Galatians 2:14 and Dispensationalism

[Jaltus]

Many dispensationalists of all strips clamor about the strong break between the ministry of Peter and the ministry of Paul. Peter was the apostle to the Jews, the circumcision. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, the uncircumcision. Peter and Paul have no problems interacting with each other and Peter obviously values what Paul has written (see II Peter 3).

This strong distinction between them, however, is placed in a very tenuous position by Galatians 2:14 and the surrounding context. Before I quote the verses and show the problems, let me give a little bit of build up.

Dispensationalists who hold to this strong division in their teachings generally show Peter as a Jew under the law teaching the law as part of the gospel. They in turn show Paul as a Jew no longer under the law but giving a gospel separated from the law. This is the place where the problem is at, for while I believe that Peter made some mistakes about the gospel, I do not think Peter lived as one under the law nor do I think that was his normal proclamation of the gospel message.


Galatians 2:11-21

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.
13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
15 "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;
16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
17 "But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!
18 "For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.
19 "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.
20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
21 "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

One of the key issues here is that Paul talked of Peter as having lived as a Gentile before the coming of the Judaizers. This would mean that Peter did not live as a Jew under the law, nor that this was his teaching. Paul gives above his reply to Peter, and even if you think his reply stops before the quote ends, you must still realize that the verses above are all linked in terms of implications.

Now I know you are thinking that I did not go back far enough, and that I should have looked at Galatians 2:7, but let us look at 2:7 and 2:8...

Galatians 2:7-8
7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),

Notice that 8 gives the missing word from 7. I have always argued that the mission was to the circumcised and uncircumcised, not that the gospel was, and 2:8 backs me up on this understanding. 2:7 has one word for gospel and two different people groups. 2:8 explicitly has two different missions, an apostleship to the Jews and one being sent for the Gentiles. While 2:7 has one construction with parallel modifiers, 2:8 has two different constructs, which make the apostleship to the Jews paralleled to the mission to the Gentiles.

Thus, I think this verse is the beginning of a corrective to the misunderstanding of two different gospels as seen both in 2:7-8, but more importantly as seen by how Peter himself did not live as one under the law except when in the wrong, as Paul clearly tells us.

[Bill the Cat]

Jaltus Dispensationalists who hold to this strong division in their teachings generally show Peter as a Jew under the law teaching the law as part of the gospel. They in turn show Paul as a Jew no longer under the law but giving a gospel separated from the law

Not me!!

I don't think the Law had anything to do with the Gospel message. But Paul says he acted one way around the Jews and another around the Gentiles.

[Jacob]

Today @ 12:40 PM post located here
Jaltus:

Many dispensationalists of all strips clamor about the strong break between the ministry of Peter and the ministry of Paul.

Maybe some hyper-dispensationalists, like the Acts 9 or Acts 28'ers, but certainly not "dispensationalists of all stripes", classical dispensationalists, or even "most" dispensationalists...

I have always argued that the mission was to the circumcised and uncircumcised, not that the gospel was

Just as I, as dispensationalist, was taught.

but more importantly as seen by how Peter himself did not live as one under the law except when in the wrong, as Paul clearly tells us.

On this I disagree. For even Paul lived "under the law", for the purposes of ministry.

1Co 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
1Co 9:21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.


Jacob

[themuzicman]

You have got to be kidding me! You guys really need to study the three 'C's of hermeneutics: CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT:

But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case; for it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. 17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. 18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

Is there a separate gospel for slave and free? For weak and strong?

I think not. You have perislously extracted this scripture far from its context, and it is quite invalid.

Paul's point isn't that he preached a different gospel to Jews and Gentiles, slave and free, weak and strong, but that HE WOULD DO WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO BE ABLE TO PREACH TO THEM AND FOR THEM TO HEAR HIM.

If he was with people under the law and didn't submit to the law himself, he wouldn't be able to preach to them, because they would only see his breaking of the law.

Same for the weak: if he went about living by his own conscience, ignoring the offense to those who are weak, he would not be able to preach to them.

So, what is it? 6 gospels or 1?

Michael

[Bill the Cat]

Who said there were more than one gospel, Michael?

[themuzicman]

Use whatever dispentional termology you want. The point is that 1 Cor 9:20-21 is NOT a text that shows that there are different dispensations/apostles to the jews and the gentiles, but an example of doing whatever is necessary to reach the lost.

Clearly, this text is used way out of context.

Michael

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 02:54 PM post located here
themuzicman:

Use whatever dispentional termology you want. The point is that 1 Cor 9:20-21 is NOT a text that shows that there are different dispensations/apostles to the jews and the gentiles, but an example of doing whatever is necessary to reach the lost.

Clearly, this text is used way out of context.

Michael

Like Jacob said, there is only one Gospel. I know of no one that is not a hyper-dispy that believe there were separate gospels. I was just making a pasing observation that Paul acted differently around the two groups.

[themuzicman]

And the point of saying this was?

[Bill the Cat]

no point, just interesting...

[themuzicman]

So, you don't think that Peter and Paul had different missions with different messages?

[Bill the Cat]

nope...

[themuzicman]

What kind of dispensationalist are you, anyway?

[Bill the Cat]

progressive...

[Bill the Cat]

I've gone that way since joining here. I used to be a classic till confronted with Blaising and Bock...

[themuzicman]

ah, a convenental dispensationalist....