Stand Fast in the Gospel (No Other Gospel #18)
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. I would they were even cut off which trouble you. (Galatians 5:1-12)
We have to keep in mind what we've just talked about at the end of chapter 4. We have two systems here, two plans of salvation--the Law and Grace, the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, works and faith. However, it isn't quite that simple. There can't be a conflict between the Law and the Gospel, because the law is part of the gospel. The Old Testament and the New Testament are both parts of the Bible. But the law's purpose was to be the foundation of the Gospel. And when it was cut off from that and made its own thing, it turned into something contrary to its very purpose. That is what the Judaizers had done; turned the law, the Old Testament, into a competitor with the Gospel, as an alternate plan of salvation. That is the issue at the heart of Galatians. Everything up to this point has been lead up to the passage, and to the exhortation of verse 1: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” This challenge is the heart of Galatians. This the choice the Galatians had to make--whether they would stand fast, hold onto the liberty that they had in Christ or whether they would choose instead to go back in slavery, being tangled up in the chains of bondage. This was the very practical, razor-sharp dilemma that the churches faced. Like Elijah, Paul was calling out: How long halt ye between two opinions?
Because that is the main thing you should take from this passage. This is an irreconcilable difference. This is the great divide. You must choose one thing or the other. There is no possibility of compromise. There is no middle path. There is no “taking the best from both positions.” No man can serve two masters. We cannot enter Heaven by two different gates. Robert Frost wrote a poem about walking in the woods and coming to a crossroads where “two roads diverged.” And the crux of the poem is that he knew “I could not travel both/And be one traveler.” He had to make a choice. That is the heart of Galatians. This sense of contrast, of division, this idea of a sharp dilemma between two irreconcilable paths runs through all of this passage.
This divide is seen in the first verse--we have freedom on one hand and bondage on the other; liberty and a yoke. I'm probably reading too much into it, but there's almost a sense of contrast in the two postures involved in verse 1: first, we have “Standing fast”--someone standing strong and free, prepared to face life squarely and then, on the other hand, we have someone being “entangled” trapped and stumbling in the mesh of a trap, under the weight of chains, not in control, not able to stand up.
Note the first phrase of verse 2: “Behold, I Paul say unto you.” Paul is here appealing to his personal testimony, putting the full weight of his apostolic authority and personal relationship with the Galatians behind his assertion. This is what he truly and fully believed. Keep that point in mind because we will come back to it a little later in this passage. But exactly what was it Paul was saying here?
I said that Galatians was a very practical book and here it comes down to its most practical point. Circumcision was the rite that God gave to Abraham as the symbol of his covenant. It was the thing that divided the Jews from the Gentiles. It was the first command of the law, given long before the rest of the Jewish law was given. That's why it was so important for the Judaizers. And that seems to be the main point they were urging with the Galatians. They weren't asking them to wholesale reject everything they had been taught. They didn't say: you need to forget Christ and do everything according to the OT law. They were just asking them to do this one LITTLE thing.
And Paul comes down with all the force and strength at his command, to say NO. “If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” Once again, we have that sense of irreconcilable choices. You can't both have circumcision and also have Christ. He wanted them to go into this with eyes wide open that by accepting the gospel of the Judaizers, they were rejecting the one true gospel of Christ. Not that there was anything wrong with circumcision in and of itself. Paul himself would later have Timothy circumcised in order to avoid conflict. I assume Jewish Christians continued practicing circumcision even after they became Christians. But the issue in Galatia was that circumcision was being offered as part of salvation; that this was something which could help them be saved.
Obviously, it's clear why circumcision was so important to those who believed in Covenantal Nomism, since circumcision was the symbol of entrance into the covenant. But there's an interesting point to be made about this in relation to Legalism. When people use the word Legalism, they often mean someone who is overly obsessed with rules; someone who multiplies rules beyond all reason; someone who lugs around a figurative (or literal) rule book which they apply to every situation. And Legalism does often lead to that. Certainly, it did for the Pharisees. But Legalism doesn't need a lot of rules. The essence of Legalism (at least as we are using the word and as the concept exists in Galatians) is that it puts its trust in obedience to law; in human effort and works. A person who thinks they can find acceptance with God by obeying a single rule is just as much a legalist as one who thinks they have to obey a thousand. Anyone who says, “I'm not a good person, but at least I do _____” “I may not be perfect, but at least I've never done ____” is a legalist, believing that doing one right thing (or avoiding some specific fault) is enough. (Sometimes people can even be legalists about not being legalists.) And it seems that is what the Judaizers were doing to the Galatians. They weren't necessarily saying that they needed to obey everything single law and become Jews in every respect--no, all they asked the Galatians to do was to go through the rite of circumcision. Just do this one thing. And that will be enough. Do you see? They were putting this one thing, this one rite as being something that would bring or help bring salvation. And that is Legalism.
But it doesn't work. Notice what Paul says in verse 3: “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” or has an obligation to do the law, as Robertson translates it.
Think of it this way. Suppose you are trying to get your finances in order and so you work out a budget where all your income is allocated to specific departments. And then after you have this worked out, you look over the figures and think: “I have a nice chunk of money set aside for these expenses so I'll keep that. But these other expenses don't have much money for them, so I'll just ignore the budget and spend more money over here.” Does that work?
Suppose you are trying to get in good shape physically. One of the things they advise for people who are serious about getting in shape is to exercise a lot and eat foods high in protein, especially following a workout. But if you look at that and think: “I don't really have time or energy to exercise, so I'll skip that, but still eat the high protein foods”; do you think that's a good idea?
Or suppose you want to protect your house from robbers or wild animals and so you decide to build a wall around it, but to save money you build a wall that only goes halfway around your house. Will that help?
An old proverb states that half a loaf is better than no bread. And that is true in many situations. But there are certain systems--such a budget or a diet or a wall--where half is no better and sometimes worse than nothing at all. And the law is such a system.
Because remember what it is a law does. A law marks the line between good and bad, between the allowed and the forbidden. This is true (in theory) of human and civil law just as much as God's law. Speaking of civil law, Paul says: “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.” (Romans 13:3) We have there the two sides of the law--terror to evil works and praise to the good. Commendation and condemnation; reward and punishment. That is what law does; that is its nature and function. So in order to have the reward and not the punishment; the commendation and not the condemnation, you have to completely obey the law. If you pass by seventy banks and only rob one of them, you are still a criminal. The law can save you only if you obey it and only if you obey it completely. If you do not fully follow the law, being very careful to follow some specific part of it will not help you. The courts will not acquit a murderer simply because he always careful to pay his taxes. That's why dependence on circumcision was so fatal. Not because there was anything wrong with circumcision in itself, but because it was saying that doing this one thing was enough to bring salvation. And that doesn't work. If you are going to be saved by the law, you have to be saved by the whole law. Half a law is not better than none.
The only way you can be saved by the law is if you completely, 100%, every time, all the time, follow it--if you always fall on the right side of the law and never on the wrong. And if you do that, then you don't need grace. Innocent men do not need pardons. If you need grace, if you are in a position where you have to ask for mercy for having broken the law, then you are not in a position to be saved by the law. You can't have it both ways. If you can be saved by the law, then you have no need for grace. If you are being saved by grace, then you cannot be saved by the law. They are two, mutually exclusive paths. When we come to God, we must choose to enter through the door of justice or the door of mercy. We must enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.
That why Paul says in verse 4: “Christ is become of no affect unto you, whosoever of you are justified (or are trying to be justified) by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” If we make a case for the law, then we have lost the appeal of grace. And if we can be saved on our own merits, then we have no need for the merit of Christ. So long as we are trusting in our actions, or even in our own religion, then Christ's blood does nothing for us. The two things are mutually exclusive, and if you are building your salvation on the law, then you have forfeited the benefit of grace. That's why this issue is so vitally important. Because there is so much at stake. In verse 9 Paul quotes the proverb: “A little yeast makes the whole batch of dough rise!” (NET Bible) This all may seem like a little issue; one that doesn't make that much difference. It may have only been a few false teachers in the church who were spreading it and only a few people that were really listening. But this small issue would have cataclysmic consequences. For those who believed it, it could have cost them their salvation. And if unchecked it could have destroyed the entire church.
Because the doctrine of salvation by grace and not through the law is the entire point of Christianity (and, for that matter, of Judaism, even if the Jews hadn't understood that). To try to earn salvation by our own efforts is a natural human instinct. We didn't need angels to come down from the sky to tell us about that. What we needed the message: “Peace on earth, and mercy mild/God and sinners reconciled.” To take that out of the Gospel is to destroy the whole point of what the gospel is because the Gospel means good news and this is not good and it is not news. Without that, we have only a watered-down Judaism or a somewhat insipid paganism. In one of W. S. Gilbert's play, a group of people is having a picnic and they bring all the ingredients for lobster salad except the lobster. And someone remarks that lobster salad without lobster isn't lobster salad. And in the same way, Christianity without salvation by faith, without the good news, is not Christianity, because it denies the work of Christ; and Christianity without Christ is just Inanity.
So on one hand, we have the teachings of the Judaizers; a gospel with no good news; a gospel of Legalism (or Covenantal Nomism); but on the other hand we have the one true gospel which is verse 5 and 6: For we--that is, all Christians--through the empowerment and influence of the Holy Spirit are expecting and anticipating the realization of our hope which righteousness by faith. The hope of the Christian is the words of the old song: “When at the judgment bar/I stand before the king/And he the books shall open,/He cannot find a thing.”
And this does not come about through circumcision; through our own works or through religious ritual. None of that accomplishes anything. Circumcision does not accomplish anything--nor does uncircumcision. We can't be saved by being Jews or by being Gentiles. This is important because Paul's point isn't that there was anything wrong circumcision. It wasn't that there was anything wrong about being a Jew. We sometimes talk as if God took salvation away from the Jews and gave it to the Gentiles. But the whole point of the New Testament is that it doesn't really matter whether you're a Jew or a Gentile; we aren't saved by our upbringing or ethnic background or even by our works, but rather by FAITH--but not just any faith, but “faith which worketh by love.” (v. 6) This idea is going to become more important as we get further down into chapter 5, but it is worth pointing out this balance in passing. We are not saved by works but by faith which works. A Christian should do good works; a Christian should follow have that love which is the fulfilling of the law, but this is the RESULT of our salvation not the MEANS of our salvation.
With verse 7 this all becomes extremely personal. The Galatians had been doing very well. That's something we have to remember. It seems like these were very strong churches; churches that had been on fire for God; churches that had definitely been very attached to Paul personally. But something had changed. Something had hindered them. Doddridge says that this word “hinder” is an expression drawn from racing “and properly signifies coming across the course while a person is running in it, in such a manner as to jostle, and throw him out of the way.” Someone was interfering with the Galatians' Christian life and was causing them to falter so that now they were beginning to disobey the truth.
Paul says “this persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.” In other words, you're beginning to listen to a different voice; you are drinking from a different well, finding guidance from a different source. These people may call themselves Christians, but their voice is not the voice of Christ and their road is not the road to God.
Throughout Galatians, Paul has written with doubt and concern, not knowing where the Galatians stood--fearing for their spiritual state because of the road they were taking. But it seems as he draws to the end of the letter, God gave him assurance that they would listen to his rebuke, for he writes in verse 10: “I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded.” He had hope for them--but his hope was that they would listen to reason and change their course. There was no hope for them so long as they remained in their present course.
Throughout this letter, Paul has leaned on his own personal authority, both as an apostle and as a friend of the Galatians. We mentioned earlier the force of verse 2: “I Paul say unto you.” Even though this wasn't a personal matter, yet in some ways it a personal contest between Paul and the Judaizers. That is why we have verses 10 and 11. On one hand, we have the Judaizers: “He that troubleth you”; the agitators; to ones who were stirring things up. They seemed to be doing well; they were making progress in the church; they may have been rich and influential men. It might have seemed like they were people you wanted to follow; people you wanted to be with. But they were going bear the judgment of God for what they were doing, whoever they were.
On the other hand, Paul was still being persecuted. He was suffering abuse and neglect. But he was doing it for the truth; he was bearing the offense of the cross; suffering for Christ. Paul seems to be asking the Galatians; who would you rather stand with; the Judaizers who are doing well now but will suffer judgment or the Christians who are suffering persecution, but are doing it for the cause of Christ?
It also seems that the Judaizers were trying to say that Paul himself agreed with them; perhaps that he had changed his mind on the matter or that somehow he had been on their side from the beginning. Paul had a simple counter to that; if he had been preaching circumcision, he would not have been suffering persecution. The Jews would have been willing to leave Paul alone if he had preached circumcision; if he had preached a Judaized Christianity. That was nearly always the trigger for persecution and conflict. If Paul had taught was the Judaizers taught, he wouldn't have experienced persecution, but the Galatians knew first hand what Paul had experienced.
Paul ends this passage with a strong word of condemnation, saying it would be best if those who were troubling them, the Judaizers, were cut off from the church. It can also be translated: “I would they would cut themselves off”; in modern words: I wish they would just leave you alone. The Galatians would be better off without them, better off not listening to them, not associating with them, not hearing from them, not having anything to do with them because their doctrines would destroy them.
At least, to me, that's the most obvious interpretation of verse 12, taken in context. However, it is only fair to say that most modern commentators and translators take the verse in a different sense, taking the word “cut” literally. Remember the story of Elijah and how the prophets of Baal cut themselves with knives in hopes of making their god hear them? That kind of self-mutilation was relatively common in various pagan religions. And some think Paul is saying that if you believe a merely physical rite like circumcision is going to save you, why stop there? Why not go all-in for pagan rituals and self-mutilation? Because they're going to do you just as much good as circumcision will. Because the gospel of God is a gospel of salvation through faith, not through the works of the law; and there is NO OTHER GOSPEL.
Comments
Post a Comment