Supernatural Religion Volume III Part 17

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 fellowship 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 fellowship, 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 Apostleship 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 fellowship, 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 fellowship" 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 fellowship 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}

distinctly diflferent from that of the elder Apostles. If Paul preached the same Gospel as the rest, what necessity could there have been for communicating it at all? What doubt that by any means he might be running, or had run, in vain? He knew perfectly well that he preached a diflferent Gospel from the Apostles of the circ.u.mcision, and his anxiety probably was to secure an amicable recognition of the Gentile converts whom he had taught to consider circ.u.mcision unnecessary and the obligation of the law removed. Of course there was much that was fundamentally the same in the two Gospels, starting as they both did with the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah; but their points of divergence were very marked and striking, and more especially in directions where the prejudices of the Apostles of the circ.u.mcision were the strongest Avoiding all debatable ground, it is clear that the Gospel of the uncirc.u.mcision, which proclaimed the abrogation of the law and the inutility of the initiatory rite, must have been profoundly repugnant to Jews, who still preached the obligation of circ.u.mcision and the observance of the law. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law"(1) said the Gospel of the uncirc.u.mcision. "Behold, I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circ.u.mcised, Christ will profit you nothing....

For in Christ Jesus neither circ.u.mcision availeth anything nor uncirc.u.mcision, but faith working through love."(2) "For neither circ.u.mcision is anything, nor uncirc.u.mcision, but a new creature."(3) The teaching which was specially designated the Gospel of the circ.u.mcision, in contradistinction to this Gospel of the uncirc.u.mcision, held very diflferent language. There is no gainsaying the

{287}

main fact--and that fact, certified by Paul himself and substantiated by a host of collateral circ.u.mstances, is more conclusive than all conciliatory apologetic reasoning--that, at the date of this visit to Jerusalem (c. a.d. 50-52), the Three, after hearing all that Paul had to say, allowed him to go alone to the Gentiles, but themselves would have no part in the mission, and turned as before to the circ.u.mcision.

There is another point to which we must very briefly refer. The statements of Paul show that, antecedent to this visit to Jerusalem, Paul had been the active Apostle of the Gentiles, preaching his Gospel of the uncirc.u.mcision, and that subsequently he returned to the same field of labour. If we examine the narrative of the Acts, we do not find him represented in any special manner as the Apostle of the Gentiles, but, on the contrary, whilst Peter claims the honour of having been selected that by his voice the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe, Paul is everywhere described as going to the Jews, and only when his teaching is rejected by them does he turn to the Gentiles. It is true that Ananias is represented as being told by the Lord that Paul is a chosen vessel "to bear my name both before Gentiles and kings, and the sons of Israel;"(1) and Paul subsequently recounts how the Lord had said to himself, "Go, for I will send thee far hence unto Gentiles."(2) The author of the Acts, however, everywhere conveys the impression that Paul very reluctantly fulfils this mission, and that if he had but been successful amongst the Jews he never would have gone to the Gentiles at all. Immediately after his conversion, he preaches in the synagogues at Damascus and confounds the Jews,(3) as he

{288}

again does during his visit to Jerusalem.(1) When the Holy Spirit desires the Church at Antioch to separate Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto he has called them, they continue to announce the word of G.o.d "in the synagogues of the Jews,"(2) and in narrating the conversion of the Roman proconsul at Paphos, it is said that it is Sergius Paulus himself who calls for Barnabas and Saul, and seeks to hear the word of G.o.d.(3) When they came to Antioch in Pisidia, they go into the synagogue of the Jews(4) as usual, and it is only after the Jews reject them that Paul and Barnabas are described as saying:--"It was necessary that the word of G.o.d should first be spoken to you: seeing that ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."(5) In Iconium, to which they next proceed, however, they go into the synagogue of the Jews,(6) and later, it is stated that Paul, on arriving at Thessalonica, "as his custom was," went into the synagogue of the Jews, and for three Sabbaths discoursed to them.(7) At Corinth, it was only when the Jews opposed him and blasphemed, that Paul is represented as saying: "Your blood be upon your own head; I will henceforth, with a pure conscience, go unto the Gentiles." It is impossible to distinguish from this narrative any difference between the ministry of Paul and that of the other Apostles. They all address themselves mainly and primarily to the Jews, although if Gentiles desire to eat of "the crumbs which fall from the children's bread" they are not rejected. Even the Pharisees stirred heaven and earth to make proselytes. In no sense can

{289}

the Paul of the Acts be considered specially an Apostle of the Gentiles, and the statement of the Epistle to the Galatians(1) has no significance, if interpreted by the historical work.

Apologists usually reply to this objection, that the practice of Paul in the Acts is in accordance with his own words in the Epistle to the Romans, i. 16, in which, it is a.s.serted, he recognizes the right of the Jews to precedence. In the Authorised Version this pa.s.sage is rendered as follows:--"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of G.o.d unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek."(2) [------] As a matter of

fact we may here at once state that the word [------] "first," is not found in Codices B and G, and that it is omitted from the Latin rendering of the verse quoted by Tertullian.(3) That the word upon which the controversy turns should not be found in so important a MS. as the Vatican Codex or in so ancient a version as Tertullian's is very significant, but proceeding at once to the sense of the sentence, we must briefly state the reasons which seem to us conclusively to show that the usual reading is erroneous. The pa.s.sage is an emphatic statement of the principles of Paul. He declares that he is not ashamed of the Gospel, and he immediately states the reason: "for it is a power of G.o.d unto salvation to everyone that believeth."(4) He is not ashamed of the Gospel because he recognizes its universality; for, in

{290}

opposition to the exclusiveness of Judaism, he maintains that all are "sons of G.o.d through faith in Christ Jesus... There is neither Jew nor Greek... for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."(1) "For in Christ Jesus neither circ.u.mcision availeth anything nor uncirc.u.mcision, but faith working through love."(2) The reason which he gives is that which lies at the basis of the whole of his special teaching; but we are asked to believe that, after so clear and comprehensive a declaration, he at once adds the extraordinary qualification: [------], rendered "to the Jew first and also to the Greek." What is the meaning of such a limitation? If the Gospel be a power of G.o.d unto salvation "to every one that believeth" [------], in what manner can it possibly be so "to the Jew first"? Can it be maintained that there are comparative degrees in salvation? "Salvation" is obviously an absolute term. If saved at all, the Jew cannot be more saved than the Greek. If, on the other hand, the expression be interpreted as an a.s.sertion that the Jew has a right of precedence either in the offer or the attainment of salvation before the Greek, the manner of its realization is almost equally inconceivable, and a host of difficulties, especially in view of the specific Pauline teaching, immediately present themselves. There can be no doubt that the judaistic view distinctly was that Israel must first be saved, before the heathen could obtain any part in the Messianic kingdom, and we have shown that this idea dominated primitive Christianity; and inseparable from this was the belief that the only way to a partic.i.p.ation in its benefits lay through Judaism. The

{291}

heathen could only obtain admission into the family of Israel, and become partakers in the covenant, by submitting to the initiatory rite.

It was palpably under the influence of this view, and with a conviction that the Messianic kingdom was primarily destined for the children of Israel, that the elder Apostles, even after the date of Paul's second visit to Jerusalem, continued to confine their ministry "to the circ.u.mcision." Paul's view was very different. He recognized and maintained the universality of the Gospel and, in resolving to go to the heathen, he practically repudiated the very theory of Jewish preference which he is here supposed to advance. If the Gospel, instead of being a power of G.o.d to salvation to every man who believed, was for the Jew first, the Apostolate of the Gentiles was a mere delusion and a snare.

What could be the advantage of so urgently offering salvation to the Greek, if the gift, instead of being "for every one that believeth,"

was a mere prospective benefit, inoperative until the Jew had first been saved? "Salvation to the Jew first and also to the Greek," if it have any significance whatever of the kind argued,--involving either a prior claim to the offer of salvation, or precedence in its distribution,--so completely destroys all the present interest in it of the Gentile, that the Gospel must to him have lost all power. To suppose that such an expression simply means, that the Gospel must first be preached to the Jews in any town to which the Apostle might come before it could legitimately be proclaimed to the Gentiles of that town, is childish. We have no reason to suppose that Paul held the deputy Sergius Paulus, who desired to hear the word of G.o.d and believed, in suspense until the Jews of Paphos had

{292}

rejected it. The cases of the Ethiopian eunuch and Cornelius throw no light upon any claim of the Jew to priority in salvation. Indeed, not to waste time in showing the utter incongruity of the ordinary interpretation, we venture to affirm that there is not a single explanation, which maintains a priority a.s.signed to the Jew in any way justifying the reference to this text, which is capable of supporting the slightest investigation. If we linguistically examine the expression [------], we arrive at the same conclusion, that [------] is an interpolation, for we must maintain that [------] with [------] and [------] must be applied equally both to "Jew" and "Greek," and cannot rightly be appropriated to the Jew only, as implying a preference over the Greek.(1) The sense, therefore, can only be properly and intelligibly given by disregarding [------] and simply translating the words: "both to Jew and Greek."(2) This was the rendering of the ancient Latin version quoted by Tertullian in his work against Marcion: "Itaque et hie, c.u.m dicit: Non enim me pudet evangelii, virtus enim dei est in salutem omni credenti, Judaeo et Graeco, quia just.i.tia dei in eo revelatur ex fide in fidem.,,(3) We are not left without further examples of the very same expression, and an examination of the context will amply demonstrate that Paul used it in no other sense. In the

{293}

very next chapter the Apostle twice uses the same words. After condemning the hasty and unrighteous judgment of man, he says: "For we know that the judgment of G.o.d is according to truth.... who will render to every one according to his works; to them who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: but unto them that act out of factious spirit and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, anger, and wrath: affliction and distress upon every soul of man that worketh evil, both of Jew and of Greek [------], A. V. "of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile"; but glory and honour and peace to every one that worketh good, both to Jew and to Greek [------], A. V. "to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile"). For there is no respect of persons with G.o.d."(1) How is it possible that, if the Apostle had intended to a.s.sert a priority of any kind accorded to the Jew before the Gentile, he could at the same time have added: "For there is no respect of persons with G.o.d "? If salvation be "to the Jew first,"

there is very distinctly respect of persons with G.o.d. The very opposite, however, is repeatedly and emphatically a.s.serted by Paul in this very epistle. "For there is no difference between Jew and Greek" [------], he says, "for the same Lord of all is rich unto all them that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."(2) Here, we have the phrase without [------]. Nothing could be more clear and explicit. The precedence of the Jew is directly excluded.

At the end of the second chapter, moreover, he explains his idea of a Jew:

{294}

"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circ.u.mcision which is outwardly in flesh, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circ.u.mcision is of the heart, in spirit not letter."(1) If anything further were required to prove that the Apostle does not by the expression: [------], intend to indicate any priority accorded to the Jew, it is supplied by the commencement of the third chapter. "What then is the advantage of the Jew? or what the profit of circ.u.mcision?" It is obvious that if the Apostle had just said that the Gospel was the power of G.o.d unto salvation, "to Jew first and also to Greek," he had stated a very marked advantage to the Jew, and that such an inquiry as the above would have been wholly unnecessary. The answer which he gives to his own question, however, completes our certainty. "Much every way," he replies; but in explaining what the "much" advantage was, we hear no more of "to Jew first:" "Much every way: for first indeed they were entrusted with the oracles of G.o.d."(1) And, after a few words, he proceeds: "What then? are we better? Not at all; for we before brought the charge that both Jews and Greeks [------] are all under sin."(3) Here, again, there is no [------]. There can be no doubt in the mind of any one who understands what Paul's teaching was, and what he means by claiming the special t.i.tle of "Apostle to the Gentiles," that in going "to the Heathen" after his visit to Jerusalem, as before it, there was no purpose in his mind to preach to the Jews first and only on being rejected by them to turn to the Gentiles, as the Acts would have us suppose; but that the principle which regulated his proclamation of the Gospel was that which we have

{295}

already quoted: "For there is no difference between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord of all is rich unto all them that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."(1)