We have now arrived at the point in our examination of the Acts in which
we have the inestimable advantage of being able to compare the narrative
of the unknown author with the distinct statements of the Apostle Paul.
In doing so, we must remember that the author must have been acquainted
with the Epistles which are now before us, and supposing it to be his
purpose to present a certain view of the transactions in question,
whether for apologetic or conciliatory reasons or for any other cause,
it is obvious that it would not be reasonable to expect divergencies
of so palpable a nature that any reader of the letters must at once too
clearly perceive such contradictions. When the Acts were written, it is
true, the author could not have known that the Epistles of Paul were
to attain the high canonical position which they now occupy, and might,
therefore, use his materials more freely; still a certain superficial
consistency it would be natural to expect. Unfortunately, our means of
testing the statements of the author are not so minute as is desirable,
although they are often of much value, and seeing the great facility
with which, by apparently slight alterations and omissions, a different
complexion can be given to circumstances regarding which no very
{202}
full details exist elsewhere, we must be prepared to seize every
indication which may enable us to form a just estimate of the nature of
the writing which we are examining.
In the first two chapters of his Epistle to the Galatians, the Apostle
Paul relates particulars regarding some important epochs of his life,
which likewise enter into the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. The
Apostle gives an account of his own proceedings immediately after his
conversion, and of the visit which about that time he paid to Jerusalem;
and, further, of a second visit to Jerusalem fourteen years later, and
to these we must now direct our attention. We defer consideration of the
narrative of the actual conversion of Paul for the present, and
merely intend here to discuss the movements and conduct of the Apostle
immediately subsequent to that event. The Acts of the Apostles represent
Paul as making five journeys to Jerusalem subsequent to his joining the
Christian body. The first, ix. 26 ff., takes place immediately after his
conversion; the second, xi. 30, xii. 25, is upon an occasion when the
Church at Antioch are represented as sending relief to the brethren of
Judaea by the hands of Barnabas and Saul, during a time of famine; the
third visit to Jerusalem, xv. 1 ff., Paul likewise pays in company with
Barnabas, both being sent by the Church of Antioch to confer with
the Apostles and Elders as to the necessity of circumcision, and the
obligation to observe the Mosaic law in the case of Gentile converts;
the fourth, xviii. 21 ff, when he goes to Ephesus with Priscilla and
Aquila, "having shaved his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow;" and
the fifth and last, xxi. 15 ff, when the disturbance took place in the
temple which led to his arrest and journey to Rome.
{203}
The circumstances and general character of these visits to Jerusalem,
and more especially of that on which the momentous conference is
described as having taken place, are stated with so much precision, and
they present features of such marked difference, that it might have been
supposed there could not have been any difficulty in identifying,
with certainty, at least the visits to which the Apostle refers in his
letter, more especially as upon both occasions he mentions important
particulars which characterised those visits. It is a remarkable fact,
however, that, such are the divergences between the statements of the
unknown author and of the Apostle, upon no point has there been more
discussion amongst critics and divines from the very earliest times,
or more decided difference of opinion. Upon general grounds, we have
already seen, there has been good reason to doubt the historical
character of the Acts. Is it not a singularly suggestive circumstance
that, when it is possible to compare the authentic representations of
Paul with the narrative of the Acts, even apologists perceive so much
opening for doubt and controversy?
The visit described in the ninth chapter of the Acts is generally(1)
identified with that which is mentioned in the first chapter of the
Epistle. This unanimity, however, arises mainly from the circumstance
that both writers clearly represent that visit as the first which Paul
paid to Jerusalem after his conversion, for the details of the two
narratives are anything but in agreement with each other. Although,
therefore, critics are forced to agree as to the bare identity of
the visit, this harmony is immediately disturbed on examining the two
accounts, and whilst the one party find the statements in the Acts
1 There have, however, been differences of opinion also
regarding this.
{204}
reconcilable with those of Paul, a large body more or less distinctly
declare them to be contradictory, and unhistorical.(1) In order that the
question at issue may be fairly laid before the reader, we shall give
the two accounts in parallel columns. [------]
{205}
[------]
Now, it is obvious that the representation in the Acts of what Paul
did after his conversion differs very widely from the account which the
Apostle himself gives of the matter. In the first place, not a word is
said in the former of the journey into Arabia; but, on the contrary, it
is excluded, and the statement which replaces it directly
contradicts that of Paul. The Apostle says that after his conversion:
"Immediately(l) [------] I conferred not with flesh and blood," but
"went away into Arabia," The author of the Acts says that he spent
"some days" [------] with the disciples in Damascus, and "immediately"
[------] began to preach in the synagogues. Paul's feelings are so
completely misrepresented that, instead of that desire for retirement
and solitude which his
{206}
words express,(1) he is described as straightway plunging into the
vortex of public life in Damascus. The general apologetic explanation
is, that the author of the Acts either was not aware of the journey
into Arabia, or that, his absence there having been short, he did not
consider it necessary to mention it There are no data for estimating the
length of time which Paul spent in Arabia, but the fact that the Apostle
mentions it with so much emphasis proves not only that he attached
considerable weight to the episode, but that the duration of his visit
could not have been unimportant. In any case, the author of the Acts,
whether ignorantly or not, boldly describes the Apostle as doing
precisely what he did not. To any ordinary reader, moreover, his whole
account of Paul's preaching at Damascus certainly excludes altogether
the idea of such a journey, and the argument that it can be. inserted
anywhere is purely arbitrary. There are many theories amongst
apologists, however, as to the part of the narrative in Acts, in which
the Arabian journey can be placed. By some it is assigned to a period
before he commenced his active labours, and therefore before ix. 20,(2)
from which the.words of the author repulse it with singular clearness;
others intercalate it with even less reason between ix. 20 and 21;(3)
a few discover some indication of it in the [------] of ver. 22,(4) an
expression, however, which refuses to be forced into such service;
a greater number place it in the[------] of ver. 23,(5) making that
elastic phrase embrace this as well
{207}
as other difficulties till it snaps under the strain. It seems evident
to an unprejudiced reader that the [------] are represented as passed in
Damascus.(1) And, lastly, some critics place it after ix. 25, regardless
of Paul's statement that from Arabia he returned again to Damascus,
which, under the circumstances mentioned in Acts, he was not likely to
do, and indeed it is obvious that he is there supposed to have at once
gone from Damascus to Jerusalem. These attempts at reconciliation are
useless. It is of no avail to find time into which a journey to Arabia
and the stay there might be forcibly thrust. There still remains the
fact that so far from the Arabian visit being indicated in the Acts, the
[------] of ix. 20, compared with the [------] of Gal. i. 16, positively
excludes it, and proves that the narrative of the former is not
historical.(2)
There is another point in the account in Acts which further demands
attention. The impression conveyed by the narrative is that Paul went
up to Jerusalem not very long after his conversion. The omission of
the visit to Arabia shortens the interval before he did so, by removing
causes of delay, and whilst no expressions are used which imply a
protracted stay in Damascus, incidents are introduced which indicate
that the purpose of the writer was to represent the Apostle as losing no
time after his conversion before associating himself with the elder
3 We shall not discuss the indication given in 2 Cor. xi. 32
of the cause of his leaving Damascus, although several
contradictory statements seem to be made in it.
{208}
Apostles and obtaining their recognition of his ministry; and this view,
we shall see, is confirmed by the peculiar account which is given of
what took place at Jerusalem. The Apostle distinctly states, i. 18, that
three years after his conversion he went up to visit Peter.(1) In
the Acts he is represented as spending "some days" [------] with the
disciples, and the only other chronological indication given is that,
after "many days" [------], the plot occurred which forced him to leave
Damascus. It is argued that [------] is an indefinite period, which may,
according to the usage of the author(2) indicate a considerable space
of time, and certainly rather express a long than a short period.(3) The
fact is, however, that the instances cited are evidence, in themselves,
against the supposition that the author can have had any intention of
expressing a period of three years by the words [------]. We suppose
that no one has ever suggested that Peter staid three years in the house
of Simon the tanner at Joppa (ix. 43); or, that when it is said that
Paul remained "many days" at Corinth after the insurrection of the Jews,
the author intends to speak of some years, when in fact the [------]
contrasted with the expression (xviii. 11): "he continued there a year
and six months," used regarding his stay previous to that disturbance,
evidently reduces the "yet many days" subsequently spent there to a very
small compass. Again, has any one ever suggested that in the
1 "The 'straightway' of ver. 16 leads to this conclusion:
'At first I conferred not with flesh and blood, it was only
after the lapse of three years that I went to Jerusalem.'"
Lightfoot, Oalatians, p. 83.
3 "The difference between the vague 'many days' of the Acts
and the definite 'three years' of the Epistle is such as
might be expected from the circumstances of the two
writers." Lightfoot, lb., p. 89, note 3.
{209}
account of Paul's voyage to Rome, where it is said (xxvii. 7) that,
after leaving Myrra "and sailing slowly many days" [------], they had
scarcely got so far as Cnidus, an interval of months, not to say years,
is indicated? It is impossible to suppose that, by such an expression,
the writer intended to indicate a period of three years.(1) That the
narrative of the Acts actually represents Paul as going up to Jerusalem
soon after his conversion, and certainly not merely at the end of three
years, is obvious from the statement in ver. 26, that when Paul arrived
at Jerusalem, and was assaying to join himself to the disciples, all
were afraid of him, and would not believe in his conversion. The author
could certainly not have stated this, if he had desired to imply that
Paul had already been a Christian, and publicly preached with so much
success at Damascus, for three years.(3) Indeed, the statements in ix.
26 are irreconcilable with the declaration of the Apostle, whatever view
be taken of the previous narrative of the Acts. If it be assumed that
the author wishes to describe the visit to Jerusalem as taking place
three years after his conversion, then the ignorance of that event
amongst the brethren there and their distrust of Paul are utterly
inconsistent and incredible; whilst if, on the other hand, he represents
the Apostle as going to Jerusalem with but little delay in Damascus, as
we contend he does, then there is no escape from the conclusion that the
Acts, whilst thus giving a narrative consistent with itself,
{210}
distinctly contradicts the deliberate assertions of the Apostle. It is
absolutely incredible that the conversion of a well-known persecutor of
the Church (viii. 3 ff.), effected in a way which is represented as so
sudden and supernatural, and accompanied by a supposed vision of the
Lord, could for three years have remained unknown to the community of
Jerusalem. So striking a triumph for Christianity must have been rapidly
circulated throughout the Church, and the fact that he who formerly
persecuted was now zealously preaching the faith which once he destroyed
must long have been generally known in Jerusalem, which was in such
constant communication with Damascus.
The author of the Acts continues in the same strain, stating that
Barnabas, under the circumstances just described, took Paul and brought
him to the Apostles [------], and declared to them the particulars
of his vision and conversion, and how he had preached boldly at
Damascus.(1) No doubt is left that this is the first intimation the
Apostles had received of such extraordinary events. After this, we
are told that Paul was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem,
preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. Here again the declaration
of Paul is explicit, and distinctly contradicts this story both in the
letter and the spirit. He makes no mention of Barnabas. He states that
he went to Jerusalem specially with the view of making the acquaintance
of Peter, with whom he remained fifteen days; but he emphatically
says:--"But other of the Apostles saw I not, save [------] James, the
Lord's brother;" and then he adds the solemn declaration
{211}
regarding his account of this visit:--"Now the things which I write unto
you, behold, before God, I lie not." An asseveration made in this tone
excludes the supposition of inaccuracy or careless vagueness, and the
specific statements have all the force of sworn evidence. Instead of
being presented "to the Apostles," therefore, and going in and out with
them at Jerusalem, we have here the emphatic assurance that, in addition
to Peter, Paul saw no one except "James, the Lord's brother." There has
been much discussion as to the identity of this James, and whether he
was an apostle or not, but into this it is unnecessary for us to enter.
Most writers agree at least that he is the same James, the head of the
Church at Jerusalem, whom we again frequently meet with in the Pauline
Epistles and in the Acts, and notably in the account of the Apostolic
council. The exact interpretation to be put upon the expression [------]
has also been the subject of great controversy, the question being
whether James is here really called an apostle or not; whether [------]
is to be understood as applying solely to the verb, in which case the
statement would mean that he saw no other of the Apostles, but only
James;(1) or to the whole phrase, which would express that he had seen
no other of the Apostles save James.(2) It is admitted by many of those
who think that in this case the latter signification must be adopted
that grammatically either interpretation is permissible. Even supposing
that
{212}
rightly or wrongly James is here referred to as an Apostle, the
statement of the Acts is, in spirit, quite opposed to that of the
Epistle; for when we are told that Paul is brought "to the Apostles"
[------], the linguistic usage of the writer implies that he means much
more than merely Peter and James. It seems impossible to reconcile
the statement, ix. 27, with the solemn assurance of Paul,(1) and if we
accept what the Apostle says as truth, and we cannot doubt it, it must
be admitted that the account in the Acts is unhistorical.
We arrive at the very same conclusion on examining the rest of the
narrative. In the Acts, Paul is represented as being with the Apostles
going in and out, preaching openly in Jerusalem, and disputing with the
Grecian Jews.(2) No limit is here put to his visit, and it is difficult
to conceive that what is narrated is intended to describe a visit
of merely fifteen days. A subsequent statement in the Acts, however,
explains and settles the point Paul is represented as declaring to King
Agrippa, xxvi. 19 f.: "Wherefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient
unto the heavenly vision, but first unto those in Damascus, and
throughout all the region of Judaea, and to the Gentiles, I was
declaring that they should repent
{213}
and turn to God," &c. However this may be, the statement of Paul does
not admit the interpretation of such public ministry. His express
purpose in going to Jerusalem was, not to preach, but to make the
acquaintance of Peter; and it was a marked characteristic of Paul to
avoid preaching in ground already occupied by the other Apostles before
him.(1) Not only is the account in Acts apparently excluded by such
considerations and by the general tenor of the epistle, but it is
equally so by the direct words of the Apostle (i. 22):--"I was unknown
by face unto the churches of Judaea." It is argued that the term:
"churches of Judaea" excludes Jerusalem.(2) It might possibly be asserted
with reason that such an expression as "the churches of Jerusalem" might
exclude the churches of Judaea, but to say that the Apostle, writing
elsewhere to the Galatians of a visit to Jerusalem, and of his conduct
at that time, intends, when speaking of the "churches of Judaea," to
exclude the principal city, seems to us arbitrary and unwarrantable. The
whole object of the Apostle is to show the privacy of his visit and his
independence of the elder Apostles. He does not use the expression as a
contrast to Jerusalem. Nothing in his account leads one to think of any
energetic preaching during the visit, and the necessity of finding
some way of excluding Jerusalem from the Apostle's expression is simply
thrust upon apologists by the account in Acts. Two passages are referred
to as supporting the exclusion of Jerusalem from "the churches of
Judaea." In John iii. 22, we read: "After
{214}
these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea." In
the preceding chapter he is described as being at Jerusalem. We have
already said enough about the geographical notices of the author of the
fourth Gospel.(1) Even those who do not admit that he was not a native
of Palestine are agreed that he wrote in another country and for
foreigners. "The land of Judaea," was therefore a natural expression
superseding the necessity of giving a more minute local indication which
would have been of little use. The second instance appealed to, though
more doubtfully,(2) is Heb. xiii. 24: "They from Italy salute you."
We are at a loss to understand how this is supposed to support the
interpretation adopted. It is impossible that if Paul went in and out
with the Apostles, preached boldly in Jerusalem, and disputed with the
Hellenistic Jews, not to speak of what is added, Acts xxvi. 19 f., he
could say that he was unknown by face to the churches of Judaea. There is
nothing, we may remark, which limits his preaching to the Grecian Jews.
Whilst apologists maintain that the two accounts are reconcilable, many
of them frankly admit that the account in Acts requires correction from
that in the Epistle;(3) but, on the other hand, a still greater number
of critics prouounce the narrative in the Acts contradictory to the
statements of Paul.(4)
{215}
There remains another point upon which a few remarks must be made. In
Acts ix. 29 f. the cause of Paul's hurriedly leaving Jerusalem is a plot
of the Grecian Jews to kill him. Paul does not in the Epistle refer to
any such matter, but, in another part of the Acts, Paul is represented
as relating, xxii. 17 f.: "And it came to pass, that, when I returned to
Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I was in a trance and saw him
saying unto me: Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for
they will not receive thy witness concerning me," &c, &c. This account
differs, therefore, even from the previous narrative in the same book,
yet critics are agreed that the visit during which the Apostle is said
to have seen this vision was that which we are discussing.(1) The writer
is so little a historian working from substantial facts that he forgets
the details of his own previous statements; and in the account of the
conversion of Paul, for instance, he thrice repeats the story with
emphatic and irreconcilable contradictions. We have already observed his
partiality for visions, and such supernatural agency is so ordinary a
matter with him that, in the first account of this visit, he altogether
omits the vision, although he must have known of it then quite as much
as on the second occasion. The Apostle, in his authentic and solemn
account of this visit, gives no hint of any vision, and leaves no
suggestion even of that public preaching which is described in the
earlier, and referred to in the later, narrative in the Acts.(2) If we
{216}
had no other grounds for rejecting the account as unhistorical this
miraculous vision, added as an after-thought, would have warranted our
doing so.
Passing on now to the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, we
find that Paul writes:--"Then, after fourteen years, again I went up
to Jerusalem..." [------]. He states the particulars of what took place
upon the occasion of this second visit with a degree of minuteness which
ought, one might have supposed, to have left no doubt of its identity,
when compared with the same visit historically described elsewhere; but
such are the discrepancies between the two accounts that, as we have
already mentioned, the controversy upon the point has been long and
active.(1) The Acts, it will be remembered, relate a second visit
of Paul to Jerusalem, after that which we have discussed, upon which
occasion it is stated (xi. 30) that he was sent with Barnabas to convey
to the community, during a time of famine, the contributions of the
Church of Antioch. The third visit of the Acts is that (xv.) when Paul
and Barnabas are said to have been deputed to confer with the Apostles
regarding the
{217}
conditions upon which Gentile converts should be admitted into the
Christian brotherhood. The circumstances of this visit, more nearly than
any other, correspond with those described by the Apostle himself in
the Epistle (ii. 1 ff.), but there are grave difficulties in the way of
identifying them. If this visit be identical with that described Acts
xv., and if Paul, as he states, paid no intermediate visit to Jerusalem,
what becomes of the visit interpolated in Acts xi. 30? The first point
which we must endeavour to ascertain is exactly what the Apostle intends
to say regarding the second visit which he mentions. The purpose of Paul
is to declare his complete independence from those who were Apostles
before him, and to maintain that his Gospel was not of man, but directly
revealed to him by Jesus Christ. In order to prove his independence,
therefore, he categorically states exactly what had been the extent of
his intercourse with the elder Apostles. He protests that, after his
conversion, he had neither conferred with flesh and blood nor sought
those who had been Apostles before him, but, on the contrary, that he
had immediately gone away to Arabia. It was not until three years had
elapsed that he had gone up to Jerusalem, and then only to make the
acquaintance of Peter, with whom he had remained only fifteen days,
during which he had not seen other of the Apostles save James, the
Lord's brother. Only after the lapse of fourteen years did he again
go up to Jerusalem. It is argued(1) that when Paul says, "he went up
again," [------], the word [------] has not the force of [------],
and that, so far from excluding any intermediate journey, it merely
signifies a
{218}
repetition of what had been done before, and might have been used of any
subsequent journey. Even if this were so, it is impossible to deny that,
read with its context, [------] is used in immediate connection with the
former visit which we have just discussed. The sequence is distinctly
marked by the [------] "then," and the adoption of the preposition
[------]--which may properly be read "after the lapse of,"(1)--instead
of [------], seems clearly to indicate that no other journey to
Jerusalem had been made in the interval. This can be maintained
linguistically; but the point is still more decidedly settled when the
Apostle's intention is considered. It is obvious that his purpose would
have been totally defeated had he passed over in silence an intermediate
visit. Even if, as is argued, the. visit referred to in Acts xi. 30 had
been of very brief duration, or if he had not upon that occasion had
any intercourse with the Apostles, it is impossible that he could have
ignored it under the circumstances, for by so doing he would have left
the retort in the power of his enemies that he had, on other occasions
than those which he had enumerated, been in Jerusalem and in contact
with the Apostles. The mere fact that a visit had been unmentioned would
have exposed him to the charge of having suppressed it, and suspicion is
always ready to assign unworthy motives. If Paul had paid such a hasty
visit as is suggested, he would naturally have mentioned the fact and
stated the circumstances, whatever they were. These and other reasons
convince the majority of critics that the Apostle here enumerates all
the visits which he had paid to Jerusalem since his conversion.(2) The
visit referred to in Gal. ii. 1 ff.
{219}
must be considered the second occasion on which the Apostle Paul went to
Jerusalem.
This being the case, can the visit be identified as the second visit
described in Acts xi. 30? The object of that journey to Jerusalem, it
is expressly stated, was to carry to the brethren in Jerusalem the
contributions of the Church of Antioch during a time of famine; whereas
Paul explicitly says that he went up to Jerusalem, on the occasion
we are discussing, in consequence of a revelation, to communicate the
Gospel which he was preaching among the Gentiles. There is not a word
about contributions. On the other hand, chronologically it is impossible
that the second visit of the Epistle can be the second of the Acts.
There is some difference of opinion as to whether the fourteen years
are to be calculated from the date of his conversion,(1) or from
the previous journey.(2) The latter seems to be the more reasonable
supposition, but in either case it is obvious that the identity is
excluded. From various data,--the famine under Claudius, and the time of
Herod Agrippa's
{220}
death,--the date of the journey referred to in Acts xi. 30 is assigned
to about a.d. 45. If, therefore, we count back fourteen or seventeen
years, we have as the date of the conversion, on the first hypothesis,
a.d. 31, and on the second, a.d. 28, neither of which of course is
tenable. In order to overcome this difficulty, critics(1) at one time
proposed, against the unanimous evidence of MSS., to read instead of
[------] in Gal. ii. 1, [------] "after four years;" but this violent
remedy is not only generally rejected, but, even if admitted for the
sake of argument, it could not establish the identity, inasmuch as the
statements in Gal. ii. 1 ff. imply a much longer period of missionary
activity amongst the Gentiles than Paul could possibly have had at that
time, about which epoch, indeed, Barnabas is said to have sought him in
Tarsus, apparently for the purpose of first commencing such a career;a
certainly the account of his active ministry begins in the Acts only in
Ch. xiii. Then, it is not possible to suppose that, if such a dispute
regarding circumcision and the Gospel of the uncircumcision as is
sketched in Gal. ii. had taken place on a previous occasion, it could
so soon be repeated, Acts xv., and without any reference to the former
transaction. Comparatively few critics, therefore, have ventured to
maintain that the second visit recorded in the Epistle is the same
as the second mentioned in the Acts (xi. 30), and in modern times the
theory is almost entirely abandoned. If, therefore, it be admitted that
Paul mentions all the journeys which he had made to Jerusalem up to the
time at which he wrote, and that his second visit was not the second
visit
{221}
of the Acts, but must be placed later, it follows clearly upon the
Apostle's own assurance that the visit mentioned in Acts xi. 30,
xii. 25, cannot have taken place and is unhistorical, and this is the
conclusion of the majority of critics,(1) including many apologists,
who, whilst suggesting that, for some reason, Barnabas may alone have
gone to Jerusalem without Paul, or otherwise deprecating any imputation
of conscious inaccuracy to the author, still substantially confirm
the result that Paul did not on that occasion go to Jerusalem, and
consequently that the statement is not historical. On the other hand, it
is suggested that the additional visit to Jerusalem is inserted by the
author with a view to conciliation, by representing that Paul was in
constant communication with the Apostles and community of Jerusalem, and
that he acted with their approval and sympathy. It is scarcely possible
to observe the peculiar variations between the narratives of the Acts
and of Paul without feeling that the author of the former deliberately
sacrifices the independence and individuality of the great Apostle of
the Gentiles.
The great mass of critics agree in declaring that the
{222}
second visit described in the Epistle is identical with the third
recorded in the Acts (xv.), although a wide difference of opinion exists
amongst them as to the historical value of the account contained in the
latter. This general agreement renders it unnecessary for us to enter at
any length into the arguments which establish the identity, and we shall
content ourselves with very concisely stating some of the chief reasons
for this conclusion. The date in both cases corresponds, whilst there
are insuperable chronological objections to identifying the second
journey of the Epistle with any earlier or later visit mentioned in
Acts. We have referred to other reasons against its being placed earlier
than the third visit of Acts, and there are still stronger objections
to its being dated after the third. It is impossible, considering the
object of the Apostle, that he could have passed over in silence such a
visit as that described Acts xv., and the only alternative would be
to date it later than the composition of the Epistle, to which the
narrative of the Acts as well as all other known facts would be
irreconcilably opposed. On the other hand, the date, the actors, the
cause of dispute, and probably the place (Antioch) in which that dispute
originated, so closely correspond, that it is incredible that such a
coincidence of circumstances should again have occurred.
"Without anticipating our comparison of the two accounts of this visit,
we must here at least remark that the discrepancies are so great that
not only have apologetic critics, as we have indicated, adopted the
theory that the second visit of the Epistle is not the same as the third
of the Acts, but is identical with the second (xi. 30), of which so few
particulars are given, but
{223}
some, and notably Wieseler,(1) have maintained it to have been the same
as that described in Acts xviii. 21 ff., whilst Paley and others(2)
have been led to the hypothesis that the visit in question does not
correspond with any of the visits actually recorded in the Acts, but is
one which is not referred to at all in that work. These
{224}
theories have found very little favour, however, and we mention them
solely to complete our statement of the general controversy. Considering
the fulness of the report of the visit in Acts xv. and the peculiar
nature of the facts stated by the Apostle himself in his letter to the
Galatians, the difficulty of identifying the particular visit referred
to is a phenomenon which cannot be too much considered. Is it possible,
if the narrative in the Acts were really historically accurate, that any
reasonable doubt could ever have existed as to its correspondence with
the Apostle's statements? We may here at once say that, although many of
the critics who finally decide that the visit described in Acts xv. is
the same as that referred to in the second chapter of the Epistle
argue that the obvious discrepancies and contradictions between the two
accounts may be sufficiently explained and reconciled, this is for very
strong reasons disputed,1 and the narrative in the Acts, when tested
by the authentic statements of the Apostle, pronounced inaccurate and
unhistorical.
It is only necessary to read the two accounts in order to understand
the grounds upon which even apologists like Paley and Wieseler feel
themselves compelled
{225}
to suppose that the Apostle is describing transactions which occurred
during some visit either unmentioned or not fully related in the
Acts, rather than identify it with the visit reported in the fifteenth
chapter, from which it so essentially differs. A material difference is
not denied by any one, and explanations with a view to reconciliation
have never been dispensed with. Thiersch, who has nothing better than
the usual apologetic explanations to offer, does not hesitate to avow
the apparent incongruities of the two narratives. "The journey," he
says, "is the same, but no human ingenuity can make out that also the
conference and the decree resulting from it are the same."(1) Of course
he supposes that the problem is to be solved by asserting that
the Apostle speaks of the private, the historian of the public,
circumstances of the visit. All who maintain the historical character of
the Acts must of course more or less thoroughly adopt this argument, but
it is obvious that, in doing so, they admit on the one hand the general
discrepancy, and on the other, if successful in establishing their
position, they could do no more than show that the Epistle does not
absolutely exclude the account in the Acts. Both writers profess to
describe events which occurred during the same visit; both record
matters of the highest interest closely bearing on the same subject; yet
the two accounts are so different from each other that they can only be
rescued from complete antagonism by complete separation. Supposing the
author of the Acts to be really acquainted with the occurrences of this
visit, and to have intended to give a plain unvarnished account of them,
the unconscious ingenuity with which he has omitted the important facts
mentioned by Paul and
{226}
eliminated the whole of the Apostle's individuality would indeed be as
remarkable as it is unfortunate. But supposing the Apostle Paul to have
been aware of the formal proceedings narrated in the Acts, characterized
by such unanimity and liberal Christian feeling, it would be still more
astonishing and unfortunate that he has not only silently passed them
over, but has conveyed so singularly different an impression of his
visit.(1) As the Apostle certainly could not have been acquainted with
the Acts, his silence regarding the council and its momentous decree,
as well as his ignorance of the unbroken harmony which prevailed are
perfectly intelligible. He of course only knew and described what
actually occurred. The author of the Acts, however, might and must have
known the Epistle to the Galatians, and the ingenuity with which the
tone and details of the authentic report are avoided or transfigured
cannot be ascribed to mere accident, but must largely be attributed to
design, although also partly, it may be, to the ignorance and the pious
imagination of a later age. Is it possible, for instance, that the
controversy regarding the circumcision of Titus, and the dispute with
Peter at Antioch, which are so prominently related in the Epistle, but
present a view so different from the narrative of Acts, can have been
undesignedly omitted? The violent apologetic reconciliation which is
effected between the two accounts is based upon the foregone conclusion
that the author of the canonical Acts, however he may seem to deviate
from the Apostle, cannot possibly contradict him or be
1 "Our difficulty in reading this page of history arises not
so much from the absence of light as from the perplexity of
cross lights. The narratives of St. Luke and St. Paul only
then cease to conflict, when we take into account the
different positions of the writers and the different objects
they had in view." Lightfoot, St Paul's Ep. to the Gal.,
p. 294.
{227}
in error; but the preceding examination has rendered such a position
untenable, and here we have not to do with a canonized "St. Luke," but
with an unknown writer whose work must be judged by the ordinary rules
of criticism.
According to the Acts, a most serious question is raised at Antioch.
Certain men from Judaea came thither teaching: "Except ye have been
circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved." After much
dissension and disputation the Church of Antioch appoint that Paul and
Barnabas, "and certain others of them" shall go up to Jerusalem unto the
Apostles and elders about this question. The motive of the journey is
here most distinctly and definitely described. Paul is solemnly deputed
by the church to lay before the mother Church of Jerusalem a
difficult question, upon the answer to which turns the whole future of
Christianity. Paul's account, however, gives a very different complexion
to the visit:--"Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem
with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. But I went up according to
revelation [------] and communicated to them the Gospel which I preach
among the Gentiles," &c. Paley might well say:--"This is not very
reconcilable."(1) It is argued,(2) that the two
{228}
statements may supplement each other; that the revelation may have been
made to the Church of Antioch and have led to the mission; or that,
being made to Paul, it may have decided him to undertake it. If however,
we admit that the essence of truth consists not in the mere letter but
in the spirit of what is stated, it seems impossible to reconcile these
accounts. It might be granted that a historian, giving a report of
events which had occurred, might omit some secret motive actuating the
conduct even of one of the principal persons with whom he has to do; but
that the Apostle, under the actual circumstances, and while protesting:
"Now the things which I am writing unto you, behold, before God, I lie
not!" should altogether suppress the important official character of
his journey to Jerusalem, and give it the distinct colour of a visit
voluntarily and independently made [------], is inconceivable. As we
proceed, it will become apparent that the divergence between the
two accounts is systematic and fundamental; but we may here so far
anticipate as to point out that the Apostle explicitly excludes an
official visit not only by stating an "inward motive," and omitting all
mention of a public object, but by the expression:--"and communicated
to them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to
those who," &c. To quote Paley's words: "If by 'that Gospel,' he meant
the immunity of the Gentile Christians from the Jewish law (and I know
not what else it can mean), it is not easy to conceive how he should
communicate that privately, which was the subject of his public
message;"(1) and
{229}
we may add, how he should so absolutely alter the whole character of his
visit. In the Acts, he is an ambassador charged with a most important
mission; in the Epistle, he is Paul the Apostle, moved solely by his own
reasons again to visit Jerusalem. The author of the Acts, however, who
is supposed to record only the external circumstances, when tested is
found to do so very imperfectly, for he omits all mention of Titus, who
is conjectured to be tacitly included in the "certain others of them,"
who were appointed by the Church to accompany Paul, and he is
altogether silent regarding the strenuous effort to enforce the rite of
circumcision in his case, upon which the Apostle lays so much stress.
The Apostle, who throughout maintains his simply independent attitude,
mentions his taking Titus with him as a purely voluntary act, and
certainly conveys no impression that he also was delegated by the
Church. We shall presently see how significant the suppression of Titus
is in connection with the author's transformation of the circumstances
of the visit. In affirming that he went up "according to revelation,"
Paul proceeds in the very spirit in which he began to write this
epistle. He continues simply to assert his independence, and equality
with the elder Apostles. In speaking of his first journey he has this
object in view, and he states precisely the duration of his visit and
whom he saw. If he had suppressed the official character of this second
visit and the fact that he submitted for the decision of the Apostles
and elders the question of the immunity of the Gentile converts from
circumcision, and thus curtly ascribed his going to a revelation, he
would have compromised himself in a very serious manner, and exposed
himself to a charge of disingenuousness of which his enemies would not
have
{230}
failed to take advantage. But, whether we consider the evidence of the
Apostle himself in speaking of this visit, the absence of all external
allusion to the supposed proceedings when reference to them would have
been not only most appropriate but was almost necessary, the practical
contradiction of the whole narrative implied in the subsequent conduct
of Peter at Antioch, or the inconsistency of the conduct attributed in
it to Paul himself, we are forced back to the natural conclusion that
the Apostle does not suppress anything, and does not give so absurdly
partial an account of his visit as would be the case if the narrative
in the Acts be historical, but that, in a few rapid powerful lines, he
completes a suggestive sketch of its chief characteristics. This
becomes more apparent at every step we take in our comparison of the two
narratives.
If we pass on to the next stage of the proceedings, we find an equally
striking divergence between the two writers, and it must not escape
attention that the variations are not merely incidental but are thorough
and consecutive. According to the Acts, there was a solemn congress held
in Jerusalem, on which occasion the Apostles and elders and the Church
being assembled, the question whether it was necessary that the Gentiles
should be circumcised and bound to keep the law of Moses was fully
discussed, and a formal resolution finally adopted by the meeting. The
proceedings in fact constitute what has always been regarded as the
first Council of the Christian Church. The account in the Epistle does
not seem to betray any knowledge of such a congress.(1) The Apostle
himself says merely:--"But I
{231}
went according to revelation and communicated to them [------] the
Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which
seemed (to be something) [------]."(1) The usual apologetic explanation,
as we have already mentioned, is that whilst more or less distinctly
the author of Acts indicates private conferences, and Paul a public
assembly, the former chiefly confines his attention to the general
congress and the latter to the more private incidents of his visit.(2)
The opinion that the author of Acts "alludes in a general way to
conferences and discussions preceding the congress,"(3) is based upon
the statement xv. 4, 5: "And when they came to Jerusalem they were
received by the Church and by the Apostles and the elders, and declared
all that God did with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the
Pharisees, who believed, saying: That it is necessary to circumcise them
and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the Apostles and the
elders came together to see regarding this matter. And when there had
been much disputation, Peter rose up and said," &c. If it were admitted
that more than one meeting is here indicated, it is clear that the words
cannot be legitimately strained into a reference to more
{232}
than two conferences. The first of these is a general meeting of the
Apostles and elders and of the Church to receive the delegates from
Antioch, and the second is an equally general and public conference
(verse 6): not only are the Apostles and elders present but also the
general body of Christians, as clearly appears from the statement (ver.
12) that, after the speech of Peter, "all the multitude [------]
kept silence."(l) The "much disputation" evidently takes place on the
occasion when the Apostles and elders are gathered together to consider
the matter. If, therefore, two meetings can be maintained from the
narrative in Acts, both are emphatically public and general, and
neither, therefore, the private conference of the Epistle. The main fact
that the author of the Acts describes a general congress of the Church
as taking place is never called in question.
On the other hand, few who appreciate the nature of the discrepancy
which we are discussing will feel that the difficulty is solved by
suggesting that there is space for the insertion of other incidents in
the Apostle's narrative. It is rather late now to interpolate a general
Council of the Church into the pauses of the Galatian letter. To suppose
that the communications of Paul to the "Pillar" Apostles, and the
distressing debate regarding the circumcision of Titus, may be inferred
between the lines of the account in the Acts, is a bold effort of
imagination; but it is far from being as hopeless as an attempt to
reconcile the discrepancy by thrusting the important public congress
into some corner of the
{233}
Apostle's statement. In so far as any argument is advanced in support
of the assertion that Paul's expression implies something more than the
private conference, it is based upon the reference intended in the words
[------]. When Paul says he went up to Jerusalem and communicated "to
them" his Gospel, but privately [------], whom does he mean to indicate
by the [------]? Does he refer to the Christian community of Jerusalem,
or to the Apostles themselves? It is pretty generally admitted that
either application is permissible; but whilst a majority of apologetic,
together with some independent, critics adopt the former,(1) not a few
consider, as Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Calvin did before them, that
Paul more probably referred to the Apostles.(2) In favour of the former
there is the fact, it is argued, that the [------] is used immediately
after the statement that the Apostle went up "to Jerusalem," and that it
may be more natural to conclude that he speaks of the Christians there,
more especially as he seems to distinguish between the communication
made [------] and [------];(3) and, in support of this, "they"
{234}
in Gal. i. 23, 24, is, though we think without propriety, referred
to. It is, on the other hand, urged that it is very unlikely that
the Apostle would in such a way communicate his Gospel to the whole
community, and that in the expressions used he indicates no special
transaction, but that the [------] is merely an indefinite statement
for which he immediately substitutes the more precise [------](1) It
is quite certain that there is no mention of the Christian community of
Jerusalem to which the [------] can with any real grammatical necessity be
referred; but when the whole purport of the first part of the Apostle's
letter is considered the reference to the Apostles in the [------]
becomes clearer. Paul is protesting the independence of his Gospel, and
that he did not receive it from man but from Jesus Christ. He wishes to
show that he was not taught by the Apostles nor dependent upon them.
He states that after his conversion he did not go to those who were
Apostles before him, but, on the contrary, went away to Arabia, and only
three years after he went up to Jerusalem, and then only for the purpose
of making the acquaintance of Peter, and on that occasion other of
the Apostles saw he none save James the Lord's brother. After fourteen
years, he continues to recount, he again went up to Jerusalem, but
according to revelation, and communicated to them, i.e. to the Apostles,
the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. The Apostles
{235}
have been in the writer's mind throughout, but in the impetuous flow of
his ideas, which in the first two chapters of this epistle outrun the
pen, the sentences become involved. It must be admitted, finally,
that the reference intended is a matter of opinion and cannot be
authoritatively settled. If we suppose it to refer to the community of
Jerusalem, taking thus the more favourable construction, how would
this affect the question? Can it be maintained that in this casual and
indefinite "to them" we have any confirmation of the general congress
of the Acts, with its debates, its solemn settlement of that momentous
proposition regarding the Gentile Christians, and its important decree?
It is impossible to credit that, in saying that he "communicated to
them" the Gospel which he preached amongst the Gentiles, the Apostle
referred to a Council like that described in the Acts, to which, as a
delegate from the Church of Antioch, he submitted the question of the
conditions upon which the Gentiles were to be admitted into the Church,
and tacitly accepted their decision.(1) Even if it be assumed that the
Apostle makes this slight passing allusion to some meeting different
from his conference with the pillar Apostles, it could not have been
a general congress assembled for the purpose stated in the Acts and
characterised by such proceedings. The discrepancy between the two
narratives is not lessened by any supposed indication either in the
Epistle or in the Acts of other incidents than those actually described.
The suggestion that the dispute about Titus involved some
{236}
publicity does not avail, for the greater the publicity and importance
of the episode the greater the difficulty of explaining the total
silence regarding it of the author of Acts. The more closely the two
statements are compared the more apparent does it become that the author
describes proceedings which are totally different in general character,
in details, and in spirit, from those so vividly sketched by the Apostle
Paul.
We shall have more to say presently regarding the irreconcilable
contradiction in spirit between the whole account which is given in
the Acts of this Council and the writings of Paul; but it may be more
convenient, if less effective, if we for the present take the chief
points in the narrative as they arise and consider how far they are
supported or discredited by other data. We shall refer later to the
manner in which the question which leads to the Council is represented
as arising and at once proceed to the speech of Peter. After there
had been much disputation as to whether the Gentile Christians must
necessarily be circumcised and required to observe the Mosaic law, it is
stated that Peter rose up and said: xv. 7. "Men (and) brethren, ye know
that a good while ago God made choice among you that the Gentiles by my
mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe. 8. And God which
knoweth the hearts bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit
even as unto us; 9. and put no distinction between us and them, having
purified their hearts by the faith. 10. Now, therefore, why tempt ye
God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our
fathers nor we were able to bear? 11. But by the grace of our Lord Jesus
we believe we are saved even as also they."(1)
{237}
The liberality of the sentiments thus put into the mouth of Peter
requires no demonstration, and there is here an explicit expression
of convictions, which we must, from his own words, consider to be the
permanent and mature views of the Apostle, dating as they do "from
ancient days" [------] and originating in so striking and supernatural
a manner. We may, therefore, expect that whenever we meet with an
authentic record of Peter's opinions and conduct elsewhere, they should
exhibit the impress of such advanced and divinely imparted views. The
statement which Peter makes: that God had a good while before selected
him that the Gentiles by his voice should hear the Gospel, is of course
a reference to the case of Cornelius, and this unites the fortunes of
the speech and proceedings of the Council with that episode. We have
seen how little ground there is for considering that narrative, with its
elaborate tissue of miracles, historical. The speech which adopts it
is thus discredited, and all other circumstances confirm the conclusion
that the speech is not authentic.(1) If the name of Peter were erased
and that of Paul substituted, the sentiments expressed would be
singularly appropriate. We should have the
{238}
divinely appointed Apostle of the Gentiles advocating complete immunity
from the Mosaic law, and enunciating Pauline principles in peculiarly
Pauline terms. When Peter declares that "God put no distinction between
us (Jews) and them (Gentiles), purifying their hearts by faith,(1) but
by the grace [------] of our Lord Jesus Christ we believe we are saved
even as also they," do we not hear Paul's sentiments, so elaborately
expressed in the Epistle to the Romans and elsewhere? "For there is no
difference between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord of all is rich unto
all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the
Lord shall be saved"(2).... "justified freely by his grace [------]
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."(3) And when Peter
exclaims: "Why tempt ye God to put a yoke [------] upon the neck of the
disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" have we
not rather a paraphrase of the words in the Epistle to the Galatians?
"With liberty Christ made us free; stand fast, therefore, and be not
entangled again in a yoke [------] of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto
you that if ye be circumcised Christ will profit you nothing. But I
testify again to every man who is circumcised that he is a debtor to
do the whole law.(4)... For as many as are of works of law are under a
curse," &c(5) These are only a few sentences of which the speech in
Acts is an echo, but no attentive reader can fail to perceive that it
contains in germ the whole of Pauline universalism.
{239}
From the Pauline author of the Acts this might fairly be expected, and
if we linguistically examine the speech, we have additional evidence
that it is simply, like others which we have considered, a composition
from his own pen. We shall, as briefly as possible, refer to every word
which is not of too common occurrence to require notice, and point out
where they are elsewhere used. The opening [------] occurs elsewhere in
the Acts 13 times, as we have already pointed out, being the favourite
phrase placed in the mouth of all speakers; [------], x. 28, xviii. 25,
xix. 15, 25, xx. 18, xxii. 19, xxiv. 10, xxvi. 3, 26, and elsewhere only
5 times. The phrase [------] at the beginning of a sentence has been
pointed out, in connection with a similar way of expressing the personal
pronoun in x. 28, [------], and [------], as consequently characteristic
of Peter, and considered "important as showing that these reports
are not only according to the _sense_ of what was said, but the words
spoken, _verbatim_."(1) This is to overlook the fact that the very same
words are put into the mouth of Paul. Peter commences his speech, xv.
7: [------] Paul begins his speech at Miletus, xx. 18: [------]; and
at Ephesus, Demetrius the silversmith commences his address, xix. 25:
[------] Cf. xxiii. 15. [------], xv. 21, xxi. 16; Luke ix. 8, 19;
elsewhere 6 times; the expression [------] does not elsewhere occur in
the New Testament, but [------] is common in the Septuagint. Cf. Ps.
xliii. 1, lxxvi. 5, cxlii. 5, Isaiah xxxvii. 26, Lament, i. 7, ii. 17,
&c, &c. [------], i. 2, 24, vi. 5, xiii. 17, xv. 22, 25; Luke
{240}
4 times, elsewhere 11 times, and of these the following with inf., Act*
i. 24 f., xv. 22, 25, Ephes. L 4. With the phrase [------](1) may be
compared that of Paul, xiii. 17,[------], and 1 Cor. i. 27, in which
[------] occurs twice, as well as again in the next verse, 28. [------]
i. 16, in. 18, 21; iv. 25; Luke i. 70; and the whole phrase [------],
may be compared with the words put into Paul's mouth, xxii. 14: [------]
xx. 24, in Paul's Epistles (4) 33 times, and elsewhere 42 times. Verse
8. [------] only occurs here and in i. 24, [------] where it forms part
of the prayer at the election of the successor to Judas. We have fully
examined the speech of Peter, i. 16 ffi, and shown its unhistorical
character, and that it is a free composition by the author of the Acts;
the prayer of the assembly is not ascribed to Peter in the work itself,
though apologists, grasping at the [------], assert that it must have
been delivered by that Apostle; but, with the preceding speech, the
prayer also must be attributed to the pen of the author; and if it be
maintained that Peter spoke in the Aramaic tongue(2) it is useless to
discuss the word at all, which of course in that case must be allowed to
belong to the author. [------], Acts 12- times, Luke 2, rest frequently;
with the phrase [------] may be compared Paul's words in xiii. 22,
[------]. Verse 9, [------], x. 20, xi. 2, 12, Paul 7 times, &c
{241}
[------], xii. 6, xiii. 42; Luke xi. 51, xvi. 26; rest 4 times.
[------], Acts 27 times, Luke 3, Paul 9, rest 15 times; re...
[------]Acts 33 times, Luke 5, Paul 4, rest 10 times--[------] is
clearly characteristic of the author, [------], Acts 15, Luke 11 times,
rest very frequently. [------], x. 15, xi. 9; Luke 7, and elsewhere
20 times, [------], x. 33, xvi. 36, xxiii. 15; an expression not found
elsewhere in the New Testament, and which is also indicative of the
Author's composition. Verse 10, [------], v. 9, xvi. 7, xxiv. 6; Luke
iv. 2, xi. 16, xx. 23, rest frequently; the question of Jesus in Luke
and the parallel passages, [------]; will occur to every one. [------],
Acts 12, Luke 6 times, the rest frequently. [------] does not occur
elsewhere, either in the Acts or third Gospel, but it is used precisely
in the same sense by Paul, Gal. v. 1, in a passage to which we have
called attention a few pages back(1) in connection with this speech.
[------], xx. 37, Luke xv. 20, xvii. 2; Romans xvi. 4, Matth. xviii.
6, Mark ix. 42; [------] occurs 4 times, [------], vi. 10, xix. 16, 20,
xxv. 7, xxvii. 16; Luke 8 times and elsewhere 15 times. [------], iii.
2, ix. 15, xxi. 35; Luke 5, Paul 6, rest 12 times. Verse 11, [------]
Acts 1? times, Luke 8, Paul 61 times, rest frequently. [------], Acts
38, Luke 9 times, rest frequently. [------], Acts 12, Luke 18 times,
rest frequently, [------], is also put into the mouth of Paul, xxvii.
25, and is not elsewhere found in the New Testament; [------], i. 11,
vii. 28; Luke xiii. 34; Matth. xxiii. 37, 2 Tim. iii. 8. [------], v.
37, xviii. 19; Luke xi. 7, 2, xx. 11, xxii. 12 and elsewhere in the
New Testament 17 times. It cannot be doubted that the language of this
speech is that of the author of the Acts, and no serious attempt has
ever
{242}
been made to show that it is the language of Peter. If it be asserted
that, in the form before us, it is a translation, there is not the
slightest evidence to support the assertion; and it has to contend with
the unfortunate circumstance that, in the supposed process, the words of
Peter have not only become the words of the author, but his thoughts the
thoughts of Paul.
We may now inquire whether we find in authentic records of the Apostle
Peter's conduct and views any confirmation of the liberality which is
attributed to him in the Acts. He is here represented as proposing the
emancipation of Gentile Converts from the Mosaic law: does this accord
with the statements of the Apostle Paul and with such information as we
can elsewhere gather regarding Peter? Very much the contrary.
Peter in this speech claims that, long before, God had selected him
to make known the Gospel to the Gentiles, but Paul emphatically
distinguishes him as the Apostle of the Circumcision; and although,
accepting facts which had actually taken place and could not be
prevented, Peter with James and John gave Paul right hands of
fellowship, he remained, as he had been before, Apostle of the
Circumcision(1) and, as we shall see. did not practise the liberality
which he is said to have preached. Very shortly after the Council
described in the Acts, there occurred the celebrated dispute between
him and Paul which the latter proceeds to describe immediately after
the visit to Jerusalem: "But when Cephas came to Antioch," he writes, "I
withstood him to the face, for he was condemned. For before certain
came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he
withdrew and separated himself,
{243}
fearing those of the Circumcision. And the other Jews also joined in
his hypocrisy, insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their
hypocrisy. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to
the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Cephas before all: If thou being
a Jew livest [------] after the manner of Gentiles and not after the
manner of Jews, how compellest [------] thou the Gentiles to adopt the
customs of the Jews? [------]"(1)
It is necessary to say a few words as to the significance of Peter's
conduct and of Paul's rebuke, regarding which there is some difference
of opinion.(2) Are we to understand from this that Peter, as a general
rule, at Antioch and elsewhere, with enlightened emancipation from
Jewish prejudices, lived as a Gentile and in full communion with Gentile
Christians?(3) Meyer(4) and others argue that by the use of the present
[------], the Apostle indicates a continuous practice based upon
principle, and that the [------] is not the mere moral life, but
includes the external social observances of Christian community: the
object, in fact, being to show that upon principle Peter held the
advanced liberal views of Paul, and that the fault which he committed
in withdrawing from free intercourse with the Gentile Christians was
momentary, and merely the result of "occasional timidity and weakness."
This theory cannot bear the test of examination. The account of Paul is
clearly this: _when Cephas came to Antioch_, the
{244}
stronghold of Gentile Christianity, _before certain men came from
James_, he ate with the Gentiles, but as soon as these emissaries
arrived he withdrew, "fearing those of the circumcision." Had his normal
custom been to live like the Gentiles, how is it possible that he
could, on this occasion only, have feared those of the circumcision?
His practice must have been notorious; and had he, moreover, actually
expressed such opinions in the congress of Jerusalem, his confession of
faith having been so publicly made, and so unanimously approved by
the Church, there could not have been any conceivable cause for such
timidity. The fact evidently is, on the contrary, that Peter, under the
influence of Paul, was induced for the time to hold free communion with
the Gentile Christians; but as soon as the emissaries of James appeared
on the scene, he became alarmed at this departure from his principles,
and fell back again into his normal practice. If the present [------]
be taken to indicate continuous habit of life, the present [------]
very much more than neutralizes it. Paul with his usual uncompromising
frankness rebukes the vacillation of Peter: by adopting even for a
time fellowship with the Gentiles, Peter has practically recognised
its validity, has been guilty of hypocrisy in withdrawing from his
concession on the arrival of the followers of James, and is condemned;
but after such a concession he cannot legitimately demand that Gentile
Converts should "judaize." It is obvious that whilst Peter lived as
a Gentile, he could not have been compelling the Gentiles to adopt
Judaism. Paul, therefore, in saying: "Why compellest thou [------] the
Gentiles to adopt the customs of the Jews? [------]," very distinctly
intimates that the normal practice of Peter was to compel
{245}
Gentile Christians to adopt Judaism. There is no escaping this
conclusion for, after all specious reasoning to the contrary is
exhausted, there remains the simple fact that Peter, when placed in a
dilemma on the arrival of the emissaries of James, and forced to decide
whether he will continue to live as a Gentile or as a Jew, adopts the
latter alternative, and as Paul tells us "compels" (in the present) the
Gentiles to judaize. A stronger indication of his views could scarcely
have been given. Not a word is said which implies that Peter yielded to
the vehement protests of Paul, but on the contrary we must undoubtedly
conclude that he did not; for it is impossible to suppose that Paul
would not have stated a fact so pertinent to his argument, had the elder
Apostle been induced by his remonstrance to walk uprightly according
to the truth of the Gospel which Paul preached, and both to teach and
practice Christian universalism. We shall have abundant reason, apart
from this, to conclude that Peter did not yield, and it is no false
indication of this, that, a century after, we find the Clementine
Homilies expressing the bitterness of the Petrine party against the
Apostle of the Gentiles for this very rebuke, and representing Peter
as following his course from city to city for the purpose of refuting
Paul's unorthodox teaching.
It is contended that Peter's conduct at Antioch is in harmony with his
denial of his master related in the Gospels, and, therefore, that such
momentary and characteristic weakness might well have been displayed
even after his adoption of liberal principles. Those who argue in this
way, however, forget that the denial of Jesus, as described in the
Gospels, proceeded from the fear of death, and that such a reply to a
merely compromising question
{246}
which did not directly involve principles, is a very different thing
from conduct like that at Antioch where, under one influence, a line
of action was temporarily adopted which ratified views upon which the
opinion of the Church was divided, and then abandoned merely from fear
of the disapproval of those of the Circumcision. The author of the Acts
passes over this altercation in complete silence. No one has ever called
in question the authenticity of the account which Paul gives of it. If
Peter had the courage to make such a speech at the Council in the very
capital of Judaic Christianity, and in the presence of James and
the whole Church, how could he possibly, from fear of a few men from
Jerusalem, have shown such pusillanimity in Antioch, where Paul and
the mass of Christians supported him? If the unanimous decision of the
Council had really been a fact, how easily he might have silenced any
objections by an appeal to that which had "seemed good to the Holy
Spirit" and to the Church! But there is not the slightest knowledge of
the Council and its decree betrayed either by those who came from James,
or by Peter, or Paul. The episode at Antioch is inconsistent with the
conduct and words ascribed to Peter in the Acts, and contradicts the
narrative in the fifteenth chapter which we are examining.(1)
The author of the Acts states that after Peter had spoken, "all the
multitude kept silence and were hearing
{247}
Barnabas and Paul declaring what signs and wonders God had wrought among
the Gentiles by them."(1) We shall not at present pause to consider
this statement, nor the _role_ which Paul is made to play in the whole
transaction, beyond pointing out that, on an occasion when such a
subject as the circumcision of the Gentiles and their subjection to the
Mosaic law was being discussed, nothing could be more opposed to
nature than to suppose that a man like the author of the Epistle to the
Galatians could have assumed so passive, and subordinate an attitude.(2)
After Barnabas and Paul had spoken, James is represented as saying: "Men
(and) brethren, hear me. Simeon declared how God at first did visit the
Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And with this agree
the words of the prophets; as it is written: 'After this I will return,
and will build again the tabernacle of David which has fallen down;
and I will build again the ruins thereof, and will set it up: that the
residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom
my name has been called, saith the Lord who doeth these things, known
from the beginning.' Wherefore, I judge that we trouble not those from
among the Gentiles who are turning to God; but that we write unto them
that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication,
and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses from generations
of old hath in every city those who preach him, being read in the
synagogues every Sabbath."(3) There are many reasons for which this
{248}
speech also must be pronounced inauthentic.(1) It may be observed, in
passing, that James completely disregards the statement which Barnabas
and Paul are supposed to make as to what God had wrought by them among
the Gentiles; and, ignoring their intervention, he directly refers to
the preceding speech of Peter claiming to have first been selected to
convert the Gentiles. We shall reserve discussion of the conditions
which James proposes to impose upon Gentile Christians till we come to
the apostolic decree which embodies them.
The precise signification of the sentence with which (ver. 21) he
concludes has been much debated, but need not detain us long. Whatever
may be said of the liberal part of the speech it is obvious that the
author has been more true to the spirit of the time in conceiving this
and other portions of it, than in composing the speech of Peter. The
continued observance of the Mosaic ritual, and the identity of the
synagogue with the Christian Church are correctly indicated; and when
James is again represented (xxi. 20 ff.) as advising Paul to join those
who had avow, in order to prove that he himself walked orderly and was
an observer of the law, and did not teach the Jews to apostatize from
Moses and abandon the rite of circumcision, he is consistent in
his portrait It is nevertheless clear that, however we may read the
restrictions which
{249}
James proposes to impose upon Gentile Christians, the author of Acts
intends them to be considered as a most liberal and almost complete
concession of immunity. "I judge," he makes James say, "that we trouble
not those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God;" and again, on
the second occasion of which we have just been speaking, in referring
to the decree, a contrast is drawn between the Christian Jews, from
whom observance of the law is demanded, and the Gentiles, who are only
expected to follow the prescriptions of the decree.
James is represented as supporting the statement of Peter how God
visited the Gentiles by "the words of the Prophets," quoting a passage
from Amos. ix. 11, 12. It is difficult to see how the words, even
as quoted, apply to the case at all, but this is immaterial. Loose
reasoning can certainly not be taken as a mark of inauthenticity. It is
much more to the point that James, addressing an assembly of Apostles
and elders in Jerusalem, quotes the prophet Amos freely from the
Septuagint version,(1) which differs widely in the latter and more
important part from the Hebrew text.(3) The passage in the Hebrew reads:
ix. 11. "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is
fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his
ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old, 12. that they may
possess the remnant of
{250}
Edom, and of all the heathen upon whom my name is called, saith the
Lord that doeth this." The authors of the Septuagint version altered the
twelfth verse into: "That the residue of men may seek after the Lord and
all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord who doeth
these things."(1) It is perfectly clear that the prophet does not, in
the original, say what James is here represented as stating, and that
his own words refer to the national triumph of Israel, and not to the
conversion of the Gentiles. Amos in fact prophesies that the Lord will
restore the former power and glory of Israel, and that the remnant of
Edom and the other nations of the theocracy shall be re-united, as they
were under David. No one questions the fact that the original prophecy
is altered, and those who desire to see the singular explanations of
apologists may refer to some of the works indicated.(2) The question
as to whether James or the author of the Acts is responsible for the
adoption of the Septuagint version is felt to be a serious problem.
Some critics affirm that in all probability James must have spoken in
Aramaic;(3) whilst others maintain that he delivered this
{251}
address in Greek.(1) In the one case, it is supposed that he quoted the
original Hebrew and that the author of the Acts or the document from
which he derived his report may have used the Septuagint; and in the
other, it is suggested that the lxx. may have had another and more
correct reading before them, for it is supposed impossible that James
himself could have quoted a version which was actually different from
the original Hebrew. These and many other similar explanations, into
which we need not go, do little to remove the difficulty presented by
the fact itself. To suppose that our Hebrew texts are erroneous in order
to justify the speech is a proceeding which does not require remark. It
will be remembered that, in the Acts, the Septuagint is always employed
in quotations from the Old Testament, and that this is by no means
the only place in which that version is used when it departs from the
original. It is difficult to conceive that any intelligent Jew could
have quoted the Hebrew of this passage to support a proposal to free
Gentile Christians from the necessity of circumcision and the observance
of the Mosaic Law. It is equally difficult to suppose that James, a
bigoted leader of the Judaistic party and the head of the Church
of Jerusalem, could have quoted the Septuagint version of the Holy
Scriptures, differing from the Hebrew, to such an assembly. It is
useless to examine here the attempts to make the passage quoted a
correct interpretation of the prophet's meaning, or seriously to
consider the proposition that this alteration of a prophetic utterance
is adopted as better
{252}
expressing "the mind of the Spirit." If the original prophecy did not
express that mind, it is rather late to amend the utterances of the
prophets in the Acts of the Apostles.
We may now briefly examine the speech linguistically. Verse 13: The
opening as usual is [------], but the whole phrase [------] is put into
the mouth of Paul in xxii. 1, [------], and with but little variation
again in xiii. 16. Cf. ii. 22. The use of the Hebrew form [------] in
speaking of Peter, has been pointed out by Bleek(1) and others, after
Lightfoot,(2) as a characteristic peculiarity showing the authenticity
of the speech. The same form occurs in 2 Pet. i. 1, but its use in that
spurious epistle is scarcely calculated to give weight to its use here.
If it be characteristic of anyone, however, its use is characteristic
of the author of the third Gospel and the Acts, and in no case is it
peculiarly associated with James. In addition to the instance referred
to above, and Apoc. vii. 7, where the tribe of Simeon is thus named, the
Jewish form [------] of the name Simon occurs four times only in the New
Testament, and they are conflned to our author: Acts xiii. 1; Luke ii.
25, 34, iii. 30. Being acquainted with the Jewish form of the name,
he made use of it in this speech probably for the effect of local
colouring. [------], xv. 12, xxi. 19; Luke xxiv. 35, and nowhere else
except John i. 18--it is peculiar to the author, [------], Acts 11, Luke
16 times, and elsewhere frequently, [------], iii. 26, vii. 12, xi. 26,
xiii. 46, xxvi. 20; Luke 10 times; Jam. iii. 17; Paul 10 times, rest
frequently. [------], vi. 3, vii. 23, xv. 36; Luke i. 68,
{253}
78, vii. 16; Matth. xxv. 36, 43, Hebr. ii. 6, Jam. i. 27, that is to
say 7 times used by the author and only 4 times in the rest of the New
Testament; compare especially Luke i. 68, and vii. 16. [------] opposed
to [------], xxvi. 17, 23. The expression [------] occurs ii. 38, iv.
17, 18, v. 28, 40; Luke ix. 48, 49, xxi. 8, xxiv. 47, and only 5 times
in the rest of the New Testament. Verse 15: [------], v. 9; Luke v. 36,
and Matth. xviii. 19, xx. 2, 13 only. Verse 16: In this quotation
from Amos, for the i[------] of the Septuagint, the Author substitutes
[------], which phrase occurs elsewhere in Acts vii. 7, xiii. 20, xviii.
1; Luke v. 27, x. 1, xii. 4, xvii. 8, xviii. 4. [------], v. 22 and 9
times elsewhere. Verse 18: [------], i. 19, ii. 14, iv. 10, 16, ix. 42,
xiii. 38, xix. 17, xxviii. 22, 28 = 10 times in Acts; Luke i. 44, xxiii.
49; elsewhere only in Rom. i. 19, John xviii. 15, 16,--a characteristic
word. So likewise is the expression [------], iii. 21, Luke i. 70;
[------] occurs in Ephes. iii. 9, Col. i. 26. These words are added to
the passage quoted from the Septuagint. Verse 19: [------] is used 11
times in Acts; Luke i. 35, vii. 7; by Paul 18 times, Ep. Jam. twice, and
elsewhere 25 times. [------], 22 times in Acts; Luke 6 times, Paul
37 times, Ep. Jam. 6, and elsewhere 44 times, [------] is not found
elsewhere in the New Testament. [------], Acts 11, Luke 7, Jam. v. 19,
20, rest 19 times; the phrase [------] is a favourite and characteristic
expression of the Author, who uses it ix. 35, xi. 21, xiv. 15, xxvi.
20, and Luke i. 16, and it does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament
except in 1 Pet. ii. 25. Verse 20: [------], xxi. 25, and Hebr. xiii. 22
only. [------] xv. 29, Luke vi. 24, vii. 6, xv. 20, xxiv. 13, 1 Thess.
iv. 3, v. 22, 1 Tim. iv. 3, 1 Pet. ii. 11, and
{254}
elsewhere 7 times; in both passages of the Ep. to the Thess. it is used
with [------] as here. [------] is not elsewhere found. [------], vii.
41; 6 times by Paul, and elsewhere 3: it occurs very frequently in
the Septuagint. [------], xv. 29, xxi. 25; Paul 8, elsewhere 15 times.
[------], xv. 29, xxi. 25, a technical word. [------], Acts 12, Luke 11
times, rest frequently, [------], ii. 40, viii. 33, xiii. 36, xiv. 16;
Luke 13 times, Matth. 13, Mk. 5, rest 5 times. [------], xv. 7, xxi. 16;
Luke ix. 8, 19, elsewhere 7 times. [------], xv. 36, xx. 23, xxiv. 12;
Luke viii. 1, 4, xiii. 22, and elsewhere only in Tit. i. 5. [------],
viii. 5, ix. 20, x. 37, 42, xix. 13, xx. 25, xxviii. 31; Luke 9, Paul
14, elsewhere 30 times. [------], Acts 9, Luke 20, rest 35 times, the
whole phrase [------] occurs again in the Acts, being put into the mouth
of Paul xiii. 27, and [------] being used by the writer in xviii. 4.
[------], Acts 20; Luke 15, rest 22 times, [------], viii. 28, 30 twice,
32, xiii. 27, xv. 31, xxiii. 34; Luke 3, and elsewhere 22 times. This
analysis confirms the conclusion that the speech of James at the
Council proceeds likewise from the pen of the general author, and the
incomprehensible liberality of the sentiments expressed, as well as the
peculiarity of the quotation from Amos according to the Septuagint, thus
receive at once their simple explanation.
If we now compare the account of James's share in granting liberal
conditions to Gentile Christians with the statements of Paul, we arrive
at the same result. It is in consequence of the arrival of "certain
men from James" [------] that Peter through fear of them withdrew from
communion with the
{255}
Gentiles. It will be remembered that the whole discussion is said to
have arisen in Antioch originally from the judaistic teaching of certain
men who came "from Judaea," who are disowned in the apostolic letter.(1)
It is unfortunate, however, to say the least of it, that so many of
those who systematically opposed the work of the Apostle Paul claimed to
represent the views of James and the mother Church.(2) The contradiction
of the author of the Acts, with his object of conciliation, has but
small weight before the statements of Paul and the whole voice of
tradition. At any rate, almost immediately after the so-called Apostolic
Council, with its decree adopted mainly at the instigation of James, his
emissaries caused the defection of Peter in Antioch and the rupture with
Paul. It is generally admitted, in the face of the clear affirmation
of Paul, that the men in question must in all probability have been
actually sent by James.3 It is obvious that, to justify the fear of so
leading an apostle as Peter, not only must they have been thus deputed,
but must have been influential men,
2 "Of the Judaizers who are denounced in St. Paul's Epistles
this much is certain, that they exalted the authority of the
Apostles of the Circumcision; and that, in some instances at
least, as members of the mother Church, they had direct
relations with James, the Lord's brother. But when we
attempt to define those relations, we are lost in a maze of
conjecture." Lightfoot, Ep. to the Gal., p. 353.
{256}
representing authoritative and prevalent judaistic opinions. We shall
not attempt to divine the object of their mission, but we may say that
it is impossible to separate them from the judaistic teachers who urged
circumcision upon the Galatian Christians and opposed the authority of
the Apostle Paul. Not pursuing this further at present, however, it
is obvious that the effect produced by these emissaries is quite
incompatible with the narrative that, so short a time before, James and
the Church of Jerusalem had unanimously promulgated conditions, under
which the Gentile Christians were freely admitted into communion,
and which fully justified Peter in eating with them. The incident at
Antioch, as connected with James as well as with Peter, excludes the
supposition that the account of the Council contained in the Acts can be
considered historical. The Apostolic letter embodying the decree of the
Council now demands our attention. It seemed good to the Apostles and
the elders with the whole Church to choose two leading men among the
brethren, and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, and they
wrote by them (xv. 23):--"The Apostles and brethren which are elders
unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and
Cilicia, greeting. 24. Forasmuch as we heard that certain which went out
from us troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave
no commandment, 25. it seemed good unto us, having become of one mind,
to choose out and send men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26. men that have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ. 27. We have, therefore, sent Judas and Silas, who shall also
tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28. For it seemed good to
the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these
necessary
{257}
things: 29. that ye abstain from meats offered to idols and from blood,
and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep
yourselves ye shall do well. Fare ye well." l It is argued that
the simplicity of this composition, its brevity and the absence of
hierarchical tendency, prove the authenticity and originality of the
epistle. Nothing, however, could be more arbitrary than to assert that
the author of the Acts, composing a letter supposed to be written under
the circumstances, would have written one different from this. We shall,
on the contrary, see good reason for affirming that he actually did
compose it, and that it bears the obvious impress of his style. Besides,
Zeller(2) has pointed out that, in a document affirmed to be so removed
from all calculation or object, verse 26 could hardly have found a
place. The reference to "our beloved" Barnabas and Paul, as "men that
have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," is
scarcely consistent with the primitive brevity and simplicity which are
made the basis of such an argument.
In the absence of better evidence, apologists grasp at extremely slight
indications of authenticity, and of this nature seems to us the mark
of genuineness which Bleek and others(3) consider that they find in the
fact,
{258}
that the name of Barnabas is placed before that of Paul in this
document. It is maintained that, from the 13th chapter, the author
commences to give the precedence to Paul, but that, in reverting to the
former order, the synodal letter gives evidence both of its antiquity
and genuineness. If any weight could be attached to such an indication,
it is unfortunate for this argument that the facts are not as stated,
for the order "Barnabas and Paul" occurs at xiv. 12 and 14, and even in
the very account of the Council at xv. 12. The two names are mentioned
together in the Acts sixteen times, Barnabas being named first eight
times (xi. 30, xii. 25, xiii. 1, 2, 7, xiv. 12, 14, xv. 12), and Paul as
frequently (xiii. 43, 46, 50, xv. 2 twice, 22, 25, 35). Apologists
like Lekebusch(1) and Oertel(2) reject Bleek's argument. The greeting
[------] with which the letter opens, and which, amongst the Epistles of
the New Testament, is only found in that bearing the name of James
(i. 1), is said to be an indication that the letter of the Council was
written by James himself.(3) Before such an argument could avail, it
would be necessary, though difficult, to prove the authenticity of the
Epistle of James, but we need not enter upon such a question. [------]
is the ordinary Greek form of greeting in all epistles,(4) and the
author of Acts, who writes purer Greek than any
{259}
other writer in our Canon, naturally adopts it. Not only does he do so
here, however, but he makes use of the same [------] in the letter of
the chief captain Lysias (xxiii. 26),(1) which also evidently proceeds
from his hand. Moreover, the word is used as a greeting in Luke i. 28,
and not unfrequently elsewhere in the New Testament, as Mattli. xxvi.
49, xxvii. 29, xxviii. 9, Mark xv. 18, John xix. 3,2 John 10, 11.
Lekebusch,(2) Meyer,(3) and Oertel(4) reject the argument, and we may
add that if [------] prove anything, it proves that the author of
Acts, who uses the word in the letter of Lysias, also wrote the synodal
letter. In what language must we suppose that the Epistle was originally
written? Oertel maintains an Aramaic original,(5) but the greater number
of writers consider that the original language was Greek.(6) It cannot
be denied that the composition, as it stands, contains many of the
peculiarities of style of the author of Acts;(7) and these are, indeed,
so marked that even apologists like Lekebusch and Oertel, whilst
maintaining the substantial authenticity of the Epistle, admit that
at least its actual form must be ascribed to the general author. The
originality of the form being abandoned, it is difficult to perceive any
ground for asserting the originality and genuineness of
{260}
the substance. That assertion rests solely upon a vague traditional
confidence in the Author of Acts, which is shown to be without any solid
foundation. The form of this Epistle clearly professes to be as genuine
as the substance, and if the original language was Greek, there is
absolutely no reason why the original letter should have been altered.
The similarity of the construction to that of the prologue to the third
Gospel, in which the personal style of the writer may be supposed to
have beeu most unreservedly shown, has long been admitted:--
[------]
A more detailed linguistic examination of the Epistle, however, confirms
the conclusion already stated. Verse 23: [------], ii. 23, v. 12, vii.
25, xi. 30, xiv. 3, xix. 11, 26, and elsewhere the expression is only
met with in Mark vi. 2; the phrase [------] finds a parallel in xi. 30,
[------], k. t. X. The characteristic expression [------], is repeated,
xi. 1, xvi. 7, xxvii. 2, 5, 7. Verse 24: [------], xiii. 46, xiv. 12,
Luke vii. 1, xi. 6, cf. i. 1; Paul 5, rest only 2 times. [------], xvii.
8,13, Luke i. 12, xxiv. 38, elsewhere thirteen times. [------] is not
found elsewhere, but the preference of our writer for compounds
of [------], and [------] is marked, and of these consists a large
proportion of his [------], Acts 15, Luke 14 times, and frequently
elsewhere; the phrase [------], may be compared with xiv. 22, [------],
cf. xiv. 2. [------]
{261}
not elsewhere found in Acts, but it occurs Matth. xvi. 20, Mark v. 43,
vii. 36 twice, viii. 15, ix. 9, and Heb. xii. 20. Verse 25: [------],
Acts 8, Luke 11, Paul 17 times, elsewhere frequently. [------], i. 14,
ii. 1, 46, iv. 24, v. 12, xii. 57, viii. 6, xii. 20, xviii. 12, xix.
29; so that this word, not in very common use even in general Greek
literature, occurs 10 times elsewhere in the Acts, but, except in Rom.
xv. 6, is not employed by any other New Testament writer. [------],
i. 2, 24, vi. 5, xiii. 17, xv. 7, 22, Luke vi. 13, x. 42, xiv. 7, and
elsewhere 11 times, [------], Acts 11, Luke 10 times, elsewhere common,
[------] is not elsewhere used in Acts, but is found in Luke iii.
22, ix. 35, xx. 13, Paul 13 times, and is common elsewhere. Verse 26:
[------], Acts 13, Luke 17 times, and common elsewhere, [------], xxi.
13, v. 41, ix. 16, Rom. i. 5, 3 John 7. Verse 27: [------], Acts 25,
Luke 26 times, elsewhere very frequently. [------], xv. 32. [------],
Acts 14, Luke 11, rest 21 times, [------], Luke vi. 23, 26; [------],
Acts i. 15, ii. 1, 44, iii. 1, iv. 26, xiv. 1; Luke vi. 33, xvii. 35.
Verse 28: [------], Acts 12, Luke 4, Paul 6, elsewhere 13 times; the
same expression, [------]... is also found in Luke iii. 13. [------],
Acts 13, Luke 6, elsewhere 21 times. [------] is not elsewhere met with
in Acts, but occurs Matt. xx. 12, 2 Cor. iv. 17, Gal. vi. 2, 1 Thes.
il 6, Apoc. ii. 24. [------], viii. 1, xx. 23, xxvii. 22, Luke
15, elsewhere 13 times. [------] is not elsewhere found in the New
Testament. Verse 29: [------], xv. 20, Luke vi. 24, vii. 6, xv. 20,
xxiv. 13, elsewhere 12 times. [------], xxi. 25, 1 Cor. viii. 1, 4, 7,
10, x. 19, 28, Apoc. ii. 14, 20. [------] occurs only in Luke ii. 51.
[------], Acts 12, Luke 6, Paul 15, elsewhere 5 times only, [------],
this
{262}
usual Greek formula for the ending of a letter, [------], is nowhere
else used in the New Testament, except at the close of the letter of
Lysias, xxiii. 30.
Turning now from the letter to the spirit of this decree, we must
endeavour to form some idea of its purport and bearing. The first point
which should be made clear is, that the question raised before the
Council solely affected the Gentile converts, and that the conditions
contained in the decree were imposed upon that branch of the Church
alone. No change whatever in the position of Jewish Christians was
contemplated; they were left as before, subject to the Mosaic law.(1)
This is very apparent in the reference which is made long after to the
decree, Ch. xxi. 20 ff., 25, when the desire is expressed to Paul by
James, who proposed the decree, and the elders of Jerusalem, that he
should prove to the many thousands of believing Jews all zealous of the
law, that he did not teach the Jews who were among the Gentiles apostasy
from Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children,
neither to walk after the customs. Paul, who is likewise represented, in
the Acts, as circumcising with his own hand, after the decision of the
Council had been adopted, Timothy the son of a Greek, whose mother was
a Jewess, consents to give the Jews of Jerusalem the required proof. We
have already shown at the commencement of this section, that
{263}
nothing was further from the minds of the Jewish Christians than the
supposition that the obligation to observe the Mosaic law was weakened
by the adoption of Christianity; and the representation in the Acts
is certainly so far correct, that it does not pretend that Jewish
Christians either desired or sanctioned any relaxation of Mosaic
observances on the part of believing Jews. This cannot be too distinctly
remembered in considering the history of primitive Christianity. The
initiatory rite was essential to full participation in the Covenant.
It was left for Paul to preach the abrogation of the law and the
abandonment of circumcision. If the speech of Peter seems to suggest
the abrogation of the law even for Jews, it is only in a way which
shows that the author had no clear historical fact to relate, and merely
desired to ascribe, vaguely and indefinitely, Pauline sentiments to
the Apostle of the circumcision. No remark whatever is made upon these
strangely liberal expressions of Peter, and neither the proposition of
James nor the speech in which he makes it takes the slightest notice
of them. The conduct of Peter at Antioch and the influence exercised by
James through his emissaries restore us to historical ground. Whether
the author intended to represent that the object of the conditions of
the decree was to admit the Gentile Christians to full communion with
the Jewish, or merely to the subordinate position of Proselytes of the
Gate, is uncertain, but it is not necessary to discuss the point. There
is not the slightest external evidence that such a decree ever existed,
and the more closely the details are examined the more evident does
it become that it has no historical consistency. How, and upon what
principle, were these singular conditions selected? Their heterogeneous
character is at once apparent, but not so the
{264}
reason for a combination which is neither limited to Jewish customs nor
sufficiently representative of moral duties. It has been argued, on
the one hand, that the prohibitions of the apostolic decree are simply
those, reduced to a necessary minimum, which were enforced in the case
of heathen converts to Judaism who did not join themselves fully to the
people of the Covenant by submitting to circumcision, but were admitted
to imperfect communion as Proselytes of the Gate.(1) The conditions
named, however, do not fully represent the rules framed for such cases,
and many critics consider that the conditions imposed, although they may
have been influenced by the Noachiaii prescriptions, were rather moral
duties which it was, from special circumstances, thought expedient to
specify.(2) "We shall presently refer to some of these conditions,
but bearing in mind the views which were dominant amongst primitive
Christians, and more especially, as is obvious, amongst the Christians
of Jerusalem where this decree is supposed to have been unanimously
adopted, bearing in mind the teaching which is said to have led to the
Council, the episode at Antioch, and the systematic judaistic
opposition which retarded the work of Paul and subsequently affected his
reputation, it may be instructive
{265}
to point out not only the vagueness which exists as to the position
which it was intended that the Gentiles should acquire, as the effect of
this decree, but also its singular and total inefficiency. An apologetic
writer, having of course in his mind the fact that there is no trace of
the operation of the decree, speaks of its conditions as follows: "The
miscellaneous character of these prohibitions showed that, taken as
a whole, they had no binding force independently of the circumstances
which dictated them. They were a temporary expedient framed to meet a
temporary emergency. Their object was the avoidance of offence in mixed
communities of Jew and Gentile converts. Beyond this recognised aim and
general understanding implied therein, the limits of their application
were not defined."1 In fact the immunity granted to the Gentiles was
thus practically almost unconditional.
It is obvious, however, that every consideration which represents the
decree as more completely emancipating Gentile Christians from Mosaic
obligations, and admitting them into free communion with believers
amongst the Jews, places it in more emphatic contradiction to historical
facts and the statements of the Apostle Paul. The unanimous adoption
of such a measure in Jerusalem, on the one hand, and, on the other,
the episode at Antioch, the fear of Peter, the silence of Paul, and the
attitude of James become perfectly inconceivable. If on the contrary the
conditions were seriously imposed and really meant anything, a number
of difficulties spring up of which we shall presently speak. That the
prohibitions, in the opinion of the author of the Acts, constituted a
positive and binding obligation can scarcely be doubted by anyone who
considers the terms in which they are laid down. If
{266}
they are represented as a concession they are nevertheless recognised as
a "burden," and they are distinctly stated to be the obligations which
"it seemed good to the Holy Spirit" as well as to the Council to impose.
The qualification, that the restrictive clauses had no binding force
"independently of the circumstances which dictated them," in so far as
it has any meaning beyond the unnecessary declaration that the decree
was only applicable to the class for whom it was framed, seems to
be inadmissible. The circumstance which dictated the decree was the
counter-teaching of Jewish Christians, that it was necessary that the
Gentile converts should be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. The
restrictive clauses are simply represented as those which it was deemed
right to impose; and, as they are stated without qualification, it is
holding the decision of the "Holy Spirit" and of the Church somewhat
cheap to treat them as mere local and temporary expedients. This is
evidently not the view of the author of the Acts. Would it have been the
view of anyone else if it were not that, so far as any external trace
of the decree is concerned, it is an absolute myth? The prevalence of
practices to which the four prohibitions point is quite sufficiently
attested to show that, little as there is any ground for considering
that such a decree was framed in such a manner, the restrictive clauses
are put forth as necessary and permanently binding. The very doubt which
exists as to whether the prohibitions were not intended to represent the
conditions imposed on Proselytes of the Gate shows their close analogy
to them, and it cannot be reasonably asserted that the early Christians
regarded those conditions either as obsolete or indifferent. The decree
is clearly intended to set forth the terms upon which Gentile Christians
were
{267}
to be admitted into communion, and undoubtedly is to be taken as
applicable not merely to a few districts, but to the Gentiles in
general.
The account which Paul gives of his visit not only ignores any such
decree, but excludes it. In the first place, taking into account the
Apostle's character and the spirit of his Epistle, it is impossible
to suppose that Paul had any intention of submitting, as to higher
authority, the Gospel which he preached, for the judgment of the elder
Apostles and of the Church of Jerusalem.(1) Nothing short of this is
involved in the account in the Acts, and in the form of the decree
which promulgates, in an authoritative manner, restrictive clauses which
"seemed good to the Holy Spirit" and to the Council. The temper of
the man is well shown in Paul's indignant letter to the Galatians. He
receives his Gospel, not from men, but by direct revelation from Jesus
Christ and, so far is he from submission of the kind implied, that he
says: "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto
you any Gospel other than that which we preached to you, let him be
accursed. As we have said before, so say I now again: If any man preach
any Gospel to you other than that ye received, let him be accursed."(2)
That the Apostle here refers to his own peculiar teaching, and does so
in contradistinction to the Gospel preached by the Judaizers, is evident
from the preceding words: "I marvel that ye are so soon removing from
him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different Gospel;
which is not another, only there are
{268}