John Calvin Commentary Galatians 2:6

"But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man`s person)-- they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me:" — Galatians 2:6 (ASV)

Of those who seemed to be somewhat. Paul is not yet satisfied, and feels it essential to make the Galatians understand that he had learned nothing from Peter and the apostles. Therefore, Porphyry and Julian accuse the holy man of pride, because he claims so much for himself that he cannot endure to learn anything from others; because he boasts of having become a teacher without any instruction or assistance; and because he labors so hard not to appear in an inferior position.

But anyone who considers how necessary that boasting was will acknowledge that it was holy boasting, and worthy of the highest praise; for if he had yielded this point to his opponents—that he had profited under the apostles—he would have provided them with two charges against him.

They would immediately have said, “And so you made some progress; you corrected your past errors, and did not repeat your former rashness.” Thus, in the first place, the whole doctrine which he had until now taught would have fallen under suspicion; and, secondly, he would ever afterwards have possessed less authority, because he would have been considered merely an ordinary disciple.

We find, therefore, that it was not on his own account, but because of the necessity he was under to establish the doctrine, that he was led to this holy boasting. The controversy has no reference to individuals and therefore cannot be a struggle of ambition; Paul’s determination was that no one, however eminent, should overshadow his apostleship, on which the authority of his doctrine depended. If this is not enough to silence those dogs, their barking is sufficiently answered.

Whatsoever they were. These words must be read as a separate clause, for the parenthesis was intended to assure his opponents that he did not concern himself with the opinions of men. This passage has been variously interpreted. Ambrose thinks that it is a passing reference to the folly of attempting to lower Paul by holding up the apostles; and represents him as saying: “As if I were not equally at liberty to object that they were poor, illiterate men, while I, from my early years, enjoyed a liberal education under the care of Gamaliel.

But I pass over all this, because I know that there is no respect of persons with God.” Chrysostom and Jerome take a harsher view of the words, as an indirect threat toward the most distinguished apostles: “Whatsoever they may be, if they swerve from duty, they shall not escape the judgment of God; neither the dignity of their office, nor the estimation of men, shall protect them.”

But another interpretation appears to me simpler and more agreeable to Paul’s design. He admits that they were first in the order of time, but contends that this did not prevent him from being their equal in rank. He does not say that it is of no consequence to him what they are at present; rather, he is speaking of a time now past, when they were already apostles and he was opposed to the faith of Christ. In short, he does not choose for the past to decide the matter and refuses to admit the proverb that he who comes first has the best right.

No man’s person. Besides the interpretations which I have mentioned, a third is not unworthy of notice—that in the government of the world distinctions of rank are admitted, but in the spiritual kingdom of Christ they can have no place. There is plausibility in this statement, but it is in reference to worldly government that it is said:

You shall not respect persons in judgment (Deuteronomy 1:17).

But I do not enter into that argument, for it does not affect this passage. Paul simply means that the honorable rank which the apostles had attained did not prevent him from being called by God and raised, all at once, from the lowest condition to be their equal. The difference between them, though great, is of no value in the sight of God, who does not show favoritism and whose calling is not influenced by any prejudices.

But this view may also appear liable to objection; for, granting it to be true—and a truth which must be carefully maintained—that in our interaction with God there is no partiality, how does this apply to Peter and his fellow apostles, who were venerable not merely for their rank but for true holiness and spiritual gifts?

The word person is contrasted with the fear of God and a good conscience; and this is its ordinary meaning in Scripture (Acts 10:34–35; 1 Peter 1:17). But piety, zeal, holiness, and other similar graces, were the principal grounds of the esteem and respect in which the apostles were held; while Paul speaks contemptuously of them, as if they had possessed nothing but the outward forms.

I reply: Paul is not discussing the real worth of the apostles, but the idle boasting of his adversaries. To support their own unfounded pretensions, they spoke in lofty terms of Peter, James, and John, and took advantage of the veneration with which these apostles were regarded by the Church, in order to accomplish their earnest desire of degrading Paul.

His object is not to inquire what the apostles are, or what opinion must be formed respecting them when controversy is laid aside, but to tear off the disguises which the false apostles wore. As in a subsequent part of the Epistle he treats of circumcision, not in its real character, but in the false and impious notion attached to it by those impostors, so he now declares that the apostles were, in the sight of God, effectively the disguises by which those persons attempted to shine in the world; and this is evident from the words.

Why did they prefer them to Paul? Because they were his predecessors in office. This was a mere disguise. In any other point of view, they would have been highly esteemed, and the gifts of God manifested in them would have been warmly admired by one so singularly modest as the apostle Paul, who elsewhere acknowledges that he was the least of the apostles, and unworthy to occupy so exalted a station.

I am the least of the apostles, and not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God (1 Corinthians 15:9).

They communicated nothing to me. It might also be rendered, “they communicated nothing with me,” for it is the same word which he formerly used twice. But the meaning is the same. When the apostles had heard Paul’s gospel, they did not, on the other hand, bring forward their own (as is commonly done when something better and more perfect is desired) but were satisfied with his explanation, and simply and unhesitatingly embraced his doctrine, so that not even on the most doubtful point did a single word of debate pass between them. Nor are we to suppose that Paul, presuming on his superiority, took the lead in the discussion and dictated to his brothers. On the contrary, his faith, about which unfavorable rumors had been spread, was fully explained by him and sanctioned by their approbation.