who were appointed by the Church to accompany Paul, and he is altogether silent regarding the strenuous effort to enforce the rite of circ.u.mcision in his case, upon which the Apostle lays so much stress.

The Apostle, who throughout maintains his simply independent att.i.tude, mentions his taking t.i.tus with him as a purely voluntary act, and certainly conveys no impression that he also was delegated by the Church. We shall presently see how significant the suppression of t.i.tus is in connection with the author"s transformation of the circ.u.mstances of the visit. In affirming that he went up "according to revelation,"

Paul proceeds in the very spirit in which he began to write this epistle. He continues simply to a.s.sert his independence, and equality with the elder Apostles. In speaking of his first journey he has this object in view, and he states precisely the duration of his visit and whom he saw. If he had suppressed the official character of this second visit and the fact that he submitted for the decision of the Apostles and elders the question of the immunity of the Gentile converts from circ.u.mcision, and thus curtly ascribed his going to a revelation, he would have compromised himself in a very serious manner, and exposed himself to a charge of disingenuousness of which his enemies would not have

{230}

failed to take advantage. But, whether we consider the evidence of the Apostle himself in speaking of this visit, the absence of all external allusion to the supposed proceedings when reference to them would have been not only most appropriate but was almost necessary, the practical contradiction of the whole narrative implied in the subsequent conduct of Peter at Antioch, or the inconsistency of the conduct attributed in it to Paul himself, we are forced back to the natural conclusion that the Apostle does not suppress anything, and does not give so absurdly partial an account of his visit as would be the case if the narrative in the Acts be historical, but that, in a few rapid powerful lines, he completes a suggestive sketch of its chief characteristics. This becomes more apparent at every step we take in our comparison of the two narratives.

If we pa.s.s on to the next stage of the proceedings, we find an equally striking divergence between the two writers, and it must not escape attention that the variations are not merely incidental but are thorough and consecutive. According to the Acts, there was a solemn congress held in Jerusalem, on which occasion the Apostles and elders and the Church being a.s.sembled, the question whether it was necessary that the Gentiles should be circ.u.mcised and bound to keep the law of Moses was fully discussed, and a formal resolution finally adopted by the meeting. The proceedings in fact const.i.tute what has always been regarded as the first Council of the Christian Church. The account in the Epistle does not seem to betray any knowledge of such a congress.(1) The Apostle himself says merely:--"But I

{231}

went according to revelation and communicated to them [------] the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which seemed (to be something) [------]."(1) The usual apologetic explanation, as we have already mentioned, is that whilst more or less distinctly the author of Acts indicates private conferences, and Paul a public a.s.sembly, the former chiefly confines his attention to the general congress and the latter to the more private incidents of his visit.(2) The opinion that the author of Acts "alludes in a general way to conferences and discussions preceding the congress,"(3) is based upon the statement xv. 4, 5: "And when they came to Jerusalem they were received by the Church and by the Apostles and the elders, and declared all that G.o.d did with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees, who believed, saying: That it is necessary to circ.u.mcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the Apostles and the elders came together to see regarding this matter. And when there had been much disputation, Peter rose up and said," &c. If it were admitted that more than one meeting is here indicated, it is clear that the words cannot be legitimately strained into a reference to more

{232}

than two conferences. The first of these is a general meeting of the Apostles and elders and of the Church to receive the delegates from Antioch, and the second is an equally general and public conference (verse 6): not only are the Apostles and elders present but also the general body of Christians, as clearly appears from the statement (ver.

12) that, after the speech of Peter, "all the mult.i.tude [------]

kept silence."(l) The "much disputation" evidently takes place on the occasion when the Apostles and elders are gathered together to consider the matter. If, therefore, two meetings can be maintained from the narrative in Acts, both are emphatically public and general, and neither, therefore, the private conference of the Epistle. The main fact that the author of the Acts describes a general congress of the Church as taking place is never called in question.

On the other hand, few who appreciate the nature of the discrepancy which we are discussing will feel that the difficulty is solved by suggesting that there is s.p.a.ce for the insertion of other incidents in the Apostle"s narrative. It is rather late now to interpolate a general Council of the Church into the pauses of the Galatian letter. To suppose that the communications of Paul to the "Pillar" Apostles, and the distressing debate regarding the circ.u.mcision of t.i.tus, may be inferred between the lines of the account in the Acts, is a bold effort of imagination; but it is far from being as hopeless as an attempt to reconcile the discrepancy by thrusting the important public congress into some corner of the

{233}

Apostle"s statement. In so far as any argument is advanced in support of the a.s.sertion that Paul"s expression implies something more than the private conference, it is based upon the reference intended in the words [------]. When Paul says he went up to Jerusalem and communicated "to them" his Gospel, but privately [------], whom does he mean to indicate by the [------]? Does he refer to the Christian community of Jerusalem, or to the Apostles themselves? It is pretty generally admitted that either application is permissible; but whilst a majority of apologetic, together with some independent, critics adopt the former,(1) not a few consider, as Chrysostom, Oec.u.menius, and Calvin did before them, that Paul more probably referred to the Apostles.(2) In favour of the former there is the fact, it is argued, that the [------] is used immediately after the statement that the Apostle went up "to Jerusalem," and that it may be more natural to conclude that he speaks of the Christians there, more especially as he seems to distinguish between the communication made [------] and [------];(3) and, in support of this, "they"

{234}

in Gal. i. 23, 24, is, though we think without propriety, referred to. It is, on the other hand, urged that it is very unlikely that the Apostle would in such a way communicate his Gospel to the whole community, and that in the expressions used he indicates no special transaction, but that the [------] is merely an indefinite statement for which he immediately subst.i.tutes the more precise [------](1) It is quite certain that there is no mention of the Christian community of Jerusalem to which the [------] can with any real grammatical necessity be referred; but when the whole purport of the first part of the Apostle"s letter is considered the reference to the Apostles in the [------]

becomes clearer. Paul is protesting the independence of his Gospel, and that he did not receive it from man but from Jesus Christ. He wishes to show that he was not taught by the Apostles nor dependent upon them.

He states that after his conversion he did not go to those who were Apostles before him, but, on the contrary, went away to Arabia, and only three years after he went up to Jerusalem, and then only for the purpose of making the acquaintance of Peter, and on that occasion other of the Apostles saw he none save James the Lord"s brother. After fourteen years, he continues to recount, he again went up to Jerusalem, but according to revelation, and communicated to them, i.e. to the Apostles, the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. The Apostles

{235}

have been in the writer"s mind throughout, but in the impetuous flow of his ideas, which in the first two chapters of this epistle outrun the pen, the sentences become involved. It must be admitted, finally, that the reference intended is a matter of opinion and cannot be authoritatively settled. If we suppose it to refer to the community of Jerusalem, taking thus the more favourable construction, how would this affect the question? Can it be maintained that in this casual and indefinite "to them" we have any confirmation of the general congress of the Acts, with its debates, its solemn settlement of that momentous proposition regarding the Gentile Christians, and its important decree?

It is impossible to credit that, in saying that he "communicated to them" the Gospel which he preached amongst the Gentiles, the Apostle referred to a Council like that described in the Acts, to which, as a delegate from the Church of Antioch, he submitted the question of the conditions upon which the Gentiles were to be admitted into the Church, and tacitly accepted their decision.(1) Even if it be a.s.sumed that the Apostle makes this slight pa.s.sing allusion to some meeting different from his conference with the pillar Apostles, it could not have been a general congress a.s.sembled for the purpose stated in the Acts and characterised by such proceedings. The discrepancy between the two narratives is not lessened by any supposed indication either in the Epistle or in the Acts of other incidents than those actually described.

The suggestion that the dispute about t.i.tus involved some

{236}

publicity does not avail, for the greater the publicity and importance of the episode the greater the difficulty of explaining the total silence regarding it of the author of Acts. The more closely the two statements are compared the more apparent does it become that the author describes proceedings which are totally different in general character, in details, and in spirit, from those so vividly sketched by the Apostle Paul.

We shall have more to say presently regarding the irreconcilable contradiction in spirit between the whole account which is given in the Acts of this Council and the writings of Paul; but it may be more convenient, if less effective, if we for the present take the chief points in the narrative as they arise and consider how far they are supported or discredited by other data. We shall refer later to the manner in which the question which leads to the Council is represented as arising and at once proceed to the speech of Peter. After there had been much disputation as to whether the Gentile Christians must necessarily be circ.u.mcised and required to observe the Mosaic law, it is stated that Peter rose up and said: xv. 7. "Men (and) brethren, ye know that a good while ago G.o.d made choice among you that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe. 8. And G.o.d which knoweth the hearts bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit even as unto us; 9. and put no distinction between us and them, having purified their hearts by the faith. 10. Now, therefore, why tempt ye G.o.d, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11. But by the grace of our Lord Jesus we believe we are saved even as also they."(1)

{237}

The liberality of the sentiments thus put into the mouth of Peter requires no demonstration, and there is here an explicit expression of convictions, which we must, from his own words, consider to be the permanent and mature views of the Apostle, dating as they do "from ancient days" [------] and originating in so striking and supernatural a manner. We may, therefore, expect that whenever we meet with an authentic record of Peter"s opinions and conduct elsewhere, they should exhibit the impress of such advanced and divinely imparted views. The statement which Peter makes: that G.o.d had a good while before selected him that the Gentiles by his voice should hear the Gospel, is of course a reference to the case of Cornelius, and this unites the fortunes of the speech and proceedings of the Council with that episode. We have seen how little ground there is for considering that narrative, with its elaborate tissue of miracles, historical. The speech which adopts it is thus discredited, and all other circ.u.mstances confirm the conclusion that the speech is not authentic.(1) If the name of Peter were erased and that of Paul subst.i.tuted, the sentiments expressed would be singularly appropriate. We should have the

{238}

divinely appointed Apostle of the Gentiles advocating complete immunity from the Mosaic law, and enunciating Pauline principles in peculiarly Pauline terms. When Peter declares that "G.o.d put no distinction between us (Jews) and them (Gentiles), purifying their hearts by faith,(1) but by the grace [------] of our Lord Jesus Christ we believe we are saved even as also they," do we not hear Paul"s sentiments, so elaborately expressed in the Epistle to the Romans and elsewhere? "For there is no difference between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord of all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"(2).... "justified freely by his grace [------]

through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."(3) And when Peter exclaims: "Why tempt ye G.o.d to put a yoke [------] upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" have we not rather a paraphrase of the words in the Epistle to the Galatians?

"With liberty Christ made us free; stand fast, therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke [------] of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you that if ye be circ.u.mcised Christ will profit you nothing. But I testify again to every man who is circ.u.mcised that he is a debtor to do the whole law.(4)... For as many as are of works of law are under a curse," &c(5) These are only a few sentences of which the speech in Acts is an echo, but no attentive reader can fail to perceive that it contains in germ the whole of Pauline universalism.

{239}

From the Pauline author of the Acts this might fairly be expected, and if we linguistically examine the speech, we have additional evidence that it is simply, like others which we have considered, a composition from his own pen. We shall, as briefly as possible, refer to every word which is not of too common occurrence to require notice, and point out where they are elsewhere used. The opening [------] occurs elsewhere in the Acts 13 times, as we have already pointed out, being the favourite phrase placed in the mouth of all speakers; [------], x. 28, xviii. 25, xix. 15, 25, xx. 18, xxii. 19, xxiv. 10, xxvi. 3, 26, and elsewhere only 5 times. The phrase [------] at the beginning of a sentence has been pointed out, in connection with a similar way of expressing the personal p.r.o.noun in x. 28, [------], and [------], as consequently characteristic of Peter, and considered "important as showing that these reports are not only according to the _sense_ of what was said, but the words spoken, _verbatim_."(1) This is to overlook the fact that the very same words are put into the mouth of Paul. Peter commences his speech, xv.

7: [------] Paul begins his speech at Miletus, xx. 18: [------]; and at Ephesus, Demetrius the silversmith commences his address, xix. 25: [------] Cf. xxiii. 15. [------], xv. 21, xxi. 16; Luke ix. 8, 19; elsewhere 6 times; the expression [------] does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament, but [------] is common in the Septuagint. Cf. Ps.

xliii. 1, lxxvi. 5, cxlii. 5, Isaiah x.x.xvii. 26, Lament, i. 7, ii. 17, &c, &c. [------], i. 2, 24, vi. 5, xiii. 17, xv. 22, 25; Luke

{240}

4 times, elsewhere 11 times, and of these the following with inf., Act*

i. 24 f., xv. 22, 25, Ephes. L 4. With the phrase [------](1) may be compared that of Paul, xiii. 17,[------], and 1 Cor. i. 27, in which [------] occurs twice, as well as again in the next verse, 28. [------]

i. 16, in. 18, 21; iv. 25; Luke i. 70; and the whole phrase [------], may be compared with the words put into Paul"s mouth, xxii. 14: [------]

xx. 24, in Paul"s Epistles (4) 33 times, and elsewhere 42 times. Verse 8. [------] only occurs here and in i. 24, [------] where it forms part of the prayer at the election of the successor to Judas. We have fully examined the speech of Peter, i. 16 ffi, and shown its unhistorical character, and that it is a free composition by the author of the Acts; the prayer of the a.s.sembly is not ascribed to Peter in the work itself, though apologists, grasping at the [------], a.s.sert that it must have been delivered by that Apostle; but, with the preceding speech, the prayer also must be attributed to the pen of the author; and if it be maintained that Peter spoke in the Aramaic tongue(2) it is useless to discuss the word at all, which of course in that case must be allowed to belong to the author. [------], Acts 12- times, Luke 2, rest frequently; with the phrase [------] may be compared Paul"s words in xiii. 22, [------]. Verse 9, [------], x. 20, xi. 2, 12, Paul 7 times, &c

{241}

[------], xii. 6, xiii. 42; Luke xi. 51, xvi. 26; rest 4 times.

[------], Acts 27 times, Luke 3, Paul 9, rest 15 times; re...

[------]Acts 33 times, Luke 5, Paul 4, rest 10 times--[------] is clearly characteristic of the author, [------], Acts 15, Luke 11 times, rest very frequently. [------], x. 15, xi. 9; Luke 7, and elsewhere 20 times, [------], x. 33, xvi. 36, xxiii. 15; an expression not found elsewhere in the New Testament, and which is also indicative of the Author"s composition. Verse 10, [------], v. 9, xvi. 7, xxiv. 6; Luke iv. 2, xi. 16, xx. 23, rest frequently; the question of Jesus in Luke and the parallel pa.s.sages, [------]; will occur to every one. [------], Acts 12, Luke 6 times, the rest frequently. [------] does not occur elsewhere, either in the Acts or third Gospel, but it is used precisely in the same sense by Paul, Gal. v. 1, in a pa.s.sage to which we have called attention a few pages back(1) in connection with this speech.

[------], xx. 37, Luke xv. 20, xvii. 2; Romans xvi. 4, Matth. xviii.

6, Mark ix. 42; [------] occurs 4 times, [------], vi. 10, xix. 16, 20, xxv. 7, xxvii. 16; Luke 8 times and elsewhere 15 times. [------], iii.

2, ix. 15, xxi. 35; Luke 5, Paul 6, rest 12 times. Verse 11, [------]

Acts 1? times, Luke 8, Paul 61 times, rest frequently. [------], Acts 38, Luke 9 times, rest frequently. [------], Acts 12, Luke 18 times, rest frequently, [------], is also put into the mouth of Paul, xxvii.

25, and is not elsewhere found in the New Testament; [------], i. 11, vii. 28; Luke xiii. 34; Matth. xxiii. 37, 2 Tim. iii. 8. [------], v.

37, xviii. 19; Luke xi. 7, 2, xx. 11, xxii. 12 and elsewhere in the New Testament 17 times. It cannot be doubted that the language of this speech is that of the author of the Acts, and no serious attempt has ever

{242}

been made to show that it is the language of Peter. If it be a.s.serted that, in the form before us, it is a translation, there is not the slightest evidence to support the a.s.sertion; and it has to contend with the unfortunate circ.u.mstance that, in the supposed process, the words of Peter have not only become the words of the author, but his thoughts the thoughts of Paul.

We may now inquire whether we find in authentic records of the Apostle Peter"s conduct and views any confirmation of the liberality which is attributed to him in the Acts. He is here represented as proposing the emanc.i.p.ation of Gentile Converts from the Mosaic law: does this accord with the statements of the Apostle Paul and with such information as we can elsewhere gather regarding Peter? Very much the contrary.

Peter in this speech claims that, long before, G.o.d had selected him to make known the Gospel to the Gentiles, but Paul emphatically distinguishes him as the Apostle of the Circ.u.mcision; and although, accepting facts which had actually taken place and could not be prevented, Peter with James and John gave Paul right hands of fellowship, he remained, as he had been before, Apostle of the Circ.u.mcision(1) and, as we shall see. did not practise the liberality which he is said to have preached. Very shortly after the Council described in the Acts, there occurred the celebrated dispute between him and Paul which the latter proceeds to describe immediately after the visit to Jerusalem: "But when Cephas came to Antioch," he writes, "I withstood him to the face, for he was condemned. For before certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself,

{243}

fearing those of the Circ.u.mcision. And the other Jews also joined in his hypocrisy, insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Cephas before all: If thou being a Jew livest [------] after the manner of Gentiles and not after the manner of Jews, how compellest [------] thou the Gentiles to adopt the customs of the Jews? [------]"(1)

It is necessary to say a few words as to the significance of Peter"s conduct and of Paul"s rebuke, regarding which there is some difference of opinion.(2) Are we to understand from this that Peter, as a general rule, at Antioch and elsewhere, with enlightened emanc.i.p.ation from Jewish prejudices, lived as a Gentile and in full communion with Gentile Christians?(3) Meyer(4) and others argue that by the use of the present [------], the Apostle indicates a continuous practice based upon principle, and that the [------] is not the mere moral life, but includes the external social observances of Christian community: the object, in fact, being to show that upon principle Peter held the advanced liberal views of Paul, and that the fault which he committed in withdrawing from free intercourse with the Gentile Christians was momentary, and merely the result of "occasional timidity and weakness."

This theory cannot bear the test of examination. The account of Paul is clearly this: _when Cephas came to Antioch_, the

{244}

stronghold of Gentile Christianity, _before certain men came from James_, he ate with the Gentiles, but as soon as these emissaries arrived he withdrew, "fearing those of the circ.u.mcision." Had his normal custom been to live like the Gentiles, how is it possible that he could, on this occasion only, have feared those of the circ.u.mcision?

His practice must have been notorious; and had he, moreover, actually expressed such opinions in the congress of Jerusalem, his confession of faith having been so publicly made, and so unanimously approved by the Church, there could not have been any conceivable cause for such timidity. The fact evidently is, on the contrary, that Peter, under the influence of Paul, was induced for the time to hold free communion with the Gentile Christians; but as soon as the emissaries of James appeared on the scene, he became alarmed at this departure from his principles, and fell back again into his normal practice. If the present [------]

be taken to indicate continuous habit of life, the present [------]

very much more than neutralizes it. Paul with his usual uncompromising frankness rebukes the vacillation of Peter: by adopting even for a time fellowship with the Gentiles, Peter has practically recognised its validity, has been guilty of hypocrisy in withdrawing from his concession on the arrival of the followers of James, and is condemned; but after such a concession he cannot legitimately demand that Gentile Converts should "judaize." It is obvious that whilst Peter lived as a Gentile, he could not have been compelling the Gentiles to adopt Judaism. Paul, therefore, in saying: "Why compellest thou [------] the Gentiles to adopt the customs of the Jews? [------]," very distinctly intimates that the normal practice of Peter was to compel