Acts 21-28 Paul is a Messianic Jew and declares his views under oath

[Meowzltov]

We must always remember when reading the Pauline Epistles we are in essence reading the correspondence of one person. The people to whom he is replying to we do not have their side. Nor do we have the witness of the ones he speaks against, so no conclusion can be 100% drawn.

To take Pauls' word on all things is to go against Torah which says that upon two or more witnesses can a matter be decided.

Yeshua upheld this commandment: "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. Matthew 18:16

From Deut 19:15 "A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. 16"If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing,…

Paul however seems to have a different understanding about this.

2 Corinthians 1 This is the third time I am coming to you. EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES. 2 I have previously said when present the second time, and though now absent I say in advance to those who have sinned in the past and to all the rest as well, that if I come again I will not spare anyone,…

You cannot be the second or third witness yourself.

Anyway we must realize that there are two sides to every story.

Peter was in Antioch after the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Paul was sent to deliver the degree that the Gentiles who were turning to the L-RD were not to eat food sacrificed to idols, blood etc. Peter, believing that the Gentiles were abiding by this was having table fellowship with them. We must remember Peters adamance in Acts 10, to be told to eat anything not kosher was such an offense to him he even 'talked back' to the L-RD, before he was given the understanding it wasn't about food but other nations the animals represented. (Nations are represented in the prophetic books such as Daniel and such).

He basically told the L-RD 'No way Jose!'

Now imagine you are Peter and you are in Antioch with these newbies in the faith, but under the assumption that they are keeping Kosher and were following James' edict.

Now everything is going along swimmingly when suddenly visitors arrive from Jerusalem. James has sent men to warn Peter and the other Jews there that he has proof that Paul did not pass on the edict as he was instructed to, in fact he is teaching that idols are nothing and giving credence for the 'believers' to be in the idol Temples as well!

1 Cor 10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple,

When Peter hears of this and the other Jews do as well there is an immediate uproar. Can you imagine how Peter would react to Paul if he was so adamant with the L-RD about eating treif? He would have totally flipped out! If you read carefully you will see it wasn't Peter acting hypocritically at all, if it were just Peter we could tend to believe that but when Paul says all the Jews, including Barnabas (who was a believer way before Paul and also a lot older and wiser) we have to surmise that it was something pretty devastating.

It was not Peter being hypocritical, nor pulling away from the Gentiles because he was "afraid of James" or other Jews; what or who he was afraid of was the L-RD himself because he had been unknowingly sinning by eating the food the Gentiles had. This could be the only reason for Peter and ALL the Jews there to stop eating with them, certainly not because they were afraid of James, but they stopped immediately from sinning by eating the food the Gentiles were serving.

So to accuse Peter of living as a Gentile on purpose and then teaching them Jewish ways totally doesn't make sense. If it were only Peter, maybe, but all the Jews drew away, that should tell you that the accusation against Peter was false and to continue that by accusing him of wrongdoing is upholding that false witness.

Here is the account, please take note of what I've highlighted:

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. 12 Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were of the circumcision.

If you only read to here it looks like Peter is being hypocritical, but we need to read on. But notice that Paul is telling the Galatians that Peter stopped eating with them because he was afraid of those who were Jews? Makes no sense and further that Paul calls the Jews 'the circumcision' instead of Jews.
13 And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”


Now we must ask ourselves, why did every Jew present, separate themselves from these Gentiles? Were they all hypocrites as Paul accuses? It sounds more to me that these are all Jews who are zealous for the law and had found out they were sinning. Notice in verse 12 Peter separates himself from the Gentiles, as we are told to do in Torah because if they are not keeping G-ds commandments we cannot be apart of them else it would lead to pulling away from G-d by adopting their heathen practices.

15 We are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, 16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Now we must ask, why would Paul bring up works of the law if it were only about Peter being afraid of James? Think about the edict from acts 15, the only thing that these men from Jerusalem could have been sent to tell the Jews in Antioch was that the law was being disregarded in Antioch and the Jews there were unknowingly sinning by partaking of what the Gentiles served at table.

Paul is equating keeping the law as being justified. But the other Apostles knew that the law was not done away with and were still keeping it. This is the only reason they separated from the Gentiles because the Gentiles were still living sinful lives and not keeping away from idolatrous things, foods and more.

Apparently these teachings got to the Galatians because they must have been asking about this keeping of the law else why is this whole letter to the Galatians a defensive missal to Paul's gospel which seems to be different than the others. He even makes note of that to the Corinthians:

11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you.
12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."

We must try to understand why the Corinthians were so fractured, if everyone was teaching the same gospel. Notice the order of names as well. There must have been different factions there for him to respond this way.

So it seems that Peter and Paul were not in agreement on how to be a believer in G-ds eyes.

Lulav, this was an amazing post. I have to chew on it for a while.

I do have a question for you though. Are you really serious about the idea that Paul is feeding us a bunch of baloney? And if so, doesn't that kind of knock the idea that scripture is innerrant? Can you explain this a little?

 

[Lulav]

Lulav, this was an amazing post. I have to chew on it for a while.

I do have a question for you though. Are you really serious about the idea that Paul is feeding us a bunch of baloney? And if so, doesn't that kind of knock the idea that scripture is innerrant? Can you explain this a little?

G-d is inerrant, things written and translated by men are not. We make mistakes, we all have a bias, our thoughts and ways are not his thoughts and ways. Can we agree on that?

As far as Paul feeding us? I believe Paul was mainly forming a gospel to the Gentiles, why? the Jews did not want to listen to him, why?

In Acts we read that James claims their are literally thousands upon thousand of Jews who believed Yeshua was the Messiah and in the Torah and were zealous to keep it. This, at least two decades if not three after his death and resurrection.

James writes that it is faith and works that make ones religion complete, not one or the other alone. Why was he emphasizing this?

I don't believe that what we have in the canon is in error, all should be as it should as G-d has ordained it to be, however that does not mean that everything in there is from him, but allowed by him. Many if you told them that Moses wrote some of the psalms would not believe that, nor would they believe that Nebuchadnezzar wrote a passage in the Bible, but they are there.

I always base my foundation of understanding if what happened in the beginning. After Genesis and Revelation I love the book of Isaiah and in it he records G-s saying:

"I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come"

If this is so, and I believe it, then it means studying the beginning very well to understand the end.

What is the beginning of the canon?

The Torah

What is the ending, the 'NT books.

We need to make them jive.

 

[Meowzltov]

G-d is inerrant, things written and translated by men are not. We make mistakes, we all have a bias, our thoughts and ways are not his thoughts and ways. Can we agree on that?

As far as Paul feeding us? I believe Paul was mainly forming a gospel to the Gentiles, why? the Jews did not want to listen to him, why?

In Acts we read that James claims their are literally thousands upon thousand of Jews who believed Yeshua was the Messiah and in the Torah and were zealous to keep it. This, at least two decades if not three after his death and resurrection.

James writes that it is faith and works that make ones religion complete, not one or the other alone. Why was he emphasizing this?

I don't believe that what we have in the canon is in error, all should be as it should as G-d has ordained it to be, however that does not mean that everything in there is from him, but allowed by him. Many if you told them that Moses wrote some of the psalms would not believe that, nor would they believe that Nebuchadnezzar wrote a passage in the Bible, but they are there.

I always base my foundation of understanding if what happened in the beginning. After Genesis and Revelation I love the book of Isaiah and in it he records G-s saying:

"I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come"

If this is so, and I believe it, then it means studying the beginning very well to understand the end.

What is the beginning of the canon?

The Torah

What is the ending, the 'NT books.

We need to make them jive.

Lulav you are my kind of gal.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't care what your thread says. You are not an authority. They were IN the synagogues and the temple at the time of Acts 21.

That is true!

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, and earlier Paul himself took a nazarite vow.

As for Peter, his big problem was that not only was he living as a Gentile, he was encouraging Gentiles to take up Jewish ways, which was prohibited by the Council of Jerusalem. It was the reverse of what it should have been.

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

Peter was influenced by "certain men from James" who came to the city where Peter was ministering. That was "sufficient" to get Peter to stop associating with gentiles -- and the question you have to ask is "why would men from James cause such a reaction from Peter" if in fact James was teaching "All the OT is abolished" or "All the Law is abolished" ??

Why wouldn't Peter be giving the gentiles a big high-five in front of those visitors saying "hey guys see how well I mix with gentiles? go tell James"

Instead of that - when "certain men come from James" -- James who recommended that Paul take a Nazarite vow to prove his loyalty to the LAW of God in full - even including what God gave to the Jews as ceremony - this is what happens.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy

They avoid the gentiles altogether "in fear of the party of the circumcision" - in fear of Christian Jews coming from James.

 

[Meowzltov]

I don't care what your thread says. You are not an authority. They were IN the synagogues and the temple at the time of Acts 21.

It's always rather freaky when I'm reading my ALERTS and click on a LIKE without realizing it. I'll see one of my own posts and, NOT RECOGNIZING IT, I'll think, "Hey, right on." LOL

 

[Meowzltov]

in fear of Christian Jews coming from James.

There is more to this contest between Paul and James than meets the eye in Scripture. Scripture hints, but doesn't spell it out.

 

[BobRyan]

That was a quote in Gal 2 about the "fear" that Peter had regarding the "men from James" and the Christian "party of the circumcsion" -- You never see any conflict between Paul and James in scripture that I know of.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

I wonder why it wasn't until the 1800's that Messianic Judaism even popped up..

Messianic Judaism is ultimately a prejudice against historical Christianity, as to suppose that Christians have many things wrong- that's why they do not labor under the title of 'Christianity'.
They are fundamentally 'syncretists'; if they were not Jewish, they would be branded heretics.

It's not my intent to disrespect anyone, it is just an acknowledgement of reality- the Catholic Church leaves them be because of the bureaucratic nature of dealing with Israel in the first place.

 

[Meowzltov]

That was a quote in Gal 2 about the "fear" that Peter had regarding the "men from James" and the Christian "party of the circumcsion" -- You never see any conflict between Paul and James in scripture that I know of.

Please elaborate. Peter begins by being in harmony with Paul's teachings, correct? He is eating with Gentiles, as they are not unclean. THEN men from James come and he becomes afraid to eat with Gentiles. This is because Gentiles eat food offered to idols -- and Paul was teaching them that it was okay to do so. It places an obstacle up for Jews, who do not eat food offered to idols. It also raises a question why Paul was teaching that it was okay to eat meat offered to idols after the Council of Jerusalem expressly forbade it. That last point is something I have never personally been able to resolve.

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this thread.

You seem to be making a case that there is a rift between Paul and James. In that case one might imagine that when men from James show up - Paul might change his behavior around Gentiles if he was in fear of James' teaching or his faction.

The the Gal 2 example is not about differences between Paul on meat offered to idols and James. It is a about Peter in fear of christian Jews from James. There is nothing in the NT stating that Peter was opposed to James. But Gal 2 gives living proof that James was in no way diminishing or downsizing the importance of Christian Jews - rather he highly favored them.

1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10 Paul himself states that gentiles are NOT eating meat offered to idols and Jews ARE! Paul says that the reason the Jews are doing that with so much freedom is because they know the idol is mere rock - while the gentile is "accustomed" to viewing the idol as a "god" of some sort.

Your post seems to argue the exact opposite from Paul's claim as to what is going in actual history.

1 Cor 8
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?

11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

The one who is "weak in faith" who is "accustomed to the idol until now" who is not fully aware that there is but ONE God - the Father and Jesus Christ (and the Holy Spirit as the 3rd person of the godhead) -- is the gentile.

Thus in Romans 14 it is the "weak in faith" the gentile - that is a new Christian that "eats vegetables only" - for fear of eating meat that may have been offered to idols.

The "strong" in faith, and in conscience as Paul states it - are the Christian Jews.



1 Cor 10
23 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. 24 Let no one seek his own, but each one the other’s well-being.
25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.”
27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? 30 But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks?
31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God

 

[BobRyan]

I wonder why it wasn't until the 1800's that Messianic Judaism even popped up..

A careful reading of Acts 15 - shows an entire NT church council comprised of almost nothing but Messianic Jews.

How then do they only recently "pop up" in your view??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Meowzltov]

The the Gal 2 example is not about differences between Paul on meat offered to idols and James.

But there IS a problem. Paul DOES teach that it is okay to eat meat offered to idols, doesn't he? And the council of Jerusalem determined that Gentile believers are NOT to eat meat offered to idols. So what are we as Christians to do with this contradiction in Scripture?

 

[BobRyan]

I think that is a fair observation - but it is not the issue Paul is addressing in Gal 2 with Peter. My point with Gal 2 is that James is clearly backing the Christian Jews - Messianic Jews.

 

[BobRyan]

But there IS a problem. Paul DOES teach that it is okay to eat meat offered to idols, doesn't he? And the council of Jerusalem determined that Gentile believers are NOT to eat meat offered to idols. So what are we as Christians to do with this contradiction in Scripture?

Paul is arguing that the church council in Acts 15 is not infallible, and possibly overstepped itself. He is arguing in harmony with Acts 15 that gentiles are at risk of violating their conscience if they eat meat offered to idols - but he apparently thinks that Jews never had a problem with it to start with since they ignored the idol-connection claiming that idols are nothing but rocks.

I don't think Acts 15 addressed the issue of Jews eating meat offered to idols. But Paul is definitely arguing that the gentiles are "weak" in conscience and in the faith - because they still have a mindset "bent" toward thinking that idols are real minor-gods and that they eat in honor to them when they eat food offered to them.

 

[Meowzltov]

I think that is a fair observation - but it is not the issue Paul is addressing in Gal 2 with Peter. My point with Gal 2 is that James is clearly backing the Christian Jews - Messianic Jews.

I think Peter knows the messengers from James will come down hard on him if he eats with the Gentiles, BECAUSE Paul has these Gentiles eating food offered to idols. So it really is about the idolatry issue and Paul snubbing the edict of the Council.

 

[BobRyan]

I think Peter knows the messengers from James will come down hard on him if he eats with the Gentiles, BECAUSE Paul has these Gentiles eating food offered to idols. So it really is about the idolatry issue and Paul snubbing the edict of the Council.

on the contrary - Paul tells Jews to "not eat meat again" if it causes these gentiles to stumble - gentiles who according to Paul cannot eat meat offered to idols without violating conscience, and cannot even SEE a JEW eating meat offered to idols without being led to sin.

 

[Meowzltov]

Paul is arguing that the church council in Acts 15 is not infallible, and possibly overstepped itself. He is arguing in harmony with Acts 15 that gentiles are at risk of violating their conscience if they eat meat offered to idols - but he apparently thinks that Jews never had a problem with it to start with since they ignored the idol-connection claiming that idols are nothing but rocks.

I don't think Acts 15 addressed the issue of Jews eating meat offered to idols. But Paul is definitely arguing that the gentiles are "weak" in conscience and in the faith - because they still have a mindset "bent" toward thinking that idols are real minor-gods and that they eat in honor to them when they eat food offered to them.

I disagree with you: the Council WAS authoritative. It carried the authority of all the apostles and bishops.

Yes, we Jews believe that idols are only "rocks." But it doesn't stop us from abstaining from food offered to idols. There is to be no involvement of Jews with idols.

I deal with this personally every time I visit my Chinese friends. They offer fruits to the Buddha statues they have on their altar. They later eat these fruits for lunch, a lunch to which i am invited. Do I go by the Council's decision or by Paul's teaching? And does it matter that my Chinese friends don't think these Buddhas are actually deities? They personally believe in God, and the Buddhas are more like saints. Because their observance is more like veneration of the saints, I have chosen to eat, but it still bothers me. I really don't know what to do.

 

[Meowzltov]

on the contrary - Paul tells Jews to "not eat meat again" if it causes these gentiles to stumble - gentiles who according to Paul cannot eat meat offered to idols without violating conscience, and cannot even SEE a JEW eating meat offered to idols without being led to sin.

I think we may have to simply disagree on this. I just don't accept what you say about Jews abandoning the law about not eating food offering to idols. Even today, Jews do not eat food offered to idols.

 

[BobRyan]

The "strong" in faith, and in conscience as Paul states it - are the Christian Jews.

I think we may have to simply disagree on this. I just don't accept what you say about Jews abandoning the law about not eating food offering to idols. Even today, Jews do not eat food offered to idols.

You seem to be saying that in 1Cor 8 it is the Jews who are "accustomed to idols" and are "weak in faith" and who are not used to the idea that "there is but ONE God the Father".

I would simply have to differ with such an argument in that case.

Acts 15 is a command to Gentiles not Jews.

Do you have something in Leviticus telling Jews that they cannot eat food offered to idols??