Dake Bible Discussion BoardLevel of understanding - mind of Christ

General Discussion Forum devoted to the study of God's Word in Honor of Finis J. Dake.
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: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by luchnia »

Grandfather wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:38 pm
I am surprised by the lack of understanding of this passage found in Gal 2.

Peter was enjoying himself eating with the Gentiles. He, Peter, stopped eating with them when Paul arrived. Peter hypocrisy (of himself living life a gentile, eating unclean foods) caused even Barnabas to be led astray. As Paul wrote: “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal 2:14)

So, Hiltop, you asked what error? The lie of hypocrisy that caused others to do the same.
You stated: For something to be a sin it has to be the result of a temptation, lust, and enticement. Well, Peter drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. (Gal 2:12)
You wrote: "Many do accuse Peter of sin for that "dissimulation". I don't" - I do not believe anyone here accused him of dissimulation but of hypocrisy. He stopped eating because of fear, not respect.
Yes, and here is what really seals the deal so to state. What is walking not uprightly? Paul believed Peter was to be blamed and openly exposed his error of not walking according to the truth of the gospel.

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12For 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. 13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14But 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?"


Word up!

Hill Top
Repent and Be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ Because of the Remission of Sins
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by Hill Top »

Grandfather wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:57 am
Hill Top wrote:
Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:57 pm
It was from God, but until God showed Peter it wasn't in effect anymore it did apply to his life.
At the time God showed Peter it wasn’t in effect anymore, the eating of “unclean” foods had already been revealed to Peter. Remember Acts 10 ?
That is where it was revealed to him, the only time.
What you are proposing is a very dangerous position. It appears that you are holding that if a person is in ignorance he is acceptable to God, even the ignorance of not applying what God had shown him earlier.
We seem to be on different tracks here...
Where is the "earlier" than Acts 10 revelation you write of?

If a man doesn't know something is a sin, how can he be charged with it?
There are things every man's conscience makes known to him as sin.
Murder, theft, adultery, etc.
Other things must be learned.
Modesty, appropriate reverence, separation from worldly things, our outward appearance and conduct to the unbelievers, etc.
You are also proving the point that one needs more than just the word of God. Peter was told these things were okay in Acts 10, but he need Paul to remind him of what the Lord had said.
You are mixing Gal 2 in the equation.
Peter didn't leave the Gentiles because of food, but because Jews and Gentiles weren't even to be under the same roof.
Additionally, this passages shows that the Apostle Peter bent to the pressures of his audience.
So, was Peter saved or not at this point?
Peter was caught between two worlds.
Who to please?
The visiting adherents to OT law or the natives free from such law.
It was a no win position.
One sect or the other was going to be offended.
Paul got on Peter because Peter's dissimulation lent false credence to keeping the OT law.
Peter missed a chance to enlighten the visitors.
I don't feel that Peter was in sin because of that.
I sure wish we had the rest of the story from Galatia...did the visiting Jews join in with the Gentiles?
Did Paul let the visiting Jews know about the end of the law, circumcision, separation from the "heathen", dietary restrictions, etc.?
I bet he did...



Hill Top
Repent and Be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ Because of the Remission of Sins
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by Hill Top »

Grandfather wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:38 pm
I am surprised by the lack of understanding of this passage found in Gal 2.
Peter was enjoying himself eating with the Gentiles. He, Peter, stopped eating with them when Paul arrived. Peter hypocrisy (of himself living life a gentile, eating unclean foods) caused even Barnabas to be led astray. As Paul wrote: “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal 2:14)
What they were eating is never shown in Galatians 2.
He wasn't even supposed to be under the same roof. (Acts 10:28)
So, Hiltop, you asked what error? The lie of hypocrisy that caused others to do the same.
You stated: For something to be a sin it has to be the result of a temptation, lust, and enticement. Well, Peter drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. (Gal 2:12)
You wrote: "Many do accuse Peter of sin for that "dissimulation". I don't" - I do not believe anyone here accused him of dissimulation but of hypocrisy. He stopped eating because of fear, not respect.
Hypocrisy to who?
To the Jews he was a hypocrite for being in the same building with Gentiles/heathens.
To the Gentiles he was a hypocrite for separating himself when other Jews visited.
He was in a no win situation.
Accused of sin, no matter what he did.
His error was in that his separation lent credence to the POV that the Mosaic Law and customs were still in effect.

Do you feel that all the other Jews in Jerusalem were sinners for their adherence to separation from the heathens?
Or for their views on circumcision?



Hill Top
Repent and Be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ Because of the Remission of Sins
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by Hill Top »

luchnia wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 6:27 pm
Grandfather wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:38 pm
I am surprised by the lack of understanding of this passage found in Gal 2.

Peter was enjoying himself eating with the Gentiles. He, Peter, stopped eating with them when Paul arrived. Peter hypocrisy (of himself living life a gentile, eating unclean foods) caused even Barnabas to be led astray. As Paul wrote: “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (Gal 2:14)

So, Hiltop, you asked what error? The lie of hypocrisy that caused others to do the same.
You stated: For something to be a sin it has to be the result of a temptation, lust, and enticement. Well, Peter drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. (Gal 2:12)
You wrote: "Many do accuse Peter of sin for that "dissimulation". I don't" - I do not believe anyone here accused him of dissimulation but of hypocrisy. He stopped eating because of fear, not respect.
Yes, and here is what really seals the deal so to state. What is walking not uprightly? Paul believed Peter was to be blamed and openly exposed his error of not walking according to the truth of the gospel.

"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12For 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. 13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14But 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?"
The whole crux of Paul's calling out Peter was this..." But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." (Gal 2:17-18)
Peter felt he would be called a sinner by the visitors for being in company with Gentiles.
He erroneously made it look like he was still "under the Law", when the Law was of an old covenant.



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: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by luchnia »

Hill Top wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:21 pm
The whole crux of Paul's calling out Peter was this..." But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." (Gal 2:17-18)
Peter felt he would be called a sinner by the visitors for being in company with Gentiles.
He erroneously made it look like he was still "under the Law", when the Law was of an old covenant.
I agree to a point yet I believe it was much more to it. What was it that Peter was doing that would possibly put him in danger of being "found sinners."? I think Paul's take on it was much worse than Peter fearing being called a sinner by the Jews. Even if Peter felt that way, what was it that was not upright? So the question would be more of was Peter trying to be justified under the law as the rest were, or was it really a concern of the fear of being called a sinner?

Paul says there was fear of the circumcision group, yet he does not say what that fear was. It may even have been the fear of them stoning him if he refused to partake with them, but that is not against the gospel. We really don't know because it does not say. We know according to the verses Peter did not walk uprightly and was to be blamed. Was Peter in danger of frustrating the grace of God by what he was doing? It seems Paul thought so, or at least implied such. Paul hits the bull's eye with telling we are not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Christ.

Here is what Paul says, Galatians 2:16 (KJV)
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 2:18-21 (KJV)
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.


Word up!

Hill Top
Repent and Be Baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ Because of the Remission of Sins
Posts: 759
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Level of understanding - mind of Christ

Post by Hill Top »

luchnia wrote:
Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:48 am
Hill Top wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:21 pm
The whole crux of Paul's calling out Peter was this..." But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." (Gal 2:17-18)
Peter felt he would be called a sinner by the visitors for being in company with Gentiles.
He erroneously made it look like he was still "under the Law", when the Law was of an old covenant.
I agree to a point yet I believe it was much more to it. What was it that Peter was doing that would possibly put him in danger of being "found sinners."? I think Paul's take on it was much worse than Peter fearing being called a sinner by the Jews. Even if Peter felt that way, what was it that was not upright?
So the question would be more of was Peter trying to be justified under the law as the rest were, or was it really a concern of the fear of being called a sinner?
By "rest" I think you are referring to the visitors...right?
If the wording of your final question means...Was Peter afraid of being found a sinner for not adhering to the justification by the Law?"
It would seem so.
I don't feel they can be separated into two questions.
Paul says there was fear of the circumcision group, yet he does not say what that fear was. It may even have been the fear of them stoning him if he refused to partake with them, but that is not against the gospel. We really don't know because it does not say. We know according to the verses Peter did not walk uprightly and was to be blamed. Was Peter in danger of frustrating the grace of God by what he was doing? It seems Paul thought so, or at least implied such. Paul hits the bull's eye with telling we are not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Christ.
Here is what Paul says, Galatians 2:16 (KJV)
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 2:18-21 (KJV)
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Peter's fault was making it look like there was any validity in the Law of separation from the Gentiles.
By separating from the Gentiles, he made it seem as if the Mosaic Law was still in effect, and thus, more important than the new covenant.



Post Reply