apostle Peter also joined the company of preachers of the gospel here assembled, who beheld the apostles of the Jews and the apostle of the Gentiles united in true Christian fellowship with one another, in accordance with the spirit of the resolutions adopted by the Council at Jerusalem.

But this beautiful unanimity was disturbed by some Judaizing zealots, who came from Jerusalem probably with an evil design, since what they had heard of the free publication of the gospel among the heathen was offensive to their contracted feelings. For a considerable time the pharisaicallyminded Jewish Christians appeared to have been silenced by the apostolic decisinos, but they could not be induced to give up an opposition so closely allied with a mode of thinking exclusively Jewish, against a completely free and independent gospel. The constant enlargement of Paul's sphere of labour among the heathen, of which they became more fully aware by his journeys to Jerusalem and Antioch, excited afresh their suspicion and jealousy. Though they professed to be delegates sent by James from Jerusalem,' it by no means follows that they were justified in so doing; for before this time such Judaizers had falsely assumed a similar character. These persons were disposed not to acknowledge the uncircumcised Gentile Christians, who observed no part of the Mosaic ceremonial law, as genuine Christian brethren, as brethren in the faith, endowed with privileges equal to their own in the kingdom of the Messiah. As they looked upon them as still unclean, they refused to eat with them. same Peter who had at first asserted so emphatically the equal rights of the Gentile Christians, and afterwards at the last apostolic convention had so strenuously defended them, now allowed himself to be carried away by a regard to his countrymen, and for the moment was faithless to his principles. We here recognise the old nature of Peter, which, though conquered by the spirit of the gospel, was still active, and on some occasions regained the ascendency. The same Peter who, after he had borne the most impressive

The

the avaßàs must be superfluous, and the Kaтéßŋ would not suit the geographical relation of Cæsarea to Antioch.

This is not necessarily contained in the words τινὲς ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου, which may simply mean that these persons belonged to the church at Jerusalem, over which James presided.

testimony to the Redeemer, at the sight of danger for an instant denied him. The example of an apostle whose character stood so high, influenced other Christians of Jewish descent, so that even Barnabas withdrew from holding intercourse with Gentile Christians. Paul, who condemned what was evil without respect of persons, called it an act of hypocrisy. He alone remained faithful to his principles, and in the presence of all administered a severe reprimand to Peter, and laid open the inconsistency of his conduct. "Why, if thou thyself," he said, "although thou art a Jew, hast no scruple to live as a Gentile with the Gentiles, why wilt thou force the Gentiles to become Jews? We are born Jews-we, if the Jews are right in their pretensions, were not sinners like the Gentiles, but clean and holy as born citizens of the theocratic nation. But by our own course of conduct, we express our contrary conviction. With all our observance of the law, we have acknowledged ourselves to be sinners who are in need of justification as well as others, well knowing that by works, such as the law is able to produce,1 no man can be justified before God; but this can only be attained by faith in Christ, and having been convinced of this, we have sought justification by him alone. But this conviction we contradict, if we seek again for justification by the works of the law. We therefore present ourselves again as sinners2

1 We may here notice briefly what will be more fully developed when we come to treat of the apostolic doctrine, that Paul by gyors voμov understands works which a compulsory, threatening law may force a man to perform, in the absence of a holy disposition. The idea comprehends the mere outward fulfilling of the law, in reference to what is moral as well as what is ritual. Both, which are so closely connected in Judaism, maintain their real importance only as an expression of the truly pious disposition of dikaιoσuvn. The idea of the moral or the ritual predominates only according to the varied antithetical relation of the phrase. In this passage, a special reference is made to the ritual.

The words, Gal. ii. 18, "If what I have destroyed (the Mosaic law) I build up again, (like Peter, who had practically testified again to the universal obligation of the Mosaic law), I must look upon myself as a transgressor of the law, as a sinner." (Paul here supposes Peter to express the conviction, that he had done wrong in departing from the law, that he was guilty of transgressing a law that was still binding.) I cannot perfectly agree with Rückert's exposition, who supposes these words to be used by Paul in reference to himself. For this general proposition would not be correct, "Whoever builds up again what he has pulled down pursues a wrong course." If he had done wrong in pulling down, he would do right in building up what had been pulled

needing justification, and Christ, instead of justifying us from sin, has deprived us of the only means of justification and led us into sin, if it be sin to consider ourselves freed from the law. Far be this from us."

If we fix this controversy of Paul and Peter,' which as the

down; and even the opponents of Paul maintained the first; they could not therefore be affected by that proposition, and the logical Paul would have taken good care not to express it.

1 Paul's reprimand of Peter (Gal. ii.) appears to reach only as far as the 18th verse, excl. What follows, by the transition from the plural to the singular, and by the yàg, is shown to be a commentary by Paul on some expressions which, uttered in the warmth of feeling, might be somewhat obscure, and evidently not a continuation of his address. As to the date of this interview with Peter, we readily allow that we cannot attain to absolute certainty. Paul himself narrates the occurrence immediately after speaking of that journey to Jerusalem which we find reasons for considering as his third. And, accordingly, we suppose that this event followed the apostolic convention at Jerusalem. And probably many persons would be induced, by the report of what had taken place among the Gentile Christians, (which to Jewish Christians must have appeared so very extraordinary), to resort to the assembly of the Gentile Christians at Antioch, partly in order to be witnesses of the novel transactions, and partly out of suspicion. According to what we have before remarked, it is not impossible that these Judaizers, soon after the resolutions for acknowledging the equal rights of Gentile Christians were passed, became unfaithful to them, because they explained them differently from their original intention. But there is greater probability, that these events did not immediately succeed the issuing of those resolutions. It is by no means evident that Paul, in this passage of the Epistle to the Galatians, intended to observe chronological exactness. He rather appears to be speaking of an event which was quite fresh in his memory, and had happened only a short time before. Besides the two suppositions here mentioned, a third is possible, which has been advocated by Hug and Sneckenburgh; namely, that this event took place before the apostolic convention. But though Paul here follows no strict chronological order, yet it is difficult to believe that he would not place the narrative of an event, so closely connected with the controversies which gave occasion to his conferences with the apostles at Jerusalem, at the beginning, instead of letting it follow as supplementary.

2 Confessedly a mistaken reverence for the apostle led many persons in the ancient (especially the eastern) church to a very unnatural view of this controversy. They adopted the notion that Peter and Paul had an understanding with one another, that both, the one for the advan tage of the Jews, the other for the advantage of the Gentile Christians, committed an officiosum mendacium, in order that no stain might rest on Peter's conduct. Augustin, in his Epistle to Jerome, and in his book De Mendacio, has admirably combated this prejudice, and the false interpretation founded upon it.

following history shows, produced no permanent separation between them-exactly at this period, it will throw much light on the connexion of events. Till now the pacification concluded at Jerusalem between the Jewish and Gentile Christians had been maintained inviolate. Till now Paul had to contend only with Jewish opponents, not with Judaizers in the churches of Gentile Christians ;-but now the opposition between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, which the apostolic resolutions had repressed, again made its appearance. As in this capital of Gentile Christianity, which formed the central point of Christian missions, this controversy first arose, so exactly in the same spot it broke forth afresh, notwithstanding the measures taken by the apostles to settle it; and having once been renewed, it spread itself through all the churches where there was a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. Here Paul had first to combat that party whose agents afterwards persecuted him in every scene of his labours. It might at first appear strange, that this division should break out exactly at that time; at the very time when the manner in which Paul had just appeared at Jerusalem, having become to the Jews a Jew, might have served to make a favourable impression on the minds of those Christians who were still attached to Judaism. But although it might thus operate on the most moderate among them, yet the event showed, that on the fanatical zealots, whose principles were too contrary to admit of their being reconciled to him, it produced quite an opposite effect, when they saw the man who had spoken so freely of the law—who had always so strenuously maintained the equal rank of the uncircumcised Gentile Christian with the Jewish Christians, and whom they had condemned as a despiser of the law, when they saw this man representing himself as one of the believing Jewish people. They well knew how to make use of what he had done at Jerusalem to his disadvantage; and by representing his actions in a false light, they accused him of inconsistency, and of artfully attempting to flatter the Gentile Christians.

The influence of this party soon extended itself through the churches in Galatia and Achaia. It is true that Paul, when, after leaving his friends at Antioch, he visited once more the churches in Phrygia and Galatia, on his way to Ephesus,

whither he had promised to come on his return, observed no striking change among them. But still, he remarked, that

1 He expresses to the Galatian churches his astonishment, that they had deserted, so soon after his departure, the evangelical doctrine for which they had before shown so much zeal; Gal. i. 6. As several modern writers (particularly Rückert) have maintained it as an ascertained fact, that Paul, during his second residence among the Galatian churches, had to oppose their tendency to Judaism, we must examine more closely the grounds of this assertion. As to Gal. i. 9, I cannot acknowledge as decisive the reasons alleged by Rückert, Usteri, and Schott, against these words being an impassioned asseveration of the sentiment in the preceding verse, and in favour of their being a reference to what he had said, when last with them. Might it not be a reference to what was written before, as Eph. iii. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 2? For that what he refers to, in both these passages, is rather more distant, makes no difference in the form of the expression. But if these words must refer to something said by Paul at an earlier period, yet the consequence which Rückert believes may be drawn from them, does not follow; for though Paul had no cause to be dissatisfied with the church itself, yet after what he had experienced at Antioch, added to the earlier leaning of a part of the church to Judaism, he might consider it necessary to charge it upon them most impressively, that under whatever name, however revered, another doctrine might be announced to them, than what he had preached, such doctrine would deserve no credit, but must be Anti-Christian. Although Gal. v. 21 certainly refers to something said by the apostle at an earlier period, yet nothing further can be concluded from it: for in every church, he must have held it very necessary to make it apparent, that men would only grossly flatter themselves if they imagined that they could enter the kingdom of heaven without a complete change of heart and conduct; 1 Thess. iv. 6; Eph. v. 5. 6. The words in Gal. v. 2, 3, must be thus understood, "As I said, that whoever allows himself to be circumcised renounces his fellowship with Christ, so I testify to such an one again, that he is bound to fulfil the whole law." Evidently, the second and third verses relate to one another; the thoughts are correlative. If Paul intended to remind the Galatians of warnings he had given them by word of mouth, why did he not insert the wά in verse 2? since what is there expressed forms the leading thought, and requires the strongest emphasis to be laid upon it. Also in the fact, that without any preparation, as in his other epistles, he opens this with such vehement rebuke, I cannot with Rückert find a proof that during his former residence among these churches he had detected the Judaizing tendency among them, and was forced to involve all in blame, in order to bring them back to the right path. This very peculiarity in the tone with which the epistle begins may be easily explained, if we suppose that since, during his presence among them, he had perceived no departure from the doctrine announced to them-and had warned them beforehand of the artifices of the Judaizers-the sudden information of the effect produced among them by this class of persons had more painfully surprised, more violently affected him; and the whole epistle bears the marks of such an impression on his mind.