Galatians/Chapter 1:1-10/Commentary

Galatians Chapter 1:1-10

Outline: I.

The Salutation: 1:1-5

II.

The Rebuke: 1:6-10

III.

The Source of the Gospel Paul Preached: 1:11-24 A.

Independent of Human Teaching: 1:11-12

B.

Independent of Judaism: 1:13-14

C.

Independent of Apostolic Influence: 1:15-19

D.

Independent of the Judean churches: 1:20-24

“Since his visit to these Galatian cities the churches which he had founded had been troubled by false teachers. These men had mounted a powerful attack on Paul's authority and gospel. They contradicted his gospel insisting that for salvation more than faith in Christ was needed. You had to be circumcised as well, they said, and keep all the law of Moses (see Acts 15:1, 5). Having undermined Paul's gospel, they proceeded to undermine his authority also. ‘Who is this fellow Paul, anyway?’ they asked scornfully. ‘He certainly wasn't one of the twelve apostles of Jesus. Nor, so far as we know, has he received any authorization from anybody. He is just a selfappointed impostor.’ Paul sees clearly the dangers of this two-pronged attack, and so he plunges, right at the beginning of the Epistle, into a statement of his apostolic authority and of his gospel” (Stott p. 12). “This charge had been made in Corinth and called forth the keenest irony of Paul (2 Corinthains 10-12)” (Robertson p. 275).

1

False teachers use the same strategy today that the Judaizers used against Paul.

Today we hear "religious experts" attacking the integrity of Paul's writings or saying that the message recorded in the gospels, takes precedence over the message found in Paul's Epistles. Let us remember that two of the gospel writers (Luke and Mark) were traveling companions with Paul, and preached the exact same message that Paul preached (1 Corinthians 15:11; Colossians 4:10,14; 2 Timothy 4:11). When you heard someone attacking the integrity or truthfulness of Paul's letters, it is often because they want to substitute their own views for those revealed through Paul.

Galatians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)” “An apostle”: “A word which in the New Testament regularly denotes a person who is sent and invested with the authority of the commissioning party” (Fung p. 35).

See Matthew 10:40. “Not from men, neither through man”: “Not by human appointment or by human commission” (NEB). “Paul denies that his apostleship had a human source and that it had come to him through a human channel” (Robertson p. 275). “There was no man who stood between God and Paul. His apostleship came to him directly” (Willis p. 3). Paul meets his opponents head on in the very first verse. They were claiming that he was only sent by some human authority. It might have been argued that he derived his position and authority from the congregation in Antioch (Acts 13:1-3), or that he owed his knowledge to Barnabas (Acts 9:26-27), or the original twelve.

“Paul clearly regards himself as completely equal in apostolic status to the first apostles (Galatians 2:6-9; 1 Corinthians 9:1,5). He justifies his claim to full apostolic rank on account of his having seen the risen Lord (1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:8; cf. Acts 22:14) and hence being qualified to bear witness to his resurrection. And his having received by direct revelation a call to apostleship (Galatians 1:1; 2:7; Romans 1:1).

Finally, the visible, concrete evidences of his apostleship (1 Corinthians 9:2; 2 Corinthians 12:12)” (Fung p. 36).

Stott makes a couple of great points when he says: “The radical view, the view of modern radical theologians can be simply stated like this: The apostles were merely first-century witnesses to Jesus Christ. We on the other hand are twentieth-century witnesses, and our witness is just as good as theirs, if not better. So they read 2

passages in the Epistles of Paul which they do not like, and they say: ‘Well, that is Paul's view. My view is different.’ They speak as if they were apostles of Jesus Christ and as if they had equal authority with the apostle Paul to teach and to decide what is true and right.

“The Roman Catholics teach that, since the Bible authors were churchmen, the church wrote the Bible. Therefore the church is over the Bible and has authority not only to interpret it, but also to supplement it. But it is misleading to say that the church wrote the Bible. The apostles, the authors of the New Testament, were apostles of Christ, not of the church, and they wrote their letters as apostles of Christ, not of the church. Paul did not begin this Epistle, ‘Paul an apostle of the church, commissioned by the church to write to you Galatians’. So the biblical view is that the apostles derived their authority from God through Christ. Apostolic authority is divine authority. It is neither human, nor ecclesiastical. And because it is divine, we must submit to it” (Stott p. 16).

“But through Jesus Christ, and God the Father”: Notice the word and in this phrase.

Paul places Jesus and the Father on the same level. His commission came directly from Heaven (Acts 9:4-6; 22:7ff; 26:16ff). “Who raised Him from the dead'”: His commission comes from the "risen Christ", the Christ who has all authority (Ephesians 1:20-23). To oppose Paul's apostolic authority was and is nothing less than to oppose the resurrected Christ and God the Father. The Galatians needed to realize that the false teachers had influenced them into taking a position that was in opposition to God. Galatians 1:2 “and all the brethren that are with me, unto the churches of Galatia” “All the brethren that are with me”: This probably refers to Paul's traveling coworkers, who are not mentioned by name. “Churches of Galatia”: These are the congregations in a geographical region. This seems to indicate that this letter was to be circulated throughout the churches in that area (Colossians 4:16).

Galatians 1:3 “Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ” This is a customary greeting as in 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and in all the later Epistles, save that of 1 and 2 Timothy “mercy” is 3

added. “But these are no formal and meaningless terms. Paul immediately goes on to the great historical event in which God's grace was exhibited and from which His peace is derived, namely the death of Jesus Christ on the cross” (Stott pp. 16-17).

“Peace”: “Denotes basically a state of wholeness which for the Christian comprises peace with God (Romans 5:1) and, on that foundation, peace with one another (Ephesians 4:3) and within oneself (Romans 15:13; Philippians 4:16f). Grace and peace are related to each other as root and fruit, or cause and effect” (Fung p. 39).

“And”: Paul sees Father and Son as a joint source of grace and peace. “This clearly reflects the preeminent place that Jesus Christ occupies in the thinking of Paul.

Christ has this preeminence because to Paul Christ is God by nature (Philippians 2:6)” (Fung p. 39).

Galatians 1:4 “who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father” “Who gave Himself for our sins”: “The participle gave is an aorist participle, denoting the once-for-all nature of the death of Christ” (Willis p. 8). “Means a voluntary act; ‘Himself’ is His own person and no less, and that means His life” (Lenski p. 28). “For our sins”: See Matthew 20:28; Ephesians 5:25; 1 Timothy 2:6; Titus 2:14). “Purposely added with reference to the Galatians' falling back on the works of the law as the ground of acceptance with God” (Vincent p. 83). “Man has a tendency to treat sin as if it were something light (a weakness of the flesh, a mistake, an error). Yet, the transgression of God's law brought the penalty of death (Romans 6:23). Notice Jesus' plea in the Garden of Gethsemane, ‘If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me’. Sin could not be forgiven without the shedding of Christ's blood. Sin is not something to be minimized” (Willis p. 9). “That He might deliver us out of this present evil world”: “The gospel is a rescue, an emancipation from a state of bondage” (Robertson p. 276). “Present evil world”: “From the evil world that surrounds us” (Knox). “It denotes not only the current era of world history but the way of life that characterizes it” (Fung p. 41). “All that floating mass of thoughts, opinions, maxims, speculations, hopes, impulses, aims, aspirations, at any time current in the world” (Willis p. 9). The world is everything in society which finds itself in opposition to God (Romans 12:2; 1 John 2:15-17). “This aspect of the purpose of Christ's death is related to the foregoing (the forgiveness of our sins) in that our sins are expressions of our bondage to the present age of wickedness” (Fung p. 40). See John 8:32-34.

4

The term present refers to the standards, values, views and opinions of the world are really only "present", they are fleeting, changing, short-lived and short-sighted, therefore we see the vanity of trying to please the world or remain "politically correct". Jesus did not rescue us from this physical earth, but He has rescued the Christian from the evil (deception/bondage) which permeates this world (Colossians 1:13-14). This is not a rescue that magically protects us from temptation or the physical consequences brought upon us due to the sins of others, rather, since becoming a Christian involves teaching and instruction, the Christian is the one person who really sees the true nature of this present evil world. The blinders are now off, our mental eyes have been fully opened, sin and its deception has been unmasked (Acts 26:18). We are no longer ignorant and naive.

“According to the will of our God and Father”: “God is not to be viewed as a horrible tyrant whose wrath has been aroused and who had to be pacified in some way. Rather, God is to be understood as the one who willed mankind to be saved” (Willis p. 10). See John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9. “Here is no possibility of unreal antithesis between a harsh Father and a loving Son. The action of the Son was the very proof of the Father's love, as John 3:16 makes clear. Christ came to fulfill the Father's will, and thus to reveal Him” (Cole p. 36).

Galatians 1:5 “to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen” “To whom be ascribed all glory for ever and ever” (TCNT). “To whom be”: “He, He alone belongs the glory” (Lenski p. 31). In the end all the credit and praise must go to God, because mankind deserves no credit for their own salvation. In fact, most of us have resisted the gospel at one time or another. “Glory”: “The glory which is His due, the glory which belongs to Him” (Stott p. 19). The "glory" of God is His attributes, His character, His nature, which was manifested in the selfless giving of His only Son. What mercy, compassion, patience, and selfless love (John 3:16 “so loved”; 1 John 3:1 “See how great a love”; 1 John 4:11 “If God so loved us”). “For ever and ever”: That "glory" will never fade. Perfect love, mercy, patience, justice and wisdom will always sum up the nature of God. “Amen”: So be it, surely, verily.

“The declaration may contain at the same time a summons to acknowledge God's glory and to live in the light of it; should this be so, the hearers' (of this letter) responsive ‘amen’ to Paul's ‘amen’” (Fung p. 43). In these opening verses Paul has set forward the fundamental principles of the gospel he preached. A loving Father, gave His Son, to die for our sins, which infers that no amount of human works, ritual, 5

animal sacrifice, or good deeds can forgive our sins. The sacrifice of Christ equally reveals that the Law of Moses was insufficient to deal with sin and therefore must be replaced. In addition, this also infers that a great penalty is attached to unforgiven sin (eternal damnation), if not, then why did God pay such a price so that they could be forgiven. Christ has personally commissioned Paul to preach this gospel.

The Rebuke for Apostasy “After greeting his readers, in every other Epistle Paul goes on to pray for them or to praise and thank God. Only in the Epistle to the Galatians are there no prayer, no praise, no thanksgiving and no commendation. Instead he addresses himself at once to this theme with a note of extreme urgency” (Stott p. 21). “For none of them does he offer the usual expression of thanksgiving, and to none of them does he speak the customary words of commendation and praise. This ominous silence on the part of the apostle constitutes a most telling rebuke” (McGarvey p. 249).

Galatians 1:6 “I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from Him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel” “I marvel”: No praise here, which means that one is not to give praise where no praise is due and one is not to handout meaningless compliments. “I am amazed” (Gspd). “I am dumbfounded” (Nor). “I am astonished” (TCNT). “So quickly removing”: “So readily deserting” (Wey). “He may mean that he is surprised that they are turning away from his teaching so soon after their conversion or so soon after his second visit. Possibly, however, he may mean so soon after the arrival of the false teachers. He is astonished at the ease with which the Galatians had yielded to the Judaizing doctrines” (Erdman pp. 33-34). “All this increases their culpability.

There had been no long struggle in which the Galatians had been gradually worn down. They had not only surrendered at once but had become enthusiastic over this new gospel” (Cole p. 38). One writer put it well, when he said: “How appalling: to desert so quickly, to desert from so much, to desert to so little”. 1 “Removing”: “The Greek word (removing) is an interesting one. It signifies ‘to transfer one's allegiance’. It is used of soldiers in the army who revolt or desert, and 1 The College Press NIV Ephesians. Kenneth L. Boles p. 33 6

Commentary.

Galatians

&

of men who change sides in politics or philosophy. It is this that Paul accuses the Galatians. They are religious turncoats, spiritual deserters” (Stott pp. 21-22).

This puts unfaithfulness into its true light. When a Christian stops serving God, it cannot be put in the mild terms “they just decided to quit”, or, “they decided that being a Christian just wasn't right for them”. Unfaithfulness is desertion, it is treason, it's handing over one’s allegiance to the other side. See 2 Peter 2:20-22; Hebrews 10:26-31. The word "removing" is in the present tense, indicating an apostasy in progress and Paul may not be too late in stopping it. “Also, it is probably middle voice, not passive. This is something that the Galatians are doing themselves; they cannot say that they are compelled to it by others” (Cole p. 38).

“Removing or transferring yourselves” (Vincent p. 85). “From Him that called you”: This desertion is from the God who had called them through the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14). God calls through the gospel message. God does not call through “an angelic visitation, a still small voice or a miraculous experience” (Willis p. 13). “Notice also that a doctrinal apostasy is an apostasy from God (2 John 9).

There are some who would like to think that teaching false doctrine is not all that serious” (Willis p. 13).

“In the grace of Christ”: The gospel is a manifestation of and revelation of the grace found in Christ, and those who accept the call are brought into a relationship where the grace of Christ is available (Ephesians 1:3). “Unto a different gospel”: “Another” (KJV). There is a reason why the translators of the ASV and NASV choose the word "different" instead of "another". The Greek word here means "one of a different kind" and not another of the same sort or class. There is only "one gospel".

Galatians 1:7 “which is not another gospel only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ” “Which is not another”: That is, another of the same sort or class. “Which is really no Good News at all” (TCNT). Paul refuses to give any credibility to what the Judaizers taught. “It is no gospel at all”, he emphatically states. “There are not several ways to heaven” (Willis p. 14). “Here we may simply ask, is Paul not being narrow-minded? After all, these Judaizers certainly preached salvation through Christ. They never denied, as far as we know, that it was necessary to believe in Jesus as Messiah and Saviour” (Cole p. 39). What a lesson is taught here! The "gospel" that Paul denies, that he says will condemn ones soul if one preaches or 7

embraces it (1:8-9), contained the elements (the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ) which many religious leaders claim are the only essentials on which Christians must agree. We are being told by some in the liberal churches, that we can have unity with the denominations, since they accept the same "core" gospel that we accept. Yet what does Paul think about that? He says--if they have tinkered with and altered other parts of the revelation of Christ, then they do not preach "the gospel"!

The "gospel" is more than just the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 8:5,12; 35-38). These false teachers had not tinkered with those facts. They simply wanted to "add" some things from the Old Testament into the New Covenant, such as, religious circumcision and keeping various aspects of the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1,5).

“Only there are some that trouble you”: The Judaizing teachers. “The article with the participle marks these people as characteristically troublesome” (Vincent p. 85).

“The present tense of the verb indicates that the troublers were still in Galatia” (Willis p. 15).

False doctrine does not bring healing, unity or peace, it brings trouble (Acts 15:24; Titus 1:9-11). “To tamper with the gospel is always to trouble the church. You cannot touch the gospel and leave the church untouched, the only way to be a good churchman is to be a good gospel-man. The best way to serve the church is to believe and to preach the gospel” (Stott p. 23). Those who often cause the trouble, accuse others of being the actual trouble-makers (1 Kings 18:17).

“And would”: “There may be a deeper stress in 'would'--'want to' (RSV): Paul may mean that this is a willful distortion” (Cole p. 40). “It is important that all be reminded that false doctrine does not develop in and of itself, nor does it spread by itself. Men develop and propagate error!” 2 Spiritual blindness is something that people "choose" (Matthew 13:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). “Pervert the gospel of Christ”: “Wish to turn about, change completely as in Acts 2:20; James 4:9” (Robertson p. 277). The fact that someone can "pervert” what Christ taught infers that a true meaning or interpretation exists for all that Christ taught, and believers are demanded to come to the right conclusion (2 Timothy 2:15). “Of Christ”: The 2 Studies in Galatians. Edited by Dub McClish. Fifth Annual Denton Lectures. 1986 p. 46 8

gospel belongs to Christ and thus no man has a right to alter anything it in. “You cannot modify or supplement the gospel without radically changing its character” (Stott p. 23).

We should again note, what God considered to be a "perversion" of the gospel of Christ. These false teachers were simply wanting to "add" to the gospel some of the items found in the Law of Moses (Galatians 5:1-4). Now couldn't these false teachers have argued, “Well, can't we still use and follow the O.T.?” “It doesn't say that we can't do it”? These are the same type of justifications that we hear today for instrumental music in worship, the social gospel, supporting and having human institutions doing the work of the church, and fellowshipping the denominations.

Galatians 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema” “We”: This refers to Paul and his companions. “Or an angel from heaven: Any messenger, human or otherwise. “Any gospel other than that which we preached unto you”: “A gospel that contradicts the gospel I preached to you” (Mof). The gospel taught by the apostles, the gospel they recorded is the standard that all other religious messages must be judged by. The gospel is fixed forever. It is not modified by culture or time. We must too abide in the "apostles teaching", just like the first century Christians were obligated to do (Acts 2:42).

In fact, Mormonism stands on a "gospel" which this verse specifically condemns.

The book of Mormon states, “He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me...He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates....He also said that the fulness of the everlasting gospel was contained in it”. 3 Boles is exactly right when he says, “While most nonMormons do not believe any such angel appeared to Joseph Smith, it would not matter if the story were entirely true. Not even an angel from heaven has the right to change the original gospel” (pp. 35-36).

“Let him be”: This suggests to me that God feels that such tampering with His message is inexcusable, “Let the following come upon such an individual, and don't let anyone feel sorry for them”. “Anathema”: “The Greek word twice translated 3 The Book of Mormon. 1971 Edition, first place of the section entitled, 'Origin of The Book of Mormon' 9

accursed is anathema. It was used in the Greek Old Testament for the divine ban, the curse of God resting upon anything or anyone devoted by Him to destruction.

The story of Achan provides an example of this” (Stott p. 24). “Delivered up and devoted to the judicial wrath of God” (Fung p. 47). “Let the curse of God be upon him” (Erdman p. 35). “Such a person is to be considered the sure object of God's wrath, and people who value their own safety should stand back!” (Boles p. 36). This is much more than "withdrawal", since such would not have any affect on an angel.

Yet today people say concerning false teachers, “They seem so nice, sincere, wellmeaning, good-intentioned and knowledgeable in the Scriptures”. That's not the point. They teach error, and error condemns. God's curse rests upon them, because they are causing others to enter into an accursed state with them (2 John 9-11).

“And who will presume to say how large or important a change must be to constitute a perversion? It is best, as Dean Howson observes, to understand Paul as ‘precluding any deviation of any kind from the original gospel’” (McGarvey p. 252).

Galatians 1:9 “As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema” “As we have said before”: Apparently, even prior to verse 1:8. This same message had been preached while Paul was actually with these Christians. They had been sufficiently warned. “Any man”: No matter who they are or what they claim to be.

This truth applies to University Professors, Preachers, Elders, Scholars, and those who appear to be very talented, out-going and charismatic.

“That which ye received”: The Galatians were without excuse. They had heard the truth, taught correctly and carefully, had not heard a very brief outline. They had "received", or accepted it, and knew the difference between what Paul taught and what his opponents taught. “What are we to say about this anathema? Are we to dismiss it as an intemperate outburst? Are we to reject it as a sentiment inconsistent with the Spirit of Christ and unworthy of the gospel of Christ? Are we to explain it away as the utterance of a man who was the child of his age and knew no better? So disinterested is Paul's zeal for the gospel, that he even desires the curse of God to fall upon himself, should he be guilty of perverting it. As John Brown, the nineteenth century Scottish commentator, writes: ‘The apostle repeats it to show the Galatians that this was no excessive, exaggerated statement, into which passion had hurled him, but his calmly formed and unalterable opinion (God's 10

opinion)’” (Stott pp. 24-25). “It should be noted that Paul speaks these solemn words not of men who are teaching infidelity or heathenism or atheism, but of those who professed to be preachers of the gospel of Christ” (Erdman p. 35).

One writer made the following observations: “If Paul had conducted himself as some today advocate, he would never have dealt with the Judaizing teachers. He possibly would have reasoned something like the following: ‘The Judaizers are our brethren. This is just their opinion. We all should love as brethren. After all, I am a sinner in one way, and they are sinners in another. What right do I have to rebuke them?' To say the least, Paul did not believe in big “F” fellowship, and little “f” fellowship”. 4 Paul did not feel that the loving thing to do was to allow brethren to remain undisturbed while they are embracing or teaching doctrinal error. Neither did Paul believe in the course of action adopted by many churches, '”We don't preach on controversial issues”. Can you imagine Paul saying that?

Is Paul a Man-Pleaser?

Verse 10 should probably to taken closely with verses 6-9.

Galatians 1:10 “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ” “For am I now”: “Now when I talk like this” (Cole p. 44). “Does my language now sound as if I were canvassing for men's support?” (NEB). “Indeed, does anybody who is trying to please men approach them with anathemas?” (Lenski p. 43).

“Seeking the favor of”: “Conciliate, seek to win over. Does this anathema of mine look like it?” (Vincent p. 86). “It seems likely that the Judaizers accused Paul of being ‘all things to all men’, in a sense very different from that in which he used the phrase (1 Corinthians 9:22). They seem to have insinuated that when he was among Jews, he preached the need of circumcision and law-keeping in order to ‘curry favor’ with them, doubtless conscious of his own insecure position as no true apostle. In like manner when he was speaking to Gentiles he preached freedom from the restrictions in order to increase his following among them” (Cole. p. 44). “Which probably was that he was ‘currying favor with men’ by relaxing the terms of the gospel--more specifically by jettisoning the demand for circumcision and other legal 4 Denton 1986 Lectures. 'Paul's Greeting and Purpose for Writing', David P. Brown p. 49 11

requirements--in order to make conversion easy for Gentiles” (Fung p. 48).

Accusations of this brand appear to be the reason behind such verses as 2:3 and 5:11. Any honest person can see that verses 1:6-9 are not the words of a menpleaser.

“If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ”: “Still pleasing men”: This implies that prior to his conversion, he had engaged in some "menpleasing" (1:14). “Paul did once glory in the praise of his teachers and students as he excelled in early training as a rabbi” (Boles pp. 38-39). If he were still seeking to please men, he would have never become a Christian. Anytime pleasing others becomes a higher priority that pleasing God, we have crossed the line of trying to serve two Masters (Matthew 6:24), and we have parted from the apostles teaching (Acts 4:19; 5:29).

As we close this section, listen to the following: “Of course we live in an age in which it is considered very narrow-minded and intolerant to have any clear and strong opinions of one's own, let alone to disagree sharply with anybody else. As for actually desiring false teachers to fall under the curse of God and be treated as such by the church, the very idea is to many inconceivable. But I venture to say that if we cared more for the glory of Christ and for the good of the souls of men, we too would not be able to bear the corruption of the gospel of grace. The lesson that stands out from this paragraph is that there is only one gospel. The popular view is that there are many different ways to God, that the gospel changes with the changing years, and that you must not condemn the gospel to fossilization in the first century A.D. The norm, the criterion, by which all systems and opinions are to be tested, is the primitive gospel, the gospel which the apostles preached and which is now recorded in the New Testament. Anybody who rejects the apostolic gospel, no matter who he may be, is himself to be rejected. We judge them by the gospel; we do not judge the gospel by them” (Stott pp. 26-28).

12