Q about movie portrayal of Acts 15?

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

I was watching the 1981 movie ‘Peter and Paul’ last night and I have a question I am not sure if anyone can answer—partly because I am not sure if this was just in THIS movie or if it was a realistic portrayal of what really happened…

But there was a part of the movie where Paul was trying to get the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem under the leadership of James, John and Peter to accept the Greek converts without imposing any further rules on them–in other words no circumcision or Jewish Law restrictions–other than faith in the Resurrection. And when Paul was in Jerusalem in person and appealing the case they decided to agree to those terms, but as soon as Paul left there was a letter drawn up and sent to him outlining the restrictions of not eating food sacrificed to idols or blood and no adultery.

Now in the movie Paul became absolutely furious at this because they went back on their word and he felt the restrictions were superfluous and somehow insulted the intelligence and faith of the converts. He considered if they had true faith that of course they would not do those things and that it did not need to be spelled out and in fact offended the Greeks and broke their previous contract.

Did that really happen? That letter that came from Jerusalem is recorded somewhere close to Acts chapter 15 if I remember correctly, but I never knew of any controversy surrounding it. Was there? It gives me a whole new perspective to the story. But I don’t know if I can trust Hollywood, and I am not sure how, where or exactly what I would look up to prove if it happened or not.

Any comments or suggestions?
Ravyn

 

[NotWorthy]

In Acts 15, James (the Bishop of Jerusalem) lists these restrictions. It sounds like they were enumerated while the assembly was still going on. Peter spoke, all were silent. Paul spoke, all were silent. Then James speaks of the restrictions.

The 4 restrictions, if I am correct, were part of the Noahide laws, not part of the Mosaic Laws.

 

[1ke]

No, there was no “controversy” as portrayed in the movie.

Movies are generally not reliable sources of history or theology.

 

[wardrandolph]

hello,Compare Acts 15,withGa.2.there is a controvercy,Peter gives the final discoarse after a lot of debate.

 

[Fidelis]

If I’m not mistaken, this movie recently aired on the wacko “Christian” network TBN. It is one of those Evangelical produced fantasies where St. Paul is practically synonymous with early Christianity, second only (barely) to Jesus. Thus, the portrayal is one of St. Paul against the world, even the rest of the Church and Apostles that preceded him – St. Paul being the measue of all things, you see. A whole lot of license is taken to this end, making the film perhaps entertaining, but ultimately unreliable as history or biblical accuracy.

I agree with a reviewer of this film on Amazon:

This was really a very strange and not very entertaining movie. If you’re interested in seeing Biblical characters brought to life on screen, I would suggest “Quo Vadis” or “Passion of the Christ” perhaps. This movie twists Scripture to create a rivalry and hostility between Peter and Paul that didn’t exist. Until the final scenes, it portrays Peter as a mopish, do-nothing, cowardly dunderhead who is constantly bemoaning how worthless he is in comparison to Paul. This is the Peter who was the leader of the Apostles, who boldly preached to Jerusalem on Pentecost, whose very shadow was reputed to heal the sick, the Peter through whose mouth “the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel”? (Acts 15:7) This would be like a movie portraying Napoleon as an unassuming little milquetoast. Strange. Almost as weird as that was the bizarre histrionics and speech patterns Anthony Hopkins chose to attribute to Paul. When he had to act angry, Hopkins did an exact impression of the role he played as Adolf Hitler in 1980’s “The Bunker”, ranting and raving apoplectically like the Fuhrer in his last days. (I was always expecting him to start screaming about the Russians). When conversing normally, he spoke in a very disconcerting, clipped manner reminiscent of a bad William Shatner impersonator. To add to the hilarity, the director cast Eddie Arnold (Green Acres) as the Roman Procurator of Judea, who sleepwalked through his performance in his out-of-place Midwestern accent. All in all, a pretty bad movie.
amazon.com/Peter-Paul-Eddie-Albert/dp/1563641844

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

I don’t really need a movie review. I was asking if there was indeed a controversy over these restrictions that were sent in a letter after the council dismissed. apparently this question is a controversy! LOL Two other groups I posted on seem to think there was a controversy ala Galations–and as the movie portrayed it. Can anyone recommend any scholarly works on the tensions between Peter and Paul that might elaborate on this incident?

Ravyn

 

[Fidelis]

I don’t really need a movie review. I was asking if there was indeed a controversy over these restrictions that were sent in a letter after the council dismissed. apparently this question is a controversy! LOL Two other groups I posted on seem to think there was a controversy ala Galations–and as the movie portrayed it. Can anyone recommend any scholarly works on the tensions between Peter and Paul that might elaborate on this incident?

Ravyn

My point was that you should not depend on a second-rate movie to look for controversy. You don’t need a scholar to tell you the conflict in the movie was a manufactured one and had nothing to do with the account related in Galatians. You are welcome, anyway.

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

ok so Fidelis are you saying there was no controversy? (it does not matter to me if the movie is right or wrong–I just want to know if there was a controversy over this or not–the movie only got me started considering whether or not it happened.)

So far out of all the relevant answers I got one ‘no controversy’ and one ‘yes controversy’. Just trying to figure this out. Acts 15 there does not appear to be any problem and there seems to be no time lapse between the council and the letter. But Galatians is a different story—seems that the council deliberately misled Paul and then reneged on the hard agreed decision by issuing a letter some time later, when Paul had already gone and was not influencing/intimidating anyone, but James, John and Peter still were.
I saw this on DVD at a friend’s house–it just came out and I understand it was a made-for-tv movie from 1981, I don’t know anything about any whacko religious channel.
Ravyn

 

[Fidelis]

Well, let’s forget about the movie and look just at the text in question–which I presume is roughly Galatians 2:1-14.

1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage-- 5 to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) --those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; 7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; 10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do.

11 But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 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. 13 And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

From this passage, how can one extrapolate that the Church in Jerusalem “went back on their word”? It is a pretty common-sense straight-forward reading of this that clearly indicates that, rather some collusion by the Church against Paul and the Gentile Christians, this was an example of a personal, temporary moral failure by Peter (and those individuals traveling with him) who fell into a spirit of timidity based on fear of personal opinion of others.