Criswell
Theological Review 2.1 (1987) 119-40.
Copyright © 1987 by The
PETER AND PAUL
AND THE TRADITION CONCERNING
“THE LORD’S SUPPER”
IN I COR 11:23-26*
WILLIAM R.
FARMER
Southern
With
reference to the Lord's Supper Paul wrote as follows:
The tradition which I handed on to
you (concerning the Lord's Supper),
originated
with the Lord himself. That tradition is (I need not remind
you) that:
"The Lord Jesus, during the night in which he was delivered
up, took
bread. And after giving thanks, he broke it and said: 'This
is my
body, which
is for you; do this in remembrance of me.' In the same
way, after
supper he took the cup, saying 'This cup is the new covenant
in my
blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’
For as often as you eat this bread
and drink the cup, you proclaim the
death of
the Lord, until he comes" (1 Cor 11:2.3-26).
In order to understand the
relationship between Peter and Paul,
the importance of that relationship for our
understanding the
origin and significance of 1 Cor
11:23-26, we can begin by asking: "By
what authority does the Apostle to the Gentiles
assure the Corinthian
church that the tradition concerning the Lord's Supper
he had received
and had in turn passed on to them, originated with
Jesus himself?”
Paul
would never have claimed that he was an eyewitness to what
happened during the night in which Jesus was
delivered up. Nor
can we understand him to be claiming that this is a
tradition that had
*For a lecture at
material from a manuscript I intend to contribute
to a volume co-authored with Fr.
Roch Kereszty. This essay
is the unabridged section of the manuscript from which the
lecutre was taken.
120
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
been revealed to him bodily and verbally by
revelation from the
Christ.
All the technical terminology used by Paul indicates that
tradition like that concerning the resurrection
appearances he
later (15:3-7), has been handed on as a well
formulated statement
the conventional manner of the time.1
It is most likely that, in the first
instance, Paul received these
traditions he passed on to his churches from the
church he had per-
secuted before he became a
Christian. But in matters as important as
these, it is not unlikely that Paul took pains to be
sure about what he
was authorizing his churches to receive as
tradition concerning the
normative events of the Gospel.
In the case of the tradition
concerning the resurrection appear-
ances, Paul had his own
direct experience of the Risen Christ to serve
as a control by which to judge the tradition he
had received. And it is
clear that he knows, or at least firmly believes,
that the appearance of
the Risen Lord to him is of the same order as that
to the other
Apostles.
Paul tells the Corinthians that most
of the over 500 brethren to
whom the Lord appeared on a single occasion were
still alive at the
time of writing (15:6). While it is possible, indeed
probable, that Paul
had the opportunity both preceding and following
his conversion, to
discuss the resurrection of Jesus with some of
these Christians, this
would hardly have satisfied the unquestioned concern
for truth regard-
ing events of the past that
were decisive for the pastoral and theo-
logical task of expediting the Gospel, which we
know motivated Paul
(cp. Gal 1:20; 2:5, 14).
Since the tradition he had received
concerning the resurrection
placed Peter and the Twelve at the beginning of the
series of resurrec-
tion appearances, to have
discussed these appearances with Peter
would have been of importance to Paul. Did Paul have
the opportunity
to hear anything directly from Peter on these
matters, or on matters
bearing on Paul's belief that the resurrection
appearances to Peter and
the other Apostles were of the same order as his?
The answer is: "He
certainly did."
I.
Galatians
In his letter to the churches of
that three years after his conversion he went up
(from
1 See B. Gerhardsson, The Origins of the
Gospel Traditions (
1978).
Farmer:
PETER AND PAUL AND "THE LORD'S SUPPER" 121
remained with Peter 15 days (Gal 1:18).
In order to begin to comprehend the
far reaching consequences
of this meeting it is necessary to answer certain
questions. Granting
that Paul presumably wanted to make contact with
church authorities
in
And
why did he remain with Peter 15 days? In this connection we
need to ask what we can learn from a philological
analysis of the text
about the probable parameters of Paul's purpose or
purposes in under-
taking this history making trip.
In answering these questions we face
three main tasks: the first is
to ascertain as best we can what Paul had been
doing during the three
year period between his return to
his visit to Peter referred to in v 18; the second
is to determine the
most probable meaning in this context of the verb
Paul used that is
generally rendered in English by "to
visit" or "to get to know"; and
the third is to analyze the verbal phrase "and
I remained with him" in
relation to the temporal phrase "for fifteen
days,"
The first task presents no great
difficulties. Paul tells us in v 21
that after he had finished his business in
regions of
by face to the churches of Christ in
knew about him was only what they could learn from
the reports they
heard about him, and these reports were to the effect
that "the one
who formerly persecuted us, now preaches the faith
he formerly
ravished" (v 23). To which Paul simply adds:
"And they (i.e., those
whom Paul formerly persecuted) glorified God in
me" (v 24). Where
were these Christians who glorified God in Paul?
Beginning in v 16 Paul tells his
readers that (contrary to what they
may have heard from others) following his
conversion he did not
immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did he
go up to Jeru-
but rather he went away into
how long he remained in
in
from others, it is clear that Paul had been preaching
the Gospel in
some area outside
and it presents the least difficulty if we conclude
that he had been
doing this in and around
general area of
122
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
vividly remembered and could be existentially
juxtaposed to his
present activity.
Since in v 21 Paul writes that upon
leaving
into the region of
about what he did for the next 14 years before
returning to
for the apostolic conference of Gal 2:1-20, we are
to conclude that the
terse phrase "into the regions of
that Paul is opening up a new phase of his
missionary career that at
least in its initial stage was to see him through the
would in any case most probably have come into
Once
the Galatians came to know Paul they would have had reason to
follow his career with interest. But where Paul had
been before he
came to
vague to them. The one thing they did not know and
needed to get
straight was Paul's earliest contacts with the
This
explains Paul's relatively detailed account on this point. From
this account we can infer a great deal more than he
explicitly tells us.
From our analysis we conclude that
during the three years in
question, Paul had been preaching the Gospel
outside
area of his former persecuting activity, and that
during this period of
evangelization he had laid the
groundwork for beginning a westward
mission to the Gentiles. His going to
have proceeded from the reality of these three years
of preaching and
from his decision to embark on this far reaching
mission.
II. To Visit Cephas
In v 18 Paul explains that he went
up to
The
verb used is i[storh?sai which in this case can
be best understood
if we begin with its cognate noun form i!stwr. The histor in ancient
learned in the law and skilled in examining
witnesses. He knew how
to ask the right questions of people who were
being examined in
order to ascertain the truth in matters of dispute.
The truth he was
after was not philosophical truth in some abstract
metaphysical sense,
but rather the kind of truth that can issue in
practical wisdom. In the
final analysis the histor would be called upon to
make a judgment.
The
histor was
a judge.
The first Greek historians were
geographers who explored the
great rivers that emptied into the known seas. Having
penetrated
inland as far as they could safely travel, they would
then interrogate
people who had come down these rivers from further
inland to get
from them eyewitness accounts about the unexplored
sources of the
Farmer:
PETER AND PAUL AND "THE LORD'S SUPPER" 123
great rivers running further back up into the unknown
interiors of the
continents. These same Greeks would question the
priests living in the
temples which were supported by these ancient
river cultures, about
records kept in the temples, about the
genealogies of the local kings,
and the customs of the local inhabitants, The
reports of these geog-
raphers constituted the
beginnings of what came to be called "history,"
The verb i[storh?sai can mean to inquire into or about a thing, or
to inquire about a person, Or it can also mean to
"examine" or to
"observe," Such a questioner or observer would then
become "one
who is informed" about something, or "one
who knows,"
In the case at hand the verb is used
with the accusative of person,
so that it can mean to "inquire of" or
"to ask." One can inquire of an
oracle. Lexicographers are led to place our text in
this context and cite
Gal
1:18 as follows: "visit a person for the purpose of inquiry, khfa?n."
Such
a meaning equivalent is contextually preferable to those one
generally finds in English translations: RSV
"visit";
Goodspeed "become acquainted with"; or
the Amplified New Tes-
tament "become
(personally) acquainted with." Even the paraphrase
“visit Cephas for the purpose of inquiry" is lexicographically limited
in that it fails to suggest as strongly as it
might the well established
usages "examine” and "observe," both of
which are faithful to the
function of the histor and open up rich
possibilities for understanding
what Paul meant and how his readers would have
understood his
phrasing in this instance.
The linguistic evidence examined
thus far by no means limits us
to a view that Paul meant to suggest that he had
simply made a
courtesy call or that he went up to
visit with Peter. As we go deeper into the
lexicographical evidence
offered by Liddell and Scott, we are carried
even farther away from
such an understanding of the text.2 The
word, of course, can mean
simply "to visit," But should we so
understand it in the context in
which we find it?
2 In other contexts, this
verb means: "give an account of what one has learned,"
“records." As historia it is
used in the sense of "inquiry"; it is so used in the title of a
work by Theophrastus: "systematic (or
scientific) observation." In the absolute it is used
of “science” generally; of "geometry,"
and in empirical medicine for "body of recorded
cases.”" Historia is
also used in the sense of "knowledge obtained through inquiry and
“observation" i.e"
"information." And finally we have the meaning of historia as: a
“written account of one's inquiries," "narrative,” "history"
(LSJ 1.842). WZNT cites
examples from Hellenistic Greek which mean simply
"get to know," which meaning
has been accepted by the translators of NEB.
However, on the basis of context, "visit a
person for the purpose of inquiry" is to be
preferred.
124
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
The most complete study of i[storh?sai as used by Paul has
been
made by G. D. Kilpatrick.3 Kilpatrick
takes into consideration the
Latin,
Coptic and Syrian versions, all of which understand i[storh?sai
in the sense of "to see." He notes,
however, that later commentators
were not content with this interpretation. Chrysostom perceived that
i[storh?sai must here mean more
than "see." He makes a distinction
between i]dei?n
and i[storh?sai and explicitly notes that Paul does not
write: i]dei?n pe<tron, but i[storh?sai
pe<tron. Kilpatrick discusses
the
views of other writers, Greek and Latin, and
concludes that the oldest
identifiable interpretation is that
of the versions which treat i[storh?sai
as the equivalent of i]dei?n
and dates it 2nd century. Chrysostom's
comment, which is shared by Latin commentators,
he dates as earlier
than the middle of the 4th century; and suggests
that it perhaps
belongs to the Antiochene
tradition of exegesis.
On the basis of Liddell and Scott's
article which Kilpatrick regards
as probably the best guide we have, but also
taking into account other
lexicographical aids, he concludes that
"i[storh?sai khfa?n at Gal. 1:18
is to be taken as meaning 'to get information from
Cephas'" (p. 149).
In
coming to this conclusion Kilpatrick notes that the reason that
ancient commentators rejected this
interpretation is that it appeared
to them to be 'inapplicable' in Paul's case. On
the basis of Gal 1:11-12,
where Paul says that he received "the
Gospel" by revelation, "they
argued that
revelation and so had no need to visit St. Peter for
that purpose."
Those
who took this position and at the same time recognized that
i[storh?sai must mean more than i]dei?n, generally followed Chrysostom
in making Paul visit Peter "to pay his
respects." Kilpatrick notes that
for Augustine the visit was merely a token of
friendship. For Vic-
torinus and Ambrosiaster
the visit is an acknowledgement of "the
primacy of Peter" (p. 146).
Kilpatrick has his own theory as to
why Paul would have sought
information from Peter. He notes that the
interpretation suggested by
Liddell
and Scott 'to visit a person for purpose of inquiry,’ ie., "to get
information," satisfied the conditions of the
context, so long as the
meaning of eu]agge<lion does not mean "information about
Jesus," and
since Paul seeks information from Peter and not from
James, with
whom he also had some contact, Kilpatrick asks:
"Is there any in-
formation that one had to give him that the other
could not provide?"
In
answer he writes: "St. Peter had been an eye witness and disciple
3 "Galatians 1:18 ISTORHSAI
KHFAN,"
New Testament Essays: Studies in
Memory of Thomas Walter
Manson
(ed. A. J. B. Higgins;
1959) 144-49.
Farmer:
PETER AND PAUL AND "THE LORD'S SUPPER" 125
of Jesus. St. James could not claim 'to be a
comparable informant
about the teaching and the ministry." In
conclusion Kilpatrick writes:
"We
know then of one kind of information for which
go to St. Peter rather than St. James, information
about Jesus' teaching
and ministry."
Kilpatrick considers but rejects the
first meaning that Liddell and
Scott
give, "that of inquiry into or about a person or
thing" (p. 147).
He
cites Plutarch's Moralia 516 C, De Curiositate
2, iii, 314 in the last
Teubner edition, for an example of the use of i[storh?sai for 'getting
information' about both persons and things: “Aristippus is so excited
by what he hears of Socrates that he is beside
himself. . . He found
out about the man, his utterances and his
philosophy." For some
unaccountable reason, Kilpatrick
dismisses the lexicographical implica-
tions of this text from a
near contemporary of Paul by saying: "But we
may exclude at once the explanation that i[storh?sai
khfa?n meant 'to
inquire into, investigate, Cephas.'"
In fact "to get information from
Cephas" is not incompatible with "to inquire
into, investigate Cephas."
Because
of the very close relationship of Peter to Jesus, and because
Jesus
first appeared to Peter, for Paul to go to Peter for information
about Jesus' teaching and ministry, entails from the
outset that Paul is
involved in questioning Peter not only about
Jesus, but in effect about
Peter' s memory of Jesus, his beliefs about the
meaning of Jesus' death
and resurrection, and thus Peter as a witness is
inextricably bound up
together with that to which he is a witness. The
two cannot be
separated as simply as Kilpatrick suggests. We see
no objection to
combining Liddell and Scott's first meaning for i[storh?sai with their
suggested interpretation. To be sure the focus of
Paul's inquiry would
be Jesus, but that can hardly have precluded
serious attention by Paul
to the question of Peter's credibility. Indeed we
may say that the
Apostolic
witness preserved in the NT rests primarily upon Paul's
conviction of Peter's credibility as a witness, as
well as upon Peter's
conviction of Paul's credibility as a witness.
Their mutuality in finding
one another to be credible witnesses is absolutely
basic for under-
standing Christian origins.
At issue is how we are to understand
certain phrases Paul uses in
arguing for his independence from the authority
of the
apostles, or as he refers to them "those who
were apostles before me"
(Gal.
1:17). The translators of the
essential character of Paul’s argument so we can
best follow his
thought by citing that translation. In his
opening words Paul strikes
this note of apostolic independence: “From Paul, an
apostle, not by
human appointment or human commission, but by
commission from
Jesus
Christ and from God the Father who raised him from the Dead”
126
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
(Gal
1:1). To remind his readers that Jesus Christ has been raised
from the dead by God the Father immediately places
Paul who has
seen the Risen Jesus on an equal footing with all
the other apostles
and cuts the ground out from any argument that
would proceed from
some presumed advantage on the part of those
apostles who had
known Jesus before his death and resurrection.
"I must make it clear to you,
my friends, that the gospel you
heard me preach is no human invention. I did not take
it from any
man (not from Peter or James for example); no man
taught it me; I
received it through a revelation of Jesus
Christ" (Gal 1:11-12).
Paul is not denying that he has ever
taken over anything from
anyone, least of all is he denying that he has ever
been taught by
anyone. The fact that in his first letter to the
Corinthians he explicitly
states that he is handing on the tradition that he had
received: "That
Christ
died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures. . ." makes
it clear that there was tradition, including
factual information concern-
ing Jesus that Paul did
receive. But for Paul facts themselves do not
the Gospel make. No doubt Paul, as a Pharisee of
the Pharisees, in his
role as persecutor of the Church, made himself
acquainted with the
essential content of the Gospel as it was being
preached and defended
by those within the covenant community with whom
he was contend-
ing. Indeed it would not be
out of character for this great theologian
to have achieved an even more firm and
comprehensive grasp of the
essential content of this Gospel than was in the
head of many of the
faithful who were willing to die for it. What was
at issue for Paul
were not the facts concerning the earthly life of
Jesus but the meaning
of these facts and the truth of his resurrection.
As he persecuted the
Church
and ravished the faith, he was convinced that the Gospel
preached by the Christians was false. That is why
he was willing to
persecute them unto death if necessary. Everything
hinges on the
"Truth of the Gospel." Once it pleased God to
reveal his Son to Paul,
so that Paul could see Jesus as the Son of God,
everything changed
(see Gal 1:12, 15; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8;
and Phil 3:21). What had been
perceived as false, was now recognized as true on
the basis of Christ's
appearance to Paul. That Jesus had died, or even
that he had been
crucified, was never in dispute between the
Christians and the pre-
Christian
Paul. But the belief that Jesus had died "for the sins" of
others, "according to the Scriptures" and
that God had vindicated him
by raising him up--those were faith claims made by
the church
whose truth the pre-Christian Paul could never have
accepted, but
whose truth, on the basis of Christ's resurrection
appearance to him,
he was now prepared to embrace, pass on to his
converts, and
presumably himself proclaim. That there were
factual details con-
cerning these deep matters of
faith that may have interested Paul
Farmer:
PETER AND PAUL AND "THE LORD'S SUPPER" 127
should not cause alarm for those who wish, at all
costs, to preserve his
independence of those eyewitnesses
upon whom he would have been
dependent for finding adequate answers to some of
his questions.
We take this position because the
answers Paul received were
always received within the context of a faith already
firmly and
irrevocably grounded in the decisive revelation that
preceded and led
to his questions. Most if not all of Paul's
post-conversion questions
would have been of the nature of questions for the purpose
of clari-
fication in detail. Paul would
hardly have asked Peter "Did Jesus die?"
or "Was Jesus crucified?" That kind of
information would have been
entailed in the essential kerygma
Paul had formerly rejected and now
himself proclaimed.
Paul's pre-Christian questioning
would have focused on issues
vital to the way in which the Law and the Prophets
were being
interpreted and acted upon. But once Paul became a
Christian there
would have been a whole new set of questions for him
to ask concern-
ing aspects of Christian
life and faith which were relatively untouched
by points at issue over whether something had or
had not happened
"in accordance with the scriptures." As a Pharisee Paul
had sat in
Moses'
seat, and it thus had been for him and his fellow Pharisees
to
decide how the Law and Prophets were to be
interpreted. When any
members of the covenant were interpreting the
Law and the Prophets
in a manner contrary to Pharisaic teaching, and
especially when these
interpretations led to behavior that
was threatening to the established
world of Jewish Piety, Paul, as a Pharisee, zealous
for the Law, was
constrained to act. And act he did. But once Paul
was converted,
questions like: "What happened on the night
Jesus was handed over?,"
i.e.,
questions concerning matters important t() Christians,
but which
had not been problem causing to Paul the enforcer
of Torah, would
now have become questions of interest to Paul the
Christian leader and
they were perfectly legitimate questions for him to
pursue. As his
leadership role in the church grew, that he have a
firm grasp on such
matters would have become important in Paul's
overall preparation
for mission.
In this context we should not shy
away from accepting the plain
meaning of what Paul writes in reference to going
to
went to question Peter. Paul is not making himself
subservient to
anyone in his decision to ask questions. This
apostolic concern to "get
it right“ is foundational for Christian life and
faith. Paul is not for-
ensically diminishing his
authority by "making inquiry" of Peter. On
the contrary his use of to i[storh?sai in this context
conceptually places
Peter
in the block. Paul is the i!stwr. Peter is the one being cross-
examined. What
is at issue is the truth in a whole range of practical
matters which Paul wants to discuss with Peter--none,
we conclude,
128
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
extending to the heart of his Gospel. That much
Paul appears to rule
out decisively in what he says about how he
received his Gospel in
Gal
1:1-17.
Paul in going to
stream of church tradition to its very source, i.e.,
to those eyewitnesses
who first carefully formulated it.
Paul's use of i[storh?sai at this point serves
very well his
of establishing both his apostolic independence
and his apostolic
authority. He is not just an independent apostle
who has seen
Risen Jesus. He is an independent
apostle who stands in a
relationship to Peter. By
implication, everything that Paul did or said
in the church after that meeting carried with it
the implicit authority
of both Paul and Peter. That was the risk Peter
took in agreeing to the
meeting. We have no way of knowing from any
statement made
Peter
on the subject how Peter viewed Paul's coming to
But
the practice of risk taking out of love, even love of a potential
enemy, has been endemic to Christian faith from its
origin in the heart
of Jesus.
And I remained with him
15 days
The conventional critical comment on
this compound phrase
reflects the purpose of this phrase in Paul's
overall argument in
Galatians;
namely to establish that he was not dependent for this
authority to preach the Gospel upon those who had
been Apostles
before him. Thus E. De Witt Burton writes: "The
mention of the brief
duration of the stay is intended, especially in
contrast with the three
years of absence from
regard him as a disciple of the Twelve, learning all
that he knew of
the Gospel from them."4 But if this
is the case, how much more
remarkable is the evidence that Paul provides! For
in this case Paul's
statement that he remained with Peter for 15 days
is being given
under some constraint. His purpose would have been
better served
had he been able to write that the visit was for only
one day.
We have an example in the early
church of such a one day visit
which features "greeting the brethren"
(Acts 21:7). Of course such
visits can last several days. Thus when King Agrippa
and Bernice
arrived at
days there" (Acts 25:13-14). While visits in
the early church are often
for unspecified periods of time, it is not unusual
to have the length of
4 E. De Witt
Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1921) 60.
Farmer:
PETER AND PAUL AND "THE LORD'S SUPPER" 129
stay explicitly mentioned, and it is instructive to
see Paul's visit with
Peter
against the background of a spectrum of visits of specified
length. Thus in addition to the one day visit of Acts
21:1, there are
three instances of seven day stays or stayovers. Thus Paul met up at
spent a week there. This is not a visit per se, but
it is instructive (Acts
20:6).
As Paul was returning to
in at
spent seven days with the disciples in that city
before returning to his
ship (Acts 21:4). On his way to Rome Paul and those
with him finally
reached the
them to remain with them seven days (Acts 28:14).
If we are to appreciate the
significance of Paul's two week stay
with Peter, we cannot do better than recognize that
in cultures which
observe a lunar calendar important meetings or
conferences fall into
one or another of four basic categories. There are important one day
visits. These provide the occasion for direct face to
face meetings
between important persons. Only limited tasks
can be accomplished,
however, during a one day meeting. Next we have
a basic pattern of
three days and two nights. The guests arrive during
the first day, and
after greetings and preliminary matters are taken
care of, the agenda
for the following day is agreed upon. What is not accomplished
during the second day can be dealt with before
departure on the third
day. The three day visit, meeting, or conference is
very efficient and
often used. Next is the one week meeting.
This is reserved for more
important meetings. For one thing it is very
expensive in terms of
time taken out of the busy schedules of the persons
concerned, as well
as the time required in making arrangements for
such a long series of
discussions. A great deal can be accomplished within
the rhythm of
the week long meeting. It is relatively rare,
however, for conferences,
whether planned or unplanned, to go into a
second week. Such two
week conferences, when planned, are generally
planned some time in
advance, and are reserved for only the most long
term projects. A 15
day visit corresponds comfortably to the rhythm of
a two week
conference. One could arrive on the sixth day of
the week sometime
before sunset which begins the sabbath
and depart early on the
morning following the sabbath
two weeks later. Such a stay will
accommodate a leisurely visit, with ample time for
work and relaxa-
tion. One can expect maximum
communication during such a visit.
Among
other things such a period of time allows for the most difficult
of topics to be laid out on the table, and,
providing the persons
concerned are capable of it, there is time to
confront decisive issues,
130
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
bare mounting tensions, and confidently await
lasting resolutions, all
within the framework of what can be called a
"double sabbath."
The point is not that Peter and Paul
used their two week visit in
any such fashion. We will never know how they spent
those days
together in
leaders, not to say the two persons who
eventually emerged as the
two leading Apostles of the Church, is a
considerable length of time
for a visit. Seldom do great leaders have the
luxury of such schedules.
In
our own time one thinks of the
cite the two week visit that Dietrich Bonhoeffer made to talk with
Karl
Barth on his way back from his stay in the
he took up his role within the life of the Third
Reich, which led
eventually to his death.
Two weeks provided ample time for
both Peter and Paul to
discuss whatever was uppermost in their minds,
including such topics,
we must presume, as the Lord's Supper and other
matters bearing
upon the preaching of the Gospel, including the
resurrection.
And when we realize the full range
of meanings that Paul's
readers could rightfully associate with his use
of i[storh?sai in this
context, presuming that he was careful in his
choice of language, we
must be open to understanding Paul as saying that he
went to Jeru-
leave informed and ready to report to others on the
results of his
inquiry.
Peter was Paul's host throughout the
two week period. As Peter's
guest Paul was being afforded an unparalleled
opportunity to gain an
inside view of Peter's life and manners. To remain
with Peter for two
weeks would, of necessity, have afforded them the
opportunity to
share table fellowship, and it is altogether likely
that they observed
the Lord's Supper together in accordance with the
words of institution
which are preserved for us in 1 Cor
11:23-26 sometime during that
two week period. It would be interesting to know
whether James was
present on this presumed occasion.
We are now ready to take up the
question with which we began
this section on Galatians: Granting that Paul wanted
to make contact
with Church authorities in
why did he go to Peter?
III. The Role of Peter in the
In the Gospel of Matthew are
preserved in their pristine oral
form the following words of Jesus:
Farmer:
PETER AND PAUL AND "THE LORD'S SUPPER" 131
Woe unto you, Chorazin!
Woe unto you,
For if the mighty works which were
done in you,
Had been in
They would
nave repented long ago in sack cloth and ashes.
But I say to you,
It shall be more tolerable for
At the day of
judgment
Than for you!
And as for you, Capenaum,
shalt thou be exalted into heaven?
Thou shalt be brought down to hell!
For if the mighty works which have been
done in you
Had been done in
It would have remained until this day.
But I say to you,
It shall be more tolerable for the
At the day of
judgment
Than for you! (Matt
11:21-24)
The even handed treatment of these
three Galilean cities, all of
which face a terrible fate on the day of judgment for
their failure to
repent in the face of the mighty works that had been
done in them,
does not prepare us for the exceptional role that
one of the three plays
in the Gospel stories of Jesus. All four Gospels
feature the city of
one would judge from the words of Jesus were the
beneficiaries of his
preaching and healing ministry no less than
The Gospels, of course, tell the
story of Jesus from the theological
perspective of the mission to the Gentiles. In even
the most Jewish of
the four, the Risen Jesus commands the eleven
disciples to go and
"make disciples of all the Gentiles" (Matt 28:19).
Indeed it is to the text of this
Gospel that we must go in our
search for an answer to the question of how the city
of
has come to play such a dominating role in the
Gospel story.
But first it is important for us to
situate in our mind's eye the
location of
early Church, especially the city of
northeast.
The
River,
which empties into the lake at its northern estuary and exits at
the south to wend its way through the great
finally empties into the
northern end of the lake west of the
an outstanding position at the crossroads of both
land and sea-routes
leading north and east from
132
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
The main road north from Judea and
southern
western coast of the lake until it reached a
point just west of
up the river bed of Nahal
Korazim by way of the village and syna-
gogue of Korazim
(following the spelling of modern topography).
One
would then cross the
proceed eastward through Gualanitis
(Golan) to
could follow the eastern branch of this road at
proceed along the northern coast of the
port of
reach the
the estuary via the ford at Beth-Saida (
century served as the capital of Philip the
Tetrarch of Gualanitis,
Iturea, and Trachonitis.
From Beth-Saida this road turned northwards
until it joined the Qu’neitra-Damascus
highway.5
As a port
cellent fishing grounds near
the
people had easy access by boat to Tiberias
and about 30 other fishing
villages all around the
situated to be a base for the disciples as they
undertook, as in time
they certainly did, the making of new disciples in
areas north and east
of
evangelist Matthew undertook to compose his Gospel,
had become an important city in the salvation
history of the Gentile
Church.
It is clear that the evangelist
Matthew composed his Gospel while
standing in the tradition of an early Christian
mission that came
originally out of northern
compositionally speaking, a text from
Isaiah. In this text, a passage
which makes no reference to
nonetheless makes
the Gentiles.7 According to the Hebrew-Masoretic text, this passage
from Isaiah reads:
5 B. Sapir
and Dov-Neeman,
tecture (Tel-Aviv,
1976) II.
6 Ibid.
7 For other reasons
supportive of the view that the evangelist Matthew wrote for
readers who lived in Christian communities which
were the fruit of early missionary
activity from northern Galilee into southern
on the -Provenance of Matthew," The Teacher's Yoke: Studies in Memory of
Henry
Trantham (ed. E. J. Vardaman and J. L. Garrett, Jr.;
1964) 109-16.
Farmer:
PETER AND PAUL AND ”THE LORD'S SUPPER” 133
In the former time he brought into
contempt the
the land of
Naphtali; but in the latter time he hath made it
glorious, by
the wa y of the sea,
beyond the
The
people that walked in darkness there have seen a great light: they
that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon
them hath the
light shined (9:1-2).
The LXX version of this text in
Matthew is shortened and slightly
modified:
The
beyond the
darkness
saw a great light: And to them that sat in the region and
shadow of death,
upon them hath the light shined.
The evangelist believes that the way
to understand this text is to
realize that when the prophet Isaiah writes “by
the way of the sea,” he
is referring to the seacoast of the
because in the preceding verses Matthew notes
that in leaving Nazar-
eth and coming to dwell in
Zebulun and Naphtali,
Jesus did so in order that the word of Isaiah
the prophet might be fulfilled (4:13-14).
Thus,
the
sea.” Since there is nothing in the text of Isaiah
that refers to Caper-
naum, one must presume that
way important to the evangelist. According to the
words of Jesus,
because of its negative response to his
ministry. What then has hap-
pened to reverse this
judgment of Jesus so that in the Gospel stories of
God's
salvation
One might say that there is no
mystery, since we know that Jesus
had a ministry in
coast of the
Jesus' going to
However,
it is equally clear that Jesus also had a ministry in other
Galilean
cities and villages, including significant evangelistic efforts in
Chorazim and
ministries. Clearly a selective process has taken
place which calls for
an explanation.
Something very important concerning
taken place in order to account for its prominence in
the Gospel story.
The
evangelist has made this city the turning point in the whole
development of Jesus' ministry. Following his
baptism in the
134
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
and his return to
importance. Jesus goes to
happens there. He goes immediately then to
first thing he does is to call Peter and his brother
Andrew as well as
J
disciples.
ministry by calling disciples, three of whom,
Peter, James, and John,
will be with him at most of the high moments
throughout his ministry.
When
compared to the rest of the Twelve, these disciples, and
especially Peter, clearly dominate the Jesus
tradition that the evangelist
will use in composing his Gospel.
The best way to explain this
selectivity is to recognize that the
story of Jesus is being told from a particular perspective,
i.e., that of
the evangelist, or better, that of the churches for
which he is writing
his Gospel. The best way to explain this
selectivity of emphasizing
all of those first disciples called by Jesus were
singularly important in
the history of the evangelists' church.
This is not to say that the story of
Jesus has been falsified. Rather
it is to say that the Gospels grow out of an
exegetical tradition. It
makes the best sense if we posit that Jesus himself
inaugurated this
exegetical tradition by his reading of Isaiah.
Because Isaiah was
important for Jesus, Isaiah was therefore
important for his early
disciples. The early Christians living on the
coast of the
Galilee,
including any living in
to understand and appreciate this Matthean hermeneutical develop-
ment within the Jesus-school
Isaianic exegetical tradition.
Our analysis suggests that this
exegetical tradition developed in
the hands of a Christian preacher in the city of
interpreted the text of Isaiah to apply to the city
in which he was
preaching. "We here in this place have seen a
great light." It would
appear that in some such way the text of Isaiah has
come to be seen in
relationship to the history of the
readers for whom the evangelist is
writing.
place, this particular place, because of its
topographical importance,
so well situated as a base for evangelistic
outreach with good road
and water connections, especially between Galilee
and
becomes very important to the mission that moves
from
towards
have frequented that is situated on the seacoast
made important by
the prophecy of Isaiah, and which also served
travelers on their way
from
Farmer:
PETER AND PAUL AND "THE LORD'S SUPPER" 135
for travelers from southern
and points south (including
similar reasons, it was the most suitable
northern base for Christian
missionary activity, moving out of Galilee into
southern
know that Paul's persecution of Christians took him
to
that if he ever passed through
passed by or very near
The whole of early church history
makes sense if Peter was
important in an early Christian mission going forth
from
southern
been persecuting and from which he received the
tradition he passed
on to others after his conversion. This would not
have precluded
Peter's
spending periods of time in
to the Twelve from that center.
IV. Paul's Relationship to Peter
Looking at the matter in this way
makes it possible for us to say
that Paul entered into a partnership with Peter in
principle the day he
began preaching the faith of the Church that he once
ravished (Gal
1:23).
There is nothing intrinsically implausible or improbable in this
way of interpreting the evidence. It certainly
helps us to understand
how it was possible for Paul to visit Peter in
with him for 15 days.
It is altogether likely that each
knew a good deal about the other
long before they met in
had been some communication between them during the
period Paul
was preaching the Gospel prior to his visit to
The
visit itself almost certainly would have required some communi-
cation between them as well as
some kind of pre-understanding.
Paul's decision to preach in Cicilia and points further west would
have provided the occasion for him to visit Peter in
for him to reach a firm apostolic understanding
with that apostle to
whom the risen Christ, according to the tradition he
had received,
had indeed appeared first. Thereafter, wherever Paul
went he passed
on the tradition he had received from the mission
Peter had organized
and inspired.
I delivered to you first of all that
which also I received: That Christ died
for our
sins according to the scriptures (Isaiah 53); and that he was
buried; and
that he hath been raised on the third day according to the
scriptures
(Hos 6:2, Jonah 2:1); and that he appeared to Cephas; then to
the Twelve;
then he appeared to about five hundred brethren at the
136
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
same time,
of whom the majority abide with us until this day, but some
have fallen
asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles
(I Cor 15:3-7)].
To this litany of what he had
received which now he passes on to
the Corinthians, Paul adds pertinent items from his
own history with
fitting theological and interpretative comments:
And, last of all,
as to one born out of due time he appeared also to me.
For I am the least of the apostles,
one who is not (even) worthy to be
called an
apostle, because I persecuted the
grace of
God I am what I am, and his grace which I have received has
not been
without effect; on the contrary (because of the effect of God's
grace) I
labored more abundantly than all of them (i.e., the other
apostles):
yet not I but the grace of God which was with me. Whether it
be I or
they, so we preach, and so ye believed (8-11).
This tradition that Paul passes on;
and which represents Peter as
the first to whom the risen Christ appeared, raises
interesting questions.
The
Gospel of Matthew, for example, preserves a tradition according
to which Jesus after his resurrection first
appeared to Mary Magdalene
and the other Mary. It is argued that Paul passes
on a kerygma that
must have the value of legal testimony, and that
since women's
testimony was unacceptable in Jewish courts, it
was omitted altogether
in kerygmatic passages,
so that it would be wrong to argue that the
tradition Paul passes on conflicts with that from
Matthew. In any case,
it is clear that Paul is passing on a pro-Petrine tradition, i.e., a tradition
that developed within a Church in which it was
remembered that the
Risen
Lord first appeared to Peter. That apostle to whom the Risen
Christ
was believed to have first appeared would have had a special
place in post-resurrection churches. It is also
important to note that in
Paul's
version of this tradition Christ's appearance to him, coming at
the end of the series, "last of all,"
creates a series which begins with
Peter
and ends with Paul. According to Paul's version this is a closed
canon of resurrection appearances. It runs the gamut
of Apostolic
authority--from Peter to Paul. Paul is least of
all, because he perse-
cuted the
abound, there doth grace much more abound. Similarly
Paul can
claim to have labored more than any of the apostles,
which would
have included Peter. So the last shall be first--whether
by one's own
labor in the Gospel, or by God's grace.
Paul passed on a tradition that had
developed in a church in
which there was already present an incipient Petrine primacy. But his
churches received this tradition from him within
an overall theological
framework which bespoke apostolic mutuality
between the first of
the Twelve and the Apostle to the Gentiles. Was
this simply Paul's
Farmer:
PETER AND PAUL AND "THE LORD'S SUPPER" 137
construction: or did it represent a
bona fide apostolic agreement that
had been reached between Peter and Paul before or
during that 15
day meeting in
It must have represented an implicit
apostolic quid-pro-quo
whether consciously recognized or not. In any
case no one can deny
the facts: Paul passed on a pro-Petrine
if not an implicit Petrine-
primacy tradition and Peter supported Paul's
right to head the apos-
tolate to the Gentiles. Of
course this understanding was not officially
ratified by the pillars of the Church in
when Paul returned to
apostles before him the Gospel he had been
preaching to the Gentiles.
It has been argued that the
sible because Peter was
willing to arrange it at Paul's request, and for
the sake of the Gospel.8 According to
this argument, the fundamental
theological agreement reached between Peter and Paul
during their
15
day visit 14 years before the Apostolic Conference (Gal 2:1-10),
tested by 14 years of missionary work by Paul and his
associates,
provided the essential components for the
successful outcome of the
Apostolic Conference. The agreement of the
ratify the longstanding understanding between Peter
and Paul which
issued in the decision to make each of them the heads
of two separate
but concordant missions, is the apostolic magna charta
of the holy
catholic church, reaffirmed martyrologically
by signatures made in
blood by these two chief Apostles during the Neronian persecution.
Paul
gives his readers an eyewitness report of what actually happened
at this historic conference. It is one of the most
remarkable statements
in the NT:
When they (i.e., the pillars of the
Church in
been
entrusted with the gospel of uncircumcision, even as
Peter with the
gospel of
the circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the
apostleship
of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles);
and when
they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and
Cephas and
John, they who were reputed to be pillars gave to me and
Barnabas the right hands of
fellowship, that we should go unto the
Gentiles, and they
unto the circumcision (Gal 2:7 -9).
This dual leadership of the
historical apostolate helps explain
why the NT writings feature Peter and Paul. But the
subsequent
8 W. R. Farmer,
"Peter and Paul: A Constitutive Relationship for Catholic Christi-
anity," Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the
Bible and Early Church Fathers, a
volume in honor of Stewart Dickson Currie (ed. W.
Tradition, Scripture,
and Canon
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 50-63.
138
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
concordant martyrdom of these two Apostolic heads
is no less essential
to the historical development that eventually led
to the formation of
the NT canon.9
There is a solid NT foundation for
the recognition of Irenaeus
that the founding and building up of the Church in
two most glorious (i.e., martyred) apostles Peter
and Paul" (Against
Heresies 3.3.2) provides the
Holy Catholic Church with an essential
touchstone in history for the combatting
of heresy. That which is not
in harmony with the concordant apostolic witness
of Peter and Paul
sealed in blood, and witnessed to in the scriptures
which have been
normed by this apostolic
history and faith, is not catholic, and cannot
be accepted as being faithful to the primitive Regula, i.e., the
"truth
of the Gospel,"10 by which these
two Apostles had agreed to norm
their faith and practice (Gal 2:11-21).
Tertullian
correctly saw that the norm by which the issue between
Peter
and Paul at
Apostolic
understanding based upon a theological agreement to which
both Peter and Paul subscribed (Against Marcion IV ii.1-5). He
understood that regula to have been laid down for
the Church by the
Apostles
at the
to the conclusion that this apostolic conference
was preceded by a
less publicized, and, in some sense, preparatory
meeting, a meeting
that had taken place between Peter and Paul in the
same city 14 years
earlier (Gal 1:18).
In his First letter to the church at
Corinth Paul addresses the
problem of party spirit in that church and
specifically refers to four
parties, i:e., those
who say "we belong to Paul," those who say "we
belong to Apollo," those who say, "we belong
to Cephas," and those
who say "we belong to Christ." While Paul
does not criticize Peter for
contributing to this divisiveness it
is clear from the fact that there
were members of the Corinthian church who said
"we belong to
Cephas," that there was a basis for tension
between Peter and Paul
over the way in which their respective adherents
behaved toward one
another. Just how serious this tension may have
been we do not know.
There
is no reference in any other letter of Paul to a "Cephas
party."
In
Paul's Second letter to the church at
criticize certain opponents at
9 W. R. Farmer and D. Farkasfalvy, The Formation of the
New Testament Canon
(Ramsey,
NJ: Paulist, 1983) 7-95.
10 For the relationship
of the apostolic norm of the "truth of the Gospel" and the
2nd
century forms of the "Regula," see W. R.
Farmer, "Galatians and the Second-
Century
Development of the 'Regula Fidei,'"
The Second Century, a Journal of
Early
Christian Studies, 4 (1984) 143-70.
Farmer:
PETER AND PAUL AND "THE LORD'S SUPPER" 139
authority and worked against him. The depth of
Paul's feeling about
the challenge this opposition represented to his
apostleship may be
measured by his use of sarcasm in referring to
them derogatively as
"super-apostles." While there is no way these
"super apostles" in
2
Corinthians can be identified with any degree of certainty as ad-
herents of the "Cephas party" in I Corinthians, neither can one
absolutely rule out the possibility that Paul's
opponents in 2
ians may have stood in some
meaningful, even if undefinable, relation-
ship to this Party.
To the degree that we allow for the
possibility that Paul's
opponents in 2 Corinthians are positively related
to the Cephas Party
mentioned in I Corinthians, the case for serious
tension between Peter
and Paul in the period following the Apostolic
conference in
is strengthened. Certainly the incident that Paul
relates in Galatians 2
concerning the confrontation he had with Peter over
the issue of table
fellowship between Gentile and Jewish Christians in
underscore the undeniable fact that these two apostles
could differ
strongly over very important issues. However,
such disagreements
only serve to underscore how firm was the bond that
united them.
The
more we make room for Post-conciliar tension, and the
greater
the place we give to this tension, the more we
recognize the need for
pre-conciliar solidarity to account
for the eventual outcome. For if
there is one thing that is certain in church history
it is that in spite of
any pigheadedness on the part of either or both
these great apostles,
they did stand together on the fundamental
theological basis of the
Faith,
i.e., God's redemptive, sacrificial, and atoning love for sinners,
and all else that is entailed in the good news of
justification by faith
(Gal
2:15-21).
IV. The Pre-Pauline Tradition Concerning the Lord's Supper
Finally, in answer to the question,
"By what authority does the
Apostle
to the Gentiles assure the
concerning the Lord's Supper he had received and
had in turn passed
on to them, originated with Jesus himself ?"
we answer, by the
authority of those who were apostles before him.
And if it be asked,
did Paul have the opportunity to discuss the form,
content, and
credibility of this tradition with those apostles
who were eyewitnesses
to what actually happened in
delivered up? The answer is most assuredly yes.
First he could, and presumably did,
discuss such matters with
Peter,
who, according to the Gospels (Matt 26:17-30 and parallels),
was present there in
Jesus
took bread and broke it. Second, Paul had further opportunity
140
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
to discuss such matters with John as well as with
Peter 14 years later
during the
questions. Paul's subsequent assurance to his
readers in
he was passing on to them a tradition that he had
received entails
under these circumstances, the presumption that this
tradition is
handed on to us in the scriptures as tradition that
comes not only with
the authority of the Apostle Paul but with that of
those Apostles Paul
knew who had themselves been eyewitnesses to the
event. We cannot
be certain of this point. But it appears to us to
be intrinsically probable
in the light of the considerations to which
attention has been brought
in this essay.
The import of this conclusion is far
reaching. If Christ died for
our sins according to the scriptures (1 Cor 15:3), since Isaiah 53 is the
only scripture theologians can supply to explain the
meaning of the
tradition Paul is passing on, we must be open to
the conclusion that
this passage in the book of Isaiah was important for
Jesus. The
evidence of his words preserved in Matt 20:25-28
(and Mark 10:42-
45),
where the Son of Man gives his life as a ransom for many, argues
for this conclusion.
It would follow in this case that
for Jesus to speak as he spoke
and to act as he acted on the night he was
delivered up would have
been for him to have taken a crucial step in instituting
the Church.
And
a Church so instituted would be a Church which in a central way
would live out of the mystery of this Eucharist. In
other words it
would be a martyrological
church living out of the vicarious and
atoning sacrifice of Jesus. The concordant
martyrdom of the two
chief Apostles Peter and Paul in
definitive faith that mysteriously comes to
expression in the eyewitness
tradition concerning this institutional act, and,
as a rite, it would be
central in the life and faith of that Holy
Catholic Church within
whose divine economy it would be the vocation of the
Church in
and Paul, and to counsel with all churches which
wish to remain
faithful to that earliest apostolic witness:
"in the night he was delivered
up, he took bread. . . ." That is to say,
words, and deeds, as well as
the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, would
be normative for the
Church
in relationship to this central rite as the specification by our
Lord
of how the concord between the Law and the Prophets and the
Covenant
that was coming into being through his death and resurrec-
tion was to be understood
and lived out; a rite in which the fulfillment
of the Law and Prophets is celebrated, the
redeeming benefits of the
atoning sacrifice of Christ are appropriated by
faith, and the fruits of
the Spirit that flow from the New Covenant are
shared by the
participants.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: