The Apostle Paul vs The Apostle Peter

rockytopva · Oct 30, 2013

First a timeline...

AD 5 - Paul is born
AD 32 - Present at Stephens stoning
AD 34 - Conversion on the road to Damascas
AD 34 - Journey's to Arabia (Galatians 1:17)
AD 37-47 - Itineraries from Tarsus to Jerusalem
AD 47-49 - First missionary journey in Antioch and (what is now) southern Turkey.
AD 50-53 - Second missionary journey to Greece - Book of Galatians written
AD 53-57- Third missionary journey to Greece and Macedonia
AD 57 - Returns to Jerusalem to an angry mob
AD 57-62 - Imprisoned and sent to Rome
AD 62-66 - Further missionary work - Letters to Timothy and Titus
AD 66 - Imprisonment and Martyred by Nero at age of about 61

The book of Galatians is written just as Paul was setting out for ministry to Greece and Macedonia. Before setting out apparently Paul and Peter had a little run in before Paul set out on his second missionary journey, which would be his first trip to Greece. The scene seems to be in a conference type atmosphere where Paul met with the Apostles in Jerusalem...

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. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. - Galatians 2:9-10

It was then that Paul returned to Antioch with Barnabas where they were preparing Paul's second missionary journey.

Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. - Acts 13:1-4

But before Paul and Barnabas departed, they had a run in with the Apostle Peter...

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 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. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth 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? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - Galatians 2:11-16

It was then that Paul proposed in his heart to get away from it all as not to build his work on the works of any other man, including Peter...

Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: - Romans 15:19-21

So Peter and Paul basically part the ways. And I do not find any more encounters. However, as the persecution of Nero would claim both men's lives, I find one last word from Peter at the end of 2 Peter, probably written around 65 AD and that concerning of Paul...

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

So apparently, there were people coming to Peter complaining of the harsh line laid down by the Apostle Paul. Peter acknowledged that the words were indeed hard to understand, but justifies Paul at the end.

FHII · Oct 30, 2013

Good thread.... Harsh lines laid down by Paul?!?! I have some thoughts about this, but I'm going to let them gel a bit. Paul preached grace through faith and not of works.... How is that "a harsh line". Again, I have my thoughts, but I have to think on it.

Rach1370 · Oct 30, 2013

I don't know that I'd describe what happened between Paul and Peter as a falling out or parting of ways. What I would call it is Peter being Peter, and being rebuked for it.
How many times did that dear man do or say something impulsive of foolish, and was rebuked by Jesus for it? It makes me very fond of him, because if the leader of the disciples could stick his foot in it that much and still be embraced by Christ, then there is hope for us all!!
Anyway, as I read the NT, what I see is Peter doing it again. He of all people should have known better than to separate himself from the gentiles...he was there when the Holy Spirit saved the first gentiles! But, he caves to peer pressure and makes a distinction between Jews and Gentiles. What Paul did, is rebuke him for it. It was Paul, who had been called to preach to the Gentiles, who said, "come on man, remember what went down with the Holy Spirit? You know better".
And every evidence we see, throughout the NT and in Peter's books, shows that Peter took that rebuke to heart. It's a wonderful example for us now. Even as saved, born again Christians, we make mistakes. It behoves us to listen to rebukes from our brothers and sisters, and to really consider them with the Spirit's guidance. Have we put our foot in it? Do we need to repent? Do we thank them for pointing out our folly and love them enough to do the same for them, creating a community safety net, one that, yes, rebukes, but loves, supports and is always there for us?
No...I don't think I'd call what happened between Peter and Paul a dispute, but a wonderful example for us to follow.

Selene · Nov 1, 2013

Peter did what he did in order to avoid conflict between the Gentile converts and the Jews.

Galatians 2:11-16 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 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. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth 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? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

As you can see from the Bible, the Apostle Peter who sat with the Gentiles separated himself only when the Jews came in. He simply wanted to avoid a conflict between the Gentile converts and the Jews. St. Paul rebuked Peter for this action, but as it turned out.....even St. Paul committed the same thing that St. Peter did.....only worse because he circumcised a Gentile convert in order to avoid conflict with the Jews. St. Peter did not convince anyone to follow him. He simply got up and moved himself to another seat and others followed his example so that conflict would be avoided. St. Paul, on the other hand, convinced Timothy to be circumcised in order to avoid conflict with the Jews.

Acts 16:3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

During that time, the Jews were demanding that the Gentile converts practice Jewish customs and laws such as their dietary and circumcision laws. St. Paul may have rebuked St. Peter, but as it turned out, he later learned to follow Peter's example in avoiding conflicts between people. It wasn't until later at the Council of Jerusalem that it was decided that the Gentile converts are not to follow any Jewish laws and customs (See Acts 15).

rockytopva · Nov 1, 2013

2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.

9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 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. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth 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? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - Galatians 2:11-16

The Apostle Paul calls the Apostle Peter on the carpet and then publicly rebukes him for not walking uprightly according to the truth... Wow!

Selene · Nov 1, 2013

rockytopva said:
The Apostle Paul calls the Apostle Peter on the carpet and then publicly rebukes him for not walking uprightly according to the truth... Wow!

Then Paul should also have rebuked himself for doing a similar thing.....only worse because he convinced a Gentile to be circumcised to avoid conflict. Peter did not convince anyone to do anything.

Paul was correct in rebuking Peter for separating himself from the Gentiles because one should never discriminate against another. On the other hand, Peter was also correct in trying to avoid conflicts between the Jews and the Gentiles.....something which Paul eventually followed. As a consequence, it took a council to resolve the issue between the Jews and the Gentile converts so that the problems between the two becomes clear. The Jews are not to force or impose the Gentile converts to follow their laws and customs, and the Gentile converts are to be treated equally as brothers and sisters with the Jewish Christians, not separately (See Acts 15).

It is normal to have problems and issues inside the Church, and this is the reason why councils were gathered (like the one in Jerusalem) to resolve these problems and issues.

rockytopva · Nov 1, 2013

Paul was a zealous one!

Acts 23:3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

Rach1370 · Nov 1, 2013

Selene said:
Peter did what he did in order to avoid conflict between the Gentile converts and the Jews.

Galatians 2:11-16 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 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. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth 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? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

As you can see from the Bible, the Apostle Peter who sat with the Gentiles separated himself only when the Jews came in. He simply wanted to avoid a conflict between the Gentile converts and the Jews. St. Paul rebuked Peter for this action, but as it turned out.....even St. Paul committed the same thing that St. Peter did.....only worse because he circumcised a Gentile convert in order to avoid conflict with the Jews. St. Peter did not convince anyone to follow him. He simply got up and moved himself to another seat and others followed his example so that conflict would be avoided. St. Paul, on the other hand, convinced Timothy to be circumcised in order to avoid conflict with the Jews.

Acts 16:3 Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

During that time, the Jews were demanding that the Gentile converts practice Jewish customs and laws such as their dietary and circumcision laws. St. Paul may have rebuked St. Peter, but as it turned out, he later learned to follow Peter's example in avoiding conflicts between people. It wasn't until later at the Council of Jerusalem that it was decided that the Gentile converts are not to follow any Jewish laws and customs (See Acts 15).

I'm sorry Selene, but I read that very differently. It was not to 'avoid a scene'...it says "he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."

He fell into the peer pressure trap. We know from reading throught the NT that there was a faction of the Jews...the "circumcision" that were pushing for Christians to still follow the law of Moses. What they were, were Pharisees trying to fit Christianity to their customs. And we know what Jesus thought of the Pharisees. But in their time, it was the socially acceptable...no...socially demanded, way of being. As the leader of the apostles, and the very man who was present when the Holy Spirit saved uncircumsised Gentiles, Peter should have made a scene! He should have stood up and said "whats good enough for the Holy Spirit is good enough for us!"

I also disagree that Paul 'fell into the same trap'. Do you remember when Paul said:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23, ESV)

Paul is not saying that when he's with Jews, he fears their rebuke, and so plays it like them! No! We know that being circumcised and following the Jewish laws was not forbidden. For the Jews it was a good and comforting thing to keep their customs....as long as they did not hold those customs to be what gave them salvation...that came from grace and faith alone!
Paul is saying that to reach people, we walk in their shoes. When with the Jews, he discussed Jewish culture with them and how rich their history is. leading to Christ. When with the Gentiles, he exclaimed how wonderous it was not to be under the law, being freed from such resrictions because of Christ!
And when he sent Timothy to Jews, he had Timothy circumcised as to fit in. Not because it was required, but because when visiting someone's house, you uphold their practises. Consider....it is not forbidden for Christians to drink alcohol...but when visiting the house (or even having visitors in ours) that do not drink and are uncomfortable by others drinking, we abstain. We understand and bring ourselves on the same level, opening a way to friendship and likeminded thinking...which leads to fellowship. And as Paul said...for the gospel...anything!
Divirsity is a good thing, but it would have been very hard for Timothy to be fully involved with the Jews he was trying to teach, if he could not be with them in all of their practises.

daq · Nov 2, 2013

Selene said:
Then Paul should also have rebuked himself for doing a similar thing.....

That is exactly what Peter/Paul did and that is what people cannot seem to grasp because man is very seldom willing to look into the mirror and say to the one staring back at himself: "Get thee behind me Satan!" Peter received this warning from the Master himself and afterwards he likewise received no less than three commissions to shepherd and feed the lambs and lambkins of God. Here is my two-sense: Anyone who thinks that Peter-Cephas performed all three callings under a single name is just as mistaken as the one who believes that Paul would openly rebuke the leader of the Jerusalem "mother" congregation in front of everyone and then write it down in what has now become "holy writ". Think twice about what I say here because this is the answer to the age old dispute concerning Peter going to Rome. There are many who will arrive at the pearly gates of heaven expecting to be greeted by Paul, (because they reject the works of Peter as written only "to the Jews") and to their dismay they shall be greeted at the pearly gates by Peter, (I speak foolishly). And there are others who will arrive at the pearly gates expecting to be greeted by Peter, (mostly Messianic Jews who reject Paul because they believe he "abolishes" Torah and openly rebuked Peter) and they shall be greeted by Paul, (again I speak foolishly). Then there are those who perceive by the Scripture that a man has more than one countenance and therefore accept both the writings of Peter and the writings of Paul as one in Messiah and they shall be greeted by the All in the Great Day.

Selene · Nov 2, 2013

Rach said:
I'm sorry Selene, but I read that very differently. It was not to 'avoid a scene'...it says "he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision."

He fell into the peer pressure trap. We know from reading throught the NT that there was a faction of the Jews...the "circumcision" that were pushing for Christians to still follow the law of Moses. What they were, were Pharisees trying to fit Christianity to their customs. And we know what Jesus thought of the Pharisees. But in their time, it was the socially acceptable...no...socially demanded, way of being. As the leader of the apostles, and the very man who was present when the Holy Spirit saved uncircumsised Gentiles, Peter should have made a scene! He should have stood up and said "whats good enough for the Holy Spirit is good enough for us!"

The Jews who came in were not the Pharisees. They were Jewish Christians because they were the friends of the Apostle James (See Galatians 2:12). The Jewish Christians at that time felt that the Gentile converts should follow the Laws of Moses. Therefore, Peter did what he did in order to avoid conflict between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. At that time, the Jewish Christians felt that they were the true Christians and even threatened to produce two separate Christian communities that could not meet to break bread together. Peter was the one whom Christ placed in charge of His entire flock (See John 21:15) and he did what he did to protect the entire flock of Christians.....so that they remain together to break bread, but seated in separated positions.

Peter's true actions is revealed in verse 13. It says that before the friends of James entered, Peter sat with the Gentiles. Those who witnessed this already knew that Peter felt it should not matter whether one sits with the Jewish Christians or the Gentile Christians. Peter did what he did to avoid conflict between Christians because he did not want two separate communities of Christians.

As for Paul, he may have rebuked Peter, but as we see in the Holy Bible, even he eventually followed Peter's example of avoiding conflict with the Jewish Christians (See Acts 16:3, 1 Corinthians 8:13, and Romans 14:21). St. Paul had Timothy circumcised because he did not want any conflict between Timothy (who was a Gentile convert) and the Jewish Christians in the area. As for the Jews in the area who were NOT Christians, it did not matter to them whether Timothy was circumcised or not. It was the Jews who persecuted all Christians including the Jewish Christians.

Rach1370 · Nov 2, 2013

Selene said:
The Jews who came in were not the Pharisees. They were Jewish Christians because they were the friends of the Apostle James (See Galatians 2:12). The Jewish Christians at that time felt that the Gentile converts should follow the Laws of Moses. Therefore, Peter did what he did in order to avoid conflict between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. At that time, the Jewish Christians felt that they were the true Christians and even threatened to produce two separate Christian communities that could not meet to break bread together. Peter was the one whom Christ placed in charge of His entire flock (See John 21:15) and he did what he did to protect the entire flock of Christians.....so that they remain together to break bread, but seated in separated positions.

I did not phrase what I said very well, sorry. I did not mean to say they were the Pharisees, but like them...we often call people today 'Pharisees' when they are law bound...but they're not 'actually' Pharisees!!
I agree with what you've said above, but disagree with your concluded outcome...

Peter's true actions is revealed in verse 13. It says that before the friends of James entered, Peter sat with the Gentiles. Those who witnessed this already knew that Peter felt it should not matter whether one sits with the Jewish Christians or the Gentile Christians. Peter did what he did to avoid conflict between Christians because he did not want two separate communities of Christians.

Yes we see he sat with them before, but as I said before, his true motivation is clearly spelt out....'fearing those of the circumsicion'. You do not 'fear someone'....particularly one side, if your only consideration is avoiding conflict between two groups. And even if that was his true motivation, he did a bad job of it. By 'withdrawing' from the Gentiles, he basically snobbed them....yay for keeping the team feelings up! That action would have brought conflict regardless.
No, the clear intent of the passage is that Peter bowed to his fear, and Paul called him on it.

As for Paul, he may have rebuked Peter, but as we see in the Holy Bible, even he eventually followed Peter's example of avoiding conflict with the Jewish Christians (See Acts 16:3, 1 Corinthians 8:13, and Romans 14:21). St. Paul had Timothy circumcised because he did not want any conflict between Timothy (who was a Gentile convert) and the Jewish Christians in the area. As for the Jews in the area who were NOT Christians, it did not matter to them whether Timothy was circumcised or not. It was the Jews who persecuted all Christians including the Jewish Christians.

Ah, yeah....I kind of covered this before. 1 Corinthians 9: 13-23. When you send missionaries out, they have to speak the same language as those they're going to reach. No point in going otherwise. The missionaries going to (let say Africa) have to speak the native language so the natives understand them. They have to live in the same sort of houses the natives live in (no point demanding a four bedroom house with ensuite) and function throughout the day as the natives do....if you have to walk for water...then the missionaries walk. If the women in the community have a gathering, then the wife goes, rather than the husband.
The Jews were still permitted their customs (even if they were to realise that faith, not customs lead to salvation)...and if Timothy was to be with them all day...walk with them...he had to be able to participate as a Jew....

Raeneske · Nov 2, 2013

rockytopva said:
So apparently, there were people coming to Peter complaining of the harsh line laid down by the Apostle Paul. Peter acknowledged that the words were indeed hard to understand, but justifies Paul at the end.

I think you are misunderstanding what that verse is saying.

2 Peter 3:16-17 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

He wasn't saying that Paul was laying down some "harsh line", but that rather in his epistles things were difficult to understand. He demonstrates that by stating that they that are unlearned and unstable do wrest (like take something out of context) as they also do the other Scriptures. He then warns us to beware unless we are led away with the error of the wicked. Paul's writings were being taken from their true meaning so that people could suit them to their own doctrines.

Selene · Nov 2, 2013

Rach said:
Yes we see he sat with them before, but as I said before, his true motivation is clearly spelt out....'fearing those of the circumsicion'. You do not 'fear someone'....particularly one side, if your only consideration is avoiding conflict between two groups. And even if that was his true motivation, he did a bad job of it. By 'withdrawing' from the Gentiles, he basically snobbed them....yay for keeping the team feelings up! That action would have brought conflict regardless.
No, the clear intent of the passage is that Peter bowed to his fear, and Paul called him on it.

I disagree. The Jewish Christians were not acting as Pharisees. They were following the Laws of Moses.....laws which God had given them through Moses, and there was nothing wrong with the law of circumcision, for example. Circumcision was ordered by God as a sign and covenant between Him and His chosen people. The Old Testament also told them to avoid the uncircumcised Gentiles. Even Christ followed Jewish laws by preaching only to the Jews (See Matthew 15:24). Christ refused to help the Gentile woman who came to Him and even called her and her kind "dogs" until He saw her faith (See Matthew 15:26). The Holy Bible shows that the Jews comes first and the Gentiles are second.

When Jesus sent the 12 Apostles on the "limited commission," He told them: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6). Just before Jesus ascended to Heaven after His resurrection, He informed the Apostles: "And you shall be witness to Me in Jerusalm, and in all of Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth (Acts 1:8). The sequence of places where the Apostles would witness manifests the order in which the Gospels would be preached (the Jews first and then the Gentiles). In addition, the Apostle Paul replies to the Church at Rome stated: For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to savlation for every who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek" (Romans 1:16). With this in mind, is it any wonder why the Jewish Christians felt that they should impose their laws and customs upon the Gentile converts? Only the Apostles Paul and Peter knew that the Gentiles did not need to follow the Jewish laws and customs. God revealed that only to Peter and Paul. And it was the Council of Jerusalem that finally set the record straight to all Jewish Christians that the Gentile converts do not need to follow Jewish laws and customs.

Therefore, Peter's intent was to avoid conflict between Christians. St. Paul was correct when he reprimanded Peter. St. Paul believed that there should be no division between Christians, and even his letter to the Corinthians showed that (See 1 Corinthians 1:10). The Church in Corinth also had divisions between them.

On the other hand, St. Paul later realized that St. Peter was also correct in avoiding conflicts because he did the same thing. When St. Paul had Timothy circumcised, it was also to avoid a conflict. Being a missionary doesn't mean that you have to follow the customs of the people.....and that was later pointed out in the Council of Jerusalem (See Acts 15). If one had to follow their customs, one would then need to eat foods sacrificed to idols, and that is clearly against the teachings of God. St. Paul made it clear to the Christians not to follow the customs of the pagans who sacrificed food to idols.

This council had to take place because of the problems occurring between the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians were demanding that the Gentile Christians be circumcised (See Acts 15:1-2). The Apostles were avoiding conflicts between Christians until the Council of Jerusalem. It was that particular Council that finally set the record straight.......that the Gentile converts did not need to follow the Laws of Moses such as the circumcision and dietary laws.

rockytopva · Nov 2, 2013

I would tend to think that Peter was the more gentleman in the issue.

Rach1370 · Nov 3, 2013

Selene said:
I disagree. The Jewish Christians were not acting as Pharisees. They were following the Laws of Moses.....laws which God had given them through Moses, and there was nothing wrong with the law of circumcision, for example. Circumcision was ordered by God as a sign and covenant between Him and His chosen people. The Old Testament also told them to avoid the uncircumcised Gentiles. Even Christ followed Jewish laws by preaching only to the Jews (See Matthew 15:24). Christ refused to help the Gentile woman who came to Him and even called her and her kind "dogs" until He saw her faith (See Matthew 15:26). The Holy Bible shows that the Jews comes first and the Gentiles are second.

I feel like maybe there might be some crossed wires here...like maybe you're not really understanding what I'm trying to say.
I have already said (twice actually) that there is nothing wrong with the Jewish laws. That the Jews were not discouraged from following their traditions. After all, they were God's laws, there is nothing wrong or evil in them, or in following them.
But that was not happening here. We see throughout the NT that there were a faction of Jewish 'Christians' who were indeed pushing for more than just keeping of the old traditions along with their faith. They were trying to make everyone believe that one HAD to follow the Jewish traditions to BE saved. No circumcision...no salvation. That it was Paul is objecting to...and that is very Pharisaical in nature.

When Jesus sent the 12 Apostles on the "limited commission," He told them: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6). Just before Jesus ascended to Heaven after His resurrection, He informed the Apostles: "And you shall be witness to Me in Jerusalm, and in all of Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth (Acts 1:8). The sequence of places where the Apostles would witness manifests the order in which the Gospels would be preached (the Jews first and then the Gentiles). In addition, the Apostle Paul replies to the Church at Rome stated: For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to savlation for every who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek" (Romans 1:16). With this in mind, is it any wonder why the Jewish Christians felt that they should impose their laws and customs upon the Gentile converts? Only the Apostles Paul and Peter knew that the Gentiles did not need to follow the Jewish laws and customs. God revealed that only to Peter and Paul. And it was the Council of Jerusalem that finally set the record straight to all Jewish Christians that the Gentile converts do not need to follow Jewish laws and customs.

Therefore, Peter's intent was to avoid conflict between Christians. St. Paul was correct when he reprimanded Peter. St. Paul believed that there should be no division between Christians, and even his letter to the Corinthians showed that (See 1 Corinthians 1:10). The Church in Corinth also had divisions between them.

On the other hand, St. Paul later realized that St. Peter was also correct in avoiding conflicts because he did the same thing. When St. Paul had Timothy circumcised, it was also to avoid a conflict. Being a missionary doesn't mean that you have to follow the customs of the people.....and that was later pointed out in the Council of Jerusalem (See Acts 15). If one had to follow their customs, one would then need to eat foods sacrificed to idols, and that is clearly against the teachings of God. St. Paul made it clear to the Christians not to follow the customs of the pagans who sacrificed food to idols.

This council had to take place because of the problems occurring between the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians were demanding that the Gentile Christians be circumcised (See Acts 15:1-2). The Apostles were avoiding conflicts between Christians until the Council of Jerusalem. It was that particular Council that finally set the record straight.......that the Gentile converts did not need to follow the Laws of Moses such as the circumcision and dietary laws.

I'm not sure at this point if you're so intent on seeing Peter in a good light because he is thought to be the head of the RCC...but I'm afraid that I cannot see it going down any other way other than what scripture paints it. It is quite clear, and trying to surmise 'avoiding conflict' from where it clearly says "feared" one particular group (especially when we see that particular group as those trying to make laws as important as faith), then I'm really not sure how you come at that.

I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this particular subject.

I'd also like to say that just because I think Peter here was needing to be rebuked, doesn't mean I think of Paul in a higher manner or light. Both men were pivitol in the early Church and provide wonderul examples for us to follow. I'm especially fond of Peter because he stumbled so often. Yet each time Jesus would accept him back, and Peter would, with a love and fervor, get back up and follow Jesus. In fact, when Peter was looking to Jesus and no where else, the man was astounding in his faith!! It was only those times he took his eyes off Jesus that he faulted. As I said....a wonderful example we can all apply to our lives.

rockytopva said:
I would tend to think that Peter was the more gentleman in the issue.

I do wonder how we arrive at that, since the only recounting of the incident in scripture is Paul saying he rebuked Peter. We don't have any comment or reply from Peter to suggest how he reacted. We can surmise that he took it in the spirit it was intended and he corrected the mistake, as we see both Peter and Paul referring to each other as dear brothers in other parts of scripture.

I just think that as scripture is as it is, and it is given to us exactly like that by God for our learning and correcting...that we must see the lesson in the passage. The lesson is not "Paul rebuked Peter, but Paul was wrong and so we can learn that we can be wrong about others being wrong..."
No, I think the clear lesson is that we can be wrong, and God has given us family to set us clear on such subjects. It behooves us to hear the rebuke in the light it is given...lovingly...and repent of the sin, and move on once more, eyes on Jesus.

daq · Nov 3, 2013

In Acts 15 it is not Paul who stands against Cephas but rather Peter:

Acts 15:7-11 KJV
7. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Acts 15:7 LIT (Literal Bible w/vertical Strong's Ref. #s)
7.
|4183| much
|1161| And
|4803| discussion
|1096| having occurred,
|0450| rising up
|4074| Peter
|2036| said
|4314| to
|0846| them,
|0435| Men,
|0080| brothers,
|5210| you
|1987| understand
|3754| that
|0575| from
|2250| days
|0744| ancient
|1722| among
|5213| you
|1586| chose
|3588| -
|2316| God
|1223| through
|3588| the
|4750| mouth
|3450| of me
|0191| to hear
|3588| the
|1484| nations
|3588| the
|3056| word
|3588| of the
|2088| Good News,
|2532| and
|4100| to believe.

Yep, how blessed I be that Petros-Paulos was willing to stand against his "old man" Cephas and teach me this lesson.

Angelina · Nov 3, 2013

Acts 16
16 Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.

Timothy's mother was a Jew which makes Timothy a Jew. If Timothy's Mother was not of Jewish ancestry, he would not be considered a Jew. He had a right as a Jew to be circumcised. This was beneficial to their cause since they were entering an area where the Jewish community knew of his fathers ancestry...

According to the law of matrilineal descent [Judaism], Jewish identity is passed on via the mother only (not the father). The Talmud (Kiddushin 68b) explains that the law of matrilineal descent derived from the Torah (Deut. 7:3-4). This is based on Orthodox/ conservative, Jewish tradition. Reformation took place at the end of the 20th century.

I believe that the issue between Paul and Peter was one of intent. For fear of the Jewish brothers, Peters actions suggests he was not being impartial. Acts 10:34-35

Selene · Nov 4, 2013

Angelina said:
Acts 16
16 Then he came to Derbe and Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a certain Jewish woman who believed, but his father was Greek. 2 He was well spoken of by the brethren who were at Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.

Timothy's mother was a Jew which makes Timothy a Jew. If Timothy's Mother was not of Jewish ancestry, he would not be considered a Jew. He had a right as a Jew to be circumcised. This was beneficial to their cause since they were entering an area where the Jewish community knew of his fathers ancestry...

According to the law of matrilineal descent [Judaism], Jewish identity is passed on via the mother only (not the father). The Talmud (Kiddushin 68b) explains that the law of matrilineal descent derived from the Torah (Deut. 7:3-4). This is based on Orthodox/ conservative, Jewish tradition. Reformation took place at the end of the 20th century.

I believe that the issue between Paul and Peter was one of intent. For fear of the Jewish brothers, Peters actions suggests he was not being impartial. Acts 10:34-35

The Hebrews do not go by the mother's line. They go by the Father's line. Timothy did not follow Jewish laws because he was not circumcised and therefore cut off from the chosen people of God. If you look at Jesus' ancestry, they went by Joseph's line rather than by Mary. All the line of Judaism starts from the men (Adam, Seth, and even Abraham).

Rach said:
I feel like maybe there might be some crossed wires here...like maybe you're not really understanding what I'm trying to say.
I have already said (twice actually) that there is nothing wrong with the Jewish laws. That the Jews were not discouraged from following their traditions. After all, they were God's laws, there is nothing wrong or evil in them, or in following them.
But that was not happening here. We see throughout the NT that there were a faction of Jewish 'Christians' who were indeed pushing for more than just keeping of the old traditions along with their faith. They were trying to make everyone believe that one HAD to follow the Jewish traditions to BE saved. No circumcision...no salvation. That it was Paul is objecting to...and that is very Pharisaical in nature.

I apologize if I misunderstood you. I was responding to your comment when you said that the Jewish Christians were like the Pharisees. The Pharisees were hypocrites who did not follow the laws. They made themselves above the law. For example, the Pharisees would preach that no one should work on the Sabbath, but they themselves broke this rule and worked on the Sabbath.

The Jewish Christians, on the other hand, followed the laws. According to the Old Testament books, circumcision was linked to salvation, which is what the Jewish Christians were following.

Genesis 17:12-14 For the generations to come, every male child among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner - those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.

Circumcision was linked to salvation because any uncircumcised male was cut off. They did not belong to God's people and they were considered as breaking God's covenant. And anyone who broke God's covenant was not saved. However, the Jewish Christians didn't quite understand that the Old Covenant became obselete (See Hebrews 8:13).

I'm not sure at this point if you're so intent on seeing Peter in a good light because he is thought to be the head of the RCC...but I'm afraid that I cannot see it going down any other way other than what scripture paints it. It is quite clear, and trying to surmise 'avoiding conflict' from where it clearly says "feared" one particular group (especially when we see that particular group as those trying to make laws as important as faith), then I'm really not sure how you come at that.

I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this particular subject.

I'd also like to say that just because I think Peter here was needing to be rebuked, doesn't mean I think of Paul in a higher manner or light. Both men were pivitol in the early Church and provide wonderul examples for us to follow. I'm especially fond of Peter because he stumbled so often. Yet each time Jesus would accept him back, and Peter would, with a love and fervor, get back up and follow Jesus. In fact, when Peter was looking to Jesus and no where else, the man was astounding in his faith!! It was only those times he took his eyes off Jesus that he faulted. As I said....a wonderful example we can all apply to our lives.

The RCC has nothing to do with it. As I said in my previous post, St. Paul was correct in rebuking Peter because there should be no divisions between Christians. On the other hand, St. Peter was also correct in trying to keep the peace. St. Paul later realized this. I was only pointing out the situation of the time. That situation was the problem occurring between the Jewish Christians and Gentile converts. These problems led to both Peter's and Paul's behavior. I agree that both Apostles gave good examples for us to follow. I also agree with Rockytopva. Because Peter said nothing, he was showing humility in response to Paul's rebuke.

Angelina said:
I believe that the issue between Paul and Peter was one of intent. For fear of the Jewish brothers, Peters actions suggests he was not being impartial. Acts 10:34-35

Scripture shows that Peter was already sitting with the Gentiles; therefore, he was not being discriminatory. In fact, Scripture also showed that Peter ate with the Gentiles (Acts 11:2-3). If you read Acts 11, the Jews argued with Peter when they learned that he ate with the Gentile converts. That Gentile converts were Cornelius and his family - the first Gentile who was baptized.

The fact that Peter only switched seats when the Jews came in is already an indication that he did not want to cause trouble between the two groups. After that experience in Acts 11, I don't think Peter would want another confrontation especially in front of the Gentile converts. If he was not being impartial, he would have sat with the Jews since the beginning. God revealed only to Paul and to Peter that the Gentiles are not to be discriminated against. But the issue was not to be resolved until the Council of Jerusalem.

Search

Search

The Apostle Paul vs The Apostle Peter

rockytopva

Well-Known Member

FHII

Well-Known Member

Rach1370

New Member

Selene

New Member

rockytopva

Well-Known Member

Selene

New Member

rockytopva

Well-Known Member

Rach1370

New Member

daq

HSN#1851

Selene

New Member

Rach1370

New Member

Raeneske

New Member

Selene

New Member

rockytopva

Well-Known Member

Rach1370

New Member

daq

HSN#1851

Angelina

Prayer Warrior

Selene

New Member

Similar threads