It has been often said that Paul's return to Jerusalem and the subsequent events were the results of his disobedience to the expressed will of the Lord. It has been further stated that his payment of the charges of those who were under Jewish vows, also the previous circumcision of Timothy at the city of Derbe, while at the same time he was carrying the decision of the assembly at Jerusalem concerning the Gentiles' exemption from obligation to practice Jewish customs, reveals him in the same light.

As all this places the apostle to the Gentiles in the unenviable position of preaching one thing and practicing another, it behooves us to examine the scriptures that refer to these incidents to ascertain if these things be so.

First:One reason given is that because Paul's distinctive ministry was to the Gentiles, he left his proper sphere when he went among the Jews. Certainly, he was, in a special way, the minister of the uncircumcision (Gal. 2:7, 8). But does this mean that he was to be denied the privilege of preaching Christ to Jews whenever so led in the course of his ministry? Acts 9:15 answers this:for, while he is called by the Lord to be a chosen vessel to carry His Name among the Gentiles, still it is also added, "and to My people, Israel." And though questions have been raised concerning his return to preach at Jerusalem to Israelites, yet, comparatively, his labors among the nations far exceeded the time spent among the Jews.

Second:Much is made of the warnings he received in every city, and also that the Holy Spirit told him not to go up to Jerusalem. But a careful survey of the context, as well as of the texts cited for this, show that the apostle never regarded these warnings as definitely forbidding his journey. He apparently took them all as being solicitous for his personal safety. So in Acts 21:10-13 he says:"Why do you break my heart? I am not only willing to be bound, but to die at Jerusalem for the Lord Jesus." Was there ever such manifest devotion to the Lord Jesus as here? And where, one may ask, is there the evidence of wilful disobedience?* *The repeated warnings he received were concerning what he would suffer (Acts 20:22-24), except the distinct statement given in Acts 21:4. Paul evidently views all in relation to his suffering, and refuses to allow the certainty of it to deter him from going. Out of intense devotion to the Lord Jesus and his brethren according to the flesh he went, ready to suffer all.

Here, however, another question arises. While the spirit of the apostle is truly commendable, it is another matter to say that it was the Lord's will for him to suffer at that time in the way of which he was forewarned by the Holy Spirit. While utterly self-abandoned in his wonderful devotion, was his sensitiveness to the Lord's will at the time overcome by it? In other words, was it an excess which carried him beyond the Lord's intention at the time? I suggest this because we can hardly set aside the explicit word by the Spirit in Acts 21:4. Still we can see too how the Lord graciously came in, not with words of rebuke but of comfort and assurance. What tenderness HE shows, surely in view of His servant's great devotion, even though it carried him beyond bounds at the time.* -J. BLOORE.

Third:It is asked, What about the payment of vows and the circumcision of Timothy? Is this consistent with Christian liberty from the law? As to Timothy, his mother was a Jewess, but his father a Gentile. Because of the Jews in that place Paul circumcised him. The paying of vows was in deference to Jewish believers in Jerusalem to remove their distrust of him and his ministry, for they were weak in the faith, still clinging to the law and its ceremonies. What, then, was the motive behind Paul's actions? Let 1 Cor. 9:20 supply the answer, "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law," etc.* *The case of Titus shows an interesting contrast to that of Timothy. Do not both vindicate the principle of grace as the guide of the apostle's conduct in these diverse cases? Just because circumcision means nothing in the matter of salvation, he through grace has liberty to use it if he judges it will disarm prejudice among the unbelieving Jews and further the course of the gospel. In this case there was no issue being raised, or controversy being pressed, as to circumcision being essential to salvation for Gentiles as well as Jews, but this did exist in the circumstances when he took Titus with him. Titus was a Gentile, and Paul's action is an open avowal that he, a Gentile, is on the same footing through grace as Paul. To circumcise Titus would be to admit and practice what would have nullified grace. In both cases the apostle is acting according to the liberty of the gospel which the Judaizers would have destroyed (Gal. 2:3-5).-John Bloore.*

Again, after having been apprehended while in the temple, and in the course of his defense while speaking on the castle stairs, he refers to the Lord's words to him:"And the Lord said, They will not receive thy testimony" (Acts 22:17). Does not this prove that the apostle was in a false position? But this does not forbid him giving his testimony to them, any more than the words which follow, "Depart, for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles" (ver. 21), can be rightly construed to limit his ministry to them. Does he not introduce this to arouse Israel to jealousy? (Rom. 9, etc.). And seemingly it does, but not in the hoped-for direction; they hear him to this point and then cry out, "Away with this fellow!"

But now the great effort is over. The apostle is rejected by his brethren, the Jews. One can well imagine him sitting disconsolate and alone in his prison cell with the failure of the effort weighing heavily upon him. But the Lord Himself draws nigh. With words of rebuke and censure? Nay, but, "Be of good cheer, Paul:for as thou hast testified of Me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome" (Acts 23:11).

Yet he has not said his last word to his brethren. When finally settled in Rome he calls them to his house for a last appeal. He finds those in Rome, like those in Jerusalem, adamant to the true and rightful claims of Jesus, their Messiah. This results in his turning his ministry completely to the Gentiles.

But, it may be asked, did not Paul make any mistakes amid these changing scenes? As to this we know there was only One who as Man was absolutely perfect- "The Leader and Completer of faith" (Heb. 12:2, New Trans.). Rather than attempt to fix blame, let us think of the apostle's motives. They evidently were:the glory of God, devotion to Christ, the edification of saints, and the salvation of sinners, Jews and Gentiles. These formed the apostle's course in life, so that no danger to life itself or suffering in any shape or form could deter him in his self-sacrificing service. (See 2 Cor. 11:23, etc.) Let us remember his words:"Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample…. Those things, which ye have learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do:and the God of peace shall be with you" (Phil. 3:17; 4:9). W. B. Bigger