Galatians 1:17

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," Psalms 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 Romans 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 (Acts 9:23-26). He refers to this incident, 2 Corinthians 11:32.

Damascus One of the oldest cities in the world, first mentioned in the history of Abraham (Genesis 14:15; Genesis 15:2). It was conquered by David (2 Samuel 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 (2 Kings 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 (2 Corinthians 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. Galatians 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 (Acts 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 Chapter s 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. Galatians 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 (Acts 2:11), and it may have beenfor 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" (Acts 9:20; Acts 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.