Confirmed by His Sudden Change; Not Learned From Others (Galatians 1:13–24)

And this Apostolic word of Saint Paul alone would have been sufficient to assure that the Gospel was received by him from above. But he does not content himself with this; rather, he presents the most palpable proof of it in his own change. He speaks as if saying to them: Look what I was before and what I suddenly became afterward, and you will see the finger of God in the turning point of my life. That it was the finger of God working in him and helping him, he could prove by the manifestations of the Lord to him and by the signs accompanying his preaching; but he does not do this, for there human weakness would require verification, but 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. And everyone also saw now that this persecutor and destroyer of the Church defends it and builds it up. From this what followed? It followed to marvel, as did the believers in Judea, and to glorify God (Gal. 1:23–24); but at the same time to recognize that the work of Saint Paul and his preaching came from God, and therefore to listen to his words and obey his commands.

One must note that Saint Paul’s words only prompt such thoughts; they instill such conviction, and certainly are spoken by him not without a secret intention that they would instill this conviction. But the literal flow of discourse suggests another assurance as well, that the teaching of Saint Paul is not human, namely thus: before my conversion I persecuted the Gospel; consequently I did not want to know it and did not consider it necessary; after my conversion I did not enter into contact with anyone who believed in it for the purpose of learning it. Judge for yourselves after this, how much probability is there in the rumors you have heard that I learned the Gospel from men? The Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church dwell more upon the first point, seeming not to notice the second at all. For they strove to clarify more the spirit of Scripture than its letter.

Gal. 1:13–14. For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, that I violently persecuted the Church of God and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.

“You have heard.” It is evident that the Apostle himself did not recount his former life; rather, rumor reached them. “That the Only-begotten Son of God deigned to call me by His voice from heaven, you do not know; for how would you know it, not having been with me? But that I was a persecutor, you know very well; for rumor of my cruelty reached even to you despite the great distance between Palestine and Galatia. Such a rumor about me would not have spread so far if my cruelty had not been too great and unbearable to all” (Saint Chrysostom).

“My life in Judaism formerly. Life”—not in general how he conducted himself, but what he was in relation to the Church of Christ; in “Judaism”—when he held to the Jewish law, was by faith a Jew; “formerly”—once, presumably quite a long time ago. More than twenty years had passed since Saint Paul’s conversion until the time he wrote this Epistle.

“I violently persecuted the Church of God and tried to destroy it. Violently”—καθ υπερβολην—exceedingly, more than was proper. In this word is heard the acknowledgment of his former wrongness and unreasoning youthful fervor. Then he did not see this excessiveness; now, looking back, he sees that he acted in blind zeal. He thought he was defending God’s cause; but it turned out that he was going against God. “I violently persecuted”—he was not one of the light persecutors, but one whose cruelties knew no measure (blessed Jerome). “The Church of God.” “He did not say: the Church of Christ, as he thought before, when he despised Christ (considering Him a man), but, as he now believes, ‘the Church of God,’ showing thereby either that Christ is God, or that the Church is the Church of that same God who once gave the Law” (blessed Jerome). “And tried to destroy it.” As a building is destroyed, stone by stone being cast down from it; so he strove to destroy the Church, oppressing and bringing to the slaughter one by one those professing faith in Christ. The Church of God is destroyed internally by corrupting its dogmas and ordinances, as false teachers and heresiarchs do; it is destroyed externally when believers are exterminated. Saint Paul destroyed it in this latter way. The Church would cease to exist if there remained no one to confess the name of Christ. “Saint Paul persecuted the Church not like others, but exceedingly; not content even with excessive persecution, but, like some robber, he made raids upon it and laid it waste” (blessed Jerome). “See how forcefully he expresses each word and is not ashamed! For he did not merely persecute, but persecuted with all cruelty, and not only persecuted but destroyed, that is, strove to exterminate, devastate, overthrow and annihilate the Church of God. For this is what a destroyer does” (Saint Chrysostom).

“And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my people.” Saint Paul begins to explain the spirit in which he persecuted the Church. One could persecute from a robber-like, man-destroying disposition; one could persecute in order to please the high priests and other authorities of the Jews, in hope of oneself also occupying a prominent place among them afterward. None of this was in Saint Paul. I, he says, persecuted the Church from love of ancestral faith alone, without any external calculations. I was convinced that such was God’s will, to always hold to Judaism, and, being zealous for it, I breathed zeal for God, though I was mistaken. And for the Galatians it was important to know not so much that he persecuted the Church as how his heart lay toward the Law. Having said that he was so devoted to the Law, Saint Paul left them with the thought: such a lover of the Law abandoned it—this cannot be done without cause.

“I advanced in Judaism.”—This is not the same as before: “My life in Judaism.” There only external belonging to Judaism was indicated, but here internal relation to it is pointed out. “Judaism”—the faith, morals, and customs of all kinds by which the Jews were distinguished. “Advancement” in it, of course, consisted in the study of all this, in adherence and devotion to it, in fashioning oneself according to Jewish principles, so that for all it was evident that he was a true Jew both soul and body. Seeing him thus, and others without doubt related to him with honor, cherishing great hopes about him. In this respect—advanced will mean: went uphill, rose to the number of those in positions of activity, whom the authorities themselves trusted greatly. “Beyond many of my contemporaries among my people.” I was not among the ordinary ones among the youth of our generation; I surpassed many, or all; as if to say: there were many contemporaries of mine, but I surpassed all of them both in knowledge of Judaism and in zeal for it. Perhaps Saint Paul wanted to express something even more than this. In any age the young generation presents zealots for the ancestral, for what is considered the distinction of the nation and does it honor. Saint Paul places himself in the ranks of these and assures that he showed more zeal than all zealots for Judaism; he does not compare himself with the indifferent and weak, but with the lively and active, and says that he surpassed all such. This precisely was important for him to set forth before the Galatians, so that his estrangement from Judaism would appear the more striking and his change would more decisively indicate participation in it of supernatural power. “Among my people”—not the Pharisaic sect is understood, but the Jewish nation—among the Jews in general.

“Abundantly the zealot was of the traditions of my fathers. Abundantly” – not what earlier “very abundantly”. There it means excessiveness, but here only superiority over others. In Greek there: καθ υπερβολεν; and here: περισσοτερως. Not only did he advance in Judaism more than all, but also in zeal for it he excelled all. He advanced only beyond his peers; regarding zeal, he makes an allusion that he was zealous more than all – not only his peers, but also those who surpassed him in age. From the Acts of the Apostles it is precisely evident that he was the instigator and kindler of persecution. “By the traditions of the fathers” embraces what the holy Paul understood as the entire sum of views, rules of life, mores and customs, which in that time composed Judaism – all Judaism as it had taken form before his time and was transmitted from elders to younger. But at the same time it gives to understand that in this formation the guide and determiner was not so much Scripture as the tradition of the elders: consequently, Judaism is understood as warped, in which even the chief concept of Judaism was distorted – namely that Judaism was an eternal and unchanging religion, binding for all – and much that was introduced into life was extremely restrictive yet useless, yet was considered a condition of pleasing God and of salvation. Blessed Jerome writes: “wisely did the holy Paul act, having inserted into his narrative an indication that he served not so much the Law of God as the traditions of the fathers, according to which they taught teachings and commandments of men (Mt. 15; Mk 7) and rejected the Law of God to uphold their traditions. In this same sense he said earlier as well, that he advanced not in the Law, but in Judaism.” The same thought is also in blessed Augustine: “if Paul, the zealot of his own paternal traditions, persecuted the Church of God, then evidently his paternal traditions oppose the Church of God. But the Law cannot be such. It is not the Law that is at fault, that persecution of the Church arose among the Jews. Those carnally-minded Jews are at fault, who, even what they received as spiritual, understood carnally and, moreover, added much of their own, destroying, as the Lord says, the commandment of God on account of their traditions (Mt. 15:3).”

The holy Fathers, foreseeing what impression this simple account should produce in the souls of the Galatians, make various inferences in this regard, according to the purpose which the holy Paul had in recalling his former life and his conversion. He persecuted faith, and now spreads it; he was wholly devoted to Judaism with great hopes for himself, but now has turned from it, undergoing all manner of deprivation. Such a turning in life is unthinkable without divine instruction. Jerome writes: “it is remarkable that not just any of the lighter persecutors, but one who surpassed the rest in persecution, was converted to faith.” Ecumenius continues: “because the Galatians did not know of the revelation that had come to him from Christ, the Apostle wishes by pointing out that he was previously a persecutor and then suddenly changed, to suggest to them that if there had not been some divine revelation to him, he would not have changed so quickly; so that, being convinced through this that he is a disciple of Christ, they would not despise him anymore.” Holy Damascene, drawing out the same thought from the sudden change of the holy Paul, adds: “and something else also is suggested by this covertly, namely that one should not continue to hold to the works of the Law: for if one who showed such zeal for the Law abandoned it and went over to the path of salvation by faith; then clearly he abandoned it convinced that it could not lead to perfection. If then such a zealot of the Law abandons it; all the more should those who directly turned to faith not follow this weak Law.” Ambrosiaster carries through the same thought: “I, says he, was zealous for the Law more than all; but when by revelation I learned that it had already lost its power, then I devoted myself entirely to faith and grace. From this it followed: if this Israelite, a disciple of the renowned Gamaliel, who was in connections with all the best among the Jews, abandoned the Law; how much more should those outside the Law not subject themselves to the Law? If this one rejoices that he has come out from under the yoke of servitude, why then should they bind their freedom with the bonds of the Law?” Ecumenius again, understanding Paul’s advancement in Judaism in a worldly sense, that is, that he became ever more honored in the eyes of the Jews, says from the mouth of the holy Paul: “what reason is there that I suddenly waged war on those who esteemed and loved me? No other than the appearing of Christ.”

The holy Chrysostom directs all things chiefly to bring out in the holy Paul a detachment, a zeal for God free from all earthly calculation, and a love of truth. Here are his thoughts on verse 14: “lest you think that he acted thus (that is, persecuted the Church) in anger and malice, he adds that he did all this ‘out of zeal’, even if in ignorance, and persecuted not from vanity and not from enmity, ‘but a zealot of his own paternal traditions’. These words mean the following: if what I did against the Church, I did not for man, but out of divine zeal, though erroneous, yet out of zeal: then how now, striving for the Church and having come to know truth, can I do all this out of vanity? For if during my time of delusion, such a passion did not dominate me, but zeal for God impelled me to that manner of action: all the more, since I came to know truth, is it wrong to suspect me of vanity. For as soon as I turned to the dogmas of the Church of Christ and abandoned all Jewish delusions, I showed even greater zeal here than there; and this proves that I have truly changed and am filled with divine zeal. If this is not it, tell me, what else moved me to such a change, that I traded honor for disgrace, peace for perils, security for sufferings? Nothing else but only love of truth.”

Gal. 1:15–16. When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, at once I did not confer with flesh and blood.

What he merely hinted at by the preceding words – that his change was wrought in him by God’s power – he now speaks of as an accomplished event, namely that God indeed revealed his Son in him and thereby wrought in him such an overturning, that after this he abandoned all human and earthly things and devoted himself entirely to serving the truth of the Gospel. He strengthens the significance of this event by pointing out that it was foreseen and predetermined and in time was accomplished as it was accomplished, because God so willed it; so that everything in him is from God and he is truly established by God himself as an Apostle to the Gentiles, to whom one must listen and obey, as to God’s messenger. Although he speaks all this as if in passing, hastening to express quickly the thought contained in the words: “at once I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go…to the Apostles”; nonetheless the truths suggested by his words are significant not only for the Galatians, but for all of us, for they illuminate with brilliant light God’s providence of events and the life of each of us, pointing in eternity to the source of what is accomplished in time.

“When it pleased God” – when he was pleased, but was he not pleased before this? If he chose even from the womb of the mother, then he was pleased from the time he chose. But that pleased choice is eternal; in time, however, God accomplishes his eternal decrees in deed when the time comes. With God all things have their proper time. There was its proper time for the coming of the Lord to earth through the incarnation (Gal. 4:4); there will be its proper time for his second coming; there is its proper time for every manifestation in public life and in the life of each person. So there was its fitting moment also for the conversion of the holy Paul. Divine providence did not let it pass. The holy Paul, by the conversion and enlightenment of the Spirit, understood this and now confesses it before all. “Observe,” says the holy Chrysostom, “how he recognizes all that happened to him not as a human work, but attributes it to God, who orders all things for him by special providence.” But Paul’s God is also our God. For this reason, in this is a lesson for us to regard the events of our life in the light of faith in God’s good providence.

But the question arises: “if he was chosen from the womb of the mother, then how was he a persecutor?” (holy Damascene). “If he was chosen from the womb of the mother, yet called later, then surely by some providence, in that interval of time he was left to himself” (Ecumenius). “See how he tries here to show that even the very time during which he remained in delusion was in dependence on some unknown dispensation of God. For if he was chosen from the womb of his mother to be an Apostle and called to this service, yet was called later and, being called, hearkened to the Caller: plainly God for some unknown reason delayed calling him until then. What then was this dispensation of God?” (the holy Chrysostom). “That his sudden change might serve many as confirmation in the truth of the Gospel” (Ecumenius). “And Paul himself settles this in another place, saying: ‘that in me first he might show all his patience as a model for those who would come to believe in him for eternal life’ (1Tim. 1:16)” (holy Damascene).

“He chose me from my mother’s womb”. He confesses that before he came forth into the world, when only the foundations of his existence were being laid, he was already chosen. God foresaw the fitness of the holy Paul for the Apostolate and chose him for this service; as earlier, foreseeing the fitness of Jeremiah, he chose him to be a Prophet before birth: “before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations” (Jer. 1:5). There are thinkers who take this and similar passages in support of their false teaching about eternal election by God, without regard to what a person by their natural gifts and free will should be. Others think not only of election to some particular service, but also in general of election to salvation – so that then these chosen ones, not by free choice of their will, but by the outpouring of special grace upon them, apart from the directing of their freedom, are what they are chosen to be – those as Apostles, Prophets and so forth, and these as saved. But if that were the case, all people would be saved: for God wills all to be saved, and inasmuch as he wills it – then that, having chosen, – then all would be saved, if the human will, or his free will and choice, were not involved in it. But since human will is necessary even to save him, then though God wills all to be saved, not all are saved; for not all wish to be saved. Their corrupted will opposes the will of God, not wishing to submit to the conditions of salvation; and they perish, in spite of the fact that God does not will that they perish. Regarding the election of the holy Paul, Theophylact says that “God chose him not by lot, but by foreknowledge, that he was worthy of it.” Ambrosiaster expounds this thought more fully: “Paul relied on the Law, not knowing that the time of service to it had already passed, and with all his fervor strove to oppose the Gospel of Christ, thinking that by so acting he acted in accordance with God’s will; God, seeing that he had good zeal but was lacking in knowledge (of truth), was pleased to call him into his grace, knowing that he was fit for proclaiming the Gospel of his Son among the nations: for if in lesser matters he was so zealous and faithful in conscience, and not to please anyone of men; would he not then be firmer in proclaiming God’s grace concerning Christ Jesus, in hope of the promised reward. Therefore, by God’s foreknowledge he was chosen from his mother’s womb, that is, before he was born and as soon as he was born. God knew that he would be good, as he said to Jeremiah the Prophet: ‘I knew you – before you were born’ (Jer. 1:5), and knowing what he would be, called him.”

Blessed Jerome passes over in thought to election in general, and having rebuked those who think that election and non-election depends on a distinction of natures, good or evil, as the Manicheans believed, says: “by God’s foreknowledge it is that for whom he knows will be good, he chooses, and whom he foresees will not be good, he does not choose. And in this there is no injustice in God. We, humans, judge only by what is, but He, before whom even the future is as the present, pronounces judgment by what he has foreseen as the end.”

“And called me through his grace”. Chosen above, called here below. That heavenly determination was brought to execution in time by calling. God before the ages foreknew about him and then called him in time, such as was pleasing to him. Paul burned with love of truth, only he saw it not where it is. The Lord appeared to him and showed him this truth. A sincere lover of truth, he turned to it from that moment with all his soul. The calling that occurred on the road to Damascus was a calling only to faith and grace, to salvation; the calling to the Apostolate came later, though it was already intended here, as is evident from the words of the Lord to Ananias (Acts 9:15). Calling is the work of grace, inclination to calling is the work of freedom. He who is called is one who followed the calling, submitted his freedom to the calling voice. Therefore in calling, or turning to faith, there is a part of freedom, as in election there is a part of foreknowledge of the inclination of freedom. But since one free will alone is not able to turn around without grace, the holy Paul relates all the work of conversion and calling to grace, as also the holy Peter confesses that calling of all is accomplished by glory and power, that is, by the gracious power of God (2Pet. 1:3). The holy Chrysostom writes here: “God says that he called Paul for his goodness; for ‘a chosen vessel to me is’, he said to Ananias, ‘to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel’ (Acts 9:15); that is, he is fit for this service, for accomplishing this great work; this God places as the reason for calling him. But the Apostle himself attributes everything to grace and the unspeakable love of God, thus saying: ‘I am by mercy’ – and not because he is fit or worthy of it; ‘but in order that in me first he might show all his patience, as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life’ (1Tim. 1:16). Do you see the height of his humility? For that reason, he says, I was shown mercy, so that no one would despair when the worst of all people was granted God’s love. For this is what he wished to say by these words: that my unworthiness and uselessness called the Lord to grace alone” (Ecumenius).

“To reveal his Son in me”. This is the third moment! In the chosen one predestined in eternity, and later called in time, God was pleased to reveal his Son. This is the threshold to dedication to the Apostolate; for he says: “to reveal…that I might preach” him. It is necessary for the one preaching to clearly behold all the mysteries of the gospel. This is what the holy Paul expresses by the words: “to reveal his Son in me”. He means not an external appearance: to me, – but an internal: in me. In the sanctuary of his soul the Son of God was revealed to him. By internal illumination the holy Paul beheld that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation. There was a moment when in his mind was imaged all the essence of the Gospel and the whole way of salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. External appearance alone, without this internal illumination, would not have produced an effect. “Why,” asks the holy Chrysostom, “did he not say: ‘to reveal his Son to me’, but: ‘in me’?” And he answers: “in order to show that he learned all that was necessary concerning faith not through word only, but also through the fact that he was filled with the Holy Spirit, when the revelation illuminated his soul, and that he had Christ in himself speaking.” Ecumenius says: “in me, saying, wishing to show that he knew him not through word only, but through mind and heart, that knowledge of him entered into life in his inner man,” – or, as Theophylact says, “was imprinted in the inner man.”

“‘That I might preach him’. With this is completed the formation of the holy Paul into an Apostle. Called and enlightened by internal knowledge of the Gospel, he is a ready Apostle. Not in vain does grace pour out so abundantly, but that he go and bring forth fruit, that he go ‘to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings’ (Acts 9:15). There was a special act of divine consecration of the holy Paul to the Apostolate, though he himself does not speak of it determinately. Ecumenius writes thus: ‘that I might preach’. You see that the Father who chose him and revealed his Son in him himself ordained him as a preacher and Apostle.” He took this thought from the holy Chrysostom, who says: “not only his faith, but also his consecration to the rank of Apostle was from God. For he says, as he revealed himself to me, so that I would not only come to know him, but also declare him to others – ‘among the Gentiles’. ‘Among the Gentiles’ – amid the Gentiles, by which it was hinted that, having in view chiefly the Gentiles, he could not pass without attention even the Jews living among them. From the Acts it is evident that he so did. Almost everywhere he first turned to the Jews with his preaching, and then, when these proved unfavorable to him and the Gospel, he turned to the Gentiles and with them alone did he busy himself.”

“At once I did not confer with flesh and blood.” These words, through the ambiguity of the phrase “flesh and blood,” have given place to various interpretations. “Flesh and blood” means human nature with all that in it is base and good, that is, everything human. Taking this meaning, we obtain the following thought: as soon as I was called and enlightened by knowledge of the Son of God, I at once abandoned all that is human, human thoughts, hopes, fears, orders, changed with complete transformation, entirely entered into the spirit of new life in Christ Jesus and devoted myself entirely to serving him. If we take the preceding speech of the Apostle, somewhat higher up, the result will be: I persecuted Christianity, and then suddenly became devoted to it with all my soul, offering in sacrifice all that I could have in life, by human reckoning. Similar to this says Ecumenius: “at once he did not betake himself to rest and self-satisfaction or, as if having done something great, to idleness and carelessness, but entered upon the difficult path of preaching the Gospel.”

Dwelling attentively on what the holy Paul says above about his devotion to Judaism and paternal traditions, which bear the character of fleshly, material service to God, one can come to the thought that it is these he means by “flesh and blood.” And is this not what he wishes to express by those words: as soon as I knew Christ Jesus the Lord and salvation in him, I at once abandoned the fleshly service of Judaism in all its composition, entirely separated from it, never returned to it again?

If we take “flesh and blood” to mean man, then, judging by what kind of man we will understand, we will get a sense corresponding to that. Ecumenius, besides what was said above, also understands by: flesh and blood – house, kinsmen, homeland. “I did not prefer,” he says, “to see kinsmen, or home, or acquaintances, or homeland, but abandoned all (for in this I do not lag behind Peter and John), and at once hastened to preaching.”

Others under: “flesh and blood” – understand man in general, thus: having received revelation of the Gospel from above, I did not turn for help in understanding it to any man, considering it both unnecessary and improper.

So many different opinions! Our holy commentators, understanding these words to mean man, nevertheless see in them a definite reference to the Apostles, thus: being taught by God himself, I did not turn to the Apostles for teaching as to men. In that case the words: “at once I did not confer with flesh and blood” must be read together with the following: “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me” – and see in them one and the same thought, considering the latter as an explanation of the former.

The holy Chrysostom writes: “here, that is, in the words: ‘I did not confer with flesh and blood,’ – he refers to the Apostles, calling them by nature.” And a bit lower: “for it would be extremely unjust and improper if one who was taught by God himself would take counsel even with men. One taught by men very justly turns again afterward to the counsel of men; but one deemed worthy of that divine and longed-for voice and taught everything by him who possesses the very treasury of wisdom – for what reason will he take counsel with men? Such a person should not learn from men, but teach men.” Theodoret the same: “having been deemed worthy of that calling, I did not go at once to Jerusalem, but was satisfied with the grace given to me by God; for it would be extremely improper for one who had received teaching from God to discuss it with men.” Holy Damascene: “how would he have turned to men, being deemed worthy of being taught from on high?” Theophylact has the same thought.

Such unanimous judgment of all our commentators obliges us to dwell upon it. This is all the more readily to be done, that, having deviated from it, we would inevitably wander amid a multitude of suppositions, not knowing which to settle upon.

2) Paul could not learn the Gospel from others (Gal. 1, 17–24)

When he received revelation from above, it naturally followed that he had not learned it from others or that from others he should not have learned it. But the holy Paul speaks about this with that and thus, so that all the same conclusion comes out – that is, that his teaching is from God. He says here: the circumstances of my life show that I did not learn the Gospel from: a) from the holy Apostles (Gal. 1:17–20); nor: b) from other Christians (Gal. 1:21–24). But from his simple account of this came out – from the first: I, not having yet seen the Apostles, began to preach the Gospel in Arabia and Damascus; but when I afterward came to Jerusalem, I was in communion with Peter and James. Therefore my teaching agrees with theirs. Why is this so? Because it comes from the same source. If the Gospel of those is from God, then mine also is. From the second: believers of other Churches did not see me, but, learning that I preach the faith, they glorified God. How would they have glorified God if my teaching was not the same as their faith?