Thomas Aquinas Commentary Galatians 1:18-24

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord`s brother. Now touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. Then I came unto the regions of Syria and Cilicia. And I was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: but they only heard say, He that once persecuted us now preacheth the faith of which he once made havoc; and they glorified God in me." — Galatians 1:18-24 (ASV)

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?

p>

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).