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 Gat. II i-io with the third visit of Acts XV, is defended by its supporters on the ground that Titus, who went along with Paul {Gal. II i), was one of the additional delegates mentioned, XV 2. This argument sins against the facts. In Gal. II 1 Titus is defined as a sub- ordinate, and not as one of the delegates ; 1 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, we may 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 differ- ent 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,
1 avfinapaXa^wv, cp. XII 25 and pp. 59, 71, 177.
Sec. 3. The Council. 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.
4. THE DECREE. (XV 22) THEN IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS, WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH, TO CHOOSE MEN OUT OF THEIR COMPANY, AND SEND THEM TO ANTIOCH WITH PAUL AND BARNABAS, namely, JUDAS CALLED BARSABBAS, AND SILAS, CHIEF MEN AMONG THE BRETHREN. (23) AND THEY SENT A LETTER BY THEIR MEANS: "THE APOSTLES AND THE ELDERS [BRETHREN]1 UNTO THE BRETHREN WHICH ARE OF THE NATIONS IN ANTIOCH AND SYRIA AND CILICIA, GREETING. (24) FORASMUCH AS WE HAVE HEARD THAT CERTAIN WHICH WENT OUT FROM US HAVE TROUBLED YOU WITH WORDS, SUBVERTING YOUR SOULS ; TO WHOM WE GAVE NO COMMANDMENT ; (25) IT SEEMED GOOD UNTO US, HAVING COME TO ONE ACCORD, TO CHOOSE OUT MEN AND SEND THEM UNTO YOU WITH OUR BELOVED BARNABAS AND PAUL, (26) MEN THAT HAVE HAZARDED THEIR LIVES FOR THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. (27) WE HAVE SENT THEREFORE JUDAS AND SILAS, WHO THEMSELVES ALSO SHALL TELL YOU THE SAME THINGS BY WORD OF MOUTH. (28) FOR IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND TO US, TO LAY UPON YOU NO GREATER BURDEN THAN THESE NECESSARY THINGS. (29) THAT YE ABSTAIN FROM THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS, AND FROM BLOOD, AND FROM THINGS STRANGLED, AND FROM MARRIAGE WITHIN THE DEGREES ; FROM WHICH
1 Dr. Blass's explanation of this word as an accidental corrup- tion is highly probable.
172 The Apostolic Council. Chap. VII.
IF YE KEEP YOURSELVES, IT SHALL BE WELL WITH YOU. FARE YE WELL."
The Decree is, as Lightfoot says, a compromise. On the one hand the extreme Judaising party is entirely disowned and emphatically condemned, as " subverting the souls " of the Gentiles. But, on the other hand, part of the Law is declared to be obligatory ; and the word selected is very emphatic (iirdvayKes). If this word be taken in its full sense, the Decree lacks unity of purpose and definiteness of principle ; it passes lamely from side to side. Now it seems impossible to suppose that Paul could have accepted a Decree which declared mere points of ritual to be compulsory ; and one of them he after- wards emphatically declared to be not compulsory (I Cor. VIII 4 f.). But those who had listened to the speeches of Peter and James, and were familiar with the situation in which the question had emerged, were prepared to look specially at the exordium with its emphatic condemnation of the Judaising party ; and thereafter, doubtless, they took the concluding part as a recommendation, and re- garded the four points as strongly advised in the interests of peace and unity.