The Inscription and Greeting (Galatians 1:1–5)

The inscription and greeting in the Epistle to the Galatians differ from other epistles in that they introduce propositions that from the outset indicate the content of the Epistle itself. It is evident that the holy Apostle Paul was deeply engaged with his subject, and thoughts about it, filling his soul, burst forth into words from the very beginning. He had to prove his apostolic authority and make clear what our salvation consists in. Both of these he indicates here in advance. In the inscription, he attaches the word about his true apostleship to his name, and in the greeting, he addresses it to the venerable name of Christ the Savior, in connection with salvation which is in the Lord. Such an introduction of external ideas into the inscription and greeting, corresponding to the content of the Epistle, the holy Paul did also later, as we see in the Epistle to the Romans and in the Epistle to Titus.

Gal. 1:1–2. Paul an Apostle, not from human beings nor by a human, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead, and all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of the Galatians.

In the Epistles to the Thessalonians, the holy Apostle Paul did not attach this word—Apostle—to himself, not because he was more humble then and his humility has diminished now, but because here there was a necessity to display this title given him by God, which they tried to take from him, which was not the case there.

“Not from human beings, nor by a human”. In those times, those called apostles were not only the twelve, but also all who were sent out to preach, either by one or another who had weight and authority, or by the entire Church. So the holy Paul calls apostles Andronicus and Junia (Rom. 16:7), and counts Apollos among the apostles (1 Cor. 4:6). They are one with the evangelists and differed from the pastors and teachers, who, remaining in one place in their church, built up Christians by the word, whereas those went through villages, cities, and lands (Eph. 4:11). Later the Church also granted the title of apostleship to all known coworkers of the apostles and to many others who labored in the proclamation of the Gospel. Memory of them is commemorated on January 4. There are seventy of them, according to the number of others chosen by the Lord besides the twelve Apostles. But the apostles properly speaking, the foundation stones of the Church’s building, from which all Christian teaching and all the orders of Christian life came, were the twelve who had seen the works of the Lord, heard his teaching, and were witnesses of his resurrection (Acts 1:21–22).

Regarding Apostle Paul, the Judaizing false teachers could say: he is not a true apostle. The true ones saw the Lord himself and were sent by him personally, but what about this one? Ananias baptized him; Barnabas recommended him to the apostles in Jerusalem, then he himself called him to Antioch, where he taught together with Barnabas; the church of Antioch sent him with Barnabas to preach in other places; and after this first experience the apostles in Jerusalem also gave their approval for them to labor in proclaiming the Gospel outside of Palestine. So his apostleship has nothing special, appointed from on high. People saw that he was capable and sent him. But such people cannot teach independently, from themselves; they must agree in everything with the true apostles. And the believers ought not to trust them completely in all things, but should test their teaching by what the chief apostles say and how they act. But Paul does not agree with them; for they, living in Jerusalem, do not forbid circumcision and the observance of other ordinances of the Law, and they themselves keep them. Consequently, Paul has departed from them, and one should not listen to him.

Against such insinuations the holy Apostle speaks, saying he is an apostle—“not from human beings, nor by a human”—that it was not Ananias and Barnabas who indicated him, not Peter or the church of Antioch who chose him for apostleship, but the Lord himself. Here, however, he only states such a proposition; he proves it at length in the first two chapters of the Epistle. By the words “not from human beings, nor by a human” he is as it were saying: my apostleship cannot be thought of as merely a work of human foresight and human selection, whether understanding one human or an entire Christian community. It goes beyond the bounds of human affairs—it is from above. Such a meaning is evident from these words at first glance.

Others distinguish between these expressions: not from human beings, nor by a human—and see a particular thought in each, for they differ both in number and in prepositions: in the first there is the plural and the preposition “from”, in the second the singular and the preposition “through” (δια). Based on this, they think that by the first expression the holy Apostle denies that his apostleship came from human beings, denies that it was given him on the basis of human considerations alone, without any participation from above; by the second he also denies its heavenly origin if understood as mediated, denies the thought that although there is God’s will for his apostleship, it was given him through the mediation of a human, and not directly by the Lord, as it was given to the other apostles. Blessed Jerome sees in these words of the Apostle an indication of three kinds of selection: the first, which is accomplished by people alone; the second, which, though from God, is produced through some human; and the third, which is accomplished directly by the Lord himself. Saint Paul claims the last for himself. Blessed Theodoret writes: “(by these words) the Apostle said that he received grace worthy, not receiving this gift from people; no one of the divine apostles seized him, but the Lord himself from heaven called him, not employing any human in service to accomplish it. This is what he meant when he said: ‘nor by a human.’”

“But by Jesus Christ and God the Father”. How Saint Paul was chosen by the Lord Jesus Christ is presented in the book of Acts. At Paul’s conversion, when the Lord appeared to him on the road to Damascus, he said nothing to him about his calling, but only told him to go into the city where it would be told “what is right for him to do” (Acts 9:6). This corresponded to the calling of the holy Apostles to follow the Lord. In a vision to Ananias, the Lord only foretold Paul’s calling, saying: “he is a chosen instrument for me to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15). But Paul’s actual selection as Apostle to the Gentiles was accomplished in the temple in Jerusalem directly by the Lord himself, as the holy Paul testifies in Acts. Praying, he says, in Jerusalem, in the temple, I was in a trance and saw the Lord, who said to me: “Go quickly from Jerusalem, because they will not receive your testimony about me… Go, because I will send you far away to the Gentiles” (Acts 22:18, 21). This for the holy Paul was the same as for the other apostles: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them” and so forth (Matt. 28:19). What happened later in the church of Antioch, when the Holy Spirit commanded to set apart Paul along with Barnabas for the work to which he was called (see Acts 13:2), was only the fulfillment of this selection by the Lord. In this, however, one can see, in relation to Paul and the other apostles, a correspondence to the descent of the Holy Spirit upon those latter ones on the day of Pentecost, after which immediately their apostolic activity began, as also after that event for Paul.

So the direct selection of Paul by the Lord as Apostle to the Gentiles is evident. But how was he chosen by God the Father? Insofar as he was chosen by the Lord, he was also chosen by the Father; for the actions of the Father and the Son are inseparable. The Persons of the Holy Trinity are distinct personally, but inseparable in essence, in actions, and in will. The Lord Jesus Christ is God the Son incarnate. Therefore his actions are also the actions of the Father. While still on earth, he said: “All that the Father has is mine; what the Father does, the Son also does. I do what I see the Father doing” (John 14:10; John 14:31; John 16:15). This applies all the more completely after his resurrection and his sitting at the right hand of God the Father. The holy Paul, led into the contemplation of divine mysteries, clearly saw in his selection as Apostle by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, also the selection by God the Father; which is why he expressed it in this way. The book of Acts gives us to understand that in this selection the Holy Spirit also participated, as mentioned, so that it is from the Holy Trinity. And all things in the Church of God are from God the Father in the Holy Spirit through the Lord Jesus Christ.

So with one brief utterance the holy Apostle placed himself on an equal footing with the other chief apostles. Let us listen to how the holy Chrysostom writes about all this: “at the very beginning the Apostle points to what those who diminished his dignity were saying, that is, that the other apostles were Christ’s disciples, while he was a disciple of the apostles. That is why he begins the Epistle thus: ‘Paul an Apostle, not from human beings, nor by a human’. For other false teachers insisted that Paul was the least of all apostles and that he learned the faith from them. Since Peter, James, John were called first and hold the first place among the disciples, and received the doctrines of faith from Christ himself, it is better to believe them than him. And they do not forbid circumcision and the observance of the law of Moses. Saying this and similar things to diminish Paul and elevate those apostles, not indeed to praise those, but to more certainly deceive the Galatians, they taught them to observe the law when they ought not. So the Apostle began the Epistle with very fitting words. Since they diminished the teaching of the apostle, saying that it was from human beings while Peter’s teaching was from Christ, he at the very beginning refutes this, saying that he is ‘an Apostle, not from human beings, nor by a human’. Though Ananias did baptize him, he did not deliver him from error and did not convert him to faith, but Christ himself from above with that marvelous voice called and seized him. The Lord called Peter and his brother and John with his brother as he walked by the sea, but Paul after his ascension to heaven… He immediately (after this) received baptism and then waged an unrelenting struggle with the Jews and thus excelled the other apostles even more; for he says: ‘I labored more than all of them’ (1 Cor. 15:10). But in the present case he does not touch on this, considering it sufficient to show his equality with the other apostles; for he needed not to show his superiority over them, but to remove the cause of offense. From this the word: ‘not from human beings’—refers to all preachers; and the word: ‘nor by a human’—refers only to the apostles. For God called them not through people, but immediately by himself.”

“Who raised him from the dead”. The holy Apostle Paul often mentions the resurrection of Christ the Savior as the most solemn and triumphant sign of Christianity; but its significance, specific in one case or another, is determined by the course of the discourse. Since the holy Paul has two subjects in mind here—that he is a true apostle and that salvation is solely in the Lord Jesus—one might think that he mentioned the resurrection here so that its light would fall on both of these subjects.

In relation to the first mention of Christ’s resurrection, Paul wanted to bring to the Galatians’ minds how he was called to apostleship by the Lord. According to Blessed Augustine, he hints that “he also was sent by Christ, but by the Christ who is now glorified.” The Lord called the other apostles in person before his death and resurrection, finally determining them for apostleship only after the resurrection; but Paul he both called and chose for apostleship and established in it—all after the resurrection and ascension, by which his apostleship is not diminished, if not elevated. That is why in another place, enumerating the appearances of the Lord to the apostles after his resurrection, he adds: “last of all… he appeared also to me” (1 Cor. 15:8). That is, he too is placed by this on the same level as the others. It is not hard to draw support for the apostleship of the holy Paul from the fact that he represents the resurrection of the Lord as having come from God the Father. Saying: I am an apostle chosen not only by the Lord, but also by God the Father who raised him from the dead, the Apostle suggests that the participation of God the Father in choosing him for apostleship is mediated by the resurrection of the Lord Jesus—how is this so? Thus, that God the Father, who raised Christ the Savior, thereby sanctified and confirmed beforehand with his agreement all that the risen Lord had to do and establish. This is how my apostleship also ascends to God the Father, Paul is as it were saying.

In relation to the second mention of the resurrection, and consequently of death, what is brought to mind is the principal thing in the economy of our salvation—the satisfaction of infinite justice and reconciliation with God, faith in which we are granted all the blessings obtained by the incarnate Son of God for us. Whoever contemplates this and receives it with heartfelt faith will not turn to the feeble way of salvation through observance of the law of Moses. The holy John of Damascus writes: “since they thought they would be punished if they departed from the law, he reminds them of the deed by which all need for the law is abolished, that is, of the cross and resurrection, in which is founded our salvation.” Saint Chrysostom is moved by the words: “who raised him from the dead”—and says: “what are you doing, Paul, desiring to bring those who wish to judaize to the faith? Why do you not bring forward any of his great and divine attributes, as you wrote to the Philippians, saying: ‘who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped’ (Phil. 2:6), or as in the Epistle to the Hebrews you said plainly of him that he is ‘the radiance of his glory and the exact expression of his being’, that is, of the Father (Heb. 1:3); or as in the beginning of his Gospel the son of thunder proclaimed him: ‘in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’ (John 1:1); or as Jesus himself often said before the Jews that he is equally almighty as the Father and has the same power as him (see: John 5:19–21)? Why did you not say something like this, but, leaving all that aside, brought to mind what was accomplished, according to God’s ordering, over his flesh, pointing to the cross and death? It was necessary to do so, he replies. For if the word were addressed to such people who knew nothing great about Christ, it would be fitting to speak of him thus. But since the matter is with people who fear that by abandoning the law they will be exposed to God’s wrath, he mentions that by which the necessity of the law is abolished, that is, the good fruits that have come to all from the cross and resurrection.”

But let not any of us also be troubled by the fact that the Apostle calls Christ the Savior as having been raised by God the Father, rather than as having risen by his own power, which he does not only here, but also in other places (see, for example, Rom. 4:24; Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:15; Eph. 1:20, 2:6; Col. 2:12; 1 Thess. 1:10). One must consider all together the places where the holy Paul speaks about the resurrection. Doing this, we will find that there are no fewer places where the Lord is called as having risen himself (such as: Rom. 4:25; Rom. 6:4; Rom. 6:9; Rom. 8:34; Rom. 14:9; 1 Cor. 15:4, 12, 20; 2 Cor. 5:15; 1 Thess. 4:14 and the like). So it should be expected. Since Christ the Savior is both God and human, it is fitting to speak of him both as having been raised and as having risen. He rose as God, and was raised as human. But with either expression one must not lose sight of the unified action of God the Father and God the Son as Persons of the Holy Trinity. Looking at the resurrection from this perspective, one must believe that Christ the Savior both rose himself not without the action of the Father, and was raised by the Father not without his own action as the Son; for the Persons of the Holy Trinity, distinct personally, are inseparable in their action. But in the word of God these expressions are used—the Lord Jesus Christ who rose, or: God the Father who raised him—according to the requirements of the discourse and the condition of those to whom the discourse is addressed. The Lord himself, during his earthly life, foretold that he would rise himself. Thus he spoke at the very beginning in the temple: “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19)—this is about the temple of his body. On Tabor he commanded his disciples to be silent about his glorification in the transfiguration, “until the Son of Man is raised from the dead” (Mark 9:9), that is, by himself. He himself said that he has power to lay down his soul—his life—and take it again, to come alive (John 10:18). And the angel at the resurrection says to the women: “he has risen, he is not here” (Matt. 28:6)—he rose himself. All this was handed down to us by the holy apostles. Consequently, they understood the Lord’s resurrection no other way. But in their speeches to the people, at first certainly to the Jews, they did not think it wise to speak so directly, lest with this splendor they should not blind the weak understanding of the Jews. In Peter’s very first speech we hear: “you killed him, but God raised him” (Acts 2:23–24). Then also afterward the apostles often spoke this way. The Jewish people were raised in faith in the one God. It would have been overwhelming for them if suddenly the face of Christ the Savior, in all the light of his Godhead, were to rise before their attention and as it were hide the face of God the Father from them. That is why both are always mentioned together, and in such a way that all is traced back to God the Father as to the sole beginning. The intention was by this means gradually to raise the infant mind of faith to the contemplation of the consubstantiality and unified action of the Triune God.

Regarding the present passage, Saint Chrysostom writes: “but behold the heretics object, saying: see, the Father raises the Son? For they, once infected with the disease of heresy, become deaf and incapable—though of their own accord—of perceiving the height of the dogmas, and choose only what is said about Christ either according to the state of his humiliation, or according to his humanity, or to the honor of the Father, or according to some other divine ordering; and, considering such passages apart, they damage themselves all the more, I will not say—Scripture. I would like to ask them: why do they say this? Is it so they might present the Son as weak and unable to raise even his own body? But faith in him alone was such that even the shadow of those who believed in him raised the dead. So, if those who believed in him, themselves mortal, by the mere shadow of their earthly bodies and the clothes that covered such bodies, raised the dead, could he not raise himself? Is this not obvious madness? Is this not the highest degree of folly? You heard what Christ says: ‘destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up’ (John 2:19); and again: ‘I have authority to lay down my life, and I have authority to take it again’ (John 10:18). So why then is it said that the Father raised him? Why are many other things also attributed to the Father that the Son also does? This is said to the honor of the Father and on account of the weakness of the listeners.”

Blessed Theodoret sees in these words an indication of the unified action of God the Father and God the Son. “The words: ‘who raised him from the dead’—do not suggest a thought of weakness in the Godhead of the Only-Begotten (for suffering touched not the Godhead), but show agreement in the work of the proclamation, namely that the mystery of the divine incarnation was not administered by the Son alone, but the Father himself also participated in this providence. Since the defenders of the law supposed that God should be served by observance of the law, the divine apostle shows that the giver of the New Covenant is not the Son alone, but also the Father.”

The holy Fathers did not pass over without attention either the form of expression or the order of the names of God in the words: “by Jesus Christ and God the Father”; but in both they saw important dogmatic indications. From the Greek, word for word it should be translated: “by Jesus Christ and by God the Father”. If here there were only: “by Jesus Christ”, and then it said: “from God the Father” or something else, then it might seem that the Lord Christ is not self-originated and self-acting, but is only an instrument in the hands of the Father, and both in being and in actions subordinate to him. But since the holy Paul expressed himself regarding God the Father the same way as regarding the Son, he thereby showed that he does not make any distinction in their nature and authority. Blessed Theodoret writes: “so that someone, finding the preposition ‘by’ before the name ‘Jesus,’ should not think that the Son serves the Father, the Apostle added: ‘and by God the Father.’ He used the preposition ‘by’ before the name of both Persons, teaching that this preposition means no distinction in nature.‘Saint Chrysostom, drawing the same thought from this form of expression, that is, that, using the same expression for the Father as for the Son, the Apostle taught us’not to make laws for the incomprehensible nature and not to set boundaries for the Godhead between the Son and the Father‘and that’he does this not in order to attribute the Sonship to the Father, but to show that this expression does not allow for any distinction in their nature‘—draws out another, no less significant thought, from the order in which the divine Persons stand here:’what will those also say who think they find some diminishing of the divine Hypostases in baptism, for the sole reason that they are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit? For if the Son is less than the Father because his name is placed after the Father, what will they say now when the Apostle begins with Christ and then moves to the Father? And we here do not intend to say anything blasphemous. For, contending with those in error, we must not depart from the truth; and, even if they a thousand times went beyond reason, we must always keep ourselves within the bounds of piety. Therefore, just as here we do not say the Son is greater than the Father because the Apostle mentioned him first—for this would be the height of madness and all impiety—so there, in the command about baptism, we should not think the Son less than the Father because the Son is placed after the Father.”

“And all the brethren who are with me”. Who are these? It is thought that this is the entire church in Ephesus, based on the fact that the Apostle said not simply: “the brethren who are with me,”—but: all the brethren. Against this one could say only that it was unusual for the holy Paul to write epistles on behalf of an entire church in which he was writing, though it was customary for him to send greetings from the entire church at the end of epistles (as see: Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; Phil. 4:22…). But here, in relation to the Galatians, special circumstances could have prompted him to this. The false teachers had convinced the Galatians that only Paul rejected circumcision and the law of Moses, while others, on the contrary, do not forbid either one or the other. Apostle Paul places the entire church in Ephesus with him at the beginning of the epistle, showing thereby that she agrees with him in all things. In Ephesus, moreover, there had been the beginnings of faith even before his coming there (Acts 18:21, 24). From this it directly followed that it was untrue to say that he alone teaches thus; but that such is the spirit of Christianity, that where it dwells, there the synagogue must fall entirely in all its composition. So Saint Chrysostom: “why does he not say this anywhere else in other epistles, but either puts only his own name or names others, but no more than two or three, and here he mentions the entire multitude of believers, why did he not name anyone by name? Why does he do this? Judaizing Christians reproached him for being the only one to preach thus and thereby introducing new teaching into the dogmas of faith; so, in order to destroy such suspicion and show that he has many of the same mind as him, he joins the brethren, showing thereby that what he writes about is also in accord with their thoughts.”

Others think that by these words not the entire church is meant, but only those brethren who stood in special relations to the Apostle; there were his coworkers and, perhaps besides them, others, but, as Blessed Jerome remarks, “known to the Galatians and enjoying their respect, and moreover themselves from the circumcision.” In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, written after the Epistle to the Galatians, Sosthenes is mentioned (1 Cor. 1:1), in the Second, written right after the First, Timothy is mentioned (2 Cor. 1:1). Titus was sent to Corinth soon after the First epistle was sent there (2 Cor. 2:13). All of them were obviously in Ephesus. Here too were Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:21); and Gaius with Aristarchus—Macedonians, seized during the uprising of the unbelieving Ephesians against the holy Paul (Acts 19:29). Here too, perhaps, were some of those seven men who are mentioned as companions of the holy Paul on his return journey from Corinth, some four months or so after leaving Ephesus (Acts 20:4). All these were significant people, known in the circle of all believers. These, or all of them, or perhaps a large part of them, the holy Paul may have meant by the words: “all the brethren who are with me.” He did not name them individually because there were many of them. So Blessed Theodoret, who saw in these brethren those assisting the holy Paul in preaching. The motivation by which the holy Paul places many with him, besides what was stated by Saint Chrysostom, could also be, as Jerome writes, that “in the matter of correcting people, much depends on the agreement of many in one opinion.” For, according to Ambrosiaster, “it is easier for someone to understand his error when he sees that many condemn him in it.”

“‘To the churches of the Galatians.’ There were churches not in one or two cities, but in many—perhaps in all four of the most well-known cities, and not only in them, but also in their surrounding areas. This epistle, therefore, resembles a synodal or circular letter. Saint Chrysostom writes: ‘to the churches of the Galatians’: because the flame of the error has engulfed not one city, not two or three, but the entire Galatian people. And note here also the great indignation of the Apostle. He did not say: to the beloved or to the holy, but simply: to the churches of the Galatians. For this is a sign of one greatly grieving and distressed, in that he greets them neither with the name of love nor with the name of honor, but only with the name of their assembly; and does not even add: to the churches of God, but simply says: ‘to the churches of the Galatians.’ And at the same time by this very appellation he hastens from the very beginning to restore to unity their division. For this reason he also mentioned the name of the Church, so as to bring them shame and gather them into one. For, divided into many parts, they could not even be called by the name of the Church; because the name of the Church is the name of concord and harmony.”

Gal. 1:3–4. Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins so as to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.

“Grace and peace.” “Grace, by which our sins are forgiven us, peace, by which we are reconciled and reunited with God” (Blessed Augustine). But together with the forgiveness of sins, grace lays the foundation for a new life in Christ Jesus through rebirth; and peace, beginning with reconciliation with God in conscience, ascends to perfect rest in him, a living, felt, and manifested communion with him, when God is in the soul and the soul is in God. The apostolic greeting, embracing in this way the beginning and the final boundary of life in Christ Jesus, encompasses all those gracious acts through which a Christian moves from that beginning to that end.

“From God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.” This form of expression too, like the previous one: by Jesus Christ and God the Father—indicates the equality of power and authority and unity of nature in God the Father and the Son. Christ the Lord is not merely a mediating instrument, but is himself the source of grace equally with God the Father. The fact that in the first case the Lord Savior stands first and here God the Father shows that, whomever you place first, you do not depart from the truth—it is all the same, for in the Holy Trinity nothing is first and nothing is last.

Though this is the customary apostolic greeting, in the ears of the Galatians it should have sounded in a particular way: “grace,”—which you are trampling by falling under the yoke of the law, and “peace,”—which you are breaking both with God and with me and with all the churches, and among yourselves. The holy Fathers directed their interpretation especially to this, and in every word of the greeting saw a rebuke to the Galatians. So the holy John of Damascus: “the Apostle places such a greeting everywhere, but now, when he writes to the Galatians, this was more necessary, since they were in danger of falling away ‘from grace’ if they circumcised themselves again.” Ecumenius: “he appropriately wishes peace, for the Galatians have risen in war against God by turning to the law, which he had abolished.” He further: “from God the Father. Where do you get the audacity to call God the Father? Is it not from baptism? Why then do you turn to the law?” Theophylact: “and these names—‘Jesus Christ’—are indicators of Christ’s good deeds to us (and rebukes to the Galatians). For ‘Jesus’ is he ‘who saved his people from their sins’ (Matt. 1:21), and ‘Christ’ because of his anointing with the Spirit by which he was anointed for our sake, sanctifying our nature and allowing us to be called by his name. To depart from such a Benefactor is a sign of the utmost ingratitude.” Ambrosiaster: “by the grace of both the Father and the Son mankind has been restored. So, he says, as it were: if the grace of both the Father and the Son is the same toward you, how is it that, thinking something less of the Son, you equate the law to him, deciding to serve partly Christ, partly the law? Have you not heard what the Lord says: ‘the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath’ (Luke 6:5)? The Apostle speaks thus so that they might see what disrespect they show the Lord when they equate him to a slave (the law, that is).” Similarly Theophylact: “not the law is our master, but Christ Jesus.”

“With Saint Chrysostom all these thoughts are brought together in ‘grace to you and peace.’ With this wish for grace and peace he begins all his epistles, considering this necessary everywhere, and especially here, sending to the Galatians. Since they were in danger of falling away from grace, he implores God that they might be established in it again. They had become adversaries of God, so he asks God to reconcile them with him again. And he calls God Father here, not indulging them, but on the contrary rebuking them strongly and bringing to their remembrance the reason why they became sons. For not by the law, but by rebirth they were deemed worthy of such honor. That is why everywhere at the beginning of his epistles he thus manifoldly indicates the good deeds of God to humanity, as it were saying: slaves, enemies, cast-off ones, how have you come to call God your Father? Did the law give you this such lofty kinship? Why then, leaving the one who drew you so near to himself, do you turn again to the tutor? And not only the name of Father, but also the designations used for the Son are sufficient to show them the same good deed of God. For if we look carefully at the very designation itself—‘the Lord Jesus Christ,’ it too will show all of God’s favor and all his beneficence toward us. For, he says, ‘he will be called Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins’ (Matt. 1:21). And the designation ‘Christ’ brings to mind the anointing by the Spirit.”