Bible Commentaries
Galatians 2

Verses 18-21

II

PAUL’S VISIT TO JERUSALEM

Galatians 1:18-2:21.

This discussion commences at Galatians 1:18 and extends through chapter 2, completing the historical part of the letter. It is evident that there is a relation between Paul’s visit to Jerusalem, the headquarters of the apostles, and his independent authority as an apostle and his special gospel. There is a special value of this letter to the Galatians in that it gives definite information concerning matters more briefly and more generally given in Acts, which certainly saves us from erroneous inferences that would necessarily be deduced from the account in Acts alone. This is most evident in the history of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem after his conversion, and the intervals between the visits. Five of these visits are recorded in Acts, as follows: First visit – Acts 9:26-30; Acts 22:17-21; second visit – Acts 11:27-30; Acts 12:25; third visit – Acts 15:1-30; fourth visit – Acts 18:22 (this one we would not know if we did not look closely at the Greek); fifth visit – Acts 21:15-23:25.

These are the five visits, so far as Acts records them, of Paul to Jerusalem after his conversion. I raise two additional questions: (1) What visits had he made to Jerusalem before his conversion? And (2) did he ever visit Jerusalem after the history in Acts closes? The answer to which is that while he lived at Tarsus he received his theological education at Jerusalem; that was doubtless his first visit, at least it is the first of which we have any account. But as he did not know Christ personally, he evidently was not in Jerusalem during the lifetime of Christ; therefore he must have gone back to Tarsus. But we do find him again in Jerusalem a rabbi of the Cilician synagogue, an opponent of Stephen, and a member of the Sanhedrin, and the object of his second visit was to become a member of the Sanhedrin, but that is all before his conversion.

After the history in the book of Acts closes we have no means of knowing that Paul ever visited Jerusalem. Indeed, we have only scraps of information concerning what he did after the first imprisonment at Rome. We gather some information from the letters to Timothy and Titus. Whether that included another visit to Jerusalem we do not know.

What is the relation of his visit to Jerusalem to his special and independent gospel and his independent apostolic authority? The Roman Catholics teach that Peter was the first pope, and that all authority was derived from Peter; therefore if their position be correct, Paul must have derived his authority from Peter. This letter to the Galatians grinds to fine powder the whole Roman Catholic theory of the pope, and hence it was one of the books of the New Testament that was so tremendously read in the Reformation.

Of the first and third of these visits to Jerusalem, recorded by Luke in Acts, we find parallel accounts in this letter to the Galatians. There was no occasion in this letter to refer to the second visit to Jerusalem, for at that time he simply went up to carry some alms to Jerusalem, and had no opportunity to have any conversation with the apostles. The persecution was raging; James was killed and Peter was in prison, and as soon as Peter got out he left; so, that visit to Jerusalem is not germane to our discussion, but the third visit is. The fourth and fifth visits to Jerusalem cannot touch this letter because they took place after this letter was written; so that the thing that we are to study ’in this chapter is the bearing of these two visits upon Paul’s independent, apostolic authority and his independent gospel, viz.: The first visit, as recorded in Acts 9 and the parallel account in Galatians 1, and the third visit, as recorded in Acts 15 and paralleled by Galatians 2.

We may best get at the additional and more definite information in this letter by comparing the two accounts thus: First, by reading Acts 9:17-19, then Galatians 1:15-17, then Acts 9:20-25, then Galatians 1:18 (except last clause), then Acts 9:26-27, then Galatians 1:18 (last clause) to Galatians 1:20, then Acts 9:28-29 (except last clause), then Acts 22:17-21, then Acts 9:29 (last clause) to Acts 9:31, and then Galatians 1:21-24. (For an arrangement of these passages in parallel columns see "An Interpretation of the English Bible," Acts, chap. 18.)

The following are the new and more definite particulars that we gather from inserting the Galatian passage that way: First, we learn from Galatians the time interval, three years, between his conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem. That three years after he was converted had passed before he ever saw Jerusalem or any of the twelve apostles. Second, we learn what he did in this interval of three years and what he did not: (1) That his call to the apostleship was not only directly from the Lord himself, but his acceptance of it and obedience to it was instant, without conferring with flesh and blood. His call was not at Jerusalem but at Damascus, not through Peter, but through Christ directly; Christ did not tell him to go to Peter, but the Holy Spirit selected the special man, Ananias, and sent him to him. (2) That, as his call to the apostleship was not dependent on the ratification of the twelve, he was set apart from his mother’s womb. (3) That his apostolic call had its emphasis in a different direction from the emphasis of the call of the twelve apostles, their mission being to preach to the Jews primarily, and his being to preach primarily to the Gentiles. (4) That instead of having been instructed in the gospel by the original twelve, he went, not to Jerusalem, but to Arabia to receive his gospel from the Lord himself by direct revelation. (5) That instead of waiting to act on his call to preach until the twelve refused it or authorized it, he commenced his preaching at Damascus and not at Jerusalem. (6) That he had been exercising his apostolic call and receiving revelations and preaching for three years before he was ever seen by any of the original twelve. (7) That when he did go to Jerusalem he saw only one of the apostles – Peter – but he saw James, the brother of our Lord, who was not an apostle. So we must infer that at the time of his visit the other eleven apostles were out on the field. He saw but one, and he was there only fifteen days, and while there that fifteen days Jesus, in a vision in the Temple, peremptorily ordered him to leave them, to go to the Gentile work. See how these points are brought out and urged by the Judaizing Christians, inasmuch as he was not one of the twelve, and not commissioned by the twelve, therefore he was not a true apostle. He is explaining all this in his defense. (8) That for nine years after leaving Jerusalem, while he was preaching and establishing churches in Syria and Cilicia, they did not see his face. It was during this Cilician period that he received the revelation recorded in 2 Corinthians 12. So that not a shred of his authority as an apostle, not a word of his gospel, is derived from the original twelve or from any other man. Galatians says nothing about the fact, but I will interpolate, that from Antioch he and Barnabas went to the heathen on their first missionary tour, not under Jerusalem direction, but under specific and direct authority of the Holy Spirit.

The object of Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, after he had finished his Cilician tour, was simply to carry alms to the poor saints in Jerusalem, because of a revelation of a famine through a prophet. There could have been no conversation with the apostles from the fact that the persecution by Herod was raging, in which James was killed, and when Peter got out of prison he immediately left. There is another matter stated in Acts, though Galatians does not refer to it. We find in Acts 13-14 that when he did go out as a foreign missionary he did not go under any authority conferred by the twelve apostles, but that he and Barnabas were sent out particularly by the Holy Spirit, and that this first missionary tour that we find recorded was under special, direct orders from God and not from man.

In order to get at the account of his third visit to Jerusalem we have to carefully read nearly all of Acts 15 and every bit of Galatians 2. The object of this visit was (1) to find out how these Judaizing Christians were supported, (2) to carry out this divine injunction. (He says in the letter to the Galatians that when he made those three visits to Jerusalem he did not go because he was summoned, but by special revelation, showing that he was still under divine guidance.) (3) To show that the initiative was not taken by the Jerusalem church, but by the church at Antioch. Certain Judaizing Christians had a gospel similar to that of those who had come to Antioch and taught that they could not be saved without becoming Jews – that they would have to be circumcised or faith would not save them at all. Paul and Barnabas squarely met them, but inasmuch as the disturbance had come on the ground of comity, they carried the question to the church where it originated. Just as one would do if he were the pastor of the Broadway Church in Fort Worth, and some of the people of Dallas were to come and raise a row in the church – a row that involved his ministerial authority – then he ought to refer this to those Dallas people, saying, "Do you send these men here, or do they come by your authority?" So we see that in that third visit to Jerusalem he went with a definite object in view, not in order that he might be made an apostle, but in order to settle a great question of salvation, and that very question was being agitated in the Galatian church then, that is, the necessity of being a Jew in order to be saved.

Galatians says that Paul went to that meeting to take a test case, and the test case was Titus. Titus was converted, had been baptized and received into the church, and he determined to take Titus up there and say, "Now do you demand that Titus shall be circumcised in order to be saved?" Then he went up as he said, by revelation, to have the matter settled forever as to whether he was an apostle to the Gentiles or not. So we learn in Galatians that when he got there and sprung that question upon Titus, though Titus was not circumcised, they lost the case. Then we learn from Galatians that before the church met in conference Paul had met the elders and the pastor of the church, James, and sprung this question on them, "Do you acknowledge that this authority that I have to go to the heathen is from God, just as your authority to go to the circumcision is from God?" And he said that they conceded and gave him the right hand of fellowship, he and Barnabas only. This is a very important matter that we learn from Galatians 2, but that isn’t all that we learn. He says that from them he received nothing; that they conceded that he was not behind them in anything; that the pillars of the church at Jerusalem – the apostles and the pastor – acknowledged that they conferred nothing on him, and that he was their equal. He did not get his gospel from them, but this is not the cream of the case. He adds something that we do not find anywhere else. The Holy Spirit and the apostles and the church at Jerusalem united in the decision, embodied it in writing upon all of these points, and sent it to the churches where these questions were likely to come up.

We come now to a most startling fact. After this happened Peter made a visit to Antioch, and when he first got there he did as he did in the case of Cornelius – took a meal with the Gentiles. Here come some people from Jerusalem, and while they admit that a man did not have to become a Jew to be a Christian, yet they contend that they must not violate the old law about eating with the Gentiles. We learn from Galatians that it shook Peter, and we have already learned that Peter was easily shaken, and that it shook Barnabas also. In this new question we learn that Paul alone stood up and contended to Peter’s face and rebuked him. What a position for a pope! He told him that he was tearing down what he had already established; that what God at Joppa had shown him that he had cleansed, man should not call unclean. But Peter was dissimulating and holding back because certain of these Judaizing teachers from Jerusalem came up there and ’insisted that this business must stop.

What would have been the effect if Paul had not taken the stand he did? Christianity would have been a mere sect; it would have lost its individuality; its wings would have been clipped; it could neither fly nor soar; it could only crawl, and it would have perished at Jerusalem but for that fight that Paul made. What would we think if the "upper tens" of our church would say, "I am willing to welcome these poor people to the church, but don’t expect me to go to see them. We can’t do that"? I have always contended that but for Paul’s going away into Arabia and receiving his gospel direct from the Lord Jesus Christ, instead of having it handed down to him by somebody else, and the stand that he took when this great controversy threatened to rend Christianity of that day in its struggling childhood, we Gentiles would have had no gospel, and what the Jews would have had would not have been worth anything. It was a question of life and death. The very essence of the gospel was involved. It was as if they proposed to take the keystone out of the arch, or the foundation from under the building.

There are some incidental questions on Galatians 1-2 that we had better look at a little. Paul said that when he went to Jerusalem that first time, he saw James, our Lord’s brother. Here come up some theories. The extreme theory held by the Catholic Church, the middle theory held by the Church of England, and the other theory held by Baptist, viz.: What is meant by calling these the Lord’s brothers and sisters? The Catholics say that they were only his cousins; that Mary never bore but one child; that she was born a virgin, so she remained a virgin, and they claim that her body was taken up to heaven as was the body of Elijah – "the Assumption of the Virgin" – and that she was immaculately conceived, as Christ was conceived. That is what they call the doctrine of "the Immaculate Conception." The second theory is that they were children of Joseph by a former marriage. But there is not a hint of such a marriage in the Bible. The third theory is that they were children of Joseph and Mary, the mother of our Lord. People, who, for sentimental reasons, believe that Mary had not a lot of children after Christ, who believe that they were not Mary’s children, evolve that thing out of their own consciousness. The fact is that James and Jude who wrote books of the New Testament, and some sisters were actually half brothers and sisters of our Lord, and the children of Joseph and Mary. They were half brothers of Jesus because they had the same mother, but their father was not his; God was his father.

Another thing Paul says is that those churches in Judea from whom it was alleged that he derived his authority and his gospel, did not even know his name, but they held him in respect and glorified God in him. I took that as my text when I was appointed to preach the annual sermon before the American Baptist Publication Society in Chicago – "They Glorified God in Paul" – showing that the workman is known by his works. They said there was a mighty revolution in this Saul of Tarsus; that somebody did it, and glory to the one that did ’it. Somebody made him the mightiest power as an evangelical force that earth has ever known. Who did it? God. So they glorified God in Paul, and brethren will glorify God in us as our lives are pure and as our work is faithful, but if we live in sin as any other sinner, and if we preach something that God did not give us to preach, if conviction and conversion do not follow our ministry, if our preaching does not stir up others, then I am sure that people will never attempt to glorify God in us. They will find nothing to glorify.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the special historical value of this letter to the Galatians?

2. In what particular is this most evident?

3. How many and what visits of Paul to Jerusalem recorded in Acts, and what the scripture for each?

4. What visits had he made to Jerusalem before his conversion, and what the proof?

5. Did Paul ever visit Jerusalem after history in book of Acts closes?

6. What is the relation of his visits to Jerusalem to his special and independent gospel and his independent apostolic authority?

7. To which of these visits recorded in Acts do we find parallel accounts in Galatians, and why are not the other visits to Jerusalem referred to in Galatians?

8. Where in Acts are the sections corresponding to the two visits to Jerusalem recorded in Galatians?

9. How may we best get at the additional and more definite information in this letter?

10. What are these new and more definite particulars that we gather from inserting the Galatian passages in the Acts passages?

11. What was the object of Paul’s second visit to Jerusalem, and what opportunity did this visit afford for conversation with the twelve apostles, and why?

12. What matter stated in Acts brought in here by the author?

13. What the object of Paul’s third visit to Jerusalem, what the case at Antioch, and what two important matters were settled authoritatively on this visit?

14. What social questions sprang up at Antioch soon after this, what its history, how settled, and what if Paul had not taken the stand that he did?

15. What is the bearing of Paul’s independent gospel and apostleship, together with Galatians 1:12-2:14 on the alleged primacy and supremacy of Peter?

16. What are the three theories of our Lord’s relation to James, and which is the true one?

17. What did Paul here say of the churches in Judea, and how may the people glorify God in the preacher?

Verses 1-10

XXI

THE GREAT CONFERENCE AT JERUSALEM CONCERNING A VITAL QUESTION OF SALVATION AND THE PRIVATE CONFERENCE AT JERUSALEM ON PAUL’S INDEPENDENT APOSTLESHIP AND GOSPEL

Acts 15:1-35 with Galatians 2:1-10.

In order to understand thoroughly Acts 15 we must consider the scriptures cited at the head of this chapter, and their several themes, in addition to the scriptures and themes in the succeeding chapters. On these great events we have the richest, the ablest, and the soundest literature in Christian history. That part of Conybeare and Howson that touches Acts 15; Dr. Lightfoot’s great discussion on the same subject in his Commentary on Galatians, that part of Farrar’s Life of Paul that touches on Acts 15, and Philip Schaff’s great discussion on the subject in his History of the Christian Church, are very fine. I could cite many others, but these are all great books, and their discussion of Acts 15 is the most important and far-reaching in the history of Christianity.

The history of the question raised at Antioch, is as follows: A number of Pharisees, nominal converts to Christianity, who held membership in the church at Jerusalem, and who opposed the reception of Gentiles into the church, left Jerusalem and went to Antioch, and side-stepped into the church, i.e., stepped sideways into the church. That is what the Greek says. It means surreptitiously, privily. Their purpose was to spy out what was done at Antioch in the matter of Gentiles, and then to bring them into bondage to the Jewish customs. It was a villainous thing; it didn’t come up naturally. When they got up there, they privately agitated this question: "Except a man be circumcised after the manner of Moses, he can not be saved!" That made it intensely important – a question of salvation: "Except one submit to this external rite (that God never intended for anybody but Jews), he could not be saved." It stirs me every time a question of that kind comes up, e. g., when a man says, "Except you be baptized, you can’t be saved."

Whoever and whenever anyone makes salvation depend upon an external rite, that one is an enemy to the gospel of grace.

They commenced the agitation that way, and finally what is discussed so much privately comes out publicly, somebody says something about it. Paul and Barnabas soon learned that there were a lot of "sneaks" that had slipped into the church, and were undermining the most fundamental things that they preached, and, of course, as says our history, there was no small discussion about the matter.

But why didn’t Antioch, being an independent church, settle that question itself? The answer is that the men who were making this issue came from a similar church at Jerusalem, and claimed to have the backing of the authorities at Jerusalem. Hence, there was a propriety that could not be disregarded, viz.: that this matter should be referred to that Jerusalem church and to the apostles. Their questions were, "Did you give these men any such permission to come to us? Are they representatives of you, or are they just representing their own deviltry?" We do that now in our churches. If a man, or a set of men, goes from one church to another church, and stirs up a row there on a question of intense doctrinal importance, before voting on it the latter church must decide whether these people represent the former church. That is why the matter was referred to the church at Jerusalem by the church at Antioch.

Two distinct motives influenced Paul to participate in carrying this question to Jerusalem, although an independent apostle and himself competent to decide it authoritatively. They were these: The church at Antioch elected him as a messenger, to take this matter up at Jerusalem. Paul was accustomed to yield to a church. An apostle is set in the church, and not over it. But he took precaution to carry the matter to the Lord, and so the second motive was, that the Lord, by revelation, told him to go up – that these things needed settlement at Jerusalem. It was an intensely important thing that the apostle should not even seem to be preaching contrary doctrines, and if the apostles and the authorities in the Jerusalem church were teaching that men could not be saved except they become Jews, then it was quite important for that matter to be known. If they were not teaching that, it was equally as important that these men who came to represent them, should be publicly exposed. As a test case Paul took Titus along. Here is" a full blood Gentile – Titus – who on that first missionary tour, while the record nowhere says it in so many words, it is quite probable was converted. He was a Paul man and a life-long companion of Paul. Is suppose he was converted in the island of Cyprus, the first place they touched and labored.

Paul took this case along. These men said, "Except a man be circumcised, he cannot be saved." Paul answers, "Here is a man, not a lineal descendant in any way from Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, and do you mean to say that this intelligent man, who has the evidence of his conversion and the attestation of the Spirit of God, who is evidently already saved, can’t be saved until he is circumcised? He is not a Jew; he doesn’t want to become a Jew. He is not even a proselyte of the gate." It was important to take along a case on the great question. The history of the journey to Jerusalem is found in Acts 15:3: "They, therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren." You will note that the church having sent these messengers out, accompanied them part of the way. They didn’t let them slip off. They were going on a very important mission – a mission for this church – and were to represent the church in this matter, and so this church brought them on the way, and I suppose paid all their expenses. A church ought to pay the expenses of any messengers that they send to represent them in an association or convention. I don’t know whether it was at this time, or during the five years that he was in Cilicia (Tarsus) that he did that preaching on the coast of Judea, but certainly he had a chance to do some of it on this trip. He went right through the country, and through the coast country. And the record says that they went talking about this question that was going to come up, and talked about the salvation of the Gentiles, and there is no other statement in the New Testament or anywhere about Paul’s having preached in the coast of Judea.

After the arrival at Jerusalem there were several public and private conferences, but it is somewhat hard to tell just how many. We know that there were very important private conferences. We will notice one of them presently, but we know that there must have been at least three public conferences.

The first was when the delegation got there. The record says that they were received by the apostles and the elders and the church. It was a grave matter. These representatives came with high credentials. The matter touched both churches, and the Jerusalem church, in a very dignified way, turned out to hear what they had to say. Then the record says that there was much discussion, and some of the sect of the Pharisees boldly took the position that those men that went to Antioch were right – that one had to be circumcised in order to be saved. That may have been the second assembly – the reception assembly first and then the discussion, as to the object of their coming, in a second assembly. Anyhow, there is one assembly, and no conclusion reached. The matter is discussed. There were men right in Jerusalem avowing precisely what those fellows that slipped in up at Antioch had said. The record then says, "The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter." The apostles and the preachers – all the preachers in the church at Jerusalem – held a meeting for them, but the main body of the church was not there. Just as one would gather together all the officials of a church to consider a grave matter, and then when they had considered, one goes before a church meeting and presents his recommendations. The record then says that they called the whole church together, and the letter says that the church participated in the decision that had been reached in that meeting of the apostles and elders. So there were certainly three public meetings and one private meeting. Paul affirms that one of the meetings was held in private, and it was with the apostles only, and the pastor of the church, James.

This was not a council in the ordinary sense of the word. A deliberation of one church is not a council – it is a conference. The Antioch church sent some questions there, and the Jerusalem church conferred upon these questions. A council is where a number of churches, through messengers, regularly accredited, meet and consider a matter. So when we get into ecclesiastical history, and they tell us about this being the first great synod, and the first great council, we need not believe it. This was just a church conference. Paul didn’t vote in it. They deliberated, and rendered a decision. The Antioch church referred the question to the Jerusalem church for final decision.

The record says that they sent these men to the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem, but they were received by the whole church, and when the apostles and elders had considered it, then the whole church came together and considered it, and joined in the answer, or final decision.

We will now hear the decision of the question submitted to them: "Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment; it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, . . ." and then it goes onto finish the decision. They not only decided against the statement that those men made in Antioch, but they utterly disavowed those men, and I think they ought to have had a little church trial after that crowd got away, and called these men up for lying and spying. They may have done so. But, anyhow, they decided the question in favor of Paul.

This decision was communicated in a formal letter, and then two great representatives of the church were sent along to confirm it by word of mouth. It was a very important proceeding. To whom was it communicated? "And they wrote thus by them: The apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting." They sent it to a whole section of the country. By whom was it received? The record says, "So they, when they were dismissed, came down to Antioch; and having gathered the multitude together [the whole church], they delivered the epistle [to the whole church]," and then Judas and Silas got up and spoke by word of mouth to the whole church. What was its effect? It gave very great joy at Antioch. That is a fine suggestion to young preachers about how to do things. There wasn’t a misstep made anywhere. The church at Antioch didn’t get mad and kick and say the Jerusalem church had gone into heresy. They didn’t fuss about IT. They said, “Let us find out if this is so.” They did it in a dignified, honorable manner. Every time I read it over, I am charmed with the method with which they went at the thing, and how the response was made.

The order of all the proceedings, private and public, was as follows:

1. They were received by the whole church at Jerusalem, and then the question stated) whereupon certain members of the church took the position that they ought to be circumcised. The case of Titus was presented: "What are you going to do about this man?" That meeting reached no decision; that was for discussion.

2. When they adjourned, Paul met the apostles and the elders and privately laid before them a question, somewhat involved in this matter, as to his independent apostleship and his gospel. That matter had to be settled separately. There were Jewish members of the church that denied that Paul had an independent apostleship. They thought he must be subordinate to the others. So he wanted that question settled. There were some among them that questioned whether he had the full gospel. He wanted that settled. Then there were others that questioned whether it was his particular mission to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. He wanted that settled, and that was not to be settled by the church at Jerusalem, but by these apostles. The apostles were Peter and John – and James, the half brother of our Lord and not an apostle, but the pastor of that church, and one of the most influential men among the Hebrew Christians in all the world – certainly on outside Jews more influential than all the rest of them put together. Paul says in the letter to the Galatians that it became evident in this private conference that nobody gave him anything or added anything to his gospel. He didn’t get it from any of them. He didn’t get his authority from them. He was called to be an apostle independently by the Lord Jesus Christ, and they recognized the divine call of Jesus Christ; that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and that Peter was the apostle to the circumcision, and got up and gave each other the right hand of fellowship on it. That was a tremendous gain. That was in the private conference.

3. So when the public meeting came, in which the apostles and elders were to consider this question, we want to know what the proceedings were. James presided, because he was pastor of the church, and all the apostles were there, and so when the case was ready for consideration, the first thing was for Paul and Barnabas to state the case of their work among the Gentiles, and they got up and recited that missionary journey we have just discussed, how they went to Cyprus and what followed there; how they went to Phrygia, and Mysia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe; what were the tremendous effects of that tour; what mighty signs and displays of divine power attended that work; they recited it all. "Now you are to consider whether we dare go back over that journey, and tell those people they are not saved. They repented they believed, they were baptized, the Spirit attested the work." Paul testified that Jesus sent him to do the work; the Holy Spirit testified that he had Paul and Barnabas set apart to do that work. Now that is the case.

As soon as that was over, only two men spoke. Peter got up and said, "Brethren, this case has already been settled. You have already passed on it; you know how that in the beginning I led, under the divine guidance, the Gentile Cornelius into the kingdom of heaven. You have already investigated that fact, and passed on it. Are you going to repeal your decision in these other cases?"

Then James got up and said that what Simeon said (he calls him Simeon, which is the Aramaic name for Simon) was confirmed by prophecy; that prophecy said that it should be just that way and he quoted the prophecy. He says, "Brethren my view of the matter is that we should not attempt to put on these Gentiles a burden that neither we nor our fathers were ever able to bear. You can’t impose the whole Mosaic ritual on the Gentile world." When those two men got through speaking, the case was settled unanimously, so far as the apostles and the preachers were concerned.

4. Then came the whole church conference. They were called together, and the recommendations made by the apostles and preachers were presented, and to the surprise of everybody that leaned to the Mosaic side of the question, the decision was unanimous. Whereupon they wrote this letter and sent these men. I don’t know when there ever was such a meeting of the church except the meeting on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was received.

The test case brought by Paul had to be discussed and disposed of publicly, because it represented the marrow of the question that was sent down to them, viz.: "Shall Titus be circumcised?" Paul says, "He certainly was not," and it was decided that Titus did not have to be circumcised.

The infidel Renan says that Paul yielded, and that Titus was circumcised. The semi-infidel Farrar takes the same position. He devotes about four pages most elaborately arguing to show that Paul, in order to gain the main question, would make concession in the case of an individual. Paul was never known to concede a principle. I have warned you more than" once concerning Farrar. He was a very great man, had a very bright mind, and was a great scholar. His Life of Christ is really masterful, and so is his Life of Paul, but you can’t trust him. You have to watch him with both eyes all the time. The first tiling you know, he will go off at a tangent on some freak. His head wasn’t level. As old Governor Brown, of Georgia, used to say, "He was a very brilliant man, but he lacked judgment."

Let us analyze the letter sent: (1) A most respectful greeting; (2) disavowal of the men who came to represent them at Antioch; (3) the decision itself; (4) a restriction on the Gentiles of certain necessary things which we will consider later.

James, in his speech, uses this language: "Wherefore my judgment is that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God; but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood," or, as it is expressed in the letter, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which, if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you." Could you do any one of those things without committing a wrong. In other words, would it be wrong for you to eat an animal that had been killed by being choked to death? Or would it be wrong for you to eat blood pudding? My answer to the question is this: That the most of these things are a part of the covenant with Noah before there were any Jews – a covenant that touched the whole human race. There is where we find it, and therefore in imposing that upon Gentiles, they did impose no more than God imposed in the Noah-covenant for the whole race. The reason that they assigned for not : eating things strangled or for not eating the blood after it was taken out in an any way, is that the life is in the blood. It is all right to eat a beef, but not the blood. [Opinions differ here.] To my mind none of us are justified in taking life in order to live, nor are we called upon to make cemeteries of our digestive organs in which to inter dead hogs and cattle.--Editor. , When you put the knife in the throat to let the blood out, don’t catch that blood and make a blood pudding out of it. Old Mr. John McKnight, at Independence, said that he liked blood puddings better than any other food that he had. In the first place, it is an animal way of eating. Tigers and lions catch a deer by the throat and drink its blood. Minks and polecats do that when they get into the chicken house. One of them will kill a dozen chickens and just drink the blood. A sheep-killing dog will do that, or a wolf. One hungry wolf in one night may kill dozens of sheep – never bothering them except just to cut the jugular vein with his tusks and drink the blood. It is a beastly thin, and I say it is wrong now.

In the very next chapter, Paul and Silas carried this very decree, or decision, and gave it to the churches in Antioch, Pisidia, Lystra, and Derbe, to be kept by the churches. Dr. Farrar tries to make it appear that a good many of those things were just local, and soon passed away. The decree of the conference at Jerusalem was delivered to all the churches. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself, very many years after this, in making his revelation to John on the Isle of Patmos, brings up this charge against two of those churches. "You eat things sacrificed to idols. . . ." Repent, therefore; or else I come, . . ." So that what they imposed at the end of that letter (and this is about what James meant: "We don’t propose to make Jews out of you, but we do insist on your being decent men") was that these Christians were to observe things that touch all mankind.

Here we need to harmonize the circumcision of Timothy that took place a few days after this (Acts 16:3) with the non-circumcision of Titus (Galatians 2:3-5). There stood Paul at Jerusalem and said, "Ye can’t circumcise Titus," and a few days after, at Lystra, he takes Timothy and circumcises him. Timothy was a Jew, and as a matter of expedience, in order to give him a greater entrance in preaching to Jews, Paul circumcised him. Titus was not a Jew. Paul says in the matter of expediency: "I will be all things to all men to enable me to save them. I will become a Jew to those that are Jews; to those that are weak I will be weak. I will put myself on their basis, if there isn’t a great principle involved." He saw no use in circumcision at all. He says, "Circumcision availeth nothing, and uncircumcision availeth nothing," but in the minds of Jews, and particularly at that day, a Jew that wouldn’t be circumcised couldn’t get a hearing.

A certain premillennial interpretation has been put on the speech of James, in which he said, "Brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name." They say that the object of preaching is to take the elect out of the crowd – not to preach to save everybody, but to go to pick out the elect. That is the first step. "And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After these things I will return, And I will again build the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up."

They say that the next stop is the restoration of the Jews and the Jewish polity, the Temple, and all its services, etc., that having now taken the elect out of the heathen nations, and having brought the Jews back, the other elect, then "the residue of men may seek after the Lord." They say that that is the order.

A Campbellite man was the first I ever knew to present that thought. In a great debate between Thompson, a Baptist preacher, and Burgess, a Campbellite preacher, when they were discussing election, the Campbellite preacher took the position that the elect were the picked crowd, and that they were elect in every sense of the word, but that the bulk of the saved would consist not of the elect, but of those that would come in afterward. But, here will never be such an anticlimax as Christ coming back to the earth, and then setting up the old Jewish polity, and becoming the king of the Jews literally, and through the kingdom of the Jews, ruling the World.

That is the very interpretation that Paul fought all his life, and that James fought. That is premillennialism. That when they say, "Thy kingdom come on earth," they mean to say, "at Jerusalem with Christ as earthly king, and ruling all the rest of the world through the Jews, with the old polity set up." They misinterpret the words of Christ. The New Testament shows that the restoration of the Jews is the conversion of the Jews; that it is a spiritual restoration, and that the Jerusalem they come into is the heavenly Jerusalem, and not the earthly Jerusalem, and that the old Jewish polity will never be set up.

I doubt, not that the Jews will one day settle again in the Holy Land. I think that is very probable. Personally I would like to see them do it, but if you mean by it that when they get there that Jesus will come to them – come before the millennium – and that their old polity of sacrifices will be established, and that he, as king at Jerusalem, will rule all kings of this world through the Jews, I don’t believe a word of it.

1 Corinthians 8:8 teaches that meat offered to idols is as good to eat as any, on the ground that an idol is nothing, provided that such eating does not make one stumble. It takes the position that there is no sin in eating a piece of meat offered to an idol; that every creature of God is good; that is all right, but you must not consider the abstract right of a thing. You must consider it in its relation. There isn’t a particle of harm in my pressing my finger on a piece of crooked steel, but if that crooked steel is the trigger of a pistol, and the pistol is pointing at another, then there is a great deal of harm in pressing a crooked piece of steel. Paul says, "If my eating meat causes a weak brother to stumble, I will never eat it while the world stands." As a proof that it is wrong, Jesus Christ himself speaks against it in Revelation in regard to the churches, holding them responsible for violating that law. Then Paul himself says in that same letter to the Corinthians, and in a different connection, "You cannot take the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons."

It is of immense signification that the decision was here made that Paul’s gospel was independent, and that his apostleship was not derived from the others. The first part of the immense signification is that it wipes off the face of the earth the foundation stone of Romanism – that the pope of Rome is the head of the Christian world. Here was a man (they say Peter was the first pope) who gave no authority to Paul. Here is a man that is welcomed by Paul. Here is a man that goes up and gives the right hand of fellowship upon this fact – that Paul was independent of him, got nothing from him, and was not responsible to him. But the decision of these Jerusalem conferences, public and private, did not forever settle the questions decided. They did settle them authoritatively, but not practically.

There were some important matters also not decided by this conference which occasioned much trouble later. One of them was, Shall Jewish Christians socially eat and drink with Gentile Christians? Another was, Is it essential for a Jew, not a Gentile, to be circumcised in order to be saved? But Peter greatly strengthened the Jerusalem decision. He followed right on after, and he got up there and confirmed what Silas and Judas had just said.

QUESTIONS

1.What must we consider in order to understand thoroughly Acts 15?

2. On these great events what valuable helps have we?

3. Give the history of the question raised at Antioch, showing its origin, its importance, its discussion, and particularly why it should be referred to Jerusalem, since Antioch was an independent church having competent jurisdiction over its own affairs.

4. What are two distinct motives influenced Paul to participate in carrying this question to Jerusalem, although an independent apostle, and himself competent to decide it authoritatively?

5. What is test case did Paul take with him, and why?

6. What is the history of the journey to Jerusalem, and was this the time when he preached throughout all the coasts of Judea, as is affirmed in Acts 26:20?

7. After the arrival at Jerusalem, how many public and private conferences were held? Explain fully.

8. Was this a council in the ordinary sense of the word? If not, what was it?

9. To whom did the Antioch church refer the question, and by whom was the matter finally decided?

10. What was that decision, how was it communicated, to whom communicated, by whom received, and the effect of its reception?

11. Recite the order of all the proceedings, private and public.

12. Was the test case brought by Paul considered and disposed of publicly or privately?

13. How was it decided?

14. Who of prominence in modern times contend for a different result in this particular matter? What is their contention?

15. Give in order the incidents of the discussion, and the decision of the main question, the speakers, and their speeches. (See the record.)

16. Analyze the letter sent.

17. What have you to say of the necessary things imposed on the Gentiles by this letter? Would you now consider it wrong to do any of those things, and why?

18. What subsequent proofs that this decision was not local, not to be limited in time, not to be limited to Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia?

19. Harmonize the circumcision of Timothy that took place a few days after this (Acts 16:3) with the non-circumcision of Titus (Galatians 2:3-5).

20. What premillennial interpretation has been put on the speech of James, and what the reply to it?

21. Does not 1 Corinthians 8:8 teach that meat offered to idols is as good to eat as any, on the ground that an idol is nothing, provided that such eating does not make one stumble, and what the application in this case? What does the editor of this INTERPRETATION say about meat eating?

22. Before whom were the questions of Paul’s independent apostleship, gospel and the subdivision of labor brought, how decided, and why was this particular matter not referred to the Jerusalem church at large?

23. What is the immense signification of the decision that Paul’s gospel was independent, and that his apostleship was not derived from the others?

24. Did the decision of these Jerusalem conferences, public and private, forever settle the questions decided?

25. What important matters were not decided by this conference, which occasioned much trouble later?

26. Who, coming to Antioch, greatly strengthened the Jerusalem decision?

Verses 11-21

XXII

THE GREAT SOCIAL QUESTION AT ANTIOCH, AND THE SEPARATION OF PAUL AND BARNABAS IN MISSIONARY WORK

Acts 15:36-39; Galatians 2:11-21.

We have two distinct scriptures and two special themes in the scope of this chapter. The first scripture is Galatians 2:11-21, and the theme of that scripture is "The Great Social Questions at Antioch." The second scripture is Acts 15:36-39, and the theme is, "The Separation of Paul and Barnabas in Missionary Work."

We showed in the last chapter that, while it was definitely settled in the Jerusalem conference that a Gentile did not have to be circumcised and become a Jew in order to be saved, there were other important questions that the Jerusalem conference did not settle. While it decided the Gentile’s relation to the Jewish law, it did not decide fully the Jew’s relation to the law, and this social question comes up on the Jew’s relation to the law, viz.: Were the Jews under the Mosaic covenant, as they understood themselves to be, or could they mix freely with the Gentiles and eat with them! It was purely a social question. Admitting that the Gentile can be a Christian and be saved without any respect to the Mosaic law, what about the Jew and his relation to that law? Ought they allow the Jew to mingle freely with the Gentile? How could he go on keeping the Mosaic covenant if he did? That was the question. And why had this question come up? Paul had his way in that Jerusalem conference; he won out on all his points. Evidently there was an impression left on the minds of the strict Jews at Jerusalem after that circumcision question for the Gentiles had been settled, lest there should be a misunderstanding as to what a Jew should do. And so a party of Jews left Jerusalem and came to Antioch, and Paul says that they came from James. And that is nowhere denied in the history. They do not come in surreptitiously, as did that first party, but they came on account of the apprehension in the mind of James that the Jews were straying away too far. "Certain from James," and Paul states that on his own knowledge. In case of those other men, James disavowed sending them, but no one disavows that this party that now came to Antioch did come from James. They were afraid that some work was going on there in that free and easy way at Antioch. That distinct question with them was a matter of conscience to the Jews. That is why, by whom, and how that question was raised.

The names of the parties who came are not given. Paul just says, "Certain from James." You understand that now at Antioch are Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Mark, and Peter. They are there when these men come from James. Before these men got there, Peter and Barnabas were mingling freely with the Gentiles, and all of them eating with them. James may have heard of that, but anyhow, when these men came from James, that shocked Peter. You cannot account for the effect on Peter unless you realize that these men came from James, pastor of the church at Jerusalem, the most widely known, the most influential Jew with the Jews, in the known world.

We get the estimate with which James was held by everyone, especially his own church at Jerusalem, by reading Josephus. He attributes the destruction of Jerusalem to the fact that the Jews stoned this James. Everybody knew him. He was an ascetic. He did not eat enough to keep a chicken alive, and had large callosities formed on his knees by his being continually in prayer. John the Baptist, Elijah, the Rechabites, or the Essenes, were never more ascetic than James was.

Before we leave this question we note what Paul says – that not only Peter was led away by representatives of this man, but that Barnabas, his old comrade, was overcome. He had been with him on the first tour, and they had mingled I freely with the Gentiles. It looked like this social question was going to practically neutralize all the advantages of the conference. So we see that in a church like Antioch half of the members would be counted as outcasts from the other half. They would let them stay in the same place with them when they went to preaching, but they must not go into each other’s houses – must not take a meal together. Very soon, unless human nature was very different then from what it is now, it would have made the biggest kind of a row. Those Gentiles would have said that God is no respecter of persons; that what God had cleansed was not common or unclean, but that the Jews refused to come to their houses; that they could not see how they could have fellowship with them in church relations. So it brought on an extremely acute crisis that lasted for a long time. Certainly, it lasted through Paul’s lifetime.

As this very question had been considered and favorably decided at Jerusalem in the case of Peter himself and Cornelius (Acts 11:1-18; Acts 15:7-11), why, under the prompting of James, should it be raised again at Antioch? You know that when Peter, under a vision of the Lord, went to the house of Cornelius, he entered into that house, he took his meals with Cornelius, and Acts II tells us that when he got back to Jerusalem they raised a question with him, saying, "Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." That is the very question we have here. Peter had a hard time saving himself, but we find his exposition in Acts 11, and very nobly does he appear there. He said, "God has showed me that I must not so construe that old Mosaic law. He showed me that what he had cleansed I must not count unclean, and he sent the baptism of the Spirit on Cornelius," and when he got through with his speech they agreed with him. As this very question had been considered and favorably decided at Jerusalem in the case of Peter himself and Cornelius (Acts 11:1-18), why under the promptings of James, should it be raised again at Antioch?

I will give my opinion as the answer to that question. I take it for granted that James saw the difference between a preacher alone – just the preacher – going in unto Gentiles when he was preaching to Gentiles, and the establishment of a common precedent that would affect all the members of the church. We understand, as Peter was under divine guidance, and being a preacher, like any preacher in China, who is bound to go into that Chinese’s house and eat with him if he ever does him any good. My opinion is that James made a distinction between the preacher’s doing this and the whole church doing this. He was afraid that the distinction between the Jews and the rest of the world would be obliterated if this custom prevailed with the people. That’s my answer to that question.

Does the history indicate a change of conviction on the part of Peter and Barnabas since the Cornelius case, or a weak dissimulation under pressure from Jerusalem? Paul answers it very clearly. He very plainly says that Peter’s convictions on the subject were not changed, and Barnabas was not changed, and that because certain ones came from James, they were led to dissimulate. That is his word, "dissimulate." Peter held James in great reverence. He was the half-brother of our Lord, and that fleshly relation gave him an undue prominence. It was not a case where Peter would agree with James, for he did not after he got to Antioch this time. He mingled freely with the Gentiles, eating with them so there was no change of conviction, but he did not want to pull loose from James.

Let us see what Paul says about that. I will give the language in order to get its full import. It commences at Galatians 2:11: "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation." That is pretty plain talk. He was the only man in the crowd that recognized how big that question was.

Paul was the man that saved the situation, and here is his argument. Here is what he says to Peter (Galatians 2:14-21) : "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before them all [he did not take him off privately; just got him in the meeting], If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? [That is the way you have been doing the Jews.] We, being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ – even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? God forbid, for if I build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor. For I, through the law, died unto the law, that I might live unto God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith – the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me. I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought."

In other words Paul says, "If your position is correct – that you can take the Gentiles in without circumcision and they can be saved in Jesus Christ – and if the preacher can go and mix with these people, is Christ a minister of sin? You found sin in something that is not sin." Then he says, "God forbid, for if I build up again those things which I have destroyed, I prove myself a transgressor." That is exactly what Peter did. He built up the right thing, as he did in the case of Cornelius, but here in Antioch he is pulling that down. "I through the law died unto the law that I might live unto God. I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live) but Christ liveth in me; and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me." In other words, "This Christian life that I am living I do not live by the Mosaic law. I do not make void the grace of God; for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought." He counted it a repudiation of the gospel. That’s who saved the situation and how he saved it.

Let us take James as he is presented to us in Acts 21. When Paul goes to Jerusalem the last time, and goes there loaded down with money that he has raised for those people – the poor – James comes to him and says not a word of thanks for the money or presents. But, "Brother, you see how many thousands [or, rather, according to the Greek word here meaning myriads, how many ten thousands] there are of the Jews who believe, and they are all zealous for the customs of Moses, and they are under the impression that you are preaching and doing away with the customs of Moses: I suggest that you conform to a certain custom of Moses: Take a vow on yourself and go into the Temple and let all the people see that you are keeping a vow according to the Mosaic customs." I can conceive of what must have been the feeling of Paul that day, but how as a matter of expediency, where no principle was involved, he said, "While I do not consider this custom binding on me, I am willing to be Jew in observing this law if you do not make the custom a law of salvation in the gospel."

Look at James as he appears the last time in the Acts, then take his letter and read it through. It is written to the dispersion in this very territory where Paul’s missionary tour is. While in that letter of James there is the clearest evidence that he is a Christian that he does accept Jesus Christ as his Saviour, and while there are many good things and no evil things, there is an absence of some good things that would have come in mighty well if he had said them.

So far, then, as we have light on the history of James, he would have been satisfied for Christianity to have been a sect of the Jews, believing in the Messiah, but holding on to the Temple and all of its rites. That is my impression. That is the reason that in that sermon of mine, "But I Went into Arabia," I take the position that if it had not been for Paul; if God’s providence had not raised him up to stand by the right view of that question, Christianity would have remained a Jewish sect. You see that Peter was afraid of James; and Barnabas, as great as he was, was also afraid of James, and I suspect that this controversy at Antioch, and Paul’s rebuke, had somewhat to do with the separation of Paul and Barnabas in future work. There was another matter which was the cause of that separation, but we must remember that here were two men out on that first tour, and an issue had come up in the church where they had left, and Paul takes a position that convicts Barnabas of dissimulation. There might have been – do not affirm it – suggest that there might have been a residuum of feeling in the heart of Barnabas that would have made him willing enough, the next time they go out, not to go together. That would be the way of two of us. If we had had a sharp debate, it would have had that effect on us. Barnabas had as much human nature as we have.

The immediate occasion of that separation was this: Paul had proposed to Barnabas that they go back and revisit all the churches that they had preached to in that first missionary tour, and see how they were getting along. Barabbas gays, "Yes, and I will take Mark along." Paul says, "No, not Mark; we tried him once and he backed out right at the critical point." Barnabas says, "He is my cousin; he is all right. If I go, Mark must go." Paul said, "He cannot go with me," and so the contention became sharp, and they separated. Barnabas takes Mark and goes back to Cyprus, his old home, the place that Paul and Barnabas evangelized, and in that part of the territory Mark had been faithful. Paul goes to the part of the country that Mark did not visit with them. And this man Silas, one of the deputies sent up by the Jerusalem church, continued to remain at Antioch, and he was very much taken with Paul, and he says, "I will go with you."

It is hard to say about the merits of the quarrel. I can see how Barnabas was going to hang onto his kinsman, and give him another trial, and, as a matter of fact, giving him that other trial pulled him out all right. Even Paul was satisfied. Later on in his life he has Mark back with him, and was very much pleased with him, and in his letter, he says, "Bring Mark with you. I need him." So you must judge Barnabas was right, by proving that Mark ought to have another chance.

Brethren, what would become of us, if, when we made a blunder, we did not have another chance? Some of the bitterest things in our memory are when we recall the great mistakes that we have made, and if there is one thing that a good man desires, it is an opportunity to show that he does not want to perpetuate his mistakes, and so with Barnabas. [Perhaps the greatest weakness in many otherwise good men is their unwillingness to forgive and restore an erring brother. Not so with Jesus. The same Peter who, with bitter oaths denied the Master on the night of the betrayal, was upon repentance, at once taken to the Saviour’s heart, and on the day of Pentecost strode like a giant. – Editor.] But we must understand Paul. Life to him was a very serious thing, and these missionary enterprises were full of labor and suffering, and very great danger. He wanted to know the people that went with him. He himself was very feeble, never well, continually needing some young man to help him. Now, is it wisdom to start out after a thing, a desperate undertaking, and take a man along that failed the other time? So my view of the merits of the quarrel is that both of these men had enough to justify their views in the case. The fact that one or the other did not yield proves that both of them were still in the flesh. The best man in the world is in the flesh. Well does Paul say later, "I do not count myself perfect, I do not consider that I have laid hold of everything for which Christ laid hold of me; I am trying to forget the things that are behind, and press forward to the things that are before; keeping my eyes on the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." In other words, he says, "I have the standard all right. I won’t lower it, but I do not come up to it."

The New Testament has not another word to say about Barabbas. His name drops out of the history. What he did when he went to Cyprus with Mark, we do not know. I take it for granted that they did well, but the New Testament does not have another word to say about him. It would have had a great deal to say if he had gone on with Paul. He lost the association with the man that was to shake the world, and fill all future ages. That was a very great loss.

It is as if a man had started out with Sam Houston in the war of Texas Independence, and they had been together up to the time of the fall of the Alamo, of Goliad and Refugio, and there some question had come up and he had separated from Houston. He would have missed by that separation the glory of San Jacinto. I think he would have thought of it on every San Jacinto Day as long as he lived. He may have had the highest and best motives for pulling away, but the children would always say when April 21 came, "Papa, I wish you had kept on with Houston until after that battle."

The great practical lessons of present value to be derived from these events at Jerusalem and Antioch are:

1. Present-day churches have the same things to confront them as did the Antioch church.

2. Do not multiply the things you say are essential to salvation. Just leave them where God left them. Do not say with the Campbellites that one cannot be saved unless he is baptized, and do not say with the Romanists that he cannot be saved unless he partakes of the Lord’s Supper. Leave things that are essential to salvation Just as you find them, all spiritual – regeneration, repentance, and faith, and stop there.

3. Don’t be a stickler for things that, carried out to their legitimate analysis, will nullify a question of salvation. Do not stand for any position that, if it is fully carried out, will block the gospel and divide churches.

4. Whether you think about Paul, Barnabas, Peter, Mark, or James, we have this treasure in earthen vessels. Just think of all the good men that you know and you will be bound to quote Paul.

5. God himself shows that there is a propriety in dividing the work into home missions and foreign missions. When Peter and Paul gave each other the hand of fellowship, Peter went to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles – one to be a home mission man and the other a great foreign mission leader, and God was in that.

6. Division, even when it springs from quarrels, God can overrule to a greater furtherance of the gospel. Associations have been formed sometimes because two brother Baptists could not both be leaders. Look at what great result followed the separation of the Southern Baptists from the Northern Baptists. We never amounted to anything here in the South until the Southern Baptists were organized. The old National Convention never met in the South. We had no personal acquaintance with the secretaries; only a few people in the great states sent contributions, and they were little, piddling contributions. When the Southern Baptist Convention was organized, we had our own assemblies and all the meetings were held in the South from Texas to the Atlantic Coast, and the result was that we multiplied the points of contact between the people, and that division resulted in great good.

If there never had been any split in the school at Old Independence, we would not have Baylor University. This university resulted from the split at Old Independence. A quarrel occurred between the trustees and Dr. Burleson. It is hard to say which was more to blame, but in the great vital points, Dr. Burleson was right, but he ought not to have been crowded like they crowded him on those great questions. He took his entire faculty and moved up to Waco and started Waco University, and the old school began to decline when he left.

I have not mentioned a hundredth part of the practical lessons that can be discovered from these great events, but I will pass on, commencing at Paul’s second missionary tour in the next chapter.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the scriptures and themes of this chapter?

2. What was the great social question raised at Antioch soon after the Jerusalem conference which tended to nullify its decisions?

3. What is the full history of it?

4. Why, by whom and how was it raised?

5. Why had it stronger support at Jerusalem than the question about circumcision, and how account for its effect on Peter and Barnabas?

6. As this very question had been considered and favorably decided at Jerusalem in the case of Peter himself and Cornelius (Acts 11:1-18; Acts 15:7-11), why under the prompting of James, should it be raised again at Antioch?

7. Does the history indicate a change of conviction on the part of Peter and Barnabas since the Cornelius case, or a weak dissimulation under pressure from Jerusalem? Explain fully.

8. Who saved the situation, and what his argument?

9. Does the subsequent history of James in Acts 21:17-25, or in his letter to the dispersion, or in Josephus, indicate that he ever reached a clear understanding of the distinction between the old covenant and the new? Discuss.

10. Is it possible that this controversy at Antioch, and Paul’s rebuke, had somewhat to do with the separation of Paul and Barnabas for the future work? Explain.

11. What was the immediate occasion of that separation, and what the merits of the quarrel between Paul and Barnabas?

12. What does the editor of this INTERPRETATION say of a great common weakness and the importance of forgiveness and brotherly love? What illustration cited?

13. What further has the New Testament to say of Barnabas, and what possible loss to him in the separation?

14. What great practical lessons of present value to be derived from these events at: Jerusalem and Antioch?