Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians by Saint John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople

Homily I1

‘Paul the Apostle, not from men, nor through the mediation of men, but through Jesus Christ and through God the Father, who raised Him from the dead, and all the brothers together with me, to the churches of Galatia: grace to you and peace from God our Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ.”2

1. The opening [of this epistle] is full of great vehemence and courage, and not only the introductory section, but, so to speak, the entire epistle. Certainly, the fact that one should always speak gently to those who are about to become disciples, even though they need strictness, is not the mark of a teacher, but could be the work of a corrupter, so that, quite rightly, this very fact makes them hostile to him. That is why the Lord, although He spoke gently to His disciples, sometimes used harsher words, and at one time blessed them, whilst at another time rebuked them. Indeed, although He said to Peter, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah’3), and although He informed him that upon his confession He would lay the foundations of the Church, not long [time] after these words, He says: ‘Get behind Me, Satan; you are a stumbling block to Me’4; and again, elsewhere: ‘Are even you without understanding?’5. And He instilled such fear in them that even John said that [the disciples], seeing Him whilst He was speaking with the Samaritan woman, reminded Him of food, ‘And yet no one dared to say “What are you doing?”, or “What are you talking to her about?”’6. Paul, too, understood these things, and because he was following in the footsteps of his Teacher, he adorned his words for the benefit of the disciples, sometimes cutting and burning, at other times applying gentle remedies. To the Corinthians he said: ‘What do you want, shall I come to you with a rod, or in the spirit of love and gentleness?’7; and to the Galatians: ‘O foolish Galatians!’8; and he used this rebuke not just once, but twice. And, towards the end [of the epistle], rebuking them, he said: “Let no one cause me grief”9. And again he shows concern for them, as when he says: ‘My little children, whom I am bringing into the world again’10; and many others of this sort. To a certain extent, it is clear to anyone, even on first reading, that the epistle is full of irascibility.

Paul (…) has refined his words for the benefit of the disciples, sometimes cutting and burning, at other times applying gentle remedies.

But we must explain what it was that caused [Paul] to flare up in anger against the disciples, for this is no small or insignificant matter, since he himself would not have resorted to such vehemence 11. For the tendency to fly into a rage over any matter is characteristic of narrow-minded, inflexible and wicked men, just as, conversely, the tendency to back down in important situations is characteristic of the slowest and most apathetic. But Paul does not fit into this paradigm. Consequently, what was the sin that troubled him? It was a great and weighty one, which alienated everyone from Christ, so much so that he himself points this out, continuing his discourse and saying: ‘Behold, I, Paul, say to you: if you are circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you’12; and again, ‘Those of you who wish to be justified by the law have fallen from grace’13 So, what does this mean? Indeed, we must explain this more clearly. Those among the Jews who believed [in Christ], because they were bound by the prejudice of Judaism 14 and, at the same time, intoxicated by vain glory, wishing to claim the status of teachers, when they went to the Galatians, taught them that they must be circumcised 15, observe the Sabbath and the new moons 16, and turn away from Paul, because he condemned [these observances]. They say that those around Peter, James and John – the foremost of the apostles, who were with Christ – do not hinder [these observances] and, in fact, did not hinder [them], but they did not do so by making it a dogma 17, but rather by showing consideration for the weakness of Christians of Jewish origin. But Paul, since he preached to the Gentiles, had no need of this concession. Consequently, when he was in Judea, he too made use of this concession. However, the deceivers, without explaining the reasons why both he and the others permitted [the aforementioned practices], misled the simplest-minded people with flawed reasoning, saying that they should not trust Paul, for he had only recently come onto the scene, whereas those associated with Peter had been there first; and that Paul was a disciple of the apostles, whilst those associated with Peter were disciples of Christ; and that Paul was alone, whilst they were many and pillars of the Church. And they slandered him for hypocrisy, saying that he himself, the one who rejected circumcision, ‘clearly makes use of these things elsewhere, preaching one thing to you and another to others’.

So, when he saw that the whole people had been stirred up and that a wild fire had taken hold of the Church of the Galatians, and that the edifice was tottering and in danger of collapsing—on the one hand, driven by righteous anger, and on the other hand, by sorrow in his heart 18 – and he indeed showed this by saying: ‘And I wish I were with you now, and that I might change my tone’19 – [for this reason] he wrote the Epistle [to the Galatians], to defend himself against all these [accusations]. And right from the start he refers to the prejudice they were insinuating against him, namely that Peter, John and James were disciples of Christ, whilst Paul was merely a disciple of the apostles. That is why he began [his epistle] in this way: ‘Paul, an apostle—not from men, nor through the mediation of men’. Indeed, those deceivers were saying—as I had anticipated—‘that he is the last of all the apostles and that he was instructed by them’. Peter, James and John were the first to be called [to the apostleship] and are the leaders of the disciples; they received their teaching from Christ the Lord, and we ought to obey them rather than him. They do not prevent us from being circumcised, nor from observing the Law.”

[…] from the outset he refers to the prejudice they were insinuating against him, namely that Peter, John and James were disciples of Christ, whilst Paul was merely a disciple of the apostles. That is why he began [his epistle] in this way: ‘Paul, an apostle—not from men, nor through the mediation of men’.

2. Having said these and other such things, on the one hand, he belittled him, and, on the other hand, exalting the glory of the other [apostles] – not to praise them, but to mislead the Galatians – they sought in vain to persuade them to obey the Law. Therefore, he quite rightly began his epistle in this way. Since they despised his teaching, claiming that it was of human origin, whilst Peter’s came from Christ, [Paul] stood firm from the very beginning against this [false claim], declaring that he was an apostle ‘neither from men nor through the mediation of men’.

Indeed, Ananias baptised him, but it was not he who delivered him from deception, nor did he guide him to the [true] faith; rather, Christ Himself sent that voice from on high to him, through which He caught him [in the net of the Gospel]. [The Lord] called Peter and his brother 20, John and his brother 21, whilst He was walking by the sea 22, and Paul, after He had ascended into Heaven. And just as those men did not need a second call, but immediately left their [fishing] nets and all else to follow Him, so too did this man, from the very first call, rise to a towering height and, as soon as he was baptised, he chose to wage a relentless war 23 against the Jews; but, above all, through this [zeal], he was superior to the other apostles, for he says: ‘I have laboured more than they’24 However, in what [is set out in this epistle] he does not maintain this argument, but is content to present those things which make him like [the other apostles]. Indeed, he did not seek to show that he was above them 25, but rather to undermine the basis of the [Jews’] deception. Consequently, [the phrase] ‘not from men’ was common to all [the apostles], for the preaching 26 has its beginning and origin on high, [but the phrase] ‘not through the mediation of men’ is specific to the apostles, since He did not call them through men, but through Himself.

But why did he not mention his own calling 27 and say: ‘Paul, called not from men’, but [referred] to the apostleship? Because that was the whole point of the discussion. [His accusers] claimed that this responsibility as a teacher had been handed down to him by men, by the apostles, and that he must follow them. But Luke clarified [this point], namely that it was not entrusted to him by men, saying: ‘And whilst they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said: “Set apart for Me 28 Paul and Barnabas”’29

From this passage it is clear that the power of the Son and of the Spirit is one and the same, since, as [Paul] was sent by the Spirit, it is said that he was sent by Christ. This is also shown elsewhere, where the works of God are attributed to the Spirit. [Although,] when speaking to the elders 30 in Miletus, he says: “Take care of yourselves and of the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as shepherds and bishops”31; yet in another epistle he says: ‘God has appointed certain people in the Church: first, apostles; second, prophets; then, pastors and teachers’32. Thus the word is used without distinction, it being said that the things of the Spirit are God’s, and the things of God are the Spirit’s.

But [Paul] silences the heretics in another way too, when he says: ‘Through Jesus Christ and through God the Father’. Since they claim that this phrase ‘33’ is attributed to the Son as One who is inferior [to the Father], take note of what [Paul] does: he attributes it [also] to the Father, teaching us not to lay down laws concerning the ineffable Nature, nor to establish degrees of divinity between the Son and the Father. Indeed, when he said ‘through Jesus Christ’, he also added ‘through God the Father’.

If [Paul] had intended to mention [only] this phrase – ‘through Whom’ – thereby referring to the Father, perhaps [then the heretics] might have speculated, saying that ‘through Whom’ applies to the Father in that the works of the Son refer to Him. But, in reality, by mentioning the Son together with the Father and using the same expression [for both Persons of the Holy Trinity], he no longer allows this [heretical] hypothesis to be plausible 34. For he does not do this now as though he were attributing the Son’s attributes to the Father, but rather to show that the very wording introduces no distinction of Being 35 [between the Father and the Son].

But what might those say here who invent some sort of disparagement [of the Son in relation to the Father] on the grounds of baptism 36, on account of the fact that baptism is performed ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’? If the Son were inferior [to the Father] because He is placed [in the Gospel of Matthew] after the Father, what could [the heretics] say, given that here 37 the Apostle [Paul] begins with the Son, [and then] moves on to the Father? But, in any case, we could not say anything blasphemous. Indeed, it is not right for us to distort the truth by quarrelling with them; rather, even if they were to go astray countless times, we must uphold the standards 38 of the true faith. Therefore, just as we could not say that the Son is greater than the Father, since [Paul] mentioned Christ first – for this [amounts to] utter folly and is the height of all impropriety – so too, there [in the Gospel of Matthew] must we believe that the Son is lesser than the Father because [in the order of presentation] He is placed after the Father.

‘Who raised Him from the dead’

What are you doing, O Paul? Although you wish to initiate those who practise Judaism into the faith, you bring up none39 of those great and glorious things, in keeping with the way you wrote to the Philippians, saying that: ‘Being in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped’40; [or in accordance with] what you subsequently proclaimed in your letter to the Hebrews, that: ‘He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His being’41; [or in accordance with] what the Son of Thunder proclaimed from the beginning: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word’42; [or in accordance with] what Jesus Himself often declared and said to the Jews, that He does the same things as the Father and that He has the same power 43.

You say nothing of these things, but, leaving all these aside, do you [merely] speak of the economy according to the flesh, bringing the Cross and the Death into the discussion? Yes, says [Paul]. Certainly, if the discourse had been addressed 44 to people who thought nothing great of Christ, it would have been right to tell them those [great] things. But because they are rebelling against us, as though they were to be punished if they were to renounce the Law, that is why he reminds them of this, namely the blessing that naturally belongs to all, the one that comes from the Cross and the Resurrection, [a blessing] through which he removes any need for the Law. Of course, to say ‘in the beginning was the Word’, that ‘He was in the form of God’, that He makes Himself ‘equal to God’, and all such things, were said to demonstrate 45 the divinity of the Word, but none [of these expressions] would have contributed so much to [clarifying] the present topic. However, the phrase ‘He who raised Him from the dead’ evoked the pinnacle of His benevolence towards us, which contributed not a little to [his] argument. And, in fact, most people tend to pay attention not so much to words that set forth the greatness of God, as to those that show the good [He has done] for mankind. For this reason, refraining from speaking further of those [great things], he builds his argument around the good deeds done for us.

3. But the heretics rush in, saying: ‘Behold, the Father raises the Son!’, for, having become sick, they close their ears to the hearing of lofty dogmas, whilst the humble ones – expressed thus either for the sake of the body, or on account of the Father’s authority, or for some other dispensation—they choose these and, examining each one in turn, treat themselves with contempt, for, according to Scripture, I could not say otherwise. I might well ask such people why they say these things. Is it not because they wish to portray the Son as weak, and as lacking the power to raise a body from the dead? And yet, faith in Him has caused even the shadows of those who believe [in Him] to raise the dead 46. Consequently, the people who believed in Him, although they remained mortal, raised the dead merely through the shadow of their bodies and the clothes they wore on their bodies—yet He had no power to raise Himself from the dead? And how could this madness and this height of insanity not be exposed? Did you not hear Him say: ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up’47? And again: ‘I have the power to lay down my life, and I have the power to take it up again’48? Why, then, is it said that the Father raised Him from the dead, and that He does other things which the Son Himself does? This was also said with regard to the honour due to the Father, and because of the listeners’ inability to understand.

‘And all the brothers together with me’49

Why, then, when he was writing [the other epistles], did he not add this anywhere? Because he either mentions only his own name, or [because he mentions only] two or three of the others’ names. Here, however, he has depicted a whole multitude, which is why he has not mentioned anyone by name.

So why does he do this? [His opponents] were slandering him on the grounds that he alone was preaching these things and that [he alone] was beginning to introduce a certain innovation into the body of doctrinal teachings. So, wishing to dispel their suspicion and to show that he had many who shared his [theological] thinking, he counted the brothers along with himself, wishing to make it clear that what he writes is in accordance with their [theological] thinking as well.

‘To the churches of Galatia’49

Indeed, this fire of error was ravaging not just one city, nor two or three, but the entire nation of the Galatians. Note also in these words 50 his great irritation, for he did not say ‘beloved’, nor ‘saints’, but ‘the Churches of Galatia’. And this fact—that he did not address them either with love or by honourable titles, but merely by a [simple] convention—as well as the fact that he did not add ‘the Churches of God’, but simply ‘the Churches of Galatia’, stemmed from the fact that [Paul] was deeply distressed and that [now] he was revealing his anguish before everyone. Furthermore, right from the start he is quick to bring [people] together when a particular situation causes division 51 and that is precisely why he called them ‘Churches’, putting them to shame and bringing them together in a single [mind]. Indeed, those who are separated by many things could not be called by this name, since the name ‘Church’ is a name of harmony and unity of opinion.

‘Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ’52

This verse is necessarily applicable everywhere, but especially now, as he writes the Epistle to the Galatians, for, since they were in danger of falling from grace, he prays for them that they may regain it, [and] since they are waging war against God, he asks Him to restore them to the same peace [as before].

‘From God the Father’

And here, once again, the heretics are easily caught out, for they claim that when John says at the beginning of his Gospel: ‘And God was the Word’42 he writes this [name] without the article, as though to admit that the divinity of the Son is inferior [to that of the Father]. Furthermore, they say once again that, when Paul says that the Son is in the image of God 53, he is not speaking of the Father, because this [name of God 54] is also without the article. [If that were the case], what could they possibly say now, when Paul states that it is not from God 55, but from God the Father 56? But here Paul calls God ‘Father’ not to flatter them, but to rebuke them very severely and to remind them of the reason by which they became sons, for it was not through the Law that they were deemed worthy of this honour, but through the bath of spiritual rebirth 57. That is why he traces the traces of God’s beneficence everywhere, even in the preamble, and almost says: [You], who were once slaves, enemies and strangers—how can you suddenly call God ‘Father’? Has the Law [somehow] bestowed upon you this spiritual kinship? Why, then, having forsaken Him Who leads you to this [spiritual] intimacy, do you hasten once more to the Tutor 58?

Yet these names alone—not only that of the Father, but also that of the Son—are sufficient to reveal His goodness. Indeed, the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, if examined carefully, demonstrates all His goodness. And, in fact, that is why He will be called Jesus, says [the evangelist], ‘for He will save His people from their sins’59, whilst the name ‘Christ’ reminded them of the anointing of the Spirit.

4. ‘He who gave Himself up for our sins’60. Do you see that He did not endure the service of a slave either because He was compelled, or because He was handed over by anyone, but that He gave Himself up [of His own free will]? Therefore, when you hear John saying that: ‘The Father gave His only-begotten Son for us’61, do not for this reason diminish the worthiness of the Only-Begotten, nor suspect anything human! Even though it is said that the Father gave Him, this is stated not so that you might imagine it to be a servant’s ministry, but so that you might understand that this was pleasing to the Father, which, without a doubt, Paul also demonstrated here by saying: ‘According to the will of God and our Father’60 – not ‘according to the command’, but ‘according to the will’. Surely, since the will of the Father and of the Son is one, whatever the Son willed, the Father also willed 62.

‘For our sins’60

We were entangled in countless evils, says Paul, and were guilty of the most severe punishment. Moreover, the Law not only failed to free us [from punishment], but also condemned us, on the one hand, because it made sin more evident, and, on the other hand, because it could neither set us free nor put an end to God’s wrath. But the Son of God made even what was impossible possible, for He has forgiven our sins, turned our enemies into friends, and bestowed upon us thousands of other spiritual gifts 63.

Then it says: ‘To deliver us from this present evil age’ 60.

Once again, other heretics 64 cling to this passage, disparaging this present life and misinterpreting Paul’s testimony. ‘Look,’ says [the Manichean], ‘Paul said that the present age is evil!’ Nevertheless, tell me [, please,] what does the word ‘age’65 [eon] mean? It is a period of time measured in days and hours. So why are the passage of days and the sun’s course evil things? In any case, no one could ever say such a thing, even if they were to fall into the utmost error of thought. But Paul, says [the Manichean], did not say that time is a bad thing, but rather called this present life evil. And yet, [Paul’s] words do not say this. Yet [you, heretic,] do not base yourself on [Paul’s] words, from which you have derived this accusation in your own mind, but have forged your own path of interpretation. You will therefore have to accept that we too interpret Paul’s words, all the more so as our interpretations are both correct and sound.

Consequently, what might we say? That nothing evil could ever be the cause of good; indeed, this present life itself is the source of countless crowns and so many rewards 66. Undoubtedly, the blessed Paul himself praises it abundantly, saying thus: ‘If this life in the flesh is to be my reward, then I do not know what I shall choose’67. But, having set before68 the choice between living in this world and being freed from the body to be with Christ, he preferred the present life. If this present life had been evil, neither would Paul have spoken those words about himself, nor could anyone else have made use of it for the sake of virtue, even if they had tried very hard. Certainly, no one could ever use evil to bring about good, debauchery for self-restraint, or envy for friendship. And, in fact, when Paul speaks of the mind of the flesh, saying that ‘it does not submit to the law of God, for it cannot’69—he is saying precisely this: that, in reality, wickedness cannot be 70 a virtue, since it remains wickedness.

So, when you hear the phrase ‘cunning age’, think of evil deeds and of perverted free will. Indeed, Christ did not come to kill us and take us out of this life, but so that, whilst leaving us in the world, He might prepare us to become worthy of the heavenly banquet. That is why, even when speaking to His Father, He said: ‘But these are in the world, and I am coming to You. 71 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one’72—that is, from wickedness. Therefore, if you cannot accept even these [arguments], but still maintain that the present life is evil, [then] do not accuse those who take their own lives 73, for, just as the one who turns away from evil is worthy not of accusations, but of crowns, so too the one who brings an end to his life through a violent death, by hanging or by any other kind of death, according to you, ought not to be accused! But, in reality, God Himself punishes such people more severely than murderers, and, quite rightly, we all feel horror [at the thought of them]. Surely, since it is not a good thing to kill others, it is all the more not a good thing to kill yourself. So, if this life were a bad thing, we ought to reward those who kill people because they free us from evil!

However, even without invoking these [counter-arguments], from what they themselves assert, [it is clear that] they get caught up in their own [words]. They proclaim things that contradict what they themselves maintain 74, since they say that the sun is a god, and after that they also call the moon a god, and worship them as a principle bestowing many blessings.

Indeed, the benefit of these [luminaries] and the other celestial bodies serves no other [purpose] than to aid us in this earthly life—a life which, as they claim, is evil, even though [their workings] nourish the bodies and illuminate them entirely, since they even bring forth the fruits at the time of ripening 75. Therefore, how is it that these, whom you regard as gods, render such service to the ordering of an evil life? Yet neither are the stars gods – far be it from them! – but works of God’s creation 76, made for our benefit, nor is the world itself evil. However, if you speak to me of murderers, adulterers and grave-desecrators, these sins have nothing intrinsically to do with this life. These sins do not pertain to life in the flesh, but to [man’s] corrupted choice. Certainly, no one would be free or sinless if sins were [a natural consequence] of life here, in which case they would undoubtedly have been destined for them.

Note, at the very least, that no one can escape the characteristics of life in the flesh. And what are these? Eating, drinking, sleeping, growing, feeling hungry, feeling thirsty, being born, dying, and all things similar to these. Nor could anyone rise above these: neither the sinner, nor the righteous, nor the emperor, nor the ordinary man, since we are all subject to the inescapable necessities of nature. Likewise, if doing evil were an inevitable part of human nature, no one would escape it, just as no one escapes the unavoidable necessities of nature. Therefore, since you will never find anyone who remains untouched by the necessities of nature, do not reproach me for the fact that there are so few who do good. So, as long as there is even a single person who practises virtue, my words will not be in any way diminished. What do you say [to this], you wretched and miserable soul? [Is] this present life, in which we have come to know God, in which we philosophise about things to come, in which we have made angels of men 77 and dance with the powers on high, is it evil? And what further clarification for your treacherous and distorted view should we seek? 78

[…] no one can escape the characteristics of life in the flesh. And what are these? Eating, drinking, sleeping, growing, feeling hungry, feeling thirsty, being born, dying, and all things similar to these. […] Likewise, if doing evil were an inevitable part of the nature of life, no one would be able to escape it, just as [no one escapes] those things that pertain to the unavoidable necessities of nature.

*I have translated this from Ancient Greek based on the edition by Saint John Chrysostom, Frederick Field, Interpretatio omnium epistolarum Paulinarum. Tomus IV continens commentaria in epistolas ad Galatas et Ephesios, IV, UP, s.l., 1852.

• 1

  We should note that, although this translation is based on the version mentioned above, the Greek edition was also consulted: Saint John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 1, in PG 61, 616, n.p., n.d., 611–682, on the basis of which the chapter was compiled.

• 2

  Galatians 1:1–3.

• 3

  Matthew 16:17.

• 4

  Matthew 16:23.

• 5

  Matthew 15:16.

• 6

  John IV, 27.

• 7

  1 Corinthians 4:21.

• 8

  Galatians 3:1.

• 9

  Galatians 6:17.

• 10

  Galteni IV, 19.

• 11

  Literally: ‘a blow with words’.

• 12

  Galatians 5:2.

• 13

  Galatians 5:4–5.

• 14

  The defining feature by which Judaism contrasted with Hellenism, as Saint Epiphanius of Salamis observes, was precisely circumcision (cf. PG 41, col. 193; English translation: Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book I: (Sects 1–46) Second Edition, Revised and Expanded, Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2008, p. 20).

• 15

  ‘It was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, as well as of the national covenant between God and the Jews. (1.) It sealed the promises made to Abraham, which concerned the community of Israel—national promises. (2.) But the promises made to Abraham included the promise of salvation (Gal. 3:14), a promise which has come to us. The covenant with Abraham was a dispensation, or a specific form of covenant of grace, and circumcision was a sign and seal of that covenant. It had a spiritual meaning. It signified the purification of the heart, the inner circumcision wrought by the Spirit (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Ezek. 44:7; Acts 7:51; Rom. 2:28; Col. 2:11). Circumcision, as a symbol that cast a shadow in relation to the sanctification bestowed by the Holy Spirit, has now given way to [Orthodox] baptism (q.v.). [...] Under the Jewish dispensation, church and state were one and the same. No one could be a member of one without also being a member of the other. Circumcision was a sign and seal of belonging to both. Every circumcised person thereby proved that he was one of the [members] of the chosen people, a member of the church of God as it existed at that time and, consequently, also a member of the Jewish community.” (See M. G. Easton, Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Treasury of Biblical History, Biography, Geography, Doctrine, and Literature, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1893).

• 16

  Gr. νουμηνία-ας, ἡ may allude to the new moon of the year (= the equinox), (cf. Claudius Ptolemy the mathematician, IICE, Κλαύδιος Πτολεμαῖος: ed. J. L. Heiberg – F. Boll – E. Boer – F. Lammert, T 1898–1957 cited in Franco Montanari, ‘noumenia’ in The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, Brill, s.l., First published online: 2015.), however, in the present context, they refer to the special services performed at the beginning of a month (Num. 28:11–15; 10:10) (cf. M. G. Easton, Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Treasury of Biblical History, Biography, Geography, Doctrine, and Literature, p. 500).

• 17

  The Apostolic Council of Jerusalem in the year 50 AD addressed this issue by setting out the obligations under Jewish law for converts of pagan origin (cf. Xavier Léon-Dufour, Dictionnaire du nouveau testament, Média Diffusion, n.p., 2015, p. 179). On another note, it was sufficient for pagans wishing to embrace Christianity to observe only the following prescriptions, without needing to be circumcised: [28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no further burden upon you thanthan these necessary requirements: 29 to abstain from food offered to idols, from blood, from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality, by abstaining from these you will do well. Be well. (Acts 15:28–29 BGT)] ‘For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any further burden on you apart from what is necessary: Keep away from food sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from (animals) strangled, and from sexual immorality; by keeping away from these, you will do well. Be well!” (Acts 15:28–29).

• 18

  Of particular note is the lexical play employed by Saint John Chrysostom between θῡμός -οῦ, ὁ (anger) and ἀθυμία -ας, ἡ (sorrow of the heart, deep grief), to highlight the ‘righteous anger’ of Saint Paul the Apostle towards certain Jews who had come from among the Christians, who had distorted the apostolic message and, by implication, were compromising his image in the eyes of the simple-minded. This attitude aroused the apostle’s compassion for the latter, because they were being misled regarding the obligation to undergo circumcision if they wished to embrace Christianity. It was precisely for this reason—prompted by these false accusations, as mentioned by Saint John Chrysostom—that the Apostle to the Gentiles felt compelled to write this epistle to the Galatians.

• 19

  Galatians 4:20.

• 20

  That is, Saint Andrew the Apostle.

• 21

  That is, Saint James the Apostle, son of Zebedee.

• 22

  In chapter 4, verse 18, of his Gospel, the Evangelist Matthew identifies the Sea of Galilee [Γαλιλαία, in Latin Galilaea] as the geographical location where the first disciples were called.

• 23

  Literally, Greek ἄσπονδος -ον: ‘without making peace with anyone’.

• 24

  1 Corinthians 15:10.

• 25

  It refers to the apostles.

• 26

  The Greek term κήρυγμα -ατος refers to the proclamation of the Gospel, to the content of the apostolic sermon, or even to doctrine or dogma (G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961, pp. 751–752).

• 27

  In this exegetical commentary, the Greek term κλῆσις-εως, ἡ refers more specifically to the call from God, such as, for example, the Old Testament call to Abraham, or the New Testament call to the apostles. The call addressed to Saint Paul the Apostle also falls into this latter category; more specifically, Saint John Chrysostom refers here to Saul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, concerning which the same hierarch, in another of his homilies, makes the following clarification: ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς κλῆσεως ἐτυφλώθη [i.e. St Paul] / at the time of his calling he was blinded (1–7, Chrysostom, John, ob. 407 de laudibus Pauli, G.2.476, PG.50.473). However, a specific meaning of the same term is that of the Christian vocation (G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 757). In the case of Saint Paul, the two meanings—calling and vocation—blend harmoniously because they find their counterpart in the dogmatic reality of things, in the sense that the relationship between grace and freedom can be realised in his life both through the ‘call’—which implies a grace bestowed by Christ in a sudden and overwhelming manner, manifested even visibly through his blindness (cf. Acts 9:8–9)— as well as through the response of the ‘Apostle to the Gentiles’ given through his very life – of which one might almost say that this was his vocation, to bear witness to Christ, which, of course, did not at any time deprive him of his freedom.

• 28

  Here, the verb ἀφορίζω means to set apart for a ministry, to appoint, to ordain: Acts 13:12; Romans 1:1 and Galatians 1:15 (cf. Henry George Liddell, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996, p. 292).

• 29

  Acts XIII:2.

• 30

  In this context, the Greek word πρεσβύτερος does not have the conventional meaning of ‘old man’, but rather that of an ordained person – a priest or presbyter (cf. Rev. Dr Ioan Mircea, Dictionary of the New Testament. A–Z, IBMBOR Publishers, Bucharest, 1995, p. 419).

• 31

  Acts XX, 28.

• 32

  1 Corinthians 12:28. Saint John Chrysostom adds in this edition the noun ποιμήν-ένος, ὁ = shepherd, which does not appear in the biblical text of 1 Corinthians 12:28 (cf. Saint John Chrysostom, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians and Homilies on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 6, JH Parker, London, 1840, p. 4).

• 33

  We would like to point out that in this passage and the next, we have used three different translation approaches for the noun λέξις -εως, ἡ: phrasing, expression and phrase. We have opted for this threefold approach both for stylistic reasons, to avoid tedious repetition for the reader, and to ensure a clearer understanding of the dogmatic theology set out in this passage (translator’s note).

• 34

  Literally: ‘to take place’.

• 35

  Saint John Chrysostom emphasises the consubstantiality [ὁμοουσιότης-ητος, ἡ] of the Persons of the Trinity.

• 36

  Matthew 28:19.

• 37

  In this first verse of the Epistle to the Galatians.

• 38

  In the present context, we wish to make it clear that when we speak of the meaning of the Greek terms μέτρον -ου and τό, translated as ‘measure’, we are in fact referring to the canon, the law or the rule. As for the understanding of the term ‘canon’, we do not limit ourselves here merely to its disciplinary aspect from a theological perspective, but we refer to the true faith in its entirety, and more specifically to the Canon of Orthodoxy, with all the aspects it entails: scriptural, apologetic, apostolic, liturgical, etc. (see Deacon Ioan Ică Jr., The Canon of Orthodoxy. The Apostolic Canon of the First Centuries, Vol. I, Deisis Publishing House, Sibiu, 2008, pp. 321–1032).

• 39

  Literally: ‘You bring nothing into the mix’.

• 40

  Philippians 2:6.

• 41

  Hebrews 1:3.

• 42a42b

  John I, 1.

• 43

  See John 5:19, 27.

• 44

  Literally: ‘would have been’.

• 45

  Literally: ‘they were because of the act of showing’.

• 46

  See Acts 5:15.

• 47

  John II, 19.

• 48

  John X, 18.

• 49a49b

  Galatians 1:2.

• 50

  Literally: ‘here’.

• 51

  Literally: ‘with regard to the matter that causes division’.

• 52

  Galatians 1:3.

• 53

  See Philippians 2:6.

• 54

  It refers to the noun Θεός.

• 55

  From God.

• 56

  From God the Father.

• 57

  According to Lampe’s dictionary, in the present case, the meaning of the Greek λουτρόν -οῦ, τό points to: 1. an equivalence with βάπτισμα, the rite of baptism, in the title of Meliton’s treatise; 2. to the water of baptism; or 3. a connection with certain parts of the ritual [of] Holy Baptism (cf. G. W. H. Lampe (ed.), ‘Λουτρόν (λοετρόν)’, in A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford, 1961, p. 812).

• 58

  The term used here is παιδᾰγωγός -οῦ, ὁ, a word which also appears in Galatians 3:24–25. In this context, it refers to the paideic purpose of the Old Law in preparing the way for the New Law, given by our Saviour Jesus Christ (cf. Philip Schaff, ed., Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, in the series A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. First Series. 13, Christian Literature Company, New York, 1889, 4).

• 59

  Matthew 1:21.

• 60a60b60c60d

  Galatians 1:4.

• 61

  John III, 16.

• 62

  Although the Greek term used here is ‘ἤθελεν’, derived from the verb ‘θελω’, and means ‘to want’, ‘to desire’ or ‘to consent’, in the present context, for a clearer understanding of Chrysostom’s message, and in full agreement with the verb ‘to consent’, the rendering we have adopted is the verb ‘to be willing’, in the sense that the Father’s will consents to, or is in full agreement with, that of the Son (translator’s note).

• 63

  See Franco Montanari, ‘ᾰγᾰθός’ in The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, Brill, n.p., 2015.

• 64

  The heretics named by Saint John Chrysostom are the Manichaeans, ‘who regarded matter as inherently evil and paid divine honours to the sun, the moon and the stars. See Epiph. Hær. lxvi. [On Mani and the Manichaean heresy, see Schaff, Church History, vol. II, pp. 498–508, where a comprehensive overview of the literature is also provided.– G. A.]”, (cf. P. Schaff, Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, p. 5, note 2).

• 65

  Gr. αἰών-ῶνος, ὁ (ἡ).

• 66

  Literally: ‘so many rewards’ (τοσούτων μισθῶν).

• 67

  Philippians 1:22.

• 68

  Literally: ‘after he had set before himself’ (προθεὶς).

• 69

  Romans 8:7.

• 70

  In this context, the Greek word εἶναι can be understood to mean ‘to be in reality’ or ‘to be truly’. See Franco Montanari, ‘εἰμί’ in The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, Brill, n.p., First published online: 2015. Last updated online: 2023 (translator’s note).

• 71

  In PG 61, line 37, Migne adds the reading Καὶ πάλιν, ‘and again’.

• 72

  John 17:11, 15.

• 73

  Naturally, Saint John Chrysostom does not endorse such an attitude; however, in the present context, his remark is intended as irony directed at those who maintain that life is evil, and to demonstrate that the implicit consequence of such thinking would be unacceptable, even to its proponents; he outlines the confusion into which they would fall if they were to assert that life is evil in itself (translator’s note).

• 74

  Literally: ‘with themselves’ (ἑαυτοῖς).

• 75

  Literally: ‘bringing the fruit to the peak of its flowering [that is, to ripeness]’ (καρποὺς εἰς ἀκμήν ἄγουσα).

• 76

  For a comprehensive theological understanding of the Greek term ἔργον, τό, see G. W. H. Lampe (ed.), ‘ἔργον’, in A Patristic Greek Lexicon, published by The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961, 546: ‘A. work; 1. (…) 4. of God; a. creation; i. in general. ὁ δημιουργὸς ἐπὶ τοῖς ἕ. αὐτοῦ ἀγαλλιᾶται 1 Clem. 33.2; his will is creation, and this is called the world Clem.paed.1.6 (p.106.9; M.8.281b); before the creation of all things, of which the Son has always been Ath.Ar.2.51 (M.26.256b); Cyr.Jo.2.6 (4.221c); ii. in particular, of man: ‘all men being one, the works of God’ Clem.str.7.14 (p.61.23; M.9.520b); ‘that which is of God’, that is to say, man Ath.Ar. 2.66 (288b); ‘all … are works of God’ Const. App. 7.2.3 (…)’ (translator’s note).

• 77

  This is not a matter of a change in human nature; rather, in this instance, Saint John Chrysostom is referring to a spiritual, inner transformation of the human being, so that they may become as pure as the angels. By extension, reference may also be made to monasticism, given that a monk must conduct himself like an angel in the flesh, just as Saint John the Baptist did (translator’s note).

• 78

  Part II of the first homily from Chrysostom’s exegetical corpus on the Epistle to the Galatians will be published in the next issue.