Galatians 1 (reread)

Background of the book

The Galatians

In Acts 13-14, Paul is in an area of central Asia minor (modern-day Turkey) known as "Galatia".  The cities he visits include Pisidian Antioch (13:13-52), Iconium (14:1-6), Lystra (14:7-20), and Derbe (14:20-25).

An interesting event occurs in Lystra, as recounted in Acts 14:19-20.  There, Jews came from Antioch and Iconium and lead the crowd in a stoning of Paul.  They dragged him out of the city, believing he was dead.  The disciples gather around his apparently life-less body.  But Paul stands up and goes back into the city.  

Shortly thereafter, the text of Acts shifts from Galatia to events back in Jerusalem.  An issue has arisen among the church about whether one should observe the Mosaic code and be circumcised.  Paul and Barnabus leave Galatia and head to Jerusalem.

Dating the Epistle

I believe the consensus is that it was at this time that Paul wrote the epistle.  In other words, he is en route to Jerusalem when he writes this.  Paul had just left the Galatians, so he knows what is going on.  Likewise, the issues in the Counsel of Jerusalem are similar issues addressed in the Epistle to the Galatians.

That said, the tone of the epistle strikes me as one of distance.  It does not come across like he recently visited Galatia, but rather, he left and he heard through the grapevine of problems they had.  

Paul declares he is "astonished" by how "so quickly" they changed their heart (1:6).  This could be an indication that it truly was fast (a matter of weeks or months) or metaphorically venting his frustration.

Galatians 1

Jesus raised him from the dead (1:1)

I think it interesting that this Epistle was intended to be read by people who may have seen Paul stand up after being stoned.  Paul may have actually been raised to life in the account of Acts.

Paul's defense of his apostleship

Paul discusses at length in the first two chapters about his history as an Apostle.  He does not directly call out opposition to his authority, but it seems he is trying to remind his audience of the source of both (1) his authority and (2) the message he brings.

He is angry at the perversion of the Gospel, which is 'no Gospel at all.'  We will see at length what this is in the later chapters.  But first, Paul reminds the reader about his calling as an Apostle.

He was called by God to be an Apostle before he was born.  This reminds me of Jeremiah's call as prophet (Jer. 1:5) or a similar pre-birth prediction about Esau and Jacob (Romans 9:10-13).

In preparation for this, I read John Stott's commentary on this chapter.  I respect his thoughts a lot, but I kind of disagree with him in a few attributes.

Most notably, I think there is a tendency among Protestants to define "Apostle" with an anti-Catholic nuance, that I don't think is present in Scripture.  From the Catholic perspective, Apostleship can be passed on in a process called "Apostolic succession".  This gives rise to the Papal institution.  I do not agree with the Catholic point of view entirely, but I cannot fully agree with the Protestant critique of it.

In particular, I have seen it articulated that to be "Apostle", one had to know Christ in the flesh.  This comes from a reading of Acts 1:21-22.  The Eleven Apostles are replacing Judas Iscariot and this is the criteria that Peter comes up with.  This would notably exclude the Apostolic Succession and the Papal supremacy.  

However, if we read Acts 1:21-22, then we see the criteria for replacing Judas as an Apostle was very, very strict.  It was not simply someone who knew Christ personally, but someone who had been with the whole group from the time of John's baptism to the when Jesus departed.

This would exclude Paul as an Apostle.

So, why accept Paul as an Apostle?

One rationale is that he saw enough of Jesus during his conversion that it was enough to meet the criteria of Apostleship articulated in Acts 1.  

I do not find that convincing.

In the famous story of his conversion from Acts 9:3-6, Paul is struck on the road to Damascus.  In that account, he sees a "bright light" from heaven.  Later, he recounts the story to King Agrippa in Acts 26:12-18.  In that version, he states that he saw Jesus and there he receives his Apostleship.  

In Galatians, while defending his status as Apostleship, Paul only obliquely discusses this story.  When discusses it in reference to the changed life he had, but does not mention that he saw Jesus at this time.  

Rather, after his conversion, he goes to Arabia for three years, then comes back to Jerusalem.    

Most importantly for his letter is that he states he received his Gospel from a supernatural source. The evidence of a supernatural encounter comes from his personal history - going from a zealot murderer to that of a Christian.

So, why go to Arabia?  Personally, I think that is where he went to either the Gospel supernaturally, to reflect on it, and spend time with Jesus.  The other Apostles had three years of time with Jesus, so is Paul's make-up time.

So again, why accept Paul as an Apostle?  

I think this is implicitly answered in 1:18.  After three years in Arabia, Paul spends 15 days in Jerusalem.  This could correspond to Acts 9:26-29, where the text emphasizes his debates with the Jews.  However, Galatians 1:18 says he stayed with Peter the 15 days.  

It is not stated, but I think it is at this time that Paul is receiving mentorship from the highest Apostle, Peter.  Likewise, Peter is also getting a chance to critique and review Paul's claim of Apostleship and the Gospel that Paul preaches.

Later in chapter two, Paul's acceptance of being an Apostle is confirmed by the other Apostles.

So, why discuss all this in regard to Galatians?  It is because Paul wants to confirm what he has to say is from God and he did not make it all up.