One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
General Chit-Chat (non-political talk)
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul
Page 1 of 2 next>
Oct 25, 2014 16:56:21   #
WhatIt'sWorth Loc: Methane Sea, Jupiter
 
This thread has been comin' on for some time.

It is an INQUIRY into Christian Freedom, as opposed to the idea that sometimes we should more or less "muzzle ourselves" because what we might otherwise say with impunity COULD be seen by others "weaker in the faith" or "bothered by conscience about meat or holy days" or what-not

to be "damaging" to their faith.

One thing shall be a starting point:

At a certain time, the Apostle Paul "opposed Peter to his face" about the fact that Peter had been eating with Gentiles unashamedly until "certain of James" arrived -- at which point Peter apparently "drew away" or reneged on what he had been doing in deference to this "James Gang" that had just appeared.

In this case, at least, Paul chose confrontation, rather than meekly letting the rule of "oh, don't ever do anything to cause a weaker brother to stumble" to be the big guide.

Indeed I think Peter (and Barnabus too, who was implicated) did not do their "jumping up from the table and running away from the slices of Canadian Bacon" for the sake of "poor weaker brethren of James" but because JAMES WAS A HONCHO and they (Peter and Barnabus) didn't want to get reported on the wrong side of the ham to the James Gang.

In this thread feel free to discuss whether Paul was a Gnostic or not; and why Paul would insinuate it didn't matter what one ate and yet elsewhere would warn of teachers in the last days "commanding to abstain from meats and forbidding to marry" -- even calling such teachers-to-come as "having doctrines of demons"!

Peter - the apostle first shown by the Holy Spirit to "call not common what God had cleansed" should have been the last on earth to reneg on "opening things to the Gentiles" -- so what gives with this FOOD-FIGHT where Paul opposes Peter to his face, and even Barnabus was carried away in the hypocrisy?

This incident only scratches the surface - there is a group of stuff relative to 'when is Paul in a situation' where "all things are lawful to me" - and when is he in a crack where "all things are not expedient for me"?

Where are these lines drawn?

This thread will have a parallel counterpart on another board where there are no Jewish, Agnostic and Atheist members free to participate in it -- by rule of that Forum.

I truly want to know opinions and reasonings from various points on this.

Reply
Oct 25, 2014 18:23:22   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
WhatIt'sWorth wrote:
This thread has been comin' on for some time.

It is an INQUIRY into Christian Freedom, as opposed to the idea that sometimes we should more or less "muzzle ourselves" because what we might otherwise say with impunity COULD be seen by others "weaker in the faith" or "bothered by conscience about meat or holy days" or what-not

to be "damaging" to their faith.

One thing shall be a starting point:

At a certain time, the Apostle Paul "opposed Peter to his face" about the fact that Peter had been eating with Gentiles unashamedly until "certain of James" arrived -- at which point Peter apparently "drew away" or reneged on what he had been doing in deference to this "James Gang" that had just appeared.

In this case, at least, Paul chose confrontation, rather than meekly letting the rule of "oh, don't ever do anything to cause a weaker brother to stumble" to be the big guide.

Indeed I think Peter (and Barnabus too, who was implicated) did not do their "jumping up from the table and running away from the slices of Canadian Bacon" for the sake of "poor weaker brethren of James" but because JAMES WAS A HONCHO and they (Peter and Barnabus) didn't want to get reported on the wrong side of the ham to the James Gang.

In this thread feel free to discuss whether Paul was a Gnostic or not; and why Paul would insinuate it didn't matter what one ate and yet elsewhere would warn of teachers in the last days "commanding to abstain from meats and forbidding to marry" -- even calling such teachers-to-come as "having doctrines of demons"!

Peter - the apostle first shown by the Holy Spirit to "call not common what God had cleansed" should have been the last on earth to reneg on "opening things to the Gentiles" -- so what gives with this FOOD-FIGHT where Paul opposes Peter to his face, and even Barnabus was carried away in the hypocrisy?

This incident only scratches the surface - there is a group of stuff relative to 'when is Paul in a situation' where "all things are lawful to me" - and when is he in a crack where "all things are not expedient for me"?

Where are these lines drawn?

This thread will have a parallel counterpart on another board where there are no Jewish, Agnostic and Atheist members free to participate in it -- by rule of that Forum.

I truly want to know opinions and reasonings from various points on this.
This thread has been comin' on for some time. br ... (show quote)


I'm not a Biblical scholar, so not qualified to comment with any degree of intelligence. But my own opinion is that Paul was a lawyer, and hence comfortable reinterpreting scripture as needed to suit his own agenda at any given time.

Reply
Oct 25, 2014 19:08:44   #
lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas
 
PaulPisces wrote:
I'm not a Biblical scholar, so not qualified to comment with any degree of intelligence. But my own opinion is that Paul was a lawyer, and hence comfortable reinterpreting scripture as needed to suit his own agenda at any given time.


Except - there WAS no scripture at that time, other than the old testament. It's true that Paul ( formerly Saul ) was a lawyer and who once hunted Christians for the Temple theocracy. That's why God grabbed him by the short hairs. Who better to know and warn against "splitting hairs" than a lawyer?

Politicians should have paid particular attention to this episode. Peter and his protégés were being chastised for being "two faced". Doing as God commanded, when there were not going to be any repercussions, but bailing when they might be called to account. Cowardice was in Peter's blood. Remember he denied Christ 3 times, even after being warned by Jesus himself that it would happen.

Reply
 
 
Oct 26, 2014 12:04:01   #
Hoquiam
 
This incident was not about food, it was about creating division in the Church.

Reply
Oct 26, 2014 14:37:42   #
WhatIt'sWorth Loc: Methane Sea, Jupiter
 
I was remiss not to include the passage -- in some way it concerns Peter "eating with the Gentiles", then drawing back when "certain of James" arrived; because he (Peter) "feared those of the circumcision"

Gal 2:4
And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Gal 2:5
To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the t***h of the gospel might continue with you.

Gal 2:6
But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

Gal 2:7
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Gal 2:8
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Gal 2:9
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Gal 2:10
Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

Gal 2:11
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Gal 2:12
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Gal 2:13
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Gal 2:14
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the t***h of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Reply
Oct 26, 2014 14:45:31   #
WhatIt'sWorth Loc: Methane Sea, Jupiter
 
Gal 5:1

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Somehow, in this epistle to the Galations, we move from wh**ever Peter 'did wrong in Antioch' through various discussions by Paul of freedom vs bondage, or "Law" vs "Gospel"

Gal 5:13
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Gal 5:14
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Reply
Oct 26, 2014 15:07:04   #
WhatIt'sWorth Loc: Methane Sea, Jupiter
 
So of course it was not "just ABOUT FOOD" -- but was it CREATING DIVISION

or DEALING WITH A DIVISION that was already in place?

Why would Peter "fear those of the circumcision??

What was going on?

Does this incident about Peter when 'certain of James" arrived -- is it recorded anywhere in Acts? (I will search for that next.)

Or is this something "exclusive to Galatians" -- like the tidbit of Paul "conferring with no man" and going to Arabia after his conversion, perhaps for as much as 14 years before encountering "the other apostles"?

Acts says Paul "conferred" big time with Ananias after his conversion - right there in Damascus...

Reply
 
 
Oct 26, 2014 15:47:25   #
WhatIt'sWorth Loc: Methane Sea, Jupiter
 
As far as Paul "being a lawyer" -- well, yes and no. By PROFESSION, he was a TentMaker -- he was "a doctor of the Law" in the sense of a Pharisee "brought up at the feet of Gamaliel"; an expert in the Jewish law -- but to give the idea that Paul earned his living by arguing cases in court like our modern definition of "lawyer" -- no, sorry

Reply
Oct 27, 2014 11:41:09   #
Armageddun Loc: The show me state
 
WhatIt'sWorth wrote:
As far as Paul "being a lawyer" -- well, yes and no. By PROFESSION, he was a TentMaker -- he was "a doctor of the Law" in the sense of a Pharisee "brought up at the feet of Gamaliel"; an expert in the Jewish law -- but to give the idea that Paul earned his living by arguing cases in court like our modern definition of "lawyer" -- no, sorry


If I may humbly offer a thought;

The confrontation by Paul towards Peter was not so much about the type of food as it was the hypocrisy of Peter being partial to those who might have been of in a higher position. Acts I believe tells us that James was the head of the church in Jerusalem. Paul was calling Peter out for acting one way while among the new converts and another way by those who may still have been holding on to a mixture of Jewish traditions and the new Christianity.

James addresses this in his epistle when he condemns believers for showing partiality between the rich and poor.

We condemn Peter for many things that we ourselves are guilty of. When a celebrity is in our midst, what is the usual actions? We fawn over them and make sure they are the most comfortable, have the seat at the head table etc. Paul was simply indicating to Peter, "Hey these guys are just fellow believers, they are part of the brotherhood, why are you setting them up as super Christians or those with higher authority?

We condemn Peter for denying Jesus 3 times!!! How many times in our life have we in one way or another denied Jesus?

Denying him for the golf course, fishing, hobbies, sleeping in, failing to stand up for Him at work?

We condemn Peter for failing when he walked on the water with Jesus. But remember, he was the only one that got out of the boat.

Reply
Oct 27, 2014 20:21:33   #
WhatIt'sWorth Loc: Methane Sea, Jupiter
 
Good stuff, Armageddun -- Peter was DOING IT wasn't he?

He was walking - til he got distracted by the strong wind...

I'm guilty of "sleepin in" so late I would have never heard the cock crow anyhow...

So Peter was a "respecter of persons" one time, and 3 times denied Christ.

About everything else - he was pretty stellar -- so I don't really want to "rob" him

it was just a saying that I thought would make a catchy title for a thread...

Reply
Oct 27, 2014 20:40:27   #
Armageddun Loc: The show me state
 
WhatIt'sWorth wrote:
Good stuff, Armageddun -- Peter was DOING IT wasn't he?

He was walking - til he got distracted by the strong wind...

I'm guilty of "sleepin in" so late I would have never heard the cock crow anyhow...

So Peter was a "respecter of persons" one time, and 3 times denied Christ.

About everything else - he was pretty stellar -- so I don't really want to "rob" him

it was just a saying that I thought would make a catchy title for a thread...
Good stuff, Armageddun -- Peter was DOING IT wasn'... (show quote)


The title does have a ring to it, and I am sure it will attract many for
what they think will be a political discussion or debate.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Kinda like the spider who said, "step into my parlor as he opened his fly." :lol: :lol: Good start on the thread..

Reply
 
 
Oct 28, 2014 05:54:01   #
DennisTate Loc: Nova Scotia, Canada
 
WhatIt'sWorth wrote:
As far as Paul "being a lawyer" -- well, yes and no. By PROFESSION, he was a TentMaker -- he was "a doctor of the Law" in the sense of a Pharisee "brought up at the feet of Gamaliel"; an expert in the Jewish law -- but to give the idea that Paul earned his living by arguing cases in court like our modern definition of "lawyer" -- no, sorry


Do you suspect that Paul was once married and that his wife left him after his conversion to Messianic Judaism?

The vast majority of high level Rabbinic students were married at a fairly young age.

Reply
Oct 28, 2014 06:00:34   #
DennisTate Loc: Nova Scotia, Canada
 
WhatIt'sWorth wrote:
Good stuff, Armageddun -- Peter was DOING IT wasn't he?

He was walking - til he got distracted by the strong wind...

I'm guilty of "sleepin in" so late I would have never heard the cock crow anyhow...

So Peter was a "respecter of persons" one time, and 3 times denied Christ.

About everything else - he was pretty stellar -- so I don't really want to "rob" him

it was just a saying that I thought would make a catchy title for a thread...
Good stuff, Armageddun -- Peter was DOING IT wasn'... (show quote)



Is it also possible that Paul was a near death experiencer who during the early part of his ministry...… such as II Corinthians 12....... was unwilling to deal with some of the subject matter that had been shown to him while he was in the out of the body state.... but later in his ministry....(Romans 11)… he is willing to tackle those difficult topics?

Many near death experiencers state that it takes them about ten years to get to the place where they will write or speak about what they saw during their brush with death.


BLB - 2Co 12: Paul's Epistle - 2 Corinthians 12 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Co&c=12&t=KJV



"I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth

How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter."


Here is Paul in Romans 11.... dealing with one of the most controversial topics that could possibly be discussed......


BLB - Rom 11: Paul's Epistle - Romans 11 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=11&t=KJV

Romans 11:32
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!










Romans 7 very much reminds me of what was shown to near death experiencer Howard Storm regarding how heaven views our sins and mistakes so differently than we tend to do.


Howard Storm's Near-Death Experience | Saved from Hell By Jesus Christ | Prophecies of the Future
http://www.near-death.com/storm.html#a06



"My friends then said, "Do you think that we expect you to be perfect, after all the love we feel for you, even after you were on Earth blaspheming God, and treating everyone around you like dirt? And this, despite the fact that we were sending people to try and help you, to teach you the t***h? Do you really think we would be apart from you now?"

I asked them, "But what about my own sense of failure? You've shown me how I can be better, and I'm sure I can't live up to that. I'm not that good." Some of my self-centeredness welled up and I said, "No way. I'm not going back." (Howard Storm)

Edit/Delete Message

Reply
Oct 28, 2014 13:37:27   #
WhatIt'sWorth Loc: Methane Sea, Jupiter
 
Dennis -- I have nothing to base this on but a gut feeling -- but somehow I think Paul may have been a widower

from before his conversion

there is no biblical evidence that Paul was ever married, however

only a "general rule" that rabbinical scholars were supposed to have a wife -- which tells us nothing specifically about Saul of Tarsus

Reply
Oct 28, 2014 17:37:41   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
WhatIt'sWorth wrote:
This thread has been comin' on for some time.

It is an INQUIRY into Christian Freedom, as opposed to the idea that sometimes we should more or less "muzzle ourselves" because what we might otherwise say with impunity COULD be seen by others "weaker in the faith" or "bothered by conscience about meat or holy days" or what-not

to be "damaging" to their faith.

One thing shall be a starting point:

At a certain time, the Apostle Paul "opposed Peter to his face" about the fact that Peter had been eating with Gentiles unashamedly until "certain of James" arrived -- at which point Peter apparently "drew away" or reneged on what he had been doing in deference to this "James Gang" that had just appeared.

In this case, at least, Paul chose confrontation, rather than meekly letting the rule of "oh, don't ever do anything to cause a weaker brother to stumble" to be the big guide.

Indeed I think Peter (and Barnabus too, who was implicated) did not do their "jumping up from the table and running away from the slices of Canadian Bacon" for the sake of "poor weaker brethren of James" but because JAMES WAS A HONCHO and they (Peter and Barnabus) didn't want to get reported on the wrong side of the ham to the James Gang.

In this thread feel free to discuss whether Paul was a Gnostic or not; and why Paul would insinuate it didn't matter what one ate and yet elsewhere would warn of teachers in the last days "commanding to abstain from meats and forbidding to marry" -- even calling such teachers-to-come as "having doctrines of demons"!

Peter - the apostle first shown by the Holy Spirit to "call not common what God had cleansed" should have been the last on earth to reneg on "opening things to the Gentiles" -- so what gives with this FOOD-FIGHT where Paul opposes Peter to his face, and even Barnabus was carried away in the hypocrisy?

This incident only scratches the surface - there is a group of stuff relative to 'when is Paul in a situation' where "all things are lawful to me" - and when is he in a crack where "all things are not expedient for me"?

Where are these lines drawn?

This thread will have a parallel counterpart on another board where there are no Jewish, Agnostic and Atheist members free to participate in it -- by rule of that Forum.

I truly want to know opinions and reasonings from various points on this.
This thread has been comin' on for some time. br ... (show quote)

------------------------


If I may interject..... To defend himself against the Judaizers’ charges, the Paul pointed to his fourteen years of independent ministry between his first two visits to Jerusalem following his conversion. He functioned directly under Jesus’ authority during that time, not under the official body at Jerusalem. He helped the Galatians understand the complex relationship existing between himself and the apostles in Jerusalem. So when Paul wrote about his visit to the mother church, he showed both his independence from the other apostles’ authority and his respect for them. Paul gave four significant aspects of his visit that established his credentials: (1) the companions on his journey; (2) the content of his message; (3) the confirmation of his ministry; and (4) his commission to come to Jerusalem.

Ga 2:1 Paul continued the itinerary from 1:21 and explained that he went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia; afterward he went back to Jerusalem. The book of Acts records five visits to Jerusalem by Paul: (1) the visit to get acquainted with Peter (around A.D. 35, Ac 9:26-30; Ga 1:18-20); (2) the visit to deliver a gift to the Jerusalem church for famine relief (around A.D. 44, Ac 11:27-30); (3) the visit to attend the Jerusalem council (around A.D. 49 / 50, Ac 15:1-30); (4) the visit at the end of the second missionary journey (around A.D. 52, Ac 18:22); and (5) the visit that resulted in his being imprisoned and sent to Rome (around A.D. 57, Ac 21:15-23:35).

The visit to Jerusalem mentioned here is most likely the second visit, when he delivered the famine relief gift to the Jerusalem church. It would not be the third visit, because Paul spends time in this letter dealing with questions that the Jerusalem council ultimately settled, so the council could not yet have taken place.

The fourteen years are probably dated, not from the last mention in his itinerary (that is, from his time in Syria and Cilicia), but rather from his conversion. The first and fourteenth years were partial years. Like history itself, Paul tended to divide and orient his life around the time “before Christ” and “after Christ.” Paul was converted around A.D. 32, dating this visit at A.D. 44/45. Paul was pointing out that he had been preaching to the Gentiles for a long time, and thus had a specific message that could be discussed with the church leaders in Jerusalem. Following this visit, Paul then took the first missionary journey (Ac 13:1-14:28), wrote this letter to the Galatians in response to the troubling news of spiritual desertion by the new believers, and later attended the the new believers, and later attended the Jerusalem council that settled many of the issues discussed in this letter to the Galatians.

According to the book of Acts, Barnabas recognized Paul's sincerity as a truly converted former persecutor and introduced Paul to the apostles. Many believers, even the apostles themselves, may have feared that Paul simply was acting in some extravagant ruse in order to find out and capture more Christians. But Barnabas was not afraid (Ac 9:27). His name means “Son of Encouragement,” and Paul knew firsthand about Barnabas's kind encouragement. Barnabas accompanied Paul on the famine relief visit to Jerusalem (Ac 11:27-30) and traveled with him on the first missionary journey, during which Galatia was evangelized (Ac 13:2-3). Thus, Barnabas was well known to the Galatian Christians to whom Paul was writing.

Titus, a Greek, was one of Paul's most trusted and dependable coworkers. Paul called him “a true child in the faith” (Tit 1:4), so he was probably one of Paul's converts. This trip to Jerusalem with Paul became the first of many journeys for Titus, who would later become a true right-hand man to Paul. Exactly why Paul brought Titus along to Jerusalem is unclear. Possibly because Titus was a pure Gentile convert, he was presented as a “test case” to the church leaders (2:3-5).

Ga 2:2 God told Paul, through a revelation, to confer with the church leaders in Jerusalem so they would understand the message he had been preaching to the Gentiles. Paul's point here was that his visit to Jerusalem was not because the apostles had summoned him or because he had felt a need to talk to the apostles about his ministry among the Gentiles.

This revelation may have been to Paul personally, or it may have come through someone else. It is probable that Paul was referring to the prophecy made by Agabus, who had predicted that a severe famine was coming (Ac 11:28), for we are told that this prophecy led to Paul and Barnabas being sent to Jerusalem and Paul using that God-given opportunity to then talk to the church leaders.

Remember that one reason Paul wrote this letter was to combat the false teaching of the Judaizers who were trying to undermine Paul's authority as an apostle. Paul did not go to Jerusalem at the call of the apostles, and he did not go to get approval for the gospel he preached. Instead, Paul went to set his message before them to make sure they did not disagree (which was really the only response they could have). Paul didn't need approval because the gospel had been revealed to him by God had been revealed to him by God himself. The essence of the gospel Paul preached to both Jews and Gentiles was that God's salvation is offered to all people regardless of race, sex, nationality, wealth, social standing, educational level, or anything else. All types of people can be forgiven by trusting in Christ (see Ro 10:8-13; Ga 3:28).

The language Paul used here may seem harsh or even boastful, but it preserves an important distinction. Paul believed and taught the principle of mutual submission among believers (Ep 5:21). But the t***h does not submit. Paul voluntarily came before the leaders in Jerusalem and calmly presented to them the message he was preaching. He was maintaining accountability and solidarity with other Christian leaders, without for a moment assuming that what Christ had given him was open to their approval. Paul discussed the gospel he was preaching among the Gentiles in a private meeting with the leaders of the church—probably James, Peter, and John (2:9).

The meeting in privacy was not, as the Judaizers hoped to claim, for the purpose of correcting Paul's message. Instead, Paul met privately to make sure they were all in agreement, or his ministry would have been useless. If the apostles incorrectly disagreed with him and agreed with the Judaizers (that to be agreed with the Judaizers (that to be Christians, people first had to become Jews and follow all the laws and customs—especially regarding circumcision), this would have caused severe damage to the work that Paul had already done for years among the Gentiles and hurt future missionary efforts. Paul realized the momentous importance of the decision that needed to be made regarding the relationship of Gentiles and Jews on the common meeting ground of Christianity. Paul had no doubts about the message Christ had given him, but he appeared before the other apostles as an equal expecting their wholehearted support.

Ga 2:3 Paul's message preached among the Gentiles was tested in the treatment of the young Greek convert whom Paul brought along to Jerusalem—Titus. Paul's message to the Gentiles was that God accepted anyone who believes, regardless of race or religious background. Titus's presence gave the entire church an opportunity to practice what they intended to preach. The gospel clearly applied to Titus without requiring his circumcision. The development was a major loss for the Judaizers (the “false Christians,” 2:4), for it showed that the Jerusalem church had accepted Paul's policy.

Circumcision was a big issue for the Jews because the custom dated back to the days of Abraham and their birth as a nation. More than any other practice, circumcision separated God's people from their pagan neighbors. In Abraham's day, this was essential for developing the pure worship of the one true God. Whether the Judaizers were intentionally trying to undermine Christianity with this requirement, or whether they sincerely believed that as an outgrowth of Judaism, Christianity should fulfill Jewish requirements, they were wrong.

The apostles did not demand that Titus be circumcised, though he was a Gentile. They agreed with Paul that circumcision was an unnecessary rite for Gentile converts. Several years later, Paul did circumcise Timothy, another Greek Christian (Ac 16:3). Unlike Titus, however, Timothy was half Jewish. Paul did not deny Jews the right to be circumcised; he was simply saying that Gentiles should not be asked to become Jews before becoming Christians.

Ga 2:4 Here Paul called the Judaizers so-called Christians . . . false ones. They were most likely from the party of the Pharisees (Ac 15:5), the strictest religious leaders of Judaism. Some of these Judaizers came to spy on the believers. These people somehow were planted into the Christians’ ranks. If they got into the private meeting Paul had with the church leaders, someone of power may have been behind the power may have been behind the controversy. The Pharisees would have been most interested in observing what was going on in the Christian camp, especially regarding freedom from Jewish regulations. Indeed, their very existence involved detailed obedience to Jewish law and traditions—and making sure everyone else did the same. The philosophy of the Judaizers was something like, “If you can't beat them or join them, then try to change them by absorbing them.” The status quo of Judaism, which Jesus repeatedly confronted during his ministry, did not give up easily. Those still committed to that system wanted to force the believers to follow all the Jewish regulations, to make them s***es under the religious legal system. Circumcision, with its inherent significance (see 2:3 above), was a good first step. Obviously, they did not see themselves as trying to ens***e anyone, but Paul understood that this was the ultimate end of required obedience to all the Jewish laws and traditions.

Ga 2:5 The t***h of the Good News was at stake. Paul sought to protect the t***h that the gospel is for all people who can accept it by faith alone. Paul was convinced that circumcision, a rite he himself had undergone, was not part of the essential t***h of the gospel. Paul fought to protect that gospel for you, specifically referring to the Galatian Christians to whom he wrote. But it also applies to any believer today who has Christians to whom he wrote. But it also applies to any believer today who has not come out of a Jewish background. We have received salvation without having to ascribe to a whole set of Jewish laws because Paul had the foresight and wisdom to fight for protection of the gospel of grace regarding this issue.

Ga 2:6 Paul's wording here was not meant disrespectfully toward the apostles and church leaders. Paul was walking a fine line between asserting his independence from the apostles, and yet his unity with them. Paul was not in awe of the apostles; who they were made no difference to him in that sense. Paul wanted to make it clear that both his gospel and his apostleship were of supernatural origin. Because God has no favorites between him and the recognized apostles, then neither should anyone else (see also Ep 6:9). The apostles had nothing to add to what Paul was preaching—they did not correct Paul's message or try to add anything to it (such as the need for circumcision). Instead, they accepted Paul as an equal and accepted his message to the Gentiles as “gospel t***h.”

Ga 2:7-8 What the apostles saw was most likely the convincing success that God had given to Paul's ministry of preaching the Good News to the Gentiles. This is compared to Peter who had been having a dynamic ministry of had been having a dynamic ministry of preaching to the Jews. Peter also had had contact with Gentiles (see Ac 10), probably a key point in the approval of Paul and Barnabas's ministry. Peter's encounter with Cornelius had demonstrated God's acceptance of the Gentiles. This prepared Peter to accept the legitimacy of Paul's special call. Peter and Paul represented God's ongoing covenant with all of humanity under the saving grace made possible by Jesus. Each of them had valid ministries, ordained and authorized by Christ, because the same God was working through both men.

Both Paul and Peter preached the same gospel. Though their audiences were vastly different, the message did not, could not, and would not ever change. The gospel that remains unchanged today is that salvation is by God's grace alone for anyone who believes.

Ga 2:9 The men mentioned were James, half brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, and two of Jesus’ original disciples and part of his inner circle of three—Peter and John. These three noted leaders accepted Paul and Barnabas as their coworkers—giving their blessing and encouragement in their ministry among the Gentiles. These pillars of the church had recognized the gift God had given to Paul. There was evidence of God's saving grace in Paul's own life and the results flowing Paul's own life and the results flowing from his ministry among the Gentiles. Paul was a walking, talking advertisement for the gospel. So Paul and Barnabas were encouraged to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while the apostles in Jerusalem and Judea would continue their work with the Jews. This referred to each group's main focus; it was not exclusive. The apostles ministered to many Gentiles; Paul and his team always spoke to Jews, as well. Yet always their message was the same: the gospel of salvation.

Ga 2:10 Although the ministry and message of Paul and Barnabas had been accepted, the entire issue had not been handled because the Judaizers had not been silenced. It would take the council of Jerusalem (Ac 15) to block the efforts to bring the gospel back under the law. In the meantime, much effort would be required to promote unity at the grass roots level between Jewish and Gentile Christians. The apostles realized that one immediate and practical way to bridge this possible gap would be to remember to help the poor.

Paul assured them that he had been eager to do that. Paul never forgot this understanding. He continued to be eager to help the poor believers in Jerusalem. On his missionary journeys (especially the third journey), Paul gathered funds to help the poor Jewish believers in Jerusalem (see Ac 24:17; Ro 15:25-28; 1Co 16:1-4; 2Co 8-9).

Paul Confronts Peter / 2:11-21
With the speed of a remote control switch, the scene changed as Paul began to explain another time when his authority as an apostle had been confirmed. The setting switched from Jerusalem (2:1-10) to Antioch, a Gentile city familiar to the Galatians (2:11-21). In Antioch, Paul had faced another conflict over his authority. At that time, however, he openly opposed the actions of the apostle Peter himself.

Peter had arrived in Antioch and had been warmly welcomed by the church. He, Paul, Barnabas, and the rest of the leadership fellowshiped, taught, and ate together regularly. Then a delegation arrived from Jerusalem, and almost immediately Peter's treatment of the Gentile Christians changed. He kept his distance from them. Others, including Barnabas, followed Peter's example. But Paul leaped into the breach with a ringing confrontation.

Ga 2:11 This Antioch was in Syria (as distinguished from Antioch in Pisidia). Antioch was a major trade center in the ancient world. Heavily populated by Greeks, it eventually became a strong Christian center. In Antioch the believers were first called Christians (Ac 11:26). Antioch in Syria became the headquarters for the Gentile church and was Paul's base of operations.

When Peter made this trip to Antioch is uncertain; there is no reference to it in the book of Acts. It may have occurred soon after Paul, Barnabas, and Titus had returned to Antioch from Jerusalem after delivering the famine relief. Perhaps Peter wanted to see for himself the ministry taking place in Antioch. During this visit, Paul had to oppose Peter publicly. Peter's actions were very wrong, and Paul, an apostle with the right to speak with authority, had to confront Peter. The event involved an emotional, face-to-face showdown. Peter was caught in a glaring inconsistency that might have gone tragically unresolved if not for Paul's boldness. He always focused on the purity of the gospel t***h; whenever it was threatened, Paul acted.

Ga 2:12 When Peter arrived in Antioch, he saw that Jewish and Gentile Christians enjoyed fellowship at mealtimes without concern over Jewish dietary laws. His setting aside long-established taboos against Jews sharing board and room with Gentiles showed nothing less than his acceptance of freedom in Christ. Peter accepted these practices; he himself had received a vision from God about food laws and Gentiles in the new world of the gospel. Indeed, Peter had been the first to receive the understanding about God's acceptance of the Gentiles, and he was the first to preach to Gentiles. Peter understood from this vision that he should not look upon the Gentiles as inferior people whom God would not redeem. After Peter had this vision, a Gentile Roman officer named Cornelius asked him to come and share the gospel message with him and his household. Peter did so, without the hesitation he would have felt before the vision, and Cornelius and his household became believers.

Thus, when Peter arrived in Antioch, he already knew that God had broken down the barriers between Jews and Gentiles, and he understood the true meaning of Christian freedom. So he gladly ate with the Gentile Christians. The imperfect tense of the verb indicates that this was not one occasion but a repeated pattern, meaning that Peter joined with the other Jews in eating with their Gentile brothers and sisters in Christ on a regular basis. This pattern undoubtedly went beyond sharing common meals and included taking the Lord's Supper together.

But all that was before some Jewish friends of James came. These men were the legalists and most likely not sent by James. The wording here means they came “from James's group,” that is, from the Jerusalem church. James, as leader of the Jerusalem church, had a vast range of people to deal with, and these men were part of the legalistic group of his church. Among the entourage from Jerusalem, there must have been certain men who frowned on fraternizing with Gentiles. These may have been rigid and legalistic Jewish Christians, but they were probably associated with the same “false Christians” who had disrupted Paul's visit to Jerusalem.

Though this group probably tried to trade on James's authority, he later firmly denied sending them. In the letter sent back to the Gentile Christians in Antioch after the Jerusalem council, James wrote, “We understand that some men from here have troubled you and upset you with their teaching, but they had no such instructions from us” (Ac 15:24).

Apparently, the mere appearance of this group caught Peter by surprise. When these legalists arrived, they may have expressed shock at Peter's conduct. Peter surely knew these men, as they came from the Jerusalem church, and he was influenced by their presence to the point that he wouldn't eat with the Gentiles anymore.

Why was this action “very wrong” (2:11)? By his actions, Peter was implying that there really was a difference between Jewish and Gentile believers—a difference that could not be bridged. The notion that the body of Christ had to be divided between Jews and Gentiles was nothing other than heresy. Peter was being hypocritical. Perhaps he was motivated by the desire to keep peace between the legalists and the law-free gospel group. Peter's error was that he gave in because he was afraid of what these legalists would say. Peter must have known that he had gone against God's revelation. By the very nature of Peter's stature as an apostle, his actions confused and hurt other believers—thus Paul's strong face-to-face opposition to Peter's actions.

Ga 2:13 As Peter acted on his fear, the other Jews, meaning those not already committed to the policy of separation, went along with his hypocrisy. They, too, gradually stopped joining with the Gentiles in eating and fellowshiping. These other Jewish Christians were the Jewish believers who lived in Antioch and were members of the church there. In that setting, they were most likely in the minority.

Paul mentioned Barnabas separately, probably because Paul was especially surprised that Barnabas would be so influenced. Barnabas was Paul's traveling companion; together they preached the gospel to the Gentiles, proclaiming Jews’ and Gentiles’ oneness with Christ. Barnabas was not from the Jerusalem church and would not have had the personal and relational stake in this that Peter had. Yet, like Peter, Barnabas was human, and for some unknown reason he followed Peter's example.

Paul boldly pointed out the hypocrisy. A hypocrite says one thing but does another. Peter, Barnabas, and the Jewish believers knew that God accepted everyone equally, that salvation was available to all, that there should be no separation in the body of Christ. Yet their actions implied just the opposite. If Paul had opted for peace and allowed these actions to go unrebuked, the Christian church would have divided into two distinct groups going their separate ways. But this was not God's plan, nor was it consistent with “the t***h of the Good News,” as Paul would explain in the next verse.

Ga 2:14 This was the crux of the matter—they (Peter, Barnabas, and the Jewish believers in Antioch) were not following the t***h of the Good News. This t***h was that Jesus Christ had died and had risen again to offer salvation to all people—Jews and Gentiles alike. Both groups are equally acceptable to God; thus, they must be equally acceptable to each other. Jewish believers separating themselves implied that they were superior because of their race, traditions, or law keeping. The Good News clearly shows, however, that people do not become accepted by God for anything they do.

Paul did not oppose Peter in order to elevate himself. Paul recounted this story in this letter to the Galatians to show that he was a full apostle and could speak authoritatively, even in opposition to another apostle if the t***h of the gospel were at stake. This was not a secondary issue blown out of proportion. The confrontation fit the crisis.

Paul spoke to Peter publicly in front of all the others—that is, in front of the Jewish believers, the Gentile believers, the legalists, and Barnabas. Those who want to attribute other motives to Paul might ask why he didn't go to Peter privately. Wouldn't that have been more “peace loving”? more “Christian”? But Peter's actions had started a domino effect; and, because of his authority as an apostle, his actions had confused the believers. A private solution to this problem was not an option. Peter's action was public, with public consequences; the rebuke had to be public. As a leader of the Jerusalem church, Peter was setting public policy.

Paul recorded his exact words here. Obviously, everyone knew Peter's Jewish background; Paul's wording indicates they also knew that Peter had set aside Jewish rituals and ceremonial laws (especially the food laws that made fellowship between Jews and Gentiles almost impossible) because of his freedom in Christ, thus living like a Gentile and not like a Jew. Certainly the visions Peter had seen and his experience with Cornelius had cured him of any prejudice against Gentiles (see Ac 10).

But how could Paul say that Peter was trying to make these Gentiles obey the Jewish laws? By siding with the Judaizers who were visiting Antioch, Peter was playing into their hands, appearing as if he agreed with them and actually supported their insistence that Gentiles should follow Jewish customs. By separating himself from the Gentiles, Peter was supporting the Judaizers’ claim that Jews still were better than Gentiles.

Alongside the theological problems that Peter's actions caused, a practical question must have surfaced. While Peter's change in policy about having meals with Gentiles was harmful, the change in the policy for the Lord's Supper must have been disastrous. If this group was divided over the sharing of common meals, it is inconceivable that they would be able to assemble together for the Lord's Supper. Without Paul's immediate and forceful intervention, the church in Antioch might have been crippled and destroyed.

Ga 2:15 Both Paul and Peter were Jews by birth, as were, obviously, all the Jewish Christians. Yet being Jews by birth was not enough for salvation. Paul's phrase, “sinners” like the Paul's phrase, “sinners” like the Gentiles, was said ironically because this was the scornful name Jews applied to Gentiles. Peter's actions had conveyed some sort of “holier than thou” attitude in line with the teaching that Gentiles were still “sinners” unless they became Jewish. But both Peter and Paul knew better.

Ga 2:16 All people stand as condemned sinners before God: God-fearing, law-keeping Jews, and “Gentile sinners” alike. But all are made right with God, not by doing what the law commands, but by faith in Jesus Christ. This is the doctrine of “justification.” God justifies people despite their guilt, pardons them, and then makes them his children and heirs. The law to which he was referring could mean Jewish Scripture, plus the laws added by the Pharisees. If people could be saved by obeying the law, then Christ did not have to die. But the reality is, no one will ever be saved by obeying the law.

Ga 2:17 In this verse, Paul responds to one objection that might be raised by his opponents. They might say, What if we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then find out that we are still sinners? Has Christ led us into sin? How could Paul claim that justification by faith is effective when Christians still sin? To say that the law doesn't matter is to say that standards and morality don't matter. This leaves the door open for people to become believers and then live any way they choose.

But Paul's reply is vehement: Of course not! Sin does not result because people are justified; Christ is not responsible for promoting sin. Obviously, those who have been justified—Christians—can and do sin, for that, unfortunately, is part of our human nature (Paul details his own struggle with sin in Ro 7). But the sin led to the need for justification, not the other way around. The Judaizers saw Christianity as an excuse to get out from under Jewish law. But Paul (and the Jewish Christians who had experienced justification) knew that while offering freedom from the restrictive law, justification by faith demanded lifestyle and behavioral changes. When God truly gets hold of a life, nothing can remain the same. Grace does not abolish the law with its standards and morality; rather, it moves it from an external standard impossible to keep to an inner motivation for living a pure and God-honoring life.

Ga 2:18 Justification by faith tore down the Pharisees’ “merit system” with all its laws and good deeds that attempted to rack up points with God. To rebuild that, to be justified by faith and then return to that legal system as a basis for one's relationship with God, would erroneously imply that Christ's death was erroneously imply that Christ's death was not sufficient. Paul saw the situation in Antioch with Peter as a clear illustration of the unnecessary burden that some wanted to place on Gentile believers. Peter, through his act of pulling away from the Gentile fellowship, was giving law a place of authority that it no longer held.

Justified people will sin, but they are moving onward and upward. The real sinner is the one who is justified and then returns to the law. Ironically, that person is actually guilty. People under the law are more precisely described as lawbreakers than as law-keepers! The law cannot give salvation because no one can keep it perfectly. The best the law can do is prove our sinfulness and how much we need the Savior and his gracious offer of justification by faith.

Ga 2:19 The law itself could not save because no one can keep its perfect standards. The law thus cannot earn God's approval; instead, it offers only failure and death. So what is its usefulness? The law was a necessary instrument to show people the ultimate futility of trying to live up to God's standard on their own. But that very hopelessness created by the law can have a positive impact if it leads a person to the true hope, Christ himself. Christ took upon himself that death penalty—the death we deserved for being lawbreakers. When Paul understood that the law was completely incapable of giving salvation, and when he embraced the one who could give salvation, he knew he could never go back to the law. Paul felt this so intensely that he expressed it in terms of death, I died to the law. The perfect tense of the verbs indicates something that happened in the past but influences the present. Paul “died to the law” by being crucified with Christ. Christ completely fulfilled the law (past tense); this act influenced Paul in the present (who, as an imperfect human, could not keep the law). Yet because of Christ's death, the law no longer had a hold on either of them. The cross of Christ shows that although the law had to be kept, it was fulfilled by a perfect human. Christ paid sin's penalty for imperfect humans. Being crucified with Christ refers to the conversion experience, a once-for-all t***saction that has ongoing results.

Paul knew he had to die to the law before he could live for God. There can be no middle ground. It makes no sense to accept salvation by faith and then work for it, just as it makes no sense to accept a gift and then offer the giver money for it. We must deny that our own efforts can accomplish anything in order to be able to humbly accept the gift that Christ offers. By identifying with Christ, we can experience freedom from the law that he procured for us by dying on our behalf.

Ga 2:20 Paul claimed he had been “crucified,” but he was still alive. Paul had died with Christ, but it was his “old self” that had died: I myself no longer live. The self-centered, Jewish Pharisee, Christian-persecuting, law-abiding, violent, and evil Paul “no longer” lived. That person's sinful life had been crucified with Christ on the cross. This is the “I” of the flesh (see 5:13-24), of sinful human desires, of works and p***e. Paul was released, not only from the tyranny of the Mosaic law, but also from the tyranny of self.

Instead, Paul was a “new person” (2Co 5:17) because, he explained, Christ lives in me. In other words, Paul had turned over his life to Christ. Each of the phrases is a crucial aspect of the sequence of salvation: We relinquish our old life and turn to Christ for his life. The self-centered self now becomes the Christ-centered self. It is as if Paul was saying, “My old life, my old goals and plans, even old relationships were nailed to the cross with Christ. Now I have a new life because Christ came in and filled the empty spaces all those old pursuits could not fill. Now he lives in me and is the focus of my life.” To accomplish this, there must be a radical cleansing of our old selfish nature. But there must also be a turning to the empowering of Christ. Just as in repentance we turn away from sin and toward Christ, we must turn from the self in the flesh to the self hidden in Christ.

Paul no longer focused his life on trying to please God by obeying laws; instead, with Christ in him, I live my life in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Believers live in their bodies that are prone to sin while they remain on earth. But with Christ in charge, they are new creations, living life by faith. This faith is an attitude, a lifestyle.

Ga 2:21 Paul's message of salvation by faith (without works of the law) did not treat the grace of God as meaningless. Instead, that is exactly what the Judaizers’ teaching did—they “set aside” or “nullified” God's grace. For if we could be saved by keeping the law, then the logical conclusion is that there was no need for Christ to die. However, it was because no one could obey God's law perfectly that Christ came to both obey it, fulfill its penalty, and then set it aside as a means to salvation. That was the ultimate picture of God's love and grace for sinful humanity. The basis of Christianity is God's grace and Christ's death for sin. Without these there is no faith, no gospel, and no hope of salvation.

Taken from:

Laridian; PocketBible; Life Application New Testament Commentary

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-political talk)
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.