Dear Protestants ... please explain John 1:42

[klutedavid]

Ive read that passage numerous times and already explained it. Peter was rebuked for being a hypocrite not for being a Judaiser. He feared persecution and ridicule from the Jewish Christians.

No Peter was in on it. Paul said that Peter was converting Gentiles to Judaism.

13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

The only thing that separated the Gentiles from the Jews was the law.

Peter was actively involved in Judaism. That is why Peter appears in Paul's letter to the Galatians. For that very reason. You definitely cannot see that Peter was fallen?

 

[BNR32FAN]

But Paul did mention the pope in Jerusalem. That is one of the remarkable points that Paul makes in Galatians 2.

If you do not understand Galatians 2, then keep reading that chapter, over and over, until you do.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision.13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel

“But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭2:14‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Peter’s refusal to eat with the Gentiles was sending a false message to them that they had to uphold the Jewish dietary laws. Again this had nothing to do with circumcision.

 

[klutedavid]

Ive read that passage numerous times and already explained it. Peter was rebuked for being a hypocrite not for being a Judaiser. He feared persecution and ridicule from the Jewish Christians.

Peter is in this letter for a reason. Paul is telling the Galatians that the Jerusalem church was corrupt. That is why Paul opposed Peter to his face in Antioch. Paul is telling the Galatians all about the Jewish apostles in Jerusalem.

 

[klutedavid]

“But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭2:14‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Peter’s refusal to eat with the Gentiles was sending a false message to them that they had to uphold the Jewish dietary laws. Again this had nothing to do with circumcision.

To live like Jews means to be circumcised, obedience to the law. Not eating with Gentiles is a law also. You obey even one law such as circumcision, then you must obey the entire law.

Peter was under the curse of the law.

 

[klutedavid]

“But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭2:14‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Peter’s refusal to eat with the Gentiles was sending a false message to them that they had to uphold the Jewish dietary laws. Again this had nothing to do with circumcision.

I need you to confess.

Was Peter actively following the law or not?

 

[prodromos]

No Peter was in on it. Paul said that Peter was converting Gentiles to Judaism.

13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

The only thing that separated the Gentiles from the Jews was the law.

Peter was actively involved in Judaism. That is why Peter appears in Paul's letter to the Galatians. For that very reason. You definitely cannot see that Peter was fallen?

I recommend you read St John Chrysostom's commentary on this passage.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Incorrect, you have not studied Galatians 2, that is clear.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision.13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel

You can dispense with the unpleasantries I have studied Galatians 2 on several occasions, your making associations that are not supported by the context of the passage. When Paul addresses the issue with Peter he specifically named him as Peter, when Paul addresses the issues with the false brethren he does not mention them by name because he doesn’t know who they were. I’ve already pointed that out before in Galatians 5:7 and in Galatians 2:4.

You said that Paul said that Peter had fallen from grace but that’s not what he wrote about Peter in chapter 2.

“But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭2:7-9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

This being an epistle is not talking about things as they took place but after they took place so it wouldn’t make much sense to say that God effectually worked in Peter in chapter 2 then say in chapter 5 that Peter had been severed from Christ and had fallen from grace.

Notice in Acts 15 Peter is 100% against the necessity of circumcision it was a sect of the Pharisee believers who were advocating in favor of circumcision.

“But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭15:5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

I need you to confess.

Was Peter actively following the law or not?

Let’s see what Paul says

“But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭2:14‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

So in answer to your question, according to Paul was Peter living like the Jews or was he living like the Gentiles? Jews observe the mosaic law, Gentiles do not.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No Peter was in on it. Paul said that Peter was converting Gentiles to Judaism.

13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?

The only thing that separated the Gentiles from the Jews was the law.

Peter was actively involved in Judaism. That is why Peter appears in Paul's letter to the Galatians. For that very reason. You definitely cannot see that Peter was fallen?

He was inadvertently compelling the Gentiles to observe the law by declining to eat with them while the Jewish Christians were present. He feared persecution and ridicule from the Jewish Christians and in his refusal to eat with the Gentiles he was inadvertently sending the message that they should also observe the Jewish dietary laws. That was his hypocrisy. He wasn’t actively teaching Gentiles to keep the mosaic law.

 

[BNR32FAN]

To live like Jews means to be circumcised, obedience to the law. Not eating with Gentiles is a law also. You obey even one law such as circumcision, then you must obey the entire law.

Peter was under the curse of the law.

Paul said that Peter was not living like a Jew, he was living like a Gentile. Are you familiar with the word “inadvertently”?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

it is a textual issue, is the rock a pebble or little stone. is the church built on the little stone or built on the rock of Christ.

that is usually how it is explained.

the word for little stone is “lithos”. If Jesus had meant Peter was a little stone He would have called him lithos. Petros is a masculinized version of the feminine word Petra. Peter being a man, Our Lord would not give him a girl’s name

 

[Buzzard3]

Paul was not in Jerusalem to have His ministry approved, because Paul had been an apostle for seventeen years.

Gal 2:2 says otherwise: Paul says he "laid before them ... the gospel ... lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain."

In other words, Paul explained to the Jewish apostles in Jerusalem what he had been preaching, "lest" it was incorrect, in which case, all his years of preaching would have been "in vain".

Incorrect. Paul was directly under the authority of Jesus.

Why did Paul need his authority confirmed by the Jewish apostles, if his direct authority was Jesus?

 

[Buzzard3]

Later, Paul would directly condemn Peter in Antioch. Because Peter was entering a Gentile church and that was under Paul's authority.

That's pretty funny. Where do you get this stuff?

 

[Buzzard3]

Your assuming wrongly that the church in Jerusalem was infallible. You only have to read chapter two of Galatians carefully. To understand that the Jerusalem church was under the law. Titus who was a Gentile resisted the pressure to be circumcised, when Titus visited with Paul. Paul even made the statement below.

3 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

Paul witnessed the backslidden church in Jerusalem first hand. Then Paul makes the astounding statement regarding the apostles in Jerusalem.

5 But we did not yield in subjection to them, even for an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

Paul refers to "them" (in Gal 2:5) as "false brethren" in the preceding verse. So in effect you're saying the Holy Spirit sent Paul all the way from Antioch to Jerusalem to seek the approval of backsliding "false brethren" ... the apostles!
Such a scenario would be absurdly illogical.

The "false brethren" were not the apostles, but a faction of Jewish Christians who believed that following the law of Moses was necessary for salvation, and apparently wanted Titus (a Gentile) circumcised.

Paul himself must have been a Jewish "backslider" too - in Acts 9 he gets Timothy circumcised to please the Jews and in Acts 21 he obeys the apostles' request that when they tell Paul to take a seven-day vow and shave his head, along with four otherJews who then presented themselves to the temple officials("in observance of the law").

In 1Cor 9, Paul says "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those inder the law I became as one under the law - though not being myself under the law" - in order that I might win those under the law."

It's my understanding that Jews who became Christians were not required to give up the Jewish ritual customs (eg, circumision), as long as they realized that those customs were not required for salvation and were not to be imposed on Gentiles (see Acts 21:17-26).

 

[Buzzard3]

Correction, Paul is the one accusing Peter of his error. That is why Paul mentions Peter in the letter to the Galatians. The pope in Jerusalem had fallen from grace, condemned.

Please cite one reputable theologian or Bible commentry that agrees with you, that Peter "had fallen from grace, condemned."

 

[prodromos]

Please cite one reputable theologian or Bible commentry that agrees with you, that Peter "had fallen from grace, condemned."

I seem to recall asking you to cite Church Fathers supporting your claims, which you have thus far failed to do.

 

[klutedavid]

That's pretty funny. Where do you get this stuff?

I make it up as I go. Me write book on this soon.

 

[klutedavid]

Please cite one reputable theologian or Bible commentry that agrees with you, that Peter "had fallen from grace, condemned."

No Catholic theologian would ever say, what I say. They could think the thought but never admit the thought to print.

The truth is Buzzard3, that not many people understand the text (Galatians 2,3). If they did understand Galatians, then they would see how scathing Paul was of the church in Jerusalem.

Peter had been a follower of Jesus for three years and a Christian for years. Before Paul travelled the road to Damascus. Paul having to seriously correct Peter at Antioch is unforgivable of Peter.

Peter was the disciple of Jesus firsthand, one of the twelve apostles. Peter was one of three disciple held in very high repute in the Jerusalem church. Paul knew he could not rebuke Peter in Jerusalem, Paul had not that authority. But in Antioch, a Gentile church, Paul had full authority to rebuke Peter and to his face.

Paul was not letting Peter drag his Judaism into the church at Antioch. Paul had been fighting Judaism and especially Christian Judaism for seventeen years. That is what Galatians is all about Peter and the law.

Galatians 3: 1-2
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

The previous chapter is where Paul tells us where the origin of Christian Judaism was. There can be only one source of Christian legalism. That was the church in Jerusalem.

No matter how you understand chapter two of Galatians, the source has ben identified. Paul know exactly who was destroying the Galatian church.

 

[klutedavid]

He was inadvertently compelling the Gentiles to observe the law by declining to eat with them while the Jewish Christians were present. He feared persecution and ridicule from the Jewish Christians and in his refusal to eat with the Gentiles he was inadvertently sending the message that they should also observe the Jewish dietary laws. That was his hypocrisy. He wasn’t actively teaching Gentiles to keep the mosaic law.

Yes BNRFAN, Peter was obedient to the entire law. What your missing, is that Peter was compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews!

Living like a Jew is not just about avoiding the breaking the bread together (Mass), with Gentiles. The law stipulated that Jews must not associate with Gentiles. Gentiles were dogs, unholy, sinners.

Living like a Jew is following the dictates of the law, circumcision is the outward marker of Judaism. The law is what gave meaning to the two terms, Jew, Gentile.

Peter was retreating into Jewish legalism in all it's glory. Paul did not rebuke Peter to his face in Antioch because Peter would not eat with the Gentiles. It was seriously much more than that, Peter was teaching the Gentiles legal obedience.

 

[Buzzard3]

Catholic theologian would ever say, what I say.

I didn't ask for a Catholic theologian who agrees with you ... please cite ANY theolgian who agrees with you.

The truth is Buzzard3, that not many people understand the text (Galatians 2,3).

Is that bcoz your interpretation is infallible and inspired by the Holy Spirit?