Galatians 1:1

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

I.

(1-5) It is no self-constituted teacher by whom the Galatians are addressed, but an Apostle who, like the chosen Twelve, had received his commission, not from any human source or through any human agency, but directly from God and Christ. As such, he and his companions that are with him give Christian greeting to the Galatian churches, invoking upon them the highest of spiritual blessings from God, the common Father of all believers, and that Redeemer whose saving work they denied and, by their relapse into the ways of the world around them, practically frustrated.

St. Paul had a two-fold object in writing to the Galatians. They had disparaged his authority, and they had fallen back from the true spiritual view of Christianity—in which all was due to the divine grace and love manifested in the death of Christ—to a system of Jewish ceremonialism. And at the very outset of his Epistle, in the salutation itself, the Apostle meets them on both these points. On the one hand, he asserts the divine basis of the authority which he himself claimed; and on the other, he takes occasion to state emphatically the redeeming work of Christ, and its object to free mankind from those evil surroundings into the grasp of which the Galatians seemed again to be falling.

(1) An apostle.—This title is evidently to be taken here in its strictest sense, as St. Paul is insisting upon his equality in every respect with the Twelve. The word was also capable of a less exclusive use, in which the Apostle would seem to be distinguished from the Twelve (1Corinthians 15:5; 1Corinthians 15:7). In this sense Barnabas and James the Lord’s brother, possibly also Andronicus and Junias in Romans 16:7, were called “Apostles.”

Not of men, neither by man.—Two distinct prepositions are used:—“not of” (i.e., from) “men,” in the sense of the ultimate source from which authority is derived; “neither by” (or, through) “man,” with reference to the channel or agency by which it is conveyed. Thus we speak of the Queen as the “fount” of honour, though honour may be conferred by the ministry acting in her name. The kind of honour which St. Paul held (his Apostleship) was such as could be derived only from God; nor was any human instrumentality made use of in conferring it upon him. His appointment to the Apostolate is connected by St. Paul directly with the supernatural appearance which met him upon the way to Damascus. The part played by Ananias was too subordinate to introduce a human element into it; and the subsequent “separation” of Paul and Barnabas for the mission to the Gentiles, though the act of the Church at Antioch, was dictated by the Holy Ghost, and was rather the assignment of a special sphere than the conferring of a new office and new powers.

By Jesus Christ.—The preposition here, as in the last clause, is that which is usually taken to express the idea of mediate agency. It represents the channel down which the stream flows, not the fountain-head from which it springs. Hence it is applied appropriately to Christ as the Logos, or Word, through whom God the Father communicates with men as the divine agent in the work of creation, redemption, revelation. (See John 1:3; 1Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:2, et al.) It is also applied to men as the instruments for carrying out the divine purposes. The intervention of Jesus Christ took place in the vision through which, from a persecutor, St. Paul became a “chosen vessel” for the propagation of the gospel.

And God the Father—i.e., and by (or, through) God the Father; the same preposition governing the whole clause. We should naturally have expected the other preposition (“of,” or “from”), which signifies source, and not this, which signifies instrumentality; and it would have been more usual with the Apostle to say, “from God,” and “by, or through, Christ.” But God is at once the remote and the mediate, or efficient, cause of all that is done in carrying out His own designs. “Of him, and through him, and to him are all things” (Romans 11:36).

The Father.—This is to be taken in the sense in which our Lord Himself spoke of God as “My Father,” with reference to the peculiar and unique character of His own sonship—the Father, i.e., of Christ, not of all Christians, and still less, as the phrase is sometimes used, of all men. This appears from the context. The title is evidently given for the sake of contradistinction; and it is noticeable that at this very early date the same phrase is chosen as that which bore so prominent a place in the later creeds and the theology of which they were the expression.

Who raised him from the dead.—Comp. Romans 1:4 : “Declared to be the Son of God with power . . . by the resurrection from the dead.” The resurrection is the act which the Apostle regards as completing the divine exaltation of Christ. It is this exaltation, therefore, which seems to be in his mind. He had derived his own authority directly from God and Christ as sharers of the same divine majesty. It was not the man Jesus by whom it had been conferred upon him, but the risen and ascended Saviour, who, by the fact of his resurrection, was “declared to be the Son of God with power.” So that the commission of the Apostle was, in all respects, divine and not human.

Benson Commentary

Galatians 1:1-3. Paul, an apostle — Here it was necessary for Paul to assert his authority, otherwise he is very modest in the use of this title. He seldom mentions it when he joins others with himself in the salutations, as in the epistles to the Philippians and Thessalonians; or when he writes about secular affairs, as in that to Philemon: nor yet in writing to the Hebrews. Not of men — Not commissioned from them. It seems the false teachers had insinuated, if not openly asserted, that he was merely an apostle of men; made an apostle by the church at Antioch, or at best by the apostles in Jerusalem. This false insinuation, which struck at the root of his authority and usefulness, in the exercise of his office, St. Paul saw it necessary to contradict, in the very beginning of his epistle. Perhaps he also glances at Matthias, who was an apostle sent from a general meeting at Jerusalem, as mentioned Acts 1:22. Neither by man — As an instrument. He here seems to have had Peter and James in his eye, whom alone he saw at his first coming to Jerusalem, after his conversion, and denies that he was appointed an apostle by them. But by Jesus Christ — “Paul was first made an apostle by Christ, when Christ appeared to him in the way to Damascus, Acts 9:15. And three years after that his apostolic commission was renewed, Acts 22:21. So that he was sent forth neither by the church at Jerusalem, nor by that at Antioch. The Holy Ghost indeed ordered the prophets at Antioch (Acts 13:2) to separate Paul and Barnabas; but it was to the work whereunto he had called them formerly. This separation was simply a recommending them to the grace of God by prayer; and in fact it is so termed, Acts 14:26.” — Macknight. And God the Father, who raised him from the dead — And after his resurrection sent him from heaven to make me an apostle. And all the brethren who are with me — And agree with me in what I now write, and by joining with me in this letter, attest the truth of the facts which I relate; unto the churches of Galatia — Or the several societies or congregations of professing Christians which have been collected in that province. Grace be to you, &c. — See on Romans 1:7.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

1:1-5 St. Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ; he was expressly appointed by him, consequently by God the Father, who is one with him in respect of his Divine nature, and who appointed Christ as Mediator. Grace, includes God's good-will towards us, and his good work upon us; and peace, all that inward comfort, or outward prosperity, which is really needful for us. They come from God the Father, as the Fountain, through Jesus Christ. But observe, first grace, and then peace; there can be no true peace without grace. Christ gave himself for our sins, to make atonement for us: this the justice of God required, and to this he freely submitted. Here is to be observed the infinite greatness of the price bestowed, and then it will appear plainly, that the power of sin is so great, that it could by no means be put away except the Son of God be given for it. He that considers these things well, understands that sin is a thing the most horrible that can be expressed; which ought to move us, and make us afraid indeed. Especially mark well the words, for our sins. For here our weak nature starts back, and would first be made worthy by her own works. It would bring him that is whole, and not him that has need of a physician. Not only to redeem us from the wrath of God, and the curse of the law; but also to recover us from wicked practices and customs, to which we are naturally enslaved. But it is in vain for those who are not delivered from this present evil world by the sanctification of the Spirit, to expect that they are freed from its condemnation by the blood of Jesus.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Paul an apostle - See the note at Romans 1:1. This is the usual form in which he commences his epistles; and it was of special importance to commence the Epistle in this manner, because it was one design to vindicate his apostleship, or to show that he had received his commission directly from the Lord Jesus.

Not of men - "Not from ἀπ ̓ ap' men." That is, he was not "from" any body of people, or commissioned by people. The word apostle means "sent," and Paul means to say, that he was not "sent" to execute any purpose of human beings, or commissioned by them. His was a higher calling; a calling of God, and he had been sent directly by him. Of course, he means to exclude here all classes of people as having had anything to do in sending him forth; and, especially, he means to affirm, that he had not been sent out by the body of apostles at Jerusalem. This, it will be remembered (see the introduction to Galatians) was one of the charges of those who had perverted the Galatians from the faith which Paul had preached to them.

Neither by man - "Neither by or through δι ̓ di' the instrumentality of any man." Here he designs to exclude all people from having had any agency in his appointment to the apostolic office. He was neither sent out from any body of people to execute their purposes; nor did he receive his commission, authority, or ordination through the medium of any man. A minister of the gospel now receives his call from God, but he is ordained or set apart to his office by man. Matthias, the apostle chosen in the place of Judas Acts 1:26, received his call from God, but it was by the vote of the body of the apostles. Timothy was also called of God, but he was appointed to his office by the laying on the hands of the presbytery; 1 Timothy 4:14. But Paul here says, that he received no such commission as that from the apostles. They were not the means or the medium of ordaining him to his work. He had, indeed, together with Barnabas, been set apart at Antioch, by the brethren there Acts 13:1-3, for a "special mission" in Asia Minor; but this was not an appointment to the apostleship. He had been restored to sight after the miraculous blindness produced by seeing the Lord Jesus on the way to Damascus, by the laying on of the hands of Ananias, and had received important instruction from him Acts 9:17, but his commission as an apostle had been received directly from the Lord Jesus, without any intervening medium, or any form of human authority, Acts 9:15; Acts 22:17-21; 1 Corinthians 9:1.

But by Jesus Christ - That is, directly by Christ. He had been called by him, and commissioned by him, and sent by him, to engage in the work of the gospel.

And God the Father - These words were omitted by Marcion, because, says Jerome he held that Christ raised himself from the dead. But there is no authority for omitting them. The sense is, that he had the highest possible authority for the office of an apostle; he had been called to it by God himself, who had raised up the Redeemer. It is remarkable here, that Paul associates Jesus Christ and God the Father, as having called and commissioned him. We may ask here, of one who should deny the divinity of Christ, how Paul could mention him as being equal with God in the work of commissioning him? We may ask further, how could he say that he had not received his call to this office from a man, if Jesus Christ were a mere man? That he was called by Christ, he expressly says, and strenuously maintains as a point of great importance. And yet, the very point and drift of his argument is, to show that he was not called by man. How could this be if Christ were a mere man?

Who raised him from the dead - See the notes at Acts 2:24, Acts 2:32. It is not quite clear why Paul introduces this circumstance here. It may have been:

(1) Because his mind was full of it. and he wished on all occasions to make that fact prominent;

(2) Because this was the distinguishing feature of the Christian religion, that the Lord Jesus had been raised up from the dead, and he wished, in the outset, to present the superiority of that religion which had brought life and immortality to light; and,

(3) Because he wished to show that he had received his commission from that same God who had raised up Jesus, and who was, therefore, the author of the true religion. His commission was from the Source of life and light, the God of the living and the dead; the God who was the Author of the glorious scheme which revealed life and immortality.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE GALATIANS Commentary by A. R. Faussett

INTRODUCTION

The internal and external evidence for Paul's authorship is conclusive. The style is characteristically Pauline. The superscription, and allusions to the apostle of the Gentiles in the first person, throughout the Epistle, establish the same truth (Ga 1:1, 13-24; 2:1-14). His authorship is also upheld by the unanimous testimony of the ancient Church: compare Irenæus [Against Heresies, 3,7,2] (Ga 3:19); Polycarp [Epistle to the Philippians, 3] quotes Ga 4:26; 6:7; Justin Martyr, or whoever wrote the Discourse to the Greeks, alludes to Ga 4:12; 5:20.

The Epistle was written "TO THE CHURCHES OF Galatia" (Ga 1:2), a district of Asia Minor, bordering on Phrygia, Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Paphlagonia. The inhabitants (Gallo-græci, contracted into Galati, another form of the name Celts) were Gauls in origin, the latter having overrun Asia Minor after they had pillaged Delphi, about 280 B.C. and at last permanently settled in the central parts, thence called Gallo-græcia or Galatia. Their character, as shown in this Epistle, is in entire consonance with that ascribed to the Gallic race by all writers. Cæsar [Commentaries on the Gallic War, 4,5], "The infirmity of the Gauls is that they are fickle in their resolves and fond of change, and not to be trusted." So Thierry (quoted by Alford), "Frank, impetuous, impressible, eminently intelligent, but at the same time extremely changeable, inconstant, fond of show, perpetually quarrelling, the fruit of excessive vanity." They received Paul at first with all joy and kindness; but soon wavered in their allegiance to the Gospel and to him, and hearkened as eagerly now to Judaizing teachers as they had before to him (Ga 4:14-16). The apostle himself had been the first preacher among them (Ac 16:6; Ga 1:8; 4:13; see on [2327]Ga 4:13; "on account of infirmity of flesh I preached unto you at the first": implying that sickness detained him among them); and had then probably founded churches, which at his subsequent visit he "strengthened" in the faith (Ac 18:23). His first visit was about A.D. 51, during his second missionary journey. Josephus [Antiquities, 16.62] testifies that many Jews resided in Ancyra in Galatia. Among these and their brethren, doubtless, as elsewhere, he began his preaching. And though subsequently the majority in the Galatian churches were Gentiles (Ga 4:8, 9), yet these were soon infected by Judaizing teachers, and almost suffered themselves to be persuaded to undergo circumcision (Ga 1:6; 3:1, 3; 5:2, 3; 6:12, 13). Accustomed as the Galatians had been, when heathen, to the mystic worship of Cybele (prevalent in the neighboring region of Phrygia), and the theosophistic doctrines connected with that worship, they were the more readily led to believe that the full privileges of Christianity could only be attained through an elaborate system of ceremonial symbolism (Ga 4:9-11; 5:7-12). They even gave ear to the insinuation that Paul himself observed the law among the Jews, though he persuaded the Gentiles to renounce it, and that his motive was to keep his converts in a subordinate state, excluded from the full privileges of Christianity, which were enjoyed by the circumcised alone (Ga 5:11, Ga 4:16, compare with Ga 2:17); and that in "becoming all things to all men," he was an interested flatterer (Ga 1:10), aiming at forming a party for himself: moreover, that he falsely represented himself as an apostle divinely commissioned by Christ, whereas he was but a messenger sent by the Twelve and the Church at Jerusalem, and that his teaching was now at variance with that of Peter and James, "pillars" of the Church, and therefore ought not to be accepted.

His PURPOSE, then, in writing this Epistle was: (1) to defend his apostolic authority (Ga 1:11-19; 2:1-14); (2) to counteract the evil influence of the Judaizers in Galatia (Ga 3:1-4:31), and to show that their doctrine destroyed the very essence of Christianity, by lowering its spirituality to an outward ceremonial system; (3) to give exhortation for the strengthening of Galatian believers in faith towards Christ, and in the fruits of the Spirit (Ga 5:1-6:18). He had already, face to face, testified against the Judaizing teachers (Ga 1:9; 4:16; Ac 18:23); and now that he has heard of the continued and increasing prevalence of the evil, he writes with his own hand (Ga 6:11: a labor which he usually delegated to an amanuensis) this Epistle to oppose it. The sketch he gives in it of his apostolic career confirms and expands the account in Acts and shows his independence of human authority, however exalted. His protest against Peter in Ga 2:14-21, disproves the figment, not merely of papal, but even of that apostle's supremacy; and shows that Peter, save when specially inspired, was fallible like other men.

There is much in common between this Epistle and that to the Romans on the subject of justification by faith only, and not by the law. But the Epistle to the Romans handles the subject in a didactic and logical mode, without any special reference; this Epistle, in a controversial manner, and with special reference to the Judaizers in Galatia.

The STYLE combines the two extremes, sternness. (Ga 1:1-24; 3:1-5) and tenderness (Ga 4:19, 20), the characteristics of a man of strong emotions, and both alike well suited for acting on an impressible people such as the Galatians were. The beginning is abrupt, as was suited to the urgency of the question and the greatness of the danger. A tone of sadness, too, is apparent, such as might be expected in the letter of a warm-hearted teacher who had just learned that those whom he loved were forsaking his teachings for those of perverters of the truth, as well as giving ear to calumnies against himself.

The TIME OF WRITING was after the visit to Jerusalem recorded in Ac 15:1, &c.; that is, A.D. 50, if that visit be, as seems probable, identical with that in Ga 2:1. Further, as Ga 1:9 ("as we said before"), and Ga 4:16 ("Have [Alford] I become your enemy?" namely, at my second visit, whereas I was welcomed by you at my first visit), refer to his second visit (Ac 18:23), this Epistle must have been written after the date of that visit (the autumn of A.D. 54). Ga 4:13, "Ye know how … I preached … at the first" (Greek, "at the former time"), implies that Paul, at the time of writing, had been twice in Galatia; and Ga 1:6, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed," implies that he wrote not long after having left Galatia for the second time; probably in the early part of his residence at Ephesus (Ac 18:23; 19:1, &c., from A.D. 54, the autumn, to A.D. 57, Pentecost) [Alford]. Conybeare and Howson, from the similarity between this Epistle and that to the Romans, the same line of argument in both occupying the writer's mind, think it was not written till his stay at Corinth (Ac 20:2, 3), during the winter of 57-58, whence he wrote his Epistle to the Romans; and certainly, in the theory of the earlier writing of it from Ephesus, it does seem unlikely that the two Epistles to the Corinthians, so dissimilar, should intervene between those so similar as the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans; or that the Epistle to the Galatians should intervene between the second to the Thessalonians and the first to the Corinthians. The decision between the two theories rests on the words, "so soon." If these be not considered inconsistent with little more than three years having elapsed since his second visit to Galatia, the argument, from the similarity to the Epistle to the Romans, seems to me conclusive. This to the Galatians seems written on the urgency of the occasion, tidings having reached him at Corinth from Ephesus of the Judaizing of many of his Galatian converts, in an admonitory and controversial tone, to maintain the great principles of Christian liberty and justification by faith only; that to the Romans is a more deliberate and systematic exposition of the same central truths of theology, subsequently drawn up in writing to a Church with which he was personally unacquainted. See on [2328]Ga 1:6, for Birks's view. Paley [Horæ Paulinæ] well remarks how perfectly adapted the conduct of the argument is to the historical circumstances under which the Epistle was written! Thus, that to the Galatians, a Church which Paul had founded, he puts mainly upon authority; that to the Romans, to whom he was not personally known, entirely upon argument.

CHAPTER 1

Ga 1:1-24. Superscription. Greetings. The Cause of His Writing Is Their Speedy Falling Away from the Gospel He Taught. Defense of His Teaching: His Apostolic Call Independent of Man.

Judaizing teachers had persuaded the Galatians that Paul had taught them the new religion imperfectly, and at second hand; that the founder of their church himself possessed only a deputed commission, the seal of truth and authority being in the apostles at Jerusalem: moreover, that whatever he might profess among them, he had himself at other times, and in other places, given way to the doctrine of circumcision. To refute this, he appeals to the history of his conversion, and to the manner of his conferring with the apostles when he met them at Jerusalem; that so far was his doctrine from being derived from them, or they from exercising any superiority over him, that they had simply assented to what he had already preached among the Gentiles, which preaching was communicated, not by them to him, but by himself to them [Paley]. Such an apologetic Epistle could not be a later forgery, the objections which it meets only coming out incidentally, not being obtruded as they would be by a forger; and also being such as could only arise in the earliest age of the Church, when Jerusalem and Judaism still held a prominent place.

1. apostle—in the earliest Epistles, the two to the Thessalonians, through humility, he uses no title of authority; but associates with him "Silvanus and Timotheus"; yet here, though "brethren" (Ga 1:2) are with him, he does not name them but puts his own name and apostleship prominent: evidently because his apostolic commission needs now to be vindicated against deniers of it.

of—Greek, "from." Expressing the origin from which his mission came, "not from men," but from Christ and the Father (understood) as the source. "By" expresses the immediate operating agent in the call. Not only was the call from God as its ultimate source, but by Christ and the Father as the immediate agent in calling him (Ac 22:15; 26:16-18). The laying on of Ananias' hands (Ac 9:17) is no objection to this; for that was but a sign of the fact, not an assisting cause. So the Holy Ghost calls him specially (Ac 13:2, 3); he was an apostle before this special mission.

man—singular; to mark the contrast to "Jesus Christ." The opposition between "Christ" and "man," and His name being put in closest connection with God the Father, imply His Godhead.

raised him from the dead—implying that, though he had not seen Him in His humiliation as the other apostles (which was made an objection against him), he had seen and been constituted an apostle by Him in His resurrection power (Mt 28:18; Ro 1:4, 5). Compare as to the ascension, the consequence of the resurrection, and the cause of His giving "apostles," Eph 4:11. He rose again, too, for our justification (Ro 4:25); thus Paul prepares the way for the prominent subject of the Epistle, justification in Christ, not by the law.Gal 1:1-5 After saluting the churches of Galatia,

Gal 1:6,7 Paul testifieth his surprise that they should so soon

have forsaken the truth of the gospel which he had

taught them,

Gal 1:8,9 and pronounceth those accursed who preach any other gospel.

Gal 1:10-12 He showeth that his doctrine was not concerted to please

men, but came to him by immediate revelation from God,

Gal 1:13,14 to confirm which he relateth his conversation before his

calling,

Gal 1:15-24 and what steps he had taken immediately thereupon.

The term apostle, in its native signification, signifieth no more then one sent; in its ecclesiastical use, it signifies one extraordinarily sent to preach the gospel; of these some were sent either more immediately by Christ, (as the twelve were sent, Mat 10:1 Mar 3:14 Luk 9:1), or more mediately, as Matthias, who was sent by the suffrage of the other apostles to supply the place of Judas, Act 1:25,26, and Barnabas, and Silas, and others were. Paul saith he was sent not of men, neither by man, that is, not merely; for he was also sent by men to his particular province. Act 13:3; but he was immediately sent by Jesus Christ, ( as we read, Act 9:1-43 and Act 26:14-17, of which also he gives us an account in this chapter, Gal 1:15-17), and by God the Father also, who, he saith, raised Christ from the dead. By this phrase the apostle doth not only assert Christ's resurrection, and the influence of the Father upon his resurrection, (though he rose by his own power, and took up his own life again, and was also quickened by the Spirit), but he also showeth a specialty in his call to the apostleship. As it differed from the call of ordinary ministers, who are called by men (though their ministry be not merely of men); so it differed from the call of the rest of the apostles, being made by Christ not in his state of humiliation, (as the twelve were called, Mat 10:1-42), but in his state of exaltation, after he was raised from the dead, and sat down on the right hand of God.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man,.... The writer of this epistle, Paul, puts his name to it, as to all his epistles, excepting that to the Hebrews, if that be his, being neither afraid nor ashamed to own what is herein contained. He asserts himself to be "an apostle", which was the highest office in the church, to which he was immediately called by Christ, and confirmed in it by signs and wonders. This he chose to mention, because of the false teachers, who had insinuated he was no apostle, and not to be regarded; whereas he had received grace and apostleship from Christ, and was an apostle, "not of men", as were the apostles or messengers of the sanhedrim (a); See Gill on 2 Corinthians 8:23 and as were the false apostles, who were sent out by men, who had no authority to send them forth: the apostle, as he did not take this honour to himself, did not thrust himself into this office, or run before he was sent; so he was not sent by men; he did not act upon human authority, or by an human commission: this is said in opposition to the false apostles, and to an unlawful investiture with the office of apostleship, and an usurpation of it, as well as to distinguish himself from the messengers and ambassadors of princes, who are sent with credentials by them to negotiate civil affairs for them in foreign courts, he being an ambassador of Christ; and from the messengers of churches, who were sometimes sent with assistance or advice to other churches; and he moreover says, "nor by man"; by a mere man, but by one that was more than a man; nor by a mortal man, but by Christ, as raised from the dead, immortal and glorious at God's right hand: or rather the sense is, he was not chosen into the office of apostleship by the suffrages of men, as Matthias was; or he was not ordained an apostle in the manner the ordinary ministers of the Gospel and pastors are, by the churches of Christ; so that as the former clause is opposed to an unlawful call of men, this is opposed to a lawful one; and shows him to be not an ordinary minister, but an extraordinary one, who was called to this office, not mediately by men, by any of the churches as common ministers are:

but by Jesus Christ; immediately, without the intervention of men, as appears from Acts 26:16. For what Ananias did upon his conversion was only putting his hands on him to recover his sight, and baptizing him; it was Christ that appeared to him personally, and made him a minister; and his separation with Barnabas, by the church, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, Acts 13:2 was to some particular work and service to be done by them, and not to apostleship, and which was long after Paul was made an apostle by Christ. Jesus Christ being here opposed to man, does not suggest that he was not a man, really and truly, for he certainly was; he partook of the same flesh and blood with us, and was in all things made like unto us, sin excepted; but that he was not a mere man, he was truly God as well as man; for as the raising him from the dead, in the next clause, shows him to be a man, or he could not have died; so his being opposed to man, and set in equality with God the Father, in this verse, and grace and peace being prayed for from him, as from the Father, Galatians 1:4 and the same glory ascribed to him as to the Father, Galatians 1:5 prove him to be truly and properly God. The apostle adds,

and God the Father; Christ and his Father being of the same nature and essence, power and authority, as they are jointly concerned and work together in the affairs or nature and Providence, so in those of grace; and particularly in constituting and ordaining apostles, and setting them in the church. This serves the more to confirm the divine authority under which Paul acted as an apostle, being not only made so by Christ, but also by God the Father, who is described as he,

who raised him from the dead; which is observed, not so much to express the divine power of the Father, or the glory of Christ, as raised from the dead, but to strengthen the validity of the apostle's character and commission as such; to whom it might have been objected, that he had not seen Christ in the flesh, nor familiarly conversed with him, as the rest of the apostles did: to which he was able to reply, that he was not called to be an apostle by Christ in his low and mean estate of humiliation, but by him after he was raised from the dead, and was set down at the right hand of God; who personally appeared to him in his glory, and was seen by him, and who made and appointed him his apostle, to bear his name before Gentiles, and kings, and the people of Israel; so that his call to apostleship was rather more grand and illustrious than that of any of the other apostles.

(a) Misn. Menachot, c. 10. sect. 3. & Yoma, c. 1. sect. 5.

Geneva Study Bible

Paul, {1} an apostle, (not {a} of men, neither by {b} man, but by {c} Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

(1) A salutation which puts in a few words the sum of the apostle's doctrine, and also immediately from the beginning shows the gravity appropriate for the authority of an apostle, which he had to maintain against the false apostles.

(a) He shows who is the author of the ministry generally: for in this the whole ministry agrees, that whether they are apostles, or shepherds, or teachers, they are appointed by God.

(b) He mentions that man is not the instrumental cause: for this is a special right of the apostles, to be called directly from Christ.

(c) Christ no doubt is man, but he is also God, and head of the Church, and in this respect to be exempted out of the number of men.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Galatians 1:1. Ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπʼ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ διʼ ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλά κ.τ.λ.] Thus does Paul, with deliberate incisiveness and careful definition, bring into prominence at the very head of his epistle his (in the strictest sense) apostolic dignity, because doubt had been thrown on it by his opponents in Galatia. For by οὐκ ἀπʼ ἀνθρώπων he denies that his apostleship proceeded from men (causa remotior), and by οὐδὲ διʼ ἄνθρ. that it came by means of a man (causa medians). It was neither of human origin, nor was a man the medium of conveying it. Comp. Bernhardy, pp. 222, 236; Winer, p. 390 [E. T. 521]. On ἀπό, comp. also Romans 13:1. To disregard the diversity of meaning in the two prepositions (Semler, Morus, Koppe, and others), although even Usteri is inclined to this view (“Paul meant to say that in no respect did his office depend on human authority”), is all the more arbitrary, seeing that, while the two negatives very definitely separate the two relations, these two relations cannot he expressed by the mere change of number (Koppe, “non hominum, ne cujusquam quidem hominis;” comp. Bengel, Semler, Morus, Rosenmüller). This in itself would be but a feeble amplification of the thought, and in order to be intelligible, would need to be more distinctly indicated (perhaps by the addition of πολλῶν and ἑνός), for otherwise the readers would not have their attention drawn off from the difference of the prepositions. Paul has on the second occasion written not ἀνθρώπων again, but ἀνθρώπου, because the contrast to διʼ ἀνθρώπου is διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. It was not a man, but the exalted Christ, through whom the divine call to the apostleship came to Paul at Damascus; αὐτὸς ὁ δεσπότης οὐρανόθεν ἐκάλεσεν οὐκ ἀνθρώπῳ χρησάμενος ὑπουργῷ, Theodoret. And this contrast is quite just: for Christ, the incarnate Son of God, was indeed as such, in the state of His self-renunciation and humiliation, ἄνθρωπος (Romans 5:15; 1 Corinthians 15:21), and in His human manifestation not specifically different from other men (Php 2:7; Galatians 4:4; Romans 8:3); but in His state of exaltation, since He is as respects His whole divine-human nature in heaven (Ephesians 1:20 ff.; Php 2:9; Php 3:20-21), He is, although subordinate to the Father (1 Corinthians 3:23; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 15:28, et al.), partaker of the divine majesty which He had before the incarnation, and possesses in His whole person at the right hand of God divine honour and divine dominion. Comp. generally, Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 327; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. p. 306.

καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός] Following out the contrast, we should expect καὶ ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρ. But availing himself of the variety of form in which his idea could be set forth, Paul comprehends the properly twofold relation under one preposition, since, in point of fact, with respect to the modification in the import of the διά no reader could doubt that here the causa principalis is conceived also as medians. As to this usage of διά in popular language, see on 1 Corinthians 1:9. Christ is the mediate agent of Paul’s apostleship, inasmuch as Christ was the instrument through which God called him; but God also, who nevertheless was the causa principalis, may be conceived of under the relation of διά (comp. Galatians 4:7; Lachmann), inasmuch as Christ made him His apostle οὐκ ἄνευ Θεοῦ πατρός, but, on the contrary, through the working of God, that is, through the interposition of the divine will, which exerted its determining influence in the act of calling (comp. 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1). Comp. Plat. Symp. p. 186 E, διὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τουτοῦ κυβερνᾶται; and Romans 11:36, διʼ αὐτοῦ τὰ πάντα; Winer, p. 354 f. [E. T. 474].

The words Θεοῦ πατρός (which together have the nature of a proper name: comp. Php 2:11; Ephesians 6:23; 1 Peter 1:2), according to the context, present God as the Father of Jesus Christ, not as Father generally (de Wette; comp. Hilgenfeld), nor as our Father (Paulus, Usteri, Wieseler). The Father is named after the Son by way of climax (comp. Ephesians 5:5): in describing the superhuman origin of his apostleship Paul proceeds from the Higher to the Highest, without whom (see what follows) Christ could not have called him. Of course the calling by Christ is the element decisive of the true ἀποστολή (Wieseler); but it would remain so, even if Paul, advancing to the more definite agent, had named Christ after God. The supposition of a dogmatic precaution (Theodoret, ἵνα μή τις ὑπολάβῃ ὑπουργὸν εἶναι τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱόν, εὑρὼν προσκείμενον τὸ διά, ἐπήγαγε καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός, comp. Chrysostom, Calovius, and others) would be as irrelevant and inappropriate, as Rückert’s opinion is arbitrary, that Paul at first intended merely to write διὰ Ἰ. Χ., and then added as an after-thought, but inexactly (therefore without ἀπό), καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός.

τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν] For Paul was called to be an apostle by the Christ who had been raised up bodily from the dead by the Father (1 Corinthians 15:8; 1 Corinthians 9:1; Acts 9:22; Acts 9:26); so that these words involve a historical confirmation of that καὶ Θεοῦ πατρός in its special relation as thoroughly assuring the full apostolic commission of Paul:[14] they are not a mere designation of God as originator of the work of redemption (de Wette), which does not correspond to the definite connection with ἀπόστολος. According to Wieseler, the addition is intended to awaken faith both in Jesus as the Son and in God as our reconciled Father. But apart from the fact that the Father is here the Father of Christ, the idea of reconciliation does not suggest itself at this stage; and the whole self-description, which is appended to Παῦλος, is introduced solely by his consciousness of full apostolic authority: it describes by contrast and historically what in other epistles is expressed by the simple κλητὸς ἀπόστολος. The opinion that Paul is pointing at the reproach made against him of not having seen Christ (Calvin, Morus, Semler, Koppe, Borger; comp. Ellicott), and that he here claims the pre-eminence of having been the only one called by the exalted Jesus (Augustine, Erasmus, Beza, Menochius, Estius, and others), is inappropriate, for the simple reason that the resurrection of Christ is mentioned in the form of a predicate of God (not of Christ). This reason also holds good against Matthies (comp. Winer), who thinks that the divine elevation of Christ is the point intended to be conveyed. Chrysostom and Oecumenius found even a reference directed against the validity of the Mosaical law, and Luther (comp. Calovius) against the trust in one’s own righteousness.

[14] Comp. Beyschlag in Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 225.

Expositor's Greek Testament

Galatians 1:1-5. APOSTOLIC ADDRESS, BENEDICTION AND DOXOLOGY.—The Epistle opens with the author’s name and the designation of his office, Paul, an Apostle. So far it follows the regular practice of Apostolic Epistles in advancing at the outset a claim to attentive hearing. But circumstances gave in this case a special significance to this opening; for in the Galatian Churches rival agitators had seriously challenged the author’s right to this title of Apostle, so that the bare mention of his office involved a distinct protest against the slanders which had been circulated in regard to his office and his person. He proceeds, accordingly, to an emphatic vindication of his divine commission, not from men, neither through man. He raises here a twofold issue, evidently corresponding to two specific points in his qualifications for the office, which his adversaries had on their side selected for attack. The transition from the plural in the first clause, to the singular in the second, is significant, and helps to furnish a key to the two particular points in his career on which his enemies had fastened. His mission to the Gentiles had apparently been disparaged on the plea that it had emanated from men, i.e., from the Church of Antioch only. Again, the validity of his commission was impugned on the ground that he had originally received the Spirit through a man, i.e., through the agency of Ananias, who had been deputed to lay his hands upon him at Damascus. By these insinuations an invidious comparison was instituted between Paul and the original Apostles who had been sent forth by Christ Himself, and had received the Spirit by a miraculous outpouring from Heaven on the day of Pentecost. It was obviously impossible to confute these aspersions by alleging any specific act of the risen Lord. Accordingly Paul contents himself for the moment with an indignant repudiation of the calumnies, reserving his full vindication for the historical review of his conversion and Christian life (Galatians 1:10 to Galatians 2:14). The tokens by which the risen Lord had attested His presence and His commission to His servant Paul had been very real and certain to the eye of faith; but they had, from the nature of the case, been less tangible than the evidence of His living voice and presence during His earthly sojourn; they had been granted at successive stages of the Apostle’s life, and had often taken the shape of visions, personal revelations, and spiritual communion. At his conversion he had been declared a chosen vessel for future ministry; three years later the Lord had replied to his prayer in the temple, bidding him depart from Jerusalem, for (He said) I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles; afterwards, at Antioch, the Spirit had given command, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them; thereupon God had visibly sealed his appointment by the abundant blessing bestowed upon his labours, as the Galatians themselves could amply testify.—διὰ … πατρὸς. The previous combination of ἀπό and διά in the negative clauses invites a corresponding combination here in the antithesis, ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς, declaring, on the one hand, the instrumentality of the Son in the appointment of His Apostle, and, on the other, tracing back the authority with which he was invested to God the Father as its original source. But Paul prefers here, instead of contemplating his apostleship to the Gentiles by itself as a single act of the Divine Head of the Church, to connect it with the larger design of building up the Church of Christ, for which the united action of the Father and the Son was indispensable. The Father set that design in motion by raising Him from the dead, and is here accordingly associated with the Son as directly co-operating in the government of the Church. In the subsequent review of his own personal life, Paul in like manner perceives the immediate hand of God in his pre-Christian life, setting him apart from his mother’s womb, and training him under the law for his future work as an Apostle, before he was brought to Christ at all.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

1–5. Introduction. Salutation and ascription of praise

1. Paul, an apostle] In the opening of this Epistle, as of those to the Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians and Timothy, St Paul designates himself an Apostle. Elsewhere he either adds no descriptive epithet to his name, or he is a bondservant of Christ Jesus (Php 1:1), or of God (Titus 1:1), or a prisoner of Christ Jesus (Philemon 1:1). In the present instance the addition is not without reference to the circumstances under which he wrote. His authority had been impugned, and a great fundamental doctrine of the Gospel perverted. The former must be asserted, that the latter may be maintained.

an apostle] Lit. ‘a messenger’. The title was given by our Lord Himself (Luke 6:13) to twelve chosen by Himself out of the number of His disciples. The qualifications for the office are (1) a Divine call (Luke 6:13; John 15:16; Acts 1:2; Acts 1:24); (2) a personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus, as the Risen Saviour (Acts 1:21-22; 1 Corinthians 9:6); (3) the inspiration and infallible teaching of the Holy Ghost (John 14:26; John 16:13); (4) a Divine commission (Acts 22:21; Acts 26:16-18). On the wider use of the term see Bp. Lightfoot, Gal. pp. 91–97.

not of men, … the dead] ‘Not of men’, rather, not from men. Unlike the false apostles, he did not go forth commissioned by men, as their messenger, or as deriving his authority from them; nor again was he sent ‘by man’ (abstract, not concrete; as in John 2:25). Paul commissioned others, because himself not commissioned by other men.

but by Jesus Christ] A clear proof of the proper Deity of the Lord Jesus. As Jesus was the source from which, so was He also the channel through which St Paul derived his authority. The occasion on which he received this authority was doubtless his miraculous conversion. It is however instructive to observe that even this Divine call and appointment did not supersede the outward commission and ‘investiture’ ‘through the medium of the Church’ (Acts 13:2). The latter, while owing all its value to the former, is distinctly stated to have taken place by the express direction of the Holy Ghost.

“The Apostles are both ‘from Christ’ and ‘through Christ;’ their disciples (and all regular teachers of the Church) are ‘from Christ,’ but ‘through man;’ the false teachers are ‘from men’ and ‘through man.’ Paul’s call was just as direct as that of the Twelve; but the Judaizers, in their tendency to overrate external forms and secondary causes, laid great stress upon the personal intercourse with Christ in the days of His flesh, and hence they were disposed either to declare Paul a pseudoapostle, or at least to subordinate him to the Twelve, especially to Peter and James.” Dr Schaff.

and God the Father … dead] It may at first sight surprise us that St Paul should thus closely unite God the Father with Jesus Christ, as the channel or agency by which he received his commission. But the difficulty is removed by the addition of the words, ‘Who raised Him from the dead.’ Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power … by” i.e. as the result of “the resurrection from the dead”. The hypostatic union of the Father and the Son is presupposed (John 10:30). “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.” If then St Paul had received his apostolic commission ‘by’ the Risen Christ who “appeared to him on the way”, he might truly be said to have received it ‘by’ God the Father. Luther ascribes the addition of these words to St Paul’s “burning desire to set forth even in the very entry of his epistle, the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to preach the righteousness of God”. “He was raised again for our justification,” Romans 4:25.

Bengel's Gnomen

Galatians 1:1. Παῦλος ἀπόστολος, οὐκ ἀπʼ ἀνθρώπων, οὐδέ διʼ ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ Θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος ἀυτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, Paul an apostle, not of [ἀπʼ called by] men, nor by [διὰ, instructed through the instrumentality of] man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead) A remarkable antithesis, in which, while Paul asserts his apostleship, he mentions also his divine vocation, οὐκ ἀπʼ ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλὰ (supply διὰ) Θεοῦ πατρὸς, not of man, but (by) God the Father; comp. Galatians 1:15, and the following verses; and his immediate instruction, οὐδὲ διʼ ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, not by man but by Jesus Christ. Instruction is generally effected by one individual, for example, as Paul was instructed by Gamaliel; calling, by more than one; hence the difference of number, of men, by a man. Artemonius page 211, 212, contends, after Le Clerc, that we must insert ἀπὸ from after καὶ: but διὰ by is rightly supplied from the last clause, and the force of the particle διὰ by in this passage includes the meaning of the particle ἀπὸ, from, but not vice versa. Paul, when he mentions the Father and the Son in connection, often uses a single preposition. 1 Timothy 6:13.—διὰ, by) He had just used διὰ with) an apostrophe; it is now without the apostrophe, for the sake of emphasis.—ἐγείραντος, who raised) The seeds preparatory to the discussion of his subject are [here already] scattered. The resurrection of Christ is the source of righteousness and apostleship, Romans 1:4-5; Romans 4:25; 2 Corinthians 5:19.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 1. - Paul, an apostle (Παῦλος ἀπόστολος); Paul, apostle. The designation of "apostle," as here appropriated by St. Paul in explanation of his right to authoritatively address those he was writing to, points to a function with which he was permanently invested, and which placed him in a relation to these Galatian Churches which no other apostle ever occupied. Some years later, indeed, when St. Peter had occasion to address these same Churches, together with others in neighbouring countries, he likewise felt himself authorized to do it on the score of his apostolical character ("Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ," 1 Peter 1:1); but there is nothing to show that St. Peter had any personal relations with them at present. Under these circumstances, it is perhaps best in translation to prefix no article at all before "apostle." This designation of himself as "apostle' St. Paul subjoined to his name in almost all of his Epistles subsequent to the two addressed to the Thessalonians. The only exceptions are those to the Philippians and to Philemon, in writing to whom there was less occasion for introducing it. He had now, in the third of his three great journeys recorded in the Acts, assumed openly in the Church the position of an apostle in the highest sense. In several of these Epistles (1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1), to the designation of apostle, St. Paul adds the words," through (διὰ) the will of God;" i.e. by means of an express volition of God explicitly revealed. In what way God had revealed this to be his will is clearly intimated in this letter to the Galatians, in which the words," through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead," which take the place of the formula, "through the will of God," found elsewhere, indicate that it was through Jesus Christ raised from the dead that this particular volition of God was declared and brought to eft;set. The formula referred to, "through the will of God," was apparently introduced with the view of confronting those who were disposed to question his right to claim this supreme form of apostleship, with the aegis of Divine authorization: they had God to reckon with. The like is the purport of the substituted words in 1 Timothy 1:1, "According to the commandment of God our Saviour, and Christ Jesus our Hope." Not of men, neither by man (οὐκ ἀπ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι ἀνθρώπου); not from men, neither through a man. The preposition "from" (ἀπὸ) points to the primary fountain of the delegation referred to; "through" (διὰ) to the medium through which it was conveyed. The necessity for this twofold negation arose from the fact that the word "apostle," as I have had occasion fully to set forth elsewhere, was frequently among Christians applied to messengers deputed by Churches, or, probably, even by some important representative officer in the Church, whether on a mission for the propagation of the gospel or for the discharge at some distant place of matters of business connected with the Christian cause. St. Paul had himself frequently served in this lower form of apostleship, both as commissioned by the Church to carry abroad tim message of the gospel, and also as deputed to go to and fro between Churches on errands of charity or for the settlement of controversies. In either case he as well as others acting in the like capacity, would very naturally and properly be spoken of as an "apostle" by others, as we actually find him to have been; as also he would appear to have been ready on this same account so to designate himself, That he was an "apostle" in this sense none probably would have been minded to dispute. Why should they? His having, even repeatedly, held this kind of subordinate commission did not of itself give him a greater importance than attached to many ethers who had held the same. Neither did it invest his statements of religious truth with a higher sanction than theirs. This last was the point which, in St. Paul's own estimation, gave the question of the real nature of his apostleship its whole significance. Was he a commissioned envoy of men, deputed to convey to others a message of theirs? or was he an envoy commissioned immediately by Christ to convey to the world a message which likewise was received immediately from Christ? Those who disputed his statements of religious doctrine might admit that he had been deputed to preach the gospel by Christian Churches or by eminently representative leaders of the Church, while they nevertheless asserted that he had misrepresented, or perhaps misapprehended, the message entrusted to him. At all events, they would be at liberty to affirm that the statements he made in delivering his message were subject to an appeal on the part of his hearers to the human authorities who had delegated him. If he owed alike his commission and his message to (say) the Church of Antioch, or to the Church at Jerusalem, or to the twelve, or to James the Lord's brother, or to other leaders whomsoever of the venerable mother Church, then it followed that he was to be held amenable to their overruling judgment in the discharge of this apostleship of his. What he taught had no force if this higher court of appeal withheld its sanction. Now, this touched no mere problematical contingency, but was a practical issue which, just at this time, was one of even vital importance. It had an intimate connection with the fierce antagonism of contending parties in the Church, then waged over the dying body of the Levitical Law. St. Paul's mission as an apostle is most reasonably considered to (late from the time when, as he stated in his defence before King Agrippa (Acts 26:16, 17), the Lord Jesus said to him, "To this end have I appeared unto time, to appoint thee a minister and a witness [ὑπηρέτην καὶ μάρτυρα: comp. αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται, Luke 1:2 and Acts 1:2, 3, 8, 22] both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people [λαοῦ, so. Israel], and from the Gentiles, unto whom I myself send thee [εἰς οὕς ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω σε: thus L. T. Tr. Rev.; the Textus Receptus reads εἰς ου{ς νῦν σε ἀποστέλλω]" (comp. Acts 22:14, 15; 1 Corinthians 9:1). But though his appointment was in reality coeval with his conversion, it was only in course of time and by slow degrees that his properly apostolic function became signalized to the consciousness of the Church. Nevertheless, there is no reason for doubting that to his own consciousness his vocation as apostle was clearly manifested from the very first. The prompt and independent manner in which he at once set himself to preach the gospel, which itself, he tells the Galatians in this chapter, he had received immediately from heaven, betokens his having this consciousness. The time and the manner in which the fact was to become manifest to others he would seem, in a spirit of compliant obedience, to have left to the ordering of his Master. But by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead (ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν); but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. The conjunction "neither" (οὐδὲ), which comes before δι ἀνθρώπου, marks the clause it introduces as containing a distinctly different negation from the preceding, and shows that the preposition "through" is used in contradistinction to the "from" (ἀπὸ) of the foregoing clause in its proper sense of denoting the instrument or medium through which an act is done. St. Paul affirms that there was no human instrumentality or intermediation whatever at work in the act of delegation which constituted him an apostle. This affirmation places him in this respect precisely on a level with the twelve; perhaps in making it he has an eye 1o this. The notion has been frequently broached that the apostleship which St. Paul made claim to was conveyed to him at Antioch through the brethren who there, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, formally set him apart, together with Barnabas, for the missionary enterprise which they forthwith entered upon (Acts 13:1-3). But words could scarcely have been selected which should more decisively negative any such notion than those do which St. Paul here makes use cf. One form of apostleship was no doubt then conferred upon Barnabas and Paul; but it was not the apostleship of which he is now thinking (see essay on "Apostles," pp. 31, 32.). In defining the precise import and bearing of the expression, δι ἀνθρώπου, "through a man," we may compare it with its use in 1 Corinthians 15:21, "Since δι ἀνθρώπου ξαμε death, δι ἀνθρώπου came also the resurrection of the dead;" where in the second clause the word "man," employed to recite the Lord Jesus, contemplates that aspect of his twofold being which places him as "the second Man" (1 Corinthians 15:47) in correlation to Adam, "the first Man." Similarly, the parallel with Adam again in Romans 5:12, 15 leads the apostle to adopt the expression," the one Man Jesus Christ" (cf. also ibid. 19). In 1 Timothy 2:5, "There is one God, one Mediator also between God and men, himself Man [or, 'a man'], Christ Jesus," our Lord's manhood, in accordance with the requirement of the context, is put forward as a bond of connection linking him with every human creature alike. These passages present Christ in the character simply of a human being. But in the passage before us the apostle at first sight appears to imply that, because he was an apostle through the agency of Jesus Christ, he was not an apostle through the agency of a human being; thus negativing, apparently, the manhood of Christ, at least as viewed in his present glorified condition. The inference, however, is plainly contradicted by both 1 Corinthians 15:21 and 1 Timothy 2:5; for the former passage points in "the second Man" to the "Lord from heaven," while the other refers to him as permanent "Mediator between God and men," both, therefore, speaking of Jesus in his present glorified condition. To obviate this difficulty some have proposed to take the "but" (ἀλλά), not as adversative, but as exceptive. But there is no justification for this - not even Mark 9:8 (see Winer's 'Gram. N. T.,' 53, 10, 1 b). A less precarious solution is arrived at by gathering out of the context the precise shade of meaning in which the word "man" is here used. Christ is indeed "Man," and his true manhood is the sense required in the two passages above cited; but he is also more than man; and it is those qualities of his being and of his state of existence which distinguish him from mere men, which the context shows to be now present to the apostle's mind. For the phrase, "through a man," is not contrasted by the words, "through Jesus Christ," alone, but by the whole clause: "through Jesus Christ, and God the Father who raised him from the dead." That is to say, in penning the former phrase, the apostle indicates by the word "man" one invested with the ordinary qualities of an earthly human condition; whereas the "Jesus Christ" through whom Heaven sent forth Saul as an apostle to the Gentiles was Jesus Christ blended with, inconceivably near to, God the Father, one with him; his oneness with him not veiled, as it was when he was upon earth, though really subsisting even then (John 10:30), but to all the universe manifested - manifested visibly to us upon earth by the resurrection of his body; in the spiritual, as yet now to us invisible world, by that sitting down on the right hand of God which was the implied sequel and climax of his resurrection. The strong sense which the apostle has of the unspeakably intimate conjunction subsisting. since his resurrection, between Jesus Christ viewed in his whole incarnate being and. God the Father, explains how it comes to pass that the two august Names are combined together under one single preposition, "through Jesus Christ, and God the Father." We shall have to notice the same phenomenon in ver. 3 in the apostle's formula of greeting prayer, "Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ;" on which see the note. We have the same conception of Christ's personality consequent upon his resurrection in the apostle's words relative to his apostolic appointment in Romans 1:4, 5; where the Jesus Christ through whom "he had received grace and apostleship," in contrast with his merely human condition as "of the seed of David according to the flesh," is described as "him who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead." The clause, "who raised him from the dead," has a twofold bearing upon the point in hand. 1. It supplies an answer to the objection which may be believed to have been made to Paul's claim to be regarded as an apostle sent forth by Jesus Christ, by those who said, "You have never seen Christ or been taught by him, like those whom he himself named apostles." The answer is, "You might object so if Jesus were no more than a dead man; but he is not that: he is a living Man raised from the dead by the Father; and as such I have myself seen him (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:1); and he it was that in his own person, and through no intervention of human agency, gave me both the commission to preach and the gospel which I was to preach" (see below, vers. 11, 12). 2. It connects the action of God the Father with that of Jesus Christ in appointing Paul to be an apostle; for the things which Christ did when raised from the dead and glorified with himself (John 17:5) by the Father must obviously have been done from, with, and in God the Father. It would unduly narrow the pragmatism of the clause if we limited it to either of the two purposes above indicated; both were probably in the mind of St. Paul in adding it. The immediate context gives no warrant for our supposing, as many have done, that the apostle has just here other truths in view as involved in the fact of our Lord's resurrection; such e.g. as he has himself indicated in Romans 4:24, 25; Romans 6; Colossians 3:1. However cogent and closely relevant some of these inferences might have been with respect to the subjects treated of in this Epistle, the Epistle itself, as a matter of fact, makes no other reference whatever to that great event, whether directly or indirectly. Should δι ἀνθρώπου be rendered "through man," the noun understood generically, as e.g. Psalm 56:1 (Septuagint), or "through a man," pointing to one individual being? It is not very material; but perhaps the second rendering is recommended by the consideration that, if the apostle had meant still to write generically, he would have repeated the plural noun already employed. Indeed, it may be thought a preferable rendering in the other passages above cited. The transition from the plural noun to the singular, as is noted by Bishop Lightfoot and others, "suggested itself in anticipation of the clause, 'through Jesus Christ,' which was to follow." In the expression, "God the Father," the addition of the words, "the Father," was not necessary for the indication of the Person meant, any more than in 1 Peter 1:21, "Believers in God which raised him from the dead," or in numberless other passages where the term "God" regularly designates the First Person in the blessed Trinity. It would be an incomplete paraphrase to explain it either as "God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," or as "God our Father." It is rather, "God the primary Author and supreme Orderer of all things," or, as in the Creed, "God the Father Almighty." It is best illustrated by the apostle's words in 1 Corinthians 8:6, "To us there is one God, the Father, of whom [i.e. out of whom, ἐξ οῦ] are all things, and we unto him; "and in Romans 11:36," Of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things." The apostle adds the term in order to make the designation of the supreme God, who is the Source of his apostleship, the more august and impressive. Galatians 1:1

Vincent's Word Studies

An apostle

This title is prefixed to Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians. Here with special emphasis, because Paul's apostleship had been challenged.

Of men - by man (ἀπ' ἀνθρώπων - δἰ ἀνθρώπου)

Better, from men - through man or a man. In contradiction of the assertion that he was not directly commissioned by Jesus Christ, like the twelve, but only by human authority. From men, as authorising the office; through man, as issuing the call to the person. He thus distinguishes himself from false apostles who did not derive their commissions from God, and ranks himself with the twelve. Man does not point to any individual, but is in antithesis to Jesus Christ, or may be taken as equals any man.

By Jesus Christ

See Acts 11:4-6; 1 Corinthians 11:1.

And God the Father

The genitive, governed by the preceding διὰ by or through. The idea is the same as an apostle by the will of God: 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1. Διὰ is used of secondary agency, as Matthew 1:22; Matthew 11:2; Luke 1:70; Acts 1:16; Hebrews 1:2. But we find διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ by the will of God, Romans 15:32; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 1:1, etc., and διὰ θεοῦ by God, Galatians 4:7. Also δἰ οὗ (God), 1 Corinthians 1:9; Hebrews 2:10.

Who raised him from the dead (τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν)

It was the risen Christ who made Paul an apostle. For resurrection the N.T. uses ἐγείρειν to raise up; ἐξεγείρειν to raise out of; ἔγερσις raising or rising; ἀνιστάναι to raise up; ἀνάστασις and ἐξανάστασις raising up and raising up out of. With νεκρὸς dead are the following combinations: ἐγείρειν ἀπὸ τῶν νεκρῶν (never ἀπὸ νεκρῶν) to raise from the dead; ἐγ. ἐκ νεκ. or τῶν νεκ. to raise out of the dead; ἀναστήσαι to raise, ἀναστῆναι to be raised or to rise ἐκ. νεκ. (never ἀπὸ); ἀνάστ. ἐκ. νεκ.; or τῶν νεκ. resurrection of the dead; ἀνάστ. ἐκ. νεκ.; ἐξανάστασις ἐκ. νεκ rising or resurrection out of the dead or from among. It is impossible to draw nice distinctions between these phrases.