[166] 3. THE COUNCIL. (XV 4) AND WHEN THEY WERE COME TO JERUSALEM, THEY WERE RECEIVED BY THE CHURCH AND THE APOSTLES AND THE ELDERS, AND THEY REHEARSED ALL THINGS THAT GOD HAD DONE WITH THEM. (5=rAC 15:5) BUT THERE ROSE UP CERTAIN OF THE SECT OF THE PHARISEES WHO BELIEVED, SAYING, "IT IS NEEDFUL TO CIRCUMCISE THEM, AND TO CHARGE THEM TO KEEP THE LAW OF MOSES". (6) AND THE APOSTLES AND THE ELDERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER TO CONSIDER OF THIS MATTER. (7) AND WHEN THERE HAD BEEN MUCH DISCUSSION, [167] PETER ROSE AND SPOKE. (12) AND ALL THE MULTITUDE KEPT SILENCE; AND THEY HEARKENED UNTO BARNABAS AND PAUL, WHO REHEARSED WHAT SIGNS AND WONDERS GOD HAD WROUGHT AMONG THE NATIONS BY THEM. (13) AND AFTER THEY HAD CEASED, JAMES SPOKE.

At Jerusalem there occurred in the first place a general meeting of the Church as a whole to receive and welcome the delegates. The Apostles and the Elders are specified as taking part in the meeting; and the separate article before each name implies distinct action

of each body. At this meeting the delegates explained the circumstances which had caused their mission; and the extreme members of the Judaising party, who are described here as Pharisees, stated their view forthwith.

A mark of the developed situation since Paul's last visit must be noted in v. 4. Paul and Barnabas now expound in a formal and public way all their missionary experience; but on their previous visit, Paul privately submitted to the leaders of the Church his views as to missionary enterprise.

Thereupon, a special meeting of the Apostles and the Elders was held to consider the matter, and a long discussion took place. Peter delivered a speech in favour of complete freedom for the new converts; and the effect which he produced was shown by the patienthearing accorded to Barnabas and to Paul, as they recounted the proofs of Divine grace and Divine action in the test that God was with them. Thus, the course of the meeting was very similar to the discussion that followed [168] after the conversion ofCornelius (XI 1-18). The general sense was clearly against the claim of the extreme Judaistic party (called "them of the circumcision"XI 2, Gal. II 12).

But, while the champions of circumcision were clearly in the minority, apparently a decided feeling was manifest in favour of some concessions to the Jewish feeling and practice: the Nations were to be received into the Church, but the widened Church was not to be apart from and independent of the old Jewish community: it was to be "a rebuilding of the tabernacle of David". To render possible a real unanimity of feeling, the Nations must accept the fundamental regulations of purity. The chairman's speech summed up the sense of the meeting in a way that was universally accepted. James, the recognised head of the Church in Jerusalem, said:-

(XV 14) SYMEON HATH REHEARSED HOW FIRST GOD TOOK CARE TO GATHER FROM AMONG THE NATIONS A PEOPLE FOR HIS NAME. (15) AND TO THIS AGREE THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS: AS IT IS WRITTEN, (16) "I WILL BUILD AGAIN THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID, (17) THAT THE RESIDUE OF MEN MAY SEEK AFTER THE LORD, AND ALL THE NATIONS, OVER WHOM MY NAME IS PRONOUNCED,"SAITH THE LORD, .WHO MAKETH THESE THINGS (18) KNOWN FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME. 1 (19) WHEREFORE MY VOICE IS THAT WE TROUBLE NOT THEM WHICH FROM AMONG THE NATIONS TURN TO GOD; (20) BUT SEND INSTRUCTIONS TO THEM TO ABSTAIN FROM THE [169] POLLUTIONS OF IDOLS AND FROM MARRIAGE WITHIN THE DEGREES FORBIDDEN BY THE LAW, AND FROM WHAT IS STRANGLED, AND FROM the use of BLOOD as food. (21) FOR MOSES FROM ANCIENT GENERATIONS HATH IN EVERY CITY THEM THAT PREACH HIM, AS HE IS READ IN THE SYNAGOGUES EVERY SABBATH.

James grounds his advice for partial conformity on the fact, v. 21, that the Mosaic Law had already spread widely overthe cities of the empire, and that the existing facts which facilitated intercourse between Jews and "God-fearing"pagans should be continued.

He grounds his advice for freedom from the rest of the Law on the declared will of God, first by prophecy in time long past, and afterwards by revelation to Peter, that the Nations should be admitted to the tabernacle of David, from which he infers that their own duty is to make admission easy.

Incidentally we observe that James used the Septuagint Version, quoting loosely from Amos IX 11, 12, a passage where the telling point for his purpose occurs only in the Greek and not in the Hebrew Version.

Another point of development since Paul's second visit to Jerusalem must be noticed here. On the second visit, as Paul declares, the recognised leaders in Jerusalem gave him no advice and no instruction, except to remember the poverty of the brethren there. It would. be hard to put that in more emphatic terms than he uses (p. 56). But on the thirdvisit, the delegates bring a question for settlement, and receive from the recognised leaders in Jerusalem an authoritative response, giving a weighty decision in a serious matter of practical work. a decision that would have been epoch-making, [170] if it had been permanently carried into effect. On the second visit the difficulty could be foreseen; between the second and third visit it became acute; at the third visit it was settled in a way that was a distinct rebuff to the Judaising party, but notacomplete triumph for the party of freedom. It would not be honest to use the words of Gal. II 10 about the visit described in Acts XV

Another contrast between the second and the third visit must be observed. The Church sent forth several delegates along with Paul and Barnabas on the third journey; but on the second they were the sole delegates. The common view, which identifies the second visit of Gal. II 1-10 with the third visit of Acts XV, is defended by its supporters on the ground that Titus, who went along with Paul (Gal. II 1), was one of the additional delegates mentioned, XV 2. This argument sins against the facts. In Gal. II 1 Titus is defined as a subordinate, and not as one of the delegates; 2 we have no reason to think that any subordinates went up to the Council, whereas it was necessary for the work of the second visit to use assistants. Moreover, wemay be certain that, if Paul did take any subordinates with him to the Council, he was too prudent and diplomatic to envenom a situation already serious and difficult by taking. an uncircumcised Greek with him. It was different on a later visit, when the authoritative decree had decided against circumcision, or on an earlier visit, before the question was raised; but when that question was under discussion, it would have been a harsh and heedless hurt to the susceptibilities of the other party, [171] to take Titus with him; and Paul never was guilty of such an act. The example of Timothy shows how far he went about this time in avoiding any chance of hurting Jewish feeling.

FOOTNOTES

1 The Bezan Text, and may other authorities, have "saith the Lord who doesth this. (18) Known to the Lord from the beginning of time is His work."

2 {sumparalabõv}, cp. XII 25 and pp. 59, 71, 177.