The crisis confronting the Galatian churches was a grave one. It involved the question of Gentile freedom, of Christian liberty, of the truth and purity of the gospel, and the salvation of souls. Paul recognized the seriousness of it all. The churches of Galatia had heard and received the God-sent message of free salvation. Like the Ephesians they had been saved by grace through faith, and that not of themselves: it was the gift of God; not of works, lest any man might glory (Eph. 2:8, 9). Now came the Judaizers, and told the Galatian converts that if they would be saved at last they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses--that the gospel-salvation was not enough, but must be supplemented on their part by circumcision and law-keeping. Now Paul had not taught them anything like that. His gospel (they said) was defective and insufficient and, after all, he was not like the twelve, a fully authorized apostle. Thus, in order to establish their law-doctrine they must undermine Paul's apostleship and the divine authority of his gospel.

      It was necessary therefore, at the very outset, that Paul's apostleship and the divine authority of his message be set forth and defended. If Paul's gospel was but his own views of the gospel of Christ, his human "interpretation of Christianity" (as the tribes of the modernists still say) then the Galatians might well listen to the argument of the Judaizers. But if it was backed by the authority of heaven, then to alter it--to add to it, to subtract from it, to tamper with it, in any wise to pervert it would be a crime against the Lord Jesus Christ, worthy of all anathemas.

      Whence then came Paul's gospel? Let him answer:

      "For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1:11, 12).

      It was "not after man," that is, not of human origin and authorship; not even as a divine gospel had it come to him at second hand, through man's teaching; he received it directly from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself: "it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ." That is, it was revealed to him by Jesus Christ Himself. Some have taken the expression "the revelation of Jesus Christ" to mean that by the revelation, of the Person and glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, as Paul witnessed it in the vision on Damascus road, the gospel was flashed upon Paul's mind. That is not altogether a mistake. In the short moment when Paul saw Him in His exaltation and glory, he learned much indeed. The sudden revelation that this Lord of glory was Jesus of Nazareth revolutionized all his thoughts. In one brief instant all his previous beliefs and prejudices were overthrown. The mere fact was utterly [8] confounding. The incredible thing, the impossible thing was true and demonstrated before his eyes. Was He--"the hanged one"--He the Lord of heaven? So all that they thought was blasphemously claimed by Him (John 19:7) was simple truth! Then Saul's nation had gone most terribly astray. Then the leaders and teachers, the rulers of Israel whom he had revered from his infancy had led their people into error and crime inconceivably terrible--the murder of their Messiah, the Son of God, whom they nailed to the cross.

      Another thing must have come to his mind at that moment--that Jesus must have gone to the cross willingly, and so assumed the pain and shame and death which He endured, for it could not have been His just due. Why then did He submit Himself to it? Oh, was He that great Servant of whom the prophet wrote, upon whom was laid the iniquity of us all? (Isa. 53:6).

      And now He lives! With what scorn and contempt he and the rulers of Jerusalem rejected the report of the empty sepulchre, and of the resurrection of Jesus. But, behold, it was all true; He had returned from the realm of death, and is exalted in glory.

      The sense of his own guilt must have fallen upon Saul's soul; the blind hatred in which he had persecuted the church of God and made havoc of it now rose up before his vision, crimson and terrible. How bitterly he had persecuted Christ's own! How he had lifted up himself against the Lord of heaven! Such crime deserved nothing less than the sentence of death and condemnation. With what agony of spirit Saul must have perceived all this when the vision flashed upon him. But more than all, an incomprehensible grace accompanied the vision: the marvellous condescension of the crucified and exalted Lord who deigned even to speak to him, and not in anger, not by judgment and sentence, but in gentle remonstrance; yea, called him and commissioned him to His service! Saul's brain must have reeled under the impact of the light which broke in upon his mind in these brief moments. In the Person of Jesus Christ Saul saw the whole revelation of the gospel. But he was not left to his own deductions and inferences. God not only revealed His Son to him, but also in him (2:16)--that is to say, He gave him by the Spirit the full knowledge, an inward apprehension of the truth concerning His Son, that he might preach Him among the Gentiles. (Comp. 1 Cor. 2:9, 13). Thus had Paul received his gospel.

      Now Paul offers further proof to show that his gospel was given him by direct revelation from Christ, and not through any intermediate agency of man.

      1. In the first place, since he had been the bitter enemy and persecutor of the church, he could not have been under the teaching and influence of those early disciples. He could not have learned it from them (v. 14). For one who had been in the forefront of all the enemies and persecutors, chief of all the wolves that ravaged the Christian folds, Christian contact would have been impossible.

      2. When it was the good pleasure of God . . . to reveal his [9] Son in him, he did not confer nor consult with man, nor seek for help or instruction from flesh and blood, not even from them "that were apostles before me." After a short stay in Damascus (Acts 9:19f) he retired to the solitude of the Arabian desert, and returned again to Damascus (Gal. 1:15-17).

      3. Not until three years later did be at last go up to Jerusalem. There he visited Cephas (the apostle Peter) for two weeks, but saw none of the other apostles, but only James, the Lord's brother (vs. 18-20).

      4. From thence he went to the regions of Syria, and his home-district Cilicia. During all this time he was still "unknown by face" to the churches in Christ in Judea: all they knew of him was through the circulated reports that he that once persecuted them was now preaching the faith of which once he had made havoc. "And they glorified God in me" (vs. 22-24).

      These undeniable facts were such as to preclude all possibility of Paul's having received his gospel from man or through man. Not from any man, but directly and independently from Jesus Christ Himself, he obtained his gospel. Surely the Galatian brethren had known all this before. Paul states it again to them in order to vindicate his claim to apostleship, against the falsehoods and evil aspersions of the Judaizers.

      Of the bulwarks of the Christian faith, the chiefest is the resurrection of Christ. But next to it in importance ranks the conversion of Paul. The adversary has therefore made this latter one of his great targets. In the eighteenth century two English deists, Lord Lyttleton and Gilbert West, set out to disprove the truth of Christianity--the one choosing the resurrection of Christ for the attack; the other (Lord Lyttleton) thought that by exposing what he considered to be the absurdity of the story of Paul's conversion, he could refute the Christian faith. As each was studying his case to prepare himself for his task, each became convinced of the validity and truth of the testimony; and the outcome was that Gilbert West wrote a strong treatise, setting forth the irrefutable evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ; Lord Lyttleton did the same on the Conversion of Saul of Tarsus. To this day no unbeliever has ever been able to explain the empty sepulchre, nor has anyone been able to furnish a reasonable theory explaining the career of the apostle Paul. The testimony to both the resurrection of Jesus, and the conversion of Saul, is buttressed by such irrefutable evidence of circumstance, as to compel a clean-cut choice between faith or willful unbelief.

      Paul was a public figure, subject to the searching criticism of his many enemies, who would have gone to all trouble to prove him false. But here are some of the stubborn facts:

      1. That in his youth and early manhood Paul was whole-heartedly and fiercely set against the faith in Christ, and its adherents. [10]

      2. That suddenly, on the occasion of the journey to Damascus he was radically changed over to Christian faith.

      That he claimed the change to have been due to a supernatural vision of Jesus Christ.

      It must be noted in this connection that this vision took place, not at night, but in the height and brightness of noonday; nor in solitude, but in the presence of traveling companions; furthermore, that and actual, objective light of exceeding brightness shone round about him and those who journeyed with him--a light which blinded Paul and smote all his companions to the earth; that an actual, audible voice, heard by all (but understood by Paul alone) spoke to him from heaven; that his companions led him by the hand into Damascus, where after three days his sight was restored, and he began at once to preach Christ, to the amazement and chagrin of the Jews there.

      4. That his preaching ever after was not according to the wisdom of men (not such as man could have thought of or designed), but full of the demonstration of the Spirit and of power--power still felt to this day.

      5. That the credentials of his apostleship was manifested to the people among whom he preached (2 Cor. 12:12).

      6. That never in, his after-life did he waver in this faith and testimony.

      7. That he lost all and suffered all for the sake of his faith and testimony and finally died for it.

      Only two adverse arguments, neither worthy of any note, have ever been made: (1) that Paul was an impostor. His whole career and life and death refutes that; (2) that his change to Christianity was due to a mental aberration of some sort (some even claiming, in the face of all evidence and testimony, that his conversion was due to an attack of epilepsy!). The sensibleness and calm reason of all his teaching in his epistles; the stedfastness of his convictions to the end; and the fruit which his work has borne in all the world through the centuries, more than answer such pitiable and wicked arguments.¹ [11]

[PLG 8-11]