Peter and Christ
Peter is a central figure in the Gospels, second only to Christ. The events of his life are well-known, but a closer look reveals characteristics of Peter which are building blocks in his relationship to Christ.
Last chapter we looked at Peter’s struggle to grasp what it meant to be a follower of Christ with the “come-go” motif of the Gospels. Who would end up following whom? It was a pretty nuanced study. This chapter looks at something a lot easier to grasp—food!
For a man such as Peter in food production (fishing), eating is huge. Then add the fact of Peter’s Jewishness. “Clean-unclean” will be a fruitful search, going past the Gospel accounts into the book of Acts and beyond.
When we think of fisherman, we shouldn’t think of it in terms of a low-life occupation. It was dangerous and dirty. Most of the jobs held by non-Romans in the ancient world were. But it was a respectable, middle-class sort of thing. The towns and villages around the Sea of Galilee got most of their animal protein from fish. Rabbinical writings are full of praises for this or that type of fish and its preparation. As it has been up until recently, fish was a food affordable for all and blessed were those with full nets coming to market!
If we look at Peter’s Gospel, food is mentioned in two out of every three chapters of the Gospel according to Mark, including the pivotal chapters regarding Christ’s Palm Sunday entry into Jerusalem, his suffering and death and his resurrection! Like any Jew bound by ceremonial dietary laws of his day, Peter was tuned in to food.
Read Mark 7.1-23 (Matthew 15.1-20)
Jesus did not only have the disciples with him. Often he had “anti-disciples,” the investigators from the Sanhedrin (usually Pharisees), who were sent to tail him and flush him out, discrediting him as the Christ.
They come up with an infraction of the law on the part of Christ’s disciples. What is it?
They don’t wash their hands before they eat. The Pharisees had various laws about cleanness, notably washing your hands before you ate.
Is that really a sin?
No. It was a man-made law.
Christ reacts very badly to their objections. What is a hypocrite and how does he prove they are hypocrites?
One who appears to be a believer when he is not. Their hearts are far from God, because they adhere to the teachings of men rather than the commands of God.
What command of God had the Pharisees put aside? Explain it.
The fourth commandment—honor your father and your mother. For a payment to the Temple treasury (probably a fraction of what it would otherwise cost), they would be free from the responsibility of taking care of an aged mother or father.
Now Christ addresses the issue of clean and unclean food.
Who had instituted these dietary laws of the Jews in the first place? (see Leviticus 11.46-47).
God, not man
What astonishing statement does Christ make regarding clean and unclean foods?
Nothing you put into yourself can make you clean or unclean.
What biological proof does Jesus give?
The food doesn’t really enter a person, it merely is falling through him.
What does make a person unclean?
What comes out of his heart, the various vices Christ mentions.
How did Christ’s words strike Peter?
He specifically mentions that here is when Jesus does away with all the Old Testament ceremonial dietary laws. Whether Peter realized that at the time it occurred remains to be seen.
How could Jesus simply annul Old Testament ceremonial laws? What was the purpose of these Old Testament ceremonial laws?—see Galatians 3.23-25.
Note: Paidagogos (paidagogos) was a Greek slave entrusted to keep the wealthy teenage boy out of trouble, sort of like Jiminy Cricket to Pinocchio! The kid literally had to do what the slave told him to—go to school, do your homework, get home, don’t throw those dice in that dark alleyway and never, ever try to draw on an inside straight!
To keep the Jews Jewish until the Savior would appear.
Did the Jews need this paidagogos when they “reached age,” namely, when the Savior appeared? Explain.
No. They had freedom to live their faith as adults.
Can you prove it from this passage?
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Colossians 2.16-17
The Ceremonial Law is abolished in Christ. It no longer serves a purpose, just as you don’t look at the shadow when the person who casts that shadow is there. To keep the Ceremonial Law is neither morally commendable or damnable.
Read Mark 2.23-28 (Matthew 12.1-8, Luke 5.33-39)
While “clean-unclean” had not come up before, observances of the ceremonial law had. Most of the time Christ was at the center of it—he took a (the way the Pharisees looked at it) fiendish delight in healing people on the Sabbath, many times right during the Sabbath worship service! But there was one time when the disciples were not safe bystanders—they were in the Pharisee cross-hairs!
What day was it?
The Sabbath.
What was not permitted on this day?
No work of any sort was permitted on this day. The Pharisees counted work a little differently than the Israelites had throughout their history.
What was the problem with the disciples?—see Matthew’s account
They were hungry. Jewish custom did not consider taking a little bit of someone’s grain harvest as stealing.
Jesus cites the story of David at Nob. David had been warned by his friend, King Saul’s son, Jonathan, that Saul was intent on killing David. David quickly flees with his most trusted aides. They do not even return to the palace to get food or retrieve their weapons. He makes a beeline for the priestly city of Nob, where his friend, the high priest Abiathar, lives.
But David is unpleasantly surprised. There’s no food for him! There is only the Bread of the Presence which the priests would put in the Holy Place for a week and then eat when it was replaced with fresh loaves. Abiathar is puzzled that David is alone and without weapons. David lies to Abiathar, hoping to keep Abiathar from becoming hurt. (It is a futile hope—Doeg, a pagan shepherd of Saul, who happens to be at Nob that day, squeals on David and, after Abiathar is arrested, questioned and condemned by Saul, Doeg slays him and all the entire town of Nob.) Abiathar in good faith gives David both food and the sword of Goliath which had been kept there.
How is the disciples’ predicament exactly like David’s predicament.
They were hungry.
To compare David’s plight with the disciples’ plight almost seems mock heroic, but think about it. Would the Pharisees condemn King David, even for eating sacred food contrary to the given law of Moses?
No. He was their hope and inspiration, for they were also waiting for the Messiah to come, but as a second David, a royal, political ruler.
How could they condemn the disciples for simply eating ordinary, raw heads of wheat?
They couldn’t, without seeming utterly biased.
What was the purpose of all God’s laws?
To help man, not to be a burden to him.
This will make a big impression upon Peter, as we will see later, when the Christian Church is faced with a Pharisaic strain of living in its own midst.
Read Acts 10
Did Peter understand what Jesus had said in his parable about food going through a person, but what comes out of the heart makes a person clean or unclean?
For a considerable period of time, the apostles had only spread the Good News to Jews. Granted, the Jews may have been converts to Judaism, as the foreigners on Pentecost were, the Ethiopian eunuch and Simon Magus. They were observing, consciously or not, the ceremonial laws that prevented Jews from closely associating with Gentiles.
Describe Cornelius. Was he or was he not a convert to Judaism?
Centurion, a Roman commander of 100 men, devout and God-fearing. No. The “God-fearers” were not circumcised.
Was he an Old Testament believer?
Yes. God had heard his prayers.
What is significant about Luke’s mentioning that Cornelius sent “a devout” soldier who was one of Cornelius’ attendants?
Cornelius shared his faith, not only with family and family servants, but with those of his century.
The next day Luke shifts the scene to Joppa and Peter. What is Peter’s problem?
He is hungry and lunch isn’t ready yet!
What happens?
He sees a vision.
What is Peter supposed to kill and eat?
All sorts of unclean animals, really unclean animals.
How does the old Peter show himself?
He blatantly and forcefully refuses to obey the Lord.
How deeply ingrained were the ceremonial dietary laws in Peter?
These dietary laws were so ingrained in Peter that even in a vision when he is being commanded by the Lord, he instinctively recoils from getting near those animals.
Are there certain foods you would not even try? Why or why not?
Rattlesnake and all other foods which the punch line “tastes just like chicken,” come to mind.
Why would Peter have even more reason to dismiss certain foods out of hand?
These dietary laws were not the result of a mother’s instruction, family tradition or personal squeamishness, but these dietary laws were the result of God giving all his law to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
What was God’s punch line?
Don’t call anything impure that God has made clean.
How many times does this scenario play out?
Three times.
Does Peter go to Cornelius’ home because he has figured out the meaning of the vision? Why or why not?
Yes! He goes because, as he tells Cornelius, he shouldn’t call any man impure. It certainly didn’t hurt that the Holy Spirit tells him to go, because the Holy Spirit has sent the men to Peter.
How does Peter’s entry into Cornelius’ home get off to a bad start?
Cornelius bows to him, showing reverence. This is what the Gentiles did to show respect to men of high standing, but they also did this to their idols and Peter is clearly put off by it, for a Jew bows to no man.
How sold is Peter on all this, according to his words?
Not very. He simply raises no objections. He isn’t overjoyed to be there.
What does Cornelius reveal that changes Peter’s tune?
We are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.
Cornelius and his circle evidently knew some things about Jesus and were ignorant of other things. What did they and what did they not know?
They knew of Jesus’ life, but they didn’t know about Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, as well as his post-Easter appearances.
What is the apostle’s role in all this?
Peter is a witness to all this and his is to tell of what he has seen.
What proof does Peter give Cornelius of the validity of his testimony?
Peter claims to be an eyewitness to all this and claims the prophets testify about it.
What is the heart of all the prophetic promises about Jesus?
All who believe in him will be saved.
Do you remember your answer whether Cornelius was a convert to Judaism? Can you pick out a phrase in verse 45 that shows you were right?
The circumcised believers. This sets them off from Cornelius and his circle, who were obviously uncircumcised believers.
What had happened to Cornelius and his circle?
The miracle of Pentecost had been repeated upon them, for they spoke in tongues.
Can you prove Cornelius and his circle were speaking in foreign languages?
Peter claims they have received the Holy Spirit just as he had and he spoke in foreign languages on Pentecost.
How did Cornelius and his circle become “fully Christian?”
They were baptized in the name of Jesus.
Peter has vividly learned a lesson about the scope and breadth of God’s love. He will subsequently stand up to a group of accusing Christians at Jerusalem who are angry that he has gone in unto uncircumcised people. But further pressure and controversy await. Now that “unclean” people have been admitted by God into his Church, how “unclean” can they still be?
“Judaizers” are active in Antioch, claiming one could only be fully a Christian if they were circumcised. Paul and Barnabas object and the question is taken to the elders in Jerusalem, a church council, if you will. Paul and Barnabas report about their considerable missionary activity among uncircumcised Gentiles and how the Word of the Lord grew. Then the Judaizers step forward with their claims that Christians must obey Moses. In the deliberation Peter plays an important role and the council decides that no other rules should be imposed upon the Gentiles than that they keep themselves from idolatry and eating blood.
Read Galatians 1.11-21
Some years pass. Peter has moved up to Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas are at work.
What was the custom at Antioch when it came to their fellowship meals?
Jews and Gentiles (uncircumcised believers) ate together.
What changed Peter’s custom?
Men from James’ circle in Jerusalem came up. It would appear that, being in Jerusalem, there were very few Gentile believers, so the church there was in the habit of keeping Old Testament dietary laws as a matter of habit or personal choice. When they came, Peter stopped eating with the Gentiles.
Why would Peter feel constrained to change his eating habits?
He felt pressured by the Jerusalem Christians, though there is no indication of overt pressure exercised by them. It is Peter Paul lays into, not the visitors from Jerusalem.
How dangerous was Peter’s example?
Very dangerous. Other Jews in the congregation were following his example and even Barnabas was caught up in it.
What was at stake?
The Gospel. People would get the idea that they had to believe in Jesus AND live according to Old Testament laws to be saved.
What does Paul think of Peter’s actions?
Paul says Peter is clearly in the wrong and calls his actions hypocritical.
Why would Peter have done this?
He still doesn’t like to be freed from Old Testament dietary laws. His learning curve isn’t the greatest, as we’ve seen from chapter 1.
What is the implication of Paul’s words?
Peter changed his tune, otherwise Paul would have been in the wrong and why should the Galatians listen to him?
Peter knew it didn’t matter what a person ate or whether a person was circumcised or not. What mattered was whether a person believed in Jesus or not. Yet, at times in his life, Peter didn’t always show that knowledge, even putting a religious slant on his unwarranted actions.
We are no better. Other Lutheran denominations have had their “worship wars” going on for a number of years and the WELS, always slow on the uptake, is starting to enter into these troubled waters.
What is the important thing about worship?
Would these songs be OK for worship? Why or why not?
? Ave Maria
? My Sweet Lord (The Beatles)
? Anything sung to the tune of “The Beer Barrel Polka”
What was obviously important to the early Christians was to provide a place where the Gentiles could be accepted, hear the Word of God and grow in their faith. “To place no obstacles in their way,” we might summarize the council at Jerusalem. What obstacles might we inadvertently be putting in the way of visitors to our church? Consider these things.
? Coffee Hour
? The first-time visitor sitting all by themselves with a cookie.
? Where everything is
? The centrality of the word
? How full are the pews
? How does the property look
? Is Bible study easy to get to for everyone
? The pastor’s always resorting to slang and culturally conditioned comparisons
Return to The Pebble and the Rock Index