History of Paul Reviewed

That's what our slideshow this morning is relatively simple. We are in Galatians chapter one, verses 18 through 24. But we're gonna back up a little bit to get a running start because, of course, verse 18 begins then three years later, so we kinda need to know the context. So let's begin in verse 11 of chapter one.

For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. So this is kind of Paul's big point here. And it says, for I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Hey, we can try remarking here. Let's see. And shows up a little differently on this. the screen. Let's see what happens here. So, this is a little hard without a mouse. So, Paul received his gospel through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

And he says, you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the Church of God beyond measure and try 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. But when God, who has 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." So Paul is emphasizing the fact that he spent time away in Arabia. and didn't go immediately up to Jerusalem. And now how do I advance my slides? This is an experiment this morning.

Actually, I found a conflict, Miles, that once you hit the marker, then it says you can't, you have to advance the slides a different way. So use your up and down arrow. That's how I do it. I don't know. Maybe we got something conundrum here. I don't know. Hey, Miles.

Yeah. Yeah. The fly in the ointment is the Canadian basement. If you were in an American basement. Of course. Of course. Yeah, that's right. Okay. You know what? I think I can. Are you? Yeah. Okay. There we go. Okay. And now it's kept the, uh, you know, go down and just turn off the, all of it. Yeah. I'm going to do that. Okay.

Well, we're going to just, that was a little experiment. Now we're just going to go on without marking anything on the screen. So you don't have to imagine, imagine things on the screen here. So this works really well if you're hooked up to a projector, not a, not working through zoom, but it changes things a little bit through zoom, right? So, all right. So then we're going to, Now we're going to look at...

Today's verses, starting in verse 18. Then three years later, I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him 15 days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. Now what I'm writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. 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." So what is this... Sorry, now I'm getting a Norton alert here.

Okay. We're going to ask a couple of questions here. So what is Paul defending in this section? Okay. That was a little bit of a stilted reading, thanks to my technical difficulties. But what would we say that Paul is defending in this portion of Galatians? Himself. Say that again? He's defending himself, really, because he's trying to convince them that all of this beforehand really happened. But here he is, and I'm sure there were the doubters that were saying this can't be, you know, Don't trust him, sort of.

Yeah, not trusting Paul. So why, that's right, and we've been talking about this for a few weeks, Paul's defending his apostleship, but why? Is it just because he was egotistical? Was it because he, you know, what was the reason for defending his apostleship, or his own authority, we could say? Well, verse 24, they glorified God through all this, right?

Yeah, absolutely. That was the result of it. It resulted in God's glory, not Paul's glory. Good point. Well, Paul's source is different than the disciples. They saw the Lord face-to-face. They were with him. They were taught by him. But he has a unique situation where he was directly face-to-face with the Lord outside of their apostleship. He wasn't with them. So it's a different path of information. Absolutely. Yeah. And so what is it? Why was it so important for Paul to defend his apostleship?

Look back at verse 11 here. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. And so Paul defends his apostleship because the validity of his gospel message depended on the validity of his apostleship, right? Apostleship is all about source, right? Who sent Paul? Who gave him this message to go preach, right? And so it was, verse 12, it was from Jesus Christ. That's the source of Paul's gospel. So Paul is defending his apostleship, yes. But for the purpose, not of just defending himself, but defending or proving the validity of the message that he was given, the gospel that he was given.

So then this kind of brings up a bit of a question. What difference does it make whether Paul received his gospel from Jesus or from the apostles at Jerusalem? Wasn't it the same gospel anyway, right? Give that a little thought. Paul's defending his gospel, his apostleship, and it's quite clear here in the text that he's pointing this out as being quite distinct and making sure that we know he did not get his gospel from the apostles at Jerusalem. But wasn't it the same gospel? Speak to that. Any thoughts? These questions are intended just to stimulate thinking. You don't have to have the answer off the top of your head.

I think that the apostles in Jerusalem were still quite confused, wanting to mix law and grace. And that continued up and even past the Council of Jerusalem. Yeah, yeah, there was a lot of confusion in the early church about law and the place of law. our relationship to the law, what that looks like.

So my answer to this question, wasn't Paul's gospel the same gospel? Well, yes and no. That sounds like a politician's answer, right? It's not that Paul had a different gospel than the 12, because if we look back in chapter 1 here, if anyone comes preaching another gospel, let him be accursed. So it's not that the other 12 had a different gospel, but Paul's gospel contained what I termed additional information. Now, let's unpack that a little bit. Let's just first look at what was the same about Paul's gospel. In what way was Paul's gospel the same? What is Paul's gospel in 1 Corinthians 15, 3 and 4? If someone knows it off the top of their head or wants to turn there. What was Paul's gospel there?

I deliver it unto you as a first importance, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture. and then he was buried and then he was raised again the third day according to scripture, right? So, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There's absolutely no difference between the gospel of Jesus Christ as the Twelve taught it and as Paul taught it It all has to do with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And the fact that his death was the satisfactory payment for our sin penalty.

No difference there whatsoever. That's the same message that the apostles in Jerusalem were teaching. That's the same message that Paul had come to believe at Damascus. So same gospel, right? The crucifixion, death, and resurrection life of the Lord Jesus.

That's the good news. Yeah. Yeah, I was just going to make a point about the three verb tenses of salvation, right? Yes. I was saved, which is gospel, right? And the whole process of sanctification, we're all being saved day in, day out, are we not? That extends the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ to follow directly. So he's now talking about the Christian walk or life, and then we will be saying when we beat these earthly bodies, right?

So, anyway, yeah, thanks. My thought is magnification. It's the work of the Holy Spirit and the life of the believer. So, yeah, I appreciate that. Bob, thanks for bringing that up. And, and, and, you know, and that goes back to. Bob Wolford's comment a moment ago about the law, you know, they all understood that they were justified by grace alone, through faith alone, through Christ, the cross of Christ, His death and resurrection.

But there were a lot of questions hanging around the believer's walk, the life of the believer. And is it to be under law or is there something different? And so that brings us to the question of what additional information had Paul received? And so this is going back to the thought that Paul had to defend his gospel because there was additional information.

It's not that it was different than the Twelve Apostles, but he had received more. I think Paul highlights this in Romans 5. He outlines the justification and lays it down very clearly, and then in chapter 5 he says, much more, much more, much more. And then he gets into these further truths, which are also gospel truths.

But while the earlier apostles understood Christ's death for them, what we call birth truth, Paul had been taught by the Lord that there's more involved in the cross. Remember, it's still the same basis. It's still the crucifixion, death, and resurrection life, but there's more truth for the believer contained in that in that death and resurrection than what the others had understood up to this point. And so Paul was instructed in the Christians' death and resurrection with Christ.

We would call it identification truth. So to maybe make it simple, we could say that Paul's additional information that Paul received was identification truth. And Paul wants to be very clear that he did not receive this additional information from men. And I think it's important here as we study the book of Galatians to realize that Paul is really focusing in on, like when he talks about the gospel here, he's really talking about not just birth, but also identification with Christ in his death and resurrection.

I mean, Galatians 2.20, probably the key verse in the book, at least in my mind, it is right, I have been crucified as Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. So we have the death, the crucifixion death and the resurrection life of Christ right there in a nutshell. And so when he's talking about the gospel that the Galatians have rejected, he's largely focusing on the identification truth. How do we walk? Do we walk under law or do we walk on the basis of faith reckoning on our death with Christ and his resurrection life?

So Paul's gospel includes the good news about the life that flows out of our identification with Christ. Paul's gospel includes more than just birth truth. The word gospel is all of the good news related to the cross. So back to our question here, just to kind of tie this together, what difference does it make whether Paul received his gospel from Jesus directly or from the other apostles at Jerusalem?

Well, I think it's critical. Because like we said, the gospel that Paul is defending to the Galatians is the full revelation that he received from Jesus, not just birth truth, but the truth of our identification with Christ. And this truth about identification, was brand new revelation to Paul. It was brand new with Paul. And that should show us why it matters where it came from.

Because anytime that someone claims to have a new revelation from God, it's critical that it be shown to be, in fact, God's word and not some human invention, right? Think of the prophets in the Old Testament, right? And the tests for a prophet. It was a capital offense to claim that something was a word from God when it was in fact man's word.

And so Paul is really, that's why Paul is so serious about this. He says, I know this is new information, but you have to understand that this is from Jesus Christ himself, not some invention of man, right? So God is very serious everywhere in scripture about protecting the trustworthiness of his revealed work. And that's just as true here in Galatians as anywhere in scripture.

So I just have a little quote here that kind of summarizes these two, the birth and life aspects of the gospel from Lewis Bray Chaffer. He says, So one gospel. But different aspects, right? We could say there's a gospel for the unsaved and a gospel for the saved, but really it's one gospel.

Granted, we don't understand the second part of that until usually some years down the road. I like the song, Rock of Ages. Because it talks about this very aspect, the double cure, to go through the vertices. It's really neat. I pointed that out, that we do have a double cure. So it's marvelous. That's great. That's great, Roger. Thanks.

Yeah, so that's... That's kind of looking at why Paul is so serious about defending the fact that this is from God and not men. And I wanted to really have that firm in our minds because as we get into these next verses, we're reading this stuff about Paul and how much time he spent with Peter in Jerusalem. And you're like, what's the point of all of this autobiographical information? And it has a very important point. So looking at today's verses, 18 through 24, just a basic question here, is Paul being specific or general in the information that he gives us here? This is just basically a rhetorical question. It's not a hard question.

Paul gives very specific information, right? He tells us three years, 15 days. He doesn't say a little while or about two weeks or half a month. He says 15 days. He's being very specific as he can be. You notice he says, I did not see any of the other apostles except one.

And he names him James, the Lord's brother. So he's being very, Very specific. And we could ask, why? Well, we just answered that, right? But we could say that this is a forensic report on the source of his gospel. He's being very, very detailed and meticulous. Tim is doing a forensics course right now, and he's talking about the evidence chain of custody. So everything has to be extremely meticulous in detail.

So Paul is talking here almost like this is courtroom testimony, right? Verse 20, I assure you before God that I am not lying. There's this oath of truthfulness, right? Or Kenneth Weiss says that, behold, in the sight of God, I am not lying. So Paul's being very specific, and he's very adamant that this is true testimony.

So why does Paul contrast between three years in Arabia and 15 days with Peter. What's the contrast there? time. Well, he didn't spend much time with the apostles. He's showing how, so could he, it just may be in man's term, could he get all this great new information just from a couple, you know, 15 days with, you know, with a person?

Could he take in that much? No, he can't possibly. It's ludicrous to think that he would, you know, he's, he's reinforcing that the revelation of Jesus Christ. Yeah. Yeah, it was very good. I was waiting for Roger to say, well, 1095 days is exactly 73 times longer than 15 days in Jerusalem.

Or 1.4% of the time. Yeah. So Paul is emphasizing very specific, you know, I did the math here, it's in my notes, so he spent 1.4% as much time with Peter as with the Lord Jesus in Arabia. Just a factor in 20, he says that, I assure you before God that I am not lying. Yeah. Yeah, so very, very specific detail. And so he's giving us this contrast between how much time he spent with the Lord Jesus versus how much time he spent with Peter in this initial period of his Christian life. And there's a vast difference, right?

Fifteen days versus three years. And it's just not possible. What Paul is saying here is it's just not possible that in 15 days you could have concocted this scheme about identification with Christ. And another interesting thing here is that the 12th had three years with Jesus before his crucifixion. Paul had three years with the glorified Christ after his ascension. And so he had spent as much time with Jesus as Peter had.

So that's significant as well. So what was Paul's purpose for going up to Jerusalem? He says it right there in the text, right? He says, does someone want to tell me? You get acquainted with them, you get to know them. Hang out with them. Yeah, to become acquainted with Peter.

Now was Paul going to Jerusalem to receive his gospel? No. Was he going to Peter to get his approval for his gospel? No. In fact, we see in the next verses, chapter 2 of Galatians, that it wasn't actually until 14 years later that Paul even submitted his gospel to those in Jerusalem. Since he puts that there in chapter 2, 14 years later, I assume that here, in this encounter, he didn't even present his gospel to Peter.

Okay, so what was he doing? What was his purpose? Well, depending on your translation, King James has to see Peter. That's not exactly correct. The word here is not blepo or horao, which would be to see. But you see the NASB has to get acquainted. Some translations have to visit. The Greek word is only used here once in the New Testament. And it's historeo. And Zodiates says that it means, in part, to ascertain by inquiry and personal examination.

So what we see is that Paul actually came down to Jerusalem to examine Peter. Paul wasn't getting his gospel from Peter. He was examining Peter. You almost get the sense that Paul wants to make sure that Peter is in line with the gospel that he just received from Jesus Christ. But we're not to get the idea here that Paul is like, oh, hey, Peter, can you give me your insight just so I can tweak my...

No, nothing like that at all. He wanted to get acquainted with him, and we don't want to read too much into that, but it could seem that he was actually almost grilling him on Peter's gospel. I think it's possible that when Saul went down to see Peter, he was actually trying to tell them that I am now a born-again believer. And he had trouble doing that because he actually ran out of town. Yes. We're gonna talk about that in just a moment here. And it helps kind of illuminate this passage a little bit. But that's good, Bob.

What does Paul say in verse 19 here? He says, I did not see any of the other disciples except James, the Lord's brother. Now, the word here for see is, again, a specific word. It's adon. And again, Paul's very careful in the choice of words. The Zodiac is about adon, says, not the mere act of seeing, with the actual perception of some object, and thus differing from lepo, to see. So this is not the mere act of seeing, but the perception. In fact, just down in chapter 2, verse 14, Paul says, but when I saw that they were not straightforward about the gospel, same word, adon. In other words, it's not physical seeing, it's perception of something.

Zodiatis on Adon also says, and citing this verse, Galatians 119 says, So what Paul's emphasizing is that he didn't establish close acquaintance and have any real conversation with any of the apostles, except Peter and James. And even then that was only for 15 days. So that's, that's what Paul's emphasis is. Now to Bob's point here, what event in Acts lines up with what Paul is describing here?

Does anyone know where it is? Or had a chance to look at, look at that this week. I believe in it. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go for it, Bob. Bob's easily got the homework done. But it's exactly what Bob said earlier. Yeah, he said he was wrong about the sound. Acts chapter 9, was it? Verse 26. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Acts 9, 26 through 30. So let's just read that really quickly.

It says, when he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that he had talked to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. And he was with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews, but they were attempting to put him to death. But when the brethren learned of it, They brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus.

So, what in our Galatians passage here shows that this is probably the correct historical occasion? Well, in Acts passage there, Paul is going down from Damascus to Jerusalem. same truth, same fact here in Galatians, right? So the move from Damascus to Jerusalem matches up. The other thing is that this is the first encounter between Paul and the saints in Jerusalem. So it seems to match very, very well. And then both accounts end with Paul being sent away in Acts, it says to Tarsus, well, Tarsus is in Cilicia. So here in Galatians where we say he was sent to Syria and Cilicia, it's the same, that's the region, Tarsus is the city in the region. No. Miles, I mean, you don't think that's in reference to his instruction by the Lord himself, do you? I mean, why didn't Luke mention this interval of absence where he was being directly taught by the Lord?

Yeah. Yeah. So in Acts 9.23, it says, when many days had elapsed. when many days had elapsed. And that would be Luke's reference to this three years. But he doesn't give us specifically a time frame around it. He just calls it many days. Miles, when Luke wrote his epistle or his book, it was a historical account, not necessarily a doctrinal account. So leaving out the fact that he went into the desert wasn't all that important to the historical account. Right. Yeah. No, that's right. I mean, a history always has to summarize events, right? Or we'd be here for a long time.

So yeah, Luke gives a summary, but when Paul is defending very specific, like we said, this is like a forensic report, he has to tell you exactly how long I was there with the Lord Jesus because that's when he was receiving this information. So that would indicate that this event in Acts 9 matches up with Galatians 1 here. What might lead us to think there's a contradiction? And we've kind of touched on it here. We just said that in verse 119, Paul says that I did not see any of the other apostles, but here in Acts 9, Luke is very clear that Barnabas brought him to the apostles.

Well, the first thing that popped into my mind was that, well, he did see Peter and James. That's a plural. And James is, I think, somewhere referred to as an apostle, though he's not one of the 12. I think this is, yeah, this is the Lord's, James, the Lord's brother. So he's not one of the 12, but that could be. But I think the answer lies in the choice, the word that Paul chose.

He didn't use the word to see with the eyes. He chose a word that meant to have a personal acquaintance and relationship with. And I think that Paul must have actually seen with his eyes the other apostles, but because they really didn't trust him, they were kind of holding him at arm's length.

They really couldn't have any meaningful conversation. They didn't trust him yet. They weren't willing to sit down and have coffee with Paul yet. If I was to paraphrase that, I would say that he didn't see the other apostles concerning his apostleship, or concerning what Christ had delivered to him. He didn't see them about that subject.

Yeah, that's a good summary, Bob. That's really good. Yeah, so, and all of this is important to Paul's defense of the gospel because, you know, Paul's telling us that there wasn't some council that took place in Jerusalem here at this time to cook up this additional information. You know, what Paul calls, you know, everywhere, the mystery that was revealed to him, they didn't invent that here in Jerusalem. He really didn't have much interaction with the apostles at all. So that's Paul's point.

And then we know, Paul doesn't even mention it here in Galatians, it's not necessary to his point, but we see in Acts that he didn't just leave town, kind of the way he makes it sound here, he left uh... because there's a death threat against him and uh... you know we don't know how paul felt about all this it's entirely possible that this was quite discouraging right if you think about it paul goes to associate with his new brethren in christ and they don't have anything to do with them and then not only that but he gets chased out of town with a with a a death threat from the hellenistic jews But I think by this point, Paul had begun to understand how carefully the Lord had orchestrated circumstances so that the integrity of his apostleship and the integrity of the revelation that had been given to him would stand intact. And so we can also trust the Lord that when there are circumstances that we don't understand, maybe a whole Maybe all of our brethren turn against us for some reason and don't want to have anything to do with us. Whatever it might be, it's going to be very difficult situations. The Lord is absolutely orchestrating the finest of details in every one of our lives towards his good purposes.

So Miles, Barnabas has always been called an apostle, has he not? So if you look at the interpretation of Saul in verse 19, it's not physically visionings, it's really experiencing, it's a fact, but none of the other apostles except James the Lord. The interaction with the others were minimal except for James and Barbas isn't mentioned, but why? I mean, I don't look at that as a conflict. I just look at it as two facts separated in scripture and time and interpretation. I don't know. Yeah, no, that's good. I mean, I think we have to do these things.

A Bible study for us is much more laborious than if we were going to Greek speakers because we don't see the nuanced differences between to see and to, you know, a word that really means to have close acquaintance with. So, yeah, but Paul's definitely emphasizing the the lack of in-depth communication with the apostles on this. I'm not sure that Barnabas at this time wasn't an apostle. It wasn't until he was commissioned by the Church of Antioch.

Yeah, I actually agree with that, Bob. You're right. That I think is where Barnabas got his apostleship. It was a, we can maybe say, well, it was from the Lord because the Holy Spirit said set apart unto me, you know, Saul and Barnabas for the task, but it was a specific apostleship to go out on the missionary journey. So yeah, very good point.

Just a final thought, Miles, and I'll be brief. Barnabas took him. So as Barnabas had came to take Paul, it wasn't that Paul thought of Barnabas. It's the act of Barnabas' involvement with Paul Paul was on Barnabas' intent, not Paul's, right? That's right. It's like the Lord had Barnabas protect Paul, basically.

You're in trouble, Paul. This is not going to be friendly territory here. Yeah. Yeah. No, it's right. That's right. Paul and Barnabas were pretty good friends. Yeah, and it started... They knew each other in Tarsus, right? Yes. And not only did he take him to Caesarea and send you off to Tarsus, but then later on, he went from Antioch to Tarsus to bring him back to Antioch. Yeah, that's right. That's right.

So Barnabas, whose name means son of encouragement, that's just what he was, right? I mean, he encouraged Paul right here when nobody else wanted to have anything to do with him. He says, took hold of him and brought him to the apostles. So Barnabas was really the first brother from Jerusalem to have any real trust in Paul, and it forged a really close brotherhood that allowed them to go out in missions together, I think, in part.

So here's an important point that we'll probably close on here, because we're getting close in time, and I can pick up a few other straight. thoughts next week. But what does Paul call these Judean Christians in verse 22? Okay. Noting that Paul really wasn't able to communicate much with anyone in Jerusalem and the Judean area. And he says there, I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea. So he did not get around. He spent a little bit of time in Jerusalem, and then he hightailed it up to Tarsus. And so they wouldn't have even recognized him to see him.

What does Paul say about them right at the end of verse 22? He calls them churches. They were churches. Yeah. A little even further. In Christ. In Christ. Okay. I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea, which were in Christ. Okay. That's, that's identification truth. Okay. And, and remember that at this point, Paul was the only one who knew about identification. So Paul hadn't even met these Christians and they had not been taught this truth yet. But what Paul makes clear is that even though these believers had never been taught about their identification with Christ, they were nevertheless in Christ.

And that's true, right? Everyone who's put their faith in Jesus Christ and his substitutionary death has been baptized by the Holy Spirit, identified with Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection. You know, most Christians don't realize what that means, right? But it doesn't make it any less true of them, right? And that's just as true today as it was in Paul's day, right? generally unaware of their identification with Christ in his death and resurrection life.

Positional truth. I think it's also interesting in verse 23, this is something that happened in the future. Once Saul got to Tarsus, he just didn't sit around for a few years. They had heard that he had been Preaching the faith, which he once destroyed, and they were all glorifying God because of me. They heard about what he was doing in Tarsus. They did.

Yeah, absolutely. And so the point here that I wanted to draw out in verse 22 is that Though many believers don't know about their identification with Christ, it is nonetheless true of them. It's not knowing about our identification, it's not even reckoning on our identification that makes it true, right? Our identification with Christ is true because it is. God's Word tells us so, and we reckon on it or count on it because it's true. And it's important that believers come to understand it because it has incredibly practical, outworking results in our walk.

We'll pick this thought up more next week, but we should touch on it very briefly, that in verse 23, the faith that, let's just read it, but only they kept hearing, he who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy. And so while we've emphasized, and Paul is emphasizing here that his gospel did not come from men or any of the apostles, Nevertheless, the faith, the doctrine that he was teaching was fundamentally the same faith as what he had previously tried to destroy.

So the same thing they already have, right? But there was, though there was additional information, and that's what Paul is defending, it's still the same faith. And that's really critical to understand, because otherwise you get off into hyper-dispensationalism, which says that the church didn't even exist until Paul had his revelation. Well, that's not true. The church had begun in Acts chapter 2 on the day of Pentecost, and the Lord had more to reveal, and he did that through Paul, but the faith is still the same, the same faith. The church is still the same church. So, any closing thoughts? We'll pick those thoughts up next time and carry on into the following, into chapter 2, but any other closing thoughts? That's great, Miles. All right. And we shouldn't miss the fact there that's been pointed out earlier.

The end result is that God is glorified. So that is ultimately what God was working out in all this. And those churches were able to glorify God because of what the Lord is doing through Paul. So let's close in prayer. Heavenly Father, we thank you for these verses contained in your word. we thank you for the things that they show us. Though on the surface it just seems like a kind of a just a historical little recounting of some events, Lord we realize how significantly important these things are.

That the things that you revealed to Paul were revealed by you, not concocted by men. And so that the truth of our identification with Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection is from you. This is your revelation to us, to the church. And we need to know it. And we need to be able to share it with others so that they also can get the practical benefit, the practical outworking. of these truths in their day-to-day walk, so that you will be glorified as the life of your son is manifest through us, that you would be glorified. So Lord, we thank you for this time that we've had together in your word. We pray that you would continue to impress these truths upon us, clarify these truths to us, and make them increasingly meaningful to us. We just pray these things in Jesus' name, amen. Amen.