One of the more tantalizing aspects of Paul’s early ministry is his “three years in Arabia.” In Gal 1:17, Paul states that he did not go to Jerusalem immediately, but rather he went to Arabia for a period of time before returning to Damascus. This period of time is not spent in modern Arabia, but rather the Nabatean kingdom on the east side of the Jordan. As Robert Smith states, the term “Arab” “could be used as a virtual equivalent of ‘Nabatean’ (1 Macc 5:25, 39, 9:35, and 2 Macc 5:8)” (ABD, 1:326).
Paul gives us some details of these events in 2 Cor 11:32-33. While Luke indicates that the Jews were plotting against him, 2 Cor adds an important fact: The local guard was looking out for him as well. He specifically mentions Aretas IV, the client-king over the Nabateans. During the reign of Aretas IV (9 B.C. – A.D. 39) Nabatean culture was at a high point. The king was responsible for the development of Petra and developed a number of cities along the Petra – Gaza trade route. He controlled territory as far north as Damascus and as far south as northern Arabia. To a certain extent, Aretas IV was the “Herod the Great” of the Nabatean kingdom. . Since Aretas IV died in 39, the latest date for Paul’s conversion is 36, if not earlier.
After an initial confrontation with Jews in the synagogue in Damascus, it is possible that Paul traveled from Damascus to other major cities in the Nabatean kingdom. This would have included cities of the Decapolis, perhaps even the modern site of Jeresh. It is possible he visited Petra since it was a major trading center at the time. He may have used Damascus as a “base” since there was already a community of believers there. We simply have no real facts to deal with for this three year period, other than he was living in that territory for three years and that he did not consult the other apostles until three years after his experience on the road to Damascus.
As James Dunn observes, the more difficult question is why Paul spent three years in the Arabia. Paul makes an emphatic statement that after receiving a commission from the resurrected Jesus to be the “light to the Gentiles,” he did not “consult flesh and blood” but went to Arabia (Gal 1:7). Like Dunn, I think that Paul is simply following through on the commission he was given, to take the message of Jesus the Messiah to the Gentiles. The Nabatean kingdom provided him with ample opportunity to do just that.
Sometimes this period is described as a spiritual retreat into the desert, to work out the implications of his encounter with Jesus. I think that it is certain that Paul begins working through what “Jesus as Messiah” means, and what his role as the ‘light to the Gentiles” should be. He likely spent a great deal of time reading the scripture developing the material that he will use later in Antioch, then on the missionary journeys.
But this period is not a monastic retreat! Paul is preaching Jesus and being faithful to his calling as the light to the Gentiles.
3 thoughts on “Paul in “Arabia””
Many say it was a time of training and meditation on what was revealed to Him. However, it is hard to imagine that Paul would have been silent about Christ, and not preached during this time. In fact, 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 indicates that whatever Paul did in Arabia it displeased Aretas, who controlled the Nabathean kingdom, which was in Arabia. What set Aretas off? It is unlikely that Paul’s presence and meditation for some of spiritual retreat would have caused the reaction. It is more likely the message that he was preaching. In other words he was obeying his commission to go to the Gentiles. Murphy-O’Connor correctly says, “The only explanation is that Paul was trying to made converts.”
In recently reading in Luther’s commentary on Galatians, I noted that he sees this period in Arabia as part of Paul’s first journey. Luther understands Paul as already having received his “gospel” during his experience on the Damascus Road. Thus, this trip to Damascus was to preach the gospel to the Gentiles — as Christ commissioned him to do through Ananias. I found it interesting that Luther does not hold to the view that Paul had a spiritual retreat with Christ in Arabia, but was already fulfilling his mission to the Gentiles.
Thanks, Mark. Luther did get a few things right . I am not sure where the “spiritual retreat” became popular, it might reflect someone’s idea of what they would have done after the Damascus road experience.
Have you read either the Ancient Christian commentary on Galatians or the Reformation commentary (both IVP, I think). I suppose the spiritual retreat idea could be related to the monastic movement.