The dazzling appearance of Christ before his eyes and the summons of
His voice addressed to Saul's bodily ears formed the special mode in
which it pleased God to "call him by His grace." But "whom He called,
He also justified." In this further act of grace salvation is first
personally realised, and the gospel becomes the man's individual
possession. This experience ensued upon the acceptance of the fact
that the crucified Jesus was the Christ. But this was by no means
all. As the revelation penetrated further into the Apostle's soul,
he began to apprehend its deeper significance. He knew already that
the Nazarene had claimed to be the Son of God, and on that ground
had been sentenced to death by the Sanhedrim. His resurrection,
now a demonstrated fact, showed that this awful claim, instead of
being condemned, was acknowledged by God Himself. The celestial
majesty in which He appeared, the sublime authority with which He
spoke, witnessed to His Divinity. To Paul equally with the first
Apostles, He "was declared Son of God in power, by the resurrection
of the dead." But this persuasion was borne in upon him in his after
reflections, and could not be adequately realised in the first shock
of his great discovery. The language of this verse throws no sort
of suspicion on the reality of the vision before Damascus. Quite
the opposite. The inward presupposes the outward. Understanding
follows sight. The subjective illumination, the inward conviction of
Christ's Divinity, in Paul's case as in that of the first disciples,
was brought about by the appearance of the risen, Divine Jesus.
That appearance furnishes in both instances the explanation of the
astounding change that took place in the men. The heart full of
blasphemy against His name has learnt to own Him as "the Son of
God, who loved me and gave Himself for me." Through the bodily eyes
of Saul of Tarsus the revelation of Jesus Christ had entered and
transformed his spirit.
Of this interior revelation _the Holy Spirit_, according to the
Apostle's doctrine, had been the organ. The Lord on first meeting
the gathered Apostles after His resurrection "breathed upon them,
saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost" (John xx. 22). This influence was
in truth "the power of His resurrection"; it was the inspiring breath
of the new life of humanity issuing from the open grave of Christ.
The baptism of Pentecost, with its "mighty rushing wind," was but
the fuller effusion of the power whose earnest the Church received
in that gentle breathing of peace on the day of the resurrection.
By His Spirit Christ made Himself a dwelling in the hearts of His
disciples, raised at last to a true apprehension of His nature.
All this was recapitulated in the experience of Paul. In his case
the common experience was the more sharply defined because of the
suddenness of his conversion, and the startling effect with which
this new consciousness projected itself upon the background of his
earlier Pharisaic life. Paul had his Resurrection-vision on the road
to Damascus. He received his Pentecostal baptism in the days that
followed.
It is not necessary to fix the precise occasion of the second
revelation, or to connect it specifically with the visit of Ananias
to Saul in Damascus, much less with his later "ecstasy" in the
temple (Acts ix. 10-19; xxii. 12-21). When Ananias, sent by Christ,
brought him the assurance of forgiveness from the injured Church,
and bade him "recover his sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost,"
this message greatly comforted his heart, and pointed out to him
more clearly the way of salvation along which he was groping. But
it is the office of the Spirit of God to reveal the Son of God; so
Paul teaches everywhere in his Epistles, taught first by his own
experience. Not from Ananias, nor from any man had he received this
knowledge; _God_ revealed His Son in the soul of the Apostle--"sent
forth the Spirit of His Son into his heart" (ch. iv. 6). The language
of 2 Cor. iii. 12-iv. 6 is the best commentary on this verse. A veil
rested on the heart of Saul the Pharisee. He read the Old Covenant
only in the condemning letter. Not yet did he know "the Lord" who
is "the spirit." This veil was done away in Christ. "The glory of
the Lord" that burst upon him in his Damascus journey, rent it once
and for ever from his eyes. God, the Light-giver, had "shined in
his heart, in the face of Jesus Christ." Such was the further scope
of the revelation which effected Paul's conversion. As he writes
afterwards to Ephesus, "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father
of glory, had given him a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the
knowledge of Christ; eyes of the heart enlightened to know the hope
of His calling, and His exceeding power to usward, according to that
He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead, and set Him at
His own right hand" (Eph. i. 17-21). In these words we hear an echo
of the thoughts that passed through the Apostle's mind when first "it
pleased God in him to reveal His Son."
II. _In the light of this inner revelation Paul received his Gentile
mission._
He speedily perceived that this was the purpose with which the
revelation was made: "that I should preach Him among the Gentiles."
The three accounts of his conversion furnished by the Acts witness to
the same effect. Whether we should suppose that the Lord Jesus gave
Saul this commission directly, at His first appearance, as seems to
be implied in Acts xxvi., or infer from the more detailed narrative
of chapters ix. and xxii., that the announcement was sent by Ananias
and afterwards more urgently repeated in the vision at the Temple, in
either case the fact remains the same; from the beginning Paul knew
that he was appointed to be Christ's witness to the Gentiles. This
destination was included in the Divine call which brought him to
faith in Jesus. His Judaic prejudices were swept away. He was ready
to embrace the universalism of the Gospel. With his fine logical
instinct, sharpened by hatred, he had while yet a Pharisee discerned
more clearly than many Jewish Christians the bearing of the doctrine
of the cross upon the legal system. He saw that the struggle was one
of life and death. The vehemence with which he flung himself into the
contest was due to this perception. But it followed from this, that,
once convinced of the Messiahship of Jesus, Paul's faith at a bound
overleaped all Jewish barriers. "Judaism--or the religion of the
Crucified," was the alternative with which his stern logic pursued
the Nazarenes. Judaism _and_ Christianity--this was a compromise
intolerable to his nature. Before Saul's conversion he had left that
halting-place behind; he apprehended already, in some sense, the
truth up to which the elder Apostles had to be educated, that "in
Christ Jesus there is neither Greek nor Jew." He passed at a step
from the one camp to the other. In this there was consistency. The
enlightened, conscientious persecutor, who had debated with Stephen
and helped to stone him, was sure, if he became a Christian, to
become a Christian of Stephen's school. When he entered the Church,
Paul left the Synagogue. He was ripe for his world-wide commission.
There was no surprise, no unpreparedness in his mind when the
charge was given him, "Go; for I will send thee far hence among the
Gentiles."
In the Apostle's view, his personal salvation and that of the race
were objects united from the first. Not as a privileged Jew, but as
a sinful man, the Divine grace had found him out. The righteousness
of God was revealed to him on terms which brought it within the
reach of every human being. The Son of God whom he now beheld was a
personage vastly greater than his national Messiah, the "Christ after
the flesh" of his Jewish dreams, and His gospel was correspondingly
loftier and larger in its scope. "God was in Christ, reconciling,"
not a nation, but "_a world_ unto Himself." The "grace" conferred
on him was given that he might "preach among the Gentiles Christ's
unsearchable riches, and make all men see the mystery" of the counsel
of redeeming love (Eph. iii. 1-11). It was the world's redemption of
which Paul partook; and it was his business to let the world know it.
He had fathomed the depths of sin and self-despair; he had tasted the
uttermost of pardoning grace. God and the world met in his single
soul, and were reconciled. He felt from the first what he expresses
in his latest Epistles, that "the grace of God which appeared" to
him, was "for the salvation of all men" (Tit. ii. 11). "Faithful is
the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came
into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" (1 Tim. i. 15).
The same revelation that made Paul a Christian, made him the Apostle
of mankind.
III. _For this vocation the Apostle had been destined by God from the
beginning._ "It pleased God to do this," he says, "who had marked me
out from my mother's womb, and called me by His grace."
While "Saul was yet breathing out threatening and slaughter" against
the disciples of Jesus, how different a future was being prepared
for him! How little can we forecast the issue of our own plans,
or of those we form for others. His Hebrew birth, his rabbinical
proficiency, the thoroughness with which he had mastered the tenets
of Legalism, had fitted him like no other to be the bearer of the
Gospel to the Gentiles. This Epistle proves the fact. Only a graduate
of the best Jewish schools could have written it. Paul's master,
Gamaliel, if he had read the letter, must perforce have been proud
of his scholar; he would have feared more than ever that those who
opposed the Nazarene might "haply be found fighting against God." The
Apostle foils the Judaists with their own weapons. He knows every
inch of the ground on which the battle is waged. At the same time, he
was a born Hellenist and a citizen of the Empire, native "of no mean
city." Tarsus, his birthplace, was the capital of an important Roman
province, and a centre of Greek culture and refinement. In spite of
the Hebraic conservatism of Saul's family, the genial atmosphere
of such a town could not but affect the early development of so
sensitive a nature. He had sufficient tincture of Greek letters and
conversance with Roman law to make him a true cosmopolitan, qualified
to be "all things to all men." He presents an admirable example of
that versatility and suppleness of genius which have distinguished
for so many ages the sons of Jacob, and enable them to find a home
and a market for their talents in every quarter of the world. Paul
was "a chosen vessel, to bear the name of Jesus before Gentiles and
kings, and the sons of Israel."
But his mission was concealed till the appointed hour. Thinking
of his personal election, he reminds himself of the words spoken
to Jeremiah touching his prophetic call. "Before I formed thee in
the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest out of the womb I
sanctified thee. I appointed thee a prophet unto the nations" (Jer.
i. 5). Or like the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah he might say, "The
Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath
He made mention of my name. And He hath made my mouth like a sharp
sword, in the shadow of His hand hath He hid me; and He hath made me
a polished shaft, in His quiver hath He kept me close" (Isa. xlix. 1,
2). This belief in a fore-ordaining Providence, preparing in secret
its chosen instruments, so deeply rooted in the Old Testament faith,
was not wanting to Paul. His career is a signal illustration of its
truth. He applies it, in his doctrine of Election, to the history of
every child of grace. "Whom He foreknew, He did predestinate. Whom
He did predestinate, He called." Once more we see how the Apostle's
theology was moulded by his experience.
The manner in which Saul of Tarsus had been prepared all his life
long for the service of Christ, magnified to his eyes the sovereign
grace of God. "He called me _through His grace_." The call came at
precisely the fit time; it came at a time and in a manner calculated
to display the Divine compassion in the highest possible degree. This
lesson Paul could never forget. To the last he dwells upon it with
deep emotion. "In me," he writes to Timothy, "Jesus Christ first
showed forth all His longsuffering. I was a blasphemer, a persecutor,
insolent and injurious; but I obtained mercy" (1 Tim. i. 13-16).
He was so dealt with from the beginning, he had been called to the
knowledge of Christ under such circumstances that he felt he had
a right to say, above other men, "By the grace of God I am what I
am." The predestination under which his life was conducted "from his
mother's womb," had for its chief purpose, to exhibit God's mercy
to mankind, "that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding
riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus" (Eph. ii.
7). To this purpose, so soon as he discerned it, he humbly yielded
himself. The Son of God, whose followers he had hunted to death, whom
in his madness he would have crucified afresh, had appeared to him
to save and to forgive. The _grace_ of it, the infinite kindness and
compassion such an act revealed in the Divine nature, excited new
wonder in the Apostle's soul till his latest hour. Henceforth he was
the bondman of grace, the celebrant of grace. His life was one act of
thanksgiving "to the praise of the glory of His grace!"
IV. From Jesus Christ in person Paul had received his knowledge of
the Gospel, without human intervention. In the revelation of Christ
to his soul he possessed the substance of the truth he was afterwards
to teach; and with the revelation there came the commission to
proclaim it to all men. His gospel-message was in its essence
complete; the Apostleship was already his. Such are the assertions
the Apostle makes in reply to his gainsayers. And he goes on to
show that _the course he took after his conversion sustains these
lofty claims_: "When God had been pleased to reveal His Son in me,
immediately (right from the first) I took no counsel with flesh and
blood. I avoided repairing to Jerusalem, to the elder Apostles; I
went away into Arabia, and back again to Damascus. It was three years
before I set foot in Jerusalem."
If that were so, how could Paul have received his doctrine or his
commission from the Church of Jerusalem, as his traducers alleged?
He acted from the outset under the sense of a unique Divine call,
that allowed of no human validation or supplement. Had the case been
otherwise, had Paul come to his knowledge of Christ by ordinary
channels, his first impulse would have been to go up to the mother
city to report himself there, and to gain further instruction. Above
all, if he intended to be a minister of Christ, it would have been
proper to secure the approval of the Twelve, and to be accredited
from Jerusalem. This was the course which "flesh and blood" dictated,
which Saul's new friends at Damascus probably urged upon him. It
was insinuated that he had actually proceeded in this way, and put
himself under the direction of Peter and the Judean Church. But he
says, "I did nothing of the sort. I kept clear of Jerusalem for
three years; and then I only went there to make private acquaintance
with Peter, and stayed in the city but a fortnight." Although Paul
did not for many years make public claim to rank with the Twelve,
from the commencement he acted in conscious independence of them.
He calls them "Apostles _before me_," by this phrase assuming the
matter in dispute. He tacitly asserts his equality in official status
with the Apostles of Jesus, assigning to the others precedence only
in point of time. And he speaks of this equality in terms implying
that it was already present to his mind at this former period. Under
this conviction he held aloof from human guidance and approbation.
Instead of "going up to Jerusalem," the centre of publicity, the
head-quarters of the rising Church, Paul "went off into Arabia."
There were, no doubt, other reasons for this step. Why did he choose
_Arabia_ for his sojourn? and what, pray, was he doing there? The
Apostle leaves us to our own conjectures. _Solitude_, we imagine,
was his principal object. His Arabian retreat reminds us of the
Arabian exile of Moses, of the wilderness discipline of John the
Baptist, and the "forty days" of Jesus in the wilderness. In each
of these instances, the desert retirement followed upon a great
inward crisis, and was preparatory to the entrance of the Lord's
servant on his mission to the world. Elijah, at a later period of his
course, sought the wilderness under motives not dissimilar. After
such a convulsion as Paul had passed through, with a whole world of
new ideas and emotions pouring in upon him, he felt that he must be
alone; he must get away from the voices of men. There are such times
in the history of every earnest soul. In the silence of the Arabian
desert, wandering amid the grandest scenes of ancient revelation,
and communing in stillness with God and with his own heart, the
young Apostle will think out the questions that press upon him; he
will be able to take a calmer survey of the new world into which he
has been ushered, and will learn to see clearly and walk steadily
in the heavenly light that at first bewildered him. So "the Spirit
immediately driveth him out into the wilderness." In Arabia one
confers, not with flesh and blood, but with the mountains and with
God. From Arabia Saul returned in possession of himself, and of his
gospel.
The Acts of the Apostles omits this Arabian episode (Acts ix. 19-25).
But for what Paul tells us here, we should have gathered that he
began at once after his baptism to preach Christ in Damascus, his
preaching after no long time[24] exciting Jewish enmity to such
a pitch that his life was imperilled, and the Christian brethren
compelled him to seek safety by flight to Jerusalem. The reader of
Luke is certainly surprised to find a period of three years,[25]
with a prolonged residence in Arabia, interpolated between Paul's
conversion and his reception in Jerusalem. Luke's silence, we judge,
is _intentional_. The Arabian retreat formed no part of the Apostle's
public life, and had no place in the narrative of the Acts. Paul only
mentions it here in the briefest terms, and because the reference was
necessary to put his relations to the first Apostles in their proper
light. For the time the converted Saul had dropped out of sight; and
the historian of the Acts respects his privacy.
[24]ἡμέραι ἱκαναί, _a considerable time_. The expression is
indefinite.
[25] Ver. 18: that is, parts of "three years," according to
ancient reckoning--say from 36 to 38 A.D., possibly less than two
in actual duration.
The place of the Arabian journey seems to us to lie between vv.
21 and 22 of Acts ix. That passage gives a twofold description of
Paul's preaching in Damascus, in its earlier and later stages, with a
double note of time (vv. 19 and 23). Saul's first testimony, taking
place "straightway," was, one would presume, a mere declaration of
faith in Jesus: "In the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, (saying)
that He is the Son of God" (R.V.), language in striking harmony
with that of the Apostle in the text (vv. 12, 16). Naturally this
recantation caused extreme astonishment in Damascus, where Saul's
reputation was well-known both to Jews and Christians, and his
arrival was expected in the character of Jewish inquisitor-in-chief.
Ver. 22 presents a different situation. Paul is now preaching in
his established and characteristic style; as we read it, we might
fancy we hear him debating in the synagogues of Pisidian Antioch or
Corinth or Thessalonica: "He was confounding the Jews, _proving_ that
this is the Christ." Neither Saul himself nor his Jewish hearers in
the first days after his conversion would be in the mood for the
sustained argumentation and Scriptural dialectic thus described.
The explanation of the change lies behind the opening words of the
verse: "But Saul increased in strength"--a growth due not only to
the prolonged opposition he had to encounter, but still more, as
we conjecture from this hint of the Apostle, to the period of rest
and reflection which he enjoyed in his Arabian seclusion. The two
marks of time given us in vv. 19 and 23 of Luke's narrative, may be
fairly distinguished from each other--"certain days," and "sufficient
days" (or "a considerable time")--as denoting a briefer and a longer
season respectively: the former so short that the excitement caused
by Saul's declaration of his new faith had not yet subsided when he
withdrew from the city into the desert--in which case Luke's note
of time does not really conflict with Paul's "immediately"; the
latter affording a lapse of time sufficient for Saul to develope
his argument for the Messiahship of Jesus, and to provoke the Jews,
worsted in logic, to resort to other weapons. From Luke's point of
view the sojourn in Arabia, however extended, was simply an incident,
of no public importance, in Paul's early ministry in Damascus.
The disappearance of Saul during this interval helps however, as we
think, to explain a subsequent statement in Luke's narrative that is
certainly perplexing (Acts ix. 26, 27). When Saul, after his escape
from Damascus, "was come to Jerusalem," and "essayed to join himself
to the disciples," they, we are told, "were all afraid of him, not
believing that he was a disciple!" For while the Church at Jerusalem
had doubtless heard at the time of Saul's marvellous conversion three
years before, his long retirement and avoidance of Jerusalem threw an
air of mystery and suspicion about his proceedings, and revived the
fears of the Judean brethren; and his reappearance created a panic.
In consequence of his sudden departure from Damascus, it is likely
that no public report had as yet reached Judæa of Saul's return to
that city and his renewed ministry there. Barnabas now came forward
to act as sponsor for the suspected convert. What induced him to do
this--whether it was that his largeness of heart enabled him to read
Saul's character better than others, or whether he had some earlier
private acquaintance with the Tarsian--we cannot tell. The account
that Barnabas was able to give of his friend's conversion and of his
bold confession in Damascus, won for Paul the place in the confidence
of Peter and the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem which he never
afterwards lost.
The two narratives--the history of Luke and the letter of
Paul--relate the same series of events, but from almost opposite
standpoints. Luke dwells upon _Paul's connection with the Church at
Jerusalem and its Apostles_. Paul is maintaining _his independence of
them_. There is no contradiction; but there is just such discrepancy
as will arise where two honest and competent witnesses are relating
identical facts in a different connection.
CHAPTER VI.
_PAUL AND THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH._
"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas,
and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles
saw I none, but only James the Lord's brother. Now touching
the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie
not. Then I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia And I
was still unknown by face unto the churches of Judæa which were
in Christ: but they only heard say, He that once persecuted us
now preacheth the faith of which he once made havock; and they
glorified God in me."--GAL. i. 18-24.
For the first two years of his Christian life, Paul held no
intercourse whatever with the Church at Jerusalem and its chiefs. His
relation with them was commenced by the visit he paid to Peter in the
third year after his conversion. And that relation was more precisely
determined and made public when, after successfully prosecuting for
fourteen years his mission to the heathen, the Apostle again went up
to Jerusalem to defend the liberty of the Gentile Church (ch. ii.
1-10).
A clear understanding of this course of events was essential to the
vindication of Paul's position in the eyes of the Galatians. The
"troublers" told them that Paul's doctrine was not that of the mother
Church; that his knowledge of the gospel and authority to preach it
came from the elder Apostles, with whom since his attack upon Peter
at Antioch he was at open variance. They themselves had come down
from Judæa on purpose to set his pretensions in their true light,
and to teach the Gentiles the way of the Lord more perfectly.
Modern rationalism has espoused the cause of these "deceitful
workers" (2 Cor. xi. 13-15). It endeavours to rehabilitate the
Judaistic party. The "critical" school maintain that the opposition
of the Circumcisionists to the Apostle Paul was perfectly legitimate.
They hold that the "pseud-apostles" of Corinth, the "certain from
James," the "troublers" and "false brethren privily brought in" of
this Epistle, did in truth represent, as they claimed to do, the
principles of the Jewish Christian Church; and that there was a
radical divergence between the Pauline and Petrine gospels, of which
the two Apostles were fully aware from the time of their encounter
at Antioch. However Paul may have wished to disguise the fact to
himself, the teaching of the Twelve was identical, we are told,
with that "other gospel" on which he pronounces his anathema; the
original Church of Jesus never emancipated itself from the trammels
of legalism; the Apostle Paul, and not his Master, was in reality
the author of evangelical doctrine, the founder of the catholic
Church. The conflict between Peter and Paul at Antioch, related in
this Epistle, supplies, in the view of Baur and his followers, the
key to the history of the Early Church. The Ebionite assumption of a
personal rivalry between the two Apostles and an intrinsic opposition
in their doctrine, hitherto regarded as the invention of a desperate
and decaying heretical sect, these ingenious critics have adopted for
the basis of their "scientific" reconstruction of the New Testament.
Paul's Judaizing hinderers and troublers are to be canonized; and
the pseudo-Clementine writings, forsooth, must take the place of the
discredited Acts of the Apostles. Verily "the whirligig of time hath
its revenges." To empanel Paul on his accusers' side, and to make
this Epistle above all convict him of heterodoxy, is an attempt which
dazzles by its very daring.
Let us endeavour to form a clear conception of the facts touching
Paul's connection with the first Apostles and his attitude and
feeling towards the Jewish Church, as they are in evidence in the
first two chapters of this Epistle.
I. On the one hand, it is clear that the Gentile Apostle's relations
to Peter and the Twelve were those of _personal independence and
official equality_.
This is the aspect of the case on which Paul lays stress. His
sceptical critics argue that under his assertion of independence
there is concealed an opposition of principle, a "radical
divergence." The sense of independence is unmistakable. It is on
that side that the Apostle seeks to guard himself. With this aim
he styles himself at the outset "an Apostle not from men, nor by
man"--neither man-made nor man-sent. Such apostles there were; and
in this character, we imagine, the Galatian Judaistic teachers, like
those of Corinth,[26] professed to appear, as the emissaries of the
Church in Jerusalem and the authorised exponents of the teaching of
the "pillars" there. Paul is an Apostle at first-hand, taking his
commission directly from Jesus Christ. In that quality he pronounces
his benediction and his anathema. To support this assumption he
has shown how impossible it was in point of time and circumstances
that he should have been beholden for his gospel to the Jerusalem
Church and the elder Apostles. So far as regarded the manner of his
conversion and the events of the first decisive years in which his
Christian principles and vocation took their shape, his position had
been altogether detached and singular; the Jewish Apostles could in
no way claim him for their son in the gospel.
[26] 2 Cor. xi. 13; iii. 1-3. See the remarks on the word
_Apostle_ in Chapter I. p. 12.
But at last, "after three years," Saul "did go up to Jerusalem." What
was it for? To report himself to the authorities of the Church and
place himself under their direction? To seek Peter's instruction,
in order to obtain a more assured knowledge of the gospel he had
embraced? Nothing of the kind. Not even "_to question_ Cephas,"
as some render ἱστορῆσαι, following an older classical usage--"to
gain information" from him; but "I went up _to make acquaintance
with_ Cephas." Saul went to Jerusalem carrying in his heart the
consciousness of his high vocation, seeking, as an equal with an
equal, to make personal acquaintance with the leader of the Twelve.
_Cephas_ (as he was called at Jerusalem) must have been at this time
to Paul a profoundly interesting personality. He was the one man
above all others whom the Apostle felt he must get to know, with whom
it was necessary for him to have a thorough understanding.
How momentous was this meeting! How much we could wish to know what
passed between these two in the conversations of the fortnight
they spent together. One can imagine the delight with which Peter
would relate to his listener the scenes of the life of Jesus; how
the two men would weep together at the recital of the Passion, the
betrayal, trial and denial, the agony of the Garden, the horror of
the cross; with what mingled awe and triumph he would describe the
events of the Resurrection and the Forty Days, the Ascension, and the
baptism of fire. In Paul's account of the appearances of the risen
Christ (1 Cor. xv. 4-8), written many years afterwards, there are
statements most naturally explained as a recollection of what he had
heard privately from Peter, and possibly also from James, at this
conference. For it is in his gospel message and doctrine, and his
Apostolic commission, not in regard to the details of the biography
of Jesus, that Paul claims to be independent of tradition. And with
what deep emotion would Peter receive in turn from Paul's lips the
account of his meeting with Jesus, of the three dark days that
followed, of the message sent through Ananias, and the revelations
made and purposes formed during the Arabian exile. Between two such
men, met at such a time, there would surely be an entire frankness
of communication and a brotherly exchange of convictions and of
plans. In that case Paul could not fail to inform the elder Apostle
of the extent of the commission he had received from their common
Master; although he does not appear to have made any public and
formal assertion of his Apostolic dignity for a considerable time
afterwards. The supposition of a private cognizance on Peter's part
of Paul's true status makes the open recognition which took place
fourteen years later easy to understand (ch. ii. 6-10).
"But other of the Apostles," Paul goes on to say, "saw I none, but
only James the brother of the Lord." James, _no Apostle_ surely;
neither in the higher sense, for he cannot be reasonably identified
with "James the son of Alphæus;" nor in the lower, for he was, as
far as we can learn, stationary at Jerusalem. But he stood so near
the Apostles, and was in every way so important a person, that if
Paul had omitted the name of James in this connection, he would have
seemed to pass over a material fact. The reference to James in 1
Cor. xv. 7--a hint deeply interesting in itself, and lending so much
dignity to the position of James--suggests that Paul had been at this
time in confidential intercourse with James as well as Peter, each
relating to the other how he had "seen the Lord."
So cardinal are the facts just stated (vv. 15-19), as bearing on
Paul's apostleship, and so contrary to the representations made by
the Judaizers, that he pauses to call God to witness his veracity:
"Now in what I am writing to you, lo, before God, I lie not." The
Apostle never makes this appeal lightly; but only in support of some
averment in which his personal honour and his strongest feelings are
involved.[27] It was alleged, with some show of proof, that Paul was
an underling of the authorities of the Church at Jerusalem, and that
all he knew of the gospel had been learned from the Twelve. From ver.
11 onwards he has been making a circumstantial contradiction of these
assertions. He protests that up to the time when he commenced his
Gentile mission, he had been under no man's tutelage or tuition in
respect to his knowledge of the gospel. He can say no more to prove
his case. Either his opposers or himself are uttering falsehood. The
Galatians know, or ought to know, how incapable he is of such deceit.
Solemnly therefore he avouches, closing the matter so far, as if
drawing himself up to his utmost height: "Behold, before God, I do
not lie!"
[27] See Rom. ix. 1; 2 Cor. i. 17, 18, 23; 1 Thess. ii. 5.
But now we are confronted with the narrative of the Acts (chap.
ix. 26-30), which renders a very different account of this passage
in the Apostle's life. (To vv. 26, 27 of Luke's narrative we have
already alluded in the concluding paragraphs of Chapter V). We are
told there that Barnabas introduced Saul "to the Apostles"; here,
that he saw none of them but Cephas, and only James besides. The
_number_ of the Apostolate present in Jerusalem at the time is a
particular that does not engage Luke's mind; while it is of the
essence of Paul's affirmation. What the Acts relates is that Saul,
through Barnabas' intervention, was now received by the Apostolic
fellowship as a Christian brother, and as one who "had seen the
Lord." The object which Saul had in coming to Jerusalem, and the fact
that just then Cephas was the only one of the Twelve to be found
in the city, along with James--these are matters which only come
into view from the private and personal standpoint to which Paul
admits us. For the rest, there is certainly no contradiction when
we read in the one report that Paul "went up to make acquaintance
with Cephas," and in the other, that he "was with them going in and
out at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord;" that
"he spake and disputed against the Hellenists," moving their anger
so violently that his life was again in danger, and he had to be
carried down to Cæsarea and shipped off to Tarsus. Saul was not the
man to hide his head in Jerusalem. We can understand how greatly his
spirit was stirred by his arrival there, and by the recollection of
his last passage through the city gates. In these very synagogues of
the Hellenists he had himself confronted Stephen; outside those walls
he had assisted to stone the martyr. Paul's address delivered many
years later to the Jewish mob that attempted his life in Jerusalem,
shows how deeply these remembrances troubled his soul (Acts xxii.
17-22). And they would not suffer him now to be silent. He hoped
that his testimony to Christ, delivered in the spot where he had
been so notorious as a persecutor, would produce a softening effect
on his old companions. It was sure to affect them powerfully, one
way or the other. As the event proved, it did not take many words
from Saul's lips to awaken against him the same fury that hurried
Stephen to his death. A fortnight was time quite sufficient, under
the circumstances, to make Jerusalem, as we say, too hot to hold
Saul. Nor can we wonder, knowing his love for his kindred, that there
needed a special command from heaven (Acts xxii. 21), joined to the
friendly compulsion of the Church, to induce him to yield ground
and quit the city. But he had accomplished something; he had "made
acquaintance with Cephas."
This brief visit to the Holy City was a second crisis in Paul's
career. He was now thrust forth upon his mission to the heathen. It
was evident that he was not to look for success among his Jewish
brethren. He lost no opportunity of appealing to them; but it
was commonly with the same result as at Damascus and Jerusalem.
Throughout life he carried with him this "great sorrow and unceasing
pain of heart," that to his "kinsmen according to the flesh," for
whose salvation he could consent to forfeit his own, his gospel
was hid. In their eyes he was a traitor to Israel, and must count
upon their enmity. Everything conspired to point in one direction:
"Depart," the Divine voice had said, "for I will send thee far hence
unto the Gentiles." And Paul obeyed. "I went," he relates here, "into
the regions of Syria and Cilicia" (ver. 21).
To Tarsus, the Cilician capital, Saul voyaged from Judæa. So we
learn from Acts ix. 30. His native place had the first claim on the
Apostle after Jerusalem, and afforded the best starting-point for
his independent mission. Syria, however, precedes Cilicia in the
text; it was the leading province of these two, in which Paul was
occupied during the fourteen years ensuing, and became the seat of
distinguished Churches. In Antioch, the Syrian capital, Christianity
was already planted (Acts xi. 19--21). The close connection of
the Churches of these provinces, and their predominantly Gentile
character, are both evident from the letter addressed to them
subsequently by the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv. 23, 24). Acts xv.
41 shows that a number of Christian societies owning Paul's authority
were found at a later time in this region. And there was a highroad
direct from Syro-Cilicia to Galatia, which Paul traversed in his
second visit to the latter country (Acts xviii. 22, 23); so that the
Galatians would doubtless be aware of the existence of these older
Gentile Churches, and of their relation to Paul. He has no need to
dwell on this first chapter of his missionary history. After but a
fortnight's visit to Jerusalem, Paul went into these Gentile regions,
and there for twice seven years--with what success was known to
all--"preached the faith of which once he made havoc."
This period was divided into two parts. For five or six years the
Apostle laboured alone; afterwards in conjunction with Barnabas,
who invited his help at Antioch (Acts xi. 25, 26). Barnabas was
Paul's senior, and had for some time held the leading position in
the Church of Antioch; and Paul was personally indebted to this
generous man (p. 82). He accepted the position of helper to Barnabas
without any compromise of his higher authority, as yet held in
reserve. He accompanied Barnabas to Jerusalem in 44 (or 45) A.D.,
with the contribution made by the Syrian Church for the relief of the
famine-stricken Judean brethren--a visit which Paul seems here to
forget.[28] But the Church at Jerusalem was at that time undergoing a
severe persecution; its leaders were either in prison or in flight.
The two delegates can have done little more than convey the moneys
entrusted to them, and that with the utmost secrecy. Possibly Paul on
this occasion never set foot inside the city. In any case, the event
had no bearing on the Apostle's present contention.
[28] Acts xi. 27-30. It is significant that this ministration was
sent "to the Elders."
Between this journey and the really important visit to Jerusalem
introduced in chap. ii. 1, Barnabas and Paul undertook, at the
prompting of the Holy Spirit expressed through the Church of
Antioch (Acts xiii. 1-4), the missionary expedition described in
Acts xiii., xiv. Under the trials of this journey the ascendancy
of the younger evangelist became patent to all. Paul was marked
out in the eyes of the Gentiles as their born leader, the Apostle
of heathen Christianity. He appears to have taken the chief part
in the discussion with the Judaists respecting circumcision, which
immediately ensued at Antioch; and was put at the head of the
deputation sent up to Jerusalem concerning this question. This was a
turning-point in the Apostle's history. It brought about the public
recognition of his leadership in the Church. The seal of man was now
to be set upon the secret election of God.
During this long period, the Apostle tells us, he "remained unknown
by face to the Churches of Judæa." Absent for so many years
from the metropolis, after a fortnight's flying visit, spent in
private intercourse with Peter and James, and in controversy in the
Hellenistic synagogues where few Christians of the city would be
likely to follow him,[29] Paul was a stranger to the bulk of the
Judean disciples. But they watched his course, notwithstanding,
with lively interest and with devout thanksgiving to God (vv. 22,
23). Throughout this first period of his ministry the Apostle acted
in complete independence of the Jewish Church, making no report to
its chiefs, nor seeking any direction from them. Accordingly, when
afterwards he did go up to Jerusalem and laid before the authorities
there his gospel to the heathen, they had nothing to add to it; they
did not take upon themselves to give him any advice or injunction,
beyond the wish that he and Barnabas should "remember the poor," as
he was already forward to do (ch. ii. 1-10). Indeed the three famous
Pillars of the Jewish Church at this time openly acknowledged Paul's
equality with Peter in the Apostleship, and resigned to his direction
the Gentile province. Finally at Antioch, the head-quarters of
Gentile Christianity, when Peter compromised the truth of the gospel
by yielding to Judaistic pressure, Paul had not hesitated publicly
to reprove him (ch. ii. 11-21). He had been compelled in this way to
carry the vindication of his gospel to the furthest lengths; and he
had done this successfully. It is only when we reach the end of the
second chapter that we discover how much the Apostle meant when he
said, "My gospel is not according to man."
[29] For the ministry alluded to in Acts xxvi. 20 there were
other, later opportunities, especially in the journey described
in Acts xv. 3; see also Acts xxi. 15, 16.
If there was any man to whom as a Christian teacher he was bound to
defer, any one who might be regarded as his official superior, it was
the Apostle Peter. Yet against this very Cephas he had dared openly
to measure himself. Had he been a disciple of the Jewish Apostle, a
servant of the Jerusalem Church, how would this have been possible?
Had he not possessed an authority derived immediately from Christ,
how could he have stood out alone, against the prerogative of Peter,
against the personal friendship and local influence of Barnabas,
against the example of all his Jewish brethren? Nay, he was prepared
to rebuke all the Apostles, and anathematize all the angels, rather
than see Christ's gospel set at nought. For it was in his view "the
gospel of the glory of the blessed God, _committed to my trust_!" (1
Tim. i. 11).
II. But while Paul stoutly maintains his independence, he does this
in such a way as to show that there was no hostility or personal
rivalry between himself and the first Apostles. His relations to the
Jewish Church were all the while those of _friendly acquaintance and
brotherly recognition_.
That Nazarene sect which he had of old time persecuted, was "the
Church of God" (ver. 13). To the end of his life this thought gave
a poignancy to the Apostle's recollection of his early days. To
"the Churches of Judæa"[30] he attaches the epithet _in Christ_,
a phrase of peculiar depth of meaning with Paul, which he could
never have conferred as matter of formal courtesy, nor by way of
mere distinction between the Church and the Synagogue. From Paul's
lips this title is a guarantee of orthodoxy. It satisfies us that
the "other gospel" of the Circumcisionists was very far from being
the gospel of the Jewish Christian Church at large. Paul is careful
to record the sympathy which the Judean brethren cherished for his
missionary work in its earliest stages, although their knowledge of
him was comparatively distant: "Only they continued to hear that
our old persecutor is preaching the faith which once he sought
to destroy. And in me they glorified God." Nor does he drop the
smallest hint to show that the disposition of the Churches in the
mother country toward himself, or his judgement respecting them, had
undergone any change up to the time of his writing this Epistle.
[30] Ver. 22. It is arbitrary in Meyer to exclude from this
category the Church of Jerusalem.
He speaks of the elder Apostles in terms of unfeigned respect. In
his reference in ch. ii. 11-21 to the error of Peter, there is great
plainness of speech, but no bitterness. When the Apostle says that
he "went up to Jerusalem to see Peter," and describes James as "the
Lord's brother," and when he refers to both of them, along with
John, as "those accounted to be pillars," can he mean anything but
honour to these honoured men? To read into these expressions a covert
jealousy and to suppose them written by way of disparagement, seems
to us a strangely jaundiced and small-minded sort of criticism. The
Apostle testifies that Peter held a Divine trust in the Gospel,
and that God had "wrought for Peter" to this effect, as for
himself. By claiming the testimony of the Pillars at Jerusalem to
his vocation, he shows his profound respect for theirs. When the
unfortunate difference arose between Peter and himself at Antioch,
Paul is careful to show that the Jewish Apostle on that occasion was
influenced by the circumstances of the moment, and nevertheless
remained true in his real convictions to the common gospel.
In view of these facts, it is impossible to believe, as the
_Tendency_ critics would have us do, that Paul when he wrote this
letter was at feud with the Jewish Church. In that case, while he
taxes Peter with "dissimulation" (ch. ii. 11-13), he is himself
the real dissembler, and has carried his dissimulation to amazing
lengths. If he is in this Epistle contending against the Primitive
Church and its leaders, he has concealed his sentiments toward
them with an art so crafty as to overreach itself. He has taught
his readers to reverence those whom on this hypothesis he was most
concerned to discredit. The terms under which he refers to Cephas
and the Judean Churches would be just so many testimonies against
himself, if their doctrine was the "other gospel" of the Galatian
troublers, and if Paul and the Twelve were rivals for the suffrages
of the Gentile Christians.
The one word which wears a colour of detraction is the parenthesis
in ver. 6 of ch. ii.: "whatever aforetime[31] they (those of repute)
were, makes no difference to me. God accepts no man's person." But
this is no more than Paul has already said in ch. i. 16, 17. At the
first, after receiving his gospel from the Lord in person, he felt it
to be out of place for him to "confer with flesh and blood." So now,
even in the presence of the first Apostles, the earthly companions
of his Master, he cannot abate his pretensions, nor forget that his
ministry stands on a level as exalted as theirs. This language is
in precise accord with that of 1 Cor. xv. 10. The suggestion that
the repeated οἱ δοκοῦντες conveys a sneer against the leaders at
Jerusalem, as "seeming" to be more than they were, is an insult to
Paul that recoils upon the critics who utter it. The phrase denotes
"those of repute," "reputed to be pillars," the acknowledged heads of
the mother Church. Their position was recognised on all hands; Paul
assumes it, and argues upon it. He desires to magnify, not to minify,
the importance of these illustrious men. They were pillars of his own
cause. It is a maladroit interpretation that would have Paul cry down
James and the Twelve. By so much as he impaired their worth, he must
assuredly have impaired his own. If their status was mere _seeming_,
of what value was their endorsement of his? But for a preconceived
opinion, no one, we may safely affirm, reading this Epistle would
have gathered that Peter's "gospel of the circumcision" was the
"other gospel" of Galatia, or that the "certain from James" of ch.
ii. 12 represented the views and the policy of the first Apostles.
The assumption that Peter's dissimulation at Antioch expressed the
settled doctrine of the Jewish Apostolic Church, is unhistorical.
The Judaizers _abused_ the authority of Peter and James when they
pleaded it in favour of their agitation. So we are told expressly in
Acts xv.; and a candid interpretation of this letter bears out the
statements of Luke. In James and Peter, Paul and John, there were
indeed "diversities of gifts and operations," but they had received
the same Spirit; they served the same Lord. They held alike the one
and only gospel of the grace of God.
[31] We follow Lightfoot in reading the ποτὲ as in ch. i. 23, and
everywhere else in Paul, as a particle of _time_.
CHAPTER VII.
_PAUL AND THE FALSE BRETHREN._
"Then after the space of fourteen years I went up again to
Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went
up by revelation; and I laid before them the gospel which I
preach among the Gentiles, but privately before them who were
of repute, [_asking them_ whether I am running, or had run, in
vain: but not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was
compelled to be circumcised. But _it was_[32]] because of the
false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy
out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might
bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of
subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel
might continue with you."--GAL. ii. 1-5.
[32] The writer is compelled in this instance to depart from
the rendering of the English Version, for reasons given in the
sequel. See also a paper on _Paul and Titus at Jerusalem_, in
THE EXPOSITOR, 3rd series, vol. vi., pp. 435-442. The last three
words within the brackets agree with the R.V. _margin_.
"Fourteen years" had elapsed since Paul left Jerusalem for Tarsus,
and commenced his Gentile mission.[33] During this long period--a
full half of his missionary course--the Apostle was lost to the sight
of the Judean Churches. For nearly half this time, until Barnabas
brought him to Antioch, we have no further trace of his movements.
But these years of obscure labour had, we may be sure, no small
influence in shaping the Apostle's subsequent career. It was a kind
of Apostolic apprenticeship. Then his evangelistic plans were laid;
his powers were practised; his methods of teaching and administration
formed and tested. This first, unnoted period of Paul's missionary
life held, we imagine, much the same relation to his public ministry
that the time of the Arabian retreat did to his spiritual development.
[33] These fourteen years probably amounted to something less in
our reckoning,--say, from 38 to 51 A.D. Some six years elapsed
before Paul was summoned to Antioch.
We are apt to think of the Apostle Paul only as we see him in the
full tide of his activity, carrying "from Jerusalem round about unto
Illyricum" the standard of the cross and planting it in one after
another of the great cities of the Empire, "always triumphing in
every place;" or issuing those mighty Epistles whose voice shakes
the world. We forget the earlier term of preparation, these years of
silence and patience, of unrecorded toil in a comparatively narrow
and humble sphere, which had after all their part in making Paul
the man he was. If Christ Himself would not "clutch" at His Divine
prerogatives (Phil. ii. 5-11), nor win them by self-assertion and
before the time, how much more did it become His servant to rise to
his great office by slow degrees. Paul served first as a private
missionary pioneer in his native land, then as a junior colleague and
assistant to Barnabas, until the summons came to take a higher place,
when "the signs of an Apostle" had been fully "wrought in him." Not
in a day, nor by the effect of a single revelation did he become the
fully armed and all-accomplished Apostle of the Gentiles whom we meet
in this Epistle. "After the space of fourteen years" it was time for
him to stand forth the approved witness and minister of Jesus Christ,
whom Peter and John publicly embraced as their equal.
Paul claims here the initiative in the momentous visit to Jerusalem
undertaken by himself and Barnabas, of which he is going to speak.
In Acts xv. 2 he is similarly placed at the head of the deputation
sent from Antioch about the question of circumcision. The account
of the preceding missionary tour in Acts xiii., xiv., shows how
the headship of the Gentile Church had come to devolve on Paul. In
Luke's narrative they are "Barnabas and Saul" who set out; "Paul
and Barnabas" who return.[34] Under the trials and hazards of this
adventure--at Paphos, Pisidian Antioch, Lystra--Paul's native
ascendancy and his higher vocation irresistibly declared themselves.
Age and rank yielded to the fire of inspiration, to the gifts of
speech, the splendid powers of leadership which the difficulties
of this expedition revealed in Paul. Barnabas returned to Antioch
with the thought in his heart, "He must increase; I must decrease."
And Barnabas was too generous a man not to yield cheerfully to his
companion the precedence for which God thus marked him out. Yet the
"sharp contention" in which the two men parted soon after this time
(Acts xv. 36-40), was, we may conjecture, due in some degree to a
lingering soreness in the mind of Barnabas on this account.
[34] Acts xiii. 2, 7, 13, 43, 45, 46, 50; xiv. 12, 14; xv. 2, 12.
The Apostle expresses himself with modesty, but in such a way as
to show that _he_ was regarded in this juncture as the champion of
the Gentile cause. The "revelation" that prompted the visit came to
him. The "taking up of Titus" was his distinct act (ver. 1). Unless
Paul has deceived himself, he was quite the leading figure in the
Council; it was his doctrine and his Apostleship that exercised the
minds of the chiefs at Jerusalem, when the delegates from Antioch
appeared before them. Whatever Peter and James may have known or
surmised previously concerning Paul's vocation, it was only now that
it became a public question for the Church. But as matters stood, it
was a vital question. The status of uncircumcised Christians, and the
Apostolic rank of Paul, constituted the twofold problem placed before
the chiefs of the Jewish Church. At the same time, the Apostle, while
fixing our attention mainly on his own position, gives to Barnabas
his meed of honour; for he says, "I went up with Barnabas,"--"_we_
never yielded for an hour to the false brethren,"--"the Pillars
gave _to me and Barnabas_ the right hand of fellowship, that we
might go to the Gentiles." But it is evident that the elder Gentile
missionary stood in the background. By the action that he takes Paul
unmistakably declares, "I am the Apostle of the Gentiles;"[35] and
that claim is admitted by the consenting voice of both branches of
the Church. The Apostle stepped to the front at this solemn crisis,
not for his own rank or office' sake, but at the call of God, in
defence of the truth of the gospel and the spiritual freedom of
mankind.
[35] Comp. Rom. xi. 13; xv. 16, 17.
This meeting at Jerusalem took place in 51, or it may be, 52 A.D.
We make no doubt that it is the same with the Council of Acts xv.
The identification has been controverted by several able scholars,
but without success. The two accounts are different, but in no sense
contradictory. In fact, as Dr. Pfleiderer acknowledges,[36] they
"admirably supplement each other. The agreement as to the chief
points is in any case greater than the discrepancies in the details;
and these discrepancies can for the most part be explained by the
different standpoint of the relaters." A difficulty lies, however, in
the fact that the historian of the Acts makes this the _third_ visit
of Paul to Jerusalem subsequently to his conversion; whereas, from
the Apostle's statement, it appears to have been the _second_. This
discrepancy has already come up for discussion in the last Chapter
(p. 92). Two further observations may be added on this point. In the
first place, Paul does not say that he had never been to Jerusalem
since the visit of ch. i. 18; he does say, that on this occasion he
"went up again," and that meanwhile he "remained unknown by face" to
the Christians of Judæa (ch. i. 22)--a fact quite compatible, as we
have shown, with what is related in Acts xi. 29, 30. And further, the
request addressed at this conference to the Gentile missionaries,
that they should "remember the poor," and the reference made by the
Apostle to his previous zeal in the same business (vv. 9, 10), are in
agreement with the earlier visit of charity mentioned by Luke.
[36] _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 103. This testimony is the more
valuable as coming from the ablest living exponent of the Baurian
theory.
I. The emphasis of ver. 1 rests upon its last clause,--_taking along
with me also Titus_. Not "Titus as well as Barnabas"--this cannot be
the meaning of the "also"--for Barnabas was Paul's colleague, deputed
equally with himself by the Church of Antioch; nor "Titus as well as
others"--there were other members of the deputation (Acts xv. 2), but
Paul makes no reference to them. The _also_ (καὶ) calls attention to
the fact of Paul's taking _Titus_, in view of the sequel; as though
he said, "I not only went up to Jerusalem at this particular time,
under Divine direction, but I took along with me Titus besides."
The prefixed _with_ (συν-) of the Greek participle refers to Paul
himself: compare ver. 3, "Titus who was with me." As for the "certain
others" referred to in Acts xv. 2, they were most likely Jews; or if
any of them were Gentiles, still it was Titus whom Paul had chosen
for his companion; and his case stood out from the rest in such a way
that it became the decisive one, the _test-case_ for the matter in
dispute.
The mention of _Titus'_ name in this connection was calculated to
raise a lively interest in the minds of the Apostle's readers. He is
introduced as known to the Galatians; indeed by this time his name
was familiar in the Pauline Churches, as that of a fellow-traveller
and trusted helper of the Apostle. He was with Paul in the latter
part of the third missionary tour--so we learn from the Corinthian
letters--and therefore probably in the earlier part of the same
journey, when the Apostle paid his second visit to Galatia. He
belonged to the heathen mission, and was Paul's "true child after a
common faith" (Tit. i. 4), an uncircumcised man, of Gentile birth
equally with the Galatians. And now they read of his "going up to
Jerusalem with Paul," to the mother-city of believers, where are
the pillars of the Church--the Jewish teachers would say--the true
Apostles of Jesus, where His doctrine is preached in its purity, and
where every Christian is circumcised and keeps the Law. Titus, the
unclean Gentile, at Jerusalem! How could he be admitted or tolerated
there, in the fellowship of the first disciples of the Lord?
This question Paul's readers, after what they had heard from the
Circumcisionists, would be sure to ask. He will answer it directly.
But the Apostle goes on to say, that he "went up in accordance
with a revelation." For this was one of those supreme moments
in his life when he looked for and received the direct guidance
of heaven. It was a most critical step to carry this question of
Gentile circumcision up to Jerusalem, and to take Titus with him
there, into the enemies' stronghold. Moreover, on the settlement of
this matter Paul knew that his Apostolic status depended, so far as
human recognition was concerned. It would be seen whether the Jewish
Church would acknowledge the converts of the Gentile mission as
brethren in Christ; and whether the first Apostles would receive him,
"the untimely one," as a colleague of their own. Never had he more
urgently needed or more implicitly relied upon Divine direction than
at this hour.
"And I put before them (the Church at Jerusalem) the gospel which I
preach among the Gentiles--but privately to those of repute: am I
running (said I), or have I run, in vain?" The latter clause we read
_interrogatively_, along with such excellent grammatical interpreters
as Meyer, Wieseler, and Hofmann. Paul had not come to Jerusalem _in
order to solve any doubt in his own mind_; but he wished the Church
of Jerusalem _to declare its mind_ respecting the character of his
ministry. He was not "running as uncertainly;" nor in view of the
"revelation" just given him could he have any fear for the result of
his appeal. But it was in every way necessary that the appeal should
be made.
The interjected words, "but privately," etc., indicate that there
were _two_ meetings during the conference, such as those which seem
to be distinguished in Acts xv. 4 and 6; and that the Apostle's
statement and the question arising out of it were addressed more
pointedly to "those of repute." By this term we understand, here and
in ver. 6, "the apostles and elders" (Acts xv.), headed by Peter and
James, amongst whom "those reputed to be pillars" are distinguished
in ver. 9. Paul dwells upon the phrase οἱ δοκοῦντες, because, to
be sure, it was so often on the lips of the Judaizers, who were in
the habit of speaking with an imposing air, and by way of contrast
with Paul, of "the authorities" (at Jerusalem)--as the designation
might appropriately be rendered. These very men whom the Legalists
were exalting at Paul's expense, the venerated chiefs of the mother
Church, had on this occasion, Paul is going to say, given their
approval to his doctrine; they declined to impose circumcision on
Gentile believers. The Twelve were not stationary at Jerusalem, and
therefore could not form a fixed court of reference there; hence a
greater importance accrued to the Elders of the city Church, with the
revered James at their head, the brother of the Lord.
The Apostle, in bringing Titus, had brought up the subject-matter of
the controversy. The "gospel of the uncircumcision" stood before the
Jewish authorities, an accomplished fact. Titus was there, by the
side of Paul, a sample--and a noble specimen, we can well believe--of
the Gentile Christendom which the Jewish Church must either
acknowledge or repudiate. How will they treat him? Will they admit
this foreign protege of Paul to their communion? Or will they require
him first to be circumcised? The question at issue could not take a
form more crucial for the prejudices of the mother Church. It was one
thing to acknowledge uncircumcised fellow-believers in the abstract,
away yonder at Antioch or Iconium, or even at Cæsarea; and another
thing to see Titus standing amongst them in his heathen uncleanness,
on the sacred soil of Jerusalem, under the shadow of the Temple, and
to hear Paul claiming for him--for this "dog" of a Gentile--equally
with himself the rights of Christian brotherhood! The demand was most
offensive to the pride of Judaism, as no one knew better than Paul;
and we cannot wonder that a revelation was required to justify the
Apostle in making it. The case of _Trophimus_, whose presence with
the Apostle at Jerusalem many years afterwards proved so nearly fatal
(Acts xxi. 27-30), shows how exasperating to the legalist party his
action in this instance must have been. Had not Peter and the better
spirits of the Church in Jerusalem laid to heart the lesson of the
vision of Joppa, that "no man must be called common or unclean," and
had not the wisdom of the Holy Spirit eminently guided this first
Council of the Church,[37] Paul's challenge would have received a
negative answer; and Jewish and Gentile Christianity must have been
driven asunder.
[37] Acts xv. 28: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us."
This was in the Early Church no mere pious official form.
The answer, the triumphant answer, to Paul's appeal comes in the next
verse: "Nay, not even[38] Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was
compelled to be circumcised." Titus _was not circumcised_, in point
of fact--how can we doubt this in view of the language of ver. 5:
"Not even for an hour did we yield in subjection?" And he "was _not
compelled_ to be circumcised"--a mode of putting the denial which
implies that in refusing his circumcision urgent solicitation had
to be withstood, solicitation addressed to Titus himself, as well as
to the leaders of his party. The kind of pressure brought to bear in
the case and the quarter from which it proceeded, the Galatians would
understand from their own experience (ch. vi. 12; comp. ii. 14).
[38] For this use of ἀλλ' οὐδὲ compare Acts xix. 2 (here also
after a question); 1 Cor. iii. 2; iv. 3. We observe a similar
instance of the phrase in Æschylus, _Persæ_, l. 792. Ἀλλ' opposes
itself to the expectation of the Judaistic "compellers," present
to the mind of Paul and his readers.
The attempt made to bring about Titus' circumcision signally failed.
Its failure was the practical reply to the question which Paul tells
us (ver. 2) he had put to the authorities in Jerusalem; or, according
to the more common rendering of ver. 2_b_, it was the answer to the
apprehension under which he addressed himself to them. On the former
of these views of the connection, which we decidedly prefer, the
authorities are clear of any share in the "compulsion" of Titus.
When the Apostle gives the statement that his Gentile companion
"was not compelled to be circumcised" as the reply to his appeal to
"those of repute," it is as much as to say: "The chiefs at Jerusalem
did not require Titus' circumcision. They repudiated the attempt
of certain parties to force this rite upon him." This testimony
precisely accords with the terms of the rescript of the Council, and
with the speeches of Peter and James, given in Acts xv. But it was
a great point gained to have the liberality of the Jewish Christian
leaders put to the proof in this way, to have the generous sentiments
of speech and letter made good in this example of uncircumcised
Christianity brought to their doors.
To the authorities at Jerusalem the question put by the delegates
from Antioch on the one side, and by the Circumcisionists on the
other, was perfectly clear. If they insist on Titus' circumcision,
they disown Paul and the Gentile mission: if they accept Paul's
gospel, they must leave Titus alone. Paul and Barnabas stated the
case in a manner that left no room for doubt or compromise. Their
action was marked, as ver. 5 declares, with the utmost decision. And
the response of the Jewish leaders was equally frank and definite. We
have no business, says James (Acts xv. 19), "to trouble those from
the Gentiles that turn to God." Their judgement is virtually affirmed
in ver. 3, in reference to Titus, in whose person the Galatians could
not fail to see that their own case had been settled by anticipation.
"Those of repute" disowned the Circumcisionists; the demand that
the yoke of circumcision should be imposed on the Gentiles had no
sanction from them. If the Judaizers claimed their sanction, the
claim was false.
Here the Apostle pauses, as his Gentile readers must have paused
and drawn a long breath of relief or of astonishment at what he has
just alleged. If Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, even at
Jerusalem, who, they might ask, was going to compel _them_?--The full
stop should therefore be placed at the end of ver. 3, not ver. 2. Vv.
1-3 form a paragraph complete in itself. Its last sentence resolves
the decisive question raised in this visit of Paul's to Jerusalem,
when he "took with him also Titus."
II. The opening words of ver. 4 have all the appearance of commencing
a new sentence. This sentence, concluded in ver. 5, is grammatically
incomplete; but that is no reason for throwing it upon the previous
sentence, to the confusion of both. There is a transition of thought,
marked by the introductory _But_,[39] from the issue of Paul's second
critical visit to Jerusalem (vv. 1-3) to _the cause which made it
necessary_. This was the action of "false brethren," to whom the
Apostle made a determined and successful resistance (vv. 4, 5). The
opening "But" does not refer to ver. 3 in particular, rather to the
entire foregoing paragraph. The ellipsis (after "But") is suitably
supplied in the marginal rendering of the Revisers, where we take
_it was_ to mean, not "Because of the false brethren _Titus was not_
(or _was not compelled to be_) _circumcised_," but "Because of the
false brethren _this meeting came about_, or, _I took the course
aforesaid_."
[39] This particle is a serious obstacle in the way of the
ordinary punctuation, which attaches the following clause to ver.
3. The δὲ is similar to that of ver. 6 (ἀπὸ δὲ τ. δοκούντων); not
of κατ' ἰδίαν δὲ in ver. 2, nor of θανάτον δὲ σταύρου (Phil. ii.
8), which are parenthetical qualifications. And to say, "Because
of the false brethren Titus was not compelled to be circumcised,"
is simply an inconsequence. Would he have been compelled to be
circumcised if they had _not_ required it? This is the assumption
implied by the above construction.
To know what Paul means by "false brethren," we must turn to ch.
i. 6-9, iii. 1, iv. 17, v. 7-12, vi. 12-14, in this Epistle; and
again to 2 Cor. ii. 17-iii. 1, iv. 2, xi. 3, 4, 12-22, 26; Rom.
xvi. 17, 18; Phil. iii. 2. They were men bearing the name of Christ
and professing faith in Him, but Pharisees at heart, self-seeking,
rancorous, unscrupulous men, bent on exploiting the Pauline Churches
for their own advantage, and regarding Gentile converts to Christ as
so many possible recruits for the ranks of the Circumcision.
But where, and how, were these traitors "privily brought in?"
Brought in, we answer, to the field of the Gentile mission; and
doubtless by local Jewish sympathisers, who introduced them
without the concurrence of the officers of the Church. They "came
in privily"--slipped in by stealth--"to spy out our liberty which
we have in Christ Jesus." Now it was at Antioch and in the pagan
Churches that this liberty existed in its normal exercise--the
liberty for which our Epistle contends, the enjoyment of Christian
privileges independently of Jewish law--in which Paul and his brother
missionaries had identified themselves with their Gentile followers.
The "false brethren" were Jewish spies in the Gentile Christian
camp. We do not see how the Galatians could have read the Apostle's
words otherwise; nor how it could have occurred to them that he was
referring to the way in which these men had been originally "brought
into" the Jewish Church. That concerned neither him nor them. But
_their getting into the Gentile fold_ was the serious thing. They
are the "certain who came down from Judæa, and taught the (Gentile)
brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses,
ye cannot be saved;" and whom their own Church afterwards repudiated
(Acts xv. 24). With Antioch for the centre of their operations, these
mischief-makers disturbed the whole field of Paul and Barnabas'
labours in Syria and Cilicia (Acts xv. 23; comp. Gal. i. 21). For
the Galatian readers, the terms of this sentence, coming after the
anathema of ch. i. 6-9, threw a startling light on the character
of the Judean emissaries busy in their midst. This description of
the former "troublers" strikes at the Judaic opposition in Galatia.
It is as if the Apostle said: "These false brethren, smuggled in
amongst us, to filch away our liberties in Christ, wolves in sheep's
clothing--I know them well; I have encountered them before this. I
never yielded to their demands a single inch. I carried the struggle
with them to Jerusalem. There, in the citadel of Judaism, and before
the assembled chiefs of the Judean Church, I vindicated once and for
all, under the person of Titus, your imperilled Christian rights."
But as the Apostle dilates on the conduct of these Jewish intriguers,
the precursors of such an army of troublers, his heart takes fire; in
the rush of his emotion he is carried away from the original purport
of his sentence, and breaks it off with a burst of indignation: "To
whom," he cries, "not even for an hour did we yield by subjection,
that the truth of the gospel might abide with you." A breakdown
like this--an _anacoluthon_, as the grammarians call it--is nothing
strange in Paul's style. Despite the shipwrecked grammar, the sense
comes off safely enough. The clause, "we did not yield," etc.,
describes in a negative form, and with heightened effect, the course
the Apostle had pursued from the first in dealing with the false
brethren. In this unyielding spirit he had acted, without a moment's
wavering, from the hour when, guided by the Holy Spirit, he set
out for Jerusalem with the uncircumcised Titus by his side, until
he heard his Gentile gospel vindicated by the lips of Peter and
James, and received from them the clasp of fellowship as Christ's
acknowledged Apostle to the heathen.
It was therefore the action of Jewish interlopers, men of the same
stamp as those infesting the Galatian Churches, which occasioned
Paul's second, public visit to Jerusalem, and his consultation with
the heads of the Judean Church. This decisive course he was himself
inspired to take; while at the same time it was taken on behalf
and under the direction of the Church of Antioch, the metropolis
of Gentile Christianity. He had gone up with Barnabas and "certain
others"--including the Greek Titus chosen by himself--the company
forming a representative deputation, of which Paul was the leader and
spokesman. This measure was the boldest and the only effectual means
of combatting the Judaistic propaganda. It drew from the authorities
at Jerusalem the admission that "Circumcision is nothing," and that
Gentile Christians are free from the ritual law. This was a victory
gained over Jewish prejudice of immense significance for the future
of Christianity. The ground was already cut from under the feet of
the Judaic teachers in Galatia, and of all who should at any time
seek to impose external rites as things essential to salvation in
Christ. To all his readers Paul can now say, so far as his part is
concerned: _The truth of the gospel abides with you_.
CHAPTER VIII.
_PAUL AND THE THREE PILLARS._
"But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (what they
once were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's
person)--they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to
me: but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted
with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with _the
gospel_ of the circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter
unto the apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also
unto the Gentiles); and when they perceived the grace that was
given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed
to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of
fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto
the circumcision; only _they would_ that we should remember the
poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do."--GAL. ii. 6-10.
We have dealt by anticipation, in Chapter VI., with several of the
topics raised in this section of the Epistle--touching particularly
the import of the phrase "those of repute," and the tone of
disparagement in which these dignitaries appear to be spoken of in
ver. 6. But there still remains in these verses matter in its weight
and difficulty more than sufficient to occupy another Chapter.
The grammatical connection of the first paragraph, like that of vv.
2, 3, is involved and disputable. We construe its clauses in the
following way:--(1) Ver. 6 begins with a _But_, contrasting "those of
repute" with the "false brethren" dealt with in the last sentence.
It contains another _anacoluthon_ (or incoherence of language), due
to the surge of feeling remarked in ver. 4, which still disturbs
the Apostle's grammar. He begins: "But from those reputed to be
something"--as though he intended to say, "I received on my part
nothing, no addition or qualification to my gospel." But he has no
sooner mentioned "those of repute" than he is reminded of the studied
attempt that was made to set up their authority in opposition to
his own, and accordingly throws in this protest: "what they were
aforetime,[40] makes no difference to me: man's person God doth not
accept." But in saying this, Paul has laid down one of his favourite
axioms, a principle that filled a large place in his thoughts;[41]
and its enunciation deflects the course of the main sentence, so that
it is resumed in an altered form: "For to me those of repute imparted
nothing." Here the _me_ receives a greater emphasis; and _for_ takes
the place of _but_. The fact that the first Apostles had nothing to
impart to Paul, signally illustrates the Divine impartiality, which
often makes the last and least in human eyes equal to the first.
[40] For this rendering of ποτὲ comp. ch. i. 13, 23; and see
Lightfoot, or Beet, _in loc._.
[41] Comp. Rom. ii. 11; 1 Cor. i. 27-31; xv. 9, 10; Eph. vi. 9;
Col. iii. 25.
(2) Vv. 7-9 state the _positive_, as ver. 6 the _negative_ side of
the relation between Paul and the elder Apostles, still keeping
in view the principle laid down in the former verse. "Nay, on the
contrary, when they saw that I have in charge the gospel of the
uncircumcision, as Peter that of the circumcision (ver. 7)--and when
they perceived the grace that had been given me, James and Cephas and
John, those renowned pillars of the Church, gave the right hand of
fellowship to myself and Barnabas, agreeing that we should go to the
Gentiles, while they laboured amongst the Jews" (ver. 9).
(3) Ver. 8 comes in as a parenthesis, explaining how the authorities
at Jerusalem came to see that this trust belonged to Paul. "For,"
he says, "He that in Peter's case displayed His power in making
him (above all others) Apostle of the Circumcision, did as much
for me in regard to the Gentiles." It is not human ordination, but
Divine inspiration that makes a minister of Jesus Christ. The noble
Apostles of Jesus had the wisdom to see this. It had pleased God to
bestow this grace on their old Tarsian persecutor; and they frankly
acknowledged the fact.
Thus Paul sets forth, in the first place, _the completeness of
his Apostolic qualifications_, put to proof at the crisis of the
circumcision controversy; and in the second place, _the judgement
formed respecting him and his office by the first Apostles and
companions of the Lord_.
I. "To me those of repute added nothing." Paul had spent but a
fortnight in the Christian circle of Jerusalem, fourteen years ago.
Of its chiefs he had met at that time only Peter and James, and them
in the capacity of a visitor, not as a disciple or a candidate for
office. He had never sought the opportunity, nor felt the need, of
receiving instruction from the elder Apostles during all the years in
which he had preached Christ amongst the heathen. It was not likely
he would do so now. When he came into conference and debate with them
at the Council, he showed himself their equal, neither in knowledge
nor authority "a whit behind the very chiefest." And they were
conscious of the same fact.
On the essentials of the gospel Paul found himself in agreement with
the Twelve. This is implied in the language of ver. 6. When one
writes, "A adds nothing to B," one assumes that B has already what
belongs to A, and not something different. Paul asserts in the most
positive terms he can command, that his intercourse with the holders
of the primitive Christian tradition left him as a minister of Christ
exactly where he was before. "On me," he says, "they conferred
nothing"--rather, perhaps, "_addressed no communication_ to me." The
word used appears to deny their having made any motion of the kind.
The Greek verb is the same that was employed in ch. i. 16, a rare and
delicate compound.[42] Its meaning varies, like that of our _confer_,
_communicate_, as it is applied in a more or less active sense. In
the former place Paul had said that he "did not confer with flesh and
blood"; now he adds, that flesh and blood did not confer anything
upon him. Formerly he did not bring his commission to lay it before
men; now they had nothing to bring on their part to lay before him.
The same word affirms the Apostle's independence at both epochs,
shown in the first instance by his reserve toward the dignitaries at
Jerusalem, and in the second by their reserve toward him. Conscious
of his Divine call, he sought no patronage from the elder Apostles
then; and they, recognising that call, offered him no such patronage
now. Paul's gospel for the Gentiles was complete, and sufficient
unto itself. His ministry showed no defect in quality or competence.
There was nothing about it that laid it open to correction, even on
the part of those wisest and highest in dignity amongst the personal
followers of Jesus.
[42] We cannot explain προσανέθεντο here by the ἀναθέμην of
ver. 2, as though Paul wished to say, "I imparted to them my
gospel; they imparted to me nothing _further_." Forπρος- implies
_direction_, rather than _addition_. See Meyer on this verb in
ch. i. 16.
So Paul declares; and we can readily believe him. Nay, we are tempted
to think that it was rather the Pillars who might need to learn
from him, than he from them. In doctrine, Paul holds the primacy in
the band of the Apostles. While all were inspired by the Spirit of
Christ, the Gentile Apostle was in many ways a more richly furnished
man than any of the rest. The Paulinism of Peter's First Epistle
goes to show that the debt was on the other side. Their earlier
privileges and priceless store of recollections of "all that Jesus
did and taught," were matched on Paul's side by a penetrating logic,
a breadth and force of intellect applied to the facts of revelation,
and a burning intensity of spirit, which in their combination were
unique. The Pauline teaching, as it appears in the New Testament,
bears in the highest degree the marks of original genius, the stamp
of a mind whose inspiration is its own.
Modern criticism even exaggerates Paul's originality. It leaves
the other Apostles little more than a negative part to play in the
development of Christian truth. In some of its representations, the
figure of Paul appears to overshadow even that of the Divine Master.
It was Paul's creative genius, it is said, his daring idealism, that
deified the human Jesus, and transformed the scandal of the cross
into the glory of an atonement reconciling the world to God. Such
theories Paul himself would have regarded with horror. "I received
_of the Lord_ that which I delivered unto you:" such is his uniform
testimony. If he owed so little as a minister of Christ to his
brother Apostles, he felt with the most sincere humility that he
owed everything to Christ. The agreement of Paul's teaching with
that of the other New Testament writers, and especially with that of
Jesus in the Gospels, proves that, however distinct and individual
his conception of the common gospel, none the less there was a
common gospel of Christ, and he did not speak of his own mind. The
attempts made to get rid of this agreement by postdating the New
Testament documents, and by explaining away the larger utterances of
Jesus found in the Gospels as due to Paulinist interpolation, are
unavailing. They postulate a craftiness of ingenuity on the part of
the writers of the incriminated books, and an ignorance in those who
first received them, alike inconceivable. Paul did not build up the
splendid and imperishable fabric of his theology on some speculation
of his own. Its foundation lies in the person and the teaching of
Jesus Christ, and was common to Paul with James and Cephas and
John. "Whether I or they," he testifies, "so we preach, and so ye
believed" (1 Cor. xv. 11). Paul satisfied himself at this conference
that he and the Twelve taught the same gospel. Not in its primary
data, but in their logical development and application, lies the
specifically _Pauline_ in Paulinism. The harmony between Paul and the
other Apostolic leaders has the peculiar value which belongs to the
agreement of minds of different orders, working independently.
The Judaizers, however, persistently asserted Paul's dependence on
the elder Apostles. "The authority of the Primitive Church, the
Apostolic tradition of Jerusalem"--this was the fulcrum of their
argument. Where could Paul, they asked, have derived his knowledge
of Christ, but from this fountain-head? And the power that made
him, could unmake him. Those who commissioned him had the right to
overrule him, or even to revoke his commission. Was it not known
that he had from time to time resorted to Jerusalem; that he had
once publicly submitted his teaching to the examination of the heads
of the Church there? The words of ver. 6 contradict these malicious
insinuations. Hence the positiveness of the Apostle's self-assertion.
In the Corinthian Epistles his claim to independence is made in
gentler style, and with expressions of humility that might have
been misunderstood here. But the position Paul takes up is the
same in either case: "I am an Apostle. I have seen Jesus our Lord.
You--Corinthians, Galatians--are my work in the Lord." That Peter
and the rest were in the old days so near to the Master, "makes no
difference" to Paul. They are what they are--their high standing is
universally acknowledged, and Paul has no need or wish to question
it; but, by the grace of God, _he_ also is what he is (1 Cor. xv.
10). Their Apostleship does not exclude or derogate from his.
The self-depreciation, the keen sense of inferiority in outward
respects, so evident in Paul's allusions to this subject elsewhere,
is after all not wanting here. For when he says, "God regards
not _man's person_," it is evident that in respect of visible
qualifications Paul felt that he had few pretensions to make.
Appearances were against him. And those who "glory in appearance"
were against him too (2 Cor. v. 12). Such men could not appreciate
the might of the Spirit that wrought in Paul, nor the sovereignty of
Divine election. They "reckoned" of the Apostle "as though he walked
according to flesh" (2 Cor. x. 2). It seemed to them obvious, as
a matter of course, that he was far below the Twelve. With men of
worldly wisdom the Apostle did not expect that his arguments would
prevail. His appeal was to "the spiritual, who judge all things."
So we come back to the declaration of the Apostle in ch. i. 11:
"I give you to know, brethren, that my gospel is not according to
man." Man had no hand either in laying its foundation or putting
on the headstone. Paul's predecessors in Apostolic office did not
impart the gospel to him at the outset; nor at a later time had they
attempted to make any addition to the doctrine he had taught far and
wide amongst the heathen. His Apostleship was from first to last a
supernatural gift of grace.
II. Instead, therefore, of assuming to be his superiors, or offering
to bestow something of their own on Paul, _the three renowned pillars
of the faith at Jerusalem acknowledged him as a brother Apostle_.
"They saw that I am intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision."
The form of the verb implies a trust given in the past and taking
effect in the present, a settled fact. Once for all, this charge had
devolved on Paul. He is "appointed herald and apostle" of "Christ
Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all,--teacher of the Gentiles
in faith and truth" (1 Tim. ii. 6, 7). That office Paul still holds.
He is the leader of Christian evangelism. Every new movement in
heathen missionary enterprise looks to his teaching for guidance and
inspiration.
The conference at Jerusalem in itself furnished conclusive evidence
of Paul's Apostolic commission. The circumcision controversy was a
test not only for Gentile Christianity, but at the same time for its
Apostle and champion. Paul brought to this discussion a knowledge and
insight, a force of character, a conscious authority and unction of
the Holy Spirit, that powerfully impressed the three great men who
listened to him. The triumvirate at Jerusalem well knew that Paul
had not received his marvellous gifts through their hands. Nor was
there anything lacking to him which they felt themselves called upon
to supply. They could only say, "This is the Lord's doing; and it
is marvellous in our eyes." Knowing, as Peter at least, we presume,
had done for many years,[43] the history of Paul's conversion, and
seeing as they now did the conspicuous Apostolic signs attending
his ministry, James and Cephas and John could only come to one
conclusion. The gospel of the uncircumcision, they were convinced,
was committed to Paul, and his place in the Church was side by side
with Peter. Peter must have felt as once before on a like occasion:
"If God gave unto him a gift equal to that He gave to me, who am
I, that I should be able to hinder God?" (Acts xi. 17). It was not
for them because of their elder rank and dignity to debate with God
in this matter, and to withhold their recognition from His "chosen
vessel."
[43] Ch. i. 18. See Chapter V., p. 87.
John had not forgotten his Master's reproof for banning the man
that "followeth not with us" (Luke ix. 49; Mark ix. 38). They
"recognised," Paul says, "the grace that had been given me;" and by
that he means, to be sure, the undeserved favour that raised him
to his Apostolic office.[44] This recognition was given to _Paul_.
Barnabas shared the "fellowship." His hand was clasped by the three
chiefs at Jerusalem, not less warmly than that of his younger
comrade. But it is in the singular number that Paul speaks of "the
grace that was given _me_," and of the "trust in the gospel" and the
"working of God _unto Apostleship_."
[44] See Rom. i. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 10; Eph. iii. 2, 7, 8; 1 Tim. i.
13.
Why then does not Paul say outright, "they acknowledged me an
Apostle, the equal of Peter?" Some are bold enough to say--_Holsten_
in particular--"Because this is just what the Jerusalem chiefs never
did, and never could have done."[45] We will only reply, that if
this were the case, the passage is a continued _suggestio falsi_.
No one could write the words of vv. 7-9, without intending his
readers to believe that such a recognition took place. Paul avoids
the point-blank assertion, with a delicacy that any man of tolerable
modesty will understand. Even the appearance of "glorying" was
hateful to him (2 Cor. x. 17; xi. 1; xii. 1-5, 11).
[45] _Zum Evangelien d. Paulus und d. Petrus_, p. 273. Holsten is
the keenest and most logical of all the Baurian succession.
The Church at Jerusalem, as we gather from vv. 7, 8, observed in
Paul "signs of the Apostle" resembling those borne by Peter. His
Gentile commission ran parallel with Peter's Jewish commission. The
labours of the two men were followed by the same kind of success,
and marked by similar displays of miraculous power. The like seal of
God was stamped on both. This correspondence runs through the Acts
of the Apostles. Compare, for example, Paul's sermon at Antioch in
Pisidia with that of Peter on the Day of Pentecost; the healing of
the Lystran cripple and the punishment of Elymas, with the case of
the lame man at the Temple gate and the encounter of Peter and Simon
Magus. The conjunction of the names of Peter and Paul was familiar
to the Apostolic Church. The parallelism between the course of these
great Apostles was no invention of second-century orthodoxy, set up
in the interests of a "reconciling hypothesis;" it attracted public
attention as early as 51 A.D., while they were still in their mid
career. If this idea so strongly possessed the minds of the Jewish
Christian leaders and influenced their action at the Council of
Jerusalem, we need not be surprised that it should dominate Luke's
narrative to the extent that it does. The allusions to Peter in 1
Corinthians[46] afford further proof that in the lifetime of the two
Apostles it was a common thing to link their names together.
[46] Ch. i. 12; iii. 22; ix. 5.
But had not Peter also a share in the Gentile mission? Does not the
division of labour made at this conference appear to shut out the
senior Apostle from a field to which he had the prior claim? "Ye
know," said Peter at the Council, "how that a good while ago God
made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the
word of the gospel, and believe" (Acts xv. 7). To Peter was assigned
the double honour of "opening the door of faith" both to Jew and
Gentile. This experience made him the readier to understand Paul's
position, and gave him the greater weight in the settlement of the
question at issue. And not Peter alone, but Philip the evangelist
and other Jewish Christians had carried the gospel across the line
of Judaic prejudice, before Paul appeared on the scene. Barnabas and
Silas were both emissaries of Jerusalem. So that the mother Church,
if she could not claim Paul as her son, had nevertheless a large
stake in the heathen mission. But when Paul came to the front, when
his miraculous call, his incomparable gifts and wonderful success
had made themselves known, it was evident to every discerning mind
that he was the man chosen by God to direct this great work. Peter
had _opened_ the door of faith to the heathen, and had bravely kept
it open; but it was for Paul to lead the Gentile nations through the
open door, and to make a home for them within the fold of Christ. The
men who had laboured in this field hitherto were Paul's forerunners.
And Peter does not hesitate to acknowledge the younger Apostle's
special fitness for this wider province of their common work; and
with the concurrence of James and John he yields the charge of it to
him.
Let us observe that it is two different _provinces_, not different
gospels, that are in view. When the Apostle speaks of "the gospel
of the uncircumcision" as committed to himself, and that "of the
circumcision" to Peter, he never dreams of any one supposing, as some
of his modern critics persist in doing, that he meant two different
_doctrines_. How can that be possible, when he has declared those
_anathema_ who preach any other gospel? He has laid his gospel before
the heads of the Jerusalem Church. Nothing has occurred there,
nothing is hinted here, to suggest the existence of a "radical
divergence." If James and the body of the Judean Church really
sympathised with the Circumcisionists, with those whom the Apostle
calls "false brethren," how could he with any sincerity have come to
an agreement with them, knowing that this tremendous gulf was lying
all the while between the Pillars and himself? Zeller argues that the
transaction was simply a pledge of "reciprocal toleration, a merely
external concordat between Paul and the original Apostles."[47] The
clasp of brotherly friendship was a sorry farce, if that were all
it meant--if Paul and the Three just consented for the time to slur
over irreconcilable differences; while Paul in turn has glossed over
the affair for us in these artful verses! Baur, with characteristic
_finesse_, says on the same point: "The κοινωνία was always a
division; it could only be brought into effect by one party going
εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, the other εἰς τὴν περιτομήν. As the Jewish Apostles
could allege nothing against the principles on which Paul founded
his evangelical mission, they were obliged to recognise them in a
certain manner; but their recognition was a mere outward one. They
left him to work on these principles still further in the cause of
the gospel among the Gentiles; but for themselves they did not desire
to know anything more about them."[48] So that, according to the
Tübingen critics, we witness in ver. 9 not a union, but a divorce!
The Jewish Apostles recognise Paul as a brother, only in order to get
rid of him. Can misinterpretation be more unjust than this? Paul does
not say, "They gave us the right hand of fellowship _on condition
that_," but, "_in order that_ we should go this way, they that." As
much as to say: The two parties came together and entered into a
closer union, so that with the best mutual understanding each might
go its own way and pursue its proper work in harmony with the other.
For Paul it would have been a sacrilege to speak of the diplomatic
compromise which Baur and Zeller describe as "giving the right hand
of fellowship."
[47] _The Acts of the Apostles critically investigated_, vol.
ii., pp. 28, 30: Eng. Trans.
[48] _Paulus_, vol. i., p. 130: Eng. Trans.
Never did the Church more deeply realise than at her first Council
the truth, that "there is one body and one Spirit; one Lord, one
faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all,
and through all, and in all" (Eph. iv. 4-6). Paul still seems to
feel his hand in the warm grasp of Peter and of John when he writes
to the Ephesians of "the foundation of the Apostles and prophets,
with Christ Jesus Himself for chief corner-stone; in whom the whole
building fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the
Lord" (ch. ii. 20, 21). Alas for the criticism that is obliged to see
in words like these the invention of second-century churchmanship,
putting into the mouth of Paul catholic sentiments of which in
reality he knew nothing! Such writers know nothing of the power of
that fellowship of the Spirit which reigned in the glorious company
of the Apostles.
"Only they would have us remember the poor"--a circumstance mentioned
partly by way of reminder to the Galatians touching the collection
for Jerusalem, which Paul had already set on foot amongst them
(1 Cor. xvi. 1). The request was prompted by the affectionate
confidence with which the Jewish chiefs embraced Paul and Barnabas.
It awakened an eager response in the Apostle's breast. His love to
his Jewish kindred made him welcome the suggestion. Moreover every
deed of charity rendered by the wealthier Gentile Churches to "the
poor saints in Jerusalem," was another tie helping to bind the two
communities to each other. Of such liberality Antioch, under the
direction of the Gentile missionaries, had already set the example
(Acts xi. 29, 30).
* * * * *
_James_, _Peter_, _John_, and _Paul_--it was a memorable day when
these four men met face to face. What a mighty quaternion! Amongst
them they have virtually made the New Testament and the Christian
Church. They represent the four sides of the one foundation of the
City of God. Of the Evangelists, Matthew holds affinity with James;
Mark with Peter; and Luke with Paul. James clings to the past and
embodies the transition from Mosaism to Christianity. Peter is the
man of the present, quick in thought and action, eager, buoyant,
susceptible. Paul holds the future in his grasp, and schools the
unborn nations. John gathers present, past, and future into one,
lifting us into the region of eternal life and love.
With Peter and James Paul had met before, and was to meet again. But
so far as we can learn, this was the only occasion on which his path
crossed that of _John_. Nor is this Apostle mentioned again in Paul's
letters. In the Acts he appears but once or twice, standing silent in
Peter's shadow. A holy reserve surrounds John's person in the earlier
Apostolic history. His hour was not yet come. But his name ranked in
public estimation amongst the three foremost of the Jewish Church;
and he exercised, doubtless, a powerful, though quiet, conciliatory
influence in the settlement of the Gentile question. The personality
of Paul excited, we may be sure, the profoundest interest in such a
mind as that of John. He absorbed, and yet in a sense transcended,
the Pauline theology. The Apocalypse, although the most Judaic book
of the New Testament, is penetrated with the influence of Paulinism.
The detection in it of a covert attack on the Gentile Apostle is
simply one of the mare's nests of a super-subtle and suspicious
criticism. John was to be the heir of Paul's labours at Ephesus and
in Asia Minor. And John's long life, touching the verge of the second
century, his catholic position, his serene and lofty spirit, blending
in itself and resolving into a higher unity the tendencies of James
and Peter and Paul, give us the best assurance that in the Apostolic
age there was indeed "One, holy, catholic, Apostolic Church."
Paul's fellowship with Peter and with James was cordial and endeared.
But to hold the hand of John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved," was
a yet higher satisfaction. That clasp symbolized a union between
men most opposite in temperament and training, and brought to the
knowledge of Christ in very different ways, but whose communion in
Him was deep as the life eternal. Paul and John are the two master
minds of the New Testament. Of all men that ever lived, these two
best understood Jesus Christ.
CHAPTER IX.
_PAUL AND PETER AT ANTIOCH._
"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face,
because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from
James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he
drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the
circumcision. And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with
him; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their
dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly
according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Cephas before
_them_ all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles,
and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to
live as do the Jews? We being Jews by nature, and not sinners
of the Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by
works of law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ, even we
believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith
in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the
works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we
sought to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were found
sinners, is Christ a minister of sin? God forbid. For if I
build up again those things which I destroyed, I prove myself a
transgressor."--GAL. ii. 11-18.
The conference at Jerusalem issued in the formal recognition by the
Primitive Church of Gentile Christianity, and of Paul's plenary
Apostleship. And it brought Paul into brotherly relations with the
three great leaders of Jewish Christianity. But this fellowship
was not to continue undisturbed. The same cause was still at work
which had compelled the Apostle to go up to Jerusalem, taking Titus
with him. The leaven of Pharisaic legalism remained in the Church.
Indeed, as time went on and the national fanaticism grew more
violent, this spirit of intolerance became increasingly bitter and
active. The address of James to Paul on the occasion of his last
visit to the Holy City, shows that the Church of Jerusalem was at
this time in a state of the most sensitive jealousy in regard to the
Law, and that the legalistic prejudices always existing in it had
gained a strength with which it was difficult to cope (Acts xxi.
17-25).
But for the present the Judaizing faction had received a check. It
does not appear that the party ever again insisted on circumcision as
a thing essential to salvation for the Gentiles. The utterances of
Peter and James at the Council, and the circular addressed therefrom
to the Gentile Churches, rendered this impossible. The Legalists made
a change of front; and adopted a subtler and seemingly more moderate
policy. _They now preached circumcision as the prerogative of the Jew
within the Church, and as a counsel of perfection for the Gentile
believer in Christ_ (ch. iii. 3). To quote the rescript of Acts xv.
against this altered form of the circumcisionist doctrine, would have
been wide of the mark.
It is against this newer type of Judaistic teaching that our Epistle
is directed.[49] Circumcision, its advocates argued, was a Divine
ordinance that must have its benefit. God has given to Israel an
indefeasible pre-eminence in His kingdom.[50] Law-keeping children
of Abraham enter the new Covenant on a higher footing than "sinners
of the Gentiles:" they are still the elect race, the holy nation. If
the Gentiles wish to share with them, they must add to their faith
circumcision, they must complete their imperfect righteousness by
legal sanctity. So they might hope to enter on the full heritage of
the sons of Abraham; they would be brought into communion with the
first Apostles and the Brother of the Lord; they would be admitted to
the inner circle of the kingdom of God. The new Legalists sought, in
fact, to superimpose Jewish on Gentile Christianity. They no longer
refused all share in Christ to the uncircumcised; they offered them
a larger share. So we construe the teaching which Paul had to combat
in the second stage of his conflict with Judaism, to which his four
major Epistles belong. And the signal for this renewed struggle was
given by the collision with Peter at Antioch.
[49] Rom. ii. 25-iii. 1.
[50] Rom. i. 16; ii. 9, 10; ix. 4, 5; xi. 1, 2.
This encounter did not, we think, take place on the return of Paul
and Barnabas from the Council. The compact of Jerusalem secured to
the Church a few years of rest from the Judaistic agitation. The
Thessalonian Epistles, written in 52 or 53 A.D., go to show, not
only that the Churches of Macedonia were free from the legalist
contention, but that it did not at this period occupy the Apostle's
mind. Judas Barsabbas and Silas--not Peter--accompanied the Gentile
missionaries in returning to Antioch; and Luke gives, in Acts xv., a
tolerably full account of the circumstances which transpired there in
the interval before the second missionary tour, without the slightest
hint of any visit made at this time by the Apostle Peter. We can
scarcely believe that the circumcision party had already recovered,
and increased its influence, to the degree that it must have done
when "even Barnabas was carried away"; still less that Peter on
the very morrow of the settlement at Jerusalem and of his fraternal
communion there with Paul would show himself so far estranged.
When, therefore, did "Cephas come down to Antioch?" The Galatians
evidently knew. The Judaizers had given their account of the matter,
to Paul's disadvantage. Perhaps he had referred to it himself on his
last visit to Galatia, when we know he spoke explicitly and strongly
against the Circumcisionists (ch. i. 9). Just before his arrival
in Galatia on this occasion he had "spent some time" at Antioch
(Acts xviii. 22, 23), in the interval between the second and third
missionary journeys. Luke simply mentions the fact, without giving
any details. This is the likeliest opportunity for the meeting of
the two Apostles in the Gentile capital. M. Sabatier,[51] in the
following sentences, appears to us to put the course of events in
its true light:--"Evidently the Apostle had quitted Jerusalem and
undertaken his second missionary journey full of satisfaction at the
victory he had gained, and free from anxiety for the future. The
decisive moment of the crisis therefore necessarily falls between
the Thessalonian and Galatian Epistles. What had happened in the
meantime? _The violent discussion with Peter at Antioch_ (Gal.
ii. 11-21), and all that this account reveals to us,--the arrival
of the emissaries from James in the pagan-Christian circle, the
counter-mission organized by the Judaizers to rectify the work of
Paul. A new situation suddenly presents itself to the eyes of the
Apostle on his return from his second missionary journey. He is
compelled to throw himself into the struggle, and in doing so to
formulate in all its rigour his principle of the abolishment of the
Law."
[51] In his _L'apôtre Paul: esquisse d'une histoire de sa
pensée_, an admirable work, to which the writer is under great
obligation.
The "troublers" in this instance were "certain from James." Like the
"false brethren"[52] who appeared at Antioch three years before, they
came from the mother Church, over which James presided. The Judaizing
teachers at Corinth had their "commendatory letters" (2 Cor. iii.
1), derived assuredly from the same quarter. In all likelihood,
their confederates in Galatia brought similar credentials. We have
already seen that the authority of the Primitive Church was the chief
weapon used by Paul's adversaries. These letters of commendation
were part of the machinery of the anti-Pauline agitation. How the
Judaizers obtained these credentials, and in what precise relation
they stood to James, we can only conjecture. Had the Apostle held
James responsible for their action, he would not have spared him any
more than he has done Peter. James held a quasi-pastoral relation to
Christian Jews of the Dispersion. And as he addressed his Epistle
to them, so he would be likely on occasion to send delegates to
visit them. Perhaps the Circumcisionists found opportunity to
pass themselves off in this character; or they may have abused
a commission really given them, by interfering with Gentile
communities. That the Judaistic emissaries in some way or other
adopted false colours, is plainly intimated in 2 Cor. xi. 13. James,
living always at Jerusalem, being moreover a man of simple character,
could have little suspected the crafty plot which was carried forward
under his name.
[52] See Chapter VII. pp. 109, 110.
These agents addressed themselves in the first instance to _the
Jews_, as their commission from Jerusalem probably entitled them
to do. They plead for the maintenance of the sacred customs. They
insist that the Mosaic rites carry with them an indelible sanctity;
that their observance constitutes a Church within the Church. If
this separation is once established, and the Jewish believers in
Christ can be induced to hold themselves aloof and to maintain the
"advantage of circumcision," the rest will be easy. The way will then
be open to "compel the Gentiles to Judaize." For unless they do this,
they must be content to remain on a lower level, in a comparatively
menial position, resembling that of uncircumcised proselytes in
the Synagogue. The circular of the Jerusalem Council may have been
interpreted by the Judaists in this sense, as though it laid down
the terms, not of full communion between Jew and Gentile believers,
but only of a permissive, secondary recognition. At Antioch the new
campaign of the Legalists was opened, and apparently with signal
success. In Galatia and Corinth we see it in full progress.
The withdrawal of Peter and the other Jews at Antioch from the table
of the Gentiles virtually "compelled" the latter "to Judaize." Not
that the Jewish Apostle had this intention in his mind. He was made
the tool of designing men. By "separating himself" he virtually said
to every uncircumcised brother, "Stand by thyself, I am holier than
thou." Legal conformity on the part of the Gentiles was made the
condition of their communion with Jewish Christians--a demand simply
fatal to Christianity. It re-established the principle of salvation
by works in a more invidious form. To supplement the righteousness
of faith by that of law, meant to _supplant_ it. To admit that
the Israelite by virtue of his legal observances stood in a higher
position than "sinners of the Gentiles," was to stultify the doctrine
of the cross, to make Christ's death a gratuitous sacrifice. Peter's
error, pushed to its logical consequences, involved the overthrow of
the Gospel. This the Gentile Apostle saw at a glance. The situation
was one of imminent danger. Paul needed all his wisdom, and all his
courage and promptitude to meet it.
It had been Peter's previous rule, since the vision of Joppa, to lay
aside Jewish scruples of diet and to live in free intercourse with
Gentile brethren. He "was wont to eat with the Gentiles. Though a
born Jew, he lived in Gentile fashion"--words unmistakably describing
Peter's general habit in such circumstances. This Gentile conformity
of Peter was a fact of no small moment for the Galatian readers. It
contravenes the assertion of a radical divergence between Petrine and
Pauline Christianity, whether made by Ebionites or Baurians.