Galatians 1:11-2:14 is one of the longest autobiographical sections in Paul’s epistles (2 Cor 11:22-12:10). Paul then took up in more detail the challenge to his authority as an apostle. Was he a self-appointed impostor? Arguing autobiographically, Paul declared that (1) he was an apostle before he met the other apostles; (2) when he did meet them he was received as an equal; (3) and he even found it necessary to rebuke Peter, the reputed chief apostle.
In Galatians 1:11–12, Paul states his theme: his message and ministry are of divine origin. He did not invent the Gospel, nor did he receive it from men; but he received the Gospel from Jesus Christ. Both his message and his apostolic ministry were divinely given. Therefore, anybody who added anything to Paul’s Gospel was in danger of divine judgment, because that Gospel was given by Jesus Christ from heaven (1 Cor. 15:1–11).
The best way for Paul to prove his point is to reach into his past and remind the Galatian Christians of the way God had dealt with him. Paul states that his past life was already known to his readers (Gal. 1:13), but it was obvious that they did not fully understand what those experiences meant.
11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 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; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. (NASB)
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
- Paul’s gospel of grace is true because it came directly from God.
- The gospel of grace can dramatically change one’s life as shown with Paul’s.
- The conversion of Paul was a spiritual miracle. It was humanly impossible for Saul to become the Apostle Paul apart from the miracle of God’s grace. And the same God who saved Paul also called him to be an apostle, and gave him the message of the Gospel
CLOSER LOOK:
Verses 11–12: Paul asserts that there was no human creativity flavoring the gospel he preached. Paul knew it only because he received it by special revelation from Jesus Christ at his conversion (Acts 26:12-18). First, Paul certified that the gospel did not originate with man. Man-made religions emphasize human merit and the necessity of human works for salvation. Paul’s message did not. Second, Paul declared that he did not receive the gospel from any human source. Though he heard Stephen preach and had personal contacts with Ananias and Barnabas, he was not indebted to them for his knowledge of spiritual truth. Third, Paul affirmed he did not receive the gospel he preached by means of some course of instruction. Even though that was the way the Galatians received the gospel (as Paul had instructed them), the apostle on the other hand received it through a revelation from Jesus Christ. This was the highest authority. How then could the Galatians question his authority and message? And how did they dare deviate from this divinely revealed truth?
Verses 13–14: By appealing to his personal history Paul established beyond any doubt that he did not learn his gospel from men. Paul now presents another proof that his gospel of grace is true: his own miraculous life change. Paul is living proof that God changes lives (see 2 Cor. 5:17). He knew that his testimony was powerful evidence not only of the reality and relevance of God but also of the credibility of his ministry. Beginning with his life before conversion, he showed that his only relationship to the church was that of a zealous persecutor of it. Standing before Herod Agrippa II, Paul summarized his frenzied oppression of Christians (cf. Acts 26:9–11). Coupled with this was the fact that he was also zealous to advance as a Pharisee in Judaism. For clarity, the term Judaism, means the Jewish way of life, which was based partly on the OT and partly on additional traditions of the fathers, or leaders of the people (Matt 15:2). He felt driven to excel over other Jews his own age. He loved the Law and was zealous for the his ancestral traditions. He no doubt spent much time studying the Law of Moses and the accompanying Rabbinical traditions. Thus who could accuse Paul of not being acquainted with the teachings of Judaism when he knew them better than the Judaizers?[1]
Paul’s conduct before his conversion had greatly distinguished him in Judaism in two ways: first, he painstakingly kept the law and traditions, certainly more so than the Judaizers in Galatia (6:13). Second, he persecuted the church of God in order to destroy it, doing so under the authority of Jewish religious leaders (Acts 8:3; 9:1, 2).
Verses 15–16a: The contrast with the preceding (vv. 13–14) is striking and is occasioned by God’s intervention in the life of Saul of Tarsus: “But when God.” Nowhere is this intervention more graphically described than in Acts 9. Here Paul simply enumerated three things God did for him. First, God set him apart from birth (the phrase “set me apart even from my mother’s womb”). Paul knew that God had providentially set him apart from birth and that all his life to this point was a preparation for his ministry as a proclaimer of the gospel of God’s grace. Second, God called Paul by His grace. This is a reference to the time of Paul’s salvation. He responded to God’s efficacious call and received Jesus Christ as Savior. In Romans (8:30) Paul gave the sequence of God’s work in salvation: “Those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified.” Third, God was “pleased to reveal His Son” in Paul. Blinded as he had been to the deity of Jesus Christ and thinking that the Nazarene was a fraud, God gave Paul an outward vision of Christ on the Damascus Road and later an inner revelation concerning the full significance of the person and work of the Savior. The purpose of this revelation was that Paul “might preach Him among the Gentiles.” The Book of Acts gives full account of Paul’s ministry to the non-Jewish world on his missionary journeys. He became known as the apostle to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 9:15; 13:46–47; 26:20; Rom. 11:13; 15:16; Eph. 3:8; 1 Tim. 2:7). Thus Paul emphasized that both his conversion and his commission owed nothing to man but were of God.[2] How else could such a transformation—from persecutor to preacher—be explained?
In words echoing the calling of the messianic Servant (Is 49:1) and Jeremiah the prophet (Jer 1:5), Paul relates that God had chosen him to be an apostle before his birth. Paul, like the Judaizers in Galatia, had previously tried to earn his salvation by works. However, his apostolic call and conversion both came through God’s grace, His undeserved favor.
Why did God do this? It was all part of God’s eternal plan to take the good news to the whole world. God had planned Paul’s part in this eternal mission even before Paul was born. Paul did not enter the missionary work and develop the missionary gospel message on his own. God was responsible for it all. He called Paul.
Thus, Paul shows that both his conversion and his commission were from God rather than man. His conversion from persecutor to preacher could only be explained as a miracle of God and a great proof of his authenticity and apostolic authority.
Verses 16b–17: Paul had emphasized that he did not receive his message from men before or at the time of his conversion. Now he affirmed that he was free from human influences afterward as well. Though Paul met other Christians after his conversion he did not consult them on doctrine. If he had been uncertain about the gospel, he could readily have gone to Jerusalem for a meeting with the apostles, but he did not. Rather he went immediately into Arabia. It is doubtful that he went there to evangelize but rather to be away from men and alone with the Lord for personal study, meditation, and to receive further revelation. This zealous student of the Law now pondered the meaning of his conversion and looked for the things concerning Christ in the Old Testament (cf. Luke 24:27). The product of these days in Arabia was the Christian theology that Paul explained in his epistle to the Romans.[3]
The point of Paul’s declaration is clear. He formed his theology not by consulting with others, but independently as he sought God’s guidance. If Paul’s gospel message was made by men, he would have had to confer with other people to receive or validate it. To do this, Paul would have had to travel to Jerusalem, where the other apostles were, for such a conference. Instead, when he left Damascus, where he had stayed immediately after his conversion to Christianity (Acts 9:1-22), he went to Arabia (2 Cor 11:32-33). This was the kingdom of the Nabatean Arabs, extending from Damascus to the Red Sea, including parts of modern Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.[4]
A little bit more on the “revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gk. apokalupsis lesou Christou; found in 1:12 and also 1 Pet 1:13; Rev 1:1):
In the Greek this could be an objective genitive—a revelation concerning Jesus Christ, or a subjective genitive—a revelation from Jesus Christ.[5] Both thoughts are consistent with the context. Paul’s “revelation of Jesus Christ” enabled him to see that Christ was God’s Son (1:16), the sole object of our faith (2:16), and the unique source of oneness of all believers—whether Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or female (3:27-28; Eph 3:1-11). Paul received his knowledge by special revelation (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3; Eph 3:3; 1 Thess 4:15). Paul was thus an independent witness to the gospel; and although he had received no instructions directly from the apostles but only from the Holy Spirit, his teachings agreed with theirs.
[1] Donald K. Campbell, “Galatians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 591.
[2] Donald K. Campbell, “Galatians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 592.
[3] Donald K. Campbell, “Galatians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 592.
[4] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald B. Allen, H. Wayne House, eds., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 1999), 1518.
[5] Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald B. Allen, H. Wayne House, eds., Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 1999), 1518.