<p>18:22 <i>And when he had landed at Caesarea, he went and greeted the church, and then went down to Antioch<em>- </em></i>We read of how Paul went on from Ephesus to Caesarea, and then &quot;he went up and greeted the church, and then went down to Antioch&quot;. It could be argued that going up and coming down is how visits to Jerusalem are spoken of; but why the ambiguity? Why is not his arrival in Jerusalem mentioned? The more comfortable reading would be that he travelled nearly 1000 km. from Ephesus to Caesarea, on the coasts of Palestine, only 120 km. from Jerusalem; but then some unspecified situation arose which frustrated his plans, and he turned north and headed to Antioch up the coast road; or even sailed there. The silence about any visit to Jerusalem is significant, especially seeing that he refused to stay longer in Ephesus despite the need to- because he was so set on getting to Jerusalem for the feast. Some versions paraphrase as 'Went up to Jerusalem' but that is not in the original. It's hard for interpreters to understand that Paul could have come all the way to Caesarea and not 'gone up' to Jerusalem as he planned. But I have explained that it was not the Lord's will that he went to Jerusalem to preach, and so the plan was frustrated. <em>Anabaino</em>, 'went up', doesn't have to mean 'to Jerusalem', although it is sometimes used like that. It is used of Joseph 'going up' to Bethlehem (Lk. 2:4), going up to a housetop, a tree or mountain (Lk. 5:19; 9:28; 19:4). Likewise <em>katabaino</em>, &quot;went down&quot;, doesn't have to refer to a leaving Jerusalem. It is used about going down from other towns (Jn. 2:12; 4:51; Acts 7:15; 8:15; 14:25).</p>