Galatians Commentary:
I. Introduction (1:1-9)
II. Paul's Gospel and Authority (1:10-2:21)
A. Setup: Man's Gospel, Paul's Past (1:10-14)
B. Calling: Proved by Independence (1:15-24)
C. Gospel: Apostolically Affirmed (2:1-10)
D. Authority: Properly Resists Peter (2:11-14)
E. Justification by Faith Alone (2:15-21)
III. Faith Alone Against Works-Gospel (3:1-5:12)
IV. New Life in the Spirit and Love (5:13-6:18)
Polycarp writes, "the strong root of your faith, spoken of in days long gone by, endures even until now, and brings forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] 'whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave'. 'In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory'; into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that 'by grace you are saved, not of works', but by the will of God through Jesus Christ." (Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Ch 1).
John Calvin comments, "Immediately I conferred not. To confer with flesh and blood, is to consult with flesh and blood. So far as the meaning of these words is concerned, his intention was absolutely to have nothing to do with any human counsels. The general expression, as will presently appear from the context, includes all men, and all the prudence or wisdom which they may possess. He even makes a direct reference to the apostles, for the express purpose of exhibiting, in a stronger light, the immediate calling of God. Relying on the authority of God alone, and asking nothing more, he proceeded to discharge the duty of preaching the gospel." (Commentary on Galatians).
Adam Clarke comments, "The aim of the apostle is to show that he had his call so immediately and pointedly from God himself, that he had no need of the concurrence even of the apostles, being appointed by the same authority, and fitted to the work by the same grace and Spirit, as they were." (The Adam Clarke Commentary).
Tertullian writes, "But the fact is, having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren — to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles' hands. Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he 'went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter,' [Galatians 1:18] because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching." (Prescription Against Heretics, 23).
Marius Victorinus comments, "Because when he said he saw no one else of the apostles except James, the reason was also included why he saw James: the Lord's brother, the one regarded as his brother according to the flesh." (Commentary on Galatians, translated by Stephen Andrew Cooper, pg. 266).
Clement of Alexandria writes, "Jude, who wrote the Catholic Epistle, being one of the sons of Joseph and [the Lord's] brother, a man of deep piety, though he was aware of his relationship to the Lord, nevertheless did not say he was His brother; but what said he? Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, because He was his Lord, but brother of James; for this is true; he was his brother, being Joseph's [son]" (Hypotyposeis).
Tertullian writes, "But there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ... And therefore, when to the previous question, 'Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?' He added the answer 'None but they who hear my words and do them,' He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith... That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offence, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it did not possess." (Against Marcion, 4.19).
Jerome writes, "Helvidius will answer, 'What you say, is in my opinion mere trifling. Your arguments are so much waste of time, and the discussion shows more subtlety than truth. Why could not Scripture say, as it said of Thamar and Judah, And he took his wife, and knew her again no more? Could not Matthew find words to express his meaning? He knew her not, he says, until she brought forth a son. He did then, after her delivery, know her, whom he had refrained from knowing until she was delivered.'... [he] produces Tertullian as a witness and... Victorinus bishop of Petavium." (Against Helvidius, 9, 19).
Jerome comments, "This may be simply taken as follows: What I write to you is true and I affirm, with God as my witness, that it has not been embellished with any lie or verbal artifice. Or perhaps it could be taken in a deeper sense: What I write to you is before God, that is, it is worthy of being seen by God. But why worthy of God's countenance? Because I do not lie. And just as the Lord fixes his eyes on the righteous but turns his face away from the unholy, so also now what I write is before the Lord. I who write do not lie; if I were to lie, my writing would not be before God. This holds true not only for what he writes now to the Galatians but also generally for all of his epistles inasmuch as he does not write what is untrue and his heart and words are never at odds with each other." (Commentary on Galatians).
John Chrysostom comments, "After his interview with Peter, he resumes his account of his labours in the field which he had chosen, avoiding Judea, both because of his mission being to the Gentiles, and of his unwillingness to build upon another marts foundation. Wherefore there was not even a chance meeting, as appears from what follows." (Commentary on Galatians).
Jerome comments, "Thus, he demonstrates that he had no teachers—not Peter, not James, not John, but only Christ, who had revealed the Gospel to him. It should also be noted that earlier he is said to have attacked the church but here to have attacked the faith (in the former case, he attacked people; in the latter, an entity)." (Commentary on Galatians).
Cyprian of Carthage writes, "You, if you should entreat for your offences, even in the very exit and close of your life below, if you should implore that God who is One and True, in the confession and faith of acknowledging Him, the pardon is given to you when you confess; the saving indulgence from God's pity is granted to you when you believe; nay in the very hour of death a transit is secured to immortality. This grace Christ grants, this work of His mercy He puts in our possession, by subduing death in the trophy of the Cross, by redeeming the believer with the price of His blood, by reconciling man to God the Father, and giving life to one who is mortal by heavenly regeneration... We Christians will be partakers in glory with Christ, in the blessedness of God the Father, rejoicing with perpetual gladness, in the presence of God for ever, and for ever yielding Him thanks. For he cannot be other than for ever happy and thankful, who, after living under liability to death, is rendered secure of immortality." (An Address to Demetrianus, 8.15).
15. Ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ,
ἀφορίσας - seperated [selected]. Paul looks back on his parentage and early years as a providential preparation for his future ministry: this view is justified by his antecedents. By birth at once a Hebrew, a Greek and Roman citizen, educated in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Greek learning, he combined in his own person the most essential requisites for an Apostle to the Gentiles. He was further moulded by the spiritual discipline of an intense, though mistaken, zeal for the Law of his God, which issued in bitter remorse. By this career he was fitted to become a chosen vessel to bear the name of Christ before the Gentile world. He did not hesitate accordingly to regard himself, like Hebrew prophets of old (Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 49:5, Jeremiah 1:5), as dedicated from his birth to the service of God.
16. ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι·
ἀποκαλύψαι... ἐν τοῖς - reveal... in me. These words taken alone might denote either an inward revelation to Paul himself, or a revelation through him to the Gentiles. But the context is decisive in favour of the former: for this revelation is not only associated closely with his conversion and his personal history between that and the visit to Arabia, but it is expressly stated that it was granted with a view to future preaching (ἵνα, that...). The context distinguishes this revelation from the call; it cannot therefore be identified with the previous vision of Christ on the way, but (as the words ἐν ἐμοί import) was an inward and spiritual revelation which followed that appeal to eye and ear. The history corroborates this view: for it relates that Saul, after his vision, spent three days in solitary communion with himself and God before he was admitted to Christian baptism.
προσανεθέμην - confer [consult]. This compound verb denotes (as in Galatians 2:6) additional communication. After direct revelation from God Saul had no occasion to seek further advice from man. There is an apparent reminiscence in thought and language of Christ's words, "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father" (Matthew 16:17).
17. οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν, καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν.
ἀνῆλθον - did I go up. The religious position of Jerusalem as seat of the Temple and mother-city of the Church, its political importance, and its geographical position on the central heights of Palestine, combined to suggest the application of the terms up and down to journeys to and from Jerusalem.
ἀποστόλους - apostles. In the third Gospel and early chapters of the Acts this title is habitually applied to the Twelve. It was extended to Paul and Barnabas on the occasion of their mission. In 1 Corinthians 9:2 Paul and Barnabas are distinctly enumerated amidst the recognised Apostles. Romans 16:7 suggests a further extension of the title, probably to all founders of churches. But with the possible exception of James, no addition is recorded to the number of the Twelve at Jerusalem after Matthias.
Ἀραβίαν - Arabia. No mention is made elsewhere of this journey; its object is clearly indicated by the context; for it is placed in strong contrast with human intercourse, and was, therefore, undertaken for the sake of solitary communion with God. The Arabian deserts were within easy reach of Damascus. Lightfoot suggests, indeed, that Paul perhaps repaired to Mount Sinai; but if the Apostle had been granted communion with God on Mount Sinai, the name would have constituted too effective an argument in favour of his Divine commission to be suppressed here. The Sinaitic peninsula was, in fact, remote from Damascus; the journey was at all times dangerous for travellers without escort, and in the year 37 (the most probable date of Saul's conversion) was hardly possible on account of war between King Aretas and the Romans.
18. Ἔπειτα μετὰ ἔτη τρία ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν, καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε.
Ἔπειτα - then. Ἔπειτα . The thrice-repeated Ἔπειτα in this verse, in Galatians 1:21 , and in Galatians 2:1 , singles out three events in the Apostle's life bearing on his contact with the Church of Jerusalem: his first introduction to them, his departure to a distant sphere of labour, and his return to Jerusalem with Barnabas. The object of this sketch was not to write a history of those years, but to fix attention on certain salient incidents which threw light on the real nature of his intercourse with Jerusalem.
μετὰ ἔτη τρία - after three years. A different preposition is here employed from that used in Galatians 2:1 , which describes a mission within fourteen years. In this case no precise date is implied; for the object is not to date the visit, but to show that three full years at least had elapsed before Paul had any interaction with the Twelve.
ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν - to enquire of Cephas. That is, to obtain information from him. This is the usual meaning of the verb; in Herodotus, and elsewhere, it denotes visits paid to places of interest with a view to getting information about them on the spot. The circumstances in which Paul found himself at that time make this sense very appropriate. He had been suddenly driven from his ministry at Damascus, and was compelled to seek a new sphere. He could not turn to any adviser more valuable than Peter for determining his future course. For that Apostle was not only prominent in the general government of the Church, but had taken the lead in its expansion by his visits to Samaria, to the maritime plain, and to Cæsarea, and by his baptism of Gentiles. In spite, therefore, of the danger of revisiting Jerusalem, Paul repaired thither to consult Peter as to how he could best serve Christ.
Κηφᾶν - Cephas. Several MSS. give the Greek form, Πέτρον, of this name; but the Hebrew form appears to be the original reading throughout the Epistle, except in Galatians 2:7-8. At Jerusalem he was probably known by the name Cephas, but in the Greek Church at large by the name Peter.
ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν - I remained with him. Both in the Acts and in the Pauline Epistles this verb denotes the continuance or prolongation of a stay. This can hardly mean παρʼ αὐτῷ, I abode with him. The clause expresses rather the motive for Paul's lingering at Jerusalem, I tarried to see him fifteen days.
19. Ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου.
εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον - but only [except] James. εἰ μή may either state an exception to the preceding negative clause (except, save James), or merely qualify it (but only James), as it does in Luke 4:26, "to none of them [the widows in Israel], but only to Sarepta in Sidon;" and in Galatians 1:7, "no other Gospel, only ( εἰ μή ) there are some that pervert the Gospel." The latter appears to be its meaning here. If James had been entitled an Apostle, the author would probably have written that he saw no other Apostles but Peter and James. But here he states emphatically that he saw no second (ἕτερον) Apostle, only James. The Epistle, like the Acts (see Acts 12:17, Acts 15:13, Acts 21:18), fully recognises the leading position of James in the local Church (cf. Galatians 2:9; Galatians 2:12); and the ecclesiastical tradition which entitles him Bishop of Jerusalem corresponds to this. All the evidence left of his life suggests that he clung throughout his Christian life to Jerusalem and did not undertake such missionary labours as would entitle him to the designation of Apostle.
τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου - the brother of the Lord. James is here described as the brother of the Lord in order to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee, who was living at the time of Paul's first visit.
20. Ἃ δὲ γράφω ὑμῖν, ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι.
ἰδοὺ - behold. This imperative is always used interjectionally in Scriptures: the subsequent ὅτι depends on ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, which has the force of an attestation.
21. Ἔπειτα ἦλθον εἰς τὰ κλίματα τῆς Συρίας καὶ τῆς Κιλικίας.
κλίματα - regions. This word denotes the fringes of coastland sloping down from the mountains to the sea in north-western Syria and eastern, i.e. Roman, Cilicia. It is applied in 2 Corinthians 11:10 to the coastlands of Achaia. The name Syria is placed before Cilicia, though the ministry at Tarsus preceded that at Antioch: for the latter was by far the more important and prolonged ministry. A further reason for placing Syria first was the subordinate position of Cilicia: for Roman Cilicia was, like Judæa, only a district of the great province of Syria, separately administered by an imperial procurator at Tarsus. In Acts 15:41 Syria and Cilicia are coupled together as forming a single region (τὴν Συρίαν καὶ Κιλικίαν), no article being inserted before Κιλικίαν; not so here, for the first ministry at Tarsus was distinct from that at Antioch.
22-23. Ἤμην δὲ ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ἰουδαίας ταῖς ἐν χριστῷ· μόνον δὲ ἀκούοντες ἦσαν ὅτι Ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτέ, νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτε ἐπόρθει.
Ἤμην δὲ ἀγνοούμενος - I was then [becoming] unknown. The correct translation is not I was unknown (as our versions render it), but I was becoming unknown. At the beginning of this period he was a familiar figure in Jerusalem, but in the course of ten years’ absence he gradually became a stranger to the Christians of Judæa. ἐκκλησίαις . This passage speaks of the Churches of Judæa in the plural, as does also 1 Thessalonians 2:14 . In the Acts the Church throughout Judæa, Galilee and Samaria is described as a single Church according to the text of the best MSS. (Acts 9:31): the funds contributed for the relief of the poor Christians in Judæa are handed over to the Elders at Jerusalem (Acts 11:29, Acts 12:25); brethren from Judæa are censured as members of their own body by the assembled Church at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1 ; Acts 15:24). It would seem from this that an effective unity of administration and control existed in Jerusalem side by side with local organisation of the several Churches of Judæa.
24. Καὶ ἐδόξαζον ἐν ἐμοὶ τὸν θεόν. (And they glorified God in me.)
Καὶ (Kai): This word means "and," often used as a conjunction to connect sentences or clauses.
ἐδόξαζον (edoxazon): This is the imperfect tense of the verb "δοξάζω" (doxazō), meaning "they glorified" or "they were glorifying." The imperfect tense in Greek indicates an action that was ongoing in the past.
ἐν ἐμοὶ (en emoi): This phrase combines "ἐν" (en), meaning "in," with "ἐμοὶ" (emoi), the dative singular form of "ἐγώ" (egō), meaning "me." Together, they translate to "in me."
τὸν θεόν (ton theon): Here, "τὸν" is the accusative singular definite article "the," and "θεόν" (theon) is the accusative singular form of "θεός" (theos), meaning "God." The accusative case is used for the direct object of the verb, indicating that it is God who is being glorified.
Ver 15-16a. But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me,
But after that it pleased God. This is the second part of the narrative, and relates to his miraculous conversion. He tells us, first, that he had been called by the grace of God to preach Christ among the Gentiles; and, next, that as soon as he had been called, without consulting the apostles, he unhesitatingly proceeded to the performance of the work, which, he felt assured, had been enjoined upon him by the appointment of God.
Paul's reasoning does not, at first sight, appear so strong; for although, when he had been converted to Christianity, he instantly, and without consulting the apostles, entered into the office of preaching the gospel, it does not thence follow that he had been appointed to that office by the revelation of Christ. But the arguments which he employs are various, and, when they are all collected, will be found sufficiently strong to establish his conclusion. He argues, first, that he had been called by the grace of God; next, that his apostleship had been acknowledged by the other apostles; and the other arguments follow. Let the reader, therefore, remember to read the whole narrative together, and to draw the inference, not from single parts, but from the whole.
Who separated me. This separation was the purpose of God, by which Paul was appointed to the apostolic office, before he was even born. The calling followed afterwards at the proper time, when the Lord made known his will concerning him, and commanded him to proceed to the work. God had, no doubt, decreed, before the foundation of the world, what he would do with regard to every one of us, and had assigned to every one, by his secret counsel, his respective place. But the sacred writers frequently introduce those three steps: the eternal predestination of God, the destination from the womb, and the calling, which is the effect and accomplishment of both.
The word of the Lord which came to Jeremiah, though expressed a little differently from this passage, has entirely the same meaning. "Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth from the womb I sanctified thee; a prophet to the nations have I made thee." (Jeremiah 1:5). Before they even existed, Jeremiah had been set apart to the office of a prophet, and Paul to that of an apostle; but he is said to separate us from the womb, because the design of our being sent into the world is, that he may accomplish, in us, what he has decreed. The calling is delayed till its proper time, when God has prepared us for the office which he commands us to undertake.
Thus, in his usual manner, he traces his calling to the good pleasure of God. This deserves our careful attention; for it shows us that we owe it to the goodness of God, not only that we have been elected and adopted to everlasting life, but that he deigns to make use of our services, who would otherwise have been altogether useless, and that he assigns to us a lawful calling, in which we may be employed. What had Paul, before he was born, to entitle him to so high an honor? In like manner we ought to believe, that it is entirely the gift of God, and not obtained by our own industry, that we have been called to govern the Church.
And called me by his grace. God is said to separate us, not because he bestows any peculiar disposition of mind which distinguishes us from others, but because he appoints us by his own purpose. Although the apostle had most explicitly attributed his calling to the free grace of God, when he pronounced that voluntary separation from the womb to be the origin of it, yet he repeats the direct statement, both that, by his commendation of Divine grace, he may take away all grounds of boasting, and that he may testify his own gratitude to God. On this subject he is wont freely to expatiate, even when he has no controversy with the false apostles.
"Did God call me on account of my holy life? Or on account of my pharisaical religion? Or on account of my prayers, fastings, and works? Never. Well, then, it is certain God did not call me on account of my blasphemies, persecutions, oppressions. What prompted Him to call me? His grace alone."
To reveal his Son in me. We now hear what kind of doctrine was committed to Paul: The doctrine of the Gospel, the doctrine of the revelation of the Son of God. This doctrine differs greatly from the Law. The Law terrorizes the conscience. The Law reveals the wrath and judgment of God. The Gospel does not threaten. The Gospel announces that Christ is come to forgive the sins of the world. The Gospel conveys to us the inestimable treasures of God.
Ver 16b. that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I didn’t immediately confer with flesh and blood,
That I might preach him among the Gentiles. "It pleased God," says the Apostle, "to reveal himself in me. Why? For a twofold purpose. That I personally should believe in the Son of God, and that I should reveal Him to the Gentiles." Paul does not mention the Jews, for the simple reason that he was the called and acknowledged apostle of the Gentiles, although he preached Christ also to the Jews.
I didn’t immediately confer. So far as the meaning of these words is concerned, his intention was absolutely to have nothing to do with any human counsels. The general expression, as will presently appear from the context, includes all men, and all the prudence or wisdom which they may possess. He even makes a direct reference to the apostles, for the express purpose of exhibiting, in a stronger light, the immediate calling of God. Relying on the authority of God alone, and asking nothing more, he proceeded to discharge the duty of preaching the gospel.
Ver 17. nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia. Then I returned to Damascus.
Neither did I return to Jerusalem. What he had just written is now explained, and more fully stated. As if he had said, "I did not ask the authority of any man," not even of the apostles themselves. It is a mistake to suppose, that, because the apostles are now separately mentioned, they are not included in the words, flesh and blood. Nothing new or different is here added, but merely a clearer explanation of what had been already said. And no disrespect to the apostles is implied in that expression. For the purpose of showing that he did not owe his commission to man, the false boasting of unprincipled men laid him under the necessity of contrasting. the authority of the apostles themselves with the authority of God. When a creature is brought into comparison with God, however contemptuous or humiliating may be the language employed, he has no reason to complain.
But I went into Arabia. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke has omitted these three years. In like manner, there are other passages of the history which he does not touch; and hence the slander of those who seek to build on this a charge of inconsistency in the narratives is ridiculous. Let godly readers consider the severe temptation with which Paul was called to struggle at the very commencement of his course. He who but yesterday, for the sake of doing him honor, had been sent to Damascus with a magnificent retinue, is now compelled to wander as an exile in a foreign land: but he does not lose his courage.
Ver 18. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days.
Then after three years. It was not till three years after he had begun to discharge the apostolic office, that he went up to Jerusalem. Thus, he did not, at the outset, receive the calling of men. But lest it should be supposed that he had separate interests from theirs, and was desirous to avoid their society, he tells us that he went up for the express purpose to see Peter. Although he had not waited for their sanction before undertaking the office, yet it was not against their will, but with their full consent and approbation, that he held the rank of an apostle. He is desirous to show that at no period was he at variance with the apostles, and that even now he is in full harmony with all their views. By mentioning the short time that he remained there, he shows that he had come, not with a view to learn, but to visit with Peter.
Ver 19. But of the other apostles I saw no one except James, the Lord’s brother.
Why does Paul harp on this seemingly unimportant fact? To convince the churches of Galatia that his Gospel was the true Word of Christ which he learned from Christ Himself and from no man. Paul was forced to affirm and re-affirm this fact. His usefulness to all the churches that had used him as their pastor and teacher was at stake.
Ver 20. Now about the things which I write to you, behold, before God, I’m not lying.
This affirmation extends to the whole narrative. The vast earnestness of Paul on this subject is evinced by his resorting to an oath, which cannot lawfully be employed but on great and weighty occasions. Nor is it wonderful that he insists with so much earnestness on this point; for we have already seen to what expedients the impostors had recourse in order to take from him the name and credit of an apostle. Now the modes of swearing used by good men deserve our attention; for we learn from them that an oath must be viewed simply as an appeal to the judgment-seat of God for the integrity and truth of our words and actions; and such a transaction ought to be guided by religion and the fear of God.
Was it necessary for Paul to go under oath? Yes. Paul is reporting personal history. How else would the churches believe him? The false apostles might say, "Who knows whether Paul is telling the truth?" Paul, the elect vessel of God, was held in so little esteem by his own Galatians to whom he had preached Christ that it was necessary for him to swear an oath that he spoke the truth. If this happened to Paul, what business have we to complain when people doubt our words, or hold us in little regard, we who cannot begin to compare ourselves with the Apostle?
Ver 21. Then I came to the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
Syria and Cilicia are adjacent countries. Paul traces his movements carefully in order to convince the Galatians that he had never been the disciple of any apostle.
Ver 22-23. I was still unknown by face to the assemblies of Judea which were in Christ, but they only heard, “He who once persecuted us now preaches the faith that he once tried to destroy.”
And was unknown by face. This appears to be added for the sake of showing more strongly the wickedness and malignity of his slanderers. If the churches of Judea who had only heard respecting him, were led to give glory to God for the astonishing change which he had wrought in Paul, how disgraceful was it that those who had beheld the fruits of his amazing labors should not have acted a similar part! If the mere report was enough for the former, why did not the facts before their eyes satisfy the latter?
Which once he destroyed. This does not mean that faith may actually be destroyed, but that he lessened its influence on the minds of weak men. Besides, it is the will, rather than the deed, that is here expressed.
Ver 24. So they glorified God in me.
And they glorified God in me. This was an evident proof that his ministry was approved by all the churches of Judea, and approved in such a manner, that they broke out into admiration and praise of the wonderful power of God. Thus he indirectly reproves their malice, by showing that their venom and slanders could have no other effect than to hide the glory of God, which, as the apostles admitted and openly acknowledged, shone brightly in the apostleship of Paul.
This reminds us of the light in which the saints of the Lord ought to be regarded by us. When we behold men adorned with the gifts of God, such is our depravity, or ingratitude, or proneness to superstition, that we worship them as gods, unmindful of Him by whom those gifts were bestowed. These words remind us, on the contrary, to lift up our eyes to the Great Author, and to ascribe to Him what is his own, while they at the same time inform us that an occasion of offering praise to God was furnished by the change produced on Paul, from being an enemy to becoming a minister of Christ.