[------] to "his habitation" [------], a considerable liberty to take with prophecy. The Holy Spirit is said to have
{107}
spoken this prophecy "concerning Judas" "by the mouth of David," but modern research has led critics to hold it as most probable that neither Ps. lxix.(1) nor Ps. cix.(2) was composed by David at all. As we know nothing of Peter"s usual system of exegesis, however, very little weight as evidence can be attached to this. On the other hand, it is clear that a considerable time must have elapsed before these two pa.s.sages from the Psalms could have become applied to the death of Judas.(3)
The account which is given of the fate of Judas is contradictory to that given in the first Synoptic and cannot be reconciled with it, but follows a different tradition.(4) According to the first Synoptic (xxvii. 3 ff.), Judas brings back the thirty pieces of silver, casts them down in the Temple, and then goes and hangs himself. The chief priests take the money and buy with it the Potter"s field, which is not said to have had any other connection with Judas, as a place for the burial of strangers. In the Acts, Judas himself buys a field as a private possession, and instead
{108}
of committing suicide by hanging, he is represented as dying from a fall in this field, which is evidently regarded as a special judgment upon him for his crime. The apologetic attempts to reconcile these two narratives,(1) are truly lamentable. Beyond calling attention to this amongst other phenomena presented in this speech, however, we have not further to do with the point at present We have already devoted too much s.p.a.ce to Peter"s first address, and we now pa.s.s on to more important topics.
CHAPTER IV. PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY.
We now enter upon a portion of our examination of the Acts which is so full of interest in itself that peculiar care will be requisite to restrain ourselves within necessary limits. Hitherto our attention has been mainly confined to the internal phenomena presented by the doc.u.ment before us, with comparatively little aid from external testimony, and although the results of such criticism have been of no equivocal character, the historical veracity of the Acts has not yet been tested by direct comparison with other sources of information. We now propose to examine, as briefly as may be, some of the historical statements in themselves, and by the light of information derived from contemporary witnesses of unimpeachable authority, and to confront them with well-established facts in the annals of the first two centuries. This leads us to the borders not only of one of the greatest controversies which has for half a century occupied theological criticism, but also of still more important questions regarding the original character and systematic development of Christianity itself. The latter we must here resolutely pa.s.s almost unnoticed, and into the former we shall only enter so far as is absolutely necessary to the special object of our inquiry. The doc.u.ment before us professes to give a narrative of the progress of the
{110}
primitive Church from its first formation in the midst of Mosaism, with strong Judaistic rules and prejudices, up to that liberal universalism which freely admitted the christian Gentile, upon equal terms, into communion with the christian Jew. The question with which we are concerned is strictly this: Is the account in the Acts of the Apostles of the successive steps by which Christianity emerged from Judaism, and, shaking off the restrictions and obligations of the Mosaic law, admitted the Gentiles to a full partic.i.p.ation of its privileges historically true? Is the representation which is made of the conduct and teaching of the older Apostles on the one hand, and of Paul on the other, and of their mutual relations an accurate one? Can the Acts of the Apostles, in short, be considered a sober and veracious history of so important and interesting an epoch of the christian Church? This has been vehemently disputed or denied, and the discussion, extending on every side into important collateral issues, forms in itself a literature of voluminous extent and profound interest. Our path now lies through this debatable land; but although the controversy as to the connection of Paul with the development of Christianity and his relation to the Apostles of the Circ.u.mcision cannot be altogether avoided, it only partially concerns us. We are freed from the necessity of advancing any particular theory, and have here no further interest in it than to inquire whether the narrative of the Acts is historical or not. If, therefore, avoiding many important but unnecessary questions, and restricting ourselves to a straight course across the great controversy, we seem to deal insufficiently with the general subject, it must be remembered that the argument is merely incidental to our inquiry, and that we not only do not
{111}
pretend to exhaust it, but distinctly endeavour to reduce our share in it to the smallest limits compatible with our immediate object.
According to the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles, the apostolic age presents a most edifying example of concord and moderation. The emanc.i.p.ation of the Church from Mosaic restrictions was effected without strife or heart-burning, and the freedom of the Gospel, if not attained without hesitation, was finally proclaimed with singular largeness of mind and philosophic liberality. The teaching of Paul differed in nothing from that of the elder apostles. The christian universalism, which so many suppose to have specially characterized the great Apostle of the Gentiles, was not only shared, but even antic.i.p.ated, by the elder Apostles. So far from opposing the free admission of the Gentiles to the christian community, Peter declares himself to have been chosen of G.o.d that by his voice they should hear the gospel,(1) proclaims that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile,(2) and advocates the abrogation, in their case at least, of the Mosaic law.(3) James, whatever his private predilections may be, exhibits almost equal forbearance and desire of conciliation. In fact, whatever anomalies and contradictions may be discoverable, upon close examination, beneath this smooth and brilliant surface, the picture superficially presented is one of singular harmony and peace. On the other hand, instead of that sensitive independence and self-reliance of character which has been ascribed to the Apostle Paul, we find him represented in the Acts as submissive to the authority of the "Pillars" of the church, ready to conform to their
{112}
counsels and bow to their decrees, and as seizing every opportunity of visiting Jerusalem, and coming in contact with that stronghold of Judaism. Instead of the Apostle of the Gentiles, preaching the abrogation of the law, and more than suspected of leading the Jews to apostatize from Moses,(1) we find a man even scrupulous in his observance of Mosaic customs, taking vows upon him, circ.u.mcising Timothy with his own hand, and declaring at the close of his career, when a prisoner at Rome, that he "did nothing against the people or the customs of the fathers."(2) There is no trace of angry controversy, of jealous susceptibility, of dogmatic difference in the circle of the apostles.
The intercourse of Paul with the leaders of the Judaistic party is of the most unbroken pleasantness and amity. Of opposition to his ministry, or doubt of his apostleship, whether on the part of the Three, or of those who identified themselves with their teaching, we have no hint. We must endeavour to ascertain whether this is a true representation of the early development of the Church, and of the momentous history of the apostolic age.
In the epistles of Paul we have, at least to some extent, the means of testing the accuracy of the statements of the Acts with regard to him and the early history of the Church. The Epistles to the Galatians, to the Corinthians (2), and to the Romans are generally admitted to be genuine,(3) and can be freely used for this purpose. To these we shall limit our attention, excluding other epistles, whose authenticity is either questioned or denied, but in doing so no material capable of really affecting the result is set aside. For the same reason, we
{113}
must reject any evidence to be derived from the so-called Epistles of Peter and James, at least so far as they are supposed to represent the opinions of Peter and James, but here again it will be found that they do not materially affect the points immediately before us. The veracity of the Acts of the Apostles being the very point which is in question, it is unnecessary to say that we have to subject the narrative to examination, and by no means to a.s.sume the correctness of any statements we find in it. At the same time it must be our endeavour to collect from this doc.u.ment such indications--and they will frequently be valuable--of the true history of the occurrences related, as may be presented between the lines of the text.
In the absence of fuller information, it must not be forgotten that human nature in the first century of our era was very much what it is in the nineteenth, and certain facts being clearly established, it will not be difficult to infer many details which cannot now be positively demonstrated. The Epistle to the Galatians, however, will be our most invaluable guide. Dealing, as it does, with some of the princ.i.p.al episodes of the Acts, we are enabled by the words of the apostle Paul himself, which have all the accent of truth and vehement earnestness, to control the narrative of the unknown writer of that work. And where this source fails, we have the unsuspected testimony of his other epistles, and of later ecclesiastical history to a.s.sist our inquiry.
The problem then which we have to consider is the manner in which the primitive Church emerged from its earliest form, as a Jewish inst.i.tution with Mosaic restrictions and Israelitish exclusiveness, and finally opened wide its doors to the uncirc.u.mcised Gentile, and a.s.sumed
{114}
the character of a universal religion. In order to understand the nature of the case, and be able to estimate aright the solution which is presented by the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles, it is necessary that we should obtain a clear view of the actual characteristics of Christianity at the period when that history begins. We must endeavour to understand precisely what view the Apostles had formed of their position in regard to Judaism, and of the duty which devolved upon them of propagating the Gospel. It is obvious that we cannot rightly appreciate the amount of persuasion requisite to transform the primitive Church from Jewish exclusive-ness to Christian universality, without ascertaining the probable amount of long rooted conviction and religious prejudice or principle which had to be overcome before that great change could be effected.
We shall not here enter upon any argument as to the precise views which the Founder of Christianity may have held as to his own person and work, nor shall we attempt to sift the traditions of his life and teaching which have been handed down to us, and to separate the genuine spiritual nucleus from the grosser matter by which it has been enveloped and obscured. We have much more to do with the view which others took of the matter, and, looking at the Gospels as representations of that which was accepted as the orthodox view regarding the teaching of Jesus, they are almost as useful for our present purpose as if they had been more spiritual and less popular expositions of his views. What the Master was understood to teach is more important for the history of the first century than what he actually taught without being understood. Nothing is more certain than the fact that Christianity, originally, was
{115}
developed out of Judaism, and that its advent was historically prepared by the course of the Mosaic system, to which it was so closely related.(1) In its first stages during the apostolic age, it had no higher ambition than to be, and to be considered, the continuation and the fulfilment of Judaism, its final and triumphant phase. The substantial ident.i.ty of primitive Christianity with true Judaism was at first never called in question; it was considered a mere internal movement of Judaism, its development and completion, but by no means its mutilation. The idea of Christianity as a new religion never entered the minds of the Twelve or of the first believers, nor, as we shall presently see, was it so regarded by the Jews themselves. It was in fact, originally, nothing more than a sect of Judaism, holding a particular view of one point in the creed and, for a very long period, it was considered so by others, and was in no way distinguished from the rest of Mosaism.(2) Even in the Acts there are traces of this, Paul being called "a ringleader of the sect [------] of the Nazarenes,"(3) and the Jews of Rome being represented as referring to Christianity by this term.(4) Paul before the Council not
{116}
only does not scruple to call himself "a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee," but the Pharisees take part with him against the more unorthodox and hated sect of the Sadducees.(1) For eighteen centuries disputes have fiercely raged over the creed of Christendom, and the ingenuity of countless divines has been exhausted in deducing mystic dogmas from the primitive teaching, but if there be one thing more remarkable than another in that teaching, according to the Synoptics, it is its perfect simplicity. Jesus did not appear with a ready-made theology, and imposed no elaborate system of doctrine upon his disciples. Throughout the prophetic period of Mosaism, one hope had sustained the people of Israel in all their sufferings and reverses: that the fortunes of the nation should finally be retrieved by a scion of the race of David, under whose rule it should be restored to a future of unexampled splendour and prosperity. The expectation of the Messiah, under frequently modified aspects, had formed a living part in the national faith of Israel. Primitive Christianity, sharing but recasting this ancient hope, was only distinguished from Judaism, with whose worship it continued in all points united, by a single doctrine, which was in itself merely a modification of the national idea: the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was actually the Christ, the promised Messiah.
This was substantially the whole of its creed.(2)
{117}
The synoptic Gospels, and more especially the first,(1) are clearly a history of Jesus as the Messiah of the house of David, so long announced and expected, and whose life and even his death and resurrection are shown to be the fulfilment of a series of Old Testament prophecies.(2) When his birth is announced to Mary, he is described as the great one, who is to sit on the throne of David his father, and reign over the house of Jacob for ever,(3) and the good tidings of great joy to all the people [------], that the Messiah is born that day in the city of David, are proclaimed by the angel to the shepherds of the plain.(4) Synieon takes the child in his arms and blesses G.o.d that the words of the Holy Spirit are accomplished, that he should not die before he had seen the Lord"s anointed, the Messiah, the consolation of Israel.(5) The Magi come to his cradle in Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Messiah indicated by the prophet,(6) to do homage to him who is born King of the Jews,(7) and there Herod seeks to destroy him,(8) fulfilling another
{118}
prophecy.(1) His flight into Egypt and return to Nazareth are equally in fulfilment of prophecies.(2) John the Baptist, whose own birth as the forerunner of the Messiah had been foretold,(3) goes before him preparing the way of the Lord, and announcing that the Messianic kingdom is at hand. According to the fourth Gospel, some of the twelve had been disciples of the Baptist, and follow Jesus on their master"s a.s.surance that he is the Messiah. One of these, Andrew, induces his brother Simon Peter also to go after him by the announcement:--"We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ" (i. 35ff. 41). And Philip tells Nathaniel:--"We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets did write: Jesus, the son of Joseph, who is from Nazareth"
(i. 45). When he has commenced his own public ministry, Jesus is represented as asking his disciples:--"Who do men say that I am?" and setting aside the popular conjectures that he is John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets, by the still more direct question:--"And whom do ye say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said:--Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living G.o.d." And in consequence of this recognition of his Messiahship, Jesus rejoins:--"And I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church."(4)
{119}
It is quite apart from our present object to point out the singular feats of exegesis and perversions of historical S3nse by which pa.s.sages of the Old Testament are forced to show that every event in the history, and even the startling novelty of a suffering and crucified Messiah, which to Jews was a stumbling-block and to Gentiles folly,(1) had been foretold by the prophets. From first to last the Gospels strive to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, and connect him indissolubly with the Old Testament. The Messianic key-note, which is struck at the outset, regulates the strain to the close. The disciples on the way to Emmaus, appalled by the ignominious death of their Master, sadly confide to the stranger their vanished hope that Jesus of Nazareth, whom they now merely call "a prophet mighty in word and deed before G.o.d and all the people," was the Christ "who was about to redeem Israel," and Jesus himself replies:--"O foolish and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spake! Was it not needful that the Christ (Messiah) should suffer these things and enter into his glory? And, beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."(2) Then, again, when he appears to the eleven, immediately after, at Jerusalem, he says:--""These are the words that I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms concerning me." Then opened he their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them:--"Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise from the dead the third day.""(3)
{120}
The crucifixion and death of Jesus introduced the first elements of rupture with Judaism, to which they formed the great stumbling-block.(1) The conception of a suffering and despised Messiah could naturally never have occurred to a Jewish mind.(2) The first effort of Christianity, therefore, was to repair the apparent breach by proving that the suffering Messiah had actually been foretold by the prophets; and to re-establish the Messianic character of Jesus, by the evidence of his resurrection.(3) But, above all, the momentary deviation from orthodox Jewish ideas regarding the Messiah was retraced by the representation of a speedy second advent, in glory, of the once rejected Messiah to restore the kingdom of Israel, by which the ancient hopes of the people became reconciled with the new expectation of Christians. Even before the Ascension, the disciples are represented in the Acts as asking the risen Jesus:--"Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"(4) There can be no doubt of the reality and
{121}
universality of the belief, in the Apostolic Church, in the immediate return of the glorified Messiah and speedy "end of all things."(1)
The substance of the preaching of the Apostles in Acts, simply is that Jesus is the Christ,(2) the expected Messiah.(3) Their chief aim is to prove that his sufferings and death had been foretold by the prophets,(4) and that his resurrection establishes his claim to the t.i.tle.(5) The simplicity of the creed is ill.u.s.trated by the rapidity with which converts are made. After a few words, on one occasion, three thousand(6) and, on another, five thousand(7) are at once converted. No lengthened instruction or preparation was requisite for admission into the Church.(8) As soon as a Jew acknowledged Jesus to be the Messiah he thereby became a Christian.(9) As soon as the
{122}
three thousand converts at Pentecost made this confession of faith they were baptized.(1) The Ethiopian is converted whilst pa.s.sing in his chariot, and is immediately baptized,(2) as are likewise Cornelius and his household after a short address from Peter.(3) The new faith involved no abandonment of the old. On the contrary, the advent of the Messiah was so essential a part of Judaic belief, and the Messianic claim of Jesus was so completely based by the Apostles on the fulfilment of prophecy--"showing by the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ,"--that recognition of the fact rather const.i.tuted firmer adhesion to Mosaism, and deeper faith in the inviolable truth of the Covenant with Israel. If there had been no Mosaism, so to say, there could have been no Messiah.
So far from being opposed either to the form or spirit of the religion of Israel, the proclamation of the Messiah was its necessary complement, and could only be intelligible by confirmation of its truth and maintenance of its validity. Christianity--belief in the Messiah--in its earlier phases, drew its whole nourishment from roots that sank deeply into Mosaism. It was indeed nothing more than Mosaism in a developed form. The only difference between the Jew and the Christian was that the latter believed the Messiah to have already appeared in Jesus, whilst the former still expected him in the future;(4) though even this difference
{123}
was singularly diminished, in appearance at least, by the Christian expectation of the second advent.
It is exceedingly important to ascertain, under these circ.u.mstances, what was the impression of the Apostles as to the relation of believers to Judaism and to Mosaic observances, although it must be clear to any one who impartially considers the origin and historical antecedents of the Christian faith, that very little doubt can have existed in their minds on the subject. The teaching of Jesus, as recorded in the synoptic Gospels, is by no means of a doubtful character, more especially when the sanct.i.ty of the Mosaic system in the eyes of a Jew is borne in mind.
It must be apparent that, in order to remove the obligation of a Law and form of worship believed to have been, in the most direct sense, inst.i.tuted by G.o.d himself, the most clear, strong, and reiterated order would have been requisite. No one can reasonably maintain that a few spiritual expressions directed against the bare letter and abuse of the law, which were scarcely understood by the hearers, could have been intended to abolish a system so firmly planted, or to overthrow Jewish inst.i.tutions of such antiquity and national importance, much less that they could be taken in this sense by the disciples. A few pa.s.sages in the Gospels, therefore, which may bear the interpretation of having foreseen the eventual supersession of Mosaism by his own more spiritual principles, must not be strained to support the idea that Jesus taught disregard of the Law. His very distinct and positive lessons, conveyed both by precept and practice, show, on the contrary, that not only he did not intend to attack pure Mosaism, but that he was understood both directly and by inference to recognise and confirm it. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus
{124}
states to the disciples in the most positive manner:--"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pa.s.s, one jot or one t.i.ttle shall not pa.s.s from the law, till all be accomplished."(1) Whether the last phrase be interpreted: till all the law be accomplished, or till all things appointed to occur be accomplished, the effect is the same. One clear explicit declaration like this, under the circ.u.mstances, would outweigh a host of doubtful expressions. Not only does Jesus in this pa.s.sage directly repudiate any idea of attacking the law and the prophets, but, in representing his mission as their fulfilment, he affirms them, and a.s.sociates his own work in the closest way with theirs. If there were any uncertainty, however, as to the meaning of his words it would be removed by the continuation:--"Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these commandments, even the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."(2) It would be difficult for teaching to be more decisive in favour of the maintenance of the law, and this instruction, according to the first Synoptic, was specially directed to the disciples.(3) When Jesus goes on to show that their righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, and to add to the letter of the law, as interpreted by those of old, his own profound interpretation of its
{125}