30

Acts xiii. 46. Rom. i. 5. &

JAMES, CEPHAS, AND JOHN. [GALATIANS.

7 But contrariwise, 'when they saw that the xi. 13. 1 Tim. gospel of the uncircumcision m was committed to me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

ii. 7. 2 Tim.

i. 11.

m 1 Thess. ii. 4.

n Acts ix. 15. & xiii. 2. & xxii. 21. & xxvi. 17, 18.

1 Cor. xv. 10.

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, " the same was

ch. i. 16. Col. mighty in me toward the Gentiles :)

i. 29.

• ch. iii. 5.

Ephes. ii. 20.

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who

p Matt. xvi. 18. seemed to be P pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas

Rev. xxi. 14.

q Rom. i. 5. & xii. 3, 6. & xv. 15. 1 Cor. xv. 10. Eph. iii. 8.

their personal intercourse with Him during His earthly ministry. On this it is conceivable that they might have added something, but they could not. They had not a word to say respecting the will of Christ in the matter of the circumcision of the Gentiles which would go counter to his teaching.

"God accepteth no man's person." This seems to mean: Even though a man has been the bosom friend of His Son, God will not personally accept his mere human word against the truth, even on account of such a consideration—and a higher one cannot be conceived.

7, 8. "But contrariwise, when they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision . . . mighty in me toward the Gentiles." How could they see this? Evidently in two ways: 1, ministerial success in the conversion of souls and the planting of churches; 2, in the performance of miracles as the outward signs and seals of the Apostleship. Did St. Peter restore Dorcas to life ?-so did St. Paul restore Eutychus. Did the shadow of Peter heal the sick?-so did the handkerchiefs or aprons which had touched the person of St. Paul. Did St. Peter lay his hands on men and they spake with tongues and prophesied ?—so did Paul (Acts viii. 18, xix. 6).

The words translated "wrought effectually” and “ was mighty" are the same, and might be translated by the word "energized." "He who energized for Peter energized for me."

9. “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars," &c. "Who were esteemed or reckoned pillars." They were reckoned by the Church to be what they were—what Christ Him.

CHAP. II.]

THE RIGHT HANDS OF FELLOWSHIP.

31

the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

self had made them by his whole conduct towards them, at least towards Peter and John.

Now why does the Apostle use this expression, (1) those of reputation, (2) those who were esteemed or accounted to be so? The more one thinks of the fact that the choice of the Apostles was not of themselves, but was by Christ Himself according to the will of the Father, as the Lord said, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you; "Thine they were and thou gavest them me," the more absurd it seems to suppose that St. Paul threw any doubt upon the reality of the position of SS. Peter and John. Why, then, should he designate them as oi doкouvτes? Evidently because there were some of great influence, or great seeming zeal for the law, or great pertinacity, or in other respects of great power, who were not oi dokovvτes, in the sense that the three Apostles were, but yet who desired the circumcision of the Gentiles, and everything it involved, and carried many with them. It may be asked, then, Why did not St. Peter put them down by authority? Because they were not so to be put down. He was certainly not esteemed even in the Church of Jerusalem, to be infallible. He well recollected how he was called to account by some who must have been in every respect immeasurably his inferiors, after they heard the report of the baptism of Cornelius-how they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, "Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised and didst eat with them. And how did he put down these men? Not by asserting his Apostolical authority-not by citing Scripture, but by the evidence on his behalf of the miraculous interposition of the Holy Ghost. (Acts xi. 14-17.)

What St. Paul, then, means by all this respecting the oi doкouvTES is this: Men professing to come from the Church of Jerusalem have troubled you and subverted you; but they came not from the oi doKouvres, but from men very inferior to them. The esteemed ones, the recognized leaders, acknowledged the hand of God in all that I did, and acted accordingly; for when they "perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

32

REMEMBER THE POOR.

[GALATIANS.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

r Acts xi. 30.

& xxiv. 17.

Rom. xv. 25. 1 Cor. xvi. 1.

2 Cor. viii. & ix. chapters.

There is a considerable difficulty respecting this division of labour, or compact as we may call it, because it seems never to have been strictly observed. We have no account of any missionary journeys of St. Peter, but in the account of St. Paul's work in heathen cities, we find that he constantly preached the Gospel in the synagogues, observing his own great principle, "to the Jews first." St. John's later years appear to have been spent in Ephesus gathering in Gentiles rather than Jews. Of the other nine Apostles no mention whatsoever is made, they were no doubt all dispersed in fields far apart from those in which St. Paul exercised his ministry. It is also impossible to suppose that if St. Peter preached in a city where there was a large colony of Jews that he would so confine himself to them, as not to proclaim the Gospel to the heathen outside.

The original contains no words answering to "should go," it is simply, "we to the heathen, they to the circumcision." I think that the best way of explaining it is by supposing it to refer to the exercise of Apostolical oversight. A city with a large preponderance of Jews in it would be under the oversight of the Apostles of the circumcision; a city in which the Jewish element was feeble would, if first evangelized by him, be assigned to St. Paul. The compact or agreement was no doubt made, not for the sake of avoiding collisions, but in the interests of Christianity. St. Paul was, to say the least, most unpopular with the dispersion. He seems to have had little or no success in such places as Damascus. At Antioch, in Pisidia, he made no way with his countrymen; though, as regards the Gentiles, almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. So it was also at Philippi and at Corinth. This no doubt was the principle which underlay this division of labournot the desirability of avoiding collision.

10. "Only they would that we should remember the poor," &c. This "only" shows that there was not the smallest shade of difference on important matters such as doctrinal ones. The Apostles of the circumcision first mentioned the poverty of the Jewish churches, and St. Paul, who had previously to this come with contri

CHAP. II.]

HE WAS TO BE BLAMED.

33

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, the did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Acts xv. 35.

t Acts x. 28.

& xi. 3.

11. "Peter." So D., E., F., G., K., L., most Cursives, &c.; but N, A., B., C., H., P., seven or eight Cursives, Vulg., Syriac, Copt., Arm., Æth., read, "Cephas."

12. "They were come." So A., C., E., H., K., L., P., most Cursives, Vulg., Syriac, &c.; but N, B., D., F., G., read, "he came."

butions to alleviate it (Acts xi. 29, 30), was only too glad to accede to a suggestion which might be a bond of union and brotherly love.

11-13. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because ... their dissimulation." It is sad to see the way in which this incident has been treated by controversialists. Protestants have hailed with something of malicious delight the fall, or at least the stumbling, of an Apostle, because if St. Peter could be proved to have been once in error, it is assumed that there is an end of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome; and on the other hand, some of the Fathers and others in later times, have contended that St. Peter was not really reproved by St. Paul; but that there was a sort of scene got up between them in the interests of the truth, by which, as it would seem to us, both Apostles were involved in something very like deadly sin. Protestants, if they would not play into the hands of Romanists, should remember that no Romanists contend for the sinlessness of a Pope-what they assert is that if a Pope, ex cathedrâ, delivers any opinion after due deliberation, his decree is infallible. In order to put this incident in its proper light, let us first consider the expression, "certain who came from James." What does this mean? It need only mean, and in all probability does only mean, certain Jews who came from Jerusalem, who were sent by James on some mission or other to Antioch. Now how would these people behave when they came to Antioch as regards eating and drinking? Just as they had done all their lives. Rightly or wrongly, they conceived that the profession of Christ did not forbid them to act in the manner of eating as Christ did when on earth. They would be able to adopt the words of St. Peter,

D

34

BARNABAS ALSO.

[GALATIANS.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

"Nothing common or unclean has ever entered into my mouth.” Without, then, absolutely blaming the Gentiles, they would refuse to eat with them, simply because, if they eat with them, they would do what they had never done before, they would taste of some creature which had not been properly killed, or of some animal forbidden in Levit. xi. These men would, no doubt, join in all Christian intercourse with the Gentiles of Antioch; they would join with them in prayer and thanksgiving, and in partaking of the Eucharist, but not in these feasts in their private houses.

Now St. Peter showed a discreditable fear of the prejudices of these men. Instead of boldly saying to them, as he said to Cornelius, "God hath shewed me that I should not call any thing common or unclean," he weakly gave way, and partook no more with the Gentile Christians in their food, at least for the time.

But St. Paul, by far the stronger-minded man, would not consent for a moment to this conduct. He saw at once that that great truth of the Gospel-that there was in Christ Jesus neither Jew nor Greek, that we are all one in Christ Jesus, that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth, nor uncircumcision-was imperilled; and he reproved Peter to his face before them all for changing his conduct through fear of those who came from James.

He spoke of Peter as being to be blamed. Properly rendered, "he had been condemned " by his change of conduct. He was selfcondemned: for if his conduct had been right, in treating the Gentiles as emancipated from the ceremonial law, it was now clearly wrong if he withdrew from them, as if either he or they could be defiled by that which entered into a man's mouth.

When it is said, "the other Jews dissembled with him," and that "Barnabas was carried away," it shows the urgency of the crisis.

Singular it is to reflect that in this matter, as in many others, St. Paul was the Catholic, contending for the catholicity of the Church, for if he had yielded on this point there would have been a schism in it from the beginning. The two systems, Judaism and Catholicity, could not be amalgamated: the one was national, the other knew no distinction of race in Christ; the one was local, the other universal; the one of the letter, the other of the Spirit; the