Not Taught by the Apostles, Yet in Agreement With Them (Galatians 1:17–2:10)

That the holy Paul did not turn for teaching to the other Apostles, this he already said by the words: I did not confer with flesh and blood. But those words can still be understood as an expression of the fullness of his conversion with complete detachment from all that is human. For which reason he speaks after more decisively.

Gal. 1:17. Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me: but I went into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

“He did not go to Jerusalem to take counsel with the Apostles concerning preaching, being satisfied with divine revelation” (Ecumenius). He did not go at once after his conversion, but went later. “The first Apostles” here are understood by time – those who before him were called to the Apostolate and began to exercise the apostolic ministry. All this speech the holy Paul conducts so that by the history of his life he might reveal that he took nothing from the older Apostles, that he was both called to follow Christ and taught the faith and sent to preach directly by the Lord himself. For this reason he places himself in the row with them, saying: “to the apostles who were before me.” From this it followed that “he too was an Apostle like them” – the only difference being that they preceded him in time. If then he too is an Apostle like them, then he too must be listened to as they are listened to, and in no way should the Gospel preached by him be altered. Thus Ambrosiaster: “The Apostle wishes to say that, after he was chosen by God, he had no need to go to the older Apostles so as, that is, to learn something from them; because God revealed to him through his Son what and how he should teach. And this is said in order to show that nothing else should be held than what he teaches – and not to believe men, but God, by whom he was taught. From which it follows that those who draw them to the Law are false teachers: for it was not from God that what they taught was handed down.”

The holy Chrysostom dwells on the moral side of this act, but comes to the same conclusion. “If anyone examines these words carefully in isolation, he may think that they are filled with great pride and far from agreeing with the spirit of the Apostles; for to determine something by oneself and not to open one’s thoughts to others – can be taken for pride. For it is said: ‘I see a man who does not think himself wise, yet arrogance is the companion of fools’ (Prov. 26:12) – and: ‘woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight’ (Isa. 5:21). And Paul himself says: ‘do not be wise in your own eyes’ (Rom. 12:16). But could one who had heard these and similar teachings from others and himself taught the same to others, fall into such conceit – not only Paul, but anyone at all? For what reason then did he do and say this? Not to the disparagement of the Apostles and not in praise of himself, but, protecting everywhere the safety of the Gospel and wishing to show the importance and dignity of his preaching (that is, that he received it directly from the Lord himself), he says: ‘I did not go up to them’. For if there had been need to take counsel, the one who revealed to him the word of preaching would have commanded him to do this as well. And so, what then? did he not go there? He went, but not in order to learn something, not in order to receive something.”

“But I went into Arabia.” Arabia – a country bordering on the Damascus region, which had its own civil order. At that time the prince Aretas of that place ruled over Damascus (2 Cor. 11:32). As this dominion was accidental and unstable, the holy Paul hastened to use this circumstance and quickly offer the Gospel to the inhabitants there, while this temporary autocratic rule made access there free. “See, what a fiery soul!” says the holy Chrysostom. “He strove to occupy countries not yet cultivated and remaining in wild state. If he had delayed with the Apostles, having nothing to learn from them, the work of preaching would have stopped. But it was necessary for them to preach the word everywhere. Wherefore this blessed one, burning with the Spirit, at once went to teach untaught and wild peoples, having chosen a life of much labor and danger.” Thus understand all our commentators – that the holy Paul went to Arabia with the preaching of the Gospel.

Some of the newer non-Orthodox commentators construct a guess that the holy Paul went to Arabia not to men with preaching, but to the wilderness there, so that in solitude he might think through the system of Christian doctrine according to the principles he received from the Lord and could hear from believers in Damascus. A guess entirely arbitrary, favorable only to that empty wisdom by which it is supposed that the teaching which the holy Paul taught is his personal view of Christianity, which he arrived at through independent development and his own deep involvement in the matter of salvation. When he himself says of himself that neither did others teach him the Gospel, nor did he himself arrive at it, but received it directly from the Lord himself, why construct such suppositions? Moreover, what suitable place for developing some doctrine – a wilderness? It can promote detachment from everything, but does not give doctrine. For this communion with others is needed, conversation, books.

The holy Paul does not say why he went to Arabia. But this very silence should lead us precisely to that thought – that he went with preaching. For he did not say either why he returned to Damascus and what he did there. In the Acts the holy Luke says that he preached in Damascus that Jesus is the Son of God (see Acts 9:20). Since he in no way distinguishes here his account of Arabia from his account of Damascus, it is more natural to come to the thought that he preached there as he did in Damascus, than to allow those fantastical suppositions. The holy Chrysostom says: “having said: ‘I went into Arabia,’ – he added: ‘and returned again to Damascus.’ He says not a word about his deeds, nor about whom he taught and how many. Likewise in Damascus he showed such zeal that he aroused hatred against himself, and yet he says nothing about these deeds of his. But as he says nothing about this here (though it was); so also there, relating that he came (to Arabia) and went away, he mentions nothing about what was there (though it was).”

How to reconcile this account with the book of Acts, where nothing is said about the journey of the holy Paul to Arabia? This is easily reconciled, if we place the journey to Arabia between verses 19 and 20 of chapter 9 of Acts. After baptism, having remained “certain days” with the believers and perhaps having preached somewhat, he went to Arabia; after returning from there, he preached more intensely in Damascus, until three years had passed, when the enmity of the unbelievers drove him away. Thus blessed Jerome: “right after baptism, having remained ‘certain days’ in Damascus and, to the amazement of all, having preached in the synagogues several times that Jesus is Christ, he went to Arabia. Returning from Arabia to Damascus, he remained there for three years, which in Scripture are indicated by the words: ‘many days’ (Acts 9:23). After this, learning of the plot against him, he departed from Damascus.” Holy Luke does not mention this circumstance in Acts, perhaps because the holy Paul did not tell him about it, and from others he did not hear of it and did not see the Letter to the Galatians, written before the book of Acts.

Gal. 1:18. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.

“‘After three years’ – from what time is this? From the time of returning from Arabia to Damascus, or from the time of his conversion? From the time of his conversion. Here the new life of the Apostle began; to this moment, of course, the holy Paul referred everything. And the course of the speech leads to the same conclusion: at once after my conversion, he says, I did not go to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:17); but went there only after three years had passed (Gal. 1:18), – clearly, counting from the same conversion. By this at the same time he gives to understand: so much time passed, and I did not take care, did not consider it extremely necessary to go there, where for all is the source of Christian truth, and yet preached this truth. Whence did I have it? From the same place where it is in Jerusalem. For this reason he says that he went there not to learn, but ‘to see Cephas,’ – to see his face, to become personally acquainted with him. The Greek: ιςορησαι – is used of the observations of travelers. Consequently, he went in order to learn in reality who such Peter is, of whom it was known everywhere that he is the first Apostle. – “Not in order to learn from him, because he himself had the same teacher of the Gospel, but in order to show honor to the first Apostle” (blessed Jerome).”

“Who can be more humble than such a man,” writes the holy Chrysostom, “who, after such great and such many deeds, having no need of Peter, nor of his voice, but being his equal in honor (I will say no more for now), nonetheless comes to him as to one greater and older, and makes the reason for his journey only that he wishes to see Peter? Do you see how he gives the other Apostles their due honor and not only does not consider himself better than all, but does not even equal himself with them? This is shown also by the journey undertaken by him. For as now many of our brethren go to holy men, so also Paul at that time went to Peter, or even with greater humility. For now they journey for benefit; but that blessed one journeyed not in order to learn something, and not for correction of some error of his own, but solely in order to see Peter and honor him by his presence. ‘To see’ (ιςορησαι) Peter, he said, not simply: to see (ιδειν) Peter, but: ‘to see’ – as people usually speak when examining great and famous cities. Thus did he consider it worthy of special care to see this man.”

“And remained with him fifteen days.” The holy Chrysostom writes of these words: “the journey undertaken for Peter demonstrates great respect of Paul for him; and his remaining with him so many days shows friendly disposition and sincere love between them. Do you see how great disposition he has toward Peter? For him he undertook the journey, with him he remained. For this I speak often, wishing that you keep this in memory, so that, when afterward you hear words seemingly against Peter, you should not in anything suspect the Apostle. As a precaution against this, he himself speaks of visiting Peter, so that, when he says: ‘I opposed him to his face’ (Gal. 2:11), – no one should think that these words are the fruit of enmity and contention. For he honors this man and loves him above all, and came to Jerusalem not for any other of the Apostles, but solely for him.” Similar to this is the thought of Ambrosiaster: “he remained with him fifteen days, as his fellow-Apostle of one mind with him. This he declares in order to show that in all things he agrees with the Apostles and in nothing disagrees with them, as the false apostles whispered against him, in order to discredit him in the Churches of the Gentiles and thus more easily sow their evil in simple souls – that their teaching agrees with the teaching of the older Apostles (whereas Paul’s does not).”

Here the holy Paul speaks of himself, that he went to Jerusalem of his own accord, to see Peter; but in Acts it is related that he was forced to depart from Damascus by the plot of those infuriated against him for the preaching about Christ the Savior among the Jews and even Gentiles (2 Cor. 11:32), who agreed to kill him (Acts 9:23–25); and that, having come to Jerusalem, he tried to draw near to the believers, but they shunned him, not knowing that he had turned to Christ, and only after Barnabas brought him to the Apostles and told them how the Lord appeared to him on the way and how he dared to speak in the name of Jesus in Damascus, could he freely enter into communion with all and with the Apostles, went about the houses, daring to speak in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 9:27–29). In this account of the holy Luke in Acts is contained the external history of the holy Paul, while the holy Paul himself points to what his aims were in those or other circumstances. His desire to see the holy Peter might have arisen before the rising up of the Damascenes against him, and this latter only provided the occasion for the fulfillment of his desire or hastened it. From Damascus he was forced to depart, but to Jerusalem he directed himself because he desired to see the holy Peter. Further, having come to Jerusalem, he did not approach Peter of himself, but was brought to him by Barnabas, and from that time remained with him fifteen days, and together with him and the other Apostles preached the Gospel throughout Jerusalem. The holy Paul does not mention all this in the Letter because, moreover, he makes a brief outline of his life; for his purpose he considered it sufficient to mention only the remaining with the holy Peter, by which were marked the friendly disposition and sincere love between them, according to the word of the holy Chrysostom.

Gal. 1:19. And other apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

But then, how is it said in Acts that he was brought to the Apostles by Barnabas and walked and preached with them? In Acts, by the word “Apostles” is understood not those of the Twelve, but generally teachers who were sent by the senior Apostles to teach in Jerusalem and the surrounding regions. Such were, besides Barnabas, Silas, Judas, or Barsabas, who later were sent to Antioch with the Apostolic letter and called Prophets (Acts 15:32), and those like them. But in his letter, Saint Paul says that of the present Apostles he saw no one except Peter and James, the Lord’s brother.

But again, so-called brothers of the Lord were not among the Twelve, as is clear from the Gospel accounts (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31; Mark 6:3 and so forth). They are first mentioned in the assembly of believers after the Lord’s Ascension (Acts 1:13–14), and then among the preachers of the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:5). But how does Saint Paul here hint that James, the Lord’s brother, was an Apostle, when he says: “I saw no other of the Apostles, only James the Lord’s brother”? Yet these words can be understood thus: no other than Peter of the Apostles did I see, yet I did see another among the eminent ones, namely James, the Lord’s brother. Or it should be understood that James, on account of his holiness and the dignity of his position as overseer of the Jerusalem Church, was regarded on par with the other Apostles and bore the name Apostle, and so was named by Saint Paul.

Blessed Jerome writes of Saint James: “He was the first overseer of that Church which was first gathered in Jerusalem from believers—that is, the first bishop of Jerusalem; he bore the name of the Righteous One and was so holy and honored by the people that they hastened before one another to touch the hem of his garment. That Saint Paul, besides these, saw no other of the Apostles, is not because he did not wish to see them, but because they had gone forth with the preaching of the Gospel.” Saint Chrysostom draws attention to another aspect: “Note,” he says, “with what respect he also named him; for he did not simply say ‘James’ but added to it his honorable name. Thus was he far from any envy! For if he merely wanted to point out the one of whom he spoke, he could have done so using another distinguishing mark; for example, he could have said: the son of Clopas, as the Evangelist said. But he did not speak thus; rather, because he held the honorable titles of the Apostles as his own titles also, and thus as if honoring himself, he magnifies him too. For he did not name him as I have said, but how? The Lord’s brother, though indeed he was not the Lord’s brother according to the flesh, but was so regarded. Yet even this did not stop the Apostle from acknowledging the dignity of this man. And in many other places he shows that he was disposed toward all the Apostles as sincerely as was fitting for him.”

The heterodox much dispute about how James is the Lord’s brother, and in doing so do not shame to speak blasphemies against the Ever-Virgin Mary, the blessed Mother of the Lord, thus bringing upon themselves the anathema pronounced against such by the Third Ecumenical Council. All antiquity held this brotherhood either as a cousinship or as a brother-in-law relationship through Joseph, and only as lawful. Ambrosiaster says that “James is the son of Joseph from a previous wife”; Augustine, that he is “the Lord’s brother either because he is one of the sons of Joseph from another wife, or because he was one of the children of Mary, sister of His Mother.” Saint Chrysostom, as we saw above, holds to the latter explanation, as do Theophylact and Theodoret, who writes: “James was called the Lord’s brother but was not His natural brother. He was not even the son of Joseph, born from his first marriage, as some supposed, but the son of Clopas and cousin to the Lord; because he had for his mother the sister of the Lord’s Mother.” Accepting this opinion, one must moreover hold that Clopas is not the same person as Alphaeus, lest thereby one confuse the so-called brothers of the Lord with the similarly-named Apostles of the Twelve.

Gal. 1:20. Now what I write to you, behold, before God, I do not lie.

What is to be understood by “what I write”? All that Saint Paul has said about himself up to now, especially what he has said about his conversion, about the revelation to him of the Gospel, and that he learned it from none of the Apostles, and yet he agrees with them in everything, being in agreement with the Apostle Peter. From all this it followed that he is a true Apostle of God. When he proclaimed the Gospel to the Galatians, he did not speak to them of this; for he appeared before them as God’s messenger, and was received with full faith in his mission from on high (Gal. 4:14–15). Wherefore there was no need then to speak of such events from which it would be clear that he was sent from above. Now, when false teachers had instilled in the Galatians doubts about this, he clarifies to them through his history that there are no grounds for doubting his Apostolate. And what he had already said was sufficient to confirm this truth; but, to wipe out every trace of doubt and guard them from wavering in the future, he establishes his word with an oath: “behold, before God, I do not lie.” This is the same as in other places: “God is my witness” (Rom. 1:9); “I call God to witness against my soul” (2 Cor. 1:23); “God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ knows that I do not lie” (2 Cor. 11:31). It is evident that Saint Paul often found himself struggling against distrust in him even from those already believed. Saint Chrysostom marvels at the humility of Saint Paul on this occasion: “Do you see the humility of this soul shining everywhere equally? For he, as if standing before a tribunal and preparing to undergo interrogation, was so concerned with his defense.” Blessed Jerome first sets forth the thought of the text: “What I write to you is true; God is my witness that I conceal no lie in my words.” And then he makes a general remark: “This can refer not only to what he now writes to the Galatians, but to all his Letters generally; all that he wrote is not false; his heart and his words do not contradict one another.”

b) Nor from others (Gal. 1:21–24)

Having explained that he did not see the Apostles, and yet showed himself to be in no disagreement with them in the teaching which he was already proclaiming for three years, from which it followed that his teaching came from the same source as theirs—Saint Paul now briefly explains that he had no dealings with other believers either, that consequently from them he could hear nothing about the faith, yet they, hearing of his labors in spreading the faith, glorified God; from which it likewise followed that his teaching agrees with that of the Universal Churches planted by the Apostles in the cities and villages of the Jews, and consequently comes from the same source with them.

Gal. 1:21. Then I came to the regions of Syria and Cilicia.

That is, apart from Judea and Palestine, where Churches were planted by the Apostles and where, probably, at this very time those planters of the faith who had seen the Lord continued to work. Thus, “he did not meet the Apostles even by chance” (Saint Chrysostom). And with other believers, among whom there could be strong knowers of the faith, he had no dealings. All points to the fact that his teaching depends on no one among men, and yet it agrees with the Apostolic teaching, which is from the Lord. It is obvious of itself what follows from this.

It is written in Acts that Saint Paul, living in Jerusalem, dared to speak boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed with the Hellenists, that is, with Jews living among the Gentiles and who happened to be in Jerusalem at that time, and they became angry with him and sought to kill him. This compelled him to depart from Jerusalem, and the believers for his safety conducted him to Caesarea, from which he set out for Tarsus, his native city (Acts 9:29–30). The journey lay through Syria. Paul perhaps only passed through Syria at that time, but in Cilicia he surely preached. It was hard for him to refrain from proclaiming the Gospel, which filled his heart with inexhaustible joy for salvation, in the place of his birth. That he truly preached there and even founded Churches can be concluded from the fact that, when he later passed through Syria and Cilicia on his second journey, he strengthened the Churches (Acts 15:41). How could he strengthen them if he had not planted them before? Wherefore Saint Chrysostom writes: “After his meeting with Peter, he begins again the word of preaching and the present labor, not approaching the Jews, both because he was sent to the Gentiles and because he did not wish to build on another’s foundation.” And likewise Jerome: “He went to Cilicia, desiring to bring it to faith in Christ, preaching to it the call to repentance.”

Gal. 1:23. They had not known me by face in the churches of Judea which were in Christ; they only had heard that he who once persecuted us now preaches the faith which once he tried to destroy.

The churches in Judea—those which, besides Jerusalem, were planted throughout Judea. “Believers in Christ were not only in Jerusalem; there were many throughout all Judea, so that whole Churches were formed from them” (Blessed Augustine). It must be supposed that the holy Apostles, before they dispersed to different lands, called to the faith the Jews living in Palestine, and, having planted Churches here and strengthened them, turned their attention also to other peoples. These Churches did not know Saint Paul in person, but only heard of his conversion and his labors in Gospel preaching. Report came to them also from Christians who said: our persecutor is now preaching the faith we believe; which they themselves afterwards repeated. This filled them with joy and moved them to glorify God!

What ought the Galatians to have concluded from these words? First of all they should have thought: how then did our new teachers say of Saint Paul that he teaches circumcision among the Jews, when he had not even seen those Christians? So Saint Chrysostom: “what did he mean to say by: ‘I was not known by face to the churches of Judea’? That he was so far from preaching circumcision to them that he was not even known to them in person.” And the same from Ecumenius: “Not only, he says, did I not teach those who believed from circumcision that they ought to be circumcised (for they slandered him, saying that he taught circumcised believers to practice circumcision), not only, he says, did I not teach this, but they had not even seen my face.”

And this was made clear: that Saint Paul, unable to learn the faith from the senior Apostles, heard nothing about it from other believers either. So Photius in Ecumenius: “I did not learn from Peter, but only saw him; I did not learn from James and only saw him; I did not learn from anyone else of lower rank, no one of lesser importance. Could I have learned from those who had not even seen my face? But if they rejoiced that the one who persecuted the faith now preached it, did this not mean that the faith preached by them was the same as the faith of those who rejoiced at this good news?”

Gal. 1:24. And they glorified God because of me.

They saw in his conversion the finger of God, manifest confirmation of the truth of the Gospel, a sign of God’s blessing upon the faith, and were more firmly established in faith, and, rejoicing at this, glorified God, who had accomplished it. “Observing the sudden change, that a wolf was doing what is proper to shepherds, they turned what happened to me into an occasion for glorifying God” (Blessed Theodoret). “He did not say: they were amazed at me, they praised me, they were astonished at me, but showed that all this was the work of grace: ‘and they glorified,’ he says, ‘God’ because of me” (Saint Chrysostom). “They glorified God because of me—not such and such a teacher, but God Himself. For He Himself revealed to me and taught me to preach” (Ecumenius). Now Paul speaks of this, giving to understand that the believers from among the Jews were not against him, were of one spirit with him, held the same principles, and that consequently those false teachers who disagreed with him disagreed with all believers. “The believers,” he says, “from among the Jews, whom he had formerly persecuted, rejoiced and thanked God that He had made him from a persecutor a defender of the faith, intending to make the Galatians understand that they were deceived and that under the name of Christians they would be the same as the Jews if they should circumcise their flesh; for the Law of Christ requires something different than Judaism: there circumcision of the flesh, here circumcision of the heart; there they serve God with elements, here with the Spirit” (Ambrosiaster).

3) Concerning the agreement of Saint Paul’s teaching with that of the other Apostles, WHICH WAS SOLEMNLY CONFIRMED at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1–10).

Up to now Saint Paul has been proving that he received the Gospel not from anyone among men, but directly from God Himself, and that consequently he is a true Apostle. Now he wishes to show that the other Apostles also recognized him as such and his teaching to be unchangeably true. He has been led to this demonstration by the course of his argument and necessarily had to do this. The thought advanced is that Saint Paul came to know and understand the Gospel he preaches independently of the Apostles or from anyone else. They could have objected to him: so you have a different teaching, not such as that of those Apostles who saw and heard the Lord. Teaching differently from them, you preach your own teaching, not the Lord’s, you devised it yourself. Against this Saint Paul now speaks: I went to Jerusalem to the senior Apostles, and they approved my teaching as agreeing with theirs. If, then, their teaching is divine, so is mine.

In recounting this circumstance, Saint Paul indicates: a) the impulse and purpose of his journey to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1–2); b) how he was received by the Christians there (Gal. 2:3–5); c) and how the senior Apostles regarded him—the main subject of this section (Gal. 2:6–10).