---

I. THE EVENTS INTERVENING BETWEEN DAMASCUS AND CAESAREA.

1. As soon as Saul was baptized he joined the Christian brotherhood, and publicly declared his new conviction that Jesus was the Christ. I do not think that that continued long. Either through the force of external persecution, or by Divine intimation and guidance, probably by both, he was led to leave Damascus. And in Galatians 1 he tells us that he left Damascus and went into Arabia. Arabia lay round about Damascus and my own expression is, that he did not go further from Damascus than would secure safety and solitude. He was not employed in preaching, but in receiving those communications from Christ which were to perfect his knowledge of the gospel. There he studied the Old Testament under a new teacher; reading it by a different light from that which had been held in the hand of Gamaliel.

2. Then, when fully prepared for all that he had to do, he returned to Damascus, and there, with greater boldness and vigour, proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of God. But the Jews could not stand this, and determined to kill him. And we learn from a passing allusion in 1 Corinthians 11:23; 1 Corinthians 15:3, that in their plans against his life they got the cooperation of the political and military powers. But in a basket, let down from the window of one of the houses, which in Eastern cities very often overhang the wall, Saul was placed by his friends, and, descending, so escaped his enemies' hands.

3. He then put into execution what he had cherished as a purpose. He determined to go to Jerusalem to see Peter (Galatians 1:18, 19). It is probable that he had seen Peter before the Sanhedrim He knew that he was one of the foremost men amongst the apostles, and therefore he wished to visit him — not to acknowledge his supremacy, nor to get from him any authority, but as an intimate friend and disciple of Jesus. On his arrival Saul very naturally wished to join himself to the disciples. But they were in doubt and fear about him. But Saul met with Barnabas, who believed Saul, and believed in him, and who introduced him to Peter and James, who were probably the only apostles who happened to be then at Jerusalem. Saul was then received with cordiality and confidence, and had at once accorded to him fraternal recognition.

4. The apostle was only at Jerusalem for a fortnight (Galatians 1:18, 19). He lodged with Peter, who, as a married man, could perhaps best accommodate him. It is rather odd that he should have become representatively the head of a priesthood who are not allowed to marry! It was very natural that Saul should suppose himself peculiarly fitted for preaching in Jerusalem that faith which, a little time before, he sought to destroy. He made the attempt, and, Grecian as he was, did the very thing that Stephen had done before, and perhaps in the very same synagogue using probably many of the martyr's arguments. His hearers were not subdued by his appeals. It was not his work; Christ had something else for him to do. There was a conspiracy, too, against him in Jerusalem, as there had been at Damascus; and, in addition, there was a concurrent Divine intimation urging his departure (Acts 22:17-21.) The apostle was at once "obedient to the heavenly vision," and his friends got him safely out of Jerusalem and "brought him down to Caesarea."

II. THE POINTS WHICH REQUIRE EXPLANATION.

1. In the history there is no mention of the journey into Arabia, a very important event in the life of St. Paul. But note —

(1) An omission is not a contradiction. When two writers, referring to the same time, are found to differ only in that the one omits what the other records; the one may he only the supplement to the other.

(2) The history in the Acts is so constructed that an actual journey somewhere may possibly underlie it. There are two periods mentioned. "Then was Saul certain days with the disciples at Damascus," giving the idea of a limit to the period. He was "certain days" there with the disciples — well, what then? Why, at the end he was not with them. Then he had left them. Then afterwards — though this is not mentioned, it is implied — he was with them in Damascus again; and this time, after "many days there occurs the conspiracy. Between the certain days" and the "many days" a journey, because an absence from Damascus, may come in, which might be into Arabia as well as to anywhere else.

(3) Then, again, the Epistle to the Galatians and the history in the Acts are perfectly independent productions. Neither was written from the suggestions of the other and made to harmonise with it. If the historian had invented this story from reading the letter he would have put in the journey to Arabia; if the letter writer had invented the letter from reading the history he would not have put in the journey. This independence being admitted, all the coincidences rise into strength as evidences of the perfect truth and trustworthiness of both.

(4) There can be no doubt that Galatians was written previously to the Acts. Now Paul and Luke were very often "companions in travel," and there is every probability that the historian wrote under the eye of the letter writer, and yet neither of them sees the inconsistency between the account given by the one and the known contents of the letter of the other. Neither of them thinks it worth while with a stroke of the pen to put it all right. It is perfectly evident that they who knew all about it did not see any difficulty in what perplexes us so much.

2. The difficulty of accounting for the way in which Paul was received by the disciples at Jerusalem. Surely they might have had such full information of all that had occurred, as to receive with acclamation the illustrious convert. But observe —

(1) That the Jewish way of talking about time is worth recollecting. Fourteen months would be three years, if the first month was the last in one year, and the last month was the first in another, with one whole year lying between. But three years, even thus reckoned, is a long time. Yet the possible compression of the period, in the way indicated, is worth being referred to.

(2) But will it not be curious if the visit into Arabia — which is itself a difficulty — should be just the very thing which enables us to explain the more difficult point before us? I will not say that Paul was running before he was sent; but he might be trying to speak before he was fully equipped for his work. Hence it was, that his Master told him to go into seclusion that he might fully learn all that was necessary for him to know. In consequence of this, he disappeared from Damascus. It is quite possible that none of the disciples knew what had become of him. His companions would go back with some story or other of a strange occurrence which had happened on the road. Whatever it was, it had led him seemingly to recant his opinions. But he was gone off. It was impossible to say what it all meant, or in what character he might next appear. Of course the enemies of the truth would know how to make the most of this, and to frighten the faithful by dark insinuations of what their emissary might yet do. Supposing, therefore, that he was not very long in Damascus, even the second time, he might preach in the synagogues, and yet, in the confusion and disorganisation of the period, intelligence of this might not reach Jerusalem in any authentic or reliable form. The disciples would thus necessarily be in the state in which we find them. Fears, which simple ignorance might engender, would be strengthened if their unscrupulous enemies were known to insinuate that Saul was only playing a deep game.

3. The difference between the statement in the text of the circumstances under which Paul left Jerusalem, and the account which Paul gives of it in chap. Acts 22. Luke attributes it to a conspiracy, Paul to a vision. But this is only the two sides of the same event — the Divine and the human. There is the historian naturally confining himself to the outward fact. But Paul is letting you into the interior. In the complete view we get the united action of Divine authority with human love. It is nothing, after all, but the old story over again of the gold and silver shield.

4. Paul told Agrippa that he "showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God." But in the text he went up to Jerusalem, was taken down to Caesarea, and sent forth to Tarsus. In Galatians, he says, that after going up to Jerusalem, he went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ. How is this to be reconciled?

(1) When Paul is writing to the Galatians he is confining himself to the period which transpired before his going to Tarsus. Well, the letter and the history perfectly coincide. We find here that he had gone up to Jerusalem, had been there a short time, had gone hurriedly down to Caesarea, and went thence into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Of course he was unknown to the churches of Judaea, and all that they knew about him would be what they might happen to hear.

(2) But when he stands before Agrippa and says, "And then to the Gentiles," he refers to his great distant missions. Now, previous to his doing that, you will find afterwards that he came up from Antioch through Judaea to Jerusalem, and then went back again, perhaps a different way. On this journey he would have an opportunity of preaching in the villages and towns of Judaea, of which, we may be sure, he would fully avail himself, Thus both accounts are perfectly true and consistent, only they refer to different times.

(T. Binney.)

---

---

KJV: And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

WEB: He took food and was strengthened. Saul stayed several days with the disciples who were at Damascus.