What's your interpretation of Galatians 1:10?

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Do you see the answer as being man for the 1st question & God for the 2nd question?

or

Do you see the answer as being God for both questions (meaning you interpret persuade as approbation)?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

__________________
Bro. Derek Pulliam
Sunday School Superintendent
Believers' Chapel (nondenominational Sovereign Grace Assembly in the innercity)
Baltimore, MD


Some temptations come to the industrious, but all temptations attack the idle. Charles Spurgeon

Definitely approbation. Read the passage in the NASB, Galatians 1:10 or ESV, Galatians 1:10 .

__________________
~James Helbert~, Wytheville, VA
Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCUS
TheBibleAlone.com / The Edinburgh Inn
"Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” - Zechariah 3:2

The Geneva translation might be clearer:

"For nowe preach I mans doctrine, or Gods? or go I about to please men? for if I should yet please men, I were not the seruant of Christ."

And Calvin agrees with that approach too (Commentary on Galatians):


"10. For do I now persuade according to men or according to God? The ambiguity of the Greek construction in this passage, has given rise to a variety of expositions. Some render it, Do I now persuade men or God? Others interpret the words "God" and "men," as meaning divine and human concerns. This sense would agree very well with the context, if it were not too wide a departure from the words. The view which I have preferred is more natural; for nothing is more common with the Greeks than to leave the preposition kata, according to, to be understood.

Paul is speaking, not about the subject of his preaching, but about the purpose of his own mind, which could not refer so properly to men as to God. The disposition of the speaker, it must be owned, may have some influence on his doctrine. As corruption of doctrine springs from ambition, avarice, or any other sinful passion, so the truth is maintained in its purity by an upright conscience. And so he contends that his doctrine is sound, because it is not modified so as to gratify men."

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Thank you for your responses I also found that approbation fits more cleanly & logically with the context. Paul was being charged as a vacillating "time-server" who shifted back & forth in his position depending on the audience.

I was fascinated with the way Dr Fung in his work on Galatians explained the other position. Just wanted to see if anyone embraced it.

Thanks again

Grace & Peace

Redeemed

Basically Paul is using an expanded hendiadys: "Expressing a single idea by two nouns instead of a noun and its qualifier. A method of amplification that adds force."

Here, its the same thought expressed twice. Paul is no man-pleaser. I like the way Bob Reymond expresses Paul's sentiment: "Me, a man pleaser?!? If I or any other person, or an angel from heaven (!) should preach another gospel, I hope he burns in Hell! ... Now do I sound like a man-pleaser?"

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Nice quote. I like it too.

By Bob Reymond, do you mean Robert Reymond and which of his works does this quote come from?

It is Robert Reymond, but I'm paraphrasing him from a seminary class he taught. He might have inserted something similar into another book, for instance "Paul: Missionary Theologian", but since that book is inaccessible to me right now, I'm not sure.