Peter between Jerusalem and Antioch: Paul, James, and the Gentiles .

摘要

The intent of this thesis is to demonstrate that the theory presented by scholars such as Bruce, Betz, Longenecker, Fung, Carson, Witherington, Perkins, and Cummins---that Peter withdrew from table fellowship with Gentile Christians at Antioch (Gal 2:11-14) due to concern about rising violent nationalism in Judea and the effect it could have upon the Jerusalem church if it became widely known that a chief Christian leader was eating with Gentiles---is accurate if an adequate catalyst for such concern at the time of the Antioch incident is provided. In addition, a characterization study of Peter throughout the Gospels and Acts demonstrates that many of the alternative theories as to Peter's reasons for separating himself from the Gentile Christians are implausible.;On the latter point, it is demonstrated that there is consistency in the presentation of Peter's character throughout the Gospels. He is bold, but his boldness is often transformed into impetuosity due to lack of understanding. With Pentecost, Peter's lack of understanding is transformed into a robust and prophetic comprehension of the purpose of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Peter's boldness, seen throughout the Gospels, remains. However, it is now properly directed by his Spirit-inspired understanding.;Given the overwhelming consistency of Peter's character throughout multiple first-century A.D. sources, attempts by certain scholars to argue that he vacillated, believed that he was required by the Jerusalem agreement to withdraw from Gentiles, advocated the circumcision of Gentiles, attempted to play the role of mediator, or was concerned with his position in the church should all be rejected.;However, the alternative that Peter was concerned about persecution of the Jerusalem church, in the manner in which it has been previously argued in scholarship, is itself flawed, as there is no substantive reason provided for why Peter would have decided to change at this particular moment, rather than earlier or later. In order for this particular thesis to be upheld, a specific catalyst needs to be identified.;I argue this catalyst was the renewed acceptance by the Jewish populace that active, violent resistance against Roman rule should be adopted in place of the passive resistance which had dominated Jewish relations with their Roman governors between A.D. 6-41. This shift was accelerated by the Jewish famine in the mid-40s A.D., along with actions taken by Claudius against Jews in Rome and throughout the Roman Empire, especially against any Jews who attempted to make non-Jewish converts. This escalation eventually culminated, in A.D. 51, in the first act of violent resistance since the aborted revolt by Judas the Galilean. It was towards the end of this shift that the Antioch incident occurs, with Peter recognizing that his fraternizing with Gentiles might lead to renewed persecution of the Jerusalem church and it is for this reason that he withdraws from table fellowship with the Antiochene Gentile Christians.;Finally, it is argued that Paul was successful in convincing Peter to directly address the Antiochene Gentile Christians, publicly agreeing with Paul that it would be wrong for them to adopt a Jewish lifestyle. However, it is possible that this acquiescence by Peter may not have resulted in his renewing fellowship with the Gentiles, but rather agreeing that they should not judaize, while fully explaining his rationale for why it would be unwise for him to eat with them.