Peter in the body of Christ? This topic invariably brings out the best in people lol. But, Ive been beaten around so much on this that Ive become numb to future beatings at this point ;) But, discussions such as this should happen. We ought to take great care that we are striving to have truth mold our thinking rather than worrying about if we are in agreement with the masses. This isnt to say that we shouldnt work to edify and unify the body of Christ, but at the end of the day, scripture should trump our personal desires to be accepted by a particular tribe. Paul even states to Timothy that all forsook him, but yet the Lord stood with him. Should we villainize Peter? Or, did Peter and Paul work towards a common goal (Christ), but at times, coming from different angles? Im in Cincinnati and if I want to go to Florida, I get on I-75 and head south. After waving to Stephen Bove going through Georgia, (which is almost a 5 hour state, to the minute, if traffic is ok through Atlanta), I pass through Valdosta right into the sunshine state. But, does the one living in Texas take the same route as I would? No, the goal is the same, but there are some differences along the way. There are different roads and different states. Keep that in mind. It is possible to reach the same goal but not come from the same direction. For instance, I would still maintain that Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles, by his own statement in Romans 11 and Galatians 2. However, we know that Paul went to the Jew first. So, would it be correct to claim that Pauls apostleship is Gentile only? Some of our fellow RD folks restrict Paul to a Gentile-only apostleship, but I dont know that that holds much water if he is going to the Jew first. So, it would seem more correct to claim that Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ, desiring his kinsmen after the flesh to be saved, but also tasked with sending the good news of grace to the Gentiles. And, Paul is a perfect vehicle for this being both Jew (tribe of Benjamin) and Gentile (Roman citizen) in one body. Peter had the same task - go and teach all nations. BUT, Peter was not given the good news of salvation (no difference between Jew and Gentile, in the same body, with the same joint-inheritance with Christ, etc.) until it was revealed to Paul and Paul taught it to Peter. Peter would have gone to the Gentiles with the idea that Israel was still in the drivers seat. The so-called Great Commission was to go and teach all nations because with the national role of Israel, all other nations were to flow through them for their salvation. John 4:22 - Salvation is of the Jews. Peter then, when later writing to his audience, would write concerning grace and the mystery information that Paul taught him, but writing it in joint-consideration of their national standing/purpose. The truths of grace were just as real to them, individually, as they are to us, but Peter has an additional set of information and that is to reveal to the individual believers what this grace and mystery means in light of their national standing, as well as in light of their individual relationship to Gentiles. (which Peter apparently repented of his thinking from the scolding he received from Paul in Galatians 2). Peter claims that Paul wrote to his audience and says that some of the things that Paul wrote are hard to be understood. Why? What would be hard to be understood to Peter and his audience? Would it be justification by faith? No - Habakkuk 2:4 states that the just shall live by His faith. Would it be Gentiles coming to salvation? No - Israel was already said to be a light to the Gentiles. So, what would be hard to be understood by them? Justification by faith and Gentiles coming to the same understanding would be the same as it had always been presented by the law and the prophets. However, what would cause a Jew to slam on the breaks? - if the Gentiles were given the same status as an heir of God. Now wait - Israel was given the promise of always being above, never beneath (Deut. 28:13), so Israel never had any issue with Gentiles believing (the strangers in the gate, Exodus 20), but if Gentile believers were no longer subservient in position to Israel - that would come to blows in their minds. Because to a Jew, to whom pertained the covenants and promises, to hear of how God made of twain (Jew and Gentile), one new man, would have been very confusing to them. Recall how Peter reacted in Acts 10 when the sheets were lowered? Peter isnt clued in until Acts 15 after encountering Paul. Now, why would Peter have had reservations to go to Cornelius if the so-called Great Commission already commanded it? I could be wrong, but it appears it is because it is out of order. Peter knew that Gentile salvation was a matter of Israels commission and purpose. Unless Israel was redeemed, how could they fulfill that role? Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, not to the Gentiles. Peter was working to advance the kingdom program with national Israel. However, when that doesnt come to fruition (Acts 7), to have Peter sent directly to a Gentile would have not only been confusing, but Im sure off-putting as well. God was doing something that had otherwise not been revealed by the old testament prophets. That is about HOW God would evangelize Gentiles. Some mistakenly claim that Gentile salvation is not a product of prophecy, but that is clearly wrong (Isaiah 60:3; Zechariah 8:23). (This is one reason why I think the idea of a distinction between prophecy and mystery is a misnomer.) What Paul was given was the information concerning HOW the Gentiles would be saved - they would be joined in union to the same body of Christ that the Jews were joined to, thus making them fellow-heirs and fellow citizens. Paul seems to confirm this idea that it was out of order (from what had been prophesied) when Paul claims that he was born out of due time. Paul tells Timothy that the preaching of the cross was to be testified in due time. God used one born out of due time to become the due time testifier - showing that it really wasnt out of order from Gods standpoint - it was his plan all along. If Christ is the goal (no one is righteous outside of Christ), then I see no other option for Peter, or Paul, or me or you concerning our justification. Justification is by faith and the evidence of that justification is your righteous standing in Christ. Would Peter have been given the keys to the kingdom if he werent already declared righteous? Where is righteousness found? Is righteousness found in Christ for us, but somewhere else for kingdom saints? If Peter and Paul are in the body of Christ, does this mean that they are the same? yes, and no. Yes, in that all in Christ are one in Christ. However, no, in that we know that the hand doesnt have the same responsibility as the foot, nor the mouth the same responsibility as the eye. But, all parts of the body are joined in union to the common cause. In Romans 11, we find that both believing Jews and believing Gentiles were graft into the same root, the common cause - Christ. So, to me, it seems needless to try to keep Peter out of the body of Christ, for he would not be righteous otherwise. And, this would actually demonstrate the mystery, not refute it.
Posted on: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 00:41:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015