Judaeo, Judaic, Judaizers, Judaize, Judaism

As to the OP: being described by Eusebius as a Judaic Christian is not the same as being a "Judaizer". Also, the Council of Loadicea was only a local one, not an ecumenical one. Hence, it means nothing today except to a few. I would ignore it, personally.

yedida said:

Thanks for the attempt at answers, but it still makes no sense to me. If a Jewish person sits down at the breakfast table with me and chomps into a plate of eggs, sausage and bacon, just what is there about that person acting like me that's gonna compel me to act like him? no sense in that accusation whatsoever, none.....

Click to expand...

My point was also that the standard answers do not compute and therefore the answer is a deeper issue. Both Peter and Paul were sent to the Gentiles. There is a struggle going on inside of one man and perhaps this is the story of his "coming of age" like a Bar Mitzvah. It was Simon Peter who was given charge to shepherd, tend, and feed the folds while the Master Shepherd would be "away". Acts 15:7 hints at this which is why I quoted it:

Acts 15:7
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.

And the sheepfold teaching includes "other sheep" to be brought in:

John 10:14-16
14. I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me,
15. Even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my soul for the probaton-sheep.
16. And other probaton-sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Simon Peter is commissioned three times, three ways, with three different statements:

John 21:14-15
14. This is now the third time that Yeshua shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.
15. So when they had dined, Yeshua saith to Simon Peter, Simon Ioannou, agapao-lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Master; thou knowest that I phileo-love thee. He saith unto him, Bosko-feed my arnion-lambkins.

John 21:16
16. He saith to him again the second time, Simon Ioannou, agapao-lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Master; thou knowest that I phileo-love thee. He saith unto him, Poimaino-shepherd my probaton-sheep.

John 21:17
17. He saith unto him the third time, Simon Ioannou, phileo-lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Phileo-Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Master, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I phileo-love thee. Yeshua saith unto him, Bosko-Feed my probaton-sheep.

And the mega city of Simon was divided into third parts:
For a man is likened to an outpost, a village, a city, and a town …

Once upon a revelation-apokalupsis there were three talmidim-disciples living peacefully and comfortably on a tranquil Pacific Island paradise called Bikini Atoll. The first of them was a "Pauline Only" anti-Law disciple, the second was a "Peter Only" anti-Pauline disciple, and the third was an adherent of both messianic messengers of Messiah. One beautiful morning in the summer of 1946 the three disciples were sitting together in a private cove immersing in discourse and doctrine when the first beheld a great white flash of blinding light that filled the entire lagoon. Immediately the second heard a violent crashing in the heavens as the sky departed like a scroll, with a rolling thunder, reverberating louder and louder. The third had absolutely no chance to respond to the catastrophic event; for the time had unfolded to its end, and thereupon they three found themselves ascending up unto the pearly gates of heaven. The "Pauline Only" disciple reached the pearly gates first; only to find Peter, whereupon he died at the feet of the apostle. The second "Peter Only" anti-Pauline disciple arrived at the same pearly gates only to find Paul; and likewise died at the feet of the apostle. But when the third disciple arrived at the pearly gates he was greeted both by Peter-Paul, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even all the host of heaven: and being as it were that his mind of the flesh had already been put to death and mortified so long time ago, he continued to live.

daq said:

My point was also that the standard answers do not compute and therefore the answer is a deeper issue. Both Peter and Paul were sent to the Gentiles. There is a struggle going on inside of one man and perhaps this is the story of his "coming of age" like a Bar Mitzvah. It was Simon Peter who was given charge to shepherd, tend, and feed the folds while the Master Shepherd would be "away". Acts 15:7 hints at this which is why I quoted it:

Acts 15:7
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.

And the sheepfold teaching includes "other sheep" to be brought in:

John 10:14-16
14. I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me,
15. Even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my soul for the probaton-sheep.
16. And other probaton-sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Simon Peter is commissioned three times, three ways, with three different statements:

John 21:14-15
14. This is now the third time that Yeshua shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.
15. So when they had dined, Yeshua saith to Simon Peter, Simon Ioannou, agapao-lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Master; thou knowest that I phileo-love thee. He saith unto him, Bosko-feed my arnion-lambkins.

John 21:16
16. He saith to him again the second time, Simon Ioannou, agapao-lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Master; thou knowest that I phileo-love thee. He saith unto him, Poimaino-shepherd my probaton-sheep.

John 21:17
17. He saith unto him the third time, Simon Ioannou, phileo-lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Phileo-Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Master, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I phileo-love thee. Yeshua saith unto him, Bosko-Feed my probaton-sheep.

And the mega city of Simon was divided into third parts:
For a man is likened to an outpost, a village, a city, and a town …

Once upon a revelation-apokalupsis there were three talmidim-disciples living peacefully and comfortably on a tranquil Pacific Island paradise called Bikini Atoll. The first of them was a "Pauline Only" anti-Law disciple, the second was a "Peter Only" anti-Pauline disciple, and the third was an adherent of both messianic messengers of Messiah. One beautiful morning in the summer of 1946 the three disciples were sitting together in a private cove immersing in discourse and doctrine when the first beheld a great white flash of blinding light that filled the entire lagoon. Immediately the second heard a violent crashing in the heavens as the sky departed like a scroll, with a rolling thunder, reverberating louder and louder. The third had absolutely no chance to respond to the catastrophic event; for the time had unfolded to its end, and thereupon they three found themselves ascending up unto the pearly gates of heaven. The "Pauline Only" disciple reached the pearly gates first; only to find Peter, whereupon he died at the feet of the apostle. The second "Peter Only" anti-Pauline disciple arrived at the same pearly gates only to find Paul; and likewise died at the feet of the apostle. But when the third disciple arrived at the pearly gates he was greeted both by Peter-Paul, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even all the host of heaven: and being as it were that his mind of the flesh had already been put to death and mortified so long time ago, he continued to live.

Click to expand...

Gotcha! Good little story, both men, apart from their earthly frailities, had much to offer. A part of everyone's job has always been to sift through all of it, find the gems, shine them and pass 'em on.

yedida said:

Gotcha! Good little story, both men, apart from their earthly frailities, had much to offer. A part of everyone's job has always been to sift through all of it, find the gems, shine them and pass 'em on.

Click to expand...

Yes there is a "sifting process" which all disciples must undergo, and although Simon Peter was chosen firstly, he is the last of the apostles to be fully converted just as the first shall be last and the last first. The Adversary had "asked-demanded-requested-desired" that Simon be handed over for "sifting" or testing. The same word for "sifting" can also mean "to riddle", or "to pelt", as in the sense of the modern phrase "riddled with bullets" or likewise "riddled with questions" or like a wedding where the bride and groom are "pelted" with rice. The word used for "asked", "demanded", "requested", "desired" is also a riddle concerning the name "Shaul" which name also means "asked", "demanded", "requested", "desired".

Luke 22:31 ASV
31. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked [GSN#1809 exaiteomai] to have you, that he might sift [GSN#4617 siniazo] you as wheat:

Original Greek Strong's Ref. #1809
Romanized exaiteomai
Pronounced ex-ahee-teh'-om-ahee
middle voice from GSN1537 and GSN0154; to demand (for trial):
KJV--desire.

Original Greek Strong's Ref. #4617
Romanized siniazo
Pronounced sin-ee-ad'-zo
from sinion (a sieve); to riddle (figuratively):
KJV--sift. #sita. See GSN4621.

Original Greek Strong's Ref. #4569
Romanized Saulos
Pronounced sow'-los
of Hebrew origin [HSN7586], the same as GSN4549; Saulus (i.e. Shaul), the Jewish name of Paul:
KJV--Saul. #sautou. etc. See GSN4572.

Original Hebrew Strong's Ref. #7586
Romanized Sha'uwl
Pronounced shaw-ool'
passive participle of HSN7592; asked; Shaul, the name of an Edomite and two Israelites:
KJV--Saul, Shaul.

Original Hebrew Strong's Ref. #7592
Romanized sha'al
Pronounced shaw-al'
or sha'el {shaw-ale'}; a primitive root; to inquire; by implication, to request; by extension, to demand:
KJV--ask (counsel, on), beg, borrow, lay to charge, consult, demand, desire, X earnestly, enquire, + greet, obtain leave, lend, pray, request, require, + salute, X straitly, X surely, wish.

Likewise the three talmidim-disciples in the parable above are one man with his own three lines of thinking undergoing this sifting process. The Scripture is the greatest work in psychology ever written. Is Peter correct? Is Paul correct? Are they both correct? Which way should I go, which way should I go!?! Depart not from the Way to the right hand or the left for perhaps they are the same man:

MATTITYAHU 26:31 OJB
31. Then Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach says to them, All of you will be offended at me [Moshiach] during this night, for it has been written, HACH ES HAROEH UTEFUTSEN HATSON (Strike the Shepherd and the sheep will be scattered ZECHARYAH 13:7).

ZECHARYAH 13:7-9 OJB
7. Awake, O Cherev (sword), against My Ro'eh (shepherd, i.e. Moshiach, see Isa 40:11; Ezek 34:23,24; 37:24), against the Gever (man) that is My Amit (fellow, intimate companion, associate), saith Hashem Tzva'os; strike the Ro'eh (shepherd), and the Tzon (sheep, flock) shall be scattered; and I will turn Mine hand upon the tzo'arim (little ones; see Zech 11:7; see Mt 26:31,56)
8. And it shall come to pass, that in kol ha'aretz, saith Hashem, two-thirds therein shall be cut off and die; but one- third shall remain therein.
9. And I will bring the one third through the eish, and will refine them as kesef is refined, and will test them as zahav is tested; they shall call biShmi (on My Name), and I will hear them; I will say, This is My people; and they shall say, Hashem is Elohai.

And the man is the house with all the Land ...

yedida said:

Thanks for the attempt at answers, but it still makes no sense to me. If a Jewish person sits down at the breakfast table with me and chomps into a plate of eggs, sausage and bacon, just what is there about that person acting like me that's gonna compel me to act like him? no sense in that accusation whatsoever, none.....

Click to expand...

Understood. From a cultural perspective, the Jewish person would not really be interested in you imitating them so would not be there to impress you per se. That's a generalization of course. The NT, OTOH, as you know bids Christians to provoke the Jews to religious jealousy.


Simple answer- just we all should avoid what we personally believe God has called us to avoid. Maybe it's just that simple.

ContraMundum said:

Understood. From a cultural perspective, the Jewish person would not really be interested in you imitating them so would not be there to impress you per se. That's a generalization of course. The NT, OTOH, as you know bids Christians to provoke the Jews to religious jealousy.


Simple answer- just we all should avoid what we personally believe God has called us to avoid. Maybe it's just that simple.

Click to expand...

Looks like we're doing that great!! Gots lots of Jewish folk crying, "Mine! Mine! Foul!" Maybe even some that didn't know they wanted it till they saw that some gentiles want it. "Hmmm, gotta look into this further...." It could have happened.

ContraMundum said:

As to the OP: being described by Eusebius as a Judaic Christian is not the same as being a "Judaizer". Also, the Council of Loadicea was only a local one, not an ecumenical one. Hence, it means nothing today except to a few. I would ignore it, personally.

Click to expand...

Is that your opinion for all councils since then? Because my understanding was that the Council of Jerusalem was for the entire body of believers.

yedida said:

Thanks for the attempt at answers, but it still makes no sense to me. If a Jewish person sits down at the breakfast table with me and chomps into a plate of eggs, sausage and bacon, just what is there about that person acting like me that's gonna compel me to act like him? no sense in that accusation whatsoever, none.....

Click to expand...

In context a Jewish person wouldn't be eating sausage and bacon. In context it could be the other way around. Peter is in Antioch sits down with non Jews for breakfast and the non Jews are eating sausage and bacon. But I don't think that was the case anyway. The non Jews in question were already in the synagogues. With the Cornelius incident I'm 100% sure that Cornelius didn't serve Peter sausage and pork because Cornelius was already a synagogue member and was around Jews.

macher said:

In context a Jewish person wouldn't be eating sausage and bacon. In context it could be the other way around. Peter is in Antioch sits down with non Jews for breakfast and the non Jews are eating sausage and bacon. But I don't think that was the case anyway. The non Jews in question were already in the synagogues. With the Cornelius incident I'm 100% sure that Cornelius didn't serve Peter sausage and pork because Cornelius was already a synagogue member and was around Jews.

Click to expand...

I was never considering that he would do that! And I also know that a TO Jewish person wouldn't be eating eggs and bacon either. But the picture they like to paint remains that Peter sat down, at gentile unclean foods while trying to compel them to live as he lives. That picture doesn't ring true as it shows him (as they paint it) as doing nothing different from what the gentiles were doing. That's what I've been trying to say.
In other words, my next-door neighbor has just landed in the US and move into the house next to mine. The settle in just in time for their son to be born. They have changed their last name to smith and name the boy Bubba. At their housewarming party we are served grilled hamburgers, hot dogs, corn on the cob, grilled potatoes, baked beans and corn bread, all the while passing around the Miller Lite. I notice he is dressed in blue jean cut-offs and an American flag T-shirt, ralph lauren sunglasses. As we eat, he begins to tell me how I should immediately root up my family and move to the wonderful PRC. I'd just love it there, it'se so wonderful, so many opportunities for the people. As I sit there listening to him sing the praises of the country he just recently so easily left behind, does he really think his dialogue is going to compel me to rush right over there to live? I don't think too many people are that gullible. If PRC is so great why is he here and so happy about it? Something's wrong with that picture. And something's wrong with the picture many have tried to paint of Peter's living like a gentile and trying to get the gentiles to live like Jews. Doesn't work.

macher said:

In context a Jewish person wouldn't be eating sausage and bacon. In context it could be the other way around. Peter is in Antioch sits down with non Jews for breakfast and the non Jews are eating sausage and bacon. But I don't think that was the case anyway. The non Jews in question were already in the synagogues. With the Cornelius incident I'm 100% sure that Cornelius didn't serve Peter sausage and pork because Cornelius was already a synagogue member and was around Jews.

Click to expand...

Yep .. that rules out the food leaving the culture shunning as the culprit for the incident.

macher said:

In context a Jewish person wouldn't be eating sausage and bacon. In context it could be the other way around. Peter is in Antioch sits down with non Jews for breakfast and the non Jews are eating sausage and bacon. But I don't think that was the case anyway. The non Jews in question were already in the synagogues. With the Cornelius incident I'm 100% sure that Cornelius didn't serve Peter sausage and pork because Cornelius was already a synagogue member and was around Jews.

Click to expand...

If Cornelius held back from serving the sausage and bacon, but did cook and serve scrambled eggs and toast, that isn't kosher either.

From my understanding Gentiles would stand in back and listen, meaning they were not 'members'. I'm not sure about the synagogue system back then, so I'm not sure they had a formal membership as they do today.

Qnts2 said:

If Cornelius held back from serving the sausage and bacon, but did cook and serve scrambled eggs and toast, that isn't kosher either.

From my understanding Gentiles would stand in back and listen, meaning they were not 'members'. I'm not sure about the synagogue system back then, so I'm not sure they had a formal membership as they do today.

Click to expand...

Perhaps Cornelius is the "sausage and bacon".
"Arise, Peter: Kill, and eat!" (testimony is food) ...

Qnts2 said:

If Cornelius held back from serving the sausage and bacon, but did cook and serve scrambled eggs and toast, that isn't kosher either.

From my understanding Gentiles would stand in back and listen, meaning they were not 'members'. I'm not sure about the synagogue system back then, so I'm not sure they had a formal membership as they do today.

Click to expand...

non Jews membership isn't the point. Non Jews were in the synagogue. The likes of Cornelius were not unfamiliar with the Torah and what Jews ate.

The issue is the likes of Cornelius wouldn't have served Peter pork or ham etc and also in Antioch(Remember Antioch was a huge metro city most likely with synagogues on every corner).

So the question is if Peter was served a steak for instance, is Peter eating a steak forbidden? Ok the steak isn't kosher but is eating a steak forbidden?

ContraMundum said:

The NT, OTOH, as you know bids Christians to provoke the Jews to religious jealousy.

.

Click to expand...

If interested, one of the Jewish believers I've kept up with did a rather interesting piece on what jealousy could be...and how it's possibly misunderstood. In my experiences, many I've seen who are Jewish aren't really concerned with Gentiles who are either "God-Fearers"/semi-converts to Judaic practices...or those who wish to convert over fully. Jealously, according to what Romans 10:19 and Romans 11:11 discuss, NEVER seemed to have any real connection with saying Jews would be jeaslous simply because Gentiles tried to emulate their culture. And sadly, it does seem many Gentiles can/do assume that making the Jews jealous is done by trying to walk in something that they themselves were never called to.

Although I've referenced it before in another thread, there's an article by one who's an Eastern Catholic Jew..and to see what she said:

• The Faithfulness of Israel | The Groom's Family
• The Faithfulness of Israel II | The Groom's Family

As said there in the article:

__________________

Qnts2 said:

If Cornelius held back from serving the sausage and bacon, but did cook and serve scrambled eggs and toast, that isn't kosher either..

Click to expand...

Even if Cornelius served Kosher food to Peter, there's a larger background with Peter which would've made the event over food/dining with Cornelius all the more interesting.
A tanner was involved in treating the skins of dead animals, thus contacting the unclean according to Jewish law (Leviticus 11:8)---and an individual involved in such a trade was despised by many. In Acts 10:9-16, the passage addresses but whether Peter was going to recognize God’s cleansing actions in the life of Cornelius---the one who aided in beginning the Gentile Pentecost in Acts 10-11. Peter was being shown that being cleansed by God made one clean. The unclean beasts were being used because eating them would have naturally repulsed Peter—just as Americans are today when they see what passes for food in some cultures. In the same way Peter would have been repulsed at the idea of going into Cornelius’ house and preaching the gospel to them. We see the Jewish mindset in this regard when we hear what those of the circumcision said in Acts 11:18: ‘So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.’


To make it seem as if Cornelius would've been someone that Peter was comfortable with takes away from the significance of how the early Jewish body of believers sees things - as it concerns the fact that Cornelius, although a God-Fearer, was not someone who was ever deemed to be a full convert to Judaism/one who was in line with all the standards that the early Jewish people had. It is the case that food was highly important in social gatherings within Roman culture. To be a good host, food and drink had to be provided in abundance..and since non-Jews did not keep Kosher, Jewish people did not visit a Romans home. From seafoods like lobster to Roast Boars head and even crazy things Roast mouse - which was a big delicacy in Rome, but hardly Kosher. The Roman lifestyle and food made them ritually unclean, even as a Gentile according to the subset of laws for Gentiles residing in the land. Thus, for a Jewish person to enter the home of a Roman/Gentile meant the Jewish person was entering an unclean home and would have to snub the person culturally by not participating in the most important social convention of the society.

And seeing that Cornelius was a Roman Centurion who had power over many and was expected as a government official to honor certain customs, it would not have been a hidden issue when it came to others like Peter doing something radical in eating with him. Cornelius was a centurion (a military captain over 100 men) - and thus, as a captain, he'd also have SOLDIERS required by the empire to surround his home - those soldiers not being clean themselves. Certainly, he might have faced some tough choices between serving God and serving the Roman rulers - and Tradition (of course, not necessarily reliable) says that he became a bishop in either Caesarea or Scepsis in Mysia.

Caesarea was a mainly Gentile city, residence of the Roman proconsul (from A.D. 6 onward) - and it is there that Cornelius, a Roman centurion in command of sixty to one hundred men and the equivalent of an army captain or company commander, resided. His unit was part of the Italian Regiment (the Cohores II Miliaria Italica Civium Romanorum). A cohort had ten centuries and was the equivalent of a modern military battalion. This battalion was an auxiliary unit, not part of a regular Roman legion. Such a battalion of archers was first made up of Roman soldiers and then filled out in the provinces. Technically, Luke does not quite use "God-fearer" (hos phoboumenos or hos seboumenos) as a technical term (Acts 10:2, 22, 35; 13:16, 26, 43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7). But it does point to that class of monotheistic Gentiles who worshiped the God of the Old Testament, kept the Old Testament ethical code, attended synagogue, observed the sabbath and practiced the main requirements of Jewish piety (Levinskaya 1990). Because they refused to become proselytes, Jews still regarded them as ritually unclean Gentiles. Luke emphasizes Cornelius's piety: regular prayer (the Jewish practice was three times a day: m. Berakot 4:1; compare Dan 6:10) and many acts of charity among the needy of the Jewish people (Tobit 1:16; Sirach 7:10; 16:14; compare Mt 6:1-14). The angel said in Acts 10 that Cornelius's prayers and acts of charity have risen as the aroma of the meal offering rose as a memorial before God (Lev 2:2, 9, 16; Ps 141:2; Tobit 12:12; Longenecker 1981:386)....and thus, for Peter to go and acknowledge that a Gentile's prayers like Cornelius were heard was no small matter.


It was highly controversial for Peter to do as He did - just as it was for Yeshua.
That Peter went to uncircumcised men and ate with them was the issue.




And going back to what was noted earlier about environment, People often seem to focus on Acts 11 and think the meeting of Peter and Cornelius was solely about food...but the chapter coming after it doesn't indicate that it was only about eating unclean food that was an issue. To be in the home of a Gentile was to become unclean since they didn't have the same rituals (including removing pottery that had unclean animals on it and other things ). Just because one doesn't eat non-kosher food doesn't equate to them being ceremonially clean if going strictly from dietary laws (Leviticus 11 /Deuteronomy 14 )--many of those laws including animals relevant to the land and not being indicative of all types of animals on earth. The attempt at only eating kosher foods as a barometer for thinking onself to be clean doesn't add up many times since there was more to the ceremonial cleanliness code than food alone. There's also other concerns of having a clean home:

• the issue of whether or not someone had a nocturnal emission the night before ( Deuteronomy 23:9-11 , Leviticus 15:15-17 )
• was currently on their period and sitting on furniture ( Leviticus 12:4-6 /Leviticus 15:19-21 )
• had sexual relations with their spouse during the woman's period ( Leviticus 18:18-20 )
• having a skin disease, touching dead things ( Numbers 18:14 --and soldiers coming home from war would have that as a present reality...the same with Centurions as Cornelius who led others into battle regularly/had to deal with blood )'
• having mold in the home ( Leviticus 13:45 )

Many other things besides that could have been present.....all of that being present when it came to Jews not wanting to eat with Gentiles who had differing standards and thus were deemed to be unclean.

What Peter did with Cornelius in choosing to have lunch with a Gentile was big since it would not have mattered if Peter ate kosher food. What would be known was that Gentiles, deemed as unclean in their lifesytles, were being touched by the apostles. That's really not that different from Christ when he went to unclean places, touched unclean people and had no issue. Jesus could touch a woman with a discharge of blood (Mark 5:25-34, Matthew 9:20) who was ceremonially unclean (Leviticus 15:25-28) and not permitted to enter the temple section reserved for women nor was she permitted to be in public without making people aware that she was unclean. Her hemorrhaging would have cut her off from many social and religiopus relationships. And in seeing Jesus, she was desperate. When she touched Jesus, she technically rendered him ceremonially unclean (Leviticus 15:19-23), but Jesus is greater than ANY Purity Laws...for he makes her clean by HIS Power instead of becoming unclean Himself (Mark 1:41, Mark 5:41). Jesus made clear to the woman that her faith in Him made here both physically and spiritually healed....and the woman's faith in Jesus for physical healing at the same time becamse faith in him for salvation from sin.

If it was possible for her despite being in the times she was, how odd it is when people in our times act as if Jesus somehow has LESS power to make one clean unless they operate within the bounds of an OT Law that cannot be fulfilled anyhow due to their not being an Aaronic Priesthood set up/all of the civil aspects of the Law in place for our time...paticularly with inspection required by the priests when one was unclean. Jesus is truly superior....and as it stands, its interesting to see how that often played out in his own life. In Matthew 8:2-4, where he healed a leper, its interesting to see how when Jesus examination and treatment of those with a variety of skin diseases, generally called leprosy, many of which were highly contagious touched him he was healed and Jesus did NOT become unclean. That's striking, in light of how the OT provided specific guidelines for the (Leviticus 13-14)----for not only was leprosy a disease, but it made the leper as well as anyone who touched him ceremonially unclean (Lev 13:45-46, Numbers 5:2-4, etc). Jesus was far stronger than any of that.


And when remembering the example of Yeshua and seeing what the Lord said to Peter with Cornelius, it's not a surprise that he had a change of heart in his view on Gentiles. .
Understanding this can help in seeing why it was a big deal for Paul to respond to Peter as he did in Galatians. When seeing the seriousness of Paul in his reaction toward Peter in Galatians 2, many scholars have noted that Galatians 2 came directly after the commands given by the apostles in Acts 15 where Peter noted the same as Paul when it came to the Gentiles being redeemed apart from the Mosaic Law and needing not to be burdened with feeling as if they had to come close to keeping all of it. Peter directly encountered this himself early on when it came to ministry - and for him to go back to what he had a revelation about would've been akin to backsliding......and Paul didn't want that for Peter.

Qnts2 said:

If Cornelius held back from serving the sausage and bacon, but did cook and serve scrambled eggs and toast, that isn't kosher either.

.

Click to expand...

I think yonah gave a rather good summary on the issue of food/its signfiicance in the early Church. In his words:

ContraMundum said:

The NT, OTOH, as you know bids Christians to provoke the Jews to religious jealousy.
.

Click to expand...

Although many seem to think the concept of provoking the Jewish people to jealously began when Paul taught on it in Romans, I think it may've began far earlier than that...as early as the days of Christ when he'd often reference Gentiles as heros of the faith/people to emulate.

In example, concerning who the Faith Was for...
Matthew 8:4-6is the place where the other version is given....and of course, in Luke's account, others came to Jesus on his behalf while Matthew's account does not mention them at all. The accounts may seem contradictory--but Matthew, as he often does, simply abbreviates the story. For in Matthew, he actually reports what the centurion said through the messengers, based on the idea that what the person does through an agent is what the person himself does. Regarding the text, when the Roman centurion addresses Jesus as "Lord", he shows a remarkable sensitivity for Jewish traditions...saying he's unworthy of receiving Jesus into his Gentile home, as a Jew who entered the home of a Gentile became ceremonially unclean ( Acts 10:27-29 / ).

The fact that Yeshua noted PUBLICALLY before all of Israel that there was no one like that man who had great faith was not a small issue - for it conveyed the concept that the people within the land/those hearing were missing something that the Roman centurion had....and it would have gone counter to the idea that the Gentiles were always lacking less than the Jews. THat would have stirred up a desire to really see how to be more like what the Lord desired, I think....

Similar in many ways to how older brothers may get jealous of their younger brothers when they see how they're favored above them for doing things that were above/beyond what the older brother did - as opposed to simply doing what was expected. Parents would still love the children in those instances - but there would be a desire to see if the older brothers could be provoked/challenged to really do something that stood out. Saw that often growing up and it was quite healthy - and the same could be the case for the Jewish people. When they'd see the relationship with the Holy Spirit that believers had - their joy, their fruit, their effectiveness - and realize that they were missing it, it is what could cause them to want to find Messiah. Not because Gentiles are acting Jewish/seeking to keep aspects of the Mosaic Torah as they do since that's simply doing what is expected /not something different from the nor......but rather, because they saw others trust in Yeshua as He was/experience Him.

There's nothing more "Jewish" and Hebrew/OT Based than trusting in the Lord - for all things point to Him - and other Jews have long noted that what provoked them to jealously was seeing that their keeping of Mosaic Code didn't seem to gain them the same approval and satisfaction as knowing the Holy Spirit and serving Yeshua And for a Jewish person, being provoked to jealously would be a matter of saying "I don't want to see Gentiles out -do me in love for my Master - Yeshua - when seeing how He is who I should be looking to ..and I'm expected to trust in Him if I claim to be the inheritor of His promises/Covenants and a part of a people that was to be a light to the Nations!!"

Chapter 11 of Romans shows how Paul (Rabbi Saul) wrote to the believers in Rome about his people, Israel. He spoke of them as "natural" branches of the olive tree, whereas he considered gentiles to be "wild" branches (11:16-24). He spoke earlier of the relationship between Jews and gentiles in relation to evangelism: "It is by means of their [Jewish] stumbling that the deliverance has come to the Gentiles, in order to provoke them to jealousy." That is the Gentile Great Commission—provoke God's chosen people to jealousy. ...and it cannot be done if we point others to everything else except the HOLY Spirit and Yeshua

I'm truly taken about by how many Jews noted that what brought them to YESHUA was seeing the love and compassion shown to them by believers. One Messianic Jew noted how he was challenged to dare trusting in Yeshua even though he used to say he didn't need that - as something simply wouldn't let him have peace in thinking only Gentiles needed to have Yeshua or that Gentiles were "crazy" for trusting in Christ.

For another example, I'm reminded of Rabbi Baruch Rubin - president of Messianic Jewish Communications (www.messianicjewish.net) and Rabbi of Emmanuel Messianic Jewish Congregation (www.godwithus.org) both of Clarksville, Maryland. His story stands out to me when seeing what it was that impacted him to trusting Yeshua :

Powerful!!!

Going back to Luke 7:1-8 and Matthew 8:4-6, some other interesting things from the text are that the normal relationship between Romans and Jews, as is usual between conquerors and conquered, was not one of love and trust---from either side. But this pagan Roman officer had demonstrated a love for the Jewish people which moved the Jewish leaders to plead on his behalf before Yeshua, whose primary ministry was not to Gentiles but to Jews..especially as evidenced in his interaction with the girl whose daughter was possessed/was a Gentile ( Matthew 10:4-6 / /Matthew 15:25-27/ ). Love was demonstrated to be a matter of deeds--"he built the synagogue for us!"--not mere words or feelings; and this is its primary meaning throughout Scripture. Similarly, in modern times "Righteous Gentiles" have been honored by trees planted along the road to Israel's Yad VaShem Memorial of the Holocaust because they risked their own death to save Jewish lives.

On the story, of course Replacement Theologians and those against Jews may conclude that Jesus was excluding Jews from the Kingdom---but the point of the story was not exclusion. Rather, it was inclusion......as here Yeshua clearly states that Gentiles from ALL OVER (from the east and the west), even an army officer of the hated Roman Empire, can by virtue of trusting in God join God's people Israel and take their places at the feast in the Kingdom of Heaven with Abraham, Issac and Jacob. Of course, this very thing has occurred many times before---whether with Rabab the Prostitute when she joined the people of God ( Joshua 2 Joshua 6:24-26 / /Hebrews 11:30-32 /James 2:24-26 )..or Ruth..who was in the line of Christ ( Matthew 1:5
Matthew 1:4-6 / ) after she joined on with the Jewish people, even though she was a Moabite ( Ruth 1:1 /Genesis 19:36-38/ ) and the Law forbade anyone of Moabite descent to enter the sanctuary due to Moab's history ( Deuteronomy 23:2-4/ /Numbers 22:1 )

macher said:

non Jews membership isn't the point. Non Jews were in the synagogue. The likes of Cornelius were not unfamiliar with the Torah and what Jews ate.

The issue is the likes of Cornelius wouldn't have served Peter pork or ham etc and also in Antioch(Remember Antioch was a huge metro city most likely with synagogues on every corner).

So the question is if Peter was served a steak for instance, is Peter eating a steak forbidden? Ok the steak isn't kosher but is eating a steak forbidden?

Click to expand...

Eating a steak which isn't Kosher is forbidden.

Just because the meat is from a cow, does not mean it is ok to eat. And just because the meat which is from a cow and is basically ok to eat, doesn't mean it was cooked correctly in Cornelius' house.

There are more laws in scripture concerning what is ok to eat then just the kind of animal.

added: for example, if I had a steak from a cow which was slaughtered correctly, with the blood removed, and I took it to a friends house to cook, and they used the pan they used this morning to fry up some bacon or blood sausage, is the steak still ok to eat?

Qnts2 said:

Eating a steak which isn't Kosher is forbidden.

Just because the meat is from a cow, does not mean it is ok to eat. And just because the meat which is from a cow and is basically ok to eat, doesn't mean it was cooked correctly in Cornelius' house.

Click to expand...

How do you explain Galatians 2:12?

It has to be 1.the Gentiles served Peter kosher. Even though the meat was kosher it was against Halacha to eat meat prepared by a Gentile even though it was kosher 2. Peter ate vegetables.

On another note you also have to regard Halacha in the diaspora pertaining to Lev 11/meat that's properly slaughtered. In context I think the Halacha was way/ much more strict in the Land. Most likely a kosher butcher on every corner in Jerusalem.

macher said:

How do you explain Galatians 2:12?

Click to expand...

I believe that Peter was eating with the Gentiles and probably eating food which was not to be eaten according to the Mosaic law. And then withdrew when fearful of being judged.

Some people think that if they eat a steak from a cow, they are eating food permitted by the Mosaic law but that is not necessarily true as there is more to permitted food then just eating meat from permitted animals. The animals could not have 'died unto themselves'. The blood must be removed. It can be or have fat which would have been used in sacrifices, and it must be cooked in vessels which are ritually clean.