Supernatural Religion Volume III Part 18

Still more incongruous is the statement of the Acts that Paul took Timothy and circ.u.mcised him because of the Jews. According to this narrative, shortly after the supposed Council of Jerusalem at which it was decided that circ.u.mcision of Gentile Converts was unnecessary; immediately after Paul had in spite of great pressure refused to allow t.i.tus to be circ.u.mcised; and after it had been agreed between the Apostle of the Gentiles and James and Cephas and John that while they should go to the circ.u.mcision, he, on the contrary, should go to the heathen, Paul actually took and circ.u.mcised Timothy. Apologists, whilst generally admitting the apparent contradiction, do not consider that this act involves any real inconsistency, and find reasons which, they affirm, sufficiently justify it. Some of these we shall presently examine, but we may at once say that no apologetic arguments seem to us capable of resisting the conclusion arrived at by many independent critics, that the statement of the Acts with regard to Timothy is opposed to all that we know of Paul's views, and that for una.s.sailable reasons it must be p.r.o.nounced unhistorical.(2) The author of the Acts says: "And he (Paul) came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, son of a

{296}

believing Jewish woman, but of a Greek father; who was well reported of by the brethren in Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circ.u.mcised him because of the Jews which were in those places [------]; for they all knew that his father was a Greek [------]."(1) The princ.i.p.al arguments of those who maintain the truth and consistency of this narrative briefly are: Paul resisted the circ.u.mcision of t.i.tus because he was a Greek, and because the subject then actually under consideration was the immunity from the Jewish rite of Gentile Christians, which would have been prejudiced had he yielded the point. On the other hand, Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother, and whilst there was no principle here in question, Paul circ.u.mcised the companion whom he had chosen to accompany him in his missionary journey, both as a recognition of his Jewish origin and to avoid offence to the Jews whom they should encounter in the course of their ministry, as well as to secure for him access to the synagogues which they must visit: Paul in this instance, according to all apologists putting in practice his own declaration (1 Cor. ix. 19-20): "For being free from all men, I made myself servant unto all that I might gain the more; and unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews."

It must be borne in mind that the author who chronicles the supposed circ.u.mcision of Timothy makes no allusion to the refusal of Paul to permit t.i.tus to be circ.u.mcised; an omission which is not only singular in itself, but significant when we find him, immediately after, narrating so singular a concession of which the

{297}

Apostle makes no mention. Of course it is clear that Paul could not have consented to the circ.u.mcision of t.i.tus, and we have only to consider in what manner the case of Timothy differed so as to support the views of those who hold that Paul, who would not yield to the pressure brought to bear upon him in the case of t.i.tus, might, quite consistently, so short a time after, circ.u.mcise Timothy with his own hand. It is true that the necessity of circ.u.mcision for Gentile Christians came prominently into question, during Paul's visit to Jerusalem, from the presence of his uncirc.u.mcised follower t.i.tus, and no doubt the abrogation of the rite must have formed a striking part of the exposition of his Gospel, which Paul tells us he made upon this occasion; but it is equally certain that the necessity of circ.u.mcision long continued to be pressed by the judaistic party in the Church. It cannot fairly be argued that, at any time, Paul could afford to relax his determined and consistent att.i.tude as the advocate for the universality of Christianity and the abrogation of a rite, insistence upon which, he had been the first to recognise, would have been fatal to the spread of Christianity. To maintain that he could safely make such a concession of his principles and himself circ.u.mcise Timothy, simply because at that precise moment there was no active debate upon the point, is inadmissible; for his Epistles abundantly prove that the topic, if it ever momentarily subsided into stubborn silence, was continually being revived with renewed bitterness.

Pauline views could never have prevailed if he had been willing to sacrifice them for the sake of conciliation, whenever they were not actively attacked.

The difference of the occasion cannot be admitted

{298}

as a valid reason; let us, therefore, see whether any difference in the persons and circ.u.mstances removes the contradiction. It is argued that such a difference exists in the fact that, whilst t.i.tus was altogether a Gentile, Timothy, on the side of his mother at least, was a Jew; and Thiersch, following a pa.s.sage quoted by Wetstein, states that, according to Talmudic prescriptions, the validity of mixed marriages between a Jewess and a Gentile was only recognized upon the condition that the children should be brought up in the religion of the mother. In this case, he argues, Paul merely carried out the requirement of the Jewish law by circ.u.mcising Timothy, which others had omitted to do, and thus secured his admission to the Jewish synagogues to which much of his ministry was directed, but from which he would have been excluded had the rite not been performed.(1) Even Meyer, however, in reference to this point, replies that Paul could scarcely be influenced by the Talmudic canon, because Timothy was already a Christian and beyond Judaism.(2) Besides, in point of fact, by such a marriage the Jewess had forfeited Jewish privileges. Timothy, in the eyes of the Mosaic law, was not a Jew, and held, in reality, no better position than the Greek t.i.tus. He had evidently been brought up as a heathen, and the only question which could arise in regard to him was whether he must first become a Jew before he could be fully recognized as a Christian. The supposition that the circ.u.mcision of Timothy, the son of a Greek, after he had actually become a Christian without having pa.s.sed through Judaism,

{299}

could secure for him free access to the synagogues of the Jews, may show how exceedingly slight at that time was the difference between the Jew and the Christian, but it also suggests the serious doubt whether the object of the concession, in the mind of the author of the Acts, was not rather to conciliate the Judaic Christians, than to represent the act as one of policy towards the unbelieving Jews. The statement of the Acts is that Paul circ.u.mcised Timothy "because of the Jews which were in those places; for they knew all that his father was a Greek." If the reason which we are discussing were correct, the expression would more probably have been: "for they knew that his mother was a Jewess." The Greek father might, and probably did, object to the circ.u.mcision of his son, but that was no special reason why Paul should circ.u.mcise him. On the other hand, the fact that the Jews knew that his father was a Greek made the action attributed to Paul a concession which the author of the Acts thus represented in its most conciliatory light. The circ.u.mcision of Timothy was clearly declared unnecessary by the apostolic decree, for the attempt to show that he was legitimately regarded as a Jew utterly fails. It is obvious that, according to Pauline doctrine, there could be no obligation for anyone who adopted Christianity to undergo this initiatory rite. It is impossible reasonably to maintain that any case has been made out to explain why Timothy, who had grown into manhood without being circ.u.mcised, and had become a Christian whilst uncirc.u.mcised, should at that late period be circ.u.mcised. Beyond the reference to a Talmudic prescription, in fact, with which there is not the slightest evidence that Paul was acquainted, and which, even if he did know of it, could not possibly have been recognised by him as

{300}

authoritative, there has not been a serious attempt made to show that the case of Timothy presents exceptional features which reconcile the contradiction otherwise admitted as apparent.

The whole apologetic argument in fact sinks into one of mere expediency: Timothy, the son of a Jewess and of a Greek, and thus having a certain affinity both to Jews and Gentiles, would become a much more efficient a.s.sistant to Paul if he were circ.u.mcised and thus had access to the Jewish synagogues; therefore Paul, who himself became as a Jew that he might win the Jews, demanded the same sacrifice from his follower. But can this argument bear any scrutiny by the light of Paul's own writings?

It cannot. Paul openly claims to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, and just before the period at which he is supposed to circ.u.mcise Timothy, he parts from the elder Apostles with the understanding that he is to go to the Gentiles who are freed from circ.u.mcision. It is a singular commencement of his mission, to circ.u.mcise the son of a Greek father after he had become a Christian. Such supposed considerations about access to synagogues and conciliation of the Jews would seem more suitable to a missionary to the circ.u.mcision, than to the Apostle of the Gentiles. It must be apparent to all that in going more specially to the Gentiles, as he avowedly was, the alleged expediency of circ.u.mcising Timothy falls to the ground, and on the contrary that such an act would have compromised his whole Gospel. Paul's characteristic teaching was the inutility of circ.u.mcision, and upon this point he sustained the incessant attacks of the emissaries of James and the Judaistic party without yielding or compromise. What could have been more ill-advised under

{301}

such circ.u.mstances than the circ.u.mcision with his own hands of a convert who, if the son of a Jewess, was likewise the son of a Greek, and had remained uncirc.u.mcised until he had actually embraced that faith which, Paul taught, superseded circ.u.mcision? The Apostle who declared: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circ.u.mcised, Christ will profit you nothing,"(1) could not have circ.u.mcised the Christian Timothy; and if any utterance of Paul more distinctly and explicitly applicable to the present case be required, it is aptly supplied by the following: "Was any man called being circ.u.mcised? let him not become uncirc.u.mcised. Hath any man been called in uncirc.u.mcision? let him not be circ.u.mcised....

Let each abide in the same calling wherein he was called."(2)

Apologists quote very glibly the saying of Paul: "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews," as sufficiently justifying the act which we are considering; but it is neither applicable to the case, nor is the pa.s.sage susceptible of such interpretation. The special object of Paul at that time, according to his own showing,(3) was not to gain Jews but to gain Gentiles; and the circ.u.mcision of Timothy would certainly not have tended to gain Gentiles. If we quote the whole pa.s.sage from which the above is extracted, the sense at once becomes clear and different from that a.s.signed to it: "For being free from all men, I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more; and unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain Jews; to them under law, as under law, not being myself under law, that I might gain them under law; to them without law, as without law,--not being without law to G.o.d, but under law to Christ,--

{302}

that I might gain them without law; to the weak I became weak that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And all things I do for the Gospel's sake, that I may become a partaker thereof with them."(l) It is clear that a man who could become "all things to all men," in the sense of yielding any point of principle, must be considered without principle at all, and no one could maintain that Paul was apt to concede principles. Judged by his own statements, indeed, his character was the very reverse of this.

There is no shade of conciliation when he declares: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach any Gospel unto you other than that we preached unto you, let him be accursed.... For am I now making men my friends, or G.o.d? or am I seeking to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ."(2) The Gospel of which he speaks, and which he protests "is not after men," but received "through a revelation of Jesus Christ,"(3) is that Gospel which Paul preached among the Gentiles, and which proclaimed the abrogation of the law and of circ.u.mcision. Paul might in one sense say that "circ.u.mcision is nothing and uncirc.u.mcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of G.o.d;"(4) but such a statement, simply intended to express that there was neither merit in the one nor in the other, clearly does not apply to the case before us, and no way lessens the force of the words we have quoted above: "If ye be circ.u.mcised, Christ will profit you nothing." In Paul such a concession would have been in the highest degree a sacrifice of principle, and one which he not only refused to make in the case of t.i.tus, "that the truth of the

{303}

Gospel might abide," but equally maintained in the face of the pillar Apostles, when he left them and returned to the Gentiles whilst they went back to the circ.u.mcision. Paul's idea of being "all things to all men" is ill.u.s.trated by his rebuke to Peter,--once more to refer to the scene at Antioch. Peter apparently practised a little of that conciliation, which apologists, defending the unknown author of the Acts at the expense of Paul, consider to be the sense of the Apostle's words.

Paul repudiated such an inference, by withstanding Peter to the face as condemned, and guilty of hypocrisy. Paul became all things to all men by considering their feelings, and exhibiting charity and forbearance, in matters indifferent He was careful not to make his liberty a stumbling block to the weak. "If food maketh my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh for ever lest I make my brother to offend."(1) Self-abnegation in the use of enlightened liberty, however, is a very different thing from the concession of a rite, which it was the purpose of his whole Gospel to discredit, and the labour of his life to resist. Once more we repeat that the narrative of the Acts regarding the circ.u.mcision of Timothy is contradictory to the character and teaching of Paul as ascertained from his Epistles, and like so many other portions of that work which we have already examined must, as it stands, be rejected as unhistorical.

We have already tested the narrative of the author of the Acts by the statements of Paul in the first two chapters of the Galatians at such length that, although the subject is far from exhausted, we must not proceed further. We think that there can be no doubt that the role a.s.signed to the Apostle Paul in Acts xv. is unhistorical,(2)

{304}

and it is unnecessary for us to point out the reasons which led the writer to present him in such subdued colours. We must, however, before finally leaving the subject, very briefly point out a few circ.u.mstances which throw a singular light upon the relations which actually existed between Paul and the elder Apostles, and tend to show their real, if covert, antagonism to the Gospel of the uncirc.u.mcision. We may at the outset remark, in reference to an objection frequently made that Paul does not distinctly refer to the Apostles as opposing his teaching and does not personally attack them, that such a course would have been suicidal in the Apostle of the Gentiles, whilst on the other hand it could not but have hindered the acceptance of his Gospel, for which he was ever ready to endure so much. The man who wrote: "If it be possible, as much as dependeth on you, be at peace with all men,"(1) could well be silent in such a cause. Paul, in venturing to preach the Gospel of the uncirc.u.mcision, laboured under the singular disadvantage of not having, like the Twelve, been an immediate disciple of the Master. He had been "as the one born out of due time,"(2) and although he claimed that his Gospel had not been taught to him by man but had been received by direct revelation from Jesus, there can be no doubt that his apostolic position was constantly a.s.sailed. The countenance of the elder Apostles, even if merely tacit, was of great

{305}

importance to the success of his work; and he felt this so much that, as he himself states, he went up to Jerusalem to communicate to them the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles: "lest by any means I might be running or did run in vain."(1) Any open breach between them would have frustrated his labours. Had Paul been in recognized enmity with the Twelve who had been selected as his special disciples by the Master, and been repudiated and denounced by them, it is obvious that his position would have been a precarious one. He had no desire for schism. His Gospel, besides, was merely a development of that of the elder Apostles; and, however much they might resent his doctrine of the abrogation of the law and of the inutility of circ.u.mcision, they could still regard his Gentile converts as at least in some sort Proselytes of the Gate.

With every inducement to preserve peace if by any means possible, and to suppress every expression of disagreement with the Twelve, it is not surprising that we find so little direct reference to the elder Apostles in his epistles. During his visit to Jerusalem he did not succeed in converting them to his views. They still limited their ministry to the circ.u.mcision, and he had to be content with a tacit consent to his work amongst the heathen. But although we have no open utterance of his irritation, the suppressed impatience of his spirit, even at the recollection of the incidents of his visit, betrays itself in abrupt sentences, unfinished expressions, and grammar which breaks down in the struggle of repressed emotion. We have already said enough regarding his ironical references to those "who seem to be something," to the "overmuch Apostles," and we need not again point

{306}

to the altercation between Paul and Cephas at Antioch, and the strong language used by the former.

Nothing is more certain than the fact that, during his whole career, the Apostle Paul had to contend with systematic opposition from the Judaic Christian party;(1) and the only point regarding which there is any difference of opinion is the share in this taken by the Twelve. As we cannot reasonably expect to find any plain statement of this in the writings of the Apostle, we are forced to take advantage of such indications as can be discovered. Upon one point we are not left in doubt. The withdrawal of Peter and the others at Antioch from communion with the Gentile Christians, and consequently from the side of Paul, was owing to the arrival of certain men from James, for the Apostle expressly states so. No surprise is expressed, however, at the effect produced by these [------], and the clear inference is that they represented the views of a naturally antagonistic party, an inference which is in accordance with all that we elsewhere read of James. It is difficult to separate the [------] from the [------] of the preceding chapter (i.7) who "trouble" the Galatians, and "desire to pervert the Gospel of Christ," a.s.serting the necessity of circ.u.mcision, against whom the epistle is directed. Again we meet with the same vague and cautious designation of judaistic opponents in his second Epistle to the Corinthians (iii. 1), where

{307}

"some" [------] bearers of "letters of commendation" [------] from persons unnamed, were attacking the Apostle and endeavouring to discredit his teaching. By whom were these letters written? We cannot of course give an authoritative reply, but we may ask: by whom could letters of commendation possessing an authority which could have weight against that of Paul be written, except by the elder Apostles?' We have certain evidence in the first Epistle to the Corinthians that parties had arisen in the Church of Corinth in opposition to Paul. These parties were distinguished, as the Apostle himself states, by the cries: "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ."(2) [------]. Whatever differences of opinion there may be as to the precise nature of these parties, there can be no doubt that both the party "of Cephas" and the party "of Christ" held strong Judaistic views and a.s.sailed the teaching of Paul, and his apostolic authority. It is very evident that the persons to whom the Apostle refers in connection with "letters of commendation" were of these parties.

Apologists argue that: "in claiming Cephas as the head of their party they had probably neither more nor

{308}

less ground than their rivals who sheltered themselves under the names of Apollos and of Paul."(1) It is obvious, however, that, in a Church founded by Paul, there could have been no party created with the necessity to take his name as their watchword, except as a reply to another party which, having intruded itself, attacked him, and forced those who maintained the views of their own Apostle to raise such a counter-cry. The parties "of Cephas" and "of Christ" were manifestly aggressive, intruding themselves, as the Apostle complains, into "other men's labours,"(2) and this in some manner seems to point to that convention between the Apostle and the Three, that he should go to the Gentiles and they to the circ.u.mcision which, barely more than pa.s.sive neutrality at the beginning, soon became covertly antagonistic. The fact that the party "of Paul" was not an organized body, so to say, directed by the Apostle as a party leader, in no way renders it probable that the party of Cephas, which carried on active and offensive measures, had not much more ground in claiming Cephas as their head. One point is indisputable, that no party ever claims any man as its leader who is not clearly a.s.sociated with the views it maintains. The party "of Cephas,"

representing judaistic views, opposing the teaching of Paul, and joining in denying his apostolic claims, certainly would not have taken Peter's name as their watch-cry if he had been known to hold and express such Pauline sentiments as are put into his mouth in the Acts, or had not, on the contrary, been intimately identified with judaistic principles.

To ill.u.s.trate the case by a modern instance: Is it possible to suppose that, in any considerable city in this country,

{309}

a party holding ritualistic opinions could possibly claim the present Archbishop of Canterbury as its leader, or one professing "broad-church"

views could think of sheltering itself under the name of the Archbishop of York? Religious parties may very probably mistake the delicate details of a leader's teaching, but they can scarcely be wrong in regard to his general principles. If Peter had been so unfortunate as to be flagrantly misunderstood by his followers and, whilst this party preached in his name judaistic doctrines and anti-Pauline opinions, the Apostle himself advocated the abrogation of the law, as a burden which the Jews themselves were not able to bear, and actively shared Pauline convictions, is it possible to suppose that Paul would not have pointed out the absurdity of such a party claiming such a leader?

The fact is, however, that Paul never denies the claim of those who shelter themselves under the names of Peter and James, never questions their veracity, and never adopts the simple and natural course of stating that, in advancing these names, they are imposters or mistaken.

On the contrary, upon all occasions he evidently admits, by his silence, the validity of the claim.(1) We are not left to mere inference that the adopted head of the party actually shared the views of the party. Paul himself distinguishes Peter as the head of the party of the circ.u.mcision in a pa.s.sage in his letter to the Galatians already frequently referred to,(2) and the episode at Antioch confirms the description, and leaves no doubt that Peter's permanent practice was to force the Gentiles to judaize. For reasons which we have already stated, Paul could not but have desired to preserve peace, or even the

{310}

semblance of it, with the elder Apostles, for the Gospel's sake; and he, therefore, wisely leaves them as much as possible out of the question and deals with their disciples. It is obvious that policy must have dictated such a course. By ignoring the leaders and attacking their followers, he suppressed the chief strength of his opponents and kept out of sight the most formidable argument against himself: the concurrence with them of the elder Apostles. On the one hand, the epistles of Paul bear no evidence to any active sympathy and co-operation with his views and work on the part of the elder Apostles.

On the other, Paul is everywhere a.s.sailed by judaistic adversaries who oppose his Gospel and deny his apostle-ship, and who claim as their leaders the elder Apostles.

If, even without pressing expressions to their extreme and probable point, we take the contrast drawn between his own Gospel and that of the circ.u.mcision, the reality of the antagonism must be apparent. "For we are not as the many [------](1) which adulterate the word of G.o.d; but as of sincerity, but as of G.o.d, before G.o.d, speak we in Christ."(2) Later on in the letter, after referring to the intrusion of the opposite party into the circle of his labours, Paul declares that his impatience and anxiety proceed from G.o.dly jealousy at the possible effect of the judaistic intruders upon the Corinthians. "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, your thoughts should

{311}

be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus whom we did not preach, or if ye receive another spirit which ye received not, or another Gospel which ye did not accept, ye bear well with him. For I think I am not a whit behind the overmuch Apostles [------]."(1)

This reference to the elder Apostles gives point to much of the epistle which is ambiguous, and more especially when the judaistic nature of the opposition is so clearly indicated a few verses further on: "Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they Abraham's seed?

so am I. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool), I am more; in labours more abundantly, in prisons exceedingly, in deaths often,"

&c, &c.(2)