Confronting Racism in the Church

then. I think he misapplied Scripture. That being said I think the issue raised is a valid one. Even if the issue wasn’t handled as artfully as one would like here.

His issues were raised by means of projecting racial motives onto others and corrupting a text, hence he really had no valid issue.

Alex, you’ve greatly overstated your point, repeatedly, and need to back down.

[Alex] I do think he ashamedly and arrogantly accused people of some kind of racialism without proof, preferring instead his assumptions.

Can you point out to me in the original article where the author explicitly accused the people of racism? And you can you also help me understand how you are able to judge his heart that he is “arrogant”, that he “has a chip on his shoulder”, and that he “has personal issues”?

You’ve also called his sermon “ridiculous” and “unfit for sound doctrine”. You called his, Aaron’s, and Rob’s views, in essence, unorthodox (“Best wishes vetting this with orthodox resources” and “Frankly this hermenuetic doesn’t pass muster within orthodoxy.”) Can you prove to us that their view on this text is beyond the bounds of Christian orthodoxy? Then you go on to say that you now know that Aaron and Rob are “willing to tolerate abuses and inappropriate uses of Scripture if it serves a point wishing to be made.”

You’ve told us what you believe about the OP. Fine, you have a right to your opinion. But some of the things you’ve said are beyond the pale.

[Greg Long] Alex, you’ve greatly overstated your point, repeatedly, and need to back down.

You certainly are welcome to your opinion but attempting to vilify me for sticking to my point and raising it in responding isn’t actually an argument, it is an appeal to fear and emotion. I reiterated my views, as others did their own, in direct response to someone with whom I was dialoging. Your melodramatic description of my involvement certainly is entertaining but not reflective of my contribution. Let’s stick with the substance of the arguments themselves please.

[Alex] I do think he ashamedly and arrogantly accused people of some kind of racialism without proof, preferring instead his assumptions.

[Greg Long] Can you point out to me in the original article where the author explicitly accused the people of racism? And you can you also help me understand how you are able to judge his heart that he is “arrogant”, that he “has a chip on his shoulder”, and that he “has personal issues”?

I have done this in my posts. I could restate all I have already said but you have made it clear you don’t like that so feel free to read my posts and address the points contained therein. Post #17 contains some of what you request but you will need to read them all and let me also recommend JobK’s posts, #12 an #15. As to the assertion of judging the man’s heart, I have not judged his heart I have judged what his words contain in my view.

[Greg Long] You’ve also called his sermon “ridiculous” and “unfit for sound doctrine”. You called his, Aaron’s, and Rob’s views, in essence, unorthodox (“Best wishes vetting this with orthodox resources” and “Frankly this hermenuetic doesn’t pass muster within orthodoxy.”)

The response was meant for Rob’s post alone. I did not realize that Aaron’s post had been posted in between mine and Rob’s. Normally I quote the post to which I am responding but felt it was soon enough that none would be posted. But clearly one was, Aaron was not in view in the comment. However, I did not call Rob’s post unorthodox though it appears you wish to make this claim. I merely wished him “best wishes” in vetting such a view with orthodox resources. It remains to be seen where this view falls though I do not have great hope it can be vetted as such.

[Greg Long] Can you prove to us that their view on this text is beyond the bounds of Christian orthodoxy? Then you go on to say that you now know that Aaron and Rob are “willing to tolerate abuses and inappropriate uses of Scripture if it serves a point wishing to be made.”

Let’s see what I did say:

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.

If you were following the thread you would know this was a direct response to something Rob said though it was not quoted, it did contain his comments. And the statement told me something indeed. I am clearly free to express what I observe. If this is someone’s position then that is my conclusion. Feel free to rebut the substance of my observation and conclusion. I did not say, however, I know Rob is willing to, only that what he said tells me this. That means I am seeking clarification. It recognizes that only by these words I am told this (meaning this context and these words only and not with the assumption of all contexts which would be the claim of “knowing”).

If you believe that within orthodoxy there is promoted a view that this text is about Peter exercising racism, show me the orthodox consensus. I am saying this is not the orthodox consensus. You are asserting something to be true, demonstrate it. I am asserting that the absence of an orthodox consensus that this is a context of racism, speaks for itself. Clearly it is not the only voice but it is a recognized one.

[Greg Long] You’ve told us what you believe about the OP. Fine, you have a right to your opinion. But some of the things you’ve said are beyond the pale.

I understand you don’t agree but appeals to vilification, ridicule, red herrings and so on are irrelevant to the topic and only contribute to posturing and not the substance of the issue or arguments. If you have rebuttals to the substance of what I have said and not complaints I will be happy to read them and respond.

[Alex Guggenheim] 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.

Oher than the term “racism,” which is kind of a popular misnomer anyway, you’ll find it (the concept of ethnism) in plenty of orthodox resources. Let’s keep in mind though that a text has more than one “message.” That is, there is more than one point and even looking at a single point, there are multiple applications.

The article has made one of those applications—one especially important in our times.

It might be wise to remind ourselves that Spirit-led and God-glorifying application of a text is based squarely on the correct interpretation of a text. Although God’s Holy Spirit can use anything to bring conviction, His express intent is to use the words of the inspired text. And our submission to that text in teaching it is a demonstration of the Spirit and of power. To make a text say something the Holy Spirit did not intent is a religious crime.

Haddon Robinson has a fine article called The Heresy of Application that fits this thread well. If you can, give it a good read. It makes me wince every time I read it.

http://www.preachingtodaysermons.com/heofap.html

Lest we forget, Randle’s article does not delay racism until the application. He writes this at the beginning under the heading: “Peter’s Failure”

Peter failed on the issue of racism

IOW, for Randle, Gal. 2:11ff is about racism. Hopefully by now we agree his point has been sufficiently answered and found wanting.

Now we are on to another point. Is racism a legitimate application of Gal 2?

I would say no - not of that text. The text is arguing for the gospel. If we make its application repentance from racism, we exchange Paul’s intent in defending the gospel for moral improvement, possibly injuring people’s souls forever.

Could a preacher make hard and serious points on racism in his sermon on this text? Yes, I believe so. But he must use it as a tool of conviction to serve the Spirit’s real point of the text - “if you believe in justification by faith, how can you treat others believers as if they have not been justified by faith?”

Blessings.

IOW, for Randle, Gal. 2:11ff is about racism. Hopefully by now we agree his point has been sufficiently answered and found wanting.

Not to rehash or reargue the previous, but I don’t think we can agree at all that this point has been “sufficiently answered and found wanting,” not on exegetical and theological grounds at least. Actually, quite to the contrary I think. You have a very tough hill to climb to argue that an apostle who preached the opening message (and many more) for the NT church did not understand the gospel or was confused about justification by works. That flies in the face of everything that the NT records about Peter’s ministry.

Furthermore, it flies in the face of the purpose of the point of Galatians as a whole which is to correct and encourage the Galatians’ view of the gospel (not Peter’s view of the gospel). This ties in exactly with what Gal 3:26 says, which is why this episode in included. Paul is teaching the Galatians that all are equal in Christ, that no race or ethnicity or gender or religious background is “second class.” So really, this is not just an issue of the text itself which I think adequately shows what the problem was. It is an issue of the purpose of the book of Galatians.

If your argue is that Peter’s problem was not racism but fear of man, that is legitimate. I think that is correct. The issue was on the part of the men from Jerusalem. They believed that Jews should not eat with Gentiles. Peter gave in to them over fear (that’s what it says in the text).

What Paul confronted Peter over was the message that he sent about the unifying power of the gospel by giving in to the fear rather than confronting the superiority of the men from Jerusalem.

BTW, I did do a little brief looking at some other resources and the position I am espousing is a common one. So it’s not like I am on Mars here.

“The Jerusalem Jewish leaders may have agreed with Paul on paper (in theory), but they also had to keep peace within their own Jerusalem constituency and maintain their witness to their culture, with its rising anti-Gentile sentiments. Peter probably saw his actions here the way Paul saw his own in 1 Corinthians 9:19–22—appealing to everyone—but the qualitative difference is enormous: withdrawing from table fellowship with culturally different Christians made them second-class citizens, violated the unity of the church and hence insulted the cross of Christ. Although Peter and others undoubtedly claimed to oppose racism, they accommodated it on what they saw as minor points to keep peace, whereas Paul felt that any degree of racial separatism or segregation challenged the very heart of the gospel” (IVPBBC).

“Racism of any brand in any culture is incompatible with the truth of the gospel. Later in Galatians (3:26–29) Paul would spell out the implications of Christian unity in terms of the promise of grace fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Any religious system or theology that denies this truth stands in opposition to the “new creation” God is bringing into being, the body of Christ based not on caste, color, or social condition but on grace alone” (George, NAC, p. 183).

“The observance of Pharisaic practices with the latter was a genuine expression of bigotry” (Lightfoot, 113).

So the point is that at the very least, this is a debatable issue. The most unreasonable suggestion, IMO, is that the apostle Peter was confused about justification by faith vs. works. There’s nothing in the context of Galatians, nor in the life of Peter that would suggest that to me.

I would say no - not of that text. The text is arguing for the gospel. If we make its application repentance from racism, we exchange Paul’s intent in defending the gospel for moral improvement, possibly injuring people’s souls forever.

The issue is over who has equal standing in the body of Christ. Can we exclude certain people, or relegate them to second class status in the gospel? Paul’s answer is “No, the gospel saves everyone equally—Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female.”

In fact, the whole issue in Galatians is not really how one is saved but rather how one is sanctified (cf. Gal 3:1ff.). Should believers go back to living under the Law as a means of sanctification. Paul’s answer is no, because the gospel of grace that saves is the same gospel of grace that sanctifies.

But he must use it as a tool of conviction to serve the Spirit’s real point of the text - “if you believe in justification by faith, how can you treat others believers as if they have not been justified by faith?”

This is exactly right, and the “other believers” in context are those of a different ethnic background, who are being treated differently simply and only because of their ethnic background and the things associated with it.

[Aaron Blumer]

[Alex Guggenheim] 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.

Oher than the term “racism,” which is kind of a popular misnomer anyway, you’ll find it (the concept of ethnism) in plenty of orthodox resources. Let’s keep in mind though that a text has more than one “message.” That is, there is more than one point and even looking at a single point, there are multiple applications.

The article has made one of those applications—one especially important in our times.

So attempting to vet it as a text dealing with racism would result in less than abundance of sources, if more than a scant few which would be no orthodox consensus at all. But if we replace it with ethnicism then we might find more sources. Okay, I would still like at least a few.

As to my own thoughts, Ted’s last post was extremely satisfying. The appropriate application of a passage must always be “in context”. Well said and the link to the article is fantastic.

I believe JobK said it most succinctly when we humor, for the moment, the charge of ethnicism:

Please put the Jewish superiority issues in their proper context. First, these Jewish superiority issues were religious, not racial.

This is not a “racial” or even “ethnic” context, it is a theological or religious one.

Alex, Larry provided you with a few resources. Or are they unorthodox, too?

[Alex] This is not a “racial” or even “ethnic” context, it is a theological or religious one.

I think this is a great illustration of the problem at hand, namely that of trying to divorce theology from race/culture/ethnicism. The whole point of Galatians 2 and 3 is that racial/ethnic issues are theological issues because they goes to the heart of the gospel.

Again, read the context: Peter is having table fellowship with Gentiles. When Jews from Jerusalem come, Peter reacts in fear and stops table fellowship, obviously in response to the Jews who apparently thought table fellowship should not be extended to Gentiles because of their culture/race/ethnicity. It didn’t have to do with their religion because the Gentiles were believers.

So Peter was living in fear of those who were practicing a form of racism or ethnicism (I don’t think there is a big distinction there). And when Peter did that, he compromised the gospel unintentionally, perhaps trying to maintain peace and deference, but compromise nonetheless.

So I would argue that Paul’s point in Gal 2 and 3 is that racial divisions are theological issues.

[Larry]

[Alex] This is not a “racial” or even “ethnic” context, it is a theological or religious one.

I think this is a great illustration of the problem at hand, namely that of trying to divorce theology from race/culture/ethnicism. The whole point of Galatians 2 and 3 is that racial/ethnic issues are theological issues because they goes to the heart of the gospel.

Again, read the context: Peter is having table fellowship with Gentiles. When Jews from Jerusalem come, Peter reacts in fear and stops table fellowship, obviously in response to the Jews who apparently thought table fellowship should not be extended to Gentiles because of their culture/race/ethnicity. It didn’t have to do with their religion because the Gentiles were believers.

So Peter was living in fear of those who were practicing a form of racism or ethnicism (I don’t think there is a big distinction there). And when Peter did that, he compromised the gospel unintentionally, perhaps trying to maintain peace and deference, but compromise nonetheless.

So I would argue that Paul’s point in Gal 2 and 3 is that racial divisions are theological issues.

Peter’s fear was a religious one. I believe JobK (posts #12 and #15)addressed quite well the fallacy of the insertion of race/ethnicity with its lack of presence, historically, at that time, as it is being treated in these arguments. Couple of the many observations he contributed that addresses this:

[JobK] 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).

[JobK] 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.

[Greg Long] Alex, Larry provided you with a few resources. Or are they unorthodox, too?

If you don’t mind will you give me which post(s) has them? I must have overlooked them. Thanks.

Peter’s fear was a religious one.

What, in the passage, indicates it was religious, and how would it be religious? In other words, what kind of religious fear would lead to his actions?

I believe JobK (posts #12 and #15)addressed quite well the fallacy of the insertion of race/ethnicity with its lack of presence, historically, at that time, as it is being treated in these arguments.

I did not find those convincing in the least, and they certainly contained some rather obvious problems.

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.

The context has nothing to do with conversion to Judaism. So this is immediately ruled out as irrelevant. However, Gal 2 makes it quite clear that all Jews did not have “table fellowship with them just fine.” Acts 10-11 clearly testify to this, in fact, revealing that the Jews were very upset that Peter reached out to Cornelius. One of the reasons you have the apostles in Samaria in Acts 8 is so that there is apostolic confirmation of the inclusions of Samaritans in the body of Christ.

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.

Notice that this is not in the context. Some were “Jews and Proselytes;” other were “visitors from Rome.” There is no contextual reason to assume that they were all Jews.

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.

Yes, and remember that these are members of the church at Antioch, the very place where the issue was taking place.

Further, the concept of “race” and “racism” did not even exist at the time in that culture.

That is certainly not true. There were many evidences of cultural and racial superiority that is well testified to in the Bible, such as John 4 and Acts 10-11. The whole point of Gal 3:26 is that these lines that JobK says doesn’t exist did exist and were in fact no longer applicable in teh body of Christ. Gal 3:26 doesn’t make any sense at all if “race” and “racism” didn’t exist. Neither does Gal 2, Acts 10-11, or Acts 15.

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.

This, I think, reveals the heart of the problem, and that is a misunderstanding of race. The issue of race is too often made out as skin color, when in fact the issue ethnicity or people groups.

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.

Strangely enough, I agree. And I think JobK, Alex, and Ted are trying to be very creative in attributing to the apostle Peter a denial or compromise or misunderstanding of justification by faith alone. I find it easier just to read the text and go with what it seems plainly to indicate.

I still haven’t seen any explanation by Ted or you or JobK of what Peter was afraid of, if not the attitude of the men from Jerusalem towards the Gentiles.

Hi Larry,

I’m still chewing on your fine post of a couple of days ago - #57. Thanks for wrestling with this and sharing the fruit of your studies with us.

[Larry wrote, in post #63:] I still haven’t seen any explanation by Ted or you or JobK of what Peter was afraid of, if not the attitude of the men from Jerusalem towards the Gentiles.

This is in post #1, written by me:

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.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[Greg Long] Alex, Larry provided you with a few resources. Or are they unorthodox, too?

If you don’t mind will you give me which post(s) has them? I must have overlooked them. Thanks.

See post #57.

[Larry]

That is certainly not true. There were many evidences of cultural and racial superiority that is well testified to in the Bible, such as John 4 and Acts 10-11. The whole point of Gal 3:26 is that these lines that JobK says doesn’t exist did exist and were in fact no longer applicable in teh body of Christ. Gal 3:26 doesn’t make any sense at all if “race” and “racism” didn’t exist. Neither does Gal 2, Acts 10-11, or Acts 15.

….

This, I think, reveals the heart of the problem, and that is a misunderstanding of race. The issue of race is too often made out as skin color, when in fact the issue ethnicity or people groups.

I have very much appreciated your posts, but there is a real point here you’re missing. Although the terms “race” and “racism” are used sometimes loosely to denote any people group, those terms gained prominence in the nineteenth century in conjunction with certain anthropological and historical theories, theories that have since greatly influenced the world. These theories did group people based on physical characteristics, primarily skin color. The distinction is crucial for understanding (among other things) American history; notice that only “negroes,” not Swedes or Japanese or Samoans, were enslaved. So, there is a valid reason to object to using the term “racism” in this context. Though I don’t insist adamantly that people employ only the narrower usage, I also see no reason to encourage people to use the terms more loosely.

For more info, I’d suggest reading Race: A Study in Superstition by Jacques Barzun or several chapters in The Idea of Decline in Western History by Arthur Herman.

[Ted] It might be wise to remind ourselves that Spirit-led and God-glorifying application of a text is based squarely on the correct interpretation of a text. Although God’s Holy Spirit can use anything to bring conviction, His express intent is to use the words of the inspired text. And our submission to that text in teaching it is a demonstration of the Spirit and of power. To make a text say something the Holy Spirit did not intent is a religious crime.

Nobody’s disputing that here. But we would agree I think that though a text has a singular meaning, and has a singular primary point it makes more than one point. This is why even the most rigorous exegetical sermon outlines have multiple points and subpoints.

I would contend that Peter’s treatment of people not of his own ethnicity (Gentiles) and the impact of that action on the gospel is very close to being the main point here, but if we say it isn’t for sake of argument, it could easily be among the subpoints. A “single meaning” argument against an ethnism application here is not a strong argument.

The crucial question is why did Peter do what he did? Multiple answers are possible. Almost none of then can work without an ethnic distinction between himself and the Gentiles. (A religious distinction is intertwined with that. They can’t really be separated I don’t think) Surely we’re not claiming that Peter was confused about the gospel and randomly chose some people to express his confusion toward. Even if we suppose for the sake of argument that Peter was unclear on the gospel (yikes!), in that scenario he targets a group of Gentiles specifically to make his point. That would make his behavior even more racist than if he simply caved to pressure from fellow Jews (with unintended gospel distortion as a result).

The anachronism argument

Some have suggested that ethnic tensions/discrimination was foreign to the era and we’re reading it back into the scene anachronistically.

The historical evidence against that is strong, but as it turns out we have Holy Writ. By the time Gal 2 was written…

• Peter had ethnism issues in his past - Acts 10:9-15 (Why did Peter neeed this sequence of visions? Because if God had simply said “Go to a Gentiles house,” Peter would either not have gone or would have gone resentfully, not truly welcoming them to the faith!)
• The church had ethnism issues in its past - Acts 6:1
  

Add to that the fact that the implications of union with Christ are specifically applied to ethnic distinctions in more than one passage: Gal 3:28, 1Cor.12:13, Col 3.11

It was indeed a problem and the apostles answered it (though, yes, on the way to making larger points).

[Aaron Blumer] The crucial question is why did Peter do what he did? Multiple answers are possible. Almost none of then can work without an ethnic distinction between himself and the Gentiles.

Thanks for your clarification here, especially the point that ethnic distinctions are indeed at the heart of the text.

It is quite possible I overstated my case if I came across that way. If so, my bad. My intent was to simply claim that Peter was not acting out of racism when he separated himself from the table of the uncircumcised Gentiles. It was an issue of clean/unclean, which struck at the heart of the gospel of justification by faith. He was acting hypocritically, not racially (Gal. 2:13).

Further, I would not say Peter misunderstood the gospel of grace. Instead, he misapplied it, which is why Paul rebukes him at the level of speaking of justification, not racism.

[Larry] Not to rehash or reargue the previous, but I don’t think we can agree at all that this point has been “sufficiently answered and found wanting,” not on exegetical and theological grounds at least. Actually, quite to the contrary I think. You have a very tough hill to climb to argue that an apostle who preached the opening message (and many more) for the NT church did not understand the gospel or was confused about justification by works. That flies in the face of everything that the NT records about Peter’s ministry.

Thanks for your graciously worded and continued interaction, Larry.

I do fear you went a bit far in your opening paragraph here “quite to the contrary.” I thought my post #38 brought forth sufficient exegetical data to prove the point that Paul was rebuking Peter, not the Galatians, as you claimed. And none of your quotes from reasonable and responsible sources in post #57 align with your prior claim. This is the “crux interpretum” for us here. Settle this one issue: who is Paul speaking to in Galatians 2:14ff? If you do find one writer who believes that Paul is rebuking the Galatians in these verses, I would appreciate reading their counter argument. But they have to deal with the exegetical data presented in my post, not merely make assertions.

You did us all a great favor by researching and taking the time to interact further on these points from several writers.

However, I must demur from the IVPBBC argument “Peter probably saw his actions here the way Paul saw his own in 1 Corinthians 9:19–22—appealing to everyone.” That is speculation. However, the point: “but the qualitative difference is enormous: withdrawing from table fellowship with culturally different Christians made them second-class citizens, violated the unity of the church and hence insulted the cross of Christ” is totally right on. But then the author goes on to make the racism claim: “Although Peter and others undoubtedly claimed to oppose racism” - where? Again, this is supposition. The author goes on to claim “they accommodated it” - i.e., racism. He makes the accusation, but offers no exegetical support.

Accommodating racism is a sin. If Paul rebuked Peter for the sin of racism, it would be there in the text. Instead, his rebuke centers around Peter’s hypocrisy in connection to the gospel, not in dishonoring varying races. This will always be the achilles heel of the “racism view” of Galatians 2. Paul does not rebuke racism or ethnicm, nor are those terms in the text. They are imported into the text by the reader. There is no getting away from it. From a purely exegetical viewpoint, you will always be climbing uphill, trying to claim Peter was sinning the sin of racism. Racism, or ethnicism, is never addressed in the inspired text.

Instead, Peter and those who joined him (even Barnabas!) were rebuked for hypocrisy (Gal. 2:13). What was the hypocrisy concerning, racism, or the gospel?

Gal. 2:14 says, “But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

You also quote George from the New American commentary. Thanks, and I agree with every word he writes.

Lightfoot’s quote is powerful indeed, and by itself, appears to completely support your point. However, stripped of its context, its hard to know who exactly he is referring to.

So the point is that at the very least, this is a debatable issue. The most unreasonable suggestion, IMO, is that the apostle Peter was confused about justification by faith vs. works. There’s nothing in the context of Galatians, nor in the life of Peter that would suggest that to me.

How about Acts 10-11? We are talking about Peter’s understanding that Gentiles are also justified by faith, even as Jews are. See Acts 11:12, 17-18, Acts 15:9. Peter had to grow in knowledge regarding justification by faith and its power to do for Gentiles without the works of the Law what it did for Jews who still observed the law.

Again, bro, you go too far:

In fact, the whole issue in Galatians is not really how one is saved but rather how one is sanctified (cf. Gal 3:1ff.). Should believers go back to living under the Law as a means of sanctification. Paul’s answer is no, because the gospel of grace that saves is the same gospel of grace that sanctifies.

The burden of the epistle is rather a clear enunciation of justification by faith. You will find a more solid basis for the purpose of the epistle in Gal. 1:6 “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.”

You might pick up Josh Moody’s new book on Galatians from Crossway: No Other Gospel: 31 Reasons from Galatians Why Justification by Faith Alone Is the Only Gospel. Josh is a solid expositor and dear brother. http://www.amazon.com/No-Other-Gospel-Galatians-Justification/sim/14335…

Consider this from Tom Schreiner’s recent commentary on Galatians:

“Paul is engaged in a battle for the gospel in this letter, and his words still speak to us today. Vital issues for the Christian life are tackled in Galatians. Paul unpacks the heart of the gospel. We see the meaning and centrality of justification by faith, which Luther rightly argued was the article by which the church stands or falls. How can a person stand before a holy God without being condemned? Paul answers that question in Galatians” (p. 21).

Bro, when you write that the purpose of Galatians is sanctification, you demonstrate not only an extremely shallow grasp of the epistle, but are plainly wrong. The Galatians were seeking to be justified by the works of the Law because they had lost their grip on the gospel of justification by faith. My guess is that you know the epistle is actually about justification by faith, and perhaps wrote what you did without really thinking it through. I do that all the time, and need to be corrected when I do.

[Ted Bigelow] 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).

overall excellent analysis of the issue Ted in Galatians.

a hero of the faith was black: evel Melech who rescued Jeremiah from the muddy cistern. the Lord even gave him a comforting message of personal deliverance because of his faith.

Moses also married a Cushite (Upper Egypt-Sudan) Woman which caused an incident and judgement against racism.

the surrounding nations of O.T. Israel were racially very similar to the Jews, in fact were distant relatives in some cases. the prohibitions of mixing and being influenced by Gentiles were toward peoples of the same ethnicity. the issue was whether folks were in the covenant community or not. much as today, they were to only marry and associate with those of the faith.

in reality there is only one race: the human one. i grieve with Brother Randall and with all others who have received countless slights of due respect.

I cannot do anything but take away from Ted’s post if I were to attempt to add to it. It thoroughly addressed the points raised.

I did want to comment, though, on what Lightfoot called “bigotry” and JobK’s thoughts. JobK did not say there were no forms of religious or social chauvinism, rather that as we define them and in our context, they were much different. As well, it is quite accurate to understand the Jewish bigotry to be religious, not ethnic or racial and this is the context of the issue in Galatians. Hence, to Lightfoot’s comment, I would be surprised if, in making it, his emphasis was racial or ethnic and not religious bigotry.

Let me again, though, express my appreciation to Ted for his well articulated responses and supreme fielding of the issues being raised, they have been a great service. My time has been very limited so my contributions have been stunted and personally dissatisfying but this controversial interpretation of Galatians (particularly considering the lean in certain theological quarters today to attempt to remedy social, political and religious issues with a superimposition of them on many biblical texts), concerns me and reading Ted’s choice appeals has been very encouraging.

sorry for the misspelling of this hero’s name. the passage of Scripture is found in Jeremiah 39.

the homiletic and hermeneutical deficiencies of the OP.

Now can we return to what I see as the two ton elephant in the room which every one is seemingly ignoring. I refer to the legacy of three hundred years of slavery and Jim Crow.

Back in the day, white Fundamentalism ignored its black brethren. We developed alternative schools to replace the denominationals which had slid into modernism. It would have been too much for them to set up integrated schools sixty plus years ago. However, they lost two generations of black leadership by not setting up black alternatives to the denominational schools.

I referred to other problems and conditions in my posts up thread.

[Rob Fall] Now can we return to what I see as the two ton elephant in the room which every one is seemingly ignoring. I refer to the legacy of three hundred years of slavery and Jim Crow. Back in the day, white Fundamentalism ignored its black brethren. We developed alternative schools to replace the denominationals which had slid into modernism. It would have been too much for them to set up integrated schools sixty plus years ago. However, they lost two generations of black leadership by not setting up black alternatives to the denominational schools.

Rob, I agree with your general concern [but not your defense of separate-but-equal colleges]. I’ve been a bit snowed under, or I would have spent more time interacting here. A few thoughts.

First, I think Rob is right to redirect this thread toward the two-ton elephant. For those posters who were critical of the speaker’s text and exegesis, can we suggest a better NT text where this principle is more clearly taught? That discussion seemed missing here—leaving the neutral reader with an impression that we believe racial reconciliation is merely a social gospel, not taught in the NT.

Second, a word about charity: Editng a sermon is a tricky thing, in that the written version always ends up quite a bit shorter than the spoken version. And even well-edited sermon transcriptions have a different vibe than a carefully conceived formal essay. So I hope that readers will view my truncated transcription with charity, understanding that the preacher had more to say.

Third, a word about these references to Afrocentricity: I pray that we consider our own “Anglo-centricity” before making this accusation. Wow. I consider a comment by Alex in post #17 to be especially unguarded [in reference to Pastor Randall]: “I believe he has a common “Afro-centric” chip on his shoulder…He has personal issues in this case and has projected them onto others. Shame on him.” I’m disappointed that these words were unchallenged and unmoderated (considering they were written about a brother Alex has never met, and with virtually no internal warrant to justify the accusation) . Wow. I don’t think Pastor Randall has seen this comment, and I’ll not point it out to him, or he’d think twice before letting me transcribe another of his sermons!

Third, a word about blogging: It’s a white thing. If we are to address the elephant in the room—the problem of racism in white Fundamentalism—we’ll have to learn that we won’t have many meaningful interactions with African American pastors while typing on our laptops. And this much is clear: We need to learn from our African-American brothers.

[Rob Fall] Now can we return to what I see as the two ton elephant in the room which every one is seemingly ignoring. I refer to the legacy of three hundred years of slavery and Jim Crow.

First, I disagree that there is an elephant, no one is ignoring American slavery itself, in fact it is the other elephant that Greg Randle and his sympathizers wish to make disappear, namely that his message is an illusion derived from the text.

[KevinM] For those posters who were critical of the speaker’s text and exegesis, can we suggest a better NT text where this principle is more clearly taught?

This has already been suggested and done by those “critics”.

[KevinM] That discussion seemed missing here—leaving the neutral reader with an impression that we believe racial reconciliation is merely a social gospel, not taught in the NT.

Per the social or political requirements from the Bible about race/ethnicity, I do not accept that it requires social or political reconciliation as it does within the NT body. The social and political aspects and the arguments derived from Scripture are certainly a topic essential to formulation but for the moment I want to stick with the context of the NT church.

The Bible has a strict protocol within the body of Christ which does not permit the promotion or distinction of race or ethnicity (either for or against) as it pertains to one’s spiritual identity. That is, within the body we are to view one another as spiritual not natural. This does not remove the reality of our natural racial/ethnic state, but that state is irrelevant with regard to our function within the body. Clearly there are a couple of exceptions with regard to gender, but those exceptions are clearly spelled out and they have to do with church offices. And of course we are not talking about that issue. So as it pertains to race/ethnicity, there is one spiritual race and that is how we are to adjust our minds.

[KevinM] I consider a comment by Alex in post #17 to be especially unguarded … Wow. I don’t think Pastor Randall has seen this comment, and I’ll not point it out to him, or he’d think twice before letting me transcribe another of his sermons!

You end your protest with an appeal to fear or in other words, “if Alex gets to express his criticism then the punishment is going to be no more sermons by Randle printed here!”. At least that is the gist I get. However let’s deal with this chip on one’s shoulder, which means for one to “set up” a case for provocation. In other words, you have a literal chip on your shoulder (for you historiphiles I do realize that the chronicles of a chip on the shoulder is much more than this but its use today is in this context) and if someone brushes it off you use the occasion to feign a much greater offense has occurred, thereby justifying an exaggerated response. Once again let’s look at what Randle said and who, really, was unguarded, to see the “chip” he placed on his shoulder (bold mine):

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.

Randle set upon himself (this is called presumption) the expectation both to be publicly recognized as a visitor and the demand that, while positioning himself in the hallway, someone come up and start a conversation. He is a complete stranger to the church by his own admission yet enters with certain social expectations and what does he conclude?

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.

Randle’s initial description of the church, as predominantly Caucasian may have served as a fair description but what followed this tells me of something else in his cause to identify its predominant race. In his complaint, Mr. Randle does not conclude with the best view, that maybe his ignorance of the church’s practice did not give him the right to demand public acknowledgment of his presence or that not being spoken too is something everyone experiences everywhere and it is highly likely that those people are like him, simply waiting for someone to say hello to him. No, he concludes they had a racial motive without one real source of evidence. This is exactly what a chip on the shoulder looks like and acts like and which result in his unguarded words of implying a judgment against an entire congregation from a self-induced petty slight. He didn’t get acknowledged in the congregational setting so he set out to manufacture a fallacious context so he could prove they were just what he expected, racially motivated. This is absolutely horrendous behavior on his part if you ask me. He, as a Christian himself, should have thought the better.

One last question, if the church is predominantly caucasian, what about the non-caucasians and particularly the black members who failed to shake his hand? They’re to be implied as “racist” or even worse they should be thought of as black people attending a church with a large percentage of racially preoccupied whites and somehow still attend? His formula, his complaint and his reaction are completely incongruous

Now, if you wish to rebut my position, then rebut my points, but simply seeking to have them silenced because you don’t like reading them is not the road to discovery and clearly would deny me the opportunity to be enlightened as to the weaknesses of my position on this particular element of the entire consideration. And if Greg Randle wishes to email me and have a private exchange challenging my views or come here and respond, by all means it would be all the better thoroughly testing the points.

[KevinM] Third, a word about blogging: It’s a white thing.

Wow, are you aware of the inherent contradiction contained in your own words vs. your protests of racism?

[KevinM] If we are to address the elephant in the room—the problem of racism in white Fundamentalism—we’ll have to learn that we won’t have many meaningful interactions with African American pastors while typing on our laptops. And this much is clear: We need to learn from our African-American brothers.

This kind of language is responsible for perpetuating the very thing you are decrying. This “specialized” contextualization for any race/ethnicity is just what contributes to the issues being raised.

Additionally, I believe your comments reflect a poor view of those engaged here. From what I have read here I know of few men and women who are divorced from the world around them and they interact as often as necessary with anyone they need to on a mutually appreciative basis regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.

[KevinM] For those posters who were critical of the speaker’s text and exegesis, can we suggest a better NT text where this principle is more clearly taught? That discussion seemed missing here—leaving the neutral reader with an impression that we believe racial reconciliation is merely a social gospel, not taught in the NT.

Hi Kevin,

I started the critique in post #1. At the end of it I wrote:

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).

I hope that offers an olive branch.

Because the issue of racism is filled with emotion its tempting to see it in the text where it isn’t. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t in our hearts and in our churches.

For those willing to see the ugly truth about racism against African-Americans in our white-washed evangelical and fundamental churches, see:

http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2010/07/why-didnt-they.html

But be forewarned. Its very upsetting.

Anthony Bradley is brilliant PCA leader and regular blogger.

For a more recent post on the same: http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2011/02/pca-a-cultural.html

Ted, I wasn’t trying to support SbE schools on any other basis than what was do able back in the Day (192?-195?).

I’m in the dark, bro. What’s a separate but equal college?

I do like some of Bradley’s contributions and some have proven to be very challenging for some who persist with racial identification theology. However, even Bradley seems to, at times, leverage his own racial identity in his theological pursuit.

Ted, I think what’s hanging you up is some either-or thinking where both-and is quite possible (I’d argue it’s quite evident).

For example,

He was acting hypocritically, not racially

One can act both hypocritically and racially. Your observations about the hypocrisy later should be viewed in this light as well.

It’s true that Paul focuses on Peter’s “hypocrisy,” but what did he do that constituted hypocrisy? “Hypocrisy” is just the way Paul characterizes something Peter did. What he did was what we today call “discrimination on the basis of race” —except that “ethnicity” would be more accurate. What he did was treat the non-Jews badly and this constituted hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy has to do with inconsistency between what you claim and what you do or, sometimes, just blatant inconsistency in what you do.

So in Gal2.12, Paul shows us where the hypocrisy occurred:

“for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself…”

By eating with them, he was saying “We are one in Christ. Our ethnic differences do not matter. It is not unclean to eat with you.” In other words, as the commentary says—that you took issue with above—he was saying, in our vernacular “I’m against racism” (among other things). But when he withdrew, he was saying something else: “Your non-Jew status is a problem and we are not one in Christ and it is unclean for me to eat with you.”

Hypocrisy and ethnism.

If Paul rebuked Peter for the sin of racism, it would be there in the text.

It is in the text here:

“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…”

In short, the sin of racism had no name as such at the time. Paul calls it hypocrisy.

I do believe many of our fundamental and Evangelical institutions are awash in naivety, political correctness and the method of demonizing anthropological and biblical views that do not acquiesce to the demands of intense social and theological philanthropy toward non-whites. As a result, some of the conversation that is necessary for honest dialog regarding race is simply forbidden and integral anthropological and biblical examination which results in prescriptive answers is unlikely, even among fundies and Evangelicals. Or should I say particularly among fundamentalists and Evangelicals?

P.S. As for the text. Here is how we know the issue in view was not ethnic or racial but religious. Peter’s eating with the Gentiles was based on being “one in Christ” indeed. But when the Jews came he feared them. Why? He was a Jew so why did he fear them? Notice again:

because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group

What group? The circumcision group. Not a race, not an ethnicity, but a group following a religious code. This was bigotry indeed, but not racial or ethnic, rather religious.

The same false disjunction problem is involved in what Alex and JobK have suggested as well. That the Jewish superiority stuff was religious and not ethnic. There is no reason why it cannot be both. In fact, the scene cannot occur without both. That is, they separate from an ethnic group because they believe themselves religiously superior.

But the fact that there were accepted God-fearers among the Gentiles who even attended the synagogue services shows that there is more than just religious superiority in the mix.

But the clincher is this: the Gentiles that Peter withdrew from were of the same religion as he himself.

But I’m asserting that Peter’s behavior constituted ethnism (and gospel distortion, and hypocrisy) regardless of what motivated it. When you say to a group of fellow believers who are distinguishable from you only by their ethnicity “I can’t be seen with you,” that is ethnism even if you believe you have to do this because of the price of eggs in China.

The behavior is a problem all by itself (though ethnic superiority was almost definitely an aggravating factor)

The fact that the group that triggered Peter’s fear was a subset of Jews-“circumcision group”—proves nothing at all. If they had been the Mafia, his actions would still be ethnism and an implied rejection of the gospel.

[Ted Bigelow] 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). I hope that offers an olive branch.

Ted, I like it. I wish the thread would have more clearly addressed what these passages teach—I”m still puzzled over the emotional energy that was expended here. My own view is that the overall tone isn’t quite right.

I’m grateful for Larry, among others here, who have worked to show that Pastor Randle’s overall interpretation falls within a tradition embraced by credible commentators. I understand that some here have criticized his specific points, and some have criticized the general topical approach, but for me, Pastor Randle has not strayed from orthodox thought.

By the way, I understood Rob’s comment to be a reference to historically-black colleges started by fundamentalists because blacks were banned from more established schools. As a result, we now enjoy the ministries of Crossroads Bible College in Indianapolis and Carver Baptist Bible College in Kansas City, among others.

[Aaron Blumer] The same false disjunction problem is involved in what Alex and JobK have suggested as well. That the Jewish superiority stuff was religious and not ethnic. There is no reason why it cannot be both.

This is the wrong question to ask which may be why you are having difficulty with the simplicity of the context. What I mean is to ask “why it cannot be both” is irrelevant to the context. It can be but it isn’t.

This is like asking whether one a person driving a car can also be listening to the radio and because it is possible we simply go ahead and say it is the case.

[Aaron Blumer] In fact, the scene cannot occur without both. That is, they separate from an ethnic group because they believe themselves religiously superior.

Gentiles are not an ethnic group. They refer to non-Jews which can be any ethnicity. It is often translated “nations” meaning all those outside the Theocracy of Israel. Secondly you just made the point about why they separated, “because they believe themselves to be religiously superior”.

[Aaron Blumer] But the clincher is this: the Gentiles that Peter withdrew from were of the same religion as he himself.

Right, he withdrew from the Gentiles because he feared those of another religious code or “of the circumcision”. The fact that this is a subset reinforces the disclaimer of the text being an ethnic or racial one because this group is based on adherence to a religious code which they sought to enforce. A thorough comment by http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/56-10] MacArthur :

But in Crete there was a special group of them made up of Jews. Now we’re starting to hone in on the specifics of what was going on in Crete. At the end of verse 10 he says, “Especially those of the circumcision.” That term “the circumcision” tells us these were Jews. The word “especially” can have the sense of “in other words,” or “most specifically what I’m talking about is the circumcision.” And what that tells us was there were some Jews there who were the primary articulators of this heresy. In fact, the circumcision, quote/unquote, could just be a synonym for Jews. But probably in the light of Galatians chapter 2 verses 7 through 12 it has reference to what Paul there called the “circumcision party” which would be a sect that sort of got its way into Christianity and said, “Yes we’re Christians and we believe Jesus is the Messiah but you can’t know God unless you have been circumcised and you have maintained the Mosaic ceremonial law.” That’s the circumcision party. These Jews were teaching the rebellious non-sensical deceptive stuff that we associate with Judaizers who say, “Well yes, it’s fine to believe in Christ but we’ve got this other stuff that you have to follow and we don’t care what the church says we reject that,” there’s that rebelliousness again, “we have this inside information, this stuff about keeping all the Mosaic Laws and being physically circumcised as a requirement for salvation,” and with that nonsense they were deceiving people in Crete. They needed to be silenced.

Again the prejudice or bigotry is based in religious observance or code, not ethnicity and race itself.

[Aaron Blumer] But I’m asserting that Peter’s behavior constituted ethnism (and gospel distortion, and hypocrisy) regardless of what motivated it. When you say to a group of fellow believers who are distinguishable from you only by their ethnicity “I can’t be seen with you,” that is ethnism even if you believe you have to do this because of the price of eggs in China.

The behavior is a problem all by itself (though ethnic superiority was almost definitely an aggravating factor)

The fact that the group that triggered Peter’s fear was a subset of Jews-“circumcision group”—proves nothing at all. If they had been the Mafia, his actions would still be ethnism and an implied rejection of the gospel.

Aaron, possibly because Peter was a hereditary Jew it may have exacerbated his concerns but this assertion can only remain speculative. The context of his fear being based in practice or religious code and not in ethnicity or race is demonstrated in the text by the subsequent approach of Paul in his address to Peter of the real issue which was religious or theological and not ethnic or racial. But we are going ‘round and ‘round at this point it appears.

[Ted Bigelow] I’m in the dark, bro. What’s a separate but equal college?

Sorry, I misatributed my remark. I was referencing KevinM in 73 above.

Aaron,

There is a NT word that can be used for bigotry. It is “partiality.”

It is a word (or complex of words) denoting the “receiving of face” relating to the ancient practice of a king either looking upon a subject (hence favor) or not looking upon him (hence disfavor).

See James 2:9, Romans 2:10-11, Acts 10:34, and our own passage, Gal. 2:6.

Kevin,

My reason for being nit-picky on the passage is not to try win a debate, or be a stick in the mud. It is because once the emotional issue of racism is introduced into Peter’s sins in Galatians 2 we have confused the single thrust of Paul’s rebuke. Hence, the more the passage becomes about racism (a moral issue) the less it becomes about justification (a forensic issue). In effect, Paul is now telling the Galatians not to be racist (through Peter’s sin), instead of using Peter to show them that any distinctions among Christians in something as simple as eating is a denial of justification by faith.

I’m not saying ethnic factors weren’t at play. Of course they were! But Peter’s issues were not racist, but induced by fear because of how he felt he would be perceived by those of the circumcision. His issues were not the emotional racist issues that attend present day discussions about the mal-treatment of African Americans in and out of the church.

[KevinM] First, I think Rob is right to redirect this thread toward the two-ton elephant. For those posters who were critical of the speaker’s text and exegesis, can we suggest a better NT text where this principle is more clearly taught? That discussion seemed missing here—leaving the neutral reader with an impression that we believe racial reconciliation is merely a social gospel, not taught in the NT.

why the clamor for NT teaching? God in the NT is telling us to constantly go back to the OT to understand the New. anti-racial bigotry was judged in the OT clearly as I have pointed out with the examples of saints from the area of Ethiopia/The Sudan.

Kevin, you seem to anticipate a possible objection from those you minister to: “but where in the NT does it teach anti-racism”? i always stop and straighten folks out on “invalid questions” and possibly teach them something else also.

is bias something that so blinds some to the common sense and Scriptural teaching of the unity of mankind?

[Alex K.] why the clamor for NT teaching? God in the NT is telling us to constantly go back to the OT to understand the New. anti-racial bigotry was judged in the OT clearly as I have pointed out with the examples of saints from the area of Ethiopia/The Sudan.

Alex K—I’m okay with also citing the OT (I agree with you that the idea is consistently taught in OT/NT). My specific intent was to address racism in the local church, in which case I think the epistles would be the best source for teaching about the church. But I agree with your OT ideas, too.

Ted.. yes, “partiality” is a very useful concept for the modern ethnism problems. In a men’s Bible study not too long ago we came to Exodus 23 (if I remember right). I was struck by the multi-pronged attack on partiality, though there it has to do more with socio-economic partiality than ethnic ones.

Alex, my point about false disjunctions makes more sense if you take in light of what I posted previously.

1. I’ve pointed out several items in the text that indicate an ethnism problem

2. An argument against that possibility was variations of “It isn’t ethinism/racism, it’s hypocrisy/religious/etc.”

3. I pointed out the false disjunction because it can be both ethnicsm and these other things.

So, for evidence that it is both, see earlier posts… or—at the risk of being a bit coy—the text.

I can summarize though:

- we know the early church had some ethnism issues (Acts 6)

- we know Peter had some ethnism issues (mixed w/religious ones, yes- Acts 9-10)

- we know the entire scene referred to in Gal. 2 could not have occurred without a visible ethnic distinction. Regardless of what motivated Peter, what he did was snub a group of people ethnically foreign to him.

So now we have another argument: the gentiles are not an ethnic group. This one is not very strong either because as soon as you start to define what “gentile” is, you run into ethnic factors. They are non-Jews.

So it’s true that “gentile” does not refer to one particular ethnicity, it did—at the time—pretty much refer to non-belonging to one particular ethnicity. That was changing due to diaspora. So you had hellenistic Jews and more—shall we say—Palestinian ones. Nonetheless, “gentile” was and still is and ethnic group that contains other ethnic groups (much like the group “black” includes people from a variety of African nations)

To use Ted’s term, Peter showed partiality to Jews there and by doing so, communicated that the gospel did not equally include other ethnic groups. So is ethnism less evident when a person rejects every ethnicity but his own rather than rejecting just one ethnicity?

It’s still rejecting a group of people based on where they are ultimately from… and doing this was an insult to the gospel and an effective distortion of it.