Galatians 1:12Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

But the man who changed so suddenly, and came to such sincere recognition while standing at the very height of madness, clearly shows that he suddenly returned to sound mind through divine revelation and instruction. This is why he is compelled to mention his former life and call them as witnesses to what happened to him. "Of course," he says, "you do not know that the only-begotten Son of God directly called me Himself by His voice from heaven. How could you know this, since you were not present? But you know very well that I was a persecutor. For the report of my cruelty reached even you, despite the great distance between Palestine and Galatia. Such a report about me would not have spread so far if my cruelty had not been exceedingly great and intolerable to all."

To this question we answer as follows. Those who can say, “Do you seek proof of Him who, as Christ, speaks in me?” (2 Cor 8:8), and, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20), did not so much teach themselves as God taught in them. He speaks to the saints: “I said, Ye are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High” (Ps 81:6). Then He says of sinners: “But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.” Therefore, when Paul and Peter speak, who do not die like men and do not fall like one of the princes, it is evident that they are gods. And those who are gods hand down not a human Gospel, but God's Gospel. Marcion, Basilides, and the rest of the heretical infection do not have the Gospel of God. They do not have the Holy Spirit, without whom the Gospel preached by them is human. Moreover, let us not think that the Gospel consists in the words of Scripture, but in its meaning. It is not in the surface sense, but in the innermost content. It is not in the outer leaves, foliis, of speech, but in the root of its meaning. Of God it is said by the prophet: “His words are good toward him” (Mic 2:7). Scripture is profitable for hearers when it is not proclaimed without Christ. It is profitable when it is not offered without the Father. It is profitable when the preacher does not instill it in others without the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, according to the word of Ezekiel (Ezek 8:18), the devil himself, speaking from the Scriptures, and all heresies prepare from it a convenient support for themselves. They “sew pillows,” consuunt cervicalia, and place them under the arm, cubitum, of people of every age. So also I myself, who speak, if I have Christ within me, have a Gospel that is not human. But if I am a sinner, it is said to me: “God said to the sinner, Why dost thou declare My statutes, and take My covenant in thy mouth? Thou hast hated instruction, and cast My words behind thee” (Ps 49:16-17), and what follows. It is very dangerous to preach in the Church. Through distorted interpretation, the Gospel of Christ can be made into a human Gospel, or, what is still worse, a devilish one. Between receiving and being taught there is this distinction. One receives the Gospel when it is first instilled into him and raised in him to the degree of faith, so that he believes what is written belongs to him. One is taught when he clearly and distinctly understands what is presented in it under the figures of riddles and parables. He understands not by human revelation, but by revelation from Christ, who revealed it to Paul, or through Paul, in whom Christ speaks. The very word άποκάλυψις, that is, revelation, is a word proper to Scripture alone. It is not borrowed from the Greeks from any secular sage. Therefore it seems to me that, as in other words which the Seventy translators rendered from Hebrew into Greek, so especially here, they sought to express the properties of a foreign tongue. They searched out new words for new things. They gave a meaning for the case when something secret and covered becomes clear after the outer veil is removed, and is brought to light. Here is an example to explain this. Moses conversed with God with unveiled face, that is, without a covering (Exodus chs. 33-34). But when he turned to the people, he placed a veil over his face, because the people could not look directly upon his face (Numbers ch. 4). Likewise a veil was stretched before the Ark of the Covenant. When it was removed, what had been hidden before was set in view and, to use this very word, was revealed, revelabantur. Therefore, if those accustomed to read the writings of eloquent secular men begin to mock the novelty and artlessness of our speech, we shall send them to Cicero's books on philosophical questions. They will see how necessary it was there to use so many strange words, which the ear of a Latin man had never heard. And this happened when he was translating from Greek, a language near to us. What then must those have endured who tried to express the peculiarities of difficult Hebrew turns of phrase? Yet in so many scrolls of Scripture there are far fewer words breathing novelty than Cicero gathered in his little book. As we said at the beginning, when interpreting the words “Paul, sent not from men nor through man,” so now his word can be understood in a hidden way with reference to the Apostle Peter and Paul's other predecessors. It can mean that Paul, who has Christ alone as his teacher in the Gospel, is not moved by any law or authority. Further, he points to that revelation in which, on the road to Damascus, he was counted worthy to hear the voice of Christ. Stricken with blindness in his bodily eyes, he began to behold the light of the world.

They babbled that Paul received the faith and learned it from men, and not from Jesus Christ as Peter and the other Apostles did. To this proposal he brings proof, saying: "For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the Church of God beyond measure and laid it waste. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, being exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers" (Gal 1:13-14).

Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor 9:1). "Paul began his preaching five years after the Savior's death on the Cross." But how many years after His death and after His rising could Christ no longer appear to people? On the contrary, He can appear always, for He said, "I will love the one who is loved by My Father, and I will manifest Myself to him" (Jn 14:21). Above this He said, "You will see Me, because I live, and you will live" (Jn 14:19). "Saul, the cruel persecutor of the first disciples of Jesus." This very thing is astonishing. This very thing requires the miraculous appearance of Christ, which alone could transform Saul from a cruel persecutor into an apostle. "He renamed himself Paul and began his preaching by asserting that Jesus had personally authorized him for this in a revelation and vision on the road to Damascus." As though Paul preached more about himself, and before all else about himself, rather than about Jesus, "that He is the Son of God" (Acts 9:20). People first learned that he was Christ's "chosen vessel" not from him, but from Christ Himself in the appearance granted to Ananias, verse 15. "He did not know the spiritual essence of the teaching from Christ's immediate disciples." But he knew it through the revelations granted to him. "The beginning of Paul's preaching corresponds to the year 38 after the Nativity of Christ, and only in 41 did he come to see the Apostle Peter." We know this from the Apostle Paul himself, Gal 1:18. But this only confirms that he did not receive the Gospel from man and was not taught it by man, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ. "Fourteen years after this first visit, Paul again arrived in Jerusalem, but now to impose his teaching on the apostles." This was the teaching that the ceremonial law of Moses was not obligatory for Christians from the Gentiles. Does Tolstoy really think that it would have been more consistent with the spiritual essence of Christianity to preach the opposite? Thus Tolstoy boldly denies the divinely revealed dignity of the Apostle Paul's preaching. But the Apostle, who gave his very life for the Word of God, assures us of it with an oath, saying, "In what I write to you, behold, before God, I do not lie" (Gal 1:20). Whom, then, should we believe?

For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ." This statement of the Apostle himself about the appearances of Christ the Savior to him is extraordinarily important for us. Evidently these appearances were numerous and were probably accompanied not only by articulate sounds, but also by the sight of the Savior Himself. How greatly the dignity of the great Apostle of the Gentiles is raised by this! In the Epistle to the Ephesians he likewise declares that the mystery of Christianity was made known to him through revelation (Eph 3:3).

The Apostle speaks with special insistence that he did not receive the Gospel from man and was not taught it by man. Both forms of reception are very natural and ordinary, so one must not think that he condemns them. But because of special circumstances, namely because he was being belittled in comparison with the other Apostles, he was compelled to say that there is another way of knowing Christ. Moreover, it is the highest way: His personal revelation. The Apostle Paul was deemed worthy of this, and through it became equal in title with the chief Apostle Peter. Since the revelations granted to the Apostle were sealed with a character of mystery, he does not disclose them here. He remembers the danger of offering pearls to those who cannot value them. "See," says St. John Chrysostom, "how he proves from things above and things below that he was a disciple of Christ. Christ Himself, without human mediation, graciously opened to him the understanding of all things." To this blessed Theophylact adds: "The same One revealed the Gospel to me who also taught the other Apostles with Peter." "He speaks of this in order to set it against the slanders of his opponents. He shows that in this also he is not inferior to the other Apostles. For as they received the teaching from the Lord Himself, so he too had Him as teacher." According to blessed Jerome, there is this difference between receiving and being taught. The one who receives the Gospel is the one to whom it is first instilled, who is brought only to faith in it. But the one who is taught is the one who comes to know all its mysteries. To this, Theophan adds: "He speaks as if to say, I did not receive it ready-made from men, nor did I devise it myself. In this case, 'nor was I taught' means the same as: I did not invent it myself." The last thought is especially important because it refutes the conjecture of those who suppose that St. Paul's teaching is his personal view of the Gospel.

To refute this, they would have had to compare his teaching with how the eyewitnesses of the Word taught. But when Saint Paul assured them that he received the Gospel not from man, but directly from the Lord, the thoughts of the Galatians had to take another direction.

It became evident that if the Lord commanded him to teach in this way, then Saint Paul could not proclaim the Gospel otherwise.

Whatever might now be said about the first Apostles, it was clear for the Galatians that Paul’s word is the word of God. There was no need to check with men living so far from them.

For the Lord is everywhere one and the same. They too hear the truth as if directly from the Lord Himself.

In the words ‘I received’ and ‘I was taught,’ some see one and the same thought. Others see an indication of different degrees of understanding and assimilation of the Gospel.

In ‘I received,’ they see initial instruction, the acceptance of truth in general outline. In ‘I was taught,’ they see entry into the circle of revealed truths and a full study of them.

Thus blessed Jerome says: ‘Between receiving and being taught there is this difference. He receives the Gospel to whom it is first instilled, who is brought only to faith in it.

He is taught who comes to know all its mysteries.’

Some see in ‘I was taught’ a personal study of the revealed Gospel. They extend this so far that in ‘I was taught’ they see a contrast with ‘I received.’

We have two human sources of knowledge. We receive some things from others, and we arrive at others ourselves by our own reasoning.

Saint Paul denies both sources for his Gospel. It is as though he says: I did not receive it ready-made from man, nor did I devise it myself.

In that case, ‘nor was I taught’ will mean the same as: I did not invent it myself.

This last thought is very important, because it rejects the conjecture of those who suppose that Saint Paul’s teaching is his personal view of the Gospel.

Here he assures us that his Gospel, in its full composition, is from above. Nothing has been introduced into it from personal considerations.

Of course, such considerations cannot be denied in his later applications of the revealed truths. Yet even these took place in his grace-filled mind not without the direction and guardianship of the Spirit of God.

Some think that in the phrase ‘for neither did I’ one hears, ‘for I too did not receive it from man.’ That is, I too, like the other Apostles.

The course of the discourse does not justify this, though the thought is not far from the intention with which Saint Paul speaks these words.

‘But by the revelation of Jesus Christ,’ that is, I received the Gospel directly from the Lord Himself.

Our Slavonic translation fixes attention on the Lord’s appearing to Saint Paul on his way to Damascus. It gives us to understand that at that moment he grasped the power of the Gospel.

Yet then he heard only: ‘I am Jesus. It is hard for you to kick against the goads,’ and, ‘Go into Damascus, and there you will be told what you must do’ (see Acts 9:5-6).

Thus blessed Jerome says: ‘Here he indicates that appearance, or revelation, when, going to Damascus, he was made worthy to hear the voice of Christ on the road. Then, having become blind, he saw the true Light of the world.’

Theodoret also says: ‘Saint Paul very wisely used the word revelation. For the Master Christ had then ascended into heaven and was no longer seen alike by all.

But He appeared to Paul on the road and made him worthy of the ministry of preaching.’

Yet one cannot fail to see that here only the seed of the Gospel was laid, and it still had to develop into the whole tree of New Testament truths.

For a Jew, especially a learned one, a great deal was already said by the mere fact that Jesus Christ is precisely what is preached about Him: the Deliverer of the world promised to Israel.

At this, all the features in which the Old Testament presents the person of the Messiah and His Kingdom had to form themselves in his mind.

But it is evident that this alone was insufficient for full knowledge of the Gospel. In New Testament teaching there are many truths that cannot be learned from the Old Testament Scripture alone.

He had to be taught by someone. Saint Paul says that he was taught this by the Lord Himself.

If the appearance before Damascus could not teach him everything, and Saint Paul learned nothing from men, then one must acknowledge that the Lord’s appearances to Paul continued afterward.

In them all the mysteries of the Gospel were revealed to him.

Therefore here, by revelation, one must understand revelation in general. The Apostle does not indicate when and how these revelations occurred. But that they occurred he refers to more than once in his Epistles.

For example, concerning the second coming of Christ and what will happen then to the living and the dead, he speaks to the Thessalonians ‘by the word of the Lord’ (1 Thess 4:15).

Of course, this means that he heard this word from the Lord Himself.

Concerning the Mystical Supper, he also spoke as one who had himself received it from the Lord (cf. 1 Cor 11:23).

Judging by this, when before setting forth the essence of the Gospel he said, ‘which I also received,’ we must understand that he received this from the Lord (see 1 Cor 15:3).

The rapture to the third heaven, which he mentions in the Epistle to the Corinthians, written about a year after the Epistle to the Galatians, had already occurred when Saint Paul wrote this Epistle.

He says that it happened fourteen years earlier (see 2 Cor 12:2). In general, it falls in the first years after his conversion to the Lord.

All such indications oblige us to acknowledge that the whole Gospel, in its entire composition, was revealed to Saint Paul immediately by the Lord Himself.

Consequently, he is a full and direct disciple of the Lord, like all the foremost Apostles.

It is as though he says: ‘The very One who taught the other Apostles with Peter revealed the Gospel to me’ (blessed Theophylact).

He speaks of this ‘in order to set it against the slanders of his opponents, making known that in this also he is not below the other Apostles.

For as they received the teaching from the Lord Himself, so he too had Him as teacher’ (blessed Theodoret).

He confirms this by his sudden change (1:13-16).

This apostolic word of Saint Paul alone would have been enough to assure them that he received the Gospel from above.

But he is not satisfied with this. He presents a most tangible proof of it in his own change.

It is as though he says to them: look at what I was before, and what I suddenly became afterward, and you will see the finger of God in the turning of my life.

That the finger of God acted in him and helped him, he could have proved by the Lord’s appearances to him and by the signs that accompanied his preaching.

But he does not do this, because here human weakness would have demanded verification. Instead he sets forth what was tangibly evident to all, his transformation from a Jew into a Christian.

That he persecuted the Church and destroyed it was known to all. Everyone now also saw that this persecutor and destroyer of the Church defends and builds it.

What followed from this? One had to marvel, as the believers in Judea did, and glorify God (see 1:23-24).

At the same time one had to acknowledge that Saint Paul’s work and preaching come from God. Therefore one had to hear his words and submit to his directions.

It should be noted that Saint Paul’s words only lead to such thoughts. They breathe this conviction, and of course he uttered them with the hidden intention that they should instill it.

The literal course of the discourse also suggests another assurance that Saint Paul’s teaching is not human.

It runs thus: before my conversion I persecuted the Gospel. Therefore I had no desire to know it and did not consider it necessary.

After my conversion, I entered into relations with none of those who believed in it for the purpose of learning it.

Judge for yourselves, after this, how much probability there is in the words you have heard, that I learned the Gospel from men.

The holy Fathers and teachers of the Church attend more to the first point, almost without noticing the second. For they strove to clarify the spirit of Scripture more than the letter.