September 21, 2025 • 35 mins
The confrontation between Paul and Peter in Antioch reveals key insights about grace, fellowship, and the true meaning of the gospel.
• Paul rebuked Peter not for doctrinal error but for hypocrisy—his behavior contradicted the truth he proclaimed
• Early church fathers were so troubled by this apostolic disagreement that some suggested it was staged
• Peter's vision regarding Cornelius wasn't primarily about food but about not considering any person common or unclean
• Jewish separation from Gentiles was cultural practice, not a Torah command
• Different Jewish communities had varying attitudes toward Gentile relationships
• Two types of Gentile proselytes existed: "proselytes of the gate" who followed minimum requirements and full converts
• The real issue wasn't dietary laws but whether Gentiles were equal partners in salvation
• We must harmonize Paul's rebuke in Galatians with his teaching on tolerance in Romans 14
• The question remains: Did the apostles continue practicing Mosaic law after Pentecost?
Blog Post: https://wakinguptograce.com/063-paul-rebukes-peter-part-1-galatians-2-11/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hello and welcome to the Waking Up To Grace podcast,
where we celebrate and explorethe finished work of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
Tune in to the Waking Up ToGrace podcast on every major
platform.
You can also listen to ourepisodes and read our full
transcripts atWakingUpToGracecom.
And now here's Lenny.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
The moment when Paul rebukes Peter, as told by Paul
in his letter to the Galatians,has been the subject of much
attention over the years.
Paul begins the story of hisrebuke to Peter saying but when
Cephas came to Antioch, Iopposed him to his face because
he stood.
Condemned For before certainmen came from James, he was
(00:43):
eating with the Gentiles.
Condemned For before certainmen came from James, he was
eating with the Gentiles, butwhen they came, he drew back and
separated himself, fearing thecircumcision party, and the rest
of the Jews actedhypocritically along with him,
so that even Barnabas was ledastray by their hypocrisy.
That's Galatians 2.11-13.
The fact that Paul rebukesPeter in Antioch was so hard for
(01:06):
the early church fathers towrap their heads around that
some of them concluded that itmust have been a staged argument
.
In other words, they didn'tbelieve it was real.
Rather, it was planned by theapostles for a purpose.
Apparently, this view was heldby Jerome and John Chrysostom
and, according to Jerome, evenOrigen held this view was held
by Jerome and John Chrysostomand, according to Jerome, even
Origen held this view.
(01:26):
I don't know about you, but inmy opinion this idea sounds like
quite a stretch.
Why would the apostles go tothat length to role play before
their churches and then go asfar as to put their theatrics
into writing.
Wouldn't that be a littledeceptive?
To get things started, I wantto ask two questions.
(01:47):
One, did Peter and Pauldisagree on their doctrine?
And two, was Peter preaching adifferent gospel than Paul?
Some do in fact see this as adispute in doctrinal teaching,
or at least doctrinal error onthe part of Peter.
We could speculate that Peterwas still growing in spiritual
maturity, and there's certainlysome truth to that.
(02:09):
But if Peter is siding with thecircumcision group, would he
not also be guilty of observingthe customs of the law?
This would have to mean thatPeter was mixing law and grace,
wouldn't it?
I've entertained this ideamyself.
It would seem possible, basedon this passage, that Peter was
caught up in legalism for a timeand that he had fallen away
(02:29):
from grace, so to speak, in hisunderstanding of the gospel.
Now others conclude that this isa food issue.
This view sees Peter as havingabandoned the Jewish dietary
customs prior to the men comingfrom James.
And by eating a Jewish diet infront of the Gentiles joining
with the people from James,peter essentially displayed a
(02:49):
law-based behavior.
Peter's eating displayed thatobservance of the law continued
with the gospel and in this waywould have provoked Gentiles to
observe the Mosaic law and driftaway from a true faith in the
Lord.
Apart from works, this isprobably the most common view
today, but was this eventcentered around the food being
(03:09):
eaten?
Was the food itself even partof the issue at all, and why
might this be important torealize?
I want to challenge yourthinking today and present a
less common view on thissituation.
This ties into my last message,number 62, in our Roman study,
and even ties into Paul's letterto the Romans, although the
(03:30):
passage is actually found inGalatians.
In my interpretation of whenPaul rebukes Peter in Galatians,
we'll explore a view that mayprove there was never any
dispute in doctrine or of thefood being eaten, but rather a
mentality that saw the Jews asthe superior race and placed the
Gentiles outside of the quoteinner circles of salvation.
(03:51):
This mentality would makeGentiles not equal to Jews and
would stand in opposition to thepurpose of the gospel, which
brought the same salvation toall people, the Jew first and
also the Gentile, if Gentileswho were zealous for the Lord
were to believe that being likethe Jews brought them into the
inner circle of faith, they'd betempted to become proselytes
(04:13):
and undergo circumcision.
This was the very thing Paulspoke out against.
This was hypocrisy, we mightsay.
Then why can't the food beingeaten or the Jewish dietary
customs themselves, whichpromote a works-based salvation
unto the Gentiles, pertain tothe issue?
And this is truly the questionwe have to be asking here.
And the answer is if we are tomake this about food, we make
(04:38):
Paul the hypocrite when he callsthe recipients of his letter to
bear with the weak brothers.
Romans 14 reads I know and ampersuaded in the Lord Jesus that
nothing is unclean in itself,but it is unclean for anyone who
thinks it's unclean, for ifyour brother is grieved by what
you eat, you are no longerwalking in love by what you eat.
(04:59):
Do not destroy the one for whomChrist died.
Can you see Paul's allegedhypocrisy here?
In Antioch, paul seems torebuke Peter's eating, and in
his Romans letter he seems to betelling Christians to bear with
people like Peter and even notto judge their opinions on these
matters.
We see that Peter feared thoseof the circumcision.
This was clearly a weak momentfor Peter.
(05:21):
Why does Paul not apply his ownprinciples here?
Should we be comfortable seeingPaul as a hypocrite.
Was Paul just blowing histemper at Peter?
We could certainly conclude thatPaul was still maturing in
faith and later changed his mindabout the issue.
But it's unreasonable to thinkthat Paul became more
sympathetic to the practice ofMosaic law over time as he
(05:43):
ministered to Gentile nations,rather than less sympathetic to
the practice of Mosaic law overtime as he ministered to Gentile
nations, rather than lesssympathetic to the practice.
But is it reasonable to thinkthat Paul became more
sympathetic to the practice ofMosaic law over time as he
ministered to Gentile nations,rather than less sympathetic to
the practice?
But wait a minute.
Doesn't Paul speak againstmixing law and grace in all of
(06:05):
his letters?
How can he tell his audiencenot to judge these opinions when
he does the very thingthroughout all of his writings?
Romans 14.1 reads I think weneed to figure this out, don't
you?
Let's explore this topicfurther, starting with the
(06:27):
hypocrisy in Antioch, shall we?
By establishing that Peter wasplaying the hypocrite, we can
rule out the possibility thatPeter was preaching a false
gospel or a false doctrine.
We can also begin to determinewhether the true hypocrite was
Peter or Paul, beginning ourinvestigation, the first clue we
must consider to shift ourmomentum while explaining when
(06:48):
Peter rebukes Paul, is that Paulcalls Peter's behavior
hypocrisy.
He could have called itapostasy, but he didn't.
He called it hypocrisy.
Peter didn't stop believing inthe gospel of grace, but his
behavior was in opposition tothe truth.
Believing in the gospel ofgrace, but his behavior was in
opposition to the truth.
In Galatians 2.12 we read Forbefore certain men came from
(07:08):
James, he was eating with theGentiles, but when they came he
drew back and separated himself,fearing the circumcision.
Party, and the rest of the Jewsacted hypocritically along with
him, so that even Barnabas wasled astray by their hypocrisy.
Of course we can alwaysproclaim that behavior like this
follows an error in thinking.
It seems there must have beensome error that led Peter and
(07:30):
the others to behave in such away.
In his judgment, paul goes asfar as saying but when Cephas
came to Antioch, I opposed himto his face because he stood
condemned.
So we see that, according toPaul, peter stood condemned.
We should first note thatstanding condemned here does not
have to mean Peter was out offellowship with Yahweh or that
salvation was in some way atstake.
(07:52):
Paul proclaims there is nocondemnation for those in Christ
Yeshua, romans 8.1.
There is therefore now nocondemnation for those who are
in Christ Jesus.
So to conclude that Peter losthis fellowship or salvation here
would make Paul a hypocrite andplace Peter outside of Christ.
Peter was chosen by Christ tobe an apostle, so neither of
(08:12):
these options are reasonablefrom my vantage point.
Peter stood condemned by thetruth of the gospel.
In other words, his behaviorwas in opposition to the truth
he proclaimed.
So the truth condemned hiserror Galatians 2.14.
But when I saw that theirconduct was not in step with the
truth of the gospel, I said toCephas, before them all If you,
(08:33):
though a Jew, live like aGentile, not like a Jew, how can
you force the Gentiles to livelike Jews?
This is why Paul calls Peter ahypocrite.
Peter understood the truth andproclaimed the truth, while
behaving in a way that wascontrary to that truth.
Did Peter understand the truthof the gospel?
Before we continue, let's take amoment to look at the
(08:53):
scriptures to see if Peter mayhave not fully understood the
gospel of grace.
We should make sure that thiswas not some kind of doctrinal
error among the apostles,wouldn't you say Before Paul
rebukes Peter, as recorded inhis letter to the Galatians he
writes and that's Galatians 2.9.
(09:23):
Paul seems to be making itclear to the Galatians that,
before the Antioch incident,peter, james and John those who
seemed to be pillars fullyaccepted his gospel of grace
when he presented it inJerusalem.
Who would give someone theright hand of fellowship if they
didn't agree with them on keypoints?
Do you often see someone'sright-hand man sending a
(09:45):
different message than the onewho put them in their position?
That would be corruption,wouldn't it?
Are we to think that Paultraveled all that way to deceive
the other apostles by beingless than honest about his
gospel?
Or even that the other apostleswere simply making Paul feel
important while truly notagreeing with the gospel he
presented to them?
When we look at it this way, itseems clear that they actually
(10:09):
agreed about the gospel of grace, doesn't it?
If all the apostles agreed ontheir doctrinal teaching, then
why was there such an issue whenPeter came to Antioch?
Well, we should first finishaddressing what Paul begins
saying in his rebuke to Peter.
Galatians 2.14 reads but when Isaw that their conduct was not
in step with the truth of thegospel, I said to Cephas, before
(10:32):
them all If you, though a Jewlive like a Gentile, not like a
Jew.
How can you force Gentiles tolive like Jews?
It's easy to say here thatPeter living like a Gentile
refers back to his eating like aGentile prior to the men who
came from James making their ownlunch table for the elite class
of Yahweh.
In other words, peter suddenlyate like a Jew, in accordance to
(10:55):
their customs, rather thanenjoying crab legs and bacon
with the Gentiles.
But where do we actually seeanything about the food eaten?
I want to give you some foodfor thought here.
Is there something else Paulmight have meant by Peter who
was a Jew living like a Gentile?
How did a Christian Gentilelive according to what we read
(11:16):
in Paul's letters?
Is it reasonable to concludethat Paul refers to Peter living
by faith similar to theGentiles, but then behaving like
the Mosaic law made you upperclass or put you in the inner
circles of salvation?
Was the issue more so about theseparate lunch table than what
type of food was being eaten?
(11:36):
Does this view bring a harmonyto scripture that releases Paul
from being labeled the realhypocrite here?
We still have more to addressbefore we can obtain certainty,
so let's see if we can rule outfood as the issue first.
Most commonly today we embracethe idea that Paul rebukes Peter
for his sudden change of diet.
In other words, most scholarsbelieve we see Peter going back
(11:59):
to a Jewish diet when, prior tothe Antioch incident, he was on
a Gentile diet, learning howgreat it was to eat ham.
This places much of the focusof Peter's error on the food he
was eating.
In order to understand thebasis of any view we take here,
we must address Peter'sprophetic vision that he had and
how he met Cornelius.
(12:19):
Peter had a major paradigmshift in this moment, but it may
not be what we tend to think itwas.
The event begins in Acts 10, 1-6.
At Caesarea there was a mannamed Cornelius, a centurion of
what was known as the Italiancohort, a devout man who feared
God with all his household, gavealms generously to the people
(12:42):
and prayed continually to God.
About the ninth hour of the day, he saw clearly in a vision an
angel of God come in and say tohim Cornelius, and he stared at
him in terror and said what isit, lord?
And he said to him your prayersand your alms have ascended as
a memorial before God, and nowsend men to Joppa and bring one
(13:02):
Simon who is called Peter.
He is lodging with one Simon, atanner, whose house is by the
sea.
So Cornelius sends for Peter,and meanwhile, in Acts 10, 9-16,
.
The next day, as they were ontheir journey and approaching
the city, peter went up on thehousetop about the sixth hour to
pray and he became hungry andwanted something to eat.
(13:23):
But while they were preparingit, he fell into a trance and
saw the heavens opened andsomething like a great sheet
descending, being let down byits four corners, upon the earth
.
In it were all kinds of animalsand reptiles and birds of the
air.
And there came a voice to himRise, peter, kill and eat.
But Peter said by no means.
Rise Peter, kill and eat.
But Peter said by no means,lord, for I have never eaten
(13:45):
anything that is common orunclean.
And the voice came to him againa second time what God has made
clean, do not call common.
This happened three times andthe thing was taken up at once
to heaven.
While we're pondering Peter'svision, we should consider
carefully what Luke records next, acts 10, 17.
(14:06):
Now, while Peter was inwardlyperplexed as to what the vision
that he had seen might mean,behold the men who were sent by
Cornelius, having made inquiryfor Simon's house, stood at the
gate.
Why would Peter be perplexed?
Doesn't it seem super obviousthat the Lord told Peter that he
can eat anything and that allfood is clean?
(14:26):
Yahweh must be telling Peter toquit the Jewish diet that he
remained on out of ignorance,even after receiving the Holy
Spirit right.
Isn't it a bit odd that Peterhadn't already ditched Torah
slash law observance by thattime?
It was early in his maturity,granted, but shouldn't have been
made clear after the cross andresurrection that Torah was no
(14:48):
longer relevant for worship orobedience?
Well, let's finish the storybefore we make any final
discernment.
The men from Cornelius sent forPeter Acts 10, 19-22,.
And while Peter was ponderingthe vision, the Spirit said to
him Behold, three men arelooking for you.
Rise and go down and accompanythem without hesitation, for I
(15:09):
have sent them.
And Peter went down to the menand said I'm the one you're
looking for.
What is the reason for yourcoming?
And they said Cornelius, acenturion, an upright and
God-fearing man who was wellspoken by the whole, coming,
that he fell down at his feet,but Peter told him to get up and
(15:37):
that they were both just men.
It's what Peter said next thatwe ought to make special note of
Acts 10.
Through 28.
And he talked with him.
And as he talked with him, hewent in and found many persons
gathered and he said to them youyourselves know how unlawful it
is for a Jew to associate withor to visit anyone of another
(15:58):
nation, but God has shown methat I should not call any
person common or unclean.
All right, this is a lot totake in if we're to understand
what is happening here.
Let's make note of several keypoints that we've come across so
far.
One Peter has a vision and avoice tells him to kill and eat
(16:18):
unclean animals, to which Peterreplies I've never eaten
anything that is common orunclean.
2.
Peter's perplexed at themeaning of the vision, even
after the voice says what Godhas made clean, do not call
common.
3.
When Peter is brought toCornelius, he understands the
vision to have meant that heshould not call any person
(16:41):
common or unclean.
4.
Prior to sharing his revelation, peter tells the Gentiles among
Cornelius you yourselves knowhow unlawful it is for a Jew to
associate with or to visitanyone of another nation.
Today we seem to see Peter'svision in an earthly way we make
it about the food we think.
(17:01):
Good for you, peter, have thatsteak and lobster dinner.
You deserve it, buddy.
But Peter seems to be guided bythe Holy Spirit and instead
considered a spiritualunderstanding of his vision.
Peter doesn't even consider thevision to be about a change of
diet for himself.
Based on what we read.
Prior to Peter understanding hisrevelation from the Lord, he
(17:22):
had never eaten anything unclean.
I have to admit, this is a bitperplexing when we consider that
he understood the gospel,received the Holy Spirit and was
sent out by Christ Yeshua to bean ambassador for Christ among
the Jews.
Peter lived under grace and hadstill not changed his Jewish
diet.
How could he not want to trysuch things as ham, lobster and
(17:42):
bacon?
Do we see any evidence thatPeter changed his diet after the
vision?
We really don't, do we?
But he does change his viewsabout what is clean and unclean.
We should consider that Petermay have eaten an unclean meal
among them.
He was cleansed by the blood ofChrist.
He didn't have to eat cleanfood according to grace.
(18:04):
Was God going to suddenly begincounting Peter's sins against
him if he ate like a Gentile?
All things were permissible toPeter, but were all things
beneficial to Peter.
Something to consider here wouldbe Cornelius understood and
respected Judaism, so, expectingcompany of a Jew, he may have
prepared clean food for hisguests, but what purpose might
(18:27):
Peter have?
The answer here may be reallysimple.
For the Jewish people,disobedience to the law or Torah
would be seen as apostasy.
Peter was an apostle to the lawor Torah would be seen as
apostasy.
Peter was an apostle to theJews.
Would he be able to win therespect of his Jewish brothers
(18:47):
as a proclaimed apostate?
Would it not be honoring toYahweh that his Jewish apostles
remain obedient to Torah inorder to win over the elect
among Israel?
Would that not be the lovingthing to do?
This may seem to be a radicalconcept, but the motivation
would be genuine and not at alllegalistic in the proper context
(19:08):
.
But let's not get too far ahead.
We should get back to our storyfor now.
The climax of the scene occursafter Cornelius explains to
Peter how he had been visited byan angel in response to his
prayer and in remembrance of hisalms and sent for Peter.
But when Peter heard this, heresponded.
Truly, I understand that Godshows no partiality, but in
(19:29):
every nation, anyone who fearshim and does what is right is
acceptable to him.
That's Acts 10.34.
But then Peter begins to sharethe gospel with Cornelius, along
with the men who were there,and before he even finished what
he was saying, the Holy Spiritfell on all who heard.
Luke records that the peoplewho were with Peter from among
the circumcised meaning the Jewswere amazed and could not
(19:52):
believe that the gift of theHoly Spirit had been poured out
among the Gentiles In thisentire event.
We have yet to see any solidindication of a change of diet
among Peter or the otherbelieving Jews, but instead we
have Peter wake up to thehypocrisy of the Jewish customs
of their day.
Yahweh never commanded Jews notto associate or visit those of
(20:13):
other nations.
Torah never states thisanywhere.
The word unlawful that isrecorded as being used in Peter
in Luke's book of Acts is onlyused one other time in our
scripture, and it's in a writingfrom Peter.
1 Peter 4.3 says For the timethat is past suffices for doing
what the Gentiles want to doliving in sensuality, passions,
(20:36):
drunkenness, orgies, drinkingparties and lawless idolatry.
In Acts 10.28, peter said youyourselves know how unlawful it
is for a Jew to associate withor to visit anyone of another
nation, but God has shown methat I should not call any
person common or unclean.
In Greek our word unlawful orlawless is ethemetos.
(20:58):
The word was translatedunlawful in Acts 10.28, and here
in 1 Peter 4.3, it's translatedlawless.
The King James translateslawless idolatry as abominable
idolatries According to Strong'sathamatos don't judge me on my
Greek can be defined as illegalby implication, flagitious,
(21:23):
abominable, unlawful thing.
So both of these translationscan fit, depending on context.
Just to be sure we understandabominable and how it applies to
something other than a snowman.
Merriam-webster definesabominable as formal, worthy of
or causing disgust or hatred,detestable, the abominable
(21:44):
treatment of the poor, anabominable crime and also very
bad or unpleasant, abominableweather.
If not found in the law ofMoses that Jews cannot associate
with Gentiles, then where doesPeter come up with this view?
I discussed the topic of how themindset of most Pharisees was
that they were an exclusive andsuperior race in my last message
(22:07):
, number 62.
Christ Yeshua's well-knownturning over the tables in the
temple courts of Jerusalemdisplays how Gentiles were being
treated at that time in theJerusalem temple.
That's in Matthew 21, 12-17,.
The Jewish leaders turned theGentiles' place of worship into
a trading center.
This Jewish superior racementality must have been what
(22:30):
Peter had inherited in his pastlife.
He was under the impressionthat Gentiles were a lesser
people and even that it wasdisgusting to be associating
with them.
Abominable this type ofcovetousness could be the very
reason Paul decides to focus oncovetousness in his writing of
Romans 7, verse 7.
(22:51):
Many of the Jews have becomeguilty of not wanting to share
salvation with the other nations.
They wanted to keep it forthemselves.
The Gentiles were dogs to them.
We see Peter, who is fromGalilee, having held this
attitude.
But was this the attitude ofthe Jews in Caesarea, where
Cornelius lived?
The next question we'll ask iswas Peter's view consistent with
(23:12):
all Jews throughout theDiaspora?
Is it not written in Acts 10.22, cornelius, a centurion, an
upright and God-fearing man whois well spoken of by the whole
Jewish nation.
If Cornelius could centurion,an upright and God-fearing man
who is well spoken of by thewhole Jewish nation, if
Cornelius could not beassociated with, how could he be
viewed in this way?
It seems that we're in need ofmore context here, so let's see
(23:34):
what we can find on Jew-Gentilerelations, the Synagogues of the
Diaspora After the fall ofJudah and the destruction of the
first Jerusalem temple in 586BC, the Jewish exiles faced a
possible extinction of theirculture.
As a result, the synagogue aroseas the center of Jewish
(23:54):
religion and social life.
I talk on these details of thesynagogues in my last message,
number 62.
Synagogues were foundthroughout the Roman Empire
anywhere a community of Jewslived, and after their exile to
Babylon, jews began dispersingthroughout the world in a
movement called the Diaspora,which is the Greek word for
(24:15):
scatter.
Meeting regularly in the localsynagogue was pivotal.
Jews in the Diaspora maintainedties by traveling back to
Jerusalem to worship in thetemple, at certain times to
observe the feasts of Yahweh,etc.
It's found historically thatthese Diaspora synagogues were
independent of one another anddid not necessarily share the
(24:35):
same views on all things.
It would seem, based on thefollowing passage, that the way
the Gentiles were viewed was oneof the things they did not all
see the same way.
At the very least, synagogueswere more welcoming to Gentiles
than what we see at the templein Jerusalem.
At the Jerusalem temple duringthe Feast of Booths, we read in
(24:56):
John 7.32,.
The Pharisees heard the crowdmuttering these things about him
, and the chief priests andPharisees sent officers to
arrest him.
Jesus then said I will be withyou a little longer and then I
am going to him.
Who sent me?
You will seek me and you willnot find me when I am, you
cannot come.
The Jews said to one anotherwhen does this man intend to go
(25:18):
that we will not find him?
Does he intend to go to thedispersion among the Greeks and
teach the Greeks?
Pharisees in Jerusalem certainlyhad the covetousness described
in Romans 7-7 by Paul, but theirthought process seems to be
that going into the Diasporasynagogues, called dispersion
here, would be to placethemselves among the Gentiles.
(25:40):
They felt that if Yeshua wereto go to those places, he would
be teaching among the Greeks.
How would that be if all Jewsin the Diaspora were disgusted
by Greeks?
Did the Diaspora Jews not haveall the same views on Gentiles
as the Pharisees?
It would seem impossible toplace Peter's view on all the
Jewish people and in all theJewish communities of the
(26:01):
Diaspora when Luke records thosesent from Peter by Cornelius
saying Cornelius, a centurion,an upright and God-fearing man
who is well spoken of by thewhole Jewish nation, was
directed by a holy angel to sendfor you to come to his house
and to hear what you have to sayDo you think the chief priests
and Pharisees would have spokenhighly of an uncircumcised
(26:22):
Gentile?
It doesn't seem like it, doesit?
Cornelius was not what theywould consider a full proselyte.
He had not become a Jew throughcircumcision.
When we look at the firstcentury views of the Jews, we
find that there seems to be twokinds of proselytes when it
comes to Gentiles.
They weren't all at the samelevel.
It's interesting to realizethat although the Jews created a
(26:44):
minimum requirement forGentiles to be accepted into
their communities, they didn'treally know how Gentiles fit
into the new age that was tocome.
They didn't really have clarityon how Gentiles fit into
salvation.
They all believed salvation wasfor the Jews.
Therefore, a Gentile wouldnever be considered an equal.
A Gentile would be part of thecommunity as long as the minimum
(27:05):
requirements were met, whichwere the Noahide laws we went
over in my last message, number62.
We also discovered in the studythat these Noahide laws line up
very well with the apostolicdecree that was decided upon in
Acts 15.
The eating requirements of bothof these are mentioned in the
Law of Moses, leviticus 17.10.
(27:25):
The apostolic decree, as wellas the Noahide laws, would allow
a Gentile to meet the minimumrequirements for being accepted
into the Jewish synagoguecommunities.
It was no coincidence that theapostolic decree would allow
Jews and Gentiles to gathertogether for worship and even
share table fellowship with oneanother.
This would allow theirdistinction to remain without
(27:46):
discrimination.
Let's talk a little bit aboutproselytes.
We see in Acts 15 that theapostolic council in Jerusalem
made their decree in light ofGentiles being told that they
needed to be circumcised to besaved.
Judaizers like those Peter wentaway from Gentiles to eat with
were building a wall between Jewand Gentile.
(28:07):
Luke calls them believers amongthe party of the Pharisees.
According to the party of thePharisees, gentiles would have
to be circumcised and obey Torah, the law of Moses, in order to
be saved and partake in theinner circles.
I believe the Gentiles inAntioch already respected the
Jews and their sensitivities,otherwise Peter would not have
(28:29):
been eating with them.
This can be argued if we thinkPeter ate like a Gentile and not
just with the Gentiles.
Eating with the Gentiles iswhat the text says.
We'll get to finalizing thisissue, but first I want to look
at what seems to be the twotypes of Gentile proselytes that
we see involved in thediscussion of the Jerusalem
(28:50):
Council in Acts 15.
In Acts 10, we read of arighteous Gentile, cornelius,
who received the same HolySpirit the Jews had received.
Cornelius was considered arighteous Gentile, but prior to
Peter's revelation, he wouldhave been considered unclean by
Peter.
Cornelius was certainly not anequal in Peter's mind, meaning
that he was not observing thefull Mosaic law.
(29:11):
He had not gone all the way andbecome a Jew.
Therefore, he must have met theminimum requirements set out in
the Noahide law.
Some call this a proselyte ofthe gate, probably because they
would only be allowed in theouter Gentile courts of the
temple and not the inner rooms.
If Cornelius had gone all theway, peter would have considered
(29:33):
him as a Jew and Corneliuswould not have been among the
first Gentiles to receive theHoly Spirit.
It would have been no big deal.
He was only consideredrighteous by the Jews he
communed with due to his faithin Yahweh and meeting the
minimum requirements of thecommunity.
In order to become a Jew, aGentile would be required to
submit to the fullness of theMosaic Law.
(29:54):
This, of course, would beginwith circumcision.
Upon meeting the fullrequirements, they were to be
seen as Jews and even assignedto a tribe.
This was probably based onYahweh's command in Ezekiel
47.21.
Those circumcised and convertedwould certainly be proselytes
to the fullest degree.
A proselyte meeting the minimumrequirements could be
(30:17):
considered a proselyte of thegate, while those proselytes who
were circumcised and enteredinto Judaism had become part of
the inner circles and wereessentially Jews.
It could be argued that theseinner circle Gentiles were the
righteous Gentiles, but thatcannot be the case because
Cornelius was considered as suchin Acts 10.22.
We can conclude, however, thatCornelius was not considered
(30:40):
equal to the Jews.
I think his falling at Peter'sfeet displays his thinking on
this in some sense, and Peter'sviews prior to his revelation
certainly fall in line with this.
So we see that not all Gentileswho worshipped Yahweh had
become Jews, but they could goto that measure if they wanted
to.
This would essentially make aGentile a Jew.
(31:01):
Paul stood strongly againstGentiles becoming Jews upon the
beginning of the new covenant,following the cross and
resurrection of Yeshua, and atthe receiving of the new
covenant, following the crossand resurrection of Yeshua, and
at the receiving of the HolySpirit at Pentecost, paul wanted
Gentile Christians to respectthe customs, not enter into them
.
According to Paul, gentiles didnot need to become Jews to
share in fellowship andsalvation.
(31:22):
They were to be consideredequals in the faith, regardless
of race.
The remaining question we haveto answer here is did Paul want
Jews to become Gentiles?
In other words, did he promoteJews leaving their culture,
communities and obedience toTorah when becoming a Christian?
When Paul rebukes Peter, is hetelling Peter that his
(31:44):
observation of Torah was out ofline and that he should behave
like Gentiles?
Is Paul telling Peter not toeat like a Jew?
Our answer to this question canquickly fall out of harmony
with scripture and lead us intoa trap where Paul plays the
hypocrite and not Peter.
When Paul rebukes Peter, who isactually the hypocrite?
Was Paul in error, due toanxiety?
(32:06):
Did Paul later change his mindand become more tolerant to
Jewish Christians observingTorah and eating like Jews?
When we get to Romans, chapter14, we see what seems to be a
different side of Paul, who hasbecome much more tolerant and
even completely accepting of thebehavior that he describes
Peter displaying in Galatians 2.
Romans 14, 13-18.
(32:28):
Therefore, let us not passjudgment on one another any
longer.
Romans 14, 13-18.
Unclean, for if your brother isgrieved by what you eat, you
are no longer walking in love bywhat you eat.
(32:51):
Do not destroy the one for whomChrist died.
So do not let what you regardas good be spoken of as evil,
for the kingdom of God is not amatter of eating and drinking,
but of righteousness and peaceand joy in the Holy Spirit.
Whoever thus serves Christ isacceptable to God and approved
by men.
Does Paul now show us a changeof heart and a complete reversal
(33:13):
of his previous views when herebuked Peter?
Should Peter actually haverebuked Paul?
Does Paul now tell his audiencenot to judge the weak
Christians who are falling intoa law-based belief system?
Is Paul saying that weakChristians should not be
confronted when they begin tosee a law-based behavior?
As Is Paul saying that weakChristians should not be
confronted when they begin tosee a law-based behavior as a
source of righteousness?
(33:35):
How can we reconcile Paul'srebuke of Peter, let alone all
of his writings, with thisconcept?
Is he telling them not to dowhat he does?
Think about that for a moment.
If we're to coddle those whofall away from grace, how are
they ever to grow in maturity?
This makes no sense at all,does it?
Does Paul actually defend theside of error in this place and
(33:58):
reject it everywhere else?
This is an extremely difficultpassage to reconcile if we don't
understand context.
The question I'm about to ask isnot often asked, but if you
follow my blog, you may not besurprised that I'm willing to go
there.
We have to ask the hardquestions if we're to find the
truth that is buried in therubble of information at our
(34:19):
disposal.
I think I may have lightenedthe load so far, but this is a
massive shift of paradigm thatI'm presenting to you, so don't
be triggered.
Let me explain and you'll seethat I'm not pushing legalism
and this concept is not at allas radical as it seems on the
surface.
And remember, we need to letthe scripture shape our minds
and not let our minds shape thescripture.
(34:40):
Test the spirit of this doctrinefor yourself.
I'm certainly not perfect.
I'm a work in progress.
I'm learning things every day,but the battle against ignorance
must carry on.
We have to fight for truth atall costs.
Are you ready for this?
The question I challenge youwith is this Did the apostles
(35:01):
practice the Mosaic law?
And I intend on presenting youa shocking answer in my next
message, without compromisingthe gospel of grace.
Until then, have a great dayout there.
Speaker 1 (35:16):
Thank you for listening to the Waking Up to
Grace podcast brought to you bythe finished work of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
If you enjoyed today's episode,we would love to hear from you.
You can send encouragement ourway right from our episodes and
transcripts page or reach Lennyprivately from the contact form.
Hello and welcome to the Waking Up To Grace podcast,
where we celebrate and explorethe finished work of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
Tune in to the Waking Up ToGrace podcast on every major
platform.
You can also listen to ourepisodes and read our full
transcripts atWakingUpToGracecom.
And now here's Lenny.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
The moment when Paul rebukes Peter, as told by Paul
in his letter to the Galatians,has been the subject of much
attention over the years.
Paul begins the story of hisrebuke to Peter saying but when
Cephas came to Antioch, Iopposed him to his face because
he stood.
Condemned For before certainmen came from James, he was
(00:43):
eating with the Gentiles.
Condemned For before certainmen came from James, he was
eating with the Gentiles, butwhen they came, he drew back and
separated himself, fearing thecircumcision party, and the rest
of the Jews actedhypocritically along with him,
so that even Barnabas was ledastray by their hypocrisy.
That's Galatians 2.11-13.
The fact that Paul rebukesPeter in Antioch was so hard for
(01:06):
the early church fathers towrap their heads around that
some of them concluded that itmust have been a staged argument
.
In other words, they didn'tbelieve it was real.
Rather, it was planned by theapostles for a purpose.
Apparently, this view was heldby Jerome and John Chrysostom
and, according to Jerome, evenOrigen held this view was held
by Jerome and John Chrysostomand, according to Jerome, even
Origen held this view.
(01:26):
I don't know about you, but inmy opinion this idea sounds like
quite a stretch.
Why would the apostles go tothat length to role play before
their churches and then go asfar as to put their theatrics
into writing.
Wouldn't that be a littledeceptive?
To get things started, I wantto ask two questions.
(01:47):
One, did Peter and Pauldisagree on their doctrine?
And two, was Peter preaching adifferent gospel than Paul?
Some do in fact see this as adispute in doctrinal teaching,
or at least doctrinal error onthe part of Peter.
We could speculate that Peterwas still growing in spiritual
maturity, and there's certainlysome truth to that.
(02:09):
But if Peter is siding with thecircumcision group, would he
not also be guilty of observingthe customs of the law?
This would have to mean thatPeter was mixing law and grace,
wouldn't it?
I've entertained this ideamyself.
It would seem possible, basedon this passage, that Peter was
caught up in legalism for a timeand that he had fallen away
(02:29):
from grace, so to speak, in hisunderstanding of the gospel.
Now others conclude that this isa food issue.
This view sees Peter as havingabandoned the Jewish dietary
customs prior to the men comingfrom James.
And by eating a Jewish diet infront of the Gentiles joining
with the people from James,peter essentially displayed a
(02:49):
law-based behavior.
Peter's eating displayed thatobservance of the law continued
with the gospel and in this waywould have provoked Gentiles to
observe the Mosaic law and driftaway from a true faith in the
Lord.
Apart from works, this isprobably the most common view
today, but was this eventcentered around the food being
(03:09):
eaten?
Was the food itself even partof the issue at all, and why
might this be important torealize?
I want to challenge yourthinking today and present a
less common view on thissituation.
This ties into my last message,number 62, in our Roman study,
and even ties into Paul's letterto the Romans, although the
(03:30):
passage is actually found inGalatians.
In my interpretation of whenPaul rebukes Peter in Galatians,
we'll explore a view that mayprove there was never any
dispute in doctrine or of thefood being eaten, but rather a
mentality that saw the Jews asthe superior race and placed the
Gentiles outside of the quoteinner circles of salvation.
(03:51):
This mentality would makeGentiles not equal to Jews and
would stand in opposition to thepurpose of the gospel, which
brought the same salvation toall people, the Jew first and
also the Gentile, if Gentileswho were zealous for the Lord
were to believe that being likethe Jews brought them into the
inner circle of faith, they'd betempted to become proselytes
(04:13):
and undergo circumcision.
This was the very thing Paulspoke out against.
This was hypocrisy, we mightsay.
Then why can't the food beingeaten or the Jewish dietary
customs themselves, whichpromote a works-based salvation
unto the Gentiles, pertain tothe issue?
And this is truly the questionwe have to be asking here.
And the answer is if we are tomake this about food, we make
(04:38):
Paul the hypocrite when he callsthe recipients of his letter to
bear with the weak brothers.
Romans 14 reads I know and ampersuaded in the Lord Jesus that
nothing is unclean in itself,but it is unclean for anyone who
thinks it's unclean, for ifyour brother is grieved by what
you eat, you are no longerwalking in love by what you eat.
(04:59):
Do not destroy the one for whomChrist died.
Can you see Paul's allegedhypocrisy here?
In Antioch, paul seems torebuke Peter's eating, and in
his Romans letter he seems to betelling Christians to bear with
people like Peter and even notto judge their opinions on these
matters.
We see that Peter feared thoseof the circumcision.
This was clearly a weak momentfor Peter.
(05:21):
Why does Paul not apply his ownprinciples here?
Should we be comfortable seeingPaul as a hypocrite.
Was Paul just blowing histemper at Peter?
We could certainly conclude thatPaul was still maturing in
faith and later changed his mindabout the issue.
But it's unreasonable to thinkthat Paul became more
sympathetic to the practice ofMosaic law over time as he
(05:43):
ministered to Gentile nations,rather than less sympathetic to
the practice of Mosaic law overtime as he ministered to Gentile
nations, rather than lesssympathetic to the practice.
But is it reasonable to thinkthat Paul became more
sympathetic to the practice ofMosaic law over time as he
ministered to Gentile nations,rather than less sympathetic to
the practice?
But wait a minute.
Doesn't Paul speak againstmixing law and grace in all of
(06:05):
his letters?
How can he tell his audiencenot to judge these opinions when
he does the very thingthroughout all of his writings?
Romans 14.1 reads I think weneed to figure this out, don't
you?
Let's explore this topicfurther, starting with the
(06:27):
hypocrisy in Antioch, shall we?
By establishing that Peter wasplaying the hypocrite, we can
rule out the possibility thatPeter was preaching a false
gospel or a false doctrine.
We can also begin to determinewhether the true hypocrite was
Peter or Paul, beginning ourinvestigation, the first clue we
must consider to shift ourmomentum while explaining when
(06:48):
Peter rebukes Paul, is that Paulcalls Peter's behavior
hypocrisy.
He could have called itapostasy, but he didn't.
He called it hypocrisy.
Peter didn't stop believing inthe gospel of grace, but his
behavior was in opposition tothe truth.
Believing in the gospel ofgrace, but his behavior was in
opposition to the truth.
In Galatians 2.12 we read Forbefore certain men came from
(07:08):
James, he was eating with theGentiles, but when they came he
drew back and separated himself,fearing the circumcision.
Party, and the rest of the Jewsacted hypocritically along with
him, so that even Barnabas wasled astray by their hypocrisy.
Of course we can alwaysproclaim that behavior like this
follows an error in thinking.
It seems there must have beensome error that led Peter and
(07:30):
the others to behave in such away.
In his judgment, paul goes asfar as saying but when Cephas
came to Antioch, I opposed himto his face because he stood
condemned.
So we see that, according toPaul, peter stood condemned.
We should first note thatstanding condemned here does not
have to mean Peter was out offellowship with Yahweh or that
salvation was in some way atstake.
(07:52):
Paul proclaims there is nocondemnation for those in Christ
Yeshua, romans 8.1.
There is therefore now nocondemnation for those who are
in Christ Jesus.
So to conclude that Peter losthis fellowship or salvation here
would make Paul a hypocrite andplace Peter outside of Christ.
Peter was chosen by Christ tobe an apostle, so neither of
(08:12):
these options are reasonablefrom my vantage point.
Peter stood condemned by thetruth of the gospel.
In other words, his behaviorwas in opposition to the truth
he proclaimed.
So the truth condemned hiserror Galatians 2.14.
But when I saw that theirconduct was not in step with the
truth of the gospel, I said toCephas, before them all If you,
(08:33):
though a Jew, live like aGentile, not like a Jew, how can
you force the Gentiles to livelike Jews?
This is why Paul calls Peter ahypocrite.
Peter understood the truth andproclaimed the truth, while
behaving in a way that wascontrary to that truth.
Did Peter understand the truthof the gospel?
Before we continue, let's take amoment to look at the
(08:53):
scriptures to see if Peter mayhave not fully understood the
gospel of grace.
We should make sure that thiswas not some kind of doctrinal
error among the apostles,wouldn't you say Before Paul
rebukes Peter, as recorded inhis letter to the Galatians he
writes and that's Galatians 2.9.
(09:23):
Paul seems to be making itclear to the Galatians that,
before the Antioch incident,peter, james and John those who
seemed to be pillars fullyaccepted his gospel of grace
when he presented it inJerusalem.
Who would give someone theright hand of fellowship if they
didn't agree with them on keypoints?
Do you often see someone'sright-hand man sending a
(09:45):
different message than the onewho put them in their position?
That would be corruption,wouldn't it?
Are we to think that Paultraveled all that way to deceive
the other apostles by beingless than honest about his
gospel?
Or even that the other apostleswere simply making Paul feel
important while truly notagreeing with the gospel he
presented to them?
When we look at it this way, itseems clear that they actually
(10:09):
agreed about the gospel of grace, doesn't it?
If all the apostles agreed ontheir doctrinal teaching, then
why was there such an issue whenPeter came to Antioch?
Well, we should first finishaddressing what Paul begins
saying in his rebuke to Peter.
Galatians 2.14 reads but when Isaw that their conduct was not
in step with the truth of thegospel, I said to Cephas, before
(10:32):
them all If you, though a Jewlive like a Gentile, not like a
Jew.
How can you force Gentiles tolive like Jews?
It's easy to say here thatPeter living like a Gentile
refers back to his eating like aGentile prior to the men who
came from James making their ownlunch table for the elite class
of Yahweh.
In other words, peter suddenlyate like a Jew, in accordance to
(10:55):
their customs, rather thanenjoying crab legs and bacon
with the Gentiles.
But where do we actually seeanything about the food eaten?
I want to give you some foodfor thought here.
Is there something else Paulmight have meant by Peter who
was a Jew living like a Gentile?
How did a Christian Gentilelive according to what we read
(11:16):
in Paul's letters?
Is it reasonable to concludethat Paul refers to Peter living
by faith similar to theGentiles, but then behaving like
the Mosaic law made you upperclass or put you in the inner
circles of salvation?
Was the issue more so about theseparate lunch table than what
type of food was being eaten?
(11:36):
Does this view bring a harmonyto scripture that releases Paul
from being labeled the realhypocrite here?
We still have more to addressbefore we can obtain certainty,
so let's see if we can rule outfood as the issue first.
Most commonly today we embracethe idea that Paul rebukes Peter
for his sudden change of diet.
In other words, most scholarsbelieve we see Peter going back
(11:59):
to a Jewish diet when, prior tothe Antioch incident, he was on
a Gentile diet, learning howgreat it was to eat ham.
This places much of the focusof Peter's error on the food he
was eating.
In order to understand thebasis of any view we take here,
we must address Peter'sprophetic vision that he had and
how he met Cornelius.
(12:19):
Peter had a major paradigmshift in this moment, but it may
not be what we tend to think itwas.
The event begins in Acts 10, 1-6.
At Caesarea there was a mannamed Cornelius, a centurion of
what was known as the Italiancohort, a devout man who feared
God with all his household, gavealms generously to the people
(12:42):
and prayed continually to God.
About the ninth hour of the day, he saw clearly in a vision an
angel of God come in and say tohim Cornelius, and he stared at
him in terror and said what isit, lord?
And he said to him your prayersand your alms have ascended as
a memorial before God, and nowsend men to Joppa and bring one
(13:02):
Simon who is called Peter.
He is lodging with one Simon, atanner, whose house is by the
sea.
So Cornelius sends for Peter,and meanwhile, in Acts 10, 9-16,
.
The next day, as they were ontheir journey and approaching
the city, peter went up on thehousetop about the sixth hour to
pray and he became hungry andwanted something to eat.
(13:23):
But while they were preparingit, he fell into a trance and
saw the heavens opened andsomething like a great sheet
descending, being let down byits four corners, upon the earth
.
In it were all kinds of animalsand reptiles and birds of the
air.
And there came a voice to himRise, peter, kill and eat.
But Peter said by no means.
Rise Peter, kill and eat.
But Peter said by no means,lord, for I have never eaten
(13:45):
anything that is common orunclean.
And the voice came to him againa second time what God has made
clean, do not call common.
This happened three times andthe thing was taken up at once
to heaven.
While we're pondering Peter'svision, we should consider
carefully what Luke records next, acts 10, 17.
(14:06):
Now, while Peter was inwardlyperplexed as to what the vision
that he had seen might mean,behold the men who were sent by
Cornelius, having made inquiryfor Simon's house, stood at the
gate.
Why would Peter be perplexed?
Doesn't it seem super obviousthat the Lord told Peter that he
can eat anything and that allfood is clean?
(14:26):
Yahweh must be telling Peter toquit the Jewish diet that he
remained on out of ignorance,even after receiving the Holy
Spirit right.
Isn't it a bit odd that Peterhadn't already ditched Torah
slash law observance by thattime?
It was early in his maturity,granted, but shouldn't have been
made clear after the cross andresurrection that Torah was no
(14:48):
longer relevant for worship orobedience?
Well, let's finish the storybefore we make any final
discernment.
The men from Cornelius sent forPeter Acts 10, 19-22,.
And while Peter was ponderingthe vision, the Spirit said to
him Behold, three men arelooking for you.
Rise and go down and accompanythem without hesitation, for I
(15:09):
have sent them.
And Peter went down to the menand said I'm the one you're
looking for.
What is the reason for yourcoming?
And they said Cornelius, acenturion, an upright and
God-fearing man who was wellspoken by the whole, coming,
that he fell down at his feet,but Peter told him to get up and
(15:37):
that they were both just men.
It's what Peter said next thatwe ought to make special note of
Acts 10.
Through 28.
And he talked with him.
And as he talked with him, hewent in and found many persons
gathered and he said to them youyourselves know how unlawful it
is for a Jew to associate withor to visit anyone of another
(15:58):
nation, but God has shown methat I should not call any
person common or unclean.
All right, this is a lot totake in if we're to understand
what is happening here.
Let's make note of several keypoints that we've come across so
far.
One Peter has a vision and avoice tells him to kill and eat
(16:18):
unclean animals, to which Peterreplies I've never eaten
anything that is common orunclean.
2.
Peter's perplexed at themeaning of the vision, even
after the voice says what Godhas made clean, do not call
common.
3.
When Peter is brought toCornelius, he understands the
vision to have meant that heshould not call any person
(16:41):
common or unclean.
4.
Prior to sharing his revelation, peter tells the Gentiles among
Cornelius you yourselves knowhow unlawful it is for a Jew to
associate with or to visitanyone of another nation.
Today we seem to see Peter'svision in an earthly way we make
it about the food we think.
(17:01):
Good for you, peter, have thatsteak and lobster dinner.
You deserve it, buddy.
But Peter seems to be guided bythe Holy Spirit and instead
considered a spiritualunderstanding of his vision.
Peter doesn't even consider thevision to be about a change of
diet for himself.
Based on what we read.
Prior to Peter understanding hisrevelation from the Lord, he
(17:22):
had never eaten anything unclean.
I have to admit, this is a bitperplexing when we consider that
he understood the gospel,received the Holy Spirit and was
sent out by Christ Yeshua to bean ambassador for Christ among
the Jews.
Peter lived under grace and hadstill not changed his Jewish
diet.
How could he not want to trysuch things as ham, lobster and
(17:42):
bacon?
Do we see any evidence thatPeter changed his diet after the
vision?
We really don't, do we?
But he does change his viewsabout what is clean and unclean.
We should consider that Petermay have eaten an unclean meal
among them.
He was cleansed by the blood ofChrist.
He didn't have to eat cleanfood according to grace.
(18:04):
Was God going to suddenly begincounting Peter's sins against
him if he ate like a Gentile?
All things were permissible toPeter, but were all things
beneficial to Peter.
Something to consider here wouldbe Cornelius understood and
respected Judaism, so, expectingcompany of a Jew, he may have
prepared clean food for hisguests, but what purpose might
(18:27):
Peter have?
The answer here may be reallysimple.
For the Jewish people,disobedience to the law or Torah
would be seen as apostasy.
Peter was an apostle to the lawor Torah would be seen as
apostasy.
Peter was an apostle to theJews.
Would he be able to win therespect of his Jewish brothers
(18:47):
as a proclaimed apostate?
Would it not be honoring toYahweh that his Jewish apostles
remain obedient to Torah inorder to win over the elect
among Israel?
Would that not be the lovingthing to do?
This may seem to be a radicalconcept, but the motivation
would be genuine and not at alllegalistic in the proper context
(19:08):
.
But let's not get too far ahead.
We should get back to our storyfor now.
The climax of the scene occursafter Cornelius explains to
Peter how he had been visited byan angel in response to his
prayer and in remembrance of hisalms and sent for Peter.
But when Peter heard this, heresponded.
Truly, I understand that Godshows no partiality, but in
(19:29):
every nation, anyone who fearshim and does what is right is
acceptable to him.
That's Acts 10.34.
But then Peter begins to sharethe gospel with Cornelius, along
with the men who were there,and before he even finished what
he was saying, the Holy Spiritfell on all who heard.
Luke records that the peoplewho were with Peter from among
the circumcised meaning the Jewswere amazed and could not
(19:52):
believe that the gift of theHoly Spirit had been poured out
among the Gentiles In thisentire event.
We have yet to see any solidindication of a change of diet
among Peter or the otherbelieving Jews, but instead we
have Peter wake up to thehypocrisy of the Jewish customs
of their day.
Yahweh never commanded Jews notto associate or visit those of
(20:13):
other nations.
Torah never states thisanywhere.
The word unlawful that isrecorded as being used in Peter
in Luke's book of Acts is onlyused one other time in our
scripture, and it's in a writingfrom Peter.
1 Peter 4.3 says For the timethat is past suffices for doing
what the Gentiles want to doliving in sensuality, passions,
(20:36):
drunkenness, orgies, drinkingparties and lawless idolatry.
In Acts 10.28, peter said youyourselves know how unlawful it
is for a Jew to associate withor to visit anyone of another
nation, but God has shown methat I should not call any
person common or unclean.
In Greek our word unlawful orlawless is ethemetos.
(20:58):
The word was translatedunlawful in Acts 10.28, and here
in 1 Peter 4.3, it's translatedlawless.
The King James translateslawless idolatry as abominable
idolatries According to Strong'sathamatos don't judge me on my
Greek can be defined as illegalby implication, flagitious,
(21:23):
abominable, unlawful thing.
So both of these translationscan fit, depending on context.
Just to be sure we understandabominable and how it applies to
something other than a snowman.
Merriam-webster definesabominable as formal, worthy of
or causing disgust or hatred,detestable, the abominable
(21:44):
treatment of the poor, anabominable crime and also very
bad or unpleasant, abominableweather.
If not found in the law ofMoses that Jews cannot associate
with Gentiles, then where doesPeter come up with this view?
I discussed the topic of how themindset of most Pharisees was
that they were an exclusive andsuperior race in my last message
(22:07):
, number 62.
Christ Yeshua's well-knownturning over the tables in the
temple courts of Jerusalemdisplays how Gentiles were being
treated at that time in theJerusalem temple.
That's in Matthew 21, 12-17,.
The Jewish leaders turned theGentiles' place of worship into
a trading center.
This Jewish superior racementality must have been what
(22:30):
Peter had inherited in his pastlife.
He was under the impressionthat Gentiles were a lesser
people and even that it wasdisgusting to be associating
with them.
Abominable this type ofcovetousness could be the very
reason Paul decides to focus oncovetousness in his writing of
Romans 7, verse 7.
(22:51):
Many of the Jews have becomeguilty of not wanting to share
salvation with the other nations.
They wanted to keep it forthemselves.
The Gentiles were dogs to them.
We see Peter, who is fromGalilee, having held this
attitude.
But was this the attitude ofthe Jews in Caesarea, where
Cornelius lived?
The next question we'll ask iswas Peter's view consistent with
(23:12):
all Jews throughout theDiaspora?
Is it not written in Acts 10.22, cornelius, a centurion, an
upright and God-fearing man whois well spoken of by the whole
Jewish nation.
If Cornelius could centurion,an upright and God-fearing man
who is well spoken of by thewhole Jewish nation, if
Cornelius could not beassociated with, how could he be
viewed in this way?
It seems that we're in need ofmore context here, so let's see
(23:34):
what we can find on Jew-Gentilerelations, the Synagogues of the
Diaspora After the fall ofJudah and the destruction of the
first Jerusalem temple in 586BC, the Jewish exiles faced a
possible extinction of theirculture.
As a result, the synagogue aroseas the center of Jewish
(23:54):
religion and social life.
I talk on these details of thesynagogues in my last message,
number 62.
Synagogues were foundthroughout the Roman Empire
anywhere a community of Jewslived, and after their exile to
Babylon, jews began dispersingthroughout the world in a
movement called the Diaspora,which is the Greek word for
(24:15):
scatter.
Meeting regularly in the localsynagogue was pivotal.
Jews in the Diaspora maintainedties by traveling back to
Jerusalem to worship in thetemple, at certain times to
observe the feasts of Yahweh,etc.
It's found historically thatthese Diaspora synagogues were
independent of one another anddid not necessarily share the
(24:35):
same views on all things.
It would seem, based on thefollowing passage, that the way
the Gentiles were viewed was oneof the things they did not all
see the same way.
At the very least, synagogueswere more welcoming to Gentiles
than what we see at the templein Jerusalem.
At the Jerusalem temple duringthe Feast of Booths, we read in
(24:56):
John 7.32,.
The Pharisees heard the crowdmuttering these things about him
, and the chief priests andPharisees sent officers to
arrest him.
Jesus then said I will be withyou a little longer and then I
am going to him.
Who sent me?
You will seek me and you willnot find me when I am, you
cannot come.
The Jews said to one anotherwhen does this man intend to go
(25:18):
that we will not find him?
Does he intend to go to thedispersion among the Greeks and
teach the Greeks?
Pharisees in Jerusalem certainlyhad the covetousness described
in Romans 7-7 by Paul, but theirthought process seems to be
that going into the Diasporasynagogues, called dispersion
here, would be to placethemselves among the Gentiles.
(25:40):
They felt that if Yeshua wereto go to those places, he would
be teaching among the Greeks.
How would that be if all Jewsin the Diaspora were disgusted
by Greeks?
Did the Diaspora Jews not haveall the same views on Gentiles
as the Pharisees?
It would seem impossible toplace Peter's view on all the
Jewish people and in all theJewish communities of the
(26:01):
Diaspora when Luke records thosesent from Peter by Cornelius
saying Cornelius, a centurion,an upright and God-fearing man
who is well spoken of by thewhole Jewish nation, was
directed by a holy angel to sendfor you to come to his house
and to hear what you have to sayDo you think the chief priests
and Pharisees would have spokenhighly of an uncircumcised
(26:22):
Gentile?
It doesn't seem like it, doesit?
Cornelius was not what theywould consider a full proselyte.
He had not become a Jew throughcircumcision.
When we look at the firstcentury views of the Jews, we
find that there seems to be twokinds of proselytes when it
comes to Gentiles.
They weren't all at the samelevel.
It's interesting to realizethat although the Jews created a
(26:44):
minimum requirement forGentiles to be accepted into
their communities, they didn'treally know how Gentiles fit
into the new age that was tocome.
They didn't really have clarityon how Gentiles fit into
salvation.
They all believed salvation wasfor the Jews.
Therefore, a Gentile wouldnever be considered an equal.
A Gentile would be part of thecommunity as long as the minimum
(27:05):
requirements were met, whichwere the Noahide laws we went
over in my last message, number62.
We also discovered in the studythat these Noahide laws line up
very well with the apostolicdecree that was decided upon in
Acts 15.
The eating requirements of bothof these are mentioned in the
Law of Moses, leviticus 17.10.
(27:25):
The apostolic decree, as wellas the Noahide laws, would allow
a Gentile to meet the minimumrequirements for being accepted
into the Jewish synagoguecommunities.
It was no coincidence that theapostolic decree would allow
Jews and Gentiles to gathertogether for worship and even
share table fellowship with oneanother.
This would allow theirdistinction to remain without
(27:46):
discrimination.
Let's talk a little bit aboutproselytes.
We see in Acts 15 that theapostolic council in Jerusalem
made their decree in light ofGentiles being told that they
needed to be circumcised to besaved.
Judaizers like those Peter wentaway from Gentiles to eat with
were building a wall between Jewand Gentile.
(28:07):
Luke calls them believers amongthe party of the Pharisees.
According to the party of thePharisees, gentiles would have
to be circumcised and obey Torah, the law of Moses, in order to
be saved and partake in theinner circles.
I believe the Gentiles inAntioch already respected the
Jews and their sensitivities,otherwise Peter would not have
(28:29):
been eating with them.
This can be argued if we thinkPeter ate like a Gentile and not
just with the Gentiles.
Eating with the Gentiles iswhat the text says.
We'll get to finalizing thisissue, but first I want to look
at what seems to be the twotypes of Gentile proselytes that
we see involved in thediscussion of the Jerusalem
(28:50):
Council in Acts 15.
In Acts 10, we read of arighteous Gentile, cornelius,
who received the same HolySpirit the Jews had received.
Cornelius was considered arighteous Gentile, but prior to
Peter's revelation, he wouldhave been considered unclean by
Peter.
Cornelius was certainly not anequal in Peter's mind, meaning
that he was not observing thefull Mosaic law.
(29:11):
He had not gone all the way andbecome a Jew.
Therefore, he must have met theminimum requirements set out in
the Noahide law.
Some call this a proselyte ofthe gate, probably because they
would only be allowed in theouter Gentile courts of the
temple and not the inner rooms.
If Cornelius had gone all theway, peter would have considered
(29:33):
him as a Jew and Corneliuswould not have been among the
first Gentiles to receive theHoly Spirit.
It would have been no big deal.
He was only consideredrighteous by the Jews he
communed with due to his faithin Yahweh and meeting the
minimum requirements of thecommunity.
In order to become a Jew, aGentile would be required to
submit to the fullness of theMosaic Law.
(29:54):
This, of course, would beginwith circumcision.
Upon meeting the fullrequirements, they were to be
seen as Jews and even assignedto a tribe.
This was probably based onYahweh's command in Ezekiel
47.21.
Those circumcised and convertedwould certainly be proselytes
to the fullest degree.
A proselyte meeting the minimumrequirements could be
(30:17):
considered a proselyte of thegate, while those proselytes who
were circumcised and enteredinto Judaism had become part of
the inner circles and wereessentially Jews.
It could be argued that theseinner circle Gentiles were the
righteous Gentiles, but thatcannot be the case because
Cornelius was considered as suchin Acts 10.22.
We can conclude, however, thatCornelius was not considered
(30:40):
equal to the Jews.
I think his falling at Peter'sfeet displays his thinking on
this in some sense, and Peter'sviews prior to his revelation
certainly fall in line with this.
So we see that not all Gentileswho worshipped Yahweh had
become Jews, but they could goto that measure if they wanted
to.
This would essentially make aGentile a Jew.
(31:01):
Paul stood strongly againstGentiles becoming Jews upon the
beginning of the new covenant,following the cross and
resurrection of Yeshua, and atthe receiving of the new
covenant, following the crossand resurrection of Yeshua, and
at the receiving of the HolySpirit at Pentecost, paul wanted
Gentile Christians to respectthe customs, not enter into them
.
According to Paul, gentiles didnot need to become Jews to
share in fellowship andsalvation.
(31:22):
They were to be consideredequals in the faith, regardless
of race.
The remaining question we haveto answer here is did Paul want
Jews to become Gentiles?
In other words, did he promoteJews leaving their culture,
communities and obedience toTorah when becoming a Christian?
When Paul rebukes Peter, is hetelling Peter that his
(31:44):
observation of Torah was out ofline and that he should behave
like Gentiles?
Is Paul telling Peter not toeat like a Jew?
Our answer to this question canquickly fall out of harmony
with scripture and lead us intoa trap where Paul plays the
hypocrite and not Peter.
When Paul rebukes Peter, who isactually the hypocrite?
Was Paul in error, due toanxiety?
(32:06):
Did Paul later change his mindand become more tolerant to
Jewish Christians observingTorah and eating like Jews?
When we get to Romans, chapter14, we see what seems to be a
different side of Paul, who hasbecome much more tolerant and
even completely accepting of thebehavior that he describes
Peter displaying in Galatians 2.
Romans 14, 13-18.
(32:28):
Therefore, let us not passjudgment on one another any
longer.
Romans 14, 13-18.
Unclean, for if your brother isgrieved by what you eat, you
are no longer walking in love bywhat you eat.
(32:51):
Do not destroy the one for whomChrist died.
So do not let what you regardas good be spoken of as evil,
for the kingdom of God is not amatter of eating and drinking,
but of righteousness and peaceand joy in the Holy Spirit.
Whoever thus serves Christ isacceptable to God and approved
by men.
Does Paul now show us a changeof heart and a complete reversal
(33:13):
of his previous views when herebuked Peter?
Should Peter actually haverebuked Paul?
Does Paul now tell his audiencenot to judge the weak
Christians who are falling intoa law-based belief system?
Is Paul saying that weakChristians should not be
confronted when they begin tosee a law-based behavior?
As Is Paul saying that weakChristians should not be
confronted when they begin tosee a law-based behavior as a
source of righteousness?
(33:35):
How can we reconcile Paul'srebuke of Peter, let alone all
of his writings, with thisconcept?
Is he telling them not to dowhat he does?
Think about that for a moment.
If we're to coddle those whofall away from grace, how are
they ever to grow in maturity?
This makes no sense at all,does it?
Does Paul actually defend theside of error in this place and
(33:58):
reject it everywhere else?
This is an extremely difficultpassage to reconcile if we don't
understand context.
The question I'm about to ask isnot often asked, but if you
follow my blog, you may not besurprised that I'm willing to go
there.
We have to ask the hardquestions if we're to find the
truth that is buried in therubble of information at our
(34:19):
disposal.
I think I may have lightenedthe load so far, but this is a
massive shift of paradigm thatI'm presenting to you, so don't
be triggered.
Let me explain and you'll seethat I'm not pushing legalism
and this concept is not at allas radical as it seems on the
surface.
And remember, we need to letthe scripture shape our minds
and not let our minds shape thescripture.
(34:40):
Test the spirit of this doctrinefor yourself.
I'm certainly not perfect.
I'm a work in progress.
I'm learning things every day,but the battle against ignorance
must carry on.
We have to fight for truth atall costs.
Are you ready for this?
The question I challenge youwith is this Did the apostles
(35:01):
practice the Mosaic law?
And I intend on presenting youa shocking answer in my next
message, without compromisingthe gospel of grace.
Until then, have a great dayout there.
Speaker 1 (35:16):
Thank you for listening to the Waking Up to
Grace podcast brought to you bythe finished work of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
If you enjoyed today's episode,we would love to hear from you.
You can send encouragement ourway right from our episodes and
transcripts page or reach Lennyprivately from the contact form.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.