CHAP. II.] I WENT UP BY REVELATION. 25 TH CHAP. II. HEN fourteen years after I went up again to Jeru salem with Barnabas, and took Titus with Acts xv. 2. me also. b 2 And I went up by revelation, and communi- b Acts xv. 12. cated unto them that gospel which I preach among 1. "Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas," &c. I believe, as I have said in my notes on Acts xv. 1, that the journey to Jerusalem mentioned here was not the one which St. Paul took to attend the council, for then he and Barnabas were sent publicly by the Church; but that this was one of a more private character, for he was not sent apparently by any determination of the Church, but "by revelation." This "fourteen years" must have been after his first journey to interview Peter, and occurred some time during the long time mentioned in Acts xiv. 28. I have given in my notes on that passage (page 278) what I conceive to be sufficient reasons for supposing it to be a short journey not mentioned by St. Luke. “With Barnabas," i.e., before the rupture which took place respecting the conduct of John Mark, after which he does not appear to have travelled with Barnabas. "And took Titus with me." This is thrown in by the way as introductory to what he relates in verses 3 and 4. 2. "And I went up by revelation." That is by some such intimation from the Lord as that which he received at Corinth (Acts xviii. 9). "And communicated to them that Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,.... lest by any means," &c. The primâ facie sense of this passage seems to be that St. Paul laid his Gospel before the leaders, not that he was in doubt of it, but to make assurance doubly sure; not that his Gospel could possibly be false, but lest in one part of it he had expressed himself too unguardedly. For consider (if we may be allowed to use such a term) the situation. There was then no New Testament in existence, and not a single 26 LEST BY ANY MEANS. [GALATIANS. the Gentiles, but || privately to them which were of reputaOr, severally. tion, lest by any means I should run, or had run, c Phil. ii. 16. 1 Thess. iii. 5. in vain. Epistle of any Apostle that we are aware of was received by the Church as infallible. If there was any Gospel in circulation it would be that of St. Matthew. The Scriptures in circulation would have been principally those of the Old Testament, in which the converts would read, "My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant," and there was nothing, apparently, in the whole book to contradict or limit the universality of this statement. The Judaizers therefore would entrench themselves behind such a saying. Now the leaders, or oi doкouvres, at Jerusalem were not men who relied for their knowledge of the will of the Lord upon revelations only. One had been his foremost disciple, privileged to see things such as the Transfiguration, which the greater part of the Lord's chosen followers had not been permitted to see; another had lain in His bosom, another was, next to His mother, His nearest relative. `In all probability St. Paul laid before them his Gospel in order that he might pointedly and directly put to them the question, “Do you remember any one word of the Lord in which He would lead you to believe that in the case of the Gentiles baptism must be supplemented by circumcision, or that the Gentiles must keep, as far as possible, the law of Moses. He had said very emphatically that not onejot or one tittle of the law should pass away till all be fulfilled. Have you the slightest reason to believe that in saying this He intended to impose circumcision and the whole law on the Gentile world?" Now St. Paul knew perfectly well what the answer would be, but he chose, as it were, to put the matter doubtfully, as we say hypothetically, as all men who have to dispute with adversaries sometimes do. By "run, or had run, in vain," St. Paul does not mean whether on all points of the Gospel he had preached wrongly, but whether on this one point of the submission of the Gentiles he had spoken too strongly or unguardedly. The Gospel which St. Paul preached was not only Justification by Faith, but the Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of the own Son of God, and he resisted the imposition of circumcision, as we shall see (and indeed have CHAP. II.] NEITHER TITUS. 27 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our e • liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, 'that they might bring us into bondage: & Acts xv. 1, 24. 2 Cor. xi.. 26. e ch. iii. 25. & v. 1, 13. f 2 Cor. xi. 20. ch. iv. 3, 9. shown, Acts xv. p. 279), because it was at the root incompatible with the Divine claims of the Eternal Son. 66 3. "But neither Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because," &c. At first sight this seems to imply that Titus was circumcised: but if so St. Paul gave way on a vital point. Titus was a Greek, and not like Timothy, of a partially Jewish extraction. He had no reason to be circumcised. If he had been, it is difficult to see how any Gentile could have been exempted from circumcision. I think the difficulty is to be met in this way: Great influence was brought to bear upon me to have Titus circumcised, but by whom? Not by the Apostles, nor even by the Church of Jerusalem, but by a few contemptible false brethren who came in to us to spy out our liberty which we had in Christ Jesus, that they might denounce it, and bring us into bondage." Something must be added to complete the sense between " was compelled " and " and that because of false brethren," for if we allow that Titus was circumcised, then we can assign no reason why St. Paul should write this letter. By whom, then, was the compulsion attempted to be put upon Titus? Not by the Apostles, for how could St. Peter, and those in reputation, insist upon the circumcision of Titus when they had not insisted upon the circumcision of Cornelius, nor by the Church of the true brethren, though they were "all zealous for the law," but by the false brethren. The proper paraphrase will be this: But neither Titus (or not even Titus) who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. I was importuned to allow him so to be, but by whom? By false brethren unawares," &c. "Who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus." The idea seems to be that these false brethren used underhand methods to find out whether Paul and Barnabas, and those with them, rigidly conformed to the law or not. If they 28 NO, NOT FOR AN HOUR. [GALATIANS. 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. s ver. 14. ch. iii. 1. & iv. 16. h cho vị. 3. h 6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to found that they did not, then they would endeavour to bring the public opinion of Jerusalem to bear upon them. 5. "To whom we gave place by subjection, no not for an hour; that," &c. They gave not a moment's heed to the suggestion of the false brethren; which seems clear proof that they, and they only, desired the circumcision of Titus. Professor Jowett and Bishop Lightfoot raise the question whether the Apostles, Peter, James, and John, recommended concession in the case of Titus; but surely credit must be given to them for the sincerity of their words at the council. St. Peter there is reported as saying, "Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved even as they" (Acts xv. 10). These words surely have the true Gospel ring about them, and so have those of St. James, "My sentence is that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned to God" (xv. 19). 66 "That the truth of the Gospel might continue with you." But why should the truth of the Gospel be incompatible with the observance of circumcision? Did not St. Paul himself say, "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God?" Yes, it is nothing in itself; but the Judaizers did not bind circumcision upon men as a thing indifferent, but as a condition of salvation. Circumcision was the sign and seal of the Old Covenant, but Christ had by His Death and Resurrection introduced the New and Better Covenant; and no one who held the true and eternal Sonship of the Lord could submit to the sign which betokened the continued existence and validity of the Old Covenant. Submission to circumcision on the part of a Gentile was a sure sign of real unbelief. **But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me," &c. In attempting to explain this and the following verses (6-9), we must first clearly ascertain what CHAP. II.] IN CONFERENCE. 29 me: 'God accepteth no man's person :) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to i Acts x. 34. me: k Rom. ii. 11. is implied by the expression, "They who seemed to be somewhat." Does it imply that they only seemed to be something, but really were nothing? This is impossible: for the verb occurs first in the 2nd verse, in the words, "but privately to those which were of reputation; " where it has an honourable meaning. It is also impossible to avoid the same conclusion in the last instance of its use, "who seemed to be pillars." Were they not really and truly pillars? Surely the disciple whom Jesus loved, who wrote the fourth Gospel, must have been a pillar wherever he was. It would have been better if it had been translated in each case those in esteem." 66 I take the words "whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person," to mean: “Their authority simply as Apostles was nothing to me, because I am conscious by the teaching of Christ Himself that I have an independent Apostleship, as effectual for my work as theirs was for their work." If they had brought forward some distinct saying of Christ that the Gentiles were to be circumcised, and keep the whole law as the Jews did or do, then it would have been another matter altogether and a very serious one: but they did nothing of the sort. In conference they added nothing to me in the way of information respecting the will or the teaching of Christ in the matter of the standing of the Gentiles. I think that this matter will be plain if we consider the following question. For what purpose would St. Paul communicate with the elder Apostles as in verse 2? It could not be that he should submit to be guided by their Apostolical decision, for he himself had as much a right to pronounce an Apostolical decision as they had, and it would be disobedience to his Master to yield in this respect. It could not be that he should receive the knowledge of something which they had received by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for he was constantly receiving as direct inspirations as they were. The only one point conceivable in which they had seemingly a more perfect knowledge of the will of Christ, was in the matter of |