[272] Gal. i. 17. “Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me, but I went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus.” It is probable that this was Arabia Deserta, which was that part of Arabia that lay nearest to Damascus, lying east of the land of Canaan, and reached up to the very neighbourhood of Damascus. By the apostle’s going from Damascus into Arabia, and returning from thence into Damascus again, it looks as if the Arabia that he went into, was that which was neighbouring to this city. As Christ after his baptism withdrew into the wilderness, before he actually began to preach; so it is no improbable conjecture that Paul, after his conversion and baptism, withdrew into the deserts of Arabia, there to receive the knowledge of the gospel, by immediate revelation from Christ; and that this being done, he returned to Damascus, and after this his return that way preached Christ in their synagogues, as Acts ix. 20. See Wells’s Sacred Geography, part ii. p. 22, 23. This very well agrees with this context, in which the scope of the apostle is to show that he had his gospel not from men, but by revelation of Jesus Christ, as verse 12. “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ;” and verse 15, 16. “But when it pleased God who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.”
Then follow the words of this verse that we are upon, to show how he did not confer with flesh and blood, but was taught immediately of Christ; “neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me, but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 1 ” This is a desert, uninhabited country; and therefore it is the more probable that the apostle went thither for this end, and not to preach the gospel to any that dwelt there. And the inhabitants that were in Arabia Felix, under whose king, Aretas, Damascus then was, they were chiefly heathens; but preaching to the heathens was not yet begun, though there were then some Jews, that were then inhabitants of Arabia, of whom we read in the 2nd chapter of Acts; “Cretes and Arabians.”
[421] Gal. iii. 16. “Now to Abraham and his seed was the promise made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” This Mr. Locke paraphrases thus: “God doth not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as if he spake of more seeds than one that were entitled to the promise on different accounts, but only of one sort of men, who upon one sole account, were that seed of Abraham which was alone meant and concerned in the promise, so that unto thy seed, designed Christ, and his mystical body, i. e. those that became members of him by faith.” And Mr. Locke adds in his notes, “By seeds, Paul here visibly means the , those of faith; and the °i if fmu», those of the works of the law, spoken of above, ver. 9, 10. as two distinct seeds or descendants claiming from Abraham. Paul’s argument to convince the Galatians that they ought not to be circumcised, or submit to the law from their having received the Spirit from him, upon their having received the gospel which he preached to them, ver. 2, and 5. stands thus, The blessing promised to Abraham and to his seed, was wholly upon the account of faith, ver. 7. There were not different seeds who should inherit the promise, the one by the works, of the law, and the other by faith: for there was but one seed, which was Christ, ver. 16. and those who should claim in and under him by faith. Among those there was no distinction of Jew and Gentile. They, and they only who believed, were all one and the same true seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise, ver. 28, 29. and therefore the promise made to the people of God of giving them the Spirit under the gospel, was performed only to those who believed in Christ: a clear evidence that it was not by putting themselves under the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, that they were the people of God, and heirs of the promise.”
[422] Gal. iii. 17, 18. “And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect; for if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise.” Mr. Locke paraphrases it thus, “This therefore I say, that the law, which was not till four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul the covenant that was long before made and ratified to Christ by God, so as to set aside the promise. For if the right to the inheritance be from the works of the law, it is plain it is not founded in the promise to Abraham, as certainly it is. For the inheritance was a donation and free gift of God settled on Abraham and his seed by promise.”