Galatians Chapter 1:11-24/Commentary

Galatians Chapter 1:11-24 Paul’s Defense Galatians 1:11 “For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man” “For I make known to you”: “Is intended to remind the readers of something which they had forgotten” (Fung p. 51). See 1 Corinthians 15:1; 12:3. “For I tell you plainly” (Gspd). “I would remind you” (TCNT). “Brethren”: Despite their defection, Paul still addresses them as "brethren", yet this does not mean that they would remain "brethren" if they refused to correct themselves. “These brethren are to listen to Paul who writes to them as their true brother” (Lenski p. 48). Often we in the church of Christ are told that we need to loosen up and accept as "brethren" those in error (inside and outside the church). Paul did not teach such a view. Paul taught that everyone who claims to be a "brother" is thereby obligated to listen to those "true brethren" who are preaching the truth. “That it is not after man”: “Is no mere human invention” (TCNT). “Is not a human affair” (Gspd). “According to any human standard” (Vincent p. 87). “Not after a human standard and so he does not try to conform to the human ideal” (Robertson p. 278). “The closest equivalent may be ‘was not thought out by people’, ‘people did not cause it to be’ or ‘people did not start it’” (McClish p. 54).

Galatians 1:12 “For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ” “For”: Further explanation of the last statement. Here is what Paul means by the expression, "not after man". “Neither did I receive it from man”: “No man gave it to me, no man taught it to me” (Phi). “But surely Paul serves some human masters in the gospel? No doubt the Judaizers claimed that Paul learned the gospel from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem; he was dependent upon them for approval and 1

support” (Cole pp. 45-46). “Paul's claim, then, is this. His gospel, which was being called in question by the Judaizers and deserted by the Galatians, was neither an invention (as if his own brain had fabricated it), nor a tradition (as if the church had handed it down to him) but a revelation” (Stott p. 30). “While liberal theologians have many theories about the traditions that shaped Paul's gospel. Paul emphatically denies any such origin” (Boles p. 40).

“Nor was I taught it”: “Nor did I acquire it by the slow and progressive method of teaching” (McGarvey p. 253). “This word speaks of formal instruction in a classroom or at the feet of a master teacher” (Boles p. 40). There is nothing wrong with being taught by man, in fact, such was the method selected for the spread of the gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:16). Yet Paul is fighting against those who claimed that his message was just a watered down version of what he had been taught by others. Paul did not claim to be a student, he claimed to be an apostle. At this point we should remind those individuals who like some of what Paul wrote, but yet reject that his writings were inspired, that they are taking a position that does not exist in Scripture. Paul did not merely claim to be a "good writer" or a "religious writer". Paul specifically claimed to write the very words of God (1 Corinthians 2:913; 14:37; 1 Thessalonians 2:13). Good men, honest men, sincere men do not falsely claim inspiration.

God's message had to be revealed through somebody. God chose Paul and the other apostles (Ephesians 3:3-5). From this message revealed and written down, all other Christians were to be taught. This constituted the "standard" (Acts 2:42; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:15), and those that deviated from "this standard" were to be withdrawn from and labeled unfaithful or false teachers (2 Thessalonians 3:6,14; Galatians 1:6-9).

“But it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ”: “As John Brown puts it: ‘Jesus Christ took him under His own immediate tuition’” (Stott p. 30). See 1 Corinthians 11:23. Christ was the revealer, the gospel was the message revealed.

Here we have another claim to inspiration, and for it not to be invented by Paul, the words revealed and written had to be those words selected by God (1 Corinthians 2:9-13). This means that Paul had the exact same access to truth as did the original twelve (John 14:26; 16:13-14). “Paul had many visions (1 Corinthians 15:3; 11:23; 2 Corinthians 12:1-4). In this, he was not behind the chiefest apostles (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11), for they really had to get their doctrine the same way (John 14:26; 2

16:13)” (McClish p. 54). “Having made this startling claim to a direct revelation from God without human means, Paul goes on to prove it from history, that is, from the facts of his own autobiography. The situation before his conversion, at his conversion and after his conversion were such that he clearly got his gospel not from any man” (Stott pp. 30-31). “In order to underscore the fact that no man had a hand in teaching Paul the gospel, it was necessary to recount how Paul came to know the gospel” (Boles p. 41).

Personal History Prior to His Conversion Galatians 1:13 “For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and made havoc of it” “For ye have heard”: The facts of his life were well-known to many Christians, even to those who have never personally met him (1:23). “In the Jews' religion”: This infers that Paul knew that Judaism does not save. “In the next verse Paul will refer to Judaism and the traditions of my fathers. “These references show a clear-break with the past. Christianity is not just another sect of the Jews” (Boles p. 41). See Romans 9:1-3; 10:1-2. “Beyond measure I persecuted the church of God”: “In an extraordinary degree” (Fung p. 55). The intensity of this persecution is described in Acts 9:1f; 13f; 22:4f; 26:9-12. “According to excess” (Robertson p. 278). “And made havoc of it”: “To lay waste” (Robertson p. 278). Compare with Acts 9:21. “Not satisfied with persecuting the church, he was actually bent on destroying it. He was determined to stamp it out” (Stott p. 31). “Moreover, he was in no way disposed to believe it. So far from accepting it, he was infuriated by what he regarded as blasphemy, the Judaizers themselves may have mentioned it scornfully—‘the man is only a convert’, they may have said” (Cole p. 48). Yet in verses 13-14, Paul points out that he was not even interested in the gospel message! He was not an easy mark, was not dissatisfied with Judaism, and clearly was not “looking for a new church in town”. In fact, he was so against Christianity, that he was its most violent opponent in word and deed. Added to that, remember, Paul had heard men like Stephen preach (Acts 7-8). He knew what this new religion believed. He knew their arguments from and on various verses in the Old Testament, he knew the claims being made for Jesus, and he still rejected it.

“For this very reason Paul refers to it now in order to remind the Galatians how 3

rather impossible it was for one who had been what he had been even to be converted by the agency of man, to say nothing of being made an apostle. The longer the Galatians have known what a frightful Jew Paul once was, the more effect Paul's recalling it will have upon them” (Lenski p. 52).

Galatians 1:14 “and I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers” “And I”: Here is what had led to the fanatical zeal described in 1:13. “Advanced”: “Cut ahead” (Lenski p. 53). “I surpassed” (TCNT). “He outstripped his Jewish contemporaries in distinctively Jewish culture, zeal, and activity” (Vincent p. 88).

“Paul was a brilliant pupil under Gamaliel” (Robertson p. 279). “If religion be seen as a race, a competition, then Paul was well ahead in the lead” (Cole p. 49).

“Being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers”: “And tried as hard as I possibly could to follow all the old, traditional rules of my religion” (Tay).

“Traditions of my fathers”: “Materially the same as the tradition of the elders (Matthew 15:2,6; Mark 7:3,5,8,13), they are Pharisaic traditions and more particularly those enshrined in the oral law transmitted and expounded in Pharisaic schools, which comprised 613 prescriptions (248 positive commands and 365 prohibitions) of rabbinic exegesis. It was zeal for this ancestral law, an intense personal concern for its fulfillment, which provided both the inspiration and the vehicle of expression for Paul's progress in the Jewish religion. Paul's hostility to the Church was the outcome of his devotion to the law. From this it would appear that even before he turned to Christ, Paul had realized distinctly the essential incompatibility between Christianity and Judaism” (Fung p. 57). The very traditions which Christ had condemned (Matthew 15:2ff), were the apple of Paul's eye prior to his conversion. “Now a man in that mental and emotional state is in no mood to change his mind, or even to have it changed for him by men” (Cole p. 32). “He had not accepted Christianity because he had failed as a Hebrew” (Erdman p. 41). See Philippians 3:5. “When Paul says to the Corinthians, ‘Jews demand signs and Greeks see wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles’ (1 Corinthians 1:22f) we may recognize the voice of one who ‘had stumbled over it himself’” (Fung p. 58).

Galatians 1:15 “But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, 4

even from my mother's womb, and called me through His grace” “But”: A complete break had occurred in Paul's life. “When it was the good pleasure of God”: “Refers to God's purpose, resolve, and choice” (Fung p. 63). God was pleased to give Paul the opportunity to see His Son, because God wants people saved (2 Peter 3:9). In addition, this was a gracious act on the part of God, for Paul certainly had not "earned" this favor. “Even from my mother's womb”: “In light of Jeremiah 1:5, probably means ‘before I was born’” (Fung p. 63). As with Jeremiah (1:5); and John the Baptist (Luke 1:15). “Paul did not become an apostle through ambitious self-assertiveness; rather, he became an apostle through the choice of God” (Willis p. 30). “No one would have believed that the babe born away off in heathen Tarsus, the child of the strictest Pharisees, would come to be the apostle who fought this Pharisaism so mightily” (Lenski p. 56). Again, Paul is making the point that there is no way that his apostleship and the gospel he preached could be attributed to men.

“And called me through His grace”: The opportunity that God gave Paul to become a Christian and an apostle were unmerited and undeserved, and Paul understood this (1 Corinthians 15:9). Yet this "call" was not irresistible. Paul still had to exercise his own freewill (Acts 26:16-18). Paul said, "I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision".

Lest someone argue that Paul was given an "easy" chance to become a Christian, that is, “How could Paul resist Christ, after Jesus appeared to him. Is not that money in the bank?" How quickly such people forget the rest of the Bible. Must we bring up the names of Cain, Pharaoh, Balaam, and the Pharisees (who personally beheld the miracles of Christ), to realize that many people before Paul had personal encounters with God and yet still refused to repent! Becoming a Christian, after being the most visible and vocal opponent of Christians, demanded a tremendous personal price. It cost him prestige, fame, fortune, respect, social and business relations and his personal safety.

Galatians 1:16 “to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood” “To reveal His Son in me”: Not only did Jesus personally appear to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:8); but along with that revelation would come the gospel message 5

God wanted him to preach. “Straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood”: “Consulting any human being” (TCNT). “I did not, as might have been expected, talk over the matter with any human being” (Phi). Paul did not consult with any man, especially the other apostles concerning the meaning or interpretation of this experience. He received the gospel he preached directly and independent from all the other apostles. “The remainder of this chapter proves that Paul was never in a position to obtain his doctrine from the other apostles” (Boles p. 44). Often today we hear religious people claiming that God directly has called them. The strange thing is that such people then usually go around seeking the advice of other religious people concerning what they should do. Hey, when God really does call a person, they do not need any advice or direction.

Galatians 1:17 “neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus” “Neither went I up to Jerusalem”: Went up in the sense of elevation. From Damascus, Paul did not immediately head back to Jerusalem after his conversion.

Paul here is giving us some information which is not given in the book of Acts. It does not contradict anything in Acts, rather it supplements Luke's account. This visit into Arabia probably happened between Acts 9:22 and 23. Verse 23 says, “And when many days had elapsed”. Hence Acts 9:23-25 is a different stay in Damascus than verses 9:19-21. One writer has a good point when he says that the opposition against Paul in Damascus (Acts 9:23-25; 2 Corinthians 11:32-33), can be traced not only to Paul's preaching in the actual city, but also in the Arabian region which bordered Damascus. “Apostles before me”: The expression before me means “before” in the sense of apostles selected before I was chosen (Galatians 2:6). “Into Arabia”: “Possibly it was not far from Damascus, because the whole district at that time was ruled by King Aretas of Arabia” (Stott p. 34).

“Just where in Arabia Paul went and why he went there is much disputed. The region known as Arabia, used in such a manner as to include the area east of Damascus to the Euphrates River, extended as far south as the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. It was also used, as in 4:24-25, to refer to the area in which Mount Sinai is located. One opinion suggests that such a drastic change had occurred in Paul's life that he needed some time to arrange his thoughts about the matter. This position also conjectures that Paul received many revelations during this period of solitude” (Willis pp. 34-35). Paul may also have spent this time preaching in Arabia.

6

Galatians 1:18 “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days” “Then after three years”: That is, three years in Arabia and Damascus, or three years after his conversion. Paul is pointing out that he did not even meet with any of the apostles until three years after he had become a Christian. “By which time his gospel would have been fully formulated” (Stott p. 35). Therefore, according to the facts, it could not be claimed that he owed the gospel he preached to the apostles or the church in Jerusalem. In addition, "three years" does not demand three full years. One writer pointed out that the actual time could have been as little as 14 months, that is, parts or portions of years were often counted for the whole year. “I went up to Jerusalem”: From Damascus (Acts 9:26). “Nevertheless, fair is fair; Paul admits that he ‘did go up’. No doubt the Judaizers would seize on this: let them seize upon it. He has an admission to make which will be still more damaging to their case. Paul meets the Judaizing attack by explaining why he visited Peter” (Cole p. 55). “To visit”: “To get to know or get acquainted with” (Fung p. 74). “Cephas”: Peter's Aramaic name (which means "rock" just like his Greek name Peter) (John 1:42). Paul regularly uses the name Cephas when referring to Peter (1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5; Galatians 1:18; 29,11,14), while using the name Peter only twice (Galatians 2:7-8).

We should note what this meeting did not involve. Peter did not explain the meaning of the encounter that Paul had with Christ or instruct him in the truths of the gospel. Paul had been effectively preaching long before he ever met Peter (Acts 9:22). Neither was Paul coming to Jerusalem to have some "hard" gospel questions answered; Paul did not come to "pick" Peter's brain. “Paul wanted to gain knowledge of Peter, not of the doctrine of Peter” (McClish p. 57). When Paul visited Peter, he visited him on the basis of an equal. Hence Paul did not believe in the primacy of Peter, as the Catholics later claimed, and neither did Peter himself (1 Peter 5:1-3).

“And tarried with him fifteen days”: 'This brief visit lasted only fifteen days, a period much too short for the whole gospel system to have been taught to Paul.' (Willis p.

36) In Acts, we learn that persecution forced the end of this visit. (Acts 9:26-30; 22:17-21).

7

Galatians 1:19 “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother” “James the Lord's brother”: Who was viewed as an "apostle" in the wider sense of the term (as Barnabas is called an apostle in Acts 14:14), as one simply "sent". Paul mentions James, because of the leadership role he played in the early church. He was an important and influential voice, and lest anyone accuse Paul of deception, he mentions every "important" member he met (Acts 21:18). “The Lord's brother”: To distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee who was still alive when Paul visited Peter (Acts 12:2), and James the son of Alphaeus. “The Lord's brother means, the actual physical brother of Jesus, a later son of Mary and Joseph (Mark 6:3).

Obviously Mary was not a perpetual virgin as the Catholic's claim. “To sum up, Paul's first visit to Jerusalem was only after three years, it lasted only two weeks, and he saw only two apostles. It was, therefore, ludicrous to suggest that he obtained his gospel from the Jerusalem apostles” (Stott p. 35).

Galatians 1:20 “Now touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not” This is an assertion of the truthfulness of what he is writing. Paul did not say, “My best guess is”, “I think”, or “I suppose”. “The vehemence of his language also implies, probably, that a different account, which misrepresented the nature and purpose of his visits to Jerusalem” (Fung p. 79)---was circulating in the Galatian churches. “I call God to witness that what I say is true". It is the virtual equivalent to an oath (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:5; 2 Corinthians 1:23; 11:31); this must be taken into account in any proper understanding of Matthew 5:34-37” (Willis p. 41).

Galatians 1:21 “Then I came unto the regions of Syria and Cilicia” “Then”: (1:18), which indicates that Paul is giving us a blow by blow record of events that followed his conversion. “Syria and Cilicia”: (Acts 9:30). From Acts we learn that Paul spend time in Tarsus, his home town, preaching the gospel. “Thus he spent eight years in his native city (or preaching in the regions around it)” (McClish p. 57).

“Tarsus was an important Cilician city with a population of half a million people” (Boles p. 49). When Barnabas was looking for someone to help him with the work in Antioch, the logical choice was Paul (Acts 11:25-26). Galatians 1:21 informs us that Paul had already been working in that region (Antioch was the most important city 8

in Syria).

Galatians 1:22 “And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judea which were in Christ” “And I was still unknown by face”: Even over three years after his conversion, the vast majority of Christians in Judea had never seen or personally met Paul.

Obviously then, Paul was not being instructed by the Apostles in Jerusalem. In addition, “We cannot assume that the victims of the persecution must have known the man who was carrying it on, since the actual harrying of the believers could have been done by underlings” (Fung p. 82). Plus, from Paul's conversion (shortly after he left Jerusalem) (Acts 9:1ff) and to the time when he brings famine relief from Antioch (Acts 11:30), is a good ten years. What Paul has said, is that in ten years he only visited Jerusalem once and that for a mere 15 days.

McGarvey well sums up Paul's line of argument, when he says, “The gist of Paul's argument is this: My gospel did not come to me from Jerusalem, for one, I was in no haste to go there. Second, I did not go there for the purpose of perfecting my knowledge of the gospel. Third, it was not there long enough to perfect such knowledge. Fourth, leaving there, I was conscious of no deficiency of knowledge, but went at once to localities far distant, and was not personally known in the regions contiguous to Jerusalem, as I must have been had I lingered in that city long enough to learn the gospel history” (pp. 255-256).

“Churches”: Note the plural. More than one congregation existed in Judea.

Galatians 1:23 “but they only heard say, He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc” “But they only heard say”: That is, this is what the Christians in Judea were hearing about Paul. “Heard”: “The imperfect tense stresses that they ‘kept on hearing’ the remarkable report. Perhaps the news was told and retold because many people just found it too incredible to accept on first hearing (Acts 9:26)” (Boles p. 49). “He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc”: The news is that the most violent opponent of the Church, had not only been converted, but was now just as zealous in preaching the truth, must have been the subject of conversation in every congregation. “The faith”: “It was that gospel which at one 9

time Paul had been trying to destroy. It was that same gospel which he was now preaching. What a crushing argument against the Judaizers, who were slandering the apostle for proclaiming the wrong kind of gospel” (Willis pp. 44-45).

Galatians 1:24 “and they glorified God in me” “Glorified”: “Imperfect, kept on doing it” (Robertson p. 281). “They praised God for me” (Gspd). This took a tremendous amount of maturity and growth from these Christians. The man responsible for the cruel treatment endured by their Christian friends and family members was now a Christian. This final verse is the clincher. By glorifying God in Paul's case, the Christians in Judea were admitting that they considered Paul a true apostle and one who preached the true gospel.

Concluding Observations “Some people admire Paul's massive intellect, but find his teaching harsh, dry and complicated; so they reject it. Others say that Paul was responsible for corrupting the simple Christianity of Jesus Christ. It was fashionable about a century ago to drive a wedge between Jesus and Paul. Yet others say that Paul simply reflected the view of the first-century Christian community. But Paul is at pains in this passage to show that his authorization was not ecclesiastical. He was totally independent of the church leaders. He got his views from Christ, not from the church. This, then, is our dilemma. Are we to accept Paul's account of the origin of his message, supported as it is by solid historical evidence? Or shall we prefer our own theory, although supported by no historical evidence? If Paul was right in asserting that his gospel was not man's but God's, then to reject Paul is to reject God” (Stott p. 37).

We should also note that some of the hardest "cases" prior to conversion, make some of the best Christians. As one writer said, “The harder the wood, the better the furniture”.

10