So… I have written before my thoughts on the above passage. This is where Paul describes an event at the Church in Antioch. Peter was visiting the church, and then some brethren from Jerusalem visited. While previously Peter would dine with the Gentiles, when those from Jerusalem joined, he separated himself from the Gentiles. Paul charged Peter with hypocrisy and was angry that his example led Barnabas astray.

I have never been particularly impressed by the argument of Paul that he was on the side of right while Peter and Barnabas were wrong. It seems almost universal agreement that Paul was right, but I was not so sure.

1. Some seemed to believe that Paul was right because it was Paul. But Peter and Barnabas are also people of great faith and authority. Paul can be wrong as easy as Peter. In fact, Paul seems to have made a number of bad decisions… most obviously when he decided to go to Jerusalem after the third missionary journey.
2. Some believe that Paul was right because Paul believed he was right and the Holy Spirit confirmed it by making it canon. But Scripture is full of stories that are nuanced and we are supposed to “figure it out.” In fact the Bible is surprising in how it fails to be hagiographic—- instead showing the flaws of its heroes.
3. Some believe that Paul was right because… well… Peter was a hypocrite. This is clearly the strongest point. However, I have noted before that from a missiological perspective, one can make the argument that Peter was contextualizing. Peter ate with Gentiles because he was in Antioch in that church. However, when those from a different church culture was present, he adjusted. One might argue that Paul failed to contextualize.

However, I was reading a book by Eugene A. Nida, “Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions.” This is an old book, and the following quote and extended section got me thinking.

Some missionaries make it a practice not to shake hands with “natives” if there are any whites around, and they object seriously to having “natives” in for tea or refreshments.

–Eugene A. Nida, “Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions.” 1954. Page 66.

I would recommend reading the extended section, but I won’t type it in here. It feels very easy to look at this situation and condemn. For me it is at least. To maintain such an “US” versus “THEM” situation in the mission field is unconscionable. The “natives” need to see that all are equal before God and in the church. And, it seems, that the missionaries need to see it even more so.

The situation Nida was relating was white missionaries in sub-Saharan lands, almost certainly while the lands were under white colonial rule. Thus, added to the prejudiced behavior was the sin of maintaining the cultural norms of a morally bereft system.

The situation in Antioch was distinctly different in some ways. Antioch was a Gentile town, although quite cosmopolitan. The Jews did not have power there. However, in the early church they did have power.

Peter needed to show that things had changed. All were welcome together and equal. I don’t think the charge of hypocrisy was particularly accurate. And if it is accurate, I don’t think that was the big problem.