Paul vis-a’-vis Peter

Paul vis-à-vis Peter

On Matters of Conduct

Evangelical Christians, particularly those of the more fundamentalist persuasions are quick to criticize formality or structure such as a liturgical calendar of events on the basis of Colossians 2:16 which reads,

“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. [NIV]

Paul’s objection was not intended as a diatribe against the use of a liturgical calendar as long as no efficacious spiritual blessing for doing so is expected. As a matter of fact, Paul acquiesced to the advice given by the Apostle James (whom some consider to be the presiding bishop of Jerusalem) and had Timothy circumcised [Acts 16:1-3], and participated in a strictly Jewish Passover ceremony; whereas, on the other hand he refused to allow Titus to be circumcised [Galatians 2:3-5]. The question is of course, why?

The most obvious answer is that Timothy’s mother was Jewish; whereas, Titus was pure Greek [Galatians 2:3]; and according to the Pauline principle espoused in 1 Corinthians 9:20, “To the Jews [he] became a Jew in order to win the Jews.” Clearly, elsewhere, throughout his epistles Paul finds no intrinsic value in strictly religious customs such as circumcision or special meeting places.

Furthermore, it should be noted that in Galatians 2:3-5 these Judaizers were false brothers who wanted to force work of law in order for Titus to be accepted as a fellow believer; something that was absolutely antithetical to Pauline theology. 

On Matters of Acceptance

We must keep in focus is that this is the same Paul, who in the very next chapter wrote,

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, and there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [Galatians 3:28 NASB]

So rather than pegging this as a theological problem with Paul, or a sign of weakness on his part, we should rather look at this as a pragmatic missionary strategy.

This is clearly in line with Jesus’ theological response to the Samaritan woman at the well who was confused about how and where she should worship—was it Mount Gerizim or at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem?

“[An] hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”  [John 4: 23-24]

God can and will meet us anywhere, under any circumstances—in a temple or on a mountain top, the place or the form is not essential; nor is a prescribed liturgical form. Worshiping God in spirit and truth is, however. And, this is the essence of the theology of both Jesus and Paul, and from all indications the brethren in Jerusalem who were clinging to Jewish practices in hopes of reaching the household of Israel.

That is not to say that obvious ethnic prejudices in the church were not in play. They plainly were.  We must take into account in this regards that it was Peter to whom God gave The Apostle Peter the vision of a sheet full of ceremonially unclean animals that were lowered from heaven. At which time a voice from heaven told Peter to kill and eat, but Peter as an orthodox Jew declined. Again the same command was repeated twice, assuring him that,

"What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." [Acts 10: 15 ASV]

Apparently, this was something that Peter took serious, theologically, for we see him repeating the story again in as he speaks to Cornelius, saying,

"You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.” [Acts 10:28, NASV]

Furthermore, Peter related the vision again in Acts 15: 6-11 in his comments to the Jerusalem council. And, although Peter wisely recused himself in the decision it was on the basis of Peter’s revelation^[i] that James rendered the crucial decision recorded in Acts 15 which reads:

“The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings:

Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

“Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” [Acts 15: 23-29 NASB]

Now, several important conclusions can be draw from these observations. Chief among these conclusions is that the Apostles and Elder in the New Testament ecclesia were in agreement. Paul deferred to the Council in Jerusalem for a binding decision, and it was Peter not Paul who as it were gave the conclusive evidence. It can also be determined that God’s grace extended to all mankind regardless of ethnic or religious heritage. It is also interesting to observe that one of the functions of the prophets [Acts 15: 32] was to encourage and strengthen the Gentile brethren—remember, the foundation of the church is Christ as the Chief cornerstone, and the Apostles and prophets as the remaining foundational stones [Ephesians 2:20].

In this regards it should be pointed out that contrary to liberal redaction theology the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem were in perfect harmony with Pauline theology on this issue and it is absolutely inexcusable to suggest otherwise. The key phrases in all of this discussion, and indeed throughout the scriptures are the words,

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

That clinches the argument. The Holy Spirit always prevails in these cases; therefore, we can expect harmony in each and every Godly sanctioned theology within the pages of His inspired word.

In light of our discussion, it is safe to say that theologically Peter and Paul are in complete harmony. Which, I think the following passage illustrates in that Peter compliments and thereby complements Pauline theology with these words,

“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16 (NIV)

Thus, in essence all Biblically based theology is harmoniously complementary; and although some theologians see a competitive and discordant spirit among the various authors careful study will disclose otherwise.

Caveat on Cultism.

A word of caution, I think is appropriate at this juncture. Fascination with Pauline theology to the exclusion of other so-called New Testament theologies can be dangerous. A good case in point is that of Martin Luther the champion of the Protestant Reformation. It is well-known that Luther early in his career excluded James in his canon of scripture. Most probably Luther was so enamored with his newly found doctrine of sola fide that he neglected sola scriptura when the accepted canon did not serve his theological taste.   

Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on Acts 22:21, also has this to say:

"The Epistles of Peter, John, James, and Jude are great and excellent; but, when compared with those of Paul, however glorious they may be, they have no glory comparatively, by reason of the glory which excelled. Next to Jesus, St. Paul is the glory of the Christian Church. Jesus is the foundation; Paul, the Master-builder."

Further, another Dr. T. D. Bernard, in my opinion borders on heresy when he asks:

"Who are the appointed teachers of the church, Peter and John, the two chief Apostles; James and Jude, the brethren of the Lord? We take knowledge of them that they have been with Jesus and own the highest authority which association with Him can give, but the chief place in this system of teaching doesn’t belong to any of them, nor to all of them together. Their united writings form but a second volume, and that a very thin one, just one -fifth the bulk of the first, to which moreover it bears in some degree a kind of supplementary relation. The office of working out the principles of Christian faith into full proportions and clearly defined forms was assigned to another, to “Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle.” ^[ii]

My feeling is that when theologians make statements like that is that they are protecting some private theological preference, in this case the perceived Calvinism in Pauline theology. Paul, however, reminds us that,

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable" (II Timothy 3:16).

Bits and pieces of supplementary material are not extraneous add-ons; but rather essential complementaries that blend particular theologies into a harmony of Biblical truth. In the words of Amos,

“Can two people walk together without agreeing on the direction?” (Amos 3: 3 NLT)

Paul is unique; there is no doubt about that. God used him to reduce to words the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the intentions of the Father concerning our eternal salvation; however, to imply that Paul’s theology trumps Peter’s or James’ theology or that their works and that of other New Testament writers is somehow a kind of supplementary relationship to the body of New Testament truth is naïve.

Dr. Ervene C. Bragg, whom I mentioned previously, does not improve the case of these Pauline cultists by quoting Dr. Oswald Chambers who stated in his book, The Psychology of Redemption, that:

"The Gospels always present in nugget form the truth, and if we want to know the stages of evangelical experience, we must go to the Epistles which beat out into negotiable gold the nuggets of truth presented by our Lord." ^[iii]

Nor does Sir Robert Anderson help their theological crusade when he writes that Paul referred to the gospels as if it were his, and his alone. Anderson writes:

“‘My Gospel, three times repeated by Paul, are no mere conventional expressions. They are explained in several of his epistles and with peculiar definiteness in his letter to the Galatians. He there declares in explicit and emphatic terms that the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles was the subject of a special revelation peculiar to him. Not only was he not taught it by those who were apostles before him, but he it was who by Divine Command, communicated it to the twelve…."^[iv]

That, in my opinion is sheer theological rubbish; and cultic to say the least. Who is Sir Robert to suggest such a thing, as if Paul the only one with whom God trusted to share the fullness of the gospel.

Bragg, to his credit, recognizes the inherent error with such exclusivity and offered the following modified caveat, which, however, does not do much to improve the case. He writes:

We must again warn the student that to ignore any of the Scripture is to miss some God-given revelation to your heart. James and John and Jude and Peter were just as inspired as Paul, and they wrote to the church, for the church, and about the church. What God revealed to them is just as much for us as what Paul wrote. All we contend is that the New Testament distinctly teaches that to Paul alone was committed the whole complete perfect revelation of church truth, and, therefore, we must go to him to build our system of church doctrine.^[v]

So we see even on that occasion, it seems he could not resist that his primary contention was,

“[T]hat the New Testament distinctly teaches that to Paul alone was committed the whole complete perfect revelation of church truth, and, therefore, we must go to him to build our system of church doctrine.”^[vi]

This “whole complete perfect revelation of church truth” according to Bragg was received at one time in Arabia by Paul shortly after his conversion.^[vii

This, Bragg says is taught in Galatians 1-2; so let’s take a close look at this passage. It reads,

“As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as^[viii] Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.” (Galatians 1: 6-10)

The word “as,” an adverb (καθὼς; kathōs) occurs 182 times in the New Testament has a conjunctive relationship with a preceding subject of comparison. An acceptable synonym would be “exactly,” or in this case, “exactly as Peter” did. Granted, Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews but both preached the same Gospel; although both on at least two occasions were perceived by some (primarily reductionist theologians) to relapse into Judaist practices:  Peter when he refuse to eat with Gentiles to please his Jewish friends; and Paul when he had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16: 1-3) and again when Paul shaved his own head to signal that he had taken a Jewish vow (Acts 18: 18).

Therefore, it seems strange to me that critics who insist that Paul had to either correct Peter’s theology or that either had different theologies on the basis of their unique ministries is simply not supported by scripture. Ministry strategy and theological differences are two different subjects altogether.

Foundational Stones

According to Hans Urs von Balthazar the difference between Paul and Peter was that of the difference between that of an "ecclesiastical office and a gifted theological writer."

Most Protestants would not concede to that, but admittedly Peter did have a special role in his office as what appears to be the Chiefest of the Apostles—this should not, however, surprise us since any good organization must have a leader, or in this case one who appears from all accounts to be chief among the Apostles.

Consider this in regards to the uniqueness of Peter’s role in the New Testament church: Peter's name is listed first in all the lists of the Apostles in the New Testament, and he is described as "first in the Gospel of Matthew (Matt. 10:2); Peter was the first to profess Jesus' divinity (Matt, 16: 16); and he alone is given a new name Petros (or Rock) by Jesus (Matt. 16: 18; John 1: 42) and a “key”—a symbol connoting unlocking the mysteries of the Kingdom.

Much more could be said, however, it should be noted that Peter's name is mentioned more often in the New Testament than all of the other disciples combined: 191 times–162 as Peter or Simon Peter; 23 as Simon; and six as Cephas. And, of course, that list includes Paul.

In referencing the uniqueness of Peter, please understand that this is not be misconstrued that I for one moment believe that Peter was the first Pope, since there is no indication in scripture that any foundational office was continued after the foundational stones of the church were laid. (Eph. 2:20 cf. Hebrews 6:1–2; 1 Cor. 3:10-11) These foundational stones—that of Christ as the Chief Corner stone, and the Apostles and Prophets as the rest of the foundational structure are uniquely one of a kind. Once that was completed—which, I personally assume was when the canon of scripture was completed, then the unique roles of pastor and teachers, evangelists and those with prophetic gifts continued to build the superstructure of the church.

An Exclusive mystery?

Some, such as Dr. C. I. Scofield believe that that Paul received two distinct revelations: during his three year stint in Arabia; and a second more mature revelation during his imprisonments. Whatever the sequence, however, it apparent that Paul seems to be more reflective in his prison epistles and elsewhere as grew older; some of which, howeve, could be because he was addressing a more resolute audience. Some have suggested that his time spent with Peter (Galatians 1:11-12) could account for Paul’s theological development. More likely, however, that since Paul undoubtedly spent considerable time in prayer and meditation this was simply just a natural development. It may be also that Jesus appeared to him several more times if we can assume that his “abundance of revelations” mentions in 2 Corinthians 12:7 did not all occur in Arabia but elsewhere.

“And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.”

The timing of those “revelations;” however, are not clear. The Macedonian call would certainly qualify as dynamic equivalent of such a supernatural experience; however, this vision was seen before Paul wrote his first epistle. Nor is there any reason to rule out that all of these revelations could have been within the three year time period that Paul was in Arabia. However, in either case there is no reason to assume that Paul received any more or less of a revelation or revelations than Peter to whom Jesus said, “Build my church,” and “feed my flock.” (John 21: 15-17)

These would be strange orders, indeed, for someone who had to wait on Paul for the complete revelation, as Dr. Bragg implies. In that regards also, it was unto Peter that Christ said,

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:18-20

We should note that in this case the Bible uses a key as a symbol of authority. In Isaiah 22:22, we see Eliakim the priest received "the key of the house of David…on his shoulder." And, in Revelation 3:7 we see a similar symbolism. Further, in biblical times it is a well-known fact at that a trusted servant to the king wore the key to the king's house on a hook on his shoulder; which, therefore, indicates that he had the authority to open or close the king's house.

Assuming Jesus was addressing Peter exclusively in Matthew 16:19 some interpret this to mean that Peter had the authority to allow or deny people access to the Kingdom of God. This seems hardly likely, since Peter would have to be consulted each time a new convert was made, and as ridiculous as it may sound when Peter died no one else could be admitted to the Kingdom.

No, in my opinion this was simply a way of Christ honoring Peters as his chosen to lead the nascent church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit until a sufficient superstructure was constructed to carry on Christ’s soteric and eschatological mission.

Admittedly the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 is theologically impossible to decipher on the strength of the statement alone  since Jesus is the foundational rock, the corner stone; however, the statement may be construed that Peter as well as the other Apostles—Paul included, together with the prophets were the foundational stones. (Ephesians 2:20) Thus it seems that in this case also Christ may have the other foundational stones in mind when he singled Peter out as it were from the other small foundational stones as the leader.

Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Christ would establish such a major doctrinal point on such illusive metaphors as a key and a rock. More likely those that read the inauguration of an ecclesiastical hierarchy into these two words do so to justify a subjective church dogma that has little or no basis in scripture. [Matthew 19:28]

Nonetheless, we should not discard the references altogether since a common interpretation at least on the first reading is that Christ was simply putting Peter in charge of the little company of disciples, particularly since they were to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.  

Paul’s ministry—let me emphasize which was not a different doctrine—was largely to the Gentiles; however it did include some Jews as well^[ix] as Ananias had so accurately prophesied.^[x]

Paul vis-à-vis The Twelve

Strange as it may seem, The Holy Spirit approved the choice of the Apostle to replace Judas by blessing a lottery of two: Matthias and Justus. After prayer Matthias’ name was drawn and thereby became the last of the Apostles of Christ to the Jews. This choice was further confirmed when he was baptized in the Holy Spirit along with the other eleven (Acts 2:4); but, perhaps the most convincing evidence is that he was clearly identified as one of the twelve in Acts 2:14 and 6:2.Acts 15: 23-29

Paul’s ministry was well received in the region of Galatia, an area settled by what can only be described as complete barbarians, savages that had through the mercy of God’s grace been converted, also some in the region were no doubt Jewish converts from among Jewish settlers. Some commentators have suggested that Paul met some of these converts when he visited synagogues in the region, and thus the other converts in the region were more infused with a tendency towards Judaism. In any event, Judaizers from Jerusalem with a letter purportedly from James and the brethren that was either a forged document or certainly a misconstrued one that backed these false brethren, theologically, was presented to these fledgling disciples in an effort to Judaize them.

Interestingly enough, James denied that he or the brethren had ever written such a letter, and thoroughly reputed the intentions of these “false brethren.”  (Acts 15; Galatians 2:4)

In any event, Pau respectfully visited the brethren in Jerusalem with what turned out to be a successful effort to clarify the issue. The point, being of course, that not only was there structure to this nascent ecclesia but also that Paul was willing to submit the case to the Jerusalem leadership. Any other interpretation of this episode I think misses the real issue at stake here; namely, of harmony among the brethren.

---

[i] Acts 15: 14

[ii] 1 T. D. Bernard, The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament (London: Pickering and Inglis, n.d.) 152

[iii] 42. Oswald Chambers, The Psychology of Redemption (Fort Washington: Christian Literature Crusade, 1930) p. 24.

[iv] Anderson, Robert, The Silence of God (London: Pickering and Inglis, n.d.) 106

[v] Bragg. 6.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] The word as, an adverb (καθὼς; kathōs) occurs 182 times in the New Testament has a conjunctive relationship with a the corollary    

[ix] Galatians 2:8

[x] Acts 9: 15.