Not protecting tradition

For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin, for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors. But when the one who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles, I did not confer with any human, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterward I returned to Damascus.
Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie! Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; they only heard it said, “The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me (Gal. 1:11-24)..

The gospel Paul was bringing to the Imperial world was straight from heaven, so a pretty bold claim there; with a reference to his past life and how he excelled in Judaism to a level ‘beyond many among my people of the same age’. All of this led him not to go to Jerusalem at that early stage. (Later he will say he submitted what he had received, but he avoids that aspect here. He is still establishing his ‘independence’ from human influence and authority while insisting his total ‘dependence’ on heaven.) The conflict in Galatians is surrounding the need for the believers there (Gentiles) to fully submit to the Jewish law – he is all-but saying what to do these people who want to impose that even know about all this, for he (Paul) was previously the authority on all this, and given that he met with Cephas (Peter: maybe Paul is a little cheeky using his Jewish name here?) and with James, he is setting the scene for the conflict that he had with Peter when he acted in a hypocritical way after being intimidated by those who came from James (Gal. 2:11-14).

Tradition of his ancestors – he had been zealously committed to protecting on God’s behalf what he perceived God had given. Tradition, this is the God given way, can be so difficult to navigate. Paul is defending the ‘tradition that was given to him’ (to quote from another letter), and is incredibly forthright in condemning should even an angel from heaven come with a different message, with the implication of a message dependent on a previous tradition! Here in these verses he is setting the scene as to why he cannot defend what he used to defend, indeed to defend it he would become a sinner (as opposed to his previous understanding that in defending those traditions he was ‘righteous according to the law).

The coming of Jesus does not tweak what was understood previously, it turns everything on its head. It is not as if we start with what we had (call it the OT for simplicity’s sake) and then draw a straight line forward and go ‘see, now here comes Jesus, it all makes sense’. Rather the past is understood from the future. This understanding continues in the NT approach – a new creation has come so now we figure out from the future the world around us. This is why, though I am very conservative about eschatology I am also very cautious. We don’t get there from here, but there shapes our thinking here.

A difficult set of verses (difficult for me at least!)

In the passage above there is a little tough area for the likes of me (I am referring to the ‘predestination‘ bit). Set apart from before birth. Very reminiscent of Jeremiah (1:4). So what do I say about this, other than I would write those parts very differently(!!)?

1. If this is close to suggesting something along the lines of traditional ‘predestination’, these verses make it applicable to Paul, not necessarily to you and me.
2. It is not a reference to salvation but to calling. This is very key in all of Scripture. We tend to make everything about ‘in / out’, ‘get your ticket to be on the bus of salvation’, ‘eternal destiny’ etc., but calling and purpose seems to me the centre. To suggest (OT-wise) Jews are saved and Gentiles are damned seems to miss it, rather than Israel was uniquely chosen to be an access point for heaven to earth.
3. Any calling was not automatic, for Paul said when the time of calling was made manifest he ‘was not disobedient to the heavenly vision’ (Acts 26:19); the grace of God was not in vain when it was applied to him (1 Cor. 15:10). Nothing seemed to be predetermined and irresistible.
4. If applicable to all of us, we can only make it apply to our calling / purpose in life. Paul’s was to proclaim Jesus among the Gentiles. We are all set apart for the reason for which we are born (indeed sin is to miss the reason for which we are born); that is innate within us. There is only one ‘me’ (as Oscar Wilde said ‘be yourself, all the others are taken’).

If we pull Scriptures like this out and simply connect them to others we can end up with a strong ‘predestination’ line. However, for me, the weight of Scripture is to hold firm to human responsibility and the possibility of ‘being disobedient’ to who we are (God’s calling if you like). Predestination is to for Martin to be the Martin that is in the image of Christ… the one true human, so it is for me to yield to the work of the Spirit in such a way that I increasingly become who I truly am.

If you disagree with the above, of course you might have been predestined to do so… or maybe I am predestined to be an awkward customer (predetermined to be that specific number on the Enneagram where one just is awkward! And of course, Paul was definitely the same number… and only one more (humble this time) definite element is that I know almost nothing about the Enneagram).