What does Arabia mean to Apostle Paul?

What Paul did in Arabia seems speculative at best, since we have so little to go by in Scripture.

However I did find this possible theory in Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New and Old Testament Witness (Fearn, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2003), p. 422.

Apostolic Training and Authorization?

Did he obtain the gospel he was preaching after his conversion, if not at the feet of Gamaliel, at the feet of the Apostles? Listen to Paul again:

  … when God … was pleased to reveal his Son to me …, I did not consult any man nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus (Gal 1:15–17).

In this connection, there is separate evidence, if Paul intended by this reference to Arabia to refer to the Nabataean Kingdom, that Paul did not simply devote himself to a life of quiet contemplation in Arabia after his conversion but in fact immediately began to missionarize the populace there. Paul informs us in 2 Corinthians 11:32–33 that “the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me,” but one does not stir up the kind of trouble he alludes to in the Corinthians passage merely by meditation. This would suggest that long before he made any contact with the Jerusalem Apostles Paul had already engaged himself in Gentile evangelism.

I also found this in the old edition of the ISBE, in the article on "Paul, The Apostle":

WORK.

 1.  ADJUSTMENT:

There was evidently a tumult in Paul’s soul. He had undergone a revolution, both intellectual and spiritual. Before he proceeded farther it was wise to think through the most important implications of the new standpoint. Luke gives no account of this personal phase of Paul’s career, but he allows room for it between Acts 9:21 and 22. It is Paul who tells of his retirement to Arabia (Galatians 1:17 f) to prove his independence of the apostles in Jerusalem. He did not go to them for instruction or for ecclesiastical authority. He did not adopt the merely traditional view of Jesus as the Messiah. He knew, of course, the Christian contention well enough, for he had answered it often enough. But now his old arguments were gone and he must work his way round to the other side, and be able to put his new gospel with clearness and force. He was done with calling Jesus anathema (1 Corinthians 12:3). Henceforth to him Jesus is Lord. We know nothing of Paul’s life in Arabia nor in what part of Arabia he was. He may have gone to Mt. Sinai and thought out grace in the atmosphere of law, but that is not necessary. But it is clear that Paul grew in apprehension of the things of Christ during these years, as indeed he grew to the very end. But he did not grow away from the first clear vision of Christ. He claimed that God had revealed His Son in him that he might preach to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:16). He claimed that from the first and to the very last. The undoubted development in Paul’s Epistles (see Matheson, Spiritual Development of Paul, and Sabatier, The Apostle Paul) is, however, not a changing view of Christ that nullifies Paul’s “original Christian inheritance” (Kohler, Zum Verstandnis des Apostels Paulus, 13). Pfieiderer (Influence of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity, 3rd edition, 1897, 217) rejects Colossians because of the advanced Christology here found. But the Christology of Colossians is implicit in Paul’s first sermon at Damascus. “It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the significance and value of the Cross became clear to him almost simultaneously with the certainty of the resurrection and of the Messiahship of Jesus” (Garvie, Studies, etc., 57). The narrow Jew has surrendered to Christ who died for the sins of the world. The universal gospel has taken hold of his mind and heart, and it will work out its logical consequences in Paul. The time in Arabia is not wasted. When he reappears in Damascus (Acts 9:22) he has “developed faith” (Findlay, HDB) and energy that bear instant fruit. He is now the slave of Christ. For him henceforth to live is Christ. He is crucified with Christ. He is in Christ. The union of Paul with Christ is the real key to his life. It is far more than a doctrine about Christ. It is real fellowship with Christ (Deissmann, Paul, 123). Thus it is that the man who probably never saw Christ in the flesh understands him best (Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, I, 159).

James Orr, M.A., D.D., The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: 1915 Edition, ed. James Orr (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1999).

ROGER JIMENEZ said:

Why retirement to Arabia? Why Arabia? What was Arabia in the life of Paul, who in the most decisive moments of his life he retired 3 yrs to that region? When he says in Galatians that after his conversion, "I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood (Ga 1:16).", Is referring to his stay in Arabia?

Why Arabia?  Arabia is the desert.  It was in the desert that Moses met God.  It was in the desert (Sinai) that Elijah retired to receive his final commission and then be decommissioned as prophet.  It was into the desert that Jesus was driven following his baptism.  The desert is a place of contemplation and communion with God. 

Where?  From Damascus it is little more than stepping out the door to be in Arabia.  Look at Arabia in "Biblical Places."

ROGER JIMENEZ said:

Rosie Perera said:

(see Matheson, Spiritual Development of Paul, and Sabatier, The Apostle Paul)

Sounds interesting, is in Logos? Didn't find it.

No, but you can get it as a print-on-demand book via Amazon.com for about $20: http://amzn.com/1290126151 

Another classic work that looks interesting and is available free online is A.T. Robertson's Epochs in the Life of Paul: A Study of Development in Paul's Career. He covers the sojourn in Arabia on pp. 76-78.

George Somsel said:

ROGER JIMENEZ said:

Why retirement to Arabia? Why Arabia? What was Arabia in the life of Paul, who in the most decisive moments of his life he retired 3 yrs to that region? When he says in Galatians that after his conversion, "I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood (Ga 1:16).", Is referring to his stay in Arabia?

 Why Arabia?  Arabia is the desert.  It was in the desert that Moses met God.  It was in the desert (Sinai) that Elijah retired to receive his final commission and then be decommissioned as prophet.  It was into the desert that Jesus was driven following his baptism.  The desert is a place of contemplation and communion with God. 

Where?  From Damascus it is little more than stepping out the door to be in Arabia.  Look at Arabia in "Biblical Places."

I will agree with George here. But I think that the key to the 3yrs spent in Arabia[desert] are found in v 11-12. The Damascus road intervention was a Revelation to Saul who thus Became Paul. Then the time spent with the Blindness, then the transformation from Saul to Paul. He already had the knowledge, just not in the right perspective or 'spiritual' guidance.

This would be adequatly applied, looking at those that were also sequestered to a 'desolate place'.

***

In the referral to Jesus in the desert 'preaching' - they followed him....agreed.

***

Today's desert could be a multitude of occurrences and in different applications. We, as individuals, will receive what we need just when we need it..........

But getting back to Paul:

v11-12, leading into v13-17, explain his above average ability, God given and God directed, by which Paul accredits properly. And....according to Paul's own witness there were only two that seen or discoursed with him after this - Peter and James v18-19. Then Paul departs - interestingly enough to note that there is no deacon/elder/pastoral recognition of the laying on of hands to be sent forth, or any tribunal inquisition to attest to his knowledgable ability to speak Scripturally. BUT- later they did send for Paul and found him - where?

Hope this helps.

OOPS! George, I made a slight edit, you will see it in the re-read. But thanks...

Ok, now let's add some flavor to the discourse:

What is the significance, if any, with just the meet and greet with Peter[Paul calls him "Cephas"] and James, why not all of them? For this you would have to study up on all of Peter and all of James.

Later Paul states that he went face-to-face with Peter over something that Peter did/?

Also, Jesus told Peter that upon him He would build His Church, but Paul is the notable one who, Scripturally, started the churches....where is Peter's...../?

Thanks.

George Somsel said:

At the risk of raising the hackles of my Catholic friends, Jesus DID NOT say he would build his church on Peter. 

NT Wright has a typically NT Wright slant on this issue. It's quite readable. Check it out if you have JBL on Logos in the Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 115 No.4 or alternatively if you don't have JBL there's a link to a PDF of the article courtesy of the NT Wright page: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Paul_Arabia_Elijah.pdf

No amen ... the divine writings beg for discussion.  Maybe that was God's goal?  Anything obviously clear gets parked.

And welcome to the forums!  As the word suggests, your thoughts are of value.

ROGER JIMENEZ said:

Suggestions, comments, please.

The reason and answer, as always, is prophecy.

Dean M Knudsen said:

If God wanted us to know the exact details of certain things, He'd make them clear.  I guess that is why we have over 30,000 denominations throughout the faith!  Man needing to be right! :-/ As 1 Corinthians clearly states in Chapter 14:33 "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace." Amen? :-)

Actually, that isn't what 1 Cor. 14:33 says...check your Bible again.

In fact, YHWH is a God of confusion.