Читать книгу Peter and Paul in Acts: A Comparison of Their Ministries - David Spell - Страница 6

Before Peter and Paul’s ministries are examined in Acts, their relationship in the New Testament will be explored and discussed. Paul mentions Peter in two of his letters, Galatians and 1 Corinthians. Peter refers to Paul in one of his letters, 2 Peter. These passages will be looked at in an effort to determine what kind of relationship the two men had. As was discussed in the previous chapter, there are some scholars, primarily those influenced by Baur and the other scholars that made up the Tübingen school, who see a deep division between the two apostles and their followers. This is based in large part on the passages in 1 Corinthians and Galatians that will be examined. In their view, Acts was written in an attempt to heal the division that existed between the two men and their followers.1

The passages in Galatians that discuss the relationship between Peter and Paul will be examined first. The reason that Galatians will be discussed first is because it is commonly accepted to be one of Paul’s earliest letters.2 From an autobiographical point-of-view, Galatians also deals with an early period in Paul’s Christian life.3 We will look at Galatians 1:18-21, Galatians 2:1-10, and Galatians 2:11-14. As the passages are examined in Galatians, there will be some reference to the related passages in Acts, but the goal will not be to necessarily harmonize them with what Luke wrote. The intent is to explore the relationship and interaction between the two apostles as perceived by Paul. How did he understand their relationship?

Galatians 1:18-21

The first contact that is mentioned between Peter and Paul is recorded by Paul in Galatians 1:18-21:

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles- only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. Later I went to Syria and Cilicia.

The related passage in Acts is found in 9:26-30:

When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was really a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him. When the brothers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

While some would see these two passages as referring to different visits to Jerusalem,4 many others see them as referring to the same visit.5 In either case, they both describe Paul’s early contact with some of the Jerusalem Christians and some of the apostles. While acknowledging the differences in the two passages, Hemer seems to make the most sense in his approach in saying that they both refer to the same visit.6 The differences in the two passages lie in the fact that the intentions of the authors were different. Luke was only providing a generalized account of Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem as a Christian. In Galatians, however, Paul was writing to clear the air in regard to his relationship with the original apostles. He was specific in who he had contact with and how long that contact lasted. “Luke says Paul had apostolic contact: Paul tells us whom he saw.”7 Tenney echoes this when he says, “There is no essential conflict between Galatians 1:19 and Acts 9:27, since the latter does not specify which apostles were present and which were absent.”8

Paul explains that the reason that he went to Jerusalem was, “to get acquainted with Peter.” The fact that Paul wanted to meet and get to know Peter is important, in and of itself.9 Peter was the acknowledged leader of the church in Jerusalem and was possibly known to Paul by reputation from his days as a persecutor of the church. This also seems to be an acknowledgement by Paul that at the time of this visit to Jerusalem, James had not moved into the primary position of authority in the church that he would later occupy. At this time Peter still occupied the central role of authority.10 He was the logical choice from which to gain background information on Jesus’ earthly life, as well as on the early days of the church. Both Paul’s and Luke’s accounts agree on the significance of Peter in the early church. For Paul, this significance only grows. While Peter drops out of sight from Acts after the Jerusalem Council in chapter 15, he still is mentioned in two of Paul’s letters, Galatians and 1 Corinthians.11

It is also important to note that Paul emphasizes strongly the point that he waited “three years” before going to Jerusalem to meet Peter. He had already been engaged in three years of preaching and missionary work before he ever had contact with the other apostles.12 Paul made this point so strongly because he wanted to emphasize, “the independence both of his gospel and his commission to preach it.”13 Paul said in verses 16 and 17, that after his conversion, “I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia.” These three years were the formative ones for Paul’s message and theology. By the time he did finally visit Jerusalem, his gospel was fully developed.14

The word that Paul uses here for his visit with Peter is historeo, which can be defined as, “to ascertain by inquiry and examination; to inquire of; to visit in order to become acquainted with.”15 The word also carries with it the idea of visiting someone to get information.16 In his commentary on Galatians, Morris defines the verb in a similar way: “to visit and survey . . . a word which those, who seek to become acquainted with great and splendid cities, apply to themselves.”17 This is the only location in the New Testament where this word appears.18 Paul chose this word very carefully to avoid any impression that he had received instruction or input from the apostles in Jerusalem in regards to the message that he had been preaching for the last three years.19 Tenney understands that this visit was an opportunity for Paul to interview Peter and fill in the gaps of his knowledge concerning Jesus, the church, and the message that the apostles were preaching.20 Dunn would be in agreement with Tenney. He defines historeo as, “to inquire into, or about, or from.”21 He understands this visit to be an opportunity for Paul, not to have his gospel validated, but to gain information from Peter, “other than the gospel itself.”22 This idea of Paul interviewing Peter, while attractive and partially correct, does not seem to fit the meaning of historeo. Boice understands it to be, “the telling of a story. Paul would have told his story, Peter his. So these two leading apostles became and acquainted and encouraged each other in their forthcoming work.”23

It is also significant that Paul appeared to have been Peter’s house-guest for the entire fifteen days that he was in Jerusalem. Hospitality was extremely important in the early church and, “was one of the basic presuppositions for the coherence of various Jesus communities and for the successful work of their itinerant missionaries.”24 The very fact that Peter opened his home to Paul for that long indicates Peter’s own interest in becoming more acquainted with Paul. Just as Paul had heard of Peter and knew him by reputation, so Peter had probably heard of Paul, both before and after his conversion.25

In dealing with these passages in Galatians and Acts, most commentators focus on the aspect of Paul going to meet and get acquainted with Peter, to gain knowledge and background information from him. While this is obviously part of the story, there is another aspect that needs to be considered. The question, “What did Paul receive in the two weeks that he was with Peter and James?,” is a valid one; however, it is also appropriate to ask, “What did Peter and James receive from Paul?”26 Paul was a scribally trained Pharisee and had an extensive background in the prophetic promises and the Law.27 Over the previous three years, Paul had, “received through a revelation of Jesus Christ,”28 how all the promises in the Hebrew Scriptures had been fulfilled in Christ. Hengel makes the point that through Paul’s interaction with Peter and James in this account in Galatians, it is possible that Paul actually imparted more to the Jerusalem Church than he received. This early positive encounter between Paul and Peter and James would have also carried over to the Apostolic Council that occurred some years later.29

Holmberg also sees the two apostles sharing on an equal level in this account. He points out that in the Jewish context, when two rabbis met for the first time, they would exchange “information about doctrinal statements from their own teachers and predecessors.”30 Thus, for two weeks, they each would have discussed their own understanding of the gospel. Peter would have answered Paul’s questions about Jesus’ earthly life and teaching and Paul would have shared his understanding of how his message tied in with the Hebrew Scriptures.31

Some scholars have questioned whether or not a fifteen day visit was long enough for Paul to receive anything of substance from Peter or James.32 As was mentioned above, however, this may be asking the wrong question. Paul may have been imparting as much information, or even more than he was receiving. Hengel also makes the point that a two-week visit is not a short visit, “as all hosts know!”33 He makes the point that, “The duration of the hospitality indicates the intensity of the exchange.”34

It is possible that Paul intended to stay in Jerusalem longer than he did. In his account in Galatians, he does not give a reason why he left after only fifteen days. In Luke’s account, however, we are told that Paul, “talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him.”35 Luke goes on to recount how after the plot on Paul’s life was uncovered some of the brothers took him down to Caesarea and put him on a ship to Tarsus.36 This ties in with Paul’s account when he says that after visiting Jerusalem, he went to Syria and Cilicia.37

One of the results of this visit would have been to let Peter and the other apostles know that Paul was indeed a changed man. There would have naturally still been some apprehension regarding Paul among some of the Jerusalem believers;38 however, a two-week encounter with Peter and James would serve notice to the church that Paul’s conversion was real.39 Paul says that after this visit, the report about him got around, “‘The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith that he once tried to destroy.”’ And they praised God because of me.”40

The outcome of this meeting between Peter and Paul was the appearance of a friendship or at least a working relationship between the two men. There is no indication from this text that there was any type of quarrel or animosity between them. Indeed, on another occasion when there was a disagreement, Paul was quick to mention it in Galatians 2.41 It was possibly because of the relationship that was established by the two men in this account that Paul was able to admonish Peter later on.42 There is every reason to believe that this initial meeting between Peter and Paul ended on a cordial and respectful note.43

Galatians 2:1-10

Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. (Gal 2:1-2)

As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. (Gal 2:6-9)

This passage in Galatians deals with many different issues, most of which could easily distract from the focus on the relationship of Peter and Paul. This passage has been treated extensively by many scholars in exploring the relationship between Paul and his message, and the Jerusalem apostles and their message.44 The passage that was looked at from Galatians 1 and this one have also been studied extensively in order to develop a chronology of Paul’s life.45 Our examination of this passage will concentrate on the interaction between Paul, Peter, and some of the other Jerusalem apostles. It will briefly discuss the aspect of chronology and look at a couple of the key elements involved.

First of all, it is important to note that Paul provides a specific timeframe for the reader to work with. He says that, “Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem.” He does not, however, make it clear as to whether he is referring to fourteen years from his conversion or his previous visit. Few scholars are dogmatic in taking one side or the other. Munck does make a strong case that the fourteen years that Paul is speaking of here are from his previous visit which he spoke of in Galatians 1:18-19.46 This seems to make the most sense, but in either case, whether it was fourteen or seventeen years, it had been a long time since Paul had visited Jerusalem.

Another issue concerning the chronology of this passage in Galatians is the question of whether or not it is synonymous with the Jerusalem Council that is described in Acts 15. While many scholars believe that this is the case, there is still no clear consensus.47 The two passages are very different and many scholars see them as referring to two different events.48 Holmberg is one scholar who understands the two passages to be referring to the same conference. While he questions the historicity of Acts in many places, in this instance he feels that Luke and Paul were describing the same conference from different viewpoints.49 Even though Paul’s account in Galatians would be considered a primary source, Holmberg stresses the need for caution because Paul was an active participant in the events that took place and definitely not an objective observer.50

Marshall is representative of those who do not see the conference in Acts 15 and the one described by Paul here in Galatians 2 as referring to the same event. He understands that this visit by Paul to Jerusalem to be synonymous with the one that Luke referred to in Acts 11:29-30.51 Guthrie also adopts this view, thinking that it is easier to fit Paul’s account of Galatians 2:1-10 into Luke’s narrative in Acts 11:29-30.52 If this view is correct, it is much easier to deal with the differences between the account of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 and the meeting between Paul, Barnabas, and some of the Jerusalem apostles here in Galatians 2:1-10. They are dealing with two completely different events.53

Our purpose here is not to write a history of the early church or a chronology of Paul’s life, but to examine the relationship that existed between Peter and Paul.54 It will focus attention on the passage at hand and treat Acts 15 later in the study. As has been mentioned, scholars are divided about where Galatians 2:1-10 fits in with Luke’s chronology. That issue will not be resolved in this book. This passage will, however, tell us what Paul said about his trip to Jerusalem, as well as tell us what he says about his encounter with Peter while he was there.

One of the first things that can be seen about Paul’s trip to Jerusalem in Galatians 2 is how different it was from his trip in Galatians 1. In Galatians 1, he went to Jerusalem, “to get acquainted with Peter.” It appears that on his first trip Paul was traveling by himself. On this trip, however, Paul was traveling with Barnabas and Titus. Paul says that the reason for this second trip was, “in response to a revelation.” Paul goes on to say that he, “set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders . . .” So, while Paul’s first trip was informal and involved just him and Peter and James, this trip appears to be much more formal.55 Paul does not tell the reader what the revelation was that prompted this trip.56 In verse 2, Paul only stated that he met with those, “who seemed to be leaders.” In verse 9, he will identify these leaders as James, Peter, and John.

While this account in Galatians was not written by Paul to explain his relationship with Peter, he does provide a few clues as to how he perceived that relationship. One of the first clues that can be seen is in the tone of the passage. There is no evidence of animosity or conflict in Paul’s writing. In fact, by the very act of going to Jerusalem to meet with some of the apostles regarding the gospel that he was preaching, two very important things about Paul can be seen. First of all, this visit showed a high level of respect for the Jerusalem apostles.57 The phrase that Paul uses in referring to them, “those who seemed to be leaders,” has been seen by some to be disrespectful and disparaging. According to Dunn, the phrase is neutral and can be interpreted in different ways. He says that, here, Paul is using it as an acknowledgement of, “the high standing in which the pillar apostles were held (by others), without constituting an endorsement by Paul himself.”58 Morris, however, understands that what Paul is saying is that he selected those apostles who appeared to be the most “significant leaders and laid his case before them.”59 Paul seems to be acknowledging the Jerusalem apostles in a respectful way, while at the same time, still maintaining his own independence from them. Paul is also careful not to establish any type of superiority over Peter, James, and John.60

Another phrase that Paul used in describing James, Peter, and John is in verse 9 where he refers to them as, “those reputed to be pillars.” This is another place in which Paul could be interpreted as being sarcastic and disrespectful. Morris acknowledges that the phrase, “is not exactly cordial.”61 Guthrie, however, makes the point that what Paul is doing here is using the language of his opponents. “They were apparently drawing a distinction between Paul and the ‘pillars.’ The ‘pillars’ were held in repute, but by implication Paul was not.”62 Paul never attempts to downplay the authority of the Jerusalem apostles. What he does do, however, is to make the case that his own apostolic authority is just as valid as theirs is.

Paul wants his readers to understand that it is not merely one’s external appearance or one’s background that makes someone an apostle. This is what he says in verse 6, “God does not judge by external appearance.” The call of God and then the signs and deeds of an apostle must be present in someone’s life if they are a true apostle.63 In no way does Paul disparage the apostleship of the three that he meets with. At every point he seems to hold them in high esteem. His only concern is that his apostleship and equality with them also be acknowledged.

Paul makes it clear that this meeting with James, Peter, and John was a private one. The subject matter that Paul needed to discuss with them was very sensitive, as well as controversial, and it would not have been appropriate for this discussion to take place in a public forum.64 This private meeting with some of the leading Jerusalem apostles shows that Paul regarded their opinions and input as valuable and also implies some measure of trust that they would be understanding and willing to listen to Paul with open minds. Ramsay understands that this was a formal visit that was very important for the future of the church. At the same time, however, it was a meeting of friends who shared a mutual respect for each other’s calling and ministry.65 This does not mean that there were never differences of opinion, as will be seen when Galatians 2:11-14 is examined. It does mean, however, that there could still be a basic unity and harmony between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles, even though they may not have agreed on every item of doctrine.66

The second thing that is observed in this visit of Paul to Jerusalem is his desire for unity in the church. It was never Paul’s desire to see two churches coexisting, one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles.67 This conviction that he had that there was only one church may have been one of the driving forces that brought him to Jerusalem for this meeting.68 It appears that Paul was the one who made the effort to initiate this meeting with the Jerusalem apostles so that he could, “set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.” Cousar believes that he would have gone to Jerusalem, “with a certain amount of apprehension about whether the leadership there is really subject to the gospel and whether the unity of the church can be maintained.”69

As it turned out, Paul did not have anything to worry about. The unity of the church did not break down and agreements were reached that would have far-reaching consequences for the church.70 The result of the meeting was that a division of labor was established. Paul would continue his ministry to the Gentile world while Peter and the Jerusalem apostles would continue their ministry to the Jewish world. In making this delineation among mission fields, the Jerusalem apostles acknowledged and validated both Paul’s calling and his message.71 He said that they, “added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.”

Paul goes on to say that at the conclusion of the meeting James, Peter, and John gave him and Barnabas, “the right hand of fellowship.” After an agreement was reached, all of the men shook hands on it. This was a pledge of friendship and agreement.72 Guthrie points out that, “Then as now refusal to shake hands would have been regarded as an open testimony to disunity.”73 The shaking of hands by all of the apostles symbolized the unity of the fellowship that they shared.74

The conclusion that can be drawn from this passage is that the meeting described in Galatians 2:1-10 ends on a positive and friendly note. There is no indication of disunity or animosity between Paul and the Jerusalem leaders. On the contrary, Paul goes to great lengths to show that he and James, Peter, and John were all unified in the gospel that they preached as well as in the demarcations of their respective mission fields. They shook hands and parted as friends.

Galatians 2:11-14

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”

The previous two meetings with Peter had ended on a positive note as far as Paul was concerned.75 This passage, however, details a confrontation between the two men in Antioch. The chronology poses a problem because Paul does not tell us when this incident took place.76 Scholars are divided over where to place this encounter when developing a chronology of Paul’s life. For our purposes, it is not necessary to conduct an exhaustive study to determine the timeframe for this passage. The most important elements that concern the chronology will be briefly touched on.

One of the first issues that needs to be discussed is whether or not the incident in Galatians 2:11-14 followed the meeting in Galatians 2:1-10 in chronological order. According to Guthrie, there is no reason to assume that the confrontation in Antioch followed the meeting in Jerusalem. He believes that the incident took place at an earlier time. Paul recalls the incident here to contrast Peter’s previous behavior with the decision that had been recently reached between him and the Jerusalem apostles. This decision included Peter.77 Guthrie makes the point that the reason that Paul even mentioned this personal confrontation with Peter was not to belittle or put him down in any way, but to establish the fact that Paul’s own apostolic authority was equal to that of even the most eminent of the apostles.78 Munck follows the same line of reasoning. Paul is not trying to establish a chronology here. He places it, “last as the clearest proof of Paul’s independence.”79

Other scholars would place the encounter between Peter and Paul in Antioch after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.80 Some think that the incident took place before the Jerusalem Council and may have even played some part in the conflict that led to the council.81 While it may be difficult to establish exactly when this confrontation took place, the dynamics of it can be examined in the context of the relationship between Peter and Paul.

In describing the incident, Paul indicated that before the confrontation Peter had come to Antioch and participated in table-fellowship with the mixed church there. There is no reason provided for Peter’s visit to Antioch. A contrast could be drawn here to Paul’s visit to Jerusalem when he was Peter’s guest for two weeks.82 Could this have been a friendly visit in which Paul was repaying Peter’s hospitality from those early years? The fact that Peter had gone to Antioch while Paul was presumably still ministering there with Barnabas indicates that the two apostles had maintained some type of a relationship over the years.

This visit by Peter to Antioch has also been speculated to be an official visit from a representative of the Jerusalem apostles. In the same way that he and John were sent to Samaria in Acts 8 to confirm the work of Philip and pray for the believers to be filled with the Holy Spirit, so Peter was sent to Antioch to confirm the work there.83 There is no indication in Galatians or Acts, however, that this was the case. Paul does not provide any hint that Peter came to Antioch to confirm the work that he and Barnabas had been involved in for some time. In fact, according to Luke, Barnabas was the one who was originally sent to Antioch by the Jerusalem apostles.84 Ramsay also refutes any hint that Peter went to Antioch to confirm or oversee the work there.85

It has also been speculated that this visit by Peter to Antioch corresponded with Acts 12:17 where, after being delivered from prison by an angel, “he left for another place.” Luke gives no hint as to where this other place might have been and Antioch is as good a guess as any.86 Packer believes that this would have been the logical opportunity for Peter to make a missionary tour through Asia Minor, including a visit to the church in Antioch.87 Marshall also believes that Peter’s leaving “for another place,” was the time when he visited Antioch. For Luke, however, the detail of where Peter went was not important to his story, so he did not include it.88

Unlike Galatians 1:18 in which Paul told the reader how long he was with Peter in Jerusalem, there is no indication given here as to how long Peter stayed in Antioch. The only information that Paul provides about Peter’s activities in Antioch was that he had participated in table-fellowship with some of the Gentile believers.89 The word that Paul uses here for “to eat” is synesthio. This word implies a close fellowship and association.90 It conveys the idea of table-fellowship, not just the eating of a meal together.91 Jervis points out Paul uses the word in the progressive tense, suggesting that, “it was over a period of time that Peter joined Gentiles for meals.”92 Vine understands that this would have been Peter’s practice since the incident with Cornelius in Acts 10.93 Since that time, Peter had had no scruples about taking meals with Gentiles.

The type of meals that Paul is referring to here seems to be the common meal that the believers shared together as part of their fellowship.94 While there is no indication that this meal included the Lord’s Supper, that possibility also cannot be ruled out. A celebration of the Lord’s Supper was an integral part of the early church and was probably included when the Galatian believers shared a meal together.95

The next thing that Paul relates about Peter’s time in Antioch is the fact that after, “certain men came from James . . . he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles.” After some period of time in which Peter participated in table-fellowship with the Gentile Christians, he began to draw back and distance himself from them after the arrival of some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem. Peter’s influence evidently caused the other Jewish Christians in the church in Antioch, including Barnabas, to also draw back from the Gentile Christians. It is easy to see how this would have torn at the foundation of the church in Antioch. Bruce understands the human aspect of the results of Peter’s and the other Jewish Christians’ behavior. It would have been a devastating blow to the Gentile Christians.96 Guthrie adds to this thought when he says, “separation among brethren is not only lamentable but always causes embarrassment to the whole movement.”97 The message that Peter was sending to the Gentile Christians, whether it was intentional or not, was that they were not on the same level with the Jewish Christians and that something was lacking in their faith.98

It is commonly accepted that this incident took place a number of years after Peter’s encounter with the Gentile Cornelius in Acts 10. In that incident Peter was given a vision from God to show him that he should not hesitate to go to Cornelius’ house. After Peter preached and the Gentiles there received the gospel, Peter stayed with them for a few days.99 Peter then had to defend his actions to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. Their criticism of him is contained in Acts 11:3, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” After Peter explained his actions in light of the vision he had received and the fact of the Holy Spirit coming on the Gentiles, the Jerusalem believers concluded, “So, then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”100

The incident with Cornelius and the one at Antioch in Galatians 2:11-14 are both very similar. The question that naturally arises is why would Peter have felt a need to distance himself from the Gentile believers in Antioch after his experience with Cornelius? The most likely reason, according to Cousar, is that there was a wave of intense nationalism that was sweeping through the Jews in Palestine at this time.101 Word of Peter’s willingness to embrace the Gentile believers had gotten back to Jerusalem and James was concerned enough to send some brothers, “to inform him of the possible repercussions for his Christian brothers and sisters in Jerusalem.”102 If this was the case, then Peter’s abandonment of the common meals was, “based on a concern for the unity and peace of the church, at least the unity and peace of the Antioch and Jerusalem congregations.”103

Whatever Peter’s motives were for drawing back from fellowshipping with the Gentile Christians, Paul’s analysis of the situation was that Peter, “was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.”104 The question that should then be asked is, “Is this a fair assessment of Peter’s personality?” Because Peter is mentioned in all four of the Gospels, as well as in Acts, we are better able to get a complete picture of his personality than many of the other figures found in the New Testament. In the Gospels, he is shown on occasion to be inconsistent in his behavior.105 One example is found in Matthew 16:16-23, where right after Peter acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah, he rebukes Jesus for teaching about His coming death, and in turn gets rebuked by Jesus. It could be argued that the reason that Peter rebuked Jesus was out of his fear of losing Him. Peter also demonstrated the characteristic of fear after Jesus was arrested. Just prior to this he had boldly stated his devotion to Jesus, saying that he was willing to die for Him. Soon afterwards, however, he denied repeatedly that he even knew Jesus. Based on these two examples from earlier in Peter’s life, it is likely that Paul’s assessment of Peter is accurate and that he was afraid of the repercussions that would have occurred if he had continued to eat with the Gentile Christians.

The position that Peter occupied in the Jerusalem Church was in many ways a much more difficult position than the one Paul occupied in Antioch.106 Peter possibly felt that if word got back to Jerusalem, “that he was eating with Gentiles it would compromise his position with the leading church.”107 There was probably also concern that Peter’s behavior would leave the church in Jerusalem open to persecution by militant Jews. So, while Peter may have been operating out of fear, Cousar points out that he probably felt that he was doing the right thing. Paul understood this and, “his concern is not that Peter is insincere but that he is very sincere and is blind to the full import of his actions.”108[author’s italics] Paul understood the long-term ramifications of Peter’s behavior. There is no indication that Peter was preaching a salvation by “works of the law” message in Antioch. Paul, however, understands that Peter’s actions will lead to a theology of salvation by works, whether Peter intended it or not.109

It is important to note that when Paul confronted Peter about his actions, the confrontation was based on principle. This confrontation does not appear to be a personality conflict or a power-struggle in which Paul was trying to establish his own authority as an apostle. Paul does not appear to be attempting to downplay the authority of Peter.110 In fact, Paul has already established his apostolic authority in Galatians 1 and 2:1-10, and he willingly acknowledged the authority of the Jerusalem apostles. When he challenged Peter, it was because Peter was in the wrong and needed to be challenged. Peter had violated a fundamental truth of the gospel that he and the Jerusalem apostles had agreed on. Peter’s position as a leading apostle made his indiscretion even more serious because he influenced others to join him in separating from the Gentile believers.111

As Paul describes this incident, he lays all of the blame on Peter, saying, “he was clearly in the wrong.” The NASB translates it as, “he stood condemned.” While this sounds like a harsh judgment against Peter, Paul understood, much more clearly than Peter, the damage that he had done. As Cole says, Peter, “was acting not only against his conscience and against the clear revelation that he had received in Acts 10, but also against his past tradition and custom in Antioch.”112 Paul must have known of the vision that God had given to Peter and how it led him to Cornelius’ house. Paul must have also known how Peter had defended his actions in Acts 11. Paul had seen, with his own eyes, Peter enjoying table-fellowship with the Gentile Christians in Antioch. There was no way that he was going to let Peter’s hypocrisy go unchallenged.

It is significant that Paul states that he confronted Peter, “in front of them all,” implying that the rebuke took place before the whole church. Paul’s understanding of the seriousness of Peter’s sin precluded a private rebuke. His actions had presumably affected the entire church so the rebuke took place before the entire church.113 This contrasts with the earlier contacts that Paul had with Peter. In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul had private meetings with Peter and James. In Galatians 2:1-10, Paul and Barnabas met privately with James, Peter, and John to lay the gospel that they were preaching before them. In this encounter in Antioch, however, Paul understood that there was too much at stake to try and rebuke Peter privately. It had to be done in a public meeting so that Paul could reemphasize to the entire church that the Gentiles did not have to obey the Law to become Christians.114 In a very real sense, in rebuking Peter publicly, Paul was trying to undo some of the damage that he had done.

In examining the rebuke itself, Pheme Perkins has studied it in the light of the art of ancient rhetoric.115 Paul occupied the place of the true philosopher, whose only regard was for the truth and not public opinion. In this instance in Antioch, “the philosopher is like a physician whose only concern is to heal the soul of his audience.”116 Peter’s role was that of the, “honorable opponent who will be in danger of falling into vice without [Paul’s] intervention.”117 In rebuking Peter, Paul was not attacking him but attempting to correct his behavior in front of all so that the entire community could be healed of the hurt that they had experienced.

The passage follows the rhetorical convention of showing that the speaker, Paul, “has demonstrated courage, integrity, and good will toward the audience by maintaining the truth against extraordinary odds.”118 Paul has made it clear that he was the one that stood up for the truth and stood against those who did not. He contrasts himself with Peter, who he shows to be weak, inconsistent, and hypocritical. “The picture of Peter is deliberately unflattering because Paul wishes to demonstrate the probity of his own character by contrast.”119

The rhetorical argument that Paul has constructed here is designed to support the two actions he wishes his audience to take.120 First of all, Paul wants the Galatians to understand that adopting the Jewish Law and the Jewish way of life is contrary to and incompatible with the gospel that he delivered to them. The second thing that Paul wants the Galatians to do is to expel those who are creating and stirring up conflict in their community by teaching and encouraging this type of lifestyle.

A final issue in regards to Paul’s confrontation with Peter needs to be mentioned: the aftermath. A few questions still remain and need to be discussed. Was the rebuke successful? Did the confrontation affect Paul’s relationship with the Antioch Church? Did the confrontation with Peter affect Paul’s relationship with the Jerusalem Church? And finally, after the smoke had cleared, were Paul and Peter still friends?