BIBLICAL BACKGROUND
“Son of God” in the Bible
The original language of Scripture sometimes contains nuances of meaning that are not easily translated into English. For instance, “his Son” in Gal 1:16 translates a Greek phrase that literally says “the son of him.” The presence or absence of the article (“the”) makes a difference in what is meant by the phrase “son of God” in the Bible.
A few texts in the Old Testament speak of the “sons” of God to designate angels or his people (see Deut 32:8; Job 1:6; Wis 12:19, 21). Some texts refer to particular people as sons of God—for example, the Davidic king (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7) or the righteous person (Wis 2:18 RSV). Israel in a collective sense is sometimes called “God’s son” (Exod 4:22; Jer 31:20), although the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, never uses the article in these texts.
However, in Gal 1:16 and many other New Testament passages, Jesus Christ is called “the Son of God” or “his Son” using the article in Greek (although the definite article does not appear in English). These expressions appear in Paul’s earliest letter (1 Thess 1:10) and in 1 Cor 1:9 and 2 Cor 1:19. The way in which the New Testament refers to Jesus as the Son of God is unique, distinct from all other references to “son of God” in the Bible.
It is to be noted that the revelation Paul received, profound as it was, is not the main point of the sentence in which it appears; he mentions it only as background (“But when [God] . . .” [v. 15]) to introduce what he wants to emphasize: I did not immediately consult. . . . This is the train of thought that Paul will complete in verse 17 and the narrative that follows.
Reflection and Application (1:16)
When Paul and his companions preached, those who heard them not only heard their arguments for the †gospel; they encountered Christ in and through them. Paul reminds the Thessalonian Christians of their experience of him and his companions:
Our gospel did not come to you in word alone, but also in power and in the holy Spirit and [with] much conviction. You know what sort of people we were [among] you for your sake. And you became imitators of us and of the Lord. . . .
With such affection for you, we were determined to share with you not only the gospel of God, but our very selves as well, so dearly beloved had you become to us. . . . You are witnesses, and so is God, how devoutly and justly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers. As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children. (1 Thess 1:5–6; 2:8, 10–11)
An important way in which the presence of the Holy Spirit becomes manifest is through the demeanor and character of those who proclaim the gospel.
Later in Galatians, Paul speaks of Christ’s presence in him: “I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me” (2:20). Because Paul was living in Christ and Christ was living in Paul, people could not help but take notice and respond, whether positively or negatively. For Paul to be a missionary, he needed a revelation of Jesus in his inmost self—and so do we. Paul’s example shows us how important it is for anyone involved in evangelization or ministry to cultivate their personal relationship with Jesus. The more Christ lives in us and we †live in him, the more people will encounter him when they encounter us.
[1:17]
After reporting with such solemnity the revelation he received, Paul speaks of what he did “immediately” thereafter. Luke reports that the first effect of Christ’s appearance to Paul was apostolic: “He began at once to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). Luke’s account is surprising and significant, because normally a new convert does not become an apostle “immediately” but needs to complete a lengthy catechesis and formation. Paul could have said, “I immediately began to proclaim the faith,” but rather unexpectedly he speaks of what he did not do: I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me (Gal 1:16–17). One can see that Paul’s pressing concern when writing to the Galatians is not to give an account of his missionary activities but to affirm the independence of his apostolic testimony, denying any dependence on other people, even those who were the most authoritative.
Before a person makes a very important personal decision, it is helpful to consult relatives, friends, or other people with experience, but Paul did not do that. Certain that he had received divine revelation, he did not want to subject that revelation to “†flesh and blood,” to human beings in all their limitedness. It is even more significant that Paul did not feel the need to be in contact with the apostles in Jerusalem. When referring to them, Paul uses a phrase that shows his awareness of being an apostle in the full sense of the word, even though he was not chosen by Jesus as part of the Twelve (see Matt 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). He describes the apostles in Jerusalem as “those who were apostles before me,” which clearly implies that he himself has become an apostle and suggests that this occurred at the time of his revelation. The same perspective is found in 1 Cor 9:1, where Paul asks, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Knowing that he was appointed as an apostle by Christ himself, Paul did not need the approval of the other apostles.
Paul’s manner of speaking could leave the impression that he had no contact with anyone and was not connected to any Christian community, but he does not say that. Paul wants to demonstrate the directly divine origin of the †gospel that he preaches. He does not deny being in relationship with the Christian community in Damascus; he denies only having “consulted” anyone to be sure of his gospel (see the sidebar, “Paul’s Gospel,” p. 62).
The sentence finishes by saying what he did do: rather, I went into Arabia . . . , probably referring to the region south of Damascus. The Greek verb used to describe his going to Arabia bears the nuance of going away.5 Instead of going to Jerusalem, he distanced himself from it. He does not explain the reason or the goal of his trip to Arabia, nor does he say what activity he was involved in there. Solitary meditation? Preaching the gospel? The only point he wants to make is that by being in Arabia he was far from Jerusalem and could not be in contact with the apostles and the church in Jerusalem. The independence of his vocation and of his gospel is thus proved. Paul owes nothing to human beings, not even to the apostles who preceded him. Instead of being merely a disciple of the apostles, as his opponents may have asserted, Paul found himself suddenly elevated to the rank of apostle by virtue of the revelation he received.
Paul does not report the duration of his time in Arabia—months? years?—but he does explain that before going to Jerusalem he then returned to Damascus. This statement provides indirect confirmation of Acts that when Paul received the “revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal 1:12), he was near Damascus (Acts 9:3).6
Reflection and Application (1:17)
For the Apostle Paul to demonstrate the authenticity of his message, it was necessary to insist that he received it independently of the mediation of any other human being—that his apostleship and his †gospel came directly from Jesus Christ. Paul needed to defend the message he proclaimed against people who may have tried to compare it unfavorably with the teaching of others who claimed to be apostles.
However, for later generations of Christians, including ourselves, the situation is nearly the opposite. The authenticity of the gospel we believe and proclaim is determined by its continuity with the gospel proclaimed by Paul, Peter, and all the apostles. Since the second century the Church has recognized certain writings of the apostles and some of their coworkers as inspired and authoritative Scripture and, along with Sacred Tradition, as constituting the deposit of †faith. By the end of the fourth century a consensus emerged regarding the contents of these Scriptures testifying to the revelation of Christ: the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Because God has revealed himself fully in his Son Jesus Christ (John 1:18; 14:9; Heb 1:1–4), the Church awaits no further public revelation before his return in glory (Catechism 66).
When people today receive prophecies or visions, these divine communicatio
ns are called “private” revelation since they do not add to the deposit of faith and are not binding on the faithful. They are to be tested for their conformity with Scripture and Tradition. We look to the bishops, as those appointed by Christ to guide the Church, to make authoritative judgments on private revelation when necessary (Catechism 67, 801).
Paul’s Eventual Contact with Peter (1:18–20)
18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20(As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying.)
NT: Matt 5:33–37; 16:18; John 1:42; Jude 1:1
Catechism: brothers of the Lord, 500; oaths, 2154
Lectionary: 1:11–20: Vigil of Sts. Peter and Paul
[1:18]
Paul denied having had any contact with the apostles immediately after his conversion (1:17). Here he acknowledges going to Jerusalem and finally having some contact later. He minimizes its significance, however, specifying that the contact occurred later (after three years), that it was brief (fifteen days), and that it was limited to Cephas—that is, Peter—and James. It is clear that for Paul, Cephas was the most important apostle, and it was he whom Paul went to Jerusalem to meet three years after encountering Christ on the road to Damascus.
The Greek verb Paul uses for confer with can mean either “to seek to know” or “to question” a person to obtain information. Paul’s coming to Jerusalem to get to know Peter or to ask him for more specific information about Jesus’ life and the beginnings of the Church does not contradict his claim to have received his †gospel directly from Christ.
BIBLICAL BACKGROUND
Cephas Is Peter
Cephas is a Greek form of an Aramaic word (kēfā) that means “rock”; Kephas would be a more accurate English spelling than Cephas, since the name begins with a k sound. The Fourth Gospel records that Jesus gave this new name to Simon, Andrew’s brother: “‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter)” (John 1:42). The other Gospel writers also record Jesus giving Simon the new name, but they use a Greek word for “rock” (petros, Peter) rather than the original Aramaic (Matt 16:18; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14).
According to Matthew, Jesus explains this name in reference to the special role of leadership Peter is called to exercise: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt 16:18). After Jesus, the person mentioned most often in all four Gospels is Peter. In every list of the Twelve, Peter’s name comes first. Acts shows Peter exercising this role of leadership in a variety of ways (e.g., Acts 1:15; 2:14; 5:29; 15:7). The importance of the meaning of Simon’s new name to the early Church is evident from the fact that Cephas is the only Aramaic name we know of that the New Testament authors chose to translate into Greek. Barnabas continued to be known by his Aramaic name, while Paul used a Roman name (Paulos) in place of his Hebrew name Saul.
Unlike other New Testament writers, Paul usually refers to Peter by his Aramaic name, Cephas, four times in 1 Corinthians and four times in Galatians (1:18; 2:9, 11, 14; but see 2:7–8). Paul’s use of Cephas may be due to his initial acquaintance with Peter in an Aramaic-language environment (1:18) or perhaps because Galatians and 1 Corinthians were written before “Peter” replaced “Cephas” in common usage among the Greek-speaking churches.
Figures 6–7. Medallions of St. Paul and St. Peter in icon frames, made in Constantinople ca. 1100. [Public domain. Photos from the MET. Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917.]
[1:19]
Verse 19 is a bit ambiguous: But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James. This sentence could imply that James was one of the apostles or that James was not one of the apostles but nevertheless someone important. The second meaning is preferable since the Gospels do not list this particular James among the Twelve. This James also appears in the list of appearances of the risen Christ, where Paul distinguishes between Jesus’ appearing “to the Twelve” and his later appearing to James (1 Cor 15:5, 7). Paul specifies that the James he is speaking about was the brother of the Lord. By saying “the brother,” Paul distinguishes this James from others who were not part of Jesus’ family. The Gospels name two: “James, the son of Zebedee” and “James, the son of Alphaeus” (Matt 10:2–3). The use of the article “the” does not mean that James was the only brother of Jesus, since the Gospels indicate that Jesus had other “brothers” and “sisters.”7 Paul himself speaks in the plural about “the brothers of the †Lord,” distinguishing this category from that of “the apostles” (1 Cor 9:5). In Palestinian Judaism, “brother” could refer to many different kinds of relatives, including cousins.8 Paul’s word choice suggests that the expression had become a title of honor; he says not merely “the brother of Jesus” but “the brother of the Lord,” pointing to the relationship of James with the glorified Christ. Acts speaks of this James as a leader of the Jerusalem church (see Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18).
Figure 8. St. James, the brother of the Lord (oak sculpture, Netherlands, ca. 1500). [Public domain. Photo from the MET. Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1916.]
[1:20]
By saying before God, I am not lying, Paul swears that he is telling the truth. Why did the Apostle feel the need to swear after reporting a detail that does not seem very important? We do not know. Perhaps Paul’s opponents were trying to diminish his apostolic authority by saying that Paul was not really an apostle but only a disciple of the apostles because he had spent time in Jerusalem being instructed by them. Or perhaps his opponents were saying that Paul’s teaching differed from that of the other apostles, so he avoided communication with them. Either of these would be grounds for the †Judaizers to argue that the Galatians should accept their version of the †gospel rather than Paul’s.
The presence of Paul’s oath confirms the defensive nature of this part of the letter. Paul is defending himself in order to defend his gospel. Paul was accustomed to calling on God as his witness, a form of swearing (2 Cor 1:23; 11:31; 1 Thess 2:5). He did not observe the prohibition against swearing given by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:33–37) and repeated in James 5:12. Either Paul did not know of this prohibition or did not interpret it in an absolute manner but understood it as an exhortation to honesty in speech.9 Paul did not hesitate to swear to what he was saying, because he was being completely sincere (2 Cor 1:17–20; 2:17–23; 4:2; 1 Thess 2:3–6).
Lack of Personal Acquaintance with the Churches of Judea (1:21–24)
21Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22And I was unknown personally to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; 23they only kept hearing that “the one who once was persecuting us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24So they glorified God because of me.
NT: Acts 9:26–30; 11:25–26; 22:3
[1:21]
After his brief visit with Peter, Paul again went far away from Jerusalem and the apostles. He mentions two regions but no cities. Syria suggests Damascus or Antioch (see Acts 11:26); Cilicia was the region of Paul’s hometown of Tarsus (see Acts 9:30). Paul mentions Antioch in Gal 2:11, but he never speaks of Tarsus in any of his letters. In 1:21 he does not describe his activity in these places, but the report of the churches of Judea in verse 23 indicates that Paul was engaged in evangelization.
[1:22]
Although Paul has acknowledged brief contact with Peter and James, he highlights the absence of a relationship with the churches of Judea, stating they did not know him personally but only heard about his conversion. He specifies that he is speaking of churches that are in Christ, since the word translated “churches” could refer to non-Christian assemblies.10
[1:23]
As a consequence of his geographical distance, the Christian churches in Judea did not know Paul except by hearsay. They heard about the extraordinary transformation he had undergone from being a persecutor of the Church to being a missionary of the Christian faith. Some bib
lical scholars dispute that anyone can speak of Paul’s “conversion,” since verses 15–16 speak only of the “revelation” he received. While it is true that Paul did not change from paganism to the worship of the true God as Gentile Christians did, nonetheless verse 23 depicts a radical conversion—a complete change of direction: the one who once was persecuting . . . is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy. In Phil 3:7–11 Paul says of this conversion that he set aside everything he previously valued in order to put Christ first in every aspect of his life.
[1:24]
The conclusion of the churches of Judea demonstrates that they discerned the hand of the †Lord in these events: they glorified God. Ending the first section of his defense this way shows Paul’s †rhetorical skill (1:13–24). If he had declared the extraordinary character of his conversion himself, someone might have challenged the value of his testimony (John 5:31; 8:13). Paul therefore prefers to report the testimony of others and their response of praise to God. It is an admirable conclusion, expressing Christian faith and advancing Paul’s argument that God had intervened dramatically in his life and—his main point—that his †gospel has its beginning from that revelation of Christ.
The theological message of this brief unit (Gal 1:11–24) is found in Paul’s explicit assertion of the divine origin of his apostleship and doctrine. God acted to turn a persecutor into an apostle of Christ. God’s intervention consisted in a revelation of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, a revelation that was to be communicated to the †Gentiles. Both the revelation of Jesus as God’s Son and the mission to the Gentiles are of fundamental importance in Paul’s discussion with the Galatians, and they do not cease being fundamental for the †faith of the whole Church up to the present time. The doctrine of the Apostle Paul is not mere theological speculation; it belongs to divine revelation.
Galatians Page 6
