Does Galatians 2 have any racial entailments? I don't see it at all: #thread
-
Show this thread
-
Firstly, Peter was quite comfortable to fellowship with Gentiles prior to "certain men coming from James..." (2:12). So one moment Peter's wining and dining with Gentiles and the next he's not. That's not how racism works.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Peter's mind was changed not by racial/ethnic considerations but religious/theological ones. While this was deeply cultural it was still not racial.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Sure enough Peter was caught in some kind of relational sin but it wasn't racism or some feeling of ethnic superiority. Paul tells us it was the fear of man (2:13). Peter did not have a low view of Gentiles (racism) but a high view of these Judiazers (man-fearing hypocrisy)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Paul calls Peter's sin "hypocrisy" because he lived like a Gentile (freedom in relation to the law) from whom he is now supposedly separating on the grounds of racial/ethnic superiority? Again that's not how racism works neither is it how ethnic supremacy/superiority works.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
You don't first live like and live with a group of people and then the next day separate from them because they're ethnically and racially inferior. No. The separation has to be on other grounds.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread
Peter compromised the gospel through his actions by adding to it circumcision and separating from Gentiles. It is very much conceivable that were these Gentiles to also embrace circumcision, they would have been heartily embraced by the Judiazers. That's not how racism works.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.