The split between evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics in the Episcopal Church today can be traced all the way back to the strained relationship between Peter and Paul in the first century church. This personal friction becomes explicit in Galatians 2 when Paul confronts Peter about an act of hypocrisy. But the strain between these two Apostles can be seen operating just beneath the surface of the New Testament. One represents an institutional Christianity teaching that God works through tradition and human agency; the other represents a direct personal encounter with God that proclaims the death of the Jewish law in favor of the grace of Christ. One understands merited righteousness by good works; the other, imputed righteousness by faith alone.
Peter was one of the original Twelve; with James and John, one of Jesus' inner circle of three. By the Day of Pentecost Peter appears to have been acknowledged among the Apostles as the "first among equals." Peter preaches the great Pentecost sermon of Acts 2. It's likely that Peter or others early on began to interpret (or misinterpret as the case may be) Jesus' affirmation at Caesarea Phillipi ("You are Petros and on this rock I will build my church ..") as legitimizing the primacy of the Big Fisherman. For a generation following Christ's ascension, Peter lived and taught in Jerusalem. He was not a theologian. His was the conservative, relatively simple faith, that Jesus was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament.
Saul of Tarsus was a persecutor of Christians until he met the risen Christ on the Damascus Road(Acts 9,22,26). Not only does his name change to Paul, but his whole life is radically altered. Paul is a theologian, a thinker. Paul writes in Galatians 2:17 that immediately after his conversion he spent three years in Arabia. We don't know what he did there, presumably being taught by the Holy Spirit. Isn't it interesting that he spends exactly the same amount of time studying Jesus as did Peter and the others who walked with the Lord during his earthly ministry? Paul returned from the desert and spent about two weeks with Peter in Jerusalem. Interestingly, Peter keeps him isolated from the churches in Jerusalem. The only other Christian Peter lets Paul meet is the Lord's brother, James. This, I think, is where the problems between Peter and Paul began.
For the rest of Paul's ministry he will be criticized and his calling questioned by Jewish Christians, people who come from Peter's territory to "spy on our freedom" (Galatians 2:4) . Who else would raise questions about Paul's apostleship if not Peter? First, Peter believed he was the one originally chosen to preach to the Gentiles. Beginning in Acts 15:7, we read: And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe." Peter is referring to his encounter with the first Gentile convert, Cornelius, recorded in Acts 10. So, imagine Peter's reaction when Paul showed up covered in the dust of Arabia claiming Christ had called him as an apostle to the Gentiles!
In addition to questioning Paul's apostolic credentials, Peter was likely responsible for generating some misinformation about Paul's conversion. Acts 9 preserves one of those attempts to minimize the call of Paul. There we read that Paul receives his sight and his commission from a Jewish Christian man named Ananias. Paul vehemently denies this version of events. In Galatians 1 Paul says he consulted with no man after his encounter with Christ and immediately went to Arabia. In Galatians 1:1 Paul goes so far as to identify himself as an Apostle, "not from a man or through a man, but through Jesus Christ ..." Acts 26 preserves what is likely Paul's own account of his conversion. It says nothing about Ananias. Paul's gospel is about grace freely offered directly by the living Christ without need of human mediation and he never waivers from that proclamation. In that first decade after the resurrection, Peter seems to hang on to more traditional Jewish ideas -- that righteousness is by adherence to the law (when he's with Jewish Christians anyway) and that God mediates his grace through special people.
Here's another residue of the conflict between Peter and Paul. In his surviving letters, Paul never refers to Simon as Peter (the Rock) but always calls him by his Aramaic name, Cephas. This fact is overlooked in many new translations that turn Cephas into Peter. But the name issue is significant. Paul does not acknowledge Peter as the rock (petra) on which Christ builds his church. In fact, Paul boldly declares, "The only Rock is Christ" (I Corinthians 10:4). I think it fair to surmise that Paul did not accept the myth of the primacy of Peter.
When you read the Book of Acts, the history of Peter and the history of Paul don't overlap except for the story of Paul's conversion in chapter 9 (which is probably linked to Peter). I have often wondered whether the clear separation of their ministries in Acts reflects the condition of their relationship in the early church. Each went their own way until they both met their death in Rome, Paul first and then a few years later, Peter. Thankfully what the Holy Spirit has preserved for us in Scripture is amazingly consistent. I think following the Jerusalem Council in 49 AD Peter and Paul stayed clear of each other, each preaching and teaching as inspired by the Holy Spirit. They do not represent a divided Gospel but a tension that has continued down to this very day between the evangelical who focuses on the gracious work of Christ and the institutionalist whose focus is on tradition and and good works.
No comments:
Post a Comment