Most of us have the impression that Paul was the Apostle for the Gentiles and Peter for the Jews. This impression is reinforced by a line written by Paul in hisEpistle to the Galatians. This epistle was written in about 57 A.D. after the Jerusalem Council in 50 A.D.
for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles,
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 (Galatians 2:8-9)
This impression is not quite true because wherever Paul preached, he started in synagogues with the Jews first. Only when his preaching was rejected did Paul go to the Gentiles. For example, in Antioch of Pisidia, Paul and Barnabas had this to say.
And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles." (Acts 13:46)
Earlier on, Peter had already admitted Cornelius, a Roman centurion, into the Church.
for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles,
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 (Galatians 2:8-9)
This impression is not quite true because wherever Paul preached, he started in synagogues with the Jews first. Only when his preaching was rejected did Paul go to the Gentiles. For example, in Antioch of Pisidia, Paul and Barnabas had this to say.
And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles." (Acts 13:46)
Earlier on, Peter had already admitted Cornelius, a Roman centurion, into the Church.
After the martyrdom of Stephen, the gospel was spread to the Samaritans. The Samaritans were not Gentiles because they were descendants of Israelites. Romans were. In Acts 11, we meet for the first time, the "circumcision party" who insisted on circumcising Gentiles believers. They were in Jerusalem. They criticized Peter for sharing table with Gentiles.
So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him,
saying, "Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?" (Acts 11:2-3)
A healthy community should be able to tolerate differences and diversities as long as they are not harmful to the community. The circumcision party saw the admission of Gentiles as a threat to the purity of the community. It is understandable but wrong. Diversity stimulates the growth of the community. Furthermore, it is the wish of God to bring salvation to all. Ironing out the differences would only make the community stagnant and withered. Peter defended the rights of the Gentiles and his action. He retold the story and how the Holy Spirit had instructed him to go forth to the Romans. Peter was prudent in bringing along six other Jewish members to bear witness to the whole incident. When the Holy Spirit descended on the Romans, all doubts were cast away.
If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"
When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11:17-18)
Who am I that I could withstand God? Who are you that you could withhold God's hand? The circumcision party was silenced, for the time being only. Obviously, appeal to authority could only temporarily silence opposition. It would not convince. Opposition would turn around when opportunity arose. The circumcision party would come back again to bug Paul.
So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him,
saying, "Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?" (Acts 11:2-3)
A healthy community should be able to tolerate differences and diversities as long as they are not harmful to the community. The circumcision party saw the admission of Gentiles as a threat to the purity of the community. It is understandable but wrong. Diversity stimulates the growth of the community. Furthermore, it is the wish of God to bring salvation to all. Ironing out the differences would only make the community stagnant and withered. Peter defended the rights of the Gentiles and his action. He retold the story and how the Holy Spirit had instructed him to go forth to the Romans. Peter was prudent in bringing along six other Jewish members to bear witness to the whole incident. When the Holy Spirit descended on the Romans, all doubts were cast away.
If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"
When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11:17-18)
Who am I that I could withstand God? Who are you that you could withhold God's hand? The circumcision party was silenced, for the time being only. Obviously, appeal to authority could only temporarily silence opposition. It would not convince. Opposition would turn around when opportunity arose. The circumcision party would come back again to bug Paul.
Dear Lord, help us seek common ground and conserve diversities. Teach us to live with disagreements. Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment