When I was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I saw additional commandments such as the Word of Wisdom to be “blessings from above.” (D&C 59:3–4). I thought that it was a pleasure to be asked to give up something like tea or coffee to more fully serve God and be worthy to enter into his temple. And I would look down on those who were unwilling to give up something as insignificant and petty as a cup of coffee to receive the blessings of exaltation. 

When people would point out things like the fact that Jesus and his Disciples drank wine, I would dismiss that argument by explaining that God had given us a higher law that was better suited for our needs. And when people would argue that the Word of Wisdom was given “not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom,” (D&C 89:2), and therefore should not be used to exclude people from baptism or the temple, I would say that it was a good thing that modern prophets and apostles were calling us to live this higher law more fully. 

Besides, I thought, there was no harm in keeping the Word of Wisdom. If it wasn’t really a commandment from God, then it was still a health code that was a net positive for my health. How could sacrificing something unhealthy to honor God be a bad thing?

But reading Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians revealed to me the flaws in my reasoning.

This letter was likely Paul’s first letter and therefore is the oldest New Testament document in our canon. It is Paul at his rawest and most emotional and powerful.

Paul has just learned that some of his recent converts in the province of Galatia had been visited by a group known as the Judizers who told the followers of Jesus that it was good that they had faith in Christ, but that they needed to live a “higher law” in order to be fully worthy of God’s covenant blessings. Specifically the Judizers focused on three requirements: circumcision as the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, honoring the Sabbath day, and dietary laws such as the prohibition on the consumption of pork. They argued that those who did not keep these commandments were not worthy to be part of the congregation of the Saints and could not enjoy fellowship or partake of the Lord’s Supper (or in other words the Sacrament or Communion) together with those who were living these higher standards. 

If Paul had thought like me he may have seen these additional commandments as a blessing or at the very least not a big deal. Why would it matter if these Christians took upon themselves circumcision or abstained from pork products? No big deal. 

After all, the Judizers could make a strong argument. Circumcision had been commandment by God from the time of Abraham and God had called it an “everlasting covenant.” The Sabbath day had been written into the very order of creation and Sabbath breakers had been put to death. Dietary laws were part of what made Israel a peculiar nation.

But for Paul these additional requirements were a very very big deal. Additional commandments and requirements for members were not “blessings from above” they were a “different gospel.” Adding additional works and obligations was not honoring God, tt was rejecting the essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and “falling from grace.”

Paul recognized that what Jesus offered was a new covenant that cast aside the demands of the law and created a new covenant people under a Gospel of grace. You could either be part of the old covenant and bound by all of the old rules and commandments, or you could be part of Christ’s people and under the covenant of grace. You could not serve two masters. You had a choice between life and freedom under Christ’s yoke of grace or death and captivity under the weight of commandments and ordinances. You could not embrace both. 

In fact, Paul felt so strongly about this that he was willing to confront the Apostle Peter face to face when the Apostle Peter gave in to the pressure from the Judaizers and began to waver in his commitment to full inclusion of all believers in Christ without additional commandments and requirements.

In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul describes an incident where we confronted Peter publicly to his face because Peter had stopped eating together with those Gentitles who had faith in Jesus Christ and yet did not partake of Jewish dietary customs. This likely included ordinary meals but also likely included the sacramental or communal meal of the Lord’s supper. Peter’s actions had led many other Jewish leaders in the Church in Antioch to likewise refuse to have fellowship and communion with the Gentile converts. 

I really love what scholar Timothy George wrote about the insidious implications of what Peter had done:

“What was so insidious in the separatism of Peter and his associates was the fact that they were acting as if their Gentile Christian brothers and sisters were still sinner while they, because of their ritual purity and obedience to the law, stood in a different, more favorable relationship to God. Yet Jews and Gentiles alike had been redeemed by the same Christ, regenerated by the same Holy Spirit, and made partakers of the same fellowship. Who then could dare say that they should ot come to the same table to partake of the same Lord’s Supper, just as they already had been baptized into the name of the same one triune God? Who shall separate us from the love of Christ, or from one another? It is God who justifies … it is Christ Jesus who died” Timothy George Galatians, p 195-196.

This public altercation between Peter and Paul was a really big deal. Imagine today if Elder Uchtdorf got into a heated fight over the pulpit at General Conference with President Nelson because he disagreed with President Nelson about a new temple recommend interview question!

But the most amazing thing about this fight is that it appears that it is Peter that backed down. A few months later at the great Jersualem Counsel Peter fully embraced Paul’s view that Gentile converts should not be required to be circumcised or keep sabbath day or dietary requirements to join with the Saints of God. Paul fought against the Senior most Apostle and won because he was right. Peter was compromising on salvation by grace–the essence of the gospel–and so Paul rightly rebuked him. 

It is therefore not hard to imagine what Paul would say if he heard that individuals were being told that they could not get baptized and be part of God’s people if they drank a cup of coffee or that they would be denied access to the ‘saving ordinances’ of the Temple if they frequented a kid’s sporting event on a Sunday. For Paul imposing these additional requirements would be a fall from grace and a departure from true Christian freedom in Christ. 

It turns out that I was the one who stood condemned before God for judging others on what they ate or drank rather than the other way around.