JUDAIZERS
538
JUDAIZERS
Mosaic prescriptions, they could not be saved (Acts,
XV, 1). As these men appealed to the authority of the
Apostles in support of their views, a delegation, in-
cluding Paul, Barnabas, and Titus, was sent to Jeru-
salem to lay the matter before the Apostles, that their
decision might set at rest the disquieted minds of the
Christians at Antioch (Acts, xv, 2).
In a private interview which Paul had with Peter, James (the brother of the Lord ) , and John , the Apostles then present at Jerusalem, they approved his teaching and recognized his special mission to the Gentiles (Gal., ii, 1-9). But to still the clamours of the converts from Pharisaism who demanded that the Gentile converts "must be circumcised and be commanded to observe the Law of Moses ", the matter was discussed in a pub- Uc meeting. Peter arose and after recalling how Cor- nelius and his household, though uncircumcised, had received the Holy Ghost as well as they themselves, declared that as salvation is by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the yoke of the Law, which even the Jews found exceedingly heavy, should not be imposed on the Gentile converts. James after him voiced the same sentiment, but asked that the Gentiles should observe these four points, namely "that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood ". His suggestion was adopted and, with a slight change in the wording, incorporated in the de- cree which " the apostles and ancients, with the whole church" sent to the churches of Syria and Cilicia through two delegates, Judas and Silas, who were to accompany Paul and Barnabas on their return. " For- asmuch as we have heard, " so ran the decree, " that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls: to whom we gave no command- ment; ... it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication [by which marriages within certain degrees of kindred are probably meant]; from which things keeping yourselves you shall do well" (Acts, xv, 5-29). These four prohibi- tions were imposed for the sake of charity and union. As they forbade practices which were held in special abhorrence by all the Jews, their observance was nec- essary to avoid shocking the Jewish brethren and to make free intercourse between the two classes of Christians possible. This is the drift of the some- what obscure reason which St. James adduced in fa- vour of his proposition : " For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath." The four things for- bidden are severely prohibited in Lev., xvii, xviii, not only to the Israelites, but also to the Gentiles living among them. Hence the Jewish Christians, who heard these injunctions read in the synagogues, would be scandalized if they were not observed by their Gentile brethren. By the decree of the Apostles the cause of Christian hberty was won against the narrow Judaizers, and the way smoothed for the conversion of the na- tions. The victory was emphasized by St. Paul's re- fusal to allow Titus to be circumcised even as a pure concession to the extremists (Gal., ii, 2-5).
The Incide:nt .vt Antioch. — The decision of Jeru- salem regarded the Gentiles alone, since the only ques- tion before the council was whether circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic Law were to be imposed on the Gentiles. Nothing was decided with regard to the observance of the Law by the Jews. Still even they were implicitly and in principle freed from its obligations. For, if the legal ob.servances were not necessary for .salvation, the Jew was no more bound by them than the Gentile. Nor was anything explicitly decided as to the relations which were to subsist be- tween the Jews and the Gentiles. Such a decision was not demanded by the circumstances, since at Antioch
the two classes lived together in harmony before the
arrival of the mischief-makers. The Jews of the Dis-
persion were less particular than those of Palestine,
and very likely some arrangement had been reached
by which the Jewish Christians could without scruple
eat with their Gentile brethren at the agape. How-
ever, the promulgation of the four prohibitions, which
were intended to facilitate relations, implied that Jew
and Gentile could freely meet. Hence when Peter
came to Antioch shortly after the council, he, no less
than Paul and Barnabas and the others, " did eat with
the Gentiles" (Gal., ii, 12). But the absence of any
explicit declaration gave the Judaizers an opportunity
to begin a new agitation, which, if successful, would
have rendered the decree of Jerusalem nugatory.
Foiled in their first attempt, they now insisted that the
law of not eating with the Gentiles be strictly observed
by all Jews. They very likely expected to reach by
indirect methods, what they could not obtain directly.
Some zealots came from Jerusalem to Antioch. Noth-
ing warrants the assertion that they were sent by St.
James to oppose St. Paul, or to enforce the separation
of the Jewish from the Gentile Christians, much less to
promulgate a modification of the decree of Jerusalem.
If they were sent by St. James — irpb rov i\dttv rtvtis
diri 'laKu^ov probably means simply that they were of
James's entourage — they came on some other com-
mission.
On their arrival Peter, who up to this had eaten with the Gentiles, "withdrew and .separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision ", and by his example drew with him not only the other Jews, but even Barnabas, Paul's fellow-labourer. Foresee- ing the consequences of such contluct, Paul publicly rebuked him, because he "walked not uprightly ac- cording to the truth of the Gospel ". " If thou being a Jew," he said to him, "livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" This in- cident has been made much of by Baur and his school as showing the existence of two primitive forms of Christianity, Petrinism and Paulinism, at war with each other. But anyone, who will look at the facts without preconceived theory, must see that between Peter and Paul there was no difference in principles, but merely a difference as to the practical conduct to be followed under the circumstances. " Conversationis fuit vitium non praedicationis ", as Tertullian happily expresses it. That Peter's principles were the same as those of Paul, is shown by his conduct at the time of Cornelius's conversion, by the position he took at the Council of Jerusalem, and by his manner of living prior to the arrival of the Judaizers. Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the ob.servanoe of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its pre- scriptions when occasion required (I Cor., ix, 20). Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy (Acts, xvi, 1-3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mo- saic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem (Acts, xxi, 26 sqq.). The difference between them was that Peter, recently come from Jerusalem, thought only of not wounding the susceptibility of the zealots there, and was thus betrayed into a course of action appar- ently at variance with his own teaching and calculated to promote the designs of the Judaizers; whereas Paul, not preoccupied with such a consideration and with more experience among the Gentiles, took a broader and truer view of the matter. He saw that Peter's example woidd promote the movement to avoid close relations with the Gentiles, which was only an intlircct way of forcing Jewish customs upon them. He saw, too, that if such a policy were pursued, the hope of converting the Gentiles must be abandoned. Hence his bold and energetic action. St. Paul's account of the incident leaves no doubt that St. Peter saw the justice of the rebuke. (In the above account Gal., U,
