1 Corinthians 9:19-22

[RyanSantaCruz]

Hello. I'm studying through 1st Corinthians, so please forgive me for the next ten thousand questions that Ill be posting here over the duration of my stay in this book. Here goes, I'm finding it difficult harmonize Paul's methods of evangelizing in 1 Cor. 9:19-22, from what he rebuked Peter for in Galatians chapter 2:11 and on. If I understand Galatians 2 rightly(in all likelihood I don't), Paul was upset at Peter because he was in effect sending the gentile converts mixed messages about how salvation was obtained, ("Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ") or that God favored the Jewish Christians over the gentile Christians in some way because he was removing himself from the gentiles for the sake of the visiting Jews. So what's the difference in the affect that Peter was having on those he was eating with, from the affect that Paul would have had from doing the same thing. For instance, what if a Jewish brother who still had tendencies toward observing the law, was traveling with Paul and they stopped and ate with some gentile converts that did not observe the law? In 1 Cor. 8 Paul talks about not causing the weaker brother to stumble by wounding their conscience. Well, what if the Jewish brother was weak in that he could not eat the food prepared for them or some other Jewish ritual(I'm not too familiar with all of the Jews customs) was not being observed by the gentile Christians; where would that leave Paul? If I understand 1 Cor. 8:9-13 and 9:19-23 correctly(again, I most likely don't) Paul is saying that he would alter the things he eats or observes depending on the situation he was in, all the while being under the law of God in order to not offend or sin against a brother. I'm assuming that there is something else that Peter was doing wrong that I'm not catching, because it seems that Paul would essentially do the same thing if he found himself in a similar situation. Thanks for your help! God bless you. -Ryan

[TK]

That's a good question.

My intial thought is that Paul would certainly have tried to teach his Jewish companion that his rituals are no longer necessary. I know this might be easier said than done. But it would seem that in the situation you describe, Paul would be between a rock and a hard place. If he ate what the Gentiles prepared, he risks stumbling his brother; if he didn't eat, then he is going against his own thoughts on the matter and risks offending the gentiles.

I am not sure how far the idea of "avoiding the stumbling" of a brother can be taken. I suppose one should do so, if possible, but sometimes it may not be possible, as in the case you describe. It seems that the truth must win out, even if it might offend.

TK

[RICHinCHRIST]

Hi Ryan,

That does sound like a difficult situation you present there. I think if there was ever a situation like that, there would need to be some communication between the parties involved. I'm sure that they would resolve the issues somehow without offending eachother.

When you bring in 1 Corinthians 9... remember that Paul is speaking of winning people to Christ. I think he's referring to being 'sensitive' to the groups that he would evangelize, in order to win them. Now, when the Jews were won to Christ, I believe Paul thoroughly discipled them in the freedom we have in Christ.

I've always thought that Peter was in the wrong for showing partiality to the Judaizers in a way that made him hypocritical. Galatians 2 says that Peter, Barnabas, and the rest of the Jews played the 'hypocrite' (Gal. 2:13). Peter 'feared' (Gal. 2:12) the false Jewish Christians, and I think he must have gone along with them in pressuring the Gentiles to live as Jews. This is because Paul rebukes Peter for specifically not being straightforward about the gospel, therefore inferring he was compelling the Gentiles to live under Jewish customs (Gal. 2:14).

I know there's debate about Paul's own practices in Acts as well. I've heard some say that Luke was documenting Paul's failures in getting Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3), and also taking a vow in Cenchrea (Acts 18:18).

However, I don't agree with that for a few reasons. Timothy was half-Jewish, whereas Titus was a pure Greek (that's why Paul objected to him being circumcised on his travels). Also, consider that the people that they were ministering to were not Christians yet. When Paul was evangelizing, I believe he 'bore the burdens' of the Jewish customs until he could further reveal the fact that Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial laws of Moses.

I don't know if I answered your question or not, but hopefully that helps.

[RICHinCHRIST]

I think TK made a good point too. At some point, the Jewish Christians would be finding themselves getting uncomfortable to a certain point. Think of Peter in Acts 10! He was very uncomfortable in going to Cornelius' house... but he had to just deal with the fact that God had accepted the Gentiles on the same basis of faith. I'm sure there is always an intrusion on the Jews' preferences when they hear of the freedom we have in Christ in regards to the ceremonial customs. That's where I think the Judaizers of the current day fail and miss the point entirely. They still try to compel people to live under certain Jewish ceremonial laws, but they need to just accept that their culture isn't the only one God accepts. Yes, being a Jew was a great advantage as Paul said in Romans, but they still feel offended when people either don't get circumcised, or they don't eat kosher, or they don't keep the Sabbath, etc. They're being offended, but it's for the wrong reasons. They are misinterpreting the implications of the New Covenant. If I am hanging out with a Christian who eats only kosher, I'm not going to only eat kosher just because they do. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think those kind of people just need to realize that God doesn't accept people on the basis of ceremonial laws.