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.

In his own words (2 Peter)

Much is said about Apostles Peter and John throughout the New Testament.  However, we do not hear things from their perspectives until the end of the Bible.

Peter makes some interesting statements in 2 Peter to put the New Testament together.  

First, Peter affirms the Apostleship of Paul in 3:15-16.  He talks about the letters from Paul as being inspired by the wisdom of God.  He also associates the letters from Paul to "other Scriptures" that people ignore at their own peril.

This is a big statement.  Peter was left in charge of the church by Jesus.  Paul and Peter also had numerous public disagreements about the role of the Old Testament law as the Gospel goes to the Gentiles.  Paul even publicly rebuked Peter in Acts.

Second, Peter briefly talks about the personal account of being with Jesus.  In particular, he talks of Jesus' transfiguration.  He states that he was there "on the sacred mountain" and heard the voice from heaven identifying Jesus as "my Son".  

Peter also throws out a few ideas that seem to focus on the free will of the believer.  In 1:5-13, he focuses on the effort of the believer to make their "calling and election sure".  In 2:20-21, Peter discusses how people can know Christ, be free of the world, and then fall back into it.  For them, it is better to having never known righteousness at all.

Peter also discusses the role of prophecy, including the prophecies about the return of Jesus.  He says that there will be people in the "last days" who scoff at the return of Christ.  To them, life continues on as it had from the moment that time began.  If we remember from Acts 2, Peter himself interpreted of prophecy from Joel in that "last days" seemed to mean "after Pentecost".  There seems to not be any indication that Peter is introducing a new "last days".

I focus on this now because I think it is relatable.  Sometimes, it is hard to keep in mind that Jesus can return at any moment "like a thief".  If 2,000 years have gone by without the return of Christ, who is to say that another 2,000 years will pass before Christ returns.  

But alas, Peter anticipates this sentiment and reminds Christ will come back like "a thief".  

Likewise, Peter introduces a very interesting concept - to God, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day.  What does this mean?  That God stands outside the parameters of our the human understanding of time. 

2 Cor. 10-13

Paul concludes 2 Corinthians with some interesting stuff.

We get an insight into how he is perceived as an actual person.  In person, he is unassuming and perhaps a weak speaker.  This contrasts the heavier tone of his letters and surprises the audience.  

Paul again defends himself as an apostle.  This probably provides insight as to what prompted this second epistle to the Corinthians.  From his statements, we can infer that there was an issue of other "apostles" showing up who presented different Gospels than what Paul preached.

Other things that Paul mentions in defense of his Apostleship is that signs and wonders follow apostles and that Paul himself was beaten, stoned, and shipwrecked.  We actually get some detail into what exactly Paul has experienced, although not all of them were covered in the Book of Acts.  

A recurring theme in the book is the contrast between our mortal fleshly bodies with that of our spiritual selves.  Paul takes this to an interesting level by referring to a man who was taken up into the "third heaven" which Paul calls "paradise".  This might refer to the stoning of Stephen, but it might refer to something else.  Regardless,  "paradise" reminds us of the statement Jesus said to the man on the cross behind them that he will go to paradise on that day.  Here in 2 Corinthians, we do not get details of "paradise" other than visions of paradise by humans are indescribable.  

Paul concludes the letter by saying that he will return to Corinth again and when he does, he will not be nice to those who oppose him.

Apostleship (1 Cor 9)

In chapter nine, Paul talks about being an Apostle.  In in the introductory verses to this, he says that he has seen Jesus.  This statement is left un-clarified as to "when" he saw he Jesus.  Lots of people saw Jesus, but that did not make them Apostles.  We can probably infer that Paul (as Saul) probably saw Jesus during Jesus' lifetime.

One possible alternative is that Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus.  I am cautious about that interpretation because the account in Acts said that Paul saw a bright light and then was blinded, but he heard the voice of Jesus.  So, perhaps we can infer that this bright and blinding light was in fact Jesus and this is what Paul meant.

Back to the chapter, Paul seems to take on the issue of defending his Apostleship.  He does it in a roundabout way by discussing that he never takes money from the churches he has founded, even though he could.  Rather, he continued working to pay own way.

In a way, he says "I am your leader because I am doing this for free".  

This would probably distinguish him from the other leaders of the church of Corinth, including perhaps Apollos.  

Paul reasserts control on the Corinth church (1 Cor 4)

In chapter 4, Paul reasserts control over the church.  The chapter concludes with Paul saying that he is sending Timothy to mentor the church.  Paul also plans to return to Corinth if God wills this.

The sending of Timothy to Corinth might indicate that Apollos is being replaced.  Alternatively, Timothy might arrive and find Apollos doing well as a teacher.  Either way, Paul's second hand man going to Corinth is a reassertion of Paul's authority over the church.  But it is not the same thing as the church planter himself coming, so the Corinthians will have to get used to Paul not being there, but this is the next best option.

In this chapter, Paul also talks about the cost of Apostleship.  Apostles are made fools, slandered, and live on the margins of society in contrast to the more comfortable lives of the lay members.  As he begins this, it almost seems like Paul is calling Apollos an Apostle, which would mean the word "Apostle" is analogous to "church leader".

Alternatively, Paul might actually be distinguishing himself as Apostle from Apollos, church leader.  If Apollos had a comfortable life, in contrast to the difficulties that Paul had, this would distinguish Paul as Apostle over Apollos.   lThus, Paul is reasserting the hierarchy of the church, which was at stake with this church division.