irritation the efforts made by the community of Jerusalem, whose "pillars" were Peter, James, and John, to force Titus, a Gentile Christian, to be circumcised,(1) and even the Acts represent James and all the elders of the Church of Jerusalem as requesting Paul, long after, to take part with four Jewish Christians, who had a vow and were about to purify themselves and shave their heads and, after the accomplishment of the days of purification, make the usual offering in the Temple, in order to convince the "many thousands there of those who have believed and are all zealous for the law," that it is untrue that he teaches: "all the Jews who are among the Gentiles apostacy [———] from Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs," and to show, on the contrary, that he himself walks orderly and keeps the Law.(2) As true Israelites, with opinions fundamentally unchanged by belief that Jesus was the Messiah, they held that the Gospel was specially intended for the people of the Covenant, and they confined their teaching to the Jews.(3) A Gentile whilst still uncircumcised, even although converted, could not, they thought, be received on an
1 Gal ii. 3 ff. As we shall more fully discuss this episode
hereafter, it is not necessary to do so here.
2 Acts xxi. 18—26; cf. xv. i. Paul is also represented as
saying to the Jews of Rome that he has done nothing"
against the customs of their Fathers."
3 Dr. Lightfoot says: "Meanwhile at Jerusalem some years
past away before the barrier of Judaism was assailed. The
Apostles still observed the Mosaic ritual; they still
confined their preaching to Jews by birth, or Jews by
adoption, the proselytes of the Covenant," &c. Paul's Ep. to
Gal. p. 287. Paley says: "It was not yet known to the
Apostles, that they were at liberty to propose the religion
to mankind at large. That 'mystery,' as St. Paul calls it
(Eph. iii. 3-6), and as it then was, was revealed to Peter
by an especial miracle." A view of the Evidence, &c, ed.
Potts, 1850, p. 228.
equality with the Jew, but defiled him by contact.(1) The attitude of the Christian Jew to the merely Christian Gentile, who had not entered the community by the portal of Judaism, was, as before, simply that of the Jew to the proselyte of the Gate. The Apostles could not upon any other terms have then even contemplated the conversion of the Gentiles. Jesus had limited his own teaching to the Jews, and, according to the first Gospel, had positively prohibited, at one time at least, their going to the Gentiles, or even to the Samaritans, and if there had been an order given to preach to all nations it certainly was not accompanied by any removal of the conditions specified in the Law.(2) It has been remarked that neither party, in the great discussion in the Church regarding the terms upon which Gentiles might be admitted to the privileges of Christianity, ever appealed in support of their views to specific instructions of Jesus on the subject.(3) The reason is intelligible enough. The Petrine party, supported as they were by the whole weight of the Law and of Holy Scripture, as well as by the example and tacit approval of the Master, could not have felt even that degree of doubt which precedes an appeal to authority.
2 Dr. Lightfoot says: "The Master himself had left no
express instructions. He had charged them, it is true, to
preach the Gospel to all nations, but how this injunction
was to be carried out, by what changes a national Church
must expand into an universal Church, they had not been
told. He had indeed asserted the sovereignty of the spirit
over the letter; he had enunciated the great principle—as
wide in its application as the law itself—that' man was not
made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man.' He had
pointed to the fulfilment of the law in the Gospel. So fer
he had discredited the law, but he had not deposed it or
abolished it. It was left to the Apostles themselves under
the guidance of the Spirit, moulded by circumstances and
moulding them in turn, to work out the great change." St.
Paul's Ep. to Gal. 286.
The party of Paul, on the other hand, had nothing in their favour to which a specific appeal could have been made; but in his constant protest that he had not received his doctrine from man, but had been taught it by direct revelation, the Apostle of the Gentiles, who was the first to proclaim a substantial difference between Christianity and Judaism,(1) in reality endeavoured to set aside the authority of the Judaistic party by an appeal from the earthly to the spiritualized Messiah. Even after the visit of Paul to Jerusalem about the year 50, the elder Apostles still retained the views which we have shown to have been inevitable under the circumstances, and, as we learn from Paul himself, they still continued mere "Apostles of the Circumcision," limiting their mission to the Jews.(2)
The Apostles and the primitive Christians, therefore, after the death of their Master, whom they believed to be the Messiah of the Jews, having received his last instructions, and formed their final impressions of his views, remained Jews, believing in the continued obligation to observe the Law and, consequently, holding the initiatory rite essential to participation in the privileges of the Covenant. They held this not only as Jews believing in the Divine origin of the Old Testament and of the Law, but as Christians confirmed by the example and the teaching of their Christ, whose very coming was a substantial ratification of the ancient faith of Israel. In this position they stood when the
Gospel, without their intervention, and mainly by the exertions of the Apostle Paul, began to spread amongst the Gentiles, and the terms of their admission came into question. It is impossible to deny that the total removal of conditions, advocated by the Apostle Paul with all the vehemence and warmth of his energetic character, and involving nothing short of the abrogation of the Law and surrender of all the privileges of Israel, must have been shocking not only to the prejudices but also to the deepest religious convictions of men who, although Christians, had not ceased to be Jews, and, unlike the Apostle of the Gentiles, had been directly and daily in contact with Jesus, without having been taught such revolutionary principles. From this point we have to proceed with our examination of the account in the Acts of the relation of the elder Apostles to Paul, and the solution of the difficult problem before them.