Galatians Study Week 6

Week six of Word of God Home Fellowship's Study of Galatians.

Week 6

Jews, like Gentiles, are Saved by Faith (Part 2 of the Conflict)

15 We, being Jewish by nature and not from the sinful Gentiles, 16 know that a person is not justified from the works of the law, but through faith in Jesus the Anointed.  We also believed in the Anointed Jesus so that we may be justified from faith in the Anointed and not from the works of the law, because no one will not be justified from the works of the law.  17 But if while seeking to be justified in the Anointed, we ourselves are also found to be sinners, then is the Anointed a servant of sin?  May it never happen!  18 For if I rebuild again those things which I destroyed, I demonstrate myself to be a lawbreaker.  19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live for God.  I have been crucified with the Anointed 20 and I no longer live, but the Anointed lives in me.  But the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the son of God who loved me and who gave himself for me.  21 I do not reject the grace of God; for if righteousness is obtained through the law, then the Anointed died without purpose.  My Translation

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.  So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.  17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin?  Absolutely not!  18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.  19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.  20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”  NIV11

Comment

First of all, we must try to determine if Paul is still speaking directly to Peter and before the public gathering in Antioch, or if he has started speaking directly to the Galatians.  It can be a general statement about justification by faith in Jesus made in Antioch, or the general statement of the same to the Galatians in which Paul will “flesh out” as his letter continues.  Scholars seem to be split over when Paul says this, but regardless if Paul spoke it in Antioch or directly to the Galatians, it represents a general statement about justification by faith in Jesus as opposed to justification by the works of the Jewish Law.  For the record, I think it was spoken in Antioch and Paul has now used it as a general statement which he will flesh out to the Galatians.  By the way, the NIV11 formats the text as if it were part of Paul’s direct speech to Peter in Antioch.  I think the context plays out well in view that Paul spoke this at Antioch as that event at least sets this passage up.

One more thing needs to be pointed out before we go forth.  Paul uses a couple of different Greek words that are cognates of themselves.  A verb and a noun.  The verb is πιστεύω, which means “to believe, to have faith, to trust”.  The cognate noun of this verb is πίστις, which means “belief, faith, trust”.  These words always meant the same thing in Greek, but in order to make since of them, we have to used different English words for us today to make some sense of them.  So therefore, “faith” is the same as “belief”.  “To believe” is the same as “to have faith”.

Similar to this set of words, we will also encounter δικαιόω (I justify/I pronounce righteous) and δικαιοσύνη (righteousness).  They work in the same way.

This passage sets up the rest of the letter and thus is explained in the rest of the letter.

15 We, being Jewish by nature and not from the sinful Gentiles, My Translation

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles NIV11

The “we” is probably Peter and Paul if this is continuing dialog at Antioch.  Paul’s point is to separate the Jewish Christians from the Gentile Christians for just a moment in order to state his assertion that comes in verse 16.  He states that “we”, being Jews who were under the law, are not ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί (from the sinners of the Gentiles), who didn’t have the law.  Paul’s point is that things are now different between the Jews and the Gentiles, therefore the Jewish Christians can’t make the Gentile ChristianChristians follow the Jewish law, as he will explain in the following verse, because even the Jews accepted the fact that one can’t be “righteous” before God by performing the Jewish law.

16 know that a person is not justified from the works of the law, but through faith in Jesus the Anointed.  We also believed in the Anointed Jesus so that we may be justified from faith in the Anointed and not from the works of the law, because no one will be justified from the works of the law. My Translation

16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.  So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. NIV11

Verse 16 is actually part of a complete sentence that started in verse 15.  Paul begins his argument with a phrase that points to Psalms 143:2b (142:2b LXX).  He also restates this at the end of this verse.  Paul makes a few changes to the LXX version in which we will highlight. (Romans 3:20)

ὅτι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν. LXX

because every living person is not justified/pronounced righteous in your presence. LXX

Compared to Paul’s:

...ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου...2:16a

...because a person is not justified/pronounced righteous from the works of the law...2:16a

ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ. 2:16d

because all flesh will not be justified/pronounced righteous from the works of the law. 2:16d

The changes are obvious.  Paul has inserted ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (from the works of the law) which substituting both ἄνθρωπος (a person/a man) and πᾶσα σάρξ (all flesh) for πᾶς ζῶν (every living person).  He also omits ἐνώπιόν σου (in your presence), but it is still inferred in his text.  Of course the question is, can Paul make such a bold move by inserting ἐξ ἔργων νόμου (from the works of the law) in the Psalm?  Perhaps a closer look at David’s Psalm will provide the answer we seek.

In David’s Psalm, his son, Absalom, is pursuing him.  David prays to God to deliver him from his enemy (Absalom).  David’s prayer is not based upon what David has done in his life before the Lord.  In fact David’s appeal to God is based on what God is and not on David’s merits.

Psalms 142:1 Ψαλμὸς τῷ Δαυιδ, ὅτε αὐτὸν ὁ υἱὸς καταδιώκει. 

Κύριε, εἰσάκουσον τῆς προσευχῆς μου, 

ἐνώτισαι τὴν δέησίν μου ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σου, 

ἐπάκουσόν μου ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου· 2 καὶ μὴ εἰσέλθῃς εἰς κρίσιν μετὰ τοῦ δούλου σου, 

ὅτι οὐ δικαιωθήσεται ἐνώπιόν σου πᾶς ζῶν. LXX

Psalms 142:1 A song by David, when his son was pursuing him.

Lord, listen to my prayer, 

pay close attention to my request in your truthfulness, 

listen to me in your righteousness: 2 and don’t enter into judgment with your slave, 

because every living person is not justified/pronounced righteous before you. LXX My Translation

David asks God to not put his judgement on him as he and everyone else is not justified before God.  What needs to be pointed out here is that David was under the law and David performed the law.  But David doesn’t appeal to this in his prayer to God.  David knows that even though he is performing the law, his is still not righteous before God to the extent that he asks God to not pronounce judgement on him.

This forms the backdrop to Paul’s argument because his fellow Jews would also know of this song.  If David says that no one is righteous in the presence of God, then it is true in spite of David and rest of Israel being under the law.  Paul states that this is why they (the Jewish Christians) had to put their faith in Jesus.  This is something that Peter knows.  Paul is reminding him of this as well as the others who are present.

This leads us to a crucial translation moment and a perfect example of why it is important for serious students of the Bible to read more than one translation. Not everyone knows Koine Greek, but everyone can read different translations in order to gain clarity around the text. In this case, διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (through faith in Jesus Christ) can also be rendered “through the faith (or faithfulness) of Jesus Christ”. In Greek, “through faith in Jesus Christ” is an Objective Genitive view (NIV11, NASU) while “through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” is an Subjective Genitive view (KJV, NET). In other words, Jesus Christ is either the object of faith (faith in) or is subject of faith (faith of). If one only reads one translation, one may never know that it can be rendered two different ways and that those renderings are massive in that it changes how Paul could be interpreted. One should read multiple translations in order to see the differences and then study why there are differences in the translations.

So why “through faith in Jesus Christ”? There are two main reasons: 1. Paul explains himself in the following passage: “Even we (being Jewish and who once observed the Jewish law) believed (had faith) in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ”. In other words, it is performing faith in Jesus Christ and not performing the Jewish law that justifies a person.  2. No where else does Paul say that justification comes from Christ’s faithfulness. 

“For by grace, you are saved through faith (in Christ)”.  Ephesians 2:8

Faith/believing is something that a person does.  Believing is an action.  Paul puts it up as an opposition to performing the law.

17 But if while seeking to be justified in the Anointed, we ourselves are also found to be sinners, then is the Anointed a servant of sin?  May it never happen! My Translation

17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin?  Absolutely not! NIV11

Paul is appealing to just how much of a farce (begs a definition.  A farce is “a comic dramatic work using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations.”) it is for the Jewish Christians to claim that others were sinning by not performing the Jewish law, thus placing them in the same state as the “sinners of the Gentiles” who are without the law.  If this is true, then the Anointed himself becomes ἁμαρτίας διάκονος (a server/servant/deacon of sin).

The argument is that since there is no way for Jesus to be “a server of sin”, then the idea that people are sinning by not performing the Jewish law is ludicrous as even the Jews had to put their faith in Jesus because the Jewish law could not justify them.

The idea that Christ is a server of sin or the agent of sin is also ludicrous as Paul says, μὴ γένοιτο (Absolutely not/May it never be)!

18 For if I rebuild again those things which I destroyed, I demonstrate myself to be a lawbreaker. My Translation

18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker. NIV11

The things that Paul would build up is the Jewish law.  If he goes back to trying to rely on the Jewish law in order to be righteous before God, then he becomes a lawbreaker in another sense.  The law stood as a wall between Jews and Gentiles according to Ephesians 2:14.

How would Paul become a lawbreaker if he reinstates the law?  Probably a couple of ways.  As Paul has argued in verse 16,  and he will argue later in the letter, that no one was/is able to keep the law entirely.  So, if Paul goes back to the law to try to justify himself before God, then he’s breaking the law again because he is now putting faith into the law that he can’t keep.  He also would be breaking the law of Christ (we will see this later in this letter), but the former is preferred in this context as Paul will go on to explain in the next few verses.

19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live for God.  I have been crucified with the Anointed 20 and I no longer live, but the Anointed lives in me.  But the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the son of God who loved me and who gave himself for me. My Translation

19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.  20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. NIV11

Modern English translations fall victim to the old English translation when it comes to verse division.  The UBS4/NA27 Greek editions place Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι (I have been crucified with Christ) in verse 19, while English translations still place it with verse 20.  My recommendation is to ignore the verse divisions as Paul is not the one who added them.

Since this section is the overview of what Paul will eventually explain as the letter unfolds, one has to look forward in order to understand what Paul is saying here.  For now, we will look at Paul’s reason as stated here.  Paul died to the law because he shared the crucifixion with Christ as the Greek verb συσταυρόω suggests.  συσταυρόω means in the literal sense “to crucify together with” as in two people crucified together at the same time.  Figuratively, it means “to crucify with in a transcendent sense”, that is to identify one’s self with one who has been crucified in a spiritual way.  The verb is in the perfect tense, therefore the act that was done in past is still in effect today.  Christ died for all sin.  God raised him up from that death, thus proving that the final sacrifice was accepted.  Therefore, the very much alive Jesus lives in Paul through the Spirit.  Paul put away his past life in order for him to live in his new life.  In Romans 6:6 he states ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη (Our old person was crucified with him “Christ”).  His new life, even though he is still human, is a result of his faith/belief in Jesus.  Jesus represents the new life, but the law represents the old life.  Jesus made the new life available to Paul because he loved Paul enough to give himself for Paul.  In this, Paul, and everyone else, was released from the law.  He will go on to explain this as the letter unfolds.

But, it was also under the law that Paul persecuted the Church!  It was Paul’s zeal for that law that caused him to be the ultimate lawbreaker.  Paul realized this when he encountered the Lord on his way to Damascus.

21 I do not reject the grace of God; for if righteousness is obtained through the law, then the Anointed died without purpose.  My Translation

21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”  NIV11

Paul now comes to the main point of his general argument.  Paul, unlike the “certain people from James”, understands God’s grace/favor.  He knows that righteousness can not come by way of performing the Jewish law just as he has proved in Scripture.  The argument is simple.  If one could be “pronounced righteous” by the works of the law, then there would have been no need for Jesus to come and to die.  As it sits, Jesus did come and die for us.  Therefore, to go back to the law was rejecting God’s grace and the way that He provided for the new life; life outside the law.  It is God who pronounces a person righteous when they put their faith in his Son, Jesus.

Conclusion

Paul has just stated his general argument.  Going forward in his letter, he will explain what he means here.  Jews know that they cannot be justified/pronounced righteous by the law.  If the law is reintroduced in Christian life, then the death and resurrection of Jesus wasn’t enough for mankind.  That would also promote that Jesus is “a server of sin” because in the mind of the agitators, the Galatians were sinning by not following the law.  But Christ doesn’t serve sin!  He gave himself for the sake of all of our sins.  The new life is a gift from God by God’s grace/favor on mankind.  Jesus paid for it in full and his act for us was not in vain.

We learned in our “holiness” study, that only God can make one holy.  We also learned that only God can make one righteous (Philippians 1:9-11).  Therefore, even righteousness is a gift from God obtained through faith in Jesus Christ.

Galatians Study Week 5

Week five of Word of God Home Fellowship's Study of Galatians.

Week 5

The Antioch Conflict (Part 1)

11 Now when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was condemned.  12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with Gentiles; but when they came, he began drawing back and separating himself from the Gentiles fearing those from the circumcised.  13 And the rest of the Jews also joined him in the hypocrisy so that even Barnabas was lead away with their hypocrisy.  14 But when I saw that they did not walk straightforward with the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before all of them, “If you are a Jew living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” My Translation

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.  12 For before certain men 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?” NIV11

Comment

We now get to a defining moment which is perhaps the hardest part to interpret in the whole letter.  This “conflict” was something that the Galatians would have known about as it is inferred in this letter.  Perhaps the agitators had used this “episode” as proof that Paul had been wrong in his teaching on the Jewish Law.  If so, then Paul presents his rebuke to such a notion.

Of course the question is, “What happened after the last meeting Paul had in Jerusalem that lead up to this encounter?”  Why did Peter come to Antioch?  Why were “certain people from James” sent?

Just why Peter came to Antioch is unknown.  It was predominately a Gentile city, but it did have a large Jewish community.  If Peter was there to evangelize the Jews, then one can see just how diverse the playing field was between Peter and Paul.  Or, perhaps Peter was just on a visit.  We just don’t know.  What we do know from what context that Paul gives is that before the “certain people came from James”, Peter had no problem with fellowshipping with Gentile Christians.

We also don’t why “certain people came from James” came to Antioch, as Paul doesn’t tell us.  It is obvious that the Galatians are familiar with the event, otherwise Paul would have included many more details.  Among the theories of who and why they came to Antioch are: 

1. They are actually the “agitators” that would eventually go to Galatia and were proclaiming in Antioch what they would proclaim in Galatia.  They were “from James” as they were part of the Jerusalem church, but they were acting alone (Acts 15).
2. James sent them to Antioch to teach the “full Gospel”, and since they came in James’ authority, then everyone including Peter complied.  The “full Gospel” being that the Gentile Christians would have to observe the Jewish law in order for Jewish Christians to have anything to do with them.
3. The “certain people of James” came because of persecution was being felt on the Christians in Jerusalem from their fellow Jews.  This is documented in other letters that Paul wrote.  There was also a rebellion being started between the Jews and Rome that would eventually cause the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

11 Now when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was condemned. My Translation

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. NIV11

Paul opposed Peter “to his face”, which means “face to face”.  This was not something that Paul did “behind Peter’s back”.  He did it because Peter “was condemned”.  The phrase κατεγνωσμένος ἦν literally means “was continually having been condemned” where the participle is actually in the perfect tense.  The imperfect tense of the “to be” verb  εἰμί (ἦν here) carries with it a continual aspect.  This seems to indicate that what Peter did went on for a while.

What is most interesting about how Paul opens this part of his letter is that there is no “set-up”.  Paul just plows right through.  This is probably due to the Galatians knowing of the incident in Antioch.  As soon as it was read to them “Now when Cephas came to Antioch...”, they knew that Paul was about to comment on the incident in Antioch; something which they already knew about.

12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with Gentiles; but when they came, he began drawing back and separating himself from the Gentiles fearing those from the circumcised. My Translation

12 For before certain men 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. NIV11

One point must be noted right away.  The “certain people” were not said to be from Jerusalem; not from Judea; not from Israel; Paul says they came from James.  James was introduced in this letter back in 1:19 where he was mentioned in a “oh, by the way” fashion.  Here, James comes back into view because of the “certain people” that came from him.  Before those people came, Peter acted normally towards fellow Christians.  He would share a meal with Gentile Christians which was the appropriate thing to do. 

But “they came”, and as soon as “they came”, Peter changed.  As stated in introduction of this passage, their are several theories as to why these people came, but regardless of why they came, the impact was the same.  Peter changed his normal Christian routine for a completely different one.  From the context, τῶν ἐθνῶν (the Gentiles) are referring to the Gentiles Christians of Antioch, while the τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς (those from circumcision) refers to Jewish Christians.  It was these Jewish Christians who came from James.

Of course the biggest question is why was Peter afraid of them and why did he change?  Why did they have such influence?  Even over Peter?  We will discuss this at the close.

13 And the rest of the Jews also joined him in the hypocrisy so that even Barnabas was lead away with their hypocrisy. My Translation

13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. NIV11

The coming of the “certain people” and the change in Peter had bad effects on the Antioch church.   Here, “the rest of the Jews” is referring to the Jewish Christians in Antioch.  Paul uses this term to separate the “Jewish” Christians from the “Gentile” Christians.

Paul uses the verb συνυποκρίνομαι to describe what the the Jewish Christians were doing.  The verb means “to join in playing a part or pretending” (BDAG, 977).  The following noun that is applied to the Jews is ὑπόκρισις which means “in a negative sense, to create a public impression that is at odds with one’s real purposes or motivations”.  In Attic Greek, it meant “play-acting, playing a stage role”.  In other words, it could be that Peter and the Jewish Christians in Antioch didn’t really believe what the Jewish Christians were proclaiming.

The big blow comes when Barnabas does the same thing.  It is quite possible that the two couldn’t recover from this.  In Acts 15:36-41, Paul and Barnabas separate.  Luke’s account states that it was over John Mark, but one has to wonder if this episode in Antioch had anything to do with it.  

In the Acts account in Chapter 15, Luke doesn’t explain everything that went down in Antioch.  If fact, one could say that he left out a great deal in order to make the event seem less harsh.  In Acts, Barnabas joins Paul to go down to the Jerusalem council and there is no mention of Peter what so ever.  We do find out in Acts that the Jewish Christians were Pharisees.  This may actually set up Paul’s opening statement on justification by faith/belief in Jesus in 2:15-21 which we will discuss next week.

14 But when I saw that they did not walk straightforward with the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before all of them, “If you are a Jew living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” My Translation

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?” NIV11

From the context, it would seem that perhaps Paul was not in Antioch when the hypocrisy started.  Paul uses the verb ὀρθοποδέω which means “to walk straight”.  We would probably say “to walk a straight line” today.

Paul publicly confronts Peter because there was no doubt that Peter was wrong in what he did.  So why Peter?  Peter would have/should have been considered prime members of the Jerusalem Church.  For Peter to get carried away with hypocrisy was a devastation to those Gentile Christians in Antioch.  We see in Acts 15 where Judas and Silas comforted and strengthened them “for some days”.  

Paul states his point, but we are unsure who was considered the winner.  If one looks at the Acts account, Peter is the first to stand up against the Pharisees.  So, perhaps Paul’s very public reprimand pays off. 

Conclusion

Based upon the limited knowledge of what actually happened in Antioch, both here and in the Acts account, we are left on the outside trying to look in.  What is clear is that Paul uses the event to defend himself against what his opponents have said about him.  What is unclear is to why Peter did what he did and why he was afraid of the people from “James” and what was going on with James.

I’ll provide a possible solution to this.  It is quite possible that Paul has been setting up James, Jesus’ brother up until now.  There is no doubt that James had become a force in the Jerusalem Church and had become the leader of it.  This was either due to Peter doing more missionary work outside of Judea, or due to James being the half brother of Jesus.  It is probably the latter.  It would have been very hard to oppose Jesus’ own brother.

It is that James was Jesus’ brother that may have lead to his authority to the extent that even Peter became afraid of him.  Peter was probably afraid for his reputation in the Jerusalem church if it seemed that he was defying James’ wishes. 

As I've said, it is possible that Paul has been pointing James out this whole time.  Here’s how he could have done it.  Remember, this is just my musings.

1. In 1:1, Paul says that he wasn’t sent by men and he didn’t become an apostle “through/by a man”.  Why would Paul use the singular form of ἄνθρωπος here if he were not referring to a certain person?
2. In 1:19 Paul states ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου (Now I didn’t see any “other/different” apostles except for James, the Lord’s brother).  In Greek, it is “different of the Apostles”.  Let’s look at Paul’s use of ἕτερος (another of a different kind) and ἄλλος (another of the same kind).  Paul has already used both ἕτερος and ἄλλος in 1:6-7; “a different Gospel”; not that there is another.  Some Greek scholars say that this means that Paul using the words to mean the same thing, but that doesn’t seem to be the case in 1 Corinthians 12 where he uses it to separate groups of gifts.  Therefore, is James a “different” apostle?
3. In 2:9, Paul places James first in line with Peter and John.  There is no doubt that he does this because James is the leader of the Jerusalem church, but could it also be that Paul is pointing out something else that comes to a head in 2:12
4. Finally in 2:12, “they came from James”.  It is quite possible that Paul is singling out James to be the ultimate one responsible for what happened both in Antioch and in Galatia even though the Acts 15 account says in the letter sent to Antioch that it was not authorized by the Apostles in Jerusalem.

I am not the only one who holds this view.  I think that scholars tend to not want to show that everything was not perfect among the early leaders of the Christian Church.  I actually think that the conflicts that happen really brings the Gospel to life!  These were real people with real problems who had different views in the early Christian movement.  Many times we place these people on very high platforms, and we should, but they were as human as we are.

I want to leave you with Peter’s words from Acts 15.

Acts 15:6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.  7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.  8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.  9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.  10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?  11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” NIV11

Interestingly enough, this sounds like something Paul would say.  Peter had to stand up first as Peter had to redeem himself.  This will continue next week!

Galatians Study Week 4

Week four of Word of God Home Fellowship's Study of Galatians.

Week 4

Chapter 2

Paul Accepted by the Other Apostles

1 Then after fourteen years, I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas taking along Titus as well.  2 Now I went up as a result of a revelation.  I laid before them the Good News that I proclaim among the Gentiles, but privately to those who are regarded to be influential, lest somehow I may be running or had run in vain.  3 But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was forced to be circumcised.  (4 But it was because of false-brothers, who slipped in to spy on our freedom which we have in the Anointed Jesus, so that they might enslave us.  5 But we did not give way to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the Good News may remain with you.)  6 Now from those who are regarded to be something, (whatever they were made no difference to me, God does not have favorites), for the ones who are regarded to be influential added nothing to me, 7 but on the contrary, they saw that we had been entrusted with the Good News for the purpose of the uncircumcised just as Peter had been for the purpose of the circumcised.  8 (For the one who worked in Peter in the office of emissary to the circumcised, also worked in me to the Gentiles).  9 Recognizing the grace given to me, James, Cephas, and John, the ones who are regarded to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we may go to the Gentiles, and they may go to the circumcised.  10 They only asked that we remember the poor: the very thing that I was also eager to do. My Translation

1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.  2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.  3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.  5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.  9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.  10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along. NIV11

Comment

1 Then after fourteen years, I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas taking along Titus as well. My Translation

1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. NIV11

Paul uses his last Ἔπειτα (then) to set up his last visit to Jerusalem before he writes this letter to the Galatian congregations.  This time, it is fourteen years later from the time he went up to get aquatinted with Peter.  He goes with Barnabas (Βαρναβᾶς in Greek), who was associated with the apostles in Jerusalem.  Barnabas’ real name was Joseph and he was Levite from Cyprus.  It is the apostles who call him Barnabas which means “son of encouragement”. (Acts 4:36-37).  Barnabas is also the one who brought Paul to meet the Apostles in Acts 9:26-30.  Paul didn’t mention that Barnabas was part of that trip, but according to Luke, it was Barnabas who introduced Paul to the apostles.  

Paul decides to take Titus (Τίτος in Greek) as well.  This is not mentioned in the Acts account in Acts 11:30 during the “famine campaign” during the festival of Unleavened Bread.  We don’t know why, unless it has to do with Paul’s revelation in verse 2.  In fact, Paul and Barnabas’ visit is completely overshadowed in Acts 12 by Peter being thrown into prison and Herod’s death.  As a result, Paul and Barnabas are not so much as an after thought in Acts 12:25.

On the other side of this, Paul makes no mention of his second visit to Jerusalem being part of the famine relief effort here in Galatians.  Perhaps both Paul and Luke are simple compressing time, people, and events.

2 Now I went up as a result of a revelation.  I laid before them the Good News that I proclaim among the Gentiles, but privately to those who are regarded to be influential, lest somehow I may be running or had run in vain. My Translation

2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. NIV11

The first thing we have to ask is “τί ἀποκάλυψις? (What revelation?)”  There are a few things to consider about Paul’s use of κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν (according to a revelation/revealing).  1. The “revealing” could have been by Agabus, a prophet from Jerusalem who prophesied that the famine would spread across the Roman Empire (Acts 11:27-30).  That’s what sent Paul to Jerusalem for his second visit according to the Acts account.  2.  If we look at the context of Paul’s letter, then we can conclude that Paul received a revelation about what was going on with some of the folks in the Jerusalem church and that some were against Paul and what he preached.  We will touch more on this in verses 4 and 5.  3. The purpose of this “revelation” was to show that Paul only went to Jerusalem by something revealed to him by God and not because he compelled to go to Jerusalem by the leaders in Jerusalem.  The famine campaign comes to mind again. 

Paul’s revelation probably represents either a personal revelation that the Holy Spirit revealed to him, or a revelation that was revealed in an open setting.  The latter would possibly be the Holy Spirit’s activity in a local congregation where a prophetic word went forth for Paul to go to Jerusalem.  It is possible that Barnabas and Titus were involved in that revelation.  Looking at the context of this letter, perhaps the “revelation” was for Paul to “test” the leaders in Jerusalem by taking Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile Christian, with him and Barnabas.  

I’ll add this, It is also possible that the “unveiling” came about due to Paul taking Titus to Jerusalem.  Perhaps Titus being presented to the leaders in Jerusalem sowed the seeds that produced the agitators in Galicia.  Therefore, the “revelation” was the revealing of some of those in Jerusalem’s true nature around the Jewish law.  Therefore, the whole “unveiling” would not have happened until some time later.  Perhaps at Antioch with the “Peter conflict”.

Paul lays out what he preaches privately (κατ᾿ ἰδίαν/according to ones own) τοῖς δοκοῦσιν (to the ones who are regarded to be influential) or (to those who were thought).  It is a short version of τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι (the ones who were thought to be something) in 2:6.  It is an idiomatic expression or a figure of speech for “ones who are highly regarded”.  This expression was used in the ancient world both “positively” and “negatively”.  Here, these are the leaders in the Church in Jerusalem which Paul says are James, Peter, and John in 2:9.  If Paul uses these statements in order to be sarcastic is not known.  We can only suppose.  But, there is no doubt that he could have used other “positive” ways to refer to the leaders in Jerusalem.  Therefore, Paul is probably being a little sarcastic toward the Galatians by referring to the Jerusalem leaders in this way.  After all, this is how the agitators saw the leaders in Jerusalem.

Paul was not concerned about if he was preaching the “correct” Gospel.  He was concerned about what others preached and if it conflicted with what he preached.  If Paul preached a law-free gospel while the apostles in Jerusalem preached a gospel that included the law, then they would be contradictory to each other.  In other words, he didn’t want to happen what had just happened in Galatia!  He preaches the gospel to the Galatians and converts them and afterwords, others come along and tell the Galatians that they really aren’t converted yet until they start keeping the Law of Moses.  If that is happening, then Paul is preaching or running in vain and it will not amount to anything.

3 But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was forced to be circumcised. My Translation

3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek NIV11

Paul does a small digression here.  Paul probably adds this in for the sake of the Galatians who know Titus.  Otherwise, there would have been no reason for Paul to speak of someone that the Galatians didn’t know.  This would provide further evidence to the Galatians that the leaders in Jerusalem didn’t contradict Paul’s gospel.  It infers that Titus went to Jerusalem as an uncircumcised Greek Christian and the leaders of the Jerusalem church didn’t force Titus to be circumcised.  Paul uses the verb ἀναγκάζω, translated here as “forced” and "compelled" in the NIV11.  It derives from its cognate noun ἀνάγκη which means “necessity or constraint as inherent in the nature of things”.  In other words, leaders in Jerusalem did not think it was a necessity for Titus to be circumcised.  Paul probably took Titus along to see what the leaders in Jerusalem would do about him.

(4 But it was because of the false-brothers, who slipped in to spy on our freedom which we have in the Anointed Jesus, so that they might enslave us.  5 But we did not give way to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the Good News may remain with you.) My Translation

4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.  5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. NIV11

Paul now does a major digression.  The main question is this: Did the false-brothers (translated as false-believers in the NIV11, slip into the private conference in Jerusalem or did they slip in at Antioch which is where Paul was when he wrote this letter in which he goes into detail on in verses 11-14?  It is probably what happened in Antioch because it is unlikely that these false-brothers would have been able to interfere with Paul’s meeting with James, Peter, and John.  This is clearly a digression that Paul places in his letter, possibly due to frustration.

Paul speaks of their “freedom which we have in Christ Jesus”.  It is that same freedom of the law in which he speaks of in his famous passage in 2 Corinthians 3:17:

17 ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν· οὗ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου, ἐλευθερία.

17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Paul calls them “the false-brothers”.  Since he uses the article, it is possible that these are the very same “false-brothers” who went and contradicted the gospel that he preached in Galatia.  That means that the Galatians knew them.  They wanted to “enslave us” by demanding that Paul and every other Christian start performing the Jewish law.  There will be more on this later as Paul gets into his defense of the Gospel.

In verse 5, Paul states εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ (we didn’t yield in submission) to those false-brothers οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν (not even for an hour/moment).  And why should they?  They were not teaching the correct Gospel.  In fact, Paul then states a conditional clause: “so that the truth of the Good News may remain with you.”  In other words, we did not submit to the false-brothers, because if we would have, the true Gospel will no longer remain with you.  Paul could not compromise the Gospel.  As soon as he did, he would be preaching a “different” Gospel from the one he received from Jesus.

6 Now from those who are regarded to be something, (whatever they were made no difference to me, God does not have favorites), for the ones who are regarded to be influential added nothing to me, 7 but on the contrary, they saw that we had been entrusted with the Good News for the purpose of the uncircumcised just as Peter had been for the purpose of the circumcised.  8 (For the one who worked in Peter in the office of emissary to the circumcised, also worked in me to the Gentiles). My Translation

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. NIV11

Paul moves out of his digression and back into his topic.  He now refers to the leaders in Jerusalem by the full expression τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι (the ones who were thought to be something).  Of course the question is “was Paul being sarcastic in his treatment of the leaders in Jerusalem.  Yes and no.  Yes, he was probably being a little sarcastic (as he is from time to time), but not necessarily to the leaders.  His sarcasm  is toward the ones who would compare him to the leaders in Jerusalem.  Paul is very quick to add his thoughts on these leaders, who are thought to be something by others, that God has no favorites, and neither does he.  The Greek expression ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει (whatever they were, made no difference to me) can be translated as “what sort of people they once were, made no difference to me”.  What are we to make of this expression?  Paul is probably referring to how they were once with Jesus when he was here on earth.  It was probably that status that propelled these men into leadership by the ones “who thought they were something”. Regardless of the past, Paul’s idiomatic expression πρόσωπον [ὁ] θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει (God doesn’t accept the face of a human/man) makes it clear that God does accept what is on the outside of a person, but what is on the inside.

Paul’s use of “God doesn’t accept the face of a human” is from the Old Testament.  Specifically from a couple of different passages; Leviticus 19:15 LXX and Deuteronomy 10:17 LXX.

Leviticus 19:15 Οὐ ποιήσετε ἄδικον ἐν κρίσει· οὐ λήμψῃ πρόσωπον πτωχοῦ οὐδὲ θαυμάσεις πρόσωπον δυνάστου, ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ κρινεῖς τὸν πλησίον σου. 

Leviticus 19:15 You will not make unjust judgements in judging.  You will not accept the face of the poor, nor marvel at the face of the powerful.  You will judge your neighbor in righteousness. 

Deuteronomy 10:17 ὁ γὰρ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν, οὗτος θεὸς τῶν θεῶν καὶ κύριος τῶν κυρίων, ὁ θεὸς ὁ μέγας καὶ ἰσχυρὸς καὶ ὁ φοβερός, ὅστις οὐ θαυμάζει πρόσωπον οὐδ᾿ οὐ μὴ λάβῃ δῶρον

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the Lord is your God.  He is God of gods and Lord of lords, God, the great and powerful and fearsome, who does not marvel at the face or never accepts a gift (bribe).

Paul’s digression is used to communicate a very simple message to to his congregations in Galatia; “If God shows no favoritism, why would you?  If God shows no favoritism, why do the agitators show favoritism?” 

Paul makes very clear that the leaders were fine with what he preached and didn’t ask him to preach anything different.  In fact, the leaders recognized the divine calling in Paul to evangelize the Gentiles (uncircumcised), just as Peter had a divine call to evangelize the Jews (circumcised).

An interesting change happens in verses 7 and 8.  Paul has been using Κηφᾶς for Peter this whole time, but changes to Πέτρος in these two verses.  Of course the question is “why”?  It has baffled scholars!  Also, this expression τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς (the Gospel to/of the uncircumcised just as Peter of/to the circumcised).  As one can imagine, all sorts of explanations have come about, such as:

• This was a pull from the “formal” settlement of the matter (which had been written?).  That would mean that these words were not Paul’s words, but someone else's which Paul quotes.
• Κηφᾶς was Peter’s official name while Πέτρος was his personal name.
• Some have suggested that verses 7 and 8 were a very early interpolation into the text, perhaps by the person who the letter was dictated to (Titus?).

My guess is that Paul used Κηφᾶς personally, while everyone else in the Greek Christian world used Πέτρος.  Perhaps Paul was just making sure that his readers knew of whom Paul was speaking about.  But, some weight should be added for this being a formal statement and not Paul’s words as these expressions are used nowhere else in Pauline letters.

In verse 8, which is a slight digression from the thread of the text, Paul uses the word ἀποστολή translated as “the office of emissary” here.  In other translations, it is translated as “apostleship”.  BDAG defines is as “God’s elite emissaries for the Christian message office of a special emissary, apostleship, office of an apostle, assignment”.  In the text, it seems to be more of a “mission” as opposed to “an office”.  Regardless, God (the one who worked/effected) in Peter, also did it for Paul.  Everyone from that private meeting acknowledged that.

9 Recognizing the grace given to me, James, Cephas, and John, the ones who are regarded to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we may go to the Gentiles, and they may go to the circumcised. My Translation

9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. NIV11

Paul reiterates that the leaders saw his calling and that God’s grace rested on him.  Paul strengthens his uses of “the ones who are regarded to be something” by adding στῦλοι εἶναι (to be pillars), that is “spiritual leaders”.  Paul now names the leaders who he had a private meeting with.  They were Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάννης (James, Cephas, and John the son of Zebedee).  This is the only place in Pauline letters that John is mentioned.

As I’ve stated many times, the word order in Greek is significant.  Here, we have James first.  This could be Paul acknowledging that James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church.  Or it could be that Paul is acknowledging that James is the Lord’s brother.  Or, Paul could be reflecting on James’ role of replacing Peter as the leader in Jerusalem as Peter did more evangelizing outside of Jerusalem.  This would certainly make sense.  Or Paul is singling James out.  There will be more on this next week.

Regardless, these three men agreed with Paul and extended their right hand of fellowship to them (Paul and Barnabas).  This was a sign of acceptance.  Paul and Barnabas were to reach the Gentiles, while the ones in Jerusalem were to reach the Jews.

10 They only asked that we remember the poor: the very thing that I was also eager to do. My Translation

10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along. NIV11

The “poor” here would have been the poor in the Jerusalem congregation.  There are mentions of “the collection for Jerusalem” throughout Paul’s letters (1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:1-9:15; Romans 15:25-28), but Paul had not started that campaign yet.  Paul’s use of the verb σπουδάζω in its Aorist form shows that Paul was already doing such work.  The famine relieve fund, the main reason Paul was in Jerusalem, would have been at the forefront of Paul’s thoughts.

Paul wouldn’t have seen a request to help the poor in Jerusalem as “adding to” the Gospel that he preached.  From what we see in his letters, he was unashamed of asking for contributions for the church in Jerusalem.  In fact, putting others interests above one’s own was a main Pauline theme.  What better way to act this out in organizing a collection for the Jerusalem congregation!

Conclusion

Paul makes clear that what he preached was not influenced by the leaders in Jerusalem as his opponents had suggested.  In fact, he and the Jerusalem leaders were in full agreement on the Good News that was preached by all of them.  In 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, Paul puts forth what he and the other Apostles preached in a general way.  It is a passage that I’ve read in Greek many, many times.

15:1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.  2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.  6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.  7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 

9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed. NIV11

Note that none of it included the Jewish Law.

Galatians Study Week 3.

Week three of Word of God Home Fellowship's Study of Galatians.

Week 3

How Paul Became an Apostle

11 For I make known to you, brothers and sisters, the good news which was proclaimed by me is not a product of human origin.  12 For I neither received it from a human, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through a revelation from Jesus, the Anointed. 

13 For you heard of my former manner of life in Judaism; that I was persecuting the church of God beyond measure and was trying to destroy it, 14 and I was progressing in Judaism above many contemporaries among my own people, being even more of a fanatic than they were of my forefathers’s tradition.  15 But when God, who set me apart 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 other people, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles before me, but went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus.

18 First of all, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, 19 but I didn’t see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.  20 Now in what I am writing to you, I swear before God that I am not lying.  

21 Then, I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.  22 But I was unknown by sight to the congregations of Judea that are in the Anointed.  23 But they were only hearing that, “The one who once persecuted us is now proclaiming the faith that he once tried to destroy”.  24 And they were glorifying God because of me. My Translation

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.  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 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 my mother’s womb 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.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas 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 Then 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. NIV11

Comment

11 For I make known to you, brothers and sisters, the good news which was proclaimed by me is not a product of human origin. My Translation

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. NIV11

When Paul says "I make known to you", he is about to describe something to the Galatians, that apparently, they had not known about Paul.  He addresses the congregations as ἀδελφοὶ (brothers and sisters) as he does in all his letters.  He may be angry with them, but he is not to the point of “kicking you out of the family” so to speak.  Paul then goes into a sort of word-play with τὸ εὐαγγέλιον (the good news) and it’s cognate verb εὐαγγελίζω/εὐαγγελισθὲν which actually means “I bring or announce good news”.  It is presented here as an aorist (past tense) participle, “which was the good news announced” with the added “by me”.  It could be rendered as “the good news which was the good news announced by me”.  

Regardless of the play on words, this τὸ εὐαγγέλιον was Paul’s.  In Romans 2:16 and 16:25, Paul calls it τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου (my Good News).  It didn’t originate from human beings.  As Paul puts it οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον (it is not according to a man/human being).  It is not a product derived by humans, nor did he received it from humans.  This parallels verse 1.  What is inferred here is that the Gospel that includes the works of the Law IS a product of human beings.

12 For I neither received it from a human, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through a revelation from Jesus, the Anointed. My Translation

12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. NIV11

Paul goes on to explain what he means by “not a product of human origin”.  The Gospel that Paul preached didn’t get passed to Paul by any human being.  A human did not past it to him who had received it from God, nor did a human being teach it to Paul.  This is a reference to the Apostles in Jerusalem.  It seems that Paul’s opponents had told the Galatians that Paul received his instructions from the Apostles in Jerusalem.  Paul is about to dismiss that notion.

Paul received his Gospel δι᾿ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (through a revelation of/from Jesus Christ).  Paul is undoubtably speaking of his Damascus road experience with Jesus.  The Greek word ἀποκάλυψις (apocalypse) means “something revealed”, “something uncovered” or “something unveil”.  It would be the same as what we would say today: “pulling the curtain back to fully see what was behind it”.  In this case, it was the revealing of/from Jesus Christ.  We will see the cognate verb of this word in verse 16.  So why could it be a revealing of/from Jesus?  The nature of the Greek genitive form could either be subjective (revelation FROM Jesus) or objective (revelation ABOUT Jesus).  It is probably a bit of both.

13 For you heard of my former manner of life in Judaism; that I was persecuting the church of God beyond measure and was trying to destroy it, My Translation

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. NIV11

Paul starts to focus on his background.  One such as Paul who persecuted the Church of God can’t go “unheard”.  Although there is no doubt that Paul would have spoken about his former life to his converts, there is also no doubt that they would have heard just how bad Paul was in his former life.  Good and bad news travels fast.  To intensify Paul’s actions in his former life, he uses verbs in the imperfect tense, thus relaying that his actions were continual or repeated actions.

Paul’s use of πορθέω (to destroy) carries the sense of annihilation.  It was also used in the military sense of “sacking a city”.

The singular τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ (the church/congregation of God) is Paul’s way to referring to all christianity at the time.  Paul also compares it in an opposite way to Judaism.

14 and I was progressing in Judaism above many contemporaries among my own people, being even more of a fanatic than they were of my forefathers’s tradition. My Translation

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. NIV11

Paul speaks not just of his life in Judaism, but also his life as a Pharisee.  He was so “zealous” in his Judaism, he tried to destroy Jesus’ Church.  Paul’s use of περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων carries a sense of “REALLY being even more of a zealot”.  When it came to the Pharisees way of Judaism, Paul had no equal.

The problem with Judaism in the 1st Century was that the Jewish people were so bound up in the tradition, that they couldn’t see what their own Hebrew Scriptures foretold about the Anointed One who was to come.  Therefore, when Jesus came, since he didn’t fit in with their tradition, he was “written off” so to speak.  So it also was with Paul.  To him, Christianity was something that perverted his Pharisaic ways and needed to be destroyed. 

15 But when God, who set me apart 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 other people, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles before me, but went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus. My Translation

15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb 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. NIV11

This passage suffers from the verse devisions, but it is one whole sentence in Greek.  Part of this verse parallels with Romans 1:1, where Paul says that he is κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (called an apostle, set apart for God’s Good News).  But here in Galatians, our verse 15 alludes to a couple of Old Testament passages as well as part of Paul’s history as presented in Acts 13.  I like to call it “Paul's great allusion”.  The two Old Testament passages that Paul is alluding to are Jeremiah 1:5 and Isaiah 49:1-6.

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.”

Isaiah 49:1    Listen to me, you islands;

hear this, you distant nations (Gentiles):

Before I was born the LORD (Yahweh) called me;

from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.

2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,

in the shadow of his hand he hid me;

he made me into a polished arrow

and concealed me in his quiver. 

3 He said to me, “You are my servant,

Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.” 

4 But I said, “I have labored in vain;

I have spent my strength for nothing at all.

Yet what is due me is in the LORD’s (Yahweh’s) hand,

and my reward is with my God.”

5 And now the LORD (Yahweh) says—

he who formed me in the womb to be his servant

to bring Jacob back to him

and gather Israel to himself,

for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD (Yahweh)

and my God has been my strength— 

6 he says:

“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant

to restore the tribes of Jacob

and bring back those of Israel I have kept.

I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,

that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

The latter verses in Isaiah are probably more in line with Paul’s usage of ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου (from my mother’s womb), which matches exactly to Isaiah 49:1.  The implications of Paul’s allusion are great as he is doing two things: 1. He is reminding the Galatians of when he and Barnabas were with them (Acts 13) and what he had spoken to them.  2. As Paul stated in Acts 13:47 when he was with them in Pisidian Antioch of Galatia (see map), Paul is the one who was to continue to be “a light for the Gentiles”.  In the Greek of Acts 13:47, it is very close to the Isaiah 49:6b LXX.  This is what Paul and Barnabas said about themselves.

Acts 13:47 οὕτως γὰρ ἐντέταλται ἡμῖν ὁ κύριος,

Τέθεικά σε εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν

τοῦ εἶναί σε εἰς σωτηρίαν ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς.

Acts 13:47 For the Lord commands us in this way, 

I have appointed you a light for the Gentiles,

that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.

Isaiah 49:6b ἰδοὺ τέθεικά σε εἰς διαθήκην γένους εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν τοῦ εἶναί σε εἰς σωτηρίαν ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς.

Isaiah 49:6b Behold!  I have appointed you for a covenant for a race, for a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.

But, the main thing that the Galatians should have remembered and kept was:

13:38 Therefore, let it be made known to you, Men, Brothers, that through this one (Jesus), forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and from all things that you were not able to be justified in the Law of Moses, 39 in this one (Jesus), everyone who believes is justified.

Now that is a great allusion that is meant for a purpose!

The end of 15 is much of what would be expected.  Paul was called by God’s grace.  Nothing else!  Paul was not called by how well he performed the Jewish law.  He was not called because he was a fanatic of Jewish tradition.  He was called by the grace of God just as the Galatians were (1:6).

By that grace, God was pleased to reveal Jesus in Paul.  Here we have ἀποκαλύψαι/ἀποκαλύπτω (to reveal), which is the cognate noun of ἀποκάλυψις.  How are we to take “God...was pleased to reveal his son in me”?  There is no doubt that Paul is speaking of the Damascus Road experience when the Lord Jesus appeared to him.  It was at that moment that the reality of Jesus was revealed to Paul.  But this statement probably goes much deeper than Paul’s first encounter with Jesus.  Paul may be referring to the Gospel that he preaches in that God revealed his son in Paul in such was way that both his Apostleship and his Gospel are confirmed.  In other words, this is the “revelation of Jesus Christ” that Paul mentions in 1:12, i.e. what he preaches.

It was during this experience that Paul received his calling.  He was to proclaim the good news of Jesus among the Gentiles.  But, he didn’t consult anyone about “what” he was to proclaim.  Paul uses σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι (flesh and blood) to refer “other people”.  The sense of this is that “flesh and blood” refers to mere humanity, while what he received was from the divine.  Everything he needed had been given to him by Jesus himself.  Therefore, no mere human supplied anything to Paul as to what to preach.

In verse 17, Paul makes clear that he didn’t go to Jerusalem to “get” his Gospel, which his opponents said that he did.  Paul started doing what he was called to do immediately by going into Arabia to preach the Gospel.

“The apostles before me” are the twelve who became apostles before Paul received his apostleship.  By stating that he didn’t consult the twelve, Paul is stating his independence from them, thus discounting what “the agitators” had said about him.

18 First of all, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, 19 but I didn’t see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. My Translation

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.  19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. NIV11

Paul starts this section with a very strong “then”.  Ἔπειτα means “being in the order of time”.  The first one being translated as “first of all”, which is the first one.  In other words, Paul is describing the timeframe of when he encountered the Apostles in Jerusalem starting from his first encounter to the last encounter.

Paul’s first trip to Jerusalem was three years after his conversion.  It is documented in Acts 9:26-30.  Luke’s account says nothing of Paul’s journey into Arabia, but it is clear that Paul immediately started preaching that Jesus was the Son of God.

Κηφᾶς is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word for “rock”.  We know Κηφᾶς as Peter.  The only other person that Paul met with was Ἰάκωβος or as we know him, James.  James was the half brother of Jesus and was also the leader of the Church in Jerusalem.  Luke’s account in Acts 9 just says that Barnabas brought him to the apostles.  We now know that it was only two in which Paul became acquainted with and he was with them/him (Peter) 15 days.  Paul’s use of οὐκ εἶδον (I didn’t see) may mean that he didn’t spend time with others during his stay.  With that said, Paul uses ἕτερος (another of a difference kind) here.  If he uses this word in its natural sense, then he may be alluding to “different apostles” who thought differently than he and Peter did.  If this is the case, then James would be one of the “different ones”.  It could also mean that James was different because he was not part of the original twelve.  If so, then Paul is singling James out, which would make perfect sense in related to 2:12.  Regardless, Paul places James as an apostle in one way or the other.

20 Now in what I am writing to you, I swear before God that I am not lying. My Translation

20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. NIV11

Paul now stops to reassure his audience that he speaks (writes) the truth with a oath before God.  Paul didn’t receive his Gospel from Peter nor James.

21 Then, I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.  22 But I was unknown by sight to the congregations of Judea that are in the Anointed.  23 But they were only hearing that, “The one who once persecuted us is now proclaiming the faith that he once tried to destroy”.  24 And they were glorifying God because of me. My Translation

21 Then 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. NIV11

Paul uses his second ἔπειτα (then) here to continue his string of events.  He uses this to make sure that his readers know that there was no other meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem before his next meeting with them in Chapter 2.  The Acts' account of this trip to Syria and Cilicia is confirmed in 9:30 and 11:25.

“Unknown by sight” or "personally unknown" as the NIV11 has it, is “unknown by the face” in Greek.  In other words, the idiom means that the people in Judea would not be able to recognize Paul even if they were to see him face to face.  Why?  It is because he didn’t spend enough time in Judea and Jerusalem for them to be able to know him on sight, which is the point of Paul’s adding this in.  They knew of Paul, but they didn’t know him personally.  They didn’t even know him enough to recognize him face to face.

Last of all, these congregations of Judea have their existence in Christ.

Conclusion

Paul’s main focus is on the origins of the Gospel that he preached.  It originated from God.  Jesus was revealed to Paul on his journey to Damascus.  It was there that he received his commission to be an emissary/apostle of Jesus.  He did not receive his commission nor his Gospel from the apostles in Jerusalem.  Paul goes to great lengths to prove his experience to his fellow believers in Galatia, but he is not done yet!