John Calvin Commentary Galatians 1

Paul, an apostle. In the salutations with which he began his Epistles, Paul customarily claimed the title of “an Apostle.” His object in doing so, as we have remarked on former occasions, was to employ the authority of his position to enforce his doctrine. This authority does not depend on the judgment or opinion of men, but exclusively on the calling of God; and therefore he demands a hearing because he is “an Apostle.” Let us always bear this in mind, that in the church we should listen to God alone, and to Jesus Christ, whom He has appointed to be our teacher. Anyone who presumes to instruct us must speak in the name of God or of Christ.

But as Paul’s calling was more vehemently disputed among the Galatians, he asserts it more strongly in his address to that church than in his other Epistles. For he does not simply affirm that he was called by God, but states expressly that it was not either from men or by men. This statement, it should be observed, does not apply to the office he held in common with other pastors, but to the apostleship. The authors of the slanders he has in mind did not dare to deprive him entirely of the honor of the Christian ministry. They merely refused to allow him the name and rank of an apostle.

We are now speaking of the apostleship in the strictest sense, for the word is used in two different ways. Sometimes, it denotes preachers of the Gospel, to whatever class they might belong; but here it refers specifically to the highest rank in the church, so that Paul is equal to Peter and to the other twelve.

The first clause, that he was called not from men, he had in common with all true ministers of Christ. As no one should take this honor unto himself (Hebrews 5:4), so it is not in the power of men to bestow it on whomever they choose. It belongs to God alone to govern His church; and therefore, the calling cannot be lawful unless it proceeds from Him. As far as the church is concerned, a man led to the ministry by ungodly motives rather than a good conscience might still be regularly called. But Paul is here speaking of a call ascertained in so perfect a manner that nothing further can be desired.

It will, perhaps, be objected—Do false apostles not frequently indulge in the same kind of boasting? I admit they do, and in a more haughty and disdainful style than the servants of the Lord dare to use; but they lack that actual call from Heaven which Paul was entitled to claim.

The second clause, that he was called not by man, was unique to the apostles; for in an ordinary pastor, this would have implied nothing wrong. Paul himself, when traveling through various cities in company with Barnabas, ordained elders in every church by the votes of the people (Acts 14:23); and he instructs Titus and Timothy to proceed in the same work (1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:5). Such is the ordinary method of electing pastors, for we are not entitled to wait until God reveals from heaven the names of the persons whom He has chosen.

But if human agency was not improper, if it was even commendable, why does Paul disclaim it regarding himself? I have already mentioned that something more needed to be proved than that Paul was a pastor or that he belonged to the number of ministers of the Gospel, for the point in dispute was the apostleship.

It was necessary that the apostles should be elected, not in the same manner as other pastors, but by the direct agency of the Lord Himself. Thus, Christ Himself (Matthew 10:1) called the Twelve; and when a successor was to be appointed in the place of Judas, the church does not venture to choose one by votes, but has recourse to lot (Acts 1:26). We are certain that the lot was not used in electing pastors. Why was it resorted to in the election of Matthias? To mark the express agency of God, for it was proper that the apostles should be distinguished from other ministers. And thus Paul, in order to show that he does not belong to the ordinary rank of ministers, contends that his calling proceeded immediately from God.

But how does Paul affirm that he was not called by men, while Luke records that Paul and Barnabas were called by the church at Antioch? Some have replied that he had previously fulfilled the duties of an apostle and that, consequently, his apostleship was not founded on his appointment by that church. But here, again, it may be objected that this was his first designation to be the apostle of the Gentiles, to which class the Galatians belonged.

The more correct and obvious reply is that he did not intend here to set aside entirely the calling of that church, but merely to show that his apostleship rests on a higher title. This is true, for even those who laid their hands on Paul at Antioch did so, not of their own accord, but in obedience to express revelation.

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away (Acts 13:2–3).

Since, therefore, he was called by Divine revelation, and was also appointed and declared by the Holy Spirit to be the apostle of the Gentiles, it follows that he was not brought forward by men, although the customary rite of ordination was afterwards added.

It will, perhaps, be thought that an indirect contrast between Paul and the false apostles is intended here. I have no objection to that view, for they were in the habit of glorying in the name of men. His meaning will therefore be this: “Whoever may be the persons by whom others boast that they have been sent, I will be superior to them, for I hold my commission from God and Christ.”

By Jesus Christ and God the Father. He asserts that God the Father and Christ had bestowed his apostleship on him. Christ is named first because it is His prerogative to send, and because we are His ambassadors. But to make the statement more complete, the Father is also mentioned, as if he had said, “If there is anyone whom the name of Christ is not sufficient to inspire with reverence, let him know that I have also received my office from God the Father.”

Who raised him from the dead. The resurrection of Christ is the commencement of His reign and is therefore closely connected with the present subject.

It was a reproach brought by them against Paul that he had held no communication with Christ while He was on the earth. He argues, on the other hand, that as Christ was glorified by His resurrection, so He has actually exercised His authority in the government of His church. Paul’s calling is therefore more illustrious than it would have been if Christ, while still a mortal, had ordained him to the office.

And this circumstance deserves attention, for Paul intimates that the attempt to set aside his authority involved a malignant opposition to the astonishing power of God, which was displayed in the resurrection of Christ. This is because the same heavenly Father who raised Christ from the dead commanded Paul to make known that exertion of His power.

And all the brothers who are with me (Galatians 1:2). He appears to have usually written in the name of many persons, judging that, if those to whom he wrote should attach less weight to a single individual, they might listen to a greater number, and would not despise an entire congregation. His general practice is to insert salutations from brothers at the end of his letters, instead of introducing them at the beginning as joint authors of the letter. At least, he never mentions more than two names, and those very well known. But here he includes all the brothers; and thus adopts, though not without good reason, an opposite method. The concurrence of so many godly persons must have had some degree of influence in softening the minds of the Galatians, and preparing them to receive instruction.

To the churches of Galatia (Galatians 1:2). It was an extensive country and therefore contained many churches scattered throughout it. But is it not remarkable that the term “Church,” which always implies unity of faith, should have been applied to the Galatians, who had almost entirely revolted from Christ? I reply, as long as they professed Christianity, worshipped one God, observed the sacraments, and enjoyed some kind of gospel ministry, they retained the external marks of a church.

We do not always find in churches such a measure of purity as might be desired. The purest have their blemishes; and some are marked, not by a few spots, but by general deformity. Though the doctrines and practices of any society may not, in all respects, meet our wishes, we must not instantly pronounce its defects a sufficient reason for withholding from it the name of a Church.

Paul manifests here a gentleness of disposition utterly at variance with such a course. Yet our acknowledgment of societies as churches of Christ must be accompanied by an explicit condemnation of everything in them that is improper or defective; for we must not imagine that, wherever there is some kind of church, everything in it that should be desired in a church is perfect.

I make this observation because the Papists, seizing on the single word Church, think that whatever they choose to force upon us is sanctioned; though the condition and aspect of the Church of Rome are widely different from what existed in Galatia. If Paul were alive today, he would perceive the miserable and dreadfully shattered remains of a church; but he would perceive no building. In short, the word Church is often applied by a figure of speech in which a part is taken for the whole, to any portion of the church, even though it may not fully answer to the name.

Grace be to you and peace. This form of salutation, which occurred in the other epistles, has received an explanation, to which I still adhere. Paul wishes for the Galatians a state of friendship with God, and, along with it, all good things; for the favor of God is the source from which we derive every kind of prosperity. He presents both petitions to Christ, as well as to the Father; because without Christ neither grace, nor any real prosperity, can be obtained.

Who gave himself for our sins. He begins by commending the grace of Christ, in order to recall and fix the attention of the Galatians on Him; for, if they had justly appreciated this benefit of redemption, they would never have fallen into opposing views of religion. The one who knows Christ in a proper manner beholds Him earnestly, embraces Him with the warmest affection, is absorbed in the contemplation of Him, and desires no other object. The best remedy for purifying our minds from any kind of errors or superstitions is to keep in remembrance our relationship to Christ and the benefits He has conferred upon us.

These words, who gave himself for our sins, were intended to convey to the Galatians a doctrine of vast importance: that no other satisfactions can lawfully be brought into comparison with that sacrifice of Himself which Christ offered to the Father; that in Christ, therefore, and in Him alone, atonement for sin and perfect righteousness must be sought; and that the manner in which we are redeemed by Him should arouse our highest admiration. What Paul here ascribes to Christ is, just as appropriately, ascribed in other parts of Scripture to God the Father. For, on the one hand, the Father, by an eternal purpose, decreed this atonement and gave this proof of His love to us, that He spared not his only-begotten Son, but delivered him up for us all (Romans 8:32); and Christ, on the other hand, offered Himself as a sacrifice in order to reconcile us to God. Therefore, it follows that His death is the satisfaction for sins.

That he might deliver us. He also declares the design of our redemption to be that Christ, by His death, might purchase us to be His own property. This takes place when we are separated from the world, for as long as we are of the world, we do not belong to Christ. The word αιών (age) is here used for the corruption that is in the world, in the same manner as in the First Epistle of John (1 John 5:19), where it is said that the whole world lieth in the wicked one, and in His Gospel (John 17:15), where the Savior says:

I pray not that you should take them out of the world,
but that you should keep them from the evil;

For there it signifies the present life.

What then is meant by the word “World” in this passage? Men separated from the kingdom of God and the grace of Christ. As long as a man lives to himself, he is altogether condemned. The World is, therefore, contrasted with regeneration, as nature with grace, or the flesh with the spirit. Those who are born of the world have nothing but sin and wickedness, not by creation, but by corruption. Christ, therefore, died for our sins, in order to redeem or separate us from the world.

From the present wicked age. By adding the epithet “wicked,” he intended to show that he is speaking of the corruption or depravity that proceeds from sin, and not of God’s creatures or of the bodily life. And yet by this single word, as by a thunderbolt, he lays low all human pride, for he declares that, apart from that renewal of the nature which is bestowed by the grace of Christ, there is nothing in us but unmixed wickedness. We are of the world; and, until Christ takes us out of it, the world reigns in us, and we live to the world. Whatever delight men may take in their fancied excellence, they are worthless and depraved; not indeed in their own opinion, but in the judgment of our Lord, which is here pronounced by the mouth of Paul, and which should satisfy our minds.

According to the will. He points out the original fountain of grace, namely, the purpose of God:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son (John 3:16).

But it deserves notice that Paul is accustomed to represent the decree of God as setting aside all compensation or merit on the part of men, and so Will denotes here what is commonly called “good pleasure.” The meaning is that Christ suffered for us, not because we were worthy, or because anything done by us moved Him to the act, but because such was the purpose of God. Of God and our Father has the same meaning as if he had said, “Of God who is our Father.”

To whom be glory. By this sudden exclamation of thanksgiving, he intends to awaken powerfully in his readers the contemplation of that invaluable gift that they had received from God, and in this way to prepare their minds more fully for receiving instruction. It must at the same time be viewed as a general exhortation. Every instance in which the mercy of God comes to our remembrance should be embraced by us as an occasion for ascribing glory to God.