Here in passing let us ask the question, Did Paul in this autobiographical sketch, given in such solemn yet vehement style, with the oath by God that he is not deceiving them — did Paul, I say, omit to mention that he had paid another visit to Jerusalem between the two that he describes ? The question seems almost an insult ; yet many scholars of the highest order con- sider that he here leaves out of sight the visit described by Luke, XI 28-30, and XII 25. I confess that, after studying all that the orthodox scholars say on this point I find a higher conception of Paul's character and truth- fulness in the position of the critics who conclude that Luke utterly misconceived the sequence of events in early Christian history and interpolated an intermediate visit where no visit occurred, than in Bishop Lightfoot's position that " of this visit Paul makes no mention here ". Paul's argument is founded on the rarity of his visits, and his aim is to show that on these visits he received no charge from the Twelve. Reason and truth rebel against the idea that he left out the middle visit. If he passed over part of the facts here, what situation can be imagined in which he would feel obliged to tell all the facts ? And on that supposition, that Paul omitted a fact so essential to his purpose and to honest
Sec. 3. Letter to the Churches of Galatia. 187
autobiography, the entire body of orthodox scholars have built up their theory of early Church history ! It cannot be ! Luke's second visit must be Paul's second visit ; and when we build boldly on that plain foundation, the history rises before us in order and symmetry.
But further, it is obvious that Paul appeals with absolute confidence to this second visit as proving his case : he evidently conceives that he has merely to recall the facts to the Galatians in order to make all clear. Now, there is one situation in which a man is obviously not receiving from others, and that is when he is actually giving to them : that was the situation on the second visit according to Luke, and that explains Paul's confidence in appealing to his second visit.
Again, Paul knew that he had clever and skilful arguers to contend against. How could he expose himself to the retort that he was missing out the intermediate visit to Jerusalem? How could he feel confident that the Gala- tians, who had already shown themselves so liable to be deceived by specious arguments, would be able at once to reply to that obvious retort ?
Finally, Paul, as an honest and rational man, could not appeal to the events of the third visit according to Luke, as proving beyond question that he received on that occasion no charge from the Apostles. He did receive a charge then, and he delivered that charge to the Churches.
Why, then, it may be objected, does Paul not mention his third visit ? The answer is obvious. He is engaged in proving that, when he gave his first message to the Churches of Galatia, he had never received any charge from the older Apostles. His whole point is : " Cleave to my first message, which came direct from God : if Silas
188 History of tlie Churches of Galatia. Chap. VIII.
and I afterwards said anything inconsistent with that message, we are accursed ". The third visit to Jerusalem did not take place until after the Galatian Churches were founded, and therefore it could find no place in the autobiographical retrospect of I 12-II 10; but it is clearly implied in the scornful and impetuous sentence, I 8 : " Even if Silas and I (as these emissaries have been telling you), if an angel from heaven, should preach to you a Gospel contrary to that which we originally preached to you, a curse be upon us ".