tulsa 2011
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2010
- Messages
- 354
Were There Disagreements Between Paul and Peter?
There is this text in Galatians 2: 9-14 where Paul criticized Peter:
"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. 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?"
But on basic doctrine of the New Covenant is there evidence that Paul and Peter disagreed?
The issue on which Paul and Peter might have had some disagreement at one time was over the Pharisees who believed on Christ but insisted that Christians must follow the entire Law of Moses. The believing Pharisees insisted that Christians follow a unified Torah, or law, which would include what Hebrews 10: 1 and Colossians 2: 27 call the shadows. Paul strongly disagreed with this position of the Pharisees who believed. James, the leader of the Jerusalem Christians in Acts 15: 20-21, 29 did not impose circumcision on the Gentile Christians, but he did say the Gentiles should abstain from meats offered to idols, from things strangled, and from blood, which are not parts of the moral law as is abstaining from fornication, which James also said the Gentile Christians should do.
In Acts 15: 1, 5 "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved....But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." Acts 15: 2 records that Paul and Barnabas "had no small dissension and disputation with them.
But Peter said in Acts 15: 7-9 that God had called the Gentiles by his mouth, gave them the Holy Spirit, and put no difference between the Christians who had been Jews and the Christians who were Gentiles. In Acts 15:10 Peter said not to put a yoke on the Gentile Christians, meaning they had to obey the ceremonial part of the law, including circumcision. Then James in Acts 15: 14-17 quotes Amos 9: 11 and said the prophets, not just Amos 9: 11 agree with what Peter had said about God placing no difference between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, interpreting not only Amos 9: 11 but other Old Testament prophecies on the restoration of Old Covenant Israel as being Israel of the New Covenant in which Gentiles and Jews are together as one body.
But then James in Acts 15: 19-21 compromises between Paul's position against circumcision and the desire of the Pharisees who believed on Christ to have all Christians obey the ceremonial part of the Law of Moses.
The Pharisees who believed on Christ in Acts 21: 20, were said by James to be "all zealous of the law. " What James was talking about is the view that Torah, the Law of Moses, is unified and not divided into a moral and a shadows or ceremonial part. This is the issue that divided Paul from James as the leader of the Jerusalem Christians at that time. Peter may not have made a public statement of disagreement with the position of James, but we do not know what Peter's position was on this issue at that time, nor do we know what John thought about the Pharisees who believed on Christ demanding that Christians obey the ceremonial law.
The Book of Acts ends even before Paul's death and before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. And scripture does not tell us exactly when Peter died.
Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews says that James, called the Just, who was the head of the Christians at Jerusalem, was stoned to death by order of the Pharisees at a time before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
So, there is no good evidence on what Peter and John thought at the time in Acts 21: 20 when James told Paul that there were thousands of Jews which believed and they were all zealous of the law. Many Christians reading Acts 21 may not realize what James meant by the thousands of Jews being zealous of the law. James was talking about them being zealous for the unified Torah, the Law of Moses.
Toward the end of his second letter Peter writes that "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." II Peter 3: 15-16
This implies that Peter did not disagree with those texts written by Paul which are hard for the unlearned and unstable to understand.
Unlearned is Strong's Exhaustive Concordance number 261, amathes, from 3129, manthano, to learn, understand. Those who do not understand and have not learned enough may not understand and may wrestle with some of Paul's texts.
Unstable is Strong's number 793, asteriktos, unfixed, vacillating, and from 4741, to fix, establish. set, strengthen. Those who are vacillating, and not established in the knowledge of the truth of the Gospel of Christ may not understand and may wrestle with some of Paul's more difficult texts. II Peter 1: 12 says "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth."
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" II Timothy 3: 16
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." II Peter 1: 21
Once a person comes to understand the meanings of many scriptures, all of which come from the Holy Spirit, he can then be more established "in the present truth." Those who are not established in the knowledge of the truth of scripture are more likely to find some of Paul's statements hard to understand and they wrestle with these texts and arrive at a wrong understanding of them, often led by the traditions of men.
There is this text in Galatians 2: 9-14 where Paul criticized Peter:
"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. 10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. 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?"
But on basic doctrine of the New Covenant is there evidence that Paul and Peter disagreed?
The issue on which Paul and Peter might have had some disagreement at one time was over the Pharisees who believed on Christ but insisted that Christians must follow the entire Law of Moses. The believing Pharisees insisted that Christians follow a unified Torah, or law, which would include what Hebrews 10: 1 and Colossians 2: 27 call the shadows. Paul strongly disagreed with this position of the Pharisees who believed. James, the leader of the Jerusalem Christians in Acts 15: 20-21, 29 did not impose circumcision on the Gentile Christians, but he did say the Gentiles should abstain from meats offered to idols, from things strangled, and from blood, which are not parts of the moral law as is abstaining from fornication, which James also said the Gentile Christians should do.
In Acts 15: 1, 5 "And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved....But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." Acts 15: 2 records that Paul and Barnabas "had no small dissension and disputation with them.
But Peter said in Acts 15: 7-9 that God had called the Gentiles by his mouth, gave them the Holy Spirit, and put no difference between the Christians who had been Jews and the Christians who were Gentiles. In Acts 15:10 Peter said not to put a yoke on the Gentile Christians, meaning they had to obey the ceremonial part of the law, including circumcision. Then James in Acts 15: 14-17 quotes Amos 9: 11 and said the prophets, not just Amos 9: 11 agree with what Peter had said about God placing no difference between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, interpreting not only Amos 9: 11 but other Old Testament prophecies on the restoration of Old Covenant Israel as being Israel of the New Covenant in which Gentiles and Jews are together as one body.
But then James in Acts 15: 19-21 compromises between Paul's position against circumcision and the desire of the Pharisees who believed on Christ to have all Christians obey the ceremonial part of the Law of Moses.
The Pharisees who believed on Christ in Acts 21: 20, were said by James to be "all zealous of the law. " What James was talking about is the view that Torah, the Law of Moses, is unified and not divided into a moral and a shadows or ceremonial part. This is the issue that divided Paul from James as the leader of the Jerusalem Christians at that time. Peter may not have made a public statement of disagreement with the position of James, but we do not know what Peter's position was on this issue at that time, nor do we know what John thought about the Pharisees who believed on Christ demanding that Christians obey the ceremonial law.
The Book of Acts ends even before Paul's death and before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. And scripture does not tell us exactly when Peter died.
Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews says that James, called the Just, who was the head of the Christians at Jerusalem, was stoned to death by order of the Pharisees at a time before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
So, there is no good evidence on what Peter and John thought at the time in Acts 21: 20 when James told Paul that there were thousands of Jews which believed and they were all zealous of the law. Many Christians reading Acts 21 may not realize what James meant by the thousands of Jews being zealous of the law. James was talking about them being zealous for the unified Torah, the Law of Moses.
Toward the end of his second letter Peter writes that "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." II Peter 3: 15-16
This implies that Peter did not disagree with those texts written by Paul which are hard for the unlearned and unstable to understand.
Unlearned is Strong's Exhaustive Concordance number 261, amathes, from 3129, manthano, to learn, understand. Those who do not understand and have not learned enough may not understand and may wrestle with some of Paul's texts.
Unstable is Strong's number 793, asteriktos, unfixed, vacillating, and from 4741, to fix, establish. set, strengthen. Those who are vacillating, and not established in the knowledge of the truth of the Gospel of Christ may not understand and may wrestle with some of Paul's more difficult texts. II Peter 1: 12 says "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth."
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" II Timothy 3: 16
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." II Peter 1: 21
Once a person comes to understand the meanings of many scriptures, all of which come from the Holy Spirit, he can then be more established "in the present truth." Those who are not established in the knowledge of the truth of scripture are more likely to find some of Paul's statements hard to understand and they wrestle with these texts and arrive at a wrong understanding of them, often led by the traditions of men.
Last edited:
