Keep in mind Paul rebukes Peter’s behavior, not Peter’s doctrine.
well, I have to disagree with you there… Paul says that Peter is not on the right road in line with the gospel of truth… sounds to me like some doctrine issues are in there… also, Paul goes on to imply that Peter is compelling gentiles to live like Jews… that would be a doctrinal issue, I think…
Jerome in his discussion with Augustine (link was provided), implies the question, why did Peter do what he did? The answer is, so not to lose the people he was working with because they were fragile in their new faith. (paraphrased)
yeah, unfortunately, he does so, according to Paul, by engaging in hypocrisy… and leading others to do so also… perhaps Paul is wrong here about Peter engaging in hypocrisy… but then that leads us back to what else is Paul wrong about?
So Jerome asks (as an interlocutor) why did you Paul,take your disciple Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, have Timothy a gentile, circumcised. [Acts 16:1-3] Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 shave your head, purify yourself and make sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which you previously said is no longer effecting you
well, two things I’ve noted before… here Paul is living like a Jew among Jewish people, different from living Jewish in a gentile church… also, the account in Acts may not be accurate… it sure doesn’t sound like the Paul of Galatians
Let’s face it, there’s a big difference between Peter withdrawing from eating with someone, and Paul circumcizing his disciple (a gentile not a Jew)
well, the ‘eating with’ may have been the Lord’s Supper, in which case I’d say it’s a big deal…
on account of of the Jews Paul was trying to evangelize in the region, and performing acts of the Mosaic law for appearance sake, which he says aren’t binding on him anymore.
I know… doesn’t really make sense, does it? pretty much all scholars say Galatians is written by Paul, many fewer say that Acts is accurate… I think that’s best explanation…
Bottomline, Peter’s action that drew rebuke from Paul, was tame compared to Paul’s actions.
so both Peter and Paul’s actions were bad, but Paul’s was worse? then my question is if a church leader is doing something wrong,
as both Peter and Paul are doing here, do we have to follow them? could Timothy have said, No, Paul, what your about to do here is clearly wrong?
And Paul writes
1 Cor 9:20
To the Jews
yes, to the Jews… he doesn’t say what he does in mixed company…
I became like a Jew, to win the Jews.
in Peter’s case, they are ‘from James’, so I would think they are already ‘won’… if not, why is James sending unbelievers, or newb believers, into the danger zone?
To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
So how do we conclude this?
looks to me like I’ve offered a few great solutions above…
could one say Paul learned a valuable lesson from Peter about effective evangelization practices and he became more flexible in certain disciplines?. As long as one doesn’t compromise doctrine, there’s flexibility of behavior with people you’re working with, so not to lose them?
well, in Peter’s case, it kind of looks like he’s in danger of losing the gentile believers… into whose area he is visiting… the visitors
from James shouldn’t be in danger of being lost, … imo…
Maybe you’re asking, where/when does one draw the line on compromise and flexibility? __________________
well, more what I’m asking, or want to ask, is how someone could read Gal 2, and come away thinking that Paul is presenting Peter as the leader of the church? I can understand if one says that it must be read in context with the whole Bible… then who gets to choose what is the whole Bible? the church? if so, then I think we’re back to 'first accept that the church is always right, then go from there… Hey, great discussion so far, I’m thinking…
