Replies

Mr. Rogers:

Once again, your interpretation, like that of many American Protestants is void of any theological foundation and how that has been understood by more learned men than you and me both, i.e, the Church Fathers of the early Church.

Saint Jerome, without a doubt the greatest Biblical scholar of the Church Fathers during the period 100 to 420AD in his letter to Saint Augustine deals precisely with the issue of Saints Peter and Paul in Galatians and his interpretation, not mine [being the good Catholic that I am, and thus also I will take his over your interpretation].

http://newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm

Following Saint Jerome, I contend that Paul in no way was correcting Peter for teaching false doctrine. If this were true, then Paul would also be guilty of what he was correcting Peter of doing. Again, no Father ever interpreted Peter as teaching unorthodox doctrine. The most we see is that some of the Fathers (St. Augustine being one of the) accused him of acting hypocritically, and thus sinning, which is what the text actually states (c.f. Gal 2:13).

St. Jerome’s Letter Number 112, addressed to his friend St. Augustine, which I have linked goes through the Scriptures and points out, correctly, the problem one has if one assumes that St. Peter was teaching false doctrine. I encourage you to read St. Jerome’s commentary and go back to the Scriptures and see how your interpretation in the end, is not correct.

I seem to remember some years back that this issue was discussed her and I think I may have pointed out Saint Jerome’s take on it as well as Saint Augustine’s and I think I may have pinged both you and Iscool in a post.

In the link I cited above [Jerome’s Letter 112], Saint Jerome points out that first, Biblical scholars and theologians need to read Acts 15 first, to understand Galatians in proper context. Some key texts from that chapter are as follows, first we read “After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, My brothers, you are aware from early days God made his choice among you that the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe…..on the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way they are.”” (cf. Acts 15: 7-11). We next read, “the whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the sings and wonders”(c.f. Acts 15:12).

Now you and I can agree that St. James was the overseer[Bishop]/leader of the Church in Jerusalem, which was made up of ethnic Jewish-Christians. So, a theological question is who had more authority at the Council, Peter or James. However, I think the text is clear that St. James begins his statement in verse 13 after the council fell silent and he makes specific reference to St. Peter [called Symeon by James] as we read “After they had fallen silent, James responded, My brothers listen to me. Symeon has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.” (c.f. Acts 15:13-14). Thus, St. James assents to St. Peters doctrinal declaration, by specifically referencing Peter, and then as leader of the Church in Jerusalem, gives a pastoral plan on how the Jewish-Christian community can implement Peter’s decision and stay in communion with the gentile Christians coming into the Church [c.f. Acts 15:19-21]

Next, in the context of what we read in Acts 15, it is also important to note that the Jewish-Christians from the Church in Jerusalem were causing the friction in Galatia and having trouble accepting gentiles as Christians “came from James” (c.f. Gal 2:12 and Acts 11: 2-4). So, given the Jewish-Christians at Jerusalem having difficulty with the gentiles becoming Christians, it was important for St. Luke to record in Acts, that St. James accepted St. Peters decision recorded in Acts 15.

Now back to Galatians and St. Peter and St. Paul. Again, Acts 15 also shows that it was St. Peter who first came to see that the Jewish ceremonial laws were not longer in effect and that it is through Grace that God saves humanity (c.f. Acts 15:11). It is also true that the context of Galatians that ST. Paul does in fact regard ST. Peter has a great authority (c.f. Gal 1:18, 2:1-2) as he mentions those of repute several times and claims that those of repute “made me add nothing” (c.f. Gal 2:2; Gal 2:6).

St. Jerome in his Letter 112 to St. Augustine quotes Galatians 2:11-14 and then writes:

“No one can doubt, therefore, that the Apostle Peter was himself the author of that rule with deviation from which he is charged. The cause of that deviation, moreover, is seen to be fear of the Jews. For the Scripture says, that at first he did eat with the Gentiles, but that when certain had come from James he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. Now he feared the Jews, to whom he had been appointed apostle, lest by occasion of the Gentiles they should go back from the faith in Christ; imitating the Good Shepherd in his concern lest he should lose the flock committed to him.”
So from St. Jerome’s writing, which was also consistent with Origen before him, it is clear that St. Peter was being a good shepherd and feeding Christ sheep, as Christ commanded him [cf. John 21: 17-19], and trying to strengthen the faith of the Jewish-Christians from Jerusalem. So it is clear that were still problems with the ethnically mixed Christian Churches that had both Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians, as was the case in Antioch.

So, St. Jerome suggests that St. Paul rebuked St. Peter in a “figurative sense”, as a way to provide both an opportunity to stress again that gentiles are saved by Grace and no longer to keep the Jewish Ceremonial Laws. To argue that St. Peter was “literally wrong” and taught doctrinal error is problematic because later in Letter 112, St. Jerome shows that St. Paul, when confronted with similar situations did similar things that St. Peter did and cites three passages to make his point [c.f. Acts 16: 1-3; Acts 18:18; Acts 21: 18-26).

For example, in Acts 16: 1-3 we read “He reached [also] Derbe and Lystra where there was a disciple named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. The brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke highly of him and Paul wanted him to come along with him. On account of the Jews in that region Paul had him CIRCUMCISED [emphasis mine], for they new that his father was a Greek.” So since Timothy was not fully Jewish, as he had not been circumcised and he had a gentile Father, Paul accepted circumcision so that Timothy could do missionary work among Jews, knowing that the ceremonial Jewish Laws were abrogated. Paul allowed this, while still maintaining what St. Peter declared in Acts 15” 6-12, that the Jewish ceremonial laws can’t be imposed on the gentile converts to Christianity.

In Acts 18:18 we read “Paul remained for quite some time, and after saying farewell to the brothers he sailed for Syria together with Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchrea he had his “HAIR CUT” because he had taken a vow.” (i.e. The Nazirite vow described in Numbers 6: 1-24).

In Acts 21: 18-26, we see St. Paul giving instructions to four men to have their heads shaved and have them purified.

ST. Jerome goes on to say the reason that St. Paul did this [3 cases] was for fear of offending the Jews who had come to believe in Christ, the same reason St. Peter did. So, St. Jerome and in fact comments that some writers [St. Jerome disagrees with those writers] felt that St. Paul sometimes had envy towards ST. Peter and boasted of things that he did not do. Remember, St. Paul himself notes that he struggled with a sin throughout his life; Perhaps Jerome was telling us that certain writers like Porphyry [who accused St. Paul of envy towards St. Peter with respect to Paul claims he “had written boastfully of things which he either had not done, or, if he did them, had done with inexcusable presumption.”] are using St. Paul’s own words and trying to claim that the sin he had was envy towards St. Peter. Again, St. Jerome disagrees and puts forth an interpretation that protects the orthodoxy and memory of both St. Peter and St. Paul and argues to claim they were rivals is blasphemous.

Again, one can gather [and many Protestants seem to make this interpretation, most likely to challenge the authority of St. Peter, which the Catholic Church sees as primacy] from reading Galatians that St. Paul is claiming that he settled the doctrinal question with respect to Gentile Christians and the Jewish Law, but as St. Luke records in Acts [and independent source], it was clearly St. Peter.
In closing, whatever interpretation one has with respect to Galatians 2, the entire biblical text does not allow for an interpretation that St. Paul was correcting St. Peter on “False Doctrinal Teaching.” In addition, St. Jerome in his closing sort of takes a friendly jab at his friend St. Augustine and asks Augustine to forgive him [Jerome] for this humble attempt to correct Augustine with respect to how Peter and Paul at Galatia.

I think it is clear that St. Peter was not living like a Jew any longer, and again in Acts 15, he was the one who put for the doctrine that gentiles would not have to observe the Jewish ceremonial laws. The best we can say is that Peter was not celebrating table communion/fellowship with the gentiles in Antioch as he was worried about the flock under St. James from Jerusalem, who were ethnically Jewish Christians.

Perhaps what happened was St. Peter, in humility, allowed himself to be publicly rebuked, and in doing so, publicly gave witness that St. Paul was a fellow Apostle and peer in the missionary field. Recall, that St. Paul was constantly having to defend himself as being an “Apostle” (cf. 1 Cor 9:1-3). The Second Letter to the Corinthians also has a defense of Paul of his ministry and status as an apostle [Chapter 10].

In closing, perhaps God inspired St. Jerome, who is recongized by modern scholars as the greatest biblical scholar of the post apostolic Church, to come up with the interpretation that protects the memory of both St. Peter and Paul and does not pit them against each other.