Freedom Through Christ

“Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and get information from him, and I stayed with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. I assure you that, before God, I am not lying about what I am writing to you! Afterward I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. But I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They were only hearing, “The one who once persecuted us is now proclaiming the good news of the faith he once tried to destroy.” So they glorified God because of me.” Galatians 1:18-24 NET

Paul took three years to sort out who he was in Christ and develop his narrative before he began meeting with the other disciples. After spending three years in synagogues in Damascus and Arabia, he heads off to Jerusalem to meet with Peter. Paul demonstrates to Peter that his conversion was genuine and that he personally met Jesus on the Damascus Road. He is not Joining the other disciples (apostles); he is, in fact, totally independent from the apostles because of his conversion experience. His purpose is to demonstrate that the gospel he is preaching did not come from a Synagogue or Jewish tradition but from God, and he is declaring his faithfulness to this gospel.

Paul’s visit to Peter, a mere fifteen days in contrast to his extensive time in Arabia and Damascus, was a testament to his independence. His journey to Jerusalem was not for commissioning or appointment by the Apostles, but a quest for first-hand information from Peter. His desire to understand Jesus’s life and the Church’s ministry may have been the driving force behind this brief, yet significant, visit.

Paul fully understands that the topic of church unity compels him to build a good working relationship with Peter. However, these concerns do not provide a basis for portraying Paul as a disciple or a subordinate of Peter. It is just such a portrayal that Paul’s writings concerning his visit are designed to refute.

Paul, faced with the challenge of false teachers undermining his authority, stands firm in his commitment to the truth. These impostors claim that the other apostles commissioned Paul, not the Savior Himself. The Judaizers likely knew of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem after his conversion and used it to support their claim. Paul, however, is resolute in setting the record straight, stating that his visit was far too brief for him to have acquired his gospel from Peter and James. Matthew Henry’s commentary attests to Paul’s unwavering dedication, as he mentions these time frames and swears an oath to the truth of his words, ensuring that no one could question his knowledge of the gospel or his authority to preach it.

In Paul’s record of appointments for that two-week visit, he insists that James, the Lord’s brother, was the only other apostle he saw. We know that James had a prominent role in the Jerusalem church. According to Acts, James became the most influential leader in that Church. Therefore, It is unsurprising that Paul would have had some contact with him. Paul does not tell us what transpired during that visit. However, from his argument, we can be sure that Paul did not report to James as if James were the author of his mission to the Gentiles. While Paul was working for harmony in the Church, he was also working under direct commissioning from Jesus.

Paul confirms the complete reliability of his account with a legal oath. Under Roman law, an oath was used outside of court to indicate that one would be willing to resolve an issue in the courts. But why did Paul think it was necessary to take an oath to defend the integrity of his report? It seems reasonable to suppose that Paul took this oath because he was contradicting a false report of his part in the church's mission, a report claiming that he had received his gospel and his authority to preach the gospel from the apostles in Jerusalem. Such a report, if true, could significantly impact Paul's credibility and the trustworthiness of his message. This report may have been circulated in the churches in Galatia by those who were persuading the Gentile believers to live like Jews since that was the way of believers in the mother church in Jerusalem. If Paul was merely a messenger for that church, then an appeal to the example of that church was more authoritative than Paul's message. Of course, these are simply speculations. But if Paul is correct that "some false brothers had infiltrated" the church and opposed him, it is probably also true that false reports had been circulated about him as well.

It is not only common but also expected that church leaders respond to false reports about their ministry. The most powerful weapon against these false reports is the unyielding truth, devoid of falsehoods. This is not just a matter of personal integrity; the very essence of the gospel is at stake. The truth can only be defended by unvarnished truthfulness, a shield that should instill confidence and reassurance in all.

Paul concludes the account of his first visit to Jerusalem with a clear denial of any personal involvement with the church of Jerusalem. After his first visit, he journeyed to Syria and Cilicia, making himself personally known to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. It's important to note that Paul was not under the authority of the Jerusalem church, and therefore, was not under the supervision of the Jerusalem apostles. This fact should bring clarity and dispel any misconceptions, leaving people feeling informed and enlightened.

"The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy". Preaching is actually a translation of 'evangelizing.' Paul was fully engaged in the work of evangelism. And the content of his message was faith, a shorthand summary of the gospel of Christ. The power of the gospel had not just changed Paul's beliefs, but also transformed his entire life. From a persecutor of believers, he had become a preacher of the faith. The light of the gospel he had tried to snuff out penetrated and illuminated his heart, and it was now shining brightly through his life and Preaching. That was the report heard about Paul in the churches of Judea. What a contrast to the false, adverse reports about Paul that were being circulated in the churches of Galatia.

Unlike the Galatian churches, which were veering from the gospel preached by Paul, the churches in Judea were united in their praise of God, for Paul was preaching the same gospel they believed in. Despite Paul not having learned his gospel from the Judean churches, as he clearly states in his argument, these churches recognized the shared faith in the gospel Paul preached. When they evaluated Paul, the preacher, based on the message he preached (as Paul himself advocates for every preacher to be measured and found faithful to the true gospel), they expressed their gratitude to God.

The passionate response of the Judean churches to Paul's gospel serves as a stark contrast to the current state of the Galatian churches which were turning against Paul’s message. If only they would take a cue from the Judean churches and assess preachers based on their faithfulness to the true gospel, they would no longer be ensnared by the troublemakers who had sown such confusion with their distortion of the gospel in Galatia. This stark contrast underscores the immediate need for change.

Paul skillfully counters the arguments of the troublemakers. They used the practices of the Jerusalem and Judean churches to convince the Galatian churches to adopt the Jewish way of life. But now, Paul uses the same churches as an example. They had praised God upon hearing the news that Paul was now preaching the gospel, the same gospel that had transformed his life and theirs. Their example continues to challenge churches today. The act of praising God when we learn that his faithful servants are preaching the gospel serves as a powerful reminder to keep our focus on the right thing: God's gracious work through the spirit empowering the gospel.

Stephen Barnett