B. Revealed by God (1:11-24)

This paragraph gives support to Paul’s claim that his gospel did not originate in his own wisdom but in the grace of God. A connecting conjunction “for” is omitted in the NIV. This omission seems to be in error, for it ties v.11 to the previous paragraph. V.11 gives the supportive argument for Paul’s statement above. The reason for his claim of singular truth is that “his” gospel is not his own gospel at all, but was revealed to him by Jesus Christ. It is Christ’s Gospel that is being distorted by those who have come into Galatia and are upsetting the believers. Whenever human tradition and divine revelation come into opposition, it cannot be divine revelation that is in error.

Paul reminds the readers that they have heard of his past when he violently persecuted the church and tried to destroy it, but God revealed his Son to him and turned his life around. A strong devotee of Judaism and zealous for its cause, Paul had no predisposition toward the Gospel, and yet God called him to preach to the Gentiles. This radical change from a violent persecutor to an ardent proclaimer of the Gospel can be explained only by divine intervention. “An encounter with the living, risen Lord is the indispensable beginning of every transformed life—the miracle of the new birth,” writes R. E. Howard (BBC, 18:37).

Paul was so sure of his divine commission that he felt no need for getting authority from any person. In v.17 he makes the point that he did not even consult with the apostles in Jerusalem; rather, he went into seclusion where he could ponder what had occurred in his life. Paul makes it clear that he believed his call by Christ to be an apostle to the Gentiles was as legitimate as the call of Christ given to the Eleven. (In a similar way, John Wesley, late in life, considered himself to be a legitimate “missionary bishop” with the right to ordain elders for the people called Methodists, first in the new nation of America and later in Britain. He believed that it was God’s hand and not man’s hand that had put him into the apostolic succession of the ministry [Letters, 7:238-39]).

Paul emphasizes in this paragraph that he did not receive from the apostles in Jerusalem the authority to preach to the non-Jews, including or excluding circumcision. On the contrary, he had, under God, pursued an independent mission without insisting upon circumcision. The visit to Jerusalem recorded in v.18 did nothing to alter Paul’s assertion that “his” gospel was in actuality “God’s” Gospel received by direct revelation.

Between Paul’s visit to Peter in 1:18 and the visit mentioned in 2:1, he had no contact with Jerusalem, but instead he had used his time in Syria and Cilicia, in the same area as Tarsus. This seems to be in agreement with Acts, which described Paul’s living in Tarsus for a number of years following his conversion experience. Paul’s purpose was not to present a precise chronology of his itinerary, but to emphasize that he had been authorized by God, not by the Jerusalem apostles.