No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2025
‘But when Cephas was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James he did eat with the Gentiles : but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou being a Jew livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live asi the Jews?’
(Galatians II, 11-14.)
The circumstances of the Epistle to the Galatians are these :—
1. St. Paul had preached to the Galatians. He had taught them that Gentile converts need not be circumcised (Jewish converts would be already circumcised); and that the neo-Christians were not bound to observe the Law. ‘Behold I Paul tell you that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing’ (v. 2).
2. A group of Christians, probably quoting the authority of St. James, Bishop of Jerusalem, took advantage of St. Paul’s absence from Galatia to teach that circumcision was necessary for the convert Gentiles. ‘. . . they will have you to be circumcised’ (vi. 13), ‘. . . a little leaven’ (v. 9), ‘. . . some that trouble you would pervert the gospel of Christ’ (i. 7).
3. It is therefore a matter of dispute between one apostle (Paul) and at least the followers of another (James).
In such a dispute the most important element is the tribunal of appeal, without which no agreement between the parties disagreeing can be found.
The appeal—explicit or implicit—seems to have been to the authority or practice of St. Peter.
4. But St. Peter was claimed by both sides. The lovScuoi from Jerusalem could claim that St Peter had allowed St. James’s view to determine his own-course of action. ‘Before that some came from James he (Peter) did eat with the Gentiles. But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself’ (ii. 12).
St. Paul does not deny (a) the authority of St. Peter or (b) the alleged fact. He does not say ‘Peter’s action is of no authority.’