THE TRIUMPH OF GENTILE FREEDOM
After the conversion, according to the Book of Acts, Paul received
the ministrations of Ananias, and was baptized.[37] These details
are not excluded by the Epistle to the Galatians. In the Epistle,
Paul says that after God had revealed His son in him he did not
confer with flesh and blood;[38] but the conference with flesh
and blood which he was concerned to deny was a conference with
the original apostles at Jerusalem about the principles of the
gospel, not a conference with humble disciples at Damascus.
An over-interpretation of Galatians would here lead almost to
absurdity. Is it to be supposed that after the conversion Paul
refused to have anything whatever to do with those who were now his
brethren? In particular, is it to be supposed that he who afterwards
placed baptism as a matter of course at the beginning of the new
life for every Christian should himself not have been baptized? The
Epistle to the Galatians does not mention his baptism, but that
omission merely illustrates the incompleteness of the account. And
if the baptism of Paul, which certainly must have taken place, is
omitted from Galatians, other omissions must not be regarded as
any more significant. The first two chapters of Galatians are not
intended to furnish complete biography. Only those details are
mentioned which were important for Paul's argument or had been
misrepresented by his Judaizing opponents.
[37] Acts ix. 10-19; xxii. 12-16.
[38] Gal. i. 16.
After God had revealed His son in him, Paul says, he went away
into Arabia. Apparently this journey to Arabia is to be put very
soon after the revelation, though the construction of the word
"immediately" in Gal. i. 16 is not perfectly clear. If that word
goes merely with the negative part of the sentence, then nothing
is said about the time of the journey to Arabia; Paul would say
merely that in the period just after the revelation of God's Son he
did not go up to Jerusalem. There would then be no difficulty in
the assertion of Acts which seems to put a stay in Damascus with
preaching activity in the synagogues immediately after the baptism.
This interpretation is adopted by a number of modern commentators,
not only by B. Weiss and Zahn, who might be suspected of a bias in
favor of the Book of Acts, but also by Sieffert and Lipsius and
Bousset. Perhaps more naturally, however, the word "immediately" in
Galatians is to be taken grammatically with the positive part of
the sentence or with the whole sentence; the sentence would then
mean, "Immediately, instead of conferring with flesh and blood
or going up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, I
went away into Arabia and again I returned to Damascus." Even so,
however, there is no real contradiction with Acts. When Paul tells
what happened "immediately" after the revelation he is thinking in
terms not of days but of journeys. The very first journey after the
conversion--and it took place soon--was not to Jerusalem but to
Arabia. When taken in the context the sentence does not exclude a
brief preaching activity in Damascus before the journey to Arabia.
Grammatically the word "immediately" may go with the positive part
of the sentence, but in essential import it goes rather with the
negative part. What Paul is really concerned about is to deny that
he went up to Jerusalem soon after his conversion.
The Book of Acts does not mention the journey to Arabia and does
not make clear where it may be inserted. Sometimes it is placed in
the middle of Acts ix. 19, before the words, "And he was with the
disciples in Damascus some days." In that case the discussion about
the word "immediately" in Gal. i. 16 would be unnecessary; that
word could be taken strictly with the positive part of the sentence
without contradicting the Book of Acts; the journey to Arabia would
have preceded the preaching activity in Damascus. Or the journey
may be placed before Acts ix. 22; it would then be the cause of the
greater vigor of Paul's preaching. Finally, it may be placed simply
within the "many days" of Acts ix. 23. The phrase, "many days," in
Acts apparently is used to indicate fairly long periods of time. It
must be remembered that the author of Acts is not concerned here
about chronology; perhaps he did not trouble himself to investigate
the exact period of time that elapsed before the journey to
Jerusalem. He was content merely to record the fact that before Paul
went to Jerusalem he engaged for a considerable time in preaching
in the Damascus synagogues. Certainly he must here be acquitted of
any attempt at subserving the interests of harmony in the Church by
a falsification of history. It is generally recognized now, against
the Tübingen contentions, that if the author of Acts contradicts
Galatians, his contradiction is naïve rather than deliberate; the
contradiction or apparent contradiction at least shows the complete
independence of his account. He is not deliberately shortening up
the time before Paul's first conference with Peter in the interests
of a compromise between a Pauline and a Petrine party in the Church;
if he had had the "three years" of Paul before him as he wrote he
would have had no objection to using the detail in his history. But
investigation of the chronology did not here seem to be important.
The detail of the three years was vastly important for Paul's
argument in Galatians, where he is showing that for a considerable
period after the conversion he did not even meet those from whom
he was said to have received his gospel, but it was not at all
important in a general history of the progress of the Church.
The extent of the journey to Arabia, both geographically and
temporally, is entirely unknown. "Arabia" included not only very
remote regions but also a territory almost at the gates of Damascus;
and all that may be determined about the length of the Arabian
residence is that it was less than three years. Possibly Paul
remained only a few weeks in Arabia. In that case the omission of
the journey from the general narrative in Acts is very natural.
The importance of Arabia in Paul's argument is due simply to the
fact that Arabia was not Jerusalem; Paul mentions the journey to
Arabia simply in contrast with a journey to Jerusalem which he
is excluding in the interests of his argument. The only thing
that might seem to require a considerable stay in Arabia is the
narrative of Paul's first Jerusalem visit in Acts ix. 26-30; the
distrust of Paul displayed by the Jerusalem Christians is more
easily explicable if after his conversion he had been living for the
most part in a region more remote than Damascus from Jerusalem. A
similar consideration might possibly suggest that in Arabia Paul
was engaged in meditation rather than in missionary activity; he had
not yet become so well known as a preacher that the Christians of
Jerusalem could begin to glorify God in him, as they did a little
later. Possibly also there is an implied contrast in Gal. i. 16, 17
between conference with the original apostles and direct communion
with Christ; possibly Paul means to say, "Instead of conferring with
flesh and blood in Jerusalem, I communed with the Lord in Arabia."
Despite such considerations, the matter is by no means perfectly
clear; it is perfectly possible that Paul engaged in missionary work
in Arabia. But at any rate, even if that view be correct, he also
engaged in meditation. Paul was never a mere "practical Christian"
in the modern sense; labor in his case was always based upon
thought, and life upon doctrine.
The escape of Paul from Damascus just before his first visit to
Jerusalem is narrated in Acts ix. 23-25 and in 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33.
The mention of the ethnarch of Aretas the Nabatean king as having
authority at or near Damascus causes some difficulty, and might not
have passed unchallenged if it had been attested by Acts. But as a
matter of fact, it is just this detail which appears, not in Acts,
but in an epistle of Paul.
The first visit of Paul to Jerusalem after the conversion is
described in Acts ix. 26-30; xxii. 17-21; Gal. i. 18, 19. In itself,
the account in Acts bears every mark of trustworthiness. The only
detail which might seem surprising is that the Jerusalem Christians
would not at first believe that Paul was a disciple; must not a
notable event like the conversion of so prominent a persecutor have
become known at Jerusalem in the course of three years? But if Paul
had spent a large part of the three years in Arabia, whence news
of him could not be easily obtained, the report of his conversion
might have come to seem like a remote rumor; the very fact of his
withdrawal might, as has been suggested, have cast suspicion upon
the reality of his conversion. Emotion, moreover, often lags behind
cold reasoning; the heart is more difficult to convince than the
mind. The Jerusalem Christians had known Paul only as a cruel and
relentless persecutor; it was not so easy for them to receive him
at once as a brother. This one detail is therefore not at all
sufficient to reverse the favorable impression which is made by the
Lucan account of the visit as a whole.
The chief objection to the account is usually found in a comparison
with what Paul himself says in Galatians. In itself, the account is
natural; but does it agree with Paul's own testimony? One apparent
divergence may indeed soon be dismissed. In Acts ix. 27 it is said
that Paul was introduced to "the apostles," whereas in Gal. i. 19 it
is said that Paul saw only James, the brother of the Lord (who was
not among the Twelve), and Peter. But possibly the author of Acts is
using the term "apostle" in a sense broad enough to include James,
so that Paul actually saw two "apostles"--Peter and James--or else
the plural is used merely in a generic sense to indicate that Paul
was introduced to whatever representative or representatives of the
apostolic body may have happened to be present.
Much more weight is commonly attributed to an objection drawn from
the general representation of the visit. According to Acts, Paul
was associated publicly with the Jerusalem disciples and engaged
in an active mission among the Greek-speaking Jews; according to
Galatians, it is argued, he was in strict hiding, since he did not
become acquainted personally with the churches of Judæa (Gal. i.
22). But the objection, as has already been observed, depends upon
an over-interpretation of Gal. i. 22. Whether or no "Judæa" means
the country in sharp distinction from the capital, in either case
all that is necessarily meant is that Paul did not become acquainted
generally with the Judæan churches. The capital may well have formed
an exception. If Paul had meant in the preceding verses that he had
been in hiding in Jerusalem he would have expressed himself very
differently. Certainly the modern representation of the visit is
in itself improbable. The picture of Paul entering Jerusalem under
cover of darkness or under a disguise and being kept as a mysterious
stranger somewhere in a secret chamber of Peter's house is certainly
much less natural than the account which the Book of Acts gives of
the earnest attempt of Paul to repair the damage which he had done
to the Jerusalem Church. It is very doubtful whether concealment
of Paul in Jerusalem would have been possible even if Paul had
consented to it; he was too well-known in the city. Of course this
last argument would be answered if, as Heitmüller and Loisy suppose,
Paul had never been in Jerusalem at all, even as a persecutor. But
that hypothesis is faced by absolutely decisive objections, as has
already been observed.
The whole modern representation of the first visit, therefore, is
based solely upon a very doubtful interpretation of one verse, and
is in itself highly unnatural. Surely it is much more probable that
the real reason why Paul saw only Peter and James among the leaders
was that the others were out of the city, engaged in missionary work
in Judæa. Their presence in the churches of Judæa would explain the
mention of those churches in Gal. i. 22. Paul is indicating the
meagerness of his direct contact with the original apostles. The
churches of Judæa would become important in his argument if they
were the scene of the apostles' labors. Against a very doubtful
interpretation of the account in Galatians, which brings it into
contradiction with Acts, may therefore be placed an entirely
consistent interpretation which, when the account is combined with
Acts, produces a thoroughly natural representation of the course of
events.
Paul says nothing about what happened during his fifteen-day
intercourse with Peter. But it is highly improbable, as even Holsten
pointed out, that he spent the time gazing silently at Peter as
though Peter were one of the sights of the city.[39] Undoubtedly
there was conversation between the two men, and in the conversation
the subject of the life and death of Jesus could hardly be avoided.
In the Epistle to the Galatians Paul denies, indeed, that he
received his gospel from men. But the bare facts about Jesus did
not constitute a gospel. The facts were known to some extent to
friend and foe alike; Paul knew something about them even before his
conversion and then increased his knowledge through intercourse with
the disciples at Damascus. The fifteen days spent in company with
Peter could hardly have failed to bring a further enrichment of his
knowledge.
[39] Holsten, _op. cit._, p. 118, Amn.: "Aber natürlich kann in dem
ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν nicht liegen, Paulus sei nach Jerusalem gegangen, um den
Petrus fünfzehn tage lang stumm anzuschauen. Die beiden männer
werden miteinander über das evangelium Christi geredet haben."
In 1 Cor. xv. 3-7, Paul gives a summary of what he had
"received"--the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of
Jesus. The vast majority of modern investigators, of all shades of
opinion, find in these verses a summary of the Jerusalem tradition
which Paul received from Peter during the fifteen days. Undoubtedly
Paul knew some if not all of these facts before he went to
Jerusalem; the facts were probably common property of the disciples
in Damascus as well as in Jerusalem. But it is inconceivable that
he should not have tested and supplemented the tradition by what
Peter, whose name stands first (1 Cor. xv. 5) in the list of the
appearances, said in Jerusalem. Recently, indeed, an attempt has
been made by Heitmüller to represent the tradition as being derived
merely from the Christian communities in Damascus or Antioch, and
at best only indirectly from Jerusalem; these communities are thus
interposed as an additional link between Paul and the Jerusalem
Church.[40] But the very purpose of the passage in 1 Corinthians is
to emphasize the unity of teaching, not between Paul and certain
obscure Christians in Hellenistic communities, but between Paul
and the "apostles." "Whether therefore," Paul says, "it be I or
they, so we preach and so ye believed" (1 Cor. xv. 11). The attempt
at separating the factual basis of the Pauline gospel from the
primitive tradition shatters upon the rock of 1 Corinthians and
Galatians. In Galatians, Paul says he was in direct intercourse with
Peter, and in 1 Corinthians he emphasizes the unity of his teaching
with that of Peter and the other apostles.
[40] Heitmüller, "Zum Problem Paulus und Jesus," in _Zeitschrift
für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft_, xiii, 1912, pp. 320-337,
especially p. 331.
After leaving Jerusalem Paul went into the regions of Syria and
of Cilicia; the Book of Acts, more specifically, mentions Tarsus
(Cilicia) and Antioch (Syria). The period which Paul spent in Tarsus
or in its vicinity is for us altogether obscure. In all probability
he engaged in missionary work and included Gentiles in his mission.
Certainly at the conclusion of the Cilician period Barnabas thought
him suitable for the specifically Gentile work at Antioch, and it
is probable that he had already demonstrated his suitability. His
apostolic consciousness, also, as attested both by the Book of Acts
and by Galatians, suggests that the beginning of his life-work as
apostle to the Gentiles was not too long deferred.
At Antioch, the disciples were first called "Christians" (Acts xi.
26). The objections, especially linguistic, formerly urged against
this assertion of Acts have now for the most part been silenced.
The assertion is important as showing that the Church was becoming
so clearly separate from the synagogue that a separate name had
to be coined by the Gentile population. Tremendous importance is
attributed to the Christian community at Antioch by Bousset and
Heitmüller, who believe that the religion of that community had
diverged in fundamental respects from the religion of the primitive
Jerusalem Church, and that this extra-Palestinian Christianity, and
not the Christianity of Jerusalem, is the basis of the religion
of Paul. According to this hypothesis, the independence of Paul
which is attested in Galatians is apparently to be regarded as
independence merely over against the intimate friends of Jesus;
apparently Paul had no objection against taking over the teaching of
the Greek-speaking Christians of Antioch. This representation is out
of accord with what has just been established about the relations
between Paul and the Jerusalem Church. It must be examined more in
detail, however, in a subsequent chapter.
After at least a year--probably more--Barnabas and Saul, according
to Acts xi. 30; xii. 25, were sent up to Jerusalem to bear the
gifts of the Antioch Church, which had been collected in view of
the famine prophesied by Agabus. This "famine visit" is the second
visit of Paul to Jerusalem which is mentioned in Acts. The second
visit which is mentioned in Galatians is the one described in Gal.
ii. 1-10, at which Paul came into conference with the pillars of the
Jerusalem Church. May the two be identified? Is Gal. ii. 1-10 an
account of the visit which is mentioned in Acts xi. 30; xii. 25?[41]
[41] For what follows, compare "Recent Criticism of the Book of
Acts," in _Princeton Theological Review_, xvii, 1919, pp. 597-608.
Chronology opposes no absolutely insuperable objection to the
identification. The apparent objection is as follows. The famine
visit of Acts xi. 30; xii. 25 took place at about the same time
as the events narrated in Acts xii, since the narrative of those
events is interposed between the mention of the coming of Barnabas
and Paul to Jerusalem (Acts xi. 30) and that of their return to
Antioch (Acts xii. 25). But the events of Acts xii include the
death of Herod Agrippa I, which certainly occurred in 44 A.D. The
famine visit, therefore, apparently occurred at about 44 A.D. But
the visit of Gal. ii. 1-10 took place fourteen years (Gal. ii. 1)
after the first visit, which in turn took place three years (Gal. i.
18) after the conversion. Therefore the visit of Gal. ii. 1-10 took
place seventeen (3 + 14) years after the conversion. But if that
visit be identified with the famine visit and the famine visit took
place in 44 A.D., the conversion must have taken place seventeen
years before 44 A.D. or in 27 A.D., which of course is impossible
since the crucifixion of Jesus did not occur till several years
after that time. At first sight, therefore, it looks as though
the identification of Gal. ii. 1-10 with the famine visit were
impossible.
Closer examination, however, shows that the chronological data all
allow a certain amount of leeway. In the first place, it is by no
means clear that the famine visit took place at exactly the time
of the death of Herod Agrippa I in 44 A.D. The author of Acts has
been carrying on two threads of narrative, one dealing with Antioch
and the other dealing with Jerusalem. In Acts xi. 19-30 he has
carried the Antioch narrative on to a point beyond that reached in
the Jerusalem narrative. Now, when the two narratives are brought
together by the visit of Barnabas and Paul to Jerusalem, the author
pauses in order to bring the Jerusalem narrative up to date; he
tells what has been happening at Jerusalem during the period in
which the reader's attention has been diverted to Antioch. The
events of Acts xii may therefore have taken place some time before
the famine visit of Acts xi. 30; xii. 25; the famine visit may have
taken place some time after 44 A.D. Information in Josephus with
regard to the famine,[42] combined with the order of the narrative
in Acts, permits the placing of the famine visit as late as 46 A.D.
In the second place, it is by no means certain that the visit of
Gal. ii. 1-10 took place seventeen years after the conversion. The
ancients sometimes used an inclusive method of reckoning time, in
accordance with which "three years" might mean only one full year
with parts of two other years; January, 1923, would thus be "three
years" after December, 1921. According to this method of reckoning,
the "fourteen years" of Gal. ii. 1 would become only thirteen; and
the "three years" of Gal. i. 18 would become only two years; the
visit of Gal. ii. 1-10 would thus be only fifteen (13 + 2) instead
of seventeen (14 + 3) years after the conversion. If, then, the
visit of Gal. ii. 1-10 be identified with the famine visit, and the
famine visit took place in 46 A.D., the conversion took place in
31 A.D. (46 - 15), which is a possible date. Moreover, it is not
certain that the "fourteen years" of Gal. ii. 1 is to be reckoned
from the first visit; it may be reckoned from the conversion, so
that the "three years" of Gal. i. 18 is to be included in it and
not added to it. In that case, the conversion took place only
fourteen (or, by the inclusive method of reckoning, thirteen) years
before the visit of Gal. ii. 1-10; or, if the visit of Gal. ii.
1-10 be identified with the famine visit, fourteen (or thirteen)
years before 46 A.D., that is, in 32 A.D. (or 33 A.D.), which is a
perfectly possible date.
[42] Josephus, _Antiq._ XX. v. 2. See Schürer, _Geschichte des
jüdischen Volkes_, 3te u. 4te Aufl., i, 1901, p. 567 (English
Translation, _A History of the Jewish People_, Division I, vol. ii,
1890, pp. 169f.).
But of course chronology does not decide in favor of the
identification of Gal. ii. 1-10 with Acts xi. 30; xii. 25; at
best it only permits that identification. Chronologically it is
even slightly more convenient to identify Gal. ii. 1-10 with a
visit subsequent to the famine visit. The only subsequent visit
which comes seriously in question is the visit at the time of the
"Apostolic Council" of Acts xv. 1-29. The advantages of identifying
Gal. ii. 1-10 with Acts xi. 30; xii. 25, therefore, must be compared
with those of identifying it with Acts xv. 1-29.
If the former identification be adopted, then Paul in Galatians has
not mentioned the Apostolic Council of Acts xv. 1-29. Since the
Apostolic Council dealt with the same question as that which was
under discussion in Galatians, and since it constituted an important
step in Paul's relations with the original apostles, it is a little
difficult to see how Paul could have omitted it from the Epistle.
This objection has often weighed against the identification of Gal.
ii. 1-10 with the famine visit. But in recent years the objection
has been removed by the hypothesis which places the writing of
Galatians actually before the Apostolic Council; obviously Paul
could not be expected to mention the Council if the Council had not
yet taken place. This early dating of Galatians has been advocated
by a German Roman Catholic scholar, Weber,[43] and recently it has
won the support of men of widely divergent points of view, such as
Emmet,[44] Kirsopp Lake,[45] Ramsay,[46] and Plooij.[47] Of course
this hypothesis depends absolutely upon the correctness of the
"South Galatian" theory of the address of the Epistle, which finds
"the Churches of Galatia" of Gal. i. 2 in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium,
Lystra and Derbe; for the churches in "North Galatia," if there were
any such, were not founded till after the Apostolic Council (Acts
xvi. 6).[48]
[43] _Die Abfassung des Galaterbriefs vor dem Apostelkonzil_, 1900.
[44] "Galatians the Earliest of the Pauline Epistles," in
_Expositor_, 7th Series, vol. ix, 1910, pp. 242-254 (reprinted in
_The Eschatological Question in the Gospels_, 1911, pp. 191-209);
_St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians_, 1912, pp. xiv-xxii.
[45] _The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul_, 1911, pp. 265-304. In a
later book, Lake has modified his views about the relation between
Galatians and Acts. The historicity of Acts xv. 1-29 is now
abandoned. See _Landmarks in the History of Early Christianity_,
1920, pp. 63-66.
[46] Ramsay, "Suggestions on the History and Letters of St. Paul. I.
The Date of the Galatian Letter," in _Expositor_, VIII, v, 1913, pp.
127-145.
[47] Plooij, _De chronologie van het leven van Paulus_, 1918, pp.
111-140.
[48] Maurice Jones ("The Date of the Epistle to the Galatians,"
in _Expositor_, VIII, vi, 1913, pp. 193-208) has adduced from the
Book of Acts various arguments against the early date of Galatians,
which, though worthy of attention, are not quite decisive.
One objection to the early dating of Galatians is derived from
the close relation between that epistle and the Epistle to the
Romans. If Galatians was written before the Apostolic Council it
is the earliest of the extant epistles of Paul and is separated by
a period of some six or eight years from the epistles of the third
missionary journey with which it has ordinarily been grouped. Thus
the order of the Epistles would be Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians,
1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans. This order seems to tear asunder
the epistles which naturally belong together. The objection was
partially overcome by a bold hypothesis of Lake, who suggested
that the Epistle to the Romans was first composed at an early time
as an encyclical letter, and that later, being modified by the
addition of a Roman address and other suitable details, it was sent
to the Church at Rome.[49] On this hypothesis Galatians and the
substance of Romans would be kept together because both would be
placed early. The hypothesis can appeal to the interesting textual
phenomenon in Rom. i. 7, where the words "in Rome" are omitted by
a few witnesses to the text. But the evidence is insufficient. And
even if Lake's hypothesis were correct, it would not altogether
overcome the difficulty; for both Galatians and Romans would be
removed from what has usually been regarded as their natural
position among the epistles of the third missionary journey.
In reply, it could be said that reconstructions of an author's
development, unless supported by plain documentary evidence, are
seldom absolutely certain; the simplicity of 1 and 2 Thessalonians,
as over against the great soteriological epistles, Galatians, 1
and 2 Corinthians, Romans, is no doubt due to the immaturity of
the Thessalonian Church rather than to any immaturity in Paul's
thinking. There is therefore no absolutely decisive objection
against putting the Epistle to the Galatians, with its developed
soteriology, before the Thessalonian Epistles.
[49] Lake, _The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul_, 1911, pp. 361-370.
On the whole, it may be said that the identification of Gal. ii.
1-10 with Acts xi. 30; xii. 25 is perhaps most plausible when it is
connected with the early dating of Galatians, before the Apostolic
Council. But that identification, whether with or without the early
dating of the Epistle, must now be considered on its merits. Is Gal.
ii. 1-10 to be identified with the famine visit of Acts xi. 30; xii.
25, or with the Apostolic Council of Acts xv?
The former identification possesses one obvious advantage--by it the
second visit in Galatians is the same as the second visit in Acts;
whereas if Gal. ii. 1-10 is identified with Acts xv. 1-29 Paul has
passed over the famine visit without mention. The identification
with the famine visit may therefore conveniently be considered first.
According to this identification, Paul had two conferences with the
Jerusalem leaders, one at the time of the famine visit and one some
years afterwards at the time of the Apostolic Council. Could the
second conference conceivably have followed thus upon the former? If
the conference between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders described in
Gal. ii. 1-10 took place at the time of the famine visit, then would
not the Apostolic Council seem to be a mere meaningless repetition
of the former conference? If the matter of Gentile freedom had
already been settled (Gal. ii. 1-10) at the famine visit, how could
it come up again _de novo_ at the Apostolic Council?
This objection is by no means insuperable. The meeting described
in Gal. ii. 1-10 may have been merely a private meeting between
Paul and the original apostles. Although the presence of Titus, the
uncircumcised Gentile, was no doubt a matter of public knowledge,
it need not necessarily have given rise to any public discussion,
since it was not unprecedented, Cornelius also having been received
into the Church without circumcision. But if the famine visit
brought merely a private conference between Paul and the original
apostles, Gentile freedom was still open to attack, especially if,
after the famine visit, there was (as is in any case probable) an
influx of strict legalists into the Christian community. There
was no public pronouncement of the original apostles to which
the advocates of freedom could appeal. There was therefore still
urgent need of a public council such as the one described in Acts
xv. 1-29, especially since that council dealt not only with the
general question of Gentile freedom but also with the problem of
mixed communities where Jews and Gentiles were living together. The
Apostolic Council, therefore, may well have taken place in the way
described in Acts xv. 1-29 even if the conference of Gal. ii. 1-10
had been held some years before.
No absolutely decisive objection, therefore, has yet been found
against the identification of Gal. ii. 1-10 with Acts xi. 30; xii.
25. But the _prima facie_ evidence has usually been regarded as
favoring the alternative identification, since Gal. ii. 1-10 bears
much more resemblance to Acts xv. 1-29 than it does to Acts xi.
30; xii. 25. Resemblance to Acts xi. 30; xii. 25 is not, indeed,
altogether lacking. In both Galatians ii. 1-10 and Acts xi. 30; xii.
25, Barnabas is represented as going up with Paul to Jerusalem; in
both passages there is reference to gifts for the Jerusalem Church;
and the revelation referred to in Gal. ii. 2 as the occasion of the
journey may be discovered in the revelation of the famine made to
Agabus (Acts xi. 28). But the relief of the Jerusalem Church, which
is put as the sole purpose of the journey in Acts xi. 30; xii. 25,
is quite subordinate in Gal. ii. 1-10; Barnabas is with Paul in Acts
xv. 1-29 just as much as he is in Acts xi. 30; xii. 25; and it may
be questioned whether in Gal. ii. 2 it is not more natural to think
of a revelation coming to Paul rather than one coming through the
mouth of Agabus. The strongest argument, however, for identifying
Gal. ii. 1-10 with Acts XV. 1-29 is that the main purpose of
Paul's visit seems to be the same according to both passages;
according to both the matter of circumcision of Gentiles was under
discussion, and according to both the result was a triumph for
the cause of freedom. This identification must now be considered.
Various objections have been raised against it. These objections
lead, according to the point of view of the objector, either to an
acceptance of the alternative identification (with Acts xi. 30; xii.
25) or else to a rejection of the historicity of the Book of Acts.
The first objection is derived from the fact that if Gal. ii.
1-10 is to be identified with Acts XV. 1-29, Paul has passed over
the famine visit without mention. Could he have done so honestly,
if that visit had really occurred? In the first two chapters of
Galatians Paul is establishing the independence of his apostolic
authority; he had not, he says, as the Judaizers maintained,
received his authority through mediation of the original apostles.
At first, he says, he came into no effective contact with the
apostles; it was three years after his conversion before he saw
any of them; then he saw only Peter (and James) and that only for
fifteen days. Then he went away into the regions of Syria and of
Cilicia without ever becoming known by face to the Churches of
Judæa; then after fourteen years again he went up to Jerusalem (Gal.
ii. 1). Is it not the very point of the passage that after his
departure to Syria and Cilicia it was fourteen long years before
he again went up to Jerusalem? Would not his entire argument be
invalidated if there were an unmentioned visit to Jerusalem between
the first visit (Gal. i. 18, 19) and the visit of Gal. ii. 1-10?
If such a visit had taken place, would he not have had to mention
it in order to place it in the proper light as he had done in the
case of the first visit? By omitting to mention the visit in a
context where he is carefully tracing the history of his relations
with the Jerusalem leaders, would he not be exposing himself to
the charge of dishonest suppression of facts? Such considerations
have led a great number of investigators to reject the historicity
of the famine visit; there never could have been, they insist, a
visit between the first visit and the visit of Gal. ii. 1-10; for
if there had been, Paul would have been obliged to mention it, not
only by his own honesty, but also because of the impossibility
of deception. This is one of the points where the narrative in
Acts has been most insistently criticized. Here and there, indeed,
there have been discordant notes in the chorus of criticism; the
insufficiency of the objection has been admitted now and then even
by those who are far removed from any concern for the defense of
the Book of Acts. Baur himself, despite all his Tübingen severity
of criticism, was clear-sighted enough not to lay stress upon this
particular objection;[50] and in recent years J. Weiss has been
equally discerning.[51] In Galatians Paul is not giving a complete
enumeration of his visits to Jerusalem, but merely singling out
those details which had formed the basis of the Judaizers' attack,
or afforded peculiar support to his own contentions. Apparently the
Judaizers had misrepresented the first visit; that is the time,
they had said, when Paul came under the authority of the original
apostles. In answer to this attack Paul is obliged to deal carefully
with that first visit; it came three years after the conversion, he
says, and it lasted only fifteen days--surely not long enough to
make Paul a disciple of Peter. Then Paul went away into the regions
of Syria and Cilicia. Probably, for the first readers, who were
familiar with the outlines of Paul's life, this departure for Syria
and Cilicia clearly meant the entrance by Paul into his distinctive
Gentile work. He was well launched upon his Gentile work, fully
engaged in the proclamation of his gospel, before he had ever had
such contact with the original apostles as could possibly have given
him that gospel. At this point, as J. Weiss[52] well observes, there
is a transition in the argument. The argument based on lack of
contact with the original apostles has been finished, and now gives
place to an entirely different argument. In the first chapter of
Galatians Paul has been showing that at first he had no such contact
with the original apostles as could have made him a disciple of
theirs; now, in the second chapter he proceeds to show that when he
did come into conference with them, they themselves recognized that
he was no disciple of theirs but an independent apostle. Apparently
this conference, like the first visit, had been misrepresented
by the Judaizers, and hence needed to be singled out for special
treatment. It must be admitted that Paul is interested in the late
date at which it occurred--fourteen years after the first visit or
fourteen years after the conversion. Probably, therefore, it was the
first real conference which Paul held with the original apostles on
the subject of his Gentile work. If the famine visit had involved
such a conference, probably Paul would have mentioned that visit.
But if (as is not improbable on independent grounds) the apostles
were away from Jerusalem at the time of the famine visit, and if
that visit occurred long after Paul had been well launched upon his
distinctive work, and if it had given the Judaizers so little basis
for their contentions that they had not thought it worth while to
draw it into the discussion, then Paul was not obliged to mention
it. Paul is not constructing an argument which would hold against
all possible attacks, but rather is meeting the attacks which had
actually been launched. In the second chapter, having finished
proving that in the decisive early period before he was well engaged
in his distinctive work there was not even any extended contact with
the original apostles at all, he proceeds to the telling argument
that the very men who were appealed to by the Judaizers themselves
had admitted that he was entirely independent of them and that they
had nothing to add to him. If the famine visit had occurred in the
early period, or if, whenever it occurred, it had involved the
important event of a conference with the apostles about the Pauline
gospel, in either case Paul would probably have been obliged to
mention it. But, as it is, the visit, according to Acts xi. 30; xii.
25, did not occur until Paul had already been engaged in the Gentile
work, and there is no reason to suppose that it involved any contact
with the original apostles. The omission of the famine visit from
Galatians, therefore, as a visit distinct from Gal. ii. 1-10, does
not absolutely require either the identification of Gal. ii. 1-10
with that famine visit or the denial of the historicity of Acts.
[50] Baur, _Paulus_, 2te Aufl., 1866, pp. 130-132 (English
Translation, _Paul_ i, 1873, pp. 118-120). Baur does maintain that
Gal. ii. 1 renders improbable a second visit of Paul to Jerusalem
before the conference with the apostles which is narrated in Gal.
ii. 1, but points out that in itself the verse is capable of a
different interpretation.
[51] J. Weiss, _Urchristentum_, 1914, p. 147, Anm. 2.
[52] _Loc. cit._
Certain other difficulties emerge, however, when Gal. ii. 1-10 is
compared with Acts xv. 1-29 in detail.
In the first place, the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, it is said,
are represented in Acts xv. 1-29 as maintaining Pauline principles,
whereas in Gal. ii. 1-10 it appears that there was really a
fundamental difference between them and Paul. This difficulty
constitutes an objection not against the identification of Gal. ii.
1-10 with Acts XV. 1-29 but against the historicity of Acts, for if
at any time there was a really fundamental difference of principle
between Paul and the original apostles then the whole representation
in Acts is radically incorrect. But the objection disappears
altogether when Galatians is correctly interpreted. The Epistle to
the Galatians does not represent the conference between Paul and the
pillars of the Jerusalem Church as resulting in a cold agreement to
disagree; on the contrary it represents those leaders as giving to
Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. And Gal. ii. 11-21,
rightly interpreted, attests positively a real unity of principle as
existing between Paul and Peter.
The one objection that remains against the identification of Gal.
ii. 1-10 with Acts XV. 1-29 concerns the "Apostolic Decree" of Acts
XV. 28, 29 (compare Acts XV. 19, 20; xxi. 25). According to the
Epistle to the Galatians the apostles at the time of the conference
"added nothing" to Paul (Gal. ii. 6); according to the Book of Acts,
it is argued, they added something very important indeed--namely,
the requirements of the Apostolic Decree that the Gentile Christians
should "refrain from things offered to idols and from blood and from
things strangled and from fornication." Since these requirements are
partly at least ceremonial, they seem to constitute an exception to
the general principle of Gentile freedom, and therefore an addition
to Paul's gospel. If when Paul presented to the original apostles
the gospel which he was preaching among the Gentiles, involving the
free offer of salvation apart from the Law, the apostles emended
that gospel by requiring at least certain parts of the ceremonial
Law, were they not "adding" something to Paul?
But are the provisions of the decree really ceremonial? Apparently
they are in part ceremonial if the so-called "Neutral text" attested
by the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus be correct.
According to this text, which here lies at the basis of all forms of
our English Bible, "blood" can hardly refer to anything except meat
that has the blood left in it or else blood that might be prepared
separately for food; for "things strangled" certainly refers to a
closely related provision of the ceremonial Law about food. But at
this point an interesting textual question arises. The so-called
"Western text" of the Book of Acts, attested by the Codex Bezae and
the usual companion witnesses, omits the word translated "things
strangled" or "what is strangled" in Acts XV. 20, 29; xxi. 25, and
in the first two of these three passages adds the negative form of
the Golden Rule. Thus the Western text reads in Acts XV. 28, 29 as
follows: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to
lay no further burden upon you except these necessary things--that
you refrain from things offered to idols and from blood and from
fornication, and that you do not to another whatsoever things you
do not wish to be done to you." It is generally agreed that the
Golden Rule has here been added by a copyist; but the omission of
"things strangled" is thought by many modern scholars to preserve
the reading of the autograph. If this short text without "things
strangled" be correct, then the provisions of the Decree need not
be regarded as ceremonial at all, but may be taken as simply moral.
"Things offered to idols" may refer to idolatry in general; "blood"
may refer to murder; and "fornication" may be meant in the most
general sense. But if the provisions of the Decree were simply
moral, then plainly they did not constitute any "addition" to the
message of freedom which Paul proclaimed among the Gentiles. Paul
himself had of course enjoined upon his converts the necessity
of leading a true moral life. If when the original apostles were
urged by the Judaizers to impose upon the Gentile converts the
requirements of the ceremonial Law, they responded, "No; the only
requirements to be imposed upon the Gentiles are that they refrain
from deadly sins like idolatry, murder and fornication," that
decision constituted merely a most emphatic confirmation of Paul's
gospel of freedom.
The textual question cannot here be discussed in detail. In favor
of the Western text, with its omission of "things strangled," may
be urged not only the general principle of textual criticism that
the shorter reading is to be preferred to the longer, but also the
special consideration that in this particular passage the shorter
reading seems to account for the origin of the two additions; (1)
the word translated "things strangled," and (2) the Golden Rule. The
short text, supposing it to be the original, was ambiguous; it might
be taken either as ceremonial ("blood" meaning the eating of blood)
or as moral ("blood" meaning the shedding of blood or murder).
Those copyists who took it as ceremonial, it is maintained, fixed
the meaning by adding "things strangled" (because animals that were
strangled had the blood still in them, so that the eating of them
constituted a violation of the ceremonial Law); whereas those who
took the Decree as moral fixed the meaning by adding the Golden Rule
as the summation of the moral law.[53]
[53] See Lake, _op. cit._, pp. 51-53.
On the other side may be urged the connection which seems to exist
between the omission of "things strangled" and the manifest gloss
constituted by the Golden Rule. Documentary attestation of a short
text, without the Golden Rule and without "things strangled," is
exceedingly scanty if not non-existent--Kirsopp Lake can point only
to the witness of Irenæus. The omission of "things strangled,"
therefore, may be only a part of a moralizing of the Decree (carried
out also in the addition of the Golden Rule), which would be
quite in accord with that habit of scribes by which they tended
to ignore in the interests of moral commonplaces what was special
and difficult in the text which they were copying. In reply, Lake
insists that just at the time and at the place where the short
text (without "things strangled") was prevalent, there was a food
law for which the long text (with "things strangled") would have
afforded welcome support. Why should the text have been modified
just where in its original form it supported the prevailing practice
of the Church? The conclusion is, Lake believes, that if the Western
text prevailed, despite the welcome support which would have been
afforded by the other text, it was because the Western text was
correct.[54]
[54] _Op. cit._, pp. 57-59.
Decision as to the textual question will depend to a considerable
extent upon the conclusion which is reached with regard to the
Western text as a whole. The radical rejection of that text which
was advocated by Westcott and Hort has by no means won universal
approval; a number of recent scholars are inclined at least to
pursue an eclectic course, adopting now the Western reading and
now the Neutral reading on the basis of internal evidence in the
individual cases. Others believe that the Western text and the
Neutral text are both correct, since the Western text is derived
from an earlier edition of the book, whereas the Neutral text
represents a revised edition issued by the author himself.[55] But
this hypothesis affords absolutely no assistance in the case of the
Apostolic Decree; for the Western reading (if it be interpreted in
the purely non-ceremonial way) presents the Decree in a light very
different from that in which it appears according to the Neutral
reading. It is impossible that the author could have contradicted
himself so directly and in so important a matter. Therefore, if
one of the two readings is due to the author, the other is due to
some one else. Cases like this weigh heavily against the hypothesis
of two editions of the book; that hypothesis can be saved only by
supposing either that the Western documents do not here reproduce
correctly the original Western form of the book, or else that the
other documents do not here reproduce the original revised edition.
In other words, despite the manuscript evidence, the two editions of
the book must here be supposed to have been in harmony. At any rate,
then, whether or no the hypothesis of two editions be accepted, a
choice must here be made between the Neutral reading and the Western
reading; they cannot both be due to the author, since they are
contradictory to each other.
[55] An elaborate attempt has recently been made by Zahn, in
addition to former attempts by Blass and Hilgenfeld, to reproduce
the original form of the Western text, which Zahn believes to be
the earlier edition of the book. See Zahn, _Die Urausgabe der
Apostelgeschichte des Lucas_, 1916 (_Forschungen zur Geschichte des
neutestamentlichen Kanons_, ix. Teil).
On the whole, it must be said that the Western text of the Book of
Acts does not commend itself, either as the one genuine form of
the book, or as an earlier edition of which the Neutral text is
a revision. The Western readings are interesting; at times they
may contain genuine historical information; but it seems unlikely
that they are due to the author. Here and there indeed the Western
documents may preserve a genuine reading which has been lost in
all other witnesses to the text--even Westcott and Hort did not
altogether exclude such a possibility--but in general the high
estimate which Westcott and Hort placed upon the Neutral text is
justified. Thus there is a possibility that the short text of the
Apostolic Decree, without "things strangled," is genuine, but it is
a possibility only.
If then, the Neutral text of the Decree is correct, so that the
requirements of the Decree are partly ceremonial, must the Book of
Acts here be held to contradict the Epistle to the Galatians? If the
Decree really was passed at the Apostolic Council, as Acts xv. 29
represents, would Paul have been obliged to mention it in Gal. ii.
1-10? Answering these questions in the affirmative, a great many
scholars since the days of Baur have regarded the account which the
Book of Acts gives of the Apostolic Council as radically wrong; and
since the book has thus failed to approve itself at the point where
it runs parallel to a recognized authority, it must be distrusted
elsewhere as well. The Apostolic Council, especially the Apostolic
Decree, has thus become, to use a phrase of B. W. Bacon, the "crux
of apostolic history."[56]
[56] B. W. Bacon, "Acts versus Galatians: the Crux of Apostolic
History," in_American Journal of Theology_, xi, 1907, pp. 454-474.
See also "Professor Harnack on the Lukan Narrative," _ibid._, xiii,
1909, pp. 59-76.
It is exceedingly unlikely, however, at any rate, that the Decree
has been made up "out of whole cloth"; for it does not coincide
exactly with the usage of the later Church, and seems to be framed
in view of primitive conditions. Even those who reject the narrative
of Acts as it stands, therefore, often admit that the Decree was
really passed by the early Jerusalem Church; but they maintain that
it was passed after Paul's departure from Jerusalem and without his
consent. This view is thought to be supported by Acts xxi. 25, where
James, it is said, is represented, at the time of Paul's last visit
to Jerusalem, as calling attention to the Decree as though it were
something new. Acts xxi. 25 is thus thought to preserve a bit of
primitive tradition which is in contradiction to the representation
of the fifteenth chapter. Of course, however, the verse as it stands
in the completed book can only be taken by the unsophisticated
reader as referring to what Paul already knew; and it is a grave
question whether the author of Acts was unskillful enough to allow
contradictory representations to stand unassimilated in his book,
as the hypothesis demands. Acts xxi. 25, therefore, is at any rate
not opposed to the view that the Decree was actually passed with the
consent of Paul, as the fifteenth chapter represents.
But is this representation really in contradiction to the Epistle
to the Galatians? Does Gal. ii. 1-10 really exclude the Apostolic
Decree? In order to answer these questions, it will be necessary to
examine the nature of the Decree.
The Apostolic Decree, according to Acts xv. 1-29, did not constitute
a definition of what was necessary for the salvation of the Gentile
Christians, but was an attempt to solve the problem of a limited
group of mixed communities where Jews and Gentiles were living
together. Such seems to be the implication of the difficult verse,
Acts xv. 21, where James, after he has proposed the substance of the
Decree, says, "For Moses has from ancient generations in the several
cities those who proclaim him, being read in the synagogues every
Sabbath." These words seem to mean that since there are Jews in the
cities, and since they are devoted to the Law of Moses, the Gentile
Christians, in order to avoid offending them, ought to refrain
from certain of those features of the Gentile manner of life which
the Jews would regard as most repulsive. The Law of Moses had been
read in the cities from ancient generations; it was venerable; it
deserved at least respect. Such a respectful attitude toward the
Jewish way of life would contribute not only to the peace of the
Church but also to the winning of the non-Christian Jews.
Was this procedure contrary to the principles of Paul? He himself
tells us that it was not. "For though I was free from all men," he
says, "I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the
more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews;
to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself
under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to
them that are without law, as without law, not being without law
to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are
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."[57] The Apostolic Decree was simply a particular case of
becoming to the Jews as a Jew that Jews might be gained. Indeed
it was a rather mild case of that kind; and the conjecture may be
ventured that Paul was often very much more accommodating than the
Decree would demand. Paul was not the man to insist upon blatant
disregard of Jewish feelings where Jews were to be won to Christ.
[57] 1 Cor. ix. 19-22, American Revised Version.
It must be remembered that Paul, according to his Epistles, did
not demand that Jewish Christians should give up keeping the Law,
but only required them not to force the keeping of the Law upon
the Gentiles. No doubt the observance of the Law on the part of
Jewish Christians was to be very different in spirit from their
pre-Christian legalism; they were no longer to regard the Law as
a means of salvation. But after salvation had been obtained, they
might well believe that it was God's will for them to continue to
live as Jews; and Paul, according to his Epistles, had no objection
to that belief. But how were the Jewish Christians to carry out
their observance of the Law? Various requirements of the Law were
held to imply that Israelites should keep separate from Gentiles.
How then could the Jewish Christians live in close brotherly
intercourse with the Gentile members of the Christian community
without transgressing the Law of Moses? There is no reason to
believe that Paul from the beginning had a hard and fast solution of
this problem. Undoubtedly, the tendency of his practice led toward
the complete abandonment of the ceremonial Law in the interests of
Christian unity between Jews and Gentiles. He was very severe upon
those Jewish Christians who, though convinced in their hearts of the
necessity of giving precedence to the new principle of unity, yet
separated themselves from the Gentiles through fear of men (Gal.
ii. 11-21). But there is no reason to think that he condemned on
principle those who truly believed that Jewish Christians should
still keep the Law. With regard to these matters he was apparently
content to wait for the clearer guidance of the Spirit of God,
which would finally work out the unity of the Church. Meanwhile
the Apostolic Decree was an attempt to solve the problem of mixed
communities; and that attempt was in harmony with the principles
which Paul enunciated in 1 Cor. ix. 19-22.
Moreover, the Apostolic Decree was in accord with Paul's principle
of regard for the weaker brother (1 Cor. viii; Rom. xiv). In
Corinth, certain brethren were offended by the eating of meat which
had been offered to idols. Paul himself was able to eat such food;
for he recognized that the idols were nothing. But for some of the
members of the Christian community the partaking of such food would
mean the deadly sin of idolatry; and out of regard for them Paul is
ready to forego his freedom. The case was very similar in the mixed
communities contemplated in the Apostolic Decree. The similarity,
of course, appears on the surface in the first prohibition of the
Decree, which concerns things offered to idols. But the two other
prohibitions about food are not really very different. The use of
blood was intimately associated with heathen cults, and the eating
of meat with the blood still in it ("things strangled") would also,
because of deep-seated religious ideas, seem to a devout Jew to
involve idolatry. It is very doubtful, therefore, whether those
prohibitions of the Decree which we are accustomed to designate as
"ceremonial" were felt to be ceremonial by those for whose benefit
the Decree was adopted. They were probably not felt to be ceremonial
any more than the prohibition of things offered to idols was felt to
be ceremonial by the weaker brethren at Corinth. Rather they were
felt to involve the deadly sin of idolatry.
Finally, the Apostolic Decree was of limited range of application;
it was addressed, not to Gentile Christians generally, but only
to those in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts xv. 23). The Book
of Acts, it is true, does declare, after the mention of Derbe and
Lystra in connection with the beginning of the second missionary
journey, that Paul and Silas "as they went on their way through
the cities ... delivered them the decrees to keep which had been
ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem" (Acts
xvi. 4). According to this passage the observance of the Decree
does seem to have been extended into Lycaonia, and thus beyond
the limits set forth in the Decree itself. But if Paul chose to
make use of the document beyond the range originally contemplated,
that does not alter the fact that originally the Jerusalem Church
undertook to deal only with Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. In Acts
xxi. 25, indeed, the reference of James to the Decree does not
mention the geographical limitation. But James was thinking no doubt
particularly of those regions where there were the largest bodies
of Jews, and he does not say that the Jerusalem Church, even if the
Decree represented its own desires for all Gentiles, had actually
sent the Decree to all. The general reference in Acts xxi. 25 may
therefore fairly be interpreted in the light of the more particular
information given in Acts xv. 23. It is thus unnecessary to follow
Wendt, who, after a careful examination of all the objections which
have been urged against the historicity of the Decree, concludes
that the Decree was actually passed by the Jerusalem Church in the
presence of Paul as the Book of Acts represents, but supposes
that the author of Acts has erred in giving the decision a wider
range of application than was really contemplated.[58] A correct
interpretation of the passages in question will remove even this
last vestige of objection to the Lucan account.
[58] Wendt, _Die Apostelgeschichte_, 1913, in Meyer,
_Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament_, 9te
Aufl., p. 237.
But if the Decree was addressed only to Antioch and Syria and
Cilicia, it was not imposed upon specifically Pauline churches. The
Gentile work at Antioch had not been started by Paul, and it is a
question how far he regarded the churches of Syria and Cilicia in
general as belonging to his peculiar province. Undoubtedly he had
labored long in those regions, but others had shared his labors and
in some places had even preceded him. These other missionaries had
come from Jerusalem. Paul may well therefore have recognized the
authority of the Jerusalem leaders over the churches of Syria and
Cilicia in a way which would not have been in place at Ephesus or
Corinth, especially since the Jewish Christian element in the Syrian
and Cilician churches was probably very strong.
The adoption of the Apostolic Decree by the Jerusalem Church was
thus not derogatory in general to the apostolic dignity of Paul,
or contrary to his principles. But is the Decree excluded, in
particular, by the words of Paul in Galatians? Paul says that the
pillars of the Jerusalem Church "added nothing"[59] to him (Gal. ii.
6). The meaning of these words must be examined with some care.
[59] οὐδεν προσανέθεντο.
Undoubtedly the word here translated "added"--it may perhaps be
better translated "imparted nothing to me in addition"--is to be
understood in conjunction with Gal. ii. 2, where the same Greek word
is used, but without the preposition which means "in addition."
The sense of the two verses--they are separated by the important
digression about Titus--is thus as follows: "When I laid my gospel
before the leaders, they laid nothing before me in addition." That
is, they declared, after listening to Paul's gospel, that they had
nothing to add to it; Christ had given it to Paul directly; it was
sufficient and complete. The question, therefore, in connection
with the Apostolic Decree is not whether the Decree was or was not
something important that the Jerusalem leaders imparted to Paul,
but only whether it constituted an addition to his gospel. If it
constituted an addition to his gospel, then it is excluded by
Paul's words in Galatians, and is unhistorical. But as it has been
interpreted above, it certainly did not constitute an addition to
Paul's gospel. Paul's gospel consisted in the offer of salvation to
the Gentiles through faith alone apart from the works of the law.
The Jerusalem leaders recognized that gospel; they had absolutely
nothing to add to it; Paul had revealed the way of salvation to
the Gentiles exactly as it had been revealed to him by God. But
the recognition of the Pauline gospel of salvation by faith alone
did not solve all the practical problems of the Christian life; in
particular it did not solve the problem of the mixed churches. It
would have been unnatural if the conference had not proceeded to
a consideration of such problems, and Paul's words do not at all
exclude such consideration.
Certainly some sort of public pronouncement on the part of the
Jerusalem leaders was imperatively demanded. The Judaizers had made
trouble in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia--that much of the account
in Acts is generally admitted to be historical and is certainly
necessary to account for the very fact that Paul went to Jerusalem,
the revelation which came to him being given by God in relation
to a very definite situation. Against his inclination Paul went
to Jerusalem in order to stop the propaganda of the Judaizers by
obtaining a pronouncement from the very authorities to which they
appealed. Is it to be supposed that he returned to Antioch without
the pronouncement which he had sought? If he had done so his journey
would have been in vain; the Judaizers would have continued to
make trouble exactly as before. Some kind of public pronouncement
was therefore evidently sought by Paul himself from the Jerusalem
leaders. No doubt the very seeking of such a pronouncement was
open to misunderstanding; it might seem to involve subordination
of Paul to the authorities to whom apparently he was appealing
as to a higher instance. Paul was keenly aware of such dangers,
and waited for definite guidance of God before he decided to make
the journey. But if he had come back from Jerusalem without any
such pronouncement of the authorities as would demonstrate the
falsity of the Judaizers' appeal to them, then the disadvantages
of the conference would have been incurred in vain. In all
probability, therefore, the conference of Gal. ii. 1-10, if it
took place at the time reached by the narrative at the beginning
of the fifteenth chapter of Acts, resulted in a pronouncement from
the Jerusalem Church. And the Apostolic Decree was just such a
pronouncement as might have been expected. It was public; it was
an emphatic vindication of Gentile freedom and an express rebuke
of the Judaizers; and it dealt with some at least of the practical
difficulties which would result from the presence of Jews and
Gentiles in the churches of Syria and Cilicia.
The identification of Gal. ii. 1-10 with Acts xv. 1-29, therefore,
does not raise insuperable difficulties against the acceptance as
historical of the narrative in Acts. But it must be remembered that
the alternative identification--with Acts xi. 30; xii. 25--is also
possible. The comparison between Acts and Galatians, therefore, has
certainly not resulted disastrously for the Book of Acts; there are
three ways in which Acts can be shown to be in harmony with Paul.
These three possibilities may now conveniently be summed up in the
light of the examination of them in the preceding pages.
(1) Galatians ii. 1-10 may be regarded as an account of the
famine visit of Acts xi. 30; xii. 25; and on the basis of this
identification the Epistle may be dated before the Apostolic Council
of Acts xv. 1-29. The course of events would then be somewhat as
follows: First there was a private conference between Paul and
the original apostles (Gal. ii. 1-10) at the time of the famine
visit (Acts xi. 30; xii. 25). Then followed the first missionary
journey of Paul and Barnabas to Southern Galatia (Acts xiii, xiv).
That journey brought a great influx of Gentiles into the Church
and aroused the active opposition of the Judaizers. The trouble
seems to have been accentuated by the coming to Antioch of certain
men from James (Gal. ii. 11-13). It is not clear whether they
themselves were to blame, or whether, if they were, they had any
commission from James. At any rate, Peter was induced to give up
the table companionship with Gentile Christians which formerly he
had practiced at Antioch, and Barnabas also was carried away. Paul
rebuked Peter publicly. But the Judaizers continued to disturb
the peace of the Church, and even demanded, as a thing absolutely
necessary to salvation, that the Gentile Christians should be
circumcised and should keep the Law of Moses. The Judaizing
activity extended also into Galatia, and Paul wrote the Epistle
to the Galatians in the midst of the conflict. At Antioch it was
finally determined to bring the matter to the attention of the
Jerusalem leaders in order to show that the Judaizers had no right
to appeal to those leaders, and in order to silence the Judaizers by
a public pronouncement of the Jerusalem Church. A revelation induced
Paul to agree to this plan. The result was the Apostolic Council of
Acts xv. 1-29.
Undoubtedly this account of the matter overcomes certain
difficulties. It has won considerable support, and can no longer be
regarded as a mere apologetic expedient.
(2) The Western text of the Apostolic Decree may be regarded as
correct. The Decree may then be taken as forbidding only the three
deadly sins of idolatry, murder, and fornication, so that it cannot
by any possibility be taken as a limitation of Gentile freedom or
an addition to Paul's gospel of justification by faith alone. This
solution has been adopted by Von Harnack and others; and by Kirsopp
Lake,[60] certainly without any "apologetic" motive, it has actually
been combined with (1).
[60] In _The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul_, 1911. It will be
remembered that Lake has now radically modified his views. See
above, p. 81, footnote 3.
(3) Finally, Gal. ii. 1-10 being identified with Acts xv. 1-29, and
the Neutral text of the Apostolic Decree being adopted, harmony
between Acts and Galatians may be established by that interpretation
of both passages which has been proposed above. According to
this interpretation, the Decree was not regarded as necessary to
salvation or intended as an addition to Paul's gospel, but was an
attempt to solve the special and temporary problem of the mixed
communities in Syria and Cilicia.
This last solution being adopted provisionally (though (1) certainly
has much in its favor), the outcome of the Apostolic Council must be
considered in connection with the events that followed. Apparently
Paul in Galatians is telling only what happened in a private
conference between himself and the Jerusalem leaders, the account
of the public action of the Church being found in Acts. James and
Peter and John recognized the independence of Paul's apostleship;
Paul had been intrusted with the apostleship to the Gentiles as
Peter with that to the circumcision. After listening to Paul's
account of the wonderful works of God by which his ministry had
been blessed, and after coming into direct contact with the grace
which had been given to him, the pillars of the Jerusalem Church
gave to him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship that they
should go to the Gentiles while the Jerusalem leaders should go to
the circumcision. This division of labor has often been egregiously
misinterpreted, especially by the Tübingen school and all those in
subsequent years who have not been able to throw off the shackles
of Tübingenism. The question has often been asked whether the
division was meant geographically or ethnographically. Was Paul to
preach everywhere outside of Palestine both to Jews and Gentiles,
while the original apostles were to labor in Palestine only; or
was Paul to preach to Gentiles wherever found, while the original
apostles were to labor for Jews wherever found? In other words, to
whose province were assigned the Jews of the Dispersion--to the
province of Paul and Barnabas, or to the province of the original
apostles? It has sometimes been maintained that Paul understood the
division geographically, but that the Jerusalem leaders understood
it ethnographically; so that Peter transgressed Paul's geographical
interpretation when he went to labor in Antioch. But the very
raising of the whole question is in itself a fundamental error. The
division was not meant in an exclusive or negative sense at all; it
was not intended to prevent Peter from laboring among Gentiles or
Paul from laboring among Jews. The same gospel was being preached
by both Paul and Peter; they gave each other the right hand of
fellowship. What was meant was simply a general recognition of the
dispensation of God which had so far prevailed. By that dispensation
Paul and Barnabas had been sent particularly to the Gentiles and
the Jerusalem apostles to the Jews. If either group was hindered in
its work, the interests of the Church would suffer. Both groups,
therefore, were absolutely necessary in order that both Jews and
Gentiles should be won.
In one particular, indeed, the Jerusalem leaders requested expressly
that the division of labor should not be taken too strictly; they
hoped that Paul would not be so much engrossed in his Gentile
work as to forget the poor of the Jerusalem Church (Gal. ii. 10).
It should be observed very carefully that this request about
the poor forms an exception, not at all to the full recognition
of Paul's gospel, but only to the division of labor as between
Jews and Gentiles. It does not go with the remote words of verse
6 ("for to me those who were of repute added nothing"), but with
the immediately adjacent words in verse 9. Paul does not say,
therefore, "To me those of repute added (or imposed) nothing except
that I should remember the Jerusalem poor." If he had said that,
then perhaps it would be difficult to explain the omission of the
Apostolic Decree; for the Decree as much as the request for aid of
the Jerusalem poor was something that the Jerusalem leaders laid
upon him. But the fact is that neither the Decree nor the request
about the poor has anything whatever to do with Paul's gospel or the
attitude of the Jerusalem leaders toward it. What is really meant
by the request for aid is simply this: "You are the apostle to the
Gentiles; it is a great work; we wish you Godspeed in it. But even
in so great a work as that, do not forget your needy Jewish brethren
in Jerusalem."
After the conference at Jerusalem Paul and Barnabas returned to
Antioch. According to the Book of Acts the letter of the Jerusalem
Church was joyfully received; it meant a confirmation of Gentile
freedom and relief from the attacks of the Judaizers. But new
disturbances began, and Peter was concerned in them. He had gone to
Antioch. There is not the slightest reason to think that his arrival
occasioned anything but joy. The notion that Paul was jealously
guarding his rights in a Gentile church and resented the coming of
Peter as an intrusion has not the slightest basis either in Acts
or in the Pauline Epistles. But at Antioch Jews and Gentiles were
living together in the Church, and their juxtaposition presented
a serious problem. The Gentile Christians, it will be remembered,
had been released from the obligation of being circumcised and of
undertaking to keep the Mosaic Law. The Jewish Christians, on the
other hand, had not been required to give up their ancestral mode
of life. But how could the Jewish Christians continue to live under
the Law if they held companionship with Gentiles in a way which
would render the strict observance of the Law impossible? Should the
precedence be given to the observance of the Law on the part of the
Jewish Christians or to the new principle of Christian unity? This
question had not been settled by the Apostolic Council, for even
if the Gentile Christians observed the provisions of the Apostolic
Decree, table companionship with them would still have seemed to
involve a transgression of the Law. Peter, however, took a step
beyond what had already been settled; he relaxed the strictness
of his Jewish manner of life by eating with the Gentiles. He was
convinced of the revolutionary change wrought by the coming of
Christ, and gave practical expression to his conviction by holding
full companionship with all his brethren. After a time, however, and
perhaps during an absence of Paul from the city, certain men came
from James, and their coming occasioned difficulty. It is not said
that these men were commissioned by James, and some readers have
thought that "from James" means merely "from Jerusalem," James being
named merely as representative of the church over which he presided.
But even if the newcomers stood in some closer relationship to
James, or even had been sent by him, it is an unwarranted assumption
that James was responsible for the trouble that they caused, or
had sent them to Antioch with the purpose of limiting the freedom
of Peter's conduct. They may have abused whatever commission they
had received. Moreover, it must be remembered that they are not
expressly blamed by Paul. If they clung conscientiously to the
keeping of the Law, as they had been accustomed to do at Jerusalem,
Paul would perhaps not necessarily condemn them; for he did not
on principle or in all circumstances require Jewish Christians to
give up the keeping of the Law. But Peter had really transcended
that point of view; and when, therefore, he now, from fear of these
newcomers, withdrew from the Gentiles, he was concealing his true
convictions. It was the inconsistency of his conduct that Paul felt
called upon to rebuke. That inconsistency could not fail to have
a bad effect upon the Gentile Christians. Peter had received them
into true fellowship. But now apparently he regarded such liberal
conduct as a thing to be ashamed of and to be concealed. The Gentile
Christians could not help drawing the conclusion that they were at
best only on the outskirts of the Christian community; the chief
of the original apostles of Jesus was apparently ashamed of his
association with them. Despite the liberty granted by the Apostolic
Council, therefore, the Gentile Christians were again tempted
to remove the disabilities which rested upon them, by accepting
circumcision and so becoming full members of the Church. Evidently
the keeping of the Law on the part of Jewish Christians was a
half-way position. But when it was pursued conscientiously, as a
duty still resting upon men of Jewish descent, it might possibly be
dealt with gently by Paul. When, however, it was undertaken for fear
of men, in the face of better understanding, it became "hypocrisy"
and was rebuked sharply. If the transcending of the Law, in the
interests of Christian unity, had once been grasped as a necessary
consequence of the redemption wrought by Christ, then to repudiate
it was to bring discredit upon Christ Himself, and make His death of
none avail.
The influence of Peter's withdrawal from the Gentile Christians soon
began to make itself felt; other Jewish Christians followed Peter's
example, and even Barnabas was carried away. A serious crisis had
arisen. But God had not deserted His Church. The Church was saved
through the instrumentality of Paul.
To Paul had been revealed the full implications of the gospel; to
him the freedom of the Gentiles was a matter of principle, and
when principle was at stake he never kept silent. Regardless of
all petty calculations about the influence that might be lost or
the friendships that might be sacrificed, he spoke out boldly for
Christ; he rebuked Peter openly before the assembled Church. It
should always be observed, however, that it was not the principles
of Peter, but his conduct, which Paul was rebuking. The incident
is therefore misused when it is made to establish a fundamental
disagreement between Paul and Peter. On the contrary, in the
very act of condemning the practice of Peter, Paul approves his
principles; he is rebuking Peter just for the concealment of
his correct principles for fear of men. He and Peter, he says,
were perfectly agreed about the inadequacy of the Law, and the
all-sufficiency of faith in Christ; why then should Peter act in
contradiction to these great convictions? The passage, Gal. ii.
11-21, therefore, far from establishing a fundamental disagreement
between Peter and Paul really furnishes the strongest possible
evidence for their fundamental unity.
But how did Peter take the rebuke which was administered to him?
There should be no real doubt about the answer to this question.
Details, indeed, are uncertain; it may perhaps be doubtful when
Peter acquiesced or how he expressed his acquiescence. But that
he acquiesced at some time and in some manner is indicated by the
whole subsequent history of the Church. A contrary conclusion has,
indeed, sometimes been drawn from the silence of Paul. If Peter
was convinced by Paul at Antioch, would not Paul have been sure
to mention so gratifying a result? Would he not have appealed,
against the contentions of the Judaizers in Galatia, to so signal
a recognition of his apostolic authority? This argument ignores
the true character of the passage. During the writing of Gal. ii.
11-21 Paul has altogether ceased to think of Peter. What he had said
to Peter at Antioch happened to be exactly the same thing that he
desired to say, at the time of the writing of the letter, to the
Galatians. In reporting, not with pedantic verbal accuracy but in
substance, what he had said to Peter at Antioch, he has entered
upon the very heart of his gospel, which had been despised by the
Judaizers in Galatia. Long before the end of the glorious passage,
Gal. ii. 11-21, he has forgotten all about Peter and Barnabas and
Antioch, and is thinking only about the grace of Christ and the
way in which it was being made of none effect by those who would
desert it for a religion of works. To expect him to descend from
the heights in order to narrate the outcome of the incident at
Antioch is to do woeful injustice to the character of the apostle's
mind and the manner of his literary activity. Gal. ii. 11-21 forms
a transition between the first main division of the Epistle, in
which Paul is answering the personal attack of the Judaizers, and
the second main division, in which he is defending the contents of
his gospel. Before the end of the passage Paul has plunged into
the principal thing that he wanted to say to the Galatians, who
were making void the cross of Christ. The presentation in Gal. ii.
11-21 of what Bengel[61] called the "marrow of Christianity" leads
inevitably, therefore, not to a pedantic narration of what Peter
did, but to the exclamation of Gal. iii. 1, "O foolish Galatians,
who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set
forth crucified?"
[61] On Gal. ii. 19.
Thus the silence of Paul about the outcome of the incident at
Antioch does not at all establish the outcome as unfavorable. But
there are positive indications on the other side. Of course, if Gal.
ii. 1-10 were identified with the famine visit, the whole question
would be settled. In that case, the incident of Gal. ii. 11-21 would
have been followed by the Apostolic Council, at which the harmony of
Peter and Paul found full expression. But even if the identification
of Gal. ii. 1-10 with the Apostolic Council be adopted, there are
still plain indications that the outcome of the Antioch incident was
favorable.
In the first place, Paul mentions Peter in 1 Cor. ix. 5 with
respect, as an apostle to whose example appeal may be made; in 1
Cor. iii. 22 he classes Peter with himself and with Apollos as a
possession of all Christians;[62] and in 1 Cor. xv. 1-11 he includes
as part of his fundamental missionary preaching the appearance of
the risen Christ to Peter, and appeals to the unity which existed
between his own preaching and that of the other apostles (verses 5,
11).[63]
[62] Knowling, _The Witness of the Epistles_, 1892, p. 14, note 1.
[63] Knowling, _loc. cit._
In the second place, Paul concerned himself earnestly, according
to 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans, with the collection for the
Jerusalem poor. If the incident at Antioch had meant a repudiation
of the "right hand of fellowship" which Peter in common with
James and John had given to Paul at Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 9), it is
difficult to see how Paul could have continued to engage in a form
of brotherly service which was the most touching expression of that
fellowship. If there was a permanent breach between Peter and Paul,
the contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem could hardly have
been collected.
In the third place, the agitation of the Judaizers seems to have
died down during the third missionary journey. It appears, indeed,
at Corinth, according to the Corinthian Epistles, but seems there
to have lacked that insistence upon the keeping of the Law which
had made it so dangerous in Galatia. In the epistles of the
captivity--Colossians and Philemon, Ephesians, Philippians--it
appears, if at all, only in the obscure reference in Phil. iii.
2ff., which may relate to non-Christian Judaism rather than to
Jewish Christianity. This subsidence of the Judaizing activity is
difficult to understand if the benefits of the Jerusalem conference
had been annulled by a serious breach at Antioch.
Finally, the whole subsequent history of the Church is explicable
only if there was fundamental unity between Peter and Paul. Ever
since the formation of the Old Catholic Church at the close of the
second century the Church was founded upon the twin pillars of
Peter and Paul. How was this unity produced if in the apostolic
age there was fundamental disunion? The existence of this problem
was fully recognized by F. C. Baur, and the recognition of it
constitutes one element of greatness in Baur's work. But the
elaborate solution which Baur proposed has had to be abandoned. Baur
supposed that the harmony between Pauline and Petrine Christianity
was produced by a gradual compromise effected during the second
century. Subsequent investigation has pushed the harmony very
much further back. The unity between Peter and Paul appears, for
example, plainly expressed in the letter of Clement of Rome (about
95 A. D.), who appeals to the two great apostles as though both
were of recognized authority; it appears also in the first Epistle
of Peter, which even if not genuine is important as attributing
to Peter, as though the attribution were a matter of course, a
conception of the gospel thoroughly in harmony with that of Paul;
it appears in the early traditional account of John Mark, by which
Mark is made to be a follower of Peter (compare 1 Peter v. 13) and
to have received from Peter the substance of his Gospel, so that
when his cordial relations with Paul are remembered (Col. iv. 10;
Philem. 24) he constitutes an important link between Peter and
Paul. What is more important, however, than all details, is the
undoubted fact that before the end of the first century epistles
of Paul and genuine tradition about Jesus, which latter must at
first have been connected with the Jerusalem Church, appear side
by side as possessing high authority in the Church. Finally, the
testimony of the Book of Acts is now admitted to be at any rate very
much earlier than Baur supposed; and that testimony, so far as the
harmony between Paul and Peter is concerned, is unequivocal. Thus
the explanation which Baur proposed for the final healing of the
supposed breach between Peter and Paul is unsatisfactory. But no
other explanation has been discovered to take its place. The very
existence of the Church would have been impossible if there had been
a permanent breach between the leader in the Gentile mission and the
leader among the original disciples of Jesus.
The Book of Acts does not mention the difficulty which arose
at Antioch with regard to table companionship between Jews and
Gentiles. But it does mention another disagreement between Paul and
Barnabas. Barnabas desired to take John Mark along on the second
missionary journey, while Paul was unwilling to take with him again
the one who had turned back on the former journey and had not gone
to those South Galatian churches which it was now proposed to
revisit. It was maintained by the Tübingen school of criticism that
the lesser quarrel has here been inserted by the author of Acts with
the express purpose of covering up the more serious disagreement
which was the real reason for the separation of Barnabas and Paul.
But the insertion of a quarrel is rather an unnatural way to cover
up the fact that there was another quarrel; it would have been
better to keep altogether silent about the disagreement. Moreover,
the good faith of the author is now generally accepted. There is
another possible way of explaining the omission of the incident
of Gal. ii. 11-21 from the Book of Acts. It may be surmised that
the incident was so unimportant in its consequences, Peter and
Barnabas were so quickly convinced by Paul, that a historian who was
concerned, not with personal details about the relations between
Paul and the other leaders, but with the external progress of the
gospel, did not find it necessary to mention the incident at all.
After the separation of Barnabas from Paul at the beginning of the
second missionary journey, it is not recorded that the two men
were ever associated again in missionary work. But in 1 Cor. ix. 6
Barnabas is spoken of with respect--"Or I only and Barnabas, have
we not a right to forbear working." Evidently Paul was interested
in the work of Barnabas, and was not ashamed to appeal to his
example. In Col. iv. 10, moreover, "Mark, the cousin of Barnabas"
is mentioned, and is commended to the attention of the Colossian
Christians. Mark here forms a link between Paul and Barnabas as he
does between Paul and Peter. Evidently the estrangement at Antioch
was not permanent even in the case of Mark, against whom there was
the special objection that he had withdrawn from the work at Perga.
According to 2 Tim. iv. 11, Mark became exactly what he had not been
at Perga, "useful" to Paul "for ministering." And if the testimony
of 2 Timothy be rejected, the same cordial relationship between
Paul and Mark appears also in Col. iv. 10, 11; Philem. 24. The
scanty indications all point very decidedly away from any permanent
estrangement as resulting from the incidents at Antioch.
During the second and third missionary journeys, the agitation of
the Judaizers, as has already been observed, seems to have subsided.
In Corinth, indeed, according to 1 and 2 Corinthians, Paul appears
in deadly conflict with certain men who sought to undermine his
apostolic authority. Baur made much of this conflict; indeed, he
based his reconstruction of apostolic history upon the Corinthian
Epistles almost as much as upon Galatians. The starting-point of
his investigation was found in the party watchwords mentioned in
1 Cor. i. 12, "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas;
and I of Christ." The "Christ-party" of the verse, identified with
the opponents attacked in 2 Cor. x-xiii, Baur believed to have
been an extreme Judaizing party. This extreme Judaizing party,
Baur maintained, appealed with some show of reason to the original
apostles in Jerusalem. Thus the Corinthian Epistles like the
Epistle to the Galatians were made to establish what was to Baur
the fundamental fact of apostolic history, a serious conflict of
principle between Paul and the original apostles.[64]
[64] Baur, "Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde," in
_Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie_, 1831, 4 Heft, pp. 61-206.
Subsequent investigation, however, has cast at least serious doubt
upon the Tübingen exegesis, even where it has not discredited it
altogether. The whole matter of the Christ-party of 1 Cor. i.
12 is felt to be exceedingly obscure, so obscure that J. Weiss,
for example, in his recent commentary on 1 Corinthians, has felt
constrained to cut the Gordian knot by regarding the words, "And I
of Christ", as an interpolation.[65] Where this heroic measure has
not been resorted to, various interpretations have been proposed.
Sometimes, for example, the Christ-party has been thought to have
consisted of those who rejected the other watchwords, but in such
a proud and quarrelsome way that the watchword, "I am of Christ,"
which should have belonged to all, became only the shibboleth of
another party. Sometimes, again, the Christ-party has been regarded
as a gnosticizing party which boasted of direct communications
with the risen Christ. At any rate, it is very difficult to find
in the words "I am of Christ" any clear designation of Judaizers
who appealed against Paul to James or to their own connections with
Jesus in Palestine. On the contrary, the reader of the first four
chapters of 1 Corinthians may well be doubtful whether there were
any distinct parties at all. It looks rather as though what Paul
was rebuking were merely a spirit of division, which manifested
itself now in one watchword and now in another. The Corinthian
Christians seem to have been "sermon-tasters"; they were proud of
their "wisdom," and laid undue stress upon the varying form of the
gospel message to the neglect of the content. It is noteworthy
that in 1 Cor. i-iv Paul does not enter upon any anti-Judaistic
polemic, but addressed himself to those who in a spirit of pride and
quarrelsomeness sought after wisdom. "If you would be truly wise and
truly 'spiritual,'" he says, "then cease your contentions." Paul
was perhaps combating not any definite parties, but only the party
spirit.
[65] J. Weiss, _Der erste Korintherbrief_, 1910, in Meyer, _op.
cit._, 9te Aufl., p. xxxviii.
It must be admitted that there were in the Corinthian Church persons
who emphasized against Paul the advantages of Palestinian origin and
of direct connection with Jesus. But there is no reason to bring
these opponents of Paul into any close relation to the original
apostles and to James. The letters of recommendation (2 Cor. iii. 1)
may have come elsewhere than from the apostles; indeed the mention
of letters from the Corinthians as well as to them would seem to
make the passage refer to a general habit of credential-bearing
rather than to any special credentials from Jerusalem. The opponents
desired to push themselves into other men's spheres of labor; and
in order to do so they were in the habit of arming themselves with
commendatory epistles. The reference is quite general and to us
quite obscure; it is only by exceedingly bold specialization that
it can be made to attest the existence of letters of commendation
from the Jerusalem leaders. Moreover, even if the opponents did have
some sort of endorsement from Jerusalem, they may have abused the
confidence which had been reposed in them. The Tübingen exegesis
of 2 Cor. xi. 5; xii. 11, by which "the chiefest apostles" were
identified with the pillars of the Jerusalem Church should be
rejected; and the phrase (which is rather to be translated "those
who are apostles overmuch") should be taken as designating simply
the Corinthian agitators themselves. Thus, the "apostles overmuch"
of 2 Cor. xi. 5 become the same as the "false apostles" of verse
13, the latter verse being used in order to interpret the former.
In 1 Cor. i. 12, Peter is mentioned as being appealed to by one
of the "parties" in the Corinthian Church. It has sometimes been
maintained, on the basis of this verse, that Peter had actually been
present in Corinth as had Apollos and Paul, who appear in two of the
other party watchwords. But the matter is at least very doubtful.
As chief of the original disciples of Jesus Peter might well have
evoked the special admiration of certain members of the Corinthian
Church without having ever been personally present. There does not
seem to be the slightest evidence for supposing that the admirers of
Peter mentioned in 1 Cor. i. 12 were extreme Judaizers; and there
is no decisive reason for identifying them with the opponents who
appear in 2 Cor. x-xiii. Certainly there is no reason for making
Peter responsible for the factiousness of those who used his name.
It must be remembered that Paul rebukes the "Paul party"--if it
be a party--as much as any of the others, and distinctly commends
Apollos, who was appealed to by the "Apollos party." Evidently the
faults of the "parties" were not due at all to those whose names
the parties used. In 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22, Paul says, "All things are
yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas." Here Peter is put as
part of the common possession of all Christians. There could not
possibly be a clearer recognition of the complete fellowship which
Paul regards as existing between himself and Peter. Finally, in 1
Cor. xv. 11, Paul calls attention expressly to the fundamental unity
between himself and the other apostles: "Whether then it be I or
they, so we preach, and so ye believed."[66] The Corinthian Epistles
certainly lend no support to the Tübingen contention; they certainly
provide no evidence of a breach between Paul and the original
disciples of Jesus.
[66] See Knowling, as cited above, p. 104, footnotes 1 and 2.
At the time of his last visit to Jerusalem, Paul came again into
contact with James, the brother of the Lord, and with the Jerusalem
Church. The arrival at Jerusalem is narrated in one of the
we-sections of the Book of Acts, and it is there said, "The brethren
received us gladly" (Acts xxi. 17). The use of the first person
plural disappears after the following verse, where the meeting of
Paul with James is described, but it is very difficult to separate
Acts xxi. 20, for example, from the we-section. Of course there
could be no use of the "we" when the narrator did not participate
in what was being described. In Acts xxi. 20, it is said that James
and the presbyters "glorified God" on account of what had been done
among the Gentiles through the ministry of Paul. Whatever view may
be taken of the composition of Acts, therefore, the warm reception
of Paul on the part of the Jerusalem leaders seems to be attested by
an eyewitness. Such a reception would be very difficult to explain
if the relations between Paul and Jerusalem had been what they are
represented as being by the Tübingen scholars.
According to Acts xxi. 20-26, James brought to Paul's attention the
scruples of the Jewish Christians, who were "zealous for the law."
These Jewish Christians had been told that Paul was teaching the
Jews of the Dispersion not to circumcise their children or to walk
"in the customs." With regard to the Gentile Christians, James has
nothing to say except to call attention to the Apostolic Decree
which the Jerusalem Church itself had adopted. But in order to allay
the suspicions of the Jewish Christians, James suggests that Paul
should participate in a Jewish vow. According to Acts xxi. 26, Paul
complied with the request.
Such compliance was regarded by the Tübingen scholars as absolutely
incompatible with Paul's character, and therefore as unhistorical.
But recent criticism has been becoming, to say the least, less
certain about the matter. The incident is narrated in a concrete
way which creates a most favorable impression; indeed, the passage
seems even to belong to the supposed we-section source. Moreover,
a sober study of the Pauline Epistles has shown that the attitude
of Paul toward Judaism and toward the Law was by no means what
Baur and Zeller, through a one-sided interpretation of the polemic
of Galatians, had supposed. In particular, the sharing of Paul in
a Jewish vow is only an exemplification of the principle which
Paul lays down in 1 Cor. ix. 19-22 of becoming all things to all
men. Where could the principle possibly have applied if it did not
apply to the situation in Jerusalem at the time of Paul's last
visit? Where, if not there, could Paul have felt bound to become
to the Jews as a Jew in order that he might gain Jews (1 Cor. ix.
20)? There seems to have been no attempt at that time to force
the Law upon Gentiles, and no tendency to regard it even for Jews
as necessary to salvation. Compliance with Jewish custom would
therefore not be open to the misunderstanding which might have made
it inadvisable during the midst of the Judaistic controversy. The
devotion of the Jewish Christians to the Law seems never to have
been condemned by Paul on principle. Should he then run counter to
Jewish feeling by pursuing a crassly Gentile manner of life in the
very midst of Judaism, when the national life, in the troublous
years before the Jewish war, was running high? The answer to this
question is at any rate not so simple as was formerly supposed.
Participation by Paul in a Jewish vow in Jerusalem is not beyond
the limits of that devotion to the Jewish people which the Epistles
undoubtedly attest. And it is not really derogatory to the character
of Paul. Where the truth of the gospel was concerned, Paul was
absolutely unswerving and absolutely without regard for personal
considerations; but when the "weaker brethren" of his own nation
could be won without sacrifice of principle, he was fully capable of
becoming to the Jews as a Jew.
While Paul was in prison in Jerusalem and in Cæsarea, what was the
attitude of James and of the Jerusalem Church? The Book of Acts does
not say, and far-reaching conclusions have sometimes been drawn
from its silence. The Jerusalem leaders, it is said, were at least
lukewarm in their defense of Paul; they themselves were zealous for
the Law, and they had only been half-convinced of the loyalty of
Paul; it is no wonder, then, that they were not anxious to bring
Jewish disfavor upon themselves by championing the cause of Paul.
This representation can find no support whatever in the sources.
Certainly it is not supported by the silence of Acts. The disciples
of Jesus were certainly not in positions of political influence
at Jerusalem; indeed only a few years later even James, despite
his strict Jewish manner of life, fell victim to the fury of
his enemies. If at such a time and under such circumstances the
Jerusalem disciples accomplished nothing for Paul, the fact does not
attest any coldness in their sympathy, or any repentance for the
joy with which, on the unequivocal testimony of a we-section, they
had greeted him on his arrival.
The Book of Acts does not mention the collection which according to
1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans Paul carried up to Jerusalem for the
poor of the Jerusalem Church, except perhaps in the bare allusion
in Acts xxiv. 17. But no great significance is to be attached to
the omission. It must be remembered that the Book of Acts is not
concerned primarily with the inner development of the churches, but
rather with the external progress of the gospel out from Jerusalem
to the Gentile world. How meager, for example, as compared with the
Corinthian Epistles, is the account which Acts gives of affairs at
Corinth! To infer, therefore, from the silence of Acts about the
collection that the collection was not graciously received is to
make use of the argument from silence in a most adventurous and
unwarranted manner. The inference is definitely opposed, moreover,
by the testimony of a we-section in Acts xxi. 17, where Paul is
said to have been warmly received on his arrival in Jerusalem. That
verse refers perhaps to the reception of Paul merely in a little
group at the house of Mnason. But the warmth of his reception there
was at least of good presage for the reception which took place the
next day in the assembly of the elders. Rom. xv. 31 is sometimes
thought to indicate anxious solicitude on the part of Paul lest the
collection should not be acceptable to the Jerusalem Church. But the
words will not bear the weight which is hung upon them. When Paul
asks his readers to pray that he may be rescued from them that are
disobedient in Judæa (that is, the non-Christian Jews), and that the
offering which he is carrying to Jerusalem may be acceptable to the
saints, he certainly does not indicate any fear lest the offering
may not be acceptable. The offering had been much on his heart;
it was being carried to Jerusalem at the imminent risk of life;
these perils were being encountered out of love for the Jerusalem
brethren. Surely it is natural for the bearer of such an offering
to wish that it may be acceptable. That wish is natural in the
case of any gift, no matter how certain the giver may be that the
recipient will be grateful. It was still more natural in the case of
the Pauline collection. Moreover, even if Paul was solicitous about
the reception of the gift, his solicitude may well have concerned
merely those members of the Jerusalem Church mentioned in Acts xxi.
20-22, who were suspicious of Gentile Christianity. There is no
reason, therefore, for connecting the solicitude of Paul with the
original apostles or with James.
It will not be necessary for the present purpose to attempt any
review of the missionary journeys of Paul. The outline of Paul's
life is here being considered merely for its bearing upon the
relations which Paul sustained (1) to the original disciples of
Jesus, (2) to Judaism, and (3) to paganism. The first of these
relationships has been chiefly in view. Enough has, however, perhaps
been said to establish the following propositions:
(1) The relation between Paul and the original disciples of Jesus
was cordial; there is no reason to interpret the "right hand of
fellowship" which the leaders of the Jerusalem Church gave to Paul
in any other than its full meaning, and no reason to suppose that
the good relationship was broken off at any later time.
(2) The early training of Paul was thoroughly Jewish, and was
fundamentally Palestinian, not Hellenistic; and Paul never
relinquished his attachment to his own people.
(3) Paul's attitude toward paganism, after the conversion as well
as before it, was an attitude of abhorrence. If common ground was
ever sought with his pagan hearers, it was only as a starting-point
for the denunciation of idolatry and the proclamation of a revealed
gospel.