observe it are on a lower plane, and may not associate with those who do keep it; the third, it is binding on none; it has done its work in the religious education of the Jews and is now superseded by the higher dispensation. A fourth appeared a few years later and finally prevailed over all the others, that it is binding on all, but is to be understood allegorically. The representatives of the second and third opinions were agreed in this, namely, that the Gentiles need not keep the law; but they differed in the conclusions which they drew from it. The one party failed to see that it necessarily followed from such an admission that the Jews and Gentiles might freely associate with each other, while for Paul that was the only logical inference that could be drawn from it. The council at Jerusalem recognized that the Gentiles were Christians although they did not observe the law; but out of regard to the prejudices or the weakness of the Jews they were asked to observe certain regulations which, however, were not to be regarded as sufficient to allow free and untrammeled intercourse and association between them. On the contrary, they were to be separated from each other, each party following its own principles and development. There existed then a Jewish Christian division and a Gentile Christian division, and there was danger that the two would go farther and farther apart, and that Christianity would thus from the first be divided into two great sects. It is apparent then that in this council neither

party got everything it desired. Concessions were made, although on the Christian principle of brotherly love. But the council was a failure in many respects. The Judaizers were not at all satisfied with it, and refused to be bound by it. From this time on they increased in bitterness toward Paul, and developed greater hostility and activity against him and his work. From 50 to 70, and perhaps a little later, they continued to labor to compel the Gentiles to observe the law. The end of the struggle is lost to our sight be. cause we have no literature from that period, but we can be sure from various arguments that it lasted until the Fall of Jerusalem. It ended in a half victory and half defeat for both parties. For, contrary to Paul, the church came to believe that the law is binding on all; but contrary to the Judaizers, that it is not to be understood literally but allegorically.

The council failed to bring James and the Gentile Christians any nearer together. He still remained attached to the law, and there is nothing to show that he ever yielded from this position, but he always regarded even the Gentile Christians as ceremonially unclean, and therefore unable to associate with the Jews.

It produced no change in the conduct of Paul. He continued to associate with the Gentiles freely, but for his own person at least when among the Jews, because he wished to preach to them, he still kept the law. But it by no means followed that

he regarded it as necessary. On the contrary, he continually taught that it was a matter of entire indifference. There is no trace in his letters that he ever had anything to say about the use of blood, but he often spoke against fornication. In 1 Corinthians he told them that of itself the use of meats offered to idols was perfectly proper; but for the sake of the conscience of the weaker brethren who would thereby be offended, they ought to abstain from its use. This was therefore wholly in accordance with the agreement made in the council. It cannot be said that it affected Paul in any way in his mission work.1 He con

1 It is perfectly clear that Paul denied any religious value to the observance of the law. It would logically follow that as a religious obligation it was no longer binding on the Jew any more than on the Gentile. So far Paul went. But did it follow that the Jew ought to cease to observe the law? Not at all, for that would be to give up his nationality. Paul seems not to have taught the Jews to cease observing the law, but only to have put such observance on the proper basis; that is, the Jew might continue to observe the law as a national, not as a religious duty. Among the Jews Paul seems to have lived as a Jew, but among the Gentiles he certainly to some extent, if not wholly, disregarded the law. He adopted the policy of being all things to all men, a Jew to the Jews, a Gentile to the Gentiles (1 Cor. ix. 18-23). What can that mean except that among the Gentiles he lived as the Gentiles? Again, at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11-21) Paul implies that both he and Peter, although Jews, had ceased to live as Jews, and were living as Gentiles. And yet the Acts say that Paul thought the Jews ought to keep the law and say that he himself kept it. For Timothy was a Jew, and so had to be circumcised. If the account in Acts xxi. 17-26 is true, Paul took upon himself the vow of the four men for the express purpose of proving to the Jews and the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem that he had not been teaching the Jews to forsake Moses, to cease cir

tinued to preach among the Jews wherever he went, and although he may not have urged them to give up the observance of the law, he certainly taught that it was of no religious value, but that they were to be made members of the Messiah's kingdom by believing in him, and not by their works of the law. In this he may have acted in accordance with the letter of the agreement, but hardly in the spirit of it. As is so often the case in agreements that partake of the nature of a compromise, each party regarded the result as a victory for itself, and acted accordingly. It was certainly very quickly disregarded by all, and neither the Judaizers nor Paul regarded themselves as bound by it. The only result of the council therefore was that the Gentiles were recognized as Christians by James, Peter, and John, but the line of separation between them and the Jewish Christians was more closely drawn than ever. The question had still to be decided. The real struggle was yet to come. The Council had but cleared the deck for action. It had made plain to all parties what the real issue was. And this was fought out between Paul and the Judaizers in the next years, which were so full of trial and bitterness of spirit for Paul.

cumcising their children and to desert the customs, and that he himself also walked orderly, keeping the law. Others may decide whether this is contradictory to Paul's principle as expressed in his authentic letters.

CHAPTER VII.

THE BEST YEARS OF PAUL.1

From the Council to Paul's arrest in the spring of 58 is a period of about eight years, which include his best work, his widest travels, his greatest influence, and his most successful labors. Above

all, to this period belong his most important letters, which have been justly regarded as the most precious heirlooms of this great man. Thanks to the account in the Acts, which becomes more exact and detailed, and especially to the letters which he wrote, we are able to follow him more closely and to construct a much more complete history of him during this period than at any other time of his life. Compared with this period, all his previous labors had been very circumscribed. But now his horizon extends itself. He begins to look beyond Asia into Europe. At first he thought he would be satisfied if he could see Rome, but it soon became known to him that Rome already had a large and flourishing congregation, and as it was his principle not to linger where others had labored and planted Christianity, his thoughts ran on to Spain,

1 Read Acts xv. 36-xxi. 26, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans.