Everything probably went well during Peter’s time in Antioch until, “Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved,’” (Acts 15:1). These “certain men from James” (Gal 2:12), may have been those who disagreed with Saul and Barnabas, when they had been in Jerusalem two years earlier. Although they came to discuss the issue of circumcision, these men may have also come to inform Peter that Herod Agrippa was dead and that it was safe to return to Jerusalem. When they arrived, Peter apparently reverted to the more orthodox positions of his faith that focused on the washing of hands and the potential exposure to meats sacrificed to idols. In Peter’s defense, the Second Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 was still in the future, leaving the Gentile question unresolved and Peter’s actions understandable. Separation of Jews from Gentiles had been the norm for 1500 years and nothing had been “loosed” for Peter to think differently and so other Jews followed.
When Saul returned to Antioch, he was probably already on edge because John Mark had left them in Pamphylia on the journey, (Acts 15:38). This separation ultimately led to the parting of Saul and Barnabas, and the latter probably heard an earful from the former on the return trip. When Barnabas and Saul arrived back in Antioch, they found a body of believers split by the circumcision question. Turmoil on the trip and in Antioch “great dissension and debate” on the circumcision question until “the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas…should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue,” (Acts 15:2). During the debate, Paul blasted Peter for letting the situation get out of hand to the point that “even Barnabas was carried away by the hypocrisy,” (Gal 2:13). (It is probably not surprising that Barnabas was ready for a break from Paul after the John Mark episode, but its always easier to focus on a different cause than blame ourselves for a problem.)
Paul was extremely hard on Peter, saying Peter “stood condemned” (Gal 2:11) held “himself aloof” and was a “hypocrite,” (Gal 2:13). These are strong accusations that run contrary to Paul’s own teaching, “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” (Rom 8:1). Further, Paul expressed his disagreement in public and not one-on-one following the pattern Jesus outlined in Matthew, (Matt 18:15-17). Was Peter right? Not necessarily. Was he wrong? Not completely. We need to appreciate that Peter’s actions preceded the decision of the Second Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 and were understandable for a Jew trying to maintain the dietary laws and the laws of cleanliness.
As with all disputes for the sake of heaven, much understanding and good resulted from the episode between Paul and Peter. That most people think the dispute reflects “poorly” on Peter is understandable. However, I think if framed in the proper perspective, it is Peter who comes out reflecting the best response to a difficult situation.
If Peter argued back against Paul, his argument is not recorded in scripture. In fact, Peter was apparently able to hear Paul’s message behind the harsh rhetoric, “If you (Peter), being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal 2:14). Peter listened to Paul on that day and later repackaged the concept to use in his closing argument at the second Jerusalem Council, “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?,” (Acts 15:7-10).
Although Paul and Barnabas related the signs and wonders God had done through them, it was ultimately the words of Peter, not Paul, that formed the basis for James’ decision.
“Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. With this the words of the Prophets agree…Therefore it is my judgement that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,” (Acts 15:13-19).
Peter does not get the credit he desires for listening to Paul. We can only surmise what would have happened if Peter’s anger had kept him from hearing out the words of Paul. This is a lesson for us when a brother uses harsh words, yet, there may be truth we need to hear.
Did Peter forgive Paul? There is no need to ask. It was Peter who referred to Paul 15 years later as, “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Pet 3:15). Still even then Peter would say that Paul’s words are sometimes “hard to understand.”
However bad the situation, we must always remember that good resulted out of one of the most contentious confrontations between believers in the Greek text; not just good for Gentiles living in the first century, but for Gentiles living in the twenty-first century. The turmoil in Antioch forced the elders in Jerusalem to decide once and for all on the status of the Gentiles in the growing body of believers. The Second Council at Jerusalem (A.D. 48-50?) forever determined, in the words of Paul, that, “Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called,” (1 Cor 7:20). Saul and Barnabas, took the letter written by James and the elders back down to Antioch.
“When they had read it, they (the congregation) rejoiced because of its encouragement,” (Acts 15:31).
(the end - Scott)
No comments:
Post a Comment