What did Paul mean in his rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14? (Q&A)

Q:  I’m almost finished reading your Jewish Roots of Christianity book. I’ve appreciated learning so much history that I never knew, but it makes me sad to think that people who have called themselves by the name of Christ have acted so horrendously… It helps me to understand a little better the anti-Semitism that we saw (and were SHOCKED by) in Ukraine.

I’m meditating on the thought that you bring forth in the book that Messianic Jews still need to follow the law… What do you do then with Paul’s remarks in Galatians 2:11-14, where Paul calls Peter on the carpet for reverting back to following the laws when the circumcision party shows up in Antioch? Paul certainly talks here, and in other places, like he is not following the dietary laws at least…

Infant Baptism? (Q&A)

Q:  [In response to our teaching, “The Washing of Water with the Word”:]  I'm going to get into trouble here, but here goes anyway....please notice that the verse you mention says that the Messiah does the cleansing by the washing of water with the word.  We don't do it.  Therefore it is a gift, just like our name from our parents.  So there is no need for someone to wait until they are "ready" for baptism.  It is a gift that we cannot by our own power or will do anything to be "ready" to receive.  Moral of my story is --get your kids baptized and don't wait another day.  –Stephanie K.

A:  Thanks for your enthusiasm in defending infant baptism--a long-held and widely practiced tradition of the Church.  But this tradition ignores a key component of the original idea of baptism:  that receiving the word of God—being “cleansed...by his word” (Eph. 5:26)—requires being able to understand that word.  Traditional churches themselves admit to the inadequacy of infant baptism by their practice of confirmation, a rite mentioned nowhere in the Bible.  Having teenagers confirm or accept their baptisms is a recognition that infant baptism is incomplete without the conscious and believing participation of the one being baptized.  And that's exactly the point.  Baptism is the outward, public response to an inner faith:  the sign of a conscious repentance of sin and a decision to follow Jesus.  This decision brings an inner cleansing (Acts 15:9), while baptism completes the process with an outer washing:  “the outward sign of an inward grace,” as Augustine of Hippo put it.  There is just no other way to make sense of the Biblical description of this rite as a "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins," unless there is an actual repentance on the part of the person being baptized (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 13:24, 19:4).  This requires a conscious appeal to God (1 Pet. 3:21) by faith (Col. 2:12).  Infants are completely incapable of doing these things.

Did Paul Change His Name? (Q&A)

The Harbor at Paphos, Cyprus

Someone asked me recently about an article posted on Messiah’s Mandate.org, “Why Did Paul Change His Name?” (http://messiahsmandate.org/why-did-paul-change-his-name/).  The point of the article is to challenge the idea that Saul’s name change to Paul was a rejection of his Jewish identity, which is how many Christians understand it.  As the article correctly states, the idea that Paul would reject his Jewish identity to follow the Jewish Messiah makes no sense at all.  It’s the result of hundreds of years of anti-Jewish thinking in the Church.

But the fact remains that in the earliest accounts of his life, this famous apostle is called Saul, while in the later accounts he’s called Paul.  Why the change?