PAUL PERSONALLY AND OFFICIALLY
[p. 518] PAUL PERSONALLY AND OFFICIALLY
Galatians 1:10 - 24; Galatians 2:1 - 14
JT The object I have in mind in suggesting this scripture is not that we should dwell on the body of the epistle, that is, the teaching or doctrine of it, but that we might see as a principle the effect of the teaching on the teacher and on the taught — as seen in Paul and in Titus. The apostle says more about himself in the epistle to the Galatians, as to his early history, than he does in any other of his epistles, and it is not indeed to occupy them with himself, but to call attention to the effect on himself of the truth that he intended to impress upon them. It occurred to me, in thinking of it, that the principle brought out, whilst simple as on the surface of the passage, is of all importance if ministry is to be effective; if it is to be catholic in its results, the minister must himself be governed by it and be an exponent of it. I suppose we are alive to the tendency there is with us of being influenced by what is of prestige on the earth, particularly what is of religious prestige (we are influenced at times more than we are aware of by what is of the earth), whereas what Paul says about himself in these chapters shows that what was on the earth, whatever its prestige, had no influence with him; that, in fact, knowing what his natural proclivities were as intensely Jewish, he made it a point that it should not have influence with him. So as a result we have what we may call catholic Christianity, for it was Paul’s strenuous exercise as to himself first, and then in combating others, to secure this for the saints that they might stand in the liberty wherewith Christ had set them free.
EJMcB Our concern should be to get on the same line, to get before the Lord individually, as [p. 519] Paul did, not depreciating another line of ministry, but having a distinct sense of what the Lord had given him for himself.
JT And being influenced by heaven, for that is the great point even in the creation, that heaven should influence earth. There can be no question about that, I think; however little we may know about heavenly bodies, we certainly cannot fail to know that they do influence the earth. As far as I understand the physical influences, what is on the earth has little influence on the earth; it is what is in heaven that influences the earth, whether it be the sun, or the moon, or the stars. There are unmistakable evidences, too, that heaven was intended by God to influence the earth by a spiritual testimony. Paul, I believe, began with that. In Genesis 1 God said, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3), but it does not say where it came from; whereas, in relation to Paul, it is said that the light was from heaven.
EJMcB It says that he was not disobedient to the heavenly vision. Was your thought that, just as the sun affects the material creation, so the setting of Christ in heaven ought to affect every servant in every kind of service?
JT That is exactly what I had in mind, and as you said, all would come under the same influence.
PL “There is nothing hid from the heat thereof” Psalm 19:6.
JT Exactly. “Their line is gone out through all the earth” Psalm 19:4. “Their line” refers to the extent of the testimony of the heavens; so Paul’s effort in this epistle is to prevent the light that influenced him being in any way marred or beclouded by other influences.
SJBC “Nothing hid from the heat thereof” (Psalm 19:6); would that be the influence of the love of God?
JT Quite.
JCS So it says, “I took not counsel with flesh and blood”. I suppose that has its origin on the earth, has it not?
JT Yes. Flesh and blood are not known in heaven; they have no part there, and when the Lord introduces the assembly and speaks of the revelation to Peter, He says, “Flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens” Matthew 16:17. It was a heavenly thing, and Galatians is to make room for that.
WW Paul was not influenced by what was of earth but by what came from the Lord.
JT When he went up to Jerusalem there were many important persons there, and their importance was enhanced by the environment, by the prestige of the city, but Paul says, It was nothing to me; it might have effect on other people, but whatever it was, it did not affect me. But what we see is that he tells us where he did not go at first and where he did go. He did not go up to Jerusalem, but he went to Arabia. Then later he says that he did go up to Jerusalem three years after, but it was for the express purpose of making acquaintance with Peter. He went up in private; he was not received in any special way at Jerusalem. He did not go up in any way as recognising what was there; he went up simply to make acquaintance with Peter; that is to say, it was a personal visit, which is always right. Then he says that, fourteen years after that, he went up again, but it was not personal then, it was by revelation, which means that it was God moving. A crisis was coming on and God moved, so that what occurs in this second visit has to do with the principles he is dealing with. He says, “I went up according to revelation”, and “with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me”. It was a matter of divine movement; it was a movement of God. It was not a personal matter, and it was with Barnabas, that is, Paul shows [p. 521] in all this how he moved at the outset as exemplifying the principles he was enforcing. He knew how to move in a personal way, which is always admissible. If we carry it too far it will not do, but it is quite right to make a visit on personal lines to meet the brethren or a brother.
GAvS Would you suggest that his going to Arabia was in a way the method of getting clear of what is on earth to come more directly under what was from heaven?
JT I think so. There was not much in Arabia to minister to the flesh. It was a selection, I suppose, and I think it intimates that he is not favouring any locality; he has no preference. Certainly, Arabia had nothing for him. It was the land of Ishmael. Why did he go there? He intimates it was certainly not by preference or national feeling.
PL Do you attach importance to the fact that the disciples in the beginning of Mark find the Lord in a desert place praying?
JT It is that sort of thing, I think; in a desert place where there is nothing for the flesh.
PL Then the Lord Himself gets His commission from heaven to serve in chapter 1, and He is carried up to heaven in the last chapter. Does that suggest how His ministry is in relation to what is in heaven?
JT It does. Then with John the baptist, it says that he should be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb, which is perhaps one of the most remarkable things said in Scripture. Then we read, “He was in the deserts” (Luke 1:80), not simply in the desert, but as if he had the desert experience in a variety of ways, “until the day of his shewing to Israel” Luke 1:80. It was the positive thing even there; he was filled with the Spirit and could afford to be in the deserts, and he learned there was nothing there for him — for [p. 522] the flesh.
EJMcB Your thought is that the actual condition in which he was contributed nothing to the deposit that was in him.
JT Nothing at all, and it would mean the flesh would not be ministered to.
EJMcB Quite so.
GAvS May we not suggest that having gone down to Arabia, he was, in that way, so equipped and established by what was in heaven, that he could go and get acquainted with Peter without in any way affecting the ministry that was before him?
JT I thought that Peter would feel in meeting Paul after three years in Arabia that there was something there that he had not met before, that is to say, it was a personal matter. We can understand it was a heart to heart intercourse between himself and Peter. He remained with Peter two weeks and a day, and we may be sure that they got near to each other. It was a personal visit, but a wise one; his object was that he might establish a personal link with Peter.
SJBC In the revelation to Peter it was, “Flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens” (Matthew 16:17), but in the case of Paul, it was how it pleased God “to reveal his Son in me”. What do you think is the distinction between the two?
JT They both had this thought of flesh and blood. The Lord said to Peter, “Flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee” Matthew 16:17, but it does not say that Peter learned the import of that, whereas Paul had learned it. He did not consult with flesh and blood: he had learned the thing, and I have no doubt that his intercourse with Peter those fifteen days would remind Peter that the revelation that he had had was outside of flesh and blood. Their links would be on those lines, at any rate in Paul’s mind, and they are the only links that abide and that lead into the [p. 523] assembly viewed as the house of God. It is a spiritual formation, and flesh and blood has nothing to do with it. I think those fifteen days would have involved that, for you may depend — not that we would conjecture — that such men as Paul and Peter would go over the ground, and we can understand Peter telling Paul what he had learned at Caesarea-Philippi; Matthew 16:13.
HH Why does Paul refer to his own birth? “Set me apart even from my mother’s womb”. What would be the point in that?
JT I think God goes a long way up the stream with regard to the vessel He uses, and Paul had a sense, I suppose, that God had him in His mind sovereignly before he was converted. I am sure He had; I believe God had every one of us in His mind before He takes us up definitely.
GAvS Do you mean by that that he really recognised that from the very moment of his birth, God’s hand and dealings had been with him with a view to revealing His Son in him, so that there was an apprehension in his heart of how perfectly the hand of the Lord had been upon him from the outset?
JT Exactly; and then you will observe it is not only that God watched over him from his birth, but that He separated him; he was separated. In the case of John the baptist it does not say that he was separated, but that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb, but Paul was separated in the mind of God for a new line of things.
EJMcB Is your mind in this particular subject that if Paul had not pursued this line, we should have lost the peculiar ministry the Lord had given to him?
JT Quite. He had separated him from his mother’s womb. God had a purpose as to him and he knew it. But then it says, He “called me by his grace”; that was a further thing. And then He revealed “His Son in me”, not to me. In Peter’s case it was, “Flesh and blood has not revealed it to thee” Matthew 16:17. That was something outside presented to him, but here it is in. God was operating from within; thus Paul preached the Son of God.
JCS Do you think that when Paul went up to Jerusalem, he went up with such a sense in his soul that the light was from heaven, that he did not expect anything to be added to him, but rather contrariwise?
JT I think the three years assume that. It gave him an independency; he went up, as we might say, with an income. If he had gone up merely with the light he had received, but without the experience of the three years, he would not have been equal to Jerusalem, but he went to Arabia for three years, then came back to Damascus, and then went up to Jerusalem.
DLH Have you any thought with regard to the return to Damascus?
JT I thought he would recognise his relations with the brethren. His assembly setting was in Damascus, and he would carry back into it all the gain of his personal experience. What do you think about it?
DLH I think that is good. Damascus was the opening of his assembly associations.
JT It is well to see that — that all one’s personal acquirements should be brought into the local company, and you get a fresh setting, a fresh start, in that way. Indeed, we see that in the Lord’s own case. He went down to Nazareth, where He had been brought up, and there He began again, and there you get the most beautiful touch about His ministry.
Rem You seem to bring Paul before us as a pattern man.
JT He is a pattern man in many respects. He is a pattern man here in his early movements as an exponent of the ministry with which he would impress [p. 525] the saints. He carries right through the epistle, that he was himself amongst them what he ministered, and that, I believe, is one of the most important principles for us. The thing has to be set forth, and so in going up from Damascus after the three years, no doubt having readjusted himself there, he would be in Jerusalem in some degree what he was by the light and the revelation he had received.
GAvS Then would you say that all these movements were a part of the revealing of “His Son in me”?
JT Yes; and I think he intended that there should be something gained by his visit to Jerusalem, but not amongst the saints in a general way, for the passage would show that he did not minister or teach, but that he was there in a personal way. You would have seen the Paul of Damascus there, the Paul that had seen Jesus, the Paul that had been in Arabia with the revelation in his soul; he was most interesting, we may be sure. Then we read that he goes back again, and goes into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, as it says. But while he was in Jerusalem he saw one man who must have touched his heart in a peculiar way, that is, James the Lord’s brother. It was a personal matter. That was the only one of note, it says, whom he saw besides Peter. But it was worth while going up on those personal lines, for it is a question of persons in this chapter — a question of the persons who were the exponents of the truth.
Now in the next chapter we see the difference between a brother moving on personal lines and moving by revelation.
NL Going back just for a moment, why does it say, “His Son”? “to reveal his Son in me”. It is a peculiarly remarkable thought, is it not? It seems to be almost the centre of the thing.
JT I think it is the centre [p. 526] of the teaching of the apostle, because the truth of sonship could not be brought out and developed save by one who knew the Son, and it is not the Son, but His Son; that is to say, affection is implied — what Christ is to God the Father personally. Paul, I think, always gives us these touches. “God”, it says, “was pleased to reveal his Son in me”. You hardly get that in Peter’s confession. The Lord says to Peter, “But ye, who do ye say that I am?” Matthew 16:15. It is not a question of what you believe in Matthew 16, but of what you say. In John 9 it is, “Dost thou believe on the Son of God?” John 9:35. In reply to what the Lord said to Peter, “Who do ye say that I am?” Matthew 16:15. Peter says, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” Matthew 16:16. It is not so much personal there, that is, it is not a question of God’s affection for that Person, but of the Lord being the Christ, the One whom God could use to accomplish His purpose as anointed, and the One who would set forth life, the living God. There is no special thought there of affection; it is not emphasised, but with Paul it is. It is His Son. He revealed His Son in me, he says. I think that Paul thus had an apprehension of Christ according to what He was to God — His Son; that is, God has that Son, and He revealed Him “in me, that I may announce him as glad tidings among the nations”. It lays the basis for the doctrine of the epistle, bringing us into the place of sons.
SJBC Speaking of Paul going up to Jerusalem by revelation here, it would appear in Acts 15 that he and Barnabas, were sent up by the assembly.
JT Yes; but the question is whether that is the same incident. I doubt it. We have to note the measure of time. Here it is a question of time. Galatians makes much of time; so it says, “I went up according to revelation”. “After a lapse of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me”. In chapter 2 it is [p. 527] not what Paul was personally, but more officially, and with Titus; it was a question of the product of his labours. Barnabas was not that. Barnabas was a link with Jerusalem, one who could lay his hand on Jerusalem and on Paul. Barnabas could say I am a Jerusalem man, I have the greatest sympathy with Jerusalem. But he had the utmost regard for Paul and was in sympathy with the work of God everywhere.
GAvS Then, would you suggest that his taking Titus was in connection with the great confidence he had in that character of the activities of God in connection with the testimony which were being called in question?
JT That is it. Now, in effect, he says, Here is the work; this is the product of my labours. He set Titus down in their midst and said, Do you approve of him?
PL And he connects Titus with what is universal. “Titus, my own child according to the faith common to us” Titus 1:4.
JT He was the product of his ministry and of what he was personally. Now, he is acting officially; he is going up by revelation; it is not a question now of what he is in his personal relations, but the fruit of his labours. Can you make Titus any better by circumcision?
EJMcB With the apostle Paul the truth of sonship was not a doctrine. It was revealed in him as a joy in his soul, and Titus is the actual product of that operation; he was Paul’s child in the faith.
JT That is it. What can you show? Carrying the thing forward, as we are entitled to, Paul might inquire, What have you got? Can you improve on what is seen in Titus by circumcision? It says he took Titus. It was not simply that he went up as a brother in an ordinary way; there was a purpose [p. 528] in it.
DLH And he became the test in connection with the question of circumcision.
JT Exactly. He was not compelled to be circumcised; evidently there was an effort to do it. But circumcision could not add to him. They had to admit he was a Christian as much as they were.
JCS This sample of Paul’s ministry could not be improved upon at Jerusalem.
JT That I think is the great point. What have you got? Titus was the product of Paul’s ministry, and although a Greek, he was not compelled to be circumcised.
JJ You mean he was a full man, complete in Christ, with no dependence on Jerusalem, in that way.
JT None whatever, and yet, I believe, every thoughtful brother, every Christian in Jerusalem who came in contact with Titus, would say, ‘What a lovely young man that is’. So the first mention of him is, “Titus my brother”, 2 Corinthians 2:13. He was Paul’s brother as well as his child, which is a great deal to say. Many of us have children that we cannot call brothers. It was no small thing for him to say, “My brother”, not the brother, but my brother.
GAvS Then you see the product of Paul’s ministry acting on the line of sympathy, so that he can be associated with Paul.
PL Is he left officially by Paul on the same line? “For this cause I left thee in Crete” Titus 1:5. You were speaking about Paul’s movements being official, and Titus is left in Crete in connection with rule.
JT Yes, quite. He is then in an official place, but what he is personally comes first. What we are personally always comes first.
Ques What was your thought in bringing in what was heavenly at the beginning?
JT It was to show that in our service and walk here we are to be on our guard against what would influence us on the earth. Is there anything on the [p. 529] earth that would influence me? As we were remarking, the principle is that the heavens influence the earth, and I think Paul began with that; he refers to it twice in his experience. In his conversion heaven stands over against Jerusalem; Acts 9.
JCS So that Titus would show some of those heavenly influences at work.
JT Exactly. You see the heavenly product there.
JJ There was no rupture whatever between Paul and Jerusalem. It was essential that Christianity should maintain its universal character.
JT That is where the wisdom of Paul’s movements shine. He went up personally at first. If he had gone up officially after three years, he would not have made much headway. The Lord looked at the young man in the gospel and loved him. No doubt Paul was lovable in a spiritual way. The personal links which no doubt he established served him well later.
GAvS You mean when he had to rebuke Peter.
JT Yes. Peter would remember what the personal relations were. It is most important to have good personal relations established amongst us; when conflict arises, it is these relations which stand us in good stead. We do not want to get rid of anyone we love. Paul must have had grave doubts about Peter at times, but I think he always regarded him on those personal lines. Hence the wisdom of his movements in chapter 1. He went up in a personal way to make acquaintance with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
PL Does “Our beloved brother Paul” (2 Peter 3:15) show the good personal relations between them?
JT Exactly; that is what I was thinking. No doubt the roots of that remark went back to those fifteen days.
DLH One would hardly think that Peter would [p. 530] have done other than esteem Paul in regard to his faithfulness on this very occasion.
JT Quite. One feels one’s great weakness in seeking to form good personal relations with the brethren. And it is not simply that he went up to ‘shake hands with him’; he says, “I remained with him fifteen days”.
MWB That is quite a different thing from being influenced. It was a personal link, without coming under the influence of the link.
JT That is it. I am sure Paul would greatly value Peter and delight in what he would say. He could say a great deal from personal experience that Paul never had; for instance, when he was on the holy mount with the Lord, and when the Holy Spirit came down at Pentecost.
GAvS I suppose, in that way, Paul would have received impressions of a personal character that he would value.
JT I think he would see that the work of God is valuable in whomsoever it might be; he would thus be the more attached to Peter.
GAvS I was thinking that what you have said about the establishment of personal relations with one’s brethren being of such importance must be taken up in the light of how that necessarily sets us free in connection with the maintenance of the testimony at a critical moment; because, if personal relations are established upon a divine basis, we shall find that when a critical situation arises amongst the people of God, confidence has been established in such a way that we can stand up for any testimony that is necessary, without in any way breaking those personal relations.
JT That is an important consideration, and you can see the wisdom in Paul going up in that way. Of course there is also the enjoyment of mutual spiritual affection.
SJBC I suppose Peter’s and Paul’s ministries touch. Paul’s was a development of the sheet let down from heaven.
JT I think that from the time Paul was converted from heaven, the Lord worked with Peter to bring him into accord with this fresh movement. Acts 9 and Acts 10 show that Peter was brought into accord with what God was doing in Paul, so that when Paul went up to see Peter, you can understand his valuing him.
Now we find, according to this report, that there were at Jerusalem those who came in privily to spy out the liberties of the brethren. While Paul, and Barnabas, and Titus were there, their moral weight was felt; and those false brethren saw there was something there different from what they knew, and they wanted to know the truth of what had brought this liberty about — “to spy out our liberty”. Those men who came in surreptitiously wished to overthrow it. Wherever there is a movement of God, Satan moves too. So it says, “To whom we yielded in subjection not even for an hour, that the truth of the glad tidings might remain with you”. Then he goes on to say there were persons of note in Jerusalem, and as soon as we get on the line that this man is of note or that man, we are on slippery ground. These are the persons we have to be on the watch against. They have acquired a reputation. Paul was not so sure about them. “But from those who were conspicuous as being somewhat — whatsoever they were, it makes no difference to me: God does not accept man’s person; for to me those who were conspicuous communicated nothing; but, on the contrary, seeing that the glad tidings of the uncircumcision were confided to me, even as to Peter that of the circumcision ... and recognising the grace given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were conspicuous as being pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship”.
[p. 532] That was a great triumph; they were people of note, but, while he does not intend to pass them by, they made no difference to him; that is to say, whatever they were, it added nothing to him. He is establishing the Gentile side of the truth as he had it, and what was in Jerusalem added nothing.
HFN Why does he say Cephas?
JT I think it is an honorary mention; he did not wish to slight Peter. Cephas is an Aramaic word signifying what the name Peter does in Greek, that is, a stone, but it is the word the Lord used in naming him, according to John’s record. I think Paul had an inward feeling in regard of Cephas that he would express in mentioning this name.
GAvS I suppose in saying Cephas he was, in that way, bringing in the thought of what he was in the spiritual characteristic, would he not?
JT I think so. There was a touch in it of Paul’s appreciation of Peter. It was the name the Lord gave him, and the Holy Spirit gives the interpretation of it.
GAvS In chapter 1 he speaks of him as Peter.
JT He does too in this chapter later. Peter was the name by which he was known generally amongst the saints, but Cephas was a foreign name brought in and used by the Lord, and Paul would have an affectionate touch in using it.
GAvS He was glad to cite him as Cephas in support of the glad tidings.
JT Then it says they gave him their right hands.
DLH We are told here they “were conspicuous as being pillars”. The Authorised Version says, “who seemed to be pillars”, but J.N.D. renders it, “were conspicuous as being pillars”.
JT They were pillars.
DLH One can understand why the name Cephas is used in such [p. 533] connection.
JT Quite. I think it is well to notice that they were really pillars and were conspicuous as such, and so they gave Paul their right hands; this was as much as to say that the visit was wholly successful. He recognised them, and their right hands of fellowship were of value. The right hand means power.
EJMcB They were prepared to support the apostle as against those who had come in to spy out their liberty. In giving the right hands, they were prepared to give support to the commission of Paul on this occasion.
JT Exactly. What impresses one is that those three men in Jerusalem effected something. Paul went up by revelation, with Barnabas and took Titus, so there was a threefold cord that could not be easily overcome. The power of it was evident.
GAvS The truth was solidly supported.
JT Yes, and I think, therefore, that when crises arise amongst us, what tells is the product of the thing that is in question. If it is of God, it cannot be overcome.
EJMcB So if you speak of a personal visit, the point is to secure brotherly relations between yourself and the person you visit, but if you have an official position, the product is what is the proof of it — whether it is of God or otherwise.
JT That is the thing.
PL Would you say that in Moses and Joshua we have it illustrated? In the crisis Moses comes down from the mountain and brings Joshua with him. Is Joshua the product, in that way, of the line of things he was standing for?
JT Quite. He was a young man, and he remained in the tabernacle. He was the spirit of the thing, you might say, but then it has to be admitted that, great young man as he was, he was of partisan tendency. He says, “My lord Moses, forbid them” Numbers 11:28. He would not have anybody but Moses. That will [p. 534] not do; we must never tie ourselves up to any one person in particular. Great as Joshua was as a young man in the spirit of the ministry and as abiding in the tabernacle, yet, when the spirit was put upon the seventy, and one came with the news that Eldad and Medad prophesied in the camp, Joshua said, ‘That will never do, we cannot have anyone but Moses’. But Moses said, “Would that all Jehovah’s people were prophets” Numbers 11:29. We must give God a free hand, and young men are rather apt to limit Him on these lines.
JCS The result of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem was really to weld all the ministry into one whole.
JT It was a catholic movement, as we speak, to maintain the link with Jerusalem and yet to establish that God had a free hand amongst the Gentiles; we do not want to lose anyone.
EJMcB Might we have just a word on Peter’s going to Antioch?
JT That is a sad contrast to what marked him when Paul was at Jerusalem. Peter would not have done at Jerusalem while Paul and Barnabas and Titus were there, what he did at Antioch. But when he came to Antioch, it says, “I withstood him to the face, because he was to be condemned”; and what comes out is that Peter came into the very thing that Paul was avoiding in not going to Jerusalem at first. He came under influence. It was not that Peter was wrong doctrinally, but he came under influence from Jerusalem.
GAvS Correctness of doctrine does not preserve.
JT That is what comes out, because Peter, as far as the record shows, was right as to doctrine. It was a question of personal influence. When certain came from James, he withdrew.
DLH Then it would seem that Peter had not really learned the lesson of [p. 535] Titus.
JT It would seem so, but circumstances had changed now. There was no need for this at Jerusalem. Peter and James and John were affected by what they saw in Paul, Barnabas and Titus. What Titus represented was no doubt to be seen at Antioch. But James had a greater influence over Peter than those at Antioch. It is the evil of personal influence that is emphasised here.
Ques Was the truth of the glad tidings at stake?
JT It was.
JCS It was the same in Corinth — the influence of local leaders.
JT It is very sorrowful to think of dissimulation coming in, showing it was satanic work.
GAvS I suppose there is nothing brings about the rupture of brotherly relations like succumbing to personal influence.