6. Freedom from the Law by the Spirit (Galatians 4:8-5:12)
by Dr. Ralph F. Wilson
Audio
(46:06) | Print this Page
Sign up now for a free
Galatians Bible Study
The Galatians had received Christ, had experienced the Holy
Spirit setting them free from sin and opening up a new life to them. Now they
knew God on the basis of an introduction by the Son of God himself. But they
were flirting with the idea of being circumcised so they could be saved! They
didn't get it. They didn't appreciate what they had.
They had been convinced by some Jewish Christians that they
couldn't be saved unless they were circumcised like proper Jews. Now they were
about to go backwards! So Paul tries to explain to them using a number of
analogies how the law that demanded circumcision was inferior to the freedom of
the Spirit.
"8 Formerly, when you did not know God,
you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that
you know God -- or rather are known by God -- how is it that you are turning back
to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all
over again?" (4:8-9)
The Galatians Paul is writing to were formerly pagans, slaves
to appeasing whatever god they might have believed they had offended. Paul
observes that just because the Galatians believed their objects of worship to be
divine didn't make them so. To the Corinthians he would later refer to them as
"so-called gods" (1 Corinthians 8:5-6), "demons" (1 Corinthians 10:21; from
Deuteronomy 32:17), and "mute idols"
(1 Corinthians 12:2).
In 4:3 (Lesson 5) we discussed the meaning of stoicheion,
translated as "basic principles" (NIV), "elemental spirits" (NRSV), "elements"
(KJV) as either "basic components of something, elements" or "elemental spirits.[151]
Though the second meaning could fit the context in 4:9, I argued above for the
first meaning, the idea of "basic elements," which Paul derides by calling them
weak[152]
and miserable.[153]
Bondage to these basic elements was vastly inferior to the fullness of the
Spirit.
"Were slaves" (NIV), "were enslaved" (NRSV), "did service"
(KJV) in verses 8 and 9 is douleuō, "to be owned by another, be a slave,
be subjected," then figuratively, "to act or conduct oneself as one in total
service to another, perform the duties of a slave, serve, obey."[154]
As mentioned in Lesson 5, the Gentiles' bondage to their gods had some
similarities to the Jewish bondage to "legalism as a principle of life."[155]
Now some Jewish Christians had come in and imposed observing
the various Jewish days of worship upon the Gentiles -- another sign that they
are moving in the direction of legalism.
"You are observing special days and months and
seasons and years!" (4:10)
Their observance of Jewish days sounds quite similar to
what would distract the Colossian church some years later.
"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you
eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or
a Sabbath day." (Colossians 2:16)
In Romans, he referred to observance of certain days as
a matter of conscience.
"One man considers one day more sacred than another;
another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his
own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord."
(Romans 14:5-6a)
This might be permissible in the case of people who had
converted from Judaism to Christianity; observance of special days had been part
of their culture. But for the Galatians to adopt the Jewish calendar under the
influence of the Judaizers was a legalism which must be opposed! As Bruce
concludes:
"The traditions of Judaism, when accepted as
ritually binding, were in Paul's eyes fetters which impeded faith and excluded
liberty."[156]
Is it wrong for Christians to observe special days such as
Christmas or Easter? Or observances such as Lent or Sundays in Advent? Or a
special day each week to worship? I don't think so. These can be helpful to our
spiritual lives, when observed thoughtfully. Paul himself observed Pentecost, a
Jewish holy day (1 Corinthians 16:8; Acts 20:16). But to take upon ourselves a
schedule of observing holy days as a legal obligation or a mantle of
righteousness is wrong, and can lead us into legalism.
Here and in verse 19 Paul vents his frustration and concern:
"I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my
efforts[157]
on you." (4:11)
Paul has poured out his very life and suffered physical
danger trying to establish these Galatian churches, only to have them turn away
from the true gospel to a new legalism (see 2 Corinthians 6:1).
Q1. (Galatians 4:10-11) Is celebrating different special
worship days essentially wrong? Why did Paul grieve over the Galatians' observances? What significance did these have in terms of their movement towards
Judaism? How can we be blessed by observing special days in our era? How can
observance of special days become legalistic for Christian believers?
http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1139
Paul begins a personal appeal with a statement of his love
for the Galatians.
"I plead with you, brothers, become like me, for I
became like you. You have done me no wrong." (4:12)
Paul closely identifies with the Galatians as a father
with his children (4:19), just as he did with the errant Corinthian church when
he "opened wide his heart" (2 Corinthians 6:11).
He isn't bearing some kind of personal grudge toward them. In
fact, he reminds them that they had treated him with great love and generosity.
"13 As you know, it was because of an
illness that I first preached the gospel to you.
14 Even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me
with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God,
as if I were Christ Jesus himself.
15 What has happened to all your joy? I
can testify that, if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes
and given them to me." (4:13-15)
Paul recalls the Galatians' initial warm reception of him and
his gospel, in spite of his trying physical circumstances at the time. What was
this "illness" (NIV), "physical infirmity" (NRSV), "infirmity of the flesh"
(KJV)?[158]
We don't know. Three illnesses have been proposed:
- Malaria. Paul came to the Galatians "because of an infirmity," that is, he
caught malaria in the lowlands of Pamphylia, and came up to the high country
around Pisidian Antioch (elevation 3,600 feet) to recuperate (Acts 13:13-14).
- Epilepsy.
"Treat with ... scorn" (NIV), "despise" (NRSV), "rejected" (KJV)
translates ekptyō, literally, "to spit out."[159]
Some relate this to the practice of spitting to avert the evil eye or to
exorcise an evil spirit, including epilepsy.
- Opthalamia
or some kind of infection of the eyes, suggested by the Galatians' willingness
to tear out their eyes to replace his sick ones.[160]
Of the three, this makes the most sense to me.
But when people suggest three such diverse illnesses for Paul
here, it's pretty obvious that we just don't have enough information to make any
kind of firm diagnosis. Whatever this illness was, it could have been the "thorn
in the flesh" that Paul discusses in 2 Corinthians 12:7.
The Galatians had had such an overflowing love for Paul. What
happened? he asks.
"16 Have I now become your enemy by
telling you the truth? 17 Those people are zealous to win you over,
but for no good. What they want is to alienate you [from us], so that you may be
zealous for them. 18 It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose
is good, and to be so always and not just when I am with you." (4:17-18)
When people try to form their own following, one of the most
common tactics is to accuse their opponents of falsehood or deception, whereas
all Paul was doing was "telling you the truth" (4:16). The purpose of the
Judaizers was to alienate the Galatians from Paul's influence so that their
influence would be complete.[161]
Paul warns the Galatians against those who fuss excessively
over them in order to win their favor. [162] They aren't experiencing
genuine love, but cynical manipulation!
Paul's frustration and love for the Galatians breaks out
again in a remarkable expression.
"19 My dear children, for whom I am again
in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, 20 how I
wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about
you!" (4:19-20)
As their spiritual father, he addresses them as his children.
Birthing children is painful. "The pains of childbirth" (NIV, NRSV), "travail in
birth" (KJV) is ōdinō, "to experience pains associated with giving birth,
have birth-pains," in imagery, "be in labor = suffer greatly."[163]
Paul went through the struggle and pain of bringing them into the Kingdom of God
once already -- now he has to do it again.
He uses the fascinating phrase, "until Christ is formed in
you." The verb morphoō, "take on form, be formed,"[164]
suggests in this context the formation of an embryo in its mother's womb. Until
it is fully formed, it won't be able to survive outside its mother's womb. Paul
is in agony still getting these kids born, since they've turned away from the
basics of the gospel, the grace of God. It's a mixed up metaphor, to be sure,[165]
but it eloquently conveys Paul's struggle and his consternation.
What does it mean for Christ to be "formed" in us? I suppose
this refers to the initial formation process in which we learn to follow Jesus.
We're not talking about just praying an initial prayer of surrender, but the
early days of our Christian life where patterns are being set for the rest of
our lives. Two modern expressions describe the process: "discipleship" and
"spiritual formation."
In order to help Christians get a good start in their lives,
I developed a mentor-based, video-assisted, 12-week curriculum designed for new
believers: JesusWalk Beginning
the Journey (JesusWalk, 2009, www.jesuswalk.com/beginning/).
Sadly, we're seeing too much quick salvation without deep
repentance, which results in shallow believers who aren't deeply grounded in
Jesus. Oh, Christ, be formed fully in us! Let our form reflect Your shape and
not our own!
You can hear Paul's father-heart in verse 20:
"How I wish I could be with you now and change my
tone, because I am perplexed about you!" (4:20)
Paul is separated from the Galatians by many weeks'journey,
so he can't come to them, but he longs to go to them and help them through this
crisis of faith. If he could be with them, he could change his tone[166]
from scolding to patient instruction. As it is, he's unsure[167]
about what more he can do except pray and write this letter.
Q2. (Galatians 4:19-20) How is Paul's grief over his
spiritual children like that of a parent seeing children stray? What does it
look like when Christ is formed in a person? What is the process involved in
this spiritual formation?
http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1140
Now Paul launches into a complex argument about the
superiority of faith in the promise over the law. The focus of Paul's allegory
are the two children born to Abraham. Isaac was the son of Sarah, Abraham's wife
and the object of God's promises to Abraham of innumerable offspring. Ishmael is
the son of Hagar, Sarah's slave, whom she gave to Abraham as a concubine. The
story comes from Genesis 16 and 21:1-21, which I encourage you to read now so
you'll understand Paul's argument.
"Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you
not aware of what the law says?" (4:21)
To a Jew, the word "law" refers not only to the Mosaic
code, but to the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch. In a turnabout
on the Judaizers, Paul, too, refers to the "law" to make his argument.
"22 For it is written that Abraham had
two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23
His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free
woman was born as the result of a promise." (4:22-23)
Hagar's son Ishmael was born from the natural mating of a
male and female. But Sarah was childless and was now 90 years old (Genesis
17:17). Isaac's birth was a miracle, the direct result of promises made directly
to Abraham -- which he believed!
"Your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will
call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant
for his descendants after him." (Genesis 17:19)
"I will surely return to you about this time next
year, and Sarah your wife will have a son." (Genesis 18:10)
Now Paul builds his allegory:
"24 These things may be taken
figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount
Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.
25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the
present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26
But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27
For it is written:
'Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud, you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.'"(4:24-27, quoting Isaiah
54:1)
"Figuratively" (NIV), "allegory" (NRSV, KJV) is allēgoreō,
"to use analogy or likeness to express something, speak allegorically."[168]
This was a common method of Jewish teaching. Jesus' parables, for example, were
stories about everyday life intended to illustrate spiritual truths. Just
because allegorical interpretation can be abused, doesn't mean it isn't
effective in argument in this context -- and that's why Paul employs it here.
Now Paul contrasts two covenants -- the law given at Mount
Sinai with the covenant of faith, the latter exemplified by Isaac's miraculous
birth, wherein "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as
righteousness" (Genesis 15:6). Like the slave-woman Hagar, Paul argues, those
under the law are in slavery.
Notice that in 4:25b-26, Paul mixes his metaphors contrasting
two Jerusalems: (1) the present geographical Jerusalem, which represents the
capital city of the Jews who are still in bondage to the law, and (2) "the
Jerusalem above," which is free. After the utter destruction of Jerusalem in 587
BC, the prophets began speaking of the Jerusalem that was to come, the
eschatological and ideal Jerusalem described in Ezekiel 48 and Isaiah 62. The
concept of the actual and heavenly Jerusalem existing simultaneously was
widespread in Judaism in Paul's day, reflected, for example in Hebrews 11:10;
12:22; and 13:14. These prophetic expectations find their culmination in the
Book of Revelation:
"... The new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of
heaven from my God." (Revelation 3:12b)
"I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down
out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her
husband." (Revelation 21:2, cf. 21:10)
"The Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our
mother," proclaims Paul. We followers of the Messiah have been set free and are
no longer bound by the old covenant of law, but in the New Jerusalem we enjoy
the new covenant of faith and freedom.
Now Paul carries the argument one step further, contrasting
the children of promise (Isaac, followers of the Messiah) with the children of
slavery (Ishmael, the unbelieving Jews):
"28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are
children of promise. 29 At that time the son born in the ordinary way
persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30
But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son,
for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free
woman's son.'
31 Therefore, brothers, we are not
children of the slave woman, but of the free woman." (Galatians 4:28-31)
Paul is referring to an incident in Genesis.
"On the day Isaac was weaned ... Sarah saw that the
son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to
Abraham, 'Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son
will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.'" (Genesis 21:8-10)
Ishamel was mocking now as a boy of 13.[169]
If Ishmael stayed in the household and Abraham were to die, Sarah was sure would
kill or banish Isaac. The slave-son Ishmael and his mother Hagar must go to
protect the inheritance and status of her son, Isaac. Paul is comparing
Ishmael's "mocking" with "persecution" -- and certainly the Jews were persecuting
the followers of the Messiah in Paul's day!
Paul appeals to the Galatians: You, like Isaac, are sons of
God, "born by the power of the Spirit," not enslaved sons in bondage to the law,
like Ishmael!
Now we come to what may be the theme verse for the entire
letter.
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.
Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of
slavery." (5:1)
To be under the law is slavery to the lesser elements
of the creation. To be led by the Spirit, which he will introduce in 5:16, is
the much preferable alternative.
Christ has set you free, says Paul, "for freedom."[170]
Exactly what does he mean? First, we must observe that, "It is for freedom that
Christ has set us free," seems like a strange sentence, until we realize that it
is a Hebraism.
Hebrew has a construction known as the "infinitive absolute,"
where a verb and infinitive of the same root verb are combined to give extra
emphasis to an idea. We see this construction, for example, reflected in Jesus' words at the Last Supper, "With desire I have desired..." (Luke 22:15, KJV).[171]
So Paul uses this Hebraism to add emphasis to the idea of being freed!
But what exactly is Paul saying? There seem to be two main
possibilities, with only a slight difference from each other:
- Dative of instrument or cause. "By bestowing this freedom (spoken of
above), Christ made us free."[172]
Through or by means of this freedom.
-
Dative of goal, destiny, destination, or
purpose. "For the purpose of freedom (spoken of above), Christ set us free.[173]
The second possibility, the dative of purpose, has the
advantage of being parallel to Paul's thought in 5:13, "You, my brothers, were
called to be free."[174]
I think the sense of 5:1 contains this idea of purpose: "Did Christ liberate us
that we might be slaves? No, but that we might be free."[175]
Because of Christ's purpose for us to be free, therefore, we
must:
"Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be
burdened again by a yoke of slavery." (5:1b)
The Jews spoke of "taking the yoke of law" upon oneself, so
in this context "yoke" would naturally be assumed to refer to the law and
circumcision. A few years later than this letter (according to the early dating
theory), at the Jerusalem Council, Peter would say about the law,
"Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks
of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?"
(Acts 15:10)
Jesus had contrasted the heavy yoke of the Pharisees
(Matthew 23:4), with his own easy yoke and light burden (Matthew 11:30).
Paul urges the Gentile Galatians to "stand firm" in their
Christian freedom and refuse circumcision, the symbol of the heavy burden[176]
of the law that the Judaizers were pressuring them to accept. They are free now
in the Messiah. Why should they put up with being made slaves once again?
Now Paul spells out the implications of circumcision. It is
more than just a minor surgical procedure. Paul speaks with all solemnity:
"2 Mark my words![177]
I, Paul, tell[178]
you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you
at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be
circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are
trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen
away from grace." (5:2-4)
The dangers for the Galatians are three-fold. If they are
circumcised, they will:
- Commit themselves to being law-keepers. They will
be obligated[179]
to obey[180]
the whole Mosaic Law, with all its dietary laws and Sabbath ordinances -- a heavy
burden.
- Become alienated from Christ. They had believed
that Christ died for their sins to make them right[181]
in God's eyes. Now they would turn to the law to do this for them instead. Thus
Christ's death will be of no value or benefit[182]
to them (5:2). "Alienated" (NIV), "cut off from" (NRSV), "become of no effect"
(KJV) is a strong expression! The verb is katargeō, "to cause the release
of someone from an obligation (one has nothing more to do with it), be
discharged, be released."[183]
This isn't just neutral; either they trust the Messiah for their salvation, or
they trust the law. You can't be devoted to both as your Savior. So taking on
the law means that they are being released from Christ.
- Fall from grace. In English, the phrase
"fall from
grace" is an idiom referring to a loss of status, respect, or prestige. "Fallen
away" (NIV, NRSV), "fallen" (KJV) translate the Greek verb ekpiptō,
"fall," here figuratively, "to change for the worse from a favorable
condition, lose something."[184]
The image is that once you were up high, and now you've fallen from your exalted
place. Grace, of course, is God's favor. Without God's favor on us, we are left
to our own devices, to try to cobble together our own righteousness based on
righteous deeds that stem from mixed and often corrupt and selfish motives.
Isaiah said, "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6),
literally menstrual cloths. We may think we look good, but stains and filth and
pollution are what God sees.
Q3. (Galatians 5:4) Exactly what does Paul mean by "fall
from grace" here? What has occurred that has caused this fall? How can
present-day Christian legalism cause such a "fall from grace"?
http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1141
Now Paul contrasts the burden of strict obedience to the law
with the expectant faith of the true Christian.
"5 But by faith we eagerly await through
the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus
neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that
counts is faith expressing itself through love." (5:5-6)
A dependence upon law is static, looking to the past.
But a dependence upon, faith in the return of Christ is dynamic, looking forward
eagerly[185]
to the coming of our Lord when the righteous verdict we anticipate will surely
come to pass. The Holy Spirit is the one who sustains and energizes our hope
that will be fully realized when Christ returns.
Now Paul assesses the value of circumcision. The Bible has a
long history of discounting the value of mere physical circumcision. Rather, the
prophets called for circumcision of the heart, that is, the commitment of the
will and whole person to serving God (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4;
9:26). Paul sums this up in Romans:
"A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor
is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one
inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by
the written code." (Romans 2:28-29)
For the Jews of the first century, circumcision was their
mark of identity, a rite that set them apart, along with their kosher dietary
laws and separation from Gentiles. Circumcision was the act that had kept many
Gentiles as "God-fearers," attenders at synagogue, but not full converts to
Judaism. For Jews, circumcision was the decisive difference between a Jew and a
non-Jew.
But now Paul says that circumcision is irrelevant.
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision has any value.[186]
The only thing that counts is faith expressing[187]
itself through love." (5:6)
We see similar statements from the last chapter of
Galatians and elsewhere:
"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means
anything; what counts is a new creation." (Galatians 6:15)
"Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is
nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts." (1 Corinthians 7:19)
Once, circumcision was the sign of the covenant that
God made with Abraham (Genesis 17:10-14, 23), later renewed with the Israelites
before Joshua led them into the Promised Land (Joshua 5:2-8).
But now the Messiah had come and sent his Spirit. Everything
had changed. Instead of circumcision, the presence of the Spirit was the new
mark of identity. Circumcision was nothing to be ashamed of -- or boasted about.
It was now irrelevant, superfluous, obsolete.
What matters now is not getting circumcised -- what the
Judaizers were trying to press upon the Galatian congregations -- but living out
their Spirit-led faith in loving actions. When Paul was writing, the Galatians
congregations were being torn apart through backbiting, strife, and pride. Paul
points them from their focus on circumcision to a focus on acting in loving ways
toward others in the Christian community.
Q4. (Galatians 5:5-6) Circumcision had been the primary
"mark of identity" for a believer in God. In what way has the Spirit become the
new "mark of identity" for the believer? What is the evidence of the Spirit's
presence in a believer's life according to verse 6?
http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1142
Now Paul scolds them like little children, using two
analogies -- racing and yeast -- that speak of someone spoiling something good.
"7 You were running[188]
a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8
That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you." (5:7-8)
It's like a foot-race in which someone purposely gets
in your way.[189]
They had been doing so well[190]
-- and now they seem to have lost sight of the goal. Ironically, the Judaizers
--
in their attempt to get the Galatians to obey the law -- were preventing the
Galatians from obeying[191]
the truth or following through on what they knew to be true. This kind of
subversive persuasion[192]
comes from the devil, not from God, who called them to faith in the Messiah.
"A little yeast works through the whole batch of
dough." (5:9)
Yeast is sometimes used positively in the New Testament
to symbolize the growth of the Kingdom (Matthew 13:33), sometimes negatively to
describe the false teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 6:6, 11,
12). Here, Paul uses it as a proverb -- on how a small cause can have a great
effect. Our American proverb is similar, "One bad apple spoils the barrel." The
Judaizers are few, but the effect is to pollute the whole church with false
doctrine.
Now Paul seeks to bolster his listeners with his confidence
that they will understand and come back to his original teaching about putting
faith in Christ's death for their sin to make them right with God.
"I am confident in the Lord that you will take no
other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty,[193]
whoever he may be." (5:10)
What is the penalty for causing turmoil[194]
in a congregation and ultimately destroying it as a viable and orthodox church?
In 1 Corinthians, Paul warns any who would build upon the foundation of the
church he planted:
"14 If what he has built survives, he
will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss;
he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's
Spirit lives in you? 17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will
destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple." (1
Corinthians 3:14-17)
Ponder these verses. Paul is likening the church to a temple.
And says that if a person destroys the temple, the church, God will destroy him.
I've seen people cause great turmoil in a church to get their
way, to push through their agenda -- as if they owned it. But the temple, the
church, "is sacred," that is, it belongs to God. We must be very careful with
God's church that we do not hurt or destroy what belongs to him! We will have to
answer to him for what we have done to his church before his great judgment
throne (2 Corinthians 5:10; Romans 14:10; Revelation 20:11-15). "The one who is
throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty" (5:10).
Apparently, the Judaizers have been claiming that Paul still
taught circumcision.
"Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why
am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been
abolished." (5:11)
We know that during his second missionary journey, Paul did
indeed circumcise someone -- in one of the towns that may have been the
recipients of this very letter.
"[Paul] came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a
disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but
whose father was a Greek. The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him.
Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of
the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."
(Acts 16:1-3)
Whether this incident took place before or after Galatians
was written depends upon whether you hold the early or the late theory, which
are spelled out in the Introduction. No matter when it took place, however,
Paul's circumcision of Timothy "was intended for sociological convenience, not
religious validity."[195]
If Timothy, born of a Jewish mother, hadn't been circumcised, it would have
become an issue in every synagogue where Paul taught, rather than letting him
focus on the real issue -- Christ and him crucified.
Paul's argument in 5:11a is simple: If I were preaching that
people needed to be circumcised to be righteous, then the Jews would have
stopped persecuting me -- and they haven't!
Now Paul mentions the "offense of the cross."
"Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why
am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been
abolished." (5:11)
Exactly what is the offense of the cross -- and why is it
offensive?
The first concept to understand is "offense" (NIV, NRSV,
KJV), "stumbling block" (NASV, RSV), Greek skandalon. Originally, it
referred to a trap, a device for catching something alive. However, the
Septuagint, in translating the Hebrew, interchanged two words: skōlon
("stumbling block") and skándalon ("trap"). Thus by assimilation
skándalon
can mean both "trap" and "stumbling block" or "cause of ruin" -- either with
regard to idols or to offenses against the law.[196]
Here, it has a figurative sense: "that which causes offense or revulsion and
results in opposition, disapproval, or hostility, fault, stain, etc."[197]
Next, we need to probe why the cross was offensive.
Consider these verses:
"For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to
preach the gospel -- not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ
be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to
those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."
(1 Corinthians 1:17-18)
"We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling
block (skandalon) to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." (1
Corinthians 1:23)
"For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you
except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Corinthians 2:2)
"Those who want to make a good impression outwardly
are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to
avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ." (Galatians 6:12)
Why was the cross a stumbling block to the Jews? Two
doctrines arise from the preaching of the cross that offend the Jews:
- Messiah died. The Jewish leaders had Jesus crucified -- but he turned out to
be the Messiah prophesied in Scripture.
- Grace reigns, not law. Jesus' atonement for sins on the cross means that we
are made right with God by Christ's death, not by obedience to the law.
The basic gospel message Paul preached was summed up in
1 Corinthians:
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first
importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the
Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)
Q5. (Galatians 5:11) What is "the offense of the cross"
that offended the Jews? How does the cross offend people in our day? Have you
noticed Christians softening their proclamation of the cross? Does this help
them communicate more clearly to our age or does it compromise the true message?
http://www.joyfulheart.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1143
As we'll see in 6:12, the cross of Christ is the central
issue behind the Judaizers campaign to circumcise the Gentiles -- so the other
Jews would accept these Christian Jews as real Jews.
"The only reason they do this is to avoid being
persecuted for the cross of Christ." (Galatians 6:12)
So Paul is disgusted with them! They've ruined a perfectly
good church in order to avoid persecution for the central truth of the gospel --
that the Messiah died for our sins. Paul seems to wish an ironic fate for the
Judaizers.
"As for those agitators,[198]
I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate[199]
themselves!" (Galatians 5:12)
In other words, he says, since they're so ready to cut
off foreskins, perhaps, while they're at it, they could castrate themselves --
pretty strong language for an apostle. But then, he was only human.
We've spent a lot of time examining the issue Paul was up
against. But in the next lesson we turn to God's replacement for the law -- the
indwelling Spirit.
Prayer
Father, thank you for the Christian freedom we have. I pray
that we will neither abuse it nor take it for granted. Keep us from inventing
new legalisms to demonstrate to us our righteousness. Instead, let our holiness
derive from your Holy Spirit, who is changing us. In Jesus' name, we pray. Amen.
Key Verses
My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains
of childbirth until Christ is formed in you." (Galatians 4:19, NIV)
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.
Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of
slavery." (Galatians 5:1, NIV)
"You who are trying to be justified by law have been
alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Galatians 5:4, NIV)
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing
itself through love." (Galatians 5:6, NIV)
End Notes
Galatians Bible Study:
Discipleship Lessons
Copyright © 1985-2012, Ralph F. Wilson. <pastor
joyfulheart.com> All rights reserved. A single copy of this article is free. Do not put this on a website. See legal, copyright, and reprint information.
Christmas Incarnation
