If you have read Galatians and returned to the article, click here to continue reading.
According to paragraph 2068 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; The Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.""
In spite of Rome's claims to be the one true Church of Jesus Christ, claiming its very origins are displayed in Matthew 16, I of course contend the Roman Catholic Church did not exist in the first century. Thus, the Bible does not directly address it, as it does the Gnostics, the Nicolaitans, and other early heretical groups. However, the good thing about the Bible is "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). This means even when old heresies perish, and new ones arise, we have no need of new revelation. The old is sufficient to rebuke them.
One book that is especially relevant to the Roman Catholic heresy is the book of Galatians, in which Paul responds to a specific group of first century heretics, the Judaisers. In this epistle, Paul rebukes the Galatians for giving this group even an hour of their time, and putting up a firm defence of the one Gospel he received from Christ.
Having timed myself, the entire book of Galatians (6 chapters in all) takes approximately 15 minutes to read, which I don't consider to be a vast amount of time. It would take as long to brew and drink a good coffee. This provides us with an excellent opportunity. While the Gospel is a common thread throughout the Bible, the book of Galatians is specifically designed to show its relationship to The Law, which includes the 10 commandments. Thus, we can present Roman Catholics with a little challenge. Take about half an hour out of your day. More, if you're feeling particularly diligent. This should allow sufficient time to not only read, but meditate upon, the book of Galatians. Take care to set aside any Roman Catholic presuppositions (explained below). Whatever the epistle says, that is what it says, and no amount of "authority" can overturn it, because this is the word of God, delivered to us by the pen of His very own chosen Apostle.
With that in mind, ask if the word of God lines up with the word of the Roman Catholic Church? Is the Gospel it teaches the same as the gospel Rome teaches? This article is divided into two sections, with the second half being indicated by a line. I strongly encourage readers (even if you're not Roman Catholic) to read the book of Galatians before reading past the line. A link is provided at the top of the article, so one can return to it after reading Galatians. After the line, we will be discussing the epistle in detail, not only highlighting what you should have seen, but also answering any possible objections a Roman Catholic might have.
Obstructive presuppositions
The main problem with this challenge is that, as I like to say, we should read the Bible before the devil reads it for us. However, if you are a Roman Catholic, the devil has already read it for you. This means it is now impossible to fully remove Roman Catholic presuppositions you might apply to the text. It was easy for me, because I'd read the entire Bible 3 times before I began studying Catholicism in any depth, but a Roman Catholic, in theory, knows what their Church teaches, and may even already have some default arguments lined up in their head to respond to Galatians. Thus, there are some natural disconnects between what the text says and what a Catholic might think it says.
The primary presupposition that will get in the way here is the Roman Catholic Church's "authority" to interpret the Bible. This is a permanent obstacle Satan has placed in the way of a Catholic's study process. As long as they can be convinced that one needs "authority" to interpret anything, then they can read through the entire Bible, find a thousand different things that even they believe is against Roman Catholic teaching, but assume they're interpreting it wrong. It is not their place, they believe, to study the Bible and interpret it differently than the Roman Catholic Church.
It is helpful that the Roman Catholic Church has actually included its own "self destruct" button in its own official teachings. In 1965, Pope Paul VI promulgated Dei Verbum, which specifically addresses the Roman Catholic view of Scripture and tradition. In it, we read "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence."
This puts Roman Catholics in a very awkward position. In practice, Scripture and "sacred" tradition constantly conflict. That is precisely why Roman Catholics so often cite tradition as if it overrules Scripture. But according to this document, one can no more cite tradition to overrule Scripture than one can cite Scripture to overrule tradition. This alone is enough to implode the Roman Catholic Church, but for now, let us instead focus on the other conclusions it leads us to.
First, it leads a Roman Catholic to the idea that, somehow, the Bible is a Catholic book. Furthermore, the current bishops are supposedly the successors of the Apostles themselves, with the Pope, of course, being Peter's successor. But if we're using that logic, we must necessarily give priority to Scripture. Remember, Dei Verbum claims that tradition takes the word of God given to the Apostles, handing it on to their successors in its full purity, so they may preserve it, explain it, and make it more widely known. In other words, they are supposedly teaching the same things. They're not allowed to depart from it, and "if" (I would say when) they do, you can use the Bible to prove it, as surely as you can use Paul VI to overrule Francis. Just picture it. Imagine you live through two papacies. You remember one Pope, you hear the second, the second is teaching something the first Pope would never have supported. What do you do here? Logically, you go with the first Pope. So what do we do when any Pope goes against the Bible? The Bible must take precedent!
Ultimately, this should lead us to the truth: The Roman Catholic Church has no special authority to interpret Scripture. Thus, you can remove this obstruction entirely. You can interpret Galatians as it is written, not because Paul is a Roman Catholic Apostle writing a Roman Catholic epistle, but because, ultimately, Galatians is the word of God, and so it is flat out blasphemous for (as we shall see) even a genuine Apostle to seek to overrule it.
---------------------- Please read Galatians before reading on ---------------------
Summary of Galatians
This will be the final time I attempt to encourage you to read the book of Galatians before reading my summary. Even if you'd read it in the past, revising it now will make it fresh in your mind, allowing you to see what I am about to point out. With that said, let's review what you have hopefully just read.
Having read the book of Galatians, its main theme should be obvious. The Gospel had come under attack from a group of heretics called the Judaisers (not mentioned by name, this is what they came to be known as later on), who taught that, on top of faith, one needed to be obedient to the law. For them, this included the "small" parts, if it be permissible to call them "small". Paul's primary concerns were circumcision, and the observance of special times, neither of which, he says, are required. He even laments, given that the Galatians had fallen for this, that he had labored in vain, as they had departed from Christ and the grace of God with this Legalistic philossophy. This in spite of their obvious care and good works.
Paul takes a double edged approach to this error, on the one hand pointing out why the law cannot save, whereas faith can, and why the two are, ultimately, incompatible. The law is weak in the flesh, because one who is bound to it is bound to all of it, not just select parts. Yet, we all sin against it. Thus, no salvation is possible under the law. Paul points us instead to the promise we partake of through Christ, which we receive through faith, and not through law. Ultimately, Paul says there is one Gospel, and anyone who speaks against it is cursed. He even gets somewhat vulgar, wishing opponents of the Gospel would castrate themselves. He concludes by exposing the heretics, stating that not even they obey the law, but they seek to conform the faithful to the law so they may boast in them, yet one should boast only in the cross.
Galatians 1
The Gospel breaking implications of the Galatian churches can actually be seen from the way in which Paul begins his address. In contrast with every other epistle he writes, Paul doesn't link the churches in Galatia with God in any way. In every other epistle, and even regarding the churches of Judea in verse 22, Paul adds some epithet of honor. It doesn't matter what kind of epistle he's writing, encouragement or rebuke, he links them with God.
He calls those in Rome "beloved of God, called to be saints". He calls the Corinthian Church "the Church of God". Even the Thessalonian church is called the church of the Thessalonians, which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ. But the Galatians receive no such honor, being called only "the churches of Galatia". His address offers God's grace, but it does not directly associate the Galatians with it, as in the other epistles. The implications of this are hardcore. Paul seems to be implying that the Galatians, for all their hard work, are apostate churches.
But he doesn't stop at merely implying it. He continues to flat out say "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." (v6-9).
This establishes that this is a Gospel issue, and indeed, there is no greater issue than the Gospel. If you, as the heretics did, preach a different gospel, not only are you said to have turned away from God, but you are considered accursed for it. That word, by the way, is "anathema", which any Roman Catholic should be familiar with. To be anathema is to be concretely excommunicated. Paul is making things extremely clear here: If you preach a different gospel, you're on the path to Hell.
In verses 10-12, Paul affirms the source of his Gospel. It isn't from man, nor is it designed to please man. He neither received it from man, nor was he taught it (in other words, even the other Apostles didn't give it to him), but it came directly from Christ Himself.
It's interesting that Paul then continues to give his testimony, not only how he had previously persecuted the Church (v13), but also how "...I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers." (v14). This makes an interesting link between the Roman Catholic Church, and the order of the Pharisees, of which Paul was a part (Philippians 3:1-6). Just as the Pharisees placed a very heavy emphasis on their traditions, claiming they came from God, to the extent of nullifying the word of God, so also does the Roman Catholic Church, as we discussed earlier. Yet, Scripture as a whole does not speak positively about this approach. Most uses of the word "tradition" are either negative or neutral, with some of them being a combination of both. Here, Paul doesn't condone the traditions of the Pharisees (i.e. it's an example of a neutral usage), but uses it as an opportunity to verify his own legitimacy.
From verses 15 to the end of the chapter, Paul continues to describe his journey. What's interesting is that in verses 16 and 17, he says "...I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus." On its own, this is nothing especially relevant to our discussion. He is simply reaffirming the source of his Gospel. He didn't get it from men, not even the Apostles, he just followed Christ. But in so doing, he actually divides himself from the other Apostles, including Peter. Peter did not exercise any kind of special authority over Paul, and as we will see shortly, they were as equal as you or I. I find this of particular note, as while I am not sure if there is any official Roman Catholic source that says this, I find some Roman Catholics argue that Paul went straight to Peter to learn the Gospel from him and gain his approval to teach it. Yet, here, Paul says he didn't meet Peter for three years, and then only for 15 days (v18).
It's also worth noting, while it is not a Gospel issue, that verse 19 refutes another Roman Catholic dogma, as it claims James is "the Lord's brother". James, as almost any Bible student can tell you, is indeed the Lord's brother. This is because Mary, quite famously, was married, and it does not seem that marriage was, in any way, unusual. That is, their marriage was all but explicitly consummated after the birth of Christ in Matthew 1:25, and several other passages show that Mary had other sons and daughters. Thus, while it is not a Gospel issue, nor an issue I especially want Catholics to focus on, Galatians 1:19 is sufficient to poke a hole in Roman Catholic tradition. If an entire dogma can be refuted with one single verse (not that there is only one single verse), what else is Rome lying to you about?
Ultimately, this whole passage, from verse 15-25, further establishes that Paul's Gospel is not based on Apostolic authority or tradition. Rather, even the Apostles, even Peter, are all bound to this message, which comes from Christ, and not from them. Thus, as he has already said, even if an Apostle, or even if an angel from Heaven, preaches a different Gospel, they are anathema. What, then, are we to make of things, if the alleged "successors of the Apostles" do not preach the same Gospel we will see as we continue to study the book of Galatians? If we are to hear Paul, who received his Gospel from Christ Himself, we are to consider the very Pope to be anathema when he departs from the Gospel.
Galatians 2
In the second chapter, Paul continues the history of his ministry, but not extensively. In fact, the first words we read are "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem..." (emphasis added). For fourteen years, Paul is running around the Middle East preaching this very important Gospel. He still wasn't preaching a man made tradition. It wasn't anything he had learned from man, it was "by revelation", of course revelation from Christ.
So Paul continues, "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain." (v1-2). This is the beginning of a number of points Paul will continue to make, starting with the idea that God does not show favoritism. Your riches, your social status, even your achievements, mean nothing to God.
But on top of this, he lays another scene: "Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." (v3). So what's the implication here? Here's this Gentile, I've gone up to him by revelation, I've taught him this Gospel, he's heard it many times, yet though he was never circumcised, he never felt the need to be. Circumcision isn't a part of this Gospel.
Now at this point, a Roman Catholic might be thinking "well duh, you wanna tell me the sky is blue next?" Circumcision isn't a part of the Roman Catholic gospel either. However, as we will soon see, this is relevant, as Paul's ultimate case is going to be that there is no aspect of the law that is directly involved in the Gospel. Circumcision is one highlighted issue here, but as the law comes as a package deal, you can swap it out for any aspect of the law, including the 10 commandments.
So having explained his history a little more, Paul tells us "And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me." (v4-6).
I don't want to focus too much on the whole favoritism aspect, but I do want to make a big deal out of the thing about liberty and bondage. Paul will build upon what he's saying here, and it's especially interesting, because when most Christians speak about "don't return to bondage", the first thing they think is "sin". And as a concept, they're not wrong. Salvation frees us from our bondage to sin, and we obviously do not want to return there. However, in the context of Galatians, Paul speaks of bondage in an entirely different way. These "false brethren" (i.e. those who claim they are Christians, but are not) are here to spy out our liberty, but only so they can bring us into bondage. What are we free from in Christ? What do these false brethren want to bind us to again? Paul will return to this.
For now, Paul continues "But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do." (v7-10).
This shows something interesting about the Apostolic dynamic. Official Roman Catholic doctrine holds Peter to be the supreme Apostle, and it's not even a close contest. First Vatican Council (1869-1870) made the following pronouncement about Peter:
"We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom He had already said: "Thou shalt be called Cephas," that the Lord, after the confession made by him, saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," addressed these solemn words, "Blessed art thou, Simon, Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but My Father, who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus after His resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold in the words, "Feed My lambs, feed My sheep."
At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter in his simple person preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not be stowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.
If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant, or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honour only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema."
These are some very big, eisegetical, and ironically anti-historical claims about Peter, and in particular about the papal implications of Matthew 16. To this day, Roman Catholics dogmatically assert this verse as their justification for the Papacy. If this doctrine, much less this interpretation of Matthew 16:18, is to be believed, then we should see Peter playing a far greater role than we actually do throughout Scripture. He should be leading the charge. He should be noted alone, or if any other Apostle is mentioned, that Apostle should be nothing more than a blip on the radar. A satellite around this great planet, as the moon to our Earth. But to Paul, he isn't even the first of three names who "seemed to be pillars".
"Seemed"? Peter's name literally means rock, does it not? No, he is the rock upon which Christ builds His Church, surely! On his own, he is preferable to all the other Apostles, on their own or as a whole. But Paul gives him the honor of merely "seeming" to be a pillar, along with James and John.
Furthermore, Peter doesn't even seem overly concerned with ministry to the entire Church. Not that he never labored for the Gospel, of course. If he had the chance to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, he would take it. But this is not his primary ministry, according to Paul. No, Peter would primarily minister to the Jews, whereas Paul would take the message to the Gentiles.
But a Catholic can still point to this event and suggest that Paul is somehow appealing to Peter's authority, especially since, in a sense, he is. Not as a Pope, for this interpretation had not yet been invented, much less enshrined into official Roman Catholic doctrine. But he is still appealing to Peter. This obviously doesn't prove the Papacy, since he also appealed to James and John, who also "seemed to be pillars", so unless you want to argue that there are three Popes, you cannot use this to support the Papacy. But Paul is appealing to these three pillars. Why?
From his other epistles, we see that Paul is humble, almost to the excess. He boasts in the cross of Christ, but he feels foolish when boasting in himself (2 Corinthians 12:11). But you can rest assured, when his authority is doubted, he will absolutely defend it. "Am I not an apostle?..." (1 Corinthians 9:1). "For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles." (2 Corinthians 11:5). "...in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing." (2 Corinthians 12:11). We see, then, that Paul was appealing to the other Apostles, but not because he believed he was, in any way, inferior. He didn't believe Peter was some kind of "prince of the Apostles", as if there ever was such a role. But he did think it necessary to link himself with the other Apostles. The most eminent ones (James, Peter, John) extended their hands of fellowship to Paul. He appealed to them not as Papal figures, but as fellow witnesses! He's saying "listen, their Gospel, my Gospel, it's all Christ's Gospel. You accept them, accept me also".
And as if it couldn't be any more clear that Paul didn't regard Peter as some supreme authority, he begins to describe an event so earthshaking, it caused a dispute between Augustine and Jerome: "Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy." (v11-13).
As I say, this event caused a whole dispute between Jerome and Augustine, two highly respected figures in the Roman Catholic Church. Jerome, a fan of Peter, was on one hand unwilling to question the authority of Paul, but on the other hand could not tolerate the implication that Peter could do any wrong. Thus, he concocted a conspiracy theory wherein Paul actually planned this out in order to secure the salvation of both Jew and Gentile. He would appear to be charging Peter with hypocrisy, because that way, those who did not feel compelled to be circumcised would follow Paul for his liberty, but Peter would continue in his ministry to the circumcised, and they would follow him.
To Augustine, this was a direct attack on the integrity of the Scriptures - as indeed it is! In contrast to Jerome's defence of Peter, Augustine believed that if Paul says he rebuked Peter for hypocrisy, then he did.
And Augustine is correct. When we remove all Papal assumptions from this passage, what we see is Peter being a hypocrite, and Paul bringing him back to the right path. What path is that? "But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
“But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”" (v14-21).
And there's the Gospel! Man is justified not by works of the law (including the 10 commandments), but by faith in Jesus Christ. But by the works of the law, no flesh shall be justified. Which category do the commandments come under? Faith, or law? Law! But Paul says if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died in vain!
The only way a Roman Catholic can get around this is to say "well, sure, it says by faith, but not by faith alone". If they want to be a full grown cliche, they can even point to James 2:24, which is the only place in the Bible that actually uses the words "faith alone", yet it says "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." Now, I want the primary focus of this article to be on the book of Galatians, whereas I have addressed James 2 many times elsewhere. See here, here, and here. With that being said, there is actually some degree of overlap between the two books, which we will see shortly.
For now, I do want to grant, as if temporarily giving credibility to, the argument that this does not say through faith alone. Here's a question for you: What does your car run on? Typically, cars run on petrol, diesel, or, if you're really fancy, electric. Let's just guess that yours runs on diesel. Does it run on diesel alone? If you say it runs on diesel, you're likely to just say it runs on diesel. You're not likely to say "on diesel alone", as if the absence of this clarification might cause one to suspect petrol is also required. Interestingly, there are hybrid cars that run on combinations. Mine, for example, runs on diesel and electric. Thus, if you asked me, I would say it runs on diesel and electric, again not taking any great pains to specify "alone".
So we can grant that Paul doesn't say "faith alone" here. What he does do, however, is lay down his Gospel, which he feels is under attack, and says there is only one of. If there was any time he could say "faith, baptism, and observance of the commandments", this is where he should say it. Instead, he takes great pains to say that our righteousness does not, and indeed could not, come through the law. It comes through faith. Alone? Yes, this is implied by its sole citation in a defence of the attacked Gospel. If it was by faith and X, Paul would have noted the X. He notes no partners to faith, and utterly devastates the idea that the law of the Old Covenant, which includes the 10 commandments, could possibly be a partner to faith, even if we did allow for it to have a partner.
His final statement in Galatians 2:21 is of particular note here. "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”" This lays out the very purpose of Christ's death. Righteousness does not, and indeed could not, come through the law. Rather, Christ died to make us righteous. That's penal substitutionary atonement! As Paul writes elsewhere, "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Corinthians 5:21). This is why we are saved by faith, and not of works. The works have already been done for us. He took our sin, we take His righteousness. To believe otherwise, by Paul's reckoning, is setting aside the grace of God.
Galatians 3
He doesn't let this concept go in chapter 3, where he writes "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified." Foolish Galatians. Foolish, bewitched Galatians. These people seem to have actually been privy to the crucifixion. Which makes sense! It was a very public crucifixion of a highly controversial figure, so logically, they would have seen it with their own eyes. So after saying that if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died in vain, Paul reminds the Galatians that they saw Christ die, and he's really perplexed about how, having seen the crucifixion, they have fallen for this anti-Gospel nonsense.
With that foundation laid, he asks them "This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”" (v2-6).
This cuts off the Roman Catholic escape route. See, as many differences as there are between Roman Catholicism and Christianity, there are a significant number of similarities; enough that even a Roman Catholic may, at the same time, be a Christian.
This includes a limited belief in Sola Fide. For the Christian, salvation is by faith alone, no asterisks, strings, or small print. But even a Roman Catholic, educated on his sources, will admit "...no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification..." (CCC 2010). Thus, while the Bible says salvation is by grace, through faith alone, Catholics will say salvation is by grace, through faith initially.
But then the Catechism biffs it by continuing to say "Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions."
In Galatians, Paul rebukes both, starting here in chapter 3, asking, as we have seen, "Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?" It is, by Paul's divinely guided reckoning, foolish to say one is saved by faith initially, but is perfected by "the flesh" later on. To lay down this point firmly, he cites Abraham, which, it should be noted, James does in the famous James 2. This requires us to reconcile our interpretations. However we interpret Galatians must be consistent with how we interpret James, and how we interpret James must be consistent with how we interpret Galatians.
But Paul goes into much greater detail on Abraham than James does. Let's read on: "Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham." (v7-9).
Take note of that word "beforehand", because Paul is going to continue this point of chronology. What he is doing is laying the foundation: This is how it was always intended to play out, even before the law. How? By faith, baptism, and obedience to the commandments? No, Paul mentions only one of those elements here. Only those who are of faith are the sons of Abraham. Those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. Because, if you remember, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. When was this? He doesn't say it in Galatians, but in Romans 4:9-12, he tells us "Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised."
This Abraham connection cannot be ignored. It is repeated in several places: Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Paul mentions it, James mentions it, Moses mentions it. It is foundational to the Gospel, and yet the consistent application is that faith, not works, are what credits us with righteousness.
So Paul continues in Galatians 3, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (v10-14).
This is why it doesn't matter which area of the law you tack on to faith. Galatians hones in on circumcision, specifically, but here, Paul says you can't just pick and choose which parts of the law you are under. Everyone who doesn't abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them, is cursed, but the one who does them shall live by them. So, what if you bind yourself to the 10 commandments? Well, you better not only do them, but the circumcision, too. And the food laws. The clothing laws. The necromancy laws. If you, as a Roman Catholic, have broken a single one of the 600+ laws in the Book of the Law, Paul says you're snookered. Unless...
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us! I found it funny (and simultaneously very sad) when this came up in a debate I had with a Roman Catholic regarding the Eucharist. I pointed out that, as the law says, drinking blood is an abomination, and the only time consuming human flesh is mentioned, it is as a result of some horrible curse. He responded by saying something along the lines of "well then I guess you think Jesus was cursed, because it also says cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree". He disappeared after I pointed out that yes, this is exactly what Paul says happened in Galatians. And that's why we receive the blessing of Abraham through faith. Which is a concept Paul divides from salvation by works. He says the just shall live by faith. We have a choice: Live by faith, or live by the law. If by the law, you're bound to it all.
So Paul continues, as I said he would, to explain the origins of the Gospel promise: "Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise." (v15-18).
By Paul's reckoning, then, the Gospel preceded the law by over 400 years. It was a ratified covenant, which could not be annulled, nor added to. Yet the 10 commandments are a part of the law, which came 430 years later. God made a promise to Abraham, and to Christ, but if that promise is fulfilled by the law instead, it is no longer of promise. Yet it was given to Abraham by promise. Do you see, yet, how it is completely impossible to marry faith with works to any degree? If you start attaching things like the 10 commandments to faith, Paul says that's like trying to annul the covenant that was confirmed by God in Christ, and make that promise of no effect!
But then why does the law exist at all? Paul gives us the answer. "What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." (v19-29).
So we see, the law wasn't designed so that we may attain salvation by it, whether in whole, or in part. Rather, it was made necessary by transgression. As Paul says in Romans 5:13, "...until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Throughout history, only one human being has ever walked this Earth without sin. Abraham himself was a sinner in need of God's grace. Thus, the law was designed to say "look, this is why you need Christ, this is where you'll find Him". This isn't contrary to the promise of God, as it would be if the law was added to the promise, but rather, it fulfils it, and directs us to it.
But here's the key: We are now no longer under it. As Paul says, "But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor."
Tutors are temporary. Their influence will remain forever, but the tutor themselves lose their authority at a set time. To Paul, that set time has passed. The law was designed to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith, but now faith has come, we are no longer under this guardian.
Galatians 4
Paul continues this point, saying "Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ." (Galatians 4:1-7).
In a sense, then, God is comparing His relationship with Israel to a father's relationship with his son. In youth, a child is no different from a servant. In the same way, the law was our guardian until the time came. God sent Christ to be born of a woman, just as we are, under the law. Why? To redeem us from it. So now we are heirs of the promise through Christ.
Paul goes on to remind the Galatians - as Gentiles - what that was like for them. "But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain." (v8-11).
Here, Paul isn't even directly addressing the law anymore. He will get back to it very quickly, but for now, he's pointing to the "elementary principles of the world". And he's saying look, why would you even want to go back there? You did these things before you knew God, now you know God (or rather, are known by God), but you want to go back to the things you had before?
It's interesting that he's even moved past circumcision now, because the Galatians obviously hadn't been circumcised. Instead, he points to the observation of days, months, seasons, and years. Now, obviously, this isn't a bad thing in the right context. Paul is a champion of liberty, telling us we can celebrate or abstain from anything we want. He doesn't say too much about that in Galatians, but elsewhere, particularly in Romans 14 and Colossians 2, he speaks about our freedoms in Christ. So, obviously, there's something particular going on here. He isn't telling them off for having a Christmas party, or for judging when the best time is to plant seeds so they'll yield enough crops to feed themselves. Clearly, as is the theme of Galatians, they are being too legalistic with it. They are associating these times and seasons with grace.
And the Roman Catholic Church has this, too! But not in an explicitly Gentile fashion. Rather, it is tied to the observance of the Sabbath, as in the 10 commandments. In Catechism of the Catholic Church 2185, we read "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest. the faithful should see to it that legitimate excuses do not lead to habits prejudicial to religion, family life, and health."
This is triply problematic. First, as Paul has noted, to be bound to the law is to keep all of it. "“Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”" Well, that would include "“Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers is giving you. You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." (Deuteronomy 4:1-2).
Based on this, we see that it is essential, both as an act of obedience, and in order to maintain an attitude of obedience, that we take God's word as we find it. The fourth commandment, as it is found in Scripture, is fairly simple: "“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:8-11). The command, then, is to honor, and do no work, on the Sabbath day (which is actually a Saturday). But much like the Pharisees in Jesus' day, the Roman Catholic Church has altered this dramatically, as we see above. Now, not only do they count Sunday as holy days of obligation, but they also add a vast array of other days, too. In fact, according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, there are 10 holy days of obligation, of which Roman Catholics in America are required to observe 6. Most of these aren't even based on Biblical or historical events, but on myths, such as the Assumption of Mary.
So without going too much deeper into that, we'll just point this out as strike one against the Catholic Church according to Galatians. On top of that, as we have seen, there is no returning to the law. Go back and recap if you see fit, but hopefully you will have followed along, and can already see that even ignoring the addition to the fourth commandment (which Roman Catholics actually consider the third), the binding of the faithful to it, especially as a means of grace, is ruled out and anathematised. And again, outside of Galatians, Paul goes into greater detail, explicitly telling us that we are free to observe or abstain from any holy day or Sabbath. So that's strike two.
Finally, we return back to the verse that triggered this discussion: Galatians 4:8-11. "But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain." So that's three strikes! One strike for adding to the Sabbath command, one strike for binding the faithful to the Sabbath command, and one strike for binding the faithful to the observance of days, months, seasons, and years. And that's just me touching on the concept of holy days of obligation while trying to stick to the exegesis of Galatians.
After expressing his concern that the Galatians have fallen back into observing times, Paul continues with what little praise he has for them, saying "Brethren, I urge you to become like me, for I became like you. You have not injured me at all. You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. What then was the blessing you enjoyed? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me. Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? They zealously court you, but for no good; yes, they want to exclude you, that you may be zealous for them. But it is good to be zealous in a good thing always, and not only when I am present with you. My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you, I would like to be present with you now and to change my tone; for I have doubts about you." (v12-20).
This is a good place for Christians to pause from the Gospel and note that although the Galatians have strayed from the Gospel, they are actually "good" people. Not good by God's standards, of course, but good by man's. It's hard not to draw a connection between this letter and the 7 letters in Revelation. "I know your deeds, but I have this against you; repent, or I will remove your lampstand". These are letters of encouragement, but also of blame, yet with hope: Your path is not set in stone. The letter to the Galatians is not one of hostility, but warning. It is designed to correct the course.
And so it is with Roman Catholics. Obviously, one cannot generalise about over a billion people. There are some very bad people in the Roman Catholic Church. But there are some very good people too. People who seem almost Christ like. I have no doubt Paul, if he were alive today, would write something similar to them. And I think, as Christians, we need to imitate that. We need to remember that while good works are neither sufficient, nor required, for salvation, they are worth something, including building bridges.
More important than this is the care Paul shows here. He reminds them of their friendship, while sounding quite betrayed. "Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" But this isn't an enmity he actually wants. He doesn't even enjoy the stern manner in which he is having to write. He calls them foolish, because they are being foolish, but he wants to change his tone.
And this, again, is something I think we, as Christians, need to imitate. We need to remember that Roman Catholics are not our enemies. They are our rescue targets. They are in danger because of a truth we cannot change (nor should we even want to, for it is God's truth), but they have compromised that truth. Perhaps, as Paul says of his brothers in Judaism, we need to say of our Roman Catholic brethren "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (Romans 10:2-4).
So having testified to the zeal of the Galatians, he returns to his point, to Abraham, or rather, to his sons. "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written:
“Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband.”
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free." (v21-31).
Here, we see Paul demonstrating the very concept he earlier discussed: The law is our tutor to lead us to Christ! So he says to those who wish to be under the law "this is what we find in it". So he explains about Isaac and Ishmael, the sons of Abraham. Ishmael, technically the firstborn, was born of the flesh. God made no promise to Abraham regarding Ishmael. He was born, as Paul says, of the flesh. Abraham took Hagar, and she conceived. But it was promised that Sarah, barren up to this point, would bear the promised heir to Abraham's fortune. This son, of course, was Isaac.
So Paul says we can interpret this allegorically. Each mother corresponds to a covenant. Hagar, mother of Ishmael, corresponds to Mount Sinai, whereas Sarah corresponds to the new Jerusalem. The two sons cannot share an inheritance, and so Paul tells us we are not children of the slave (Hagar, i.e. the law), but of the free (Sarah, i.e. heirs of the promise). In other words, we cannot inherit eternal life by "Hagar", i.e. the law, but by "Sarah", i.e. faith.
Galatians 5
Keeping in mind the original Galatians does not have chapter divisions, or verses, there iss no actual break between Paul's allegorical interpretation of Abraham's sons and Galatians 5:1, which says "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." To trot out the old cliche, what is that "therefore" there for? It is there for a purpose: To encourage us not to return to this works-based system.
At this point, it almost seems as if Paul is repeating himself. He's certainly going in circles, emphasising his point: You are not saved by law, but by faith. Observe: "Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." (v2-6).
But hasn't he already said all this? Clearly, yes, because he actually says "I testify again" that if you want to keep a part of the law, you've got to keep it all. Here's a bit he adds. The Galatians, attempting to justify themselves by law, have become estranged from Christ, and have fallen from grace.
It's interesting that Roman Catholics, who of course believe in Conditional Security, often misuse this verse to justify it. "See", they will say, "it says 'you have fallen from grace', so clearly it is possible to lose your salvation". But rather than being a "take that" to Calvinists and Molinists, the context of the verse is those who try to be justified by the law. So who has fallen from grace? A Christian who has committed a "mortal sin" (not that such a concept truly exists in the Christian faith), or a Roman Catholic, who not only believes he is obligated to keep the 10 commandments, but actually that he receives eternal life by observing them? There is no doubt that the Roman Catholic "gospel" is the true departure from Christ!
And this is where Paul again affirms, twice, that it is faith that brings us righteousness. In Christ, neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision, avails anything, but faith working through love. "But it doesn't say only faith", the Catholic may remind us in desperation. Well, interestingly, while I have deliberately chosen the NKJV in this article, many translations actually do. The notably Roman Catholic NABRE, for example, says "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." See that? A Roman Catholic translation, i.e. a translation produced with a decidedly anti-Sola Fide bias, still renders it in a clearly pro-Sola Fide way!
But perhaps this isn't enough. Maybe you don't agree with this rendering, and prefer, as I do, a more literal translation. Context still allows us to read in the word "only". Why? Well because aside from quite explicitly ruling works out, both in this epistle and elsewhere, Paul has missed yet another opportunity, in this Gospel-clarifying epistle, to note any other requirement!
See, without this "read between the lines" attitude, it is always wise to ask what Paul would be expected to write if he believed any particular doctrine. Obviously, I don't believe, for one second, Paul has the Roman Catholic Church in mind here. It didn't exist at this point in history. For that reason, I don't believe Paul was a "Protestant", and I actually don't give Rome enough credit to count myself as one either. But because I have made such great effort to believe what Paul believed, I also believe he believed what I believe. Thus, I can ask, if Paul believed what I believe, what would I expect him to write here?
And the answer is exactly what he has written! I don't expect him to say "by faith only", as if anticipating someone centuries later would come along and say "well yeah, but it doesn't say faith only". It's enough to say "by faith", because he is already in "clarify mode". That's the whole point of this epistle. The Gospel is under attack, the attack has drawn the Galatians away from the Gospel, so Paul is reminding them what the Gospel is. So if there is any important element beyond grace through faith, Paul is going to clarify "and baptism, and the observance of the commandments". Instead, he barely gives baptism a mention (and baptism is important, it's just not required for salvation), and he explicitly denies that the observance of the commandments is required. Indeed, the requirement to obey the commandments is exactly what the attack is.
For this reason, if Paul was a Roman Catholic, defending the Roman Catholic gospel, one would expect him to clarify that he does not mean faith only, simply because he is apparently attacking the idea that anything else is required. And he knows that. He knows how it sounds, and one can hardly expect that God, who of course is driving Paul here, wouldn't see this too. Thus, if Paul was truly a Roman Catholic, defending the Roman Catholic gospel, Galatians would read a lot more like the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
So having reminded them of his case thus far, Paul reminds the Galatians just how well they were doing before these heretics started showing up. "You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is." (v7-10).
They were doing so well until this tiny little devil showed up with a scalpel and was like "Moses says...". Circumcision is of the law, but the same God who gave the law gave the answer to it. So Paul not only says that this persuasion to seek righteousness through the law does not come from God, but that God will actually punish the one from whom it actually comes.
But Paul is confident that the Galatians themselves may be swayed. Similarly, I have confidence Roman Catholics will be swayed by this challenge. In fact, this whole article seems almost redundant to me. Not to the extent of being entirely useless, but even reading Galatians, without any additional influence from me, will be enough to convince a man whose heart truly lies with Christ. But what of the more stubborn Roman Catholics? What, indeed, of the priests? The bishops? The Popes? I of course have my doubts the Pope will ever read this. But perhaps it may cross a priest's path, whether directly, or from the hand of a desperate congregant who can find no answer (for indeed, there is no answer to be found). Paul's message: You've got a piper to pay. In fact, as James warns, teachers must receive a stricter judgment! (James 3:1).
Paul actually has harsher words. "And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!" (v11-12). Now, the NKJV is being a bit "PG" here. Other translations are a lot more literal. Without holding anything back, Paul is telling false teachers to castrate themselves.
With one and a half chapters left, Paul finally steps away from establishing that salvation is by faith, not by works, and begins to explain how that actually applies. "For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!" (v13-15).
This is what is all too often underemphasised by both sides: There is a point to salvation. To a Roman Catholic, the risk of Sola Fide is that if works don't matter for salvation, they don't matter at all. To Christians, that's a genuine trap we might fall into. So Paul says look, you've been called to liberty (from the law), but... Do not use that as an opportunity for the flesh.
We can't allow ourselves to go too far the other way. It is a departure from grace to assert that works are required for salvation, but the entire point of salvation is to depart from the iniquity that made it necessary in the first place. This, I believe, is a shortcoming of even many competent ministries. We put up this fantastic defence of Sola Fide, but we miss the end goal. We cite Ephesians 2:8-9, but we miss verse 10: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them."
So you see, we are saved to something, not just from something. Specifically, we are saved from the law, with all its curses, but we are saved to the will of God. In short, good works do not save us, but because we are saved, we act saved! So how does that look? Well, we've already seen Paul say the entire law is summed up in our love for each other, but he continues to say "I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another." (v16-20).
So just as he divides law from faith, Paul divides flesh from spirit, and he describes both. He says the works of the flesh are evident, and he actually lists a number that aren't addressed by the 10 commandments. These don't speak of sorcery, or wrath, or drunkenness etc. But they are works of the flesh. They block us out of the Kingdom. Now as he says in Romans 7:7, we wouldn't know these things apart from the law. This goes back to the whole "law was our tutor" thing. Thus, it can never be completely discarded. We need to know what these works of the flesh are, because we need to avoid them.
But Paul actually describes a powerful concept here. It's not just about plain obedience. It's about how we walk. The flesh and the spirit are contrary to one another. They war against one another, and it actually results in us not doing what we want to do. This is why we still sin even after we are saved. But by the same principle, we can walk in the Spirit, and this will result in us being free from the law, but also actively disobeying the flesh! When we walk in the Spirit, we bear spiritual fruits. Love, joy, peace etc. Even self control.
So what does all of this mean? Well it simply means freedom from the law doesn't mean spiritual anarchy, as some slanderously accuse us of believing (Romans 3:8 cf. 6:1-2). Rather, we are living between two worlds. There's the flesh, with all its lusts, and the Spirit, with all its fruits. The impenitent, of course, are walking in the flesh, and only the flesh. But as Christians, we walk in the Spirit, and when we do that, we naturally begin to overcome the flesh. It's a war. A lifelong war that we will never truly win in this life. The flesh will always be contrary to the spirit, so we won't do what we want to do. But we, who are Christ's, have crucified the flesh.
Galatians 6
With this in mind, Paul continues to address how our lives should look as Christians, specifically addressing the community aspect. "Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For each one shall bear his own load." (v1-5).
And brethren, this is why we need the Church. It's not to lock away our Bibles and dispense grace little by little. We're a family who support each other. When we sin, we guide each other back to the right path, of course keeping guard over ourselves.
But Paul draws a contrast here between bearing each other's burdens and how, ultimately, we will bear our own. In the end, we are supposed to help each other, but God isn't looking at how we do that. How, then, can we say we can "...merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life..."? That's just not on the table for us, is it? If we try to merit salvation even just for ourselves, we have fallen from grace. If we try to merit it for others, Paul says we may rejoice only in ourselves, for each shall bear his own load.
So what is that load? Paul goes on: "Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches. Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith." (v6-10).
Here, we actually see the division of both flesh and spirit and law and faith. The flesh and Spirit division is mentioned explicitly, but we have to remember the entire preceding epistle. Remember, the law is of the flesh, faith is of the Spirit. You begin in the Spirit, you cannot be perfected by the flesh. We've seen all this. So with it in mind, what does Paul mean when he says "he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption"? Obviously, one way to interpret it is that the impenitent are doomed. If you won't repent and turn to Christ, you can say His very name, you can call Him "Lord" on judgment day, He will not acknowledge you to the Father.
But that is not who Paul is addressing this epistle to. It's those who attempt to be justified by law. Thus, when Paul says he who sows to the flesh will reap corruption from the flessh, he is bringing back everything he has already said. He is saying if you get circumcised, if you observe times and seasons, if you in any way return to the law from which you have been freed through Christ, you will become bound to all of it. And that includes the curses. The curse Jesus received on your behalf, you will receive instead, because Ishmael will not inherit with Isaac.
But what if you "sow to the Spirit"? Well, from Him, you will receive eternal life. That means you receive grace through faith, but also, it means you will still behave in accordance with a new law. You're still going to obey the law by nature. The law condemns adultery, but adultery is a work of the flesh, but we who walk in the Spirit have crucified it. The law condemns sorcery, but sorcery is a work of the flesh, and we who walk in the Spirit have crucified it. The law condemns murder, yet another work of the flesh, but the Spirit allows us to crucify it. The good works are a gift to us as a part of our salvation.
To conclude, Paul emphasises the importance of this epistle, saying "See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand!" (v11). Then he takes a final swing at the false teachers who have hounded out the Galatians: "As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh." (v12-13).
Throughout this epistle, Paul reminds us of his labor. He suffers great persecution, especially from the Jews, for preaching the crucified Christ, and the unprofitability of circumcision. By contrast, these hypocrites boast in circumcision, and especially in how they have taught others to obey the law they themselves do not keep. But what does Paul boast in? "But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation." (v14-15).
Paul places all of it on Christ. And that's where it should always be. The works that save us? Done by Christ. The fuel that activates that salvation? Faith in Christ. The good works that result? Gifts from Christ. Absolutely nothing in our salvation comes from us. And so Paul concludes "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. From now on let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus. Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen." (v16-18).
Conclusion
Long before I added any commentary, the mere challenge to read the book of Galatians and compare it to the "gospel" of the Roman Catholic Church should have been enough to persuade any faithful Christian that Rome is anathema. Whereas Rome teaches salvation by grace, through faith, baptism, and the obedience to the commandments, Paul clearly presents a Gospel of salvation by grace, through faith, and not of works. Elsewhere, he says this quite explicitly, but in his epistle to the Galatians, he lays out an entire case for why faith alone saves us, and indeed, why faith alone is the only thing that could. If nothing else, the fact that Paul says the law is an all or nothing deal, whereas Roman Catholicism tries to take only a portion of it, shows that Rome is necessarily heretical. Therefore, we are as free from its precepts a from the law, and indeed more so, for while the law is Holy, the Roman Catholic Church is a Satanic counterfeit from the pit of Hell, where it will lead as many as are so foolish as to follow it. Thus, as Paul says, do not be entangled with it. Instead, be free, and walk in the Spirit. Then, not only will you bear the fruit of the Spirit and crucify the flesh, but from the same Spirit, will reap eternal life.