For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me.
"In these verses Paul defends his authority as an apostle. On the one hand, he shows that his teaching was not derived from any human agency and, on the other, that it was acknowledged by the other apostles as truly from God." (Ryrie)
"Paul, in these verses, goes to great pains to show that his message was not from man. He did not receive it from the apostles, but directly from Heaven. After his conversion, instead of going for instruction to Jerusalem and the apostles, he went into Arabia, for three years of fundamental training. Here he received the revelation of the grace of God to the Gentiles. It was not the message of the apostles to Israel, but a new revelation of the mystery of the Body of Christ as composed of both Jew and Gentile. At the close of Paul's three years in Arabia he returned to Damascus. It was only after these three years in Arabia that Paul met Peter and James. He was with them only two weeks, but they could not add anything to what Paul had received. It was this new revelation of Paul which was called in question and which he was constantly called upon to defend." (DeHaan)
not man's gospel - "It seems to me that two facts stand out clearly in Galatians 1:11. First, his gospel was new and different from the gospel of the Kingdom which the twelve preached. Otherwise, why would he speak as he did so often of 'the gospel which was preached of me' and 'that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,' and three times, 'my gospel' (Rom 16:25; 2:16; 2 Tim 2:8)? Second, that gospel was not 'after man;' he did not get it from men as we get the gospel. We hear others preach it, or friends tell us about it, but Paul got it directly from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and no one else." [cf Acts 26:16; 22:17-18; 2 Cor 12:1-2] (Stam)
For I did not receive it - "the pronoun is emphatic, suggesting a contract with the Judaizers, who probably professed to come from James, as they did who taught the same things at Antioch, see 2:12, and denying any inferiority in this respect to those apostles who had companied with the Lord and had been directly commissioned by Him before His ascension. But while Paul thus 'glorifies his ministry,' (Romans 11:13, when speaking of himself personally he uses very different language, 'I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle,' 1 Corinthians 15:9, cp. 2 Corinthians 12:11." (Vine)
you have heard of my former life in Judaism - "Now let us consider this whole picture as it is given to us in the Book of Acts. There was at that time only one nation which God recognized as His own. And that nation, Israel, rebelled against Him. Who inspired and led that rebellion? Saul of Tarsus. And who was Saul of Tarsus? A wicked ruffian? No! He was one of the chosen race, and was highly respected by his nation. He was a scrupulous observer of the law, zealous of the traditions of his fathers. Was he so ignorant of Old Testament prophecy that he did not recognize Christ? No, he was a Pharisee, the son of a line of Pharisees, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, of the tribe of Benjamin, a spiritual leader in Israel with a profound knowledge of the law and the prophets. Yet this man led his nation in bitter persecution against the followers of Jesus, determined to stamp out the very name and the memory of Jesus Christ of Nazareth ... Paul's argument for his apostleship is a strong one. How could the twelve, or any of the other believers for that matter, have appointed him an apostle of Jesus Christ?" (Stam)
I persecuted the church of God - "Some readers, when they see the word 'church' in this passage, suppose that the church of today, the Body of Christ, began at Pentecost. It is true that we read about a church in Acts 2, but beloved, the church of today is a 'joint body' made up of Jewish and Gentile believers, with a heavenly position and blessing. The church at Pentecost, and from Pentecost to Paul, was composed of Jews only (Acts 11:19). They had an earthly calling with Christ s their King to reign at Jerusalem according to the prophecies of the Old Testament. The word 'church' simply means 'a called-out' people, His church, in every age. In Acts 7:38, Israel, under Moses' leadership, is called 'the church in the wilderness,' and it was the church for that day. They were God's called-out people. But God's church of today, His called-out ones, are the believers in Christ from every nation, whose home, out-look, and prospect is not earthly, but heavenly." (Stam)
he who had set me apart before I was born -"Paul was set apart from birth for his work (as was Jeremiah, 1:5)." (Ryrie)
"The appointment of Paul as an apostle was no makeshift arrangement. It was not an after-thought on God's part; it was not as though God said to Himself, 'Now, they have rejected my Son; they will NOT accept Him as King; they will not accept His Kingdom. What should I do? I know what I will do, I will postpone the Kingdom and I will choose another apostle to preach grace.' No, no, no! Paul said that he was set apart for this from his very birth; every step of his life had led up to this, every step in his life had prepared him for the great ministry that God was to give him." (Stam)
who called me by his grace - "We must always distinguish between grace in a dispensation and 'the dispensation of grace.' The principle of law is eternal, but 'the dispensation of law' was not. It was wrong for Cain to kill his brother, and he was judged for it, yet the law was only given some 2,500 years later, by Moses (John 1:17). Just so the principle of grace is eternal, but 'the dispensation of grace' is not. It was only as Israel continued in her rejection of Christ that God reached down to save Saul of Tarsus, the leader of the rebellion, and usher in the dispensation of grace (Rom 5:20-21) ... I once thought as do many others today, and as perhaps you do also, that one must keep the law of the Ten Commandments, and thereby please God, to be sure of heaven. I thought that the law was given as God's rule of life to help us to be good and to gain heaven at last; but the Word of God tells us that it was given for the purpose (Rom 3:19). It was given to show us that we are not good and that we need a savior. The law was given that every mouth might be stopped and all the world might be brought in guilty before God. That is a very important fact. 'Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound' (Rom 5:20)." (Stam)
vss 15-17 - "These verses are important, and very significant, for Paul did not go immediately and talk it over with human beings. When I was first saved I could not get enough fellowship with other believers, and I listened with rapt attention to those great men of God who were teaching the Scripture in those days. Would you not think that when Paul was converted to Christ he would have gone immediately to those who were apostles before him, since the Lord Jesus had appointed him an apostle? But he said that this was not what he did. 'I did not confer with flesh and blood. I did not go to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me.' He went into a desert place, doubtless to be alone with God. It many well be that there he received the basic revelations about God's secret eternal purpose of grace (Gal 1:18-19) ... The Galatians letter does not actually deny that Paul met any of the apostles. He talked instead about 'not conferring' (ver 16) with them concerning his own mission. His point was that he had not gone to the designated Kingdom authority, the men who had the keys of the Kingdom, for instruction. They did not commission him to carry out the Kingdom program. His unique commission was given directly from God. Three years later he did go to Jerusalem to confer with Peter for fifteen days. At that time only James was present (ver. 18)." (Stam)
Arabia - "This may mean anywhere in the kingdom of the Habataeans, from near Damascus down to the Sinaitic peninsula. Paul's intent is not to pinpoint the location but to emphasize that it was a place (in contrast to Jerusalem) where there was no apostle to instruct him. In Arabia he was alone with God, thinking through the implications of his encounter with the risen Christ on the Damascus road. Though not mentioned in Acts, this period in Paul's life would probably fit between Acts 9:22 and 9:23." (Ryrie)
I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas - "The purpose of Paul's visit to Peter was to become acquainted with him rather than to confer with him. He also saw James, the Lord's half brother (v 19), but did not visit the Judean churches (v 22). Acts 9:26-30 records this visit." (Ryrie)
Syria and Cilicia - "On his way to Tarsus, his home city (Acts 9:30)." (Ryrie)
vss 23-24 - "Paul has given us proof after proof that his message was not the same as that which the twelve had been preaching. Yet the believers in Judea were saying, '...[he] now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.' Does this mean that Paul was, after all, preaching the same gospel which the twelve had been preaching? Some men have used this verse to seek to prove that this was the case. Paul used the greater part of Chapters One and Two to prove that his message was different, but this does not mean that what the twelve had been preaching was not true. They had preached Christ as the prophesied King, now risen from the dead. Paul had once denied this and had persecuted those who believed it. Then one day Christ Himself had appeared to Saul, and he saw that He was alive, and Israel's rightful King. Thereafter, wherever he went, he sought to convince the Jews of that fact. After all, how could they trust Christ as Lord and Savior if they did not know that He was their true Messiah, risen from the dead? And how could they trust Him as the exalted dispenser of the grace that Paul presented, if He were an impostor whose dead body now lay in a Judean grave? Paul confirmed what Peter and the twelve had been preaching. In that sense, and to that degree, he preached the faith which once he had destroyed. But even though he confirmed the message of the twelve, never once do we find him preaching the good news of the Kingdom—the good news that the Kingdom was about to be established. He never, like Peter, offered the Kingdom and the return of Jesus Christ if the Jews would repent. The time for that was past. The establishment of the Messianic kingdom is, even yet in our own day, being held in abeyance until a future time; meanwhile, God offers reconciliation to his enemies by grace through faith." (Stam)
"In these verses Paul defends his authority as an apostle. On the one hand, he shows that his teaching was not derived from any human agency and, on the other, that it was acknowledged by the other apostles as truly from God." (Ryrie)
"Paul, in these verses, goes to great pains to show that his message was not from man. He did not receive it from the apostles, but directly from Heaven. After his conversion, instead of going for instruction to Jerusalem and the apostles, he went into Arabia, for three years of fundamental training. Here he received the revelation of the grace of God to the Gentiles. It was not the message of the apostles to Israel, but a new revelation of the mystery of the Body of Christ as composed of both Jew and Gentile. At the close of Paul's three years in Arabia he returned to Damascus. It was only after these three years in Arabia that Paul met Peter and James. He was with them only two weeks, but they could not add anything to what Paul had received. It was this new revelation of Paul which was called in question and which he was constantly called upon to defend." (DeHaan)
not man's gospel - "It seems to me that two facts stand out clearly in Galatians 1:11. First, his gospel was new and different from the gospel of the Kingdom which the twelve preached. Otherwise, why would he speak as he did so often of 'the gospel which was preached of me' and 'that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,' and three times, 'my gospel' (Rom 16:25; 2:16; 2 Tim 2:8)? Second, that gospel was not 'after man;' he did not get it from men as we get the gospel. We hear others preach it, or friends tell us about it, but Paul got it directly from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and no one else." [cf Acts 26:16; 22:17-18; 2 Cor 12:1-2] (Stam)
For I did not receive it - "the pronoun is emphatic, suggesting a contract with the Judaizers, who probably professed to come from James, as they did who taught the same things at Antioch, see 2:12, and denying any inferiority in this respect to those apostles who had companied with the Lord and had been directly commissioned by Him before His ascension. But while Paul thus 'glorifies his ministry,' (Romans 11:13, when speaking of himself personally he uses very different language, 'I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle,' 1 Corinthians 15:9, cp. 2 Corinthians 12:11." (Vine)
you have heard of my former life in Judaism - "Now let us consider this whole picture as it is given to us in the Book of Acts. There was at that time only one nation which God recognized as His own. And that nation, Israel, rebelled against Him. Who inspired and led that rebellion? Saul of Tarsus. And who was Saul of Tarsus? A wicked ruffian? No! He was one of the chosen race, and was highly respected by his nation. He was a scrupulous observer of the law, zealous of the traditions of his fathers. Was he so ignorant of Old Testament prophecy that he did not recognize Christ? No, he was a Pharisee, the son of a line of Pharisees, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, of the tribe of Benjamin, a spiritual leader in Israel with a profound knowledge of the law and the prophets. Yet this man led his nation in bitter persecution against the followers of Jesus, determined to stamp out the very name and the memory of Jesus Christ of Nazareth ... Paul's argument for his apostleship is a strong one. How could the twelve, or any of the other believers for that matter, have appointed him an apostle of Jesus Christ?" (Stam)
I persecuted the church of God - "Some readers, when they see the word 'church' in this passage, suppose that the church of today, the Body of Christ, began at Pentecost. It is true that we read about a church in Acts 2, but beloved, the church of today is a 'joint body' made up of Jewish and Gentile believers, with a heavenly position and blessing. The church at Pentecost, and from Pentecost to Paul, was composed of Jews only (Acts 11:19). They had an earthly calling with Christ s their King to reign at Jerusalem according to the prophecies of the Old Testament. The word 'church' simply means 'a called-out' people, His church, in every age. In Acts 7:38, Israel, under Moses' leadership, is called 'the church in the wilderness,' and it was the church for that day. They were God's called-out people. But God's church of today, His called-out ones, are the believers in Christ from every nation, whose home, out-look, and prospect is not earthly, but heavenly." (Stam)
he who had set me apart before I was born -"Paul was set apart from birth for his work (as was Jeremiah, 1:5)." (Ryrie)
"The appointment of Paul as an apostle was no makeshift arrangement. It was not an after-thought on God's part; it was not as though God said to Himself, 'Now, they have rejected my Son; they will NOT accept Him as King; they will not accept His Kingdom. What should I do? I know what I will do, I will postpone the Kingdom and I will choose another apostle to preach grace.' No, no, no! Paul said that he was set apart for this from his very birth; every step of his life had led up to this, every step in his life had prepared him for the great ministry that God was to give him." (Stam)
who called me by his grace - "We must always distinguish between grace in a dispensation and 'the dispensation of grace.' The principle of law is eternal, but 'the dispensation of law' was not. It was wrong for Cain to kill his brother, and he was judged for it, yet the law was only given some 2,500 years later, by Moses (John 1:17). Just so the principle of grace is eternal, but 'the dispensation of grace' is not. It was only as Israel continued in her rejection of Christ that God reached down to save Saul of Tarsus, the leader of the rebellion, and usher in the dispensation of grace (Rom 5:20-21) ... I once thought as do many others today, and as perhaps you do also, that one must keep the law of the Ten Commandments, and thereby please God, to be sure of heaven. I thought that the law was given as God's rule of life to help us to be good and to gain heaven at last; but the Word of God tells us that it was given for the purpose (Rom 3:19). It was given to show us that we are not good and that we need a savior. The law was given that every mouth might be stopped and all the world might be brought in guilty before God. That is a very important fact. 'Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound' (Rom 5:20)." (Stam)
vss 15-17 - "These verses are important, and very significant, for Paul did not go immediately and talk it over with human beings. When I was first saved I could not get enough fellowship with other believers, and I listened with rapt attention to those great men of God who were teaching the Scripture in those days. Would you not think that when Paul was converted to Christ he would have gone immediately to those who were apostles before him, since the Lord Jesus had appointed him an apostle? But he said that this was not what he did. 'I did not confer with flesh and blood. I did not go to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me.' He went into a desert place, doubtless to be alone with God. It many well be that there he received the basic revelations about God's secret eternal purpose of grace (Gal 1:18-19) ... The Galatians letter does not actually deny that Paul met any of the apostles. He talked instead about 'not conferring' (ver 16) with them concerning his own mission. His point was that he had not gone to the designated Kingdom authority, the men who had the keys of the Kingdom, for instruction. They did not commission him to carry out the Kingdom program. His unique commission was given directly from God. Three years later he did go to Jerusalem to confer with Peter for fifteen days. At that time only James was present (ver. 18)." (Stam)
Arabia - "This may mean anywhere in the kingdom of the Habataeans, from near Damascus down to the Sinaitic peninsula. Paul's intent is not to pinpoint the location but to emphasize that it was a place (in contrast to Jerusalem) where there was no apostle to instruct him. In Arabia he was alone with God, thinking through the implications of his encounter with the risen Christ on the Damascus road. Though not mentioned in Acts, this period in Paul's life would probably fit between Acts 9:22 and 9:23." (Ryrie)
I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas - "The purpose of Paul's visit to Peter was to become acquainted with him rather than to confer with him. He also saw James, the Lord's half brother (v 19), but did not visit the Judean churches (v 22). Acts 9:26-30 records this visit." (Ryrie)
Syria and Cilicia - "On his way to Tarsus, his home city (Acts 9:30)." (Ryrie)
vss 23-24 - "Paul has given us proof after proof that his message was not the same as that which the twelve had been preaching. Yet the believers in Judea were saying, '...[he] now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.' Does this mean that Paul was, after all, preaching the same gospel which the twelve had been preaching? Some men have used this verse to seek to prove that this was the case. Paul used the greater part of Chapters One and Two to prove that his message was different, but this does not mean that what the twelve had been preaching was not true. They had preached Christ as the prophesied King, now risen from the dead. Paul had once denied this and had persecuted those who believed it. Then one day Christ Himself had appeared to Saul, and he saw that He was alive, and Israel's rightful King. Thereafter, wherever he went, he sought to convince the Jews of that fact. After all, how could they trust Christ as Lord and Savior if they did not know that He was their true Messiah, risen from the dead? And how could they trust Him as the exalted dispenser of the grace that Paul presented, if He were an impostor whose dead body now lay in a Judean grave? Paul confirmed what Peter and the twelve had been preaching. In that sense, and to that degree, he preached the faith which once he had destroyed. But even though he confirmed the message of the twelve, never once do we find him preaching the good news of the Kingdom—the good news that the Kingdom was about to be established. He never, like Peter, offered the Kingdom and the return of Jesus Christ if the Jews would repent. The time for that was past. The establishment of the Messianic kingdom is, even yet in our own day, being held in abeyance until a future time; meanwhile, God offers reconciliation to his enemies by grace through faith." (Stam)
No comments:
Post a Comment