+Z’ev

Today’s assigned readings:

AM Ezekiel 2:1-7, Acts 11:1-18
PM Isaiah 49:1-6, Galatians 2:1-9

…I, Paul, had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised…
Galatians 2:7

Today’s feast is curious. Today’s date has nothing to do with the life of either Apostle. As with so many saints’ days or even Dominical holy days, today is a Church anniversary: in or around 258, under the Valerian persecution, what were believed to be the remains of the two apostles were both moved temporarily to prevent them from falling into the hands of the persecutors.

Icons for the feast usually show the two men embracing or even kissing! An interesting notion considering we’re commemorating the transfer of their relics. Also, there is no clear notion in the scriptures that Peter and Paul really got along. Luke has an interesting version of the “Peter eating with Gentiles” story if we compare it to a similar story in Galatians 2:11-2:14. This must have come before Peter’s vision… or maybe the other way around? Not sure. The writer of Acts usually sounds like a friend of Paul’s. But today’s passage makes it almost sound like Petrine Propaganda and that Paul comes along for the ride. Maybe the propaganda is an insert? Is that why “Cephas” (Kephas, in Greek) is used in verse 9, and it’s suddenly shifted to “Peter” or Petros? Don’t know: I do think it’s odd that the writer(s) use both names.

And then we come to Galatians and you have to imagine that after he spoke to God, saw the sheet filled with foods, etc, Peter backslid into the old ways of the Circumcision Faction. That’s not too infallible.

We want to imagine that Paul and Peter agreed on everything. This is a reading-back. Some also like to imagine that Peter was the First Pope - whom Paul opposed to his face for being wrong so there’s nothing so infallible about him in Acts and Galatians. It’s ok to be reading our current assumptions into these ancient texts: there’s no way not to. But it’s important to be honest about doing it.

It’s comparing passages such as these - or manufactured feast days such as this one - that make me want to accept the “revisionist” readings of scripture and Church history: that there were many orthodoxies, eventually stamped out by the state Church. Than the state church constructed a reading of scripture and of history that supported her. You can call this the “Dan Brown” reading if you’d like but I think his work of fiction is only the most far-fetched of these.

Which brings me to the question of Authority… which is a good one for the feast of these two.

Who has the authority to read the scriptures and tell us what they mean?

This has been my on-going struggle over the last couple of years. It seemed a logical assumption - shared by many who make the journey - that someone must have that authority. Everyone seems to make it somehow: for Romans it is the Pontiff. For some Eastern Christians it is the consensus spoken in the Ecumenical Councils and continuing on through their bishops to this day. I’ve heard that idea voiced by at least one Anglican as well - that the Bishops gathered in communion can speak the “Mind of Christ”. Other churches hold the same ideas about Synods, seemingly, although some insist the “real” Church can’t do anything opposed to scripture which idea creates a sort of infinite regress of Authority on itself. Some groups seem to think the Senior Pastor or the founding preacher holds that Authority. Most American Protestants take up many “Bible study books” with various interpretations and never notice the conflicts in them - or if they do they seem to mark it all down to providence. Some seem to trust the footnotes almost as much as the text. The more liberal sorts pick up the Jesus Seminar materials or maybe the work of non-theistic rejection conducted by Jack Spong.

Ultimately - even in the most authoritarian of all possible choices - what I came to realise is that each of us relies on herself for the final choice: even if that choice is to give up making any further choices.

Each of us experiences what all the converts have since the very beginning:

And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 11:15-16

I know Jesus promised us the Spirit would lead “you” into all truth. The “you” is plural. It should be “Y’all” or, as they say in these parts, “You’uns”. But it is still an egalitarian word. He didn’t say “will lead y’all, from the top…” or “will lead you’uns who are leaders and the rest of them as wants ta will have ta follow…”

Peter and Paul “those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)”; Peter and Paul and the rest of us are in this together.