Paul, His Gospel, and Thomas Jefferson

By S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. *

An Exposition of Galatians 1:11-24 [1]

[*Lewis Johnson regularly ministered the Word at Believers Chapel in Dallas for more than thirty years. From 1950 to 1977, he taught New Testament and systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminary. He later served (1980–85) as professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.]

Introduction

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States and drafter of the Declaration of Independence, in the minds of most Americans was a great president, but he was an eccentric and unorthodox theologian. [2] He admitted that he was not a total follower of Jesus Christ, because Jesus took the side of “Spiritualism,” while Jefferson was a “Materialist.” He admitted that Jesus preached the efficacy of repentance for forgiveness of sins, while he, Jefferson, required a “counterpoise of good works to redeem it.” After these damaging admissions, the religious mountebank of Monticello added a few words about the gospel authors. “Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [i.e., Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples.” According to Jefferson, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were “stupid” and “rogues.” [3]

The words that follow are the most amazing of all, for after delivering himself of the diatribe against the disciples, Jefferson offers this assessment of the Apostle Paul, “Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.” [4] Well, well, we shall see just who is corrupt, but that ultimate decision awaits the opening of the books at the Great White Throne Judgment. In the meantime I am content with the conviction that Paul shall be vindicated and Jefferson devastated.

Jefferson’s views were not original with him, nor have they been confined to him. The statesman has a large company of fellow-believers, many of them outstanding contemporary professional theologians. Their views so closely dovetail with Jefferson’s that his words might well be theirs. One of my former teachers has set forth the views of these modern Jeffersons very tellingly. James S. Stewart has written:

In short, according to this view, Paul was the arch-corrupter of the Gospel. God sent His Son to be a solution: Paul made Him a problem. Jesus bade men consider the lilies, and trust like little children: Paul spoke of justifying faith. Jesus had a cross, Paul a doctrine of atonement. Therefore, it is said, let us away from the Christ of dogma to the Christ of history. Eliminate the Pauline elements, and the Gospel in its pristine purity will appear. “Back to Jesus!” is the cry. [5]

It could hardly be said better than this former Professor of New Testament at the University of Edinburgh has said it.

Was the gospel of Paul, as John Stott asks,

the product of his own fertile brain? Did he make it up? Or was it stale second-hand stuff with no original authority? Did he crib it from the other apostles in Jerusalem, which the Judaizers evidently maintained, as they tried to subordinate his authority to theirs? [6]

That is the question. Harnack, the well-known German church historian of a few generations ago once said rather caustically that in the second century after Christ only one person understood Paul. That was Marcion, the heretic, and then Harnack added that he misunderstood him. [7] That in itself would seem to argue for the uniqueness of Paul’s gospel, but Paul himself has some convincing words on the subject, and it is to these that we now turn.

The apostle has already told his readers that his office was from God (cf. 1:1), and that there was only one gospel—his. In the following section he makes the important point that his gospel is no human word. It comes from God through revelation. That proposition is stated, and proofs are offered in support.

The Proposition: Paul’s Gospel is from God, verses 11-12

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

What It Is Not, verses 11–12

The opening words, “For I would have you know,” often introduce a statement on which the apostle lays special stress. (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3; 15:1; 2 Cor. 8:1). [8] Paul clearly wishes to establish the fact that his gospel is not derived secondhand from the other apostles. He has independent status.

The expression, “not according to man,” indicates that it was not of human authority, tradition, or origin. His reference is ultimately to the Damascus Road experience.

The apostle’s words do have significant application in our day. There are men who get their message from the creed of their ecclesiastical body, rather than directly from the Word of God. They fear any departure from their creedal formulations more than they do from the Bible. Now there are many excellent creeds, such as, for example, The Westminster Confession and the Canons of the Synod of Dort, or The Heidelberg Catechism, and I have no bone to pick with the idea of a creed. If we believe anything at all, we have a creed. In Believers Chapel we like to say that our creed is the Word of God, but we are not so foolish as to say that we do not have a creed, or that we object to the idea of having one.

There are problems with creeds, however. We tend to make them immutable, like the Godhead. Abraham Kuyper, the great Dutch theologian who subscribed to creeds, once said that there was nothing wrong with making a creed. It was only wrong to cease making them, by which he meant that creeds need constant reformulation to bring them into closer conformity to the Scriptures. It is a needed warning that teachers of the Word are to get their messages from that Word, not from the creed, and it is a warning not to overstress catechetical instruction. [9]

Not only does the apostle say that his gospel is not a human invention, he also says that it did not come to him from a man. In the original text there is some stress on the “I” in the clause, [10] and it appears that he means that he was like the Twelve in this respect. They received their message from the Lord personally, and so did he.

Finally, he adds, “nor was I taught it,” a clause that distinguishes him from a man like Apollos. The latter received the clear understanding of the message from Priscilla and Aquila (cf. Acts 18:25–26). And it also distinguishes him from Timothy and others (cf. 2 Tim. 3:14).

The statement that he received his message apart from human mediation might seem to conflict with other statements of Paul. For example, did he not write, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3)? And did he not also write, “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread” (11:23)?

The contexts of these remarks of Paul make clear that what he received without mediation was the revelation of a person, that is, Jesus Christ the risen Lord and the commission to preach, while what he received by tradition, that is through others, was further factual information about the Lord and His work (cf. Acts 9:18–30; Gal. 1:18–20; 2:2). [11]

What It Is, verse 12

In verse twelve’s final clause Paul traces his gospel to the revelation of Jesus Christ. He wrote, “but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (AV). [12] It is difficult to be sure of the exact meaning of the clause. Does it mean that his gospel was revealed by Jesus Christ, or was it a revelation concerning Jesus Christ? Whether the revelation is from Christ or about Christ, the message still came by revelation, and that is Paul’s main point. In the light of the words of verse sixteen, where the revelation is one that concerns Jesus Christ, it is perhaps more likely that Paul means here that the gospel he preached was given him by God in revelation, and that it had to do with Jesus Christ.

In the phrase, “by the revelation concerning Jesus Christ,” there is involved the major points of the Pauline teaching. Since the revelation was about the risen Christ, it certainly included His resurrection, and as an inference the divine Sonship of Christ (cf. Rom. 1:3–4). Further, there was also involved the sense of the futility of righteousness by means of the Law of Moses, which prepared the way for the concept of righteousness by means of faith. That, in turn, might well have suggested to the apostle the possibility of the justification of the Gentiles apart from circumcision. Thus, implicit in the revelation of the risen Christ is the Pauline theology in its largest outline. [13]

Proof One: Evidence from His Life Before Conversion, verses 13-14

For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.

The aim of the apostle in the following verses is to show his independence of the Twelve and of Jerusalem, in order to make it very clear that his gospel came from God, and not from men. So, he will appeal to his life before conversion, at conversion, and after conversion in order to establish his claim to independency. His past evidences his claim that only a direct divine interposition can account for his gospel. The “for” (γάρ, gar) of verse thirteen introduces the ground of his claim.

The picture of his past life is that of a zealous practicing Jew, at war with the new faith. He persecuted and devastated the church, as well as advancing in the observance of Judaism at the same time (cf. Acts 9:21; 8:3). The apostle was a member of the extremist party, the Pharisees, who enjoyed calling themselves, “zealots of the Law, zealots of God” (cf. Acts 22:3; 23:7; 26:5; Phil. 3:5–6). The last words of verse fourteen refer to his adherence in the strictest way to the traditional interpretations of the Law, afterwards embodied in the Mishna. In other words, the apostle sets himself forth as a bigot and fanatic, totally devoted to the Law and Judaism, a Talmudic student and practitioner par excellence. From persecution of the church to preacher of the gospel of Christ,—can that remarkable transformation be explained other than through divine intervention? (cf. Phil. 3:4–6).

Proof Two: Evidence from His Life at Conversion, verses 15-17

But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.

A Separation, verse 15

The “but” (δέ, de) of verse fifteen introduces a dramatic contrast between Paul’s past and the time of his conversion. The contrast is seen most clearly in the use of the pronoun “I” in verses fifteen and sixteen. Up until his striking transformation all was of Paul, but then God intervened, and everything thereafter came from Him.

God’s prior initiation of our salvation is beautifully illustrated in Paul. It was God who set him apart from the time of his mother’s womb. The expression, “from my mother’s womb,” is temporal, and it means from the time of. He was a second Jacob, chosen before his birth (cf. Gen. 25:19–23; 9:10–13), a second Jeremiah, appointed to a divine work before his birth (cf. Jer. 1:5).

The word, “called” (καλέσας, kalesas) also marks out his prenatal choice as coming from God in grace. Although he deserved no mercy, still mercy and grace found him and blessed him in time by calling him to salvation. Election was followed by effectual and invincible grace.

A Revelation, verse 16a

The third of the divine stages in his salvation is expressed in the clause, “to reveal His Son in me.” It is not clear whether Paul refers here to the Damascus Road experience or to the days immediately following it (cf. Acts 9:10–22). The apostle does not mean by this statement that his first knowledge of Christ came through the conversion event. He had known facts about Christ, although he had not believed Him to be anything other than an imposter. But now, by the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit, he grasped the significance of the person and work of Jesus Christ. The true light has dawned upon him (cf. 2 Cor. 4:6).

The revelation was a personal, private revelation to the apostle, an intimate subjective revelation, but it was for a public purpose. It was for the evangelization of the Gentiles (cf. Acts 9:15). There was the external unveiling of the risen Christ (cf. Acts 9:1–9; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8–9), accompanied by the internal unveiling of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

The expression, “in me,” is interesting, for it suggests that Paul considered himself as a channel for the knowledge of God to others. It was “in him,” but that it might be for others. [14] While this is true, we must not overlook the fact that there was an intimate personal revelation of the risen Lord to Paul. That is confirmed by the fact that at Paul’s conversion others heard sounds, but only he received the message from God. [15] What, then, is suggested by the phrase is the doctrine of union with Christ, which became such an important feature of Paul’s theology (cf. John 14:20). Our Lord’s figure of the vine and the branches comes to its fulfillment in Paul’s experience, and out of all this will grow his teaching on our Lord Jesus as the representative Man who unites us with Himself in all of His experiences. But let us not forget that the “in me” truth is ultimately to be for others.

Putting all of this together, it is easy to see how Paul’s doctrine of grace developed, too, for it was God’s prenatal choice, His historical exercise of effectual grace, and His sovereign work of revelation that introduced Paul to all that he came to describe as salvation. It is truly of the Lord.

A Vocation, verse 16b

The purpose clause (“so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles”) points to the divine aim in the sovereign apprehension of Paul. It was that he might “preach Him.” The use of the present tense in the verb emphasizes the continuing nature of the work (cf. 2 Tim. 4:17).

An Isolation, verses 16c–17.

“Immediately” after his conversion, Paul says, “I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.” There is some doubt over Paul’s actions in Arabia. It is the opinion of Bruce that the context suggests that he preached there. The fathers, generally speaking, take the same view. They picture Paul hurrying off to the wild places of Arabia, feverishly desirous of bringing the knowledge of God to the Nabateans. “Behold a fervent soul,” exclaims Chrysostom, “he longed to occupy regions not yet tilled…. [He] straightway undertook to teach wild barbarians, choosing a life full of battle and labor.” [16] Jerome simply says he went into Arabia to find Christ in the Old Testament. [17] That is much nearer to the truth in my opinion. The preceding expression, “I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,” suggests that he conferred with God. It was a time of withdrawal, a time of spiritual readjustment, by which he rearranged his understanding of the Scriptures under the tutelage of our Lord. In a sense it was his apostolic training, the three years being the equivalent of the three years of training that the Twelve had had in the personal presence of the Lord. It was the time in which he earned the real Master of Divinity degree, the one that really counts in spiritual things.

The practical importance of such a private time with the Lord cannot be overestimated, and every gifted servant of the Lord, if he is to be effective, must know this in experience.

Proof Three: Evidence from His Life After Conversion, verses 18-24 

The Visit to Jerusalem, verses 18–20

Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)

Having shown that his life at his conversion supports his claim to independency of the Twelve, the apostle then turned to his visit to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 9:26). He had been forced to flee Damascus on account of his preaching there. The false teachers had perhaps charged that his visit to Jerusalem suggested his reliance upon the leaders there for his message, or at least an acknowledgement of dependence upon them.

The apostle’s words deny this. In the first place, the visit took place three years after his conversion, and his message would have already been formulated by then. Further, he only saw Peter and James. And, finally, he only stayed there for fifteen days, too short a time to account for the knowledge of the truth that he possessed (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16). Stott comments, “It was, therefore, ludicrous to suggest that he obtained his gospel from the Jerusalem apostles.” [18]

The Time in Syria and Cilicia, verses 21–24

Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” And they were glorifying God because of me.

The period referred to here corresponds to Acts 9:30, where we read that Paul was sent off to Tarsus, in Cilicia. There he remained for many years. Thus, his independency of the Twelve and of Jerusalem is established.

The final verse is a dramatic conclusion to the section. The churches of Judea, not knowing Paul by face, had heard of his dramatic change of life and his ministry, and “they were glorifying God because of me” (v. 24). The implication the apostle would have the Galatians and the Judaizers note is that, if the Judaizers were the real Judeans they claimed to be, they would glorify God, in him, too!

Conclusion

Is Paul’s message from God? If so, what shall we say of Thomas Jefferson’s views? They certainly do not agree with Paul’s own views, and he says, “I assure you before God that I am not lying.” (cf. v. 20). Either Jefferson or Paul is deceived, and Paul by inspiration claims he is not. Who are we to trust? The same conclusion must be reached of other modern theologians who refuse to take Paul’s teaching as the truthful teaching of God.

Since Paul’s gospel is from God, and since he says that salvation is through grace, then there is no salvation by good works, by religious ordinances, or by other human devices. The only way of salvation is that way that Abraham found long ago, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (cf. Gal. 3:6).

Notes

1. This is article three in a sixteen-part series, “Expositional Studies in the Epistle to the Galatians.”
2. A child of the Enlightenment, Jefferson was much impressed by Dr. Joseph Priestly, one of the founders of the Unitarian Society. See his “Letter to John Adams, Nov. 7, 1819,” in The Complete Jefferson, ed. Saul K. Padover (New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1943), 1036. Cf. Charles B. Sanford, The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1984), 7–10, 89–94, 102–40.
3. In the winter of 1816–17 Jefferson cut up Greek, Latin, French, and English New Testaments and arranged selected verses from the Gospels in four parallel columns in a morocco-bound volume. The verses he included emphasized the moral teaching of Jesus and excluded anything suggesting His virgin birth, deity, or substitutionary atonement. Cf. Cyrus Adler, “Introduction,” in Thomas Jefferson, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904), 17–18.
4. “Letter to William Short, April 13, 1820” in Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 4 vols., ed. Thomas Jefferson Randolph (2d ed., Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), 4:321. See also: “Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, compared with those of others,” in “Letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803,” in Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 3: 507–9.
5. James S. Stewart, A Man in Christ; The Vital Elements of St. Paul’s Religion (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), 18.
6. John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, BST (London: Inter Varsity Press, 1968), 30.
7. Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, 7 vols., trans. Neil Buchanan (London: Constable and Co., 1900; reprint ed., New York: Dover, 1961), 1:89–90.
8. J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1865; reprint ed., Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1982), 79.
9. R. Alan Cole, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 46.
10. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτό. The pronoun ἐγώ is emphatic.
11. F. F. Bruce, “Galatian Problems. 1. Autobiographical Data,” BJRL 51 (Spring 1969): 299.
12. The NASB reads, “But I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
13. Cf. Ernest De Witt Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), 42.
14. Lightfoot wrote (The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, 82–83), “It does not speak of a revelation made inwardly to himself, but of a revelation made through him to others.” I cannot agree with Lightfoot’s interpretation at this point. The inward aspect of the phrase, ἐν ἐμοί, can hardly be denied.
15. Donald Guthrie, Galatians, NCB (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1974), 69.
16. Chrysostom, Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, in NPNF, 1st Series, 13:12.
17. Cf. the discussion in Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, 90.
18. Stott, The Message of Galatians, 35.