The foregoing discussion suggests another of the main difficulties in the present study, viz. the exact nature of the relationship between Peter and St. Paul. The so-called Tiibingen School has placed great stress upon the supposed cleft between these two apostles, the former representing Jewish and the latter Gentile Christianity.* But this way of interpreting early Christian history is open to some serious objections. We have already noted the vital and important place which St. Paul's Jewish heritage continued to hold in his thinking as a Christian, even to the end of his career. It is a natural, but none the less serious, mistake to assume
* See F. C. Baur, ' Die Christuspartei in der corinthischen Geraeinde,'in Tubintjer Zeitschrift fur Theolo(jie, 1831, iv. 61- 206, and Pauhta. der Apostel Jesu Chi-isti", Stuttfrart. 1866. Amony the belter known followers of Baur are A. Hilgenfeld, C. Holsten, O. Pfleiderer, P. W. Schmiedcl.
PETER
PETER
197
tliat the legalistic controversy wliich bulks so largely in St. Paul's letters to Galatia and Rome furnishes the proper perspective in which to set the whole of the Apostle s activity and thinking. In fact, all his extant writings are designed chiedy to meet some occasional- or exceptional problem rather than to set forth comprehensively the character and content of his religion. Common possessions and generally accepted items are mentioned only incidentally, if at all, while debated points are treated at length. It is no doubt true that St. Paul strongly insisted upon the Gentiles' freedom from the ceremonial Law, but still he had much in common with his Jewish predecessors, particularly with Peter. Nor is it correct to think that St. Paul was alone re- sponsible for the whole propagation of the gospel in Gentile lands. The missionary activities of ' the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cejihas,' as well as of Barnabas, are mentioned in 1 Co 9° ; yet it may be that only their fame, and not their actual work, extended to Corinth. But it is plain from Komans that an important church had been established in the capital of the Empire without the aid of St. Paul (ct. Ko 1'""'). Even in the East he and his immedi- ate companions were not the only workers in the field, and with some of these his relations were altogether friendly (e.g. Ac 18-- ^^- 19'). It is quite inconceivable that Peter, Barnabas, Mark, and others less well known, ceased proclaiming the new faith in different parts of the Mediterranean world at the moment their names disappear from the pages of Acts. Nor is it likely that they con- fined their eHbrts exclusively to Jewish territory. But even if they did work only with Jewish audi- ences in tlie Diaspora, they would inevitably be brought into contact with Gentiles attending the services of the synagogue as interested outsiders. There were certainly Gentile Christians in the Church at Rome before St. Paul visited the city {e.g. Ko !"'• 13 n'S); and probably these were un- ciroumcised Gentiles, else the Judaizers would have had no occasion to raise tlie agitation which St. Paul's letter is evidently designed to counteract. We must conclude that the Antiochian incident is not a safe criterion by which to judge the entire history of the relationship between Peter and St. Paul, and their respective conceptions of the character of the new movement as a whole.
Still we must ask what relation Peter bore to the various disturbers who from time to time caused St. Paul so much trouble. The Judaizers of Galatia were not, even on St. Paul's own showing, repre- sentatives of Peter, although they may have used his less radical but still evident conservatism for the purposes of their self -authentication. It would have been more nearly correct for them to have laid claim to the authority of James, as perhaps they did, but St. Paul does not even identify their position with that of James. They maintained the absolute necessity of circumcision for all Gen- tiles, while both Peter and James yielded to St. Paul's demands for the Gentiles' freedom. Appar- ently this was the principle upon which Barnabas had also been working before the Judaizers caused trouble, and there is no reason to suppose that Peter had observed any difierent practice, in so far as his missionary activities had brought him into contact with Gentiles. It was the work of the reactionary Judaizers that made the problem acute, but in the nascent period of the missionary enter- prise the liberal attitude probably prevailed, not by design, but because it was a natural feature in the spontaneous growth of the new movement. Even wliile the new gospel was being preached to Jews the fundamental condition of membership in the new society was acknowledgment of Jesus' Lordship ; consequently, when Gentiles heard this
preaching — at first probably in connexion with the Jewisli synagogue — and responded by confessing their belief in the Messiahship of the Risen Jesus, they were straightway reckoned among the chosen company to receive the Lord at His coming. This was the prevalent situation until the Judaizers appeared upon tlie scene. They represented the ultra-conservative position of certain Jewish con- verts, but whether or not their propaganda eman- ated in the first instance from Jerusalem is not perfectly clear. In Pauline territory they seem to have claimed the authority of Jerusalem, but St. Paul put their claim to the test by a personal visit to the mother Church, the result of which demon- strated that the Judaizers were not backed either by James or by Peter. On the secondary question of free intercourse between Jewish and Gentile be- lievers in the same community, particularly at table, James and Peter — the latter at least tem- porarily— and even Barnabas were less ready to follow St. Paul to the logical conclusion of their common position ; but their action in this respect does not at all mean their desertion to the ranks of the Judaizers. ,