BIG IDEA:
PAUL’S AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED BY DIVINE REVELATION —
PAUL’S PERSONAL TESTIMONY CONFIRMS THE DIVINE SOURCE OF HIS MESSAGE AND AUTHORITY
INTRODUCTION:
Philip Ryken: Before going any further, it will be helpful to have the outline of Galatians clearly in mind. The letter falls neatly into three sections—biography, theology, and ethics—each two chapters in length.
In the first two chapters Paul recounts his spiritual autobiography. His life story shows that he is a true apostle who preaches the true gospel of free grace. The first section of the letter may be summarized like this: “For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11–12). Paul understood that people had to accept his apostleship before they would accept his gospel.
The theology of the one true gospel is expounded in chapters 3 and 4. Essentially, it is the theology of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. A good theme verse for this section of Paul’s letter comes in the middle of the third chapter: “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith’ ” (Gal. 3:11).
Finally, the book concludes with two chapters of ethics. Paul takes his theology—as he does in all his letters—and applies it to daily life, where “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6).
This is the logic of Galatians: live by the gospel that you can receive only by faith. What God has done (the biography of chapters 1 and 2) teaches us what we should believe (the theology of chapters 3 and 4) and how we should live (the ethics of chapters 5 and 6).
George Lyons: That Paul offers his autobiographical narrative in 1:13 – 2:21 as substantiation of his claim in 1:11–12 concerning the nature and origin of his Gospel suggests he considers himself in some sense a representative or even an embodiment of that gospel. As in the ancient philosophical lives, the consistency between his … ’conduct’, and … ‘deeds’, and his … words demonstrates the truth of his philosophy, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He is a paradigm of the Gospel he preaches to the Gentiles. The formulation of Paul’s autobiographical remarks in terms of ‘formerly-now’ and ‘[hu] man-God’ serves the paradigmatic function of contrasting Paul’s conversion from Judaism to Christianity with the Galatians inverted conversion, which is really nothing other than a desertion of the one who called [them] in the grace of Christ (1.6) and a surrender of Christian freedom for the slavery of the law (see 2:4; 3:28; 4:1–9, 22–31; 5:1,13).
Nijay Gupta: In this first major section of his letter to the Galatians, Paul carefully recounts some key events in his personal story, from persecutor to apostle to the gentiles. He states his primary concern right away: “the gospel I preached is not of human origin” (1:11). Paul needed to make it clear that he has consistently preached the same gospel from the beginning, and this is not his own personal interpretation of the gospel of Christ but rather a message and ministry that came directly from above. Throughout these fourteen verses, Paul is insistent that he received no formal instruction in the faith or any official commissioning from human leaders. His work has been consistent, his ministry independent, and his story legendary. He provides here particular events, specific time periods, the names of those involved, and a renowned reputation. He has been transparent and consistent. It is crucial from the beginning of this letter that Paul demonstrates himself trustworthy and genuine. And time and time again he challenges the Galatians to test him, to check his story, and to ask around. He has nothing to hide and stands firm in his gospel. The autobiography and self-defense is crucial for Paul’s wider concern to convince the Galatians they were right all along to trust him and to find the “truth of the gospel” in his teachings (Gal 2:5, 14).
John Stott: Having made his 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 human being but directly from God.
George Brunk: The section begins with a thesis-like statement affirming the divine origin of Paul’s gospel. A series of experiences and episodes follows. These are selected and recounted for the purpose of proving the thesis. Paul is not interested in recounting his story for its own sake. Paul selects only the events that contribute supporting evidence to his claim that Christ’s direct revelation to Paul and Christ’s call on Paul to preach the gospel to the Gentiles provide all the authority and truth necessary to support his ministry. No human relationships or structures—not even apostolic ones—can contribute to or challenge that truth or Paul’s authority to preach that gospel. While the narrative focuses on Paul’s life, the intent of the section is to give evidence that the gospel Paul preaches is based on divine revelation. In this way, Paul’s gospel, which moves from the exclusiveness of a Law orientation to a gospel open for all people, including Gentiles, is shown to be according to the will of God. Here Paul is defending his apostolic role as the means of defending the gospel and not as an end in itself.
Max Anders: In summary, false teachers in Galatia were teaching that to be saved and mature in the faith Gentile believers had to follow Jewish laws and customs, especially the rite of circumcision. Faith in Christ was not enough. This message was undermining the good news that salvation is a simple gift based on faith in Christ and not a reward for certain good deeds. This false message was in direct opposition to the gospel of grace that Paul preached. Additionally, in order to discredit Paul’s message, the false teachers sought to discredit Paul. Thus, to defend himself and his gospel of grace, Paul argues convincingly that the gospel of grace is true because it came directly from God and it dramatically changed his life.
Thomas Schreiner: Paul’s Gospel Derived from God, Not People (1:11–2:21)
- Thesis: Source of His Gospel Was Revelation (1:11–12)
- Thesis Support (1:13 – 2:21)
a. His Past Hostility (1:13–14)
1) His persecution of the church (1:13)
2) His zeal in Judaism (1:14)
b. His Call from God (1:15–17)
1) A work of God’s grace (1:15)
2) Purpose: proclamation among the Gentiles (1:16)
3) No need for validation (1:17)
c. His Relative Obscurity in Judea (1:18–24)
1) Relatively unknown to apostles (1:18–20)
- Limited contact with Peter (1:18)
- Limited contact with James (1:19)
- Oath formula (1:20)
2) Relatively unknown in Judea (1:21–24)
- Limited contact in Judea (1:21–22)
- Known by report only (1:23–24)
The truth Paul communicates is that his gospel is divine in origin. It cannot be dismissed as merely a human gospel. Paul’s statement here probably reflects an accusation made against him by his Jewish opponents. They contended that Paul’s gospel was human in nature and that it had no independent authority or validity. Hence, according to the intruders who had entered the Galatian churches, Paul’s gospel was one that pleased people by omitting some of the essential elements of the gospel, i.e., the need to be circumcised and to keep the OT law. As noted previously, from the first verse of the letter Paul defends the divine origin of his gospel, something he does not do in such explicit terms in any other letter.
David Platt: Main Idea: Paul describes how his gospel came not from man but from God and then shares how Jesus transformed his life.
- The Origin of Paul’s Message (1:11-12)
- The Transformation of Paul’s Life (1:13-24)
a. His pre-conversion: In need of grace (1:13-14)
b. His conversion: God’s work of grace (1:15-16a)
c. His post-conversion: Faithfulness to Jesus (1:16b-24)
I. (:11-12) THESIS: THE DIVINE SOURCE OF HIS GOSPEL MESSAGE
Ben Witherington: Verses 11–12 are clearly transitional and show that despite the passion behind Paul’s arguments here, Paul is attending to what will make for a rhetorically effective communication. The narratio proper does not begin until vs. 13. It was the mark of a good orator that his transitions from one part of a speech to another were smooth and natural ones. Paul here links together a theme already briefly touched on in the prescript in 1:1, which he plans to elaborate on in detail in the narratio which follows in 1:13 – 2:14. Paul will present his life and actions as a paradigm of his Gospel of grace. This is not because his Christian life and experiences or his apostleship were being questioned but because his Gospel was being challenged or at least supplemented by the agitators.
A. Importance of the Subject = Source of Gospel Message
“For I would have you know, brethren“
John MacArthur: I would have you know is from gn riz , a strong Greek verb that means to make known with certainty, to certify. It was often used, as here, to introduce an important and emphatic statement that immediately followed. In vernacular English the phrase could be rendered, “Let me make it perfectly clear.”
B. Negatively: Gospel Not Sourced According to Man
- Summary
“that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man“
Max Anders: The Judaizers knew that if they could undermine Paul’s apostolic authority they could defeat his message of liberty. So Paul now defends his apostleship and message. The Judaizers said Paul perverted the gospel by omitting the Law of Moses; in reality, the Judaizers perverted the gospel by adding legalism. Paul now presents the first reason the Galatians should listen to him and not the false teachers: the gospel is not man-made (compare v. 1). No human mind apart from God’s revelation would dream up a plan of salvation wholly dependent on God’s grace and the death of his Son.
- Details
a. Not received directly from man
“For I neither received it from man”
b. Not received indirectly from man
“nor was I taught it”
C. Positively: Gospel Received By Divine Revelation
“but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ“
John MacArthur: Revelation is from apokalupsis and means an unveiling of something previously secret. Jesus Christ is best understood as the object of that very revelation. It was not that he had no previous knowledge of Jesus. It was for the very reason that he did know something of Him and His work that he had fiercely persecuted those who believed in Him. He obviously had known that Christians believed Jesus was the Son of God and the promised Messiah of the Old Testament, because it was for those claims that Jesus was most criticized and eventually crucified (Luke 23:2, 35; John 5:18; 10:30). Paul had known that Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. He also knew that Jesus not only dispensed with the rabbinic traditions but even with the ceremonial laws of Moses. Before his conversion Paul could have accurately stated many of the central teachings of the gospel. But he did not believe those teachings were true and thus had no grasp of their spiritual meaning and significance.
It was only after he himself at Damascus (Acts 9:1-16) came personally to encounter and to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior that he received the supernatural truth of the gospel through divine revelation. As he explained to the Corinthian church, it is only when a person turns to the Lord that the veil of spiritual ignorance and separation from God is removed (2 Cor. 3:14-16), so that the truth received can be understood. And for Paul the details and distinctions of that gospel truth came by special revelation directly from God (cf. v. 16).
Craig Keener: Here God is the direct source of the revelation (1:15) and Jesus is the content (1:16). Jesus usually appears as the content of the revelation (although 2 Cor. 12:1 and Rev. 1:1 are debatable), as is usual with nouns in the genitive following “revelation” in Paul.
II. (:13-17) PERSONAL TESTIMONY OF HIS CONVERSION EXPERIENCE:
SOVEREIGNLY APPOINTED TO HIS APOSTOLIC MISSION
Scot McKnight: The first argument in our section (vv. 13–17) concerns Paul’s independence from human teaching. God’s call came to Paul directly; he says that he “did not consult any man” (v. 16). His pre-Christian history in no way prepared him to be an apostle. Rather, his past was marked by two features:
(1) he was a persecutor (cf. Acts 9:1–2; 1 Cor. 15:9), and
(2) he was extremely zealous for the law and its national distinctives (1:13–14; cf. Acts 22:3; 26:4; 2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:4–6).
Paul’s description of his past focuses on the sacred traditions that were passed on in Judaism (“zealous for the traditions of my fathers”), the very element Paul is arguing against in this chapter.
His persecution of the church and his advancements in Judaism came to a screeching halt when God chose to make himself known to Paul in Christ. So when God’s call came upon him, he had two options: either to go to Jerusalem to gain an authoritative interpretation of his visionary call or to be instructed elsewhere. Paul chose elsewhere, going immediately to Arabia and Damascus (v. 17). Thus, in his pre-and post-conversion experiences he was not prepared for the gospel of grace to go to the Gentiles, nor was he simply another Jerusalem-based apostle. Paul often focuses on the Gentile target of his apostleship (Rom. 15:14–21; Eph. 3:1–13; Col. 1:24–2:3), and he knows that it was only by the grace of a sovereign God that he was given such a glorious ministry (Jer. 1:5; 1 Cor. 15:9–11; Eph. 3:7–13).
A. (:13) Pre-Conversion Persecution of the Church
“For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to
persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it”
Bruce Barton: But militant Judaism was in Paul’s past—it was his “previous” way of life. When he met Jesus Christ, his life changed. He then directed all his energies toward building up the Christian church.
Ben Witherington: Notice that while Paul says that his audience knows about his former life as a Pharisee and persecutor, it is clear enough that they do not know enough about his life during the years immediately after his conversion and call. This is why the former period of his life can be summed up in two verses but the post-conversion period must be given much fuller treatment, with the correction of possible misperceptions along the way as to where Paul got his Gospel and how much contact he may have had with the Jerusalem authorities.
Thomas Schreiner: Before Paul was converted, he was convinced that his persecution demonstrated his zeal for God and his righteousness (Phil 3:6). But he came to understand that what he thought was righteousness was actually the climax of his sinfulness, so that he was unworthy to be called as an apostle (1 Cor 15:9; cf. Eph 3:8). He designated himself as “a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man” (1 Tim 1:13) and as the “worst” of sinners (1 Tim 1:15). Hence, God demonstrated his merciful grace in saving him (1:13–16) and calling him to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles.
David Platt: For us, Paul’s is a story that shows us that God loves to save bad people. No one is beyond the reach of His amazing grace! This message only comes from God. The gospel is not good advice from man; it is good news from God. Rejoice in this gospel. In Christ, you find what your heart has always longed to find. No other love is this great. No other hope is this secure. No other forgiveness is this complete. No other joy is this deep. No other freedom is this liberating. No other peace is this sweet. All of it is found in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. Do you know this Savior, the fountain of saving grace? Come and drink!
B. (:14) Pre-Conversion Loyalty to Jewish Traditions
“and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among
my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.”
John MacArthur: Ancestral traditions refers to the body of oral teachings about the Old Testament law that came to have equal authority with the law Commonly known as the Halakah, this collection of Torah interpretations became a fence around God’s revealed law and all but hid it from view Over a period of several hundred years it had expanded into a mammoth accumulation of religious, moral, legal, practical, and ceremonial regulations that defied comprehension, much less total compliance. It contained such vast amounts of minutiae that even the most learned rabbinical scholars could not master it either by interpretation or in behavior. Yet the more complex and burdensome it became, the more zealously Jewish legalists revered and propagated it.
C. (:15-16a) Sovereign Conversion
Richard Longenecker: As for his conversion to Christ and his commission to minister among Gentiles, Paul seems to be rebutting in vv 15–17 certain suggestions to the effect (1) that his Christian profession can be explained along the lines of human motivations and events, and (2) that his subsequent activity included instruction under the Jerusalem apostles, from whose teaching he then deviated. To such assertions, Paul answers that it was God who called him in prophetic fashion to minister to Gentiles and that he had no contact with his Christian predecessors at Jerusalem until much later.
- Sovereign Election to Salvation and Ministry — Emphasis on Sanctification / Holiness
“But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother’s womb“
Thomas Schreiner: Paul continues to emphasize that his transformation was wholly the work of God, for God had destined him from the time he was in his mother’s womb to be an apostle, and he called him to be such at a particular time in history, i.e., on the way to Damascus. It has been noted previously that Paul was both called and converted on this occasion, but the emphasis here is on Paul’s call as an apostle, since the teachers in Galatia questioned the legitimacy of his apostleship.
The language Paul uses here alludes to the calling of Isaiah and Jeremiah as prophets. Isaiah declares that the Lord called him from the womb of his mother (Isa 49:1). Further, the Lord knew Jeremiah before he was in his mother’s womb, and he appointed and set him apart as a prophet before his birth (Jer 1:5). Just as Isaiah and Jeremiah were called to be prophets, so too the Lord appointed Paul to be an apostle. Paul emphasizes that he was divinely appointed, for the Lord had appointed him to such a task before he was born (cf. Rom 1:1).
Further, God “called” (καλέσας) him “through his grace.” The word “calling” here clearly means a call that is effective, a call that convinces the one who is summoned. The reference to grace confirms such an idea. Paul did not volunteer to serve as an apostle, but he was summoned by God in a compelling way. Hence, his service as an apostle can be ascribed only to the grace of God, pointing to the forgiveness of his sins committed before his conversion.
- Sovereign (Effectual) Calling to Salvation and Ministy — Emphasis on Grace
“and called me through His grace“
David Platt: Man did not invent the gospel. It comes from God. It is therefore the standard by which we measure every other set of ideas and every other religion and philosophy.
If you think about it, you have to admit that we would not make this gospel up. If we were given the power to determine how one earned God’s favor and a place in heaven, we would make up a scoring system, something that emphasized human works. Why? Because the natural default mode of the human heart is works-righteousness. The message of grace—that the work has already been done—is counter-intuitive. Grace offends our natural sensibilities. Works-righteousness is motivated by unbelief. We do not naturally trust grace. We want control. This supports the reality that people did not make up the gospel of grace; it came from God.
The gospel of grace is like water: people did not invent it, and people cannot live without it. We are spiritually thirsty creatures in need of the living water of the gospel. As believers, we need to keep drinking from this well of grace. Many Christians think they should move on from the gospel—as if there is something more important that Christ’s work. No, keep drinking more of grace; keep working the gospel into your heart.
John MacArthur: Paul did not initiate the choice to be saved, much less the choice to be an apostle. He was “called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God” (1 Cor. 1:1). The phrase when He who had set me apart refers to the elective purpose of God before Paul was even able to consider a choice. No person is saved or called to leadership in the church except by such sovereign and predetermined divine will. “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:5-6; cf. v. 9).
Timothy George: Christianity is a historical faith. It is based on certain specific, irreversible, and irreducible historical events. Jesus was born during the imperial reign of Caesar Augustus. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, rose again on the third day, and was taken up into heaven forty days later. Christianity is not a philosophy of life, or yet a set of moral precepts, or a secret code for mystical union with the divine. At its core Christianity is the record of what God has once and for all done in the person and work of his Son, Jesus Christ. Among these mighty acts of God, we must include the calling of the apostle Paul, for it too belongs among the foundational events of salvation history.
- Sovereign Revelation of Salvation — Emphasis on a Personal Relationship with Christ
“ was pleased to reveal His Son in me“
Christ in him became the power for his ministry
Craig Keener: Some interpreters today respect Scripture yet insist on a religious experience that is exclusively textually focused, devoid of further experience. Paul honored the biblical text (see Gal. 3:6 – 5:1), but he insisted also on the reality of experience with God to which biblical texts bear witness. Paul thus appeals to both his own experience (1:13–16) and that of his hearers (3:1–5; 4:13–14; cf. 1 Cor. 2:1–5; 2 Cor. 3:1–3).
Nijay Gupta: First, we have Paul’s appeal to the work of God. Notice that he did not say that he came to a new realization one day while contemplating spirituality. He did not read a good book or hear a fine philosophical message and then change his ways. He was suddenly and powerfully struck with a divine bolt from the blue, as it were. Before elaborating on the content and purpose of this divine revelation, Paul makes a backgrounding statement that God had already set him apart from birth and called him by grace.
Bruce Barton: This revealing of God’s Son included several aspects:
- A new confirmation of the Resurrection: Paul heard the voice of the resurrected and living Jesus Christ (Acts 9:4-6), confirming for him the fact of the Resurrection.
- A new understanding of Jesus Christ: In his appearance to Paul, God revealed who Jesus really was—the Jews’ promised Messiah, the Savior.
- A new strategy for mission: The revelation of Jesus carried with it the command to go with the message to others. This included a law-free gospel to the Gentiles.
D. (:16b) Sovereign Appointment to His Apostolic Ministry to the Gentiles
“that I might preach Him among the Gentiles“
very specific mission
Thomas Schreiner: Concentrating on the Gentiles never meant for Paul the exclusion of the Jews. Indeed, as Romans 11 indicates, Paul believed the two missions were interrelated (Rom 11:11–32). The proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles is bound up with the Pauline understanding of the gospel, and in particular the truth that the Gentiles were not required to observe the law in order to be saved. Paul’s law-free gospel was revealed to him on the road to Damascus. He did not derive his gospel from any human authority.
Philip Ryken: This verse summarizes Paul’s whole life. He preached Christ to the Gentiles. He preached Christ crucified and Christ risen, and the Christ he preached was the very same Christ that God had revealed to him.
E. (:16c-17) Initial Isolation from Church Tutelage
- No Immediate Contact with Other Believers
“I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood“
the believers would have been hesitant to receive him anyway because of his prominent opposition to the church
- No Immediate Consultation with Church Leaders
“nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me“
Including himself in the same class with the other apostles
Timothy George: What Paul was arguing in Galatians was not that his gospel was different from that of the other apostles but rather that he had received it independently of them. Indeed, as we will see, he went to great lengths to demonstrate the basic consistency of his message and theirs. Even when he confronted Peter in Antioch (2:11–14), it was not because Peter was preaching a different gospel from Paul but rather that he had acted inconsistently with the one gospel they both accepted and proclaimed. . .
Let us note here five essential elements of the gospel made known to Paul.
(1) God has raised from the dead Jesus, the crucified Messiah, vindicating his claim to be one with the Father.
(2) Jesus has been exalted to the right hand of the Father but is still vitally connected to his people on earth. The shattering insight Paul saw on the Damascus Road was this: in persecuting the Christians, he was in reality torturing Christ himself. Paul’s doctrine of the church as the body of Christ undoubtedly grew out of this profound insight.
(3) The risen Christ will come again in power and glory to fulfill all the messianic prophecies of the old covenant, bringing history to a climactic closure in a display of divine judgment and wrath.
(4) In the meantime, God has opened the door of salvation for Gentiles as well as Jews. Paul himself had been commissioned to herald this good news to all persons but especially to the Gentiles.
(5) The basis for acceptance with God, for Jews and Gentiles alike, is justification by faith apart from the works of the law. The futility of legal righteousness is seen in a true appreciation of Christ’s atoning death on the cross. The revelation of Jesus as Messiah requires a radical reorientation in how the law is seen and applied in this “dispensation of the fullness of times” (Eph 1:10 KJV).
- Private Isolation — for Personal Development and Ministry Foundation
“but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus“
Bruce Barton: Although the sequence of events making up this part of Paul’s life appears clear, fitting it into the chronology of the book of Acts presents some challenges. Luke did not mention a three-year time period similar to Paul’s account. The primary accounts covering this time period are Acts 9:1-31 and Galatians 1:13-24. The following presents a suggested chronology:
- On his way to Damascus to imprison Christians, Saul was confronted by Christ and converted.
- Journeying on into Damascus, Paul waited until he was contacted by Ananias, who prayed for his healing and arranged for his baptism.
- Two events are given description as “immediate:”
- “Immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues” — (Acts 9:20 NRSV), and
- “I went immediately into Arabia” (1:17 NIV).
The point of reference, however, for each immediate action is different. Luke described the prompt beginning of Paul’s public ministry in relation to his conversion, while Paul was emphasizing to the Galatians how much time had elapsed between the beginning of his ministry and his first encounter with the other apostles in Jerusalem. Paul was saying, “Instead of immediately seeking confirmation from those in Jerusalem, what I did first was spend time alone in Arabia.” The first “immediate” accents the overnight transformation of Paul’s life. He left clear evidence of his conversion before he went into Arabia. The second “immediate” points to Paul’s retreat into solitude in order to consolidate and integrate the central change in his life with the rest of his experience and training.
- Three years pass. During that time, Paul left Damascus twice: first to spend time alone in Arabia, second to avoid plotters against his life and visit Jerusalem. Paul’s escape from Damascus fits better at the end of the three-year time period than shortly after his conversion. The Pharisees were probably upset by Paul’s desertion from their ranks and the effect that he had on their numbers within the city after a while. As Luke described it, “After some time had passed” (Acts 9:23 NRSV). By then, Paul had “disciples” (NRSV) or “followers” — (see Acts 9:25 NIV).
John Stott: Paul produces a series of three “alibis” to prove that he did not spend time in Jerusalem having his gospel shaped by the other apostles.
Alibi 1. He went into Arabia (v. 17). According to Acts 9:20, Paul spent a little while in Damascus preaching, which suggests that his gospel was sufficiently clearly defined for him to announce it. But it must have been soon afterward that he went into Arabia, likely for quiet and solitude. He seems to have stayed there for three years. During this period of withdrawal, as he meditated on the Old Testament Scriptures, on what he already knew about Jesus, and on his experience of conversion, the gospel of the grace of God was revealed to him in its fullness.
Alibi 2. He went up to Jerusalem later and briefly (vv. 18-20). Paul is quite open about this visit to Jerusalem, but he makes light of it. It was not nearly as significant as the false teachers were obviously suggesting. For one thing, it took place after three years, which almost certainly means three years after his conversion. By that time his gospel would have been fully formulated. Next, when he reached Jerusalem, he saw only two of the apostles, Peter and James. Third, he was in Jerusalem for only fifteen days. Of course in fifteen days the apostles would have had some time to talk about Christ. But Paul’s point is that he had no time to absorb from Peter the whole counsel of God. Besides, that was not the purpose of his visit. Much of those two weeks in Jerusalem, we learn from Acts 9:28-29, was spent in preaching.
Alibi 3. He went off to Syria and Cilicia (vv. 21-24). This visit to the extreme north corresponds to Acts 9:30, where we are told that Paul, who was already in danger for his life, was brought by the believers to Caesarea and then sent off to Tarsus, which is in Cilicia. Since he says here that he went to Syria as well, he may have revisited Damascus and called at Antioch on his way to Tarsus. The point Paul is making is that he was up in the far north, nowhere near Jerusalem.
As we will see in Galatians 2:1, not until fourteen years after his conversion did Paul revisit Jerusalem and have a more prolonged consultation with the other apostles. By that time his gospel was fully developed. During the fourteen-year period between his conversion and this consultation, he had paid only one brief and insignificant visit to Jerusalem. The rest of the time he had spent in distant Arabia, Syria, and Cilicia. His alibis proved the independence of his gospel.
III. (:18-24) PERSONAL TESTIMONY OF HIS FORMATIVE YEARS: ALMOST NO CONTACT WITH BELIEVERS
Thomas Schreiner: Verses 18–24 continue to support the theme that Paul did not please people and that his gospel was independent of the apostles. When he finally came to Jerusalem, the only apostles he saw were Peter and James (1:18–20), and he did not seek out the approval of the apostles. Further, most of the churches in Judea did not even know Paul face-to-face, which shows that he did not spend much time in Israel. They heard only about the remarkable change God had accomplished in him (1:21–24).
Richard Longenecker: The Judaizers were evidently claiming that Paul was dependent on and subordinate to the apostles at Jerusalem. Paul’s defense is to lay out an account of his career since Christ’s encounter with him on his way to Damascus, with particular attention to his contacts with the Jerusalem leaders. So in the narrative of 1:18 – 2:10 he uses ἔπειτα to assure his readers that there are no gaps in his account. And so in 1:18–24 he tells of his first visit to Jerusalem as a Christian (vv 18–20) and of his return thereafter to Syria and Cilicia (vv 21–24), continuing the alibi type of argument (“I was not there”) begun in vv 16b–17.
A. (:18-19) First Contact with the Apostles
- Met with Peter — Getting to know you
“Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted
with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.”
Douglas Moo: The chronological indicators in 1:18 and 1:21 mark out the next stages in Paul’s travelogue. Two specific movements are noted, each introduced with ἔπειτα (epeita, then): a visit to Jerusalem (1:18) and a move to “the regions of Syria and Cilicia” (1:21). Paul spends no time describing his ministry during these years (the events he narrates in this paragraph may have covered as many as ten years). He concentrates, rather, on the negative point that he introduced in verse 17a: his minimal contact with Jerusalem and the apostles resident there.
- Only Other Brief Contact = James (not officially one of the twelve)
“But I did not see any other of the apostles except James,
the Lord’s brother“
B. (:20) Aside: Veracity of His Testimony
“(Now in what I am writing to you,
I assure you before God that I am not lying.)“
Ronald Fung: Here Paul takes the voluntary oath (iusiurandum voluntarium as “a forceful and even dramatic means to emphasize both the seriousness of the issue and his own truthfulness.” It is with good reason that Paul took his own statements so seriously, for the very truth of the gospel as he understood it was at stake in the veracity of his narrative. The vehemence of his language also implies, probably, that a different account, which misrepresented the nature and purpose of his visits to Jerusalem, was current among the Galatian churches, and that he was eager to counter this with his statement of the facts.
C. (:21-24) Interaction with the Church
- (:21) Spent time Preaching in outlying regions
“Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia“
not exactly hotbeds of early church activity
Darroll Evans: Why would Paul be sent to Cilicia? It is my opinion that is was for his protection and growth. Paul deserted Orthodox Judaism and needed someplace to study in relative safety. To this day hatred for Paul is pervasive among Orthodox Jews. One of the cities in Cilicia is Tarsus. That was Paul’s hometown. In Tarsus, Paul would be safe from those who were trying to take his life.
- (:22-24) Known Only by Reputation to the Churches of Judea
a. (:22) Not Known by Sight
“And I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea
which were in Christ“
Howard Vos: Since Paul had carried on his ministry for a decade or more at such a great distance from Jerusalem, he was obviously independent of the mother church.
b. (:23) Known by Reputation
“but only, they kept hearing, ‘He who once persecuted us is now
preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy“
Nijay Gupta: Looking back on Paul’s wider message in 1:11–24, he wanted to tackle the accusation that his rivals had Jerusalem credentials and he did not. Instead of conceding this as some sort of weakness, Paul proudly rehearsed his own story. No, he did not come up through the Judean apostolic ranks as a rising star (not the way he did as a Pharisee); Paul was an outsider. But his authority came directly from Christ (remember Gal 1:1); he was handpicked to be an apostle. He wanted to take advantage of the wisdom of Cephas (and James), so he visited them on their turf, but his own calling came directly from above. He preached boldly in the diaspora (places he knew well in Syria and Cilicia), lives turned to God, and many believers were encouraged—even in Judea. That’s Paul’s story, which he took extended space to narrate at the beginning of this important letter.
c. (:24) Positive Reception
“And they were glorifying God because of me”
F. F. Bruce: During the years which followed Paul’s brief visit to Jerusalem, as in the shorter interval which preceded it, he was actively engaged in preaching the gospel, without requiring or receiving any authorization to do so from the leaders of the mother-church.
John MacArthur: Paul’s point through all of this detailed autobiography was that the charges of the Judaizers was absurd on the surface. The church in Jerusalem, which was still overseen by the other apostles and James, the Lord’s half brother, had long since recognized his apostolic office and authority and glorified God because of him. James, Peter, and John—the three leading apostles among the Twelve—had specifically acknowledged that the grace of God had been given to Paul and they enthusiastically gave him “and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). In his second letter Peter not only acknowledges Paul’s divine authority but asserts that his epistles even at that early date were already recognized as scriptural (2 Pet. 3:15-16).
Timothy George: The crisis Paul was facing in Galatia likely had its roots in a certain type of Jewish Christianity that claimed allegiance to the primitive Christian community in Jerusalem, its leaders, and its ethos. Paul wanted to show that from the beginning it was not so. The Jerusalem church leaders welcomed him as a colleague and blessed his ministry. The churches of Judea, including some Paul himself had formerly persecuted, rejoiced in the great reversal they heard about in Paul’s life. While Paul wanted to assert as strongly as possible his independence from the Jerusalem church, he also wanted to claim a vital partnership with them in the service of a shared gospel and a common Lord.