Skip to main content

Paul's Argument in Galatians 1:13-17

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 of my own age among my people 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, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. (TNIV)
In this section, Paul continues to set the record straight. It seems that he had never told the Galatians about his calling to apostleship. The Teachers had, though, using their version of Paul's story to undermine the gospel that he preached. This necessitated that Paul correct their understanding of his past. The second half of verse 13 and verse 14 tell of Paul's life in Judaism prior to coming to faith in Christ. Many commentators point out that it is very possible that Paul was inspired by the story of Phineas in Numbers 25, believing that these followers of Jesus were polluting Israel by not strictly observing the Mosaic Law.

In verses 15 and 16 Paul tells of how his transformation from persecutor to promoter took place. It happened through two means. First God called him from before his birth. Here Paul is using language that echos Jeremiah 1:5, stressing the special nature of his call by God and putting himself on the same plane of authority as Jeremiah (Dunn p. 63). The Teachers were trying to undermine Paul's authority but Paul would have nothing of it.

The other agent of transformation was the revelation of Jesus Christ to him (here I am following the NRSV, Martyn, and Hays) on the Damascus Road. He had an encounter with Jesus Christ that changed him forever. The important point for Paul's argument, though, was that it was with the resurrected Jesus that he received the gospel, not through human preaching (contra The Teachers).

Paul's calling had a purpose; he was called to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles. This happened at day one. Perhaps the Teachers had told the Galatians about Paul's commissioning in Acts 13:1-3 and claimed that that was when Paul originally received his commission to preach to the Gentiles, and that he was sent under the jurisdiction of the church at Antioch. Paul again rebuts that claim denying any human origin for his calling. His call came much earlier and it was from God through Jesus.

It's interesting to notice that Paul's focus at the end of this section is on what he didn't do. The only explanation is that he is correcting inaccurate stories that The Teachers were telling about him. He was called and set apart by God, and received his gospel directly through a revelation of Christ. No human on earth played a roll in Paul's formation of the gospel. This leaves one open to wonder then, does this emphasis imply that Paul believes that he's the only one who got the gospel right? We'll look at that question when we get to the next section of Galatians.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat...

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc...

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5...