The History Of The Christian Church Volume 1, Philip Shaff 1819-1893

106 CHAPTER III THE APOSTOLIC AGE Paul whom he had recognized as a brother during his though frank manner in which, several years after the life, as a false apostle and chief of the synagogue of Satan occurrence, they allude to each other as fellow apostles, after his death. Such a reckless and monstrous assertion Comp. Gal. 1:18, 19; 2:8, 9; 1 Cor. 9:5; 2 Pet. 3:15, 16, and turns either Paul or John into a liar. The antinomian and from the fact that Mark and Silas were connecting links antichristian heretics of the Apocalypse who plunged between them and alternately served them both.241 into all sorts of moral and ceremonial pollutions (Apoc.

The Epistle to the Galatians then furnishes the prop2:14, 15) would have been condemned by Paul as much er solution of the difficulty, and essentially confirms the as by John; yea, he himself, in his parting address to the account of the Acts. It proves the harmony as well as the Ephesian elders, had prophetically foreannounced and difference between Paul and the older apostles. It exdescribed such teachers as “grievous wolves” that would plodes the hypothesis that they stood related to each othafter his departure enter in among them or rise from the er like the Marcionites and Ebionites in the second cenmidst of them, not sparing the flock (Acts 20:29, 30). tury. These were the descendants of the heretics of the On the question of fornication he was in entire harmo- apostolic age, of the “false brethren insidiously brought ny with the teaching of the Apocalypse (1 Cor. 3:15, 16; in” (Ψευδάδελφοι παρείσακτοι, Gal. 2:4); while the true 6:15–20); and as to the question of eating meat offered apostles recognized and continued to recognize the in sacrifice to idols Gr215(rA fi8coX6zvra), though he same grace of God which wrought effectually through regarded it as a thing indifferent in itself, considering the Peter for the conversion of the Jews, and through Paul vanity of idols, yet he condemned it whenever it gave of- for the conversion of the Gentiles. That the Judaizers fence to the weak consciences of the more scrupulous should have appealed to the Jewish apostles, and the anJewish converts (1 Cor. 8:7–13; 10:23–33; Rom. 14:2, 21); tinomian Gnostics to Paul, as their authority, is not more and this was in accord with the decree of the Apostolic surprising than the appeal of the modern rationalists to Council (Acts 15:29).

Luther and the Reformation.

7. Paul’s collision with Peter at Antioch, Gal. 2:11–14.

We have thus discussed at the outset, and at some which is made the very bulwark of the Tübingen theo- length, the fundamental difference of the two standry, proves the very reverse. For it was not a difference in points from which the history of the apostolic church is principle and doctrine; on the contrary, Paul expressly now viewed, and have vindicated our own general posiasserts that Peter at first freely and habitually (mark the tion in this controversy. imperfect συνησ́ θιεν,Gal.2:12)associatedwiththeGentiIt is not to be supposed that all the obscure points leconvertsasbrethreninChrist,butwasintimidated by em- have already been satisfactorily cleared up, or ever will issaries from the bigoted Jewish converts in Jerusalem be solved beyond the possibility of dispute. There must and acted against his better conviction which he had en- be some room left for faith in that God who has retertained ever since the vision at Joppa (Acts 10:10–16), vealed himself clearly enough in nature and in history and which he had so boldly confessed at the Council in to strengthen our faith, and who is concealed enough to Jerusalem (Acts 15:7–11) and carried out in Antioch. We 241 It is amusing to read Renan’s account of this dispute have here the same impulsive, impressible, changeable (St. Paul, ch. x.). He sympathizes rather with Peter, whom he disciple, the first to confess and the first to deny his Mas- calls a “man profoundly kind and upright and desiring peace ter, yet quickly returning to him in bitter repentance and above all things,” though he admits him to have been amiably sincere humility. It is for this inconsistency of conduct, weak and inconsistent on that as on other occasions; while he which Paul called by the strong term of dissimulation or charges Paul with stubbornness and rudeness; but what is the hypocrisy, that he, in his uncompromising zeal for the most important point, he denies the Tübingen exegesis when great principle of Christian liberty, reproved him public- he says: “Modern critics who infer from certain passages of ly before the church. A public wrong had to be publicly the Epistle to the Galatians that the rupture between Peter and rectified. According to the Tübingen hypothesis the hy- Paul was absolute, put themselves in contradiction not only to pocrisy would have been in the very opposite conduct the Acts, but to other passages of the Epistle to the Galatians (1:18; 2:2). Fervent men pass their lives disputing together of Peter. The silent submission of Peter on the occasion without ever falling out. We must not judge these characters proves his regard for his younger colleague, and speaks after the manner of things which take place in our day beas much to his praise as his weakness to his blame. That tween people well-bred and susceptible in a point of honor. the alienation was only temporary and did not break up This last word especially never had much significance with the their fraternal relation is apparent from the respectful Jews!”