Apostles: Are they around today?

On Google+, some guy who calls himself Apostle John Doe*, added me to his G+ circles. As a result of this I decided to re-publish this blog post that was originally published at my original blog back in November 2005.

* Not his real name ...

Greek – APOSTOLOS (αποστολος)

Rembrandt's "Apostle Paul"

An APOSTOLOS is one who is sent. The word was used in classical Greek as a naval expedition and probably also its commander. In the NT it can also mean 'delegate,' 'envoy,' 'messenger,' especially of God's messengers. The NT uses APOSTOLOS predominantly for the 'apostles,' who were a group of highly honoured believers with a special function in the church.¹

Introduction

Several people are named as 'apostles' in the New Testament. How do they all relate to the office of apostle as specified in Eph. 4:11? Would it be correct to say that there are different levels of 'apostle-ship' (get the pun?), or should we look for a different translation or interpretation for APOSTOLOS where it does not directly fit into being a foundation of Christianity as in Eph. 2:20? There is great division on this matter in the church with some saying that the 5-fold ministry (offices) is still for today, and others who deny that apostles and prophets are valid for today.

Will this writing clarify the issue? Probably not! I have noticed, that no matter how exhaustive or accurate one writes on any topic, there are few people that will even consider changing what they believe on a certain issue. What prevents them from doing so? It is hard to say! Peer pressure (the church exerts a lot of that together with condemnation), longevity of beliefs, etc. Yet, this is not the point! I do not say that I have it right, but I am trying to clarify it for myself.

Tithing and giving

I originally published this study on my first blog called Just Thinking... on 8 October 2006.

Tithing in the Old Testament

“(22)  You shall surely tithe all the produce from what you sow, which comes out of the field every year.  (23)  You shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God, at the place where He chooses to establish His name, the tithe of your grain, your new wine, your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and your flock, so that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.  (24)  If the distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring the tithe, since the place where the LORD your God chooses to set His name is too far away from you when the LORD your God blesses you,  (25)  then you shall exchange it for money, and bind the money in your hand and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses.  (26)  You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.  (27)  Also you shall not neglect the Levite who is in your town, for he has no portion or inheritance among you.  (28)  At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town.  (29)  The Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance among you, and the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.” (Deu 14:22-29)

Deuteronomy 14:22-29 tells us that every year (v. 22) the tithe was to be taken to the designated place of tithing, and it was to be eaten there by the one who brought it (v. 23). Why did the Israelites have to eat their tithe there? So that they could "learn to fear the LORD your God always." (v. 23). Did you see who this tithe was to be given to? Did they have to give it to the priest? The priest's assistant? The building fund? The televangelist? The temple? Or church? No they had to take the tithe and enjoy it themselves!
The passage explains that if it is too far to take the tithe to the designated place of tithing, you should take your tithe, exchange it for money, and then take it to another place the Lord chooses. Now, see what we are to do with the money we got from our tithes!

"You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household." (v. 26).

When last have you been taught that if your church was too far, you could take your tithe and spend it on anything you wanted to? Now how do we get the money to the "priest?" That is, if we were ever told to tithe money! I'm just contemporising it.

The Sabbath: Celebrating Christ in the New Covenant

I originally published this study on my first blog called Just Thinking... on 4 September 2006.

In the church today there are multiple views on the issue of the Sabbath. How should the Sabbath be kept, if at all?

Some argue that the Sabbath should be kept in the same way as it was kept in the Old Testament while others argue that it should be kept in the same way, yet that it moved to the first day of the week from the seventh. These call the first day of the week the Lord's Day. There are also others that believe that we should treat each day alike and that there is no day that is more holy than another.

In this article we will attempt to define the relationship of the New Covenant believer to the Sabbath.

We will not concern ourselves with commenting on seventh-day sabbatarians since any comments in this article on sabbatarianism, of whichever form, should be able to be levelled at seventh-day sabbatarians.

The Sabbath Instituted

The Sabbath was instituted at Mt Sinai in the Ten Commandments. God instituted the Sabbath for the Israelites to keep in Ex 20:8-11,

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.  (9)  Six days you shall labor and do all your work,  (10)  but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.  (11)  For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."

Bible translation philosophy: Which Bible translation should I use?

I downloaded and watched a series of videos on the question, Which Bible Translation Should I Use? I found this Biblical Studies Symposium presented by Liberty University very helpful. Three scholars presented their case of why their translation philosophy was best. Dr. Wayne Grudem represented the “essentially literal” philosophy of translation of the English Standard Version (ESV). Dr. Doug Moo contended for the dynamic equivalence philosophy of the 2011 New International Version (NIV2011) on the other side, and Dr. Ray Clendenen represented the optimal equivalence philosophy of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) somewhere in the middle between the ESV and NIV2011.

Dave Croteau invited these three men to contend for their philosophies of translation and their respective translations.

I felt that each representative did a good job in airing their views. There are 5 videos to watch, and they vary from about 36 minutes to around 48 minutes in length. They are:

1. Video 1: Dr. Ray Clendenen and the Holman Christian Standard Bible
2. Video 2: Dr. Wayne Grudem and the English Standard Version
3. Video 3: Dr. Doug Moo and the New International Version
4. Video 4: Responses and Q&A
5. Video 5: Dr. Wayne Grudem's Morning Session: "The Trustworthiness of Scripture"

Something quite unrelated to the philosophy of translation is the fact that in the Q&A session, a few students found it very difficult to put together a coherent statement and/or question to ask.

Some time ago I wrote a blog post called Which Bible translation should I use? I compared the ESV/NIV2011/NASB/HCSB. It could be helpful. I also wrote a blog post on why The Message is not a trustworthy Bible to use.

The Lost Tools of (Bible) Learning

“When we think about the remarkably early age at which the young men went up to university in, let us   say, Tudor times, and thereafter were held fit to assume responsibility for the conduct of their own affairs, are we altogether comfortable about that artificial prolongation of intellectual childhood and adolescence into the years of physical maturity which is so marked in our own day? To postpone the acceptance of responsibility to a late date brings with it a number of psychological complications which, while they may interest the psychiatrist, are scarcely beneficial either to the individual or to society. The stock argument in favor of postponing the school- leaving age and prolonging the period of education generally is  that there is now so much more to learn than there was in the Middle Ages. This is partly true, but not wholly. The modern boy and girl are certainly taught more subjects – but does that always mean that they actually know more?

Has it ever struck you as odd, or unfortunate, that today, when the proportion of literacy throughout Western Europe is higher than it has ever been, people should have become susceptible to the influence of advertisement and mass propaganda to an extent hitherto unheard of  and unimagined? Do you put this down to the mere mechanical fact that the press and the radio and so on have made propaganda much easier to distribute over a wide area? Or do you sometimes have an uneasy suspicion that the product of modern educational methods is less good than he or she might be at disentangling fact from opinion and the proven from the plausible?

Have you ever, in listening to a debate among adult and presumably responsible people, been fretted by the extraordinary inability of the average debater to speak to the question, or to meet and refute the arguments of speakers on the other side? Or have you ever pondered upon the extremely high incidence of irrelevant matter which crops up at committee meetings, and upon the very great rarity of persons capable of acting as chairmen of committees? And when you think of this, and think that most of our public affairs are settled by debates and committees, have you ever felt a certain sinking of the heart?

Have you ever followed a discussion in the newspapers or elsewhere and noticed how frequently writers fail to define the terms they use? Or how often, if one man does define his terms, another will assume in his reply that he was using the terms in precisely the opposite sense to that in which he has already defined them? Have you ever been faintly troubled by the amount of slipshod syntax going about? And, if so, are you troubled because it is inelegant or because it may lead to dangerous misunderstanding?

Do you ever find that young people, when they have left school, not only forget most of what they have learnt (that is only to be expected), but forget also, or betray that they have never really known, how to tackle a new subject for themselves? Are you often bothered by coming across grown-up men and women who seem unable to distinguish between a book that is sound, scholarly, and properly documented, and one that is, to any trained eye, very conspicuously none of these things? Or who cannot handle a library catalogue? Or who, when faced with  a book of reference, betray a curious inability to extract from it the passages relevant to the particular question which interests them?” (Dorothy Sayers, The Lost Tools of Learning)

How much do you study your Bible?

A short review of Exegetical Fallacies by D. A. Carson

Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Carson is here at his exegetical best. I believe every Christian should read this book. Carson handles word-study, grammatical, logical, presuppositional and historical fallacies.

Under the word-study fallacy he handles one of the great fallacies we have heard in the church for the past 30 years: the so-called differences between agape and phileo, and many more.

In his chapter on grammatical fallacies, Carson deals extensively with issues of Greek translation, where preachers and teachers would make comments based on the Greek. He explains how Greek is a very flexible language and that assumptions based on a little Greek knowledge could actually be very incorrect!

Next, Carson deals with logical fallacies. This is where many Christians get tripped up. There are many areas in which Christians make false assumptions when dealing with logic, especially while reading the Bible. in this chapter we learn how to read the Bible with our minds active and in thinking mode. Truth is propositional, and we need to know how to handle those propositions correctly.

In His chapter on presuppositional and historical fallacies, Carson explains how our own frame of reference can influence how we read the Bible, and how to read the Bible correctly, understanding what it means from the author's perspective. He also shows how our interpretation of history can be muddled up under the historical fallacies. How do we read history? How do we interpret it? Are we reconstructing historical events correctly, and what caused them?

In his concluding chapter, Carson quickly goes through several more fallacies in summary fashion, such as problems with literary genre, arguments from silence, statistical arguments and more.

In my opinion, every person who is serious about studying the Bible should read this book. It certainly helps in recognizing the pitfalls of interpreting the Bible, and teaches us to think more while we study the Bible. God, after all, is a thinking God!

View all my reviews

Carson and Piper discuss historical background and the Bible

Mastered By the Book from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

Jesus took on humanity, even though He was God: translation difficulties

I listened to a sermon the other day, in which the preacher used Phil 2:5-11, that famous passage on the incarnation of Christ.

In his sermon he mentioned at one point that he wanted to disagree with the ESV in its translation of verse 6, which says:

“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.”

He felt that the “though” in the ESV wasn’t a good translation and that many translations have “being” in the form of God, making it essentially that it was the very nature of God that made Him give as much as He did, which of course is not wrong theology.

Of course, there have been many debates on the translation of the Greek word here.

Which Bible translation should I use?

UPDATE NOTE: It was brought to my attention by commenter Alan in the comments below that the ESV and the HCSB had been updated since their first releases, which I knew. I just did not check whether Bible Gateway—which I used for the comparisons—had the updated text of these two translations. The thing is, I do have the ESV Study Bible with the updated text and the HCSB Study Bible with the updated text. I just assumed Bible Gateway had the updated texts. I should have checked more closely! Below, I will update the Bible text with the new text, and simply strike through the old. New comments will be in in bold-italic. However, after rechecking the texts, I only had to change one verse and comment, leaving me at my original conclusion. So, now you may start reading this post.

It definitely is not easy to choose which Bible translation to implement for personal use. Around 1980 I started using the KJV, and at about 1983 I changed to the NIV, while using the KJV as a backup. In 1985 I started Bible school. In my second year we started with Greek, and in that year we covered Greek I, II and III. My average for these 3 Greek modules was 96%. That is not to brag, just to state a fact. Since then I haven’t really kept it up, and so my knowledge of Greek isn’t like it was back then. (I have recently started working through Bill Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek.) During that year, one of our modules was 1 Corinthians, and the lecturer for that used the NASB. I bought myself a copy of the NASB and started studying through major New Testament parts, and by 1987 I switched over to the NASB as my main study translation. That remained the status quo until the ESV was released.

Like many in the Reformed camp, I jumped on the band wagon and switched to the ESV soon after its release in 2003, because of all the recommendations by great Bible scholars and teachers from the Reformed camp. John Piper, for instance, moved from the NASB to the ESV. Piper is a great Greek scholar and would know what to check for. Other scholars and teachers that recommend the ESV are Dr. Darrell Bock, Jerry Bridges, Francis Chan, Kevin DeYoung, Mark Driscoll, Dr. Albert Mohler Jr., Dr. Thomas Schreiner, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Daniel B. Wallace, Dr. John Walvoord, Dr. Ravi Zacharias, and many more. So, as you can see, the list is quite intimidating and formidable.

Recently, the HCSB was recommended to me by a blog writer and pastor. I decided to check it out against the ESV, NASB and NIV. I spent a whole weekend to compare and check, and my results are as follows:

Galatians Part 12: Conclusion—6:17-18 and Summary

IV. Conclusion—6:17-18

6:17—From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus—Paul is actually confident when he tells the Galatians that they should henceforth not cause him anymore trouble of the kind that erupted among them. He already bears the marks of Christ as the cost he paid to bring the gospel to the Galatians. Paul experienced many sufferings, some to the point of death, for the sake of the gospel; and, this should be proof enough for the Galatians that he is genuine with them and that his gospel is genuine. “But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.” (5:11)

Image courtesy Frank Moore Photography

6:18—The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen—Apart from the “amen” (“let it be”) at the end of this epistle, Paul’s last word to the Galatians is “brothers.” It points to two things. First, Paul still counts them as Christians and that they have not yet apostatised by rejecting the gospel of grace for the Law. Second, he ends by showing them affection. Paul wants them to know that it was because of his concern and love for them that he wrote such a strong worded letter.

“[Paul’s] prayer is not only that God may bestow upon them his grace in large measure, but that they may have a proper feeling of it in their hearts. Then only is it truly enjoyed by us, when it comes to our spirit. We ought therefore to entreat that God would prepare in our souls a habitation for his grace.”¹

Galatians Part 11: Paul defends the gospel (f)—2:15-6:16

C. Attitudes under the gospel—6:1-16

1. Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought—6:1-5

6:1—BRETHREN, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted—Those who claim to walk by the Spirit—the spiritual—should restore those who are caught up in sin. If we learn of someone in sin, what do we do? Should we overlook it on account of love? “Restore,” from the Greek katartidzō (καταρτιζω), means to mend, restore to a former condition or repair. This word was also used as a medical term for the setting of broken bones or resetting a dislocated limb. The one who has fallen must be set straight. Do we first have to wait until we have gained the right to speak into another Christian’s life of sin. No! When Paul starts this verse with “brethren” he also points to the fact that as Christians we are in a family. We immediately have the right as brothers and sisters to correct each other. A spiritual Christian will step in to restore a fallen sibling, yet with the right attitude.

So, how are we to go about it? Paul gives us the answer. We are to do it “in a spirit of gentleness.” We are not to correct others with self-righteous attitudes in which we want to show off our own righteousness. That will put us in the same class as the Judaizers. It will simply show our own reliance on the law and our own merit before God. However, if we are really spiritual, we will attempt to restore a fallen sibling “in a spirit of gentleness.” When we look back at the fruit of the Spirit (5:22), we see that love is at the head of the aspects of the spiritual fruit, and rightly so, since Paul also said, “But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.” (1 Cor 13:13) Our “gentleness” must be guided by “the love of God [which] has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.” (Rom 5:5)

Paul gives us a reason for the attitude we should have in restoring other Christians from sin. “So that you too will not be tempted.” Paul recognises that as human beings we are frail. None of us is immune to temptation and should therefore be on the lookout against such temptation.

Galatians Part 10: Paul defends the gospel (e)—2:15-6:16

B. Called to freedom—5:13-26

One of Paul’s central themes is that of freedom (2:4; 4:26, 31; 5:1). He did not define it practically before this point in his epistle, so now he moves toward defining what he means by freedom for Christians.

Image courtesy of Worshipping Christian

1. Do not let freedom lead to the desires of the flesh—5:13-15

5:13—For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another—Paul’s mention here of freedom is very similar to that in 5:1, but now he warns them not to allow this freedom to become an excuse for sinful behaviour. The opposite of legalism is antinomianism, the idea that since we are not under the Law that we are not under any law and can therefore live like we want, yet will be saved anyhow. Paul answered this question in Rom 6:15, “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” This shows a misunderstanding of grace. Paul also asked, “WHAT shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?” Paul’s very obvious answer to this question is “no!”

Just because we are no longer under the Mosaic legislation does not mean that we have no law at all! “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.” (Heb 7:12) The fact remains, we are not without law at all. We are under a new law. The law of Christ, based on grace. Under this law we do not work for our salvation by the things we do. We are saved by grace through faith. However, under this new law “He who began a good work in [us] will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” (Phil 1:6) God is at work in our lives to sanctify us. Our walk with Christ WILL lead to a holier life as we are being sanctified by Him!

Galatians Part 9: Paul defends the gospel (d)—2:15-6:16

IV. Paul defends the gospel—2:15-6:16 continued...

False teachers can look like the flock!

10. Paul expresses concern about the false teachers among them—4:12-20

4:12—I beg of you, brethren, become as I am, for I also have become as you are—Paul is exhorting the Galatians to become as he is, that is, free from the Law and its bondage. When Paul says that he has become as they are, he means that “to those who are without law, [he became] as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.” (1 Cor 9:21) Paul simply wants them to know that he never insisted that they first become Jews to be Christians. Christianity is apart from being a Jew.

4:13—You have done me no wrong; [13] but you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time—It was not really Paul’s intention to preach the gospel to the Galatians when he first travelled that way. We do not know exactly where in Galatia was when Paul became ill, since there is no historical information concerning his illness. What is clear is that Paul was in Galatia because of this illness.

This illness had to have been some eye problem since Paul writes that they would have plucked out their eye for him if they could have (v15). Even though Paul was ill at the time, they did not reject him and his message and as a result did him no wrong. Their attitude was opposite to that of the Jews who wanted to destroy him wherever he went.

Galatians Part 8: Paul defends the gospel (c)—2:15-6:16

IV. Paul defends the gospel—2:15-6:16 continued...

7. We are no longer in need of a tutor (Law)—3:23-29

3:23—But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed—The Greek of this verse gives us an idea of what Paul meant. The first four words of the Greek pro tou de elthein ten pistin (προ του δε ελθειν την πιστιν), simply mean "but before came." The question is before what came? The next two words in the Greek above make up "the faith." These words are translated as: "Now before this faith came" (ISV); "Before this faith came" (NIV); "But before the aforementioned faith came" (Wuest). The NASB, ASV, KJV and the RSV treat faith here as if without the article, making Paul’s words indefinite. However, Paul wanted to make a point by saying "before the faith" came. When he wrote these words he was pointing back to verse 22, to the words "that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." Paul is referring to the faith here as personal faith in the historic Jesus that brings salvation.

The law, which is not based on faith, kept those under it in bondage as a jailer would, until the faith—the Christian faith—was revealed. The law could not bring salvation but only bondage, and it was not until Christ came that salvation from this bondage could be effected.

Galatians Part 7: Paul defends the gospel (b)—2:15-6:16

IV. Paul defends the gospel—2:15-6:16 continued...

4. Curse of the Law is broken by Christ—3:10-14

3:10—For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM—Paul’s quote in this verse is from Dt 27:26. “[1] BRETHREN, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. [2] For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. [3] For not knowing about God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. [4] For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom 10:1-4) Israel attempted to be justified by the law—establishing their own righteousness—but in their attempt actually acquired the curse of the broken law. It is impossible for human beings to follow the law without breaking it at least once in a lifetime.

We are told that “whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.” (Js 2:10 NIV) If we live to be 70 years old and break the law once a day—no matter how tiny the sin—we have broken the law 25,550 times in our lifetimes! Even if we only commit one sin a week, we would have broken the law 3,640 times in our lifetimes! Does it seem at all possible to be righteous by the standards of the law? One sin in a lifetime is enough to have broken the law! This means that God’s curse is on the person who has sinned once.

Galatians Part 6: Paul defends the gospel (a)—2:15-6:16

IV. Paul defends the gospel—2:15-6:16 

A. Justification by faith above the Law—2:15-5:12
1. The works of the Law cannot justify the flesh—2:15-21

2:15—We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles—Paul is simply contrasting himself, Peter and the other Jewish Christian with the Gentiles. By nature Paul, Peter and the Jewish Christians were Jews, but  by nature the Gentiles were separated from the household of God. 

2:16—nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus—This is now where we get into the heart of the gospel. Justification by faith. The word “justified” comes from the Greek dikaióo (δικαιοω). Justification is a technical term borrowed from the world of law. It means to declare someone righteous. Note that it does not mean to make someone righteous. When a judge made a judgement, he could not make the accused guilty; he could simply declare him guilty. In the same way, the judge could not make a man innocent; he could simply declare him innocent. In this way, when God justifies us, He does not make us righteous; He simply declares us righteous.

The great theologian, Louis Berkhof, defines justification as "a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner." [emphasis supplied by Berkhof] It is unique in the application of the work of redemption in that it is a judicial act of God, a declaration respecting the sinner, and not an act or process of renewal, such as regeneration, conversion, and sanctification. While it has respect to the sinner, it does not change his inner life. It does not affect his condition, but his state, and in that respect differs from all the other principal parts of the order of salvation. It involves the forgiveness of sins, and restoration to divine favor.”¹

Galatians Part 5: Paul defends his apostleship - (b) (1:10-2:14)

III. Paul defends his apostleship continued...

5. Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem—2:1-10 

2:1—Then after a period of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem—Fourteen years later he went back up to Jerusalem. We cannot be absolutely certain whether the fourteen years followed his conversion or his previous visit to Jerusalem (1:18). However, it may be a reference to his previous visit to Jerusalem. First, Paul is busy demonstrating his independence from the apostles in Jerusalem. Thus he would be showing that it took fourteen years between visits. Second, the Greek construction differs between 1:18 and here. In 1:18 Paul writes epeita meta tria ete where it refers to his conversion whereas here in 2:1 he writes epeita dia dekatessaron eton. In 1:18 the direct translation is “then after three years” and in 2:1 it is “then through fourteen years.” I am sure that if Paul wanted both phrases so close to each other in his writing to mean the same he could have made it the same. Then both occurrences would have meant a dating from his conversion. Yet, in 2:1 he uses the word through to explain what he means. Since both phrases have visits to Jerusalem in mind, it is possible that Paul is referencing the first visit here and then showing that through another fourteen years he visited many other places and only then returned to Jerusalem.

Galatians Part 4: Paul defends his apostleship - (a) (1:10-2:14)

The apostle Paul, writing a letter.

III. Paul defends his apostleship—1:10-2:14 
A. God’s approval is supreme—1:10

1:10—For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men?—In Paul’s own defence he sets forth the idea that if he was a man-pleaser, he certainly would not have pronounced a curse on those who preach false gospels! Rather, in seeking the favour of God, for the sake of the gospel, he would pronounce such a curse on those who falsify the gospel. Paul is standing with Christ and not with man.

If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ—Paul makes a statement that many of us should take to heart. If we adapt our gospel to please man, to accommodate sinners, to take the edge of the gospel so that it does not offend the wayward, then we have failed miserably as servants of Christ. In fact, when we have softened the gospel for the sake of man, then we are not servants of Christ. The gospel by nature offends people (Rom 9:33), since it shows them their utter helplessness in their own despicable sinful nature. It tells them that God’s wrath burns against them (Jn 3:36; Rom 1:18; 2:5; 9:22; Col 3:6) because of their sin and this flies against the thoughts of man of his own goodness.

The word “bond-servant” comes from doulos (δουλος), “slave…esp. of the relationship of men to God [whereby man is] owned by him body and soul.”¹ We are not mere servants of Christ but slaves to Him. A slave always seeks to please his Master and not anyone else.

Paul is making the point that since he was called directly by Christ to be His apostle and also since he is preaching the real gospel, there is no need for him to seek the approval of men, but rather that of God. 

Galatians Part 3: Reasons for writing (1:3-9)

II. Reasons for writing—1:3-9

A. Christ gave Himself for us—1:3-5

1:3—Grace to you—“Paul’s nearly standard formula of Christian blessing and greeting seems particularly appropriate at the start of this letter. Normally, Paul alters the traditional Greek greeting  (chairein) to the important Christian word 'grace' (charis; GK 5921).This is always striking, but it is  doubly striking here, inasmuch as it occurs in a letter to churches where the sufficiency of salvation by grace was being questioned and perhaps even denied.”¹

Our salvation is purely by grace. Paul uses the word “grace” more than any other New Testament  writer. It refers to an undeserved act of kindness. In his use of charis, Paul gave immense theological  significance to the fact that it refers to all that God has given us in Christ. In Paul’s mind we simply do  not have the ability to repay God for what He has done for us.

“[T]he word χαρις contains the idea of kindness which bestows upon one what he has not  deserved… χαρις is used of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases then in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them  to the exercise of the Christian virtues."²