Chapter # 1 Paragraph # 6 Study # 1
February 13, 2011
Dayton, Texas

• I. The Next Step In Paul's Argument.
  • Thesis: My message is from God.
  • B. Main Sub-thesis: I did not get my message from, or through, men [1:11-12].
  • C. Lines of Evidence.
    • 1. This message altered my life at a most fundamental level for the better [1:13-14].
    • 2. As soon as the particulars of this message affected me, I departed from all who could have influenced my understanding of it and went into Arabia [1:15-17].
    • 3. It was three years from my personal reception of this message before I went to Jerusalem [1:18-19].
      • a. The length of time that passed was three years.
        • 1) Acts 9 puts this "three year" period into the "Damascus" time frame. Luke's terminology is "...after that many days were fulfilled..." (9:23).
        • 2) How much of Paul's hiatus in Arabia ate up that "three years" is unknown.
        • 3) How long that "three years" actually was is also an unknown because of the way time frames were described. It could have been a full three years, or it could have been any number of months after two full years.
        • 4) It is unlikely that "Jerusalem" was unaware of what was happening in Damascus unless the actual time of Paul's preaching there was significantly short-lived.
      • b. My purpose for going was to "see" Peter.
        • 1) The word translated "to see" is used only once in the New Testament.
        • 2) The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that this verb means "to visit with the purpose of obtaining information".
        • 3) Acts 9:26-30 gives Luke's account of this "visit". That account is "general" and could easily be misunderstood if not for Paul's clarification here in this letter to the Galatians.
      • c. I spent fifteen days with him. Since Paul's "point" is that he did not get his message from any "man", it seems beyond dispute that his "fifteen days" is intended to show that he did not have the time it would take to iron out his understanding of the Gospel while in Jerusalem.
      • d. The only other "apostle" that I saw during that time was the James who was the brother of the Lord. This is deliberate clarification so that Paul's extremely limited access to "those in the know" is both honest and clear.
    • 4. Before God, I am not lying.
      • a. It is clear that Paul wished to be believed.
      • b. It is also clear that Paul understood that anything he wrote could be wiped away, in terms of its impact, by one accusation: he is lying.
      • c. We must understand that this is the "Achilles heel" of all religious argumentation that is rooted in actual historical claims: anyone can claim anything and only those who go to the trouble of actually checking out the claims can be "sure" of the truthfulness of the claims.
      • d. At this point, since most will not "check it out" and do not even have the ability or means to do so, the issue is a "faith" issue and the question is whether the claims seem to be credible.
        • 1) If, in fact, the claim, "Before God, I am not lying", can, itself, be a lie, what is the point of making it?
        • 2) The only valid "point" for making such a claim is the "intent" to reveal how much the maker of the claim wishes to be believed. At this level, one has to ask a most fundamental question: Why? So what if everyone "believes" the claim or refuses to "believe"? What has Paul to gain by being "believed" and what has he to lose by being treated as a liar? This is where Paul's "arguments" come into play as "interactive". The initial claim was that the message is not human because it altered Paul's behavior in a positive sense. That "positive sense" boiled down to a cessation of "self-seeking" and an initiation of "Love". The accusation of being a liar necessarily implies false motivation and that motivation becomes the core question. What would Paul gain/lose on the basis of how the Galatians respond to his message?
          • a) Interestingly, Paul pointed out the motivation of his opponents in 6:12. In that text he claims that they have two motives: one, to "make a fair show in the flesh"; and, two, to escape "persecution".
          • b) This question of motivation, then, does put a couple of things front and center. First, since Paul charged his opponents with seeking to make a fair showing in the flesh, could he escape the same charge if it were laid against him? Did Paul wish to build a personal reputation for his own glory? Second, since Paul was suffering persecution for the cross of Christ (an action he accused his opponents of being unwilling to take), was he "boasting"? Did he have a kind of "martyr complex" that let him feel superior to his opposition, and was this his motivation for the message? He claimed to be innocent of both (6:14). The question is: Was he innocent?
          • c) In order to resolve this, we have to look at the "messages", both of Paul and of his opposition. Paul's doctrine consistently turns the "glory-seeking" into a massive evil. The opposition's doctrine fosters, and depends upon, the "believer's" desire to self-exalt. Even though it is beyond obvious that one can publicly eschew "self-exaltation" while secretly hoping the public "humility" will gain a reputation for the speaker, it, nonetheless, must have a valid basis in doctrine. Here Paul's message comes across as "Truth". Even though a man might propound "Truth" for his own glory, the "Truth", itself, must still lead non-hypocrites to genuine humility in seeking to honor God. This, the twisted doctrine of the legalists cannot do. So, even if Paul was a secret glory-hound, his message labeled such behavior as a massive evil of which he had a part until his conversion.