Thomas Aquinas Commentary Galatians 1

The Apostle, therefore, writes this epistle to the Galatians to show that with the coming of the grace of the New Testament, the Old Testament should be set aside. This is so that with the fulfillment of the truth, the symbol may be abandoned, and by attaining these two—namely, grace and truth—one may arrive at the truth of justice and glory. These two are acquired if, abandoning the observance of the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law, we concentrate fervently on observing the Gospel of Christ.

The order of this epistle is fitting. After the two epistles to the Corinthians—the first dealing with the sacraments of the Church and the second with the ministers of these sacraments—it is necessary that the epistle to the Galatians should follow, as it treats of the termination of the sacraments of the Old Testament.

This epistle is divided into two parts: a greeting, and the main body of the letter, which begins in verse 6: I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel (Galatians 1:6). In the greeting, however, three things are noted:

1. The person sending the greeting is mentioned.
2. The persons being greeted are mentioned: To the Churches of Galatia (Galatians 1:2).
3. The good he wishes for them is mentioned (Galatians 1:3).

Regarding the first point, the person principally sending the greeting is mentioned first, and he is described by his name and his authority. He is described by his name when he says, "Paul," which, because it means "humble," corresponds with his humility. Hence it is said in 1 Corinthians 15:9: I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle. Furthermore, it corresponds with his office, because in another sense "Paul" means "the mouth of the trumpet," which especially signifies the office of preaching. Lift up your voice like a trumpet and announce to my people their sins (Isaiah 58:1). He is described by his authority when he says, "an apostle." Here two things are mentioned: his authority and its source. His authority is shown when he says "apostle," which means "one who is sent."

It should be noted that in some epistles, the Apostle calls himself a "servant," thereby showing a spirit of humility, as in the Epistle to the Romans. In others, he calls himself an "apostle," thereby showing his authority. The reason for this is that since the Romans were proud, the Apostle, in order to lead them to humility, calls himself a servant as an example. But to the Galatians, who were foolish and proud, he calls himself an apostle in order to humble them; hence, he sets forth his authority here.

He describes the source of his authority when he says, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father. In this:

1. He dismisses what they believed to be the source of his authority.
2. He presents the true source: but by Jesus Christ and God the Father (Galatians 1:1).

In their opinion, the source of his authority was questionable. The Galatians had been so deceived by false teachers that they believed the Apostle did not have the same authority as the other apostles, since he had neither been taught by Christ nor lived with Him, but was merely sent by them as their minister. He therefore refutes this opinion when he says, not from men, nor through man. Some had been sent by the entire body of apostles and disciples; therefore, to show that he had not been sent by them, he says, not from men. Others had been sent by a particular apostle, just as Paul sometimes sent Luke and Titus. Therefore, to show that he had not been sent in that manner, he says, nor through man—that is, not by any particular apostle, but by the Holy Spirit, who says: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work to which I have taken them (Acts 13:2).

But because the true source of this authority is Jesus Christ, he says, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father. The distinction expressed when he says, by Jesus Christ and God the Father, can be understood with respect to the person of the Father and the person of the Son. In that case, God the Father is one person and Jesus Christ is another. For the blessed Apostle Paul was sent to preach by both, and indeed, by the whole Trinity, because the works of the Trinity are inseparable. Yet no mention is made of the person of the Holy Spirit, because where there is a union of two, by mentioning two persons—namely, the Father and the Son—the Holy Spirit is also understood. Alternatively, this distinction can be understood with respect to Christ's assumed human nature, because according to the divine nature, there is no distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ. In this sense, then, Paul was sent by God the Father as the primary sender, and by Jesus Christ as a minister. For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision (Romans 15:8).

But because the Galatians belittled the Apostle for having neither lived with Christ nor been sent by Him as the others were, he elevates himself on this very point. They had been sent by Christ while He was still living in mortal flesh, whereas he had been sent by Christ now glorified. This is why he adds, who... raised him... from the dead—referring to God the Father raising Jesus Christ as man. It is as if he were saying: I am an apostle not from men (that is, not from the body of apostles), nor through a man (namely, Christ living in mortal flesh), but I am an apostle through Christ, now risen and glorified. Christ rising again from the dead, dies now no more (Romans 6:9). And because the present life is signified by the left side and the future life by the right—since the latter is heavenly and spiritual, and the former is temporal—Peter, who was called while Christ was still in mortal flesh, appears on the left side in papal bulls, while Paul, who was called by the glorified Christ, is placed on the right.

Then, when he says, and all the brethren who are with me, he refers to the people joining him in sending the greeting. He describes them with sweet familiarity, because they are with him for comfort and help. A brother that is helped by his brother is like a strong city (Proverbs 18:19). Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Psalms 132:1). He describes them in terms of inseparable love when he says, "brethren." By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another (John 13:35). And in terms of universality, when he says, "all." He adds this because the Galatians might be so deceived that they would not respect Paul's words. Hence, he says, "all who are with me," to present them as witnesses to his truthfulness and to help the Galatians understand that they are wrong, since they are being rebuked by everyone else. To him who is such a one, this rebuke is sufficient which is given by many (2 Corinthians 2:6).

He mentions the people being greeted when he says, to the churches of Galatia. Here it should be noted, as is mentioned in a gloss, that Brennus, leader of the Senones, once gathered an army. After entering and passing through Italy, he came into Greece before the time of Alexander the Great. There, some of the invaders remained in a certain district of Greece and intermarried with the Greeks. For this reason, that province came to be called "Gallic Greece" and its inhabitants "Galatians," as if to say, "white." But whereas the Greeks are naturally intelligent, these Galatians were foolish, inconstant, and slow to understand, like the unruly Gauls from whom they descended. This is why he later says, O senseless Galatians, who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth? (Galatians 3:1). Therefore, he writes this epistle to these people, and they are the ones being greeted.

Then, when he says, grace be to you and peace, he mentions the good things he wishes for them. In this:

1. He mentions the blessings he wishes for them.
2. He mentions the author of these blessings: from God the Father and our Lord (Galatians 1:3).

The blessings he wishes for them are twofold, but they include all spiritual goods. The first is grace, which is the beginning of the spiritual life. In a gloss, the remission of sins is ascribed to grace, and this remission is the first step in the spiritual life. For no one can be in the true spiritual life unless he first dies to sin. The second is peace, which is the settling of the mind in its ultimate goal, and which a gloss describes as reconciliation with God. Thus, in wishing them the beginning and the end of all spiritual goods, the Apostle includes, as it were, the wish that every good thing come to them. The Lord will give grace and glory (Psalms 83:12). The grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God and the communication of the Holy Spirit be with you all (2 Corinthians 13:13).

The author of these blessings is God the Father, and so he says, from God the Father. Here are mentioned:

1. The cause of these blessings.
2. The manner in which they are caused (verse 4).
3. The thanksgiving for these blessings (verse 5).

The cause and source of good is God the Father as the originator—precisely as God, and as the entire Trinity, the God of all through creation. But you, O Father, govern it . Hence he says, from God the Father. Again, the originator is the Lord Jesus Christ as minister, and this is insofar as He is man. For I say that Jesus Christ was a minister (Romans 15:8). But that grace comes to us through Christ is plain from John 1:17: Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Being justified freely by His grace (Romans 3:24). Peace, too, comes to us through Him: My peace I give to you (John 14:27).

The manner in which these blessings are caused is also mentioned when he says, who gave himself for our sins. Here, first of all, the efficient cause is mentioned, which is the death of Christ. Referring to this, he says, who gave himself for our sins. This is as if to say: Christ is the author of grace and peace because He gave Himself to death and endured the cross. Hence, the very death of Christ is the efficient cause of grace—You have been justified freely by his grace (Romans 3:24)—and of peace: Making peace as to the things that are in heaven (Colossians 1:20). And he says, first of all, who gave himself, meaning He offered Himself voluntarily. Christ also has loved us and has delivered Himself for us (Ephesians 5:2); That He might taste death for all (Hebrews 2:9); Who gave Himself for us (Titus 2:14). From this, the Apostle is plainly arguing against them. If the death of Christ is the sufficient cause of our salvation, and if grace is conferred in the sacraments of the New Testament, which have their efficacy from the passion of Christ, then it is superfluous to observe the rituals of the Old Law alongside the New Testament. For in the Old Law, grace is not conferred nor is salvation acquired, because, as it says in Hebrews 7:19, the Law made nothing perfect.

Secondly, the purpose and benefit of these blessings is mentioned—in other words, the final cause. This purpose is twofold. One is that we might be set free from past sins. Regarding this, he says, for our sins, meaning that past sins might be removed and atoned for, which is the beginning of our salvation. He loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood (Revelation 1:5). The other purpose is that He might free us from the power of death. Regarding this, he says, that he might deliver us from this present wicked world. He delivered us from the power of darkness (Colossians 1:13). Here he analyzes three words from that phrase: "present," "world," and "wicked." He delivers us from the "present" by drawing us to eternal things through desire and hope. He delivers us from the "world," that is, from being conformed to this world which allures us: And be not conformed to this world (Romans 12:2). And He delivers us from what is "wicked" by leading us back to the truth of justice. And it is called a wicked world not because of its nature, for it was created good by God, but because of the evils committed in it, as is said in Ephesians 5:16: The days are evil. And Jacob said: the days of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years, few and evil (Genesis 47:9).

Now, although these things come to us through Christ, God the Father is not excluded. Hence, in the third place, the acceptance of the divine will is mentioned. Therefore, he says, according to the will of God and our Father. This means the Father of Christ by nature, who proceeds from eternity as the Word: This day have I begotten you (Psalms 2:7); In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). It also means our Father by adoption: He gave them power to be made the sons of God (John 1:12). In the first interpretation, "God the Father" is taken as the sole person of the Father; in the second, it is taken as the whole Trinity. And because it is from God our Father—that is, from the whole Trinity—that all things come to us through Christ, therefore to the Trinity be glory in itself and honor from others, forever and ever, which means always. Amen. This "Amen" is a mark of confirmation.

Therefore, in summary, you have in the greeting above: the Apostle’s authority, by which he breaks their pride; the power of grace, by which he exhorts them to observe the Gospel; and the insufficiency of the ceremonies of the Law, by which he calls them away from those ceremonies.

After the greeting, the message of the epistle follows. In it, the Apostle refutes their error and then admonishes them for their correction: Stand fast and be not held again under the yoke of bondage (Galatians 5:1). He refutes their error in two ways: on the authority of the Gospel's teaching, and by reason, using the Old Testament: O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you... ? (Galatians 3:1).

He refutes their error by showing the authority of the Gospel's teaching:

1. By showing their fickleness in lightly dismissing the Gospel's teaching.
2. By commending the authority of the Gospel's teaching, as he suggests that in view of the precious value of what they so lightly regard, their error is seen to be that much greater (Galatians 1:11).

Regarding the first point, he does two things:

1. He elaborates on their guilt.
2. He inflicts a punishment (Galatians 1:8).

Concerning the first point, he elaborates on the guilt of both the misled and their deceivers: ...only there are some that trouble you (Galatians 1:7). As to the guilt of the misled, he does three things:

1. He elaborates on the guilt of those who were misled on account of their fickleness of mind. Hence he says, "I wonder." It is as if to say: Although you are aware of the many good things already mentioned that come to you through Christ, and although I instructed you well, you are nevertheless so far and so completely removed (or "transferred") that you seem to have already forgotten. You are removed so soon—that is, in such a short time. With this word, he alludes to their name, for "Galatia" means "transferred." It is as if to say: You are Galatians because you are so quickly transferred. He that is hasty to give credit is light of heart .
2. He magnifies their guilt by considering what they have abandoned. For if reason withdraws and is removed from evil, it is worthy of praise and does well; but when it departs from the good, it is blameworthy. And this is how they were removed from the good. So he says to them: Although it is amazing that you are so quickly and so far removed, there is an additional reason for wonder: you have removed yourselves from Him—that is, from God—and from faith in Him who called you into the grace of Christ. This means you were called into sharing the eternal good that we have through Christ. As Scripture says, Giving thanks to God who hath called you into his marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9). And again: For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them (2 Peter 2:21).
3. He magnifies their guilt by considering what they have turned to, because they have turned not to good but to evil. Hence he says they turned to another gospel—that is, to the Old Law. The Old Law is a good message only in that it announces some good things, namely, temporal and physical ones: If you be willing and will hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land (Isaiah 1:19). Yet it is not completely perfect as the Gospel is, because it does not announce the perfect and highest goods, but small and slight ones.

   The New Law, however, is perfectly and in the full sense a Gospel, that is, a good message, because it announces the greatest goods: heavenly, spiritual, and eternal. And although it is "another gospel" according to the tradition of the deceivers, yet according to my preaching, it is not. For it is different in its promises but not in its typology, because the same reality is contained in the Old Testament and in the New. In the Old, it is present as a figure, but in the New, it is present in its explicit reality. Therefore, it is another gospel if you consider the outward appearances, but regarding the inner substance, it is not another gospel.

Yet while it is not in itself another gospel, it can become another when you consider the guilt of the deceivers. Therefore, in elaborating on their guilt, he says, ...only there are some... that trouble you. These are the deceivers, who corrupt the purity of the understanding with which you were filled with the truth of the faith.

Although the same reality is contained in the Old and New Testaments in terms of inner meaning, as has been said, embracing the Old after accepting the New suggests that the New is not perfect and that the two are different. Hence Paul says, which is not another; only there are some that trouble you. He says this because those deceivers were compelling them to be circumcised after professing faith in the Gospel. By this, they were showing that circumcision is different from Baptism and does something that Baptism cannot do, and for that reason, they are troubling you. I would that they were even cut off who trouble you (Galatians 5:12).

And they do indeed bring you trouble, because they want to pervert the gospel of Christ—that is, the truth of the Gospel's teaching—into the figure of the Law, which is absurd and the greatest of troubles. For a thing ought to be converted into that to which it is ordained. The New Testament and the Gospel of Christ are not ordained to the Old; on the contrary, the Old Law is ordained to the New Law, as a figure is to the truth. Consequently, the figure ought to be converted into the truth, and the Old Law to the Gospel of Christ—not the truth into the figure, or the Gospel of Christ into the Old Law.

This is clear from the way we ordinarily speak. We do not say that a man resembles his image; on the contrary, we say the image resembles the man. They shall be turned to thee and thou shalt not be turned to them (Jeremiah 15:19); The new coming on, you shall cast away the old (Leviticus 26:10).

Then, after elaborating on their guilt, the inflicting of the penalty is set forth when he says, But though we, or an angel from heaven... (Galatians 1:8). In this regard, he does two things:

1. He issues the sentence.
2. He gives a reason for the sentence (Galatians 1:10).

Regarding the first point, he does two things:

1. He presents the authority for his sentence.
2. He passes the sentence (Galatians 1:9).

He shows that his authority for passing sentence is great because it would affect not only the perverters and deceivers, who are subject to him, but also his own equals, like the other apostles, and even those above him, like the angels, if they were guilty of this crime of turning the Gospel into the Old Law. Hence he says that the authority behind the sentence he passes (which is excommunication) has efficacy not only over those who are doing these things, but that even if we—namely, the apostles—or an angel... from heaven, preach a gospel besides that which we have preached, let him be anathema. That is, let him be subject to the sentence we pass.

To clarify the preceding points, three things should be investigated:

1. The meaning of the word anathema. Regarding this, it should be noted that anathema is a Greek word composed of ana, which means "above," and thesis, that is, "a placing," meaning "a placing above." The word arose from an old custom. When the ancients waged war, they sometimes took certain spoils from their enemies that they were unwilling to use for themselves, but instead hung them in a temple or other public place in the city, as if to separate them from the common use of men. Everything so hung up, the Greeks called an anathema.

   From this arose the custom of declaring anything excluded from common use to be "anathematized." Hence, in Joshua 6:17, it is said of Jericho and everything in it that Joshua anathematized it. Consequently, the practice arose even in the Church of declaring "anathema" those who are excluded from the common society of the Church and from partaking of its sacraments.

2. We must seek an explanation for his statement, though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. Here it should be noted that there are three kinds of teachings. The first is that of the philosophers, who arrived at their doctrine with their own reason as their guide. The second is teaching that has been delivered by angels, such as the Old Law, for the Old Law was not issued by a human will but was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (Galatians 3:19). The third teaching was given directly by God Himself, which is the teaching of the Gospel.

   This is confirmed by Scripture: No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him (John 1:18); In these days [He] hath spoken to us by his Son (Hebrews 1:2); and Which, having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him (Hebrews 2:3).

   Now, a teaching passed on by a man can be changed and revoked by another man who knows better, just as one philosopher refutes the sayings of another, or by an angel who has a more penetrating knowledge of the truth. Even a teaching handed down by one angel could be replaced by that of a higher angel or by God. But a teaching that comes directly from God can be nullified by neither man nor angel. Therefore, if a man or an angel were to state anything contrary to what has been taught by God, such a statement would not contradict God’s teaching in order to invalidate or destroy it. Rather, God’s teaching would stand against him, because one who speaks this way should be expelled and prevented from sharing his teaching. Hence, the Apostle says that the dignity of the Gospel's teaching, which has come directly from God, is so great that if a man or even an angel preached another Gospel besides the one he has preached among them, he is anathema—that is, he must be rejected and expelled.

3. We must resolve the objections that arise on this point. The first is that since an equal has no authority over his peers, and even less over his superiors, it seems that the Apostle has no power to excommunicate the other apostles, who are his peers, and certainly not the angels, who are his superiors. As Jesus said, He that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he (Matthew 11:11). Therefore, the anathema seems invalid.

   The answer is that the Apostle passed this sentence not on his own authority, but on the authority of the Gospel's teaching, of which he was a minister. It is the authority of the Gospel itself that teaches that whoever says anything contrary to it must be expelled and cast out. As the Lord says, The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day (John 14:48).

   A second question arises from the words, a gospel besides that which we have preached to you. Does this mean no one may teach or preach anything but what is written in the epistles and Gospels? This seems false, because it is said in 1 Thessalonians 3:10, Praying that we may accomplish those things that are wanting to your faith.

   I answer that nothing is to be taught except what is contained, either implicitly or explicitly, in the Gospels, the epistles, and Sacred Scripture. For Sacred Scripture and the Gospels announce that Christ must be believed in explicitly. Therefore, whatever is contained in them implicitly and fosters their teaching and faith in Christ can be preached and taught. So, when Paul says, besides that which you have received, he means adding something completely alien, as in Revelation 22:18: If any, man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And also, Neither add anything—that is, anything contrary or alien—nor diminish (Deuteronomy 12:32).

Then, when he says, As we said before, so now I say it again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema, he pronounces his sentence on the evil person. He is saying: As I have said of angels and apostles, so I say of the deceivers. If any deceiver preaches a gospel besides that which you have received from me, let him be anathema—that is, excommunicated. And this is the sentence he passes.

Now, it may be asked whether all heretics are excommunicated by this statement. It seems not, because it is said, A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid (Titus 3:10). I answer that a person might be called a heretic either because he errs solely from ignorance, in which case he is not excommunicated for that reason, or because he errs through obstinacy and tries to subvert others, in which case he falls under the canon of the sentence passed. But whether Paul was passing sentence on heretics at that very moment with these words is open to question, since sentences were later passed against heretics in the Councils. Yet it can be said that perhaps he was showing that they deserved to be excommunicated.

Then, when he says, For do I now persuade men, or God?, he gives the reason for his sentence.

1. He gives the reason for his sentence.
2. He discloses his purpose: Or do I seek to please men? (Galatians 1:10).

For someone might say: "Why do you excommunicate in this manner? Perhaps some are your friends or men of some authority. Therefore, you should not act in this way." But the Apostle answers that one should indeed act this way, because the things I say now are not to gain the favor of men but to please God. This is what he means by "do I now"—that is, after my conversion, or in this epistle—"persuade men?" In other words, "Is it my intention to please men or God?" It is as if to say: The things I do, I do to please God alone. We speak, not as pleasing men, but God (1 Thessalonians 2:4); nor do we speak on the authority of men, but of God.

That I do not seek to please men is clear from my intention and purpose. For I do not seek to please men—that is, it is not my intention in converting people to please them alone, but to do it for the honor of God. This is clear, because if I still sought to please men, as I formerly pleased them, I would not be the servant of Christ. The reason is that the two are opposed. More precisely, I would not be Christ's servant if I were to please men for their own sake, without referring it to God. For if I intend now and then to please men so that I might draw them to God, I do not sin. But if I do it in the first way, I am not the servant of Christ.

This is supported by Scripture: For the bed is straitened, so that one must fall out, and a short covering cannot cover both (Isaiah 28:20); No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will sustain the one and despise the other (Matthew 6:24); They have been confounded that please men (Psalms 52:6).

Previously, the Apostle rebuked the Galatians for their fickleness in so quickly setting aside the gospel's teaching; now he shows the dignity of that teaching. In this regard, he does two things:

1. He commends the authority of the gospel's teaching in itself.
2. He commends it on the part of both the other apostles and himself (Galatians 2:1): Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas.

The first part is further divided into two sections:

1. He presents his intention.
2. He reveals his purpose (Galatians 1:13).

Regarding the first point, he does two things:

1. He proposes what he intends.
2. He proves what he proposes (Galatians 1:12).

Therefore, intending to commend the truth of the gospel's teaching, he says, For I give you to understand, brethren... As if to say: I am so certain of the gospel’s authority that I would disbelieve not only men but even angels if they said the contrary; if they were to say something contrary, I would declare them anathema. I have this certainty because one must believe God rather than men or angels. Therefore, since I have this gospel from God, I should have—and do have—the greatest 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; that is, not according to human nature when it is 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 Corinthians 3:3). This is the sense the Apostle takes here; hence he says, not "according to man" in the sense of someone teaching or sending me. As if to say: This gospel cannot be received from men at all, but only from God.

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. By this, he precludes two ways of receiving it. First, he did not receive the authority to preach from man. Regarding this, he says, nor of man—that is, from a mere man—did I receive it—that is, the authority to preach the gospel—but from Christ: And how shall they preach unless they be sent? (Romans 10:15); I have given thee for a light of the Gentiles, for a covenant of the people (Isaiah 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).

Second, he did not receive the knowledge of the gospel from man. Hence he says, nor did I learn it—namely, the gospel—from a mere man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ, that is, by Jesus Christ revealing everything clearly. But to us, God hath revealed them (1 Corinthians 2:10); The Lord hath opened my ear, and I do not resist (Isaiah 50:5), and The Lord has given me a learned tongue, that I should know how to uphold by word him that is weary (Isaiah 50:4). Now this revelation was made to the Apostle when he was taken up into paradise, where he heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter (2 Corinthians 12:4).

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 (Galatians 1:13). He shows that he did not receive it from man before his conversion by pointing to both the hatred he had for the Christian faith and for Christians, and the zeal he had for Judaism: And I made progress in the Jews’ religion above many of my equals in my own nation (Galatians 1:14).

He says, therefore: I say that I did not receive it from man, and this is true of the time before my conversion. This is obvious from my actions at that time and from the hatred I had for the faith. For you yourselves have heard—as it says, But they had heard only: He who persecuted us in times past doth now preach the faith which once he impugned (Galatians 1:23)—of my former way of life, when I was an unbeliever in the Jewish religion, when I lived as a Jew. And he says, my, because the evil we do is from ourselves, but whatever good we do is from God: Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in me (Hosea 13:9).

You have heard how, beyond measure—that is, more than others—he persecuted the church, because he stirred up not only himself to this but rulers as well. For others, when they persecuted, were urged to it by the rulers, but he urged even them on: Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest (Acts 9:1). He also 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, that is, by hunting down Christians and distressing them: I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God (1 Corinthians 15:9); and I wasted it, not spiritually, because I was unable to turn the hearts of the faithful from their faith, but physically, by inflicting bodily punishment on them and throwing 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 (Psalms 128:1).

It is plain, therefore, from the hatred he had for the faith of Christ before his conversion, that he did not receive the gospel from man.

It is also plain from the love and burning zeal he had for Judaism, regarding his outward progress. Hence he says, And I made progress in the Jews’ religion above many of my equals in my own nation. In this, he mentions three things that indicate how great his progress was. For he progressed beyond not just a few but many; not beyond old men incapable of learning, but beyond my equals—that is, young men who were intelligent and capable of progress: It is good for a man, when he has borne the yoke from his youth (Lamentations 3:27). Furthermore, not beyond equals who were foreigners and ignorant of the language, but equals of my own nation—that is, 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, he points 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 if they were his: According to the Law, a Pharisee; according to zeal, persecuting the church of God (Philippians 3:5).

But a question arises from the fact that the aforementioned 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. Therefore, 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 foreign to the words which I shall speak. But to add certain things that were not contrary was lawful for them—namely, certain solemn days and the like, as was done in the time of Mordecai and 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 (Matthew 15:6). Therefore, 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.

After showing that he did not receive the gospel from any human source before his conversion, the Apostle now proves that he did not receive it from any human source after his conversion. In this regard, he makes two points:

1. He shows that he did not receive the gospel from any person at the time of his conversion.
2. He shows that he did not receive it after his conversion either (Galatians 1:18).

Regarding the first point, he does two things:

1. He shows that he did not receive or learn the gospel from the apostles.
2. He shows that he did not receive it from any other believer, stating, I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus (Galatians 1:17).

Concerning the first of these, he does three things:

1. He shows the efficient cause of his conversion.
2. He shows its purpose (Galatians 1:16).
3. He shows its manner: immediately I did not consult with flesh and blood (Galatians 1:16).

In regard to the first point, he notes the twofold cause of his conversion: the good pleasure of God, which is divine election, and the call of the one who converts him. Regarding the first, he says, when it pleased him—namely, God. It was not when I willed, but when it pleased God, because it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy (Romans 9:16). As the psalmist says, The LORD takes pleasure in them that fear him (Psalms 147:11), and for it is God who works in us, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will (Philippians 2:13).

He continues, who separated me—that is, God separated me, a rebellious man. Paul says of himself, I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God (1 Corinthians 15:9). He was a man breathing out threats (Acts 9:1) and a persecutor, to whom the Lord said, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? (Acts 9:4). He was one who said, I who before was a blasphemer (1 Timothy 1:13). Me, I say—a man such as this—He separated from my mother’s womb. Or, taken literally, this means God caused me to be born from my mother’s womb.

It is indeed true that God separates a person from the womb. Even though this is a work of nature, nature is an instrument of God. For this reason, even our own works are attributed to God as their primary author, as the prophet says, For you have wrought all our works for us (Isaiah 26:12). In the same way, any effect is attributed to the principal agent; hence Job says, You have clothed me with skin and flesh (Job 10:11). And he was separated from this womb to be justified, for the same one who makes us also justifies us: from my mother’s womb you are my God (Psalms 22:10).

Alternatively, from my mother’s womb could refer to the synagogue, whose womb is the college of Pharisees who trained him in Judaism: You go around the sea and the land to make one proselyte (Matthew 23:15). In this sense, the synagogue was his mother, as it is written, The sons of my mother have fought against me (Song of Solomon 1:5). Its womb was the Pharisees. From this womb, he was separated by the Holy Spirit to faith in the gospel: separated unto the Gospel of God (Romans 1:1).

A third interpretation is that his mother is the Church of Christ, and the womb is the college of apostles. In this case, God separated him from the womb of the Church—that is, from the college of apostles—for the office of apostleship and as a 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, which is why he is called a Pharisee of the Pharisees. He was zealous for the Law, being more abundantly zealous for the traditions of my fathers (Galatians 1:14).

Regarding the other cause of his conversion, he says, and called me by his grace. There are two kinds of call. One is external, as when God called him with a voice from heaven: Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? ... Go into the city, and there it will be told to you what you must do (Acts 9:4, 6). In a similar way, He called the other apostles. The other call is internal. In this way, God calls through a certain inner instinct by which He touches the heart to turn to Him, as when He calls someone from the path of evil to good. This is by His grace and not our own merits: And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified (Romans 8:30). As Isaiah says, I have raised him up to justice (Isaiah 45:13), and Amos, He that calls the waters of the sea and pours them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name (Amos 5:8).

The purpose of his conversion is stated when he says, to reveal his Son in me. Christ is the purpose. Paul’s conversion is ordered toward Christ in two ways. First, by his works. He says, to reveal his Son, meaning that by what God did toward me—by converting me and forgiving my sins—He revealed what a great act of mercy was bestowed on me. As Paul writes, Jesus Christ came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief (1 Timothy 1:15), and, But I obtained the mercy of God, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief (1 Timothy 1:13). Thus, in his conversion, God revealed His Son in the sense that the Son is called the grace of God. Likewise, God revealed Him in Paul’s actions; hence he says, For I dare not speak of any of those things which Christ has not worked by me, for the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed, by virtue of signs and wonders (Romans 15:18). This is inasmuch as the Son is the power of God. Furthermore, he revealed Him in his preaching: 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 Corinthians 1:23). This is inasmuch as the Son is called the wisdom of God.

Secondly, his conversion is ordered toward Christ by his words. He says, that I might preach him among the Gentiles. 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 you should be my servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to convert the dregs of Israel. Behold, I have given you to be the light of the Gentiles (Isaiah 49:6). And again, For so the Lord has commanded us: that you may 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 (Isaiah 55:4).

The manner of his conversion was perfect, both in its effect and in his understanding. Regarding its effect, he says, immediately I did not consult with flesh and blood. This means he was at once so completely converted that all carnal affection left him: It is easy in the eyes of God on a sudden to make the poor man rich . Here, "flesh and blood" is taken to mean the vices of the flesh, as in, flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:50), for the flesh lusts against the spirit (Galatians 5:17). It can also refer to the affection and love felt toward blood relatives, as when Jesus said, Flesh and blood has not revealed it to you (Matthew 16:17). Thus, the Apostle overcame his own vices and scorned his fellow Jews.

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. This is why he says, Neither did I go to Jerusalem—that is, to be instructed by them.

It was also not necessary for him to be instructed by any other of the faithful; hence he says, but I went into Arabia. It is as if he were saying, "I did not go to places where there were believers who might instruct me. Instead, I went to Arabia, where the people were not instructed in the faith but were unbelievers." Then he adds, and again I returned to Damascus, returning to his origins, for who can say who gave a course to violent showers, or a way for noisy thunder? (Job 38:25).

Someone might object, however, by pointing to Acts 9:25-26: In Damascus they let him down in a basket... and when he had come into Jerusalem, he attempted to join himself to the disciples. According to this, he did go to Jerusalem. To this, I answer that he did go, but not to be instructed. Or, better still, he did not go immediately but only after some time had passed. This is why he says in the next verse, Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18).

After showing that he did not receive the Gospel from any human source before or at the time of his conversion, the Apostle now proves that he did not receive it from man after his conversion either. Instead, he shows how his teaching was approved by men. He addresses this in two parts:

1. He shows how his teaching was approved by the apostles.
2. He shows how it was approved by the rest of the faithful (Galatians 1:21).

Regarding the first point, he first states the fact, and second, he confirms the truth of his statement with an oath: before God, I lie not (Galatians 1:20).

He says, therefore: Although I did not go to the apostles to be instructed by them at the beginning of my conversion, because I had already been instructed by Christ, I was nevertheless moved by charity. After three years, I went to Jerusalem because I had long desired to see Peter—not to be taught by him, but to visit him. As it is written, And visiting thy beauty thou shalt not sin (Job 5:24).

I stayed with him for fifteen days. This number is significant, being the sum of eight and seven. Eight is the number of the New Testament, in which the eighth day of the resurrection is awaited, while seven is the number of the Old Testament, which celebrates the seventh day. Thus, he stayed with Peter for fifteen days, conversing with him on the mysteries of the Old and New Testaments.

To prevent anyone from supposing that he might have been instructed by others, even if not by Peter, he adds that this was not the case. Hence he says he saw no other apostle by whom he might be instructed, seeing no one except James, the brother of the Lord. For he saw him in Jerusalem.

Regarding James, it should be known that he was the Bishop of Jerusalem and was named James the Less because he was called to be an apostle after another James. Many things are recorded about him in the book of Acts (Acts 15:13 and following). He also wrote a canonical epistle. There are various explanations for why he is called the brother of the Lord.

Elvidius claimed it was because James was the son of the Blessed Virgin. According to him, the Blessed Virgin conceived and gave birth to Christ, and after Christ's birth, she conceived other sons with Joseph. 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 marrying the Blessed Virgin, Joseph had another wife with whom he had James and other children. After she died, he took the Blessed Virgin as his wife, from whom Christ was born—though she was not known by Joseph but, as the Gospel says, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Because children are named after their father and Joseph was considered the father of Christ, James was called the Lord's brother for this reason, even though he was not the Virgin's son. But this is also false. For if the Lord desired a virgin mother entrusted to the care of a virgin, how would He have allowed her husband not to be a virgin and 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 Mary. They say that Anne, the mother of the Blessed Virgin, first married Joachim, from whom was born Mary, the mother of the Lord. When Joachim died, she married his brother, Cleophas, and bore Mary of Cleophas, from whom were born James the Less, Jude, and Simon. After Cleophas died, she married a third man named Salome, with whom she conceived and bore another Mary, called Mary Salome, from whom were born James the Great and his brother John.

Jerome, however, denies this opinion on two counts. First, Salome is not a man's name, as is clear in Greek, but the name of the woman who was the Blessed Virgin's sister. She was the mother of James the Great and John by Zebedee, just as Mary of Cleophas was the mother of James the Less, Jude, and Simon by Alpheus.

This James is singled out from his other brothers and called the brother of the Lord for two reasons: first, a likeness in appearance, for he had a facial resemblance to Christ; and second, a likeness in their lives, for he imitated the character of Christ. Alternatively, he is called the brother of Christ because Alpheus, his father, was related to Joseph. Since the Jews were accustomed to tracing ancestry on the father’s side, and Christ was considered the son of Joseph, as is said in Luke (3:23), James was called the brother of the Lord more so than the others, who were related to Jesus only on His mother’s side.

Furthermore, “brother” is used here in the sense of “kinsman.” In the Scriptures, people are called brothers in several ways:

• By nature: Jacob begot Judas and his brethren (Matthew 1:2).
• As kinsmen or blood relations: Let there be no quarrel, I beseech thee, between me and thee... for we are brethren (Genesis 13:8).
• By race, as all who speak the same language are called brothers: Thou mayest not make a man of another nation king, that is not thy brother (Deuteronomy 17:15).
• By affection, as all who are friends and share the same love are called brothers: Because I found not Titus my brother (2 Corinthians 2:13).
• By religion, as all Christians who have one rule of life are called brothers: For one is your master; and all you are brethren (Matthew 23:8); Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Psalms 132:1).
• In general, as all people are called brothers because they are ruled and protected by one God: Have we not all one father? (Malachi 2:10).

When he says, Now the things which I write to you, behold, before God I lie not, he confirms his statements with an oath. It is as if to say: “The things I now write to you about myself are so well known that it is obvious I am not lying.” He says this “before God,” meaning with God as his witness. The Apostle takes an oath here not for a slight reason, but for the sake of those who needed it in order to believe. If he had not sworn an oath, they would not have believed him. As he says elsewhere, Before God, in Christ we speak (2 Corinthians 2:17), and God is my witness (Romans 1:9).

But what does the Lord say in Matthew 5:37? Let your speech be: Yea, Yea; No, No. And that which is over and above these is of evil. The answer is that this “evil” refers to the evil of the one who does not believe, or to the evil of a situation that compels one to swear an oath.

Then, when he says, Afterwards, I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, he shows how he was approved by the other churches of Judea. Here he does three things:

1. First, he shows where he lived, namely, in Cilicia. Hence he says, then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, which was his native land. (It was here that he was caught up into paradise.) This is because it is said in Acts 22:3: Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia.
2. Second, he shows how he was known by the others: not by sight, but by report and reputation. Hence he says, I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea, which were in Christ—that is, in the faith of Christ. As it is written, As unknown and yet known (2 Corinthians 6:8). From this, it is evident that the churches of Judea did not teach him. Instead, they had only heard reports about him, that he who persecuted us in times past, doth now preach the faith which once he impugned.
3. Third, he shows how he was approved by them: they glorified God in me. That is, in his conversion, they glorified the One who converted him by His grace. As it is written, The beast of the field shall glorify me (Isaiah 43:20).