The Pulpit Commentary — Galatians — Section 56

rego,rded, in the one co.ea, llll II kincl of tincti vely to present to view either o:ic of objective creed or form of doctrine,"received" these Divine personalities, As has been re- by a man 011 its being put before him, in marked above with reference to the words ill consideration of the authority with which it ver. 3, "from God the Father and tbe Lnrd comes invest.eel, a11 11, whole ancl so to speak Jesus Christ," the two conceptions appear en bloc, before ever its details ho.ve been blended together to the apostle's view, when definitely gro.sped by him. But in addition he thrnks of the Source from which spiritual to this, and subsequently to this, this same !l'il'ts accrue to us.. His immediate purpose gospel mny be regarded as brought within 1s to assert that his gospel was in its ori~in the range of the recipient's distinguisliing Divine, nnd not human. For this it~ is consciousness, by means of o. " teacher " enough to say that it came to him "throu"'h from without, whether Divine or human, the rcvelaLion of Jesus Christ." But in instilling into his mind successively the preparation for the discussion of these words, various severe.I truths which compose it. it may be here remarked that the supreme Now, it was conceivable tho.t the apostle agency of God the Father, as in all else, so may, in the sense above supposed, have also in particular in the communication to "received" the gospel direct from God or the world of the gospel, is an idea very from Christ, while, however, man may to a distinctly put forth in a great many passages large extent have been the "teaching" of the New Testament, and is in fact the instrument, through which its truths were dominant representation. As examples of brought home to his understanding. But in this, we may refer to Col. i. 26, 2i; .t,;ph. the present passage St. Paul affirms that i. 9; 2 Cor. v. 18, 20; Heb. i. 2. "The in actual fact man had no more to do with words" which •• the Son spake" l'o·ere those his reception of the gospel in the latter which " he \Jo.d heard of the Father," as sense than in the former. And this affirma- were also those which the promised Paraclete tion tallies closelv with what we read in was to "speak." The first verse c,f the tile sixteenth verse'of this chapter, and again Book of the Revelation furnishes a atriking with the sixth verse of the next chapter, illustration of this truth. It runs thus: both •of which passages were written, no "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God doubt, with an eye to the very notion re- ga'l/e him to show unto hia servants, eveu the specting the source of his knowledge of the things which must shortly come to pass : gospel which he is here concemed to nega- aud he [i.e. Jesus Christ] seut and signified tive. Textual critics differ among them- it by his angel unto his servant John." Of selves whether o~TE ("nor") or ova~ (" nor course, the verse refers to that disclosure of yet") ·should be read before J3,6&.x911v, The future events which forms the subject- only difference is that "nor yet" would of matter of the particular book which it the two the more clearly mark a distinction prefaces. Nevertheless, who.t is written subsisting between the notions expressed by here is no exceptional statement, but one the two preceding• verbs. If we acquiesce simply exemplary; it is true in this par- in the reading of the received text, which is ticular reference, just because it is true also "nor," then, since the negative has been with reference to the whole of that disclosure already expressed, the idiom of our language of spiritual facts which through the gospel would here suppress the negative in "nor," is made known to the Church. By the reve- and substitute the simple" or." :But (a.Mo.); lation of Jesus Christ (Ii,' a..-a1<llhtJ1/,<0>s 'l11a-uv but only. The strongly adversative sense Xpt<TTav); through tha re11elatio-n of Je•u• which marks this form of " but" requires Christ. This genitive clause, "of Jesus that in thought we supply after it the words, Christ," ha~ by most interpreters been "I received it and was taught it;" for understood sul,jectively; that is, as denoliog which, in translating, we may put, as an the subject or a.gent implied in the verb,u adequa~e substitute, the word " only." noun "revelation;" in other words, they Dishop Wordsworth translates this aMe suppose St. Pnul herein presents Jesus " except," citing in justification Matt. Christ as having revealed to him the gospel xx. 23. ,But the grammatical construction This does indeed appear to be the me,iniug of that passage is not sufficiently clear to of the phrase, "the revelation of J esu; justify us in gi\'ing to UAA<l a sense which Christ" in Rev, i. 1, just now referred to. does not appear conformable with its .ordi- To.ken thus, the words put before us ex•· nary usage, The apostle, then, affirms that plicitly the agency of only Christ in the it was not from or by man that he had revelation spoken of, leaving the agency of received the gospel or been taught it. From Goel without specific reference. None the whom, then, does he mean that he had re- less, however, does even in this case the ceived aud by whom been taught it? Are we thought of God's agency naturally reour to to say, God the F'ather? or, Jesus Christ? our winds as implied in connection with Just at present, it should seem, the apostle the mention of Jesus Chr,»1t, eve:i. as in the is not concerned definitely or contl'e.dia- first verse of the cbRptft wbete it is ex- 20 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. [OH, L 1-24,