SELECTIONS FROM COMMENTARY ON THE LETTER TO THE

GALATIANS FROM THE APOSTLE PAUL

V O L U M E   O N E

[Prologue ]

<1.5>

[SEVERIAN, Commentary on Galatians 298.14-21:]  After the message of the Gospel had been received into the Gentile world, some who had originally come from the Circumcision were trying to persuade the Gentiles to practice Judaism.  The first inquiry into this issue appears to have taken place in Antioch, when the faithful there decided to send Paul and Silas off to the Apostles who were still living in Jerusalem, with the understanding that the Apostles' determination would be listened to and carried out.  The Apostles themselves, having explained that "the Holy Spirit decides what they should write," decree "that the converts are not subject to Torah; that they should only abstain from idolatry, from eating what is sacrificed to idols, from blood, from eating strangled creatures, and from sexual violation of the marriage bond." 

<1.15>

Everywhere he traveled and preached, Paul kept giving orders to observe this decree.  Those from the Circumcision, however, never stopped doing just the opposite.  This is clear from Paul's vigorous inveighing against them in a number of letters.

<1.19>

The deviancy took hold of the Galatians, who then unanimously decided to practice Judaism.  They had been persuaded by those who were trying to divert them into Judaism, and who kept insisting that "even Peter, the leader of the Apostles, and James, and John, and the rest act the same, and they don't get in the way of those who wish to observe the Torah."

 [CHRYSOSTOM, In epist. Gal. comment., PG 61.613.16ff.:]  It wasn't as a matter of doctrine that they didn't get in their way;  they were simply making allowance for weakness in those who were coming to the Faith from Judaism.

<1.25>

Paul, however, had no need to make this allowance when he preached to the Gentiles, but of course when he was in Judea he, too, made the allowance.  Nevertheless, the deceivers did not mention why these or those Apostles made allowances.  They targeted the more gullible of the converts, saying they ought not put up with Paul.  Paul, they said, had only turned up yesterday, or today; those in Peter's circle were the real leaders.  Paul had become a disciple of the Apostles; the Apostles had been disciples of the Master.  Paul was just one person; the Apostles were many, pillars of the Church.  They tried to accuse him of hypocrisy, claiming that while he himself was abolishing circumcision and the precepts of the Torah, "he's been seen practicing those things elsewhere, preaching one way to us and another way to somebody else."

<2.9>

So because he's seen an entire population inflamed, and a cruel funeral pyre kindled for the church of the Galatians, Paul sets up a defense against all this by writing his letter — and straight out from the opening lines, he takes aim at what those who were trying to undermine his reputation were saying, namely that the others were disciples of the Messiah, while he himself had become a disciple of the Apostles.  That's why he spoke the way he did.

MAIN TOPICS OF THE LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

<3.4>

1.  Account of his own departure from Judaism following the revelation.

2.  On the Apostles' confirming him in his life in the Faith.

3.  On his altercation with Cephas ("the Rock," Peter) about salvation in the Faith and not in the Torah.

4.  How sanctity is through the Faith and not through the Torah.

5.  How Abraham himself was justified from Faith, as a model for us.

6.  How the Torah does not justify but indicts, and imposes a curse, which the Messiah then lifts.

7.  How benefits come not from the Torah, but from the Promise.  Torah is preparation by trial.

8.  How those who were subject to Torah were under the sway of the temporal.

9.  How those who are prefigured in the free wife of Abraham, and in his legitimate offspring, are not to be enslaved to the Torah.

10. How, because of the Messiah's suffering, our summoning is not predicated on circumcision and Torah.

11. Digression on freedom in accord with the Spirit.

12. Warning against advocates of circumcision; encouragement toward a new life ruled by the Spirit.

COMMENTARY ON THE LETTER TO THE GALATIANS

[Salutation and Initial Address]

1:1a Paul, an Apostle not from men, nor through men                                                  <4.4>

[CHRYSOSTOM, In epist. Gal. comment., PG 61.613.45-614.55:] Those deceivers, as I said, kept repeating that Paul was the hindmost of the Apostles, and had been instructed by them — that "Peter, James, and John are called the chiefs, and are indeed the leaders of the Apostles;  they received the teachings from the Master;  we should obey them and not him."  By making those and other such statements, tearing down Paul and building up the reputation of the Apostles (not to sing their praises but to deceive the Galatians), they began to persuade people to pay improper attention to the Torah. 

<4.15>

It was therefore quite appropriate for Paul to begin the letter the way he did.  Since they made his teaching out to be contemptible, claiming it came from humans, while Peter's came from the Anointed One, Paul takes a stand against this right from the start of his preface, saying he is "an Apostle not from men, nor through men." 

<4.19>

It was Ananias, you see, who baptized him, but Ananias wasn't the one who rescued him from error or led him to the Faith.  It was the Messiah himself who sounded that astounding call to him from above and thereby caught him in his net.  Jesus, as he walked by the water, had called Peter and his brother, and John and his brother as well, but Paul he called after his ascent to

heaven.  And just as those others didn't need a second call, but followed Jesus immediately after leaving their nets and everything else, so Paul, too, right from the first summons, went all out for the summit.  Once baptized, he took up arms against Jews in a war that had no truce.  In that regard, he more than outdistanced the Apostles — as he says, My struggle was greater than theirs [1 Cor. 15:10].  For the nonce, however, he doesn't press that point, but is content to be on a par with them.  To Paul, the most important thing was not to prove himself superior to them, but to dismiss the suggestion that he was in error.

< 5.5>

Now the words "from men" applied to all in common, since the summons has its origin and its root from above;  but the words "not through men" was a special reference to the Apostles, since Jesus had called them not through men, but through himself.  So why does Paul refer not to his calling, but to his sending as an Apostle [literally, "emissary"]?  Because that's what the whole argument is about:  they kept saying that Paul was entrusted with the ministry by men (the Apostles), and so he had to remain obedient to them.  But Luke has shown^[1] that it was not men who did the entrusting:  In the midst of their conducting the Master’s service and fasting, the Holy Spirit spoke:  "Set Barnabas and Saul apart for the work to which I’ve summoned them!'” [Acts 13:2] — from which it's clear that the Son and the Spirit hold a single authority:  "sent by the Spirit" means "sent by the Messiah."  Luke makes this clear elsewhere as well, when he attributes God's actions to the Holy Spirit.  For example, when Paul is conversing with the elders of Miletus, he says, Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit made you shepherds and guardians [Acts 20:28].  At the same time, in another letter, he writes, "In the assembly, God has appointed some members, first, as apostles; second, as inspired interpreters; third, as shepherds and teachers" [1 Cor. 12:28].  So he makes no distinction in this regard:  what is of the Spirit, he says is of God, and what is God's, he says is of the Spirit. 

<5.26>

In another way, too, he shuts the mouths of heretics by saying "through Jesus the anointed King and through God the Father."  Bearing in mind that the heretics claim that the word "through" is applied to the Son as indicating inferiority, watch what Paul does:  he gives "through" to the Father, teaching us not to make rules for what is ineffable, and not to try to determine the comparative limits of divinity between Son and Father.^[2]  For having said "through Jesus the anointed King," he went on with

1:1b  and God his father

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.615.1-24]  You see, if he had specified "through whom" by mentioning the Father all by himself, the heretics might have speculated that "through" applied only to the Father, with the Son's actions being referred to Him.  As it is, however, by mentioning the Son at the same time as the Father, and applying the word "through" to both, he no longer leaves any room for that argument.  He accomplishes this not by assigning to the Father what belongs to the Son, but by showing that this word implies not the slightest difference in essence between them.  What might the heretics say here, as they try to imagine some sort of diminution implied in the baptismal formula "in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit" — in other words, if the Messiah is inferior for being named after the Father — when the Apostle here begins first with the Son, and then comes to the Father?  But wait, we wouldn’t want to engage in blasphemous talk; we mustn't try to outdo those people in deviating from the truth, but must instead maintain the proper measure of reverence.  It boils down to this:  just as we wouldn’t say the Son is greater than the Father just because Paul mentioned the Anointed One first (that would be the utmost insanity), so in the other case as well, you shouldn't consider the Son to be lower than the Father.

<6.18>

Another commentator [EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 46.21]:  He now calls God "Father" because he wants the Church, which has become God's adopted child, to be free from enslavement through the Torah.

1:1c  who raised Him from the dead.

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.615.25-616.1:]  Paul, what are you up to here?  You want to bring people practicing Judaism into the Faith, but you don't implement any of the grand and splendid words available to you — as you did when you wrote to the Philippians, speaking of Him who, though being from the beginning in the image of God, still did not think that a godlike status was something to be simply appropriated  [Phil. 2:6] — or as you later cried out when you wrote to the Hebrews that He was the radiance of God’s glory and the very image of his substance [Heb. 1:3] — or like the voice raised up by the Son of Thunder from his exordium, proclaiming that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was together with God, and the Word was God!  [John 1:1].  Jesus himself often used to say, loud and clear, that he was able to the same things as the Father, and that he had the same authority as the Father.  You mention none of these things, Paul.  Instead, leaving all that aside, you call to mind God's plan in terms of Jesus' human flesh, focusing on His crucifixion and death. 

<6.33>

Paul replies that if his argument had been directed at people who had no grand idea of the Messiah, it would have been all right to talk of those grandiose things;  but since the people who are at variance with us are those who think they are going to be punished if they deviate from the Torah, he mentions the one thing that eliminates all need for Torah:  I mean, of course, the benefits that come to one and all from the cross and the resurrection!  You see, "In the beginning was the Word" and "It/He was there in the form of God" and "He said he was equal to God" and suchlike — those would have been the words of one who was trying to show the divinity of the Word, but without shedding any light on the issue at hand.  But "who raised Him from the dead" were the words of one who was trying to point out the utmost of benefits to us and for us.  As regards the task that faces him, Paul succeeds to no mean extent.  And in fact people usually don't pay as much attention to descriptions of the greatness of God as they do to evidence of benefits to humans.  For that reason Paul dispenses with the former, and organizes his words around the great benefit that has been conferred on us.

[SEVERIAN 299.1ff:]  He points to the fact that it was not Moses, or any of the other prophets, who died for the world's sake.  We should not, therefore, subject ourselves to one who hasn't saved us, but to one who has died for our sake. 

<7.19>

[EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 47.1f.:]  For if the Torah and its ordinances were sufficient for salvation, there would be no need for the cross, or for the Christ to go to the cross. 

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.616.2-39:]  But of course the heretics jump in to say, "See, it's the Father who raises the Son!"  Once they've become infected, they pretend to be deaf to the finer points of dogma; instead, they pick and choose the less subtle doctrines, whether those doctrines address the Son's humanity or the Father's prerogatives in some different setting.  But by examining the doctrines out of context, they only bring embarrassment — I certainly wouldn't say upon scripture, but upon themselves.  I'd love to ask them for what purpose they go around saying these things.  Is it that they wish to portray the Son as weak, as not having the strength to resurrect one single body?  Yet faith in Him used to cause even shadows cast by the faithful to make corpses rise up!  So people who believed in Him, still mortal though they were, could raise the dead with only a shadow cast by those earthen bodies of theirs, and with the garments that enveloped those bodies — yet he himself had no power to raise himself?  Tell me how this is not outright madness and incipient dementia!  Didn't you hear Jesus say, Destroy this temple, and in three days I'll raise it up [John 2:19]?  And again, Mine is the power to lay down my life, and the power to pick it up again [John 10:18]?  What's the reason for saying that the Father has raised Him up?  or, for that matter, for saying that the Father does anything else that He does?  In fact it's been said out of regard both for the Father's honor, and for the weakness of us listeners.

<8.6>

1:2a  And all the brothers and sisters with me.   

Nowhere else has he put this at the beginning of an epistle.  Indeed, he usually puts only his own name, or mentions two or three others by name.  But he's put a whole crowd in here — which is why he didn't mention any of them by name.  Why is he doing this?  The deceivers kept slandering him as being the only one preaching his doctrine, and as introducing novelty into the standard teachings.  Therefore, desiring to dispel this suspicion and to show that there were many who shared his viewpoint, he "marshaled" the brethren — indicating that whatever he writes, he writes from their perspective as well.

<8.15>

[EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 47.3ff.:]  Note, too, that he didn't write "and the brothers and sisters with me," but "all the brothers and sisters," inserting "all" to indicate that the crowd was united.

1:2b  to the assemblies of Galatia

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.616.40-618.50:]  The flames of this error were spreading, you see, not just to one town, or two or three, but over the whole country of the Galatians.  Come look at Paul's extreme indignation here!  He didn't write "to the beloved ones" or "to the sanctified ones," but "to the assemblies of Galatia."  To address them not with love, and not with their official titles, but with reference only to their gatherings, and not even to add "of God" to "the assemblies," but to write simply "the assemblies of Galatia" — those were gestures of a man who was deeply depressed and showing his pain.  Right from the start of his letter, he is especially intent on confronting their insubordination.  That's why he uses the term "assembly," trying to fill them with compunction and herd them into one fold.^[3]  In fact, those who are divided into a number of parts couldn't possibly be called by this designation, since the term "assembly" is a term of consensus and concord.

1:3  Grace and peace to you from God the Father, and from our Master Jesus the Anointed One

That salutation is indispensable in all his letters, but especially in this one to the Galatians:  since they were in danger of falling from grace, he prays that they gain it back again;  and since they were at war with God, he begs God to bring them back to the peace they had once had.

<9.5>

1:3b  God the Father     

From these words we see once more how easily the heretics are proven wrong.  They argue that John, in his gospel exordium, writes "the Word was God" without putting the Greek definite article before "God," thus making the divinity of the Son lower or less; and again, they argue that when Paul writes that the Son existed "in the form of God," the fact that this expression, too, lacks a definite article proves that Paul had not been speaking of the Father.^[4]  So what are they going to say here when Paul writes not "from God" with a Greek definite article (ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ), but "from God the Father" without a definite article (ἀπὸ Θεοῦ Πατρός)?  He calls God "Father" not to indulge the Galatians, but to properly pin them down with a reminder of the reason why they themselves had become God's sons:  it was not through Torah, but through the baptismal bath of rebirth that they had been found worthy of that honor.  This is why Paul, everywhere and especially in his prefaces, sows the traces of God's favors like seeds, all but asking, "You enslaved, hostile, and estranged creatures!  Where has your sudden ability to call God your Father come from?  It surely wasn't the Torah that favored you with this noble lineage, and granted you forgiveness of your sins!  Why then do you abandon him who brought you to this close relationship, and run back to your kindergarten teacher?"

<9.22>

Of course, their names — not just the Father's, but the Son's as well — were enough to show the Galatians what their benefits were.  The Master's name, "Jesus the Anointed One," when contemplated with careful attention, is indicative of the full extent of his favors.  He shall be called Jesus (= Joshuah), says Matthew, because he will save his people from their sins [Matthew 1:21]; the title "Anointed One" (Christos ) was a reminder of the ointment of the Spirit.

1:4a  who gave himself for our sins 

Do you see that Jesus endured his duty not as slavery or forced servitude, but that it was He who gave Himself?  So when you hear John saying that the Father gave his only-begotten Son for our sake, don't underestimate the value of the "only-begotten" on that account, or suppose that he was just a human.  Even if the Father is said to have given him, that doesn’t mean you should see it as the service of a slave, but should understand it to mean that it was something approved by the Father as well.  And so Paul makes that clear here, too, by writing in keeping with the wish of our God and Father — not "in keeping with the command," but in keeping with the wish.  Since, you see, the wish of the Father and the Son was one and the same thing, whatever the Son wanted, the Father also wished.

1:4b  for our sins

We had pierced ourselves, says Paul, with ten thousand evils [1 Timothy 6:10], and were liable for the most extreme punishment.^[5]  And not only did the Torah not deliver us; it even condemned us.  It brought sin into high relief, but was incapable of freeing us from it, or of hindering the wrath of God.  But the Son of God made even this impossibility possible, once he had atoned for those sins and transformed our status from enemies to friends, having favored us with ten thousand other benefits as well.  Then Paul says,

1:4c  to rescue us from this present vicious age

Again another group of heretics (the Manichaeans) seizes on this statement as they vilify our present life, flaunting Paul as their witness.  "See there," says the heretic, "he's called the present age 'vicious'!"  Now tell me, what does "age" mean?  Obviously, time.  And time is in terms of hours and days.  What, then?  The separation of days is vicious?  And the course of the sun as well?  Of course no one would ever say that, even if he'd been reduced to the utmost mindlessness!  "No, no," says the heretic, "he didn't mean time; it’s the present life that he called vicious!"  Well, in fact those are your words.  Of course, your argument doesn't stand or fall on the basis of the words with which you weave it; you’re blazing a whole trail of interpretation for yourself.  Then surely you'll allow us, too, to interpret what Paul has said — all the more so, as our arguments are both reverent and logical. 

<10.26>

What then could we say?  That none of the evils could possibly become the cause of good?  Yet the life we have is the source of ten thousand honors and rewards!  In any case, the blessed Paul himself heaps praise upon it, saying that Living in the flesh for me means harvesting the field I have worked.  I just don’t know which to choose!  [Philippians 1:22].  Offering himself the choice between living in this world and letting go of it to be with the Anointed One, he prefers his life here.  If his life was "vicious," he wouldn't have said that about himself, nor would anyone else have been able to make that life over into the service of virtue, no matter how hard they tried.  No one could ever use meanness to serve goodness, or promiscuity to serve temperance, or malice to serve kindness.  As a matter of fact, when Paul says, speaking of the will of the flesh, that "it's neither subject to the Law of God, nor can it be" [Romans 8:7], he means that vice cannot be virtue.  So when you hear him say "vicious age," he's thinking of the vicious conduct and corrupt practices of the age.

<11:8>

The Messiah, you see, did not come to kill us and take us out of the present life, but to leave us in the world and prepare us to become worthy of a life in heaven.  For that reason He said (speaking to the Father), … and they are in the world, and I’m coming to you; … I’m not praying that you lift them out of the world, but that you keep them from what is vicious  [John 17:11, 15] — that is, from evil.  If you're not content with that, but continue to say that the present life is vicious, don't be blaming those who take their own lives.  Just as he who withdraws himself from evil is worthy not of reproach but of a crown of glory, so also he who destroys his life through a violent death wouldn't deserve to be blamed, according to you.  But in fact God himself punishes such people worse than he punishes murderers, and all the rest of us likewise find them abominable!  After all, if killing others is not a good thing, how much worse is it to kill yourself!  But if the present life is something vicious, we need to award crowns to murderers, because they let us escape that viciousness. 

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.619.34-53:]  For what reason does Paul say that the current age is vicious?  Well, he's making use of a common expression.  In fact, we ourselves are used to saying it when we're having a bad day.  We're not condemning the time, but rather an action, or circumstances.  Paul is talking the same way, using that expression to condemn vicious conduct.  And with the entire phrase Paul implies that the Messiah both rescued us from our former sins, and protected us for the future:  by saying who gave himself for our sins, he indicated the former; and by adding to rescue us from this vicious age, he pointed to protection for the future.  You see, the Torah was powerless to do even one of these alone, but grace had the power to do both.

<11.34>

1:4d  in keeping with the will of Him who is our God and our Father

Since the Galatians were thinking that they were disregarding God as Torah-giver, and had been fearful of abandoning the Old Covenant and moving on to the New,^[6] Paul corrects this notion of theirs, insisting that his doctrine agreed with the Father's.  Further, he didn't say simply "the Father's", but rather "our Father’s."  He uses this expression constantly, bringing the Galatians up short by pointing out that the Anointed One had made his own Father our Father.

<12.7>

Another commentator [EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 47.5ff.]:  In calling the current age "vicious," he indicated that this evil was not something abstract and theoretical, but was here and now, among the people to whom he wrote:  it concerned those who had persuaded the Galatians to give inappropriate attention to the Torah. 

[THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, Comm. ad epistolam ad Galatas, PG 66.897.37ff.:]  An "age" is not a thing of nature known in its essence, but any conceivable interval of time, whether small or great — small, as whenever it's used to refer to our life, as: our age in the light of thy countenance  [Psalm 89:8 LXX];  great, as whenever it refers to the entire time-span as reckoned from the foundation of the world to the second appearance of the Messiah, which is coming with the completion of this present life — about which the Master says in the Gospels, "Look, I’m with you all days, up to the completion of this age!" [Matthew 28:20].  And that's the one the Apostle calls the "present age," speaking of it as if of ourselves living this, our present lifetime, in it.  How then could a time span look to be either good or bad by nature, when it has no essence to be perceived?  But the "age" as a simple time span — that's exactly what the Apostle wants to say. 

<12.24> 

When the first human was born, if he had remained immortal, there would have been no "present lifetime," since of course his lifetime would have had no end.  But because he became mortal through sin, we have the term "present lifetime," which is appropriate for a life that is currently being lived, compared with a future life in the hereafter.  Now in our present lifetime we are also liable to commit sin, and so we need a set of laws, whereas in the age to come, we won't have even the slightest need for rules, since we'll be beyond all sin, being watched over by the grace of the Spirit.  And so Paul means to say that, while the Law (Torah) had been given, sin wasn't eradicated.  On the contrary — sin practically ruled our lives, because invariably we would violate sometimes these provisions, sometimes those, when we acted contrary to an ordinance of the Torah, and Torah did nothing to save us from sinning.  No, the very weakness of our nature pulled us into stumbling, but the Anointed One, by dying for our sake and rising again, and by offering us, too, a share in His resurrection through Himself, rescued us from the current mode of living, in which we were engaging in many practices that were not right, and made us secure in our hope for the life to come, where we persist ever after as immortal and serene beings separated from all sin — something the Torah had never been capable of offering us. 

<13.7>

Paul drives this point home by adding the words,

1:4d  in keeping with the will of Him who is our God and our Father.

Paul has used the word "rescue" in order to make the Galatians aware that salvation was not something easy for anyone else, either for the Law or for the Prophets, to accomplish.  "Rescue" almost suggests the force — or if not the force, then at least the power of the rescuer.  Why do I say power, and not force?  Because Paul did not say "who snatched us up," but "who gave himself for our sins, to rescue us."  This phrase stands second to none for difficulty of interpretation.  However, God has now been called our Father so that, with our adoption by him revealed, we may be rid of the constraints that came through Torah. 

1:5  to whom be glory into the eons, amen!

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.620.1-622.7]  This expression, too, is novel and extraordinary.  For one thing, we never find "amen" in the introductory remarks of an epistle, but only after a long stretch.  But here Paul is showing that even what he's just said has offered enough of an indictment of the Galatians, and that his comments have been adequate; with those final words he rounds off his prologue.  Their obvious offenses don't require a weighty brief.  Having now mentioned the crucifixion, the resurrection, the redemption of sins, the safeguarding for the future, the Father's purpose, the Son's will, His grace, His peace, and all His giving, Paul brought the preamble to a close with a doxology, offering up the strongest prayer he could on behalf of the entire world.  Thereafter, he steps up the vehemence of his discourse, as if ignited by the thought of God's generosity after having uttered the words "to whom be glory into the eons, amen!"  So it is in a sharper tone of rebuke that he starts speaking thus:

1:6  I’m amazed at how quickly you’re shifting away to a different gospel, turning away from Him who had called you in the grace of the Messiah King.

You see, even the Jews who had persecuted the Messiah assumed that by standing guard over the Torah they were pleasing the Father;  and so Paul points out, before everything else,  that by acting this way the Galatians were provoking not only the Messiah, but also the Father.  He doesn't say, in fact, that they were turning away from the Christ, but that they were actually turning away from the Father when they did this.  You see, just as the Old Testament belongs not only to the Father, but also to the Son, so grace, too, is not just of the Son, but of the Father as well; they hold everything in common.  "Everything my Father has," says Jesus, "is mine" [John 16:15].

<14.8>

Having thus stated that the Galatians were also rebelling against the Father, Paul levels two charges at them:  that they shifted their allegiance, and that the shift was extremely quick.  Now of course the opposite — rebelling after a long interval — is also worthy of blame, but in the Galatians' case it's a question of deceit. 

<14.13>

Yes, one who deserts after a long time merits accusations as well, but the one who falls down at the first onslaught, and during the first skirmishes, shows himself up as an example of extreme weakness.  That, too, is Paul's charge against the Galatians when he asks, What's this?  The people deceiving you — don't they even need time to succeed?   Right after so much favor and bounty, the forgiveness of so many sins and an excess of brotherly love, you've deserted to the yoke of slavery?  As he says this, he expresses at the same time his opinion of the Galatians, which was both high and serious.  You see, if he'd thought they were just average sorts, he wouldn't have wondered at what had happened to them;  but "you're all tested, tried and true — that's what's puzzling me!" — which in fact was sufficient to wake them up and bring them back to their former position, which Paul clearly alluded to in the middle of the letter:  You underwent so much to no purpose — if it really was to no purpose [Gal. 3:4].

1:6b  you're shifting away

Paul doesn't say "you've shifted away,"^[7] but "you're shifting away" — that is, "I'm not ready to believe or to suppose that their deception has been complete."  This in itself is again an indication that he's regaining control.  In any case, he eventually states it more clearly when he says, I am certain of you, that your minds will not consider any other way [Gal. 5:10].

<14.31>

1:6c  deserting Him who had called you in the grace of the Messiah King

The calling is the Father's; the cause of the calling is the Son's, for He's the reconciler, He's the giver of the gift.  We weren't saved, you see, because of our deeds of righteousness.  I should really say these blessings are the Son's, and those the Father's, or those are the Son's, and these the Father's — because, as Jesus says, "What is mine is Thine, and what is Thine is mine."  Furthermore, Paul didn't say "You're shifting away from the Gospel," but says rather "You're shifting away from the One who called you, God!"  You see he used the approach that was more terrifying and more likely to shock them, because the people who wanted to deceive the Galatians didn't do so all at once; instead, they gradually turned them away from things without turning them away from the names of things.  Such, of course, is the devil's subterfuge — not setting out his traps where you can see them:  if they had told the Galatians to rebel against the Messiah, the Galatians would have been on their guard against them, as being charlatans or corrupters.  As it was, however, the deceivers left them in the Faith for the time being, putting the name of "Gospel" on their deception; with perfect license they began to worm their way through a structure of words, with the familiar names, like curtains, concealing their destructive intrusion.  Since they would call their deception "Gospel," Paul does well to take his fight to that name, saying,

<15.15>

1:6-7  to another Gospel, … which is not a different one

Nevertheless, the same thing happened here to Marcion as happens to sick people who get worse with healthy food:  [he said,] "See?  Paul said it's not a different Gospel!"^[8]  The Marcionites, you see, don't accept all the evangelists, just one, and that one as much mutilated and befouled as they wanted.  So what happens when Paul says …in keeping with my gospel and preaching about Jesus the anointed King [Romans 16:25]?  What they have to say about that is quite laughable, except that, ridiculous though it be, it needs to be refuted for the sake of those who are easily deceived.

<15.25>

Well, what shall we say?  That even if ten thousand people write gospels, and they all write the same thing, those many gospels are still one gospel, and none of those gospels coming from that crowd of writers will be deterred from being the one gospel.  And so likewise the contrary:  even if there's only one writer, and he writes contradictions, then what he's writing is not one thing, because what's one and what's not one isn't determined by the number of writers, but on the likeness and difference of what they've written.  From this it's clear that the four Gospels are one Gospel.  You see, when the four are saying the same things, they aren't one gospel here and another there, but just one gospel, because of their agreement and the specific nature of their teachings. 

<16.1>

Another commentator [SEVERIAN 299.5]:  When Paul says to another Gospel, … which is not a different one, he means that, with both our gospel and the Apostles' gospel, you are above and beyond the Torah.

One more commentator interprets what Paul says as follows [THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.901.19ff.:]  Throughout, he magnified the absurdity of their changeover, declaring that they were giving many indications of that absurdity (not to mention the speed with which they changed);  and he added "you're bolting," not "you're changing course," using "bolt" as if talking about cattle.  "To another gospel:" to indicate a complete defection from piety.  And — lest he seem to allow for the existence of another gospel — Paul says "which is not a different one."  For how could you say it was different? 

<16.11>  

1:7b  It's just that there are some who are trying to destabilize you and are willing to twist the Gospel of the Messiah King

In other words, a variation on the Gospel as it exists would be a "different" gospel.  Then (because they were holding up to him the figures of the Apostles), in order to show that he didn't prefer himself to the Apostles, but that he did prefer the truth, outside of which he did not consider even himself to be worth anything, Paul began to broaden his argument by saying

1:8b  or … an angel from heaven

In other words, not even the trustworthiness of a gospel's place of origin — even in association with the person preaching it — can be held to be the equivalent of truth.

<16.18>

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.622.14-19:]  It's just that there are some who are trying to destabilize you, says Paul, and are willing to twist the Gospel of the Messiah King — which is to say that as long as you keep your thinking healthy, as long as your vision is clear and undistorted, and you're not imagining what doesn't exist, you won't take thought of a different gospel.

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.622.33-40:]   Paul claimed the Gospel would be ruined because he wanted to indicate that when the slightest bit is done wrong, the whole is spoiled — as with imperial coinage, when one cuts off a small piece of the imprint, he renders the whole coin invalid, so when one overturns even the smallest part of the Faith in its sound state, he does damage to the whole, advancing from bad to worse.  And for that reason Paul calls circumcision the undoing of the Gospel.

<16.31>

1:8  But even if we, or even if an angel from heaven evangelizes to you something different from what we evangelized to you, let him be accursed.

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.624.9-33:]  You notice the Apostle's quick thinking.  Let no one say that, out of vanity, he applauds his own teachings and ends up cursing himself.  The deceivers went so far as to invoke James and John as models, so he in turn talked about angels!  Don't talk to me, says Paul, of James and John:  even if it be one of the highest angels out of heaven ruining what we preach, let him be accursed!  And it's not for nothing that he said "from heaven," because priests, too, used to be called angels — For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the Law from his mouth, for he is the angel (messenger) of the Lord of all. [Malachi 2:7].  In case you thought he meant those "angels," he alluded to the Powers Above with the addition of the word "heaven."  Nor did he say, "If they should proclaim the opposite," or "If they should overturn the whole thing;” no, he said that if they should evangelize even the slightest thing "that's contrary to what we evangelize" — if they disturb anything at all — let them be accursed.

<17.14>

1:9a  As I said before, and say again

So that you won't think his words were composed in anger, or that he was exaggerating or seized by a sudden passion, he sets it down for a second time.  If one were carried away by anger into saying something, he would soon be filled with regret, but one who says the same thing a second time shows that he says it deliberately, and that what he'd said the first time had been what he really meant, and that that's why he'd said it. 

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.624.42-625.5:]  Angels, you see, no matter how great, are slaves and functionaries by nature.  The scriptures have all been written and dispatched not from slaves, but from God, the lord of the worlds.  That's why Paul says, "If any person evangelizes to you something different from what we evangelized" to you.  Wisely and inoffensively, he avoided referring to this or that person specifically.  After all, what need was there for him to mention names when he'd used such a lofty hyperbole to embrace all persons, including those on earth?  In anathematizing both evangelists and angels, he put every level of authority in the same category.  In anathematizing even himself, he included every relationship and affinity.  He issues this challenge neither to denigrate the Apostles, nor to detract from what they preach — far from it, he says: whether it's us or them, we'll preach what we preach! — but rather because he wants to show that, when it comes to truth, personal rank is not a valid consideration.

<18.1>

Another commentator [SEVERIAN 299.7-21]:  "Let (the angel) be accursed."  And why not us, too?  When we began to preach, we preached by the power of the holy Spirit; and the holy Spirit doesn't change its mind.  So if we deviate in what we say, we've deserted the words of the Spirit.  So let the preacher be accursed who has sabotaged what he preaches. 

1:9c  something different from what you received

It wasn't just that I did the preaching, with you not receiving, but rather I preached, and you received.  Nor do I change my mind from my preaching, and you all — hold on to what you received.

1:10  Am I now trying to win men over, or God?  Am I seeking to please men?  For if I were still trying to please men, I would not be a slave of the anointed King.

Being on the point of bringing that same Gospel to mind, Paul sees to it that the Galatians don't think he's being conciliatory with them.  On the contrary, he's chastising them as he admonishes.  "If I were still" indicated that he did once try to please men;  but whom had he been pleasing?  The very men from whom he'd got written authorization to persecute the faithful in Damascus!  So Paul is saying, "If I were still pleasing the Jews, I wouldn't have faith in the Christ."

Another commentator [EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 47.15ff.]:  He's trying to combat the deceivers' insinuation that "he'd talked one way among you, but in Judea he behaved differently."  Paul says, How can I be one way on the outside, and another on the inside, when God is watching me?  What sort of human "merits" could I then hold up as mine, that I don't personally oppose or disagree with?  

<18.23>

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.625.31-47:]  So he writes these words down, defending himself while simultaneously struggling with the Galatians.  It wasn't appropriate, of course, for those being instructed to pass judgment on their instructors; instead, they should have had faith in them.  But since the tables have turned and our roles are reversed, he implies, be aware that I don't have a great deal to say to you in my defense, except that everything we do we do for the sake of God, and we preach so as to answer to Him concerning those things we teach.  Someone who only wants to win humans over can tell many hollow lies, and practice deceit, so as to persuade and win the minds of an audience; but the man who is seeking to win God over, and works to please only Him, requires a straightforward, pure intention.  So we, he says, aren't writing all this now from a love of control, or from a desire for glory from you.  If I were actually wanting to please humans, I would still be with the Jews, would still be persecuting the Church. 

<19.2>

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.626.1-59:]  Paul prefaced what follows with the question, "Is it men I'm trying to win over?"  — so that they shouldn't think it was to them  that he was making his defense, and his following statement, and feel smug.  He knew, of course, the appropriate moment to correct his disciples, and to raise a high and mighty voice;  and don't think he hadn't other grounds on which to prove that his preaching was on the side of truth:  portents, miracles, perils — all those other things that he listed in his letters to the Corinthians.  But since here his argument has to do with Apostles, rather than with pseudo-apostles, and since those Apostles had shared the same wonders and dangers, Paul corrects the course of his argument by describing his former conduct, and says, "I'm letting you know, brethren …"

<19.14>

FIRST MAIN TOPIC:  Account of his own departure from Judaism following the revelation.

1:11-12  I’ll have you know, brethren, that the gospel evangelized by me is not a human thing, nor did I receive it from a human, nor was I taught it, but it was through the revelation of Jesus the Messiah.

Notice how he insists, over and over, that he had become a disciple of the Anointed One.  No middle-man, only Jesus himself deigning to reveal through himself the great Knowledge, in its entirety, to Paul.  And what sort of proof could there be for the incredulous to believe that God, by himself and not through human mediation, revealed those ineffable mysteries to you, Paul?  Answer: "My former conduct."  No one but God could have been the revealer, so overwhelmingly complete was my conversion, says Paul. Those who receive their instruction from men, if they be stuck fast in ardent beliefs to the contrary, require time and a great deal of strategy before they're won over.  But one who converts all at once, and regains his senses at the height of his former insanity, has obviously experienced a sudden return to perfect health through an encounter with a divine vision and divine instruction.  It's therefore necessary for him to tell the story of his former zealousness, and he calls the Galatians to be witnesses to those events:  you people don't know that, from the heavens above, the only-begotten Son of God summoned me?  Of course you don't, you weren't there!  But you do know that I was a violent persecutor, and the story of my violence spread even to you, despite the distance between Palestine and Galatia.  The report couldn't have gotten that far if what was happening hadn't been so extreme and repugnant to all.  

1:13  Now, you’ve heard about my conduct, the fact that I used to persecute the assembly of God to excess, and tried to terminate it

<20.10>

You see how starkly he sets forth every detail, and shows no embarrassment:  he didn't simply "persecute," but even did so "to excess."  And not just persecuting, but "terminating."  In other words, he's trying to snuff the Church, destroy it, take it out, make it disappear — that's what a terminator is up to.

Another commentator [EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 47.20ff.]:  Not having previously named his Gospel, he specifies here "the Gospel evangelized by me."  There was, you see, doubt as to the nature of what was claimed to be a "gospel" not on the basis of fact, but through the spurious claim that it was "not a gospel according to a human" (or so the Galatians say), because it was from Peter that they had received it.  But how could it not be according to a human?  "Nor did I myself receive it, nor was I taught it:"  "receive" is the right word, and "taught" is also excellent, because both those words were used to refer to human transmission.

Grace sheds its light instantly and abundantly, humans transmit and teach only faintly.

<20.26>

Addressing the Galatians as "brethren" was also necessary, because Paul's intentions were under suspicion.  Suspected of saying one thing and being another, he tries with the fraternal address to dispel their suspicions.

"Now, you've heard about my former conduct in Judaism" — he didn't say "in the Law (Torah)."  Then what conduct?  "The fact that I used to persecute the assembly of God to excess."  You see, when he intended to speak regarding what is in the Torah, the Torah would be taken to be God's law.  But Paul was suspected of teaching different things about the Messiah; he didn't say "I used to persecute the assembly of the Christ to excess," but rather "the assembly of God."

<21.5>                  

1:14  and so I got ahead in Judaism, beyond many contemporaries in my tribe, standing out as especially zealous for my ancestral traditions

Again, "in Judaism."  He doesn't want to mention Torah, lest his words be hard to accept.  "Beyond many of my contemporaries:"  "many," not "all," for the sake of moderation.  "Contemporaries," so that he wouldn't appear to be elevated beyond his elders.  "In my tribe," so as to make it known that his roots were there, and his fruits were also from there.  "Standing out as especially zealous," so as to indicate how vehemently, through his fanaticism, he would be opposed to the Church.  And he says "ancestral traditions," not "Torah traditions," talking about the precepts of the Pharisees:  in those he stood out as zealous.

Another commentator^[9] [SEVERIAN 299.26 – 300.3]:  Here Paul shows that he holds an advantage over Peter's circle.  Those people, he implies, were not zealots like me, refusing to be won over to Christianity; so don't think that I came into grace after rejecting the Torah.  I was actually trying to avenge Torah, but I found what was perfect, and I don't put Torah on the same level as perfect grace.

<21.21>

Another commentator says the following [CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.627.8-37]:  If what I was doing against the Church I was doing not because of any human, but because of a superhuman zeal — a misguided zeal, but zeal nonetheless —, how now, when I'm running the race on behalf of the Church, and have acknowledged the truth — how is it that I'm now doing what I do because of my vanity?  In fact, if such a great passion had not possessed me when I was misguided, but my zeal for God brought me to it, how much the more, now that I've acknowledged the truth, should I be justly acquitted of your kind of suspicion? — I who, once I'd converted to the teachings of the Church, and had shed every preconception that was Jewish, had demonstrated much more zeal right here.  That in itself is a sign, says Paul, of my changing to the side of truth; if that wasn't it, then what else is it that works to prepare for me such a great change, exchanging injury for honor, and perils for peace, and distress for security?  Nothing but a passion for the truth.

<22.2> 

1:15-16  When God, who had set me apart from the time when I was in my mother’s womb and called me through his grace, chose to reveal his Son in me, in order that I should spread his gospel among the Gentiles, I didn’t take counsel immediately with flesh and blood

See what he's striving to show here, that even during the time that he was left alone, he was being left on account of some ineffable plan.  You see, if he was destined to become an Apostle, and to be summoned to this mission from the time he was in his mother's womb, he would have been summoned then, and would have obeyed the summons.  Clearly God, for some ineffable reason, was postponing it for a time. 

<22.13>

[CHRYSOSTOM PG, 61.627.54-628.39:]  But it was because of his valor that God had called him: This man is my vessel of choice for bearing my name before Gentiles and emperors [Acts 9:15].  In other words, he is capable of serving and of proving himself equal to a great task:  that's what the Master points to as the reason for calling Paul.  But Paul himself attributes everything to grace, and to the Master's loving kindness, kindness beyond words.  Here is what he says:  But I was pitied (not because I was capable or suitable, but) so that He might display in me His absolute forbearance, to establish a pattern for future believers in Him to attain the life of the next eon [1 Timothy 1:16].  Did you notice his extreme humility?  He says "I was pitied" so that nobody will give up on even the worst of all people, once that person has had the benefit of loving kindness.

<22.24>

1:16a  to reveal His Son in me

Elsewhere in Scripture, the Messiah says, No one but the Son knows the Father — no one but the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal the Father [Luke 10:22].  Have you noticed that both the Father reveals the Son, and the Son reveals the Father?  So it goes with glory as well:  both the Son glorifies the Father, and the Father the Son:  Glorify me, says Jesus, so that I may glorify you [John 17:1ff.].  But why didn't Paul say "reveal His Son to me" rather than "in me"?  He shows thereby that he had not only heard the substance of the Faith through words, but had also been abundantly filled with the Spirit when the revelation had illuminated his soul; so he had the Christ speaking in him!

<22.34>

1:16b  in order that I should spread His gospel among the Gentiles

Not just his conversion, but the direction in which he was then taken had come about by the hand of God.  He had revealed Jesus to me, says Paul, not so that I should simply see Him, but so that I should bring Him out to others.  And Paul doesn't just say "others;"  instead, "so that I should spread His Gospel among the Gentiles."  From that point on, he starts alluding to a not insignificant theme of his defense, based on the nature of his disciples.  He couldn't, you see, preach the same way to Jews as to Gentiles.

1:16c  I didn't take counsel immediately with flesh and blood

This is Paul's allusion to the Apostles, referring to them on the basis of their physical nature.  On the other hand, we won't reject the notion that he may also be saying this about all humans.

<23.13>

[SEVERIAN 300.4-5:]  Paul isn't slandering the Apostles when he says this.  Instead, he's saying that he was out of step with mortal flesh.

Another commentator on the phrase, When God, who had set me apart from the time when I was in my mother’s womb, chose … [THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA PG, 66.901.41ff.:]  Appropriately, he refers to God's foreknowledge, to the fact that even before Paul's existence this appears to have been decided by God:  the word preached by Paul is that far from being some kind of novelty, some human invention.

<23.13>

1:17a  nor did I go up to Jerusalem, to those who were apostles before me

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.628.41-630.18:]  If we were to take those words at face value, they would seem, to many of us, to be full of pompousness and far removed from an apostolic attitude.  Giving yourself the majority vote and not bringing anyone else into your deliberations seems the height of stupidity:  I have seen a man who thought himself to be wise, but there is more hope for a fool than for him [Proverbs 26:12 LXX].  And Woe to those who are wise in themselves and knowledgeable in their own sight!  [Isaiah 5:21 LXX].  And again Paul himself says, Don’t try to act wise in front of each other [Romans 12:16].  So anyone who's heard such warnings from others, and has himself given them to others, is hardly likely to fall into that trap … On the other hand, if we set forth the reason for his saying those words, everyone will admire unanimously the man who has spoken them.  Let us therefore do so.  You see, we mustn't judge his words out of context, but must take careful account of the writer's intention … What are we to make of his words, and based on the words, what are we to make of the circumstances?  Unless we observe this rule, everything will be upside down:  we'll be calling Elijah a murderer, along with Samuel and Phineas; we’d be calling Abraham a child-killer if we were to go about examining his circumstances out of context, without connecting them to the intention of those who were the principal actors. 

<24.6>

Let's also examine, then, the thought-processes on which Paul based his writing here.  Let's look at his conduct and at where he stood in general vis-à-vis the Apostles, and then we'll see with what intention those words were chosen.  He didn't in fact trivialize the Apostles, or exalt himself, when he used either those words or the words that preceded them.  Indeed, how could he have, when he'd placed even himself under anathema, while safeguarding at all costs the integrity of the gospel?  When those who were trying to terminate the Church were claiming that people should follow the Apostles (who didn't try to stop Judaic practices) and not Paul (who did), and the Jewish error was being introduced little by little from that claim, Paul was now obliged to take a valiant stand against it.  Not meaning to speak ill of the Apostles, but rather to repress the nonsense of those who were improperly exalting themselves, he says, I didn't take counsel with flesh and blood.  And as a matter of fact it would have been the height of absurdity for Paul, who had just been taught by God Himself, to go off and consort with humans.  So it wasn't to be unruly that he used those words, but to indicate the high quality of the message that he himself preached.     

<24.21>

Nor did I go up, he says, to those who were apostles before me:  since the deceivers had been saying over and over that the Apostles were before him, "I didn't go up," he declares, "to them."  If it was required that he consult with them, then He who had revealed to Paul the word to be preached would have commanded that as well.

Now, Paul did go up to the Apostles, looking to learn something from them. When?  When the very same question we're looking at here had come up in the Church of Antioch, which had shown so much heaven-sent zeal.  They were debating whether it was necessary to circumcise Gentile converts, or not force them to undergo any such thing.  And at that time indeed, Paul himself went to Jerusalem, together with Silas.  So how can he say, "I didn't go up and I didn't consult"?  It's because (a) he didn't go on his own, but was sent by others, and (b) he didn't arrive in Jerusalem as one who was going to learn, but as one who was going to persuade others.  Paul himself, right from the beginning, held the opinion that the Apostles later confirmed, namely that it was not necessary for people to be circumcised.

<25.1>

But the Antioch Christians did not yet consider Paul worthy of their trust, and instead were relying on the people in Jerusalem.  Paul therefore went up to Jerusalem, not because he himself needed further persuasion, but rather to win over those who were making the counter-claim that the Jerusalem authorities were also in favor of their position to require circumcision.

<25.4>

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.630.27-46:]  If he says, "I didn't go up," it's the same as saying that he neither^[10] went up in the early stages of his preaching, nor, when he did go up, did he go up to be instructed.  He signifies both of these when he says, I didn't take counsel immediately with flesh and blood.  He didn't say simply "I didn't take counsel," but instead "I didn't take counsel immediately."  And if he went up later on, it wasn't for the purpose of getting any^[11] assistance for himself.

<25.10>

1:17b  Instead, I went off to Arabia

Behold the heat of Paul's passion!  He would rush to lay hands on territory that had never been exploited, but was still in its wild state.  He was choosing for himself a life of struggle, a life that had plenty of pain to offer.  And behold the humility of his statement, "I went off to Arabia, then returned again to Damascus."  Neither does he recount his successes, nor has he informed us who or how many his converts were. 

<25.16>

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.631.3-13:]  Everything he says like that, he says not for his own honor, nor for the sake of being thought superior to the Apostles, nor resentful at having been thought inferior, but only fearful lest something might arise from his circumstances to jeopardize what he preaches.  And as a matter of fact he calls himself a monstrosity [1 Corinthians 15:8], the foremost of sinners [1 Timothy 1:15], the least of the Apostles and unworthy of that title [1 Corinthians 15:9].  These are the things he actually said, he who had labored harder than them all [1 Corinthians 15:10]!  More than anything else, that shows his humility.

<25.25>

1:18  Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas (Peter)

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.631.34 - 633.17:]  See how he renders honor to the Apostles, considering himself to be not only not better than them, but in fact not equal to them, which is clear from this journey of his … which he makes not to receive any instruction from Peter, nor to be corrected by him, but only for this reason — to see him and to appreciate his company … So Paul considered it well worth the effort just to have a look at the man ...  Where it wouldn't do harm to the Gospel, Paul was humbler than any man;  where he perceived that some were hurt by his humility, he no longer manifested that virtue, since that wouldn't, after all, be humility any longer, but would instead misguide and spoil those who were being instructed in the Faith.

<26.3>

1:18b  and I stayed two weeks with him

Now, making that journey for the sake of seeing Peter was a mark of high honor; staying that many days was a mark of the strongest affection.

1:19a  I didn’t see any other of the apostles

Look at how he holds his friendship with Peter to be the greater friendship:  he made the journey to see him, he was staying at his place.  Let me point that out right away;  I think it's important to bear in mind, so that when Paul later says, "I opposed Peter," no one may think those words arise from enmity or jealousy. 

<26.12> 

"I did," he says, "see James."  I saw him; I wasn't taught anything by him, he implies.  Yet look at the great honor with which he's named him as well!  He could have called him by his other appellation, "son of Klopas," to make it clear who he was (as the evangelist did [John 19:25]).  However, Paul was thinking that the entitlements of the Apostles were also his entitlements, and so by ennobling James, calling him "the Master's brother," he was also elevating himself — even though, of course, James wasn't the Master's real brother, but was only considered so. 

<26.20>

1:20  What I’m writing to you is nothing but the truth, as God is my witness.

Did you notice again, throughout everything, the humble self-abnegation that shines forth from that holy soul?   Having himself contend like a defendant who is summoned to court to render an account of himself, he has worked hard to make his case. 

1:21  Next, I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.

After getting to see Peter, he is once again taken up with the Word and with the struggle that lies ahead.  He keeps his hands off Judea, both because of his mission to the Gentiles, and because of his aversion to building on someone else's foundation [Romans 15:20].  For those reasons he didn't even have a chance encounter with it (i.e., Judean Christendom) — which is also clear from what follows:

1:23  I was, he says, unknown by sight to the assemblies of Judea.  They were only privy to the report that “He who used to persecute us is now evangelizing the Faith that he once tried to wipe out." 

— which Paul says so that you'll realize how far he was from preaching circumcision to them;  they didn't even know what he looked like.

1:24  and they began to praise God working in me

Here, too, take note of Paul's unwavering humility.  He didn't say "and they admired me, praised me, were amazed at me;"  instead, he portrays it as a matter of grace, entirely:  They began to praise God,  says Paul, working in me.

SECOND MAIN TOPIC:  On the Apostles' confirming him in his life in the Faith.

<27:10>  

2:1-2:2a  Then after fourteen years I journeyed again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along, too;  I went pursuant to a revelation

The reason for the first journey, he says, was Peter; for the second journey, a revelation of the Spirit. 

2:2b  and I laid before them (that is, before the reputed authorities, and privately) the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles — lest I be running, or had been running, my race to no purpose

  [CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.633.52-634.50:]  Paul himself had no need to know that he wasn't running to no purpose; instead, he acted so that those who were criticizing him might be reassured about his preaching.  Their opinion of John and Peter was higher, and they were thinking that Paul's gospel was in conflict with them because his was without circumcision — John and Peter allowed it, so they assumed Paul was acting illegally and "running to no purpose."  That's why I made the journey to Jerusalem, he says, and shared my Gospel with them — not to learn anything myself (which he says more clearly later) but to teach those who had those suspicions that I am not running to no purpose.  The Spirit, you see, anticipated that sort of contentiousness; it was the Spirit that motivated Paul to make the journey…

<27.28>

He took Barnabas and Titus along as designated witnesses to his preaching.  And I laid before them the Gospel that I preach among the Gentiles — the Gospel, in other words, without circumcision — that is, before the reputed authorities, and privately … You see, everyone in Jerusalem was usually scandalized if anyone were to violate the Torah — if anyone were to hinder the practice of circumcision.  That explains why the Apostles ask Paul, Do you observe, brother, that among the Jews here there are tens of thousands of believers?  [Acts 21:20], and go on to say that those have all been informed that, as far as the Law of Moses is concerned, you're teaching apostasy!  Now, since the people were scandalized, Paul did not venture to come forward and speak publicly, to disclose what he himself preached;  instead, he "laid it before the reputed authorities, and privately" in the presence of Barnabas and Titus, so that those two might become credible witnesses, testifying before the accusers that the Apostles themselves didn't think that what Paul preached was objectionable.   

<28.8>

Whenever he says "the reputed authorities," he doesn't mean to deny the high standing of the Apostles; even of himself he says "I, too, am reputed to have the Spirit of God" [1 Corinthians 7:40], and that just shows moderation, rather than denial of having the Spirit.  In the same way here he says "the reputed authorities," referring to the consensus of everyone, including himself.

<28.13>

Another commentator [EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 48.20ff.] says: "Had been running my race" is well said:  Paul had been off to a running start in his Gospel mission.  "Lest I be running," since he was still in the race.

2:3  But not even Titus who was with me, Greek though he was, was required to be circumcised

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.634.50-635.42:]  This means that he was a convert from among the Greeks and therefore uncircumcised.  This was not only what I preached, Paul tells us, but also what I practiced.^[12]  Αnd the Apostles didn't require that Titus, though uncircumcised, be circumcised — which was absolute proof that they didn't condemn what was preached or practiced by Paul.  And much more important than this was the fact that the Apostles weren't forced to order circumcision despite the urging of Paul's opponents, who were privy to all these facts.

<28.25>

2:4a  But through the false brethren who had been smuggled in

Who are these "false brethren"?  And why call them false, when they were only trying themselves to enforce the circumcision that was harmonious with the Apostles' opinion?  The answer is first because enforcement is not the same as tolerating what's already happening.  The enforcer deliberately does something as if it's necessary and prerequisite.  One who doesn't enforce, but simply doesn't hinder anyone who wants to do something, isn't tolerating it as a necessity, but is just conceding what's expedient …  The false brethren were thus not addressing an expediency, but were wanting to cut people off from grace and bring them once again under the yoke of slavery.  So then that's the first difference — a big difference — between what the Apostles and the false brethren were doing.  The second difference is that the Apostles' policy applied only to Judea, where the Torah also held sway, while the false brethren's policy applied everywhere.

<29.4>

[THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 901.46ff.:]^[13]  On the phrase But through the false brethren, some have said that the conjunction "but" is superfluous, because the train of thought is as follows:  Not even Titus, although he was a Greek, was required to be circumcised for the sake of the smuggled-in false brethren, i.e. the ones who wanted compliance with Torah.

2:4b  and were there surreptitiously to spy on our freedom which we have in King Jesus

 [CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.635.49 - 638.58:]  Notice how he portrays it as war by calling it the activity of "spies" — since spies come in for no other reason than to find out what their adversaries have, and thus to pave an easy way for themselves to besiege and destroy.  And that's precisely what those people were trying to do then, since they wanted to drive our freedom in the Messiah back under the old yoke of slavery.  This was why they kept up their surveillance, snooping around to see exactly who were circumcised and who weren't.  Paul indicated their scheming not only with the term "spies," but also by referring to the way they made their surreptitious entrance, slipping in unnoticed.   

<29.20>

2:5a  No, not even for a moment did we yield to their control

Note the elevated, emphatic tone of his language!  He didn't say "to their argument," but "to their control."  Their activity was not to make themselves valuable teachers of something, but to control and enslave.  Therefore, says Paul, we yielded to the Apostles, but to those people not at all.

2:5b  in order that the truth of the Gospel might continue on with you

 — in order, in other words, that what we uttered from the outset through words might be confirmed through actions, namely that the old has passed away;  the new has come into being ; and that if you are in the anointed King, you are a new creation [2 Corinthians 5:17].  And in confirming the truth that the anointed King will be of no use to those who are being circumcised, we yielded not even for a moment.

<29.30>

At that point, because his policy was in direct contradiction to what the Apostles had been practicing, it was likely that some would say, "How can the Apostles now be ordering these things?"  Notice how straightforwardly^[14] he resolves the contradiction:  he doesn't talk about the Apostles' real reason, namely that they'd been approving circumcision for the sake of expediency.  No indeed, if they heard that, they'd be offended!  If you're on the point of gaining some useful benefit from it, you have to turn a blind eye to expediency as a reason.  If the real motive behind current practices were to come out, all would be lost!

<30.3>

Let me be clearer about what I've been saying here.  I'll give an example of this very issue by citing the case of the blessed Paul himself, from the time when he was going to send Timothy as a teacher to the Jews.  He circumcised him first, and sent him in that condition.  He did so in order that Timothy might become fully acceptable to his audience, and in order that, by coming to them after circumcision, he might put an end to circumcision! 

<30.8>

Though Paul himself knew that, as did Timothy, [still Paul didn't tell the disciples.  If they had known the real reason why he had circumcised Timothy]^[15] — i.e. to make an end of circumcision — they wouldn't have listened even to the first words of any speech of Timothy's.  As it was, their ignorance was of enormous benefit to them, because they assumed that Paul had done this as guardian of the Torah, and they received Timothy kindly, along with his teaching.

After receiving, and having been instructed little by little, they stepped away from their old practices … This is why even in this epistle he doesn't mention expediency as his motive, but modifies his discourse, saying

2:6  As for the reputed authorities (it makes no difference to me which ones they were;  God doesn’t look at personal differences)    

Here, far from making a defense on behalf of the Apostles, Paul bears down heavily on the strong^[16] in order to help the weak.  What he says is as follows:  if the Apostles do allow circumcision, they have to answer to God for it, because God won't look at their persons just because they are great, and leaders.  Of course, he didn't say this outright, but indirectly; and he didn't say "whichever they are," but "whichever they were," showing that the remainder of the Apostles had stopped preaching circumcision, seeing that Paul's doctrine had shone its light everywhere.  "Whichever they were," he says, if they preached that way, they'll have to render their account — destined to defend themselves not to humans, but to God.  This Paul says not in uncertainty or in ignorance of the Apostles' identities; no, as I stated earlier, he modifies his discourse in the belief that in so doing, he would do the most good.

<30.32>

And then, lest he be thought to be accusing the Apostles, taking the position of an opponent, and lest, from all this, he create the impression of strife with the Apostles, he immediately set things straight by saying that

2:6b  the reputed authorities … didn't lay any extra burdens on me

I don't know, says Paul, what you're saying, but I do know this clearly, that they weren't opposed to me; instead, they went along with and agreed with me.  He makes that clear when he says, "They gave me their right hands."  But he doesn't say it yet.  He does say that they didn't try to teach him, or correct him, or add anything to what he knew.  They knew, he says, that I had come to consult with them, and that I had come following a revelation of the Spirit.  And though I had an uncircumcised man with me, they didn't, for all that, give me anything more to know than what I knew already, nor did they try to circumcise him.

2:7a  — on the contrary! 

Some say that Paul claims they not only didn't instruct him, but were actually instructed by him.  I myself wouldn't say this; after all, what were they going to learn from him?  Each one of them had already been perfectly taught!  But then, because some were likely to object, "If they approved Paul's doctrine, why didn't they abolish circumcision?  — because if they approved the one, surely  they had to abolish the other?"  Now, on the one hand, Paul thought it would be too presumptuous to respond that they had abolished it (besides provoking an open fight over what had been agreed and conceded); on the other hand, he saw that if he conceded that circumcision had been allowed, he would necessarily be caught in another contradiction, because (so goes the argument) with their approving your doctrine, Paul, and at the same time allowing circumcision, the Apostles would be fighting against themselves!  So what's the solution?  To say that what the Apostles did, they did as a concession to the Jews?  But if he said this, he would undermine the whole foundation of expediency.  For all these reasons, he leaves the issue suspended in ambiguity and moves on with

<31.25>

2:7b—2:9b  on the contrary!  Because they saw that I have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcised, just as Peter is entrusted with the gospel of the circumcised … they gave me and Barnabas their hands in brotherhood

Here he talks not about circumcision and uncircumcision, but about the different populations who are distinguished by these.  At any rate, that is why he has added

2:8  for He who sent Peter on his mission on behalf of the Circumcision also sent me on behalf of the Gentiles

Just as he calls the Gentiles "the uncircumcision," so he also calls the Jews "the circumcision."  From this point on, Paul is demonstrating that he has equal honor with the Apostles — and compares himself not to the rest of them, but to their head.  He shows that each one, including himself, enjoys the same dignity, for he makes bold to speak freely for himself after having established proof of the Apostles' unanimity, and doesn't stop with the Apostles; instead, Paul leads his discourse on to the Messiah, and to the grace given to him by the Anointed One.  He then names the Apostles as witnesses to all this, and says,

<32.10>

2:9a  recognizing the grace that had been given to me,

[— that is, having ascertained the facts I've now given you —]

James and Cephas (Peter) and John … gave me and Barnabas their hands in brotherhood

Do you see how, little by little, he has shown that his mission was approved by both the anointed King and by His Apostles?  Grace would not have been given — would not have been effective — if such a doctrine as Paul's had not been approved by Him.  And where he had to compare himself to someone, Paul mentions only Peter.  But where he had to name witnesses, he mentions the three, and that with a word of praise, naming Cephas and James and John who were reputed to be pillars.  Again, he doesn't say "were reputed to be" in preference to "were;"  instead, he is again citing the opinion of others, declaring that only the great and exceptional, whose names were on everyone's lips, were witnesses to what he was saying.  Those had come to know, through learning the facts, that the Messiah also approved of our doctrine — which was why they extended their hands to me, and not just to me, but to Barnabas as well. 

2:9b  that we should be to the Gentiles what they were to the circumcised  

All too coherent and cogent!  He shows that their interests were his, and that his interests were theirs; Paul’s doctrine, you see, was what both sides were adopting.

<32.28>

 [EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 48.21ff.:]  Giving their hands signifies their agreement with him.  James, says Paul, was at their head, since he was the local leader.  And why does Paul sometimes call Peter "Cephas," and sometimes "Peter"?  It's because the people came to Galatia and created the disturbance were Jews, and Peter's name was "Cephas" in their native tongue.  That's how Paul names him, in order to call him by the same name that the Galatians had heard.

2:10  mentioning only that we should keep the poor in mind, which was exactly what I had also been zealous to do

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.639.21 – 640.8:]  In our preaching, says Paul, we divided up the civilized world.  I took those who were from the Gentiles, and they took the Jews, as it pleased God.  And as to caring for those among the Jews who were poor, I had made contributions of my own to them.  If there had been open hostility and fighting between me and the Apostles, those poor Jews would not have accepted my contributions. — But who are "those poor Jews"?  Many Jewish believers in Palestine had been deprived of all their possessions and had been persecuted from all sides.  Paul alludes to that also in the letter to the Hebrews [10:34] where he says, The fact is that you … accepted with joy the taking of your property.  He mentions those people in the letter to the Thessalonians, too [1 Thess. 2:14] …, indicating through it all that those of the Greeks who became believers were not treated with the same hostility by the rest of the Greeks, as those of the Jews who had become believers were persecuted by their fellow Jews (Jews being the most hard-hearted nation of all).  For that reason, Paul goes to great lengths to see that those Jewish people have the benefit of every attention ... Having thoroughly established the concord and harmony that exists between himself and the Apostles, he is thereafter obliged to give an account of the altercation with Peter that came up for him in Antioch.  Here is how he describes it:

THIRD MAIN TOPIC:  On his altercation with Cephas about salvation in the Faith and not in the Torah.

<33.24>

2:11-12  When Peter came to Antioch, I came into face-to-face opposition to him, because his actions had met with disapproval.  For, before certain people sent by James arrived, he used to eat with Gentiles.  When those people arrived, however, he withdrew and segregated himself, fearing those of the Circumcision.

Many who give this section of the letter a superficial reading believe that Paul is accusing Peter of hypocrisy.  But that's not it, that's not what's happening, forget it!  In fact, we'll find much of the genius of both Peter and Paul embedded here for the benefit of those who are really listening.

<34.2>

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.640.48 - 642.44:]  The Apostles, as I've already stated, tolerated circumcision in Jerusalem:  it wasn't possible to make a break all at once from the Torah.  In Antioch, however, once they had arrived there, they no longer paid attention to anything of the sort, but co-existed with believers from among the Gentiles, with no discrimination — exactly as Peter was doing at that time.  He stopped doing it and pulled himself back, however, because people had come from Jerusalem who were used to his proselytizing the way he did there; he was afraid of shocking them.  He managed in this way to accomplish two tactical maneuvers:  (1) avoidance of scandalizing the visiting Jews, and (2) providing Paul with a logical excuse to criticize him.  You see, if the same Peter who had proselytized with circumcision in Jerusalem was changing his tune in Antioch,^[17] those who came from Judea would have thought that he did it out of fear of Paul, and his Jewish disciples would have condemned him for being too easily swayed.  So a scandal, and no small one, was brewing.  Nevertheless, Peter's removal of himself did not occasion such great suspicion in Paul, who understood everything clearly.  He knew, in fact, the intention behind what was happening.  The result:  Paul rebukes, Peter yields — so that the disciples, having seen their teacher silent in the face of charges against him, may more readily change their own opinion.  You see, if nothing of the sort had happened and Paul had simply given advice to Peter, nothing great would have been achieved.  As it turned out, however, Paul, by seizing the occasion to roundly criticize, instilled awe in Peter's disciples.  Indeed, if Peter had tried to rebut what he was hearing from Paul, one could well blame him for ruining the strategy.  As it was, though, with the one criticizing and the other being silent, the people from Judea were awestruck.  That's why Paul dealt so roughly with Peter.   

<34.27>

Observe, too, with what great precision he's shaped his discourse, allowing the sophisticated reader to see that the words spoken were not words of combat, but of expediency.  When Peter came to Antioch, he says, I came into face-to-face opposition to him, because his actions had met with disapproval.  He didn't say disapproval "by me," but disapproval by the rest.  If it had been he himself who had disapproved, Paul wouldn't have hesitated to say so.  And that "I came into face-to-face opposition" was just theater:  if they'd really been fighting, they wouldn't have criticized each other in front of their disciples — that would have scandalized the disciples beyond measure.  As it turned out, the fight out in the open was a tremendous advantage to them:  just as Paul had yielded to them in Jerusalem, so did these disciples yield in Antioch. 

<35.4>

Now, what was the reason for disapproval?  For, before certain people sent by James arrived (James was the head teacher in Jerusalem), he used to eat with Gentiles.  When those people arrived, however, he withdrew and segregated himself, fearing those of the Circumcision.  He wasn't afraid of being in danger himself; he who had been fearless from the very beginning of his preaching in Jerusalem was by then all the more fearless.  No, he was afraid that these new arrivals might fall away from the Faith.  Even Paul himself tells the Galatians, I'm afraid I've somehow wasted my effort on you  [Galatians 4:11], and again the Corinthians, My  fear is that, just as the serpent … led Eve astray, so your thinking may be led astray  [2 Corinthians 11:3].  Fear of death had no force with Peter or Paul; what really unsettled their souls was fear of losing disciples.

2:13  even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy

Don't worry that he calls the thing "hypocrisy."  As I said before, Paul doesn't want to give away the plan to teach the disciples a lesson.

<35.20>

You see, because they were clinging too much to Torah, he calls what was happening hypocrisy and rebukes it vehemently so as to get rid of their preconceived notions once and for all.  And Peter, listening to what Paul was saying, participated in the charade by pretending to be the offender, so that the disciples would be corrected through criticism directed at him.  The fact is that if Paul had rebuked the disciples from Judea, they would have reacted violently and spat upon him, because they knew almost nothing about him;  as it was, however, seeing their own teacher, while being criticized, [remaining silent,] they couldn't be contemptuous of Paul, [and were] at a loss to respond to what he was saying.^[18] 

2:14a  But when I saw that they were not walking upright by the truth of the Gospel

And don't let this manner of speaking bother you, either.  He's not condemning Peter when he says this.  Instead, he's putting a special spin on his words to make them suitable for those to hear who were about to be changed for the better through the criticism of Peter. 

2:14b  I told Peter in front of everyone  

See how he straightens out the others?  He did it "in front of" the others so they would hear and be awestruck.

2:14c  “If you who are a Jew are living like a Gentile, and not like a Jew, why are you trying to force the Gentiles to practice Judaism?”

And yet it wasn't Gentiles who had been led off together with Peter, but Jews.  Why, Paul, do you charge him with something that didn't happen?  Why not direct your remarks toward those of the Jews who engaged in hypocritical behavior, rather than implicating Gentiles?  And why accuse Peter alone, if the rest of the Jews also joined him in the hypocrisy?  And actually, it was he alone who was keeping himself withdrawn.  That is precisely how Paul wants to present it, making the criticism unexpected.  After all, if he had said that you, Peter, were wrong to observe the Torah's regulations, the people from Judea would have criticized Paul as having been insolent toward their teacher.  As it turns out, however, by accusing Peter on behalf of Paul's own disciples — on behalf of Gentiles, is what I'm saying —, he makes his argument easy to accept;  and not just by doing that, but also by holding criticism back from everyone else and letting it revolve around the Apostle Peter exclusively.  Look, he says "If you who are a Jew live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew —," meanwhile saying (not explicitly, but still saying) to the disciples, "then imitate your teacher, because there he is, a Jew, living like a Gentile."  But of course he doesn't say this out loud; they wouldn't have accepted that advice.  Under the guise of criticism, however, on behalf of Gentile Christians, he makes clear Peter's intention.  Indeed, criticism, when it's not too onerous, can turn out to be especially welcome.  After all, none of the Gentiles could accuse Paul of making a speech on behalf of the Jews.  Peter ensured all of that by his silent admission to the judgment of hypocrisy, so that he could save the Jews from the charge of real hypocrisy.

<36.28> 

The foregoing is what Blessed John says in his Galatians commentary.  In a homily attributed to him, he adds the following to what he had said previously:

[CHRYSOSTOM, Homily In illud " In faciem ei restiti" (On the statement, "I came into face-to-face opposition to him" ), PG 51.383.54 – 384.33:]  Some say, "This was not Peter, first of the Apostles, entrusted by the Master with his sheep!  It was someone else, a worthless nobody!"  What makes them say this?  It’s because Paul says, "Even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy."^[19]  In other words, the expression "even Barnabas" is Paul's indication that Barnabas' behavior is much more surprising than the fact that Peter is carried away.  And Paul indicates this supposedly because he considers Barnabas greater than Peter.  That is of course absurd.  Over and above the idea that Barnabas was greater than Peter, it's absurd because of what really surprised Paul:  Peter's mission was to the Circumcision, whereas Barnabas was preaching, along with Paul, to the Gentiles, and was everywhere coupled with Paul.  That's why Paul is surprised that Barnabas, too, was carried away:  always preaching as Paul's partner, and having nothing in common with Jews, instead teaching among Gentiles — he, too, was carried away. 

<37.12>

That it really is Peter about whom Paul says these things is clear, both from what comes before and from what comes after.  When he says "I came into face-to-face opposition to him," and makes much of that, he's doing no more than indicating that he did not stand in awe of the dignity of Peter's person.  He wouldn't have made so much of it if he'd been talking about someone else when he said, "I came into face-to-face opposition to him."  Again, if it were a different Peter, Peter's withdrawal would not have had the power to draw the rest of the Jews after him through the dignity of his person … 

From all this it's clear that it really was Peter.  If you like, however, we'll also give you the alternative explanation.  Now, what different explanation is that? 

<37.21>

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 51.384.53 – 385.12:]  Peter was eager to set the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem, from James, free from their Jewish observances.  However, if he himself announced his intention, publicly controverting his own doctrine and that of all who had been under him in the past, he would have scandalized his disciples.  Then again, if Paul had tried to extend his doctrine to them, they wouldn't have heeded it, they wouldn't have been able even to listen to it.  Even without that, they already hated him and had been turned against him through his reputation for that sort of thing, and would have hated him all the more if they had heard him giving that advice.  So what happens?  Not a word of criticism for the Jews who came from James; instead, Peter receives the criticism from Paul so that, having been charged by his fellow Apostle, he may thereafter have the right to rebuke his own disciples as well.  Once Peter has been criticized, his disciples have been corrected.  Hence, Paul "came into face-to-face opposition to him." 

<37.35>

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 51.385.43 – 386.58:]  And again, he says "I told Peter in front of everyone."  Peter endures, is silent, and doesn't argue; he knows the intention with which Paul criticizes, and by remaining silent, he's made the whole thing a success.  His silence was a lesson to the Jews to subject themselves no longer to the Torah's regulations:  their teacher (Paul is telling us) would not have remained silent unless he was acknowledging that Paul's criticism was right.  Paul convicts him based on Peter's former behavior, so that the admonition and advice^[20] [may appear to have arisen] not from Paul's opinion but from what Peter has already been judged to have done ... [You can see] Paul's cleverness [not just from this],^[21] but also from the words that follow.  He doesn't say "If you who are a Jew were living like a Gentile," but "are living."  In other words, you hold the same conviction right up to the present.  And Paul didn't ask, "Why are you trying to force the Jews to practice Judaism?” but "Why are you trying to force the Gentiles to practice Judaism?”, so that, under the guise of solicitude for Gentile Christians, he may convince the Jews to turn away from their old habits, because it was not Gentiles, but Jews who had been cloistered with Peter.

<38.15>

…  And so that you may understand that what Paul said was not criticism of Peter, but advice and instruction for the Jews using the tactic of criticizing Peter — listen to the following:

2:15  We who are Jews by birth, and not sinners from among the Gentiles  

From now on, you see, these words are spoken by Paul the teacher.  So the entire speech no longer revolves around Peter, but is communicated to everyone.  If he had come on in a teaching mode from the beginning, the Jews wouldn't have stood for it.  As it was, however, he took his beginning from a critical mode, and had apparently directed appropriate criticism at Peter, as one who was allegedly dragging Gentiles into Torah observances.  From that point, Paul goes off confidently into giving advice, as if that were a perfectly natural follow-up.  You see, in case someone who just heard him say "Why force the Gentiles to practice Judaism?” may think that it's only the Gentiles who are not permitted to practice Judaism, but that the Jews have free rein to do so, he devolves his argument upon the teachers themselves.  What's the point in my speaking of Gentiles or Jews or anyone else?, asks Paul.  It is we who are the teachers — we who are the Apostles!  And it's not only that credential, the credential of teacher and Apostle, that Paul cites, but also the fact that we, the Jews, have been turning away from Torah irremediably, ever since the time of our ancestors.  What excuse, then, could we have for dragging others into Judaism now?

<39.1>

[A comment by THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.904.3ff.:]  Instead of saying "Jews by descent and not converts to Judaism," do you see how subtly he attacks the Jews and thoroughly works his teaching in by saying "Jews by birth, and not sinners from among the Gentiles," then setting forth his very logical reason for quitting Judaism?

2:16a  knowing that a person is not vindicated by the Works of the Torah, but rather through the Faith of Jesus the Anointed One —  we, too, have believed in the anointed King Jesus, that we might be vindicated by reason of the King’s Faith, and not by reason of the Works of the Torah. 

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.643.19-28:]  Notice here, too, how carefully he utters every syllable.  He doesn't say we left Judaism because it was evil, but because it was weak.  If, then, Torah doesn’t offer justification, circumcision is superfluous.  So far, so good.  But he goes on to point out that it is not only superfluous;  it is dangerous — which is something we have to pay special attention to, considering how at the start of this verse he says, "A person is not vindicated by the Works of the Torah."  And he goes on to sound even more ponderous.

<39.17>

Another commentator [SEVERIAN 300.7ff.]:  If no one is justified by the Works, which bring trouble, but everyone is justified by the Faith, where the reward of peace of mind and justification is great, why is it not necessary, asks Paul, to let Torah go and let grace be enough?  There is no justification, he says, from the Works of the Torah, and no justification from the commandments.  The commandment, you see, justifies only if it is heeded, while the Work has always been something very cumbersome.

2:17  But if, while we’re seeking to be vindicated in the anointed King, we ourselves have been caught in sin, does that make the King a minister of sin?

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.643.30 - 36:]  After all, if trust in Him is not enough for justification, we have to go back to embracing the Torah once again.  Since we'd rejected the Torah because of the Christ, and are not justified after that rejection, but are actually condemned, [we'll realize that it was He who] turns out to be responsible [for our condemnation, He for whose sake we re]jected [the Torah and]^[22] defected to the Faith!^[23]

<39.30>

[CHRYSOSTOM PG, 61.644.41 – 645.5:]  Do you see the argument the Judaizers have trumped up?  The Messiah, the source of our justification, they make out to be the source of our sin!  Accordingly, Paul asks "Is the King a minister of sin?" and then renders the argument ridiculous.  He didn't need to contrive anything to refute it; it was enough simply to rule it out by saying "In no way!"  After all, in the face of what is abominably shameful, there's no need for verbal contrivances.  It's enough just to rule it out.

2:18  After all, if what I once demolished, I again build up, I am making myself a lawbreaker.

 The deceivers were wanting to prove that one who doesn't keep the Torah is a law-breaker — … not the Law of the Faith, but that of the Torah itself.  In fact, he says, I haven't broken the Law … What he's saying is this:  the Torah is defunct; this is what we've professed, and this is why we've rejected it and taken refuge in the salvation that comes from the Faith.  Therefore, if we obstinately choose to resurrect that thing, we become lawbreakers, having a mind to serve what God has annulled.

<40.14>

Another commentator [EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 48.26ff.]:  The Church, since it doesn't observe Torah, [doesn't violate Torah, but transcends Torah.  One who says that]^[24] the Torah has been fulfilled and is defunct, and doesn't observe Torah, is not a lawbreaker.  One who once eats what is forbidden by Torah, and then another time does not eat it, is indicating by not eating it the second time that the Torah is valid; he's awaiting its time of return.  So then, since the Torah impends, you yourself have eaten contrary to its regulation, and you're not well spoken of for that.^[25]

Again, another commentator [SEVERIAN 300.12ff.]:  The speech is addressed to Peter:  You, Peter, nullified those things by the decree that was dispatched from all of you to the Antiocheans, and to the whole world.  It's therefore inappropriate to be teaching those things — things you annulled by your own decree — to others, while you stand aloof from caring for those others.

2:19  Through the Law, you see, I died to the Law

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.45.6-18:]^[26]  This has an ambiguous significance.  Either he's talking about the Law of grace — Paul often calls that a Law, as when he says, "The Law of the Spirit of life has set me free" — or he's talking here about the old Law, the Torah, indicating that through that Law he has died to the Law, meaning the Torah itself induced me to regard it no longer.  Therefore, if I were now to hold it in regard, I would also be transgressing it!  And Moses says something like this:  "The Lord God will raise up a prophet for you all like myself, from among your brothers;  you shall heed him" [Deuteronomy 18:15] (speaking of the Anointed One).  In other words, those who don't obey Him are breaking the Law.

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.645.19 - 646.21:]  And we can understand this statement, "Through the Law I died to the Law," yet another way.  You see, the Torah requires that everything written in it be done, and punishes whoever fails to perform.  Surely, then, we've all died to it, because no one has fulfilled it.  And notice how meticulously he manages his battle with Torah:  he hasn't said, "The Torah is dead to me," but rather "I died to the Torah."  This is more or less what he means:  as it's not possible for a dead body to walk by the commands of Torah, so it is with me when I've died by its curse — I'm dead to its word.  So let it stop giving orders to the dead, whom it itself has killed!  And by a death not only physical, but spiritual as well; through spiritual death, it has also brought on physical death.  Paul makes it clear that that's what he means, when he says the following:

2:19a  In order that I may be alive to God, I've been nailed to the cross with the Anointed One ^[27]

<41.17>

You see, after he'd said "I died," he had to explain the cause for his still living, in case someone should ask, "How then are you alive?"  He then explained that the Torah had killed the living man, but the Messiah took the dead man and brought him to life through his own death.  Paul reveals the two sides of this miracle:  Jesus both made the dead man live, and bestowed the favor of life through his death, and that life is what he now says is immortal.  That's what he means by "In order that I may be alive to God, I've been nailed to the cross with the Anointed One."  And how can a living and breathing man be nailed to a cross together with someone?  That the Messiah was crucified, is clear;  how is it that you, Paul, were crucified, and still live?

2:20a  But I live, no longer as me;  it’s the Anointed One who lives in me!

"I've been nailed to the cross with the Anointed One" was Paul's code for baptism, and "But I live, no longer as me" was code for our post-baptismal way of life, through which our bodily members are mortified.  So what is this "It's the Anointed One who lives in me"?  He's saying that nothing under my control happens that the Christ doesn't want to happen.  Likewise, the "death" he talks about isn't death as it's commonly understood, but death to sins; similarly, "life" is the escape from those sins.  It's not possible to live to God any other way than to be made dead to sin.  Therefore, just as the Messiah King underwent physical death, so I underwent death in regard to sin.  I mean, Make your limbs dead to earthly activities — adultery, sexual infidelity, dirty dealing [Colossians 3:5].  And again Paul says, Our old self has been crucified [Romans 6:6], which is what's been accomplished in the bath of baptism.  After baptism, if you remain dead to sin, you are alive to God; but if you resurrect sin, you ruin that sort of life.  Not Paul, though:  dead he remained, throughout.   If therefore I live to God, says he, I live a life unlike the life in Torah; I’ve become dead to Torah, and unable to keep any part of its commands …

<42.9>

Note that he didn't say "I live as myself," but rather "The Messiah lives in me." What manner of man will dare to utter that claim?  Once he'd rendered himself biddable to the Messiah King's command, and had cast away all the stuff of this life, and was doing everything for the King's pleasure, he said not "I live for the Anointed One," but what so greatly surpassed that, "The Anointed One lives in me."

After all, just as when sin has the upper hand, it is sin that is alive as it leads the soul where sin wants to go, so when sin has been put to death, what the Christ wants is accomplished, nor is that sort of life mere human life thereafter, with Him living in us, acting in us, controlling us.  

Another commentator [SEVERIAN 300.15ff.]:^[28]  Torah governs the management and use of what pertains to the body:  eat this, don't eat that; keep the Sabbath; circumcise.  Grace doesn't want you to be valued for those things; to those things, says Paul, I'm dead.  What need do I have of the Torah?  But I live, no longer as me; it’s the Anointed One who lives in me!  When I lived for myself, as me, I was under Torah.  But once the Christ lives in me, He who is no longer under Torah but in heaven at the right hand of the Father, I cannot deny His living in me.

2:20b  The life that I’m now living in the flesh, I’m living in the Faith

I believe, you see, in the Son of God.  If it is the Son of God in whom I have my Faith, then it is at the right hand of the Father, it is in heaven, that my life is governed, whereas the Torah had its jurisdiction among earthly lives.  I am not therefore under the jurisdiction of Torah.

Again, another commentator adds the following [THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.904.9ff.]:  In conducting a baptism they were enacting a  representation of death and resurrection, and so they were said to be themselves crucified together with the Messiah — as if, with Jesus having accepted death on the cross and having risen again, they themselves put themselves symbolically in like circumstances, in hope of someday sharing a like fate in every respect, whenever the time should come for the general resurrection of all people, at the completion of the eon.  So it is that Paul says, I've been nailed to the cross with the Anointed One, without having a single thing in common with the present life, in which it had been necessary for us to be governed in accordance with Torah. 

<43.7>

But I live, no longer as me; it’s the Anointed One who lives in me! — that is, by my living His undying life.  Paul speaks of what will one day actually come to pass as if it had already happened.^[29]

Again, another commentator [EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 49.1ff.]:^[30]  It’s the Anointed One who lives in me:  i.e., He who is not subject to Torah, being, as the Son, above the Law.  As for me, I too am a son through the Son living in me, like the brilliant, clear bodies that receive the sun's radiance.

<43.14>

2:20b-c  The life that I’m now living in the flesh, I’m living in the Faith of the Son of God

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.646.24 – 648.8:]^[31]  What I'm talking about, says Paul, has to do with the life of my mind.  But if you also scrutinize my life as the life of my senses, that, too, proves to have come about through Faith in the Messiah.  After all, as far as my former life style and the Torah were concerned, I'd been deserving of the extreme penalty, and should have perished long ago.  You see, all are guilty and fail to do justice to the glory of God [Romans 3:23].  We were all given that sentence — and in fact all, even if we didn't actually suffer it, were under that sentence — and were awaiting the final blow, with the Torah condemning and God assenting, when the Anointed King came and handed himself over to death, snatching all the rest of us from death.  And so the life that I’m now living in the flesh, I’m living in the Faith:  in other words, I'm alive because of trust in Him.  Look, if that weren't the case, nothing would prevent all of us from being wiped out — that actually happened at the time of the Deluge.  But the advent of the Messiah, which stopped the wrath of God, kept us alive through the Faith.  To realize that that's what Paul is saying, listen to the words that follow after he says, The life that I’m now living in the flesh, I’m living in the Faith.

2:20d  the Faith of the son of God, who loved me and gave himself over for my sake

<43.32>

…Being aware of the inherent desperation in human nature and the ineffably loving care of the Anointed One, and of what He rescued us from and what He bestowed on us, and ignited by love for Him, Paul expresses himself that way.  Look, the prophets used to make God their own, too, though he belonged to all, when they would say over and over, God, my God, attend to me  [Psalm 21:2 LXX]^[32] and again God, my God, early I approach you  [Psalm 62:1 LXX].  Besides, Paul is indicating that each of us owes as much gratitude to God^[33] as if He had come for one's self alone.  And in fact, He wouldn't have refused to show that much stewardship even on behalf of one single person.  So it is:  He has as great a measure of love for each individual as He has for all of humanity.  His sacrifice, then, had been offered on behalf of all creation and was enough for the salvation of all.  On the other hand, it's only believers who've enjoyed the benefit of it.  Nevertheless, the fact that not everyone came to Him didn't deter Him from that great stewardship.  He so loved you, then, that He gave Himself over and lifted you, who had no hope of salvation, up into a life so full and so fine — after all that beneficence, are you running back to the old ways?

<44.17>

Having thus set down succinctly the main points of his reasoned argument, Paul then issues a statement of firm denial:

2:21a  I won’t turn my back on the grace of God  

Let those hear who are still practicing Judaism even now … because those are the ones to whom it's being said.

[EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 49.4ff.:]  I deny that there's a need for provisions of the Torah after the suffering of the Messiah.  If there were, it would mean that grace has no power, that His suffering has no value.

2:21b  if exoneration is through Torah, then the Anointed One died for nothing!

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.648.9 – 649.45]  Is anything worse than such a misconception?  Could anything put them to shame more than those words?  If Torah exonerates, declares Paul, then the death of the Anointed One was entirely unnecessary! … The Prophets labored to bring that death into the world, the Patriarchs foretold it, the angels [were awestruck to behold it … Paul, therefore,]^[34] after pondering how utterly absurd it was if the Galatians were saying, about something of that magnitude and importance, that it was "entirely unnecessary" for it to have happened — and he inferred this from what they were doing — has aimed his severest outburst at them when he says the following:

FOURTH MAIN TOPIC:  How sanctity is through the Faith and not through the Torah.

3:1  O foolish Galatians, whose envious evil eye bewitched you into not obeying the truth?  You, before whose eyes the anointed Jesus was set forth on the cross in your midst!

<45.6>

From this point on, Paul changes over to a new topic.  In the former topics, he demonstrated that he wasn't an Apostle by humans or through humans, and wasn't in need of instruction from the Apostles.  But from this point on, having established himself as a trustworthy teacher, he conducts his discourse with fuller authority, setting up a comparison between the Faith and the Torah.  At the beginning he'd said, I’m amazed at how quickly you’re switching over [1:6]; here he says, O foolish Galatians!  At the beginning he'd struggled to bring his vexation to the light.  Now, however, having completed a defense of all that pertains to him, Paul follows that exposition by giving full vent to his frustration, bringing it out for all to see.  Don't be shocked if he calls them "foolish."  In doing so, he isn't transgressing the Anointed King's law that says not to call your brother "a fool" [Matthew 5:22];  on the contrary, Paul strictly adheres to that law when he does so, because the law doesn't mean simply the one who calls his brother a fool, but the one who calls him a fool for no reason.  You see, when he's convicted them of dislodging the Faith, when he's convicted them of declaring that the Messiah's death is superfluous, it's then that he brings on that censure.  And not even then does he do it the way they deserved; they deserved to be addressed in many worse terms than that!  And come look at how easily he lets them off, once he's struck that blow.  He doesn't say "Who deceived you?" or "Who perverted you?" or "Who confused you?"  Instead, "Whose envious evil eye bewitched you?", thus furnishing the rebuke with a modicum of praise.  His question indicates that their former conduct in the Faith had been worth envying, and that what happened subsequently was the capricious act of a demonic power! He says this not meaning that envy had any power against them of itself, but meaning that those who were teaching such things had come to that point through the evil eye of envy.

<45.29>

3:1b  You, before whose eyes the anointed Jesus was set forth on the cross in your midst!

He says this to show the strength of Faith, which is able to see things even from afar.  And he doesn't say "was crucified," but "was set forth on the cross," indicating that they saw more precisely with the eyes of Faith than some who were actually there.  Of those there were many, of course, who saw the actual event but had none of the fruit of it;  these Galatians, on the other hand, while they hadn't seen it with their own eyes, saw more precisely through the Faith.  Paul says this while simultaneously upbraiding and praising them — praising, because they'd accepted the event with such great conviction;  but upbraiding, because the One whom they'd seen stripped naked for their sake, fixed to a stake, crucified, mocked, spat upon, given vinegar to drink, denounced by thieves, pierced by a spear — all of which Paul signified when he said, "… was set forth on the cross in your midst" — Him they rejected and ran back to the Torah, with no reverence for any of those sufferings.

<46.12> 

But join me in admiring how Paul everywhere ignored the powers of land and sea and sky and all other elements to go on proclaiming the power of the Anointed King, brandishing the cross in every direction. That, after all, was the principal source of his care for us.

3:2  I just want to know from you, did you gain the Spirit from doing the Works of the Torah, or from heeding the Faith?

[Since] (says Paul) [you can't keep up]^[35] with long speeches and aren't willing to look into the scope of His stewardship, I'm ready to convince you through a brief argument and the shortest kind of exposition ... You received, says Paul, the Holy Spirit;  you performed many feats … You worked miracles, as you prophesied and spoke in tongues.  What gave you such mighty powers?  The Torah?  But wait, you hadn't been able to accomplish anything of the sort before!  No, it was the Faith!  How then, after having received such great benefits from the Faith, was it not utter insanity to reject it, and to desert back to the Torah that offered none of those benefits?

<46.27>  

Another commentator:   Having received the Spirit, with the hope of resurrection and immortality, when through grace we'll be beyond all sin — are you subjecting yourselves once again to Torah's imprisonment, like mere mortals?

3:3  Are you that foolish?  Taking your beginning in the Spirit, are you now finished off in the flesh?

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.649.46 – 650.2]  Once again he's railed at them appropriately!  You ought to have been making additional progress, he says, with the passage of time;^[36]  not only did you not improve, you were carried backwards again.  Those with small beginnings ascend to greater things as they move forward, but you who had great beginnings have descended to what belongs to the flesh!  To perform miracles is a matter for the spirit; to be circumcised is a matter for the body.  And you Galatians, after those miracles, have you descended to circumcision?  After having laid your hands on the truth, have you sunk so far as empty rituals?  Also, Paul didn't say "You're finishing in the flesh" but "You're being finished off in the flesh," indicating that the deceivers were taking them like dumb animals and cutting them down,^[37] while they, the victims, exposed themselves to suffering whatever the deceivers desired. 

<47.10>

3:4a  Did you undergo so much to no purpose?

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.650.6 - 653.32:]  This strikes much closer to home than what he'd said before.  Reminding them of their miracles couldn't have stung as badly as recounting their struggles^[38] and endurance of suffering for the Christ's sake.  The deceivers, says Paul, want you to count everything you endured as a loss … Then, so as not to shatter their spirit and weaken their nerve, he wouldn't wait for a denial, but went on:

3:4b  if it really was to no purpose   

If, says Paul, you were willing to come to your senses and recover yourselves, it wouldn't be to no purpose.  In the face of that sentiment of Paul's, what argument do people have who would claim that there's no going back and repenting?  Look, here were these Galatians who had received the Spirit and performed miracles and withstood ten thousand dangers and persecutions for the Messiah's sake, but they fell from grace.  Nevertheless, Paul says to them, if you're willing, you can recover yourselves.

<47.24>

3:5  So the one who kept bringing on the Spirit to you, and putting your powers to work in you, was it from doing the Works of the Torah, or from heeding the Faith?  

Were you, he asks, deemed worthy of such a great gift because of the Faith, or because of the Torah?  Obviously, because of the Faith.  Since, you see, the deceivers were going up and down and around everywhere saying that the Faith has no validity unless you have the Torah in hand, Paul insists the opposite, namely that if you put the Commandments first, the Faith will no longer be of any help.  By the same token, the Faith has its strength when the provisions of Torah are not put first; it was when you were heeding not the Torah, but the Faith, that you would receive the Spirit and accomplish miracles.  Next, since the discussion has been about the Torah, Paul introduces still another topic, a most contentious one:  he brings in Abraham to center stage, quoting, most opportunely and to great advantage, Genesis 15:6:

3:6  just as Abraham "had faith in God, and it was set down to his account as justice"

After all, says Paul, the very wonders that happen by your hands demonstrate the power of the Faith; but if you want, I can convince you by means of the ancient tales.  If, before there was grace, Abraham was justified by faith (though of course he was also busy with works), then we, says Paul, are much more justified.  What harm did it do Abraham not to be under Torah?  None at all!  His faith was sufficient for his justification! … As the Torah had not yet been given at that time, so too now, having been given, it's stopped. 

<48.11>

Next, because they took great pride in having been descended from Abraham,^[39] and feared that, once they gave up the Torah, they would be estranged from kinship with him, Paul once again turns their reasoning on its head and resolves their fear, proving that the Faith makes for an especially close kinship with Abraham — something Paul had also more clearly established in the letter to the Romans.  However, he lays it out no less here when he says the following: 

FIFTH MAIN TOPIC:  How Abraham himself was justified from his Faith, as a model for us.

<48.20>

3:7  Know, then, that the ones who proceed from the Faith are the ones who are children of Abraham

He then backs that statement up with ancient testimony by quoting Genesis 12:3:

3:8  Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles because of the Faith, had the early Good News given to Abraham:  "In thee shall all nations be blessed."

If, therefore, Abraham's "children" are not those who are related to him by blood, but rather those who follow the model of his Faith (in other words, "the nations" that are "in thee"), it's clear that the Gentiles are being brought into that relationship.  And in that case, another major point is being made:  since what had been confusing the Galatians was the misconception that the Torah was more ancient, and that the Faith came after the Torah, Paul refutes that assumption as well, by showing that the Faith was older than the Torah.  He makes this clear from the case of Abraham, who was justified before the Torah was ever there.  Moreover, he shows that even what had come to pass in their day had come to pass in keeping with prophecy:  Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles because of the Faith, had the early Good News given to Abraham.  What does this mean?  Paul is saying that He who gave the Torah, even before giving the Torah, was the One who determined that the Gentiles were to be justified because of the Faith.  And Paul didn't say "had the revelation given," but "had the early Good News given," so that you'd realize that the Patriarch was rejoicing in this sort of justification, and was yearning for it to be fulfilled.

<49.11>

Finally, because yet another fear possessed them — [Scripture said] Cursed be everyone who abides not by all that is written in the scroll of this Torah, to do those things [Deuteronomy 27:26] — the wise and exceedingly skilled Paul relieved them of that fear, too, by turning it around to the contrary and showing that not only are those who let go of Torah not ^[40] accursed, but they are even blessed.  Those, on the other hand, who hold on to it are not only not blessed; they are accursed! 

How does he manage to demonstrate this?  Actually, he'd also shown it before when he had Scripture say to the Patriarch: In thee shall all nations be blessed.  At the time of that declaration, the Torah didn't exist, but the Faith did.  Paul therefore proceeded based on his previous deductions.

3:9  And so those who proceed from the Faith will be blessed together with faithful Abraham

However, so that the Galatians won't turn this argument against him and say, "Of course Abraham was justified from his Faith, because the Torah didn't yet exist, but show me where the Faith justifies after the Torah is in place," he gets to this, and to much more than they're looking for.  He portrays the Faith as not only justifying, but also rendering accursed those who resort to the Torah.

SIXTH MAIN TOPIC:  How the Torah does not justify but indicts.

3:10a  For as many as belong to the Works of the Torah, that many are under a curse

Here, by contrast, we have the negative side of Paul's argument, as yet unproven.  So what's the proof?  The proof comes from the Torah itself:

3:10b – 3:11  "Cursed be everyone who abides not by all that is written in the scroll of this Torah, to do those things" [Deuteronomy 27:26]  Clearly, in the Torah no one is justified with God, because "The just man will live from Faith " [Habakkuk 2:4]

— the point being that all have sinned, and so all are under a curse.  But that's not how Paul puts it, lest he seem to be stating it as his own opinion.^[41]  Instead, he once again cobbles together scriptural testimony for it, testimony that succinctly covers both sides, positive and negative, to the effect that no one has fulfilled the Torah's law, whereby they stood accursed, while the Faith exonerates.  What scripture, then, is the testimony?  It comes from the prophet Habakkuk, who so speaks:  "The just man will live from Faith."

<50.16>

This, you see, is not only demonstrating justification from the Faith;  it also shows that salvation through Torah was impossible.  The fact is, says Paul, since no one really kept the Torah, but instead all were under the curse because of deviating from it, an easy way was devised, the way that proceeded from the Faith.  That in itself is the most obvious sign that no one could be exonerated by proceeding from the Torah.^[42]  After all, the prophet didn't say "The just man will live from Torah," but "from Faith."

3:12  But the Torah does not proceed from Faith:  rather, "The man that doeth those things shall live in them " [Leviticus 18:15]

For it was not only Faith, says Paul, that Torah was demanding, but also Works (ritual requirements), whereas Grace coming from the Faith saves and justifies ... Since, you see, the Torah was powerless to bring man to justice, a powerful remedy was found, the Faith, which through its own means made possible what was impossible for the Torah. 

<50.30> 

If therefore Scripture itself, disregarding salvation through Torah, says that the just man will live from Faith, and Abraham was justified from Faith, it's evident that the strength of Faith is great.  But what is clear is that he who abides by the Torah is accursed, and he who persists in the Faith is just.  But, asks Paul, how do you prove to us that that curse did not stand?  After all, Abraham was before the Torah, and we who were once under the yoke of slavery have made ourselves liable to the curse.  Who is there to lift that curse?  What Paul has already said is enough:  once you've been justified, once you've died to the Torah and undertaken a fresh new life, how could you be liable to the curse?  It's just that Paul is not satisfied with this:  he continues the argument in a different direction, writing thus:

3:13  The Messiah King redeemed us from the curse of the Torah, having become the curse on our behalf — for it is written, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree "

Well, of course the people were liable to quite another curse that says, Cursed be everyone who abides not by all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, because no one had ever fulfilled the whole of the Torah.  But the Messiah exchanged that curse for another curse that goes, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree , because the one who hangs on a tree is accursed, and the one who violates the Torah is accursed.  Since He was going to lift the Torah curse, he had no need to become liable to it, but he did need to take on the other curse.  He took it on in place of the Torah curse, and through it he lifted the Torah curse.  Just as if someone were condemned to die, and some other innocent person were taken off to die on behalf of the condemned,^[43] and so rescued him from the death penalty — that's exactly what the Anointed One [did.  You see, since He wasn't]^[44] subject to the curse for transgressing the Torah, the anointed King accepted the other curse instead of the Torah curse, in order to lift the Torah curse from His people — for he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth [Isaiah 53:9].  Just as by dying, then, he rescued from death those who were destined to die, so also by accepting a curse, he released them from their curse.

3:14a  so that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles     

How does it come to the Gentiles?  In thy seed, it says, shall the Nations be blessed.  "In thy seed" means "in the Anointed One."  If this were said of the Jews, how could it make sense for them, who were liable to the curse because of their transgression, to be the cause of blessing for other peoples?  No one of those who are accursed can share with another a blessing of which he himself is deprived!  It's therefore clear that the whole prophecy is concerned with the Christ, since He was the seed of Abraham, and through Him the Gentiles have been blessed.  That's how the Promise of the Spirit goes forth!  Paul was making that clear when he said,

3:14b  so that we might receive the Promise of the Spirit through the Faith

In other words, it wasn't possible for the gift of the Spirit to come to one who was unclean and recalcitrant.  The Gentiles first are blessed, once the curse has been lifted.  Only then, having been exonerated through the Faith, do they imbibe the Spirit's grace.  Thus the cross has lifted the curse, the Faith has let in justification, and justification has drawn in the gift of the Spirit.

<52.12>

Another commentator:  Moreover, abiding any further by the Torah is unnecessary for us, says Paul, because the Messiah paid on our behalf the debt of penal servitude that was owed to the Torah by humans.  He paid it in full when he laid out what amounted to ransom for us,  buying us out of that slavery and delivering us from the curse that came from the Torah.  How and in what manner?  By having become the curse on our behalf!

                    ****************************************************** ^[45]

V O L U M E   T W O

SEVENTH MAIN TOPIC:  How benefits come not from the Torah, but from the Promise.  Torah is preparation by trial.

3:15  Brothers and sisters, to put it in simple human terms, no one adds or subtracts clauses in an authenticated testament, although it's only the testament of a human

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.653.35-654.52:]  What does "put it in human terms" mean?  It means speak on the basis of human examples.  In other words, having based his discourse on Scripture, on the miracles performed by the Galatians, on the sufferings of the Anointed One, and finally on the Patriarch, Paul now moves into common ordinary experience.  That's always his procedure, so as to sweeten the discourse and make it more acceptable and understandable to those of duller wit.  In the same way, when arguing with the Corinthians, he says, Does anyone pasture a flock and not drink from the milk of the flock?  Does anyone plant a vineyard and not eat of its fruit? [1 Corinthians 9:7].  And again, to the Hebrews he says, A will is a certainty only in the case of death, and is never in effect when the will-maker is still alive [Hebrews 9:17].  God in the Old Testament frequently uses that manner of speaking when He says, for example, Can a woman forget her child? [Isaiah 45:15], and again, Shall the clay say to the potter, What makest thou? [Isaiah 45:9] …  What then does his example here mean for Paul?  It means that the Faith was more ancient, while the Torah was younger and temporary, and given in order to pave the way for the Faith.  Hence he says, Brethren, to put it in simple human terms ...  Earlier having called them "foolish," here he calls them "brethren," drawing them to him and at the same time comforting them.

<53.12>

Although it's only the testament of a human :  in the case of a human, if he's made a will, does anyone dare come and annul it afterward, or add anything (that's what Paul means by "adds or subtracts clauses")?  Far less so in the case of God!  And who was the beneficiary of God's testament?

3:16-18  But to Abraham were spoken the promises, and “to his seed”  [Genesis 15]; it doesn’t say “and to seeds,” referring to a lot of people, but referring only to one:  And to thy seed, that is the Messiah.

And I tell you this regarding an authenticated testament from God to the Anointed One:  a Torah that came into existence four hundred thirty years later does not cancel it to make the Promise null and void.

For if the inheritance is from the Torah, it is no longer from a promise; but God had bestowed his favor on Abraham through a Promise.

There you have it.  God spoke with Abraham and made His testament for the blessings to come to the Gentiles through Abraham's seed.  So how can the Torah overturn those blessings?

<53.26>

However, for the reason that the "human testament" example didn't entirely serve to support Paul's underlying message, he also used the preliminary disclaimer that he was putting it "in simple human terms," giving notice that his attention had in no way been diverted away from the example and toward the magnificence of God.^[46]  Have a fresh look at the example:  it had been promised to Abraham that the Gentiles were to be blessed through his seed.  "His seed," according to the flesh, is the Christ.  The Torah came four hundred thirty years later.  Now, if it's the Torah that bestows those blessings, bestows that Life and that exoneration, then the former Promise is null and void.  So then, no one can render a mortal man's will null and void, but God's own testament can be rendered null and void after 430 years?  If it was that testament that made the Promise, but now doesn't deliver the benefits, and instead something different delivers the benefits, then that former testament is rubbish.  Now tell me, does that make any sense?

<54.4>

3:19a  So for what reason did God give the Torah? ^[47]  Because of the transgressions

— so says Paul, and he's not making a pointless remark here.  Do you see how he covers all the angles, as if he had ten thousand eyes?  After having elevated the Faith and shown it to be the elder, now, so that no one can think that the Torah was superfluous, he restores its part as well, indicating that it was not given in vain, but for a very useful purpose — because of transgressions — meaning so that it wouldn't be possible for the Jews to carry on with impunity and slip into the worst sort of wickedness.  Instead, the Torah would bring pressure upon them like a bit and bridle, educating and disciplining them, preventing them from violating if not all, then at least some of the commandments.  There was, accordingly, no small profit in the Torah.  But until when?

3:19b  until the seed should come to the One it had been promised to

— speaking of the Messiah.  So if the Torah has only been given pending the coming of the Messiah, are you prolonging it even beyond that time?^[48]

[EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 49.7-10]:^[49]  The Torah came into existence 430 years later — not later than the Exodus from Egypt, but from that Promise to Abraham as a starting-point.  Thus, you who are determined to argue with the Church about the original tribal ancestors, those ancestors are to be dated 120 years later than the Faith.

[THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.903.22-41]:  The words addressed to Abraham, says Paul, are the words of the prophecy.  The Torah demands right conduct, and gives a reward for that;  if that's all we're looking for from Torah, the Promise is superfluous, because it's our labor, and not God's promise, that earns the reward.  But if the Promise has been accomplished, manifesting the favor of the One who made it, it is not then the fulfillment of the Torah, but God's pledge to welcome us to a share in the blessing.  What is proclaimed for "his seed" we find thus absolutely and completely fulfilled in the Christ:  He was "his seed" by birth, like the rest who derive their lineage from Abraham.  But we believe in Him, and at the same time we claim Abraham as our father.  In that way we receive our share of the blessing.  In the end, we find "to his seed," which was proclaimed for One, capable of being understood collectively, as for many — in short, for all who derive their lineage from that source — but properly fulfilled, given the nature of the Promise, in the Messiah.

<55.3>

Another commentator:^[50]

3:19a  What, then, is the Torah?  It was something added on to take care of transgressions

This is to be read as a rhetorical question:  "But, you may ask, what's the need for the Torah?"  Even though grace and the Promise are necessarily superior, "it was added on to take care of transgressions" —

3:19b  until the seed should come to the One it had been promised to

That phrase is parenthetical.  The sequence is:  "What then?  The Torah was added on to take care of transgressions; it was drawn up through an angel acting in the hand of an intermediary " [3:19c] — so that it might be drawn up as something meant for the Law.^[51]

<55.17>

And in fact, as another commentator says [SEVERIAN 301.1-11]:  The Torah was becoming more of a burden, which is why it's been called a "death service."   How, asks Paul, did it come about that the Torah was added on to take care of transgressions?.  Briefly, the answer is something like this:  Before Torah, the human mind, following the flesh, was enslaved to sin and devoted to evil.  After the Torah had been given, the mind was disciplined, but the flesh was still under sin's control.  When a person doesn't recognize sin for what it is, he pursues impiety as if it were piety and pays more energetic attention to it.  But the person who recognizes evil at least benefits from being aware that he transgresses, and conceives a desire to submit to God.  This is why the Torah, with its life-giving potential, was given.  That's what Paul says, instead of saying that, if the Torah was given, it was not given in accord with God's promises.  But of course the Torah was not always able to prevail.

<55.25>

[THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.903.42-52:]  If power were inherent in Torah such that those who were governed by it could be justified and attain eternal life as well, the Torah would undermine the Promise by providing justification all by itself, instead of the Promise providing justification.  But the reality is just the opposite:  Torah prohibits sin, but is powerless to rescue those who fall into it through the weakness of human nature.  Torah therefore effectively exposes our feebleness, or rather our complete impotence, with regard to justification, and necessarily demonstrates our need for the Messiah's grace.

3:19c  drawn up through angels acting in the hand of an intermediary 

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.654.53-57:]  Either Paul is calling the priests "angels," or he's saying that actual angels oversaw the lawgiving.  He's saying that the Christ is the intermediary here, indicating that He Himself gave the Torah long ago.  

Another commentator [EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 49.11-14]:^[52]  Paul says that the lawgiving was "through angels acting in the hand of an intermediary," meaning that it was angels who acted as intermediaries for the giving of the Torah, but God made the Promise himself with his own voice, so that we might hear it from Him — the Torah being something He gave not through Himself, but delegated through angelic intermediaries. 

3:20  But there is no such thing as an intermediary for just one individual.  Yet God is one individual

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.655.1-60:]  What would the heretics say about this!  If their idea of a single true God does not allow the Son to be a true God, then He is also not allowed to be God when Paul says "God is one individual."  If, however, when the Father is called one God, the Son is also God, it's obvious that, when the Father is called the only true God, the Son is also true God.  But "intermediary" means that an intermediary stands between two entities.  Whose intermediary was the Christ?  Obviously, He was the intermediary between humans and God!  Do you see how Paul demonstrates that it was the Anointed One Himself who gave the Torah?  Therefore, if He himself gave it, then it would be up to Him also to revoke it!

<56.20>

3:21a  So is the Torah contrary to God’s promises? 

You see, if the promises and the blessings have been given in the seed of Abraham, but the Torah brings in a curse, it is contrary to God's promises.  How does Paul solve the contradiction?  He first rules it out with the words, In no way! [3:21b]. Then he goes on to set up his argument by saying,

3:21c  If a Torah had been given that was capable of giving life, then exoneration would in fact have come from the Torah.

If, says Paul, we had^[53] hope for life in the Torah, and if it were itself the confirmation of our salvation, you might well be right to say that it conflicts with the promises, provided that you are saved^[54] owing to the Faith, even though Torah renders people accursed.  With the Faith coming and absolving everything, you'd suffer no harm.  If, on the other hand, the Torah has been given to cloister everybody — in other words, to put people under surveillance and teach them what their own shortcomings are, then not only does it not prevent you from attaining the Promise, it actually works with you to attain it.  That must be what Paul meant when he said,

3:22  But scripture lumped everything together under the category of “sin,” in order that the Promise that comes from the Faith of Jesus the Messiah King might be granted to those who believe.

Since, after all, the Jews were unaware of their own sins, and being unaware were not looking for forgiveness, He gave the Torah as a means of assessing their injuries so that they might yearn for a physician … Did you notice that the

Torah was not only not given^[55] contrary to the promises? … In fact, if the Torah had not been given, everyone would have been shipwrecked on evil, and there would not have been a single Jew to hear the anointed King.  As it turned out, once it had been given — once it had trained in the relevant virtue everyone who was heeding it, and had persuaded everyone to know their own sins — it made them more eager to look for the Messiah.  At any rate, those who failed to believe in Him did so from not recognizing their own sins.  Paul makes this clear when he says, For they’re ignorant of God’s justice.  Trying to set up their own justice, they haven’t submitted themselves to God’s justice [Romans 10.3]. 

3:23  Before the Faith came, we were living in a fortress of Torah, cloistered together pending the revelation of the Faith that was to come

Did you see how clearly he set forth what we've stated?  After all, by "living in a fortress" and "cloistered together" he means precisely the safety that had been forged from the Torah's commands.

<57.25>

A different commentator [EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 49.15-19]:  I'm talking now (says Paul) about Torah as an antecedent.  I'm not disregarding the fact that the Promise came first, but pointing out that the Torah was useful to the Galatians, as well, in its time, but then not useful after the fulfillment.  We were under protective custody of the Torah before the coming of the Faith; Torah was attached as an accessory along the way from the Promise to the Faith's actual arrival.

[THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.905.6-17:]  We need to keep this in mind:  Paul is giving a description of conditions under the Messiah King based on what they're most likely to be.  The complete revelation of the renewal authored by Jesus is manifested to us only upon the dawn of that reality.  Paul calls^[56] it the "Faith" because we've not yet experienced that reality, though in the meantime we have faith in it.  And he calls it the "Promise" as if we've already gotten God's pledge regarding that reality.  Finally, his use of the term "Grace" (or "Favor") is especially suitable to describe those benefits, since they're given as God's gift, free and clear — not arising from any merit of ours, but from His own munificence.  Paul compares the Torah to all those benefits, and he's right to do so!

Another commentator [SEVERIAN 301.12-14]:  Even if the Torah fixed nothing else, at least it was promoting a knowledge of God, and knowledge of God was what prepared one for receiving grace.

3:24  So the Torah had become our tutor on the way toward the Messiah, so that our justification might come from the Faith

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.656.3ff.:]  A "tutor" is not opposed to a teacher;  he even cooperates with him by rescuing the young student from every wrong, and by sparing no pains to get him ready for receiving the schoolmaster's teaching.  But after the teaching has become second nature to the student, the tutor steps aside.  For that reason Paul says,

3:25a  Now that the Faith has come

— the Faith that leads to a person's fulfillment as a human being

3:25b-3:26  we are no longer under a tutor, for in King Jesus you are all sons of God through the Faith

<58.21>

[THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.905.18-21:]  Paul says "sons of God" as an equivalent to "perfected" (or "fulfilled").  The expression "sons of God" makes a logical contrast with "under a tutor," since a "son of God" is found wanting in no respect with regard to perfection.    

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.656.28-61:]  Good Lord, look at the power of the Faith!  Look at how Paul reveals it as he continues his discourse!  Previously, he showed how it made us children of the Patriarch:  know, says Paul, that those who are of the Faith are the sons of Abraham.  But now, Paul discloses that we are also children of God!  He then goes on to tell the manner of the adoption:

3:27  for as many of you as have been baptized into the Messiah King, you have put on the Messiah King

And why was it that he didn't just say, "As many of you as have been baptized into the Messiah King, you have been born of God"?  That would have been consistent with his showing that we were children of God.  But the way he did put it is so much more startling!  You see, if the anointed King is the Son of God, and you've "put Him on," with the Son in yourself, with you transformed into His likeness, you've been brought into one and the same family, one and the same kind! …

<59.4>

3:28  There is no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, no male, no female;  for you are all one in the anointed King Jesus 

Having said "You have put on the Messiah King," Paul finds his statement insufficient; he expounds on it more deeply, going beyond that sort of intermingling and saying that "you are all one in the anointed Jesus."  In other words, you have, all of you, one shape, one character, that of the anointed King!  What could be more shocking than those words?  One who was just now a Greek, a Jew, a slave, is going around in the form not of an angel or even an archangel, but in the form of the Lord of All, manifesting in himself the Messiah King!

Another commentator [SEVERIAN 301.15-22]:  Adherence to the Torah, says Paul, doesn't make Jewish converts better than Gentile converts;  rather, the power of baptism that enables "putting on the Christ" makes grace a gift shared by all alike — foreigners, Greeks, Jews, female, and male.  Paul didn’t simply intermix female with male (as one person has tried to find in the text^[57] of the above-mentioned verse);  instead, he says that if baptism brings such opposites as male and female together into one and the same grace, how much more so would it bring Greek and Jew together!

Another commentator on the same verse says the following [THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.905.22-47]:  For all people, Adam is the origin of human life as we know it;  from a biological perspective, we're all one person:  each of us in fact occupies the position of a part, as it were, with regard to the common whole.  Likewise, the Messiah is the origin of the life to come; every one of us who has a share, with Him, in the resurrection and the eternal life that follows that resurrection, becomes one, as it were, with regard to Him, and occupies, through being in the same situation, the position of a member with regard to the whole that's common to each and every one of us.  In the life to come, then, there's no perception of either male or female.  In fact, there's no marrying or being given in marriage.  And there's no Jew or Greek:  circumcision has no place in eternal life; there’s no distinguishing the circumcised from the uncircumcised.  There's no slave, no free person:  all disparity of circumstances has been banished. 

<60.1>

Now then, seeing that through baptism we symbolically anticipate joining that number,^[58] Paul says this:

3:29  And if you are of the anointed King, then you are the seed of Abraham, and his heirs according to the Promise

If you all are, in fact, the body of the Anointed One (because of the rebirth of baptism with its symbolic anticipation of your coming likeness to Him), and if the Anointed One is the seed of Abraham, then you who are His body must also be the seed of the Patriarch, whose seed the Messiah also is.  Hence, you are also the proper heirs to the Promise!

You've seen how he's demonstrated, once and for all, what he was saying above about the seed — that the blessings are gifts given^[59] to it and to its seed in turn.

EIGHTH MAIN TOPIC:  How those who were subject to Torah were under the sway of the temporal.

4:1-3  But I am saying that, as long as the heir is a child, it is not different from a slave, though it be master of all.  No, it is subject to custodians and curators until the time fixed by its father.  So we, too, when we were children, were enslaved to elementary principles of the world     

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.657.9-20]  "Child" here refers not to age, but to intellectual ability.  Paul indicates that God had from the beginning wanted to bestow these favors, but since we still persisted in a rather childish state, He put us away to be under the discipline of those elemental divisions of the cosmos, the lunar cycles and the phases of the moon (Sabbaths) — our days being measured by the movements of the sun and moon.  So if the deceivers are trying to bring you under Torah even now, they're doing nothing but taking you backwards at the very time of your achieved maturity.  Do you realize what the religious observation of days really does?  It puts your Lord and Master, the Ruler of All, in the position of a mere administrator!

<60.28>    

Another commentator [THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.905.48-908.8]:  The Apostle was ascribing virtuous behavior to our true essence, which is manifested in love of God and neighbor.  The perversion of that behavior, through those who behave in the opposite way, destroys its substance.  We have therefore been put under custodians and curators so that their constant supervision may always bring us to be mindful of the God who has given us Laws.  In that way we live more temperate lives, without losing sight of the true essence with which we've been endowed — until the perfection comes that will then prevail, and that will afford us the certain and complete realization of our true essence.  Only then will we be able to keep safe our paternal heritage!

<61.8>

4:4-5  but when the fullness of time arrived, God sent out from Himself His Son, born of a woman, born under Torah, that He might redeem those under Torah, that we might receive our adoption as legitimate heirs

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.657.24-46:]  Here Paul mentions two things that the Incarnation caused and inaugurated:  the rescuing from what was bad, and the bestowing of what was good.  No one but the Son alone could have accomplished either.  What were those benefits?  First, our escape once and for all from the curse of the Torah, and second, our adoption as God's children:  that He might redeem those under Torah, writes Paul, and that we might receive our adoption as legitimate heirs.  Rightly does he say "receive as legitimate heirs," pointing out that it was something owed:  it had been promised from the beginning; Paul himself alluded, in many passages, to the promises made to Abraham in that regard.  And what, according to him, makes it clear that we've become God's children?  Paul has mentioned one way, the fact that we've put on the Christ, who is God's Son.  He tells us another way as well, the fact that we've received the Spirit of adopted sonship … otherwise, we wouldn't have been able to call God "father," unless we'd first been established as his sons.  If, then, grace made us free instead of slave, adults instead of children, heirs and sons instead of aliens, tell me how it's not absurd and utterly insane to throw it away and return to what you'd left behind! 

Another commentator [THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.908.9-18]:  The performing of miracles then began to follow upon the gift of the Spirit, which was reasonably unambiguous proof that the Spirit had been given.  After that, they began to believe that they had also partaken of the adoption.  At this point Paul, relying on what was strong in his argument, since that had been taken^[60] from facts and from what the Galatians considered unambiguous, makes bold to say,                     

4:7  So you are no longer a slave, but a son and heir of God through the Anointed One

 — therefore, from now on, you have not a single thing in common with those who live under Torah.

<62.2>

4:8-9  But in the days when you didn’t know God, you were enslaved to gods that by nature don’t exist;  now, however, that you know God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn once again to those impotent and impoverished elements that you’re willing to serve as slaves all over again?

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.657.52 - 658.9:]  Turning now to address believers from the Gentile side, Paul claims that holding onto an observance of days of the month is also the same sort of thing as idolatry, and carries a greater penalty.  But now he calls the elements "gods not by nature," wanting to bring those things themselves into high relief and to throw the Galatians into even greater anxiety.  What he's saying goes something like this:  In those days when you were in the dark and lived your lives in error, you used to be dragged through the dirt; but now that you've known God, or rather been known by Him, tell me how you're not going to bring a greater and more unbearable punishment upon yourselves as you catch the same disease again, after having been so wonderfully cured of it?  You know, it wasn't through your own efforts that you found God:  it was He himself who drew you to Him while you were living in error!  Paul goes on to call the "elements" impotent and impoverished because of their lack of the slightest ability to lead to the benefits he's talking about. 

Another commentator [SEVERIAN 301.23-28]:  Paul now wants to show that, after the coming of grace, even if you think it's right to keep the Sabbath, the new moons, and the festivals, it's just as if you were idolizing the^[61] elements that you used to worship when you were a Gentile, when you were enslaved in other respects as well.  And you don't keep the Torah; that’s finished.  When Paul called the elements "impoverished elements," he wasn't impugning them for being wicked, but for being unable to be bountiful and sufficient for a pious life.

<62.28>

Again, another commentator says the following [EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 49.20 – 50.35]:  [On Galatians 4:4-5:] God sent out from Himself His Son:  Paul was asserting true sonship when he used the definite article in Greek to indicate "His own Son."  Born of a woman:  As it was a woman who'd first brought sin into the world, so it was one born of a woman who saved the world.  And since the Torah had been given without the capacity for preserving life, the savior had been born "under Torah" with the ability to heal.  By "elements" Paul means "Torah regulations." 

If you're looking for further comment from the same person:  That He might redeem those under Torah, that we might receive our adoption as legitimate heirs  refers to the adoption that had already been reserved through the promises, but in the meantime held back while Torah was in effect and the time periods had not yet run their course.  But in the fullness of time, God sent out from Himself His Son for whom the promises were being kept in reserve.  So if you call God "Father," it's obviously because you've become His son, and the Spirit bears you witness.  And if you're a son, then you're also God's heir through the Anointed One, meaning as a result of grace rather than of birth.

You Galatians!  In the days when you didn’t know God, you were enslaved to gods that by nature don’t exist, the idols; how is it that you turn once again to those weak and impoverished elements?^[62]  How is it possible for a Galatian who is a pagan^[63] to turn to elementary Torah regulations that had never been a part of his background?  Let's first find out which "impoverished elements" Paul is talking about, because of which you all are willing to go back to slavery again.   If you listen to him when he says (above), In the days when you didn’t know God, you were enslaved to gods that by nature don’t exist, it's clear that you're hearing about paganism.  Or rather you are known by God — how is it that you turn once again to what is impotent?  Again you suppose that you're being accused of idolatry.  "Turn again to" means run back to those things from which you've emerged.  Isn't turning to the impotent and impoverished, according to this train of thought, considered to be what a pagan does?  Now let’s see what the words that follow — that you’re willing to serve as slaves all over again — mean, because they explain "turn again to":

4:10-11  You’re still keeping their holidays and months and seasons and years!

I’m afraid that maybe I’ve wasted effort on you 

If they started with paganism, how do they come to Judaism?  Nevertheless, both things happened to Paul's Galatians, and he applies remedies to both of them.  Granted, he says, that you had once been ignorant of God; but now that you know Him, or rather are known by Him, how can you be turning to the Torah, which even those who used to have it wouldn't keep?  And that was thenceforth the position of the Torah:  in the same way that Paul depicts the Galatians' erstwhile paganism, he depicts the backsliding to the Torah of those who were starting to Judaize. 

<64.1>

 Another commentator [CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.658.11-43]:  From this it's clear that the deceivers were preaching not only circumcision to the Galatians, but also festivals and phases of the moon.  I’m afraid I’ve somehow wasted effort on you, as if to say "Bear in mind the efforts and pains I went through for you.  Don't tell me all that sweat was useless!"  When Paul added "I'm afraid" and "maybe," it was a call to them to be worried, and at the same time to have healthier hopes, because he wasn't saying he'd wasted effort actually, but only "maybe."  It's within your grasp, Galatians, to fix everything and return to your former serenity.  And then, as if reaching out a hand to victims of a storm, Paul brings his own person into view, saying

4:12b  Become like me, because I, too, am like you

That was for those who were coming from the Jewish side.  By saying that, he was trying to convince them to reject the old ways:  even if you hadn't had anyone else to be your model, it would have been enough for you to look to myself alone to appreciate this change, and to make it easy for you to take heart! … You're well aware, says Paul, how I used to hang onto Judaism for dear life, and how, with even greater vehemence, I rejected it after that.  Paul strengthens the argument by putting the rejection of Judaism last, because most people, no matter how many and how convincing they may find all the arguments, are more attracted to arguments from one of their own; and when they see someone else engaging in the same practices as theirs, they have a tendency towards doing the same things as he does.

<64.21>

Another commentator [EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 50.36 - 51.4]:  The fact is that you here are not a pagan, nor are those there Jews; but since those people were practicing Judaism, and Paul himself came out of Judaism, he says,

4:12a  I beg of you, brethren, 

In desperation he begs, in pain he pleads.  He calls them "brethren," banishing, through the familial connection implied in that address, all suspicion of treacherous intent — because if he were intending one thing, but telling them something different, he would have been an enemy, and a treacherous one at that.

[SEVERIAN 302.1:]  Don't think there's been any other complaint I've had against you, and for which I'm chastising you now.

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.659.3-39:]  While showing them that his words were not written in hate or hostility, Paul reminds them of the love that they had demonstrated for him, and accompanies his defense with praises.  Hence he says I beg of you …

4:12c-14a  You did me no wrong;  you knew that I evangelized you in the course of a physical affliction, and you didn't despise my trial in that flesh of mine ^[64]

Not only, he says, did you not do me wrong; you even showed much untold kindness in your treatment of me.  As one who benefited from such intensive care, it would be impossible for me to have an unkind motive for delivering this criticism of mine.  If, therefore, I'm not doing it just to cause you trouble, that leaves my affection^[65] and solicitude for you as motives … I was hounded, says Paul, I was beaten up, I was dying ten thousand deaths as I preached to you, and in spite of all that you weren't contemptuous of me — that's what Paul means with you didn't despise my trial in that flesh of mine,

4:14b you didn't spit on it  

Nevertheless, he says, none of that proved a stumbling-block for you, and you didn't spit on the suffering and persecution (which is what he's calling his "affliction" and "trial").

<65.13>

Eusebius cited a different text^[66] with this reading:  And you didn't despise the trial that was given you in that affliction of mine, and comments as follows [EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 51.5-9]:  I (says Paul) was enduring those things, while you were being examined and tested to see if you were in fact following me and the word I preached as you witnessed me in those perils.  That suffering of mine and that persecution, Galatians, were your trial. 

4:14c  but you accepted me as an angel of God   

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.659.40 – 660.4:]  It doesn't make sense — to accept him as an angel of God when he's being persecuted and expelled, but not to accept him when he's entreating them to do the right thing!

4:15  So what was it, that blessed state of yours? ^[67] — because I swear to you, if you could have, you would have dug your eyes out and given them to me!  Has it come to this, that I’ve become your enemy just by telling you the truth?

Who, says Paul, deceived you and convinced you to adopt a different attitude toward us? ^[68]  Aren't you the ones who treated and revered us, and thought us more precious than your eyes?  So what happened?  What brought out the hostility, the suspicion?  Was it that I was speaking the truth to you?  Well, for that I should be more honored and revered!  And, really, I know of no reason for your attitude, says Paul, other than the fact of my telling you what was true.  And notice with how much humility Paul defends himself!  He proves, not from the picture he painted of them, but from the picture they painted of him, that his words could not possibly have been written from unkind motives.  For example, he doesn't say, How is it conceivable that you requite the one who was honored by you, who was received like an angel, with just the opposite treatment now?

<66.6> 

[THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.908.19-21:]  So he says here "What was your blessed state?" instead of "Where is your blessed state?"  It's dead, ruined!  Paul does well not to authenticate it, but to allude to it through a question.

4:17  They're envious of you, but not in a good sense.  They want to cut you off, and make you envious of them 

 [CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.660.6-26:]  There's the good sort of envy, when a person is inspired by envy to emulate excellence; but there's also the mean sort, when a person is so envious that he tries to divert someone else from excellence who's on the point of achieving it.  And that, in fact, is what those people are now attempting.  Their desire is to divert you from your perfect knowledge, and to lead you into their mutilated and spurious knowledge — for no other reason than to establish themselves in the position of teachers, and to put you, who are superior to them, in the position of disciples.  That's what Paul meant when he wrote to make you envious of them.  I, on the other hand (says he) want the contrary — that you become models and examples of people who are more perfect — which was in fact the case when I was with you!  Paul goes on to say,

4:18  Of course, it’s always good to be envied in a good cause — and not just while I’m there with you  

And in fact he's hinting here that his [absence had been the cause of these problems, and that true blessedness]^[69] consists in the disciples keeping the proper outlook not only when the teacher is there, but also when he's absent.

But since these Galatians had not yet arrived at that level of perfection, he does everything he can to get them there.

Another commentator [SEVERIAN 302.8-16]:  On So what was it, that blessed state of yours? :  Paul put it that way instead of saying, "There was no such thing," or saying it like this: "Either you keep to the Torah, or you live by the Faith!"  Then he said that those people are wanting not to emulate^[70] you, and so gain the perfection of the Faith by letting go of Torah, but they want you yourselves to be emulating them.  I say these things (Paul continues) not out of ill will for them — would that they too were perfected with the benefit of the Faith, and that there were no obstacle to their being envied, and to our emulating them.  As for yourselves, then, practice the sort of things that make you enviable, so that everybody emulates you — and don't be like that only when I come, out of regard for me, but keep yourselves straight even when I'm not there.   

4:19  Oh my babies, for whom I’m once more in labor, until the Anointed One takes shape in you!

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.660.29-45:]  Paul mimes a mother trembling over her offspring.  Did you note the desperation, so fitting for an Apostle?  You've ruined the picture, he says.  You've lost the family resemblance, changed its form!  You need another rebirth, a reshaping.  All the same, I'm calling you my children,^[71] though aborted, untimely born!  Of course, Paul doesn't actually say that — quite the contrary.  He's merciful, doesn't want to hurt them, doesn't want to inflict wounds upon wounds.  Our blessed Paul is like the wiser doctors who don’t try to cure all at once those who are afflicted with a chronic disease, but instead apply treatment at intervals so as not to lose patients with weak constitutions.  And in fact the greater his affection was for them, the sharper now were his labor pains, sharper than physical pains; the Galatians' error was no ordinary error.

<67.18>

[THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.908.22-26:]  Paul says Once more [Gal. 4:19] so as to remind them of his former labor pains.  His Until the Anointed One takes shape in you is an expression of emotional vehemence, and doesn't mean he knows at what point his labor pains will stop. 

4:20a  I wish I were there with you now, and altering my words  

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.660.51-57:]  Paul isn't satisfied with words;  he yearns to be with them as well.  Such is love.  For what purpose does he seek to be with them?  So as to "alter my words," says he — to instigate mourning and tears and to have everyone brought into the lament!  It's not possible in a letter to show weeping and lamentation.  This is why he so ardently longs to be there.

Another commentator [EUSEBIUS OF EMESA 51.10-17]:  Because Paul happened to be imprisoned, in chains, he says I wish I were there with you now, and altering my words, that is, preaching to you now the very things that the trouble-makers say I'm preaching elsewhere, namely that you have to get circumcised and to adhere to the Torah.  Tell me then, if you, who yourselves received my doctrine on those issues, now heard the opposite, wouldn't you think my doctrine to be nothing but trivial pretense? — because, you see, I'm amazed if, after hearing my doctrine, you suspect me of having one thing in my mind, but of having preached quite another thing to you who paid me so much honor.

 4:20b  because I’m at a loss with you

[CHRYSOSTOM,^[72] PG 61.660.58 - 661.31:]  I just don't know what to say, says Paul.  I can't figure out how it can be that people who had climbed that heavenly peak, with all the perils you endured for the Faith and the miracles you displayed through the Faith, have now suddenly been brought down this way to such a shabby state that you're dragged into circumcision and Sabbaths and into clinging to people who convince you to practice Judaism … Then, once Paul has finished his lament, softened their attitude, and drawn them closer, he returns to the battle, putting his more important point in the front lines, proving that Torah itself doesn't want itself to be kept.  Previously, he had brought on Abraham as a paradigm; but now he brings on the Torah exhorting us not to keep it, but rather to withdraw from it!  And this was his strongest argument.

<68.19>

[THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.908.27-34:]  It's wonderful the way Paul addresses them by aiming his words now this way, now that — and in fact, through it all, the Apostle obviously receives their ongoing reversals with fury over what has happened, directing angry words now at these, and now at those, all the while grieving as if for lost children.  And in general, if you read them carefully, you'll discover a great variety of emotion in Paul's writings.

NINTH MAIN TOPIC:  How those who are prefigured in the free wife of Abraham, and in his legitimate offspring, are not to be enslaved to the Torah.

4:21a  Tell me, you who desire to be under Torah, [aren't you listening to the Torah? ]

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.661.36 – 662.25:]  "You who desire" is well said, because the problem arose not from a natural sequence of events, but from the troublesome contentiousness of those people.  And here he calls the Book of Creation the "Torah" ("the Law"), as he does often, signifying with that name the entire Old Testament.

4:22b  [For it is written] that Abraham had two sons, one from a maidservant and one from a free woman

Once more he goes back to Abraham, since the Patriarch's glory among the Jews was great.  He points to that glory because the scriptural paradigms derive their origin from it, and today's realities were prefigured in Abraham.  Paul had demonstrated earlier that the Galatians were sons of Abraham.  Since the Patriarch's sons were not on the same level of worth — the one was born of a slave, and the other of a free and high-born woman — Paul shows that the Galatians are not just Abraham's sons, but sons like his free and high-born son:  such is the great power of Faith.

4:23  but the one from the maidservant had been begotten according to the flesh;  while the one from the free woman had been begotten through the Promise

Since he'd been saying that Faith is our link to Abraham, and it seemed incredible to his audience that those who were not born of Abraham should be his sons, Paul shows that this paradox was something that had come from above.

<69.15>

Isaac, you see, whose nativity was not in the normal course of nature, nor according to the power of flesh, was Abraham's natural-born son, though engendered from cadaverous bodies and from that cadaverous womb.  It wasn't flesh that accomplished his conception, nor seed that achieved his birth; it was the word of God that formed him.  Not so with the slave:  he is born through nature's ordinances and marital intimacy.  Nevertheless, the one who was not begotten according to the flesh was more esteemed than the one who was.  As for yourselves, then, don't let the idea of not^[73] having been begotten according to the flesh throw you into confusion: the fact that you've not been begotten according to the flesh is precisely what puts you in Abraham's family:  birth that is not according to the flesh is more wonderful and more spiritual.  That's clear from the birth of the Ancestors:  Ishmael was born in accordance with the flesh, but he was a slave — and not only that; he was also cast out of his father's house.  Isaac, born in accordance with the Promise, was a natural-born, free son, master of all.

4:24a  All of which is an allegory

Paul took the foregoing paradigm (Abraham's sons) in a non-literal sense, as an allegory.  What he means is that this story not only implies what is on the surface, but also signifies other things — which is why it's called an all-ēgoria (“other-speak”).  And what else did it signify than the entire situation before us?

Another commentator [THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.908.35-52]:  Paul called the comparison of what had happened long ago to what was happening now an "allegory."  Just as Ishmael had been begotten according to the flesh, so, says Paul, the Torah continued to want, even here in our situation, those under its rule to be governed by it and to derive justification from it.  And just as Isaac had been begotten according to grace — for that was the Promise, however contrary it was to the natural course of things^[74] — so this was also the aim and ultimate purpose of the Messiah's plan, that death be undone, and that all humans ever born should rise again and continue in an immortal nature, nevermore susceptible to sin because of the grace of the Spirit still dwelling in them, even then!  The passage of human offspring into this life is a consequence of natural causes; in life, human conduct in compliance with the Law happens to be the rule.  But birth according to grace is the birth in which all rise up and are reborn into the Life to come.

<70.15>

Another commentator says the following [SEVERIAN 302.17 – 303.9]:  Now Paul misused the name, but not the function of allegory.  Bear in mind that allegory isn't word-for-word analogy, but brings in different things implied by the train of thoughts in keeping with a context, such as Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth in the Song of Songs [1:2], where it's not really a question of kissing or hair or belly or thighs or anything else, but different things are suggested through other things, and that is the basic form of an allegory.  But here in Paul the story is one that people know, and it's understood that it prefigures things to come.  So prophecy based on actions comes to be called "allegory."  You see, there are different types of prophecy:  some prophecies come through words only, like Behold, a virgin shall conceive  [Isaiah 7:14];  others are based on actions only, as with Moses lifting up the serpent in the desert;  another type is based on both actions and speech, like what was said to Jeremiah, Take a fresh loincloth, wrap yourself in it, then bury it next to the Euphrates;  and when it has been thoroughly soaked over time and rotted, said the Lord, take it away from there [Jeremiah 13:4-7 (paraphrased)].  Up to that point, the prophecy is based on actions, but what follows is based on words as well: "That is how I was wrapped around the sons of Israel, that is how I helped them, and this is how I shall bring them as captives into Babylon, and I shall bring them back from there weakened and wasted away, and shall restore them."^[75]  Thus Paul now gave the term "allegory" to prophecy based on actions.

4:24b  for those women are the two testaments.  One is from Mt. Sinai, begotten to slavery, whose name is Hagar

[CHRYSOSTOM, PG 61.662.27-49:]  These women, who are they?  They're the mothers of those boys, and their names are Sarah and Hagar.  What does he mean by "two testaments"?  Two Laws, two Covenants!  But since the names of the two women were in the story, Paul kept holding onto that family nomenclature, bringing into view a major consequence of the names themselves.  The names, you say?  How so?

4:25a  for the word Hagar means "Sinai" in Arabia

Hagar was the slave girl's name, and Hagar is the word for "Mount Sinai" in the language of her people.  It follows that everyone spawned by the Old Testament is necessarily a slave, because the very mountain where the Old Covenant was given has the same name as the slave girl, and that includes Jerusalem — hence,

4:25b  and corresponds to the present Jerusalem

— that is, "approaches," "touches on."  So what do we take from this?  That not only was she a slave and the mother of slaves, but also that that Testament, prefigured in the slave girl, was itself a slave.  And in point of fact, Jerusalem belongs to the neighborhood of the mountain that has the same name as the slave girl!  And it was on that mountain that the Covenant was given. 

<71.18>

Now then, as to what is prefigured in Sarah, where is that located?

4:26  But the Jerusalem above is a free woman, the mother of all of you

Which Jerusalem above?  The one in heaven!  That Jerusalem is not subject to Torah; in other words, she's a free woman.  Hence those who are born of her are also not slaves.

One more commentator [THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA, PG 66.909.1-14]:  Paul was speaking not of what's now called Arabia, but of ancient Arabia — Hagar (Sinai), including all the uninhabited and inhabited areas around it, and indeed no small part of Egypt.  So Paul wants to say about Hagar that she stands for what we think of as Jerusalem, that is, for what is viewed as the Jerusalem of this earthly life.  Today's Jerusalem holds that function, in conformance to which the regulations of that Old Covenant are fulfilled, by contrast with the anticipation of what we actually^[76] hope to gain in the age to come.  That was the function Hagar held, as distinguished from Sarah's.  Paul does not, however, say

4:25c  and she is a slave with her children

in reference to Hagar, but in reference to the Covenant that had been given on Sinai.

<72.1>

Again other commentators^[77] [SEVERIAN 303.10-19]:  Paul knew what he was doing when he mentioned Mount Sinai, because the Saracens^[78] descended from Ishmael occupy the desert that extends all the way up to Mount Sinai. On Sinai the Torah was given for the enslavement of generations; the Tablets given out from Sinai were brought into Israel, and after being transferred often from place to place were at last deposited in Jerusalem. This is why Paul inserted "corresponds to the present Jerusalem" and "she is a slave with her children," where the promise of land and conquest and marriage and everything human — including slavery — follow, whereas citizenship in heaven is an escape from earthly concerns and from bondage; from that citizenship comes freedom.