полная версияПолная версия
Not Paul, But Jesus
When, again, he comes to speak of the sort of intercourse, such as it was, which he had with the Apostles, – who are the persons that he speaks of? All the Apostles? the body of the Apostles in general? – No: James, Cephas, the Hebrew name of which Peter is a translation, and John: these three, and no more. These are the men, whom, to him Paul and his protector Barnabas in conjunction, he on that same occasion speaks of, as "giving the right hand of fellowship: " to wit, for the purpose of the Partition Treaty, the terms of which immediately follow.
And, even of these men, in what way does he speak? As of men "who seemed to be pillars: " so that, as to what concerned the rest of the Apostles, he found himself reduced to speak no otherwise than by conjecture. And this same "right hand of fellowship" – what was their inducement for giving it? – It was, says he, that "they perceived the grace that was given unto me": i. e., in plain language, and ungrounded pretension apart, – the power, which they saw he had, of doing mischief: – of passing, from the character of a jealous and restless rival, into that of a declared enemy: into that character, in which he had originally appeared, and with such disastrous effect.
Immediately after this comes the mention of the visit, made by Peter to Antioch: and therefore it is, that, no sooner is Peter – that chief of the Apostles of Jesus – mentioned, – than he is mentioned, as a man whom this Paul "withstood to his face, because he was to be blamed." Gal. 2:11.
Peter was to be blamed: those other Jews that were come to Antioch from James – they were to be blamed. Barnabas, under whose powerful protection, – by the Church at Jerusalem, her justly odious persecutor had, at three different times, been endured, – he too was to be blamed. He too was, at that time, to be blamed; and, as will be seen presently after, openly quarrelled with; and, if on this point the Acts are to be believed, parted with. Acts 15:39. "And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus."
SECTION 3.
DEBATES – COURSE CARRIED BY JAMES AGAINST PETER
Of what passed at this assembly, the only account we have – the account given to us by the author of the Acts – is curious: – curious at any rate; and whether it be in every particular circumstance true or not, – in so far as it can be depended upon, instructive.35
We have the persons mentioned as having spoken: they are, in the order in which they are here enumerated, these four: – to wit, Peter, Barnabas, Paul and James. Of the speech of Peter, the particulars are given: so likewise of that of James: of Barnabas and Paul, nothing more than the topic.
Against the Mosaic law in toto, we find Peter; and such contribution as he is represented as furnishing to this side of the cause in the shape of argument. On the same side, were Barnabas and Paul: what they furnished was matter of fact: – namely, in the language of the Acts, "what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them: " – in plain language, the success they had met with among the Gentiles.
On this question, on the side of the chief of the Apostles, were – the manifest interest of the religion of Jesus as to extent of diffusion, – the authority derived from situation, – the express command of Jesus as delivered in the Gospel history, – and Jesus' own practice: not to speak of the inutility and unreasonableness of the observances themselves. Yet, as far as appears from the author of the Acts, – of these arguments, conclusive as they would or at least should have been, – it appears not that any use was made: the success, he spoke of as having been experienced by himself among the Gentiles, – in this may be seen the sole argument employed in Peter's speech. Thus, – in so far as this report is to be believed, – thus, upon their own respective achievements, did, – not only Paul but Peter, – rest, each of them, the whole strength of the cause.
Spite of reason, religion, and Jesus, the victory is in this account, given to James – to Jesus' kinsman, James. The motion is carried: the course proposed, is a sort of middle course – a sort of compromise. At the hands of Gentile proselytes, in deference to the Mosaic law, abstinence from four things is required: namely, meats offered to idols, blood, things strangled: these, and the irregularities of the sexual appetite, – whatsoever they were, that were meant by the word, rendered into English by the word fornication.
If any such decision were really come to, – by nothing but necessity – necessity produced by the circumstances of place and time – will it be found excusable. Abstinence from food killed in the way of sacrifice to heathen gods, on the occasion of public sacrifices: yes; for, for such food, little relish could remain, on the part of persons devoted to the religion of Jesus: from fornication, yes; for, for a sacrifice in this shape, even among the Gentiles, some preparation had been made by stoicism. But, as to blood and things strangled,36 that is to say, animals so slaughtered as to have more blood left in their carcasses than the Mosaic law would allow to be left in them – animals slaughtered otherwise than in the Jewish manner, – thus forbidding teachings of the religion of Jesus, to eat a meal furnished by Gentile hands, – this, as above observed, was depriving them of their most favourable opportunities, for carrying their pious and beneficent purposes into effect, by adding to the number of believers.
Altogether remarkable is the consideration, upon the face of it, by which, if the historian is to be believed, this decision was produced. "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in synagogues every sabbath day," Acts 15:21. "May be so: but what if he has? what is that to the purpose? Good, if the question were about the Jews: but, it is not about the Jews: the Gentiles, and they only, are the subjects of it. And the Gentiles – what know or care they about Moses? what is it that is to send them into the synagogues, to hear anything that is "read in synagogues"?
By this imaginary abstinence from blood, – for, after all, by no exertion of Mosaic ingenuity could the flesh ever be completely divested of the blood that had circulated in it, – of this perfectly useless prohibition, what would be the effect? – Not only to oppose obstacles, to the exertions of Christian teachers, in their endeavors to make converts among the Gentiles, – but, on the part of the Gentiles themselves to oppose to them a needless difficulty, in the way of their conversion, by rendering it impossible for them, consistently with the observance of this prohibition, to associate with their unconverted friends and families at convivial hours. Thus much as to what concerns the Gentiles.37
Since, and from that time, the religion of Jesus has spread itself: – we all see to what extent. Spread itself: and by what means? By means of the decision thus fathered upon the Apostles? Upon the Apostles, the Elders, and the whole Church? – No: but in spite of it, and by the neglect of it.
Charged with a letter, containing this decision, did Paul, together with his friend Barnabas, return from Jerusalem, – if the author of the Acts is to be believed, – to the society of Christian converts, by which he had been sent thither: charged with this letter, carrying with it the authority of the whole fellowship of the Apostles. Paul himself – he Paul – what sort of regard did he pay to it? He wrote against it with all his might. No more Jewish rites! No more Mosaic law! Such is the cry, that animates the whole body of those writings of his which have reached us.
SECTION 4.
RESULT, SUPPOSED APOSTOLIC DECREE AND LETTER TO ANTIOCH, WHICH, PER ACTS, PAUL CIRCULATES
Of a decision, agreed upon and pronounced to the above effect – a decision expressed by a decree; – and of a copy of that decree, included in and prefaced by a letter addressed to the saints at Antioch, – were Paul and Barnabas, along with others who were associated with them, on their return to that city, the bearers: – that is to say, if, as to these matters, credence is given, to the statement, made by the author of the Acts; by whom the alleged decree and letter are given, in words, which, according to him, were their very words: – these words are those which follow:
ACTS 15:22 to 3222. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren. – And they wrote letters by them after this manner: The Apostles and elders, and brethren, send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. – Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: – It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, – Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. – We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. – For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; – 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. – So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle. —Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. – And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
Supposing it genuine, – a most curious, important and interesting document, this letter and decree must be allowed to be. Supposing it genuine: and, in favor of its genuineness, reasons present themselves, which, so long as they remain unopposed, and no preponderating reasons in support of the contrary opinion are produced, must decide our judgment.
Not long after the account of the acceptance given at Antioch to this decision, – comes that of a conjunct missionary excursion from that place made by Paul, with Timotheus, and perhaps Silas, for his companion. At the very commencement of this excursion – if, in the decree spoken of, this decree is to be understood as included; and there seems no reason why it should not be, they are represented as taking an active part in the distribution of it. Acts 16:4. "And says the historian, as they" (Paul, &c.) "went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders that were at Jerusalem."
That, by Paul, this token, of association with the Apostles, should at that time be exhibited and made manifest, seems altogether natural. It affords a further proof, of the need, which, at that period of his labors, he regarded himself as having, of the appearance – the outward signs at least – of a connection with the Apostles.
True, it is, that the persuasion of any such need is altogether inconsistent with that independence, which, in such precise and lofty terms, we have seen him declaring in his Epistle to his Galatians, – is sufficiently manifest. But, in the current chronology, the date, ascribed to that Epistle, is by five years posterior, to the date ascribed to the commencement of this excursion: date of the excursion, A.D. 53; date of the Epistle, A.D. 58: difference, five years: and five years are not too great a number of years, for the experience of success and prosperity, to have raised to so high a pitch, the temperature of his mind.38
Even before this time, we find him even outstretching the concessions, which, in that decree, in the case of the Gentiles, in compliance with the scruples of the Jewish disciples they had to deal with, we have been seeing made by the Apostles, in favor of the Mosaic law. Abstinence – from meat offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication – composed all the Mosaic observances exacted in that decree. To these, he, in his practice, at this time, added another, and that, in respect of extent, in a prodigious degree a more important one: to wit, the submitting to circumcision. For, to this painful observance, – in which a submission to all the other Mosaic observances was implied, – he had already subjected his new convert Timotheus, whom, in this excursion, in addition to Silas, he took with him for a companion. Born of a Greek father as he was, – adult as he was, – he took him, says the historian, and circumcised him. Circumcised him – and why? – "Because of the Jews, which were in those quarters."39
CHAPTER VII
SECTION 1.
CONTEST AND PARTITION TREATY, AS PER ACTS, AND PAUL'S EPISTLES
GALATIANS ii. 1 to 161. Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. – And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. – But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: – and that because of false brethren unawares 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 by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you. – But of those who seemed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person: for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me; – but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; – For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: – and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. – Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. – But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. – For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. – And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also 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 Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? – We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, – knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
So much for the question about Jewish rites.
We come now to the state of affairs between Paul and Peter. Concerning this, we have little, as hath been seen, from the author of the Acts: from Paul himself, not much: but what there is of it is of prime importance.
On this occasion, to judge from the account given in the Acts, – between Paul and Peter, all was harmony. In their principles, in their speeches, they may be seen pleading on the same side: arguing, and arguing in vain, both of them against the superior influence of James: of that James, of whose written works, in comparison of those we have from Paul, we have so little. But presently, on one side at least, – we shall see contention – preserving contention – and rival ambition, for the cause of it.
In this pregnant and instructive letter, – Paul's second letter to his Galatians, – the authenticity of which seems to be altogether out of the reach of doubt, – among the particulars, that bear relation to this the third visit, the following are those, by which the greatest share of attention seems demanded at our hands.
In the first place, let us view them in the order in which they stand: that done, the degree of importance may determine the order in which they are considered.
1. Fourteen is the number of years, between this third visit of his to Jerusalem, reckoning either from the first of his visits made to that same holy place after his conversion, or from his departure from Damascus after his return thither from Arabia.
2. On this journey of his to Jerusalem, he has with him not only Barnabas, as mentioned in the Acts, but Titus, of whom no mention is there made.
3. It is by revelation, that this journey of his was undertaken.
4. The Gospel, which he then and there preaches, is a Gospel of his own.
5. Private at the same time, and for reasons thereupon given, is his mode of communicating it.
6. Titus, though at his disposal, he leaves uncircumcised.
7. False brethren is the appellation he bestows upon those, who, on this occasion, standing up for the Mosaic law, give occasion to this debate.
8. Elders, Apostles, kinsmen of Jesus, – be they who they may, – he, Paul, is not on this occasion a man to give place to any such persons: to give place by subjection: say rather in the way of subordination.
9. Unnamed are the persons, on whom the vituperation he discharges, is poured forth. Thus much only is said of them: namely, verse 12, that they "came from James," the brother of our Lord. Contemptuous throughout is the manner in which he speaks of all those persons whom he does not name. Quere, Who are they, to whom, in everything that goes before that same verse, he is alluding? It seems from thence, that it was with James, from whom they received support, that those scruples of theirs, out of which sprung these differences and negotiations, originated.
10. Leaving the Jews to Peter – he claims to himself as his own the whole population of the Gentiles.
11. To this effect, an explicit agreement was actually entered into; parties, he and Barnabas of the one part; James, Peter, by his Hebrew surname of Cephas, and John, of the other part.
12. Of this agreement, one condition was – that, of such pecuniary profit, as should be among the fruits of the labors of Paul among the Gentiles, a part should be remitted, to be at the disposal of Peter.
13. Paul, at the time of this visit, stood up against Peter.
14. The cause, of his doing so, was – an alleged weakness and inconsistency in the conduct of Peter, and his gaining to his side – not only Jews of inferior account, but Barnabas.
15. The weakness and inconsistency consisted in this: viz: that whereas he himself had been in use to act with the Gentiles, yet after the arrival at Antioch of those who came from James at Jerusalem, – he from fear of the Jewish converts, not only ceased to eat with the Gentiles, but to the extent of his influence forced the Gentile converts to live after the manner of the Jews.
16. On the occasion of this his dispute with Peter, he gave it explicitly as his opinion, – that, to a convert to the religion of Jesus, Jew or Gentile, – observance of the Mosaic law would, as to everything peculiar to it, be useless, not to say worse than useless, Gal. 2:16, "for by the works of the law shall no "flesh be justified."
1. As to his place in relation to the Apostles. His was not inferior to anybody's: upon terms altogether equal did he treat with the Apostles: in and by the first partition treaty, – he, with Barnabas for his colleague, – Barnabas, from whom, according to the Acts, he afterwards separated, – obtains the whole of the Gentile world for the field of their labors. Thus elevated, according to his account of the matter, was the situation, occupied by him on the occasion of this his third visit to Jerusalem, in comparison of what it had been at the time of his first, – and, to all appearance, at the time of the second. At the time of his first visit, the Apostles, – all but Peter and James, upon which two Barnabas forced him, – turned their backs upon him: upon his second visit, none of them, as far as appears, had anything to do with him: now, upon his third visit, they deal with him upon equal terms: and now, not only Peter and James, but John, are stated as having intercourse with him.
2. Of this partition treaty, important as it is, no mention is to be found in the Acts. From first to last, – in the account given in the Acts, no such figure does he make as in his own. In the Acts, of the speech of Peter, and even of that of James, the substance is reported: of Paul's, nothing more than the subject: viz. his own achievements among the Gentiles: against Paul's opinion, as well as Peter's, the compromise, moved by James, is represented as carried.
3. As to the cause, or occasion, of his third visit to Jerusalem. In the account given in the Acts, it is particularly and clearly enough explained. It is in conjunction with Barnabas that he goes thither: both of them, to confer with the Apostles and elders, on the subject of the notion, entertained by numbers among the Jewish converts, that, by conversion to the religion of Jesus, they were not set free from any of the obligations imposed by the law of Moses.
Of this commission, – creditable as it could not but have been to him, – Paul, in his account of the matter, as given to the Galatians, makes not the least mention. No: it is not from men on this occasion nor on others, it is not from men, that he received his authority, but from God: it is by revelation, that is, immediately from God, and by a sort of miracle.
4. What, in obedience to this revelation, he was to do, and did accordingly, was, – the preaching of a gospel of his own; a gospel which as yet he had not preached to any body but the Gentiles. Preaching? how and where? in an assembly of the whole body of the believers in Jesus, the Apostles themselves included? No: but privately, and only to the leading men among them: "to them which were of reputation."
A gospel of his own? Yes: that he did. Further on, it will be seen what it was: a Gospel, of which, as far as appears from the evangelists, no traces are to be found, in anything said by Jesus: especially, if what, on that occasion, he, Paul, taught by word of mouth at Antioch, agreed with what we shall find him teaching in his Epistles.
5. "False brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring up into bondage." Liberty? what liberty? evidently that liberty which consisted in exemption from the ceremonials of the Mosaic law. Who then were these false brethren, these sticklers for the ceremonial law? If the account in the Acts is to be believed, – they were the greater part of the fraternity of Christians in Jerusalem: a party so considerable, that Peter, the chief of the Apostles, though in his sentiments on this subject so decidedly and completely opposite to them, was obliged to give way to it: and, as to several of the obligations, – by which, as above stated, no small obstacle was opposed to the progress of the religion of Jesus, – the whole body of the Apostles found themselves under the like necessity. If he himself is to be believed, Gal. 2:12, the men in question were men, who, if they continued in those scruples in which they went beyond the brother of our Lord, had, at any rate, in the first instance, received from that highly distinguished personage their instructions. And shortly after this, Acts 16:3, in deference to this party, Paul himself "took Timothy, a Gentile, and circumcised him." But, supposing the public transactions, thus reported in the history of the author of the Acts, to have really had place; – namely, mission of Paul and Barnabas, from the Christians of Antioch to Jerusalem, – mission of Judas Barsabas and Silas, from the Apostles and elders, with Paul and Barnabas in their company, to Antioch, – letter of the Apostles and elders sent by them to the Christians of Antioch, – all this supposed, how erroneous soever in their opinions, in affirmance of the obligatoriness of these ceremonials, – this majority, to whose scruples the whole body of the Apostles saw reason to give way, – could they, by this self-intruded convert, be considered as persons to whom the epithet of false brethren, would be admitted to be applicable?