Perhaps Paul mentioned the final experience he cited because it was his first experience of suffering for the gospel. It provided a pattern for Paul"s life that continued. Paul"s critics may have charged him with cowardice in his escape from Damascus, though there is no basis for this revealed in the text. That may be an additional reason he mentioned it, though I doubt it. It may also have been that it would have reminded his readers of his supernatural call and appointment as an apostle on the Damascus road. It was undoubtedly a humbling memory for Paul too. This specific example of danger increases the emotional intensity of Paul"s litany of sufferings in the reader. [source][source][source]
Aretas IV was the father-in-law of Herod Antipas. He lived in Petra and ruled the kingdom of Nabatea (called Arabia in Galatians 1:17) between9 B.C. and A.D40. Damascus at the time of Paul"s conversion may have been under Nabatean rule. [1] Alternatively it was under Roman rule, and a colony of Nabateans controlled it. [2] A third possibility is that Aretas ruled the Nabatean population of Damascus. [3] The historical evidence is incomplete. Aretas evidently wanted to arrest Paul because the apostle began evangelizing in that region immediately after his conversion (cf. Acts 9:20; Galatians 1:17; Galatians 1:22-23). His activity antagonized the Jews living in the area who obtained official support for their opposition to Paul (cf. Acts 923-25). Aretas himself may have been a Jew. [1][source]
In many of his examples Paul presented himself as one who did not fit the pattern of "successful" ministers of the gospel. Like the Corinthians, we modern Christians tend to evaluate a person"s success on the basis of the standards of the world. Rather than playing down the events in his ministry that made him look inferior, Paul emphasized them because they glorified God"s remarkably sufficient grace. In view of all Paul"s calamities there is no way he could have been so effective unless God was with Him. [source][source][source]