expressing "the mind of the Spirit." If the original prophecy did not express that mind, it is rather late to amend the utterances of the prophets in the Acts of the Apostles.
We may now briefly examine the speech linguistically. Verse 13: The opening as usual is [———], but the whole phrase [———] is put into the mouth of Paul in xxii. 1, [———], and with but little variation again in xiii. 16. Cf. ii. 22. The use of the Hebrew form [———] in speaking of Peter, has been pointed out by Bleek(1) and others, after Lightfoot,(2) as a characteristic peculiarity showing the authenticity of the speech. The same form occurs in 2 Pet. i. 1, but its use in that spurious epistle is scarcely calculated to give weight to its use here. If it be characteristic of anyone, however, its use is characteristic of the author of the third Gospel and the Acts, and in no case is it peculiarly associated with James. In addition to the instance referred to above, and Apoc. vii. 7, where the tribe of Simeon is thus named, the Jewish form [———] of the name Simon occurs four times only in the New Testament, and they are conflned to our author: Acts xiii. 1; Luke ii. 25, 34, iii. 30. Being acquainted with the Jewish form of the name, he made use of it in this speech probably for the effect of local colouring. [———], xv. 12, xxi. 19; Luke xxiv. 35, and nowhere else except John i. 18—it is peculiar to the author, [———], Acts 11, Luke 16 times, and elsewhere frequently, [———], iii. 26, vii. 12, xi. 26, xiii. 46, xxvi. 20; Luke 10 times; Jam. iii. 17; Paul 10 times, rest frequently. [———], vi. 3, vii. 23, xv. 36; Luke i. 68,
78, vii. 16; Matth. xxv. 36, 43, Hebr. ii. 6, Jam. i. 27, that is to say 7 times used by the author and only 4 times in the rest of the New Testament; compare especially Luke i. 68, and vii. 16. [———] opposed to [———], xxvi. 17, 23. The expression [———] occurs ii. 38, iv. 17, 18, v. 28, 40; Luke ix. 48, 49, xxi. 8, xxiv. 47, and only 5 times in the rest of the New Testament. Verse 15: [———], v. 9; Luke v. 36, and Matth. xviii. 19, xx. 2, 13 only. Verse 16: In this quotation from Amos, for the i[———] of the Septuagint, the Author substitutes [———], which phrase occurs elsewhere in Acts vii. 7, xiii. 20, xviii. 1; Luke v. 27, x. 1, xii. 4, xvii. 8, xviii. 4. [———], v. 22 and 9 times elsewhere. Verse 18: [———], i. 19, ii. 14, iv. 10, 16, ix. 42, xiii. 38, xix. 17, xxviii. 22, 28 = 10 times in Acts; Luke i. 44, xxiii. 49; elsewhere only in Rom. i. 19, John xviii. 15, 16,—a characteristic word. So likewise is the expression [———], iii. 21, Luke i. 70; [———] occurs in Ephes. iii. 9, Col. i. 26. These words are added to the passage quoted from the Septuagint. Verse 19: [———] is used 11 times in Acts; Luke i. 35, vii. 7; by Paul 18 times, Ep. Jam. twice, and elsewhere 25 times. [———], 22 times in Acts; Luke 6 times, Paul 37 times, Ep. Jam. 6, and elsewhere 44 times, [———] is not found elsewhere in the New Testament. [———], Acts 11, Luke 7, Jam. v. 19, 20, rest 19 times; the phrase [———] is a favourite and characteristic expression of the Author, who uses it ix. 35, xi. 21, xiv. 15, xxvi. 20, and Luke i. 16, and it does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament except in 1 Pet. ii. 25. Verse 20: [———], xxi. 25, and Hebr. xiii. 22 only. [———] xv. 29, Luke vi. 24, vii. 6, xv. 20, xxiv. 13, 1 Thess. iv. 3, v. 22, 1 Tim. iv. 3, 1 Pet. ii. 11, and
elsewhere 7 times; in both passages of the Ep. to the Thess. it is used with [———] as here. [———] is not elsewhere found. [———], vii. 41; 6 times by Paul, and elsewhere 3: it occurs very frequently in the Septuagint. [———], xv. 29, xxi. 25; Paul 8, elsewhere 15 times. [———], xv. 29, xxi. 25, a technical word. [———], Acts 12, Luke 11 times, rest frequently, [———], ii. 40, viii. 33, xiii. 36, xiv. 16; Luke 13 times, Matth. 13, Mk. 5, rest 5 times. [———], xv. 7, xxi. 16; Luke ix. 8, 19, elsewhere 7 times. [———], xv. 36, xx. 23, xxiv. 12; Luke viii. 1, 4, xiii. 22, and elsewhere only in Tit. i. 5. [———], viii. 5, ix. 20, x. 37, 42, xix. 13, xx. 25, xxviii. 31; Luke 9, Paul 14, elsewhere 30 times. [———], Acts 9, Luke 20, rest 35 times, the whole phrase [———] occurs again in the Acts, being put into the mouth of Paul xiii. 27, and [———] being used by the writer in xviii. 4. [———], Acts 20; Luke 15, rest 22 times, [———], viii. 28, 30 twice, 32, xiii. 27, xv. 31, xxiii. 34; Luke 3, and elsewhere 22 times. This analysis confirms the conclusion that the speech of James at the Council proceeds likewise from the pen of the general author, and the incomprehensible liberality of the sentiments expressed, as well as the peculiarity of the quotation from Amos according to the Septuagint, thus receive at once their simple explanation.
If we now compare the account of James's share in granting liberal conditions to Gentile Christians with the statements of Paul, we arrive at the same result. It is in consequence of the arrival of "certain men from James" [———] that Peter through fear of them withdrew from communion with the
Gentiles. It will be remembered that the whole discussion is said to have arisen in Antioch originally from the judaistic teaching of certain men who came "from Judæa," who are disowned in the apostolic letter.(1) It is unfortunate, however, to say the least of it, that so many of those who systematically opposed the work of the Apostle Paul claimed to represent the views of James and the mother Church.(2) The contradiction of the author of the Acts, with his object of conciliation, has but small weight before the statements of Paul and the whole voice of tradition. At any rate, almost immediately after the so-called Apostolic Council, with its decree adopted mainly at the instigation of James, his emissaries caused the defection of Peter in Antioch and the rupture with Paul. It is generally admitted, in the face of the clear affirmation of Paul, that the men in question must in all probability have been actually sent by James.3 It is obvious that, to justify the fear of so leading an apostle as Peter, not only must they have been thus deputed, but must have been influential men,
2 "Of the Judaizers who are denounced in St. Paul's Epistlesthis much is certain, that they exalted the authority of theApostles of the Circumcision; and that, in some instances atleast, as members of the mother Church, they had directrelations with James, the Lord's brother. But when weattempt to define those relations, we are lost in a maze ofconjecture." Lightfoot, Ep. to the Gal., p. 353.
representing authoritative and prevalent judaistic opinions. We shall not attempt to divine the object of their mission, but we may say that it is impossible to separate them from the judaistic teachers who urged circumcision upon the Galatian Christians and opposed the authority of the Apostle Paul. Not pursuing this further at present, however, it is obvious that the effect produced by these emissaries is quite incompatible with the narrative that, so short a time before, James and the Church of Jerusalem had unanimously promulgated conditions, under which the Gentile Christians were freely admitted into communion, and which fully justified Peter in eating with them. The incident at Antioch, as connected with James as well as with Peter, excludes the supposition that the account of the Council contained in the Acts can be considered historical. The Apostolic letter embodying the decree of the Council now demands our attention. It seemed good to the Apostles and the elders with the whole Church to choose two leading men among the brethren, and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, and they wrote by them (xv. 23):—"The Apostles and brethren which are elders unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. 24. Forasmuch as we heard that certain which went out from us troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment, 25. it seemed good unto us, having become of one mind, to choose out and send men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26. men that have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27. We have, therefore, sent Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary
things: 29. that ye abstain from meats offered to idols and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well. Fare ye well." l It is argued that the simplicity of this composition, its brevity and the absence of hierarchical tendency, prove the authenticity and originality of the epistle. Nothing, however, could be more arbitrary than to assert that the author of the Acts, composing a letter supposed to be written under the circumstances, would have written one different from this. We shall, on the contrary, see good reason for affirming that he actually did compose it, and that it bears the obvious impress of his style. Besides, Zeller(2) has pointed out that, in a document affirmed to be so removed from all calculation or object, verse 26 could hardly have found a place. The reference to "our beloved" Barnabas and Paul, as "men that have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ," is scarcely consistent with the primitive brevity and simplicity which are made the basis of such an argument.
In the absence of better evidence, apologists grasp at extremely slight indications of authenticity, and of this nature seems to us the mark of genuineness which Bleek and others(3) consider that they find in the fact,
that the name of Barnabas is placed before that of Paul in this document. It is maintained that, from the 13th chapter, the author commences to give the precedence to Paul, but that, in reverting to the former order, the synodal letter gives evidence both of its antiquity and genuineness. If any weight could be attached to such an indication, it is unfortunate for this argument that the facts are not as stated, for the order "Barnabas and Paul" occurs at xiv. 12 and 14, and even in the very account of the Council at xv. 12. The two names are mentioned together in the Acts sixteen times, Barnabas being named first eight times (xi. 30, xii. 25, xiii. 1, 2, 7, xiv. 12, 14, xv. 12), and Paul as frequently (xiii. 43, 46, 50, xv. 2 twice, 22, 25, 35). Apologists like Lekebusch(1) and Oertel(2) reject Bleek's argument. The greeting [———] with which the letter opens, and which, amongst the Epistles of the New Testament, is only found in that bearing the name of James (i. 1), is said to be an indication that the letter of the Council was written by James himself.(3) Before such an argument could avail, it would be necessary, though difficult, to prove the authenticity of the Epistle of James, but we need not enter upon such a question. [———] is the ordinary Greek form of greeting in all epistles,(4) and the author of Acts, who writes purer Greek than any
other writer in our Canon, naturally adopts it. Not only does he do so here, however, but he makes use of the same [———] in the letter of the chief captain Lysias (xxiii. 26),(1) which also evidently proceeds from his hand. Moreover, the word is used as a greeting in Luke i. 28, and not unfrequently elsewhere in the New Testament, as Mattli. xxvi. 49, xxvii. 29, xxviii. 9, Mark xv. 18, John xix. 3,2 John 10, 11. Lekebusch,(2) Meyer,(3) and Oertel(4) reject the argument, and we may add that if [———] prove anything, it proves that the author of Acts, who uses the word in the letter of Lysias, also wrote the synodal letter. In what language must we suppose that the Epistle was originally written? Oertel maintains an Aramaic original,(5) but the greater number of writers consider that the original language was Greek.(6) It cannot be denied that the composition, as it stands, contains many of the peculiarities of style of the author of Acts;(7) and these are, indeed, so marked that even apologists like Lekebusch and Oertel, whilst maintaining the substantial authenticity of the Epistle, admit that at least its actual form must be ascribed to the general author. The originality of the form being abandoned, it is difficult to perceive any ground for asserting the originality and genuineness of
the substance. That assertion rests solely upon a vague traditional confidence in the Author of Acts, which is shown to be without any solid foundation. The form of this Epistle clearly professes to be as genuine as the substance, and if the original language was Greek, there is absolutely no reason why the original letter should have been altered. The similarity of the construction to that of the prologue to the third Gospel, in which the personal style of the writer may be supposed to have beeu most unreservedly shown, has long been admitted:—
[———]
A more detailed linguistic examination of the Epistle, however, confirms the conclusion already stated. Verse 23: [———], ii. 23, v. 12, vii. 25, xi. 30, xiv. 3, xix. 11, 26, and elsewhere the expression is only met with in Mark vi. 2; the phrase [———] finds a parallel in xi. 30, [———], k. t. X. The characteristic expression [———], is repeated, xi. 1, xvi. 7, xxvii. 2, 5, 7. Verse 24: [———], xiii. 46, xiv. 12, Luke vii. 1, xi. 6, cf. i. 1; Paul 5, rest only 2 times. [———], xvii. 8,13, Luke i. 12, xxiv. 38, elsewhere thirteen times. [———] is not found elsewhere, but the preference of our writer for compounds of [———], and [———] is marked, and of these consists a large proportion of his [———], Acts 15, Luke 14 times, and frequently elsewhere; the phrase [———], may be compared with xiv. 22, [———], cf. xiv. 2. [———]
not elsewhere found in Acts, but it occurs Matth. xvi. 20, Mark v. 43, vii. 36 twice, viii. 15, ix. 9, and Heb. xii. 20. Verse 25: [———], Acts 8, Luke 11, Paul 17 times, elsewhere frequently. [———], i. 14, ii. 1, 46, iv. 24, v. 12, xii. 57, viii. 6, xii. 20, xviii. 12, xix. 29; so that this word, not in very common use even in general Greek literature, occurs 10 times elsewhere in the Acts, but, except in Rom. xv. 6, is not employed by any other New Testament writer. [———], i. 2, 24, vi. 5, xiii. 17, xv. 7, 22, Luke vi. 13, x. 42, xiv. 7, and elsewhere 11 times, [———], Acts 11, Luke 10 times, elsewhere common, [———] is not elsewhere used in Acts, but is found in Luke iii. 22, ix. 35, xx. 13, Paul 13 times, and is common elsewhere. Verse 26: [———], Acts 13, Luke 17 times, and common elsewhere, [———], xxi. 13, v. 41, ix. 16, Rom. i. 5, 3 John 7. Verse 27: [———], Acts 25, Luke 26 times, elsewhere very frequently. [———], xv. 32. [———], Acts 14, Luke 11, rest 21 times, [———], Luke vi. 23, 26; [———], Acts i. 15, ii. 1, 44, iii. 1, iv. 26, xiv. 1; Luke vi. 33, xvii. 35. Verse 28: [———], Acts 12, Luke 4, Paul 6, elsewhere 13 times; the same expression, [———]... is also found in Luke iii. 13. [———], Acts 13, Luke 6, elsewhere 21 times. [———] is not elsewhere met with in Acts, but occurs Matt. xx. 12, 2 Cor. iv. 17, Gal. vi. 2, 1 Thes. il 6, Apoc. ii. 24. [———], viii. 1, xx. 23, xxvii. 22, Luke 15, elsewhere 13 times. [———] is not elsewhere found in the New Testament. Verse 29: [———], xv. 20, Luke vi. 24, vii. 6, xv. 20, xxiv. 13, elsewhere 12 times. [———], xxi. 25, 1 Cor. viii. 1, 4, 7, 10, x. 19, 28, Apoc. ii. 14, 20. [———] occurs only in Luke ii. 51. [———], Acts 12, Luke 6, Paul 15, elsewhere 5 times only, [———], this
usual Greek formula for the ending of a letter, [———], is nowhere else used in the New Testament, except at the close of the letter of Lysias, xxiii. 30.
Turning now from the letter to the spirit of this decree, we must endeavour to form some idea of its purport and bearing. The first point which should be made clear is, that the question raised before the Council solely affected the Gentile converts, and that the conditions contained in the decree were imposed upon that branch of the Church alone. No change whatever in the position of Jewish Christians was contemplated; they were left as before, subject to the Mosaic law.(1) This is very apparent in the reference which is made long after to the decree, Ch. xxi. 20 ff., 25, when the desire is expressed to Paul by James, who proposed the decree, and the elders of Jerusalem, that he should prove to the many thousands of believing Jews all zealous of the law, that he did not teach the Jews who were among the Gentiles apostasy from Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. Paul, who is likewise represented, in the Acts, as circumcising with his own hand, after the decision of the Council had been adopted, Timothy the son of a Greek, whose mother was a Jewess, consents to give the Jews of Jerusalem the required proof. We have already shown at the commencement of this section, that
nothing was further from the minds of the Jewish Christians than the supposition that the obligation to observe the Mosaic law was weakened by the adoption of Christianity; and the representation in the Acts is certainly so far correct, that it does not pretend that Jewish Christians either desired or sanctioned any relaxation of Mosaic observances on the part of believing Jews. This cannot be too distinctly remembered in considering the history of primitive Christianity. The initiatory rite was essential to full participation in the Covenant. It was left for Paul to preach the abrogation of the law and the abandonment of circumcision. If the speech of Peter seems to suggest the abrogation of the law even for Jews, it is only in a way which shows that the author had no clear historical fact to relate, and merely desired to ascribe, vaguely and indefinitely, Pauline sentiments to the Apostle of the circumcision. No remark whatever is made upon these strangely liberal expressions of Peter, and neither the proposition of James nor the speech in which he makes it takes the slightest notice of them. The conduct of Peter at Antioch and the influence exercised by James through his emissaries restore us to historical ground. Whether the author intended to represent that the object of the conditions of the decree was to admit the Gentile Christians to full communion with the Jewish, or merely to the subordinate position of Proselytes of the Gate, is uncertain, but it is not necessary to discuss the point. There is not the slightest external evidence that such a decree ever existed, and the more closely the details are examined the more evident does it become that it has no historical consistency. How, and upon what principle, were these singular conditions selected? Their heterogeneous character is at once apparent, but not so the
reason for a combination which is neither limited to Jewish customs nor sufficiently representative of moral duties. It has been argued, on the one hand, that the prohibitions of the apostolic decree are simply those, reduced to a necessary minimum, which were enforced in the case of heathen converts to Judaism who did not join themselves fully to the people of the Covenant by submitting to circumcision, but were admitted to imperfect communion as Proselytes of the Gate.(1) The conditions named, however, do not fully represent the rules framed for such cases, and many critics consider that the conditions imposed, although they may have been influenced by the Noachiaii prescriptions, were rather moral duties which it was, from special circumstances, thought expedient to specify.(2) "We shall presently refer to some of these conditions, but bearing in mind the views which were dominant amongst primitive Christians, and more especially, as is obvious, amongst the Christians of Jerusalem where this decree is supposed to have been unanimously adopted, bearing in mind the teaching which is said to have led to the Council, the episode at Antioch, and the systematic judaistic opposition which retarded the work of Paul and subsequently affected his reputation, it may be instructive
to point out not only the vagueness which exists as to the position which it was intended that the Gentiles should acquire, as the effect of this decree, but also its singular and total inefficiency. An apologetic writer, having of course in his mind the fact that there is no trace of the operation of the decree, speaks of its conditions as follows: "The miscellaneous character of these prohibitions showed that, taken as a whole, they had no binding force independently of the circumstances which dictated them. They were a temporary expedient framed to meet a temporary emergency. Their object was the avoidance of offence in mixed communities of Jew and Gentile converts. Beyond this recognised aim and general understanding implied therein, the limits of their application were not defined."1 In fact the immunity granted to the Gentiles was thus practically almost unconditional.
It is obvious, however, that every consideration which represents the decree as more completely emancipating Gentile Christians from Mosaic obligations, and admitting them into free communion with believers amongst the Jews, places it in more emphatic contradiction to historical facts and the statements of the Apostle Paul. The unanimous adoption of such a measure in Jerusalem, on the one hand, and, on the other, the episode at Antioch, the fear of Peter, the silence of Paul, and the attitude of James become perfectly inconceivable. If on the contrary the conditions were seriously imposed and really meant anything, a number of difficulties spring up of which we shall presently speak. That the prohibitions, in the opinion of the author of the Acts, constituted a positive and binding obligation can scarcely be doubted by anyone who considers the terms in which they are laid down. If
they are represented as a concession they are nevertheless recognised as a "burden," and they are distinctly stated to be the obligations which "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit" as well as to the Council to impose. The qualification, that the restrictive clauses had no binding force "independently of the circumstances which dictated them," in so far as it has any meaning beyond the unnecessary declaration that the decree was only applicable to the class for whom it was framed, seems to be inadmissible. The circumstance which dictated the decree was the counter-teaching of Jewish Christians, that it was necessary that the Gentile converts should be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. The restrictive clauses are simply represented as those which it was deemed right to impose; and, as they are stated without qualification, it is holding the decision of the "Holy Spirit" and of the Church somewhat cheap to treat them as mere local and temporary expedients. This is evidently not the view of the author of the Acts. Would it have been the view of anyone else if it were not that, so far as any external trace of the decree is concerned, it is an absolute myth? The prevalence of practices to which the four prohibitions point is quite sufficiently attested to show that, little as there is any ground for considering that such a decree was framed in such a manner, the restrictive clauses are put forth as necessary and permanently binding. The very doubt which exists as to whether the prohibitions were not intended to represent the conditions imposed on Proselytes of the Gate shows their close analogy to them, and it cannot be reasonably asserted that the early Christians regarded those conditions either as obsolete or indifferent. The decree is clearly intended to set forth the terms upon which Gentile Christians were
to be admitted into communion, and undoubtedly is to be taken as applicable not merely to a few districts, but to the Gentiles in general.
The account which Paul gives of his visit not only ignores any such decree, but excludes it. In the first place, taking into account the Apostle's character and the spirit of his Epistle, it is impossible to suppose that Paul had any intention of submitting, as to higher authority, the Gospel which he preached, for the judgment of the elder Apostles and of the Church of Jerusalem.(1) Nothing short of this is involved in the account in the Acts, and in the form of the decree which promulgates, in an authoritative manner, restrictive clauses which "seemed good to the Holy Spirit" and to the Council. The temper of the man is well shown in Paul's indignant letter to the Galatians. He receives his Gospel, not from men, but by direct revelation from Jesus Christ and, so far is he from submission of the kind implied, that he says: "But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any Gospel other than that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so say I now again: If any man preach any Gospel to you other than that ye received, let him be accursed."(2) That the Apostle here refers to his own peculiar teaching, and does so in contradistinction to the Gospel preached by the Judaizers, is evident from the preceding words: "I marvel that ye are so soon removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different Gospel; which is not another, only there are
some that trouble you, and desire to pervert the Gospel of Christ."(1) Passing from this, however, to the restrictive clauses in general, how is it possible that Paul could state, as the result of his visit, that the "pillar" Apostles "communicated nothing" after hearing his Gospel, if the four conditions of this decree had thus been authoritatively "communicated"? On the contrary, Paul distinctly adds that, in acknowledging his mission, but one condition had been attached: "Only that we should remember the poor; which very thing I also was forward to do."(2) As one condition is here mentioned, why not the others, had any been actually imposed? It is argued that the remembrance of the poor of Jerusalem which is thus inculcated was a recommendation personally made to Paul and Barnabas, but it is clear that the Apostle's words refer to the result of his communication of his Gospel, and to the understanding under which his mission to the Gentiles was tolerated.
We have already pointed out how extraordinary it is that such a decision of the Council should not have been referred to in describing his visit, and the more we go into details the more striking and inexplicable, except in one way, is such silence. In relating the struggle regarding the circumcision of Titus, for instance, and stating that he did not yield, no, not for an hour, to the demands made on the subject, is it conceivable that, if the exemption of all Gentile Christians from the initiatory rite had
been unanimously conceded, Paul would not have added to his statement about Titus, that not only he himself had not been compelled to give way in this instance, but that his representations had even convinced those who had been Apostles before him, and secured the unanimous adoption of his own views on the point? The whole of this Epistle is a vehement and intensely earnest denunciation of those Judaizers who were pressing the necessity of the initiatory rite upon the Galatian converts.(1) Is it possible that the Apostle could have left totally unmentioned the fact that the Apostles and the very Church of Jerusalem had actually declared circumcision to be unnecessary? It would not have accorded with Paul's character, it is said, to have appealed to the authority of the elder Apostles or of the Church in a matter in which his own apostolic authority and teaching were in question. In that case, bow can it be supposed that he ever went at all up to Jerusalem to the Apostles and elders about this question? If he was not too proud to lay aside his apostolic dignity and, representing the Christians of Antioch, to submit the case to the Council at Jerusalem, and subsequently to deliver its decree to various communities, is it consistent with reason or common sense to assert that he was too proud to recall the decision of that Council to the Christians of Galatia? It must, we think, be obvious that, if such an explanation of Paul's total silence as to the decree be at all valid, it is absolutely fatal to the account of Paul's visit in the Acts. This reasoning is not confined to the Epistle to the Galatians but, as Paley
1 "Turning from Antioch to Galatia, we meet with Judaicteachers who urged circumcision on the Gentile converts,and, as the best means of weakening the authority of St.Paul, asserted for the Apostles of the Circumcision theexclusive right of dictating to the Church." Lightfoot, Ep.to the Gal. p. 353.
points out, applies to the other Epistles of Paul, in all of which the same silence is preserved.
Moreover, the apologetic explanation altogether fails upon other grounds. Without appealing to the decree as an authority, we must feel sure that the Apostle would at least have made use of it as a logical refutation of his adversaries. The man who did not hesitate to attack Peter openly for inconsistency, and charge him with hypocrisy, would not have hesitated to cite the decree as evidence, and still less to fling it in the faces of those Judaizers who, so short a time after that decree is supposed to have been promulgated, preached the necessity of circumcision and Mosaic observances in direct opposition to its terms, whilst claiming to represent the views of the very Apostles and Church which had framed it. Paul, who never denies the validity of their claim, would most certainly have taunted them with gross inconsistency and retorted that the Church of Jerusalem, the Apostles, and the Judaizers who now troubled him and preached circumcision and the Mosaic law had, four or five years previously, declared as the deliberate decision of the Holy Spirit and the Council, that they were no longer binding on the Gentile converts. By such a reference "the discussion would have been foreclosed." None of the reasons which are suggested to explain the undeniable fact that there is no mention of the decree can really bear examination, and that fact remains supported by a great many powerful considerations, leading to the very simple explanation which reconciles all difficulties, that the narrative of the Acts is not authentic.
We arrive at the very same results when we examine the Apostle's references to the practices which the conditions of the decree were intended to control. Instead of recognising the authority of the decree, or enforcing its
prescriptions, he does not even allow us to infer its existence, and he teaches disregard at least of some of its restrictions. The decree enjoins the Gentile Christians to abstain from meats offered to idols. Paul tells the Corinthians to eat whatever meat is sold in the shambles without asking questions for conscience sake, for an idol is nothing in the world, "neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse."(1) It is not conceivable that the Apostle could so completely have ignored the prohibition of the decree if he had actually submitted the question to the Apostles, and himself so distinctly acquiesced in their decision as to distribute the document amongst the various communities whom he subsequently visited. To argue that the decree was only intended to have force in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, to which, as the locality in which the difficulty had arisen which had originally led to the Council, the decree was, in the first instance, addressed, is highly arbitrary; but, when proceeding further, apologists(2) draw a distinction between those churches "which had already been founded, and which had felt the pressure of Jewish prejudice (Acts xvi. 4)," and "brotherhoods afterwards formed and lying beyond the reach of such influences," as a reason why no notice of the decree is taken in the case of the Corinthians and Romans, the special pleading ignores very palpable facts. "Jewish prejudices" are represented in the Acts of the Apostles themselves as being more than usually strong in Corinth. There was a Jewish synagogue there, augmented probably by the Jews expelled from Rome under Claudius,(3) and their violence against
Paul finally obliged him to leave the place.(1) Living in the midst of an idolatrous city, and much exposed to the temptations of sacrificial feasts, we might naturally expect excessive rigour against participation, on the one hand, and perhaps too great indifference, on the other; and this we actually find to have been the case. It is in consequence of questions respecting meats offered to idols that Paul writes to the Corinthians, and whilst treating the matter in itself as one of perfect indifference, merely inculcates consideration for weak consciences.(2) It is clear that there was a decided feeling against the practice; it is clear that strong Jewish prejudices existed in the Jewish colony at Corinth, and wherever there were Jews the eating of meats offered to idols was an abomination. The sin of Israel at Baalpeor(3) lived in the memory of the people, and abstinence from such pollution(4) was considered a duty. If the existence of such "Jewish prejudices" was a reason for publishing the decree, we have, in fact, more definite evidence of them in Corinth than we have in Antioch, for, apart from this specific mention of the subject of eating sacrificial meats, the two apostolic letters abundantly show the existence and activity of Judaistic parties there, which opposed the work of Paul, and desired to force Mosaic observances upon his converts. It is impossible to admit that, supposing such a decree to have been promulgated as the mind of the Holy Spirit, there could be any reason why it should have been unknown at Corinth so short a time after it was adopted. When, therefore, we find the Apostle not only ignoring it, but actually declaring that to be a matter of indifference, abstinence from which it had just seemed
good to the Holy Spirit to enjoin, the only reasonable conclusion is that Paul himself was totally ignorant of the existence of any decree containing such a prohibition. There is much difference of opinion as to the nature of the [———] referred to in the decree, and we need not discuss it; but in all the Apostle's homilies upon the subject there is the same total absence of all allusion to the decision of the Council.
Nowhere can any practical result from the operation of the decree be pointed out, nor any trace even of its existence.1 The assertions and conjectures, by which those who maintain the authenticity of the narrative in the Acts seek to explain the extraordinary absence of all external evidence of the decree, labour under the disadvantage of all attempts to account for the total failure of effects from a supposed cause, the existence of which is in reality only assumed. It is customary to reply to the objection that there is no mention of the decree in the Epistles of Paul or in any other contemporary writing, that this is a mere argumenta silentio. Is it not, however, difficult to imagine any other argument, from contemporary sources, regarding what is affirmed to have had no existence, than that from silence 1 Do apologists absolutely demand that, with prophetic anticipation of future controversies, the Apostle Paul should obligingly have left on record that there actually was no Council such as a writer would subsequently describe, and that the decree which he
would put forward as the result of that Council must not he accepted as genuine? It is natural to expect that, when writing of the very visit in question, and dealing with subjects and discussions in which, whether in the shape of historical allusion, appeal to authority, taunt for inconsistency, or assertion of his own influence, some allusion to the decree would have been highly appropriate, if not necessary, the Apostle Paul should at least have given some hint of its existence. His not doing so constitutes strong presumptive evidence against the authenticity of the decree, and all the more so as no more positive evidence than silence could possibly be forthcoming of the non-existence of that which never existed. The supposed decree of the Council of Jerusalem cannot on any ground be accepted as a historical fact.(1)
We may now return to such further consideration of the statements of the Epistle as may seem necessary for the object of our inquiry. No mention is made by the Apostle of any official mission on the subject of circumcision, and the discussion of that question arises in a merely incidental manner from the presence of Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile Christian. There has been much discussion as to whether Titus actually was circumcised or not, and there
can be little doubt that the omission of the negative [———] from Gal. ii. 5, has been in some cases influenced by the desire to bring the Apostle's conduct upon this occasion into harmony with the account, in Acts xvi. 3, of his circumcising Timothy.(1) We shall not require to enter into any controversy on the point, for the great majority of critics are agreed that the Apostle intended to say that Titus was not circumcised, although the contrary is affirmed by a few writers.(2) It is obvious from the whole of the Apostle's narrative that great pressure was exerted to induce Titus to submit, and that Paul, if he did not yield even for an hour the required subjection, had a long and severe struggle to maintain his position. Even when relating the circumstances in his letter to the Galatians, the recollection of his contest profoundly stirs the Apostle's indignation; his utterance becomes vehement, but cannot keep pace with his impetuous thoughts, and the result is a narrative in broken and abrupt sentences whose very incompleteness is eloquent, and betrays the irritation which has not even yet entirely subsided. How does this accord with the whole tone of the account in the Acts? It is customary with apologists to insert so much between the lines of that narrative, partly from imagination and partly from the statements of the Epistle, that they almost convince themselves and others that such additions are actually suggested by the author of the Acts himself. If we take the account of the Acts, however, without such transmutations, it is certain that not only is there not the slightest indication of any struggle regarding the
circumcision of Titus, "in which St. Paul maintained at one time almost single-handed the cause of Gentile freedom,"(1) but no suggestion that there had ever been any hesitation on the part of the leading Apostles and the mass of the Church regarding the point at issue. The impression given by the author of the Acts is undeniably one of unbroken and undisturbed harmony: of a council in which the elder Apostles were of one mind with Paul, and warmly agreed with him that the Gentiles should be delivered from the yoke of the Mosaic law and from the necessity of undergoing the initiatory rite. What is there in such an account to justify in any degree the irritation displayed by Paul at the mere recollection of this visit, or to merit the ironical terms with which he speaks of the "pillar" Apostles?
We may, however, now consider the part which the Apostles must have taken in the dispute regarding the circumcision of Titus. Is it possible to suppose that, if the circumcision of Paul's follower had only been demanded by certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, unsupported by the rest, there could ever have been any considerable struggle on the point? Is it possible, further, to suppose that, if Paul had received the cordial support of James and the leading Apostles in his refusal to concede the circumcision of Titus, such a contest could have been more than momentary and trifling? Is it possible that the Apostle Paul could have spoken of "certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed" in such terms as: "to whom we yielded by the submission [———] no not for an hour?"(2) or that he could have used this expression if those who pressed the demand upon him had not been in a position
of authority, which naturally suggested a subjection which Paul upon this occasion persistently refused? It is not possible. Of course many writers who seek to reconcile the two narratives, and some of whom substitute for the plain statements of the Acts and of the Apostle, an account which is not consistent with either, suppose that the demand for the circumcision of Titus proceeded solely from the "false brethren,"(1) although some of them suppose that at least these false brethren may have thought they had reason to hope for the support of the elder Apostles.(2) It is almost too clear for dispute, however, that the desire that Titus should be circumcised was shared or pressed by the elder Apostles.(3) According to the showing of the Acts, nothing could be more natural than the fact that James and the elders of Jerusalem who, so long after (xxi. 20 if.), advised Paul to prove his continued observance of the law and that he did not teach the Jews to abandon circumcision, should on this occasion have pressed him to circumcise Titus. The conduct of Peter at Antioch, and the constant opposition which Paul met with from emissaries
of James and of the Apostles of the Circumcision upon the very point of Gentile circumcision, all support the inevitable conclusion, that the pressure upon Paul in the matter of Titus was not only not resisted by the Apostles, but proceeded in no small degree from them.
This is further shown by the remainder of Paul's account of his visit and by the tone of his remarks regarding the principal Apostles, as well as by the historical data which we possess of his subsequent career. We need not repeat that the representation in the Acts both of the Council and of the whole intercourse between Paul and the Apostles is one of "unbroken unity."(1) The struggle about Titus and the quarrel with Peter at Antioch are altogether omitted, and the Apostolic letter speaks merely of "our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ"(2) The language of Paul is not so pacific and complimentary. Immediately after his statement that he had "yielded by the submission, no, not for an hour," Paul continues: "But from those who seem to be something [———]—whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person;—for to me those who seem [———] (to be something) communicated nothing, but, on the contrary, &c. &c., and when they knew the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seem to be pillars [———], gave to
me and Barnabas right hands of fellowship that we (should go) unto the Gentiles," &c. &c.(3) The tone and language of this passage are certainly
depreciatory of the elder Apostles,(1) and, indeed, it is difficult to understand how any one could fail to perceive and admit the fact. It is argued by some who recognise the irony of the term [———] applied to the Apostles, that the disparagement which is so transparent in the form [———], "those who seem to be something," is softened again in the new turn which is given to it in ver. 9, [———], "those who seem to be pillars," in which, it is said, "the Apostle expresses the real greatness and high authority of the twelve in their separate field of labour."(2) It seems to us that this interpretation cannot be sustained. Paul is ringing the changes on [———], and contrasting with the position they assumed and the estimation in which they were held, his own experience of them, and their inability to add anything to him. "Those who seem to be something," he commences, but immediately interrupts himself, after having thus indicated the persons whom he meant, with the more direct protest of irritated independence:—"whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person." These [———] communicated nothing to him, but, on the contrary, when they knew the grace given to him, "those who seem to be pillars" gave him hands of fellowship, but nothing more, and they went their different ways, he to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision. If the
expression: [———] be true, as well as ironically used, it cannot be construed into a declaration of respect, but forms part of a passage whose tone throughout is proudly depreciatory. This is followed by such words as "hypocrisy" [———] and "condemned" [———] applied to the conduct of Peter at Antioch, as well as the mention of the emissaries of James as the cause of that dispute, which add meaning to the irony. This is not, however, the only occasion on which Paul betrays a certain bitterness against the elder Apostles. In his second letter to the Corinthians, xi. 5, he says, "For I reckon that I am not a whit behind the over much Apostles" [———], and again, xii. 11, "For in nothing was I behind the over much Apostles" [———]; and the whole of the vehement passage in which these references are set shows the intensity of the feeling which called them forth. To say that the expressions in the Galatian Epistle and here are "depreciatory, not indeed of the twelve themselves, but of the extravagant and exclusive claims set up for them by the Judaizers,"(1) is an extremely arbitrary distinction. They are directly applied to the Apostles, and [———] cannot be taken as irony against those who over-estimated them, but against the [———] themselves. Paul's blows generally go straight to their mark. Meyer argues that the designation of the Apostles as [———] is purely historical, and cannot be taken as ironical, inasmuch as it would be inconsistent to suppose that Paul could adopt a depreciatory tone when he is relating his recognition as a colleague by the elder Apostles;(2) and others consider that
ver. 8, 9, 10 contain evidence of mutual respect and recognition between Paul and the twelve. Even if this were so, it could not do away with the actual irony of the expressions; but do the facts support such a statement? We have seen that, in spite of the picture of unbroken unity drawn by the author of the Acts, and the liberal sentiments regarding the Gentiles which he puts into the mouth of Peter and of James, Paul had a severe and protracted struggle to undergo in order to avoid circumcising Titus. We have already stated the grounds upon which it seems certain that the pressure upon that occasion came as well from the elder Apostles as the "false brethren," and critics who do not go so far as to make this positive affirmation, at least recognise the passive, and therefore to a large extent compliant, attitude which the Apostles must have held. It is after narrating some of the particulars of this struggle that Paul uses the terms of depreciation which we have been discussing; and having added, "for to me those who seem (to be something) communicated nothing," he says, "but, on the contrary, when they saw that I have been entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with that of the circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the Apostleship of the circumcision, wrought also for me unto the Gentiles); and when they knew the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, who seem to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas right hands of fellowship, that we (should go) unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: only that we should remember the poor; which very thing I also was forward to do." It will be observed that, after saying they "communicated nothing" to him, the Apostle adds, in opposition, "but, on the
contrary" [———]. In what does this opposition consist? Apparently in this, that, instead of strengthening the hands of Paul, they left him to labour alone. They said: "Take your own course; preach the Gospel of the uncircumcision to Gentiles, and we will preach the Gospel of the circumcision to Jews."(1) In fact, when Paul returned to Jerusalem for the second time after fourteen years, he found the elder Apostles not one whit advanced towards his own uni-versalism; they retained their former Jewish prejudices, and remained as before Apostles of the circumcision.(2) Notwithstanding the strong Pauline sentiments put into Peter's mouth by the author of the Acts, and his claim to have been so long before selected by God that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe, Paul singles out Peter as specially entrusted with the Gospel of the circumcision; and, in the end, after Paul has exerted all his influence, Peter and the rest remain unmoved, and allow Paul to go to the Gentiles, while they confine their ministry as before to the Jews. The success of Paul's work amongst the heathen was too palpable a fact to be ignored, but there is no reason to believe that the conversion of the Gentiles, upon his terms, was more than tolerated at that time, or the Gentile Christians admitted to more than such imperfect communion with the Jewish Christians as that of Proselytes of the Gate in relation to Judaism. This is shown by the conduct of Peter at Antioch after the supposed Council, and of the Jews with him, and even of Barnabas,
through fear of the emissaries of James, whose arrival certainly could not have produced a separation between Jewish and Gentile Christians had the latter been recognised as in full communion.
The "hands of fellowship" clearly was a mere passive permission of Paul's mission to the Gentiles, but no positive and hearty approval of it testified by active support.(1) It must, we think, be evident to any one who attentively considers the passage we are examining, that there is no question whatever in it of a recognition of the Apostolate of Paul.(2) The elder Apostles consent to his mission to the Gentiles, whilst they themselves go to the circumcision; but there is not a syllable which indicates that Paul's claim to the title of Apostle was ever either acknowledged or discussed. It is not probable that Paul would have submitted such a point to their consideration. It is difficult to see how the elder Apostles could well have done less than they did, and the extent of their fellowship seems to have simply amounted to toleration of what they could not prevent. The pressure for the circumcision of the Gentile converts was an attempt to coerce, and to suppress the peculiar principle of the Gospel of uncircumcision; and though that effort failed through the determined resistance of Paul,
it is clear, from the final resolve to limit their preaching to the circumcision, that the elder Apostles in no way abandoned their view of the necessity of the initiatory rite. The episode at Antioch is a practical illustration of this statement. Hilgenfeld ably remarks:—"When we consider that Peter was afraid of the circumcised Christians, there can be no doubtthat James, at the head of the primitive community, made the attempt to force heathen Christians to adopt the substance of Jewish legitimacy, by breaking off ecclesiastical community with them."(1) The Gentile Christians were virtually excommunicated on the arrival of the emissaries of James, or at least treated as mere Proselytes of the Gate; and the pressure upon the Galatian converts of the necessity of circumcision by similar Judaizing emissaries, which called forth the vehement and invaluable Epistle before us, is quite in accordance with the circumstances of this visit. The separation agreed upon between Paul and the elder Apostles was not in any sense geographical, but purely ethnological.(2) It was no mere division of labour,(3) no suitable apportionment of work. The elder Apostles determined, like their Master before them, to confine their ministry to Jews, whilst Paul, if he pleased, might go to the Gentiles; and the mere fact that Peter subsequently goes to Antioch, as well as many other
circumstances, shows that no mere separation of localities, but a selection of race was intended. If there had not been this absolute difference of purpose, any separation would have been unnecessary, and all the Apostles would have preached one Gospel indifferently to all who had ears to hear it; such strange inequality in the partition of the work could never have existed: that Paul should go unaided to the gigantic task of converting the heathen, while the Twelve reserved themselves for the small but privileged people. All that we have said at the beginning of this section of the nature of primitive Christianity, and of the views prevalent amongst the disciples at the death of their Master, is verified by this attitude of the Three during the famous visit of the Apostle of the Gentiles to Jerusalem, and Paul's account is precisely in accordance with all that historical probability and reason, unwarped by the ideal representations of the Acts, prepare us to expect. The more deeply we go into the statements of Paul the more is this apparent, and the more palpable does the inauthenticity of the narrative of the Council appear.
The words of Paul in describing the final understanding are very remarkable and require further consideration. The decision that they should go to the circumcision and Paul to the Gentiles is based upon the recognition of a different Gospel entrusted to him, the Gospel of the uncircumcision, as the Gospel of the circumcision is entrusted to Peter. It will be remembered that Paul states that, on going up to Jerusalem upon this occasion, he communicated to them the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, and it is probable that he made the journey more especially for this purpose. It appears from the account that this Gospel was not only new to them, but was
distinctly diflferent from that of the elder Apostles. If Paul preached the same Gospel as the rest, what necessity could there have been for communicating it at all? What doubt that by any means he might be running, or had run, in vain? He knew perfectly well that he preached a diflferent Gospel from the Apostles of the circumcision, and his anxiety probably was to secure an amicable recognition of the Gentile converts whom he had taught to consider circumcision unnecessary and the obligation of the law removed. Of course there was much that was fundamentally the same in the two Gospels, starting as they both did with the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah; but their points of divergence were very marked and striking, and more especially in directions where the prejudices of the Apostles of the circumcision were the strongest Avoiding all debatable ground, it is clear that the Gospel of the uncircumcision, which proclaimed the abrogation of the law and the inutility of the initiatory rite, must have been profoundly repugnant to Jews, who still preached the obligation of circumcision and the observance of the law. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law"(1) said the Gospel of the uncircumcision. "Behold, I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.... For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love."(2) "For neither circumcision is anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."(3) The teaching which was specially designated the Gospel of the circumcision, in contradistinction to this Gospel of the uncircumcision, held very diflferent language. There is no gainsaying the
main fact—and that fact, certified by Paul himself and substantiated by a host of collateral circumstances, is more conclusive than all conciliatory apologetic reasoning—that, at the date of this visit to Jerusalem (c. a.d. 50-52), the Three, after hearing all that Paul had to say, allowed him to go alone to the Gentiles, but themselves would have no part in the mission, and turned as before to the circumcision.
There is another point to which we must very briefly refer. The statements of Paul show that, antecedent to this visit to Jerusalem, Paul had been the active Apostle of the Gentiles, preaching his Gospel of the uncircumcision, and that subsequently he returned to the same field of labour. If we examine the narrative of the Acts, we do not find him represented in any special manner as the Apostle of the Gentiles, but, on the contrary, whilst Peter claims the honour of having been selected that by his voice the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe, Paul is everywhere described as going to the Jews, and only when his teaching is rejected by them does he turn to the Gentiles. It is true that Ananias is represented as being told by the Lord that Paul is a chosen vessel "to bear my name both before Gentiles and kings, and the sons of Israel;"(1) and Paul subsequently recounts how the Lord had said to himself, "Go, for I will send thee far hence unto Gentiles."(2) The author of the Acts, however, everywhere conveys the impression that Paul very reluctantly fulfils this mission, and that if he had but been successful amongst the Jews he never would have gone to the Gentiles at all. Immediately after his conversion, he preaches in the synagogues at Damascus and confounds the Jews,(3) as he
again does during his visit to Jerusalem.(1) When the Holy Spirit desires the Church at Antioch to separate Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto he has called them, they continue to announce the word of God "in the synagogues of the Jews,"(2) and in narrating the conversion of the Roman proconsul at Paphos, it is said that it is Sergius Paulus himself who calls for Barnabas and Saul, and seeks to hear the word of God.(3) When they came to Antioch in Pisidia, they go into the synagogue of the Jews(4) as usual, and it is only after the Jews reject them that Paul and Barnabas are described as saying:—"It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you: seeing that ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."(5) In Iconium, to which they next proceed, however, they go into the synagogue of the Jews,(6) and later, it is stated that Paul, on arriving at Thessalonica, "as his custom was," went into the synagogue of the Jews, and for three Sabbaths discoursed to them.(7) At Corinth, it was only when the Jews opposed him and blasphemed, that Paul is represented as saying: "Your blood be upon your own head; I will henceforth, with a pure conscience, go unto the Gentiles." It is impossible to distinguish from this narrative any difference between the ministry of Paul and that of the other Apostles. They all address themselves mainly and primarily to the Jews, although if Gentiles desire to eat of "the crumbs which fall from the children's bread" they are not rejected. Even the Pharisees stirred heaven and earth to make proselytes. In no sense can
the Paul of the Acts be considered specially an Apostle of the Gentiles, and the statement of the Epistle to the Galatians(1) has no significance, if interpreted by the historical work.
Apologists usually reply to this objection, that the practice of Paul in the Acts is in accordance with his own words in the Epistle to the Romans, i. 16, in which, it is asserted, he recognizes the right of the Jews to precedence. In the Authorised Version this passage is rendered as follows:—"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek."(2) [———] As a matter of
fact we may here at once state that the word [———] "first," is not found in Codices B and G, and that it is omitted from the Latin rendering of the verse quoted by Tertullian.(3) That the word upon which the controversy turns should not be found in so important a MS. as the Vatican Codex or in so ancient a version as Tertullian's is very significant, but proceeding at once to the sense of the sentence, we must briefly state the reasons which seem to us conclusively to show that the usual reading is erroneous. The passage is an emphatic statement of the principles of Paul. He declares that he is not ashamed of the Gospel, and he immediately states the reason: "for it is a power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth."(4) He is not ashamed of the Gospel because he recognizes its universality; for, in
opposition to the exclusiveness of Judaism, he maintains that all are "sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus... There is neither Jew nor Greek... for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."(1) "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love."(2) The reason which he gives is that which lies at the basis of the whole of his special teaching; but we are asked to believe that, after so clear and comprehensive a declaration, he at once adds the extraordinary qualification: [———], rendered "to the Jew first and also to the Greek." What is the meaning of such a limitation? If the Gospel be a power of God unto salvation "to every one that believeth" [———], in what manner can it possibly be so "to the Jew first"? Can it be maintained that there are comparative degrees in salvation? "Salvation" is obviously an absolute term. If saved at all, the Jew cannot be more saved than the Greek. If, on the other hand, the expression be interpreted as an assertion that the Jew has a right of precedence either in the offer or the attainment of salvation before the Greek, the manner of its realization is almost equally inconceivable, and a host of difficulties, especially in view of the specific Pauline teaching, immediately present themselves. There can be no doubt that the judaistic view distinctly was that Israel must first be saved, before the heathen could obtain any part in the Messianic kingdom, and we have shown that this idea dominated primitive Christianity; and inseparable from this was the belief that the only way to a participation in its benefits lay through Judaism. The
heathen could only obtain admission into the family of Israel, and become partakers in the covenant, by submitting to the initiatory rite. It was palpably under the influence of this view, and with a conviction that the Messianic kingdom was primarily destined for the children of Israel, that the elder Apostles, even after the date of Paul's second visit to Jerusalem, continued to confine their ministry "to the circumcision." Paul's view was very different. He recognized and maintained the universality of the Gospel and, in resolving to go to the heathen, he practically repudiated the very theory of Jewish preference which he is here supposed to advance. If the Gospel, instead of being a power of God to salvation to every man who believed, was for the Jew first, the Apostolate of the Gentiles was a mere delusion and a snare. What could be the advantage of so urgently offering salvation to the Greek, if the gift, instead of being "for every one that believeth," was a mere prospective benefit, inoperative until the Jew had first been saved? "Salvation to the Jew first and also to the Greek," if it have any significance whatever of the kind argued,—involving either a prior claim to the offer of salvation, or precedence in its distribution,—so completely destroys all the present interest in it of the Gentile, that the Gospel must to him have lost all power. To suppose that such an expression simply means, that the Gospel must first be preached to the Jews in any town to which the Apostle might come before it could legitimately be proclaimed to the Gentiles of that town, is childish. We have no reason to suppose that Paul held the deputy Sergius Paulus, who desired to hear the word of God and believed, in suspense until the Jews of Paphos had
rejected it. The cases of the Ethiopian eunuch and Cornelius throw no light upon any claim of the Jew to priority in salvation. Indeed, not to waste time in showing the utter incongruity of the ordinary interpretation, we venture to affirm that there is not a single explanation, which maintains a priority assigned to the Jew in any way justifying the reference to this text, which is capable of supporting the slightest investigation. If we linguistically examine the expression [———], we arrive at the same conclusion, that [———] is an interpolation, for we must maintain that [———] with [———] and [———] must be applied equally both to "Jew" and "Greek," and cannot rightly be appropriated to the Jew only, as implying a preference over the Greek.(1) The sense, therefore, can only be properly and intelligibly given by disregarding [———] and simply translating the words: "both to Jew and Greek."(2) This was the rendering of the ancient Latin version quoted by Tertullian in his work against Marcion: "Itaque et hie, cum dicit: Non enim me pudet evangelii, virtus enim dei est in salutem omni credenti, Judæo et Græco, quia justitia dei in eo revelatur ex fide in fidem.,,(3) We are not left without further examples of the very same expression, and an examination of the context will amply demonstrate that Paul used it in no other sense. In the