THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SOLVING OF THE PROBLEM

but that of the "pillars" at Jerusalem and unquestionably must be regarded as the primary historical source. Acts 1428-1535 contains what is generally regarded as a parallel record of the same vital controversy. In the outstanding facts the two accounts are in substantial agreement. That in Acts, however, makes it a public rather than the distinctively private conference described in the second chapter of Paul's letter to the Galatians. The influence of the author's harmonizing purpose is also apparent in the absence from his account of any reference to the radical issue between Peter and Paul regarding the obligations of Jewish and Gentile Christians where the two were associated together in the same church. To the formal decision of James and the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem Paul makes no reference in Galatians 2. The only satisfactory explanation is that Paul's private interview with the "pillars" at Jerusalem took place when he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas to present the gift of the Antioch Christians. This date is supported by Paul's clear implication that he had made no other visit to Jerusalem since his first meeting with Peter, fourteen years before his memorable interview. Paul and Barnabas, therefore, set out on their first missionary campaign with the assurance that the leaders at Jerusalem approved of their action. The public council at Jerusalem apparently came after their return two years later. This chronological arrangement solves many difficulties and brings the testimony of Paul and of Acts into substantial agreement.

III. Paul's Interview with the "Pillars" at Jerusalem. The date of Paul's memorable interview with the leaders of the Jerusalem church was probably in 47 A.D., and therefore antedated by two years the conference reported in Acts. Paul tells us that, as frequently in the great decisive moments in his life, he was led to go up to Jerusalem as the result of a special revelation, although in the same connection he speaks of the subversive influence of certain traitorous false brothers in the Antioch church who had precipitated the issue. He plainly felt that the time had arrived for decisive action. To make the question absolutely clear and concrete, he took with him Titus, a Greek Christian who had not submitted to the Jewish rite of circumcision and who, presumably because of his Gentile origin, observed none of the detailed Jewish laws. Frankly and fully Paul described to the authorities at Jerusalem the Gospel which he had been in the habit of preaching to the Gentiles and asserted its universality and applicability freed from all Jewish limitations. In the light of the facts, the "pillars" of the Jerusalem church, including the disciples Peter and

John and James the brother of Jesus (who had probably been chosen to fill the vacancy in the ranks of the Twelve due to the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee), fully accepted Paul's position and gave him the right hand of fellowship. It was decided that Paul should be allowed to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles without any limitations. The account also implies that the Twelve were to continue to preach the Gospel to the Jews and to require that the Jewish Christian converts should continue to observe the demands of their law. The only obligation laid upon Paul was the request that he remember the needs of the poor Christians at Jerusalem-a request that he declares himself eager to grant. This request was probably prompted by the actual needs of the Jerusalem Christian community, many of whom had no direct means of support, and who after the period of famine that had just preceded were in great want. It also aimed to bind together the Jewish and Gentile sections of the Christian church by practical acts of service. Furthermore, it implied a certain obligation, if not subjection, of the Gentiles to the Jews. This obligation is frankly admitted by Paul himself at the close of his letter to the Romans: "Macedonia and Achaia have decided to make a contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. Such is their decision, and it is a debt they owe them, for if the Gentiles have shared their spiritual blessings they owe them a debt of aid in material things" (1526, 27).

Paul says nothing about the public announcement of the results of this interview to the Jerusalem Christians, but it may be inferred that it was made, for the later opposition that Paul had sought to allay by his visit to the historic home of the church came not from the apostles but from certain ardent Pharisaic Christians. Paul states in Galatians 26-9 that Peter and James defended the rightness of his claims. He in turn confirmed the wisdom of this decision by telling of the significant work that he had already accomplished (in Syria and Cilicia) among the Gentiles. Paul's vivid record of his interview with the Twelve does not suggest that the slightest limitation was placed by them upon his mission to the Greek world. They simply agreed to divide the Jewish and Gentile fields and not to intrench on the work of the other. Throughout the interview the spirit of their common Master guided them in dealing with this most delicate and important question, so that without a rupture in the church the ancient Jewish bonds were thrown aside and Christianity went forth unfettered to its world conquest.

PROBLEMS IN THE GENTILE CHURCHES

IV. Problems Arising from the Association of Jewish and Gentile Christians. One vexed question remained unsolved, and before long demanded an answer. In the early church it assumed portentous proportions; but in the perspective of history it appears relatively unimportant. It became insistent in the mixed Jewish and Gentile churches, where the division between the mission to the Gentiles and that to the Jews could not be rigidly observed. Paul, on the basis of his earlier experience, fully recognized this fact. At the beginning he asserted his conviction as to what was the only satisfactory solution by taking the uncircumcised Greek Titus with him to Jerusalem and by freely associating with him. In the private interview the apostles tacitly accepted Paul's position and made no additions to it, although certain Jewish Christians opposed it from the first (Gal. 24-6). When Peter later came to Antioch, he also at first accepted it in practice as well as theory. This attitude was perfectly natural in a disciple of a Master who had freely eaten with sinners and tax-collectors and who had shown in all his career a calm unconcern for all ceremonialism. Peter needed no special vision to convince him on this point. The fraternal spirit manifest among the Antioch Christians was also indubitable evidence that their faith was rooted in something far deeper than mere ceremonial forms. It is evident, however, that during his absence on his first missionary campaign the narrow Judaizers in the Jerusalem church had been active. They were doubtless the same men who had protested against associating with the Greek Christian Titus. Reports of what Peter had been doing at Antioch had probably reached them. Their protests even influenced James to send messengers to Peter with the result that he withdrew from associating closely with the Gentile Christians. Even Barnabas yielded to the pressure of the Judaizers. Luke in Acts 1523-29 has probably embodied the essence of their demands. In any case, Paul's explicit testimony in Galatians 2 indicates that these specific regulations were issued not only after his interview with the "pillars" at Jerusalem but also after Peter's visit to Antioch. They stipulate that all Gentile Christians should abstain from things contaminated by contact with idols, from sexual vice, from the flesh of animals that had been strangled, and from tasting blood. According to the Jewish law found in Leviticus, chapters 17 and 18, these were the exact limitations placed upon foreigners resident in Palestine. While there is no evidence that Peter publicly insisted that the Gentile Christians of Antioch should observe these injunctions, his ceasing to eat

with the Gentile Christians implied a tacit acceptance of the principle involved. His motive was doubtless to maintain peace and harmony in the Palestinian church and to avoid destroying his influence with the Jews. Barnabas, with his strong Jewish inheritance and Jerusalem affiliations, evidently regarded Peter's position as tenable. It is easy to appreciate the practical considerations which influenced Peter's action. He was quite willing that Paul should preach the Gospel to the Gentiles without restriction but, recognizing that his own mission was primarily to the Jews, he deemed it unwise to openly repudiate the demands of the Jewish law.

The incident recorded in Galatians 2 may antedate certain of the facts underlying the story of Peter's vision in Acts 10, which aims to show how he was led to see that in the eyes of God there was no validity in the legal distinction between clean and unclean (109-16), and that he was to associate freely without restriction with Gentiles as well as Jews and to call no man common or unclean" (1028). His later mission to the Gentiles, to which Paul refers in I Corinthians 95, implies that in time Peter repented of the backward step which he had taken at Antioch and joined with Paul in his mission to the Greek and Roman world.

66

V. Paul's Controversy with Peter. The reason for Paul's indignation and public arraignment of Peter is obvious. He was conscious that the great apostle agreed with him in principle, but that his action was a deadly blow at the Christian liberty which Paul so ardently championed. He argued also that the work of Christ was sufficient for the salvation of both the Jew and the Gentile and that insistence upon the observation of the law was evidence of lack of faith in the Gospel. At the same time, Paul in his later writings and in his own practice strongly advocates consideration for the religious scruples of his Jewish brothers. "Therefore, if food is any hinderance to my brother's welfare, rather than injure him I will never eat flesh as long as I live" (I Cor. 813). "To the Jews I have become like a Jew to win over Jews. To those outside the law I have become like one of themselves" (I Cor. 920a, 21a). The fundamental difference between Paul's position and that of Peter and the Jerusalem apostles was that they proposed to impose definite rules upon all Gentile Christians, thus breaking the agreement into which they had entered at the memorable interview at Jerusalem, while Paul demanded for each man individual liberty, although even in his letter to the Galatians with all its protests against the Judaizing Christians, he urges: "Brothers,

PAUL'S CONTROVERSY WITH PETER

you are called to be free; only do not make your freedom an opening for the flesh, but serve one another in love" (Gal. 513). The principle involved in this great controversy was long debated in the early Christian church. Revelations 214, 20 simply emphasizes the importance of having all Christians abstain from eating things offered to idols. Not until the latter half of the first century, when Christianity broke entirely with Judaism, was the broad yet considerate position advocated by Paul universally adopted by the Christian church. Even as late as 120 A.D. the Teaching of the Twelve directs: "But as concerning foods bear that which thou art able; however, abstain by all means from meat sacrificed to idols, for it is the worship of dead gods."

VI. The Significance of the Breaking of Jewish Bonds. Viewed in the broad perspective of history, the incidents recorded in Galatians 2 mark a new epoch in the history of Christianity. What had hitherto been accepted in practice outside of Palestine was now formulated in a definite principle. Christianity stood before the Græco-Roman world completely free from the swaddling-clothes of Judaism. Henceforth the apostles to the Gentiles entered upon their noble task of interpreting the principles of Jesus into forms attractive and intelligible to that world. Paul, conscious of the strong opposition against himself and his teachings in the Palestinian church and at variance even with certain leaders like Barnabas of the Antioch church, henceforth faced with undivided zeal the Gentile mission field. The consciousness of fighting for a great principle spurred him on to still greater endeavors. It also led him to seek fields beyond the immediate pale of Jewish influence in which he could demonstrate in broader and larger measure the efficacy of the Gospel of Jesus for Gentile as well as Jew. The unfortunate by-products of the great controversy were destined to pursue him and undermine to a certain extent his work not only in Asia Minor but even in distant Corinth. At the same time it called forth some of his greatest utterances and tended to confirm him in his broad position. It was clearly the chief cause of the breach between himself and Barnabas; but the fact that he lost the companionship of his earlier co-laborer led him to rear up a group of faithful disciples who ultimately multiplied manyfold the work of the great apostle to the Gentiles. Thus out of the bitterness of the struggle came rich fruits and the Christian liberty which is man's most cherished possession.