Galatians: The Gospel of God’s Grace

#5 Apostolic Credentials -- 1:10-24

(Gal 1:10-24)  Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. {11} I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. {12} I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. {13} For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. {14} I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. {15} But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased {16} to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, {17} nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. {18} Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. {19} I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. {20} I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. {21} Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. {22} I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. {23} They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." {24} And they praised God because of me.

One of the primary objectives of the Judaizers who were stirring up so much controversy and confusion in the Galatian churches was to discredit Paul’s apostolic authority. They knew they could not successfully undermine his teaching of God’s gracious gospel until they undermined his divine authority in the eyes of the church members.

In order to accomplish that end, they spread the idea that Paul was not a legitimate apostle but was self-appointed and that his motivation was to elevate himself and build up a personal following. They accused him of putting aside the Mosaic ceremonies, standards, and practices in order to make the gospel more appealing to Gentiles by removing its Jewish associations. He also made the gospel easier for Jews to accept, they argued, because he removed the demanding requirements of traditional Judaism to which all loyal Jews subscribed.

The strategy worked as the accusations of the Judaizers had caused many members of the Galatian churches to begin doubting Paul’s apostolic legitimacy. Since he was not among the original apostles, whom Jesus personally called, taught, and commissioned, just where did he get his message and authority? Did he get them second hand from the other apostles, or did he simply make up his own brand of the gospel and arrogate apostolic authority to himself? What right, they asked, did Paul have to speak for God, as he persistently claimed to do?

There is no evidence that the early church ever doubted the apostleship of the Twelve (the original eleven and Matthias, who replaced Judas). The eleven were hand-picked and trained by Jesus; and under the Lord’s direction they chose Matthias, who had been among the disciples who accompanied them “all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us—beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us … a witness with us of His resurrection” (Acts 1:21-26). The credentials of the Twelve were well known and well attested.

Jesus had promised them, “When they deliver you up, do not become anxious about how or what you will speak; for it shall be given you in that hour what you are to speak. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you” (Matt. 10:19-20). Although many Christians like to claim it for themselves, that promise was given to the apostles alone. The Holy Spirit may bring things to our remembrance and give us clarity of mind when we are called to testify for Him under oppressive conditions.

But Christ promised new revelation only to the apostles, who were the sole authoritative spokesmen of His Word before the New Testament was written. “These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you,” Jesus told them. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:25-26).

The Holy Spirit not only enabled the apostles to remember accurately and completely what Jesus had taught them during His three-year earthly ministry but divinely revealed to them every additional truth He later declared through them.

After Pentecost believers “were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42), because they recognized that those men were divinely appointed to preach and minister in Christ’s stead. Their apostolic authority was confirmed by “many wonders and signs [that] were taking place through the apostles” (v. 43). When they spoke for God, it was God Himself speaking through them.

But Paul was not even a believer, much less an apostle, when Jesus made those promises to the Twelve and when the early church in Jerusalem submitted to their instruction and leadership. He was not converted until several years later and, in fact, after he had been the most destructive enemy of the infant church.

It was not difficult, therefore, for the Judaizers to raise doubts about Paul in the minds of many believers. Now that he was no longer with them in person to teach and protect them, they became prey for false teachers. The fact that Paul declared himself to be “an apostle of Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13) may not have endeared him to some Jewish believers, who still harbored strong prejudice against Gentiles, thinking them to be utterly outside the sphere and privilege of God’s concern and grace.

And the fact that Paul frequently affirmed and defended his apostleship suggests that it was frequently questioned (see, e.g., Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1-2; 2 Cor. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:7). Although in humility he saw himself as “the least of the apostles” (1 Cor. 15:9), he knew that, as far as his calling and authority were concerned, he was “in no respect … inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody” (2 Cor. 12:11).

It must have wounded Paul deeply to learn that many believers in Galatia had been persuaded by those false teachers to question his motives and to doubt his authority and the truth of his gospel. But he did not make his defense on the reflex of feeling but on the basis of fact. He did not make an emotional appeal for renewed personal loyalty to himself but rather presented clear evidence that contradicted the accusations being made against him. His concern was not for his own popularity or personal success but God’s truth. His defense of his apostleship was for the purpose of defending his authority and the integrity of the gospel he had faithfully proclaimed in the Galatian churches and everywhere else he went.

In Galatians 1:10-12 Paul presents some general credentials of his apostleship and message, and in verses 13-24 he unfolds autobiographical credentials that include preconversion, conversion, and postconversion proofs of his legitimacy.

Paul’s General Credentials

For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (1:10-12)

The accusations against him involved the lie that he was purposely watering down the divine standard to make it easy, so that he would be popular and win the support of people weary of the hard, demanding way of legalistic Judaism. They purported that he was simply saying what men wanted to hear.

PAUL WAS NOT A PEOPLE PLEASER

For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. (1:10)

(1:10) Minister—Paul: the minister sought to please God not men. The critics of Paul were saying that he was inconsistent...

·   seeking the favor and approval of men instead of God.

·   striving to please men instead of God.

·   living by the law when he was with the religionists (Jews) and living a looser life when he was with the heathen and non-religionists (Gentiles).

·   saying one thing to one group of people and something else to another group of people.

·   living a life of duplicity and deception in order to secure the support of the people.

Paul minced no words; he fired two questions at his critics: “Am I now seeking the favor of men or of God? Do I seek to please men?” As stated, Paul minced no words. He answered his own questions by making a startling statement: he agreed with his critics. “If I yet [still] pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.”

The point is clear: note the word “yet” or still. Paul was saying that there was a time when he was a man-pleaser, a time when he sought the favor and approval of men instead of God. But no more: he was not “still pleasing men.” He was now seeking to please God and God alone. Pleasing men, courting their favor, and securing their acceptance, approval, and recognition, and honor, position, and wealth—none of these things mattered to him anymore. He now wanted one thing and one thing alone: the favor and approval of God. For this reason, he was the slave (doulos) of Jesus Christ.

Gar (for) has numerous meanings, which are largely determined by context. It can also be translated “because,” “yes, indeed,” “certainly,” “what,” and “why.” It can also sometimes mean “there,” which is a helpful rendering in this verse. For is not an incorrect translation, but “there” seems to follow better the flow of Paul’s argument in this context. “There,” he is saying, referring back to the strong anathemas of the previous two verses, “does that sound like I am a people pleaser? Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men?” Obviously, Paul’s pronouncing a curse on men (v. 9) does not fit with the accusations of the Judaizers against him. Rather, it unquestionably seeks to honor God, whose truth was being perverted.

If I were still trying to please men refers to the days when he did seek to please his fellow Jews by zealously persecuting Christians, assuming he was being faithful to God while concentrating his effort on favoring traditional Judaism. But in light of what he taught and the way he had lived since his conversion, the idea that he was still trying to please men was preposterous. If that were true, he would not be a bond-servant of Christ. He had surrendered his life entirely to the lordship of Jesus Christ, and that surrender had cost him dearly in human terms. At the end of this epistle Paul reminds his readers, “For I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus” (6:17). Some of those marks he had received in Galatia, where, in the city of Lystra, he was once left for dead after being stoned (Acts 14:19). Suffering at the hands of people who were not pleased with him was a common occurrence for him and was the price of honoring God. By nature, people pleasers are not martyrs. The desire to escape ridicule and trouble is one of their hallmarks. Pleasing men does not bring the severe persecution Paul endured and is totally incompatible with being a bond-servant of Christ.

It was rather Paul’s Jewish accusers who were men pleasers. It was “to make a good showing in the flesh” that they tried “to compel [Gentile believers] to be circumcised,” for the very purpose of not being “persecuted for the cross of Christ” (Gal. 6:12). Paul’s first purpose was “to be pleasing to Him” (2 Cor. 5:9). And pleasing the Lord Jesus Christ meant that he had every right to pronounce a curse on anyone who tried by a doctrine of works-righteousness to detract from the gracious finished work of the Savior (cf. Gal. 2:21). His second purpose was
to see men saved and that required strong denunciation of any false gospel that would damn them by its deceit.

PAUL’S MESSAGE WAS NOT DEVISED BY MAN

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. (1:11)

Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist.” So wrote Emerson, and many a thinker agrees with him.

The English art critic John Ruskin said, “I fear uniformity. You cannot manufacture great men any more than you can manufacture gold.”

The German philosopher Schopenhauer wrote, “We forfeit three-fourths of ourselves in order to be like other people.”

Francis Asbury once prayed at a deacon ordination, “O Lord, grant that these brethren may never want to be like other people.”

Of course, there is a wrong kind of individualism that destroys instead of fulfills; but in a society accustomed to interchanging parts, it is good to meet a man like Paul who dared to be himself in the will of God. But his freedom in Christ was a threat to those who found safety in conformity.

Paul’s enemies pointed to his nonconformity as proof that his message and ministry were not really of God. “He claims to be an apostle,” they argued, “but he does not stand in the apostolic tradition.” It is this misrepresentation that Paul answers in this section of Galatians. His nonconformity was divinely deliberate. God had chosen to reveal Himself in a different way to Paul.

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. So, Paul flashes on the screen three pictures from his past as evidence that his apostleship and his Gospel are truly of God.

Minister—Paul: the minister proclaimed the gospel. Some critics of Paul were saying that he was not a true apostle of the Lord Jesus because he had not been a follower of the Lord when the Lord was upon the earth. Therefore, what he was teaching was a man-made gospel taught by mistaken and misguided men.

Note that the word “certify” (gnorizo) is a solemn word, a strong declaration that what follows is of crucial importance and needs to be heard.

   1. The gospel Paul preached was not a man-made gospel. It was not a gospel created by man’s...

The gospel was not a human thing; it did not originate with man. The gospel was not the good news of men.

   2. The gospel Paul preached was not received of man. It was not a taught message, not a message which he had learned from any man. The gospel he preached was not a message...

·   handed down to him like tradition

·   learned by him from an educational institution

·   taught to him by men.

   3. The gospel Paul preached was given to him by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. Revelation means a truth that is shared by God to man, a truth that man never knew. It is crucial to note this point, for Paul’s call to the ministry and the gospel which he preached rested upon this single fact: did Jesus Christ really reveal Himself and the truth of His death and resurrection to Paul or not? If Paul was lying, then he was not a true minister of the gospel. He would be a fraud, a deceiver, a man who viewed the ministry only as a profession to provide a livelihood and to secure honor and power over people. owever, as Paul plainly declared, he received the gospel by the direct revelation of Jesus Christ. Time and again he declared the fact

I would have you know is from gnoôrizoô, 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.” “The gospel I preach,” he said, “is not human either in nature or in authority. I did not invent it or alter it, nor did any other man. Its message is completely divine in origin, without any mixture of human wisdom whatever.” That is why Paul’s gospel is the standard by which all false human theories of salvation are measured and condemned.

Had Paul proclaimed a gospel that was according to man, it would have been permeated by works-righteousness, as is every humanly devised system of religion. Man’s sinful pride is offended by the idea that only God’s mercy and grace can save him from sin, and he therefore insists on having a part in his own salvation. The very fact that Paul preached a message of salvation in which works play absolutely no part was itself evidence that his message was from God and not … man.

PAUL’S MESSAGE WAS NOT RECEIVED FROM MAN

For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, (1:12a)

That statement was particularly directed against the Judaizers, who received their religious instruction primarily from rabbinic tradition by means of rote memorization. Rather than studying the Scriptures directly, most Jews—religious leaders and laymen alike—looked to human interpretations of Scripture as their religious authority and guide. Their theology, moral standards, and ceremonies had roots in God’s revealed Word of the Old Testament, but the biblical truths and standards had been so diluted and distorted by human interpretations that the Judaism of New Testament times was largely received … from man and taught according to man’s interpretation.

Although the Scriptures, especially the Torah, or law were ritually given the highest honor, they were not honored by the people through direct study and sincere obedience. In the eyes of many Jews of that day—just as in the eyes of many professing Christians today—Scripture was a religious relic that deserved superficial reverence but not serious study or obedience. The religious ideas they took seriously and attempted to live by were the man-made traditions related to their unique community culture that had accumulated over the previous several hundred years. Many of the traditions not only were not taught in Scripture but contradicted Scripture. With few exceptions, Jews “invalidated the word of God for the sake of [their] tradition” (Matt. 15:6).

But Paul’s teaching and preaching had no such human basis. Neither translates oude, which is here used emphatically, meaning “not even.” The idea is, “Not even I who might so readily have been taught by men was so taught.” Although he had been highly trained in rabbinic schools and was “a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of [Jewish] religion” (Acts 26:5; cf. 23:6), he had discarded every unscriptural notion he had learned in that man-made religious system.

No Jew had more reason than Paul to boast in his accomplishments in Judaism; but everything he had accomplished in the flesh before receiving Christ he counted “as rubbish” (Phil. 3:4-8), and even the elements of the story of Christ that he knew prior to his conversion were shallow and empty because of his unbelief. What he now believed and preached he neither received … from man, nor was … taught by man. There was no human source for Paul’s message. The gospel was not invented by men nor transmitted to him by any human being. This response no doubt reflects another of the Judaizers’ accusations against Paul, namely, that he had been taught his doctrine by the apostles in Jerusalem, who had also abandoned Judaism.

PAUL’S MESSAGE WAS DIRECTLY FROM CHRIST

but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (1:12b)

The gospel Paul preached and taught was neither a human invention nor a human tradition, but was given to him directly by God through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 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). It is one thing to claim direct revelation from God but another to prove it. Throughout the history of the church many people have falsely claimed such revelation, as many do today. But Paul was not content merely to make the claim.

Nor did he expect his readers to believe him simply on the basis of personal assertions. In the next 12 verses, therefore, the apostle proceeds to substantiate his claim by presenting irrefutable evidence of that divine revelation and of his apostolic credentials.

Paul’s Autobiographical Credentials

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; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 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.

Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” And they were glorifying God because of me. (1:13-24)

From the three periods of his spiritual life—preconversion, conversion, and postconversion—Paul shows how certain events before he was saved, when he was saved, and after he was saved all prove his message was received from God.

PRECONVERSION PROOF

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; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my
countrymen, being more extremely zealus for my ancestral traditions. (1:13-14)

(1:13-16) Minister—Paul: the minister of God had a radical change of life. This was clearly seen by comparing his former life with his present life.

   1. Paul’s former life included two terrible things.

a. Paul had been the first arch-persecutor of the church. He had been an inflamed man who struck out more than anyone else against the early believers.

Apparently Paul had launched the persecution of the church on the very day of Stephen’s death. Saul had wanted to act and act quickly in wiping out the church. The believers were frightened and on the run; therefore, Paul felt that he had to strike immediately in order to catch them before they could escape.

The point to see is that Paul had been bent on violence; he had sought to utterly stamp out the church; to wipe believers off the face of the earth. The word “wasted” (eporthoun) means to make havoc; to utterly rack or lay waste; to devastate, destroy, ruin, or wipe out.

b. Paul had been the supreme example of self-righteousness. Paul declared that he had “profited” in the Jews’ religions above and beyond what others had done. The idea is that he had blazed a path and given well beyond what they had achieved. He had been much more zealous than they.

But note where his commitment had laid: in religion and in the traditions of the religious leaders. His focus and fanaticism had been placed upon religion and its traditions, rituals, and ceremonies and not upon God.

2.  Paul’s radical change included four significant points.

a. God had set Paul apart and called him by His grace. Paul clearly said...

·   that it was God’s grace that had saved him from a life of self-righteousness and destruction.

·   that God’s grace had separated him to serve Christ “from his mother’s womb.” The idea is that God had Paul in his mind even before Paul’s birth. Paul’s call and ministry were not due to Paul, but to God and His grace. God had His eye on Paul throughout all eternity.

 b. God called Paul as a vessel to reveal Christ. Note the words “in me.” God’s primary call to Paul was the same as it is for every believer: to reveal His Son Jesus Christ both to him and through him. God wants the believer both to know Christ and to make Christ known. We are chosen to fellowship and commune with the Lord more and more and to let Him be seen in us more and more. The believer is a mere vessel in and through whom Jesus Christ lives.

c. God called Paul to preach Christ. Believers are not only called to know Christ, but also to make Christ known. We must preach and bear witness to Christ.

d. God called Paul to seek his gospel from God alone. Paul was not to seek his gospel from men but from God. God and God alone is the source of the gospel; therefore, God alone must be sought for the message of the gospel.

 This does not mean, of course, that ministers are not to learn from others; it means that ministers are not to proclaim the gospel of men. God has given us the gospel to study and preach. It is His message, not man’s message, that the world needs.

Paul begins with his past conduct as an unconverted Jewish rabbi. (For a vivid account of these years from Paul’s own lips, read Acts 22 and 26, as well as Acts 9.) In this historical flashback, Paul points out his relationship to the church (Gal. 1:13) and to the religion of the Jews (Gal. 1:14). He was persecuting the church and profiting and progressing in the Jewish religion. Everything was “going his way” and he was rapidly being recognized as a spiritual leader in Israel.

It is interesting to note the words that are used to describe Paul’s activities when he was “Saul of Tarsus” persecuting the church. He “consented” to the murder of Stephen (see Acts 8:1), and then proceeded to “make havoc of the church” (see Acts 8:3) by breaking up families and putting believers in prison. The very atmosphere that he breathed was “threatening and slaughter” (Acts 9:1). So bent on destroying the church was Paul that he voted to kill the believers (Acts 22:4-5; 26:9-11). He mentions these facts in his letters (1 Cor. 15:9; Phil. 3:6; 1 Tim. 1:13), marveling that God could save such a sinner as he.

Paul actually thought that Jesus was an impostor and His message of salvation a lie. He was sure that God had spoken through Moses, but how could he be sure that God had spoken through Jesus of Nazareth? Steeped in Jewish tradition, young Saul of Tarsus championed his faith. His reputation as a zealous persecutor of “the sect of the Nazarenes” became known far and wide (see Acts 9:13-14). Everybody knew that this brilliant student of Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) was well on his way to becoming an influential leader of the Jewish faith. His personal religious life, his scholarship (Acts 26:24), and his zeal in opposing alien religious faiths, all combined to make him the most respected young rabbi of his day.

Then something happened: Saul of Tarsus, the persecutor of the church, became Paul the Apostle, the preacher of the Gospel. This change was not gradual; it happened suddenly and without warning (Acts 9:1-9). Saul was on his way to Damascus to persecute the Christians; a few days later he was in Damascus preaching to the Jews that the Christians are right. How could the Judaizers explain this sudden transformation?

Was Saul’s remarkable “about-face” caused by his own people, the Jews? Unthinkable! The Jews were encouraging Saul in his program of persecution, and his conversion was an embarrassment to them.

Was Saul’s change caused by the Christians he was persecuting? Certainly the believers prayed for him, and no doubt the death of Stephen—and especially the glorious testimony he had given—affected Paul deeply (Acts 22:19-20). But the Christians ran from Paul (Acts 8:1, 4; 9:10-16), and, as far as we know, they had no idea that the young rabbi would ever become a Christian.

But if the amazing change in Paul was not caused by the Jews or the church, then who caused it? It had to come from God!

No matter how you look at it, the conversion of Paul was a spiritual miracle. It was humanly impossible for Rabbi 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. For the Judaizers to deny Paul’s apostleship and Gospel was the same as denying his conversion! Certainly Paul was preaching the same message that he himself had believed—the truth that had changed him. But no mere human message could effect such a change. Paul’s argument is conclusive: his past conduct as a persecutor of the church plus the dramatic change that he experienced prove that his message and ministry are from God.

Here Paul describes his former standing and activities while he was in Judaism, offering them as a kind of negative proof that his message of grace had no foundation in the beliefs, circumstances, or events of his former life. It becomes clear that nothing in his unconverted life provided the source of the truth he was now proclaiming. In fact, both his conversion and his message were built on divine intervention.

Paul had been a Jew of the first order, “circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless” (Phil. 3:5-6). His preconversion life was centered
totally in law and tradition. Grace was a foreign concept to the religion of Saul the Pharisee, despite the fact that grace was as much the basis of the Old Covenant as the New. God’s redemptive work originated from His grace and has never had any other basis. But most Jews, indoctrinated by the religiously dominant scribes and Pharisees, had long since lost sight of God’s grace and had instead come to trust in their own works and goodness to please God. Accordingly, everything in the apostle’s former manner of life in Judaism had been diametrically opposed to the message of sovereign and saving grace of Jesus Christ he now proclaimed and defended.

The first aspect of Paul’s former … life that proved he had no previous grounding for the gospel was that he used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it. His preconversion knowledge of the gospel, veiled and distorted as it ws, made him realize that this radical way of salvation allowed no place for works-righteousness and therefore completely undercut legalistic Judaism. Conversely, legalistic Judaism allowed no place for a gospel of grace and therefore sought to destroy those who believed and taught it. The original language is vivid in describing Paul’s hostility. The phrase used to persecute is in the imperfect tense and emphasizes a persistent and continual intent to harm. The word destroy was used of soldiers ravaging a city. It is also used here in the imperfect, thereby emphasizing the persistence of Paul’s destructive effort. He was determined to utterly extinguish the church. Apparently he used the title the church of God to stress that this was not just a group belonging to Jesus, so that whoever opposed it, opposed only Jesus. Rather, whoever opposes the church opposes God.

Saul the Pharisee had had such passion for traditional Judaism that he could tolerate no contradiction or compromise of it by fellow Jews. Immediately after the martyrdom of Stephen, “Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house; and dragging off men and women, he would put them in prison” (Acts 8:3). Perhaps a year later, “still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, [he] went to the high priest, and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men
and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem” (9:1-2; cf. 22:4-5; 26:10-11). His single, overriding passion was to destroy the infant church. It was partly because of that activity that he always had a great sense of unworthiness when contemplating God’s saving grace in his behalf (cf. 1 Cor. 15:9; 1 Tim. 1:12-14). The second aspect of Paul’s former life that proved he had no previous grounding in the gospel was his unequaled zeal for traditional Judaism. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my countrymen, he declared, being
more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.

Advancing is from prokoptoô, which literally means to chop ahead, as in blazing a trail through a forest. Saul kept on blazing his trail in Judaism, which meant cutting down anything in his path such as Jewish Christians, who in his mind were arch traitors to their ancestral traditions. He was so extremely zealous that he continually punished Jewish believers “in all the synagogues, [and] tried to force them to blaspheme; and being furiously enraged at them, [he] kept pursuing them even to foreign cities” (Acts 26:11). In his extreme zeal, he exceeded many of his contemporaries. Few Jews matched his passion for his religion and his intolerance for the truth about Jesus Christ.

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.

Living as a devout Pharisee, Paul was outdone by few. John R. W. Stott writes: “Now a man in that mental and emotional state is in no mood to change his mind, or even to have it changed for him by men … Only God could reach him—and God did!” (The Message of Galatians [London: Inter-Varsity, 1968], p.32).

Paul’s point in reciting these two general features from his past life was that, prior to his encounter with Christ, there was not the slightest human preparation or source for his understanding, much less accepting and proclaiming, the gospel of salvation by God’s grace working through faith completely apart from works.
It was foreign to all his previous thinking.

Conversion Proof

But when He who had set me apart, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, (1:15-16a)

Not until Christ sovereignly in resurrection glory confronted him on the road to Damascus did Paul respond to the great reality of the gospel: that Jesus, though put to death and buried, was now alive. He immediately realized that only a resurrected Jesus could proclaim from heaven, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:5).

No human explanation or influence could account for the 180 degree turnaround in Saul’s life. He had been like a runaway freight train that crushes everything in its path. He had lost control of his life and was without restraint. His legalistic zeal had put him on a headlong course of destruction from which no natural force short of death could have deterred him. His apostolic calling could only have been supernatural and sovereign, completely apart from human testimony or persuasion (though he may have heard much truth from the Christians he captured).

Men’s coming to God has always been on the basis of His sovereign will and grace.

As Moses explained to Israel in the wilderness, “The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the Lord loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers” (Deut. 7:7-8). Samuel confronted the people with the same message: “The Lord will not abandon His people on account of His great name, because the Lord has been pleased to make you a people for Himself” (1 Sam. 12:22). God chose the Jews for no other reason than His own holy pleasure and purpose.

David knew he was chosen and anointed king by God’s sovereign election. “The Lord, the God of Israel, chose me from all the house of my father to be king over Israel forever,” he said. “For He has chosen Judah to be a leader; and in the house of Judah, my father’s house, and among the sons of my father He took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel. And of all my sons (for the Lord has given me many sons), He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel” (1 Chron. 28:4-5). From the choosing of the nation of Israel, the tribe of Judah, the family of Jesse, and of Jesse’s son David and grandson Solomon, the process was entirely divine and sovereign. God’s election is based on nothing but His own good pleasure.

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).

The Lord set apart Paul to salvation and apostleship not because Paul developed great leadership ability and writing skill or was a determined and hard worker. He had been set apart and consecrated by God even from his mother’s womb, long before he could have demonstrated the least potential for anything. Paul was chosen to be an apostle before he was born, just as Jacob was chosen over his twin brother Esau before their births (Rom. 9:11-13), as Isaiah and Jeremiah were called and consecrated to their prophetic work while still in their mothers’ wombs (Isa. 49:1; Jer. 1:5), and as John the Baptist was called even before his conception to be the forerunner of the Messiah (Luke 1:13-17). Paul’s Jewish readers knew immediately that he was comparing his call to apostleship to the calls of those great men of God. He was not trying to rank himself with them but to establish unequivocally that, like theirs his call was entirely God’s doing.

This purpose became historical fact on the Damascus Road and in the subsequent days, when, Paul says, God called me through His grace. By means of unmerited love and kindness God actually and efficaciously brought the already elect Saul to Himself in salvation.

God was pleased to reveal His Son to Saul in a direct and absolutely unique way. As “he was approaching Damascus, … suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ And he said, ‘Who art Thou, Lord?’ And He said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do’” (Acts 9:3-6). In his testimony before King Agrippa, Paul gives further details of his first encounter with the risen Lord. After identifying Himself as “Jesus whom you are persecuting,” the Lord said, “Arise, and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; delivering you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you” (26:15-17). God’s direct revelations of Christ and Scripture to Paul began that day and continued during the short time in Damascus and the years in Arabia, and then as God desired throughout the apostle’s life.

The phrase in me does not force us to interpret the revelation as a purely internal, subjective feeling but can mean “to me” and carry the idea of objective experience.

The call to be saved was accompanied by the call to serve, to preach Him among the Gentiles. Although the experience of Paul was utterly unique, God does not call any person to salvation whom He does not also call to service. Every believer is “created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). Speaking to believers, Peter wrote, “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9). We are saved to be witnesses and servants of the Savior.

And the subject of his preaching was Him, Jesus Christ. To the Corinthians Paul wrote concerning “the testimony of God,” that it called for him “to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:1-2). The Judaizers needed to see that the Gentiles did not need to hear the law of Moses or the traditions of the Jewish elders—only the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So the choice of Paul, his transformation, the revelation and call to preach to the nations were all done by God, not men. Even after that, men played no part in his preparation to fulfill his calling.

Postconversion Proof

I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 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.

Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” And they were glorifying God because of me. (1:16b-24)

Paul was under attack by some critics in the churches of Galatia. They were saying that he was not a God-called minister and that he preached a false gospel. They sowed the poison of gossip: that he was in the ministry only as a profession and for what he could get out of it.

The present passage is a continuation of the former verses. Paul was proving that his call and message did come from God, that he was a God-called minister and his message was the true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, he had never received the gospel from anyone other than Christ Himself. To prove his point, he recounted his journeys right after his conversion. The point is this: he sought to learn the truth from God and from God alone. In the first few years after his conversion, he followed God first in his life, not men.

1.  First, he went to Arabia: he got alone with God (v.17).

2.  Second, he returned to Damascus: he corrected the wrong he had previously done (v.17).

3.  Third, he went to Jerusalem: he faced his past (v.18-20).

4.  Fourth, he went to Syria and Cilicia, that is Tarsus: he faced his hometown (v.21).

5.  The result of a God-centered life (v.22-24).

(1:17-24) Paul, Journeys; Trips to Jerusalem: Paul said “immediately...I went into Arabia.” The time-table of his ministry would seem to be as follows. (See notes—^ Acts 15:1-31.)

   1. His conversion (Galatians 1:15-16; Acts 9:1f).

   2. His “immediate” preaching and ministry in Damascus (Acts 9:19-22).

   3. His time alone with God in Arabia (Galatians 1:17). The three years could be three full years or parts of three calendar years. In comparing this passage with Acts, Paul’s Arabian experience would seem to fit in best at the close of Acts 9:22. There seems to be a natural break there. Acts 9:23 begins by saying, “And after that many days were fulfilled,” which seems to be saying there was a long period of time between his conversion visit to Damascus (Acts 9:3, 10-22) and the ministry which he launched after his Arabian seclusion. He launched the ministry in the most natural place, Damascus, among the believers whom he knew (Acts 9:23).

   4. His second ministry in Damascus after returning from Arabia (Acts 9:23-25).

   5. His first trip to Jerusalem for fifteen days to see Peter (Galatians 1:18-19; Acts 9:23-30). The apostles in Acts 9:27 would be Peter and James, the Lord’s brother.

   6. His ministry in and around Tarsus which apparently lasted for about eleven years (Galatians 1:21-2:1).

   7. His call by Barnabas to help him minister in Antioch (Acts 11:25-26).

   8. His second trip to Jerusalem to carry relief goods during a famine (Galatians 2:1f; Acts 11:30; Acts 12:25). Some say that this return trip to Jerusalem is the trip to the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15. However, two significant problems exist with this position. First, Paul emphasizes a private interview in Galatians 2:2, whereas the Acts account is a public meeting. Second, where does the famine visit fit in? If the account given in Galatians 2 is not the famine visit, then Paul omitted the famine visit altogether from the account in Galatians. This is difficult to explain in light of the fact that Paul goes to extra pains in giving his contacts with the Jerusalem church. In listing his visits, he declares that he speaks the plain truth, “I lie not” (Galatians 1:20).

   9. His call and commissioning as a missionary (Acts 13:2-3).

   10. His first great mission to the Gentiles: to Cyprus and Galatia (Acts 13:1-14:28).

   11. His return to Antioch after completing his first missionary journey (Acts 14:26-28).

   12.         His third trip to Jerusalem to defend the gospel of grace before the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-30).

   13. His return to Antioch with the message from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:30-35).

   14. His second great mission to the Gentiles: to Europe (Acts 15:36-18:22).

   15. His return to Antioch after completing his second missionary journey (Acts 18:22).

   16. His third great mission to the Gentiles: Asia Minor and Europe (Acts 18:23-21:16).

   17. His fourth and final trip to Jerusalem when he was arrested (Acts 21:17-26:32).

   18. His journey to Rome as a prisoner (Acts 27:1-28:15).

   19. His ministry in Rome while a prisoner (Acts 28:16-31).

John Brown commented that, beginning with the Damascus Road encounter, Christ took Paul under His own immediate tutoring. It was essential for the Lord to establish Paul’s independence as an apostle. He was not taught by the other apostles but was fully equal to them. After spending several days “with the disciples who were at Damascus” and preaching briefly in the synagogues there (Acts 9:19-20), Paul did not consult with flesh and blood. He sought from Ananias or other Christians at Damascus no advice or understanding, no clarification of the revelation he had received. It is not that he would not have been helped by going to learn from other believers, but his being given the unique place of reaching Gentiles seemed to demand that he not be seen as being merely convinced by some Jewish converts to this doctrine. Gentiles might have been more reluctant to accept his message if they perceived of it as of Jewish origination. And the Judaizers needed to understand that the gospel was not at all a heresy advocated by a few Jews.

Paul went away to Nabatean Arabia, a region that stretched east from Damascus down to the Sinai peninsula. Although he does not identify the exact location, it seems likely that he stayed near Damascus. The place and purpose of his sojourn in Arabia are unknown, but that was surely the place of his preparation for ministry.

After his stay in Arabia, the apostle returned once more to Damascus and continued preaching there for a period of time. He almost immediately encountered persecution from the Jewish leaders, a group that doubtlessly included some of the men with whom he himself had once planned to conspire against the Christians (see Acts 9:2).

The fact that “in Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king [of Nabatean Arabia] was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize [Paul]” (2 Cor. 11:32) suggests that the apostle also preached in Arabia and had aroused the displeasure of its king. In any case, the Gentile civil authorities of Damascus supported the efforts of the Jewish leaders to arrest and execute Paul (cf. Acts 9:23-24).

The two periods of preaching in Damascus and the in-between sojourn in Arabia alone with Lord Jesus—learning, meditating, and studying the Old Testament—totaled three years. After that, Paul went up to Jerusalem (not to be confused with a later famine relief trip there from Antioch, mentioned in Acts 11:30, or the trip to the council of Acts 15) to become acquainted with Cephas, that is, the apostle Peter. Paul makes a point of noting that he went solely for the purpose of becoming acquainted with Cephas, who was the personal companion of the Lord Jesus and the most powerful spokesman in the early years of the Jerusalem church, from Pentecost on (Acts 2:14-40; 3:11-26; 4:8-20; 5:3-32; 8:20-25).

He only stayed with him fifteen days, obviously far too short a time to have been fully transformed from all his Jewish theology and tradition and fully instructed in the gospel. Nor did he see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. Paul’s visit to Jerusalem was not to learn more about the gospel message but to meet and get acquainted with (the verb means “to visit with the purpose of getting to know someone”) these two men who had been so close to Jesus and perhaps to learn from them some of their intimate experiences with the incarnate Lord, whom he had come to love and serve, and with whom he had spent those three years getting acquainted.

It should be noted that Acts 9:23-25 indicates that Paul’s leaving Damascus was the result of a dramatic set of events. The Jews strongly resisted his preaching and had developed a plan to kill him when the opportunity arose. They patrolled the city gates 24 hours a day waiting to capture Paul, but when his disciples heard of the plot they helped him escape by lowering him over the city wall in a basket.

Apart from such a predicament that threatened his life, Paul may have stayed longer in Damascus. No time frame is given for his going to Jerusalem, but when he arrived there and tried to see the apostles, he was rebuffed because of fear that he was not a true believer (Acts 9:26). Without the help of Barnabas, Paul would not have been able to visit even Peter and James. He met none of the other apostles at all, who may have been too afraid or may have been away from Jerusalem at the time. It could be surmised that, though the apostles did not scatter under Paul’s persecution (Acts 8:1), they may have done so by now. When Herod moved against them (12:1), it seems that only Peter and James the brother of John were still in the city, and Peter soon fled to avoid the fate of James (12:17). The mention of Paul’s being “brought to the apostles” (9:27) must refer only to Peter and James the Lord’s brother, who was certainly attached to the apostles at that time. Because of his having seen the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15:7) and his having been intimately associated with the other apostles (much like Barnabas; see Acts 14:14), this James would easily have been considered by Paul to be an apostle in the wider sense.

To give his readers the greatest possible confidence in what he was writing, Paul made a common Jewish vow: I assure you before God that I am not lying. That statement, along with many others, contradicts the claims of liberal interpreters that Paul was a sincere and highly capable leader but that many of his teachings reflect only his personal ideas and preferences. If that were so, he would either have been terribly self-deluded or else a shameless liar. He was either an authoritative and completely reliable spokesman for God or he was a sham.

Paul’s point in this part of the letter was to affirm that he had received his gospel directly from the Lord, not from the other apostles. He only visited two of them for two weeks, and only after three years had elapsed since his conversion. Any accusation that he was a second-hand apostle, receiving his message from the Jerusalem apostles, was false.

After Paul left Jerusalem he went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, the latter of which included his home town of Tarsus (see Acts 9:11, 30). This move was precipitated by another group of hostile Jews who were “attempting to put him to death” (Acts 9:29). He was escorted out of Jerusalem to the port city of Caesarea, where he likely took a ship to his home town of Tarsus. He preached there until Barnabas called for him to come to Antioch in Syria.

During a stay of several years in those regions, Paul preached (v. 23). The other apostles were still in Judea and Samaria and had no contact with or influence on him. When word of revival in Syrian Antioch “reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, … they sent Barnabas off to Antioch,” who ministered there for a while by himself and then “left for Tarsus to look for Saul,” with whom he then “taught considerable numbers” in Antioch. It was here that “the disciples were first called Christians” (Acts 11:20-26). Paul stayed on as a teacher in the church at Antioch until the Holy Spirit sent him and Barnabas off on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:1-3), and after that they returned to Antioch, from where they were sent to the council in Jerusalem (14:26-15:4).

At this time Paul was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. Churches is a plural designation indicating local assemblies that are part of the one church. Paul’s two visits to Jerusalem did not include visiting the churches of Judea, which region was usually thought of separately from its major city, Jerusalem (see Acts 1:8). All that those churches knew about this independent apostle was what they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” For obvious reasons, it had been extremely difficult for believers to accept the genuineness of Paul’s conversion (see Acts 9:13-14, 21, 26). But when the Lord gave such great blessing to Paul’s ministry, resulting in his own persecution (vv. 23-24, 29), his fellow Christians could no longer doubt he was a specially chosen and gifted man of God, and they were glorifying God because of him.

He and Barnabas only made two visits to Jerusalem, one to bring famine relief from Antioch (Acts 11:30) and another to discuss the relation of the Mosaic law to the gospel of grace (Acts 15). Since Paul’s presence there was so scarce for fourteen years (Gal. 2:1), most of the people did not know him except by reputation. And though his gospel had not come from Jerusalem nor been refined there, still the believers there affirmed both it and the power of his apostleship as being cause for glorifying God. The fact that the people were praising God for the very same gospel they knew shows it was identical to that taught by the Jerusalem apostles and was truly from the Lord.

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).

To reject Paul’s teaching is to reject God’s Word. Neither the testimony of Paul himself nor of the other apostles allows another conclusion.

As a fanatical rabbi, Paul had all the glory a man could want; but what he was doing did not glorify God. Man was created to glorify God (Isa. 43:7) and man is saved to glorify God (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Bringing glory to God was ever a compelling motive in Paul’s life and ministry (Rom. 11:36; 16:27; 1 Cor. 10:31; Eph. 1:6; 3:20-21; Phil. 4:20). The Judaizers were interested in their own glory (Gal. 6:11-18). That is why they were stealing Paul’s converts and leading them astray. If Paul had been interested in glorifying himself, he could have remained a Jewish rabbi and perhaps become Gamaliel’s successor. But it was the glory of God that motivated Paul, and this ought to motivate our lives as well.

Paul has pictured himself as a persecutor, and has reviewed his character and conduct. He has also pictured himself as a believer, reviewing his conversion.

What were Paul’s contacts with other believers after he was converted? This is a question vital to his defense. Paul had no personal contacts with the Apostles right after his conversion experience on the Damascus Road. “Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood” (Gal. 1:16c). The logical thing for Paul to have done after his conversion was to introduce himself to the church at Jerusalem and profit from the spiritual instruction of those who had been “in Christ” before him. But this he did not do—and his decision was led of the Lord. For if he had gone to Jerusalem, his ministry might have been identified with that of the Apostles—all Jews—and this could have been a hindrance to his work among the Gentiles.

At this point we need to remind ourselves that the message of the Gospel came “to the Jew first” (Acts 3:26; Rom. 1:16). Our Lord’s ministry was to the nation of Israel, and so was the ministry of the Apostles for the first few years (see Acts 1-7). The death of Stephen was a turning point. As the believers were scattered, they took the Good News with them to other places (Acts 8:4; 11:19ff). Philip took the message to the Samaritans (Acts 8), and then God directed Peter to introduce it to the Gentiles (Acts 10). However, it remained for Paul to carry the Gospel to the Gentile masses (Acts 22:21-22; Eph. 3:1, 8), and for this reason God kept him separated from the predominantly Jewish ministry being conducted by the Apostles in Jerusalem.

Paul did not immediately go to Jerusalem. Where did he go? He reviews his contacts and shows that there was no opportunity for him to receive either his message or his apostolic calling from any of the leaders of the church. (Compare this section with Acts 9:10-31, and keep in mind that even the best biblical scholars are not agreed on the chronology of Paul’s life. Fortunately, the details of history do not affect the understanding of what Paul has written: we can disagree on chronology and yet agree on theology!)

(1:17) Paul, Devotions—Scripture—Study: first, Paul went to Arabia to be alone with God. He had just been converted, and his conversion was a most dramatic experience (cp. Acts 9:1f). Paul’s former life had taken two terrible turns.

   1.           Paul had been very self-righteous. He had been steeped in religion and its traditions, form, and ritual. He had felt that he was acceptable to God because he was religious and did as much good as he could. He felt that his own goodness and religion made him righteous before God. He failed to see the absolute perfection and love of God and the absolute imperfection and unlovingness of man. He was utterly deceived about the true nature of man and God, of unrighteousness and righteousness, of sin and forgiveness, of life and death.

   2.           Paul had become so self-deceived that he had launched a campaign of hatred and murder against the followers of Christ. He had used everything at his disposal to stamp out the name of Christ from the face of the earth.

     The point is that Paul was saved from a terrible life of sin and shame, a life steeped in as much sin and shame as a man could be. He was self-righteous and arrogant, full of bitterness, hatred, and murder; and he went about misusing his position and power just like a tyrant—to the point of imprisoning and murdering those who differed with him.

     When Paul was converted, he had a dire need to be alone with God. He did not need the counsel and help of men; he needed the presence and help of God and His Spirit. He already knew the Scripture. He had studied them at the feet of the greatest religious teachers of his day, but he had not known God nor Christ, not in a personal way. Paul had no knowledge of God, not a personal knowledge. What he had known about God had been twisted and corrupted, misapplied and misused. He desperately needed...

·   time to learn how to live with Christ day by day, drawing confidence and strength from Him.

·   time to learn the real meaning of the Scriptures: how they applied to Christ.

·   time to accurately handle the Word of Truth (the Scriptures).

·   time to learn how to fellowship with Christ in daily worship (devotions, quiet times).

·   time to learn how to walk in the presence and communion and fellowship of Christ all day.

·   time to learn the commandments and will of Christ.

·   time to think through how to go about making Christ known to a world steeped in dire need and sin and darkness.

     How much time did Paul need? Apparently, he spent about three years in Arabia. Imagine spending three years seeking the Lord and learning how to live and serve Him!

(1:17) Paul—Restitution: second, Paul returned to Damascus to correct the wrong he had previously done. When Paul was converted, he was on his way to Damascus to arrest and stamp out the followers of Christ. It was his intent and purpose to literally cleanse Damascus of all Christians. The bitter persecution had, of course, greatly disrupted the lives of believers. It had forced many to flee for their lives, leaving their families, homes, jobs, and all means of livelihood.

     The point is this: Paul had returned to Damascus to do what he could to right the terrible wrong he had done to the believers of Damascus. He wanted to ask their forgiveness and assure them that he had been saved; and no doubt, he wanted to share Christ among the very people he had been so bent on destroying.

(1:18-20) Paul—Home Evangelism: third, Paul went to Jerusalem to face his past. Before his conversion, Paul had lived in Jerusalem and had been one of the officials of the ruling body (the Sanhedrin) or else had been close to the leaders of the Sanhedrin. We know this because the Sanhedrin had been the official body which stood behind Paul’s attack against the Christians. Whatever the case, Paul was well known in Jerusalem, and he knew that some of his former friends would consider him a betrayer to their religion and cause. Nevertheless, Paul wanted to share his testimony with as many of them as could be trusted.

     However, Paul’s primary reason for going to Jerusalem was to see Peter, the leader of the early Christians. By sharing with Peter, Paul felt that many of the believers would know that he had been truly converted. They would thereby be more ready to accept him and his ministry.

     But note: the other apostles were apparently away on evangelistic and mission tours. Paul saw no other Christian leader except James, the Lord’s brother, who was pastor of the great Jerusalem church. Imagine the sharing that must have taken place between Paul and Peter...

·   as Paul shared his past, his conversion, and his experiences with the Lord in Arabia.

·   as Peter shared the life of Christ while on earth.

     Remember that Paul was relating his journeys to the Galatians for a very specific purpose: to show that he had not learned the gospel from men; he had received it from the Lord Himself. He was a true apostle and minister of the Lord, and his gospel was the true gospel, the gospel revealed to him by Christ Himself. Paul asserted the truth of his claim with the solemn declaration:

(1:21) Paul—Home Evangelism: fourth, Paul went to Syria and Cilicia, that is, to Tarsus, to face his hometown. Tarsus was where Paul’s family lived and where his childhood friends were, the place where he had gone to school and played as a child. It was, of course, Paul’s desire to share Christ with as many of his family and friends as he could.

Again, the record in Acts explains why: his life was in danger in Jerusalem, just as it had been in Damascus (Acts 9:28-30). As Paul went through Syria, he preached the Word, and when he arrived in Cilicia, his home province (Acts 21:39; 22:3), he began to evangelize (see Acts 15:23). Historians have concluded that he remained there perhaps seven years, until Barnabas recruited him for the work in Antioch (Acts 11:19-26). A few believers in Jerusalem knew Paul, but the believers in the churches of Judea did not know him, though they heard that he was now preaching the very faith he had once tried to destroy.

In the light of Paul’s conduct, his conversion, and his contacts, how could anybody accuse him of borrowing or inventing either his message or his ministry? Certainly he did receive his Gospel by a revelation from Jesus Christ. Therefore, we must be careful what we do with this Gospel, for it is not the invention of men, but the very truth of God.

Some critical scholars have accused Paul of “corrupting the simple Gospel,” but the evidence is against this accusation. The same Christ who taught on earth also taught through Paul from heaven. Paul did not invent his teaching; he “received” it (Rom. 1:5; 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3). At the time of Paul’s conversion, God said He would appear to him in the future (Acts 26:16), apparently for the purpose of revealing His truths to him. This means that the Christ of the four Gospels and the Christ of the epistles is the same Person; there is no conflict between Christ and Paul. When Paul wrote his letters to the churches, he put his own teaching on the same level with that of Jesus Christ (2 Thes. 3:3-15). The Apostle Peter even calls Paul’s letters “Scripture” (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Modern-day “Judaizers,” like their ancient counterparts, reject the authority of Paul and try to undermine the Gospel which he preached. In Paul’s day, their message was “the Gospel plus Moses.” In our day it is “the Gospel plus“ any number of religious leaders, religious books, or religious organizations. “You cannot be saved unless . . .” is their message (Acts 15:1); and that “unless” usually includes joining their group and obeying their rules. If you dare to mention the Gospel of grace as preached by Jesus, Paul, and the other Apostles, they reply, “But God has given us a new revelation!”

Paul has the answer for them: “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed!” (Gal. 1:9) When a sinner trusts Christ and is born again (John 3:1-18), he is “born free.” He has been redeemed—purchased by Christ and set free. He is no longer in bondage to sin or Satan, nor should he be in bondage to human religious systems (Gal. 4:1-11; 5:1). “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (John 8:36).

(1:22-24) Paul: the results of a God-centered life are twofold, and they are powerful results.

   1. The testimony of a God-centered life was spread throughout the whole area. Paul had not yet visited the churches in Judaea, that is, the area surrounding Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the believers of the area had heard about Paul’s conversion, that he who had formerly persecuted the church was now preaching Christ.

   2. The testimony of a God-centered life stirred believers to honor God. The churches of Judaea had never seen Paul, but they glorified God because of his strong testimony about which they had heard.