οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον (εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα) (πρὸς τοὺς (πρὸ ἐμοῦ) ἀποστόλους),
ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον (εἰς Ἀραβίαν)
καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα (εἰς Δαμασκόν).
Paul here expands on his statement in 1:16 that he did not immediately consult with anyone. We are told who, in particular, Paul has in mind with the expression flesh and blood (1:16): he refers to those who were apostles before him (πρὸ ἐμοῦ). Immediately following his conversion, and his apostolic commission, he did not even go to Jerusalem to consult with the other apostles. Instead, he travelled to Arabia, then back to Damascus. Acts 9:19b–25 records Paul’s (still known as Saul) activities in Damascus. He preached in the synagogues (9:20) and grew more powerful during this time (9:22). The time spent in Arabia, however, is not mentioned in Acts; it is only recorded here in Galatians 1:17.
The verse effectively forms a miniature embedded narrative as Paul recounts his post-conversion movements. As to be expected with (embedded or otherwise) narrative, the mainline is conveyed through aorist indicatives (Campbell 2008b:84–85)—in this case, ἀνῆλθον, ἀπῆλθον, and ὑπέστρεψα.
The rhetorical contribution of this verse is to underscore the main point of 1:15–16—that Paul did not consult flesh and blood with respect to his commission to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. As the recipient of the revelation of Christ, by God’s will, Paul had no immediate need to consult with the apostles in Jerusalem. While he will go on to detail his eventual encounter with the apostles—especially Peter—throughout chapter 2, Paul wants the Galatians to understand that his apostleship, and the gospel he proclaims, is not derivative. It does not depend on the other apostles; if it did, his position may be weakened with respect to their regard for him as a genuine apostle.
Posted by Con Campbell
Rick Creighton
Bruce Lowe
Con Campbell
RSS feed - Posts
Subscribe by Email
You would do better to ignore Paul and move back to Jesus’s teachings. A book of mine was just published wherein I laid out Paul’s teachings in context like a good lawyer would a deposition. I then laid out the teachings of Jesus Christ. Paul’s teachings are the opposite of Jesus’s teachings. Further if you read his epistles and compare them to his exploits in Acts you will find the motives for his actions. You can find the book on all the major sites like Barnes and Noble and Amazon. Look under my name John Ben Regesh and it is easier to find. The name of the Book: “Saint Paul, The First Antichrist / Deception and Dogma”. Antichrist is defined as that given by John in his epistles, not Nostradamus.
I had to do a double-take on the comment by the lawyer. Jesus and Paul’s teachings are opposing truth claims? Jesus taught that man must believe in Him (Jesus) and his word. Paul taught that man must believe on Jesus and his word. The only ways to get around the two unified teachings is to accept that the New Testament contradicts itself. If one wishes to assert that, he/she has an uphill battle, for unity is seen throughout – namely in the simple teaching I just mentioned. Secondly, as Paul is vehement in defending in Galatians one, he received the revelation from God. Now the lawyer has another problem (it’s uphill as I said): God has contradicted Jesus. I think I’ll take Jesus and Paul over the lawyer.