What am I missing?

[ecorpe]

From the book “A Dispensational Theology” by Charles F. Baker, I ran across the following statement (page 98) from the paragraph on The Covenant of Circumcision:

 “Peter had the gospel of the circumcision committed to him in the beginning, but this does not mean that he continued that ministry indefinitely. It was evidently God’s will that Peter conform to Paul’s new message, since God sent Paul up to Jerusalem by special revelation to communicate the gospel of the uncircumcision to the other apostles“ (Galatians 2:2).

Where in the bible does it tell me that Peter was to conform to Paul’s message. In Galatians 2:7-8 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) this tells me that Peter was still preaching under the covenant of circumcision and I would assume that Peter and the other apostles would continue preach this message to the Jews.

Am I missing something here  or am I putting to much emphasis on the word conform?

[Christine]

I see where you would find his statement confusing....I do too. I don't see any evidence in the scriptures of Peter conforming to Pauls message at all. In fact, he limited himself to ministry to the circumcision, which tells me that he knew the difference.

I am of the impression that Paul communicated  his gospel to the 12 to make sure that they knew that it was INDEED a different message with a different audience and that God HAD gone to the gentiles without Israel. The "little flock" would never be expected to adhere to Pauls' gospel, but it was imperative they understand that a change had taken place and that Israel no longer held the position of distinction they once held. This would have been a real adjustment for the Jewish community I would imagine. God had set them aside to usher in a NEW program that didn't have Israel in a position of distinction...but leveled out the playing field.

Keep in mind that "men" can get it wrong, or say it wrong, and its OK. We have the scriptures which tell us where to "pitch our tent", and then we aren't "swayed by every wind of doctrine."  Thats what I especially LIKE about right division. It gives me a plumbline with which to evaluate any statement made by anyone, and still leaves me with the truth.

Does that help? Anyone else have any insight to Earls question? Please feel free to share.

[ecorpe]

I am of the impression that Paul communicated  his gospel to the 12 to make sure that they knew that it was INDEED a different message with a different audience and that God HAD gone to the gentiles without Israel. The "little flock" would never be expected to adhere to Pauls' gospel, but it was imperative they understand that a change had taken place and that Israel no longer held the position of distinction they once held. This would have been a real adjustment for the Jewish community I would imagine. God had set them aside to usher in a NEW program that didn't have Israel in a position of distinction...but leveled out the playing field.

I agree as what you are say there. Yes, Paul did go to Peter and the other apostles so that they can understand as what he was teaching and to whom. I would say that he wanted them to see that there was a whole new program for the Gentiles.

Keep in mind that "men" can get it wrong, or say it wrong, and its OK. We have the scriptures which tell us where to "pitch our tent", and then we aren't "swayed by every wind of doctrine."  Thats what I especially LIKE about right division. It gives me a plumbline with which to evaluate any statement made by anyone, and still leaves me with the truth.

Yes, "men" can get things wrong at times. That is why God gave us the ability to learn about his word and make our own conclusions as to what he wants us to do. I do however feel that when you have fellowship with other believers that this is a way to help us to understand his word a lot better.

Yes, your comments did help me because I didn't think that Baker was putting it right and I was looking for someone else to affirm that thought.

Oh BTW, I think that I am getting the hang on posting using quotes.