WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE
Galatians 1.13-end
February 24th 2019
MILK
We left off with Paul reminding the readers at Galatia that he was not called to please men but to please God – and that if he was out to please men he certainly would not be pleasing God.
This is an important overall principle to all that Paul is going to now say because what he will say shows that men were not involved with Him coming to faith or becoming an apostle.
So he continues our text for today and says:
Ga 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Okay back to verse 11 where Paul says:
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
I make known to you; or, I declare to you. See 1Co 15:1. Doubtless this had been known to them before, but he now assures them of it, and goes into an extended illustration to show them that he had not received his authority from man to preach the gospel. To state and prove this is the main design of this chapter.
Is not after man. Greek, not according to man. See Ga 1:1. That is, he was not appointed by man, nor had he any human instructor to make known to him what the gospel was. He had neither received it from man, nor had it been debased or adulterated by any human admixtures. He had received it directly from the Lord Jesus.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
1Co 15:1,3; Ga 1:1; Eph 3:3
This is very probably said in reply to his opponents, who had maintained that Paul had derived his knowledge of the gospel from other men, as he had not been personally known to the Lord Jesus, or been of the number of those whom he called to be his apostles. In reply to this, he says, that he did not receive his gospel in any way from man.
Neither was I taught it. That is, by man. He was not taught it by any written account of it, or by the instruction of man in any way. The only plausible objection to this statement which could be urged would be the fact that Paul had an interview with Ananias Ac 9:17 before his baptism, and that he would probably receive instructions from him. But to this it may be replied,
(1.) that there is no evidence that Ananias went into an explanation of the nature of the Christian religion in his interview with Paul;
(2.) Paul had before this been taught what Christianity was by his interview with the Lord Jesus on the way to Damascus, Ac 9:5; 26:14-18;
(3.) the purpose for which Ananias was sent to him in Damascus was that he might receive his sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, Ac 9:17. Whatever instructions he may have received through Ananias, it is still true that his call was directly from the Lord Jesus, and his information of the nature of Christianity from his revelation.
But by the revelation of Jesus Christ. On his way to Damascus, and subsequently in the temple, Ac 22:17-21.
Acts 22:17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance;
18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.
19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:
20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.
21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
Doubtless he received communications at various times from the Lord Jesus with regard to the nature of the gospel and his duty, The sense here is, that he was not indebted to men for his knowledge of the gospel, but had derived it entirely from the Saviour.
Okay, back to verse 13 where Paul writes:
1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
It is probable that Paul had made them aware of the events of his early years which is why he admits here, “For you have heart of my conversion in time past in the Jews religion HOW THAT beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and wasted it.”
It seems that Paul starts with with to show that he not only had not only not been called by Men to the Apostleship but that he was not even taught of the religion by Man – He was in fact an ENEMY of what he calls, “the church of God,” which truly proves there was no human influence on him at all.
And being steeped in the traditions of Judaism and the Law, he persecuted the Church of God “beyond measure” (with the Greek word being huperbole, and where we get hyperbole, meaning in this case,
“Beyond anything.”
Beyond anything what? He “persecuted the church.”
Accomplishing what?
“He says that he wasted it. Destroyed it.”
Which in that day was akin to what an army would do to a city or a wild animal to a person. Ravage.
14 And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
He is saying that he advanced in the faith above others his age and rank from the Nation of Israel and/or more specifically, as a student of Gamaliel, who, you might remember from our study of Acts, was the son of rabbi Simeon who was the grandson of the famous rabbi Hillel.
Gamaliel was a Pharisee, and therefore the opponent of the party of the Sadducees. He was noted for his learning, and was president of the Sanhedrim during the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius, and died, it is said, about eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem or 52 AD.
In Acts 5: 34-40, when the apostles were brought before the council, charged with preaching the resurrection of Jesus, Gamaliel was the one who suggested moderation and calmness. By a reference to well-known events, he advised them to “refrain from these men.” Adding that “If their work or counsel was of man, it would come to nothing; but if it was of God, they could not destroy it, and therefore ought to be on their guard lest they should be “found fighting against God.”
Well, according to Acts 22:3, Paul was one of his disciples
And according to his own mouth as a student he excelled above his peers.
In what manner? He was “more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.”
More studious of them; more ardently attached to them and their teachings; more anxious to distinguish himself from the others in his class IN “the traditions of my fathers – (or of the Jews, especially of the Pharisees).
A major part of the doctrines of the Pharisees depended on tradition and Paul doubtlessly made this a special matter of study, and was apparently tenacious in regard to it.
Apparently, these traditions were learned orally as there is no evidence that it was recorded in that day. Subsequently these traditions were recorded in the Mishna, and are found in the Jewish writings. But in Paul’s day they were learned as they were handed down from one to another.
We note that Paul does not here say that he was zealous to study the Tanakh. Therefore what he refers to here was his going to Jerusalem, and studying at the feet of Gamaliel to obtain a knowledge of the traditions of the sect of the Pharisees.
We might wonder if he had been studying the Tanakh the whole time, with humility and devotion, he would have sought and received the Messiah and the Good News that He brought.
But I think we ought to see Paul as a religious zealot – something I have not always considered – and I think for this reason he felt great remorse for actions.
Of course God knew all this and used the man accordingly. And so Paul adds at verse 15 and 16:
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
We note that Paul admits that God was in charge of it all saying, “But when it pleased God.“
“Who separated me from my mother’s womb.”
Now, many of us are familiar with Jeremiah 1:5 when he said:
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
We also know that John the Baptist and what he would be and do was described to his parents BEFORE conception – and that while even IN the womb the babe leapt at the sound of Mary’s news.
Isaiah wrote in 49:1, speaking of the Messiah “Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.”
And then with reference to Paul we read in Acts 9:15
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.
Finally, Paul himself wrote in Romans 1:1
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
All of these things tell us a few things worth considering.
that God perhaps often, perhaps always (since he knows when a sparrow falls and the numbers of hairs on our heads) has purposes with regard to human beings from before or at their very birth.
How far this goes in terms of free will and predestination we can’t say. But knowing all things it appears he knows what course all will take relative to the course of their lives.
This discussion can go on for weeks because it involves all sorts of debatable factors like does God impute certain traits in us to accomplish certain things He desires, does he craft our life situations or does he just use them as the occur to tempter us. We have to wonder how free will plays into this, and are we able to actually choose things and if so how do our freewill choices affect God’s desires, and if we have freewill, and God knows the choices we will make, were we really free to make the choices relative to our upbringing, experiences and gifts that God has given and allowed in our lives?
We are also left to wonder about the bad choices we make in life, and if these play a part in the good things God calls us to do for him?
I could not teach nor counsel with the same effectiveness had I not had many of the experiences I have had with sin in my life.
I could not have known the how to speak with LDS people had I not been born LDS.
And on and on and on all of us can go in trying to understand these things. But one thing we cannot get away from is the fact that Paul says “God called him from His mothers womb.”
I am going to be so bold to say that I believe God called me from my mothers womb to do what I do now.
I believe He either allowed or he orchestrated many, most or all the things generally or specifically in my life to go on as a means to train and teach me until the time was right.
I am convinced that all the sin and all the religion was intrinsic to my education and that this is how He works with all of us.
As a result, and because of the efficacious work of His Son, the game of sin and all of that is now purposeful in His ways of redeeming the world.
Remember, God, calling Paul from his mothers womb, was allowed to put Christians to death and imprison them for a time. God allowed Him to cause people to suffer – and then used Him to alleviate suffering.
I honestly don’t know how to reconcile all of this – other than to say this:
With God, there are no surprises. How that translates to us in our daily lives, how it translates to the horrible things some people do and the wonderful things done by others, I am at a loss.
Part of the mystery is solved when Jesus said of Judas Iscariot in Mark:
Mark 14:21 “For the Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”
For there to be culpability on Judas’s part, where it would have been better that he had never been born, there must be an ability for all of us to choose.
So Paul says:
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
When Paul says that he had been called by God’s grace he isn’t kidding because he had done terrible things, according to the traditions of Man and not the Law, and was in the middle of doing them, without repentance, when God literally stepped in and stopped him in his tracks – forgiving Him as it were, calling him, and then teaching Him BEFORE he was transformed of His own freewill and choice – remember, he was actually ON THE ROAD to Damascus to hurt more Christians when God intervened in his life powerfully.
Don’t we wish that God would do that in the lives of loved ones who continue to reject Him? Give them a Pauline experience? It would seem, in our minds, that if he does that for one, He would do that for all, right?
Apparently not. And just because He acts so astoundingly in one persons life does not make the rest of us chopped liver. He is not a respector of persons.
He uses people things and events according to His good will and to bring about His interests and the rest of us must in faith trust that He knows what He’s doing.
That’s how I take it anyway.
And so in the case of Paul, He separated him from his mothers womb, and called him by His amazing Grace . . . why?
(verse 16)
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen;
To reveal his Son in me.
We have to talk for a minute about the wording of this first line:
“to Reveal His Son in me”
By “in me” (en emoi) Paul might mean to “lay emphasis on his inward experience of grace” or he may refer objectively to the vision of Christ on the way to Damascus, meaning “in my case.”
Paul uses this meaning (in my case) several times in scripture (Galatians 1:24; 2nd Corinthians 13:3; Philippians 1:30; and 1st Timothy 1:16). In another circumstance (1st Corinthians 14:11) he uses to me.
Some of the better commentators believe this is best translated “in my case,” and I stand with that.
16 To reveal his Son in my case, that I might preach him among the heathen;
Which was the primary reason Paul was converted and called and of course heathen meant the Gentile world, or all who were destitute of a religion that pointed to the true and living monotheistic God.
And at this point Paul enters into his actions once he received the call from God on the Road to Damascus saying:
“immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood”
Because you cannot immediately NOT do something, many scholars tend to believe that what is meant here is,
Immediately I went to Arabia and did not confer with flesh and blood.
Paul seems to be saying that he had no reason, having had God’s Son revealed to him, to get the opinions of other men or women.
It is believed that Paul was married, and if this is true it seems that he did not even confer with his wife.
Rumor has it that their marriage ended when he became a Christian, perhaps God knew this would be the result and therefore impressed upon him to go without talking to her – which seems odd but if he didn’t confer with flesh and blood he didn’t confer with flesh and blood.
We also know that having been trained by Gamaliel that he did not go to his mentor either, nor any others – including any believers in that area – showing that nobody taught him the faith but Christ.
He takes this so far as to say (verse 17)
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
This is where it is believed the immediately comes into play – that he immediately went to Arabia.
What he does make plain is he DID NOT go up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before him.
I’m not sure that this little insight can be overly expressed.
I mean, Jesus on earth chose and trained twelve apostles to take the Good News forth to that age, world, economy.
What age world economy?
That of the Old Testament and those who were of it – the House of Israel. Eleven of them went forward to share the good news taught to them by Jesus when He walked the earth as the promised messiah to THEM.
And only them.
He came only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. Period. And His teachings and His approach was to them. Not to the Samaritans, not to the Gentiles, to His brethren of the House of Israel.
All that He taught was couched in the history of that Nation, in the presence of the Law, and remember, it was taught to them materially, physically.
When the Promised Messiah became flesh it was to reach in the flesh those who were of the Law, His brethren.
Therefore, His eleven apostles were bearing a message forward to that same group.
And Jesus made it clear to them in Matthew 10:23 “But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel before the Son of man comes.”
The enormous significance is that Paul, who was called to the Gentiles or the heathen nations, though he always went to the Synagogues first wherever he went, did not need to confer with the original apostles.
Why?
They would have given their input into what they thought Paul should say and do – and that was NOT what he needed.
See, Paul was preaching the Good News to the Gentiles because it was prophesied that the Gospel would have to go to them before the end of that age.
So in one sense he was fulfilling prophecy. In another sense, in his dealings with the Gentiles, and then in the letters he wrote them, he was explaining the Good News and its application to the rest of the world in the age when God would write His laws upon the hearts and minds of people.
In essence, Christ, through Paul, was creating the model by which all the earthly teachings Jesus gave to His own and His works for the salvation of the world would have application to the Non-Jewish world in the New Testament age.
Had he gone to Jewish Apostles he would have been trained by them to say and do what Jesus had said TO THEM in order for them to teach the Nation of Israel – this was not to be the case in Paul’s work.
And this is one of the biggest misunderstandings in Christianity – that the words of Jesus and teaching in the Gospels have direct application to heathens today.
That is an impossibility! We cannot understand his teachings outside of that culture, the Law, and all that they needed as a means to receive Him as the promised Messiah.
Nobody promised a Messiah to non-Jews in that day. Nobody gave non-jews the law or the prophets. No other culture or people was headed for total destruction materially like they were.
So we have to realize this about Paul, and though he was a Jew of Jews, he was lead to avoid all flesh and blood, including the other apostles, and to head straight into the desert to be taught of the risen heavenly Christ himself.
What desert. Paul says that he went to Arabia, which was not far and to the south of Damascus where he was changed.
What part of Arabia, and for what purpose Paul went, is not entirely understood or known.
We don’t know what he took, if he went alone, or how long he was there (meaning how long he spent in Damascus).
We do know that it would not be until three years passed before he would go to Jerusalem and because this is mentioned in the next verse many believe he was three years in the Sinai desert.
In other words, there were three years between his conversion and going to Jerusalem. Because he says Immediately he did not confer with men it SEEMS -and this is something I have always taught – that he spent three years in the Sinai desert.
It is interesting that Luke omits this journey into the Sinai all together in his account of Acts. But there seems to be a reference to his going there between verses 22-23 of Acts. Listen to Luke’s narrative where he says of Paul after he received his sight back:
Acts 9:19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
21 But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?
22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
Then he seems to skip a segment of Paul’s journey to Sinai and comes back with a story that lead Paul right into Jerusalem, saying:
Acts 9:23 And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:
24 But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.
25 Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket.
26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
Now, I have always thought that Paul when to the Sinai peninsula which is different from mount Sinai, which is a mountain in the Sinai peninsula – but some 500 miles from Damascus – where the peninsula as a whole was much closer.
And so, I have taught by tradition that based on these few scant references that Paul went to the Sinai peninsula and was taught there by the Lord himself for three years.
This is conjecture.
But as long as we are willing to teach conjecture, let me propose something more on point with the whole of scripture as to what Paul might have done.
Instead of him going to the vast generally speaking peninsula, perhaps Paul went to Mount Sinai itself?
Let me explain:
After meeting with the Lord on the Road to Damascus Paul says:
“For I didn’t receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Yeshua the Messiah.”
Think of Moses for a minute. Did he receive the call to liberate the Jews from bondage from Man or from God himself?
From God – on Mount Sinai.
Did he confer with man at all in the interim? Not at all. He went to Sinai and had a personal teaching from God thereon who sent him back to Egypt as a different man.
Think about this: Before going to the desert what did Moses do? He killed a man. In other words, prior to his call from God he killed a man.
Then he went to the Sinai peninsula, and was called of God to go back and free his people.
What was Paul doing prior to His call on the Road to Damascus – he took part – at least, in killing a man named Stephen, right.
And then he was met by God, and then he did not confer with man but instead went to Sinai – and I submit that he may have gone to Mt Sinai just like Moses, for as Moses freed the Jews from bondage so Paul was being sent to free the Gentiles from the same.
But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through his grace to reveal his Son in me, that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I didn’t immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were emissaries before me, but I went away into Arabia. Then I returned to Damascus.” (Galatians 1:11-17)
It is interesting that Galatians 1:15-20 is a depiction of Exodus 3:4-4:26 where eleven Greek words are common to both the sections from the Septuagint of the translated Hebrew Scripture and the section in Galatians.
Exodus 3:4-4:26 describes the account of Moses when he encountered the Angel of the LORD in the midst of the bush on fire but not consumed while on Mount Sinai.
The phrase “the phrase where you are standing on is holy ground” (Exodus 3:5) corresponds to “Arabia” (Galatians 3:17).
The name Jebusites (Exodus 3:8) corresponds to Jerusalem (Galatians 3:17, 18; cf. Joshua 11:3; 12:10; 2 Samuel 5:6-10).
The name Hittites (Exodus 3:8) corresponds to Damascus (Galatians 3:17; cf. Joshua 11:3).
We might wonder:
“Why didn’t the Apostle Paul just mention Mount Sinai specifically?”
In Galatians, Paul was stressing that none of the Apostles were in communication with him in order to impart the Gospel to him either before, during or immediately after his conversion on the Damascus Road in a way that is very similar to the way that Moses was not in touch with anyone before returning to Egypt to meet Aaron.
Paul compares his commissioning to the commissioning of Moses by the pre-Incarnate Messiah, the Angel of the LORD in the burning bush to his commissioning.
Indeed the Greek noun “apostle” (Galatians 3:17, 19) and the Greek verb “I will send” (Exodus 3:10) have the same Greek root – remember, all apostle means is one sent.
To me it is entirely possible that just as Moses encountered the pre-Incarnate Messiah on Mount Sinai, the Apostle Paul encountered the Glorified Messiah on the same Mount Sinai.
As noted, both Moses and Paul had extreme contrasts in their lives. Just like Moses (Exodus 2:12) Paul killed a man (Acts 7:58-8:1). Just like Moses Paul encountered the Messiah and was sent out: Moses to bring freedom from slavery; Paul to preach freedom from the slavery of sin.
Both received “revelation” from God and I would submit that Paul may have received his on Mount Sinai like Moses.
The late in the Nineteenth Century Bibkle commentator Lightfoot believed that Paul traveled to Mount Sinai, much like Elijah (1 Kings 19:8-18) where Damascus is also mentioned.
Perhaps there is something between these texts that informs us on the whereabouts of Paul and which also helps us understand what he means when he says that he received revelation from Christ, and where and when this actually took place.
The passage in Galatians ends with Paul saying of himself after that visit to Arabia:
“And returned again unto Damascus.”
In other words, instead of going directly to Jerusalem to meet the apostles after his sojourn, he went back to Damascus, the place where he was converted and he preached there, proving that that he had certainly NOT derived his commission from the other men – especially the other apostles.
We will stop here.
Q and A
Prayer
