Galatians 2:12

Galatians 2:12. Certain persons from James, not simply members of his congregation at Jerusalem, out followers, and (as the word ‘from' seems to indicate) delegates of James of Jerusalem (Galatians 2:9), and invested with some authority, which they abused. We are not to understand by them ‘false brethren' (Galatians 2:4), or heretical Jewish Christians who taught the necessity of the circumcision for all, and made use of the name of James without any authority from him; for Peter would not have permitted such men to influence his conduct. Yet they were strict and extremely conservative Jewish Christians who regarded themselves bound to observe the whole law of Moses, without requiring the same from the Gentile converts. This was the position which James himself took at the Council (Acts 15:16-21), and to which he always adhered, as we may infer from his advice given to Paul (Acts 21:20-25), and also from the accounts of tradition (especially Hegesippus, who represents him as a perfect Jewish saint). It would seem from this passage that, soon after the Council, James sent some esteemed brethren of his congregation to Antioch, not for the purpose of imposing the yoke of ceremonialism upon the Gentile Christians, for this would have been inconsistent with his speech at the Council and with the synodical letter, but for the purpose of reminding the Jewish Christians of their duty and recommending them to continue the observance of the divinely appointed and time-honored customs of their fathers which were by no means overthrown by the compromise measure adopted at the Council. It is unnecessary therefore to charge him with inconsistency. All we can say is that he stopped half way and never ventured so far as Paul, or even as Peter, who broke through the ceremonial restrictions of their native religion. Confining his labors to Jerusalem and the Jews, James regarded it as his duty to adhere as closely as possible to the old dispensation, in the vain hope of bringing over the nation as a whole to the Christian faith; while the Apostle of the Gentiles, on the contrary, owed it to his peculiar mission to maintain and defend the liberty of the gospel and the rights of the uncircumcised brethren.

Renan (St. Paul, ch. 10) asserts without proof that James deliberately organized a Jewish counter-mission and sent delegates to the Gentile churches for the purpose of undermining Paul's influence and demanding circumcision as a condition of church membership. This view is as wild as the heretical romance of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, and in flat contradiction with the public position and profession of James at the Council (Acts 15), and his conduct towards Paul, whom he recognized as a brother and fellow-Apostle according to Paul's own statement (Galatians 2:9, comp. Galatians 1:19). James was conservative and somewhat contracted, but not heretical.

He used to eat (the imperfect indicates the habit) together with the Gentiles, i.e., Gentile (uncircumcised) Christians. This is the best proof from the pen of Paul himself that Peter agreed with him in principle, and for a time even in practice. With his accustomed ardor Peter carried out his conviction which he had boldly professed in Jerusalem, and made common cause with the Gentile converts. The Pharisees reproved Christ for eating with sinners (Luke 15:2). The Jews were strictly forbidden to eat with unclean persons and idolaters. The Gentiles made no distinction between clean and unclean animals, and consumed without scruple the meat offered to idols and sold on the market. The Apostle probably refers here not only to the ordinary meals, but also to the primitive love feasts (agapæ) and the holy communion. A common participation of the Lord's Supper was the completion and seal of Christian-fellowship and church union. We may say that it followed as a last consequence from the decree of the Apostolic Council, but it was not expressly enjoined, and the strict Jewish party thought it unsafe, for the present at least, to venture so far, contenting itself with a general recognition of the Gentile brethren, and keeping them at a respectful distance. James probably shared in this opinion, and may have considered Peter too hasty. The same scrupulous conservatism and exclusivism exists to this day in various shapes of close communism which refuses to sit at the Lord's table with Christians of any other sect, on account of some difference of doctrine or polity or ceremonies.

He withdrew and separated himself. ‘ The words describe forcibly the cautious withdrawal of a timid person who shrinks from observation.' Characteristic for Peter, who was the first to confess Christ, and the first to deny him; the first to recognize the rights of the Gentiles, and the first to disown them practically. His strength and weakness, his boldness and timidity are the two opposite manifestations of the same warm, impulsive and impressible temper. He was, like the Galatians, ‘liable to sudden transitions from fever-heat to fever-chill' (Macgregor). But he was always ready to confess his sins and to repent. And this redeeming feature makes one sympathize with him in his weakness. There was a great deal of human nature in him, but also a great deal of divine grace which triumphed at last. Blameworthy as he was for his inconsistency, he is still more praiseworthy for the humility with which he bore the sharp rebuke of a younger colleague, and lovingly commended the Epistles of ‘brother Paul' in which his own inconsistency is recorded (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Fearing those of the circumcision, Jewish converts.