The Truth of the Gospel, Part 2

Hello everyone

It has been afew weeks since I have posted anything.  I am ready now to get back writing more.  We will continue in Galatians 2 today, and finish up some thoughts on verses 11-14, where Paul has reprimanded Peter to his face over table fellowship and association with Gentiles.  Here is my translation again:

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood convicted of grave error. 12 Before the arrival of certain men sent by James, Peter had eaten with the Gentiles, but afterwards, he separated himself because he feared the circumcision group. 

 

13 The rest of the Jews joined with him in his hypocrisy, to the point that even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that their behavior was not compatible with the truth of the Gospel, I called out Cephas in front of everyone, saying, “If you are Jew who lives like a Gentile, then why are you trying to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

In verse 13, Paul calls Peter’s withdrawal from the Gentiles hypocrisy, then states that such behavior was not compatible with the truth of the Gospel.  This is what we have been talking about.  So determining what exactly is the truth of the Gospel is a very important question to answer.  I think that Paul’s letter to the churches in Galatia is an answer to that question.  We can be certain that it involves God's grace and mercy rather than the keeping of a codified set of rules. 

Paul had freely abandoned the purity standards established in the Torah, (or at least the Pharisaic view of these standards,) by eating freely with the Gentiles.  He took the view of being like a Jew to win the Jews and being like a Gentile to win the Gentiles. (1 Cor. 9:19-23.)   In verse 14, Paul states that he had asked Peter, “If you are Jew who lives like a Gentile, then why are you trying to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” 

How far had Peter come toward living as a Gentile?  It is unclear.  What is clear is that, with his actions, Peter was now putting an expectation on the Gentile converts that he himself had not been living.  Obviously, Peter could not go back to a state of uncircumcision, but there were many other remnants of the old law that Peter could and perhaps did do away with in his own personal walk.  

Perhaps this was the reason for the charge of hypocrisy.  Peter was living one way, but now suddenly, in the face of opposition, expecting the Gentiles to live under a more strict code.  

A lot of time and thought was being given to the question of how the interactions between Jewish and Gentile Christians should be, and much fuss was made about table fellowship, who you were willing to sit and eat with.  Jesus' detractors found fault with him over this point.  He ate with “sinners’ and the Pharisees complained about it. Jews did not eat with Gentiles. That and the issue of circumcision were traditions that many Christian Jews were holding fast to.  

John Stott makes a great point here concerning the Gentiles.  He says, “If God accepted them, how can we reject them? He has reconciled them himself; how can we withdraw from those whom God has reconciled?” (Stott, 55.)    

Was this all settled in Acts 15?  Since the timeline is unclear, we can’t be sure.  It could be that there lingering doubts by the circumcision group that had infiltrated the churches in Galatia, and were spreading their version of the gospel?  

However, Paul’s point of view was that these Gentile converts owed nothing to the old law, because they were saved by grace.  However, it seems that he continually had to fight this fight, as legalism doesn’t seem to go away easily.  

Paul has given a lot of attention to his own story since the beginning of the letter, but in this section, he brings his story to a close.  Douglas Moo explains that he has given the reader a history of his background in Judaism, his conversion and his relationship with church leaders.  He has also established his special mission to the Gentiles and the Gospel of grace that he preaches to them.  (Moo, 141.) 

Moo later points out that up to this point, Paul has used the phrase, “the truth of the Gospel” twice.  In 2:5, where he talks about Titus, a Gentile, who could not be compelled to be circumcised, and then , in 2:14, within the context of Peter and other Jewish Christians being pulled away from fellowship with the Gentile Christians.   In both instances, the compelling of Gentile converts to be circumcised and the withdrawal of self from the fellowship of certain believers, is incompatible with "the truth of the Gospel.” (Moo, 153.) In the verses that follow, verses 15 to 21, we learn more about this truth of the Gospel. Stay tuned. 

Tom 

The Truth of the Gospel

 Hello everyone. 

As we move deeper into Galatians 2, we come to a story of Peter's visit to Antioch, and how the issue of fellowship between Jews and Gentiles came to head.  Here is my translation of Galatians 2:11-14:

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood convicted of grave error. 12 Before the arrival of certain men sent by James, Peter had eaten with the Gentiles, but afterwards, he separated himself because he feared the circumcision group. 

13 The rest of the Jews joined with him in his hypocrisy, to the point that even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that their behavior was not compatible with the truth of the Gospel, I called out Cephas in front of everyone, saying, “If you are Jew who lives like a Gentile, then why are you trying to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Peter visits Antioch.  Apparently, he had been enjoying the fellowship of the Gentiles in Antioch, but, then some men showed up, sent from James, and Peter then separated himself from the Gentiles. As this circumcision crowd had come in, Peter withdrawal is noticable, and other Jews joined Peter in this, apparently, even Barnabus.  So, Paul calls Peter out on it.  

We have a very different scene here than the one Paul had just discussed.  In Jerusalem, Peter gave Paul the right hand of fellowship, but in Antioch, Paul opposes Peter to his face.  

In verse 14, Paul says that he calls Peter out on it becasue such behavior is not compatible with “τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου” (tēn alētheian tou euangeliou) or “The truth of the Gospel.”  

A good question to ask here would be, "What is the truth of the Gospel?" The truth of the Gospel is that it is a gospel of grace, not law-keeping.  Peter’s behavior was not compatible with grace.  Peter’s action of withdrawing his fellowship from the Gentile beleivers, by itself, is bad, but the fact that it was Peter, one of the most influential guys in the church, led others into this bad behavior, makes it even worse. Paul doesn't correct him quietly, in a corner somewhere. He calls him out in front of everyone. 

Why does Paul make such a big deal here?  Becasue, Peter’s actions are not in step with the truth of the gospel.  John Stott points out that Peter’s teaching was in step with it, but when he withdrew from the Gentile converts, his behavior was no longer in line with his teaching or with the truth of the gospel. (Stott, 50.)  Having been the guy who baptized Cornbelius and his family, Peter should have recognized that this not in step with the Holy Spirit, either. 

There is some discussion about when this incident actually took place.  Was it before or after the conference in Jerusalem?  Peter’s action makes a lot more sense if it happened before Jerusalem, since the issue of obedience to the Law had been settled there. It makes very little sense for Peter to act that way in Antioch after the Jerusalem meeting.  It also makes very little sense for James to send men of the circumcision group, since James was one of the people who spoke up on behalf of the Gentiles at the Jerusalem meeting.  

Of course, we have to realize that the issue here is not actually about circumcision, instead the issue is about the eating of meals with Gentiles. Perhaps the question still remained about how much contact there was to be between a faithful Jewish Christian and a Gentile Christian.  

Apparently Peter had overcome the typical Jewish hesitance to eat and associate with Gentiles, until these men showed up. It looks like Peter was a little afraid of them, because when they showed up, he stopped eating with the Gentiles.  

Peter is very influential, and his behavior, as previously stated, influenced others to do the same, most notably, Barnabus, who had helped to build the church in Antioch. Douglas Moo says that Antioch had become something of a laboratory for Jew-Gentile relations, (Moo, 142) as we are seeing the removal of some racial barriers.  Jews had always feared contamination from Gentiles, and the Jewish Christians seemed to have a hard time letting go of it. Whatever the motivation, Paul was clearly very upset by Peter’s actions. 

Peter should have known better than to act this way, but it still took courage and deep conviction for Paul to directly challenge him this way that he did. ( For the record, Barnabus is let off pretty easy here, but he should have known better too.) 

Paul says that Peter was condemned where “he stood convicted of grave error.” (My translation.)  The Greek word κατεγνωσμένος  (kategnōsmenos) is often translated as condemned.  So what does this mean? Does Peter stand condemned before God because of this mistake?  I don’t think so.  I think that God is far more gracious than that.  My opinion is that Paul's meaning here is that Peter is making a huge mistake, one that has really big implications for the conduct of the church.  

Moo says, “The disagreement in this text between the two in the matter of association between Jewish and Gentile believers should not be minimized: Paul does think that the truth of the Gospel is at stake.  Yet the difference is not fundamentally over theology but over the implications for a specific form of conduct that arises from theology.”  (Moo, 146.) Paul addresses this point later in Galatians 3:26-29. In God’s kingdom, Jews are no longer to hold themselves separate from Gentiles.  

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.  (NIV)

That's the truth of the gospel.  The gospel is God's grace and his grace makes us equals, in spite of ethnicity, gender and life circumstances.  The truth is that we are fortunate to be a part of such a great fellowship, anyway.  

Where Freedom is found

Greetings everyone.

We will look at verses 4-10 in Galatians 2.  Here is my translation:

 4 But false brothers had slipped in.  They had snuck in amongst us to spy on the freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, in an attempt to make slaves of us. 5 We did not submit to this, even for a short time, so that the truth of the Gospel would remain in you. 

6 As for those held in high regard, I received nothing additional from them. (It does not matter to me, as God shows no partiality.) 7 Rather, they saw that I had been entrusted with proclaiming the Gospel to the uncircumcised, just like Peter was sent to those who have been circumcised. 8 For the One who is at work in Peter in his mission to the circumcised, is also at work in me, in my mission to the Gentiles. 9 So, when those known to be pillars, James, Cephas and John, saw the grace that had been given to Barnabus and I, they gave us the right hand of fellowship, so that they would go among the circumcised, and we would go among the Gentiles. 10 One thing they asked of us, that we remember the poor, something that I was eager to do. 

In verse 4, Paul states that “false brothers” had slipped in among them.  Their plan and purpose was to spy on the freedom that they had in Christ, and to enslave them.  The first thing that I notice here is that Paul equates true Christianity with freedom.  It is reminiscent of what Jesus says in John 8:31, “the truth will set you free.”  Following Jesus is supposed to set us free.  If we are not experiencing some measure of freedom, then we must be doing something wrong.  

Christianity is not supposed to be enslaving, but this is the comparison Paul makes with emphasis on the Law being pushed by these “false brothers.”  Strict obedience to the Old Law is seen equated with slavery. 

Who are these men?  Paul paints a very negative picture of them.  He portrays them as men who "snuck in" amongst the fellowship as spies for the purpose of taking away their freedom in Christ and enslaving them with the Law.  I love what John Stott says about this:  “Paul saw the issue plainly.  It was not a question of circumcision and uncircumcision, of Gentile and Jewish customs.  It was a matter of fundamental importance regarding the truth of the gospel, namely, of Christian freedom versus bondage. The Christian has been set free in the sense that his acceptance before God depends entirely upon God’s grace in the death of Jesus Christ received by faith. To introduce the works of the law and make our acceptance depend on our obedience to rules and regulations was to bring a free man into bondage again.”  (Stott, 43.)

Paul makes note in verse 5 that they did not even entertain the idea that was being pushed by these false teachers,  He says “We did not submit to this even for a short time”  Paul had no interest in placating this crowd, and he knew that this false gospel was not a part of the gospel that God had taught him.  Paul goes on to give the reasoning behind their refusal.  Paul continues, “So that the truth of the gospel would remain in you.”  He is fighting for the truth of the gospel.  What is that truth?  The gospel is grace and freedom, not adherence to the law, which ultimately becomes bondage.  

Going on to verse 6-9, Paul returns to his discussion of his time with the apostles. He states that he had received nothing additional from, but that they each had their own God-given mission.   They had their mission to the Jews, and he had his mission to the Gentiles. Paul states in verse 7 that they acknowledged that Paul had been entrusted with this mission to the Gentiles.  This is important, as Paul makes the case that the same God who gave Peter, James and John their mission to the Jews is the same God who gave him the mission to the Gentiles, and that He does not show partiality.  One mission was not more important than the other. 

Paul refers to those in Jerusalem, likely, those three in particular, as “those held in high regard” in verse 6 and “those known to be pillars” in verse 9. He is making reference to some of the great leaders of church, those whose thoughts and opinions would hold great sway among the believers.  I mean, we are talking about Peter and John, two of Jesus’ innermost circle, and James, the Lord’s brother. Three of the most influential people in the early church, if not the three most influential.  If they were to listen to anyone, it would be them. Stott makes notes that these men had all walked with Jesus in his physical presence on the Earth, while Paul likely had not.  

It is likely that Paul’s detractors are coming into the Galatian churches and telling them that Paul’s gospel is not consistent with the gospel that the Apostles in Jerusalem are teaching.  That is why Paul is now discussing them in this light.  Those pillars have heard the gospel that he is teaching, and they agree with it.  In fact, they are teaching the same gospel, Peter, James and John to the Jews, and Paul and Barnabus to the Gentiles.  

He continues, stating that they extended to him and Barnabus the right hand of fellowship and send them on their way, so that both parties could complete their various missions. Paul is not not at odds with the leaders in Jerusalem. Paul strengthens his point that the one and only gospel, the gospel he and the apostles are teahcing, was and still is the gospel of God's grace.

Thsi section of scripure closes with an acknowledgement that the one request made of Paul and Barnabus upon parting, is that Paul and Barnabus continue to remember the poor.  This is not mentioned in the Acts 15 letter, but Paul states that this was something that he was eager to do, anyway, so one could assume that Paul would have done this regardless. The thing to note here is that helping the poor is something that both groups saw as important.  

The Question of Circumcision, Part 2

Hello everyone. 

We have been looking at Galatians and case that Paul had been making against holding on the the Law and forcing Gentile converts to Christianity to submit to circumcision.  In my last post, I discussed one of Paul's visits to Jerusalem, where the question of circumcision did come up, and in the end the leadership in Jerusalem supported Paul's view and Titus, a Gentile, choose not to be circumcised. This visit could have occured in Acts 11, when Paul and Barnabus returned to Jerusalem with a relief effort to aid those living in Judea in the face of a severe famine. (Acts 11:27-30), or it could be in Acts 15, where Paul and Barnabus returned to Jerusalem to specifically address the question of circumcision. The timeline on all of this is not clear.  But, the summit in Acts 15 on this question is worth a detour for our understanding of Paul's message in Galatains.  

Acts 15:1 tells us that men came to Antioch from Judea teaching that these Gentile converts could not be Christians without submitting to the Law of Moses and to circumcision.  This was a big moment in the church, with the potential to divide it into two groups, a circumcision group and a non-circumcision group. It is imperative that the early church gets this one right. According to Acts 15:2, Paul and Barnabus fought vigorously against this teaching in Antioch then go up to Jerusalem to continue the fight.  

There is a big appeal in Paul’s message to God-fearing Gentiles.  Historian Justo Gonzalez says this, “His (Paul's) message was not that Israel had been abandoned by God, but rather that now, through the resurrection of Jesus, the age of the Messiah had dawned, and that therefore the way was open for Gentiles to join the people of God.  This message would have been quite appealing to God-fearers who now found that they could join the people of God without undergoing circumcision or following the dietary laws of Israel.”  (Gonzalez, 35.)

Acts 15:5 tells us that the demand for the keeping of the Law came from some Pharisees who had come to faith.  They were demanding that the Gentile converts be circumcised and calling upon church leadership to "order them to keep the Law of Moses.”  Legalism dies hard. While they may have left some of the legalism of Phariseeism behind, they were still drawn to it, and it is through that lens that they saw Christianity.  

A little later in Acts 15, Peter addresses the issue. “My brothers, you know that from our early days God chose that it should be from my mouth that the Gentiles would hear the Good News of the Gospel and come to faith.  And God, who knows the heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us.  He made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts through faith.  So now, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the apprentices’ neck that neither we nor ancestors have been able to bear? Rather, we believe it is by the grace of our Lord Jesus that we came to salvation, just like them.”  (Acts 15:7-11) Peter reminds them of his dealings with Cornelius.  The Holy Spirit came on them as a sign that God was with them, and circumcision did not come up.  No distinction was made here and Cornelius and his family were not required to submit to circumcision before being baptized.  Peter asks why they should place a yoke (or burden) on the Gentiles that the Jews themselves had been unable to bear.  The legalism that had been built up around the Law had been a big backbreaking load.  Why force it on anyone? 

Peter’s words echo Paul’s message.  The Gospel is a message of God's grace, mercy and forgiveness, and not a message of embracing the Law and fulfilling its righteousness.

Paul and Barnabus share how God had worked in antioch, and then James also addresses the crowd. He quotes from Amos:

 ‘After this I will return

    and rebuild David’s fallen tent.

Its ruins I will rebuild,

    and I will restore it,

that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,

    even all the Gentiles who bear my name,

says the Lord, who does these things’ (Amos 9:11-12)

The scripture James uses indicates that God’s plan had always included the Gentiles, so they should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who were now turning to God.  (Acts 15:19) At James’ recommendation, the leadership composed a letter and sent it out to Gentile believers.  The letter is recorded in Acts 15:23-29.  

The letter includes: 

• The circumcision group was teaching things not authorized by them, so the Gentiles would not be bound by their teachings. 
• The statement also says that it seemed good to both the Holy Spirit and the them that the Gentiles abstain from these four things:
• Meat sacrificed to idols.
• Blood.
• Meat from strangled animals.
• Sexual immorality. 

In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabus were able to return to Antioch with a letter from church leadership, seemingly endorsed by the Holy Spirit of God that expressly does not bind circumcision on the Gentiles.  

So, this brings us back to Galatians where Paul must address the question that just won't go away. It is a question that has the power to divide the church.  What is the real gospel?  Is it a gospel of God's grace, or is it a gospel of strict adherence to a set of rules? We certainly know where Paul stands, as he continues to make his case for grace. 

The Question of Circumcision

Greetings.

Today, we will move on into Galatians 2, as Paul continues to defend his message of grace.  Here is my translatian of verses 1 to 3: 

1 Fourteen years later, I went up to Jerusalem again, this time, with Barnabus and Titus.  2 I went according to the revelation that I had received, and I shared with them the Gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles.  I did this privately among the leadership to ensure that I had not been running or would continue to run in vain. 3 However, even Titus, a Greek, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised.

Paul continues to tell his story, as he puts forward his arguments against this other gospel, the gospel of legalistic righteousness and circumcision. So, Pual explains that fourteen years after his initial visit to Peter and James, Paul returns to Jerusalem in response to a revelation given to him by God. (Note: Some believe that "fourteen years later" means fourteen years after his conversion, rather than fourteen years after his previous visit to Jerusalem.) Paul has now spent time in his hometown of Tarsus and then teamed up with Barnabus in Antioch.  The two of them had been very successful in Antioch among the Gentiles.   

Note: As we move forward, we need to breifly consider the history of Jews and Gentiles in the church.  Initially, the church was made up entirely of Jews, but, in Acts 10, with Cornelius, Peter had opened the doors of the kingdom to Gentiles. He defends his actions in the early part of chapter 11.  

Luke makes no specific mention of circumcisions being preformed in Acts 10 and 11.  However, in Acts 10:45 he mentions the astonishment of the circumcised believers that were with Peter at Cornelius’s house, when the Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius and his household.  Later, Acts 11:3, Peter receives criticism for going into the house of the uncircumcised and eating with them.  

So, the point is very clearly made that Cornelius was uncircumcised, and yet welcomed into the Kingdom of God.  There is no mention of Cornelius and his household being circumcised before they were given the Holy Spirit by God.  It appears here that the whole circumcision/uncircumcision thing was unimportant to the Holy Spirit in this matter.  After Peter defended his actions, (which were completely guided by the Holy Spirit, Acts 11:12), those who had criticized him concluded that Peter had done the right thing, and that “even to the Gentiles, God has granted repentance that leads to life.”  (Acts 11:18)

Now, with the door to the kingdom open to Gentiles, the church in Antioch has grown rapidly, with many Gentile converts.  But what does this mean?  

The Jewish nation had been set apart by God for centuries.  The Law belonged to the Jews, and within it, circumcision.  Obedience to the Law had always been part of that special relationship with God.  Jewish Christians were still being obedient to the Law and had been circumcised as infants.  However, these new Gentile converts had no relationship to the Law and had not been circumcised.  So, here is the big question:  Are these Gentile converts also bound by the Law and circumcision?  

If so, that would mean all adult male Gentile converts would need to submit to being circumcised.  Something, anyone would be reluctant to do, especially if it turns out that it is not necessary. 

The gospel that Paul and Barnabus were preaching centered on God’s grace, not The Law, and did not involve circumcision for its converts.  As Paul and Barnabuss presented this gospel to the leaders in Jerusalem, the apostles agreed with it.  Not that Paul needed their approval, he had received it by direct revelation from God.  Perhaps this was done so that others would get on board, now that he had the backing of the apostles. Further evidence of their backing comes when Titus, a Gentile who came with them, opted to not be circumcised.  If this lack of circumcision for Titus was a sticking point for the Jerusalem leadership, Paul makes no mention of it here.  

It seems that they were all on board with the gospel of grace that Paul was preaching among the Gentiles. 

The question of circumcision conitiues to arise, but it seems the church leaders see no need to bind this on the Gentiles.  You may wonder then, it the matter had already been settled, why was Paul needing to deal with it again in the churches in Galatia?  I wonder that too.  As we move forward in our examination of Glatains, we will see Paul continue to make his case against legalism and for grace. 

Paul's Backstory: Part 2

 Hello everyone.

Today, I will continue to share the story that Paul tells, in his efforts to to prove his point that the gospel he has shared with them is the one and only true gospel.  Here is my translation of Gal. 1:16b-24

When he called me, I did not immediately consult with anyone. 17  I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me. Instead, I went to Arabia, then went back to Damascus. 
18 Three years later, I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and I stayed with him for fifteen days. 19 I didn’t see any of the other apostles, only James, the Lord’s brother.  20 (Before God, I promise you, that what I am writing to you is true). 21 After that, I went into the region of Syria and Cilicia. 22 But my face was yet unknown to the churches that are in Christ in Judea. 23 They had only heard that one who had formerly persecuted them was now preaching the gospel of faith, rather than destroying it.  24 So they praised God because of me. 

Paul states that after God's call, he didn't consult with anyone, including those who were already apostles and the leaders of the church,  but rather goes off to Arabia for a while, then returns to Damascus.  We can only speculate as to what happened during Paul’s time in Arabia, but it seems likely that this was a time in which Paul received that gospel that he spoke about in verse 12, the one that he did not receive from a man, but through revelation from Jesus Christ.  He speaks here of going out to Arabia, and of not consulting with anyone.  This idea fits what Paul is saying here. 

Douglas Moo notes that there are two different lines of thinking regarding the trip to Arabia.  One line of thinking is that Paul went away to meditate on the vision of Christ.  The other is that he went for the purpose of sharing the gospel.  Moo points out that these two things do not need to be mutually exclusive, and that Paul could very well have gone off to do both.  (Moo, 106-107.) 

Then, three years after his conversion, Paul makes his way to Jerusalem.  He stays about two weeks, seeing Peter and James.  So, Paul is called directly by Jesus and given his own revelation.  He is at work for three years before consulting with the leaders of the church, and then when he does, he only meets with two of them.  One would think that all of the apostles and leaders of the church would be eager to meet with Paul, but it appears that they were not.  

In verse 20, Paul makes something of a parenthetical statement.  I have translated it as “Before God, I promise you, that what I am writing to you is true.”  I wondered what Paul was saying here that was so important that he needed to pause and declare the truth of it “before God.” Moo helps out here.  Paul has made the point that he had learned of the gospel of grace that he had taught them by direct revelation of God, and not from the apostles, whom he had very little contact with, or, for that matter, any other man. (Moo, 111.) 

Paul is dealing with people who are challenging his apostolic authority, so he has to strongly defend his position that God gave him a direct revelation, and therefore his message is authoritative. 

After Paul’s short visit to Jerusalem, where he only saw a couple of the church leaders over a two week period, he went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia.  Paul is still making the point that he had very little contact with the apostles, and that his message came from God, rather than men. (It appears that after his brief stop in Jerusalem, Paul went home to Tarsus.  Tarsus is in Cilicia.  Acts 11:25 tells us that Barnabus, who had been sent to Antioch, goes to Tarsus and brings Paul back with him to Antioch.) 

In verses 22-23, Paul is still making the point that he was not well-known in Judea, and was not influenced by the leaders there.  He says in the Greek “ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ “(agnooumenos tō prosōpō).  A direct translation of this would be something like, "unknown by face," meaning that the ordinary disciple in Judea may have heard about Paul, but they would not have recognized him.  Paul’s status as a relative unknown in Judea strengthens his point that he did not learn the gospel he was teaching from men.  

Why is Paul spending so much time stressing the point that he received his revelation directly from God and not from other men?  Well, if his message came directly from God and has no other human influence, then it has to be the one that we should listen to.  It carries the authority of God. This other message cannot possibly make this claim, and should be avoided.  The Gospel that Paul presented to them is the true, and the one and only Gospel from God. 

The chapter ends with Paul making the point that while most of the disciples in Judea had not personally met Paul, they had heard of his conversion, and praised God for it. 

As Saul, he had thrown himself into persecuting the church with great vigor.  Now, as a fellow-disciple, he was pursuing Christ and the growth of the church with the same energy. For the Judean disciple, this must have seemed almost too good to be true. John Stott shares that they must have seen Saul’s conversion as “A signal trophy of God’s grace.”  (Stott, 36.)  The church’s greatest persecutor had become its greatest defender, and people had good reason to give praise to God. Paul had been given a special task by God, to take the gospel to the Gentiles.  (Acts 13:47.)  So, in his missionary journeys, he would spend very little time in Jerusalem.  He had not been converted there, learned his message or mission there, but he was still a great encouragement there.  

Paul's Backstory

Hello everyone.

We will continue our examination of Galatians 1, looking at verses 13-16a:  Here is my translation: 

13 You have heard about the way I used to live, when I still practiced Judaism.  I was a great persecutor of God’s church.  In fact, I was trying to destroy it. 14 My advancement in Judaism was beyond many of my fellow Jews of that day, as I was incredibly zealous in keeping the traditions of my ancestors.  
15 However, God appointed me, even before I was born, and called me by his grace.  He was pleased, 16 to reveal his son to me. That way, I could proclaim his gospel to the Gentiles.  

Starting in verse 13, Paul begins telling his story.  It seems that now Paul no longer considers that he practices Judaism.  He says, “ You have heard about the way I used to live, when I still practiced Judaism.”  (my translation)  Other translations like the NIV say “my previous way of life in Judaism.”  It appears that Paul considers that he is still a Jew ethnically, but has moved on from Judaism.  It is important to note that his detractors and opponents have not moved on, as they were trying to practice a hybrid Christianity that was compatible with the Mosaic Law. (Schreiner, 98.)

Undoubtedly, his audience had heard some of this story, particularly the part about how, at one time, Paul had persecuted God’s people.  He openly admits to this, calling himself, “a great persecutor of God’s church”, and admitting that he had been dead set on destroying it. 

As Paul continues in verse 14, he discusses how he had advanced in Judaism beyond many of his contemporaries.  He admits that he had been zealous for keeping the traditions of his ancestors. When it came to following the law and keeping the traditions, Paul was near the top. In other words: Paul knew and understood legalistic religion on a very high level. In the way that he had lived, he had been steeped in it. (Paul tells Agrippa in Acts 26:5 that he had conformed to the strictest sect of Judaism, living as a Pharisee.) Stott describes the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus like this, “a bigot and a fanatic, whole-hearted in his devotion to Judaism and his persecution of Christ and the church.” (Stott, 31.) But, Paul stresses now that he has left that way of life behind. 

The revelation of grace, had indeed been a revelation to Paul of a different, and better, way to live.  Paul had been so zealous for his former cause, that he believed that it was his duty even  to persecute and kill the ‘heretic’ Christians, and that God was pleased with this.  That version of Paul, called Saul, may have understood something of God’s holiness and righteousness, but understood nothing of God’s mercy, love and grace. This understanding, apparently, had to be given to Paul through special revelation.  We cansee that Saul the persecutor connected his persecution of Chrisitains with his love and zeal for God, but all of Saul’s passion and zeal for God were seriously misguided. Fortunately for the church, God had plans for this persecutor of His people. 

Paul tells us, in verse 15, that God had chosen him, even before he was born. The Greek:  ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου (ek Koilias matros mou) means “out of my mother’s womb.”  Like John the Baptist, God had made plans for Paul even before he was born.  (Paul obviously didn’t get the Holy Spirit in the womb the way John did, as he did not recognize Jesus until much later on.) We see a similar call in Jeremiah 1:5.  “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you , before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”  God had a plan for Paul from the beginning, similar to other great men of the Bible like Jeremiah and John. 

In verse 15, going into verse 16, we see that God was pleased to reveal His Son to Paul.  This may be making reference to Jesus’ appearance to Saul on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. Saul, on his way to Damascus to capture Christians and bring them back to Jerusalem as prisoners, encountered the risen Christ.  (Acts 9:1-9)  It could be making reference to the time Paul spends in Arabia that he references in Galatians 1:17, as a time when he receives that special revelation.  Perhaps he is refering to both.  Either way, Paul makes it clear that through His grace God has revealed Jesus To him, and with that God's gospel of grace. 

His readers here are also told that God had called Paul for a specific purpose, the purpose of proclaiming this gospel of grace to the Gentiles.  (Paul is a curious choice for messenger to the Gentiles, since he was the most Jewish from among the Jews.)