Peter and Paul

Whether then it was I or they,
so we preach and so you believed.
1 Corinthians 15:11

There is something unusual about today’s proper: we have two collects, one for St. Peter and the other for St.. Paul. Although the two apostles are honored together liturgically, in life they were sometimes at odds.

Paul recounts an episode which occurred in Antioch over the issue of table fellowship. The continuing validity of the law for Jewish Christians made them refuse to share common meals with Gentile Christians, who did not observe the kosher laws. Peter’s response to this problem had been pragmatic. Recalling, perhaps, Jesus’ practice of table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners (Mark 2:16 par), he had no personal scruples about eating with Gentiles. However, he did respect the weak conscience of those who took a different position.

So when certain men came to Antioch from the Jerusalem community, where the dietary laws were strictly observed, Peter "drew back and separated himself" (Galatians 2:12). Paul was outraged and opposed Peter to his face (v.11), accusing him of hypocrisy (v.13).
Actually, Peter’s action was likely motivated by a desire not to give scandal to the visitors from Jerusalem, something that Paul himself advised in other circumstances (1 Corinthians 8:13; Romans 14:21), but Paul uncharitably assumed that Peter was acting out of fear of the circumcision party (Galatians 2:12).

This unedifying controversy reveals the deep theological gulf between the two apostles. It is also an interesting instance of psychological projection. For Paul’s impassioned accusation that Peter was attempting to force Gentiles to abide by Jewish prescriptions which he himself did not observe (Galatians 2:14) actually reflects what Paul was trying to do, namely, to force Jews to live as Gentiles by sharing table fellowship with Gentile converts.

As a result of this altercation, Paul left Antioch and embarked on his own independent missionary career. Yet despite these differences between the two apostles, which were as serious as anything we encounter today in our ecumenical relations with other churches, Paul includes Peter in the common profession of faith in Christ’s death and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Both apostles had seen the risen Lord (vv.5.8), and Paul concludes his summary of the faith which he had delivered to the Corinthians (v.3) with the ringing words which I chose for my text. In this matter, at least, Peter and Paul are at one.

The two apostles are sometimes taken to represent, respectively, Catholic and Protestant Christianity. Paul’s central teaching of justification by faith, apart from the works of the law (Galatians 2:16) , was taken up by Martin Luther and became the hallmark of the Protestant Reformation. Peter’s spirit of compromise and accomodation, manifested in the episode at Antioch, has been exemplified many times over in the history of the church and may partially explain why Roman Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination. The factionalism which is so evident in the history of Protestantism seems to be moderated within the larger church.

We Anglicans appeal to both the Catholic and the Protestant traditions of Christianity, and we therefore have lessons to learn both from Paul’s radicalism and from Peter’s spirit of compromise. Both approaches have their place as we "seek to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable."

June 29, 2003