:
1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) 2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: 5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. 11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. 20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. 21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; 22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: 23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. 24 And they glorified God in me.
Previous
Next
[AD 108] Ignatius of Antioch on Galatians 1:1
Having beheld your bishop, I know that he was not selected to undertake the ministry which pertains to the common [weal], either by himself or by men, or out of vainglory, but by the love of Jesus Christ, and of God the Father, who raised Him from the dead; at whose meekness I am struck with admiration, and who by His silence is able to accomplish more than they who talk a great deal. For he is in harmony with the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, even as the strings are with the harp, and is no less blameless than was Zacharias the priest. Wherefore my soul declares his mind towards God a happy one, knowing it to be virtuous and perfect, and that his stability as well as freedom from all anger is after the example of the infinite meekness of the living God.

Source: Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians
[AD 155] Polycarp of Smyrna on Galatians 1:1
But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who "raised Him from the dead.

Source: Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:1
He professes himself to be "an apostle"-to use his own, words-"not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ." Of course, any one may make a profession concerning himself; but his profession is only rendered valid by the authority of a second person.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:1
Should you, however, disapprove of these types, the Acts of the Apostles, at all events, have handed down to me this career of Paul, which you must not refuse to accept. Thence I demonstrate that from a persecutor he became "an apostle, not of men, neither by man; " thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason for rejecting your defence of him, and for bearing fearlessly your taunt.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:1
To the Galatians he declares himself to be "an apostle not of men, neither by man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father." You possess indeed all his writings, which testify plainly to the same effect, and set forth Two-God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.

Source: Against Praxeas
[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on Galatians 1:1
And Jacob says, "Who shall rouse him up? "And that is just what David and Paul both refer to, as when Paul says, "and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead."

Source: Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments
[AD 309] Pamphilus of Caesarea on Galatians 1:1
We are clearly given to understand that Jesus Christ was not a [mere] man but was of divine nature.… Because he knew him to be of a more sublime nature, he therefore said that he was not appointed by a man.

Source: APOLOGY FOR ORIGEN
[AD 370] Gaius Marius Victorinus on Galatians 1:1
His reason for saying “through Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” is that what God does he does through Christ. And so that people would not say, “How did you learn from Christ?” since Paul had not previously been a follower of Christ and Christ was dead, he said that God raised Christ from the dead. By this he implies that it is Christ himself, who taught him, who has been raised from the dead—raised, that is, by the power of God the Father.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.1
[AD 380] Apostolic Constitutions on Galatians 1:1
I have taught the churches of the believers to reverence one almighty, invisible, and incomprehensible God. And this teaching has been given me, not from men, nor through men, but through Jesus Christ,

Source: CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:1
[The first verse] is full of great passion and strong sentiment; and not the prologue only but, as it were, the whole letter. For always to speak mildly to those who are being taught, even when they need vehemence, is not the part of a teacher but of a corrupter and an enemy.
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:1
To say “who raised him from the dead” is to encapsulate the essence of God’s beneficence toward us, which coincides in no small part with his present purpose. For the majority are much less apt to listen to words that establish the majesty of God than to those which demonstrate his good will to humanity.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.1-3
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:1-3
"Paul, an Apostle, (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead;) and all the brethren which are with me, unto the Churches of Galatia: Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

The exordium is full of a vehement and lofty spirit, and not the exordium only, but also, so to speak, the whole Epistle. For always to address one's disciples with mildness, even when they need severity is not the part of a teacher but it would be the part of a corrupter and enemy. Wherefore our Lord too, though He generally spoke gently to His disciples, here and there uses sterner language, and at one time pronounces a blessing, at another a rebuke. Thus, having said to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona," [Matthew 16:17] and having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession, shortly afterwards He says, "Get behind Me, Satan: you are a stumbling block unto Me." [Matthew 16:23] Again, on another occasion, "Are you also even yet without understanding?" [Matthew 15:16] And what awe He inspired them with appears from John's saying, that, when they beheld Him conversing with the Samaritan woman, though they reminded Him to take food, no one ventured to say, "What seekest Thou, or why do you speak with her?" [John 4:27] Thus taught, and walking in the steps of his Master, Paul has varied his discourse according to the need of his disciples, at one time using knife and cautery, at another, applying mild remedies. To the Corinthians he says, "What will you? Shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in a spirit of meekness?" [1 Corinthians 6:21] but to the Galatians, "O foolish Galatians." [Galatians 3:1] And not once only, but a second time, also he has employed this reproof, and towards the conclusion he says with a reproachful allusion to them, "Let no man trouble me;" [Galatians 6:17] but he soothes them again with the words, "My little children, of whom I am again in travail:" [Galatians 4:19] and so in many other instances.

Now that this Epistle breathes an indignant spirit, is obvious to every one even on the first perusal; but I must explain the cause of his anger against the disciples. Slight and unimportant it could not be, or he would not have used such vehemence. For to be exasperated by common matters is the part of the little- minded, morose, and peevish; just as it is that of the more redolent and sluggish to lose heart in weighty ones. Such a one was not Paul. What then was the offense which roused him? It was grave and momentous, one which was estranging them all from Christ, as he himself says further on, "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if you receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing;" [Galatians 5:2] and again, "You who would be justified by the Law, you are fallen away from Grace." [Galatians 5:4] What then is this? For it must be explained more clearly. Some of the Jews who believed, being held down by the preposessions of Judaism, and at the same time intoxicated by vain-glory, and desirous of obtaining for themselves the dignity of teachers, came to the Galatians, and taught them that the observance of circumcision, sabbaths, and new-moons, was necessary, and that Paul in abolishing these things was not to be borne. For, said they, Peter and James and John, the chiefs of the Apostles and the companions of Christ, forbade them not. Now in fact they did not forbid these things, but this was not by way of delivering positive doctrine, but in condescension to the weakness of the Jewish believers, which condescension Paul had no need of when preaching to the Gentiles; but when he was in Judæa, he employed it himself also. But these deceivers, by withholding the causes both of Paul's condescension and that of his brethren, misled the simpler ones, saying that he was not to be tolerated, for he appeared but yesterday, while Peter and his colleagues were from the first — that he was a disciple of the Apostles, but they of Christ — that he was single, but they were many, and pillars of the Church. They accused him too of acting a part; saying, that this very man who forbids circumcision observes the rite elsewhere, and preaches one way to you and another way to others.

Since Paul then saw the whole Galatian people in a state of excitement, a flame kindled against their Church, and the edifice shaken and tottering to its fall, filled with the mixed feelings of just anger and despondency, (which he has expressed in the words, "I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my voice," [Galatians 4:20]) he writes the Epistle as an answer to these charges. This is his aim from the very commencement, for the underminers of his reputation had said, The others were disciples of Christ but this man of the "Apostles." Wherefore he begins thus, "Paul, an Apostle not from men, neither through man." For, these deceivers, as I was saying before, had said that this man was the last of all the Apostles and was taught by them, for Peter, James, and John, were both first called, and held a primacy among the disciples, and had also received their doctrines from Christ Himself; and that it was therefore fitting to obey them rather than this man; and that they forbad not circumcision nor the observance of the Law. By this and similar language and by depreciating Paul, and exalting the honor of the other Apostles, though not spoken for the sake of praising them, but of deceiving the Galatians, they induced them to adhere unseasonably to the Law. Hence the propriety of his commencement. As they disparaged his doctrine, saying it came from men, while that of Peter came from Christ, he immediately addresses himself to this point, declaring himself an apostle "not from men, neither through man." It was Ananias who baptized him, but it was not he who delivered him from the way of error and initiated him into the faith; but Christ Himself sent from on high that wondrous voice, whereby He inclosed him in his net. For Peter and his brother, and John and his brother, He called when walking by the seaside, [Matthew 4:18] but Paul after His ascension into heaven. [Acts 9:3-4] And just as these did not require a second call, but straightway left their nets and all that they had, and followed Him, so this man at his first vocation pressed vigorously forward, waging, as soon as he was baptized, an implacable war with the Jews. In this respect he chiefly excelled the other Apostles, as he says, "I labored more abundantly than they all;" [1 Corinthians 15:10] at present, however, he makes no such claim, but is content to be placed on a level with them. Indeed his great object was, not to establish any superiority for himself, but, to overthrow the foundation of their error. The not being "from men" has reference to all alike for the Gospel's root and origin is divine, but the not being "through man" is peculiar to the Apostles; for He called them not by men's agency, but by His own.

But why does he not speak of his vocation rather than his apostolate, and say, "Paul" called "not by man?" Because here lay the whole question; for they said that the office of a teacher had been committed to him by men, namely by the Apostles, whom therefore it behooved him to obey. But that it was not entrusted to him by men, Luke declares in the words, "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul." [Acts 13:2]

From this passage it is manifest that the power of the Son and Spirit is one, for being commissioned by the Spirit, he says that he was commissioned by Christ. This appears in another place, from his ascription of the things of God to the Spirit, in the words which he addresses to the elders at Miletus: "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in the which the Holy Ghost has made you bishops." [Acts 20:28] Yet in another Epistle he says, "And God has set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers." [1 Corinthians 12:28] Thus he ascribes indifferently the things of the Spirit to God, and the things of God to the Spirit. Here too he stops the mouths of heretics, by the words "through Jesus Christ and God the Father;" for, inasmuch as they said this term "through" was applied to the Son as importing inferiority, see what he does. He ascribes it to the Father, thus teaching us not to prescribe laws to the ineffable Nature, nor define the degrees of Godhead which belong to the Father and Son. For to the words "through Jesus Christ" he has added, "and God the Father;" for if at the mention of the Father alone he had introduced the phrase "through whom," they might have argued sophistically that it was peculiarly applicable to the Father, in that the acts of the Son were to be referred to Him. But he leaves no opening for this cavil, by mentioning at once both the Son and the Father, and making his language apply to both. This he does, not as referring the acts of the Son to the Father, but to show that the expression implies no distinction of Essence. Further, what can now be said by those, who have gathered a notion of inferiority from the Baptismal formula — from our being baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? For if the Son be inferior because He is named after the Father, what will they say seeing that, in the passage before us, the Apostle beginning from Christ proceeds to mention the Father? — but let us not even utter such a blasphemy, let us not swerve from the truth in our contention with them; rather let us preserve, even if they rave ten thousand times, the due measures of reverence. Since then it would be the height of madness and impiety to argue that the Son was greater than the Father because Christ was first named, so we dare not hold that the Son is inferior to the Father, because He is placed after Him in the Baptismal formula.

"Who raised Him from the dead."

Wherefore is it, O Paul, that, wishing to bring these Judaizers to the faith, you introduce none of those great and illustrious topics which occur in your Epistle to the Philippians, as, "Who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God," [Philippians 2:6] or which you afterwards declared in that to the Hebrews, "the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of His substance;" [Hebrews 1:3] or again, what in the opening of his Gospel the son of thunder sounded forth, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" [John 1:1.] or what Jesus Himself oftentimes declared to the Jews, "that His power and authority was equal to the Father's?" [John 5:19-27, etc.] Do you omit all these, and make mention of the economy of His Incarnation only, bringing forward His cross and dying? "Yes," would Paul answer. For had this discourse been addressed to those who had unworthy conceptions of Christ, it would have been well to mention those things; but, inasmuch as the disturbance comes from persons who fear to incur punishment should they abandon the Law, he therefore mentions that whereby all need of the Law is excluded, I mean the benefit conferred on all through the Cross and the Resurrection. To have said that "in the beginning was the Word," and that "He was in the form of God, and made Himself equal with God," and the like, would have declared the divinity of the Word, but would have contributed nothing to the matter in hand. Whereas it was highly pertinent thereto to add, "Who raised Him from the dead," for our chiefest benefit was thus brought to remembrance, and men in general are less interested by discourses concerning the majesty of God, than by those which set forth the benefits which come to mankind. Wherefore, omitting the former topic, he discourses of the benefits which had been conferred on us.

But here the heretics insultingly exclaim, "Lo, the Father raises the Son!" For when once infected, they are wilfully deaf to all sublimer doctrines; and taking by itself and insisting on what is of a less exalted nature, and expressed in less exalted terms, either on account of the Son's humanity, or in honor of the Father, or for some other temporary purpose, they outrage, I will not say the Scripture, but themselves. I would fain ask such persons, why they say this? Do they hope to prove the Son weak and powerless to raise one body? Nay, verily, faith in Him enabled the very shadows of those who believed in Him to effect the resurrection of the dead. [Acts 5:15] Then believers in Him, though mortal, yet by the very shadows of their earthly bodies, and by the garments which had touched these bodies, could raise the dead, but He could not raise Himself? Is not this manifest madness, a great stretch of folly? Have you not heard His saying, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up?" [John 2:19] and again, "I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again?" [John 10:18] Wherefore then is the Father said to have raised Him up, as also to have done other things which the Son Himself did? It is in honor of the Father, and in compassion to the weakness of the hearers.

"And all the brethren which are with me."

Why is it that he has on no other occasion in sending an epistle added this phrase? For either he puts his own name only or that of two or three others, but here has mentioned the whole number and so has mentioned no one by name.

On what account then does he this?

They made the slanderous charge that he was singular in his preaching, and desired to introduce novelty in Christian teaching. Wishing therefore to remove their suspicion, and to show he had many to support him in his doctrine, he has associated with himself "the brethren," to show that what he wrote he wrote with their accord.

"Unto the Churches of Galatia."

Thus it appears, that the flame of error had spread over not one or two cities merely, but the whole Galatian people. Consider too the grave indignation contained in the phrase, "unto the Churches of Galatia:" he does not say, "to the beloved" or "to the sanctified," and this omission of all names of affection or respect, and this speaking of them as a society merely, without the addition "Churches of God," for it is simply "Churches of Galatia," is strongly expressive of deep concern and sorrow. Here at the outset, as well as elsewhere, he attacks their irregularities, and therefore gives them the name of "Churches," in order to shame them, and reduce them to unity. For persons split into many parties cannot properly claim this appellation, for the name of "Church" is a name of harmony and concord.

"Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

This he always mentions as indispensible, and in this Epistle to the Galatians especially; for since they were in danger of falling from grace he prays that they may recover it again, and since they had come to be at war with God, he beseeches God to restore them to the same peace.

"God the Father."

Here again is a plain confutation of the heretics, who say that John in the opening of his Gospel, where he says "the Word was God," used the word Θεὸς] without the article, to imply an inferiority in the Son's Godhead; and that Paul, where he says that the Son was "in the form of God," did not mean the Father, because the word Θεὸς is without the article. For what can they say here, where Paul says, ἀ πὸ Θεοῦ Πατρος, and not ἀ πὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ? And it is in no indulgent mood towards them that he calls God, "Father," but by way of severe rebuke, and suggestion of the source whence they became sons, for the honor was vouchsafed to them not through the Law, but through the washing of regeneration. Thus everywhere, even in his exordium, he scatters traces of the goodness of God, and we may conceive him speaking thus: O you who were lately slaves, enemies and aliens, what right have you suddenly acquired to call God your Father? It was not the Law which conferred upon you this relationship; why do you therefore desert Him who brought you so near to God, and return to your tutor?

But the Name of the Son, as well as that of the Father, had been sufficient to declare to them these blessings. This will appear, if we consider the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ with attention; for it is said, "you shall call His Name Jesus; for it is He that shall save His people from their sins;" [Matthew 1:21] and the appellation of "Christ" calls to mind the unction of the Spirit.

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:1
Not in pride, as some suppose, but by necessity, he said that he was not an apostle from men or through man … so that by this he might confound those who were alleging that Paul was not one of the twelve apostles or ordained by his elders. This might also be taken as aimed obliquely at Peter and the others, because the gospel was committed to him not by the apostles but by the same Jesus Christ who had chosen those apostles.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.1
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:1
(Chapter 1, Verse 1) Paul, an apostle not from men nor by man but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. He does not propose himself as an apostle arrogantly, as some think, but necessarily, neither from men nor by man. Instead, he does so through Jesus Christ and God the Father, in order to confound those who were belittling Paul outside of the twelve apostles and claiming that he suddenly emerged from somewhere or was ordained by the elders, with this authority. However, it can also be understood indirectly as being said to Peter and the others, that the Gospel was not handed down to him by the apostles, but by Jesus Christ himself, who had chosen those apostles. But all of this is prepared so that no one who disputes the burdens of the Law for the sake of the Gospel may be able to object: 'but Peter said this,' 'but the apostles decreed this,' 'but your predecessors determined something else.' Indeed, he makes this clearer in the following, now seemingly in hidden speech, by citing that nothing contributed by those who seem to be something is relevant to him, and that he himself resisted Peter to his face, saying that he was not compelled by any necessity to yield to the hypocrisy of the Jews. But if it seems rash to some that he spoke against the apostles, even though secretly, who had gone to Jerusalem in order to confer with them about the Gospel, lest perhaps he had run in vain or had run in vain, let us transfer that understanding there: Even to this day, the apostles are sent by the Jewish patriarchs, from whom I also believe that the Galatians, led astray, began to observe the Law, or certainly other Jews who believed in Christ had gone to Galatia, who asserted that Peter, too, was the leader of the apostles, and that James, the Lord's brother, observed the ceremonies of the Law. Therefore, in order to distinguish between those who are sent by men and those who are sent by Christ, he took the following beginning: Paul, an apostle, not from men, nor through man. But apostle, which properly is a Hebrew word, means one who is sent, which also signifies Silas (or Silai), to whom a name was given by being sent. The Hebrews say that among themselves there are certain prophets and holy men who are both prophets and apostles, and others who are only prophets. Finally, Moses, to whom it is said, 'And I will send you to Pharaoh' (Exod. III, 10, 11); and he responds, 'Provide someone else whom you will send.' And Isaiah, to whom God speaks, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go to this people?' (Isai. VI, 8) ? There were also apostles and prophets. Therefore, we can understand that John the Baptist is also to be called a prophet and apostle, since the Scripture says, 'There was a man sent from God, whose name was John' (John I, 6). And in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. III), Paul, according to his usual custom, did not put his own name or the title of Apostle before it, because he was going to speak about Christ: Therefore, having a high priest and an apostle of our confession, Jesus; it was not fitting that where Christ was to be called an apostle, Paul should also be called an apostle. There are, however, four kinds of apostles. One, which is neither from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father; another, which is indeed from God, but through man; a third, which is from man, not from God; and a fourth, which is neither from God, nor through man, nor from man, but from itself. The first category can include Isaiah, the other prophets, and the apostle Paul himself, who was sent not by humans or through a human, but by God the Father and Christ. In the second category is Jesus, the son of Nun, who was indeed appointed by God as an apostle, but through a human, Moses. The third category is when someone is ordained by the favor and zeal of the people. As we see now, many are being appointed to the priesthood not by the judgment of God, but by the favor of the redeemed crowd. The fourth [sign] is [the sign] of false prophets and false apostles, about whom the apostle [Paul] says: 'Such pseudo-apostles are workers of iniquity, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ, who say, "Thus says the Lord," and the Lord did not send them' (2 Corinthians 11:13). But not such [was] the apostle Paul, who was sent not by men nor through man, but by God the Father through Jesus Christ. From this it is approved that the heresies of Ebion and Photinus should also be refuted, [namely] that our Lord Jesus Christ is God, since the apostle, being sent by Christ to preach the Gospel, denies that he was sent by man. In this place, other heresies arise, which claim that Christ's flesh is pretended and assert that Christ is God, not man. There is also a new heresy that declares a divided dispensation of Christ. Thus, among the shipwrecks of so many false teachings, if one confesses Christ as a man, the Ebionites and Photinus creep in; if one contends that he is God, the Manicheans and Marcion, authors of a new doctrine, bubble up. In the community, they hear that Christ is both God and man. Not that there is another God and another man, but rather the one who was always God deemed it worthy to become man for our salvation. It should also be known that in the Apostle of Marcion it is not written that Christ is explained by God the Father, but rather is raised up by himself, as it is written: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (John II, 19). And elsewhere: No one takes my soul from me; but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again (Ibid., X, 18).

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Galatians 1:1
The one sent “from men” is a liar; the one sent “through man” tells the truth, as God too, who is truthful, may send truth through men. The one, therefore, who is sent not from men or through man but “through God” derives his truthfulness from the One who makes truthful even those sent through men.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 2
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Galatians 1:1
So that no one might suppose the Son to be a mere ancillary to the Father, finding the word through in this passage, he immediately adds “but through God the Father, who raised him from the dead.” For he has applied the word through to both persons, teaching that this usage does not imply any difference of nature. And the phrase “the one who raised him from the dead” does not hint at any defect in the Son’s divinity, for the suffering did not happen to the Godhead but illustrates the concord of the gospel, because it was not the Son alone who bestowed the mystery of the divine incarnation, but the Father himself is a sharer in this dispensation.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1
[AD 585] Cassiodorus on Galatians 1:1
When he calls himself an apostle not of human making but through Christ Jesus, he does away with those who had only human authority for styling themselves apostles. The churches at that time were being thrown into turmoil by false preachers. He greets these churches with all the brethren who are with him. In that greeting he also blesses them, so that their fitness to receive the word of the Lord may be established. SUMMARY OF GALATIANS 1.1.1.Paul Speaks with Passion. CHRYSOSTOM: [The first verse] is full of great passion and strong sentiment; and not the prologue only but, as it were, the whole letter. For always to speak mildly to those who are being taught, even when they need vehemence, is not the part of a teacher but of a corrupter and an enemy.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.1-3
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:1
Those from among the Jews who had believed, being on the one hand possessed by the prejudice to Judaism and on the other hand, drunk with vainglory, wishing also to ascribe to themselves the authority of teachers, came to the nation of the Galatians and taught the necessity of being circumcised, of keeping Sabbaths and new moons and of being intolerant of Paul who abolishes these. They argued that those around Peter and James and John, who are the first of the Apostles, do not prohibit these things. Indeed Paul appeared yesterday and today, whereas those around Peter were first. He is the disciple of the Apostles, whereas they are disciples of Christ. He is alone, whereas they are many and pillars of the Church. Seeing, then, in front of him an entire nation and a fire to have been lit, starting from the Church of the Galatians, he writes this Letter to everybody offering a word of apology and right at the start he takes up what they were saying undermining his reputation — namely, that the others were disciples of Christ whereas he became the disciple of the Apostles.
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:1
Why did he not start with what befits the Godhead of Christ, but with the very passion? He did so because they rebelled against him as those who would be punished if they deviated from the law; and so he mentions that thing through which every need of the law has been thrown out. I mean, of course, the cross and the resurrection, which provided the cause for the salvation of all.
[AD 370] Gaius Marius Victorinus on Galatians 1:2
Whereas he was accustomed to call himself simply Paul the apostle to the Romans and Corinthians, in order to startle the Galatians and reprove them for a grave error he has joined with himself all the brothers who were with him, saying that they themselves were writing to the Galatians, making them feel the shame of thinking contrary to everyone, so as to give more weight to his own injunctions and the gospel that he preaches.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.1
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:2
Why does he nowhere else add this in his letters? For he puts his own name alone, or names two or three; but here he speaks of the whole community and therefore mentions no one’s name. Why then does he do this? Because their slander against him was that he was the only person proclaiming this and was introducing novelty to doctrine. So as to destroy their calumny, therefore, and to show that his opinions are shared by many, he adds on “the brothers,” showing that what he writes he writes with their consent.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.1-3
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:2
This fire had overtaken not one city, or two or three, but the whole Galatian people. And let me point out here his extreme irritation. He does not write “to the beloved” or “to the sanctified” but “to the churches of Galatia.” This is the act of one who is intensely displeased and showing his pain, that he addresses them not with love nor with the names of honor but only by that of the congregation. He does not even say “to the churches of God” but “to the churches of Galatia.”

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.1-3
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:2
(Vers. 2.) And all the brothers who are with me, to the churches of Galatia. In other Epistles, Sosthenes and Silvanus, and sometimes even Timothy, are mentioned at the beginning. In this one, however, because the authority of many was necessary, the name of all the brothers is assumed. They themselves perhaps were also of the circumcision, and were not held in contempt by the Galatians. For it is of great importance to correct the people, to have the agreement and consensus of many in one matter. But when he says 'to the churches of Galatia,' it should be noted that here he writes not only to one church of one city, but to the churches of the whole province, and he calls them churches, which he later accuses of being corrupt by error. From this it is to be understood that the Church can be said in two ways: the one which has no spot or wrinkle and truly is the body of Christ, and the one which gathers in the name of Christ without full and perfect virtues (Ephesians 5). The wise are called in two ways, both those who are full of perfect virtue and those who are just beginning and are in progress. Concerning the perfect, it is said: 'I will send to you wise men' (Luke 11:49). Concerning the foolish: 'Reprove a wise man, and he will love thee' (Proverbs 8:9). For he who is full and complete in virtue does not need correction. This sense can be understood in regard to the other virtues as well, namely that the courageous and prudent, pious, chaste, just, and temperate are sometimes understood correctly, sometimes incorrectly.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Galatians 1:2
The epistle to the Galatians was written from Rome. The divine apostle had already seen and taught them.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 6.18
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:2
He indicates by this the necessity of the Letter; for it was not only one Church that prompted him to such a diligent action, but a multitude of Churches.
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:2
Again he takes up the point they made, namely, that Paul is one, and the Apostles, many. Thus he brought in with him a whole multitude, and not as in other Letters, only Paul, or Paul and Timothy, or Silvanus as well.
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Galatians 1:3
He shows that the human race is sustained by the goodness of both, as much Father as Son. Nor does he indicate that the Son is less than the Father when he calls him our Lord, nor that the Father is greater when he calls him our God. He will not be a true Father unless he is also Lord, nor will the Son be a true Lord unless he is also God.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.3
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:3
He calls God “Father” here not to flatter them but vehemently reproving them and reminding them how it was that they became sons. For it was not through the law but through the bath of regeneration that they were deemed worthy of this honor.… “You slaves and enemies and aliens,” [he says], “why are you so quick to call God your Father? Surely it was not the law that gave you this kinship? So why do you desert the one who was leading you to this sense of affiliation and return to your previous mentor?”

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.1-3
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:3
(Verse 3) Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. Not as in the other Epistles, he puts the grace of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, and peace, through which without merit of works, and sins were granted to us previously, and peace was granted after forgiveness: but wisely he now argues the cause against those who were prevented by the Law, and thought they could be justified by works, so that they would know that they should continue in grace, in what they had begun.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Galatians 1:3
The grace of God, by which our sins are forgiven, is the condition of our being reconciled to him, whereas peace is that wherein we are reconciled.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 3 [1B.1.3-5]
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:3
He lays this down everywhere, and especially now he writes to the Galatians, because they were running the risk of falling away from grace, and returning to circumcision.
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Galatians 1:4
For when the human race was held in the dominion of the devil, the Savior offered himself to the willing devil, so that deceiving him by the power of his virtue—for the devil wanted to take possession of one whom he was unable to hold—he could carry off those whom the devil was detaining by a false right.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.4.1
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Galatians 1:4
Now Christ by atoning for our transgressions not only gave us life but also made us his own, so that we might be called children of God, made so through faith. What a great error it is, therefore, to go under the law again after receiving grace.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.4.2
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:4
Ver. 4. "Who gave himself for our sins."

Thus it appears, that the ministry which He undertook was free and uncompelled; that He was delivered up by Himself, not by another. Let not therefore the words of John, "that the Father gave His only-begotten Son" [John 3:16] for us, lead you to derogate from the dignity of the Only-begotten, or to infer therefrom that He is only human. For the Father is said to have given Him, not as implying that the Son's ministry was a servile one, but to teach us that it seemed good to the Father, as Paul too has shown in the immediate context: "according to the will of our God, and Father." He says not "by the command," but "according to the will," for inasmuch as there is an unity of will in the Father and the Son, that which the Son wills, the Father wills also.

"For our sins," says the Apostle; we had pierced ourselves with ten thousand evils, and had deserved the gravest punishment; and the Law not only did not deliver us, but it even condemned us, making sin more manifest, without the power to release us from it, or to stay the anger of God. But the Son of God made this impossibility possible for he remitted our sins, He restored us from enmity to the condition of friends, He freely bestowed on us numberless other blessings.

Ver. 4. "That He might deliver us out of this present evil world."

Another class of heretics seize upon these words of Paul, and pervert his testimony to an accusation of the present life. Lo, say they, he has called this present world evil, and pray tell me what does "world" [age] αἴων] mean but time measured by days and seasons? Is then the distinction of days and the course of the sun evil? No one would assert this even if he be carried away to the extreme of unreasonableness. "But" they say, "it is not the 'time,' but the present 'life,' which he has called evil." Now the words themselves do not in fact say this; but the heretics do not rest in the words, and frame their charge from them, but propose to themselves a new mode of interpretation. At least therefore they must allow us to produce our interpretation, and the rather in that it is both pious and rational. We assert then that evil cannot be the cause of good, yet that the present life is productive of a thousand prizes and rewards. And so the blessed Paul himself extols it abundantly in the words, "But if to live in the flesh, if this is the fruit of my work, then what I shall choose I wont not;" [Philippians 1:22] and then placing before himself the alternative of living upon earth, and departing and being with Christ, he decides for the former. But were this life evil, he would not have thus spoken of it, nor could any one, however strenuous his endeavor, draw it aside into the service of virtue. For no one would ever use evil for good, fornication for chastity, envy for benevolence. And so, when he says, that "the mind of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be," [Romans 8:7] he means that vice, as such, cannot become virtue; and the expression, "evil world," must be understood to mean evil actions, and a depraved moral principle. Again, Christ came not to put us to death and deliver us from the present life in that sense, but to leave us in the world, and prepare us for a worthy participation of our heavenly abode. Wherefore He says to the Father, "And these are in the world, and I come to You; I pray not that You should take them from the world, but that You should keep them from the evil," [John 17:11-15] i.e., from sin. Further, those who will not allow this, but insist that the present life is evil, should not blame those who destroy themselves; for as he who withdraws himself from evil is not blamed, but deemed worthy of a crown, so he who by a violent death, by hanging or otherwise, puts an end to his life, ought not to be condemned. Whereas God punishes such men more than murderers, and we all regard them with horror, and justly; for if it is base to destroy others, much more is it to destroy one's self. Moreover, if this life be evil, murderers would deserve a crown, as rescuing us from evil. Besides this, they are caught by their own words, for in that they place the sun in the first, and the moon in the second rank of their deities, and worship them as the givers of many goods, their statements are contradictory. For the use of these and the other heavenly bodies, is none other than to contribute to our present life, which they say is evil, by nourishing and giving light to the bodies of men and animals and bringing plants to maturity. How is it then that the constitution of this "evil life" is so ministered to by those, who according to you are gods? Gods indeed they are not, far from it, but works of God created for our use; nor is this world evil. And if you tell me of murderers, of adulterers, of tomb-robbers, these things have nothing to do with the present life, for these offenses proceed not from that life which we live in the flesh, but from a depraved will. For, if they were necessarily connected with this life, as embraced in one lot with it, no man would be free or pure from them, for no man can escape the characteristic accidents of humanity, such as, to eat and drink, to sleep and grow, to hunger and thirst, to be born and die, and the like; no man can ever become superior to these, neither sinner nor just man, king nor peasant, We all are subject to the necessity of nature. And so if vice were an essential element of this life, no one could avoid it, any more than the things just mentioned. And let me not be told that good men are rare, for natural necessity is insuperable by all, so that as long as one virtuous man shall be found, my argument will in no way be invalidated. Miserable, wretched man! What is it you say? Is this life evil, wherein we have learned to know God, and meditate on things to come, and have become angels instead of men, and take part in the choirs of the heavenly powers? What other proof do we need of an evil and depraved mind?

"Why then," they say, "does Paul call the present life evil?" In calling the present world [age] evil, he has accommodated himself to our usage, who are wont to say, "I have had a bad day," thereby complaining not of the time itself, but of actions or circumstances. And so Paul in complaining of evil principles of action has used these customary forms of speech; and he shows that Christ has both delivered us from our offenses, and secured us for the future. The first he has declared in the words, "Who gave Himself for our sins;" and by adding, "that He might deliver us out of this present evil world," he has pronounced our future safety. For neither of these did the Law avail, but grace was sufficient for both.

Ver. 4. "According to the will of our God and Father."

Since they were terrified by their notion that by deserting that old Law and adhering to the new, they should disobey God, who gave the Law, he corrects their error, and says, that this seemed good to the Father also: and not simply "the Father," but "our Father," which he does in order to affect them by showing that Christ has made His Father our Father.

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:4
Since they thought that they were disobeying God, as the giver of the law, and were afraid to forsake the old and pass to the new, he corrects this reasoning of theirs, saying that this also pleased the Father. And he said not simply “of the Father” but “of your Father.” He adds this immediately, exhorting them by showing that Christ made his Father our Father.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.4
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:4
Neither did the Son give himself without the Father’s will, nor did the Father give up the Son without the Son’s will.… The Son gave himself, that he himself, as righteousness, might do away with the unrighteousness in us. Wisdom gave itself that it might oust foolishness.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.3
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:4
(Verse 4) He gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. Neither did the Son give himself for our sins without the will of the Father, nor did the Father deliver the Son without the Son's will; but this is the will of the Son, to fulfill the will of the Father, as he himself speaks in the psalm: 'I desired to do your will, O my God' (Psalm 40:8). But the Son gave Himself, in order to overthrow the injustice that was in us with justice itself. Wisdom offered itself in order to conquer ignorance. Holiness and strength presented themselves in order to eliminate impurity and weakness. And in this way, not only in the future age according to the promised hope in which we believe, but also here in the present age, He has freed us: while we have died together with Christ, we are transformed into a new way of thinking, and we are not of this world, from which we are rightly not loved. The question is how the present age is called evil. For heretics often take advantage of this, asserting that one is the creator of light and the future age, another of darkness and the present. But we say, that it is not so much the age itself, which runs day and night, years and months, that is called evil, but rather the things that happen in the age: how it is said to be sufficient for its own evil (Matthew VI): and the days of Jacob are said to be few and evil (Genesis XLVII). Not that the period of time in which Jacob lived was bad, but that the things he endured through various trials tested him. Finally, during the time he served for his wives and struggled with many difficulties (Gen. XXIX), Esau was at rest, and so the same period of time was good for some and bad for others; and it would not be written in Ecclesiastes: Do not say that my former days (were better) than these (Eccles. VII, 11), unless in comparison to the bad. Where John says: The whole world is set in evil (1 John 5:19). Not that the world itself is evil, but that evil things happen in the world because of humans. Let us eat and drink, they say, for tomorrow we will die (Isaiah 22:17). And the Apostle himself says: Redeeming the time, because the days are evil (Ephesians 5:16). Even the fields and forests are defamed, when they are full of robberies, not because the earth and woods sin, but because they have also drawn infamy to the places of murder. We detest both the sword by which human blood is shed and the cup in which poison has been mixed, not the sword or the cup themselves, but those who have misused them. Thus, this world, which is a span of time, is not inherently good or evil, but is called such by those who are in it. Therefore, the delusions and fables of Valentinius, who invented thirty aeons based on the mention of ages in the Scriptures, are to be despised. He claimed that they are beings and that he produced as many aeons as the Aeneas's sow produced litters, using squares and octads, decades and duodecades. Also to be sought is what is the difference between saeculum and saeculum saeculi, or saecula saeculorum, and where it is placed for a brief span of time, where it is placed for eternity: because in Hebrew saeculum, that is, Olam (), where the letter Vav is added, signifies eternity, but when it is written without Vav it signifies the fiftieth year, which they call Jubilee. For this reason, that Hebrew who, because of his wife and children, loving his Lord, willingly subjects himself to perpetual servitude, is commanded to serve forever (Exod. XXI), that is, until the fiftieth year. Both the Moabites and the Ammonites (Deuteronomy XXIII) are not allowed to enter the Church of the Lord until the fifteenth generation and even forever: because every hard condition of the Jubilee was solved by His coming. Some say that the same sense exists in the ages of ages as in the holy of holies, in the heavens of heavens, in the works of works, in the Songs of Songs: and they have the same difference as the heavens have from those who belong to the heavens, and as the holy things which are holier than the comparison of the holy things, and as the works which are better than the comparison of the works, and as the Songs which excel among all the Songs: in the same way, they say, the ages have the same relationship to the comparison of ages. Therefore, they have determined that the present age should be counted from the time when the heavens and the earth were created, and it will continue until the end of the world, when Christ will judge all things. They also recall the past and advance to a higher level, debating about past and future ages, whether they have been good or bad, or will be in the future. They delve into such deep questions that they have even written books and countless volumes on this subject. But as for the conclusion of the prologue of Paul in the Hebrew language: Amen (), the Seventy translated it as γένοιτο, that is, let it be done. Aquila rendered it as πεπιστωμένος, truly or faithfully. This is also constantly embraced in the Gospel by the Savior, affirming his own words by Amen.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Galatians 1:4
By “the evil age” he does not mean the elements, as the Manichaeans portentously assert, but the present life, that is, this secular human way of living, in which sin has made a home. For, being enveloped in a mortal nature, some of us venture on the greater sins, some on the lesser. But when we make the transition to that immortal life, and are free from our present corruption and have put on incorruption, we shall be made able to conquer sin.… Yet the present age as such is not vile, but vileness is the enterprise of some who live in it.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.3-4
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:4
He did not speak about the time, but pronounced the present life to be evil.
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:4
We have incurred innumerable evils, and have become responsible for the last punishment; for the law not only has not led anyone to reconciliation, but, to condemnation, and besides, it is incapable of emancipating anyone, or putting an end to God’s wrath, when it reveals sin; whereas the Son of God, not only has made possible what was impossible, but also has remitted sins and has placed enemies to the position of friends.
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:5
Ver. 5. "To whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen."

This too is new and unusual, for we never find the word, "Amen" placed at the beginning of an Epistle, but a good way on; here, however he has it in his beginning, to show that what he had already said contained a sufficient charge against the Galatians, and that his argument was complete, for a manifest offense does not require an elaborate crimination. Having spoken of the Cross, and Resurrection, of redemption from sin and security for the future, of the purpose of the Father, and the will of the Son, of grace and peace and His whole gift, he concludes with an ascription of praise.

Another reason for it is the exceeding astonishment into which he was thrown by the magnitude of the gift, the superabundance of the grace, the consideration who we were, and what God had wrought, and that at once and in a single moment of time. Unable to express this in words, he breaks out into a doxology, sending up for the whole world an eulogium, not indeed worthy of the subject, but such as was possible to him. Hence too he proceeds to use more vehement language; as if greatly kindled by a sense of the Divine benefits, for having said, "To whom be the glory for ever and ever, Amen," he commences with a more severe reproof.

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:5
We nowhere find the word amen placed at the beginning or in the prologue of his letters but after many words. But here, showing that what he has said is a sufficient accusation of the Galatians and that the argument is closed, he made this the prologue. For it does not take long to establish charges that are patently true.… But not only for this reason does he do it but because he is exceedingly astonished by the magnitude of the gift, the excess of grace and what God did at once in a tiny space of time for those in such a state. Unable to express this in words, Paul breaks into a doxology. He holds up for the whole world a blessing, not indeed worthy of the subject but such as was possible to him.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.5
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Galatians 1:5
How much more, therefore, ought men not to claim the credit for themselves if they perform any good work, when the very Son of God in the Gospel said that he sought not his own glory. Nor had he come to do his own will but the will of him who sent him! This will and glory of the Father the apostle now commemorates, that he also, by the example of the Lord who sent him, may indicate that he seeks not his own glory or the performance of his own will in the preaching of the gospel, just as he says a little later, “if I were to please men, I should not be a servant of Christ.”

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 3 [1B.1.3-5]
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:5
He refers to the evil deeds, to the distorted free choice.
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Galatians 1:6
Leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. But if one should suppose that another origin
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:6
They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you? " and, "Ye did run so well; who hath hindered you? " and how the epistle actually begins: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him, who hath called you as His own in grace, to another gospel." That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they "were yet carnal," who "required to be fed with milk," being as yet "unable to bear strong meat; " who also "thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know.

Source: The Prescription Against Heretics
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:6
When, again, he mentioned "certain false brethren as having crept in unawares," who wished to remove the Galatians into another gospel, he himself shows that that adulteration of the gospel was not meant to transfer them to the faith of another god and christ, but rather to perpetuate the teaching of the law; because he blames them for maintaining circumcision, and observing times, and days, and months, and years, according to those Jewish ceremonies which they ought to have known were now abrogated, according to the new dispensation purposed by the Creator Himself, who of old foretold this very thing by His prophets.

Source: Against Marcion Book I
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:6
Since also he makes mention of no other god (and he could have found no other opportunity of doing so, more suitable than when his purpose was to set forth the reason for the abolition of the law-especially as the prescription of a new god would have afforded a singularly good and most sufficient reason), it is clear enough in what sense he writes, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him who hath called you to His grace to another gospel" -He means) "another" as to the conduct it prescribes, not in respect of its worship; "another" as to the discipline it teaches, not in respect of its divinity; because it is the office of Christ's gospel to call men from the law to grace, not from the Creator to another god.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:6
Is he then the same God as He who gave Satan power over the person of Job that his "strength might be made perfect in weakness? " How is it that the censurer of the Galatians still retains the very formula of the law: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established? " How again is it that he threatens sinners "that he will not spare" them -he, the preacher of a most gentle god? Yea, he even declares that "the Lord hath given to him the power of using sharpness in their presence!" Deny now, O heretic, (at your cost, ) that your god is an object to be feared, when his apostle was for making himself so formidable!

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 258] Cyprian on Galatians 1:6
Finally, this seditious practice has already begun to appear; for in our province, through some of its cities, an attack has been made by the multitude upon their rulers, and they have compelled that peace to be given to them immediately which they all cried out had been once given to them by the martyrs and confessors. Their rulers, being frightened and subdued, were of little avail to resist them, either by vigour of mind or by strength of faith. With us, moreover, some turbulent spirits, who in time past were with difficulty governed by me, and were delayed till my coming, were inflamed by this letter as if by a firebrand, and began to be more violent, and to extort the peace granted to them. I have sent a copy to you of the letters that I wrote to my clergy about these matters, and, moreover, what Caldonius, my colleague, of his integrity and faithfulness wrote, and what I replied to him. I have sent both to you to read. Copies also of the letter of Celerinus, the good and stout confessor, which he wrote to Lucian the same confessor-also what Lucian replied to him,-I have sent to you; that you may know both my labour in respect of everything, and my diligence, and might learn the truth itself, how moderate and cautious is Celerinus the confessor, and how reverent both in his humility and fear for our faith; while Lucian, as I have said, is less skilful concerning the understanding of the Lord's word, and by his facility, is mischievous on account of the dislike that he causes for my reverential dealing. For while the Lord has said that the nations are to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and their past sins are to be done away in baptism; this man, ignorant of the precept and of the law, commands peace to be granted and sins to be done away in the name of Paulus; and he says that this was commanded him by Paulus, as you will observe in the letter sent by the same Lucian to Celerinus, in which he very little considered that it is not martyrs that make the Gospel, but that martyrs are made by the Gospel; since Paul also, the apostle whom the Lord called a chosen vessel unto Him, laid down in his epistle: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Source: Epistle XXII
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:6
Ver. 6. "I marvel that you are so quickly removing from Him that called you in the grace of Christ, unto a different Gospel."

Like the Jews who persecuted Christ, they imagined their observance of the Law was acceptable to the Father, and he therefore shows that in doing this they displeased not only Christ, but the Father also, for that they fell away thereby not from Christ only, but from the Father also. As the old covenant was given not by the Father only, but also by the Son, so the covenant of grace proceeded from the Father as well as the Son, and Their every act is common: "All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine." [John 15:16] By saying that they had fallen off from the Father, he brings a twofold charge against them, of an apostasy, and of an immediate apostasy. The opposite extreme a late apostasy, is also blameworthy, but he who falls away at the first onset, and in the very skirmishing, displays an example of the most extreme cowardice, of which very thing he accuses them also saying: "How is this that your seducers need not even time for their designs, but the first approaches suffice for your overthrow and capture? And what excuse can you have? If this is a crime among friends, and he who deserts old and useful associates is to be condemned, consider what punishment he is obnoxious to who revolts from God that called him." He says, "I marvel," not only by way of reproof, that after such bounty, such a remission of their sins, such overflowing kindness, they had deserted to the yoke of servitude, but also in order to show, that the opinion he had had of them was a favorable and exalted one. For, had he ranked them among ordinary and easily deceived persons, he would not have felt surprise. "But since you," he says, "are of the noble sort and have suffered, much, I do marvel." Surely this was enough to recover and lead them back to their first expressions. He alludes to it also in the middle of the Epistle, "Did you suffer so many things in vain? If it be indeed in vain." [Galatians 3:4] "You are removing;" he says not, "you are removed," that is, "I will not believe or suppose that your seduction is complete;" this is the language of one about to recover them, which further on he expresses yet more clearly in the words, "I have confidence to you-ward in the Lord that you will be none otherwise minded." [Galatians 5:10]

"From Him that called you in the grace of Christ."

The calling is from the Father, but the cause of it is the Son. He it is who has brought about reconciliation and bestowed it as a gift, for we were not saved by works in righteousness: or I should rather say that these blessings proceed from Both; as He says, "Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine." [John 17:10] He says not "you are removing from the Gospel" but "from God who called you," a more frightful expression, and more likely to affect them. Their seducers did not act abruptly but gradually, and while they removed them from the faith in fact, left names unchanged. It is the policy of Satan not to set his snares in open view; had they urged them to fall away from Christ, they would have been shunned as deceivers and corrupters, but suffering them so far to continue in the faith, and putting upon their error the name of the Gospel, without fear they undermined the building employing the terms which they used as a sort of curtain to conceal the destroyers themselves. As therefore they gave the name of Gospel to this their imposture, he contends against the very name, and boldly says, "unto a different Gospel,"—

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:6
And he did not say “from the gospel” but “from God,” for he used terms that were more horrifying and more likely to astound them. For those who wished to deceive them did not do so all at once but gently estranged them from the faith in fact, leaving the names unchanged. For such are the wiles of the devil, not to make apparent the instruments of his hunt. For if they had said, “Depart from Christ,” the Galatians would have shunned them as deceivers and corrupters. As it was, the deceivers allowed them still to remain in the faith while they were undermining the whole edifice with impunity. The language these tunnelers used was covered with these familiar names as with awnings.
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:6
The one who is carried away after a long time is worthy of blame, but the one who falls at the first attack and in the initial skirmish has furnished an example of the greatest weakness. And with this he charges them also, saying “What is this, that those who deceive you do not even need time, but the first assault suffices to rout and capture you?” … At the same time he shows in what great and high estimation he holds them. For if he had thought them mere nobodies and easily deceived, he would not have been surprised by what occurred.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.6
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:6-7
Not another gospel, because all that is false is insubstantial, and that which is contrary to truth finally has no existence.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.6
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:6
The word for “being carried away” is first found in Genesis where God carries Enoch away and he is not found. … The one whom God carries away is not found by his enemies … but he whom the devil carries away is carried into that which appears to be but is not.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.6
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:6
(Verse 6) I am amazed that you are so quickly shifting away from him who called you into the grace of Christ Jesus, to a different gospel which is not another. There are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. We read about the word 'translation' first in Genesis (Gen. 5), where Enoch was translated by God and was not found. And in the books of Kings afterwards (1 Kings 21), when Ahab turned his wife Jezebel from the worship of God to the worship of idols, to do all that the Amorites did, whom the Lord destroyed before the face of the children of Israel. But since there are two translations, one is from God, the other from the devil. Whoever is translated by God is not found by his enemies: nor can the deceiver ambush him. For I think that this signifies and is not found. But whoever is translated by the devil, in this he is translated because he appears to be, but is not. Moreover, the wise men of the world call those who are translated from one teaching to another, translated, like that Dionysius (whose opinion was that pain is not evil: after being overwhelmed by misfortunes and pain of torment, he began to affirm that pain is the greatest of all evils) was called Transposed by them, or Translated, because departing from his previous decree, he fell into the opposite. And so Paul marvels, first because they have been transferred from the freedom of the Gospel to the servitude of legal works. Secondly, because they have been transferred so quickly: for it is not easy to be transferred away from someone's guilt, and to be transferred quickly; just as in martyrdom, not the same punishment is inflicted on one who immediately jumps to denial without struggle and torture, and on one who, between stakes, ropes, and fires, distorted and compelled, denies what he believed. The preaching of the Gospel was still recent, not much time had passed since the Apostle had led the Galatians from idols to Christ. He wonders how quickly they have turned away from Him, to whom they had recently become Christians. And the place itself is remarkable, which can be read in its proper order: I wonder that you are so quickly transferring yourselves from Christ Jesus, who called you by his grace, saying: I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Mark 2:17). For by grace you have been saved, through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. (Ephesians 2:8) But, he says, you have been transferred to another Gospel, which is not another: because everything that is false does not stand, and what is contrary to the truth does not exist, like this: 'Do not give, O Lord, your scepter to those who are not.' (Esther 14:12) And the things that were not, God called into being, in order to make what is not. But if this is said about those who believed in the same God and had the same Scriptures, that they have been transferred to another Gospel, which is not the Gospel, what should we think about Marcion and other heretics, who reject the Creator and falsely pretend to be followers of another God, Christ? Those who do not adhere to the interpretation of the law and letter, or engage in the battle between flesh and spirit, fall and crumble, but they are in discord with the entire authority of the Church. But beautifully he says: Unless there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the Gospel of Christ. They want, he says, to change, pervert, and trouble the Gospel of Christ: but they are not able. For it is the nature of this Gospel that it cannot be anything other than true. Everyone who interprets the Gospel with a different spirit and mind than what is written, disturbs and perverts the Gospel of Christ, turning what is in front into what is behind, and what is behind into what is in front. If someone follows only the letter, they put the later things in the face. If someone relies on Jewish interpretations, they send behind those things which are established in their nature in the face. Moreover, it is appropriately said that the word 'translation' is adapted to the Galatians: for Galatia in our language means 'translation'.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Galatians 1:6-7
If it were another gospel other than the one that the Lord has given through himself or through some other, it would not be a gospel.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 4 [1B.1.6-9]
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Galatians 1:6
He is saying, “You have not departed from this teaching to that but from the one who called you.… The very Father who gave the law is the one who called you to this gospel.… And if you desert this gospel, you will not find another. For the Lord does not preach some things through us and others through the other apostles.”

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.6-7
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:6
This, he says, has raised within me much surprise, because those who were taught the mystery of grace in such a way that they could become teachers of others, were so easily persuaded by deceivers.
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:6
Just as Peter says, that “there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:7
For nobody had induced them to apostatize from the Creator, that they should seem to "be removed to another gospel," simply when they return again to the Creator. When he adds, too, the words, "which is not another," he confirms the fact that the gospel which he maintains is the Creator's.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:7
So that there are two gospels for two gods; and the apostle made a great mistake when he said that "there is not another" gospel, since there is (on the hypothesis) another; and so he might have made a better defence of his gospel, by rather demonstrating this, than by insisting on its being but one.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:7
Ver. 7. "Which is not another Gospel."

And justly, for there is not another. Nevertheless the Marcionites are misled by this phrase, as diseased persons are injured even by healthy food, for they have seized upon it, and exclaim, "So Paul himself has declared there is no other Gospel." For they do not allow all the Evangelists, but one only, and him mutilated and confused according to their pleasure. Their explanation of the words, "according to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ," [Romans 16:25] is sufficiently ridiculous; nevertheless, for the sake of those who are easily seduced, it is necessary to refute it. We assert, therefore, that, although a thousand Gospels were written, if the contents of all were the same, they would still be one, and their unity no wise infringed by the number of writers. So, on the other hand, if there were one writer only, but he were to contradict himself, the unity of the things written would be destroyed. For the oneness of a work depends not on the number of its authors, but on the agreement or contradictoriness of its contents. Whence it is clear that the four Gospels are one Gospel; for, as the four say the same thing, its oneness is preserved by the harmony of the contents, and not impaired by the difference of persons. And Paul is not now speaking of the number but of the discrepancy of the things spoken. With justice might they lay hold of this expression, if the Gospels of Matthew and Luke differed in the signification of their contents, and in their doctrinal accuracy; but as they are one and the same, let them cease being senseless and pretending to be ignorant of these things which are plain to the very children.

Ver. 7. "Only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ."

That is to say, you will not recognize another Gospel, so long as your mind is sane, so long as your vision remains healthy, and free from distorted and imaginary phantoms. For as the disordered eye mistakes the object presented to it, so does the mind when made turbid by the confusion of evil thoughts. Thus the madman confounds objects; but this insanity is more dangerous than a physical malady, for it works injury not in the regions of sense, but of the mind; it creates confusion not in the organ of bodily vision, but in the eye of the understanding.

"And would pervert the Gospel of Christ." They had, in fact, only introduced one or two commandments, circumcision and the observance of days, but he says that the Gospel was subverted, in order to show that a slight adulteration vitiates the whole. For as he who but partially pares away the image on a royal coin renders the whole spurious, so he who swerves ever so little from the pure faith, soon proceeds from this to graver errors, and becomes entirely corrupted. Where then are those who charge us with being contentious in separating from heretics, and say that there is no real difference between us except what arises from our ambition? Let them hear Paul's assertion, that those who had but slightly innovated, subverted the Gospel. Not to say that the Son of God is a created Being, is a small matter. Know you not that even under the elder covenant, a man who gathered sticks on the sabbath, and transgressed a single commandment, and that not a great one, was punished with death? [Numbers 15:32-36] and that Uzzah, who supported the Ark when on the point of being overturned, was struck suddenly dead, because he had intruded upon an office which did not pertain to him? [2 Samuel 6:6-7] Wherefore if to transgress the sabbath, and to touch the falling Ark, drew down the wrath of God so signally as to deprive the offender of even a momentary respite, shall he who corrupts unutterably awful doctrines find excuse and par don? Assuredly not. A want of zeal in small matters is the cause of all our calamities; and because slight errors escape fitting correction, greater ones creep in. As in the body, a neglect of wounds generates fever, mortification, and death; so in the soul, slight evils overlooked open the door to graver ones. It is accounted a trivial fault that one man should neglect fasting; that another, who is established in the pure faith, dissembling on account of circumstances, should surrender his bold profession of it, neither is this anything great or dreadful; that a third should be irritated, and threaten to depart from the true faith, is excused on the plea of passion and resentment. Thus a thousand similar errors are daily introduced into the Church, and we have become a laughing-stock to Jews and Greeks, seeing that the Church is divided into a thousand parties. But if a proper rebuke had at first been given to those who attempted slight perversions, and a deflection from the divine oracles, such a pestilence would not have been generated, nor such a storm have seized upon the Churches. You will now understand why Paul calls circumcision a subversion of the Gospel. There are many among us now, who fast on the same day as the Jews, and keep the sabbaths in the same manner; and we endure it nobly or rather ignobly and basely. And why do I speak of Jews seeing that many Gentile customs are observed by some among us; omens, auguries, presages, distinctions of days, a curious attention to the circumstances of their children's birth, and, as soon as they are born, tablets with impious inscriptions are placed upon their unhappy heads, thereby teaching them from the first to lay aside virtuous endeavors, and drawing part of them at least under the false domination of fate. But if Christ in no way profits those that are circumcised, what shall faith hereafter avail to the salvation of those who have introduced such corruptions? Although circumcision was given by God, yet Paul used every effort to abolish it, because its unseasonable observance was injurious to the Gospel. If then he was so earnest against the undue maintenance of Jewish customs, what excuse can we have for not abrogating Gentile ones? Hence our affairs are now in confusion and trouble, hence have our learners being filled with pride, reversed the order of things throwing every thing into confusion, and their discipline having been neglected by us their governors, they spurn our reproof however gentle. And yet if their superiors were even more worthless and full of numberless evils, it would not be right for the disciple to disobey. It is said of the Jewish doctors, that as they sat in Moses' seat, their disciples were bound to obey them, though their works were so evil, that the Lord forbad His disciples to imitate them. What excuse therefore is there for those who insult and trample on men, rulers of the Church, and living, by the grace of God, holy lives? If it be unlawful for us to judge each other, much more is it to judge our teachers.

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:7
They wish, he says, to disturb the gospel of Christ but cannot prevail, because it is of such a nature that it cannot be other than the truth.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.6
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Galatians 1:7
Just as with royal currency—anyone who cuts off a little from the impress has debased the whole currency—so one who makes even the smallest change in sound faith adulterates the whole.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:7
He rightly said, “those who disturb,” and not “those who teach,” or “those who persuade,” so as to show that the whole case was entirely one of deceit.”
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Galatians 1:8
But it is my purpose, as I reckon, and not without reason, to live according to the Word, and to understand what is revealed;

Source: Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book I
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:8
If, therefore, even "an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel" (than theirs), he would be called accursed by us.

Source: The Prescription Against Heretics
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:8
To be sure, an amender of that Gospel, which had been all topsy-turvy from the days of Tiberius to those of Antoninus, first presented himself in Marcion alone-so long looked for by Christ, who was all along regretting that he had been in so great a hurry to send out his apostles without the support of Marcion! But for all that, heresy, which is for ever mending the Gospels, and corrupting them in the act, is an affair of man's audacity, not of God's authority; and if Marcion be even a disciple, he is yet not "above his master; " if Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, "Whether it be I or they, so we preach; " if Marcion be a prophet, even "the spirits of the prophets will be subject to the prophets," for they are not the authors of confusion, but of peace; or if Marcion be actually an angel, he must rather be designated "as anathema than as a preacher of the gospel," because it is a strange gospel which he has preached.

Source: Against Marcion Book IV
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:8
But perhaps, to avoid this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed," because he was aware that the Creator was going to introduce a gospel! But you thus entangle yourself still more.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:8
His meaning, however, is clear, for he has mentioned himself first (in the anathema): "But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel." It is by way of an example that he has expressed himself.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:8
To this angel, indeed, of Philumene, the apostle will reply in tones like those in which he even then predicted him, saying, "Although an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." To the arguments, however, which have been indicated just above, we have now to show our resistance.

Source: On the Flesh of Christ
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:8
In like manner, in the passage, "If even an angel of heaven preach unto you any other gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema," he calls attention to the artful influence of Philumene, the virgin friend of Apelles.

Source: On the Flesh of Christ
[AD 328] Alexander of Alexandria on Galatians 1:8
To these Arius and Achilles opposing themselves, and those who with them are the enemies of the truth, have been expelled from the Church, as being aliens from our holy doctrine, according to the blessed Paul, who says, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed; even though he feign himself an angel from heaven."
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Galatians 1:8
Let no one be surprised that the apostle, when quieting ferocious characters, was so annoyed. He is indignant, for the sake of the Galatians’ salvation, with the enemies of the Christian way of life. For this indignation shows that it is no light sin to transfer allegiance to the law after receiving faith.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.9.1
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:8-9
Ver. 8, 9. "But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema."

See the Apostle's wisdom; to obviate the objection that he was prompted by vainglory to applaud his own doctrine, he includes himself also in his anathema; and as they betook themselves to authority, that of James and John, he mentions angels also saying, "Tell me not of James and John; if one of the most exalted angels of heaven corrupt the Gospel, let him be anathema." The phrase "of heaven" is purposely added, because priests are also called angels. "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger [angel] of the Lord of hosts." [Malachi 2:7] Lest therefore it should be thought that priests are here meant, by the term "angels," he points out the celestial intelligences by the addition, "from heaven." And he says not, if they preach a contrary Gospel, or subvert the whole of the true one, let them be anathema; but, if they even slightly vary, or incidentally disturb, my doctrine. "As we have said before, so say I now again." That his words might not seem to be spoken in anger, or with exaggeration, or with recklessness he now repeats them. Sentiments may perhaps change, when an expression has been called forth by anger, but to repeat it a second time proves that it is spoken advisedly, and was previously approved by the judgment. When Abraham was requested to send Lazarus, he replied, "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them: if they hear them not, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead." [Luke 16:31] And Christ introduces Abraham thus speaking, to show that He would have the Scriptures accounted more worthy of credence, even than one raised from the dead: Paul too, (and when I say Paul, I mean Christ, who directed his mind,) prefers them before an angel come down from heaven. And justly, for the angels, though mighty, are but servants and ministers, but the Scriptures were all written and sent, not by servants, but by God the Lord of all. He says, if "any man" preach another Gospel to you than that which we have preached — not "if this or that man:" and herein appears his prudence, and care of giving offense, for what needed there still any mention of names, when he had used such extensive terms as to embrace all, both in heaven and earth? In that he anathemized evangelists and angels, he included every dignity, and his mention of himself included every intimacy and affinity. "Tell me not," he exclaims, "that my fellow apostles and colleagues have so spoken; I spare not myself if I preach such doctrine." And he says this not as condemning the Apostles for swerving from the message they were commissioned to deliver; far from it, (for he says, whether we or they thus preach;) but to show, that in the discussion of truth the dignity of persons is not to be considered.

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:8
This could be understood as a hyperbolic statement, not meaning that an apostle or an angel could preach otherwise than they had spoken.… [Yet] angels are also mutable if they have not held fast to their ground.… Lucifer, who rose in the morning, also fell. He who dispensed deceit to all nations is to be trampled on the earth.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.8
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:8
(Verse 8) But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. This statement can also be understood hyperbolically, not that either an apostle or an angel could preach differently than they had once said: but even if it were possible for both apostles and angels to be changed, one must not deviate from what had once been accepted, especially since the apostle himself demonstrates the steadfastness of his faith elsewhere, saying: I know that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:38). I speak the truth, I do not lie, with my conscience bearing witness (Rom. IX, 1). Indeed, these words are not those of one who can ever depart from the Christian faith and love. However, those who do not want this to be understood hypothetically, but truly: that is, that even apostles and angels can be turned to worse things, they oppose it with what even Paul himself knew, that he could stumble if he acted too lazily, saying: But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when preaching to others, I myself should become disqualified (I Cor. IX, 27). Angels also are mutable, who have not preserved their principality; but leaving their own habitation, are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day (Jude, VI). ||The nature of God alone is immutable, of whom it is written: But thou art always the selfsame (Psalm 101: 28). And of himself: For I am the Lord your God, and I change not (Malachi 3: 6). Lucifer has fallen, who once shone brightly; and the one who was once sent to all nations has been crushed on the earth. In this place, the very learned man Tertullian elegantly writes against Apelles and his virgin Philumena, whom a certain angel, possessed by a diabolical and perverse spirit, claimed to be. This angel, according to the prophecy of the Holy Spirit foretold by the Apostle, was cursed long before the birth of Apelles. Furthermore, ἀνάθεμα, a word proper to the Jews, is used both in the book of Joshua (Joshua 6:7) and in the book of Numbers (Numbers 21), when the Lord commanded that everything in Jericho and the detestable Midianites be devoted to destruction and to anathema. Let us question those who assert that Christ and the Apostle Paul, the beloved of God and hitherto unknown, are either the son or the servant who knows not how to curse and does not know how to condemn anyone: how does their Apostle now, in the language of the Jews, that is, of the Creator, use it, and wish to destroy either an angel or an apostle, when he himself is not accustomed to avenge? Moreover, what he added, as we have foretold, and now I say again, shows that he, being careful of this very thing from the beginning, had denounced anathema to those who would preach otherwise, and now that it has been preached, he enforces the anathema which he had foretold before. Therefore, they accused him of doing one thing in Judea and teaching another, and they pronounced a curse on the angel, whom it was even known to be greater than his predecessors, the apostles, so that the authority of Peter and John would not be considered great, since it was not allowed for him who had taught them before, nor for the angel to preach differently than they had learned once. Therefore, he mentioned himself and the angel by name, but the others without a name. If anyone, he said, were to proclaim the gospel to you without doing harm to your predecessors; and yet, he would secretly reveal their names.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Galatians 1:8
He mentioned the angels, not speculating that any of the holy angels would say something contrary to the divine gospel, for he knew this to be impossible. But through this he reprehended every novelty of humanity.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.8
[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on Galatians 1:8
And again he says: "For if he who comes preaches another Christ whom we have not preached, or ye receive another spirit that ye have received not, or another gospel which ye have not obtained, ye will rightly be kept back."
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:8
See the apostolic prudence! He includes himself in the anathema, so that no one might say that he constructs his own dogmas on account of vainglory; and he mentioned the angels because they took refuge in authorities, i.e. James and John. Do not tell me, he says, about James and John, for even one of the angels, who are first, should be anathema in corrupting the Gospel.
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:9
Lest you should think that the words came from passion or were spoken hyperbolically or through a loss of self-control, he says the same things over again.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.9
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:9
He indicates that he initially, fearing this very thing, denounced an anathema on those who would preach in this way. Now, after it has been preached, he decrees the anathema that he formerly predicted.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.8
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:10
Oh blasphemy, bordering on martyrdom, which now attests me to be a Christian, while for that very account it detests me! The cursing of well-maintained Discipline is a blessing of the Name. "If," says he, "I wished to please men, I should not be Christ's servant." But the same apostle elsewhere bids us take care to please all: "As I," he says, "please all by all means.

Source: On Idolatry
[AD 258] Cyprian on Galatians 1:10
For our own part, it befits our conscience, dearest brother, to strive that none should perish going out of the Church by our fault; but if any one, of his own accord and by his own sin, should perish, and should be unwilling to repent and to return to the Church, that we who are anxious for their well-being should be blameless in the day of judgment, and that they alone should remain in punishment who refused to be healed by the wholesomeness of our advice. Nor ought the reproaches of the lost to move us in any degree to depart from the right path and from the sure rule, since also the apostle instructs us, saying, "If I should please men, I should not be the servant of Christ." There is a great difference whether one desires to deserve well of men or of God. If we seek to please men, the Lord is offended. But if we strive and labour that we may please God, we ought to contemn human reproaches and abuse.

Source: Epistle LIV
[AD 258] Cyprian on Galatians 1:10
Therefore, dearest brother, endeavour that the undisciplined should not be consumed and perish, that as much as you can, by your salutary counsels, you should rule the brotherhood, and take counsel of each one with a view to his salvation. Strait and narrow is the way through which we enter into life, but excellent and great is the reward when we enter into glory. Let those who have once made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven please God in all things, and not offend God's priests nor the Lord's Church by the scandal of their wickedness. And if, for the present, certain of our brethren seem to be made sorry by us, let us nevertheless remain in our wholesome persuasion, knowing that an apostle also has said, "Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? " But if they shall obey us, we have gained our brethren, and have formed them as well to salvation as to dignity by our address. But if some of the perverse persons refuse to obey, let us follow the same apostle, who says, "If I please men, I should not be the servant of Christ." If we cannot please some, so as to make them please Christ, let us assuredly, as far as we can, please Christ our Lord and God, by observing His precepts.

Source: Epistle LXI
[AD 258] Cyprian on Galatians 1:10
But the discipline of all religion and truth is overturned, unless what is spiritually prescribed be faithfully observed; unless indeed any one should fear in the morning sacrifices, lest by the taste of wine he should be redolent of the blood of Christ. Therefore thus the brotherhood is beginning even to be kept back from the passion of Christ in persecutions, by learning in the offerings to be disturbed concerning His blood and His blood-shedding. Moreover, however, the Lord says in the Gospel, "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed." And the apostle also speaks, saying, "If I pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." But how can we shed our blood for Christ, who blush to drink the blood of Christ?

Source: Epistle LXII
[AD 258] Cyprian on Galatians 1:10
But if continency follows Christ, and virginity is destined for the kingdom of God, what have they to do with earthly dress, and with ornaments, wherewith while they are striving to please men they offend God? Not considering that it is declared, "They who please men are put to confusion, because God hath despised them; " and that Paul also has gloriously and sublimely uttered, "If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." But continence and modesty consist not alone in purity of the flesh, but also in seemliness, as well as in modesty of dress and adornment; so that, according to the apostle, she who is unmarried may be holy both in body and in spirit. Paul instructs and teaches us, saying, "He that is unmarried careth for the things of the Lord, how he may please God: but he who has contracted marriage careth for the things which are of this world, how he may please his wife. So both the virgin and the unmarried woman consider those things which are the Lord's, that they may be holy both in body and spirit." A virgin ought not only to be so, but also to be perceived and believed to be so: no one on seeing a virgin should be in any doubt as to whether she is one. Perfectness should show itself equal in all things; nor should the dress of the body discredit the good of the mind. Why should she walk out adorned? Why with dressed hair, as if she either had or sought for a husband? Rather let her dread to please if she is a virgin; and let her not invite her own risk, if she is keeping herself for better and divine things. They who have not a husband whom they profess that they please, should persevere, sound and pure not only in body, but also in spirit. For it is not right that a virgin should have her hair braided for the appearance of her beauty, or boast of her flesh and of its beauty, when she has no struggle greater than that against her flesh, and no contest more obstinate than that of conquering and subduing the body.

Source: Treatise II. On the Dress of Virgins.
[AD 258] Cyprian on Galatians 1:10
That we must not please men, but God. In the fifty-second Psalm: "They that please men are confounded, because God hath made them nothing." Also in the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: "If I wished to please men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

Source: Treatise XII. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews.
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:10
Ver. 10. "For am I now persuading men: or God?" or am I seeking to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.

Granting, says he, that I might deceive you by these doctrines, could I deceive God, who knows my yet unuttered thoughts, and to please whom is my unceasing endeavor? See here the Apostolical spirit, the Evangelical loftiness! So too he writes to the Corinthians, "For we are not again commending ourselves unto you, but speak as giving you occasion of glorying;" [2 Corinthians 5:12] and again, "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment." [1 Corinthians 4:3] For since he is compelled to justify himself to his disciples, being their teacher, he submits to it; but he is grieved at it, not on account of chagrin, far from it, but on account of the instability of the minds of those led away and on account of not being fully trusted by them. Wherefore Paul now speaks, as it were, thus:— Is my account to be rendered to you? Shall I be judged by men? My account is to God, and all my acts are with a view to that inquisition, nor am I so miserably abandoned as to pervert my doctrine, seeing that I am to justify what I preach before the Lord of all.

He thus expressed himself, as much with a view of withstanding their opinions, as in self-defense; for it becomes disciples to obey, not to judge, their master. But now, says he, that the order is reversed, and you sit as judges, know that I am but little concerned to defend myself before you; all, I do for God's sake, and in order that I may answer to Him concerning my doctrine. He who wishes to persuade men, is led to act tortuously and insincerely, and to employ deceit and falsehood, in order to engage the assent of his hearers. But he who addresses himself to God, and desires to please Him, needs simplicity and purity of mind, for God cannot be deceived. Whence it is plain that I have thus written to you not from the love of rule, or to gain disciples, or to receive honor at your hands. My endeavor has been to please God, not man. Were it otherwise, I should still consort with the Jews, still persecute the Church, I who have cast off my country altogether, my companions, my friends, my kindred, and all my reputation, and taken in exchange for these, persecution, enmity, strife, and daily-impending death, have given a signal proof that I speak not from love of human applause. This he says, being about to narrate his former life, and sudden conversion, and to demonstrate clearly that it was sincere. And that they might not be elevated by a notion that he did this by way of self-vindication to them, he premises, "For do I now persuade men?" He well knew how, on a fitting occasion, to correct his disciples, in a grave and lofty tone: assuredly he had other sources whence to demonstrate the truth of his preaching — by signs and miracles, by dangers, by prisons, by daily deaths, by hunger and thirst, by nakedness, and the like. Now however that he is speaking not of false apostles, but of the true, who had shared these very perils, he employs another method. For when his discourse was pointed towards false apostles, he institutes a comparison by bringing forward his endurance of danger, saying, "Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as one beside himself) I more; in labors more abundantly, in prisons more abundantly, in stripes above measure, in deaths oft." [2 Corinthians 11:23] But now he speaks of his former manner of life and says,

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:10
He has said this because he is about to rehearse his previous life and his sudden conversion and to show through manifest proofs that there was truth in his conversion, lest [his opponents] should imagine that he was saying this to defend himself against them and be elated.… For he knew the proper season for the correction of his pupils and how to say something sublime and grand. Now, there was a time to demonstrate the truth of his preaching in another way: from signs, from wonders, from dangers, from imprisonments, from daily deaths, from hunger and thirst and nakedness, and from other things of the kind. But since his argument now was not with pseudoapostles but with apostles, and since they had been partakers of these dangers, he employs a different method of argument.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.10
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:10
Let us not suppose that the apostle is teaching us by his example to despise the judgments of others … but if it can happen that we can please God and others equally, let us also please others.… The word now is inserted specially here, to show that people are to be pleased or displeased according to the circumstances, so that he who is now displeasing for the sake of gospel truth was at one time pleasing for the sake of people’s salvation.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.10
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:10
(Verse 10.) For now I advise men or God: or do I seek to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be a servant of Christ. Let us not think that we are taught by the Apostle to despise the judgments of men by his example, who in another place said: Knowing therefore, the fear of the Lord, we persuade men: but we are made manifest to God (2 Corinthians 5:11); and that: Be without offense to the Jews, and to the Gentiles, and to the Church of God: as I also please all in all things, not seeking what is profitable to myself, but what is profitable to many, that they may be saved (1 Corinthians 10). But if it is possible, that we may please both God and men at the same time, it is necessary to please men. But if we do not please men in any other way than if we displease God: we ought to please God rather than men. Otherwise, he himself brings forward the reason why he is pleasing to all through all things: Not seeking, he says, what is useful to me, but what is useful to many, so that they may be saved. But whoever, out of that charity which does not seek its own things, but those that are others', pleases everyone so that they may be saved: certainly he first pleases God, to whom the salvation of men is a care. However, it also has a word, which is specifically added here, either to please people temporarily or to displease them: so that he who does not please at the moment because of the truth of the Gospel, may have pleased formerly for the salvation of many. Paul had pleased the Jews at one time, when he was an emulator of paternal traditions, having lived blamelessly according to the law, and he had such enthusiasm and faith in the ceremonies of the ancestors that he even became involved in the killing of Stephen, and he went to Damascus to bind those who had deserted the law (Acts 9). But after he was transferred to the vessel of election from a persecutor, and began to preach the faith which he had once attacked, he began to displease the Jews, whom he had previously pleased. This is therefore what he says: Am I seeking to please the Jews, by displeasing whom I pleased God? For if I were still pleasing them, I would not be a servant of Christ. For I would affirm the law, and destroy the grace of the Gospel. But now, I am not even brought to the pretense of observing the law, because I cannot please both God and the Jews at the same time. For whoever endeavors to persuade others with a word taken from human usage, with what he himself possesses and has once imbibed, and in many passages of the Scriptures it is read, from which this is one: The persuasion is not from him who called you (Gal. 5:8). And also in the Acts of the Apostles: Therefore many Jews came to him in the inn, to whom he explained, testifying about the kingdom of God and persuading them about Jesus, from the Law of Moses and the Prophets until evening. And all of this happened because it had been spread (or slandered) about him that he secretly observed the Law and had mixed with those who were practicing Judaism in Jerusalem.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Galatians 1:10
No one persuades God, for all things are manifest to him. But a person does well in wishing to persuade others when it is not himself that he wishes them to like but the truth that he persuades them of.… When one pleases others on account of truth, it is not the proclaimer himself but the truth that pleases.… Thus the sense is, “Do I then persuade men or God? And since it is men that I persuade, do I seek to please them? If I still sought to please men, I should not be Christ’s servant. For he bids his servants to learn from him to be meek and lowly of heart, which is utterly impossible for one who seeks to please men on his own account, for his own private and special glory.” … Both then can be rightly said: “I please” and “I do not please.”

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 5 [1B.1.10]
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:10
If, he says, I was trying to deceive you in saying these things, am I perhaps able to distort God’s thought, who knows the secrets of one’s mind, and whom I take every care to please in all things?
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:11
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.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 370] Gaius Marius Victorinus on Galatians 1:11
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.”

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.11
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:11-12
Ver. 11, 12. "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 there, had not my acts exceeded all bounds and endurance. Wherefore he says,

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:11-12
(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.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Galatians 1:11
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 6 [1B.1.11-12]7
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:11
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?”
[AD 309] Pamphilus of Caesarea on Galatians 1:12
Therefore he shows plainly that Jesus was not a [mere] man; and if he is not a man then without doubt he is God.

Source: APOLOGY FOR ORIGEN
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:12
Those who are taught by men, when they have been vehement and hot in the opposite cause, require time and much ingenuity for their conversion. But he who was so suddenly converted and was rendered clean and sober at the very peak of his madness had obviously received a divine vision and teaching.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.12
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Galatians 1:12
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.12
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:12
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?
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:13
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.

Source: The Prescription Against Heretics
[AD 370] Gaius Marius Victorinus on Galatians 1:13
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.13-14
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:13
Ver. 13. "For you 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.

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:13
(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.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Galatians 1:13
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 7 [1B.1.13-14]
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:13
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!
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:14
"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.

Source: On Modesty
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:14
Ver. 14. "And I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of my 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," [Romans 10:2] 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.

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:14
What he is saying is, “If what I then did against the church was done not on man’s account but through zeal for God—mistaken but zeal nonetheless—how can I now be acting for vainglory when I operate on behalf of the church and know the truth?”

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.14
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:14
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.13
[AD 202] Irenaeus on Galatians 1:15
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".
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."

Source: Against Heresies Book V
[AD 370] Gaius Marius Victorinus on Galatians 1:15
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.15-16
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Galatians 1:15
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.16.2
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:15-16
Ver. 15, 16. "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," [Acts 9:15] 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 in Him unto eternal life." [1 Timothy 1:16] 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 in Him."

"To reveal His Son in me."

Christ says in another place, "No one knows who the Son is, save the Father; and who the Father is, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son wills to reveal Him." [Luke 10:22] 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 Your Son, that the Son may glorify You," and, "as I have glorified You." [John 17:1-4] 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 defense 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.

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:15
(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.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:15
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).
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Galatians 1:16
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?

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.15.1
[AD 397] Philastrius of Brescia on Galatians 1:16
This means that he showed him the meaning of the Law and the Prophets.

Source: BOOK OF HERESIES 155.5
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:16
“I did not confer with flesh and blood.” Here he is hinting at the apostles, describing them by their human nature. Yet if he means to refer here to all people we shall not contradict him.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.15-16
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:16
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.15
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:16
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.16
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:16
(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.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 749] John Damascene on Galatians 1:16
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?
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Galatians 1:17
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.17.2
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:17
Ver. 17. "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, "Do you see a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool than of him;" [Proverbs 26:12] and, "Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" [Isaiah 5:21] and Paul himself in another place, "Be not wise in your own conceits." [Romans 12:16] 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 offense to many hearers. But if the cause of it is subjoined, all will applaud and admire the speaker. This then let us do; for it is not the right course to weigh the mere words, nor examine the language by itself, as many errors will be the consequence, but to attend to the intention of the writer. And unless we pursue this method in our own discourses, and examine into the mind of the speaker, we shall make many enemies, and every thing will be thrown into disorder. Nor is this confined to words, but the same result will follow, if this rule is not observed in actions. For surgeons often cut and break certain of the bones; so do robbers; yet it would be miserable indeed not to be able to distinguish one from the other. Again, homicides and martyrs, when tortured, suffer the same pangs, yet is the difference between them great. Unless we attend to this rule, we shall not be able to discriminate in these matters; but shall call Elijah and Samuel and Phineas homicides, and Abraham a son-slayer; that is, if we go about to scrutinize the bare facts, without taking into account the intention of the agents. 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 Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before me." 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 there? 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 gain-sayers that those at Jerusalem agreed with him. Thus he perceived from the first the fitting line of conduct, and needed no teacher, but, primarily and before any discussion, maintained without wavering what the Apostles, after much discussion, [Acts 15:2-7] subsequently ratified. This Luke shows by his own account, that Paul argued much at length with them on this subject before he went to Jerusalem. But since the brethren chose to be informed on this subject, by those at Jerusalem, he went up on their own account, not on his own. And his expression, "I went not up," signifies that he neither went at the outset of his teaching, nor for the purpose of being instructed. Both are implied by the phrase, "Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood." He says not, "I conferred," merely, but, "immediately;" and his subsequent journey was not to gain any additional instruction.

Ver. 17. "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.

Ver. 17. "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, [2 Corinthians 11:32] had not circumstances required their narration.

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:17
If one interprets these words by themselves, they seem suggestive of some great conceit or a sentiment not worthy of an apostle. To rely on one’s own choice and have no one else to share one’s estimate seems a mark of folly.… But we should not interpret bare words, or many absurdities follow.… Let us now interpret the mind of Paul when he wrote these words. Let us consider his aim and his whole attitude to the apostles, and then we shall know his intention in saying this.… For since those who plunder the church were saying that one should follow the apostles, who did not forbid these things, he is forced to withstand them stoutly, not wishing to disparage the apostles but to restrain the folly of those who were falsely puffed up.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.17
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:17
And let me point out to you his humility. For, having said “I went up to Arabia,” he has added “and I returned to Damascus.” He does not recount his conversions or what people and how many he instructed, even though he showed such zeal after his baptism that the Jews were enraged against him, and their animosity became so intense that they laid an ambush for him and wanted to kill him, along with the Greeks. … But he says nothing of these things here, nor would he have spoken of them in that place had he not seen that the occasion demanded that he recount his own history.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.17
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:17
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.17
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:17
(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.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 220] Tertullian on Galatians 1:18
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.

Source: The Prescription Against Heretics
[AD 370] Gaius Marius Victorinus on Galatians 1:18
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?”

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.18
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:18
Ver. 18. "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, (ἰ δεῖν],) but to visit and survey, (ἰ στορῆσαι,) 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. [Acts 21:17-18 etc.] 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. "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of them which have believed; therefore shave your head, and purify yourself." [Acts 21:20 ff.] 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.

Ver. 18. "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.

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:18
What greater humility of soul could there be? For after so many conversions, having no need of Peter or of speech with him but being equal with him in honor—for I say no more at present—he nonetheless goes up to him as to one who is greater and senior … and he says not “to see Peter” but to visit Peter, as people say when acquainting themselves with great and splendid cities.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.18
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:18
Now to remain with him was an act of honor, but to remain with him so many days was one of friendship and extreme love.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.18
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:18
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.18
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:18
(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.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Galatians 1:18
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 8 [1B.1.15-19]
[AD 100] Josephus on Galatians 1:19
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.

Source: Antiquities of the Jews - Book XX, Chapter 9, Section 6
[AD 150] Gospel of the Hebrews on Galatians 1:19
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.'

Source: De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), Section 2
[AD 180] Hegesippus on Galatians 1:19
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.

Source: Memoirs (Book V), as quoted in Church History (Book II), Chapter 23, Sections 4-18
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Galatians 1:19
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.

Source: Hypotyposes books 6 and 7, quoted in Eusebius's Church History (Book II), Chapter 1, Sections 3-4
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Galatians 1:19
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.

Source: Contra Celsum, Book I, Chapter 47
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Galatians 1:19
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]

Source: Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book X), 17
[AD 339] Eusebius of Caesarea on Galatians 1:19
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." [Galatians 1:19]

Source: Church History (Book II), Chapter 1, Section 4
[AD 380] Apostolic Constitutions on Galatians 1:19
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,

Source: CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:19
Ver. 19. "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.

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:19
“And I saw no other but James the brother of the Lord.” See how much greater is his friendship for Peter, for he stayed on his account.… [He says of James] “I saw,” not “I was taught.” But see with what honor he named this man also. For he says not simply James but adds the solemn title. So free of jealousy was he. For had he wished only to indicate whom he meant he could have identified him by another name and called him the son of Clopas, as the Evangelist does.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.19
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:19
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.

Source: De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), Section 2
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:19
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.19
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:19
(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.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Galatians 1:19
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.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.19
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:20
Ver. 20. "Now touching the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not."

Observe throughout the transparent humility of this holy soul; his earnestness in his own vindication is as great as if he had to render an account of his deeds, and was pleading for his life in a court of justice.

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:20
Or perhaps this could be taken in a deeper sense, that “what I say to you is before God, that is, worthy of God’s countenance. And why worthy of God’s countenance? Because I do not lie.”

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.20
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:20
(Verse 20) But what I write to you: behold before God, because I do not lie. Whether to be taken simply, so it is: What I write to you is true, and I confirm it with God as a witness, that they are not tainted by any art of words or any falsehood. Or to be understood more deeply, so it is read: What I write to you is before God, that is, worthy of God's sight. But why worthy of God's sight? Because, of course, I do not lie. And just as the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous (Psalm 33), but he turns his face away from the sight of the wicked, so now the things which are written are before the Lord, with me not lying who writes; they would not be before the Lord if I were lying. However, not only can this be understood concerning the things which he is now writing to the Galatians, but also generally concerning all these Epistles: that the things he writes are not false and his heart and words are not in disagreement.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Galatians 1:20
He certainly swears, and what oath could be more sacred? But an oath is not against the commandment when the “evil cause” is not in the swearer but in the incredulity of him to whom he is forced to swear. For we understand from this that what the Lord meant in prohibiting oaths was that everyone, so far as in him it lies, should not swear the oaths that many do, having the oath on their lips as though it were something lofty and elegant.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 9 [1B.1.20-24]
[AD 370] Gaius Marius Victorinus on Galatians 1:21
What does he prove by all this? That his gospel had persuaded everyone, even in his absence.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.21-22
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:21
Ver. 21. "Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia."

After his interview with Peter, he resumes his preaching and the task which lay before him, avoiding Judæa, both because of his mission being to the Gentiles, and of his unwillingness to "build upon another man's foundation." Wherefore there was not even a chance meeting, as appears from what follows.

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:21
(Verse. 21.) Then I came to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. After the vision in Jerusalem, I went to Syria, which is called the exalted and lofty city. And from there I went to Cilicia, which I desired to embrace in the faith of Christ, preaching to it the call to repentance: for Cilicia in fact means assumption, or lamentable calling.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:22
What is his aim in saying “I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea?” That you may understand he was so far from preaching circumcision to them that they did not even know him by sight.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.22-23
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:22-23
Ver. 22, 23. "And I was still unknown by face unto the Churches of Judæa; but they only heard say, he that once persecuted us now preaches the faith of which he once made havoc."

What modesty in thus again mentioning the facts of his persecuting and laying waste the Church, and in thus making infamous his former life, while he passes over the illustrious deeds he was about to achieve! He might have told, had he wished it, all his successes, but he mentions none of these and stepping with one word over a vast expanse, he says merely, "I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;" and, "they had heard, that he, which once persecuted us, now preaches the faith of which he once made havoc." The purpose of the words, "I was unknown to the Churches of Judæa," is to show, that so far from preaching to them the necessity of circumcision, he was not known to them even by sight.

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:22
He discreetly returns to the main point, establishing that he had spent so short a time in Judea that he was unknown even by face to the believers. Hence he shows that he had no teachers—not Peter, not James, not John—but Christ, who had revealed his gospel to him.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1
[AD 420] Jerome on Galatians 1:22-24
(Verses 22-24.) But I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea, which were in Christ Jesus. They only heard it said: He who once persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy. And they glorified God in me. The churches of Judea had only heard of me by reputation. And among them, they saw me more as a persecutor than as an apostle. But in Syria and Cilicia, Arabia and Damascus, they might have recognized me by sight as well: because I, as the Apostle to the Gentiles, preached the gospel of Christ not to the Jews, but to the Gentiles. But the whole point of what he does is this: to show that he could never have been glorious before those very people whom he had previously persecuted unless his preaching had also been proven by their judgment, even by those who had known him before as evil. And he returns secretly to his purpose, affirming that he spent such a short time in Judea that even those who believed were unaware of his appearance. From this he shows that he did not have Peter, James, or John as his teachers, but Christ, who revealed the Gospel to him. At the same time, it should be noted that while it was said above that the Church was under attack, here faith is: there men, here things; so that now (or then) it could be more opportune: He preaches the faith, which he once attacked. For they could not make a similar sound about the Church.

Source: Commentary on Galatians
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Galatians 1:22
It should be observed that Jews had believed in Christ not only in Jerusalem, nor were they so few that they had been absorbed into the Gentile churches, but they were so numerous that churches came into being from them.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 9 [1B.1.20-24]
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:23
What soul could be more modest than this? For when he is discussing the things that bring opprobrium on him, such as his persecution and plundering of the church, he narrates it with great hyperbole, putting his previous life on show; but the things which would enhance his reputation he passes by.

Source: HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.23
[AD 370] Gaius Marius Victorinus on Galatians 1:24
By “glorified God in me” he means they called him great. For what is so magnificent as to have your own opinion turned around and receive the one whom you previously assailed? This being so, you also should follow nothing else than the gospel preached to you by the one who is a miracle among the Gentiles, because he preaches the faith of Christ.

Source: EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 1.1.24
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:24
Ver. 24. "And they glorified God in me." See here again how accurately he observes the rule of his humility; he says not, they admired me, they applauded or were astonished at me, but ascribes all to Divine grace by the words, "they glorified God in me."

Source: Homily 1 on Galatians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Galatians 1:24
See here too how exactly he follows the principle of humility. For he says not “they were amazed at me,” “they praised me” or “they were astonished,”

Source: but he has shown that all was of grace by saying “they glorified God in me.”HOMILY ON GALATIANS 1.24