This incident is usually assigned to the first visit which Paul paid to Jerusalem after his conversion. But he does
62 The Church in Antioch. Chap. III.
not say or even imply that it was his first visit ; and we must be guided by the suitability of the circumstances mentioned to the facts recorded about the various visits. Now Luke gives a totally different reason for his departure from Jerusalem at the first visit : he attributes it to the prudence of the Brethren, who learned that a conspiracy was made to slay him, and wished both to save him and to avoid the general danger that would arise for all, if perse- cution broke out against one. The revelation of XXII 1 8, to which Paul attributes his departure, suits the first visit very badly ; but such discrepancy does not count for much with the modern interpreters, orthodox and " critical " alike, who, having achieved the feat of identi- fying the second visit of Gal. II i-io with the third visit of Acts XV (pp. 59, 154 f.), have naturally ceased to ex- pect agreement between Luke and Paul on such matters. Accordingly, Lightfoot actually quotes the discrepancy between XXII 18 f. and IX 29 f. to illustrate and de- fend the discrepancy between Gal. II 2 and Acts XV 4. Again, the reasoning of XXII 20, 21, is not suitable to the first visit. Paul argues that circumstances make him a peculiarly telling witness to the Jews of the power of Jesus : and the reply is that Jesus will send him far hence to the Nations. Now, the first visit was followed, not by an appeal to the Nations, but by many years of quiet uneventful work in Cilicia and Antioch, within the circle of the synagogue and its influence. But this revelation points to the immediate " opening of a door of belief to the Nations"; and that did not take place until Paul went to Paphos and South Galatia (XIV 27, pp. 41, 85).
To place this revelation on the first visit leads to
Sec 4. The Retur?i from Jerusalem to Antioch. 63
hopeless embarrassment, and to one of those discrepancies which the orthodox historians, like Lightfoot, labour to minimise, while the critical historians naturally and fairly argue that such discrepancies prove Acts to be not the work of Paul's pupil and friend, but a work of later origin. On this point I can only refer to what is said on p. 1 5 ; on the principle there laid down, we cannot connect XXII 17 f. with IX 28 f.
On the other hand this revelation suits excellently the state of matters which we have just described at the conclusion of the second visit. Paul was tempted by the favourable opportunity in Jerusalem ; and his personal desire always turned strongly towards his Jewish brethren {Rom. IX 1-5). He prayed in the temple: he saw Jesus : he pleaded with Jesus, representing his fitness for this work : and he was ordered to depart at once, " for I will send thee forth far hence to the Nations ". Thereupon he returned to Antioch ; and in a few days or weeks a new revelation to the Antiochian officials sent him on his mission to the West, and opened the door of belief to the Nations.
One objection to this view is likely to be made. Many infer from XXII 18 that the visit was short. But there is no implication as to the duration of the visit The words merely show that Paul was thinking of a longer stay, when the vision bade him hasten away forthwith. The second visit, according to Lightfoot's supposition, was even shorter than the first, but on our view it began when the failure of harvest in 46 turned scarcity into famine, and it probably lasted until the beginning of 47.
Our reference of XXII 17 to the second visit is corroborated by the reading of the two great uncial