Paul’s Call to Preach Came by Divine Revelation
Galatians 1:11–24
After a very energetic introduction (1:6–10), Paul begins the first part of the letter, which presents evidence from his own life story to show that the †gospel he proclaims is authentic. His presentation divides into three sections. In the first section (1:11–24), Paul shows that the gospel he preaches comes from a divine revelation of Christ and not from human teaching. In the second (2:1–10), Paul reports on his meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem and records its conclusion: the authenticity of his gospel was officially recognized.1 In the third (2:11–21), he recounts a confrontation with Cephas (Peter) in defense of the gospel as he taught it. Paul uses that occasion to establish the fundamental point of the letter: †justification comes through †faith in Christ and not through works of the †law (2:16–21).
The Divine Origin of Paul’s Gospel (1:11–12)
11Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin. 12For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
NT: Matt 11:25–27; 1 Cor 15:1–9
Catechism: divine origin of the gospel, 74–75
Lectionary: 1:11–20: Vigil of Sts. Peter and Paul
After the explosion of anathemas in verses 8–9, Paul adopts a calmer tone to make his case. He addresses the Galatians as brothers (to be understood inclusively as “sisters and brothers”), a term used among Jews and taken up by Christians. Among Christians, however, it refers no longer to a kinship due to race, but rather to a brotherly relationship based on our relationship to Christ and our adoption as children of God (1:4; 3:26–28; 4:5–7).
Paul’s principal affirmation concerns the nature of the gospel preached by me: it is not of human origin. It is not a message devised by a human being or conformed to the tastes of human beings. In support of this, the second sentence explains the divine origin of this †gospel. Paul specifically denies that in his own case the gospel was received through the teaching of a human being. According to Acts 2:42, the first Christians “devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles.” All subsequent generations of Christians have heard the gospel of Christ through the apostles’ teaching, transmitted through Scripture and Tradition. But the Apostle Paul did not learn the gospel this way; rather, he received it directly through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
The word “revelation” here translates the Greek word apokalypsis and indicates God’s disclosing something previously unknown.2 Here Paul is speaking not about the literary genre of apocalypse but rather about a divine initiative to reveal something by vision or prophecy.
Paul calls it a “revelation of Jesus Christ.” The phrase could mean that Jesus is the person who does the revealing or that he is the person who is revealed. Here it means both, because Jesus revealed himself to Paul (Acts 9:3–5), and a few verses later Paul says it was God who “was pleased to reveal his Son to me” (Gal 1:15–16). There is no contradiction, since at the same time that Christ revealed the gospel about himself, God was revealing his Son to Paul.3
So in verses 11–12, Paul gives an initial defense of his gospel: he denies it has a human origin and declares its divine origin. In itself this second point is the more important, and we would therefore expect it to be the main topic of the first part of the letter (1:11–2:21). However, in the verses that follow, Paul says very little about the revelation he received, but rather expands on the negative part of his statement, in which he denies any dependence on human beings for the content of his gospel.
Figure 5. St. Paul Preaching at Athens (Raphael, 1515). [Public domain]
From Persecutor to Apostle (1:13–17)
13For you heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it, 14and progressed in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my race, since I was even more a zealot for my ancestral traditions. 15But when [God], who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus.
NT: Mark 7:3–13; Acts 7:58–8:3; 9:1–31; 13:47; 22:3; Rom 1:13; Phil 3:4–6
Catechism: Christ’s divine sonship and faith, 442; uniqueness of Paul’s apostleship, 659
Lectionary: 1:11–20: Vigil of Sts. Peter and Paul
The autobiographical part of the letter begins here. Paul is about to tell his readers the story of his conversion. Scholars and ordinary readers alike are interested in comparing what Paul himself writes about this period of his life with the account that Luke gives (Acts 7:58–8:3; 9:1–31). But Paul writes about himself and what he did in the past, not for the sake of autobiography, but rather to make a point. Consequently, he does not attempt to report everything thoroughly, but selects the facts that are useful for his purpose, the defense of his †gospel.
The first fact is his former way of life in Judaism, which did not in any way dispose him to become an apostle of Christ. Elsewhere Paul tells us that he belonged to the party of the Pharisees (Phil 3:5), a group that the Gospels depict as fiercely opposed to Jesus. The Pharisees strictly separated themselves from †Gentiles in order to maintain their particular understanding of †ritual purity. The fact that Paul became an apostle of Jesus Christ, and especially to Gentiles, was due to an extraordinary act of God’s †grace and power. Although Paul does not say so explicitly, his amazing transformation confirms the divine origin of the gospel he proclaims and undermines the allegations of his opponents who are contesting his apostolic standing.
Verses 13 and 14 reveal Paul’s passionate temperament. Fierce language like persecuted, beyond measure, and destroy describes his former behavior. These terms show that Paul is not trying to soft-pedal or excuse his actions as a persecutor. On the contrary, by saying that he persecuted the church of God, he underscores the gravity of his conduct. When he refers to zeal for his ancestral traditions, he displays a flash of pride, an attitude that other passages in his letters confirm (1 Cor 15:10; Phil 3:6).
When he begins by saying, You heard of my former way of life, he implies that the Galatians heard his story when they were first evangelized. Either Paul or one of his apostolic companions had told it, and he does not need to repeat it. He limits himself to recounting the facts that are relevant for his argument. The first part of Paul’s life was in Judaism, an expression not found elsewhere in the New Testament. The word “Judaism” (in its Greek form) made its appearance at the time of the Maccabees (see 2 Macc 2:21; 8:1; 14:38 RSV). When Antiochus IV wanted to impose a Greek way of life (“Hellenism” in 2 Macc 4:13) on the Jews, many Jews heroically resisted in order to maintain a lifestyle in conformity to the laws of Moses and their traditions. At that time, faithful Jews faced persecution at the hands of Gentiles. In Paul’s case, however, a Jew became a persecutor of his own people who formed—although he did not yet know it—the Church of God.
Initially, Paul perceived Christianity to be a grave threat to Judaism and reacted with extreme intensity. He persecuted the followers of Jesus “beyond measure.”4 In Acts where details of this persecution are given, Luke writes,
Saul . . . was trying to destroy the church; entering house after house and dragging out men and women, he handed them over for imprisonment. (Acts 8:3)
Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, . . . asked . . . for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains. (Acts 9:1–2)
To describe Paul’s actions, Luke uses the same Greek word as Paul does here and in 1:23 for “destroy”—a word meaning “to ravage or annihilate.” It is used in the New Testament exclusively of Paul, “who in Jerusalem ravaged those who call upon this name” (Acts 9:21).
To explain the motive for this fierce persecution, Paul adds that he surpassed many of his contemporaries in Judaism. We would like to know how old Paul was at that time, but we are not given that information. When describing his fervent Jewish practice, Paul says he was even more a zealot than others his age for his “ancestral traditions.” To practice Judaism includes not only keeping the †law but also observing a whole way of life entailing many traditions. The first Christians, although they were Jews, did not follow all these traditions. Jesus’ teaching gave them a certain freedom with respect to “the tradition of the elders” (Mark 7:1–13; see Matt 15:2–6), and they were therefore accused of speaking against the law (Acts 6:13–14). Paul’s zeal for the ancestral traditions—he calls them “my ancestral traditions”—drove him to persecute Christians relentlessly.
All of this clearly shows that Paul was in no way disposed to receive the gospel from the Church, much less to preach it. Paul’s proclamation of the gospel—especially a gospel freed from the traditions of the elders to which Jews felt bound—cannot be explained by human influence.
After a vigorous description of his previous negative condition, one might expect a sharp contrast through a detailed account of the positive side, the “revelation of Jesus Christ” that Paul received (v. 12). That expectation, however, is unfulfilled. Paul does not even minimally describe the content of the revelation he received. Elsewhere he says that Christ “appeared to me” (1 Cor 15:8), and thus he has “seen Jesus our Lord” (1 Cor 9:1), but of this he here says only a little (Gal 1:16).
Nevertheless, there is something very solemn about the words Paul uses to refer to the divine revelation he received that shows the exceptional importance of the event. Paul uses two verbs to describe God’s initiative in his life. God, who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me, is the one who determined Paul’s vocation. Both verbs solemnly affirm the divine character of Paul’s vocation and thus implicitly the divine origin of his gospel.
The way Paul refers to his vocation connects it to both that of the prophet Jeremiah and that of the “servant of the Lord” in Isaiah. God said to Jeremiah,
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I dedicated you,
a prophet to the nations I appointed you. (Jer 1:5, italics added)
Paul’s awareness of being “the apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom 11:13) and of being called to “proclaim [Christ] to the Gentiles” (Gal 1:16) would have naturally led him to meditate on Jeremiah’s vocation to be “a prophet to the nations,” since in both Greek and Hebrew the word for “†nations” is the same as the word for “†Gentiles.” Paul realized that his own calling was not an afterthought but was, like Jeremiah’s, the result of a divine choice before he was born. Instead of using the verb “dedicate” or “appoint,” as in Jer 1:5, Paul uses “set apart” as he does in Rom 1:1. The same verb is also used in Acts 13:2 for the missionary vocation of Barnabas and Paul, where it refers to God’s choice of someone for a special mission.
While Jeremiah does not speak of God “calling” him, Isaiah’s second Song of the Servant of the Lord does speak of being called:
Before birth the LORD called me,
from my mother’s womb he gave me my name. (Isa 49:1, italics added)
This prophecy would have caught Paul’s attention because it declares God’s plan for the Gentiles:
It is too little, he says, for you to be my servant,
to raise up the tribes of Jacob,
and restore the survivors of Israel;
I will make you a light to the nations,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth. (Isa 49:6)
Acts records that Paul applied this text to his own apostolate to the Gentiles (Acts 13:47).
Paul indicates the completely gratuitous nature of God’s choosing him: it was through his grace. He is very aware that his vocation is not due to his merits. How could a persecutor deserve to be called an apostle? Paul recognizes he is the beneficiary of the very generous love of God.
Although similar to the vocations of the greatest prophets, Paul’s vocation is greater since God did not reveal “his Son” to any of them. But Paul reports that God was pleased to reveal his Son to me. The word “pleased” emphasizes God’s affectionate favor toward Paul.
The revelation is doubly divine because its author is God and its content is the Son of God. The divine sonship of Christ is the principal doctrinal element of the revelation the Apostle received, but here Paul receives a revelation of the person of God’s Son. A personal relationship with Christ the Son of God is Paul’s greatest treasure (2:20). In Phil 3:7–8 Paul affirms, “Whatever gains I had, these I have come to consider a loss because of Christ. More than that, I even consider everything as a loss because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.”
The Bible uses the expression “son of God” in a variety of senses. The fact that here Paul refers to Jesus as the Son of God in the strongest sense of the term—that is, as fully divine—is clear for a few reasons. First, the fact that Jesus’ sonship is divinely revealed implies it is a divine mystery. Second, the fact that in the Greek text Paul uses the definite article, literally saying, “the Son of him,” lets us know that the sonship of Jesus Christ is unique (see the sidebar, “‘Son of God’ in the Bible,” below). A third indication is the contrast observed in 1:1 and 1:12 between “human beings” and “Jesus Christ” that places Jesus on the divine side of the contrast. Finally, we have noted how Paul links Jesus Christ with God the Father in 1:1 and 1:3, unexpectedly using a single preposition to introduce both of their names.
Rather than speak of the revelation “to me,” as the NABRE and most translations render this phrase, Paul literally says that God revealed his Son “in me,” indicating the interior effect of this revelation. What happened to Paul was not only something external that had the objective result of changing his mind. Rather, as in every divine vocation, Paul experienced an inner attraction that captured him in the depths of his soul. The revelation Paul received had an apostolic purpose: so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles.
It is to be noted that the revelation Paul received, profound as it was, is not the main point of the sentence in which it appears; he mentions it only as background (“But when [God] . . .” [v. 15]) to introduce what he wants to emphasize: I did not immediately consult. . . . This is the train of thought that Paul will complete in verse 17 and the narrative that follows.
Reflection and Application (1:16)
When Paul and his companions preached, those who heard them not only heard their arguments for the †gospel; they encountered Christ in and through them. Paul reminds the Thessalonian Christians of their experience of him and his companions:
Our gospel did not come to you in word alone, but also in power and in the holy Spirit and [with] much conviction. You know what sort of people we were [among] you for your sake. And you became imitators of us and of the Lord. . . .
With such affection for you, we were determined to share with you not only the gospel of God, but our very selves as well, so dearly beloved had you become to us. . . . You are witnesses, and so is God, how devoutly and justly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers. As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children. (1 Thess 1:5–6; 2:8, 10–11)
An important way in which the presence of the Holy Spirit becomes manifest is through the demeanor and character of those who proclaim the gospel.
Later in Galatians, Paul speaks of Christ’s presence in him: “I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me” (2:20). Because Paul was living in Christ and Christ was living in Paul, people could not help but take notice and respond, whether positively or negatively. For Paul to be a missionary, he needed a revelation of Jesus in his inmost self—and so do we. Paul’s example shows us how important it is for anyone involved in evangelization or ministry to cultivate their personal relationship with Jesus. The more Christ lives in us and we †live in him, the more people will encounter him when they encounter us.
After reporting with such solemnity the revelation he received, Paul speaks of what he did “immediately” thereafter. Luke reports that the first effect of Christ’s appearance to Paul was apostolic: “He began at once to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). Luke’s account is surprising and significant, because normally a new convert does not become an apostle “immediately” but needs to complete a lengthy catechesis and formation. Paul could have said, “I immediately began to proclaim the faith,” but rather unexpectedly he speaks of what he did not do: I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me (Gal 1:16–17). One can see that Paul’s pressing concern when writing to the Galatians is not to give an account of his missionary activities but to affirm the independence of his apostolic testimony, denying any dependence on other people, even those who were the most authoritative.
Before a person makes a very important personal decision, it is helpful to consult relatives, friends, or other people with experience, but Paul did not do that. Certain that he had received divine revelation, he did not want to subject that revelation to “†flesh and blood,” to human beings in all their limitedness. It is even more significant that Paul did not feel the need to be in contact with the apostles in Jerusalem. When referring to them, Paul uses a phrase that shows his awareness of being an apostle in the full sense of the word, even though he was not chosen by Jesus as part of the Twelve (see Matt 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). He describes the apostles in Jerusalem as “those who were apostles before me,” which clearly implies that he himself has become an apostle and suggests that this occurred at the time of his revelation. The same perspective is found in 1 Cor 9:1, where Paul asks, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Knowing that he was appointed as an apostle by Christ himself, Paul did not need the approval of the other apostles.
Paul’s manner of speaking could leave the impression that he had no contact with anyone and was not connected to any Christian community, but he does not say that. Paul wants to demonstrate the directly divine origin of the †gospel that he preaches. He does not deny being in relationship with the Christian community in Damascus; he denies only having “consulted” anyone to be sure of his gospel (see the sidebar, “Paul’s Gospel,” p. 62).
The sentence finishes by saying what he did do: rather, I went into Arabia . . . , probably referring to the region south of Damascus. The Greek verb used to describe his going to Arabia bears the nuance of going away.5 Instead of going to Jerusalem, he distanced himself from it. He does not explain the reason or the goal of his trip to Arabia, nor does he say what activity he was involved in there. Solitary meditation? Preaching the gospel? The only point he wants to make is that by being in Arabia he was far from Jerusalem and could not be in contact with the apostles and the church in Jerusalem. The independence of his vocation and of his gospel is thus proved. Paul owes nothing to human beings, not even to the apostles who preceded him. Instead of being merely a disciple of the apostles, as his opponents may have asserted, Paul found himself suddenly elevated to the rank of apostle by virtue of the revelation he received.
Paul does not report the duration of his time in Arabia—months? years?—but he does explain that before going to Jerusalem he then returned to Damascus. This statement provides indirect confirmation of Acts that when Paul received the “revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12), he was near Damascus (Acts 9:3).6
Reflection and Application (1:17)
For the Apostle Paul to demonstrate the authenticity of his message, it was necessary to insist that he received it independently of the mediation of any other human being—that his apostleship and his †gospel came directly from Jesus Christ. Paul needed to defend the message he proclaimed against people who may have tried to compare it unfavorably with the teaching of others who claimed to be apostles.
However, for later generations of Christians, including ourselves, the situation is nearly the opposite. The authenticity of the gospel we believe and proclaim is determined by its continuity with the gospel proclaimed by Paul, Peter, and all the apostles. Since the second century the Church has recognized certain writings of the apostles and some of their coworkers as inspired and authoritative Scripture and, along with Sacred Tradition, as constituting the deposit of †faith. By the end of the fourth century a consensus emerged regarding the contents of these Scriptures testifying to the revelation of Christ: the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Because God has revealed himself fully in his Son Jesus Christ (John 1:18; 14:9; Heb 1:1–4), the Church awaits no further public revelation before his return in glory (Catechism 66).
When people today receive prophecies or visions, these divine communications are called “private” revelation since they do not add to the deposit of faith and are not binding on the faithful. They are to be tested for their conformity with Scripture and Tradition. We look to the bishops, as those appointed by Christ to guide the Church, to make authoritative judgments on private revelation when necessary (Catechism 67, 801).
Paul’s Eventual Contact with Peter (1:18–20)
18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20(As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying.)
NT: Matt 5:33–37; 16:18; John 1:42; Jude 1:1
Catechism: brothers of the Lord, 500; oaths, 2154
Lectionary: 1:11–20: Vigil of Sts. Peter and Paul
Paul denied having had any contact with the apostles immediately after his conversion (1:17). Here he acknowledges going to Jerusalem and finally having some contact later. He minimizes its significance, however, specifying that the contact occurred later (after three years), that it was brief (fifteen days), and that it was limited to Cephas—that is, Peter—and James. It is clear that for Paul, Cephas was the most important apostle, and it was he whom Paul went to Jerusalem to meet three years after encountering Christ on the road to Damascus.
The Greek verb Paul uses for confer with can mean either “to seek to know” or “to question” a person to obtain information. Paul’s coming to Jerusalem to get to know Peter or to ask him for more specific information about Jesus’ life and the beginnings of the Church does not contradict his claim to have received his †gospel directly from Christ.
Figures 6–7. Medallions of St. Paul and St. Peter in icon frames, made in Constantinople ca. 1100. [Public domain. Photos from the MET. Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917.]
Verse 19 is a bit ambiguous: But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James. This sentence could imply that James was one of the apostles or that James was not one of the apostles but nevertheless someone important. The second meaning is preferable since the Gospels do not list this particular James among the Twelve. This James also appears in the list of appearances of the risen Christ, where Paul distinguishes between Jesus’ appearing “to the Twelve” and his later appearing to James (1 Cor 15:5, 7). Paul specifies that the James he is speaking about was the brother of the Lord. By saying “the brother,” Paul distinguishes this James from others who were not part of Jesus’ family. The Gospels name two: “James, the son of Zebedee” and “James, the son of Alphaeus” (Matt 10:2–3). The use of the article “the” does not mean that James was the only brother of Jesus, since the Gospels indicate that Jesus had other “brothers” and “sisters.”7 Paul himself speaks in the plural about “the brothers of the †Lord,” distinguishing this category from that of “the apostles” (1 Cor 9:5). In Palestinian Judaism, “brother” could refer to many different kinds of relatives, including cousins.8 Paul’s word choice suggests that the expression had become a title of honor; he says not merely “the brother of Jesus” but “the brother of the Lord,” pointing to the relationship of James with the glorified Christ. Acts speaks of this James as a leader of the Jerusalem church (see Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18).
Figure 8. St. James, the brother of the Lord (oak sculpture, Netherlands, ca. 1500). [Public domain. Photo from the MET. Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1916.]
By saying before God, I am not lying, Paul swears that he is telling the truth. Why did the Apostle feel the need to swear after reporting a detail that does not seem very important? We do not know. Perhaps Paul’s opponents were trying to diminish his apostolic authority by saying that Paul was not really an apostle but only a disciple of the apostles because he had spent time in Jerusalem being instructed by them. Or perhaps his opponents were saying that Paul’s teaching differed from that of the other apostles, so he avoided communication with them. Either of these would be grounds for the †Judaizers to argue that the Galatians should accept their version of the †gospel rather than Paul’s.
The presence of Paul’s oath confirms the defensive nature of this part of the letter. Paul is defending himself in order to defend his gospel. Paul was accustomed to calling on God as his witness, a form of swearing (2 Cor 1:23; 11:31; 1 Thess 2:5). He did not observe the prohibition against swearing given by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:33–37) and repeated in James 5:12. Either Paul did not know of this prohibition or did not interpret it in an absolute manner but understood it as an exhortation to honesty in speech.9 Paul did not hesitate to swear to what he was saying, because he was being completely sincere (2 Cor 1:17–20; 2:17–23; 4:2; 1 Thess 2:3–6).
Lack of Personal Acquaintance with the Churches of Judea (1:21–24)
21Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22And I was unknown personally to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23they only kept hearing that “the one who once was persecuting us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24So they glorified God because of me.
NT: Acts 9:26–30; 11:25–26; 22:3
After his brief visit with Peter, Paul again went far away from Jerusalem and the apostles. He mentions two regions but no cities. Syria suggests Damascus or Antioch (see Acts 11:26); Cilicia was the region of Paul’s hometown of Tarsus (see Acts 9:30). Paul mentions Antioch in Gal 2:11, but he never speaks of Tarsus in any of his letters. In 1:21 he does not describe his activity in these places, but the report of the churches of Judea in verse 23 indicates that Paul was engaged in evangelization.
Although Paul has acknowledged brief contact with Peter and James, he highlights the absence of a relationship with the churches of Judea, stating they did not know him personally but only heard about his conversion. He specifies that he is speaking of churches that are in Christ, since the word translated “churches” could refer to non-Christian assemblies.10
As a consequence of his geographical distance, the Christian churches in Judea did not know Paul except by hearsay. They heard about the extraordinary transformation he had undergone from being a persecutor of the Church to being a missionary of the Christian faith. Some biblical scholars dispute that anyone can speak of Paul’s “conversion,” since verses 15–16 speak only of the “revelation” he received. While it is true that Paul did not change from paganism to the worship of the true God as Gentile Christians did, nonetheless verse 23 depicts a radical conversion—a complete change of direction: the one who once was persecuting . . . is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy. In Phil 3:7–11 Paul says of this conversion that he set aside everything he previously valued in order to put Christ first in every aspect of his life.
The conclusion of the churches of Judea demonstrates that they discerned the hand of the †Lord in these events: they glorified God. Ending the first section of his defense this way shows Paul’s †rhetorical skill (1:13–24). If he had declared the extraordinary character of his conversion himself, someone might have challenged the value of his testimony (John 5:31; 8:13). Paul therefore prefers to report the testimony of others and their response of praise to God. It is an admirable conclusion, expressing Christian faith and advancing Paul’s argument that God had intervened dramatically in his life and—his main point—that his †gospel has its beginning from that revelation of Christ.
The theological message of this brief unit (Gal 1:11–24) is found in Paul’s explicit assertion of the divine origin of his apostleship and doctrine. God acted to turn a persecutor into an apostle of Christ. God’s intervention consisted in a revelation of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, a revelation that was to be communicated to the †Gentiles. Both the revelation of Jesus as God’s Son and the mission to the Gentiles are of fundamental importance in Paul’s discussion with the Galatians, and they do not cease being fundamental for the †faith of the whole Church up to the present time. The doctrine of the Apostle Paul is not mere theological speculation; it belongs to divine revelation.
Reflection and Application (1:11–24)
Our joy as Christians is founded on the fact that God has entered into history to save us and that the †gospel is no mere human philosophy or ideology, but is God’s own message to the human race about how we can be saved from the power of sin, Satan, and death forever. Paul fought for the purity of this message, refusing to accept any distortion or compromise. At the heart of this message is the saving death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which establishes us in a right relationship with God. The human predicament caused by sin requires a divine remedy. No one could have imagined what that remedy would entail. It was necessary for God himself to reveal it in the gospel.
1. For an explanation of what was distinctive in Paul’s proclamation of the gospel, see the commentary on 2:2 and the sidebar, “Paul’s Gospel,” p. 62.
2. Using the verb form of this word, Dan 2:47 †LXX states that “God is a revealer of mysteries.” “Apocalypse” eventually came to refer to the literary genre to which a portion of the book of Daniel belongs (Dan 7–12). This literary genre developed during the two centuries before Christ as a way to present revelation from God. The best example of this genre is John’s Revelation, described as apokalypsis in Rev 1:1. In the New Testament this word is also used for prophecies and visions (1 Cor 14:6, 26; 2 Cor 12:1, 7) and for the glorious revelation of Jesus at his return (1 Cor 1:7; 1 Thess 2:7; 1 Pet 1:7, 13).
3. In a Gospel text closely related to this passage (Matt 11:25–27), the act of revealing is attributed first to the Father and then to the Son. In fact, the Father confers on the Son the work of revelation. This pattern is analogous to what Paul teaches about redemption itself. It is the Father who “handed [his Son] over for us all” (Rom 8:32), but at the same time it is the Son who has “given himself up” for us (Gal 2:20; see 1:4).
4. This expression is characteristic of Paul, who is the only one to use it in the New Testament (Rom 7:13; 2 Cor 1:8; 4:7, 17).
5. Greek aperchomai, “to depart from,” in contrast to “go up [anerchomai] to Jerusalem.”
6. Acts does not report Paul’s time in Arabia but only recounts Paul’s conversion and preaching in Damascus prior to his going to Jerusalem (Acts 9:19–26). Either Luke did not know that Paul went to Arabia in between stays in Damascus, or, more likely, he compresses his account, leaving out unnecessary details.
7. See Matt 12:46–47; 13:55–56; Mark 3:31–32; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12; 7:3–10; Acts 1:14.
8. See Catechism 500 on the “brothers” of the Lord.
9. Catholic tradition has followed St. Paul in not interpreting this prohibition as excluding all oaths; see Catechism 2154.
10. The Greek word for church, ekklēsia, means “assembly” (see Acts 19:32, 39, 40) and in the †Septuagint refers to the congregation of Israel (Deut 23:3–4; 1 Chron 13:2, 4).