Lesson 9 June 26, 2002
Review:
Why this visit to Jerusalem is not the Jerusalem council visit (3rd)
of Acts 15.
1. Crucial to Paul's argument here to refute the Judaizers
(legalists) and their gospel of works is to present all the apostolic
discussion related to the issue at hand as he writes. 49 AD.
2. A failure to cite the
famine visit of Acts 11:26-30 (2nd) would leave a gap in his
historical argument.
3. Paul went to Jerusalem
because of a revelation, not as the result of a dissention and debate Acts
15:2.
4. This meeting covered in
2:1-10 is a private one while the Jerusalem council meeting was basically open
therefore a public debate. Pastors from
all over.
5. I believe that if this was
the Jerusalem council visit Paul would have cited the decisions and conclusions
they arrived at and sent out in a letter to the churches. Acts 15:23-29
6. I don't believe the next
incident with Peter would have taken place after the Jerusalem council.
2:11-14
Paul's defense of the Gospel's application to life.
- gives a summary first then the details
Paul once again with this incident with Peter
dramatically supports his claim to possess an authority equal to and
independent of that of the other apostles.
Must keep in mind
that here we have a shift in focus from what we have already covered:
(1) a new issue--foods rather
than circumcision;
(2) a new area of the
faith--Christian living rather than the basis of salvation;
(3) a new subject-- Jewish
liberty rather than the liberty of Gentile Christians.
2:11 Statement of Peter's
guilt
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I
opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
I opposed him avnqi,sthmi basic to stand against, to set oneself against; to
oppose
because he stood condemned. kataginw,skw
- condemn,
declare to be wrong, judge to be guilty
Summary vs:11
1. Peter's
actions here when he came to Antioch, a Gentile area, had great impact on the
believers' there.
2. Paul
was quick to act decisively because he
knew how extensive and detrimental this
type of influence could be.
3. Peter
was not ignorant of the truth, the principles of doctrine that are pertinent to
Christian living.
4. The
issue here is freedom of Jews to eat and fellowship with Gentile believers.
5. The hygiene and dietary regulations of the M/L were important to
their lives as Jews.
- had benefits from obedience to them, many health benefits.
- therefore were used to demonstrate volition, sin, and
spirituality (relationship)
6. Peter stood condemned in 2 ways:
#1 self
- condemned by his own conscience; he
knew what was right and failed to apply it;
succumbed to the pressure from others.
#2
condemned in the sight of others -
as a result of the evaluation of his actions.
7. Failure
to resist compromising BD puts the believer on the gory road, headed for discipline.
8. The P/T
has the responsibility to expose false doctrine that infiltrates the
congregation.
2:12 Details the background of Peter's hypocricy
We find first here
what Peter was up to, what he did.
For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with
the Gentiles;
When Paul says he used to eat he puts the verb for eating in the imperfect
tense, indicating that this was Peter's usual pattern, that is to fellowship
with the Gentile believers, as fellow believers in Christ.
Peter makes a change when
the delegation arrived on the scene.
but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof,
Reason given - personal
fear: fearing
the party of the circumcision.
2:13 Peter's actions influenced others
The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, that
is the Jews in the church at Antioch.
What's
happening here with these leaders who should be setting an example?