Deeper Commentary
CHAPTER 1
1:1
Paul, an apostle (not from men, nor through man, but through
Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)-
Consider how in Galatians Paul uses so many negatives, as if his passion
and almost rage at the false teachers is coming out: “An apostle
not
from men… the gospel preached by me is
not
man’s gospel…
nor was I taught it… I did
not confer with flesh and blood, I did
not
go up to Jerusalem… I do
not lie… Titus was
not compelled… to
false brethren we did
not yield… those ‘of repute’ added
nothing” (Gal.
1:1,11,12,16,20; 2:3,4,6). The way he says “Ye have known God, or rather,
are known of God” (Gal. 4:9) seems to indicate [through the “or rather…”]
a very human and passionate touch in his writing, as if he was thinking
out loud as he wrote. Throughout 2 Corinthians particularly his writing in
places can be described as an inspired flow of consciousness.
Authority in spiritual ministry doesn't depend upon any human
authorisation. Paul's authority is linked specifically to the fact God
raised Jesus from the dead. That resurrection led to the great commission
and the Lord's empowerment of all witness to Him as risen and exalted. But
this empowerment is given not only to Paul. All demands for authorization
of ministry, e.g. to perform baptisms or decide who to fellowship in the
church, is therefore utterly missing the point. We are authorized by the
Lord, and the great commission applies to us all. In any case, once we
start arguing that only some are authorized to perform ministry, the
question is raised as to
how they are authorized. And the Bible is silent about that.
All manner of secular power brokering philosophy comes into play, but Paul
and anyone led by the Spirit of the risen Lord will have nothing to do
with that.
1:2
And all the brothers that are with me, to the churches of Galatia-
Those
sun Paul may refer to brothers
who supported Paul's position on the Law, which was going to be the burden
of this letter. It was Paul who was the inspired author but he is making
the point that there were other brethren who agreed with his position. The
churches of Galatia could have referred to quite a few of the
congregations Paul is recorded as founding in Acts; because he sees his
responsibilities as being to his own converts and his letters are
generally addressed to those he has converted. These groups were largely
Gentiles. I have noted elsewhere, especially on Titus, Corinthians and 1
Timothy, that Gentile converts often brought with them immoral practices.
Yet they became attracted to Judaism because their religious conscience
could be more easily salved by obedience to a set of ritual requirements,
and their more fundamental moral habits would then be left unquestioned.
Legalism to this day remains incredibly attractive to those who
subconsciously seek to justify themselves in immoral practices. This is
why the Galatian letter begins with strong theological arguments against
returning to the Law, and then moves on to tackle practical issues of
immorality.
1:3
Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus
Christ- Although Paul is going to upbraid them, he sincerely
wishes them, as no mere formality, the peace with God which comes from His
grace, rather than legalistic obedience to Jewish laws.
1:4
Who gave himself for our sins-
That he might deliver us-
Out of
this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father-
The Lord's death is presented as the supreme sin offering, which had an
outcome in practice- separation from this present evil world. Judaism
tacitly allowed the Gentile converts to remain effectively in that world,
but with a conscience cosmetically salved by a few acts of ritual
obedience. The purpose of the cross was so that we might be separated out
from this present evil world. To remain in the world, to stay in the crowd
that faced the cross rather than walk through the no man's land between,
this is a denial of the Lord's death for us. See on Gal. 6:14. Paul had
his inspired mind on the phrase in the Lord’s prayer which requests
deliverance from evil. Clearly enough, Paul didn’t understand “the evil”
to be a personal cosmic Satan, but rather the moral “evil” of this world
and those who seek to persecute believers.
Much of Paul’s writing is understandable on various levels. In some places
he makes allusions to contemporary Jewish writings and ideas – with which
he was obviously very familiar given his background – in order to correct
or deconstruct them. This is especially true with reference to Jewish
ideas about Satan and supposedly sinful Angels ruling over this present
world. The idea of deliverance from this present evil world or age is an
example. As more and more Jewish writings of the time become more widely
available, it becomes increasingly apparent that this is a major feature
of Paul’s writing. The Jewish writings all held to the teaching of the two
ages, whereby this current age was supposed to be under the control of
Satan and his angels, who would be destroyed in the future age, when
Messiah would reign and Paradise would be restored on earth (see 1 Enoch
16.1; 18.16; 21.6; Jubilees 1.29; T. Moses 1.18; 12.4). Paul frequently
uses terms used in the Jewish writings concerning the Kingdom age, the
eschatological age, and applies them to the experience of Christian
believers
right now. When Heb. 2:14
states that Christ killed the Devil in His death on the cross, this is
effectively saying that the future age has come. For the Jews expected the
Devil to be destroyed only at the changeover to the future Kingdom age. In
4 Ezra, “This age” (4.27; 6.9; 7.12), also known as the “corrupt age”
(4.11) stands in contrast to the “future age” (6.9; 8.1), the “greater
age”, the “immortal time” (7.119), the future time (8.52). 4 Enoch even
claims that the changeover from this age to the future age occurs at the
time of the final judgment, following the death of the Messiah and seven
days of silence (7.29–44, 113). So we can see why Paul would plug in to
these ideas. He taught that Christ died “in order to rescue us from this
present evil age” (Gal. 1:4; Rom 8:38; 1 Cor. 3:22). Therefore if the old
age has finished, that means Satan is no longer controlling things as the
Jews believed. For they believed that Satan’s spirits “will corrupt until
the day of the great conclusion, until the great age is consummated, until
everything is concluded (upon) the Watchers and the wicked ones” (1 Enoch
16:1, cf. 72:1). And Paul was pronouncing that the great age had been
consummated in Christ, that the first century believers were those upon
whom the end of the
aion had come (1 Cor. 10:11).
1:5
To whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen-
Christianity seeks to give eternal glory to the Lord Jesus; this is what
we shall be doing eternally, and we must begin now. But Judaism devalued
the role of Messiah. And we too can usefully assess teachings according to
how far they give glory to the Lord Jesus.
1:6
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called
you to the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-
Paul describes himself as having been called by God, by grace; and in this
context he comments how
he called the Galatians to the
grace of Christ (Gal. 1:6 cp. 15). His response to his calling of grace
was to go out and preach, thereby calling men to that same grace,
replicating in his preaching what God had done for him. True preaching
reflects a certain artless selflessness. And so here Paul writes of his
preaching to the Galatians in the third person: “him [Paul] that called
you into the grace of Christ” (Gal. 1:6 AV). And likewise he talks about
himself while at the Jerusalem conference, where he was given so clearly
the ministry of converting the Gentiles, as if he hardly identifies
himself with himself: “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago...
I knew such a man... of such an one will I glory, yet of myself I will not
glory” (2 Cor. 12:1-4- the context makes it clear that Paul refers to
himself, seeing that he was the one given the thorn in the flesh as a
result of the revelations given to this “man”). In 1 Thess. 1:5 Paul could
have written: ‘We came with the Gospel’, but instead he uses the more
awkward construction: ‘Our Gospel came…’. He, Paul, was subsumed beneath
the essence of his life work- the preaching of the Gospel.
And yet we could also argue that Paul had a way of turning things
rather too personally. They had deserted the grace of Christ, yet Paul
expresses this in terms of them turning away from him personally. This
tendency to over personalize things, it could be argued, was at the root
of so much of his pain with the Corinthians as expressed in 2 Corinthians.
"Deserting" translates
metatithemi,
literally 'handed over', implying there was some other hand at work. As
there is no cosmic satan doing this, I conclude that this higher hand was
God's, confirming them in the way they wished to go. Romans 1:26,28 speaks
of God doing likewise, giving people over to the mindset they themselves
desired. He confirms us in the path we wish to go.
1:7
Not that there is another one; but there are some who trouble
you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ- A distorted
Gospel was no Gospel. The Judaizers were not calling for a wholesale
abandonment of Christianity; rather they were preaching a Judaized version
of the Gospel which was so distorted that it was not a Gospel. We note
from this that a belief system which merely names the name of Christ is
not therefore acceptable just because it claims to be an interpretation of
Christianity. The 'troublers' are described with the same word in Acts
15:7 concerning the Jewish Christians who went out from the Jerusalem
ecclesia to urge the Gentile converts to be circumcised; and of the Jews
in Thessalonica who troubled the crowds to persecute Paul. It would seem
that the same elements were involved- Jews driven by jealousy and anger at
the perversion of the Jewish faith, as they saw it, by Paul's message of
Christianity. It was part of a well organized system of derailing the
churches Paul founded, referred to by him at times as the 'satan', the
adversary. The same word is used in Gal. 5:10 about some single individual
who was the troubler in Galatia; as if in that locality they were
controlled by a particularly charismatic and influential individual whom
Paul leaves nameless.
1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven- God can
deceive people to confirm them in the way of understanding they wish to go
in (Ez. 14:9; 2 Thess. 2:11). But this could simply be hyperbole. But
perhaps the individual troubler of Galatia in 5:10 (and see on :7 above)
was being presented as an angel, a Divine messenger. This would then
enable us to understand 2 Cor. 11:14 as referring to the same individual
troubling Corinth which the same Judaistic message- the satan there was
apparently revealed as an Angel of light, and he had his followers; just
as there was one specific 'troubler' in Galatia (Gal. 5:10) who had fellow
'troublers' (Gal. 1:7).
Should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached
to you, let him be accursed- Again it could be argued that
Paul was over personalizing the issue by writing of the Gospel "which we
preached to you". The
anathema ("accursed") was a
Jewish synagogue term meaning excommunication. This may be the closest we
get in Paul's writings to a request to actually excommunicate anybody in a
religious sense; and it was clearly necessary. Seeing he is not afraid to
ask for someone to be excommunicated, it is noteworthy that he doesn't
recommend it for dealing with the huge raft of immoral individual
behaviour and other moral and intellectual failure which filled the early
churches.
1:9
As we have said before, so I now say again: If anyone preaches to
you any gospel other than that which you received, let him be accursed-
The
anathema (see on :8) was for those who were teaching
a false Gospel. Paul's approach to his churches, full as they were of
moral and doctrinal failure, was to insist that the platform be secured;
it was the false teachers who were to be removed. But he exemplifies
endless patience with the flock who had been misled or were simply weak in
the faith. Paul often refers to the 'receipt' of the Gospel; he saw "the
Gospel" as definable and something which was received upon hearing the
preaching of it. And yet clearly there was no lengthy package of theology
in view.
1:10
For am I now seeking the favour of men or of God? Or am I
striving to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a
servant of Christ- Although Paul made himself all things to
all men, he didn’t just seek to please men (Gal. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:4). He
sought their salvation and approached them in appropriate terms, but he
didn’t just seek to please them from a human viewpoint. He didn’t cheapen
the Gospel. The argument here suggests that serving Christ is being placed in
opposition to serving men. Thus he sees one
application of serving mammon as acting in a hypocritical way in order to
please some in the ecclesia (Mt. 6:24 = Gal. 1:10).
1:10 For am I now seeking the favour
of men or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still pleasing
men, I should not be a servant of Christ- We all have a strong
human tendency to perceive what others would like us to say or be. And we
then are tempted to do this. But we overcome this through the strong sense
that we are personal servants or slaves of Christ. Our sense of personal
relationship with Him leads us to no longer seek to please men- because we
are all about pleasing Him who has called us. Paul uses the same terms in
1 Thess. 2:4,15, where he argues that he preached not as pleasing men but
God; because men "please not God". So many people live their lives
dominated by this sense of being men pleasers, to the point that they are
no longer in touch with their real selves. God and His Son are the only
ones worth pleasing. 2 Tim. 2:4 makes the same point: "No soldier in
service entangles himself in the affairs of this life, so that he may
please whoever enrolled him as a soldier". This is the image of total
following of a true leader, the only One who will not disappoint.
Cultured, educated people in
the first century presented themselves to others by means of an
'encomium'. This was a document or major speech which included five
sections, clearly defined in the various manuals of rhetoric which
survive, and which surely Paul would have been taught. The purpose of the
encomium was to demonstrate how the person was an upright member of the
community and worthy of honour within it. Students of the letter to the
Galatians have detected these five sections of the encomium followed in an
almost classic manner by Paul in Galatians 1:10-2:21:
1. Opening (prooimion) 1:10-12: Paul's
Gospel
2. Lifestyle (anastrophe) 1:13-17: Paul as
persecutor of the church and preacher of the Gospel. Gal. 1:13 uses the
very word
anastrophe ("way of life")
3. Achievements (praxeis) or "deeds of the
body" 1:18-2:10- Paul's work in Jerusalem, Syria and again in Jerusalem
4. Comparison with others (synkrisis) 2:11-21- Paul and
Peter; Paul and the Jews
5. Conclusion (epilogos)- 2:21 Paul and
grace.
The encomium was essentially self-praise and self-justification within
society. Paul almost mocks the encomium, by using its elements to show how
radically different are the standards of thinking and behaviour for the
Christian. In Gal. 1:15 Paul speaks of his birth (genesis),
which in the usual encomiums would've been a reference to his family of
origin, which as we've shown was all important in a collectivist society.
Paul never speaks of his parents, as would've been normal in an encomium-
and seeing he was born as a free man, he could've made an impressive point
at this stage had he wished. But the birth he speaks of is that which came
from God, who gave Paul birth by grace. His place in God's invisible
household was all important, rather than what family he belonged to
naturally. An encomium would typically have a reference to a man's
education- and Paul could've made an impressive case for himself here. But
rather he speaks of how God Himself revealed Christ to him, and how his
spiritual education was not through interaction with any other men of
standing in the Christian community, but rather in his three years alone
in Arabia (Gal. 1:18). It has been suggested that Paul actually coined a
new Greek term in 1 Thess. 4:9, when he spoke of how he had been
taught-by-God (theodidaktos). To claim an education 'not by flesh
and blood' (Gal. 1:16) was foolishness to 1st century society. In the
description of his "deeds", Paul could've made a fair case both as a Jew
and as a Christian. But instead he spends Gal. 2:1-10 speaking of how he
had laboured so hard to avoid division in the church of Christ, to teach
grace, avoid legalistic obedience to the norms of Jewish society, and to
help the poor.
These were the works he counted as significant. It
was usual in an encomium to speak of your courage (andreia)
and fortitude. Paul uses the word
andreia,
again in conscious imitation of an encomium, but he relates it to how he
courageously refused to "yield submission even for a moment" to the
pressures to conform to Jewish societal expectations (Gal. 2:5). When it
comes to the
synkrisis, the comparison with others, he chooses to
compare himself with Peter, who caved in to the pressures from the Jews,
agreeing to act smart before men rather than God, whereas Paul says he
withstood this and insisted upon a life of radical grace which paid no
attention to what others thought of his appearances.
1:11
For, brothers, I make known to you, as regards the gospel which
was preached by me, that it is not from man- The implication
was that the Judaist opposition were claiming that Paul had just made up
his interpretations and called it "the Gospel". Or perhaps there was some
conspiracy theory that he was the agent of some other man. Whilst the
Gospel was not "from man",
kata anthropos, yet Paul uses
that same term in saying that he can reason at times in that way, "after
the manner of men", humanly speaking (3:15). But the core of the Gospel
was from the Lord Jesus and not from men.
1:12
For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but I
received it through direct revelation from Jesus Christ- See
on :1. As a rabbi, it was important to justify teaching by explaining that
he had been taught it by some greater rabbi. Paul cuts right across these
expectations (see on :10), and says that his message had not been taught
to him. He had received it directly from the Lord Jesus, who is the
central part of the message he preached.
1:13
For you have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews'
religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God-
The
Greek for "persecuted" means literally to pursue or follow after. Paul's
conversion meant that his pursuing after the church was changed to
pursuing after the church in love. He uses the same word in saying that we
are to "follow after" love for the church (1 Cor. 14:1), 'following after'
peace and the things which edify or build up the church (Rom. 14:19). His
conversion is set up as a pattern for every man. Conversion is therefore
about a reorientation of our energy and passion. Not a total change of our
personality to the point that we are unrecognizable to the person we once
were. But rather a psychological restructuring of the material of which we
are psychologically comprised. The man with a passion for making money,
eagerly out to clinch every business deal, becomes reorientated as a man
who pursues clinching the deal of winning others for Christ. Once he sat
down to a business lunch with a client, out to clinch the deal. Now he
sits down in a cafe with a homeless man and seeks by all means to clinch
the deal for Christ; to lead that man to the waters of baptism. And when
he wins the deal, and he knows from past experience that you can't win
every time, he has a far greater sense of satiscation. Not self
satisfaction, but glory that he has brought glory to his Lord, his
ultimate boss and controller, the Lord Jesus.
And made
havoc of it- "Made havoc" is literally 'destroyed', and the
same word is used in 1:23 of how he 'destroyed' "the faith". He draws a
parallel between the church and the faith; for the true church is based
upon the true faith. The same word is used of how he "destroyed" the
Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 9:21). This clearly means he murdered
Christians, including perhaps some of those who were converted in
Jerusalem at Pentecost. This sort of behaviour was a way of life elicited
by Judaism; and Judaism is therefore to be judged by its fruits as seen in
Paul. Whilst repeatedly taking full personal responsibility for his
actions, Paul sees that they had been elicited by Judaism, "the Jews'
religion". To return to that was therefore serious indeed.
1:14- see on Mt. 15:2.
And I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of my own age
among my fellow countrymen, being even more exceedingly zealous for the
traditions of my fathers- Paul could have been such a high
flyer; he profited (materially, the Greek could imply) in the Jews'
religion above any one else. But he resigned it all. He wrote some
majestic words which ought to become the goal of every one of us: "But
what things were gain to me [materially?], those I counted loss for
Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss
for the excellency of the knowledge of
Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all
things, and do count them but dung, that I way win Christ" (Phil. 3:7,8).
As noted on :13, whilst not at all dodging his personal responsibility for
his actions, he sees the murder and hatred towards Christians as the fruit
of zeal for Judaism. The traditions of Paul's fathers [cp. "our fathers"
when referring to the patriarchs] refers surely to Paul's rabbinic
forefathers. Casuistic following of the implications of previous
expositions and judgments of those who have gone before resulted in
murder. This was the fruit of Judaism, and all belief systems are to be
judged by their fruits.
The language of 'I was very zealous' may be consciously alluding to Elijah's self professed great zeal for Yahweh (1 Kings 19:14). Elijah was clearly one with a zeal which lacked grace, and he was effectively fired from his prophetic position because of his arrogance. Paul may be saying that this was how misplaced was his zeal. The allusion certainly doesn't show Elijah in a very positive light. His boasting about having slain the prophets of Baal is presented as being as bad as Paul's boasting of having slain Christians. The Lord likewise read Elijah negatively in rebuking the disciples for wanting to be like Elijah in calling fire from Heaven to destroy men. The parallels with Elijah are developed by Paul here in Gal. 1. As Elijah was stopped in his tracks by the threat of persecution from Jezebel [representative of the Jewish authorities in Revelation], so Paul was stopped in his tracks and fled to Arabia; just as Elijah fled to the same area, "Horeb" (1 Kings 19:1,2,8). Gal. 4:25 clarifies that Sinai / Horeb is in Arabia. Elijah went there in depression, to resign his prophetic commission.And it seems Paul did likewise, until Barnabas came to Tarsus and urged him to continue. But the great missionary ministry of Paul almost never was. Barnabas practiced the spirit of the lost sheep parable, and saved him.
'I was very zealous' is also an allusion to Phinehas, who was famed for slaying the apostate Israelite together with the Gentile idolater (Num. 25:7-13). But Phinehas and Elijah were often proclaimed role models for the Jewish right wing group who were militant for freedom from Rome. They believed in murdering apostate Jews just as Elijah and Phinehas had done. And Paul through these allusions is confessing that this was what he had done- considering Jewish converts to Christianity to be the classic case of Hebrew apostates.
1:15- see on Acts 18:18.
But when- "But when" suggests there was a specific
time when God decided to call Paul to manifest His Son. But we should not
too quickly assume that this time was on the Damascus road, for the Lord
there made the point that Paul had been pushing against the pricks of
conscience for some time. Perhaps the calling was at the time of Paul's
birth, when the umbilical cord was cut and he was separated from his
mother's womb. The calling of grace is an idea Paul uses in Romans to
exemplify God's grace, and he thereby makes himself the parade example of
grace to all believers. In Gal. 1:15,16, Paul speaks as if his calling to
preach the Gospel and his conversion co-incided. He clearly understood
that he had been called so as to spread the word to others. Paul uses the
word
kaleo
to describe both our call to the Gospel, and the call to preach that
Gospel (Gal. 1:15 cp. Rom. 8:30; 1 Cor. 1:9; 7:15; Gal. 1:6; 5:13; 2 Tim.
1:9). He doesn’t separate his call from that of ours; he speaks of how God
called “us” (Rom. 9:24; 1 Thess. 4:7). We may not all be able to live the
life of itinerant preaching and spreading the word geographically which
Paul did. And yet clearly enough Paul sets himself up as our pattern in
the context of his attitude to preaching. Our lamps were lit, in the
Lord’s figure, so as to give light to others. We are mirrors, reflecting
to others the glory of God as far as we ourselves behold it in the face of
Jesus Christ.
It was the good pleasure of God- Our salvation was
"not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His
mercy He saved us, by... renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Tit. 3:5). Thus in
Paul's case "it pleased (lit. 'willed') God, who separated me from my
mother's womb, and called me by His grace" (Gal.1:15) - not Paul's works.
Thus our obedience to the truth was "through (on account of) the Spirit"
(1 Pet. 1:22). Against this must be balanced Rom. 10:17: "Faith cometh by
hearing... the word of God". God's Spirit was involved in bringing about
our calling, and is also present in the word by which we are called.
Who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me through His
grace- Paul seems to have admired the humility John the
Baptist manifested in his preaching, for he often alludes to John- perhaps
because he heard him live. For he was living in Jerusalem at the same time
as John's ministry. He knew he had been chosen from the womb for his
mission, as John had been (Gal. 1:15 = Lk. 1:15). There is also
allusion to Jeremiah being likewise known from the womb. Paul felt he had
been “separated unto the [preaching of the] gospel of God”; and he uses a
word which the LXX uses for the separation of part of a sacrifice to be
consumed (Ex. 29:24,26). The Greek word for "witness" is
martus, from whence 'martyr'.
To witness to Christ is to live the life of the martyr; to preach Him is
to live out His cross in daily life. Yet the Lord’s servant being called
from the womb (Is. 49:1) was applied by Paul to himself (Gal. 1:15)- see
on Rom. 8:31. Choice from birth, calling, ministry to the Gentiles all
recalls the servant known from birth (Is. 49:1,5). This is one of a number
of instances of where Old Testament Messianic Scriptures are applied to
Paul in the context of his preaching Christ. He saw himself as in Christ,
and so the Lord's mission became his as it becomes ours.
1:16- see on Acts 9:20.
To reveal His Son in me- Saul of Tarsus must’ve
seemed the most unlikely of men to convert to Christ. But he later refers
to how God chose “to
reveal his son in me”. The
Greek word
apokalupto means literally ‘to
take the cover off’. The implication is that Christ is passively within
each person converted to Him who has received the Spirit of Christ
within, but has to be revealed in them, through response to the
Gospel. Witness is essentially about revealing to others the
Christ within us. If we don't have the Spirit of Christ within us, then we
are merely teachers of theology and will not win anyone to Christ Himself.
The Galatians passage could equally mean that Paul was
called as an apostle to ‘take the cover off’ Christ to others; and yet
Paul felt his calling was to all people on earth, to the ends of the world
(Acts 13:47)- to every single person of all the Gentile nations (Rom.
15:11; 2 Tim. 4:17).
That I might preach him among the Gentiles- To
preach Christ is to reveal Him to men through ourselves- this is the
purpose for which we are called, that our lamp was lit, to reveal Christ
to others through us. And thus Paul could conclude by saying that he bore
in his body [perhaps an idiom for his life, cp. the ‘broken body’ of the
Lord we remember] the stigmata of the Lord Jesus (Gal. 6:17). The whole
burden of his message was therefore the Lord Jesus, rather than theology
or clever apologetic arguments.
Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood- The idea is that Paul was motivated solely by his personal relationship with Jesus. His self understanding didn't depend upon the opinions of others. He was not who he was because of his status with others, but rather because of his relationship with Jesus. And this is to be our pattern. "Conferred" only occurs elsewhere in Gal. 2:6 where he says that those "who seemed something in conference added nothing to me". The word literally means 'to add to'. He means that he had nothing added to him by the acceptance or rejection from his own brethren. He was who he was because of the Lord's acceptance. And so he can tell the Corinthians that it is a very little thing to be judged by them, because his only judge is the Lord Jesus.
And yet Paul's attitude to his brethren seems to have changed markedly over the
years. He begins as being somewhat detached from them; perhaps as all new
converts are initially. We see the Truth for what it is, we realize we had
to make the commitment we did, and we are happy to do our own bit in
preaching the Truth. But often a real concern and care for our brethren
takes years to develop. Paul seems to tell the Galatians that the Gospel
he preached had not been given to him by men, because in the early days
after his conversion he was rather indifferent towards other Christian
believers; "(Paul) conferred not with flesh and blood" after his
conversion, neither did he go to see the apostles in Jerusalem to discuss
how to preach to Israel; instead, Paul says, he pushed off to Arabia for
three years in isolation. He was unknown by face to the Judean ecclesias,
and even after his return from Arabia, he made no special effort to meet
up with the Apostles (Gal. 1). The early Paul comes over as
self-motivated, a maverick, all too ready to fall out with Barnabas, all
too critical of Mark for failing to rise up to Paul's level of fearless
devotion (Acts 15:39).
1:17- see on Acts 26:16-19; 1 Cor. 9:17.
Nor did I go to Jerusalem to those that were apostles ahead of
me; but I went away into Arabia, and returned to Damascus- As
noted on :12, Paul resists the Rabbinic style of saying that his message
is supported by the opinions of other learned men from the same religion
who had preceded him. This is the force of his statement that he did not
go to see those who had been in Christ "ahead of me". Arabia could refer
to various desert areas; we are left to imagine that this period in the
wilderness formed his spiritual position by direct contact with the Lord
Jesus. But it could also be read as a recognition of weakness- that
instead of going to preach the Gospel he went instead into isolation. And
thus he was glorying in his weakness as a qualification; see on :10. The
return to Damascus, where he had almost been lynched and escaped it in a
most humiliating way (2 Cor. 11:31-33), is really impressive; just as Paul
returned to cities where he had been badly persecuted. Such was his care
for his converts.
1:18
Then after three years I went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and
stayed with him fifteen days- The mention of three years may
be another hint that he had not got on with witnessing to the Gentiles as
he might have done; he is glorying in his weakness, as noted extensively
on :10. "Visit" translates a term which can mean 'to learn from'; we see
here Paul's humility. He as the literate, intellectual rabbi went to
Jerusalem not to sit at the feet of some learned rabbi, but to be taught
by an illiterate fisherman from Galilee. This again is a reversal of all
the qualifications Judaism boasted in; see on :10.
1:19
But none of the other apostles did I see, except James, the
Lord's brother- Judaism stressed which big names were
supporting a position or individual, and Paul is consciously subverting
this. See on :10. We likewise should be unashamed to subvert the peer
review qualifications which are so popular these days. Observe how Paul
counts James as an "apostle" although he was not one of the 12, perhaps
anticipating the objection raised in Corinth that Paul was not really an
apostle because he was not one of the 12.
1:20- see on Gal. 1:1.
In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!-
Clearly Paul's version of events was questioned. All manner of conspiracy
theories and slander had arisen, as they do in the life of anyone who
devotes themselves to preaching Christ in truth. The origin of the
'troublers' of 1:7 was likely Jerusalem (see note there). Paul is
answering the objection that 'Jerusalem' did not support him by strongly
agreeing with it- and insisting that he had higher authority than
Jerusalem, namely, his direct relationship with the Lord Jesus.
1:21
Then I came to the regions of Syria and Cilicia-
Cilicia was Paul's home area. Again, he may be glorying in his spiritual
weakness, saying that he had returned to his roots rather than going out
into the world as he had been commissioned. For Barnabus had to come to
Tarsus and as it were drag Paul with him on his first missionary journey.
Such boasting in weakness is a subversion of any attempt to present a
humanly strong case for authority; see on :10. "Regions" translates
klima, which according to Vine referred "originally to an
inclination or slope of ground: the supposed slope of the earth from the
equator to the pole". Here we have an example of scientifically incorrect
terms being used in the Bible without correction; and this helps explain
the language of demons being used in the Gospels regarding mental
illnesses.
1:22
But I was still unknown by face to the churches of Judea which
were in Christ- Paul speaks warmly of these churches in 1
Thess. 2:14, showing his eagerness to believe the best about others, with
the love that believes all things. The churches which were in Christ
suggests there were some 'churches' not in Christ. The term
ekklesia
was used for any gathering or assembly, and referred to the synagogues in
small town and villages, some of whom had become Christian, and thus
become assemblies which were in Christ. Christianity would have spread by
the conversion of such synagogue assemblies here and there. The Lord did
not ask His people to leave the synagogue system as part of their
acceptance of Him; He just predicted that the time would come when His
converts would be thrown out of that system (Jn. 16:2). This reflects how
there was no concept of guilt by association, no demand of breaking
association with an apostate system. If Jesus was accepted as Christ and
preached as such, then the systems antithetical to that would themselves
cast out the Lord's people. The
angst about separation from error which has blighted the body
of Christ was therefore unknown in the first century church.
1:23
They only heard say: He that once persecuted us now preaches the
faith of which he once made havoc!- See on :13 "made havoc".
Paul had arranged their persecution without seeing their faces (:22). But
he was a household name amongst the Christian synagogues (see on :22).
1:24
And they glorified God in me- The house churches in
the area around Jerusalem ["Judea"] were obvious targets for Paul, who
sought to drag Christians Jews into Jerusalem for punishment. They
glorified not Paul but God's grace which had worked within Paul to bring
about his conversion.
Chronology of Paul’s Life
|
Standard Chronology Of Paul's Life |
John Robinson's Chronology Of Paul's Life (2) |
|
AD 35 Paul’s conversion |
AD33 Conversion |
Notes
(1) "Arabia" is from the word 'Arabah', and occurs in the LXX in Dt.
2:8; 3:17; 4:49 to mean simply the wilderness. Since Paul went there from
Damascus, it has been suggested that he mixed with the Damascene Essene
group. There are extensive parallels between the Qumran texts and the
letter to the Hebrews, which could lend support to this suggestion- as if
Paul wrote to an audience he knew.
(2) J.A.T. Robinson,
Redating The New Testament
(London: SCM, 1976) pp. 52,53.
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter 
