1.c. All Wilderness Roads Lead to Rome
Paul's use of Pagan myth aside, many will acknowledge that Jesus' warning is concerned about wilderness places and private rooms, but I've heard some claim that Paul wasn't in the wilderness because he was on a road that led to a city. This is a rather weak defense because the Bible doesn't define wilderness areas this way. The road that Paul was on is the wilderness as far as "wilderness" is defined in the Bible. For this section, we just have to establish that the wilderness is outside city limits, which would prove that Paul was in fact in a wilderness area as described by Jesus.
In the Bible, the wilderness is often depicted as a place where people are tempted to sin. We find unclean spirits wandering in the wilderness (Matthew 4; Mark 1; Luke 4; Matthew 12:43). But we also find John the Immerser's ministry was in a wilderness region, described as being just outside the cities (Matthew 3:1-2 / Mark 1:4-5 / Luke 3:3-4).
Matthew 3:1-2 says, "In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea..."
Mark 1:4 says, "John came baptizing in the wilderness..."
Luke 3:3 says, "And he went into all the region around the Jordan..."
These passages show that John was preaching outside of the city in a more remote, rural area.
Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness--away from urban areas (Matthew 4:1-11 / Mark 1:12-13 / Luke 4:1-13):
Matthew 4:1 says, "Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness..."
How far outside of these cities would they be for it to be considered "wilderness" territory? What's interesting is that 1 Kings 19:4 describes "the wilderness" as one day's journey away from the city. Elijah went into the wilderness to escape Jezebel and was actually traveling on "a road to Damascus" (1 Kings 19:15). This is key in helping us "speculate" where Paul was when the event occurred. In both Acts 22:6 and Acts 26:13 Paul says that the alleged encounter "with Jesus" took place at noon, or midday. While the exact distance isn't specified in any of Paul's accounts, had Paul begun his journey in the morning, we can safely reason that Paul may have been at least a half-day's journey away--at best--from the city when the alleged encounter took place. This places him within the limits of "the wilderness" in the ancient context as we see described in other places of scripture.
Why was Paul on the wilderness road to begin with? To carry out orders to arrest and kill followers of Jesus. It's always assumed that Paul received his orders to hunt Jesus followers from the Jewish religious elite. And this may have been the case, to some extent. But this isn't a very critical analysis. We find Paul consenting to Martyr Stephen's death in Acts 7:58 and 8:1. Paul admits to murdering Jesus followers in Acts 22:4,5 and Acts 26:10. The Sanhedrin didn't have authority to execute anyone while occupied by the Roman Empire. The jurisdiction placed that within Roman power. In Acts 5:38,39, Gamaliel says the following: "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." If this is the same Gamaliel who was Paul's instructor, then why isn't Paul listening to him? Who is calling Paul's shots?
In Acts 22:27,28, Paul admits that he is a Roman citizen from birth. This is due to the fact that he is part of the Herodian family. In Romans 16:11 Paul says, "Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord." The Herodians were a political group that supported the Herodian Dynasty, which ruled parts of Judea under Roman authority. Not only is Paul a Pharisee by admission, but also a Roman citizen. A Herodian. According to Abarim Publications Online Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2016, "'Herodian' means 'little Herod.' The relative of Paul in question may actually have been Herod the son of Aristobulus V. Tracing the lineage, we find that Saul (Paul) was King Agrippa I's and Herod King of Chalic's first cousin once removed, and King Agrippa II's first cousin twice removed" (The Family Background of Paul the Anti-Vegan Roman, by Chapman Chen). We are warned against the leaven of the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians by Jesus in Matthew 12:38-40; Matthew 16:6,16; Mark 12:38-40; Mark 8:15; and Luke 20:46,47. Paul claims to be a Herodian/ Roman citizen and Pharisee.
Do you notice the conspiracy and the parties involved (Psalm 2)? It involves the Herodian Dynasty in collusion with the Sanhedrin, Pharisees, Sadducees, the Scribes, the Roman Empire, and whoever else they could deceive and propagandized into despising the Jesus Movement. This is the same Herodian family that was responsible for the slaughter of all the firstborn in an effort to assassinate Jesus (Matthew 2:16-18). What the Herodians failed to do then was eventually "accomplished" by The Roman State in collusion with the Roman State, Scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees by the end of the Gospels. However, their plans failed because of the resurrection. So, the Jesus Movement persisted--despite the increasing persecution, too. It's plausible, based on the evidence we've seen so far, that Paul was working at the behest of his Herodian family, on behalf of the Roman government, to infiltrate and thwart the Jesus movement that had persisted despite efforts to control it. Everything was done under Roman authority for Roman interests. This supports the idea that perhaps Paul was a spy/ Intel agent all along. What they couldn't do with their swords, they accomplished with Saul's pen. All roads lead to Rome!