[152] 1 ORIGIN OF THE COUNCIL. (XIV 27) WHEN PAUL AND BARNABAS WERE COME TO ANTIOCH AND HAD GATHERED THE CHURCH TOGETHER, THEY REHEARSED ALL THINGS THAT GOD HAD DONE WITH THEM, AND HOW THAT HE HAD OPENED A DOOR OF BELIEF UNTO THE NATIONS. (28) AND THEY TARRIED NO LITTLE TIME WITH THE DISCIPLES. (XV 1) AND CERTAIN PERSONS CAME DOWN FROM JUDEA, AND TAUGHT THE BRETHREN, THAT "EXCEPT YE BE CIRCUMCISED, AFTER THE CUSTOM OF MOSES, YE CANNOT BE SAVED". (2) AND WHEN PAUL AND BARNABAS HAD NO SMALL DISSENSION AND QUESTIONING WITH THEM, THEY (i.e.,the Brethren) APPOINTED THAT PAUL AND BARNABAS AND CERTAIN OTHER OF THEM SHOULD GO UP TO JERUSALEM ABOUT THIS QUESTION. (3) THEY, THEREFORE, BEING BROUGHT ON THEIR WAY BY THE CHURCH, PASSED THROUGH BOTH PHŒNICE AND SAMARIA, DECLARING THE CONVERSION OF THE NATIONS; AND THEY CAUSED GREAT JOY UNTO ALL THE BRETHREN.

A considerable lapse of time isimplied in v.28, during which Paul and Barnabas resumed their former duties at Antioch (III 1). Luke, as usual, states the lapse of [153] time very vaguely, and it is impossible to estimate from his words the interval between Paul's return and the arrival of the envoys from Jerusalem (V 1). If v.28 includes only that interval, the Apostolic Council cannot have occurred before A.D. 50; but if, as is more likely (p. 256), v.28 refers to the whole residence of Paul at Antioch before and after the Council, then probably the Council took place in the end of 49.

A difficulty (which is described in §2) occurred at Antioch as to the obligation of the Gentile members of the Church to come under the full ceremonial regulations of the Jewish Law; and it was resolved to send delegates to the governing body of the Church in Jerusalem about this question. We cannot doubt that this resolution was acquiesced in by Paul; probably he even proposed it. Now, the resolution clearly involved the recognition that Jerusalem was the administrative centre of the Church; and this is an important point in estimating Paul's views on administration. With the vision of a statesman and organiser, he saw that the Church as a unified and organised body must have an administrative centre, and that a Church of separate parts could not be unified without such a centre, which should be not a governor over subordinates, but the head among equals; and his whole history shows that he recognised Jerusalem as necessarily marked out for the centre. Hence he kept before the attention of his new foundations their relation and duty to Jerusalem; and he doubtless understood the solitary injunction given him by the older Apostles on his second visit to Jerusalem (p. 57), as involving a charge to remember that duty.

Moreover, he had already communicated privately with [154] the recognised leaders in. Jerusalem, and knew that their sentiments agreedwith his own; and he must have been fully alive to the great step in organisation which would be made, if Antioch set the example of referring such a question to authoritative decision in Jerusalem at a meeting where it was represented by delegates.

In the mission of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem it is noteworthy that the Divine action plays no part. The Church in Antioch resolved, and the Church sent them to Jerusalem, escorting them on their way. This is not accidental, but expresses the deliberate judgment of Paul and of Luke. The action that led up to the Council in Jerusalem and the ineffective Decree did not originate in Divine revelation.

The accepted view is different. There is a practically universal agreement among critics and commentators of every shade of opinion that the visit described as the third in Acts XV is the one that Paul describes as the second in Gal. II 1-10. Scholars who agree in regard to scarcely any other point of early Christian history are at one in this. Now, Paul says in his letter to the Galatians that he made his second visit in accordance with revelation. Lightfoot tries to elude the difficulty of identifying this second visit by revelation with the third visit without revelation recorded in Acts XV: he says (Gal., p. 125), "here there is no contradiction. The historian naturally records the external impulse which led to the mission: the Apostle himself states his inward motive."He quotes "parallel cases which suggest how the one motive might supplement the other". But the parallels which he quotes to support his view seem merely to prove how improbable it is. (1) He says [155] that in Acts XIII 2, 4, Barnabas and Paul were sent forth by the Holy Spirit through a direct command; while in XIII 3 they are sent away by the Church of Antioch. But that is not the proper force of XIII 3 (p. 67 f.): the Church merely gave Barnabas and Saul freedom from their duties and leave to depart, while the Spirit "sent them out". In XV 3, on the contrary, the Church is said to have initiated and completed the action. (2) He founds another parallel on the mistaken idea that XXII 17and IX 29 f. refer to the same visit (p. 62).

The journey to Jerusalem occupied some time; for in Phoenice and in Samaria the envoys took the opportunity of "describing in detail the turning of the Nations to God". Here, evidently, the newly accomplished step, "the opening of the door of faith to the Nations,"is meant. The recital of the circumstances and results of the new step caused great joy. Now, Luke pointedly omits Judea; and his silence is, as often elsewhere, eloquent: the recital would cause no joy in Judea. Accordingly, we are not to suppose thatthe joy was merely caused by sympathy with the spread of Christianity, in which the Judean Brethren would doubtless rejoice as much as any. The joy of the people of Phoenice and Samaria was due to the news of free acceptance of Gentile converts: Paul, as he went, preached freely to all and invited all. When he did this in Phoenice and Samaria, it follows that he had been doing the same in Antioch since his return from Galatia: the door which had once been opened, XIV 27, remained permanently open.