Speaker 1: 0:01

Hello and welcome to the Waking Up To Grace podcast, where we celebrate and explore the finished work of our Lord Jesus Christ. Tune in to the Waking Up To Grace podcast on every major platform. You can also listen to our episodes and read our full transcripts at WakingUpToGracecom. And now here's Lenny.

Speaker 2: 0:23

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 his rebuke to Peter saying but when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood. Condemned For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles. Condemned For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles, but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party, and the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. That's Galatians 2.11-13. The fact that Paul rebukes Peter in Antioch was so hard for the early church fathers to wrap their heads around that some of them concluded that it must have been a staged argument. In other words, they didn't believe it was real. Rather, it was planned by the apostles for a purpose. Apparently, this view was held by Jerome and John Chrysostom and, according to Jerome, even Origen held this view was held by Jerome and John Chrysostom and, according to Jerome, even Origen held this view. I don't know about you, but in my opinion this idea sounds like quite a stretch. Why would the apostles go to that length to role play before their churches and then go as far as to put their theatrics into writing. Wouldn't that be a little deceptive? To get things started, I want to ask two questions. One, did Peter and Paul disagree on their doctrine? And two, was Peter preaching a different gospel than Paul? Some do in fact see this as a dispute in doctrinal teaching, or at least doctrinal error on the part of Peter. We could speculate that Peter was still growing in spiritual maturity, and there's certainly some truth to that. But if Peter is siding with the circumcision group, would he not also be guilty of observing the customs of the law? This would have to mean that Peter was mixing law and grace, wouldn't it? I've entertained this idea myself. It would seem possible, based on this passage, that Peter was caught up in legalism for a time and that he had fallen away from grace, so to speak, in his understanding of the gospel.

Speaker 2: 2:33

Now others conclude that this is a food issue. This view sees Peter as having abandoned the Jewish dietary customs prior to the men coming from James. And by eating a Jewish diet in front of the Gentiles joining with the people from James, peter essentially displayed a law-based behavior. Peter's eating displayed that observance of the law continued with the gospel and in this way would have provoked Gentiles to observe the Mosaic law and drift away from a true faith in the Lord. Apart from works, this is probably the most common view today, but was this event centered around the food being eaten? Was the food itself even part of the issue at all, and why might this be important to realize? I want to challenge your thinking today and present a less common view on this situation. This ties into my last message, number 62, in our Roman study, and even ties into Paul's letter to the Romans, although the passage is actually found in Galatians.

Speaker 2: 3:32

In my interpretation of when Paul rebukes Peter in Galatians, we'll explore a view that may prove there was never any dispute in doctrine or of the food being eaten, but rather a mentality that saw the Jews as the superior race and placed the Gentiles outside of the quote inner circles of salvation. This mentality would make Gentiles not equal to Jews and would stand in opposition to the purpose of the gospel, which brought the same salvation to all people, the Jew first and also the Gentile, if Gentiles who were zealous for the Lord were to believe that being like the Jews brought them into the inner circle of faith, they'd be tempted to become proselytes and undergo circumcision. This was the very thing Paul spoke out against. This was hypocrisy, we might say. Then why can't the food being eaten or the Jewish dietary customs themselves, which promote a works-based salvation unto the Gentiles, pertain to the issue? And this is truly the question we have to be asking here. And the answer is if we are to make this about food, we make Paul the hypocrite when he calls the recipients of his letter to bear with the weak brothers.

Speaker 2: 4:43

Romans 14 reads I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it's unclean, for if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love by what you eat. Do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. Can you see Paul's alleged hypocrisy here? In Antioch, paul seems to rebuke Peter's eating, and in his Romans letter he seems to be telling Christians to bear with people like Peter and even not to judge their opinions on these matters. We see that Peter feared those of the circumcision. This was clearly a weak moment for Peter. Why does Paul not apply his own principles here? Should we be comfortable seeing Paul as a hypocrite. Was Paul just blowing his temper at Peter?

Speaker 2: 5:32

We could certainly conclude that Paul was still maturing in faith and later changed his mind about the issue. But it's unreasonable to think that Paul became more sympathetic to the practice of Mosaic law over time as he ministered to Gentile nations, rather than less sympathetic to the practice of Mosaic law over time as he ministered to Gentile nations, rather than less sympathetic to the practice. But is it reasonable to think that Paul became more sympathetic to the practice of Mosaic law over time as he ministered to Gentile nations, rather than less sympathetic to the practice? But wait a minute. Doesn't Paul speak against mixing law and grace in all of his letters? How can he tell his audience not to judge these opinions when he does the very thing throughout all of his writings?

Speaker 2: 6:14

Romans 14.1 reads I think we need to figure this out, don't you? Let's explore this topic further, starting with the hypocrisy in Antioch, shall we? By establishing that Peter was playing the hypocrite, we can rule out the possibility that Peter was preaching a false gospel or a false doctrine. We can also begin to determine whether the true hypocrite was Peter or Paul, beginning our investigation, the first clue we must consider to shift our momentum while explaining when Peter rebukes Paul, is that Paul calls Peter's behavior hypocrisy. He could have called it apostasy, but he didn't. He called it hypocrisy.

Speaker 2: 6:59

Peter didn't stop believing in the gospel of grace, but his behavior was in opposition to the truth. Believing in the gospel of grace, but his behavior was in opposition to the truth. In Galatians 2.12 we read For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles, but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision. Party, and the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. Of course we can always proclaim that behavior like this follows an error in thinking. It seems there must have been some error that led Peter and the others to behave in such a way.

Speaker 2: 7:32

In his judgment, paul goes as far as saying but when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned. So we see that, according to Paul, peter stood condemned. We should first note that standing condemned here does not have to mean Peter was out of fellowship with Yahweh or that salvation was in some way at stake. Paul proclaims there is no condemnation for those in Christ Yeshua, romans 8.1. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. So to conclude that Peter lost his fellowship or salvation here would make Paul a hypocrite and place Peter outside of Christ. Peter was chosen by Christ to be an apostle, so neither of these options are reasonable from my vantage point.

Speaker 2: 8:16

Peter stood condemned by the truth of the gospel. In other words, his behavior was in opposition to the truth he proclaimed. So the truth condemned his error Galatians 2.14. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas, before them all If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile, not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews? This is why Paul calls Peter a hypocrite. Peter understood the truth and proclaimed the truth, while behaving in a way that was contrary to that truth. Did Peter understand the truth of the gospel?

Speaker 2: 8:51

Before we continue, let's take a moment to look at the scriptures to see if Peter may have not fully understood the gospel of grace. We should make sure that this was not some kind of doctrinal error among the apostles, wouldn't you say Before Paul rebukes Peter, as recorded in his letter to the Galatians he writes and that's Galatians 2.9. Paul seems to be making it clear to the Galatians that, before the Antioch incident, peter, james and John those who seemed to be pillars fully accepted his gospel of grace when he presented it in Jerusalem. Who would give someone the right hand of fellowship if they didn't agree with them on key points? Do you often see someone's right-hand man sending a different message than the one who put them in their position? That would be corruption, wouldn't it? Are we to think that Paul traveled all that way to deceive the other apostles by being less than honest about his gospel? Or even that the other apostles were simply making Paul feel important while truly not agreeing with the gospel he presented to them? When we look at it this way, it seems clear that they actually agreed about the gospel of grace, doesn't it? If all the apostles agreed on their doctrinal teaching, then why was there such an issue when Peter came to Antioch? Well, we should first finish addressing what Paul begins saying in his rebuke to Peter.

Speaker 2: 10:24

Galatians 2.14 reads but when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas, before them all If you, though a Jew live like a Gentile, not like a Jew. How can you force Gentiles to live like Jews? It's easy to say here that Peter living like a Gentile refers back to his eating like a Gentile prior to the men who came from James making their own lunch table for the elite class of Yahweh. In other words, peter suddenly ate like a Jew, in accordance to their customs, rather than enjoying crab legs and bacon with the Gentiles. But where do we actually see anything about the food eaten? I want to give you some food for thought here. Is there something else Paul might have meant by Peter who was a Jew living like a Gentile? How did a Christian Gentile live according to what we read in Paul's letters?

Speaker 2: 11:18

Is it reasonable to conclude that Paul refers to Peter living by faith similar to the Gentiles, but then behaving like the Mosaic law made you upper class or put you in the inner circles of salvation? Was the issue more so about the separate lunch table than what type of food was being eaten? Does this view bring a harmony to scripture that releases Paul from being labeled the real hypocrite here? We still have more to address before we can obtain certainty, so let's see if we can rule out food as the issue first. Most commonly today we embrace the idea that Paul rebukes Peter for his sudden change of diet. In other words, most scholars believe we see Peter going back to a Jewish diet when, prior to the Antioch incident, he was on a Gentile diet, learning how great it was to eat ham. This places much of the focus of Peter's error on the food he was eating. In order to understand the basis of any view we take here, we must address Peter's prophetic vision that he had and how he met Cornelius. Peter had a major paradigm shift in this moment, but it may not be what we tend to think it was.

Speaker 2: 12:26

The event begins in Acts 10, 1-6. At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian cohort, a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people 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 to him Cornelius, and he stared at him in terror and said what is it, lord? And he said to him your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God, and now send men to Joppa and bring one Simon who is called Peter. He is lodging with one Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea. So Cornelius sends for Peter, and meanwhile, in Acts 10, 9-16,.

Speaker 2: 13:14

The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray and he became hungry and wanted something to eat. But while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners, upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him Rise, 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 anything that is common or unclean. And the voice came to him again a second time what God has made clean, do not call common. This happened three times and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

Speaker 2: 14:01

While we're pondering Peter's vision, we should consider carefully what Luke records next, acts 10, 17. Now, while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean, behold the men who were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood at the gate. Why would Peter be perplexed? Doesn't it seem super obvious that the Lord told Peter that he can eat anything and that all food is clean? Yahweh must be telling Peter to quit the Jewish diet that he remained on out of ignorance, even after receiving the Holy Spirit right. Isn't it a bit odd that Peter hadn't already ditched Torah slash law observance by that time? It was early in his maturity, granted, but shouldn't have been made clear after the cross and resurrection that Torah was no longer relevant for worship or obedience? Well, let's finish the story before we make any final discernment.

Speaker 2: 14:55

The men from Cornelius sent for Peter Acts 10, 19-22,. And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him Behold, three men are looking for you. Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them. And Peter went down to the men and said I'm the one you're looking for. What is the reason for your coming? And they said Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man who was well spoken by the whole, coming, that he fell down at his feet, but Peter told him to get up and that they were both just men.

Speaker 2: 15:39

It's what Peter said next that we ought to make special note of Acts 10. Through 28. And he talked with him. And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons gathered and he said to them you yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. All right, this is a lot to take in if we're to understand what is happening here.

Speaker 2: 16:10

Let's make note of several key points that we've come across so far. One Peter has a vision and a voice tells him to kill and eat unclean animals, to which Peter replies I've never eaten anything that is common or unclean. 2. Peter's perplexed at the meaning of the vision, even after the voice says what God has made clean, do not call common. 3. When Peter is brought to Cornelius, he understands the vision to have meant that he should not call any person common or unclean. 4. Prior to sharing his revelation, peter tells the Gentiles among Cornelius you yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation.

Speaker 2: 16:56

Today we seem to see Peter's vision in an earthly way we make it about the food we think. Good for you, peter, have that steak and lobster dinner. You deserve it, buddy. But Peter seems to be guided by the Holy Spirit and instead considered a spiritual understanding of his vision. Peter doesn't even consider the vision to be about a change of diet for himself. Based on what we read.

Speaker 2: 17:19

Prior to Peter understanding his revelation from the Lord, he had never eaten anything unclean. I have to admit, this is a bit perplexing when we consider that he understood the gospel, received the Holy Spirit and was sent out by Christ Yeshua to be an ambassador for Christ among the Jews. Peter lived under grace and had still not changed his Jewish diet. How could he not want to try such things as ham, lobster and bacon? Do we see any evidence that Peter changed his diet after the vision? We really don't, do we? But he does change his views about what is clean and unclean. We should consider that Peter may have eaten an unclean meal among them. He was cleansed by the blood of Christ. He didn't have to eat clean food according to grace. Was God going to suddenly begin counting Peter's sins against him if he ate like a Gentile? All things were permissible to Peter, but were all things beneficial to Peter.

Speaker 2: 18:16

Something to consider here would be Cornelius understood and respected Judaism, so, expecting company of a Jew, he may have prepared clean food for his guests, but what purpose might Peter have? The answer here may be really simple. For the Jewish people, disobedience to the law or Torah would be seen as apostasy. Peter was an apostle to the law or Torah would be seen as apostasy. Peter was an apostle to the Jews. Would he be able to win the respect of his Jewish brothers as a proclaimed apostate? Would it not be honoring to Yahweh that his Jewish apostles remain obedient to Torah in order to win over the elect among Israel? Would that not be the loving thing to do? This may seem to be a radical concept, but the motivation would be genuine and not at all legalistic in the proper context. But let's not get too far ahead. We should get back to our story for now.

Speaker 2: 19:13

The climax of the scene occurs after Cornelius explains to Peter how he had been visited by an angel in response to his prayer and in remembrance of his alms and sent for Peter. But when Peter heard this, he responded. Truly, I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation, anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. That's Acts 10.34. But then Peter begins to share the gospel with Cornelius, along with the men who were there, and before he even finished what he was saying, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard. Luke records that the people who were with Peter from among the circumcised meaning the Jews were amazed and could not believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out among the Gentiles In this entire event. We have yet to see any solid indication of a change of diet among Peter or the other believing Jews, but instead we have Peter wake up to the hypocrisy of the Jewish customs of their day. Yahweh never commanded Jews not to associate or visit those of other nations. Torah never states this anywhere.

Speaker 2: 20:17

The word unlawful that is recorded as being used in Peter in Luke's book of Acts is only used one other time in our scripture, and it's in a writing from Peter. 1 Peter 4.3 says For the time that is past suffices for doing what the Gentiles want to do living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking parties and lawless idolatry. In Acts 10.28, peter said you yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. In Greek our word unlawful or lawless is ethemetos. The word was translated unlawful in Acts 10.28, and here in 1 Peter 4.3, it's translated lawless. The King James translates lawless idolatry as abominable idolatries According to Strong's athamatos don't judge me on my Greek can be defined as illegal by implication, flagitious, abominable, unlawful thing. So both of these translations can fit, depending on context. Just to be sure we understand abominable and how it applies to something other than a snowman. Merriam-webster defines abominable as formal, worthy of or causing disgust or hatred, detestable, the abominable treatment of the poor, an abominable crime and also very bad or unpleasant, abominable weather. If not found in the law of Moses that Jews cannot associate with Gentiles, then where does Peter come up with this view?

Speaker 2: 22:00

I discussed the topic of how the mindset of most Pharisees was that they were an exclusive and superior race in my last message, number 62. Christ Yeshua's well-known turning over the tables in the temple courts of Jerusalem displays how Gentiles were being treated at that time in the Jerusalem temple. That's in Matthew 21, 12-17,. The Jewish leaders turned the Gentiles' place of worship into a trading center. This Jewish superior race mentality must have been what Peter had inherited in his past life. He was under the impression that Gentiles were a lesser people and even that it was disgusting to be associating with them. Abominable this type of covetousness could be the very reason Paul decides to focus on covetousness in his writing of Romans 7, verse 7.

Speaker 2: 22:51

Many of the Jews have become guilty of not wanting to share salvation with the other nations. They wanted to keep it for themselves. The Gentiles were dogs to them. We see Peter, who is from Galilee, having held this attitude. But was this the attitude of the Jews in Caesarea, where Cornelius lived? The next question we'll ask is was Peter's view consistent with all Jews throughout the Diaspora? Is it not written in Acts 10.22, cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation. If Cornelius could centurion, an upright and God-fearing man who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, if Cornelius could not be associated with, how could he be viewed in this way? It seems that we're in need of more context here, so let's see what we can find on Jew-Gentile relations, the Synagogues of the Diaspora After the fall of Judah and the destruction of the first Jerusalem temple in 586 BC, the Jewish exiles faced a possible extinction of their culture.

Speaker 2: 23:51

As a result, the synagogue arose as the center of Jewish religion and social life. I talk on these details of the synagogues in my last message, number 62. Synagogues were found throughout the Roman Empire anywhere a community of Jews lived, and after their exile to Babylon, jews began dispersing throughout the world in a movement called the Diaspora, which is the Greek word for scatter. Meeting regularly in the local synagogue was pivotal. Jews in the Diaspora maintained ties by traveling back to Jerusalem to worship in the temple, at certain times to observe the feasts of Yahweh, etc. It's found historically that these Diaspora synagogues were independent of one another and did not necessarily share the same views on all things.

Speaker 2: 24:38

It would seem, based on the following passage, that the way the Gentiles were viewed was one of the things they did not all see the same way. At the very least, synagogues were more welcoming to Gentiles than what we see at the temple in Jerusalem. At the Jerusalem temple during the Feast of Booths, we read in John 7.32,. The Pharisees heard the crowd muttering these things about him, and the chief priests and Pharisees sent officers to arrest him. Jesus then said I will be with you a little longer and then I am going to him. Who sent me? You will seek me and you will not find me when I am, you cannot come. The Jews said to one another when does this man intend to go that we will not find him? Does he intend to go to the dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?

Speaker 2: 25:25

Pharisees in Jerusalem certainly had the covetousness described in Romans 7-7 by Paul, but their thought process seems to be that going into the Diaspora synagogues, called dispersion here, would be to place themselves among the Gentiles. They felt that if Yeshua were to go to those places, he would be teaching among the Greeks. How would that be if all Jews in the Diaspora were disgusted by Greeks? Did the Diaspora Jews not have all the same views on Gentiles as the Pharisees? It would seem impossible to place Peter's view on all the Jewish people and in all the Jewish communities of the Diaspora when Luke records those sent from Peter by Cornelius saying Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what you have to say Do you think the chief priests and Pharisees would have spoken highly of an uncircumcised Gentile? It doesn't seem like it, does it? Cornelius was not what they would consider a full proselyte. He had not become a Jew through circumcision.

Speaker 2: 26:32

When we look at the first century views of the Jews, we find that there seems to be two kinds of proselytes when it comes to Gentiles. They weren't all at the same level. It's interesting to realize that although the Jews created a minimum requirement for Gentiles to be accepted into their communities, they didn't really know how Gentiles fit into the new age that was to come. They didn't really have clarity on how Gentiles fit into salvation. They all believed salvation was for the Jews. Therefore, a Gentile would never be considered an equal. A Gentile would be part of the community as long as the minimum requirements were met, which were the Noahide laws we went over in my last message, number 62. We also discovered in the study that these Noahide laws line up very well with the apostolic decree that was decided upon in Acts 15. The eating requirements of both of these are mentioned in the Law of Moses, leviticus 17.10. The apostolic decree, as well as the Noahide laws, would allow a Gentile to meet the minimum requirements for being accepted into the Jewish synagogue communities. It was no coincidence that the apostolic decree would allow Jews and Gentiles to gather together for worship and even share table fellowship with one another. This would allow their distinction to remain without discrimination.

Speaker 2: 27:48

Let's talk a little bit about proselytes. We see in Acts 15 that the apostolic council in Jerusalem made their decree in light of Gentiles being told that they needed to be circumcised to be saved. Judaizers like those Peter went away from Gentiles to eat with were building a wall between Jew and Gentile. Luke calls them believers among the party of the Pharisees. According to the party of the Pharisees, gentiles would have to be circumcised and obey Torah, the law of Moses, in order to be saved and partake in the inner circles. I believe the Gentiles in Antioch already respected the Jews and their sensitivities, otherwise Peter would not have been eating with them. This can be argued if we think Peter ate like a Gentile and not just with the Gentiles. Eating with the Gentiles is what the text says. We'll get to finalizing this issue, but first I want to look at what seems to be the two types of Gentile proselytes that we see involved in the discussion of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

Speaker 2: 28:52

In Acts 10, we read of a righteous Gentile, cornelius, who received the same Holy Spirit the Jews had received. Cornelius was considered a righteous Gentile, but prior to Peter's revelation, he would have been considered unclean by Peter. Cornelius was certainly not an equal in Peter's mind, meaning that he was not observing the full Mosaic law. He had not gone all the way and become a Jew. Therefore, he must have met the minimum requirements set out in the Noahide law. Some call this a proselyte of the gate, probably because they would only be allowed in the outer Gentile courts of the temple and not the inner rooms. If Cornelius had gone all the way, peter would have considered him as a Jew and Cornelius would not have been among the first Gentiles to receive the Holy Spirit. It would have been no big deal. He was only considered righteous by the Jews he communed with due to his faith in Yahweh and meeting the minimum requirements of the community.

Speaker 2: 29:49

In order to become a Jew, a Gentile would be required to submit to the fullness of the Mosaic Law. This, of course, would begin with circumcision. Upon meeting the full requirements, they were to be seen as Jews and even assigned to a tribe. This was probably based on Yahweh's command in Ezekiel 47.21. Those circumcised and converted would certainly be proselytes to the fullest degree. A proselyte meeting the minimum requirements could be considered a proselyte of the gate, while those proselytes who were circumcised and entered into Judaism had become part of the inner circles and were essentially Jews. It could be argued that these inner circle Gentiles were the righteous Gentiles, but that cannot be the case because Cornelius was considered as such in Acts 10.22. We can conclude, however, that Cornelius was not considered equal to the Jews. I think his falling at Peter's feet displays his thinking on this in some sense, and Peter's views prior to his revelation certainly fall in line with this. So we see that not all Gentiles who worshipped Yahweh had become Jews, but they could go to that measure if they wanted to. This would essentially make a Gentile a Jew.

Speaker 2: 31:01

Paul stood strongly against Gentiles becoming Jews upon the beginning of the new covenant, following the cross and resurrection of Yeshua, and at the receiving of the new covenant, following the cross and resurrection of Yeshua, and at the receiving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, paul wanted Gentile Christians to respect the customs, not enter into them. According to Paul, gentiles did not need to become Jews to share in fellowship and salvation. They were to be considered equals in the faith, regardless of race. The remaining question we have to answer here is did Paul want Jews to become Gentiles? In other words, did he promote Jews leaving their culture, communities and obedience to Torah when becoming a Christian? When Paul rebukes Peter, is he telling Peter that his observation of Torah was out of line and that he should behave like Gentiles? Is Paul telling Peter not to eat like a Jew? Our answer to this question can quickly fall out of harmony with scripture and lead us into a trap where Paul plays the hypocrite and not Peter. When Paul rebukes Peter, who is actually the hypocrite? Was Paul in error, due to anxiety? Did Paul later change his mind and become more tolerant to Jewish Christians observing Torah and eating like Jews?

Speaker 2: 32:13

When we get to Romans, chapter 14, we see what seems to be a different side of Paul, who has become much more tolerant and even completely accepting of the behavior that he describes Peter displaying in Galatians 2. Romans 14, 13-18. Therefore, let us not pass judgment on one another any longer. Romans 14, 13-18. Unclean, for if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love by what you eat. Do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil, for the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.

Speaker 2: 33:10

Does Paul now show us a change of heart and a complete reversal of his previous views when he rebuked Peter? Should Peter actually have rebuked Paul? Does Paul now tell his audience not to judge the weak Christians who are falling into a law-based belief system? Is Paul saying that weak Christians should not be confronted when they begin to see a law-based behavior? As Is Paul saying that weak Christians should not be confronted when they begin to see a law-based behavior as a source of righteousness?

Speaker 2: 33:35

How can we reconcile Paul's rebuke of Peter, let alone all of his writings, with this concept? Is he telling them not to do what he does? Think about that for a moment. If we're to coddle those who fall away from grace, how are they ever to grow in maturity? This makes no sense at all, does it? Does Paul actually defend the side of error in this place and reject it everywhere else? This is an extremely difficult passage to reconcile if we don't understand context.

Speaker 2: 34:07

The question I'm about to ask is not often asked, but if you follow my blog, you may not be surprised that I'm willing to go there. We have to ask the hard questions if we're to find the truth that is buried in the rubble of information at our disposal. I think I may have lightened the load so far, but this is a massive shift of paradigm that I'm presenting to you, so don't be triggered. Let me explain and you'll see that I'm not pushing legalism and this concept is not at all as radical as it seems on the surface. And remember, we need to let the scripture shape our minds and not let our minds shape the scripture.

Speaker 2: 34:40

Test the spirit of this doctrine for 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 at all costs. Are you ready for this? The question I challenge you with is this Did the apostles practice the Mosaic law? And I intend on presenting you a shocking answer in my next message, without compromising the gospel of grace. Until then, have a great day out there.

Speaker 1: 35:16

Thank you for listening to the Waking Up to Grace podcast brought to you by the finished work of our Lord Jesus Christ. If you enjoyed today's episode, we would love to hear from you. You can send encouragement our way right from our episodes and transcripts page or reach Lenny privately from the contact form.