For those of us who live within what I will call the “evangelical Reformed bubble”, 2018 will likely be remembered as a year when the debate over racial reconciliation and social justice revealed a fault line through the heart of our world, the permanency of which is yet to be discovered. I have written very little on my blog about this issue. Indeed, I have written very little about anything on my blog this year, choosing instead to focus on my novels. Occasionally, I have composed Twitter threads seeking to clarify an aspect of the debate, and I intended to do so again this week. However, I realized upon discussing the matter with my husband that I really needed to write an entire article to avoid misunderstandings. The result is what you are now reading.

The thing that caught my attention on this particular occasion was a pair of tweets by Jared Wilson, a Christian author and speaker. Among his many duties, he is Director of Content Strategy for Midwest Baptist Theological Seminary and Managing Editor at For The Church. I have no intention of attacking Jared Wilson in this article, nor am I intending to endorse everything he has ever said or written without qualification. His tweets were merely the spark that lit a flame of interest within me. I consider him a brother in Christ with whom I can engage in a respectable dialogue, and because this article is not so much a critique of what he said as an expansion upon it, I did not see the need to confront or even contact him prior to publication. I merely intend to use his comments as a springboard. Here is what he had to say on Twitter.

I am including a capture of both tweets—even though I was primarily interested in the second—because I want you the reader to have as much context to work with as I did. Obviously, the medium of Twitter is not one that lends itself to either nuance or contextualization, but hopefully I have given a better presentation of Wilson’s intent by including both tweets. For a full summary of what he meant, you would have to ask him.

It seems that Wilson views the Apostle Peter’s action in refusing to eat with the Gentiles, related by the Apostle Paul in Galatians chapter 2, as at least partially lacking racial justice. Alternatively, he might be suggesting that Paul’s rebuke of Peter serves partially as a rebuke of racial injustice. (Again, I cannot speak for him, and it is possible that I misunderstood his meaning.) I am not certain whether a lack of “racial justice” is meant here to be synonymous with racism, another term whose meaning is debated. I will define racism here as hatred or favoritism of specific ethnic groups based on their ethnicity, usually resulting in unjust actions born out of this hatred or favoritism.

It was not long after I saw Wilson’s tweets that I came across the inevitable pushback. I happened upon a discussion among some friends this weekend—also brothers in Christ whom I respect—who argued that Peter and Paul’s confrontation was not about racism but legalism. Who is right? Is it possible that they are all right in some sense?

As it so happens, my church has been working its way through Paul’s letter to the Galatians. In fact, we just had our last sermon on chapter two today, so this passage was very fresh in my mind when I read those comments. I therefore thought it might be helpful for me to summarize my thoughts about what is really going on in this passage. In addition, I would like to discuss the distinction that is often made in both the Old and New Testaments between Jews and Gentiles and consider the following questions.

• When scripture speaks of Jews vs. Gentiles, should we view that as an ethnic or religious difference?
• Was the refusal of Jews and Gentiles to associate with one another based on racism (see above definition) or legalism?
• Was the error for which Paul called out Peter one of racism or legalism?

I would like to begin my consideration of these questions by looking at the passage in question.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 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? We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.’

Galatians 2:11-21[1]

In the middle of his letter to the churches in Galatia, Paul recalls a situation where he was forced to confront Peter (referred to in the passage as Cephas) because the latter man was “not straightforward about the truth of the gospel”. There are several aspects of this story about which we could speculate, but given the information provided, I will attempt to explain the passage to the best of my ability.

Antioch was one of the Apostle Paul’s primary areas of ministry. He evangelized many Gentiles there along with his fellow worker Barnabas. While Paul and Peter each preached the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles in the course of their ministry, Paul understood his mission as being primarily to the Gentiles, while Peter is said to have been sent primarily to the Jews. (Galatians 2:8) Peter therefore spent more of his time with the church in Jerusalem and Judea, although he certainly did travel to primarily Gentile areas, as in the case of this narrative.

Peter was actually the first of the apostles to preach the gospel to Gentiles and acknowledge their reception of the Holy Spirit and inclusion in the Church. (Acts chapter 10) He was therefore fully aware that the gospel applied to Jews and Gentiles alike. In fact, it was Peter who stood up at the Council of Jerusalem and stated that the Gentiles were not required to abide by the Law of Moses. Here is what he said.

Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.

Acts 15:7b-11

Immediately before relating for us the tale of their confrontation, Paul confirms in the book of Galatians that Peter was among those at the Council of Jerusalem who concluded that Jews and Gentiles alike were saved by the same gospel and there was no need for Gentiles to be circumcised. Peter endorsed Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles by giving him the right hand of fellowship, along with James and John. (Galatians 2:1-10)

At some point after this, Peter made a trip north to Antioch, likely to see Paul and Barnabas’ ministry in action and rejoice in the work the Lord was doing among the Gentiles. We are told he was initially happy to eat with the Gentile believers, perhaps even eating foods that would have been considered ceremonially unclean under the Law. However, “certain men from James” also arrived in Antioch, and at that point Peter ceased eating with the Gentiles.

My husband asked me if I thought the men were purposefully sent by James to deliver the message that Peter was not to eat with the Gentiles. I cannot reach absolute certainty based on the information provided in the text, but my sense is that while James may have sent these men to see what was happening in Antioch, he likely did not ask them to rebuke Peter for eating with the Gentiles, as he had spoken up at the Council in Jerusalem and said the Gentiles were not required to keep the Law. He furthermore supported Paul’s ministry among them, and the council as a whole sent a letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia that began, “Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls…” (Acts 15:24)

What I do believe happened is that some of these men associated with James and the Jerusalem church held that not only the basic moral code within the Law of Moses, but also the ceremonial requirements were still binding on Jews. We see evidence throughout Paul’s letters that many Jewish believers were slow to depart from the Mosaic Law, with some even arguing that believers are justified by faith in the work of Christ plus obedience to the Law. These people were known as Judaizers because they essentially wanted Gentiles to become Jewish in addition to becoming Christian.

The Law of Moses included many stipulations that were meant to separate the Israelites from the tribes around them. As a result, those who were serious about keeping the Law would have had very little contact with Gentiles. They would not have eaten meals with them and they certainly would not have eaten unclean foods with them, such as pork or shellfish. The reason God put in place what might be considered anti-Gentile laws was not because God hated other ethnic groups. Rather, the rules were meant to protect Israel from idolatry and emphasize that they were a nation set apart for God’s work.

The men who were sent by James to visit Antioch evidently believed that Jewish Christians still needed to obey all the requirements of the Mosaic Law. Paul does not tell us whether these specific men believed it was also necessary for Gentiles to follow the Law, nor does he tell us if the men thought a Jew could not be justified by God without following the Law. It may be safe to assume that they held both of those positions, but I want to be very careful not to overstate. Furthermore, we do not know if they pulled Peter aside and made him feel guilty for eating with the Gentiles, or if their mere presence caused Peter to begin worrying and separate himself preemptively from the Gentile believers.

Were I to guess, I would say that Peter did not actually experience a crisis of faith in Antioch where he doubted whether we are saved by grace through faith alone. I think it more likely that he was concerned about appearances: that the men from James would think badly of him if he continued to eat with the Gentiles, and that it could cause problems for him back in Jerusalem. However, Paul was concerned about a different problem of appearance: that by removing himself from table fellowship with the Gentiles, Peter was sending the message that the Law of Moses was still fully in force and it was necessary for believers to keep the Law in addition to receiving the grace of God if they hoped to be justified.

So why did Paul confront Peter? He tells us it was because Peter was “not straightforward about the truth of the gospel”. What is that truth? I believe it is summarized in verses 15 and following of Galatians chapter 2. Paul says that “man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus”, “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified”, and “if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly”. Therefore, I conclude that Paul rebuked Peter because he felt that the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) was at stake. That is, even if Peter was not actively attempting to undermine this doctrine, his actions were creating doubt in the minds of others, and it was necessary to take a clear stand.

Does this mean that Peter’s mistake in Antioch had nothing to do with racism and everything to do with legalism? I would not go so far as to make that statement. I do believe that ethnic tensions existed in the early Church and they played a role in what happened on that occasion. The issue is a complex one, and how we understand the Jew/Gentile distinction, particularly in the New Testament, is important.

I previously argued that when God designed laws to separate the Israelites from the surrounding nations, He did so because of the danger of religious syncretism, i.e. that the Israelites would start worshiping the false gods of the surrounding nations. Let me make something clear: there was very little separation between religious and ethnic identity in the Ancient Near East.

Different nations and tribes typically had their own gods—usually worshiped by means of physical idols—who were said to fight for them in battle. If you defeated another tribe, it was also presumed that your god had defeated their god. Likewise, if you were a member of a tribe, then you were expected to revere their gods. Personal religious preference was not a very popular concept at that time. Indeed, some cultures would have had no concept of it at all. If you suddenly decided to follow the god of a neighboring tribe, then you were essentially rejecting your own ethnic or national identity and taking on another.

While there may have been small variations on this theme among various Ancient Near Eastern cultures, and some were more willing to play nice with the gods of neighboring tribes than others, the fact is that there was a very close connection between religion and ethnicity. That is why the Lord commanded the Israelites not to marry outside their own ethnicity: because to do so would mean marrying outside the faith. When a Gentile did choose to serve the true God and associate him or herself with the covenant community of Israel, as was the case with Ruth, they essentially became a Jew and could then marry a Jew.

Therefore, I do not believe God ever intended for the ancient Jews to discriminate based purely on DNA, but to keep themselves away from foreign gods. That being the case, the Israelites were not perfect followers of God’s commands and often misunderstood His intentions. In the Gospel accounts and the book of Acts, we see certain Jews who took enormous pride in their identity as part of God’s chosen people, to the point that they may have actually hated anyone who was not Jewish, or at least shown a favoritism to members of their own ethnic group that led to unjust actions. This was not the result of a faithful adherence to the Law, but sinful pride in their hearts.

The issue is therefore a complicated one. I think it is safe to say that when Paul distinguishes between Jews and Gentiles, he is often referring to the fact that the former group was under the Law of Moses and the latter group was not. The distinction is therefore not merely ethnic, but also religious. Consider this passage in his letter to the Ephesians.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands—remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

Ephesians 2:8-18

Paul writes that the Gentiles and Jews were previously separated by the Law, which ensured that the Jews were inside a special covenant community and the Gentiles were not. This covenant community was defined by its obligation to follow the Law of Moses. The Law therefore served as a dividing wall between the groups. When Jesus Christ died an atoning death on behalf of both Jews and Gentiles, He “broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances”. (vs.14-15) The two groups were then brought together into the New Covenant community, in which we are justified by grace through faith.

This section of Ephesians is often quoted by Christians emphasizing the need for racial reconciliation. I will define racial reconciliation here as the ending of ethnic hatred and/or favoritism in the Church and the granting of love universally and equally based on our shared identity in Christ. I think there is no question that this is a good and noble goal, and one that flows naturally out of the grace of the gospel and the commands of scripture. However, I do believe that when Paul spoke of the “dividing wall” and “enmity” between Jews and Gentiles in this passage, it was the dictates of the Law and not simply the ethnic hatred of man for man that He had in mind. Paul explicitly said that the enmity he was describing “is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances”.

Even so, I also believe that the overall message Paul gives us in the passage supports the goal of racial reconciliation. Paul speaks of God “establishing peace” between the two groups, putting enmity to death, and reconciling “them both in one body to God through the cross”. This effects how we understand racial reconciliation, both in terms of why it is necessary and how it can be achieved.

Ethnic hostility is the result of sin. We reject our neighbor because we rejected God. Therefore, to bring an end to ethnic hostility, we must be freed from sin and made right with God.[2] Our reconciliation with God makes our reconciliation with man possible. Indeed, the work of Christ that abolished the enmity between us and God, if properly understood and appreciated, will naturally lead us to show grace to those around us and desire the abolition of all forms of enmity. How could we not respond to grace with grace? Much as the dividing wall of the Law was torn down, those who are renewed by the Spirit will seek to tear down other barriers that keep us from fellowshipping with one another or even create active hostility between ethnic groups.

Sometimes people debate whether racial reconciliation is part of the gospel, connected to the gospel, a natural outworking of the gospel, etc. The basic gospel message is that though we are all sinners incapable of saving ourselves, Jesus Christ lived a perfect life and died an atoning death on our behalf, rising from the dead to make it possible for us to be justified by faith alone in His finished work. The gospel saves us from sin, and racism is sin. The gospel allows for reconciliation, and racial reconciliation is a form of reconciliation. Therefore, whether you consider racial reconciliation a gospel issue greatly depends on how you define the words “gospel issue”.

I think we do well if we keep in mind certain logical precedences outlined in scripture:

• Sin causes hostility toward others.
• The forgiveness we receive from Christ empowers us to forgive others.
• The grace we receive from Christ motivates us to give grace to others.
• Our reconciliation with God allows us to reconcile with others.

I would go so far as to say that the gospel obligates us to put to death the sin of racism and work to end ethnic hostility, particularly within the Body of Christ. Even so, it would be wrong for us to ignore the logical precedences in our push for racial reconciliation: God’s work leading to our work, the ending of sin leading to the ending of racism, etc. I think many of those who advocate for racial reconciliation are well aware of this logical precedence and have taught it clearly, but if someone was to reverse that order (e.g. making God’s work dependent on our work) then they would hollow out the gospel.

There are nuances and complexities to this issue, and they are not unimportant. Even if it seems redundant, we must repeat them from time to time so that we do not get the idea that bringing an end to racism somehow creates the gospel or precedes justification. Again, I am not suggesting that all advocates of racial reconciliation do this, but every one of us is in danger of falling into such lapses from time to time, though our particular temptations may be slightly different. Proper theological vigilance should ensure that we keep the main thing the main thing, while also striving to follow the whole counsel of God.

The book of James provides a firm repudiation of favoritism and hardness of heart toward fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. He writes in no uncertain terms that true faith will show itself in love of the brethren.

If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors… What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,’ and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

James 2:8-9, 14-17

There is no question that scripture condemns racism and commands racial reconciliation as I have defined them in this article. However, we must also acknowledge the complexities that exist in certain situations. Returning to the original passage I was examining, Galatians chapter 2, I would say that ethnic hostility was not the primary focus of Paul’s rebuke, but neither can it be totally separated from the issue at hand. Legalism seems to have been the primary sin of the Judaizers and those they influenced. However, I will by no means deny that there were elements of racism (as I have defined it in this article) present among them.

I believe that when it came to the separation between Jews and Gentiles, legalism was the primary driving force, while racism may have been a powerful secondary cause. Indeed, the legalism and racism might have fed on one another, for sinful pride in one area can easily lead to sinful pride in another. And do not mistake this language of “primary” and “secondary” for more or less important! Sin is sin. I simply believe that Paul’s first concern was that the doctrine of sola fide was being compromised, because an error in that area alone would have been enough to destroy the gospel and the entire foundation of biblical Christianity.

Does racism also make a mockery of the gospel and biblical Christianity? Absolutely, but the issue of justification is for me logically prior, and I believe it was for Paul as well. If you say that justification requires faith plus works, then not only perfect ethnic harmony but a whole host of other things could be deemed necessary for justification. That is why Paul took such a firm stand on the issue of sola fide, even rebuking another apostle. He wrote earlier in his letter to the Galatians, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” (Galatians 1:8)

Those who call us to racial reconciliation are not necessarily adding to the gospel. Indeed, in many cases they are simply pointing out the effects that the gospel ought to have on our beliefs and actions. Christ died to bring us together. He reconciled us to God so we might also be reconciled to others. It would be improper to reverse the order there, but it would also be improper to leave off the second half.

To sum up, while I believe legalism was the primary issue in the confrontation recounted in Galatians chapter 2, I will not deny that racism might have played a role. I would go to other passages to make the case against racism, but the doctrines of scripture fit together in such a way that if you hit on the central message of the gospel, the other commands become rather clear upon further reflection. Scripture presents to us a beautiful picture of faith that works itself out through love. (Galatians 5:6)

I hope this rather long-winded explanation has provided some clarity regarding the meaning of Galatians chapter 2, how we understand the divide between Jews and Gentiles, and how we should speak about racial reconciliation. I felt the degree of nuance required when dealing with this issue made a shorter treatment counterproductive. Thank you for reading. Grace and peace to you and yours.

PLEASE NOTE: My cat Caesar walked across the keyboard several times while I was writing, so if you find something that displeases you, assume it was his fault.

All scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, copyright The Lockman Foundation.

[1] The various English translations of the Bible differ on where to place the quotation marks around Paul’s comments to Peter. The New American Standard Bible, quoted here, views verses 14b through 21 as the statement made to Peter, while some other translations believe the only quotation is verse 14b, and the rest of the passage is a commentary on the situation made by Paul to the Galatians. This might have a slight impact on how we understand the confrontation, but I do not believe it changes the overall theological point of the passage.

[2] Obviously, not all people will accept the gospel message. It is possible for us to bring about less societal discord through various means other than the gospel, but any reconciliation that is created that way will not be full and lasting, for it would not involve the putting to death of sinful pride by the power of the Spirit. We should do what we can when we can but never lose sight of the true solution, which is only possible through the work of Christ.