The Arabian holiday Paul never had
Dec 20, 2013 12:22:23 GMT
Post by Colossians on Dec 20, 2013 12:22:23 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
Forward
[15] “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, [16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: [17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus” Gal 1:15-17
The above passage, in particular the section we have underlined, is almost universally thought to be referring to a trip from Damascus to Arabia and back, which Paul made immediately after his conversion at Damascus.
And because we human beings are geared to romanticism, it is thought that while in Arabia Paul had a desert experience tantamount to that of Moses and the burning bush, in which he received special understanding from God.
Below we show that not only did he have no such meeting with God, he didn’t even go to Arabia.
At least not in the sense that everyone thinks.
____________________________________
THE ARABIAN HOLIDAY PAUL NEVER HAD
An otherwise blatant contradiction
We are told at Acts 9:20 that Paul began preaching the gospel in Damascus immediately after his conversion.
If Galatians 1:15-17 were indeed saying that immediately upon Paul’s conversion in Damascus he went to Arabia, we would have a blatant contradiction.
So we shall look at the Galatians passage in detail, and then having shown that the assumption that it speaks of Paul’s conversion is incorrect, we shall conduct a brief comparative study of the epistle and its companion passage at Acts 22, which will provide definitive interpretation of the former.
Exposition of Galatians 1:15-17
The (primary) error underpinning the error we have enunciated in our introduction, consists in taking Paul’s reference at Gal 1:15 to his being called by grace, as that which consists of what he subsequently refers to – his having had the Son revealed to him so that he might preach Him to the heathen – when in fact the two events are, with regard to the issue at hand, completely unrelated.
[15] “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and [who] called me by His grace, [16] To reveal His son in me, that I might preach Him to the heathen;
Paul begins by relating that it was God, and not he, who set the agenda for him (“But when it pleased God ... ”).
He then momentarily diverts from recounting such agenda, in referring to both his physical birth1 and his spiritual birth by way of 2 subordinate clauses:
1) who separated me from my mother’s womb
2) [who] called me by His grace
which, because they are subordinate, can be omitted without detracting from the meaning of the main clause:
“But when it pleased God [...] to reveal His son in me, that I might preach Him to the heathen”.
We are thus left with a statement independent of any notion of conversion, and therefore also with the understanding that this revealing of God’s son in Paul was for the sole purpose of preaching to the heathen, and nothing else besides.
Accordingly, we point out that conversion does not consist of a revealing of God’s son “in” one, but solely of a revealing of God’s son “to” one (see Mt 11:27), which then results in His coming into that one. For the literal Greek of 2 Cor 5:17’s “new creature” relates a creature which has never existed before, and to say that conversion occurs via the revealing of God’s son “in” one, would be to suggest that conversion doesn’t really make one new so much as make one realise his full potential, which idea belongs to the New Age enlightenment doctrines rather than Christianity.
And we also point out that one’s conversion is not primarily so that others might be saved, but so that one’s own self might be saved: to fuse the two aspects together in Paul’s conversion were to detract from the love the Saviour had for Paul himself.
And so the correct rendering of this “To reveal His son in me” is:
“To reveal Him who was already in me (by virtue of His having been previously revealed to me unto conversion), to me yet again only now for the purpose of a special ministry.”
1 The rendering of “separated me from my mother’s womb” as “set me apart for a special purpose before I was born”, which is common to many translations, is errant: such clause simply speaks to physical birth. This however is not central to this exposition, and is not discussed any further.
immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:”
Paul tells us that the revelation he received was of sufficient force to cause him to run on alone in Christ with regard to the purpose of that revelation, without any reference to man.
[17] “Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me;
And he here intensifies to us the force of that revelation by adding that he chose to not even consult with the pillars of the church at Jerusalem.
but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus”
And so he went straight to the field to which he had been told to go: the heathen – specifically Arabia, and even more specifically, the place where he had been converted, Damascus in Syria, which was part of Arabia.
Accordingly we note that he does not say that he went into Arabia and “then returned” to Damascus (which one would say were a particular trip a mere interlude within one’s overall sojourn in a certain place), but that he went into Arabia and “returned again” unto Damascus, which one would say were one reprising a trip to a place previously visited.
Eloquent speech
Let’s say that you the reader were South African, and that you currently lived in South Africa, but that you were converted in Frankfurt, where you still had contacts associated with your conversion.
Let’s then suppose that one day you received a vision from God while in South Africa, to get out of South Africa because the people there wouldn’t accept your preaching.
Since then you already had contacts in Frankfurt, you might rather eloquently say:
“After receiving the vision, I went to Europe, and returned again to Frankfurt.”
This is precisely how Paul is speaking at Gal 1:17: he is in fact not referring to His conversion, but to the vision he received in the temple at Jerusalem after having come to Jerusalem at some point after his conversion in Damascus: we are being told that upon receiving the command from the Lord to go to the Gentiles, he went to Arabia and in particular, that he returned again to Damascus where he was already known to the believers there.
And so it is vital that we not mistake the 20th century creation known as “Saudi Arabia”, for the much larger overall region that is “Arabia” to which Paul is referring.
We now begin our comparative study, in which any underlinings will denote points of particular focus.
Comparative study of Galatians 1:15-17 and Acts 22:17-21
Gal 1:
[15] “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace,
Acts 22:
[6] “And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. [7] And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [8] And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. [9] And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. [10] And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.”
We have earlier as part of our exposition of Galatians 1:15-17 shown that the subordinate clause “[who] called me by His grace” which speaks of Paul’s conversion, has no effect on the main clause “when it pleased God [...] to reveal His son in me, that I might preach Him to the heathen”.
However for the sake of completeness, we have here shown the portion of Acts 22 which corresponds to that subordinate clause, because it is in fact the later portions of that same Acts 22 which interpret Galatians 1:15-17 for us.
Gal 1:
[16a] “To reveal His Son in me,
Acts 22:
[17] “And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; [18] And saw Him saying unto me ...”.
The word “reveal” (Galatians) primarily speaks to what is seen, not what is heard. At Acts 22:17 we see that Paul tells us the same thing: Christ was shown to him visually in the Spirit.
Gal 1:
[16b] that I might preach Him among the heathen
Acts 22:
[21] And He said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
Gal 1:
[16c] immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: [17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus”
Acts 22:
[18] “Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me”
Summary
At Galatians 1:15-17 Paul in fact tells us in sequential fashion that:
1. God was responsible for his physical birth
2. God called him (saved him) by grace
3. At a later stage God revealed His Son (who was already in him by virtue of earlier conversion) to him for a special purpose – that he might preach Him among the heathen – which revelation is provided in detail at Acts 22:17-21.
Galatians 1:15-17 is therefore not to be rendered:
“Upon my conversion in Damascus I immediately went to Arabia where I received special revelation from God, and then returned to Damascus”
but
“Upon receiving the vision in the temple at Jerusalem to go to the Gentiles, which was some time after my conversion, I immediately went to Arabia (in particular Syria), returning again to the city of Damascus where I was first converted and where I had a place to stay.”
The logical process
1. We showed that Gal 1:15-17 does not in the main refer to Paul’s conversion. We did this via
a) the fact that if it did refer to his conversion, then its declaring that he immediately went into Arabia had blatantly contradicted Acts 9 which tells us that he immediately started preaching in Damascus, and that for a sustained period.
b) grammatical analysis (at Exposition of Galatians 1:15-17).
2. We therefore showed that Gal 1:15-17 refers in the main to Paul’s vision to go to the Gentiles, and that his conversion is simply mentioned in passing as part of the overall picture of his life.
3. We therefore showed that his statement at Gal 1:17 that he went into Arabia, returning “again” to Damascus, was not in reference to any intervening trip to Arabia during his initial sojourn at Damascus, but to his leaving Israel in accordance with the vision he received at Jerusalem some time after his conversion, and going back into Arabia and in particular to Damascus where he had been converted. For Damascus is in Syria and Syria is in Arabia.
Amen.
(See also addendum below.)
__________
ADDENDUM
A notional contradiction
Given that it was in Jerusalem that Paul received his vision to go to the heathen, why did he tell the Galatians that he didn’t go to Jerusalem (to the apostles for confirmation)?
The (apparent) contradiction consists in relative focus: Paul is writing about a revelation which resulted in a very unique ministry to Gentiles such as those to whom he was writing: where such revelation occurred was, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant: it could have been in Kathmandu for all that mattered.
The important thing is that he wanted to get across to the Galatians the fact that his calling was so unambiguous that any reference-checking were simply out of the question. Unnecessary detail would simply make the whole thing too wordy.
Yet to be determined
It is clear that Paul received his vision to go to the Gentiles before he voiced the following words at Antioch of Pisidia during his first journey with Barnabas:
“It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth” Acts 13:46,47.
However it is not clear when he actually received the vision, and therefore not clear when he “immediately” returned to Damascus. It is possible he returned to Jerusalem at an intermediate point during his first stay at Damascus, to check in on his domicile in Israel, and/or to receive direction from the Lord after having preached for a short while at Damascus where he had not originally intended to stay for too long.
However given that, when he was finally made to leave Damascus permanently and sent to Jerusalem because of persecution at Damascus (Acts 9:23-26), he seemed to argue only with the Jews at Jerusalem, such an earlier intervening trip to Jerusalem when he might have received the vision might seem unlikely; and yet not impossible, for having returned to the centre of Judaism his natural focus might have been toward the Jews despite an earlier-received vision to go to the Gentiles; certainly the Jews were never excluded from his audience.
The matter might provide a project for those further interested.
Forward
[15] “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, [16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: [17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus” Gal 1:15-17
The above passage, in particular the section we have underlined, is almost universally thought to be referring to a trip from Damascus to Arabia and back, which Paul made immediately after his conversion at Damascus.
And because we human beings are geared to romanticism, it is thought that while in Arabia Paul had a desert experience tantamount to that of Moses and the burning bush, in which he received special understanding from God.
Below we show that not only did he have no such meeting with God, he didn’t even go to Arabia.
At least not in the sense that everyone thinks.
____________________________________
THE ARABIAN HOLIDAY PAUL NEVER HAD
An otherwise blatant contradiction
We are told at Acts 9:20 that Paul began preaching the gospel in Damascus immediately after his conversion.
If Galatians 1:15-17 were indeed saying that immediately upon Paul’s conversion in Damascus he went to Arabia, we would have a blatant contradiction.
So we shall look at the Galatians passage in detail, and then having shown that the assumption that it speaks of Paul’s conversion is incorrect, we shall conduct a brief comparative study of the epistle and its companion passage at Acts 22, which will provide definitive interpretation of the former.
Exposition of Galatians 1:15-17
The (primary) error underpinning the error we have enunciated in our introduction, consists in taking Paul’s reference at Gal 1:15 to his being called by grace, as that which consists of what he subsequently refers to – his having had the Son revealed to him so that he might preach Him to the heathen – when in fact the two events are, with regard to the issue at hand, completely unrelated.
[15] “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and [who] called me by His grace, [16] To reveal His son in me, that I might preach Him to the heathen;
Paul begins by relating that it was God, and not he, who set the agenda for him (“But when it pleased God ... ”).
He then momentarily diverts from recounting such agenda, in referring to both his physical birth1 and his spiritual birth by way of 2 subordinate clauses:
1) who separated me from my mother’s womb
2) [who] called me by His grace
which, because they are subordinate, can be omitted without detracting from the meaning of the main clause:
“But when it pleased God [...] to reveal His son in me, that I might preach Him to the heathen”.
We are thus left with a statement independent of any notion of conversion, and therefore also with the understanding that this revealing of God’s son in Paul was for the sole purpose of preaching to the heathen, and nothing else besides.
Accordingly, we point out that conversion does not consist of a revealing of God’s son “in” one, but solely of a revealing of God’s son “to” one (see Mt 11:27), which then results in His coming into that one. For the literal Greek of 2 Cor 5:17’s “new creature” relates a creature which has never existed before, and to say that conversion occurs via the revealing of God’s son “in” one, would be to suggest that conversion doesn’t really make one new so much as make one realise his full potential, which idea belongs to the New Age enlightenment doctrines rather than Christianity.
And we also point out that one’s conversion is not primarily so that others might be saved, but so that one’s own self might be saved: to fuse the two aspects together in Paul’s conversion were to detract from the love the Saviour had for Paul himself.
And so the correct rendering of this “To reveal His son in me” is:
“To reveal Him who was already in me (by virtue of His having been previously revealed to me unto conversion), to me yet again only now for the purpose of a special ministry.”
1 The rendering of “separated me from my mother’s womb” as “set me apart for a special purpose before I was born”, which is common to many translations, is errant: such clause simply speaks to physical birth. This however is not central to this exposition, and is not discussed any further.
immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:”
Paul tells us that the revelation he received was of sufficient force to cause him to run on alone in Christ with regard to the purpose of that revelation, without any reference to man.
[17] “Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me;
And he here intensifies to us the force of that revelation by adding that he chose to not even consult with the pillars of the church at Jerusalem.
but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus”
And so he went straight to the field to which he had been told to go: the heathen – specifically Arabia, and even more specifically, the place where he had been converted, Damascus in Syria, which was part of Arabia.
Accordingly we note that he does not say that he went into Arabia and “then returned” to Damascus (which one would say were a particular trip a mere interlude within one’s overall sojourn in a certain place), but that he went into Arabia and “returned again” unto Damascus, which one would say were one reprising a trip to a place previously visited.
Eloquent speech
Let’s say that you the reader were South African, and that you currently lived in South Africa, but that you were converted in Frankfurt, where you still had contacts associated with your conversion.
Let’s then suppose that one day you received a vision from God while in South Africa, to get out of South Africa because the people there wouldn’t accept your preaching.
Since then you already had contacts in Frankfurt, you might rather eloquently say:
“After receiving the vision, I went to Europe, and returned again to Frankfurt.”
This is precisely how Paul is speaking at Gal 1:17: he is in fact not referring to His conversion, but to the vision he received in the temple at Jerusalem after having come to Jerusalem at some point after his conversion in Damascus: we are being told that upon receiving the command from the Lord to go to the Gentiles, he went to Arabia and in particular, that he returned again to Damascus where he was already known to the believers there.
And so it is vital that we not mistake the 20th century creation known as “Saudi Arabia”, for the much larger overall region that is “Arabia” to which Paul is referring.
We now begin our comparative study, in which any underlinings will denote points of particular focus.
Comparative study of Galatians 1:15-17 and Acts 22:17-21
Gal 1:
[15] “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace,
Acts 22:
[6] “And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. [7] And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [8] And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. [9] And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. [10] And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.”
We have earlier as part of our exposition of Galatians 1:15-17 shown that the subordinate clause “[who] called me by His grace” which speaks of Paul’s conversion, has no effect on the main clause “when it pleased God [...] to reveal His son in me, that I might preach Him to the heathen”.
However for the sake of completeness, we have here shown the portion of Acts 22 which corresponds to that subordinate clause, because it is in fact the later portions of that same Acts 22 which interpret Galatians 1:15-17 for us.
Gal 1:
[16a] “To reveal His Son in me,
Acts 22:
[17] “And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; [18] And saw Him saying unto me ...”.
The word “reveal” (Galatians) primarily speaks to what is seen, not what is heard. At Acts 22:17 we see that Paul tells us the same thing: Christ was shown to him visually in the Spirit.
Gal 1:
[16b] that I might preach Him among the heathen
Acts 22:
[21] And He said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
Gal 1:
[16c] immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: [17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus”
Acts 22:
[18] “Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me”
Summary
At Galatians 1:15-17 Paul in fact tells us in sequential fashion that:
1. God was responsible for his physical birth
2. God called him (saved him) by grace
3. At a later stage God revealed His Son (who was already in him by virtue of earlier conversion) to him for a special purpose – that he might preach Him among the heathen – which revelation is provided in detail at Acts 22:17-21.
Galatians 1:15-17 is therefore not to be rendered:
“Upon my conversion in Damascus I immediately went to Arabia where I received special revelation from God, and then returned to Damascus”
but
“Upon receiving the vision in the temple at Jerusalem to go to the Gentiles, which was some time after my conversion, I immediately went to Arabia (in particular Syria), returning again to the city of Damascus where I was first converted and where I had a place to stay.”
The logical process
1. We showed that Gal 1:15-17 does not in the main refer to Paul’s conversion. We did this via
a) the fact that if it did refer to his conversion, then its declaring that he immediately went into Arabia had blatantly contradicted Acts 9 which tells us that he immediately started preaching in Damascus, and that for a sustained period.
b) grammatical analysis (at Exposition of Galatians 1:15-17).
2. We therefore showed that Gal 1:15-17 refers in the main to Paul’s vision to go to the Gentiles, and that his conversion is simply mentioned in passing as part of the overall picture of his life.
3. We therefore showed that his statement at Gal 1:17 that he went into Arabia, returning “again” to Damascus, was not in reference to any intervening trip to Arabia during his initial sojourn at Damascus, but to his leaving Israel in accordance with the vision he received at Jerusalem some time after his conversion, and going back into Arabia and in particular to Damascus where he had been converted. For Damascus is in Syria and Syria is in Arabia.
Amen.
(See also addendum below.)
__________
ADDENDUM
A notional contradiction
Given that it was in Jerusalem that Paul received his vision to go to the heathen, why did he tell the Galatians that he didn’t go to Jerusalem (to the apostles for confirmation)?
The (apparent) contradiction consists in relative focus: Paul is writing about a revelation which resulted in a very unique ministry to Gentiles such as those to whom he was writing: where such revelation occurred was, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant: it could have been in Kathmandu for all that mattered.
The important thing is that he wanted to get across to the Galatians the fact that his calling was so unambiguous that any reference-checking were simply out of the question. Unnecessary detail would simply make the whole thing too wordy.
Yet to be determined
It is clear that Paul received his vision to go to the Gentiles before he voiced the following words at Antioch of Pisidia during his first journey with Barnabas:
“It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth” Acts 13:46,47.
However it is not clear when he actually received the vision, and therefore not clear when he “immediately” returned to Damascus. It is possible he returned to Jerusalem at an intermediate point during his first stay at Damascus, to check in on his domicile in Israel, and/or to receive direction from the Lord after having preached for a short while at Damascus where he had not originally intended to stay for too long.
However given that, when he was finally made to leave Damascus permanently and sent to Jerusalem because of persecution at Damascus (Acts 9:23-26), he seemed to argue only with the Jews at Jerusalem, such an earlier intervening trip to Jerusalem when he might have received the vision might seem unlikely; and yet not impossible, for having returned to the centre of Judaism his natural focus might have been toward the Jews despite an earlier-received vision to go to the Gentiles; certainly the Jews were never excluded from his audience.
The matter might provide a project for those further interested.