For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Paul explains verse 11 with three clauses. "For I neither received it of man" (oude gar egō para anthrōpou parelabon auto) denies receiving (paralambanō, παραλαμβάνω—technical term for tradition reception) from human source. "Neither was I taught it" (oute edidachthēn, οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην) denies human instruction—he didn't learn through rabbinic method or apostolic training.
"But by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (alla di' apokalypseōs Iēsou Christou, ἀλλὰ δι' ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) provides positive source. Apokalypsis (ἀποκάλυψις) means "unveiling, disclosure"—divine revelation. The genitive "of Jesus Christ" could be subjective (Jesus revealed it) or objective (Jesus was revealed). Both are true: the risen Christ appeared to Paul (Acts 9:3-6) and revealed the gospel's content (Acts 26:15-18).
Paul's claim parallels the Twelve's authority—they learned from Jesus during earthly ministry; Paul learned from Jesus post-resurrection. Both received direct apostolic commissioning. This makes Paul's gospel equal in authority to Jerusalem apostles, not subordinate or secondary. The Damascus road revelation wasn't merely Paul's conversion but his apostolic ordination.
Historical Context
Paul's claim to revelation was risky. Greco-Roman religion featured numerous claims of divine revelation through mystery initiations, oracles, visions, and dreams. Judaism was suspicious of new revelation after Malachi. Claims to special revelation often marked heretics and frauds. Paul grounds his claim in verifiable historical event (Damascus road) witnessed by companions (Acts 9:7, 22:9) and validated by miraculous signs, apostolic fruit, and Jerusalem apostles' recognition (2:9). His detailed theological exposition in this letter demonstrates he didn't merely have mystical experience but received cognitive content—the gospel's doctrinal structure.
Questions for Reflection
What distinguishes genuine revelation in Scripture from false claims to personal revelation today?
Why did Paul need to establish independence from Jerusalem apostles while simultaneously affirming agreement with them?
What does Paul's emphasis on revelation as gospel source teach about Scripture's authority versus church tradition?
Analysis & Commentary
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Paul explains verse 11 with three clauses. "For I neither received it of man" (oude gar egō para anthrōpou parelabon auto) denies receiving (paralambanō, παραλαμβάνω—technical term for tradition reception) from human source. "Neither was I taught it" (oute edidachthēn, οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην) denies human instruction—he didn't learn through rabbinic method or apostolic training.
"But by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (alla di' apokalypseōs Iēsou Christou, ἀλλὰ δι' ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) provides positive source. Apokalypsis (ἀποκάλυψις) means "unveiling, disclosure"—divine revelation. The genitive "of Jesus Christ" could be subjective (Jesus revealed it) or objective (Jesus was revealed). Both are true: the risen Christ appeared to Paul (Acts 9:3-6) and revealed the gospel's content (Acts 26:15-18).
Paul's claim parallels the Twelve's authority—they learned from Jesus during earthly ministry; Paul learned from Jesus post-resurrection. Both received direct apostolic commissioning. This makes Paul's gospel equal in authority to Jerusalem apostles, not subordinate or secondary. The Damascus road revelation wasn't merely Paul's conversion but his apostolic ordination.