How did Peter live after the manner of Gentiles?

[r035198x]

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest (G2198) after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Was this referring to just sitting at the table with table with them?
What could Peter have been doing that was after the manner of Gentiles?
What did Jews do that he was NOT doing?

 

[Frogster]

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest (G2198) after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Was this referring to just sitting at the table with table with them?
What could Peter have been doing that was after the manner of Gentiles?
What did Jews do that he was NOT doing?

It wasn't just Peter. Barnabs, Paul, and the rest of the Jews were living as Gentiles

There is another tid bit too..

Paul says, THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL, in reference to the council meeting in Gal 2:5, and we know that was all about full blown judaism, not coming to the churches, and it was about more than food in Acts 15. It was circumcision, and the full law.

Then in 14, Paul said the same phrase, THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL, indicating by the same phrase, that the LIVING, meant more than just the table laws of 2:12.

 

[dbcsf]

From what I understand, Paul and the church in Jerusalem, mostly represented by James, were at odds.

The Jerusalem church was Jewish, and followed Jewish customs and laws. Paul considered himself an apostle to the gentiles, and followed a doctrine of grace and "freedom in Christ". He did not believe gentiles should be forced to be circumcised or to follow Jewish customs and laws to become Jewish.

Jesus, and later the Apostles started the first sect of Judiasm. This sect was comprised of Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah. They were still fully Jewish at that time.

Paul was essentially starting a new, second sect of Judaism in which Jews and/or gentiles could also follow Jesus but without having to follow Jewish customs and laws.

You can imagine, mainstream Jews were probably not too thrilled to see gentiles claiming to be Jews showing up in synagogues who were not circumcised, and who did not follow the laws and customs of Judaism.

The Jerusalem council was supposed to settle the matter. At the council, they decided on two gospels. The gospel to the circumcised and the gospel to the uncircumcised.

So, Paul felt that he was off the hook, and free to go on teaching grace and freedom, salvation without circumcision, to the gentiles.

The church in Antioch apparently had a lot of gentiles, but started out as a Jewish church.

Paul felt Peter was, at one time, persuaded by Paul to change his attitude. Paul was with Peter in Antioch and they behaved together as if they were "free". Peter associated with, and ate with, uncircumcised gentiles.

Then, James sent some Jewish followers of Jesus to Antioch to straighten everybody out. I believe James basically took the position that you may be saved if you are not circumcised, but you are also not welcome in the synagogue, and you should not be eating with mainstream Jews, or with Jewish followers of Jesus.

Peter decided to stop living as a Pauline style Jewish/gentile follower of Jesus and went back to becoming a mainstream Jewish follower of Jesus.

I believe you are correct, it was mostly about food. Jews were not supposed to eat with gentiles (whether they followed Jesus or not). Peter was eating with gentiles. Then, after the James gang arrived, he stopped.

If you cannot share the Lord's supper with other believers I think this would have a dampening effect on your worship services.

Paul called Peter on it.

The reason Paul is writing about it, is because the James crowd did not stop at Antioch, they continued on up the coastline to Galatia and were now invading his churches there.

It probably felt similar to being a Christian missionary somewhere, and, after years of hard work maybe you wake up one morning and find some other missionary from maybe an LDS church working on your congregation.

There is probably a lot of speculation here. But, reading between the lines, this is what I believe currently.

 

[Frogster]

From what I understand, Paul and the church in Jerusalem, mostly represented by James, were at odds.

The Jerusalem church was Jewish, and followed Jewish customs and laws. Paul considered himself an apostle to the gentiles, and followed a doctrine of grace and "freedom in Christ". He did not believe gentiles should be forced to be circumcised or to follow Jewish customs and laws to become Jewish.

Jesus, and later the Apostles started the first sect of Judiasm. This sect was comprised of Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah. They were still fully Jewish at that time.

Paul was essentially starting a new, second sect of Judaism in which Jews and/or gentiles could also follow Jesus but without having to follow Jewish customs and laws.

You can imagine, mainstream Jews were probably not too thrilled to see gentiles claiming to be Jews showing up in synagogues who were not circumcised, and who did not follow the laws and customs of Judaism.

The Jerusalem council was supposed to settle the matter. At the council, they decided on two gospels. The gospel to the circumcised and the gospel to the uncircumcised.

So, Paul felt that he was off the hook, and free to go on teaching grace and freedom, salvation without circumcision, to the gentiles.

The church in Antioch apparently had a lot of gentiles, but started out as a Jewish church.

Paul felt Peter was, at one time, persuaded by Paul to change his attitude. Paul was with Peter in Antioch and they behaved together as if they were "free". Peter associated with, and ate with, uncircumcised gentiles.

Then, James sent some Jewish followers of Jesus to Antioch to straighten everybody out. I believe James basically took the position that you may be saved if you are not circumcised, but you are also not welcome in the synagogue, and you should not be eating with mainstream Jews, or with Jewish followers of Jesus.

Peter decided to stop living as a Pauline style Jewish/gentile follower of Jesus and went back to becoming a mainstream Jewish follower of Jesus.

I believe you are correct, it was mostly about food. Jews were not supposed to eat with gentiles (whether they followed Jesus or not). Peter was eating with gentiles. Then, after the James gang arrived, he stopped.

If you cannot share the Lord's supper with other believers I think this would have a dampening effect on your worship services.

Paul called Peter on it.

The reason Paul is writing about it, is because the James crowd did not stop at Antioch, they continued on up the coastline to Galatia and were now invading his churches there.

It probably felt similar to being a Christian missionary somewhere, and, after years of hard work maybe you wake up one morning and find some other missionary from maybe an LDS church working on your congregation.

There is probably a lot of speculation here. But, reading between the lines, this is what I believe currently.

Could you please show the "two gospels"?

Peter even said, the jews were cleansed by faith and grace, gentiles and jews, saved in the same manner, in Acts 15, like Paul says, and went back to the gospel he preached to the gentiles in Acts 10, and it was the same gospel, that started with the Jews, as recorded in 10.

 

[r035198x]

..
There is probably a lot of speculation here. But, reading between the lines, this is what I believe currently.

Acts 15 gives so much detail about what actually happened so why speculate things that contradict the stated facts?

 

[dbcsf]

Sorry, I did not mean to go off topic. By two gospels I do not mean two different understandings of Jesus, his death and resurrection. I was just referring to Galatians 2, Paul's version of the council of Jerusalem. He stated that Peter had the gospel to the circumcised, and Paul to the uncircumcised.

Both Acts 15 and Galatians 2 show that there are two agreed upon different approaches to salvation. It is the equivalent two denominations being formed. My use of the term is to distinguish these two approaches to salvation.

The Jewish approach involved circumcision, and the strict obedience to the Jewish Law. Eventually this approach died out. (Although from reading some posts on other threads, I see it has come back for some).

Paul's approach was to emphasize grace. He did not think it was necessary to insist that the gentiles go through the entire process of becoming a Jew in order to join the Jewish sect of followers of Jesus. Eventually this led to a split, and the Christians branched away from the Jews, but at this time Christianity was still Jewish.

Consequently the problem for the Jews is that they had developed a lifestyle of living separate from the gentiles. Now Paul was breaking hundreds of years of cultural hard work and offending everybody.

The bottom line is that Paul was trying to keep everybody together, and James was trying to draw lines. Paul ended up on in conflict with James. Peter got caught up in it.

 

[Frogster]

Sorry, I did not mean to go off topic. By two gospels I do not mean two different understandings of Jesus, his death and resurrection. I was just referring to Galatians 2, Paul's version of the council of Jerusalem. He stated that Peter had the gospel to the circumcised, and Paul to the uncircumcised.

Both Acts 15 and Galatians 2 show that there are two agreed upon different approaches to salvation. It is the equivalent two denominations being formed. My use of the term is to distinguish these two approaches to salvation.

hi..

But it sounds like you're saying it again, there are not two approaches to salvation. Anyway, it just meant what sphere, what turf, they each went to in Galatians 2. Peter to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles, although Paul also preached to Jews, as per his calling Acts 9:15,.to the sones of Israel also. You can see more about the "sphere" or turf, in 2 Corinthians 10.

Where in Acts 15, do you see 2 approaches to salvation? peter said the Jews and Gentiles, are saved in the same manner. faith and grace, like how Paul said.


Acts 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

The Jewish approach involved circumcision, and the strict obedience to the Jewish Law. Eventually this approach died out. (Although from reading some posts on other threads, I see it has come back for some).

Paul's approach was to emphasize grace. He did not think it was necessary to insist that the gentiles go through the entire process of becoming a Jew in order to join the Jewish sect of followers of Jesus. Eventually this led to a split, and the Christians branched away from the Jews, but at this time Christianity was still Jewish.

Consequently the problem for the Jews is that they had developed a lifestyle of living separate from the gentiles. Now Paul was breaking hundreds of years of cultural hard work and offending everybody.

The bottom line is that Paul was trying to keep everybody together, and James was trying to draw lines. Paul ended up on in conflict with James. Peter got caught up in it.

 

[dbcsf]

Acts 15 gives so much detail about what actually happened so why speculate things that contradict the stated facts?

I disagree. We all interpret the bible differently. The facts are not straightforward. We all have our own interpretation as a result.

 

[Frogster]

I disagree. We all interpret the bible differently. The facts are not straightforward. We all have our own interpretation as a result.

Maybe if you quoted text, that would help. Since the Gentiles are saved in the Abrahamic gospel of Gal 3:8, then the Jews would have to be also.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

 

[r035198x]

... The facts are not straightforward. ..

Which facts of Acts 15 are not straightforward?

 

[dbcsf]

Which facts of Acts 15 are not straightforward?

This is actually off topic, and I apologize.

In Acts 15 and Galatians 2 there was a council meeting in Jerusalem being described. There are similarities and differences between the two versions. There are enough similarities to where everyone agrees they are talking about the same meeting. Then there are the differences.

When the apostles talk about not eating meat sacrificed to idols, strangled animals, etc. Paul does not acknowledge any of this. He instead talks about giving to the poor.

Acts 15 :29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Gal 2:10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

Another difference:

In Acts there is a big meeting, with all the apostles. Paul recounts a small, private meeting with James, Peter and John.

Acts 15 :6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. and 12 The whole assembly became silent...

Gal 9 James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

You will have your explanations, everyone else will have their own. Your explanation is not scriptural, it is your interpretation. You have to speculate in order to develop your position. How else can anyone reconcile the differences? You have to assume facts not in evidence. You have to postulate something.

I sense that you desire generally to harmonize the various accounts. That is one approach. My approach is obviously different.

 

[r035198x]

This is actually off topic, and I apologize.

In Acts 15 and Galatians 2 there was a council meeting in Jerusalem being described. There are similarities and differences between the two versions.

Galatians 2 is talking about Acts 11. This letter was written before the council of Acts 15 had taken place. When you mix these up you will get lots of inconsistencies.

 

[dbcsf]

Depends on when you speculate that Galatians was written. I have read Galatians. I did not see a date. Wikipedia gives a few options. You choose one, based on speculation which conforms to your view of theology, I choose another, based on my speculation.

I might add that Wikipedia also has an article on the Council of Jerusalem.
If you are interested in the topic this might be a nice one to read.

 

[r035198x]

Depends on when you speculate that Galatians was written. I have read Galatians. I did not see a date. Wikipedia gives a few options. You choose one, based on speculation which conforms to your view of theology, I choose another, based on my speculation.

I might add that Wikipedia also has an article on the Council of Jerusalem.
If you are interested in the topic this might be a nice one to read.

Wikipedia? Noooo

 

[Frogster]

Galatians 2 is talking about Acts 11. This letter was written before the council of Acts 15 had taken place. When you mix these up you will get lots of inconsistencies.

Well..in all fairness, no.

Herod died in 44 ad, and Paul went up to the meeting in Jerusalem 14 years later, and Gal 2:1 also says AGAIN, and the again, had to be after the first Jerusalem visit, of Gal 2:18 and Acts 9, which was 3 years after conversion, meaning the Jerusalem visit of 2:1, was 17 years after conversion total time.

Ok, Herod in Acts 12 died in 44 ad, so that would date Paul's conversion in 27 ad, way too early if the visit were Acts 11-12, it had to be Acts 15, at approx 49 ad, for it to jive. If the 17 years after conversion was in accord, with the Acts 12 timelime, Paul was saved in 27 ad, which he was not.

Also, in Gal 2 Paul stressed apostles, and Acts 11;30, just mentioned elders, where 15 also mentions apostles, key figures..

Also in light of the persecution mentioned in 12, it is highly unlikely that the meeting was then, the apostles were laying low, as per Acts 12, Peter "went to another place", "tell this to James" they were probably were in hiding, and not exactly ready for a public display with popular (unpopular with some, lol) Paul.

And it would be wierd for James to mention the poor, as per gal 2;10, in light of the fact, that Paul was there for that very reason in 11-12. Why mention it, if he were already there ofr that reason, as per the "famine" visit??

Also, why would there be 2 meetings on the same issue, recorded in Acts? 11-12, and 15.

Frog.

 

[r035198x]

Well..in all fairness, no.

Herod died in 44 ad, and Paul went up to the meeting in Jerusalem 14 years later, and Gal 2:1 also says AGAIN, and the again, had to be after the first Jerusalem visit, of Gal 2:18 and Acts 9, which was 3 years after conversion, meaning the Jerusalem visit of 2:1, was 17 years after conversion total time.

Ok, Herod in Acts 12 died in 44 ad, so that would date Paul's conversion in 27 ad, way too early if the visit were Acts 11-12, it had to be Acts 15, at approx 49 ad, for it to jive. If the 17 years after conversion was in accord, with the Acts 12 timelime, Paul was saved in 27 ad, which he was not.

Also, in Gal 2 Paul stressed apostles, and Acts 11;30, just mentioned elders, where 15 also mentions apostles, key figures..

Also in light of the persecution mentioned in 12, it is highly unlikely that the meeting was then, the apostles were laying low, as per Acts 12, Peter "went to another place", "tell this to James" they were probably were in hiding, and not exactly ready for a public display with popular (unpopular with some, lol) Paul.

And it would be wierd for James to mention the poor, as per gal 2;10, in light of the fact, that Paul was there for that very reason in 11-12. Why mention it, if he were already there ofr that reason, as per the "famine" visit??

Also, why would there be 2 meetings on the same issue, recorded in Acts? 11-12, and 15.

Frog.

Acts 11 was not a meeting. So there were no two meetings.

Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

He wasn't going for a meeting and was teaching in private because of the persecution. He did meet with the pillars then but not because of a meeting that had been called up.


Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

He was going there for the meeting. Two different visits for two different agendas.

Paul's conversion is actually around a.d 33. Galatians is one of his earliest letters written after the first missionary journey around a.d 49 just before the council of Acts 15.

 

[Frogster]

Acts 11 was not a meeting. So there were no two meetings.

Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

He wasn't going for a meeting and was teaching in private because of the persecution. He did meet with the pillars then but not because of a meeting that had been called up.


Act 15:2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

He was going there for the meeting. Two different visits for two different agendas.

Paul's conversion is actually around a.d 33. Galatians is one of his earliest letters written after the first missionary journey around a.d 49 just before the council of Acts 15.

yes, and that proves that the acts 11-12 meeting, could not be the one mentioned in gal 2;1, or it would date Paul's conversion to 27 ad.

If you think gal 2, was about acts 11-12, then what was 15?

again, highly unlikely that james and peter, would be around after herod was humilated after Peter's escape.

in other words, unless I misunderstood u, do u think gal 2, is about Acts 15?

 

[Nanopants]

*semi-blind post*

I think the Gospel that Peter had was the speech he delivered to the Jews at Pentecost.

 

[r035198x]

..
in other words, unless I misunderstood u, do u think gal 2, is about Acts 15?

I don't see Galatians 2 being about Acts 15. The conclusions of Acts 15 are never mentioned in Galatians because the letter was written before the Acts 15 meeting.

 

[BentBiscuit]

Depends on when you speculate that Galatians was written. I have read Galatians. I did not see a date. Wikipedia gives a few options. You choose one, based on speculation which conforms to your view of theology, I choose another, based on my speculation.

I might add that Wikipedia also has an article on the Council of Jerusalem.
If you are interested in the topic this might be a nice one to read.

Hi dbcsf. I thought your original summary answer was quite well put and I enjoyed reading it.