Ambrosiaster : 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 1.15.1 Jerome : 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. — EPISTLE TO THE Galatians 1.1.15 Jerome : 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. — EPISTLE TO THE Galatians 1.1.16 Jerome : (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. — Commentary on Galatians John Damascene : 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? Oecumenius : "reveal his Son." The Father, he says, called me to the revealing of his Son. He said, "in me," wishing to show that he had learned not only by word but also by mind and heart, as into the inner person in whom knowledge has taken up residence. "that I might preach him." Do you see that the Father who called and revealed his Son to him himself ordained Paul to be a preacher and apostle? — [PHOTIUS] How then, he says, did I receive and learn the preaching from men? Immediately I did not turn aside to ease and luxury, nor, thinking myself to have achieved something great, fall into slackness and neglect, but I made the course of the Gospel demanding. Therefore, it was. I no longer valued seeing relatives, or a house, or acquaintances, or homeland, but leaving all behind (for in these matters I am not inferior to those concerning Peter and John), I immediately ran into Arabia and to Damascus and to the preaching. "I did not immediately accord with flesh and blood." Paul says that he did not go into discussions with the apostles about the preaching, being satisfied with the divine revelation. But he says this to show that he had not learned preaching from the disciples, but from Christ himself. For those who slandered him were saying that he was a disciple of men, not of Christ. — Commentary on Galatians Philastrius of Brescia : This means that he showed him the meaning of the Law and the Prophets. — BOOK OF HERESIES 155.5