A further objection to supposing the Galatian Visit identical with visit (2) is, that, at the time of the Galatian Visit, Paul and Barnabas are described as having been already extensively useful as missionaries to the Heathen; but this they had not been in the time of visit (2).
Again: St. Paul could not have been, at so early a period, considered on a footing of equality with St. Peter; yet this he was at the time of the Galatian Visit. (See Gal. 2:9.)
Again: visit (2) could not have been so long as fourteen years (f2750) after visit (1). For visit (2) was certainly not later than 45 A.D.; and, if it was the same as the Galatian Visit, visit (1) must have been not later than from 31 to 33 A.D. (allowing the inclusive Jewish mode of reckoning to be possibly employed). But Aretas (as we have seen p. 76) was not in possession of Damascus till about 37.
Again: if visit (2) were fourteen years after visit (1), we must suppose nearly all this time spent by St. Paul at Tarsus, and yet that all his long residence there is unrecorded by St. Luke, who merely says that he went to Tarsus, and from thence to Antioch. (f2751)
III. The Galatian Visit not being identical with (1) or (2), was it identical with (3), (4), or (5)? We may put (5) at once out of the question, because St. Paul did not return to Antioch after (5), whereas he did return after the Galatian Visit. There remain, therefore, (3) and (4) to be considered. We shall take (4) first.
IV. Wieseler has lately argued very ingeniously that the Galatian Visit was the same with (4). His reasons are,
Firstly, that, at the Galatian Visit, the Apostles allowed unlimited freedom to the Gentile converts; i.e., imposed no conditions upon them, such as those in the decrees of the Council passed at visit (3). This, however, is an inference not warranted by St. Paul’s statement, which speaks of the acknowledgment of his personal independence, but does not touch the question of the converts.
Secondly, Wieseler urges, that, till the time of visit (4), St. Paul’s position could not have been so far on a level with St. Peter’s as it was at the Galatian Visit.
Thirdly, he thinks that the condition of making a collection for the poor Christians in Jerusalem, which St. Paul says (Gal. 2:10.) he had been forward to fulfil, must have been fulfilled in that great collection which we know that St. Paul set on foot immediately after visit (4), because we read of no other collection made by St. Paul for this purpose. (f2752) Fourthly, Wieseler argues that St. Paul would not have been likely to take an uncircumcised Gentile, like Titus, with him to Jerusalem at a period earlier than visit (4). And, moreover, he conceives Titus to be the same with the Corinthian Justus, (f2753) who is not mentioned as one of St. Paul’s companions till Act. 18:7; that is, not till after visit (3).
It is evident that these arguments are not conclusive in favor of visit (4), even if there were nothing on the other side; but there are, moreover, the following objections against supposing the Galatian Visit identical with (4).
Firstly, Barnabas was St. Paul’s companion in the Galatian Visit: he is not mentioned as being with him at visit (4).
Secondly, had so important a conference between St. Paul and the other Apostles taken place at visit (4), it would not have been altogether passed over by St. Luke, who dwells so fully upon the council held at the time of visit (3), the decrees of which (on Wieseler’s view) were inferior in importance to the concordat between St. Paul and the other Apostles which he supposes to have been made at visit (4).
Thirdly, the whole tone of the second chapter of Galatians is against Wieseler’s hypothesis: for, in that chapter, St. Paul plainly seems to speak of the first conference which he had held, after his success among the Heathen, with the chief apostles at Jerusalem; and he had certainly seen and conferred with them during visit (3).
V. We have seen, therefore, that, if the Galatian Visit be mentioned at all in the Acts, it must be identical with visit (3), at which the (so-called) Council of Jerusalem took place. We will now consider the objections against the identity of these two visits urged by Paley and others, and then the arguments in favor of the identity.
OBJECTIONS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE GALATIAN VISIT WITH VISIT (3).
| Objections | | Answer to Objections | | 1. St. Paul, in Galatians (Gal. 2:1), mentions this journey as if it had been the next visit to Jerusalem after the time which he spent there on his return from Damascus: he does not say any thing of any intermediate visit. This looks as if he were speaking of the journey which he took with Barnabas to Jerusalem (Act. 11:30) to convey alms to the Jewish Christians in the famine. | | 1. This objection is answered above. | | | | | | 2. In the Galatians, the journey is said to have taken place "by revelation" (Gal. 2:2); but in Act. 15:2-4, 6-12, a public mission is mentioned. | | 2. The journey may have taken place in consequence of a revelation, and yet may also have been agreed to by a vote of the church at Antioch. Thus, in St. Paul’s departure from Jerusalem (Act. 9:29, 30), he is said to have been sent by the brethren in consequence of danger feared; and yet (Act. 22:17-21) he says that he had taken his departure in consequence of a vision on the very same occasion (see pp. 186, 187). | | | | | | 3. In the Galatians, Barnabas and Titus are spoken of as St. Paul’s companions; in the Acts, Barnabas and others (Act. 15:2):but Titus is not mentioned. | | 3. This argument is merely ex silentio, and therefore inconclusive. In the Acts, Paul and Barnabas are naturally mentioned, as being prominent characters in the history; whereas, in the Epistle, Titus would naturally be mentioned by St. Paul as a personal friend of his own, and also because of his refusal to circumcise him. | | | | | | 4. The object of the visit in Acts 15 is different from that of the Galatian Visit. The object in Acts 15 was to seek relief from the imposition of the Mosaic Law: that of the Galatian Visit was to obtain the recognition of St. Paul’s independent apostleship. | | 4. Both these objects are implied in each narrative. The recognition of St. Paul’s apostleship is implied in Act. 15:25; and the relief from the imposition of the Mosaic Law is implied, Gal. 2:7, where the word "uncircumcision" shows that the Apostles at the time of St. Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, mentioned in the Epistle, acknowledged that the uncircumcised might partake of "the gospel." The same thing is shown by the fact that the circumcision of Titus was not insisted on.
We must remember, also, that the transactions recorded are looked upon from different points of view in the Acts and in the Epistle: for Acts 15 contains a narrative of a great transaction in the history of the Church; while St. Paul, in the Epistle, alludes to this transaction with the object of proving the recognition of his independent authority. | | | | | | 5. In Acts 15, a public assembly of the Church in Jerusalem is described; while, in the Galatians, only private interviews with the leading Apostles are spoken of. | | 5. The private interviews spoken of in the Epistle do not exclude the supposition of public meetings having also taken place and a communication to the whole Church (Gal. 2:2) is expressly mentioned. | | | | | | 6. The narrative in the Epistle says nothing of the decision of the Council of Jerusalem, as it is commonly called, mentioned Acts 15 Now, this decision was conclusive of the very point disputed by the Judaizing teachers in Galatia, and surely, therefore, would not have been omitted by St. Paul in an argument involving the question, had he been relating the circumstances which happened at Jerusalem when that decision was made. | | 6. The narrative in Galatians gives a statement intended to prove the recognition of St. Paul’s independent authority, which is sufficient to account for this omission. Moreover, if St. Paul’s omission of reference to the decision of the Council proved that the journey he speaks of was prior to the Council, it must equally prove that the whole Epistle was written before the Council of Jerusalem; yet it is generally acknowledged to have been written long after the Council.
The probable reason why St. Paul does not refer to the decision of the Council is this, — that the Judaizing teachers did not absolutely dispute that decision: they probably did not declare the absolute necessity of circumcision, but spoke of it as admitting to greater privileges and a fuller covenant with God.
The Council had only decided that Gentile Christians need not observe the Law. The Judaizing party might still contend that Jewish Christians ought to observe it (as we know they did observe it till long afterwards). And also the decrees of the Council left Gentile Christians subject to the same restrictions with the Proselytes of the Gate. Therefore, the Judaizing party would naturally argue, that they were still not more fully within the pale of the Christian Church than the Proselytes of the Gate were within that of the Jewish Church. Hence they would urge them to submit to circumcision, by way of placing themselves in full membership with the Church; just as they would have urged a Proselyte of the Gate to become a Proselyte of Righteousness. Also St. Paul might assume that the decision of the Council was well known to the Churches in Galatia; for Paul and Silas had carried it with them there. | | | | | | 7. It is inconsistent to suppose, that, after the decision of the Council of Jerusalem, St. Peter could have behaved as he is described doing (Gal. 2:12); for how could he refuse to eat with the uncircumcised Christians, after having advocated in the Council their right of admission to Christian fellowship? | | 7. This objection is founded on a misunderstanding of St. Peter’s conduct. His withdrawal from eating at the same table with the uncircumcised Christians did not amount to a denial of the decision of the Council. His conduct showed a weak fear of offending the Judaizing Christians who came from Jerusalem; and the practical effect of such conduct would have been, if persisted in, to separate the Church into two divisions. Peter’s conduct was still more inconsistent with the consent which he had certainly given previously (Gal. 2:7- 9) to the "gospel" of Paul, and with his previous conduct in the case of Cornelius (see end of Chap. 7.).
We may add, that whatever difficulty may be felt in St. Paul’s not alluding to the decrees of the Council in his Epistle to the Galatians must also be felt in his total silence concerning them when he treats of the question of "things sacrificed to idols" in the Epistles to Corinth and Rome; for that question had been explicitly decided by the Council. The fact is, that the Decrees of the Council were not designed as of permanent authority, but only as a temporary and provisional measure; and their authority was superseded as the Church gradually advanced towards true Christian freedom. | | | | | | 8. The Epistle mentions St. Paul as conferring with James, Peter, and John; whereas, in Acts 15. , John is not mentioned at all; and it seems strange that so distinguished a person, if present at the Council, should not have been mentioned. | | 8. This argument is only ex silentio, and obviously inconclusive. | | | | | | 9. Since, in the Galatians, St. Paul mentions James, Peter, and John, it seems most natural to suppose that he speaks of the well-known apostolic triumvirate so often classed together in the Gospels. But if so, the James mentioned must be James the Greater; and hence the journey mentioned in the Galatians must have been before the death of James the Greater, and therefore before the Council of Jerusalem. | | 9. This objection proceeds on the mere assumption, that, because James is mentioned first, he must be James the Greater; whereas James the Less became even a more conspicuous leader of the Church at Jerusalem than James the Greater had previously been, as we see from Acts 15.:hence he might be very well mentioned with Peter and John. And the fact of his name coming first in St. Paul’s narrative agrees better with this supposition;. for James the Greater is never mentioned the first in the apostolic triumvirate, the order of which is Peter, James, and John: but James the Less would naturally be mentioned first, if the Council at Jerusalem was mentioned, since we find from Acts 15 that he took the part of president in that Council. | | | | | | 10. St. Paul’s refusal to circumcise Titus (Galatians 2.) , and voluntary circumcising of Timothy (Act. 16:8), so soon afterwards. | | 10. Timothy’s mother was a Jewess, and he had been brought up a Jew; (f2754) whereas Titus was a Gentile. The circumstances of Timothy’s circumcision were fully discussed in pp. 228-231. |
Thus we see that the objections against the identity of the Galatian Visit with visit (8) are inconclusive; consequently, we might at once conclude (from the obvious circumstances of identity between the two visits) that they were actually identical But this conclusion is further strengthened by the following arguments:—
- The Galatian Visit could not have happened before visit (3); because, if so, the Apostles at Jerusalem had already granted to Paul and Barnabas (Gal. 2:3 6.) the liberty which was sought for the "gospel of the uncircumcision:" therefore there would have been no need for the Church to send them again to Jerusalem upon the same cause. And again: the Galatian Visit could not have happened after visit (3); because, almost immediately after that period, Paul and Barnabas ceased to work together as missionaries to the Gentiles; whereas, up to the time of the Galatian Visit , they had been working together. (Gal. 2:1, 9.)
- The chronology of St. Paul’s life (so far as it can be ascertained) agrees better with the supposition that the Galatian Visit was visit (3) than with any other supposition.
Reckoning backwards from the ascertained epoch of 60 A.D., when St. Paul was sent to Rome, we find that he must have begun his second missionary journey in 51 and that, therefore, the Council (i.e., visit (3)) must have been either in 50 or 51. This calculation is based upon the history in the Acts. Now, turning to the Epistle to the Galatians, we fad the following epochs:—
A. — Conversion. B. — 3 years’ interval (probably Judaically reckoned = 2 years). (f2755) C. — Flight from Damascus, and visit (1). D. — 14 (f2756) years’ interval (probably Judaically reckoned = 13 years). (f2757) E. — Galatian Visit.
And since Aretas was supreme at Damascus (2Co. 11:32.) at the time of the flight, and his supremacy there probably began about 37 (see pp. 76 and 93), we could not put the flight at a more probable date than 38. If we assume this to have been the case, then the Galatian Visit was 38 +13 = 51; which agrees with the time of the Council (i.e. visit (3)) as above.
VI. Hence we need not further consider the views of those writers who (like Paley and Schrader) have resorted to the hypothesis, that the Galatian Visit is some supposed journey not recorded in the Acts at all; for we have proved that the supposition of its identity with the third visit there recorded satisfies every necessary condition. Schrader’s notion is, that the Galatian Visit was between visit (4) and visit (5). Paley places it between visit (3) and visit (4). A third view is ably advocated in a discussion of the subject (not published) which has been kindly communicated to us. The principal points in this hypothesis are, that the Galatians were converted in the first missionary journey; that the Galatian Visit took place between visit (2) and visit (3); and that the Epistle to the Galatians was written after the Galatian Visit, and before visit (3). This hypothesis certainly obviates some difficulties, (f2758) and it is quite possible (see p. 212, n. 2) that the Galatian churches might have been formed at the time supposed; but we are strongly of opinion that a much later date must be assigned to the Epistle. (f2759)
Footnotes
(f2747) This question is one of the most important, both chronologically and historically, in the life of St. Paul. Perhaps its discussion more properly belongs to the Epistle to the Galatians than to this place; but it has been given here as a justification of the view taken in Ch. 7.
(f2748) To support this view, either the conversion must be placed much earlier than we think probable, or "fourteen," in
Gal. 2:1, must be altered into
"four."
(f2749) We must certainly acknowledge that St. Paul appears to say this; and some commentators have avoided the difficulty by supposing, that although Paul and Barnabas were commissioned to convey the alms from Antioch to Jerusalem, yet that St. Paul was prevented (by some circumstances not mentioned) from going the whole way to Jerusalem. For example, it might be too hazardous for him appear within the walls of the city at such a time of persecution.
(f2750) On this fourteen years, see note 2, p. 891, and the note B on the Chronological Table in Appendix 3.
(f2751) Act. 9:30, and Act. 11:28. See what Prof. Barton says on this interval.
(f2752) The collection carried up to Jerusalem at visit (2) might, however, he cited as an exception to this remark; for (although not expressly stated) it is most probable that St. Paul was active in forwarding it, since he was selected to carry it to Jerusalem.
(f2753) Many of the most ancient MSS. and versions read Titus Justus in
Act. 18:7.
(f2754) See 2Ti. 3:15. We may remark that this difficulty (which is urged by
Wieseler) is quite as great on his own hypothesis; for, according to him, the refusal happened only about two years after the consent.
(f2755) On this Judaical reckoning, see note B on the Chronological Table in Appendix 3.
(f2756) The reading "fourteen" (Gal. 2:1) is undoubtedly to be retained. It is in all
the ancient MSS. which contain the passage. The reading "four" has probably arisen from the words "four years," which relate to a different subject, in the sentence below. The preposition "after," denoting "after an interval of," may be used, according to the Jewish way of reckoning time, inclusively. The fourteen yean moat be reckoned from the epoch last mentioned, which is the visit (1) to Jerusalem, and not the Conversion: at least, this is the meat natural way; although the other interpretation might be justified, if required by the other circumstances of the case.
(f2757) On this Judaical reckoning, see note B on the Chronological Table in Appendix 3.
(f2758) Especially the difficulties which relate to the apparent discrepancies between the Galatian Visit and visit (3), and to the circumstance that the Apostle does not allude to the Council in his argument with the Galatians on the subject of circumcision.
(f2759) See note on Epistle to the Galatians. |
