Galatians 1.11-12: subjective or objective genitive?

[Ben C. Smith]

Galatians 1.11-12:

11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Does this last phrase mean a revelation from Jesus Christ (subjective genitive)? Or does it mean a revelation about Jesus Christ (objective genitive)? (The mercy of God would be a subjective genitive: God has mercy. Love of country would be an objective genitive: one loves one's country.)

Douglas Moo writes in his commentary on Galatians:

While a few scholars deny it (e.g., Bonnard 1972: 30), it seems relatively clear that the “revelation” Paul has in view is particularly the “revealing” (ἀποκαλύψαι [apokalypsai]) of Jesus Christ to Paul at the time of his conversion (see v.€16). This being the case, it would seem likely that we should construe the genitive Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ as an objective genitive: the truth of the gospel came to Paul when God revealed Jesus Christ to him (e.g., Burton 1921: 41–43; Bruce 1982b: 89; Martyn 1997: 144; Hays 2000: 211). But the immediate context of the phrase, with its emphasis on the source of knowledge, could instead suggest a source or subjective genitive: the truth of the gospel came to Paul when Jesus Christ revealed it to him (Légasse 2000: 80; R. Longenecker 1990: 24; Bonnard 1972: 28; Fee 2007b: 229; hence the “from” in many English versions [NIV, HCSB, NLT]). The meaning we have given “revelation” certainly favors the objective genitive over the subjective; but this is one of those texts where it might be best to refrain from locking the meaning into either option: perhaps Paul simply means that the “revelation” he received is bound up with, and has to do with, Jesus Christ (see Silva 2003: 45; Newman 1992: 200–201).

So he waffles a bit. For my money, it seems to be an objective genitive: Jesus Christ was what was revealed in the revelation, which presumably came from God. Paul or pseudo-Paul uses the genitive after the noun ἀποκάλυψις several times in the epistles, and each time it seems to be an objective genitive except possibly in 2 Corinthians 12.1:

Romans 2.5: But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God....
Romans 8.19: For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
Romans 16.25: Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past....
1 Corinthians 1.7-8: ...so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 12.1: Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable; but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. [This may be a bit unclear, just as in Galatians 1.11-12: is this a revelation from the Lord or a revelation about the Lord?]
2 Thessalonians 1.7: ...and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire....

Of course, not all of the above may be genuinely Pauline, but the point is that it is not easy to find "revelation" with a subjective genitive in the Pauline epistles. (Even if 2 Corinthians 12.1 has one, it may be the case that "the Lord" there is God/Yahweh, in which case one might suppose that God is more likely to be the one revealing, while Christ is more likely to be the one revealed.)

Are there any solid arguments for Jesus Christ being a subjective genitive in Galatians 1.11-12? Or is this best seen as an objective genitive? (Or is Moo right, and it is neither/both?)

Ben.

[John2]

Isn't it Jesus who is "revealed" (by God) in Rom. 16:25-27?

"...in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith— to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ!

[Ben C. Smith]

Isn't it Jesus who is "revealed" (by God) in Rom. 16:25-27?

"...in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith— to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ!

Grammatically it is the mystery that is revealed.

[John2]

Ben,

My understanding is that the "mystery" is about Jesus. As he puts it in 1 Cor. 2:1-8:

"When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified ... we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben,

My understanding is that the "mystery" is about Jesus. As he puts it in 1 Cor. 2:1-8:

"When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified ... we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

I take it you are siding with "objective genitive", then, in Galatians 1.11-12? Is that correct?

(Bear in mind, by the way, that the chances are better than average that Paul did not write Romans 16.25-27.)

[John2]

Ben wrote:

"I take it you are siding with "objective genitive", then, in Galatians 1.11-12? Is that correct?"

That's how it looks to me (not that I understand the grammar).

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/galatians/1-12.htm

And he cites the OT regarding the "mystery" about Jesus in 1 Cor. 15:51-57 (if Rom. 16:25-27 is not acceptable):

"Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory.' 'Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?' The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."

[John2]

And in Gal. 1:15-16 he says that God "was pleased to reveal his Son in me":

"But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being."

[Ben C. Smith]

And in Gal. 1:15-16 he says that God "was pleased to reveal his Son in me":

"But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being."

That is the best parallel yet. Forgot about that one, and it is only a few verses away. Shameful on my part.

What I am wondering about is the raw content of the revelation. Acts makes it sound as if it is a revelation by Jesus directly to Saul/Paul ("I am Jesus whom you are persecuting"). And, quite apart from Acts, I have thought before that maybe the content was merely something generic, like: "You know that Jesus fellow whom you despise? Well, he is right, and you are wrong." But I am wondering whether it might be a special/specific insight about Jesus.