There's a reason why Martin Luther, a Catholic
Monk in the early 1500's reputed to have started the
Protestant revolution, was taken by the book of Galatians. In
Galatians Paul was dealing with a Christian cult which had
infiltrated the churches. That cult, the cult of the
Judaizers, had much the same attributes as Catholicism has
become.
In chapter 2 of Galatians he goes through the origin of that
cult and his prior dealings with the matter. It started in the
church of Jerusalem - the church that Catholics consider
headquarters - but not Paul. In Galatians chapter 1 Paul
distanced himself from the church at Jerusalem which was led
by Peter, James and John. He made sure people understood that
he did not get his marching orders from those guys or from
that church.
Gal 1:1 "Paul,
an apostle— sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus
Christ and God the Father"
Gal 1:11,12 "I want you to
know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not
something that man made up. I did not receive it from any
man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by
revelation from Jesus Christ."
Gal 1:15-19 "When God, who set
me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was
pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him
among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I
go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I
was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned
to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to
Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him
fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles— only
James, the Lord’s brother."
In Chapter 2 he alludes back to the events of Acts 15 in which
"Some men came down from Judea to
Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are
circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you
cannot be saved." This brought Paul and Barnabas into
sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas
were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to
Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this
question." Acts 15:1,2
When he arrived at the church this is what he encountered.
"Then some of the believers who belonged to
the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The
Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law
of Moses." The apostles and elders met to consider
this question." Acts 15:5,6
In discussing this matter with Catholics, they interpret the
events in Acts from a Catholic viewpoint, but neglect to take
into account Paul's view of the events he records in Galatians
chapter 2. For what Paul says of these matter are so contrary
to Catholicism that they just turn a blind eye to it.
In Galatians chapter 2 Paul says that upon his arrival, along
with Barnabus and Titus he writes that
"not
even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be
circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose
because some false brothers had infiltrated
our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and
to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment,
so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. As
for those who seemed to be important— whatever they were
makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external
appearance— those men added nothing to my message."
Gal 2:4-6
The church of Jerusalem, which catholics repute as
headquarters at the time, led by Peter whom Catholics repute
as the first Pope, had unbelievers in it, false brothers who
were setting the agenda, they not only were outspoken in that
church concerning their false doctrine, but were sending
missionaries to other churches to spread their false doctrine
right under the noses of Peter, James and John, who were
acting irresponsibly in letting this go on. And Paul was upset
with these guys for being so irresponsible. Thus he says,
"As for those who seemed to be important—
whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not
judge by external appearance— those men added nothing to my
message." And he goes on in that chapter to mention
how he had to rebuke Peter.
"When Peter
came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was
clearly in the wrong." Gal 2:11
There's no sense in Galatians that Paul viewed Peter as some
kind of a "pope" let alone taking marching orders from
Jerusalem. It was Paul who set them straight. The church at
Jerusalem was a sectarian church composed exclusively of Jews,
due to the prejudice that even the other apostles held towards
Gentiles.
Peter grew up in a culture of prejudice. The Lord had to give
him a special vision just to get him to speak with a Gentile.
And when he arrived at Cornelius.'s house he said,
"You are well aware that it is against our
law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him." Acts
10:28 Yet in fact it was not against the Law of Moses.
Peter was still caught up in following man-made Jewish
regulations. And when Peter came back to the church what
reception did he get? "
When Peter went
up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him
and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men
and ate with them."" Where do you think
Cornelius went to church? Certainly not in Peter's church.
Imagine that, Gentile Christians were not allowed in "pope"
Peter's church.
And this is further seen in Acts 6 where
"In those days when the number of disciples
was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained
against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being
overlooked in the daily distribution of food." Acts
6:1 These Jewish widows who had been married to Gentiles
were being neglected. Prejudice! How did Peter respond?
"It would not be right for us to
neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait
on tables." That's not what Jesus taught them.
For at the last supper he waited upon them, washing their feet
and told them to do likewise. Could they not both do the
ministry of the word and service? That's when I think God had
enough of them. And just after this the book of Acts turns to
what you may call "lay ministry". Stephen and Philip were
assigned to deal with this issue of the distribution of bread.
Could they do both service and the ministry of the word? Yes
they did. And the chapters that follow are about them. In fact
fron this point on, other than the event with Cornelius, the
book of Acts turns its attention away from the Eleven and
focuses on those non-prejudicial ministries of Stephen and
Philip and primarily Paul. And while Jesus had commanded the
Eleven,
"go and make disciples of all
nations" they were reluctant to do so.
"At that time a great persecution arose
against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all
scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except
the apostles." Acts 8:1 Not even
persecution by the very man whom God would later call to be
the Twelfth apostle would overcome their prejudice against
Gentiles allowing them to minister among them.
The church of Jerusalem was corrupted by prejudice (
"A little leaven leavens the whole lump" Gal
5:9) which resulted in the the propagation of a false
gospel right under the noses of the apostles who had turned a
blind eye to it due to their fear of men and their contempt
for Gentiles. And Paul was outraged.
"I
am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who
called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a
different gospel— which is really no gospel at all.
Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and
are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we
or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than
the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!"
Gal 1:6-8 He's saying that even if he, as an
apostle of Jesus Christ, were to preach a false gospel, then
he should be eternally condemned. This is an indirect way of
saying that
"even if Peter, James or John were to preach
a false gospel, let them be eternally condemned."
And he continues,
"Am I now trying to
win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please
men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a
servant of Christ." He goes on to show that his
message and ministry did not come from man - that is, not from
the other apostles, nor from the church at Jerusalem, and goes
on to show that while he didn't fear man, Peter did.
"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." Gal 2:12
What can we make of this:
"If I were still trying to
please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."
Gal 1:10
"Peter was afraid of those
who belonged to the circumcision group." Gal
2:12
What is he saying about Peter?
Most of the New Testament epistles to the churches were
written by Paul for good reason. Peter had largely
relinquished his responsibilities with regards to ministry to
Gentiles. This officially occurred in that meeting mentioned
in Acts 15 and Galatians 2
"James,
Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and
Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized
the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go
to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." Acts
2:9
It's ironic that Catholics view that meeting as the first
Catholic council. For it's at that meeting that Peter
officially relinquishes his role of ministry to non-Jewish
Christians. And as for the phrase "reputed to be pillars",
notice the context:
"As for those who
seemed to be important— whatever they were makes no
difference to me; God does not judge by external
appearance— those men added nothing to my message.
On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with
the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as
Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in
the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also
at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.
James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars,
gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when
they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we
should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews." Gal
2:6-9
As such Paul is speaking in a derogatory manner with regards
to the apostles. By "reputed to be pillars" he's insulting
their pride of appearance. Their "importance" mattered not to
Paul. Paul was not a man pleaser.
The Decree
Concerning this meeting in Acts 15 Luke
further records that the church at Jerusalem conceded to
Paul's point of view, that Gentiles are not required to
become Jews to become Christians. Peter himself stated,
""Brothers, you know that some time ago
God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear
from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God,
who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by
giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He
made no distinction between us and them, for he purified
their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test
God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that
neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No!
We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus
that we are saved, just as they are." Acts
15:7-11
Peter's alluded back to his preaching to Cornelius. What
restrictions did the Lord place on Cornelius. Only faith
in the word preached. In fact Cornelius and his believing
household received the Spirit before even getting water
baptized. For it is not a ceremony that saves. It is faith
in the gospel. Furthermore with regards to that incident
it is written,
"I was in the city of
Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw
something like a large sheet being let down from
heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where
I was. I looked into it
and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts,
reptiles, and birds of the air.Then I heard a voice
telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’ I replied,
‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever
entered my mouth.’ The voice spoke from heaven a
second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that
God has made clean.’"Acts 11:5-9
Yet these Jerusalem apostles refused to give up their
dietary restrictions. James even decrees,
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we
should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are
turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling
them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual
immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from
blood."
While this excluded any other ceremony required of the
Gentiles, if this were taken as a salvation requirement,
as Catholics view this decree, then salvation is indeed of
works. But when we compare scripture with scripture we end
up with a different view not of the gospel which Paul
preached, but of this decree.
For example James decreed,
"Telling
them to abstain from food polluted by idols".
What does Paul say about that?
Paul writes, "Now
about food sacrificed to idols: We know
that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but
love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something
does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who
loves God is known by God. So then, about eating food
sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing
at all in the world and that there is no God but one.
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in
heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods"
and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God,
the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we
live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
whom all things came and through whom we live.But not
everyone knows this. Some people are still so
accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they
think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and
since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But
food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if
we do not eat, and no better if we do. Be careful,
however, that the exercise of your freedom does not
become a stumbling block to the weak.For if anyone
with a weak conscience sees you who have this
knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be
emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols?
So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is
destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your
brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience,
you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat
causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat
meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall."
1Cor 8:1-13
The issue with regards to eating meats sacrificed to idols
is not about salvation. This issue has to do with not
offending the potential scruples of other Christians.
Does the decree make eating meats sacrificed to idols
illegal? NO!
Paul writes, "All things
are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All
things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no
one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. Eat
anything that is sold in the meat market without
asking questions for conscience’ sake;FOR THE EARTH IS
THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. If one of the
unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat
anything that is set before you without asking
questions for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to
you, "This is meat sacrificed to idols," do not eat
it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for
conscience’ sake; I mean not your own conscience, but
the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by
another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness,
why am I slandered concerning that for which I give
thanks? Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever
you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense
either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God"
1Cor 10:23-32
And likewise with regards to strangled animals and blood.
The decree is not giving a list of legal requirements for
salvation, but rather regulations regarding fellowship
between Jewish and Gentile Christians.Viewed as legal
requirements for salvation not only contradicts Paul's
writing on the particular points of these regulations, but
more importantly it would contradict the gospel itself, as
Peter himself states and more important as Paul
extensively covers in Galatians.
Catholics use their misconstrued view of this decree as a
precedent for Catholicism arbitrarily adding all kinds of
legal requirements for salvation. And again not only do
the individual Catholic decrees contradict scripture, but the
whole idea of remaking the gospel in the image of a legalistic
Catholic theology is exactly the kind of thing that Paul
opposed in that very first council. It's the very reason why
he wrote Galatians. And its the very reason why Catholics turn
a blind eye to the content of Galatians.
Making salvation a matter of following legal regulations,
whether it be from the perspective of the Judaizers or
Catholics, is exactly contrary to the gospel. They seek
salvation by works. In contrast Paul warns the Galatians,
"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched
you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly
portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing
from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the
law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so
foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying
to attain your goal by human effort?" Gal 3:1-3
He gives the example of Abraham,
Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to
him as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who
believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that
God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the
gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed
through you." So those who have faith are blessed along with
Abraham, the man of faith. All who rely on observing the law
are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone
who does not continue to do everything written in the Book
of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the
law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is
not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these
things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the
curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is
written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He
redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham
might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by
faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit." Gal
3:6-14
Like for those who rely up Canon Law for their salvation. It's
the same thing - salvation by human effort. He makes this same
argument against sacramental, ceremonial, works based
salvation in Romans 4, again alluding to Abraham.
"What then shall we say that Abraham, our
forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham
was justified by works, he had something to boast about— but
not before God. What does the Scripture say? Abraham
believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him
as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who
does not work but believes God who justifies the wicked,
his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the
same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to
whom God credits righteousness apart from works: Blessed
are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are
covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never
count against him." Rom 4:1-8
Paul sees a significant contrast between working for your
salvation and simply believing God's promise which saves you.
Just as the Judaizers of Paul's day, so also today Catholicism
is a works based salvation. Their answer to Paul's objection
to the Judiazers is simply that they interpret this as being
simply about a disagreement as to which regulations are
required for a person to be saved, ignoring the actual content
of Paul's letters where he indicates that salvation is not a
matter of following regulations but rather simply believing
God's promise. And so Catholic councils, just like the
Judaizers, go on to add all kinds of requirements for
salvation, as kinds of ceremonial works rather than
recognizing what Peter and Paul actually said about the matter
- that salvation is not of works but of the grace of God
through faith.
What was the purpose of the Law?
"If a law had been given that could impart
life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the
law. The Scripture declares that the whole world is a
prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given
through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who
believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by
the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the
law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be
justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no
longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of
God through faith in Christ Jesus" Gal 3:21-26
No one was ever saved by following regulations. And no one
will be saved by following regulations or by their
participation in religious ceremonies.
If you view your salvation as contingent upon following
regulations, you have been misled. You have yet to come to
faith in Christ.
Consider, for example, the Catholic obsession over the
observance of "holy days". Paul writes,
"But
now that you know God— or rather are known by God— how is it
that you are turning back to those weak and miserable
principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over
again? You are observing special days and months and
seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have
wasted my efforts on you." Gal 4:9,10
Final Exhortation
One of Paul's final exhortations to the Galatians with regards
to the sacramental theology of the Judaizers is this,
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us
free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be
burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Mark my words! I, Paul,
tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ
will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every
man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to
obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by
law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away
from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit
the righteousness for which we hope." Gal 5:1-5
Likewise to Catholics one could say
, "It
is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm,
then, and do not let yourself be burdened again by a yoke of
slavery. Mark my words! I tell you that if you let
yourselves be converted to Catholicism, Christ will be of no
value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets
himself be duped by Catholic
sacramental theology that he is obligated to obey the whole
Canon law. You who are trying to be justified by Canon law
have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from
grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the
righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus
religious ceremonies don’t have any value in and of
themselves. The only thing that counts is faith expressing
itself through love. For the kingdom of God is not eating
and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the
Holy Spirit."