Commentary on Galatians (14)
Here the text itself forbids us from making it the other side of a contrast between independence and solidarity. This is not to say that there was no solidarity, nor to say that Paul did not prefer it, but it is not the main concern of this passage.
First, Paul went in response to a revelation, meaning that he might not have gone at all if he had not been sent by a divine command. The visit was occasioned by special divine guidance – it was not originally on Paul's agenda, but was added to it by the Lord. Therefore, the visit itself and the setting forth of the gospel before the Jerusalem leaders could not have come from Paul's own desire to gain their approval, as if he needed them to confirm that what he had been preaching was true, or as if he needed assurance that he had been called by Christ to preach. He needed no approval, confirmation, assurance, or permission from them.
Second, he went and presented his gospel "for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain." This does not contradict our approach to this passage unless we ignore the surrounding verses, and unless we impose our own cultural concerns and categories upon it. If this means that Paul wanted a confirmation of the accuracy of his message, so that he would not have done all that he did for nothing, then certainly he would be undermining himself. He had just said that his message came to him by divine revelation, but if so, then there was no superior or even equal authority by which his message could be verified, and it would be strange to require human confirmation at this point. The same is true regarding his calling and authority. These came to him by revelation, from Jesus Christ himself, and to require human approval at this time would undermine and contradict this.
The context explains what Paul means. Verse 5 says that he did not give in "so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you," that is, with the Galatians or with Gentiles in general. Although this statement is immediately applicable to verses 3 and 4, it also reflects his concern in verse 2 and in an upcoming passage, verses 11-14. Paul's concern was not directly about solidarity, but about whether Jerusalem would consider his message and ministry legitimate so that his work would not be frustrated by a contradictory doctrinal pronouncement or contravening missionary effort from Jerusalem. Gaining Jerusalem's official agreement was also an effective tactic against the Judaizers, although not a necessary one.
That is, from an individual's perspective, Paul wished to preserve his previous work and minimize hindrance for his future labor. From a broader perspective, he wished to protect the true gospel that so many among the Gentiles had already believed, so that they could hold fast to it and circulate it. He presented his message to the Jerusalem leaders, not hoping for a confirmation for his own assurance, but hoping for agreement so that the gospel – which he already knew to be true by revelation – would not be taken away or otherwise undermined and attacked among the Gentiles.
Paul's concern, then, was the effectiveness of his efforts, and not the truth of his message or the legitimacy of his ministry – he was assured of the latter by divine revelation. And precisely because he was sure about the truth of his message and the legitimacy of his ministry, if the Jerusalem leaders had disagreed with him and censored him, Paul would have defied them and went his own way. This would have produced a great schism between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, dividing Jerusalem and Antioch, so to speak, and might have severely undermined the effectiveness of Paul's previous and future missionary efforts.
Let us be clear as to what all of this means. If Jerusalem had rejected Paul's message and ministry, he would have rejected them and continued with his work – he was not seeking their approval, since he had Christ's command to preach and a revelation as to what he was to preach. Paul would have been in the right, and Jerusalem in the wrong. This would have added to the tremendous pressure that he was already experiencing from those who claimed to be believers. Keep in mind that the apostle Paul was not the apostle Paul that all Christians revere today. During his lifetime he constantly came under suspicion and criticism even from those who were supposedly his brothers in Christ. So we can understand why he did not want Jerusalem to work against him. He was not there to seek approval for his message and ministry, and based on verses 6-10, he did not even seek a close partnership. He knew he was legitimate, but he was there to make sure that Jerusalem would not get in his way.
Commentary on Galatians (13)
Paul went to Jerusalem "in response to a revelation." This could refer to a direct communication from God that he received, whether in a vision or in some other form, or it could refer to a revelation conveyed to him through another person. If Galatians 2 corresponds to Acts 11, then Paul might be referring to the prophecy of Agabus. And if our passage corresponds to Acts 15, then he might be referring to some direct or mediated revelation that occurred amidst the controversy with the Judaizers at Antioch (v. 1-2).
Sometimes commentators assume that if an event mentioned in one place of Scripture corresponds to an event mentioned in another place, then a particular detail mentioned in the former must be referring to the same thing in the latter. But this is unwarranted. Thus, for example, even if the visit to Jerusalem in Galatians 2 corresponds to the famine relief project in Acts 11:29-30, it does not suggest that this "revelation" in Galatians 2:2 must therefore be the prophecy of Agabus. For all we know, Paul could have been confronted with two, three, or several hundred direct and mediated revelations around the same time.
So Paul could be referring to the prophecy of Agabus – that is, if the visit to Jerusalem is the famine relief visit in the first place – but again it might not. In our context, the important point is that Paul went in response to a divine instruction, and not because he was summoned by Jerusalem or because he considered it necessary to obtain approval for his message and ministry.
While in Jerusalem, he "set before them" the gospel that he preached among the Gentiles. As many commentators acknowledge, this cannot mean that Paul was seeking Jerusalem's approval, for otherwise this would undermine all that he has just said (1:11-24) and all that he will proceed to say (2:3-14), and would confirm the Judaizers' accusations and arguments against him.
But then, several commentators suggest that, although Paul was not seeking official approval for his message and ministry, he wishes to establish his solidarity with the apostles, and thereby offset the perhaps overly independent impression conveyed by the earlier verses. However, this misses Paul's emphasis in the passage, and appears to be a contrast imposed upon the text by interpreters who are accustomed to these categories because of their theological and cultural backgrounds, which are not always biblical, and who are thus suspicious of any sort of independence when it comes to ministry authority.
Prevailing theologies of ministry, calling and ordination, and church government usually fail to do justice to what Scripture really teaches about the source of a person's spiritual authority, and out of an implicit deism founded on cessationism, could not help but relegate the source and measure of spiritual authority to human institutions, such as denominations and seminaries.
All individual personalities in Scripture that seem to contradict this scheme are dismissed as exceptions, oddities belonging to a past dispensation. In many cases they have become the enemies of genuine spiritual authority, echoing the Pharisees in the days of the early church, who demanded even of Christ, "By what authority are you doing these things?…And who gave you this authority?" (Matthew 21:23).
If the condition of the post-resurrection church is fundamentally different than before, and in a way that affects this subject, there is no indication of this in Scripture. The religious authorities asked the apostles, "By what power or what name did you do this?" They answered, "It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" (Acts 4:7, 10), and not by the authority of the Jerusalem church, even though they had the church's full support. But nowadays Christians are more interested in hearing about the group to which one belongs and from which one derives his authority. They think this way not because they are upholding the biblical idea of the church, but because they are carnal and lack genuine spiritual power.
Theological reasons that have been offered for this mentality seem to suggest that after the apostles all believers have lost direct contact with Christ, and that the Catholics were correct after all. And even God is now forbidden to select individuals for special ministry apart from the usual denominational procedure. This has very little to do with guarding the sufficiency of Scripture, but it is about protecting man's traditions. And the way they think about spiritual authority would make church and ministry practically impossible in some countries. Their doctrine is based on tradition and culture. It does not respect God's sovereignty, Scripture's actual teaching, or the Spirit's freedom and power.
A corporate ministry model and a complex authority structure existed since Moses, but God sovereignly called prophets that, in many ways, operated independently of the usual authority structure. They were then accepted because of their calling, their message, their piety, and their fruit, even though they lacked the proper association with the accepted institutions. (That said, some of them they were indeed rejected during their ministries because they lacked the respected human associations and credentials.) Those who judged mainly by the latter were enemies of God's work, as represented by the Pharisees and the apostate priesthood of Jesus' time.
Again, it is argued that the coming of Christ had brought about certain changes, so that the same people who would crucify John the Baptist today as a renegade preacher would have refrained from doing so before the coming of Christ. But opponents to genuine spiritual authority used arguments very similar to what we find today against even the apostle Paul, who at times had to defend his call to the ministry, at times his position as an apostle, at times even his conversion, and that against those who claimed to be Christians.
A minister's authority is established, first, by the call of God. Since knowledge of such is sometimes private, and not subject to demonstration other than the person's own testimony concerning it, we may call this the subjective aspect or measure of the call. And second, the call is confirmed not by ecclesiastical recognition – this may or may not accompany it – but by the biblical standard concerning a minister's qualifications, which we may call the objective aspect or measure of the call. Let human credentials be damned, whether one possesses them or not. An extreme cessationism may reject any subjective sense of the call, but since such a doctrine cannot be substantiated from Scripture, and even turns Scripture against the Spirit, let it be damned as well.
Many legitimate ministers will face questions concerning their calling and authority, especially those who are commissioned to perform some unusual task or to subvert certain aspects of the established structure. May they never be swayed by human pressure to abandon their heavenly vision. Some of those who owe their structures and their traditions to someone like Martin Luther would have condemned him today by their very structures and traditions. And that is why they are not Martin Luther. Now they stand in the positions of the Pharisees and the Catholics. A danger not to be dismissed is the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Commentary on Galatians (12)
This high view of Titus is more than our speculation, since there is a richer basis for it. He was entrusted with the task of dealing with the Corinthians. We know what sort of people they could be, but he returned with a good report (2 Corinthians 7:13-16). Paul also sent him to collect donations pledged by them (2 Corinthians 8:6), so he could be trusted with money as well. Regarding God's work, he was eager, zealous, and willing to initiate (2 Corinthians 8:16-17). Paul called him his "partner and fellow worker," and "an honor to Christ" (2 Corinthians 8:23).
Considered Paul's "true son" in the faith (Titus 1:4), Titus was a dependable ministry worker. But in addition to this, he was also a strong leader. Paul trusted him to complete what he himself "left unfinished" in Crete (Titus 1:5), implying that the apostle had full confidence in his competence and character. He was instructed to "appoint elders in every town" (Titus 1:5), a task that presumably required authority, knowledge, discernment, and maturity. The fact that Cretans were in general "liars, evil brutes, and lazy gluttons" (Titus 1:12), reflects on the exceptional courage and skill of Titus to manage troublesome people. He was told to "rebuke them sharply" (Titus 1:13) and "with all authority" (2:15).
In his letter to Titus, it is significant that Paul gives only instructions concerning the things to be said and done accompanied by almost no personal encouragement or theological expositions. He assumes that Titus could and would do all that he says without fear and without fail.
This observation is rendered more reliable when we make a contrast against Paul's letters to Timothy. Among the numerous statements that are apparently designed to excite and assure, the apostle reminds this other "true son in the faith" (1 Timothy 1:2) of the prophecies concerning him, and by this, encourages him to "fight the good fight" (1:18). He is urged to "fan into flames the gift of God" (2 Timothy 1:6), implying that there is dormant potential, so that by this he could overcome "a spirit of timidity" (1:7), and possibly a tendency that is sensitive to the pressure to become "ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of [Paul] his prisoner" (1:8).
He is repeatedly urged to "be strong" (2:1) and to "endure hardship" (2:3). Paul calls to mind the persecutions he endured, as well as the Lord's faithfulness to deliver him, to encourage Timothy to "continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of" (3:14). In dramatic language, the apostle invokes the very name and presence of God, charging Timothy to "preach the word" (4:2) whether the times are favorable or unfavorable, "for the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine" (4:3).
It would be unfair to press the contrast too far. Since our focus is on Titus and his strengths, the above does not care to mention Timothy's good qualities, although he had many. He was also Paul's true son in the faith, trusted with important tasks and delicate situations. There is also the danger of unnecessary inferences. For example, that Paul encouraged Timothy to "be strong" does not necessarily mean that Timothy was weak, although it is correct to assume that it is at least an issue with him, so that Paul is not making an irrelevant point. Then, some of the differences might be accounted for due to varying circumstances.
That said, it remains that such personal assurance and encouragement are almost totally absent in Paul's letter to Titus, and as mentioned, the Cretans were not at all easy to handle. The letter provides not even a hint of any flaw or weakness in Titus. Therefore, even if the contrast is not as glaring as it first appears, a genuine difference remains. Titus was also Paul's "true son" in the faith, and at least for the sake of the ministry, the apostle would have given him any addition information and encouragement that he needed. But Paul assumed that if he would give clear and direct instructions to Titus, then that is exactly what would be accomplished. There was no need for any prodding or hand-holding.
Based on the biblical evidence, we must conclude that Titus was most likely a competent, fearless, and resourceful Christian. He was honest, loyal, and could follow instructions, and at the same time, one could hardly find superior leadership material. He was the one for the tough jobs. He was the one who got things done no matter how difficult the people or situation was, or how much pressure he would come under.
And this is the reason that he receives so much attention in this commentary. The relationship between Paul and Timothy is often discussed, but Titus tends to be neglected. Perhaps so much is devoted to Timothy because the New Testament contains more information about him – there are two letters directed to him, each one longer than the one to Titus. Yet if we will spend some time to study and reflect, we shall find much to learn from this other true son in the faith. Then, perhaps Timothy is favored because he is more relatable – many Christians have needs that parallel his.
That final statement might be easier to accept if left unexplained, but it would be inconsistent with my usual style to be so vague. What I mean is that most Christians are weaklings, and are in constant need of encouragement and assurance. The problem is that they also lack the good qualities of Timothy, nor do they have Paul as their teacher. If Timothy had a problem of timidity, Paul's letters were meant to remedy it, to help him overcome it. That these letters provide a permanent record of Paul's solution does not mean that the corresponding problem should remain permanent in us. That would be to defeat the very purpose of the solution. In any case, this is precisely the reason we must study Titus as well, for if we aspire to his strength and resourcefulness, then we must attempt to know him better, so that we may emulate him.
As for his relevance to our study of Galatians, now we should understand better why Titus was an excellent choice, whether Paul brought him because of mere expedience, or whether he intentionally took him up to Jerusalem as a test case or as an example of the fruit of his ministry.
Commentary on Galatians (11)
Barnabas, of course, was a major figure among the Jewish Christians. He was originally Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, and was renamed by the apostles (Acts 4:36). Later, when the disciples were suspicious of Paul's conversion, he was the one who broke the barrier for Paul and introduced him to the apostles (Acts 9:27). The two remained partners in ministry among the Gentiles until they separated because of a dispute over Mark, who had deserted them earlier (Acts 15:36-41).
"Son of Encouragement" that he was (Acts 4:36), he treated Mark out of the same disposition that moved him to reach out to Paul in the first place, and this later proved to be a worthwhile investment (Colossians 4:10-11), as Mark became "helpful" even to Paul in the ministry (2 Timothy 4:11), and wrote one of the Gospels. In any case, it was natural and beneficial that Barnabas and Paul traveled together here in Galatians 2. To have Barnabas on his side, and working not only together with him but also with the Greek convert Titus, could only have helped Paul's credibility before Jerusalem.
Titus had a greater significance than a superficial reading of verses 3-5 might detect. Paul was to set forth his gospel before Jerusalem, so he knew that his ministry would come under scrutiny. He realized that many Jews denied that God would bless any group of people other than the natural descendents of Abraham, so that if the Gentiles were to receive salvation, the least that they could do was to undergo circumcision, to come under the law, and thus to identify themselves with the Jewish people. And no doubt he was aware that even some of those who claimed to be Christians thought this way.
Therefore, Paul must have known that if he was going to bring along a Gentile Christian as a test case or to demonstrate the fruit of his ministry, he had better bring the best specimen. In fact, even if he did not intend to make a test case out of him, if he was going to bring a Gentile Christian at all, he still had to bring the best. At stake was nothing less than the effectiveness of the past and future efforts of his ministry (v. 2). Of course, as it turned out, Titus did become a test case for Paul's work among the Gentiles (v. 3-5). He embodied the truth, power, and success of Paul's message and ministry; he was a walking contradiction to the Judaizers' doctrine.
So because they were to face Jewish Christians, many of whom harbored a prejudice against the Gentiles that was against the gospel, we assume that Paul brought the very best Gentile Christian with him when he chose Titus. Paul's gospel and ministry would not have been the only items placed under scrutiny, but Titus himself would have undergone tremendous pressure. Paul's courage and conviction certainly made the difference, but if Titus himself was weak and fearful, we doubt that he would have been chosen to face this potentially explosive and even dangerous situation.
Paul might have avoided bringing a Gentile in the first place, but he decided to take one along, and he knew that any person he brought could have become a test case for his message and ministry, as Titus in fact did, and so become a decisive factor in forming Jerusalem's opinion toward him. Thus from this passage alone we can infer that, in terms of the knowledge of God, purity of the heart, and strength of character, Titus was probably unparalleled among Gentile believers.
Commentary on Galatians (10)
GALATIANS 2:1-10
Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.
As for those who seemed to be important – whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance – those men added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
Things get really interesting with this passage. From it we can derive much about ecclesiastical politics in relation to the defense of the gospel. For this reason, it ought to receive ample attention in a program of ministry training. The purpose of this commentary prevents us from pointing out many of the details worthy of discussion on this subject. The passage presents a number of interpretive difficulties in itself, and to push any one of the alternatives very far would take us beyond exposition into speculation. The main points are clear as usual, and what follows will ensure that we grasp them, if nothing else.
Paul has been narrating an account of his life that very likely counters the Judaizers' accusations and misrepresentations. In the previous passage (1:13-24), he recalled his condition prior to conversion and how God consecrated and transformed him, having revealed Christ to him and called him to preach the gospel. By the time he met the apostles, his theology and ministry were already established, so that as far as anything that has to do with this controversy is concerned, he was directly called by God and taught by Christ, and he owed nothing to Jerusalem. Paul continues his story and sets the record straight. Building on the previous verses, he describes another visit to Jerusalem. While maintaining his independence, he now shows that the other apostles are in agreement with him.
Verse 1 states that he was accompanied by Barnabas and Titus on this visit. Acts does not mention Titus at all, but it mentions two visits that Paul undertook with Barnabas (Acts 11:27-30; 15:1-4). The first was to bring relief for the famine predicted by Agabus, and the second was the council at Jerusalem. It is assumed that this one in Galatians is to be identified with either one or the other. While many conclude that the event overlaps with the Jerusalem council, this is not without its difficulties, so that there are those who favor the alternative.11
If Galatians 1:18 corresponds to Acts 9:26-27, and if Galatians 2:1 describes the very next visit, then it would be referring to the one in Acts 11. However, the word "again" does not require this conclusion, but could refer to a third or fourth visit since Paul's conversion, or to the second one that is of any relevance to the controversy. That is, if the visit in Galatians 2 overlaps with the council of Acts 15, then the visit in Acts 11 has been omitted because it is considered irrelevant in this context. The answer somewhat affects a precise understanding of our passage, and also 2:11-14, but Paul's intent is clear enough so that uncertainty on this issue does not paralyze exposition.
The visit occurred fourteen years later. By now it was certainly too late for anyone to claim that Paul owed his theology and ministry to any human influence or authority, since they were even more established and inflexible. He had long become a major force for the Christian movement in his own right, that is, by the grace of God at work through him. The only thing that remained for the apostles to do was to either accept or reject his theology and ministry.
NOTES
11 Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), p. 9-28, and 86.
Commentary on Galatians (9)
As Paul proceeds to describe the period after his conversion, he continues to emphasize his independence from human influence and authority, and especially his independence from Jerusalem. Thus he writes, "I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was." Instead, he "went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus."
It is often assumed that for about three years (v. 18), he spent much time in isolation in order to think through his new understanding of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of all that the prophets have spoken about. It is during this time that his theology developed and matured, providing a foundation for the insights and revelations that would find expression in this letters.
This is possible, and he indeed acknowledges a connection between reflection and illumination (2 Timothy 2:7). However, there is no definite evidence to suggest that he spent these three years mainly in isolation and for the purpose of theological reflection. In fact, although it is certain that he continued to increase in his understanding of the faith, it is said that he immediately began to preach the gospel (Acts 9:20). And if anything, we should assume that he went into Arabia at least partly, if not mainly, to spread the gospel as well.
In our context, the main point is that his understanding of the faith and his preaching of the gospel did not begin under the influence and authority of Jerusalem. Rather, right away he started to preach that "Jesus is the Son of God," and "proving that Jesus is the Christ" (Acts 9:20, 22). And he has been consistent in preaching this message to both Jews and Gentiles since his conversion (Galatians 1:16).
When he finally went up to Jerusalem three years after his conversion (v. 18), he already had an established theology and ministry, developed apart from human influence and authority, and apart from Jerusalem and the other apostles. Although he stayed with Peter for fifteen days, it was only "to get acquainted." He was not there to receive credentials from him, or in any way to gain his approval or authorization.
It is hard to imagine that they talked only about the weather during these fifteen days, for doubtless there was much discussion concerning Christ, their revelations, and ministry activities and directions. Peter very likely shared with Paul a number of details about the earthly ministry of Christ that the latter did not know. But no one should be surprised if Paul in turn gave Peter several theological pointers. And he was by no means behind Peter in terms of visions and revelations as well. In any case, there is no need to speculate – the point is that they met as equals.
Besides Peter, Paul says, he saw none of the other apostles, James excepted. This was "the Lord's brother," and not James the son of Zebedee. Although James would become one of the "pillars" (2:9) in Jerusalem, he did not believe before the resurrection of Christ. So whether Paul includes this James as one of the "other apostles," he was not one of the twelve.
This seems to be a highly significant point in his reply against the Judaizers' accusations and misrepresentations, since he deems it appropriate to invoke the name of God to assure his readers of the truth of what he is telling them (v. 20) – that is, that he only met Peter and James, and only for the purpose of getting acquainted. This piece of information very likely contradicts the account promoted by the Judaizers, and strikes at one of the key claims that they made about Paul and his relationship to the Jerusalem church and the twelve apostles.
Verse 21 states that he then "went to Syria and Cilicia." Perhaps this is to eliminate any suspicion that he had met up with other Jerusalem believers elsewhere. So he says that he was "personally unknown to the churches of Judea," only that they had heard a report about his conversion and ministry, and that they praised God because of him.
Commentary on Galatians (8)
Paul's position was clear. He was established in Judaism, and was determined to destroy Christianity. He was not "on the fence" in any way. When he was converted, he was not inquiring from any of the apostles or disciples about the way of salvation. In fact, he was fiercely charging toward the opposite direction, heading to Damascus with letters from the high priest to arrest the Christians that he may find there.
Thus in verses 15-16, he describes his conversion as a work of God and not a work of man. He says he was converted because "God…was pleased to reveal his Son in me." Consistent with the context and his purpose, man is wholly excluded, and no man receives any credit for his sudden and dramatic change. He had heard the testimony of Christians, but he was not convinced and rather persecuted them because of it.
Further, men did not set him apart by some process of consecration or ordination, but he says it was God "who set me apart from birth." Of course, every legitimate ministry is divinely ordained, predetermined by God before the creation of the world. But Paul here echoes the prophetic consciousness of one like Jeremiah (see Jeremiah 1:5), and again directs attention to his conversion and ministry as one foreordained and accomplished by divine will, rather than by human initiation and discipleship.
He writes that "God…called me by his grace." He was not chosen because of his works or merits, and certainly not because of his dedication to Judaism, which "grace" caused him to leave behind. By telling his story, Paul provides an ingenious indirect argument against the false gospel. Probably none of the Judaizers could match what Paul had attained in Judaism, and the Gentile Galatians are at an even greater disadvantage. But what the Judaizers are preaching and what the Galatians are turning to – that which they covet and strive for – is precisely what Paul had to be rescued from by the grace of God.
By turning to the message of the Judaizers, the Galatians are not finding a solution better than what Paul gave them – there is nothing better – but they are taking on a problem greater than any of them could bear. If adherence to Jewish laws and traditions is the answer, then Paul already had it before his conversion to the Christian faith, but he speaks of it as bondage and damnation. He was charging much more fiercely in the direction that the Galatians are now heading, and he tells them that there is no salvation there. He pointed them toward the right way when he first preached to them.
He says that God revealed Christ to him "so that I might preach him among the Gentiles," or to the various nations and peoples. This is not the whole of Christ's commission to Paul (see Acts 9:15), but it is a major part of it, and the part that is most relevant to his readers and the thrust of this letter. Later he will emphasize God's promise to Abraham, that through him "All nations will be blessed" (3:8, also 3:14). This provides a context that accentuates the significance of his commission, and assuming that he also perceives the connection, he understands his ministry as God's fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. And it in turn emphasizes once more the legitimacy and authority of the ministry against the Judaizers.
Commentary on Galatians (7)
GALATIANS 1:13-24
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles – only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." And they praised God because of me.
This passage continues what Paul started in verses 11-12, and that is to demonstrate the independence of his message and ministry from human influence and authority. He does this by telling the story about his conversion and development. As noted, this is very likely his response to the accusations and misrepresentations of the Judaizers, and from what he says in the response, we can infer something about the accusations and misrepresentations that it answers.
Paul asserts the divine origin of his message and ministry, and his independence from human influence and authority. We infer from this that the Judaizers claim the opposite about him in their accusations and misrepresentations. And then, since Paul proceeds to give a history of his conversion and ministry, with emphasis on his independence from the Jerusalem church and its leaders, we infer that this also has to do with what the Judaizers have been saying in their attempts to undermine him.
Nevertheless, Paul's side of this interaction is rich enough in content that it is intelligible and meaningful to us even without a definite knowledge about the nature of these accusations and misrepresentations. Moreover, since we are striving for concision, and since we would like to avoid undue speculations, in what follows we will focus on what Paul actually says instead of what he is supposed to be defending himself against by what he says.
His story begins at the period before his conversion to the Christian faith. He calls his previous way of life "Judaism." Thus he makes a sharp distinction between Judaism and Christianity. These are not two expressions of one religion, and Christianity is not a sect of Judaism, but they are two different religions altogether. In fact, Judaism is not even the faith of the Old Testament. The religion of the Old Testament prescribes the law of Moses, but that has never been the way to salvation. Rather, the gospel that demands faith in the future Messiah has been preached since the very beginning, even since the fall of Adam (Genesis 3:15). And since that time the prophets have preached the gospel of the future Christ with increasing insight (1 Peter 1:10-12).9
On the other hand, Judaism is a faith that is "zealous for the traditions" of the elders. Many of these traditions have been imposed upon the Old Testament, not in order to obey it, but in order to disobey it while appearing to obey it.10 Since Judaism is not Christianity, and since Judaism does not obey even the Old Testament, the necessary conclusion is that no adherent of Judaism can receive salvation. Judaism has evolved since that time, but not for the better, and there is still no salvation in it.
Many Christians affirm all the premises that inevitably lead to this conclusion, but they will not state the conclusion. This is because they fear men rather than God. But "if I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." So we say, all believers of Judaism will be condemned to hell. I wonder how anyone who refuses to affirm this can even be a Christian. Logically speaking, he cannot, since by refusing the negative implication of the gospel, he has logically repudiated its positive claims. This is the necessary implication of the gospel, but rather than to offend, some prefer to say that Christ died for nothing (2:21).
Paul was "advancing in Judaism" and was "extremely zealous" in it. Other portions of the New Testament provide us with additional information on his credentials and accomplishments in this religion. For example, he writes in Philippians 3:4-6, "If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless" (also see Acts 22:3-5, 26:4-11). No one can say that he turned away from Judaism because he was ignorant of it or failing in it.
NOTES
9 See Vincent Cheung, Commentary on First Peter
10 See Vincent Cheung, The Sermon on the Mount
Commentary on Galatians (6)
GALATIANS 1:11-12
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
The Judaizers' strategy for subverting the gospel seems to include an attack on Paul's authority and credibility. One possible accusation is that Paul in fact preaches circumcision among the Jews, but exempts the Gentiles from this requirement in order to appease them and gather disciples (see 1:10 and 5:11). Along with this, the Judaizers probably claim to represent Jerusalem, and that Paul himself received his understanding of the gospel from there, so that his theology and ministry are derivative of and subordinate to the mother church. Therefore, Paul begins his reply by asserting the divine origin and the independence of his message. That is, he denies human invention in the content of his preaching, and denies human instruction as the method of his learning.
He writes, "I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ," or literally, "through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (ESV, NASB). This can refer to Christ as the content of what is revealed or to Christ as the revealer of the content of the gospel. The grammar permits both meanings, and both are true in Paul's life.
The first possibility is often favored because several verses later, he says, "God…was pleased to reveal his Son in me." This would make the statement an expansion and explanation of what is meant by "through a revelation of Jesus Christ." So God is the revealer, and Christ is the content of God's revelation to Paul. Indeed, the Father is the one who makes known the person of Christ and the veracity of the gospel to those whom he has chosen to save (Matthew 16:17; John 6:44). However, it is not clear that verses 15-16 are related in such a manner to verse 12, or that they can restrict verse 12 to this meaning, so that "through a revelation of Jesus Christ" is equated with "to reveal his Son in me." The verses would remain true and meaningful, and consistent with one another, even if these phrases are not equated in this way.
If the second meaning is intended, so that Christ is the revealer, then Paul may have in mind the incident in Acts 9, when Christ appeared to him, converted him, and commissioned him to preach the gospel. We must realize that biblical narratives are summaries, so that Acts 9 records only those portions of the encounter that are relevant to the context – the full conversation between Christ and Paul could have been much more extensive. We know this because when Paul later relates the same experience in Acts 26, Christ's commission to him is much more descriptive and theologically rich. It even includes the idea that God's people are "sanctified by faith" in Christ (v. 15-18), a point that has much to do with Galatians. Doubtless these additional details are included because they are relevant to the context of Acts 26 and to what Paul is communicating to King Agrippa.
In addition, even if Paul is referring to only one instance of revelation, it will help us to better appreciate the development of his theology and ministry by noting that he continues to receive many visions and revelations throughout his life. In fact, Paul's role is partly defined in such a manner. Ananias said to him, "The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth" (Acts 22:14). This part of what Ananias said to Paul is not included in Acts 9, and we do not find out about it until Acts 22, again illustrating that biblical narratives and dialogues are almost always abbreviated, relating only those portions that are relevant to the immediate context and purpose.
Paul has been chosen to see Christ and to hear from him. Visions and revelations are thus not incidental to his calling, but are explicitly and prominently specified in his "job description," so to speak. Indeed, we see that the vision in Acts 9 is just the first of numerous subsequent ones. Acts 18:9 says, "One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision," and gave him encouragement and instruction. Keep in mind that this could be an abbreviated description of a much longer conversation. In Acts 22:17-22, Paul relates a conversation that he had with Christ while he was praying at the temple. The passage takes less than a minute to read, but it could refer to a very lengthy session. Acts 23:11 says, "The following night the Lord stood near Paul" and gave him encouragement and direction. Again, this is only one verse in the Bible, but the nature of biblical narratives requires us to think that it could have lasted much longer than the time that it takes to read about it.
Paul's experiences were not limited to visions and revelations from Christ. In Acts 16:9-10, he receives a vision in which a man begged him to visit Macedonia. In Acts 27:23-24, he says that an angel appeared to him and gave him assurance about his journey. Then, in 2 Corinthians 12:1-6, he relates an experience in which he was "caught up to the third heaven…to paradise," where "he heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell."
So here is what we can gather about this aspect of Paul's spiritual life. First, he was explicitly called to see and hear the resurrected Christ. Second, the Bible records numerous instances of him seeing and hearing Christ. Third, it is certain that at least some of these records are greatly abbreviated accounts of the actual events. Fourth, besides visions of Christ, Paul experienced other kinds of visions and revelations numerous times, including a visit to heaven. Fifth, he states that he tends to refrain from relating these experiences "so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say" (2 Corinthians 12:6). Sixth, in light of what we have established so far, it is reasonable to assume that the Bible records only a small fraction of the total number of Paul's visions. Finally, and this also reinforces the previous point, while discussing the matter of visions, he describes his own life as one characterized by "surpassingly great revelations," the frequency and magnitude of which were such that he was given a "thorn in the flesh" to keep him from becoming conceited (2 Corinthians 12:7).
Putting all of this together, it would be almost an understatement to say that Paul was granted one of the most spectacular prophetic ministries in biblical history. In fact, it is possible that he was unsurpassed by anyone in the quantity, length, and depth of his visions and revelations, and in his direct encounters with the Lord. It is possible, and very probable, that the time that Christ spent with Paul in visions could add up to many hours. Given what we have established above, this conclusion is far from a mere speculation.
Christ was very fond of teaching people prior to his crucifixion. And after his resurrection, he did not appear to his disciples only several seconds or several minutes at a time, but he spent hours and hours with them, teaching them, even eating with them. On the road to Emmaus, he walked along with two disciples and "explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself" (Luke 24:27). The way this event is described seems to indicate that it lasted for a number of hours. Again, given what we have established about Paul's experiences, it is not far-fetched to think that Christ taught this apostle in a similar manner. As we noted, even in his initial appearance to Paul, he told him that God's people are "sanctified by faith" (Acts 26:18).
Some might find it strange that Christ would dedicate an extraordinary amount of time to speak to someone in visions after his ascension, but nothing in Scripture rules this out. Nevertheless, perhaps this is why Paul writes, "…and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born" (1 Corinthians 15:8). Besides, later he appeared to the apostle John and dictated seven letters to him. Surely that must have taken more than several minutes. In any case, the amount of time spent is not the crucial factor, but it is the amount of information conveyed. Some other mode of communication could have been used so that a large amount of information was passed from one to the other in an instant.
And this is what we wish to emphasize with Paul's visions and revelations – regardless of their duration, they were so extensive in content that he must be considered nothing less than a direct and personal disciple of the Lord. Moreover, as an apostle, what he did not receive by visions from the Lord, he understood by inspiration from the Spirit. Thus his gospel is not "something that man made up." And in light of this, whatever he heard from man previous to his conversion, his theological development certainly did not depend on any man.
This, by the way, counters the notion that Paul was the real founder of Christianity, and that he preached a different religion than what Christ preached. No, Paul was directly taught and trained by Christ. He preached the same message that Christ preached, and the message that Christ told him to preach. In connection with the previous passage (1:6-10), this reinforces the fact that to turn away from the gospel that Paul preached is to turn away from the God who established and revealed it. To reject the message is to reject the person.
Here, then, is a controlling principle for sound theology. Any interpretation of Scripture that supposes a merely human origin for Paul's message is a denial of reality. Any interpretation of Scripture that generates disagreement between Christ and Paul must be in error. And any interpretation of Scripture that assumes a lower authority for the words of Paul as compared to the words of Christ must also be false. This, of course, does not suggest that Paul in himself was equal with Christ, but that Paul was so submitted, taught, and trained by Christ and inspired by the Spirit that his words came from Christ, and are equivalent to the words of Christ.
There are some professing believers who claim to affirm the divine inspiration of Scripture, but then fail to acknowledge this point, although it necessarily follows from the doctrine. Occasionally, a Christian might hesitate to accept or even challenge portions of the New Testament because, after all, they are the words of Paul and not of Christ. This is often used to resist Paul's teachings regarding sin, judgment, the role of women in marriage and ministry, among others. But this is a slap in God's face. Paul was Christ's authorized and inspired messenger. To reject him is to reject the one who sent him.