Galatians 1:16

To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Read Chapter 1


AD 400
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? Epistle to the Galatians. ...

Cornelius a Lapide

AD 1637
To reveal His Son in me. In my soul. The phrase is a Hebraism. He says in me rather than to me, to denote that he had received no bare revelation by ear or eye, but that in his inmost heart he had so entirely drunk in Christ and His teaching and Spirit that Christ was in him and spoke by him (Theophylact). Secondly, Jerome and Vatablus understand it, "To reveal His Son through me." Thirdly, Jerome has another interpretation more subtle than literal: "He does not say to me but in me, because Christ was already in Paul. For there were in him the principle of all virtues and of God, and the seeds of faith. These, however, he did not recognise, nor believe in them till God revealed them in him as being in his heart." I conferred not with flesh and blood. I joined myself to no one; I conferred with no one about my vocation, or the Revelation , or the way to act on it; I called into counsel no relations or any one else; but, knowing of a certainty that I had been called and taught by God, I...

George Leo Haydock

AD 1849
I condescended not to flesh and blood. Literally, I did not acquiesce to flesh and blood. I had no regard to temporal friends or advantages. Some expound it, I did not think it necessary to consult the other apostles, men who were my countrymen: and so it follows, I came not to Jerusalem to the apostles, to be instructed by them, having been instructed by Christ himself. (Witham) ...


AD 420
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. .


AD 420
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. . ...

John Chrysostom

AD 407
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 H...

John Chrysostom

AD 407
“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.

John of Damascus

AD 749
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?

Philastrius of Brescia

AD 397
This means that he showed him the meaning of the Law and the Prophets.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. - 2 Peter 1:20

App Store LogoPlay Store Logo