oircumcieion" at Jernealem (Acts xi. 18), was an important event; thence- forth the principle was established that Gentiles were admissible equally with Jews to the privileges of the new covenant; and so no offence was taken at Jerusalem when, especially through the preaching of Paul and Barnabas, large numbers came straight from heathenism into the Church. But still a question remained as to the terms of admission. The strict Hebrew party at Jerusalem insisted on their being circumcised, and keeping the Law of Moses; they would have them members of the Jewish as well as of the Christian Church, after the manner of proselytes of the gate. The Council held at Jerusalem under the presidency of St. James, attended by Paul and Barnabas as advocates of freedom, and addressed in the same sense by St. Peter, decided that no such burden ought to be laid on the Gentile converts; only a few legal restrictions being for the time enjoined, apparently for the avoidance of offence. This was a second important step in advance. But it did not close the controversy. The party of Judaists, pleading, it would seem, however unjustifiably, the support of St. James (see Gal. ii. 12), still maintained their position, and endeavoured everywhere to thwart and depreciate St. Paul. So great was their influence, and so strong the feeling in Jewish circles against associating with uncircumcised converts, that even Peter and Barnabas were at one time induced to temporize (Gal. ii. 11-14). Paul, however, stood firm in asserting and acting on the principle that Christianity had become independent of Judaism, that justification was through faith in Christ and not through the works of the Law, and that to admit of any compromise would be to preach another gospel. It was through him, humanly speaking, that the true conception of what the gospel meant ;eventually triumphed, and that the Church emerged from those once bitter contests, not a sect of Judaism, but catholic for all mankind. Still, even St. Paul was very tender towards conscientious Jewish prejudices; whatever he could do to conciliate without the sacrifice of principle he did: unto the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews (1 Cor. ix. 20); he "took and circumcised" Timothy (which he could do without inconsistency in the case of one whose mother was a Jewess) "because of the Jews which were in those quarters" (Acts xvi. 3); he himself went through a ceremonial observance at Jerusalem in deference to the many believers there who were zealous for the Law (Acts x:xi. 20- 27) ; he was willing that Jewish Christians should act up to their owu convictions as long as they would leave others free; and towards those who did so, though regarding them as weak brethren, he earnestly enjoined tolerance and tenderness (Rom. xiv.; 1 Cor. x. 23, etc.). And in thus acting he was wise as well as charitable. For we can well understand how hard it would be for the Jews to give up their deeply seated hereditary prejudices, and how it would not have been desirable to subject them to so great a shock as would have been caused by requiring them all at once to do so. But when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written, the time bad com0 XX: INTRODUCTION TO
for a complete and final severance from the ancient order. For now the predicted judgment was impending on Jerusalem, the temple was about to be destroyed for ever, the whole sacrificial system connected therewith to cease, and the nation to be scattered through the world without a home in Palestine. Full time was it now for Christ's followers fully to perceive that from the old dispensation, never more than provisional, the glory was passed away: to come entirely out of the once holy but now doomed city; to lean no longer on the tottering fabric of the temple, lest their very faith should be shattered in its downfall. And there seems to have been at that time a pe1.mliar need for the not.a of warning to be loud e.nd rousing. For it appears from passages in the Epistle that some, at least, of the Hebrew Christians had shown signs of retrogression rather than of advance; they had not only failed to make the progress they should have done in apprecia- tion of the true meaning of the gospel,-they were even in danger of falling back from it to their old position. It is not difficult to understand how this might be. ,Ai', the principles of which St. Paul had been the great ad,ocate more and more prevailed, and as the Church seemed to be drifting more and more away from Israelite nationality, those who still cling fondly to old associations might easily become alarmed lest the stream should be carrying them they knew not whither. Hence a reaction in some quart.ere would be likely to set in, not without risk, such as is hinted at as possible, of entire relapse from Christianity. Then in such as were thus wavering the continued persecutions to which Christians were subjected, and the increasing obloquy in which they were held by their fellow-countrymen, and the seemingly long delay of Christ's coming which they had once believed to be close at hand, would increase doubt and faintness of heart, and cause the very faith in Christ of some to fail. It does not appear from the Epistle that this state of feeling was general among the Hebrew Christians-being only hinted at delicately from time to time, and then at once hopefully repudiated-but it evidently did prevail with some. For a final earnest warning to such as these, and for the encouragement and con- firmation in the faith of others, the Epistle was in the first place written; and it is admirably adapted for its purpose. For its main purport is to show, from the Old Testament Scriptures themselves, that the Mosaic dispensation was from the first only preparatory for and prophetic of a higher one to come which was entirely to supersede it, and that Christ had .::ome as the one only true High Priest for all mankind, the true fulfilment of all ancient ritual and prophecy, the satisfaction of all human needs, to renounce whom would be to renounce salvation. It is evident from the above review how entirely an Epistle with such a drift, and written with such a purpose, reflects the mind and spirit of St. Paul, whatever may be said of the language and the treatment of the subject handled. It expresses essentially the view of the relation of the gospel to the Law, and of the office and work of Christ, of which he had been ever the distinguished champion; and its warnings and exhortations THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. xxi