Volume III Part 17 (1/2)

of authority, which naturally suggested a subjection which Paul upon this occasion persistently refused? It is not possible. Of course many writers who seek to reconcile the two narratives, and some of whom subst.i.tute for the plain statements of the Acts and of the Apostle, an account which is not consistent with either, suppose that the demand for the circ.u.mcision of t.i.tus proceeded solely from the ”false brethren,”(1) although some of them suppose that at least these false brethren may have thought they had reason to hope for the support of the elder Apostles.(2) It is almost too clear for dispute, however, that the desire that t.i.tus should be circ.u.mcised was shared or pressed by the elder Apostles.(3) According to the showing of the Acts, nothing could be more natural than the fact that James and the elders of Jerusalem who, so long after (xxi. 20 if.), advised Paul to prove his continued observance of the law and that he did not teach the Jews to abandon circ.u.mcision, should on this occasion have pressed him to circ.u.mcise t.i.tus. The conduct of Peter at Antioch, and the constant opposition which Paul met with from emissaries

{278}

of James and of the Apostles of the Circ.u.mcision upon the very point of Gentile circ.u.mcision, all support the inevitable conclusion, that the pressure upon Paul in the matter of t.i.tus was not only not resisted by the Apostles, but proceeded in no small degree from them.

This is further shown by the remainder of Paul's account of his visit and by the tone of his remarks regarding the princ.i.p.al Apostles, as well as by the historical data which we possess of his subsequent career. We need not repeat that the representation in the Acts both of the Council and of the whole intercourse between Paul and the Apostles is one of ”unbroken unity.”(1) The struggle about t.i.tus and the quarrel with Peter at Antioch are altogether omitted, and the Apostolic letter speaks merely of ”our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”(2) The language of Paul is not so pacific and complimentary. Immediately after his statement that he had ”yielded by the submission, no, not for an hour,” Paul continues: ”But from those who seem to be something [------]--whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me: G.o.d accepteth not man's person;--for to me those who seem [------] (to be something) communicated nothing, but, on the contrary, &c. &c., and when they knew the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seem to be pillars [------], gave to

me and Barnabas right hands of fellows.h.i.+p that we (should go) unto the Gentiles,” &c. &c.(3) The tone and language of this pa.s.sage are certainly

{279}

depreciatory of the elder Apostles,(1) and, indeed, it is difficult to understand how any one could fail to perceive and admit the fact. It is argued by some who recognise the irony of the term [------] applied to the Apostles, that the disparagement which is so transparent in the form [------], ”those who seem to be something,” is softened again in the new turn which is given to it in ver. 9, [------], ”those who seem to be pillars,” in which, it is said, ”the Apostle expresses the real greatness and high authority of the twelve in their separate field of labour.”(2) It seems to us that this interpretation cannot be sustained.

Paul is ringing the changes on [------], and contrasting with the position they a.s.sumed and the estimation in which they were held, his own experience of them, and their inability to add anything to him.

”Those who seem to be something,” he commences, but immediately interrupts himself, after having thus indicated the persons whom he meant, with the more direct protest of irritated independence:--”whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me: G.o.d accepteth not man's person.” These [------] communicated nothing to him, but, on the contrary, when they knew the grace given to him, ”those who seem to be pillars” gave him hands of fellows.h.i.+p, but nothing more, and they went their different ways, he to the Gentiles and they to the circ.u.mcision. If the

{280}

expression: [------] be true, as well as ironically used, it cannot be construed into a declaration of respect, but forms part of a pa.s.sage whose tone throughout is proudly depreciatory. This is followed by such words as ”hypocrisy” [------] and ”condemned” [------] applied to the conduct of Peter at Antioch, as well as the mention of the emissaries of James as the cause of that dispute, which add meaning to the irony.

This is not, however, the only occasion on which Paul betrays a certain bitterness against the elder Apostles. In his second letter to the Corinthians, xi. 5, he says, ”For I reckon that I am not a whit behind the over much Apostles” [------], and again, xii. 11, ”For in nothing was I behind the over much Apostles” [------]; and the whole of the vehement pa.s.sage in which these references are set shows the intensity of the feeling which called them forth. To say that the expressions in the Galatian Epistle and here are ”depreciatory, not indeed of the twelve themselves, but of the extravagant and exclusive claims set up for them by the Judaizers,”(1) is an extremely arbitrary distinction.

They are directly applied to the Apostles, and [------] cannot be taken as irony against those who over-estimated them, but against the [------]

themselves. Paul's blows generally go straight to their mark. Meyer argues that the designation of the Apostles as [------] is purely historical, and cannot be taken as ironical, inasmuch as it would be inconsistent to suppose that Paul could adopt a depreciatory tone when he is relating his recognition as a colleague by the elder Apostles;(2) and others consider that

{281}

ver. 8, 9, 10 contain evidence of mutual respect and recognition between Paul and the twelve. Even if this were so, it could not do away with the actual irony of the expressions; but do the facts support such a statement? We have seen that, in spite of the picture of unbroken unity drawn by the author of the Acts, and the liberal sentiments regarding the Gentiles which he puts into the mouth of Peter and of James, Paul had a severe and protracted struggle to undergo in order to avoid circ.u.mcising t.i.tus. We have already stated the grounds upon which it seems certain that the pressure upon that occasion came as well from the elder Apostles as the ”false brethren,” and critics who do not go so far as to make this positive affirmation, at least recognise the pa.s.sive, and therefore to a large extent compliant, att.i.tude which the Apostles must have held. It is after narrating some of the particulars of this struggle that Paul uses the terms of depreciation which we have been discussing; and having added, ”for to me those who seem (to be something) communicated nothing,” he says, ”_but, on the contrary_, when they saw that I have been entrusted with the Gospel of the uncirc.u.mcision, even as Peter with that of the circ.u.mcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the Apostles.h.i.+p of the circ.u.mcision, wrought also for me unto the Gentiles); and when they knew the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who seem to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas right hands of fellows.h.i.+p, that we (should go) unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circ.u.mcision: only that we should remember the poor; which very thing I also was forward to do.” It will be observed that, after saying they ”communicated nothing” to him, the Apostle adds, in opposition, ”but, on the

{282}

contrary” [------]. In what does this opposition consist? Apparently in this, that, instead of strengthening the hands of Paul, they left him to labour alone. They said: ”Take your own course; preach the Gospel of the uncirc.u.mcision to Gentiles, and we will preach the Gospel of the circ.u.mcision to Jews.”(1) In fact, when Paul returned to Jerusalem for the second time after fourteen years, he found the elder Apostles not one whit advanced towards his own uni-versalism; they retained their former Jewish prejudices, and remained as before Apostles of the circ.u.mcision.(2) Notwithstanding the strong Pauline sentiments put into Peter's mouth by the author of the Acts, and his claim to have been so long before selected by G.o.d that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe, Paul singles out Peter as specially entrusted with the Gospel of the circ.u.mcision; and, in the end, after Paul has exerted all his influence, Peter and the rest remain unmoved, and allow Paul to go to the Gentiles, while they confine their ministry as before to the Jews. The success of Paul's work amongst the heathen was too palpable a fact to be ignored, but there is no reason to believe that the conversion of the Gentiles, upon his terms, was more than tolerated at that time, or the Gentile Christians admitted to more than such imperfect communion with the Jewish Christians as that of Proselytes of the Gate in relation to Judaism. This is shown by the conduct of Peter at Antioch after the supposed Council, and of the Jews with him, and even of Barnabas,

{283}

through fear of the emissaries of James, whose arrival certainly could not have produced a separation between Jewish and Gentile Christians had the latter been recognised as in full communion.

The ”hands of fellows.h.i.+p” clearly was a mere pa.s.sive permission of Paul's mission to the Gentiles, but no positive and hearty approval of it testified by active support.(1) It must, we think, be evident to any one who attentively considers the pa.s.sage we are examining, that there is no question whatever in it of a recognition of the Apostolate of Paul.(2) The elder Apostles consent to his mission to the Gentiles, whilst they themselves go to the circ.u.mcision; but there is not a syllable which indicates that Paul's claim to the t.i.tle of Apostle was ever either acknowledged or discussed. It is not probable that Paul would have submitted such a point to their consideration. It is difficult to see how the elder Apostles could well have done less than they did, and the extent of their fellows.h.i.+p seems to have simply amounted to toleration of what they could not prevent. The pressure for the circ.u.mcision of the Gentile converts was an attempt to coerce, and to suppress the peculiar principle of the Gospel of uncirc.u.mcision; and though that effort failed through the determined resistance of Paul,

{284}

it is clear, from the final resolve to limit their preaching to the circ.u.mcision, that the elder Apostles in no way abandoned their view of the necessity of the initiatory rite. The episode at Antioch is a practical ill.u.s.tration of this statement. Hilgenfeld ably remarks:--”When we consider that Peter was afraid of the circ.u.mcised Christians, there can be no doubt _that James, at the head of the primitive community, made the attempt to force heathen Christians to adopt the substance of Jewish legitimacy, by breaking off ecclesiastical community with them_.”(1) The Gentile Christians were virtually excommunicated on the arrival of the emissaries of James, or at least treated as mere Proselytes of the Gate; and the pressure upon the Galatian converts of the necessity of circ.u.mcision by similar Judaizing emissaries, which called forth the vehement and invaluable Epistle before us, is quite in accordance with the circ.u.mstances of this visit. The separation agreed upon between Paul and the elder Apostles was not in any sense geographical, but purely ethnological.(2) It was no mere division of labour,(3) no suitable apportionment of work. The elder Apostles determined, like their Master before them, to confine their ministry to Jews, whilst Paul, if he pleased, might go to the Gentiles; and the mere fact that Peter subsequently goes to Antioch, as well as many other

{285}

circ.u.mstances, shows that no mere separation of localities, but a selection of race was intended. If there had not been this absolute difference of purpose, any separation would have been unnecessary, and all the Apostles would have preached one Gospel indifferently to all who had ears to hear it; such strange inequality in the part.i.tion of the work could never have existed: that Paul should go unaided to the gigantic task of converting the heathen, while the Twelve reserved themselves for the small but privileged people. All that we have said at the beginning of this section of the nature of primitive Christianity, and of the views prevalent amongst the disciples at the death of their Master, is verified by this att.i.tude of the Three during the famous visit of the Apostle of the Gentiles to Jerusalem, and Paul's account is precisely in accordance with all that historical probability and reason, unwarped by the ideal representations of the Acts, prepare us to expect.

The more deeply we go into the statements of Paul the more is this apparent, and the more palpable does the inauthenticity of the narrative of the Council appear.

The words of Paul in describing the final understanding are very remarkable and require further consideration. The decision that they should go to the circ.u.mcision and Paul to the Gentiles is based upon the recognition of a different Gospel entrusted to him, the Gospel of the uncirc.u.mcision, as the Gospel of the circ.u.mcision is entrusted to Peter.

It will be remembered that Paul states that, on going up to Jerusalem upon this occasion, he communicated to them the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, and it is probable that he made the journey more especially for this purpose. It appears from the account that this Gospel was not only new to them, but was

{286}