Several Bible students request a clear answer to this difficulty. Statement of Question: 1. You believe that every part and item of the original Scriptures is inspired. You also once stated that chapters 11 and 12 of Acts should be taken in their order as recorded, and that Paul's visit to Jerusalem recorded there "was before" the death of Herod Agrippa, who killed James.

      2. Now, in Gal. 1:16-24, Paul tells us that his first visit to Jerusalem (after his conversion) was "to see Peter," and that "afterwards I . . . was unknown by face unto the churches in Judea." Then, "fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas" (chap. 2:1, 2). Therefore, this visit mentioned in Acts 11 and 12 must have been his second visit, for they saw him face to face (only the second time then). Herod died A. D. 44 (undisputed by any authority). Therefore, this visit could not have been later. Therefore, at the least count, Paul's conversion was fourteen years previous to A. D. 44, or A. D. 30. Hence this would mean that Paul had been converted before the crucifixion. Can this be clearly harmonized without forcing? If so, please do so.

      The "problem" here presented is an old one. It has been used by critics of the skeptical school to prove the unreliability of the author of Acts by showing that Paul and Barnabas did not make the journey from Antioch to Jerusalem described in chapters 11 and 12. But those [377] who use it thus, misinterpret Paul's statements in Galatians. In the first and second chapters of this Epistle the apostle is showing that he had not enjoyed the opportunities necessary to have obtained his knowledge of the gospel from the older apostles, as the Judaizers had claimed. To this end it was not necessary to mention all the visits he had made to Jerusalem, where some of the older apostles, and especially Peter, could be usually found, but only those in which he could have seen Peter and learned from him. Now, in the account of the almsgiving trip with Barnabas, there is nothing said of their being in Jerusalem until they started back to Antioch, when it is said, "They returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their ministrations." This was after the death of Herod (12:23-25). They had come from Antioch to bring alms, not to Jerusalem especially, but "to the brethren that dwelt in Judea" (11:29). When they reached Judea, Jerusalem was not a very healthy place for apostles; for Herod had just beheaded James and cast Peter into prison, intending to kill him also after the Passover. But Peter, on being released by an angel the night before his intended execution, "departed and went to another place." From all this it appears that on this visit Paul did not meet with Peter at all; consequently, his next visit after this was the one mentioned in Galatians, and this was the one on which he was sent with Barnabas to confer with the older apostles about circumcision. It is described in Acts 15. This was in the year 50, and the fourteen years since his conversion dates the latter event in 36, about two years after the death of Jesus. The whole "problem" is worked out in my "Commentary on Acts," and also in my work on the credibility of the New Testament books. The remark of Paul alluded to above, "I was still [378] unknown by face to the churches in Judea" (Gal. 1:22), has reference to the interval in which he was "in the regions of Syria and Cilicia" (21); and this was between his departure to Tarsus, and his being called thence to Antioch by Barnabas (9:30-11:25). Of course his tour among the Judean churches with Barnabas, distributing the gift from Antioch, brought this ignorance of his person to a close.

[SEBC 377-379]