So far as the Judaizing movement is concerned, the situation reflected in Romans is in the main similar to that in Galatians ; but in the Corinthian correspondence the opposition to St. Paul seems to have developed new features. This is not the place to discuss at length the perplexing problem of the Corinthian parties ; we are here concerned only with the question of Peter's relation to these factions. The presence of a group of persons in the Corinthian Church who said they were ' of Peter,' side by side with groups which affirmed allegiance to Apollos and St. Paul respectively, might imply that Peter, like St. Paul and Apollos, had preached in Corinth. This inference — prob- ably it was only an inference — was drawn by Dionysius of Corinth (c. A.D. 170), who spoke of this church as ' the planting of Peter and Paul ' (Eusebius, BE II. xxv. 8). Some modern .scholars regard this conclusion as historicallj' correct {e.g. K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, London, 1911, p. 11211'.), but most interpreters are of the opinion that St. Paul's language does not justify it. He says so little about the Cephas-party, mentioning it only once, or possibly twice (1 Co i'^ 3-'), and then without adequate description, that there is no means of knowing positively whether these sectaries were personally acquainted with Peter or whether they knew him only by reputa- tion. That the Corinthians were aware of his prominence in the history of Christianity is clear from St. Paul's other references to him (1 Co 9" 15°), and, as this knowledge need not necessarily have been derived from personal contact, a com- pany of Christians in Corinth may have professed loyalty to Peter simply on the strengtn of his reputation. It would not follow that these persons w'ere Judaizers of the Galatian type, but only that they took a conservative position on the question of table-fellowship between Jewish and Gentile converts. Perhaps St. Paul has reference to some such condition of atlairs when he intimates that the validity of his apostleship has been called in question by the 'weak' brethren, who have been otiended by the liberty of the ' strong,' the latter doubtless citing St. Paul as their example. It is true that the question under discussion in the context eoncerns the eating of meat ofi'ered to idols, and so is not a repetition of the Antiochian problem, but the conservative ])arty in Corinth may have ap- pealed to Peter's caution at Antioch in justification of their own conservatism in the present situation. And egged on by the opposition of the ' Paulinists,' they may readily have sought to disparage St. Paul by remarking upon the doubtfulness of his
198
PETEK
PETEK
apostolic credentials and his failure to follow the apostolic cu:stoiii of asking support from the churches. If this was the position of those who said ' I am of Cephas,' it is interesting to note how kindly they are dealt with by St. I'aul. lie does not retract fruin his position of absolute liberty in principle, but he does strongly coun.sel restraint of personal liberty as a concession to the ' weak,' and he fully justifies the conduct of Cei)has and others in ilrawing support from the churches, although he resents the insinuation that he and Barnabas are any less authoritative because they choose to forego their rights in this respect. In view of this lenient attitude of St. Paul, we cannot identify the Cephas- party with the Judaizers ; nor is there any intiuuition that the Galatiau problems — circumcision, justification by faith, and the like — had been in dispute at Corinth. On the whole, there is nothing in the situation to indicate that the relation between Peter and St. Paul, even if there was a vigorous Cephas-party in Corinth, was essentially less cordial than that between Apollos and St. Paul (1 Co 3^"^ 16"). Moreover, in comparing this with the Antiochian incident, it may be noted as further evidence of the softening effect which time had upon an earlier controversy, that Barnabas was now ranged distinctly on St. Paul's side (1 Co 9"). This fact does not wholly lose its point even if, as is sometimes imagined {e.g. W. Bousset, J. Weiss), though without ap- parent justification, St. Paul is referring specifically to the first missionary tour when he and Barnabas worked together in Asia Minor.
The Christ-party offers still greater diflSculties, so far as the question of Peter's relation to St. Paul is concerned. Whether St. Paul intended ' I am of Christ ' to designate a separate faction has been several times questioned,* though this certainly is the natural meaning of the language. But nowhere in the First Epistle is this party defined with sufficient clearness to disclose its actual character. On the other hand, in 2 Co 10 A'., St. Paul criticizes very sharply and at some length opponents who, on the strength of 2 Co 10', are often identified with the Christ-party of 1 Co 1'^ If this identification is rejected, as has often been the case {e.g., most recently, Allan Menzies, The Second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Cor- inthians, London, 1912), then the Christ-party is too obscure to have any bearing upon our present discussion. But we should still have to consider Peter's relation to the opposition mentioned in 2 Cor., of which St. Paul speaks at some length. The leaders of this faction affirmed that St. Paul walked ' according to the flesh,' while they were ' Christ's ' ; they were giving themselves exclusively to the service of Christ, while St. Paul was sup- porting himself by secular labour. Being thus professionally devoted to Christ, they were apostles par excellence, though St. Paul styled them self- made apostles, to be compared to Satan masquerad- ing as an angel of light ; and they claimed to have the proper qualifications for their office, since they were Hebrews, Israelites, of the seed of Abraham, as was Christ Himself. In comparison with these sleek ' professionalists,' St. Paul admitted that he might be ' rude of speech' and that he did work independently for his living ; but in knowledge, efficiency, and power he would not admit any inferiority. He too was a Jew, he had also shown heroic devotion, proving himself a unique minister of Christ ; and although his bodily presence was inferior, he was superior in respect of visions and revelations— in fact, God had allowed him to be afflicted with this bodily infirmity in order that