Galatians 1:16Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

"That I might preach Him among the nations." Not only his conversion to the faith, but also his calling to the apostleship, was God's work. "For He revealed Himself to me with this purpose: that I should not only know Him, but also proclaim Him to others."

He did not simply say "to others," but, "that I might preach Him among the nations." By this very phrase he already prepared no small foundation for his defense, drawn from the very origin of his disciples. For it was not equally necessary for him to preach to Jews and to nations.

"I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood." Here he indicates the apostles, naming them according to their nature. But if he says this also of all men, we do not contradict this either.

"I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood." That is, I did not go to take counsel with the apostles, for he calls them flesh and blood, naming them according to their nature. Or else he says this generally of all men, because in the matter of faith no man was his teacher.

Therefore there is no doubt that, after the revelation, the Apostle Paul did not rely on flesh and blood in this sense: he did not wish to cast pearls before swine or give what is holy to dogs (Mt 7:6). “Immediately I did not rely on flesh and blood,” or, as the Greek has it still better: “I did not consult,” contuli, Greek προανεθέμην, “with flesh and blood,” or, “I did not entrust myself to flesh and blood.” I know that many think this “flesh and blood” was said about the Apostles. Porphyry also objects that, after Christ's revelation to Paul, it would not have been fitting for him to go to the Apostles and discuss with them the work of preaching. That would mean receiving instruction from flesh and blood after having been taught by the Lord. But may God preserve me from considering Peter, James, and John to be flesh and blood, which cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (cf. 1 Cor 15:50). For if the spiritual Apostles were flesh and blood, what should we think of the bodily, coikoij? Therefore there is no doubt that, after the revelation, the Apostle Paul did not rely on flesh and blood in this sense. He did not wish to cast pearls before swine or give what is holy to dogs (Mt 7:6). See what is written about sinners: “My Spirit shall not remain in these men, because they are flesh and blood” (Gen 6:3). If the Apostle did not consult about the revealed Gospel with those who are flesh and blood and who did not reveal the Son of God to Peter (Mt 16:16), he moved little by little from flesh and blood to the spirit. Then indeed he entrusted to them the hidden mysteries, occulta sacramenta, of the Gospel. But perhaps someone will say: “If he did not immediately consult flesh and blood about the Gospel, then it is implied that afterward he would consult flesh and blood. Therefore the meaning that denies the Apostles belong to flesh and blood cannot stand. As I said, one who at first did not consult flesh and blood will at least later consult them.” This supposition compels us to point out a distinction. We must not join the word “immediately,” statim or continuo. With the words “flesh and blood.” We must connect it with the words above: “When it pleased Him who separated me from my mother's womb.” Then: “to reveal His Son in me.” Finally: “that I might immediately preach Him among the Gentiles.” Thus the words “I did not entrust myself to flesh and blood” are properly the beginning of a new sentence. This is especially how we should think. For he who, immediately after the revelation from Christ, was to proclaim the Gospel to the Gentiles, did not lose time in any delay. He did not go to the Apostles and consult with men about the Lord's revelation. He went away into Arabia. Then, after three years of preaching, he returned again to Damascus. Only then, tunc demum, going to Jerusalem, did he see Peter, James, and John.

He says all this because of the slanders of his opponents. They said of him that he had been counted worthy of apostolic teaching, yet violated what had been ordained by the apostles. Therefore he is compelled to speak about himself, something he did in no other epistle.

He says, "Having been counted worthy of that calling, I did not at once go to Jerusalem, but was satisfied with the grace given me by God." For it would have been most unfitting for one who received teaching from God to enter into discussion about it with men.

The Orthodox: Hear what the God-inspired Paul says: "But when it pleased God, who chose me from my mother's womb and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me. That I might preach Him among the nations, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me" (Gal 1:15-17).

Does St. Paul call the apostles flesh and blood in condemnation of them?

Eranistes: By no means.

The Orthodox: He borrows the name from the visible nature of man. He compares heavenly knowledge for the office of the apostleship with a calling that comes in the ordinary way, that is, through men.

In that manifestation God appointed him apostle and evangelist of the nations, saying to him, "For this purpose I have appeared to you. To make you a servant of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will reveal to you, delivering you from the Jewish people and from the nations, to whom I now send you" (Acts 26:16-17).

Moreover, He did this again when He appeared to him in Jerusalem, in the temple, where Paul was praying and fell into a trance. For even then Jesus Christ said to him, "Go, for I will send you far away to the nations" (Acts 22:21).

Thus, since Christ sent him to teach the nations and appointed him a minister or herald of what he had seen and was to see by revelation, it is clear from this that Jesus Christ Himself taught him the Gospel which he had to preach and teach.

The events that occurred at those manifestations he described briefly and with all humility in the Epistle to the Galatians. He ascribed everything not to his own worthiness or virtue, but to the goodness and grace of God.

"When," he says, "it pleased God," that is, when God, who had appointed me from my mother's womb and by His grace had called me to the apostolic rank, willed in His goodness to reveal His Son to me, then "I did not confer with flesh and blood."

That is, I did not cling to my relatives and friends, nor did I place my hope in them, or in my countrymen and fellow citizens. Rather, leaving all things, I hastened to preach the faith.

But the phrase "I did not confer with flesh and blood" also has another meaning. I did not attach myself or turn to men, that is, to the apostles, in order to learn the matters of faith from them. For I learned them from Jesus Christ Himself. This meaning also accords with the words that follow.

"Although the Apostle says all this as though in passing, hastening to express the thought that he 'did not immediately confer with flesh and blood' and 'did not go up to the apostles,' the truths suggested by his words are significant not only for the Galatians, but also for all of us. For they illumine the events and life of each of us with the bright light of God's providence, pointing to eternity as the source of what takes place in time" (Theophan).

The special feature of God's providence concerning Paul was that his sudden change should serve many as confirmation of the truth of the Gospel (cf. 1 Tim 1:16).

The prophet Jeremiah was chosen from the womb (Jer 1:5). Yet election is not yet a complete determination unto salvation. Therefore it is unjust to derive from this a teaching on predestination to salvation without the participation of free human will.

God wills all to be saved and calls all to salvation, but each person makes use of it according to his own free choice. According to blessed Theophylact, "God chose Paul not by lot, but by foreknowledge, knowing that he was worthy of this." So also He called the prophet Jeremiah, "knowing what he would be."

"We judge according to what exists, but He, before whom the future is as the present, pronounces judgment according to the foreseen end" (blessed Jerome).

The Apostle's calling on the road to Damascus was a calling only to faith and grace. His election to the apostleship followed afterward, although the intention of it was already present here. "He is a chosen vessel of Mine," God said to Ananias (Acts 9:15).

According to the explanation of St. John Chrysostom, the Apostle so humbly ascribes everything to God "that no one might despair, when the worst of all men was counted worthy of God's love for mankind."

The revelation of the Son of God took place in the sanctuary of Paul's soul through the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit. As Chrysostom says, the revelation illumined his soul, and he had Christ speaking within him.

By this illumination Paul saw that Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God, and the whole substance of the Gospel was formed in his mind. Having been taught by God Himself, and in a purely spiritual manner, it was natural for Paul not to resort to the usual human means of instruction, even through the apostles themselves. "For it would have been most unjust and unfitting if one who had been taught by God Himself should consult with men who have flesh and blood."

There was a moment when the whole essence of the Gospel and the whole manner of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ were formed in his mind. An outward manifestation alone, without this inward illumination, would not have produced such an effect. “Why,” asks Chrysostom, “did he not say, ‘to reveal His Son to me,’ but ‘in me’?” He answers: “In order to show that he learned everything necessary about the faith not only through words, but also because he was filled with the Holy Spirit. When revelation illumined his soul, and because he had Christ speaking within him.” Oecumenius says likewise: “He says ‘in me,’ wishing to show that he knew Him not only by word, but by mind and heart. Knowledge of Him entered into life in his inner man.” Or, as Theophylact says, “it was impressed upon the inner man.” “That I might preach Him.” With this the formation of holy Paul as an Apostle is completed. One who is called and illumined with inward knowledge of the Gospel is a ready Apostle. Grace is not poured out so abundantly in vain. It is given so that he may go and bear fruit, and go to carry the name of the Lord before nations and kings (cf. Acts 9:15). There was a special act of divine consecration of holy Paul as an Apostle, though he himself does not speak of it definitely. Oecumenius writes: “‘That I might preach.’ Do you see that the Father, who chose him and revealed His Son in him, Himself ordained him as preacher and Apostle?” He took this thought from Chrysostom, who says: “Not only his faith, but also his consecration to the Apostolic rank was from God. For He revealed Himself to me, he says, so that I might not only know Him, but also proclaim Him to others among the Gentiles.” “Among the Gentiles,” that is, among pagans. This hinted that, while having the Gentiles chiefly in view, he might also not pass over the Jews living among them. From Acts it is evident that he did just this. Almost everywhere he first addressed his preaching to the Jews. Then, when they proved unfavorable toward him and the Gospel, he turned to the Gentiles and occupied himself with them alone. “Immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood.” These words, because the phrase “flesh and blood” has an indefinite meaning, have given rise to various interpretations. Flesh and blood mean human nature with everything in it, bad and good. In other words, it means everything human. If we accept this meaning, we obtain the following thought. As soon as I was called and illumined with knowledge of the Son of God, I immediately left everything human behind. I left human thoughts, hopes, fears, and customs. I was changed by a complete change. I entered wholly into the spirit of the new life in Christ Jesus and consecrated myself entirely to serving Him. If we take the Apostle's preceding discourse somewhat earlier, the meaning will be this: I persecuted Christianity, and then suddenly became devoted to it with my whole soul. I sacrificed to it everything I could have had in life according to human calculations. Oecumenius says something similar: “Immediately he did not give himself over to rest and self-satisfaction, nor to idleness and carelessness, as though he had done something great. But entered the difficult path of preaching the Gospel.” If we attend to what holy Paul says above about his devotion to Judaism and to the traditions of the fathers, which bear the character of fleshly and material service to God, we may arrive at another thought. Perhaps by “flesh and blood” he means these very things. Perhaps by these words he wishes to express this: as soon as I came to know Christ Jesus the Lord and salvation in Him, I immediately left the fleshly Jewish service in its whole composition. I withdrew from it completely and returned to it no more. If “flesh and blood” is taken in the sense of man, the meaning will correspond to whatever sort of man we understand. Besides what was said above, Oecumenius also understands by “flesh and blood” house, relatives, and homeland. “He did not prefer,” he says, “to see relatives, or home, or acquaintances, or homeland, but left everything. For in this too I do not lag behind Peter and John. Immediately he hastened to the preaching.” Others understand by “flesh and blood” man in general, in this way: having received the revelation of the Gospel from above, I no longer turned to any man for help in knowing it, considering that both unnecessary and unfitting. So many different opinions exist. Our holy interpreters, understanding these words in the sense of man, nevertheless see in them a definite indication of the Apostles. Thus, having been taught by God Himself, I no longer turned for instruction even to the Apostles, as to men. In that case the words “immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood” must be read inseparably with the following words: “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were Apostles before me.” One and the same thought should be seen in them, with the latter words explaining the former. Chrysostom writes: “Here, that is, in the words ‘I did not confer with flesh and blood,’ he indicates the Apostles, naming them according to nature.” A little later he says: “It would have been extremely unjust and unreasonable if one who had learned from God Himself began to consult with men. One taught by men quite rightly returns afterward to human counsels. But one counted worthy of that divine and desired voice, and taught all things by Him who possesses the very treasury of wisdom, why would he consult with men? Such a man ought not to learn from men, but to teach men.” Theodoret says the same: “Having been counted worthy of that calling, I did not immediately go to Jerusalem, but was content with the grace given me by God. For it would have been most unfitting for one who had received teaching from God to discuss it with men.” John of Damascus says: “How would he have turned to men, having been counted worthy to be taught from above?” Theophylact has the same thought. Such a unanimous judgment of all our interpreters obliges us to rest upon it. We should do this all the more readily because, once we depart from it, we inevitably wander among many suppositions, not knowing where to stop.