strife (2 Tim. 2:23). The apostle could write out of a full experience when he warned Timothy of the evil tendency

of these things.

To return once more to the main narrative of our passage - it soon became evident that if the questions under

discussion were ever to be settled, something more authoritative must be introduced. The apostle Paul needed no

rule from Jerusalem for himself, but the Judaizers in the Church rejected his authority, and suggested that the matter

should be taken to Jerusalem, thinking probably that the case would go in their favour, especially as James was

known to have very strict views with regard to the law:

`They determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles

and elders about this question' (Acts 15:2).

When we compare the record of Acts 15 with Paul's own testimony in Galatians 2 we get the same facts

presented from two different angles. Luke merely says that `certain other of them' accompanied Paul and Barnabas,

but Paul tells us specifically that they were accompanied by Titus, an uncircumcised Greek believer. Luke says:

`They determined that Paul and Barnabas ... should go up', while Paul writes: `I went up by revelation'. There is, of

course, no discrepancy here. A rather similar case occurs in Acts 9:30 and 22:17,18. In the earlier passage we read:

`Which when the brethren knew (i.e. that the Grecians went about to slay him), they brought him down to

Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus'.

If we wonder how it was that such an ardent spirit should so tamely submit, in the face of danger, to being

hurried off from the scene of witness, we find a complete answer in the later passage (Acts 22:17,18), together with

the setting aside of Paul's objections by the Lord Himself (verses 19-21).

The apostle's going up to Jerusalem was of great importance, for it was there that two great battles were fought

and won - first, with the Judaizers, who would nullify the cross of Christ by their insistence upon circumcision and

the Law of Moses as essential to salvation; and then with that unbending spirit which confuses essentials and

non-essentials. The apostle who fought to the last against the imposition of the law as a means of salvation, was at

the same time most willing that the susceptibilities of a weaker conscience should be respected. In this he probably

disappointed the most headstrong among his followers - and, as the extracts quoted earlier in this chapter show,

these two quite different points of view are still apt to be confused today.

Our next section takes us to the Council itself. Meanwhile, a reading of Galatians 2 and 1 Corinthians 8 would

be an excellent preparation of heart and mind for the next stage of our study in connection with the suggestions put

forward by James (Acts 15:13-21).

We do not propose to deal in this section with the interval between the decision to go up to Jerusalem and the

arrival there, except in so far as to supply the details of the structure:

B Acts 15:3-5.

c They passed through Phenice and Samaria

d Declaring conversion of Gentiles.

Samaria and

e The brethren.

`It was needful

c They came to Jerusalem.

d Declared all God had done.

e The Pharisees.

to keep the law'.

Whether the deputation was met by certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, who said `It was

needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses', or whether verse 5 means that the

apostles repeated the demand that had been made by these men from Judæa, is a little uncertain. The A.V. indicates