Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217235 | ||
Just what does Paul mean by Peter's hypocrisy? Galatians 2:11-16 This answer will be succinct when in actuality an excurses on table fellowship in the first century would be helpful and a complete commentary on Galatians would be most helpful. Unfortunately, we are stuck with dealing with things on a piece by piece level. When Peter comes to Antioch, it is after his Acts 10 experience. He clearly knows that eating with Gentile believers is permitted and that Gentiles are included in the family of God through Faith and not through a proselyte conversion ritual. Paul and Peter have already discussed with those in Jerusalem that Paul would go to the Gentiles, not requiring them to go through the ritual of conversion, and Peter to the Jews. While in Antioch, Peter finds no problem with eating with Gentile believers as one would expect from Acts 10-11. However, when certain men come from James, Peter reverts back to his pre-Acts 10 days. While he most assuredly still held to the post Acts 10 understanding, he lived in front of the Gentiles the way he believed prior to Acts 10. He would not associate with Gentiles in the covenant act of eating together. His actions toward the Gentiles would be tantamount to saying, “You really are not FULL covenant members with us.” That is contrary to the very Gospel Paul preached. Peter treated the Gentile believers as if they were “sinners”, ie. not “in the group.” Since Peter was to go to the Jews, he probably felt that he was justified in drawing back in order to keep good company with those to whom he was sent. While it’s permissible in some areas of interpretation to say, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” This clearly is not permissible when non-negotiable issues arise. When Paul states that he was a “Jew to the Jews … and to those without Law as without Law” 1 Cor 9:20-21. He is not saying that he became a hedonist, or a law-breaker to win those people. He became like them in-as-much-as he could while remaining true to the Law of Christ. Peter’s actions on the other hand violated the very essence of the Promise of God to bless the nations; the Good News. Even though Acts 10-11 convinced the Apostles that Gentiles were not to be considered as unclean but full members of the family of God through Faith, not all Jewish Believers in Jesus appreciated this or accepted it outright. Such deeply held convictions, as false as they may be, are not easily confronted; I can say this with experience ;-) When Paul tells Peter he, “Lived like a Gentile.” He is not saying that Peter abandoned any part of the Law as a Gentile pagan would, but rather that he ate with, lived among, and accepted the Gentile as an equal. Before the men from James arrived, Peter lived as though there were no distinctions between the Jew and Gentile (as far as the Gospel is concerned). They were one community. Now with the men from James, he lives as though there are two communities, and “never the twain shall meet.” MJH |
||||||
2 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | stjohn | 217242 | ||
Hi MJH, Concerning Acts 10. Can you tell me why God, would tell Petter to, "kill and eat" if He didn't mean, "kill and eat"? Wouldn't you think God could or would say what He means, without being so ambiguous? If He only intended to let Petter know He was just talking about the Gentiles being made clean, then He is more then capable of doing so. Don't you think? I mean, if it takes as much explaining as those of your persuasion go through; and I really don't mean to be offensive, but, well, MJH, to be honest, it seems a little silly, really. I think if thats all that God intended to say, He would have been much more clear about it, instead of causing so much confusion. John |
||||||
3 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217246 | ||
I think the Text exlpains this as clear as needs be said without ambiguity. The only way to find confusion is when one needs to find things where none exist. MJH |
||||||
4 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | stjohn | 217256 | ||
Hi MJH, That's exactly my point. When someone looks long and hard enough for something, that doesn't exist, they can find an argument that will favor the theory being promulgated. The text clearly and plainly says, "kill and eat" and God's word repeats this three times, so there would be no mistaking what was being said. There is nothing whatsoever ambiguous about that. Peter would have found it quite objectionable to go to the gentiles and eat with them if he would have to share in the kind of foods they ate. That is without God showing him that it was okay to eat these things. You know, MJH, I'm convicted by the Holy Spirit most every day, and quite often several times a day, for not doing things in a godly way. I d have to say in my case it usually has something to do with pride. I know many, very Godly men and women, that can attest to the same thing. They can barley get through a day, without the Spirits conviction. But I nor they ever felt even a twinge of guilt, for eating a pork chop, or perhaps some sweet, succulent scampi. And even though that's not found in the Scriptures, so it really doesn't hold much water around here, nonetheless, I find it rather convincing. Thanks again for your time. John |
||||||
5 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217257 | ||
John, You asked for an explanation of Peter's hypocrisy and so I delivered. Of course I know you won’t agree so if by your question you meant, "Tell me something that will convince." Then that I can not do. I can only explain what the Text meant to the original readers and therefore to us today. I did spend a good deal of time explaining Col. 2, and was a bit disappointed with the dismissive response. I say this because it truly does perplex me how the correct understanding can not be obvious to everyone who reads it. Even should you feel the way you do about “ceremonial” laws, there is no reason to force that into this Text and make it say God’s Law is nailed to the cross. I have in the past hesitated to say this, but I personally believe it is heretical to make Col. 2:14 claim to nail the Mosaic Law to the cross and to put any part of God’s Law in the same camp as hollow worldly wisdom. Some of my understandings of the specifics of Col. 2 may need adjustments, but this error in interpretation simply can not be over looked by the mainstream church. MJH -intended with all due respect. |
||||||
6 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | stjohn | 217261 | ||
Hi MJH, I do appreciate the time you spent in your response, and always appreciate the fact you're gracious and polite in your responses to everyone. I thought it was understood that those from our camp are never ever saying that God's law concerning the moral law(s) is/are absolutely still in effect and always will be. That was never nailed to the Cross. We are not forcing the moral law into the text at all. you are reading that into what we are saying. We are always speaking of the ceremonial law when discussing this subject. Never do we say that we should live like heathens, living in lawlessness, or that Paul taught that, as I believe your explanation implies we are saying. I hope that clarifies my/our position a bit. John |
||||||
7 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217264 | ||
Thanks John, I do understand that you stand by the "moral law" which is found within the Mosaic Law. But you do say you believe the "ceremonial law" is "nailed to the cross" and that is also a part of the Mosaic Law. In that view, you are placing a "part" (though not all) of the Mosaic Law on the same grounds as philosophy "according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." This is my main problem with your view of Col 2:14. No part, not even one small command from God can be placed in the flow of Paul’s argument in-as-much-as nailing it to the cross. Let me try to explain more clearly. Let us assume that God said through Paul, “You are no longer bound by nor required to participate in the ceremonial laws such as food, festivals, Sabbath, new moons.” Now, I think such a statement would violate the very law spoken of (Deut. 12:32), but I realize you don’t share that understanding. So lets assume he does this…cuts out and removes certain commands found in the covenant. Okay, fine. We stop following those commands. But, (and this is my point), would God ever have His Spirit speak through Paul and say, “That part of the law is based on human tradition and empty philosophies of this world?” Would he ever declare that these parts of the law are “against you?” Or, the same as “the elemental spirits of this world?” May it never be! If I were you, and I once was in thought, I’d say Paul was speaking against empty teachings (whether from Jews or Greeks it makes not difference) which are opposed to God’s Law which is the Law of Christ. Stop looking to this world for “special knowledge and spiritual esoteric encounters.” Jesus lived in a fleshly body and died and rose again in a fleshly body. He put to death these empty principles and triumphed over them by the cross. Therefore, since you were called to live a special king of life within God’s Kingdom, stop judging one another on disputable matters. One follows the Sabbath and one does not. Live in unity and remain in Jesus, but by all means stay away from those empty teachings based on human dogma. Does that make since? That at least holds God’s teaching found in Deuteronomy with respect, while still providing an option that God’s Law can be divided up into parts, some we follow, and some we do not. Eagerly looking forward to your response. This is helping me think these passages out again in some more depth. MJH |
||||||
8 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 217285 | ||
Greetings MJH! I have been doing some research on Col. 2:14, but I am by no means finished. :-) In regards to your analysis of the passage, a couple of points come to mind. 1) Clearly, when the phrase 'traditions of men' is used in Scripture, it indicates the perversions of God's Law (see v. 8). But, is that what Paul is discussing in v. 14? I have doubts for several reasons. a) In what way would these false teachings need to be nailed to the cross? What hold did they have on us? How did the cross do anything to them? It would seem to me that the only debt that could legitimately be nailed to the cross is the debt we owed God. b) Secondly, v. 17 speaks of these 'things' as being shadows of what was to come in Christ. This is the same language used of the Law in Hebrews 8 and 10. In what way would a false teaching be fulfilled in Christ? c) Finally, while Col. 2:14 uses a phrase that may or may not refer to the law, the parallel passage in Eph. 2:15 specifically speaks of the law being abolished in His flesh. Though the word 'law' is modified with several words in this text. I plan on doing some research in the LXX concerning Col. 2:14 and Eph. 2:15 to see if these particular words were ever used there in reference to the Mosaic Law. I have enjoyed digging into these passages my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
9 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217299 | ||
Tim, (quick note for now.) In regards to "a" I will return to answer. I've been meditating on this some more and have an idea that needs to be tested. Pluss I'm short on time. In regards to "b", Vs. 16-17 are not the same as vs. 14. Maybe an outline of Paul's flow in argument, as I understand it, would help. I'll put one together later when I have time. And "c". Eph 2:15 is a whole different connected discussion, but in short, I believe the "wall" spoken of is traditional laws taught that separated Gentiles and Jews from communion together (which is why Paul uses “dogma” again). These are not found in the actual Law of God. One can not find Gentiles removed from God's people because they are not physical Israel (Ruth is a perfect example.) The “ger [stranger] who sojourns with you” was not an Israelite but considered a full member and equally responsible towards the Law and had equal access to the Temple. Some have said the "wall" was the wall that Gentiles could not pass in the Temple, but the Greek word is different from that found in the Temple notice. I thought you did some research on "dogma" in the past and found one reference in a Jewish writing not included in the cannon, but maybe it was someone else or a different word? MJH I look forward to seeing what you come up with. |
||||||