Galatians 1:17Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Yet, as I have said, if this saying is considered by itself, it can raise doubt and trouble some hearers. But if we present the reason why it was said, all will applaud and admire the speaker.

Let us do this, then. Words must not be considered in isolation, for this will lead to many errors. Nor should an isolated saying be examined by itself. We must attend to the intention of the writer.

In our own conversations, if we do not use this method and seek the speaker's true thought, we shall produce many misunderstandings. The whole meaning of the speech will be distorted.

Why speak only of words? Even in deeds, if we do not follow this rule, everything will fall into complete disorder.

Physicians cut the body and saw through certain bones. Robbers often do the same. What a misfortune it would be if we could not distinguish a robber from a physician.

Likewise, murderers and martyrs handed over to painful death undergo similar sufferings. Yet between the two there is undoubtedly a great difference.

If we do not observe the rule just mentioned, and if we examine only the deeds without considering the doers' intention, we shall be unable to see that difference.

We shall call Elijah, Samuel, and Phinehas murderers. We might even call Abraham a child-killer.

Let us examine Paul's thought, with which he wrote these words. Let us learn his purpose and what he always was toward the Apostles. Then we shall learn with what intention he said this.

Certainly he said this and what came before not to praise himself. How could he do this, when he subjected even himself to a curse (v. 8)?

He said it in order to preserve everywhere the security of the Gospel.

Those who were destroying the Church said that it was necessary to follow the Apostles who did not forbid this, and not Paul, who did forbid it. In this way the Jewish error was secretly entering.

Therefore he was compelled to rise up against it decisively. He did not mean to say anything bad about the Apostles, but wished to cast down the pride of those who were unjustly exalting themselves.

For this reason he says, "I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood."

It would have been utterly absurd if one who had been taught by God then consulted men.

Someone who receives teaching from men quite rightly has recourse again to men's counsels. But one who was counted worthy of that divine and blessed word was taught everything by Him Who possesses the very treasure of wisdom.

Why would such a man still consult men? Such a man ought not to learn from men, but to teach men.

Therefore he said these words not from pride, but to show the dignity of his preaching.

"Nor," he says, "did I go up to Jerusalem to the Apostles before me."

Since they said that the others were both older than he and called before him, he says for this reason that he did not go to them.

If he had needed to come to agreement with them, He Who revealed to him the word of preaching would have commanded him to do this also.

What then? Did he not go there? Of course he went, and not casually, but to learn something from them.

When did this happen? It happened when a question arose in the city of Antioch, which had shown great zeal for the Church from the beginning.

The question concerned the same subject we are now discussing. They wished to know whether those who believed from among the Gentiles had to be circumcised, or whether they should not be compelled at all to undergo this.

Then Paul himself and Silas went to Jerusalem. How, then, does he say that he did not go and did not consult?

First, because he did not go there by his own will, but was sent by others. Second, he did not go to learn, but to persuade others.

From the beginning he himself held the opinion later confirmed by the Apostles, namely, that circumcision was not required.

But since they still did not consider him trustworthy, and listened more to those who were in Jerusalem, he went there.

He did not go to learn anything more himself. He went to persuade the opponents that those in Jerusalem also agreed with this.

Thus from the beginning he saw what had to be done and had no need of a teacher. In the very matter that the Apostles would confirm after lengthy discussion, he had already been established from above before their discussion.

Luke, explaining this, said that Paul had a great and prolonged dispute with them on this subject before his journey to Jerusalem (Acts 15:2).

But since the brethren wished to learn about it from the other Apostles also, he went there for their sake, not for his own.

If he says, "Nor did I go up," these words may be explained by saying that he did not go there at the beginning of his preaching.

And when he did go there, he did not go to learn. He indicates both thoughts in the words, "I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood."

He did not simply say, "I did not confer," but, "immediately." If he went there afterward, it was not to receive anything.

"But I went into Arabia." See what a fiery soul! He strove to occupy countries not yet cultivated and still remaining in a wild state.

If he had remained with the Apostles, having nothing to learn from them, the work of preaching would have been hindered. Yet they had to spread the teaching everywhere.

Therefore this blessed man, burning in spirit, immediately undertook the work of teaching people still untaught and wild. He chose a life filled with many labors and joined to many dangers.

And see his humility. Having said, "I went into Arabia," he added, "and again I returned to Damascus."

He says nothing about his struggles, nor about whom and how many he taught.

Yet immediately after baptism he showed such zeal that he disturbed the Jews and stirred up such hatred against himself among both Jews and Gentiles that they watched for him and wished to kill him.

This would not have happened if he had not gained a great multitude of believers.

Since they were defeated by his teaching, nothing remained for them but to turn to murder. This was a clear proof of Paul's victory.

But Christ did not permit him to die, preserving him for the preaching.

Yet despite this, he says nothing about these struggles. Therefore everything he says is not from vainglory, nor so that he might be considered greater than the other Apostles.

Nor does he speak because he is grieved at being humbled before them. He speaks from fear that some harm might come to the preaching.

For he himself calls himself one untimely born, the first of sinners, the least of the Apostles, and even unworthy of such a name (1 Cor 15:8-9; 1 Tim 1:15).

The man who labored more than all says this, and this is a special proof of his humility.

For one who recognizes no good in himself and speaks humbly of himself is certainly sensible, but he cannot be called humble.

But one who has so many crowns and still speaks of himself in this way knows how to be modest.

"And again," he says, "I returned to Damascus." How much he probably accomplished there!

Of this city he says that the ethnarch of King Aretas guarded it, wishing to seize the blessed man (2 Cor 11:32). This was the clearest proof that he was fiercely attacking the Jews there.

But here he says nothing of this. Even there he would not have mentioned it if he had not seen that the circumstances then required that account.

Otherwise he would have kept silence, just as here. Speaking only of his coming and going, he says nothing more about what happened there.

Moreover, he did not come immediately, that is, at the beginning, but later. Even then it was for the persuasion of others.

"But I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus." He went through uncultivated and wild places. For if he had remained among the apostles, his preaching would have met obstacles and would not have spread so quickly. Therefore he went to the wildest peoples.

But observe his humility. In listing the cities, he nowhere said how many he converted, although in Damascus he threw the Jews into such confusion that he suffered persecution from the ethnarch.

Therefore, if he seems to speak much about himself, he does so not for vainglory, but so that his preaching may suffer no harm if he is not believed as a simple man and a disciple of disciples.

In them he sought Christ, whom he had received commandment to preach to the Gentiles. “Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the Apostles who were before me.” If the Apostle says, “I did not entrust myself to flesh and blood,” what need was there to repeat the same thing in the words, “Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the Apostles who were before me”? Therefore we must hold the meaning we set forth above. “But I went into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.” The order of events seems not to agree, because Luke reports in the Acts of the holy Apostles that Paul, after believing in Christ, preached the Gospel boldly for many days in Damascus (Acts 9:19-27). Then a plot was made against him, and at night he was let down from the wall in a basket. Afterward he came to Jerusalem and tried to join the disciples. When they avoided him and feared to approach him, Barnabas brought him to the Apostles. Among them he related how he had seen the Lord on the road, and how in Damascus he had acted with firm faith in the name of the Lord, or with the addition, “of Jesus.” “He was with them. ” Luke says, “going in and out of Jerusalem, and acting with firm faith in the name of the Lord.” He also spoke and disputed with the Greeks, and they attempted to kill him. When the brethren learned of this, they brought him down to Caesarea and then sent him to Tarsus (Acts 9:28-30). But in the Epistle the Apostle says that first he went to Arabia and, after returning again to Damascus, came three years later to Jerusalem. He saw Peter and spent fifteen days with him. He met no other Apostle except James, the Lord's brother. That this was truly so, and so that he might be believed, because it could seem doubtful to those not with him, he confirms his words by an oath: “Now concerning what I write to you, behold. Before God, I do not lie.” In accordance with Luke's narrative, we may think that Paul was indeed in Jerusalem, but not as one visiting the Apostles, his predecessors, to learn anything from them. Rather, he went to turn aside the danger of persecution which he had brought upon himself in Damascus because of preaching the Gospel. Thus he came to Jerusalem as he would have gone to any other city. From there he hastily withdrew to Arabia because of plots, or returned again to Damascus. From Damascus, after three years, he returned to Jerusalem to meet Peter. Certainly it could also have happened this way. Immediately after baptism and after strengthening himself with food, he stayed for several days with the disciples in Damascus. To everyone's amazement, he immediately began preaching in the Jewish assemblies, the synagogues, that Jesus is the Son of God. Then he went to Arabia, and from Arabia returned to Damascus. There he remained for three years, of which Scripture also bears witness as “many days”: “When many days had passed, the Jews took counsel to kill him” (Acts 9:23). Their plans became known to Saul. Therefore they watched the gates day and night in order to kill him. For this reason the disciples took him by night and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket. When he came to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. The Apostle Luke perhaps omitted the information about Arabia because Paul accomplished nothing there worthy of Apostolic preaching. Luke preferred to report briefly what, in his judgment, was worthy of the Gospel of Christ. Even if Paul spent time in Arabia without particular results, frustra, this must not be attributed to the Apostle's slowness. It may be that there was some command, even a commandment from God, concerning silence. For afterward too we read that Paul, when he went out with Silas, was forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach in Asia (Acts 16:6). Otherwise: “But I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus.” What benefit does this report bring me, if I read that Paul went to Arabia immediately after Christ's revelation and immediately returned from Arabia to Damascus? I do not know why he went there, nor what benefit his going and returning brought. The Apostle himself gives me occasion for a higher understanding of this passage in the same Epistle, when he discusses Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah: “Indeed, this is expressed allegorically, for here are two Covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for bondage; this is Hagar. For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia. She is spiritually joined to the one that now is in Jerusalem” (Gal 4:24-25). He teaches that the Old Covenant, that is, the son of the bondwoman, was established in Arabia, which means humbled and near to falling. Thus Paul, as soon as he believed, turned to the Law, the Prophets, and the mysteries of the Old Covenant, which was already declining toward its setting. In them he sought Christ, whom he had received commandment to preach to the Gentiles. But after he opened the Law, he did not remain in it long. He returned to Damascus, that is, to the blood and sufferings of Christ. From there, strengthened by the reading of the prophecies, he set out for Jerusalem, that is, to the place of vision and peace. He did this not so much to learn anything from the Apostles as to compare his teaching of the Gospel with the teaching of those Apostles.

How, then, does he say, "I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me"? He said just before, "I did not immediately confer." This word "immediately" is taken generally, and applies also to what follows: neither did I immediately go up to Jerusalem.

And truly he did not come to Jerusalem immediately after he saw the first manifestation. Rather, he went at once to Arabia to preach the Gospel there. Then he returned again to Damascus. From there he was let down by night through the wall in a basket and escaped the treachery of the Jews. Then he came to Jerusalem, where Barnabas presented him to the apostles.

Reading the ninth chapter of Acts, one might think that immediately after baptism Paul fled from Damascus because of the treachery of the Jews, came to Jerusalem, and appeared before the apostles. But this could have happened because Luke, observing brevity in his account, passed over his journey from Damascus to Arabia and his return from there again to Damascus.

Notice also that Paul did not say out of pride that he did not come to Jerusalem to those apostles who were before him, as though thinking he had no need of this because he was superior to those apostles.

How could the one who said and wrote of himself that he was one untimely born (1 Cor 15:8), and that he had persecuted the Church of God beyond measure (Gal 1:13), be proud?

Or how could he think himself superior to the apostles, when he said of himself, "I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle" (1 Cor 15:9), and called Peter, James, and John pillars (Gal 2:9)?

He said this to show that it was not the apostles, but Jesus Christ Himself, who taught him the faith. Thus he wished to erase the blasphemy of the false apostles, who were leading many astray by saying that Paul had been taught by the apostles, and not by Jesus Christ as the apostles had been.

That he honored and respected the apostles is testified by the words that follow: "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and remained with him fifteen days."

"He says this not to humble the apostles, and not to praise himself, but everywhere guarding the security of the Gospel and wishing to show the importance and dignity of his preaching. And if he had needed to consult, the One who revealed to him the word of preaching would have commanded him to do this also."

Nevertheless, after three years had passed, Paul did visit the apostles in Jerusalem. "This journey, undertaken for Peter, proves Paul's great respect for him," says St. John Chrysostom. "And his staying with him for so many days, fifteen in number, proves their friendly disposition and sincere mutual love."

Concerning the Apostle James, Chrysostom says: "Notice with what honor he named him also. He could have said, 'the son of Clopas,' as the Evangelist said. But he did not call him this. How then? 'The brother of the Lord,' although in fact he was not the Lord's brother according to the flesh, but was considered such, as the son of Joseph or of the sister of the Theotokos. He shows in many other places also that he was disposed toward all the apostles with all the sincerity fitting to him."

To this blessed Jerome adds: "That St. Paul saw none of the apostles except these was not because he did not wish to see them, but because they had gone out to preach the Gospel."

In the book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles, where Paul's conversion is recounted in detail, nothing is said about his journey to Arabia. But it says that "many days had passed" (Acts 9:23) before the Apostle Paul came to Jerusalem after his conversion.

During this considerable time he could have visited Arabia, both for preaching, which was easier among those who did not know him, and to withdraw from unfavorable reports caused by his sudden conversion. Finally, he could do so in order to live through more calmly the great change that had taken place in him.

Therefore he places himself in their rank, saying, "to those who were Apostles before me." From this it followed that he too was an Apostle like them. The only difference was that they preceded him in time.

If he too is an Apostle like them, then he must be heard as they are heard. Nothing in the Gospel preached by him may be altered.

Thus Ambrosiaster says, "The Apostle means that, after he had been chosen by God, he had no need to go to the older Apostles in order to learn anything from them. For God revealed to him, through His Son, how and what he ought to teach.

"This is said to show that nothing else must be held except what he teaches. They must not believe men, but God, by Whom he was taught.

"From this it follows that those who draw them toward the law are false teachers. What they taught was not handed down from God."

Saint Chrysostom directs attention to the moral side of this action, but reaches the same conclusion.

"If someone considers these words separately, he may think they are filled with great pride and are far from agreement with the apostolic spirit. To decide something by oneself, and not disclose one's thoughts to others, may be taken for pride.

"For it is said, 'Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him' (Prov 26:12). And again, 'Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and prudent before themselves' (Isa 5:21).

"Paul himself says, 'Do not be wise in your own estimation' (Rom 12:16). But could one who heard these and similar teachings from others, and himself taught the same to others, fall into such self-conceit?

"Could Paul do this? Could any man do it? Why, then, did he act and speak in this way? Not to belittle the Apostles, and not to praise himself.

"Rather, guarding everywhere the security of the Gospel, and wishing to show the weight and dignity of his preaching, that he received it directly from the Lord Himself, he says, 'I did not go up to them.'

"For if consultation had been necessary, He Who revealed to him the word of preaching would have commanded him to do this also. What then? Did he not go there? He did go, but not to learn anything, and not to receive anything."

"But I went into Arabia." Arabia is a country bordering the region of Damascus, and it had its own civil order. At that time its prince Aretas held Damascus (see 2 Cor 11:32).

Since this possession was accidental and unstable, Saint Paul hastened to make use of the circumstance. He hurried to offer the Gospel to the inhabitants there while that temporary single rule made entrance free.

"See what a fiery soul!" says Saint Chrysostom. "He strove to occupy countries not yet cultivated and still remaining in a wild state.

"If he had delayed with the Apostles, having nothing to learn from them, the work of preaching would have been hindered. They had to teach the word everywhere.

"Therefore this blessed man, burning in spirit, immediately went to teach people still untaught and wild. He chose a life filled with many labors and dangers."

All our interpreters likewise understand that Saint Paul went to Arabia with the preaching of the Gospel.

Some modern non-Orthodox interpreters construct the conjecture that Saint Paul went to Arabia not to men with preaching, but to the desert there. They say he went into solitude to think through a system of Christian doctrine.

They suppose he did this according to the principles he had received from the Lord and could have heard from believers in Damascus.

This conjecture is wholly arbitrary. It favors only that vain wisdom which admits that the teaching Saint Paul delivered was his personal view of Christianity.

According to this view, he arrived at it by independent development and by his own personal penetration into the work of salvation.

When he himself says that neither others taught him the Gospel, nor did he come to it by himself, but received it directly from the Lord Himself, why build such suppositions?

Besides, what convenient place for developing any teaching is a desert? It can help detachment from everything, but it does not provide teaching. For this one needs communion with others, conversation, and books.

Saint Paul does not say why he went to Arabia. Yet this very silence should lead us precisely to the thought that he went with preaching.

He also did not say why he returned to Damascus or what he did there. In Acts Saint Luke says that in Damascus he preached Jesus, that He is the Son of God (see Acts 9:20).

Since he makes no distinction here between his statement about Arabia and his statement about Damascus, it is more natural to think that he preached there also, as in Damascus.

This is better than admitting those fanciful suppositions.

Saint Chrysostom says, "Having said, 'I went into Arabia,' he added, 'and again I returned to Damascus.' He says not a word about his struggles, nor whom he taught, nor how many.

"Likewise in Damascus he showed such zeal that he stirred up hatred against himself, and yet he says nothing about these struggles.

"As here he says nothing about this, though it happened, so there, saying that he came to Arabia and left, he mentions nothing of what happened there, though it did happen."

How may this account be reconciled with the book of Acts, where nothing is said about Saint Paul's journey to Arabia?

This is easily reconciled if the journey to Arabia is placed between verses 19 and 20 of Acts chapter 9.

After baptism, having spent some days with the believers, and perhaps having preached a little, he departed for Arabia. After returning from there, he preached more forcefully in Damascus until three years were completed.

Then the hostility of unbelievers compelled him to withdraw.

Thus blessed Jerome says, "Immediately after baptism, having spent some days in Damascus and, to the amazement of all, having preached several times in the synagogues that Jesus is the Christ, he went to Arabia.

"Returning from Arabia to Damascus, he remained there until three years had passed. These are indicated in Scripture by the words, 'many days' (cf. Acts 9:23).

"After this, learning of the plot against him, he withdrew from Damascus."

Saint Luke does not mention this circumstance in Acts, perhaps because Saint Paul did not tell him of it. He had not heard it from others, and he had not seen the Epistle to the Galatians, written before Acts.