and that he taught everywhere that its observance was under any and all circumstances a positive sin. But this assumption was not true. Paul was certainly not hostile to the law in any such sense. He believed that it had no binding authority over a Christian, and he opposed with all his might the idea that its observance had any value as a means of salvation, or that it contributed in any way to the believer's righteousness or growth in grace; but he held no such view of the law as made its observance necessarily sinful, and rendered it impossible for him ever to observe it himself in any respect. And it was not at all unnatural that he should desire to convince the Christians of Jerusalem of the fact; especially when he had come thither with the express purpose of conciliating them and winning their favour for himself and for his Gentile converts. He would have been very foolish under these circumstances to allow such a false impression touching his attitude towards the law to go uncontradicted."[1]
This is a satisfactory defense if one were needed
of Paul's course, but no one would question his
motive. That was right enough and he evidently
acted in all good conscience, but the procedure,
instead of getting him out of his trouble, got him
into worse trouble. It always does that. I do not
believe any man was ever permanently helped
by compromise. Every man who has begun to
play with it has been drawn into worse difficulties
and troubles, or has gone down, perhaps
without conscious difficulty but with real moral
loss, to a lower level of life. For one thing,
- ↑ "The Apostolic Age," p. 341.
