Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
Is Paul at Odds with Matthew?
|
Zeek,
I think this question is misleading. It was Jesus in the gospels (including Matthew) that violated the Sabbath day based on "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath". Then it was Peter who violated the prohibition of eating with the Gentiles and baptized them into the church.
It is also clear that they were not required by Peter or by the Lord's vision, to be circumcised first. Instead the Vision said that they had already been cleansed and Peter understood that to mean that the Lord's redemptive work on the cross opened the New Covenant to them.
This was then confirmed in a council headed up by James. All of the so called "Judaizers" got to weigh in and everyone agreed that the Lord's redemptive work applied to Gentiles who were not required to be circumcised or convert to Judaism first. None of this had anything to do with Paul whose ministry came later. Since circumcision in the OT was simply the "signature of God on your flesh" that you had a covenant with God it was clearly not required when Peter baptized the gentiles.
Therefore, what is the sign in our flesh that we have a covenant with God if not circumcision? That is the question that Paul answers. He is not the one who told us Gentiles don't need to be circumcised, that was already decided. He merely explained how this decision was consistent with the Bible.
Since most agree that the Gospel of Mark is essentially the Gospel of Peter and that there is a very strong correlation between Mark and Matthew this seems to be much to do about nothing.