Galatians 1:10-12
10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
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.
The meaning of 10 is not immediately apparent, and Paul's words here need some
thought. Commentators think that what lies behind them is that the Jewish legalists, his
enemies, had been accusing him of being a temporiser, a man-pleaser, misunderstanding some acts or attitudes of his on previous occasions, and had charged him with
changing his message to suit the company he was in (perhaps his attitude to circumcision was a case in point - cf Galatians 2:3, as contrasted with Acts 16:3, and the seeming discrepancy and inconsistency involved). Well, says Paul, in writing as I now do,
with such forthright condemnation and anathemas, do I sound as if I were a man pleaser? Does the tone of what I am saying suggest that I am sitting on the fence, or that I am
the kind of person that would compromise? In fact, there was nothing inconsistent in his
behaviour and attitudes; it is simply that when principle was at stake, Paul was utterly
implacable against anything that deviated from the faith once delivered to the saints, but
when principle was not at stake, he showed a forbearance and grace that made him
prepared to go to almost any lengths to accommodate the viewpoint of others. The two
attitudes are neither incompatible nor inconsistent, but part and parcel of the true Christian attitude. It is only the legalistic mind that cannot appreciate the difference between
them.