of their enemy—a zealous preacher of Christ—out of a fierce persecutor. It is clear, the Apostle seems to say, that in the time immediately following my stay in Jerusalem there was no thought of my introducing some new teaching about Christ. The attitude toward me was very sympathetic, and only recently has this attitude changed... * * * Notes Here is pronounced a condemnation of all attempts in our time to give humanity some “new” gospel. Thus, undoubtedly, under this apostolic condemnation falls also the direction that made itself heard at the Berlin Religious Congress (1910), which wanted to work out a new progressive Christianity whose fundamental teaching should be the idea of the needlessness of redemption. Such new teachers forget that true religious progress does not consist of the invention and discovery of a new gospel; only that which continually deepens our knowledge and experience in relation to the old gospel can be called such progress. A thousand years of experience confirm that this gospel alone is the power of God that saves everyone who believes in it. Some suppose that if the Apostle Paul lived in our time, when various views about Christianity exist among Christians, he would not approach the dissenters with such severity. Thus the Apostle is somewhat suspected of excessive heat and sharpness, which supposedly can be explained only by the conditions of that time... But there is no foundation for such reasoning. The Apostle spoke so sharply about those of different views because he bore a burning love for the Galatians, whom the Judaizers were leading astray from the path of salvation, and because he profoundly understood the truth of his own preaching. With such feelings he would undoubtedly in our time respond with no less sharpness about those pseudo-Christian thinkers and teachers who rob simple believers of their most precious possession—faith in Christ as the Son of God, incarnate for our salvation and who redeemed us. And those contemporary Christian pastors who are too lenient toward those of different views, whose difference of opinion undermines the very foundations of true faith, should imitate the great zeal of the Apostle of the Gentiles...