Original Meaning

MOST READERS OF the Bible scan the endings of letters because they think they have read the important stuff already, they think the conclusions to letters are merely conventional (Why get hung up on “Sincerely yours” when everyone says it?), or they are intent on getting on to their next book in the Bible. While no one should deny the conventional nature of a letter’s ending, Paul’s endings are not typical.

Regarding Galatians, Paul’s conclusion is important for understanding his letter because in it (as in the introduction; 1:1–9) he emphasizes his main points. In fact, Hans Dieter Betz argues that the conclusion to Galatians is “most important for the interpretation of Galatians. It contains the interpretive clues to the understanding of Paul’s major concerns in the letter as a whole and should be employed as the hermeneutical key to the intentions of the Apostle.”3 I do not know if we can go this far, but it is striking how many scholars have argued that the conclusion to Galatians is especially important for understanding the letter. We will examine why.

After analyzing all of Paul’s letters, Richard Longenecker notes seven items that frequently occur in Pauline conclusions.4 The following table, and some of the evidence from other Pauline letters, lists those items and whether or not such an item is found in Galatians.

Feature	References	Galatians
Grace Benediction	Rom. 16:20; 1 Cor. 16:23; Eph. 6:24	6:18
Greetings	Rom. 16:3–16; 2 Cor. 13:12; Col. 4:15	absent
Peace Wish	Rom. 15:33; Eph. 6:23; 2 Thess. 3:16	6:16
Signature	1 Cor. 16:21; Col. 4:18; Philem. 19	6:11
Concluding Summary	1 Cor. 16:13–18, 22; 2 Cor. 13:11	6:12–17
Request for Prayer	Rom. 15:30–32; Eph. 6:18–20	absent
Doxology	Rom. 16:25–27; Phil. 4:20; 2 Tim. 4:18	absent

As can be seen from this chart, Paul’s conclusion to his letter to the Galatians does not contain the greetings, request for prayer, or doxology section that are often found in his other letters. Furthermore, his emphasis here is the “Concluding Summary.” In no other Pauline letter do we find such an emphasis. Most scholars infer that a deviation from this “typical pattern” reveals Paul’s hand and emphases.5 Such a deviation may indeed be a lead for finding an emphasis, but two points must be considered. (1) If Galatians is Paul’s first letter, then it is wrong to speak about “deviation,” for no pattern has been yet developed for the letters. (2) It is simply not the case that these are “patterns” in the sense of set habits. While most letters contain most features, no letter contains all of them, and the order is apparently random. It is better to suggest that Paul’s own “habits” developed over time and that only in his later letters can we approach the matter by way of finding deviation.

Be that as it may, any reader can see Paul’s emphasis here: one final time he evaluates the issue of the Judaizers (vv. 12–17). This conclusion brings everything to a head. What confronts us here is Paul’s adamant opposition to the nationalism of the Judaizers and their cultural imperialism. He is set against any presentation of the gospel that does not let surrender to Christ and life in the Spirit have their full sway. All that matter now, after Christ and the Spirit, is the “new creation.”

Paul ends this letter, then, with (1) a signature (v. 11), (2) a concluding summary that contains both a final glancing blow aimed at the Judaizers (vv. 12–13) and an expression of what he, in contrast, aims at (vv. 14–17), and (3) a grace benediction (v. 18). Each deserves some comment.

Paul’s Signature (v. 11)

NOW THAT THE letter has come to its formal ending, Paul insists that he can do the writing. Thus, he takes the pen from his secretary (called an amanuensis). It was customary for ancient authors to use a secretary because they were trained to write quickly, neatly, and in limited space. Paul used secretaries elsewhere, and sometimes his conclusions reveal it (cf. Rom. 16:22; 1 Cor. 16:21–22; Col. 4:16–18; 2 Thess. 3:17).

But what does it mean that Paul used “large letters”? There are three options: (1) Paul had bad eyesight that left him with trouble in writing—this is based on reading 4:13–16 as a reference to an eye disease, and I remain unconvinced that such is the best reading; (2) since Paul was absorbed in a craft, he never learned to write well—this is unlikely since many agree today that Paul was well-educated and writing well would be part of that education; (3) Paul’s “large letters” are an ancient style of our “boldfacing” or “italicizing.” This latter view has commended itself to a large number of scholars today. Already J. B. Lightfoot said that Paul wrote with large letters “to arrest the eye and rivet the mind.”6 It might be wise for publishers of New Testament translations to italicize verses 11–18.

Paul’s Concluding Summary of the Situation (vv. 12–17)

ONE FINAL TIME Paul gets in a few more swats at the Judaizers by evaluating the situation. There are two sections here: Paul’s critique of the Judaizers (vv. 12–13) and his evaluation of himself (vv. 14–17).

Paul finds four problems with the Judaizers: (1) Their method is force (v. 12a); (2) their motive is fear (v. 12b); (3) their consistency is flawed (v. 13a); and (4) their goal is to flaunt (v. 13b). He then evaluates himself by (1) revealing his goal (v. 14), (2) reiterating his perspective on nationalism (vv. 15–16), (3) and declaring his justification for being right: he has been persecuted (v. 17).

The problems of the Judaizers (vv. 12–13) (1) The first problem is that the method of the Judaizers was force (v. 12a). While the leaders at Jerusalem did not “compel” Titus to be circumcised (2:3), these Judaizers were clearly trying to force the Galatians to accept circumcision to demonstrate their commitment to the law of Moses. To be sure, we are not to imagine here that the Judaizers were invading homes at the threat of death, stealing the males, and taking them to the edge of the city where a kosher knife was waiting. Instead, this force is both psychological and physical. They were demanding (“To be accepted by God you must do this!”) this act as the completion of their conversion. They did this in the same way as Peter had been forcing others to eat according to Jewish food laws (2:14). But, as F. F. Bruce has said, “This was mere scalp-hunting.”7

I have seen this kind of pressure exerted even today with the rite of adult immersion, where pastors and leaders and “significant others” have put considerable pressure on people to get them to admit their infant baptism was inadequate. At times, I have seen such people surrender to this force solely to avoid social shame—disrespecting their own conscience in the matter.

(2) Their motive was fear (v. 12b)—a fear of persecution. These Judaizers, coming as they did from Jerusalem, were getting pressured themselves from the Jews and conservative Jewish Christian parties in Jerusalem and Palestine over the kind of life the converts of Paul were actually living. They had been sent out (or rather pressured to go out) to get the converts of Paul in line with the basics of Judaism. Here is where Paul stepped in: their motive in all of this was “to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ.” To fear persecution at the hands of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem was nothing, as far as Paul was concerned. It was far more important to fear God and serve the Christ of the cross. Accordingly, Paul saw in their succumbing to the pressure of the Jerusalem Jews a denial of the gospel, and that is the heart of his letter: the Judaizing wing did not see what the cross of Christ did to nationalism and to the era of the law. They had come to their end in Christ, and now God’s people was much larger than the Jewish nation.

(3) Their consistency was flawed (v. 13). As an aside, Paul contends that those who pushed circumcision as the ultimate sign of commitment to the law did not even keep the law themselves. It is not clear here whether the “circumcisers” and the “Judaizers” are the same group. At 2:12–13 I argued that the “circumcisers” were not the same as the “men from James,” and it may be that the “circumcisers” here were not Christians at all. They may have been some zealous Jews who accompanied the Judaizers to make sure that the job got done. In this case, they would represent Jerusalem and would be the ones who were actually putting the pressure on the Judaizing Christians. But we cannot be sure here; perhaps the circumcisers and Judaizers were the same group. Paul, however, treats them in a unified way because they ultimately were teaching the same thing: the law of Moses was God’s means of acceptance. To argue against the people who were putting pressure on the Galatians or who were pressuring the Judaizers (who were, in turn, pressuring the Galatians) amounts to the same thing. Behind it all is a consistency that is flawed by sin.

This argument is called an ad hominem argument, an argument made by arguing against the people making the case. Thus, the issue becomes personal, not logical. By itself the argument that circumcision is wrong because those who embrace it do not keep the law themselves is inadequate; but as corroborating persuasion, it is most effective. Dr. Johnson, that British wit who wrote a dictionary, once blasted a woman’s judgment about London when she complained that, after being in London, she always had dirty fingernails—against which Johnson retorted: “Perhaps, Madam, you scratch yourself.”8 She, of course, would have been humiliated and Johnson would have laughed (not to include those who heard him say this), but it says nothing about whether London is a good place to visit or not.

To return to our point, Paul says that the circumcisers were not good examples to follow because they could not even confirm the law of Moses in real life: they were hypocrites.

(4) Their goal was to flaunt (v. 13b): “that they may boast about your flesh.”9 Here Paul digs the knife even deeper: their goal in it all was to be able to return to Jerusalem and claim a prize, to claim that they had been successful and so gain the praise of the Jewish nationalists. They gloried in their statistics—statistics carefully kept about the number of converts they could count as their own, statistics on their ability to persuade Gentiles to go the whole way. All of this breathes the thick air of nationalism, which the cross of Christ ended when Jesus Christ absorbed the curse of the law (3:13).

Paul’s self-evaluation (vv. 14–17) “But as for me …” Paul seems to be saying. He counters the approach of the Judaizers with his own by (1) revealing his goal (v. 14), (2) declaring his perspective on nationalism (vv. 15–16), and (3) declaring his justification for being right: his being persecuted (v. 17).

First, Paul reveals his goal (v. 14). The Judaizers may glory in the flesh, he says, but I glory exclusively in the cross of Christ. Paul knew that he had died to the world and that the world had died to him through the cross. The world was connected to the law of Moses, and therefore the entire enterprise was done with. All that remains is Christ and glorying in the instrument that sets one free: the cross. Paul’s entire goal was to glory in the cross of Christ, and so he would gladly accept persecution.

Second, Paul declares his perspective on nationalism (vv. 15–16). Once again, neither belonging to the Jewish nation (being circumcised) nor being a Gentile (not being circumcised) mattered: what mattered was that God had formed a new people, the church, and that this new people was an entirely “new creation.” This new creation includes both Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free people, males and females (3:28); social and sexual distinctions no longer matter. God’s work is the new creation principle, radically different from the nationalistic-cultural impulse that characterized Judaism. The new creation comes through faith in the crucified Christ (2:15–21), it is accompanied by the gifts of the Spirit (5:16–26), and it ends the curse of the law (3:13, 19–25) as well as the life in the flesh (5:19–21).

This new creation principle is frequently understood in the Western world in exclusively individualistic terms. Thus, verse 15 is paralleled to the individualistic comments of Paul elsewhere (e.g., Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:16; 5:17). While it is certainly wrong to exclude the individual from this principle, narrowing it to an individual is inaccurate. What Paul is doing here is contrasting two systems, the circumcision system of Moses and the uncircumcision system of the Gentile world. He insists it does not matter whether you are Jew or Gentile; what matters now is that there is no national circle into which one must enter to join the people of God. What matters is that you are part of God’s new people, God’s new creation, God’s new humanity. I add that determining meaning here is crucial for application; for if the idea is purely individual, then the application concerns personal relationship to God and conversion, but if the idea is the new people of God, then the application should address both personal conversion and cultural imperialism.

As Paul had cursed those who preached a different gospel (the gospel of nationalism) at the beginning of his letter (1:6–9), so now he blesses with peace those who embrace this view: “peace and mercy to all who follow this rule.” What “rule”? What “standard of measurement”? The rule of universalism, the standard of measurement that does not take into consideration a person’s nationality. The ones who consider a person in light of Christ and his cross are the “Israel of God.”10

But who is this “Israel of God”? Is Paul repeating himself (so that “all who follow this rule” and “Israel of God” are identical), or is he adding a new group (so that “Israel of God” is something different from “all who follow this rule”)? The Greek sentence reads literally: “And whoever follows this rule, peace on them and mercy, and on the Israel of God.” This statement can be taken as a chiasm:

A. Whoever follows this rule

B. Peace

B.′ Mercy

A.′ Israel of God

In this case, the “whoever” and the “Israel of God” are identical, just as “peace” and “mercy” are put together into a synthesis. In this view, the church is now the “Israel of God” (emphasizing the continuity of the covenant with Abraham). After all, all the church can be called “children of Abraham” and the “true circumcision” (3:29; Phil. 3:3).11 Alternatively, “Israel of God” may refer only to “Jewish Christians.” But this latter view goes against the grain of Paul’s argument, which is clearly a debunking of any kind of social barriers and nationalism. There is a way out: translate the “and” before “Israel of God” as “especially” and see it as a special blessing for the Jewish Christian who have learned to see God’s people in a much broader sense. This would have been difficult for Jews. Thus, Paul’s message may be: “May God’s peace and mercy come to all who live according to the new creation principle, especially on the Jews who can see their way through to the freedom of the Spirit and freedom from the law.” Accordingly, “Israel of God” refers to the church, whether to the church as a whole or to the whole church, including Jewish Christians.

Another view of this verse contends that it is Paul’s wish. As he longed for the day when “all Israel” would be saved (Rom. 11:26), so here he wishes peace on the true Israel, which will someday turn to faith in Christ. I am of the view, however, that this view is asking for too much from the words. Paul is making a comment on the new creation principle of verse 15, and he blesses those who live by this.

Yet another view has been proposed. Since Paul never describes the church as Israel, it is unlikely that he is doing so here. Accordingly, this expression must describe Jews as Jews, and Paul is wishing a blessing on his nation. The biggest problem with this view is that Paul sees no blessing, certainly not the blessing of God, on anyone outside of Christ.

Thus, I believe it is best to see here a blessing on the church, that is on all who live according to the new creation principle. A special blessing belongs to those Jews (“the Israel of God”) who have had to fight hard to break down those barriers that governed their lives for so long. In coming to Christ, they have become the true people of God.

Finally, Paul presents a case for being right: he is being persecuted (v. 17)—an argument he has used before (3:4; 4:21–31). That this theme is important to Paul is seen by its inclusion in this final summary. He claims that he bears on his body “the marks of Jesus.” While some have guessed that early Christians adopted some sort of ritual sign of membership, a tattoo or a branding of slavery to Christ, it is more likely that Paul uses this expression for the many scars on his body as evidence for his persecution for following Christ (see 2 Cor 6:4–6; 11:23–30). The account of Acts 14:19 may be what Paul is referring to precisely. If the Judaizers had a “fleshly” sign, Paul had an even better one: signs of persecution. It is unlikely that the “marks of Jesus” on Paul have anything to do with the hundreds of cases of “stigmatization” that have occurred in the history of the church, most notably with Saint Francis of Assisi.12

Paul’s grace benediction (6:18) Paul ends with a prayer, a prayer that is a wish of grace. Having said all he wanted and having spilled out his emotions, Paul’s benediction is noticeably calm and positive. He prays that God’s “grace” may be with “their spirit.” And he calls them “brothers” once again. While “grace” is a typical “good-bye” in the ancient world, and though we need to be careful not to read too much theology into every appearance of “grace,” we are somehow unable to resist here. Having spent his entire letter spelling out the universalistic implications of faith in Christ, the ending of the law in the death of Christ, and acceptance by God on the basis of surrendering to Christ, there is no wonder that we see here more in “grace” than a simple “good-bye.”

Bridging Contexts

WHAT PAUL ARGUES for here is “the new creation principle.” What does this mean? Paul believes that one is accepted by God if one surrenders to Christ in faith and so lives in the Spirit of God. This acceptance is granted to whoever believes, regardless of sex, race, or culture. His emphasis in Galatians, because of the cultural imperialism of the Judaizers, is on the “whoever” rather than the “believes,” though he does emphasize faith at times.

This is the message of Galatians, and we have seen it over and over in the letter. Repetition, Paul shows, is the mother of all learning. This concluding summary ties it all together; thus, it is appropriate for the reader to take stock of what has been said, tie it all together, and once again think in general terms about Galatians. What we need to do here is once again to explore the essential message of Galatians and see how it “fits” in our world. To do this we need to summarize its message and the message of the Judaizers, and to examine once again the mainlines of application and relevance.

What we find, then, is the message of Paul banging heads with the gospel of the Judaizers. Their message was essentially a nationalism or a cultural imperialism tacked onto the gospel, that is, the necessity of joining the Jewish nation in order to become acceptable to God. To join the Jewish nation meant to adopt the law of Moses as the moral guideline and as the means of God’s acceptance. Paul, on the contrary, argued that God accepts anyone who surrenders to his revelation in Christ, in the same way Abraham had surrendered to God’s promise. What Paul was emphasizing in this statement is not faith so much as anyone. He contended that God had brought in a new era when Christ came, one that eclipsed the era of the law; the people of God have been anointed by the Holy Spirit, and everything has changed. There is no distinction of race, of culture, or of sex. There is a “new creation.”

Is the message of Galatians relevant to our age? Indeed it is; it is as fresh today as it was then. Even if we at times have to strip a passage to its essentials, we end up with a message that is highly relevant. After understanding Paul’s basic message in its context, we find plenty of material that is relevant to our age. That context is the battle in the first century between two systems of religion, one that contended acceptance was based on surrender to Christ and the other on surrender to Christ and Moses; and this battle was deeply enmeshed in cultural boundaries. It was nearly impossible for a God-fearing Jew to fathom embracing God’s truth without following the law of Moses. But Paul contended vigorously that the law of Moses had come to its completion in Christ and the Spirit and that the tool of separating Jew from Gentile was now a blunted, ineffective instrument. What God counts is “faith working through love” and a new creation.

This principle of the new creation is what is relevant to our age, and we fight with this principle against all distinctions between peoples and all additions to the gospel. I stated in the introduction that there were several manifestations of these additions. (1) At times people add laws and regulations to the gospel in order to find acceptance with God or in order to maintain acceptance with God. It amounts to the same thing. (2) Others argue that certain experiences are necessary to be fully blessed by God or to experience full salvation. (3) Still others assume that one must be educated in order to be fully accepted by God. Of course, this is not in some written creed, for it is obviously wrong. But the message of the need of education comes across all the time to people in the pew who are made to feel that they cannot understand their faith unless they go to seminary or to a graduate school of theology/religion. These are three “additions” to the gospel that occur in our age as much as they did in Paul’s.

(4) We also find the message of Paul highly relevant to the issues of cultural imperialism which have been a particular problem in missionary work. Not infrequently, natives sense that a missionary is trying to reconstruct a given area around the Western model, trying to turn new converts to Christ into Western Christians, and attempting to create a local church that is no different than the one that sits at a four-way stop on Main Street. Another way of looking at the relevance of Galatians concerns denominationalism, which at its root is often either racial or cultural in its bias. All this is nothing more than cultural imperialism.

To the degree that there are those around who add rules and regulations to the gospel, who suggest that either experiences or education are particularly important for full acceptance with God, or who suggest that true Christianity is white, black, Methodist, Anabaptist, Roman Catholic, or Anglican—to that same degree Galatians is relevant to our world. Inasmuch as there are people of each persuasion who are contending for their views vigorously each day, it becomes fundamentally important for those who want to be biblical and Pauline to come to grips with the message of Galatians and to make its message known and felt in our world today.

Contemporary Significance

IN THIS FINAL section I want to apply the general message of Galatians to two situations in our society: a movement called Christian Reconstructionism, and the Roman Catholic Church.

Christian Reconstructionism, sometimes called the Theonomy (God’s law) movement, is found today in Protestant fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Its essential impulse is the belief that the law of Moses is the divine order for the world and society.13 Hence, these people (with variations, of course) seek to apply the law of Moses to all of life with a view of reconstructing society. Its main leaders, articulate in their presentations, have been R. J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, and Gary North. They argue that the law must be applied exhaustively and in detail, including a widespread use of the death penalty for those involved in sodomy, Sabbath violations, and even disobedience of parents by children.

I sat in a Sunday school class one day next to a couple who were theonomists. Their applications were straight from Old Testament law, including such issues as dress (no mixing of various cloths), sexuality, and even dietary laws (no pork, no shrimp). They remind one of the Amish who squabble over whether women’s dresses should be held together with hooks or pins (buttons are too modern). Behind all of this is the quest to become like the “golden days,” rather than allowing for the adventure of letting the Spirit guide us into God’s will for “our days.” (Personally, I like my wife to wear Levi Dockers, and I prefer buttons and zippers! Thank you very much!)

Besides the alarm that most Western people would have with anyone so bold as to suggest death for disobedient children and to suggest its applicability for the entire society, and besides the implausible viability of applying laws designed for a theocratic society of Jews to our modernized, secular society, there is a fundamental problem with this movement that is revealed in the book of Galatians.14 To show how unsettling the book of Galatians can be to members of this movement, I want to give an illustration of an encounter I had in class with two young Christian reconstructionists. I should add at this point that I am aware that there are excesses and that these should not be seen as representative of the entire movement. But these students do function to illustrate the importance this movement gives to the law of Moses.

The class was a New Testament survey, and the class theme happened to be Jesus’ view of the law. I presented a (commonly held) view that Jesus believed the law had come to its fulfillment in his person and teachings (Matt. 5:17). By this I meant that he saw the Old Testament law as pointing forward to a “better day” when God’s full will would be revealed to his people. The implication of this view was obvious: in some sense, the law of Moses is no longer binding on Christians. At this point these two students “jumped on my case” for suggesting that there was something wrong with the law (which I did not suggest) and for suggesting that Christians were not obliged to keep the law of Moses (which I did then, and do now, believe).

In response to them I went to Galatians 3:19–25 and argued that the law was never given to provide life, that its purpose was to reveal sin and increase sin-consciousness, and that it was fulfilled in God’s gift of the Spirit to his church. Therefore, I argued further, the Christian is bound to live in the Spirit and not under the law of Moses as the moral guide for Christian life. These two students were visibly upset, threw the class into turmoil for nearly forty-five minutes, and, in my opinion, lost their ability to reason with me over the meaning of Scripture because they saw in the view I was teaching a total denial of what they believed. It became clear that to them, the law of Moses was for today and that I was denying the authority of Scripture. Interestingly, the next day they apologized to me for their behavior and both pledged to examine the texts more carefully. One of them presented a paper to me later on the topic that was well-thought out and carefully argued, though still not in line with what Galatians teaches.

The reason I bring this matter up is simple. Galatians teaches that the law of Moses came to an abrupt halt for guiding God’s people when Christ came to earth. Galatians also teaches that God has appointed the Spirit of God as the sure guide to Christian morality and that the law of Moses is now to be seen as God’s preliminary description of his will for his people but belonging to an era that is now passé. To use my old illustration again, obeying the law belongs to the manual typewriter era; but this is the computer age, and the response now is surrender to Christ and life in the Spirit.

In my view, the Christian reconstructionists are contemporary Judaizers. At times, they even move into heresy, though I am not sure that this is necessarily the case for this movement. There are variations among different theonomists and different applications made by those under its influence. Some have nothing but a heart after God that is slightly misdirected: what can be wrong with trying to agitate in one’s society for God’s will? The law of Moses is not, I repeat, contrary to the will of God. Others, however, go to the extreme, so that if one does not adopt their view of God’s law, then that person is wrong or, at best, deeply inferior and out of God’s blessing. While these people may preach the gospel of grace, faith, and Christ, the message that is conveyed is the gospel of Moses. And when this happens, these people become little different from a modern Judaizer.

What about Roman Catholicism? I have resisted this application since the introduction for two reasons: (1) Galatians is not about “works righteousness,” which is the main accusation many evangelicals have about Roman Catholics, which may or may not be true; and (2) we need to focus on applications that are directly relevant to the issues Paul faced: cultural imperialism and nationalism and the demand of the Mosaic law. How do Protestant polemics against Roman Catholicism fit into all this?

First, there is genuine faith in the Roman Catholic Church (=RCC). Some may stand aghast at this statement; others may see it as trite—this point is intended for the former group. Anyone who genuinely opens his or her mind to the facts will, through discussions with RCs, realize that the RCC has within it both genuine Christians and non-Christians—just like other denominations.

Once when I was traveling to Indianapolis on a short flight from Chicago, I sat next to a nice-looking young gentleman. I needed to prepare a little for a lecture I was giving, so I took out my Greek New Testament and began to read. The man next to me asked me what I was reading. Telling people the New Testament (in Greek!) is not always the easiest entry into conversation, but I told him. He then said, “Which book?” I then said, “Matthew.” “I love Matthew,” he responded. We were friends because it is my favorite book as well. We talked all the way to Indianapolis, but the time I lost in preparation did not seem to matter. I learned that he was a good student of the Bible; that he trusted in Christ daily; that he based his entire life in a dependency on the Holy Spirit; that he had a disciplined prayer life; that he was regularly involved in evangelism; that he was a youth leader at his local church; that he had been to Chicago for a youth conference; and then I learned that he was a RC. His being a RC made no difference in my realization that he was a wonderful Christian man. As we departed, we blessed each other with “The peace of the Lord be with your spirit,” to which I responded “And with your spirit as well.” (I had heard enough liturgy to respond appropriately!) This point is clear: There are genuine believers in the RCC, and it is contrary to Galatians to think that all true believers are outside that body. Galatians teaches us to evaluate on the basis of faith in Christ and life in the Spirit.

On the other hand, however, I do want to say that I am a Protestant, and I grieve over some of the theology taught in the RCC and over the impact it seems to have on many of its parishioners. This is where the Judaizing accusation comes in. The RCC has set up, through its history, an elaborate approach to God; the one that troubles me most is the view that “outside the church there is no salvation/grace” (extra ecclesiam nulla conceditur gratia). While this view has been modified since the Second Vatican Council,15 it remains an important part of Roman Catholicism to this day. Anyone who embraces this view and equates people of God with the RCC is in essence a Judaizer, for it is nothing other than cultural imperialism in religious dress. Just as the Judaizers said you had to become a Jew to be a full Christian, so some RCs claim that one must become a RC to become a full Christian.

What about “works”? Do RCs think one is “saved by works”? I do not want to get into any elaborate discussion of RC theology and its soteriology, but it is often enough at odds with the Protestant principles of salvation to say that there is a problem here. But more importantly, we need to look at what it takes to be accepted by God. According to Galatians, one must surrender to Christ and so live in the Spirit. Anything contrary to this, anything added to this (subtraction is not the issue), is contrary to Galatians and can be called “works” (but probably not totally in line with what “works” means in Galatians). I fear, at times, that RCs do add to this simple message. For some, one must attend weekly mass, confess his or her sins on a regular basis, donate money to the church, and/or be a RC to be a Christian and to be accepted by God. Anyone who teaches this becomes a modern Judaizer. But I should hasten to add that it is not just RCs who do this; other Christians do it as well.

The heart of the problem is probably the common perception on the part of RCs that one is saved through the sacraments, by taking communion on Sunday. This perception (whether truly RC or not) is there, and I have run into it hundreds of times in my conversations with RCs. This is contrary to the gospel if the person thinks that the actual sacrament is necessary for acceptance with God. There is no harm in weekly partaking in communion if that communion is seen as an expression of one’s faith in the sufficiency of Christ’s work on our behalf. There is harm, however, if that person thinks salvation is actually dependent on the partaking in the sacraments. So, for the RC, the additions of the sacraments (baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, anointing the sick, marriage, and orders) can be a snare for adding to the message of the gospel. Always? No. Sometimes? Yes.

This application to the RCC needs to be seen in perspective. Paul is no more against the abuses of Catholic theology than he is of Protestant theology. What matters is that God has acted for us in Christ, we must surrender in faith to Jesus Christ, and we must live in the Spirit. What matters is that there is a new creation principle operating on our behalf. It does not matter if we are, in origin, Jew or Gentile, Roman Catholic or Protestant, man or woman, black or white, employee or employer. These distinctions are done away with by Christ. What matters now is “faith working through love” and the “new creation.”

Who, then, are the primary targets of Galatians in our world? This is the best question we can ask of ourselves. The answer is not a specific group, whether that group be defined religiously (Judaism, Roman Catholics, Christian Reconstructionists, Baptists, Amish), sexually (males, females), or culturally (Americans, Europeans, Africans). It does no good just to point fingers at others, for the real problem is far more subtle than that. The target of Galatians today is anyone who depreciates Jesus Christ as sufficient Savior and minimizes the power of the Holy Spirit as sufficient guide. It is a disposition, often transcending or neglecting one’s theological viewpoints, toward what God has done for us through Christ and in the Spirit. Whoever minimizes the sufficiency of Christ or discounts the power of the Spirit finds the finger of Paul pointing right at him or her. Whenever we are tempted to type once more on that manual typewriter for fear of what the computer might do for us, we are guilty of the Judaizing heresy. We, then, are the targets.

Paul’s message is powerful and liberating. Søren Kierkegaard once said that “whereas Christ turned the water into wine, the church has succeeded in doing something more difficult; it has turned wine into water.”16 That is what Paul’s message in Galatians is all about: turning the water of the flesh into the wine of the Spirit. Galatians challenges each of us to let that water be turned into wine by letting the Spirit have control of our lives—whoever we are, wherever we come from, and whatever sex we may be.

May the grace of God be with you, may the Spirit of Christ fill you, and may the universalism of the church guide you; through Christ and in the Spirit. Amen.