Working Through Our Differences [part 2]

Galatians 2:11–21 NIV

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? 15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. 17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker. 19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

This passage brings up an awkward scene. Paul calls out Peter with an accusation of wrongdoing right in front of everyone. At first glance, I have to admit that I would rather not see a passage like this in the Bible. There seems to be so much opportunity to misinterpret this passage. It almost comes off as biblical justification for having a grudge against a fellow Christian. It is possible for someone to glance over a passage like this and walk away feeling there is biblical permission to pick a fight against a fellow believer with whom we might have a dispute.

It is probably a good thing that we take some time to stop on this passage today and have a closer look at what is happening in this scene, because it is not at all giving permission to go toe-to-toe with others in dispute. It is not laying some kind of biblical justification for posting divisive opinions on social media with the intent of shouting down those you see as opposition. That is not at all what is happening in this confrontation between Paul and Peter in Galatians 2.

So, if you read a passage like this and think you are walking into a message that gives some biblical guidance on settling disputes or addressing grudges between people, that is not what is happening here. That would be a sermon for another time which would have to come from another part scripture; perhaps a passage such as Matthew 18. But for today we are focusing on what is happening in Galatians 2, and it is not meant to be a model for conflict resolution.

I suppose then that this leaves the question wide open. If Galatians 2 is not about conflict resolution, then what is happening in this tense confrontation between Paul and Peter. Let’s consider something of the wider picture we have already looked at in the opening chapters of Galatians. Let’s remember that Paul has been making the case in this letter that he is, in fact, an apostle of Jesus entrusted with the true message of the gospel. And Paul is feeling the need to make this defense because there are Jews trying to discredit his status and message because they have the intent of compelling the Greek converts to obey all the Jewish habits and customs. Among some of these Jewish Christians it was not enough simply to have faith in Jesus. They needed to follow the laws of Moses in addition to their faith in Jesus. The hot button issues were circumcision and table manners (kosher rules).

Connecting the Scenes

kosher meal habits would be an obvious point of division that would present itself every single day at every single mealtime

In this particular passage in Galatians 2, we find a scene that involves table manners. In Jewish law and custom, it was forbidden for a Jewish person to sit for a meal with a non-Jewish person. This is primarily because the Jewish people had such rigid dietary restrictions as part of their kosher eating rules. It had to be a certain kind of food. It had to come from a certain kind of market or supplier. The food had to be prepared in a certain kind of way. A portion of that food had to be properly tithed. The people had a very particular pattern of ceremonial washing up before sitting at the meal. Even though we might get the sense that circumcision was the main point of disagreement, we should not forget that circumcision just involved the boys; it was a one-time-event; and it involved a part of the body that was not exposed. Kosher meal habits—on the other hand—would be a blaringly obvious point of division that would present itself every single day at every single mealtime.

Consider the way Paul writes about the toxic arguments going on between Jewish and Greek Christians around the issue of sitting down to eat together. Look at this from Romans 14. And notice in particular how Paul concludes this passage in Romans in the exact same way he concludes this discussion with Peter in Galatians 2.

Romans 14:1–9 NIV

1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. 5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

underlying question is not about proper mealtime etiquette, it is about membership in the body of Christ

Paul tells us in his accusation that Peter is forcing the Greek Christians to adhere to Jewish cultural customs

Apparently, it was not just the churches in Galatia who were dealing with conflicts about table manners, it was just as big an issue in the church in Rome as well. But the underlying question here is not about proper mealtime etiquette. It is about membership in the body of Christ. Paul’s rebuke of Peter begins with a scene in which Peter pulls back from association with the Greek Christians because their cultural customs do not align. But Paul tells us in his accusation that Peter is also forcing the Greek Christians to adhere to Jewish cultural customs. This is what Paul will not tolerate.

cultural differences should not be something which becomes a divide in the church

I mentioned this last week with the first half of Galatians 2, and we see it here again. We should not see in this rebuke that Paul is condemning the Jewish customs in-and-of themselves. He is not telling Peter and the other Jewish Christians that all Jewish Christians who continue to follow Jewish habits are wrong. He is not advocating for a version of Christianity in which all people do things the Greek way. Paul holds onto the tension of both sides. He is simply saying that these cultural differences should not be something which becomes a divide in the church. It should not be habits of cultural custom that become the standard for who is allowed into the body of Christ and who is left out of the body of Christ. We see that more clearly when we take a passage like Galatians 2 and see how Paul writes about this same kind of conflict in other letters, like Romans 14.

When We Disagree with Each Other

why does Paul choose to make this confrontation a public spectacle?

But we have to keep digging into this passage. There is still more going on here. One of the commentators I read this week on this passage speculates that this would not have been the first time Paul addressed this conflict of this issue with Peter. I am not sure the evidence necessarily supports that, but the speculation is reasonable. It might have seemed more likely that Paul would have been acting in better interest to make this a private conversation rather than making a scene out of it right out in the open in front of everybody. And then on top of that Paul writes about it and shares it with all the other churches in the region of Galatia. If it were nothing more than a personal conflict between two people—just between Paul and Peter—there would be no reason to drag this out into the open. Why does Paul choose to make this a public spectacle? There is something more happening here.

Look deeper into the story with me. Imagine the scene. Peter comes to visit Paul and the other Christians in Antioch. This is one of the churches in Galatia. Everything seems to be going fine until some of Peter’s buddies from back home in Jerusalem show up. The passage describes them as certain men from James. We should note that James is considered to be the leader of the church gathered in Jerusalem. This would have been a gathering of Christians who would have been primarily—if not exclusively—Jewish people. It is not likely that there were Greek Christians in the church at Jerusalem. And we saw last week how Paul refers to the apostles in Jerusalem as pillars of the church.

Peter is left in a place where he is squirming under the pressure he feels from those who come from the church that holds the most influential leaders

By Paul’s description, Peter is left in a place where he is squirming under the pressure he feels from those who come from the church that holds the most influential leaders. And Peter caves in. Paul says in the passage that Peter is afraid of the Jews. Maybe this is a literal fear, because connecting the dots in Acts shows us that it was before this Antioch trip that Peter was captured and thrown in prison by the Jews in Jerusalem. Maybe he was afraid because he did not want to risk another imprisonment. Maybe it is just that Peter is impulsive and tends to act sometimes without thinking. We certainly get the sense from the gospels that this is a trait Peter displays. Whatever the reason, when the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem show up in Antioch, Peter flips sides and joins their apparent insistence that all the Greek Christians follow the Jewish religious customs.

all of the influential leaders who hold authority in the early church are all stacking up in an alliance against the Greek Christians

To take it all one step further, Paul says that even his right-hand-man Barnabas joins in. Picture the scene. All of the influential leaders who hold authority in the early church are all stacking up in an alliance against the Greek Christians. Paul is the only apostle left as one in a position of authority who can stand up for the truth of the gospel. This is what makes it necessary for Paul to make a public show of this conflict. It is not just a disagreement between Paul and Peter. It is Paul’s way of calling out every one of those Jewish Christians who were huddling together.

But at the same time, we see something even deeper in the flip-flopping of Peter from one side to the other. It is not until after the other Jewish leaders arrive in Antioch that Peter turns in hypocrisy. It is only after Peter becomes surrounded by voices seeking to set the standard for all others that he pulls away. And in this pulling away and drawing back from the Greeks, Peter and Barnabas become isolated into the echo chamber of a group who think their way of thinking and their way of acting is the pattern everyone should be forced to walk.

when we find ourselves in places of conflict and disagreement that we often look for coalitions and alliances

Doesn’t it seem so obvious that when we find ourselves in places of conflict and disagreement that we often look for coalitions and alliances. We look to isolate ourselves into a bubble in which we only associate with people of similar cultural norms. And in our circles of cultural isolation we find ourselves searching for ways to impose the cultural standards and norms we uphold as standards and norms that everyone else should follow as well. In other words, we look for power. When we find ourselves in places of disagreement, so often it turns into an ugly power struggle.

Finding Our Common Ground

the sin of Peter and the Jewish Christians confronted by Paul is cultural imperialism

One of the commentaries on Galatians I have been using for this series is written by Scot McKnight. In McKnight’s commentary of this passage in Galatians 2, he labels the sin of Peter and the Jewish Christians confronted by Paul as cultural imperialism. It is the tendency to take whatever habits and customs values and norms which we see as right and force those habits and customs and values and norms upon everyone else.

In Galatians 2 Peter’s slip into cultural imperialism only happens when he becomes pulled away from fellowship with the Greek Christians and isolated into a bubble with his fellow Jewish Christians. And before you know it, a power struggle emerges.

we cannot find our way to a common ground in this passage where the gospel is able to thrive without addressing the destruction caused by the abuse of power

Power. We cannot find our way to a common ground in this passage where the gospel is able to thrive without addressing the destruction caused by the abuse of power. It is one of the underlying themes in all of Paul’s letters in the New Testament to churches which existed during a time in which the world was controlled by the Roman Empire. Paul and Peter and all the New Testament churches lived in a time when there were obvious examples of manipulative and abusive power in the way Rome conquered and maintained control over a vast empire. It always seems easier to identify abuse of power when you are on losing side. It becomes something much more elusive when we happen to find ourselves on the side causing the abuse.

It does not seem likely that Peter and the Jewish Christians would have realized in the moment that they were engaging in an abuse of power by forcing the Greeks to follow the cultural ways of the Jewish people…at least, not until Paul calls them out for it. I imagine that in the minds of the Jewish Christians they thought they were actually doing a good thing. These Jewish cultural customs that had become so very meaningful expressions of religious identity to them should certainly be embraced and appreciated by all those Greeks as well—or so they maybe thought.

Many decades ago, missionaries from the Christian Reformed Church began working among the Navajo people in New Mexico. Rehoboth Christian School comes from those missionary efforts, a ministry that still exists today and that this church still financially supports today. If you go spend some time at Rehoboth and listen to the stories about the decades of missionary work, there is a story of cultural imperialism which emerges. The first missionaries to work among the Navajo people showed up with Dutch CRC culture. Instead of missionaries learning the Navajo language, they made the Navajo people learn English if they wanted to attend the school. Instead of learning the Navajo songs, the missionaries taught them that Psalter hymnal music was the only expression of Christian worship. The first generation of students did not commute from home, it was a boarding school with dormitories; the children dressed, ate, and talked like Dutch CRC folks, not Navajo children. The first generation of missionaries in Rehoboth may not have intentionally set out to destroy the Navajo culture and heritage, but that’s what they did.

But in the following generations of missionaries at Rehoboth, there came to be a realization and confession of our church’s sin of cultural imperialism. If you go visit Rehoboth Christian School today, you will find that there are classes in Navajo language, the students dress in ways that express their Navajo heritage, they learn music and dance which come from Navajo culture. It is no longer a boarding school with students living in dormitories; now they bus the kids in—often from great distances—to return value to the Navajo family. You can even visit a Navajo museum on the school property which has been built.

Somewhere along the way, our Dutch CRC ancestors in Rehoboth New Mexico realized their cultural imperialism was an abuse of power over the Navajo people. And I am grateful that we as a church have been confronted about it, confessed it as a sin, and taken appropriate corrections to live in and among the Navajo Christians in ways that focus on the common ground of the gospel instead of abusive power.

not only is an abuse of power destructive to the people of the church, it is also destructive to our focus upon the gospel itself

At the last Synodical meeting of the Christian Reformed Church in 2019, there was significant time and attention given to a report and statement of guidelines given regarding the continued abuse of power that exists among Christians in churches. It is an effort which I suspect has risen from an increased awareness of rampant and destructive sexual abuse which has been identified in segments of the Roman Catholic Church over the past few years. Such jarring and disturbing revelations have given our church enough pause to focus some very intentional initiatives on prevention of such abuses of power. Not only is an abuse of power destructive to the people of the church, it is also destructive to our focus upon the gospel itself.

at the cross of Jesus we see the ultimate relinquishing of power by Jesus

It comes as no surprise, then, that Paul would conclude his discussion about the abuse of power by turning our attention back to the cross of Jesus. At the cross of Jesus we see the ultimate relinquishing of power by Jesus. At the cross we remember that Jesus—who is God himself and has every right to the claim of ultimate authority over all creation—instead took a path which let go of that power. At the cross we remember that God no longer blocked himself away from us with a list of conditions, hurdles, and standards to be met. Rather, God himself came to be one of us so that the list of conditions, hurdles, and standards no longer needs to pull us apart from God.

The common ground of the gospel is the ground we stand. It is the ground upon which the cross of Jesus stands. And it is on this ground that we realize that Jesus, who gave everything for me just as I am without anything of my own, is the same Jesus who gave everything for you just as you are without anything of your own. Upon the common ground of the gospel there is only one power, and that is the power of the cross.