The subject of the hot dispute was simply this.  Were Gentile converts bound to obey the Law or not?  Paul answered in the negative; and, acting upon his opinion, he had created at Antioch (and elsewhere) a specifically “Christian” community, the sole qualifications for admission into which were the confession of the belief that Jesus was the Messiah, and baptism upon that confession.  In the epistle in question, Paul puts this—­his “gospel,” as he calls it—­in its most extreme form.  Not only does he deny the necessity of conformity with the Law, but he declares such conformity to have a negative value.  “Behold, I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing” (Galatians v. 2).  He calls the legal observances “beggarly rudiments,” and anathematises every one who preaches to the Galatians any other gospel than his own.  That is to say, by direct consequence, he anathematises the Nazarenes of Jerusalem, whose zeal for the Law is testified by James in a passage of the Acts cited further on.  In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, dealing with the question of eating meat offered to idols, it is clear that Paul himself thinks it a matter of indifference; but he advises that it should not he done, for the sake of the weaker brethren.  On the other hand, the Nazarenes of Jerusalem most strenuously opposed Paul’s “gospel,” insisting on every convert becoming a regular Jewish proselyte, and consequently on his observance of the whole Law; and this party was led by James and Peter and John (Galatians ii. 9).  Paul does not suggest that the question of principle was settled by the discussion referred to in Galatians.  All he says is, that it ended in the practical agreement that he and Barnabas should do as they had been doing, in respect to the Gentiles; while James and Peter and John should deal in their own fashion with Jewish converts.  Afterwards, he complains bitterly of Peter, because, when on a visit to Antioch, he, at first, inclined to Paul’s view and ate with the Gentile converts; but when “certain came from James,” “drew back, and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.  And the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch as even Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation” (Galatians ii. 12-13).

There is but one conclusion to be drawn from Paul’s account of this famous dispute, the settlement of which determined the fortunes of the nascent religion.  It is that the disciples at Jerusalem, headed by “James, the Lord’s brother,” and by the leading apostles, Peter and John, were strict Jews, who had objected to admit any converts into their body, unless these, either by birth, or by becoming proselytes, were also strict Jews.  In fact, the sole difference between James and Peter and John, with the body of the disciples whom they led and the Jews by whom they were surrounded, and with whom they, for many years, shared the religious observances of the Temple, was that they believed that the Messiah, whom the leaders of the nation yet looked for, had already come in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.