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.

Discussion

[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…
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 text
I 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]
[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.
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

(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.

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.

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.
Aaron and Ted, What you describe here is what racism is … treating people differently based on their ethnicity.

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?

[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.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?