139 Carson, Moo, and Morris, 210.
140 Ibid. See also, Squires, 153, “Thus, Luke’s history of Jesus and the church is driven by the fulfillment of prophecies.”
141 Bruce, 30, “The implication of Luke’s words is that his second volume will be an account of what Jesus continued to do and teach after his ascension—no longer in visible presence on earth but by his Spirit in his followers” [author’s italics]. See also Arrington, xxxviii, “Luke’s second volume makes clear that what Jesus began to do during his ministry, he continued to do through his witnesses (Acts 1:1).”
142 Stronstad, 49, “By this transfer of the Spirit, the disciples become the heirs and successors to the earthly charismatic ministry of Jesus; that is, because Jesus has poured out the charismatic Spirit upon them the disciples will continue to do and teach those things which Jesus began to do and teach (Acts 1:1).”
143 Gundry, 220, He says that Acts shows, “the extension of Christianity in early Church history so as to convince readers by the irresistible advance of the Gospel that God through His Spirit really is working in human history for the redemption of all men.”
144 Talbert hints at this connection (Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, 3ff.), however, there did not appear to be any other scholars who saw a connection between the birth and infancy narratives in the Gospel, and the early days (infancy) of the church.
145 Frank Stagg, The Book of Acts: The Early Struggle for an Unhindered Gospel (Nashville: Broadman, 1955) 13, “The problem of accepting uncircumcised Gentiles became increa-singly difficult for Jewish Christians, leading eventually to the self-exclusion of the Jews from the Christian community.” See also Marshall, 29–32.
146 Stagg, 13–14.
147 Marshall, 50, “Luke demonstrates that in the purpose of God there can be no racial discrimination within the church” [author’s italics].
148 Hiebert, 257, “It shows how Christianity, which arose out of Judaism, was led step by step to recognize God’s purpose that it can be an intrinsically universal body.”
149 David E. Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, Library of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 137.
150 F. F. Bruce, “The Significance of the Speeches for Interpreting Acts,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 33 (1990) 28, The gospel message that Luke presents in Acts is, “freed from national restrictions to be accepted by all nations, and therefore entitled to be granted the liberty enjoyed by Jewish communities throughout the world.”
151 Aune, 140.
2 / Peter and Paul: Opponents or Fellow Workers in the Early Church?
Before Peter and Paul’s ministries are examined in Acts, their relationship in the New Testament will be explored and discussed. Paul mentions Peter in two of his letters, Galatians and 1 Corinthians. Peter refers to Paul in one of his letters, 2 Peter. These passages will be looked at in an effort to determine what kind of relationship the two men had. As was discussed in the previous chapter, there are some scholars, primarily those influenced by Baur and the other scholars that made up the Tübingen school, who see a deep division between the two apostles and their followers. This is based in large part on the passages in 1 Corinthians and Galatians that will be examined. In their view, Acts was written in an attempt to heal the division that existed between the two men and their followers.1
The passages in Galatians that discuss the relationship between Peter and Paul will be examined first. The reason that Galatians will be discussed first is because it is commonly accepted to be one of Paul’s earliest letters.2 From an autobiographical point-of-view, Galatians also deals with an early period in Paul’s Christian life.3 We will look at Galatians 1:18-21, Galatians 2:1-10, and Galatians 2:11-14. As the passages are examined in Galatians, there will be some reference to the related passages in Acts, but the goal will not be to necessarily harmonize them with what Luke wrote. The intent is to explore the relationship and interaction between the two apostles as perceived by Paul. How did he understand their relationship?
Galatians 1:18-21
The first contact that is mentioned between Peter and Paul is recorded by Paul in Galatians 1:18-21:
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles- only James, the Lord’s brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. Later I went to Syria and Cilicia.
The related passage in Acts is found in 9:26-30:
When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was really a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him. When the brothers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.
While some would see these two passages as referring to different visits to Jerusalem,4 many others see them as referring to the same visit.5 In either case, they both describe Paul’s early contact with some of the Jerusalem Christians and some of the apostles. While acknowledging the differences in the two passages, Hemer seems to make the most sense in his approach in saying that they both refer to the same visit.6 The differences in the two passages lie in the fact that the intentions of the authors were different. Luke was only providing a generalized account of Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem as a Christian. In Galatians, however, Paul was writing to clear the air in regard to his relationship with the original apostles. He was specific in who he had contact with and how long that contact lasted. “Luke says Paul had apostolic contact: Paul tells us whom he saw.”7 Tenney echoes this when he says, “There is no essential conflict between Galatians 1:19 and Acts 9:27, since the latter does not specify which apostles were present and which were absent.”8
Paul explains that the reason that he went to Jerusalem was, “to get acquainted with Peter.” The fact that Paul wanted to meet and get to know Peter is important, in and of itself.9 Peter was the acknowledged leader of the church in Jerusalem and was possibly known to Paul by reputation from his days as a persecutor of the church. This also seems to be an acknowledgement by Paul that at the time of this visit to Jerusalem, James had not moved into the primary position of authority in the church that he would later occupy. At this time Peter still occupied the central role of authority.10 He was the logical choice from which to gain background information on Jesus’ earthly life, as well as on the early days of the church. Both Paul’s and Luke’s accounts agree on the significance of Peter in the early church. For Paul, this