TEXT: Galatians 1:11-2:21

SUBJECT: Exposition of Galatians #3: Paul's Defense

We come this morning to the third sermon in our study of Galatians. The text is longer than usual--but for a good reason. It contains a single idea. It is the defense of Paul's apostolic calling. The Galatians should have known this. They were "the seal of (his) apostleship". For a time, they had. Then came the false teachers who insinuated that Paul was no Apostle; that he had no authority in the churches; that the Galatians would be better off listening to them than to this imposter.

In the passage before us, Paul answers the critics and proves that it is he--and not they--who speak for Christ.

This brings up a question: Why was Paul so hell-bent on proving that he was an Apostle? It is not because he was an egotist who desired to boost his self-esteem or command a bigger following. No one was humbler than he. He needed to vindicate himself for the sake of the Gospel he preached. If he's not an Apostle, his message becomes suspect. He's no more trustworthy than the false teachers he so vigorously opposes. And so, he's defending himself--not because his feelings are hurt--but because the Gospel and the souls of men are at stake.

He states his thesis in vv.11-12: "But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ".

To "make known" means to make perfectly clear. What he's about to say is not ambiguous or paradoxical; it is to be taken quite literally. This is what he says, negatively: his "Gospel...is not according to man...not received from man...not taught..." The first speaks of its origin: the Gospel--the NIV puts it--"is not something man made up". A committee of scholars never gathered to either concoct or formulate the Gospel. Moreover, Paul's Gospel was "not received from man". In other words, he was not evangelized. Nor was he "taught it". No teacher opened his understanding to the Gospel.

Positively, his Gospel "came through the revelation of Jesus Christ". This doesn't mean "Christ was revealed in the Gospel"--for that is a commonplace. It means "Christ personally revealed the Gospel" to Paul--that is unique, and makes him an Apostle.

His story is told in Acts 9. It begins with Paul "breathing out slaughter" against the church and ends with him "preaching Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God". Absent from the narrative is any human teacher. The new convert was taught by Christ alone. The teaching he received, therefore, was every bit as directly from the Lord as that of Peter, James, and John.

Paul's first argument: His life in Judaism, vv.13-14. "For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers".

Paul was not predisposed to become an Apostle. Anything but. He was a fanatic Jew who bitterly hated Christ and sought to destroy His people. Therefore, there was no "push factor" for him to leave Judaism. He was a young man on the move. Nor was there any "pull factor" to draw him to Christianity. It was a people and a doctrine and a way of life he abhorred by nature. Paul, therefore, didn't choose to become an Apostle.

Paul's second argument: His call to the Apostolate, vv.15-17. "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His son to me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up the Jerusalem to those who were Apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus."

Most preachers receive a "call to the ministry" years after their conversion. This is proper: the ministry is no place for a novice. Paul's experience, however, was otherwise. He was converted and called to the Apostolate at the same time! God "revealed His Son to me (so that) I might preach Him..." And so he did--as Luke tells us--"immediately".

His office was not granted or confirmed by any man or body of men. Paul didn't need to "confer with flesh and blood"--to get any man's advice or church's ordination. He didn't so much as visit Jerusalem or meet the Apostles for some time. Paul, therefore, didn't get his Apostleship from any person or school or church. He got it from Christ.

Paul's third argument: His meeting with Peter, vv.18-20. "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (Now concerning the things I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie".

Paul met Peter and James. But, far from being their disciple, he only stayed with them for two weeks. His apostleship, therefore, is independent of Peter or James or anyone else in Jerusalem. Again, Paul was not a man-made Apostle.

Paul's fourth argument: His acceptance among the first churches, vv.21-24. "Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; and I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. But they were hearing only, `He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith he once tried to destroy'. And they glorified God in me".

Jerusalem was home to the first Christian church. But Judea soon followed. These Christians had never met Paul. But they recognized him as an Apostle. Why? Because they heard a report about him. From whom? We don't know. But we do know this: The Twelve never disputed it. Those who denied his calling, therefore, were not speaking for the Apostles--or Christ.

Paul's fifth argument: The Council of Jerusalem, 2:1-10. "Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came by stealth by spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hours, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you. But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the Gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the Gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for he who worked effectively in Peter for the Apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles) and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do".

Fourteen years after his first meeting with Peter, Paul returned to Jerusalem, taking with him Barnabas and Titus. He went there "by revelation"--because God told him to go.

Why did he go? To tell the Apostles what he was preaching. Did he need their approval? No. But "false brethren" were slandering him. He would set things right. He knew that he and the other Apostles were "on the same page". They'd agree with him if they had an accurate knowledge of what he said. He made sure they did--privately.

What about the "false brethren"? Who were they? They were believers who taught that the Mosaic Law was binding in the Church. Their error--it seems--had not gone as far as the false teachers in Galatia. But it was of similar nature. How did Paul respond to them? He "did not yield to them even for one hour". Why not? Because he was stubborn and pig-headed? No. But "that the truth of the Gospel might continue..."

Remember: Adding to the Gospel doesn't improve it. It destroys the Gospel. Therefore, Paul won't compromise with these men in the least. He won't allow Titus to be circumcised. Not because there's anything wrong with circumcision per se', but because they were hinting that it was necessary for a right standing with God and His people.

What did the Twelve think of Paul's doctrine? They agreed with it, publicly giving him and his friends "the right hand of fellowship". Saying, in effect, "We're on the same team".

They only asked him to "remember the poor" (of his Jewish kinsmen). Which, he replies, "I was eager to do".

The Council of Jerusalem shows Paul and the Twelve are co-equal in calling, in authority, and in ministry.

Paul's sixth argument: His confrontation with Peter at Antioch, 2:11-21. "But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter before them all, `If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are found sinner, is Christ, therefore, the minister of sin? Certainly not! For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain".

Paul must be an Apostle because even Peter bows to his wisdom. Peter and Paul once worked together in Antioch, a mixed church of Jews and Gentiles. The saints were living in harmony until some ultra-Jewish believers visited from Jerusalem. These men intimidated Peter, Barnabas, and other Jews to separate themselves from their non-Jewish brethren. When he saw the segregation, Paul publicly chided Peter for his hypocrisy.

But he didn't stop there. He went beyond hypocrisy to the doctrinal error Peter was insinuating by his cowardly behavior. When Peter went off and ate with the Jews only, he implied that believers who keep the Mosaic Law are somehow better than those who don't. Paul won't let him get away with that! He reminds Peter:

This theme he develops in the last three verse.

Paul "died to the law". This means he renounced it as a way of finding favor with God or obtaining a place among His people. Why? So that he "might live to God". As long as one places his trust in the Law--any law--he is dead to God, he renounces Christ, and has no place among the blessed.

This "living to God" is then explained in terms of Christ. Paul is "crucified with Christ"--his old way of life (i.e., trying to be saved by the Law) is dead. "Nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me". Now he's truly alive. This life comes, however, not by law-keeping, but by "faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me".

In short: we enter life and maintain it--not by keeping the Law--but by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The alternative to a life of faith: "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died in vain". This is shocking! To seek God's favor, personal holiness, or a place in the church by law-keeping is to nullify the grace of God and to renounce the Savior's death.

This is Paul's testimony. It's inspired of God and designed to break our pride and make us to trust in Christ alone for our salvation.

Allow me to close with two questions:

"The Lord is our righteousness". Look for it in Him alone. Amen.