We have to reconcile Acts 9 with what Paul himself says he did in Galatians 1 after his conversion. Luke says Paul “immediately” began preaching in Damascus after his conversion. Paul says he went “at once” to Arabia and then to Damascus. As T. George writes, “How could Paul have “at once” both preached in Damascus and gone off to Arabia?“ Some scholars believe Paul may have spent less time in Arabia and more time in Damascus while some have taken the position that more time was spent in Arabia than Damascus. Both are possible. But what is clear is that if we look at both texts side by side assuming both are true, Paul was in Damascus, then Arabia, and back in Damascus before traveling to meet the Apostles for the first time.
These are the events that probably took place over the course of three years:
- Paul was converted
- He immediately preached in Damascus. (Acts 9)
- He went away into the Arabian desert (Galatians 1) probably for the majority of three years, not failing to preach to any he encountered but using most of this time to spend time with the Lord and re-study the Torah in light of Christ.
- He returned to Damascus where he was persecuted before heading to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles for the first time.
This timeline is consistent with both texts in Galatians and Acts 9. Here are both passages with some of my commentary showing how this is possible:
15 “But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but
[After immediately preaching in Damascus (Acts 9)]
I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years
[total time after his conversion including time spent in Arabia, unless we take this to mean he spent three years in Damascus in addition to his time in the desert]
I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.”
18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; 19 and taking food, he was strengthened. For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus [not the Apostles]. 20 And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.” 21 And all who heard him were amazed and said, “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called upon this name? And has he not come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests?” 22 But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ. 23 When many days had passed, [The majority of three years in Arabia, and returning to Damascus (Galatians 1:17) ] the Jews plotted to kill him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, 25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket. And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples.
These two scholars say it better than me:
 “How could Paul have “at once” both preached in Damascus and gone off to Arabia? This difficulty disappears altogether if we follow the literal sequence of the Greek text and interpret “immediately” as qualifying Paul’s negative statements concerning his postconversion whereabouts. Clearly the point he was making was not that he went immediately to Arabia without doing anything at all in Damascus but rather that immediately after his conversion, he did not go to Jerusalem or consult with the apostles there.” (George, T. (1994). Galatians (Vol. 30, pp. 122–127). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.)
 “Indeed, Luke stresses that it was at once (eutheōs, ‘immediately’) that he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. According to Galatians 1:17, Saul ‘went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus’, but Luke says nothing about this period in Arabia. ‘After three years’ in Galatians 1:18 could allow for an initial period of preaching in Damascus (Acts 9:19b–22), followed by a stay in Arabia (the Nabatean kingdom on the eastern frontier of Syria), and further ministry in Damascus (Acts 9:23–25), before going up to Jerusalem.” (Peterson, D. G. (2009). The Acts of the Apostles (pp. 312–313). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. )
First and foremost, this helps show why so-called discrepancies in the Bible aren’t discrepancies at all. Details are often left out that are considered secondary from the perspective of the author who is trying to make a point, not catalog every detail of history. To quote T. George again, “It is possible to affirm the total truthfulness and accuracy of the Bible in everything it describes without assuming that it purports to be totally exhaustive in every detail.” Paul’s point was that he didn’t meet with the Apostles right away. Luke’s point was that Paul was radically changed and quickly began preaching the message he originally condemned. Most important of all, every so-called discrepancy I’ve ever encountered in the Bible changes absolutely 0% of the main message of the Bible repeated over and over: that God created the world good, that we have all gone astray and are guilty of crimes against our creator, that God took on flesh in Jesus Christ, laid his life down on a cross to be both just and the justifier of his people (Romans 3:26), rose from the dead confirming the truth of his message and so that all who trust in him could also be resurrected to eternal life.
Another application that can be drawn from all this is that if Paul needed preparation after conversion for ministry, so do we. Paul had three years of preparation before he began his public ministry to the world, since he was still largely “unknown” during this time. (Galatians 1:22) Even though Paul immediately preached in Damascus after his conversion, he spent three years, likely in prayer and study of the Scriptures before embarking on his famous three missionary journeys that forever changed the world. This is encouraging if we take it to understand that even the Apostle Paul needed some time and preparation for ministry. We shouldn’t be surprised if we need more.
What do you think? Is this helpful, or is this something you already knew?
12 thoughts on “After Conversion, Did Paul Immediately Begin His Ministry or Go to Arabia?”
While this post is somewhat helpful (as far as application is concerned), your take is just another different slant to add to all the other different slants from the commentaries I’ve consulted. In other words, there is no real agreement here, only speculation, even among the experts. Not your fault though! This is not a criticism, just an observation.
Thanks, though, for trying to sort it out with some logical clarity. Looking forward to exploring the rest of your site.
Thanks! Yes I love bringing out some logical clarity where possible. In this case the clarity we can bring seems to be that it’s unclear! Haha! But I think that’s still a worthy pursuit. Because what IS clear are the separate points being made in both scriptures, right? Thanks for reading.
Very much enjoyed reading this article. However, I have never considered this as a contradiction. Seems normal and to be expected to me. When we “truly” get saved we all want to tell everyone right away and do! After we encounter resistance and opposition (like Saul did) we realize that effective presentation requires a well studied and systematic approach. I hartily agree that Bible contradictions always disappear when we apply context and comparisons to other scriptures on the matter. Our lack of understanding does not make the Bible untrue!
Ron, thank you. Yes I agree! Thanks for reading and for your comment. God bless your study.
God came to me. I actually saw him. Back in 1982 I lost my mother. I became very angry with God for a period of time. I begged him to bring my mother back and of course he didn’t. My uncle was about to pass and He said He made the trip to earth to see me and tell me that I didn’t have that kind of time to be angry with Him again. I replied oh no you are the creator, the one who divided the Red Sea and made the mountains and the earth. I’m not angry. He said are you saying you were never angry at me. I looked at Him and started crying and said I was so angry at you I didn’t want people to say your name. We talked more and I believe he went upstairs to lay down because when my sin came back home he said someone’s been sleeping in my bed with feathers. Every since this encounter I’ve been reading the Bible with a vengeance. I want to learn everything. Out of everyone in the Bible I love Paul the most. He went through so much. That’s what brings me to your sight.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I came across this as I was studying Galatians 1. Why do we feel like we need to explain everything? Would we really want to worship a God we fully understood? Life and faith is full of paradox. Overdetermination is the need to know why everything happens all the time.
I agree, scholars can make things more complicated than they need to be, and arguing about words “ruins the hearers.” That was my main point in sharing this. These details don’t get in the way of the main message of the gospel. On the other hand, while I don’t believe we need to understand everything about God, I do think we can understand everything he has revealed to us through his Word. I believe God has spoken to us in his Word because He intends us to understand it. In other words, He didn’t speak to us words that were impossible to understand (even if we need His help to understand). I believe all of the Bible can be understood then, because God directed the writing of it to clearly communicate his truth to us. I believe he has to open our eyes to the meaning. So for many of use, exploring these details is enjoyable. By it we become better equipped to be able to give an answer to everyone who asks, a reason for the hope that we have. Thanks for your comment, and for reading! 🙂
“…when God… decided to reveal his son in me… I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I [immediately] go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I [immediately] departed to Arabia; indeed, I returned again to Damascus.”
According this reading of the Gal, to depart or return [ἀπέρχομαι] “to Arabia” and to return back again [ὑποστρέφω] “to Damascus” are two ways of describing one and the same return (from where, he does not say) to one and the same place, i.e. Damascus, Arabia [where “the ethnarch under Aretas” would later, or had already tried to “seize” him].
Plausible? If so, then according to both Gal and Acts, Paul immediately went to Damascus.
I like where you are going, but it sounds like you’re saying Damascus and Arabia are the same place, which, from what I’ve found, they are not. It seems to me rather like details are being left out in both places because different points are being made.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scholarly reckonings of Arabian boarder may differ differ. But if the “the ethnarch under Aretas” was in Damasucs, then Damascus was under Arab rule at the time when Paul left in a basket over a wall. The distinct impression given is that Damascus was on the boarder of Aratia, albeit a disputed boarder, and thus also quite possibly “in Arabia” (for the purpose of exegesis of the meaning of “εἰς Δαμασκὸν” in Gal/Acts).
I see, yes that certainly does sound plausible. It would certainly clear some things up if Damascus was considered to be within Arabia.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and also of note, in commenting on the Magi who visited Mary and Joseph and Jesus, Justin Martyr wrote this: “And none of you can deny that Damascus was, and is, in the region of Arabia, although now it belongs to what is called Syrophoenicia.” https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8631&p=129547#p129547