The Delegate
“On! champions blest, in Jesus’ name,
Short be your strife — your triumph full,
Till every heart have caught your flame,
And, lighten’d of the world’s misrule,
Ye soar, those elder saints to meet,
Gather ‘d long since at Jesus’ feet;
No world of passions to destroy,
Your prayers and struggles o’er, your task
All praise and joy.”
“It surely is of no slight importance that the history of the first age of Christianity should present us with one undoubted instance of a character which unites all the freedom and vigour of a great reformer with all the humbleness, and holiness, and self-denial of a great apostle.” — Stanley’s Essays on the Apostolic Age, p. 173.
C.A F-£7K/?/£:# 5 =
two travellers, then, are euce more, after a probable absence of a year and a half approaching the shores of Syria, and looking forward to a happy meeting with their loved disciples and friends at Antioch. The above picture represents them in their vessel, under a bright Eastern moonlight, about to cast anchor at the port of Seleucia. We may imagine with what fond haste they would complete the rest of the land journey; and, when the “Christian city” was at last reached, how many things they would have to tell! — their mercies, their escapes, and, above all, their missionary success. How they would long, also, to hear how the Gospel had been flourishing since they left! The writer of the “Acts” does not tell us the particulars of the meeting. When a great earthly hero returns from great exploits, he has earthly honours decreed to him. and receives the applause of senates and kings. Paul and his brother hero return from the mightiest of victories, but their reception at the Christian capital is thus briefly and simply recorded: — “And when they had come, and had gathered together the Church, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.”*
But Paul only comes back to fight a battle of a different kind. It is sad to think how, even at this early period of the Church, divisions were beginning to arise, not between Christian and heathen, but between Christian and Christian. Tares were beginning to be sown among the wheat. “An enemy hath done this!” That great enemy has well known, in every age, that to disunite believers is the surest way to cripple and weaken the Church. Moreover, how often does he seize upon the very time when a Church is prospering, thus to destroy its peace and mar its usefulness! It was so now with that at Antioch. When its outward foes were silenced, he takes the opportunity of exciting an unhappy discord among the members themselves. I must explain to you shortly, in this chapter, what these divisions arose from, and what the Apostle Paul did to heal them.
I daresay you are aware that, at this moment, when our missionaries go to India, one of the great difficulties they have to contend with is that of caste. Some Hindus consider themselves of a higher rank than others, and will hold no social intercourse with those they imagine to be beneath them. They will not eat with them, or admit them into their families. Also, in slave states, it is well known that those who
* Howson, vol. i. p. 218; Acts xiv. 27.
are either slaves, or have any African blood in them, are (sad to think) frequently not allowed to mingle in company with the rest of the people, or to visit them; not even to occupy the same cabin in a steamer, or the same seat’ in a public conveyance.* They are looked upon as a lower and inferior race, and cruelly treated, as such. It was with feelings very similar to this that the Jew of old regarded the Gentile. The former was proud of his birth and descent from Abraham, and, when he went into foreign countries, he refused to have any dealings in private life with the Gentiles around him. They might meet in the same market and transact business together, but their families had no intercourse. They might live side by side in the same street, but there was “a wall of partition between them” in more ways than one. They had, indeed, higher authority than their own for this rigid exclusion. The law given by Moses, which commanded them to abstain from different kinds of meat, forbade them to eat with the Gentiles. By doing so, they might become unclean, as the latter were often in the habit of taking various sorts of food which the Jew was not allowed by the law to touch.
The question then was, Are Jewj who have become Christians, and Gentiles who have become Christians, to forget their differences, and to meet together? or must they continue, as before, separate? Are those who are now baptized into the same Christian name, still to live apart, and eat apart, and keep up, as in former times, the old national distinctions 1 Paul found the whole Church in a very unhappy and divided state about this question. Let us hear how he tries to settle it —
* So we were informed by a friend lately in the Slave States in America.
the prudent and discreet method he adopts to bring his brethren to a right mind.
You will remember what I have already told you about Peter’s vision of the great white sheet, containing clean and unclean animals, which he was commanded to slay and eat,* and the great truth which God had by this means taught him, viz., that “He was no respecter of persons,” but intended now that the separating wall between Jew and Gentile was to be for ever taken down. When the news of Peter’s vision, and his conduct afterwards in eating with uncircumcised Gentiles, reached Jerusalem, the Church there was much displeased. Peter was blamed and called severely to account; but he brought along with him the six brethren who had gone with him from Joppa to Cesarea; these declared how they had, with their own eyes, seen the gift of the Holy Ghost poured out on the Gentiles. Those who had at first expressed themselves unfavourably to “the apostle of the uncircumcision,” were obliged to own the Divine hand in the matter, and, indeed, they even “gave thanks that God had also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life.” But, notwithstanding all this outward show of satisfaction, many were still displeased; they could not bear the thought of losing their national distinction; they remembered that Jesus himself, on one occasion, had said, that He was “sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” They were slow to believe that, as there was but “one Shepherd,” so there was to be but “one sheepfold.” Could they not be Christians, and yet still have a separate Jewish and Gentile Church 1 Perhaps these feelings increased in strength
* Acta X.
when the accounts reached them of how Paul and Barnabas had been freely mixing with Gentile converts in Crete, Antioch, Lystra, and Derbe; and that “He who had wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same had been mighty in Paul toward the Gentiles.” At that time some Christians, who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees, had gone down from Jerusalem to Antioch, and did all they could to induce the Jewish Christians there to refuse holding fellowship with Gentile converts. They taught them the dangerous doctrine, that unless they observed the Jewish law, they could not be saved; that Christian baptism would be of no avail, unless accompanied with the old Jewish rite of circumcision. “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved!” Paul was, like Moses, a meek man of God, gentle and loving; but whenever he saw the truth of his God assailed, like Moses, too, he could be bold as a lion; and at present, when he observed the damage these false teachers were doing, he tells us “he could not give place by subjection, no not for an hour.” He discovered at once the great danger that would arise to the souls of the disciples, if this doctrine were tolerated; since whatever was thus put upon an equality with the one great sacrifice of our Lord, whether it were ceremonial or moral obsei*- vances, would dim the glory of the Redeemer’s work, and render the cross of Christ of none effect.* This most unfortunate dissension continuing thus so sorely to vex and disturb the minds of the Gentile converts, Paul and Barnabas were requested to go up to Jerusalem, to lay the matter before the apostles and bre-
* Blunt, p. 188. K thren there, and get their advice. It is probable that Paul gladly availed himself of the opportunity, that he might give in to the mother Church the first great missionary report, and tell how the Lord had prospered his work among the heathen. Moreover, he had a higher inducement than his own wishes in taking the journey — God himself had told him to go. He mentions expressly, in his epistle to the Galatians, that he went “by revelation.” *”
His two companions were well selected. Barnabas was himself a Jew and a Levite. Titus, his other fellow-traveller, and of whom we shall hear more afterwards, was a young and uncircumcised Greek, and therefore a good sample of a heathen convert. They journeyed along the coast-road through Phenicia; thence to Samaria. It would seem they were not travelling among strangers to the gospel, for we are told that, as they passed through, “declaring the conversion of the Gentiles, they caused great joy to all the brethren.” t
We have the old scholar of Gamaliel, then, once more, after many eventful years, entering the scene of his youth, and of his first persecuting fury. He would likely pass by the well-remembered Damascus gate, and skirt the ridges of the valley of Jehoshaphat. Perhaps, since his last visit, some of those who had “sat with him at Gamaliel’s feet,” had been brought to sit at the feet of Jesus. But if they had, he had come upon the present occasion, it is to be feared, to dispute with many of them, and oppose them. For while they sat at the feet of Christ, they wished to sit at the feet of Moses too. Though they had taken the name of Jesus, they were not willing to part with the
* Galatians ii. 2. t Acts xv. 3 name of Pharisee, and, like himself, to suffer the loss of “all”
On reaching Jerusalem, the Great Apostle determined, before meeting the brethren in public, to see Peter, James, and John in private. After holding a meeting with these “pillars of the Church,” the General Assembly, or, as it is called in Church history, the First General Council, was convened. There seems to have been at first much “disputing” on the question. The Pharisees “who believed “strongly held to the views already stated. We have only, however, four speeches mentioned — those of Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James. They all took the same view. Peter, who. held the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” in the sense I have explained, rose first to address. He was heard with marked attention. He declared again what God had revealed to him by means of the vision at Joppa — that there was now no longer “any difference “— that” the same Lord over all was rich to all that call upon Him.” He reminded his hearers that the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentile converts, and that the yoke of the Jewish law was “a burden which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear.” Peter’s words made a deep impression on his audience. After a few moments” silence, Paul and Barnabas followed. We may readily imagine the interest which pervaded the assembly as the two “foreign missionaries” rose to tell all that God had done in their behalf. The last speaker was James “the Just” — so called, the historian Eusebius mentions, on account of his eminent virtue. Hegesippus (a converted Jew, who lived in the second century) tells us that he led a life of great sanctity; * and other traditions further picture him as an old and venerable man, with a bald head and long unshorn beard, with his feet bare, and wearing a linen ephod, yet so greatly esteemed that the people vied with each other to touch even the hem of his garment, t He was equally decided with the others in his opinion that nothing should be done to prevent the free admission of the Gentiles into the Christian Church, or to stop a work which God had so evidently favoured, by continuing to impose the old ceremonial observances. The glorious truth was then finally proclaimed, that there was to be “neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond or free, but Christ was all and in all.”
The settlement of this question was in every way important. For although Christians have never sought since that time to unite the service of Christ with obedience to the old ceremonial law, there has ever been a tendency in the human heart to combine some good works of our own with the one great work of Jesus. Some would look to their virtues and moral duties, and mix up these with the one only salvation; others would look to church observances and church forms, to sacraments and penances, and mix these up along with the “one only way.” To do so is sadly dishonouring to Him who will not give His glory to another. The First Council in Jerusalem gave forth a decree to the whole world, and to the Church in every age, as to what forms a true Christian in the sight of God —
* Biblical Cyclopedia,
f See Stanley’s Sermons on the Apostolic Age, p. 295.
“Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.” We may just further note, with reference to this Church Assembly of the brethren, that Paul was publicly acknowledged by them as “the Apostle of the Gentiles.”
One of the three “pillars of the Church” here mentioned was silent in the Council! It was “the Apostle of Love,” John, who leaned on Jesus’ bosom; “who, beyond any other of the sons of men, had received the impression of the Divine character;.... one simple, unadorned spectacle of moral and spiritual excellence, enshrined as if in its own heavenly light, irradiating everything that fell within its sphere .... by the crystal purity of a heart and mind penetrated through and through with the indwelling spirit of Christ.”* It is the only time we ever read of Paul and he meeting one another. They were very different in natural disposition; but they were one in intense affection for their glorified Master. Though John made no speech, so far as we know, in the Jerusalem Assembly, he gave at the end of the discussion the right hand of fellowship to his “brother Paul,” and cordially joined in the decision which was given.t A letter was drawn up in the name of the Assembly, in order to be conveyed by the hands of Paul to the Gentile brethren at Antioch. It is short, but of much interest, as being the first document of the kind we have given forth by a Church court.
It was the custom, in these ages of the world, when a letter of any importance was sent, to appoint some noted individuals to be the bearers. This was done not only to prevent any accident befalling such com-
* Stanley’s Sermons, p. 256. f See Howson, vol. i. p. 235.
munications, and to secure their safety, but that these messengers might be able to enter into any explanations which might be required. Judas and Silas (Silvanus) were appointed to accompany Paul, Barnabas, and Mark for this purpose.
We may imagine the great interest excited in the Church of Antioch, when the tidings spread, “The brethren with envoys have arrived! and they have a pastoral letter with them from the assembled apostles at Jerusalem! ““We may picture a crowded church in the great Syrian city, where the following communication was read amid breathless silence: — “The apostles, and elders, and brethren, send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment: it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul; men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”* Judas and Silas still further explained the scope and contents of the letter by word of mouth. What was the result 1 It was a very
* Acts xv. 23-30.
happy one; the storm -was immediately changed into a calm, and the agitated minds of the Antioch disciples soothed.
Judas, after spending some further time in this city, returned to Jerusalem. Silas, as we shall afterwards find, remained, and became Paul’s companion on his second missionary journey, as Barnabas had been in his first.
There was an occurrence which took place at Antioch, before setting out on this second missionary tour, which greatly grieved and troubled Paul. The first of those who had so decidedly spoken in the assembly at Jerusalem, about the necessity of doing away with all distinction between Jew and Gentile, was the Apostle Peter; yet he was himself (on a visit he paid to Antioch) the first to act contrary to his public declaration. On going there, he mingled freely with the Gentile converts, dining with them at their meals, and sharing with them their “Agape” or love-feasts. But, soon after, when some of the Judaising party had come down from Jerusalem (who he knew would be displeased at seeing him sitting at the same table with his Gentile friends), the apostle began to waver; he changed his manner altogether towards the converted heathen; he no longer ate with them, nor would sit at the same Lord’s table with them; he raised, once more, the old wall of separation! He performed, in this, a double and sinful part. It was the same lamentable weakness which led him, three times before, to deny his Lord and Master. Paul was roused to a holy indignation against his erring brother, and “withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed.” It was an unworthy fear of man which made the former desert the path of duty, and his conduct was likely to produce much mischief, as “even Barnabas was carried away with his dissimulation.”* We cannot wonder, therefore, that Paul was obliged to do what must have pained him much — to “rebuke Peter before all.”t We believe that sharp as the rebuke was, it was given and received in love. Peter’s character was bold and rash, and this was not the first time in which he had been a traitor to truth, and a coward; but we have reason to think also that he was kind and forgiving — ready to “weep bitterly” when he saw his faults. This would seem to have been the case now; at all events, he died twenty years after, loving Paul, and speaking of him to all the Churches as a “beloved brother.” J. We should have been sorry to have wanted this short clause in the end of one of his letters — “Our beloved brother Paul!” We might have been apt, otherwise, to fear that Paul’s rebuke had created a sore quarrel between them, which they had carried to the grave; but no such thing: grace brought about what nature might not have done.
“It is pleasing,” says an able writer, “to trace the traditionary confirmations of their entire unity — the unity which joins St Peter to St Paul, rather than to his own early friend, St John — the legends which represent them as joint rulers of Antioch, Corinth, and Rome — both confined in the Mamertine dungeon — both receiving the crown of martyrdom on the same day — and, in all the early works of Christian art, both ever exhibited side by side; the one with his inverted cross — the other ’ with the executioner’s sword.’ “§
* Gal. ii. 13. f Gal. ii. 11. % 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16.
§ Stanley’s Semions and Essays on the Apostolical Age, p. 101. See also Howson, p. 243.
These, doubtless, are no more than vague legends and traditions, and must be received with caution; but they are sufficient to show what the impression of the early ages of the Church was as to the sacred harmony existing between these two truly great men — that they died faithful to their blessed Master’s last bequest — “This is my commandment, that ye love one another.”