The Beginning of the Epistle (Continued) (Galatians 1:6–10)

Judging from this, “now”, according to Saint Chrysostom, means either now, when I write the Epistle—or all the time of my preaching labors, that is, “now”, when I abandoned Judaism and began to proclaim the Gospel,—or the consequential particle: judge “now” after what has been said. Blessed Jerome understands “now” as: after my conversion and abandonment of Judaism.

“Or do I seek to please men?” They were saying that Saint Paul gave freedom from the Law of Moses to the Gentiles in order to adapt himself to them and more easily attract them; for the Gentiles did not favor the religious ordinances of the Jews. From this it followed that he was deceiving himself and did not preach pure truth. Against this Saint Paul now speaks, saying that this is not so, that he is not such in his convictions as to change the truth out of human-pleasing. This already followed from the judgment he had pronounced on those changing the Gospel. Saint Chrysostom says: “We do not write this from love of authority and not in order to have disciples, and not seeking glory and praise for ourselves; for we strive not to please men, but God.” Ecumenius continues: “I do not wish to please men; consequently, not you either. I have not said this in order to flatter you and gain your favor.”

“For if I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.” Another proof that Saint Paul was not deceiving the truth out of pleasing men. The strict judgment on those proclaiming otherwise, under which he also placed himself, already proved this. Now, in proof of the same, he points to his conversion from Judaism to Christianity. He speaks as if: if I did not love truth and changed my thoughts according to the persons I address, of course so as to benefit from their goodwill, then there was no reason for me to abandon Judaism. There I enjoyed great honor and had even greater prospects in the future. If I cast all this away, then surely on the conviction that remaining in Judaism no longer was proper, that it had lived out its time, appointed to it by God. The truth about Christ was revealed, to which I clung with all my heart and which alone I proclaim to everyone, both Gentiles and Jews, having offered in sacrifice to it all my earthly advantages. “If I wanted to please men,” Saint Chrysostom speaks in the name of Paul, “I would even now still be on the side of the Jews and would continue to persecute the Church. But since I have despised both my people and my friends and relatives and high honor and suffer persecution from them, enmity, warfare and death daily, this clearly shows that everything I now say, I say not for the sake of gaining human glory. He said this because he wanted to recount his former life and sudden change and by his very deeds prove that he stands for the truth.” Ambrosiaster makes this conclusion from here: “Saint Paul, who taught with all reverence to please God, did not fear to go against men when the glory of God demanded it. Before the coming of the Lord the Law was proclaimed by the will of God; but when the Lord came, promised in the Law, the Law had to cease, as the Prophets foretold about this. For this reason the Lord says: ‘The Law and the Prophets were until John’ (Luke 16:16). It was no longer fitting that in the presence of the Lord the Law should retain its power. Consequently, whoever after this thinks to keep the Law does not obey the will of the Lord, but resists Him.”

Someone might object: then why does the Apostle write in other places: “I please all men” (1 Cor. 10:33), “I have become all things to all men” (1 Cor. 9:22)—and advises every Christian to “please his neighbor” (Rom. 15:2)? But Saint Paul speaks so to show that he employed all the methods which proved suitable wherever he was, only to dispose people to accept the single truth which he proclaimed everywhere. He did not change the truth, adapting to men, but changed his methods and approaches so that people more easily accepted the single truth for all. His pleasing of men could touch everything else except truth. With it he fearlessly went against the whole world. For this reason also in the passages cited he speaks thus: “I have become all things to all men”—but: “so that by all means I might save some; I please all men in all things”—but: “not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved”. And to others he advises to please “for good, to edification”. Blessed Augustine writes: “Whoever strives to convince men of the truth is not concerned with how to gain a favorable reception for himself from men, but with ensuring that the truth itself which he imparts becomes pleasing to them. Whoever is pleasing to men for the sake of truth—it is not he who is pleasing to them, but the truth itself.” Jerome adds: “Thus the Apostle himself shows why he pleases all men in all things: ‘not seeking,’ he says, ‘my own advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved.’ Whoever by love that seeks not its own, but ‘that of the neighbor’ (1 Cor. 10:24) pleases everyone so that they may be saved, he pleases God even more, for whom the salvation of men is precious, than he pleases men.‘In the Apostle’s advice to please one’s neighbor blessed Jerome sees this meaning:’If it is possible both to please God and to please men, then one must please men too. But if it is impossible to please men otherwise than by not pleasing God, then we must please God more than we please men.”

In the words “for if I were still pleasing men”—by the word “men”—not only Jews are understood, but in general all people. The thought is: if I had a human-pleasing disposition. By this he denies human-pleasing even before his conversion. Then he was zealous for the Law, but not from human-pleasing, but because of the conviction that he was zealous for God’s truth; but as soon as he became convinced to the contrary, he immediately withdrew his zeal from its former object and turned it to another. And this again not from pleasing any men, but because he became completely convinced of the truth of the Gospel. By the words “I would not be a servant of Christ”—Saint Paul expresses that he would not have become a Christian either, if he did not love truth but merely practiced human-pleasing. Others interpret it thus: he would not be a servant of Christ, that is, an Apostle. But the first thought is more fitting. Saint Paul strengthens his speech: not only would I not have been an Apostle, but not a Christian either, would not have turned to Christ, would not have accepted His holy Gospel and would not have submitted to it.