TOME/Teme525
We know from Acts that Peter was commissioned by the Church of Jerusalem to bring the Good News to jews outside of Judea. We also know from Acts that the head of the Church of Jerusalem was James. It was James who presided over the Council of Jerusalem, and although Peter was present it was James who issued the final devree on how to handle gentile convert to Christianity. Although this decree was liberal in its scope it was still rooted in the Law and was abbigious enough to be interperted either as a conservative decree and should be seen in light of the Law or as Paul interpreted this decree which lead to tention within the Church.
Where does it say in Acts that Peter was commissions by the Church of Jerusalem?
The major issue for the Jerusalem Council was to determine whether or not Gentiles had to follow the law of Moses, particularly must they be circumcised (Acts 15:5-6). Peter was not merely “present”, but it is clear that he made the decision on circumcision (Acts 15:7-11). Peter was looked upon as the leader because it says in
Acts 15:7a “after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them”, The act of rising denotes that the leader is ending the debate and is giving his decision.
Likewise, after Peter spoke
Acts 12:12 “And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.” The silence indicates Peter’s decision is final, so there is no further debate on the matter. They then proceeded to other discussions with Barnabas and Paul. Finally, at the end of the meeting, James, as the presider (it is a benevolence to have the local leader as the meeting presider) summarizes what transpired and was decided upon at the council.
You will have to enlighten me as to where you find that Paul’s interpretation was such that it led to tension.
We also see James’ influence over Peter when the delegation from Jerusalem was sent to Antioch by Jame and the division this delegation cause amoung Christians of Jewish and pagan background and how James’ influenced Peter’s actions and how Paul opposed this.
I assume you are referring to Galatians 2, where, although Peter’s actions were precipitated by the visitors from James, the passage states Gal 2:12 “For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.” It does not say that he feared James but rather the “circumcision party”. I does not explicitly state what Peter’s fear was. I think if we look at the circumstances and the make up of Christians we can find a couple of possibilities for his fear. The early church did have much tension due to the fact that there were Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles and this differentiation was acute both geographically and in their cultures. The Apostles had to work at transitioning the Jews into the fullness of Christ, which included weaning them from their much of their upbringing in Jewish law and customs. They had to transition the Gentile from beliefs in many gods and pagan rituals. They had to bring the Jews to the understanding that 1) Christ was the fulfillment of God’s covenant and of OT prophecies but, at the same time, that Christ encompassed all nations not just the Jews; 2) the old law of Moses was, for the most part, given by God as a punishment to Israel for their disobedience and therefore undone by Christ. 3) the Jew’s belief that the Messiah would establish a physical kingdom of nations on earth was in error and that His kingdom on earth was established in a non-political Church and made on with the kingdom of heaven.
The point is, that to transition all Christians into one unified Church, the Apostles used different disciplines for the different cultures. Similar to today where the Church in different countries celebrates different Holy Day, they have different disciplines and celebrations for Lent, etc. The tension in the early church was not caused by different “teachings” but different disciplines to address the need of the different cultures. The fear was that when believers of the different disciplines would come together there would be animosity created. So, I think Peter’s fears had to do with the possible disruption by the “circumcision party” and that it could undo the strides made toward unifying the Gentiles and Jews.
Paul’s opposition of Peter was not related to opposing James’ influence but it was to Peter’s not personally acting upon his own teachings (Acts 11). He was not practicing what he preached. There was no difference in doctrine among the Apostles only in the disciplines and how they should be applied. Peter, the first Pope, like all popes, was infallible not impeccable.
…Continued in next post
) that most of the time it is explained in this way: this verse is talking about the rewards (not salvation, but rewards for giving to God) that each believer receives in heaven for his works on earth. If the works done for the Lord were of a selfish motive, like the Pharisee who dropped the money in the poorbox when he knew a lot of people would notice so they would think highly of him,… then they will burn up; but if they were done out of love for the Lord with no interest in men’s admiration or self pride, they will survive the test of fire and the rewards will remain. If all rewards are burned in the fire, you will retain your salvation but have very few rewards to show for your earthly life to take into eternity.
It was completely unnerving for me, and it came to this: I had to question whose interpretations I was then going to trust, people of my own era who changed their interpretations with what seemed like each generation, or the interpretations that stood the test of time.