Origin of Paul’s Faith and Teachings- 1 Corinthians 11:23
Over the last few months, I’ve been stewing on a verse. It’s come to mind regularly at various times. It’s a verse that I’ve spoken or referenced numerous times as I’ve had the privilege of administering the Lord’s Table. Yet for all the times that I’ve served the Lord’s table, and all the times I’ve received communion, this verse hasn’t laid hold on me. It wasn’t until the Lord saw fit to move me out of my most recent pulpit, that this verse grabbed me. “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you” 1 Corinthians 11:23a.
We typically think of this verse as an introductory note in the larger, more important section about the Lord's table (v17-34). It is situated in the middle of both a rebuke and a corrective instruction for the Corinthian church regarding the practice of communion. While this sentence may seem like a simple linking idea, there is much to be learned from in considering these inspired Words from the Holy Spirit through Paul.
Rather than being a throwaway sentence or simple linking phrase, this verse is a statement from Paul regarding the origin of his own faith and what he teaches. This is a genesis, a backstory to all that he’s shared with the Corinthians. This is his source of authority, this is his source of faith, this is his source of practice, this is his source of instruction for other believers. His source is not his own mind (although he was perhaps the greatest thinker of his time), his source was not his own research (although perhaps he was the greatest interpreter of his time), his source was not his own spirituality (although no one could doubt that he must have possessed tremendous faith to suffer the horrific pains he endured). To put it succinctly and bluntly - Paul wasn’t the source for Paul’s religion.
“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you” 1 Corinthians 11:23a.
This phrase reveals a pattern of ministry and consistent testimony regarding Paul’s faith, preaching, and teaching. In other words, this isn’t an isolated verse or a solitary statement. This is the repeated testimony of Paul. The substance of what Paul believed, taught, preached, and lived as an example came as something he received. His faith, its substance and essence, came as a gift from another. The source of the gift was none other than the risen Lord Jesus Christ.
The New Testament Concept of Paul’s Faith:
When Paul writes to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Philippians, and to Timothy, he writes to them regarding what he himself has received and what he delivered to them (1 Thessalonians 4:1, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Philippians 4:9, 1 Timothy 1:16,). The most substantive testimony of what Paul taught, preached, and delivered to the churches is found in Galatians 1:11-12:
11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11–12 ESV)
When Paul speaks words of encouragement or challenge for the Corinthians and Thessalonians to continue in the faith, he speaks using terms of tradition (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15). This isn't a philosophy (of Paul's own making). Nor is this a new interpretation of something old (such as a Rabbinic comment which was very common in 1st century Judaism). What Paul delivered to the churches planted was precisely what he had received.
Paul's preaching was put to the test after 14 years (as Paul counts in Galatians 2:1-2). His testimony to the gathered apostles was found to be Christ-honoring and in harmony with the testimony of the Apostles, even as he corrected another apostle (Galatians 2:11-14). How could this be if Christ did not disciple (teach and make him follow) this Paul? Thinking purely logistically, there were no assembled or distributed written gospels at the time of Saul/Paul’s conversion (recounted in Acts 9). All Paul could have heard from others would have been word of mouth. Even if there were documents for Paul to read and study, how could he have so accurately presented the resurrection message before the men who were there without himself being a witness? Yet Saul (so he was still called when Jesus was crucified and raised) was not there on what we call good Friday, or Easter. Yet he throws away all that he knew, his title, position, influence, social connections, all for the sake of the resurrected Jesus who confronted him (Acts 9:3-16). Paul's preaching, absent the "seminary" training in Jerusalem from the disciples, came from none other than the Lord Jesus. Acts 9:16 is particularly helpful in understanding WHO it was that taught Paul. It was none other than the Lord Jesus:
15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name (Acts 9:15-16 ESV, emphasis added)
Paul leaves his audiences with no doubt, whether they are gentile rulers (like Felix in Acts 24, or Agrippa and Bernice in Acts 25), or gentile commoners (Like those in Athens in Acts 17), whether they are Jewish leaders (like the Synagogue of Thessalonica in Acts 17), or Jewish disciples of Jesus (like the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15), it was no one else than the resurrected Jesus himself who confronted Saul/Paul and then instructed him in the faith.
“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you” 1 Corinthians 11:23a.
How could this be? Jesus was already resurrected and ascended? Surely Paul didn’t walk on the road to Damascus (Luke 24), nor was he with the gathered disciples prior to Pentecost (Acts 1). How did Paul receive teaching from Jesus? Galatians is the book to turn to at this point. Notice what is absent, and what is present in Paul’s testimony.
Paul’s Testimony
Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead (Galatians 1:1 ESV)
That seems a very strange phrase if Paul learned the faith from Peter (Cephas) and would go directly against his testimony later in Galatians 1. We know that an Apostle serving in the NT had a special designation, the definition which is given in Acts 1:12-26 (with an emphasis on 1:21-22). Paul's continual theme in preaching and writing is that he is a witness of the Resurrection and an apostle set apart by the Lord Jesus to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 26:16-18). The only claim Paul has of being present to witness the resurrection is found in the risen Lord Jesus appearing to Paul. Paul was not with the other believers prior to the events of Acts 9, 10, and 11. If only the Lord Jesus has the authority to establish Apostles (as Acts 1 demonstrates through the prayer in 1:24-25), then either Paul is a fraudulent Apostle, or he genuinely has been set apart by Jesus. The next question then becomes, how did Paul become set apart? Let's see what Paul has to say on that question in Galatians :
"11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus." (Galatians 1:11-17 ESV)
Paul's explicit statement in 1:12 is that he didn't receive it (the gospel) from any man. He wasn't taught the gospel either, instead, it's something he was given, the gospel was something he received through "a revelation of Jesus Christ" (ἀλλὰ διʼ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). This is the same word used by John in Revelation 1:1 to introduce the vision, message, and letter written there. What Paul received was a revelation, an unveiling, a making known. What was made known? The gospel (Galatians 1:11). Who made it known? Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:12). To whom was it revealed? Paul, not from merit, but by grace (Galatians 1:15). To whom was Paul to minister as an apostle? The gentiles (Galatians 1:16). Did Paul then consult the other apostles? No, he was away for 3 years in Arabia (Galatians 1:17).
While Paul was away in Arabia who could have taught him the gospel there? Even if he was taught the gospel there by someone who was only human, that would go directly against his own testimony and Paul is again shown to be a fraud (Galatians 1:11-12). We come to a very simple conclusion. Paul is either lying somewhere along the way regarding his apostleship and his receiving the gospel from the resurrected Jesus, or he’s recounting a true backstory to his own gospel reception and ordination as apostle.
This is not a strange teaching either historically in the minds of the reformers, although it may be a point rarely taught or preached on today! Perhaps because it would make some tempted to long for similar revelations, experiences, or spiritual visions, some avoid preaching on this aspect of Paul's testimony.
Various Commentators on These Passages:
"This passage constitutes Paul’s chief defense against the accusations of his opponents. He maintains under oath that he received his Gospel not from men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
In declaring that his Gospel is not after man, Paul does not merely wish to state that his Gospel is not mundane. The false apostles made the same claim for their gospel. Paul means to say that he learned his Gospel not in the usual and accepted manner through the agency of men by hearing, reading, or writing. He received the Gospel by special revelation directly from Jesus Christ.
Paul received his Gospel on the way to Damascus when Christ appeared to him. St. Luke furnishes an account of the incident in the ninth chapter of the Book of Acts. “Arise,” said Christ to Paul, “and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” Christ did not send Paul into the city to learn the Gospel from Ananias.
Ananias was only to baptize Paul, to lay his hands on Paul, to commit the ministry of the Word unto Paul, and to recommend him to the Church. Ananias recognized his limited assignment when he said to Paul: “Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.” Paul did not receive instruction from Ananias. Paul had already been called, enlightened, and taught by Christ in the road. His contact with Ananias was merely a testimonial to the fact that Paul had been called by Christ to preach the Gospel."
"Verse 12. For I neither received it of man. This is very probably said in reply to his opponents, who had maintained that Paul had derived his knowledge of the gospel from other men, as he had not been personally known to the Lord Jesus, or been of the number of those whom he called to be his apostles. In reply to this, he says, that he did not receive his gospel in any way from man.
Neither was I taught it. That is, by man. He was not taught it by any written account of it, or by the instruction of man in any way. The only plausible objection to this statement which could be urged would be the fact that Paul had an interview with Ananias Ac 9:17 before his baptism, and that he would probably receive instructions from him. But to this it may be replied,
(1.) that there is no evidence that Ananias went into an explanation of the nature of the Christian religion in his interview with Paul; (2.) Paul had before this been taught what Christianity was by his interview with the Lord Jesus on the way to Damascus, Ac 9:5; 26:14-18;(3.) the purpose for which Ananias was sent to him in Damascus was that he might receive his sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, Ac 9:17. Whatever instructions he may have received through Ananias, it is still true that his call was directly from the Lord Jesus, and his information of the nature of Christianity from his revelation.
But by the revelation of Jesus Christ. On his way to Damascus, and subsequently in the temple, Ac 22:17-21. Doubtless he received communications at various times from the Lord Jesus with regard to the nature of the gospel and his duty, The sense here is, that he was not indebted to men for his knowledge of the gospel, but had derived it entirely from the Saviour."
"by the revelation of Jesus Christ—Translate, "by revelation of [that is, from] Jesus Christ." By His revealing it to me. Probably this took place during the three years, in part of which he sojourned in Arabia (Ga 1:17, 18), in the vicinity of the scene of the giving of the law; a fit place for such a revelation of the Gospel of grace, which supersedes the ceremonial law (Ga 4:25). He, like other Pharisees who embraced Christianity, did not at first recognize its independence of the Mosaic law, but combined both together. Ananias, his first instructor, was universally esteemed for his legal piety and so was not likely to have taught him to sever Christianity from the law. This severance was partially recognized after the martyrdom of Stephen. But Paul received it by special revelation (1Co 11:23; 15:3; 1Th 4:15). A vision of the Lord Jesus is mentioned (Ac 22:18), at his first visit to Jerusalem (Ga 1:18); but this seems to have been subsequent to the revelation here meant (compare Ga 1:15-18), and to have been confined to giving a particular command. The vision "fourteen years before" (2Co 12:1) was in A.D. 43, still later, six years after his conversion. Thus Paul is an independent witness to the Gospel. Though he had received no instruction from the apostles, but from the Holy Ghost, yet when he met them his Gospel exactly agreed with theirs."
"It was therefore necessary that Paul should state his doctrine in opposition to the whole world, and should rest it on this ground, that he had acquired it not in the school of any man, but by revelation from God. In no other way could he have set aside the reproaches of the false apostles.
The objection, that Ananias (Acts 9:10) was his teacher, may be easily answered. His divine instruction, communicated to him by immediate inspiration, did not render it improper that a man should be employed in teaching him, were it only to give weight to his public ministry. In like manner, we have already shown, that he had a direct call from God by revelation, and that he was ordained by the votes and the solemn approbation of men. These statements are not inconsistent with each other."
Conclusion
We see that Paul’s teaching was not of human origin at all. Paul delivered to the gentiles the testimony of an apostle. He was a living witness of the resurrection. He bore witness to Christ’s triumph over the grave. Paul received grace from the Lord Jesus having been found guilty of persecuting Christ’s church. In what he taught, preached, and demonstrated, Paul delivered what he had first received; the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
At this point you may be saying something like “Thanks for the exegesis and history comments Jacob, but what is the practical outwork of this? Why does this matter for believers today? What impact do these realities of Paul’s apostolic ministry have on the church throughout history? How does Paul’s witness and testimony inform, influence, or shape our witness and testimony today?” If that’s you at this point, then I welcome you to check back later this month when I’ve uploaded the sermon on this passage. The implications of this reality are staggering for the ministry of Christians today and the applications are of daily use.
Additional Resources