Pastor Rich Lusk posted this on X (Twitter) yesterday.
I’d like to take this as an opportunity to respond and bring clarity to what I see as crucial issues to think through rightly. Before I respond, let me say that I appreciate Pastor Lusk’s attempt to speak to these same issues. We need to do so, especially because, today, not only does confusion abound on the issues of race, nature, natural affection, and the place of Scripture on these same topics, but the enemies of Christ, within and without the Church, will and indeed do abuse these same things against us.
Hence, we must cogitate meaningfully.
My Response Summarized
My response can be summed up in a fourfold manner.
Peter’s problem wasn’t preference.
Judaizers were false brethren with a false gospel.
Obligation to fellowship needs qualified.
If this passage is being raised for purposes of political theory, it is largely impertinent.
1: Peter’s Problem Wasn’t Preference.
Peter's sinful behavior wasn't preferential in its origination. It was dissimulation or hypocrisy (2:13), born out of fearing man (2:12)—thus it was neither mere preference nor a sinful partiality. But it was so bad that Barnabas, companion with Paul to the Gentiles (Ac. 13:46), was tripped up in it, too (2:13).
Man-fearing—and courage—are contagions. Peter, of course, had a habit of waffling between (1) actually being brave, i.e. daring for God (Matt. 19:27) vs. (2) posturing as brave, i.e. fearing / unduly regarding man (Lk. 22:54-62).
This was the root of his personal problem: fear of man. How it manifested and expressed itself as hypocrisy and dissimulation, and how it was “walking not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel” (2:14) in these peculiar circumstances is something different,—something which comprehends a number of different factors which need parsed through carefully.
2: Judaizers Were False Brethren with a False Gospel.
The Judaizers—those “certain” come from James and “the circumcision” (2:12)—these men were false brethren with a false gospel. Their gospel was, in essence, in order to be justified, one must embrace and keep the ceremonial law of Moses. This is the entire occasion of the letter to the Galatians. (Note: when Paul says “the law” in Galatians, most times he means the ceremonial law)
There are three main points that the Judaizers emphasized in this respect: dietary restrictions, circumcision, and feast days.
We see the dietary restrictions here with Peter at Antioch (2:11ff).
We see circumcision in 5:2ff, i.e.
“Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”
We see feast days in 3:10-11, i.e.
“Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.”
Elsewhere, Paul permits the observance of the ceremonial law (Rom. 14) according to each individual’s conscience but forbids three points concerning the same: (1) those who do not observe it must not condemn those who do observe it; (2) those who do observe it must not morally require that others observe it; and (3) those who do observe it do so for personal conscience sake, not as if the ceremonial law itself is still binding.
Even more, Paul himself participates in the observance of the ceremonial law in certain other places.
For example, in Acts 21:18-26, Paul concedes to certain ceremonial observations, being requested of James. This was done, not to subvert the gospel nor to require Gentiles become Jews in observing the ceremonial law, but for the sake of peace and unity in the Jewish Church, to help Jews be at ease regarding certain accusations raised against Paul.
In Acts 16:1-3, Paul deliberately circumcises Timothy—again, not to subvert the gospel, but to remove stumbling blocks among certain Jews, whom he wanted to bring the gospel to.
Conversely, Paul deliberately refuses to circumcise Titus in Gal. 2:3.
Why the discrepancy? Why circumcise Timothy but refuse to circumcise Titus? Why does Paul permit observance of the ceremonial law in Rom. 14 but forbid it in Galatians? The answer is telos, i.e. the end, the purpose, the goal or reason for performing, permitting, forbidding, or requiring a given thing. In each instance, telos is what dictates whether observance of the ceremonial law is or is not lawful, is or is not a threat to the gospel, is or is not furthering the peace and unity of the Church.
Swinging back around: the reason Paul forbade these things and issued anathemas in Galatians was because of the Judaizer telos. The Judaizers said that observance was required, not for conscience sake, but as necessary in order to be justified. In other words, this was an addition to the gospel. Instead of faith in Christ alone in order to be justified, the Judaizers said it was faith in Christ + circumcision, food laws, and feast days.
Therefore, when Peter, fearing these Judaizers, separated from eating with Gentiles and only ate with Jews, he was indirectly yielding to the demands of the Judaizers. His behavior legitimized the Judaizer message. Thus, Paul indicts him as not walking according to the truth of the gospel. The point of issue, then, is not so much eating with Jews vs. Gentiles; the point of issue, rather, is the basis for that separation in the first place, namely the Judaizer false gospel. (Incidentally, this is also what makes Barnabas’ behavior so bad, because he is denying his own ministry calling to the Gentiles)
Therefore, the matter has nothing to do with preference. It is a highly contextualized crisis of gospel legitimacy.
3: Obligation to Fellowship Needs Qualified.
Pastor Lusk suggests that Peter was obligated to have fellowship with Gentiles. But if what I have laid out above is true, then this is not in the purview of the passage. In fact, the text nowhere states this is a problem. Nowhere is it said that Peter must eat with Gentiles, as if eating or not eating, or sitting with this group vs. that group is necessarily sinful or righteous.
Instead, what Paul says is this, “why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:14). In other words, Peter was not obligated to eat with Gentiles; rather, he was obligated to not force Gentiles to become Jews, i.e. to observe the ceremonial law—whether as a moral requirement, or as necessary to be justified. He separated himself from the Gentiles upon this basis, relative to the demands of the Judaizers. Which means his behavior (1) legitimized the Judaizer’s false gospel, (2) which demanded Gentiles become Jewish (i.e. observe the ceremonial law in order to be justified). Thus, again the telos is supreme.
Beyond this, just speaking generally, we should qualify obligations for fellowship. Am I obliged to fellowship with Pastor Lusk, or he with me? It depends. If providence arises where we can fellowship in person, or perhaps somehow through online means, then yes, we are obligated, insofar as our Christian professions are discerned as legitimate. But as it stands at present, no I am not obligated.
But let’s take another scenario: a church with various members. Are the young couples obligated to fellowship with the older? a single senior man with a single younger woman? a child with adults? It depends. In the sense that both parties should be open to engaging and edifying one another according to wisdom and commensurate to their giftings and capacity, sure. In the sense that this engagement is enforced? Perhaps not.
Let’s take another hypothetical. Bob is a member of Red Church. Red Church has several hundred members. Must Bob, as a matter of obligation, fellowship with all other believers of Red Church? This may be too far. Bob is finite; he can’t fellowship with all simultaneously, if by fellowship we mean actively and deliberately engage and edify at an individual-to-individual way. So that’s off the table. Can Bob meaningfully fellowship, i.e. develop real Christian care and relationship, for all several hundred members? Probably not. Thus Bob is not obligated, at least not in this sense.
Let’s take another hypothetical. Are White Christians obligated to fellowship with Black Christians? Again, it depends. I won’t parse through more scenarios here. The above can be re-applied to this point. But I will ask what I think is a much more significant question in the context of the discussion, a question which passes through many of the extenuating scraps and gets straight to the heart of our dilemma: can White Christians form their own distinct churches, with their own distinct cultures? If the answer is no, then must we not also say that Blacks, Latinos, Japanese, Chinese, and others cannot either?
In other words, if Whites cannot have White churches, then neither can Blacks, Latinos, or any other distinct race or ethnicity have their own churches. If ecclesiastical diversity is required of Whites, i.e. as a thing morally embraced and enforced, then it must also be for other distinct races and ethnicities. But if the latter is denied, so must also be the former.
We must meaningfully cogitate and unfold the implications of our premises.
This is only to speak of ecclesiastical or church fellowship. This is to say nothing of civil fellowship, which is a separate question with separate concerns.
4: Passage is Impertinent for Political Theory.
I don’t know if Pastor Lusk is raising this passage of Galatians in relation to political theory questions or not. So I won’t impute that to him. But let’s just assume that others do raise it this way. How should we respond to this?
I assert that the passage is impertinent to political theory.
Galatians 2 is not given to furnish us with matter in order to construct political theory. Galatians 2 is given primarily as a standing polemic against those who would pervert the gospel in its content or in the behavior related to that content.
Incidentally, this means that Paul has a huge bone to pick with the modern church, not because she is unduly partial in her race relations or preferences (although in places that may be true) but because she has become largely anti-nomian—a thought that Paul utterly rejects as incompatible with the gospel, not just in Galatians (e.g. Gal. 5:6, 13-18) but in others places as well (e.g. Romans 6; Titus 2:11-14). We see this, ironically, manifested in unnatural preference today, e.g. for strangers instead of one’s own, which is elsewhere called lack of natural affection (2 Tim. 3:3), a sign not of God’s blessing but of his judgment.
While the Bible does confirm nature, and while it can teach us many things about nature, and while it does speak to various political interests, concerns, and situations in certain passages, it is not given to us as a handbook of political theory. Now someone may raise the judicial law or Kings or Chronicles, etc. I grant all these can be helpful. This is not my point. My point is the Bible, especially in its spiritual matter, is not meant to be wielded to construct our politics, especially in natural matters. E.g. the Bible says nothing of traffic lights, interstate design, sanitation, dam-building, so on and so forth.
The Kingdom of Christ is not of this world: which means two things; first, it is its own kingdom with its own rules; second, there is another kingdom, the earthly, just as legitimate, with its own rules. The two are distinct, not confounded; friends, not foes.
And just to be clear: I’m not saying the Bible has nothing to say about politics. It does. I’m primarily saying here, in this particular matter, concerning Galatians 2—this is about gospel legitimacy. If we absolutize this passage for political ties, or even for church-relations of all time, we run into major problems. E.g. just open up that Old Testament and see what the Church did then.
Conclusion.
Peter’s problem was not preference. His primary problem was fear of man, which, in the particular circumstances of Antioch, manifested in hypocrisy and dissimulation, in behavior which legitimized the false gospel of the Judaizers and undermined the true gospel which Peter himself had preached.
Obligations to fellowship are not so simple when we begin to parse through particular circumstances. This is not a matter of running to exceptions to avert the rule. It’s a matter of thinking clearly about the implications of what we say, especially in a very confused day. It is too often the case that good Christians are guilted into thinking they have obligations which they simply do not.
The Bible has places where we can use it to help us in our political theory. But strict ecclesiastical and spiritual principles ordinarily should not be deployed in ways that subvert basic civil and natural principles. They are not given to this end, as that would be grace destroying or undermining nature, rather than grace perfecting and duly ordering nature. We should refuse to participate in or reinforce this very common modern mistake.