“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy” (Galatians 2:11-13)
This story of the dispute between Paul and Peter (a.k.a. Cephas) runs so contrary to our polite ways of thinking. Just look at all the cultural sins Paul uses. First, he makes a clear “us vs. them” argument. Second, he labels an opposing group (i.e. “the circumcision faction). Third, he might be “gaslighting” Peter (that is, reshaping Peter’s story for him in a way that isn’t flattering to Peter; “gaslighting” is the negative version of “spin-doctoring”).
If you do any reading in conflict management, you’ll know that all of these actions are taboo. And yet, here they are – sacred scripture – serving as a model for the church across time and space. How are we to read this passage with any hope of receiving a holy message? Here are some options:
One, we could be the “I don’t care about PC culture” people. This interpretation says, “who cares?” to all the cultural norms outlined in the first paragraph. This view is tempting because it can sound real pious – “If it’s in the Bible, it’s good enough for me!” And who can argue with that sort of reasoning? Except, well, there’s A LOT in the Bible that I wouldn’t recommend any of you do (I mean, let’s just take God-sanctioned polygamy off the table straight away, right?). Also, some of those cultural values are helpful. Who wants to live in an “us vs. them” church? No one! So, yeah, keeping away from that makes sense.
Okay, second option: The Bible is dated and what Paul does here made sense in his time, but we have different ways and wisdom that we should use. This is also a tempting model. It has the idea that God might still be pouring out new wisdom (e.g. “don’t gaslight people because that’s just a fancy form of lying”) going for it. Yet, at the same time, we can look at literally every passage of scripture and say, “Well, that was written in a certain time” because, of course it was! It’s a 2,000 (or more) year old book! Part of reading the Bible is the assumption that certain truths are universal and extend across time and culture.
Third (and final) option: Let’s call this the “Witness Option.” The “Witness Option” asks how every action a Christian makes does or does not witness faithfully to God in Jesus Christ. Such an option is as stern as the “it’s in the Bible and that’s good enough for me” approach and as malleable as the “context matters” understanding. Behind it is the assumption that there is – at least in theory – a perfect witness to Jesus Christ. At the same time, it ethically understands that any particular action is going to be closer or further away from this perfection. The goal, then, is to keep driving ourselves – and one another – ever-the-more closer to a more perfect witness.
I think this “Witness Option” is what is behind Paul’s story about him and Cephas. Consider how the rest of the passage goes: “we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law” (verse 16). Paul’s argument isn’t that Peter has acted incorrectly by staying kosher, but rather that by staying kosher, Peter has implied that “doing the works of the law” are how someone is justified. In an ironic twist, it can be a perfect action and an imperfect witness.
I wonder how many church disputes and conflicts could be resolved – or, at least, made more fruitful – if we more consistently employed a “Witness Option” in our life together. Rather than running to “I’m right and you’re wrong,” we could say, “your actions imply ‘X,’ which is theologically unsound.” At the very least, our conversations would be much more theologically robust. And, most importantly, we would be rooting ourselves in a shared desire to witness faithfully.
For, after all, Peter does want to witness to the Gentiles. He has stood up and proclaimed as much before (see: Acts 10-15). He just lost track of his witness for a minute and Paul called him back to himself. Rather than reading this as an inner-church conflict, we might just see the very best sort of brotherhood between two adopted sons of God. Amen.
