Passing from this, however, to the restrictive clauses in general, how
is it possible that Paul could state, as the result of his visit, that
the "pillar" Apostles "communicated nothing" after hearing his Gospel,
if the four conditions of this decree had thus been authoritatively
"communicated"? On the contrary, Paul distinctly adds that, in
acknowledging his mission, but one condition had been attached: "Only
that we should remember the poor; which very thing I also was forward to
do."(2) As one condition is here mentioned, why not the others, had any
been actually imposed? It is argued that the remembrance of the poor of
Jerusalem which is thus inculcated was a recommendation personally made
to Paul and Barnabas, but it is clear that the Apostle's words refer to
the result of his communication of his Gospel, and to the understanding
under which his mission to the Gentiles was tolerated.
We have already pointed out how extraordinary it is that such a decision
of the Council should not have been referred to in describing his visit,
and the more we go into details the more striking and inexplicable,
except in one way, is such silence. In relating the struggle regarding
the circumcision of Titus, for instance, and stating that he did not
yield, no, not for an hour, to the demands made on the subject, is it
conceivable that, if the exemption of all Gentile Christians from the
initiatory rite had
{269}
been unanimously conceded, Paul would not have added to his statement
about Titus, that not only he himself had not been compelled to give way
in this instance, but that his representations had even convinced those
who had been Apostles before him, and secured the unanimous adoption of
his own views on the point? The whole of this Epistle is a vehement and
intensely earnest denunciation of those Judaizers who were pressing the
necessity of the initiatory rite upon the Galatian converts.(1) Is it
possible that the Apostle could have left totally unmentioned the fact
that the Apostles and the very Church of Jerusalem had actually declared
circumcision to be unnecessary? It would not have accorded with Paul's
character, it is said, to have appealed to the authority of the elder
Apostles or of the Church in a matter in which his own apostolic
authority and teaching were in question. In that case, bow can it be
supposed that he ever went at all up to Jerusalem to the Apostles and
elders about this question? If he was not too proud to lay aside his
apostolic dignity and, representing the Christians of Antioch, to submit
the case to the Council at Jerusalem, and subsequently to deliver its
decree to various communities, is it consistent with reason or common
sense to assert that he was too proud to recall the decision of that
Council to the Christians of Galatia? It must, we think, be obvious
that, if such an explanation of Paul's total silence as to the decree be
at all valid, it is absolutely fatal to the account of Paul's visit in
the Acts. This reasoning is not confined to the Epistle to the Galatians
but, as Paley
1 "Turning from Antioch to Galatia, we meet with Judaic
teachers who urged circumcision on the Gentile converts,
and, as the best means of weakening the authority of St.
Paul, asserted for the Apostles of the Circumcision the
exclusive right of dictating to the Church." Lightfoot, Ep.
to the Gal. p. 353.
{270}
points out, applies to the other Epistles of Paul, in all of which the
same silence is preserved.
Moreover, the apologetic explanation altogether fails upon other
grounds. Without appealing to the decree as an authority, we must feel
sure that the Apostle would at least have made use of it as a logical
refutation of his adversaries. The man who did not hesitate to attack
Peter openly for inconsistency, and charge him with hypocrisy, would not
have hesitated to cite the decree as evidence, and still less to fling
it in the faces of those Judaizers who, so short a time after that
decree is supposed to have been promulgated, preached the necessity of
circumcision and Mosaic observances in direct opposition to its terms,
whilst claiming to represent the views of the very Apostles and Church
which had framed it. Paul, who never denies the validity of their claim,
would most certainly have taunted them with gross inconsistency and
retorted that the Church of Jerusalem, the Apostles, and the Judaizers
who now troubled him and preached circumcision and the Mosaic law had,
four or five years previously, declared as the deliberate decision of
the Holy Spirit and the Council, that they were no longer binding on the
Gentile converts. By such a reference "the discussion would have been
foreclosed." None of the reasons which are suggested to explain the
undeniable fact that there is no mention of the decree can really bear
examination, and that fact remains supported by a great many powerful
considerations, leading to the very simple explanation which reconciles
all difficulties, that the narrative of the Acts is not authentic.
We arrive at the very same results when we examine the Apostle's
references to the practices which the conditions of the decree were
intended to control. Instead of recognising the authority of the decree,
or enforcing its
{271}
prescriptions, he does not even allow us to infer its existence, and
he teaches disregard at least of some of its restrictions. The decree
enjoins the Gentile Christians to abstain from meats offered to idols.
Paul tells the Corinthians to eat whatever meat is sold in the shambles
without asking questions for conscience sake, for an idol is nothing in
the world, "neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not
are we the worse."(1) It is not conceivable that the Apostle could so
completely have ignored the prohibition of the decree if he had actually
submitted the question to the Apostles, and himself so distinctly
acquiesced in their decision as to distribute the document amongst the
various communities whom he subsequently visited. To argue that the
decree was only intended to have force in Antioch, and Syria, and
Cilicia, to which, as the locality in which the difficulty had arisen
which had originally led to the Council, the decree was, in the first
instance, addressed, is highly arbitrary; but, when proceeding further,
apologists(2) draw a distinction between those churches "which had
already been founded, and which had felt the pressure of Jewish
prejudice (Acts xvi. 4)," and "brotherhoods afterwards formed and lying
beyond the reach of such influences," as a reason why no notice of the
decree is taken in the case of the Corinthians and Romans, the
special pleading ignores very palpable facts. "Jewish prejudices" are
represented in the Acts of the Apostles themselves as being more than
usually strong in Corinth. There was a Jewish synagogue there, augmented
probably by the Jews expelled from Rome under Claudius,(3) and their
violence against
{272}
Paul finally obliged him to leave the place.(1) Living in the midst of
an idolatrous city, and much exposed to the temptations of
sacrificial feasts, we might naturally expect excessive rigour against
participation, on the one hand, and perhaps too great indifference, on
the other; and this we actually find to have been the case. It is in
consequence of questions respecting meats offered to idols that Paul
writes to the Corinthians, and whilst treating the matter in itself as
one of perfect indifference, merely inculcates consideration for weak
consciences.(2) It is clear that there was a decided feeling against
the practice; it is clear that strong Jewish prejudices existed in the
Jewish colony at Corinth, and wherever there were Jews the eating
of meats offered to idols was an abomination. The sin of Israel at
Baalpeor(3) lived in the memory of the people, and abstinence from such
pollution(4) was considered a duty. If the existence of such "Jewish
prejudices" was a reason for publishing the decree, we have, in fact,
more definite evidence of them in Corinth than we have in Antioch, for,
apart from this specific mention of the subject of eating sacrificial
meats, the two apostolic letters abundantly show the existence and
activity of Judaistic parties there, which opposed the work of Paul, and
desired to force Mosaic observances upon his converts. It is impossible
to admit that, supposing such a decree to have been promulgated as the
mind of the Holy Spirit, there could be any reason why it should have
been unknown at Corinth so short a time after it was adopted. When,
therefore, we find the Apostle not only ignoring it, but actually
declaring that to be a matter of indifference, abstinence from which it
had just seemed
{273}
good to the Holy Spirit to enjoin, the only reasonable conclusion is
that Paul himself was totally ignorant of the existence of any decree
containing such a prohibition. There is much difference of opinion as
to the nature of the [------] referred to in the decree, and we need not
discuss it; but in all the Apostle's homilies upon the subject there is
the same total absence of all allusion to the decision of the Council.
Nowhere can any practical result from the operation of the decree be
pointed out, nor any trace even of its existence.1 The assertions
and conjectures, by which those who maintain the authenticity of the
narrative in the Acts seek to explain the extraordinary absence of all
external evidence of the decree, labour under the disadvantage of all
attempts to account for the total failure of effects from a supposed
cause, the existence of which is in reality only assumed. It is
customary to reply to the objection that there is no mention of the
decree in the Epistles of Paul or in any other contemporary writing,
that this is a mere argument _a silentio_. Is it not, however, difficult
to imagine any other argument, from contemporary sources, regarding
what is affirmed to have had no existence, than that from silence 1 Do
apologists absolutely demand that, with prophetic anticipation of future
controversies, the Apostle Paul should obligingly have left on record
that there actually was no Council such as a writer would subsequently
describe, and that the decree which he
{274}
would put forward as the result of that Council must not he accepted as
genuine? It is natural to expect that, when writing of the very visit in
question, and dealing with subjects and discussions in which, whether
in the shape of historical allusion, appeal to authority, taunt for
inconsistency, or assertion of his own influence, some allusion to the
decree would have been highly appropriate, if not necessary, the Apostle
Paul should at least have given some hint of its existence. His
not doing so constitutes strong presumptive evidence against the
authenticity of the decree, and all the more so as no more positive
evidence than silence could possibly be forthcoming of the non-existence
of that which never existed. The supposed decree of the Council of
Jerusalem cannot on any ground be accepted as a historical fact.(1)
We may now return to such further consideration of the statements of the
Epistle as may seem necessary for the object of our inquiry. No mention
is made by the Apostle of any official mission on the subject of
circumcision, and the discussion of that question arises in a merely
incidental manner from the presence of Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile
Christian. There has been much discussion as to whether Titus actually
was circumcised or not, and there
{275}
can be little doubt that the omission of the negative [------] from
Gal. ii. 5, has been in some cases influenced by the desire to bring the
Apostle's conduct upon this occasion into harmony with the account, in
Acts xvi. 3, of his circumcising Timothy.(1) We shall not require to
enter into any controversy on the point, for the great majority of
critics are agreed that the Apostle intended to say that Titus was not
circumcised, although the contrary is affirmed by a few writers.(2) It
is obvious from the whole of the Apostle's narrative that great pressure
was exerted to induce Titus to submit, and that Paul, if he did not
yield even for an hour the required subjection, had a long and severe
struggle to maintain his position. Even when relating the circumstances
in his letter to the Galatians, the recollection of his contest
profoundly stirs the Apostle's indignation; his utterance becomes
vehement, but cannot keep pace with his impetuous thoughts, and
the result is a narrative in broken and abrupt sentences whose very
incompleteness is eloquent, and betrays the irritation which has not
even yet entirely subsided. How does this accord with the whole tone of
the account in the Acts? It is customary with apologists to insert so
much between the lines of that narrative, partly from imagination and
partly from the statements of the Epistle, that they almost convince
themselves and others that such additions are actually suggested by the
author of the Acts himself. If we take the account of the Acts, however,
without such transmutations, it is certain that not only is there not
the slightest indication of any struggle regarding the
{276}
circumcision of Titus, "in which St. Paul maintained at one time almost
single-handed the cause of Gentile freedom,"(1) but no suggestion that
there had ever been any hesitation on the part of the leading Apostles
and the mass of the Church regarding the point at issue. The impression
given by the author of the Acts is undeniably one of unbroken and
undisturbed harmony: of a council in which the elder Apostles were of
one mind with Paul, and warmly agreed with him that the Gentiles should
be delivered from the yoke of the Mosaic law and from the necessity
of undergoing the initiatory rite. What is there in such an account
to justify in any degree the irritation displayed by Paul at the mere
recollection of this visit, or to merit the ironical terms with which he
speaks of the "pillar" Apostles?
We may, however, now consider the part which the Apostles must have
taken in the dispute regarding the circumcision of Titus. Is it possible
to suppose that, if the circumcision of Paul's follower had only
been demanded by certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed,
unsupported by the rest, there could ever have been any considerable
struggle on the point? Is it possible, further, to suppose that, if Paul
had received the cordial support of James and the leading Apostles in
his refusal to concede the circumcision of Titus, such a contest could
have been more than momentary and trifling? Is it possible that the
Apostle Paul could have spoken of "certain of the sect of the Pharisees
who believed" in such terms as: "to whom we yielded by the submission
[------] no not for an hour?"(2) or that he could have used this
expression if those who pressed the demand upon him had not been in a
position
{277}
of authority, which naturally suggested a subjection which Paul upon
this occasion persistently refused? It is not possible. Of course many
writers who seek to reconcile the two narratives, and some of whom
substitute for the plain statements of the Acts and of the Apostle, an
account which is not consistent with either, suppose that the demand for
the circumcision of Titus proceeded solely from the "false brethren,"(1)
although some of them suppose that at least these false brethren may
have thought they had reason to hope for the support of the elder
Apostles.(2) It is almost too clear for dispute, however, that the
desire that Titus should be circumcised was shared or pressed by the
elder Apostles.(3) According to the showing of the Acts, nothing could
be more natural than the fact that James and the elders of Jerusalem
who, so long after (xxi. 20 if.), advised Paul to prove his continued
observance of the law and that he did not teach the Jews to abandon
circumcision, should on this occasion have pressed him to circumcise
Titus. The conduct of Peter at Antioch, and the constant opposition
which Paul met with from emissaries
{278}
of James and of the Apostles of the Circumcision upon the very point of
Gentile circumcision, all support the inevitable conclusion, that the
pressure upon Paul in the matter of Titus was not only not resisted by
the Apostles, but proceeded in no small degree from them.
This is further shown by the remainder of Paul's account of his visit
and by the tone of his remarks regarding the principal Apostles, as well
as by the historical data which we possess of his subsequent career. We
need not repeat that the representation in the Acts both of the Council
and of the whole intercourse between Paul and the Apostles is one of
"unbroken unity."(1) The struggle about Titus and the quarrel with
Peter at Antioch are altogether omitted, and the Apostolic letter speaks
merely of "our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have given up their
lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ"(2) The language of Paul is
not so pacific and complimentary. Immediately after his statement that
he had "yielded by the submission, no, not for an hour," Paul continues:
"But from those who seem to be something [------]--whatsoever they were
it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person;--for to me
those who seem [------] (to be something) communicated nothing, but, on
the contrary, &c. &c., and when they knew the grace that was given to
me, James and Cephas and John, who seem to be pillars [------], gave to
me and Barnabas right hands of fellowship that we (should go) unto
the Gentiles," &c. &c.(3) The tone and language of this passage are
certainly
{279}
depreciatory of the elder Apostles,(1) and, indeed, it is difficult to
understand how any one could fail to perceive and admit the fact. It is
argued by some who recognise the irony of the term [------] applied to
the Apostles, that the disparagement which is so transparent in the form
[------], "those who seem to be something," is softened again in the
new turn which is given to it in ver. 9, [------], "those who seem to
be pillars," in which, it is said, "the Apostle expresses the real
greatness and high authority of the twelve in their separate field of
labour."(2) It seems to us that this interpretation cannot be sustained.
Paul is ringing the changes on [------], and contrasting with the
position they assumed and the estimation in which they were held, his
own experience of them, and their inability to add anything to him.
"Those who seem to be something," he commences, but immediately
interrupts himself, after having thus indicated the persons
whom he meant, with the more direct protest of irritated
independence:--"whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me: God
accepteth not man's person." These [------] communicated nothing to him,
but, on the contrary, when they knew the grace given to him, "those who
seem to be pillars" gave him hands of fellowship, but nothing more,
and they went their different ways, he to the Gentiles and they to the
circumcision. If the
{280}
expression: [------] be true, as well as ironically used, it cannot be
construed into a declaration of respect, but forms part of a passage
whose tone throughout is proudly depreciatory. This is followed by such
words as "hypocrisy" [------] and "condemned" [------] applied to the
conduct of Peter at Antioch, as well as the mention of the emissaries of
James as the cause of that dispute, which add meaning to the irony.
This is not, however, the only occasion on which Paul betrays a certain
bitterness against the elder Apostles. In his second letter to the
Corinthians, xi. 5, he says, "For I reckon that I am not a whit behind
the over much Apostles" [------], and again, xii. 11, "For in nothing
was I behind the over much Apostles" [------]; and the whole of the
vehement passage in which these references are set shows the intensity
of the feeling which called them forth. To say that the expressions
in the Galatian Epistle and here are "depreciatory, not indeed of the
twelve themselves, but of the extravagant and exclusive claims set up
for them by the Judaizers,"(1) is an extremely arbitrary distinction.
They are directly applied to the Apostles, and [------] cannot be taken
as irony against those who over-estimated them, but against the [------]
themselves. Paul's blows generally go straight to their mark. Meyer
argues that the designation of the Apostles as [------] is purely
historical, and cannot be taken as ironical, inasmuch as it would be
inconsistent to suppose that Paul could adopt a depreciatory tone when
he is relating his recognition as a colleague by the elder Apostles;(2)
and others consider that
{281}
ver. 8, 9, 10 contain evidence of mutual respect and recognition between
Paul and the twelve. Even if this were so, it could not do away with
the actual irony of the expressions; but do the facts support such a
statement? We have seen that, in spite of the picture of unbroken unity
drawn by the author of the Acts, and the liberal sentiments regarding
the Gentiles which he puts into the mouth of Peter and of James, Paul
had a severe and protracted struggle to undergo in order to avoid
circumcising Titus. We have already stated the grounds upon which it
seems certain that the pressure upon that occasion came as well from the
elder Apostles as the "false brethren," and critics who do not go so far
as to make this positive affirmation, at least recognise the passive,
and therefore to a large extent compliant, attitude which the Apostles
must have held. It is after narrating some of the particulars of this
struggle that Paul uses the terms of depreciation which we have
been discussing; and having added, "for to me those who seem (to be
something) communicated nothing," he says, "_but, on the contrary_,
when they saw that I have been entrusted with the Gospel of the
uncircumcision, even as Peter with that of the circumcision (for he that
wrought for Peter unto the Apostleship of the circumcision, wrought also
for me unto the Gentiles); and when they knew the grace that was given
unto me, James and Cephas and John, who seem to be pillars, gave to me
and Barnabas right hands of fellowship, that we (should go) unto the
Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: only that we should remember
the poor; which very thing I also was forward to do." It will be
observed that, after saying they "communicated nothing" to him, the
Apostle adds, in opposition, "but, on the
{282}
contrary" [------]. In what does this opposition consist? Apparently in
this, that, instead of strengthening the hands of Paul, they left him to
labour alone. They said: "Take your own course; preach the Gospel of
the uncircumcision to Gentiles, and we will preach the Gospel of the
circumcision to Jews."(1) In fact, when Paul returned to Jerusalem for
the second time after fourteen years, he found the elder Apostles not
one whit advanced towards his own uni-versalism; they retained their
former Jewish prejudices, and remained as before Apostles of the
circumcision.(2) Notwithstanding the strong Pauline sentiments put into
Peter's mouth by the author of the Acts, and his claim to have been so
long before selected by God that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear
the word of the Gospel and believe, Paul singles out Peter as specially
entrusted with the Gospel of the circumcision; and, in the end, after
Paul has exerted all his influence, Peter and the rest remain unmoved,
and allow Paul to go to the Gentiles, while they confine their ministry
as before to the Jews. The success of Paul's work amongst the heathen
was too palpable a fact to be ignored, but there is no reason to believe
that the conversion of the Gentiles, upon his terms, was more than
tolerated at that time, or the Gentile Christians admitted to more
than such imperfect communion with the Jewish Christians as that of
Proselytes of the Gate in relation to Judaism. This is shown by the
conduct of Peter at Antioch after the supposed Council, and of the Jews
with him, and even of Barnabas,
{283}
through fear of the emissaries of James, whose arrival certainly could
not have produced a separation between Jewish and Gentile Christians had
the latter been recognised as in full communion.
The "hands of fellowship" clearly was a mere passive permission of
Paul's mission to the Gentiles, but no positive and hearty approval of
it testified by active support.(1) It must, we think, be evident to any one
who attentively considers the passage we are examining, that there is no
question whatever in it of a recognition of the Apostolate of Paul.(2)
The elder Apostles consent to his mission to the Gentiles, whilst they
themselves go to the circumcision; but there is not a syllable which
indicates that Paul's claim to the title of Apostle was ever either
acknowledged or discussed. It is not probable that Paul would have
submitted such a point to their consideration. It is difficult to see
how the elder Apostles could well have done less than they did, and the
extent of their fellowship seems to have simply amounted to toleration
of what they could not prevent. The pressure for the circumcision of the
Gentile converts was an attempt to coerce, and to suppress the peculiar
principle of the Gospel of uncircumcision; and though that effort failed
through the determined resistance of Paul,
{284}
it is clear, from the final resolve to limit their preaching to the
circumcision, that the elder Apostles in no way abandoned their view
of the necessity of the initiatory rite. The episode at Antioch is
a practical illustration of this statement. Hilgenfeld ably
remarks:--"When we consider that Peter was afraid of the circumcised
Christians, there can be no doubt _that James, at the head of the
primitive community, made the attempt to force heathen Christians
to adopt the substance of Jewish legitimacy, by breaking off
ecclesiastical community with them_."(1) The Gentile Christians were
virtually excommunicated on the arrival of the emissaries of James, or
at least treated as mere Proselytes of the Gate; and the pressure
upon the Galatian converts of the necessity of circumcision by similar
Judaizing emissaries, which called forth the vehement and invaluable
Epistle before us, is quite in accordance with the circumstances of this
visit. The separation agreed upon between Paul and the elder Apostles
was not in any sense geographical, but purely ethnological.(2) It was no
mere division of labour,(3) no suitable apportionment of work. The elder
Apostles determined, like their Master before them, to confine their
ministry to Jews, whilst Paul, if he pleased, might go to the Gentiles;
and the mere fact that Peter subsequently goes to Antioch, as well as
many other
{285}
circumstances, shows that no mere separation of localities, but a
selection of race was intended. If there had not been this absolute
difference of purpose, any separation would have been unnecessary, and
all the Apostles would have preached one Gospel indifferently to all
who had ears to hear it; such strange inequality in the partition of
the work could never have existed: that Paul should go unaided to the
gigantic task of converting the heathen, while the Twelve reserved
themselves for the small but privileged people. All that we have said at
the beginning of this section of the nature of primitive Christianity,
and of the views prevalent amongst the disciples at the death of their
Master, is verified by this attitude of the Three during the famous
visit of the Apostle of the Gentiles to Jerusalem, and Paul's account is
precisely in accordance with all that historical probability and reason,
unwarped by the ideal representations of the Acts, prepare us to expect.
The more deeply we go into the statements of Paul the more is this
apparent, and the more palpable does the inauthenticity of the narrative
of the Council appear.
The words of Paul in describing the final understanding are very
remarkable and require further consideration. The decision that they
should go to the circumcision and Paul to the Gentiles is based upon the
recognition of a different Gospel entrusted to him, the Gospel of the
uncircumcision, as the Gospel of the circumcision is entrusted to Peter.
It will be remembered that Paul states that, on going up to Jerusalem
upon this occasion, he communicated to them the Gospel which he preached
among the Gentiles, and it is probable that he made the journey more
especially for this purpose. It appears from the account that this
Gospel was not only new to them, but was
{286}
distinctly diflferent from that of the elder Apostles. If Paul preached
the same Gospel as the rest, what necessity could there have been
for communicating it at all? What doubt that by any means he might be
running, or had run, in vain? He knew perfectly well that he preached a
diflferent Gospel from the Apostles of the circumcision, and his anxiety
probably was to secure an amicable recognition of the Gentile converts
whom he had taught to consider circumcision unnecessary and the
obligation of the law removed. Of course there was much that was
fundamentally the same in the two Gospels, starting as they both did
with the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah; but their points of
divergence were very marked and striking, and more especially in
directions where the prejudices of the Apostles of the circumcision were
the strongest Avoiding all debatable ground, it is clear that the Gospel
of the uncircumcision, which proclaimed the abrogation of the law
and the inutility of the initiatory rite, must have been profoundly
repugnant to Jews, who still preached the obligation of circumcision
and the observance of the law. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of
the law"(1) said the Gospel of the uncircumcision. "Behold, I, Paul, say
unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing....
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor
uncircumcision, but faith working through love."(2) "For neither
circumcision is anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."(3)
The teaching which was specially designated the Gospel of the
circumcision, in contradistinction to this Gospel of the uncircumcision,
held very diflferent language. There is no gainsaying the
{287}
main fact--and that fact, certified by Paul himself and substantiated
by a host of collateral circumstances, is more conclusive than all
conciliatory apologetic reasoning--that, at the date of this visit to
Jerusalem (c. a.d. 50-52), the Three, after hearing all that Paul had to
say, allowed him to go alone to the Gentiles, but themselves would have
no part in the mission, and turned as before to the circumcision.
There is another point to which we must very briefly refer. The
statements of Paul show that, antecedent to this visit to Jerusalem,
Paul had been the active Apostle of the Gentiles, preaching his Gospel
of the uncircumcision, and that subsequently he returned to the same
field of labour. If we examine the narrative of the Acts, we do not find
him represented in any special manner as the Apostle of the Gentiles,
but, on the contrary, whilst Peter claims the honour of having been
selected that by his voice the Gentiles should hear the word of the
Gospel and believe, Paul is everywhere described as going to the Jews,
and only when his teaching is rejected by them does he turn to the
Gentiles. It is true that Ananias is represented as being told by the
Lord that Paul is a chosen vessel "to bear my name both before Gentiles
and kings, and the sons of Israel;"(1) and Paul subsequently recounts
how the Lord had said to himself, "Go, for I will send thee far hence
unto Gentiles."(2) The author of the Acts, however, everywhere conveys
the impression that Paul very reluctantly fulfils this mission, and that
if he had but been successful amongst the Jews he never would have gone
to the Gentiles at all. Immediately after his conversion, he preaches in
the synagogues at Damascus and confounds the Jews,(3) as he
{288}
again does during his visit to Jerusalem.(1) When the Holy Spirit
desires the Church at Antioch to separate Barnabas and Saul for the work
whereunto he has called them, they continue to announce the word of God
"in the synagogues of the Jews,"(2) and in narrating the conversion
of the Roman proconsul at Paphos, it is said that it is Sergius Paulus
himself who calls for Barnabas and Saul, and seeks to hear the word of
God.(3) When they came to Antioch in Pisidia, they go into the synagogue
of the Jews(4) as usual, and it is only after the Jews reject them that
Paul and Barnabas are described as saying:--"It was necessary that the
word of God should first be spoken to you: seeing that ye thrust it from
you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to
the Gentiles."(5) In Iconium, to which they next proceed, however, they
go into the synagogue of the Jews,(6) and later, it is stated that
Paul, on arriving at Thessalonica, "as his custom was," went into the
synagogue of the Jews, and for three Sabbaths discoursed to them.(7) At
Corinth, it was only when the Jews opposed him and blasphemed, that
Paul is represented as saying: "Your blood be upon your own head; I
will henceforth, with a pure conscience, go unto the Gentiles." It is
impossible to distinguish from this narrative any difference between
the ministry of Paul and that of the other Apostles. They all address
themselves mainly and primarily to the Jews, although if Gentiles desire
to eat of "the crumbs which fall from the children's bread" they are
not rejected. Even the Pharisees stirred heaven and earth to make
proselytes. In no sense can
{289}
the Paul of the Acts be considered specially an Apostle of the
Gentiles, and the statement of the Epistle to the Galatians(1) has no
significance, if interpreted by the historical work.
Apologists usually reply to this objection, that the practice of Paul
in the Acts is in accordance with his own words in the Epistle to the
Romans, i. 16, in which, it is asserted, he recognizes the right of the
Jews to precedence. In the Authorised Version this passage is rendered
as follows:--"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is
the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew
first and also to the Greek."(2) [------] As a matter of
fact we may here at once state that the word [------] "first," is
not found in Codices B and G, and that it is omitted from the Latin
rendering of the verse quoted by Tertullian.(3) That the word upon which
the controversy turns should not be found in so important a MS. as
the Vatican Codex or in so ancient a version as Tertullian's is very
significant, but proceeding at once to the sense of the sentence, we
must briefly state the reasons which seem to us conclusively to
show that the usual reading is erroneous. The passage is an emphatic
statement of the principles of Paul. He declares that he is not ashamed
of the Gospel, and he immediately states the reason: "for it is a power
of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth."(4) He is not ashamed
of the Gospel because he recognizes its universality; for, in
{290}
opposition to the exclusiveness of Judaism, he maintains that all are
"sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus... There is neither Jew nor
Greek... for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's
then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."(1) "For in
Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision,
but faith working through love."(2) The reason which he gives is that
which lies at the basis of the whole of his special teaching; but we are
asked to believe that, after so clear and comprehensive a declaration,
he at once adds the extraordinary qualification: [------], rendered
"to the Jew first and also to the Greek." What is the meaning of such a
limitation? If the Gospel be a power of God unto salvation "to every one
that believeth" [------], in what manner can it possibly be so "to the
Jew first"? Can it be maintained that there are comparative degrees in
salvation? "Salvation" is obviously an absolute term. If saved at all,
the Jew cannot be more saved than the Greek. If, on the other hand, the
expression be interpreted as an assertion that the Jew has a right of
precedence either in the offer or the attainment of salvation before the
Greek, the manner of its realization is almost equally inconceivable,
and a host of difficulties, especially in view of the specific Pauline
teaching, immediately present themselves. There can be no doubt that the
judaistic view distinctly was that Israel must first be saved, before
the heathen could obtain any part in the Messianic kingdom, and we have
shown that this idea dominated primitive Christianity; and inseparable
from this was the belief that the only way to a participation in its
benefits lay through Judaism. The
{291}
heathen could only obtain admission into the family of Israel, and
become partakers in the covenant, by submitting to the initiatory rite.
It was palpably under the influence of this view, and with a conviction
that the Messianic kingdom was primarily destined for the children of
Israel, that the elder Apostles, even after the date of Paul's second
visit to Jerusalem, continued to confine their ministry "to the
circumcision." Paul's view was very different. He recognized and
maintained the universality of the Gospel and, in resolving to go to the
heathen, he practically repudiated the very theory of Jewish preference
which he is here supposed to advance. If the Gospel, instead of being
a power of God to salvation to every man who believed, was for the Jew
first, the Apostolate of the Gentiles was a mere delusion and a snare.
What could be the advantage of so urgently offering salvation to the
Greek, if the gift, instead of being "for every one that believeth,"
was a mere prospective benefit, inoperative until the Jew had first been
saved? "Salvation to the Jew first and also to the Greek," if it have
any significance whatever of the kind argued,--involving either a prior
claim to the offer of salvation, or precedence in its distribution,--so
completely destroys all the present interest in it of the Gentile, that
the Gospel must to him have lost all power. To suppose that such an
expression simply means, that the Gospel must first be preached to
the Jews in any town to which the Apostle might come before it could
legitimately be proclaimed to the Gentiles of that town, is childish. We
have no reason to suppose that Paul held the deputy Sergius Paulus, who
desired to hear the word of God and believed, in suspense until the Jews
of Paphos had
{292}
rejected it. The cases of the Ethiopian eunuch and Cornelius throw no
light upon any claim of the Jew to priority in salvation. Indeed, not
to waste time in showing the utter incongruity of the ordinary
interpretation, we venture to affirm that there is not a single
explanation, which maintains a priority assigned to the Jew in any way
justifying the reference to this text, which is capable of supporting
the slightest investigation. If we linguistically examine the expression
[------], we arrive at the same conclusion, that [------] is an
interpolation, for we must maintain that [------] with [------] and
[------] must be applied equally both to "Jew" and "Greek," and cannot
rightly be appropriated to the Jew only, as implying a preference
over the Greek.(1) The sense, therefore, can only be properly and
intelligibly given by disregarding [------] and simply translating the
words: "both to Jew and Greek."(2) This was the rendering of the ancient
Latin version quoted by Tertullian in his work against Marcion: "Itaque
et hie, cum dicit: Non enim me pudet evangelii, virtus enim dei est in
salutem omni credenti, Judaeo et Graeco, quia justitia dei in eo revelatur
ex fide in fidem.,,(3) We are not left without further examples of
the very same expression, and an examination of the context will amply
demonstrate that Paul used it in no other sense. In the
{293}
very next chapter the Apostle twice uses the same words. After
condemning the hasty and unrighteous judgment of man, he says: "For we
know that the judgment of God is according to truth.... who will
render to every one according to his works; to them who by patience in
well-doing seek for glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: but
unto them that act out of factious spirit and do not obey the truth but
obey unrighteousness, anger, and wrath: affliction and distress upon
every soul of man that worketh evil, both of Jew and of Greek [------],
A. V. "of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile"; but glory and honour
and peace to every one that worketh good, both to Jew and to Greek
[------], A. V. "to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile"). For there
is no respect of persons with God."(1) How is it possible that, if the
Apostle had intended to assert a priority of any kind accorded to the
Jew before the Gentile, he could at the same time have added: "For there
is no respect of persons with God "? If salvation be "to the Jew first,"
there is very distinctly respect of persons with God. The very opposite,
however, is repeatedly and emphatically asserted by Paul in this very
epistle. "For there is no difference between Jew and Greek" [------],
he says, "for the same Lord of all is rich unto all them that call
upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved."(2) Here, we have the phrase without [------]. Nothing could be
more clear and explicit. The precedence of the Jew is directly excluded.
At the end of the second chapter, moreover, he explains his idea of a
Jew:
{294}
"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision
which is outwardly in flesh, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and
circumcision is of the heart, in spirit not letter."(1) If anything
further were required to prove that the Apostle does not by the
expression: [------], intend to indicate any priority accorded to the
Jew, it is supplied by the commencement of the third chapter. "What then
is the advantage of the Jew? or what the profit of circumcision?" It is
obvious that if the Apostle had just said that the Gospel was the power
of God unto salvation, "to Jew first and also to Greek," he had stated a
very marked advantage to the Jew, and that such an inquiry as the above
would have been wholly unnecessary. The answer which he gives to his
own question, however, completes our certainty. "Much every way," he
replies; but in explaining what the "much" advantage was, we hear no
more of "to Jew first:" "Much every way: for first indeed they were
entrusted with the oracles of God."(1) And, after a few words, he
proceeds: "What then? are we better? Not at all; for we before brought
the charge that both Jews and Greeks [------] are all under sin."(3)
Here, again, there is no [------]. There can be no doubt in the mind of
any one who understands what Paul's teaching was, and what he means by
claiming the special title of "Apostle to the Gentiles," that in going
"to the Heathen" after his visit to Jerusalem, as before it, there was
no purpose in his mind to preach to the Jews first and only on being
rejected by them to turn to the Gentiles, as the Acts would have us
suppose; but that the principle which regulated his proclamation of the
Gospel was that which we have
{295}
already quoted: "For there is no difference between Jew and Greek;
for the same Lord of all is rich unto all them that call upon him. For
whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."(1)
Still more incongruous is the statement of the Acts that Paul took
Timothy and circumcised him because of the Jews. According to this
narrative, shortly after the supposed Council of Jerusalem at which
it was decided that circumcision of Gentile Converts was unnecessary;
immediately after Paul had in spite of great pressure refused to allow
Titus to be circumcised; and after it had been agreed between the
Apostle of the Gentiles and James and Cephas and John that while they
should go to the circumcision, he, on the contrary, should go to the
heathen, Paul actually took and circumcised Timothy. Apologists, whilst
generally admitting the apparent contradiction, do not consider that
this act involves any real inconsistency, and find reasons which,
they affirm, sufficiently justify it. Some of these we shall presently
examine, but we may at once say that no apologetic arguments seem to
us capable of resisting the conclusion arrived at by many independent
critics, that the statement of the Acts with regard to Timothy is
opposed to all that we know of Paul's views, and that for unassailable
reasons it must be pronounced unhistorical.(2) The author of the Acts
says: "And he (Paul) came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold a certain
disciple was there, named Timothy, son of a
{296}
believing Jewish woman, but of a Greek father; who was well reported of
by the brethren in Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth
with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were
in those places [------]; for they all knew that his father was a Greek
[------]."(1) The principal arguments of those who maintain the truth
and consistency of this narrative briefly are: Paul resisted the
circumcision of Titus because he was a Greek, and because the subject
then actually under consideration was the immunity from the Jewish rite
of Gentile Christians, which would have been prejudiced had he yielded
the point. On the other hand, Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother,
and whilst there was no principle here in question, Paul circumcised the
companion whom he had chosen to accompany him in his missionary journey,
both as a recognition of his Jewish origin and to avoid offence to the
Jews whom they should encounter in the course of their ministry, as well
as to secure for him access to the synagogues which they must visit:
Paul in this instance, according to all apologists putting in practice
his own declaration (1 Cor. ix. 19-20): "For being free from all men,
I made myself servant unto all that I might gain the more; and unto the
Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews."
It must be borne in mind that the author who chronicles the supposed
circumcision of Timothy makes no allusion to the refusal of Paul to
permit Titus to be circumcised; an omission which is not only singular
in itself, but significant when we find him, immediately after,
narrating so singular a concession of which the
{297}
Apostle makes no mention. Of course it is clear that Paul could not have
consented to the circumcision of Titus, and we have only to consider in
what manner the case of Timothy differed so as to support the views of
those who hold that Paul, who would not yield to the pressure brought to
bear upon him in the case of Titus, might, quite consistently, so short
a time after, circumcise Timothy with his own hand. It is true that the
necessity of circumcision for Gentile Christians came prominently into
question, during Paul's visit to Jerusalem, from the presence of his
uncircumcised follower Titus, and no doubt the abrogation of the rite
must have formed a striking part of the exposition of his Gospel, which
Paul tells us he made upon this occasion; but it is equally certain
that the necessity of circumcision long continued to be pressed by the
judaistic party in the Church. It cannot fairly be argued that, at any
time, Paul could afford to relax his determined and consistent attitude
as the advocate for the universality of Christianity and the abrogation
of a rite, insistence upon which, he had been the first to recognise,
would have been fatal to the spread of Christianity. To maintain that
he could safely make such a concession of his principles and himself
circumcise Timothy, simply because at that precise moment there was
no active debate upon the point, is inadmissible; for his Epistles
abundantly prove that the topic, if it ever momentarily subsided into
stubborn silence, was continually being revived with renewed bitterness.
Pauline views could never have prevailed if he had been willing to
sacrifice them for the sake of conciliation, whenever they were not
actively attacked.
The difference of the occasion cannot be admitted
{298}
as a valid reason; let us, therefore, see whether any difference in the
persons and circumstances removes the contradiction. It is argued that
such a difference exists in the fact that, whilst Titus was altogether
a Gentile, Timothy, on the side of his mother at least, was a Jew; and
Thiersch, following a passage quoted by Wetstein, states that, according
to Talmudic prescriptions, the validity of mixed marriages between a
Jewess and a Gentile was only recognized upon the condition that the
children should be brought up in the religion of the mother. In this
case, he argues, Paul merely carried out the requirement of the Jewish
law by circumcising Timothy, which others had omitted to do, and thus
secured his admission to the Jewish synagogues to which much of his
ministry was directed, but from which he would have been excluded had
the rite not been performed.(1) Even Meyer, however, in reference
to this point, replies that Paul could scarcely be influenced by the
Talmudic canon, because Timothy was already a Christian and beyond
Judaism.(2) Besides, in point of fact, by such a marriage the Jewess had
forfeited Jewish privileges. Timothy, in the eyes of the Mosaic law,
was not a Jew, and held, in reality, no better position than the Greek
Titus. He had evidently been brought up as a heathen, and the only
question which could arise in regard to him was whether he must first
become a Jew before he could be fully recognized as a Christian. The
supposition that the circumcision of Timothy, the son of a Greek,
after he had actually become a Christian without having passed through
Judaism,
{299}
could secure for him free access to the synagogues of the Jews, may show
how exceedingly slight at that time was the difference between the Jew
and the Christian, but it also suggests the serious doubt whether the
object of the concession, in the mind of the author of the Acts, was not
rather to conciliate the Judaic Christians, than to represent the act as
one of policy towards the unbelieving Jews. The statement of the Acts is
that Paul circumcised Timothy "because of the Jews which were in those
places; for they knew all that his father was a Greek." If the reason
which we are discussing were correct, the expression would more probably
have been: "for they knew that his mother was a Jewess." The Greek
father might, and probably did, object to the circumcision of his son,
but that was no special reason why Paul should circumcise him. On the
other hand, the fact that the Jews knew that his father was a Greek made
the action attributed to Paul a concession which the author of the Acts
thus represented in its most conciliatory light. The circumcision of
Timothy was clearly declared unnecessary by the apostolic decree, for
the attempt to show that he was legitimately regarded as a Jew utterly
fails. It is obvious that, according to Pauline doctrine, there could
be no obligation for anyone who adopted Christianity to undergo this
initiatory rite. It is impossible reasonably to maintain that any case
has been made out to explain why Timothy, who had grown into
manhood without being circumcised, and had become a Christian whilst
uncircumcised, should at that late period be circumcised. Beyond the
reference to a Talmudic prescription, in fact, with which there is not
the slightest evidence that Paul was acquainted, and which, even if he
did know of it, could not possibly have been recognised by him as
{300}
authoritative, there has not been a serious attempt made to show that
the case of Timothy presents exceptional features which reconcile the
contradiction otherwise admitted as apparent.
The whole apologetic argument in fact sinks into one of mere expediency:
Timothy, the son of a Jewess and of a Greek, and thus having a certain
affinity both to Jews and Gentiles, would become a much more efficient
assistant to Paul if he were circumcised and thus had access to the
Jewish synagogues; therefore Paul, who himself became as a Jew that he
might win the Jews, demanded the same sacrifice from his follower. But
can this argument bear any scrutiny by the light of Paul's own writings?
It cannot. Paul openly claims to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, and
just before the period at which he is supposed to circumcise Timothy, he
parts from the elder Apostles with the understanding that he is to go
to the Gentiles who are freed from circumcision. It is a singular
commencement of his mission, to circumcise the son of a Greek father
after he had become a Christian. Such supposed considerations about
access to synagogues and conciliation of the Jews would seem more
suitable to a missionary to the circumcision, than to the Apostle of the
Gentiles. It must be apparent to all that in going more specially to
the Gentiles, as he avowedly was, the alleged expediency of circumcising
Timothy falls to the ground, and on the contrary that such an act would
have compromised his whole Gospel. Paul's characteristic teaching was
the inutility of circumcision, and upon this point he sustained the
incessant attacks of the emissaries of James and the Judaistic party
without yielding or compromise. What could have been more ill-advised
under
{301}
such circumstances than the circumcision with his own hands of a convert
who, if the son of a Jewess, was likewise the son of a Greek, and had
remained uncircumcised until he had actually embraced that faith which,
Paul taught, superseded circumcision? The Apostle who declared: "Behold,
I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ will profit you
nothing,"(1) could not have circumcised the Christian Timothy; and if
any utterance of Paul more distinctly and explicitly applicable to the
present case be required, it is aptly supplied by the following: "Was
any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Hath
any man been called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised....
Let each abide in the same calling wherein he was called."(2)
Apologists quote very glibly the saying of Paul: "Unto the Jews I became
as a Jew, that I might gain Jews," as sufficiently justifying the act
which we are considering; but it is neither applicable to the case, nor
is the passage susceptible of such interpretation. The special object of
Paul at that time, according to his own showing,(3) was not to gain Jews
but to gain Gentiles; and the circumcision of Timothy would certainly
not have tended to gain Gentiles. If we quote the whole passage from
which the above is extracted, the sense at once becomes clear and
different from that assigned to it: "For being free from all men, I made
myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more; and unto the Jews I
became as a Jew that I might gain Jews; to them under law, as under law,
not being myself under law, that I might gain them under law; to them
without law, as without law,--not being without law to God, but under
law to Christ,--
{302}
that I might gain them without law; to the weak I became weak that I
might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by
all means save some. And all things I do for the Gospel's sake, that I
may become a partaker thereof with them."(l) It is clear that a man who
could become "all things to all men," in the sense of yielding any point
of principle, must be considered without principle at all, and no one
could maintain that Paul was apt to concede principles. Judged by his
own statements, indeed, his character was the very reverse of this.
There is no shade of conciliation when he declares: "But though we, or
an angel from heaven, should preach any Gospel unto you other than that
we preached unto you, let him be accursed.... For am I now making men my
friends, or God? or am I seeking to please men? if I were still pleasing
men, I should not be a servant of Christ."(2) The Gospel of which he
speaks, and which he protests "is not after men," but received "through
a revelation of Jesus Christ,"(3) is that Gospel which Paul preached
among the Gentiles, and which proclaimed the abrogation of the law
and of circumcision. Paul might in one sense say that "circumcision is
nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of
God;"(4) but such a statement, simply intended to express that there was
neither merit in the one nor in the other, clearly does not apply to the
case before us, and no way lessens the force of the words we have quoted
above: "If ye be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing." In Paul
such a concession would have been in the highest degree a sacrifice
of principle, and one which he not only refused to make in the case of
Titus, "that the truth of the
{303}
Gospel might abide," but equally maintained in the face of the pillar
Apostles, when he left them and returned to the Gentiles whilst they
went back to the circumcision. Paul's idea of being "all things to all
men" is illustrated by his rebuke to Peter,--once more to refer to
the scene at Antioch. Peter apparently practised a little of that
conciliation, which apologists, defending the unknown author of the Acts
at the expense of Paul, consider to be the sense of the Apostle's words.
Paul repudiated such an inference, by withstanding Peter to the face as
condemned, and guilty of hypocrisy. Paul became all things to all men by
considering their feelings, and exhibiting charity and forbearance, in
matters indifferent He was careful not to make his liberty a stumbling
block to the weak. "If food maketh my brother to offend, I will eat no
flesh for ever lest I make my brother to offend."(1) Self-abnegation in
the use of enlightened liberty, however, is a very different thing from
the concession of a rite, which it was the purpose of his whole Gospel
to discredit, and the labour of his life to resist. Once more we repeat
that the narrative of the Acts regarding the circumcision of Timothy is
contradictory to the character and teaching of Paul as ascertained from
his Epistles, and like so many other portions of that work which we have
already examined must, as it stands, be rejected as unhistorical.
We have already tested the narrative of the author of the Acts by the
statements of Paul in the first two chapters of the Galatians at such
length that, although the subject is far from exhausted, we must not
proceed further. We think that there can be no doubt that the role
assigned to the Apostle Paul in Acts xv. is unhistorical,(2)
{304}
and it is unnecessary for us to point out the reasons which led the
writer to present him in such subdued colours. We must, however, before
finally leaving the subject, very briefly point out a few circumstances
which throw a singular light upon the relations which actually existed
between Paul and the elder Apostles, and tend to show their real, if
covert, antagonism to the Gospel of the uncircumcision. We may at the
outset remark, in reference to an objection frequently made that Paul
does not distinctly refer to the Apostles as opposing his teaching and
does not personally attack them, that such a course would have been
suicidal in the Apostle of the Gentiles, whilst on the other hand it
could not but have hindered the acceptance of his Gospel, for which he
was ever ready to endure so much. The man who wrote: "If it be possible,
as much as dependeth on you, be at peace with all men,"(1) could well be
silent in such a cause. Paul, in venturing to preach the Gospel of the
uncircumcision, laboured under the singular disadvantage of not having,
like the Twelve, been an immediate disciple of the Master. He had been
"as the one born out of due time,"(2) and although he claimed that his
Gospel had not been taught to him by man but had been received by direct
revelation from Jesus, there can be no doubt that his apostolic position
was constantly assailed. The countenance of the elder Apostles, even if
merely tacit, was of great
{305}
importance to the success of his work; and he felt this so much that,
as he himself states, he went up to Jerusalem to communicate to them the
Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles: "lest by any means I might
be running or did run in vain."(1) Any open breach between them would
have frustrated his labours. Had Paul been in recognized enmity with the
Twelve who had been selected as his special disciples by the Master, and
been repudiated and denounced by them, it is obvious that his position
would have been a precarious one. He had no desire for schism. His
Gospel, besides, was merely a development of that of the elder Apostles;
and, however much they might resent his doctrine of the abrogation of
the law and of the inutility of circumcision, they could still regard
his Gentile converts as at least in some sort Proselytes of the Gate.
With every inducement to preserve peace if by any means possible, and
to suppress every expression of disagreement with the Twelve, it is not
surprising that we find so little direct reference to the elder Apostles
in his epistles. During his visit to Jerusalem he did not succeed in
converting them to his views. They still limited their ministry to the
circumcision, and he had to be content with a tacit consent to his
work amongst the heathen. But although we have no open utterance of
his irritation, the suppressed impatience of his spirit, even at the
recollection of the incidents of his visit, betrays itself in abrupt
sentences, unfinished expressions, and grammar which breaks down in the
struggle of repressed emotion. We have already said enough regarding
his ironical references to those "who seem to be something," to the
"overmuch Apostles," and we need not again point
{306}
to the altercation between Paul and Cephas at Antioch, and the strong
language used by the former.
Nothing is more certain than the fact that, during his whole career, the
Apostle Paul had to contend with systematic opposition from the Judaic
Christian party;(1) and the only point regarding which there is any
difference of opinion is the share in this taken by the Twelve. As we
cannot reasonably expect to find any plain statement of this in the
writings of the Apostle, we are forced to take advantage of such
indications as can be discovered. Upon one point we are not left in
doubt. The withdrawal of Peter and the others at Antioch from communion
with the Gentile Christians, and consequently from the side of Paul,
was owing to the arrival of certain men from James, for the Apostle
expressly states so. No surprise is expressed, however, at the effect
produced by these [------], and the clear inference is that they
represented the views of a naturally antagonistic party, an inference
which is in accordance with all that we elsewhere read of James. It is
difficult to separate the [------] from the [------] of the preceding
chapter (i.7) who "trouble" the Galatians, and "desire to pervert the
Gospel of Christ," asserting the necessity of circumcision, against whom
the epistle is directed. Again we meet with the same vague and cautious
designation of judaistic opponents in his second Epistle to the
Corinthians (iii. 1), where
{307}
"some" [------] bearers of "letters of commendation" [------] from
persons unnamed, were attacking the Apostle and endeavouring to
discredit his teaching. By whom were these letters written? We cannot
of course give an authoritative reply, but we may ask: by whom could
letters of commendation possessing an authority which could have weight
against that of Paul be written, except by the elder Apostles?' We have
certain evidence in the first Epistle to the Corinthians that parties
had arisen in the Church of Corinth in opposition to Paul. These parties
were distinguished, as the Apostle himself states, by the cries: "I
am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ."(2)
[------]. Whatever differences of opinion there may be as to the precise
nature of these parties, there can be no doubt that both the party
"of Cephas" and the party "of Christ" held strong Judaistic views and
assailed the teaching of Paul, and his apostolic authority. It is very
evident that the persons to whom the Apostle refers in connection with
"letters of commendation" were of these parties.
Apologists argue that: "in claiming Cephas as the head of their party
they had probably neither more nor
{308}
less ground than their rivals who sheltered themselves under the names
of Apollos and of Paul."(1) It is obvious, however, that, in a Church
founded by Paul, there could have been no party created with the
necessity to take his name as their watchword, except as a reply to
another party which, having intruded itself, attacked him, and forced
those who maintained the views of their own Apostle to raise such a
counter-cry. The parties "of Cephas" and "of Christ" were manifestly
aggressive, intruding themselves, as the Apostle complains, into "other
men's labours,"(2) and this in some manner seems to point to that
convention between the Apostle and the Three, that he should go to the
Gentiles and they to the circumcision which, barely more than passive
neutrality at the beginning, soon became covertly antagonistic. The fact
that the party "of Paul" was not an organized body, so to say, directed
by the Apostle as a party leader, in no way renders it probable that the
party of Cephas, which carried on active and offensive measures, had
not much more ground in claiming Cephas as their head. One point is
indisputable, that no party ever claims any man as its leader who is not
clearly associated with the views it maintains. The party "of Cephas,"
representing judaistic views, opposing the teaching of Paul, and joining
in denying his apostolic claims, certainly would not have taken Peter's
name as their watch-cry if he had been known to hold and express such
Pauline sentiments as are put into his mouth in the Acts, or had not, on
the contrary, been intimately identified with judaistic principles.
To illustrate the case by a modern instance: Is it possible to suppose
that, in any considerable city in this country,
{309}
a party holding ritualistic opinions could possibly claim the present
Archbishop of Canterbury as its leader, or one professing "broad-church"
views could think of sheltering itself under the name of the Archbishop
of York? Religious parties may very probably mistake the delicate
details of a leader's teaching, but they can scarcely be wrong in regard
to his general principles. If Peter had been so unfortunate as to
be flagrantly misunderstood by his followers and, whilst this party
preached in his name judaistic doctrines and anti-Pauline opinions, the
Apostle himself advocated the abrogation of the law, as a burden which
the Jews themselves were not able to bear, and actively shared Pauline
convictions, is it possible to suppose that Paul would not have pointed
out the absurdity of such a party claiming such a leader?
The fact is, however, that Paul never denies the claim of those who
shelter themselves under the names of Peter and James, never questions
their veracity, and never adopts the simple and natural course of
stating that, in advancing these names, they are imposters or mistaken.
On the contrary, upon all occasions he evidently admits, by his silence,
the validity of the claim.(1) We are not left to mere inference that the
adopted head of the party actually shared the views of the party. Paul
himself distinguishes Peter as the head of the party of the circumcision
in a passage in his letter to the Galatians already frequently referred
to,(2) and the episode at Antioch confirms the description, and leaves
no doubt that Peter's permanent practice was to force the Gentiles to
judaize. For reasons which we have already stated, Paul could not but
have desired to preserve peace, or even the
{310}
semblance of it, with the elder Apostles, for the Gospel's sake; and he,
therefore, wisely leaves them as much as possible out of the question
and deals with their disciples. It is obvious that policy must have
dictated such a course. By ignoring the leaders and attacking their
followers, he suppressed the chief strength of his opponents and
kept out of sight the most formidable argument against himself: the
concurrence with them of the elder Apostles. On the one hand,
the epistles of Paul bear no evidence to any active sympathy and
co-operation with his views and work on the part of the elder Apostles.
On the other, Paul is everywhere assailed by judaistic adversaries who
oppose his Gospel and deny his apostle-ship, and who claim as their
leaders the elder Apostles.
If, even without pressing expressions to their extreme and probable
point, we take the contrast drawn between his own Gospel and that of the
circumcision, the reality of the antagonism must be apparent. "For we
are not as the many [------](1) which adulterate the word of God; but as
of sincerity, but as of God, before God, speak we in Christ."(2) Later
on in the letter, after referring to the intrusion of the opposite party
into the circle of his labours, Paul declares that his impatience
and anxiety proceed from godly jealousy at the possible effect of the
judaistic intruders upon the Corinthians. "But I fear, lest by any
means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, your thoughts
should
{311}
be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is in Christ. For
if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus whom we did not preach, or if
ye receive another spirit which ye received not, or another Gospel which
ye did not accept, ye bear well with him. For I think I am not a whit
behind the overmuch Apostles [------]."(1)
This reference to the elder Apostles gives point to much of the epistle
which is ambiguous, and more especially when the judaistic nature of the
opposition is so clearly indicated a few verses further on: "Are they
Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they Abraham's seed?
so am I. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool), I am more;
in labours more abundantly, in prisons exceedingly, in deaths often,"
&c, &c.(2)
It is argued that the Twelve had not sufficient authority over their
followers to prevent such interference with Paul, and that the
relation of the Apostle to the Twelve was: "separation, not opposition,
antagonism of the followers rather than of the leaders, personal
antipathy of the Judaizers to St. Paul, rather than of St. Paul to the
Twelve."(3) It is not difficult to believe that the antipathy of Paul
to the Judaizers was less than that felt by them towards him. The
superiority of the man must have rendered him somewhat callous to such
dislike.(4) But the mitigated form of difference between Paul and
the Twelve here assumed, although still very different from the
representations of the Acts,
{312}
cannot be established, but on the contrary must be much widened before
it can justly be taken as that existing between Paul and the elder
Apostles. We do not go so far as to say that there was open enmity
between them, or active antagonism of any distinct character on the part
of the Twelve to the Apostle of the Gentiles, but there is every reason
to believe that they not only disliked his teaching, but endeavoured to
counteract it by their own ministry of the circumcision. They not only
did not restrain the opposition of their followers, but they abetted
them in their counter-assertion of judaistic views. Had the Twelve felt
any cordial friendship for Paul, and exhibited any active desire for the
success of his ministry of the uncircumcision, it is quite impossible
that his work could have been so continuously and vexatiously impeded by
the persecution of the Jewish Christian party. The Apostles may not
have possessed sufficient influence or authority entirely to control the
action of adherents, but it would be folly to suppose that, if unanimity
of views had prevailed between them and Paul, and a firm and consistent
support had been extended to him, such systematic resistance as he
everywhere encountered from the party professing to be led by the
"pillar" Apostles could have been seriously maintained, or that he
could have been left alone and unaided to struggle against it. If the
relations between Paul and the Twelve had been such as are intimated
in the Acts of the Apostles, his epistles must have presented undoubted
evidence of the fact Both negatively and positively they testify the
absence of all support, and the existence of antagonistic influence on
the part of the elder Apostles, and external evidence fully confirms the
impression which the epistles produce.(1)
{313}
From any point of view which may be taken, the Apocalypse is an
important document in connection with this point. If it be accepted as
a work of the Apostle John--the preponderance of evidence and critical
opinion assigns it to him--this book, of course, possesses the greatest
value as an indication of his views. If it be merely regarded as a
contemporary writing, it still is most interesting as an illustration
of the religious feeling of the period. The question is: Does the
Apocalypse contain any reference to the Apostle Paul, or throw light
upon the relations between him and the elder Apostles? If it does so,
and be the work of one of the [------], nothing obviously could be more
{314}
instructive. In the messages to the seven churches, there are references
and denunciations which, in the opinion of many able critics, are
directed against the Apostle of the Gentiles and his characteristic
teaching.(1) Who but Paul and his followers can be referred to in the
Epistle to the Church of Ephesus: "I know thy works, and thy labour, and
thy patience, and that thou canst not bear wicked persons: and didst
try them which say they are Apostles and are not, and didst find them
liars"?(2) Paul himself informs us not only of his sojourn in Ephesus,
where he believed that "a great and effectual door" was opened to him,
but adds, "there are many adversaries" [------].(3) The foremost charge
brought against the churches is that they have those that hold the
teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before
the sons of Israel, "to eat things offered unto idols."(4) The teaching
of Paul upon this point is
{315}
well known, 1 Cor. viii. 1 ff., x. 25 ff., Rom. xiv. 2 ff., and the
reference here cannot be mistaken; and when in the Epistle to the church
of Thyatira, after denouncing the teaching "to eat things offered unto
idols," the Apocalyptist goes on to encourage those who have not this
teaching, "who knew not the depths of Satan, [------],(1) as they say"
the expression of Paul himself is taken to denounce his doctrine; for
the Apostle, defending himself against the attacks of those parties "of
Cephas" and "of Christ" in Corinth, writes: "But God revealed (them)
to us through his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, even
the depths of God" [------]--"the depths of Satan" rather, retorts the
judaistic author of the Apocalypse. [------] does not occur elsewhere
in the New Testament Again, in the address to the churches of Smyrna
and Philadelphia, when the writer denounces those "who say that they are
Jews, and are not, but a synagogue of Satan,"(2) whom has he in view
but those Christians whom Paul had taught to consider circumcision
unnecessary and the law abrogated? We find Paul in the Epistle to the
Corinthians, so often quoted, obliged to defend himself against these
judaising parties upon this very point: "Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are
they Israelites? so am I. Are they Abraham's seed? so am I."(3) It is
manifest that his adversaries had vaunted their own Jewish origin as a
title of superiority over the Apostle of the Gentiles. We
{316}
have, however, further evidence of the same attack upon Paul regarding
this point. Epiphanius points out that the Ebionites denied that Paul
was a Jew, and asserted that he was born of a Gentile father and
mother, but that, having gone up to Jerusalem, he became a proselyte and
submitted to circumcision in the hope of marrying a daughter of the high
priest. But afterwards, according to them, enraged at not securing the
maiden for his wife, Paul wrote against circumcision and the Sabbath and
the law.(1) The Apostle Paul, whose constant labour it was to destroy
the particularism of the Jew, and raise the Gentile to full, free, and
equal participation with him in the benefits of the New Covenant, could
not but incur the bitter displeasure of the Apocalyptist, for whom the
Gentiles were, as such, the type of all that was common and unclean. In
the utterances of the seer of Patmos we seem to hear the expression of
all that judaistic hatred and opposition which pursued the Apostle
who laid the axe to the root of Mosaism and, in his efforts to free
Christianity from trammels which, more than any other, retarded its
triumphant development, aroused against himself all the virulence of
Jewish illiberality and prejudice. The results at which we have arrived
might be singularly confirmed by an examination of the writings of the
first two centuries, and by observing the attitude
{317}
assumed towards the Apostle of the Gentiles by such men as Justin
Martyr, Papias, Hegesippus, and the author of the Clementines; but we
have already devoted too much space to this subject, and here we must
reluctantly leave it.
The steps by which Christianity was gradually freed from the trammels of
Judaism and became a religion of unlimited range and universal
fitness were clearly not those stated in the Acts of the Apostles. Its
emancipation from Mosaism was not effected by any liberal action or
enlightened guidance on the part of the elder Apostles. At the death
of their Master, the Twelve remained closely united to Judaism, and
evidently were left without any understanding that Christianity was a
new religion which must displace Mosaic institutions, and replace the
unbearable yoke of the law by the divine liberty of the Gospel. To the
last moment regarding which we have any trustworthy information, the
Twelve, as might have been expected, retained all their early religious
customs and all their Jewish prejudices. They were simply Jews believing
that Jesus was the Messiah; and if the influence of Paul enlarged their
views upon some minor points, we have no reason to believe that they
ever abandoned their belief in the continued obligation of the law, and
the necessity of circumcision for full participation in the benefits
of the Covenant. The author of the Acts would have us believe that
they required no persuasion, but anticipated Paul in the Gospel of
uncircumcision. It is not within the scope of this work to inquire how
Paul originally formed his views of Christian universalism. Once formed,
it is easy to understand how rapidly they must have been developed and
confirmed by experience amongst
{318}
the Gentiles. Whilst the Twelve still remained in the narrow circle of
Judaism and could not be moved beyond the ministry of the circumcision,
Paul, in the larger and freer field of the world, must daily have felt
more convinced that the abrogation of the Law and the abandonment of
circumcision were essential to the extension of Christianity amongst the
Gentiles. He had no easy task, however, to convince others of this, and
he never succeeded in bringing his elder colleagues over to his
views. To the end of his life, Paul had to contend with bigoted and
narrow-minded opposition within the Christian body, and if his views
ultimately triumphed, and the seed which he sowed eventually yielded a
rich harvest, he himself did not live to see the day, and the end was
attained only by slow and natural changes. The new religion gradually
extended beyond the limits of Judaism. Gentile Christians soon
outnumbered Jewish believers. The Twelve whose names were the strength
of the judaistic opposition one by one passed away; but, above all, the
fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Christian community secured
the success of Pauline principles and the universalism of Christianity.
The Church of Jerusalem could not bear transplanting. In the uncongenial
soil of Pella it gradually dwindled away, losing first its influence
and soon after its nationality. The divided members of the Jewish
party, scattered amongst the Gentiles, and deprived of their influential
leaders, could not long retard the progress of the liberalism which
they still continued to oppose and to misrepresent. In a word, the
emancipation of Christianity was not effected by the Twelve, was no work
of councils, and no result of dreams; but, receiving its first great
impulse from the genius and the energy of Paul, its ultimate
{319}
achievement was the result of time and natural development.
We have now patiently considered the "Acts of the Apostles," and
although it has in no way been our design exhaustively to examine its
contents, we have more than sufficiently done so to enable the reader
to understand the true character of the document. The author is unknown,
and it is no longer possible to identify him. If he were actually the
Luke whom the Church indicates, our results would not be materially
affected; but the mere fact that the writer is unknown is obviously
fatal to the Acts as a guarantee of miracles. A cycle of supernatural
occurrences could scarcely, in the estimation of any rational mind, be
established by the statement of an anonymous author, and more especially
one who not only does not pretend to have been an eye-witness of most
of the miracles, but whose narrative is either uncorroborated by other
testimony or inconsistent with itself, and contradicted on many points
by contemporary documents. The phenomena presented by the Acts of the
Apostles become perfectly intelligible when we recognize that it is the
work of a writer living long after the occurrences related, whose pious
imagination furnished the apostolic age with an elaborate system
of supernatural agency, far beyond the conception of any other New
Testament writer, by which, according to his view, the proceedings
of the Apostles were furthered and directed, and the infant Church
miraculously fostered. On examining other portions of his narrative,
we find that they present the features which the miraculous elements
rendered antecedently probable. The speeches attributed to
{320}
different speakers are all cast in the same mould, and betray the
composition of one and the same writer. The sentiments expressed are
inconsistent with what we know of the various speakers. And when we test
the circumstances related by previous or subsequent incidents and by
trustworthy documents, it becomes apparent that the narrative is not
an impartial statement of facts, but a reproduction of legends or a
development of tradition, shaped and coloured according to the purpose
or the pious views of the writer. The Acts of the Apostles, therefore,
is not only an anonymous work, but upon due examination its claims to be
considered sober and veracious history must be emphatically rejected. It
cannot strengthen the foundations of supernatural Religion, but, on the
contrary, by its profuse and indiscriminate use of the miraculous it
discredits miracles, and affords a clearer insight into their origin and
fictitious character.
PART V. THE DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES
CHAPTER I. THE EPISTLES AND THE APOCALYPSE
Turning from the Acts of the Apostles to the other works of the New
Testament, we shall be able very briefly to dispose of the Catholic
Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse. The so-called
Epistles of James, Jude, and John, do not contain any evidence which,
even supposing them to be authentic, really bears upon our inquiry into
the reality of Miracles and Divine Revelation; and the testimony of the
Apocalypse affects it quite as little. We have already, in examining
the fourth Gospel, had occasion to say a good deal regarding both the
so-called Epistles of John and the Apocalypse. It is unnecessary to
enter upon a more minute discussion of them here. "Seven books of
the New Testament," writes Dr. Westcott, "as is well known, have been
received into the Canon on evidence less complete than that by which
the others are supported."(1) These are "the Epistles of James, Jude,
2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse." We have
already furnished the means of judging of the nature of the
{322}
evidence upon which some of the other books have been received into
the Canon, and the evidence for most of these being avowedly "less
complete," its nature may be conceived. Works which for a long period
were classed amongst the Antilegomena, or disputed books, and which
only slowly acquired authority as, in the lapse of time, it became more
difficult to examine their claims, could not do much to establish the
reality of miracles. With regard to the Epistle to the Hebrews, we may
remark that we are freed from any need to deal at length with it, not
only by the absence of any specific evidence in its contents, but by the
following consideration. If the Epistle be not by Paul,--and it not only
is not his, but does not even pretend to be so,--the author is unknown,
and therefore the document has no weight as testimony. On the other
hand, if assigned to Paul, we shall have sufficient ground in his
genuine epistles for considering the evidence of the Apostle, and it
could not add anything even if the Epistle to the Hebrews were included
in the number.
The first Epistle of Peter might have required more detailed treatment,
but we think that little could be gained by demonstrating that the
document is not authentic, or showing that, in any case, the evidence
which it could furnish is not of any value. On the other hand, we are
averse to protract the argument by any elaboration of mere details which
can be avoided. If it could be absolutely proved that the Apostle Peter
wrote the epistle circulating under his name, the evidence for miracles
would only be strengthened by the fact that, incidentally, the doctrine
of the Resurrection of Jesus is maintained. No historical details are
given, and no explanation of the reasons for which the writer believed
in it.
{323}
Nothing more would be proved than the point that Peter himself believed
in the Resurrection. It would certainly be a matter of very deep
interest if we possessed a narrative written by the apostle himself,
giving minute and accurate details of the phenomena in consequence of
which he believed in so miraculous an event; but since this epistle does
nothing more than allow us to infer the personal belief of the writer,
unaccompanied by corroborative evidence, we should not gain anything by
accepting it as genuine. We are quite willing to assume, without
further examination, that the Apostle Peter in some way believed in the
Resurrection of his Master. For the argument regarding the reality
of that stupendous miracle, upon which we are about to enter, this is
tantamount to assuming the authenticity of the epistle.
Coming to the Epistles of Paul, it will not be necessary to go into the
evidence for the various letters in our New Testament which are ascribed
to him, nor shall we require to state the grounds upon which the
authenticity of many of them is denied. Accepting the Epistles to the
Galatians, Corinthians and Romans in the main as genuine compositions
of the Apostle, the question as to the origin of the rest, so far as our
inquiry is concerned, has little or no interest. From these four letters
we obtain the whole evidence of Paul regarding miracles, and this we
now propose carefully to examine. One point in particular demands our
fullest attention. It is undeniable that Paul preached the doctrine of
the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus, and believed in those events.
Whilst, therefore, we shall not pass over his supposed testimony for the
possession of miraculous powers, we shall chiefly devote our attention
to his evidence for the central dogmas of Supernatural Religion, the
Resurection and Ascension of
{324}
Jesus. We shall not, however, limit our examination to the testimony
of Paul, but, as the climax of the historical argument for miracles,
endeavour to ascertain the exact nature of the evidence upon which
belief is claimed for the actual occurrence of those stupendous events.
For this, our inquiry into the authorship and credibility of the
historical books of the New Testament has at length prepared us, and it
will be admitted that, in subjecting these asserted miracles to calm and
fearless scrutiny--untinged by irreverence or disrespect, if personal
earnestness and sincere sympathy with those who believe are any
safeguards,--the whole theory of Christian miracles will be put to its
final test.
CHAPTER II. THE EVIDENCE OF PAUL
It is better, before proceeding to examine the testimony of Paul for the
Resurrection, to clear the way by considering his evidence for miracles
in general, apart from that specific instance. In an earlier portion
of this work(1) the following remark was made: "Throughout the New
Testament, patristic literature, and the records of ecclesiastical
miracles, although we have narratives of countless wonderful works
performed by others than the writer, and abundant assertion of the
possession of miraculous power by the Church, there is no instance
whatever, that we can remember, in which a writer claims to have
himself performed a miracle."(2) It is asserted that this statement is
erroneous, and that Paul does advance this claim.(3) It may be well to
quote the moderate
{326}
words in which a recent able writer states the case, although not with
immediate reference to the particular passage which we have quoted.
"... In these undoubted writings St. Paul certainly shows by incidental
allusions, the good faith of which cannot be questioned, that he
believed himself to be endowed with the power of working miracles, and
that miracles, or what were thought to be such, were actually wrought
both by him and by his contemporaries. He reminds the Corinthians
that 'the signs of an Apostle were wrought among them... in signs, and
wonders, and mighty deeds' [------]--the usual words for the higher
forms of miracle--2 Cor. xii. 12). He tells the Romans that 'he will not
dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by(1)
him to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty
signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God' [------]. He asks
the
{327}
Galatians whether 'he that ministereth to them the Spirit, and worketh
miracles [------] among them, doeth it by the works of the law, or
by the hearing of faith?' (Gal. iii. 5.) In the first Epistle to the
Corinthians, he goes somewhat elaborately into the exact place in the
Christian economy that is to be assigned to the working of miracles and
gifts of healing (1 Cor. xii. 10, 28, 29)."(1)
We shall presently examine these passages, but we must first briefly
deal with the question whether, taken in any sense, they furnish
an instance "in which a writer claims to have himself performed _a
miracle_." It must be obvious to any impartial reader, that the remark
made in the course of our earlier argument precisely distinguished the
general "assertion of the possession of miraculous power by the Church,"
from the explicit claim to have personally performed "a miracle" in the
singular. If, therefore, it were even admitted "that St. Paul treats the
fact of his working miracles as a matter of course, _to which a passing
reference is sufficient_," such "incidental allusions" would not in
the least degree contradict the statement made, but, being the only
instances producible, would in fact completely justify it. General and
vague references of this kind have by no means the force of a definite
claim to have performed some particular miracle. They partake too much
of that indiscriminate impression of the possession and common exercise
of miraculous powers which characterized the "age of miracles" to have
any force. The desired instance, which is not forthcoming, and to
which alone reference was made, was a case in which, instead of vague
expressions, a writer, stating with precision the particulars, related
that he himself had,
{328}
for instance, actually raised some person from the dead. As we then
added, even if Apostles had chronicled their miracles, the argument for
their reality would not have been much advanced; but it is a curious
phenomenon not undeserving of a moment's attention that apologists can
only refer to such general passages, and cannot quote an instance in
which a specific miracle is related in detail by the person who is
supposed to have performed it. Passing references on a large scale
to the exercise of miraculous power, whilst betraying a suspicious
familiarity with phenomena of an exceptional nature, offer too much
latitude for inaccuracy and imagination to have the weight of an
affirmation in which the mind has been sobered by concentration to
details. "Signs and wonders," indefinitely alluded to, may seem much
more imposing and astonishing than they really are, and it may probably
be admitted by everyone that, if we knew the particulars of the
occurrences which are thus vaguely indicated and which may have been
considered miraculous in a superstitious age, they might to us possibly
appear no miracles at all. General expressions are liable to an
exaggeration from which specific allegations arc more frequently free.
If it be conceded that the Apostle Paul fully believed in the possession
by himself and the Church of divine Charismata, the indefinite
expression of that belief, in any form, must not be made equivalent to
an explicit claim to have performed a certain miracle, the particulars
of which are categorically stated.
Passing from this, however, to the more general question, the force of
some of these objections will be better understood when we consider the
passages in the Epistles which are quoted as expressing Paul's belief in
miracles, and endeavour to ascertain his real views: what it is he
{329}
actually says regarding miracles; and what are the phenomena which
are by him considered to be miraculous. We shall not waste time in
considering how, partly through the influence of the Septuagint, the
words [------], and [------] came to be used in a peculiar manner by New
Testament writers to indicate miracles. It may, however, be worth while
to pause for a moment to ascertain the sense in which Paul, who wrote
before there was a "New Testament" at all, usually employed these words.
In the four Epistles of Paul the word [------] occurs six times. In
Rom. iv. 11 Abraham is said to have received the "sign [------] of
circumcision," in which there is nothing miraculous. In 1 Cor. i. 22
it is said: "Since both Jews require signs [------](1) and Greeks seek
after wisdom;" and again, 1 Cor. xiv. 22: "Wherefore the tongues are
for a sign [------] not to the believing but to the unbelieving," &c. We
shall have more to say regarding these passages presently, but just now
we merely quote them to show the use of the word. The only other places
in which it occurs(2) are those pointed out, and which are the subject
of our discussion. In Rom. xv. 19 the word is used in the plural and
combined with [------]: "in the power of signs and wonders" [------];
and in the second passage, 2 Cor. xii. 12, it is employed twice, "the
signs [------] of the apostle "and the second time again in combination
with [------] and [------], "both in signs" [------], &c. The word
[------] is only twice met with in Paul's writings; that is to say, in
Rom. xv. 19 and 2 Cor. xii. 12; and on both occasions, as we
{330}
have just mentioned, it is combined with [------].(1) On the other hand,
Paul uses [------] no less than 34 times(2) and, leaving for the present
out of the question the passages cited, upon every occasion, except
one, perhaps, the word has the simple signification of "power." The
one exception is Rom. viii. 38, where it occurs in the plural: [------]
"powers," the Apostle expressing his persuasion that nothing will be
able to separate us from the love of God, "nor life, nor angels, nor
principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers
[------], nor height, nor depth," &c., &c. In 1 Cor. xiv. 11, where the
authorized version renders the original: "Therefore, if I know not the
meaning [------] of the voice," it has still the same sense.
Before discussing the passages before us we must point out that there
is so much doubt, at least, regarding the authenticity of the last two
chapters of the Epistle to the Romans that the passage, Rom. xv. 18, 19,
can scarcely be presented as evidence on such a point as the reality
of miracles. We do not intend to debate the matter closely, but shall
merely state a few of the facts of the case and pass on, for it would
not materially affect our argument if the passage were altogether beyond
suspicion. The Epistle, in our authorized text, ends with a long and
somewhat involved doxology, xvi. 25-27; and we may point out here that
it had already seemed to be brought to a close not only at the end of
chapter xv. (33) but also at xvi. 20. The doxology, xvi. 25-27, which
{331}
more particularly demands our attention, is stated by Origen(1) to be
placed in some MSS at the end of ch. xiv.; and a similar statement is
made by Cyril, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact and others. We find
these verses actually so placed in L, and in upwards of 220 out of 250
cursive MSS. of Byzantine origin, in an account of ancient MSS. in Cod.
66, in most of the Greek Lection-aries, in the Slavonic and later Syriac
versions as also in the Gothic, Arabic, (in the polyglot and triglot
text) and some MSS. of the Armenian. They are inserted both at the end
of xiv. and at the end of the Epistle by the Alexandrian Codex,(2) one
of the most ancient manuscripts extant, and by some other MSS.(3) Now,
how came this doxology to be placed at all at the end of chapter xiv.?
The natural inference is that it was so placed because that was the end
of the Epistle. Subsequently, chapters xv. and xvi. being added, it is
supposed that the closing doxology was removed from the former position
and placed at the end of the appended matter. This inference is
supported by the important fact that, as we learn from Origen,(4) the
last two
{332}
chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, including the doxology (xvi.
25-27) did not exist in Marcion's text, the most ancient form of it of
which we have any knowledge. Tertullian, who makes no reference to these
two chapters, speaks of the passage, Rom. xiv. 10, as at the close (in
clausula) of the epistle,(1) and he does not call any attention to their
absence from Marcion's Epistle. Is it not reasonable to suppose that
they did not form part of his copy? In like manner Irenaeus, who
very frequently quotes from the rest of the Epistle, nowhere shows
acquaintance with these chapters. The first writer who distinctly makes
use of any part of them is Clement of Alexandria. It has been argued
both that Marcion omitted the two chapters because they contain what was
opposed to his views, and because they had no dogmatic matter to induce
him to retain them; but, whilst the two explanations destroy each other,
neither of them is more than a supposition to account for the absence of
what, it may with equal propriety be conjectured, never formed part of
his text.
The external testimony, however, does not stand alone, but is supported
by very strong internal evidence. We shall only indicate one or two
points, leaving those who desire to go more deeply into the discussion
to refer to works more particularly concerned with it, which we shall
sufficiently indicate. It is a very singular thing that all, who, when
he wrote this epistle had never been in Rome, should be intimately
acquainted with so many persons there. The fact that there was much
intercourse
{333}