Dake Bible Discussion BoardDid Paul hate Peter or did Peter hate Paul?

General Discussion Forum devoted to the study of God's Word in Honor of Finis J. Dake.
Post Reply
User avatar
luchnia
Shall Not He that Spared Not His Own Son Freely Give Us All Things?
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:01 am

Did Paul hate Peter or did Peter hate Paul?

Post by luchnia »

Galatians 2:11-14
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

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 after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

I think it is obvious that neither of these men hated each other. I am not defining the term "hate" because I think folks know where I am going with this. What was it that Paul was so against? I bolded the qualifying information.

In the Pillar of fire forum we can see that sometimes words go in the wrong direction and perceived as directed much at the person and not the doctrine. Even though Paul withstood Peter to the face the issue was doctrinal! We should ponder that and get the heart of it.

If a man withstands another person with truth from God's word, my guess is that will be weighed out. If a person is withstood with men's words, that carries little weight. I am merely coming from the standpoint of the believer that holds Christ and Him crucified and rose again as his all.

Paul states that Peter was to be blamed and that he withstood him to his face. We know the rest of the story, which I am glad for. If we did not have the rest of the information this could be a challenging topic and we would no doubt give it many meanings. The fact that Peter withdrew himself and separated himself shows that he was leaning in a bad direction. Paul saw the action of this potential double-standard and spoke directly to the issue when he addressed Peter.

Note when Paul distinguishes this is doctrinal and not personal: "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." He saw they walked not uprightly to the gospel. I so admire how these men separated themselves from what was personal to what was doctrinal. If the Head of the body is lifted up, men can mature. Certainly he addressed Peter, but he stuck to the truth of the gospel.

We can learn that our focus must be the truth of the gospel. There is a level of maturity there with those men that I long for and much more. The type of maturity that can reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all long suffering. The Word is the prevailing focal point before you can do so, anything else is not according to the truth of the gospel.


Word up!

User avatar
bibleman
Administrator
Posts: 1825
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 1998 5:23 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: Did Paul hate Peter or did Peter hate Paul?

Post by bibleman »

luchnia wrote:Galatians 2:11-14
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

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 after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

I think it is obvious that neither of these men hated each other. I am not defining the term "hate" because I think folks know where I am going with this. What was it that Paul was so against? I bolded the qualifying information.

In the Pillar of fire forum we can see that sometimes words go in the wrong direction and perceived as directed much at the person and not the doctrine. Even though Paul withstood Peter to the face the issue was doctrinal! We should ponder that and get the heart of it.

If a man withstands another person with truth from God's word, my guess is that will be weighed out. If a person is withstood with men's words, that carries little weight. I am merely coming from the standpoint of the believer that holds Christ and Him crucified and rose again as his all.

Paul states that Peter was to be blamed and that he withstood him to his face. We know the rest of the story, which I am glad for. If we did not have the rest of the information this could be a challenging topic and we would no doubt give it many meanings. The fact that Peter withdrew himself and separated himself shows that he was leaning in a bad direction. Paul saw the action of this potential double-standard and spoke directly to the issue when he addressed Peter.

Note when Paul distinguishes this is doctrinal and not personal: "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." He saw they walked not uprightly to the gospel. I so admire how these men separated themselves from what was personal to what was doctrinal. If the Head of the body is lifted up, men can mature. Certainly he addressed Peter, but he stuck to the truth of the gospel.

We can learn that our focus must be the truth of the gospel. There is a level of maturity there with those men that I long for and much more. The type of maturity that can reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all long suffering. The Word is the prevailing focal point before you can do so, anything else is not according to the truth of the gospel.
Good word!

Just because we have a disagreement or see faulty theology in someone's teachings does not mean we hate them.

I for one love and respect Branham! I love his simple zeal for the Lord and the way God used him a number of times.

But the sensationalism that accompanied him and his nutty as a fruit cake doctrines... are not to be defended or respected by me for sure.


God bless
Leon Bible

http://www.ministryhelps.com
http://www.dakebible.com
http://www.dakebibleboard.com
https://www.facebook.com/groups/DakeBibleDiscussion/

The fault in Bible complications is not with God or the Bible, but with men who refuse to believe what God says and think we have to interpret what He says in order to get the meaning. Dake Bible -Mark 11:17 note

User avatar
luchnia
Shall Not He that Spared Not His Own Son Freely Give Us All Things?
Posts: 669
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:01 am

Re: Did Paul hate Peter or did Peter hate Paul?

Post by luchnia »

bibleman wrote:
luchnia wrote:Galatians 2:11-14
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

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 after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

I think it is obvious that neither of these men hated each other. I am not defining the term "hate" because I think folks know where I am going with this. What was it that Paul was so against? I bolded the qualifying information.

In the Pillar of fire forum we can see that sometimes words go in the wrong direction and perceived as directed much at the person and not the doctrine. Even though Paul withstood Peter to the face the issue was doctrinal! We should ponder that and get the heart of it.

If a man withstands another person with truth from God's word, my guess is that will be weighed out. If a person is withstood with men's words, that carries little weight. I am merely coming from the standpoint of the believer that holds Christ and Him crucified and rose again as his all.

Paul states that Peter was to be blamed and that he withstood him to his face. We know the rest of the story, which I am glad for. If we did not have the rest of the information this could be a challenging topic and we would no doubt give it many meanings. The fact that Peter withdrew himself and separated himself shows that he was leaning in a bad direction. Paul saw the action of this potential double-standard and spoke directly to the issue when he addressed Peter.

Note when Paul distinguishes this is doctrinal and not personal: "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." He saw they walked not uprightly to the gospel. I so admire how these men separated themselves from what was personal to what was doctrinal. If the Head of the body is lifted up, men can mature. Certainly he addressed Peter, but he stuck to the truth of the gospel.

We can learn that our focus must be the truth of the gospel. There is a level of maturity there with those men that I long for and much more. The type of maturity that can reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all long suffering. The Word is the prevailing focal point before you can do so, anything else is not according to the truth of the gospel.
Good word!

Just because we have a disagreement or see faulty theology in someone's teachings does not mean we hate them.

I for one love and respect Branham! I love his simple zeal for the Lord and the way God used him a number of times.

But the sensationalism that accompanied him and his nutty as a fruit cake doctrines... are not to be defended or respected by me for sure.
:angel: :angel: :angel:


Word up!

Post Reply