Galatians 2:15-21

Galatians 2:15-21 (NRSV)

¹⁵ We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; ¹⁶ yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. ¹⁷ But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! ¹⁸ But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor. ¹⁹ For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; ²⁰ and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. 

Year C

June 12-18

June 12, 2016

Cross~Wind UMC

Title: Disciples on Rights and Righteousness

Paul uses the language of the law and the courtroom here. This stimulated a few initial thoughts I want to share with you. 

Introduction

The Law is a more important part of our lives than many of us recognize.

For example, since 1966, Americans have had the legal right to remain silent. Of course, as the joke goes, what some people seem to lack is the capacity to be silent.  

An officer pulls a man over. His wife is in the car with him.

 "What's the problem, officer?"

 "You were going at least 75 in a 55 miles-per-hour zone."

 "No sir, I don't think I was going over 55."

 "Oh Harry," says the man's wife, "you were going 80."

 The man gives his wife a dirty look.

 The officer continues: "Sir, I'm also going to give you a ticket for your broken tail light."

 "I have a broken tail light? I didn't know that!"

 His wife says, "Oh Harry, you've known about that tail light for weeks!"

 (Another dirty look.)

 The officer says, "I'm also going to give you a citation for not wearing your seat belt."

 "But officer, I just took it off when you were walking up to the car!"

 The wife again: "Oh Harry, you never wear your seat belt."

 By now Harry has had enough: "Shut your mouth, woman!"

 The cop, to the wife: "Ma'am, does your husband always talk to you this way?"

 "No, officer. Only when he is drunk." 

I have been learning a little about our Miranda rights, given that its anniversary is upon us. Look up its basis in the fourth and fifth Amendments. If found that interesting. You might as well. The Supreme Court established these rights on June 13, 1966, when the Court ruled that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning them. It did so with a 5-4 vote. I wondered who this Miranda person was. It was rather sobering to see his picture. Arizona would re-try and convict Ernesto Miranda of kidnapping and rape. The state would release him. He made money photographing officers reading suspects their Miranda rights. Unfortunately, a few years later, he was in a bar fight and the other person killed him.  

Application

In any case, we Americans rightly have concern for our rights recognized in a courtroom.

When Paul used an image from the courtroom, “justified” would mean one is right with the law. He once believed the Law would accomplish rightness with God. However, he now had a revelation from God in Christ. It seemed to him that he needed to re-think what rightness with God would mean.  

He is using an image from the courtroom to subvert a legalistic notion of our becoming right with God. He linked such rightness with God with faith.  

"A person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ," (2:16).  

Imagine the strangeness of this statement. You are not right with the judge if you obey the law! It felt just as strange in the first century as a Jew. For the Jew, if you were not living in accord with Torah, you were a “sinner.” A Jew who did not abide by Torah was a “sinner.” Torah separated the Jew from “sin” and “sinners.” That was the problem Paul had with understanding Torah and sin in the way his Judaism had done. Paul would insist that all are sinners, and that therefore, all need faith in order to be right with God. You need to be in right personal relationship with the divine judge in order for the divine judge to treat you as justified or right with God.

First, we need to remember Sola fide

The slogan is that of Martin Luther in the 1500s, Latin for “faith alone.” Luther was a monk who strived to earn his salvation by good works. His starving of himself and even physically beating himself did not bring him closer to God. In divine timing, he came across a passage that would change his life forever: "The one who is righteous will live by faith" (Romans 1:17). This verse was a breakthrough for Luther.

Faith alone.

In a sense, God reads us our rights: "You have the right to be judged by what you say and do. Anything you say or do we may use against you when you face your final judgment. But if you need a Savior, one will be provided for you."

Now, that is good news. That is gospel.

Second, we need to remember Faith in, and faith of.

Here is the part that would not work in a courtroom. We are in the wrong because we have resisted what God wants. Yet, all we can do is to point to the faith of Jesus. Christ loved God and loved others fully, put God first in his life, and was obedient to the point of death on the cross. Christ was faithful to God in a way you and I could never be. Yes, the key to our being right with God is the faith of Jesus Christ. Yet, how do we receive this gift? All we can do is point to our personal faith-relationship or trust in Jesus. You see, we human beings consistently face our rebellion against God. We must face a harsh reality about us. We resist what God wants. Therefore, we need both the faith of Jesus Christ and faith in Jesus Christ in order to be in right relation to God.   

"we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by the faith of Christ" (v. 16, NRSV alternate translation).  

Paul is convinced that all of this comes to us as a gift. 

"I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (2:19-20).  

The beauty of the gospel Paul preaches is that Paul's old life is dead, and his faith in the Son of God defines his new life. The risen Christ now lives in and through him. What an amazing possibility for Paul, and therefore, for you and I, to have the risen and living Christ live today through us. Pause for a moment and reflect upon the possibility in your life.

In this life-long journey of life with Christ, the point is to let Christ live through us. How can this happen?

Walk in the word.

Jesus said,  

“Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” (John 15:3 KJV).  

The psalmist wrote:  

“How can young people keep their way pure? By guarding it according to your word” (119:9). And again, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (119:105).  

The faith of Christ and our faith in Christ are both gifts of God. They start and end in God. 

Conclusion

            Paul is going to make it clear that when we think of rightness with God in this way, far from leaving you imprisoned in sin, you will find freedom to live a new life in Christ. In other words, God loves you just the way you are, but refuses to leave you that way, as Max Lucado put it in his Just Like Jesus Devotional. He uses this illustration. When his daughter was a toddler, he used to take her to a park not far from their apartment. One day as she was playing in a sandbox, an ice-cream salesperson approached them. Max purchased her a treat, and when he turned to give it to her, he saw her mouth was full of sand. Where he intended to put a delicacy, she had put dirt. Did he love her with dirt in her mouth? Absolutely. Was she any less his daughter with dirt in her mouth? Of course not. Was he going to allow her to keep the dirt in her mouth? No way. He loved her right where she was, but he refused to leave her there. He carried her over to the water fountain and washed out her mouth. Why? Because he loved her.

“God does the same for us.” God holds us over the fountain. “Spit out the dirt, honey,” our Father urges. “I’ve got something better for you.” Therefore, God cleanses us of filth: immorality, dishonesty, prejudice, pride, slothfulness, divisive spirit, inappropriate anger, bitterness, envy, and greed. We do not enjoy the cleansing; sometimes we even opt for the dirt over the ice cream. “I can eat dirt if I want to!” we pout and proclaim.

Which is true — we can. However, if we do, the loss is ours. Remember the amazing possibility for you and I,

it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

 

Going deeper

            Galatians 2:15-21 is the conclusion of the autobiographical section that became a narrative defense of the gospel he preaches. The way to summarize his gospel is that both Jew and Gentile receive justification in the presence of God through faith. He has stood firm for the truth of the gospel, which this brief biography has shown. One way to read this section is as a continuation of the argument of Paul with Peter. Betz suggests that verse 14b-21, which he views a speech by Paul to Peter, is a summary of the letter. However, in the context of this letter, it reflects his concern with his opponents in Galatia. As part of this defense of the gospel, he relates the theological fall out created by the actions of Peter and the others in Antioch.  Despite their privileged position as Jews, Paul now declares that the Law does not offer justification.  Nothing human beings can do, not even obeying the Law, can create this rightness.  Paul is stating that it is impossible for him to turn back and accept again that it is possible for human beings to be justified by means of the Law. The surprise here is that Paul is using a legal term to subvert the importance of the Law and re-focus his readers on the centrality of Christ. True, he must make a forceful statement that his apostleship is equal to that of Peter, whereas his opponents at least suggest the apostleship of Peter is inferior. Nowhere here does Paul dismiss the Law as useless.  He only denies that it serves the purpose of making one righteous before God. True, God gave the people of God, Israel, a Law that, if followed, would bring righteousness. Given the revelation of God in Christ, however, Jew and Gentile alike the saving work of God in the death and resurrection of offers the sought-for rightness with God. 

            Maybe it would be helpful to summarize the argument thus far. A lengthy biographical monologue began in 1:11. In it, Paul recounts how God called him from his former life as a persecutor of the church to his new role as an apostle and evangelist within the church. Paul is especially interested in emphasizing the fact that his status as an apostle is derived directly from God and not from the Jerusalem apostles (see 1:1, 12-13). He relates that he did not go up to those apostles in Jerusalem upon receiving his call, but rather went to Arabia (1:17). He had a largely get acquainted meeting with Peter and James for 15 days. Fourteen years later, he went to Jerusalem for an official reason. When he arrived with Titus, some opponents wanted him circumcised. Paul rejects this, and so do the rest of the apostles. In fact, they extend to him the right hand of Christian fellowship. However, after this decision, it seems Peter was in Antioch. He and Paul, as Jews, had table fellowship with Gentiles. While Jewish Law forbade (and forbids) observant Jews to eat Gentile meat, no prohibition prevented shared meals, provided basic it observed Jewish Law of clean and unclean foods. Paul accuses Cephas of hypocrisy in his vacillation between strict separatism and a more accommodating stance toward Gentile table fellowship, depending on who (and especially whether "the circumcision faction," v. 12) was watching. Paul opposed Peter because in this case, Peter sought to please some people who came from James rather than God. Such separation at table fellowship was in accord with Jewish Law, but that Law was no longer in effect because of the gospel. In Paul’s absence from Galatia, a group of teachers had arrived and begun teaching that circumcision and other forms of Torah observance (in Paul’s shorthand, “the Law”) were necessary for the Christian life. They appealed to the authority of the original apostles in Jerusalem, most of whom who were with Peter and James. The whole of the letter to the Galatians is focused on this issue; Paul is intensely concerned that his flock return to the gospel that he had originally proclaimed to them, one that emphasized freedom from such strictures as circumcision (for references to freedom, see 2:4; 4:21-30; 5:1, 13). Thus, his argument is to defend his status as an apostle, nor for his personal elevation, but to stress the truth of the gospel he preached. In this text, he offers a concise statement of the gospel he preached.  

¹⁵ We ourselves [Paul and Peter may be the reference. Paul may still narrate his encounter with Peter. If so, the opening lines are part of a quotation Paul inserted into his letter to the Galatians, extending from 2:14-16. The quotation would then be part of Paul's response to Cephas (as Paul refers to Peter throughout this letter, e.g., 1:18, 2:9, 11) challenging the necessity or even suitability of observance of the Jewish Law as prerequisite to full participation in the emerging Christian community (2:11-13). If so, after having accused Peter of hypocrisy “before them all” (2:14), Paul reminds Peter that they share a common bond in their Jewish heritage, clearly an attempt to temper his harsh words.] are Jews by birth [In characteristic fashion (see also Romans 9:3; II Corinthians 11:22), Paul emphasizes his own Jewish identity in order to make the point that he came to acceptance of Jesus as the promised Christ/Messiah from within the Jewish tradition. Betz suggests that “Jews by birth” was a self-definition of Jewish Christians. This was how Paul began to distinguish early Christianity from Judaism.] and not Gentile sinners;, [a harsh and asymmetrical phrase found only here in the entire Bible. The obvious rhetorical balance for "Jews" would simply be "Gentiles" as Paul writes in the preceding verse. Jews by birth and Gentiles sinners shows the most basic insider/outsider distinction. It is unclear what point Paul is seeking to drive home by lumping all non-Jews into this category, especially since his audience in Galatia would have included a sizable number of people who would have been considered Gentiles by the Judaizing faction Paul is opposing. This term was how Paul began to distinguish between Jewish sinners and non-Jewish sinners. Paul’s conciliatory gesture to Peter is not a precursor to compromise, as the next verse will show. Indeed, Paul's journey to the cities of Galatia (e.g., Derbe, Lystra, Iconium) during his second missionary journey of ca 51 (Acts 16:6) introduced, probably for the first time, converts to Christianity directly from the Gentile population who had no background in the religion of biblical Israel.[1] It is possible that, to reverse its impact, Paul is ironically adopting language that the Judaizing party in the controversy may have used.

[We find in verse 16 one of the most succinct and dense statements about faith in Jesus Christ anywhere in the letters of Paul.] ¹⁶ yet we know that a person is justified [to be "justified" (or "reckoned as righteous") is a prominent theme in Galatians - more prominent, in fact, than in any other book in the New Testament except Romans (see, e.g., in addition to this verse, 2:17; 3:8, 11, 24; 5:4).] not by the works of the law [Paul draws on courtroom imagery to describe the status of the believer before God. Yet, he does so in a curious way. Here and in other places in his letters, Paul seems to envision God as a judge, while the believer is a defendant who stands accused of a crime (i.e., exhibiting sinful behavior, or in some cases simply possessing a sinful nature). The question, then, is the way in which the defendant can gain an acquittal (i.e., be “justified”). Paul here asserts that Torah observance (“works of the Law”) is not sufficient for such a verdict. The curious language here is that while he uses courtroom language, that would focus upon whether one has observed the Law or not, he is going to argue that the Law has nothing to do with righteousness before God.] but through faith in Jesus Christ [or the faith of Jesus Christ]. [The gospel, which Paul has received through revelation, means that the Law no longer has the power to make one righteous before God. The Law, a gift that separated Jew from Gentile, is not consistent with the gospel that unites Jew and Gentile through faith. As Barth puts it, God has awakened Paul to faith, to faith in this living One, to the faith of Christ Jesus and therefore to the knowledge of the justification of humanity, and therefore to a knowledge of the impossibility of a justification according to the works of the Law. In every instance in Galatians, Paul is contrasting the futile attempts of those who seek to be justified by works of the Law (or, more exactly in Paul's theology, those who seek to justify themselves through works of the Law), as opposed to being justified by God's graciousness through "faith in Jesus Christ."[2] Rather, justification is through the faith of Jesus Christ. Faith is the means of justification. Barth says the faith in which human beings experience justification is only through this work of Christ, and not in doing the works of Law. Why not? Not because faith as such is better than these works. In all Galatians, there is not a single word of praise for faith or even disparaging of works. Of the three factors, that of justification, faith, and Christ, the controlling factor is Christ. Christ is the one who has done this redeeming us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse in verse 3:13. By doing this, Christ has brought liberty. The point is not the weakness of the flesh that cannot do these works, but the perfection with which Christ has done them.[3] On this point, Barth says the Greek construction pisteoV iesou christou, allows the translations "faith in Jesus Christ" (an objective genitive ascribing saving efficacy to the believer's trust in the work of Christ) and "faith of Jesus Christ" (a subjective genitive denoting the saving faith displayed in Christ's obedient death on the cross). The context here would suggest the latter. Therefore, if we wish to avoid making Paul redundant, we should translate both phrases as follows: “but rather [a person is justified] through the faith of Christ Jesus, and we have believed in Christ Jesus.” The common New Testament expression "to believe in," followed by a proper name or a pronoun, is an abbreviated form of "to believe that," followed by a statement of the identity or saving work of God or Christ.[4] To return to the courtroom imagery, the faithfulness of Jesus (presumably in his death on the cross) is the basis of the judge’s (God’s) verdict of “not guilty” that is handed down to the defendant (believer). Such a notion would not work in the human court. In a human court, either you have observed the law or you have not observed it.] And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, [Yet, the faith Jesus exhibited does not negate the significance of the “faith” of the believer in Jesus. The second half of the verse is a basic restatement of what Paul has just said; justification is possible only through the faith of Christ and not through the Law.] so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law. [Echoes Psalm 143:2, although Paul sets the phrase in an entirely different context here.] 

¹⁷ But if, in our effort to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have been found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! [One way to define “sin” in the Old Testament is that of transgression, just as you would “transgress” a human law. Thus, we find here the argument of those who advocated that Gentiles must become Jews before they can become Christians. Betz says that the phrase “found to be sinners” means that the opponents of Paul were calling Gentile Christians “sinners” because they have not come under the grace of Torah. Paul’s argument was that God never called Gentiles to come under the specific grace of Torah. They had to come under the general grace of God. Therefore, the teaching of Paul does not lead to moral anarchy.]

¹⁸ But if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, [In fact, to rebuild the edifice of Torah would itself be sinful. For the apostle Paul, faith in Christ was a sinner's personal reaching out in love to embrace the good news of God's reconciliation of the world through Jesus' saving life and work. In so doing, a person is justified or reckoned as righteous by the God from whom all people, including Paul, are estranged naturally by sin. Paul would then transgress into his former state of captivity to the Law from which the faith of and in Christ has delivered him. In this context, Paul's faith in Christ is his renunciation of the world, including its established moral precepts.] then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor.

 ¹⁹ For through the law I died [when by faith he united himself to Christ and therefore to his death] to the law, [Paul’s statement, though puzzling, seems to assume that the very seeds of the gospel are contained in the Law itself; this fact leads Paul to the this paradoxical claim (Romans 6:10). The phrase could have two meanings. In either case, it seems like Paul links this phrase to the death of Christ, by interpreting it as referring to the fact that the believer participates in the death of Christ, is preferable.] so that I might live to God. [First, it could mean that Christians are dead with Christ and thus to Mosaic Law, and so already share the life of the risen Christ. Second, it could mean that Christians are dead to the Law in order to obey a higher law of faith and the Spirit.  This means that the Jewish people in particular need to die to the Law in order to receive the freedom that God offers in Christ. A change of lordship has occurred, and one cannot be under Law and under Christ. To dramatize the difference, 4 Maccabees 16:24-25 contains an incident in which a mother persuaded and encouraged her sons to die rather than violate the commandment of God. The promise was that those who die for the sake of God live to God.] I have been crucified with Christ; [So complete is the break between his former life under the Law and his current life under faith that he is able to claim he has crucified that former life. Paul expresses his renunciation of the world in a graphic way in an expression he uses here and in Romans 6:6 to describe the utterly profound nature of his conversion in baptism. The image of Christian conversion as a dying (and rising) with Christ is used in a hymnic fragment in II Timothy 2:11, indicating that the metaphor was in widespread use among early Christians to convey the radical disjunction between the old life (as Law-constrained Jew or superstitious Gentile) and the new life in Christ. Near the end of Paul's impassioned epistle to the Galatians, the apostle returns to this image to summarize the shattering experiences separating his former and current selves: "[T]he world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (6:14). For Barth, Paul has died to the Law, which amounts to making the error of a justification of humanity by the fulfillment of another law than this, in order that he may now live for God. In the crucifixion of Jesus, he himself experiences crucifixion and therefore destroyed and done away, the man who willed to justify himself in this impossible way. It has become impossible for him to try to go further along this impossible way. Now, we might ask, in what sense can we die to the law through the law?  First, its character was immediately present.  Second, it reveals sin.  The Law provides no remedy.  Paul finds a valid use for the Law in v. 19, but hardly one his opponents would expect.  If it was shocking for Paul's listeners to hear him declare that he had died to the Law, it was even more startling to hear him claim he had also died with Christ.  Under the Law, a right relationship with God was dependent upon how obediently Paul followed the works of the Law.  Paul specifies two unmerited, unexpected acts of God's Son that makes commitment to Christ, not to the Law, so easy.  Because Christ loves me and gave himself for me, Paul will not nullify the grace of God.[5]] ²⁰ and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. [Paul now focuses on the one whose “faithfulness” is so effective for the believer that his life animates the life of the believer. The focus shifts from the courtroom, where we find no remedy to the human problem of sin, to the sacrificial love of God shown to us in Christ and which we receive by faith. Since Paul continues to live as an apostle, crucifixion did just mean death. It meant opening up the possibility of resurrection to a new life. By faith, Christ becomes the subject of all the living acts of a Christian.  Though Christians are still living in the flesh, they already have the Spirit. In the previous verse, death was release from past obligations.  In the present verse, it is annihilation of old sins.  Crucifying and rising are tied together.  The "now" is his new life in Christ.  Paul applies God's love for the world personally here.  For Barth, the life of Jesus Christ has become his. His life in the flesh has become an opportunity for faith in Christ, the Son of God, who loved me and has given himself for me. The bridge behind him has been broken. The boats on which he might have set out on the way back have been burned. He has no basis for any other life. Any such life that seeks justification by the Law would only mean that he rejects the grace of God, that he thinks Christ might have died in vain, that he transgresses the true law under which he stands. He cannot do this. He is prevented by the revelation he has received. It only remains to live in faith in Christ.[6] Barth also says that the fact that life in the faith of the Son of God has its basis in the fact that He has first believed for me, and believed in a way that all that remains for me to do is to let my eyes rest on Him and to follow Him. Following Him is my faith. He has already done the great work of faith.[7] Barth also says that this statement is typical, in that they are the necessary self-declaration of all Christians. To be a Christian is by definition to be in Christ. The place of the community is indicated by this expression. The fact that they are in Christ is the basis of all the instruction Paul gives his churches. They live in the world, but Christ gave Himself for them.[8] Barth also notes that what Paul stresses in such language is that being a Christian relentlessly brings us back to this specific place, characterized by the cross. The cross involves hardship, anguish, grief, pain, and finally death. Those who are set in this movement willingly undertake to bear this because it is essential to this movement that it should finally in this way. We are outside the movement if we will not take up and bear our cross. The special fellowship that Christians have with Christ involves the cross. Christians arise as witnesses to what is hidden for every human being.[9] Barth also says that just as Judas delivered up Jesus, so also here, God has delivered Jesus, and also, Christ has delivered Himself.[10] Barth also says that Jesus Christ will not be an obscure point of contact to the believer. Anthropology and ontology, for Barth, take their norm in Christ. For him, pietism represents a subjectivist philosophy that his theology can correct. He grants that Christianity is an I-faith, taking place within the context of the demythologizing of the I represented in this passage.[11] Pannenberg stresses that one event has two different subjects in the love of the Father, from which nothing will separate us in Romans 8:39, and in the love of Christ here. Their fellowship finds expression in the unity of the event. What he finds striking is that Christ is not subsumed within God, but is named along with God, who works through Christ as the subject of this act of love. The whole sending of the Son by the Father aims at the vicarious expiatory death on the cross. We can only infer in this passage that giving himself “for me” is also “for sin” in this passage. If a correct inference, it suggests a form of expiation as an understanding of the cross. Yet, for Pannenberg, the notion of the Son involved in this loving giving up to death  introduces another complexity. Significantly, when we reflect upon the action of Father and Son in the cross, Paul sees the love of God in Romans 5:8 and the love of Christ in this verse, who also gave himself up for us. In essence, in the cross we have one event, in which the Father and the Son cooperate so fully that the work is that of God and that of Christ. This orientation of the obedience and suffering of the Son toward the salvation of many is also the will and work of the Father here.[12]

²¹ I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. [Paul ends his speech to Peter with a straightforward summary of what is at stake.]           

Now while Paul originally addressed his words to Peter, it is clear that in the letter that he now directs his words at the teachers who have been attempting to sway the Galatians. Just as Peter had compromised the gospel by shunning the Gentiles in Antioch in deference to Jewish table regulations, so, too, were the teachers threatening to undermine the gospel in their insistence on circumcision and other Law observances. The letter to the Galatians is thus a vigorous and sustained polemic against what Paul perceived to be serious obstacles to the gospel that he had received from the Lord and handed on to the Galatians.

            Tolmie summarizes the rhetorical strategy of this passage in the following way. Paul recounts his version of the incident at Antioch in order to show how he stood firmly for the "truth of the gospel." The concept "truth of the gospel" is the focal point. He uses (his version of) the events in Antioch as proof that at that time he already fought for the truth of the gospel against attempts to falsify the gospel – the same truth that is under attack in Galatia at this stage, thus implying that he is still fighting for the truth of the gospel. He breaks down the rhetorical strategy into four aspects. First, Paul does not mention that he suffered a defeat in Antioch. Second, he portrays his own behavior in Antioch as a defense of the truth of the gospel, and so, again, he uses biography as proof. Third, he creates the impression that his gospel is in accord with Christian tradition and Scripture, using both as supporting his objective. Fourth, he places the events in Antioch into an obvious application for the crisis in Galatia. He achieves this by gradually shifting the focus from what happened in Antioch to the situation in Galatia. In this process, he also highlights several key notions that form part of the "truth of the gospel" – notions that were important in Antioch, but more importantly, are crucial for the problems in Galatia.

He enhances this dominant rhetorical strategy by means of several supportive techniques, namely the vilification of his opponents; repetition (including chiasm); two rhetorical questions; refutation of criticism, and the effective use of metaphorical language.

Paul concludes this portion of his argument by casting in absolute terms the contrast between justification through faith and justification through works: If the Law justifies, then God's grace has been nullified and "Christ died for nothing" (v. 21). The center of Paul's theology of salvation by grace is the sacrificial death of Jesus as an expression of God's gracious will. It is in acknowledging that act and allowing its resultant sanctifying grace to transform his life that Paul is able to say, as the ultimate affirmation of the new life in Christ, and without hyperbole, "[I]t is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me" (v. 20).           

            Justification through faith in Christ and not through works of the Law is, of course, a fundamental and recurrent theme through all of Paul's writings (see, for example, his discussions of and variations on this theme in Romans 3:9-20, 6:1-14, 8:9-17, 11:1-16; II Corinthians 5:14-21; Ephesians 2:1-10; Philippians 3:2-11.) It is not an exaggeration to say that justification through faith is the center of Pauline theology, and increasingly became so as Paul sought to spread the message of the gospel to an ever wider and more influential audience. His problem with the righteousness of the Law, as Barth puts it, is that it conflicts with the righteousness of God and therefore becomes unrighteous. This is most evident in his letter to the church at Rome, canonically the first but chronologically the last of Paul's genuine letters (written ca. 56-57), and the letter where the theme of justification through faith finds its fullest and most mature expression (see the references above). The letters to the Romans and to the Galatians share a number of characteristics, such as justification through faith, a prominent role for Abraham, and heavy reliance on Scripture. Yet, the contexts in which they develop those ideas were quite divergent, and Paul forged this text in the midst of internal Christian controversy and not an unfettered introduction of the Christian message to strangers.[13]           

            Justification has an important place in theology. One obvious example is Luther. He stresses that with Paul “we” absolutely deny the possibility of self-merit. God has never given to anyone grace and eternal life as a reward for merit. For him, then, the true way of salvation has its summary in two points. First, people need to realize that they are sinners, unable to do any good thing. People who seek to earn grace by their own efforts sins. The first step, then, is to repent. The second is that God has sent the Son for remission of sins, righteousness, and eternal life. God is the one who hands out such gifts. He explains the scholastic view of the way of salvation in the following way. When a person happens to perform a good deed, God accepts it and as a reward for the good deed, God pours charity into that person. Thus, God “infuses” charity into them. It remains in the heart. As he understands it, they claim that we are able to love God “by our own natural strength.” As he sees it, this means that we “deserve” grace. Yet, since no one can satisfy God with a literal performance of the Law, we still need a “formal righteousness.” For him, in order to have faith one must paint a true portrait of Christ. As he views it, the scholastics caricature Christ into a judge and tormentor. For him, Christ is no lawgiver. He is the Lifegiver. He is the Forgiver of sins. You must believe that Christ might have atoned for the sins of the world with one single drop of His blood. Instead, He shed His blood abundantly in order that He might give abundant satisfaction for our sins. For Luther, we are so sinful that we needed “imputed righteousness” from Christ to cover our sinfulness.

 

---

[1] (see John Dow, "Galatians," The Abingdon Bible Commentary [New York: Abingdon Press, 1929], 1207)

[2] (Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.4], 638, 639).

[3] (Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.4], 639).

[4] (see Rudolph Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 1 [New York: Scribners, 1951], 89-90).

[5] (Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.5] 638).

[6] (Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.4] 638).

[7] (II.2 [37.1], 559).

[8] (IV.2, 277).

[9] (IV.2 [66.6] 600 ff).

[10] (II.2 [35.4] 488-489).

[11] (IV.1 [63.1] 757).

[12] (Systematic Theology, Vol I, 423, Vol II., 305, 438-9).

[13] (IV.1 [61.2] 531),

Galatians 1:11-24

Galatians 1:11-24

¹¹ For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; ¹² for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. ¹³ You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. ¹⁴ I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. ¹⁵ But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased ¹⁶ to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, ¹⁷ nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. ¹⁸ Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; ¹⁹ but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother. ²⁰ In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! ²¹ Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, ²² and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; ²³ they only heard it said, "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy." ²⁴ And they glorified God because of me. 

Year C

June 5-11

Title: Disciples and a Life Worth Living

June 5, 2016

Introduction

My oldest son told me of a class he decided to take at IU. It had nothing to do with his major. He had simply heard it was an awesome class. “History of the Beatles” was the class. When he first told me, it sounded like a class people would take to get an easy grade. He did get an A. I recall discussions with him that would begin, “Did you know …” He would share something going on in the 1960s that was interesting to him in the area of rock and roll. Sometimes, it would be something I did not know. However, I liked the Beatles – a lot. Usually, I said something like, “Well, Michael, I did live it.” It can be rather humbling when your children are studying as history something through which you lived, but that is another story.

When I attended Asbury Seminary, one professor in the department on preaching would have classes such as “cinema and preaching.” You knew it would be some good theology, some good fun, and a difficult grade. Few people figured out how he graded.

Rutgers has a class on “Politicizing Beyoncé.” Skidmore College has a course on the Sociology of Miley Cyrus. You might like a course in the art of walking or the physics of Stark Trek. Time magazine called them bizarre classes. You can have classes on piercing and tattooing as well. They might be just fine classes. Everything depends on the teacher in such classes.

            Then there is the class offered by Yale, and another one offered by Yale Divinity School. They are called, respectively, "Life Worth Living" and "Christ and the Good Life." Christians have long pondered such things. Other religious and philosophical traditions do as well, but such questions have long been part of our heritage. John Wesley would give a long list of good things a person might do, but then end with, “Are you happy?”

What makes your life worth living? Why does “it” make your life worth living? How is your life different because of this belief? 

Application

Grace had turned around the life of Paul, so much so that he had crucified with Christ his former life. His encounter with Christ changed his life in a dramatic way. His former life was zealous for the Law. His former life persecuted the church as a threat to the Law. He crucified that life with Christ, so that he can live by faith, alive to God, and enjoy a radically transformed life. He now “gets” what God is doing in the world. It was not about devotion to a Law that separated the world into Jew and Gentile, but rather, it was about God bringing people together, reconciling them to God and to each other.

Thankfully, many of us have not led lives that required such a dramatic turn around. However, people still need to see the grace of God shine through you. If you have an encounter with Christ, Christ will show you the worth and meaning of your life.  

First, should we think about our life's purpose?

Frankly, not everyone does. Some of us are just not in tune with such philosophical questions. We are happy just to take life as it comes. Others are so busy with family, work and other activities that those things supply more meaning than they know what to do with! In fact, the question of meaning seldom or never arises.

Nevertheless, for some people, I include myself in this, the matter of what gives life meaning and makes it worth living is a reoccurring and nagging query. It is not something we can just Google, as we do with all the other questions we have. These people agree with the popular sentiment, wrongly attributed to Mark Twain, "The two most important days in your life are the day you are born, and the day you find out why."

I am not suggesting that we obsess with this question. If we dwell on it too long, it may make us unable to enjoy the life we have. However, I am suggesting that such a question is worth pondering at various stages in our lives.

Second, why are you here?

One psychologist refers to the mania for meaning that some people possess.

We do not know that such a mania ever seized Paul. Paul had found a life worth living in hearing and responding to the call of God.

Consider Dr. Albert Sabin, the creator of the Sabin polio vaccine. One of the remarkable things about Sabin is that he never patented his vaccine. Sabin said, "My greatest satisfaction is to relieve the misery which is part of human life. If each one can do his part, civilization should be better." Now, what do you think Dr. Sabin would have said if asked if his life had any meaning?

Your life is worth living.

Third, to believe in Christ is to believe in the possibility of God calling you.

Paul, in telling his story, in giving his testimony, is saying, "My life as it has developed after encountering Christ is a testimony to my character and the believability of the gospel as I have presented it." Briefly: "Christ gives my life purpose, worth, meaning, and value."

Annual Conference is the time when United Methodist bishops ordain those called by God and have the community confirm that calling through the ordination by the Bishop.

In spite of all that Paul had done with his life up to his conversion and calling, God called him. If you were an umpire, you might have said, “Strike Three” several times to Paul. Yet, God did not call Paul out. God decided to use the apostle Paul to present the risen Christ to the world.

Think of Christian life as a life of presenting Christ to the world. In fact, think of your primary vocation and calling in life as being and becoming a Christian. Within that life of carrying Jesus to others, we find tremendous freedom. Your vocation may mean telling a friend where you find Jesus at work, leading a praise song, working in a community shelter, working with children and youth, a short-term mission trip, bringing a friend to worship, or welcoming a new family to the congregation. The list goes on and on, because there are countless ways to carry Jesus to others.

It pleases the Father to reveal the Son in you, so now you can live free — and present Jesus to others in a wide, wild and wonderful variety of ways!

As we know, Paul's life after meeting Christ got a lot harder (if you have any doubt about that, see II Corinthians 11:24-33), but the meaning he found in serving Christ enabled him to face those troubles. We need to hear that, too. When life is tough, God has a meaning for our lives. We need to trust that. Whether we can see the way ahead or not, it is there.  

Conclusion

Remember what Jesus said concerning anxiety about life:  

"But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things [what you need for life] will be given to you as well" (Matthew 6:33). 

            Maybe we should seek our place in God's kingdom. We should go on loving God, following Jesus and loving our neighbor, and, in so doing, we are living a meaningful life even though we may not be feeling it.

            We can hold onto that even when we are in deep emotional pain. Every life -- every life -- has meaning, and it lies with God. We should trust God, and go on living each precious moment God gives us.  

Going deeper

Paul must partially defend his calling and apostleship. However, his primary concern in this passage is defending the gospel. Christ is the foundation and content of the gospel. This gospel is from God, and therefore true. This does not seek human approval or even seek to please people. It seeks faithfulness to the revelation from God. He substantiates the claim here by pointing to events in his life. It took a revelation from God to convince him of the truth of salvation by grace and through faith. Of course, the accounts offered by Luke in Acts 9, 22, and 26 vary, stressing the involvement of Ananias here. He will recount some incidents that demonstrate the decisive role the gospel has played in his life. Thus, he will recount his life in Judaism as a persecutor of the church and zealous for the Law as proof that only divine intervention could have changed him. The course he had chosen Judaism was not the course God had chosen. God had another idea for the story of his life. We call this his conversion or his calling. Like the prophet Jeremiah, God set him apart from the womb. This one zealous for the Law, which separated Jews from Gentiles, now becomes an apostle to the Gentiles. His primary mission in life is to be and become Christian. In his case, this will mean proclaim Christ among the Gentiles. I suspect this is why the Galatians so disappointed him. They have deserted the gospel, which had effected such a change in him. Paul will stress that he went to Damascus for three years. II Corinthians 11:32-33 tells us that sought to arrest him, but friends helped him escape. He stayed briefly with Peter and James the brother of the Lord.

The theme of Galatians 1:11-24 describes the authentic gospel that Paul proclaimed, which stands in contrast to “a different gospel” [eteron euaggelion]” to which the churches in Galatia were “turning.” In the context of 1:11-2:21, it constitutes his first defense of his apostleship and gospel, referring to the divine source of the gospel and the confirmation he received from the leaders of the church in Jerusalem.

Paul’s anxiety is obvious, for he is “astonished” by the speed at which they were deserting his gospel and opting for a perverted gospel. Perhaps even more shocking is that they were turning to an inauthentic gospel and aligning themselves with orators who sought “human approval” and desired “to please people” (cf. Galatians 1:6-10). Tolmie says this is phase three of the argument, recounting events from his life in order to prove the divine origin of his gospel. Betz classifies Galatians 1:12-2:14 as narratio, since, in his opinion, it corresponds to Cicero's definition of a narratio in De inv. 1.19, namely a narrative that functions as an exposition of events, which have occurred or are supposed to have occurred. Furthermore, Betz indicates that Galatians 1:12-2:14 can be classified as the first of three types of narratio distinguished by Cicero, namely one that contains an exposition of a case of law. Significantly, Betz states explicitly that exordium and narritio are only preparatory steps leading to the probatio that begins in Galatians 3:1. If one is to go with Betz here, one will have to accept the diminished role of 1:6-10 and 1:11-2:14. Yet, I think an open reading of the letter will not allow us to move down this path with him. Kennedy argues that Betz is wrong here because the passage does not offer an account of the facts at issue. He argues that the point is to contribute to their understanding of the speaker, which would match his view of Galatians as deliberative rhetoric. The point is that the passage confirms the authority of Paul, not present the case. If Paul were making a forensic appeal, one would expect a description of how the missionary opponents came into being and of their history of troublemaking in Galatia. Tolmie points out that if this were narration, this section would be merely preparatory for the real argument, which then diminishes the passage. In addition, it would be strange, if Paul were as acquainted with ancient rhetoric as much as Betz thinks, that Paul uses narration only here in his extant letters. The point Paul is making in this section is that the gospel is of divine origin. What Paul means is that here is a decisive eschatological revelation that made Jesus Christ the foundation and content of his gospel. His rhetorical argument, then, is the notion of divine authorization. He received his gospel from God, and therefore it is true. The occurrence of “gospel” seven times in verses 6-12 demonstrates that it, and not his apostleship, is at issue. People frequently use and abuse such arguments. He will need to substantiate his claim, which he does by recounting events from his life. He uses biography as proof. He uses hyperbole in this approach, exaggerating his activities against the church in order to make his case. His point is to show that his calling by God was a dramatic transformation. He stresses revelation. He uses language consistent with the prophetic tradition. In making such an argument, he is “legitimizing” his gospel. Jerusalem, in this case, plays a different role for him than it apparently did for his opponents. For his opponents, Jerusalem held the basis for their authority. For Paul, Jerusalem represented human origins, but that clearly, a divine origin takes priority. He emphasizes the long period between his call and his first visit to Jerusalem. When he finally went to Jerusalem, his purpose was to acquaint himself with them, not to receive their sanction. His fifteen-day stay in Jerusalem, while significant, has its contrast with the three years in Arabia. The positive reception of his calling and missionary activity says that they acknowledged what God was doing, and was not authorization for him, which given the rhetorical setting would be disastrous. If the churches later change their mind, it does not change the divine origin they recognized at first.

These are the primary points that Paul considers and examines in 1:11-24. The gospel Paul preaches is from God. Consequently, after briefly rehearsing his concerns in 1:6-10, he begins to elaborate on a crucial focus of his letter to the Galatians. He defends himself and his message. Stated succinctly, Paul develops the themes he introduces in the letter’s opening.

In verses 11-12, Paul begins with a claim of divine authorization of his gospel (Tolmie).

¹¹ For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin [kata anqrwpon]; ¹² for I did not receive it from a human source [para anqrwpou], nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. First, some think that the criticism of Paul contained in these two verses shape the structure of the letter, but in reverse order. Thus, in 1:13-2:21, Paul shows that his gospel does not have a human source, and in 3:1-6:10 it is not of human origin. Paul thus makes it clear that the gospel is not a philosophy of human origins, but is rooted in “a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Second, Pannenberg says that this use of revelation clearly refers to experiences of revelation, in contrast to the apocalyptic notion of revelation he find in verse 16. He becomes aware of the centrality of salvation by grace and through faith, although he will spend time in the church reflecting upon the theological implication of this truth. It took a revelation from God to convince him of its truth.[1]  Third, one can compare this account with what Luke says in Acts 9, 22, and 26, where Luke shows the intertwining of divine and human (Ananias) agency in the conversion of Paul. Barth stresses that Paul has received instruction from this revelation alone.[2] Fourth, Martin Luther notes how easily one can depart from the teaching of justification by faith. He knows how quickly a person can forfeit the joy of the Gospel. He knows in what slippery places even those who seem to have a good footing in the matters of faith. In the midst of the conflict, when we should be consoling ourselves with the Gospel, the Law rears up and begins to rage all over our conscience. For him, the Gospel is frail because we are frail. What makes matters worse, he says, is that one-half of ourselves, our own reason, stands against us. Thus, we have something within us that wants to depart from the notion of justification by faith. He then urges that every believer carefully learn the Gospel. Let believers continue in humble prayer, for they are molested not by puny foes, but by mighty ones, foes who never grow tired of warring against us. These, our enemies, are many: Our own flesh, the world, the Law, sin, death, the wrath and judgment of God, and the devil himself. He goes on to refer to a conversation he had with Doctor Staupitz when he first began preaching justification by faith. “I like it well, that the doctrine which you proclaim gives glory to God alone and none to man. For never can too much glory, goodness, and mercy be ascribed unto God.” For Luther, such words comforted and confirmed him The Gospel is true because it deprives human beings of all glory, wisdom, and righteousness and turns over all honor to the Creator alone. For Luther, it is safer to attribute too much glory to God than unto humanity. The problem with such sentiments, however, is that it runs the risk of denigrating the world God has made, and in particular, the creatures made in the image of God. Further, we also learn from John 3:16 that God loves this world. Of course, we need to offer due honor to God, but we do not honor God by not also honoring the world God has made.

Tolmie says that in the rest of this segment Paul will now substantiate the claim just made by recounting events from his life that serve as proof  that he received his gospel from God. He will use biography as proof. These events focus in one way or another on the decisive role God played in the life of Paul.

In verses 13-14, Tolmie says it seems as if Paul recounts his former life in Judaism in such a way that he can convey the notion that someone only divine intervention could have changed some as fanatic as he was. Two supportive techniques used by him in this section were also identified, namely reminding them of something they already know and hyperbole.

¹³ You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy [eporqoun] it. [See Acts 9:1-2, 13-14, 26; 22:4-5, 19-20; 26:9-11. Without revelatory intervention, Paul would not have become a Christian because he was possessed with such extreme religious fanaticism. In Philippians 3:6, Paul also says he was a persecutor of the church and a Pharisee seeking righteousness by the Law.] ¹⁴ I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. [There is no doubt about Paul’s fervor. Paul seems to have been an extreme party member of the Pharisees.  Martin Hengel argued that the term “zeal” had assumed in the Second Temple Judaism a specific meaning related to the preservation of Jewish religious and ethnic purity by whatever means necessary, including violence.[3] An Old Testament example is Phineas in Numbers 25:6-18, a story celebrated in Sirach 45:23-24, I Maccabees 2:54, and 4 Maccabees 18:12. Paul may be linking himself with such “zeal” against those whom he considered enemies of the Law. Of course, in the history of religion, such zeal is not distinctive of any one religion, witness what has occurred within the Christian tradition, Islam, Hinduism, and even Buddhism. In this case, the traditions would not include Mosaic laws, but the oral tradition of the rabbis.  Martin Luther compares the statement of Paul regarding his Jewish tradition to his own early situation with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church of his time, which his life in the cloister called him to depart from Christ. Barth  points out that verses 13-14 suggest an answer to what Paul has “crucified,” what he has given up, in order to follow Christ. He recalls the past in all its splendor, his life among the Jews, his persecution of the church, his existence as one known to be zealous for the traditions of the Jewish faith. He was at home in this world. It was his own. Only Jesus Christ, the One whom he persecuted, could have uprooted him from it.[4]]

In verses 15-17, Tolmie says Paul recounts his call on the road to Damascus in such a way that it substantiates his claim in verses 11-12 in two ways: first, the notion that God called him dominates the account, and secondly, he claims that he did not consult "flesh and blood" after it happened. Several supportive rhetorical techniques were identified, namely the fact that he employs words from the prophetic tradition to describe what happened to him, the use of hypotactic sentence structure, and antithetic presentation.

¹⁵ But when God, who had set me apart [not for his temporal advantage, but was for him to serve the Gospel. Jeremiah 1:5 also suggests a similar setting apart. Isaiah 49:1-6 says the servant of the Lord was set apart in the womb.] before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased ¹⁶ to reveal [apokaluyai] his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, [First, note that the story of Paul’s life was not his own. Rather, God was writing his story. Paul had no choice but to obey “the heavenly vision” (vv. 15a, 16a; cf. Acts 26:19). This vision set him on an entirely different trajectory. God did not allow him to continue his hostile pursuit of Christians. Second, we need to look at the nature of the vocation or calling of Paul. Barth says that verses 15-16 recount what Paul had been until his conversion. He was one set apart and called by the grace of God from the womb of his mother, like Jeremiah. What does he become now? He becomes a Christian, of course, among other things. In particular, it has become his duty to proclaim Christ among the Gentiles. Therefore, he does not exist except in his function the life of the church. On this same assumption, he now addresses his congregation. By this grace, God forgave Paul’s sins against the church and set him “free from the present evil age” so that he might “proclaim him [i.e., the Son] among the Gentiles” (vv. 4, 16). In this, both Paul and the believers in Galatia received the authentic gospel by grace. Given his own transformation by means of his encounter with God’s gospel, it is no wonder that Paul expressed such utter shock that they were deserting his gospel (cf. 1:3-4, 6).[5] Barth stresses that the event of his calling, from which he cannot separate himself, it pleased God to reveal the Son in him, and to make him a witness of this living One in whose self-sacrifice people are liberated from their sins and therefore redeemed.[6] Later, Barth will stress that the focus is on what God has revealed, regardless of what one might also say of the human decision to respond.[7] Third, we need to consider the importance of this account of the appearance of the risen Lord to Paul. For Pannenberg this account becomes pivotal, for not only do the other apostles accept sufficient agreement between experience and their own in 2:9, but it also suggests that their experience was closer to that of Paul than the form of the narration in the Gospel accounts. What is persuasive on this point for him is that Galatians is a far earlier account (around 50 AD) than are the narratives of the appearances in the Gospels (around 80-100 AD). Thus, the appearances were “from heaven.”[8] He stresses that the apostolic proclamation does not have a constitutive function for the “Christ event.” The Easter message follows the Easter event, it does not constitute it. In fact, the event constitutes the message.[9] Fourth, to return to the theme of this passage, as Tolmie puts it, in the case of Galatians 1:1-5, he claimed divine authorization for his apostleship, but in Galatians 1:11-12 he links divine authorization primarily to his gospel.

I did not confer with any human being, [prosaneqemhn sarki kai aimati ] [See Acts 9:23, 26; 22:17; 26:20] ¹⁷ nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, [Paul did not even draw the gospel from other apostles. He could not, because to do so would potentially undermine the legitimacy of the revelation he had received. Moreover, if he had conferred with human authorities, he would be guilty of “seeking human approval” and attempting “to please people,” a charge that he had previously laid against those who were perverting the gospel (v. 10).

but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. [Instead, Paul went to Arabia and Damascus, a point he expands upon in II Corinthians. 

            II Corinthians 11:32-33

In Damascus, the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands. 

In verses 18-20, Tolmie says Paul recounts his first visit to Jerusalem in such a way that it cannot weaken the notion of the divine origin of his gospel in any way. He emphasizes the long period between his call and the visit; he describes the purpose of his visit as merely to be acquainted; he mentions the relatively short duration of the visit; he denies meeting any other bearer of the tradition except James, and he emphasizes the trustworthiness of his account by means of an oath.

¹⁸ Then after three years [The mention of three years in Damascus would be since his conversion. To F. F. Bruce, this would be similar to the wilderness period of Moses, although it appears that here is where Paul went to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. John Chrysostom thought so as well, as Paul is a man of fervent spirit, ready to preach to barbarians. He notes that Paul does not boast of his success.] I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; ¹⁹ but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother. [It at least appears the reason was acquaintance, a relatively innocent meeting. Chrysostom thinks this to be the case, and many modern commentators agree. Since people widely knew of the former reputation of Paul as a zealous Pharisee, it is likely that his travels as a Christian missionary were known as well. Consequently, he felt compelled to mention his subsequent journeys to Jerusalem lest anyone mistakenly conclude that he had later sought human approval. At the same time, we might suggest that had there been a significant perception among the other apostles that the experience of Paul was substantially different, they might have objected. Paul often shows his fidelity to the church in Jerusalem. He maintained the bonds of fellowship with that church, even with its more Jewish flavor.] ²⁰ In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! [Paul’s testimony is so passionate, he even takes an oath.]

In verses 21-24, Tolmie Paul recounts his missionary work in such a way that he conveys two notions to the audience, namely that he had no contact with Jerusalem during this time, and that the churches in Judea reacted by acknowledging that God was behind his work. The churches in Israel would not know Paul because his fifteen days there were private. Tolmie also highlights Paul's skillful choice of certain words (diwvkwn, ejpovrqei and pivsti).

²¹ Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, ²² and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; [Finally, and in order to further confirm his self-defense — that is, that he had never sought human approval nor to please men — Paul refers to his travels into Syria and Cilicia.] ²³ they only heard it said, "The one who formerly was persecuting us [o diwkwn hmaV pote] is now proclaiming the faith [Scholars will note how early Christians made synonymous “the faith” and “the gospel.”] he once tried to destroy [eporqei]." ²⁴ And they glorified God because of me. [Why? For only by the grace of God, a gospel divine in origin, could such a transformation come to a violent persecutor of God’s church. We also must not miss the point that Paul was actively preaching the gospel without human authorization.]

            In order to complete the biography or testimony of Paul at this point, we would need to read the first part of Chapter 2. He tells us that 14 years later he went back to Jerusalem. This would be around 50 AD.  The result is that the apostles offer him the right hand of Christian fellowship, accepting him as an equal in apostolic ministry. They acknowledge that their primary ministry remains among the Jews, while the primary ministry of Paul is among the Gentiles. Paul will always have deep affection for the church in Jerusalem. Paul has told us that God chose him by grace. In this visit, Paul says the other apostles saw the grace God had given him.

 

 

 

---

[1] (Systematic Theology, Vol I, 209).

[2] (Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.4], 637).

[3] (The Zealots, 1961).

[4] (Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.4] 638).

[5] (Church Dogmatics, I.2 [16.1] 212).

[6] (Church Dogmatics, IV.1 [61.4] 637).

[7] (IV.4, p. 34).

[8] (Systematic Theology, Vol. II, 354-55).

[9] (ibid., p. 288).