Peter and Paul in Acts: A Comparison of Their Ministries. David Spell

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ 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 СКАЧАТЬ