Are Peter and James Apostates?

[SacredBishop]

Matthew 13 warns of enemies sowing tares into the kingdom of Heaven. Paul was Jesus's favorite Apostle, Acts 9:15. Galatians 2:11-14 condemn Peter and James for rejecting the Gentile Church, which is the true Church, thus Peter and James are Christ's enemies. Should we reject Peter and James books as heresy? Are Peter and James apostates?

[JehovahsWitness]

...Paul was Jesus's favorite Apostle, Acts 9:15. Galatians 2:11-14 condemn Peter and James for rejecting the Gentile Church, ... Should we reject Peter and James books as heresy? Are Peter and James apostates?

Absolutely not! When we read the context of Pauls words , we see this was not a matter of "rejecting" any church but a "private" matter of social segregation; a matter Paul put straight. There was no permanent damage done and neither Peter nor James are refered to as Apostates. Quite the opposite Paul in that same letter to the Galatians refered to both Peter and James as " esteemed as pillars" in the congregation. Indeed some time after this event , Peters letter endorsed Paul's teachings calling Paul a beloved brother (2 Pet 3:15).



JW

For further details please go to other posts related to ...

PAUL, THE APOSTLE PETER and ...THE GREAT APOSTACY

[SacredBishop]

Matthew 13 warns of enemies sowing tares into the kingdom of Heaven. Paul was Jesus's favorite Apostle, Acts 9:15. Galatians 2:11-14 condemn Peter and James for rejecting the Gentile Church, which is the true Church, thus Peter and James are Christ's enemies. Should we reject Peter and James books as heresy? Are Peter and James apostates?

No. When we read the context of Pauls words , we see this was not a matter of "rejecting" any church but a "private" matter of social segregation; a matter Paul put straight. There was no permanent damage done and neither Peter nor James are refered to as Apostates. Quite the opposite Paul in that same letter to the Galatians refered to both Peter and James as " esteemed as pillars" in the congregation. Indeed some time after this event , Peters letter endorsed Paul's teachings calling Paul a beloved brother (2 Pet 3:15).

I would concur, but Paul said Peter compelled Gentiles to convert to Judaism ( to live like Jews) Galatians 2:14. Way more than refusing to eat dinner with them is implied here. Peter is said to have " compelled Gentiles to live like Jews". The Greek word for compelled is extremely strong. Peter was compelling them by arguments, not compelling them by refusing to eat with them. Peter seems to be an apostate. Notice Barnabas abandons Paul and follows Peter in these division 2:13

[JehovahsWitness]

I would concur, but Paul said Peter compelled Gentiles to convert to Judaism ( to live like Jews) Galatians 2:14. Way more than refusing to eat dinner with them is implied here. Peter is said to have " compelled Gentiles to live like Jews". The Greek word for compelled is extremely strong. Peter was compelling them by arguments, not compelling them by refusing to eat with them. Peter seems to be an apostate. Notice Barnabas abandons Paul and follows Peter in these division 2:13

The expression "live like Jews" does not mean to convert to Judaism but rather to adopt a lifestyle that mimics certain practises and customs of Jews. This adoption of certain Jewish traditions had been and would remain for some time a point of debate within the Christian community until it was finally laid to rest. Paul was forcefully pointing out the moral implications of Peter's self imposed social segregation. Taking his actions to its natural conclusion. Note the following commentary

"Peter knew that the Mosaic law was no longer in force, and had shown this earlier by freely associating with Gentiles. (Acts 10:28, 29) Yet now, because of fear, he was reinstituting the divisions provided for under the Mosaic law, but which Law he knew no longer applied to Jewish Christians. (Eph. 2:13-18) So his “withdrawing and separating” from the Gentile Christians was clearly a hypocritical act prompted by fear of what certain Jewish Christians, especially those of Jerusalem, might think of him. And so Paul, before the whole congregation, exposed Peter’s hypocrisy. " - The Watchtower 1975 6/1 p. 345

Obviously since Peter (prior to the arrival of prominent Jewish Christians) had been freely associating with gentile Christians, he had not been imposing Jewish traditions on them. If he had successfully impelled them to convert to Judaism, they would be suitable eating companions for the Jewish Christians when they arrived. Rather it is clear they remained gentile Cnristians and he (Peter) had been freely associatjng with them. But by temporarily withdrawing from them to save face, Peters actions amounted to a defacto endorsement for those that promoted such teachings.



JW

[SacredBishop]

Matthew 13 warns of enemies sowing tares into the kingdom of Heaven. Paul was Jesus's favorite Apostle, Acts 9:15. Galatians 2:11-14 condemn Peter and James for rejecting the Gentile Church, which is the true Church, thus Peter and James are Christ's enemies. Should we reject Peter and James books as heresy? Are Peter and James apostates?

No. When we read the context of Pauls words , we see this was not a matter of "rejecting" any church but a "private" matter of social segregation; a matter Paul put straight. There was no permanent damage done and neither Peter nor James are refered to as Apostates. Quite the opposite Paul in that same letter to the Galatians refered to both Peter and James as " esteemed as pillars" in the congregation. Indeed some time after this event , Peters letter endorsed Paul's teachings calling Paul a beloved brother (2 Pet 3:15).

I would concur, but Paul said Peter compelled Gentiles to convert to Judaism ( to live like Jews) Galatians 2:14. Way more than refusing to eat dinner with them is implied here. Peter is said to have " compelled Gentiles to live like Jews". The Greek word for compelled is extremely strong. Peter was compelling them by arguments, not compelling them by refusing to eat with them. Peter seems to be an apostate. Notice Barnabas abandons Paul and follows Peter in these division 2:13

Paul was forcefully pointing out the moral implications of Peter's self imposed social segregation. Taking his actions to its natural conclusion. Note the following commentary

"Peter knew that the Mosaic law was no longer in force, and had shown this earlier by freely associating with Gentiles. (Acts 10:28, 29) Yet now, because of fear, he was reinstituting the divisions provided for under the Mosaic law, but which Law he knew no longer applied to Jewish Christians. (Eph. 2:13-18) So his “withdrawing and separating” from the Gentile Christians was clearly a hypocritical act prompted by fear of what certain Jewish Christians, especially those of Jerusalem, might think of him. And so Paul, before the whole congregation, exposed Peter’s hypocrisy. " - The Watchtower 1975 6/1 p. 345

Obviously since Peter (prior to the arrival of prominent Jewish Christians) had been freely associating with gentile Christians, he had not been imposing Jewish traditions on them. But by temporarily withdrawing from them to save face, Peters actions amounted to a defacto endorsement for those that promoted such teachings.



JW

Refusing to eat with you wouldn't compell you to do anything, but possibly to dislike me. "Peter was compelling Gentiles to live like Jews". You haven't sufficiently addressed that.

[JehovahsWitness]

See edit above.

For further details please go to other posts related to ...

PAUL, THE APOSTLE PETER and ...THE GREAT APOSTACY

[neverknewyou]

See edit above.

For further details please go to other posts related to ...

PAUL, THE APOSTLE PETER and ...THE GREAT APOSTACY

Peter and James were apostates that abandoned Jesus in his time of need.

[JehovahsWitness]

See edit above.

For further details please go to other posts related to ...

PAUL, THE APOSTLE PETER and ...THE GREAT APOSTACY

Peter and James were apostates that abandoned Jesus in his time of need.

1. The James we are discussing is a different one from the Apostle.

2. Both the Apostles refered to above evidently repented and were forgiven by Jesus; if Jesus forgave their abandoning him during his arrest, why should they be viewed as apostates?

[1213]

...Paul was Jesus's favorite Apostle, Acts 9:15. Galatians 2:11-14 condemn Peter and James for rejecting the Gentile Church, which is the true Church, thus Peter and James are Christ's enemies. Should we reject Peter and James books as heresy? Are Peter and James apostates?

It is interesting how you come up to those conclusions from these scriptures. I don't think they really support your teaching.

But the Lord said to him, “Go your way, for he is my chosen vessel to bear my name before the nations and kings, and the children of Israel.
Acts 9:15

But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before some people came from James, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him in his hypocrisy; so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they didn’t walk uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live as the Gentiles do, and not as the Jews do, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews do?
Galatians 2:11-14

I don't think those means Peter and James are apostates.

[TRANSPONDER]

We (as usual) are only getting Paul's side of it. One only suspects, but it appears that Peter and doubtless James the apparent leader of the 'Saints' in Jerusalem, were looking like observant Jews, as Paul said, initially at least, obliged to observe the Law (later he said that Jesus freed even Jews from the Law), and there are issues of ritual cleanliness here. Which is evidence that they had either forgotten all the teachings of Jesus dismissing ritual cleanliness or they had never heard them.

I'm sure that our pal JW will have much to argue, but I'm convinced that it is is not Peter or James that were 'apostates' (at least from Judaism), but Paul, was more the apostate from Judaism.

I think that Acts (which I regard as no more than Luke's biographical fantasy, loosely based on Paul's letters with a drizzling of Josephus), reflects this wabbling between Jesus taught all foods clean and why Paul had to argue with Peter and James about it.. It isn't cut and dried as Paull (as I say) isn't too clear about it, but Luke shows his Interpretation of Reading of Paul's clues was that James was the totally Law - observant leader of the Nazorene church, though sympathetic to Paul as far as to put on a fraud to distract from the scandal of Paul teaching against circumcision. And the 'council of Jerusalem' has Peter acting like Paul's council for the defense, and not a mention of the squabble about eating with Gentiles.

I can anticipate the rebuttals; I have seen them before. But I just put it out there so at least people know of what looks like a dispute between Paul and the Jesus party about rites and doctrine, and the differences between (not to say adaptation of) what Paul has to say about these disagreements and how Acts shows it.