Summary Of Chapter 6: Paul Defends His Gentile Mission

In his article "Vegetarianism and the Other Weight Problem", James Rachels argues that meat eating is immoral and it is a moral duty to be vegetarian. In order to discuss the problems and come up with his conclusions, Rachels considers two arguments for vegetarianism.

Bost’s reason for going back to meat eating was because he found a more ethical and humane way for an animal to be put down, rather then killing them in a packed area. Bost's essay makes its arguments without referring to religion. Yet for many vegetarians and meat-eaters, one's diet and its ethical implications is based on religious law, or one's spirituality. In fact, some of the most ardent defenders of meat-eating

Apostle Paul also brought to light in verses 15-18 that there were some Christians who resented him for the

Paul’s advise to the slaves totally aligns with the way he lived out his life. He was a zealous man and who gave 100% of himself in all that he did, including the persecution of Christians prior to his conversion. Even during his ministry, he continued his profession as a tentmaker so he wouldn’t burden the church financially. In his own words, he described the effort he put into his ministry, “To this end I strenuously contend with all the energy Christ so powerfully works in me” (Colossians 1:29 NIV) and “I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:14 NIV). Paul lived his life in total submission to Christ, “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians

As the Gentiles did not follow kashruth, many Christian Jews refused to eat with Christian Gentiles, believing them to be unclean and not acceptable. This had implications for church fellowship and for the ritual celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Paul challenged this belief, (Galatians 2: 11-14) most strongly at the Council of Jerusalem in 50 CE. This lead to the decision by the early Christian leaders to enable Gentiles as well as Jews to be followers of Jesus of Nazareth and to call themselves Christians.

Paul became an advocate for the inclusion of the Gentiles among the ‘true’ followers of Christianity. Until this moment in history, Jewish Christians believed that non-Jews had to convert to Judaism and follow the law like them, which included many dietary restrictions and circumcision. Gentiles who worship in the synagogue but did not convert were only

Romans is a declaration, a declaration of dependence. Paul writes this letter concerning the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ to all people. The following exegesis covers Paul’s discourse in 2:12-16 regarding God’s equal judgment of Jews and Gentiles. So as to understand Paul’s challenging rhetoric, a brief gaze into the historical context of Jews in

In Galatians 2:1-3, Paul describes going to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus. The chapter of Galatians describes an agreement, which states that the Gentiles, including Titus does not need to be circumcised. Paul, James, Peter and John agree that Gentiles should not need to be circumcised. However, people continue to disagree with them on this particular issue. In the ESV Study Bible, it says, “Paul regards the imposition of circumcision on Gentile Christians as a slavery producing betrayal of the freedom Christ has given.” With all of this being said, the chapter of Galatians proves that it is a completely different event than in Acts. There are undeniable similarities between the chapters, but it is proven that this specific event did not occur at the same time as the Jerusalem Council. In Galatians 2, this event takes place in 47

God gave man dominion over the land and the animals so that he could take care of them and prosper with them Genesis 1:24-31. Since the human race was created in God's image, humans should exercise that dominion with wisdom and mercy like God does upon man. Yet man has perverted this duty by taking too much from the land and animals, and not fulfilling the original contract to take care of them. This has become evident in factory farming because man is mistreating the animals in order to produce the cheapest and most productive system for vast amounts of meat no matter the moral standing to animals and the land. This has to be changed to keep the contract intact, which Peter Singer and Jim Mason are trying to do in The Ethics of Eating

The Jewish community rejected the lax attitude concerning Mosaic Law. The Galatians, who were brought up in an area of the world dominated by a polytheistic, law-based religion, sought comfort in the more disciplined Jewish approach. “Paul: Appealing or Appalling?” is the surprising title of the first chapter in a book about the differing opinions, written by Christian scholars, Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan. Their account of Paul’s controversial stance on a variety of “major issues” like gender roles and slavery helps to understand the historical significance of Paul’s evangelism. Jews were easier to reach than Gentiles, because of their sacred education, therefore the issue of circumcision was definitely an issue among the first converts to Christianity. The question on everyone’s mind was, “Do you have to be a Jew to be a Christian?” Judeans were taught that salvation would only come to those circumcised according to the custom. Once in Jerusalem, Paul went to the elders to announce God’s grace in the lives of the Gentiles. They rejoiced in his message, but took notice of his advice against Jewish law,

Paul has always been the center of controversy. It was once believed that he was the father of Christian anti-Semitism. However, Gager believes that Paul’s image has been misunderstood for years. In his book he challenges his readers to look deeper than the letters and our own visual understanding by reinventing the old paradigm of Paul, which wrongly interprets Paul as a “convert from Judaism to Christianity, who preached against the law and Israel” (pp. 18, 19). Gager’s introduction offers the reader a hermeneutic of “suspicion” (p.13). to guard against “modern translations, dictionaries and commentaries embedded within preexisting interpretations” (pp. 13-15). Gager states, “The only readers who have been able to break free from the old Paul are the contradictionist- those who abandon all efforts to find a consistent meaning in Paul” (p.129). Gager takes us in search of the reinvented Paul by using his own writings and arguing that Paul’s words have been taken out of their original context, distorted and misconstrued. Gager believed that Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles, not the Jews. Gager didn’t believe that Paul’s

After reading both essays, neither essay affected my thoughts about what I eat or what my loved ones eat. Everyone is raised differently and will have their own beliefs, and to quote the Holy Bible, “The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ‘Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud’” (Leviticus 11 1-3, The New International Version). This is what I believe as the truth.

The apostle Paul foresaw at the end of his life a great tsunami of attacks coming against the church of God. He responded with three letters. We call them the Pastoral Epistles: 1, 2 Timothy and Titus. After Paul’s first imprisonment, he visited different places including the Island of Crete, an Island only 160 miles long south of Greece and Turkey in the Mediterranean Sea. He wrote this letter to Titus around 62 A.D. from somewhere in Macedonia. Paul’s main objective is to encourage Titus and give instructions about Godly living as a young pastor. The churches in the Island of Crete needed leadership, correction and order thus Paul could not be everywhere. Paul at some time had visited the island of Crete for he says in Titus 1:5 “I left you

The first church conference was held in Jerusalem to decide the parts of the Mosaic Law Gentile converts had to obey to become members of the primarily Jewish Christian community. One of the differences between the Church in Jerusalem and Paul’s ideas is that the Jewish Christians believe that new converts cannot be saved unless they are circumcised. The Church sees this as a necessity to enter the Kingdom of God and also believe that foreigners must become Jews before they can become Christians. Paul, however, would argue against circumcision and he would ultimately prevail in the conference. The Church also believed that all converts had to observe certain provisions of the Torah, which included abstaining from sexual misconduct, obeying specified Mosaic dietary prohibitions, such as consuming blood or eating animals that had not been properly drained of blood, and not consuming any flesh from animals that had been sacrificed to alien gods. While the Book of Acts shows that Paul accepted these restrictions, he declares that he did not give in to any Torah demands.

A similar conflict between the Gentiles and Jews took place during the early establishment of the Church. The Jews demanded that the Gentiles adhere to their laws as established by Moses, wherein they were forbidden from eating certain foods and required that all males be circumcised. McRay states, “During that time some men came from Jerusalem and tried to lay upon the Gentiles an even more stringent requirement than the earlier Jerusalem emissaries had done. It was no longer simply a matter of requiring the Gentiles to observe Jewish food laws in order to maintain fellowship with Jewish Christians. They were now demanding that Gentiles males be circumcised in order to be saved” (McRay, 2003, p. 127). Similar to today, these disagreements are presented to the Church Leadership conflict for resolution. In advising the leadership council of Saint Elizabeth Catholic church on how to resolve and maintain the fellowship between these believers, I will use Romans 14 as the fundamental basis for handling conflict resolutions.