Was Damascus in Arabia? (Maybe Acts is more harmonious with Gal 1:15-19 than we thought)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia? (Maybe Acts is more harmonious with Gal 1:15-17 than we thought)

Post by gryan »

Was Paul "lowered in a basket" twice?
An alternative reconstruction of Gal/Cor/Acts Chronology


Event 1

Paul, the zealous Jew prior to conversion escapes Arab ruler in Damascus
Story told only once:

2 Cor 11:30f
32In Damascus the governor under the king Aretas was guarding the city of the Damascenes to seize me. But I was let down in a basket through a window through the wall, and I escaped his hands.

Event 2

Paul, the convert returns to Damascus a changed man
Story told in these three versions:


Gal 1:15f
"...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..."

Acts 9
....suddenly also a light from heaven flashed around him. 4And having fallen on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?”

5And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”

And He said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.a 6But rise up and enter into the city, and it will be told you that which it behooves you to do.”

7And the men traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice indeed, but seeing no one. 8And Saul rose up from the ground, but of his eyes having been opened, he could see nothing. And leading him by the hand, they brought him to Damascus. 9And he was three days without seeing, and neither did he eat nor drink.

Acts 22
...suddenly a great light out of heaven shone around me, 7and I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?’

8And I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’

And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ 9And those being with me indeed beheld the light, but they did not hear the voice of the One speaking to me.

10Then I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’

And the Lord said to me, ‘Having risen up, go to Damascus, and there it will be told you concerning all things that it has been appointed you to do.’

11And while I could not see from the brightness of that light, I came to Damascus, being led by the hand by those being with me....

18And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. And having risen up, he was baptized, 19and having taken food, he was strengthened. And he was some days with the disciples in Damascus.

20And immediately he began proclaiming Jesus in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God.

21And all those hearing were amazed and were saying, “Is this not the one having ravaged those in Jerusalem calling on this name? And he had come here for this, that he might bring them, having been bound, to the chief priests.”

22But Saul was empowered all the more and kept confounding the Jews dwelling in Damascus, proving that this is the Christ.

Event 3

Paul the convert goes from Damascus to Jerusalem
Story told in two versions:


Gal 1:18
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Cephas, and I remained with him fifteen days...

Acts 22
23Now when many days had passed, the Jews plotted together to kill him, 24but their plot became known to Saul. And now they were closely watching the gates day and also night, so that they might kill him. 25But having taken him by night, his disciples let him down through the wall, having lowered him in a basket. 26And having arrived in Jerusalem, he was attempting to join the disciples, and all were afraid of him, not believing that he is a disciple. 27But Barnabas having taken him, brought him to the apostles and related to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus.

-------------------

I had been laboring under the (now) IMHO false assumption that the parallel stories of leaving Damascus "over a wall in a basket" in Cor/Acts were similar enough to indicate that the author of Acts intended these to be taken as two versions of the same story. Now I see these as two stories of two different events, both of which happen to involve Paul going over a wall in a basket to exit Damascus:

1) Both in Paul's story of leaving Damascus to escape an Arab ruler, and in Paul story of "returning again" to Damascus in Arabia, Damascus is coded as Arab ruled. These two stories are a matched pair.
2) The Acts story of leaving Damascus is an escape from Jewish opponents of Paul's preaching Christ. This is a very different story and with no suggestion of Arab presence.

In this inter-textual scenario, the author of Acts was indeed consciously echoing the "over the wall" motif from Cor, but using it to narrate what was supposed to be understood by readers of Cor/Acts as a different, subsequent event! According to Cor, Paul escaped over a Damascus wall in a basket, and the reader of Acts is expected to imagine that he also did the same a second time.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia?

Post by gryan »

GakuseiDon wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:08 pm It's hard for me to see a deeper meaning to "flesh and blood" in 1 Cor 1:50. To me, Paul is stressing the difference between the spirit and the flesh. That might well be a reference to the spiritual bond of brotherhood vs the fleshly bond specific to James as you suggest; but Paul does seem to be speaking generally there. It's hard for me to see a specific reference to a brother/brothers of Jesus.
Re: What is rhetorical function of Paul's claim, "I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood"?

It is useful to reflect on how Jerome struggles with this question. Jerome's views are probably reflective of the views of Origin, but he puts his own stamp on it. In particular he is motivated to defend claims made in his early essay, "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary". Jerome argued that Jesus was Mary's one and only child. Therefore, in his view, James the Lord's "brother" was a cousin of Jesus, not another son of Jesus' mother, Mary (as Mark 6:3, read together with Mark 15:40, arguably indicates clearly). Jerome writes:

"...far be it from me to reckon Peter, John and James as flesh and blood, which cannot possess the kingdom of God (according to 1 Cor 15:50). If spiritually-minded apostles count as flesh and blood, then what about earthly-minded people? It is obvious that Paul did not confer with flesh and blood after receiving revelation from Christ because he would not throw pearls to swine or give what is holy to dogs...The Apostle did not confer about the Gospel revealed to him with people who were flesh and blood (these people did not reveal the Son of God to Peter, either, Mt 16:17). Rather, he converted them gradually from flesh and blood to the Spirit and then vouchsafed to them the hidden mysteries of the Gospel.

Someone may say: Even if he did not confer about the Gospel right away with flesh and blood, he nevertheless implies that he did so a short time later, and this means that the apostles must be flesh and blood after all, though nevertheless he who did not initially confer with flesh and blood did so later. This line of reasoning constrains us to avoid coupling "immediately" or "right away" with "flesh and blood," and instead to construe it as part of the preceding verse, "but when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, to reveal his Son in me, so that I might preach him among the nations right away[immediatly]." So, "I did not confer with flesh and blood" is its own self-contained sentence...

If he had been referring to the apostles when he said, "I did not confer with flesh and blood," why did he find it necessary to repeat himself by saying, "Nor did I go to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me"? The meaning I gave above, then, must stand.

--From St. Jerome Commentary on Galatians, Tr. Andrew Cain.
Last edited by gryan on Sun Nov 28, 2021 7:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia? (Maybe Acts is more harmonious with Gal 1:15-17 than we thought)

Post by gryan »

Re: Jerome's comments on Gal 1:17b. But I went to Arabia and returned again to Damascus.

The sequence of events presented here seems to be at odds with Luke's account in the Acts of the Apostles, which runs as follows. After coming to faith in Christ, Paul courageously proclaimed the Gospel at Damascus for many days. But when plots were hatched to kill him, he was lowered in a basket through the city wall and went to Jerusalem and tried to join the disciples. When they shied away from him and refused to come near him, Barnabas brought him to the apostles, and Paul related how he had seen the Lord on his journey and how at Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus. "He was with them at Jerusalem, coming in and going out and speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He also conversed and debated with some Greeks, but they were looking for a way to kill him. When the brothers realized this, they escorted him to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus."

Paul says however that he went first to Arabia, then back to Damascus, and after three years traveled to Jerusalem where he met with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days but did not meet with anyone else besides James, the brother of the Lord... The following is a plausible reconstruction the chain of events. As soon as he was baptized and refreshed with a meal, he remained for several days with the disciples who were in Damascus and stupefied all those around him by preaching incessantly in the synagogues of the Jews that Jesus is the Son of God. Then he went to Arabia and from there turned back to Damascus where he spent three years... Luke neglected to mention Arabia because Paul perhaps did nothing notable there as far as his apostolic preaching was concerned...

From St. Jerome, Commentary on Galatians, Tr. Andrew Cain
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia? (Maybe Acts is more harmonious with Gal 1:15-17 than we thought)

Post by gryan »

Thesis Recap: These three Damascus/Revelation texts fit together in (relative) harmony IF it is understood that, in the Gal account, Paul returned "immediately" to Damascus (which was reckoned by Paul to be a city in Arabia, on the edge of Arabia) the very place he had previously fled, but now he was on the opposite side of the conflict at hand, and he approached his former adversaries in weakness.

Primary Texts
Paul fled Damascus prior to experiencing revelation
2Cor 11:32f
In Damascus the governor under the king Aretas was guarding the city of the Damascenes to seize me. But I was let down in a basket through a window through the wall, and I escaped his hands. It behooves me to boast. Although there is nothing to gain, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord... that I should not become conceited, a thorn in my flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan, that he might buffet me, so that I should not become conceited. ... He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness.”

After the revelation, Paul returned again immediately to Damascus
Gal 1:13f
For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism... But when God, the One having selected me from my mother’s womb and having called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles... I [immediately] departed into Arabia; indeed, I returned again to Damascus.

Literary echo
Parallel story of revelation/fleshly weakness/call Damascus

Acts 22:10f
Then I asked, ‘What should I do, Lord?’
‘Get up and go to Damascus,’ He told me...
Because the brilliance of the light had blinded me, my companions led me by the hand into Damascus.
Last edited by gryan on Mon Nov 29, 2021 5:54 pm, edited 8 times in total.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia?

Post by perseusomega9 »

gryan wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 3:45 pmJerome writes:

"...far be it from me to reckon Peter, John and James as flesh and blood, which cannot possess the kingdom of God (according to 1 Cor 15:50). If spiritually-minded apostles count as flesh and blood, then what about earthly-minded people? It is obvious that Paul did not confer with flesh and blood after receiving revelation from Christ because he would not throw pearls to swine or give what is holy to dogs...The Apostle did not confer about the Gospel revealed to him with people who were flesh and blood (these people did not reveal the Son of God to Peter, either, Mt 16:17). Rather, he converted them gradually from flesh and blood to the Spirit and then vouchsafed to them the hidden mysteries of the Gospel.

Someone may say: Even if he did not confer about the Gospel right away with flesh and blood, he nevertheless implies that he did so a short time later, and this means that the apostles must be flesh and blood after all, though nevertheless he who did not initially confer with flesh and blood did so later. This line of reasoning constrains us to avoid coupling "immediately" or "right away" with "flesh and blood," and instead to construe it as part of the preceding verse, "but when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, to reveal his Son in me, so that I might preach him among the nations right away[immediatly]." So, "I did not confer with flesh and blood" is its own self-contained sentence...

If he had been referring to the apostles when he said, "I did not confer with flesh and blood," why did he find it necessary to repeat himself by saying, "Nor did I go to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me"? The meaning I gave above, then, must stand.

--From St. Jerome Commentary on Galatians, Tr. Andrew Cain.
I got tired of emphasizing after the first paragraph.

Sure seems like the church is still really struggling with gnostic commentary embedded in their own text, while pretending these letters are whole and written by the same guy. And Jerome is definitely not reacting to people who were saying the Apostles were flesh and bone dogs and swine.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia? (Maybe Acts is more harmonious with Gal 1:15-17 than we thought)

Post by gryan »

@ perseusomega9

Yes, I'm reading William O. Walkers book on Non-Pauline Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, and he argues that the "cumulative weight of the form-critical, linguistic, ideational, contextual and other data" suggests that 1 Cor. 2.6-16 is a non-Pauline interpolation. He does not directly call it "gnositic" but he says it sure sounds like later gnostic writings. Here is the text in question:

1 Cor. 2.6-16
6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him”—

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

-----------------

I myself accept this text as authentic Paul, and also, I like it. That might mean I'm blind to gnostic interpolations. I don't know.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia? (Maybe Acts is more harmonious with Gal 1:15-17 than we thought)

Post by gryan »

Primary Texts

Fleeing Damascus-under-Arab-rule was a prelude to revelation/fleshly weakness
2Cor 11:32f
In Damascus the governor under the king Aretas was guarding the city of the Damascenes to seize me. But I was let down in a basket through a window through the wall, and I escaped his hands. It behooves me to boast. Although there is nothing to gain, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord... that I should not become conceited, a thorn in my flesh (Cf. "thorns in your eyes" Num 33:55) was given to me, a messenger of Satan, that he might buffet me, so that I should not become conceited... He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is perfected in weakness.”

After the revelation, Paul returned again immediately to Damascus-in-Arabia
Gal 1:13f
For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism... But when God... having called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles... I [immediately] departed into Arabia; indeed, I returned again into Damascus.

Literary echos

Revelation/fleshly weakness/call to go into Damascus and "immediately"

Acts 22:10f
Then I asked, ‘What should I do, Lord?’
‘Get up and go into Damascus,’ He told me...
Because the brilliance of the light had blinded me, my companions led me by the hand
into Damascus.

Acts 9:17f
Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “...be filled with the Holy Spirit.
Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again...
And immediately he began preaching about Jesus in the synagogues.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia?

Post by GakuseiDon »

gryan wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 3:45 pmRe: What is rhetorical function of Paul's claim, "I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood"?

It is useful to reflect on how Jerome struggles with this question. Jerome's views are probably reflective of the views of Origin, but he puts his own stamp on it. In particular he is motivated to defend claims made in his early essay, "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary". Jerome argued that Jesus was Mary's one and only child. Therefore, in his view, James the Lord's "brother" was a cousin of Jesus, not another son of Jesus' mother, Mary (as Mark 6:3, read together with Mark 15:40, arguably indicates clearly). Jerome writes:

"...far be it from me to reckon Peter, John and James as flesh and blood, which cannot possess the kingdom of God (according to 1 Cor 15:50). If spiritually-minded apostles count as flesh and blood, then what about earthly-minded people? It is obvious that Paul did not confer with flesh and blood after receiving revelation from Christ because he would not throw pearls to swine or give what is holy to dogs...The Apostle did not confer about the Gospel revealed to him with people who were flesh and blood (these people did not reveal the Son of God to Peter, either, Mt 16:17). Rather, he converted them gradually from flesh and blood to the Spirit and then vouchsafed to them the hidden mysteries of the Gospel.
Just reading over Jerome from here: https://archive.org/details/commentary- ... er&q=blood

Jerome cites Mathew 16, which I'll give below just for reference:

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Jerome wrote:Someone may say: Even if he did not confer about the Gospel right away with flesh and blood, he nevertheless implies that he did so a short time later, and this means that the apostles must be flesh and blood after all, though nevertheless he who did not initially confer with flesh and blood did so later. This line of reasoning constrains us to avoid coupling "immediately" or "right away" with "flesh and blood," and instead to construe it as part of the preceding verse, "but when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, to reveal his Son in me, so that I might preach him among the nations right away[immediatly]." So, "I did not confer with flesh and blood" is its own self-contained sentence...
I guess I'll have to take Jerome's word for it. I agree it puts a different interpretation on what Paul did and when.

So instead of:

Gal 1:15 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.


... Jerome proposes:

Gal 1:15 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.


And that makes a lot of sense!

It also makes it sound like the apostles are not "flesh and blood", but "of the spirit". Maybe? Hard to work this out.

Possibilities:

1. It means somehow James, brother of Jesus, after all; but it implies James wasn't in Jerusalem at that time
2. There were a group of "flesh and blood" Christians who didn't recognise Jesus as the Son of God, so hadn't received the spirit, as per Matt 16:17. But why would Paul make a point of saying he was NOT going to see them?
3. Paul does mean "men" when he writes "flesh and blood", and those were of the church of God. In this case, there is no deeper meaning to the expression "flesh and blood". Paul didn't go to the local churches of God to see the Christians there, nor up to Jerusalem to see the apostles. Instead, he went to Arabia and Damascus.

I still tend to think that (3) is the more likely option. But again, I have no knowledge of Greek (or Latin or Hebrew for that matter).
Jerome wrote:If he had been referring to the apostles when he said, "I did not confer with flesh and blood," why did he find it necessary to repeat himself by saying, "Nor did I go to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me"? The meaning I gave above, then, must stand.

--From St. Jerome Commentary on Galatians, Tr. Andrew Cain.
If I am reading Jerome correctly, then he is saying that James ISN'T flesh and blood. That is, James was "of the spirit" rather than "of the flesh". So "did not consult with flesh and blood" doesn't apply to James. Though I'm scratching my head about whom it could apply to, as per my previous comment.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia? (Maybe Acts is more harmonious with Gal 1:15-17 than we thought)

Post by gryan »

@ GakuseiDon

Thanks for taking that dive into Jerome's logic!

My sense is that the modern consensus is correct that good grammar argues against Jerome's decision "to avoid coupling 'immediately' or 'right away' with 'flesh and blood,' and instead to construe it as part of the preceding verse".
----------
Note:Jerome's IMO misreading of Paul's grammar (correct sense as to what came before, but wrong grammar as to what follows) has a (for me) disconcerting echo in Gal.
Here is Jeromes misreading of Gal:
"but when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, to reveal his Son in me, so that I might preach (εὐαγγελίζωμαι), him among the nations immediately [εὐθέως]."
And here is the disconcerting literary echo:
Acts 9:17f
Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “...be filled with the Holy Spirit.
Immediately (εὐθέως), something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again...
And immediately (εὐθέως) he began preaching (ἐκήρυσσεν) about Jesus in the synagogues.
-------------
Jerome is straining good grammar to avoid the actual "line of reasoning" of the text: "I did not immediately thereafter consult with flesh and blood..." (Tr. Andrew Das, whose Concordia Commentary on Galatians, 2014, provides the best current deep dive into the grammatical issues of Gal).

The IMO correct "line of reasoning" (that Jerome is trying to avoid), in Jerome's words, is this: "Even if he did not confer about the Gospel right away with flesh and blood, he nevertheless implies that he did so a short time later..."

Furthermore, again, Jerome is correct in voicing this question: "If he had been referring to the apostles when he said, "I did not confer with flesh and blood," why did he find it necessary to repeat himself by saying, "Nor did I go to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me"? "

Although what I'm seeing is to be found in no commentary, ancient or modern (that I know of), IMHO, the actual "line of reasoning" in the text (that Jerome is expertly trying to avoid) may be exegeted properly in light of the text's A,B,C,C',B',A' "Chiastic structure": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiastic_structure

A. I did not immediately consult with X,
B. nor did I [immediately] go up to Jerusalem to the apostles before me,
C. but I [immediately] departed into Arabia;
C'. indeed, I [immediately] returned again into Damascus.
B'. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Cephas, and I remained with him fifteen days. But, belonging to the apostles, I discerned no different one [i.e. different kind of apostle, Cf different Gospel, Gal 1:6 and 2 Cor 11:4]
A'. except X'.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Was Damascus in Arabia? (Maybe Acts is more harmonious with Gal 1:15-17 than we thought)

Post by gryan »

gryan wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 6:40 am
Although what I'm seeing is to be found in no commentary, ancient or modern (that I know of), IMHO, the actual "line of reasoning" in the text (that Jerome is expertly trying to avoid) may be exegeted properly in light of the text's A,B,C,C',B',A' "Chiastic structure": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiastic_structure

A. I did not immediately consult with X,
B. nor did I [immediately] go up to Jerusalem to the apostles before me,
C. but I [immediately] departed into Arabia;
C'. indeed, I [immediately] returned again into Damascus.
B'. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to make acquaintance with Cephas, and I remained with him fifteen days. But, belonging to the apostles, I discerned no different one [i.e. different kind of apostle, Cf different Gospel, Gal 1:6 and 2 Cor 11:4]
A'. except X'.
Re: What was Paul was not lying about?

Paul’s claim was that he went immediately into Arabia, not into Jerusalem to see the apostles--that would happen three years later (Cf. Acts 9:27).

Acts 9:27
"Then Barnabas brought him to the apostles and described how Saul had seen the Lord, who spoke to him on the road to Damascus, and how Saul had spoken boldly in that city in the name of Jesus."

To put a fine point on it, Paul returned again to a place on the edge of Arabia he had fled from not long before. Paul went immediately into the city of Damascus (Cf. Acts 22:10), not to Jerusalem to consult with the Lord’s flesh and blood--that would happen three years later.

Acts 22:10
“’What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked. “ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus…’”
Post Reply