Study

1. Paul, etc. ¹¹¹¹     “The inscription of the Pauline Epistles,” says Turrettin, “is according to the manner of the ancients, both Greeks and Romans. They were wont to prefix their name; and to those to whom they wrote they added their good wishes.” We have an example in Acts 23:26. — Ed. — With regard to the word Paul, as it is a subject of no such moment as ought to detain us, and as nothing can be said which has not been mentioned by other expounders, I should say nothing, were it not proper to satisfy some at small expense without being tedious to others; for the subject shall be despatched in a very few words.

They who think that the Apostle attained this name as a trophy for having brought Sergius, the proconsul, to the faith of Christ, are confuted by the testimony of Luke, who shows that he was so called before that time. (Acts 13:7, 9.) Nor does it seem probable to me, that it was given him when he was converted to Christ; though this idea so pleased Augustine, that he took occasion refinedly to philosophize on the subject; for he says, that from a proud Saul he was made a very little (parvulum ¹²¹²     Thereby expressing the meaning of Paulus, which in Latin is little. “Paul,” says the quaint Elnathan Parr, “as signifies little, and indeed not unfitly, for he is reported to have been low in stature, and to have had a very small voice,” which is thought to have been objected to him in 2 Corinthians 10:10 — Ed. ) disciple of Christ. More probable is the opinion of Origen, who thought that he had two names; for it is not unlikely to be true, that his name, Saul, derived from his kindred, was given him by his parents to indicate his religion and his descent; and that his other name, Paul, was added, to show his right to Roman citizenship; ¹³¹³     Most writers agree in this view, regarding Saul as his Hebrew name and Paul as his Roman name. — Ed. they would not have this honor, then highly valued, to be otherwise than made evident; but they did not so much value it as to withhold a proof of his Israelitic descent. But he has commonly taken the name Paul in his Epistles, and it may be for the following reasons: because in the churches to which he wrote, it was more known and more common, more acceptable in the Roman empire, and less known among his own nation. It was indeed his duty to avoid the foolish suspicion and hatred under which the name of a Jew then labored among the Romans and in their provinces, and to abstain from inflaming the rage of his own countrymen, and to take care of himself.

A servant of Jesus Christ, etc. — He signalizes himself with these distinctions for the purpose of securing more authority to his doctrine; and this he seeks to secure by two things — first, by asserting his call to the Apostleship; ¹⁴¹⁴     “A called Apostle — vocatus apostolus — κλητὸς απόστολος;” our version is, “called to be an Apostle”. Most consider “called” here in the sense of chosen or elected, “a chosen Apostle.” Professor Stuart observes, that κλητὸς in the writings of Paul has always the meaning of efficient calling, and signifies not only the invited, but the effectually invited. He refers to 1 Corinthians 1:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 1:24; Romans 1:6, 7; Romans 8:28; compared with Galatians 1:15; Jude 1:1; Hebrews 3:1; Romans 11:29; Ephesians 4:1
   He was an Apostle by a call, or as Beza renders it, “by the call of God — ex Dei vocatione apostolus.” The meaning is the same as what he himself expresses it in Galatians 1:1. Turrettin renders it, “Apostolus vocatione divina — an Apostle by divine vocation.”
   The difference between “a called Apostle” and “called to be an Apostle,” is this, that the first conveys the idea that he obeyed the call, and the other does not. — Ed. and secondly, by showing that his call was not unconnected with the Church of Rome: for it was of great importance that he should be deemed an Apostle through God’s call, and that he should be known as one destined for the Roman Church. He therefore says, that he was a servant of Christ, and called to the office of an Apostle, thereby intimating that he had not presumptuously intruded into that office. He then adds, that he was chosen, (selectum — selected, ¹⁵¹⁵     Αφωρισμένος separated, set apart; “segregatus,” Vulgate; “separatus, Beza. “The Pharisees,” says Leigh, “were termed ἀφωρισμένος we may English them Separatists: they separated themselves to the study of the law, in which respect they might be called ἀφωρισμένος εἰς τὸν νόμον, separated to the law. In allusion to this, saith Drusius, the Apostle is thought to have styled himself, Romans 1:1, ἀφωρισμένον εἰς ἐυαγγέλιον, separated unto the Gospel, when he was called from being a Pharisee to be a preacher of the Gospel.” Separated is the word adopted both by Doddridge and Macknight, as well as by our own version. — Ed. ) by which he more fully confirms the fact, that he was not one of the people, but a particular Apostle of the Lord. Consistently with this, he had before proceeded from what was general to what was particular, as the Apostleship was an especial service; for all who sustain the office of teaching are to be deemed Christ’s servants, but Apostles, in point of honor, far exceed all others. But the choosing for the gospel, etc., which he afterwards mentions, expresses the end as well as the use of the Apostleship; for he intended briefly to show for what purpose he was called to that function. By saying then that he was servant of Christ, he declared what he had in common with other teachers; by claiming to himself the title of an Apostle, he put himself before others; but as no authority is due to him who willfully intrudes himself, he reminds us, that he was appointed by God.

Then the meaning is, — that Paul was a servant of Christ, not any kind of servant, but an Apostle, and that by the call of God, and not by presumptuous intrusion: then follows a clearer explanation of the Apostolic office, — it was ordained for the preaching of the Gospel. For I cannot agree with those who refer this call of which he speaks to the eternal election of God; and who understand the separation, either that from his mother’s womb, which he mentions in Galatians 1:15, or that which Luke refers to, when Paul was appointed for the Gentiles: but I consider that he simply glories in having God as the author of his call, lest any one should think that he had through his own rashness taken this honor to himself. ¹⁶¹⁶     Some combine the four separations. “Set apart in the eternal counsel of God, and from his mother’s womb, Galatians 1:15, and by the special commandment of the Holy Ghost, Acts 13:2, confirmed by constitution of the Church, Acts 13:3; Galatians 2:9.” — Parr. But the object here seems to have been that stated by Calvin: nor is it just or prudent to connect any other idea with the word except that which the context requires; for to do so only tends to create confusion. — Ed.

We must here observe, that all are not fitted for the ministry of the word; for a special call is necessary: and even those who seem particularly fitted ought to take heed lest they thrust themselves in without a call. But as to the character of the Apostolic and of the Episcopal call, we shall consider it in another place. We must further observe, that the office of an Apostle is the preaching of the gospel. It hence appears what just objects of ridicule are those dumb dogs, who render themselves conspicuous only by their mitre and their crook, and boast themselves to be the successors of the Apostles!

The word, servant, imports nothing else but a minister, for it refers to what is official. ¹⁷¹⁷     Moses, Joshua, David, Nehemiah, etc., where, in a similar sense, called servants; and also our Savior. They were officially servants. — Ed I mention this to remove the mistake of those who too much refine on this expression and think that there is here to be understood a contrast between the service of Moses and that of Christ.