Глава I.

Greetings to readers (1–5). Reason for writing the message (6–10). The Apostle Paul did not receive his Gospel from men (11–24) Gal.1:1–5. In the greeting, the Apostle immediately outlines the main content of the following chapters. He says about himself that he is a real Apostle of Christ - which the Judaizers, who enjoyed influence in Galatia at that time, did not want to admit to him - and that Christ gave Himself to death in order to redeem people from submission to the present evil age. The Apostle expresses the last thought, again referring to the Judaizers, who, one might say, deprived the feat of Christ of the proper dignity, exposing the necessity for salvation of the Law of Moses. Gal.1:1. Paul the Apostle, chosen not by men or through man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead, In the primal Church, apostles were generally called preachers of the Gospel, and not just disciples of Christ Himself. The Judaizers wanted to equate Apostle Paul with ordinary preachers of the Gospel, saying that he did not listen to Christ Himself and was lower than any of the 12 Apostles. That is why Paul pretends that he is an Apostle in the full sense of the word, equal to every Apostle among the 12. He, firstly, was chosen for his ministry “not by men,” that is, either by other Apostles, or by a meeting of believers, as they were chosen, for example. churches of Titus and Epaphroditus (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). Secondly, he was called “not through man,” that is, Christ did not appoint him to apostolic service through someone else, but directly called him himself. However, Paul calls the first culprit of his calling “God the Father, who raised Christ from the dead.” The Apostle mentions the last fact in those ways to show that both Christ and God the Father are on his side: he, in fact, was called by Christ, and Christ was put in such a state that He could call again, after the resurrection, Apostles for Himself. - God the Father. The Apostle says here that Christ was “resurrected” by God the Father, just as the next. to Rome (Rom.8:11), meaning that Christ was truly resurrected by the Father, since He, as the God-man, made Himself dependent on the Father in everything (John 5:19). But the Ap., nevertheless, was at the same time completely convinced that Christ, as God, was resurrected Himself (Rom. 4:25, 8:34). Gal.1:2. and all the brethren who are with me - to the churches of Galatia: The apostle wants to say that all the Christians around him at the present time (instead of “those who were” it is better to translate “those who are”) sympathize with the step he has taken in relation to the Galatian churches and agree with his views. Gal.1:3. Grace and peace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, The Apostle does not add, contrary to his custom (cf., for example, the introduction to the Epistle to Romans and 1 Cor.), praise to the readers for the firmness of their faith. This shows that the Apostle was too much upset by the behavior of the Galatian Christians, who were currently on the side of Paul's opponents - the Judaizers. – “Grace and Peace” – cf. Rom.1:7. Gal.1:4. Who gave Himself for our sins, in order to deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father; Gal.1:5. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen. The Apostle, of course, here has in mind the Judaizers, who, by putting forward their demand that in Christianity it is necessary to observe the ritual law of Moses, thereby, as it were, weakened the power of the redemptive merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostle therefore says that Christ “gave Himself as a sacrifice for our sins, in order, in accordance with the will or decision of our God and Father, to deliver us from subjection to the present evil age, or, in other words, to such an order of life in which man could not help but sin.” If the Apostle calls this order of life “this order of life” (ενεστῶς), this does not mean that it is still continuing: this word here is equal to the expression “this” (Rom. 8:38; 1 Cor. 3:22) and is the opposite of the expression “the age to come,” as the times of messianic salvation are designated in the N. Testament (Matt. 12:32; Rom.8:38). - Since the Judaizers, taking away the importance of the merits of Christ, at the same time humiliated both God and our Father, Who deigned to accept these merits as a completely satisfying sacrifice for the sins of mankind, the Apostle at the end of the greeting sends up the praise “God to the Father.” Gal.1:6–10. Pointing out the reason for which he addresses the Galatians with a message, the Apostle says that the Galatians allowed false teachers to distract them from God, who called them to fellowship with Himself in Christ. At the same time, he mentions that the Galatians took the side of Paul’s opponents. So, alienation from God and Christ and at the same time loss of confidence in their enlightener Paul - this is what prompts the Apostle to turn to the Galatians with a word of strict admonition. Gal.1:6. I am amazed that you are so quickly moving from Him who called you by the grace of Christ to a different gospel, “From him who called” is from God (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:12; Eph.4:4). - “By the grace of Christ.” The last expression (Χριστοῦ) is recognized by the newest researchers of the text as inauthentic (see Tsana p. 44 with an indication of the most ancient codes in which this expression is not present). If we read simply “by grace,” then by “he who called” we can mean Christ Himself. - “So soon,” that is, so quickly, without hesitation at all. - “To a different gospel”, i.e. to a new one that has appeared again (έτερος - denotes a difference only in quantity or time of origin). The Judaizers came to Galatia with a different or second gospel of Christ, thereby declaring the previous gospel of the Apostle Paul insufficient. Maybe they said that the Apostle forgot to tell the Galatians that Christ always acted as recognizing the eternal significance of the law of Moses (Matthew 5:17-19). They advised the Galatians to completely forget Paul’s preaching as not sufficiently illuminating the cause of Christ. Gal.1:7. which, however, is not different, but there are only people who confuse you and want to change the gospel of Christ. “Which, however, is not different..”. Here the Apostle already uses another term to designate the preaching of the Judaizers. “Not other” - “άλλο”, that is, not different in quality, not different in content, not different from mine in content. What, in fact, could the Judaizers tell the Galatians new about Christ? Apostle, without a doubt, depicted the life and teaching of Christ in all detail, and add something to the actual history of Christ, without falling into fantastic inventions, Judaizers, Of course, they couldn’t... - “But there are people who confuse you and want to transform the gospel of Christ.” Yes, as the Apostle says, “the Judaizers are not able to add anything to my Gospel. They only want to cause confusion, anxiety among you (to confuse in Greek ταράσσειν to disturb, to throw into alarm), to change the Gospel of Christ ( μεταστρέψαι, and τοῦ Χριστοῦ – genus), which Apostle Paul expounded to the Galatians in completely correct form. The Judaizers obviously wanted to reinterpret the Gospel by introducing into it the doctrine of the need to observe circumcision and the law in Christianity 1 . Gal.1:8. But even if we or an angel from heaven were to preach to you a gospel different from what we preached to you, let him be anathema. "Not like us.." more correct: contrary to what we (παρ ό) or: in addition to what we preached, that is, with additions from ourselves. - “But even if we...” The Apostle suggests, based on the example of the Apostle Peter (see further chapter Gal. 2:11–14), that even he is not guaranteed against the possibility of betraying his Gospel (for example, under the influence of torture). - “Angel from Heaven”. This is an impossible case, and the Apostle brings it up only to strengthen the thought. Therefore, the expression should be inserted here: “if it were possible” ... “Anathema”. Among the 70, this word serves as a term to denote the concept of “herem” - excommunication, assignment of something taken from a person’s property or family to God, either in order to bring it as a gift to God, or for destruction, as an object that has aroused the wrath of God against oneself. As in other letters of the Apostle Paul (cf. eg 1 Cor. 16:22), here this word is used in the latter sense. But in what sense does the Apostle understand excommunication itself - in the sense of the judgment of God, or the judgment of the Church? It seems to Zahn that it only says that such a preacher of the Gospel is submitted to the court of God, and not to a disciplinary church court (p. 50). But the concept of anathema or herem among the Jews implied removal from Israeli society (cf. 1 Ezra 10:8; Nehemiah 13:28). If Tsang finds it impossible to apply church excommunication to an Angel, then this objection is unfounded: after all, the Apostle here thinks of the Angel as present on earth in the form of a person and as a member of the Church, and, therefore, as in some way subject to church discipline (again, of course, presumably) 2 . Gal.1:9. As we said before, so now I say again: whoever preaches to you a gospel other than what you have received, let him be accursed. So, the Apostle utters anathema against the Judaizers, who distorted the Gospel of Christ. But this should not amaze the Galatians: after all, before, during his second stay in Galatia, he said the same thing (cf. Gal. 5: 3, 21). But then he expressed this as an assumption, because the Judaizers at that time had not yet come out openly, but now he directly sends excommunication to the false teachers who have appeared or are about to appear again. - “We said.” According to Tsang, here the Apostle, as in verse 8 (“we preached the gospel”), means not only himself, but also his helpers in the preaching of the Gospel. Gal.1:10. Am I now seeking favor from people, or from God? Do I try to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. The Judaizers, in all likelihood, reproached Paul for his apparent inconsistency: “either he, the Judaizers said, applied himself to the customs of the Jews (Gal. 5:11; cf. 1 Cor. 9:20), then he lived with the pagans as a pagan (cf. 1 Cor. 9:21). Was this not a manifestation of the desire to increase the number of people disposed towards him at any cost? This is how the Judaizers probably reasoned before their listeners in Galatia. The Apostle now says, starting to defend himself, that he never acted like that: he only sought “God’s” favor, and he never had any expectations of respect from “people,” and therefore he cannot be accused of faking his way of action to suit the random tastes of his listeners. And how could he become a “servant of Christ” if he had a tendency to seek popularity? He enjoyed enormous popularity in Judaism and yet neglected it in order to follow the thorny path of a servant of “Christ” - a preacher of the Gospel... Gal.1:11–24. From verse 11 the apologetic part of the letter begins, ending with Gal.2:21. Here the Apostle proves that his Gospel is not the Gospel he received from people, but received from Christ Himself. Here he describes in detail his life after converting to Christianity and clearly shows that he did not have teachers even from among the 12 Apostles. Gal.1:11. I declare to you, brethren, that the gospel which I preached is not human, Gal.1:12. for I also received it and learned it, not from man, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Since the Judaizers questioned the divine origin of the Gospel preached by the Apostle Paul, the Apostle first of all expresses the position that his Gospel “is not human.” He did not accept it as a whole (παρέλαβον), and did not learn to understand it (εδιδάχθην) from any of the people, but through the revelation he received from Jesus Christ Himself. Before him, Christ seemed to immediately open the curtain that covered true Christianity before Paul’s gaze, and the Apostle understood all its greatness. Of course, one cannot think that this happened at one moment - at Damascus: the Apostle here undoubtedly means all the numerous revelations that were given to him, in which he learned all the secrets of the Christian faith (cf. 2 Cor. 12:2), revelations he received before writing the letter to the Galatians. It should be noted that this does not deny the possibility that the Apostle became acquainted with the historical events in the life of Christ through conversations with the oldest Christians in the time of conversion to Christ; revelation communicates only ideas, not historical facts. Gal.1:13. You have heard about my former way of life in Judaism, that I cruelly persecuted the Church of God and devastated it, Gal.1:14. and succeeded in Judaism more than many of my peers, being an immoderate zealot of my fatherly traditions. The life of the Apostle before his conversion to Christ clearly indicates that he could not be imbued with Christian ideas at that time. He was an ardent persecutor of Christianity, who did not want to penetrate into the essence of the new teaching. He was not like some of the Pharisees, who took a wait-and-see attitude towards Christianity (cf. Acts 5:34-39). He succeeded in “Judaism,” that is, in the life that developed in Judaism under the influence of the traditions of the elders, and was among his generation (“in my generation”) an immoderate zealous conductor in the life of those traditions that he inherited from his father or from his ancestors in general (the word πατρικός is not the same as πατρῶος: it denotes traditions - in this case obviously Pharisaic - that were kept more strictly in a famous surname than in others). Gal.1:15. When God, who chose me from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace, was pleased Gal.1:16. to reveal His Son in me, so that I might preach His gospel to the Gentiles - I did not then consult with flesh and blood, Gal.1:17. and did not go to Jerusalem to the Apostles who preceded me, but went to Arabia, and again returned to Damascus. But could not the Apostle, after his conversion to Christ, submit to human influence in developing his worldview? This happened, of course, with everyone who accepted Christianity at that time: the Galatians themselves, of course, knew that without instruction from others they could not have become what they became. So, in order to exclude the assumption of such outside influence on him, the Apostle notes as a very important fact that, after his conversion, he did not go to Jerusalem to receive instruction in the faith from the Apostles, but went to Arabia, from where again, without going to Jerusalem, which was at that time the center of Christianity, he returned to Damascus. - “He who chose me...” see Tolkov. Bible vol. X-th. - “Reveal Your Son in me.” Before his conversion, darkness reigned in the soul of the Apostle, which prevented him from seeing in Jesus, whom he persecuted, the true Messiah and Son of God. This darkness consisted of Jewish prejudices and, in particular, of the Pharisaic aspirations that had until then dominated Paul’s soul. The overcoming of these prejudices through a special divine influence on the soul of Paul (cf. John 6:44) and is “the revelation of the Son of God” about which the Apostle speaks here. Only through him did that first self-revelation of Christ (Gal. 1:12) come to its full development and become effective, with which Paul’s calling into the bosom of the Church of Christ and to apostolic service was directly connected. Three days of bodily blindness (Acts 9:9), which followed the appearance of Christ to Paul and the calling of the Apostle, can be considered as the time during which God’s influence took place on Paul’s soul. - “So that I may preach His gospel to the pagans.” The purpose of this “revelation of the Son of God” in Paul’s soul was for Paul to become a preacher of the Gospel among the Gentiles. And could, in fact, Paul not preach to the pagans the One in whom he, by the special influence of God on his soul, recognized the true Son of God? Just as God is the God of Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 3:29), so Christ, the Son of God, must be the unconditional property of all nations. This was God’s purpose in “revealing His Son” to Paul. - “I didn’t...”. Apostle, having received a direct explanation from God about Christ, did not find it necessary to offer the conviction he acquired in such an extraordinary way to the judgment of people (“flesh and blood and” cf. Eph. 6:12; Matt. 16:17): this would have been a manifestation of disrespect on his part for divine teaching. - “The same time.” He thought and acted this way from the very days of his calling. Obviously, his enemies suggested to the Galatians that in the first time after his conversion, Paul still sought recognition from the elder Christians and the Apostles, tried to get from them some of the instructions he needed, and only later unexpectedly broke off all communication with them and came out with his “false” gospel in open contradiction with the Jerusalem Church. - “And he did not go to Jerusalem...”. Where, if not in Jerusalem, this oldest city of Christianity, could Paul have sought guidance if he needed it? However, he did not go there (απῆλθον - according to the best reading, that is, he did not leave Damascus to go to Jerusalem). - “To those who preceded” (Τ. πρό εμοῦ), that is, those called before me. - “And he went to Arabia,” i.e. if he went anywhere, maybe even more than once - from Damascus, which served for three years after his conversion as his permanent place of residence - then only to Arabia - to the region of the kingdom of Nebat, which lay southeast of Damascus, in which King Aretas was the ruler (2 Cor. 11:32). Regarding his stay in Arabia, the Apostle does not say anything more here - he did not need it (for this, see Commentary on the Bible, vol. X). He only wants to show his independence from the influence of human authorities, and he does this by mentioning that he left Damascus only for Arabia, where, of course, he could not meet with the Apostles of the 12... Gal.1:18. Then, three years later, I went to Jerusalem to see Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days. Gal.1:19. I saw no other of the Apostles except James, the brother of the Lord. Only three years after his conversion, when, therefore, the views of the Apostle Paul should have taken a completely complete form, he went to Jerusalem in order to see or get to know (ιστορῆσαι) properly (Paul already had some, superficial knowledge about Peter before) with the Apostle Peter. The Judaists, apparently, interpreted this visit of Paul to Jerusalem in their own way... With this in mind, Paul speaks of this visit to Jerusalem in a completely cold tone. Just as an inquisitive traveler looks for the most glorious cities and wants to see all their attractions, so Paul traveled to Jerusalem to meet, in freedom, the head of the close circle of Christ’s disciples - the Apostle Peter. But Paul stayed in Jerusalem only fifteen days - a very short time in order to learn everything, so to speak, from the beginning and in order to forget everything that the Apostle had acquired for three years away from Jerusalem... Paul did not even have the opportunity to meet the other Apostles from among the 12 at that time—probably they were not in Jerusalem. To be precise in his message about his stay in Jerusalem - after all, the Apostle meant that his message would also be read by his enemies, the Judaizers, who, of course, would try to point out everything that was not said by the Apostle, he adds that at that time he saw the brother of the Lord James, the primate of the Jerusalem Church (see Tol. Bible vol. X). At the same time, Apostle probably uses the word “saw” not without intention: he wants to make it clear that he only saw, but did not study with the Apostle James, did not try to learn from him anything in the field of Christian doctrine that would be unknown to him, Paul. Gal.1:20. And in what I write to you, before God, I am not lying. Gal.1:21. After this I went to the countries of Syria and Cilicia. Gal.1:22. I was not personally known to the Churches of Christ in Judea, Gal.1:23. but they only heard that the one who once persecuted them was now preaching the good news of the faith that he had previously destroyed - Gal.1:24. and glorified God for me. Having confirmed the truth of his testimony with an oath, the Apostle makes a remark about what took place in his life after his above-mentioned visit to Jerusalem. He went from Jerusalem (after spending some time in Caesarea Acts 9:30) to the countries of Syria and Cilicia. It would be more accurate to say: to Cilicia (and specifically, first of all, in the city of Tarsus Acts 9:30) and - then - to Syria, but the Apostle mentions Syria first, because he is thinking about the geographical location of countries: it was Syria that directly bordered Palestine, and then, after Syria, came Cilicia. By this mention of areas far from Jerusalem, the Apostle wants to say that even after his visit to Jerusalem, he stood far from any influence of the chief apostles. Then he notes another fact that is especially important to him. Various Palestinian provincial Christian communities did not know the Apostle Paul personally, but they heard, of course, from the Jerusalemites that the Apostle Paul, who was once a fierce persecutor of Christianity, now became a preacher of this Christianity. It is obvious that the Apostle Paul, during the days of his stay in Jerusalem - precisely in those 15 days - already managed to preach the Gospel there as a completely independent preacher (see Rom. 15:19). This review of the Jerusalem Christians about Paul’s preaching activity, in general, was obviously very sympathetic, and the provincial Palestinian Christians praised God, who had made a zealous preacher of Christ out of their enemy. It is clear - as the Apostle says so - that in the first time after my stay in Jerusalem there was no thought that I was introducing any new teaching about Christ. They treated him very sympathetically, and only recently this attitude has changed... Here a condemnation is pronounced against all attempts of our time to give humanity some kind of “new” Gospel. So, undoubtedly, the direction that affected the Berlin Religious Congress (1910), which wanted to develop a new progressive Christianity, the main teaching of which should be the idea of ​​​​the unnecessaryness of atonement, also falls under this apostolic condemnation. Such new teachers forget that true religious progress does not consist in the invention and discovery of a new Gospel; such progress can only be called that which more and more deepens our knowledge and experience in relation to the old Gospel. Thousands of years of experience confirms that only this Gospel is the power of God, which saves everyone who believes in it Some believe that if the Apostle Paul had lived in our time, when there are different views on Christianity among Christians, he would not have treated those who differed with him with such severity. Thus, the Apostle is somewhat suspected of excessive ardor and harshness, which is supposedly explainable only by the conditions of that time... But there is absolutely no basis for reasoning in this way. The Apostle spoke so harshly about those of other minds because he had an ardent love for the Galatians, who were led astray from the path of salvation by the Judaizers, and then because he was deeply aware of the truth of his preaching. With the same feelings, he would undoubtedly, in our time, speak with no less harshness about those imaginary Christian thinkers and teachers who steal from ordinary believers their most precious asset - faith in Christ as the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation and redeemed us. And those modern Christian pastors who are too lenient towards those who think differently, whose heterodoxy undermines the very foundations of the true faith, should imitate the great zeal of the Apostle of tongues... You might be interested in: