Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek (Galatians 2.1-3)

According to some, the issue in Galatians is whether or not one must earn his salvation by being good enough or receive it entirely by grace through faith with no other requirement. Paul here is claiming, on this view, that the leaders of the Church have agreed with him. They didn’t make Titus get circumcised. But on this reading, circumcision simply stands for any moral good work. So lets see if some paraphrastic substitution makes sense?

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to give up his boy lover, though he was a Greek.

Does that sound believable? I don’t think so. But if the issue is generic moral behavior then how can we escape it? Why would anyone expect Titus to be circumcised? Only because they considered it wrong for him to continue in uncircumcision. This interpretation is simply not tenable.

Further, it actually ends up condemning Paul. Paul told people to repent in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus preached this. It is also Reformed doctrine. Paul would tell a man keeping a boy lover that he must give him up in order to be a Christian (this is different, by the way, from saying that unless his same-sex attraction somehow stops, he must really be unregenerate). Obviously, this is not the issue in Galatians. The point is that things like circumcision are no longer needed and represent an old age that Christ has brought us out of.

Here’s another text. According to some, the issue in Acts 15 is merit legalism. The Jews are claiming that one must do enough good works in order to be saved. That is what lies behind the claim that, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (v. 2). But notice the result of their deliberations: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell” (vv. 28, 29). Now, again, lets change the terms: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements to earn eternal life: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will merit salvation. Farewell.”

Again, if the issue of merit theology is at root, we end up with an untenable result–a passage which teaches merit legalism as the apostolic doctrine.

Here is some fodder for further thought.