Confronting Racism in the Church
Sermon preached at 2010 IL/MO state conference. Republished with permission from Baptist Bulletin Jan/Feb 2011. All rights reserved.
By Greg Randle
In 1865 General Gordon Granger rode into Galveston, Texas, to declare to slaves there that they were free. The order that General Granger took to those slaves had been signed two and a half years earlier. So although the people had been pronounced free nearly three years before, they did not know it until the general came and told them. In essence they were still slaves. They thought like slaves. They talked like slaves. They even lived like they were slaves.
Already Free
We have a lot of Christians today who are still thinking like slaves, still talking like slaves, still living like slaves. Although our emancipation proclamation was signed two thousand years ago by the blood of Jesus, we still don’t know how to treat one another in the Lord. God wants us to be able to come together in the Body of Christ regardless of our racial background, regardless of our ethnicity—to come and experience unity and fellowship one with another. In fact, Galatians 2 challenges us about an issue that we’ve been dealing with since the beginning of time: racism. Racism is the institutional power used to hold down a certain race of people through injustice or other unkind means. And the last place we should see racism is in the church of Jesus Christ.
Peter, the apostle to the Jews, and Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, confronted this issue. We see Peter’s failure, and Paul’s freedom to help him overcome his failure.
Peter’s Failure
Peter failed on the issue of racism because he forgot. Galatians 2:11 says, “When Peter had come to Antioch”; we could stop right there. Peter forgot where he was. Antioch was no place to be a racist. It was one of the largest cities of its time, with over half a million people. It was a bustling multiracial city. Not only was it a multiracial city, but Antioch had a multiracial church with a multiracial leadership staff (Acts 13:1). One of the brothers was called Niger (not that other word, but “Niger”), who was from Africa. So there were Jews and Gentiles worshiping together in the city and in the church of Antioch. We need to be diverse. But Peter forgot. He thought he was in a tomato-soup church. No, Peter, you were in a gumbo church. Tomato soup is one color and it’s bland. But a gumbo-soup church has crab legs in it and rice. There’s all kind of flavor in a gumbo church, in the church of Antioch.
How could Peter forget this when God had been teaching him all through the book of Acts? Peter stood and saw all of these people get filled with the Holy Ghost and start speaking with different languages (Acts 2:5, 6). Peter said that these folks weren’t drunk (v. 14). It wasn’t early enough for them to get high off that wine. Those people were “filled with the Holy Spirit” (v. 4). I think that’s the key to knocking down racism.
God used these people from all these nations to show Peter diversity.
Then He took Peter to my brother Cornelius, that Italian brother (Acts 10:1) who worked at Olive Garden. Peter walked in, and God gave him this culinary vision (vv. 10–12) to try to show him—because God knows something about food and fellowship with Christians: if folks can get the food right, the fellowship and all other things work out all right. God showed Peter that He has not made anything uncommon and unclean.
God taught Peter in Acts 2. He taught him in Acts 10. Then He taught him in Acts 15. There was a missionary Baptist church meeting, where some were saying that Gentiles needed to get saved by keeping circumcision. Peter stood up and told them that you don’t need something extra to get saved. Just come as you are. They found out there’s no distinction between classes, color, or cultures, for Jesus is the Savior for all people.
But Peter forgot that. Why? Because of his tradition. Maybe Peter’s momma told him, “We don’t associate with them kind.” It’s our tradition. We all have a propensity to bring our culture and impress it upon the text. You don’t come to the text and unload; you come to the text to dig up. You don’t impose your culture on the Bible; the Bible imposes culture on you. So white folks make Jesus and they anglicize Him: He’s got blue eyes and this long, pretty hair. Black folks, they Africanize Him, and they give Him a big old Afro, and He’s saying, “Ungawa, black power.” Hispanics “Hispanicize” Him. (I don’t know if that’s a word, but it sounds good.) We’re all wrong. Jesus was not a white man. Jesus was not a black man. Jesus was not a Hispanic man. Jesus was a Jew.
If you want to know how He looked, turn over to Matthew—He’s a king. Seek His kingdom first and all His righteousness. A king has always got a kingdom.
You turn over to Mark, and He’s a servant: For the Son of man didn’t come to be served, but to serve and to give His life a ransom for many.
You turn over to Luke and you see His humanity, for He came to seek and save the lost.
You turn over to John, and you see Him as the God of God. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1:1). So you’ve got the preexisting Christ, Who became the prerecorded Christ. For “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” We got us an awesome God! If you can’t get excited about the gospel, we’ve got some problems.
Peter failed not only because he forgot where he was, not only because of his racial background, but he failed because of his fear. Look at Galatians 2:12: “For before certain men came from James, [Peter] would eat with the Gentiles.” What’s going on? Peter came into Antioch, and he started looking for a Ray’s BBQ Shack. He could smell that pork, so he would cross the tracks and go down to Ray’s BBQ Shack and order him some baby back ribs. But the Bible says his homeys came down from Jerusalem, these Jewish Christians, and saw Peter sitting at the table eating them pork chops and them chitlins, and they said, “Peter, what’s wrong with you?” (v. 12).
“Would eat” speaks of an action that started in the past but that’s still going on in the present. So Peter wasn’t eating pork chops just on Friday; he wasn’t eating pork chops just on Saturday. He would stop by there after the church service and go in there and order him some fried chicken, some collard greens, some corn bread, some yams, and some peach cobbler and Breyers ice cream. And he had his eat on. But when the Jews came, the Bible says Peter got afraid (v. 12).
What are you afraid of when it comes to cross-cultural relationships? Verse 12 says that when the Jewish believers came, Peter “withdrew and separated himself” from the Gentile believers. Anytime you’re in leadership and you mess up, it causes other folks to mess up. The rest of the Jews followed Peter and his hypocrisy right out the door (v. 13). How do you think that made those Gentile brothers feel? “It was okay to eat with me as long as it was just us. But as soon as your little proper people come, then you act like you don’t know me no more.”
Did you know that it’s not the visitors’ job to make themselves feel welcome. It’s the church home and the family—it’s your job to make people feel welcome. If I came into your church, with my African American self, would I feel welcome? Or would everybody start grabbing their purses, hoping that I don’t rob somebody?
When we were up in Grand Rapids looking at a college for our daughter, we visited a huge, predominantly Caucasian church on a Wednesday night. We sat down in the sanctuary. I thought, Maybe the teacher will acknowledge that he has visitors. No.
I said, “Well, maybe all of the people there can certainly tell we’re visitors, ‘cause we’re the only ‘ones’ there.” No.
My wife said, “Let’s go, let’s go, let’s go.” I said, “No, no. Let’s stand in the hallway and see if somebody is going to speak to us.” We stood in the main hallway, and everybody just walked by like we were invisible.
What are you trying to tell me and my wife? That we don’t count? The same blood that washed my sins is the same blood that washed your sins.
God says don’t be a hypocrite. What’s a hypocrite? A hypocrite is a person who lets you see something on the outside that’s not indicative of what’s going on, on the inside. Don’t be a hypocrite. Don’t be afraid.
Paul’s Freedom
So what did Paul do? He used his freedom to alleviate Peter’s fears so Peter could be set free.
Paul said that the first thing to do to overcome racism is confront it. Does Galatians 2:11 say, “When Peter was come to Antioch, I sent him a text message?” Or “I sent him an e-mail?” No. When somebody sins publicly, we need to deal with them publicly. We need to deal face-to-face.
What’s our problem? There’s too much pragmatism in the church and not enough “Biblicalism.” What am I saying? In the church today there’s no more concern about authenticity or character or integrity. All we’re concerned about is that the ends justify the means. The church is twenty miles wide and two inches deep. The issue should never be how many people you have in your church. The issue is what kind of people are in your church.
Paul had a lot of audacity. Here’s Peter, who has been on the trail a whole lot longer than Paul. Paul says, “I don’t care if you’re the senior pastor. If you’re a racist and you’re not doing right, I’m going to confront you to your face!”
What else do we need to do? Paul wrote in verse 14, “But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?” We need to speak up, because racism is not the truth of the gospel.
The gospel is for everybody. It’s not about traditions; it’s about truth. It’s not about culture; it’s about Christ. It’s not about what you want, but about what God wants. Stand for the truth of the gospel.
How are we going to confront and end racism? By taking a stand like Joshua, who stood up and said, “Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15).
We must take a stand like Elijah when he said, “How long will you falter between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him” (1 Kings 18:21). We have to take a stand like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, who said, “Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king” (Daniel 3:16–18).
We just need a few good men and a few good women who won’t take expediency but will take a stand for God. God can do it if you let Him use you. But we’ve got to be real. I’ll close with this story.
The gorilla at a zoo died. The zoo couldn’t afford to buy a new gorilla, but they still had people coming to see the gorilla. So they bought a gorilla suit and looked for somebody to play the gorilla. An unemployed gymnast said, “I can do that.” He put on the gorilla suit and started jumping around, swinging on ropes and stuff. Everybody came to see him, because most gorillas just sit and look at you when you come to the zoo.
Then he thought, I’ll just do some more tricks so my job is secure. He got on his rope and swung over to the next cage. The next cage was a lion’s cage. Every time the man swung that way, the whole crowd yelled, “Whoa!” and then he’d swing back. Then he’d go back again, and they’d yell, “Whoa!”
One day, just as he swung over the lion’s cage, the rope broke. “HELLLLLLLLLP!” He let out a real yell before hitting the ground. The lion came over to him and, whispering in his ear, said, “Shut up! You’re going to get us both fired.”
Now, you’ve been walking around too long in your gorilla suit. If you say you’re a Christian, take off your suit. Take off your suit, put on your armor, and do something for God. Then God can do something in you and through you and for you. Let Him have His way with you.
(The January/February 2010 edition of the Baptist Bulletin also features Robert Hunter’s first-person account of racial reconciliation in fundamentalism,” Don’t Ever Give Up.”)
Greg Randle is pastor of Waukegan Baptist Bible Church, Waukegan, Ill., “A Church for All People.” Pastor Randle is a graduate of Carver Baptist Bible Institute in Kansas City, Mo., where he now serves as adjunct professor, and will soon graduate from the Master of Ministry program at Moody Bible Institute. He and his wife, Robbie, are parents of two young women. Listen to the full version of this sermon at www.vbcaurora.org/2010conference.
[Greg Randle] We have a lot of Christians today who are still thinking like slaves, still talking like slaves, still living like slaves. Although our emancipation proclamation was signed two thousand years ago by the blood of Jesus, we still don’t know how to treat one another in the Lord.Isn’t the problem here not enough slavery? If I love my slavery to Jesus Christ who bought me a costly price, will I not love those of a different race (1 Cor. 3:16)?
[Greg Randle] Racism is the institutional power used to hold down a certain race of people through injustice or other unkind means. And the last place we should see racism is in the church of Jesus Christ.Really? Peter was using institutional power when he switched tables away from the Gentiles in the Antioch church? And then he was holding down the Gentiles with injustice? And all along I thought he was denying “the truth of the gospel” - the gospel of justification by faith (Gal. 2:14-16)? I’m looking, but I don’t see Paul rebuking Peter for racism.
Peter, the apostle to the Jews, and Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, confronted this issue. We see Peter’s failure, and Paul’s freedom to help him overcome his failure.
he had his eat on. But when the Jews came, the Bible says Peter got afraid (v. 12).Hmmm, just looking… The text seems pretty clear Peter was afraid of the men from Jerusalem — men of his own ethnic background — and not cross-cultural relationships.
What are you afraid of when it comes to cross-cultural relationships?
If we are going to teach on racism in the church from the Bible, let’s use some Spirit-inspired texts that actually deal with it (John 4, Gal. 3:28, Romans 14, 1 Cor. 12:13).
Isn’t the problem here not enough slavery? If I love my slavery to Jesus Christ who bought me a costly price, will I not love those of a different race (1 Cor. 3:16)?I think it’s mostly a different way of saying the same thing. Too much slavery to one thing, too little slavery to another. Romans 6.
There are some weak points here, though, along with some strong ones.
I have personally seen more “racism” (this is really “ethnism”) against American Indians than I have against African Americans. Sometimes people are expressing stereotypes thoughtlessly. Sometimes they are expressing real resentment and hatred. The two are not the same thing though they can sound very similar—and neither are good things to do.
Ted, I think you missed his point about Peter and cross cultural relationships too. The sermon/post is making the point that Peter was eating with Gentiles (cross cultural) until the Jews came… and then he was afraid to keep eating with the Gentiles. I don’t have the text in front of me, but that seems consistent with what I recall.
It is a strong text for this kind of message.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] I think it’s mostly a different way of saying the same thing. Too much slavery to one thing, too little slavery to another. Romans 6.Slavery doesn’t appear to a “too much, too little” thing. People are either slaves of sin, or slaves of Christ.
The gospel moves sinners out of the realm of slavery to sin and into the realm of slavery to Christ. To have a condition where one is still a slave to sin, in any small degree, means the individual is unregenerate.
“”knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin” (Romans 6:6, NKJV).
No, the text isn’t about Peter’s fear of cross cultural relationships. It is about the gospel. go back and Read Galatians 2.
Ted, there’s no either-or there on what Gal 2 is about. Because he botched the cross cultural thing, his actions damaged his gospel witness. It’s both-and.
About slavery, Romans 6 also contains imperatives in which Paul tells believers to yield their members to God as slaves of God. He would not need to say this unless it is possible to put oneself back in bondage to sin to a degree by obeying sin. We are slaves of what we obey. So positionally, yes, it’s binary: we’re 100% slaves of God or 100% slaves of sin. But in experience, we will not live this until we’re entirely sanctified.
I think Randle’s point there—if I understand him right—is a solid one.
About slavery, Romans 6 also contains imperatives in which Paul tells believers to yield their members to God as slaves of God. He would not need to say this unless it is possible to put oneself back in bondage to sin to a degree by obeying sin. We are slaves of what we obey. So positionally, yes, it’s binary: we’re 100% slaves of God or 100% slaves of sin. But in experience, we will not live this until we’re entirely sanctified.
I think Randle’s point there—if I understand him right—is a solid one.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] Ted, there’s no either-or there on what Gal 2 is about. Because he botched the cross cultural thing, his actions damaged his gospel witness. It’s both-and.Then you owe an explanation for why Paul rebukes Peter only concerning his abuse of the gospel of justification by faith, and not “the cross cultural thing.”
It looks to me that you, like the author, are reading into the text what you want find.
About slavery, Romans 6 also contains imperatives in which Paul tells believers to yield their members to God as slaves of God. He would not need to say this unless it is possible to put oneself back in bondage to sin to a degree by obeying sin. We are slaves of what we obey. So positionally, yes, it’s binary: we’re 100% slaves of God or 100% slaves of sin. But in experience, we will not live this until we’re entirely sanctified.For you, the act of sinning in a saved person is in some measure an act of of slavery to sin. Therefore, the believer in this life is simultaneously a slave of sin and a slave of Christ. Yet, Paul says exactly the opposite:
Romans 6:16-18 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.This text describes all who are saved by the gospel. Paul is plain that when it comes to the analogy of slavery, it is either/or both positionally and experientially. You either are slave of Christ, or a slave of sin. Not both.
Again, I think you are reading into the text what you want to find.
I may be misreading the text. That’s always a possibility. But I don’t recall having any interest at all in arriving at the particular view I have before studying it.
Paul rebukes Peter on the grounds of the gospel because this is by far the most serious outcome of his botching of the cross cultural relationship. But that actually intensifies the point because it shows that getting that relationship wrong can have gospel consequences (I don’t think it shows that it always has gospel related consequences—depends on exactly how its botched).
Maybe it will help some to return to the text
Galatians 2:11–12 (NKJV) — 11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
Verse 12 begins with “for,” indicating why Peter “was to be blamed:” because he botched his relationship with the Gentiles. And the motive of fear is specifically named at the end of v.12.
In v.13, Paul points out that this resulted in many others doing likewise.
Finally, in v.14 he points out the gospel connection:
But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
It’s true that there are some unique features of this particular cross cultural relationship because of the Judaizing factors involved. But, nonetheless Peter failed to “be straightforward” about the truth of the gospel by relating improperly to people of another culture/ethnicity.
As for Romans 6:
Paul goes back and forth between our position and our experience. Note these verses, though…
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
I think he’s quite clear here that it is possible for believers to “let sin reign.” And part of his argument against doing that is the fact that eventually (v.14) “sin shall not have dominion.” We are positionally not under law but under grace and ought to act accordingly… but we often don’t.
Paul rebukes Peter on the grounds of the gospel because this is by far the most serious outcome of his botching of the cross cultural relationship. But that actually intensifies the point because it shows that getting that relationship wrong can have gospel consequences (I don’t think it shows that it always has gospel related consequences—depends on exactly how its botched).
Maybe it will help some to return to the text
Verse 12 begins with “for,” indicating why Peter “was to be blamed:” because he botched his relationship with the Gentiles. And the motive of fear is specifically named at the end of v.12.
In v.13, Paul points out that this resulted in many others doing likewise.
Finally, in v.14 he points out the gospel connection:
It’s true that there are some unique features of this particular cross cultural relationship because of the Judaizing factors involved. But, nonetheless Peter failed to “be straightforward” about the truth of the gospel by relating improperly to people of another culture/ethnicity.
As for Romans 6:
Paul goes back and forth between our position and our experience. Note these verses, though…
I think he’s quite clear here that it is possible for believers to “let sin reign.” And part of his argument against doing that is the fact that eventually (v.14) “sin shall not have dominion.” We are positionally not under law but under grace and ought to act accordingly… but we often don’t.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Peace.
I would just point out that the text never calls Peter out for racism. I think its eisegesis to say he was operating out of racism and had cross-cultural issues. His issues were related to law and gospel, not ethnicity, as the text shows. Its an illegitimate application of this text to teach against racism.
I would just point out that the text never calls Peter out for racism. I think its eisegesis to say he was operating out of racism and had cross-cultural issues. His issues were related to law and gospel, not ethnicity, as the text shows. Its an illegitimate application of this text to teach against racism.
As for Romans 6:Believers, such as I, can and do let sin reign, but we are not slaves of it. We who are in Christ died to the slavery of sin when Christ died (Rom. 6:7).
Paul goes back and forth between our position and our experience.
Then you owe an explanation for why Paul rebukes Peter only concerning his abuse of the gospel of justification by faith, and not “the cross cultural thing.”What was the reason Peter feared the party of the circumcision? I think, in the text, Peter feared the racism of the men from Jerusalem. The Jews believed that the gospel was only for the Jews, or at least that Gentiles were second class citizens in the church. Peter was used to being around the Gentiles, but when the Jews came, Peter gave in to their racism and abandoned his fellowship with the Gentiles.
The affront to the gospel was the tacit affirmation that the Jews’ belief that Gentiles were at least only second class citizens in the church. It was about the gospel because it denied that all races were equal in Christ and were equally deserving of fellowship.
If you point is that Peter was guilty of fear and lack of principled fellowship rather than racism, than I agree. THe text is not clear that Peter was racist. The text is pretty clear, I think that the Jews from Jerusalem were, and Peter gave into their racism rather than stand against it, and by so doing, preached a false gospel.
I appreciated the article. While I agree that racism is still around in churches, I wonder if sometimes one can be too aware of this issue? The author mentioned his experience in a nearly all white church. If this were in my church, I admit I’d probably be among those who passed by, albeit with a smile and a wave, for two reasons. Firstly, no matter what a person’s ethnicity my personality is not given to easily striking up conversations with new people. Secondly, I often wonder if going out of my way to welcome someone of a different ethnicity would cause him to feel singled out and more uncomfortable than he may already be. Would he perceive my welcome as just another white person trying to show my lack of racism? In order to show a lack of racism one might go to the extreme in trying to treat that person as just like everyone else. I hope this makes sense. I’m not sure I’m saying it the right way.
[Larry] What was the reason Peter feared the party of the circumcision? I think, in the text, Peter feared the racism of the men from Jerusalem.Can you show this to me from the text?
This article contains gross assumptions/presuppositions and relies heavily upon such. I am hoping to have the time to rebut this theological mess in the days to come.
Peter’s issues were religious. They had nothing to do with race. Had a person of any race or ethnicity converted to Judaism (become a proselyte to use the KJV term) Peter and the other Jewish nationalists would have had table fellowship with them just fine. Also, at the time, there were Jews - both converts and the children of converts - who were of many races. That is verified by Peter’s sermon which came after the disciples spoke in tongues and the Jews of the various nationalities and races heard them praising God in their own language. Consider Simeon Niger (or Simon the black) being the same as Simon the Cyrenian (Cyrene is Libya) who along with his sons Rufus and Alexander were members of the church at Antioch. (The presence of Simon Niger, Rufus and Alexander and the fact that Simon was a prophet and allowed with his sons to fellowship with the other Jews causes the racial doctrines of the Mormons a few problems.) Peter and the others would have without a second thought participated in table fellowship with those black Africans because they were Jews, while refusing it to a person of 100% direct Jewish nationality who for whatever reason had never been circumcised (i.e. a Jew by blood whose parents had rejected Judaism and become Hellenists).
Further, the concept of “race” and “racism” did not even exist at the time in that culture. Instead, there were only tribes and nationalities (with the Jewish nation of old being one nation of 12 generally feuding tribes). You could be of any race and join a tribe by a number of means (i.e. marriage or being adopted) and you could similarly be of any race (or tribe) and be allowed to become a member of a nation … consider the Hittite Uriah joining the Israeli nation, and the Hebrew Joseph becoming (involuntarily!) an Egyptian citizen, the Midianite Zipporah, the Canaanite Rahab, the Moabite Ruth joining the Israeli nation and their respective tribes. The very idea of “race” is 100%, completely absent from the Biblical text.
Instead, “race” and “racism” were concepts created later. I do not know when or why … Afrocentrists and their (left-liberal) fellow-travelers assert that it came about early in the development of western European culture in order to facilitate Eurocentrism (at the expense of not only Africans, Asians etc. but also eastern Europeans). But it is clear that notions of “race” and “racism” that did not exist when the Bible was written and are 100% absent (show me a theological or historical point in the Bible where race, rather than nationality or tribe, is a factor) were later superimposed on Biblical interpretations in places and manners that they ought not to have been. (That being said, I am convinced that God in His omniscience knew that this folly would afflict the planet at some point and left a few - and indeed it is a very few - references such as Simeon Niger to address it.)
Of course, racism is a contemporary issue, and Christians should address it, just as other contemporary issues should be addressed. But eisegesis is not the way to address racism or any other issue. I say that since race and racism is are worldly inventions that are absent in the Bible, Romans 12:1-2 would be an excellent starting place. “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is more than sufficient to rebuke racists. And commanding Christians who have experienced racism to A) not let the sun go down on their anger or their hearts be filled with notions of bitterness or revenge and B) to remember not to expect fairness or justice in this world but rather to remember that we are pilgrims being prepared and tried by the conditions of this world for the just and perfect world to come should come next. 1 Peter 2:18-25 should expose the folly of any notions of a “civil rights movement”, and Romans 13:1-7 reveals what a great evil it was that so many Christians and churches were deceived into following the completely subversive American civil rights movement, and that this deception was fomented by false preachers who rejected core Christian doctrines and as such were not Christians in any sense, and succeeded because so many actual Christians abandoned their duties and did not stand up for the truth of the Bible against the liars and scoundrels. In this, they were no better than the Christians who similarly allowed false interpretations of the Bible to be used to justify segregation (and in the church no less!) in the first place.
Resisting the temptation to “be creative” in order to strictly adhere to what the Bible truly says and means is the surest, safest and best route. Of course, it is also the hardest.
Further, the concept of “race” and “racism” did not even exist at the time in that culture. Instead, there were only tribes and nationalities (with the Jewish nation of old being one nation of 12 generally feuding tribes). You could be of any race and join a tribe by a number of means (i.e. marriage or being adopted) and you could similarly be of any race (or tribe) and be allowed to become a member of a nation … consider the Hittite Uriah joining the Israeli nation, and the Hebrew Joseph becoming (involuntarily!) an Egyptian citizen, the Midianite Zipporah, the Canaanite Rahab, the Moabite Ruth joining the Israeli nation and their respective tribes. The very idea of “race” is 100%, completely absent from the Biblical text.
Instead, “race” and “racism” were concepts created later. I do not know when or why … Afrocentrists and their (left-liberal) fellow-travelers assert that it came about early in the development of western European culture in order to facilitate Eurocentrism (at the expense of not only Africans, Asians etc. but also eastern Europeans). But it is clear that notions of “race” and “racism” that did not exist when the Bible was written and are 100% absent (show me a theological or historical point in the Bible where race, rather than nationality or tribe, is a factor) were later superimposed on Biblical interpretations in places and manners that they ought not to have been. (That being said, I am convinced that God in His omniscience knew that this folly would afflict the planet at some point and left a few - and indeed it is a very few - references such as Simeon Niger to address it.)
Of course, racism is a contemporary issue, and Christians should address it, just as other contemporary issues should be addressed. But eisegesis is not the way to address racism or any other issue. I say that since race and racism is are worldly inventions that are absent in the Bible, Romans 12:1-2 would be an excellent starting place. “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is more than sufficient to rebuke racists. And commanding Christians who have experienced racism to A) not let the sun go down on their anger or their hearts be filled with notions of bitterness or revenge and B) to remember not to expect fairness or justice in this world but rather to remember that we are pilgrims being prepared and tried by the conditions of this world for the just and perfect world to come should come next. 1 Peter 2:18-25 should expose the folly of any notions of a “civil rights movement”, and Romans 13:1-7 reveals what a great evil it was that so many Christians and churches were deceived into following the completely subversive American civil rights movement, and that this deception was fomented by false preachers who rejected core Christian doctrines and as such were not Christians in any sense, and succeeded because so many actual Christians abandoned their duties and did not stand up for the truth of the Bible against the liars and scoundrels. In this, they were no better than the Christians who similarly allowed false interpretations of the Bible to be used to justify segregation (and in the church no less!) in the first place.
Resisting the temptation to “be creative” in order to strictly adhere to what the Bible truly says and means is the surest, safest and best route. Of course, it is also the hardest.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
To be honest, I am surprised by the response here. I would have thought that the Jew-Gentile issues are one of the most undisputed issues in biblical studies. To suggest that there was no superiority complex on the part of Jews is mind-boggling to me. That is the whole point of a number of passages including Romans and Ephesians. Even John 4 clearly testifies to the issue during the life of Jesus.
The point of Gal 2 specifically is how the gospel relates to Jew-Gentile relationships. Peter withdrew from Gentiles because he feared the party of the circumcision (the Jews). Now, why would Peter fear the Jews? The answer, I believe, is his reputation was at stake for hanging around “them.”
I suppose I should have learned by now not to be surprised by anything, and I usually succeed at that, but count me astounded at this one.
The point of Gal 2 specifically is how the gospel relates to Jew-Gentile relationships. Peter withdrew from Gentiles because he feared the party of the circumcision (the Jews). Now, why would Peter fear the Jews? The answer, I believe, is his reputation was at stake for hanging around “them.”
I suppose I should have learned by now not to be surprised by anything, and I usually succeed at that, but count me astounded at this one.
well stated Larry.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Larry:
Please put the Jewish superiority issues in their proper context. First, these Jewish superiority issues were religious, not racial. You could be of any race and still be a Jew, and be included. You could also be a direct blood descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with absolutely no intermarriage or intermingling in your lineage and be excluded if you were not a circumcised observant Jew. To go even further, an African man and a Chinese woman could have converted to Judaism (become proselytes) and their children would have been considered 100% Jewish by blood. Meanwhile, the aforementioned direct descendant of Abraham with no Gentile blood in his veins would be considered cut off, a non-Jew, and his children would have to convert to gain acceptance among the Jews. But the superiority issues were religious first and nationalistic second, and even there one had to be a part of the religion in order to be a part of the nation, so it was one and the same (save the issue that not all adherents to the religion were nationalists).
Judaism didn’t even become a “race” or “ethnicity” until long after the destruction after the second temple, and that was the result of Jews’ assimilating the racial beliefs of the nations that they were living in as a diaspora. As a result, you have Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, and other groups (i.e. Ethiopian Jews) dividing on racial/ethnic lines, and not just in Israel. (You’d be amazed about some of the things that they say about each other, especially in private.) Things like that would have never gone on in the times that the Old Testament and New Testament were written.
Jewish religious chauvinism and racism are issues that have nothing to do with each other. After all, let us not forget that Jewish religious/national chauvinism had a legitimate basis: God TOLD the Jews to remain separate from the other nations. When the Jews intermingled with the other nations - disobeying God’s command - they became pagans and syncretists when they adopted the beliefs and practices from the Gentile nations, and the result was God’s very severe punishment of them.
So Jewish chauvinism, far from being something WRONG, was actually the Jews’ doing what God had told them to do! It is merely that after the coming of Jesus Christ, the Jews had to be instructed that Gentile believers in Jesus Christ were Jews too - grafted in - despite their not having to be circumcised, obey the Sabbath etc. (and also that Jews who didn’t believe in Jesus Christ were NOT truly Jews DESPITE their adherence to the Mosaic law). But please recall that Christians - both Jews and Gentiles - were commanded to be united together, but also separate from the world. The error of the Jewish-Christian chauvinists was not their Jewish chauvinism, but rather their inability to see that the Jewishness on which their chauvinism was based had been redefined, and that now Jewishness was determined by belief in Jesus Christ and not a combination of ancestral lineage and Mosaic observance.
That is why using this incident in an illustration against bigotry is so dangerous, because the truth is that Christians are supposed to be bigots not dissimilar from the Jews of old. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18? It means that Christians are not supposed to fellowship with non-Christians. Using the Peter-Paul passage to teach a point that is wholly unrelated to the passage is bait-and-switch. Far better to use it to convey something that is relevant to the actual meaning, which is that Christianity is actually spiritual Judaism, with believing Gentiles grafted in among the believing Jews, the message of Romans 11:13-18.
Beyond the message that the gospel of Jesus Christ is not a servant of the Mosaic law which was a schoolmaster to point us to and teach us of Jesus Christ, and which Jesus Christ fulfilled, what else can be gleaned from Paul’s confronting and correcting Peter that is consistent with the actual meaning and intent of the text? We should not consider our contemporary issues to be anything approaching the danger of making the gospel of Jesus Christ a servant of the Mosaic law (an idea utterly destroyed by the initial chapters of Hebrews). That is what Paul was confronting.
I suppose that if you absolutely have to find a Biblical text to use in discussing our race/bigotry issues, then perhaps the incident in Acts where the diaspora Jewish-Christians were (or perceived themselves to be) treated unfairly by the Israeli Jewish-Christians in Acts 6:1-7 may actually fit. And even that may not be truly appropriate, because even there the real issues - according to some commentaries - were likely religious (the Jerusalem Jews considered themselves to be more observant and pious than the diaspora Jews, especially the diaspora Jews that embraced Hellenism to a degree) or were simply cronyism (the Jerusalem Jews giving better treatment to their friends, neighbors, relatives etc.) than “Jerusalem Jews thinking that they were better than diaspora Jews because of where they were from.” Or you can go to the gospels and recall the low esteem that certain Jews had for Nazareth and those who came from there (i.e. John 1:46) and Galilee as well (John 7:52). But we cannot - we must not - superimpose our own agendas (I know that is a loaded term, but I am at a loss for a better one) on the Biblical text.
Please put the Jewish superiority issues in their proper context. First, these Jewish superiority issues were religious, not racial. You could be of any race and still be a Jew, and be included. You could also be a direct blood descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with absolutely no intermarriage or intermingling in your lineage and be excluded if you were not a circumcised observant Jew. To go even further, an African man and a Chinese woman could have converted to Judaism (become proselytes) and their children would have been considered 100% Jewish by blood. Meanwhile, the aforementioned direct descendant of Abraham with no Gentile blood in his veins would be considered cut off, a non-Jew, and his children would have to convert to gain acceptance among the Jews. But the superiority issues were religious first and nationalistic second, and even there one had to be a part of the religion in order to be a part of the nation, so it was one and the same (save the issue that not all adherents to the religion were nationalists).
Judaism didn’t even become a “race” or “ethnicity” until long after the destruction after the second temple, and that was the result of Jews’ assimilating the racial beliefs of the nations that they were living in as a diaspora. As a result, you have Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, and other groups (i.e. Ethiopian Jews) dividing on racial/ethnic lines, and not just in Israel. (You’d be amazed about some of the things that they say about each other, especially in private.) Things like that would have never gone on in the times that the Old Testament and New Testament were written.
Jewish religious chauvinism and racism are issues that have nothing to do with each other. After all, let us not forget that Jewish religious/national chauvinism had a legitimate basis: God TOLD the Jews to remain separate from the other nations. When the Jews intermingled with the other nations - disobeying God’s command - they became pagans and syncretists when they adopted the beliefs and practices from the Gentile nations, and the result was God’s very severe punishment of them.
So Jewish chauvinism, far from being something WRONG, was actually the Jews’ doing what God had told them to do! It is merely that after the coming of Jesus Christ, the Jews had to be instructed that Gentile believers in Jesus Christ were Jews too - grafted in - despite their not having to be circumcised, obey the Sabbath etc. (and also that Jews who didn’t believe in Jesus Christ were NOT truly Jews DESPITE their adherence to the Mosaic law). But please recall that Christians - both Jews and Gentiles - were commanded to be united together, but also separate from the world. The error of the Jewish-Christian chauvinists was not their Jewish chauvinism, but rather their inability to see that the Jewishness on which their chauvinism was based had been redefined, and that now Jewishness was determined by belief in Jesus Christ and not a combination of ancestral lineage and Mosaic observance.
That is why using this incident in an illustration against bigotry is so dangerous, because the truth is that Christians are supposed to be bigots not dissimilar from the Jews of old. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18? It means that Christians are not supposed to fellowship with non-Christians. Using the Peter-Paul passage to teach a point that is wholly unrelated to the passage is bait-and-switch. Far better to use it to convey something that is relevant to the actual meaning, which is that Christianity is actually spiritual Judaism, with believing Gentiles grafted in among the believing Jews, the message of Romans 11:13-18.
Beyond the message that the gospel of Jesus Christ is not a servant of the Mosaic law which was a schoolmaster to point us to and teach us of Jesus Christ, and which Jesus Christ fulfilled, what else can be gleaned from Paul’s confronting and correcting Peter that is consistent with the actual meaning and intent of the text? We should not consider our contemporary issues to be anything approaching the danger of making the gospel of Jesus Christ a servant of the Mosaic law (an idea utterly destroyed by the initial chapters of Hebrews). That is what Paul was confronting.
I suppose that if you absolutely have to find a Biblical text to use in discussing our race/bigotry issues, then perhaps the incident in Acts where the diaspora Jewish-Christians were (or perceived themselves to be) treated unfairly by the Israeli Jewish-Christians in Acts 6:1-7 may actually fit. And even that may not be truly appropriate, because even there the real issues - according to some commentaries - were likely religious (the Jerusalem Jews considered themselves to be more observant and pious than the diaspora Jews, especially the diaspora Jews that embraced Hellenism to a degree) or were simply cronyism (the Jerusalem Jews giving better treatment to their friends, neighbors, relatives etc.) than “Jerusalem Jews thinking that they were better than diaspora Jews because of where they were from.” Or you can go to the gospels and recall the low esteem that certain Jews had for Nazareth and those who came from there (i.e. John 1:46) and Galilee as well (John 7:52). But we cannot - we must not - superimpose our own agendas (I know that is a loaded term, but I am at a loss for a better one) on the Biblical text.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
[Larry] To suggest that there was no superiority complex on the part of Jews is mind-boggling to me.Nobody thus far suggested that. That just isn’t the issue in Galatians 2. Peter’s sin was his unbelief in justification by faith, not racism. The passage is so very passionate about the gospel, and very edifying.
[Larry] Now, why would Peter fear the Jews? The answer, I believe, is his reputation was at stake for hanging around “them.”Larry, I challenged you earlier to back up your statement that Peter feared the racism of the men from Jerusalem from the text. You did not. Undeterred, you now make a further judgment about the source of Peter’s fear being his reputation. But that it is not found in the text either. Would it matter to you what the text actually says?
[Larry] I suppose I should have learned by now not to be surprised by anything, and I usually succeed at that, but count me astounded at this one.You have choice. You can either defend or your interpretation of Scripture when challenged to do so with observations from the text, or you can defend yourself with ad hominem. Which seems to you the better approach as a Christian?
It appears that Ted and JobK have deposed Randle’s arrest of the text and the imposition of his parochial interpretation rather handily so let me thank them both. I concur with them and believe their arguments represent my intended response.
From this statement by Randle…
From this statement by Randle…
When we were up in Grand Rapids looking at a college for our daughter, we visited a huge, predominantly Caucasian church on a Wednesday night. We sat down in the sanctuary. I thought, Maybe the teacher will acknowledge that he has visitors. No.…and varying other postures, I believe he has a common “Afro-centric” chip on his shoulder. It is revealed in his description of the church, “predominantly Caucasian church”. If he were true to his beliefs where he stated…
God wants us to be able to come together in the Body of Christ regardless of our racial background, regardless of our ethnicity—to come and experience unity and fellowship one with another.…he would have considered their race as incidental, not primary. He then interpreted their response to his presence as racially motivated. He has personal issues in this case and has projected them onto others. Shame on him.
[Ted Bigelow] Nobody thus far suggested that. That just isn’t the issue in Galatians 2. Peter’s sin was his unbelief in justification by faith, not racism. The passage is so very passionate about the gospel, and very edifying.So am I understanding you correctly that you are arguing that Peter did not believe in justification by faith alone? I don’t want to be unChristian, but that is more mindboggling to me than the previous. Peter, prior to this in Acts, has clearly preached justification by faith alone. He is one of the “inner three” of the disciples, an apostle in the church, a persecuted Christian having spent time in jail and under threat of death, and a NT author, and if you are correct, he would also be a false apostle.
[Larry] Larry, I challenged you earlier to back up your statement that Peter feared the racism of the men from Jerusalem from the text. You did not.Actually, I think I did by documenting several places where I draw my ideas from (ideas which, to my knowledge, are virtually undisputed).
Undeterred, you now make a further judgment about the source of Peter’s fear being his reputation. But that it is not found in the text either. Would it matter to you what the text actually says?Of course it matters to me what the text actually says (though I wonder how that pejorative sounding question is a “better approach as a Christian”).
But perhaps you and I have different ideas of exegesis. I think exegesis involves historical context. You can’t understand what a text says until you know what is going on in the situation.
Here in Galatians 2, we have to seek some understanding of historical context. I think the answer to that is found in understanding Jewish attitudes towards Gentiles. In my understanding, Peter was afraid that his bona fides would be questioned by the men from Jerusalem because he was eating with the Gentiles, and presumably eating Gentile food with them. If you recall Acts 15 (which is one of the possibilities for historical context) that is exactly the issue. So we must ask, How was Peter denying the gospel? The answer is found in the same principle found in Gal 3:26 and Eph 2 (among other places) that the gospel makes us one, and refusing to treat other believers as one regardless of their ethnicity is a denial that the gospel has made us one. So Peter’s “gospel problem” was a tacit denial that the Gentiles were equally worthy of fellowship as the “party of the circumicision.”
I would ask you, what do you think Peter’s fear was over? And how did Peter deny the gospel here?
[Larry] You have choice. You can either defend or your interpretation of Scripture when challenged to do so with observations from the textI think I did that, referencing several places in the text where the idea of Jewish superiority (which is what racism is actually all about) is documented.
or you can defend yourself with ad hominem.I didn’t do that.
Which seems to you the better approach as a Christian?Ted, honestly, I am not sure how this question furthers profitable conversation. It just doesn’t strike me as helpful. Surely we can disagree and converse without you questioning whether or not I want to act like a Christian. I would like to have a respectful and profitable exchange.
[Larry] So am I understanding you correctly that you are arguing that Peter did not believe in justification by faith alone?No. But he was acting out of line with the doctrine, and this is what he was reproved for by Paul.
“even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Peter was wrestling through the issues of justification by law vs. justification by faith. Was this a statement of his falling away from the gospel? Of course not. Paul simply rebukes and corrects his temporary actions which are in line with unbelief.
Larry, I challenged you earlier to back up your statement that Peter feared the racism of the men from Jerusalem from the text. You did not.
[Larry] Actually, I think I did by documenting several places where I draw my ideas from (ideas which, to my knowledge, are virtually undisputed).I’m looking for you to back up your assertions out of Galatians 2.
At this point Larry, this seems fruitless to me. You left off post 13 with a comment about how posts like mine “surprise” and “astound” you, which led me to challenge your ad hominem (post #13). Now you don’t see it. What can I say?
[Ted Bigelow] No. But he was acting out of line with the doctrine, and this is what he was reproved for by Paul.I agree with that. But how did he act out line with the doctrine and why?
Answering these types of questions is the task of exegesis, I think. The historical context is part of the issue.
You say, Peter was wrestling through the issues of justification by law vs. justification by faith. Again, I am surprised. I don’t understand the basis for this from Galatians 2 or anywhere else. You seem again to think that Peter was confused about soteriology. I don’t think that was the case. In fact, Galatians 2 says that Peter’s problem was fear, not soteriology. His fear (not his belief or confusion) led him to act in certain ways that denied the unity of Jew and Gentile on equal footing in the body. It was perhaps a “separate but equal” kind of thing, at least temporarily. By eating with the Gentiles, Peter shows his belief in the gospel making “one body of both Jew and Gentile.” But his fear led him to do something else, not because he didn’t believe it, but because he was afraid of people from Jerusalem, probably IMO over his reputation with them and the people back at Jerusalem. I will entertain another view if you offer one.
I’m looking for you to back up your assertions out of Galatians 2.AGain, exegesis involves historical context as well. Galatians 2 says that Peter feared the men from Jerusalem and therefore stopped eating with the Gentiles. You have to, in the process of exegesis, explore why that is so. What was it about those men in that setting that caused fear in Peter?
But as an aside, you want me to use Gal 2 to support the claim, yet you do not use Galatians 2 to show Peter’s unbelief or confusion about the gospel means of justification. That is part of my question to you. I have tried to show you where I get my position from. I would be interested to see you interact with me and show me where you get your position from.
At this point Larry, this seems fruitless to me.Perhaps. But I have answered every question you have put to me, I think. You haven’t interacted with it much, nor answered the questions I put forth to you. And that will prove fruitless I think.
So again, I ask, what do you think Peter’s fear was over? And how did Peter deny the gospel here? Help me understand where you are coming from.
You left off post 13 with a comment about how posts like mine “surprise” and “astound” you, which led me to challenge your ad hominem (post #13). Now you don’t see it. What can I say?You could show me what you mean. Perhaps I don’t know what ad hominem is, but I have not typically thought that expressing my own ignorance as ad hominem, unless it is ad hominem directed at me for being ignorant on some things. I certainly don’t think I have directed it at you or those who disagree with me. I have simply expressed my own surprise that something I thought was virtually undisputed is actually disputed.
Thanks, Ted.
[Ted Bigelow] Believers, such as I, can and do let sin reign, but we are not slaves of it. We who are in Christ died to the slavery of sin when Christ died (Rom. 6:7).Agreed… mostly. It would be more precise to say “we act like slaves.” But I think the sermon here mostly uses that kind of language anyway.
I think we might be getting a little hung up on the word “racism.” I don’t think it has anything to do with anything “institutional” but I’m not entirely sure what the author means by the word.
But I would not call what happened in Gal.2 “racism” either (actually, there’s not much of anything I’d call racism.) It’s really ethnism because their geographical and cultural background/origin is what prompts the guys Peter is afraid of to despise them.
Then Peter turns around—because of his fear—and commits an act of practical ethnism/”racism.” Though is not—as far as we can tell—motivated by any personal hatred for the Gentiles involved, he effectively despises them. Despising them is the significance of his actions. He allows fear of folks of his own kind to trump respect for those who are ethnically not of his kind.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]This past Sunday, my church recognized Orphan Sunday and emphasized both the biblical teaching of adoption and the human practice of it. The sermon was about how we, as adopted children of God, sometimes still live as slaves in the Father’s house. Should anyone have the time and interest to explore this issue, the link is here: http://downtownpres.org/sermon-downloads[Ted Bigelow] Believers, such as I, can and do let sin reign, but we are not slaves of it. We who are in Christ died to the slavery of sin when Christ died (Rom. 6:7).Agreed… mostly. It would be more precise to say “we act like slaves.” But I think the sermon here mostly uses that kind of language anyway.
(If that’s not enticing enough, the same link will take you to a sermon on being “missional,” always a fun topic around here.)
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Aaron and Charlie,
We all use words with a lot of flexibility in normal interaction. But may I suggest to you both, though, that in this one area we tighten our vocabulary?
To say we can “sometimes live as slaves in the Father’s house” and then refer that slavery to a slavery to sin is wrong on two counts. One, those who live in the Father’s house are the slaves of Christ. Two, if one lives as a slave again to sin after having been redeemed by the death of Christ, what shall again redeem him now back to Christ? Was the death of Christ insufficient to fully remove him out from the slavery to sin the first time? What now must our brother do to leave his present slavery to sin and get transferred back to his former slavery in Christ?
I trust neither of you mean this, but this is the only implication if we allow ourselves to claim regenerate men or women can go back to being a slave to sin, even if temporarily. It denies Rom. 6:7.
For the three of us, we speak, and other Christians listen. By so speaking of an ongoing slavery to sin, we implicitly communicate that our fellow believers, who aren’t so privileged with out education, and who look up to us in some degree, can in some degree go back under slavery to sin.
Why is this dangerous? Because the “slavery” imagery paints the believer struggling with indwelling sin as a victim and as one who has no power to break out of those deep set patterns. We confuse them. It tempts them to passivity in dealing with sin - the very opposite effect we hope to have. We should be proclaiming to them their freedom in Christ from the dominion to sin, and with it the ever-present power indwelling them to live for righteousness which they never had before (Rom. 6:12-13).
So let’s sharpen our iron our this one very important topic.
Aaron, on your evaluation of racism and Galatians 2, I completely agree. Thanks. My original point is that if we will teach Galatians 2,though, the “preach” of that passage won’t be racism, or even ethnicism. It will be on two contrasting systems, justification by law, or justification by gospel. This is what Paul writes about in Galatians 2:14ff.
We all use words with a lot of flexibility in normal interaction. But may I suggest to you both, though, that in this one area we tighten our vocabulary?
To say we can “sometimes live as slaves in the Father’s house” and then refer that slavery to a slavery to sin is wrong on two counts. One, those who live in the Father’s house are the slaves of Christ. Two, if one lives as a slave again to sin after having been redeemed by the death of Christ, what shall again redeem him now back to Christ? Was the death of Christ insufficient to fully remove him out from the slavery to sin the first time? What now must our brother do to leave his present slavery to sin and get transferred back to his former slavery in Christ?
I trust neither of you mean this, but this is the only implication if we allow ourselves to claim regenerate men or women can go back to being a slave to sin, even if temporarily. It denies Rom. 6:7.
For the three of us, we speak, and other Christians listen. By so speaking of an ongoing slavery to sin, we implicitly communicate that our fellow believers, who aren’t so privileged with out education, and who look up to us in some degree, can in some degree go back under slavery to sin.
Why is this dangerous? Because the “slavery” imagery paints the believer struggling with indwelling sin as a victim and as one who has no power to break out of those deep set patterns. We confuse them. It tempts them to passivity in dealing with sin - the very opposite effect we hope to have. We should be proclaiming to them their freedom in Christ from the dominion to sin, and with it the ever-present power indwelling them to live for righteousness which they never had before (Rom. 6:12-13).
So let’s sharpen our iron our this one very important topic.
Aaron, on your evaluation of racism and Galatians 2, I completely agree. Thanks. My original point is that if we will teach Galatians 2,though, the “preach” of that passage won’t be racism, or even ethnicism. It will be on two contrasting systems, justification by law, or justification by gospel. This is what Paul writes about in Galatians 2:14ff.
Aaron, on your evaluation of racism and Galatians 2, I completely agree. Thanks. My original point is that if we will teach Galatians 2,though, the “preach” of that passage won’t be racism, or even ethnicism. It will be on two contrasting systems, justification by law, or justification by gospel. This is what Paul writes about in Galatians 2:14ff.
But I would not call what happened in Gal.2 “racism” either (actually, there’s not much of anything I’d call racism.) It’s really ethnism because their geographical and cultural background/origin is what prompts the guys Peter is afraid of to despise them.I’ve enjoyed watching this interaction unfold, but I do have agree with Larry and Aaron on this one. Ted, when it comes to Galatians 2, it seems as if you are compartmentalizing the gospel of justification from its social implications when you don’t acknowledge the ethnicism that Aaron talks about. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems as if your hermeneutic emphasizes the grammatical but minimizes the historical.
But I would not call what happened in Gal.2 “racism” either (actually, there’s not much of anything I’d call racism.) It’s really ethnism because their geographical and cultural background/origin is what prompts the guys Peter is afraid of to despise them.Aaron and Ted, What you describe here is what racism is … treating people differently based on their ethnicity.
Then Peter turns around—because of his fear—and commits an act of practical ethnism/”racism.” Though is not—as far as we can tell—motivated by any personal hatred for the Gentiles involved, he effectively despises them. Despising them is the significance of his actions. He allows fear of folks of his own kind to trump respect for those who are ethnically not of his kind.
The racism/treating people differently seems the problem of the men from Jerusalem in the context and that is what caused fear for Peter, and Peter, out of that fear defers to them and thus sends an inaccurate message about the gospel, namely that Gentiles and Jews are not on equal footing. In Galatians 3, this point is reaffirmed.
In a book that addresses, in part, the gospel, Gal 2:11-14 is an example of one way that the gospel is compromised, and the particular issue is the refusal to act like the gospel unites both Jew and Gentile, again something that is specifically addressed in 3:26-28.
So perhaps we are getting hung up on the word “racism” and defining it differently. I don’t know. And I certainly could be wrong. I am open to other ideas.
Ted, I hope you get a few minutes to answer my questions and help me understand where you are coming from. I am unclear about how you arrive at your conclusions that this is not about racism (or about treating people differently based on ethnicity/background/culture) or how Peter was confused about justification by faith vs. works.
Thanks
[Joel Shaffer] I’ve enjoyed watching this interaction unfold, but I do have agree with Larry and Aaron on this one. Ted, when it comes to Galatians 2, it seems as if you are compartmentalizing the gospel of justification from its social implications when you don’t acknowledge the ethnicism that Aaron talks about.Joel, in my last post I completely agreed with Aaron’s point on ethnicism.
I like your word, compartmentalizing. Galatians 2 is not about ethnicism, that is ancillary to the main point of the gospel of the justification by faith. Paul rebukes Peter not for bad ethnicism, fear of cross-culturism, or racism, but for not holding to the doctrine of justification by faith. Thus we can assert that Paul “compartmentalized” his reproof of Peter to the key issue, knowing that once that was fixed, the other ancillary issues will follow.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems as if your hermeneutic emphasizes the grammatical but minimizes the historical.My point here is eisegesis - reading a pre-set understanding into the text and making it say what one wants it to say.
[Larry] Ted, I hope you get a few minutes to answer my questions and help me understand where you are coming from. I am unclear about how you arrive at your conclusions that this is not about racism (or about treating people differently based on ethnicity/background/culture) or how Peter was confused about justification by faith vs. works.Larry, it would behoove you to research what ad hominem means - to understand my earlier posts. For my responses to your questions in this post, I answered them in my post to Joel above, and in my prior posts responding to you. Peace.
Thanks Ted for your response.
With respect to ad hominem, I am hesitant to get into it too far because I don’t want any rancor, and it is off topic. Let me just say that my previous response was an attempt to gently say that I think you are incorrectly judging the matter, perhaps because we disagree on what ad hominem is. I am familiar with how “ad hominem” is generally used in debate and argument, and I am confident that I did not participate in any ad hominem argument. Ad hominem is typically used to describe attacking a person—his character, intelligence, etc., rather than his argument. I said nothing about your or anyone else personally, which is an indispensable part of ad hominem. If anything, it was directed at myself for my own ignorance concerning the argument put forth. If someone else had said about me what I said about myself (“you’re ignorant and uninformed”) it would have been down the line of ad hominem. But I did not say that kind of thing about anyone else. Quite frankly, I have never heard anyone dispute what I believe Gal 2 is about with respect to this specific argument. So I am surprised. That’s not your problem; it’s mine. And it fits no definition of ad hominem that I know. But that’s a side issue; let’s not get bogged down in it. I say all that to be clear about how “ad hominem” is generally used, and why I think you are incorrect in judging what I said as ad hominem.
Now to the main point, with respect to the questions I asked, I hope we can make some progress here because I want to understand your position. I appreciate you pointing me back to your post to Joel and your previous comments. I have read back through everything you have posted and I see no place that you told us why you think Peter feared the men from Jerusalem and how Peter denied the gospel. It seems to me that, on this particular issue, you have merely restated your point several times, but never actually explained how you get there from the text. If I missed it, I apologize. Perhaps you could point me to the particular post or posts. But I think those are two essential questions in the exegetical process for this passage.
Why do you think Peter feared the men from Jerusalem? And how did Peter deny the gospel in this instance?
With respect to ad hominem, I am hesitant to get into it too far because I don’t want any rancor, and it is off topic. Let me just say that my previous response was an attempt to gently say that I think you are incorrectly judging the matter, perhaps because we disagree on what ad hominem is. I am familiar with how “ad hominem” is generally used in debate and argument, and I am confident that I did not participate in any ad hominem argument. Ad hominem is typically used to describe attacking a person—his character, intelligence, etc., rather than his argument. I said nothing about your or anyone else personally, which is an indispensable part of ad hominem. If anything, it was directed at myself for my own ignorance concerning the argument put forth. If someone else had said about me what I said about myself (“you’re ignorant and uninformed”) it would have been down the line of ad hominem. But I did not say that kind of thing about anyone else. Quite frankly, I have never heard anyone dispute what I believe Gal 2 is about with respect to this specific argument. So I am surprised. That’s not your problem; it’s mine. And it fits no definition of ad hominem that I know. But that’s a side issue; let’s not get bogged down in it. I say all that to be clear about how “ad hominem” is generally used, and why I think you are incorrect in judging what I said as ad hominem.
Now to the main point, with respect to the questions I asked, I hope we can make some progress here because I want to understand your position. I appreciate you pointing me back to your post to Joel and your previous comments. I have read back through everything you have posted and I see no place that you told us why you think Peter feared the men from Jerusalem and how Peter denied the gospel. It seems to me that, on this particular issue, you have merely restated your point several times, but never actually explained how you get there from the text. If I missed it, I apologize. Perhaps you could point me to the particular post or posts. But I think those are two essential questions in the exegetical process for this passage.
Why do you think Peter feared the men from Jerusalem? And how did Peter deny the gospel in this instance?
[Larry] Why do you think Peter feared the men from Jerusalem? And how did Peter deny the gospel in this instance?Question 1) Peter feared “the party of the circumcision” (Gal. 2:12). Paul’s words place Peter’s fear in the realm of adherence to the Mosaic Law to gain justification before God. Peter and those led astray by him were guilty of “hypocrisy” (v. 13) not racism.
Question 2) Paul says they “they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (v. 14) and went on to reprove him using the truth of justification by faith in v. 16 and 17.
Ted,
I appreciate what you have said about the slavery, and I am sure everyone else agrees with what you wrote. I just don’t think you have completely apprehended the point being put forward. It is not that Christians return to a slave state, but to a slave-like state. They are not truly enslaved, but they act like the slaves they previously were. This is the heart of the sanctification issue. If slaves of Christ never acted like slaves of sin anymore, we would not call sanctification a progressive work but a perfectly completed work.
Their point, I think, is that we sometimes continue acting like slaves of sin. Your point, I think, is that we are no longer compelled to act like slaves of sin.
I appreciate what you have said about the slavery, and I am sure everyone else agrees with what you wrote. I just don’t think you have completely apprehended the point being put forward. It is not that Christians return to a slave state, but to a slave-like state. They are not truly enslaved, but they act like the slaves they previously were. This is the heart of the sanctification issue. If slaves of Christ never acted like slaves of sin anymore, we would not call sanctification a progressive work but a perfectly completed work.
Their point, I think, is that we sometimes continue acting like slaves of sin. Your point, I think, is that we are no longer compelled to act like slaves of sin.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Yes. As I wrote to Aaron in #7: “Believers, such as I, can and do let sin reign, but we are not slaves of it.” I think that is correct.
I also wrote in #23: We all use words with a lot of flexibility in normal interaction. But may I suggest to you both, though, that in this one area [slavery] we tighten our vocabulary?
To be in “slave-like state” means you have no power to turn away from your sin, but to be under its total dominion (Rom. 6:6). To be in a “slave-like state,” but also be in Christ, is a contradiction. Its like you being saved and unsaved at the same time. Its like having the promises of God for your progressive sanctification and his warnings of your condemnation dwelling in you jointly. You are bought by him, sealed in the Spirit, but you are still living in the old slave-like state?
No, your position in Christ interprets your Christian experience, not vice-versa.
Biblically, we are to tell believers they are not in a slave-like state to sin, but have the power through the indwelling Spirit to put on the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 13:14). If you or I could “act like the slaves” [your words] we were before Christ, i.e., before 2 Cor. 5:17, then we would also have no power to leave that state. All things have not been made new - for we are still in a slave-like state.
Therefore - to be precise - to say a sinning believer is in a slave-like state requires him to be saved all over again, and to start his sanctification all over again. Better to recognize that God is allowing him to suffer in his sinning in order to progress his sanctification (James 1:2-4).
I also wrote in #23: We all use words with a lot of flexibility in normal interaction. But may I suggest to you both, though, that in this one area [slavery] we tighten our vocabulary?
[Chip Van Emmerik] Ted,Chip, you missed my point, bro. To say a Christian can return to a “slave-like state” [your words] requires us to define what “slave-like” means biblically. If we will do that that, then we will agree with our Lord: “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin” John 8:34.
I just don’t think you have completely apprehended the point being put forward. It is not that Christians return to a slave state, but to a slave-like state. They are not truly enslaved, but they act like the slaves they previously were.
To be in “slave-like state” means you have no power to turn away from your sin, but to be under its total dominion (Rom. 6:6). To be in a “slave-like state,” but also be in Christ, is a contradiction. Its like you being saved and unsaved at the same time. Its like having the promises of God for your progressive sanctification and his warnings of your condemnation dwelling in you jointly. You are bought by him, sealed in the Spirit, but you are still living in the old slave-like state?
No, your position in Christ interprets your Christian experience, not vice-versa.
Biblically, we are to tell believers they are not in a slave-like state to sin, but have the power through the indwelling Spirit to put on the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 13:14). If you or I could “act like the slaves” [your words] we were before Christ, i.e., before 2 Cor. 5:17, then we would also have no power to leave that state. All things have not been made new - for we are still in a slave-like state.
Therefore - to be precise - to say a sinning believer is in a slave-like state requires him to be saved all over again, and to start his sanctification all over again. Better to recognize that God is allowing him to suffer in his sinning in order to progress his sanctification (James 1:2-4).
Ted,
Who do you think Paul is talking to in Romans 6:12-13, those to whom he says they should no longer present themselves to sin to obey sin, because they are slaves of the one that they obey? I wonder if there isn’t a category for “slave like” in practice that is not true of our position. It would seem strange for Paul to tell the Roman Christians to quit acting like slaves if it were impossible for them to do such, and it seems strange that vv. 12-13 are directed to unbelievers. So it seems to me, at first glance, like there is a category of practice that is not the category of position.
I think the NT frequently dichotomizes between position and practice, and telling believers to live like they actually are. I wonder if this is not one of those times. Paul would be telling the Roman Christians, “Quit acting like slaves because you aren’t.”
On Galatians 2, thanks for your response.
On question 1, Paul doesn’t say anything in the text to Peter about adherence to the Law, and I still find it hard to believe that Peter was confused about the means of justification, whether law or faith. So far as I can see, the text says nothing about confusion, but rather talks about Peter’s fear and his resulting actions. The “hypocrisy” seems to me to be that Peter ate with the Gentiles when the Jews weren’t around, but did not eat with them when they were around. So the hypocrisy is this:
On question 2, with due respect, it seems like your answer is merely a restatement. To say that “they were not straightfoward” is the same as saying they were denying or compromising the gospel. My question is “how”? How, in your mind, were they not straightforward?
My answer to that is that they were not straightforward because when the Jews came around they refused table fellowship with the Gentiles, thereby giving credence to the idea that Gentiles were not on equal footing in the church precisely because of their culture/ethnicity.
This of course was the situation in Acts 10-11 when, following the encounter with Cornelius, the Jews went hard after Peter for his acceptance of Corneliusn (Acts 11:2-3). Having experienced that once, Peter was gunshy to experience it again, and as a result of this fear, withdrew table fellowship and sent the message unwittingly probably that the gospel does not erase all the barriers.
So what are the weaknesses in what I am arguing for? What am I missing?
Who do you think Paul is talking to in Romans 6:12-13, those to whom he says they should no longer present themselves to sin to obey sin, because they are slaves of the one that they obey? I wonder if there isn’t a category for “slave like” in practice that is not true of our position. It would seem strange for Paul to tell the Roman Christians to quit acting like slaves if it were impossible for them to do such, and it seems strange that vv. 12-13 are directed to unbelievers. So it seems to me, at first glance, like there is a category of practice that is not the category of position.
I think the NT frequently dichotomizes between position and practice, and telling believers to live like they actually are. I wonder if this is not one of those times. Paul would be telling the Roman Christians, “Quit acting like slaves because you aren’t.”
On Galatians 2, thanks for your response.
On question 1, Paul doesn’t say anything in the text to Peter about adherence to the Law, and I still find it hard to believe that Peter was confused about the means of justification, whether law or faith. So far as I can see, the text says nothing about confusion, but rather talks about Peter’s fear and his resulting actions. The “hypocrisy” seems to me to be that Peter ate with the Gentiles when the Jews weren’t around, but did not eat with them when they were around. So the hypocrisy is this:
On question 2, with due respect, it seems like your answer is merely a restatement. To say that “they were not straightfoward” is the same as saying they were denying or compromising the gospel. My question is “how”? How, in your mind, were they not straightforward?
My answer to that is that they were not straightforward because when the Jews came around they refused table fellowship with the Gentiles, thereby giving credence to the idea that Gentiles were not on equal footing in the church precisely because of their culture/ethnicity.
This of course was the situation in Acts 10-11 when, following the encounter with Cornelius, the Jews went hard after Peter for his acceptance of Corneliusn (Acts 11:2-3). Having experienced that once, Peter was gunshy to experience it again, and as a result of this fear, withdrew table fellowship and sent the message unwittingly probably that the gospel does not erase all the barriers.
So what are the weaknesses in what I am arguing for? What am I missing?
Ted,
I think we are all pretty much on the same page on this. I appreciate what Larry has added to the conversation. I would still say, in reference to your call for precision, that “slave” does not = “slave-like.” One is the thing; the other bears a resemblance. Building on Larry’s thoughts, I am inclined to say that though sin has no absolute, unbreakable, compelling power over the believer, every believer has certainly felt the power of sin after salvation. The difference is that we now obey it willingly. IOW, despite having the strength at our disposal to resist and overcome, we chose to live in submission to it - i.e. “slave-like.”
I think we are all pretty much on the same page on this. I appreciate what Larry has added to the conversation. I would still say, in reference to your call for precision, that “slave” does not = “slave-like.” One is the thing; the other bears a resemblance. Building on Larry’s thoughts, I am inclined to say that though sin has no absolute, unbreakable, compelling power over the believer, every believer has certainly felt the power of sin after salvation. The difference is that we now obey it willingly. IOW, despite having the strength at our disposal to resist and overcome, we chose to live in submission to it - i.e. “slave-like.”
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Larry] Ted,So, which do you obey?
Who do you think Paul is talking to in Romans 6:12-13, those to whom he says they should no longer present themselves to sin to obey sin, because they are slaves of the one that they obey?
[Larry] On question 1, Paul doesn’t say anything in the text to Peter about adherence to the Law, and I still find it hard to believe that Peter was confused about the means of justification, whether law or faith.Here we go again. Gal. 2:16: “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus” Larry, it is Paul speaking to Peter here. It doesn’t get much simpler. You are saying the phrase “works of the Law” in Gal. 2:16 is totally unrelated to your words: “Paul doesn’t say anything in the text to Peter about adherence to the Law”? Do you understand what the phrase “justified by the works of the Law” means?
So, which do you obey?I certainly try to obey God, but being a sinner, I fail and at times I present myself as an isntrument of sin.
But that is missing the point, isn’t it? The question is to whom was Paul writing? If he is writing to believers, it seems to undermine your point, at least in terms of practice, not position. He is telling believers not to be the very thing you say they can’t be anyway. So if you are right, that believers cannot be slaves, then why does Paul command them not to be?
Here we go again. Gal. 2:16: “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus” Larry, it is Paul speaking to Peter here. It doesn’t get much simpler.Actually, I think the pretty standard position is that it’s probably not Paul speaking to Peter but rather Paul’s general exhortation to the Galatians. After all, they are the ones to whom he is writing, and they are the ones troubled about the gospel, not Peter.
The text tells us that PEter was troubled by fear, not by the gospel. There are probably some who agree with you (though I don’t know who they are; perhaps you can give us some names to read their arguments). But whatever the case, that is not something the text says. And it does get simpler. This is not a simple issue to determine where Paul’s words to Peter stop and his address to the Galatians begins. There is some legitimate dispute about it, so it is not as simple as you make it out to be.
But even if you are correct, you still haven’t shown how Peter’s actions in refusing table fellowship to the Gentiles is about justification by faith, and that is the specific question. All you did above was quote Paul and assert he was speaking to Peter (without argumentation) and declare that it is simple.
But the question remains: How did PEter’s act of refusing table fellowship to the Gentile believers in the presence of the Jews from Jerusalem show that Peter questioned or was confused about justification by faith instead of works?
You are saying the phrase “works of the Law” in Gal. 2:16 is totally unrelated to your words: “Paul doesn’t say anything in the text to Peter about adherence to the Law”?I am not saying it is totally unrelated. It is related, but it is related to Paul’s argument to the Galatians, not to his rebuke of Peter. Peter’s problem was fear that led him to communicate that the gospel did not unite Gentile and Jew on equal footing.
If anything, Paul’s words in 2:16 could have been directed at the Jews from Jerusalem, who may well have not fully given up their allegiance to the Law, as seen in ACts 15 and the Jerusalem Council. In fact, one of the major issues in Galatians is the relationships of Acts 15 to Gal 2. So again, whatever it may be, it is not simple.
Do you understand what the phrase “justified by the works of the Law” means?Yes.
Just being—er, tenacious (which we know is just a nice word for stubborn)…
Paul did not seem to be all that worried about using this kind of language. I’ve already quoted him doing it more than once in Romans 6.
Another example I don’t think I’ve mentioned yet.
19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.
In v.18 he says we have in fact been set free from sin and have become slaves of righteousness. But he turns right around and says act accordingly… the “presenting” of “members” is a day to day thing. And in that day to day thing, Rom.6.16 remains true: whoever/whatever we “present” our “members” to, we are serving as slaves.
Our justification/identity is not altered regardless of who/what we present to.
[Ted] To say we can “sometimes live as slaves in the Father’s house” and then refer that slavery to a slavery to sin is wrong on two counts. One, those who live in the Father’s house are the slaves of Christ. Two, if one lives as a slave again to sin after having been redeemed by the death of Christ, what shall again redeem him now back to Christ? Was the death of Christ insufficient to fully remove him out from the slavery to sin the first time? What now must our brother do to leave his present slavery to sin and get transferred back to his former slavery in Christ?I’m having a hard time seeing why living like a slave would imply that redemption is necessary again. Nobody is saying a sinner’s standing with God is reversed when he sins. Should we stop calling ourselves sinners since we are justified? We are righteous in our standing just as we are slaves to Christ in our standing. Our conduct and character is another thing.
Paul did not seem to be all that worried about using this kind of language. I’ve already quoted him doing it more than once in Romans 6.
Another example I don’t think I’ve mentioned yet.
In v.18 he says we have in fact been set free from sin and have become slaves of righteousness. But he turns right around and says act accordingly… the “presenting” of “members” is a day to day thing. And in that day to day thing, Rom.6.16 remains true: whoever/whatever we “present” our “members” to, we are serving as slaves.
Our justification/identity is not altered regardless of who/what we present to.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Chip Van Emmerik] The difference is that we now obey it willingly. IOW, despite having the strength at our disposal to resist and overcome, we chose to live in submission to it - i.e. “slave-like.”Chip, a slave doesn’t have a choice - he has to be a slave. When you say, “we chose to live in submission” you speak of something that isn’t slave-like. John 8:34.
In reality slavery is an analogy Jesus and Paul used to describe an important aspect of hamartiology. Being an analogy, it can’t be pressed to every limit. But its biblical limits should be understood and used.
If you, being a child of God, could live in submission to sin as a slave to it, you would first need God to do a “Holy Spirit -ectomy” on you: but that won’t happen, 1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God - i.e., saints sin, but they sin with intermission.
[Larry] The question is to whom was Paul writing? If he is writing to believers, it seems to undermine your point, at least in terms of practice, not position. He is telling believers not to be the very thing you say they can’t be anyway. So if you are right, that believers cannot be slaves, then why does Paul command them not to be?Good question, but I disagree. When Paul addresses the Galatians, he uses the 2nd person plural, “you”: Gal. 1:9, Gal. 3:1.
Beleivers ARE slaves. To God (Rom. 6:17). The ARE NOT slaves to sin (Rom. 6:18).Here we go again. Gal. 2:16: “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus” Larry, it is Paul speaking to Peter here. It doesn’t get much simpler.Actually, I think the pretty standard position is that it’s probably not Paul speaking to Peter but rather Paul’s general exhortation to the Galatians. After all, they are the ones to whom he is writing, and they are the ones troubled about the gospel, not Peter.
When Paul rebukes Peter, he uses the the 2nd person singular (Gal. 2:14) and then, including in the others from the circumcision, switches to the 1st person plural, “we” Gal. 2:15-17. Otherwise, if by “we” Paul means himself and the Galatians, one has to assume all the Galatian believers were Jewish, and are part of the “we” of 2:15. That is unlikely. See Fung, Galatians, 112, Shreiner, Galatians, 150.
Once this exegetical problem is settled, the rest of the passage flows naturally, and explains the abrupt transition in 3:1: “You foolish Galatians.” If you take the position that the “we” in Galatians 2:15ff is Paul and the Galatians, then its hard to adequately explain the change to 2nd person plural in 3:1.
Therefore, Paul’s rebuke to Peter was not Racism, and the like issues, but his lack of integration of the great doctrine of the justification by faith alone into his religious choices.
[Ted Bigelow]I think we would all agree on two points:[Chip Van Emmerik] The difference is that we now obey it willingly. IOW, despite having the strength at our disposal to resist and overcome, we chose to live in submission to it - i.e. “slave-like.”Chip, a slave doesn’t have a choice - he has to be a slave. When you say, “we chose to live in submission” you speak of something that isn’t slave-like. John 8:34.
In reality slavery is an analogy Jesus and Paul used to describe an important aspect of hamartiology. Being an analogy, it can’t be pressed to every limit. But its biblical limits should be understood and used.
If you, being a child of God, could live in submission to sin as a slave to it, you would first need God to do a “Holy Spirit -ectomy” on you: but that won’t happen, 1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God - i.e., saints sin, but they sin with intermission.
1) At the time of belief, we are (at least) positionally freed from slavery to sin by the new birth.
2) We cannot lose or undo any positional aspect of our salvation
That being said, I think this is an important statement to consider: Galatians 5:1 - For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Paul, speaking to Christians, tells them not to submit to a yoke of slavery. So, it seems that Paul does affirm the possibility of a Christian re-entering a slave-like state.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie] I think this is an important statement to consider: Galatians 5:1 - For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.Paul is not speaking here is re-entering a slave-like relationship with sin, but rather a slave-like relationship with the law vis-a-vis justification.
Paul, speaking to Christians, tells them not to submit to a yoke of slavery. So, it seems that Paul does affirm the possibility of a Christian re-entering a slave-like state.
Galatians 5:2-4 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
Charlie, that is a wonderfully concise summary. I agree with you, Larry, Chip, and Aaron that although positionally we are set free from sin, practically we are to be careful not to submit again to a yoke of slavery.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
A bit about me and mine. My family on both sides hasn’t lived east of the Mississippi for close to four generations (c. 1898). For the last three, we’ve lived within 300 miles of the Pacific’s high tide mark. When I say we, I mean great grands, their kids and all, out to my third cousins.
I have some thoughts on “the Afro-Centric chip.” No, not shame on him. I was born in 1953. Bull Connor’s violent repression of American citizens of African ancestry made the nightly news in my youth. (Ok, I wanted to watch Death Valley Days.) My point is what some here see as “a chip” can easily be interpreted as residual defensive radar. Remember Emmit Till of Chicago who was murdered in Mississippi in the ’50s for supposedly “reckless eyeballing” a white female. If you don’t, an African American does. Not to mention any of their own relatives who met with violence (some times fatal) back in the day for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Blacks learned to figure out where they were welcome and where they were not. Some may think the problem was a southern one. When the Giants moved from New York to San Francisco, Willie Mays initially was prevented from buying a house in Saint Francis Woods (then an upper middle class neighborhood, now a lower upper class one). Why? Because, deed restrictions allowed only whites to reside in the area. Being San Francisco, the restrictions were probably aimed more towards the Chinese than Blacks.
Keeping in mind my first paragraph, I don’t have aunts, uncles and cousins back East. I would have been just as much a stranger visiting the church in question. Obviously (take a look at my pic), it would be a question of racism. Rather, it would be a matter of ethnocentrism. After all, I’m from Sodom on the Bay, a place no Christian should live. At least, that could easily be the under current. I’m willing to cut the church some slack. How many Blacks do these folks know as more than passing acquaintances? Were they afraid to inadvertently give offense? Even if the writer and his family took none. The dynamics get convoluted.
I have some thoughts on “the Afro-Centric chip.” No, not shame on him. I was born in 1953. Bull Connor’s violent repression of American citizens of African ancestry made the nightly news in my youth. (Ok, I wanted to watch Death Valley Days.) My point is what some here see as “a chip” can easily be interpreted as residual defensive radar. Remember Emmit Till of Chicago who was murdered in Mississippi in the ’50s for supposedly “reckless eyeballing” a white female. If you don’t, an African American does. Not to mention any of their own relatives who met with violence (some times fatal) back in the day for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Blacks learned to figure out where they were welcome and where they were not. Some may think the problem was a southern one. When the Giants moved from New York to San Francisco, Willie Mays initially was prevented from buying a house in Saint Francis Woods (then an upper middle class neighborhood, now a lower upper class one). Why? Because, deed restrictions allowed only whites to reside in the area. Being San Francisco, the restrictions were probably aimed more towards the Chinese than Blacks.
Keeping in mind my first paragraph, I don’t have aunts, uncles and cousins back East. I would have been just as much a stranger visiting the church in question. Obviously (take a look at my pic), it would be a question of racism. Rather, it would be a matter of ethnocentrism. After all, I’m from Sodom on the Bay, a place no Christian should live. At least, that could easily be the under current. I’m willing to cut the church some slack. How many Blacks do these folks know as more than passing acquaintances? Were they afraid to inadvertently give offense? Even if the writer and his family took none. The dynamics get convoluted.
[Alex Guggenheim] SNIP
From this statement by Randle…When we were up in Grand Rapids looking at a college for our daughter, we visited a huge, predominantly Caucasian church on a Wednesday night. We sat down in the sanctuary. I thought, Maybe the teacher will acknowledge that he has visitors. No.…and varying other postures, I believe he has a common “Afro-centric” chip on his shoulder. It is revealed in his description of the church, “predominantly Caucasian church”. If he were true to his beliefs where he stated…God wants us to be able to come together in the Body of Christ regardless of our racial background, regardless of our ethnicity—to come and experience unity and fellowship one with another.…he would have considered their race as incidental, not primary. He then interpreted their response to his presence as racially motivated. He has personal issues in this case and has projected them onto others. Shame on him.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Rob,
Your anecdotal experiences and the attached narrative do not appear to address, in my mind, the issue(s) I raised. I do think he ashamedly and arrogantly accused people of some kind of racialism without proof, preferring instead his assumptions. And this, itself, isn’t the greatest offense, rather his preoccupation with his racial identity in a spiritual context and willingness to inject the ridiculous narrative of Peter practicing racism in a text that says no such thing. IMO, again, he does have a chip on his shoulder, and in his sermon he displays racial issues and a willingness to project them onto others both personally and in biblical contexts where there is no warrant, save his novel interpretation.. Such communication is unfit for sound doctrine.
Your anecdotal experiences and the attached narrative do not appear to address, in my mind, the issue(s) I raised. I do think he ashamedly and arrogantly accused people of some kind of racialism without proof, preferring instead his assumptions. And this, itself, isn’t the greatest offense, rather his preoccupation with his racial identity in a spiritual context and willingness to inject the ridiculous narrative of Peter practicing racism in a text that says no such thing. IMO, again, he does have a chip on his shoulder, and in his sermon he displays racial issues and a willingness to project them onto others both personally and in biblical contexts where there is no warrant, save his novel interpretation.. Such communication is unfit for sound doctrine.
What “anecdotal experiences” Bull Connor was the police chief of Birmingham, Alabama back in the 60s. Haven’t you seen the news footage of police attack dogs and fire hose being turned on American citizens peaceable assembling? The Willie Mays story is well know in San Francisco. It gets retold from time to time in the local papers.
However, in your hast I fear you missed this line of mine, “what some here see as “a chip” can easily be interpreted as residual defensive radar.” Now, many may view that radar as obsolete. However, it was developed for good and sufficient reasons.
However, in your hast I fear you missed this line of mine, “what some here see as “a chip” can easily be interpreted as residual defensive radar.” Now, many may view that radar as obsolete. However, it was developed for good and sufficient reasons.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Anecdotal meaning how you related yourself, your family and the Pastor to the events but that such events are irrelevant to the issue at hand which is whether the illegitimate projection of racism onto Peter by someone with racial issues (namely the minister who communicated the message as recorded above) is acceptable or excusable as well as his projecting racialized motives onto those who did not respond to him and his family in a manner he expected. It is anecdotal because, in fact, they have nothing to do with how we go about determining the validity of his propositions in this case.
He is communicating biblical truth. He doesn’t get to exercise his personal issues by projecting them onto texts or people, regardless of what he, Bull Connor (fifty plus years ago) or anyone else experienced. If something is in a text, it is there but if it is not, one is not justified arresting the text and corrupting it so they can deal with an issue within themselves. And if one does not have evidence of people’s motives then one is not permitted to project motives onto others particularly vilified motives, even if we change the language and call it “defensive radar”. It is still illegitimate and still wrong and he still has personal issues that are infecting his view of a biblical text and his interaction with people.
He is communicating biblical truth. He doesn’t get to exercise his personal issues by projecting them onto texts or people, regardless of what he, Bull Connor (fifty plus years ago) or anyone else experienced. If something is in a text, it is there but if it is not, one is not justified arresting the text and corrupting it so they can deal with an issue within themselves. And if one does not have evidence of people’s motives then one is not permitted to project motives onto others particularly vilified motives, even if we change the language and call it “defensive radar”. It is still illegitimate and still wrong and he still has personal issues that are infecting his view of a biblical text and his interaction with people.
I interjected my family’s history in attempt to say, “Me and mine aren’t\weren’t involved in the situation back east. So, I’m looking at the situation with outsider’s eyes.” Alex, other than that we must agree to disagree.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Let’s not lose sight of the obvious here. Peter had trouble with non-Jews. He had to be straightened out more than once (See Acts 10). So his ethnism issues are quite clear. It’s possible to take the details of the Galatians situation in more than one way, but it’s plain that his behavior was…
a. improper
b. involved mistreating those of another ethnicity due to pressure from those of his own ethnicity
c. resulted in a distortion of the gospel message
Nobody’s reading that into the text. You’d have to go out of your way to “read it out” of the text.
a. improper
b. involved mistreating those of another ethnicity due to pressure from those of his own ethnicity
c. resulted in a distortion of the gospel message
Nobody’s reading that into the text. You’d have to go out of your way to “read it out” of the text.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Well if you feel accusing Peter of racism in the text is acceptable and then communicating this in a message claiming this is what God intends on communicating with that text, yes we must agree to disagree. Best wishes vetting this with orthodox resources.
As I see it, the problem we have is the conflation of ethnocentrism and American style racism.
From Galatians and other relevant passages, I gather Peter, et al would have had no problems if the “Gentiles” were circumcised and otherwise adopted Jewish customs and law. As I understand the situation, if an individual did so, it didn’t matter what they looked like. So, yes the tete was taken out of context and used as a pretext.
American racism holds non-whites as being inferior (I won’t get into “No Dogs or Irish Admitted”). In the worst cases, they were\are not qualified for equal if any protection under the law. In gentler circumstances, non-whites socially were ignored or treated as without the respect due them. As forests have been used to deal with this topic in depth, I won’t go into it here. So, the issue in the OP is a real one. Forty plus years is a long time but it’s barely over a single generation. How many issues of today are based on centuries old occurrences?
From Galatians and other relevant passages, I gather Peter, et al would have had no problems if the “Gentiles” were circumcised and otherwise adopted Jewish customs and law. As I understand the situation, if an individual did so, it didn’t matter what they looked like. So, yes the tete was taken out of context and used as a pretext.
American racism holds non-whites as being inferior (I won’t get into “No Dogs or Irish Admitted”). In the worst cases, they were\are not qualified for equal if any protection under the law. In gentler circumstances, non-whites socially were ignored or treated as without the respect due them. As forests have been used to deal with this topic in depth, I won’t go into it here. So, the issue in the OP is a real one. Forty plus years is a long time but it’s barely over a single generation. How many issues of today are based on centuries old occurrences?
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
You appear to carry both contemporary and historical social issues over into bible narratives. Frankly this hermeneutic doesn’t pass muster within orthodoxy. This isn’t about personal or social issues or your allegations of American racism of which you seem preoccupied. Peter’s prejudices were theologically based of which he was approached and corrected. You will read in his Epistles this erring view remedied.
To state something was taken out of context and used as a pretext and then simply ignore the required assessment this warrants in your approach toward this sermon and the person who communicated it, tells me that you are willing to tolerate abuses and inappropriate uses of Scripture if it serves a point wishing to be made. I know of no teaching in the Scripture that either promotes this as spiritually edifying or something we can tolerate or look the other way in sympathy to social or political disadvantages one group may have with others.
To state something was taken out of context and used as a pretext and then simply ignore the required assessment this warrants in your approach toward this sermon and the person who communicated it, tells me that you are willing to tolerate abuses and inappropriate uses of Scripture if it serves a point wishing to be made. I know of no teaching in the Scripture that either promotes this as spiritually edifying or something we can tolerate or look the other way in sympathy to social or political disadvantages one group may have with others.
Discussion