that prevailed (Orthodox concept). Paul chastized Peter who was wrong
Rev North
- Between his conversion and the date of his letter, St Paul had visited Jerusalem three times (cf. Acts 9:26; 11:29-30; 15:1-6). Of these three journeys he here mentions only two, omitting the time he and Barnabas went there (cf. Acts 11:29-30), because that visit was not particularly significant.
The Judaizers’ demands were inadmissible and clearly dangerous. That was why Paul and Barnabas had opposed them openly at Antioch, and in fact it was their failure to achieve unity and peace on this point that had led them to go up to the Holy City to obtain a decision from the Apostles themselves and the priests living in Jerusalem.
- The Acts of the Apostles show us how concerned the early Church was about looking after the material needs of its members. We can see this, for example, when it tells us about “serving tables”, which refers to the work of giving help to the needy: this began to take up more and more time, with the result that the seven deacons were appointed to allow the Apostles to concentrate on their own specific work–prayer and the ministry of the word or preaching (cf. Acts 6:1-6).
St Paul was faithful to this charge about not forgetting the poor, as we can see from many references in his letters to collections for the poor (cf. 1 Cor 16:1-3; 2 Cor 8:1-l5; 9:l5; etc.). Indeed, one of the reasons for his last visit to Jerusalem was to hand over the monies collected in the Christian communities of Greece and Asia Minor.
11-14. In his dealing with Jews, St Paul sometimes gave way in secondary matters, provided that this did not take from the essence of the Gospel: he had Timothy, whose mother was Jewish, circumcised “because of the Jews that were in those places” (Acts 16:3), and he himself kept to Jewish practices in order to allay suspicion and jealousy (cf. Acts 21:22-26). Similarly, he recommends patience and certain understanding towards those “weak” in the faith, that is, Christians of Jewish origin who held on to some Jewish observances connected with fast days, clean and unclean food and abstinence from the flesh of animals sacrificed to idols (cf. Rom 14:2-6; 1 Cor 10:23-30). But on the key issue of Christians’ freedom from the Mosaic Law, the Apostle was always firm and unambiguous, relying on the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem.
CONTINUED
Paul’s correction of Peter did not go against the latter’s authority. On the contrary, if it had been just anyone, the Teacher of the Gentiles might have let the matter pass; but because it was Cephas, that is, the “rock” of the Church, he had to take action in order to avoid the impression being given that Christians of Gentile origin were obliged to adopt a Jewish lifestyle.Far from undermining the holiness and unity of the Church, this episode demonstrated the great spiritual solidarity among the Apostles, St **Paul’s regard for the visible head of the Church, **and Peter’s humility in correcting his behavior. St Augustine comments: “He who was rebuked was worthier of admiration and more difficult to imitate than he who made the rebuke …]. This episode serves as a fine example of humility, the greatest of Christian teachings, because it is through humility that charity is maintained” (“Exp. in Gal.”, 15).
- When he speaks of these Judaizers as coming “from James”, this does not mean that they had been sent by that Apostle. It is, rather, a reference to their coming from Jerusalem, where, after the persecution organized by Herod Agrippa and the forced flight of St Peter (cf. Acts 12-17), St James the Less remained as bishop. But what is probable is that these Christians, who had not given up the Mosaic Law and Jewish observances, made use of that Apostle’s name: as “the brother of the Lord”, he enjoyed universal veneration and respect.
