Galatians 1:11–19

The gospel that is "according to men" is a lie, for every person is a liar, seeing that whatever truth is found in a man is not from the man but through the man from God.

Possibly because the Savior himself is not a man [merely], as some think. Nor because he is sent in the form of a man is he therefore a man but God in a mystery taking flesh to overcome the flesh.… If "from a man" means one thing, "after the manner of man" will mean another. And again if "I did not receive from a man" is one thing. "not after the manner of man" will be another. Therefore "after the manner of man" can be understood to mean "so that you may understand in a corporeal manner," seeing that the argument received is that "which I did not receive from man."

(Verse 11, 12.) For I make known to you, brothers, the Gospel that was preached by me: that it is not according to man, nor did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ. From this passage, the teachings of Ebion and Photinus are refuted: that God is Christ, and not only man. For if the Gospel of Paul is not according to man, nor did he receive it from man, nor was he taught it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ, who revealed the Gospel to Paul, is certainly not a mere man. But if he is not a man, therefore he is God. Not that we deny that he assumed humanity; but only that we refuse mere humanity. The question is whether the whole Church of God has received the Gospel, or just individual people: for how many of us have learned the revelation of Christ and known it not from a human preacher? To which we will respond, those who can say: Do you seek proof of Christ speaking in me (2 Cor. 13:3)? And: I no longer live, but Christ lives in me (Galatians 2:20), teaching not so much themselves, but God who speaks to the saints: I said, 'You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High' (Psalm 82:6); and immediately about sinners: But you will die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Therefore, when Paul and Peter, who do not die like men or fall like one of the princes, speak of them being gods, it is evident. But those who are gods, they transmit the Gospel of God, and not of man. Marcion and Basilides and other heretical pests do not have the Gospel of God; because they do not have the Holy Spirit, without whom the human Gospel is not possible to be taught. Nor can we consider the Gospel to be in the words of the Scriptures, but in the meaning: not in the surface, but in the core; not in the leaves of words, but in the root of reason. It is said in the prophet about God: His words are good with him (Micah 2:7). Then the Scriptures are useful to those who listen, since they are not spoken without Christ, nor proclaimed without the Father, nor are they revealed without the Spirit by the one who preaches. Otherwise, both the devil, who speaks about the Scriptures, and all heresies, according to Ezekiel (Chapter XIII), make for themselves pillows that they place under the elbow of all ages. Even I, who am speaking, if I have Christ in me, do not have the Gospel of man; but if I am a sinner, God says to me: O sinner, why do you declare my justice and assume my covenant on your lips? But you have hated discipline and cast my words behind you (Ps. XLIX, 16, 17), and so on that follows. There is great danger in speaking in the Church, lest by a perverse interpretation, the Gospel of Christ becomes the gospel of man, or worse, of the devil. However, there is a difference between receiving and learning, in that the one receives the Gospel to whom it is first taught and is led to faith, to believe what is written. But he learns who understands the things that are represented in it by enigmas and parables, when they are explained and expounded: and he understands them not through the revelation of man, but through Christ, who revealed them to Paul, or through Paul, in whom Christ speaks. The very word 'revelation' itself, that is, 'unveiling,' properly belongs to the Scriptures, and was not used by any of the wise men of the world among the Greeks. Therefore, they seem to me, just as in other words that the Seventy translators translated from Hebrew into Greek, to have made a great effort also in this one to express the peculiarity of a foreign language by inventing new words for new things: and the word 'to sound' means when something that is hidden and covered is shown and brought forth into the light, by removing the covering from above. To make this clearer, take the example of Moses. When he spoke with God, his face was revealed and uncovered (Exodus 33, 34), that is, without a veil. But when he spoke to the people, they could not look at his face, so he put a veil on (Numbers 4). Also, in front of the Ark of the Covenant, there was a veil. When this veil was pulled back, the things that had been hidden were revealed, or, to use the words itself, they were uncovered. So if those who are accustomed to reading the eloquent works of the present age start mocking us for the novelty and cheapness of our language, let us send them to Cicero's books, which are renowned for their philosophical inquiries; and let them see how compelled he was by necessity to produce such monstrous words that the ears of a Latin man have never heard: and this even when he was translating from Greek, a language that is close to ours. What do those who attempt to express the peculiarities of Hebrew difficulties endure? And yet there are much fewer things in such great volumes of Scriptures that sound new, than those that he has collected in a small work. But, as we said at the beginning when we were explaining: Paul the apostle did not receive his mission from men or through a man: in this place, it can be understood indirectly of Peter and his predecessors: that it may not be objected to on account of anyone's law or authority, who holds Christ alone as the teacher of the Gospel. Moreover, it signifies that revelation, when on his journey to Damascus, he deserved to hear the voice of Christ: and with blinded eyes, he beheld the true light of the world.

"For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the Gospel which was preached by me that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ."

You observe how sedulously he affirms that he was taught of Christ, who Himself, without human intervention, condescended to reveal to him all knowledge. And if he were asked for his proof that God Himself thus immediately revealed to him these ineffable mysteries, he would instance his former manner of life, arguing that his conversion would not have been so sudden, had it not been by Divine revelation. For when men have been vehement and eager on the contrary side, their conviction, if it is effected by human means, requires much time and ingenuity. It is clear therefore that he, whose conversion is sudden, and who has been sobered in the very height of his madness, must have been vouchsafed a Divine revelation and teaching, and so have at once arrived at complete sanity. On this account he is obliged to relate his former life, and to call the Galatians as witnesses of past events. That the Only-Begotten Son of God had Himself from heaven vouchsafed to call me, says he, you who were not present, could not know, but that I was a persecutor you do know. For my violence even reached your ears, and the distance between Palestine and Galatia is so great, that the report would not have extended thither, had not my acts exceeded all bounds and endurance.

If I wanted to please men, he says, I would still be with the Jews and would contest against the Church. If, however, I have treated with contempt an entire nation and relatives and glory, and have exchanged these with persecutions, and fights, and daily deaths, it should be obvious that even in saying these things I am not relying on the glory, which is from men. In fact he has said this because he is about to speak of his previous life. However, to prevent them from being elated in thinking that he does this as one who is apologizing to them, he says: "For am I still seeking to persuade men?"

Paul wishes to show them that he did not receive the preaching from men, but from Christ himself. "is not according to men." For it is according to God, that is, according to a revelation from God.

He then cursorily touches on his own conversion from a persecutor to an apostle-confirming thereby the Acts of the Apostles, in which book may be found the very subject of this epistle, how that certain persons interposed, and said that men ought to be circumcised, and that the law of Moses was to be observed; and how the apostles, when consulted, determined, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that "a yoke should not be put upon men's necks which their fathers even had not been able to bear." Now, since the Acts of the Apostles thus agree with Paul, it becomes apparent why you reject them.

He wants to show them that he has truly departed from the law, and for this he reminds them of his former life and of the sharp change, showing that he would not have suddenly crossed over from Judaism if he had not had some divine assurance. Therefore he also says: "The gospel which I preached is not human," that is, I did not have a man as my teacher, but was a disciple of Christ Himself.

In the foregoing the Apostle rebuked the Galatians for their fickleness of mind in so quickly setting aside the Gospel teaching; now he shows the dignity of the Gospel teaching. And concerning this he does two things:

First, he commends the authority of the Gospel teaching according to itself;

Secondly, on the part both of the other apostles and himself (2:1): "Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas."

The first part is further divided into two others, because:

First, he presents his intention;

Secondly, he manifests his purpose (v. 13).

Regarding the first he does two things:

First, he proposes what he intends;

Secondly, he proves what he proposes (v. 12).

Intending, therefore, to commend the truth of the Gospel teaching, he says, "For I give you to understand, brethren..." As if to say: So certain am I of the Gospel's authority, that I would disbelieve not only men but even angels saying the contrary; so that if they were contrary, I would say anathema to them. And I have this certainty, because one must believe God rather than men or angels. Therefore, since I have this Gospel from God, I should and do have the greatest of certainty. Hence he says, "For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me" to you and to the other Churches "is not according to man," i.e., not according to human nature out of tune with the divine rule or divine revelation. In this sense, "according to man" implies something evil: "For whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to man?" (1 Cor 3:3). And this is the sense the Apostle takes here; hence he says, "not according to man" teaching me or sending me. As if to say: Not at all can this Gospel be had from men but from God.

Do you see how he constantly affirms that he became God's disciple, in contrast to the claim of those who imposed the circumcision upon the Galatians, arguing that those who become disciples of Christ, i.e. Peter and James and John, permit the circumcision, whereas he is a disciple of the disciples and, therefore, they should not pay attention to them rather than to him?

He says, "For I neither received it from man." For this is what his slanderers were saying about him: that Paul received the preaching from men, not, as those supporting Peter claimed, from Christ. Therefore they said: He ought not to be trusted.

Therefore he shows plainly that Jesus was not a [mere] man; and if he is not a man then without doubt he is God.

It was very shrewd of him to mention revelation, for the Lord Jesus had been taken up and was no longer seen equally of all. But to Paul he had appeared on the road and made him worthy of the ministry of proclamation. And this again he sets against their slanders, showing that in this too he did not fall short of the apostles. For just as the Galatians received the gospel from him, so likewise he had Christ himself as a teacher.

For since the slanderers were saying that he was not, like the rest of the apostles, a direct hearer of Christ, but received everything from men, he says that the One Who taught Peter and the others revealed the Gospel to me Himself.

That is why he adds, "For neither did I receive it of man; nor did I learn it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ," whereby he precludes two ways of receiving. First, that he did not receive from man the authority to preach. As to this he says, "nor of man," i.e., purely man, "did I receive it," i.e., the authority to preach the Gospel, but of Christ: "And how shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Rom 10:15); "I have given thee for a light of the Gentiles, for a covenant of the people" (Is 42:6); "This man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15). Secondly, that he did not receive the science of the Gospel from man. Hence he says, "nor did I learn it," namely, the Gospel, from mere man, "but by the revelation of Jesus Christ," i.e., by Jesus Christ showing everything clearly. "But to us, God hath revealed them" (1 Cor 2:10); "The Lord hath opened my ear, and I do not resist" (Is 50:5), and "The Lord has given me a learned tongue, that I should know how to uphold by word him that is weary" (Is 50:4). Now this revelation was made to the Apostle when he was rapt into paradise, where "he heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter" (2 Cor 12:4).

If therefore he showed prowess in Judaism by persecuting and wasting God's church, it is obvious that Judaism is contrary to the church of God, not through that spiritual law which the Jews had received but through their carnal habit of servitude. And if Paul as a zealot—that is, an imitator of late Judaic traditions—persecuted the church of God, his paternal traditions are contrary to God's church, but the blame does not belong to the law itself. For the law is spiritual and does not allow itself to be interpreted carnally. That is the fault of those who understand carnally the things that they have received and who also have handed down many things of their own, undermining, as the Lord said, the command of God through their traditions.

The point of telling this about himself is to show that he did not learn from a man or through man but from God and Jesus Christ. The aim of this is to prevent the Galatians from entertaining another opinion or supposing that anything needs to be added to the gospel.

(Verse 13.) For you have heard of my previous conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. This account is highly beneficial to the Galatians, as it shows how Paul, once a destroyer of the church and a fervent defender of Judaism, suddenly converted to the faith of Christ. And it was at this time, when the crucifixion was first announced in the world; when the new doctrine was being expelled from the boundaries of both the Gentiles and the Jews. For they could say: If he, who from a young age was instructed in the teachings of the Pharisees, and surpassed all his contemporaries in the Jewish tradition, now defends the Church which he once fiercely persecuted; and desires the grace and novelty of Christ more than the oldness of the Law, to the envy of all: what should we who have begun to be Christian from the Gentiles do? Moreover, he aptly added: I pursued the Church of God beyond measure, so that from here also admiration might arise, that not every person who lightly persecuted the Church, but he who overcame the others in persecution, turned to the faith. And wisely, while narrating something else, he interjects that he served not so much the Law of God, as the paternal, that is, the traditions of the Pharisees; who teach the doctrines and commandments of men (Matt. XV; Mark VII); and they reject the Law of God in order to establish their own traditions. However, what a beautiful observation and weight of words: 'You have heard,' he says, 'of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.' And he says, not the Church of Christ, as he then thought (or was thought): which he considered contemptible, which he persecuted: but as he now believes, the Church of God: either signifying that Christ himself is God, or that the Church is of the same God who was once the giver of the Law. And I made progress, he says, in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my race: being a more zealous follower of my ancestral traditions. Again, he calls it progress not of the Law of God, but of Judaism. Not above all, but above most, not above the elders, but above the contemporaries, so that he might apply his zeal to the Law and avoid boasting. However, by mentioning the traditions of the fathers instead of the commandments of the Lord, and by identifying himself as a Pharisee among the Pharisees, he showed that he had indeed a zeal for God but not according to knowledge. But until this day, those who understand the Scriptures in a Jewish sense persecute the Church of Christ and plunder it, corrupted not by the study of the Law of God but by human traditions.

"For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and made havoc of it."

Observe how he shrinks not from aggravating each point; not saying simply that he "persecuted" but "beyond measure," and not only "persecuted" but "made havoc of it," which signifies an attempt to extinguish, to pull down, to destroy, to annihilate, the Church.

The whole construction is a demonstration that he did not receive the mystery from a man; for such an abrupt conversion could not possibly have taken place through a man. The teaching of men makes progress little by little. But there is also another underlying construction, in that he gently teaches them not to do the things of law; for he says, if he who showed such a great diligence in connection with the law, abandoned the things of law and turned to the salvation which is from faith, it is obvious that he abandoned the law as being unable to lead to perfection. How much more fitting, then, should it be for those who have turned to the faith not to seek to follow what is unable to lead to perfection!

"For you have heard." Then since the Galatians did not know of the revelation which had been given to Paul by Christ, he wishes, in order to show that he was formerly a persecutor and now suddenly transformed, which, unless some divine vision had been granted to him, he would by no means have been so suddenly transformed; so that, having been convinced by this, they would not despise him as a disciple of Christ.

"my former way of life." They would not, however, have heard from Palestine to Galatia, unless he was a very great persecutor.

— [SEVERIAN] "in Judaism." What need is there for conduct within Judaism? But let him show one thing, that it works not by deception but by truth. For not having rejected the law did he flee from grace (for he vindicated it), having found that which was more perfect, he departed from the law. —

"tried to destroy it." I was not only pursuing it, he says, but also resolved to overthrow and annihilate it. For this is the meaning of, "tried to destroy it."

I may here say to those who reject The Acts of the Apostles: "It is first necessary that you shows us who this Paul was,-both what he was before he was an apostle, and how he became an apostle,"-so very great is the use which they make of him in respect of other questions also. It is true that he tells us himself that he was a persecutor before he became an apostle, still this is not enough for any man who examines before he believes, since even the Lord Himself did not bear witness of Himself.

From what is it evident that I received the Gospel through divine revelation? From my former life. For being such a persecutor, how could I have suddenly changed if some divine manifestation had not drawn me out? And that I was a zealous persecutor is evident from the fact that even you, Galatians, living so far from Judea, had heard about it.

Note how strongly he expresses himself. For he did not say "persecuted," but "persecuted beyond measure." And not only this, but even "wasted," that is, he tried to destroy to the foundation and annihilate — for this is the work of a devastator.

Then when he says, "For you have heard of my conversation in time past," he shows that he did not receive the Gospel from men, either before his conversion or after his conversion to Christ (v. 15). That he did not receive it from man before his conversion he shows both by the hatred he bore toward the faith of Christ and toward Christians, and by the zeal he had for Judaism: "And I made progress in the Jews' religion above many of my equals in my own nation" (v. 14).

He says therefore: I say that I did not receive it of man, and this is true of the time before my conversion. This, indeed, is obvious from my actions at that time and from the hatred I bore toward the faith. "For you yourselves have heard"—"But they had heard only: He who persecuted us in times past doth now preach the faith which once he impugned" (v. 23)—"of my conversation in time past," when I was an unbeliever, "in the Jews' religion," when I lived as a Jew. And he says, "my," because the evil we do is from ourselves, but from God is whatever good we do: "Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in me" (Hos 13:9).

This you have heard, "how that, beyond measure," i.e., more than others, because he bestirred not only himself to this but rulers as well. For others, when they persecuted, were to it by the rulers, but he urged even them: "Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest" (Acts 9:1). Also because he did this not only in Jerusalem but in the entire region. Hence "he received letters to Damascus, that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem." Therefore what is said in Genesis (49:27): "Benjamin a ravenous wolf, in the morning shall eat the prey, and in the evening shall divide the spoil," can be understood as applying to him.

"I persecuted the church of God," i.e., by hunting down Christians and discomfiting them: "I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" (1 Cor 15:9); "and I wasted it," not indeed spiritually, because I was unable to turn the hearts of the faithful from their faith, but physically by inflicting bodily punishment on them and casting them into prison: "Is not this he who persecuted in Jerusalem those that called upon this name?" (Acts 9:21); "Often have they fought against me" (Ps 128:1).

It is plain, therefore, from the hatred he bore toward the faith of Christ before his conversion, that he did not receive the Gospel from man.

He prudently inserts the statement that he served not so much God's law as the paternal traditions—that is, those of the Pharisees, who teach doctrines and precepts of men and reject the law of God to set up their own traditions.

"And I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers."

To obviate the notion that his persecution arose from passion, vain-glory, or enmity, he shows that he was actuated by zeal, not indeed "according to knowledge," still by a zealous admiration of the traditions of his fathers. This is his argument;-if my efforts against the Church sprung not from human motives, but from religious though mistaken zeal, why should I be actuated by vain-glory, now that I am contending for the Church, and have embraced the truth? If it was not this motive, but a godly zeal, which possessed me when I was in error, much more now that I have come to know the truth, ought I to be free from such a suspicion. As soon as I passed over to the doctrines of the Church I shook off my Jewish prejudices, manifesting on that side a zeal still more ardent; and this is a proof that my conversion is sincere, and that the zeal which possesses me is from above. What other inducement could I have to make such a change, and to barter honor for contempt, repose for peril, security for distress? none surely but the love of truth.

"And I advanced." I advanced in the persecution of the churches, that is, I continually strove to make it more severe. I advanced and was honorable on that account among the Jews. What then is the reason that they suddenly took up arms against me, those who honored and loved me? Nothing else, he says, but the revelation of Christ.

"being more exceedingly zealous." I advanced, since I had once been exceedingly zealous for my ancestral traditions. Therefore, he says, I never did the things I did from boastfulness, but from zeal for God, even though mistaken. If then I did not even then act from boastfulness, how could I now, after coming to the knowledge of the truth, preach falsehood to please men rather than those things I received from Christ?

"When I was a child," he says, "as a child I spake, as a child I understood; but when I became a man, those (things) which had been the child's I abandoned: " so truly did he turn away from his early opinions: nor did he sin by becoming an emulator not of ancestral but of Christian traditions, wishing even the precision of them who advised the retention of circumcision.

All my contemporaries, he says, I surpassed in zeal, and in the war against the Church I went ahead; in other words: I was held in honor among the Jews. But do not think that this was a matter of vainglory or anger, but of zeal. So then, if I fought against the Church not out of any human calculations, but out of zeal for God, even though I was in error, then how now, having come to know the truth, would I preach out of love for human glory something other than what the truth commands and what Christ taught me.

It is plain also from the love and burning zeal he had for Judaism, as to outward progress. Hence he says, "And I made progress in the Jews' religion above many of my equals in my own nation:" wherein he mentions three things that indicate how great was his progress. For he progressed not above a few but "above many," not above old men incapable of progress in learning, but "my equals," i.e., young men who were intelligent and capable of progress: "It is good for a man, when he has borne the yoke from his youth" (Lam 3:27). Furthermore, not above equals who were foreigners and ignorant of the language, but equals "of my own nation," i.e., Jews: "I am a Jew, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the truth of the law of the fathers, zealous for the law, as also all you are this day" (Acts 22:3).

Finally, as to the inward zeal he had for the Law. Hence he says, "being more abundantly zealous," not only for the Law, but "for the traditions of my fathers," namely, those traditions which the Jews lawfully kept and "which the good fathers added," as is said in a Gloss. He calls these traditions his own because he treasured them as though they were his: "According to the Law, a Pharisee; according to zeal, persecuting the church of God" (Phil 3:5).

But a question arises from the fact that the aforesaid Gloss says: "The good fathers added." For it seems that they were not good, because, it is said in Deuteronomy (4:2): "You shall not add to the word I speak to you." Hence in adding traditions they acted against the command of God and so were not good. To this one may answer that this word of the Lord is taken to mean that you shall not add anything contrary or alien to the words which I shall speak. But to add certain things not contrary was lawful for them, namely, certain solemn days and the like, as was done in the time of Mordechai and of Judith, in memory of the blessings they received from God.

But against this is the rebuke addressed to them by our Lord, when He says: "You have made void the command of the Lord for the traditions of men" (Mt 15:16). Hence those traditions were not lawful. I answer that they are not rebuked for holding the traditions of men, but because for the sake of the traditions of men, they neglect the commands of God.

Just as he said to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you," so, knowing what Paul would be, God called him because he was able to serve.

The use of grace ought to be faithful with respect to God. Whence the Apostle: "But when it pleased him who separated me from my mother's womb and called me by his grace, I did not immediately acquiesce to flesh and blood." Faithful is he who does not diminish the gift which he receives on behalf of another. But when you seek something more principally than God, you are not faithful. Therefore the Apostle says: "I did not acquiesce to flesh and blood," that is, I did not seek carnal glory, but only divine glory. The experts in optics say that if a ray falls perpendicularly upon a smooth and polished body, it must necessarily be reflected back along the same path. The influx of grace is like a perpendicular ray — I speak of sanctifying grace, because gratuitous grace is like a ray of incidence; it is therefore necessary that whoever truly receives the grace of God should render glory back to God. Whence if you preach for your own glory, it profits you nothing.

The God who caused me to be born, who separated me from my mother's womb, also called me through his grace. For no one knows God except one who has been called.

And that he, the apostle, was the very same person who had been born from the womb, that is, of the ancient substance of flesh, he does himself declare in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But when it pleased God, who separated 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 Gentiles," it was not, as I have already observed, one person who had been born from the womb, and another who preached the Gospel of the Son of God; but that same individual who formerly was ignorant, and used to persecute the Church, when the revelation was made to him from heaven, and the Lord conferred with him, as I have pointed out in the third book, preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, his former ignorance being driven out by his subsequent knowledge.

Now, that the Word of God forms us in the womb, He says to Jeremiah, "Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee; and before thou wentest forth from the belly, I sanctified thee, and appointed thee a prophet among the nations." And Paul, too, says in like manner, "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, that I might declare Him among the nations." As, therefore, we are by the Word formed in the womb, this very same Word formed the visual power in him who had been blind from his birth; showing openly who it is that fashions us in secret, since the Word Himself had been made manifest to men...

(Verse 15) But when it pleased Him who separated 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 Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.) Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. But they were hearing only, "He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy." And they glorified God in me. But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. David sings against sinners: For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and my mother conceived me in sins (Ps. 50:7). And in another place: Sinners are estranged from the womb (Ps. 57:4). And even before the children were born, God loved Jacob but hated Esau (Malachi 1:1, 2). Heretics find a place where they claim there are different natures, namely spiritual, animal, and earthly, and that one is saved, another perishes, and another exists between the two, so that neither the righteous would be chosen before doing anything good, nor would the sinner be hated before committing a sin, unless there were different natures of those who perish and those who are saved. To which it can be simply answered: this happens from God's foreknowledge, that he loves whom he knows will be just before they are born from the womb, and hates whom he knows will be a sinner before they sin; not that in God there is injustice in love and hatred, but that he must not have them otherwise, knowing either that they will be sinners or that they will be just: we as humans can only judge based on the present, but He to whom the future is already made known can pass judgment on the end of things, not on their beginnings. And indeed, these things have been said in a simpler manner: and without a deeper discussion, they can please the reader in some way. Moreover, those who try to assert that God is unjust, after what we have previously stated, have strayed from the womb, and they also bring forth the other things that follow: They have gone astray from the womb, they have uttered falsehoods. And they say, how is it that sinners have immediately gone astray from the womb and have uttered falsehoods, when they could not even have speech or understanding? But what is this justice of the foreknowledge of God, to love and guard one before they are born, and to detest another? And the causes of this matter refer to a previous life, that each person is assigned to good or evil angels according to their merit, immediately from their first birth. And that whole passage about Jacob and Esau, which we mention now, is discussed in such a way in the letter to the Romans (Rom. IX), that it cannot be answered without sweat and Chrysippus' hellebore. However, it is not the same for him to reveal his Son in me, as if he were to say, to reveal his Son to me. For whoever something is revealed, to him it can be revealed, which was not in him before. But in whom it is revealed, that is revealed which was in him before, and later revealed. It is similar to what is said in the Gospel: Among you stands one whom you do not know (John 1:26). And elsewhere: He was the true light, which enlightens every person coming into the world (ibid., 9). From which it becomes clear that the knowledge of God is inherent in all of nature, and no one is born without Christ, and does not have the seeds of wisdom, justice, and other virtues within them. Hence, many without faith and the Gospel of Christ, either wisely do certain things, or piously, such as obeying their parents, extending help to the needy, not oppressing their neighbors, not plundering others, and therefore become more susceptible to the judgment of God because, having within them the principles of virtues and the seeds of God, they do not believe in Him without whom they cannot exist. It is possible to take it in another way in the letter of Paul, Sons of God revealed: that, when he preached, he was acknowledged by the Gentiles, whom they previously did not know.

"But when it was the good pleasure of God, Who separated me, even 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, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood."

Here his object is to show, that it was by some secret providence that he was left for a time to himself. For if he was set apart from his mother's womb to be an Apostle and to be called to that ministry, yet was not actually called till that juncture, which summons he instantly obeyed, it is evident that God had some hidden reason for this delay. What this purpose was, you are perhaps eager to learn from me, and primarily, why he was not called with the twelve. But in order not to protract this discourse by digressing from that which is more pressing, I must entreat your love not to require all things from me, but to search for it by yourselves, and to beg of God to reveal it to you. Moreover I partly discussed this subject when I discoursed before you on the change of his name from Saul to Paul; which, if you have forgotten, you will fully gather from a perusal of that volume. At present let us pursue the thread of our discourse, and consider the proof he now adduces that no natural event had befallen him,-that God Himself had providentially ordered the occurrence.

"And called me through His grace."

God indeed says that He called him on account of his excellent capacity, as He said to Ananias, "for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings," that is to say, capable of service, and the accomplishment of great deeds. God gives this as the reason for his call. But he himself everywhere ascribes it to grace, and to God's inexpressible mercy, as in the words, "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy," not that I was sufficient or even serviceable, but "that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all His long-suffering, for an ensample of them which should hereafter believe on Him unto eternal life." Behold his overflowing humility; I obtained mercy, says he, that no one might despair, when the worst of men had shared His bounty. For this is the force of the words, "that He might show forth all His long-suffering for an ensample of them which should hereafter believe on Him."

"To reveal His Son in me."

Christ says in another place, "No one knoweth who the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him." You observe that the Father reveals the Son, and the Son the Father; so it is as to Their glory, the Son glorifies the Father, and the Father the Son; "glorify Thy Son, that the Son may glorify Thee," and, "as I have glorified Thee." But why does he say, "to reveal His Son in me," and not "to me?" it is to signify, that he had not only been instructed in the faith by words, but that he was richly endowed with the Spirit;-that the revelation had enlightened his whole soul, and that he had Christ speaking within him.

"That I might preach Him among the Gentiles." For not only his faith, but his election to the Apostolic office proceeded from God. The object, says he, of His thus specially revealing Himself to me, was not only that I might myself behold Him, but that I might also manifest Him to others. And he says not merely, "others," but, "that I might preach Him among the Gentiles," thus touching beforehand on that great ground of his defence which lay in the respective characters of the disciples; for it was necessary to preach differently to the Jews and to the heathen.

"Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood."

Here he alludes to the Apostles, naming them after their physical nature; however, that he may have meant to include all mankind, I shall not deny.

If he were indeed called to the mission from the mother's belly, how did he become a persecutor? He has indeed solved this inextricable difficulty in another place, in saying: "So that Christ might first demonstrate in me his entire long-suffering, providing a type for those who were to believe in him unto eternal life" (I Tim. 1:16).

If from his mother's womb he was restricted against preaching and was restrained, for some entirely divine privilege the intervening time was allowed, so that his sudden change might strengthen many.

"and, having called me by his grace." He was indeed called as a vessel of election; yet he says that he was called by grace, as if to say: the Lord has called me by grace, though I am unworthy and unsuitable.

If from his mother's womb he was destined for the proclamation of the Gospel and chosen by God, then, of course, by a certain divine arrangement he remained for some time in Judaism, undoubtedly so that such a dramatic change in him would attract many to the faith and strengthen them in it. God chose him not by lot, but by foreknowledge that he was worthy.

Called by grace, not by merit, but by mercy — although God called him for his virtue, for it is said: "he is My chosen vessel" (Acts 9:15), he humbly says that he was called by grace not according to worthiness, but according to mercy.

After showing that he did not receive the Gospel from man before his conversion, the Apostle now proves that he did not receive it from man after his conversion. About this he does two things:

First, he shows that he did not receive the Gospel from man at the time of his conversion;

Secondly, nor after his conversion (v. 18).

Regarding the first he does two things:

First, he shows that he did not receive or learn the Gospel from the apostles;

Secondly, nor from any other believer (v. 17): "I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus."

As to the first he does three things:

First, he shows the efficient cause of his conversion;

Secondly, the end (v. 16);

Thirdly, the manner (v. 16): "immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood."

In regard to the first point, he notes the twofold cause of his conversion, namely, the good pleasure of God, which is divine election, and the call of the one converting. Regarding the first he says, "when it pleased him," namely, God: not when I willed, but when it pleased Him, because "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy" (Rom 9:16); "The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear him" (Ps 146:11); "For it is God who worketh in us, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will" (Phil 2:13). "Who," namely, God, "separated me," i.e., rebellious: "I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" (1 Cor 15:9); "Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings" (Acts 9:1); and a persecutor: "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" (Acts 9:4); "Who before was a blasphemer" (1 Tim 1:13). "Me," and such a one, I say, he "separated from my mother's womb." Or, literally: who made me to be born from my mother's womb.

It is indeed true to say that God separates one from the womb, even though it is a work of nature, which is, as it were, an instrument of God, because even our own works are attributed to God as to their principal author: "For thou hast wrought all our works for us" (Is 26:12), as any effect is attributed to the principal agent; hence Job (10:11): "Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh." And he was separated from this womb to be justified, for the same one justifies who makes: "From my mother's womb thou art my God" (Ps 22:11). Or: "from my mother's womb," i.e., the synagogue, whose womb is the college of Pharisees who trained him in Judaism: "You go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte" (Mt 23:15). Thus, therefore, was the synagogue his mother: "The sons of my mother have fought against me" (Cant 1:5). Its womb are the Pharisees. And from this womb he was separated by the Holy Spirit unto faith in the Gospel: "Separated unto the Gospel of God" (Rom 1:1).

Or his mother is the Church of Christ, and the womb, the college of apostles. Hence God separated him from the womb of the Church, i.e., from the college of apostles, for the office of apostleship and preacher to the Gentiles, when He said to the apostles: "Separate me Saul and Barnabas" (Acts 13:2).

Again, he calls the synagogue his mother, because he was a Pharisee and an outstanding one, for which reason he is called a Pharisee and of the Pharisees, because he was zealous for the Law: "being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers" (v. 14).

Now as regards the other cause, he says, "and called me by his grace." But there are two kinds of call. One is exterior, and so he says: He called me with a voice from heaven. "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me... Go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do" (Acts 9:4). In a similar fashion He called the other apostles. The other call is interior, and in this way He calls through a certain interior instinct, whereby God touches the heart to be turned to Him, as when He calls one from the path of evil to good; and this by His grace and not our own merits: "And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified" (Rom 8:30); "I have raised him up to justice" (Is 45:13); "That calleth the waters of the sea and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The Lord is his name" (Am 5:8).

When he had faith in the law, not knowing that it was not the time for observance of the law, and was intensely striving to resist the gospel of Christ, he thought that he acted by God's will. God, seeing that his zeal was good, though he lacked knowledge, chose to summon him into his grace. He knew that this man was suitable to preach his gospel to the Gentiles. For if he was so swift and faithful in so poor a cause through boldness of conscience, not through adulation of anyone, how much more constant would he be in preaching the gift of God through the hope of the promised reward?

The use of grace ought to be faithful with respect to God. Whence the Apostle: "But when it pleased him who separated me from my mother's womb and called me by his grace, I did not immediately acquiesce to flesh and blood." Faithful is he who does not diminish the gift which he receives on behalf of another. But when you seek something more principally than God, you are not faithful. Therefore the Apostle says: "I did not acquiesce to flesh and blood," that is, I did not seek carnal glory, but only divine glory. The experts in optics say that if a ray falls perpendicularly upon a smooth and polished body, it must necessarily be reflected back along the same path. The influx of grace is like a perpendicular ray — I speak of sanctifying grace, because gratuitous grace is like a ray of incidence; it is therefore necessary that whoever truly receives the grace of God should render glory back to God. Whence if you preach for your own glory, it profits you nothing.

If something is revealed to someone, that may be revealed to him which was not in him before; but if it is revealed in him, that is revealed which was previously in him and had been subsequently revealed … from which it clearly appears that there is natural knowledge of God in all.

I know that many think that this was said of the apostles … but far be it from me to reckon Peter, John and James as "flesh and blood," which cannot possess the kingdom of God. … It is obvious that Paul did not confer with flesh and blood after the revelation of Christ because he would not throw pearls before swine or that which is holy to the dogs.

(Verse 16) Immediately, I did not consult with flesh and blood. Or, as it is better in Greek: I did not confer with flesh and blood. I know that many consider this statement to be about the apostles. For even Porphyry objects that after the revelation of Christ, he did not deign to go to men and confer with them: lest, of course, he be instructed by flesh and blood after the teaching of God. But far be it from me to think that Peter, John, and James are flesh and blood; which cannot possess the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 1). If the spiritual apostles are flesh and blood, what do we think of the earthly ones? Paul did not associate himself with flesh and blood after the revelation of Christ, because he did not want to cast pearls before swine or give what is holy to dogs (Matthew 7). See what is written about sinners: My spirit will not remain in these people, for they are flesh (Genesis 6). With those who were flesh and blood, who did not reveal the Son of God to Peter either (Matthew 16), the Apostle did not share the Gospel that had been revealed to him, but gradually turned them from flesh and blood to spirit. And only then did he entrust them with the hidden sacraments of the Gospel. Let someone say: If immediately he did not communicate the Gospel with flesh and blood, nevertheless it is understood that later he will communicate with flesh and blood: and this understanding, by which the apostles are excused, cannot stand, lest flesh and blood be [involved], since nevertheless he who did not communicate with flesh and blood in the beginning, later, as I said, will communicate with flesh and blood. This preposition constrains us, that we may distinguish thus, lest immediately or continuously, we unite with flesh and blood; but that we may adhere to the previous statements, and it may be read: But when it pleased him who separated me from the womb of my mother. And then: That he might reveal his Son in me. And finally: That I might preach him among the Gentiles immediately: that I have not conferred with flesh and blood; but rather it should be understood in this sense: that he who is immediately sent to proclaim the Gospel to the Gentiles after the revelation of Christ, has not remained, nor has he extended the time by going to the apostles and comparing the Lord's revelation with men: but he has gone to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus, and after three years he preached the Gospel; and only then, coming to Jerusalem, did he see Peter, John, and James.

Another construction, demonstrating that he did not receive the teaching of Christ from men. Indeed, how could one, who was worthy of a teaching from above, confer with men?

"reveal his Son." The Father, he says, called me to the revealing of his Son.

He said, "in me," wishing to show that he had learned not only by word but also by mind and heart, as into the inner person in whom knowledge has taken up residence.

"that I might preach him." Do you see that the Father who called and revealed his Son to him himself ordained Paul to be a preacher and apostle?

— [PHOTIUS] How then, he says, did I receive and learn the preaching from men? Immediately I did not turn aside to ease and luxury, nor, thinking myself to have achieved something great, fall into slackness and neglect, but I made the course of the Gospel demanding.

Therefore, it was. I no longer valued seeing relatives, or a house, or acquaintances, or homeland, but leaving all behind (for in these matters I am not inferior to those concerning Peter and John), I immediately ran into Arabia and to Damascus and to the preaching.

"I did not immediately accord with flesh and blood." Paul says that he did not go into discussions with the apostles about the preaching, being satisfied with the divine revelation. But he says this to show that he had not learned preaching from the disciples, but from Christ himself. For those who slandered him were saying that he was a disciple of men, not of Christ.

This means that he showed him the meaning of the Law and the Prophets.

He did not say: to reveal to me, but – "in me," showing by this that he received instruction not merely verbal, but his heart was also filled with much of the Spirit, since this knowledge was sealed in the inner man and Christ speaks in him.

God revealed His Son to me not only so that I might know Him, but also so that I might preach Him to others. Because not only his coming to faith, but also his being chosen for preaching, was from God. How then can you say that people taught me? And not simply "that I should preach Him," but "to the Gentiles." So how could I preach circumcision to the Gentiles?

That is, he did not go to consult with the apostles, for he calls them flesh and blood, naming them thus by nature; or he says this generally about all people, because in the matter of faith no man was his teacher.

The end of his conversion is stated when he says, "to reveal his Son in me." Hence Christ is the end. Now his conversion is ordained to Christ in two ways: First of all, by his works. Hence he says, "to reveal his Son," i.e., by what He did in my regard, by converting me and forgiving my sins, He revealed what a great act of mercy was bestowed on me: "Jesus Christ came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief" (1 Tim 1:15); "But I obtained the mercy of God, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief" (1 Tim 1:13). Thus, therefore, in his conversion he revealed His Son in the sense that the Son is called the grace of God. Likewise, he revealed Him in his action; hence he says: "For I dare not speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not by me, for the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed, by virtue of signs and wonders" (Rom 15:18). And this inasmuch as the Son is the power of God. Furthermore, he revealed Him in his preaching. Hence he said: "We preach Christ crucified; unto the Jews indeed a stumbling-block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness, but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:23). And this inasmuch as the Son is called the wisdom of God.

Secondly, his conversion is ordained to Christ by his words. Hence he says, "that I might preach him among the Gentiles," because, whereas the other apostles preached the Gospel of Christ to the Jews, Paul, on the Lord's command, went to convert the Gentiles: "It is a small thing that thou shouldst be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to convert the dregs of Israel. Behold, I have given thee to be the light of the Gentiles" (Is 49:6); "For so the Lord has commanded us: that thou mayest be for salvation unto the utmost part of the earth" (Acts 13:47); "Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, for a leader and a master to the Gentiles" (Is 55:4).

The manner of his conversion is perfect, both as to its effect—hence he says, "immediately I condescended not to flesh and blood," i.e., at once I was so completely converted that all carnal affection left me: "It is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden to make the poor man rich" (Sir 11:23). "Flesh and blood" are here taken for vices of the flesh: "Flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15:50). "For the flesh lusteth against the spirit" (5:17)—or for the affection and love borne toward blood relatives. "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee" (Mt 16:17). Thus the Apostle overcame his own vices and scorned his fellow Jews.

He set out from Damascus to Arabia, therefore, to preach where none of the apostles had been and where Judaizing had not been promoted through the intrigues of pseudoapostles. And from there he returned again to Damascus so that he could attend to those who were still immature when he preached to them the gospel of God's grace.

How are we to explain this narrative, if we read later that Paul went immediately to Arabia after the revelation of Christ? … He teaches that the Old Testament, that is, the son of the bondwoman, was established in Arabia. And so, as soon as Paul believed, he turned to the Law, the Prophets and the symbols of the Old Testament that were then lying in obscurity and sought in them the Christ whom he was commanded to preach to the Gentiles.

(Verse 17.) Nor did I go to Jerusalem to the apostles before me. If he had mentioned the apostles, I did not confer with flesh and blood. So why was it necessary to repeat the same thing by saying, Nor did I go to Jerusalem to the apostles before me? Therefore, we must maintain the meaning that we explained above.

But I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus. It does not seem to fit with the order of the story, as recounted by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts IX), that after Paul spoke boldly about the Gospel of Christ for many days in Damascus, plots were made against him and he was lowered in a basket through the wall at night, and he came to Jerusalem trying to join the disciples. But when they avoided him and were afraid to approach him, he was brought to the apostles by Barnabas and he told them how he had seen the Lord on the road and had acted confidently in the name of the Lord (some versions add Jesus) while in Damascus. He was, he said, with them, going in and out in Jerusalem, boldly acting in the name of the Lord. He also spoke and debated with the Greeks, but they sought to kill him. When the brothers learned of this, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus. But he says that he first went to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus after three years, and went to Jerusalem, saw Peter, and stayed with him for fifteen days, and did not see anyone else except James, the brother of the Lord. In order for them to be believed as true (since doubtful things could appear questionable in the absence of witnesses), he confirms under oath, saying: "The things that I tell you are true, behold, I say them before God, for I do not lie." Therefore, we can conclude that Paul, according to the account of Luke, went to Jerusalem not to learn something from the apostles who came before him, but to avoid the onslaught of persecution that had been incited against him in Damascus because of the Gospel of Christ. And so he came to Jerusalem as if he had come to any other city. Then, when he had immediately withdrawn on account of the ambush, he came to Arabia or Damascus; and then, after three years, he returned to see Peter in Jerusalem. Or certainly, this is how it happened: Immediately after he was baptized and strengthened by receiving food, he stayed with the disciples in Damascus for a few days; and while all the Jews in the synagogues were amazed, he preached continuously that Jesus was the Son of God. Then he went to Arabia, and returned from Arabia to Damascus, where he spent three years. These many days are attested by the Scripture, which says: When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him (Acts 9:23). However, there were plots made against Saul, and they were guarding the gates day and night in order to kill him. So, his disciples took him at night and lowered him down the wall in a basket. When he arrived in Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples. But Luke mentions that he passed through Arabia because perhaps he had not done anything deserving of apostleship in Arabia. And he chose to give a concise account of the things that seemed worthy of the Gospel of Christ. Nor should we attribute this to the laziness of the Apostle, if he stayed in Arabia in vain (or: remained): but rather that it was some dispensation and command of God that he should keep silent. For we also read that after this Paul went out with Silas, and the Holy Spirit prohibited him from speaking the word in Asia (Acts 16). In another passage: But I went to Arabia; and again, I returned to Damascus. What benefit is this account to me, if I read that Paul immediately went to Arabia after the revelation of Christ, and immediately returned from Arabia to Damascus, without knowing what he did there, or what usefulness his going and returning had? Give me the opportunity for a deeper understanding in this same letter the Apostle himself, while discussing Abraham, Hagar, and Sarah, says: These things, he says, are spoken in allegory. For these are the two covenants: one indeed from Mount Sinai, which brings forth into slavery, and that is Hagar. For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which is joined to the present Jerusalem (Gal. IV, 24, 25). And he teaches that the old Testament, that is, the son of the servant girl, was established in Arabia (which translates to humble and western). So immediately, as soon as Paul believed, he turned to the Law, the Prophets, and the sacraments of the old Testament which were already placed in the west, and he sought in them the Christ whom he had been instructed to preach to the Gentiles. And having found Him, he did not linger there any longer; but he returned to Damascus, that is, to the blood and passion of Christ. And from there, strengthened by prophetic reading, he went on to Jerusalem, the place of the vision and peace: not so much to learn something from the apostles as to compare the Gospel that he had taught with them.

"Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me."

These words weighed by themselves seem to breath an arrogant spirit, and to be foreign to the Apostolic temper. For to give one's suffrage for one's self, and to admit no man to share one's counsel, is a sign of folly. It is said, "Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him;" and, "Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" and Paul himself in another place, "Be not wise in your own conceits." Surely one who had been thus taught, and had thus admonished others, would not fall into such an error, even were he an ordinary man; much less then Paul himself. Nevertheless, as I said, this expression nakedly considered may easily prove a snare and offence to many hearers. But if the cause of it is subjoined, all will applaud and admire the speaker.

Let us then inquire into the intention of Paul in thus writing, let us consider his scope, and general deportment towards the Apostles, that we may arrive at his present meaning. Neither formerly, nor in this case, did he speak with a view of disparaging the Apostles or of extolling himself, (how so? when he included himself under his anathema?) but always in order to guard the integrity of the Gospel. Since the troublers of the Church said that they ought to obey the Apostles who suffered these observances, and not Paul who forbade them, and hence the Judaizing heresy had gradually crept in, it was necessary for him manfully to resist them, from a desire of repressing the arrogance of those who improperly exalted themselves, and not of speaking ill of the Apostles. And therefore he says, "I conferred not with flesh and blood;" for it would have been extremely absurd for one who had been taught by God, afterwards to refer himself to men. For it is right that he who learns from men should in turn take men as his counsellors. But he to whom that divine and blessed voice had been vouchsafed, and who had been fully instructed by Him that possesses all the treasures of wisdom, wherefore should he afterwards confer with men? It were meet that he should teach, not be taught by them.

Therefore he thus spoke, not arrogantly, but to exhibit the dignity of his own commission. "Neither went I up," says he, "to them." Because they were continually repeating that the Apostles were before him, and were called before him, he says, "I went not up to them." Had it been needful for him to communicate with them, He, who revealed to him his commission, would have given him this injunction. Is it true, however, that he did not go up thither? nay, he went up, and not merely so, but in order to learn somewhat of them. When a question arose on our present subject in the city of Antioch, in the Church which had from the beginning shown so much zeal, and it was discussed whether the Gentile believers ought to be circumcised, or were under no necessity to undergo the rite, this very Paul himself and Silas went up. How is it then that he says, I went not up, nor conferred? First, because he went not up of his own accord, but was sent by others; next, because he came not to learn, but to bring others over. For he was from the first of that opinion, which the Apostles subsequently ratified, that circumcision was unnecessary. But when these persons deemed him unworthy of credit and applied to those at Jerusalem he went up not to be farther instructed, but to convince the gainsayers that those at Jerusalem agreed with him.

"But I went away into Arabia."

Behold a fervent soul! he longed to occupy regions not yet tilled, but lying in a wild state. Had he remained with the Apostles, as he had nothing to learn, his preaching would have been straitened, for it behooved them to spread the word every where. Thus this blessed man, fervent in spirit, straightway undertook to teach wild barbarians, choosing a life full of battle and labor. Having said, "I went into Arabia," he adds, "and again I returned unto Damascus." Here observe his humility; he speaks not of his successes, nor of whom or of how many he instructed. Yet such was his zeal immediately on his baptism, that he confounded the Jews, and so exasperated them, that they and the Greeks lay in wait for him with a view to kill him. This would not have been the case, had he not greatly added to the numbers of the faithful; since they were vanquished in doctrine, they had recourse to murder, which was a manifest sign of Paul's superiority. But Christ suffered him not to be put to death, preserving him for his mission. Of these successes, however, he says nothing, and so in all his discourses, his motive is not ambition, nor to be honored more highly than the Apostles, nor because he is mortified at being lightly esteemed, but it is a fear lest any detriment should accrue to his mission.

For he calls himself, "one born out of due time," and "the first of sinners," and "the last of the Apostles," and, "not meet to be called an Apostle." And this he said, who had labored more than all of them; which is real humility; for he who, conscious of no excellence, speaks humbly of himself, is candid but not humble; but to say so after such trophies, is to be practised in self-control.

"And again I returned unto Damascus."

But what great things did he not probably achieve in this city? for he tells us that the governor under Aretas the king set guards about the whole of it, hoping to entrap this blessed man. Which is a proof of the strongest kind that he was violently persecuted by the Jews. Here, however, he says nothing of this, but mentioning his arrival and departure is silent concerning the events which there occurred, nor would he have mentioned them in the place I have referred to, had not circumstances required their narration.

[PHOTIUS] Paul said this more clearly, showing that he was not taught by the apostles but by Christ himself. He did not, he says, go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles before me and to learn anything from them. For he did go up to Jerusalem from Damascus, as the Acts indicate, (Acts 9:2) but not to be instructed, rather to preach Christ himself and to teach the faith. For just as he says he went into Arabia preaching and then again into Damascus, so likewise to Jerusalem.

"but I went into Arabia." When it was recounted concerning the towns to which he had gone, the remarkable deeds that had been done there by him fell silent, because they were of great modesty of spirit.

In what way could the apostle have said this? Had he become so proud that he considered himself self-sufficient and having no need of advisors? And had he not heard the saying: "Be not wise in your own eyes" (Prov. 3:7); and: "Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes" (Isa. 5:21)? Not at all. But since his detractors were saying that one should listen to the apostles and not to him, and that they were apostles before him, he was compelled to say this in order to silence the deceivers. And indeed it would have been unreasonable for one taught by God to then heed men. Thus, he says this not out of arrogance, but to show the dignity of his preaching. True, he did come to Jerusalem as well, but not in order to learn, rather in order to convince others that those living in Jerusalem thought the same way. Then he did not come immediately, that is, at the beginning, but later; and even then for the sake of convincing others.

He went through uncultivated and wild places, for if he had remained among the apostles, his preaching would have met with obstacles and would not have spread so quickly. Therefore he went to the wildest nations. But pay attention to 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 was subjected to persecution by the ethnarch. So if it seems that he speaks much about himself, he does so not for the sake of vainglory, but so that his preaching would not suffer harm if people did not believe him, regarding him as a simple man and a disciple of disciples.

Furthermore, his conversion was perfect with respect to his understanding, because he was so instructed by Christ that there was no need to be instructed by the apostles; hence he says, "Neither went I to Jerusalem," i.e., to be instructed by them.

Again, it was not necessary for him to be instructed by any other of the faithful; hence he says, "but I went into Arabia." As if to say: I did not go to places where there were believers who might instruct me, but I went to Arabia where they were not instructed in the faith but were unbelievers. "And again I returned to Damascus," i.e., to his parents: "Who gave a course to violent showers, or a way for noisy thunder?" (Job 38:25).

But someone might object that it is said in Acts (9:25): "In Damascus they let him down in a basket... and when he was come into Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples." Therefore, according to this, he went to Jerusalem. To this I answer that he did go, but not to be instructed. Or, better still, he did not go at once but after some time. Hence he says in the next verse, "Then, after three years I went to Jerusalem" (v. 18).

If, when Paul had evangelized Arabia, he subsequently saw Peter, it was not so that he might learn the gospel from Peter himself (for then he would have seen him before) but so that he might enhance familial love by being with the apostles.

For if the foundation of the church was laid in Peter, to whom all was revealed, as the gospel says, Paul knew that he ought to see Peter. When he speaks of seeing Peter, it is as one to whom Christ had committed so much authority, not as one from whom he was to learn anything.… "How," [he implies], "could I learn this great knowledge of God from Peter in such a short time?"

He who had prepared himself for so long a time did not need any long instruction. And, though it seems excessive to some to investigate numbers in Scripture, yet I think it not beside the point to say that the fifteen days that Paul spent with Peter signifies [in late Judaic piety] the fullness of wisdom and the perfection of doctrine, seeing that there are fifteen psalms in a psalter and fifteen steps by which people go up to sing to God.

(Verse 18.) Then, after three years, I came to Jerusalem to see Peter. Not to look at his eyes, cheeks, and face, to see if he was thin or fat, if he had a hooked or straight nose, and if he covered his forehead with hair or (as Clement reports in his Periods) had baldness on his head. And I don't think it was the gravity of the Apostolic office that wanted to see something human in Peter after such a long three-year preparation. But she looked at him with these eyes, with which she seems to see him even now in her Letters. With his own eyes, Paul saw Peter, whom now by the wise and learned, Paul himself is seen. And if someone does not see this, let them join these facts with their superior understanding: that the apostles did not confer anything upon themselves. For even though Paul was told to go to Jerusalem, it was for the purpose of seeing the apostle, not for the purpose of learning, because he himself had the same author of preaching; but rather to show honor to the apostle who was before him.

And I stayed with him for fifteen days. He did not lack for great instruction, as he had prepared himself so much time to see Peter. And although it may seem excessive to some, it is also fitting to observe the numbers that are in the Scriptures: nevertheless, I think it is not without reason that the fifteen days Paul spent with Peter signify complete knowledge and perfected doctrine. For there are fifteen songs in the Psalter, and fifteen steps by which the righteous ascend to sing to God, and stand in his courts. Moreover, Ezechias, having been granted fifteen years of life, deserves to receive a sign in the degrees (Isa. XXXVIII): and the solemnities of God begin on the fifteenth day (Exod. XII). Also, (because we follow a double understanding) therefore he adds fifteen days, to show that there was not a long time in which he could have learned anything from Peter; so that everything may be referred back to that meaning from which he began: that he was not taught by man, but by God.

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas."

What can be more lowly than such a soul? After such successes, wanting nothing of Peter, not even his assent, but being of equal dignity with him, (for at present I will say no more,) he comes to him as his elder and superior. And the only object of this journey was to visit Peter; thus he pays due respect to the Apostles, and esteems himself not only not their better but not their equal. Which is plain from this journey, for Paul was induced to visit Peter by the same feeling from which many of our brethren sojourn with holy men: or rather by a humbler feeling for they do so for their own benefit, but this blessed man, not for his own instruction or correction, but merely for the sake of beholding and honoring Peter by his presence. He says, "to visit Peter;" he does not say to see, but to visit and survey, a word which those, who seek to become acquainted with great and splendid cities, apply to themselves.

Worthy of such trouble did he consider the very sight of Peter; and this appears from the Acts of the Apostles also. For on his arrival at Jerusalem, on another occasion, after having converted many Gentiles, and, with labors far surpassing the rest, reformed and brought to Christ Pamphylia, Lycaonia, Cilicia, and all nations in that quarter of the world, he first addresses himself with great humility to James, as to his elder and superior. Next he submits to his counsel, and that counsel contrary to this Epistle. "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them which have believed; therefore shave thy head, and purify thyself." Accordingly he shaved his head, and observed all the Jewish ceremonies; for where the Gospel was not affected, he was the humblest of all men. But where by such humility he saw any injured, he gave up that undue exercise of it, for that was no longer to be humble but to outrage and destroy the disciples.

"And tarried with him fifteen days."

To take a journey on account of him was a mark of respect; but to remain so many days, of friendship and the most earnest affection.

After three years, however, from the beginning of my preaching and teaching I returned to see Peter, I went up to see Peter, not to learn anything from him. For I was then preaching and proclaiming the gospel.

"to visit Peter." See the humility. After so many and such great struggles he withdrew so that he might seem to be inferior to Peter. But so that he might remain honored as well, it was done on account of the honor which he conferred upon Peter.

He said, "I stayed with him," yet I was not taught."

But the fact is, having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren-to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles' hands. Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he "went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter," because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief and preaching.

And this is proof of humility: having accomplished so much, he went to Peter not for any benefit, but for the sake of a simple meeting, honoring him as a superior. Therefore he did not say "to see Peter" (ἰδεῖν), but "to visit" (ἱστορῆσαι), as those who study great and beautiful cities would express it; just as we too go to holy men, but we do so more for benefit, while he did so solely out of honor.

A visit is an expression of honor, while a stay is an expression of friendship and ardent love. And he did not say that he studied, but "remained with him," instead of "with him."

After showing above that he did not receive the Gospel from man before his conversion nor at the time of his conversion, the Apostle now proves that neither after his conversion did he receive it from man; but he shows, rather, how his teaching was approved by men. About this he does two things:

First, he shows how his teaching was approved by the apostles;

Secondly, he shows how it was approved by the rest of the faithful (v. 21).

First, he states the fact;

Secondly, he confirms the truth of his statement (v. 20): "before God, I lie not."

He says therefore: Although I did not go to the apostles to be instructed by them in the beginning of my conversion, because I had already been instructed by Christ, yet, being moved by a feeling of charity, "after three years," i.e., after my conversion, I went to Jerusalem, because I had long desired to see Peter, not to be taught by him but to visit him; "And visiting thy beauty thou shalt not sin" (Job 5:24). "And I tarried with him fifteen days," because that number is the sum of eight and seven. Eight is the number of the New Testament, in which the eighth day of those who will rise is awaited; but seven is the number of the Old Testament, because it celebrates the seventh day. And so he stayed with Peter fifteen days, conversing with him on the mysteries of the Old and New Testament.

Let us pray for every episcopacy which is under the whole heaven, of those that rightly divide the word of Thy truth. And let us pray for our bishop James, and his parishes; let us pray for our bishop Clement, and his parishes; let us pray for our bishop Euodius, and his parishes; let us pray for our bishop Annianus, and his parishes: that the compassionate God may grant them to continue in His holy churches in health, honour, and long life, and afford them an honourable old age in godliness and righteousness.

For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem...

The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.

Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, "was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together," as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."

But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded." Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, "Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

But the Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again from among those that sleep)... 'Bring a table and bread,' said the Lord... He brought bread and blessed and broke and gave to James the Just and said to him, 'my brother eat your bread, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep.'

James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.

He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath.

He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people.

Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, 'Bulwark of the people' and 'Justice,' in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.

Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs, asked him, 'What is the gate of Jesus?' and he replied that he was the Saviour.

On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one's coming to give to every man according to his works. But as many as believed did so on account of James.

Therefore when many even of the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ. Coming therefore in a body to James they said, 'We entreat you, restrain the people; for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat you to persuade all that have come to the feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all have confidence in you. For we bear you witness, as do all the people, that you are just, and do not respect persons. [Matthew 22:16]

Therefore, persuade the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus. For the whole people, and all of us also, have confidence in you. Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple, that from that high position you may be clearly seen, and that your words may be readily heard by all the people. For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, have come together on account of the Passover.'

The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: 'You just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.'

And he answered with a loud voice, 'Why do you ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sits in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.'

And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, 'Hosanna to the Son of David,' these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, 'We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.'

And they cried out, saying, 'Oh! Oh! The just man is also in error.' And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, 'Let us take away the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.' [Isaiah 3:10 LXX]

So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other, 'Let us stone James the Just.' And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, 'I entreat you, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.' [Luke 23:34]

And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, 'Stop. What are you doing? The just one prays for you.'

And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.

James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book, after our Lord's passion at once ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles and even this is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority. Hegesippus, who lived near the apostolic age, in the fifth book of his Commentaries, writing of James, says

"After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees."

He says also many other things, too numerous to mention. Josephus also in the 20th book of his Antiquities, and Clement in the 7th of his Outlines mention that on the death of Festus who reigned over Judea, Albinus was sent by Nero as his successor. Before he had reached his province, Ananias the high priest, the youthful son of Ananus of the priestly class, taking advantage of the state of anarchy, assembled a council and publicly tried to force James to deny that Christ is the son of God. When he refused Ananius ordered him to be stoned. Cast down from a pinnacle of the temple, his legs broken, but still half alive, raising his hands to heaven he said, "Lord forgive them for they know not what they do." Then struck on the head by the club of a fuller such a club as fullers are accustomed to wring out garments with — he died. This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death. He it is of whom the apostle Paul writes to the Galatians that "No one else of the apostles did I see except James the brother of the Lord," and shortly after the event the Acts of the apostles bear witness to the matter. The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of the Saviour says, "but the Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again from among those that sleep)" and again, a little later, it says "'Bring a table and bread,' said the Lord." And immediately it is added, "He brought bread and blessed and broke and gave to James the Just and said to him, 'my brother eat your bread, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep.'" And so he ruled the church of Jerusalem thirty years, that is until the seventh year of Nero, and was buried near the temple from which he had been cast down. His tombstone with its inscription was well known until the siege of Titus and the end of Hadrian's reign. Some of our writers think he was buried in Mount Olivet, but they are mistaken.

That some were called apostles apart from the twelve is a consequence of the fact that all who had seen the Lord and subsequently preached him were called apostles.

(Verse 19) But I saw none of the other apostles, except James the Lord's brother. I remember that while I was in Rome, I published a book on the perpetual virginity of Saint Mary under the urging of the brothers. In this matter, I had to argue for a long time about those who are called the brothers of the Lord. Therefore, we should be satisfied with whatever we have written. Now let it suffice that, because of his outstanding character and incomparable faith and wisdom, he was called the Lord's brother, not in an ordinary sense. And he was the first to preside over the Church, which was the first to be gathered to Christ from among the Jews. Indeed, the other apostles are also called brothers of the Lord, as in the Gospel: 'Go, tell my brethren: I go to my Father, and your Father; to my God, and your God' (John 20:17). And in the psalm: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the church will I praise You' (Psalm 22:22). But especially here this person is called brother, to whom the Lord had entrusted the sons of his mother as he went to the Father. And just as Job and the other patriarchs were indeed called servants of God, but Moses had something extraordinary, so that it was written about him: 'But not as Moses, my servant' (Hebrews 3:5), likewise the blessed James is specially called the brother of the Lord (as we said before). But why, except for the twelve, some are called apostles is this: all who had seen the Lord, and then preached about Him, were called apostles, as it is written to the Corinthians: 'He appeared to Cephas, then to the eleven.' After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at once, many of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles (I Cor. XV, 5 seqq.). But gradually, as time went on, and elsewhere from those whom the Lord had chosen, the apostles were ordained; as he declares in his letter to the Philippians, saying: But I thought it necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your apostle and minister to my need (Philippians 2:25). And concerning such, it is written to the Corinthians: whether apostles of the churches, the glory of God (2 Corinthians 8:23). Silas and Judas were also named apostles by the apostles. Therefore, he greatly erred who believed that James, the brother of John, mentioned in the Gospel, was an apostle. It is well known that James, after Stephen, shed his blood for Christ according to the faith of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 12). However, this James was the first bishop of Jerusalem, also known as James the Just. He was a man of such great holiness and reputation among the people that they eagerly sought to touch the fringe of his garment. And he himself, after being cast down from the temple by the Jews, had Simon as his successor, whom they also relate was crucified as the Lord. He denies that he met any of the other apostles, aside from those mentioned, so as not to give rise to hidden contradictions: even if you were not taught by Peter, you had other apostles as teachers. However, he did not see them, not because he regarded them with contempt, but because they had been scattered throughout the whole world for the preaching of the Gospel.

"But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother."

See what great friends he was with Peter especially; on his account he left his home, and with him he tarried. This I frequently repeat, and desire you to remember, that no one, when he hears what this Apostle seems to have spoken against Peter, may conceive a suspicion of him. He premises this, that when he says, "I resisted Peter," no one may suppose that these words imply enmity and contention; for he honored and loved his person more than all and took this journey for his sake only, not for any of the others. "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James." "I saw him merely, I did not learn from him," he means. But observe how honorably he mentions him, he says not "James" merely, but adds this illustrious title, so free is he from all envy. Had he only wished to point out whom he meant, he might have shown this by another appellation, and called him the son of Cleophas, as the Evangelist does. But as he considered that he had a share in the august titles of the Apostles, he exalts himself by honoring James; and this he does by calling him "the Lord's brother," although he was not by birth His brother, but only so reputed. Yet this did not deter him from giving the title; and in many other instances he displays towards all the Apostles that noble disposition, which beseemed him.

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.

"I did not see any other of the apostles." How could one who had not seen anyone have learned from them?

"the brother of the Lord." James was not the brother of the Lord, but he was thought to be, yet in order to lift him up he calls him the brother of the Lord.

Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless—being, although against his will, not far from the truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),—the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.

And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" [Matthew 13:55-56] They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you," [Luke 1:35] might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." [Galatians 1:19] And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James." [Jude 1]

He was called "the brother of the Lord" but was not so by nature. For he was not, as some suppose, the son of Joseph by a previous marriage but the son of Clopas and cousin of the Lord. For his mother was the sister of the Lord's mother. … He was thought by others to be the Lord's brother, both because their mothers had the same names and because the families shared one house. And he was so called even by believers, both because of the extreme virtue that he possessed (for he was called "the Just") and because of the kinship. For the sacred story of the Gospels tells us that the Blessed Virgin had no other son. For seeing her by the cross, the Lord gave her to the most divine John, but he would not have committed her to another if the blessed James, a man possessed of extreme virtue, had been her son.

Although he came for the sake of Peter – so much did he honor and love him – he also saw James, and he mentions him too with respect, calling him "the brother of the Lord" – so far was he from envy! And indeed, if he had wanted to distinguish him, he would have called him the son of Cleopas. For he was not a brother of the Lord according to the flesh, but was only considered so. How then was he the son of Cleopas, listen: Cleopas and Joseph were brothers; when Cleopas died childless, Joseph raised up seed for him and begot him and his other brothers, and Mary, whom, although she was the daughter of Cleopas, the Gospel calls the sister of the Mother of the Lord, since Joseph maintained toward the Most Holy Virgin the care of a father rather than the affection of a husband.

But lest anyone suppose that, although he was not instructed by Peter, he might have been instructed by others, he adds that he was not instructed by others. Hence he says, "But other of the apostles," by whom I might be instructed, "I saw none," i.e., no one, "saving James, the brother of the Lord." For I saw him in Jerusalem.

Regarding James, it should be known that he was the Bishop of Jerusalem and named James the Less, because he had been called after another James. Many things are recorded of him in Acts (15:13 ff). He also wrote a canonical epistle. Now there are various explanations why he is called the brother of the Lord. Elvidius says that it was because he was the son of the Blessed Virgin. For according to him, the Blessed Virgin conceived and gave birth to Christ, and after the birth of Christ she conceived of Joseph and brought forth other sons. But this error is condemned and refuted. Furthermore, it is false for the simple reason that James was not the son of Joseph but of Alpheus.

Others say that before the Blessed Virgin, Joseph had another wife of whom he had James and other children, and that after she died, he took unto wife the Blessed Virgin, from whom Christ was born, although she was not known by Joseph, but, as it is said in the Gospel, He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. But because progeny are named after their father, and Joseph was considered the father of Christ, for that reason, James, too, although he was not the son of the Virgin, was nevertheless called the brother of the Lord. But this is false, because if the Lord did not want as mother anyone but a virgin entrusted to the care of a virgin, how would He have allowed her husband not to be a virgin and still endure it?

Therefore others say (and this is mentioned in a Gloss) that James was the son of Mary of Cleophas, who was a sister of the Virgin. For they say that Anne, the mother of the Blessed Virgin, first married Joachim, of whom was born Mary, the mother of the Lord; but when Joachim died, she married Joachim's brother, Cleophas, from whom she bore Mary of Cleophas, and from her were born James the Less, Jude and Simon. Then after Cleophas died, she married a third man who was called Salome, of whom she conceived and bore another Mary, called Salome, from whom were born James the Great and his brother John.

But this opinion is denied on two counts by Jerome: first of all, because Salome is not a man's name, as is plain in Greek, but the name of the woman who was the sister of the Blessed Virgin and who begot James the Great and John, of Zebedee, just as Mary Cleophas begot James the Less, Jude and Simon, of Alpheus. Now this James is singled out from his other brothers and called the brother of the Lord for two reasons: first, because of a likeness in appearance, for he had a facial resemblance to Christ; and because of a likeness in their lives, for he imitated the manners of Christ. Or he is called the brother of Christ, because Alpheus, his father, was related to Joseph. Accordingly, because the Jews were accustomed to draw up the lines of ancestry on the father's side, and Christ was considered the son of Joseph, as is said in Luke (3:23), he, rather than the others, was called the brother of the Lord, because they were related to him only on His mother's side.

Furthermore, "brother" is taken here in the sense of kinsman. For in the Scriptures some are called brothers, who are so by nature: "Jacob begot Judas and his brethren" (Mt 1:2). Others, who are kinsmen, such as blood relations, are brothers: "Let there be no quarrel, I beseech thee, between me and thee... for we are brethren" (Gen 13:8). Others who are so by race; hence all who speak the same tongue are called brothers: "Thou mayest not make a man of another nation king, that is not thy brother" (Deut 17:15). Others who are so by affection; hence all who are friends and who have the same love are called brothers: "Because I found not Titus my brother" (2 Cor 2:13). Others who are so by religion; hence all Christians who have one rule of life are called brothers: "For one is your master; and all you are brethren" (Mt 23:8); "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity" (Ps 132:1). And in general, all men are called brothers, because they are ruled and protected by one God: "Have we not all one father?" (Mal 2:10).