Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority by John Howard Schütz

Author:John Howard Schütz
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781611644968
Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press
Published: 2014-08-15T00:00:00+00:00

GAL. 2: 11–21

We can only understand the situation and the appeal to authority implicit in Paul’s remarks in 2: 1–10 by taking into account the crucial scene in 2: 11–21 and its probable historical background. At an unspecified time after the Jerusalem conference Peter was in Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas, enjoying full fellowship with the gentile Christians. Specifically, there was but one table, which may mean that the fellowship of the eucharist was being celebrated as part of a larger meal.2 The common act of eating together denies any visible distinction between Jewish and gentile Christians, between those circumcised and those uncircumcised. When ‘some men from James’ come, however, Peter withdraws from this expression of common fellowship and ‘separates himself’ from the gentiles. Barnabas takes the same cue as do the ‘rest of the Jews’.

Paul’s displeasure is evident in vv. 14–21. Equally evident is the close connection of these verses to the larger body of the letter and especially to the christological argument in ch. 3. In 2: 11ff., Paul is moving from the Antioch scene to the purpose at hand in writing the letter. Nevertheless, vv. 14ff. also constitute a reprise of themes introduced through chs. 1 and 2. Paul will not set aside the grace of God (v. 21), the clear implication being that Peter does. The break between a former and present life, so sharply etched in 1: 5ff., provides much of the theological tenor of these verses. If one were to build up the very things he has destroyed, he would prove himself a sinner (v. 18). Through the law Paul has died to the law that he might live to God; he has been crucified with Christ (v. 19). It is no longer he who lives but Christ who lives in him (v. 20a).

All of this and more Paul educes in his reproach to Peter whom, with the others, he accuses of not being ‘on the right road toward the truth of the gospel’.1 But why? If Peter’s actions are a violation of the Jerusalem agreement, the agreement is astounding. Did both Jerusalem and Paul fail to foresee at that time the implications of recognizing an independent missionary movement based in Antioch? If Jerusalem could foresee such problems, was it acting in deception at the time of the meeting? Why would Barnabas, the most visible member of the Antioch missionary movement, succumb so quickly to Jerusalem’s position if Jerusalem but reneged on an earlier agreement?2

Barnabas’ action makes it almost impossible to construe the Antioch affair as a simple act of bad faith on Jerusalem’s part. Certainly Barnabas does not regard it that way, and if Paul does, then we must allow for the possibility that Paul’s view of the meaning and implications of the Jerusalem agreement was not shared by Antioch. In point of fact it was not. Galatians 2: 11f. stands as the memorial not only to Paul’s break with Barnabas, a rupture construed by Luke (Acts 15: 26–41) as purely personal,3 but to his emergence as a fully independent missionary with no ties to Antioch.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.