Baptism is a work.

[Oneofhope]

The food issue has to do with following Jewish Law. It would have been considered unforgivable to come from a non-Kosher Gentile table and profane the Jewish table with his non-Kosher meat-stained hands and lips. It's not just about the food one eats, it's about respecting the culture one belongs to. Profaning the Jewish table after eating unclean food with the Gentiles could get a person killed in those days. Peter was a mediator and bot groups were respected for what they believed.

Okay. I guess that it just amazes me that you draw all of that out of a passage where the context is hypocrisy regarding circumcision. The subject of the meals eaten has nothing to do with this story. The context of the story is the significance of the mark of circumcision and what it means. The Jews were raised with the idea that if circumcision was not marked on a man's body, he was to be cut off from the family of Abraham, the Family of Circumcision. This has nothing to do with food.

Paul tells us the problem in verse 12: "He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision." - This is why he didn't want to be seen with the Gentiles. Not because of certain food, but because he was eating with men who were "unclean" by the condition of their phallus.

Earlier in the chapter Paul mentioned the potential circumcision of Titus. That's what this set of passages is about, but why? Because Spiritual Circumcision is what the entire Bible is about. Food wasn't established in the life of Abraham . . . circumcision was, for it was the mark of what had taken place within his heart. But we can't understand that within this story of Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and the many others who were led astray. We can't extract these teachings from these stories if we don't understand the context of the Bible. We must understand the Power of God, the Purpose of Christ, the Work of Christ, and the Effect of Christ.

 

[rturner76]

Okay. I guess that it just amazes me that you draw all of that out of a passage where the context is hypocrisy regarding circumcision. The subject of the meals eaten has nothing to do with this story. The context of the story is the significance of the mark of circumcision and what it means. The Jews were raised with the idea that if circumcision was not marked on a man's body, he was to be cut off from the family of Abraham, the Family of Circumcision. This has nothing to do with food.

The point is that dietary laws, like circumcision, were considered mandatory in the law of Moses. The debate was if the law of Moses applied to the newly Christianised Gentiles. Peter walked the tightrope between the two, not wanting to offend either ethnicity. He became successful in this mission since his ministry Christianized bot the Jews and the Gentiles of the entire Roman Empire which was the western side of the known globe. He couldn't choose one group over the other but he could respect the customs of his guests and not defole their table.

Paul tells us the problem in verse 12: "He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision." - This is why he didn't want to be seen with the Gentiles. Not because of certain food, but because he was eating with men who were "unclean" by the condition of their phallus.

As I said before "the circumcision, is a part of Mosaic Law. The first CHristians were circumcized and followed Mosaic law. He wanted to include Gentiles in the new Christian but did not wish to offend the Jews who founded the first Christian Church in Jerusalem. Especially considering that violating the wrong Mosaic Law could get a Jew killed. Better to stay alive and build the CHurch of the Roman Empire than be stoned at a dinner they were hosting.

We must understand the Power of God, the Purpose of Christ, the Work of Christ, and the Effect of Christ.

I 100% agree. We must also recognize that Christ preached and taught the Torah.

 

[Oneofhope]

The point is that dietary laws, like circumcision, were considered mandatory in the law of Moses. The debate was if the law of Moses applied to the newly Christianised Gentiles. Peter walked the tightrope between the two, not wanting to offend either ethnicity. He became successful in this mission since his ministry Christianized bot the Jews and the Gentiles of the entire Roman Empire which was the western side of the known globe. He couldn't choose one group over the other but he could respect the customs of his guests and not defole their table.

As I said before "the circumcision, is a part of Mosaic Law. The first CHristians were circumcized and followed Mosaic law. He wanted to include Gentiles in the new Christian but did not wish to offend the Jews who founded the first Christian Church in Jerusalem. Especially considering that violating the wrong Mosaic Law could get a Jew killed. Better to stay alive and build the CHurch of the Roman Empire than be stoned at a dinner they were hosting.

I 100% agree. We must also recognize that Christ preached and taught the Torah.

I hear you, but I don't think that you're hearing me. Peter was afraid . . . again. Peter was afraid of the thoughts of people. Hence, he stepped away from the Gentiles because he didn't want to deal with the Jewish brothers who were apparently coming as the final visitors of a meal.

What is the problem? People who have received the Circumcision of Christ, who is the Spirit, are to no longer be afraid of people.

Romans 2:28-29 NLT - "For you are not a true Jew just because you were born of Jewish parents or because you have gone through the ceremony of circumcision. No, a true Jew is one whose heart is right with God. And true circumcision is not merely obeying the letter of the law; rather, it is a change of heart produced by God's Spirit. And a person with a changed heart seeks praise from God, not from people."

The implications of Peter being afraid of the thoughts of men are huge. He is setting the example before other "Christians" that is not Christi-like. We aren't supposed to be afraid of the thoughts of others, thus Peter was once again a terrible example of the reflection of Christ.

 

[Guojing]

Romans 15:8 — The New International Version (NIV)​

8 For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed

I think this confirms that Jesus was sent to teach the Jews. The Jews being one of the only monotheist religions. What is unique about Jewdaism is that it is both a religion and an ethnicity. That is WHere St Paul's work becomes important in exporting the message also to the Gentiles. The Jews were (and are) the "chosen people" so it was written that the Messiah would be a Jew and the Jews would convert the world to monotheism.

Matthew 10:5 — The New International Version (NIV)​

5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.

Ithink this also illustrated what I said previously. That the Jews were keepers of the Law and were the original fruit of the vine. It wasn't until later when Pagans the the Greeks and Romand and apostates like Paul would be grafted in. I still don't think that the first Gentile Churches didn't believe that faith should bear fruits and it wouldn't be enough to simply proclaim Christ but also follow his teachings. Christ's teachings were based on Jewish Law.

Matthew 15:24 — The New International Version (NIV)​

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

I think this also illustrates that not only Christ was the messenger to the whole world but the Christian Jews would carry out his work. St Paul did this very effectively however, I still don't believe that St Paul's teachings should be held above any other Apostle's teachings. Only that each Apostle had unique talents, some Apostles' words resonated with one group and some others.

I think this also illustrates that Christianity was based on Jewish Law, not the letter of the Law but the spirit of the Law is what Christ came to say. By making following Jewish Law a non-requirement, it was easier for Paul to convert Gentiles.

But back to the title of the thread......Baptism was a requirement of Jews which Jesus followed. It is only easy to conclude that if Jesus felt he was required to be baptized, and desired to be baptized, washing away the old and agreeing to be obedient to God we should also.



I believe it is still the case that Peter did not want to offend the followers of James and wanted to stay relevant to the Jewish Christian movement, he yielded to the Jewish law that he lived all of his life. He was chastised by Paul for his obedience to the law and Peter accepted that Pagans would likely refuse to follow Jewish Law, he also caught to make his teachings available to Gentiles as well. However, in that moment referred to by Galatians, I believe that St Peter firstly wanted to keep the peace as in those violent times apostates were subject to be executed. So I think St Peter very wisely made his appeal to both Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles, having no dietary restrictions, it seems that he respected and did not want to defile the table of those people who kept Kosher. We also see that after St Peter founded the Roman Church, his students and the students of his students converted the Roman Empire which was Pagan. Not wanting to offend either side (Jew or Gentile), he made his message acceptable to everyone universally, that is why Catholic means (universal) it was and still is the universal church open to everyone, Jew or Gentile.

Apologies for droning on and on, I just wanted to give a detailed explanation of why I interpret the Bible versus you so kindly quoted the way I do.

So my point was your point "In my belief system Paul's teachings should not eclipse and of Jesus' direct" runs into problems when you consider 3 different passages that says Jesus' direct was only to the nation of Israel.

 

[Guojing]

I hear you, but I don't think that you're hearing me. Peter was afraid . . . again. Peter was afraid of the thoughts of people. Hence, he stepped away from the Gentiles because he didn't want to deal with the Jewish brothers who were apparently coming as the final visitors of a meal.

What is the problem? People who have received the Circumcision of Christ, who is the Spirit, are to no longer be afraid of people.

Romans 2:28-29 NLT - "For you are not a true Jew just because you were born of Jewish parents or because you have gone through the ceremony of circumcision. No, a true Jew is one whose heart is right with God. And true circumcision is not merely obeying the letter of the law; rather, it is a change of heart produced by God's Spirit. And a person with a changed heart seeks praise from God, not from people."

The implications of Peter being afraid of the thoughts of men are huge. He is setting the example before other "Christians" that is not Christi-like. We aren't supposed to be afraid of the thoughts of others, thus Peter was once again a terrible example of the reflection of Christ.

I thought Peter fearing them after Acts 15 obviously showed his diminishing, together with Israel, as well.

If Peter was indeed the rock of the Jewish assembly then, there was no reason for him to fear any of them.

 

[rturner76]

What is the problem? People who have received the Circumcision of Christ, who is the Spirit, are to no longer be afraid of people.

I don't think St Peter was afraid more than he wanted to respect the foundation of The Church which was based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ's taught the law of Moses because he was a fellow Jew. We didn't have the same type of free religion society that we do now in the west. I honestly believe that St Peter wanted his fellow Jews to join in to the new theology of Christianity. He would have been totally rejected by the Jewish community if he publically defiled the rich and powerful leaders and financiers of the "The Way" if he had eaten with the non-Kosher Gentiles, then came back to the Kosher table defiled. At that early time there were either more Jews than Gentiles in the new religion or the same amount. He needed to keep the support of the Jewish community to have the ability to finance the founding of new Churches the way all of the Apostles did.

The implications of Peter being afraid of the thoughts of men are huge. He is setting the example before other "Christians" that is not Christi-like. We aren't supposed to be afraid of the thoughts of others, thus Peter was once again a terrible example of the reflection of Christ

Again, I don't think it was fear of the Jews but respect for the way that they live and the way that he himself had lived up to that point. It was a brand new concept to reject Jewish Law, and physical circumcision and live by New Testament Law, especially because there was no completed New Testament at that point that could be followed like the Torah. I think it was a move of diplomacy rather than a move based on fear. Because St Peter showed no fear when he offered himself up for martyrdom.

 

[Guojing]

I don't think St Peter was afraid more than he wanted to respect the foundation of The Church which was based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ's taught the law of Moses because he was a fellow Jew. We didn't have the same type of free religion society that we do now in the west. I honestly believe that St Peter wanted his fellow Jews to join in to the new theology of Christianity. He would have been totally rejected by the Jewish community if he publically defiled the rich and powerful leaders and financiers of the "The Way" if he had eaten with the non-Kosher Gentiles, then came back to the Kosher table defiled. At that early time there were either more Jews than Gentiles in the new religion or the same amount. He needed to keep the support of the Jewish community to have the ability to finance the founding of new Churches the way all of the Apostles did.

Again, I don't think it was fear of the Jews but respect for the way that they live and the way that he himself had lived up to that point. It was a brand new concept to reject Jewish Law, and physical circumcision and live by New Testament Law, especially because there was no completed New Testament at that point that could be followed like the Torah. I think it was a move of diplomacy rather than a move based on fear. Because St Peter showed no fear when he offered himself up for martyrdom.

Galatians 2:12

You can check the various versions, its not just KJV, the versions said Peter was afraid/fear/fearful

Why do you still want to believe it was something else other than the plain English meaning of scripture?

 

[rturner76]

So my point was your point "In my belief system Paul's teachings should not eclipse and of Jesus' direct" runs into problems when you consider 3 different passages that says Jesus' direct was only to the nation of Israel.

I believe that to be true and it was the Nation of Isreal that was destined to bring the message of Christ to the Gentile world. I believe it's the main reason that they are considered "the chosen people." Because Jesus was born a Jew, followed Jewish Law, and became known as the Messiah to the entire world. The first Church in Jerusalem was founded by the Jewish community and the growth of the Church began there. It's just that there were trials and debates about how the message of a Jewish sect should be made available to the Gentiles. They did make the transition to the Gentile communities and adjusted the requirements to become a Christian to more readily include them. Even St Peter approved of it in the end of the debate about it.

In a practical way, I believe most Gentiles would have rejected Christianity as a Jewish sect because what 20-30-40+ year old would keep the faith if they had to be physically circumcised in order to become a Christian? That, I believe is why the Gentiles would join in mass because of the concept of spiritual circumcision and we have Paul to thank for that concept. It made Christianity more accessible to the wider Gentile world.

 

[rturner76]

Galatians 2:12

You can check the various versions, its not just KJV, the versions said Peter was afraid/fear/fearful

Why do you still want to believe it was something else other than the plain English meaning of scripture?

I want to believe that if Peter was fearful it was a fear of fracturing The brand-new Church. He did relent in the end of the debate and agree that spiritual circumcision was more important than physical circumcision.

 

[Guojing]

I want to believe that if Peter was fearful it was a fear of fracturing The brand-new Church. He did relent in the end of the debate and agree that spiritual circumcision was more important than physical circumcision.

Why add to scripture then, just to hold on to your doctrine?

Scripture said he feared those men from James, nothing else.

If you can accept that literally, and understand why Peter was not mentioned by name again in the book of Acts, after Acts 15, then the book of Acts becomes, not a record of the early church, but rather the fall of the nation of Israel.

 

[Oneofhope]

I don't think St Peter was afraid more than he wanted to respect the foundation of The Church which was based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ's taught the law of Moses because he was a fellow Jew. We didn't have the same type of free religion society that we do now in the west. I honestly believe that St Peter wanted his fellow Jews to join in to the new theology of Christianity. He would have been totally rejected by the Jewish community if he publically defiled the rich and powerful leaders and financiers of the "The Way" if he had eaten with the non-Kosher Gentiles, then came back to the Kosher table defiled. At that early time there were either more Jews than Gentiles in the new religion or the same amount. He needed to keep the support of the Jewish community to have the ability to finance the founding of new Churches the way all of the Apostles did.

Again, I don't think it was fear of the Jews but respect for the way that they live and the way that he himself had lived up to that point. It was a brand new concept to reject Jewish Law, and physical circumcision and live by New Testament Law, especially because there was no completed New Testament at that point that could be followed like the Torah. I think it was a move of diplomacy rather than a move based on fear. Because St Peter showed no fear when he offered himself up for martyrdom.

Ok, this is interesting. From what you've offered above, it sounds like you believe that Peter actually did nothing wrong. That he was falsely chewed out for being respectful of the Law? My goodness, this is the same Law that was referred to as a "Stone" that would make the Lord's people stumble. You're saying that Peter was lending respect and honor to the "stone" that makes people stumble? That would be walking the Saving Gospel Plan of Christ right back to the cross again. The Law was fulfilled by the Life, death, and Resurrection of Christ. The Law of Moses ceased and anyone who continued to be justified by it remained under the Curse of the Lord.

Galatians 3:10 NLT - "But those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, "Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God's Book of the Law."

Maybe I'm ignorant on this matter, as I'm certainly not perfect, but I cannot grasp your view.

 

[Guojing]

In a practical way, I believe most Gentiles would have rejected Christianity as a Jewish sect because what 20-30-40+ year old would keep the faith if they had to be physically circumcised in order to become a Christian? That, I believe is why the Gentiles would join in mass because of the concept of spiritual circumcision and we have Paul to thank for that concept. It made Christianity more accessible to the wider Gentile world.

Yes, you can now understand better why Paul is the apostle to the gentiles, which means to us.

 

[Guojing]

You're saying that Peter was lending respect and honor to the "stone" that makes people stumble? That would be walking the Saving Gospel Plan of Christ right back to the cross again. The Law was fulfilled by the Life, death, and Resurrection of Christ. The Law of Moses ceased and anyone who continued to be justified by it remained under the Curse of the Lord.

You must remember that James was in charge of Jerusalem HQ sometime before Acts 15.

James and the elders in Acts 21:18-25 made it clear that, as far as the circumcised believers are concerned, they are to remain zealous for the Law.

In short, your statement "The Law was fulfilled by the Life, death, and Resurrection of Christ. The Law of Moses ceased and anyone who continued to be justified by it remained under the Curse of the Lord." was not applicable to the circumcised believers.

 

[Oneofhope]

I want to believe that if Peter was fearful it was a fear of fracturing The brand-new Church.

He DID fracture the brand-new church. He did it by leading a ton of people astray.

Ok . . . are you playing us? I mean, this is no-brainer stuff, here.

 

[Oneofhope]

James and the elders in Acts 21:18-25 made it clear that, as far as the circumcised believers are concerned, they are to remain zealous for the Law.

The translations I use don't suggest that the leadership encouraged anyone to "remain" zealous. The scriptures state that they "were" zealous. Sure they were, for even the leadership at this point was still pushing the Law, though in very small terms. They were wrong.

Acts 21:25 NKJV - "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."

So this passage actually demonstrates that the leadership was in error. They were still trying to figure out the Gospel themselves. Obviously, it is wrong to encourage Gentiles to begin following the Laws of Moses. That's crazy. Later, these old laws were completely done away with, made known particularly through the growth and development of Paul's taught approach, and taught directly from God.

I wouldn't use that passage again in the future for anything other than to prove that Christians aren't afraid to show the truth about our errored thinking.

 

[Guojing]

The translations I use don't suggest that the leadership encouraged anyone to "remain" zealous. The scriptures state that they "were" zealous. Sure they were, for even the leadership at this point was still pushing the Law, though in very small terms. They were wrong.

Acts 21:25 NKJV - "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."

So this passage actually demonstrates that the leadership was in error. They were still trying to figure out the Gospel themselves. Obviously, it is wrong to encourage Gentiles to begin following the Laws of Moses. That's crazy. Later, these old laws were completely done away with, made known particularly through the growth and development of Paul's taught approach, and taught directly from God.

I wouldn't use that passage again in the future for anything other than to prove that Christians aren't afraid to show the truth about our errored thinking.

Actually, when you understand Acts 21:25, it helps you to put James 2:24 in the proper context. James was writing to the 12 tribes of Israel (James 1:1), telling them that works are required for justification, together with faith.

But he won't say that to us gentile believers, given what went in Acts 21:25.

 

[Oneofhope]

Actually, when you understand Acts 21:25, it helps you to put James 2:24 in the proper context.

I'm not sure what you mean. What they were pushing in Acts 21:25 is an error. The Apostles were pushing elements of the Law of Moses onto the Gentiles. They were wrong to do so and later corrected their thinking. That is the only understanding to have of Acts 21:25.

James 2:24 has nothing to do with Acts 21:25 in the least. James is teaching of how when a person possesses the same Faith that Abraham had, they prove it by their obedience.

Pushing the Law of Moses onto Gentiles and comparing it to the Spiritual Workings of Faith is a bit perplexing. Just saying.

 

[Guojing]

I'm not sure what you mean. What they were pushing in Acts 21:25 is an error. The Apostles were pushing elements of the Law of Moses onto the Gentiles. They were wrong to do so and later corrected their thinking. That is the only understanding to have of Acts 21:25.

James 2:24 has nothing to do with Acts 21:25 in the least. James is teaching of how when a person possesses the same Faith that Abraham had, they prove it by their obedience.

Pushing the Law of Moses onto Gentiles and comparing it to the Spiritual Workings of Faith is a bit perplexing. Just saying.

Lets just say that if we are living in Daniel 70th week, the time of Jacob's trouble, you will once again need faith and works to be saved.

Then you will understand what I said to you

 

[Oneofhope]

Lets just say that if we are living in Daniel 70th week, the time of Jacob's trouble, you will once again need faith and works to be saved.

Then you will understand what I said to you

Okie doke. I'll trust you on that.

 

[rturner76]

Why add to scripture then, just to hold on to your doctrine?

Scripture said he feared those men from James, nothing else.

If you can accept that literally, and understand why Peter was not mentioned by name again in the book of Acts, after Acts 15, then the book of Acts becomes, not a record of the early church, but rather the fall of the nation of Israel.

I don't question that St Peter was afraid. What I am adding in my interpretation of the verse you so kindly posted is "why did he fear these men?" I mentioned earlier that in certain places where Levitical Law was enforced, someone could get themselves killed for defiling a high-ranking Rabbi's table.

I went back to Acts 10 and saw that God revealed to Peter (in a nutshell) that the Levitical Law concerning meat were no longer a requirement. Here:

13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

The first major congregation (Jerusalem) were Jewish Christians. Peter lost a lot of influence in Jerusalem when he ate with Cornelious who kept a Gentile table but prayed to God and gave regularly to the poor. The vision that Peter was given opened his eyes to the conversion of not only Jews but Gentiles into Christianity. This angered a vast number of Jewish Christians who still followed the Levitical Laws.

So I agree with your statement that "then the book of Acts becomes, not a record of the early church, but rather the fall of the nation of Israel" in that it was the end of mainstream Christian's requirement to follow Levitical Law. As an aside, I believe that is why St Peter went to Rome and established a very successful ministry that would end up being the faith of the majority of known world..