Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 1:17
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
17. neither went I up to Jerusalem ] The situation of Jerusalem was on a hill, and it was also the Jewish metropolis, the political centre formerly, and still the religious centre of the nation. “Thither the tribes went up, the tribes of Jehovah,” Psa 122:4. We speak of ‘going up’ to London.
to them which were apostles before me ] He admits the fact of their priority in point of time, while repudiating the inference that they had any claim to greater authority than himself. In like manner the antiquity of the Roman Church is no argument for Papal supremacy, much less for Papal infallibility. For the thought, we may compare Rom 16:7, “My fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the Apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.”
into Arabia Damascus ] “A thick veil”, says Bp Lightfoot, “hangs over St Paul’s visit to Arabia.” It is not mentioned in the narrative in the Acts. The locality, the object, and the time of this visit are alike uncertain. A full discussion of them must be reserved for an Appendix (I. p. 83). In the interval between his conversion a.d. 37 and his visit to Jerusalem a.d. 40, St Paul would seem to have sought retirement in the desert of Sinai, and there by prayer and meditation and undistracted communion with God, to have equipped himself for the warfare which only terminated with his life. How much of the three years was thus spent, we are not told. At its expiration St Paul returned to Damascus, and when at length the Jews conspired to take away his life, he made his escape and fled to Jerusalem (Act 9:23-26). He refers to this incident, 2Co 11:32.
Damascus ] One of the oldest cities in the world, first mentioned in the history of Abraham (Gen 14:15; Gen 15:2). It was conquered by David (2Sa 8:5-6), but subsequently recovered by the Syrians. After various vicissitudes it succumbed to the Assyrian arms. The city was destroyed, and the people carried away captives to Assyria (2Ki 16:9). It subsequently fell under the Macedonian and the Roman power, and in the time of St Paul it was included in the territory of Aretas, an Arabian prince (2Co 11:32) who was father-in-law of Herod Antipas, and who held his kingdom under the Romans. It is pleasantly situated at the foot of the Anti-Libanus range of mountains, distant 133 miles north of Jerusalem and 60 miles from the Mediterranean Sea, in a fertile district watered by the historic streams, Abana and Pharpar.
St Paul’s Visit to Arabia
It may be well to consider this incident under the three heads indicated in the note to ch. Gal 1:17. The notices are slight, and though insufficient to enable us to construct a narrative of the events with definiteness or with certainty, supply material for a probable and consistent account of them.
(1) The locality. The term Arabia has been taken by some commentators in its widest signification, as extending from the Sinaitic peninsula on the south to the neighbourhood of Damascus on the north; and expressions in Justin Martyr ( Dial. c. Tryph. p. 305, A.) and Tertullian ( Adv. Jud. c. 9; Adv. Marc. iii. 13) are adduced in support of this view. It is argued from the silence of St Luke (Act 9:19-25) that St Paul did not withdraw to any great distance from the city, so that though he actually went into Arabia for a time how long, is not stated he is regarded by the narrator as still at Damascus. The objections to this view are concisely stated by Bp Lightfoot. “It gives to ‘Arabia’ an extension, which at all events seems not to have been common, and which even the passage of Justin shews to have required some sort of justification. It separates the Arabia of the first chapters from the Arabia of the fourth. And lastly, it deprives this visit of a significance which, on a more probable hypothesis, it possesses in relation to this crisis of St Paul’s life.” By ‘Arabia’ then we understand (as in ch. Gal 4:25) the Sinaitic peninsula.
(2) The object. Of this two accounts are given. Patristic commentators suppose that St Paul went into Arabia, as the Apostle of the Gentiles, to commence his great missionary work. No doubt ‘Arabians’ were among those who were present at the great Pentecostal miracle (Act 2:11), and it may have been for the purpose of expounding unto them the way of God more perfectly that this journey was undertaken. But it is not likely that so marked a commencement of his labours as a missionary to the Gentiles would have been unrecorded by St Luke, especially as he is careful to tell us that St Paul “preached Christ in the synagogues”, and “how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus” (Act 9:20; Act 9:27).
If however we adopt the other explanation, and regard the object of St Paul’s visit as of a private and personal nature that he might in solitude commune with his own heart and listen to the “still small voice” of God then we can understand why, like Elijah of old, he should have journeyed ‘unto Horeb, the mount of God’. There, on the very spot where the Law was given, he was taught the use of the Law that “by the deeds of the Law no flesh shall be justified”; that while “the Law made nothing perfect”, there was brought in “a better hope”; that “though the Law worketh wrath”, “Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us.”
(3) The time. We do not know at what period of the ‘three years’ the journey was made, nor how long St Paul’s sojourn in Arabia continued. St Luke’s language is somewhat vague, but not at all inconsistent with the view here adopted. It is possible that after essaying to preach to the Jews in Damascus ‘the faith which once he destroyed’, St Paul found it needful to seek fresh supplies of grace and strength for a work so difficult and so discouraging. He may have heard his Master’s call, bidding him ‘come apart into a desert place, and rest awhile’. His stay in Horeb may have lasted, like that of Moses, for forty days and forty nights the period of time spent by Elijah in his journey from Beer-sheba to Horeb, and by the great Antitype in the wilderness. These are, it is true, only conjectures. But while they are not inconsistent with the narrative of the Acts, they are in full accord with what we know of the nature and the needs of man, and with the dealings of God with the objects of His love and the instruments of His purposes. We may long for certainty. But where Scripture is silent, we are sure that more accurate knowledge is not needed, because it is not vouchsafed.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Neither went I up to Jerusalem – That is, I did not go there at once. I did not go to consult with the apostles there, or to be instructed by them in regard to the nature of the Christian religion. The design of this statement is to show that, in no sense, did he derive his commission from man.
To them which were apostles before me – This implies that Paul then regarded himself to be an apostle. They were, he admits, apostles before he was; but he felt also that he had original authority with them, and he did not go to them to receive instruction, or to derive his commission from them. Several of the apostles remained in Jerusalem for a considerable time after the ascension of the Lord Jesus, and it was regarded as the principal place of authority; see Acts 15.
But I went into Arabia – Arabia was south of Damascus, and at no great distance. The line indeed between Arabia Deserta and Syria is not very definitely marked, but it is generally agreed that Arabia extends to a considerable distance into the Great Syrian Desert. To what part of Arabia and for what purpose that Paul went is wholly unknown. Nothing is known of the circumstances of this journey; nor is the time which he spent there known. It is known indeed Gal 1:18 that he did not go to Jerusalem until three years after his conversion, but how large a part of this time was spent in Damascus, we have no means of ascertaining. It is probable that Paul was engaged during these three years in preaching the gospel in Damascus and the adjacent regions, and in Arabia; compare Act 9:20, Act 9:22, Act 9:27. The account of this journey into Arabia is wholly omitted by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, and this fact, as has been remarked by Paley (Horae Paulinae, chapter v. No. 2), demonstrates that the Acts and this Epistle were not written by the same author, or that the one is independent of the other; because, if the Acts of the Apostles had been a forged history made up from the Epistle, it is impossible that this journey should have been passed over in silence; if the Epistle had been composed out of what the author had read of Pauls history in the Acts , it is unaccountable that it should have been inserted.
As to the reason why Luke omitted to mention the journey into Arabia nothing is known. Various conjectures have been entertained, but they are mere conjectures. It is sufficient to say, that Luke has by no means recorded all that Paul or the other apostles did, nor has he pretended to do it. He has given the leading events in the public labors of Paul; and it is not at all improbable that he has omitted not a few short excursions made by him for the purpose of preaching the gospel. The journey into Arabia, probably, did not furnish any incidents in regard to the success of the gospel there which required particular record by the sacred historian, nor has Paul himself referred to it for any such reason, or intimated that it furnished any incidents, or any facts, that required particularly the notice of the historian. He has mentioned it for a different purpose altogether, to show that he did not receive his commission from the apostles, and that he did not go at once to consult them. He went directly the other way. Since Luke, in the Book of Acts , had no occasion to illustrate this; since he had no occasion to refer to this argument, it did not fall in with the design to mention the fact. Nor is it known why Paul went into Arabia. Bloomfield supposes that it was in order to recover his health after the calamity which he suffered on the way to Damascus. But everything in regard to this is mere conjecture. I should rather think it was more in accordance with the general character of Paul that he made this short excursion for the purpose of preaching the gospel.
And returned again unto Damascus – He did not go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles after his visit to Arabia, but returned again to the place where he was converted and preached there, showing that he had not derived his commission from the other apostles.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gal 1:17
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me.
Aspects of the new life
I. Negative. He did not report himself.
1. The apostles were stiffly conservative, and
(1) might have suspected his conversion;
(2) would probably have questioned his Divine commission;
(3) would certainly have repudiated his apostleship.
2. Paul wanted nothing of them, and they could give him nothing.
3. He wished his life rather than his lips to speak. Let others see the reality of your conversion;they will then need no verbal proof of it.
II. Passive. In Arabia Paul–
1. Lived a life of quiet meditation.
2. Equipped himself for his great work.
3. Calmly waited for indications from God. After conversion
(1) dont rush into office, but
(2) think, read, pray, weigh the responsibility of Christian work, fit yourself by Divine grace, wait till God says, Go.
III. Active. To Damascus (see Act 9:22).
1. The hour had struck, and the man was ready for it.
(1) Paul now knew not only what to say, but how to say it and defend it.
(2) The seed sown at conversion had produced a body of experience.
2. Once at it he grew strong in the work.
3. He was rewarded with striking success.
IV. Suffering (Act 9:23-24).
1. Persecution tests depth of conviction and reality of work.
2. Look for it, but dont fear it.
V. Independence. Living movements do not come of committees, they come of individuals. (J. H. Newman, D. D.)
Quiet places
Just as an eagle, which has been drenched and battered by some fierce storm, will alight to plume its ruffled wings, so, when a great soul has passed through fire and through water, it needs some safe and quiet place in which to rest Like almost every great soul in ancient or modern times, to whom has been entrusted the task of swaying the destinies by moulding the convictions of mankind–like Sakya Mouni, like Mahomet in the cave of Hira, like St. Francis of Assisi in his sickness, like Luther in the monastery of Erfurt, Paul would need a quiet period in which to elevate his thoughts, to still the tumult of his emotions, to commune in secrecy and in silence with his own soul. (F. W. Farrar.)
The significance of this episode for us
In the busy mart, amid lifes dusky lanes and accumulating cares, we lose and forget our God. Our books are too much with us; friends and social life make the hours busy with what is human; and the claims of business are of increasing urgency. We must find for ourselves a desert place, where, occasionally for prolonged seasons, and daily for a short season, we may receive the Lords anointing. (S. Pearson, M. A.)
Meditation is the life of the soul; action is the outcome of meditation, honour is the reward of action. So meditate that thou mayest do; so do that thou mayest be honoured; so accept honour as to give God the glory.
The inner life of St. Paul
The world and the Church have ever shown a curiosity as to the inner life of great men, as to what they were, not when the eye of man was upon them, but when they were alone–what they were in the secret recesses of their hearts; and this curiosity has made biographies and autobiographies, and private journals and letters, very popular. It has led, moreover, to the publication of documents which were never meant for the public eye, and which had better have remained unperused. But God has seen fit in the ease of St. Paul to gratify, not indeed a mere morbid curiosity, but the devout desire on the part of His Church to know something of the great apostles secret feelings and sternest conflicts for its own edification and for His own glory. (Canon Miller.)
St. Pauls solitude
His main object we may assume to have been to seclude himself for a while from the outer world, to commune with God and his own soul in stillness, and to seek for grace for his future labours. It was a pause in his career, which he might legitimately crave after; a moment of calm between the stormy passions of his past life, and the tumultuous scenes which lay before him; a half-hour of heavenly silence in which, alone with God, he might learn more perfectly his Masters will, and gather strength to do his Masters work. We may follow the apostle into Arabia, and safely infer that his retirement was made use of for the following purposes.
1. Thought. On reviewing his past life–his former antagonism to Christ, his ignorance and self-will, his unbelief and active enmity; and the forbearance, love, and mercy of God–what food for reflection had St. Paul! Thought concerning God, the gospel of Christ, the soul, sin, death, salvation, life, heaven, is essential to salvation; there can be no real, intelligent living unto God without it.
2. Selfabasement. Bitter mourning for sin. The manifestation of Gods love deepens the sense of ingratitude and unworthiness in the truly penitent.
3. Prayer. He who is most fully conscious of his own utter helplessness, will cling with tightest grasp to the only Giver of all good.
4. Self-dedication. The life given to God. (Emilius Bayley, B. D.)
St. Pauls sojourn in Arabia
1. Obscurity of the incident. A veil of thick darkness hangs over St. Pauls visit to Arabia. Of the scenes among which he moved, of the thoughts and occupations which engaged him while there, of all the circumstances of a crisis which must have shaped the whole tenour of his after life, absolutely nothing is known. Immediately, says St. Paul, I went away into Arabia. The historian passes over the incident without a mention. It is a mysterious pause, a moment of suspense in the apostles history, a breathless calm which ushers in the tumultuous storm of his active missionary life.
2. The place. If we suppose that the apostle at this critical moment betook himself to the Sinaitic peninsula, the scene of the giving of the law, then his visit to Arabia becomes full of meaning. He was attracted thither by a spirit akin to that which formerly had driven Elijah to the same region (1Ki 19:8-18). Standing on the threshold of the new covenant, he was anxious to look upon the birth-place of the old: that dwelling for a while in seclusion in the presence of the mount that burned with fire, he might ponder over the transient glories of the ministration of death, and apprehend its real purpose in relation to the more glorious covenant which was now to supplant it. Here, surrounded by the children of the desert, the descendants of Hagar the bondwoman, he read the true meaning and power of the law. In the rugged and barren region whence it issued, he saw a fit type of that bleak desolation, which it created, and was intended to create, in the soul of man. In the midst of such scenes and associations, his spirit was attuned to harmony with his Divine mission, and fitted to receive fresh visions and revelations.
3. Its duration. What was the length of this sojourn we can only conjecture. The interval between his conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem, St. Paul here states to have been three years. The notices of time in the narrative of the Acts are vague, but not contradictory to this statement. From Damascus, St. Paul tells us, he went away into Arabia, whence he returned to Damascus. St. Luke represents him as preaching actively in this city after his conversion, not mentioning, and apparently not aware of any interruption, though his narrative is not inconsistent with such. It seems probable, then, that St. Pauls visit to Arabia took place early in this period, before he commenced his active labours. Immediately, he says, instead of conferring with flesh and blood, I went into Arabia. The silence of the historian is best accounted for on the supposition that the sojourn there was short; but as St. Lukes companionship with the apostle commenced at a much later date, no great stress must be laid on the omission. Yet, on the other hand, there is no reason for supposing it of long duration. It was probably brief–brief enough not to occupy any considerable space in the apostles history, and yet not too brief to serve the purpose it was intended to serve.
4. Its purpose. Can we doubt that by this journey he sought seclusion from the outer world, that his desire was to commune with God and his own soul amid these hallowed scenes, and thus to gather strength in solitude for his active labours? His own language implies this–I conferred not with flesh and blood, but departed into Arabia. The fathers for the most part take a different view of this incident. They imagine the apostle hurrying forth into the wilds of Arabia, burning to impart to others the glad tidings which had so suddenly burst upon himself. See how fervent was his soul, exclaims Chrysostom; he was eager to occupy lands yet untilled; he forthwith attacked a barbarous and savage people, choosing a life of conflict and much toil. This comment strikes a false note. Far different at such a crisis must have been the spirit of him, whose life henceforth was at least as conspicuous for patient wisdom and large sympathies as for intense self-devotion. He retired for a while, we may suppose, that, separate from the world, his heart might deeply take, and strongly keep, the print of heaven. And what place more fit for this retirement than that holy ground, where all around, On mountains, sand, and sky, Gods chariot wheels have left distinctest trace. (Bishop Lightfoot.)
St Pauls seclusion
After a great change of conviction, nature, as well as something higher than nature, tells us that a long period of retirement and silence is fitting, if not necessary. The three days in the house of Judas were not enough in which to sound the heights and depths of newly recognized truth, or the strength and weakness of the soul which was to own and to proclaim it. They were to be followed by three years passed in the desert of Arabia. It is, indeed, thought that this retirement was dictated by a wish to preach the gospel to the wandering Bedouin tribes, or to the settled Arabs at Petrea. And there is no doubt that Arabia among the ancients was a very wide and inclusive geographical term. It might have included Damascus itself; it might have even taken in regions far to the north, extending to the very borders of Cilicia. But these are less usual uses of the word; nor can it be supposed that emphasis would have been laid on this retirement if all that had been meant was a journey of a few miles into the desert beyond the walls of Damascus. Something may be said for a retreat to Petra, the ancient capital of Edom, which had its own synagogue in Jerusalem; but the probabilities are that, under the profound and awful inspirations of the hour, Paul sought to tread in the very footsteps of Moses and Elijah at the base of Sinai. The spiritual attractions of such a course must have been, to a man of his character and antecedents, not less than overwhelming. There, where the Jewish law had been given, he wag led to ask what it really meant–what were its sanctions, what its obligations, what the limit of its moral capacity, what the criterion of its weakness. There he must have felt the inspiration of a life like Elijahs, the great representative of a persecuted religious minority, the preacher of an unpopular truth against vulgar but intolerant error. Would not the still small voice which had there spoken to the prophet–or rather, did it not–again and again speak to him? They were precious years, depend upon it, for a man whose later life was to be passed, wholly passed, in action. (Canon Liddon.)
Value of seclusion
The value of such retirement, if circumstances admit of it or suggest it, before entering on the decisive work of life, can hardly be exaggerated. Many a young man, whose education is complete (as the phrase goes), and who knows, or thinks that he knows, what to do for himself or his fellow-creatures, is often painfully disappointed when his plans for immediate action suddenly break down, and he has to remain for a while in comparative obscurity and inaction. It seems to him to be a loss of time, with little or nothing to redeem the disadvantage. He is wasting, he thinks, his best years in idleness. He may, of course, so act as to make that phrase justifiable. It need not be so. A prudent, no less than a religious man, will thankfully, if he can, avail himself of such an opportunity for consolidating his acquirements, for reviewing the bearing of his governing convictions, for estimating more accurately the resources at his disposal for extending or contracting his plans, at least for reconsidering them. A religious man will, above all, seize such an opportunity for testing and strengthening his motives, and for cultivating an increased intimacy with those means and sources of effective strength which he will need so much hereafter. (Canon Liddon.)
Observe–
I. God sometimes raises up and qualifies His agents without human intervention.
II. Such agents are duly qualified and may be tested by their fruits.
III. As a rule, they have assigned them some new department of labour. (J. Lyth.)
Residence in Arabia
The point thus suggested is the interval between the choice of a profession or calling in life and the entrance on the public duties of that profession or calling.
I. The first point relates to the professions or callings which may be properly regarded as presenting themselves to one who is about to embark on life.
1. The first thing which strikes us on this point is the great variety of things to be done in the world, during any one generation; or the variety of the fields for exertion and employment.
2. The next point, under this head, relates to the variety of endowments among men, as adapted to these various occupations–endowments such that these various ends are in fact secured, and such that at the same time they are secured voluntarily, or so that men enter on their different pursuits not by force or compulsion, but of preference and choice.
3. A third remark under this head; the ends of life may be secured, the purposes of society advanced, and God may be honoured, in any one of these occupations and employments.
II. In the next place, we have to inquire on what principles should such a profession or calling be chosen?
1. The first is, that the profession or calling should be selected in which the most can be made of life for its proper purposes; or, in which life can be turned to the best account. Life, though transitory, short, uncertain, has its purpose.
2. The second principle which I mention is, that, consequently, when there is a fitness for either of two or more courses of life, that should be chosen which under the circumstances will be most adapted to secure the ends of life.
3. A third rule would be that the profession or calling should be chosen which will be best adapted to develop the peculiar endowments of the mind, or which will be in the line of those endowments.
4. A fourth thing which is vital to any just views of life, to a proper choice of a profession, is, that that only should be chosen which is just and honourable; which is itself right, and is consistent with the highest standard of morality; and which can be pursued in all its ramifications, and always, and in all respects, on the principles of honesty, truth, justice, and fairness.
5. A fifth principle is that that course should be chosen in which there are the fewest temptations to evil.
6. A sixth principle is, that a young man should choose that which while it will conduce to his own individual interest and to the purpose of his life, will, at the same time, promote the general good of society, and contribute to the advancement of the race.
7. A seventh principle may be added. It is, that that calling should be selected which will not interfere with, but which will best aid the preparation for another world.
III. These remarks and suggestions will enable us, in the third place, to answer the main inquiry with which we started–in what way shall the interval between the choosing of a profession and the entrance on its active duties be employed?
1. The first is, that time enough should be taken to prepare for the profession or calling which has been selected.
2. Secondly, the studies should obviously have reference to the future calling.
3. One thought only remains: It is, that the preparation for that profession should be–as the choice of the profession, and the profession itself should be–subordinate to the life to come–to the preparation for eternity. (A. Barnes.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem] The aim of the apostle is to show that he had his call so immediately and pointedly from God himself, that he had no need of the concurrence even of the apostles, being appointed by the same authority, and fitted to the work by the same grace and Spirit, as they were.
But I went into Arabia.] That part of Arabia which was contiguous to Damascus, over which Aretas was then king. Of this journey into Arabia we have no other account. As St. Luke was not then with him, it is not inserted in the Acts of the Apostles. See introduction to this epistle. Jerusalem was the stated residence of the apostles; and, when all the other believers were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, we find the apostles still remaining, unmolested, at Jerusalem! Ac 8:1.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
As Jerusalem was the place for the oracle of the law, under the Old Testament; so it also was for the gospel upon the first publication of it. There the disciples were; they returned thither after they had seen Christ ascend to heaven, Luk 24:52; from thence they were not to depart, but to wait there for the promise of the Father, Act 1:4. There the Holy Ghost came down upon them, Act 2:1-47 there they continued till the persecution scattered them; there was the college of the apostles. Paul saith, that, upon his conversion, he did not go up thither, nor till three years after (as he tells us in the next verse); but he went into Arabia, amongst the heathens, and the most wild and barbarous heathens, for such were the Arabians. Luke, in the Acts, tells us nothing of this. From hence it was easy to conclude, that Paul had not his commission from the other apostles that were before him, for he saw none of them till he had been a preacher of the gospel to the wild Arabians three years. And then he
returned to Damascus: the word is , which is by some observed to signify his being compelled to return, (as they judge), by some persecution raised amongst the heathens; but of this the Scripture saith nothing.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
17. went I upSome of theoldest manuscripts read, “went away.”
to Jerusalemthe seatof the apostles.
into ArabiaThisjourney (not recorded in Acts) was during the whole period of hisstay at Damascus, called by Luke (Ac9:23), “many [Greek, a considerable number of] days.”It is curiously confirmatory of the legitimacy of taking “manydays” to stand for “three years,” that the same phraseexactly occurs in the same sense in 1Ki 2:38;1Ki 2:39. This was a country ofthe Gentiles; here doubtless he preached as he did before andafter (Act 9:20; Act 9:22)at Damascus: thus he shows the independence of his apostoliccommission. He also here had that comparative retirement needed,after the first fervor of his conversion, to prepare him for thegreat work before him. Compare Moses (Act 7:29;Act 7:30). His familiarity withthe scene of the giving of the law, and the meditations andrevelations which he had there, appear in Gal 4:24;Gal 4:25; Heb 12:18.See on Ga 1:12. The Lord fromheaven communed with him, as He on earth in the days of His fleshcommuned with the other apostles.
returnedGreek“returned back again.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Neither went I up to Jerusalem,…. That is, immediately, as soon as he was converted, not till three years after, as follows; though by the account which Luke gives of him, Ac 9:23 and by that which the apostle gives of himself, Ac 22:17 it looks as if he went to Jerusalem some little time after his conversion, and before the date here given: and therefore some have thought that he did go up to Jerusalem pretty quickly, when, praying in the temple, he fell into a trance, and was ordered to make haste from thence, and go far hence unto the Gentiles and accordingly he made no stay, did not go to any of the apostles, and neither saw nor conversed with any of them, which is what he here says,
to them which were apostles before me. The twelve, who were called, ordained, and sent forth as apostles before he was; for last of all Christ appeared to him, and was seen by him as one born out of due time: his meaning is, not that he was a successor of the apostle’s, but that they were instated in the office of apostleship before him; and this he mentions to show that he did not receive the Gospel from men, no not from the apostles themselves; since, upon his conversion, he did not go up to Jerusalem to see any of them, and talk with them; nor did he stand in need of any instructions from them, being immediately furnished sufficiently by Christ himself; nor did his work lie at Jerusalem, nor so much among the Jews as among the Gentiles, and therefore to them he went:
but I went into Arabia. This journey of the apostle is wholly omitted by Luke, nor should we have known anything of it, had it not been for this account: how long he stayed there, what he did, and what success he met with among the Arabs are no where related; no doubt but he preached the Gospel to them, and as his ministry everywhere was owned and blessed by God, it may be very reasonably thought it was here at his first setting out in it. The Arabic version reads it, “I went to Balcam”, which was a city in Syria; but without any foundation for it; for it was not Syria, but Arabia to which he went. There are three countries which bear the name of Arabia, and which are called to distinguish them from one another, Arabia Petraea, Arabia Deserta, and Arabia Felix; of which
[See comments on Ac 2:11]. It is very likely it was the former of these which the apostle went to, as being nearest to Syria, since from Damascus, the metropolis of Syria, he went thither; and Damascus itself was at this time under the government of an Arabian king, see
2Co 11:32. So Pliny frequently speaks of Arabia as near to Syria, Palestine, and Judea: in one place he says l, Arabia divides Judea from Egypt; and elsewhere m observes, that Syria is distinguished by many names; for it is called Palestina, where it touches the Arabians, and Judea, and Coele, and Phenice; and Peraea, or the country beyond Jordan, he says, is next to Arabia and Egypt; and on the east of the lake of Asphaltites he places Arabia, that belongs to the Nomades; so likewise Josephus n places Arabia at the east of Peraea, or the country beyond Jordan; and says o in another place, that Arabia borders on Judea, the metropolis of which was Petra, where Aretas the king had his royal palace: Jerom p likewise observes, that the river Jordan divides Judea and Arabia; so that this country into which the apostle went was not a great way off of Syria and Judea, whither he returned again after some time; which seems to be about the space of three years, by what follows in the next verse, and when he had done the work and will of God in those parts; where doubtless he was the instrument of converting souls, and planting churches, and here it is certain were churches in ages following: in the “third” century were churches in Arabia, mentioned along with the churches in Syria, by Eusebius q; in which age lived two famous Arabian bishops, Beryllus and Maximus; and the same historian r reports, that in the times of Dioclesian there were some wonderful martyrs in Arabia, who suffered the most cruel tortures and death, for the sake of Christ: and in the “fourth” century there were Arabian bishops in the Nicene council, and in other synods, as at Jerusalem and Sardica; and in the same century there were bishops of Arabia Petraea, at the synod in Antioch, whose names were Nicomachus and Cyrion: and also in the “fifth” century there were churches and bishops in the same country s, not to trace them any further:
and returned again unto Damascus; and then it was, that being increased in spiritual strength and knowledge, he proved that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messiah, to the confusion of the Jews there; which drew upon him their resentment and indignation, so that they took counsel and lay in wait to kill him; but the disciples let him down through a window, by the wall of the city in a basket, and so he escaped them.
l Nat. Hist. l. 12. c. 21. m lb. l. 5. c. 12, 14, 16. n De Bello Jud. l. 3. c. 3. sect. 3. o Antiqu. l. 14. c. 1. sect. 4. & l. 4. c. 4. sect. 7. p De locis Hebraicis, fol. 92. G. q Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 5. r lb. l. 8. c. 12. s Hist. Eccl. Magdeburgh. cent. 4. c. 9. p. 350, 390, 405, 425. cent. 5. c. 2. p. 2. c. 10. p. 552.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Before me ( ). The Jerusalem apostles were genuine apostles, but so is Paul. His call did not come from them nor did he receive confirmation by them.
Into Arabia ( ). This visit to Arabia has to come between the two visits to Damascus which are not distinguished in Ac 9:22f. In verse 23 Luke does speak of “considerable days” and so we must place the visit to Arabia between verses Gal 1:22; Gal 1:23.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Went I up [] . Comp. verse 18. Only in this chapter, and Joh 6:3. More commonly ajnabainein, often of the journey to Jerusalem, probably in the conventional sense in which Englishmen speak of going up to London, no matter from what point. See Mt 20:17; Mr 10:32; Joh 2:13; Act 11:2. In Act 18:22 the verb is used absolutely of going to Jerusalem. The reading ajphlqon I went away had strong support, and is adopted by Weiss. In that case the meaning would be went away to Jerusalem from where I then was.
Apostles before me. In point of seniority. Comp. Rom 16:7.
Arabia. It is entirely impossible to decide what Paul means by this term, since the word was so loosely used and so variously applied. Many think the Sinaitic peninsula is meant (Stanley, Farrar, Matheson, Lightfoot). Others, the district of Auranitis near Damascus (Lipsius, Conybeare and Howson, Lewin, McGiffert). Others again the district of Arabia Petraea.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Neither went I up to Jerusalem,” (oude anelthon eis lerosoluma) “Neither went I off up to Jerusalem of a choice of my own; Tho Jerusalem was considered the seat of the Temple of the Jews and center from which the church was sending out laborers, from where apostles went out.
2) “To them which were apostles before me,” (pros tous pro emou apostolous) “To (confer with) those who were apostles before, prior to me,” referring especially to the twelve apostles, but also where the church recognized Paul and Barnabas equally with the twelve in conference, 1Co 9:2; Rom 16:7.
3) “But I went into Arabia,” (alla apelthon eis Arabian) “But (instead) I went into Arabia, of my own accord,” perhaps for solitary communion with God and re-evaluating his former interpretation of the Law, the prophets, and the psalms, Luk 24:44.
4) “And returned again unto Damascus,” (kai palin hupestrepsa eis Damaskon) “and again, thereafter, returned to Damascus,” to tell them his revelation and seek their authority, blessings in his obedience to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, Act 9:2; Act 22:6; Act 22:10; Act 26:12. Damascus is one of the oldest cities in the world, perhaps the oldest that has never been totally destroyed, as was Jericho; it is mentioned first in Gen 14:15; Gen 15:2.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
17. Neither did I return to Jerusalem. What he had just written is now explained, and more fully stated. As if he had said, “I did not ask the authority of any man,” not even of the apostles themselves. It is a mistake to suppose, that, because the apostles are now separately mentioned, they are not included in the words, flesh and blood. Nothing new or different is here added, but merely a clearer explanation of what had been already said. And no disrespect to the apostles is implied in that expression. For the purpose of shewing that he did not owe his commission to man, the false boasting of unprincipled men laid him under the necessity of contrasting. the authority of the apostles themselves with the authority of God. When a creature is brought into comparison with God, however contemptuous or humiliating may be the language employed, he has no reason to complain.
But I went into Arabia. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke has omitted these three years. In like manner, there are other passages of the history which he does not touch; and hence the slander of those who seek to build on this a charge of inconsistency in the narratives is ridiculous. Let godly readers consider the severe temptation with which Paul was called to struggle at the very commencement of his course. He who but yesterday, for the sake of doing him honor, had been sent to Damascus with a magnificent retinue, is now compelled to wander as an exile in a foreign land: but he does not lose his courage.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(17) Went I up.The usual phrase is to go up to Jerusalem, from the fact that Jerusalem stood upon high ground, and was approached from all sides by an ascent. Here, however, the reading is doubtful between went up and went away, each of which is supported by nearly equally good authority. In so close a balance of the authorities the less common phrase is, perhaps, more likely to have been the original reading, though there is an almost equal probability that it may have slipped in from the second went (really the same word, went away), a little further on in the verse.
Unto Arabia.The question, what part of Arabia St. Paul retired into can only be one of speculation. There is nothing in the context to show at all decisively. The boundary of Arabia at this period was not exactly defined. By some writers it was made to include Damascus itself. It is therefore possible that by Arabia may have been meant the desert in the neighbourhood of the city. This would be the most obvious supposition. But, on the other hand, there would be a certain appropriateness if we could imagine, as we are certainly permitted to do, that the scene of his sojourn may have been the region of Mount Sinai itself. The place where the Law was first given may have seen its renewal in his mindnot destroyed, but fulfilled in the new law of love. Like Moses, and like Elijah, the great minister of the new dispensation may have here received strength for his work. And if this was the case, we can the more readily understand the typical allusion to Mount Sinai later in the Epistle. Such arguments may have some slight weight, but the real locality must remain uncertain.
As to the time of the Apostles withdrawal, and its duration, little can be said beyond the fact that it must have come within the three years that intervened between his conversion and the first visit to Jerusalem. When we compare this account with the narrative of the Acts, it is not clear how they are to be reconciled. St. Paul says, that after his conversion, immediately (euthes) he conferred not with flesh and blood . . . but went unto Arabia. St. Luke says, after recording the same event, Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway (eutheos) he preached Christ (or, according to a more correct reading, Jesus) in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God (Act. 9:19-20). There does not seem room here to insert the retreat into Arabia. It would indeed come in more naturally among the many days, mentioned in a later verse, which were terminated by the plot of the Jews against the life of the Apostle and his final escape from Damascus. There would still, however, be some apparent collision between conferring not with flesh and blood and spending certain days with the disciples at Damascus. The discrepancy is only such as we might expect to find between two perfectly independent narratives, one of which was compiled from secondary sources, and is, besides, very brief and summary in its form. We are obliged, by the Apostles own words, to believe that his withdrawal into Arabia took place immediately after his conversion; and as it would not take a very long time to attract the attention or excite the animosity of the Jews at Damascus, it seems natural to suppose that this period of silent seclusion occupied the larger half of the whole period of three years.
The patristic commentators seem to have held, for the most part, to the belief that the object of his visit to Arabia was to preach to the heathen there; but the whole context of the Epistle shows that it was rather for solitary meditation and communion with God.
Damascus.We gather from 2Co. 11:32 that Damascus was at this time in the possession, or in some manner, at least, under the rule, of Aretas, the Arabian king. How this can have been is an obscure and difficult question. (See Note on that passage.) It may have been seized by him, and held for a time, during his war with Herod Antipas and the Romans at the end of the reign of Tiberius, in A.D. 36-37; or it may possibly have been placed in his hands by Caligula on the disgrace of his rival, Antipas; or the ethnarch under Aretas the king may have been an officer subordinate to the Romans, and charged with a sort of consulship over the Arabians in Damascus. The first theory does not seem quite probable in the face of a power so strong as that of Rome; the second is a pure hypothesis, with no support from any contemporary writer; and the third hardly seems to satisfy the conditions of the problem. In any case, the most probable date of these events would be soon after the death of Tiberius in A.D. 37.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
17. Neither Paul has thus far shown how incapable a mind like his was, from its intense Judaism, of originating the gospel. He now shows that he had no intercourse with apostles or with Jerusalem to derive it thence.
Up See note, Act 11:2.
Arabia Strictly, the ancient land lying between the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, including the Peninsula of Sinai. At different periods, however, it stretched into very different extensions, even to a bordering eastward upon Damascus itself, and including it. Prof. Lightfoot suggests, without fully avowing, a theory that Paul prosecuted a pilgrimage to Mount Sinai itself. There, where Moses gave the law, and where Elijah’s soul was strengthened to restore it. Paul receives from Christ the sublime apocalypse of his gospel. Arabia, then, will be here, as it should be, identical with Arabia in Gal 4:25. We thereby see how the conception of that allegory arose to his mind. That meditation, the process of the forming of the true conception of the gospel, and not, as the early Christian writers assumed, preaching, was his business in the desert we may readily believe.
Returned again His stay in Arabia appears to have been brief.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gal 1:17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem What the Apostle says in this and the preceding verse, is toevince to the Galatians the full assurance that he had of the truth and perfection of the Gospel, which he had received from Christ by immediate revelation; and how little he was disposed to have any regard to the pleasing of men in preaching it; insomuch that he did not even communicate or advise with any of the Apostles about it, to see whether they approved it or not.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gal 1:17 . Neither went I away (from Damascus) to Jerusalem, unto those who were apostles before me; but I went away into Arabia . So according to Lachmann’s reading; see the critical notes. . is written by Paul in the consciousness of his full equality of apostolic rank (beginning from Damascus), in which nothing but greater seniority pertained to the older apostles. On the twice-employed emphatic , comp. Rom 8:15 ; Heb 12:18 ff.; Fritzsche, ad Rom . II. p. 137.
] It is possible that some special personal reason, unknown to us, induced him to choose this particular country. The region was heathen, containing, however, many Jews of the Diaspora (Act 2:11 ). This journey, which is to be looked upon not as having for its object a quiet preparation (Schrader, Khler, Rckert, Schott), but (comp. Rom. Introd . 1) as a first, certainly fervent experiment of extraneous ministry, [34] and which was of short duration, [35] is not mentioned in Acts. Perhaps not known to Luke at all, it is most probably to be placed in the period of the , Act 9:23 , an inexact statement of the interval between the conversion and the journey to Jerusalem, which betrays, on the part of Luke, only a vague and inadequate knowledge of the chronology of this period. See on Act 9:19 ff. Paul mentions the journey here, because he had to show following the continuous thread of the history that, in the first period after his conversion, he had not been anywhere where he could have received instruction from the apostles.
] , used on the hypothesis that the locality of the calling and revelation mentioned was well known to his readers, refers to the notion of coming conveyed in . Comp. Act 18:21 ; Hom. Od . viii. 301, , et al.; Eur. Alc . 1022; Bornemann, ad Cyrop . iii. 3. 60; Khner, ad Xen. Mem . ii. 2. 4.
[34] Our passage bears testimony in favour of this view by following immediately on . . Hence Holsten’s view ( die Bedeutung des Wortes im N.T. p. 25; ueber Inh. u. Gedankeng. d. Gal. Br . p. 17 f.; also zum Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr . p. 269 f.), that Paul, “purposely tearing himself away for three years from the atmosphere of the national spirit at Jerusalem,” had gone to Arabia, “ in order to reconcile the new revelation with the old by meditating on the religious records of his people ,” is quite opposed to the context. Certainly the system of the apostle’s gospel, as it is exhibited in the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans, must have taken its shape gradually, and by means of a long process of thought amidst the widening of experience; but even in the absence of such a developed system he might make a commencement of his ministry, and might preach the Son of God as the latter had been directly revealed in him by divine agency. Thiersch arbitrarily considers ( Kirche in apostol. Zeitalt . p. 116) that he desired to find protection with Aretas . It is the view also of Acts, that Paul immediately after his conversion followed the divine guidance, and did not postpone his beginning to preach till the expiration of three years. According to Acts, he preached immediately, even in Damascus, Act 9:20 ; comp. Act 26:19 f. See, besides, on Rom. Introd . 1.
[35] L. Cappellus, Benson, Witsius, Eichhorn, Hemsen, and others, also Anger, Rat. temp . p. 122, and Laurent, hold the opinion that Paul spent almost the whole three years (ver. 18) in Arabia, because the Jews at Damascus would not have tolerated his remaining there so long. But in our ignorance of the precise state of things in Damascus, this argument is of too uncertain a character, especially as Act 9:22 , comp. with ver. 23, . , points to a relatively longer working in Damascus. And if Paul had laboured almost three years, or, according to Ewald, about two years, in Arabia, and that at the very beginning of his apostleship, we could hardly imagine that Luke should not have known of this ministry in Arabia, or, if he knew of it, that he should not have mentioned it, for Paul never stayed so long anywhere else, except perhaps at Ephesus. It may indeed be alleged that Luke purposely kept silence as to the journey to Arabia, because it would have proved the independent action of the apostle to the Gentiles (Hilgenfeld, Zeller); but this view sets out from the premiss that the book of Acts is a partisan treatise, wanting in historical honesty; and it moreover assumes what without that premiss is not to be assumed that the author was acquainted with our epistle. If he was acquainted with it, the intentional distortion of portions of his history, which it is alleged he allowed himself to make, would be the more shameless, and indeed foolish.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Ver. 17. But I went into Arabia ] Of this journey Luke maketh no mention in the Acts. Into these tents of Kedar came St Paul, and made them, by his preaching, comely as the curtains of Solomon, Son 1:5 . Rude they were, but rich; black, but comely, when they had this precious man among them especially, who became a blessing to all places wheresoever he came. Contrary to that which is said of the Great Turk, that wherever he sets his foot he leaves desolation behind him. Arabia was Felix indeed when St Paul was there.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
17 .] both times refers to his departure from Damascus: q.d. ‘when I left Damascus, I did not go but when I left Damascus, I went.’ The repetition of is quite in the Apostle’s manner; Meyer adduces as examples Rom 8:15 (Heb 12:18 ; Heb 12:22 . We may add Heb 2:16 ).
. ] On the place which this journey holds in the narrative of Act 9 , see notes on Gal 1:19 ; Gal 1:22 there. Its object does not seem to have been (as Chrys., al., Meyer, al.) the preaching of the gospel, nor are the words . . . . necessarily to be connected with it, but preparation for the apostolic work; though of course we cannot say, that he did not preach during the time, as before and after it (Act 9:20 ; Act 9:22 ) in the synagogues at Damascus. Into what part of Arabia he went, we have no means of determining. The name was a very vague one, sometimes including Damascus (‘Damascus Arabi retro deputabatur, antequam transcripta erat in Syrophnicem ex distinctione Syriarum.’ Tert. adv. Marcion., iii. 13, vol. ii. p. 339: so also (verbatim) adv. Judos 9, p. 619. . , , , Justin Mart. c. Trypho, 78, p. 176), sometimes extending even to Lebanon and the borders of Cilicia (Pliny, Hist. Nat. vi. 32). It was however more usually restricted to that peninsula now thus called, between the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. Here we must apparently take it in the wider sense, and understand that part of the Arabian desert which nearly bordered on Damascus. (From C. and H. edn. 2, i. p. 117, f.) How long he remained there we are equally at a loss to say. Hardly for any considerable portion of the three years: Act 9:23 will scarcely admit of this: for those were manifestly passed at Damascus. The journey is mentioned here, to account for the time, and to shew that he did not spend it in conferring with men , or with the other Apostles.
. . ] cf. Act 9:22 ; Act 9:25 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Gal 1:17 . . The religious position of Jerusalem as seat of the Temple and mother-city of the Church, its political importance, and its geographical position on the central heights of Palestine, combined to suggest the application of the terms up and down to journeys to and from Jerusalem. . In the third Gospel and early chapters of the Acts this title is habitually applied to the Twelve. It was extended to Paul and Barnabas on the occasion of their mission. In 1Co 9:2 Paul and Barnabas are distinctly enumerated amidst the recognised Apostles. Rom 16:7 suggests a further extension of the title, probably to all founders of churches. But with the possible exception of James, no addition is recorded to the number of the Twelve at Jerusalem after Matthias. . No mention is made elsewhere of this journey; its object is clearly indicated by the context; for it is placed in strong contrast with human intercourse, and was, therefore, undertaken for the sake of solitary communion with God. The Arabian deserts were within easy reach of Damascus. Lightfoot suggests, indeed, that Paul perhaps repaired to Mount Sinai; but if the Apostle had been granted communion with God on Mount Sinai, the name would have constituted too effective an argument in favour of his Divine commission to be suppressed here. The Sinaitic peninsula was, in fact, remote from Damascus; the journey was at all times dangerous for travellers without escort, and in the year 37 (the most probable date of Saul’s conversion) was hardly possible on account of war between King Aretas and the Romans.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
to. Greek. eis. App-104.
to, Greek. pros. App-109.
before. Gr pro. App-104.
into. Greek. eis. App-104.
Arabia. See App-180and App-181.
Damascus. Whence he escaped as recorded in Act 9:25. 2Co 11:33.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
17.] both times refers to his departure from Damascus: q.d. when I left Damascus, I did not go but when I left Damascus, I went. The repetition of is quite in the Apostles manner; Meyer adduces as examples Rom 8:15 (Heb 12:18; Heb 12:22. We may add Heb 2:16).
.] On the place which this journey holds in the narrative of Acts 9, see notes on Gal 1:19; Gal 1:22 there. Its object does not seem to have been (as Chrys., al., Meyer, al.) the preaching of the gospel,-nor are the words . … necessarily to be connected with it,-but preparation for the apostolic work; though of course we cannot say, that he did not preach during the time, as before and after it (Act 9:20; Act 9:22) in the synagogues at Damascus. Into what part of Arabia he went, we have no means of determining. The name was a very vague one, sometimes including Damascus (Damascus Arabi retro deputabatur, antequam transcripta erat in Syrophnicem ex distinctione Syriarum. Tert. adv. Marcion., iii. 13, vol. ii. p. 339: so also (verbatim) adv. Judos 9, p. 619. . , , , Justin Mart. c. Trypho, 78, p. 176),-sometimes extending even to Lebanon and the borders of Cilicia (Pliny, Hist. Nat. vi. 32). It was however more usually restricted to that peninsula now thus called, between the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. Here we must apparently take it in the wider sense, and understand that part of the Arabian desert which nearly bordered on Damascus. (From C. and H. edn. 2, i. p. 117, f.) How long he remained there we are equally at a loss to say. Hardly for any considerable portion of the three years: Act 9:23 will scarcely admit of this: for those were manifestly passed at Damascus. The journey is mentioned here, to account for the time, and to shew that he did not spend it in conferring with men, or with the other Apostles.
. .] cf. Act 9:22; Act 9:25.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Gal 1:17. ) Neither went I up; so , Joh 6:3.-, to Jerusalem) the seat of the apostles.-, Arabia) a country of the Gentiles.- , again I returned) Paul here takes for granted that his journey to Damascus, on which he had been converted, was previously known.-, Damascus) of Syria. There is no other Damascus than that of Syria, but I have added the mention of Syria, because he had been formerly speaking of Arabia, etc.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Gal 1:17
Gal 1:17
neither went I up to Jerusalem-The usual term, as Jerusalem was not only the religious capital of the Jews, but situated on high hills so that travelers from every direction, except from Bethlehem, had to ascend.
to them that were apostles before me:-He asserts his direct call from God, and he had no need to go to those who were apostles before him. He went about his work under the direction given by God. And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God. (Act 9:20).
but I went away into Arabia;-This was a country of the Gentiles contiguous to the east of Damascus; here, doubtless, he preached as before and after (Act 9:20-22) at Damascus. Thus he shows the independence of his apostolic commission.
[Some expositors claim that the purpose of Pauls sojourn in Arabia was not for the purpose of preaching, but that he might have time for meditation on his new relation to Christ, which appears to be so utterly at variance with his restless activity and zeal as to be wholly incredible. The addition to this conjecture, that he went as far as Mount Sinai, more than four hundred miles away, whither Elijah had retired before him, instead of confirming this conjecture, weakens it; for Paul knew that Jehovah had said to him, What doest thou here, Elijah? and that he had ordered him back to his work. (1Ki 19:9-18). In the absence of all evidence for this conjecture, we should be governed in judging of the purpose of the pilgrimage by what we know of Pauls habits during the remainder of his life; and by that standard we should conclude that he was the last man to waste any precious moments, not to speak of a year or two in meditation in the desert, while the cause to which he had been called was now struggling for its very existence.]
and again I returned unto Damascus.-[He did not go to Jerusalem to consult the apostles after his visit to Arabia, but returned to the place where he first saw the light, and preached there, showing that he had not received his commission from the other apostles.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
went: Gal 1:18, Act 9:20-25
returned: 2Co 11:32, 2Co 11:33
Reciprocal: Act 2:11 – Arabians Act 9:19 – Then Act 9:26 – when Act 11:1 – the apostles 2Co 11:26 – journeyings Gal 4:25 – Arabia
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
ALONE WITH GOD
I went into Arabia.
Gal 1:17
There is nothing that carries on the soul, and promotes the spiritual life, like secret conversing with God. The great test of every Christian is, what time he can spend in devotion; and, what he is when he is alone with God. How shall we secure it in the full and crowded life which most of us have?
I. It will be a good thing sometimes to retire for a few days from your usual avocations. Not for bodily rest onlynot as a holidaybut for more communion (during the retreat) with your hearts and with God.
II. It is a better thing to go to your own room as often as you can in the day (even if only for a few minutes), that you may commune with the Invisible and dip into the Eternal. It is astonishing how it invigorates the mind, and how different things look afterwards, and men will take knowledge of you, that you have been with Jesus.
III. But best of all is that which, at any time, and in any place, can draw the curtain of the sanctuary of thought around your heart, and catch one moment with God. A hallowed solitude even in a crowd is a wonderful secret of a quiet mind, a heavenly wisdom, and a holy walk!
Arabia touched Canaan, and the boundary of the one was the confine of the other.
Rev. James Vaughan.
Illustration
The order of the events of St. Pauls life, immediately after his conversion, as chronologically given, is not clear. In the history, as given in the Acts, there is no mention of this visit to Arabia. And the question is, whether it took place directly after his conversion and baptism; or, whether he had preached in the synagogues of Damascus before he went into Arabia? He certainly went back to Damascus and preached there; and the whole time occupied, before he went to Jerusalem, was three years. But how this time is to be dividedhow much he was in Arabia, and how much in Damascusof this we do not know. I am inclined to think he stayed a short time in Damascus after his conversion; then, for a longer period, he was in Arabia; and then he returned, having stayed a considerable time to escape the persecutions of the Jews, to Jerusalem. So the early summary of his life would be: first with Christ (only Christ); then a little with man; then in solitude with God; then workan order full of suggestive thought and guidance.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
Gal 1:17. -Neither did I go away to Jerusalem to them who were apostles before me. The of the received text is very well supported, having in its favour A, K, L, , Chrysostom, and the Latin, both Vulg. and Clarom.; while is found in B, D, F, the Syriac, and in Basil. The form is the one usually employed,-going up to Jerusalem, not only as the capital city, but as one built on high land,-and may be fairly supposed to be a correction of the more general . It may be indeed replied, as by Tischendorf, that it is improbable that Paul should have written twice consecutively; but we find . . . in Rom 8:15; Heb 2:16. There was no temptation to change . into ., but to change . into ., so as to harmonize it with general usage. Act 2:15; Act 21:15; Act 25:1. In the there is reference to the previous negation, while another more definite is added, so that there is something more than the fortuitus concursus given by Klotz-Devar. 2.707, and acquiesced in by Ellicott. Generally he held conference with nobody, with no members of the church in Damascus; and specially, as the contrary might have been expected or insinuated, he did not go off to Jerusalem, and consult the elder apostles. Rom 16:7. He did not rehearse his experience to them, or receive either authority or instruction from them. In fact, he carefully kept aloof from them; and so far from journeying to Jerusalem, and to the leaders in the mother church, he went away in quite a different direction-
-but I went away into Arabia. The is found in its full form in A, B, D, F, L, and ; and as introducing an affirmative after a negative statement, it has its strong adversative force. Arabia may mean Arabia Deserta, a portion of which comes so near Damascus. Not to speak of wider geographical descriptions of the name, as in Herod. 2.12, Xen. Anab. 1.5, Plin. Hist. Nat. 6.32, Justin Martyr says, . Dial. c. Tryph. Op. vol. ii. p. 268, ed. Otto, 1843; and Tertullian repeats the account, Adv. Marcion. 3.13, Adv. Jud 1:9. Or if Arabia be used more strictly, as in Gal 4:25, then, as some have fancied, he may have visited, like Elijah, the grand scene of the old legislation. But probably, had he done so, there would be some allusion to such a pilgrimage of honour in a letter in which he unfolds the relations of a law which he was accused of rashly undervaluing and setting aside. The point cannot be determined; and in the brief narrative of the Acts the journey is omitted. Nor can the definite motive of the apostle be ascertained. It does not seem to have been to preach the gospel (Meyer, Wieseler, Ewald), though he would not decline such work if opportunity offered, but rather to prepare himself for his coming labour. Jerome thus allegorizes the matter: The Itus ac reditus mean nothing in themselves; but Arabia, the country of the bond slave, is the Old Testament, and there he found Christ; reperto illo, he returned to Damascus, ad sanguinem et passionem Christi,-a play upon the Hebrew meaning of the first syllable; and so strengthened, he went up to Jerusalem, locum visionis et pacis,-an allusion again to the signification of the name. At all events, the journey to Arabia is here adduced, not as an illustration of his early preaching of Christ among the heathen, but as a proof that he had held no consultation with flesh and blood; so that probably he retired to enjoy solitary thought and preparation, sounding the depth of his convictions, forecasting possibilities, receiving revelations and lessons,-truth presented inviting him to earnest study,-divine communications viewed on all sides and in all lights, till they were mastered in sum and detail, and became a portion of himself; a lifetime in awfulness and intensity of thought and feeling crowded into a few months. He in this way followed the Master, who, after enjoying the divine manifestation at His baptism, was led of the Spirit into the wilderness. It is not likely that Paul’s object was to find safety from Jewish persecution under king Aretas in some part of Arabia (Thiersch).
-and again returned to Damascus. The phrase implies through that he had been in Damascus before he went into Arabia. His work on his return to Damascus, was proving that this is very Christ; and he confounded the Jews by his arguments, anticipating every objection, removing every scruple; remembering how himself had felt and reasoned, and diffusing that new light which had been poured into his soul. A conspiracy was formed against him, but he escaped by night and by a peculiar stratagem, as himself tells, 2Co 11:33. Thus early did he begin to realize what was said to Ananias, I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Gal 1:17. Paul did not first try to consult the other apostles, for his call was from God directly and the previous apostles would not have been able to confer any special qualifications on him. Since no other reference is made to this Journey into Arabia, we have no way of determining the_ purpose of it nor how he spent the time while there. But we have the information that after his stay there was ended, he returned to the city of his conversion before going elsewhere.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Gal 1:17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem. The usual term, as Jerusalem was not only the religious capital of the Jews,[1] but situated on a high hill so that travellers from the east and the west, the north and the south, have to ascend.
[1] In England and Scotland people go up to London, no matter from what part of the country.
To those who were apostles before me. The Twelve, including perhaps also James (comp. Gal 1:19), who, although not one of them, was enjoying an almost apostolic authority as a brother of Jesus and as the head of the congregation in Jerusalem. Paul concedes to the other Apostles no other preference but the priority of call. He knew and declared in all humility that by the grace of God he labored more in word and deed than they all (1Co 15:10; 2Co 11:5; 2Co 11:23).
But I went away (or, departed) into Arabia. This visit is not mentioned in the Acts (Act 9:23), probably because it had no public importance, but belonged to the inner and private history of Paul. It is, as Lightfoot says, a mysterious pause, a moment of suspense in the Apostles history, a breathless calm which ushers in the tumultuous storm of his active missionary life. After the great moral revolution which shook his body and soul, he needed repose and time of preparation for his apostleship by prayer, meditation, and the renewed study of the Old Testament, in the light of its fulfilment in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth.[1] This retreat took the place of the three years preparation of the older Apostles in the school of Christ. The precise locality is a matter of conjecture and dispute, as Arabia has an indefinite meaning. Some seek it not far from Damascus which is surrounded by desert and is called the Eye of the Desert Others give the journey a deeper significance by extending it to the Sinaitic Peninsula, which is certainly meant by Arabia in Gal 4:25; and this would more easily explain the typical allusion to Mount Sinai in the fourth chapter. Here, surrounded by the children of the desert, the descendants of Hagar the bondwoman, he read the true meaning and power of the law (Lightfoot). Here Paul could commune with the spirit of Moses the lawgiver, and Elijah the prophet, as Christ had communed with them on the Mount of Transfiguration; here he could study face to face the ministration of death and condemnation, as he calls the old covenant, on the spot of its birth, and by contrast also the ministration of the spirit and righteousness (2Co 3:7-9). There is no spot on earth where one may receive a stronger and deeper impression of the terrible majesty of Gods law, which threatens death to the transgressor, than on Mount Sinai and the awful panorama of desolation and death which surrounds it. To quote from my own experience: Such a sight of terrific grandeur and awful majesty I never saw before, nor expect to see again in this world. At the same time I felt more than ever before the contrast between the old and new dispensations: the severity and terror of the law, and the sweetness and loveliness of the gospel (Schaff, Through Bible Lands, p. 172).
[1] Chrysostom entirely misses the meaning of this journey to Arabia by making it an active mission tour, saying: See how fervent was his soul; he was eager to occupy lands yet untitled: he forthwith attacked a barbarous and savage people, choosing a life of conflict and much toil. There is no trace of Christianity in Arabia at so early a time. Hence Jerome (probably following Origen) understood Arabia allegorically for the Old Testament: In the law and the prophets Paul sought Christ, and having found Him there he re-turned to Damascus, and then went to Jerusalem, the place of vision and peace.
And returned again onto Damascus. The place of his conversion, one of the oldest and most interesting cities in the world, known in the days of Abraham (Gen 14:15; Gen 15:2), conquered by David (2Sa 8:5-6), and after various fortunes by the Romans, at the time of Pauls conversion (A. D. 37) under the temporary rule of Aretas, king of Arabia Petraea (2Co 11:32). It is a paradise of beauty and fertility in the midst of a vast desert. It lies 113 miles northeast of Jerusalem, at the base of the Anti-Lebanon mountains, and is well watered by the Barada (Abana) and El Away (Pharpar; 2Ki 5:12). This second visit to Damascus must fall within the many days (a period of indefinite length) mentioned Act 9:23, and was terminated by the attempt of the Jews on his life (Act 9:24-25; 2Co 11:32). A window is still shown in the wall of Damascus, as the traditional scene of Pauls escape.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus. [Paul’s conversion, being too well known to the Galatians to require restatement, is simply referred to in the phrases “called me,” “returned to Damascus,” etc. He appeals to that conversion to show that he was neither man’s apostle nor even an apostle’s apostle, but a true apostle of God. Moreover, even he himself had no part in the call, for he could in no way have fitted or qualified himself to be such, since God had called him to the place from birth, as he had done Moses, John the Baptist, Isaiah (Isa 49:1), and Jeremiah (Jer 1:5). His call to be an apostle was, therefore, due to the free grace of God and not because of anything which Paul was as a man, or held as derived from man. Moreover, in purpose the call was purely apostolic, for he was called to receive illumination, that, having received a revelation of Christ, he might be sent forth to enlighten the Gentiles with it. And this illumination was absolutely independent of any person or persons at Jerusalem, for he had received it in another land, and it was made wholly sufficient without any recourse to Jerusalem, as was clear from the fact that he had not turned to that city for more light, but had gone into Arabia, and, returning to Damascus, had entered upon his ministry (Act 9:19; Act 9:22; Act 26:20). The sojourn in Arabia must have been brief. Paul’s predestination to the office of an apostle is an entirely different thing from predestination to salvation, for he nowhere claims the latter– 1Co 9:27 ]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 17
Neither went I up, &c.; that is, not immediately.–Into Arabia. Of this journey into Arabia, Luke, in the Acts, does not give any account.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Paul did not go to man for direction, and he did not go to the apostles. It would seem from that statement that he realized the apostles importance, and possibly even their authority, but did not seek that option of direction but went into Arabia. I suspect that this was a twofold decision. I suspect that he knew this confrontation with Christ was a life altering deal and that if he was going to do this he had better get the best information possible – from the Lord – and I rather think that the Lord was directing him in a very real way – directing him in his everyday steps toward his ministry future.
Now, I am a firm believer in the authority of the local church over missionaries – not that this is the method used today in most of evangelicalism. A missionary should be under the authority of a local church for accountability, wise council and support, but when it comes to direction of ministry, the missionary must come under the authority of the one that called him – God. Yes, seek the help of your church but if the church seems to be running counter to God, be careful to follow God. Local churches have been known to falter in their direction finding for themselves and this often translates to erroneous direction for a missionary.