Does anyone have a source for Peter's law that he is not allowed to eat or come into a gentile's home?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Peter's law
- Thread starter visionary
- Start date
- Status
New_Wineskin
Contributor
Could you tell us which denominations talk about "Peter's law" ? I googled the phrase and your post is the first webpage that comes up in a religious context .
Upvote
0
Polycarp1
Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
I read the original question as meaning: "What part of the Law, or of rabbinic 'fences' to the Law, is Peter referencing when he mentions 'what the Law tells us' to Cornelius before describing his dream vision?" And I confess that I don't know the answer.
Upvote
0
The reason I gave it the name "Peter's law" is because the orthodox Jews declare that it is not a rabbinic fence law. No one has seemingly come up with the source. I have looked. So I called it "Peter's Law" since so far his is the only statement documented that states that is what the law tells us.
Upvote
0
Crankitup
Fear nothing but God.
John 4:9 Then the woman of Samaria said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?” For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.
Acts 10:28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Acts 11:2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”
Gal 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
The People's New Testament Commentary says about Acts 10:28 - "Moses prohibited intermarriages and religious intercourse, but the Jews carried their restrictions beyond both the letter and spirit of the law. They would not eat with the uncircumcised (Ga 2:12)."
Acts 10:28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Acts 11:2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”
Gal 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
The People's New Testament Commentary says about Acts 10:28 - "Moses prohibited intermarriages and religious intercourse, but the Jews carried their restrictions beyond both the letter and spirit of the law. They would not eat with the uncircumcised (Ga 2:12)."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
New_Wineskin
Contributor
If this quote from Peter is false , then no quote from him can be considered trustworhy for doctrine .
Of course , it could mean that there are holes from the Law as recorded in what we have of Moses' books .
Upvote
0
B
bbbbbbb
Guest
Actually, by the time the first century rolled around virtually all of the "holes" in the Law had been pretty well filled with additional interpretations. For example, the "hole" about whether or not there will be a resurrection (which is not altogether clear in the Old Testament) was filled on one side by the Pharisees who believed there would be and on the other by the Saduccees who believed there would not. The school of the great rabbi, Hillel, had pretty much answered most questions and had prevailed over other interpretations, such as those held by the Essenes.
Upvote
0
Crankitup
Fear nothing but God.
KJV Bible Commentary;
Jews and Gentiles had no ordinary social intercourse between each other. Thus it would be highly unlikely for Peter to enter the home of a Roman centurion. Because of the Levitical dietary restrictions, the least likely practice Peter, as a Jew, would find himself engaging in was eating at the table of a Gentile. Nevertheless this was about to take place. In explaining how uncommon it was for a Jew to keep company with a Gentile, or come unto one of another nation, Luke uses a word (Gr allophylos “one of another nation”
which is found only here in the New Testament. However, it is a common expression like “Philistines” (see Jud 3:3). Thus Peter is saying that it is highly unlikely that he would dine in the household of an “uncircumcised Philistine.” KJV Bible commentary. 1997, c1994. Thomas Nelson: Nashville
So it appears it was a custom or practice to enable them not to be tempted by food that might break the Levitical restrictions. Or maybe in order not to offend Gentile hosts when they refused food outside of what was allowed.
Jews and Gentiles had no ordinary social intercourse between each other. Thus it would be highly unlikely for Peter to enter the home of a Roman centurion. Because of the Levitical dietary restrictions, the least likely practice Peter, as a Jew, would find himself engaging in was eating at the table of a Gentile. Nevertheless this was about to take place. In explaining how uncommon it was for a Jew to keep company with a Gentile, or come unto one of another nation, Luke uses a word (Gr allophylos “one of another nation”
which is found only here in the New Testament. However, it is a common expression like “Philistines” (see Jud 3:3). Thus Peter is saying that it is highly unlikely that he would dine in the household of an “uncircumcised Philistine.” KJV Bible commentary. 1997, c1994. Thomas Nelson: NashvilleSo it appears it was a custom or practice to enable them not to be tempted by food that might break the Levitical restrictions. Or maybe in order not to offend Gentile hosts when they refused food outside of what was allowed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Lpe04
Senior Member
Paul rebukes Peter for not eating with Gentiles, if that is what you mean
Book of Galatians Chapter 2, Online Bible Browser
Book of Galatians Chapter 2, Online Bible Browser
Upvote
0
Crankitup
Fear nothing but God.
At the time Jesus was born, Hebrews saw the world divided into two types of people—Jews and everyone else. Jews regarded foreigners (known as Gentiles, or “nations” as morally unclean and spiritually lost. Jews were God’s people; Gentiles were not. The attitude was well expressed by Peter upon meeting Cornelius, a Roman centurion: “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation” (Acts 10:28).
as morally unclean and spiritually lost. Jews were God’s people; Gentiles were not. The attitude was well expressed by Peter upon meeting Cornelius, a Roman centurion: “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation” (Acts 10:28).The roots of this separation stretched deep into Israel’s history. One important development occurred in about 450 b.c. when a remnant of Jews returned from captivity in Babylon to rebuild Jerusalem. Their leader, Ezra the priest, called for purification from all pagan influences, such as foreign-born wives (Ezra 10:2–4).
Later, after centuries of domination by the Greeks and Romans, Jews developed a hatred for all Gentiles and tried to avoid contact with foreigners. According to Tacitus, a Roman historian, “they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies” (Histories, 5.5).
Thomas Nelson Publishers. 2001. What does the Bible say about-- : The ultimate A to Z resource fully illustrated. Nelson's A to Z series . Thomas Nelson: Nashville, Tenn.
Upvote
0
But is there nothing in the Jewish literature that says this.. is it true that it is only in the gentile literature that this attitude is presented.
Upvote
0
Catherineanne
Well-Known Member
- Sep 1, 2004
- 22,924
- 4,646
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Widowed
I am no expert, butas far as I am aware the rabbinic laws were formulated in the first and second centuries, after the fall of Jerusalem.
Therefore, what Peter is following is pre-Rabbinic, and is attested not only by him, but also by the Centurion who tells Jesus that he is not worthy for the Lord to come under his roof. Also by the priests who refuse to enter to see Pilate, but ask him to come out to them.
In other words, there is plenty of evidence for this separation in the gospels.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
